a ¢ * Pigg ia Hat oe 7 ae “£4 ee ee iP aot ie oe + 7 7 7 = * ha! ‘BY c 4 : aye . 7.’ re om 4° | ey iF i The Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature me LI" The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 45, 1988 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 va ~~ * . @ ve : : -_ i aie - pon Te, oe : os a er -, ; foe, i Nie mre Ngo Meth vail e ie) ie Te ae ee DF ery el z i a A eee) tid : 3. cn _ f “ar ' =: TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . The International Commission and its publications : Addresses and specialist fields of members of the Commission International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on n Zoological Nomenclature . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology General Article An appraisal of the Zoology of C. S. Rafinesque. Alwyne Wheeler Applications Madreporalimax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; Cnidaria, Anthozoa). B. W. Hoeksema . Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda). G. J. Morgan & L. B. Holthuis Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; Crustacea, Isopoda). B. J. M.Jacobs& L.B.Holthuis . . Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M. Hansen Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). E.S. Nielsen &I.W.B.Nye . Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, arae dae S. E. Whitebread, [ Rezbanyai-Reser& H.Geiger a ee eee Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). C. van Achterberg sigatetsiew id Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum: Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.J.Pulawski . Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, ‘Cypriniformes). R. M. Bailey & W. 'N. Eschmeyer . . Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes). 7 Géry & V. Mahnert : Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tareniela pieds: Reptilia, Squamata). H. na Schleich . Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brdnisit Mammalia, Rodentia). L. C. Rookmaaker & J. Meester Comments On ‘Use versus priority’, with alternative proposals for the conservation of well-known names. K.H.L. Key . é On the suggested introduction of: ‘Protected Works’, M. B. Best & B. W. Hoeksema : On the introduction of the term ‘pragmatype’ and on the role of the International Commission.G.Hahn . . On Pragmatypes and the role of the Commission: a reply to Dr P. K. Tubbs. R. H. L. Disney & Y.Z.Erzinclioglu . On the proposed conservation of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudo- scorpionida). I. M. Kerzhner On the proposed suppression of Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and the conservation of BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845. G. Hahn; M. K. Howarth; T. I. Nal’nyaeva . On the proposed conservation of Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). M. G. Harasewych & R.E. Petit . F On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. G. J. Ingram & J. Covacevich; A. E. Greer; J. Stone On the proposed designation of Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as the type species of Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda). R. Fortuner, A. R. pcan & P. A.A. Loof; M. R. Siddiqi & D. J. Hunt 5 : 52 55 II Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1464. Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 (currently Pararotalia calcar; Protista, Foraminiferida) . Opinion 1465. Laomeden gracilis Sars, 1850 (currently Civtin pracdie Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) Opinion 1466. Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, "1819, 7. ‘catulloi Pictet, 1867 and T. janitor Pictet, 1867 (Brachiopoda, Articulata) ; fy ae Opinion 1467. Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (Brachiopoda) Opinion 1468. Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) . Opinion 1469. Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda) : Sr ee Opinion 1470. sINUITIDAE Dall, 1913, MACLURITIDAE Carpenter, 1861 and EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda, Archaeogastropoda) . . Opinion 1471. Aplysia (originally Laplysia) viridis ee 1804 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . E Opinion 1472. Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Opinion 1473. Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . : Opinion 1474. Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (Insecta, CoRARIRD)< Opinion 1475. Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Diptera) . : Opinion 1476. Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera) . Opinion 1477. Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera) Opinion 1478. Lycaena mirza Plotz, 1880 (currently Azanus mirza; " Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1479. Antispila Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Opinion 1480. Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (currently Pholetesor ornigis: Insecta, Hymenoptera). . Opinion 1481. Siphamia Weber, 1909 and S. permutata Klausewitz, 1966 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) . Opinion 1482. Heteroclonium bicolor Cope, 1896 (currently Bachia bicolor; Reptilia, Squamata) . . : : ¢ Opinion 1483. Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia, Ornithischia) ; Direction 122. Bubo Duméril, 1806 and Surnia Duméril, 1806 (Aves) . Notices . . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology General Article Changes in North American Fish Names, especially as related to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. R. M. Bailey & C. R. Robins Note by P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N.) ; Applications Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as type species. H. J. Hansen & F. Rogl Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & F. Rogl Calcarina @ Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. i; Hansen & F.Rogl . Dendritina v Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & F. Rogl P Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & F.Rogl . Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & F. Roglvae®: Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus: Foraminferida) proposed replacement of the neotype. H. J. Hansen & F. Régl 106 109 112 114 116 118 Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. L. B. Holthuis Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): conservation proposée pour le nom spécifique. G. Breton - , Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus? dubius: Conodonta): proposed conservation of the specific name. L. Jeppsson & R. J. Aldridge LIPARIDAE Gill, [30 September] 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes); proposed confirmation of spelling. K.D.Vogt . . Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and confirmation of authorship. R. N. Lea & W.N.Eschmeyer. . . Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed ‘designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (= Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819) as the type species. R.M.Bailey&G.R.Robins . . Hyla chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation and designation of a neotype. H. M. Smith, K. T. Fitzgerald & L. J. Guillette, Jr ; Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed designation of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species. N. Erridge Comments On the proposed conservation of the name Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum Boulenger, 1902 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) by the suppression of C. weeksii Boulenger, 1896. C. J. Ferraris, Jr; S. M. Morris On the suggested introduction of * Protected Works’ (P. F. S. Cornelius). R. L. Manuel: G. A. Boxshall . On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. M. N. Hutchinson; A. Dubois, R. Bour, E.-R. Brygoo, J. Lescure, P. Bouchet & S. Tillier; V. B. Meyer-Rochow; C. J. Birrel, L. Dodds, P. Evans, E. J. Nield, R. Peters, D. Sell, D. Shannon; M. King; L. B. Holthuis; M. J. Tyler; supporting letters from 81 persons On the proposed conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea). J. E. Heyning & L. G. Barnes Soee te ys ew | ARMA. A ee Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1484. Trypanosoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 per: gor phora) .. , ; : Opinion 1485. Filellum serpens Hassall, 1848 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) Opinion 1486. Tubulanus Renier, [1804] and T. polymorphus Renier, {1804 (Nemer ic) Opinion 1487. Mevalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . Opinion 1488. Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneae) . Opinion 1489. Biformalia vittata Sjéstedt, 1920 (currently Phaulacridium vittatum: Insecta, Orthoptera) . . Opinion 1490. Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera Grylloptera) : Opinion 1491. Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera) ; Opinion 1492. Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 (currently Micronecta albifrons Insecta, Heteroptera) . . , : Opinion 1493. Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ean 23 Opinion 1494. Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (currently Acmaeops marginata: Insecta, Coleoptera) . 3 Opinion 1495. Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797 (currently Tribolium castaneum: Insecta, Coleoptera) . . Opinion 1496. Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (currently ‘Helodon ferruginess Insecta, Diptera) . . Opinion 1497. Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Ill 120 125 127 130 132 135 138 141 143 144 145 153 154 155 LST 159 160 162 164 165 167 168 170 171 173 175 IV Opinion 1498. Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida) . Opinion 1499. Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 (currently Cribrilina punctata, Bryozoa, Cheilostomata) . Sey 5 Oe Opinion 1500. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) . ‘ Direction 123. The selene: Mineral greet Ge i Great Britain: Official List tentry authorised Dee whl joe Notices . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Classical Adviser to the Commission : Letter: Increased nomenclatural stability through Lists of Names in Current Use. D. L. Hawksworth Applications Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964 as the type species. A. R. Loeblich, Jr & H. Tappan Loeblich Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. K. Hulsemann : ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907, OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 and LOCUSTIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed order of precedence.K.H.L.Key . . Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. L. Borowiec Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed coriservation of both the generic and specific names. L. Zerche Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea arbata: Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of neotype designation. R. W. Crosskey & H. Shima Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Al Tacperh ad. "a th bk: 3 Toe ei ae. pleditel- 6 ofa hate Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): proposed conservation. W. N. Eschmeyer & C. R. Robins . : ICHTHYOPHIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): proposed conservation. M. Wilkinson& R.A.Nussbaum . . Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): ‘proposed conservation ‘of ‘the specific name. H. M. Smith, J. Hanken & D. Chiszar Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae): proposed confirmation as ‘the correct spelling. M. LeCroy. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation. G. B. Corbet Face clita castes. Sees Comments Amendment to a published comment on the proposed suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. A.E.Greer . . On Pragmatypes: a reply to Dr G. Hahn. R. H. L. Disney & Y. Zi Erzincliogin On the proposed conservation of Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida), and on the neotype of its type species. F. T. Banner On the proposal to set aside the status of the putative type specimen of Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes). A. Wheeler On the family name for the storm petrels (Aves). W.R.P. Bourne. . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Euryotis brantsii A. ‘Smith, 1834 (Mammalia, Rodentia). D. Kock On the proposed conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea). J. E. Heyning & L. G. Barnes [COE peter? ceca align) Ae Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1501. Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 Foramintene?) Creaeie boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 designated as the type species . 2 ERA! 176 177 178 180 181 182 182 183 186 188 191 194 199 199 202 204 207 210 212 214 216 216 217 219 221 223 223 224 Opinion 1502. Conus fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved . Opinion 1503. PSEUDOCALANIDAE ‘Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda): not to be given precedence over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 Opinion 1504. BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851] and Berytinus Kirkaldy, “1900 (Insecta, Heteroptera): conserved. Opinion 1505. Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (currently Micronecta (Dichaetonecta) scholtzi; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved Opinion 1506. Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dryops “femorata Fabricius, 1792 designated asthe type species. Opinion 1507. Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Chrysomya marginalis; Insecta, Diptera): specificnameconserved . . Opinion 1508. Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera): not to be given precedence over Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 . . Opinion 1509. Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera): Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 designated as the type species Opinion 1510. Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): “Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 designated asthe type species. Opinion 1511. Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved . 4 Opinion 1512. Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): confirmation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 asthe typespecies . . Opinion 1513. Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 (Amphibia, Anura): Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975 designated as the type species. Opinion 1514. Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes): Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844 designated asthe typespecies . Opinion 1515. LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815 (Aves) and 1 LARINI ‘LeConte, 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera): homonymy removed . . Opinion 1516. Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia, Multituberculata): Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 designated asthe type species . . Opinion 1517. Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, ‘Camivora): generic and specific names conserved Notices . ; Election of new Gonimiissioners Financial Report for 1987 . Applications Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): proposed confirmation of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type species. R. Schroeder & M. D. Simmons Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): proposed replace- ment of the holotype by a lectotype. T. R. Platt i ea cr ca. a eee Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific name. F. Pleijel . Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed confirmation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 as the type species. R. K. Kropp : Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea) : proposed conservation. M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis . Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed | conservation. M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): ‘proposed conservation. M. Bacescu & L.B. Holthuis . Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalek, 1894 as the type species. J. D. Oswald & M. Meinander . : 252 254 258 260 262 264 267 270 272 VI Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera): proposed conservation by the con- firmation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera).J.D.Oswald . . Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of type species. H. Silfverberg . Papilio carthami Hubner, [1813] and Syrichthus WFP atalae| major Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the names carthami and major. R. de Jong ? Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy, (1826): “proposed n nomen- clatural suppression. C. W. Sabrosky Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. D. Rosen, iv Rivnay & G. Viggiani oer. aoe hin V4 Comments On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 an Scorpaeniformes). L. B. Holthuis; A. Wheeler anh Dik | Petes ok Gb xs Indexes Authors in present volume 45 (1988) Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in ‘rulings of the Commission published in in volume 45 (1988) . Key names in Applications and Comments published i in n volume 45 (1988) Corrigenda > Wes Publication dates and pagination of present volume 45 (1988) Instructions to Binder : Eade : Table of Contents of present volumie 45 (1988) 275 278 Bulletin B sclocical Nomenclature ~ on eat ee ’ pte : eae 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 1988 is £57 or $110, 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. 01-938 9387) 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) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (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 1988 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE et Volume 45, part 1 (pp. 1-88) 25 March 1988 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 4 (published on 11 December 1987): (1) Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser- vation of both generic and specific names. (Case 2627). L. Zerche. (2) Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1814 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of specific name. (Case 2628). A. Taeger. (3) Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2629). D. Rosen, G. Viggiani & T. Rivnay. (4) Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 as type species. (Case 2631). R. M. Bailey & C.R. Robins. (5) Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of neotype designation. (Case 2632). R. W. Crosskey & H. Shima. (6) Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2633). F. Pletjel. (7) Xeromunda Di Mariadi di Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): pro- posed designation of Helix candiota Mousson, 1854 as type species. (Case 2634). F. Giusti & G. Manganelli. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 (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 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. 5 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 contri- butions 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 period 1895—1985 was published in 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 nomencla- tural (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 the Commission. The income of the Trust comes from the sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official Lists), from support by national and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 3 international 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 Dr L. R. M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) Brachiopoda Dr H. G. COGGER (4ustralian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W., Australia) Reptilia Prof John O. CORLISS (P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, 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 (Canadian Conservation Institute, 1030 Innes Road, Ottawa, K1A 0M8, Canada) Ichthyology Prof Dr Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, D.355 Marburg (Lahn), W. Germany) Palaeontology Prof DrO. HALVORSEN (Jnstitute of Biology and Geology, University of Troms6, 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 MrR. V. MELVILLE (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey TW107LL, U.K.) Palaeontology Dr M. MROCZKOWSKI (nstytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wileza 64, Warsaw, Poland) Coleoptera Dr W. D. L. RIDE (Department of Geology, The Australian National vidas ae. P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, 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 (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 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, Instituo Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) Hymenoptera 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Members Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. Dr G.C. Gruchy (Chairman ) Dr R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.I.Biol. Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Dr L.B. Holthuis Managing Director) Dr F.G.W. Jones Prof Per Brinck Prof Dr O. Kraus Prof J.H. Callomon Dr M. Luc Dr P.F.S. Cornelius Dr R.B. Manning Prof C.B. Cox Mr R.V. Melville The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Dr I.W.B. Nye aS BeZes: Dr W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) Dr R,W. Crosskey Dr E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Dr G.B. White Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Prof J. Forest Royal Society) Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Officers Dr P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller ) Mr J.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator ) Miss R.A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) 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). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 5 Nominations, giving the date of birth, nationality and qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each candidate should be sent as soon as possible to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (1985) supersedes all earlier versions, and incorporates many changes. Copies may be obtained from: Natural History Publications, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £17.50 plus £1.50 postage. Orders from North America should be sent to: University of California Press, Berkeley 94720, California, U.S.A. Proposed amendments to the 1985 Code Possible amendments will be considered in October 1988 by the Commission at its meeting in Canberra. Suggestions are invited, and should be sent to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible. 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 was published in 1987. 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 S5BD, 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.) 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 An appraisal of the Zoology of C. S. Rafinesque Alwyne Wheeler Department of Zoology, British Museum ( Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K. The name Rafinesque will be familiar to many zoologists as the author of a large number of names of European and North American animals. The attribution of these names and the recognition of Rafinesque that this entails is due possibly as much to the application of the Principle of Priority as to acknowledgement of the perspicacity of the author in recognising undescribed animals. It is, however, a reversal of the situ- ation which obtained during his life-time, when an atmosphere of animosity and mis- trust led to wilful neglect of his work by many of his contemporaries and immediate successors. Constantine Samuel Rafinesque is said to have been born on 22 October 1783 (see Fitzpatrick, 1911), although the year of his birth may have been 1784. In his auto- biography, A Life of Travels (Rafinesque, 1836), he made no reference to his birth date, although specific enough as to the place — ‘Galata, a suburb of Constantinople’ (now Istanbul). His father was a partner in the Marseilles trading company of Lafléche and Rafinesque, his business taking him to various parts of western Asia and the Mediterranean borderlands. Rafinesque’s mother’s maiden name was Schmaltz, and, as he reports, she was born in Greece but of a German family from Saxony. His early conscious childhood was spent mainly in the vicinity of Marseilles with short visits to Livorno (Leghorn) in Italy, and later to Genoa and Pisa. In March 1802 Rafinesque sailed from Leghorn to Philadelphia but he returned to Italy in 1805. This first visit to North America allowed Rafinesque to explore (mainly on foot) the neighbourhood of Philadelphia, southwards to Chesapeake Bay and Virginia and inland to the Allegheny Mountains, visiting naturalists, inspecting herbaria and museum collections, and collecting. On his return to Italy he claimed to have made a collection of 10,000 herbarium specimens of 2,400 species, as well as zoological specimens. In March 1805 he sailed for Sicily, where he spent the next ten years, first acting as Secretary and Chancellor to the Consul of the United States of America, but from 1808 trading as a merchant mainly in herbs. During this period Sicily became the residence of the Neapolitan Court, thus isolating it from Italy and France and bringing it under British influence. As a consequence of the Napoleonic wars there. was an extensive British naval and military presence on the island. Amongst the latter was the naturalist William Swainson, a commissary officer in the Army, with whom Rafinesque made friends and made several excursions. The period in Sicily was highly productive and several of his major publications date from the decade ending in 1815, when he sailed again for North America. His arrival on 2 November 1815 was marred by the loss of his collections, tig: manuscripts, clothes, and his share of the cargo in a ship-wreck off Long Island. He was subsequently befriended by Samuel Latham Mitchill of New York, and through him was introduced to many influential scientists and to medical society. Until 1817 Rafinesque was occupied with re-establishing his trading business, developing contacts Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 7 with scientists in the area, and on local exploration. In 1818 he set out for a 2,000 mile journey, again mostly on foot, which was to take him west of the Alleghenies, and as far as Kentucky and Illinois. From 1819 to 1825 he was a professor of modern languages and natural sciences at Transylvania University, Lexington, Kentucky. From this base he explored Kentucky, penetrating into Tennessee, collecting natural history material and interesting him- self in archaeology and ethnography. Leaving Lexington, he settled in Philadelphia where his career as naturalist and collector, lecturer, and traveller continued but his business gradually failed. He died on 18 September 1840 in Philadelphia, after living in poverty and increasingly bad health for several years. His collections and library were sold at public auction. Call (1875) claimed the minerals and mollusc shells were without labels and were valueless. A collection of marine worms was later acquired by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (Call, 1875). Rafinesque’s herbarium, said to contain 50,000 specimens, was damaged by mice and other pests before his death; much of it was later discarded by ‘contemptuous curators’ (Ewan, 1975). Rafinesque’s interests embraced many disciplines in natural history, and although he described new taxa in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and several invertebrate groups his major zoological publications were concerned with fishes and molluscs. The most important publications fell into two chronological and geographical periods, 1810 on the fauna of Sicily and 1819-20 on the fauna of the Ohio River. His Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della Sicilia was published at Palermo in 1810. It comprises 105 numbered pages of text and 20 (folded) leaves of illustrations. The first 69 pages are on zoology (pp. 10-69 and pl. I-XVII being concerned with fishes, of which 155 species are described). This book is said by Fitzpatrick (1911) to have been issued in two parts, the first part, which is the zoologi- cal section of the book, being published in 1809 and comprising text pages 3—69. Fitzpatrick reproduced title pages of the Caratteri. . . (his Plates III and IV), showing both the 1809 and 1810 dates which also have differing texts, but the only evidence that he had for publication in 1809 was based on a single ‘carelessly rebound and arranged’ copy in the Library of Congress. His suggestion that the whole zoological part of the work was published with the 1809 title page was derived from this copy, which had presumably been arranged for binding so that ‘Prima parte’ (the heading on page 5) followed the 1809 title page, and ‘Seconda parte’ (the heading on page 71) followed the 1810 title page. In fact, the division of the book into two parts was simply to make a distinction between the zoological and the botanical texts. By examining an uncut, unbound copy of the book in the Riykksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Holthuis & Boeseman (1977) were able to show that the Caratteri. .. was not published in two parts. They concluded that the first five sheets were set in type and the first three printed, but with Rafinesque’s decision to dedicate the book to Antonino Bivona Bernardi a new first sheet had to be set and printed, including a new title page and half-title. They argued from measurement of the type area that the break between the 1809 and the 1810 printings occurred between pages 40 and 41 (i.e. after the fifth sheet), and this is confirmed by a noticeable difference in the texture of the paper at this opening in the BM(NH) copy. Taxonomists can therefore be reassured that these bibliographic niceties confirm that the whole work was published in 1810 despite the existence of cancelled title-pages dated a year earlier. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 The delayed publication of the Caratteri. .. was explained by Rafinesque (1836) as due to his exploration of Mount Etna and a subsequent sickness. Rafinesque’s Indice d’ittiologia Siciliana was also published in 1810. It apparently postdates the Caratteri. .. as the dedication is dated 15 May 1810, and four pages of corrections and additions (pp. 66-69) are dated 1 September 1810. The numerous textual references to the Caratteri... would have been made possible by the delay between printing and publishing the latter work. The Indice. . . contains 70 pages of text and two folded plates; 376 species of fishes are named in the text with references to their description by Rafinesque in Caratteri. . . or to other authors, but 34 are descriptions of new taxa (in the Appendice), 6 undescribed species are named in the Supplemento anda further 7 species are described in the ‘Correzzioni, ed aggiunte’. Although the Indice. . . might appear to be merely a digest of the larger work it has considerable nomenclatural importance as an original publication. The systematic arrangement of the fishes differs totally from that adopted in the Caratteri. .. but this might have been due to the influence of William Swainson, who supervised the printing of the Indice. .. at Messina (Rafinesque, 1836). The taxonomic purist might also wish to note that both the books published in Sicily give the author’s name as C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz, and the new taxa therein should be so attributed. As Rafinesque (1836) explained in his autobiography, prudence dictated that he wrote in Italian rather than his native French during the Napoleonic wars, and by the addition of his mother’s family name, Schmaltz, he hoped to pass for an American citizen. The second period of zoological taxonomic activity was marked by the publication of his work on the fauna of the River Ohio. In 1820 the Jchthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the River Ohio and its tributary streams (Lexington, Kentucky) was published. An extremely rare book (Fitzpatrick, 1911, lists only 14 copies known to him), it was subsequently reprinted with introductory matter by Call (1899). The text was originally printed in nine instalments in the Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine (Lexington, Kentucky) between December 1819 and November 1820, a sequence which suggests that the book may not have been published until the end of 1820. The new names for fishes published by Rafinesque therefore date from the journal publication, not the book. Dates of publication for the Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine were given by Jordan (1877) and Call (1899). They are reproduced here from Jordan with references to the page numbers in Jchthyologia Ohiensis: Ichth. Ohiensis Magazine: part, pagination, date of publication 1-13 Vol 1, pt 1, pp. 305-313 December 1819 13-29 2, pp. 361-377 January 1820 237 3) pp: 2-57 February(?) 1820 37-45 Vol 2, pt 4, pp. 169-177. April 1820 45-53 5, pp. 2-243 May 1820 53-60 6, pp. 299-307 June 1820 61-69 7, pp. 355-363 July 1820 69-77 Vol 3, pt 8, pp. 165-173 October 1820 77-84 9, pp. 244-252 November 1820 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 9 Jordan (1877) also gave a list of the new genera and species names proposed by Rafinesque for North American fishes in several earlier papers in the American Monthly Magazine and Criticial Review (Rafinesque 1817, 1818a,b,c,d), the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (Rafinesque, 1818e), the Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle (Rafinesque, 1819) and the Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and Arts of the Royal Institution (Rafinesque, 1820b). He also attempted to identify all the taxa of freshwater fishes described by Rafinesque. The year 1820 also saw the publication of Rafinesque’s monograph on the bivalve shells of the River Ohio published in Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques in Belgium (Rafinesque, 1820c). This paper included descriptions of 12 genera and 68 undescribed species of unionid mollusc from the Ohio. It was reprinted (or reissued with titled cover and changed pagination) as Monographie des coquilles bivalves et fluviatiles de la riviére Ohio, under the imprint of Weissenbrach pére, rue du Musée, Bruxelles (Fitzpatrick, 1911, no. 363). Both printings contained three uncoloured plates. In 1832 C. A. Poulson published an English translation as A monograph of the fluviatile bivalve shells of the River Ohio containing twelve genera & sixty-eight species (Rafinesque, 1832). Fitzpatrick (1911, no. 608) had examined ten copies, all of which had the frontispiece uncoloured; the copy in BM(NH) has the single plate as a coloured frontispiece. Perhaps the most significant part of Poulson’s introduction is his state- ment that Rafinesque had deposited most of the shells described with his labels and references in Poulson’s collection. This is one of the few cases where type material was kept by Rafinesque. A second separate edition in French was published in Paris with both a frontispiece and all three plates. In his lifetime and in the decades after his death Rafinesque was strongly criticised and even ridiculed by many of his contemporaries. The attitude to his scientific stand- ing can be summed up by the ornithologist Elliott Coues’s reputed suggestion that the adjective ‘rafinesque’ should stand alongside grotesque and picturesque as descriptive of his work (Starling, 1978). One factor in this ridicule was certainly the way in which he described several fictitious fishes from the Ohio River from drawings provided by Audubon, although more recent commentators suggest that this reflects more on the character of Audubon than on Rafinesque’s credibility. Other factors were the diversity of his interests, his industry, the frequent superficiality of his descriptions, and the prodigal way he described new taxa (Ewan (1975) claims that he proposed 6,700 binomials of which Starling (1978) says 3,000 were plants). His hyperactivity and apparent lack of critical judgement in his approach to taxonomy caused his North American peers to have serious reservations about his work. As a result, after 1820 Benjamin Silliman, the editor of the American Journal of Science, refused to accept papers from him for this the leading scientific journal in the continent. When Silliman returned all 18 of Rafinesque’s unpublished manuscripts the latter assumed that the motive was jealousy at the quantity of his discoveries rather than a desire on the part of the editor to maintain standards. Rafinesque was undoubtedly an eccentric, single-minded in his passion for science (which extended through many disciplines beyond natural history), and could possibly be regarded as a genius. Like others of this calibre he lacked a sense of proportion and critical ability, all of which made him difficult to comprehend. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 However, he lived in a region and an era which gave him no advantages. His peri- patetic childhood and youth deprived him of much formal education. Europe at the time was racked firstly by the French revolution and then by the Napoleonic wars and, being of French nationality but resident in Sicily, he was isolated at the outset of his career from close contact with the thriving natural science of France exemplified by Georges Cuvier and Antoine Risso. During his years in North America Rafinesque became alienated from many of the leading naturalists and this in turn isolated him from the influence of practised taxonomists and natural scientists such as his contem- poraries Amos Eaton, John Torrey, Thomas Say, and Charles Alexander Lesueur, to the detriment of his work. In addition, after he left Lexington, until his death he suffered increasingly from the ill health and crushing poverty which ended in the unmarked grave in Philadelphia in 1840. In the present century taxonomists, prompted by the need to establish the priority of Rafinesque’s scientific names, have reassessed his work to produce a more favourable conclusion. Holthuis (1954) noted that Rafinesque proposed 19 new generic and 42 specific names for Crustacea of which, after critical review, he concluded that 8 generic and 21 specific names were the oldest available names for the taxa for which they had been proposed. Of these only 3 generic names and two species names were in use by carcinologists, and Holthuis (1956) proposed that the remainder of the names in Decapoda and Stomatopoda should be suppressed for the sake of nomenclatural stability. This was accepted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 522 (1958). Rafinesque’s work on North American freshwater bivalves has received rather better treatment, and Bogan et al. (1984) have recently published a short assessment of his work. They show that of Rafinesque’s 36 names at generic or subgeneric level and 124 species names, relatively few have been assimilated into the literature, and although on critical appraisal many will prove to be nomina dubia others may well be senior synonyms. Their work was based particularly on the 61 species of which they had type material. However, in a draft list of the Unionidae of North America prepared by Bogan, no fewer than 30 species had been described by Rafinesque. Ichthyologists have dealt more kindly with Rafinesque’s work than carcinologists or malacologists, and despite neglect of his work by Albert Giinther in his influential Catalogue of Fishes (1859-1870), his names have been widely adopted. The names proposed for North American freshwater fishes were extensively reviewed by Jordan (1877) and subsequently have become assimilated into the literature. The checklist of fishes of North America (Robins et a/., 1980) attributes a total of 35 species names to Rafinesque, and several familiar genus names, such as Etheostoma, Stizostedion, Lepomis, Ambloplites, Ictalurus, Noturus, Notropis, and Aplodinotus are Rafinesque names. From his writings on Sicilian fishes many taxa, principally European, take their names. Amongst sharks, for example, the well-known Hexanchus, Heptranchias, Isurus, Alopias, and Sphyrna, are all Rafinesque genera, as are Tetrapturus, Naucrates, and Epigonus amongst bony fishes. The reluctance of early ichthyologists to adopt some of these taxa was partly due to the absence of type specimens, Rafinesque making notes of the freshly caught fish, often in Sicilian fish markets, but not keeping the specimen. His work on North American fishes suffered from the same practice, many of his published descriptions being compiled from notes made at the time of capture from Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 11 specimens then discarded. Apart from the unionid bivalves referred to by Bogan et al. and the collection of marine worms in Philadelphia mentioned by Call (1875), no zoological type material of Rafinesque’s has been claimed to have survived. In conclusion, it can be said that in recent years Rafinesque has been awarded the recognition that is his due. Eccentric, uncritical, impatient, and lacking the steady- ing influence of contact with competent colleagues, he nevertheless made a major contribution to zoological taxonomy in both Europe and North America. References Bogan, A. E., Starnes, L. B. & Williams, J. D. 1984. An examination of some C. S. Rafinesque North American unionid taxa (Bivalvia: Unionidae). [Abstract]. American Malacological Bulletin 3(1): 105—106. Call, R. E. 1895. The life and writings of Rafinesque, xii+227 pp; 1 pl. Filson Club, Louisville, Kentucky. Call, R. E. 1899. Sketch of the life, the ichthyologic work, and the ichthyologic bibliography of Rafinesque in Ichthyologia Ohiensis... [Reprinted edition: Burrows Brothers Co., Cleveland.]} Ewan, J. 1975. Rafinesque, Constantine Samuel. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 11: 262-264. Fitzpatrick, T. J. 1911. Rafinesque: a sketch of his life with bibliography, 241 pp; 31 pls. Historical Department of Iowa, Des Moines. Holthuis, L. B. 1954. C. S. Rafinesque as a carcinologist, an annotated compilation of the information on Crustacea contained in the works of that author. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 25: 1—43. Holthuis, L. B. 1956. Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of certain names given by C. S. Rafinesque to genera and species of the orders Decapoda and Stomatopoda (Class Crustacea)... . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 12: 227-2339. Holthuis, L. B. & Boeseman, M. 1977. Notes on C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz’s (1810) Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animalie piante della Sicilia. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 8: 231—234. Giinther, A. 1859-1870. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum. 8 vols. British Museum, London. Jordan, D. S. 1877. Contributions to North American ichthyology. I. Review of Rafinesque’s memoirs on North American fishes. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum 9: \—53. Rafinesque Schmaltz, C. S. 1810a. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopre i medesimi, 106 pp; xx pl. Palermo. Rafinesque Schmaltz, C. S. 1810b. Indice d’ittiologia Siciliana ossia. . .70 pp; 2 pl. Messina. Rafinesque, C. S. 1817. First decade of new North-American fishes. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 2(I1): 120-121. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818a. Descriptions of two new genera of North-American fishes. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 2(III): 203-204. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818b. Second decade of new North-American fishes. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 2(III): 204—206. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818c. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the Western Region of the United States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. .. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3(V): 354-356. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818d. Further account of discoveries in natural history, in the Western States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq... The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4(I): 39—42. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818e. Description of three new genera of fluviatile fish, Pomoxis, Sarchirus and Exoglossum. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(11): 417—422. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans l’intérieur des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, durant l’année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts, 88: 417—429. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Rafinesque, C. S. 1820a. Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the River Ohio and its tributary streams... [Reprinted edition: Burrows Brothers Co., Cleveland, 1899]. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820b. Description of the Silures or catfishes of the River Ohio. Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature, and the Arts, The Royal Institution of Great Britain, 9: 48-52. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820c. Monographie des coquilles bivalves fluviatiles de la riviére Ohio, contenant douze genres et soixante—huit espéces. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques, 5: 287-322, (2 pl.). Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. A monograph of the fluviatile bivalve shells of the River Ohio containing twelve genera & sixty-eight species. [Translated by C. A. Poulson.] 72 pp; 1 pl. J. Dobson, Philadelphia. Rafinesque, C. S. 1836. A Life of travels and researches in North America and South Europe..., 148 pp. Philadelphia. Robins, C. R., Bailey, R. M., Bond, C. E., Brooker, J. R., Lachner, E. A., Lea, R. N. & Scott, W. B. 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Special Publication, American Fisheries Society, no. 12, 174 pp. Sterling, K. B. 1978. Introduction to Rafinesque, autobiography and lives. 15 pp. Arno Press, New York. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 13 Case 2609 Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation of the specific names Bert W. Hoeksema Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific names of Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801, two mushroom corals. The former is a junior primary homonym of M. /imax Houttuyn, 1772 and a junior subjective synonym of M. trilinguis Boddaert, 1768. F. talpina Lamarck, 1801 is a junior subjective synonym of both M. talpa Houttuyn, 1772 and M. limax Houttuyn, 72. 1. Two species of corals belonging to the FUNGIIDAE (Scleractinia) appear to have invalid names which are nevertheless accepted by most coral taxonomists and coral reef ecologists. They are common and well-known species which are widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific. They have to be dealt with together, because their nomenclatural histories have been intermingled since the last half of the eighteenth century. The present proposal aims for a stabilisation in the nomenclature of both species. 2. The nomenclatural confusion started by the appearance of a publication in Dutch by Houttuyn (1772), who based the work on Linnaeus (1758). Later (17??), Houttuyn’s work appeared in another edition, but exactly when is not indicated. Miiller (1775) rewrote Houttuyn’s (1772) work in German. 3. Both Houttuyn and Miller referred to a publication in Latin by Pallas (1766). This publication was translated into Dutch by Boddaert (1768), who added an appen- dix with notes. Wilkens (1787) used Boddaert’s edition to translate and edit the work of Pallas (1766) into German. 4. Houttuyn (1772, p. 116) used the name Madrepora talpa for (1) a species described and figured as Fungus saxeus oblongus by Rumphius (1750, p. 248, pl. 88, fig. 2), and, (p. 117) for (2) a specimen illustrated by Boddaert (1768, pl. 14) which the latter had assigned to a new species, Madrepora trilinguis. Miller (1775, p. 677) referred under M. talpa only to the plate given by Boddaert. 5. Von Martens (1902, p. 135) believed that the specimen figured by Rumphius belonged to the genus Polyphyllia Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. Boschma (1959, p. 267) provisionally referred to this specimen as Polyphyllia talpina (Lamarck, 1801), though indicating that it might be Herpolitha limax (Esper, 1797). The specimen is not men- tioned in the catalogue of the Rumphius collection in Florence (Martelli, 1903) and is most likely lost. Judging by both the description and the figure of Rumphius (1750, p. 248, pl. 88, fig. 2) I believe that the specimen belongs to the species described by Lamarck (1801, p. 370) as Fungia talpina. The coral illustrated by Boddaert (1768, 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 pl. 14) is a specimen of the species now known as Herpolitha limax (Esper) (see below). To minimise confusion, I select the specimen figured by Rumphius (1750, pl. 88, fig. 2) as lectotype for Madrepora limax Houttuyn, 1772. 6. In a later publication Lamarck (1816, p. 237) followed Oken (1815, p. 74) in using the binomen Fungia talpa as a replacement for his F. talpina. Neither Oken nor Lamarck refer to the former use of the name talpa in Madrepora by Houttuyn (1772). The last author to apply the name talpa for Polyphyllia talpina (Lamarck, 1801) was Ortmann (1888, p. 179; 1889, pl. 18, fig. 12b). Although the name ta/pa Houttuyn, 1772, is the first available name given to the species illustrated by Rumphius in 1750, it is not in use anymore. After 1889 the name talpina, as originally used by Lamarck, has been used in many publications (a list of 33 references is held at the Commission’s Secretariat). Since Gardiner (1909, p. 287) the name talpina has only been published in the binomen Polyphyllia talpina (Lamarck, 1801). 7. The name Madrepora limax was introduced by Houttuyn (1772, p. 119) in a dis- cussion of the nomenclature of a coral which was figured by Seba (1759, pl. 112, fig. 31). Houttuyn disagreed with Pallas (1766, p. 285), who described this coral as a variety of Madrepora pileus Linnaeus, 1758. Seba’s specimen clearly belongs to the species described as Fungia talpina by Lamarck, who also refers (1801, p. 370) to illustrations given by Seba (1759, pl. 111, fig. 6; pl. 112, fig. 31). From the above it can be concluded that Houttuyn (1772) not only used the name M. talpa for two different species (later called talpina Lamarck, 1801 and /imax Esper, 1797) but also applied the name /imax to talpina Lamarck, 1801. 8. Houttuyn (1772, p. 121, pl. 126, fig. 4) described and figured a coral to which he did not attach a latin name. He believed it to be intermediate between his M. talpa and M. limax. Miller (1775, p. 678, pl. 20, fig. 4) followed him as far as the text is concerned, but in the legend of his plate 20 linked the name M. limax to the figure of the ‘inter- mediate’ form. The figure shows clearly that the coral belongs to the species described as Madrepora (now Herpolitha) limax Esper, 1797. 9. Esper (1797, p. 77) in describing Madrepora limax for the species at present generally known as Herpolitha limax (Esper) may not have been aware that the name had been used in 1772 by Houttuyn, so that by using it he introduced a homonym. Besides giving a figure himself (Esper, 1797, pl. 63, a duplicate of the figure given by Ellis & Solander (1786, pl. 45)), he also refers to illustrations by Seba (1759, pl. 111, figs. 4—6). By referring to Seba’s figures Esper was not completely correct: only Seba’s (1759, pl. 111) figures 3 and 5 represent the species. 10. The type specimen of Herpolitha limax (Esper, 1797) is the coral originally figured by Ellis & Solander (1768, pl. 45) which was according to them a variety of Madrepora pileus. According to Wells (1966, p. 240) the specimen may be one in the collection of the Linnean Society of London. I have found only one specimen of H. limax in that collection, and am sure that it is not the specimen figured by Ellis & Solander. By coincidence I came across a list of some of the corals figured by Ellis & Solander (including the specimen of pl. 45) which were found by Young (1877) in the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow. The holotype of H. imax (Esper) is still kept there (GLAHM: 2C0015). 11. Before Esper (1797) described his M. limax, the species had, as mentioned in paragraph 4, already been described by Boddaert (1768, p. 613, pl. 14) under the name M. trilinguis. The specimen that Boddaert used for his description had an unusual Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 15 shape which he thought had perhaps resulted from a fusion of three specimens. Houttuyn (1772, p. 117) considered Boddaert’s species as a special form of his M. talpa. Esper (1797, p. 90, pl. 73) also knew about the existence of M. trilinguis and even duplicated Boddaert’s figure, but he followed Wilkens (1787, p. 26, pl. 13, fig. 2) who thought it to be a variety of M. pileus (p. 29). 12. After 1797 the name M. trilinguis Boddaert, 1768 has only appeared in Dana’s (1846, p. 309) synonymy list of Herpetolitha stellaris Leuckart, 1841, and in Klunzinger’s (1879, p. 68) of Herpetolitha foliosa Leuckart, 1841. Those names are also synonyms of Herpolitha limax (Esper). 13. The name /imax Esper, 1797 is not valid because it is both a junior homonym of limax Houttuyn, 1772 and a junior subjective synonym of trilinguis Boddaert, 1768. Houttuyn was not clear in the application of the name /imax. At present the name limax is established, but since 1979 authors have also started to use /imax Houttuyn instead of limax Esper, not realising that M. limax Houttuyn is a species different from M. limax Esper. (A list of eight recent publications with the name /imax Houttuyn applied inaccurately is held by the Commission Secretariat). 14. The first combination of the name /imax Esper in the accepted sense with the genus Herpolitha Eschscholtz, 1825 was by Eschscholtz (1825, p. 746). After him many authors have used that combination (or the misspelling Herpetolitha limax (Esper); a list of 51 publications is held by the Commission Secretariat). The valid name trilinguis in fact was only used by its own author and has since been overlooked or ignored. 15. I propose that the established use of /imax, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (p. 77) and of talpina, as published in the combination Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801 (p. 370) should both be conserved. 16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name /imax Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax, and all other uses prior to the publication of Madrepora limax Esper, 1797, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) talpa Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa; (ii) trilinguis Boddaert, 1768, as published in the binomen Madrepora trilinguis; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific names in Zoology the following names: (a) limax Esper, 1797, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax; (b) talpina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Fungia talpina; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) limax Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax and as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) talpa Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa and as suppressed in (1) (b) (i) above; (c) trilinguis Boddaert, 1768, as published in the binomen Madrepora trilinguis and as suppressed in (1) (b) (ii) above. 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Acknowledgements The author expresses his gratitude to Dr M. B. Best for advice, Prof Dr E. Gittenberger for critical comments on the text, Prof Dr L. B. Holthuis for his generous assistance, Dr B. R. Rosen of the British Museum (Natural History) London for showing him the corals of the Linnean Society of London and Miss M. Reilly of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow who kindly supplied photographs of Esper’s type. References Boddaert, P. 1768. Lyst der Plant—Dieren, (50)+ 654 pp. Van Paddenburg & Van Schoonhoven, Utrecht. Boschma, H. 1959. The stony corals described by Rumphius. Pp. 249-276, pl. 27, in de Wit, H. C. D. (ed.), Rumphius Memorial Volume, 462 pp. Hollandia, Baarn. Dana, J. D. 1846-1849. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838-1842. Zoophytes. Vol. VII, 740. Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia. Atlas, 61 pls. Sherman, Philadelphia. Ellis, J. & Solander, D. 1786. The natural history of many curious and uncommon zoophytes, 208 pp. White & Son, London. Eschscholtz, J. F. yon, 1825. Bericht tiber die zoologische Ausbeute wahrend der Reise von Kronstadt bis St Peter und Paul. Isis, Jena, 16: 734-747. Esper, E. J. C. 1797. Fortseszungen der Planzenthiere, vol. 1. 230 pp. Raspe, Nurnberg. Gardiner, J. S. 1909. The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Indian Ocean in 1905. The madreporian corals. 1. The family Fungiidae, with a revision of its genera and species with an account of their geographical distribution. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, ser. 2. 12: 257-290. Houttuyn, M. 1772. Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, Planten en Mineraalen, vol. 1, pt. 17, 614 pp. Houttuyn, Amsterdam. Houttuyn, M. 17??. Natuurkundige Beschryving der Insecten, Wormen en Slakken, Schulpdieren, Hoorens en Plantdieren, vol. 9, 614 pp. Van Es, Amsterdam. : Klunzinger, C. B. 1879. Die Korallenthiere des Rothen Meeres, vol. 3, 100 pp. Gutmann, Berlin. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres 432 pp. Deterville, Paris. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2, 568 pp. Verdiére, Paris. Leuckart, F. S. 1841. Observationes zoologicae de Zoophytis coralliis, speciatim de genere Fungia, 60 pp. Friburgi Brisigavorum. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, 824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Martelli, U. 1903. Le collezione di Giorgio Everardo Rumpf acquisate dal Granduca Cosimo III de’ Medici, 213 pp. Niccolai Firenze. Martens E. yon, 1902. Die Mollusken (Conchylien) und die tibrigen wirbellosen Thiere in Rumpf’s Rariteitenkamer. Pp. 109-136 in Greshoff, M. (ed.), Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902, 221 pp. Koloniaal Museum, Haarlem. Miiller, P. L. S. 1775. Des Ritters Carl von Linné vollstandiges Natursystem, vol. 6, pp. 1-5+ 641-960. Raspe, Nurnberg. Oken, L. 1815. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, Zoologie, vol. 3(1), xxviii+842+xviii+iv pp. Schmidt, Leipzig, Jena. Ortmann, A. 1888. Studien tiber Systematik und geographische Verbreitung der Steinkorallen. Zoologischen Jahrbiichern. Abtheilung fiir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Thiere, 3: 143-188. Ortmann, A. 1889. Beobachtungen an Steinkorallen von der Stidkiiste Ceylons. Zoologischen Jahrbiichern, Abtheilung fiir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Thiere, 4: 493-590. Pallas, P.S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum, 451 pp. Van Cleef, Hagae-Comitum. Quoy, J. R. C. & Gaimard, J. P. 1833. Voyage de découvertes de |’ Astrolabe, Zoologie, vol. 4, 390 pp. Tastu, Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 17 Rumphius, G. E. 1750. Herbarium amboinense. Het Amboinsch Kruid-boek, vol. 6, 256 pp. Vytwerf, Amsterdam. Seba, A. 1759. Locupletissimi Rerum naturalium Thesauri accurata Descriptio, vol. 3, Janssonio— Waesbergios, Amsteloedami. Wells, J. W. 1966. Evolutionary development in the scleractinian family Fungiidae. Pp. 223-246 in Rees, W. J. (ed.), The Cnidaria and their evolution. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, No. 16, 449 pp. Academic Press, London, New York. Wilkens, C. F. 1787. Charakteristik der Thierflanzen, vol. 2,265 pp. Raspe, Nurnberg. Young, J. 1877. Corals in the Hunterian Museum figured by Ellis & Solander. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (4), 19: 116. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Case 2610 Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation Gary J. Morgan Department of Carcinology, Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia 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 of a circum- tropic genus of land hermit crabs, Coenobita Latreille, 1829. It is threatened by the senior objective synonyms Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 and Cenobites Berthold, 1827 and by a possible senior subjective synonym, Eremita Osbeck, 1765; their suppression is proposed. 1. Latreille (1825, p. 277) first recognised Coenobita as a distinct taxon and provided a short description of it. He indicated it as follows: “Le g.[enre] Cénobite (Pagurus clypeatus) . No latin name was given. Four years later Latreille (1829, p. 77) used for the first time the latin name Coenobita for the genus, with, as the only nominal species, ‘Pagurus clypeatus, Fab.; Herbst, xxii, 2’. Since then the name Coenobita has been consistently and universally used for this genus of terrestrial hermit crabs, which occurs in all the tropics of the world, often in great numbers. Because of its peculiar terrestrial way of life, and by the fact that it can easily be obtained, Coenobita is a well known genus and its biology, physiology, ecology etc., are widely studied. It is of economic importance as it is a popular pet and sold in great quantities in the aquarium-terrarium trade. 2. As far as we know, Coenobita is the only name that has been used for this genus since 1827 (sometimes in the incorrect spelling Cenobita). However, three older names exist: two are senior objective synonyms (Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 and Cenobites Berthold, 1827), the other a possible senior subjective synonym (Eremita Osbeck, 1765). 3. F. P. von Jarocki (1825, p. 108) in the fifth volume of his 6 volume Zoologiia (1821-1838) described in Polish a new genus Carcinion, in which he mentioned as the only species “Pagurus clypeatus. Oliv.” (= Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787), which thus is the type species of the new genus by monotypy. Although De Haan (1849, pp. 12, 212) noted the synonymy of Carcinion and Coenobita, he adopted the latter name for the genus. So far as we can find, the name Carcinion has not appeared since in the carcinological literature, and certainly has not been used as a valid generic name. As Carcinion Jarocki, 1825, is a senior objective synonym of Coenobita Latreille, 1829, and of Cenobites Berthold, 1827, and furthermore is a completely forgotten name, its reintroduction would cause a most undesirable confusion in carcinological nomenclature. Therefore its suppression is requested here. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 19 4. Berthold (1827) translated Latreille’s (1825) ‘Familles Naturelles du Régne Anima? into German under the title ‘Latreille’s Nattirliche Familien des Thierreichs’. In many instances Berthold replaced Latreille’s vernacular names by latin names, and he translated (p. 263) Cénobite as Cenobites. Cenobites Berthold, 1827 (type species Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787) is a senior objective synonym of Coenobita. Introduction of Cenobites would cause great confusion in carcinological nomenclature. 5. Another possible threat to Coenobita is a similarly forgotten name, Eremita Osbeck, 1765. Osbeck (1765), in the German translation of his 1757 Swedish narrative of a voyage to China and the East Indies, described (p. 351-358) an excursion made on 19 January 1752 to a bay on the coast of W. Java in Strait Sunda, viz. Teluk Peutjang, 6° 42’S, 105° 18’E. Osbeck (1757, p. 88 & 269; 1765, p. 114 & 351) named this bay Nieu bay, Mjobay, or Neuen Bay (=New Bay); it is best known by the Dutch name Meeuwen (or Mieuw) Bay (=Gulls Bay) but evidently Osbeck misunderstood the Dutch word Meeuw (or Mieuw as it was often written in the old times) for gull and interpreted it as Nieuw (=Dutch for new). His description leaves no doubt that Meeuwen Bay near the S.W. tip of Java is meant. He described a hermit crab from there as follows (p. 356): ‘Der Schneckendieb oder Eremita javanica ward in einer Schneckenschaale angetroffen; die linke Klaue desselben war grosser, es ist aber doch eine andere Gattung, als unser gemeiner Cancer bernhardus’. Osbeck remarked that the beach was covered with corals and fossilized sponges; judging by his account it is not likely that he collected from the sea and he probably picked up the hermit crab described on dry land, which would make it most likely to be a species of Coenobita (C. rugosus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 being one of the most common species in the area). 6. Osbeck’s short description (left chela larger) fits any Coenobitid and most Diogenid hermit crabs (but distinguishes it from all PAGURIDAE). Eremita Osbeck, 1765 could be considered a nomen dubium but as it is the oldest name ever to be given to a hermit crab genus (even Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 is younger) it provides a real threat to hermit crab nomenclature. So far as we know Eremita Osbeck, 1765 has not been used since its proposal and its resurrection could only cause great harm. It is not listed in Neave (1939), who lists Eremita Meuschen, 1778 (an erroneous spelling of the unavail- able Emerita Gronovius, 1764 and itself published in a rejected work) and Eremita Reichenbach, 1854 (an available name for a genus of humming-birds but which at present is considered a junior subjective synonym of Phaetornis Swainson, 1827). 7. The type species of Coenobita is Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 (p. 328). The author of the specific name has often been cited as Herbst, but Herbst’s (1791, p. 22) description was published four years after that of Fabricius and in it Herbst referred to Fabricius’ (1787) description. 8. The gender of Coenobita (the Greek word for monk) is masculine, as pointed out by previous authors, although the ending -a made some consider it to be feminine. 9. As the generic name Coenobita and the family name COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (p. 269) have often been incorrectly spelt Cenobita and CENOBITIDAE, the addition of the two erroneous spellings to the Official Indexes is requested. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy the following names: (a) Carcinion Jarocki, 1825; 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 (b) Cenobites Berthold, 1827; (c) Eremita Osbeck, 1765; (d) javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name clypeatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Pagurus clypeatus (specific name of the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829); (4) to place on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology the name COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (correction by Ortmann (1892) of CENOBITIDAE) (type genus Coenobita Latreille, 1829); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 as suppressed in 1(a) above; (b) Cenobites Berthold, 1827, as suppressed in (1) (b) above; (c) Eremita Osbeck, 1765, as suppressed in (1) (c) above; (d) Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1837, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Coenobita Latreille, 1829; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name javanica Osbeck, 1765 as published in the binomen Eremita javanica and as suppressed in (1) (d) above; (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology the name CENOBITIDAE (an incorrect original spelling of COENOBITIDAE) Dana, 1851. References Berthold, A. A. 1827. Latreille’s Nattirliche Familien des Thierreichs. 604 pp. Verlag des Gross- herzoglichen Staates privates Landes-Industrie Comptoirs, Weimar. Dana, J. D. 1851. Conspectus Crustaceorum quae in Orbis Terrarum circumnavigatione, Carolo Wilkes e classe Reipublicae Foederatae Duce, lexit et descripsit. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 267-272. Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum. vol. 1, 348 pp. Proft, Copenhagen. Haan, W. De, 1833-1850. In Siebold, F. von, Fauna Japonica, (Crustacea). ix—xvi, vii—xvii, i-xiil, 1-243. Herbst, J. F. W. 1791. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 2, pt. 1, 48 pp. Lange, Berlin und Stralsund. Jarocki, F. P. von, 1821-1838. Zoologia czyli zwiérzetopismo Ogoélne, podlug Naynowszego Systematu. 6 vols. (vol. 5 published in 1825). Warszawa. Latreille, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal, 570 pp. Bailliére, Paris. Latreille, P. A. 1829. Les Crustacés, les Arachnides et les Insectes, distribués en familles naturelles, ouvrage formant les tomes 4 et 5 de celui de M. le baron Cuvier sur le régne animal, ed. 2, 584 pp. Déterville, Paris. Milne Edwards, H. 1837. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, 532 pp. Roret, Paris. Neave, S. A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 2, 1025 pp. Zoological Society of London. Ortmann, A. 1892. Die Decapoden-Krebse des Strassburger Museum. IV. Die Abtheilungen Galatheidea und Paguridea. Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Systematik, Geographie und Biologie), 6: 241-326. Osbeck, P. 1757. Dagbok éfwer en Ostindisk Resa Aren 1750. 1751. 1752. 376 pp. Grefing, Stockholm. Osbeck, P. 1765. Reise nach Ostindien und China, 552 pp. Koppe, Rostock. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 21 Case 2613 Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name B. J. M. Jacobs & 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 specific name hookeri Leach, 1814. It is threatened by the name conglobator Pallas, 1766 and its junior objective synonym globator Pallas, 1772, neither of which has been used as the valid name for a species of the family for over 150 years. The authorship and date of Sphaeroma is also discussed. 1. Pallas (1766, p. 194) described a new species of isopod as Oniscus conglobator and gave habitus figures of it in dorsal and lateral views. The description and figures make it beyond any doubt that the species belongs to the family SPHAEROMATIDAE and that it is either a species of Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (p. 182) or one of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (p. 172). Not enough morphological details are provided by Pallas to place the specific identity of his animal beyond doubt. However, Pallas’ locality data make it practically certain that Oniscus conglobator is based on specimens of the species currently known as Lekanesphaera (or Sphaeroma) hookeri Leach, 1814 (p. 433). 2. Six years after the publication of Oniscus conglobator, Pallas (1772, p. 70—71, pl. 4, figs. 18, 18*) redescribed the species under the name Oniscus globator and republished with this description his 1766 figures. That globator is a replacement name for conglobator is quite evident, the more so as Pallas (1772) referred to his 1766 description and used the same figures for both. In order to make the objective synonymy definite, the specimen figured by Pallas (1766, pl. 14, fig. 18; 1772, pl. 4, fig. 18) is selected now to be the lectotype for both species. In his new (1772) description Pallas made the follow- ing remark about the colour of the species, which is not given in his 1766 account: ‘Color scuti cinereo-fuscus’. L. rugicauda is usually of an ashy grey colour, while L. hookeri as a rule is darker and more brownish grey. This again confirms that O. (con) globator is the same as L. hookeri. 3. The name conglobator was from the start almost completely ignored by zoologists, probably because Pallas himself replaced it by globator. However the name globator, although sometimes mentioned in synonymy, was not accepted as the valid name either. Bosc (1802, p. 186) recognised a single species of Sphaeroma, to which he gave the new name S. cinereum, placing all older names (e.g. Oniscus serratus Fabricius, 1787 (p. 242) and Oniscus globator Pallas, 1772) in its synonymy. Leach (1814, p. 405, 433) recognised 3 species of Sphaeroma: S. serratum (Fabricius, 1787) and the two new species, S. rugicauda and S. hookeri. In the synonymy of S. serratum he cited S. cinereum Bosc, 1802 and Oniscus globator Pallas, 1772, completely disregarding the 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 priority of Pallas’ name. This synonymy was accepted in most carcinological hand- books and the name O. globator was no more used as the valid name, being at the most cited as a synonym of S. serratum. 4. Although we are convinced that Oniscus conglobator Pallas, 1766, is the oldest available name for Lekanesphaera hookeri (Leach, 1814), we feel that a strict appli- cation of the Principle of Priority in this case would result in the disappearance of a well known specific name that has been and still is widely used in taxonomic and faunistic studies as well as such dealing with the ecology, biology, and population dynamics of the species. The replacement of this well known name by one that is entirely unfamiliar to most zoologists and which has not been used for the species for over 180 years, should be prevented in the interest of stability. 5. We also take this opportunity to request the placement of the names Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 and SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825, on their respective Official Lists. Both names are very well known, are in general use and are the valid names for their respective taxa. The problems concerning authorship, date of publication and gender of the name Sphaeroma have been discussed by Jacobs (1987, p. 11). The author of the genus has variously been cited as Latreille, or Latreille in Bosc. How- ever, Bosc (1802: p. 48) although he makes clear that he had seen the manuscript of volume 3 (1802) of Latreille’s Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes, dealt with the genus Sphaeroma in his own words, providing new observations made by himself. There is no reason therefore not to cite him as author. 6. As to the date of publication of Bosc’s work, Dupuis (1976, p. 4) showed that this is 20 January 1802 or earlier, while Latreille’s account of Sphaeroma in volume 3 of his above cited work was shown by Dupuis to be published between April and 6 November 1802; Bosc’s name therefore has priority. The gender of the name Sphaeroma has sometimes been treated as feminine, sometimes as neuter. Dr C. W. Wright, Classical Advisor to the Commission, has kindly informed us that ‘Sphaeroma is a Greek word, third declension, neuter’ (see also Jacobs, 1987). The correct spelling of the family name was also furnished by Dr Wright, as being SPHAEROMATIDAE; the often used SPHAEROMIDAE is definitely incorrect. We are most grateful to Dr Wright for this information. 7. The name Lekanesphaera (the genus to which Oniscus conglobator belongs) has a peculiar history. Until 1943 the species of that genus were assigned to the genus Sphaeroma. Verhoeff (1943, p. 169) established the new genus Europosphaera with two subgenera Europosphaera s.s. and Lekanesphaera. To the former he assigned two species: Sphaeroma rugicauda Leach, 1814 and Europosphaera (E.) noduliger nov. sp. Only one species was placed by Verhoeff in the subgenus Lekanesphaera, viz., Europosphaera (Lekanesphaera) excavatum nov. sp. Both the names E. noduliger and E. excavatum are considered junior synonyms of Lekanesphaera monodi (Arcangeli, 1934, p. 149). Verhoeff did not designate a type for either Europosphaera or Lekanesphaera, which makes the former an unavailable name (Art. 13b). Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 is available, as E. excavatum Verhoeff, 1943 is its type by monotypy. Lekanesphaera, being the oldest available name for the genus in question, is its valid name and we request that it be placed on the Official List. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 23 (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) conglobator Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Oniscus conglobator; (b) globator Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) hookeri Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma hookeri; (b) monodi Arcangeli, 1934, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (valid name for the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943); (c) serratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen QOniscus serratus (specific name of the type species of Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802); (3) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (gender; feminine), type species, by monotypy, Europosphaera (Lekanesphaera) excavatum Verhoeff, 1943 (a junior subjective synonym of Sphaeroma monodi Arcangeli, 1934); (b) Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Latreille, 1810, Oniscus serratus Fabricius, 1787; (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name SPHAEROMATIDAE (correction by Dahl, 1916, p. 28 of SPHAEROMIDES) Latreille, 1825; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) conglobator Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Oniscus conglobator and as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) globator Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator and as suppressed under (1) (b) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943: an unavailable generic name because published without fixation of the type species. References Arcangeli, A. 1934. Brevi notizie sopra Isopoda marini del Mediterraneo. Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia e di Anatomia Comparata della R. Universita di Torino, 44 (3)(48): 147-152. Bosc, L. A. G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, contenant leur description et leurs moeurs, 2: 1-296. Paris. Dahl, F. 1916. Die Asseln oder Isopoden Deutschlands, vi+ 90 pp. Jena. Dupuis, C. 1976. Objections aux propositions de Bousfield & Holthuis (1969) concernant une douzaine de genres d’Amphipodes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 32 (1): 3-5. Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, 1, xx +348. Hafniae. Jacobs, B. J. M. 1987. A taxonomic revision of the European, Mediterranean and N. W. African species generally placed in Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (Isopoda: Flabellifera: Sphaeromatidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 238: \—71. Latreille, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 3, 468 pp. Paris. Latreille, P. A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes; avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. 444 pp. Paris. Latreille, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal, exposées succinctement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres, 570 pp. Paris. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Leach, W. E. 1814. Crustaceology. Pp. 383-437 in Brewster, D. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 7, 767pp. Edinburgh. Naylor, E. 1972. British marine Isopods. Synopses of the British Fauna (n.s.), vol. 3. 86 pp. Omer-Cooper, J. & Rawson, J. H. 1934. Notes on the British Sphaeromatidae (Crustacea, Isopoda). Report of the Dove Marine Laboratory, Cullercoats, Northumberland, 3(2): 22-58. Pallas, P. S. 1766. Miscellanea zoologica. xii+ 224 pp. Hagae, Comitum. Pallas, P. S. 1772. Spicilegia zoologica, (9): 1-86. Berolini. Stebbing. T. R. R. 1910. On the Crustacea Isopoda and Tanaidacea. Reports on the marine biology of the Sudanese Red Sea. XIV. Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Zoology), 31: 215-230. Verhoeff, K. W. 1943. Sphaeromatiden-Studien und Buchnerillo n. g. Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 153-175. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 25 Case 2607 Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera): confirmation of type species. M. Hansen Department of Entomology, Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Kobenhayn, Denmark. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 and D. Juridus Linnaeus, 1761 as the respective nominal type species of the water beetle genera Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and Berosus Leach, 1817. To conserve current usage the hitherto overlooked original monotypy of Hydrobius Leach, 1815 is set aside. 1. Leach (1815, p. 96) erected the genus Hydrobius and included only one species, Dytiscus luridus Linnaeus, 1761, which is therefore the type species by monotypy. 2. Ina later publication Leach (1817, p. 92) made a division of his 1815 concept of Hydrobius, presenting two genera: Hydrobius ‘Corpus ovatum convexum utrinque obtusatum. Oculi simplices’ and a new genus, Berosus ‘Corpus antice angustius. Thorax subgibbosus. Oculi valde prominuli’. The latter included only ‘Hydrophilus luridus auctorum’ (= D. luridus Linnaeus, 1761). Thus, by having the same type species, Berosus Leach, 1817 is a junior objective synonym of Hydrobius Leach, 1815. 3. Leach (1817) included three species in Hydrobius: fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 (having ‘Elytra striata’), melanocephalus Olivier, 1792 and orbicularis Fabricius, 1775 (the latter two having ‘Elytra laevia’). 4. The original monotypy of Hydrobius Leach, 1815 with D. /uridus Linnaeus, 1761 as the type species has been overlooked by all subsequent authors, who without exception have followed the usage of Leach (1817) though correctly dating Hydrobius to 1815. 5. The first designation of type species for Hydrobius sensu Leach, 1817 was by Hope (1838, p. 125), who designated ‘Hyd. fuscipes Linnaeus’. This is in accordance with the present interpretation of Hydrobius Leach, 1815 as a genus exclusively comprising species with striate elytra. Other authors (e.g. Westwood (1840, p. 10); Thomson (1859, p. 17); Knisch (1924, p. 169)) have also referred to fuscipes as the type species of Hydrobius. The only exception is Chenu (1851, p. 249) who designated Hydrophilus oblongus Herbst, 1797, a species not mentioned by Leach. 6. Thus, D. fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 and D. luridus Leach, 1761 have been regarded for more than 150 years as the type species of two well known and widely distributed hydrophilid genera, Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (comprising about 10 species) and Berosus Leach, 1817 (comprising more than 200 species) respectively. A list of representative references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 prior to that by Hope (1838); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Hope (1838) Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Berosus Leach, 1817 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Dytiscus luridus Linnaeus, 1761; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus fuscipes (specific name of the type species of Hydrobius Leach, 1815); (b) /uridus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Dytiscus luridus (specific name of the type species of Berosus Leach, 1817). References Chenu, J. Ch. 1851. Encyclopédie d’histoire naturelle . .. Coléoptéres, vol. 1, 312 pp. G. Harvard, Paris. Hope, F. W. 1838. The Coleopterist’s Manual. Vol. 2. Predaceous Land and Water Beetles. 16+ 168 pp. London. Knisch, A. 1924. Hydrophilidae. Jn Junk & Schenkling, Coleopterorum Catalogus XIV, part 79, 306 pp. Berlin. Leach, W. E. 1815. Entomology. Jn Brewster, D., Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 9, 57-172 pp. Edinburgh. Leach, W. E. 1817. The zoological miscellany, vol. 3, 151 pp. London. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, 824 pp. Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Svecica, ed. 2, 578 pp. Laurentii Salvi, Stockholmiae. Thomson, C. G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, vol. 1, 304 pp. Lund. Westwood, J. O. 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 & Longmans, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 27 Case 2481 Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation, and confirmation of type species designation E. S. Nielsen CSIRO Division of Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia I. W. B. Nye British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (leaf-mining microlepidoptera) by the suppression of the unused senior homonym Elachista Kollar, 1832. In addition the Commission is asked to con- firm that the type species of Elachista Treitschke, 1833, is E. bifasciella Treitschke, 1833. 1. Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (p. 177), was established for 17 species, all small micro- lepidoptera, now placed in several genera and families. The usage of this generic name was subsequently restricted by several authors to a large genus of microlepidoptera with larvae which are leaf-miners in the monocotyledonous families Cyperaceae, Poaceae and Juncaceae; this connotation of the name became firmly established following Frey (1859, p. 172) and has been universally aceepted ever since. Bruand (1850, p. 50) proposed the family name ELACHISTIDAE, based on the same interpretation of Elachista as Frey, and this has also been widely accepted. A representative list of references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 2. Although Elachista Treitschke had been consistently used as the supposedly valid name for a large and widely distributed genus of ELACHISTIDAE since Frey (1859), the first type species designation in accordance with this usage was by Meyrick (1915, p. 210) of Elachista bifasciella Treitschke, 1833. There are, however, two earlier hitherto overlooked or ignored type species designations by Duponchel: the first in 1838 (p. 25) was Tinea complanella Hiibner, [1817], and the second in [1845] (p. 221) was Tinea blanchardella Fabricius, 1781. T. complanella is the type species of Tischeria Zeller, 1839 (TISCHERUDAE) and J. blanchardella is currently placed in Phyllonorycter Hubner, [1822] (GRACILLARIIDAE). 3. There is also an even earlier but unavailable type species designation for Elachista, Elachista canifoliella Treitschke, 1833, by Boisduval (1836, p. 138). Under Art. 69 a (iv), the type species designation of an author is eligible for consideration if he states that it is the type ‘...and if it is clear that that author accepts it as the type species’. Boisduval’s type designations, although clearly stated, do not fulfil the last requirement and so are unavailable. Even though Boisduval’s 1836 work was well known to lepidopterists, the type designations in it have not been accepted. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 4. It has also been overlooked that Elachista Treitschke, 1833, is a junior homonym of Elachista Kollar, 1832 (p. 98). Elachista was a Treitschke manuscript name, obtained from a copy of his unpublished manuscript and made available by Kollar before the genus was described and named by Treitschke in 1833. Elachista Kollar, 1832, originally included four species, none of which belong to Elachista Treitschke, 1833, as used by and since Frey (1859). Elachista Kollar, 1832 has to our knowledge never been used subsequent to its original proposal and its introduction now would greatly upset usage. 5. As Elachista Treitschke, 1833, has been almost consistently used for the large and world-wide elachistid genus since Frey (1859) and as the family name ELACHISTIDAE is equally used, we consider that the general current usage should be maintained. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Elachista Kollar, 1832, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for Elachista Treitschke, 1833, prior to that of Meyrick, 1915; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Elachista Treitschke, 1833, type species by subsequent designation by Meyrick (1915) Elachista bifasciella Treitschke, 1833; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bifasciella Treitschke, 1833, as published in the binomen Elachista bifasciella (specific name of the type species of Elachista Treitschke, 1833); (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ELACHISTIDAE Bruand, 1850 (type genus Elachista Treitschke, 1833); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Elachista Kollar, 1832, as suppressed in (1) above. References Boisduval, J. B. A. D. 1836. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Vol. 1, 690 pp. Bruand, T. 1850. Catalogue des Lépidoptéres du Doubs. Mémoires (et Comptes Rendus) de la Société d’Emulation du Doubs, ser. 1, 3 (S—6): 23-68. Duponchel, J. B. 1838. Jn Godart & Duponchel, Histoire naturelle des Lépidoptéres ou Papillons de France. Vol. 11, 720 pp. Duponchel, J. B. [1845]. Jn d’Orbigny, Dictionnaire universel d’Histoire Naturelle. Vol. 5 (DIC-GAL), 768 pp. Frey, H. 1859. Das Tineen-Genus Elachista. Linnaea Entomologica, 13: 172-312. Kollar, V. 1832. Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge im Erzherzogthume Oesterreich. Beitrdge zur Landeskunde Oesterreich’s unter der Enns, 2: 1-101. Meyrick, E. 1915. Description of New Zealand Lepidoptera. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 47: 201-244. Treitschke, F. 1833. Jn Ochsenheimer, Die Schmetterlinge von Europa. Vol. 9, pt. 2, 294 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 29 Case 2617 Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed availability as a senior synonym of ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ S. E. Whitebread Maispracherstrasse 51, CH-4312 Magden, Switzerland L. Rezbanyai-Reser Naturmuseum Luzern, Kasernenplatz 6, CH-6003 Luzern, Switzerland H. Geiger Zoologisches Institut, Baltzerstrasse 3, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland Abstract. The purpose of this application is confirmation that the specific name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 is available for the European butterfly known in English as Berger’s Clouded Yellow, and that the often used name australis Verity, 1911 is not available from its first publication. 1. Berger’s Clouded Yellow was first distinguished as a species distinct from Colias hyale Linnaeus, 1758 (the Pale Clouded Yellow) by Berger (1944; 1948; Berger & Fontaine, 1947-8). In these short papers the new species was differentiated from C. hyale, and the specific name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (p. 137) was ‘provisionally’ adopted. 2. The butterfly has often been called Colias australis Verity, 1911 (p. 347). There is no consensus as to whether a/facariensis or australis should be used, as the following examples show: (a) Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 Reissinger (1971); Schnack (1985). (b) Colias australis Verity, 1911 Kloet & Hincks (1972); Dutreix (1980; used only ‘provisoirement’); Higgins & Riley (1980); Leraut (1980); Kogak (1981); Berger (1986). (c) Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 Kudrna (1982); Schadewald (1986). 