pe ae Ce a The Bulletin Zoological — Nomenclature HG: ZNI" The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 47, 1990 Published on behalf of the Commission by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, U.K. ISSN 0007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . : Election of the Vice- President of ‘the International Commission on . Zoological Nomenclature . ; The International Commission on 1 Zoological Nomenclature and its publications ; Addresses of members of the Commission . , International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ; Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- Supplement : The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Instructions to Authors . Applications Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864. B.W.Hoeksema. . CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CYMATIINAE E Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy. A. Jansson& A.G.Beu. . Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Neriti hebraea. Martyn, 1786 (actuellement Placostylus fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposée pour les noms specifiques; et Placostylus Beck, 1837: at ve proposée de L. aes: comme espéce-type. P. Bouchet Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): " proposed conservation. M. E. Gordon . . Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. M. S. Harvey Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustules: Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the iar name. R. B. Halliday . Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, ‘Isopoda): proposed precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870. J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck . Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. R. C. Froeschner & N. A. Kormilev. Meats de Date h copys Mince awe eae el te Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata, Mammalia, Cetacea): proposed conservation of the specific name. W. F. Perrin . ; Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed conservation, and Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius): pro- posed designation as the type species of Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype. W.E. Garutt, Anthea Gentry & A. M. Lister . Babee Note and Comments On Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species. P.K. Tubbs . On the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and. Ranguna Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda). P. K. L. Ng; L. B. Holthuis . On the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of Saissetia Déeplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera). G. De Lotto; C. Hodgson . On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey . ‘ On the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). A. Wheeler; R. Fricke . i On the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea). H. D. Kahlke; A. V. Sher; Alan Gentry; A. P. Currant. Re 1 Pea! itapee hs a & ve 28 AMmAnABWN WY 38 II Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1567. Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus oe Fichtel & Moll, 1798 designated as the type species Mie raed, tc Opinion 1568. Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): conserved Opinion 1569. Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved Opinion 1570. Dendritina d Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved . Opinion 1571. Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved. : Opinion 1572. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus: Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype . . Opinion 1573. Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Pine talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa): specificnames conserved. . . Opinion 1574. Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera Rooker Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved . 5 Opinion 1575. Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): consenvedly , Opinion 1576. Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): specificname conserved . . Opinion 1577. Hydrobius Leach, 1815 ‘nsecta, Coleoptera): Dy reco. fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . Opinion 1578. Vespa pia granivi Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus nea Insecta, Hymenoptera): specificname conserved . . Opinion 1579. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): specific name conserved . . Opinion 1580. Cordylodus? yates Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distormoder aul: Conodonta): specificname conserved . Opinion 1581. Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species. : Opinion 1582. Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved Opinion 1583. Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres, 1854 to be taken as the author of the specificname . . Opinion 1584. Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species . . Opinion 1585. Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas: ‘Reptilia, Squamata): specificname conserved . . Opinion 1586. Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently. Panonarays rane Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved . et fill eae ee Mee Notices . . Call for nominations for? new vamemibers Of the leafenoationall Commission on n Zoological Nomenclature . ‘ 3 Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology- Supplement ; The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature General Articles Bully for Brontosaurus. Stephen Jay Gould Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability. Alwyne Wheeler 5 RECS AER GE RT set lth a Applications Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation. D. Kadolsky . RISSOOIDEA (Or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840. G. Rosenberg & G. M. Davis . Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina: “Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed designation of a neotype. P. B. Mordan & F. R. Woodward . Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving Bollandia Reed, 1943. G. Hahn Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. L. Borowiec . Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): pro- posed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes. in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species. M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert & C. Ferraris : Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the specific name. R.G. Webb . wi a REE CAR Seay MARU tas Comments On the adoption of ‘Protected Works’ for purposes of zoological nomenclature. D. Frost . On the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta). R. T. Becker; A. Mackie;S. Chambers . ; On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) 0 over Rhechostica Simon, 1892. R. J. Raven On the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. ces Koch, 1857 (Insecta, igus aaa E. M. Danzig; P. K. Tubbs . On the valid name for the butterfly known as ‘Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905° or ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ (Insecta, Lepidoptera). L. B. Holthuis; E. J. Reissinger & S. Wagener; O. Kudrna; W. G. Tremewan; P.K. Tubbs . : On the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera). F. C. Thompson; I. M. White. On the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. G. Gibson & J. Huber; G. bea D. Rosen; J. LaSalle . . : ; : On the need for stability in fish family- group n names. N. Merrett. : On the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving Anguilla. A. Wheeler; F. C. Thompson, R. A. Cooper : On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works byR. W. Wells & C. R. Wellington. P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Cae J. P. Puaeey J. Pierre & S. Tillier . WMP AM Sarat Be ‘ , Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1587. Orbitolina dOrbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava Mamarck,1816.confirmed asithe type species. 131 /).5.,%50 su bey Aye ye do eee Opinion 1588. Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 onated Digenea): holotype replaced by alectotype . . Opinion 1589. Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint- Joseph, 1888 ‘(currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved Opinion 1590. Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda): specific name conserved. . . PCL ea Ws Opinion 1591. Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 confirmed as the type species. Opinion 1592. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved . Opinion 1593. Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Opinion 1594. Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Opinion 1595. Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx. loewii Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species... Opinion 1596. Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phtyganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera) ; Ill 114 LAT, 118 129 132 134 138 138 139 141 143 144 145 147 148 150 152 153 154 IV Opinion 1597. Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic and specificnamesconserved . . Opinion 1598. Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, ‘1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 designated as the respective type species : Opinion 1599. Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratéae” major Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names carthami and major conserved . . Opinion 1600. Tachina orbata Wiedemann 1830 (currently Peiiaen oan inci: Diptera): neotype designation confirmed . . Opinion 1601. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826): suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. . Opinion 1602. Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, “Hymenoptera): specific name conserved . . Opinion 1603. Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes) conserved Opinion 1604. ICHTHYOPHIIDAE : Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved . Opinion 1605. Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name conserved . Opinion 1606. Semioptera wallacit Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADISAEIDAE): conserved as ‘the correct spelling of the generic and specific names . Opinion 1607. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved Notices . . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature : Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- -Supplement ; Applications Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species. M. S. Harvey Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. D. Belk & S. T. Bowen Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Ss. R. Steinhauser, L. D. Miller, J. Y. Miller & C.A. Bridges . . Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. K. Rognes & R. E. Blackith . Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed c conser- vation of the specific name. K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith. ; Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of ‘the specific name. E. O. Willis & Y.Oniki_ . : Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed ‘conservation. 0: M. Chiappe & M. F. Soria Ndi nie aed its Sep od ebsites Comments On the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. T. Abbott; P. Bouchet; A. Gentry; R. Giannuzzi-Savelli . 5 On the proposed precedence of POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Rosenberg & K. C. Emberton . : On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton, 1834). (Mollusca, Bivalvia). R. W. Scott. On the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, ‘1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). A. H. Clarke; A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams & S. L. H. Fuller ; On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 156 205 205 (currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M. E. Petersen; S. Chambers & D.Heppell . . 207 On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) 0 over Rhechostica Simon, 1892.H. W. Levi& O. Kraus. . . 211 On the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and I. “woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by ee of the holotype of J. angustus. G.B.White. . . 211 | On the conservation of the spelling of the specific name . of Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina). R.C. Axtelletal. . 212 On the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda). J. Forest. . . 212 On the proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as ‘the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda). R. C. Brusca; M. H. Thurston 213 On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga; PAkKO Dubbs: 3S) Beet rae 213 On the proposed precedence ‘of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera).G.B. White... 214 On the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White; D. Strickman .. . 215 On the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species of ales Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita). Sir J. Stubblefield; H. B. Whittington. . . as AE eR ae eS YRC a 216 Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1608. Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species . . 217 Opinion 1609. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): conserved . . 218 Opinion 1610. Valanginites Saynin Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the type species. . 220 Opinion 1611. Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name conserved . 222 Opinion 1612. Altus menicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Siiicis penicillatus: Arachnida, | Araneae): specificname conserved . . 224 Opinion 1613. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and | Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea, i Copepoda) . . bat Oats 226 Opinion 1614. Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved Ait 228 Opinion 1615. TRAPEZUDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed. . 229 Opinion 1616. Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): “Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species. . . 235i Opinion 1617. Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]. . . . 233 Opinion 1618. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species Musca azurea Fallén, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement lectotype. . . 235 Opinion 1619. Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana: Insecta, Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. . . 237 Opinion 1620. Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by citation of Lapworth (1876) as author >). J ee Sk 238 Opinion 1621. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, -Osteoglossiformes): Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated asthe type species . . . . . 239 VI Notices . . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature : Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- Supplement : Financial Report for 1989 . . Be International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—General ‘Session of the Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 ; International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—Open Meeting of ‘the Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990 Applications Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed desig- nation of ee hystrix Marion & ae in Fischer, 1885 as the type species. Helicarion Férussac, 1821. (Mollusca, Gastropoda): " proposed conservation, and proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species. Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species . Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of ‘Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species . HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence Over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. . . . Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine gender for the name : Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence 0 over : Rang utricularius Harlan, 1826. : ee Comments On the proposed placement of HYDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on the Official List of Family-Group Names . . On the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. reppelil Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . . On the proposed precedence of Bathynomus NE Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870 .. . On the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943 (Trilobita) : On the proposed conservation of the specific nz names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera) On the stability of fish family names . : On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) . . On the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, I 1886 6 (Amphibia, Anura) over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826 . ; Ruling of the Commission Opinion 1622. Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved . Indexes, etc. Authors in volume 47 (1990) Names and Works placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in rulings of the Commission published i in volume 47 (1990) . : Key names in Applications and Comments published i in n volume 47 ( 1990) Corrigenda. . i a rina : Publication dates and pagination of volume 47 (1990) . Instructionsto binder . . A Table of Contents of volume 47 (1990) . Volume 47, Part 1, 27 March 1990 pp. 1-84 ISSN 0007-5167 Bulletin Se bsical Nomenclature _ a. On z “OOLO ical Nor ir Ature “+e eae ge? OT & 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 1990 is £65 or $125, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) (Norway; Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y.I. Starobogatov (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F.C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V.A. Trjapitzin (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) MrJ.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 1990 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 47, part 1 (pp. 1-84) : 27 March 1990 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorized to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- cation, but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. (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 46, part 4 (published on 19 December 1989): (1) Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824 (currently Dendrocygna arcuata; Aves, Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2746). G.F. Mees. (2) Strophomena Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed adoption of authorship and designation of Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species. (Case 2747). L.R.M. Cocks. (3) Plusia falcifera Kirby, 1837 (currently Anagrapha falcifera; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2748). J.D. Lafontaine & R.W. Poole. (4) Eristalis Latreille, 1804,, Helophilus Meigen, 1822 and Xylota Meigen, 1822 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2749). T. Zatwarnicki. (5) Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation. (Case 2750). J.S. Ryland & A. Muirhead. (6) Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 (Insecta, Protorthoptera): proposed rejection of the neotype following rediscovery of the holotype. (Case 2751). C.G. Maples. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Election of the Vice-President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The members of the Commission have elected Dr H.G. COGGER as Vice-President. Dr Cogger is from the Australian Museum, Sydney, and was elected to the Commission in 1976. His research concerns the reptiles and amphibians of Australia and the western Pacific region. 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 28 zoologists from 19 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. Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. 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 judgements’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission. Suggested amendments to the Code should be sent to the Secretariat. 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 be waived or modified in their application to a particular case when strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an indi- vidual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications should follow the instructions on the inside back cover of the Bulletin, and assistance will be given by the Secretariat. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It con- tains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is an invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may also be published. The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin, which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such contributions may be sent to the Secretariat. The Commission’s rulings are summarised in The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895—1985 was published in 1987, and a free supplement covering 1986—1988 was issued in 1989. Copies may be obtained from the Secretariat. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 3 In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Commission’s Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may have nomen- clatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1s a charity (non-profit making company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present based in London, and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial affairs of the Commission. The sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official Lists and Indexes) covers only part of the costs of the service given to zoology by the Commission. Support is given by academies, research councils, associations and societies from a number of countries, and also by individuals, but despite this assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint and donations to the Trust are gratefully received. Addresses of members of the Commission Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A. Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia (Vice-President) Prof J.0. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, U.S.A. (Councillor) Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Prof Dr G. HAHN Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, D-355 Marburg (Lahn), Fed. Rep. Germany Prof DrO. HALVORSEN Zoological Museum, Sars GT, 1. N-0562 Oslo 5, Norway Mr D. HEPPELL Department of Natural History, Royal Museum of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K. (Councillor) Dr L.B. HOLTHUIS Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (Councillor) Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5K6, Canada Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Fed. Rep. Germany (President) Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland Dr E. MACPHERSON Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08003 Barcelona, Spain Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Case postal 434, CH-1211 Genéve, Switzerland Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sado Paulo, Caixa Postal 7172, 01051 Sao Paulo, Brazil Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy Dr M. MROCZKOWSKI Instytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Kobenhavn, Denmark Dr I.W.B. NYE c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Dr W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia Prof J. M. SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor) 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria Dr Y.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya naberezhnaya 1, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. Dr F.C. THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskayanaberezhnaya 1, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan Prof A. WILLINK Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Members Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) Dr Keiji Baba Prof Per Brinck Prof J.H. Callomon Dr N.R. Chalmers Dr H.G. Cogger Dr P.F.S. Cornelius Prof C.B. Cox The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S. Dr R.W. Crosskey Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Prof J. Forest Col F.J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.I.Biol. Dr L.B. Holthuis Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr M. Luc Dr R.B. Manning Mr R.V. Melville Dr I.W.B. Nye Dr W.D.L. Ride Dr E.P.F. Rose Dr G.B. White Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Royal Society) 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) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 5 Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology—Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-1988, 544 names and three works were added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, 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.) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies may be ordered from the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 or $35 (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. Instructions to Authors Authors submitting applications for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are particularly requested to follow the instructions printed on the inside back cover of the Bulletin. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360K B (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2714 Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864 Bert W. Hoeksema Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve usage of the generic names of the mushroom corals Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 and Lobactis Verrill, 1864, by designating Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species of Pleuractis. 1. The species Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801 (p. 370) is the type species of Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (p. 52). Verrill stated that he selected it as type, and based the desig- nation on specimens from Singapore which were collected by Captain W. H. A. Putnam. At present, ten specimens from this collection, labelled as Pleuractis scutaria, are in the coral collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge, Massachusetts. Examination of this material (MCZ 5398) revealed that all these specimens were misidentified by Verrill and actually belong to Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 (p. 495, pl. 32, figs. 6a—b). 2. The syntypes of Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801 (no type locality given) were illustrated by Seba (1759, pl. 112, figs. 28-30). One of these figures (fig. 29) resembles only slightly the species currently known as F. scutaria. Seba’s figures 28 and 30 resemble specimens of F. cyclolites Lamarck, 1801 and F. fungites (Linnaeus, 1758) respectively. The whereabouts of Seba’s specimens are unknown. In Lamarck’s collec- tion at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle at Paris there are two corals from the Red Sea which are labelled Fungia scutaria. One of these (MNHN 297) was designated neotype of that species by myself (1989, p. 131). This neotype represents F. scutaria as it has been interpreted since Déderlein’s (1902) taxonomic revision of Fungia (see Hoeksema, 1989). 3. Theholotype of F. paumotensis (type locality ‘Paumotos’ = Tuamotu Archipelago, S. Pacific) is believed to be lost. Stutchbury (1833) did not indicate whether it was deposited in a museum or left in the field after the illustrations were made. Itis neither in the British Museum (Natural History) nor in the collection of the Linnean Society of London, where it most likely would have been deposited. The illustrations of the holotype given by Stutchbury (1833, pl. 32, figs. 6a—b) are not clear enough to show its identity. Therefore in my taxonomic revision of the FUNGIIDAE (1989, p. 145) I desig- nated a neotype (BMNH 1939.1.2.31) from Aku Maru, Gambier Islands, Tuamotu Archipelago. This neotype represents F. paumotensis as it has been interpreted since Déderlein’s (1902) revision. 4. The species Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841 (p. 48, pl. 3, figs. 1-2) is the type species by original designation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864 (p. 52). In Doderlein’s (1902) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 7 revision of Fungia, and in subsequent works, F. dentigera has been considered a junior subjective synonym of F. scutaria (see Hoeksema, 1989, p. 130). 5. Wells (1966, p. 238), in his generic revision of the FUNGIIDAE, united Pleuractis and Lobactis under the name Pleuractis as a subgenus in Fungia Lamarck, 1801. I believe (1989, pp. 129-130, 134, 256-257) that the true Fungia scutaria differs from the Pleuractis species and should be classified with another subgenus. Since Fungia dentigera, a junior subjective synonym of F. scutaria, is the type species of Lobactis, F. scutaria should be classified with Lobactis. Hence maintenance of the nominal species F. scutaria Lamarck as the type species of Pleuractis, ignoring the misidentification by Verrill (1864), will cause confusion. 6. This case is being referred to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code. As a result of the neotype designation of Fungia scutaria, the type species of Pleuractis and Lobactis are synonymous, and because of Wells’ first reviser action in 1966, Pleuractis has precedence over Lobactis. To conserve the existing usage of both Pleuractis and Lobactis, | propose as type species of Pleuractis the species actually considered by Verrill (1864) and wrongly named in its type fixation, namely Fungia paumotensis. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 and to designate Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833; (b) Lobactis Verrill, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841 (a junior subjective synonym of Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801); (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833, as published in the binomen Fungia paumotensis and as defined by the neotype designated by Hoeksema (1989) (specific name of the type species of Pleuractis Verrill, 1864, by designation in (1) above); (b) scutaria Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Fungia scutaria and as defined by the neotype designated by Hoeksema (1989) (senior subjective synonym of Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841, the type species of Lobactis Verrill, 1864). Acknowledgements Prof. Dr L. B. Holthuis is gratefully acknowledged for his advice. References Déderlein, L. 1902. Die Korallengattung Fungia. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturfor- schenden Gesellschaft, 27(1): 1-162. Hoeksema, B. W. 1989. Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of mushroom corals (Scleractinia: Fungiidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden, 254: 1-295. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, viij, 432 pp. Deterville, Paris. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Leuckart, F.S. 1841. Observationes zoologicae de Zoophytis coralliis, speciatim de genere Fungia. 60 pp. 4 pls. Emmerling, Friburgi Brisigavorum. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Seba, A. 1759. Locupletissimi Rerum naturalium Thesauri accuratya Descriptio, vol. 3. Janssonio- Waesbergios, Amsteloedami. Stutchbury, S. 1833. An account of the mode of growth of young corals of the genus Fungia. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 16: 493—497. Verrill, A. E. 1864. List of the polyps and corals sent by the Museum of Comparative Zoology to other institutions in exchange, with annotations. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 1: 29-60. Wells, J. W. 1966. Evolutionary development in the scleractinian family Fungiidae. Pp. 223-246, pl. 1 in Rees, W.J. (Ed.). The Cnidaria and their evolution. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 16. 449 pp. Academic Press, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 9 Case 2547 CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy Antti Jansson Zoological Museum, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland Alan G. Beu New Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between the molluscan family-group name CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) and the insect family- group name CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940. It is proposed that the latter be altered to CYMATIAINAE by changing the stem of the type genus Cymatia from CYMATI- to CYMATIA-. 1. The gastropod family-group name CYMATIDAE was established by Iredale (1913, p. 56). The type genus of the family is Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (p. 129; see Direction 48 for authorship of this name) with the type species Murex femorale Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 749) by subsequent designation by Dall (1904, p. 133). CYMATMDAE is a junior synonym of RANELLIDAE Gray, 1854 (p. 37), but Beu & Cernohorsky (1986) have conserved it under Article 40b as a subfamily name that replaces LAMPUSIIDAE Newton, 1891; LAMPUSIIDAE (published as ‘LAMPUSIDAE’) is based on Lampusia Schumacher, 1817, a junior subjective synonym of Monoplex Perry, 1811, a subgenus of Cymatium. Lampusia had become a junior subjective synonym of Cymatium, Septa and Monoplex before Iredale (1913) introduced CYMATIINAE because Cymatium Roding, 1798 was the oldest relevant nominal genus. LAMPUSIIDAE (proposed by Newton in 1891) was rejected (i.e. not adopted) by Iredale because of this junior synonymy of Lampusia; it is true that Iredale did not explicitly ‘replace’ LAMPUSIIDAE by CYMATIINAE, but he was working nearly 50 years before the Code applied priority to family-group names. CYMATIINAE has become generally accepted (see BZN 32: 8-11 and Beu & Cernohorsky, 1986). It is therefore appropriate to apply Article 40b to this case. 2. Recently Ponder & Waren (1988, p. 302) have listed the subfamily name NEPTUNELLINAE Gray, 1854 (p. 38) as a senior synonym of CYMATIINAE Iredale. This name (which Ponder & Waren spelled as ““NEPTUNELLININAE’’) and that of its type genus Neptunella Gray, 1854 (p. 38) have never been used; Neptunella is a junior objective synonym of Cabestana [Réding], 1798 (p. 130), which is closely related to Cymatium. Because it has been totally unused there is clearly an even stronger case for rejecting NEPTUNELLINAE than for LAMPUSIIDAE, in the spirit of Article 40b (see para. 1). 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 We cite CYMATIIDAE as Iredale, 1913 (1854); the double date citation is awkward but is given by Recommendation 40A of the Code. 3. CYMATIINI was established as a tribe of CORIXINAE (waterboatmen; Insecta) by Walton in Hutchinson (1940, p. 344) with the type genus Cymatia Flor, 1860, p. 799. The type species of this genus is Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777 (p. 298) by sub- sequent designation by Kirkaldy (1898, p. 252). China (1943) upgraded the taxon, listing it as the subfamily CYMATIINAE. Hungerford (1948, p. 99) also gave the taxon subfamily status (incorrectly stating “CYMATIINAE subfamily new’), and this has been accepted in modern classifications almost universally (a representative list is held by the Commission Secretariat). 4. Although the family-group names by Iredale (1913) and Walton in Hutchinson (1940) are not based on identically spelled generic names, the family-group names are homonymous. The existence of this homonymy was pointed out by Jaczewski (1971) and Cernohorsky & Beu (1972) but, despite the clear statements in Articles 52 and 60, the junior homonym has so far not been replaced. Jaczewski (1971) further stated that the corixid subfamily CYMATIINAE ‘includes only one genus, Cymatia Flor, 1860, which has no synonymic names or ever had any’. However, Jansson (1982) has since described the genus Cnethocymatia, so there are two genera in the subfamily at present. 5. In our opinion, as neither Cymatia Flor nor CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson has any synonyms which could be used to form a name to replace the junior homonym (Article 55 b (i)), the case would be solved with the least confusion by following Article 55b(ii) and including all the letters of the generic name Cymatia in the stem of the junior homonymic name. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to useits plenary powers to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name Cymatia Flor, 1860 is CYMATIA-; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by Dall (1904) Murex femorale Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Cymatia Flor, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Kirkaldy (1898) Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) femorale Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex femorale (specific name of the type species of Cymatium [Roding], 1798); (b) coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Sigara coleoptrata and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Jansson (1986) (specific name of the type species of Cymatia Flor, 1860); (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854), type genus Cymatium [Roding], 1798; (b) CYMATIAINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940, type genus Cymatia Flor, 1860 (spelling emended in (1) above); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group names in Zoology the name CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (spelling emended to CYMATIAINAE in (1) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 11 References Beu, A. G. & Cernohorsky, W. O. 1986. Taxonomy of gastropods of the families Ranellidae (= Cymatiidae) and Bursidae. Part 1. Adoption of Ranellidae, and review of Linatella Gray, 1857. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 13: 241-266. Cernohorsky, W. O. & Beu, A. G. 1972. Replies to comments on proposed validation of Cymatiidae Iredale, 1913. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 29: 109-110. China, W. E. 1943. Pp. 217-316 Jn The generic names of British Hemiptera-Heteroptera, with a check list of the British Species. The generic names of British Insects, vol. 1, part 8. 466 pp. Dall, W. H. 1904. An historical and systematic review of the frog-shells and tritons. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 47: 114-144. Fabricius, J. C. 1777. Genera insectorum eorumque characteres naturales secundum numerum, SLA Dp ea a 310 pp. Bartschii, Chilonii. Flor, G. 1860. Die Rhynchoten Livlands, vol. 1. 825 pp. Schulz, Dorpat. Gray, J. E. 1854. On the division of the ctenobranchous gasteropodous Mollusca into larger groups and families. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 21: 32-44. Hungerford, H. B. 1948. The Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere (Hemiptera). University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 32: 1-827. Hutchinson, G. E. 1940. A revision of the Corixidae of India and Adjacent Regions. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 33: 339-476. Iredale, T. 1913. The generic name to be used for Murex tritonis Linne. The Nautilus, 27: 55—56. Jaczewski, T. 1971. Comment on the proposed preservation of Cymatiidae Iredale, 1913. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 28: 142. Jansson, A. 1982. Notes on some Corixidae (Heteroptera) from New Guinea and New Caledonia. Pacific Insects, 24: 95-103. Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 47: 1-94. Kirkaldy, G. W. 1898. On the nomenclature of the European subgenera of Corixa, Geoffr. (Rhynchota.). Entomologist, 31: 252-253. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Newton, R. B. 1891. Systematic list of the F.E. Edwards collection of British Oligocene and Eocene Mollusca in the British Museum. xxvii, 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Perry, G. 1811. Conchology, or the natural history of shells: containing a new arrangement of the genera and species ...4 pp. + unpaginated captions, 61 pls. Miller, London. Ponder, W. F. & Warén, A. 1988. Appendix. Classification of the Caenogastropoda and Heterostropha—a list of the family-group names and higher taxa. Malacological Review, Supplement, 4: 288-326. [Réding, P. F.] 1798. Museum Boltenianum, sive catalogus cimeliorum e tribus regnis naturae quae olim collegerat joa. Fried. Bolten... pars secunda. viii, 199 pp. Trapii, Hamburg. [facsimile reprint, Sherborn & Sykes, 1906]. Schumacher, C. F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers testacés, avec XXII planches. 287 pp., 22 pls. Schultz, Copenhagen. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2641 Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (actuellement Placostylus fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposée pour les noms spécifiques; et Placostylus Beck, 1837: designation proposée de L. fibratus comme espéce-type Philippe Bouchet Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, Paris, France Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve two gastropod names, Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, which were published in The Universal Conchologist by T. Martyn (1784-1787), and to designate L. fibratus as the type species of Placostylus Beck, 1837. Although in use, the specific names are at present formally unavailable because Martyn’s work has been rejected as being non-binominal (Opinion 456, March 1957). Résumé. L’ objet dela presente requéte est la conservation de deux noms de gastéropodes, Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, publiés dans The Universal Conchologist de T. Martyn (1784-1787), et la désignation de L. fibratus comme espéce- type de Placostylus Beck, 1837. Bien qu’actuellement utilisés, ces noms spécifiques sont actuellement indisponibles, le travail de Martyn ayant été rejeté au motif qu'il n’est pas binominal (Opinion 456, mars 1957). 1. En plagant The Universal Conchologist (Martyn, 1784-1787) sur l’ Index Officiel des Travaux Rejetés et Invalides en Nomenclature Zoologique, la Commission Inter- nationale précisait dans son Opinion 456 “‘consideration will be given to applications for the validation of individual names. ... if submitted by specialists with adequate data regarding the names concerned’’. Des malacologistes néo-zélandais ont demandé la validation de neuf noms utilisés pour des espéces de leur région. Leur requéte a été acceptée (Opinion 479, septembre 1957). Le but de la présente requéte est de demander de rendre disponibles deux autres noms actuellement utilisés en dépit de Opinion 456. Dall (1907, p. 187) a montré que les planches 1-80 (volumes 1 et 2) de The Universal Conchologist ont paru en 1784, les planches 81—120 (volume 3) en 1786, et les planches 121-160 (volume 4 et dernier) probablement au printemps 1787. 2. Lenom Limax fibratus, fondésur la figure de Martyn (1784, pl. 25), estactuellement utilisé dans la combinaison Placostylus fibratus pour un gastéropode Bulimulidae de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Pendant la premiére partie du 19éme siécle, la nomenclature de cette espéce est confuse, et les discussions font usage des noms suivants, généralement considérés comme des synonymes de Placostylus fibratus: Helix aurismalchi Miller, 1774, Voluta elongata Lightfoot, 1786, Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792, Ellobium australe Roding, 1798, Voluta australis Dillwyn, 1817, Auricula aurantiaca Schumacher, 1817, Helix aurisbovinus Férussac, 1821 et Bulimus bootis Menke, 1828. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 13 3. Helix aurismalchi Miller, 1774 (p. 112) est introduit pour désigner une coquille de la collection Spengler, pour laquelle Muller ne donne ni localiteé, ni figure, ni reference a une figure publi¢e. Bruguiére, 1789 (p. 319) a utilisé le nom dans la combinaison Bulimus aurismalchi et Gmelin, 1791 (p. 3437) dans la combinaison Voluta aurismalchi. Bruguiére et Gmelin font reference a Miller et a Chemnitz (1786, pl. 121, figs 1037— 1038), qui figure une coquille de la collection Spengler, probablement holotype de Muller. Cette coquille n’est pas présente dans la collection Spengler, conservée au Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn (T. Schiette, comm. pers.). Apres Pfeiffer (1848, p. 139), ce nom n’a jamais été cite autrement que comme synonyme subjectif de Placostylus (ou Bulimus) fibratus, bien qwil lui soit antérieur. 4. Voluta elongata Lightfoot, 1786 (pp. 30, 143) est fonde sur la figure (sic) 25 du volume | de Martyn (1784), avec la localité ““New Caledonia’’. I] s’agit donc d’un synonyme objectif de Limax fibratus. Ce nom n’a jamais été utilisé, ni méme cite, dans un quelconque travail avant 1967 et, suite a ’Opinion 456, seuls Rehder (1967, p. 9: “Since the name fibratus is unavailable, the adoption of Lightfoot’s name should prove acceptable’’) et Pain (1988) en ont recommandeé Il’adoption. 5. Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792 (p. 345) est fondé avec des reférences a Lister (1770, pl. 1058, fig. 8; pour les dates des différentes éditions de Lister voir Wilkins (1957, p. 196)), Favanne (1780, pl. 65, fig. V; 1784, p. 20, no. 81) et Chemnitz (1786, pl. 121, figs. 1039-1040). Favanne (1784, p. 20) et Chemnitz (p. 42) donnent respec- tivement la Nouvelle-Hollande (= Australie) et la Nouvelle-Calédonie pour origine de leur coquille; Bruguiére indique la Nouvelle-Hollande comme origine de l’espéce. Pfeiffer (1848, p. 139) place le nom bovinus dans la synonymie de Bulimus fibratus de Nouvelle-Calédonie, mais Petit (1853) considére qu’il s’agit d’une espéce distincte, synonyme de Bulimus shongii Lesson, 1831 (p. 321, pl. 7, figs. 4 et 5) de Nouvelle- Zelande (pour les dates de publication du travail de Lesson voir Sherborn & Woodward (1906, p. 336)). L’opinion de Petit est suivie par la plupart des auteurs de la deuxiéme moitié du 19éme siécle, qui utilisent donc pour l’espéce néo-zélandaise le synonyme anterieur Bulimus (ou Placostylus) bovinus Bruguiére (13 utilisations citées par Pilsbry (1900, p. 22)). Pilsbry (1900, p. 40) au contraire conclut a la synonymie de Bulimus bovinus avec P. fibratus de Nouvelle-Calédonie et restaure usage du nom P. shongii pour lespece de Nouvelle-Zélande. Apres Pilsbry, je n’ai pas trouve de citation du nom bovinus Bruguiére autrement que dans la synonymie de Placostylus fibratus. 6. En fait, l’examen des figures originales auxquelles se refere Bruguiere ne permet pas d’identifier avec certitude bovinus. La coquille figurée par Lister (1770) est méconn- aissable et la figure de Favanne (1780) parait copiée sur celle de Lister. Compte tenu de la date (1774) de la découverte de la Nouvelle-Calédonie par Cook, elle n’est certaine- ment pas celle d’un Bulimulidae de Nouvelle-Calédonie; elle pourrait étre celle d’un Bulimulidae ou d’un Acavidae sud-ameéricain. Malgré la localisation Nouvelle- Calédonie de la coquille figurée par Chemnitz, la trés grande variabilité intraspécifique des espéces de ce genre, le manque de détails sur la figure originale de Chemnitz, et l'absence de matériel type (absent dans la partie de la collection Chemnitz conserveée au Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn; T. Schiotte, comm. pers.) rendent interpretation du nom subjective. Les figures 1039-1040 peuvent tout aussi bien representer une forme de P. fibratus qwune forme de P. porphyrostomus (Pfeiffer, 1851), partiellement sympatrique avec P. fibratus. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 7. Ellobium australe Roding, 1798 (p. 106) est introduit sans description, mais avec references a Voluta aurismalchi Gmelin et aux figures 1039-1040 de Chemnitz. En labsence d’une désignation formelle de figure type, le nom de Roding peut done étre considéré comme un synonyme objectif ou de Helix aurismalchi Miller, 1774 ou de Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792. Dillwyn (1817, p. 500) utilise le nom dans la combinaison Voluta australis. 8. Auricula aurantiaca Schumacher, 1817 (p. 228) est un nom introduit sans description. La référence aux figures 1039-1040 de Chemnitz et au nom Bulimus bovinus “Bosc” conduit a traiter ce nom comme un synonyme objectif de Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792. Helix aurisbovinus Férussac, 1821 (p. 57) est un nom introduit sans description, et attribué par Férussac a Bruguiére. Les références aux figures 1039-1040 de Chemnitz conduisent a interpréter ce bin6me comme une émendation injustifiée ou un nomen novum pro Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere. Bulimus bootis Menke, 1828 (p. 14) est introduit sans description, mais validé par references aux noms Helix aurisbovina Férussac, Auricula bovina “Lamarck” et Voluta aurismalchi ““Gmelin”’. Bulimus bootis doit étre considéré comme un nomen novum pro Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792. 9. Le nom fibratus n’a jamais été remplacé par l’un quelconque de ces synonymes, et Pusage du nom /fibratus a été continu chez les zoologistes (voir, par exemple, Gassies, 1863, p. 243, pl. 4, fig. 1; Kobelt, 1891, pp. 47—49, pl. 21, figs. 1-5; Cockerell, 1929, pp. 74-76; et Franc, 1956, pp. 152-153, pl. 18, fig. 195). Aprés la publication de l’Opinion 456, peu d’auteurs ont publié sur les Placostylus de Nouvelle-Calédonie, mais tous ont continue a utiliser le nom fibratus: Pain (1958), Solem (1961, p. 472), StarmiihIner (1970, p. 312), Cherel (1980, p. 36), et Parkinson et al. (1987, p. 244). Seuls Rehder (1967) et Pain (1988, dans une analyse d’ouvrage) ont contesté cet usage (voir para- graphe 4 ci-dessus). L’opinion de Solem, qui ignorait le nom P. elongatus, mérite d’étre rapportee ici: ‘““The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 456) invalidated Martyn’s names asa group. ...I prefer to retain Martyn’s name rather than to try to determine the identity of one of the ill-figured and badly described synonyms from the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. While this is against the letter of the International Code, it is a much more practical solution”. 10. Le nom de genre Placostylus a été introduit par Beck (1837, p. 57), pour y placer la seule espéce P. bootis (Menke, 1828). Beck inclut sous ce nom une liste synonymique comprenant “‘Voluta australis Dw.”’, “Bul. auris bovinus Brug.” et “Bul. shongi (sic) Lesson’”’, et donne pour origine géographique de bootis “Nov. Zeel.”. Apres Beck, les auteurs ont considéré que son concept de bootis comprenait aussi fibratus Martyn, 1784, et bien que ce nom ne figure pas dans la liste originale de synonymes, von Martens in Albers (1860, p. 185) a désigné fibratus Martyn comme espéce type de Placostylus. Cette procédure, erronée, a cependant été ultérieurement retenue par certains auteurs dont Pilsbry (1900, pp. 19, 21) et Solem (1961, p. 472), probablement a cause de Pincertitude d’interprétation entourant le nom bootis. Bulimus shongii Lesson, 1831 est lespéce type, par désignation originale, de Maoristylus Haas, 1935 (p. 188). Les noms Placostylus et Maoristylus sont maintenant universellement acceptés avec pour espéce type respectivement bootis (compris subjectivement comme un synonyme de fibratus) et shongii; voir, par exemple, Zilch (1960, p. 497) et Powell (1979, p. 350 et références). Ainsi qu’il a été vu plus haut, Bulimus bootis doit étre interprété comme un nomen novum pro B. bovinus Bruguiére, mais le nom bovinus nest pas formellement reconnaissable. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 1S 11. J’en viens maintenant a la deuxieme espéce concernée par cette requéte. Le nom Nerita hebraea (Nerita litteris Hebraicis natatus sur les tables de certains exemplaires de Youvrage de Martyn: voir Dall, 1907, p. 191), fondé sur la figure de Martyn (1786, pl. 109), est actuellement employe dans la combinaison Natica hebraea ou Naticarius hebraeus pour un gastéropode Naticidae commun sur le plateau continental de Méditerranée. 12. Pendant la premiére moiti¢ du 19eme siecle, le statut de l’espéce est incertain; elle est citée sous des noms trés divers, soit avec un statut d’espéce soit avec un statut de varieté de Natica millepunctata (Lamarck, 1822), bien que le nom lamarckien lui soit postérieur. La taxonomie et la nomenclature des Natices des cotes frangaises sont révisees par Recluz (1852, p. 264), qui stabilise Vutilisation du nom Natica hebraea (Martyn). A partir de cette époque, l’usage de ce nom devient général, aussi bien dans les catalogues locaux que dans les ouvrages de détermination. Bucquoy, Dautzenberg et Dollfus (1883, pp. 139-140) donnent une liste de citations antérieures a 1882. Exemples de ces utilisations anciennes du nom hebraea: Locard (1886, p. 273), Hidalgo (1916, pp. 479, 486), Coen (1933, p. 26). L’invalidation en 1957 du travail de Martyn The Universal Conchologist est passée inapercue des auteurs européens, qui n’ont pas remarque que cette décision affectait la nomenclature de cette espéce méditerranéenne et le nom hebraea a continue d’étre employe réguli¢rement dans la littérature. Les ouvrages ou articles suivants sont parmi les plus récents a maintenir cet usage: Sabelli et Spada (1980, p. 101), Nordsieck (1982, p. 186, avec l’orthographe hebrdus), Villa (1986, p. 15). Une liste de huit autres references est deéposée au secretariat de la Commission. Plusieurs de ces references sont celles de guides trés utilisés pour l’identification des espéces de la faune méditerranéenne. 13. Le premier synonyme plus récent de Natica hebraea (Martyn, 1786) est Natica maculata (von Salis, 1793, p. 379), publié dans la combinaison Nerita maculata. Une confusion dans l’utilisation de ce nom est due au fait que Deshayes (1838, p. 645) a publié la combinaison Natica maculata sans aucune reference a von Salis. Les deux noms Natica maculata (von Salis, 1793) et Natica maculata Deshayes, 1838 sont homo- nymes secondaires et synonymes subjectifs. Le nom maculata est bien plus rarement utilisé que hebraea et, au cours des 30 derniéres années, je n’ai pu en trouver que deux utilisations: Ghisotti (1972, p. 81) et Koronéos (1979, p. 10). Ces auteurs n’invoquent cependant pas l’invalidité du nom de Martyn pour justifier ’emploi du nom maculata. 14. Dans l’interét de la stabilite de la nomenclature et au nom d’un usage continu, il est demande a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique: (1) duser de ses pleins pouvoirs pour: (a) supprimer le nom spécifique aurismalchi Miller, 1774, publie dans le bindme Helix aurismalchi, au regard du Principe de Priorité mais pas au regard du Principe d’ Homonymie; (b) régler que les noms spécifiques suivants sont disponibles: (i) fibratus Martyn, 1784, publie dans le bindme Limax fibratus; (11) hebraea Martyn, 1786, publié dans le bindme Nerita hebraea; (c) écarter toutes les désignations antérieures d’espéce-type du genre Placostylus Beck, 1837 et designer Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 comme espéce-type; (2) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Génériques en Zoologie le nom Placostylus Beck, 1837 (genre: masculin), avec pour espéce-type par désignation en (1)(c) ci-dessus Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784; 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 (3) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Spécifiques en Zoologie les noms suivants: (a) fibratus Martyn, 1784, publié dans le bindme Limax fibratus (nom spécifique de l’espece-type de Placostylus Beck, 1837 par désignation en (1)(c) ci- dessus); (b) hebraea Martyn, 1786, publie dans le bindme Nerita hebraea; (4) de placer sur l’Index Officiel des Noms Spécifiques Rejetés et Invalides en Zoologie les noms suivants: (a) aurismalchi Miller, 1774, publi¢ dans le binédme Helix aurismalchi et supprimé en (1)(a) ci-dessus; (b) elongata Lightfoot, 1786, publié dans le bindme Voluta elongata, synonyme objectif postérieur de fibratus, Martyn, 1784, publié dans le bindme Limax fibratus. Références Albers, J.C. 1860. Die Heliceen nach natirlicher Verwandtschaft systematisch geordnet, Ed. 2, par E. v. Martens. 359 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig. Beck, H. 1837. Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi Musei Principis Augustissimi Christiani Frederici. 124 pp. Copenhague. Bruguiére, J. G. 1789-1792. Encyclopédie meéthodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol. 1, pp. xviii, 1-344 [1789], pp. 345-757 [1792]. Panckoucke, Paris. Bucquoy, H., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1883. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon, vol. | (Gastropodes), pars 4 (Familles Naticidae, Pyramidellidae), pp. 136-196. Bailliere, Paris. Chemnitz, J. H. 1786. Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 9, pars 2, Land- und Flussschnecken. xxvi, 194 pp., pls. 117-136. Kafpe, Nurnberg. Chérel, C. 1980. Land snails of the genus Placostylus in New Caledonia. Haliotis, 10(2): 36. Cockerell, T. D. A. 1929. The genus Placostylus in New Caledonia. The Nautilus, 42(3): 73-78. Coen, G. 1933. Saggio di una Sylloge Molluscorum Adriaticorum. Memorie Reale Comitato Talassografico Italiano, 192: 1-186. Dall, W. H. 1907. Supplementary notes on Martyn’s Universal Conchologist. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 33(1565): 185-192. Deshayes, G. P. 1838. Jn Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de, Histoire des Animaux sans Vertebres. Ed. 2, vol. 8 (Mollusques), 657 pp. Bailliére, Paris. Dillwyn, L. W. 1817. A descriptive catalogue of recent shells, arranged according to the Linnaean method, with particular attention to the synonymy, vol. 1. xii, 580 pp. Arch, London. Favanne de Montcervelle, G. J. de. 1780. La Conchyliologie, ou histoire naturelle des coquilles de mer, d'eau douce, terrestres et fossiles; avec un traité de la zoomorphose ... par M. Desalier d’Argenville.... Ed. 3, vol. 3, 80 pls. De Bure, Paris. Favanne de Montcervelle, G. J. de. 1784. Catalogue systématique et raisonné, ou description du magnifique cabinet appartenant ci-devant a M. le C[ompte] de (la Tour d'Auvergne ). xii, 558 pp., 9 pls. Quillau, Paris. ' Férussac, A. E. d’A. de. 1821. Tableaux systématiques des animaux Mollusques.... 114 pp. Bertrand, Paris; Sowerby, London. Franc, A. 1956. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de l’archipel néo-calédonien. Mémoires du Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, Paris, (A) 13: 1-200. Gassies, J.-B. 1863. Faune Conchyliologique terrestre et fluvio-lacustre de la Nouvelle- Calédonie. Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux, (3) 24(4): 211-326. Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1, pars 6 (Vermes), pp. 3021-3910. Leipzig. Ghisotti, F. 1972. Le Conchiglie del golfo di Gabés (parte prima). Conchiglie, 8(5—6): 63-89. Haas, F. 1935. Beschreibung neuer Untergattungen und Arten von Mollusken. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 109(7/8): 188-195. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 17 Hidalgo, J. G. 1916. Fauna malacologica de Espana, Portugal, y las Baleares. Moluscos testaceos marinos. 752 pp. Madrid. Kobelt, W. 1891. Die Gattung Placostylus Beck (Bulimus Neue Folge). Pp. 1-142, pls. 1-32 in Kuster, H. C. (Ed.), Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz, vol. 1, pars 13a. Bauer & Raspe, Nurnberg. Koroneos, J. 1979. Les Mollusques de la Gréce. 36 pp., 48 pls. E. Papadakis, Athénes. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de. 1822. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, vol. 6, pars 2. 232 pp. Paris. Lesson, R. P. [1831]. Voyage autour du Monde sur la Corvette S. M. ‘La Coquille’’, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825. Par L. I. Duperrey. Zoologie, vol. 2, pars 1. pp. 241—471. Bertrand, Paris. Lightfoot, J. 1786. A Catalogue of the Portland Museum, lately the property of the Duchess Dowager of Portland, deceased, which will be sold at auction, by Mr Skinner and Co. 194 pp. London. Lister, M. 1770. Historiae sive Synopsis Methodicae Conchyliorum, Ed. 3, 4 pp., 1082 pls. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Locard, A. 1886. Catalogue général des Mollusques vivants de France. Mollusques marins. 778 pp. Henri Georg, Lyon; J.-B. Bailliere, Paris. Martyn, T. 1784—1787. The Universal Conchologist Exhibiting The Figure of every Known Shell accurately drawn and painted after Nature, vol. 1, pp. 1-39, Explanatory Table, pls. 1—40 (1784); vol. 2, pp. 26-39, Explanatory Table, pls. 41-80 (1784); vol. 3, Explanatory Table, pls. 81-120 (1786); vol. 4, Explanatory Table, pls. 121-160 (1787). London. Menke, C. T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum .. . xii, 92 pp. Gelpke, Pyrmont. Miiller, O. F. 1774. Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium ... vol. 2, xxxv, 214 pp. Heineck et Faber, Copenhagen. Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehduseschnecken (Prosobranchia) vom Eismeer bis Kapverden, Mittelmeer und Schwarzes Meer, Ed. 2. 539 pp. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York. Pain, T. 1958. On a new sub-species of Placostylus fibratus (Martyn) from New Caledonia. Journal of Conchology, 24(8): 276-277. Pain, T. 1988. Review. Tropical Landshells of the World. Journal of Conchology, 33: 81. Parkinson, B., Hemmen, J. & Groh, K. 1987. Tropical Landshells of the World. 279 pp. Verlag Christa Hemmen, Wiesbaden. Petit de la Saussaye, S. 1853. Notice sur le Bulimus auris bovina, Brug. Journal de Conchyliologie, (1) 4: 403—405. Pfeiffer, L. 1848. Monographia Heliceorum Viventium . .., vol. 2.594 pp. Brockhaus, Leipzig. Pilsbry, H. A. 1900. Manual of Conchology, vol. 13. 253 pp., 72 pls. Conchological Section, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. Powell, A. W. B. 1979. New Zealand Mollusca. 500 pp. Collins, Auckland. Recluz, C. 1852. Des Natices propres aux cotes de la France continentale. Journal de Conchylio- logie, 3: 263-272. Rehder, H. A. 1967. Valid zoological names of the Portland catalogue. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 121(3579): 1-51. Réding, J. F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum sive Catalogus cimeliorum, pars secunda continens Conchylia ... viii, 199 pp. Trapi, Hamburg. Sabelli, B. & Spada, G. 1980. Guida Illustrata all’identificazione delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo. Naticidae 3. Bollettino Malacologico Italiano, 16(1—2, supplement): 1—4. Salis Marschlins, C. U. von. 1793. Reisen in verschiedene Provinzen des Konigreiches Neapel, vol. 1, 442 pp. Ziegler & Sohne, Zurich & Leipzig. Schumacher, C. F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des Vers Testacés. 287 pp., 22 pls. Schultz, Copenhague. Sherborn, C. D. & Woodward, B. B. 1906. Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history portions of some French voyages—‘Voyage autour du Monde sur la Coquille pendant 1822-25. Par L. I. Duperrey”’ etc.—a Correction. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7) 17(99): 335-336. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Solem, A. 1961. New Caledonian land and fresh-water snails. An annotated check list. Fieldiana: Zoology, 41(3): 413-501. StarmiihIner, F. 1970. Ergebnisse der Osterreichischen Neukaledonien-Expedition 1965. Terrestrische Gastropoda 1. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 74: 289-324. Villa, R. 1986. Revisione sistematica della famiglia Naticidae nel Mar Mediterraneo. Notiziario, Centro Italiano di Studi Malacologici (Roma), no. 7/8: 15—20. Wilkins, G. L. 1957. Notes on the Historia Conchyliorum of Martin Lister (1638-1712). Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 3(4): 196-205. Zilch, A. 1960. Pars 2 (Euthyneura), no. 3, pp. 401—600 in W. Wenz (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of Schindewolf, O. H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Borntraeger, Berlin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 19 Case 2558 Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation Mark E. Gordon Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Biology, PO Box 5114, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee 38505, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Proptera Rafinesque, 1819, for a genus of North American freshwater mussels, by the suppression of the senior objective synonym Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818. 1. A fairly concise, historical review of Proptera and Potamilus has been presented by Clarke (1986). The genus Potamilus was described briefly with a list of 24 unde- scribed species, one of them named a/atus, arranged in five unnamed subgenera (Rafinesque, 1818a, p. 355), all nomina nuda. Rafinesque stated that he had *... collected and described over 30 species, the whole of which appear to be new’ and appended an abbreviation of his name, ‘Raf.’, at the end of the species list for each of the three presented genera (Potamilus, Pleurocera, and Ambloxis). Rafinesque later (1818b, p. 107) noted Potamilus as a new genus of fluviatile bivalves with 34 unnamed species and emended the gender of the name to feminine, as Potamila. 2. In 1819 Rafinesque (p. 420) briefly described Proptera as a subgenus of Unio, and in it listed three nomina nuda: ‘alata, phaiedra, pallida, etc.’. 3. In 1820 Rafinesque noted his previous use of Potamilus as a catch-all genus, similar to his contemporaries’ use of Unio, and abandoned it to be replaced by the ‘system’ he initially had outlined in 1819 and which he now presented. He also replaced Proptera with Metaptera (p. 299: he considered the former name to be inappropriate due to his earlier misinterpretation of the anterior-posterior orientation of the mussels), described M. megaptera (p. 300), included (p. 300) U. alatus Say, 1817 (unpaginated, pl. 4, fig. 2; not 1816: see Johnson, 1975) under Metaptera, and specu- lated that U. ochraceus Say, 1817 and U. cariosus Say, 1817 were in this genus. Metaptera megaptera is a junior subjective synonym of U. alatus (synonymy originally proposed by Conrad, 1834, p. 67; justification in Clarke, 1973 , p. 101), and Metaptera is invalid as a junior objective synonym of Proptera. 4. Potamilus alatus Rafinesque, 1818 and U. (Proptera) alata Rafinesque, 1819 are not Say’s species but are nomina nuda. Rafinesque did not explicitly refer Say’s alatus to the genus-group under consideration until 1820 (p. 300), as Metaptera alata. 5. Herrmannsen (1847, p. 41) designated U. alatus Say as the type of Metaptera, thereby also establishing it as the type of Proptera (Article 67h). In 1969 (p. 24) Morrison stated: ‘Potamilus alatus Say, 1817 (monotype of Potamilus in 1818)’, thereby establishing alatus Say as the type of Potamilus. Morrison was the first person to include a species in Potamilus. This action has made Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 and Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 objective synonyms. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 6. The taxon in question has been incorporated in modern systems of unionid nomenclature since Baker (1898, p. 97) as Metaptera, and recognized as Proptera since Simpson (1900, p. 566). Morrison’s 1969 assumption that Potamilus alatus Rafinesque was the same as Say’s species and his resurrection of Potamilus were not consistent with any usage by Rafinesque or subsequent authors. Rather than representing any sort of taxonomic revision, Morrison’s action appears to have been solely to reintroduce an unused Rafinesque name. 7. In accordance with the Code, Clarke (1986, p. 62) has noted the availability of Potamilus under Article 12a, and the validity of Morrison’s type designation under the provision of Article 69a, particularly sections i(1), 11 and vii. 8. In 1971 the name Potamilus was adopted by Valentine & Stansbery (p. 25), and its usage has been promulgated by the latter, largely through personal communications to various authors. The name Proptera has remained in common usage within the literature, included in faunal surveys such as those of Clarke (1973, 1981); Johnson (1980); Gordon (1981, 1985); van der Schalie (1981), and in systematic reviews of unionids by Haas (1969a, p. 415), Heard & Guckert (1971, p. 340), Burch (1975, p. 21), and Davis & Fuller (1981, p. 219). In 1980 Vokes (p. 90) listed both generic names as valid, and Haas (1969b, p. N454) considered Potamilus to be a possible synonym of Ligumia Swanson, 1840. Johnson (1980, p. 128) discussed the usage of Proptera v. Potamilus, noting that priority of authorship was not in question. Citing Article 23, he concluded that resurrection of Potamilus had resulted in nomenclatural instability and confusion. These problems have not been resolved. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 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 Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Herrmannsen (1847) Unio alatus Say, 1817; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alatus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio alatus (specific name of the type species of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above. References Baker, F. C. 1898. The Mollusca of the Chicago area, the Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Natural History Survey of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 3(1): 1—30. Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. 204 pp. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. Clarke, A. H. 1973. The freshwater molluscs of the Canadian Interior Basin. Malacologia, 13(1—2): 1-509. Clarke, A. H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. 446 pp. National Museum of Natural Sciences of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Clarke, A. H. 1986. Potamilus Rafinesque (1818) versus Proptera Rafinesque (1819) (Unionidae). Malacology Data Net Ecosearch Series, 1(3): 58-65. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 21 Conrad, T. A. 1834. New fresh water shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations, and a monograph of the genus Anculatus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. 76 pp., 8 pls. Dobson, Philadelphia. Davis, G. M. & Fuller, S. L. H. 1981. Genetic relationships amongst recent Unionacea (Bivalvia) of North America. Malacologia, 20(2): 217-253. Gordon, M. E. 1981. Recent Mollusca of Arkansas with annotations to systematics and zoogeography. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 34(1980): 56—62. Gordon, M. E. 1985, Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. Nautilus, 99: 6—9. Haas, F. 1969a. Superfamilia Unionacea. Jn Das Tierreich. x, 633 pp. Berlin, Lieferung 88. Haas, F. 1969b. [Unionacea] Pp. N411—N417 Jn Moore, R.C. (Ed.). Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part N, vol. 1, Mollusca 6. Bivalvia. Geological Society of America, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Heard, W. H. & Guckert, R. H. 1971. A re-evaluation of the recent Unionacea (Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacologia, 10(2): 333-353. Herrmannsen, A. N. 1847. Indices generum malacozoorum primordia. vol. 2. xl, 717 pp. Cassellis. Johnson, R. I. 1975. First paper on the conchology of the United States by an American author, Thomas Say, 1817. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 7: 265-267. Johnson, R. I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 149(2): 77-189. Morrison, J. P. E. 1969. The earliest names for the North American naiads. Annual Reports of the American Malacological Union, 1969: 22-24. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818a. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the western region of the United States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 3: 354-356. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818b. General account of the discoveries made in the zoology of the western states. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 4: 106—107 Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans l’interieur des Etats-Unis d’Amerique, durant l’année 1818. VI Classe. Mollusques. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle, 88: 423—428. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Monographie des coquilles bivalves fluviatiles de la riviére Ohio, conte- nant douze genres et soixante-huit espéces. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 5(13): 287-326. Say, T. 1817. Conchology. Jn Nicholson, W. First American edition of the British encyclopedia or dictionary of arts and sciences, etc. Vol. 2 [B—E]. 