3. The problem arises because both alfacariensis and australis were first published in ways which might, under Article 45 of the Code, be regarded as denoting infra- subspecific rank. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 4. In a paper entitled ‘Einige neue Formen von Schmetterlingen aus Andalusien’ Ribbe (1905, p. 137) wrote: ‘Colias hyale ab. alfacariensis. Ich fing in der nordlich von Granada gelegenen Sierra de Alfacar, die gegen 1800 m hoch ist, eine Form von Colias hyale, die auffallig von solchen hyale, die aus andern Gebieten stammen, abweicht’ (‘North of Granada in the Sierra de Alfacar, which are almost 1800 m high, I found a form of Colias hyale which markedly differs from hyale found in other regions’). He described the differences briefly but clearly. In a later publication Ribbe (1910, p. 103) said that only a ‘hyale var.’ was found in the Sierra de Alfacar, and on pp. 107 and 125 he referred to this population as ‘C. hyale ab. alfacariensis’. On the latter page Ribbe reported that “Alfacariensis fliegt von Mitte Mai bis Mitte Juli in allen Talern in der Sierra de Alfacar’ (‘Alfacarienis flies from mid-May to mid-July in all the valleys of the Sierra de Alfacar’). In 1912, in a list (p. 380) of ‘In Andalusien allein heimische Arten’ (‘Species occurring only in Andalusia’) and on p. 382 under ‘Rein Iberische Arten’ (‘Pure Iberian species’) Ribbe included ‘Colias hyale ab. (v.) alfacariensis’; the fact that the taxon is actually widely distributed is irrelevant to the present case. 5. In the Glossary of the Code ‘aberration’ is defined as ‘a term which, if used to denote a number of individuals [our italics] within a species, unequivocally signifies infrasubspecific rank’. It is plainly meant to refer to a minority of aberrant individuals (e.g. albino specimens) rather than to a uniform geographically defined population as described by Ribbe (1905). 6. Verity (1911, Supplement, p. 347) said of C. hyale: “En Andalousie vole une belle race bien distincte par la teinte jaune du ¢ excessivement vive . . . [australis]’. 7. Ina letter to Berger (reproduced in Hemming & Berger, 1950) Francis Hemming, the then Secretary of the ICZN, wrote (p. 7) ‘le nom alfacariensis a été donné comme nom infrasubspécifique a un exemplaire de votre espéce nouvelle’, despite the fact that Ribbe had described a population and not an individual butterfly. Hemming continued *...en 1911 Verity publiait le nom subspécifique australis pour la population existant en Andalousie de votre espéce nouvelle’, and stated that this was therefore the valid name. Convinced by ‘l’exposé si complet et si lumineux de M. F. Hemming’ Berger accepted (Hemming & Berger, 1950, p. 9) the name australis, and it has been widely used. 8. However, Hemming was clearly mistaken in saying that Verity (1911) had given australis subspecific rank. Verity illustrated on p. xiii of his Index Systematique his hierarchical classification, and on pp. xxxiv—xxxv applied it to C. hyale thus: '(p. xiii) GENRE (pp. xxxiv-v) COLIAS espéce Colias hyale sous-espéce hyale race australis From this it is evident that Verity gave australis the infrasubspecific status of a race of C. hyale hyale (another race was given as C. h. h. hyale). 9. Dutreix (1980, p. 298) noted that Reissinger (1971, p. 159, figs 1 and 2) had designated one of Ribbe’s specimens as lectotype of C. alfacariensis, and that the specimen designated by Riley (1954) as lectotype of ‘C. australis Verity, 1911” is of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 31 doubtful provenance and may be an abnormal individual (Warren, 1954). Both Dutreix (1980) and Reissinger (1971) discuss the literature of the species at some length. 10. We contend that the name al/facariensis Ribbe, 1905 is available, even though in the name Ribbe used the expression ‘ab.’ rather than ‘variety’ or ‘form’ as mentioned in Article 45g; in any case (see para. 4) his paper later used ‘Formen’ and ‘eine Form von Colias hyale’. We do not believe that australis is available from Verity (1911), since it was only the fourth name in a ‘tetranomen’ and so is infra-subspecific under Article 45f (iii). 11. Accordingly, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature: (1) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name a/facar- iensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name australis Verity, 1911, published as an addition to the trinomen Colias hyale hyale and therefore denoting infrasubspecific rank. References Berger, L. A. 1944. Espéce nouvelle pour la Science. Lambillionea, 44: 9-10. Berger, L. A. 1945. Rapport d’assemblée mensuelle du 3 février 1945. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique; 81: 33. Berger, L. A. 1948. A Colias new to Britain. The Entomologist, 81: 129-131. Berger, L. A. 1986. Systematique du genre Colias F. (Lepidoptera—Pieridae). Lambillionea, Supplément. 68 pp. Berger, L. A. & Fontaine, M. 1947-48. Une espéce méconnue du genre Colias F. Lambillionea 47: 91-98; 48: 12-15, 21-24, 91-110. Dutreix, C. 1980. Etude des deux espéces affines Colias hyale Linné et Colias australis Verity. Alexanor 11: 297-316. Hemming, A. F. & Berger, L. A. 1950. Nouvelles régles de nomenclature — application au cas Colias hyale et Colias australis. Lambillionea 50: 2-9. Higgins, L. G. & Riley, N. D. 1980. 4 field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. 384 pp. Collins, London. Kloet, G. S. & Hincks, W. D. 1972. A check list of British insects (ed. 2), vol. 11(2), Lepidoptera. Kogak, A. O. 1981. Critical check-list of European Papilionoidea. Priamus 1: 46—90. Kudrna, O. 1982. On the nomenclature of Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 20: 103-110. Leraut, P. 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des lepidopteres de France, Belgique et Corse. Supplément a Alexanor et au Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France. 334 pp. Paris. Reissinger, E. 1971. Die geographisch-subspezifische Gliederung von Colias alfacariensis Ribbe unter Beriicksichtigung der Migrationsverhaltnisse [1]. Atalanta, 3: 145-176. Ribbe, C. 1905. Einige neue Formen von Schmetterlingen aus Andalusien. Societas Entomologica, XX Jahrgang (18): 137-138. Ribbe, C. 1909-1912. Beitrage zu einer Lepidopteren-Fauna von Andalusien (Sid-Spanien). Macrolepidopteren. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, Iris, (Supplement), 23: 1-395. Riley, N. D. 1954. The lectotype of Colias australis (Lep. Pieridae). The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 66: 35-36. Schadewald, G. 1986. Zur Unterscheidung von Colias hyale Linné, 1758 und Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 (=australis Verity) (Lep. Pieridae). Entomologisches Nachrichtenblatt, Dresden, 30: 251-253. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Schnack, K. 1985. (Ed.) Katalog over de danske Sommerfugle. Entomologiske Meddelelser, 52: 1-163. Verity, R. 1905-1911. Rhopalocera Palaearctica. Papilionidae et Pieridae (Supplément, 191 1). 86+ 368 pp. Warren, R. C. S. 1954. A note on the genitalia of Colias australis Verity. The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 66: 36. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 33 Case 2411 Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Tiphia villosa Fabricius; 1793 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 the nominal species Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 as type species of Ludita Nagy, 1967, a genus of parasitic wasps. The original selection being based on a misidentified species, this solution maintains Ludita in its original meaning. 1. Nagy (1967, p. 197) proposed the name Ludita for four nominal species: Tiphia morio Fabricius, 1787, T. fulvipennis Smith, 1879, Ludita ramispinosa Nagy, 1967 and L. andromeda Nagy, 1967. He designated Tiphia morio as type species. 2. Unfortunately Nagy (like authors before him) misidentified T. morio. The type specimen, still present in the collection of the Copenhagen Museum, is in fact not a tiphiid wasp as has until now been generally assumed, but a bee of the subfamily ANDRENINAE, (Andrena carbonaria (Linnaeus, 1767)). Examination of the type speci- men of Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 has shown this to be the species for which the name morio has been used by most authors, and in consequence of the misidentification the name Tiphia morio Fabricius falls as an subjective synonym of Andrena carbonaria (Linnaeus) (van Achterberg, 1983). 3. The name Ludita Nagy has rarely been used, because it is relatively recently published and literature on the TIPHIINAE of the Palaearctic region is very scarce. Accordingly there is minimal instability caused by changing the nominal type species of Ludita in order to preserve its original meaning. 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 for the nominal genus Ludita Nagy, 1967 and to designate Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ludita Nagy, 1967 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above, Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name villosa Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Tiphia villosa (specific name of the type species of Ludita Nagy, 1967). References Achterberg, C. van, 1983. Notes on the Fabrician types of Palaearctic Tiphiinae (Insecta, Hymenoptera Tiphiidae). Steenstrupia, 9(3): 73-74. Fabricius, J. C. 1793. Entomologia systematica . ... vol. 2. 519 pp. Hafniae. Nagy, C. 1967. Systematisches Studium der Tiphiidae Romaniens (Hym., Tiphiidae). Reichenbachia, 8, no. 24: 175—204. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Case 2608 Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum, Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. Wojciech J. Pulawski Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name triangulum Fabricius, 1775 in the sphecid wasp genus Philanthus by the suppression of the unused senior synonym Vespa ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767. The species is a predator of honeybees and often known as the ‘bee-wolf’. 1. Linnaeus (1767, p. 951) gave the name Vespa ruspatrix for a species found ‘in Africa’. The species remained, unidentified, in Vespa until Day (1979, p. 71) studied the holotype and found it to be identical with a well-known sphecid, Philanthus triangulum (Fabricius, 1775). Day commented that ‘workers with an interest in the taxonomy of the Sphecidae will doubtless wish to consider the advisability of seeking suppression of this name [ruspatrix] in view of the frequency of usage in biological texts of its junior synonym. P. triangulum (F.).’ 2. Only two subsequent authors have mentioned the specific name ruspatrix. Menke (1986, p. 21) noted Day’s (1979) report and quoted his comments on the synonymy, and Vikberg (1986, p. 78) used it as a valid name in his checklist of Finnish Aculeata. 3. Fabricius (1775, p. 373) described a new species Vespa triangulum and (1790, p. 224) transferred it to his genus Philanthus. Van der Vecht (1961, p. 61) studied the holotype of Vespa triangulum and confirmed that the name is at present interpreted correctly. 4. Philanthus triangulum is a widely distributed species, ranging from South Africa to northern Europe, east to Iran, Kazakh SSR and Turkmen SSR. This wasp uses honeybees exclusively as food for the larvae and is a serious apicultural pest in many areas. The name triangulum has been commonly used in faunal, taxonomic, api- cultural, and toxicological literature. Dalla Torre (1897, p. 491-493) lists 31 citations for the period 1790-1893 (he omitted no fewer than nine citations for that time), and I know of at least 128 uses by 67 authors between 1937-1987. A list of the 1937-1987 citations is held by the Commission Secretariat. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix, 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 triangulum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Vespa triangulum: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 35 (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgement I thank Arnold S. Menke and Vincent F. Lee for their comments on the manuscript. References Dalla Torre, C. G. de. 1897. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonynimicus, volumen VIII: Fossores (Sphegidae), 749 pp. Guilelmi Engelmann, Lipsiae. Day, M. C. 1979. The species of Hymenoptera described by Linnaeus in the genera Sphex, Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 12 (1): 45-84. Fabricius, I. Ch. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 1-32, |-832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae. Fabricius, I. Ch. 1790. Nova Insectorum genera. Skrifter af Naturhistorie Selskabet, 1 (1): 213-228. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae. 12 ed., vol. 1, pt. 2, 533-1327 pp. Laur. Salvii, Holmiae. Menke, A. S. 1986. Philanthus ruspatrix (L.). Sphecos, 12: 21. Vecht, J. van der, 1961. Hymenoptera Sphecoidea Fabriciana. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 48: 1-85. Vikberg, V. 1986. A checklist of aculeate Hymenoptera of Finland (Hymenoptera, Apocrita Aculeata). Notulae Entomologicae, 66 (2): 65-85. Note added in proof: A similar application has also been received from Dr R. T. Simon Thomas of the Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, afd. Entomologie, Plantage Middenlaan 64, 1018 DH Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Case 2598 Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) : proposed conservation Reeve M. Bailey Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, U.S.A. William N. Eschmeyer California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the buffalofish generic name Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820, by the suppression of the unused senior synonym Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819. 1. Rafinesque (1819, p. 421) proposed the genus Amblodon with two species from the Ohio River, A. bubalus (Rafinesque, 1818, p. 355) and the new A. niger, without type designation. Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 163) regarded Amblodon bubalus as type species of Amblodon, a view with which we concur. 2. Amblodon, as proposed, is complex (Jordan 1917, p. 110). Rafinesque (1819, p. 421) named it for the ‘Machoire inférieure pavée de dents osseuses serrées, arrondies, a couronne plate, inégales.” The remainder of his brief description applies to catosto- mid fishes, ‘different du genre Catostomus, known as ‘Buffaloe-fish.’ Soon thereafter Rafinesque himself (1820, p. 55) recognised the complexity. ‘I had called it Amblodon bubalus . .. . having been misled by the common mistake which ascribed to it the teeth of the Amblodon grunniens; but it is a real Catostomus, without any such teeth.’ Thus, he retained the name Amblodon, applying it to grunniens (op. cit., p. 24) in substitution for Aplodinotus. Subsequent workers, however, have customarily employed Aplodinotus grunniens for the freshwater drum, the grunting perch or bubbler of Rafinesque (1820). 3. Rafinesque (June 1820, p. ‘299’ [i.e. 301] in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine) proposed the subgenus Jctiorus [sic] (within Catostomus) for the species Catostomus bubalus Rafinesque (1818, p. 355), (previously mistakenly in the genus Amblodon), which he knew at first hand, and niger Rafinesque (1819, p. 421), known to him only from secondhand information received from Audubon (Rafinesque, 1820, p. 56). 4. In December 1820 parts of the three volumes of The Western Review were printed as Ichthyologia Ohiensis, and Ictiobus [sic], an intended correction for Jctiorus, appeared on p. 55 and p. 89 (index). Jctiobus is therefore an incorrect subsequent spelling, but it has been used without exception as the valid name of this genus and to revert to Jctiorus would not be in the interest of stability. The type species is bubalus by subsequent designation of Agassiz (1854, p. 354). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 37 5. The catostomid genus currently known as /ctiobus includes three or more species; the geographic range extends from the southern part of the Great Lakes to northern Guatemala. The species are relatively large, are often common, enter into commercial fisheries, especially in the Mississippi basin, and have been known, at least in part, under the name /ctiobus (or its unjustified emendation, Jchthyobus) since the time of Rafinesque. 6. Amblodon (1819) antedates Jctiobus (1820), and the respective type species of both nominal genera, Amblodon bubalus and Catostomus bubalus, apply to the same taxon. Strict application of the rules of nomenclature would necessitate replacement of the familiar Ictiobus by Amblodon, unused for over a century and founded on a complex. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Amblodon Rafinesque 1819, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the correct original spelling of the generic name J/ctiorus Rafinesque, 1820 is deemed to be Ictiobus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Jctiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation of Agassiz (1854) Catostomus bubalus Rafinesque, 1818; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bubalus Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Catostomus bubalus (specific name of the type species of Jctiobus Rafinesque, 1820); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (1) above. References Agassiz, L. 1854. Notice of a collection of fishes from the southern bend of the Tennessee River, in the State of Alabama. American Journal of Science and Arts, ser. 2, 17 (38): 353-369. Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalog. Pt. 1. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 47: 1—1240. Jordan, D. S. 1917. The genera of fishes, pt. 1, from Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758-1833. Leland Stanford Junior University Publication, University series, 27: 1-161. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818. Discoveries in Natural History, made during a journey through the Western Region of the United States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3 (3): 354-356. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux Genres d’Animaux deécouverts dans l’intérieur des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, durant l'année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, Paris. 88: 417—429. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Ichthylogia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the River Ohio and its tributary streams. Printed from December, 1819 to November, 1820 in volumes 1-3 of The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine [pertinent material in June, 1820, vol. 2 (5): pp. 299-307], assembled as a volume and issued together with supplement, corrections and additions, and index in November, 1820. 90 pp. Lexington, Kentucky]. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Case 2556 Hydrolycus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): confirmation proposée de Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 comme espéce-type J. Gery Argentonesse, 24220 Saint Cyprien, France V. Mahnert Muséum d Histoire naturelle, case postale 434, CH-1211, Genéve 6, Switzerland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of the nominal species Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 as the type-species of the characoid fish genus Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844, although the authors had misidentified their species. Sommaire. L’objet de cette demande est la confirmation de l’espéce nominale Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 comme espéce-type du genre des poissons characoides Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844, ceci bien que les auteurs aient mal identifié leur espéce. 1. Cuvier (1819, pp. 357-359, pl. 27, fig. 2) a propose le nom Hydrocyon scomberoides pour un poisson characoide récolté probablement dans l’ Amazone (type existant au Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, sous le numéro A.8659-81.87.2.3). 2. Robert Schomburgk (1841, pp. 249-250, pl. 25) a proposé le nom Hydrocyon armatus pour une espéce des fleuves de Guyana (ex Guyane britannique) récoltée par lui-méme, et dont le matériel typique n’a pas été déposé. 3. Miller & Troschel (1844, p. 93) ont établi le genre Hydrolycus, avec comme espéce-type par monotypie ‘Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier’. L’exemplaire étudié et illustré (1845, p. 19, pl. 4, fig. 2), a présent disparu, avait été récolté en Guyana par Richard Schomburgk. 4. Valenciennes (1849, en Cuvier & Valenciennes, pp. 324—329) donne une descrip- tion complémentaire de Cynodon scomberoides fondée sur cing exemplaires, dont deux, récoltés par R. Schomburgk (probablement Robert), provenaient de l’Essequibo (Guyana). 5. Giinther (1866, pp. 30-31) décrit, sous le nom de Cynodon pectoralis, une espéce de ’ Amazone ‘closely allied to C. scombroides’ [sic]. 6. La plupart des auteurs modernes, en particulier Campos (1945), Schultz (1950), Howes (1976) et Géry (1978), ont réservé le nom de pectoralis 4 ’espéce amazonienne. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 39 7. Geéry (1986) a demontré: (i) que l’espéce de la Guyana vue par Miller & Troschel est distincte de l’espéce amazonienne; (ii) que la description donnée par Valenciennes est fondée sur du matériel hétérogéne et quelle a induit plusieurs auteurs en erreur: par exemple Castelnau (1855), Kner (1860) et Giinther (1864): (iii) que Cynodon pectoralis Ginther est un synonyme subjectif plus récent de Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier; (iv) et que armatus Schomburgk serait le nom spécifique valide pour l’espéce de la Guyana confondue par Valenciennes et par Miller & Troschel avec Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier. 8. D’aprés les recherches modernes, une seule espéce du genre Hydrolycus, a savoir H. armatus (Schomburgk, 1841), semble exister en Guyana: il est donc évident que Miller & Troschel n’ont pu avoir sous les yeux le vrai Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 et que l’espéce-type de leur genre a été mal identifiée. 9. Lestatut taxonomique de ce genre est encore discuté. Plusieurs espéces ne sont pas encore nommées et seule l’espéce Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier peut actuellement étre déefinie par son spécimen-type. En conséquence, la Commission Internationale de la Nomenclature Zoologique est priée de: (1) confirmer lespéce nominale Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 (non Valenciennes, 1849 nec Miller & Troschel, 1844) comme espéce-type du genre Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844; (2) inscrire sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Génériques en Zoologie le nom Hydro- lycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (genre: masculin), espéce-type par monotypie et confirmée ci-dessus (1), Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819; (3) inscrire sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Spécifiques en Zoologie le nom scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, tel que publié dans le binodme Hydrocyon scomber- oides (nom spécifique de l’espéce-type de Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844). Références Campos, A. Amaral, 1945. Contribuigao ao conhecimento das especies brasileiras do genero Hydrocynus e afins. Archivos de Zoologia, Sao Paulo, 4 (12): 467—484. Castelnau, F. de, 1855. Animaux nouveaux ou recueillis pendant l’expédition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique du Sud, etc. Tome II. Poissons. xii+ 112 pp., 50 pls. Paris. Cuvier, G. 1819. Sur les Poissons du sous-genre Hydrocyon, sur deux nouvelles espéces de Chalceus, sur trois nouvelles espéces de Serrasalmes, et sur Argentina glossodonta de Forskahl, qui est l’Albula gonorhynchus de Bloch. Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 5: 351-379, pls. 26-28. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1849. Histoire naturelle des Poissons, vol. 22, 532 pp., 16 pls. Paris. Gery, J. 1978. Characoids of the World. 672 pp. T.F.H. Publishing, Neptune, N.J., U.S.A. Géry, J. 1986. Notes de Characologie néotropicale. 2. Progrés récents dans la connaissance des Cynodontinés (Characidés). Revue francaise d’Aquariologie, 13(3): 61-68. Giinther, A. 1864. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, (Fam. 2, Characinidae), vol. 5, pp. 278-380. Giinther, A. 1866. Remarks on some fishes from the River Amazon (coll. Bartlett) in the British Museum. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 3, 18: 30-31. Howes, G. J. 1976. The cranial musculature and taxonomy of characoid fishes of the tribes Cynodontini and Characini. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 29(4): 201-248. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Kner, R. 1860. Zur Familie der Characinen. III. Folge der ichthyologischen Beitrage. (II. Abt.). Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 18: 9-62, pls. 1-8. Miller, J. & Troschel, F. H. 1844. Synopsis generum et specierum familiae Characinorum (Prodromus descriptionis novorum generum et specierum). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 10(1): 81-99. Miller, J. & Troschel, F. H. 1845. Horae ichthyologicae. Beschreibung und Abbildung neuer Fische; erstes und zweites Heft. Die Familie der Characinen. 40 pp., 11 pls. Berlin. Schomburgk, R. H. 1841. The natural History of the Fishes of Guiana, Part I. The Naturalist’s Library, conducted by Sir William Jardine. Ichthyology, vol. 3, 263 pp., 32 pls. Edinburgh. Schultz, L. P. 1950. Review of thirteen genera of South American fishes in the subfamilies Cynodontinae, Hepsetinae and Characinae, with the description of a new Cyrtocharax. Studies honoring T. Kincaid, pp. 44-73. University of Washington, Seattle. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 41 Case 2621 Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific name Hans Hermann Schleich c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchhausenstr. 21, D-8000 Miinchen 60, West Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of the giant Cape Verde Gecko Tarentola gigas (Bocage, 1875), by the suppression of the unused and inappropriate senior subjective synonym T. borneensis Gray, 1845. 1. Bocage (1875, p. 108) gave a detailed description of Ascalobotes gigas from ‘YArchipel du Cap-Vert’. 2. Gray (1845, p. 165) described Tarentola borneensis from ‘Borneo’ but Joger (1984, p. 99) reviewed the type material from the British Museum (Natural History) and identified it as being from Branco (Cape Verde Islands). 3. The specific name borneensis Gray, 1845 has not been used (Schleich (1987, pp. 34-35)) except in synonymy by Loveridge (1947, p. 331) and Wermuth (1965, p. 179). 4. However, T. gigas (Bocage, 1875) has been in continuous use since its proposal (see Schleich (1987, p. 48) for a list of fifteen references). Usage of T. borneensis Gray, 1845 now would cause destabilisation, particularly as these geckos are endemic to the Cape Verde Islands off Africa, and not Borneo (Asia). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name borneensis Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Tarentola borneensis, 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 gigas Bocage, 1875, as published in the binomen Ascalabotes gigas; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name borneensis Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Tarentola borneensis and as suppressed in (1) above. References Bocage, J. V. B. du, 1875. Sur deux reptiles nouveaux de |’Archipel du Cap Vert. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, 5: 108-112. Gray, J. E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. 289 pp. Trustees of the British Museum, London. Joger, U. 1984. Die Radiation der Gattung Tarentolain Makronesien. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 71: 91-111. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Loveridge, A. 1947. Revision of the African lizards of the family GEKKONIDAE. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, 98: 1469. Schleich, H. H. 1987. Herpetofauna Caboverdiana. Spixiana, Supplement, 12: 1-75, Wermuth, H. 1965. GEKKONIDAE, PYGOPODIDAE, XANTUSIIDAE. Das Tierreich, 80: 1-246. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 43 Case 2605 Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii; Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation of the specific name L. C. Rookmaaker Dokter Guepinlaan 23, 4032 NH Ommeren, The Netherlands J. Meester Department of Biology, University of Natal, King George V Avenue, Durban 4001, R.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name brantsii A. Smith, 1834 for a small southern African rodent. The name is threatened by a senior subjective synonym, Arctomys vigil Thunberg, 1811, unused since its proposal. 1. Carl Peter Thunberg established the name Arctomys vigil (p. 308) in his important revision of South African mammals published in 1811. He referred to an animal occurr- ing in the Karroo, about the size of a rat, with a tail about one third of body length, with two rodent-like incisors, no canines and ‘many molars’ — obviously a reference to the laminae of the cheekteeth. The sloping burrow was open to the outside and the animal was frequently found sitting in front of it. Apart from tail length, which is closer to half body length, this description and particularly the habitat information leave no doubt that the animal referred to is that currently known as Parotomys brantsii (Smith, 1834). 2. Although not completely forgotten, Thunberg’s paper was rarely cited, even in the 19th century (Rookmaaker, in press). The name Arctomys vigil itself has never been used in primary zoological literature since its proposal. 3. Euryotis brantsii was established by A. Smith (1834, p. 150). It was described again later (Smith, 1840, pl. 24) with the addition of a coloured plate. 4. P. brantsii, otherwise known as Brants’ whistling rat, is a common animal in the western and northern Cape Province, south Namibia and south Botswana, and is regularly mentioned in the literature. The name brantsii A. Smith, either in the original binomen or in the currently recognised Parotomys brantsii, has been the only name consistently used. A list of references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name vigil Thunberg, 1811, as published in the binomen Arctomys vigil, 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 brantsii A. Smith, 1834, as published in the binomen Euryotis brantsii; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name vigil Thunberg, 1811, as published in the binomen Arctomys vigil and as suppressed in (1) above. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 References Rookmaaker, L. C. (in press) The taxonomic importance of C. P. Thunberg’s revision of South African mammals (1811). South African Journal of Science, (in press). Smith, A. 1834. African zoology. South African Quarterly Journal, 2: 145-160. Smith, A. 1840. J/lustrations of the zoology of South Africa... 51 pls. Smith Elder and Co. London. Thunberg, C. P. 1811. Mammalia Capensia, recensita et illustrata. Mémoires de |’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, 3: 299-323. ‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 45 Use versus priority: comments on a paper by P. F. S. Cornelius, with alternative proposals for the conservation of well-known names Pera Key Division of Entomology, CSIRO, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra 2601, Australia Abstract. The proposal of P. F. S. Cornelius (1987; Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature, 44: 79-85) would require changes to the Code which might delay its implemen- tation for years. His purposes could be largely achieved by streamlining the operation of Articles 23b & 79, with emphasis on direct conservation rather than on suppression. Conservation would be achieved by a ruling of the Commission that the name to be conserved is deemed to have precedence over a// senior synonyms and homonyms. The case presented by Cornelius (1987) in favour of the conservation of well-known names against the ‘relentless’ application of the unmoderated Principle of Priority is very impressive. So are his criticisms of the practical operation of Article 23b of the Code, with the heavy burden it places upon authors applying to the Commission for suppression of unused senior synonyms — and indeed upon the Commission itself. Abandonment of a currently used but junior name not only requires non—taxonomists (the principal users) to learn the ‘new’ name, but also to remember (or learn) that it refers to the same taxon cited in an extensive earlier literature under the ‘old’ name. The solution Cornelius offers involves the designation by the Commission of ‘Protected Works’, on the recommendation of specialist panels. It thus places the emphasis squarely on the direct conservation of widely used names, as distinct from the suppression of their unused senior synonyms. The implications of the proposal will need to be carefully worked out, since there are some evident problems. Not the least of these is that, whatever its ultimate form, it would call for significant modifications and additions to the Code and might well not be operative until the next edition some years hence. There is, however, an alternative procedure applicable within the present terms of the Code but with a less ritualistic use of Articles 23b & 79 than has been the practice. Certain features of these Articles do not seem to be generally appreciated: (1) Art. 23b states that ‘an author who considers that the application of the Principle of Priority would disturb stability or universality or cause confusion is fo [i.e. must, not may] maintain existing usage and refer the case to the Commission for a ruling’. (2) This positive instruction is, however, conditional upon the author ‘considering’ that stability or universality would be disturbed. It therefore gives him a wide subjective discretion which he may be tempted to rationalise. However, even if author A proceeds on the view that there would not be significant disturbance, a later author B may feel that there would. If B then applies to the Commission, Art. 79c(2)(i) requires that A’s use of the otherwise unused senior synonym be not accepted as usage. Thus an author who fails to act under Art. 23b has to face the prospect that his usage may be challenged and invalidated. (3) The conditions listed under Art. 79c as providing a prima facie case that stability is threatened do no more than that. The ‘guiding principles’ governing 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 suppression of senior names by the Commission are said in Art. 79b not to ‘limit its use of that power’ (i.e. the plenary power to suspend the application of the Code in a particular case): thus a name may be suppressed even though the prima facie conditions have not been met. (4) Finally, Art. 79a prescribes that the Commission may ‘conserve [my italics], totally, partially, or conditionally suppress, or make available any name. . .’. That is, the Code does not envisage conservation of a name as being necess- arily attainable only by the suppression of other names. This opens the way to some such scheme as that of Cornelius, but it also broadens the possibilities under the existing provisions of the Code. The goal should be to conserve the widely used name against the threat of little-used senior synonyms or homonyms: the means to this end are secondary. Moreover, it should not be regarded as a requirement (and is not, under the Code — see above) that a senior name should never have been used during the previous 50 years. Enormous amounts of time have been wasted in attempting to establish that a name has never been used in the primary literature over that period. What the Commission needs is evidence that a name has been in extensive and almost exclusive use for the taxon in question over a considerable period of years, especially in authoritative revisions and major textbooks. It would be ritualistic to be bound by precise figures for number of publi- cations, authors, and years: there should be sufficient flexibility to allow each case to be considered on its merits. Suppression of senior names is not necessary. Conservation can be achieved by a ruling under the plenary power that the name to be conserved is to have precedence over any senior synonym or homonym. Given that precedence, the status of chronologically senior names would come under the ordinary provisions of the Code as junior synonyms or homonyms. The above procedure would save an enormous amount of time and labour on the part of both the applicant and the Commission’s Secretariat. Further savings would result from an abandonment by the Commission of its ‘in house’ principle of “complete- ness of ruling’. This principle can lead to involved investigation of matters having no significant relation to the purposes of an application, and concerning which there may be no conflict. It is not an investigation that an applicant should be required to under- take, and can only delay the reaching of a decision by the Commission. I believe that if these procedural changes are adopted much freer use will be made of those provisions of the Code that promote the conservation of well known names, without the need for any change in its wording. Reference Cornelius, P. F. S. 1987. Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44(2): 79-85. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 47 Comment on the suggested introduction of ‘Protected Works’ (see BZN 44: 79-85) M. B. Best & B. W. Hoeksema Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Dr Cornelius’ suggestion to introduce ‘Protected Works’ for the sake of nomen- clatural stability at first view seems indeed a step forward in the direction of a taxonomy which is more accessible for biologists who are not systematists, especially for those working in countries where the older scientific literature is difficult to obtain. Of course the problem arises as to what criteria should be used in declaring a work ‘Protected’. Dr Cornelius offers some solutions for the case in which a potential ‘Protected Work’ is too regional (not covering complete distribution areas of all taxa dealt with), or in which not all taxa are treated thoroughly enough. Different kinds of supplements would have to be designated if the Protected Work is not adequately comprehensive. The nomenclature in such a work would also not be protected from the effect of subsequent taxonomic reassessments, as Cornelius has pointed out. Because of all these provisions the original aim, to provide a single accessible source of nomenclature, is not easily achieved. As an example of a possible Protected Work Dr Cornelius suggests the five volumes by J. E. N. Veron* et al., Scleractinia of eastern Australia (1976-1984, Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series, Canberra). Those working on Indo— Pacific coral reefs are familiar with this very detailed work and find it the most useful available. However, Veron ef al. certainly do not claim to have the last word about coral systematics. The taxonomic value of several species treated, or only mentioned, is left uncertain, and their studies are confined to the Great Barrier Reef. We agree with Cornelius that if works are proposed for ‘Protection’ the conditions should be very strict. We suggest that the work should be of revisionary character (including the mentioning of type specimens), and cover the whole geographical area in which the treated taxa are distributed. An exception can be made when a monograph has been made about an area separated by impenetrable natural boundaries for a long enough period to ensure (1) that species do not occur at both sides of the boundaries, and (2) that no confusion can arise in the identification of two species from both sides of the boundaries. If the work meets the criteria of all formal rules, nevertheless at least five scientists working in the field of the taxa covered should be consulted and give their support to the suggested ‘Protection’, and of course the proposal should be widely published in appropriate journals. *Erroneously printed as ‘Vernon’ in BZN 44: 84. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Comment on the introduction of the term ‘pragmatype’ and on the role of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (See BZN 44: 156-157) G. Hahn Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitats Lahnberge, 355 Marburg (Lahn), W. Germany I absolutely disagree with the introduction of ‘pragmatypes’ as proposed by Disney & Erzinclioglu. The door would be wide open for nomenclatural instability, at least in palaeontology. All palaeontological types are incomplete specimens; if anyone who found a better preserved specimen were to promote it to a ‘pragmatype’, very soon every specialist would have his own types. Therefore the proposal to introduce pragmatypes is a very bad one and should be rejected. Drs Disney and Erzinclioglu have apparently a completely wrong idea about the business of the ICZN. By authority of the International Congresses of Zoology the ICZN was instructed to elaborate rules of zoological nomenclature, not only advice. These rules should be followed by all zoologists as long as they are in use. If everybody were to interpret the rules in his own way, it would be better to stop the work of the Commission and save money! Pragmatypes and the role of the Commission: a reply to Dr P. K. Tubbs (See BZN 44: 156-157 and 158-159). R.H.L. Disney & Y. Z. Erzinclioglu University Department of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, U.K. We have read with interest Dr Tubbs’ reply to our article on the role of the ICZN. We would like to reply in turn. Regarding the comments of Dr Tubbs on our listing of various subterfuges, used by some taxonomists endeavouring to circumvent the problems posed by ‘nuisance’ type specimens, we would suggest that the adoption of the pragmatype concept would remove any temptation to practise such subterfuges. In responding to the other points raised by Dr Tubbs we will refer to his numbered paragraphs (BZN 44: 158-159): (1) We agree that the Commission is not empowered to prevent taxonomists from publishing the results of their work in the manner acceptable to themselves (and to editors of journals!). This view evidently contradicts that expressed in the same paragraph in which Dr Tubbs argues that any setting aside of earlier types ‘should be done not by an individual but only by the Commission . . .’ [our italics]. (2) Article 75(a) gives the generally accepted definition of a neotype (a type designated when the original is thought to be lost or destroyed). As previously pointed out (Disney, 1987), this definition is contradicted by Recommendation 75E. We remain convinced that the conceptual distinction between a neotype (sensu stricto) and a pragmatype is useful in practice. We regret that Dr Tubbs refrained from addressing this contention, but instead merely reiterated the provisions of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 49 Recommendation 75E—the very recommendation at issue. In the absence of a reasoned defence of 75E we will continue to assume there is no rational defence. As we read 75E it seems to us to be an example of the mutually contradictory parts of a Code which has made it a document that can be used, by selective quotation, to support any position (like the Pentateuch in the hands of a Creationist!). (3) Dr Tubbs expresses a fear that departure from the Code would open the flood- gates to chaos. We contend that rigid adherence to the Code is manifestly causing some degree of chaos. It certainly causes misunderstanding. Dr Tubbs denies that the Code includes ‘mandatory’ recommendations. However the word ‘mandatory’ is very much part of the Code (e.g. Articles 19(b) and 36(a)). We are also told the Code is a set of recommendations. The implication is that some of these are mandatory. It is certainly interpreted this way by experienced taxonomists (e.g. Pont, 1986). References Disney, R. H. L. 1987. Defending ‘pragmatypes’. Nature 328: 673. Pont, A. C. 1986. Type specimens in private collections: in defence of 72D. Antenna 10: 58. Comment on the proposed conservation of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida) (Case 2478; see BZN 44: 188-189) I. M. Kerzhner Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. I support M. S. Harvey’s proposal for the conservation of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762. I have already suggested this in my large paper on Geoffroy’s (1762) generic names sent to the Commission in October 1978 (Case 2292), but which has not yet been published. Two corrections not affecting the essence of Harvey’s proposal should be made. As Fabricius (1775, p. 400) under Scorpio cancroides refers to Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 in the 12th edition of Systema Naturae (where the species was placed in Phalangium) and in the 2nd edition of Fauna Svecica (‘Linn. Syst. Nat. II, 1028. 4. Fn. Sv. 1968’) it is clear that Scorpio cancroides is merely a new combination, not a new specific name established by Fabricius. Latreille (1810) cited many type species in combinations first used by Fabricius. In such cases he did not indicate the original authors of specific names, but simply gave Fabricius as the author of a combination; this practice was common in Latreille’s time. Hence the end of Proposal (2) on BZN 44: 189 should be ‘type species by subsequent designation of Latreille (1810) Scorpio cancroides (= Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758)’. The correct authorship and date for OBISIDAE is Sundevall (1833, p. 33, as ‘Obisides’); since it has not had general acceptance this family name is rejected under Art. 40b. Reference Sundeyall, C. J. 1833. Conspectus Arachnidum. 39 pp. C. F. Berling, Londini Goth. [= Lund.]. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Comments on the proposed suppression of Belemnites Lamarck, 1799, and the conservation of BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (Case 2571: see BZN 43: 355-359; 44: 48 and 194) (1) G. Hahn Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitats Lahnberg, 355 Marburg (Lahn), W. Germany In the present situation I do not support the suppression of Be/emnites. As the family name BELEMNITIDAE is widely used the suppression of the name-bearing genus Belemnites should be considered only if a real attempt has been made to select a neotype for its type species, and been proved to have failed. (2) M. K. Howarth Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), London, SW7 5BD, EK. I support the application by Doyle and Riegraf for suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799, and the specific name paxillosa Lamarck, 1801, as pub- lished in the binomen Belemnites paxillosa. Doyle & Riegraf (BZN 43: 356) have pointed out that the lectotype of the species (which is now lost) was both generically and specifically indeterminate, and a senior belemnite specialist has admitted (Jeletzky, 1966) that selection of another type specimen from amongst the syntypes would lead to the replacement of one of the best known Upper Cretaceous generic names by Belemnites. The alternative course, to select a Lower Jurassic specimen as neotype, would therefore be in conflict with the remaining syntypes, and would not lead to an interpretation of Belemnites paxillosa that would be widely accepted. The suppression of both names, as advocated by Doyle & Riegraf, is a better solution, and is the only way to achieve long-term stability. The second reason for the suppression of Be/emnites is to avoid a clash with the widespread vernacular use of the word. This is especially appropriate in this case, because, unlike some other conflicts between vernacular words and generic names, the spelling is exactly the same for both ‘belemnites’ and Belemnites, and leads to very similar pronunciations. The possibilities for confusion are very real, and are better avoided by suppression of the generic name Belemnites. I also support the proposals for conservation of the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE, which is widely used and understood. Reference Jeletzky, J. A. 1966. Comparative morphology, phylogeny and classification of Coleoidea. Paleontological Contributions, University of Kansas, Mollusca, Art. 7, 162pp. (3) T. I. Nal’nyaeva Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Novosibirsk—90, 630090, U.S.S.R. I support the application of Doyle & Riegraf to suppress the binomen Belemnites paxillosa. I have previously (Saks & Nal’nyaeva, 1970, pp. 68—69) discussed in some detail the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45( 1) March 1988 51 names Belemnites and Passaloteuthis, and reached the same conclusions as Doyle & Riegraf have more recently. In particular, | agree that it would not be possible to designate a type specimen of ‘Belemnites paxillosa’ that would not add to confusion, whereas Passaloteuthis bruguieranus (d’Orbi gny, 1843) has been widely accepted since the work of Lissajous in 1915. I do not support the use of Belemnites as a generic name, any more than I would the analogous names Ammonites, Trilobites and Graptolites. Reference Saks, V. N. & Nal’nyaeva, T. I. 1970. Earl ly and Middle Jurassic belemnites of the northern part of the U.S.S.R. 228 pp. Leningrad. [In Russian]. Comment on the proposed conservation of Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2563: see BZN 44: 21-22) M. G. Harasewych & R. E. Petit National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. We wish to express our opposition to Cernohorsky’s proposed conservation of the specific name floridanus Gabb, 1869, as this would require the use of the plenary powers to suppress the senior synonym Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865, a taxon that was validly proposed in a major malacological journal, was adequately illustrated, and for which a holotype exists and has always been available for study in a museum noted for its care and curation of type material. Vink (1985, p. 3) gives a history of the names involved, and makes it clear that previous misidentifications of Conus anabathrum Crosse stem from an initial misidentification by Smith (1884, p. 489), which was cited by Tomlin (1937, p. 211). Tomlin’s listing in a catalogue of species-level names of Conus, not intended to be a taxonomic revision, was blindly accepted by later workers. Evidently, the first recent workers to examine the holotype of Conus anabathrum were Coomans, Moolenbeek & Wils (1980, p. 34), who recognised this taxon as a senior synonym of Conus floridanus. Nomenclatural stability may be achieved by the strict application of the rule of priority or by the conserving of a ‘metastable’ species name, one used incorrectly but consistently for some period of time. With the increasing use of computerised data bases that can be cross-referenced, the need for fixing such metastable names for purposes of information retrieval will steadily diminish. The suppression of Conus anabathrum Crosse would, we feel, endorse the uncritical perpetuation of previously published taxonomic opinions, accurate or not, without reference to primary type material. Although recognition of Conus anabathrum will upset existing usage to some extent, the nomenclature of the genus Conus is so confused at this time that only major taxonomic revisions will achieve real stability. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 References Cernohorsky, W. O. 1987. Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44(1): 21-22. 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. Smith, E. A. 1884. Mollusca [in] Report on the Zoological Collections made in the Indo—Pacific Ocean during the voyage of H.M.S. ‘Alert’, pp. 487-508. 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. Hawaiian Shell News, 33: 3—4. Comments on the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington (Case 2531: see BZN 44: 116-121 and 257-261) (1) G. J. Ingram & J. Covacevich Queensland Museum, P.O. Box 300, South Brisbane, Queensland 4101, Australia We strongly support the case by the President of the Australian Society of Herpetologists for suppression of three works of Wells & Wellington for the purposes of nomenclature. As taxonomists who work on both amphibians and reptiles, we are perturbed by the number and kinds of changes proposed for these groups. We are also disturbed by the potential success of Wells & Wellington’s attempt to ‘overload the system’. Through these works the authors have the opportunity to transform taxonomists working on Australian amphibians and reptiles into nomenclatural drudges for many years. It appears that Wells & Wellington have challenged the foundations of nomenclature and, in so doing, set out to test the efficacy of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. We urge the Commission to suppress the works, to avoid two major problems we can foresee: (1) taxonomists will be forced to make nomenclatural decisions by examining many holotypes and lectotypes designated, but not seen, by Wells & Wellington. (2) the Bureau of Flora and Fauna, Canberra, intends the Zoological Catalogue of Australia to cover all the zoological groups. As each volume is produced, the groups covered will become vulnerable to the same nomenclatural catastrophes that may befall herpetology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 53 (2) Allan E. Greer The Australian Museum, 6-8 College St., Sydney, N.S.W. 2000, Australia 1. The application by the President of the Australian Society of Herpetologists to suppress three works (Wells & Wellington, 1984; 1985a,b) should be rejected for the following reasons. 2. Suppression of entire works is undesirable because it smacks of censorship and summarily discards good ideas with the bad. 3. Suppression of these particular works is unnecessary because any criticisms, including the ones prepared for the application for suppression, could have been pub- lished through normal channels, thus carrying on normal scientific debate and avoiding extraordinary precedents. 4. The degree of ‘destabilization’ caused by the three works is not as great as implied by the application. There are good ideas in the works, and people are using the names and ideas they consider useful both in publications and in collection management. For example, the only comprehensive field guide to Australian reptiles and amphibians (Cogger, 1986) uses Wells & Wellington names, as does the Australian Museum, the museum with the largest reptile and amphibian collection in the world. Other examples of recent usage of Wells & Wellington taxonomy are: Greer & Cogger, 1985; Shea & Peterson, 1985, and Tilley, 1984. 5. Under the current rules the three works are validly published and many of the names therein are available. If the rules are inadequate, they should be addressed, and not individual works thought by some to manifest the consequences of inadequate (but legal) rules. References Cogger, H. G. 1986. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Fourth Edition. 688 pp. Reed Books Pty Ltd., Frenchs Forest, N.S.W., Australia. Greer, A. E. & Cogger, H. G. 1985. Systematics of the reduced-limbed and limbless skinks currently assigned to the genus Anomalopus (Lacertilia: Scincidae). Record of the Australian Museum, Sydney, 37(1): 11—54. Shea, G. M. & Peterson, M. 1985. The Blue Mountains water skink, Sphenomorphus leuraensis (Lacertilia: Scincidae): a redescription, with notes on its natural history. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 108(2): 141-148. Tilley, S. J. 1984. Skeletal variation in the Australian Sphenomorphus group (Lacertilia: Scincidae ). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. (3) Jonathon Stone (Biological Sciences Secretary, Australian Academy of Science) Australian Academy of Science, GPO Box 783, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia I write to express the support of the Australian Academy of Science for the appli- cation by the Australian Society of Herpetologists for the suppression for nomen- clatural purposes of three works published in the Australian Journal of Herpetology. This case raises some very serious issues. I should perhaps make clear at the outset what the Academy is not advocating. First, controversy is a natural and proper part of science, and the Academy’s support is in no 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 sense a concern to limit controversy. Second, we do not support the ‘suppression’ of scientific observations, however unorthodox their source or the manner in which they are put forward. The empirical testing of new and old observations is the proper response of a scientific discipline to unsettling new claims. Finally, we are not particu- larly concerned to defend the ‘good name’ of Australian science. One or two ‘rogue papers’, if such they are, will detract little, if at all, from a reputation established by the institutes and universities of this country over many years. However, the intellectual liberty essential to science requires an open society based on substantial conventions. From time to time the conventions of intellectual liberty, like those of political liberty, need to be defended. Two conventions seem threatened by the papers whose nomenclatural suppression is proposed. The first is general to all sciences, in which it is an established convention that papers published in learned journals undergo substantive independent review. The first section of the case raises the possibility that the material whose nomenclatural suppression is sought has been falsely represented as having undergone that normal process of review. We urge close consideration of that claim; the conventions of independent review are essential to the intellectual rigour and freedom of science. The second convention at issue is more specific to the biological sciences. The existence of the Commission attests the importance of terminology in zoology. Terminology always involves classification, and classification goes to the fundamentals of any discipline. Zoologists and botanists have, for many decades, explored the prob- lems of classification more deeply than scientists in other fields. In zoology, perhaps more than in any other subject, it has been necessary to establish conventions of nomenclature which, on the one hand, allow the open development of new ideas, and, on the other, provide sufficient stability to allow discourse within the field. As a conse- quence, zoologists have laid the intellectual foundations of biological classification, and among those foundations are a range of broadly accepted conventions. The later sections of the case present strong evidence of a substantial flouting of these conven- tions. Of particular concern is the detailed evidence of massive changes to classification and terminology made without proper supporting observations. At some point the requirement of science for an empirical basis to new claims must be stated. The Academy understands the case proposed by the Australian Society of Herpetologists to be a plea for the suppression of a nomenclature because it lacks an adequate empirical base and because, without nomenclatural suppression, there is an obligation on other scientists to use the terminology. If the Commission takes no action with respect to the nomenclature proposed in these publications other scientists may of course choose to ignore that obligation. If they so choose, then another convention is destroyed. The Academy asks the Commission to give the Society’s plea its earnest consideration. (4) Support for the application (BZN 43: 116-121) has also been received from Dr H. Heatwole (University of New England, Armidale, Australia), Dr K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia), and Dr Alan Yen (Museum of a Abbotsford, Australia). Editorial note: other comments on this case will be reported in the next issue of the Bulletin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 55 Comment on the proposed designation of Ty/enchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as the type species of Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda) (Case 2582: see BZN 44: 23-24) (1) R. Fortuner California Department of Food and Agriculture, Nematology Laboratory, Sacramento, California 95814, U.S.A. A. R. Maggenti Department of Nematology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A. P. A.A. Loof Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, The Netherlands As stated in the application, the description by Andrassy (1954), when proposing the generic name Filenchus, of the type species ‘Tylenchus filiformis Butschli, 1873’ is quite different from Bitschli’s sparse description of his filiformis (see Raski & Geraert, 1987, pp. 265-266). Andrassy’s neotype designation is in any case not valid. None of his specimens exist, and we therefore support the application to designate Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as type species. Reference Raski, D. J. & Geraert, J. 1987. Review of the genus Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 and description of six new species (Nemata: Tylenchidae). Nematologica, 32: 265-311. (2) M. R. Siddiqi & D. J. Hunt C.A.B. International Institute of Parasitology, 395a Hatfield Road, St. Albans, U.K. The name Tylenchus filiformis Bitschli, 1873 has been widely used for over a century. It is true that Bitschli’s description was inadequate by modern standards, but Andrassy’s (1954) is good and taxonomically defines his nominal genus Filenchus. All are agreed on this, and we consider that nomenclatural stability is best served by invoking Art. 70(a): ‘If an author. . . designates an already established nominal species of anew genus. . . itis to be assumed that the author has identified the species correctly’. T. vulgaris Brzeski is a little known name and should be regarded as a junior subjec- tive synonym, as done in a recent textbook (Siddiqi, 1986). Use of Art. 70a stabilizes not only Filenchus but also the established specific name filiformis; we are therefore opposed to the application by Brzeski et a/. and consider that the nominal type species of Filenchus should remain T. filiformis, as originally designated by Andrassy. Reference Siddiqi, M. R. 1986. Tylenchida. Parasites of Plants and Insects. 645 pp. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, U.K. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1464 Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 (currently Pararotalia calcar; Protista, Foraminiferida): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name ste/lata de Férussac, 1827, as published in the binomen Calcarina stellata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name calcar d’Orbigny, 1839, as published in the binomen Calcarina calcar, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name stellata de Férussac, 1827, as published in the binomen Calcarina stellata and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2344 An application for the conservation of Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 was first received from Dr H. J. Hansen (Geologisk Centralinstitut, Copenhagen, Denmark) on 30 April 1980. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 181—182 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to eleven journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 181. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Bernardi, Dupuis, Thompson. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Bernardi thought it unnecessary to suppress Calcarina stellata, as it was of no econ- omic or medical importance. Thompson considered that the published application did not meet the requirements of Art. 79c. Dupuis considered that the best solution would have been to conserve calcar d’Orbigny from 1826, the date of listing the name and the exhibition of a plaster model, but not of a written description. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: calcar, Calcarina, d’Orbigny, 1839, in de la Sagra, R., Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de I’Ile de Cuba, p. 81. stellata, Calcarina, de Férussac, 1827, Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie, 10: 182. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 57 OPINION 1465 Laomedea gracilis Sars, 1850 (currently Clytia gracilis; Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name gracilis Dana, 1846, as published in the binomen Lomodea (err. pro Laomedea) gracilis, and all uses of that name prior to its publication by Sars (1850) are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) Under the plenary powers the names pileata, thompsoni, punctata and sarnica Forbes, 1841, and the names /ineata and inconspicua Forbes, 1848, all as combined with the genericname Thaumantias Eschscholtz, 1829, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (3) The name gracilis Sars, 1850, as published in the binomen Laomedea gracilis and as interpreted by the lectotype designated in BZN 43: 165, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name gracilis Dana, 1846, as published in the binomen Lomodea (err. pro Laomedea) gracilis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (5) The names pileata, thompsoni, punctata and sarnica Forbes, 1841, and the names /ineata and inconspicua Forbes, 1848, all as combined with the generic name Thaumantias Eschscholtz, 1829 and as suppressed in (2) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific names in Zoology. History of Case 2493 An application for the conservation of Laomedea gracilis Sars, 1850 was received from Dr P. F. S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr C. Ostman (Zoologiska Institutionen, Uppsala, Sweden) on 19 September 1984. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 43: 163-169 (July 1986) under the title On the names of two species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) common in western Europe. Notice of the case was given to ten general and eleven specialist serials. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals in BZN 43: 166-167 (in proposal 1(b) ‘conspicua’ should read ‘inconspicua’). At the close of the voting period on | December 1987 the votes were: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Cogger, Dupuis, Thompson. ° Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Dupuis voted against the proposals owing to taxonomic doubts. Cogger considered that suppressing six specific names of indeterminate taxa, albeit to protect a moderately well-used name, was an unacceptable use of nomenclatural procedures to resolve or 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 avoid future taxonomic problems. Thompson considered para. 12 of the case to be irrelevant as Art. 79c does not refer to homonyms, and he saw no need to suppress the Forbes names until they are shown to be senior synonyms of names in use. His main objection was that the replacement of junior primary homonyms was an important matter of principle which should not be set aside in this instance. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling in the present Opinion: gracilis, Laomedea, Sars, 1850, Nytt Magasin for Naturvidenskapene, Christiania, 9: 138. gracilis, Lomodea, Dana, 1846, United States Exploring Expedition. .. under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 7 (Zoophytes), p. 689. pileata and thompsoni, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1841, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1), 7: 84. punctata and sarnica, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1841, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1), 7: 85. lineata, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1848, A monograph of the British naked-eyed medusae: with figures of all the species, p. 48. inconspicua, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1848, A monograph of the British naked-eyed medusae: with figures of all the species, p. 52. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 59 OPINION 1466 Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, 1819, T. catulloi Pictet, 1867 and T. janitor Pictet, 1867 (Brachiopoda, Articulata): specific names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) pileus Bruguiere, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula pileus; (b) antinomia Catullo, 1827, as published in the binomen Terebratula antinomia; (c) duvallii Newman, 1844, as published in the binomen Terebratula duvallii; (d) triquetrus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binomen Terebratulites triquetrus. (2) Under the plenary powers the specific name cor Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula cor, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) triangulus Valenciennes, 1819, as published in the binomen Terebratula triangulus; (b) catulloi Pictet, 1867, as published in the binomen Terebratula catulloi; (c) janitor Pictet, 1867, as published in the binomen Terebratula janitor. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) above: (a) pileus Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula pileus; (b) antinomia Catullo, 1827, as published in the binomen Terebratula antinomia; (c) duvallii Newman, 1844, as published in the binomen Terebratula duvallii; (d) triquetrus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binomen Terebratulites triquetrus. (5) The name cor Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Terebratula cor, and as suppressed in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (6) The name dilatata Catullo, 1851, as published in the binomen Antinomia dilatata, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, having been replaced by Pictet (1867) when a junior secondary homonym of Terebratula dilatata Lamarck, 1819. History of Case 2300 An application for the conservation of four brachiopod specific names was received from Dr F. A. Middlemiss (Queen Mary College, University of London) on 17 April 1979. An amended application was published in BZN 41: 267-273 (November 1984), and notice of it was sent to ten journals. In August 1987 the Executive Secretary and Dr Middlemiss agreed that proposals (a) (111) and (b) on BZN 41: 270-271 might be simplified by suppression of the names triquetrus, antinomia and duvallii, instead of giving their apparent junior synonyms precedence whenever the synonymy was accepted. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to choose between three proposals: Proposal A. (1) (a) The suppression, except for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy, of the specific names pileus Bruguiére, 1792; antinomia Catullo, 1827; duvallii Newman, 1844; and triquetrus Parkinson, 1811; (b) the suppression for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and of Homonymy of the specific name cor Bruguiere, 1792; (2) the placing of the specific name dilatata Catullo, 1851 (cf. paragraph 9 on BZN 41: 269) on the Official Index, as a junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961; (3) the suppression, except for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy, of the specific name de/toidea Valenciennes, 1819. [These actions conserve the four names suggested by Dr Middlemiss: triangulus, catulloi, janitor, and also diphya von Buch, 1834]. Proposal B. Proposals A(1) and (2) as above, but instead of (3) the placing of deltoidea Valenciennes, 1819 (a senior subjective synonym of diphya von Buch, 1834) on the Official List. Proposal C. The holding of a vote on the original proposals (BZN 41: 270-271). At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: For proposal A-11: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink For proposal B-3: Alvarado, Gruchy, Lehtinen For proposal C5: Cogger, Hahn, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Thompson. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Halvorsen, Savage and Starobogatov. Dupuis commented that names should be voted upon individually. Holthuis con- sidered that, after appropriate lectotype selections, the oldest names should be used in each case. Cogger, Hahn and Thompson favoured the ‘relative precedence’ procedure because subjective synonymies were involved. The combined 14 votes for proposals A and B authorize the present ruling of the Commission. However, the ruling leaves unsettled the positions of the names Terebratula deltoidea Valenciennes, 1819 and T. diphya von Buch, 1834 (cf. BZN 41: 268), and the Commission will further consider these. 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: antinomia, Terebratula, Catullo, 1827, Saggio di Zoologia Fossile, Padua, p. 169, pl. 5, figs. p, r,s, t. catulloi, Terebratula, Pictet, 1867, Mélanges Paléontologiques, vol. 1(3), p 202. cor, Terebratula, Bruguiére, 1792, Choix des mémoires .. . formant les collections du Journal d Histoire naturelle, vol. 1, p. 425. dilatata, Antinomia, Catullo, 1851, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, p. 75, fig. 4. duvallii, Terebratula, Newman, 1844, Zoologist, 2: 279. janitor, Terebratula, Pictet, 1867, Mélanges Paléontologiques, vol. 1(3), p. 161. pileus, Terebratula, Bruguiére, 1792, Choix des mémoires. . . formant les collections du Journal d Histoire naturelle, vol. 1, p. 424. triangulus, Terebratula, Valenciennes, 1819, In Lamarck, Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, vol. 6, p. 250. triquetrus, Terebratulites, Parkinson, 1811, Organic Remains of a Former World, vol. 3, p. 229, pl. 16. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 61 OPINION 1467 Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (Brachiopoda): suppressed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic names Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795, and their emendations Cryopus Deshayes, 1836 and Criopododerma Agassiz, 1848, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The names Criopus Poli, 1791, Cryopus Deshayes, 1836, Criopoderma Poli, 1795 and Criopododerma Agassiz, 1848, as suppressed in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2546 An application for the suppression of Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 was received from Dr C. H. C. Brunton (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr D. E. Lee (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) on 13 December 1985. The case was published in BZN 43: 213-214, and notice of it was sent to ten general and four specialist journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals in BZN 43: 214. At the close of the voting period on | December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. Holthuis abstained. No votes were received from Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. Holthuis and Thompson said that by appropriate type species designations Criopus and Criopoderma could become junior objective synonyms of Crania Retzius, 1781 (type species Anomia craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758), and no action by the Commission would be necessary. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Criopus Poli, J. X. 1791. Testacea utriusque Siciliae eorumque historia et anatome. Vol. 1, p. 34. Parma. Cryopus Deshayes, G. P. 1836. In Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de, Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans vertébres,... 2 iéme ed., revue et augmentée de notes.... par MM. G. P. Deshayes et H. Milne Edwards. Tom. 7, p. 314. Paris et Londres. Criopoderma Poli, J. X. 1795. Testacea utriusque Siciliae eorumque historia et anatome. Vol. 2, p. 255. Parma. Criopododerma Agassiz, L. 1848. Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis,... p. 301, Soloduri. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1468 Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata): suppressed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) above. History of Case 2545 An application for the suppression of the generic name Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 was received on 13 December 1985 from Dr C. H. C. Brunton (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr D. E. Lee (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) and was published in BZN 43: 210-212 (July 1986). Notice of the case was sent to ten general and four specialist journals. The new nominal genus with Patella anomala Miller, 1776 as type species mentioned in BZN 43: 210 (para. 1) is Neocrania Lee & Brunton, 1986 (Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), (Geology), 40(4): 141-160). Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals in BZN 43: 211-212. At the close of the voting period on | December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—15: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes —7: Cogger, Hahn, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Savage, Thompson. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Cogger, Hahn, Holthuis, Savage and Thompson commented that as Orbicula had so long been disused its reintroduction as a valid generic name, with Patella anomala Miiller, 1776 as type species, would cause no more confusion than the introduction ofa new objective synonym, i.e. Neocrania Lee & Brunton, 1986. In reply Dr Brunton drew attention to paras. 4-9 of the application, which meritioned the fact that Orbicula had for long been associated with discinid rather than craniid brachiopods, so causing confusion. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Orbicula Cuvier, 1798, Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux, p. 435. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 63 OPINION 1469 Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the names Craniolites and brattenburgicus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Craniolites brattenburgicus, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name tuberculata Nilsson, 1826, as published in the binomen Crania tuberculata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name Craniolites Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Craniolites brattenburgicus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (4) The name brattenburgicus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Craniolites brattenburgicus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2551 An application for the conservation of Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 was received from Dr C. H. C. Brunton (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr D. E. Lee (University of Otago, New Zealand) on 13 December 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 215-217 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and four specialist journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 216. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. Holthuis abstained. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. Thompson considered that the case as published had not formally met the require- ments of Art. 79c. Holthuis abstained because he did not consider the case clear enough; he pointed out that if brattenburgicus were ruled to be an incorrect spelling of brattensburgensis Retzius, 1781 then Craniolites would fall as a junior subjective synonym of Crania. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: tuberculata, Crania, Nilsson, 1826, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 1825: 326. Craniolites Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte, 1: 246. brattenburgicus, Craniolites, Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte, 1: 246. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1470 SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913, MACLURITIDAE Carpenter, 1861 and EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda, Archaeogastropoda): 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) Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897; (b) Schizostoma Bronn, [1834]. (2) Under the plenary powers the correct spelling of Maclurite Lesueur, 1818 is hereby ruled to be Maclurites. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Sinuites Koken, 1896 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Bassler (1915) Bellerophon bilobatus Sowerby, 1839; (b) Maclurites Lesueur, 1818 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by de Koninck (1881) Maclurites magna Lesueur, 1818; (c) Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Meek & Worthen (1866) Evomphalus pentangulatus Sowerby, 1814. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bilobatus Sowerby, 1839, as published in the binomen Bellerophon bilobatus, (specific name of the type species of Sinuites Koken, 1896); (b) magna Lesueur, 1818, as published in the binomen Maclurites magna, (specific name of the type species of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818); (c) pentangulatus Sowerby, 1814, as published in the binomen Evomphalus pentan- gulatus, (specific name of the type species of Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814). (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913 (type genus Sinuites Koken, 1896); (b) MACLURITIDAE (correction of MACLUREADAE) Carpenter, 1861 (type genus Maclurites Lesueur, 1818); (c) EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (type genus Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814). (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above; (b) Schizostoma Bronn, [1834], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above; (c) Maclurite Lesueur, 1818 (ruled in (2) above to be an incorrect spelling of Maclurites); (d) Maclurita Blainville, 1823 (an unjustified emendation of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818); (e) Maclurea Emmons, 1842 (an unjustified emendation of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 65 (7) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 (invalid because the name of the type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above); (b) SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 (invalid because the name of the type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above). History of Case 1212 An application was originally submitted to the Commission in March 1957. It was published in BZN 18: 337-339 (November 1961) and presented to the Commission for voting on 3 October 1962. A comment by Dr L. B. Holthuis pointed out that it was impossible to suppress a family-group name unless the generic name on which it was based, i.e. that of its type genus, was also suppressed. As a consequence of this comment an Opinion was never published and the case lapsed. Recently the case was resurrected and analysed by the Secretariat. Of the original proposals, one, that concerning the conservation of ORIOSTOMATIDAE Wenz, 1938 by suppression of HORIOSTOMATIDAE Koken, 1897, was found to have an automatic solution under Art. 35(d) of the Code in that HORIOSTOMATIDAE, based on the unjusti- fied emendation Horiostoma Fischer, 1885 is corrected to ORIOSTOMATIDAE Koken, 1897. After correspondence with one of the original authors (Dr Ellis Yochelson, U.S. Geological Survey, USDI, U.S. National Museum, Washington, U.S.A.) the case was published in BZN 43: 199-204 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and five specialist journals. Some comments were received from Dr L. B. Holthuis, as a result of which, and of other considerations, the proposals in BZN 43: 201—202 were slightly modified, although their substance was not changed. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 201—202 as modified. At the close of the voting period on | December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Heppell. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Sinuites Koken, 1896, Die Leitfossilien, p. 393. Maclurites Lesueur, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(2): 312. Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814, The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, vol. 1, no. 9, p. 97. bilobatus, Bellerophon, Sowerby, 1839, in Murchison, R. I. The Silurian System, founded on geological researches. . ., p. 643. magna, Maclurites, Lesueur, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(2): 312. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 pentangulatus, Euomphalus, Sowerby, 1814, The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, vol. 1, no. She SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913, in Eastman, C. R. & Zittel, K. A. von, Textbook of Palaeontology, 2nd ed., vol. 1, p. 521. MACLURITIDAE Carpenter, 1861, Annual Reports of the Smithsonian Institution, 1861: 216. EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881, Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Annales &c (Série Paléontologique ), 6: 106. Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897, Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota (Final Report) 3(2): 848. Schizostoma Bronn, [1834], Lethea Geognostica oder Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der fiir die Gibergs—Formationen bezeichnendsten Versteinerungen, vol. 1, p. 95. Maclurite Lesueur, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(2): 312. Maclurita Blainville, 1823, Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles, vol. 27, p. 519. Maclurea Emmons, 1842, Geology of New York, part 2, p. 312. PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897, Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, (Final Report) 3(2): p. 847. SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871, Geognostica-paldentologische Bemerkungen, tiber die Halbinsel Mangischlak und die Aleutischen Inseln, p. 119. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 67 OPINION 1471 Aplysia (originally Laplysia) viridis Montagu, 1804 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the name Laplisia Lamarck, 1801 is hereby declared to be an incorrect sub- sequent spelling of Lap/ysia Linnaeus, 1767 (emended to Aplysia in Opinion 200); (b) the name viridis Bosc, 1801, as published in the binomen Laplisia viridis, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Lap/ysia viridis Montagu, 1804, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name viridis Montagu, 1804, as published in the binomen Lap/lysia (emended to Aplysia in Opinion 200) viridis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name Laplisia Lamarck, 1801, ruled under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above to be an incorrect subsequent spelling of Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 (emended to Aplysia in Opinion 200), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (4) The name viridis Bosc, 1801, as suppressed in (1b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2408 An application for the conservation of Laplysia viridis Montagu, 1804, was received from Dr P. Bouchet (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) on 9 March 1982. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 43: 205-209 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and five specialist journals. A favourable comment was received from Dr R. Giannuzzi-Savelli (Palermo, Italy). Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in BZN 43: 207. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—21: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Original references The following are the original references to names placed on an Official List and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: viridis, Laplysia, Montagu, 1804, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 7: 76. viridis, Laplisia, Bosc, 1801, Histoire naturelle des Vers, contenant leur description et leurs moeurs; avec figures d’aprés nature, tome 1, p. 64. Laplisia Lamarck, 1801, Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, p. 62. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 69 OPINION 1472 Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Melanochroa Broun, 1882, and all uses of this name prior to the publication of Melanochroa Roeder, 1886, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Cyclomorpha politula Broun, 1881; (b) Melanochroa Roeder, 1886 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Melanochroa dubia Roeder, 1886. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) politula Broun, 1881, as published in the binomen Cyclomorpha politula (name of the type species of Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893); (b) dubia Roeder, 1886 as published in the binomen Melanochroa dubia (name of the type species of Melanochroa Roeder, 1886). (4) The name Melanochroa Broun, 1882, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2511 An application for the conservation of Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 was received from Dr J.C. Watt (DSIR, Auckland, New Zealand) and Dr R. A. Crowson (The University, Glasgow, U.K.) on 25 March 1985. The case was published in BZN 43: 196-198 (July 1986), and notice of it was sent to ten general and nine entomological journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 197, with the following additions: (a) Under proposal (2), the generic name Melanochroa Roeder, 1886 to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (b) Under proposal (3), the specific name dubia Roeder, 1886 to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. At the close of the voting period on | December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 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: Cyclaxyra Broun, T. 1893. Manual of New Zealand Coleoptera, Part V. New Zealand Institute, Wellington, p. 1076. Melanochroa Broun, T. 1882. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 5, 9: 409. Melanochroa Roeder, V. von, 1886. Entomologische Nachrichten, 12(1), no. 9, p. 139. Berlin. politula, Cyclomorpha, Broun, T. 1881. Manual of New Zealand Coleoptera. Part II. Colonial Museum and Geological Survey Department, Wellington, p. 668. dubia, Melanochroa, Roeder, V. von, 1886. Entomologische Nachrichten, 12(1), no. 9, p. 140. Berlin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 71 OPINION 1473 Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name /sarthron Dejean, 1835 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by Thompson (1864) Tetropium cinnamopterum Kirby, 1837, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name cinnamopterum Kirby, 1837, as published in the binomen Tetropium cinnamopterum (specific name of the type species of Tetropium Kirby, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Jsarthron Dejean, 1835, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (5) The name Criomorphus Mulsant, 1839 (a junior homonym of Criomorphus Curtis, 1829 (Insecta, Hemiptera) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2534 An application for the conservation of Tetropium Kirby, 1837 was received from Dr M. Mroczkowski (/nstytut Zoologii Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw, Poland) on 23 September 1985. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 43: 188-190 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and nine entomological journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr P. Svacha (Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague). Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 188, with proposal (1) amended to read *... to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name /sarthron Dejean, 1835 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy’, and an additional proposal (5) reading *... to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Criomorphus Mulsant, 1839 (a junior homonym of Criomorphus Curtis, 1829)’. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Dupuis considered that Criomorphus was a separate question and abstained from voting on the additional proposal (5) mentioned above. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 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: Tetropium Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, Sir J. (Ed.), Fauna Boreali- Americana, part 4, p. 174. cinnamopterum, Tetropium, Kirby, 1837 in Richardson, Sir J. (Ed.), Fauna Boreali-Americana, part 4, p. 174. Isarthron Dejean, 1835, Catalogue des Coléoptéres dans la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, pys2Z9: Criomorphus Mulsant, 1839, Histoire Naturelle des Coléopteres de France, part 1, p. 58. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 73 OPINION 1474 Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Brius 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 Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Curculio mercurialis Fabricius, 1801, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name mercurialis Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Curculio mercurialis (specific name of the type species of Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Brius Dejean, 1821, suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2537 An application by Dr H. Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsinki) for the conservation of Tropiphorus Schénherr, 1842 by the suppression of its senior but unused objective synonym Brius Dejean, 1821 was received on 28 October 1985. The case was published in BZN 43: 186-187 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and nine entomological journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 186. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Kabata, Thompson. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Kabata and Thompson considered that the case in the published application for setting aside the Principle of Priority was insufficiently strong. 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: Brius Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection des Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean. Paris, p. 92. Tropiphorus Schénherr, 1842, Synonymia Insectorum. Genera et Species Curculionidum, p. 257. mercurialis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum. . . vol. 2, p. 530. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1475 Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Diptera): Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Dexia Meigen, 1826 are set aside and Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775 is designated as the type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dexia Meigen, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above, Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775: (b) Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Musca volvulus Fabricius, 1794. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) rustica Fabricius, 1775 as published in the binomen Musca rustica (specific name of the type species of Dexia Meigen, 1826); (b) volvulus Fabricius, 1794 as published in the binomen Musca volvulus (specific name of the type species of Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830). (4) The following name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Dexilla Westwood, 1840 (a junior objective synonym of Dexia Meigen, 1826). History of Case 2252 An application for the designation of Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775 as type species for Dexia Meigen, 1826 was first received from Drs R. W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), London), B. Herting (Naturkundemuseum, Stuttgart, West Germany), L. P. Mesnil (now deceased) and D. M. Wood (Biosystematics Research Institut, Ottawa, Canada) on 27 February 1978. An amended version was published in BZN 43: 282-287 (October 1986), and notice of the case was sent to twelve general and eleven entomological journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 285. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — |: Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 75 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: Dexia Meigen, 1826. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweiflugeligen Insekten, vol. 5, p. 33. rustica, Musca, Fabricius, 1775. Systema entomologiae. . , p. 777. volvulus, Musca, Fabricius, 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. .. ., vol. 4, p. 328. Phyllomya, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. Mémoires présentés par divers Savants a |' Académie Royal des Sciences de I’Institut de France, 2: 213. Dexilla, Westwood, 1840. Synopsis of the genera of the British Insects, p. 140. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1476 Agromyza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera): Agromyza reptans Fallen, 1823 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nom- inal genus Agromyza Fallén, 1810 are hereby set aside and Agromyza reptans Fallén, 1823 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation in (1) above, Agromyza reptans Fallén, 1823, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name reptans Fallen, 1823, as published in the binomen Agromyza reptans and as defined by the lectotype designated by Nowakowski (1944), (specific name of the type species of Agromyza Fallen, 1810) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2395 An application for the designation of Agromyza reptans Fallen, 1823 as the type species of Agromyza Fallén, 1810 was received from Dr K. A. Spencer (Exwell Farm, Callington, Cornwall, U.K.) and Dr G. C. Steyskal (U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington) on 26 October 1981. The case was published in BZN 43: 183—185 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and ten entomological journals. After publication the authors became aware that in 1848 J. W. Zetterstedt (Diptera Scandinavica, 7: 2730) had designated A. reptans and two other species as “typi generis’ of Agromyza; even though the latter species have long been excluded from Agromyza this is not a valid designation of type species. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 184. At the end of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen 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: Agromyza Fallen, 1810, Specimen entomologiae novam Diptera. ..p.21. reptans, Agromyza, Fallén, 1823, Diptera Sveciae. .. vol. 2, Agromyzides, p. 1. The reference for the designation of a lectotype for A. reptans is: Nowakowski, J. T. 1964. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 11: 188. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 77 OPINION 1477 Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Napomyza Curtis, 1837 and all uses of this name prior to the publication of Napomyza Westwood, 1840, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phytomyza festiva Meigen, 1830 (= Phytomyza elegans Meigen, 1830 by the first reviser action of Hendel (1920)), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name elegans Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Phytomyza elegans (valid name at the date of this ruling for the type species of Napomyza Westwood, 1840), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Napomyza Curtis, 1837 as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2495 An application for the conservation of Napomyza Westwood, 1840 was received from Dr G. C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, c/o U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.) and Dr K. A. Spencer (Exwell Farm, Callington, Cornwall, U.K.) on 26 October 1981. On 1 October 1984 a similar appli- cation was received from Dr G. C. D. Griffiths (Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Canada). A joint application was published in BZN 43: 170-172 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to ten general and ten specialist journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 171. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. 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: Napomyza Westwood, 1840, An introduction to the modern classification of insects. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, p. 152. elegans, Phytomyza, Meigen, 1830, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweiflugeligen Insekten, vol. 6, p. 148. Napomyza Curtis, 1837, A guide to an arrangement of British Insects; being a catalogue of all the named species hitherto discovered in Great Britain and Ireland, p. 282. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1478 Lycaena mirza Plotz, 1880 (currently Azanus mirza; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name mirza Staudinger, 1874, as published in the binomen Lycaena mirza, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name mirza Plotz, 1880, as published in the binomen Lycaena mirza, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) mirza Staudinger, 1874, as published in the binomen Lycaena mirza; (b) mirzaellus Kogak, 1980, as published in the binomen Azanus mirzaellus, a junior objective synonym of mirza Plotz, 1880. History of Case 2426 An application for the conservation of Lycaena mirza Plotz, 1880 by the suppression of the unused senior homonym Lycaena mirza Staudinger, 1874 was received from Dr T. B. Larsen (Kastrup, Denmark) on 30 September 1982. The case was pub- lished in BZN 43: 342-343 (December 1986), and notice of it was given to eleven general and nine entomological journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 342. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno Negative votes — 3: Bernardi, Holthuis, Thompson. No votes were returned by Halvorsen, Starobogatov and Willink. Ride was on leave of absence. Thompson objected on principle to the conservation of a junior primary homonym. Bernardi and Holthuis considered the Principle of Priority shouid apply: as the species was of no particular importance, the replacement of mirza Plotz by mirzaellus Kocgak was justified. 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: mirza, Lycaena, Plotz, 1880, Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 41: 203. mirza, Lycaena, Staudinger, 1874, Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 35: 90. mirzaellus, Azanus, Kogak, 1980, Nota Lepidopterologica, 2: 141. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 79 OPINION 1479 Antispila Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Antispila stadtmuellerella Hiibner, [1825] designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nom- inal genus Antispila Hubner, [1825] are hereby set aside and Antispila stadtmuellerella Hubner, [1825] is designated as the type species. (2) The name Antispila Hubner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation in (1) above Antispila stadtmuellerella Hiibner, [1825], (a junior subjective syno- nym of Tinea metallella [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name merallella [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, as published in the binomen Tinea metallella, (valid specific name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Antispila Hubner, [1825] is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2463 An application for the designation of Antispila stadtmuellerella Hiibner, [1825] as type species of Antispila Hubner, [1825] was received from Dr E. S. Nielsen (CS/RO, Canberra, Australia) and Dr I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 13 January 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 158-159 (July 1986) and notice was given to ten general and eleven entomological journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 159. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen 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: Antispila Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 419. metallella, Tinea, [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, Ankundung eines systematischen Werkes von dem schmetterlingen der Wienergegend. .. , p. 144. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1480 Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (currently Pholetesor ornigis; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name ornigis Weed, 1887, as published in the binomen Apanteles ornigis, is to have precedence over the name robiniae Fitch, 1859, as published in the binomen Microgaster robiniae, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The name Pholetesor Mason, 1981 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name ornigis Weed, 1887, as published in the binomen Apanteles ornigis, (specific name of the type species of Pholetesor Mason, 1981) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the endorsement that it is to have precedence over the name robiniae Fitch, 1859, as published in the binomen Microgaster robiniae, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (4) The name robiniae Fitch, 1859, as published in the binomen Microgaster robiniae, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the endorse- ment that it is not to have precedence over the name ornigis Weed, 1887, as published in the binomen Apanteles ornigis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 2506 An application for the conservation of Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 by the sup- pression of its senior but unused subjective synonym Microgaster robiniae Fitch, 1859, was received from Dr J. B. Whitfield (University of California, Berkeley, California) on 24 January 1985, and after correspondence was published in BZN 43: 96-98 (April 1986). Notice of the case was sent to twelve general and ten specialist journals. A supportive comment by Dr R. A. Wharton (Texas A & M University, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 43: 324 (December 1986). Comments from Dr L. B. Holthuis and from Dr C. van Achterberg (both of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) were published in BZN 44: 46 (March 1987); Dr Holthuis suggested giving precedence to ornigis over robiniae, while Dr van Achterberg considered that the senior name robiniae should be used. In a reply, also published in BZN 44: 46, Dr Whitfield reiterated his proposal for the conservation of ornigis. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were asked to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 97. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—12: Alvarado, Bernardi, Cocks, Corliss, Heppell, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes—9: Bayer, Cogger, Dupuis, Hahn, Holthuis, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Savage, Thompson. Gruchy abstained and Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 81 The proposal to suppress the name robiniae Fitch, 1859 was thus not carried. How- ever, with the exceptions of Cogger and Thompson, all those voting against the original proposals expressed support for ornigis Weed, 1887 having precedence over robiniae Fitch, 1859, and the ruling has been made accordingly. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Pholetesor Mason, 1981, Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 115: 37. ornigis, Apanteles, Weed, 1887, Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History, 3: 6. (Designated as type species of Pholetesor Mason, 1981: Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 115: 37). robiniae, Microgaster, Fitch, 1859, New York State Agricultural Society Transactions, 18: 836. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1481 Siphamia Weber, 1909 and S. permutata Klausewitz, 1966 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Beanea Steindachner, 1902 and the specific name ftrivittata Steindachner, 1902, as published in the binomen Beanea trivittata, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Siphamia Weber, 1909 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Siphamia tubifer Weber, 1909, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) permutata Klausewitz, 1966, as published in the binomen Siphamia permutata; (b) tubifer Weber, 1909, as published in the binomen Siphamia tubifer (specific name of the type species of Siphamia Weber, 1909). (4) The name Beanea Steindachner, 1902, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (5) The name trivittata Steindachner, 1902, as published in the binomen Beanea trivittata and suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2517 An application for the conservation of both names in the binomen Siphamia permutata Klausewitz, 1966 of a Red Sea apogonid fish by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym Beanea trivittata Weber, 1909 was received on 29 April 1985 from Dr J. E. Randall (Bishop Museum, Honolulu), Dr E. A. Lachner (National Museum of Natural History, Washington) and Dr T. H. Fraser (Environmental Quality Laboratory, Port Charlotte, Florida). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 193-195 (July 1986), and notice of it was given to nine general and nine specialist journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out on BZN 43: 194-195. At the close of the voting period on i December 1987 the votes were: Affirmative votes — 18: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 5: Hahn, Kraus, Lehtinen, Savage, Thompson. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Hahn would have supported giving S. permutata precedence over B. trivittata when they were considered synonyms; Kraus said that as it was a nomen dubium there was no Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 83 need to suppress B. trivittata, while Savage and Thompson felt that the published grounds for departing from priority were inadequate. 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: Beanea Steindachner, 1902, Anzeiger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 39: 337. Siphamia Weber, 1909, Notes from the Leyden Museum, 31: 168. permutata, Siphamia, Klausewitz, 1966, Senckenbergiana Biologica, 47: 217. trivittata, Beanea, Steindachner, 1902, Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 39: 337. tubifer, Siphamia, Weber, 1909, Notes from the Leyden Museum, 31: 168. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 OPINION 1482 Heteroclonium bicolor Cope, 1896 (currently Bachia bicolor; Reptilia, Squamata): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name diglossis Saenz, 1869, as published in the binomen Chirotes diglossis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name bicolor Cope, 1896, as published in the binomen Heteroclonium bicolor, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name diglossis Saenz, 1869, as published in the binomen Chirotes diglossis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2424 An application for the conservation of Heteroclonium (now Bachia) bicolor Cope, 1896 was received from Dr Stephen C. Ayala (Petaluma, California, U.S.A.) on 27 September 1982. After correspondence and delays the case was published in BZN 43: 160-162 (July 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and five herpetological journals. A comment in support was received from Prof. Carl Gans (University of Michigan, U.S.A.) Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out on BZN 43: 161. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—21: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Dupuis. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Dupuis voted against the suppression of diglossis Saenz, 1869 because a detailed description of the species was given; however, he was not opposed to bicolor Cope, 1896 having precedence when it and diglossis were considered synonyms. 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: bicolor, Heteroclonium, Cope, 1896, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1896: 461. diglossis, Chirotes, Saenz, 1869, Anales de la Universidad Nacional de Estados Unidos de Colombia, 1869: 73. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 85 OPINION 1483 Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831 and all uses of this name prior to the publication of Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Rhabdodon priscus (correction of priscum) Matheron, 1869, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name priscus Matheron, 1869 (original termination corrected), as published in the binomen Rhabdodon priscum Matheron, 1869 (1869a, 1869b) (specific name of the type species of Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831 as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2536 An application for the conservation of Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 was received from Dr W. Brinkmann (Jnstitut fiir Paldontologie, Freie Universitét Berlin) on 18 October 1985. After correspondence a revised case was published in BZN 43: 269-272 (October 1986), and notice of it was given to eleven general and seven specialist journals. Decision of the Commission : On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals in BZN 43: 270. At the close of the voting period on | December 1987 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Holthuis and Melville commented that if the paper cited in the application as “Matheron 1869b’ (see BZN 43: 271), which used both the spellings Rhabdodon (on the plates) and Rabdodon (in the text), had been published before ‘Matheron 1869a’, which used only Rhabdodon, then a first reviser selection under Article 24 would be needed to establish the correct original spelling. However, even if this were the situation, Matheron himself, in what would be ex hypothesi his second 1869 paper, used Rhabdodon exclusively (as have all later authors). Evidently the ‘1869b’ paper had not been published when ‘1869a’ was in proof, for on p. 792 of the latter ‘1869b’ is described as ‘sous presse’. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 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: Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 2éme série, 26: 792. priscus, Rhabdodon, Matheron, 1869, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 2éme série, 26: 795. Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831, Dalmatiae nova Serpentum genera, p. 26. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 87 DIRECTION 122 Bubo Dumeril, 1806 and Surnia Dumeéril, 1806 (Aves): Official List entries completed Ruling (1) The name Bubo Duméril, 1806 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the entry to read: Bubo Duméril, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy by Froriep (1806) (C. Dumeéril’s analytische Zoologie aus dem franzésischen mit Zusdtzen, p. 35), Strix bubo Linnaeus, 1758. (2) The name Surnia Duméril, 1806 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the entry to read: Surnia Dumeéril, 1806 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent monotypy by Froriep (1806) (C. Dumeéril’s analytische Zoologie aus dem franzdsischen mit Zusdtzen, p. 35), Strix hudsonia Gmelin, 1788 (valid name at the time of this ruling = Strix caparoch Miller, 1766). (3) The name bubo Linaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Strix bubo, (specific name of the type species of Bubo Dumeéril, 1806) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name caparoch Miller, 1766, as published in the binomen Strix caparoch, (valid specific name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Surnia Duméril, 1806) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 1051 In 1910 Opinion 67 authorized the placing of 102 bird generic names, including Bubo and Surnia Dumeéril, 1806, on the Official List. However, because more than one method of fixing their type species was mentioned in Opinion 67, Bubo and Surnia were omitted from the first instalment of names on the Official Lists (published in 1958). In 1985 the then Secretary (Mr R. V. Melville) reviewed the case and an application was published in BZN 43: 156—157 (July 1986). Decision of the Commission On | September 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 43: 156-157. At the close of the voting period the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis (in part), Gruchy, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Dupuis abstained from voting on Surnia because of doubts concerning the synonymy of Strix hudsonia Gmelin and S. caparoch Miller. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(1) March 1988 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Direction: Bubo Dumeéril, 1806, Zoologie analytique, p. 34. Surnia Dumeéril, 1806, Zoologie analytique, p. 34. bubo, Strix, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 92: caparoch, Strix, Muller, 1766, Des Ritters C. von Linne’s. . . vollstandige Natursystem. ..,Suppl., p. 69. Contents—continued Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1464. Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 (currently Pararotalia calcar; Protista, Foraminiferida) . 56 Opinion 1465. Laomedea gracilis Sars, 1850 (currently Cly tia gracilis: Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) . . 57 Opinion 1466. Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, 1819, Tr. ‘catulloi Pictet, 1867 and T. janitor Pictet, 1867 (Brachiopoda, Articulata). . . sah isae 59 Opinion 1467. Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (Brachiopoda) ne wee 61 Opinion 1468. Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) . . . pa 62 Opinion 1469. Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda). . . ae 63 Opinion 1470. siNnuiTIDAE Dall, 1913, MACLURITIDAE Carpenter, 1861 and EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda, Archaeogastropoda) . . 64 Opinion 1471. Aplysia (originally Laplysia) viridis ee 1804 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . . 67 Opinion 1472. Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . SO, 502 oy Mok ete 69 Opinion 1473. Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta,Coleoptera). . . . . . .. . oH Opinion 1474. Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera). . . . . . . 73 Opinion 1475. Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Diptera) . . . . . . . .... 74 Opinion 1476. Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera). . . . . . . . .. 76 Opinion 1477. Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera) . . 77 Opinion 1478. Lycaena mirza Plotz, 1880 (currently Azanus mirza; " Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . rok Gags Oe aT 78 Opinion 1479. Antispila Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . : 79 Opinion 1480. Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (currently Pholetesor ornigis: Insecta, Hymenoptera). . 80 Opinion 1481. Siphamia Weber, 1909 and S. permutata Klausewitz, 1966 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). . 82 Opinion 1482. Heteroclonium bicolor Cope, 1896 (currently Bachia bicolor; Reptilia, Squamata) . . : : Kae 84 Opinion 1483. Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia, Ornithischia). =) CAB ae 85 Direction 122. Bubo Duméril, 1806 and Surnia Duméril, 1806(Aves) . . . . . . 87 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 . The International Commission and its publications . . Addresses and specialist fields of members of the Commission International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on n Zoological Nomenclature . . ; The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature - Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology General Article An appraisal of the Zoology of C. S. Rafinesque. Alwyne Wheeler . Applications Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801.(currently Polyphyllia talpina; Cnidaria, Anthozoa).B.W.Hoeksema . . Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda). G. J. Morgan & L. B. Holthuis . Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; Crustacea, Isopoda). B. J. M. Jacobs & L. B. Holthuis . : Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M. Hansen Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). E. S. Nielsen & I. W. B. Nye. q Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, ne ee S. E. Whitebread, L. Rezbanyai-Reser & H. Geiger . : : ae Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Cc. van Achterberg . Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus fring Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.J.Pulawski. . . Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, ‘Cypriniformes). R. M. Bailey & Ww. N. Eschmeyer . . Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes). ‘ Géry & v. Mahnert. . . Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola. gigas: Reptilia, Squamata). H. H. Schleich . : Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii: Mammalia, Rodentia). L. C. Rookmaaker & J. Meester wi Se Ne ee ee Comments On ‘Use versus priority’, with alternative proposals for the conservation of well-known names. K.H.L. Key . : On the suggested introduction of * Protected Works’. M. B. Best & B. Ww. Hocksema 3 On the introduction of the term ‘pragmatype’ and on the role of the International Commission.G.Hahn . . On Pragmatypes and the role of the Commission: a reply to Dr P. K. Tubbs. R. H. in Disney & Y. Z. Erzinclioglu. . On the proposed conservation of ‘Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudo- scorpionida). I. M. Kerzhner wh, On the proposed suppression of Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 ‘and the conservation of BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845. G. Hahn; M. K. Howarth; T. I. Nal’nyaeva . On the proposed conservation of Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). M. G. Harasewych & R.E. Petit . : On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. Ww. Wells and C. R. Wellington. G. J. Ingram & J. Covacevich; A. E. Greer; J. Stone . On the proposed designation of Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as the type species of Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda). R. Fortuner, A. R. tect & P. A.A. Loof; M. R. Siddiqi & D. J. Hunt . pire = Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Bulletin r Zoological * Nomenclature 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 1988 is £57 or $110, 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. 01-938 9387) 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 Ueno (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) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (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 1988 ATES Soe ree BRITISH MUSEUM (NA ; } 6 JUL 1988 PURCHASED ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 89 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLAT Volume 45, part 2 (pp. 89-180) 24 June 1988 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 45, part 1 (published on 25 March 1988): (1) Odontoscelis iberica Kolenati, 1846 (Insecta, Heieroptera): proposed desig- nation of a replacement neotype. (Case 2635). U. Géllner—Scheiding. (2) Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed desig- nation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1955 as the type species. (Case 2636). R. K. Kropp. (3) Mus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation. (Case 2640). G. B. Corbet. (4) Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 and Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 (currently Natica hebraea and Placostylus fibratus; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2641). P. Bouchet. (5) POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866. (Case 2642). K. C. Emberton. (6) Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation. (Case 2643). M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis. (7) Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation. (Case 2644). M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis. (8) Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation. (Case 2645). M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 (9) Ptochus Schénherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman, 1834 as the type species. (Case 2646). R. T. Thompson. (10) Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. (Case 2647). J. Proszynski. (11) Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus,; Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. (Case 2648). J. Proszynski. (12) Thyene Simon, 1885 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. (Case 2649). J. Proszynski. (13) Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2650). H. M. Smith, J. Hanken & D. Chiszar. (14) Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894 as the type species. (Case 2651). J. D. Oswald & M. Meinander. (15) CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera): a proposal to remove the homonymy. (Case 2652). A. R. Kabat. (16) Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): proposed replacement of holotype. (Case 2653). T. R. Platt. (17) Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris, 1826): proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. (Case 2654). C. W. Sabrosky. (18) Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): proposed confirmation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 2655). J. D. Oswald. (19) Chira Peckham & Peckham, 1896 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed confirm- ation as the correct spelling of Shira. (Case 2656). M. E. Galiano. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (1985) supersedes all earlier versions, and incorporates many changes. Copies may be obtained from: Natural History Publications, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £17.50 plus £1.50 postage. Orders from North America should be sent to: University of California Press, Berkeley 94720, California, U.S.A. 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 was published in 1987. 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 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 91 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.) 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Changes in North American Fish Names, especially as related to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1985 Reeve M. Bailey Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48 109— 1079, U.S.A. C. Richard Robins Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149-1098, U.S.A. Abstract. Changes incorporated in the third edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, published in 1985, are discussed relative to their impact on the nomenclature of North American fishes, but the discussion and conclusions are pertinent to the names of all animals. Species-group names formed from personal names in the genitive case or in the nominative case (as appositional nouns) and as adjectives are of special concern, and each is reviewed in detail. The gender of certain genus-group names, names of divisions of genera, and priority accorded to family- group names are other sections of the Code where changes have affected names of North American fishes. Introduction For over half a century the American Fisheries Society (AFS) has had a committee charged with assembly of recommendations for common and scientific names of fishes. An abbreviated List of important North American fishes was published in 1948. Soon thereafter the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) added its support to the enterprise, and a joint committee representing the two societies con- tinued and expanded the coverage to include all North American freshwater and coastal marine fishes. The second edition of the List appeared in 1960, a year in advance of the first (1961) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Although the committee attempted to follow the incomplete deliberations of the Com- mission, some of its nomenclatural decisions were at variance with the 1961 Code. As discussed below, the committee’s decisions disagreed even more with revisions in the 1964 Code. For the third and fourth editions (1970 and 1980) of the North American List the AFS held to the same principles utilised in 1960, feeling that the rules were far from stabilised, as indicated to us by various Commissioners. The third edition of the Code, long awaited, was published in 1985. We have studied the new Code carefully with regard to its impact on various projects underway by the Committee on Names of Fishes of the AFS and ASIH. The new edition is more tightly written, many ambiguities have been removed, and an extensive Glossary has been made part of the Code. Many examples and recommendations are given to help explain the Code but neither these nor the appendices are part of the ‘legislative’ text (p. 1; Art. 87b, p. 179). Of greatest concern to us are Articles 31-34, which deal with species-group names, and Article 35, which deals with family-group names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 93 This paper attempts to clarify differences and pave the way for uniform interpret- ations and nomenclatural practices. Although we address chiefly North American fishes as represented on the AFS List of 1980, the comments apply equally to animals of other groups and areas. It is inevitable that a Code as complex as that of zoological nomenclature will be in places open to a variety of interpretations. The interpretations in this article represent our views, held after consultations with colleagues. In an appended note Dr P. K. Tubbs, Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, draws attention to a case where the present text of the Code may need clarification. Species-Group Names formed from Personal Names Article 31a of the Code concerns species-group names formed from personal names. These may be of three types: (1) a noun in the genitive case, (2) a noun in apposition, or (3) an adjective or participle. (1) Nouns in the genitive case Article 31a(i) prescribes that: ‘A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case formed from a personal name that is Latin, or from a modern personal name that is or has been latinized, is to be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar.’ The six involved species on the North American list were all correctly given in the 1980 (4th) edition of the AFS List: AFS-1980 * Latin or Latinized Page Entry Personal name Common name 13 Centroscyllium fabricii Fabricius black dogfish 24 Notropis emiliae Emilia (from Emily) pugnose minnow 52 Chirolophis ascanii Ascanius Atlantic warbonnet sv Lumpenus fabricii Fabricius slender eelblenny 53 Eleotris pisonis Piso* spinycheek sleeper 56 Nomeus gronovii Gronovius (from Gronow) man-of-war fish *Treated as a third declension n-stem Latin noun (like /eo). As noted in the examples that follow Article 31a(i), Latin-form names like Poda (a man) may be treated as a latinized name, giving podae, or as a modern name, giving podai. In such cases original spelling determines use. The creole wrasse was described as Brama parrae by Bloch & Schneider (1801), who treated Parra as a Latin name and placed it in the genitive as parrae. This name should therefore be corrected from Clepticus parrai, as given on p. 48 of the 1980 List, to C. parrae (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). A Central American catfish was named by Meek (1906) for Sr Don Mafuel Estrada Cabrera, President of Guatemala. The name as proposed was Rhamdia cabrerae rather than cabrerai. Cabrera was interpreted as a Latin-form name and thus the genitive cabrerae is not to be emended. Note that cabrera, cabrerae, cabrerai, and cabreri are all acceptable patronyms based on Cabrera under the 1985 Code, and which is correct in any instance depends on the original spelling. The wahoo, Acanthocybium solanderi (p. 55), should be corrected to the original solandri; Cuvier treated the name Solander as Latin and as having the genitive solandri (cf. the family name SCOMBRIDAE from Scomber). 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Article 3la(ii) states: “A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case formed directly from a modern personal name [emphasis added], is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women (see Article 11h(i)(3) and Appendix DIII); the stem of such a name is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive.’ A predominant fraction of patronyms for North American fishes are formed in this way. We count 340 species names on the 1980 List, and many more have been employed for subspecies or for nominal species now placed in synonymy. The early Opinion 8 (1910) ruled that names originally published ‘incorrectly’ (with respect to the 1905 International Rules) with the ending -ii instead of -i (e.g., schrankii instead of schranki) were nevertheless to be retained in the original form. In 1948 Opinion 8 was repealed by the Commission (see BZN 4: 67-68), and correction of improperly formed names was thereby required. This issue led to dissension among nomenclaturists, and this debate has continued. In the 1960 AFS List the authors subscribed to the 1948 ruling and emended incorrectly formed ‘ii’ patronyms. This position was mandatory in the 1961 Code (Art 32) which called for emendation of ‘incorrect’ original spellings, i.e., those that contravened provisions of Articles 26 to 31. Soon thereafter, to the consternation of many who had attempted to adhere closely to the rules, in the 1964 edition of the Code the Commission reversed itself (see BZN 21: 173), and in Article 32 changed ‘Articles 26 to 31’ to read ‘Articles 26 to 30’. Thus, the termination of ‘modern’ (non Latin-form) patronyms in -ii was no longer outlawed, but merely recommended against (Recommendation 31A). In the interest of consistency, and in consideration of the continued debate, the practice of emendation was neverthe- less continued by the AFS Committee on Names in the 1970 and 1980 Lists. In the 1985 Code, the 1964 Recommendation 31A once again becomes mandatory, as Article 3la, and this Article is again cited in Article 32 as it had been in the 1961 edition. To assist in understanding the current ruling we exemplify with the genitive form of a name originally proposed as smithii in honor of a Mr Smith. Under Article 31a(ii) this spelling should have been smithi. Under Article 3 la(iii) the original spelling formed under subsection (ii) is to be preserved unless it is incorrect [emphasis added], [Article 32c,d]. Under Article 32c an original spelling is ‘an incorrect original spelling’ if (i) it contravenes a provision of Articles 27 to 31; or (ii) ‘there is in the original publi- cation itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist’s or printer’s error... .’ An incorrect original spelling is to be corrected under Article 32d. Thus smithii, named for a Mr Smith, is corrected to smithi; this is termed a ‘justified emendation’, and it takes the author and date of the original spelling (Article 33b(ii)). Hurried reading of the rules may lead to misinterpretation of Article 33d, which states that use of the termination -i in a subsequent spelling in which the correct [our emphasis] original spelling terminates with -ii, or vice versa, constitutes an incorrect subsequent spelling. The key words here are subsequent spelling; Article 33 is concerned with subsequent spellings, whereas Article 32 treats original spellings. For example, the aquarium fish known as the Argentine pearlfish (from La Plata) was named Cynolebias Bellottii, after Dr Bellotti. The author (Steindachner, 1881) took the entire name as the stem and correctly added -i (Article 31a(ii)), so the correct original spelling, emended only by use of the lower-case b (Article 28), is Cynolebias bellottii. Some aquarium Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 95 books, however, employ C. bellotti: as a subsequent spelling this is incorrect and in this form is unavailable (Article 33c). If in a patronymic name a genitive suffix indicative of the wrong gender (Article 31a(ii)) is used it must be corrected (Art. 32c(ii),d). Notropis cummingsi Myers, 1925, the dusky shiner, and Otophidium scrippsi Hubbs, 1916, the basketweave cusk-eel, were stated by their authors to be in dedication of Mrs J. H. Cummings and Miss Ellen B. Scripps, respectively. The names are properly corrected to Notropis cummingsae and Ophidion scrippsae, as done in the 1980 AFS List (p. 24 and p. 31 respectively); some authors have retained the incorrect original spellings. Article 3la(ii) of the 1985 Code stipulates that the ‘stem’ of a species-group name formed from a modern personal name is determined by the action of the original author when,forming the genitive. For example, the Code notes (p. 63) that puckridgi may be formed from Puckridge by deletion of the terminal vowel, although puckridgei could also be a correct spelling if used originally. We identify one entry on the 1980 List to be corrected. The yellowtail, Seriola lalandei Valenciennes 1833, should be changed to S. lalandi, the original spelling. Valenciennes elected to delete the terminal vowel from the name of Lalande. Two familiar Middle American fish names were formed by deletion of the terminal vowel before addition of the genitive suffix. The mullet, Joturus pichardi Poey, 1861, honored the Cuban author Don Esteban Pichardo, and the cichlid Cichlasoma alfari Meek, 1907, commemorated the Director of the National Museum of Costa Rica, Dr Anastasio Alfaro. Subsequent insertion of the vowel (to give pichardoi and alfaroi) would be incorrect. Other correct original spellings in the 1980 List include Coregonus laurettae Bean, 1881, for Mrs Lauretta H. Bean, Exoglossum laurae (Hubbs, 1931) for Mrs Laura C. Hubbs, and Etheostoma jessiae (Jordan & Brayton, 1877) for Mrs Jessie Dewey Brayton. In the 1980 List the five names in the table below, originally terminating in -ii, were emended both by giving the -iending and by changing the ‘stem’. None of the surnames has been ‘latinized’ (e.g. to Whipplius). The names based on Commerson and Broussonet both have originally misspelt stems; their emendation is in accord with their derivations (Article 32d), and probably stability, but not with strict compliance with Article 32c(ii). It can also be maintained that the forms whippli and duquesni are permissible: if these spellings had been original they would have been correct, but we consider that as emendations whipplei and duquesnei are justified. Patronyms in the genitive emended in the 1980 AFS List AFS-1980 Personal Common Page Entry Original proposal name name 25 Notropis Cyprinella whipplii Whipple steelcolor whipplei Girard, 1856 shiner 26 Catostomus Cyprinus Commersonnii Commerson white commersoni Lacepéde, 1803 sucker 27 Moxostoma Catostomus duquesnii Duquesne black duquesnei Lesueur, 1817 redhorse 41 Etheostoma Boleichthys whipplii Whipple redfin whipplei Girard, 1859 darter 54 Gobioides Gobioides Broussonnetii Broussonet violet broussoneti Lacepéde, 1800 goby 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Very many patronyms in the genitive were those proposed with a double terminal -ii, but which should now have a single -i. As mentioned previously, in the interest of consistency the Committee elected to make this emendation in the 1970 and 1980 AFS Lists, as had been done in 1960. Because of this choice the Committee decision was [continued on page 98] Patronyms emended by deletion of a terminal -i to agree with Article 31a(ii) of the Code AFS-1980 Common Page Entry Original proposal name 11 £ptatretus Bdellostoma stoutii Pacific hagfish stouti Lockington, 1878 11 Lampetra ayresi Petromyzon ayresii river lamprey Ginther, 1870 12. Carcharhinus Platyodon perezii reef shark perezi Poey, 1876 14 Raja kincaidi Raja kincaidii sandpaper skate Garman, 1908 15 Chilorhinus Chilorhinus suensonii seagrass eel suensoni Liitken, 1851 16 Facciolella Chlopsis gilbertii dogface witch-eel gilberti Garman, 1899 17. Ophichthus gomesi Ophisurus gomesii shrimp eel Castelnau, 1855 17 Clupea harengus Clupea pallasii Valenciennes, Pacific herring pallasi 1847 19 Prosopium Coregonus coulterii Eigenmann pygmy whitefish coulteri & Eigenmann, 1892 19 Salmo clarki Salmo clarkii cutthroat trout Richardson, 1836 19 Salmo gairdneri* Salmo gairdnerii rainbow trout Richardson, 1836 22 Gila orcutti Phoxinus orcuttii Eigenmann & arroyo chub Eigenmann, 1890 26 Catostomus C. clarkii desert sucker clarki Baird & Girard, 1854 28 Chologaster C. agassizii Putnam, 1872 spring cavefish agassizi 30 Cryptopsaras C. couesii Gill, 1883 warted seadevil couesi 30 Nezumia bairdi Macrourus bairdii marlin-spike Goode & Bean, 1877 31 Lycenchelys Lycodes verrillii wolf eelpout verrilli Goode & Bean, 1877 32 Hirundichthys Exocoetus rondeletii blackwing rondeleti Valenciennes, 1846 flying fish 33 Fundulus notti Zygonectes nottii starhead topminnow Agassiz, 1854 34 Xiphophorus X. hellerii Heckel, 1848 green swordtail helleri 39 Micropterus Dioplites Treculii Vaillant & Guadelupe bass treculi Bocourt, 1874 39 Ammocrypta A. beanii Jordan, 1877 naked sand darter beani 44 Anisotremus Pristipoma davidsonii sargo davidsoni Steindachner, 1875 Page 45 45 46 47 96 AFS-1980 Entry Haemulon plumieri Diplodus holbrooki Roncador stearnsi Pentaceros richardsoni Tilapia zilli Hysterocarpus traski Opistognathus whitehursti Stathmonotus hemphilli Plagiogrammus hopkinsi Callionymus agassizi Coryphopterus nicholsi Scorpaena agassizi Scorpaena bergi Sebastes gilli Cottus bairdi Cottus beldingi Myoxocephalus thompsoni Rhamphocottus richardsoni Triglops pingeli Aspidophoroides olriki Bothragonus sSwani Aluterus heudeloti Aluterus schoepfi Esox reicherti Original proposal Labrus Plumierii Lacepéde, 1801 Sargus holbrookii Bean, 1878 Corvina Stearnsii Steindachner, 1875 P. richardsoni (and P. richardsonii) Smith, 1849 (Follett & Dempster, 1963 chose richardsoni) Acerina zillii Gervais, 1848 H. traskii Gibbons, 1854 Gnathypops whitehurstii Longley, 1931 S. hemphillii Bean, 1885 P. hopkinsii Bean, 1894 C. agassizii Goode & Bean, 1888 Gobius nicholsii Bean, 1882 S. agassizii Goode & Bean, 1896 S. bergii Evermann & Marsh, 1900 Sebastodes gillii [and gilli] Eigenmann, 1891 C. bairdii Girard, 1850 C. beldingii Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1891 Triglopsis thompsonii Girard, 1851 R. richardsonii Gunther, 1874 T. pingelii Reinhardt, 1838 A. olrikii Liitken, 1876 Hypsagonus swanii Steindachner, 1877 A. heudelotii Hollard, 1855 Balistes schoepfii Walbaum, 1792 E. reichertii Dybowski, 1869 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Common name white grunt spottail pinfish spotfin croaker pelagic armorhead redbelly tilapia tule perch dusky jawfish blackbelly blenny crisscross prickleback spotfin dragonet blackeye goby longfin scorpionfish goosehead scorpionfish bronzespotted rockfish mottled sculpin Paiute sculpin deepwater sculpin grunt sculpin ribbed sculpin Arctic alligatorfish rockhead dotterel filefish orange filefish Amur pike 97 *The intimate relationship of the Kamchatkan trout (Salmo mykiss) and the rainbow or steelhead trout was recognised by Behnke (1966), who refrained from combining the species, in part because of an apparent difference in vertebral count (now known to be erroneous). Okazaki (1984) has clearly demonstrated that they should be recognised as a single species. He suggested (but did not propose) their merger. Salmo mykiss Walbaum, 1792, has priority over Salmo gairdneri Richardson, 1836, and replaces it. The generic assignment of the western trouts presents an unresolved problem (Kendall & Behnke, 1984). 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 criticised or ignored by some workers. The reversal of ruling between the 1964 and 1985 Codes therefore brought our usage into compliance with the latest rule, and obfuscat- ing vacillation in spelling was avoided by those who followed the AFS Lists. Some authors, however, employed original spellings during this interim. To clarify the incon- sistency we list below those names for which emendation of original spelling (i.e., -ii to -i) is now required by Articles 3la(ii) and 32c,d. (2) Nouns in apposition Culminating a period of contradiction and debate, the 1985 Bode ee 31a) now directs that ‘A species-group name formed from a personal name may be... a noun in apposition . . . [Article 11h(i)]’, but, under Recommendation 31A, abiiore are discour- aged from the establishment of a species-group name formed in this way. In the 1961 edition of the Code such use was disallowed and names so formed were subject to automatic correction by adding the appropriate genitive termination. The second (1964) edition of the Code eliminated the correction, following a decision of the 1963 International Congress of Zoology. In the 1960, 1970, and 1980 editions of the AFS List we consistently emended per- sonal names placed in apposition by adding the appropriate genitive terminations. In view of the current clear directive we now reluctantly have to adopt the original non- genitive spellings. Fortunately, few are in the North American List, all of which were proposed long ago. Regrettably, though, some involve familiar fishes and are commonly used names. These incorrect endings, which are in common use, could be conserved in line with Recommendation 31A of the Code if this were approved by the Commission under its plenary powers. We suggest submission of an application that this be done, so protecting the commonly used genitive-form names under Article 80 of the Code. Patronyms in apposition with generic name Correct scientific name Name and page on 1980 List Common name Galeocerdo cuvier G. cuvieri (12) tiger shark (Péron & Lesueur, 1822) Squatina dumeril S. dumerili (13) Atlantic angel shark Lesueur, 1818 Dasyatis say D. sayi (14) bluntnose stingray (Lesueur, 1818) Coregonus artedi C. artedii (18) cisco or lake herring Lesueur, 1818 Holocentrus poco* H. poco (34) saddle squirrelfish (Woods, 1965) Lophotus lacepede L.lacepedei (35) crestfish Giorna, 1809 Micropterus dolomieu M.dolomieui (39) smallmouth bass Lacepéde, 1802 Haemulon parra H. parrai (45) sailors choice (Desmarest, 1823) Hypsoblennius hentz H. hentzi (52) feather blenny (Lesueur, 1825) Gobiosoma bosc G. bosci (54) naked goby (Lacepéde, 1800) *The name H. poco, for Mary Ann ‘Poco’ Holloway, is an appositional nickname not ident- ified as such in the 1980 List. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 99 The name Myripristis jacobus Cuvier, 1829, for the blackbar soldierfish, was so used on page 34 of the 1980 List. Jacobus we interpret as the latinized equivalent of James; the species is reported by Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 847) to be called Frére-Jacque, ‘brother Jim’, in Martinique. (3) Patronyms as adjectives Article 31a states: “A species-group name formed from a personal name may be... an adjective or participle [Article 1 1h(i)].’ Under Article 1 1h(i) such adjective or partici- ple, if a Latin or latinised word, is to be in the nominative singular, and (Article 31b) ‘must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined, and its termination must be changed according to Latin inflection (Appendix DVII, Table 2], if ngcessary, when the species is transferred to another genus [Art. 34b];....’ The author and date of the species-group name remain unchanged (Articles 34b, SOc(ii), 23¢). Relatively few adjectival patronyms have been proposed as fish names in our area. We identify only the following among currently recognised species and at present no change in spelling is necessitated from the 1980 List. Patronyms as adjectives AES 1980 Common Page Entry Original proposal name 17 Dorosoma Megalops cepediana Lesueur, gizzard shad cepedianum 1818 (for Compte de La Cepéde = Citoyen Lacepéde) 22 Hybopsis Rutilus storerianus silver chub storeriana Kirtland, 1842 (for David Humphreys Storer) 28 Aphredoderus Scolopsis sayanus Gilliams, pirate perch sayanus 1824 (for Thomas Say) 39 Etheostoma E. fricksia Hildebrand, Savannah darter fricksium 1923 (for L. D. Fricks) 49 Mugil M. gaimardianus Desmarest, redeye mullet gaimardianus 1831 (for P. Gaimard) 51 Chasmodes Blennius bosquianus Lacepéde, striped blenny bosquianus 1800 (for M. Bosc) 52 Bryozoichthys B. marjorius McPhail, 1970 pearly prickleback maryjorius (for Marjorie McPhail) Gender of genus-group names Article 30 of the 1985 Code concerns the determination of gender of names in the genus group; the wording is little changed from earlier editions, but the examples are somewhat expanded and clarified. For example, Article 30a(ii) [new] specifies that ‘A genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine, regardless of its deriva- tion or its treatment by the author.’ Roughly 250 nominal genus-group names in ichthyology end in -ops, including 11 valid taxa in our fauna. The suffix -ops is derived from different classical Greek roots, either masculine or feminine, hence the potential for confusion and its removal by the new ruling. The names Megalops atlanticus (tarpon), Acyrtops beryllinus (emerald clingfish), Sciaenops ocellatus (red drum), and Hypsypops rubicundus (garibaldi) were entered correctly in 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 the AFS List of 1980 because the ruling was entered into the Code in 1972 (BZN 29: 182), but all were given feminine endings in one or both of the preceding editions. The suffix -gramma, classically neuter, is added to the examples under Article 30a. Correction of the name for the threeline basslet to Lipogramma trilineatum (1980 List, p. 38) is in order. Of wider impact is the Neotropical cichlid genus Apistogramma, well known as aquarium fishes and improperly treated by some authors as feminine. As examples, Apistogramma amoenum, A. taeniatum, and A. trifasciatum are correct. Of concern to students of North American freshwater fishes is recognition that the centrarchid genus Lepomis, although almost universally regarded as masculine, is of feminine gender (Article 30a). The name is derived from the Greek Jepis, f., scale, and omis, f., a fish (Brown, 1954, pp. 332, 683). It is of interest that Rafinesque, the original (1819) author, in a later paper (1820) is one of the few to treat Lepomis as feminine (e.g., L. notata, L. pallida, L. trifasciata). When proposed in 1819, Lepomis was implied to be masculine (e.g., L. cyanellus, L. macrochirus) and included sunfishes, e.g., “Labrus auritus des auteurs’, the designated type species [= Lepomis aurita (Linnaeus, 1758)}. Rafinesque replaced Lepomis by Icthelis in 1820 and transferred Lepomis to ‘river bass’, Micropterus as now understood. The names (1980 List, pp. 38-39) for the following species are corrected, as follows: Lepomis aurita (redbreast sunfish), L. cyanella (green sunfish), L. gibbosa (pumpkinseed), L. gulosa (warmouth), L. macrochira (bluegill), L. marginata (dollar sunfish), L. punctata (spotted sunfish), and L. symmetrica (bantam sunfish). All were incorrectly assigned masculine endings in the 1980 and earlier lists. Names for Divisions of Genera Article 10e of the 1985 Code reads: ‘A uninomial name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as ‘section’ or ‘division’; ... .” The acceptability of secondary subdivisions as available names is new; Article 42d of the 1961 and 1964 Codes granted availability only to primary subdivis- ions of a genus. To our knowledge this modification poses the potential for nomencla- tural change only among catfishes. In the genus Pimelodus Lacepéde, 1803, Rafinesque (1820, pp. 61-67) proposed as new the subgenus /ctalurus, further divided by him into four sections (Elliops, Leptops, Ameiurus, Ilictis). Included in the account of Leptops is the original proposal of Opladelus for Pimelodus nebulosus Rafinesque (1820) [= Pylo- dictis olivaris (Rafinesque, 1818), not Pimelodus nebulosus Lesueur, 1819]. These genus- group names were included (together with Noturus and several Asiatic fishes currently classified in the OLYRIDAE and AKYSIDAE) by Gill (1861b, pp. 49-53) in his group Ictaluri of the subfamily PIMELODINAE, thus establishing the family-group name ICTALURIDAE (of which AMETURIDAE Regan, 1911, is a junior synonym). Among the several genus- group names three represent widely accepted current genera: Jctalurus Rafinesque, 1820 (type species, Pimelodus cerulescens Rafinesque, 1820 [=Silurus punctatus Rafinesque, 1818], by subsequent designation of Gill (1861b, p. 49)); Noturus Rafines- que, 1818 (type species, Noturus flavus Rafinesque, 1818, by monotypy); and Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (type species, Py/odictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819 [= Silurus olivaris Rafinesque, 1818], by monotypy). Elliops is an objective synonym of Jctalurus. Leptops, Opladelus (commonly but incorrectly emended to Hopladelus), and Ilictis are all subjective synonyms of Pylodictis (commonly misspelt Pilodictis). The remaining Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 101 generic-group name, Ameiurus, was long employed for the bullheads, although that spelling was unjustifiably emended to Amiurus by Agassiz (1846, p. 17) and by Gill (186la, p. 44; 1861b, p. 50), as shown by Taylor (1954, p. 43). Since Taylor’s merger of the groups most workers have placed the bullheads in the genus Jctalurus, sometimes (e.g., Lundberg, 1982) as a subgenus Amiurus of that genus. Miller (1986, pp. 124, 135) re-elevated the bullheads to generic level as Amiurus. In view of the change in the Code discussed above, Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 is an available name and Amiurus is an unjustified emendation of it. Reconsideration of Rafinesque’s account of his Si/urus cupreus, the nominal type species of Ameiurus, has led us to conclude that it is a subjective synonym of his Pylodictis limosus, the type species of Pylodictis. To avoid this unfortunate change in the long-familiar Ameiurus, whether as genus or subgenus, we have proposed (Bailey & Robins, 1988; BZN 45: 135-137) that the ICZN should designate the included species Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (a subjective synonym of Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819) as the type species of Ameiurus, so preserving its established meaning. Family-group names These apply to ‘all taxa at the ranks of superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe and any other rank below superfamily and above genus that may be desired, such as subtribe’ (Article 35a), and the principle of priority applies to them. Few ichthyologists have given synonymies of family-group names, and names have come into standard use without attention to priority. Adherence to this provision of the Code will result in some changes in family-group names in fishes, one of which (HAEMULIDAE, based on HAEMULONIDAE of Richardson, 1846 has priority over POMADASYIDAE and thus replaces it) was already documented by AFS in its 1980 (4th) edition. In ichthyology (and in other fields) names like order, family, and tribe had little hierarchical meaning prior to this century. A name proposed as an ‘order’, if based on a generic name, and if subse- quently used as a family-group name is valid and dates from its original proposal. As noted by McCosker (in press) Ophichthyctes proposed by Duméril (1806) as an ‘order’ but having the same basis as Ophichthus Ahl, 1789, is the earliest family-group name, correctly emended to OPHICHTHIDAE, for the family of snake eels. Emendation of this name to OPHICHTHYIDAE is improper (despite example 41 on pp. 226-227 of the Code) since Ophichthys, though classically correct, is an unjustified emendation. Acknowledgements The principles and many of the examples which comprise this paper were discussed personally or in correspondence with many persons, although we are responsible for views expressed. To the following we are much indebted: Frederick M. Bayer, Howard D. Cameron, John O. Corliss, William N. Eschmeyer, W. I. Follett, C. G. Gruchy, Lipke B. Holthuis, Julian M. Humphries, John E. McCosker, Raymond B. Manning, W. D. L. Ride, Jay M. Savage, William F. Smith-Vaniz, and George C. Steyskal. We also thank our colleagues on the Committee on Names of Fishes, Carl E. Bond, James E. Brooker, Robert N. Lea, Ernest A. Lachner, and W. B. Scott, for their many discussions of these problems and review of the manuscript. Barry Chernoff made available copies of several obscure publications. We are enormously grateful to Miss Cheryl Zello, who has endured the tedium of typing and correcting many develop- mental drafts of this paper. We thank Philip K. Tubbs for his editorial help. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 References Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici. Index Universalis. vii+ 393 pp. Soloduri. American Fisheries Society (W. H. Chute, R. M. Bailey, W. A. Clemens, J. R. Dymond, S. F. Hildebrand, G. S. Myers, L. P. Schultz). 1948. A list of common and scientific names of the better known fishes of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 1. 45 pp. American Fisheries Society (R. M. Bailey, E. A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. R. Robins, P. M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, L. P. Woods). 1960. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. (2nd ed.). American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 2. 102 pp. American Fisheries Society (R. M. Bailey, J. E. Fitch, E.S. Herald, E. A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. R. Robins, W. B. Scott). 1970. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. (3rd ed.). American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 6. 149 pp. American Fisheries Society (C. R. Robins, R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, W. B. Scott). 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. (4th ed.). American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 12. 174 pp. Behnke, R. J. 1966. Relationships of the far eastern trout, Salmo mykiss Walbaum. Copeia, 1966(2): 346-348. Bloch, M. E. & Schneider, J. G. 1801. Systema ichthyologiae iconibus cx illustratum . . . 1x +584 pp. 110 plates. Berolini. Brown, R. W. 1954. Composition of scientific words. 882 pp. Published by the author, Baltimore, Md. Dumeril, A. M. C. 1806. Zoologie analytique, ou méthode naturelle de classification des animaux. Xxxili+ 344 pp. Follett, W. I. & Dempster, L. J. 1963. Relationships of the percoid fish Pentaceros richardsoni Smith, with description of a specimen from the coast of California. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series, 32(10): 315-338. Gill, T. 1861a. Descriptions of new species of Pimelodinae. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 8(1862): 42-46. Gill, T. 1861b. Synopsis of the genera of the sub-family of Pimelodinae. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 8(1862): 46—SS. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. First edition, 1961. xvii+ 176 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Second edition, 1964. xx+176 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Third edition, 1985. xx +338 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London; University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47: Pt. 1. 1x +1240 pp. Kendall, A. W., Jr & Behnke, R. J. 1984. Salmonidae: Development and relationships. Pp. 142— 149 in: Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes, Moser, H. G. (Ed.). American Society of Ichthy- ologists and Herpetologists, Special Publication No. 1. Lundberg, J. G. 1982. The comparative anatomy of the toothless blindcat, Trogloglanis patter- soni Eigenmann, with a phylogenetic analysis of the ictalurid catfishes. Miscellaneous Publi- cations, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 163. 85 pp. Meek, S. E. 1906. Description of three new species of fishes from Middle America. Field Colum- bian Museum (Zoological Series), 7(3), Publication 116, pp. 93-95. Miller, R. R. 1986. Composition and derivation of the freshwater fish fauna of Mexico. Annales Escuela nacional Ciencias biologia, Mexico 30: 121-153. Okazaki, T. 1984. Genetic divergence and its zoogeographic implications in closely related species Salmo gairdneri and Salmo mykiss. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 31(3): 297-311. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans l’intérieur des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, durant l’année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, Paris, 88: 417-429. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 103 Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the River Ohio and its tributary streams. 90 pp. Lexington, Kentucky. Steindachner, F. 1881. Beitrage zur kenntniss der flussfische Sudamerikas III. Denkschriften Akademie der Wissenshaften Wien, 44: 1-18. Taylor, W. R. 1954. Records of fishes in the John N. Lowe collection from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 87: 1—S0. Note by P. K. Tubbs, Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature This article by Reeve M. Bailey and C. Richard Robins is a valuable survey of the application of the 1985 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to a large fauna, the names of which have been carefully considered on a number of occasions, from both taxonomic and nomenclatural points of view, by a committee of specialists. Such a scrutiny serves the purpose of drawing attention to instances where the wording of the Code may be ambiguous, or where strict adherence to its provisions may not coincide with the general practice of those who use zoological names. One example of (perennial) confusion is the termination of species-group names based on modern personal names. Both -i and -ii have been frequently used since the eighteenth century as genitive terminations of names based on those of recent or living men (patronymics). In early works personal names or even the whole text were Latin, or at least ‘latinised’, so that either termination was natural, and more recently specific names terminating in -ii have often been given, presumably because they give an appearance of classical form. The 1895 Régles prescribed (Article 14, translation) that *... the genitive is always to be formed by the addition of a simple -i to the exact and complete name of the person concerned, e.g. Cuvieri, . . . In the case where the name of the person has been employed and declined in the Latin language the rules of declina- tion should be followed, e.g. Plinii, Aristotelis, Victoris, Antonii .. .’. This regulation was not adhered to, and the subsequent ‘legislative’ history has been summarised by Bailey & Robins. > It is a basic principle of zoological nomenclature, embodied in Article 32a of the Code, that the original spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered unless it is ‘demonstrably incorrect’. In pursuit of this most workers have used the original termi- nation, whether -i or -ii, of modern genitive patronymics. Bailey & Robins (and others) have pointed out, however, that the 1985 Code can be read as directing that names such as smithii should be corrected (Articles 31a(ii) and 32c(i)), e.g. to smithi, unless explicit latinisation of the personal name (the quotation of Smithius) had been made. Confusion continues over the -i and -ii terminations, despite repeated efforts to ensure uniformity. It is clear that both will continue in use in biological names, especially since the 1983 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature supports (Rec- ommendation 73c) the -ii form. There are three possibilities for zoological names: (i) to follow the originally published spelling for all names; (ii) to ‘correct’ -ii to -i (except in patronymics derived from personal names such as Fabricius or Rossi); (iii) to regard -i and -ii as being entirely equivalent in all cases, the choice between them being at any user’s discretion (the terminations are already treated as the same for purposes of homonymy (Art. 59b)). Similar considerations apply to -ae and -iae. It would be most helpful to have the views of zoologists on this matter, and indeed on any other other point arising from the article by Drs Bailey and Robins. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2225/1 Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as the type species Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350, Copenhagen, Denmark Fred Rogl Geologisch-Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate the nominal species Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as the type species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808. This is in conformity with the established concept of Nonion since its proposal. 1. The genus Nonion de Montfort (1808, p. 210-212) was originally described as: ‘Coquille libre, univalve, cloisonnée, en disque, et contournée en spirale; mame- lonnée sur les deux centres, le dernier tour de spire renfermant tous les autres; dos renflé, bouche arrondie, recouverte par un diaphragme ouvert en croissant contre le retour de la spire, qu’elle regoit dans son milieu; cloisons unies’. 2. The type species by original designation is Nautilus incrassatus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (p. 38). Nonion gained early acceptance and usage, being cited by de Blainville (1825, p. 143) and Deshayes (1832, p. 629) and has been consistently used as a valid genus name since. Family-group names, from sub-family to super-family, have been based onit; all have the authorship of Schultze (1854, p. 53) who published ‘Nonionida’. 3. Although Fichtel & Moll (1798, pl. 4, figs. a-c) drew only one equatorial, lateral view to accompany the axial edge view of the test of Nautilus incrassatus, the bilateral symmetry which was shown by the axial view and implied in the accompanying brief description, together with its assignment to the planospiral genus Nautilus, led to the assumption that the genus Nonion de Montfort should be characterised by (inter alia) a planospiral, involute test with a bilaterally symmetrical, interiomarginal aperture. This interpretation has been universally and consistantly maintained in the usage of Nonion. 4. Our discovery, recognition and redescription (R6gl & Hansen, 1984) of the type specimens of Nautilus incrassatus have shown that the species is significantly different from the established concept of Nonion. Nautilus incrassatus is asymmetrical, a low trochospire, with its interiomarginal aperture extending into the spiral suture only on the more evolute side of the trochospire. 5. There is no doubt that the type specimens of Nautilus incrassatus belong to the taxon generally recognised as Anomalinoides Brotzen, 1942 (p. 23) which has as its type species by original designation Anomalinoides plummerae Brotzen, 1942 (= Anomalina pinguis Jennings, 1936). Anomalinoides has been extensively used for Cretaceous— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 105 Cenozoic species since its original proposal. It is now evident that continued acceptance of Nautilus incrassatus as the type species of Nonion would involve a most unwelcome and widespread destabilisation in foraminiferan nomenclature. 5. In order to maintain stability, we have proposed (Hansen & Rogl, 1980; Rogl & Hansen, 1984) that the designation of Nautilus incrassatus as type of Nonion be set aside and Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 be designated instead. N. faba was one of the originally included species which conforms both to the original concept (de Montfort, 1808) and the current usage of Nonion. A lectotype of N. faba has been designated by R6gl & Hansen (1984, p. 65 and figures). 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 Nonion de Montfort, 1808 and to designate Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation in (1) above, Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus faba (specific name of the type species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808) and as defined by the lectotype designated by Rogl & Hansen (1984). References Blainville, H. M. D. de, 1825. Jn Cuvier, M. F. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 35, F. G. Levrault, Paris. Brotzen, F. 1942. Die Foraminiferengattung Gavelinella nov. gen. und die Systematik der Rotaliiformes. Sveriges Geologiska Undersékning. Afhandlingar och Uppsatser, 36(8), ser. C, no. 451: 1-60. Deshayes, G. P. 1832. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol. 3, 1152 pp. Mme. V. Agasse, Paris. Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Hansen, H. J. & Régl, F. 1980. What is Nonion? Problems involving foraminiferal genera described by Montfort, 1808 and the type species of Fichtel & Moll, 1798. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 10: 173-179. Jennings, J. R. 1936. A microfauna from the Monmouth and basal Rancocas Groups of New Jersey. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 23(78): 161—232. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systematique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées. vol. 1. 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. 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, vol. 3, 143 pp. Schultze, M.S. 1854. Ueber den Organismus der Polythalamien ( Foraminiferen) nebst Bemerkun- gen tiber die Rhizopoden im Allgemeinen. 68 pp. W. Engelmann, Leipzig. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2225/2 Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350, Copenhagen, Denmark. Fred Rogl Geologisch-Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the foraminiferan generic name Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 by the suppression of the senior synonyms Florilus de Montfort, 1808 and Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826. 1. Fichtel & Moll (1798, p. 37, pl. 3, figs. e-h) described and figured their new species Nautilus asterizans (‘der gestirnte Schiffer’, the starry shell) from Recent zoophytic concretions at unspecified localities in the Mediterranean Sea. 2. De Montfort (1808, p. 134-136) proposed the new genus Filorilus, citing as type species (‘espéce servant de type au genre’) Florilus stellatus, which, although rede- scribed and illustrated with a new figure, had Nautilus asterizans placed in synonymy. The de Montfort collection, if it ever existed, has never been identified or referred to. It has been assumed by modern authors that stel/atus was an unnecessary replacement name for asterizans and they (e.g. Voloshinova, 1958, p. 144; Rogl & Hansen, 1984, p. 34) have cited N. asterizans, the senior synonym, as the type species of Florilus. 3. Although Banner & Culver (1978, p. 206) proposed a neotype for F. stellatus de Montfort, 1808, that specimen did not come from the type area, does not conform to the requirements for a neotype, is congeneric with Nonion de Montfort, 1808 as typified by N. faba Fichtel & Moll (Case 2225/1; see p. 104) and is ineligible under Article 75 d of the Code. A lectotype for Nautilus asterizans Fichtel & Moll has been described and figured (R6gl & Hansen, 1984, p. 34, pl. 8, figs. 1-3; text fig. 9A) and is to be found in the Fichtel & Moll collection, Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna (Inv. No. MI-471). 4. The genus Florilus de Montfort, 1808 was not used from the time of its first publication until it was resurrected by Voloshinova (1958). All authors from 1808— 1958 who had referred to Florilus assumed it to be a synonym of Nonion de Montfort, 1808. However, Voloshinova (1958) used the name Fiorilus for species related to Nonion and subsequent authors have agreed that Florilus belongs to the NONIONIDAE and is closely related to Nonion. 5. Nautilus asterizans was also designated by Parker & Jones (1863, p. 433) as type species of Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826 (p. 293). Nonionina has also been considered to be a junior synonym of Nonion by all authors following Cushman’s revisions of the known species of the latter genus (1930, 1939). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 107 6. Only the species which were assigned to Florilus at its first publication have since been included in it, and no new species have been assigned to Nonionina since 1928 (Ellis & Messina, 1940 et seq.). 7. The type specimens of Nautilus asterizans have now been redescribed (Hansen & Rogl, 1980, p. 174; Rogl & Hansen, 1984, p. 34). These specimens of N. asterizans have the characteristics of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (type species by original designation, H. nipponica Asano, 1944) and are unlike the general concepts of Florilus, Nonion, Nonionina or any other related genera. 8. Continued recognition of N. asterizans as the type species of Florilus and of Nonionina would make these names senior subjective synonyms of Hanzawaia, with consequent disruption of usage and detriment to the stability of nomenclature. The suppression of Florilus and Nonionina is advocated: if species of the NONIONIDAE, which by recent (post-1958) usage have been distinguished from Nonion as Florilus auct., non de Montfort, are to continue to be so distinguished, the genus Pseudononion Asano, 1936 (type species P. japonicum Asano, 1936, p. 347) is already available for them. Saunders & Muller Merz (1982), aware of the problem created by recognition of the true nature of Florilus asterizans (Fichtel & Moll, 1798), have shown how Pseudononion may be employed for such nonionids. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy the generic names: (a) Florilus de Montfort, 1808; (b) Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Hanzawaia nipponica Asano, 1944; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nipponica Asano, 1944, as published in the binomen Hanzawaia nipponica (specific name of the type species of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Florilus de Montfort, 1808 as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826 as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Asano, K. 1936. Pseudononion, a New Genus of Foraminifera found in Muraoko-mura, Kamakura-gori, Kuanagawa Prefecture. Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 43: 347-348. Asano, K. 1944. Hanzawaia, a new genus of foraminifera from the Pliocene of Japan. Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51 (106): 97-98. Banner, F. T. & Culver, S. J. 1978. Quaternary Haynesina n. gen. and Paleogene Protelphidium Haynes; their morphology, affinities and distribution. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 8 (3): 177-207. Cushman, J. A. 1930. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean, part 7. Nonionidae, Camerinidae, Peneroplidae and Alveolinellidae. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 104 (7): 1-79. Cushman, J. A. 1939. A monograph of the foraminiferal family Nonionidae. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 191: 1-100. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Ellis, B. F. & Messina, A. R. 1940 et seq. Catalogue of Foraminifera. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. yon, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Hansen, H. J. & Régl, F. 1980. What is Nonion? Problems involving foraminiferal genera de- scribed by Montfort, 1808 and the type species of Fichtel & Moll, 1798. Journal of Foramini- feral Research, 10: 173-179. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des Cephalopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1) 7: 245-314. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. R. 1863. On the nomenclature of the foraminifera. The species enumerated by d’Orbigny in the ‘Annales des Sciences Naturelles, vol. vii, 1826". Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (3) 12: 429-441. Régl, F. & Hansen, H. J. 1984. Foraminifera described by Fichtel & Moll in 1798. A revision of Testacea Microscopica. Neue Denkschriften des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, vol. 3, 143pp. Saunders, J. B. & Miiller Merz, E. 1982. The genus Pseudononion in relationship with Nonion, Nonionella and Nonionellina. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 12 (3): 261-275. Voloshinova, N. A. 1958. O novoi sistematike Nonionid. Mikrofauna SSSR, Sb. 9, Trudi vNIGRI, 115: 117-191. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 109 Case 2225/3 Calcarina @’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350, Copenhagen, Denmark Fred Rogl Geologisch-Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7; A-1014 Wien, Austria Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 against the possible senior synonym Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808. 1. Spengler (1781, p. 379) described (in non-Linnean terms) and drew illustrations of an ‘ammonshorn’ species of foraminifer which was formally named Nautilus spengleri by Gmelin (1791, p. 3371), using Spengler’s description and figures. 2. The specimens had been obtained by Spengler from sand within a Buccineum (now Cassis) cassideum shell from the east Indian coast. N. spengleri was included within the original list of species assigned to the new genus Calcarina by d’Orbigny (1826, p. 276) and was subsequently designated the type species of Calcarina by Parker & Jones (1859, p. 482). 3. There are no foraminifera preserved in the Spengler collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, but Hansen (1981) located the original specimen of Cassis cassideum, labelled in Spengler’s handwriting, and extracted from within it topotype specimens of N. spengleri, one of which was designated the neotype and redescribed with scanning electron micrographs. The neotype is deposited in the Geological Museum, University of Copenhagen (no. MGUH 15076). Both Calcarina and the family-group names based upon it (CALCARINIDAE Schwager, 1876, p. 481) have remained in constant use up to the present day. A list of representative references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 4. This well-established name Calcarina is, however, threatened by the resurrection of the genus Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808. Spengler had sent specimens of N. spengleri to Fichtel & Moll, who described them (1798, p. 84) and illustrated them as five varieties of N. spengleri and another sectioned specimen as ‘N. dimidiatus’. De Montfort (1808, p. 147) proposed his new genus Tinoporus with type species by monotypy, T. baculatus. This species was illustrated but no record exists of any collection prepared by de Montfort which could have contained specimens to provide the basis for this drawing. However, de Montfort (loc. cit.) referred in the synonymy of T. baculatus to the description and figures of N. spengleri which had been published by Fichtel & Moll, quoting ‘les auteurs allemands que nous avons cités dans notre synonymie’ and citing ‘Testacea microscopica pag. 89, tab. 15, fig. i,k, quatriéme variété’. The fourth variety 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 was in fact illustrated by Fichtel & Moll as ‘var. 8’, (pl. 15, figs d—f), pl. 15, figs, i-k represented ‘N. dimidiatus’ (=‘sectioned’). As Loeblich & Tappan (1962, p. 34-35) stated, ‘all later workers have agreed that de Montfort’s figure and description were composites... .’ Later, Loeblich & Tappan (1964, pp. C628—9) recognised Calcarina d’Orbigny as a distinct and valid genus of the family CALCARINIDAE and regarded Tinoporus de Montfort as an ‘unrecognisable generic name’. 5. In our revision of the Fichtel & Moll collection, however, we (Rogl & Hansen, 1984, pp. 59-60) identified specimens of Nautilus spengleri which Fichtel & Moll had received from Spengler and stated (p. 60): “The specimen figured and referred to by Montfort has been preserved. It is sectioned, showing the internal spire of Calcarina spengleri (Gmelin) . . . the sectioned specimen figured by these authors [Fichtel & Moll] was indicated by Montfort as the type of the new genus Tinoporus Montfort, 1808’. R6gl & Hansen described it as ‘the holotype of Tinoporus baculatus Montfort 1808’ and illustrated it with scanning electron micrographs, as ‘Nautilus spengleri, ‘dimidiatus’ (sectioned), the holotype of Tinoporus baculatus Montfort’. This specimen is one which has been equatorially sectioned by Fichtel & Moll and is undoubtedly that which was figured as ‘dimidiatus’; it is therefore the figured specimen cited by de Montfort, but it is not the ‘quatriéme variété’ placed by him in synonymy of T. baculatus. The specimen does not possess the lateral chambers shown by de Montfort in his (composite?) draw- ing of T. baculatus. The holotypic status of this specimen therefore remains equivocal, as the original synonymic citation, description and figure given by de Montfort were ambiguous. Suppression of the specific name Tinoporus baculatus is requested to prevent the possible threat to Calcarina. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy the following names: (a) Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 (b) baculatus de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Tinoporus baculatus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine) type species, by subsequent designation by Parker & Jones (1859), Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name spengleri Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Nautilus spengleri (specific name of the type species of Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 and as defined by the neotype designated by Hansen (1981)); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name baculatus de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Tinoporus baculatus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturum picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Systema naturae Linnei. ed. 13, vol. 1(6), Vermes. G. E. Beer, Lipsiae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 111 Hansen, H. J. 1981. On Lorentz Spengler and a neotype for the foraminifer Calcarina spengleri. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, 29: 191-201. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H. 1962. The status and type species of Calcarina, Tinoporus and Eponides (Foraminiferida). Contributions from the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, 13(2): 33-38. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H. 1964. In Moore, R. C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part C. Protista 2, Sarcodina, vol. 2(2), pp. C511-900. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1. 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des Céphalopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 245-314. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. R. 1859. On the nomenclature of the foraminifera. Part 1. On the species enumerated by Linnaeus and Gmelin. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (3) 3: 472-482. 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, vol. 3. 143 pp. Schwager, C. 1876. Saggio di una classificazione dei Foraminiferi avuto riguardo alle loro famiglie naturali. Bolletino del R. Comitato Geologica d'Italia, 7(11—-12): 475—485. Spengler, L. 1781. Beskrivelse over nogle i havsandet nylig opdagede Kokillier. Nye Samling af det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, 1: 374-383. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2225/4 Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350, Copenhagen, Denmark Fred Rogl Geologisch-Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826. It is threatened by Pelorus de Montfort, 1808, unused since its proposal but whose type species has been found to be congeneric with that of Dendritina. 1. The name Pelorus was proposed by de Montfort (1808, p. 22) and included the single species (and hence type by monotypy) Nautilus ambiguus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (p. 62). The name Pelorus has never been employed since. N. ambiguus was transferred to Polystomella Lamarck, 1822 (= Elphidium de Montfort, 1808) by d’Orbigny in 1826, although the type species of Polystomella and Elphidium are no longer considered congeneric with the type species of Pelorus. 2. D’Orbigny, 1826 (p. 285) proposed the name Dendritina. Cushman (1927, p. 189) designated Dendritina arbuscula d’Orbigny, 1826 as type species. The type specimens are extant, the genus is in common use and its status has never been in question. 3. We (R6gl & Hansen, 1984, p. 46) have redescribed the type specimen of Nautilus ambiguus Fichtel & Moll and showed it to be congeneric with D. arbuscula. Adoption of a name, unused for over 160 years, in place of Dendritina, would not be in the interests of stability. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Pelorus de Montfort, 1808, 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 Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Cushman (1927), Dendritina arbuscula d’Orbigny, 1826; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name arbuscula d’Orbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Dendritina arbuscula (specific name of the type species of Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic names in Zoology the name Pelorus de Montfort, 1808 as suppressed in (1) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 113 References Cushman, J. A. 1927. The designation of some genotypes in the foraminifera. Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, 3(4): 188-190. Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de, 1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 7.711 pp. J. B. Bailliére, Paris, Londres. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1. 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des Céphalopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 245-314. Roégl, F. & Hansen, H. J. 1984. Foraminifera described by Fichtel & Moll in 1798. A revision of Testacea Microscopica. Neue Denkschriften des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, vol. 3. 143 pp. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2225/5 Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350, Copenhagen, Denmark Fred Rogl Geologisch-Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the foraminiferan generic name Planularia Defrance, 1826 by the suppression of its unused senior subject- ive synonym Linthuris de Montfort, 1808 and of the unused homonym Planularia Nilsson, 1826. 1. De Montfort (1808, p. 254) proposed the genus Linthuris with the new species L. cassidatus de Montfort, 1808 the type by monotypy. L. cassidatus (although this was not stated) was a substitute name for Nautilus cassis ‘var. B’ Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (pp. 97-98), and its unnecessary nature was soon recognised. Defrance (in de Blainville, 1823, p. 555) noticed that L. cassidatus de Montfort, 1808 was based on Fichtel & Moll’s described material, and in consequence he used Linthuris cassis for the taxon. Linthuris has not been used as a valid generic name for over 150 years, as it has been regarded as a synonym of either Lenticulina Lamarck, 1804, or of its junior synonym Cristellaria Lamarck, 1812. 2. The original type specimens of N. cassis Fichtel & Moll, 1798 have now been discovered and redescribed by us (R6gl & Hansen, 1984, pp. 61—63), including the original lectotype (loc. cit. p. 62, text-fig. 23, pl. 22, figs 3-4). All the specimens are undoubtedly conspecific. They are curated in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna (Inv. Nos. MI 552, 554, 555 and 556). 3. The lectotype (and the paratypes) of N. cassis Fichtel & Moll, 1798 are without doubt congeneric with the widely used genus Planularia Defrance, 1826, p. 244; type species by monotypy, Peneroplis auris Defrance in de Blainville, 1824, p. 178. Resurrect- ion of Linthuris de Montfort, 1808 as a senior synonym of Planularia Defrance, 1826 would be a serious disruption to nomenclatural stability. 4. In the same year Nilsson (1826, p. 342) independently proposed the generic name Planularia for two species (P. elliptica Nilsson, 1826 and P. angusta Nilsson, 1826), neither of which has subsequently been designated as type species. Planularia Nilsson, 1826 has been either ignored or regarded as a junior homonym of Planu- laria Defrance (e.g. Loeblich & Tappan, 1964, p. C522), but in view of the closeness of the publication dates and of the uncertainty of exact calendar priority it is requested that Planularia Nilsson, 1826 be formally suppressed in order to ensure stability. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 115 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names: (a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Planularia Defrance, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Peneroplis auris Defrance, 1824; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name auris Defrance, 1824, as published in the binomen Peneroplis auris Defrance, 1824 (specific name of the type species of Planularia Defrance, 1826); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Defrance, M. J. L. 1823. Jn de Blainville, H. M. D. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 26, 555 pp. F. G. Levrault, Paris. Defrance, M. J. L. 1824. Jn de Blainville, H. M. D. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 32, 567 pp. F. G. Levrault, Paris. Defrance, M. J. L. 1826. Jn Cuvier, M. F. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 41, 558 pp. F. G. Levrault, Paris. Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H., 1964. In Moore, R. C. (Ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part C, Protista 2, vol. 2(2), pp. C511—900. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press. Lawrence, Kansas. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1. 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. Nilsson, S. 1826., Om de mangrummiga snackor som férekomma i Kritformationen i Sverige. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapakademiens Handlingar, 1825, (2): 329-343. 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, vol. 3, 143 pp. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2225/6 Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK—1350, Copenhagen, Denmark Fred Rogl Geologisch—Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the foraminiferan generic name Borelis de Montfort, 1808 in its accepted sense by the designation of Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (defined by a recently designated neotype) as its type species, replacing the original but subsequently unused Borelis melonoides. 1. Fichtel & Moll (1798, pp. 118-123, tab. 24) described the foraminiferal species Nautilus melo with the two ‘varieties’ a and B. These forms were used by de Montfort (1808) to create his two new genera Clausulus and Borelis respectively. 2. Clausulus de Montfort (1808, pp. 178-180) included the single species and hence type by monotypy Clausulus indicator. Borelis de Montfort (1808, pp. 170-172) included the single species Borelis melonoides. The specific names indicator and melonoides are equivalent to the Fichtel & Moll ‘melo var. a and ‘melo var. B’ respectively. 3. Borelis has been used very extensively by later authors; C/ausulus has remained unused, and we propose its suppression. The nomenclatural situation is complicated by the fact that the Borelis melo (Fichtel & Moll) of later authors corresponds to the description and figures of Fichtel & Moll’s ‘Nautilus melo var. a’, that is to say Clausulus indicator, so that the subsequent concept of Borelis does not match that of de Montfort, the original author (see R6gl & Hansen, 1984, p. 72). 4. In order to stabilize the name Borelis melo in its commonly used sense we (ROgl & Hansen (1984, pp. 71—72)) designated a specimen corresponding to Nautilus melo var. 0 as the neotype of N. melo (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, inventory no. MI-599); this fixes the concept denoted by the specific name melo. According to modern practice de Montfort (1808) should have retained the name melo for one of his two new nominal species, indicator or melanoides, neither of which specific names has been used. 5. In the interests of nomenclatural stability we propose that the Commission should designate Nautilus melo, now defined by a neotype as the type species of Borelis; the use of the Commission’s plenary powers under Article 79 of the Code is necessary to set aside B. melonoides as the type species. 6. The specific name indicator de Montfort, 1808, was based on ‘Nautilus melo var. (see para. 3), and following the neotype designation for N. melo mentioned in para. 4 it is a synonym of melo; we propose its suppression. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 117 7. Examination of the type material of Nautilus melo var. B (=melonoides de Montfort), preserved in the Vienna museum, shows that Nonionina bulloides d’Orbigny, 1846 is conspecific. Parker & Jones (1862, p. 184) described Pullenia with N. bulloides as the type species by monotypy. The specific name bulloides d’ Orbigny (1846, p. 107) is in wide use and we propose suppression of its unused senior subjective synonym melonoides. 8.The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Borelis de Montfort, 1808, and to designate Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as defined by the neotype designated by R6gl & Hansen (1984), as the type species; (2) 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) Clausulus de Montfort, 1808; (b) melonoides de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Borelis melonoides; (c) indicator de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Clausulus indicator; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798; (b) Pullenia Parker & Jones, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Nonionina bulloides d’Orbigny, 1846; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus melo and as defined by the neotype designated by R6gl & Hansen (1984) (specific name of the type species of Borelis de Montfort, 1808); (b) bulloides d’Orbigny, 1846, as published in the binomen Nonionina bulloides (specific name of the type species of Pullenia Parker & Jones); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name C/ausulus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (2) (a) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) melonoides de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Borelis melonoides and as suppressed in (2) (b) above; (b) indicator de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Clausulus indicator and as suppressed in (2) (c) above. References Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1. 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1846. Foraminiféres fossiles du Bassin Tertiaire de Vienne ( Autriche). 312 pp. Gide et Comp., Paris. Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. R. 1862 in Carpenter, W. B. Introduction to the study of the Foraminifera, 319 pp., 22 pl. Ray Society Publications, London. 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, vol. 3, 143 pp. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2225/7 Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus; Foraminiferida): proposed replacement of the neotype Hans Jorgen Hansen Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350, Copenhagen, Denmark Fred Rogl Geologisch-Paldontologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria Abstract. The purpose of this application is to set aside the neotype for Nautilus repandus (the type species of Eponides de Montfort, 1808) designated in 1962. The holotype of this species, once believed lost, was discovered and redescribed in 1984. The holotype and neotype are conspecific. 1. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (p. 35, pl. 3, figs a—d) is the type species, by original designation, of Eponides de Montfort (1808, p. 127). The genus Eponides has been cited very extensively since its first proposal and the family EPONIDIDAE Hofker (1951, p. 321) is maintained in the most widely adopted classifications (e.g. Loeblich & Tappan, 1964). 2. The Fichtel & Moll collection was once believed to be lost, so a neotype for N. repandus was proposed by Loeblich & Tappan in 1962 (p. 36). It was refigured by these authors in 1964 (p. C679). The holotype of N. repandus has now been discovered and redescribed (R6gl & Hansen, 1984) and is curated in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna (Inv. No. MI-470). 3. Under Article 75h of the Code rediscovery of original type material after desig- nation of a neotype must be referred to the Commission. In this instance no change in the concept of the species will result; Loeblich & Tappan (pers. comm.) concur that the holotype and neotype are conspecific. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the neotype designation by Loeblich & Tappan (1962) for Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names the name Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus repandus (specific name of the type species of Eponides de Montfort, 1808) as defined by the holotype mentioned in para. 2 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 119 References Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J. P. C. von, 1798. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta. 123 pp. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Hofker, J. 1951. The Foraminifera of the Siboga Expedition, part III, Siboga—Expeditie. 513 pp. E. J. Brill, Leiden. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H. 1962. The status and type species of Calcarina, Tinoporus and Eponides (Foraminiferida). Contributions from the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, 13(2): 33-38. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H. 1964. In Moore, R. C. (Ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part C. Protista 2, vol. 2(2), pp. C511—900. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Montfort, D. de, 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1. 409 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. 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, vol. 3h 143 pp. z 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2612 Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation of the specific name 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 well known and widely used specific name Jongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392) for the White Prawn, Palaemon longirostris, by the suppression of the unused senior synonym Astacus albescens Pennant, 1812. In addition P. /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392) is threatened by the first reviser action of Heller (1863), who gave the name P. /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394) precedence over its homonym published two pages earlier. 1. Pennant (1777, p. 18) in vol. 4 of the 4th edition of his British Zoology (the first edition in which the Crustacea were dealt with by him), described two species of prawns, both in the genus Astacus. One was described and figured (p. 19, pl. 16, fig. 28) under the latin name Astacus serratus and given the vernacular name ‘Prawn’. At present this species is still known in Britain as the ‘Common Prawn’, and is currently named Palaemon serratus (Pennant, 1777). The other species was named (p. 19) Astacus squilla (a new combination for Cancer squilla L., 1758) and given the vernacular name ‘White’, probably meaning White Shrimp or White Prawn; no figure was provided of this species. 2. In the next (5th) edition of his work, Pennant (1812, p. 25) changed his views and used the name Astacus squilla for the Common Prawn and gave the new name Astacus albescens to the White Shrimp. The description of Pennant’s 1777 A. serratus and his 1812 A. squilla are word for word the same; so are those of his 1777 A. squilla and his 1812 A. albescens. All the references that Pennant (1777) gave under Astacus squilla were retained by him for that species in 1812, as well as the reference that he gave under A. serratus. The only reference under Astacus albescens in 1812 is to his own 1777 A. squilla. 3. The bibliographic references given by Pennant (1777, p. 19) are the following: Under A. serratus he referred only to ‘Squilla Crangon. Rondel. 547’, which concerns Penaeus kerathurus (Forskal, 1775) (family PENAEIDAE), described and figured by Rondelet (1554, p. 547, fig.) in his chapter ‘De Squilla crangone’; Pennant thus mistakenly referred Rondelet’s species to his Astacus serratus, which thereby becomes a composite species; Under Astacus squilla: (a) ‘Cancer Squilla Lin. Syst. 1051. Faun. Suec. No. 2037. As shown before (Opinion 564), Cancer squilla described by Linnaeus (1758, p. 632; 1761, pp. 495-496) belongs to Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1837. The latter name is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 121 conserved by the Commission through suppression of the specific name squilla L. (b) ‘Squilla Batava. Seb. Mus. iii, p. 55, tab. xxi, fig. 9.10’. Pennant made an error here as the species which Seba (1759, p. 55) named ‘Squilla marina, batava’ was figured on pl. 21, fig. 8 and shows Crangon crangon (L.) (family CRANGONIDAE). The animals figured on pl. 21, figs. 9 and 10 were named by Seba ‘Squilla mas et femina, ex freto Davisii’ and are almost certainly Eualus macilentus (Kroyer, 1841) (family HTPPOLYTIDAE). (c) ‘Squilla fusca. Baster ii. p. 30, tab. i, fig. S’. Baster’s (1762, p. 30, pl. 3, fig. 5) Squilla fusca is known at present as Palaemonetes varians (Leach, 1814). Baster’s name is not available as his book is non-binominal. (d) ‘Squilla Gibba. Rondel. 549’. Rondelet (1554, p. 549, fig.) figured a species of Palaemon, almost certainly P. serratus judging by the shape of the rostrum. 4. There are no major nomenclatural problems with Astacus serratus Pennant, 1777. As pointed out above, however, it is a composite species. Pennant’s description and figure are clearly based on the Common Prawn, but his reference to Rondelet shows that he also included Penaeus kerathurus (Forskal, 1775) in his species. Therefore to let the name serratus be continued to be used in its accustomed sense, I now select as lectotype of Astacus serratus Pennant, 1777 the specimen figured by Pennant (1777) on his pl. 16, fig. 28. 5. The valid specific name serratus is unanimously accepted by carcinologists, and the species is now generally known as Palaemon serratus (Pennant, 1777). 6. Itis the name of Pennant’s second species that causes difficulties. Pennant’s (1777, pp. 19-20; 1812, pp. 25-26) description is as follows: “L[obster] with a snout like the prawn [= Palaemon serratus], but deeper and thinner; and feelers longer in proportion to the bulk; the sub-caudal fins rather larger; is at full growth not above half the size of the former. Inhabits the coasts of Kent; is sold in London under the name of the white shrimp, as it assumes that color when boiled’. The fact that Pennant (1777) assigned the species to Cancer squilla, and his comparison of it with Palaemon serratus suggests it is a Palaemonid prawn. The morphological description by Pennant also fits a Palaemonid prawn, but gives very few clues as to the identity of the species; it might refer to practically any of the British PALAEMONINAE. Gurney (1923, p. 111) said that Palaemon longirostris is abundant in Norfolk and ‘known to local fishermen as the “‘Jack Shrimp” or “White Prawn’’’; it is caught there for bait. In S.W. France, in the area of the Gironde estuary, the species is named ‘la crevette blanche’ and is caught with shrimp nets (Sorbe, 1983, p. 258). Also, in the Netherlands the species is caught and used for bait. The species is thus of some economic importance and may have reached the London markets in Pennant’s time. The name White Shrimp and Crevette Blanche are given to the species because, unlike Palaemon elegans Rathke, ‘this species turns an opaque white when dead’ (Smaldon, 1979, p. 36) and does not acquire the usual red colour when boiled. 7. It seems almost certain that the Astacus albescens described by Pennant (1812) is the same as Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392), and that the junior specific name /ongirostris should have to make way for its senior synonym albescens. The specific name albescens Pennant, 1812, also is older than the names of most other British Palaemonids (varians Leach, 1814; adspersus Rathke, 1837; elegans Rathke, 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 1837). Only serratus Pennant, 1777, is older, but that is the only species of which we can be fully certain that it is different from A. albescens. 8. As the name a/bescens Pennant, 1812 has not been used for any species since it was established, it is a typical example of a forgotten name; its junior synonym /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837, has been used almost exclusively for the species for at least 60 years. Also, the other names cited in para. 7 are all well established and currently in general use, and they have already been placed on the Official List: varians Leach, 1814, adspersus Rathke, 1837, and elegans Rathke, 1837 (Opinions 470 (1957) and 564 (1959); Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 16: 129 and 20: 337). Therefore the suppression of albescens is requested here in the interest of nomenclatural stability. 9. It also seems appropriate to now place the specific names /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392) and serratus Pennant, 1777 on the Official List. 10. Furthermore, it is requested to place on the Official Index the name /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394). The history of this name is in itself quite complicated. The problems started with the fact that H. Milne Edwards (1837) in the second volume of his Histoire naturelle des Crustacés described two new species of Palaemon (pp. 392 and 394) with the latin name Palemon longirostris. The first of these is our white prawn, the type material of which came from the mouth of the river Garonne near Bordeaux, S.W. France. The other P. /ongirostris came from the mouth of the river Ganges in India. H. Milne Edwards (1840, p. 638) discovered his error and in an erratum changed the name of the Indian species (‘T. 2, p. 394, ligne 11, au lieu de Palémon longirostre, P. longirostris, lisez: Palémon stylifére, P. styliferus’). The word styliferus probably is a grammatical error for stylifer, which is the masculine form of the latin word for stylet- bearing (stylifer, stylifera, styliferum). As, however, H. Milne Edwards did not give the derivation of the name, its spelling cannot be changed. His vernacular name ‘stylifére’ cannot be considered as giving the derivation, as the vernacular names in his book are not always a direct translation of the latin name, e.g. in vol. 2, p. 330, it says ‘Ecrevisse commune — Astacus fluviatilis’. There is therefore no need to change the currently used spelling styliferus for the name in question. 11. H. Milne Edwards (1840) is usually considered the first reviser, reserving the name /ongirostris for the European species and giving the name styliferus to the Asiatic one. However this is not formally correct, as in 1840 he cited only a single name and did not mention the other, and so does not fulfil the requirements for the first reviser as set out in the Code. The actual first reviser to give the European P. longirostris precedence over the Asiatic was Rathbun (1902, pp. 50-51), who had rediscovered H. Milne Edwards’ 1840 action, which had been overlooked by previous authors. 12. In the meantime, however, Heller (1863, p. 265) had proposed the replacement name Palaemon edwardsii for the European P. Jongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392). He did this “da eine schon frither von Say beschriebene Art als P. longirostris bezeichnet ist’. However, Say (1818) never described Palaemon longirostris. Heller’s statement is clearly caused by the fact that H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 394), immedi- ately after giving the name P. lJongirostris (for the Asiatic species), incorrectly referred to his footnote (2), which runs as follows: ‘(2) Say. Crustacea of the United States. Journ. of Sc. of the Acad. of Philadelphia, vol. V, p. 248’. On p. 248 of Say’s (1818) publication Palaemon vulgaris is described, and it is clear that footnote (2) in H. Milne Edwards’ text should have been placed with that species which immediately follows Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 123 P. longirostris. Heller (1863), evidently without consulting Say’s (1818) paper, was of the erroneous belief that Say had introduced the name P. Jongirostris for the Asiatic species. Heller’s action could be construed as a first reviser action, and, if so, the name longirostris should go to the Indian species. This would be most unfortunate, as the name styliferus has been used for the Indian species by all authors since 1903; it is an economically important species and is dealt with in numerous scientific and non-scientific papers. 13. In order to leave not the least doubt as to the validity of the name P. Jongirostris for the European species, it seems best to suppress the name J/ongirostris H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 394) for the Indian species. 14. No action is required for the names Palaemon and PALAEMONIDAE as both have already been placed on their respective Official Lists in Opinion 564. 15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name albescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus albescens, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the specific name Jongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as published in the binomen Palaemon longirostris, 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) longirostris H. Milne-Edwards, 1837 (p. 392), as published in the binomen Palaemon longirostris; (b) serratus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Astacus serratus; (c) styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1840, as published in the binomen Palaemon | styliferus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 7 the following names: (a) albescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus albescens and as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) edwardsii Heller, 1863, as published in the binomen Palaemon edwardsii, a junior objective synonym of Jongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392); (c) longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as published in the binomen Palaemon longirostris, and as suppressed in (1) (b) above. References Baster, J. 1765. Opuscula subseciva, observationes miscellaneas de animalculis et plantis quibusdam marinis, eorumque ovariis et seminibus continentia, vol. 2, 150 pp. Bosch, Haarlem. Gurney, R. 1923. Some notes on Leander longirostris M. Edwards, and other British Prawns. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London, 1923: 97-123. Heller, C. 1863. Die Crustaceen des stidlichen Europa, 336 pp. Braumiiller, Wien. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, 824 pp. Salvius, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Suecica, ed. 2, 578 pp. Salvius, Holmiae. Milne Edwards, H. 1837. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, 532 pp. Roret, Paris. Milne Edwards, H. 1840. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 3, 638 pp. Roret, Paris. Pennant, T. 1777. British Zoology, ed. 4, vol. 4, 136 pp. White, London. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Pennant, T. 1812. British Zoology, ed. 5, vol. 4, 379 pp. Walker et al, London. Rathbun, M. J. 1902. Japanese stalk-eyed crustaceans. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 26: 23-55. Rondelet, G. 1554. Libri de piscibus marinis, in quibus verae piscium effigies expressae sunt, 583 pp. Bonhomme, Lyon. Say, T. 1818. An account of the Crustacea of the United States (Part 5). Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1 (2): 235-253. Seba, A. 1759. Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio et iconibus artificiosis- simis expressio per universam physices historiam, vol. 3, 212 pp. Janssonius van Waesberge, Amsterdam. Smaldon, G. 1979. British coastal shrimps and prawns. Synopsis of British Fauna (n. series), vol. 15, 126 pp. Sorbe, J. C. 1983. Les Déecapodes Natantia de l’estuaire de la Gironde (France). Contribution a l’étude morphologique et biologique de Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837. Crustaceana, 44: 251-270. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 125 Case 2564 Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): conservation proposée pour le nom spécifique Gerard Breton Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, place du Vieux-Marché, 76600, Le Havre, France Abstract. The object of this application is the conservation of the name Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, {913 for a very large Cretaceous starfish by the suppression of a senior subjective synonym, Pentetagonaster dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850 (unused since 1887 and the type series of which is composite). Resumé. Le but de cette démarche est la conservation du nom spécifique de Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913, appliqué a une tres grande étoile de mer de la craie campan- ienne, par la suppression d’un synonyme subjectif plus ancien, Pentetagonaster dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850 (inemployeé depuis 1887 et dont la série-type est composite). 1. Le nom Pentetagonaster dutemplei est proposé par d’Orbigny en 1850 (p. 274) pour une espece commune dans la craie de Chavot (prés d’Epernay, Marne, France) et de Sens. La diagnose dit simplement ‘Espéce a trés larges plaques oblongues’. (Beau- coup des espéces de la liste de d’Orbigny sont publiées avec la date de 1847. Ila expliqué (Introduction, Plan de l’ouvrage, p. 59) que, bien que le manuscrit était complet en 1847, Pouvrage n’a été publie qu’en janvier 1850 a cause de la situation politique en France a ce moment). 2. Dans la collection d’Orbigny (Institut de Paléontologie, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) sont conservées sous l’index B16851 trois marginales €tiquetées ‘Collection d’Orbigny: Sénonien 8503 Comptonia Dutemplei d’Orbigny. Sénonien-Sens’. Parmi ces trois marginales se trouvent: (a) une inféromarginale de Metopaster sp. (genre distinct mais espéce non identifiable), et (b) deux supéromarginales médianes interradiales, compatibles avec la diagnose ci- dessus de Pentetagonaster dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, impossibles a distinguer des marginales de Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913, ci-dessous. Ces deux derniéres peuvent étre considérées comme les syntypes de P. dutemplei. 3. Péron (1887, p. 211) a décidé, a tort, que dutemplei et le nom d’une autre espéce, dutempleana d@’Orbigny, 1850, étaient homonymes. I] a abandonné ce dernier nom et a conservé dutemplei pour l’espéce de la Craie supérieure d’Epernay. 4. Spencer (1907) a inclus des marginales trés grandes d’un astéride de la craie avec des ossicules de Pycinaster senonensis Valette, 1902, un Aspidaster. Plus tard, ayant reconnu que les marginales n’étaient pas réellement associ¢es, Spencer (1913, p. 125) établit un nom nouveau, Pycinaster magnificus. Le nom, supporté par une diagnose et un holotype (une supéromarginale de Hampshire, en Angleterre, conservée sous |’index 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 B.34647 (store G.20) dans le Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge (communiqué de Dr A. S. Gale, City of London Polytechnic): Spencer 1913, pl. 11, fig. 15), est disponible. Spencer a mentionné ‘Marginalia of this species are often very large indeed, showing that the form was the giant amongst the chalk starfish’. 5. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913, qui est un synonyme subjectif plus récent de Pentetagonaster dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, inemployé depuis sa création a ceci prés qu'il a été cité par Peron (1887), a été cité dans la littérature par différents auteurs, par exemple Valette (1915, p. 41), Mercier (1935, p. 9), Schulz & Weitschat (1971, p. 123, figs 8 et 9). De plus, dans les collections ou cette espéce est représentée, elle a été €tiquetée sous le nom de Pycinaster magnificus: British Museum (Natural History), Dijon, Le Havre, Hambourg (S.G.P.I.H.) et probablement Copenhague. Comme j’ai dit ci-dessus, la série-type de P. dutemplei est composite, et le retour au nom le plus ancien me semblerait source de confusion. 6. Enconséquence, il est demandé a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique: (1) d’user de ses pleins pouvoirs pour supprimer le nom spécifique dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, publie dans le bindme Pentetagonaster dutemplei, au regard du Principe de Priorité, mais pas au regard du Principe d Homonymie; (2) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Spécifiques en Zoologie le nom magnifi- cus Spencer, 1913, publi¢ dans le bindme Pycinaster magnificus; (3) de placer sur l’ Index Officiel des Noms Spécifiques Rejetés et Invalides en Zoolo- gie le nom dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, publié dans le bindme Pentetagonaster dutemplei, et supprimé en application des pleins pouvoirs en (1) ci-dessus. References Mercier, J. 1935. Les Stellérides mésozoiques du Bassin de Paris (Bordure occidentale). Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, Nouvelle série — Section Géologique, 1, fasc. 2, mém. no. 3, pp. 66, 3 pls. Orbigny, A. d’. 1850. Prodrome de paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollus- ques et rayonnes. Vol. 1, Introduction, Plan de l’ouvrage, p. 59; vol. 2, p. 274. Masson, Paris. Péron, A. 1887. Notes pour servir a l’histoire du terrain de craie dans le sud-est du Bassin angloparisien. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de I’Yonne, 41: 145-428, pls. 1-8. Schulz, M. G. & Weitschat, W. 1971. Asteroiden aus der Schreibkreide von Lagerdorf (Holstein) und Hemmoor (N. Niedersachsen). Mitteilungen aus dem Geologische — Paldontologischen Institut der Universitat Hamburg, 40: 107-130, pl. 23-26. Spencer, W. K. 1907. A Monograph on the British fossil Echinodermata from the Cretaceous Formations. Vol. 11, The Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea. Part IV. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs). London. Spencer, W. K. 1913. The evolution of Cretaceous Asteroidea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. ser. B, vol. 204, 99-177, pl. 10-16. Valette, dom. A. 1915. Nouvelle note sur les Stelléridés de la Craie blanche du département de PYonne. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de I’ Yonne, 68: 1-70 (2-72). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 127 Case 2308 Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus? dubius; Conodonta): proposed conservation of the specific name Lennart Jeppsson Department of Geology, Lunds Universitet, Sweden Richard J. Aldridge Department of Geology, University of Nottingham, England Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the conodont Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 by the suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym Astacoderma spinosum Harley, 1861. 1. The three species Distomodus suberectus, Distomodus curvatus and Cordylodus? dubius were simultaneously established by Rhodes (1953, pp. 290, 290 and 299 respect- ively) for morphologically distinct conodont elements found in upper Silurian strata. Individual conodont elements formed part of a mineralised feeding apparatus, and it has subsequently been recognised that specimens originally referred to these three species, including the holotypes, belong to a single apparatus-based taxon (Jeppsson, 1972). Rhodes applied the name Cordylodus? dubius only to specimens now regarded as representing hi (=Sc) and, possibly, tr (=Sa) elements, but Jeppsson (1972, p. 57), as first reviser, selected the specific name dubius from the three available for the species. Jeppsson placed the species dubius in the genus Distomodus, although alternative assign- ments have been discussed (e.g. Rotundacodina Carls & Gandl, 1969, and Mabillard & Aldridge, 1983, p. 35; Dentacodina Wang, 1980). Thus, both the circumscription of the species and its binomen have changed, but the specific name has remained the same and has been widely used in the literature (e.g. Aldridge, 1975, p. 615, 1985, p. 88; Barrick & Klapper, 1976, p. 71; Carls & Gandl, 1969, p. 208; Drygant, 1974, p. 65, 1984, p. 76; Jeppsson, 1974, p. 18, 1984, p. 105; Klapper & Murphy, 1974, p. 47; Link & Druce, 1972, p. 30; Savage, 1973, p. 328; Serpagli, 1983, p. 156; Viira, 1982, p. 81; Walliser, 1957, p. 31; Wang, 1980, p. 370). Geographically, the species has been reported from much of Europe, as well as from Australia, the U.S.S.R. and China. 2. The name Astacoderma spinosum was used by Harley (1861, p. 550) for a single specimen which he figured from the Ludlow Bone Bed of Shropshire, England. In his 1952 catalogue, Fay listed two other references to that name: a review of Harley (1861) in ‘Neues Jahrbuch...’ (Anonymous, 1862, p. 748) and a listing in Bigsby’s ‘Thesaurus siluricus’ (1868, p. 72). Murchison (1867, p. 542) also commented on Harley’s specimen in the fourth edition of ‘Siluria’. More recently, the name has been mentioned by Bergstrom & Hansen (1979). The type specimen is housed in the British Museum (Natural History), stored under a cover slip, probably in Canada Balsam. We have both examined the specimen and agree that, although it is broken basally, its morph- ology and white-matter distribution show that it is an element of Distomodus? dubius 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 (Rhodes) sensu Jeppsson, 1972. It is probably an hi( = Sc) element, but the doubt about its basal symmetry introduces some uncertainty about its exact position in the apparatus; this may explain why Rhodes (1953, p. 261) was only able to identify it as Acodus sp. in single-element nomenclature. 3. The holotype of A. spinosum is broken and could prove difficult to assign in any attempt to define subspecies. The holotype of C? dubius is in a better state of preserv- ation and is associated with other elements from the same apparatus. Apart from the mentions by Fay (1952) and Bergstrom & Hansen (1979) the name Astacoderma spinosum has remained unused as a valid name for 115 years. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published in the binomen Astacoderma spinosum, 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 dubius Rhodes, 1953, as published in the binomen Cordylodus? dubius; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published in the binomen Astacoderma spinosum and as suppressed in (1) above. References Aldridge, R. J. 1975. The stratigraphic distribution of conodonts in the British Silurian. Journal of the Geological Society of London, 131: 607-618. Aldridge, R. J. 1985. Conodonts of the Silurian System from the British Isles. Pp. 68-92 in Higgins, A. C. & Austin, R. L. (eds.). A stratigraphical index of conodonts. 263 pp. Ellis Horwood, Chichester. Anonymous. 1862. J. Harley: Uber das Knochen-Bett von Ludlow und seine Kruster-Reste. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie und Petrefakten—Kunde, 1862: 746-748. Barrick, J. E. & Klapper, G. 1976. Multielement Silurian (Late Llandoverian—Wenlockian) conodonts of the Clarita Formation, Arbuckle Mountains, Oklahoma, and phylogeny of Kockelella. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 10: 59-90. Bergstrom, S. M. & Hansen, M. C. 1979. ‘Elictognathus’ acuminatus (St John and Worthen, 1875), the first named conodont species in America. Journal of Paleontology, 53: 729-732. Bigsby, J. J. 1868. Thesaurus siluricus: the flora and fauna of the Silurian Period. \ii+-214 pp. Van Voorst, London. Carls, P. & Gandl, J. 1969. Stratigraphie und Conodonten des Unter-Devons der Ostlichen Iberischen Ketten (NE-Spanien). Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen, 132: 155-218. Drygant, D. M. 1974. Simple conodonts from the Silurian and lowermost Devonian of the Volnyo—Podolian [in Russian with English summary]. Paleontologicheskii Sbornik Lvov, 10: 64-70. Drygant, D. M. 1984. Korrelatziya i Konodonti Siluriiskikh Nijnedevonskikh Otlojenii Volino— Podolii. [Correlation and conodonts of the Silurian-Lower Devonian deposits of Volyno— Podolia] 208 pp. Kiev Naukova Doomka. Fay, R. O. 1952. Catalogue of conodonts. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Vertebrata, 3: 206 pp. Harley, J. 1861. On the Ludlow Bone-Bed and its crustacean remains. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 17: 542-552. Jeppsson, L. 1972. Some Silurian conodont apparatuses and possible conodont dimorphism. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 6: 51-64. Jeppsson, L. 1974. Aspects of Late Silurian conodonts. Fossils and Strata, No. 6, 1—54. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 129 Jeppsson, L. 1984. Sudden appearances of Silurian conodont lineages: provincialism or special biofacies? Pp. 103—112 in Clark, D. L. (ed.): Conodont biofacies and provincialism. Geologi- cal Society of America, Special Paper 196, 340 pp. Klapper, G. & Murphy, M. A. 1974. Silurian—Lower Devonian conodont sequence in the Roberts Mountains Formation of central Nevada. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 111: 1-62. Link, A. G. & Druce, E. C. 1972. Ludlovian and Gedinnian conodont stratigraphy of the Yass Basin, New South Wales. Bulletin of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics. Canberra. 136 pp. Mabillard, J. E. & Aldridge, R. J. 1983. Conodonts from the Coralliferous Group (Silurian) of Marloes Bay, South-West Dyfed, Wales. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 17: 29-43. Murchison, R. I. 1867. Siluria. 4th edition, vii+566 pp. John Murray, London. Rhodes, F. H. T. 1953. Some British Lower Palaeozoic conodont faunas. Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society of London, (B), 237: 261-334. Savage, N. M. 1973. Lower Devonian conodonts from New South Wales. Palaeontology, 16: 307-333. © Serpagli, E. 1983. The conodont apparatus of Jcriodus woschmidti woschmidti Ziegler. Fossils and Strata, 15: 155-161. Viira, V. 1982. Late Silurian shallow and deep water conodonts of the East Baltic. Pp. 79-88 in Ecostratigraphy of the East Baltic Silurian. 109 pp. Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR, Institute of Geology, Tallinn, Valgus. Walliser, O. H. 1957. Conodonten aus dem oberen Gotlandium Deutschlands und der Karnis- chen Alpen. Notizblatt des Hessischen Landesamtes fiir Bodenforschung zu Wiesbaden, 85: 28-52. Wang Cheng-yuan. 1980. Upper Silurian conodonts from Qujing district, Yunnan [in Chinese with English abstract]. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 19: 369-378. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2440 LIPARIDAE Gill, [30 September] 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed confirmation of spelling Kenneth D. Vogt P. O. Box 230325, Anchorage, Alaska 99523-0325, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm the almost universal spelling of the fish family name LIPARIDAE although it is grammatically incorrect. The correct spelling, LIPARIDIDAE, has only been used about sixteen times up to and including 1983, whereas LIPARIDAE has been used some 900 times. 1. Ginther ([14 December], 1861, p. 158) proposed the name LIPARIDINA for a subdivision of the DISCOBOLIDAE. The type genus is Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (p. 453; type species by absolute tautonymy Cyclopterus liparis Linnaeus, 1766, p. 414). The date of Giinther’s work is taken from the minutes of a meeting of the Trustees of the British Museum on 14 December 1861, authorising the release of the book for sale. This has been independently confirmed from the records of the printer, Richard Taylor (British Museum, pers. comm.). Gill (1861, p. 47) proposed the name LIPARIDAE. The date of Gill’s publication can be fixed as prior to 30 September 1861, the date of notice of receipt of his book from the Boston Natural History Society (pers. comm. E. Bohlke, Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia, June 1987). Authorship of the name LIPARIDAE must therefore be attributed to Gill. 2. Steyskal (1980, p. 170) showed that the spelling LIPARIDAE was grammatically incorrect and should be replaced by the correct form LIPARIDIDAE. However, in the course of making a bibliography of approximately 900 references to the family up to and including 1983, I have found only 16 works which use the ending -IDIDAE. The Zoological Record continues to use the ending -IDAE. 3. The generic name Liparis has been used three times in zoology: by Scopoli (1777; Osteichthyes); by Bosc (1802; Crustacea) and by Ochsenheimer (1810; Lepidoptera). The last has also been used to form family-group names with the stems LIPAR- and LIPARID-, but these are invalid since Liparis Ochsenheimer (1810, p. 186) is a junior homonym. There are two additional generic names which have the stem Lipar- with respect to forming family group names. The first is Lipara Meigen (1830, p. 1) (Diptera), the second is Liparus Olivier (1807, p. 284) (Coleoptera), which has two junior homonyms. There is only one family group name based on Lipara Meigen: LIPARINI Nartshuk (1987, p. 224), and two based on Liparus Olivier: LIPARINI Marshall, 1932 (p. 346), and the sub-tribe ‘Liparides’ Latreille, 1829 (p. 70 in a footnote), which has not been used. 4. The precise derivation of the fish name remains obscure but there are several candidates. Most likely is from the Greek work /iparos meaning fatty (cf. ‘lipid’), sleek or shiny. It seems certain that although Scopoli was the author of the generic name, Liparis was in wide use by non-binominal authors. Although Mayr (1972, p. 99) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 131 suggested that family-group names proposed before 1948 and incorrectly formed should not be corrected if they had come into almost universal use, this provision was never incorporated into the Code and therefore the familiar name LIPARIDAE should be replaced by the relatively unused LIPARIDIDAE. It is clearly in the interests of stability that this does not happen and existing usage be maintained. 5. To maintain existing usage the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name Liparis Scopoli, 1777, is LIPAR-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (gender: feminine) type species, by absolute tautonymy, Cyclopterus liparis Linnaeus, 1766; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Jiparis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Cyclopterus liparis (specific name of the type species of Liparis Scopoli, 1777); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name LIPARIDAE Gill [30 September] 1861 (type genus Liparis Scopoli, 1777), spelling confirmed in (1) above. References Bosc, L. A. G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés 1: 79. Jn Buffon, G. L. L. de, Histoire Naturelle de Buffon, classée .. . d’aprés le systéme de Linné ... par R. R. Castel .. . nouvelle édition (Suites). Gill, T. N. 1861. Catalogue of the fishes of the eastern coast of North America, from Greenland to Georgia. 63 pp. Philadelphia. Giinther, A. C. L. G. 1861. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 3, xxv +586 pp. London. Latreille, P. A. 1829. Jn Cuvier, G. Le Régne Animal, vol. 5. 2nd Ed. 556 pp. Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 1(1), 532 pp. Holmiae. Marshall, G. A. K. 1932. Notes on the Hylobiinae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (10), 9: 341-355. Mayr, E. 1972. Six proposed amendments to the International Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 29: 99-101. Meigen, J. W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten Europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten, vol. 6, 404 pp. Nartshuk, E. P. 1987. Akadademiya Nauk SSSR. Trudy Zoologicheskii Institut 136: 1-280. Ochsenheimer, F. 1810. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 3, p. 186. Olivier, G. A. 1807. Entomologie, histoire naturelle des insectes. Vol. 5, Coléopteres. 612 pp. Paris. Scopoli, G. A. 1777. J. A. Scopoli. . . Introductio ad Historiam naturalem, sistens genera Lapidum, Plantarum et Animalium hactenus detecta, caracteribus essentialibus donata, in tribus divisa, subinde ad leges Naturae. 506 pp. Pragae. Steyskal, G. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by those of fishes. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 93(1): 168-177. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2619 Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and confirmation of authorship Robert N. Lea Marine Resources Division, California Department of Fish and Game, 2201 Garden Road, Monterey, California 93940, U.S.A. William N. Eschmeyer Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to fix the authorship of Scorpaenichthys marmoratus, a species of sculpin that was independently described twice with an ident- ical name and in the same year. It is proposed to conserve Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854, and to suppress Hemitripterus marmoratus Ayres, 1854. 1. The eastern North Pacific marine fish species commonly known as the cabezon (family COTTIDAE) is commercially and recreationally important and occurs from central Baja California to southeastern Alaska. It has been known scientifically by the name Scorpaenichthys marmoratus for about 135 years, yet the authorship remains in doubt. 2. Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854, and Hemitripterus marmoratus Ayres, 1854, were independently described but are the same species. Furthermore, the names were published within weeks or perhaps days of each other. 3. The paper in which Girard described Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (new genus and species, type by monotypy) was read before the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia at the meeting of 1 August 1854, and published in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, probably in September, but perhaps in early October or possibly in late August. Copies were acknowledged as received by the New York State Library in a letter dated 7 October 1854 (see 10 October meeting, in Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, 7(4): 173) and receipt acknowledged by the American Philosophical Society ina letter dated 20 October (see Nolan, 1913, p. xi). No additional information on date of publication is available from the Philadelphia Academy (E. Bohlke, pers. comm.). 4. The paper in which Ayres described the new species marmoratus in the established genus Hemitripterus (misspelled Hemitripteras by Ayres) was read about one month later at the meeting of the California Academy of Natural Sciences on 4 September 1854. The account was published on 8 September in a San Francisco newspaper, The Pacific. Articles appearing in The Pacific were shortly thereafter incorporated verbatim into the Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences (Vol. 1, part 1, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 133 containing Ayres’ article, is dated 22 September), but the date for Ayres’ marmoratus is clearly 8 September. This very possibly precedes Girard’s published account of marmoratus, although there is insufficient information to establish a precise date of publication for Girard’s description. Since neither author mentions the other, and since both describe the species as new and their descriptions differ in minor details, we assume that the descriptions and name selection were made independently (the marbled color pattern being characteristic of the species). Both have a type locality of San Francisco, California. Ayres’ type was presumably lost in the fire of 1906 that destroyed the California Academy’s collection. Girard (1854) did not list specimens, stating only (p. 129), ‘collected by Dr A. L. Heermann’ and (p. 131), ‘several specimens were procured ... from San Francisco.’ Based on Girard (1858, p. 65), USNM (United States National Museum of Natural History) 314 contained 3 syntypes; USNM 314 (examined by us on 27 June 1987) now contains two specimens. 5. Although Ayres is most often listed as the author of the species in recent literature, a survey of several pertinent publications on North American fishes illustrates the confusion in the literature with regard to authorship, although all workers agree that there is but one species. The following attribute authorship to Ayres: Robins et al. (1980, p. 62), Hart (1973, p. 540), Jordan et al. (1930, p. 382), Jordan & Evermann (1898, p. 1889). The following regard Girard as the author: Hubbs et al. (1979, p. 20), Fitch & Lavenberg (1971, p. 59), Bolin (1944, p. 6). 6. There is only one species in Girard’s genus Scorpaenichthys (type species marmor- atus Girard). To attribute the species name marmoratus to Ayres, perhaps of slightly earlier date, therefore causes considerable confusion, especially in reference to the type species of Scorpaenichthys. Suppression of marmoratus Ayres would therefore lead to stability and eliminate problems in this unusual case of homonymy and synonymy. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name marmoratus Ayres, 1854 as published in the binomen Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus, 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 Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name marmoratus Girard, 1854, as published in the binomen Scorpaenichthys marmoratus; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name marmoratus Ayres, 1854, as published in the binomen Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Ayres, W. O. 1854. [Description of new fishes from California.] The Pacific, 3(44): 174 [8 Sept. 1854]. Also as: Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences, 1: 3—6 [22 Sept. 1854]. Bolin, R. L. 1944. A review of the marine cottid fishes of California. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin, 3(1): 1-135. Fitch, J. E. & Lavenberg, R. J. 1971. Marine food and game fishes of California. California Natural History Guides, 28. Berkeley: University of California Press, 179 pp. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Girard, C. F. 1854. Descriptions of new fishes collected by Dr A. L. Heermann, naturalist attached to the survey of the Pacific railroad route, under Lieut. R. S. Williamson, U.S.A. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7(4): 129-140. Girard, C. F. 1858. Fishes. Jn Reports of explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. Senate Document no. 78, 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, vol. 10, part 4, xiv+400 pp. Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 180, ix+740 pp. Hubbs, C. L., Follett, W. I. & Dempster, L. J. 1979. List of the fishes of California. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences, No. 133, 51 pp. Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. 1898. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America, North of the Isthmus of Panama. Part 2. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No. 47, i-xxx, pp. 1241-2183. 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 of the U.S. Commission of Fisheries, part 2, for 1928, 670 pp. Nolan, E. J. (Ed.) 1913. Dates of Publication. (pp. vii—xiv), in An index to the Scientific contents of the Journal and Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences. Robins, C. R., Bailey, R. M., Bond, C. E., Brooker, J. R., Lachner, E. A., Lea, R. N. & Scott, W. B. 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 4th ed. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 12, 174 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 135 Case 2631 Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (= Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819) as the type species Reeve M. Bailey Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109-1079 U.S.A. C. Richard Robins Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 33149-1098 U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this petition is the conservation of Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 as the generic or subgeneric name for the North American bullhead catfishes by desig- nation of an appropriate type species; the present type species makes Ameiurus a junior subjective synonym of Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819, the established name for the flathead catfish, P. olivaris (Rafinesque, 1818). 1. The name Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820b (p. 65), or its unjustified emendation Amiurus Gill, 1861a (p. 44), has long been used as a genus-group name for the North American catfishes (family ICTALURIDAE Gill, 1861), commonly called bullheads. As proposed, Ameiurus was one of four ‘sections’ of the new subgenus IJctalurus of Pimelodus Lacepéde, 1803. Until the publication of the third edition of the Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature in 1985, only primary subdivisions of a genus (i.e., subgenera) had standing in nomenclature, and Ameiurus was replaced by Amiurus Gill (1861a, p. 44); e.g., Taylor (1954, p. 43) and Lundberg (1982, p. 2); the spelling had previously been emended by Agassiz (1846, p. 17). 2. Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820b included four species (cupreus, lividus, melas, and xanthocephalus), all described previously (Rafinesque, 1820a, pp. 50-51) in Silurus Linnaeus, 1758. No type species was designated for Ameiurus. For Amiurus, Gill (1861b, p. 50) stated ‘Type Amiurus catus Gill, Syn. Pimelodus catus Lac.’, but since Silurus catus Linnaeus, 1758 was not originally included in Ameiurus it is ineligible (S. catus was mentioned by Rafinesque under Jctalurus (p. 62), but not in the ‘section’ Ameiurus (pp. 65-66). Bleeker (1862, p. 12) followed Gill in regarding catus as the type species of Ameiurus. 3. Jordan & Copeland (1877, p. 159) listed ‘Amiurus cupreus (Raf.) Gill’ first among the 21 species of Amiurus admitted by them; this was their method of designating the type species (op. cit., p. 134). About the same time, Jordan & Gilbert (1877, p. 87) also specified Si/urus cupreus as type of Ameiurus; this is the first valid designation for the genus. In subsequent publications (e.g., Jordan & Gilbert, 1883, p. 102; Jordan & Evermann, 1896, p. 135; Jordan, 1917, p. 112, and Fowler, 1945, p. 12) cupreus (variously assigned to Silurus or Pimelodus) is given as type species of Ameiurus. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 4. In the publications listed in the previous paragraph Silurus cupreus is indicated as being a junior synonym of Pimelodus natalis Lesueur (1819, p. 154). However, since Rafinesque did not preserve type specimens, the identity of S. cupreus depends on the interpretation of his original description (Rafinesque, 1820a, p. 51). This placed cupreus in the category ‘Silures with an entire tail’. The rest of the description is as follows: ‘Silurus cupreus. Yellow cat-fish. Body of an uniform coppered yellowish colour, upper jaw longer, lateral barb half the length of the head, lateral line straight, eyes elliptic, spinous rays short and smooth, anal fin with fifteen rays, tail rounded. It is a large species, often weighing 20 Ibs and sometimes 100 Ibs; the fins are thick, the spinous ray of the dorsal is nearly concealed in the fleshy membrane. D.1 and 7. P.1 and 17. Abd.8. A.15. C.20.’ Taken together the three statements ‘tail entire, anal fin with 15 rays, often weighing 20 lbs and sometimes 100 pounds’ [45-4kg] can apply only to Silurus olivaris Rafinesque, 1818 (p. 355; = Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819, the type species of Pylodictis by monotypy). No other ictalurid with a truncate tail weighs more than about 3-6 kg, but Pylodictis olivaris commonly exceeds 50 pounds, occasionally sur- passes 100, and reaches 125 Ibs. (56-7 kg). The coppery yellow color, short barbels, and especially the short anal fin apply best to this species. Rafinesque’s pectoral fin ray count (1 and 17) is an obvious error (one spine and 11 soft rays is usual in P. olivaris, one spine and 8 or 9 rays in S. lividus (= Pimelodus natalis). Rafinesque characterized the last species as having 25 anal rays, a credible count. The sole character given for cupreus that fits natalis better than olivaris is ‘upper jaw longer’; olivaris usually has the lower jaw somewhat projecting (except in young), as Rafinesque noted for his Pylodictis limosus. Association of the name cupreus with natalis by Jordan and his associates presumably stems from the yellow color, but this applies to individuals of both natalis and olivaris, and the latter is commonly termed ‘yellow catfish’. In view of the careless- ness of many of Rafinesque’s descriptions, the identification of Silurus cupreus as S. olivaris (= Pylodictis limosus) seems fully warranted. Unfortunately this makes Ameiurus (1820) a junior subjective synonym of Pylodictis (1819), the established generic name for the flathead catfish. 5. A change in the familiar name for the bullheads (Ameiurus auct.) would cause confusion. Bullheads have a known fossil history going back at least to the Oligocene, and include several fossil and seven Recent species, most of which are widespread geographically, are important in sport fisheries, and are well regarded as food. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the genus Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820, and to designate as type Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (= Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names: (a) Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation in (1) above, Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (a junior subjective synonym of Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819); (b) Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- typy Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819 (a junior subjective synonym of Silurus olivaris Rafinesque, 1818); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 137 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) natalis Lesueur, 1819, as published in the binomen Pimelodus natalis (valid specific name at the time of this application for the type species of Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820, as a senior subjective synonym of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820); (b) olivaris Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Silurus olivaris (valid specific name at the time of this application of the type species of Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819, as a senior subjective synonym of Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819). References z Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici. Index universalis. viii+ 393 pp. Soloduri. Bleeker, M. P. 1862. Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néerlandaises. Tome II. 112 pp. Amsterdam. Cope, E. D. 1864. On a blind silurid (Gronias nigrilabris) from Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1864: 231—233. Fowler, H. W. 1945. A study of the fishes of the southern Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph 7. vi+408 pp. Gill, T. 1861a. Descriptions of new species of Pimelodinae. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 8(1862): 42—46. Gill, T. 1861b. Synopsis of the genera of the sub-family of Pimelodinae. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 8(1862): 46-55. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (3rd ed.). 1985. xx +338 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, and University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Jordan, D.S. 1917. The genera of fishes, pt. 1, from Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758-1833, seventy-five years, with the accepted type of each. Leland Stanford Junior Publications, University Series, 27: 1-161. Jordan, D. S. & Copeland, H. E. 1877 (perhaps late 1876). Check list of the fishes of the fresh waters of North America. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, 3: 133-164. Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum No. 47, Pt. 1: 1x+1240 pp. Jordan, D. S. & Gilbert, C. H. 1877. On the genera of North American fresh-water fishes. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1877: 83-104. Jordan, D. S. & Gilbert, C. H. 1883. Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No. 16(1882): lvit+ 1018 pp. Lesueur, C. A. 1819. Notice sur quelques poissons découverts dans les lacs du haut Canada, durant l’éte de 1816. Mémoires du Muséum d’ Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 148-161. Lundberg, J. G. 1982. The comparative anatomy of the toothless blindcat, Trogloglanis pattersoni Eigenmann, with a phylogenetic analysis of the ictalurid catfishes. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 163. 85 pp. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818 (Sept.). Discoveries in natural history made during a journey through the western region of the United States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, New York, 3(5): 354—356. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820a. Description of the Silures or Catfishes of the River Ohio. The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature, and the Arts, The Royal Institution of Great Britain, London, 9: 48-52. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820b. Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the River Ohio and its tributary streams. 90 pp. Lexington, Kentucky. Taylor, W. R. 1954. Records of fishes in the John N. Lowe collection from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 87. 50 pp. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Case 2366 Hyla chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation and designation of a neotype Hobart M. Smith Department of EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. Kevin T. Fitzgerald Alameda East Veterinary Hospital, 9870 East Alameda, Denver, Colorado 80231, U.S.A. Louis J. Guillette, Jr. Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the modern usage of the names Hyla versicolor and H. chrysoscelis for two cryptic species (the former tetraploid, the latter diploid) of tree frogs occurring in the south-eastern United States. 1. An application by us to deal with the nomenclatural problems posed by the recognition (Johnson, 1961) of two very similar but distinct species of treefrog in the eastern United States was published in 1983 (BZN 40: 165-166). This was voted upon by the Commission in September 1985. 2. That application sought, inter alia, to place the specific name chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (published with the generic name Hy/a) on the Official List and to designate a neotype for that species. 3. Johnson (1959; 1961; 1963; 1966) reported that one of the frog species concerned had a faster call rate than the other. The former species is diploid (Bogart & Wasserman, 1972) while the slower-calling species is tetraploid (Wasserman, 1970). Johnson found minor morphological differences, and by means of cross-breeding experiments demonstrated genetic incompatibility and differentiation at the specific level. On geographical grounds Johnson (1961) used the name Hyla versicolor Le Conte, 1825 for the tetraploid slow-calling species and adopted H. chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (originally published as H. femoralis chrysoscelis) for the diploid fast-caller. 4. The name chrysoscelis had remained unused from 1880 until 1947, when it was revived by Smith & Brown (p. 49) for a subspecies of H. versicolor, which had been an established name for many years. Examination by Fitzgerald, Smith & Guillette (1981) of the holotype of H. femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (preserved in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia as specimen ANSP 13672) showed that it is in fact tetraploid, contrary to the usage of chrysoscelis by Johnson mentioned above. No original type of H. versicolor Le Conte (1825, p. 281) exists. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 139 5. Only one synonym is known for H. chrysoscelis sensu Johnson (1961), namely H. versicolor sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947 (p. 48). Since Johnson’s work H. chrysoscelis has been used for the diploid species in a very large number of publications (a represent- ative list is held by the Commission Secretariat), while sandersi has been used only by Schmidt (1953, p. 73) and Conant (1958, p. 282); further details were published in our earlier application (BZN 40: 165-166). It is therefore highly desirable to conserve chrysoscelis sensu Johnson rather than to revive the name sandersi. 6. In our earlier application we proposed that the Commission set aside the type status of the holotype of H. chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (specimen ANSP 13672 mentioned in para. 4) and substitute as neotype the holotype of H. versicolor sandersi, which is in the United States National Museum (specimen USNM 123978). This would have made H. sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947 a junior objective synonym of chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, and would attach the latter name to the diploid species. 7. During the voting on our earlier application it was pointed out that it was inappropriate to quote ‘Cope, 1880’ as the author of chrysoscelis in the modern sense, when Cope had no knowledge of that taxon and especially as his holotype (ANSP 13672) had now been shown to belong to the species known in recent years as versicolor. For this reason no ruling was published. 8. Accordingly, we now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy all uses of the name chrysoscelis pub- lished in combination with the generic name Hy/a Laurenti, 1768 (p. 32) prior to that by Johnson (1961); (2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947, as published in the trinomen Hyla versicolor sandersi, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (3) to designate as neotype of Hyla chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961 the specimen USNM 123978 mentioned in para. 6 above; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) versicolor Le Conte, 1825, as published in the binomen Hy/a versicolor, and (b) chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961, as published in the binomen Hyla chrysoscelis and as interpreted by the neotype USNM 123978 designated in (3) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) chrysoscelis: all uses published in combination with the generic name Hyla Laurenti, 1768 prior to that by Johnson (1961), as suppressed in (1) above, and (b) sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947, as published in the trinomen Ayla versicolor sandersi and as suppressed in (2) above. References Bogart, J. P. & Wasserman, A. O. 1972. Diploid—polyploid cryptic species pairs: a possible clue to evolution by polyploidization in anuran amphibians. Cytogenetics, 11: 7-24. Conant, R. 1958. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of the United States and Canada east of the 100th meridian. 366 pp. and 40 pls. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Cope, E. D. 1880. On the zoological position of Texas. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 17: 1-51. Fitzgerald, K. T., Smith, H. M. & Guillette, Jr, L. J. 1981. Nomenclature of the diploid species of the diploid—tetraploid Hyla versicolor complex. Journal of Herpetology, 15: 356-360. Johnson, F. C. 1959. Generic incompatibility of the call races of Hyla versicolor Le Conte in Texas. Copeia, 1959: 327-335. Johnson, F. C. 1961. Cryptic speciation in the Hyla versicolor complex. Dissertation Abstracts, 21: 3896. Johnson, F. C. 1963. Additional evidence of sterility between call-types in the Hyla versicolor complex. Copeia, 1963: 139-143. Johnson, F. C. 1966. Species recognition in the Hy/a versicolor complex. Texas Journal of Science, 18: 361-364. Laurenti, J. N. 1768. Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin Reptilium . . .214 pp. Viennae. Le Conte, J. 1825. Remarks on the American species of the genera Hyla and Rana. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1: 278-282. Schmidt, K. P. 1953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 280 pp. University of Chicago Press. Smith, H. M. & Brown, B. C. 1947. The Texas subspecies of the treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 60: 47-50. Wasserman, A. O. 1970. Polyploidy in the common tree toad, Hyla versicolor Le Conte. Science, 167: 385-386. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 14] Case 275 Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed designation of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species N. Erridge Formerly of the Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ‘ Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the camel genus Camelus Linnaeus, 1758, to accord with modern usage; a 1902 designation of C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 has never been adopted. 1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 65) erected the genus Camelus with four included species: C. dromedarius, C. bactrianus, C. glama and C. pacos. Hay (1902, p. 680) designated C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. 2. In 1910 (Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (facsimile issue), 1B: 31-39) the Commission introduced fixation of type species by ‘Linnaean tautonymy’ in Opinion 16. This Opinion con- tained a misleading statement suggesting that the type species of Camelus was in fact C. bactrianus (p. 37). However, Hay’s (1902) designation was not formally set aside and no other designation was made by the Commission. 3. In 1947 Francis Hemming (the then Secretary of the Commission) issued editorial notes on Opinion 16 (Opinions and Declarations. . . 1A: 272—302) in which he explained (pp. 282—283) that the previous arguments concerning the type species designation for Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 were incorrect since the pre-Linnaean word ‘Camelus’ was applied in the Systema Naturae to both bactrianus and dromedarius (see Art. 68e(1)). He recommended that a formal type designation should be made. Despite this, subsequent workers (e.g. Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 348)) have interpreted Opinion 16 as constituting a valid type designation of bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 for Camelus, and this has since become the accepted type species, ignoring Hay’s (1902) designation of C. dromedarius. 4. To preserve current usage 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 Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 and to designate Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology the name Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above, Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Camelus bactrianus (specific name of the type species of Camelus Linnaeus, 1758). 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 References Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758 to 1946. 810 pp. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London. Hay, O. P. 1902. Bibliography and Catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey, 179: 1-868. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 143 Comment on the proposed conservation of the name Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum Boulenger, 1902 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) by the suppression of C. weeksii Boulenger, 1896 (Case 2595: see BZN 44: 192-193) Carl J. Ferraris, Jr Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A. * I offer the following observations: (1) The name Ctenopoma weeksii Boulenger appears to have been proposed in a fashion that conforms to the requirements of availability; (2) the author of the proposal indicates that the holotype of C. weeksii can be assigned unambiguously to a species for which weeksii is the oldest available name; (3) the genus Crenopoma was last reviewed in 1916, as part of a broad study of the fishes of Africa, and has never been subjected to a critical revision; (4) the name C. weeksii was published in an article that contains three other new specific names, all of which are considered as valid by current systematic workers; (5) the species is not exceptionally well known. It has not been the focus of scientific study. It is not a species of great commercial importance and its biology is poorly known at present; and (6) the author of the proposal is in the process of a revision of the genus Ctenopoma. From these observations, I draw the following conclusions: (a) current confusion regarding the name of the species which has C. weeksii as its oldest available name is, in part, the result of the absence of a critical review of the genus; (b) virtually all confusion resulting from the correct use of the name weeksii can be eliminated by a single statement: ‘All accounts of Ctenopoma (or Anabas) oxyrhynchum refer to the species here called C. weeksii’; (c) there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the suppression of the name weeksii for purposes of nomenclatural stability; (d) the long term interests of a stable nomenclature would be better served by adhering to the spirit of priority in all but the most exceptional cases. In this case, correcting an error in a forthcoming revision seems simple and appropriate. Reply by Steven M. Norris Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1501, U.S.A. (1) I am in agreement with much of what Mr Ferraris states in his comment. The final conclusion depends on how rigidly the Commission wishes to adhere to the Principle of Priority. (2) In defence of the rejection of the senior name, let me again state that weeksii (the name with priority) has rarely been used correctly (see original proposal) and has 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 not been used in any meaningful way since Boulenger’s (1916) review in which he incorrectly listed C. weeksii (without comment) in his synonymy of C. maculatum Thominot, 1886. (3) With regard to point (5) of the comment: C. oxyrhynchum/weeksii is not an uncommon species either in the wild or in museum collections. While it has been the focus of little published work, it is widely listed as C. oxyrhynchum in faunal lists and surveys. (4) Given the early misuse of the name C. weeksii, the later incorrect synonymization and the great length of time the name has been out of use, I feel rejection of C. weeksii is warranted. Comment on the suggested introduction of ‘Protected Works’ (see BZN 44: 79-85; 45: 45—46, 47) (1) R. L. Manuel Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, U.K. I should like to endorse the ideas and sentiments so lucidly expounded by Cornelius (BZN 44: 79-85). It seems to me that the Code, in its strictest application, has become largely self-defeating in its presumed aim of producing nomenclatural stability. Far too many names that have for long been established in the minds and literature of scientists and naturalists are being assassinated in the name of priority, a practice condoned (perhaps even encouraged) by the present rules. Cornelius’s suggestion (p. 82) of Protected Works is a sensible, worthwhile idea but does not, to my mind, go far enough; it also suffers from one practical drawback — accessibility. The sort of publications suggested as Protected Works are not always readily available, especially to freelance or non-professional scientists and naturalists (who have always held a position of importance in the field of taxonomy), and obtaining copies through various library and copying services can become downright expensive. This notwithstanding, Protected Works must surely offer a sane pathway to stability. As a possible solution to the problem of accessibility I would like to propose an extension to the concept: an Official Register of Protected Names, derived from Protected Works. Sucha Register need not be publishedin the conventional manner, but merely be stored in a computer at some convenient place, such as a national museum; a duplicate Register could be maintained in any country. Copies of pages or sections could be printed out on demand to anyone on payment of a minimal cover charge. Parallel usage of Protected Names in Zoological Record would enhance the system. Perhaps international ‘group conferences’ (such as, in my own field, the International Cnidarian Conference, 1989) could be persuaded to stage a nomenclatural discussion session in order to suggest/adopt Protected Works and haggle over those contentious name changes which crop up in any major group. I also support the idea (BZN 44: 83; 45: 46) of effectively reversing the current procedure when applying to the Commission in order to conserve names — surely a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 145 discouragement to conservation. If potential nomenclatural pedants who have dis- interred some archaic, unnecessary senior synonym had to justify its resurrection through the rigmarole of publishing a proposal in the BZN, then having to wait some time for comments and, finally, a decision from the Commission, they might be more inclined to leave well enough alone. It seems to me that any ancient synonym (say prior to this century) which has not by now been resurrected is unlikely to be of any consequence. ; Surely it is time to call a halt to the runaway use of nomenclature for-its-own-sake, and to recognise and administer it for what it should be: a simple and reliable tool for those who wish to describe a species in little more than two words. (2) G. A. Boxshall British Museum ( Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K. The proposal by Cornelius is, in my opinion, a recipe for taxonomic chaos. It seeks to reintroduce a major element of subjectivity into zoological nomenclature. There exists in the libraries of the world a finite number of old publications contain- ing items relevant to the names of animals. Given the finite nature of this database the Principle of Priority will, in due course, be brought to bear on all these publications and a stable nomenclature will be arrived at. This process will take decades, probably centuries, but it is a realistic end point. Interference with this process, by the desig- nation of ‘Protected Works’, will merely delay the attainment of the ultimate goal and be a great disservice to future generations of zoologists. Comments on the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington (Case 2531: see BZN 44: 116-121; 257-261 and 45: 52-54). (1) Mark N. Hutchinson School of Biological Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia I strongly support the proposal to suppress, for nomenclatural purposes, three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. My own recent area of study has con- cerned the scincid lizards and the inadequacy of the Wells & Wellington approach (well stated in the application by the Australian Society of Herpetologists) is very obvious in this group. One justification which has been presented to me as a reason to oppose suppression is that such an action would contravene principles of free speech. I disagree. The appli- cation does not oppose the right of Wells and Wellington to say or publish what they want. Rather, it sets out to relieve the rest of the herpetological community from the obligation of having to use the names in these publications. In this sense I feel that failure to suppress the works will infringe the freedom of expression of the rest of the scientific community. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 (2) Alain Dubois, Roger Bour, Edouard-Raoul Brygoo & Jean Lescure Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France Philippe Bouchet & Simon Tillier Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés Marins et Malacologie, Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75005, Paris, France 1. We have so far been unable to obtain copies of the Wells & Wellington works described in the application submitted by the President of the Australian Society of Herpetologists, and we have therefore been unable to form our own detailed opinion about them. However, we are perfectly confident that the analysis presented in this application, as well as in other papers (Shine, 1984; King & Miller, 1985; Heatwole, 1985; Gans, 1985; Tyler, 1985; Grigg & Shine, 1985), is correct, i.e. that the Wells & Wellington works are taxonomic papers of very low quality. 2. Nevertheless, we contend that the application should nor be accepted by the Commission, because it is contradictory to what Ride (p. xiii of the Introduction to the 1985 edition of the Code) calls one of the ‘key elements basic to the structure of the Code’, namely ‘The Code refrains from infringing upon taxonomic judgement, which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint’. The same idea is repeated in the Preamble (p. 3): “The object of the Code is to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals and to ensure that the name of each taxon is unique and distinct. Allits provisions and recommendations are subservient to these ends and none restricts the freedom of taxonomic thought or action.’ 3. Even if, as seems extremely likely, the bad quality of the Wells & Wellington taxonomic works will be universally acknowledged by zoologists who have the oppor- tunity to study and use them, this will be a taxonomic judgement, and this has nothing to do with the Code or with the duty of the Commission. Taxonomic works of bad quality have always been produced, and will always be, but their rejection should not be regulated by any Code or Commission: the rejection of wrong taxonomic actions is a matter for the scientific community as a whole, in a process which may take time but which ultimately leads to a consensus. Dozens of such bad quality works are certainly known to any taxonomist in his own field of research, and many examples could be given here. The existence of these works certainly causes problems to the taxonomists working on the same groups of animals as their authors, but these problems are not insuperable. 4. It is important always to make a clear-cut distinction between taxonomic and nomenclatural problems. While it is clear that all zoologists need clear, unequivocal rules for the nomenclature of animal taxa, we contend that taxonomic activity itself must remain free of any kind of ‘regulation or restraint’. Any attack against the freedom of taxonomic action is likely to introduce disparities between zoologists worldwide, in relation to their nationality, language, institute, financial resources (of individuals, institutions or countries) and sociological position or ‘weight’. 5. Some of the wording of the application indeed raises anxiety in this respect. While most of the criticisms it provides concerning Wells & Wellington’s works are useful, in that they show that these works have been prepared much too quickly and carelessly and are not based on ‘sound taxonomic research’, some others are more open to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 147 question, in that they (indirectly but clearly) imply that taxonomic action should be submitted to some kind of regulation. 6. Thus, in para. 1, the application implies that, to be acceptable, a taxonomic work must have been ‘subject to some form of independent referee or editorial consider- ation’: many examples could be produced, in both directions (excellent works pub- lished without such consideration, or rejected for publication as a result of it; bad works published despite such consideration), to prove that this assertion is wrong. 7. Similarly, it is implied that taxonomic action should always be based on examin- ation of specimens or on phylogenetic research (paras. 7, 10, 11, 14). While this may appear to many taxonomists to be an obvious truth, it is not. Good taxonomic work may be carried out without examining specimens, and conversely bad work may be the result of the examination of specimens, of taxonomic revisions or phylogenetic research: in fact, most poor taxonomic works are the results of such studies! 8. To be available (in the sense of the Code) a name must be accompanied by a description, definition or indication, but this description or definition need not be ‘correct’. While this may appear strange at first sight, the principle is in fact extremely sound. Many diagnoses which were perfectly correct at the time when they were written, later proved, in the light of the progress of science, to be incorrect, and had to be modified, in part or totally. This is perfectly understandable as far as taxonomic practice is concerned. As far as nomenclature is concerned, the only acceptable rule is that which appears in the Code: that some definition be given which ‘purports to differentiate the taxon’. Any other rule would infringe upon taxonomic judgement. 9. We do not wish to give the impression that we are ‘defending’ the Wells & Wellington works: as we have said, we have never seen them, and nor have we met the authors or corresponded with them by letters or orally. What we are defending here is a general principle, that of the clear and total separation between nomenclatural rules on one hand, and taxonomic practice on the other. It is to be feared that if the Commission decides to depart from this general principle in the present case (extreme though it may be) the departure could become a precedent and open the door to a flow of similar cases: the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would tend to be used by zoologists as a court for taxonomic problems, which is completely outside its responsibilities. 10. We also want to stress that the application is misleading in stating that Wells & Wellington’s works represent ‘destabilisation of nomenclature on a massive scale’. Such a destabilisation would indeed occur if the works were uncritically accepted by zoologists. However, these works have been strongly criticised and it is now certain that batrachologists and herpetologists worldwide will be extremely reluctant to follow Wells & Wellington in their proposed taxonomic changes. 11. As pointed out in the application, these changes are of three kinds: (1) change of status of existing names (subspecific names elevated to species rank, names withdrawn from synonymy or placed in synonymy); (2) new names (new taxa, new replacement names); (3) designations of lectotypes for nominal species. 12. As for changes of kind (1), they would be a cause of confusion or destabilisation of nomenclature and taxonomy only if they were accepted by the international zoological community, which is extremely unlikely to occur. 13. As for changes of kind (2): according to the application, many of the new names proposed by Wells & Wellington are not available since they are not associated with 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 descriptions or diagnoses: these names are therefore nomina nuda and, as such, cannot be a cause of disruption of nomenclatural stability. We suggest it would be useful to prepare a list of these nomina nuda and publish it in a zoological journal: the status of these names would thus be settled without intervention by the Commission. As for the other names proposed by Wells & Wellington, they are the only important changes of kind (2) above. In the short run these changes can simply be ignored by the zoological community by sinking these new names in the synonymies of existing ones: they will therefore immediately disappear as junior synonyms and will not be a cause of disrup- tion of stability. It is true that some of the names proposed by Wells & Wellington may be available for taxa which will be recognised by future ‘sound taxonomic research’, but this situation is similar in hundreds of cases in the history of taxonomy and nomenclature! While the frustration of the taxonomists who may have in the future to resurrect some of the names proposed by Wells & Wellington may be understandable, such a situation often arises in taxonomic practice. 14. A few of the new names, but more generally and seriously the designations of lectotypes (i.e. changes of kind (3) in para. 11 above), may be real causes of confusion. In these cases we consider that decisions by the Commission are necessary, and the sooner the better. Therefore, we suggest that those having access to Wells & Wellington’s works should prepare a list of particular cases and submit them to the Commission for specific votes: rather than a suppression of the entire works, which would be in violation of the fundamental spirit of the Code, the Commission could then suppress individual names or type designations. This would naturally involve additional work, but we believe it to be the only appropriate course. 15. We wish to emphasise that zoological nomenclature must be governed pri- marily by simple and automatic adherence to the Code, and that appeals to the Commission to suppress names or actions should be exceptional, and should be made only in cases of actual confusion. We think that too many works and names have been suppressed by the Commission in recent years. From an ethical point of view suppression of early names, ‘forgotten’ simply because later authors have not done their work properly, is at least as unsatisfactory and important as a potential threat posed by the Wells & Wellington publications to future authors of future taxa. We note also that various authors have already used some of the new names in ways which would make them the ‘authors’ if the three works were suppressed. This is another reason why the works should not be suppressed in their entirety; even if some of the new names are rejected this should not be for the purposes of the Prin- ciple of Homonymy. At the present moment the Wells & Wellington works, con- sidered as a whole, are not a cause of nomenclatural instability and therefore they should not be suppressed by the Commission if the latter is to follow one of the most basic principles of the Code. References Gans, C. 1985. Comment on two checklists. Herpetological Review, 16: 6—7. Grigg, G. C. & Shine, R. 1985. An open letter to all herpetologists. Herpetological Review, 16: 96-97. Heatwole, H. 1985. Letter to the editor. Herpetological Review, 16: 6. King, M. & Miller, J. 1985. Letter to the editor. Herpetological Review, 16: 4-5. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 149 Shine, R. 1984. Report on the 1984 Australasian herpetological conference, and 1984 annual general meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists held at Sydney and Springwood, 28 August to 2 September 1984. Herpetological Review, 15: 103-104. Tyler, M. J. 1985. Nomenclature of the Australian herpetofauna. Anarchy rules O.K. Herpetological Review, 16: 69. - (3) V. B. Meyer-Rochow University of Waikato, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand As a New Zealand herpetologist I should like to add a word of caution to the debate on whether the entirety of the three works of Wells & Wellington on Australian herpet- ology should be suppressed. The Commission must find a just solution; it will have to consider the workability of any solution and it must pass justice on any aspiring and reforming mind amongst us. The solution ought not to threaten young, enthusiastic, thinking scientists, who very often are not in agreement with an established system and suggest radical changes that keep us older ones on our toes and provide a stimulus to rethink unquestioned doctrine. From what I know of the works of Wells & Wellington, the two provide an explanation for their overhaul of Australian herpetology, and a large number of newly described species and relegations of older ones will, in my view, have to be accepted. What has to be paramount, however, is the scientific method, and where inadequate descriptions are given or where specimens have not been examined, a newly suggested taxon (or scientific conclusion) will have to be considered invalid. Where accepted scientific conventions for species descriptions and taxonomic revisions have been used, I cannot see a justification for suppression. The famous American palaeontologist Bakker made (what seemed to many) outrageous taxonomic sugges- tions, but nobody thought of suppressing his works. Instead, they alarmed, provoked, encouraged, and stimulated, and in the end the scientific community accepted from his theories and phylogenetic tree what was most thoroughly documented. Should this line of thought not be applied to Australian herpetology as well? (4) The following letter was received from seven signatories in New South Wales (C. J. Birrel, L. Dodds, P. Evans, E. J. Nield, R. Peters, D. Sell, D. Shannon). As a biologist, I am writing to appeal against the proposed suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. The anonymous proposal fails to offer any justification for suppressing an entire work. It also sets in motion a very dangerous precedent where people in powerful positions can manipulate bodies such as the Australian Society of Herpetologists, Sydney University and the ICZN for their own ends. It also raises several questions if suppression is successful — what, for instance, happens to the status of the many species described in Wells & Wellington’s papers which have now been recognised as valid and are thus part of common usage, including their appearance in popular and scientific literature? What happens if, in the future, it is objectively and independently shown that genera and species named in Wells & Wellington’s papers are taxo- nomically correct? (This has occurred with some of them already.) Will the proponents of suppression become the recognised authorities when they immediately redescribe Wells & Wellington’s work the moment suppression has occurred? 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Surely the only reasonable (i.e., scientific) way of dealing with this issue is for these papers to be allowed the test of objective analysis. Each statement made by Wells & Wellington should be considered on its merit and be proven or refuted in a scientific manner. Any act which departs from this method of analysis must surely be viewed with scepticism and will only bring into disrepute a body that must for its own survival be considered impartial, and beyond the petty use of influential individuals bent on misusing its powers for their own motives. (5) Max King Museums of Arts and Sciences, P.O. Box 4646, Darwin, N.T., Australia I very strongly support the proposed suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. These articles cause extreme destabilization of Australian herpeto- logical taxonomy. Indeed, systematists unfamiliar with the Australian herpetofauna may be unaware of the extent of this destabilization and of the deliberate techniques which have been used to effect it. The most common form of destabilization perpetrated by Wells and Wellington comes from their practice of constricting the geographic distribution of a species, and then resurrecting a previous synonym as a new nominal species to contain animals in the vacant portion of that previous distribution, and doing so by statement alone. This creates nomenclatural uncertainty, for the different ‘species’ produced are indistinguishable. In some cases there are not even any stated geographical criteria for the revival of synonyms. For example, on p. 12 of their second paper (1985: Australian Journal of Herpetology, Supplementary Series (1): 1-61) Wells & Wellington state: ‘Diplodactylus woodwardi Fry, 1914. We herein formerly [sic] resurrect this species from the synonymy of D. stenodactylus’ [Boulenger, 1896]. The holotype of D. stenodactylus is from Roebuck Bay, Western Australia, and that of D. woodwardi is also from Western Australia, so that both species may have the same type locality, and they are not distinguished by any characteristics. Another example of the Wells & Wellington methodology is the proposal of a new species of crocodile, Crocodylus pethericki (op. cit., p. 7). The holotype is said to be on display in the lower vertebrate gallery in the Northern Territory Museum, Darwin. In fact, the crocodile on display is not a part of the scientific collection and is composite: it is made up of two separate animals of similar size, one from the cited type locality and one from the lower reaches of the Mary River, N.T. The latter is presumably the ‘typical salt water crocodile of the lowlands’ which Wells & Wellington distinguish from C. petherickiin their description. In this diagnosis the lowlands form is referred to as C. porosus, and is distinguished from C. pethericki of the headwaters by colouring, scalation, body proportions, ‘eye shine’ (reflection of eyes in lights at night), juvenile call and behaviour. However, in their final paragraph Wells & Wellington state ‘. . . we consider that ... the Australian population of Crocodylus porosus represents a distinc- tive species (herein regarded as Crocodylus pethericki)’ . They thus create considerable uncertainty by at one stage of their diagnosis recognising both C. porosus and C. petherickiin Australia, and at another regarding the Australian porosus as pethericki. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 151 The Wells & Wellington papers contain a very large number of destabilizing actions, and would have a massive effect on the nomenclature of the Australian herpetofauna in general. To me there is no doubt that the publications should be suppressed. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is clearly placed in a less than enviable position. However, if they aré to retain any credibility they must act to sup- press the Wells & Wellington publications. If they fail to do so they will jeopardise the survival of the system of nomenclature which we all use. [Editorial note: this is an abridged version of Dr King’s comments, the full text of which may be obtained from the Secretariat.] (6) L. B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands The Commission is asked here to suppress three works because ‘in many respects they are not based on sound taxonomic research’ although ‘some (but by no means all) of their names are nomenclaturally available’. As the Commission is in no position to judge soundness of taxonomic work, it cannot act on such a judgement from others. One of the main principles in the work of the Commission is that under no circumstances should it interfere with the freedom of taxonomic thought or action (Preamble to the Code). Therefore it is totally unthink- able that the Commission should ever reject a work because it is ‘not based on sound taxonomic research’, and for that simple reason the Commission should not accept the proposal made in Case 2531. It is entirely up to taxonomists to solve the problems that the three publications cause. The seven criticised actions listed in para. 6 (BZN 44: 117) of the application are of kinds that every taxonomist is free to make. Taxonomists who do not agree with the actions mentioned there can in the respective cases: (1) reduce the species back to subspecies; (2) place the species back in synonymy; (3) examine the descriptions and types of the 13 new species and then treat them as either (a) good species, (b) synonyms of existing species or (c) dubious species; (4) if the substitute names are correctly given under the Code adopt them, or if they are not relegate them to the synonymy either of the names which they are said to replace or to older synonyms; (5) and (6) treat the generic names like the specific names in (2) and (3) above; (7) decide by their own taxonomic judgements whether or not to treat genera as distinct — this is a matter that every systematist has to solve for himself. All the actions criticised by the applicants are done also by reputable scientists, but usually not in such large numbers, and it evidently is mainly the quantity of the changes that shocked the applicants. If the changes are proposed unnecessarily (as most of them are, in the opinion of the authors of the proposal) they can be easily refuted in appropriate publications. The actions by Wells & Wellington that are correctly proposed, namely those that introduce names that ‘will often be senior synonyms . . . of names proposed as a result of future proper scientific work’ (para 5 of the application), evidently are positive contributions to science. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 I see no reason whatever to suppress these works. Such a suppression by the Commission would be highly inadvisable, if not ‘illegal’, and would severely damage the image of the Commission as an impartial body. Of course individual items of a purely nomenclatural nature in these three publications can be studied and judged by the Commission on their nomenclatural merits. (7) Michael J. Tyler Department of Zoology, University of Adelaide, Box 498, GPO, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia 1. I support the application for the nomenclatural suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington; however, I remain concerned about aspects of the application itself and also about its long-term effectiveness. 2. I urge the Commission to consider additional means of effecting the intent of the application, and to address the fundamental issue of acceptable as opposed to unacceptable publications. 3. My principal concern with the application itself is that it fails to distinguish the nomenclatural issue from that of the taxonomic judgements of the authors, the latter of course not being a matter upon which the Commission has any jurisdiction. 4. As the application observes, widespread anxiety about the Wells & Wellington actions exists because of their magnitude. It is fair to comment that had these two authors confined themselves to making perhaps half a dozen nomenclatural changes it is most unlikely that their publications would have attracted attention on the present scale. However, the principles involved should be considered in addition to the specific case. 5. Itis apparent that, if the Commission decides to suppress these three publications for nomenclatural purposes, their republication by simple copying or with slight changes would require the issue to be addressed for a second time: clearly the Commission cannot suppress works in advance. 6. At the present time the Code’s treatment of the criteria of publication (Articles 7-9) concerns the physical form of the works, their accessibility and, specifically, what does not constitute publication. 7. The thrust of the present application is that publication in a journal controlled by an author and not subject to the normal refereeing process permits expression of nomenclatural acts in a manner which would not be acceptable to an established journal. 8. Possible solutions to the problem are to compile a ‘Register of Approved Jour- nals’ (those which have an independent refereeing system), or to preclude those that do not properly referee papers. The former may be the most appropriate; I recognise the difficulties in maintaining such a Register, but there is a need to protect those who adhere to the spirit and letter of the Code from those who flaunt their ‘independence’. In the present case the existence of a Register would mean that Wells and Wellington would remain free to publish any nomenclatural acts they wish in the Australian Journal of Herpetology. But, if that journal did not gain approval for inclusion in the Register, other workers would not be obliged to follow nomenclatural actions published in it. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 153 (8) Letters have been received from the following 81 persons supporting the proposed suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington, on the ground that failure to do so would cause massive and long-lasting instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the Australasian herpetofauna: M. Adams; L. D. Ahern; P. Alderslade: T. Annable; C. B. Banks; B. I. P. Barratt; R. Bennett; P. Bird: B. J. Blanchard; S. D. Bradshaw; F. W. Braestrup; R. W. Braithwaite; Patterson; J. B. Rasmussen; J. Robertson; P. Robertson; R. P. V. Rowlands; A. Schiotz; R. Schodde; R. Shine; A. M. A. Smith; I. Southey; G. M. Storr; L. E, Taplin; J. A. Taylor; M. B. Thompson; K. L. Walker; G. Webb: A. H. Whitaker; J. White; G. J. Witten; J.C. Wombey Comment on the proposed conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea) (Case 321; see BZN 44: 253-254) John E. Heyning & Lawrence G. Barnes Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. Reference Truitt, D. 1974. Dolphins and Porpoises: A comprehensive, annotated bibliography of the smaller Cetacea. 582 pp. Gale Research Company, Detroit, Michigan. Support for the conservation of Platanista has also been received from Dr P. J. H. van Bree (Mauritskade 6] , Postbus 4766, 1009 A T, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1484 Trypanosoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Protista, Mastigophora): spelling of specific name confirmed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powersitis ruled that the correct original spelling of the specific name brucii Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, as published in the binomen Trypanosoma brucii, is deemed to be brucei. (2) The name brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, as published in the binomen Trypanosoma brucii, spelling confirmed as in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name brucii Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, as published in the binomen Trypanosoma brucii, correct original spelling deemed to be brucei, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2580 An application for confirmation of the usual spelling of the specific name of Trypanosoma brucei was received from Mr M. E. Tollitt (then in the ICZN Secretariat) on 13 July 1986. The case was published in BZN 43: 348-349 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to one specialist and ten general serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 349. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 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 Gruchy. 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: brucei, Trypanosoma, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 65: 280. brucii, Trypanosoma, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 65: 280. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 155 OPINION 1485 Filellum serpens Hassall, 1848 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): specific and generic names conserved 3 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) Coppinia Hassall, 1848; (ii) Conchella Gray, 1848; (b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) arcta Dalyell, 1847, as published in the binomen Sertularia arcta; (ii) intertexta Couch, 1844, as published in the binomen Campanularia intertexta. (2) The name Filellum Hincks, 1868, (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Campanularia serpens Hassall, 1848, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name serpens Hassall, 1848, as published in the binomen Campanularia serpens (specific name of the type species of File//um Hincks, 1868) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names, as suppressed in (1) (a) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Coppinia, Hassall, 1848; (b) Conchella Gray, 1848. (5) The following names, as suppressed in (1) (b) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) arcta Dalyell, 1847, as published in the binomen Sertularia arcta; (b) intertexta Couch, 1844, as published in the binomen Campanularia intertexta. History of Case 2508 An application for the conservation of Filellum serpens Hassall, 1848 was received from Dr P. F. S. Cornelius (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) and Dr D. R..Calder (Royal Ontario Museum, Ontario, Canada) on 13 February 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 335-341 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and eleven specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 338-339. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn (in part), Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Negative votes — 1: Kabata. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Hahn agreed with the suppression of Coppinia, but considered that F. serpens should be given precedence over C. intertexta rather than the latter name being suppressed. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: arcta, Sertularia, Dalyell, 1847, Rare and remarkable animals of Scotland, represented from living subjects: with practical observations on their nature, vol. 1, p. 224. Conchella Gray, 1848, List of the specimens of British animals in the collection of the British Museum. Part 1. Centroniae or radiated animals, p. 88. Coppinia Hassall, 1848, Zoologist, 6: 2223. Filellum Hincks, 1868, A history of the British hydroid zoophytes, vol. 1, p. 214. intertexta, Campanularia, Couch, 1844, A Cornish fauna . .. part 3, p. 41. serpens, Campanularia, Hassall, 1848, Zoologist, 6: 2223. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 157 OPINION 1486 Tubulanus Renier, [1804] and 7. polymorphus Renier, [1804] (Nemertea): reinstated and made available Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is ruled that the generic name Tubulanus and the specific name polymorphus, as published in the binomen Tubulanus polymorphus, are deemed to be published and available from their use by Renier (S.A.), [1804], Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi, a work rejected in Opinion 316 as not properly published, and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. (2) The name Tubulanus Renier, [1804] (gender: masculine); type species, by mono- typy, Tubulanus polymorphus Renier, [1804], as deemed in (1) above to be published and available, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and removed from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name polymorphus Renier, [1804], as published in the binomen Tubulanus polymorphus (specific name of the type species of Tubulanus Renier, [1804], as deemed in (1) above to be published and available, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1905 (1874) (type genus Tubulanus Renier, [1804]) (under Article 40b a name having precedence over, but taking the date of, its senior subjective synonym CARINELLIDAE McIntosh, 1874 (type genus Carinella Johnston, 1833)), is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 1094 An application for the reinstatement of a number of Renier’s names, including Tubulanus Renier, [1804] and 7. polymorphus Renier, [1804], was received from the late Dr Henning Lemche on 13 April 1956. Mr R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary, Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) reformulated the present case deal- ing with the last of the names not dealt with before Dr Lemche’s death in 1977. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 112-114 (April 1986). Notice of the case was given to thirteen general and eleven specialist serials. A comment was received from Dr R. Gianuzzi-Savelli (Palermo, Italy) questioning the authorship of Tubulanus polymorphus as Renier, [1804] had been suppressed and Tubulanus put on the Official Index in 1956 by Opinion 427. However, it was wrongly stated on p. 296 of that Opinion to be a nomen nudum, so the name can be treated like Cerebratulus and Polycitor, both of Renier [1804], which were put on the Official List by Opinions 477 and 478. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 114, together with a proposal to delete Tubulanus Renier, [1804] from the Official Index. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative vote — 1: Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: polymorphus, Tubulanus Renier, [1804], Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi, p. 20. TUBULANIDAE Biirger, 1905 (1874), in Bronn’s Thier—Reich, vol. 4, Suppl. Nemertini, Lfg 23-26, p. 405. Tubulanus Renier, [1804], Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi, p. 20. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 159 OPINION 1487 Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Magnonaias Utterback, 1915 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (gender: feminine), type species by orig- inal designation Unio heros Say, 1829 (a junior subjective synonym of Unio giganteus Barnes, 1823), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name giganteus Barnes, 1823, as published in the binomen Unio giganteus (valid specific name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Megalonaias Utterback, 1915), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2512 An application for the conservation of Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 was received from Dr A. E. Bogan (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A) and Dr J. D. Williams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, U.S.A.) on 26 March 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 273-275 (October 1986). Notice of the case was given to eleven general and eight specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 274-275. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 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 Gruchy. 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: giganteus, Unio, Barnes, 1823, American Journal of Science and Arts, 6: 119. Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, American Midland Naturalist, vol. 4 (3), p. 47. Megalonaias Utterback, 1915, American Midland Naturalist, vol. 4 (4), p. 123. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1488 Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneae): Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819 confirmed as type species Ruling (1) Itis hereby confirmed that the type species of the nominal genus Heriaeus Simon, 1875 is Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819, by the subsequent designation of Simon (1895). (2) The name Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation Thomisus hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824 (= Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name hirtus Latreille, 1819, as published in the binomen Thomisus hirtus (specific name of the type species of Heriaeus Simon, 1875) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824, as published in the binomen Thomisus hirsutus (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2447 An application for the confirmation of Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819 as the type species of Heriaeus Simon, 1875 was received from Drs O. Kraus & A. Loerbroks (Universitat Hamburg, German Federal Republic) on 4 July 1983. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 346-347 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and six specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 346-347, with a note that Thomisus hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824 is not an unjustified emendation of T. hirtus Latreille, 1819, as stated in para. 3 of the application, but an incorrect subsequent spelling, since Walckenaer had altered the spelling without comment. This was designated type species of Heriaeus by the subsequent, not original, action of Simon (BZN 43: 346, para. 2). At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — 1: Uéno. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Uéno considered that ‘Thomisus hirsutus’ sensu Simon, 1875 (= Heriaeus oblongus Simon, 1918) ought to be designated as the type of Heriaeus, since this was the species actually before Simon. 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: Heriaeus Simon, 1875, Les Arachnides de France, vol. 2, p. 203. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 161 hirsutus, Thomisus, Walckenaer, 1824, Faune frangaise, vol. 4, p. 85. hirtus, Thomisus, Latreille, 1819, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, ed. 2, p. 41. The reference for the designation of Thomisus hirsutus (= T. hirtus Latreille, 1819) as the type species of Heriaeus is: Simon, 1895, Histoire naturelle des Araignées, ed. 2, 1 (4) p. 1034. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1489 Biformalia vittata Sjéstedt, 1920 (currently Phaulacridium vittatum, Insecta, Orthoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) ambulans Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen Acridium ambulans; (b) manca Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen Trigoniza manca; (c) australiensis Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen Trigoniza australien- sis. (2) The name vittata Sjéstedt, 1920, as published in the binomen Biformalia vittata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The following names, as suppressed in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ambulans Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen Acridium ambulans; (b) manca Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen Trigoniza manca; (c) australiensis Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen Trigoniza australiensis. History of Case 2524 An application for the conservation of Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjostedt, 1920) was received from Dr K. H. L. Key (CSIRO, Canberra, Australia) on 4 June 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 303—305 (October 1986). Notice of the case was given to twelve general and ten specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr P. B. McQuillan (Hobart, Tasmania). Dr D. K. McE. Kevan (McGill University, Canada) commented that he hoped this case would not establish a precedent for undermining the Principle of Priority. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 304. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kraus, Melville, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes—6: Alvarado, Cogger, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen and Mroczkowski. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Kabata did not agree that ‘at least 21 papers in the last fifty years’ (BZN 43: 304, para. 6) using vittatum justified suppression of the senior synonyms. Alvarado, Cogger and Mroczkowski thought that only the relative precedence procedure should be applied, as the four names are only subjective synonyms, and Key’s synonymisation could be challenged in the future. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 163 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: ambulans, Acridium, Erichson, 1842, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte 8(1): 251. australiensis, Trigoniza, Bolivar, 1898, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, 39: 95. manca, Trigoniza, Bolivar, 1898, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, 39: 96. vittata, Biformalia, Sjéstedt, 1920, Arkiv for Zoologi, 12(20): 49. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1490 Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera (Grylloptera)): Listroscelis pectinata Guérin, 1831 confirmed as type species Ruling (1) The original designations of the nominal species Listroscelis pectinata Guerin, 1831 as type species of the genera Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874 are hereby confirmed. (2) The name Phisis Stal, 1861 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- nation and as confirmed in (1) above, Listroscelis pectinata Guérin, 1831, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name pectinata Guérin, 1831, as published in the binomen Listroscelis pecti- nata (specific name of the type species of Phisis Stal, 1861) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Teuthras Stal, 1874, a junior objective synonym of Phisis Stal, 1861, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2528 Anapplication for the confirmation of Listroscelis pectinata Guérin, 1831 as the type species of Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874 was received from Dr D. K. McE. Kevan (McGill University, Québec, Canada) on 23 July 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 306-307 (October 1986). Notice of the case was given to twelve general and ten specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 307. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Dupuis. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Mroczkowski abstained. Dupuis said that in a case of a doubtfully identified type species, it was preferable to base the name on material seen by the author of the genus. 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: pectinata, Listroscelis, Guérin, 1831, in Lesson, R. P., Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, Arach- nides et Insectes, ... Voyage autour du Monde sur la Corvette ‘La Coquille’ du Capitaine Duperrey. Zoologie, 2(2), Division 1, pl. 10 (see also p. 153 (1838)). Phisis Stal, 1861, Kongliga svenska Fregattens Eugenies Resa omkring Iorden, Vetenskapliga Takttagelser, vol. 2 Zoologi (1) Insecta, p. 324. Teuthras Stal, 1874, Recensio Orthopterorum. Revue critique des Orthopteres décrits par Linné, De Geer et Thunberg, vol. 2, p. 102. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 165 OPINION 1491 Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) minuta Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Sigara minuta; (b) lemana Fieber, 1860, as published in the binomen Sigara lemana. (2) The name griseola Horvath, 1899, as published in the binomen Micronecta griseola and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Jansson (1986), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The following names as suppressed in (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) minuta Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Sigara minuta; (b) /emana Fieber, 1860, as published in the binomen Sigara lemana. History of Case 2519 An application for the conservation of Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899, was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) on 29 April 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 178-180 (July 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and nine specialist serials. No comments were received. It should be noted that in the application the date of Fabricius was wrongly given in paras. 6(1)a and 6(3)a as 1744; in both cases it should have read 1794. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 179. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Cogger, Heppell, Holthuis and Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Holthuis considered that, as the species involved seemed to be of no importance in applied science or general biology, the normal rule of priority ought to apply. Cogger favoured precedence of griseola over minuta and lemana, but not the suppression of the latter names. 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: griseola, Micronecta, Horvath, 1899, Revue d’Entomologie, 18(12): 103. lemana, Sigara, Fieber, 1860, Die europdischen Hemiptera, p. 89. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 minuta, Sigara, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, emendata et aucta, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, p. 60. The reference for the designation of the lectotype of Micronecta griseola is: Jansson, 1986, Acta Entomologica Fennica, 47: 14. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 167 OPINION 1492 Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 (currently Micronecta albifrons; Insecta, Heteroptera): neotype designation confirmed Ruling (1) Under Article 75h of the Code it is hereby ruled that the name-bearing type of Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 is the neotype designated by Wroblewski (1968). (2) The name albifrons Motschulsky, 1863, as published in the binomen Corixa albifrons, and as defined by the neotype confirmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2520 An application for the confirmation of the neotype designation by Wroblewski (1968) for Corixa albifrons was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) and Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) on 29 April 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 279-281 (October 1986). Notice of the case was given to twelve general and ten specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 280. At the close of the voting period on | March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 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 Gruchy. Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: albifrons, Corixa, Motschulsky, 1863, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 36(2): 94. The reference for the designation of the neotype of Corixa albifrons is: Wroblewski, 1968, Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 38: 764. 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1493 Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Curculio flabellipes Olivier, 1807 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of the type species for the nominal genus Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 are hereby set aside and Curculio flabellipes Olivier, 1807 is hereby designated as type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above, Curculio flabellipes Olivier, 1807; (b) Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Wibmer & O’Brien (1986) Curculio octotuberculatus Fabricius, 1787. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) flabellipes Olivier, 1807, as published in the binomen Curculio flabellipes (specific name of the type species of Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833); (b) octotuberculatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio octotuberculatus (specific name of the type species of Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863). History of Case 2565 An application for the designation of a type species for Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 to remove its objective synonymy with Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863, was received from Drs G. J. Wibmer & C. W. O’Brien (Florida A & M University, Florida, U.S.A.) on 24 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 300-302 (October 1986). Notice of the case was given to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 301. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 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 Gruchy. Thompson considered that in- sufficient usage of the names in question was documented. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléopteres. . . , p. 130. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 169 flabellipes, Curculio, Olivier, 1807, p. 374. Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833, Synonymia Insectorum, synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 1, p. 13. octotuberculatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum. . Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes . . . Coléoptéres, Genera et species curculionidum, cum . Vol. 1, p. 112. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1494 Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (currently Acmaeops marginata; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name marginata O. F. Miller, 1766, as published in the binomen Leptura marginata, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781, are hereby suppressed for the pur- poses of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name marginata Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Leptura marginata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name marginata O. F. Miller, 1766, as published in the binomen Leptura marginata and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2572 An application for the conservation of Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 was received from Dr M. Mroczkowski (Jnstytut Zoologii, Warsaw, Poland) on 29 May 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 372 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and nine specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 372. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 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 Gruchy. Despite the fact that he voted for the application, Kabata said he would have pre- ferred a stronger case on which to base his decision. Thompson voted against the case because it did not include details of the usage of marginata Fabricius, nor mention any possible synonyms. 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: marginata, Leptura, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum eorum differentias specificas, synonyma auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, 1: 247. marginata, Leptura, Miller, 1766, in Allioni, Mélanges de Philosophie et de mathématique de la Société Royale de Turin, 3: 188. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 171 OPINION 1495 Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797 (currently Tribolium castaneum; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name navalis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Dermestes navalis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Tribolium MacLeay, 1825 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name castaneum Herbst, 1797, as published in the binomen Colydium castaneum (specific name of the type species of Tribolium MacLeay, 1825) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name navalis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Dermestes navalis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2575 An application for the conservation of Tribolium castaneum Herbst, 1797 was received from Mr R. D. Pope (British Museum ( Natural History), London) and Dr J.C. Watt (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand) on 26 June 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 363-365 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and nine specialist serials. Dr L. B. Holthuis raised two questions: (i) why did the applicant select an incorrectly labelled specimen from the Banks collection in the British Museum (Natural History) as lectotype of Dermestes navalis when clearly labelled specimens are in the Fabrician collection in Copenhagen (cf. para. 5 of the application)? (ii) why did Champion (1896) ‘assert’ that D. navalis was not a synonym of Colydium castaneum (cf. para. 4)? In reply, Mr R. D. Pope said: (i) Fabricius (1775, and in later works) stated that his type material of D. navalis belonged to Banks, so that anyone consulting the original literature would be directed to the Banks collection. (ii) Champion (1896) noticed that in 1792 Fabricius had stated that D. navalis had the last two antennal segments forming a club, unlike the three-segmented club of what was in 1896 (before Waterhouse) called ‘Tribolium ferrugineum’ (including C. castaneum). However, Champion overlooked the fact that in 1801 Fabricius, after further examination, synonymised navalis with ferrugineum. The above questions and replies were circulated on the Commission voting papers. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 364. At the close of the voting period on | March 1988 the votes were as follows: 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Affirmative votes—21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Hahn and Savage. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Hahn considered that the synonymy between navalis and castaneum is not proved adequately, and that although castaneum could be given precedence over navalis the latter should not be suppressed. Savage favoured the proposal but voted against because he objected to the selected lectotype of Dermestes navalis and its lack of data. Holthuis also objected to the selection of this lectotype, and pointed out that it was unnecessary since the name navalis was being suppressed. 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: castaneum, Colydium, Herbst, 1797, Natursystem aller Insecten: die Kafer, vol. 7, p. 282. navalis, Dermestes, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae, p. 56. Tribolium MacLeay, 1825, Annulosa Javanica, p. 47. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 173 OPINION 1496 Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (currently Helodon ferrugineus; Insecta, Diptera): given precedence over Simulia rufa Meigen, 1838 and Simulia borealis Zetterstedt, 1842 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the binomen Simulia ferruginea, is hereby given precedence over the specific names rufa Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia rufa, and borealis Zetterstedt, 1842, as published in the binomen Simulia borealis, whenever these names are considered synonyms of ferruginea. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the binomen Simulia ferruginea, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over rufa Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia rufa, and borealis Zetterstedt, 1842, as published in the binomen Simulia borealis, whenever these names are considered synonyms of ferruginea; (b) rufa Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia rufa, with an endorse- ment that it is not to be given priority over ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the binomen Simulia ferruginea, whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (c) borealis Zetterstedt, 1842, as published in the binomen Simulia borealis, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the binomen Simulia ferruginea, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. History of Case 2394 An application for Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 to be given precedence over two senior subjective synonyms was received from Prof Dr I. A. Rubtsov (Zoologi- cal Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) on 19 October 1981. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 352-354 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to nine general and nine specialist serials. In an unpub- lished comment, Dr J. E. Raastad (University of Oslo, Norway) supported the im- portance of conserving the name Helodon ferrugineus (Wahlberg, 1844). He further pointed out there is no certainty that this species and Simulia rufa, Meigen, 1838 are the same. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 352-353. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 5: Dupuis, Heppell, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Ride. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 Voting against the application, Ride said that it would have been better to suppress the names rufa Meigen and borealis Zetterstedt, rather than merely giving ferruginea precedence over them. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: borealis, Simulia, Zetterstedt, 1842, Arsberdttelse om Botaniska Arbeten och Upptackter for ar 1838, p. 515. ferruginea, Simulia, Wahlberg, 1844. Ofversigt at Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandlingar, vol. 1, p. 110. rufa, Simulia, Meigen, 1838, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten Europdischen zweifligeligen Insecten, vol. 7, p. 54. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 175 OPINION 1497 Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Opius Wesmael, 1835 are hereby set aside and Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835 is designated as type species. (2) The name Opius Wesmael, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name pallipes Wesmael, 1835, as published in the binomen Opius pallipes (specific name of the type species of Opius Wesmael, 1835), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2561 An application for the designation of Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835 as type species of Opius Wesmael, 1835 was received from Dr R. A. Wharton (Texas A & M University, Texas, U.S.A.) on 17 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 369-371 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and ten specialist serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 370. At the close of the voting period on | March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — |: Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Dupuis abstained because the application gave no information about the proposed type species of Opius, O. pallipes. In reply to this point, Dr R. A. Wharton has said that he (see reference below) has designated a female specimen in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels, as lectotype. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Opius Wesmael, 1835, Nouveaux Mémoires de l’ Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 9: 115. pallipes, Opius, Wesmael, 1835, Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 9: 118. The reference for the designation of the lectotype of Opius pallipes is: Wharton, R. A., 1987, Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 89: 66. 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1498 Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida): Cornalatus permutatus Attems, 1938 designated as type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nom- inal genus Cornalatus Attems, 1931 are hereby set aside and Cornalatus permutatus Attems, 1938 is designated as type species. (2) The name Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (gender: masculine), type species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cornalatus permutatus 1938 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name permutatus, as published in the binomen Cornalatus permutatus (specific name of the type species of Cornalatus Attems, 1931), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2438 An application for the designation of Cornalatus permutatus Attems, 1938 as type species of Cornalatus Attems, 1931 was received from Dr R. L. Hoffman (Radford University, Virginia, U.S.A.) on 5 April 1983. After correspondence the case was pub- lished in BZN 43: 366-368 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten serials. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 367. At the close of the voting period on | March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cornalatus Attems, 1931, Zoologica Stuttgart, 30 (79): 40. permutatus, Cornalatus, Attems, 1938. Tierreich, 69: 61. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 177 OPINION 1499 Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 (currently Cribrilina punctata; Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): replacement neotype designated Ruling (1) (a) Under the plenary powers the neotype designated in Opinion 1016 for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby set aside; (b) A replacement neotype, specimen number BMNH 1985.11.20.1, is hereby designated for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841. (2) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology arising from Opinion 1016 is hereby amended to read: punctata Hassall, 1841, as published in the binomen Lepralia punctata, as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2562 An application for a replacement neotype to be designated for Lepralia punctata (currently Cribrilina punctata) was received from Dr J. D. D. Bishop (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 14 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 288-296 (October 1986). Notice of the case was given to twelve general and twelve specialist serials. No comments were received, but in para. 27 of the application it was stated that a number of specialists agreed with the proposals. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 294-295. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—20: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes—3: Holthuis, Lehtinen and Cogger. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Holthuis considered that the taxonomy was too unsettled and that Opinion 1016 should not be revoked until the taxonomy of the group was more settled. Cogger believed that the objectives of the application could be met by setting aside the previous neotype designation so that the original lectotype designation could stand. Hahn also thought this, but nevertheless voted for the proposals. Original references The following is the original reference to the name on an Official List amended by the ruling given in the present Opinion: punctata, Lepralia, Hassall, 1841, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 7: 368. The replacement neotype of Lepralia punctata is illustrated on BZN 43: 289 (Fig. D) and discussed on BZN 43: 293-294. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 OPINION 1500 Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species, and the original spelling of the family-group name coBITIDAE Swainson, 1839 confirmed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 is desig- nated as type species; (b) the stem of the generic name Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 is, for the purpose of Article 29a, ruled to be Cobit-. (2) The name Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name taenia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cobitis taenia (specific name of the type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name COBITIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt, 1823 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758). History of Case 2566 An application for the designation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and a ruling on the spelling of the family-group name COBITIDAE Swainson, 1839 was received from Mr M. Kottelat (Laboratoire d’Ichthyologie, Guéret, Switzerland) on 9 April 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 360-362 (December 1986). Notice of the case was given to ten general and eleven specialist serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr P. G. Bianco (L’Aquila, Italy). Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 361-362, with an additional proposal to place Acantophthalmus van Hasselt, 1823 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. At the close of the voting period on | March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn (in part), Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis (in part), Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes—1: Savage. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Savage considered that the arguments for changing the grammatically correct spell- ing of the family-group name were inadequate. Hahn and Holthuis voted for the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 179 proposed designation of type species, but did not agree with COBITIDAE instead of COBITIDIDAE. On the other hand, Cocks made the following comment: “This case revives a wider issue, that of the “correct” formation of family names. I was pleased to see that the petitioner seeks to conserve COBITIDAE rather than COBITIDIDAE—1t is just the sort of pedantry which introduced the latter form which gives nomenclature a bad name amongst many of our less taxonomically inclined colleagues. I would favour a much less aggressive attitude to well-established family names than appears to be prevalent in the current Code. Alleged Greek roots are the main culprits. Thus in brachiopods the family ATHYRIDAE (from the genus Athyris) was stable for more than a century until an ill-advised systematist was told that it should be ATHYRIDIDAE, since when the situation has been anything but stable, with some subsequent authors following one pattern and others the variant. Surely the Commission should reconsider this issue?’ Heppell also suggested that this question should be considered. 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: Acantophthalmus van Hasselt, 1823, Algemeene Konst—en Letter—Bode voor het jaar 1823, Il deel, no. 35, p. 133. COBITIDAE Swainson, 1839, in Lardner, D., The Cabinet Cyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 190. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, p. 303. taenia, Cobitis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, p. 303. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 DIRECTION 123 The Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology of Great Britain: Official List entry authorized Ruling (1) The work Mineral Conchology of Great Britain by J. and J. de C. Sowerby is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, the entry to read: Sowerby, (J. & J. de C.), 1812-1845, Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 7 volumes (the authorship and dates for this work to be taken as set out in the Appendix to Opinion 1429, published in BZN 44: 65-67). History of Case 2483 An application for a ruling on the authorship and dates of Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology of Great Britain was published in BZN 42: 64-72 (April 1985). Opinion 1429, published in BZN 44: 64-67, gave the ruling on this case, but no authority had been requested for an appropriate entry to be made in the Official List of Works. Under Article 78d of the Code the present Direction completes the ruling of Opinion 1429. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote to com- plete the ruling in Opinion 1429 (BZN 44: 64-67). At the close of the voting period the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes—1: Kabata. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Gruchy. Reference The following is the title of the work placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature by the ruling given in the present Direction: Sowerby, J. & J. de C., 1812-1845, Mineral Conchology of Great Britain. Contents—continued Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1484. Trypanosoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Protista, no phora). . . : ; : 154 Opinion 1485. Filellum serpens Hassall, 1848 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) Be 155 Opinion 1486. Tubulanus Renier, [1804] and T. polymorphus Renier, [1804] (Nemertea) LS, Opinion 1487. Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . . . 159 Opinion 1488. Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneae) . . 160 Opinion 1489. Biformalia vittata Sjéstedt, 1920 (currently Phaulacridium vittatum: Insecta, Orthoptera) . . 162 Opinion 1490. Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874 (Insecta, ‘Orthoptera, Gryllop feta). ‘ 164 Opinion 1491. Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera) . : 165 Opinion 1492. Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 (currently Micronecta albifrons: Insecta, Heteroptera). . : 167 Opinion 1493. Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ee te = 168 Opinion 1494. Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (currently Acmaeops marginata; Insecta, Coleoptera) . . . : 170 Opinion 1495. Coly dium castaneum . Herbst, 1797 (currently Tribolium castaneum; Insecta, Coleoptera) . . 171 Opinion 1496. Simulia ferrusinea Wahlberg, 1844 (currently ‘Helodon ferrugines Insecta, Diptera) . . f 173 Opinion 1497. Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Sts Se a Lis Opinion 1498. Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida). . . . 176 Opinion 1499. Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 (currently Cribrilina punctata; Bryozoa, Cheilostomata). . af ae i707 Opinion 1500. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) . : 178 Direction 123. The ee Mineral ree. as Great Britain: Official List entry meatmorsed . .- . . See 180 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 INotices’ 5): The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology General Article Changes in North American Fish Names, especially as related to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. R. M. Bailey & C. R. Robins Note by P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N.) Applications Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as type species. H. J. Hansen & F. Régl . Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & F. Rogl Calcarina Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & FE: Roglis Dendritina dV’ Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. . Hansen & E Ropar Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. i Hansen & F. Rogl Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. H. J. Hansen & BeROg «o Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus; Foraminiferida): proposed replacement of the neotype. H. J. Hansen& F.R6gl . . Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. L. B. Holthuis . Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): conservation proposee pour le nom spécifique.G. Breton . . Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus? dubius: Conodonta): proposed conservation of the specific name. L. Jeppsson & R. J. Aldridge . LIPARIDAE Gill, [30 September] 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes); proposed confirmation of spelling. K.D. Vogt. . Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and confirmation of authorship. R. N. Lea & W.N.Eschmeyer . . Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed ‘designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (= Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819) as the type species. R. M. Bailey & C. R. Robins. Hyla chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation and designation of a neotype. H. M. Smith, K. T. Fitzgerald & L. J. Guillette, Jr . Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed designation of Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species. N. Erridge Comments On the proposed conservation of the name Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum Boulenger, 1902 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) by the suppression of C. weeksii Boulenger, 1896. C. J. Ferraris, Jr; S. M. Morris On the suggested introduction of * Protected Works? (P. F. S. Cornelius). R. L. Manuel: G. A. Boxshall . On the proposed suppression for nomenclature ‘of ‘three works by R. Ww. Wells and C. R. Wellington. M. N. Hutchinson; A. Dubois, R. Bour, E.-R. Brygoo, J. Lescure, P. Bouchet & S. Tillier; V. B. Meyer-Rochow:; C. J. Birrel, L. Dodds, P. Evans, E. J. Nield, R. Peters, D. Sell, D. Shannon; M. King; L. B. Holthuis; M. J. Tyler; supporting letters from 81 persons On the proposed conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea). J. E. Heyning & L. G. Barnes . oe See sdk bash CRS st Pee of Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Ss 2702 Volume 45 , Part 3, 23 September 1988 pp. 181-248 ISSN 0007-5167 BRITIS Bulletin sclovical Parent Nomenclature ” meorerene EE in lature re Wa ee 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 1988 is £57 or $110, postage included; the rates for 1989 will be £60 or $115. 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 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 01-938 9387) 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) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (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 1988 BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY) 23 SEP 1988 ai PURCHASED ZOO! Or ; BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 45, part 3 (pp. 181-248) 23 September 1988 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 45, part 2 (published on 24 June 1988): (1) Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species P. azurea (Fallén, 1817): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of a replace- ment lectotype. (Case 2658). C. W. Sabrosky. (2) Ichnosoma bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 (currently Osteoglossum bicirrhosum; Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2659). M. Kottelat. (3) Phractocephalus Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed conserv- ation. (Case 2660). M. Kottelat. (4) Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. (Case 2662). H. W. Levi & O. Kraus. (5) Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Orbu- lites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type species. (Case 2663). R. Schroeder & M. D. Simmons. (6) Nectoneanthes Imajima, 1972 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of Nereis (Alitta) oxypoda Marenzeller, 1879 as the type species. (Case 2664). R. S. Wilson. (7) Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2665). P. Thiaucourt. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 (8) Lucicutia Giesbrecht, 1898: proposed conservation, and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907; proposed conservation of the specific name (both Crustacea, Copepoda). (Case 2666). K. Hulsemann. (9) Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conserv- ation. (Case 2668). E. E. Spamer & A. E. Bogan. (10) Banksiana Claasen, 1936 (Insecta, Plecoptera): proposed designation of Paragnetina immarginata (Say, 1823) as the type species. (Case 2669). B. P. Stark & P. Zwick. (11) Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of Arion distinctus Mabile, 1868 as the type species. (Case 2670). T. Backeljau. (12) J. C. Megerle’s catalogues of insects (1801-1805): proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. (Case 2671). I. M. Kerzhner. (13) Castiarina Gory & Laporte 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conserv- ation. (Case 2672). J. A. Gardner. (14) Micropterus patachonicus King, 1831 and Anas pteneres Forster, 1844 (both currently in Tachyeres Owen, 1875; Aves, Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2673). B. C. Livezey. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (1985) supersedes all earlier versions, and incorporates many changes. Copies may be obtained from: Natural History Publications, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £17.50 plus £1.50 postage. Orders from North America should be sent to: University of California Press, Berkeley 94720, California, U.S.A. Classical Adviser to the Commission Dr C. W. Wright has for many years given the Commission’s Secretariat valuable advice on the formation and use of Latin and Greek words, and will be happy to assist any zoologist who would like such help. Dr Wright’s address is c/o the Executive Secretary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 183 Increased nomenclatural stability through Lists of Names in Current Use The International Union of Biological Sciences sponsored a meeting at Kew (U.K.) on 22-23 April 1988 to consider the desirability and feasibility of preparing internationally recognised lists of botanical names in current use, and of according such names a protected nomenclatural status. Although the meeting was concerned with plant names the subject is relevant to biology as a whole, and the participants included the President and the Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The following is the text of a letter which the meeting agreed to distribute to appro- priate journals. Comments on the application of the proposals to zoological nomen- clature are welcome, and should be sent to the Commission Secretariat. Sir, The pressure from the users of names of organisms on taxonomists to produce more stable systems of names is increasing! *. Names change for one of two reasons: the strict application of the rule of priority or other nomenclatural caveats of the appropri- ate International Code, or new knowledge on the circumscription, rank or position ofa taxon. Changes of the latter kind relate to the advancement of scientific knowledge, and are of value to users in indicating not only relationships but also physiological and biochemical attributes. Changes for nomenclatural reasons alone, in contrast, benefit no-one. In perpetuating the present system, taxonomists are failing to satisfy a key require- ment of their consumers? and it is therefore not surprising that support for taxonomic research and services is meagre and only grudgingly obtained. The problems of the instability of names have become accentuated by the needs of the information service industry for data retrieval, and the requirements of health, trade, conservation, and quarantine authorities for stable names to use in legislation, regulations, and property rights protection. Action is long overdue and urgently needed not only to satisfy the demands of users of names, but further to restore something of the lost credit of taxonomists in the sight of their consumers. Bacteriologists overcame this problem in 1980 by the adoption of a new starting date for nomenclature and the publication of an ‘Approved List’ of names®~’; only 2,500 of 30,000 species names were listed. In the case of groups covered by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) there are about 36,500 generic and 400,000 species names in use, out of about 79,000 generic and 1,700,000 species names pub- lished. It has been suggested that approved lists of names are issued at five-yearly intervals®, that a list of currently accepted names of the world’s flora be produced which could be accorded some specially protected nomenclatural status®, and in zoology that particular works be granted a protected status’°~'?. Proposals to introduce formal procedures for the registration of newly published names?” were debated during the XIV International Botanical Congress in Berlin in July 1987. A Special Committee on Registration was established, which is to report to the next Congress in Tokyo in 1993. However, such a process would not overcome the instability caused by the repeated re-introduction of long-forgotten names. The Inter- 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 national Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), with the support of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), sponsored an international meeting at Kew on 22-23 April 1988 to consider the feasibility of the production of lists of names in current use for all groups of organisms covered by the ICBN; i.e. living and fossil flowering plants, ferns, mosses, hepatics, algae, cyanobacteria, fungi (including lichens), and certain protoctists. The meeting was attended by 23 specialists, including key personnel associated with the current cataloguing of names (i.e. the Index Algarum, Index of Fungi, Index Kewensis, Index Muscorum, Index Nominum Genericorum), together with representatives of selected user groups. The key conclusions of this meeting, a full report of which will appear in both Biology International and Taxon, were: (1) The preparation of lists of names in current use is in itself a worthwhile objective. Moreover, it would, if such lists were accorded specially protected nomencla- tural status over all names not on the list by a future International Botanical Congress, promote stability in names by almost entirely eliminating the majority of name changes due to nomenclatural reasons. (2) It is now technically feasible, in the light of machine-readable card files which have already been compiled, to produce lists of the approximately 36,500 generic names in current use for all groups covered by the ICBN, given the necessary international support. The starting point for such a list is the IAPT Index Nominum Genericorum database held at the Smithsonian Institution, and publication is to be realised in 1991. (3) The situation with respect to the approximately 400,000 species names in current use varies markedly from group to group, and such lists will have to be prepared on a group by group basis; pilot studies can now feasibly be carried out (e.g. legumes, mosses, yeasts) provided that the necessary resources are made available. (4) TUBS, through its Commission on the Nomenclature of Plants (General Com- mittee), should be encouraged to establish a Special Committee on Names in Current Use charged to make formal and detailed proposals to the next Inter- national Botanical Congress with respect to granting special status to the lists of generic names, to consider appropriate mechanisms for updating them, and to define procedures for the preparation and adoption of species names lists. (5) The newly appointed Special Committee shall work in collaboration with that on Registration already established, which is considering the question of the registration of newly published names. The work of the two Committees is entirely complementary. (6) The proposals developed at the Kew meeting need to be widely publicised to promote discussion amongst users of names, not only systematists. (7) The IUBS should be encouraged to adopt this task as a part of its forthcoming Scientific Programme for 1988-91, and to secure international funding to assist in the preparation and publication of the generic and sample species names lists. If the necessary resources can be made available, there is now a scenario available which, if accepted by the biological community at large, would materially improve the stability of names of all organisms covered by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. The participants in the Kew meeting wish to encourage a lively in-depth debate on this matter, and invite comments from both users and taxonomists, which Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 185 will be made available to the proposed Special Committee which will be responsible for both the production of the generic and pilot species lists, and the preparation of detailed proposals for decision at the 1993 International Botanical Congress. Assistance towards the costs of the meeting received from the International Union of Biological Sciences, the Royal Society of London, and CAB International is gratefully acknowledged. D. L. HAWKSWORTH CAB International Mycological Institute, Ferry Lane, Kew, Surrey TW9 3AF, U.K. References ly 2. ay Erzinclioglu, Y. Z. & Unwin, D. M. 1986. The stability of zoological nomenclature. Nature, 320: 687. Barnett, J. A. 1986. The stability of biological nomenclature: yeasts. Nature, 322: 599. Bruce-Chwatt, L. J. 1987. Vagaries of nomenclature and the rigidity of the Code. Nature, 325: 114. . Rosmoore, H. W. 1988. A rose by any other name. /nternational Biodeterioration, 23: 325-327: . Hawksworth, D. L. & Bisby, F. A. 1988. Systematics: the keystone of biology. Pp. 3-30. in Hawksworth, D. L. (Ed.), Prospects in Systematics. 420 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. . Anonymous. 1980. Debugging systematic bacteriology. Nature, 283: 511. . Sneath, P. H. A. 1986. Nomenclature of bacteria. Pp. 36-48 in Ride, W. D. L. & Younes, T. (Eds), Biological Nomenclature Today. 70 pp. IRL Press, Oxford. . Barnett, J. A. 1987. Classification. Nature, 325: 384. . Brummitt, R. K. 1987. Will we ever achieve stability of nomenclature? Taxon, 36: 78-81. . Cornelius, P. F. S. 1987. Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a solution for an old problem. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44: 79-85. . Manuel, R. L. 1988. Comment on the suggested introduction of ‘Protected Works’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45: 144-145. . Greuter, W. 1986. Proposals on registration of plant names, a new concept for the nomen- clature of the future. Taxon, 35: 816-819. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2449 Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964 as the type species Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr & Helen Tappan Loeblich Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Remaneica gonzalezi as the type species of Septotrochammina Zheng; specimens of Zheng’s material are clearly not congeneric with the neotype of Patellina plicata Terquem, 1876, the originally designated type species, but are indistinguishable from the holotype of R. gonzalezi. This designation will make Remaneicella Br6nnimann, Zaninetti & Whittaker, 1983 a junior objective synonym of Septotrochammina. 1. The remaneicid genus Septotrochammina was described by Zheng (1979, pp. 118— 203) from Holocene specimens from the Xisha Islands (Guangdong Province, China) that she considered to be Patellina plicata Terquem, 1876 (p. 72). P. plicata was orig- inally described from the beach sands of Dunkerque, France, where it is relatively common. The original figures by Terquem are somewhat diagrammatic, and his type specimens are no longer extant. For this reason Levy et al. (1975, p. 171) selected a neotype, now deposited as specimen FG445 in the Institut de Paléontologie du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. 2. Illustrations of the P. plicata neotype (Levy et al., 1975, pl. 1, figs. 6 and 7) convincingly show that it is not conspecific nor even congeneric with the specimen from China that was illustrated by Zheng as representing the type species of Septotrocham- mina. In this case of a misidentified type species stability of nomenclature would be best served by the course given in Article 70b(i) of the Code, namely the designation of the species actually before Zheng when she proposed Septotrochammina. 3. In 1982 Dr Zheng sent us a specimen of her material from the Xisha Islands which she had identified as Septotrochammina plicata (Terquem). We have figured this (Loeblich & Tappan, 1985, pl. 1, figs 1-3) and deposited it in the U.S. National Museum (specimen USNM 383153). Comparison of this specimen with that of Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964 (p. 500) illustrated by Bronnimann & Maisonneuve (1980, pl. 6) shows the two to be conspecific, and different from the true Patellina plicata Terquem, which is also shown by Brénnimann & Maisonneuve (1980, pl. 3). 4. Brénnimann & Maisonneuve (1980), in their revision of the genus Remaneica Rhumbler, 1938 (type species R. hel/golandica Rhumbler, 1938), questioned the generic assignment of R. gonzalezi Seiglie. Bronnimann, Zaninetti & Whittaker (1983, p. 208) proposed the new genus Remaneicella with R. gonzalezi as the type (and only) species. 5. Zheng (1979) was unaware that Levy et al. (1975) had designated a neotype for Patellina plicata, and similarly Bronnimann et al. (1983) were unaware of Zheng’s 1979 paper when they proposed Remaneicella. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 187 6. As stated above, we consider Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 and Remaneicella Bronnimann et al., 1983 to be synonyms and based upon the same taxonomic species, and hence we have recognised the former as the valid name (Loeblich & Tappan, 1985, pp. 195, 197; 1987, p. 129). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the original type species designation, of Patellina plicata Terquem, 1876, for the nominal genus Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979, and to designate Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Septotro- chammina Zheng, 1979 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964, as published in the binomen Remaneica gonzalezi (specific name of the type species of Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979); to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Remaneicella Bronnimann, Zaninetti & Whittaker, 1983, a junior objective synonym of Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 by the proposal in (1) above. (4 ~— References Brénnimann, P. & Maisonneuve, E. 1980. Revision of the trochamminid genus Remaneica Rhumbler, 1938 (Foraminiferida). Notes du Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Université de Geneve, 6: 1-14. Brénnimann, P., Zaninetti, L. & Whittaker, J. E. 1983. On the classification of the Trochammin- acea (Foraminiferida). Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 13: 202-218. Levy, A., Mathieu, R., Poignant, A., Rosset-Moulinier, M. & Rouillois, A. 1975. Sur quelques foraminiféres actuels des plages de Dunkerque et des environs: néotypes et espéce nouvelle. Revue de Micropaléontologie, 17: 171-181. Loeblich, A. R., Jr & Tappan, H. 1985. Some new and redefined genera and families of agglutinated foraminifera II. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 15: 175—217. Loeblich, A. R., Jr & Tappan, H. 1987. Foraminiferal Genera and their Classification. Two vols., 1182 pp., 847 pls. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Seiglie, G. A. 1964. New and rare foraminifers from Los Testigos reefs, Venezuela. Caribbean Journal of Science, 4: 497-512. Terquem, O. 1876. Essai sur le classement des animaux qui vivent sur la plage et dans les environs de Dunkerque, 152 pp. Paris. Zheng, S. 1979. The Recent foraminifera of the Xisha Islands, Guangdong Province, China. II. Studia Marina Sinica, 15: 101-232. 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2622 Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed conservation of the specific name Kuni Hulsemann Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Notkestrasse 31, D-2000 Hamburg 52, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the widely used cope- pod specific name princeps Scott, 1894, by ruling that it is not invalid, despite having been rejected before 1961 as a former junior secondary homonym of Metridia princeps Giesbrecht, 1889. 1. Pleuromma princeps was established by Scott (1894, p. 42) for a single male specimen. Giesbrecht (1897, p. 254) transferred the species to Metridia Boeck, 1865 solely on the grounds of Scott’s information on the swimming legs. 2. The genus Metridia already contained M. princeps Giesbrecht, 1889, so that by transfer M. princeps (Scott) became a junior secondary homonym and therefore invalid (Art. 41 of the 1895 Régles, Art. 59b of the present Code). Giesbrecht proposed M. scotti as a replacement name for M. princeps (Scott); M. princeps Giesbrecht has remained in use for a species found in the deep waters of all oceans. 3. Wolfenden (1905, p. 5) erected the genus Gaussia to receive his new species G. melanotica, in Part I of his privately printed Plankton Studies. After the printing of his work, however, Wolfenden considered that G. melanotica was a junior synonym of M. scotti, and by means of printed adhesive labels he changed melanotica to scotti in the text (although he omitted to do so in the legend to Plate II); some ‘uncorrected’ copies exist. The name melanotica has not been used since 1905. 4. Sewell (1932, p. 270) introduced the combination Gaussia princeps (Scott) in accord with a then common interpretation of the rules (e.g. Richter, 1948, p. 196: “A junior subjective (secondary) homonym ... enters validity again as soon as re- assignment to different genera terminates the homonymy [translation]); fora discussion of the early treatment of secondary homonyms see BZN 4: 112-116 (1950). Following Sewell, after 1932 Gaussia princeps became the accepted name (see para. 6). 5. Article 59c of the 1964 Code (Article 59b of the 1985 edition) limited reinstate- ment of rejected junior secondary homonyms to those rejected after 1960. Accordingly, Saraswathy (1973b, p. 191) properly adopted G. scotti (Giesbrecht, 1897) as the valid name, even though earlier the same year (1973a, p. 335) she had used G. princeps (Scott, 1894) as valid. 6. However, a very large number of authors have used G. princeps (Scott) as valid: a list of 40 references between 1947 and 1986 (fifteen of them after Saraswathy, 1973b) has been given to the Commission Secretariat. G. scotti has been used only four times (apart from Saraswathy, only by Bowman, 1978, p. 114 and by Rao, 1979, p. 275) in the past half-century. The species has never been considered congeneric with M. princeps Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 189 Giesbrecht since 1905, and adoption now of the name scotti would cause quite unnecessary confusion. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to rule that the specific name princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the binomen Pleuromma princeps, is not invalid by reason of its having been rejected before 1961 as a former secondary homonym of Metridia princeps Giesbrecht, 1889; (b) to suppress the specific name me/anotica Wolfenden, 1905, as published in the binomen Gaussia melanotica, 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 Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Gaussia melanotica Wolfenden, 1905 (a subjective synonym of Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 and of Metridia scotti Giesbrecht, 1897); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the binomen Pleuromma princeps (by virtue of the proposal in (1)(a) above the present valid specific name of the type species of Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) melanotica Wolfenden, 1905, as published in the binomen Gaussia melanotica and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (b) scotti Giesbrecht, 1897, as published in the binomen Metridia scotti, a junior objective synonym of princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the binomen Pleuromma princeps, by effect of the proposed ruling in (1)(a) above. Acknowledgement I thank A. F. Campaner for his interest and help. References Bowman, T. E. 1978. The modified suture between segments 8 and 9 on the first antenna of some calanoid copepods. Crustaceana, 35: 113-118. Giesbrecht, W. 1897. Notizen zur Systematik der Copepoden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 20: 253-255. Rao, T. S. S. 1979. Zoogeography of the Indian Ocean. Pp. 254-292 in van der Spoel, S. & Pierrot-Bults, A. C. (Eds.), Zoogeography and diversity of plankton. Edward Arnold, London, and Bunge Scientific Publishers, Utrecht. Richter, R. 1948. Einfiihrung in die zoologische Nomenklatur durch Erlduterungen der inter- nationalen Regeln. 252 pp. Waldemar Kramer, Frankfurt. Saraswathy, M. 1973a. Distribution of Gaussia (Copepoda, Metridiidae) in the upper 200 m in the Indian Ocean. Pp. 335-338 in Zeitzschel, B. (Ed.), The biology of the Indian Ocean (Ecological Studies 3). Springer, New York. Saraswathy, M. 1973b. The genus Gaussia (Copepoda-Calanoida), with a description of G. sewelli sp. nov. from the Indian Ocean. Pp. 190-195 in Handbook to the International Zooplankton Collections curated and processed at the Indian Ocean Biological Centre, Cochin, India, vol. 5. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 mostraca from the Gulf of Guinea collected by John Rattray, ean Society of London, Zoological Series, 6: 1-161. ds of Indian Seas. Calanoida. Part Il. Memoirs of the Indian Scott, T. 1894. Report on the Ento B.Sc. Transactions of the Linn Sewell, R. B. S. 1932. The Copepo Museum, 10: 223-407. Wolfenden, R. N. 1905. Plankton Studies. Copepoda. Part 1. 24 pp. Rebman, London & New York. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 191 Case 2568 ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907, OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 and LOCUSTIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed order of precedence ft: Key Division of Entomology, CSIRO, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra 2601, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve usage of the subfamily name of certain grasshoppers, OEDIPODINAE Walker, 1870 by giving it precedence over LOCUSTINAE Latreille, 1802 whenever the two are considered synonyms. Both subfamilies are normally placed in the family ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907, and it is proposed that this name be given precedence over both senior names. 