15 pp. 4 pls. [unpaginated]. Simpson, C. T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 2(1205): 501-1044. Valentine, B. D. & Stansbery, D. H. 1971. An introduction to the naiades of the Lake Texoma region, Oklahoma, with notes on the Red River fauna. Sterkiana, 42: 1—40. Van der Schalie, H. 1981. Mollusks in the Alabama River drainage: past and present. Sterkiana, 71: 24—40. Vokes, H. E. 1980. Genera of the Bivalvia: a systematic and bibliographic catalogue (revised and updated ). xxvii, 307 pp. Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, New York. 22; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2692 Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species Mark S. Harvey Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm that the nominal species Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 is the type of the pseudoscorpion genus Mirochernes Beier, 1930. In his 1930 definition of Mirochernes, Beier had misidentified the species he was studying which, in 1932, he named Semeiochernes militaris. 1. Banks (1895, p. 6) described a new species of pseudoscorpion from U.S.A., Chelanops dentatus, based on a single male ‘without locality (Hubbard); but probably from Florida’. Hoff (1947, p. 502) referred to this specimen (in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard) as the lectotype but he subsequently (1958, p. 26) referred to ‘the original specimen on which he [Banks] described the species’. The status of the specimen as holotype of Chelanops dentatus is unequivocal. 2. Beier (1930, p. 216) established a genus Mirochernes and designated Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type (and only) species. Beier’s concept of ‘C. dentatus’ was based upon a male from Juan Vinas, Costa Rica (in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien). Beier later (1932, p. 180) designated the same specimen as the holotype of his new species Semeiochernes militaris, which is the type species by original designation (and monotypy) of Semeiochernes Beier, 1932 (p. 180). At the same time, Beier (1932, p. 182) altered his definition of Mirochernes to conform with Banks’ concept of Chelanops dentatus. It is probable that, when he saw the first diagrams of Chelanops dentatus [as Chernes dentatus (Banks)] published by Chamberlin (1931, p. 124), Beier realised the error he had made in his 1930 paper in misidentifying the male specimen from Juan Vinas as Chelanops dentatus. (The name Semeiochernes militaris is printed in Beier, 1933, p. 541, as nov. gen., nov. sp.; however, publication of this work had been delayed and Beier’s 1932 work has priority, although this does not affect the case.) 3. Mirochernes dentatus (Banks) has been reported several times in the primary literature, and was redescribed by Hoff (1949, p. 478). It appears to be widely distri- buted in eastern U.S.A. (Hoff, 1958, p. 25) and, at present, is the only species included in the genus. Mirochernes is thus used in the sense of Beier (1932). 4. Itisclear that the nominal type species of Mirochernes Beier, 1930 was based upon a misidentified specimen and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70(b). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to confirm that the nominal species Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 is the type species of the genus Mirochernes Beier, 1930; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 23 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, as con- firmed in (1) above, Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name dentatus Banks, 1895, as published in the binomen Chelanops dentatus (specific name of the type species of Mirochernes Beier, 1930). References Banks, N. 1895. Notes on the Pseudoscorpionida. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 3: 1-13. Beier, M. 1930. Die Pseudoskorpione des Wiener Naturhistorischen Museums. III. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 44: 199-222. Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea II. Suborder Cheliferinea. Tierreich, 58: 1-294. Beier, M. 1933. Revision der Chernetidae (Pseudoscorp.). Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Syst.), 64: 509-548. Chamberlin, J. C. 1931. The arachnid order Chelonethida. Stanford University Publications. Biological Sciences, 7: 1-284. Hoff, C. C. 1947. The species of the pseudoscorpion genus Chelanops described by Banks. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 98: 471-550. Hoff, C. C. 1949. The pseudoscorpions of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey, 24: 413-498. Hoff, C. C. 1958. List of the pseudoscorpions of North America north of Mexico. American Museum Novitates, No. 1875: 1—S0. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2725 Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustulus; Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the specific name R.B. Halliday Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the widely used name | Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) for a mite of probable health importance. The specific name was originally published as rubustulus, presumably as a typographical error, but that spelling has not been used for over 30 years and then only by one author. 1. Berlese (1904) described a new species of mite, Holostaspis subbadius. He simul- taneously described two new varieties of this species, var. scutatus and var. rubustulus (p. 264). The name rubustulus is spelt only once in this paper and was not subsequently used by Berlese either with this spelling or as robustulus. 2. The spelling rubustulus has been used in published works by only one other author (Sellnick, 1940, p. 84; 1958, p. 23) and in both papers is attributed to Berlese, 1904. In point of fact, Sellnick misapplied the name to a different species (Macrocheles matrius Hull, 1925) as pointed out by Krauss (1970, p. 18). The spelling rubustulus has not been used since 1958. 3. The three taxa described by Berlese are currently referred to the genus Macrocheles Latreille, 1829, as Macrocheles subbadius, M. scutatus and M. robustulus (sic). The species described as rubustulus has also been referred to as Macrocheles subbadius var. robustulus and M. robustulus. The spelling robustulus has been used in at least 35 papers from Leitner (1946, p. 85) onwards. The modern concept of the synonymy of this species dates from Axtell (1961, p. 748). Since that time the name robustulus has achieved widespread international usage. The name has been used by authors from U.S.A. (e.g. Axtell, 1961, p. 748; 1963, p. 628), Italy (e.g. Filipponi & Pegazzano, 1962, p. 230; Cicolani, 1979, p. 171), Israel (Costa, 1966, p. 532), Germany (Krauss, 1970, p. 18), Mexico (Halffter & Matthews, 1971, p. 160), India (Prasad, 1974, p. 155), U.S.S.R. (Bregetova, 1977, p. 374), New Zealand (Emberson, 1980, p. 136), U.K. (Luxton, 1982, p. 577; Hyatt & Emberson, 1988, p. 106) and Australia (Wallace, 1986, p. 11). 4. The mite species in question is believed to be of health importance. Itis a predator which occurs in accumulations of dung, where it contributes to the biological control of the housefly Musca domestica (e.g. Axtell, 1961, 1963, 1969; Filipponi, 1964). For this reason it has been the subject of a variety of ecological and laboratory studies (e.g. Axtell, 1961; Filipponi, 1964; Filipponi & Mosna, 1968; Cicolani, 1979; Halliday & Holm, 1987). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 25 5. The type specimen of rubustulus (slide number 19/18) is in the Berlese Acaroteca, Florence, and is labelled robustulus in Berlese’s handwriting. The same is true of two other slides (201/45 and 201/46) and two alcohol vials (38°/1873 and 38°/1874) (F. Pegazzano, personal communication, 1989). The name rubustulus was never used any- where else in Berlese’s considerable acarological canon. No material bearing this name is known to exist in his collection (Castagnoli & Pegazzano, 1985); on the other hand, a number of Berlese species names have the stem robust-. It appears that the spelling rubustulus in Berlese’s 1904 paper was a typographical error. However, this spelling cannot be treated as an incorrect original spelling since the evidence for this is not to be found ‘in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information’ (Article 32c of the Code). 6. Under a strict interpretation of Article 33c, all usage of the name robustulus should be regarded as incorrect subsequent spelling. However, this spelling has achieved extensive and exclusive usage since 1958 and to revert to the original spelling would cause needless confusion and would not be in the interests of stability of nomenclature. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis subbadius var. rubustulus, is to be treated as an incorrect original spelling of the name robustulus; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name robustulus, as a correction of rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis subbadius var. rubustulus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis subbadius var. rubustulus, and as ruled in (1) above to be treated as an incorrect original spelling of robustulus. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Drs F. Pegazzano, R. C. Axtell and K. H. L. Key for providing valuable assistance in the preparation of this case. References Axtell, R. C. 1961. New records of North American Macrochelidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) and their predation rates on the housefly. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 54: 748. Axtell, R. C. 1963. Acarina occurring in domestic animal manure. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 56: 628-633. Axtell, R. C. 1969. Macrochelidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) as biological control agents for synanthropic flies. Pp. 401-416 in Evans, G. O. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Inter- national Congress of Acarology (Sutton Bonington, 1967). Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. Berlese, A. 1904. Acari nuovi. Manipulus ITus. Redia, 1: 258-280. Bregetova, N. G. 1977. Family Macrochelidae Vitzthum, 1930. Pp. 346—411 in Ghilyarov, M.S. & Bregetova, N. G. (Eds.), Key to the Soil Inhabiting Mites. Mesostigmata. Nauka, Leningrad. [In Russian.] Castagnoli, M. & Pegazzano, F. 1985. Catalogue of the Berlese Acaroteca. 490 pp. Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria, Firenze. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Cicolani, B. 1979. The intrinsic rate of natural increase in dung macrochelid mites, predators of Musca domestica eggs. Bollettino di Zoologia, 46: 171-178. Costa, M. 1966. Notes on macrochelids associated with manure and coprid beetles in Israel. I. Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904), development and biology. Acarologia, 8: 532-548. Emberson, R. M. 1980. Macrochelidae from the Kermadec Islands and a key to species of Macrocheles Latreille from the New Zealand region (Acari: Mesostigmata). New Zealand Entomologist, 7: 135-138. Filipponi, A. 1964. The feasibility of mass producing macrochelid mites for field trials against houseflies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 31: 499-501. Filipponi, A. & Pegazzano, F. 1962. Specie Italiane del gruppo-glaber (Acarina, Mesostigmata, Macrochelidae, Macrocheles). Redia, 47: 211-238. Filipponi, A. & Mosna, B. 1968. Influenza di fattori ecologicie genetici sulla natalita e mortalita di Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904). Annali dell’Istituto Superiore Sanita, 4: 55\—571. Halffter, G. & Matthews, E. G. 1971. The natural history of dung beetles. A supplement on associated biota. Revista Latino-Americana de Microbiologia, 13: 147-163. Halliday, R. B. & Holm, E. 1987. Mites of the family Macrochelidae as predators of two species of dung-breeding pest flies. Entomophaga, 32: 333-338. Hyatt, K. H. & Emberson, R. M. 1988. A review of the Macrochelidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) of the British Isles. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology), 54: 63-125. Krauss, W. 1970. Die europadischen Arten der Gattungen Macrocheles Latreille 1829 und Geholaspis Berlese 1918. Acarologie. Schriftenreihe fiir Vergleichende Milbenkunde, 14: 2-43, 59-60. Leitner, E. 1946. Zur Kenntnis der Milbenfauna auf Diingerstatten. Zentralblatt fiir das Gesamtgebiet der Entomologie, 1: 75—96, 129-156. Luxton, M. 1982. Studies on the invertebrate fauna of New Zealand peat soils. Il. — Restiad peats. Revue d’Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol, 19: 553-578. Prasad, V. 1974. A Catalogue of Mites of India. 320 pp. Indira, Ludhiana, India. Sellnick, M. 1940. Die Milbenfauna Islands. Meddelanden fran Goteborgs Musei Zoologiska Avdelning, No. 83. Géteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhdlles Handlingar, (5),B,6(14): 1-129. Sellnick, M. 1958. Milben aus landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben Nordschwedens. Meddelanden fran Staten Vaxtskyddsanstalt. Stockholm, 11: 9-59. Wallace, M. M. H. 1986. Some macrochelid mites (Acari: Macrochelidae) associated with Australian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Acarologia, 27: 3-15. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 27 Case 2721 Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 Joel W. Martin & Hans G. Kuck Life Sciences Division, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of a well known genus of deep-sea isopods, Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. It is threatened by the fossil genus Palaega Woodward, 1870, with which it is sometimes synonymized. 1. Alphonse Milne Edwards (1879, p. 21) first recognized the genus Bathynomus and described the genus and its type species, Bathynomus giganteus, from a single immature male, which is therefore the holotype. No illustration was given until the publication of Filhol’s popular account of deep-sea life (Filhol, 1885, p. 147). About nine extant species and several possible fossil species are known (see Bruce, 1986, p. 126; Hessler, 1969, p. R374; Wetzer, 1986, p. 26). Because of the large size of species in this genus (up to 46cm body length in B. giganteus; Wetzer, 1986), Bathynomus is a widely recognized name in deep-sea biology and is often included in popular accounts of Crustacea and of deep-sea life (e.g. Schmitt, 1965; Holthuis & Mikulka, 1972; Wetzer, 1986). The genus is included as an example of the Isopoda and as an example of deep-sea crustaceans in most invertebrate text books (e.g. Barnes, 1987, p. 769). The large size has also made Bathynomus an ideal subject for demonstrating isopod morphology and has facilitated studies on isopod physiology. It is probably the most widely known marine isopod genus. As far as we know, Bathynomus is the only name that has been used for these isopods since 1879 (Richardson, 1905, p. 130; Holthuis & Mikulka, 1972, p. 575). 2. The genus Palaega was established by Woodward (1870, p. 496), based on four specimens of the posterior part of a Cretaceous isopod for which he established the species P. carteri (p. 496). Because the posterior part of isopods is similar in a great variety of genera and families, many fossil isopods have subsequently been placed in the genus Palaega (see Hessler, 1969, p. R380; Wieder & Feldmann, 1989). Palaegais of doubtful validity (Hessler, 1969, p. R380) and is acknowledged by paleontologists to be ‘a form genus including individuals from several flabelliferan families distinguished from one another by parts rarely seen in fossil specimens such as the mouthparts’ (Wieder & Feldmann, 1989, p. 78). 3. Imaizumi (1953) placed fossil fragments of a pleon from the Miocene of Japan in Bathynomus and suggested that Woodward’s specimens should be placed in Bathyno- mus rather than Palaega. Recent finds of well preserved fossils described as Palaega (P. goedertorum Wieder & Feldmann, 1989) suggest that at least some fossils currently placed in Palaega and the extant genus Bathynomus might be equivalent, although the principal distinguishing characters needed for precise generic placement are not visible in the fossils. For example, even on the best preserved fossils, no ventral morphology 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 can be discerned, and mouthpart and pleopod morphology is unknown. Despite this and the statement quoted in para. 2 above, Wieder & Feldmann (1989, pp. 73, 75) treated Palaega as the senior synonym of Bathynomus. We consider that this synonymy is unwarranted on morphological grounds and is unlikely to be followed by other workers. 4. Because Bathynomus is a well known and clearly defined genus, whereas Palaega is a vague taxon based on incomplete fossils, we consider that it would be in the interests of maintaining stability of usage and avoiding confusion for the name Bathynomus to be given precedence over Palaega whenever these two genera are considered synonyms. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 over the name Palaega Woodward, 1870 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, with the endorse- ment that it is to be given precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Palaega Woodward, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Palaega carteri Woodward, 1870, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, as published in the binomen Bathynomus giganteus (specific name of the type species of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879); (b) carteri Woodward, 1870, as published in the binomen Palaega carteri (specific name of the type species of Palaega Woodward, 1870). Acknowledgements We thank R. C. Brusca and L. B. Holthuis for helpful advice in the preparation of this request. References Barnes, R. D. 1987. Invertebrate Zoology, Ed. 5. 893 pp. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia. Bruce, N. L. 1986. Cirolanidae (Crustacea: Isopoda) of Australia. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 6: 1-239. Filhol, H. 1885. La vie au fond des mers. Les explorations sousmarines et les voyages du Travailleur et du Talisman. viii + 303 pp. Masson, Paris. Hessler, R. R. 1969. Peracarida. Pp. R360—393, In Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part R, Arthropoda 4. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Holthuis, L. B. & Mikulka, W. R. 1972. Notes on the deep-sea isopods of the genus Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22: 575-591. Imaizumi, R. 1953. Note on Bathynomus sp., (Crustacea) from the Miocene of Japan. Short Papers, Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Tohoku University, Sendai, No. 5: 84-87. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 29 Milne Edwards, A. 1879. Sur un isopode gigantesque des grandes profondeurs de la mer. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris, 88: 21—23. Richardson, H. 1905. Monograph on the isopods of North America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No. 54, vii-liii + 1-727. Schmitt, W. L. 1965. Crustaceans. 204 pp. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wetzer, R. 1986. Bathynomus, a living sea monster. Terra, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 25(2): 26-29. Wieder, R. W. & Feldmann, R. M. 1989. Palaega goedertorum, a fossil isopod (Crustacea) from Late Eocene to Early Miocene rocks of Washington State. Journal of Paleontology, 63(1): 73-80. Woodward, H. 1870. Contributions to British fossil Crustacea. Geological Magazine, 7: 493-497. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2700 Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species Richard C. Froeschner Department of Entomology, Stop 127, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Nicholas A. Kormilev 5924 Gulfport Boulevard S., Gulfport, Florida 33707, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the established meaning of the ambush bug genus Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 by the designation of C. alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. The first included nominal species was C. binghami Sharp, 1897, but acceptance of this as the type species would make Carcinochelis a senior subjective synonym of Carcinocoris Handlirsch, 1897, and would upset the usage of both generic names. 1. Fieber (1861, p. 34) erected the new genus Carcinochelis in a key without included species. Walker (1873, p. 170) included Carcinochelis in a modified version of Fieber’s key, and also assigned no species to it. Lethierry & Severin (1896, p. 29) included under this genus ‘alutaceus Fieber (non descriptus) — Patria ignota’, a nomen nudum. 2. Sharp (1897, pp. 35-36) discussed Carcinochelis and assigned his new species binghami to it — thus making binghami the type species by virtue of its being the first included nominal species. 3. In the same year Handlirsch (1897a, pp. 23-26) also recognized Fieber’s Carcinochelis, discussed it without included species, and described the related genus Carcinocoris with his own two new species castetsi and erinaceus. Later that year Handlirsch (1897b) conceded that Sharp’s publication had preceded his earlier one by making his own species erinaceus a junior synonym of Sharp’s binghami when he transferred the latter to Carcinocoris. Distant (1903, p. 151) page C. castetsi as the type species of Carcinocoris. 4. Handlirsch (1897b, p. 222) described as the only Ronan species included under Carcinochelis his Carcinochelis alutaceus, based on Fieber’s specimen bearing that unpublished name. For over 90 years subsequent authors have followed Handlirsch’s actions. Authors who have used Carcinochelis in the sense of alutaceus include Distant (1909), Bergroth (1917) and Hsiao & Liu (1979). 5. As pointed out by Maa & Lin (1956, p. 146) — who also followed Handlirsch — acceptance of Sharp’s 1897 fixation of binghami as the type species of Carcinochelis would make this name a senior subjective synonym of the widely used genus Carcino- coris, and would require proposal of a new generic name for alutaceus and its allies. This action would interrupt 90-plus years of uniform treatment. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 31 6. 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 Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861, and to designate Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897, as published in the binomen Carcinochelis alutaceus (specific name of the type species of Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861). References Bergroth, E. 1917. Notes sur le genre Carcinochelis Fieb. et description d’une espéce nouvelle des iles Philippines [Hem. Macrocephalidae]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 16: 282-284. Distant, W. L. 1903-1904. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Rhynchota, vol. 2, xvii + 503 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. [A note on p. 111 states that pp. 1-242 appeared in 1903]. Distant, W. L. 1909. New Malayan Rhynchota. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 3: 385-396. Handlirsch, A. 1897a. Carcinocoris, ein neues Hemipteren-Genus, und Bemerkungen Uber die Raubbeine der Insecten. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich Koniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 47: 23-26. Handlirsch, A. 1897b. Monographie der Phymatiden. Amnalen des Kaiserlich Koniglichen Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, 12: 127-230. Hsiao, T.-Y. & Liu, S.-L. 1979. New species and new records of Phymatidae from China (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Acta Entomologica Sinica, 22: 169-174. Lethierry, L. & Severin, G. 1896. Catalogue générale des Hémipteres. Vol. 3,275 pp. Musée Royal d’Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Bruxelles. Maa, T.-C. & Lin, K.-S. 1956. A synopsis of the Old World Phymatidae (Hem.). Quarterly Journal of the Taiwan Museum, 9: 109-154. Sharp, D. 1897. Description of an anomalous hemipterous insect. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, (2)8: 35—36. Walker, F. 1873. Catalogue of the specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the collection of the British Museum, Part 6, 210 pp. British Museum, London. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2717 Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata; Mammalia, Cetacea): proposed conservation of the specific name William F. Perrin Southwest Fisheries Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, California 92038, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the pan- tropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846), the type species of Stenella Gray, 1866. The specific name is threatened by three subjective synonyms, only one of which has been mentioned (as a probable synonym) during this century. 1. The currently used specific name of the pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846), has a number of subjective synonyms. These include De/phinus velox G. Cuvier, 1829, D. pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, D. brevimanus Wagner, 1846, and Steno capensis Gray, 1865. It is not known which of the two names attenuatus Gray, 1846 or brevimanus Wagner, 1846 has priority. 2. The name Delphinus velox was proposed for a new species of dolphin by G. Cuvier in 1829. It was used by Fischer (1830, p. 455), F. Cuvier (1836, p. 154), Rapp (1837, p. 30), and was mentioned by Gray (1850, p. 132, where it appeared as a ‘species requiring further examination’) and Pucheran (1856, pp. 453—456). Trouessart (1898, p. 1035) placed it tentatively as a synonym of D. malayanus Lesson in Lesson & Garnot, 1826 (p. 184, pl. 9, fig. 5), considered by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 111) to be a nomen nudum (but more properly a nomen dubium). Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 732) repeated Trouessart’s synonymy. Hershkovitz (1966, p. 32) placed D. velox as a synonym of D. dubius G. Cuvier, 1812 (p. 14; also considered to be a nomen nudum by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 111), but, again, more properly a nomen dubium). Perrin et al. (1987, p. 112) identified the holotype specimen of D. velox (a mounted skin in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, No. 17 of the Catalogue de la Galerie de Zoologie) as a pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata. The specific name velox G. Cuvier, 1829 is therefore a senior subjective synonym of attenuatus Gray, 1846, but the former has not been applied to spotted dolphins during this century. 3. The name Delphinus pseudodelphis was used by Wagner (1846, p. 332) in his revision of Schreber’s Sdugethiere. Wagner ascribed the name to Wiegmann and stated that it was based on the plate (pl. 358) of three views of a skull, which he was now publishing, and that Wiegmann had not provided a description. Volume 7 of the work, in which the name appeared, was begun by Wiegmann, continued by Stannius, and finished by Wagner (Wagner, 1846, p. iv) and was finally published in 1846 (see also Sherborn, 1891, p. 591). Wiegmann’s plates, however, were ready several years earlier, and Schlegel (1841, p. 22) referred to ‘Delphinus pseudodelphis, Wiegman [sic] im Schreber, Saugth. Tab. 358’. Schlegel compared the skull with that of other species and considered that it was closest to D. malayanus. He ascribed a skull in the collections of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 33 the Leiden museum to the species. Wagner (1846, p. 332) further described the skull and cited Schlegel’s paragraph. Schlegel’s 1841 work makes the name pseudodelphis avail- able and it should therefore be attributed to him, although hitherto authors have ascribed authorship to Wiegmann ‘1840 or earlier’ (Hershkovitz, 1966, p. 32), or Wiegmann in Schreber (1846). Gray (1850, p. 130), True (1889, pp. 67, 69) and Beddard (1900, p. 260) considered it to be a synonym of attenuatus, while Trouessart (1898, p. 1035) thought it was a synonym of malayanus. Later, True (1894, pp. 36—37) con- sidered pseudodelphis to be a nomen nudum. Oliver (1922, p. 583) stated that ‘probably it should be united with S / tenella] malayanus Lesson (1826) and S. fraenatus F. Cuvier (1836) (actually D. froenatus G. Cuvier, 1829, regarded by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 112) as a junior synonym of Delphinus (now Stenella) frontalis G. Cuvier, 1829). Hershkovitz (1966, p. 32) placed the species in the synonymy of dubius G. Cuvier, 1812. Perrin et al. (1987, p. 113) identified the skull in the original illustration published by Wagner as that of a pantropical spotted dolphin, the name pseudodelphis therefore being a senior subjective synonym of attenuatus Gray, 1846. They recommended that as pseudodelphis had been discussed only once in this century (by Oliver, 1922, p. 583, in a qualified way, as mentioned above) it should not be resurrected. 4. The name Delphinus brevimanus was used by Wagner in 1846 in the caption to a colored plate of a dolphin (pl. 361, fig. 2) and in the index of plates (p. 427). A plate of a dolphin (pl. 21, fig. 2), together with views of a skull (pl. 23, figs. 7 and 8), both labeled ‘Dauphin a Petites Pectorales’, appeared in the zoological part of the Atlas of the Voyage au Pole Sud, Astrolabe et la Zélée (Hombron & Jacquinot, 1842-1853). Subsequently, the text of the zoological part was published (1853) and the species was referred to (p. 38) as ‘Dauphin a Petites Pectorales Hombron & Jacquinot, pl. 21, fig. 2; Delphinus brevimanus Wagner, Schreb. Saug., pl. 361, fig. 2’. The skull figured by Hombron & Jacquinot is No. 1882—113 in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle in Paris. Gray based his species Delphinus? microbachium (1850, p. 119) on this skull and referred to Hombron & Jacquinot’s plates; he subsequently included the species as Steno? brevimanus in his 1866 Catalogue of Seals and Whales (p. 236; reference 1866a) but not in his 1868 Synopsis. D. brevimanus was also included by Gervais (1877, p. 605). True (1889, p. 67) placed it in the synonymy of malayanus, as also did Trouessart (1898, p. 1035). It was not recognized by Beddard (1900). Hershkovitz (1966, p. 33) thought it a synonym of dubius, while Perrin et al. (1987, p. 114) placed it in the synonymy of attenuatus. The name brevimanus has not been used as a senior synonym during this century. 5. The specific name attenuatus was first used by Gray in 1843 (p. 105) in combi- nation with De/phinus but without description or figure and it was, therefore, a nomen nudum. Gray subsequently (1846, p. 44, pl. 28), based attenuatus on a juvenile skull of unknown provenance, No. 347b, in the British Museum (Natural History) and included it in his new genus Steno (1846, p. 43). The specific name attenuatus has been widely used for the pantropical spotted dolphin for many years. After its application by True to spotted dolphins from the Atlantic (1889, p. 165) , the Indian Ocean (1894) and the Pacific (1903, p. 43), it was used by Fraser (1950), Hohn & Hammond (1985), Honacki et al. (1982, p. 296), the International Whaling Commission (1977-1988), Jones et al. (1986, p. 17), Leatherwood et al. (1983, p. 230), Miyazaki et al. (1974), Nishiwaki (1967, pp. 5, 36), Nishiwaki et al. (1965), Nowak & Paradiso (1983, p. 877 and others), Perrin (1975a, pp. 125, 128; 1975b, pp. 1061-1063; 1984, pp. 137, 138; 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 1988), Perrin et al. (1976; 1979; 1985, pp. 4, 21, 23), Rice (1977, pp. 8, 13) and others. Substitution of any of the synonyms velox, pseudodelphis or brevimanus for attenuatus would upset long-standing nomenclatural stability for this well-known pantropical species and cause considerable confusion in the zoological literature, in legal and institutional documentation, and in the legislative language relating to conservation and management of the species. 6. The name Delphinus capensis Gray, 1828 (p. 2) was based on a dolphin skin from the Cape of Good Hope in the British Museum (Natural History). Subsequently, Gray (1865, p. 522) proposed the name Steno capensis for a dolphin skull in the South African Museum, Cape Town which was later presented to the British Museum (Natural History). The two specific names capensis were proposed for species included in different genera (Delphinus Linnaeus, 1758 and Steno Gray, 1846) and are still regarded as distinct today. Delphinus capensis Gray, 1828 is presently treated as a junior synonym of Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Hershkovitz, 1966, p. 43). True (1889, p. 62), Hershkovitz (1966, p. 33) and Perrin (1987, p. 150) listed S. capensis Gray, 1865 asa junior subjective synonym of attenuatus. There is thus no doubt that Delphinus capensis Gray, 1828 is not a senior subjective synonym or secondary homonym of Steno capensis Gray, 1865. 7. The name Prodelphinus was proposed by Gervais (in Van Beneden & Gervais, 1880, p. 604) for a genus distinct from Delphinus by the absence of deep palatine lateral grooves. True (1889, pp. 61—62) included 23 species in the genus, including attenuatus. Subsequently, Oliver (1922, p. 582) adopted Stenella, a name proposed by Gray (1866b, p. 213) for the single species Steno attenuatus, as a name senior to Prodelphinus. Stenella was poorly defined and was not listed by Simpson (1945) but under Article 12(b)(5) of the Code is an available name. Following its use by Iredale & Troughton (1934, p. 65), Fraser (1950), Fraser & Purves (1960), and others it has been universally accepted (see, for example, Corbet & Hill (1986, p. 123)). Steno Gray, 1846 is now confined to a single species, Steno bredanensis Lesson, 1828 (a replacement name for Delphinus rostratus Desmarest, 1817 which was preoccupied), the rough-toothed dolphin with a wide distribution in tropical and warm temperate seas (Hershkovitz, 1966, p. 15). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) velox G. Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Delphinus velox; (b) pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, as published in the binomen Delphinus pseudodelphis; (c) brevimanus Wagner, 1846, as published in the binomen Delphinus brevimanus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stenella Gray, 1866 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name attenuatus Gray, 1846, as published in the binomen Steno attenuatus (specific name of the type species of Stenella Gray, 1866); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 35 (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) velox G. Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Delphinus velox and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, as published in the binomen Delphinus pseudodelphis and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) brevimanus Wagner, 1846, as published in the binomen Delphinus brevimanus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above. References Beddard, F. E. 1900. A Book of Whales. 320 pp. John Murray, London. Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. 1986. 4 World List of Mammalian Species. Ed. 2,254 pp. Facts on File Publications & British Museum (Natural History), New York & London. Cuvier, F. 1836. De l’histoire naturelle des Cétacés. iv, 416 pp.; atlas 8 pp., 22 pls. Roret, Paris. Cuvier, G. 1812. Rapport fait a la classe de Sciences mathématiques et physiques, sur divers Cétacés pris sur les cdtes de France, principalement sur ceux qui sont échoués pres de Paimpol, le 7 janvier 1812. Annales du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 19: 1-16. Cuvier, G. 1829. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a Uhistoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a d’anatomie comparée. 2nd Ed., vol. 1. 584 pp. Deterville, Paris. Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758-1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Fischer, J. B. 1830. Addenda, Emendanda et Index ad Synopsis Mammalium. Pp. 329-456, 657-752. Cotta, Stuttgart. Fraser, F. C. 1950. Description of a dolphin Stenella frontalis (Cuvier) from the coast of French Equatorial Africa. Pp. 61-84, pls. 6—9 in Atlantide Report No. 1. Scientific Results of the Danish Expedition to the Coast ef tropical West Africa 1945—1946. Danish Science Press, Copenhagen. Fraser, F. C. & Purves, P. E. 1960. Hearing in Cetaceans. Evolution of the accessory air sacs and the structure and function of the outer and middle ear in Recent cetaceans. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History), Zoology, 7 (1): 1-140, 53 pls. Gervais, H. 1880. Pp. 601—634 in Van Beneden, [P.] J. & Gervais, P. [1868-1880]. Ostéographie des Cétacés vivants et fossiles. 634 pp., 64 pls. (published and distributed 1868-1869). Bertrand, Paris. Gray, J. E. 1828. Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new unfigured animals. Part 1, 8 pp., 6 pls. Treuttel, Wurtz & Co., & W. Wood, London. Gray, J. E. 1843. List of the Mammalia in the Museum. British Museum, London. xxviii, 216 pp. Gray, J. E. 1846. On the Cetaceous animals. Pp. 13—53, 37 pls. in Richardson, J. & Gray, J. E. (Eds.), The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Erebus’ and ‘Terror’ during the years 1839 to 1843, vol. 1, Mammalia, Birds. Janson, London. Gray, J. E. 1850. Catalogue of the specimens of Mammalia in the collections of the British Museum. Part 1, Cetacea. xii, 153 pp., 8 pls. British Museum, London. Gray, J. E. 1865. Notices of a new genus of delphinoid whales from the Cape of Good Hope, and of other cetaceans from the same seas. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1865: 522-529. Gray, J. E. 1866a. Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the British Museum. 402 pp. British Museum, London. Gray, J. E. 1866b. Notes on the skulls of dolphins, or bottlenose whales, in the British Museum. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1866: 211-218. Gray, J. E. 1868. Synopsis of the species of whales and dolphins in the collection of the British Museum. 10 pp., 37 pls. Quaritch, London. Hershkovitz, P. 1966. Catalog of living whales. United States National Museum, Bulletin, 246: 1-259. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Hohn, A. A. & Hammond, P. S. 1985. Early postnatal growth of the spotted dolphin, Srenella attenuata, in the offshore eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 83 (4): 553-566. Hombron, [J. B.] & Jacquinot, H. 1842-1853. Atlas of the Voyage au Péle Sud et dans l’océanie sur les corvettes ‘l’Atrolabe’ et ‘la Zélée’ pendant les années 1837—1838—1839—1840 sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont-D’Urville. Zoologie, part 1 (Vertebrata). 70 pls. Gide & Baudry, Paris. Honacki, J. H., Kinman, K. E. & Koeppl, J. W. 1982. Mammal Species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 694 pp. Allen Press & the Association of Systematics Collections. Lawrence, Kansas. International Whaling Commission. 1977-1988. Reports of the International Whaling Commission. Iredale, T. & Troughton, E. Le G. 1934. A check-list of the mammals recorded from Australia. The Australian Museum, Sydney, Memoir 6, xi, 122 pp. Jacquinot, H. & Pucheran, J. 1853. Jn Hombron, [J.B.] & Jacquinot, H. Voyage au Péle Sud et dans l’océanie sur les corvettes ‘l’Astrolabe’ et ‘la Zélée’, vol. 3 (Zoologie), Mammiferes et Oiseaux. 107 pp. Gide & Baudry, Paris. Jones, J. K., Jr., Carter, D. C., Genoways, R. H., Hoffman, R.S., Rice, D. W. & Jones, C. 1986. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1896. Occasional Papers. The Museum, Texas Tech University, No. 107. 22 pp. Leatherwood, S. & Reeves, R. R. 1982. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales & Dolphins. 302 pp. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Miyazaki, N., Kasuya, T. & Nishiwaki, M. 1974. Distribution and migration of two species of Stenella in the Pacific coast of Japan. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, 26: 227-243. Nishiwaki, M. 1967. Distribution and migration of marine mammals in the North Pacific area. Bulletin of the Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 1: 1-64. Nishiwaki, M., Nakajima, M. & Karniya, T. 1965. A rare species of dolphin (Stenella attenuata) from Arari, Japan. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, 19: 53-64. Nowak, R. M. & Paradiso, J. L. 1983. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 4th Ed., vol. 2. 1362, xxv pp. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London. Oliver, W. R. B. 1922. A review of the Cetacea of the New Zealand seas. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1922 (3): 557-585. Perrin, W. F. 1975a. Variation of spotted and spinner porpoise (genus Stenel/a) in the eastern Pacific and Hawaii. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Technical Series, 21: vi, 1-206. Perrin, W. F. 1975b. Distribution and differentiation of populations of dolphins of the genus Stenella in the eastern tropical Pacific. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada, 32 (7): 1059-1067. Perrin, W. F. 1984. Patterns of geographical variation in small cetaceans. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 172: 137-140. Perrin, W. F. 1988. Dolphins, porpoises and whales. An action plan for the conservation of biological diversity: 1988-1992. 29 pp. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. Perrin, W. F., Coe, J. M. & Zweifel, J. R. 1976. Growth and reproduction of the spotted porpoise, Stenella attenuata, in the offshore eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 74 (2): 229-269. Perrin, W. F., Mitchell, E. D., Mead, J. G., Caldwell, D. K., Caldwell, M. C., van Bree, P. J.H. & Dawbin, W. H. 1987. Revision of the spotted dolphins, Stenella spp. Marine Mammal Science, 3(2): 99-170. Perrin, W. F., Scott, M. D., Walker, G. J. & Cass, V. L. 1985. Review of Geographical Stocks of Tropical Dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in the Eastern Pacific. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle), No. 28.28 pp. Perrin, W. F., Sloan, P. A. & Henderson, J. R. 1979. Taxonomic status of the ‘southwestern stocks of spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris and spotted dolphin S. attenuata’. Report of the International Whaling Commission, No. 29, pp. 175-184. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 39, Pucheran, J. 1856. Notices mammalogiques. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliqué, (2) 8: 449—460. Rapp, W. 1837. Die Cetaceen zoologisch-anatomisch dargestellt. 182 pp., 8 pls. Cotta, Stuttgart. Rice, D. W. 1977. A list of the marine mammals of the world (Third edition). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Report. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle). Special Scientific Report-Fisheries, No. 711.15 pp. Schlegel, H. 1841. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie, vol. 1 (Beitrage zur Characteristik der Cetaceen). 44 pp., 6 pls. Arnz, Leiden. Sherborn, C. D. 1891. On the dates of the Parts, Plates and Text of Schreber’s ‘Saugethiere’. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1891 (4): 587-592. Simpson, G. G. 1945. The Principles of Classification and a classification of Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1v, 1-350. Trouessart, E. L. 1898. Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Vol. 2, part 5 (Sirenia, Cetacea, Edentata, Marsupialia, Allotheria, Monotremata), part 2, pp. v, 999— 1469. Friedlander & Son, Berlin. True, F. W. 1889. Contributions to the natural history of the cetaceans, a review of the family Delphinidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 36: 1-191, 47 pls. True, F. W. 1894. Notes on some skeletons and skulls of porpoises of the genus Prodelphinus collected by Dr. W.L. Abbott in the Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 17: 33-37. True, F. W. 1903. Notes on a porpoise of the genus Prodelphinus from the Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office, Washington, pp. 41—45, pls. 1 and 2. (Reprinted in 1906, Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 23 (for 1903)(3): 809-815). Wagner, J. A. 1846. Die Sdugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen von D. Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber, vol. 7 (Ruderfisser und Fischzitzthiere), vil, 427 pp. Erlangen, Leipzig. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Case 2726 Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed conservation, and Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius): proposed designation as the type species of Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype W.E. Garutt Zoological Institute, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1, University Embankment, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. Anthea Gentry Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. A.M. Lister Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,- Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Mammuthus Brookes, 1828, and to designate Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 as the type species, in accordance with existing usage. M. primigenius, the woolly mammoth, is known from Pleistocene deposits in Europe, Asia and northern North America. A neotype for primigenius is designated. 1. Two specific names for the woolly mammoth were proposed in 1799: Blumenbach (p. 697) proposed the name Elephas primigenius, while G. Cuvier (p. 21) proposed E. mammonteus. Blumenbach’s work appeared a few months earlier and primigenius was the name adopted by subsequent authors. Maglio (1973, p. 60) in his revisionary work on the ELEPHANTIDAE suggested that Blumenbach did not validly publish the specific name in 1799 (presumably because primigenius was written with an interrog- ation mark) and that the name became available from the 1803 French translation of Blumenbach’s work (p. 407, where the name was cited without the interrogation mark). Kurtén & Anderson (1980, p. 353) and earlier authors (Falconer, 1868, p. 158; Lydekker, 1886, p. 175; Trouessart, 1897, p. 711; Hay, 1902, p. 713) have also cited primigenius with the date 1803. If this date for primigenius were [incorrectly] adopted Cuvier’s name E. mammonteus would have priority. However, all subsequent authors, including Cuvier himself (1806, p. 264), have accepted Blumenbach’s name primigenius as the valid name for the species. 2. Blumenbach did not list any specimens on which the name was established and which could have been used to designate a lectotype. He stated that bones were often Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 39 found in Germany and referred to a skeleton found near Burgtonna in 1695 as an example of his new species. This specimen was later recognised (Osborn, 1942, pp. 1118, 1122; Maglio, 1973, p. 40) to be of the straight-tusked elephant, Elephas antiquus Falconer & Cautley, 1845. The Burgtonna skeleton is not to be regarded as a holotype since E. primigenius was not based on it alone and was composite according to modern taxonomy. 3. The collection in the Zoological Institute of Gottingen University included teeth of the woolly mammoth from Blumenbach’s personal collection which he might have used in establishing the name E. primigenius, and in 1942, acting on advice from W. O. Dietrich, Osborn (p. 1122) selected from among them two teeth as ‘lectotypes’. These were an incomplete last lower molar from Siberia and a last upper milk premolar from Osterode (Harz) in Germany. In 1965, Gromova (p. 38) proposed that one of the teeth, that from Siberia, should be the lectotype. 4. We turn now to the question of the generic name. Blumenbach included the generic name Mammut in his work (1799, p. 698), with the specific name ohioticum, but this refers to the North American mastodon (Simpson, 1945, pp. 133, 247). The earliest use of the generic name Mammuthus appears to have been that by Brookes in a sales catalogue (1828, pp. 73, 74) which has been approved as available for zoological nomenclature by the Commission (Opinion 1080, July 1977), followed by Burnett (1830, p. 352). Neither author gave a diagnosis or description of the genus. They both included two species and used very nearly the same words: ‘Genus Mammuthus, species borealis, meridionalis. Fossil mammoth’. In both works the name borealis was cited without authorship or description but Brookes attributed the second species, meridio- nalis, to ‘(Nesti)’ and Elephas meridionalis Nesti, 1825 (p. 211) was thereby fixed as the type species of Mammuthus by monotypy; its citation makes Mammuthus available (Article 12b(5) of the Code). Pohlig (1888, p. 138) later designated Elephas meridionalis the type species of his new genus Archidiskodon. (The nominal taxon meridionalis was subsequently recognised as composite, one of the three syntype skulls described by Nesti (1825, p. 213, skull ‘B’, cat. no. Igf 1067 in the Florence University Museum) being E. antiquus (Weithofer, 1890, p. 137). Depéret & Mayet (1923, pp. 126, 128, figs. 16a, 16b) selected Nesti’s skull ‘C’ (1825, p. 213, pl. 1, figs. 1 and 2, no. Igf 1054) as the lectotype of meridionalis; see Azzaroli, 1977, p. 156 for details). Archidiskodon is a junior objective synonym of Mammuthus Brookes, 1828; it was treated as a distinct genus by Osborn (1942, pp. 935, 947) and Azzaroli (1977, p. 151) but was synonymised with Mammuthus by Aguirre (1968-69), Maglio (1973, p. 51), and Coppens et al. in Maglio & Cooke (1978, p. 357). 5. In 1935 Hopwood (p. 11) adopted the name Mammuthus ‘because it appears to be the first genus to have Elephas primigenius specified as the type species’. As noted above, primigenius had not been mentioned in Mammuthus, but Hopwood (p. 98) accepted the synonymy ‘1799 Elephas primigenius Blumenbach; 1830 Mammuthus borealis Burnett’ and wrote that ‘by so doing I have attempted to make the Rules [Code] a useful servant, rather than to allow them to become a blind, unreasoning, master’. Hopwood was supported by Colbert (1937, in litt. to Osborn (1942, p. 1367)). Because of uncertainty about the availability of the name Mammuthus, Osborn (1924, p. 2; 1942, pp. 1117, 1126) adopted Mammonteus Camper, 1788 but, as Simpson (1945, p. 249) pointed out, ‘Mammonteus was reconstructed by Osborn from ‘Mammonteum’ in a Latin work by Camper, but it is perfectly clear that Camper used this only in the 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 vernacular and neither intended nor inadvertently created a real generic name. It is also doubtful whether Camper’s ‘mammonteum’ would be available for a mammoth (and not mastodon) even if it were a generic name’. Mammonteus was regarded as only doubtfully available by Osborn himself (1924, p. 2; 1942, p. 1177), and Mabel Rice Percy, editing material for the 1942 volume after Osborn’s death, wrote (p. 1363) ‘it is possible that Professor Osborn would have abandoned it in the final version of the present volume and adopted Mammuthus Burnett, 1830’. 6. After Hopwood, Scott (1937, pp. 67, 274-276, 278) adopted the generic name Mammuthus and other workers followed, usually attributing the name to Burnett (1830) although Brookes (1828) is the earlier author. The name Mammuthus was adopted by the following, among others: Simpson, 1945, p. 134; Carrington, 1962, pp. 129-131; Maglio, 1973, p. 50; Coppens et al. in Maglio & Cooke, 1978, pp. 357, 358; Kurtén & Anderson, 1980, pp. 353-354; Dubrovo, 1982; Stuart, 1982, pp. 44—48: Beden, 1985, pp. 28-31; Foronova in Kahlke, 1986, pp. 35, 36, 38; and Tassy & Shoshani in Benton, 1988, pp. 292, 293, 295. When the type species is mentioned the name Elephas primigenius is that which is cited (Osborn, 1942, p. 1141; Maglio, 1973, p. 50; Azzaroli, 1977, p. 151; Coppens et al. in Maglio & Cooke, 1978, p. 357). It is desirable to maintain stability in the nomenclature of this important and interesting species and the Commission is therefore asked to ratify existing usage, and to interpret the specific name primigenius by the skeleton designated as the neotype (see para. 8 below). In so doing the generic name Archidiskodon Pohlig, 1888, with the type species Elephas meridionalis Nesti, 1825, will also be conserved; the name has had recent usage (Stuart, 1982, pp. 44—48; Foronova in Kahlke, 1986, pp. 29-42). The genus Mammuthus now includes between seven and ten species, according to different authors, including primigenius (Maglio, 1973; Madden, 1981). 7. Since the Second World War Blumenbach’s original specimens of E. primigenius have disappeared and are probably destroyed (Prof Dr H. D. Kahlke, pers. comm.; see also Comment on p. 51). Osborn (1942, p. 1123) stated that casts of the two teeth designated as ‘lectotypes’ by him (see para. 3 above) were in the American Museum of Natural History (the lower molar from Siberia, AMNH no. 26980 and fourth upper deciduous premolar, no. 26981) and figured the casts (p. 1123, fig. 993). However, neither specimen would be useful for study purposes since the molar which was cast was incomplete and had an eroded occlusal surface, while the premolar was hardly worn and shows little of the occlusal pattern. There are no duplicate casts in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London (Alan Gentry, pers. comm.). It is not known what became of the specimens of ‘Mammuthus borealis’ from the Brookesean Museum after the sale of the collections in 1828; 13 specimens of parts of tusk, teeth, limb bones and fur were listed in the sales catalogue (1828, pp. 73 and 74) but it is likely that they have all been destroyed. A copy of the prospectus of the Brookesean Museum (Brookes, 1827), given by Brookes to J. E. Gray, carries a note by Gray: ‘This collection was Offered to the British Museum Feb. 1827 for 10.00£ subject to the reference of two competent persons relation to its value. J. E. Gray’. There is no record of purchase of mammoth specimens by the Natural History Museum, London, from Brookes’s collection (Lydekker, 1886; Woodward, 1904). However, a catalogue of specimens in the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons (1844, p. 466) contains the entry ‘Elephas primigenius. 2374. Portion of a tusk. O.C.F. 631. Locality unrecorded. Brookes’s collection. Purchased, 1828’ and records (p. xv): ‘Brookes collection. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 41 greater part was sold by auction in 1828, on the 14th of July and the twenty-four following days, when the College was a purchaser to the amount of £800. A few specimens were also bought at a subsequent sale of the remaining portion of the collection in 1830’. Most of the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons were destroyed during the Second World War. Subsequently, the remaining natural history material was donated to the British Museum (Natural History) (entry no. 6738, for 17th October 1946, in the palaeontology accessions list) but there is no mention of mammoth remains. 8. The problem of a meaningful type specimen for Elephas primigenius has remained unresolved until now but it is necessary that the species be typified clearly. During the past few decades scientists have many times attempted to clarify the species’ intra- specific variation; these attempts have been made more difficult, however, as E. primigenius and its nominal subspecies have never been unambiguously defined. We propose to designate as the neotype the adult male skeleton discovered in 1948 in permafrost on the Taimir Peninsula, northern Siberia (Garutt, 1982, 1989). The speci- men is exhibited in the museum of the Zoological Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences in Leningrad (cat. no. ZIN N 2710). The skeleton was found with remains of soft tissues, skin and hair in deposits of the second terrace above the flood plain of the Mamontovaya River, a tributary of the Shrenk in the basin of the Nizhnyaya Taimira River (Popov, 1950, 1959). Radiocarbon dating of the soft tissues (sample T-297) gave ages of 12 000 (Vinogradov, 1954) and 11 450 + 250 yr BP (Heintz & Garutt, 1965, p. 76). The Taimir specimen, which is in an excellent state of preservation and is exceptionally complete, lacking only a few caudal vertebrae and third phalanges, has been described by Garutt & Dubinin (1951), Garutt (1954, 1964, 1965, 1972 and 1981), Dubrovo (1982), and Baigusheva & Garutt (1987). The last molars are in mid-wear and the tusks are well developed. Remains of plants from the same layers as the skeleton have been studied by Tikhomirov (1950, 1959), Zaklinskaya (1959) and Zhuze (1959). A description of the recovery of the specimen and a plate showing the mounted skeleton in the Zoological Institute in Leningrad are included in Augusta & Burian (1963, pp. 24-26, 34). 9. Both the stratigraphic position and the absolute age show that the Taimir mammoth existed towards the very end of the Late Pleistocene, during the last part of the Sartanian glaciation. The skeleton is of the late, advanced form of M. primigenius which inhabited Eurasia from the Last Interglacial to the end of the Last Cold Stage. This form is that which occurs most commonly as fossil material and is therefore considered by most specialists as the typical one (Garutt, 1964, and others). 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Mammuthus Brookes, 1828, and to designate Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Elephas primigenius Blamenbach, 1799; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name primigenius Blumenbach, 1799, as published in the binomen Elephas primigenius (specific name of the type species of Mammuthus Brookes, 1828), and as defined by the neotype designated in para. 8 above. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 References Aguirre, E. 1968—69. Revision sistematica de los Elephantidae por su morfologia y formometria dentaria. Parts 1-3. Estudios Geologicos, 24(3—4): 109-167; 25(1-2): 123-177, 317-367. Augusta, J. & Burian, Z. 1963. A Book of Mammoths. 94 pp. Hamlyn, London. (Translated from the 1962 Czechoslovak Ed.). Azzaroli, A. 1977. Evolutionary patterns of Villafranchian elephants in central Italy. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie. Classe di Scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali, (8)14(2.4): 149-168. Baigusheva, V. S. & Garutt, W. E. 1987. A skeleton of the steppe elephant Archidiskodon trogontherii (Pohlig, 1885) from the north-eastern Asov region. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 168: 21—37. [In Russian.] Beden, M. 1985. Les Proboscidiens des grands gisements a hominidés Plio-Pléistocénes d’ Afrique orientale. Pp. 21—44 in L’environnement des hominidés au Plio- Pleistocene. 468 pp. Fondation Singer-Polignac, Masson, Paris. Blumenbach, J. F. 1799. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 6th Ed. xvi, 708 pp. Dietrich, G6ttingen. Blumenbach, J. F. 1803. Manuel d'Histoire Naturelle, Traduit de l’Allemand, de J. Fr. Blumenbach, par Soulange Artoud, vol. 2. iii, 472 pp. Collignon, Metz. Brookes, J. 1827. The Brookesean Museum. The Museum of Joshua Brookes, FRS, FLS, Anatomical and Zoological Preparations. 15 pp. Gold & Walton, London. Brookes, J. 1828. A catalogue of the anatomical & zoological museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S. etc. Part 1.76 pp. R. Taylor, London. Burnett, G. T. 1830. Illustrations of the Quadrupeda, or Quadrupeds, being the arrangement of the true four-footed beasts indicated in outline. Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and Arts, 1829 (2, October-December): 336-353. Carrington, R. 1962. Elephants. 285 pp. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. (First published by Chatto & Windus, 1958.) Coppens, Y., Maglio, V. J., Madden, C. T. & Beden, M. 1978. Proboscidea. Pp. 336-367 in Maglio, V.J. & Cooke, H.B.S. (Eds.), Evolution of African Mammals. 641 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Cuvier, G. 1799. Mémoire sur les espéces d’éléphans vivantes et fossiles. Mémoires de I’ Institut National des Sciences et Arts. Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, 2: \—-22. Cuvier, G. 1806. Suite du mémoire sur les éléphans vivans et fossiles. Annales du Muséum d Histoire naturelle, 8: 249-269. Depéret, C. & Mayet, L. 1923. Monographie des Eléphants Pliocénes d’Europe et de l’ Afrique. Part 2, pp. 89-224 in Les Eléphants Pliocénes. Annales de l'Université de Lyon, nouvelle série, (1)43: 1-224. Dubrovo, I. A. 1982. Morphology of the skeleton of the Yuribei mammoth. Pp. 53—99 in Sokolov, V.E. (Ed.), Yuribeiskii Mamont. 156 pp. Nauka, Moskva. [In Russian.] Falconer, H. 1868. Palaeontological Notes and Memoirs, vol. 2 (Mastodon, elephant, rhinoceros, ossiferous caves, primeval Man and his contemporaries). 675 pp. Hardwicke, London. Flower, W. H. & Garson, J. G. 1884. Catalogue of the specimens illustrating the osteology and dentition of vertebrated animals recent and extinct, contained in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, part 2. Class Mammalia, other than Man. 779 pp. Royal College of Surgeons, London. Foronoya, I. V. 1986. Elephants of the genus Archidiskodon from the late Pliocene and Pleisto- cene of the Kuznetsk Basin (southeastern west Siberia). Pp. 29—42 in Kahlke, H. D. (Ed.), Neue Forschungsergebnisse zur Palaontologie des Tertiars und Quartars im europaisch- asiatischen Raume. Quartdrpaldontologie. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Instituts fur Quartarpaldontologie Weimar, 6: 1-243. Garutt, W. E. 1954. The southern elephant Archidiskodon meridionalis Nesti from the Pliocene of northern coast of the Asov Sea. Trudy Komissii po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda. Akademii Nauk SSSR, 10(2): 1-78. [In Russian.] Garutt, W. E. 1964. Das Mammut Mammuthus primigenius Blumenbach. 140 pp. Cosmos Verlag, Stuttgart. Garutt, W. E. 1965. Fossil elephants of Siberia. Trudy Nauchno-Issledovatel’skogo Instituta Geologii Arktiki, 143: 106—130. [In Russian.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 43 Garutt, W. E. 1972. A skeleton of the Chosarian mammoth Mammuthus cf. chosaricus Dubrovo from Middle Pleistocene deposits of the Or’ya River (basin of the Kama River). Pp. 35—55 in Yakhimovich, V. L. (Ed.), Voprosy Stratigrafii i Korrelyatsii Pliotsenovykh i Pleistotseno- vykh Otlozhenii Severnoi i Yuzhnoi Chastei Predural’ya, vol. 2. 125 pp. UFA. [In Russian.] Garutt, W. E. 1981. Versuch der graphischen Rekonstruktion des Lebensbildes der Elefanten der Entwicklungslinie Archidiskodon-Mammuthus. Quartdrpaldontologie, 4: 19—25. Garutt, W. E. 1982. Species Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach). Abstracts, 11th INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) Congress, Moscow, 1: 103. Garutt, W. E. 1989. On the necessity to designate a neotype for the woolly mammoth Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach, 1799). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 307(5): 1232-1234. [In Russian.] Garutt, W. E. & Dubinin, V. B. 1951. On the Taimir mammoth skeleton. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 30(1): 17-23. [In Russian. ] Gromova, V. I. 1965. Kratkii obzor chetvertichnykh mlekopitayushchiich Evropy. 144 pp. Moskva. {In Russian.] Hay, O. P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the U.S. Geological Survey, no. 179. 868 pp. Heintz, A. E. & Garutt, W. E. 1965. Determination of the absolute age of the fossil remains of mammoth and woolly rhinoceros from the permafrost in Siberia by the help of radiocarbon (C,,). Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 45(1): 73-79. Hopwood, A. T. 1935. Fossil Proboscidea from China. Palaeontologia Sinica, (C)9(3): 1-108. Kurten, B. & Anderson, E. 1980. Pleistocene mammals of North America. 442 pp. Columbia University Press, New York. Lyddeker, R. 1886. Catalogue of the fossil Mammalia in the British Museum, part 4 (Order Ungulata, suborder Proboscidea). xxiv, 233 pp., 32 text figs. British Museum (Natural History), London. Madden, C. T. 1981. Mammoths of North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Maglio, V. J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 63(3): 1-149. Nesti, P. 1825. Lettere sopra alcune ossa fossili del Valdarno non per anco descritte. Sulla nuova specie di elefante fossile del Valdarno allillustrissimo sig. dott. Prof. Ottaviano Targioni Tozzetti. Lettera prima. Nuovo Giornale Lettera, 11(24): 195-216. Osborn, H. F. 1924. Parelephas in relation to phyla and genera of the family Elephantidae. American Museum Novitates, No. 152, 7 pp. Osborn, H. F. 1942. Proboscidea, a monograph of the discovery, evolution, migration and extinc- tion of the mastodonts and elephants of the world, vol. 2 (Stegodontoidea, Elephantoidea). xili, 805—1675 pp. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Pohlig, H. 1888. Dentition und Kranologie des Elephas antiquus Falc. mit Beitragen tiber Elephas primigenius Blum. und Elephas meridionalis Nesti. Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicae Naturae Curiosorum, 53(1): 1-279. Popov, A. I. 1950. The Taimir mammoth. Voprosy Geografii, 23: 296—305. [In Russian.] Popoy, A. I. 1959. The Taimir mammoth and the problem of preservation of remains of mammoth fauna in Quaternary deposits of Siberia. Pp. 259-275 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskovskovskii Gos. Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.] Scott, W. B. 1937. A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere. 2nd Ed. xiv, 786 pp. Macmillan, New York. Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350. Stuart, A. J. 1982. Pleistocene vertebrates in the British Isles. 212 pp. Longman, London. Tassy, P. & Shoshani, J. 1988. The Tethytheria: elephants and their relatives. Pp. 283-315 in Benton, M. J. (Ed.), The phylogeny and classification of the tetrapods, vol. 2 (Mammals). 329 pp. Systematics Association (Special volume no. 35B), Oxford. Tikhomirov, B. A. 1950. On characterization of vegetation cover of the mammoth epoch in the Taimir. Botanicheskii Zhurnal, 5: 482—497. [In Russian.] 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Tikhomiroy, B. A. 1959. Mammutepokens livsbetingelser. Pp. 296-305 in: Naturens Verden, Marts. Trouessart, E. L. 1898. Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Nova Editio (Prima Completa), vol. 2, part 4 (Tillodontia et Ungulata), pp. 699-711 (Proboscidea). Friedlander, Berlin. Vinogradov, A. P. 1954. Geochemistry of isotopes. Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, 5: 26-43. {In Russian.] Weithofer, K. A. 1890. Die fossilen Proboscidier des Arnothales in Toskana. Beitrdge zur Paldontologie Osterreich-Ungarns und des Orients, 8(1.3): 107—240. Woodward, A. S. 1904. The Department of Geology. Pp. 195-340 in: The History of the collec- tions contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. 442 pp. British Museum, London. Zaklinskaya, E. D. 1959. Sporo-pollen spectra of Quaternary deposits in the area of finding of the Taimir mammoth. Pp. 276-300 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskoyskoyskii Gos. Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.] Zhuze, A. P. 1959. Diatom algae in Quaternary deposits in the region of finding of the Taimir mammoth. Pp. 301-308 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskovskovskii Gos. Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 45 Note on Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species (Case 2225/6: see BZN 45: 116-117, 217-219) P. K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. In a comment on this case (BZN 45: 217-219) Dr F. T. Banner pointed out that a neotype of Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798 had been validly designated by Smout (1963, pp. 265-266). This neotype is a specimen corresponding to N. melo ‘“‘var. 8” of Fichtel & Moll, which de Montfort (1808) named as Borelis melonoides, the only species he included in Borelis. This neotype defines Borelis and B. melo, the valid synonym of the type species, and is in accord with established usage (see Loeblich & Tappan, 1988, p. 362). Drs H. J. Hansen and F. Rogl, the authors of the case, have accepted this and have stated that NV. melo “‘var. a’ Fichtel & Moll (i.e. Clausulus indicator de Montfort, 1808) and Alveolina haueri d’Orbigny, 1846 should be considered conspecific with Borelis melo. This case therefore requires no action and is closed. Comments on the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda) (Case 2624; see BZN 46: 101-103) (1) Peter K. L. Ng Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 0511 Turkay & Naiyanetr have demonstrated that the type species designations for Ranguna and Larnaudia by Bott (1966) were based on incorrectly identified material. Their application to fix the type species for these two genera in a group whose taxonomy is particularly ‘volatile’ is welcomed. There is, however, no strong reason to recommend that the nominal type species be changed for either genus. I fully agree with the retention of Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the type species of Larnaudia Bott, 1966. Larnaudia was originally established as a sub- genus of Potamiscus Alcock, 1909, but was later raised to a full genus (Bott, 1970) with two species, the type and L. browneana (Kemp, 1918). One more species from Thailand, Larnaudia chaiyaphumi Natyanetr, 1982, was later added. Tirkay & Naiyanetr (1987) redefined the genus after showing that Bott’s type species had been based on misidenti- fied material, and transferred Tiwaripotamon beausekomae Bott, 1970 to Larnaudia. They noted that L. browneana was closely related to Ranguna brousmichei (Rathbun, 1904), and transferred L. browneana to Ranguna. Other than these publications and several by Naiyanetr pertaining to the identification, ecology and general biology of Thai crabs, there has not been wide usage of Larnaudia. The problem with Ranguna Bott, 1966 is more complex because of the larger number of species that have been assigned to it. Bott (1970) established Ranguna with Potamon (Potamon) rangoonensis Rathbun, 1904 as type species, although he did not examine the type specimens. He recognised two subgenera, Ranguna and Demanietta Bott, 1966, both of which were distinguished by the form of their male first pleopods. In the 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 nominate subgenus, Bott (1970) recognised 17 species and subspecies. He noted that three other taxa could also possibly be included in Ranguna ( Ranguna). More species from Thailand have since been described by Naiyanetr. Ng (1988), however, trans- ferred two of the Malayan species to a redefined Stoliczia Bott, 1966. I have also pointed out (Ng, 1985, 1987, 1988) that the character used by Bott (1966, 1970) to characterise the genus (presence of a dorsal fold on the terminal segment of the male first pleopod) is not always reliable. My present studies also indicate that the genus Ranguna as defined by Bott (1970) is probably heterogeneous, and that several of the species should be classified in other genera. The name Ranguna has only been used by a restricted circle of carcinologists, and, other than some local studies on crabs and Paragonimus in Thailand, the name has not been used widely. Another point that must be considered is that if the type species for Ranguna is changed, it might lead to unnecessary confusion, especially if future studies show that Ranguna is not found in the vicinity of Rangoon or even Burma (the present Myanmar). In establishing Ranguna, Bott (1966) clearly wanted the name to match his chosen type species. Additional confusion might also arise as there will then be a species called Potamiscus rangoonensis (Rathbun, 1904) as well as a genus Ranguna, which by the application of Turkay & Naiyanetr would specifically exclude that species. I would thus prefer that the type species of Ranguna remain as Potamon rangoonense. As Tirkay & Naiyanetr (1987) have already noted after their re-examination of the type specimen of Potamon rangoonense, this would make Ranguna Bott, 1966 a junior subjective synonym of Potamiscus Alcock, 1909. There are no serious problems with this. The applicants’ choice of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as a replace- ment type species is based mainly on the form of that species’ male first pleopod, which fits Bott’s diagnosis (Bott & Tirkay, 1977). Other than this character, the other features of T. longipes agree with those of Potamiscus quite well. There is thus the possibility that a future revision will require the transfer of T. Jongipes to Potamiscus. To designate T. longipes as the type species in place of Potamon rangoonense might thus be a futile exercise. Additional references Ng, P. K. L. 1985. Freshwater decapod crustaceans from Pulau Tioman, West