1. The first use of a name for the family groups in question was by Latreille (1802, p. 277) (LOCUSTARIAE ). Its last use prior to that of Harz (1975, p. 440) was apparently that by Kirby (1910, p. 194) (as LOCUSTINAE). The name OEDIPODINAE was published by Walker (1870, p. 721) (as OEDIPODIDAE) and has been used subsequently by many authors up to the present time. 2. The period between the use of LOCUSTINAE by Kirby (1910) and its resurrection by Harz (1975) is 65 years. It is difficult to understand how Harz could have failed to see that its resurrection would have a greatly destabilizing effect and thus would require action under Article 23b. Even before 1910, the name based on Oedipoda had been the one predominantly used ever since its introduction by Walker in 1870, notably in the monographic works of Stal (1873, p. 129), de Saussure (1884, p. 39; 1888, p. 14) and Brunner von Wattenwyl (1893, p. 128). From 1910 until 1975, during which time OEDIPODINAE had held the field exclusively, it was used in very many papers, involving such major reference works as those of Blatchley (1920), Sjdstedt (1921, 1936), Bei— Bienko & Mishchenko (1951), Brues, Melander & Carpenter (1954), Borror & DeLong (1954), Richards & Davies (1957), Uvarov (1966), CSIRO (1970) and Dirsh (1975). The full references are held by the Secretariat. 3. In resurrecting LOCUSTINAE, Harz (1975) made the fundamental error of placing its type genus, Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, in the tribe OEDIPODINI together with Oedipoda Latreille, 1829. This must raise the question as to whether he was really alert to the implications of his use of “LOCUSTINAE’. 4. The genera Acrida Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 427), Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 431) and Oedipoda Latreille, 1825 (p. 415) have for many years been placed in the family ACRIDIDAE. This family name based on Acrida was introduced by Karny (1907, p. 276), and so is junior to OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 (p. 721) and to Locustipae Latreille, 1802 (p. 277). It is unfortunate that the established usage of these names is in an order of precedence which is the opposite of their date priorities. The history is extremely confused due to the existence of the generic names Acrydium and Acridium; both names are junior to Acrida Linnaeus, 1758. Acrydium was made available by Miller (1764, p. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 24) and the spelling Acridium was given by Muller in 1776 (p. 100), and subsequently family-group names were based on both words. Neither of these names has been used as valid for very many years. Both have been confused with Acrida and its derivatives, and future stability would be helped by their suppression. 5. The first description of the genus Oedipoda was by Latreille (1825, p. 415) where he proposed the name in the French form Oedipode. This is valid under Article 1 1b (ii) of the present (1985) Code. In 1829, in Cuvier’s Réegne Animal (vol. 5, p. 188), Latreille used the spelling Oedipoda (‘Elles appartiennent au genre que j’ai nommé Oedipode (Oedipoda)’). The spelling of the name as Oedipode has not been used since its proposal and the name Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 was placed on the Official List of Generic Names by Opinion 149 of 1943. Acrida and Locusta were placed on the Official List by Opinions 299 (1954) and 158 (1945) respectively. 6. It seems very clear that, in the interests of stability, precedence for OEDIPODINAE as the name of a taxon containing both Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 and Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 (but not Acrida Linnaeus, 1758) is desirable. Such precedence, of course, leaves open the option of employing LOCUSTINAE or its tribal equivalent for a taxon containing Locusta but not Oedipoda. Meanwhile, in conformity with Article 80a of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained, with the order of precedence of the family-group names in question to be as proposed below. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the order of precedence of the following family-group names is, whenever any of them are considered to be synonyms, to be: (a) ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907; (b) OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870; (c) LOCUSTIDAE Latreille, 1802; (2) 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) Acridium Miller, 1776; (b) Acrydium Muller, 1764; (c) any family-group names based on Acridium Muller, 1776 or Acrydium Muller, 1764; (3) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907 (type genus Acrida Linnaeus, 1758), with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 and LocusTIDAE Latreille, 1802 whenever any of these names are considered synonyms; OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 (type genus Oedipoda Latreille, 1829), with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over LOCUSTIDAE Latreille, 1802, but not to be given priority over ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907, whenever any of these names are considered synonyms; (c) LocusTIDAE Latreille, 1802 (type genus Locusta Linnaeus, 1758), with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 or ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907, whenever any of these names are considered synonyms; (b ~— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 193 (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Acridium Miller, 1776, as suppressed in (2)(a) above; (b) Acrydium Miller, 1764, as suppressed in (2)(b) above. References Brunner von Wattenwyl, C. 1893. Revision du systeme des Orthoptéres et description des espéces rapporteées par M. Leonardo Fea de Birmanie. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, (2) 13: 1-230. Harz, K. 1975. Die Orthopteren Europas/The Orthoptera of Europe. Vol. 11. (Series Entomologica 11). 939 pp. Junk, The Hague. Karny, H. 1907. Orthopteranfauna des Sudans. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 116(1A): 267-378. Kirby, W. F. 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera. Vol. 3. Part 2 (Locustidae vel Acridiidae). 674 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Latreille, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes. Vol. 3. 467 pp. Dufart, Paris. Latreille, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal, exposées succintement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres. 570 pp. Bailliére, Paris. Latreille, P. A. 1829. Jn Cuvier, G. 1829-1830, Le Régne Animal distribué aprés son organisation. Ed. 2, Vol. 5. 556 pp., 20 pls. Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Miller, O. F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina . ..96 pp. Hafniae et Lipsiae. Miller, O. F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus . . .282 pp. Havniae. Saussure, H. de, 1884. Prodromus Oedipodiorum, insectorum ex ordine Orthopterorum. Memoires de la Société de Physique et d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, 28(9): 1-254. Saussure, H. de, 1888. Additamenta ad Prodromum Oedipodiorum. Mémoires de la Société de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, 30(1): 1-180. Stal, C. 1873. Recensio Orthopterorum. Revue Critique des Orthopteres décrit par Linné, de Geer et Thunberg. Vol. 1. 154 pp. Norstedt & Séner, Stockholm. Walker, F. 1870. Catalogue of the specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of the British Museum. Part 4, pp. 605-809. British Museum, London. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2618 Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation L. Borowiec Department of Zoology, Agricultural University, Cybulskiego 20, 50-205 Wroctaw, Poland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic names Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 by the sup- pression of Bruchus Miller, 1764 and Mylabris Miller, 1764. Bruchus Linnaeus is the type genus of the BRUCHIDAE Latreille, 1802, which includes a number of important seed-eating beetles; Ptinus also includes species of economic importance. 1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 356) proposed the name Dermestes pisorum for a seed beetle. In 1767 (p. 604), he used the name Bruchus and listed seven species in the genus, including B. pisi (=D. pisorum). Latreille (1810, p. 430) designated B. pisi ‘Fab.’ (i.e. Linnaeus, 1767) as the type species of Bruchus. Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 is the type genus of the family BRUCHIDAE Latreille, 1802 (p. 192). 2. Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 is currently in use for the main genus of seed beetles, encompassing several commonly-known pests of leguminous plants and of great economic importance, but the name is threatened by the senior homonym Bruchus Miller, 1764 (p. xv) (redescribing Bruchus Geoffroy, 1762, proposed in a work that has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology (Opinion 228; BZN 4: 209)), and by the senior objective synonym Mylabris Miller, 1764 (see paragraph 5 below). 3. Scopoli (1763, p. 22) described the genus Laria with four species, one of which, L. salicis, was listed by Linnaeus (1767, p. 604) as a synonym of Bruchus pisi. Following Bedel (1901, p. 341), Laria was used for some years by authors as the name for the seed beetles (family LARMIDAE Bedel, 1901). However, the genus had no designated type species until Bridwell (1932, p. 104) selected L. dulcamarae, thereby fixing the genus in the NITIDULIDAE and removing its subjective synonymy with Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (Pope, 1956, p. 45). 4. Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 has been in general use for over 100 years for the spider beetles, significant storehouse pests. Latreille (1810, p. 427) designated Ptinus fur ‘Fab.’ (i.e. Cerambyx fur Linnaeus, 1758, p. 393) as the type species, and Ptinus is the type genus of the family PTINIDAE Latreille, 1802 (p. 112). The name is threatened by the senior objective synonym Bruchus Miller, 1764, for which Miller (1776) listed three species, including B. fur. Bridwell (1932, p. 104) designated Cerambyx fur as the type species of Bruchus Miller, 1764. 5. Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (p. 261) is the generic name in current use for some oil beetles (family MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810); Latreille (1810, p. 430) designated Mylabris cichorii ‘Fab.’ (i.e. Meloe cichorii Linnaeus, 1758, p. 419) as the type species. Bridwell (1932, p. 104) designated Bruchus pisi Linnaeus, 1767 as the type species of Mylabris Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 195 Miller, 1764 (p. xiv). Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 is threatened by the senior homonym Mylabris Miller, 1764 (a senior subjective synonym of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767). 6. It has been said (Crotch, 1870, pp. 43 and 44) that Linnaeus treated Geoffroy’s work in a dismissive fashion and reused many of his names in a different sense, includ- ing Bruchus and Mylabris, simply out of rivalry and that the ‘ill-concealed jealousy of Linnaeus is only too evident in his 12th edition’. 7. The names Bruchus Miller, 1764 and Mylabris Miller, 1764 (both originating from Geoffroy, 1762) have remained unused. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Bruchus Muller, 1764 and all other uses of this name before the publication of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767; (b) Mylabris Muller, 1764 and all other uses of this name before the publication of Mylabris Fabricius, 1775; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Latreille (1810) Bruchus pisi ‘Fab.’ (i.e. Linnaeus, 1767, = Dermestes pisorum Linnaeus, 1758); (b) Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Latreille (1810) Ptinus fur ‘Fab.’ (= Cerambyx fur Linnaeus, 1758); (c) Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Latreille (1810) Mylabris cichorii ‘Fab.’ (= Meloe cichorii Linnaeus, 1758); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pisorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes pisorum (valid specific name of the type species of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767); (b) fur Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cerambyx fur (specific name of the type species of Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767); (c) cichorii Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Meloe cichorii (specific name of the type species of Mylabris Fabricius, 1775); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) BRUCHIDAE Latreille, 1802 (type genus Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767); (b) PTINIDAE Latreille, 1802 (type genus Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Bruchus Miller, 1764, as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) Mylabris Miller, 1764, as suppressed in (1) (b) above. References Bedel, L. 1901. Faune des Coléoptéres du Bassin de la Seine. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (Hors Série), Paris. Phytophaga. [Family LARIIDAE: 69 (3-4, 1900): 341-356; 70 (1, 1901): 357-366]. (Reprinted as Société Entomologique de France (Publications Hors Série). vol. 5, pp. 341-366). Bridwell, J. C. 1932. The subfamilies of the Bruchidae (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 34(6): 100-106. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Crotch, C. R. 1870. The genera of Coleoptera studied chronologically (1735-1801). The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London. 1870(1): 41-52. Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae . . . , xxxii, 832 pp. Flensburg and Lipsiae. Geoffroy, E. L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 1, 523 pp. Durand, Paris. Gyllenhal, L. 1810. Jnsecta Suecica, vol. 1, pars II. Scaris. Latreille, P. A. 1802. Histoire Naturelle, générale et particuliére, des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. III. xii, 468 pp. F. Dufart, Paris. Latreille, P. A. 1810. Considerations générales sur l’ordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes; avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. 444 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2): 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae. Miiller, O. F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina . . . xxiv, 96 pp. Hafniae et Lipsiae. Pope, R. D. 1956. The family name Bruchidae (Col.). The Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 92: 45-46. Scopoli, J. A. 1763. Entomologia Carniolica . .. .423 pp. Joannis Thomae Trattner, Vindobonae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 197 Case 2627 Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of both the generic and specific names L. Zerche Institut fiir Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmachnow der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Bereich Eberswalde, Schickler- strasse 5, Eberswalde—Finow 1, DDR 1300. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of both the rove beetle generic name Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (OMALIINAE, STAPHYLINIDAE), by suppression of its senior synonym Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, and the specific name angusticolle Stephens, 1834, by suppression of its senior synonym robynsii Wesmael, 1833. 1. Wesmael (1833) described Harpognatus with its type species robynsii by monotypy. These descriptions have been overlooked because of their unusual place ina universal encyclopedia. In 1834 the generic name was incorrectly spelt Harpognathus in an article indexed under Wesmael, although the text referred to Westmael [sic]. The incorrectly spelt form has since been used only by Lacordaire (1854, p. xix), although many authors, including Campbell (1978, p. 26), have quoted it as a synonym of Coryphium. The binomen Harpognatus robynsii has never been used. 2. In 1834 (p. 344) Stephens described Coryphium with its type species angusticolle by monotypy. Coryphium angusticolle has been used by all subsequent authors except Wesmael (1834) and Lacordaire (1854). At least 13 different authors have applied this binomen during the last 10 years; a list has been given to the Commission Secretariat. 3. The lectotypes for both Harpognatus robynsii and Coryphium angusticolle, here designated, are conspecific. The former, a female, is labelled “coll. Wesmael/ H. Robynsii Wesm./Harpognathus Robynsii Wesm/Type/Coryphium angusticolle Steph./Lectotypus Harpognatus robynsii Wesmael, 1833 Zerche desg. 1986/ Coryphium angusticolle sTEPH. Zerche det. 1987’. The latter, a male, is labelled “6/Coryphium angusticolle/Lectotype/Lectotypus Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 Zerche desg. 1987’’. The former is in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, and the latter is in the British Museum (Natural History). 4. According to the Principle of Priority the completely unknown binomen Harpognatus robynsii would have to be applied instead of Coryphium angusticolle. 5. Coryphium is the basis of the family-group name CORYPHIINI Portevin (1929, p. 430) in which 21 nominal taxa of the species group have been described. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic and specific names Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 and robynsii Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus robynsii, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name angusticolle Stephens, 1834, as published in the binomen Coryphium angusticolle (specific name of the type species of Coryphium Stephens, 1834); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834, an incorrect spelling of Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name robynsii Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus robynsii and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Dr L. Baert of the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, and Mr P. Hammond, of the British Museum (Natural History), London, for lending the type material. References Campbell, J. M. 1978. A Revision of the North American Omaliinae (Coleoptera, Staphylin- idae). In Morrison, P. E. (Ed.), Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, no. 106. Lacordaire, M. T. 1854. Seance du 8 mars 1854. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, Ser. 3.2, xvili—xix. Portevin, G. 1929. Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. 1. Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphylinoidea. 649 pp. Lechevalier, Paris. Stephens, J. F. 1834. [//ustrations of British Entomology ..., Mandibulata. Vol. 5. 1832-1835 (pp. 30—308: 1834). 448 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. Wesmael, C. 1833. Description d’un nouveau genre d’Insecte Coléoptére. Recueil Encyclo- pédique Belge, Bruxelles, pp. 119-123. Wesmael, C. 1834. Nouveau genre d’insecte Coléoptére. L’Institut (Journal général des Sociétés et Travaux scientifiques de la France et de l’Etranger), 2 (42): 76. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 199 Case 2632 Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of neotype designation R. W. Crosskey Department of Entomology, British Museum ( Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K. H. Shima Biological Laboratory, College of General Education, Kyushu University, Ropponmatsu, Fukuoka 810, Japan Abstract. The purpose of this application is to request validation of an existing neotype designation for Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830, and so protect the use of this name in its current sense for a well known species of TACHINIDAE (SIPHONINI). 1. Wiedemann (1830, pp. 336-337) described Tachina orbata from ‘Ostindien’, a vague locality recorded for many of his Diptera that either indicates eastern India or the East Indies. He had at least two specimens, because ‘Im K 6niglichen Museum und in meiner Sammlung’ (both depositories in Copenhagen) appeared in the original description. 2. Zimsen (1954) reported in her list of Wiedemann’s types in Copenhagen that those of Tachina orbata are lost. They have not been discovered since, and it remains impossible to be sure of the identity of this nominal species from original material. 3. Brauer & Bergenstamm (1891, p. 355) studied a specimen in the von Winthem collection (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) which they recorded (p. 435) as the ‘Type’. Although this specimen was almost certainly identified by Wiedemann it is assumed to lack type status (Crosskey, 1966, p. 107 [101]). Wiedemann was usually careful to record specimens of his new species as ‘In v. Winthem’s Sammlung’ whenever this applied, but did not do so for orbata (see 1 above). 4. In 1965 an examination of the von Winthem specimen (by R.W.C.) showed that it belongs to a species of TACHINIDAE, tribe SIPHONINI, that is widespread in the Old World tropical and subtropical areas. At that time several names were known to apply to this species, although the synonymies had not been formally established. In the absence of any syntype it was decided to apply the name orbata to this familiar species because the specimen of orbata in Vienna was probably seen (and perhaps labelled) by Wiedemann and it fitted most of the brief original description. The new combination Strobliomyia orbata (Wiedemann, 1830) was published, and several twentieth century names for the same species listed as new synonyms (Crosskey, 1966, p. 107 [101], 110 [104]). The present combination Peribaea orbata (Wiedemann) was established later (Crosskey, 1973, p. 81, p. 138), after it had been found that Mesnil (1963, p. 803) had been in error to treat Peribaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 as preoccupied — on which mistaken ground he used the junior synonym Strobliomyia Townsend, 1926 as the valid generic name. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 5. Following the decision to apply the name to the common siphonine represented by the von Winthem specimen a neotype was designated by one of us (Crosskey, 1967, p. 106) for Tachina orbata Wiedemann, so permitting it to be distinguished from superficially similar congeneric species by objective comparison of types. Because of its imperfect condition and incomplete data the von Winthem specimen was unsuitable for designation, and a recently collected specimen from eastern India was chosen as neotype instead. The specimen bears handwritten labels reading ‘Azra Assam Dec 63’ and ‘Ex caterpillar feeding on Fossia sp.’, a collection registration number of the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology reading ‘c.LE. COLL. No. 19661’, a circular red-bordered ‘NEOTYPE’ label, and a designation label reading ‘Tachina orbata Wied. NEOTYPE @ designated by R. W. Crosskey 1967 (Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B)36:106)’. It is in the British Museum (Natural History), and is accompanied by its puparium. The designation is valid under the Code and conforms to Article 75; the characters used to differentiate the species had been given previously in the discussion of the von Winthem specimen (Crosskey, 1966) and so were not repeated in the 1967 paper. 6. Since 1967 the name orbata has been applied to the species represented by the neotype. This species has not been redescribed, however, under the name orbata because an excellent description by Mesnil (1963, pp. 804-806) has been available using the name Strobliomyia aegyptia (Villeneuve, 1912); the latter name was synonymised with orbata after a lectotype had been designated for it and compared with the orbata neotype (Crosskey, 1966, pp. 108, 110). For the past twenty years the siphonine species concerned has been universally called orbata. This name has been widely disseminated as the result of routine identification and used as the valid name for the siphonine in published literature, notably in major regional catalogues (Crosskey, 1973, 1977, 1980; Herting, 1984) and other faunal works (e.g. Crosskey, 1976; Dear & Crosskey, 1982; Shima, 1981). 7. In the opinion of the late Dr L. P. Mesnil (unpublished and expressed in corre- spondence to R.W.C. and H.S.) the neotype designation for orbata was improper because of a discrepancy in the wing venation of the species represented by the neotype and Wiedemann’s description. In orbata as interpreted by the neotype the hind cross- vein is present (figure in Crosskey, 1984) whereas the original description implies that it is absent — ‘‘Spitzenqueerader einen stumpfen und abgerundeten Winkel bildend, die gewohnliche Queerader ungewohnlich hoch liegend, die mittlere [presumably the hind cross-vein] gar nicht vorhanden’. If this is taken as unambiguous evidence that Wiedemann’s orbata lacked the hind cross-vein (a point that by oversight was not noted when the neotype was designated) then it is likely that the species he described belonged to the NEAERINI rather than the SIPHONINI; loss of the hind cross-vein is common in NEAERINI but very rare (though known in at least one species) in SIPHONINI. 8. The discrepancy to which Mesnil called our attention casts doubt on whether Wiedemann’s nominal species was correctly identified. Quite likely it was not. But if the name is rejected from the SIPHONINI because of the discrepancy it has then to be left in taxonomic limbo, as a nomen dubium in NEAERINI. We see no advantage in this, and think it preferable in the interests of stability to keep the name orbata Wiedemann for the common and widespread species of SIPHONINI to which it has been applied since the neotype was designated. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 201 (1) to rule that the specific name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Tachina orbata, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen desig- nated as neotype by Crosskey (1967): (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Tachina orbata, and as designated by the neotype designated by Crosskey (1967). References Brauer, F. & Bergenstamm, J. E. von, 1891. Die Zweifliigler des Kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien. V. Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Muscaria schizometopa (exclusive Antho- myidae). Pars II. Denkschriften der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 58: 305-446. Crosskey, R. W. 1966. New generic and specific synonymy in Australian Tachinidae (Diptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B) 35: 101-110 (pagination erroneously printed as 95—104 in periodical part and reprints). Crosskey, R. W. 1967. New generic and specific synonymy in Oriental Tachinidae (Diptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B) 36: 95-108. Crosskey, R. W. 1973. A conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of Australia, including keys to the supraspecific taxa and taxonomic and host catalogues. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology), Supplement 21: 1—221. Crosskey, R. W. 1976. A taxonomic conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the Oriental Region. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History) (Entomology), Supplement 26: 1-357. Crosskey, R. W. 1977. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 586-697, in Delfinado, M. D. & Hardy, D. E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Volume III. Suborder Cyclorrhapha (excluding Division Aschiza). x, 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Crosskey, R. W. 1980. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882, in Crosskey, R. W. (Ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Crosskey, R. W. 1984. Annotated keys to the genera of Tachinidae (Diptera) found in tropical and southern Africa. Annals of the Natal Museum, 26: 189-337. Dear, J. P. & Crosskey, R. W. 1982. A taxonofnic review of the Tachinidae (Insecta, Diptera) of the Philippines. Steenstrupia, 8: 105-155. Herting, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Natur- kunde, Serie A (Biologie), 369: 1—228. Mesnil, L. P. 1963. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae) [part]. Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, 64g: 801-848. Shima, H. 1981. Description of a new species of Peribaea from New Guinea, with notes on Peribaea orbata (Diptera: Tachinidae). Pacific Insects, 23: 445-450. Wiedemann, C. R. W. 1830. Aussereuropdische zweifliigelige Insekten, 2, xii, 684 pp. Hamm. Zimsen, E. 1954. The insect types of C. R. W. Wiedemann in the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis, 14: 1-43. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2628 Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Andreas Taeger Institut fiir Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmachnow der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Bereich Eberswalde, Schickler— strasse 5, Eberswalde—Finow 1, DDR 1300. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the sawfly name Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 by suppression of its senior synonym Tenthredo bicincta- flava Christ, 1791. A lectotype is designated for T. zonula. 1. In 1791 (pp. 442-443) Christ described Tenthredo bicincta flava, which is properly written T. bicinctaflava (Art. 11h(v) of the Code). Dalla Torre (1894, p. 69) and Muche (1968, p. 29) are the only subsequent authors who have listed this name (in its original spelling). Dalla Torre listed the name as a junior subjective synonym of Tenthredo fasciata Scopoli, 1763 (a junior primary homonym of Tenthredo fasciata Linnaeus, 1758). Muche considered both T. bicinctaflava Christ and T. fasciata Scopoli as senior synonyms of Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817. 2. The types of T. bicinctaflava are lost. The lectotype of T. zonula (here designated and selected from three male and three female syntypes) is labelled, (red label): ‘Type’. Deutschland Klug S.’ and (red label): ‘Lectotypus Tenthredo zonula Klug 3 design. A. Taeger 87’. It is in the collection of the Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin. Comparing the description of T. bicinctaflava with the lectotype of T. zonula, there is no doubt that both names refer to the same species, so that bicinctaflava is a senior subjective synonym of T. zonula. 3. Christ (1791) included the names T. bicincta Linnaeus and T. flava ‘Scopoli’ (recte Poda) as well as his new name T. bicinctaflava. 4. According to Sherborn (1922: Bibliography, p. xxiii) Klug first published the name 7. zonula in 1817. 5. Instead of T. bicinctaflava, Konow (1905) and Enslin (1910) used the name ‘T. bicincta Christ’, which is a junior primary homonym of Tenthredo bicincta Linnaeus, 1767. Konow placed it as a junior subjective synonym of T. fasciata Scopoli, and Enslin as a senior subjective synonym of T. zonula. 6. Since 1910 (Enslin, 1910) the name 7. zonula has been used by all subsequent authors, while the name T. bicinctaflava has never been treated as a valid species since its description. Because the species is one of the most common sawflies in Europe, the name T. zonula is firmly established in taxonomic publications treating European TENTHREDINIDAE, and in regional lists and catalogues. This name has been applied by more than 10 different authors during the last 10 years, and a representative list has been given to the Commission Secretariat. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 203 7. According to the Principle of Priority (Art. 23a of the Code) the older name T. bicinctaflava would have to be applied instead of T. zonula. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as published in the binomen Tenthredo bicinctaflava, 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 zonula Klug, 1817, as published in the binomen Tenthredo zonula; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as published in the binomen Tenthredo bicinctaflava and as suppressed in (1) above. References Christ, J. L. 1791. Naturgeschichte, Klassification und Nomenclatur der Insekten vom Bienen, Wespen und Ameisengeschlecht. 535 pp., 60 pl. Frankfurt. Dalla Torre, C. G. de, 1894. Catalogus Hymenopterorum I, Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae. 459 pp. Lipsiae. Enslin, E. 1910. Das Tenthrediniden-Genus Allantus Jur. Revue Russe d’Entomologie, 10: 335-372. Klug, F. 1817. Die Blattwespen nach ihren Gattungen und Arten zusammengestellt (Fort- setzung). Der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Magazin fiir die neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesammten Naturkunde, Berlin, 8 (1814): 110-144. Konow, Fr. W. 1905. Hymenoptera, Fam. Tenthredinidae. Jn Wytsman, P. (Ed.). Genera Insectorum 29: 1-176, 3 pl. Bruxelles. Muche, W. H. 1968. Die Blattwespen Deutschlands—I. Tenthredininae (Hymenoptera). Entomologische Abhandlungen aus dem Staatlichen Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 36 (Suppl. 1967-1970): 1-60. Scopoli, J. A. 1763. Entomologia Carniolica. 423 pp. Vindobonae. Sherborn, C. D. 1922. Index Animalium 1801-1850. Sect. II (Introduction, Bibliography): CXXXi pp. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2625 Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): proposed conservation William N. Eschmeyer Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. C. Richard Robins Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, 4800 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824, fora widely-known genus of gulper eels. It was technically proposed as a replacement name for Stylephorus Shaw, 1791, but has been recognised as valid and distinct from Stylephorus for more than 150 years. 1. Mitchill (1824, p. 82) provided a lengthy description of an unusual deep sea fish which he did not name. He compared it with a bizarre species described by Shaw (1791, p. 90) as Stylephorus chordatus. Mitchill indicated that his specimen agreed with Shaw’s specimen in many major features, but Mitchill dismissed portions of Shaw’s account as inaccurate. For example, Shaw reported that his specimen had eyes on stalks (hence the genus name Stylephorus), but Mitchill (p. 86) states: ‘The circumstance of their [eyes] standing on peduncles or footstalls is so much at variance with what occurs in other animals, that I should hesitate little in declaring their unusual form to have been the result of accident or disease.’ 2. At the end of his description, Mitchill concludes by stating (p. 86): ‘As the generic name proposed by Shaw is probably derived from an accidental character, I venture to substitute for it the name Saccopharynx in allusion to the pouch-like form of its throat.’ Richardson (1836, p. 272) recognised the problem and concluded that ‘Dr. Mitchill, believing his fish to be the stylephorus chordatus of Shaw, appears to have intended to retain the specific appellation, and merely to change the generic name to saccopharynx, which having the priority of ophiognathus must be adopted.’ Mitchill’s Saccopharynx is technically a replacement name for Stylephorus Shaw, although not recognised as such by current workers. 3. Mitchill’s fish was in fact different from Shaw’s and his genus is now placed in a separate order, the Saccopharyngiformes, in an entirely different division of fishes (the Elopomorpha) from the STYLEPHORIDAE (Robins, in press). Stylephorus has long been treated as a valid genus in a monotypic family STYLEPHORIDAE (see Hulley, 1986, p. 404). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 205 4. Cuvier (1829, p. 355) provided a species name, flagellum, for Mitchill’s specimen and Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier has been continuously (but erroneously) regarded as the valid type species of Saccopharynx auctorum. The genus has been treated as valid since Cuvier and is the nominotypical genus of the family SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (p. xxxiii). The most recent review of the group is by Nielsen & Bertelsen (1985). 5. Ophiognathus Harwood, 1827 (p. 51; type species, by monotypy, Ophiognathus ampullaceus), described two years after Mitchill’s account and two years before Cuvier’s addition of a specific name, is available for Saccopharynx auctorum but is not in current use. 6. Although gulpers or gulper eels generally, and Saccopharynx specifically, are rather rarely caught and little known biologically, their bizarre appearance and numer- ous adaptations for bathypelagic life have attracted seemingly inordinate attention. Thus, they are written about in unabridged dictionaries and encyclopedias, and all general works on life in the deep ocean include an account of them. The popular literature which includes mention of Saccopharynx is extensive and includes books for children. Saccopharynx has been uniformly used for that genus of gulper eels. We are unaware of any primary use of Ophiognathus for these eels in this century and this probably holds true for the last half of the 19th century as well. The use of SACCOPHARYNGIDAE is similarly entrenched. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name ampullaceus Harwood, 1827, as published in the binomen Ophiognathus ampullaceus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to use its plenary powers to rule that Cuvier’s designation of Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 as type species of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 is valid; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy confirmed in (2) above, Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829; (b) Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy, Stylephorus chordatus Shaw, 1791; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) flagellum Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Saccopharynx flagellum (specific name of the type species of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824); (b) chordatus Shaw, 1791, as published in the binomen Stylephorus chordatus (specific name of the type species of Stylephorus Shaw, 1791); (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (type genus Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824); (b) STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Stylephorus Shaw, 1791); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name ampullaceus Harwood, 1827 as published in the binomen Ophiognathus ampullaceus and as suppressed in (1) above. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 References Bleeker, P. 1859. Enumeratio specierum piscium hucusque in Archipelago Indico observatarum, adjectis habitationibus citationibusque, ubi descriptiones earum recentiores reperiuntur, nec non speciebus Musei Bleekeriani Bengalensibus, Japonicis, Capensibus Tasmanicisque. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo Neerlandicae, 6: xxxvi, 276 pp. Cuvier, G. 1829. Le Régne Animal, distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée. Edition 2, vol. 2. xv, 406 pp. Paris. Harwood, J. 1827. On a newly discovered genus of serpentiform fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1827: 49-57. Hulley, P. A. 1986. Family No. 123. Stylephoridae. Jn Smith’s Sea Fishes. Smith, M. M. & Heemstra, P. C. (Eds.). xx, 1047 pp. Macmillan South Africa Ltd, Johannesburg. Mitchill, S. L. 1824. Description of an extraordinary fish, resembling Stylephorus of Shaw. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1(1): 82-86. Nielsen, J. G. & Bertelsen, E. 1985. The gulper-eel family Saccopharyngidae (Pisces, Anguilli- formes). Steenstrupia, 11(6): 157-206. Richardson, J. 1836. Fauna Boreali-Americana. . ., Part 3, The Fish. xv, 327 pp. Bentley, London. Robins, C. R. (In press). The Phylogenetic Relationships of the Anguilliform Fishes. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Part 9. Order Anguilliformes. Collette, B. B. & Bohlke, E. B. (Eds.). Shaw, G. 1791. Description of the Stylephorus chordatus, a new fish. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1: 90-92. Swainson, W. 1839. On the Natural History and Classification of Fishes, Amphibians and Reptiles or Monocardian Animals. Vol. 2. 448 pp. London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 207 Case 2616 ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): proposed conservation Mark Wilkinson & Ronald A. Nussbaum Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the caecilian family- group name ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968, which is threatened by the unused senior objective synonym EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843. 1. Fitzinger (1826, p. 36) erected the genus /chthyophis, containing Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 299) and a new species from Java. His later (p. 63) description of the Javanese species, there named /. hasseltii, stated ‘M. Hasselt’s I. Ex Asia, Insula Java’. I. hasseltii is a nomen nudum (see Taylor, 1960, pp. 39—40), so that C. glutinosa is by monotypy the type species of Jchthyophis. The following year Boie (1827, col. 565) described the species Coecilia [sic] hypocyana and attributed this species name to Van Hasselt, who had collected the type material in Java. It is clear that Fitzinger’s J. hasseltii was based on this same material, but that Boie’s description gives the available name (see Taylor, 1968, pp. 94-97). 2. Wagler (1828, col. 742) erected and described the genus Epicrium as a replacement name for Jchthyophis, which he erroneously considered to be anomen nudum. He listed C. hypocyana Boie, 1827 and included a description of the species Epicrium hasseltii. Both Cantor (1847, p. 1058) and Gray (1850, p. 60), apparently independently, cor- rectly treated Epicrium Wagler, 1828, as a junior synonym of Jchthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 and considered the species names hasseltii and hypocyana to be junior subjective synonyms of glutinosus. Epicrium has not been used as a valid name since 1864 (Gunther, 1864, p. 441), and by Article 67h of the Code has the same type species as Ichthyophis, namely C. glutinosa. 3. Taylor (1965, p. 261) resurrected Ichthyophis hypocyaneus [sic] (Van Hasselt) from the synonymy of J. glutinosus (Linnaeus, 1758). Hoogmoed (in Frost, 1985, p. 634) pointed out that authorship of the species name hypocyaneus (correctly hypocyana) must be attributed to Boie (1827) because he was the first to describe it. Taylor (1968, pp. 47-48) curiously listed both ‘Caecilia glutinosus Linnaeus’ and then ‘Tchthyophis hasseltii (=Coecilia hypocyanea van Hasselt)’ as the type species of Ichthyophis. Wake (in Frost, 1985, p. 632) wrongly listed Coecilia hypocyanea as the type of the genus Ichthyophis. However, as already stated, because C. glutinosa was the only valid species name listed in Fitzinger’s description of Jchthyophis, it must be the type species by original monotypy. 4. The family EPIcrRIA was listed by Fitzinger (1843, p. 34) in his Systema Reptilium, founded on Epicrium Wagler, 1828. This family-group name, like Epicrium, has until recently been uniformly ignored by all workers on caecilians, and, until 1968, only a 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 single family CAECILIIDAE Gray, 1825 (now emended to CAECILIAIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1814 in Opinion 1462; BZN 44: 263-264) was recognised. 5. The family ICHTHYOPHMDAE was described by Taylor (1968, p. 46—47) founded on Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826. Since 1968 Taylor’s classification has been widely accepted and referred to in the literature. An incomplete survey shows that this family-group name has been referenced in at least 50 works, including the two most important recent treatises on amphibian biology and systematics (Duellman & Trueb (1986) and Frost (1985)). 6. Dubois (1984, p. 113) claimed that EPICRMDAE Fitzinger, 1843 is a senior synonym of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 and, following the Principle of Priority, must replace the latter name. 7. We strongly believe that the replacement of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE with EPICRIIDAE should be suppressed, primarily because we think it desirable and in the spirit of the Code that family-group names should, where possible, be based on valid generic names, and secondarily because of the confusion that would result from the replace- ment of a name that has gained general acceptance by an unused one, despite Article 40a(i) of the Code. In order to eradicate EPICRIDAE it is necessary to suppress Epicrium, even though it is a junior objective synonym. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Epicrium Wagler, 1828 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 Jchthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Caecilia glutinosa (specific name of the type species of Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (type genus Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Epicrium Wagler, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name EPICRIIDAE (published as ‘Epicria’) Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus Epicrium Wagler, 1828), (invalid because the name of the type genus has been suppressed in (1) above). References Boie, F. 1827. Bemerkungen iiber Merrem’s versuch eines systems der Amphibia. /sis, von Oken, 20: 565. Cantor, T. E. 1847. Catalogue of the reptiles inhabiting the Malay Peninsula and islands. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16: 1026-1078. Dubois, A. 1984. Miscellanea nomenclatorica batrachologica (V). Alytes, 3(3): 111-116. Duellman, W. E. & Trueb, T. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. Fitzinger, L. J. 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natiirlichen verwandtschaften nebst einer Verwandtschaftstafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptiliensammlung des KK. zoologischen Museums zu Wien. 66 pp. Zoologische Museum, Wien. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 209 Fitzinger, L. J. 1843. Systema Reptilium... fasciculus primus: Amblyglossae (Conspectus geographicus ). 106 pp. Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. 732 pp. Allen Press and the Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. Gray, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of Reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Annals of Philosophy, 10(7): 193-217. Gray, J. E. 1850. Catalogue of the specimens of Amphibia in the collection of the British Museum, part 2. Batrachia Gradientia. 72 pp. British Museum, London. Giinther, A. C. L. G. 1864. The reptiles of British India. 444 pp. R. Hardwicke, London. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, Vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Taylor, E. H. 1960. On the caecilian species /chthyophis monochrous and Ichthyophis glutinosus, with descriptions of related species. University of Kansas Scientific Bulletin, 40(4): 37-120. Taylor, E. H. 1965. New Asiatic and African caecilians with redescriptions of certain species. University of Kansas Scientific Bulletin, 46(6): 253-302. Taylor, E. H. 1968. The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review. 848 pp. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Wagler, J. 1828. Auszuge aus seinem systema amphibiorum. Jsis, von Oken, 21(7): 740-744. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2650 Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed conservation of the specific name Hobart M. Smith & James Hanken Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. David Chiszar Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0345, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name pennatulus Cope, 1869 for the Mexican salamander Thorius pennatulus. The name first appeared (about one month earlier) as pennatribus, probably due to a spelling error. 1. Although herpetologists have consistently agreed to credit the name Thorius pennatulus to Cope’s formal description which appeared in an article in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (Cope, 1869b (June), p. 111), in reality the species was described a few weeks earlier in the American Naturalist (Cope, 1869a (May), p. 222) in a note by the editors from information supplied by Cope. The earlier description is nomenclaturally acceptable and poses the question whether the name should be as given there, Thorius pennatribus. 2. The description appearing in the American Naturalist is as follows: ‘Prof. E. D. Cope informs us that he has just discovered an interesting genus of Salamanders from Mexico. It differs from Sperlerpes [typographical error for Spelerpes] in having the parietal and palatine bones unossified, and the inner nares opening into the orbits. The phenygoid [typographical error for pterygoid; termed sphenoid in Cope, 1869b] teeth are in one patch. Toes, four on the front feet and five on the hind, rudimentary. The tail is as long as the head and body together. The total length is only two inches. It has a pale dorsal band and black sides. A female specimen contained eggs one line in diameter. He has called the species, which is a new generic type, Thorius pennatribus’. This name was also listed in the index (p. 692). Since there are two other obvious mistakes in the article it seems likely that the spelling of the name was a copyist’s error. 3. The description which appeared in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (1869b, p. 111) is considerably longer. A holotype was designated (a female, the largest of six specimens numbered 6341, from Orizava, Mexico) and its measurements were given. A new family name was established: THORIIDAE Cope, 1869. The description includes a reference to the earlier publication (‘American Naturalist, 1869, 222’); this was probably added in proof as both publi- cations would have been in press at the same time. The specific name was spelt differently without comment. 4. Brame (in Frost, 1985, p. 605) has noted that the original specimens have since been lost from the collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 211 Washington (a neotype has been designated by Taylor: USNM No. 111017 (1941, p. 107)), and that Malnate (1971, p. 348) ‘provisionally regarded’ a specimen (no. 1269) in the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia as possibly one of the surviving paratypes. 5. The name pennatulus is the one which herpetologists have consistently used and we are not aware that the spelling pennatribus was ever accepted as valid. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name pennatribus Cope, 1869 (May), as published in the binomen Thorius pennatribus Cope, 1869, 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 Thorius Cope, 1869 (May), (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Thorius pennatribus Cope, 1869 (= pennatulus Cope, 1869); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pennatulus Cope, 1869 (June), as published in the binomen Thorius pennatulus (name of the type species of Thorius Cope, 1869, by virtue of the proposal in (1) above); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name pennatribus Cope, 1869, as published in the binomen Thorius pennatribus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Brame, Arden H., Jr. II. 1985. Order Caudata. Jn Frost, Darrel R. (Ed.), Amphibian Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographical Reference. Allen Press, Inc. & The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A. Cope, E. D. 1869a. New salamander. American Naturalist, 3(4): 222. Cope, E. D. 1869b. A review of the species of the Plethodontidae and Desmognathidae. Proceed- ings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 21: 93-118. Malnate, E. V. 1971. A catalog of primary types in the herpetological collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia (ANSP). Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 123: 348. Taylor, E. H. 1941. Herpetological Miscellany, No. II. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 27(7): 105-139. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2441 Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae): proposed confirmation as the correct spelling Mary LeCroy Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of the spelling of both the generic and specific names in the binomen Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Wallace’s Standard Wing Bird of Paradise), although the name was first given (in an account of a meeting) in the form Semeioptera wallacei Gray, 1859. 1. The name Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 was based on a specimen described by G. R. Gray at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London on 22 March 1859. 2. McAlpine (1979, p. 109) has presented evidence that an article in the Literary Gazette for the 26 March 1859 (Gray, 1859a) [not seen by me] included Gray’s descrip- tion from the meeting and was published before the proceedings of the meeting. McAlpine gives the spelling in the Literary Gazette as Semeioptera for the subgenus (it was originally described in the genus Paradisaea) and Wallacei for the species. 3. In Jbis for April 1859 (Gray, 1859b) the naming at the Zoological Society meeting is referred to and the Literary Gazette article is quoted. Here, in both cases, the spelling is Semioptera wallacii. 4. As far as I have been able to determine, the spelling Semeioptera has been used only once (by Wood, 1862, p. 72) in the zoological literature in the 129 years since it appeared in the Literary Gazette. The spellings wallacei, wallacii and wallaceii have all been used in various publications. I recommend that Semioptera wallacii be conserved in accordance with established usage and with Gray’s original intent, as he published this name in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1859c, p. 130). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to confirm that the spelling of the name Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859, is correct, despite the prior publication of the spelling Semeioptera Wallacei; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Semioptera Gray, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859, spelling confirmed in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name wallacii Gray, 1859, as published in the binomen Paradisaea (Semioptera) wallacii (specific name of the type species of Semioptera Gray, 1859), spelling confirmed in (1) above; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Semeioptera Gray, 1859 ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Semioptera Gray, 1859; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 213 (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name wallacei Gray, 1859, as published in the binomen Paradisaea (Semeioptera) wallacei and as ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of wallacii. Acknowledgements I particularly appreciate the encouragement and expert advice given me by the late Eugene Eisenmann. Thanks are also due to Drs Bruce Beehler and Lester Short for their comments. References Gray, G. R. 1859a. Zoological Society (report of meeting). Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 [not seen]. Gray, G. R. 1859b. Letters, extracts... Ibis, (1) 1: 210. Gray, G. R. 1859c. [Report of meeting on March 22, 1859]. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 27: 128-130. McAlpine, D. K. 1979. The correct name and authorship for Wallace’s Standard Wing (Passeriformes, Paradiseidae). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 99: 108-110. Wood, T. W. 1862. Intellectual Observer, 2: 69-73. 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Case 2640 Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation G. B. Corbet British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name of the western European house mouse Mus musculus domesticus as used by Schwarz & Schwarz (1943) although attributed by them to Rutty (1772), in which it isa nomen nudum. This taxon is the principal ancestor of laboratory and other domesticated mice. 1. The name Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 62) was used consistently for the house mouse, including its domesticated forms, from 1758 until the 1960s, with Uppsala, Sweden, accepted as the type locality. 2. The name Mus domesticus was used by Rutty (1772, p. 281) in an account of the mammals of County Dublin, Ireland, accompanied only by the words ‘The house mouse’. This name was listed as the next available synonym of Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 by Barrett-Hamilton & Hinton (1916, p. 634) and in the influential checklist of Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 605), in each case without noting that it was a nomen nudum, as has been pointed out by Dr J. T. Marshall (in lit.). There are also several pre-Linnean uses of Mus domesticus, as listed by Barrett-Hamilton & Hinton (1916, p. 634). 3. Schwarz & Schwarz (1943), in a taxonomic review of Mus musculus, recognised that populations in western Europe, including Britain and Ireland, were clearly differ- ent from the nominate form in Sweden and northeastern Europe. They (p. 65) used the name Mus musculus domesticus Rutty, 1772 for the western subspecies, with the type locality Dublin, Ireland. 4. This taxonomic distinction has been recognised by all subsequent authors. Later studies of karyology and biochemical taxonomy have reinforced the distinction and have led some authors, e.g. Marshall & Sage (1981, p. 19), Berry (1984, p. 277) and Kratochvil (1986, p. 1), to give the western form specific rank as Mus domesticus. Others, e.g. Marshall (1986, p. 14), have retained it as a subspecies, Mus musculus domesticus. All recent authors are agreed that this western form is the principal ances- tor of laboratory and other domesticated mice — see Berry (1984) for a detailed review. 5. Although Schwarz & Schwarz (1943, p. 65) listed 25 synonyms of M. m. domesti- cus, none of these has been used for the taxon as a whole, having been based upon colour varieties of domesticated mice of doubtful provenance, e.g. Mus musculus albus Bechstein, 1801 (p. 955) or upon insular or other localised variants of doubtful relation- ship to the well-known and intensively studied M. m. domesticus sensu Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943. Examples are Mus islandicus Thienemann & Giinther, 1827 (p. 153) (Iceland), likely to be a synonym of Apodemus sylvaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951, p. 569); Mus adelaidensis Gray, 1841 (p. 404) (South Australia); Mus muralis Barrett-Hamilton, 1899 (p. 81) (island of St. Kilda, Scotland), a large extinct form. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 215 6. The interests of stability, in a species of major importance in biological and medical research and as a pest, would be best served by the conservation of the name domesticus as from Schwarz & Schwarz (1943). This name would then be available for application at subspecific rank, Mus musculus domesticus, or at specific rank, Mus domesticus, according to taxonomic judgement. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) noting that the specific name domesticus Rutty, 1772, as published in the binomen Mus domesticus, is a nomen nudum, to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress all other uses of the name Mus domesticus prior to its use by Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the trinomen Mus musculus domesticus, is to be given precedence over all names that are considered to be synonyms with the exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the trinomen Mus musculus domesti- cus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over all names that are considered to be synonyms with the exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name domesticus Rutty, 1772, as published in the binomen Mus domesticus (a nomen nudum). References Barrett-Hamilton, G. E. H. 1899. On the species of the genus Mus inhabiting St. Kilda. Proceed- ings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899: 77-88. Barrett-Hamilton, G. E. H. & Hinton, M. A. C. 1916. A history of British mammals, part 19, pp. 601-648. Gurney & Jackson, London. Bechstein, J. M. 1801. Gemeinniitzige Naturgeschichte Deutschlands . . . 2nd Ed., vol. 1, 1355 pp. Leipzig. Berry, R. J. 1984. House mouse. Pp. 273-284, in Mason, I. L. (Ed.), Evolution of domesticated animals. 452 pp. Longman, London. Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Gray, J. E. 1841. Contribution towards the geographical distribution of the Mammalia of Australia. Pp. 397-414, in Grey, G. Journals of two expeditions in north-west and western Australia. ... Boone, London. Kratochvil, J. 1986. Die intraspezifische Evolution der Art Mus domesticus. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae Scientiarum Bohemoslovacae, Brno, 20(1): 1-49. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Marshall, J. T. 1986. Systematics of the genus Mus. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 127: 12-18. Marshall, J. T. & Sage, R. D. 1981. Taxonomy of the house mouse. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 47: 15—25. Rutty, J. 1772. An essay towards a natural history of the county of Dublin... Vol. 1, 392 pp. Printed by W. Sleater for the author, Dublin. Schwarz, E. & Schwarz, H. K. 1943. The wild and commensal stocks of the house mouse, Mus musculus. Journal of Mammalogy, 24: 59-72. Thienemann, F. A. L. & Giinther, G. B. 1827. Reise im Norden Europa’s vorziiglich in Island. Vol. 2, 160 pp. Leipzig. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Amendment to a published comment on the proposed suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington A. E. Greer Australian Museum, 6-8 College Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000, Australia I wish to correct a minor but potentially misleading point in my comment (BZN 45: 53) against the suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington (Case 2531). Inmy comment the Australian Museum is identified as ‘. . . the museum with the largest reptile and amphibian collection in the world’. I should, of course, have said“... the museum with the largest collection of Australian reptiles and amphibians in the world’. While this point is not germane to my argument, it might well create a false impression amongst those not familiar with the relative sizes of reptile and amphibian collections around the world. Pragmatypes: a reply to Dr G. Hahn (See BZN 44: 156-157, 158-159; 45: 48, 48-49) R.H.L. Disney & Y. Z. Erzinclioglu University Department of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. Dr Hahn (BZN 45: 48) has misunderstood the circumstances in which pragmatypes are required. One does not designate a pragmatype when a better specimen turns up. One only considers designating a pragmatype when the original type (holotype, lecto- type or neotype) cannot be confidently assigned to a particular species in a group of sibling species, which had, at the time the original type specimen had been designated, not been distinguished from each other. Our experience of palaeontology is minimal. However, we can envisage the situation when an original type specimen is so incomplete that discovery of subsequent fossils indicates it could belong to one of two species, the second of which was not known at the time of the designation of the type specimen in question. In such circumstances a pragmatype could resolve the problem. Our palaeontological colleagues assure us that such problems are not unknown in palaeontology. With regard to the ‘authority’ of the ICZN: we are not prepared to accept rules from a body that is not democratically accountable. We concede there is a case, some would say a strong case, for winding up the Commission. However, on balance, we believe it has a useful role to perform in providing an advisory service on nomenclature for zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 217 Comment on the proposed conservation of Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida), and on the neotype of its type species (Case 2225/6: see BZN 45: 116-117) F. T. Banner British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. 1. It has been noted by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 362) that the first designation of a neotype for Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798, was by Smout (1963, pp. 265-266). This is the designation which is valid by Article 75e. Smout selected as neotype the specimen sectioned and figured by Reichel (1937, pp. 105—108, pl. 10, fig. 8) which was deposited in the Schlumberger collection, Sorbonne, Paris (specimen number 2405-3). This specimen had been collected by Schlumberger from the Leitha—kalk (Middle Miocene, “Tortonian’) exposed 3 km north of Bujtur in Transylvania (Romania). This locality becomes, by this designation, the restricted type locality of N. melo by Article 75f; broad localities (‘vaterlanden’) in Transylvania were included by Fichtel & Moll (1798, p. 121, sources ‘d’ and ‘e’) for ‘N. melo varietas a’. 2. Reichel (1937) had named his specimen Neoalveolina melo (Fichtel & Moll) because he believed that Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll was a senior synonym of Neoalveolina bradyi (Silvestri) (Alveolina bradyi Silvestri, 1927), which had been correctly designated (by Bakx, 1932, p. 208) as type species of Neoalveolina Silvestri, 1927. Reichel chose to use Neoalveolina because its more modern morphological description ‘exclut toute erreur d’interprétation’, but, because he also believed that melo was a species which could be firmly identified, he should have used the name Borelis. 3. In his text, Reichel (1937, p. 107) divided the species me/o into three subspecies (melo Fichtel & Moll, haueri d’Orbigny, 1846, and curdica n.subsp.) based upon devi- ation of the gross test from a spherical shape. On this basis, Reichel morphologically distinguished between Fichtel & Moll’s melo var. a (‘forme ovoide, indice du type 1:25’) and melo var. B (‘indice 0-85—1-1, forme sphérique ou aplatie aux poles’). Reichel thought that var. a was the same as haueri d’Orbigny, while var. B was me/o sensu stricto. Consequently he (1937, pp. 106-107) provisionally (*provisoirement’) ident- ified his figured specimens (1937, pl. 10, figs. 8, 9) as melo var. B Fichtel & Moll. Smout (1963) was in agreement with this, and designated one of these specimens (2405-3, illustrated by Reichel, 1937, pl. 10, fig. 8) as neotype for N. melo. However, Rogl & Hansen (1984, pp 71-72) reached a different conclusion regarding the identity of the ‘varieties’ recognised by Fichtel & Moll (1798). 4. Although ‘no material of Nautilus melo is recorded in the acquisition catalogue of 1812’ (which recorded the acquisition by the Naturhistorischen Museum in Vienna of the rest of the Fichtel & Moll collection) (R6gl & Hansen, 1984, p. 71), Rogl and Hansen found specimens which had been labelled ‘Nautilus melo var. B’ by E. Fligel at some unknown date (but probably about 1960). It is correct to say that ‘the origin and identity of the preserved material of Nautilus melo var. B remains questionable’ (Rogl & Hansen, 1984, p. 72). The collections of the Naturhistorischen Museum in Vienna contain no authentic specimens of melo var. B, just as they contain no original specimens of melo var. a. The fact that R6gl & Hansen (1984) believed the specimens labelled ‘melo var. B’ to be 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 referable to Nonionina bulloides d’Orbigny, 1846 (the type species of Pullenia Parker & Jones, 1862) is not relevant to the status of N. bulloides, Pullenia or Nautilus melo (Borelis melo), except that it provides the reason for the designation by Rogl & Hansen (1984) of a neotype for N. melo which corresponds to var. a Fichtel & Moll. Rogl & Hansen were unaware of Smout’s earlier designation of a neotype which corresponds to var. B. 5. Among the localities cited for Nautilus melo var. a by Fichtel & Moll (1798) were two in Transylvania: one (‘vaterland d’) was that of a whitish, biogenic limestone for which no precise locality in Transylvania was given, and the other was described as being ‘5 stunde’ from Unter-Pestisch (al Pestis) (‘vaterland e’). The latter was believed by Reichel (1937, p. 106) to be undoubtedly of Miocene age and to be the same as the outcrop 3 km north of Bujtur, which had been collected by Schlumberger (see para 1). ‘Al Pestis’ is now known as Pestesu d.j., and it lies about 4-5 km from Bujtur, south of Deva in Transylvania; both localities have outcrops of the same Middle Miocene age (Badenian, according to Régl, personal communication). 6. The specimens from which Régl & Hansen (1984, pp. 71-72, pl. 29, figs. 5—6, pl. 30, figs 1-4) subsequently chose their neotype came from the Badenian of the brickyard Baden-Sooss, Vienna Basin. This was not a locality cited by Fichtel & Moll (1798, 1803); the only locality (‘vaterland a’) cited from the Vienna Basin by Fichtel & Moll (1798, p. 120-121) was that of ‘ganz weiss zu Brunn am Steinfeld in Unterdsterreich’ (‘colore albo ad Brunn am Steinfeld Austriae inferioris’), about 10 km north-east of Baden, which was not collected by R6gl & Hansen (1984). Therefore, the specimens described and illustrated as Nautilus melo var. a Fichtel & Moll by Rogl & Hansen (1984) are not topotypic. 7. D’Orbigny (1846) had obtained specimens, which he identified as Alveolina melo from Steinfeld, Vienna Basin, and others, which became the types of A. haueri d’Orbigny, from Baden, Vienna Basin. These specimens were redescribed in the revision of the d’Orbigny collections (given to d’Orbigny by von Hauer), present in Vienna, by Papp & Schmid (1985). These authors distinguished between melo and haueri in the same manner as that developed by Reichel (1937) (i.e., melo was sub- globular while haueri was overall or fusiform). However, Papp & Schmid (1985) did not cite the work of R6gl & Hansen (1984) in the proposal of a neotype for Nautilus melo, but they (Papp & Schmid, 1985) did consider both melo and haueri to be synonymously conspecific. 8. Insummary, the application by Hansen & R6gl (BZN 45: 116-117) to validate by ICZN agreement their designation (R6gl & Hansen, 1984) of a neotype for Borelis melo (Fichtel & Moll) (Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798) is not appropriate because: (a) the specimen selected is not topotypic for Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, and, more importantly, (b) aneotype (preserved in a well curated collection) had already been designated by Smout (1963). 9. Drs Régl and Hansen have accepted (personal communication, letters of 13 June 1988) that Smout’s designation of a neotype for Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is valid because of its priority. 10. With the exception of the designation of the neotype, the remainder of the proposals made by Hansen & R6gl (BZN 45: 117) are fully justified and should be supported. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 219 References Bakx, L. A. J. 1932. De genera Fasciolites en Neoalveolina in het Indo-Pacifische gebied. Verhan- delingen van het Geologisch—-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland en Kolonien, 9: 205-266. Fichtel, L. & Moll, J. P. C. 1798. Testacea microsc opica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam delineata et descripta. xii+ 123 pp., 24 pls. Anton Pichler, Vienna. Fichtel, L. & Moll, J. P. C. 1803. Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam delineata et descripta. 2nd edition, xii+ 123 pp. (unaltered), 24 pls. (re- engraved), Camesinaische Buchhandlung, Vienna. Loeblich, A. R. Jr & Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal genera and their classification. Vol. 970 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. Orbigny, A. d’ 1846. Foraminiféres fossiles du Bassin tertiare de Vienne, Autriche. 303 pp. Gide et Comp., Paris. Papp, A. & Schmid, M. E. 1985. Die Fossilien Foraminiferen des Tertiaéren Beckens von Wien. Revision der Monographie von Alcide d’Orbigny (1846). Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, 37: \—311. Reichel, M. 1937. Etude sur les Alveolines. Mémoires de la Société Paléontologique Suisse, 57: 93-147. 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. Vol. 3, 143 pp., 30 pls. Berger & Sohne, Horn, Austria. Smout, A. H. 1963. The genus Pseudedomia and its phyletic relationships, with remarks on Orbitolites and other complex foraminifera. Pp. 224-281 in Koenigswald, G. H. R. von, et al. (Eds), Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera. 355 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Comment on the proposal to set aside the status of the putative type specimen of Siluris felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) (Case 2533; see BZN 44: 31-35) Alwyne Wheeler Department of Zoology, British Museum ( Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K. 1. The application to set aside the putative type specimen of Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 on the grounds that the specimen is referable to the taxon currently known as Bagre marinus (Mitchill, 1815) would have the effect of conserving two well-known names for fishes which have economic importance. As such it is desirable in the interest of taxonomic stability, and merits support. However, the application is flawed by its reliance on inferences which are unsupported by evidence and does not give the most probable explanation for the cause of the confusion. To redress this imbalance the following comments are offered. 2. There is no evidence that Linnaeus had more than one specimen of Silurus felis. In other cases where he had more than one specimen of a fish he gave two sets of meristic data (for example, Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus, 1766) of which he had four examples (Wheeler, 1985, p. 55)). However, this practice was not invariable. In the case of Silurus felis Linnaeus gave only the single set of data. Despite this the application (para. 1) refers to ‘one or more specimens’ and (para. 6) that it ‘seems probable’ that ‘Linnaeus based his description on two or more specimens’. These conjectures later become authoritative (para. 13): ‘there is no reason to believe that it was the sole type’, 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 eventually to hint at even more specimens (para. 14): ‘was likely based on at least two specimens’. The existence of a second, or later, specimen is conjecture as there is no evidence that there was more than the single specimen. 3. The putative Linnaean type specimen, which is of the gafftopsail catfish, is mounted ona standard sheet of Linnaean herbarium paper and is named in Linnaeus’s characteristic handwriting ‘S. Felis’ on Garden’s original label. It was because it was labelled in Linnaeus’s hand with the name S. Felis that I regarded this specimen as the type of that species (Wheeler, 1985). There is no question of the authenticity of the label or the handwriting. 4. With the help of Dr Lars Wallin I have examined all the Linnaean material in Uppsala; it does not contain a specimen referable to Silurus. There is no evidence that a specimen existed in Uppsala; no entry exists in Thunberg’s manuscript catalogue of the collection of 1828, or in Loénnberg’s (1896) or Holm’s (1957) published catalogues. There are no specimens in the Linnaean collection in Stockholm (Fernholm & Wheeler, 1983). 5. The discrepancy between Linnaeus’s description of Siluris felis and the putative type specimen can be accounted for most economically by postulating that Garden sent to Linnaeus both the skin and a written description of a catfish. The skin was sent in Garden’s consignment of 1761 (Wheeler, 1985) together with descriptions of the specimens (Garden frequently referred to these as ‘their characters’). Garden regarded himself in the light of a student of Linnaeus and in attempting to master the techniques of taxonomic description submitted draft descriptions of both animals and plants. Unfortunately only the first set of such characters of fishes, of January 1760, has survived in the Linnaean correspondence. The confusion between the gafftopsail cat- fish and the hardhead catfish may have occurred when Garden preserved the skin of the former but made his description from a whole specimen of the latter. Then when he sent the description and skin to Linnaeus as simply the ‘Cat Fish’ (as he called the latter) Linnaeus might have simply assumed they were conspecific, and took his data from Garden’s description of the hardhead catfish but wrote S. felis on the label of the specimen. As Linnaeus was not strongly interested in fishes it would be likely that he would use an existing description rather than examine a rather poorly preserved skin. This explanation, while never capable of proof, fits in better with the known working methods of Linnaeus and the practice of Garden, than an hypothesis involving a specimen preserved in liquid which had disappeared before 1828. This possibility is in fact mentioned by Taylor (para. 15). 6. Despite these reservations in recreating the history of the confusion between these taxa, I support the application to suppress the type status of the Linnaean specimen labelled Silurus felis (number 125 in the collection of the Linnean Society of London) on the grounds that: i. either this specimen was not examined by Linnaeus at the time he compiled his description, or if it was examined, then the taxon Silurus felis is composite, as other data were derived from a description of a specimen of another species, ii. it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability to do so, since both Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 and Silurus marinus Mitchill, 1815 will continue to be avail- able for use in the sense in which they have been widely used in current literature. tN tN Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 References Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78: 199-286. Holm, A. 1957. Specimina Linnaeana. I Uppsala bevarade Zoologiska samlingar fran Linne’s tid. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, 6: 1-68. Lénnberg, E. 1896. Linnean type-specimens of birds, reptiles, batrachians and fishes in the Zoological Museum of the R. University in Uppsala. Bihang till Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps- Akademiens Handlingar, Stockholm 22, ATV (1): 3-45. Wheeler, A. 1985. The Linnaean fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84: 1-76. Comment on the family name for the storm petrels (Aves) (Case 2024: see BZN 42: 398—400; 44, 44-45) W.R. P. Bourne Department of Zoology, University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB9 2TN, Scotland In view of the debate over the family name for the storm-petrels it may be timely to recall a previous discussion of the nomenclature of the petrels. In 1964 several people working on the group, who had become concerned at the confusion which then pre- vailed, decided to consult the fifteen people thought to know most about the Procellar- iformes to try and agree on a more consistent classification and nomenclature. While some at least were aware that Brodkorb (1963) had recently revived the long-forgotten name OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1881, but had not yet been followed by anyone else, nobody raised this issue in either the preliminary discussions or after the publication of the unanimous conclusions (Alexander et al., 1965, p. 145). In consequence the family name HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 has remained in almost universal use ever since; the innumerable publications using it include recent World, Holarctic, British and American Ornithologists’ Unions, Chinese, South American and New Zealand check- lists, Western Palearctic, North American, African, Indian and Australian (seabird) handbooks, two out of three international seabird guides, two major anatomical and one major parasitological works. As a result of this agreement I also used it in the ‘Petrel’ sections of successive editions of the British Ornithologists’ Union’s Dictionary of Birds (Thomson, 1964; Campbell & Lack, 1985). It is interesting to observe the composition of the dissentients who favour OCEANIT- IDAE, most of whom, with one important exception, have already been listed by Olson (BZN 44: 44-45). Apart from palaeontologists, who with the exception of Olson him- self have not made much other contribution to the study of the petrels, they start witha colleague at the Smithsonian Institution whom he does not mention, Dr G. E. Watson, who first introduced the name OCEANITIDAE to a wider audience in a guide to the birds of the Southern Ocean (Watson, 1975) which has been followed first by the authors of the Australian and South African check-lists (Condon, 1975; Clancey, 1980) and then by Harrison (1983) in an international seabird guide. It seems a pity that if Watson preferred this name he did not raise the matter when he subscribed to the statement (Alexander et al., 1965) recommending the use of HYDROBATIDAE, instead of 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 subsequently introducing OCEANITIDAE unilaterally at a time when it seems doubtful whether anyone could have produced a reasoned exposition of the truth of the matter before it was clarified so lucidly by Melville (1985). My personal view (Bourne, 1987) is that most of the people directly concerned have already made one attempt to reach a consensus on the higher classification and nomenclature of the petrels, and that this has been undermined by one participant over an issue which he had ample opportunity to raise at the time, but failed to do so, sub- sequently taking independent action (Watson, 1975) which has helped precipitate the present situation. It seems unacceptable to now impose a change from the well- established name HYDROBATIDAE without some guarantee that this will at least lead to more stability of nomenclature than might have resulted from (for example) following first Mathews’ 1934 use of the name THALASSODROMIDAE and then Brodkorb’s 1963 reintroduction of OCEANITIDAE. If it were likely to lead rapidly to permanent stability either name might form an acceptable alternative to HYDROBATIDAE, but any alteration in usage now seems much more likely to lead to many years of confusion and protest before even the present hard-won level of consistency in the use of HYDROBATIDAE 1s regained, and personally I regard that prospect with infinite misgivings. I therefore support Melville’s proposals (BZN 42: 399, para. 9). I am grateful to Mr V. G. Harper for help with the literature. References Alexander, W. B., et al. 1965. The families and genera of the petrels and their names. /bis, 109: 145-149. Bourne, W. R. P. 1987. The classification and nomenclature of the petrels. /bis, 129: 404. Brodkorb, P. 1963. Catalogue of fossil birds. Part 1. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences, 7(4): 179-293. Campbell, B. & Lack, E. (Eds) 1985. A Dictionary of Birds, 700 pp. Poyser, Calton. 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 1, 311 pp. Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union, Melbourne. Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds, an identification guide. 448 pp. Croom Helm, Beckenham, U.K. Mathews, G. M. 1934. A check-list of the order Procellariiformes. Novitates Zoologicae, 34: 151-206. Melville, R. V. 1985. The family names for the storm petrels and the dippers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 42: 398—400. Thomson, A. L. (Ed.) 1964. A New Dictionary of Birds. 928 pp. Nelson, London. Watson, G. E. 1975. Birds of the Antarctic and Subantarctic. 390 pp. American Geophysical Union, Washington. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 223 Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (Mammalia, Rodentia) (Case 2605; see BZN 45: 43-44) Dieter Kock Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Senckenbergenlage 25, 6000 Frankfurt 1, Federal Republic of Germany The characters of Arctomys vigil Thunberg, 1811 cited in the application do not convincingly show that this is a senior synonym of Parotomys brantsii (Smith, 1834). The characters and distribution maps provided by Smithers (1983; The mammals of the South African subregion, University of Pretoria, xxii, 736 pp.) and by Meester et al. (1986; Classification of southern African mammals, Transvaal Museum Monograph no. 5, Pretoria, x, 359 pp.) show that Thunberg’s 1811 description of A. vigil might have applied to Euryotis irrorata Brants, 1827, Otomys unisulcatus F. Cuvier, 1829 and Parotomys littledalei Thomas, 1918 as well as to P. brantsii. However, because it is disused and a nomen dubium I support the suppression of Arctomys vigil. Editorial note: support for the proposed suppression of Arctomys vigil Thunberg, 1811 has also been received from Sarah B. George (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A.) and from V. F.H. Ansell (Trendrine, Zennor, St Ives, Cornwall, TR26 3BV, U.K.) Comment on the proposed conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea) (Case 321: see BZN 44: 253-254) John E. Heyning & Lawrence G. Barnes Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. We support the conservation of the generic name Platanista for the blind Ganges river dolphin. In examining a rather thorough bibliographic reference on dolphins (Truitt, 1974) we could find approximately 200 references using the generic name Platanista and only 11 references using Susu. Of these 11, two were the references of Hershkovitz cited in BZN 44: 253 and the other nine were published in the late 1960s by G. Pilleri. Subsequent publications by Pilleri utilise Platanista. It is clear that Susu has had virtually no usage since its original description and that Platanista has been used consistently for 150 years, so that not to suppress the name Susu could potentially confuse the current nomenclatural stability. Reference Truitt, D. 1974. Dolphins and Porpoises: A comprehensive, annotated bibliography of the smaller Cetacea. 582 pp. Gale Research Company, Detroit. Editorial note: Support for the conservation of Platanista has also been received from Dr P. J. H. van Bree (Mauritskade 61, Postbus 4766, 1009 AT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1501 Alveolina @ Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 are hereby set aside and Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 is designated as type species; (b) the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811; (ii) Oryzaria Defrance in Bronn, 1825; (c) the specific name sabulosus de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Miliolites sabulosus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name A/veolina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) 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) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name ALVEOLINIDAE Ehrenberg, 1839, type genus A/veolina d’Orbigny, 1826, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811 as suppressed in (1) (b) (i) above; (b) Oryzaria Defrance in Bronn, 1825 as suppressed in (1) (b) (ii) above; (c) Microfasciolites Gaemers, 1978 (a junior objective synonym of A/lveolina d’Orbigny, 1826). (6) The name sabulosus de Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Miliolites sabulosus and as suppressed in (1) (c) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2356 An application for the designation of Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 as the type species of Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 was received from Drs A. R. Loeblich & H. Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.) on 5 August 1980. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 44: 36-40 (March 1987). [Note: the last line of para. 3 on p. 36, concerning the neotype of Borelis melo (Fichtel & Moll, 1798) is in error (see BZN 45: 217—219)]. Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Mr R. V. Melville commented that particulars of the type specimen (if any) of Oryzaria boscii should be published, in order to clarify the identity of the type species of Alveolina; he mentioned that Defrance’s material had probably been destroyed at Caen in 1944. No lectotype or neotype has been designated. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 225 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 38-39, and also to designate the specimen figured by Bosc (1802; reference below) as the lectotype of Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Melville. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Melville voted against because he considered it inappropriate for the Commission to designate a lectotype in this case, and this part of the vote is withdrawn. The specimen which had been pro- posed as lectotype is that illustrated by Bosc (1802) as the ‘alvéolite grain de festuque’ and collected from ‘sablon calcaire’ near the village of Auvers, near Pontoise, France. Bosc’s ‘alvéolite’ is the basis of Defrance’s ‘Oryzaire—Bosc’ of 1820, latinised in 1825 to Oryzaria boscii. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 306. ALVEOLINIDAE Ehrenberg, 1839, Physikalische Mathematische Abhandlungen der K@niglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838: table facing p. 20. boscii, Oryzaria, Defrance in Bronn, 1825, System der urweltlichen Pflanzenthiere, p. 44. Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811, Organic remains of a former world, p. 158. Microfasciolites Gaemers, 1978, Leidse Geologische Mededelingen, 51: 106. Oryzaria Defrance in Bronn, 1825, System der urweltlichen Pflanzenthiere, p. 31. sabulosus, Miliolites, de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles, vol. 1, p. 175. The reference for Bosc’s ‘alvéolite grain de festuque’ mentioned above is: Bosc, L. A. G. 1802. Sur deux nouvelles Alvéolites. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 3(61): 99; pl. 5, fig. 3, A-C. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1502 Conus fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873, as published in the binomen Conus fergusoni, is to be given precedence over the specific name fulvocinctus Crosse, 1872, as published in the binomen Conus fulvocinctus, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The name fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873, as published in the binomen Conus fergusoni, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over fulvocinctus Crosse, 1872, as published in the binomen Conus fulvocinctus, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (3) The name fu/vocinctus Crosse, 1872, as published in the binomen Conus fulvocinc- tus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorse- ment that it is not to be given priority over fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873, as published in the binomen Conus fergusoni, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. History of Case 2239 An application for the conservation of Conus fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873 was received from Dr J. K. Tucker (105 E. Fayette, Effingham, Illinois 62401, U.S.A.) on 22 November 1977. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 35: 189-191 (February 1979). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) and published in BZN 36: 147—148 (October 1979). Decision of the Commission On 22 November 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 35: 189-191. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1983 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Alvarado, Bayer, Brinck, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Welch, Willink Negative votes — 4: Dupuis, Heppell, Sabrosky, Savage. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Lehtinen. Cogger abstained because the case presented for use of the plenary powers was inadequate, in that it failed to address fully the question of usage and stability. While supporting the application, Ride questioned the need to conserve the name Conus fulvocinctus, Crosse, 1872 and also asked that the author should consider select- ing a neotype for Conus fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873. This suggestion was put to the author but no reply has been obtained. In the absence of a reply and on advice that the application approved by the Commission is still timely, the Opinion is now published. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 227 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fergusoni, Conus, G. B. Sowerby III, 1873, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1873: 145. fulvocinctus, Conus, Crosse, 1872, Journal de Conchyliologie, 20: 214. ————— ——— 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1503 PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda): not to be given precedence over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 Ruling (1) It is hereby confirmed that the Principle of Priority is to apply whenever the following family-group names are considered synonyms: (a) CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892; (b) PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Calanus mastigophorus Claus, 1863; (b) Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Clausia elongata Boeck, 1865 (a junior subjective synonym of Calanus minutus Kroyer, 1845). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) mastigophorus Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Calanus mastigophorus (specific name of the type species of Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888); (b) minutus Kroyer, 1845, as published in the binomen Calanus minutus (valid specific name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (type genus Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888); (b) PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (type genus Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873). History of Case 2557 An application for precedence to be given to PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 was received from Drs V. N. Andronov (Atlantic Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Kaliningrad, U.S.S.R.) and N. V. Vyshkvartzeva (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) on 12 February 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 297-299 (October 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Dr T. E. Bowman (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.) commented (BZN 44: 129) that CLAUSOCALANIDAE had gained considerable usage since its priority over PSEUDOCALANIDAE was pointed out; similar comments were received from others. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 297-298. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 3: Alvarado, Schuster, Kraus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 229 Negative votes — 19: Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. The proposal to give precedence to the name PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 over the name CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 was thus not carried. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, vol. 19, p. 185. Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti, (4)4(2): 334. mastigophorus, Calanus, Claus, 1863, Die frei lebenden Copepoden mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres, p. 173. minutus, Calanus, Kroyer, 1845, In Gaimard, J. P., Voyages...en Scandanavie... pendant . . . 1838, 1839 et 1840 sur la Corvette La Recherche, Zoologie (Crustacés), Atlas, pl. 41, fig. 4. PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901, An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4, p. 19. Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873, Férhandlinger i Videnskabsselskabet i Kristiania, 1872: 37. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1504 BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851] and Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900 (Insecta, Heteroptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: (a) the generic name Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900 is to be given precedence over the names Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 and Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870; (b) the generic name Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 is to be given precedence over Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870. (2) Neides hirticornis Brullé, 1835 is hereby designated as type species of the nominal genus Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 and Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870; (b) Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Péricart (1984) Berytus montivagus Meyer—Diur, 1841, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870, but not to be given priority over Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900; (c) Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (2) above, Neides hirticornis Brullé, 1835, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900 or Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870; (d) Neides Latreille, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Latreille (1810), Cimex tipularius Linnaeus, 1758 (valid name at the date of this ruling of the type genus of BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851]. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) clavipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cimex clavipes (specific name of the type species of Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900); (b) montivagus Meyer—Diur, 1841, as published in the binomen Berytus montivagus (specific name of the type species of Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870); (c) hirticornis Brullé, 1835, as published in the binomen Neides hirticornis (specific name of the type species of Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870); (d) tipularius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex tipularius (specific name of the type species of Neides Latreille, 1802). (5) The name BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851], type genus Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (a junior objective synonym of Neides Latreille, 1802) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (a junior objective synonym of Neides Latreille, 1802); (b) Berytinellus Stichel, 1957 (a junior objective synonym of Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 231 History of Case 2464 An application for the designation of Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Berytus Fabricius, 1803 was received from Mr W. R. Dolling (British Museum ( Natural History), London, U.K.) on 18 January 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 42: 293-295 (September 1985). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment was received from Drs R. C. Froeschner and T. J. Henry (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.) in favour of continuity of the well known name Berytinus, which has had 85 years of established usage, and of BERYTIDAE. After the publication of his application Mr Dolling became aware of the publication of a monograph by J. Péricart on the Western Palaearctic BERYTIDAE. Since this would become the standard work Mr Dolling withdrew his proposals (see BZN 43: 120) because they differed from Péricart’s usage. Alternative proposals by Péricart were published in BZN 43: 119. As a result of correspondence with Dolling and with Pericart, modified proposals were sent for voting on 1 March 1988; approval of these resulted in the above ruling. The proposals conserved the family name BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851] and the generic name Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900, but left Berytus Fabricius, 1803 as a junior objective synonym of Neides Latreille, 1802 (see BZN 42: 293). Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the modified proposals as described above. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—19: Alvarado, Bayer, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Cocks. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy, Heppell and Trjapitzin. Cocks voted against the proposals on the voting paper because he considered they should have been published in the Bulletin. Dupuis voted against because he considered that it was appropriate to conserve the name Berytus if BERYTIDAE were to be maintained. 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: BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851], Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Béhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften, 5(7): 189. Berytinellus Stichel, 1957, I/lustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. II. Europa. (Hemiptera- Heteroptera Europae). Vol. 4, Heft 2. Pentatomomorpha Lygaeoidea Piesmidae, Berytidae, Lygaeidae part 1, p. 44. Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900, Entomologist, 33: 241. Berytus Fabricius, 1803, Systema Rhyngotorum, p. 264. clavipes, Cimex, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 729. hirticornis, Neides, Brullé, 1835, Jn Audouin et Brullé, Histoire naturelle des Insectes, traitant de leur organisation et de leurs moeurs en général, par M. V. Audouin ... . et comprenant leur classification et la description des espéces, par M. A. Brullé, vol. 9, Orthoptéres et Hémiptéres, p. 355. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870, Histoire naturelle des punaises de France. Coréides, Alydides, Bérytides, Sténocéphalides, p. 212. Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870, Histoire naturelle des punaises de France. Coréides, Alydides, Bérytides, Sténocéphalides, p. DAD. montivagus, Berytus, Meyer—Diir, 1841, Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 2(6): 89. Neides Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 3, p. 246. tipularius, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 451. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 233 OPINION 1505 Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (currently Micronecta ( Dichaetonecta) scholtzi; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name schol/tzii Scholtz, [1847], as published in the binomen Sigara scholtzii, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name scholtzi Fieber, [1860], as published in the binomen Sigara scholtzi and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Jansson (1986), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name scholtzii Scholtz, [1847], as published in the binomen Sigara scholtzii and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2494 An application for the conservation of Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) on 26 September 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 175-177 (July 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Dr A. Jansson and Mr W.R. Dolling have recently found internal evidence to show that the work cited as ‘Scholtz (1846)’, although commonly cited as 1846, was not in fact published until 1847, but this does not affect the substance of the ruling. Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 176. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, 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 Gruchy. Dupuis said that the designation of a lectotype of Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] by Jansson (1986: see reference below) was inappropriate for several reasons. Among these were that the specimen was not collected by Scholtz from the true type locality of Breslau, but by Meyer—Diir from a vaguely stated locality (‘Spain’), and was therefore not a syntype. Dupuis further commented that the lectotype was not suited for species differentiation because it was a female, and that in any case the name S. scholtzii Scholtz, [1847] (the probable date of publication, rather than 1846) is available. In reply, Dr A. Jansson said that Fieber’s [1860] description of S. scholtzi was based upon both the Scholtz collection (from Breslau) and that of Meyer—Diir (from Spain), and that the former collection was destroyed in 1945. The Meyer—Diir specimen was the only extant syntype, and S. scholtzi could be differentiated from its close relatives by examination of females. Dr Jansson reiterated his view that the Scholtz [1847] description was inadequate to make the name available. 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 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: scholtzi, Sigara, Fieber, [1 860], Die europdischen Hemiptera, p. 89. scholtzii, Sigara, Scholtz, [1847], Uebersicht der Arbeiten und Verdnderungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fiir Vaterlindische Kultur, p. 106 The reference for the designation of a lectotype for Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (currently Micronecta ( Dichaetonecta) schol, Zi) iS: Jansson, A. 1986. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 47: 12. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 235 OPINION 1506 Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Oncomera Stephens, 1829 are hereby set aside and Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 is designated as type species. (2) The name Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name femorata Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Dryops femor- ata (specific name of the type species of Oncomera Stephens, 1829), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2523 An application for the designation of Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Oncomera Stephens, 1829 was received from Dr V. Svihla (Ndrodni muzeum, Kunratice 1, 148 00 Praha 4, Czechoslovakia) on 28 May 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 11—12 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 11. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Oncomera Stephens, 1829, The Nomenclature of British Insects, p. 20. femorata, Dryops, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia systematica, vol. 1(2), p. 74. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1507 Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Chrysomya marginalis; Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 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; (c) any usage, prior to the publication of marginalis Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis, of the specific names suppressed in (1) (a) and (1) (b) above. (2) The name marginalis Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) marginalis Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis and as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) marginalis Fallén, 1824, as published in the binomen Musca marginalis and as suppressed in (1) (b) above. History of Case 2553 An application for the conservation of Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 was received from Dr L. E. O. Braack (Kruger National Park, Skukuza 1350, South Africa) on 23 December 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 13-14 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 13-14. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Holthuis. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy, and Trjapitzin. Thompson commented that, although he supported the application, it was inevitable that there would be confusion in the future since the Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afro-tropical Region (cf. BZN 44: 13, para. 4) had used the name Chrysomya regalis Robineau—Desvoidy, 1830, and it would be a standard work. (Note: the page reference for C. regalis should be p. 449, not p. 395 as given in BZN 44: 13). 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: marginalis, Musca, Fourcroy, 1785, Entomologia Parisiensis, 2(5): 497. marginalis, Musca, Fallén, 1824, Monographia Muscidium Sueciae, vol. 7, p. 66. marginalis, Musca, Wiedemann, 1830, Aussereuropdische zweifliigelige Insekten, vol. 2, p. 395. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 237 OPINION 1508 Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera): not to be given precedence over Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 Ruling (1) It is hereby confirmed that the Principle of Priority is to apply whenever the following specific names are considered synonyms: (a) austeni Edwards, 1915, as published in the binomen Simulium austeni; (b) posticatum Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simuia [sic] posticata. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) austeni Edwards, 1915, as published in the binomen Simulium austeni; (b) posticatum Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia [sic] posticata. History of Case 2560 An application for precedence to be given to Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 over Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 was received from Dr I. A. Rubtsov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) on 6 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 350-351 (December 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Opposing comments were received from Drs R. W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), London) and H. Zwick (Max-Planck Institut fiir Limnologie, Schlitz, Fed. Rep. Germany), published in BZN 44: 129-131 (June 1987), and from Dr M. Ladle and Mr J. A. B. Bass (Freshwater Biological Association, Wareham, Dorset, U.K.), published in BZN 44: 257 (December 1987). An opposing comment was also received from Mr D. C. Currie (Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Canada) who pointed out that the senior name posticatum had been in general use for the pest species known as the ‘Blandford fly’ since the synonymy with austeni was published in 1981. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 350. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 1: Dupuis Negative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen. Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. The proposal to give precedence to the name austeni Edwards, 1915 over the name posticatum Meigen, 1838 was thus not carried. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: austeni, Simulium, Edwards, 1915, Bulletin of Entomological Research, 6: 33. posticatum, Simulium, Meigen, 1838, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifligeligen Insecten, vol. 7 (Suppl. vol.), p. 52. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1509 Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera): Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 are hereby set aside and Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 is designated as type species. (2) The name Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name /uteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924, as published in the binomen Phyta- gromyza luteoscutellata (specific name of the type species of Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2574 An application for the designation of Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 as the type species of Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 was received from Mr K. A. Spencer (Exwell Farm, Callington, Cornwall, U.K.) on 17 June 1986. After correspond- ence the case was published in BZN 43: 344-345 (December 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. The genus Paraphytomyza was described by Enderlein (1936a, p. 180, with a list of included species on p. 182), but the name did not become available until Enderlein later (1936b, p. 42) designated a type species. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 344-345. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen. Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Ride abstained, because he considered that the case as published did not demonstrate whether less confusion would be caused by remaining with the nominal species (Phyto- myza xylostei Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851) originally designated as type, or by adopting Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere as proposed. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936(b), Mitteilungen der Deutschen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 7: 42. luteoscutellata, Phytagromyza, de Meijere, 1924, Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 67: 145. The reference for the first, but unavailable, description of Paraphytomyza (unavailable, as no type species is fixed in it) is: Enderlein, G. 1936a. In Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G. (Eds.) Die Tierwelt Mittel- europas, Band 6, Insekten, Teil 3, p. 180. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 239 OPINION 1510 Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Microgaster Latreille, 1804 are hereby set aside and Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 is designated as type species. (2) The name Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name australis Thomson, 1895, as published in the binomen Microgaster australis (specific name of the type species of Microgaster Latreille, 1804) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2397 An application for the designation of Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 as the type species of Microgaster Latreille, 1804 was received from Dr W. R. M. Mason (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) on 10 November 1981. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 173-174 (July 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr J. B. Whitfield (Ohio State University, Ohio, U.S.A.) and published in BZN 44: 47. A further supportive comment was received from Dr R. A. Wharton (Texas A and M University, Texas, U.S.A.). Decision of the Commission On | December 1987 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 174. At the close of the voting period on | March 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, 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 Gruchy. Cogger abstained as he thought there was insufficient information on which to base a vote. A letter was received from Dr C. van Achterberg (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) after the voting period had ended, although Dr van Achterberg was unaware of this. Dr van Achterberg said that, as the taxonomy of the BRACONIDAE is still far from settled and is under active study, long-term stability would best be served by adhering to the Principle of Priority and by accepting original type specimens; as stated in BZN 44: 47, this would result in the use of Microgaster for the genus normally known as Microplitis Foester, 1862, and the use of Lissogaster Bengtsson, 1926 for Microgaster auct. Dr van Achterberg further pointed out that not only Papp (1984; see BZN 44: 47) but also Tobias et al. (1986; Opredelitel Faune SSSR, 147: 1-308, figs 1-189) have recently followed this course, so that Microgaster is now being used in two senses. 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Drs Mason, Wharton and Whitfield were consulted about Dr van Achterberg’s comments. All reiterated their previous position, i.e. that in the present case strict adherence to priority would cause confusion, since a large number of species of Micro- plitis auct. have an applied literature, often extensive. Dr van Achterberg has pointed out that the ultimate aim is stability of nomenclature, and has agreed that acceptance of the Commission’s vote is a means of achieving this. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: australis, Microgaster, Thomson, 1895, Opuscula Entomologica, p. 2241. Microgaster Latreille, 1804, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 24, p. 175. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 241 OPINION 1511 Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name campestris Eversmann, 1852, as published in the binomen Andrena campestris, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873, as published in the binomen Halictus costulatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name campestris Eversmann, 1852, as published in the binomen Andrena campestris and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2573 An application for the conservation of Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum) was received from Dr Yu. A. Pesenko (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) on 11 June 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 17—18 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 17. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen. Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Willink Negative votes — 1: Uéno. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. 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: campestris, Andrena, Eversmann, 1852, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 25(2) no. 3: 20. costulatus, Halictus, Kriechbaumer, 1873, Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 23: 59. The reference for the designation of a lectotype for Andrena campestris (cf. BZN 44: 17, para. 3) is: Pesenko, Yu. A. 1986. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Leningrad, 159: 137. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1512 Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): confirmation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus Desorella Cotteau, 1855 prior to that by Cotteau (1873) of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 are hereby set aside. (2) The name Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- sequent designation by Cotteau (1873), Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name e/atus Desor, 1847, as published in the binomen Hyboclypus elatus, (specific name of the type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2579 An application for the confirmation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as the type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855 was received from Dr E. P. F. Rose and Jane Olver (Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Surrey, U.K.) on 28 July 1986. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 44: 27-30 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Supportive comments were received from Dr J. Roman (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) and Dr J. Thierry (Université de Dijon, France) and were published in BZN 44: 195. Further supportive comments were received from Mr R. V. Melville (Richmond, U.K.) and Dr A. M. Clark (formerly of the British Museum (Natural History), London) who both said that the originally fixed type species of Desoria and Desorella was clearly D. icaunensis Cotteau, 1855. Para. 12(1) of BZN 44: 29 was accordingly replaced by the proposal that the Commission set aside all designations of type species for Desorella before that by Cotteau (1873) (cf. BZN 44: 28, para. 8). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 29, with proposal (1) amended as above. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Desorella Cotteau, 1855, Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, (2)12: 710. elatus, Hyboclypus, Desor, 1847, In Agassiz & Desor, Annales des Sciences naturelles, Paris, (Zoologie ), (3)7: 152. The reference for the designation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as the type species of Desorella Cotteau, 1855 is: Cotteau, G. H. 1873. Terrain Jurassique, Echinides Irréguliers, In d’Orbigny, A., Paléontologie Francaise, Vol. 9, p. 333. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 243 OPINION 1513 Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 (Amphibia, Anura): Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 are hereby set aside and Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975 is designated as type species. (2) The name Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975, as published in the binomen Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi (specific name of the type species of Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2163 An application for the designation of Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975 as the type species of the microhylid frog genus Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 was received from Dr J. Lescure (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and Dr C. E. Nelson (Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A.) on 28 January 1976. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 34: 63-64 (July 1977), and was considered by a working party of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Members of this working party raised various points and correspond- ence difficulties caused the case to be delayed. Dr Lescure clarified the points raised, and this enabled the Commission to vote on the case. Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 34: 64. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Tryapitzin. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: mirandaribeiroi, Synapturanus, Nelson & Lescure, 1975, Herpetologica, 31: 394. Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954, Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 555: 17. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1514 Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes): Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Liasis Gray, 1842 are hereby set aside and Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844 is designated as type species. (2) The name Liasis Gray, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name mackloti Dumeril & Bibron, 1844, as published in the binomen Liasis mackloti, is to record that it is the type species of Liasis Gray, 1842 by designation in (1) above. History of Case 2439 An application for the designation of Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844 as the type species of Liasis Gray, 1842 was received from Mr A. F. Stimpson (British Museum ( Natural History), London) and Dr S. B. McDowell (Rutgers University, New Jersey, U.S.A.) on 22 April 1983. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 330-334 (December 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Further information concerning Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron may be found in the application by Dr L. D. Brongersma (1968; BZN 25: 55-59), including (p. 57) the designation of a lectotype. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 332. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—20: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Hahn and Holthuis. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy, and Tryjapitzin. Original reference The following is the original reference to a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Liasis Gray, 1842, Zoological Miscellany, p. 44. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 245 OPINION 1515 LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815 (Aves) and LARINI LeConte, 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera): homonymy removed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the stem of the generic name Lara LeConte, 1852, for the purposes of Article 29, is hereby ruled to be LARA-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Lara LeConte, 1852 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Lara avara LeConte, 1852, (Insecta); (b) Larus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Selby (1840), Larus marinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) avara LeConte, 1852, as published in the binomen Lara avara (specific name of the type species of Lara LeConte, 1852); (b) marinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Larus marinus (specific name of the type species of Larus Linnaeus, 1758). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) LARAINI LeConte, 1861 (emendation, through the ruling in (1) above, of LARINI LeConte, 1861) (type genus Lara LeConte, 1852); (b) LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815 (type genus Larus Linnaeus, 1758). (5) The name LARINI LeConte, 1861 (a junior homonym of LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815; emended to LARAINI by the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2581 An application to remove the homonymy between LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815 and LARINI LeConte, 1861 was received from Dr P. J. Spangler (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.) on 9 September 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 25—26 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropri- ate journals. Dr M. Mroczkowski pointed out that the family-group name LARAINAE LeConte should have the date 1861, as in para. 2 of the application (BZN 44: 25-26), not 1852 as in para. 5. After voting, Dr Hotthuis pointed out that Rafinesque based a family-group name on Larus ten years before Vigors, and the ruling has been changed accordingly. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 25—26. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1988 the votes were as follows: 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 Affirmative votes— 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell (in part), Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Heppell said the names of the type species of Larus and Lara should not be placed on the Official List, since they were irrelevant to the case. 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: avara, Lara, LeConte, 1852, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 6: 42. Lara LeConte, 1852, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 6: 42. LARAINI LeConte, 1861, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 3: 116. LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815, Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de l'Univers et des Corps organises, p. 72. LARINI LeConte, 1861, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 3: 116. Larus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, p. 136. marinus, Larus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, p. 136. , Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 247 OPINION 1516 Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia, Multituberculata): Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 are hereby set aside and Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 is designated as type species; (b) the specific name su/catus Cope, 1882, as published in the binomen Taeniolabis sulcatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name taoensis Cope, 1882, as published in the binomen Polymastodon taoensis (specific name of the type species of Taeniolabis Cope, 1882), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name sulcatus Cope, 1882, as published in the binomen Taeniolabis sulcatus 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 2529 An application for the designation of Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 as the type species of Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 was received from Dr N. B. Simmons (Department of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) on 23 July 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 310-314 (October 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Professor Dr G. Hahn (Marburg, Fed. Rep. Germany), who pointed out that the holotype of Taeniolabis sulcatus was too fragmentary to be of use. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 312-313. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Holthuis and Thompson. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Dupuis abstained. 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: sulcatus, Taeniolabis, Cope, 1882, American Naturalist, 16: 604. Taeniolabis Cope, 1882, American Naturalist, 16: 604. taoensis, Polymastodon, Cope, 1882, American Naturalist, 16: 684. 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(3) September 1988 OPINION 1517 Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, Carnivora): generic and specific names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Triacodon Marsh, 1871 and the specific name fallax Marsh, 1871, as published in the binomen Triacodon fallax, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Viverravus Marsh, 1872 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- typy Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872, is hereby placed on on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name gracilis Marsh, 1872, as published in the binomen Viverravus gracilis (specific name of the type species of Viverravus Marsh, 1872), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Triacodon Marsh, 1871, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (5) The name fallax Marsh, 1871, as published in the binomen Triacodon fallax and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 1594 An application for the suppression of Triacodon Marsh, 1871 was received from Dr L. Van Valen (University of Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) on 31 January 1963. Due to pending amendments to the Code, this case was held in abeyance. A further application for the conservation of Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 was received from Dr R. M. Schoch (College of Basic Studies, Boston University, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on 12 September 1982. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 7-8 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Supportive comments were received from three members of the Committee on Mammal Names of the International Theriological Congress (Drs S. B. George, D. Kock and J. Meester). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 7-8. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Holthuis. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fallax, Triacodon, Marsh, 1871, American Journal of Science, (3)2: 123. gracilis, Viverravus, Marsh, 1872, American Journal of Science, (3)4: 127. Triacodon Marsh, 1871, American Journal of Science, (3)2: 123. Viverravus Marsh, 1872, American Journal of Science, (3)4: 127. Contents—continued Opinion 1505. Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (currently Micronecta (Dichaetonecta) scholtzi; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved. . 233 Opinion 1506. Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 designated as the type species. . . 235 Opinion 1507. Musca marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (currently C hrysomya marginalis; Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved . . : 236 Opinion 1508. Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera): not to be given precedence over Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 . . 237 Opinion 1509. Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera): Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 designated as the type species. . . 238 Opinion 1510. Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): ‘Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 designated as the type species... 239 Opinion 1511. Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved . . 241 Opinion 1512. Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): confirmation of Hyboclypus elatus Desor, 1847 as the type species. . . 242 Opinion 1513. Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 (Amphibia, Anura): Synapturanus mirandaribeiroi Nelson & Lescure, 1975 designated as the type species... 243 Opinion 1514. Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes): Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844 designated as the type species. . 244 Opinion 1515. LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815 (Aves) and. LARINI pleCaile! 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera): homonymy removed. . 245 Opinion 1516. Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia, Multituberculata): Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 designated asthe type species . . 247 Opinion 1517. Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, Carnivora); generic and ME MEMACREONNIUER eek Fe ys ed ee es Aw ee as 248 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 INOtieEs). : The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature : Classical Adviser tothe Commission. Letter: Increased nomenclatural stability through Lists of Names in n Current Use. D. L. Hawksworth. Applications Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964 as the type species. A. R. Loeblich, Jr & H. Tappan Loeblich Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. K. Hulsemann : ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907, OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 and LOCUSTIDAE -Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed order of precedence. K.H.L. Key. . Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. L. Borowiec Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of both the generic and specific names. L. Zerche . ‘ Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of neotype designation. R. W. Crosskey & H. Shima . Tenthredo zonula Klug; 1817 (Insecta, Baer ons proposed conservation of the specificname. A. Taeger. . CUS Be Sd tae ee Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): proposed conservation. W. N. Eschmeyer & C. R. Robins . ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): ‘proposed conservation. M. Wilkinson & R. A. Nussbaum . : Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): ‘proposed conservation ‘of ‘the specific name. H. M. Smith, J. Hanken & D. Chiszar. Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae): proposed confirmation as ‘the correct spelling. M. LeCroy. . Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation. G. B. Corbet . SOLIS oS Re Comments Amendment to a published comment on the proposed suppression of three works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington. A.E.Greer . . On Pragmatypes: a reply to Dr G. Hahn. R. H. L. Disney & Y. zZ. Erzinclioglu . On the proposed conservation of Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida), and on the neotype of its type species. F. T. Banner On the proposal to set aside the status of the putative type specimen of Silurus felts Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes). A. Wheeler On the family name for the storm petrels (Aves). W.R.P. Bourne . . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Euryotis brantsii A. ‘Smith, 1834 (Mammalia, Rodentia). D. Kock. . . On the proposed conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea). ri E. Heyning & L. G. Barnes . S20 aol wen. Rees: hola td ae Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1501. Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Oryzaria boscii Defrance in Bronn, 1825 designated as the type species . . Opinion 1502. Conus fergusoni G. B. Sowerby III, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved . . Opinion 1503. PSEUDOCALANIDAE ‘Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Coinesukell not to be given precedence over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892. Opinion 1504. BERYTIDAE Fieber, eer and ee Kirkaldy, 1900 (Insecta, Heter- optera): conserved . = Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Page 181 182 182 183 186 188 191 194 197 199 202: 4 204 4 207 F 210 q 212 214 2169 216% 217 219 @ 221 & 23 203 24 226 228 : 230 Bulletin | F isicol Nomenclature ag Fern e we er ea 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 1988 is £57 or $110, postage included; the rates for 1989 will be £60 or $115. 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. 01-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President , Vice-President Secretary-General Executive Secretary (Vacant) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.) Prof C. Dupuis (France) Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fed. Rep. Germany) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Secretariat Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil) Mr R. V. Melville (U.K.) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (U.S.S.R.) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R.) Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno (Japan) Prof A. Willink (Argentina) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (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 1988 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 45, part 4 (pp. 249-304) 16 December 1988 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 45, part 3 (published on 23 September 1988): (1) Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Bombus terrestris; Insecta, Hymeno- ptera): proposed stabilisation by replacement of the lectotype by a neotype. (Case 2638). A. Loken, A. Pekkannen & P. Rasmont. (2) Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa): proposed designation of Membranipora densispina Levinson, 1925 as the type species. (Case 2657). P. D. Taylor & E. Voigt. (3) Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): proposed conservation of accepted usage by the citation of Lapworth (1876) and not Nicholson (1868) as author. (Case 2674). D. K. Loydell. (4) Coluber gemonensis (Bedriaga, 1882), C. viridiflavus (Lacépéde, 1789), Elaphe quatuorlineata (Lacépéde, 1789) and Natrix natrix helvetica (Lacepéde, 1789) (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2675). B. Schatti & A. F. Stimson. (5) Octhebius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed confirmation of Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798 as the type species. (Case 2676). M. Hansen. (6) Saissetia Cockerell, 1899 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation with adoption of Cockerell as author in place of Deplanche (1859). (Case 2677). Y. Ben-Dov. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 (7) Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2678). R. T. Thompson. (8) Ctenarytaina Ferris & Klyver, 1932 (Insecta, Hemiptera): proposed conser- vation. (Case 2679). K. L. Taylor. (9) Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. (Case 2680). I. M. White & P. Harris. (10) Heliastes ovalis F. Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2681). W. I. Follett & J. E. Randall. (11) Fryeria Gray, 1853 and Fryeria rueppellii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2682). D. J. Brunkhorst, W. B. Rudman & R. C. Willan. (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. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 251 Election of members of the Commission The Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the International Union of Biological Sciences held a ballot in Canberra on 17-18 October 1988, during the 23rd General Assembly of the Union, to fill five vacancies on the Commission. The Council of the Commission had previously ruled four retiring members to be eligible for re-election, and seventeen additional nominations had been received. The Section re-elected Prof C. DUPUIS (France; Heteroptera) and Prof L. B. HOLTHUIS (The Netherlands; Crustacea) as members of the Commission, and elected the following three new members: Prof WALTER J. BOCK (Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A.). Prof Bock is the Permanent Secretary of the International Ornithological Committee. Prof UBIRAJARA R. MARTINS DESOUZA (Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 7172, 04263 Sao Paulo, Brazil). Prof Martins de Souza specializes in Coleoptera, and is the Editor of Revista Brasileira de Entomologia. Dr CLAUS NIELSEN (Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhavn 0, Denmark). Dr Nielsen is chief editor of Acta Zoologica, Stockholm, and specializes in bryozoa and marine invertebrate larvae. The Commission intends to fill three new vacancies, and also that caused by the retirement of Mr R. V. Melville on 14 February 1989. Any nominations additional to those already received must reach the Secretariat by 28 February 1989. P.K. TUBBS Executive Secretary 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report for the year 1987 The financial affairs of the Trust were affected by four major factors during 1987: the decision to publish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at the Commission’s offices in the British Museum (Natural History), the continuing high levels of sales of the 3rd edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the publication of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology, and the re-allocation of the major part of the Trust’s funds to wider ranging investments. The Bulletin was once again published entirely by the Trust after a gap of four years of publication by CAB International, from whom the Trust received £5,000 in 1986. The net sum from sales of the Bulletin increased to £10,843 in 1987, this being the difference between £18,592 received in subscriptions for the 1987 volume and the £7,749 costs of printing and distributing. Sales of the 3rd edition of the Code yielded £9,778 during 1987, and there was no expenditure on printing. The cost of printing and distributing the Official Lists and Indexes in 1987 was £15,947, but nearly half that amount had been recouped by sales receipts of £7,661 up to the end of the year. Money received from the other main sources of income — grants, donations, deeds of covenant, and interest — was similar to that for the previous year, and expenditure on salaries and office supplies was slightly higher. When all income and expenditure is accounted for, the Trust’s funds were in surplus by the small amount of £123 in 1987. It demonstrates the extent to which the Trust relies on the continuation of grants and donations from the Royal Society, the four British research councils, the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, and others, whom we thank for their generosity and continuing support. At the Annual General Meeting on 17 June 1987 it was decided to adopt a wider investment policy for the £128,000 of the Trust’s money that was then in National Savings Income Bonds. Accordingly 11,148 units of M & G Equities Investment Fund for Charities were purchased for £64,000 on 23 June 1987 at 547.1p per unit and 12,512.22 income shares of Charities Official Investment Fund were purchased on 30 June 1987 at a price of 511.5p per share. It is expected that this will lead to increases in both the annual income and the capital value of the Trust’s funds in the long term. M. K. HOWARTH Secretary and Managing Director 12 June 1988 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER, 1987 Income SALE OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes GRANTS DONATIONS AND COVENANTS BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST Expenditure SALARIES AND FEES OFFICE EXPENSES AUDIT FEE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT Surplus for the year 21,969 9,778 7,661 9,000 O39 13.208 43,257 35195 190 7,749 15,947 294 39,408 31,347 £70,755 £70,632 £123 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2663 Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): proposed confirmation of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type species R. Schroeder Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut, Universitat Frankfurt, Senckenberganlage 32-34, Postfach 11 19 32, D-6000 Frankfurt a. M. 11, Fed. Rep. Germany M. D. Simmons Stratigraphy Branch, BP Research Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, TW16 7LN, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of the nominal species Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as type species of Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850. The first type species designated is now known to be a coral, but the designation supported here maintains the Tethyan, Cretaceous foraminiferal genus Orbitolina in its established meaning. 1. Orbitolina is first mentioned on p. 143 of volume 2 of d’Orbigny’s Prodrome de Paléontologie. . .. There is no mention of Orbitolina in either volume | or 3 of this book. In total, six species are listed under the genus, in stratigraphic order. He listed them as follows: (i) (p. 143) lenticulata d’Orbigny, 1847; (ii) (p. 184) plana d’Archiac, 1837; (iii) (p. 184) mamillata d’ Archiac, 1837; (iv) (p. 185) concava Lamarck, 1816; (v) (p. 279) gigantea d’Orbigny, 1847 and (vi) (p. 280) radiata d’Orbigny 1847. D’Orbigny does not indicate any particular species to be the type. It must be noted here that in the text of the Prodrome the date 1847 refers to the date of the manuscript, which was actually published in 1850. 2. Allsix species recorded by d’Orbigny (1850) under Orbitolina have equal claim as type species. According to Article 69a of the Code, the first published designation of a type species subsequent to the original publication of the genus should be regarded as the only valid one. There are several subsequent quotations which could be regarded as designations of a type species for Orbitolina, and these are discussed in paragraphs 3-8 below. 3. According to Parker & Jones (1860, p. 35) ‘the conical, hemispherical and flat- tened forms of Orbitolina so common in the Cretaceous deposits, and known under twelve or more different names, are referable to one specific type, namely the O. concava, Lamarck, sp. and to this type not only these large . . ... However, neither this quotation, nor any that follow it in the text, are valid as a type designation, as these authors were not using ‘type’ in the sense of ‘type species of a genus’, but rather as an indication of the ‘typical form of a species’. Indeed on p. 38 we read ‘we regard it [O. concava] as the type of a species including numerous varietys’. In their recent monograph of foraminifera genera, Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 166) cited this reference by Parker & Jones as a valid designation of a type species, and thus regarded Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 (p. 197) as the correct type species of Orbitolina. As noted above, we cannot agree with their opinion that the Parker & Jones reference is a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 255 valid designation, although for different reasons, as will be shown, we suggest that O. concava be recognised as the type species. 4. Ellis & Messina (1940 et seq.) reported that Orbitolina lenticularis (Blumenbach, 1805) was designated as type species by Dollfus (1905, p. 232). They regarded this designation as invalid because a species named /enticularis was ‘not among the species originally included under the generic name by d’Orbigny’. In fact d’Orbigny (1850, p. 143) mentioned Orbitolites lenticulata Lamarck, 1816, which Schroeder (1963) noted is synonymous with Madreporites lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805. The Dollfus reference relates to a review by that author of a paper published by Prever (in Prever & Silvestri, 1905). In this review Dollfus pointed out: ‘II [Prever] considére que le Genre Dictyocornis [he means Dictyoconus] Blanckenhorn, fondé pour quelques espéces d’Egypte, est bien rigoureusement synonyme [with Orbitolina]; il le compare aux Genres voisins et commence par établir que le type du G. Orbitolina est O. lenticularis Blum. sp. (Madreporites) 1796, espéce de la Perte du Rhone’. However, the second half of this statement made by Dollfus is wrong; Prever never designated O. /enticularis as type species of Orbitolina. On the contrary, O. lenticularis belongs to the species which were eliminated by this latter author (1905, p. 469): ‘Il lavoro di revisione compiuto, mi ha obbligato a distruggere parecchie delle specie gia istitiute ed anche di quelle or nominate, ed in cambio a crearne delle nuove’ [As a result of this revision, I have been obliged to destroy quite a lot of species already established and also quite a lot of those just mentioned and to create new ones instead]. It is clear that neither Dollfus nor Prever designated a type species. 5. Cushman (1928, p. 182) designated Orbitolina gigantea d’Orbigny as type species of Orbitolina. Subsequently Douvillé (1933, p. 199) demonstrated that this species is a coral belonging to the genus Cyclolites Lamarck, 1801. 6. Davies (1939, p. 786) pointed out that ‘O. concava seems to be the form best indicated in the Prodrome itself. It is also the best for studying the genus, being usually better preserved as well as much larger than O. /enticularis. It should obviously, in my opinion, be taken as the type of Orbitolina’. Davies therefore selected O. concava as type species. By doing so he hoped to alleviate the taxonomic problems caused by Cushman’s designation of the coral O. gigantea [= Cyclolites] as type species, and in fact Cushman in the 1950 edition of his text named O. concava as the type species. A number of other workers have also agreed with Davies’ opinion that O. concava should be regarded as the type species of Orbitolina. These include Henson (1948) and Sahni & Sastri (1957), and we also suggest that this designation be accepted. 7. Thalmann (1950, p. 509) proposed ‘Orbitolina texana Roemer, 1849’ [Orbitulites texanus Roemer, 1849] as a substitute type species in place of Orbitolina concava. However, this species is not among those originally included under the generic name by d’Orbigny. 8. Douglass (1960a, p. 28) and Douglass, Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p. C309) con- sidered Orbitolina lenticularis to be the type species of the genus. Douglass [op. cit.] is of the opinion that ‘only one species is referred to the genus in this, the original descrip- tion. The genus as described is therefore monotypic, even though five other species are referred to it in later sections of the volume’. However, as pointed out in para. | above, six species were included in d’Orbigny (1850), and so the arguments of Douglass (1960a,b) and of Douglass et al. [op. cit.], which were also followed by Hofker (1963, p. 220; 1966a, p. 204; 1966b, p. 9), are invalid (see also Schroeder, 1963, p. 351). 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 9. Madreporites lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805 (Heft 8 [80]) (= Orbitolina lenticul- ata) is the type species by monotypy of Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (p. 348). This genus was shown by Schroeder (1964a,b; 1975) to be morphologically and phylogenetic- ally distinct from Orbitolina. 10. As there was no type by original designation, nor was the genus monotypic in the original description, Cushman’s 1928 designation of Orbitolina gigantea d’Orbigny makes Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 a junior objective synonym of the coral genus Cyclo- lites Lamarck, 1801 (see Wells, 1956, p. F386). If one were to accept this situation, the numerous species regarded as belonging to Orbitolina would have to be assigned to a new genus. Therefore we request the suppression of Orbitolina gigantea as type species of Orbitolina and the recognition of Orbitolina concava as type species, as originally suggested by Davies (1939). This solution negates the need for a major revision of orbitolinid taxonomy, and allows the genus Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 to remain valid, with Madreporites lenticularis as its type species by monotypy. Palorbitolina and Orbitolina are often abundant in Early and Middle Cretaceous platform carbonates of the Tethyan realm and recognition of their constituent species is extremely valuable in biostratigraphic studies of such sediments. As biozonation schemes can be developed using these taxa (e.g. Schroeder, 1975), it is important that their names be conserved in their accustomed usage. 11. Parker & Jones (1860) and Schroeder (1962) pointed out that Orbitolina concava [=Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816] is not the same taxon as Orbitolites concava Lamarck, 1801; the earlier named species is now referred to the bryozoan genus Lunulites. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 prior to that of Orbulites concava, Lamarck, 1816 by Davies (1939); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (i) Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Davies (1939) Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816; (ii) Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Madreporites lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (i) concava Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Orbulites concava (specific name of the type species of Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850); (ii) /enticularis Blumenbach, 1805, as published in the binomen Madreporites lenticularis (specific name of the type species of Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963). References Archiac, E. J. A. d’, 1837. Mémoire sur la formation Crétacé du Sud-Ouest de la France. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, 2: 157-192. Blumenbach, J. F. 1805. Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstédnde, Heft 8 [80], pl. 80 +[i-i]. H. Dieterich, Gottingen. Cushman, J. A. 1928. Foraminifera, their classification and economic use. Cushman Laboratory for Foraminifera Research. Special Publication No. 1, 401 pp. Cushman, J. A. 1950. Foraminifera, their classification and economic use. 4th edition (revised and enlarged). 605 pp., 55 pl., 31 fig. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 257 Davies, L. M. 1939. An early Dictyoconus and the genus Orbitolina: Their contemporaneity, structural distinction and representative natural allies. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 59: 773-790. Dollfus, G. F. 1905. Contributo allo studio delle Orbitolininae per M. M. Prever e Silvestri. Revue Critique de Paléozoologie, 9(4): 232. Douglass, R. C. 1960a. The Foraminiferal Genus Orbitolina in North America. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper no. 333, 52 pp., 14 pl., 32 fig. Douglass, R. C. 1960b. Revision of the family Orbitolinidae. Micropaleontology, 6(3): 249-270. Douglass, R. C., Loeblich Jr., A. R. & Tappan, H. 1964. ORBITOLINIDAE. /n Loeblich Jr, A. R. & Tappan, H. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology; Part C — Protista 2, Sarcodina, chiefly ‘Thecamoebians’ and Foraminiferida; vol. 1, pp. C308—C313. The Geological Society of America and the University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Douvillé, H. 1933. A propos de l’Orbitolina gigantea. Compte Rendu Sommaire des Séances de la Société Géologique de France, 1933(13): 198-199. Ellis, B. F. & Messina, A. 1940 et seq. Catalogue of Foraminifera. American Museum of Natural History. Henson, F. R.S. 1948. Larger imperforate foraminifera of Southwest Asia, 127 pp., 16 pl. British Museum (Natural History), London. Hofker Jr., J. 1963. Studies on the genus Orbitolina (Foraminiferida). Leidsche Geologische Mededelingen, 29: 181-254. Hofker Jr., J. 1966a. Zur Evolution der Cenoman—Orbitolinen. Eine Entgegnung an R. Schroeder. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Monatshefte, 1966: 193-207. Hofker Jr., J. 1966b. Studies on the family Orbitolinidae. Palaeontographica, (A) 126: 1-34. Lamarck, J. B. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, ou tableau général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux, 432 pp. Deterville, Paris. Lamarck, J. B. 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2. 568 pp. Verdiére, Paris. Loeblich, A. R. & Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal genera and their classification, vol. 1. 970 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. Orbigny, A. D. d’, 1850. Prodrome de Paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques & rayonnés faisant suite au cours élémentaire de Paléontologie et de Géologie stratigraphiques, vol. 2. 427 pp. Masson, Paris. : Parker, W. K. & Jones, T. R. 1860. On the Nomenclature of the Foraminifera. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6: 29-40. Prever, P. L. 1905. Considerazioni sulla sottofamiglia delle ORBITOLININAE. /n Prever, P. L. & Silvestri, A., Contributo allo studio delle ORBITOLININAE. Bollettino della Societa Geologica Italiana, 23: 467-477. Roemer, F. 1849. Texas, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf Deutsche Auswanderung und die physischen Verhdltnisse des Landes. xiv, 464 pp., 1 map. Bonn. Sahni, M. R. & Sastri, V. V. 1957. A Monograph of the Orbitolines found in the Indian Continent (Chitral, Gilgit, Kashmir), Tibet and Burma. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, Palaeontologica Indica. 33(3): 1-50. Schroeder, R. 1962. Orbitolinen des Cenomas Siidwesteuropas. Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 36: 171-202. Schroeder, R. 1963. Palorbitolina, ein neues Subgenus der Gattung Orbitolina (Foraminifera). Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen, 117: 346-359. Schroeder, R. 1964a. Communication préalable sur l’origine des Orbitolines. Compte Rendu Sommaire des Séances de la Société Géologique de France, 1964: 411-413. Schroeder, R. 1964b. Orbitoliniden—Biostratigraphie des Urgons nordéstlich von Teruel (Spanien). Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Monatshefte, 1964: 462-474. Schroeder, R. 1975. General evolutionary trends in Orbitolinas. Revista Espanola de Micro- paleontologia, Numero Especial (enero 1975), pp. 117-128. Thalmann, H. E. 1950. Mitteilungen iiber Foraminiferen VIII (37). Gehduse-Grosse bei den Foraminiferen. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 42(2): 509-510. Wells, J. W. 1956. Scleractinia. In Bayer, F. M., Boschma, H., et al. (Eds.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology; Part F — Coelenterata, pp. 328-444. The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2653 Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): proposed replacement of the holotype by a lectotype Thomas R. Platt Department of Biology, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the suppression of the type status of the specimen designated as the holotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987, a blood fluke (family sPIRORCHIDAE). This specimen does not conform to the original description or figure, and is an example of H. tchalimi Bourgat & Kulo, 1987. The specimen in the original illustration is proposed as the lectotype. 1. Goodman (1987) reported the new spirorchiid blood fluke Hapalorhynchus beadlei (p. 80) from freshwater turtles (Pelusios) from Uganda. The description of the adult parasite and its illustration (Fig. 1) were based on specimens obtained from Pelusios sp. from near Kampala, eastern Uganda, whereas the tricornuate eggs (text, and Fig. 2) were described from material (which included adult parasites) collected from P. lutescens williamsi from Queen Elizabeth Park, western Uganda. All the orig- inal specimens were subsequently lost (J. D. Goodman, pers. comm.). 2. Ona later visit to Uganda Dr Goodman obtained further specimens of Hapalo- rhynchus sp. from Queen Elizabeth Park, but due to a lack of facilities these specimens were not studied in detail before four of them were deposited, at the request of the journal concerned, in the U.S. National Museum, Washington. A specimen on slide USNM Helm. Coll. No. 79375 was designated as the holotype of H. beadlei and the type locality was given as Queen Elizabeth Park (Goodman, 1987, p. 81). 3. Examination of the deposited specimens has shown numerous discrepancies between them and the description and figure published by Goodman (1987); at least three of the specimens (including the holotype) appear to be of H. tchalimi Bourgat & Kulo, 1987. It may also be noted that the eggs described (and illustrated in Fig. 2) by Goodman (1987) are not those of H. beadlei. 4. Since it was Goodman’s intention to apply the name H. bead/ei to the species from eastern Uganda described in his paper, I propose that the specimen illustrated in Fig. 1 of Goodman (1987) be designated as the lectotype. The type locality should be ‘near Kampala, Uganda’, and the type host ‘Pelusios sp.’. This action will also avoid subjective synonymy between H. beadlei and the clearly distinct H. tchalimi Bourgat & Kulo, 1987. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the holotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 259 (2) to designate the specimen illustrated in Fig. 1 of Goodman (1987) as the lecto- type of H. beadlei, with the type locality ‘near Kampala, Uganda’ and the host ‘Pelusios sp.’; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name beadlei Goodman, 1987, as published in the binomen Hapalorhynchus beadlei and as interpreted by the lectotype designated in (2) above. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Dr J. D. Goodman for providing his field notes and additional information necessary to resolve this issue, and Dr P. K. Tubbs for his advice. References Bourgat, R. & Kulo, S.-D. 1987. Hapalorhynchus tchalimi sp.n. (Digenea), premier Spirorchiidae de tortue d’eau douce en Afrique. Revue de Zoologie Africaine, 100: 435-441. Goodman, J. D. 1987. A new blood fluke, Hapalorhynchus beadlei n.sp. (Spirorchiidae), and a note on Allossostomoides [sic] (Paramphistomidae), in Pelusios williamsi lutescens from Uganda. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 106: 80-84. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2633 Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific name Fredrik Pleijel Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888, as published in the combination Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa, for a member of the family PHYLLODOCIDAE (marine paddle worms), by suppression of the unused senior synonym breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865. 1. De Quatrefages (1865, p. 132) described the species Phyllodoce breviremis as being from Guettary [probably Guéthary, south of Biarritz, France] but did not designate a holotype. The species has since been mentioned only twice, by Fauvel (1923, p. 200) who included it under PHYLLODOCIDAE ‘incertae sedis’, and by Hartman (1959, p. 160) who included it in a list of species of Phyllodoce Savigny, 1818 as ‘Doubtful’. 2. Saint-Joseph (1888, p. 282, pl. 11, figs. 141-143) described the species Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa (currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa) from Brittany, France. No holotype was designated but the original description is detailed enough, leaving no doubt regarding the identity. The specific name has been, and still is, regarded as valid and is in use in the literature, e.g. Southern (1914, p. 69), Fauvel (1923, p. 155), Campoy (1982, p. 143); a representative list of 15 additional works is held by the Commission Secretariat. 3. Iconsider Phyllodoce breviremis and Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa to be con- specific. In the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris I have examined a specimen (not numbered) labelled Phyllodoce breviremis from de Quatrefages’ collect- ion. This specimen is from the type locality (Guéthary) and may be regarded as type material. It corresponds well to Saint Joseph’s Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa. The latter normally should be regarded as a junior synonym but since the older name is completely out of use, to revert to its employment is not in the interest of stability, and conservation of rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 is therefore desirable. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Phyllodoce breviremis, 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 rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888, as published in the combination Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as suppressed in (1) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 261 References Campoy, A. 1982. Fauna de Anelidos Poliquetos de la Peninsula Ibérica. Fauna de Espana, 7: 1-781. Fauvel, P. 1923. Polychétes errantes. Faune de France, 5: 1-488. Hartman, O. 1959. Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. Occasional Papers of the Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, 23: 1-628. Quatrefages, A. de, 1865. Histoire Naturelle des Annelés Marins et d’Eau Douce. Vol. 2, 336 pp. Libraire Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Saint-Joseph, A. 1888. Les Anneélides polychétes des cétes de Dinard. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (7)5: 141-388. Southern, R. 1914. Archiannelida and Polychaeta. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 31(47): 1-160. 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2636 Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed confirmation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 as the type species Roy K. Kropp Battelle, Ocean Sciences—Ventura Operations, 1431 Spinnaker Drive, Ventura, CA 93001, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm the designation of Troglo- carcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 as the type species of the gall crab genus Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980, despite a misidentification by Takeda & Tamura. 1. Asa part ofa series of reports on the gall crab fauna of Japanese waters, Takeda & Tamura established the genus Fizesereneia (1980, p. 137) to include two species formerly placed in Troglocarcinus Verrill (1908, p. 427) and a new species. These were T. heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956a, T. stimpsoni Fize & Seréne, 1956b, and F. ishikawai Takeda & Tamura, 1980 respectively. Takeda & Tamura (p. 138) designated 7. heimias the type species of Fizesereneia. 2. Examination of the detailed description (pp. 111-115) and figures of T. heimi (of which pp. 111-113 and figs. 29A and B are of the lectotype, a female specimen numbered E.34.403) published by Fize & Seréne in 1957 indicated that the figure and description of ‘7. heimi’ as published by Takeda & Tamura did not correspond to T. heimi, but to an undescribed species of Fizesereneia. 3. Thus, the genus Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 is based on a mis- identified type species, and under Article 70b of the Code, the Commission should now select the type species for that genus. To maintain usage and prevent confusion the Commission is asked to confirm the designation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 (1956a, p. 375) as the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980. 4. Dr Takeda (personal communication, 1988) does not object to this proposal. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to confirm that the type species of the genus Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 is Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956, as published in the binomen Troglocarcinus heimi (specific name of the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 263 References Fize, A. & Seréne, R. 1956a. Note Préliminaire sur huit espéces nouvelles, dont une d’un genre nouveau, d’ Hapalocarcinidae. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 80 (5,6): 375-378. Fize, A. & Seréne, R. 1956b. Note Préliminaire sur quatre espéces nouvelles d’Hapalocarcinidés avec quelques remarques au sujet du Cryptochirus rugosus Edmonson. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 80 (5,6): 379-382. Fize, A. & Seréne, R. 1957. Les Hapalocarcinidés du Viet-Nam. Archives du Muséum National d@ Histoire Naturelle, (7) 5: 1-202, 43 figs., 18 pls. Takeda, M. & Tamura, Y. 1980. Coral-inhabiting crabs of the Family Hapalocarcinidae from Japan, no. 3. New Genus Fizesereneia. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, (A) 6: 137-146. Verrill, A. E. 1908. Decapod crustacea of Bermuda; 1—Brachyura and Anomura, their distribution, variations, and habits. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 13: 299-474, pls. 9-28. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2645 Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation M. Bacescu Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Sos. Kisselef 1, Bucuresti 79744, Romania 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 generic name Bodotria Goodsir, 1843, of cumacean crustaceans by the suppression of the senior synonym Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828. 1. During the preparation of the volume on the order Cumacea for the series Crustaceorum Catalogus, several nomenclatural problems came to light that can only be solved through the use of the plenary powers by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 2. This case concerns the generic name Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, which for the last seventy-five years has been rejected as a junior homonym, but which now proves to be the valid name for the genus in question. 3. In 1828 H. Milne Edwards (1828, p. 287) described a new genus of Crustacea which he named Cuma and to which he assigned a single new species, Cuma audouinii. Agassiz (1846, p. 112) amended the name to Cyma. 4. The name Cuma was soon accepted and in 1846 was made type of a family which Kroyer (1846, p. 203) spelt Cumacea. This family name has since been spelt CUMIDAE and the name Cumacea used for the order to which the family belongs. This ordinal name is still in current use. 5. Stebbing (1900, p. 610) discovered the existence of an older name Cuma, viz. Cuma Humphrey, 1797, published in Museum Calonnianum (p. 35) for a genus of molluscs. Stebbing then rejected the generic name Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, as a junior homonym of Cuma Humphrey, 1797, and substituted the oldest junior (subjective) synonym Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (p. 128), type species Bodotria arenosa Goodsir, 1843 (p. 128). For the group name Cumacea, Stebbing (1900) proposed the new replacement name Sympoda. 6. In the years immediately following publication of Stebbing’s discovery, there was much opposition to these changes. As a compromise, G. O. Sars (1914, p. 1) proposed the new name Cumaea as a substitute for Cuma H. Milne Edwards; this was spelled Cumoa in the Russian translation (1914, p. 2) of his article which appeared simul- taneously with the English original. Neither name has subsequently been treated as valid. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 265 7. After Stebbing’s revision of the entire order Sympoda (=Cumacea) was published in 1913, the name Bodotria was generally accepted and the name Cuma disappeared entirely from carcinological literature. However, the name Sympoda did not gain acceptance and the order is currently still called Cumacea by all workers. 8. Museum Calonnianum, in which the name Cuma Humphrey, 1797 was first pub- lished, was rejected for nomenclatural purposes by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 51 (Stiles, 1912). Cuma Humphrey, 1797 is there- fore not an available name and does not preoccupy Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, which thereby becomes the valid name for the genus. Stebbing wrote his monograph before Opinion 51 existed and neither he nor other Cumacea specialists subsequently noticed that Cuma H. Milne Edwards was a valid name. The names Cumacea and Bodotria have been used side by side to the almost total exclusion of Sympoda and Cuma in the literature since 1913 (a representative list of papers is held by the Secretariat). The family-group name BODOTRIIDAE was established by Scott (1901, p. 273). 9. It could be argued that usage of the oldest name, Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, would have the advantage of providing a sound basis for the name Cumacea for the order and that its reintroduction would not result in the switch of a well known name from one genus to another, since the name Cuma has never been used for another genus of Crustacea and practically never for any other taxon in the Animal Kingdom. Never- theless, considerable confusion would result from switching back to the name Cuma and abandoning the widely accepted name Bodotria, one of the best known generic names in Cumacean literature and the only one used for this genus for at least the last 75 years. The genus Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (= Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828) has a practically world-wide distribution and at present has 46 species and two subspecies. Several of these species are very common and have formed the basis of biological, ecological and anatomical studies. 10. Hence, this application is submitted to conserve the name Bodotria Goodsir, 1843. Meanwhile, in conformity with Article 80 (a) of the Code, the name Bodotria has been adopted in the Crustaceorum Catalogus. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828 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 Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bodotria arenosa Goodsir, 1843; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name arenosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Bodotria arenosa (specific name of the type species of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901 (type genus Bodotria Goodsir, 1843); (5) to place on the Official Index of and Rejected Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatural purposes). 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 References Agassiz, J. L. R. 1846. Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, viii, 393 pp. Soloduri. Goodsir, H. D. S. 1843. Description of the genus Cuma, and of two new genera nearly allied to it. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 119-130. Humphrey, G. 1797. Museum Calonnianum, viii, 84 pp. London. Kroyer, H. 1846. Karcinologiske Bidrag (Fortsaettelse). Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, n. ser., 2: 1-211. Milne Edwards, H. 1828. Mémoires sur quelques Crustacés nouveaux. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris (1) 13: 287-301. Sars, G. O. 1914. Cumacea Kaspiskoi Ekspeditii 1904 goda. Report on the Cumacea of the Caspian Expedition 1904. Trudy Kaspiskoi Expeditii 1904 goda, 4: 1-34 (Russian text), 1-32 (English text). Scott, T. 1901. Notes on gatherings of Crustacea, collected for the most part by the fishery steamer ‘Garland’ and the steam trawler ‘St. Andrew’ of Aberdeen, and examined during the year 1900. Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 19: 235-281. Stebbing, T. R. R. 1900. On Crustacea brought by Dr Willey from the South Seas. [Pp. 605-690 in Willey, A.] Zoological results based on material from New Britain, New Guinea, Loyalty Islands and elsewhere, 830 pp. Cambridge. Stebbing, T. R. R. 1913. Cumacea (Sympoda). Das Tierreich, 39: i-xvi, 1-210. Stiles, C. W. 1912. Opinion 51. Shall the names of Museum Calonnianum, 1797, be accepted? Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Smithsonian Institution Publication no. 2060, pp. 116-117. (Republished in 1958 in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1(B): 116-117). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 267 Case 2643 Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation M. Bacescu Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Sos. Kisselef 1, Bucuresti 79744, Romania 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 generic name Iphinoe Bate, 1856, of cumacean crustaceans by the suppression of the unused senior homonym Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815 (Arachnoidea) and also the senior homonym Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854, which is in occasional use for a restricted genus of gastropods. 1. The name Jphinoe Bate, 1856, for a genus of Cumacea belonging to the family BODOTRIIDAE, is widely used and for more than 120 years has been the only name used for the genus. However, it is a junior homonym of two older names and is therefore invalid. 2. In June 1856, Bate established two new genera, Halia (1856a, p. 458) and Venilia (1856a, p. 460). Halia had as its only species Cuma trispinosa Goodsir, 1843 (p. 126) which is its type by monotypy. The type species of Venilia, also by monotypy, is Venilia gracilis Bate, 1856 (1856a, p. 460). Later in the same year Bate found that both Halia and Venilia were preoccupied: the first by Halia Risso, 1826 (Mollusca), Halia Duponchel, 1829 (Lepidoptera) and Halia Hincks, 1855 (Bryozoa); the second by Venilia Duponchel, 1829 (Lepidoptera), Venilia Morton, 1833 (Mollusca), Venilia Alder & Hancock, 1844 (Mollusca) and Venilia Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves). In August 1856, Bate (1856b, p. 187) published the new replacement names Jphinoe (as Iphinoé) for Halia, and Cyrianassa for Venilia. 3. Norman (1869, p. 272) suspected that the name Iphinoe (= Halia) trispinosa (Goodsir, 1843) represented the males and the name Cyrianassa (= Venilia) gracilis (Bate, 1856) the females of Goodsir’s species; this synonymy is now accepted. Norman synonymised the two genera Jphinoe and Cyrianassa and used the name Iphinoe for the combined genus. Norman’s choice of the name Jphinoe was accepted by almost all zoologists and the name Cyrianassa disappeared from use. 4. However, Iphinoe Bate, 1856 is itself a junior homonym, namely of Jphinoe Rafinesque, 1815 (p. 107) (Arachnoidea) and also of Jphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 (p. 280) (Mollusca). So far as we can see Cyrianassa Bate, 1856 is the nomenclaturally correct name for the genus, but we have not been able to find any use of this name after 1865 (Norman, 1865, pp. 24, 27). 5. Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, published in a rather obscure work, has been almost entirely overlooked. It was proposed as a replacement name for Clotho Latreille, 1809 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 (Arachnoidea), which is a junior homonym of Clotho Faujas de St Fond, 1808 (Mollusca), but was generally overlooked by arachnologists, who used the generic name Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (p. 198), type species by monotypy Uroctea quinquemacu- lata Dufour, 1820 (p. 200), for the genus, notwithstanding that that name is a junior synonym of Rafinesque’s name. Bonnet (1957, p. 2298) in his Bibliographia Araneorum noted that Iphinoe has ‘resté inconnu jusqu’a notre époque, et bien qu’il ait priorité sur Uroctea, il ne peut étre question aujourd’hui de faire ce changement; la prescription joue en faveur d’Uroctea’. Later authors also continued to use Uroctea. 6. Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 was published in part ix (or x) of volume 1 of Adams & Adams’ The Genera of Recent Mollusca, a work published in 36 parts and finished in 1858. The exact dates of publication of Adams & Adams’ work were not known until Newton (1891, p. 303) published a table of parts and dates. As Adams & Adams’ work was completed in 1858 and carried that date on the title pages, Iphinoe H. & A. Adams was for a long time considered to have been published in 1858 and thus would have been a junior homonym of Bate’s generic name. Even when the date of publication of Iphinoe H. & A. Adams was shown to have been 1854, no carcinologist realised that it predated Iphinoe Bate. Even Stebbing (1913, p. 42) in his revision of the Cumacea retained the name Jphinoe Bate and all later Cumacean workers have followed him. 7. In gastropod literature (e.g. Wenz, 1938, p. 891) the name Jphinoe H. & A. Adams (type species Trichotropis unicarinata Broderip & Sowerby, 1834) is accepted as the name of a genus (or a subgenus of Trichotropis), a taxon with very few species and of restricted distribution. On the other hand, the crustacean genus Jphinoe contains 36 known species widely distributed in the Eastern Atlantic and Indo-West Pacific regions; several of these species have been used in biological, ecological and population studies. It would, therefore, be in the interest of stability to conserve the name Jphinoe for the crustacean genus, thereby avoiding the considerable confusion that would arise from replacing that name by Cyrianassa Bate, 1856. However, the views of malacol- ogists would clearly be of great value to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in reaching a decision and are invited. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815; (b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854; and any use of the name /phinoe prior to its use by Bate, 1856; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Cuma trispinosa Goodsir, 1843; (b) Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Uroctea quinquemaculata Dufour, 1820; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) quinquemaculata Dufour, 1820, as published in the binomen Uroctea quinquemaculata (specific name of the type species of Uroctea Dufour, 1820); (b) trispinosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Cuma trispinosa (specific name of the type species of Iphinoe Bate, 1856); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 269 (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854, as suppressed in (1) (b) above; (c) Halia Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Halia Risso, 1826); (d) Venilia Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Venilia Duponchel, 1829). References Adams, H. & A. 1853-1858. The genera of recent Mollusca arranged according to their organiz- ation, vol. 1, 484 pp; vol. 2, 660 pp. Van Voorst, London. Bate, C.S. 1856a. (June). On the British Diastylidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2) 17: 449-465. Bate, C.S. 1856b. (August). On the British Diastylidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2) 18: 187. Bonnet, P. 1957. Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2, part 3. Pp. 1927-3026. Douladoure, Toulouse. Dufour, L. 1820. Description de cinq Arachnides nouvelles. Annales générales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 5: 198-209. Goodsir, H. D. S. 1843. Description of the genus Cuma, and of two new genera nearly allied to it. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 119-130. Latreille, P. A. 1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, vol. 4. 399 pp. Koenig, Paris and Strasbourg. Newton, R. B. 1891. Systematic list of the Frederick E. Edwards collection of British Oligocene and Eocene Mollusca in the British Museum ( Natural History ), xxviii, 365 pp. British Museum, London. Norman, A. M. 1865. Report on the Crustacea. /n Brady, G. S., Reports of deep sea dredging on the coasts of Northumberland and Durham, 1862-1864. Natural History Transactions of Northumberland and Durham, 1: 12-29. Norman, A. M. 1869. On the Crustacea, Tunicata, Polyzoa, Echinodermata, Actinozoa, Hydrozoa, and Porifera. Shetland final dredging report. Report of the thirty-eighth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: 247-336. Rafinesque, C. S. 1815. Analyse de la Nature, 224 pp. Palermo. Stebbing, T. R. R. 1913. Cumacea (Sympoda). Das Tierreich, 39: i—xvi, 1-210. Wenz, W. 1938. Gastropoda. In Schindewolf, H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6, xii, 1639 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2644 Leucon Kreyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation M. Bacescu Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Sos. Kisselef 1, Bucuresti 79744, Romania 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 generic name Leucon Kreyer, 1846, of cumacean crustaceans by the suppression of the virtually unused senior synonym Leucon Schoenherr, 1834. 1. The generic name Leucon Kroyer, 1846, is widely used in Crustacean literature for a genus of Cumacea and is the type genus of the universally adopted family name LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878. However, Leucon Kreyer, 1846 is a junior homonym of Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, which is an unused name for a genus of Coleoptera. 2. Kroyer (1846, p. 208), in describing the new genus Leucon, included three species, but did not indicate a type species. The first author to do so was G. O. Sars (1879, p. 24) who selected Cuma nasica Kroyer (1841, p. 524), one of the species originally included in Leucon by Kroyer (1846). 3. Since 1846 the name Leucon has been in general use and at present more than 40 species are recognised. Walker (1897a, p. 419) described a new genus, Leuconopsis, with type species, by monotypy, Leuconopsis ensifer Walker, 1897 (p. 419). Leuconopsis ensifer has since been shown to be a junior subjective synonym of Leucon nasica and the name Leuconopsis has never since been used as a valid name except for a single usage by Walker (1897b, p. 227). 4. The family name LEUCONIDAE proposed by Sars (1878, p. 466) has been considered a valid name by all subsequent authors. 5. However, Leucon Kroyer, 1846, is preoccupied by Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 (pp. 285, 286). Schoenherr (1834, p. 285) mentioned the manuscript name Leucon Besser in the synonymy of the genus Alophus and also (p. 286) listed the manuscript name ‘Leucon Boeberi: Dom. Besser in Litteris’ in the synonymy of Alophus leucon Schoenherr, 1834. Leucon Schoenherr has been completely ignored by entomologists; it is not mentioned, even as a synonym, in the Curculionid volumes of Coleopterorum Catalogus and has never been treated as a valid Curculionid genus. However, before 1961 it has been cited at least once (by Hale, 1945, see below) as a senior homonym of Leucon Kroyer, and thus, under Article 11 (e) of the Code, it has been made an available name invalidating Leucon Kroyer. 6. Most Cumacean workers were unaware that Lewcon Kroyer was a junior homonym and continued to use that name. The few who noticed the homonymy ignored it. Hale (1945, p. 86) remarked: ‘Kroyer’s name has been long quoted for this Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 271 widely distributed Cumacean genus and the discarding of Leucon because it has been used in Besser MS. (Schoenherr, 1834, Gen. Curc., 2, (1), pp. 285, 286) for the Coleoptera would serve no useful purpose’. Cumacean workers did not contest this incorrect interpretation of the Rules. The present situation is that Leucon Schoenherr is an unused senior homonym of Leucon Kroyer, which is a much used and important name in Cumacea. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, and any use of that name prior to Leucon Kroyer, 1846 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Sars (1879) Cuma nasica Kroyer, 1841: (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nasica Kroyer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma nasica (specific name of the type species of Leucon Kroyer, 1846): (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (type genus Leucon Kroyer, 1846); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, as suppressed in (1) above. References Hale, H. M. 1945. The family Leuconidae. Australian Cumacea, No. 10. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 69: 86-95. Kroyer, H. 1841. Fire nye Arter af Slaegten Cuma Edw. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (1) 3: 503-534. Kreyer, H. 1846. Karcinologiske Bidrag (Fortsaettelse). Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, n. ser., 2: 1-211. Sars, G. O. 1878. Middelhavets Cumaceer. Nye Bidrag til Kundskaben om Middelhavets Invertebratfauna II. Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab, 3: 461—512. Sars, G. O. 1879. Middelhavets Cumaceer. Nye Bidrag til Kundskaben om Middelhavets Invertebratfauna II. (Fortsaettelse). Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab, 4: 1-144. Schoenherr, G. J. 1834. Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 2, part 1, 326 pp., Roret, Parisiis and Fleischer, Lipsiae. Walker, A. O. 1897a. Crustacea Malacostraca of the Isle of Man. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 66: 419—420. Walker, A. O. 1897b. On some new species of Edriophthalma from the Irish seas. Journal of the Linnean Society, London (Zoology), 26: 226-232. 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2651 Aleuropteryx Léw, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalek, 1894 as the type species John D. Oswald Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0999, U.S.A. Martin Meinander Zoologiska Institutionen, Helsingfors Universitet, N. Jarnvdgsgatan 13, SF-00100, Helsingfors, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the nominal species Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalek, 1894 as the type species of the “dustywing’ genus Aleuropteryx Léw, 1885, since the original type (by monotypy), Coniopteryx lutea Wallengren, 1871, was based on misidentified material. The proposed designation is in accordance with the usage of the last 80 years. 1. The coniopterygid genus Aleuropteryx was erected by Léw in 1885 (p. 74), and based on specimens of a single species from ‘Nieder-Osterreich’ which Low misident- ified as Coniopteryx lutea Wallengren, 1871 (p. 55). Under a strict interpretation of Article 68d of the Code, C. lutea Wallengren, 1871, the incorrectly identified but only included nominal species, was thereby fixed as the type species. 2. Klapalek (1894, p. 121) was the first to recognize that Low had misidentified his specimens and (p. 122) proposed the new name Aleuropteryx léwii (specific name later ‘corrected’ to /oewii) for Aleuropteryx lutea sensu Low, 1885. Comprehensive revisions of the family CONIOPTERYGIDAE (Burmeister, 1839; type genus Coniopteryx Curtis, 1834) by Enderlein (1906) and Meinander (1972) have subsequently confirmed Klapa- lek’s actions, and the type species of Aleuropteryx requires action by the Commission under Article 70b. 3. Enderlein (1905) made A/europteryx the type genus of the subfamily ALEUROPTER- YGINAE (p. 225) and the tribe ALEUROPTERYGINI (p. 226) and incorrectly cited (p. 226) ‘A. Léwi[sic] Klap.’ as the type species of Aleuropteryx. Aleuropteryx loewii (as A. léwi, lowii, loewi or loewii) has subsequently been uniformly adopted as the type species of Aleuropteryx (for several important recent citations see Meinander, 1972, p. 37; Aspock, Aspéck & Hélzel, 1980, p. 139; and Johnson, [1981], p. 267). 4. Enderlein (1905, p. 226) also erected the genus Helicoconis, designating Conio- pteryx lutea Wallengren, 1871 as its type species and thus rendering it an objective synonym of Aleuropteryx under Article 67k of the Code. Fontenellea maroccana Carpentier & Lestage, 1928 (p. 156) is currently considered to be in the genus Helico- conis. F. maroccana is the type species of the now invalid genus Fontenellea Carpentier Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 273 & Lestage, 1928 (a subjective synonym of Helicoconis), which is the basis of the presently valid tribe FONTENELLEINI Carpentier & Lestage, 1928 (p. 153, as FONTENELLEINAE). 5. In the interest of stability in coniopterygid nomenclature we strongly recommend the conservation of A. /oewii as the type species of Aleuropteryx in order to remove the objective synonymy of A/europteryx Low, 1885 with Helicoconis Enderlein, 1905. In adopting this position we find the following facts compelling: (1) for the past 80 years A. loewii has been universally accepted as the type species of Aleuropteryx; (2) the coniopterygid family-group names ALEUROPTERYGINAE and ALEUROPTERYGINI were both founded on Aleuropteryx with the assumed type species A. loewii; (3) A. loewii is conspecific with the original specimen used by L6w as the basis of the genus Aleuropteryx, while Coniopteryx lutea Wallengren is currently not considered even congeneric with A. loewii; (4) most importantly, failure to conserve A. Joewii as the type species of Aleuropteryx would require it to be replaced with Coniopteryx lutea Wallengren and result in the following disruptive changes in coniopterygid nomenclature: (a) Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 would become a senior objective synonym of Helico- conis Enderlein, 1905, requiring new combinations for the 24 valid species presently placed in Helicoconis (only 2 of these species were originally described in, or have subsequently been placed in combination with, Aleuropteryx); (b) a new replacement generic name would be required for the existing concept of Aleuropteryx (based on A. Joewii) since this concept has no synonyms; this would necessitate new combinations for each of the 30 valid species currently placed in Aleuropteryx; (c) the now valid tribal name ALEUROPTERYGINI Enderlein, 1905 would become a senior subjective synonym of the valid tribal name FONTENELLEINI Carpentier & Lestage, 1928; (d) a new replacement family-group name would be required for the existing concept of the ALEUROPTERYGINI (based on Aleuropteryx with A. loewii as the type) since this concept has no synonyms. 6. Since, as shown in para. 5 (4) (c) and (d) above, the original misidentification of the type threatens the stability of family-group names, this case also requires action under Article 41. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 and to designate Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalek, 1894 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Aleuropteryx Loéw, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Aleuro- pteryx loewii Klapalek, 1894; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /Joewii Klapalek, 1894, as published in the binomen Aleuropteryx loewii (mandatory correction of Léwii; specific name of the type species of Aleuropteryx Low, 1885); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905, type genus Aleuropteryx Low, 1885. 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 References Aspock, H., Aspéck, U. & Holzel, H. 1980. Die Neuropteren Europas, vol. 1. 495 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. Burmeister, C. H. C. 1839. Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 2, 1050 pp. + [iv]. Enslin, Berlin. Carpentier, F. & Lestage, J. A. 1928. Une sous-famille nouvelle (Fontenelleinae) du groupe des Coniopterygoidea Till. Recueil de l'Institut Zoologique Torley—Rousseau, 1: 153-172. Curtis, J. 1834. British Entomology, vol. 11. 529 pls.+ descriptions. Taylor, London. Enderlein, G. 1905. Klassifikation der Neuropteren-Familie Coniopterygidae. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 29: 225—227. Enderlein, G. 1906. Monographie der Coniopterygiden. Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Abt. Systema- tik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere), 23: 173-242. Johnson, V. [1981] 1980. Review of the Coniopterygidae (Neuroptera) of North America with a revision of the genus A/europteryx. Psyche, 87: 259-298. [Psyche volume 87 (for 1980), no. 34, was mailed 31 August 1981, see inside front cover of vol. 88, no. 1—2]. Klapalek, F. 1894. Is Aleuropteryx lutea, Low, identical with Coniopteryx lutea Wallg.? Entomo- logist’s Monthly Magazine, 30: 121-122. Léw, F. 1885. Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Coniopterygiden. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Abt. 1), 91: 73-89. Meinander, M. 1972. A revision of the family Coniopterygidae (Planipennia). Acta Zoologica Fennica, 136: 1-357. Wallengren, H. D. J. 1871. Skandinaviens Neuroptera. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps- Akademiens Handlingar, (N.F.) 9(8): 1-76. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 275 Case 2655 Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera): proposed conservation by the confirmation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera) John D. Oswald Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-0999, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the well-established megalopteran generic name Sialis Latreille, 1802, by the suppression of an early but overlooked type species designation for Semblis Fabricius, 1775, currently placed in Trichoptera but which would otherwise be a senior objective synonym of Sialis. 1. The nominal genus Semblis was proposed by Fabricius, 1775 (p. 305) for four Linnaean species now placed in three insect orders (see Table 1). No type species was fixed. Table 1. Species originally placed in Semblis and their current dispositions Original name Current name Order Reference Phryganea phalaenoides Semblis phalaenoides Trichoptera Fischer Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 547) (1964, p. 78) Phryganea bicaudata Diura bicaudata Plecoptera _Illies Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 548) (1966, p. 381) Phryganea nebulosa Taeniopteryx nebulosa__Plecoptera __Illies Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 549) (1966, p. 73) Hemerobius lutarius Sialis lutaria Megaloptera Vshivkova Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 550) (1985, p. 87) 2. Until recently the oldest known type species designation for Semblis was that of Van der Weele (1910, p. 55), who designated the first species listed by Fabricius in Semblis, i.e. Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 (as ‘Neuronia phalaenoides L.”’). This designation places Semblis in the order Trichoptera, and was independently repeated by Milne (1934, p. 8). Fischer (1964, p. 73) treated Semblis as a valid trichopt- eran genus with three species. Neave (1940, p. 169), without indicating a type species, incorrectly attributed Semblis to the order Plecoptera. 3. Recently it was discovered that Blanchard ([1848], p. 539) had much earlier designated Hemerobius lutarius Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Semblis (“SEMBLIS ... Le type du genre est commun dans notre pays; c’est le SEMBLIS DE LA BOUE, Semblis lutarius (Hemerobius lutarius Lin.)’). Blanchard’s designation clearly has priority over that of Van der Weele and, if allowed to remain valid, will render Semblis a senior objective synonym of the megalopteran genus Sialis Latreille, 1802 (p. 290; type species Hemerobius lutarius Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy). This circumstance is very undesirable for the reasons given below. 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 4. Sialisis one of the oldest generic names in the order Megaloptera, and is probably the most universally known. The genus Sialis currently contains approximately 45 species which are widely distributed throughout North America, Europe, Asia and northern Africa. For more than 150 years Sialis has been considered a valid generic name in all taxonomic and morphological literature pertaining to the Megaloptera. In addition, because the aquatic larvae of species of this genus are common components of many freshwater biotas, the name Sialis has become deeply entrenched in the diverse and voluminous literature on aquatic entomology. Further contributing to the ubiquity of the name Sialis has been its use as the root of most later generic names (1.¢., Austrosialis, Haplosialis, Indosialis, Leptosialis, Nipponosialis, Protosialis and Steno- sialis) proposed in the family sIALIDAE, of which Sialis is the type genus. Allowing Blanchard’s long-overlooked type species designation to force the replacement of the old and universally accepted Megalopteran name Sialis will not promote nomen- clatural stability. On the contrary, its replacement would meet strong resistance and initiate a protracted and needless period of nomenclatural confusion concerning its use. For all these reasons, conservation of the name Sialis is here recommended in the strongest possible terms. 5. Acceptance of Blanchard’s designation of Hemerobius lutarius Linnaeus as the type species of Semblis would also require this name to be replaced in the Trichoptera. 6. Ipropose that the Commission use its plenary powers to adopt Phryganea phalae- noides Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Semblis. This would allow the continuity of both Semblis and Sialis as valid names. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Semblis Fabricius, 1775 prior to that of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 by Van der Weele (1910); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Van der Weele (1910), Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Sialis Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Hemerobius lutarius Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phryganea phalaenoides (specific name of the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775); (b) Jutarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hemerobius lutarius (specific name of the type species of Sialis Latreille, 1802). Acknowledgements I thank Drs O. S. Flint, Jr, J. K. Liebherr, N. D. Penny and C. W. Sabrosky for offering comments on an earlier draft of this application. References Blanchard, E. [1848]. Semblis. In d’Orbigny, C. (Ed.), Dictionnaire universel d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 11,816 pp. Renard, Martinet et Cie., Paris. [For dates of publication of the Dictionnaire see Sherborn, C. D. & Palmer, T. S. 1899. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)3: 350-352]. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 277 Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae . . . xxxii, 832 pp. Libraria Koltii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae. Fischer, F.C. J. 1964. Trichopterorum C atalogus, vol. 5,214 pp. Nederlandsche Entomologische Vereeniging, Amsterdam. Iilies, J. 1966. Katalog der rezenten Plecoptera. Das Tierreich, Lief. 82, 631 pp. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Latreille, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des C. rustacés et des Insectes, vol. 3, 467 pp. Dufart, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salviae, Holmiae. Milne, L. J. 1934. Studies in North American Trichoptera, 1,19 pp. Privately printed, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Neave, S. A. 1940. (Ed.) Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 4, 758 pp. Zoological Society of London. Van der Weele, H. W. 1910. Megaloptera. Collections Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys Longchamps. Catalogue Systématique et Descriptif, fasc. 5, pp. 1-93. Vshivkova, T. S. 1985. Sialidae (Megaloptera) of Europe and the Caucasus. [In Russian]. Entomologicheskoe Obozreni, 64: 146-157. [English translation: Entomological Review, 64(2): 86-98.] 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2585 Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of type species Hans Silfverberg Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Entomologiska Avdelningen, N. Jarnvadgsgatan 13, SF-00100 Helsingfors 10, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to retain the names for the ground beetle genera Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 in their accustomed usage by designation of Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 as their respective type species. 1. Dejean (1821) introduced a number of generic names in the CARABIDAE. These names were recently reviewed (Silfverberg, 1983), and in most cases no nomenclatural problems arise. Ophonus (p. 13) and Tachys (p. 16) are however exceptions. 2. The first valid designation of type species for Ophonus was Carabus germanus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 415), designated by Curtis (1827, table 191). Unfortunately this type designation makes Ophonus a senior objective synonym of Diachromus Erichson, 1837 (p. 43). Noonan (1976) suggested that Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 (p. 4) be accepted as type species of Ophonus but he made no formal application. 3. For Tachys the generally accepted type species is Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 (p. 5) by subsequent designation by Hope, 1838 (p. 61). This species was not originally included, but all those available species that were listed by Dejean are now included in other genera and any choice among them would lead to confusion (cf. Erwin, 1974). 4. Current use of Ophonus and Tachys is, since Jeannel (1941-42), consistent with Carabus sabulicola and Tachys scutellaris respectively as type species. A list of refer- ences is held by the Commission Secretariat. To upset this long standing usage would not serve stability but merely create confusion. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all previous type designations made for the nominal genus Ophonus Dejean, 1821, and to designate Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 as type species; (b) to set aside all previous type designations made for the nominal genus Tachys Dejean, 1821, and to designate Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 as type species; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) (a) above, Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796; (b) Tachys Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) (b) above, Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828; ee a eS ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 279 (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) sabulicola Panzer, 1796, as published in the binomen Carabus sabulicola (specific name of the type species of Ophonus Dejean, 1821); (b) scutellaris Stephens, 1828, as published in the binomen Tachys scutellaris (specific name of the type species of Tachys Dejean, 1821). References Curtis, J. 1827. British Entomology, vol. 4, tabs. 147-192. London. Dejean, P. F. M. A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean. 136 pp. Paris. Erichson, W. F. 1837. Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg, vol. 1, part 1. 384 pp. Morin, Berlin. Erwin, T. L. 1974. Studies of the subtribe Tachyini (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Bembidiini). Supplement A: Lectotype designation for New World species, two new genera, and notes on generic concepts. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 76: 123-155. Hope, F. W. 1838. The Coleopterist’s Manual, part 2. xvi, 168 pp. Bohn, London. Jeannel, R. 1941-42. Coléoptéres Carabiques. Faune de France, vol. 39: pp. 1-571; vol. 40: pp. 573-1173. Lechevalier, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Noonan, G. R. 1976. Synopsis of the supra-specific taxa of the tribe Harpalini (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae, 12: 3-87. Panzer, G. W. F. 1796. Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia. Pars 30. 24 pp. Niirnberg. Silfverberg, H. 1983. Coleopteran genera of Dejean, 1821. I. Carabidae. Annales Entomologici Fennici, 49: 115-116. ‘ Stephens, J. F. 1828-29. Illustrations of British Entomology. Mandibulata, vol. 2. 200 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2623 Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the names carthami and major R. de Jong Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Skipper butterfly specific names carthami Hibner, [1813] and major Staudinger, 1879 by suppression of the senior name maior. 1. In 1787 (p. 91) Fabricius described a Skipper butterfly which he considered a variety of Papilio fritillum Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 under the name ‘Papilio Maluae maior’. Possibly he did not use the combination ‘Papilio fritillum maior’ because he wanted to contrast his variety with Papilio malvae minor Esper, 1777, which he listed as a synonym of Papilio fritillum. The type of Fabricius’ maior appears to be lost; it is not mentioned by Zimsen (1964). 2. Apparently Denis & Schiffermiiller (1775, p. 159) united several species under the name Papilio fritillum. This was already known by Ochsenheimer (1808, p. 203), who had seen that about four different species were placed under this name in the Schiffermiiller collection. Because Fabricius listed Papilio malvae minor Esper as a synonym of Papilio fritillum, he used the latter name in the sense of Papilio (now Pyrgus) malvae Linnaeus, 1758, which name refers without doubt to the same species as Papilio malvae minor. Thus Fabricius’ description must be compared with Pyrgus malvae (known in English as the Grizzled Skipper). I have shown (De Jong, 1987, pp. 376-377) that Fabricius’ description of maior and his reference to Esper (1777, pl. 23, fig. 2) can only relate to the species that was named Papilio carthami by Hubner ({1813], pl. 143). 3. After the original description of maior the name has merely been mentioned, by the following authors: Fabricius (1793: copy of the original description); Ochsenheimer (1808, p. 202: name attributed to Esper and synonymised with ‘Papilio tessellum Hiibner’ (p. 70) which in the sense of Ochsenheimer is the same as Papilio carthami Hiibner); Evans (1949, p. 199: as a junior synonym of Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, which he considered a synonym of Papilio carthami Hiibner, see below); De Jong (1972, p. 70: as a synonym of Papilio carthami Hiibner); and Leraut (1980: in the same sense as Evans). So far maior Fabricius has never been used as a valid specific name. 4. The species described by Fabricius as Papilio malvae maior has been known as Papilio (now Pyrgus) carthami Hiibner, ever since the publication of Hibner’s [1813] good figure of it. Since Hemming (1943, p. 69) the name Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761 (a nomen dubium) also came into use for this species. I have shown (De Jong, 1987, pp. 372-376) this to be incorrect. Thus the valid name for the species is Pyrgus maior (Fabricius, 1787), a name never used as such in literature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 281 5. Staudinger (1879, p. 292) described a geographic form of Pyrgus serratulae Rambur, 1839 (p. 318, pl. 8, fig 9m) from Asia Minor under the name Syrichthus serratulae major. This form belongs to a group of geographical forms occupying the eastern part of the range of the species. Six or seven subspecies can be distinguished in this group (De Jong, 1972, pp. 67-73). Of the available names within the group, major Staudinger is the oldest one, so lumping of the eastern forms into a single subspecies would not cause the name to disappear into synonymy. Staudinger’s name has been used for the Turkish form of Pyrgus serratulae by all subsequent authors on Pyrgus serratulae from Turkey (Alberti, 1969, p. 141; De Jong, 1972, p. 71; Higgins, 1966, p. 220; Warren, 1926, p. 164), but Evans (1949, p. 197) used the name uralensis Warren, 1926 for the whole of the eastern group because Staudinger’s major is a junior secondary homonym of the maior of Fabricius. 6. The acceptance of maior Fabricius as a specific name would (a) invalidate the generally accepted name Pyrgus carthami (Hubner) by sinking it into synonymy, and (b) for reasons of homonymy (Article 58 of the Code) necessitate a replacement name for major Staudinger for the Turkish form of this species. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published in the trinomen Papilio malvae maior, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principal of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) carthami Hubner, [1813], as published in the binomen Papilio carthami; (b) major Staudinger, 1879, as published in the trinomen Syrichthus serratulae major; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published in the trinomen Papilio malvae maior and as suppressed in (1) above. References Alberti, B. 1969. Zur Kenntnis der Hesperiiden—Fauna des Kaukasus—Raumes und Armeniens (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 2: 129-147. De Jong, R. 1972. Systematics and Geographic History of the Genus Pyrgus in the palaearctic Region (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 115: 1-121. De Jong, R. 1987. Cutting the Nomenclatural Gordian Knot around Pyrgus carthami (Hubner) (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 61: 371-385. Denis, M. & Schiffermiiller, I. 1775. Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend. 322 pp., 2 pls. Bernardi, Wien. Esper, E. J. C. 1777. Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der natur mit Beschreibungen. 1. Theil. Europaische Gattungen. 384 pp., 48 pls. Walthers, Erlangen. Evans, W. H. 1949. A Catalogue of the Hesperiidae from Europe, Asia and Australia in the British Museum (Natural History). xix, 502 pp., 52 pls. British Museum (Natural History), London. Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2. 382 pp. Proft, Hafniae. Fabricius, J. C. 1793. Entomologia systematica, vol. 3. 487 pp. Proft, Hafniae. Hemming, F. 1943. On certain minor corrections made in the report submitted by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1: 64—69. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Higgins, L. G. 1966. Checklist of Turkish Butterflies. The Entomologist, 99: 209-222. Hiibner, J. [1808-1813]. Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge. Papiliones, pls. 129-144. Augsburg. Leéraut, P. 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique et Corse. Alexanor, 11: suppl. 1-334. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Ochsenheimer, F. 1808. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 1(2), xxx, 240 pp. Fleischer Jr., Leipzig. Poda, N. 1761. Insecta Musei Graecensis. 139 pp. Widmanstad, Graz. Rambur, P. 1839. Faune entomologique de I’ Andalousie, vol. 3, pp. 213-336, pl. 8-18. Bertrand, Paris. Staudinger, O. 1879. Lepidopteren—Fauna Kleinasien’s. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 14: 176—482. Warren, B. C. S. 1926. Monograph of the tribe Hesperiidi (European species) with revised classification of the subfamily Hesperiinae (Palaearctic species) based on the genital arma- ture of the males. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 74: 1-170, 60 pls. Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of J. C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 283 Case 2654 Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy, (1826): proposed nomenclatural suppression Curtis W. Sabrosky Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the maintenance of stability in the nomenclature of Muscoid (higher) flies by the suppression of a report to the Académie Royale des Sciences (Paris) on the manuscript of J. B. Robineau-Desvoidy’s 1830 Essai sur les Myodaires. At present the availability of names in the 1826 Rapport is uncertain. 1. It is desirable to clarify the nomenclatural status of the work entitled Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy* (1826), which was written by a commission of the Académie Royale des Sciences consisting of Latreille, Duméril, and de Blainville (Rapporteur). The Rapport was read in the meeting of the Académie of 2 October 1826, as stated in the small printed version of 24 pages. It has been referred to only rarely in the published literature, and questions have arisen as to whether it was published in the meaning of the Code. The Rapport is printed, but at that period printing was the means of making numerous copies. On the face of it, this is an ‘in- house’ report for the members of the Académie on the suitability of the manuscript of Robineau-Desvoidy’s Essai sur les Myodaires (1830) for publication by the Académie, and was not intended as a separate publication for permanent scientific record. Indeed, it contains suggestions for changes that should be made. To remove the uncertainty and to avoid confusion and serious problems, I propose that the Commission place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. 2. Robineau-Desvoidy’s great work Essai sur les Myodaires was published in 1830 by the Académie Royale des Sciences. The manuscript was submitted to the Académie at its meeting of 28 August 1826, and the commission referred to was charged with examining it and rendering judgment on it. The Rapport is their report, in some detail. In reviewing the manuscript they discussed by name, both vernacular and scientific, the various families and tribes, mentioning some included genera and species and noting types in a few instances, and these items give rise to some nomenclatural problems. The commission also made suggestions, such as changing some of the names, and obviously some revisions were made before the publication of the book in 1830. Some of the names of 1826 do not appear again, and the author considerably reduced the number of tribes recognized. The commission closed the Rapport by recommending that the work be published ‘dans le recueil des Savans étrangers’ and further proposed to the Académie ‘d’en faciliter et d’en accélérer la publication par tous les moyens qui sont a votre disposition.” *In the Rapport Robineau-Desvoidy is written without a hyphen. 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 3. The numerous and important generic names proposed by Robineau-Desvoidy in his Essai have always been credited to the 1830 work. The names are so cited in the generic nomenclators of Agassiz, Scudder, Schulze, and in the Index Animalium of Sherborn, and the 1826 work is not mentioned. I know of no family or generic name or type designation credited to it, and its recognition now, over a century and a half later, would involve some difficult or potentially serious problems. The following paragraphs analyse the names and what would be involved if the Rapport were to be considered published in the meaning of the Code. 4. Authorship and date. If dated from 1826, the names might arguably be credited to de Blainville, or with the awkward citations de Blainville, Duméril and Latreille, or Robineau-Desvoidy in de Blainville et al. If the Rapport were suppressed, authorship and date would remain Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, which agrees with universal usage. 5. Family-group names. These might date from the 1826 work, because for that time they required only formation from ‘the name then valid for a contained genus’ (Code, Article 11f). In what he called the ‘ordre’ Myodariae, Robineau-Desvoidy (1826, as quoted in the Rapport) included 10 families and 41 tribes, with both vernacular and latinized spelling given. (a) Thirty-five of the 51 family-group names are not based on generic names and thus have no standing whatever in nomenclature. They are often descriptive terms plus a group ending, e.g. Aciphoreae for those with horny pointed ovipositors. Most of these names were also used in the 1830 work. (b) Eleven family-group names are based on generic names, judging from included species that can be associated with generic names by comparison with the 1830 work. However, the 11 generic names are not mentioned in the 1826 work and were not established until the 1830 Essai. Thus these group names have no nomenclatural standing as of 1826. For the record, these are Aricinae, Macromydae, Pherbelliaeae, Limosellae, Hylemydae, Pegomydae, Terhenidae, Napeellae, Myodinae, Theliodomyae, and Hydrellideae. (c) Two family-group names are based on older generic names and hence would have standing from 1826, but they are antedated by earlier versions of the same names and thus cause no problem. Muscidae is antedated by Muscides Latreille, 1802, and Phytomydae by Phytomyzides Fallén, 1823. (d) One family-group name, Scatophaginae, was obviously (from a cited species) based on Scatophaga Meigen, 1803 (actually Scathophaga; the error or emend- ation Scatophaga by Fabricius (1805) has been commonly used). The generic name was not mentioned in 1826 but the group name could be dated from the 1826 work rather than from 1830 because of the ‘inference in context’ to Scatophaga (Code, Article 11f(i)1). (e) Finally, for two family-group names the type genus is mentioned, and these names would date from the 1826 Rapport if it were considered published; if not they will date from Robineau-Desvoidy (1830) as customarily credited. Both could cause upsets in established usage: Ocypteratae: Robineau-Desvoidy noted that his group corresponded to Ocyptera of Fabricius, but the genus was actually published by Latreille in 1804. In both Latreille and Fabricius it was a mixture of two quite different groups now placed in TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, and later type designation restricted the name to a genus now known as Eriothrix Meigen, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 285 1803, with Ocyptera in synonymy, in a tribe ERIOTHRIXINI which dates from the 20th century. If the 1826 work were considered published, Ocypteratae (as OCYPTERIDIDAE) would antedate not only ERIOTHRIXINI (although the latter could be valid under Article 40b) but also TACHINIDAE itself. Phasianae: The genus Phasia dates from Latreille (1804), although Robineau-Desvoidy said his group was based on Phasia of Fabricius, adopted by Meigen. In any event, the same genus is involved. The 1826 work has the oldest name for the group, which has been variously called tribe, subfamily, or family; it is currently a subfamily of TACHINIDAE. If dated from 1826, PHASIIDAE would have priority over the important family name TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, for the parasitic higher Diptera. In the Essai, the spelling was Phasianeae, only slightly different from 1826. 6. Generic names are used only sparingly in the Rapport, and many of those are older names such as Echinomya, Musca, Ocyptera, and Tachina. Some hitherto unpublished names are mentioned but without description or included species; these are nomina nuda and need not concern us further. In a few cases, however, older species are associated with the generic name, either as designated type species or the only included species, and such association would either make the generic name available or cause possible trouble from the type designation, if the 1826 work were considered published. These are as follows: (a) (b) (c) a Tachina (p. 11): ‘“G. Tachina de Fabricius, ayant le Musca rotundata pour type’. This is no problem. Tachina dates from Meigen, 1803, and rotundata was not one of the three originally included nominal species. Myophore (p. 11) was associated with three older nominal species, and also with a description, which might have been that of the tribe Theramydae. Myophore may have been intended as a vernacular, even though italicized. The genus appeared as Myophora in the 1830 work, perhaps a correction recommended by the commission, and recognition of the 1826 work would require a slight but annoying change in the spelling. It is currently a synonym of Sarcophaga Meigen, 1826, and there would be a question of priority between Meigen (1826) and Robineau-Desvoidy (1826), which conceivably might threaten the long-used and important name Sarcophaga. The date of the preface in Meigen, which is two months earlier than the meeting of the Académie, suggests that Meigen’s work could have appeared earlier, but that is not certain. Stygia (p. 11) is based on the Linnaean species Musca meridiana. There is no problem here. Stygia is preoccupied (in Lepidoptera, by Stygia Latreille, 1803), and Meigen in 1826 had proposed the well-known name Mesembrina to include the same species. Apparently Robineau-Desvoidy recognised or was told of the homonymy; at least in the 1830 Essai he adopted Meigen’s generic name Mesembrina. Stygia does not appear again. Pollenia (p. 11): ‘Le Musca alteralibis est le type de son G. Pollenia.’ In 1830, Robineau-Desvoidy designated Musca rudis Fabricius as type species of Pollenia, and this has long been recognised. The name Musca alteralibis has not been found anywhere else, and it does not appear in the 1830 Essai. It might have been a lapsus for Musca alterabilis Gmelin, 1790. Except for a listing of the latter in Sherborn’s Index Animalium, and a mention of it in 286 (e) (f) (g) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 1802, neither name has been found in the literature. If the 1826 work were accepted as published, the status of Pollenia might be a serious problem. If alteralibis were considered a manuscript name of Robineau-Desvoidy, then it and Pollenia are nomina nuda in 1826, and there would be no threat. But, if alteralibis were considered merely a lapsus for alterabilis Gmelin, which is possible, even probable, then Pollenia would be an available name in 1826 but based on a nomen dubium. Suppression of the 1826 paper would remove all doubts and uncertainties, thus dating Pollenia from the 1830 work in conformity with universal and long-standing usage. The name Pollenia is widely recognised for the common cluster flies and as the basis for tribal and subfamily names in the blow fly family CALLIPHORIDAE. Calliphora (p. 11): ‘Le Musca vomitoria constitue le G. Calliphora.’ Recog- nition of the 1826 paper would give availability to Calliphora as of that date, by indication, with type species by monotypy. This would cause no problem, because in the Essai Robineau-Desvoidy designated M. vomitoria as type species. Chrysomya (p. 11): “Dans celui quil nomme Chrysomya se trouvent la brillante Mouche César.” In 1830 Robineau-Desvoidy proposed Chrysomya and Lucilia as neighboring genera, with Musca caesar Linnaeus as type species of Lucilia, and these widespread and important genera have been so recognised ever since. If the Rapport were construed as associating caesar with Chrysomya, then Chrysomya would have availability from 1826 and this would seriously confuse the genera in CALLIPHORIDAE. Chrysomya was neither described nor diagnosed in 1826, but before 1931 a generic name might have been made available by indication. Fortunately, the Code requires for indication by inclusion of species that ‘one or more available species-group names’ must be included (Code, Article 12b(5)), and Article 12c specifically excludes vernacu- lar names. A question might still be raised whether ‘la brillante’ is acceptable— however marginally—as descriptive matter, or even whether the vernacular reference to an existing specific name could be construed as a reference to an existing description. Marginal and suspect as these considerations admittedly are, any uncertainty would be removed by suppression of the Rapport. Biomye (p. 11) was said to contain a fly that annoyed large quadrupeds and that Robineau-Desvoidy named B. stimulans. The generic name, although italicised, might have been intended as a vernacular, but like Myophore one cannot be sure. It was published as Biomya in 1830. There is no problem, however, because B. stimulans was not described until 1830, and both Biomya and stimulans are nomina nuda in 1826. On the face of it, Robineau-Desvoidy does not appear to be referring to Stomoxys stimulans Meigen, 1824, as he does not cite this species, either in 1826 or 1830. 7. Three generic names appear to be associated with descriptive matter in the 1826 Rapport, and thus they would be available names, even though no nominal species are mentioned with them. (a) Voidia (p. 10: °.. . les espéces du G. Voidia paraissent propres a Paris.’) Then the following sentence contains a description of the antennae, calypteres, and body. This description appears from its position to be a description of Voidia, although comparison with other entries suggests that it is actually a descript- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 287 ion of the tribe Lepidomydae. This generic name was not used in the 1830 work, but laborious comparison might show what name was adopted there, and what name might be upset if the 1826 work were considered published. Phorophylla (p. 10). There is a brief descriptive statement associated with the name: ‘que M. Desvoidy a admis deux paires de palpes inférieurs.’ This is brief but sufficient, weak as it is, to make the name available if the work were : considered published. Phorophylla would thus antedate the 1830 publication of the name and would have priority over the currently used name Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, for a genus of TACHINIDAE. (c) Elaimya(p. 17): The genus itselfis not described but it is the only generic name mentioned with the description of the tribe: ‘Les Myodines [MYODINAE] ne different de la tribu précédente, que par la plus grande longueur du troisiéme article antennaire, et par la soie ordinairement nue. C’est décidément cette tribu qui comprend la mouche d’olivier [the olive fruit fly, Dacus oleae (Gmelin)], dont M. Robineau fait le G. Elaimya.’ The citation of a vernacular species name does not confer availability on the generic name Elaimya but association with descriptive material can do so. Elaimya was not mentioned in the 1830 Essai. 8. There are enough problems and uncertainties in connection with the 1826 Rapport, involving some very important genera in the calyptrate Diptera, that the simplest and most direct solution is to suppress it or to declare it a work unpublished in the meaning of the Code. Otherwise, individual applications would have to be prepared on various genera. Robineau-Desvoidy’s reputation rests justly on his great work of 1830 and should not be affected and confused by the ‘in-house’ report of a publications committee. 9. Although I believe that the Rapport could reasonably be interpreted as unpub- lished in the meaning of the Code (Article 8a), its formal suppression for nomenclatural purposes would be better if there exists any uncertainty or difference of opinion about the availability of the names published in it. 10. This application is supported by R. W. Crosskey, Neal L. Evenhuis, Wayne N. Mathis, A. C. Pont and F. C. Thompson. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the follow- ing work: Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H. M. D. de Blainville, Rapporteur), Académie Royale des Sciences de I’Institut de France, Paris, 1826. (2) to place the above work, as suppressed in (1), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. (b — References Académie Royale des Sciences de I’Institut de France. 1826. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H. M. D. de Blainville, Rapporteur), 24 pp. Paris. Robineau-Desvoidy, J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savans a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, sér 2, vol. 2, 813 pp. Imprimerie Royale, Paris. 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Case 2629 Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation David Rosen & Tova Rivnay The Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76100, Israel Gennaro Viggiani Istituto di Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’, 80055 Portici, Italy Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the chalcid fly name Physcus Howard, 1895 (APHELINIDAE) by the suppression of the possible senior subjective synonym Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. 1. Ratzeburg (1852, pp. 195-196) described Coccobius (p. 195) with five new species, annulicornis (p. 195), pallidus, circumscriptus, luteus and notatus, all of which were regarded by subsequent authors as belonging to various other aphelinid genera. 2. Howard (1895, p. 10) transferred notatus to Coccophagus Westwood, 1833 and pallidus to Aphelinus Dalman, 1820 and stated that ‘The position of the remaining three is doubtful, but I should not be surprised if it were eventually ascertained that annulicornis belongs to Physcus, circumscriptus to Prospalta [= Encarsia Forster] and luteus to Ablerus [Howard].’ 3. Inthe same paper Howard (1895, p. 43) described the genus Physcus, with Cocco- phagus varicornis Howard, 1881 (p. 360) as type species. More than 50 species have since been described in this genus, which ‘is rather distinctive and is not likely to be confused with any other aphelinid genus’ (Hayat, 1984, p. 291). 4. Ashmead (1900, p. 408) made the following statement: ‘Ratzeburg, in his original description of this genus [Coccobius], as has been shown by Dr Howard, confused with it a number of species belonging to Aphelinus or allied genera; but, nevertheless, he must have had before him at least one genuine Encyrtine, as his figure, both of venation and antenna, clearly shows; and I here restore the name for a species agreeing in all particulars with his brief diagnosis and his figure. No Aphelinine has a wing- venation as figured by Ratzeburg.’ He then described Coccobius diaspidis Ashmead. Subsequently, Girault (1917, p. 6) synonymized Arrhenophagus albipes Girault, an encyrtid, with Ashmead’s species. Coccobius diaspidis is currently recognised as a. junior synonym of Arrhenophagus chionaspidis Aurivillius, 1888 (see Gordh, 1979, p. 929). 5. Both Dalla Torre (1898, p. 219) and Schmiedeknecht (1909, p. 451), on the other hand, regarded Coccobius Ratzeburg as a synonym of Aphelinus Dalman, and included all five of Ratzeburg’s species under that generic name. Schmiedeknecht (1909, pp. 258-259) disagreed with Ashmead’s interpretation of Coccobius as an encyrtid, but retained diaspidis as the only species under that generic name. Mercet (1912, p. 50), too, regarded Coccobius (‘in part’) as a synonym of Aphelinus. However, he disagreed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 289 with Howard’s suggestion as to the position of annulicornis, stating that ‘Ratzeburg’s description does not permit to determine with certainty to which genus this insect belongs.’ (Mercet, 1912, p. 93). 6. Gahan & Fagan (1923, p. 37) inexplicably resurrected Ratzeburg’s original Coccobius, disregarded Ashmead’s species, and designated annulicornis as type species, because this *... is the first species named by Ratzeburg and has not been definitely transferred. ...’ In doing so they chose to disregard the actions taken by Dalla Torre and Schmiedeknecht, who placed this species in Aphelinus, as well as Mercet’s opinion that it was generically unassignable. In retrospect, this was a rather unfortunate decision. 7. For the next half-century or so, Coccobius remained virtually unrecognised, and no additional species were referred to it. Most authors on the CHALCIDOIDEA either ignored it or regarded it as a synonym of one genus or another (e.g., De Santis, 1948, pp. 101, 162; Nikol’skaya, 1952, p. 304 (p. 310 in the English translation); Ferriére, 1965, p. 58; Nikol’skaya & Yasnosh, 1966, pp. 166, 212). As long as this remained the case, its ambiguous taxonomic position did not cause any nomenclatural problems. 8. Recently, however, Graham (1976, p. 144) made the following peculiar state- ment: ‘Dr S. Novitzky informed me a few years ago that he had seen Ratzeburg’s type of annulicornis before it was destroyed in 1945, and that it belonged to the genus Physcus. This appears to settle the identity of the genus Coccobius. Whether the earlier name Coccobius Ratzeburg should be adopted in preference to Physcus Howard is a debatable point, and I retain the latter meanwhile as it is a well known name, until the matter can be considered further by other specialists.’ We cannot accept Graham’s opinion, that Novitzky’s recollection of a specimen seen more than 30 years earlier, unsupported by any written redescription, figures, etc., is sufficient evidence ‘to settle the identity of the genus Coccobius’. However, we do concur with his conclusion, that the obscure Coccobius Ratzeburg should not replace the well-known name Physcus Howard. 9. Unfortunately, Hayat (1983, pp. 78-81) took up Graham’s account of Novitzky’s opinion, to which he added the following: ‘. . . I have seen a specimen (it is on a card with the antennae missing and the head partly eaten by psocids) in the BMNH coming from S. Novitzky’s collection and determined by him as Coccobius annulicornis Ratz., which appears to be conspecific with the palaearctic Physcus testaceus. ...’ He there- fore proposed to synonymize Physcus under Coccobius. 10. We cannot accept Hayat’s circumstantial evidence as sufficient grounds for synonymizing a well-known generic name. Firstly, Ratzeburg’s type of annulicornis was destroyed in World War II, and we do not have any first-hand evidence that Novitzky’s specimen was indeed conspecific — or even congeneric — with it. And, secondly, to the best of our knowledge an aphelinid specimen mounted on a card, without antennae and with part of the head eaten, cannot be identified to genus — let alone to species — with any degree of certainty. In a subsequent paper, Hayat (1984, p. 294) himself noted that annulicornis ‘should remain unrecognisable’ until a neotype is designated. 11. The generic name Physcus Howard has been in constant and frequent use in zoological literature. In addition to the description of numerous species, the name was used by Yasnosh (1976, pp. 115, 117) to establish the aphelinid subfamily PHYSCINAE. Even more significantly, several species of Physcus have been used in biological control 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 of armored scale insect pests, and this generic name is well known to economic entomo- logists. A few examples are DeBach & Rosen (1976, p. 142); Rosen & DeBach (1978, pp. 84, 107, 109-111); and Furuhashi & Nishino (1983). A representative list of usage of Physcus is held by the Secretariat. 12. Thus, even if the subjective synonymy of Physcus with Coccobius were clear, preservation of nomenclatural stability would favour the suppression of the senior synonym in this case. All the more so, when the synonymy itself is at best doubtful and has been the cause of unnecessary confusion. 13. 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) the generic name Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852; (b) the specific name annulicornis Ratzeburg, 1852, as published in the binomen Coccobius annulicornis; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Physcus Howard, 1895 (gender: masculine), type-species Coccophagus varicornis Howard, 1881, by original designation; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name varicornis Howard, 1881, as published in the binomen Coccophagus varicornis (specific name of the type-species of Physcus Howard, 1895); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852, as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name annulicornis Ratzeburg, 1852 as published in the binomen Coccobius annulicornis and as suppressed in (1) (b) above. References Ashmead, W. H. 1900. On the genera of the chalcid-flies belonging to the subfamily Encyrtinae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 22: 323-412. Dalla Torre, G. C. De, 1898. Catalogus hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Vol. V: Chalcididae et Proctotrupidae. 598 pp. Engelmann, Lipsiae. DeBach, P. & Rosen, D. 1976. Armoured scale insects. Chapter 6. Jn Delucchi, V. L. (Ed.) Studies in Biological Control. International Biological Programme, vol. 9, pp. 139-178. Cambridge University Press. De Santis, L. 1948. Estudio monografico de los Afelinidos de la Republica Argentina (Hymenop- tera, Chalcidoidea). Seperado de la Revista del Museo de la Plata ( N.S.), vol. 5, pp. 23-280. Ferriére, C. 1965. Hymenoptera Aphelinidae d'Europe et du Bassin Meéditerranéen. Faune d'Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen, vol. 1. 206 pp. Masson, Paris. Furuhashi, K. & Nishino, M. 1983. Biological control of arrowhead scale, Unaspis yanonensis, by parasitic wasps introduced from the People’s Republic of China. Entomophaga, 28(3): 277-286. Gahan, A. B. & Fagan, M. M. 1923. The type species of the genera of Chalcidoidea or Chalcid— Flies. United States National Museum Bulletin, 124, iii, 173 pp. Girault, A. A. 1917. Descriptiones hymenopterorum chalcidoidicarum variorum cum observationi- bus. V. Privately published, Glendale, Md, 16 pp. (Reprinted in: Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 28: 116-131). Gordh, G. 1979. Family Encyrtidae. Jn Krombein, K. V., Hurd, P. D., Smith, D. R. & Burks, B. D., Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico, Vol. 1: Symphyta and Apocrita (Parasitica), pp. 890-967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 291 Graham, M. W. R. de V. 1976. The British species of Aphelinus with notes and descriptions of other European Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology, 1: 123-146. Hayat, M. 1983. The genera of Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera) of the world. Systematic Entomology, 8: 63-102. Hayat, M. 1984. Notes on some species of Coccobius and Prophyscus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), with special reference to Girault and Howard types. Oriental Insects, 18: 289-334. Howard, L. O. 1881. Report on the parasites of the Coccidae in the collection of this department. Report of the Entomologist, Part III. Jn Comstock, J. H., Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for 1880, pp. 350-371. Washington, D.C. Howard, L. O. 1895. Revision of the Aphelininae of North America. U.S. Department of Agri- culture. Division of Entomology. Technical Series no. 1, 44 pp. Mercet, R. G. 1912. Los Enemigos de los Parasitos de las Plantas. Los Afelininos. Trabajos del Museo de Ciencias Naturales, No. 10. 306 pp. Madrid. Nikol’skaya, M. N. 1952. The Chalcid Fauna of the USSR. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 44: 1-575. (in Russian; English translation: Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1963, 593 pp.). Nikol’skaya, M. N. & Yasnosh, V. A. 1966. Aphelinidae of the European part of the USSR and Caucasus. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 91: 1-296. (In Russian). Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung. Dritter Band. xviii, 272 pp. Nicolai’schen, Berlin. Rosen, D. & DeBach, P. 1978. Diaspididae. pp. 78-128. Jn Clausen, C. P. (Ed.), Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: a World Review. Agricultural Handbook 480, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Schmiedeknecht, O. 1909. Hymenoptera, Family Chalcididae. Jn Wytsman, P., Genera Insectorum, Fasc. 97. 550 pp. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles. Yasnosh (=Jasnosh) V. A. 1976. Classification of the Parasitic Hymeropient of the family Aphelinidae (Chalcidoidea). Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye, Moskva, 55 (1): 159-168 (in Russian; English translation: Entomological Review, Washington, 55: 114-120). 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Comments on the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) (Case 2440; see BZN 45: 130-131) (1) L. B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 R A Leiden, The Netherlands It seems most illogical in the present case not to use the grammatically correct LIPARIDIDAE for the family containing the genus Liparis, the more so as there are (see BZN 45: 130, para. 3) already two family-group (tribe) names of which the stem is LIPAR-, namely those based on Lipara (Diptera) and Liparus (Coleoptera). At family rank these become LIPARIDAE. It is much better to now use the correct spelling LIPARIDIDAE for the fish family based on Liparis, rather than to do it later when the incorrect name has become still more accepted. The change of LIPARIDAE to LIPARIDIDAE is not so great that it will cause confusion, and I strongly advise the rejection of the request made in Case 2440. (2) Alwyne Wheeler British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. I strongly support the proposed conservation of the family name LIPARIDAE on the grounds of its wide usage in this spelling in ichthyological literature. Amendation, solely for grammatical reasons, of widely used family names is to be deplored. If nomenclature is to retain its credibility among working zoologists then previous usage is the only significant criterion which should influence the Commission in its decision. The attempt to persuade ichthyologists to change familiar family names such as LIPARIDAE (and COBITIDAE—see Opinion 1500) to secure allegedly correct grammar has caused considerable confusion already and has been aptly categorized by Cocks (1988) as pedantry. Reference Cocks, L. R. M. 1988. [Quoted in Opinion 1500], Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45(2): 178-179. Achterberg, C. van Adams, M. et al. Aldridge, R. J. Bacescu, M. Bailey, R. M. Banner, F. T. Barnes, L. G. Best,M.B. . Birrel, C. J. et al. Borowiec, L. . Bouchet, P. Bour, R. Bourne, W. R. lee Boxshall, G. A. Breton,G. . Brygoo, E.-R. Chiszar,D. . Corbet, G. B. Covacevich, J. Crosskey, R. W. DeJong,R. . Disney, R. H. L. Dubois, A. Erridge, N. A. Eschmeyer, W. N. Erzinclioglu, Y. Z. Ferraris, C. J., Jr. Fitzgerald, K. T. Fortuner, R. . Geiger, H. Gery, J. Greer, A. E. . Guillette, L. J., Jr. . Hahn, G. Hanken, J. Hansen, H. J. Hansen, M. Harasewych, M. G. Hawksworth, D. L. Heyning, J. E. Hoeksema, B. W. Holthuis, L. B. Howarth, M. K. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 AUTHORS IN PRESENT VOLUME Page 33 153 127 264, 267, 270 36, 92; 135 : 141 36, 132, 204 . 48, 216 48, 50 : 210 ; 104, 106, 109, 112, 114, 116, 118 18 21, 120, 151, 264, 267, 270, 292 50 Hulsemann, K. Hunt, D. J. ‘ Hutchinson, M. N. Ingram, G. J. Jacobs, B. J. M. Jeppsson, L. . Kerzhner, I. M. evant ales King, M. Kock, D. : Kropp, R. K. Lea, R.N. LeCroy, M BescnresJeeeee Leoblich, A. R., Ir. Loeblich, H. Tappan Loof, P. A. A. : Maggenti, A. R. Mahnert, V. . Manuel, R. L. Meester, J. Meinander, M. : Meyer-Rochow, V. B. Morgan, G. J. : Nal’nyaeva, T. I. Nielsen, E. S. Norris, S. M. Nussbaum, R. A. Nye, I. W. B. Oswald, J. D. Petit, R. E. Platt; T. R: Pleijel, F. : Pulawski, W. J. Rezbanyai-Reser, L. Rivnay,T. . Robins, C. R. Rogl, F. Rookmaaker, L. C. Rosen, D. Sabrosky, C. W. Schleich, H. H. 293 Pa PRY A ; 288 92, 135, 204 104, 106, 109, "112, 114, 116, 118 294 Schroeder, R. Shima, H. : Siddiqi, M. R. Silfverberg, H. Simmons, M. D. Smith, H. M. Stone, J. Taeger, A. Tillier, S. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Tubbs, P. K. isha a 103 Tyler, M. J. ‘ 152 Viggiani,G. . E : : ; 288 Vort Ko Ds. : 2 . 2 130 Wheeler, A. f : 6, 219, 292 Whitebread, S. |e os : t : 29 Wilkinson, M. : ; : : 207 Zerche,L. . . ; , ‘ 197 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 295 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 45 (1988) Names, and the title of a work, placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 45 are listed below under four headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names, Specific Names and Titles of Works. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes are in non- bold type. The systematic groups to which names on the Official Lists belong are given but, following past practice, names on the Official Indexes have not been allocated to systematic groups. The Opinion or Direction number is given for each entry. Family-Group Names ALVEOLINIDAE Ehrenberg, 1839 (Rhizopoda) Op. 1501 BERYTIDAE Fieber, [1851] (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Op. 1503 COBITIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1500 EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 LARAINI LeConte, 1861 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1515 LARIDAE Rafinesque Schmaltz, 1815 (Aves) Op. 1515 Generic Names Acantophthalmus van Hasselt, 1823 Op. 1500 Agromyza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1476 Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Rhizopoda) Op. 1501 Antispila Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Op. 1479 Beanea Steindachner, 1902 Op. 1481 Berytinellus Stichel, 1957 Op. 1504 Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 Berytus Fabricius, 1803 Op. 1504 Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1493 Brius Dejean, 1821 Op. 1474 Bubo Dumé€ril, 1806 (Aves) Direction 122 Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Op. 1503 Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1500 Conchella Gray, 1848 Op. 1485 Coppinia Hassall, 1848 Op. 1485 LARINI LeConte 1861 Op. 1515 MACLURITIDAE Carpenter, 1861 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 Op. 1470 PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Op. 1503 SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 Op. 1470 SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1905 (1874) (Nemertea) Op. 1486 Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda) Op. 1498 Craniolites Schlotheim, 1820 Op. 1469 Criomorphus Mulsant, 1839 Op. 1473 Criopoderma Poli, 1795 Op. 1467 Criopododerma Agassiz, 1848 Op. 1467 Criopus Poli, 1791 Op. 1467 Cryopus Deshayes, 1836 Op. 1467 Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1472 Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinoidea) Op. 1512 Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1475 Dexilla Westwood, 1840 Op. 1475 Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 Fasciolites Parkinson, 1811 Op. 1501 Filellum Hincks, 1868 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1485 Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1493 Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida) Op. 1488 Isarthron Dejean, 1835 Op. 1473 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Laplisia Lamarck, 1801 Op. 1471 Lara LeConte, 1852 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1515 Larus Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Op. 1515 Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia) Op. 1514 Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 Maclurea Emmons, 1842 Op. 1470 Maclurita Blainville, 1823 Op. 1470 Maclurite Lesueur, 1818 Op. 1470 Maclurites Lesueur, 1818 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 Magnonaias Utterback, 1915 Op. 1487 Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Bivalvia) Op. 1487 Melanochroa Broun, 1882 Op. 1472 Melanochroa Roeder, 1886 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1472 Melorus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 Microfasciolites Gaemers, 1978 Op. 1501 Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1510 Napomyza Curtis, 1837 Op. 1477 Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1477 Neides Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1506 Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1497 Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 Op. 1468 Oryzaria Defrance in Bronn, 1825 Op. 1501 Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1509 Specific Names albifrons, Corixa, Motschulsky, 1863 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1492 ambulans, Acridium, Erichson, 1842 Op. 1489 antinomia, Terebratula, Catullo, 1827 Op. 1466 arcta, Sertularia, Dalyell, 1847 Op. 1485 austeni, Simulium, Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1508 australiensis, Trigoniza, Bolivar, 1898 Op. 1489 australis, Microgaster, Thomson, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1510 ayara, Lara, LeConte, 1852 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1515 Phisis Stal, 1861 (Insecta, Orthoptera) Op. 1490 Pholetesor Mason, 1981 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1480 Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1475 Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 Op. 1470 Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Op. 1503 Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831 Op. 1483 Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia) Op. 1483 Schizostoma Bronn, [1834] Op. 1470 Sinuites Koken, 1896 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 Siphamia Weber, 1909 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1481 Surnia Dumeéril, 1806 (Aves) Direction 122 Synapturanus Carvalho, 1954 (Amphibia) Op. 1513 Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia) Op. 1516 Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1473 Teuthras Stal, 1874 Op. 1490 Triacodon Marsh, 1871 Op. 1517 Tribolium MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1495 Tropiphorus Schoenherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1474 Tubulanus Renier, [1804] (Nemertea) Op. 1486 Viverravus Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia) Op. 1517 bicolor, Heteroclonium, Cope, 1896 (Reptilia) Op. 1482 bilobatus, Bellerophon, Sowerby, 1839 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 borealis, Simulia, Zetterstedt, 1842 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1496 boscii, Oryzaria, Defrance in Bronn, 1825 (Rhizopoda) Op. 1501 brattenburgicus, Craniolites, Schlotheim, 1820 Op. 1469 brucei, Trypanosoma, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Mastigophora) Op. 1484 brucii, Trypanosoma, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 Op. 1484 bubo, Strix, Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Direction 122 ad Bd a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 297 calcar, Calcarina, d’Orbigny, 1839 (Rhizopoda) Op. 1464 campestris, Andrena, Eversmann, 1852 Op. 1511 caparoch, Strix, Miller, 1766 (Aves) Direction 122 castaneum, Colydium, Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1495 catulloi, Terebratula, Pictet, 1867 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1466 cinnamopterum, Tetropium, Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1473 clavipes, Cimex, Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 cor, Terebratula, Bruguiére, 1792 Op. 1466 costulatus, Halictus, Kriechbaumer, 1873 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1511 diglossis, Chirotes, Saenz, 1869 Op. 1482 dilatata, Antinomia, Catullo, 1851 Op. 1466 dubia, Melanochroa, Roeder, 1886 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1472 duvallii, Terebratula, Newman, 1844 Op. 1466 elatus, Hyboclypus, Desor, 1847 (Echinoidea) Op. 1512 elegans, Phytomyza, Meigen, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1477 fallax, Triacodon, Marsh, 1871 Op. 1517 femorata, Dryops, Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1506 fergusoni, Conus, Sowerby, 1873 (Gastropoda) Op. 1502 ferruginea, Simulia, Wahlberg, 1844 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1496 flabellipes, Curculio, Olivier, 1807 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1493 fulvocinctus, Conus, Crosse, 1872 (Gastropoda) Op. 1502 giganteus, Unio, Barnes, 1823 (Bivalvia) Op. 1487 gracilis, Laomedea, Sars, 1850 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1465 gracilis, Lomodea, Dana, 1846 Op. 1465 gracilis, Viverravus, Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia) Op. 1517 griseola, Micronecta, Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1491 hirsutus, Thomisus, Walckenaer, 1824 Op. 1488 hirticornis, Neides, Brullé, 1835 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 hirtus, Thomisus, Latreille, 1819 (Arachnida) Op. 1488 inconspicua, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1848 Op. 1465 intertexta, Campanularia, Couch, 1844 Op. 1485 janitor, Terebratula, Pictet, 1867 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1466 lemana, Sigara, Fieber, 1860 Op. 1491 lineata, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1848 Op. 1465 luteoscutellata, Phytagromyza, de Meijere, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1509 mackloti, Liasis, Duméril & Bibron, 1844 (Reptilia) Op. 1514 magna, Maclurites, Lesueur, 1818 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 manca, Trigoniza, Bolivar, 1898 Op. 1489 marginalis, Musca, Fallén, 1824 Op. 1507 marginalis, Musca, Fourcroy, 1785 Op. 1507 marginalis, Musca, Wiedemann, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1507 marginata, Leptura, Fabricius, 1781 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1494 marginata, Leptura, Miller, 1766 Op. 1494 marinus, Larus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Op. 1515 mastigophorus, Calanus, Claus, 1863 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Op. 1503 mercurialis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1474 metallella, Tinea, [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Op. 1479 minuta, Sigara, Fabricius, 1794 Op. 1491 minutus, Calanus, Kroyer, 1845 (Crustacea, Copepoda) Op. 1503 mirandaribeiroi, Synapturanus, Nelson & Lescure, 1975 (Amphibia) Op. 1513 mirza, Lycaena, Plotz, 1880 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Op. 1478 mirza, Lycaena, Staudinger, 1874 Op. 1478 mirzaellus, Azanus, Kogak, 1980 Op. 1478 montivagus, Berytus, Meyer-Dir, 1841 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 navalis, Dermestes, Fabricius, 1775 Op. 1495 octotuberculatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1493 ornigis, Apanteles, Weed, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1480 pallipes, Opius, Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1497 pectinata, Listroscelis, Guérin, 1831 (Insecta, Orthoptera) Op. 1490 pentangulatus, Euomphalus, Sowerby, 1814 (Gastropoda) Op. 1470 permutata, Siphamia, K lausewitz, 1966 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1481 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 permutatus, Cornalatus, Attems, 1938 (Diplopoda) Op. 1498 pileata, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1841 Op. 1465 pileus, Terebratula, Bruguiére, 1792 Op. 1466 politula, Cyclomorpha, Broun, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Op. 1472 polymorphus, Tubulanus, Renier, [1804] (Nemertea) Op. 1486 posticatum, Simulia, Meigen, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1508 priscus, Rhabdodon, Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia) Op. 1483 punctata, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1841 Op. 1465 reptans, Agromyza, Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1476 robiniae, Microgaster, Fitch, 1859 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Op. 1480 rufa, Simulia, Meigen, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1496 rustica, Musca, Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1475 sabulosus, Miliolites, de Montfort, 1808 Op. 1501 sarnica, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1841 Op. 1465 scholtzi, Sigara, Fieber, [1860] (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1505 scholtzii, Sigara, Scholtz, [1847] Op. 1505 Titles of Works serpens, Campanularia, Hassall, 1848 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1485 stellata, Calcarina, de Férussac, 1827 Op. 1464 sulcatus, Taeniolabis, Cope, 1882 Op. 1516 taenia, Cobitis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1500 taoensis, Polymastodon, Cope, 1882 (Mammalia) Op. 1516 thompsoni, Thaumantias, Forbes, 1841 Op. 1465 tipularius, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera) Op. 1504 triangulus, Terebratula, Valenciennes, 1819 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1466 triquetrus, Terebratulites, Parkinson, 1811 Op. 1466 trivittata, Beanea, Steindachner, 1902 Op. 1481 tuberculata, Crania, Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1469 tubifer, Siphamia, Weber, 1909 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1481 viridis, Laplisia, Bosc, 1801 Op. 1471 viridis, Laplysia, Montagu, 1804 (Gastropoda) Op. 1471 vittata, Biformalia, Sj6stedt, 1920 (Insecta, Orthoptera) Op. 1489 volvulus, Musca, Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Diptera) Op. 1475 Sowerby, J. & J. de C., 1812-1845, Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 7 vols. Direction 123 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS (for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 295-298) ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907 (Insecta, Orthoptera) Acridium Miller, 1776 (Insecta, Orthoptera) Acrydium Miller, 1764 (Insecta, Orthoptera) albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812 (Crustacea, Decapoda) alfacariensis, Colias hyale, Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905 (Insecta, Neuroptera) Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera) Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) ampullaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera) annulicornis, Coccobius, Ratzeburg, 1852 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . arbuscula, Dendritina, d Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) . arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea) auris, Peneroplis, Defrance, 1824 (Foraminiferida) . australis, Colias hyale hyale, Verity, 1911 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) bactrianus, Camelus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) baculatus, Tinoporus, de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) . . beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, a Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera) bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) bifasciella, Elachista, Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, reawaited Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea) , BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901 (Crustacea, Cumacea) . Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) borneensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845 (Reptilia, Squamata) brantsii, Euryotis, A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys Brantsii: ‘Mammalia, Rodentia)... \% : breviremis, Phyllodoce, de Quatrefages, 1865 (Annelida, Polychaeta) : BRUCHIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Bruchus Miller, 1764 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Coleoptera) f bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) bulloides, Nonionina, d’Orbigny, 1846 (Foraminiferida) Se Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) . Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . . carthami, Papilio, Hiibner, [1813] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, eo Cenobites Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida) ‘ chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) chrysoscelis, Hyla, Laurenti, 1768 (Amphibia, Anura) chrysoscelis, Hyla, Johnson, 1961 (Amphibia, Anura) cichorii, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Clausulus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) 117, 43, 299 S00): Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816 (Foraminiferida) conglobator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1766 (Crustacea, Isopoda) Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (Crustacea, Cumacea) Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828 (Crustacea, Cumacea) Dendritina d’ Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) ' domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772 (Mammalia, Rodentia) . domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia) dubius, Cordylodus?, Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus? dubius; Conodonta) dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, d’ Orbigny, 1850 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) . edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Elachista Kollar, 1832 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) ELACHISTIDAE Bruand, 1850 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Eremita Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Crustacea, Isopoda) faba, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) felis, Siluris, Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) : Filenchus Andrassy, 1954(Nematoda) . . Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; flagellum, Saccopharynx, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) floridanus, Conus, Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, maaan Florilus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) . fur, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905 (Crustacea, Copepoda) . gigas, Ascalabotes, Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia Squamata) : globator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1772 (Crustacea, Isopoda) . . glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) gonzalezi, Remaneica, Seiglie, 1964 (Foraminiferida) ‘ Halia Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea) Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Seréne, 1956 (Crustacea, Decapoda) | abaik hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814 ene Lekanesphaera hookeri; Crustacea, Isopoda) . . > ARDGE HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (Aves) . Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) ICHTHYOPHIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 indicator, Clausulus, de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 (Crustacea, alee fe Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea) . Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815 (Crustacea, Cumacea) javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Crustacea, Isopoda) lenticularis, Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1805 (Foraminiferida) Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea) . Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 (Crustacea, Cumacea) LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (Crustacea, Cumacea) limax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax: Cnidaria, ‘Anthozoa) limax, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) é LIPARIDAE Gill, [30 September] 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) liparis, Cyclopterus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) LOCUSTIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Orthoptera) loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalek, 1894 (Insecta, Neuroptera) exits longirostris, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : eee luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Insecta, Coleoptera) lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Megaloptera) magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) _ marmoratus, Hemitripteras (sic), Ayres, 1854 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) marmoratus, Scorpaenichthys, Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905 (Crustacea, Copepoda) melo, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) melonoides, Borelis, de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) . monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934 (Crustacea, Isopoda) Mylabris Miller, 1764 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . nasica, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841 (Crustacea, Cumacea) natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) . Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) . Nonionina @’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1881 (Aves) OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Orthoptera) olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaca orbata: Insecta, Diptera Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida) . oxyrhynchum, Ctenopoma, Boulenger, 1902 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) . Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (Foraminiferida) . Pelorus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata) pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (June) (Amphibia, Caudata) phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Trichoptera) 13t, 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . pisorum, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida) . Planularia Nilsson, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea) Sheek dae princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894 (currently Ghussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda) 2 AMES © ae ae ee PTINIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Pullenia Parker & Jones, 1862 (Foraminiferida) ¢ punctata, Lepralia, Hassall, 1841 (currently Cribrilina. punctata; Bryozoa, Cheilostomata) . ry) Stee Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820 (Crustacea, Cumacea) Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H. M. D. de Blainville, Rapporteur), Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, Paris, 1826 . Remaneicella Brénnimann, Zaninetti & Whittaker, 1983 (Foraminiferida) : repandus, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently a Borin Foramini- ferida) er, robynsii, Harpognatus, Wesmael, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Hae rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia) Saint-Joseph, 1888 signe Nereiphylla rub nosa; Annelida, Polychaeta) ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796 (Insecta, Coleoptera) SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) sandersi, Hyla versicolor, Smith & Brown, 1947 (Amphibia, Anura) scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897 (Crustacea, Copepoda) scutellaris, Tachys, Stephens, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera) Semeioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) Semioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 (Foraminiferida) serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787 (Crustacea, ayers Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera) . spengleri, Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791 (Foraminiferida) Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda) . SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825 (Crustacea, Isopoda) _ : : styliferus, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1840 (Crustacea, Decapoda) spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861 (Conodonta) , STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) “ talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) | ; talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801 (currently Aaah Sarees “Cnidaria, Antho- ZOa)) : MIVA f Thorius Cope, 1869 (May) (Amphibia, Caudata) Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) 153; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum; Insecta, Hymenoptera) . . trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768 (Cnidaria, ‘Anthozoa) trispinosa, Cuma, Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea) Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (Crustacea, Cumacea) varicornis, Coccophagus, Howard, 1881 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Venilia Bate, 1856 (Crustacea,Cumacea) . . Se Poe versicolor, Hyla, Le Conte, 1825 (Amphibia, Anura) vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811 (Mammalia, Rodentia) . villosa, Tiphia, Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) vulgaris, Tylenchus, Brzeski, 1963 (Nematoda) wallacei, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) wallacii, Paradisaea (Semioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) 303 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(4) December 1988 CORRIGENDA Vol. 42, part 4 pages 365-370 Vol. 44, part 4 page 249, para. 8, line 2 Vol. 45, part 2 page 133, para 7, line 5 In this Opinion 1368 the date for Simia troglo- dytes Blumenbach (type species of Pan Oken, 1816) was wrongly given as 1779. The name in fact dates from Blumenbach, 1775 (re-issued in 1776), and the original reference is: troglodytes, Simia, Blumenbach, 1775, De generis humani varietate nativa, p. 37. The reference on the Official Lists for Pan and troglodytes should be changed accordingly. For ‘Schutz’ read ‘Schultz’ For ‘Specific’ read ‘Generic’ PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME Part No Contents of Part Date of Publication (pages) | 1-88 25 March 1988 2 89-180 24 June 1988 3 181-248 23 September 1988 4 249-304 16 December 1988 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-304 Note: The covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume 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 . Appointment of new Commissioners Financial Report for 1987 . Applications Orbitolina @Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): proposed confirmation of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type species. R. Schroeder & M. D. Simmons . Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): proposed replace- ment of the holotype byalectotype.T.R.Platt . . . Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific name. i. Pleyel. : Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed confirmation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 as the type species. R. K. Kropp. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea) : proposed conservation. M. Bacescu & L.B. Holthuis . Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conservation. M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis . ; Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): ‘proposed conservation. M. Bacescu & L. B. Holthuis . Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalek, 1894 as the type species. J. D. Oswald & M. Meinander . Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera): proposed conservation by the con- firmation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera). J.D. Oswald. . Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of type species. H. Silfverberg . Papilio carthami Hubner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae: major Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the names carthami and major. R. de Jong Rapport sur les M yodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy, (1826): ‘proposed n nomen- clatural suppression. C. W. Sabrosky. : Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. D. Rosen, T. Rivnay & G. Viggiani . Cok SDR Ah eS et Wenn Comments On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes). L. B. Holthuis; A. Wheeler . fe AE ae Indexes Authors in present volume 45 (1988). Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in rulings of the Commission published in in volume 45 (1988) . Key names in Applications and Comments published i in n volume 45 (1988) Corrigenda . Publication dates and pagination of present volume 45 ( 1988) Instructions to Binder ay Table of Contents of present volume 45 (1988) Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Page pre Peat ee shale? q ida P S matte Tes fy “tha pee fee m4 Fast he hk a ia Pam vat ; op ' piaAA ed, im dit i i fats i ht Cote , \ ‘ Lh fy 2" tee, 1 ’ ras f , ¢ ; y a . aa Hi ay. ae he ‘tes ir he re Ae nan Bi “is ‘ae mil fase 1 Seni wan We ” ¥ ; in. ie i“ vine at ¥. esi aN ee ii Ma ae a Ps wy at rl