Malaysia. Zoologische Mededelingen, 59(14): 149-162. Ng, P. K. L. 1987. A revision of the Malayan freshwater crabs of the genus Johora Bott, 1966 stat. nov. (Decapoda: Brachyura: Potamidae). Malayan Nature Journal, 41: 13—44. Ng, P. K. L. 1988. The Freshwater Crabs of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. viii, 156 pp. National University of Singapore, Shinglee Press, Singapore. (2) L. B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 R A Leiden, The Netherlands Larnaudia Bott, 1966 I agree with the applicants that this is a case of a genus based on a misidentified type species. Notwithstanding the fact that Bott (1970, pp. 176, 302, pl. 50, fig. 46) positively declared that he had examined, measured and figured the lectotype of the species, he actually did not have access to it. The solution proposed by Turkay & Natyanetr, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 47 namely to accept the nominal species Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the type of Larnaudia, is altogether sensible and it is the simplest way out of the mess. I gladly support their application on this point. Ranguna Bott, 1966 Ranguna Bott, as shown by Turkay & Natyanetr, is likewise based on a misidentified type specimen. Bott (1966, p. 481; 1970, pp. 163-164) made clear that he had not seen the type material of Potamon rangoonense Rathbun, 1904, the species that he desig- nated as the type of the genus. Now Turkay & Naiyanetr, after examination of the holotype of Rathbun’s species, find that it is not a Ranguna in Bott’s sense, but a species of Potamiscus. Ranguna thus falls as a junior synonym of Potamiscus, unless the Commission under its plenary powers changes its type species. Ranguna (sensu Bott) is not a well known genus and is not important in applied science, commerce or popular science, so the loss of the name will not cause undesirable confusion. Furthermore, the status of the many species assigned to Ranguna by Bott is uncertain. Recently, Ng (1988), in a handbook on Malaysian freshwater crabs, removed two species placed in Ranguna by Bott to the genus Stoliczia Bott, 1966. The area from which Bott reported Ranguna (Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia) is very poorly known as far as the freshwater fauna is concerned; only recently Turkay & Naiyanetr undertook a system- atic survey of the freshwater crabs of Thailand, a job, judging by the many new species still turning up, that is far from finished. Recent researches by Ng on the freshwater crabs of the Malay Peninsula and the Greater Sunda Islands also show that the last word on the taxonomy of the group has not been spoken, and that Bott’s classification, although his book is very useful, certainly does not provide a definitive solution. This is not surprising at all in the light of the fact that Bott’s masterly treatise was based on the rather meagre material that at that time was available in most museums of the world. The proposal to make Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 (from Pulau Condore in the South China Sea) the type species of Ranguna carries with it the danger that the genus Ranguna will not be found in the area of Rangoon, while also the almost tautonymously named species P. rangoonense 1s not included in it. In my opinion it is much more sensible to leave the genus Ranguna with Potamon rangoonense as the type species, and let it lapse (for the time being?) as a subjective synonym of Potamiscus. The proposal of a new and uncompromised generic name for Thelphusa longipes and related species seems the most logical way out. I would most strongly advise treating Ranguna in a similar way to that proposed for Larnaudia: \et the nominal species selected by Bott be the type species for the genus. Comments on the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera) (Case 2677; see BZN 46: 114-118) (1) Giovanni De Lotto Via E. Fermi 13, 89048 Siderno (R.C.), Italy (formerly Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) After carefully reading the application made by Dr Y. Ben-Dov on the status of the genus Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 and the confusion made by later authors on the 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 identity of its type species, I fully agree with his views and conclusions. Therefore I endorse his application to designate Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of Saissetia. (2) Chris Hodgson Department of Biochemistry and Biological Sciences, Wye College, University of London, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH, U.K. In this application, Dr Y. Ben-Dov proposes that Lecanium coffeae Walker be designated the type species for the genus Saissetia Déplanche, and asks that the name Saissetia coffeae Déplanche be suppressed. I would like to support his application. This genus is of world-wide economic importance and so it is imperative that the status of these two species names should be stabilised. I consider that his proposal does this with the least disturbance to modern usage and to the current understanding of the genus Saissetia. The evidence seems extremely strong that the Saissetia coffeae of Deplanche was a mealybug. As there is no way of knowing which mealybug Déplanche was studying in 1859, there is no species to which the name Saissetia coffeae Déplanche can be applied. It is therefore my belief that Saissetia coffeae Déplanche is best suppressed, and that the stability within scale insect taxonomy is best served by making Lecanium coffeae Walker the type species of Saissetia. Comment on the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 2716; see BZN 46: 179-180) R.W. Crosskey The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. This is a clear-cut case where a familiar name should be given precedence over a senior subjective synonym. It is advisable for the Commission to act now before the senior synonym acquires further use. I support Dr Boorman’s application. Comments on the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) (Case 2688; see BZN 46: 255-258) (1) Alwyne Wheeler Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IG10 4AF, U.K. 1. There can be no objection to the conservation of the name Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 as requested by Ronald Fricke, as this is a name which has received frequent use by recent authors (see BZN 46: 256, para. 5 for details). 2. However, it is quite specious to claim that this name is threatened by Callionymus dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758, and applying to the Commission for the suppression of that name is unnecessary. Fricke’s request is based on the composite nature of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 49 taxon Callionymus dracunculus, which was founded by Linnaeus on earlier descriptions by Gronovius (1754) and Artedi (1738). Artedi’s posthumous work comprised five parts of which the Genera Piscium and Synonymia Nominum Piscium were compi- lations from the earlier literature. In both of these he cited the work of Rondelet (1554), and the references derived from that work in Gesner (1620) and Willughby (1686), as ‘Dracunculus’. Fricke is convinced that Rondelet’s description and figure were based on a specimen of the species later described as Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809. No specimens of Rondelet’s exist today. However, the first reference cited by Linnaeus (and thus his primary source) was Gronovius (1754). This description was long and detailed and a specimen which can be related to his description exists in the Natural History Museum, London (Wheeler, 1958). (It should be noted here that in his appli- cation Fricke does not mention that Gronovius gave a detailed description of the specimen, and infers that this description was in some way indebted to earlier authors. Gesner and Willughby were indeed cited but only in the sense of synonyms). Much of Gronovius’s material originated from the North Sea and there is no doubt that his description refers to a specimen of C. dracunculus which can be referred to Callionymus lyra Linnaeus, 1758. 3. Recent authors who have made a critical choice of the taxonomic options have treated C. dracunculus as a junior subjective synonym of C. /yra. This synonymy was discussed by Giinther (1861), who cited earlier workers as far back as Gmelin (1789). Neill (1811, p. 531) appears to have been the first author to adopt the name /yra in preference to dracunculus, so acting as first reviser (Article 24 of the Code). 4. Most recent authors have used the name C. pusillus for the species described originally by Rondelet (1554) and named by Delaroche (1809). 5. In view of this it seems quite unnecessary to ask for a ruling which in effect suggests that the name C. dracunculus was based in a significant manner on Rondelet’s (1554) description which was sketchy but illustrated, rather than on the first cited reference in Linnaeus (1758) to Gronovius (1754) for which a ‘type’ specimen exists (Wheeler, 1958). The primary source for the basis of C. dracunculus was Gronovius (1754), the secondary source was Artedi (1738) who referred to Rondelet. Because the widespread opinion amongst ichthyologists in the 19th and 20th centuries is that C. dracunculus is a junior subjective synonym of C. /yra it is unnecessary and undesir- able to make a case for treating it for the first time as a senior synonym of C. pusillus. 6. While this case may seem relatively trivial it has wider consequences because work on Linnaean fishes (Fernholm & Wheeler, 1983; Wheeler, 1985, and unpublished) shows that there are many composite species when all sources are considered. If the present case is admitted as deserving of a ruling then there is a potential for numerous similar applications from zoologists determined to unearth hitherto ignored (but known) partial synonyms. This case, like other potential cases, does nothing to stabilise zoological nomenclature. 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. Gmelin, J. F. 1789. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 3 (Amphibia & Pisces): 1033-1516. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Neill, P. 1811. A list of fishes found in the Frith of Forth, and rivers and lakes near Edinburgh, with remarks. Memoirs. Wernerian Natural History Society, 1: 526-555. Wheeler, A. 1985. The Linnaean Fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84: \—76. (2) Ronald Fricke Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Division of Ichthyology, Schloss Rosenstein, D-7000 Stuttgart 1, Fed. Rep. Germany 1. In his comment above, Alwyne Wheeler doubts that the name Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 is threatened by the older name Callionymus dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758. Wheeler supposes that the name dracunculus is composite, being based in part on old descriptions in works of Rondeletius (1554), Gesner (1620) and Willughby (1686), and in part on a description of Gronovius (1754) which was cited first by Linnaeus (1758). 2. Gronovius (1754) provided a description of a specimen of the species later named Callionymus dracunculus by Linnaeus (1758). Wheeler (1958) studied a later manu- script and unlabelled specimens assumed to originate in part from Gronovius, in part from a later collector and author. In his comment, Wheeler writes that ‘much of Gronovius’s material originated from the North Sea and there is no doubt that his description refers to a specimen of C. dracunculus which can be referred to Callionymus lyra Linnaeus, 1758’. 3. On the contrary, I have doubts about Gronovius’s description which is so vague that no definite species can be identified, nor can we be sure about the collecting locality. The fact that ‘most of Gronovius’s material originated from the North Sea’ is not enough to ensure that this material originated from there; also, there are three species living in the North Sea area (Fricke, 1986). The specimens accompanying the manuscript of Gronovius (1766-1777), identified by Wheeler (1958) as “Callionymus dracunculus’, were not labelled and were mounted on paper. Moreover, the original description of Gronovius does not indicate an identity with the specimens of Wheeler (1958). In fact, it is not even certain whether the specimens referred to by Wheeler (1958) are all Gronovius’s material or that of a later Dutch ichthyologist who is known to have made changes in the manuscript. Nor, even if Gronovius’s material, do we know if it originated from before 1754 or from a later date. 4. As indicated above, the nature of Gronovius’s description and material is uncertain (there is no illustration), there is no ‘type’ specimen of Gronovius’s (as erroneously claimed by Wheeler in his comment), nor is there any definite specimen attributable to him. On the other hand, we have a definite specific identity in the description and illustration of Rondeletius (1554), and subsequent authors, who described a species now known as Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809. We can there- fore be sure that C. dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758 is to be identified with C. pusillus and not with C. /yra Linnaeus, 1758. In my opinion, Giinther (1861) and other authors were wrong to treat the name C. dracunculus as a synonym for the females and immature males of C. lyra. It is therefore not only justified but necessary to ask for a ruling on the names dracunculus and pusillus, stabilising the current usage of the specific names of European species of Callionymus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Sl 5. Ido not foresee a danger of numerous applications to the Commission concerning composite species (cf. Wheeler’s comment above). C. dracunculus cannot be considered a composite species since only its identity with C. pusillus can be demonstrated. Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea) (Case 2726; see BZN 47: 38-44). (1) H. D. Kahlke Institut ftir Quartdrpaldontologie, Weimar, Deutsche Dem. Rep. I visited the Institut fur Geologie und Palaontologie in Gottingen late in 1986 and can confirm that the specimens designated by Osborn in 1942 as the lectotype and paralectotype of Mammuthus primigenius are no longer available for study and are regarded as having been destroyed during the last war. I support the proposal, which Dr Garutt first suggested at the 1982 INQUA Congress in Moscow, to designate the adult male skeleton from Taimir as the neotype. (2) Andrei V. Sher Severtsov Institute of Evolutionary Animal Morphology and Ecology, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R. The absence of a type specimen for such an important species as the woolly mammoth is a serious problem for palaeontologists. At present students from differ- ent countries are trying to clarify some disputed points in mammoth taxonomy and phylogeny. This is impossible without definitions, and it is necessary to know whether the European or the Siberian remains are to be regarded as typical for the species. I agree with Dr Garutt that a Siberian type is preferable. It is known that specimens from Siberia were present in Blumenbach’s collection. As Vera Gromova correctly noted, from the types mentioned by Dietrich and Osborn the last molar from Siberia was more suitable for identification of the species than was the deciduous premolar from Germany. Both these specimens are now lost and the designation of a neotype is necessary. The Taimir mammoth skeleton completely fulfils the conditions for neotype designation set out in the Code and I support the application. (3) Alan Gentry Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Late Pleistocene occurrences of Mammuthus primigenius are likely to be much studied. Designating a Siberian specimen as the neotype would be helpful and I support the application. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 (4) A. P. Currant Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Garutt, Gentry & Lister have proposed an excellent solution to the nomenclatural problems laid out in this paper. The woolly mammoth is a very widely known and studied species with a considerable popular following. Stabilisation of its binomen, Mammuthus primigenius, is highly desirable and the proposed designation of the Taimir mammoth as the neotype is in full accord with the modern concept of this species. I support the application. i] i i : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 53 OPINION 1567 Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Nonion de Montfort, 1808 are hereby set aside and Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 is designated as type species. (2) The name Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus faba (specific name of the type species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2225/1 An application for the designation of Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as the type species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN 45: 104—105 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The proposed designation of Nautilus faba as type species of Nonion has been supported by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 617), who wrote ‘This action would maintain the genus and higher taxa based on it as these have generally been understood since 1808’. The case was also supported by Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London). The treatise by Loeblich & Tappan refers to, and is consistent with, not only this but also five other applications by Drs Hansen & Régl (see Opinions 1568-1572; Cases 2225/2 to 2225/5, 2225/7). All these cases resulted from the investigation by Rogl & Hansen (1984) of the Fichtel and Moll collection. Another related case (2225/6; see BZN 45: 116-117, 217-219) is discussed on p. 45. References Loeblich, A.R. Jr. & Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal Genera and their Classification. 2 vols. 1182 pp., 847 pls. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 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. Berger, Wien. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 105. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 54 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: faba, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta, p. 103. Nonion de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 210. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 55 OPINION 1568 Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): 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) Florilus de Montfort, 1808; (b) Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826. (2) The name Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Hanzawaia nipponica Asano, 1944, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name nipponica Asano, 1944, as published in the binomen Hanzawaia nipponica (specific name of the type species of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Florilus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2225/2 An application for the conservation of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of R6gl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica and after further correspondence published in BZN 45: 106—108 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. As mentioned in BZN 45: 106, para. 2, the nominal type species of Florilus is F. stellatus de Montfort, 1808. In a letter supporting the application, Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London) drew attention to the words of Parker & Jones (1860; reference below): “Denys de Montfort ... selected from the Monograph of Fichtel and Moll several of their so-called Nautili ... he produced modified figures of these, and classified the whole according to his conchological system. ... His generic names are, for the most part, useless; since the several species, varieties and figured individuals of a genus have received a new binomial appellation at his hand’. Of F. stellatus, Parker & Jones (p. 5) wrote: ‘A bad drawing after Fichtel & Moll’s figures of Nonionina asterizans’. Dr Banner agreed with Parker & Jones (1860) (and with the application) that F. stellatus was merely a new and unnecessary name for Nautilus asterizans Fichtel & Moll, a view also shared by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 720) in their recent treatise. Voloshinova (1958; cf. para. 4 of the application) resurrected the name Florilus, applying it to a group of species similar to Nonion, a genus only very distantly related (at suborder level) to Nautilus asterizans. This wrong usage was temporarily followed by some authors, including Loeblich & Tappan (1964); Dr Banner said that his own designation (Banner & Culver, 1978; cf. para. 3 of the application) of a nonionid as a neotype for F. stellatus should be rejected as invalid, since the specimen was of Atlantic origin (whereas F. ste/latus was Mediterranean) and, more importantly, the types of 56 ' Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Nautilus asterizans still exist. The treatment of Nonionina as a synonym of Nonion by various authors (para. 5 on p. 106) was also in error; the nonionid species which were wrongly treated as Florilus or Nonionina are referable to Pseudononion (para. 8 on p. 107). Dr Banner said that para. 8 of the application would be clarified by reading ‘Continued recognition of Nautilus asterizans (the type species of Nonionina) as the senior synonym of Florilus stellatus de Montfort, the type species of Florilus, makes Nonionina and Florilus senior subjective synonyms of Hanzawaia, with consequent disruption....’ Of Hanzawaia and Pseudononion (cf. paras. 7 and 8 of the application) Dr Banner wrote: ‘I have not had time or opportunity to formulate numerically a case for the usage of Hanzawaia and Pseudononion, but I can assure you that Hanzawaia, in particular, has been very extensively (and correctly) used since its proposal by Asano in 1944. Hanzawaia has been recorded from Oligocene to Recent marine sediments and it is cosmopolitan, being known from low and mid latitudes, trans-world. Pseudononion Asano, 1936, has been recorded less frequently but it is also known to have a cosmo- politan occurrence in marine sediments from Danian age to Holocene. Both Hanzawaia and Pseudononion are accepted by Loeblich & Tappan (1988); there can be no doubt that their loss would cause a very great deal of unnecessary confusion. I repeat, this application by Hansen and Rog] should be supported’. The letter by Dr Banner was abstracted, as above, on the voting paper. Reference Parker, V.K. & Jones, T.R. 1860. On the nomenclature of the foraminifera. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (3)8(35): 1-11. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 107. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson. Dupuis abstained. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 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: Florilus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 134. Hanzawaia Asano, 1944, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51(606): 97. nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51(606): 98. Nonionina @’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 293. | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 57 OPINION 1569 Calcarina d@’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Calcarina d@’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 by subsequent designation by Parker & Jones (1859), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name speng/eri Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Nautilus spengleri (specific name of the type species of Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2225/3 An application for the conservation of Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica and after further correspondence published in BZN 45: 109-111 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. This application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London). With reference to BZN 45: 110, para. 5, Tinoporus baculatus was based on material before de Montfort and on that to which he referred in his references (see para. 4). The specimen of Nautilus spengleri figured by Fichtel & Moll on their pl. 15, figs. i-k, and mentioned by de Montfort, is thus a syntype of T. baculatus. The statement by Rogl & Hansen (1984, p. 60) that this specimen is the ‘holotype’ is incorrect, but makes it (under Article 74b) the lectotype. By this selection T. baculatus de Montfort, 1808 becomes a junior subjective synonym of N. spengleri Gmelin, 1791, and Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 is thereby made a senior subjective synonym of Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826. The ruling suppresses Tinoporus in order to conserve Calcarina. The words ‘specific’ and ‘baculatus’ should be deleted from para. 5, penultimate line. There is no need for the suppression of the name baculatus de Montfort, 1808, as this is only a junior subjective synonym of spengleri Gmelin, 1791. Proposals (1)(b) and (5) in para. 6 on p. 110 were therefore withdrawn. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 110, amended as noted above. At the close of the voting period on | December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 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: Calcarina @’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 276. spengleri, Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791, Systema naturae Linnei, Ed. 13, vol. 1(6), p. 3371. Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 147. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 59 OPINION 1570 Dendritina @’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Pelorus de Montfort, 1808 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species Dendritina arbuscula d’Orbigny, 1826 by subsequent designation by Cushman (1927), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name arbuscula dOrbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Dendritina arbuscula (specific name of the type species of Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Pelorus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2225/4 An application for the conservation of Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of R6gl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN 45: 112-113 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London). Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 112. At the close of the voting period on | December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Mroczkowski and Thompson. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Mroczkowski would have favoured giving Dendritina precedence over Pelorus, but did not support suppression of the latter name because the synonymy is subjective. 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: arbuscula, Dendritina, d’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 285. Dendritina @’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 285. Pelorus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 22. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 OPINION 1571 Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: (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) The name Planularia Defrance, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Peneroplis auris Defrance, 1824, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name auris Defrance, 1824, as published in the binomen Peneroplis auris (specific name of the type species of Planularia Defrance, 1826 ), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2225/5 An application for the conservation of Planularia Defrance, 1826 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN 45: 114-115 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London). The lectotype of Nautilus cassis was designated by Rogl & Hansen (1984, p. 62; cf. para. 2 of the application). Planularia Defrance was published in September 1826, and over 100 species have been referred to it. The exact date of Planularia Nilsson, 1826 is unknown; under Article 21c it would be taken as [31 December 1826], and its suppression was proposed as a precaution in case it should be found to be senior to Planularia Defrance. Contrary to para. 4 of the application, P. elliptica Nilsson, 1826 was designated type species of the Nilsson genus by Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p. C522); Planularia Nilsson has not been used as valid, and Loeblich & Tappan (1964; 1988, p. 409) treat it as an invalid (because a homonym) senior synonym of Palmula Lea, 1833. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 115. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 61 Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski (in part), Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Mroczkowski voted for proposals (1)(b), (2), (3) and (4)(b); he would have favoured giving Planularia Defrance pre- cedence over Linthuris, but did not support suppression of the latter name because the synonymy is subjective. 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: auris, Peneroplis, Defrance, 1824, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 32, p. 178. Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 254. Planularia Defrance, 1826, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 41, p. 244. Planularia Nilsson, 1826, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapakademiens Handlingar, 1825(2): 342. 62 Builetin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 OPINION 1572 Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus; Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the neotype designation by Loeblich & Tappan (1962) for Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 is hereby set aside. (2) The name Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus repandus and as defined by the holotype (Inv. no. MI-470, Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) (specific name of the type species of Eponides de Montfort, 1808), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2225/7 An application for the setting aside of the neotype for Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (Geological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica and after correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 118-119 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application was supported by Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London) and by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 549). The holotype is redescribed on pp. 31—32 of Rogl & Hansen (1984). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 118-119. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Eponides de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 127. repandus, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta, p. 35. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 63 OPINION 1573 Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa): specific names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name /imax Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax, and all other uses of that name prior to the publication of Madrepora limax Esper, 1797, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (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) talpa Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa; (il) trilinguis Boddaert, 1768, as published in the binomen Madrepora trilinguis. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) limax Esper, 1797, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax; (b) talpina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Fungia talpina. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (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. History of Case 2609 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801, two mushroom corals, was received from Dr Bert Hoeksema (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 13-17 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. The name /imax on line 3 of BZN 45: 14 should read talpa. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 15. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — |: Lehtinen. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 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: limax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797, Fortsetzungen der Pflanzenthiere, vol. 1, p. 77. limax, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772, Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, Planten en Mineraalen, vol. 1, part 17, p. 119. talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772, Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, Planten en Mineraalen, vol. |, part 17, p. 116. talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801, Systeme des animaux sans vertébres, p. 370. trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768, Lyst der Plant-Dieren, p. 613, pl. 14. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 65 OPINION 1574 Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; Crustacea, Isopoda): 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) conglobator Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Oniscus conglobator; (b) globator Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (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 designation by Latreille (1810) Oniscus serratus Fabricius, 1787. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) hookeri Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma hookeri; (b) monodi Arcangeli, 1934, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (senior subjective synonym of Europosphaera (Lekanesphaera) excavatum Verhoeff, 1943, the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943); (c) serratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Oniscus serratus (specific name of the type species of Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802). (4) The name SPHAEROMATIDAE (correction by Dahl, 1916, p. 28 of SPHAEROMIDES) Latreille, 1825 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 Specific Names in Zoology: (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 in (1)(b) above. (6) The name Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (unavailable because published without fixation of the type species). History of Case 2613 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 was received from Mr B.J.M. Jacobs & Dr L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 45: 21—24 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriateyournals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting paper that proposal (2)(b) on BZN 45: 23 should have read: monodi Arcangeli, 1934, as 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (senior subjective synonym of the name of the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 23. At the close of the voting period on | December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson. Thompson considered that the application provided insufficient evidence to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 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: conglobator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1766, Miscellanea zoologica, p. 194. Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 169. globator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1772, Spicilegia zoologica, (9): 70. hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814, in Brewster, The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 7, p. 433. Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 169. monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934, Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia e di Anatomia Comparata della R. Universita di Torino, 44(3)(48): 149. serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, p. 242. Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, contenant leur description et leurs moeurs, 2: 182. SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825, Familles naturelles du regne animal, exposées succinctement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres, p. 294. eleiob Ooatney Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 67 OPINION 1575 Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 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) Carcinion Jarocki, 1825; (b) Cenobites Berthold, 1827; (c) Eremita Osbeck, 1765; (d) javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica. (2) The name Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name c/ypeatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Pagurus clypeatus (specific name of the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (correction by Ortmann (1892) of CENOBITIDAE) (type genus Coenobita Latreille, 1829) 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) 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) The name javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica and as suppressed in (1)(d) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (7) The name CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect original spelling of COENOBITIDAE). History of Case 2610 An application for the conservation of Coenobita Latreille, 1829, the name of a hermit crab genus, was received from Drs G.J. Morgan (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia) & L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987 and published in BZN 45: 18-20 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 19—20. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: ; Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. 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: Carcinion Jarocki, 1825, Zoologia czyli zwiérzetopismo Ogolne, podlug Naynowszego Systematu, vol. 5, p. 108. Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, p. 238. Cenobites Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s Nattrliche Familien des Thierreichs, p. 263. CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 269. clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1, p. 328. Coenobita Latreille, 1829, Les Crustacés, les Arachnides et les Insectes, distribués en familles naturelles, ouvrage formant les tomes 4 et 5 celui de M. le baron Cuvier sur le regne animal, Eda pie COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 269. Eremita Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China, p. 356. javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China, p. 356. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 69 OPINION 1576 Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name a/bescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus albescens, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the specific name /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as published in the binomen Palaemon longirostris, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (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 and as defined by the lectotype designated in BZN 45: 121, para. 4, i.e. the specimen figured by Pennant (1777, p. 16, fig. 28); (c) styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1840, as published in the binomen Palaemon styliferus. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (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 /ongirostris 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. History of Case 2612 An application for the conservation of Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392) was received from Dr L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 120—124 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 123. At the close of the voting period on | December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide whether use of the plenary powers 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: albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812, British Zoology, Ed. 5, vol. 4, p. 25. edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863, Die Crustaceen des stidlichen Europa, p. 265. longirostris, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, p. 392. [Official List] longirostris, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, p. 394. [Official Index] serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777, British Zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, p. 19. styliferus, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1840, Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 3, p. 638. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 71 OPINION 1577 Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 are hereby set aside, and the designation by Hope (1838) of Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species is conserved. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Hope (1838) Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as conserved in (1) above; (b) Berosus Leach, 1817 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Dytiscus luridus Linnaeus, 1761. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus fuscipes (specific name of the type species of Hydrobius Leach, 1815); (b) Juridus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Dytiscus luridus (specific name of the type species of Berosus Leach, 1817). History of Case 2607 An application for the conservation of Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the water beetle genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815, so also conserving Berosus Leach, 1817, was received from Dr M. Hansen (Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavyn, Denmark) on 11 May 1987 and published in BZN 45: 25—26 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. ‘D. luridus Leach, 1761’ on the first line of para. 6 on p. 25 should be amended to read ‘D. luridus Linnaeus, 1761’. It would have been possible to achieve the result sought by Dr Hansen (conservation of the usage of Hydrobius and Berosus described in para. 6) by using the plenary powers to suppress Hydrobius as of Leach, 1815 for both the Principles of Priority and Homonymy and to take the name from Leach, 1817. Dr Hansen did not ask for this; Hydrobius is always given the date 1815 (cf. para. 4), and Dr Hansen’s proposal to accept this date has advantages. However, since Dytiscus fuscipes was not included in 1815, proposals (1) and (2) on p. 26 were amended on the voting papers to read: ‘(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and to conserve the designation of Dytiscus | fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 by Hope (1838); (2) (a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Hope (1838), as conserved in (1) above, Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 26, as amended above. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Savage and Thompson. Dupuis and Lehtinen abstained. Savage commented that he would have favoured dating Hydrobius from 1817. Thompson said that there was insufficient evidence in the application to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Berosus Leach, 1817, The zoological miscellany, vol. 3, p. 92. fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 411. Hydrobius Leach, 1815, in Brewster, Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 9, p. 96. luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Svecica, Ed. 2, p. 214. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 73 OPINION 1578 Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as pub- lished in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name triangulum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Vespa triangulum, 1s hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2608 An application for the conservation of the specific name of the ‘bee-wolf’ Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 was received from Dr W.J. Pulawski (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 2 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 34—35 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from O. Lomholdt (Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn, Denmark) and J. Hamon (4 rue de Coteau, Gaillard, France) were published in BZN 46: 45 (March 1989). A similar application was received on 12 November 1987 from Dr R.T. Simon Thomas (Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), as noted on BZN 45: 35, who mentioned that (as well as being an apicultural pest) Philanthus triangulum is an important laboratory insect in the field of toxinological research (see, for example, Piek, T. et al. (1985), Philanthotoxins: a review of the diversity of actions on synaptic transmission. Pesticide Science, 16: 488—494). Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 34—35. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — |: Lehtinen. 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: ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 951. triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 373. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 OPINION 1579 Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, as pub- lished in the binomen Pentetagonaster dutemplei, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name magnificus Spencer, 1913, as published in the binomen Pycinaster magnificus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Pentetagon- aster dutemplei and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2564 An application for the conservation of Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 was received from M G. Breton (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Le Havre, France) on 18 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 125-126 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support received from C.W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) was published in BZN 46: 46 (March 1989) Decision of the Commission : On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 126. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Holthuis, Minelli and Thompson. No vote was returned by Savage. Holthuis commented that the name magnificus had only had limited use. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to decide whether use of the plenary powers 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: dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, dOrbigny, 1850, Prodrome de paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques et rayonnes, vol. 2, p. 274. magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B)204: 125. | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 75 OPINION 1580 Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius; Conodonta): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published in the binomen Astacoderma spinosum, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name dubius Rhodes 1953, as published in the binomen Cordylodus dubius (as Cordylodus? dubius), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published in the binomen Astacoderma spinosum and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2308 An application for the conservation of Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 was received from Drs L. Jeppsson (Lunds Universitet, Sweden) & R.J. Aldridge (University of Nottingham, England, U.K.) on 14 June 1979. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 127—129 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 128. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 5: Dupuis, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen and Minelli. Holthuis considered that as the nominal species Astacoderma spinosum had a holo- type and as this name was almost 100 years older than Cordylodus? dubius there was no good reason not to follow priority. However, as pointed out by the authors (BZN 45: 127, para. 1), the species is quite common and geographically widespread. The paucity of references prior to Rhodes (1953) reflects the lack of appreciation until recent times of the nature and stratigraphic significance of conodonts. Dupuis would have favoured giving dubius precedence over spinosum, since the synonymy is subjective. Kabata did not think the case for overturning priority was strong enough. 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: dubius, Cordylodus?, Rhodes, 1953, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B)237: 299. spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 17: 550. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 OPINION 1581 Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) Itis hereby confirmed that the nominal species Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 (non Valenciennes, 1849 nec Miller & Troschel, 1844) is the type species of the nominal genus Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844. (2) The name Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy and confirmed in (1) above, Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, as published in the binomen Hydrocyon scomberoides and as defined by the holotype A.8659-81.87.2.3 in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (specific name of the type species of Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2556 An application for the confirmation of Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 as the type species of Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 was received from Drs J. Géry (Argentonesse, Saint Cyprien, France) & V. Mahnert (Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland) on 10 February 1986. After correspondence the case was pub- lished in BZN 45: 38—40 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 39. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 10(1): 93. scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819, Mémoires du Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 357. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 77 OPINION 1582 Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the name Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) it is hereby ruled that the correct original spelling of the generic name Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820 is deemed to be Ictiobus. (2) The name Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species Catostomus bubalus Rafinesque, 1818 by subsequent designation by Agassiz (1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name bubalus Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Catostomus bubalus (specific name of the type species of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820 (ruled in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820). History of Case 2598 An application for the conservation of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 was received from Drs R.M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) & W.N. Eschmeyer (California Academy of Science, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 2 March 1987 and published in BZN 45: 36—37 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropri- ate journals. No comments were received. The following information, which did not affect the essence of the application, was noted on the voting paper. As stated in para. 1, Rafinesque (1819, p. 421) proposed Amblodon for two species, one of which was the ‘brown buffalo-fish’, his Catostomus bubalus of 1818. The next year (cf. para. 2) he transferred the name Amblodon to the unrelated ‘grunting perch’, previously (and validly) called Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque, 1819 (p. 418). On p. 24 of the Ichthyologia Ohiensis (and previously in January 1820 in The Western Review) Rafinesque explained this transfer: ‘The name [Amblodon| means obtuse teeth ... Only one species is known yet ... The structure of these teeth [of Aplodinotus grunniens] is very singular and peculiar ... [They] are common in many museums, where they are erroneously called teeth of the Buffalo-fish ... I was deceived so far by this mistake ... this error I now correct with pleasure’. Thus Amblodon had been mistakenly applied to bubalus, and it was not used again for this species. The name /ctiorus has been printed only once, in June 1820 in The Western Review (see para. 3). As stated in para. 4, the name appeared twice as /ctiobus in the volume Ichthyologia Ohiensis later that year, and this spelling has been used ever since. Ictiorus was probably a misprint: Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 163) point out that Ictiobus bubalus derives from the Greek for ‘Buffalo bull-fish’. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Ictiorus is on p. 299 of Rafinesque, C.S. 1820 (June). Natural History of the Fishes of the Ohio River and its Tributary Streams. Fishes of the River Ohio. Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington, 2 (5): 299-307. Ictiobus, with exactly the same text, is on pp. 55 and 89 of Ichthyologia Ohiensis, 1820 (November or December). 90 pp. Hunt, Lexington. Proposal (4) on BZN 45: 37 was amended to read ‘to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820, ruled in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820’. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 37, with proposal (4) amended. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. No vote was returned by Bayer. Thompson said that the application provided insufficient evidence to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 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: Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, Paris, 88: 421. bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3(3): 355. Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820, Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river Ohio and its tributary streams in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, vol. 2(5), p. 299 [301], June 1820 (here incorrectly spelled Ictiorus); spelled Ictiobus in November or December 1820 in Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river Ohio and its tributary streams, pp. 55, 89. Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820, Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river Ohio and its tributary streams in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, vol. 2(5), p. 299 [301], June 1820 (here an incorrect original spelling of Ictiobus); spelled Ictiobus in November or December 1820 in Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river Ohio and its tributary streams, pp. 55, 89. ] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 719 OPINION 1583 Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres, 1854 to be taken as the author of the specific name Ruling (1) Itis hereby ruled that the specific name marmoratus Ayres, 1854, as published in the binomen Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus, has priority over the name marmoratus Girard, 1854, as published in the binomen Scorpaenichthys marmoratus. (2) The name Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 (a junior subjective synonym of Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus Ayres, 1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name marmoratus Ayres, 1854 (8 September), as published in the binomen Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus (senior subjective synonym of Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 [6 October], the type species of Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2619 An application concerning the authorship and date of the specific name of the North Pacific cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus was received from Drs Robert N. Lea (California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, California, U.S.A.) & William N. Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 14 July 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 132-134 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. The specific name marmoratus for the species was published independently in 1854 by W.O. Ayres and by C.F. Girard. Ayres’ name was published on 8 September in The Pacific, a San Francisco journal (in which the California Academy published its meet- ing reports), and again on 22 September in the Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences, 1: 3. Girard’s marmoratus appeared in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7: 132; the actual date of publication is unknown but a copy was received by the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia) by 6 October, and under Article 21g of the Code this is taken as the formal date of publication. Because Girard published the generic name Scorpaenichthys, with his marmoratus as type species of the new genus by monotypy, and because his work may have actually been published before that of Ayres, Drs Lea & Eschmeyer asked that the name marmoratus Ayres be suppressed. The application noted (BZN 45: 133, para. 5) | that both Ayres and Girard have been cited in the literature as author of the name _ marmoratus. In recent years Ayres has been given more often. ] | Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 133. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 14: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, | Kabata, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Negative votes — 14: Cogger, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, Willink. Thompson commented that he voted for marmoratus being taken from Girard, because of the ambiguous date and nature of Ayres’ publication. Library research might show that Girard’s name had in fact been published first, especially since Ayres” 8 September 1854 report in The Pacific was not ‘for permanent scientific record’ [cf. Article 8a(i) of the Code. This would not apply to the 22 September Proceedings paper, and in September 1854 the California Academy directed that its proceedings be pub- lished in The Pacific]. Voting against the application, Cogger said that suppression of Ayres’ name was unwarranted and that attribution of marmoratus to him would not cause difficulty. If that had been the case, a better solution would have been to rule that Girard’s name had priority. Since the voting period it has been discovered that in March 1855 Ayres himself attributed marmoratus to Girard, but this appears to have been based not on publi- cation but on Girard having presented his paper the earlier (see BZN 45: 132, paras. 3 and 4; Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences, 1: 12, 32). Provisions of the Code (in the present case Articles 21 and 23) may only be set aside by the Commission using its plenary powers, necessitating a two-thirds majority vote. A simple majority is taken as a preliminary vote only, and a two-thirds majority is required in a second vote. In the present case there was no majority in favour of the proposals on BZN 45: 133, which are therefore rejected; Ayres should thus be taken as the valid author of marmoratus. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: marmoratus, Hemitripteras, Ayres, 1854, The Pacific (San Francisco), 3(44): 174. Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, TBI. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 81 OPINION 1584 Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 are hereby set aside and Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 is designated as type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Si/urus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (a junior subjective synonym of Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819); (b) Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819 (a junior subjective synonym of Silurus olivaris Rafinesque, 1818). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) natalis Lesueur, 1819, as published in the binomen Pimelodus natalis (senior subjective synonym of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820, the type species of Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820); (b) olivaris Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Silurus olivaris (senior subjective synonym of Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819, the type species of Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819). History of Case 2631 An application for the designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 as the type species of Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 was received from Drs R.M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) & C.R. Robins (University of Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) on 17 November 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 135-137 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The ruling maintains the established use of the name Ameiurus (sometimes, incorrectly, Amiurus) for the ‘bullheads’. As mentioned on BZN 45: 136, para. 4, lines 1 and 2, since 1877 Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819 has been regarded as the valid name of the type species, but in the opinion of the applicants (para. 4 also) authors were wrong in listing Rafinesque’s nominal species Si/urus cupreus as a junior synonym of P. natalis. Another of Rafinesque’s originally included nominal species, S. lividus, is now treated as the junior subjective synonym of P. natalis. The desirability of conserving the name Ameiurus was first raised with the then Secretary of the Commission (F. Hemming) in 1954 by Dr Carl L. Hubbs, but no formal application was made. In 1955 Dr W.I. Follett noted that Silurus cupreus Rafinesque, 1820, previously designated as type species of Ameiurus, is ‘at best a complex’. Silurus cupreus is now considered a synonym of the type species of Pylo- dictis Rafinesque, 1819, and the present ruling avoids Ameiurus falling as a junior synonym of Pylodictis. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 The text of Rafinesque (1820b; the Ichthyologia Ohiensis) was serialised before its publication (December 1820) as a book (see Wheeler, BZN 45: 8). Ameiurus (p. 359 in the Western Review) dates from July 1820 (see reference below). References For Pylodictis: Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux decouverts dans 1’interieur des Etats-Unis d’ Amérique, durant l’année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts, 88: 417—429. For Ameiurus: Rafinesque, C.S. 1820 (July). Natural History of the Fishes of the Ohio River and its Tributary Streams. Fishes of the River Ohio. Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington. 2 (6): 355—363. (Also on p. 65 of Ichthyologia Ohiensis, 1820 (November or December). 90 pp. Hunt, Lexington). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 136-137. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820, Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington, 2 (6): 359. natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819, Mémoires du Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 154. olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, New York, 3(5): 355. Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts, 88: 422. i] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 83 OPINION 1585 Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia, Squamata): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name borneensis Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Tarentola borneensis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name gigas Bocage, 1875, as published in the binomen Ascalabotes gigas, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name borneensis Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Tarentola borneensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2621 An application for the conservation of Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875, the name of a gecko from the Cape Verde Islands, was received from Dr H.H. Schleich (c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchen, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 30 July 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 41—42 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 41. At the close of the voting period on | December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was returned by Martins de Souza. 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: borneensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845, Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum, p. 165. gigas, Ascalabotes, Bocage, 1875, Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, 5: 108. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 OPINION 1586 Euryotis brantsui A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii; Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name vigi/ Thunberg, 1811, as published in the binomen Arctomys vigil, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name brantsii A. Smith, 1834, as published in the binomen Euryotis brantsii, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name vigil Thunberg, 1811, as published in the binomen Arctomys vigil and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2605 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 was received from Drs L.C. Rookmaaker (Dokter Guepinlaan 23, NH Ommeren, The Netherlands) & J. Meester (University of Natal, Durban, R.S.A.) on 27 April 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 43—44 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment from Dr Dieter Kock (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt, Fed. Rep. Germany) was published in BZN 45: 223 (September 1988). Comments in support from Dr Sarah B. George (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, California, U.S.A.) and from Mr W.F.H. Ansell (St. Ives, Cornwall, U.K.) were noted on BZN 45: 223. The paper referred to in para. 2, p. 43 as ‘in press’ has now been published: Rookmaaker, L.C. 1988. The taxonomic importance of C.P. Thunberg’s revision of South African mammals (1811). South African Journal of Science, 84 (3): 159-161. Decision of the Commission On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 43. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Cogger. Cogger commented that he would have voted for brantsii being given precedence over vigil, but suppression of the latter was unwarranted because the synonymy was uncertain (cf. BZN 45: 223). 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: brantsii, Euryotis, A. Smith, 1834, South African Quarterly Journal, 2: 150. vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, 3: 308. Contents—continued Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1567. Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus ee Fichtel & Moll, 1798 designated as the type species. . 53 Opinion 1568. Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Poraminitertds): Gonstived FRY ee NE SL: 55 Opinion 1569. Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved . . . . . 57 Opinion 1570. Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved . . . . . 59 Opinion 1571. Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved. . 60 Opinion 1572. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides reparidus: Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype . . . 62 Opinion 1573. Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa): specific names conserved. . . 63 Opinion 1574. Sphaeroma hookeri leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hee Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved. . ; 65 _ Opinion 1575. Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved . : 67 _ Opinion 1576. Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): specific name conserved . . 69 Opinion 1577. Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): " Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . . 71 Opinion 1578. Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum: Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved. . 73 | Opinion 1579. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): | specific name conserved . . 74 _ Opinion 1580. Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius: ' Conodonta): specific name conserved . . TD Opinion 1581. Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species. . . : 76 Opinion 1582. Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved ; 77 Opinion 1583.-Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres, 1854 to be taken as the author of the specificname . . 79 Opinion 1584. Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silunus Tividiss Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species . . 81 Opinion 1585. Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas: ‘Reptilia, Squamata): specific name conserved .. 83 Opinion 1586. Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii: Mammalia, Rodentia): specificnameconserved . . . . . . ...... 84 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin 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 name in parentheses. | Author’s name. Full postal address should be given. | Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission’s 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 title 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 Executive Secretary, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell jRoad, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large /number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in | ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360K B (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. CONTENTS Notices . Election of the Vice- President of ‘the International Commission on | Zoological Nomenclature . ; The International Commission on 1 Zoological ‘Nomenclature and its publications : Addresses of members of the Commission . ; International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . . ; Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement ; The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Instructions to Authors . Applications Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864. B.W.Hoeksema. . CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CYMATIINAE Walton i in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy. A. Jansson& A.G.Beu. . Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (actuellement Placostylus fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposée pour les noms spécifiques; et Placostylus Beck, 1837: Gee proposee de L. atid comme espéce-type. P. Bouchet Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): " proposed conservation. M. E. Gordon . . Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. M.S. Harvey . Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustulus, Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the a name. R. B. Halliday . Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, ‘Isopoda): proposed precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870. J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck . Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. R. C. Froeschner & N. A. Kormilev. : Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata: Mammalia, Cetacea): proposed conservation of the specific name. W.F. Perrin . ; Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed conservation, and Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius): pro- posed designation as the type species of Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype. W.E. Garutt, Anthea Gentry & A. M. Lister . Se es ae Note and Comments On Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species. P. K. Tubbs . On the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda). P.K. L. Ng; L. B.Holthuis. . On the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera). G. De Lotto;C. Hodgson. . . On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey . On the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). A. Wheeler; R. Fricke . J On the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas Bree (currently Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, a H. D. Kahlke; A. V. Sher; Alan Gentry; A. P. Currant. : BRT Sg BEN) SE (oe SA ea Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset TE 12! Volume 47, Part 2, 29 June 1990 pp. 85-172 | ISSN 0007-5167 Zoological 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 1990 is £65 or $125, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; Myriapoda) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) (Norway, Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F.C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V.A. Trjapitzin (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink (Argentina; Hymenoptera) 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 1990 i i 85 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 47, part 2 (pp. 85-172) 29 June 1990 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication, but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. (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 47, part | (published on 27 March 1990): (1) Pliocercus Cope, 1860 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation, and P. elapoides Cope, 1860: proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2752). H.M. Smith, K.L. Williams, V. Wallach & D. Chiszar. (2) Cycloceras McCoy, 1844 (Mollusca, Nautiloidea): proposed designation of C. laevigatum McCoy, 1844 as the type species, and proposed designation of a neotype for C. laevigatum. (Case 2753). K. Histon. (3) Scoparipes Signoret, 1879 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed confirmation of Cydnus latipes Westwood, 1837 as the type species. (Case 2754). J.A. Lis. (4) Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842 (currently Eurymeloides bicincta; Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation and designation of a neotype. (Case 2755). M.M. Stevens & M.J. Fletcher. (5) Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2756). C. Palestrini. (6) Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser- vation. (Case 2757). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga & M. Wanat. (7) Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed confirmation of B. octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 2758). G.H. Nelson & W.F. Barr. (8) Goniosoma conspersum Perty, December 1833 (currently Mitobates conspersus; Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed precedence over Mitobates triangulus Sundevall, April 1833. (Case 2759). A.B. Kury. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 (9) Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1900 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): proposed desig- nation of R. baltica Jaekel, 1900 as the type species. (Case 2760). S.V. Rozhnov. (10) Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over C. canifrons Walker, 1848. (Case 2761). J.E. Chainey. (11) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed conservation of G. longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species. (Case 2762). G. Hahn. (12) Coccinella undecimnotata Schneider, 1792 (currently Hippodamia ( Semiadalia ) umdecimnotata; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2763). R.D. Pope. (13) Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2764). M.K. Thayer. (14) Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation. (Case 2765). F. Pleijel. (15) Conus fulmen Reeve, 1843 and C. berghausi Michelotti, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over C. modestus Sowerby, 1833 and C. demissus Philippi, 1836 respectively. (Case 2766). A.J. Kohn. (16) Drosophila hydei Sturtevant, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2767). C.R. Vilela & G. Bachli. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The following members of the Commission reach the end of their terms of service at the close of the XXIV General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences to be held in Amsterdam in September 1991: Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia, Herpetology); Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany, Arachnology); Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland, Coleoptera); Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia, Mammalia). A further vacancy arises from the resignation of Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada, Ichthyology). The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 47(1) (March 1990). 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 candi- dates for membership. Article 26 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 (medi- cine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names). Nominations made since September 1987 will be reconsidered automatically and need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the date of birth, nationality and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 87 qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each candidate should be sent by 1 June 1991 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-1988, 544 names and three works were added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part | of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, 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.). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies may be ordered from the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany orders. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Bully for Brontosaurus A minor victory snatched from the jaws of taxonomic triviality by Stephen Jay Gould This article by Dr Gould originally appeared in Natural History, February 1990, pp. 16-24, published by the American Museum of Natural History, New York. It is reproduced here by permission. Offprints can be obtained from the Commission Secretariat. Question: What do Catherine the Great, Attila the Hun, and Bozo the Clown have in common? Answer: They all have the same middle name. Question: What do San Marino, Tannu Tuva, and Monaco have in common? Answer: They all realized that they could print pretty pieces of perforated paper, call them stamps, and sell them at remarkable prices to philatelists throughout the world (did these items ever bear any relationship to postage or utility? Does anyone own a canceled stamp from Tannu Tuva?). Some differences, however, must be admitted. Although San Marino (a tiny principality within Italy) and Tannu Tuva (a former state adjacent to Mongolia but now annexed to the Soviet Union) may rely on stamps for a significant fraction of their GNP, Monaco, as we all know, has another considerable source of outside income — the casino of Monte Carlo (nurtured by all the hype and elegance of the Grimaldis — Prince Rainier, Grace Kelly, and all that). So completely do we identify Monaco with Monte Carlo that we can scarcely imagine any other activity, particularly something productive, taking place in this little land of fantasy and fractured finances. Nonetheless, people are born, work, and die in Monaco. And this tiny nation boasts, among other amenities, a fine station for oceanographic research. This combination of science and hostelry makes Monaco an excellent place for large professional meetings. In 1913, Monaco hosted the International Zoological Congress, the largest of all meetings within my clan. This 1913 gathering adopted the important Article 79, or ‘plenary powers decision’, stating that ‘when stability of nomenclature is threatened in an individual case, the strict application of the Code may under specified conditions be suspended by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’. Now] will not blame any reader for puzzlement over the last paragraph. The topic — rules for giving scientific names to organisms — is easy enough to infer. But why should we be concerned with such legalistic arcana? Bear with me. We shall detour around the coils of Boa constrictor, meet the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature head-on, and finally arrive at a hot issue now generating much passion and acrimony at the heart of our greatest contemporary fad. You may deny all concern for rules of taxonomy, our last domain of active Latin (now that Catholtcism has embraced the vernacular), but millions of Americans are now het up about the proper name of Brontosaurus, the canonical dinosaur. And you can’t grasp the name of the beast without engaging the beastly rules of naming. Nonprofessionals often bridle at the complex Latin titles used by naturalists as official designations for organisms. Latin is a historical legacy from the foundation of modern taxonomy in the mid-eighteenth century—a precomputer age when Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 89 Romespeak was the only language shared by scientists throughout the world. The names may seem cumbersome, now that most of us pass our youthful years before a television set, rather than declaiming hic-haec-hoc and amo-amas-amat. But the principle is sound. Effective communication demands that organisms have official names, uniformly recognized in all countries, while a world of changing concepts and increasing knowledge requires that rules of naming foster maximal stability and minimal disruption. New species are discovered every day; old names must often change as we correct past errors and add new information. If every change of concept demanded a redesig- nation of all names and a reordering of all categories, natural history would devolve into chaos. Our communications would fail as species, the basic units of all our dis- course, would have no recognized labels. All past literature would be a tangle of changing designations, and we could not read without a concordance longer than the twenty volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary. The rules for naming animals are codified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,* as adopted and continually revised by the International Union of Biological Sciences (plant people have a different code based on similar principles). The latest edition (1985) is bound in bright red and runs to 338 pages. I will not attempt to summarize the contents, but only state the primary goal: to promote maximal stability as new knowledge demands revision. Consider the most prevalent problem demanding a solution in the service of stability: when a single species has been given two or more names, how do we decide which to validate and which to reject? This common situation can arise for several reasons: two scientists, each unaware of the other’s work, may name the same animal; or a single scientist, mistaking a variable species for two or more separate entities, may give more than one name to members of the same species. A simple and commonsensical approach might attempt to resolve all such disputes with a principle of priority — let the oldest name prevail. In practice, such ‘obvious’ solutions rarely work. The history of taxonomy since Linnaeus has featured three sequential approaches to this classical problem. 1. Appropriateness. Modern nomenclature dates from the publication, in 1758, of the tenth edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae. In principle, Linnaeus endorsed the rule of priority. In practice, he and most of his immediate successors commonly changed names for reasons, often idiosyncratic, of supposed ‘appropriateness’. If the literal Latin of an original name ceased to be an accurate descriptor, new names were often given. (For example, a species originally named floridensis to denote a restricted geographic domain might be renamed americanus if it later spread throughout the country.) Some unscrupulous taxonomists used appropriateness as a thinly veiled tactic to place their own stamp upon species by raiding rather than by scientific effort. A profession supposedly dedicated to expanding knowledge about things began to founder into a quagmire of arguments about names. In the light of such human foibles, appropriateness could not work as a primary criterion for taxonomic names. *Copies of the Code can be obtained from I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 or US$35, or from The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price US$35 (US$32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 2. Priority. The near anarchy of appropriateness provoked a chorus of demands for reform and codification. The British Association for the Advancement of Science finally appointed a committee to formulate a set of official rules for nomenclature. The Strickland Committee, obedient to the age-old principle that periods of permissiveness lead to stretches of law ’n order (before the cycle swings round again), reported in 1842 with a ‘strict construction’ that must have brought joy to all Robert Borks of the day. Priority in publication shall be absolutely and uncompromisingly enforced. No ifs, ands, buts, quibbles, or exceptions. This decision may have ended the anarchy of capricious change, but it introduced another impediment, perhaps even worse, based on the exaltation of incompetence. When new species are introduced by respected scientists, in widely read publications with clear descriptions and good illustrations, people take notice and the names pass into general use. But when Ignatz Doofus publishes a new name with a crummy drawing and a few lines of telegraphic and muddled description in the Proceedings of the Philomathematical Society of Pfennighalbpfennig (circulation 533), it passes into well-deserved oblivion. Unfortunately, under the Strickland Code of strict priority, Herr Doofus’s name, if published first, becomes the official moniker of the species — so long as Doofus didn’t break any rule in writing his report. The competence and useful- ness of his work has no bearing on the decision. The resultant situation is perversely curious. What other field defines its major activity by the work of the least skilled? As Charles Michener, our greatest taxonomist of bees, once wrote: ‘In other sciences the work of incompetents is merely ignored; in taxonomy, because of priority, it is preserved.’ If the Sterling/Doofus ratio were high, priority might pose few problems in practice. Unfortunately, those ‘Philomathematical Societies’ once formed a veritable army, issuing cannonade after cannonade of publications filled with new names destined for oblivion but technically constituted in correct form. Since every profession has its petty legalists, its boosters of tidiness and procedure over content, natural history sank into a mire of unproductive pedantry that, in Ernst Mayr’s words, ‘deflected taxonomists from biological research into bibliographic archeology’. Legions of technocrats delighted in searching obscure and forgotten publications for an earlier name that could displace some long-accepted and stable usage. Acrimonious arguments prolifer- ated, for Doofus’s inadequate descriptions rarely permitted an unambiguous identifi- cation of his earlier name with any well-defined species. Thus, a rule introduced to establish stability against capricious change for appropriateness sowed even greater disruption by forcing the abandonment of accepted names for forgotten predecessors. 3. Plenary Powers. The abuses of Herr Doofus and his ilk induced a virtual rebellion among natural historians. A poll of Scandinavian zoologists, taken in 1911, yielded 2 in favor and 120 opposed to strict priority. All intelligent administrators know that the key to a humane and successful bureaucracy lies in creative use of the word ordinarily. Strict rules of procedure are ordinarily inviolable — unless a damned good reason for disobedience arises, and then flexibility permits humane and rational exceptions. The Plenary Powers Rule, adopted in Monaco in 1913 to stem the revolt against strict priority, is a codification of the estimable principle of ordinarily. It provided, as quoted early in this essay, that the first designation shall prevail, unless a later name has been so widely accepted that its suppression in favor of a forgotten predecessor would sow confusion and instability. EE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 91 Such exceptions to strict priority cannot be asserted by individuals but must be officially granted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting under its plenary powers. The procedure is somewhat cumbersome and demands a certain investment of time and paper work, but the plenary powers rule has served us well and has finally achieved stability by locating the fulcrum between strict priority and proper exception. To suppress an earlier name under the plenary powers, a taxonomist must submit a formal application and justification to the International Commission (a body of some thirty professional zoologists). The Commission then publishes the case, invites commentary from taxonomists throughout the world, con- siders the initial appeal with all elicited support and rebuttal, and makes a decision by majority vote. The system has worked well, as two cases may illustrate. The protozoan species Tetrahymena pyriforme has long been a staple for biological research, particularly on the physiology of single-celled organisms. John Corliss counted more than 1,500 papers published over a twenty-seven-year span — all using this name. However, at least ten technically valid names, entirely forgotten and unused, predate the first publi- cation of Tetrahymena. No purpose would be served by resurrecting any of these earlier designations and suppressing the universally accepted Tetrahymena. Corliss’s petition to the Commission was accepted without protest, and Tetrahymena has been officially accepted under the plenary powers. One of my favorite names recently had a much closer brush with official extinction. The generic names of many animals are the same as their common designation: the gorilla is Gorilla; the rat, Rattus. But I know only one case of a vernacular name identical with both generic and specific parts of the technical Latin. The boa constrictor is (but almost wasn’t) Boa constrictor, and it would be a damned shame if we lost this lovely consonance. Nevertheless, in 1976, Boa constrictor barely survived one of the closest contests ever brought before the Commission, as thirteen members voted to suppress this grand name in favor of Boa canina, while fifteen noble nays stood firm and saved the day. The details are numerous and not relevant to this essay. Briefly, in the founding document of 1758, Linnaeus placed nine species in his genus Boa, including canina and constrictor. As later zoologists divided Linnaeus’s overly broad concept of Boa into several genera, a key question inevitably arose: which of Linnaeus’s original species should become the ‘type’ (or name bearer) of the restricted version of Boa, and which should be assigned to other genera. Many professional herpetologists had accepted canina as the best name bearer (and assigned constrictor to another genus); but a world of both technical and common usage from text books to zoo labels to horror films recognized Boa constrictor. The Commission narrowly opted, in a tight squeeze (sorry, I couldn’t resist that one), for the name we all know and love. Ernst Mayr, in casting his decisive vote, cited the virtue of stability in validating common usage — the basis for the plenary powers decision in the first place: I think here is clearly a case where stability is best served by following usage in the general zoological literature. I have asked numerous zoologists ‘what species does the genus Boa call to your mind?’ and they all said immediately ‘constrictor’.... Making constrictor the type of Boa will remove all ambiguity from the literature. These debates often strike non-professionals as a bit ridiculous — a sign, perhaps, that taxonomy is more wordplay than science. After all, science studies the external 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 world (through the dark glass of our prejudices and perceptions to be sure). Questions of first publication versus common usage have nothing to do with the animals ‘out there’, but only with human conventions for naming. But this is the point, not the problem. These are debates about names, not things — and the arbitrary criteria of human decision making, not boundaries imposed by the external world, apply to our resolutions. The aim of these debates (although not always, alas, the outcome) is to cut through the verbiage, reach a stable and practical decision, and move on to the world of things. Which leads, via a segue of some admitted roughness, back to philately. The United States government, jumping on the greatest bandwagon since the hula hoop, has just issued four striking stamps bearing pictures of dinosaurs —and labeled, Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pteranodon, and Brontosaurus. Thrusting itself, with all the zeal of a convert, into the heart of commercial hype, the U.S. Post Office seems committed to shedding its image for stodginess in one fell, crass swoop. Its small brochure, announcing October as ‘national stamp collecting month’, manages to sponsor a contest, establish a tie-in both with T-shirts and a videocassette for The Land Before Time, and offer a dinosaur “discovery kit’ (a $9.95 value for just $3.95; ‘valid while supplies last. Better hurry!’). You will, in this context, probably not be surprised to learn that the stamps were officially launched on 1 October 1989, in Orlando, Florida, at Disney World. Amidst this maelstrom of marketing, the Post Office has also engendered quite a brouhaha about the supposed subject of one stamp — a debate given such prominence in the press that much of the public (at least judging from my voluminous mail) now thinks that an issue of great scientific importance has been raised to the detriment and shame of an institution otherwise making a worthy step to modernity. (We must leave this question for another time, but I confess great uneasiness about such approbation. I appreciate the argument that T-shirts and videos heighten awareness and expose aspects of science to millions of kids otherwise unreached. I understand why many will accept the forceful spigot of hype, accompanied by the watering-down of content — all in the interest of extending contact. But the argument works only if, having made contact, we can then woo these kids to a deeper intellectual interest and commitment. Unfortunately, we are often all too ready to compromise. We hear the blandishments: dumb it down; hype it up. But go too far and there is no turning back; you lose your own soul by dripping degrees. The space for wooing disappears down the maw of commercialism. Too many wise people, from Shakespeare to my grandmother, have said that dignity is the only bit of our being that cannot be put up for sale.) This growing controversy has even reached the august editorial pages of the New York Times (11 October 1989), and their description serves as a fine epitome of the supposed mess: The Postal Service has taken heavy flak for mislabeling its new 25-cent dinosaur stamp, a drawing of a pair of dinosaurs captioned ‘Brontosaurus’. Furious purists point out that the ‘brontosaurus’ is now properly called ‘apatosaurus’. They accuse the stamp’s authors of fostering scientific illiteracy, and want the stamps recalled. Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus. Which is right? How important is this issue? How does it rank amidst a host of other controversies surrounding this and other dinosaurs: what head belongs on this dinosaur (whether it be called Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 93 were these large dinosaurs warmblooded; why did they become extinct? The press often does a good job of reporting the basic facts of a dispute, but fails miserably in supplying the context that would allow a judgment about importance. I have tried, in the first part of this essay, to supply the necessary context for grasping Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus. I regret to report, and shall now document, that the issue could hardly be more trivial — for the dispute is only about names, not about things. The empirical question was settled to everyone’s satisfaction in 1903. To understand the argument about names, we must know the rules of taxonomy and something about the history of debate on the principle of priority. But the exposure of context for Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus does provide an interesting story in itself and does raise important issues about the public presentation of science — and thus do I hope to snatch victory (or at least interest) from the jaws of defeat (or triviality). Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus is a direct legacy of the most celebrated feud in the history of vertebrate paleontology — Cope versus Marsh. As E.D. Cope and O.C. Marsh vied for the glory of finding spectacular dinosaurs and mammals in the American West, they fell into a pattern of rush and superficiality born of their intense competition and mutual dislike. Both wanted to bag as many names as possible, so they published too quickly, often with inadequate descriptions, careless study, and poor illustrations. In this unseemly rush, they frequently gave names to fragmentary material that could not be well characterized and sometimes described the same creature twice by failing to make proper distinctions among the fragments. (For a good history of this issue, see D.S. Berman and J.S. McIntosh, ‘Skull and Relationships of the Upper Jurassic Sauropod Apatosaurus’, Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, no. 8, 1978. These authors point out that both Cope and Marsh often described and officially named a species when only a few bones had been excavated and most of the skeleton remained in the ground.) In 1877, in a typically rushed note, O.C. Marsh named and described Apatosaurus ajax in two paragraphs without illustrations (“Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles from the Jurassic Formation’, American Journal of Science, vol. 14, 1877, pp. 514-16). Although he noted that this ‘gigantic dinosaur . . . is represented in the Yale Museum by a nearly complete skeleton in excellent preservation’, Marsh described only the vertebral column. In 1879, he published another page of information and presented the first sketchy illustrations — of pelvis, shoulder blade, and a few vertebrae (‘Principal Characters of American Jurassic Dinosaurs, Part II’, American Journal of Science, vol. 17, 1879, pp. 86-92). He also took this opportunity to pour some vitriol upon Mr Cope, claiming that Cope had misnamed and misdescribed several forms in his haste. ‘Conclusions based on such work’, Marsh asserts, ‘will naturally be received with distrust by anatomists.’ In another 1879 article, Marsh introduced the genus Brontosaurus, with two paragraphs (even shorter than those initially devoted to Apatosaurus), no illustrations, and just a few comments on the pelvis and vertebrae. He did estimate the length of his new beast at seventy to eighty feet, in comparison with some fifty feet for Apatosaurus (‘Notice of New Jurassic Reptiles’, American Journal of Science, vol. 18, 1879, pp. 501-5). Marsh considered Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus as distinct but closely related genera within the larger family of sauropod dinosaurs. But Brontosaurus soon became everyone’s typical sauropod — indeed the canonical herbivorous dinosaur of popular 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 consciousness, from the Sinclair logo to Walt Disney’s Fantasia — for a simple and obvious reason. Marsh’s Brontosaurus skeleton, from the most famous of all dinosaur localities at Como Bluff quarry 10, Wyoming, remains to this day ‘one of the most complete sauropod skeletons ever found’ (quoted from Berman and McIntosh, cited previously). Marsh mounted the skeleton at Yale and often published his spectacular reconstruction of the entire animal. (Apatosaurus, meanwhile, remained a pelvis and some vertebrae.) In his great summary work, The Dinosaurs of North America, Marsh wrote (1896): “The best-known genus of the Atlantosauridae is Brontosaurus, described by the writer in 1879, the type specimen being a nearly entire skeleton, by far the most complete of any of the Sauropoda yet discovered.’ Brontosaurus also became the source of the old stereotype, now so strongly challenged, of slow, stupid, lumbering dinosaurs. Marsh wrote in 1883, when presenting his full reconstruction of Brontosaurus for the first time: A careful estimate of the size of Brontosaurus, as here restored, shows that when living the animal must have weighed more than twenty tons. The very small head and brain, and slender neural cord, indicate a stupid, slow-moving reptile. The beast was wholly without offensive or defensive weapons, or dermal armature. In habits, Brontosaurus was more or less amphibious, and its food was probably aquatic plants or other succulent vegetation. In 1903, Elmer Riggs of the Field Museum in Chicago restudied Marsh’s sauropods. Paleontologists had realized by then that Marsh had been overgenerous in his desig- nation of species (a ‘splitter’ in our jargon), and that many of his names would have to be consolidated. When Riggs restudied Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus, he recognized them as two versions of the same creature, with Apatosaurus as a more juvenile specimen. No big deal; it happens all the time. Riggs rolled the two genera into one in a single paragraph: The genus Brontosaurus was based chiefly upon the structure of the scapula and the presence of five vertebrae in the sacrum. After examining the type specimens of these genera, and making a careful study of the unusually well-preserved specimen described in this paper, the writer is convinced that the Apatosaur specimen is merely a young animal of the form represented in the adult by the Brontosaur specimen. .. . In view of these facts the two genera may be regarded as synonymous. As the term ‘Apatosaurus’ has priority, ‘Brontosaurus’ will be regarded as a synonym. In 1903, ten years before the plenary powers decision, strict priority ruled in zoologi- cal nomenclature. Thus, Riggs had no choice but to sink the later name, Brontosaurus, once he had decided that Marsh’s earlier name, Apatosaurus, represented the same animal. But then I rather doubt that Riggs would have gone to bat for Brontosaurus even if he could have submitted a case on its behalf. After all, Brontosaurus was not yet an icon of pop culture in 1903 — no Sinclair logo, no Alley-Oop, no Fantasia, no Land Before Time. Both names were generally unknown, and Riggs probably didn’t lament the demise of Brontosaurus. No one has ever seriously challenged Riggs’s conclusion, and professionals have always accepted his synonymy. But Publication 82 of the ‘Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum’ for 1903 — the reference for Riggs’s article — never gained much popular currency. The name Brontosaurus, still affixed to skeletons in museums Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 95 throughout the world, still perpetuated in countless popular and semi-technical books about nature, never lost its luster, despite its technical limbo. Anyone could have applied to the Commission for suppression of Apatosaurus under the plenary powers in recognition of the widespread popularity and stability of Brontosaurus. I suspect that such an application would have succeeded. But no one bothered, and a good name remains in limbo. (I also wish that someone had fought for the suppression of the unattractive and inappropriate name Hyracotherium in favor of the lovely but later Eohippus, also coined by Marsh. But again, no one did.) I’m afraid there’s not much more to this story — not nearly the issue hyped by your newspapers as the great stamp flap. No argument of fact arises at all, just a question of names, settled in 1903, but never transferred to a general culture that continues to learn and favor the technically invalid name Brontosaurus. But the story does illustrate something troubling about the presentation of science in popular media. The world of USA Today is a place of instant fact and no analysis. Hundreds of bits come at us in pieces never lasting more than a few seconds—for the dumbdowners tell us that average Americans can’t assimilate anything more complex or pay attention to anything longer. This oddly ‘democratic’ procedure makes all bits equal — the cat who fell off a roof in Topeka (and lived) gets the same space as the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Democracy is a magnificent system for human rights and morality in general, but it just doesn’t apply to the evaluation of information. We are bombarded with too much in our inordinately complex world; if we cannot sort the trivial from the profound, we are lost in terminal overload. The criteria for sorting must involve context and theory — the larger perspective that a good education provides. In the current dinosaur craze without context, all bits are mined for their superficial news value as items in themselves—a lamentable tendency abetted by the ‘trivial pursuits’ one-upmanship that confers status on people who know (and flaunt) the most bits. (If you play this dangerous game in real life, remember that ignorance of context is the surest mark of a phony. If you approach me in wild lament, claiming that our postal service has mocked the deepest truth of paleontology, I will know that you have only skimmed the surface of my field.) Consider the four items mentioned earlier in this essay. They are often presented in USA Today style as equal factoids. But with a context to sort the trivial from the profound, we may recognize some as statements about words, others as entries to the most general questions we can ask about the history of life. Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus is a legalistic quibble about words and rules of naming. Leave the Post Office alone. They take enough flak (much justified of course) as it is. The proper head for Apatosaurus is an interesting empirical issue, but of little moment beyond the sauropods. Marsh found no skull associated with either his Apatosaurus or his Brontosaurus skeleton. He guessed wrong and mounted the head of another sauropod genus called Camarosaurus. Apatosaurus actually bore a head much more like that of the different genus Diplodocus. The head issue (Camarosaurus-like versus Diplodocus- like) and the name issue (Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus) are entirely separate questions, although they have been confused in the press. The question of warmbloodedness (quite unresolved at the moment) is more general still, as it affects our basic concepts of dinosaur physiology and efficiency. The issue of extinction is the broadest of all — for basic patterns of life’s history are set by 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 differential survival of groups through episodes of mass dying. We are here today, arguing about empty issues like Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus, because mammals got through the great Cretaceous extinction, while dinosaurs did not. [hate to bea shill for the Post Office, but I think that they made the right decision this time. Responding to the great Apatosaurus flap, Postal Bulletin Number 21744 pro- claimed: ‘Although now recognized by the scientific community as Apatosaurus, the name Brontosaurus was used for the stamp because it is more familiar to the general population. Similarly, the term dinosaur has been used generically to describe all the animals, even though the Pteranodon was a flying reptile’. Touché and right on; no one bitched about Pteranodon, and that’s a real error. Moreover, members of the American Museum and readers of this magazine have no right to upbraid the Post Office. Page twenty-nine of the November 1989 Natural History features an ad for dinosaur neckties sold by the American Museum shop. The list includes Pteranodon, Dimetrodon (a mammalian ancestor, not a dinosaur), and ‘Brontosaurus’ proudly so called. The Post Office has been more right than the complainers, for Uncle Sam has worked in the spirit of the plenary powers rule. Names fixed in popular usage may be validated even if older designations have technical priority. But now... Oh Lord, why didn’t I see it before! Now I suddenly grasp what this is all about! It’s a plot, a dastardly plot sponsored by the apatophiles — that secret society long dedicated to gaining support for Marsh’s original name against a potential appeal to the plenary powers. They never had a prayer before. Whatever noise they made, whatever assassinations they attempted, they could never get anyone to pay attention, never disturb the tranquillity and general acceptance of Brontosaurus. But now that the Post Office officially adopted Brontosaurus, they have found their opening. Now enough people know about Apatosaurus for the first time. Now an appeal to the plenary powers would not lead to the validation of Brontosaurus, for Apatosaurus has gained precious currency. They have won; we brontophiles have been defeated. Apatosaurus means ‘deceptive lizard’; Brontosaurus means ‘thunder lizard’ —a far, far better name (but appropriateness, alas, as we have seen, counts for nothing). They have deceived us; we brontophiles have been outmaneuvered. Oh well, graciousness in defeat before all (every bit as important as dignity, if not an aspect thereof). I retreat, not with a bang of thunder, but with a whimper of hope that rectification may someday arise from the ashes of my stamp album. Stephen Jay Gould teaches biology, geology, and the history of science at Harvard University. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 97 Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability Alwyne Wheeler Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IG10 4AF, U.K. Although family names are essential to the elaboration of a hierarchical system of classification such as is required by systematists, they serve other important functions. Because family groupings provide a more readily understood unit of classification to non-systematists than those above or below family level they are widely used, giving a group name of manageable comprehension. In addition, retrieval systems, whether in current awareness services or library indexes and in both manual and computerized forms, and biological recording systems depend heavily on groupings at family level. This level is the base line on which most of these systems operate. Their import- ance cannot be overestimated, nor can the need to stabilize usage in acceptably clear forms. Family names have an important role in formal communication in that papers of a scientific nature usually include within the title or abstract both family and ordinal names (a practice on which abstracting services and retrieval systems depend). Both informal writing and oral communication also rely heavily on family names and their use provides a framework within which the reader or listener can relate the information to known parameters. Biologists who are not primarily taxonomists, for example fishery workers, environmental archaeologists, and ecologists, employ family names in both formal and informal contexts. Because family names usually have a greater stability once properly established they occupy an important role in communication within the biological sciences. It is therefore desirable that they are stable in form and in usage; as an example, this was recognized by the Commission 32 years ago when (in Opinion 500) the name PIERIDAE was accepted for the ‘White’ butterflies, rather than the grammatically correct PIERIDIDAE. In fishes, after a long period of relative uniformity of usage, uncertainty about the form of some family names has been created by Steyskal’s (1980) claim that several widely used family names are not grammatically correct in form. As a result some ichthyologists have adopted the form recommended by Steyskal, other have deliber- ately ignored his recommendations. Some of the former, after many years of using the ‘incorrect’ form, are now advocating the ‘correct’ usage in non-taxonomic fields with the zeal of the newly-converted, which causes confusion. Two cases in which maintenance of a widely used family name of ‘incorrect’ form has been defended by an authority in the group — COBITIDAE rather than COBITIDIDAE, and LIPARIDAE rather than LIPARIDIDAE — have recently come before the Commission (BZN 43: 360-362, 45: 178-179; and BZN 45: 130-131). Others will undoubtedly follow in time. Other examples involve groups of fishes which are frequently referred to in the literature for various reasons. Thus, the anchovy family name ENGRAULIDAE (or ENGRAULIDIDAE, as ‘corrected’ by Steyskal) for a group of very important commercial fishes is frequently used in fisheries literature. The sleeper family ELEOTRIDAE (or 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 ELEOTRIDIDAE) is extremely speciose in tropical shallow seas and freshwaters and features frequently in literature on coastal ecology, as does the family of butterfishes, PHOLIDAE (Or PHOLIDIDAE) in northern temperate and Arctic seas. Both the sting ray and the eagle ray families, DASYATIDAE and MYLIOBATIDAE (Or DASYATIDIDAE and MYLIOBATIDIDAE) have minimal importance in fisheries but feature in the medical literature on account of the toxins associated with envenomed tail spines. Other fishes feature in the literature on account of their interesting symbiotic behaviour or evol- utionary interest, e.g. the shark sucker family ECHENEIDAE (or ECHENEIDIDAE) and the pearl fishes CARAPIDAE (or CARAPODIDAE), while the Australian lung-fish, Neoceratodus forsteri, is usually referred by authors to the family CERATODIDAE (but ‘should’ be CERATODONTIDAE). It will be apparent that many of the above examples of family names in their gram- matically correct forms (in parentheses) are more complicated and thus more liable to error in transcription, but, more importantly, become almost unpronounceable if spoken either in formal usage or in adjectival form. This is a serious disadvantage when these names are in widespread use by non-taxonomists. Rather than adopting the grammatically correct forms of family names (vide Skeyskal, 1980) without consideration of the consequences, it is preferable to analyse past usage of these names. In another nomenclatural context Stearn (1985) refers to usage resulting from ‘the consent of the learned’ which he defines as fairly consistent usage by nineteenth-century botanists of standing. In the present case involving family names which were rarely stabilized in the nineteenth century, I propose citing authors of authoritative world surveys of recent fishes with the addition of the list of names of North American fishes (Robins et al., 1980) which is a critical work compiled by a committee of specialists. These authorities are Gunther (1860, 1861, 1868, 1870), Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971) and Nelson (1976). (Norman’s list is confined to marine fishes. The later edition of Nelson (1984) followed Steyskal’s paper and is not quoted.) I have selected these authors as forming ‘the consent of the learned’ because in listing recognized families they have had to make a critical choice in spelling the name. The ten family names cited above (including the two already referred to the Commission) are listed below in alphabetical order with an indication of the form in which they were employed by these authors. Where one of the authors is not cited he made no reference to the family, or used another family name. CARAPIDAE — Jordan (1923), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). CARAPODIDAE — Steyskal (1980). CERATODIDAE — Berg (1940), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976). CERATODONTIDAE — Steyskal (1980), also used by Jordan (1923). COBITIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). CoBITIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980), used in the form COBITIDINA by Giinther (1868). COBITIDAE was ruled to be the correct spelling in Opinion 1500 (June 1988, BZN 45: 178-179). DASYATIDAE — Jordan (1923), Norman (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). DASYATIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980). ECHENEIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. G80): ECHENEIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980), also used by Norman (1966). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 99 ELEOTRIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). ELEOTRIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980). ENGRAULIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966) in synonymy, Norman (1966, as ENGRAULINAE), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). Used in the form ENGRAULINA by Gunther (1868). ENGRAULIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980). LIPARIDAE — Jordan (1923), Greenwood et al. (1966) in synonymy, Lindberg (1971). Used in the form LIPARIDINA by Gunther (1861). LIPARIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980). MYLIOBATIDAE — Gunther (1870), Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). MYLIOBATIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980). PHOLIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Robins et al. (1980). PHOLIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980), as used by Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976). It can be seen from this that in most cases these authors have employed what are said to be ‘incorrect’ names and as these are works of reference, widely cited when current, the usage of all (except for PHOLIDAE) is heavily in favour of these names. Steyskal’s proposals were critically reviewed by Robins et al. (1980) in their listing of North American fishes and the majority were rejected in their list. In the introduction to their check-list they ‘deplored’ the imposition of allegedly correct endings to some family names overturning well established and familiar names. K ottelat (1984, p. 227), Cocks (BZN 45: 179), Wheeler (BZN 45:292) and Mayr (BZN 46: 45) have opposed changes in COBITIDAE and/or LIPARIDAE on the grounds of supposed correctness of grammar. These comments reinforce the proposal relating to Article 29b(i) in the Minutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature, [UBS Canberra (October 1988, BZN 46: 16) that in the construction of family-group names in certain circumstances the stem should be elided so that the name had the form -IDAE rather than -IDIDAE. This note concluded that ichthyologists would favour such a change. The confusion caused by Steyskal’s proposals could be resolved by application to the Commission for rulings on each name, as has been done for COBITIDAE and LIPARIDAE. However, this would be a time-consuming business and not cost-effective for either ichthyologists or the staff of the Commission, and the lapse of time while cases were prepared, amended and published and before a ruling could be given would cause a great deal of uncertainty in use. The decision as to which, if any, of Steyskal’s proposed amendments to 71 currently used family-group names could be adopted without offending accepted usage (and particularly without producing infelicitous adjectival nomenclature) cannot be undertaken piecemeal and calls for the urgent establishment of an international committee of specialists to advise on fish nomenclature. References Berg, L.S. 1947. Classification of fishes both recent and fossil. 517 pp. Edwards, Ann Arbor. Greenwood, P.H., Rosen, D.R., Weitzman, S.H. & Myers, G.S. 1966. Phyletic studies of Teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 131(4): 339-456. Giinther, A. 1860. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British Museum. Vol. 2. 548 pp. British Museum, London. Giinther, A. 1861. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British Museum. Vol. 3. 586 pp. British Museum, London. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Giinther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 7.512 pp. British Museum, London. Giinther, A. 1870. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 8. 549 pp. British Museum, London. Jordan, D.S. 1923 (1963). The genera of Fishes and Classification of Fishes. (Reprinted edition). 800 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Kottelat, M. 1984. Revision of the Indonesian and Malaysian loaches of the subfamily Noemacheilinae. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 31: 225-260. Lindberg, G.U. 1971. Fishes of the World. A key to Families and a checklist. 545 pp. [Israel Programme for Scientific Translations], New York. Nelson, J.S. 1976. Fishes of the World. 417 pp. Wiley, New York. Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. (Second edition). 523 pp. Wiley, New York. Norman, J.R. 1966. Draft Synopsis of the Orders, Families and Genera of Recent Fishes and Fish- like Vertebrates. 649 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 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. Stearn, W.T. 1985. Hookerianus or hookeranus? Notes on the ending -erianus in plant names. The Garden, 110(10): 463-465. Steyskal, G.C. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by those of fishes. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 93(1): 168-177. [A comment on this Article appears in BZN 47: 138] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 101 Case 2630 Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation Dietrich Kadolsky Meadowcroft, 54 Ewell Downs Road, Ewell, Surrey KT17 3BN, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name barbata Férussac, 1832 in its accustomed usage for a S.E. European species of pulmonate gastropod. The nomenclature of the nominal taxa Helix (Helicigona) lens Férussac, 1832 and H. (H.) barbata Feérussac, 1832 has recently been reviewed by Gittenberger & Groh (1986), but unfortunately their lectotype selection for barbata is not valid under the Code. 1. The names Helix (Helicigona) lens and H. (H.) barbata were both nomina nuda when published by Férussac in 1821. Gittenberger & Groh (1986, p. 222), however, consider barbata as available from 1821. As a completely different interpretation of the names results from Férussac’s 1821 and 1832 publications, the subject of the availability of H. (H.) barbata has to be addressed first. 2. The full text of Férussac 1821 (1821a, p. 37; 1821b, p. 41) reads: ‘NO. 152. BARBATA nobis. a.) Minus depressa. B) Brunnea. Habit. Zante; Comm. le Cte MERCATI. Scio, Sestos, OLIVIER. a) sur les rochers élevés prés la Sude, OLIVIER. B) L’ile de Zante. No. 153. LENS, nobis Habit. L’ile de Ténérife, MAUGE.’ 3. Gittenberger & Groh (1986) took the diagnoses of a and B as sufficient to validate the nominal taxon Helix (Helicigona) barbata. However, when these diagnoses are related to the list of localities, it is clear that only two of the three groups within the species have been diagnosed. The most logical interpretation of the text is that the undiagnosed group of specimens from ‘Zante’ and ‘Scio, Sestos’ is the typical group, with a and B as variants. The usage of Greek lower case letters for infra-specific categories (‘varieties’) was common in the period: the content of the diagnoses implies a variation from the norm which is not specified; ‘a’ is less depressed than what? ‘p’ is coloured brown, but what is the colour of the others? Obviously the variants do not define or describe the ‘typical’ form of the nominal species barbata; this name is therefore not available from this work. 4. The species names /ens and barbata became available in 1832 with the publication of figures on Plate 66* in the 23rd livraison of Férussac’s Histoire Naturelle .... (1832b), for which an explanation was issued simultaneously (1832a). These bibliographic details are according to Kennard (1942, p. 110). It should be noted here that the 1821 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 and 1832 works were written by J.B.L. d’A. de Férussac and published posthumously by his son, A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de Férussac. A study of the type series (dating from 1821) of Helix lens and Helix barbatain the Laboratoire Biologique des Invertébrés Marins et Malacologie, Paris, reveals that the meaning of the species names was interchanged between Férussac 1821 and 1832. The type series are annotated below, as Gittenberger & Groh’s description contains several errors regarding the status of the specimens. The nomenclature used by Férussac in 1821 and 1832 and by Gittenberger & Groh in 1986 referring to the type specimens is tabulated for easy reference: Notes Férussac, Férussac, 1832; Gittenberger & Groh, 1986 on the 1821; a, p. 37; a, p. 1); b, P1.66* (LT = lectotype designation) type b, p. 41 [all series nomina nuda] 1 barbata lens Fig.2 Lindholmiola lens LT Fig.2 Z barbataa — — 3 barbata B — Lindholmiola lens 4 - barbata var. a Lindholmiola barbata LT Fig.3 Fig.3 5 lens _ barbata Fig.4 Canariella fortunata (Shuttleworth, 1852) Notes on the type series 1. 5 specimens labelled ‘Helicigona Barbata nos. 1,2,3 du Cte. Mercaty Zante’; 4 speci- mens labelled ‘Helix barbata Fér. de Sestos par M. Olivier 1819’. All are currently known as Lindholmiola lens (Férussac, 1832), a species known to live in Greece. 2. No specimens could be identified amongst several lots of Lindholmiola lens, which exist additionally to the type series mentioned under | above, in the Ferussac collection. 3. 4specimens labelled ‘Helicigona barbata var B) Brunnea. No. 4 Cte Mercaty. Zante’. These are old shells of Lindholmiola lens stained by brown loam! 4. No material was found in the Férussac collection. This is obviously not the variety a of 1821, which is said to be less depressed than the ‘typical’ form (cf. note 1), while Fig. 3 shows a more depressed shell. 5. 2 specimens from Tenerife, labelled Helicigona lens, collected by Maugé. These are Helix fortunata Shuttleworth, 1852 (p. 141; currently in Canariella), known to exist in Tenerife. 5. The designation by Gittenberger & Groh of Pl. 66*, Fig. 2 as representing the lectotype of Helix lens Férussac, 1832 is valid, but their designation of Fig. 3 for Helix barbata is not, because it was referred to by Férussac (1832) as a variant (Article 72b(i) of the Code). Only the specimen on Fig. 4 would be available as a lectotype for Helix barbata. Such a designation would have the unfortunate effect of rendering Canariella fortunata (Shuttleworth, 1852) a junior objective synonym of H. barbata, while a new name would have to be introduced for the species represented by Fig. 3 (E. Gittenberger pers. comm.). 6. Gittenberger & Groh’s lectotype designation for H. barbata would not be appro- priate even under the assumption that the name is available from 1821. The material on which H. (H.) barbata Férussac, 1821 was apparently based (Note 1 above) is referred Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 103 to lens by Férussac (1832) and by Gittenberger & Groh (1986). To choose a lectotype for barbata from this material would give this name a meaning contrary to its estab- lished use (Gittenberger & Groh, 1986), render H. (H.) /ens a junior objective synonym and would again leave the species represented in Fig. 3 without its accustomed name barbata, or indeed any name. Thus, in order to achieve nomenclatural stability in the manner in which Gittenberger & Groh intended, it is necessary to use the plenary powers to confirm their designation of the ‘var. a’ specimen on PI. 66%, fig. 3 as the lectotype of H. (H.) barbata Férussac, 1832. 7. The principal purpose of this application is the confirmation of Gittenberger & Groh’s lectotype designation for barbata, so removing any threat to the name /ens, which has been accepted in the sense of Férussac’s Pl. 66*, fig. 2 since the publication of this figure in 1832 (see Gittenberger & Groh, 1986). The nominal species Helix (Helicigona) lens is the type species of the genus Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931 (p. 50) by original designation. The proposals also have the effect of maintaining the names _ Lindholmiola barbata and Canariella fortunata in their accustomed sense. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to confirm that the name Helix (Helicigona) barbata is available from Férussac (1832) and not from Feérussac (1821); (2) to use its plenary powers to confirm the designation by Gittenberger & Groh (1986) of the specimen figured by Férussac (1832, Pl. 66*, fig. 3) as the lectotype of the nominal species Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Helix (Helicigona) lens Férussac, 1832; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) barbata Feérussac, 1832 as published in the combination Helix (Helicigona) barbata and as interpreted by the lectotype confirmed in (2) above; | (b) Jens Férussac, 1832 as published in the combination Helix (Helicigona) lens | (specific name of the type species of Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931). _ References Férussac, J.B.L. d’A. de. 1821. Tableau systématique des animaux mollusques... suivis d’un prodrome général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles. Tableau systématique de la famille des limagons, Cochleae. Quarto edition (1821a): 111 pp.; Folio edition (1821b): 114 pp. Bertrand, Paris. Férussac, J.B.L. d’A. de. 1832. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. 1832a: Explication des planches des livraisons 22-27, 4 pp. (issued jointly with livraisons 22-27). 1832b: livraison 23. plates 8D, 9B, 27A, 64, 66*, 124A. Bertrand, Paris. Gittenberger, E. & Groh, K. 1986. Zum Status der FERUSSAC’schen Taxa Helix lens und Helix barbata (Pulmonata: Helicidae). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 116: 219-223. Hesse, P. 1931. Zur Anatomie und Systematik palaearktischer Stylommatophoren. Zoologica, 31(81): 1-118. Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 25: 12-17, 105-118. Shuttleworth, R.J. 1852. Diagnosen einiger neuer Mollusken aus den Canarischen Inseln. i Mittheilungen der naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Bern, 1852: 137-146. | Zilch, A. 1959-1960. Gastropoda Euthyneura in Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6, part 2. xii, 835 pp. Berlin. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Case 2699 RISSOOIDEA (or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840 G. Rosenberg & G. M. Davis Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the family-group name RISSOOIDEA Gray, 1847 for one of the largest superfamilies in the Mollusca. The name is threatened by the senior family-group name TRUNCATELLOIDEA Gray, 1840, over which it is proposed it be given precedence. 1. When Gray introduced the family-group names TRUNCATELLIDAE (1840, p. 117; based on Truncatella Risso, 1826) and RISSOIDAE (1847, p. 152; as subfamily RISSOAINA, based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), he did not consider the taxa to be closely related. He allied the rissoids with the melaniids, whereas he grouped the truncatellids with the pyramidellids and acteonids (1847, pp. 152, 159). Other authors of that period con- nected the truncatellids with terrestrial operculates such as the helicinids and cyclo- phorids (Binney, 1851, p. 351; H. & A. Adams, 1855, p. 273). Later, Bland & Binney (1872), Tryon (1883, p. 277) and Vayssiére (1886) established the relationship of trun- catellids with rissoids. Thiele (1929, p. 136) was the first to recognize RISSOACEA as a superfamily, and he was followed by Wenz (1939, p. 554). Virtually all subsequent authors have recognized the superfamily (Davis, 1979, p. 7). Thiele (p. 151) placed Truncatella Risso, 1826 in the TRUNCATELLINAE in the HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (p. 106), whereas Wenz (p. 581) placed it directly in the TRUNCATELLIDAE. Baker (1956, p. 29) was the first to suggest the use of a superfamilial name based on Truncatella; he first used TRUNCATELLOIDEA in a classification in 1964 (p. 171). 2. Because TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 is on the Official List (1955, Opinion 344), and because Baker (1956, 1960) pointed out that the name TRUNCATELLIDAE was older than the names RISSOIDAE, HYDROBIIDAE and BITHYNIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (p. 101), the priority of TRUNCATELLOIDEA Over RISSOOIDEA has been established. Despite this, mala- cologists have continued to use RISSOOIDEA and RISSOACEA, and Davis (1979, p. 7) and Ponder (1985, p. 15) explicitly favoured retention of RISSOACEA Over TRUNCATELLACEA. Ponder (p. 15) stated that he intended to submit a petition to the ICZN to suppress TRUNCATELLACEA in favour of RISSOACEA, and some authors have maintained use of RISSOACEA for this reason (e.g. Bieler & Mikkelsen, 1988, p. 2). 3. We have given the Secretariat a representative list of 48 works published from 1959 to 1989 that place the TRUNCATELLIDAE or Truncatella in RISSOOIDEA OF RISSOACEA. These works are by 55 authors in 19 countries. This list does not consider the hundreds of authors who have used RISSOOIDEA or RISSOACEA in their classifications without mention of Truncatella, TRUNCATELLIDAE Or TRUNCATELLOIDEA. The only authors we have found who have given TRUNCATELLOIDEA priority over RISSOOIDEA are Baker Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 105 (1964), Burch and his co-workers (Burch, 1980, p. 136; 1982a, p. 3; 1982b, p. 219; Upatham et al., 1983, pp. 114, 118; Burch & Chung, 1985, p. 34) and some in a volume edited by Ponder in 1988 (Houbrick, p. 88; Ponder, p. 130; Ponder & Warén, p. 296; but not Haszprunar, p. 7). In Burch (1980) and Burch & Chung (1985), RISSOOIDEA is incorrectly attributed to H. & A. Adams (1854) rather than to Gray, 1847; it is not attributed in Burch’s other works cited here. Ponder (1988, p. 130) stated *...[ regret the necessity to abandon the almost universally used Rissooidea (Rissoacea) in favour of Truncatelloidea because of the requirements of ICZN Art. 36. This is not, in my opinion, a rule destined to maintain stability.” Ponder & Warén (1988, p. 296) stated ‘The continued use of Rissooidea (as Rissoacea) by the majority of malacologists, including the authors, might argue in favour of having Truncatelloidea suppressed.’ 4. Starobogatov (1970, pp. 26, 32) and Golikov & Starobogatov (1975, p. 210) included TRUNCATELLIDAE and HYDROBIIDAE in the superfamily TRUNCATELLOIDEA, and considered it equal in rank to RIssoomDeEA. In these classifications, the question of priority of RISSOOIDEA and TRUNCATELLOIDEA does not arise. 5. Nordsieck (1972, p. 134; 1982, p. 63) used the superfamily HYDROBIOIDEA for TRUNCATELLIDAE, HYDROBIIDAE and ASSIMINEIDAE H. & A. Adams, 1856 (p. 314), giving it equal rank with the RIssoomeA. In this classification, TRUNCATELLOIDEA should be given priority over HYDROBIOIDEA. We have found only one author, Koronéos (1979, p. 6), who follows Nordsieck in placing TRUNCATELLIDAE 1n HYDROBIOIDEA. Nordsieck misspelled RISSOOIDEA as ‘Rissoidea’ (1972, pp. 138, 153; 1982, pp. viii, 73). Radoman independently introduced the superfamily HYDROBIOIDEA in 1973 (p. 4), but excluded TRUNCATELLIDAE (Radoman, 1983, p. 23) without stating its systematic position. 6. The RISSOOIDEA is currently recognized as one of the largest superfamilies in the Mollusca, containing 2000 to 4000 species. Changing the superfamily name to TRUNCATELLOIDEA Would affect about ten percent of the subclass Prosobranchia. The _ family TRUNCATELLIDAE contains fewer than 100 species (Clench & Turner, 1948). 7. The RISSOOIDEA includes medically important groups of snails, in particular the POMATIOPSIDAE, Some members of which transmit schistosomes, which cause schisto- somiasis, also called bilharziasis (reviewed by Davis, 1979, 1980). 8. When Truncatella Risso, 1826 was placed on the Official List by Opinion 344 (1955, pp. 315-316), its type species was cited as Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826, by designation by Woodward, 1854. However, Woodward did not treat Truncatella in 1854 but in 1851, as shown in the text of the Opinion (pp. 326, 340). Furthermore, | Woodward (1851, p. 137) cited T. truncatula (Draparnaud, 1801, p. 115) as the type ee species of Truncatella, and did not mention Truncatella laevigata or T. costulata Risso, 1826, the only two originally included species (Risso, p. 125). Woodward’s designation is thus invalid. The next available designation is that by Lowe in 1855 (p. 217). Lowe cited T. truncatula (Draparnaud) as the type species of Truncatella, but included T. costulata and not T. laevigata in synonymy. This type designation is valid according to Article 69a(v). This change in the type species does not affect the concept of the taxon Truncatella, as T. costulata Risso, 1826, T. laevigata Risso, 1826, and Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud, 1801 are all regarded as junior subjective synonyms of Helix subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 344, pp. 326, 335). 9. The type genus of RISSOIDAE is Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 (p. 7). Fréminville is often | cited as the author of Rissoa, and Coan (1964, p. 166) stated that Rissoa was introduced by Fréminville in 1813 as a genus without included species. However, the only two uses 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 of Rissoa in 1813 are by Risso, who lists the genus in combination with several of Fréminville’s manuscript names (Risso, 1813a, p. 87; 1813b, p. 341). Risso did not provide a description of the genus or any of the included species, so all are nomina nuda. Desmarest (1814, p. 7) was the first to make Fréminville’s manuscript names available and must be regarded as the author of Rissoa. 10. The type species of Rissoa was cited as ‘Helix labiosa’ by Gray (1847, p. 152) and as ‘Turbo cimex L.’ by Herrmannsen (1848, p. 400), but neither of these is one of the originally included species. The first valid designation is that by Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1884, p. 262) of Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 1814 (p. 8) (cf. Ponder, 1985, p. 21). 11. The type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (1821a, p. 258) has been cited as Turbo ulvae Pennant by many authors (Stimpson 1865, p. 6), but this is not one of the originally included species. Hartmann (p. 258) included only Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, Hydrobia thermara and Hydrobia diaphana. The last two are nomina nuda, so Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (p. 40) is the type species of Hydrobia by monotypy. Gray (1847, p. 151) was the first author to cite correctly the type species of Hydrobia. Hartmann also treated Hydrobia in a second work in 1821 (1821b, pp. 47, 58). This work cites (p. 58) the 1821a reference and so presumably was published later. In Hartmann (1821b), the species included in Hydrobia (acuta, vitrea and minuta) are either nomina nuda or are unidentifiable because of lack of indication. 12. In Opinion 475 (1957), BITHYNIDAE Gray, 1857 (pp. 16, 24) was placed on the Official List as having several months priority over BITHYNIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (pp. vi, 101). It was also stated (p. 315) that BITHYNUDAE was usually regarded as a subfamily of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (pp. vi, 106). However, there is no evidence that Gray’s work was published before 31 December 1857; it cannot have been published before September, 1857 according to the date of the preface (p. xi), which indicates when the preface was written, not when the work was published, contrary to the interpretation in the Opinion (p. 315). Receipt of Troschel’s work prior to 30 October 1857 was reported in Monatsberichte der KOoniglichen Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin for 1857 (p. 467). Thus, Troschel, not Gray, should be considered the author of BITHYNIIDAE. Currently HYDROBIIDAE and BITHYNIIDAE are not considered to be confamilial, so questions of priority do not arise. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and other family- group names based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 are to be given precedence over TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 and other family-group names based on Truncatella Risso, 1826 whenever their type genera are placed within the same family-group taxon; (2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (type genus Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), with the endorse- ment that it and other family-group names based on Rissoa are to be given precedence over TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 (type genus Truncatella Risso, 1826) and other family-group names based on Truncatella whenever their type genera are placed within the same family-group taxon; (3) to add to the entry for TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the endorsement that it and other family- i if Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 107 group names based on Truncatella Risso, 1826 are not to be given priority Over RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and other family-group names based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814, whenever their type genera are placed within the same family-group taxon; (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821); (5) to amend the entry for BITHYNIDAE Gray, 1857 on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology to give Troschel (1857) as the author of the name; (6) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Rissoa Desmarest, 1814, type species by subsequent designation by Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1884), Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 1814 (the type genus of RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847); (b) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, type species by subsequent designation by Gray (1847), Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (the type genus of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857); (7) to amend the entry for Truncatella Risso, 1826 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology to state that the valid name of its type species is Helix subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767 (a senior subjective synonym of Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826, designated by Lowe (1855)); (8) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ventricosa Desmarest, 1814, as published in the binomen Rissoa ventricosa (specific name of the type species of Rissoa Desmarest, 1814); (b) acutum Draparnaud, 1805, as published in the binomen Cyclostoma acutum (specific name of the type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821); (9) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for sub- cylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 to state that it is the valid name (as a senior subjective synonym of Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826, designated by Lowe (1855)) of the type species of Truncatella Risso, 1826; (10) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Rissoa ‘Fréminville’ Risso, 1813a (a nomen nudum); (b) Rissoa ‘Freminville’ Risso, 1813b (a nomen nudum). References Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1854-1858. The Genera of Recent Mollusca; arranged according to their organization, vol. 2. 661 pp. Van Voorst, London. [Dates of issue of parts on p. 661]. Baker, H.B. 1956. Familial names for land operculates. Nautilus, 70: 28-31. Baker, H.B. 1960. Hydrobiidae or Truncatellidae? Nautilus, 74: 34-35. Baker, H.B. 1964. Type land snails in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Part III. Limnophile and thalassophile Pulmonata. Part IV. Land and freshwater Prosobranchia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 116: 149-193. Bieler, R. & Mikkelsen, P. M. 1988. Anatomy and reproductive biology of two western Atlantic species of Vitrinellidae, with a case of protandrous hermaphroditism in the Rissoacea. Nautilus, 102: 1-29. Binney, A. 1851. The terrestrial air-breathing mollusks of the United States, and the adjacent territories of North America, vol. 2. viii, 362 pp. Little & Brown, Boston. Bland, T. & Binney, W.G. 1872. On the lingual dentition of Blandiella, Geomelania and Amphibulima. American Journal of Conchology, 7: 185-186, pl. 17. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G.-F. 1884. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon. Vol. | (Gastropodes), part 7, pp. 259-298, pls. 31-35. Balliere & Fils, Paris. Burch, J.B. 1980. A guide to the freshwater snails of the Philippines. Malacological Review, 13: 121-143. Burch, J.B. 1982a. Freshwater Snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of North America. vi, 294 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Burch, J.B. 1982b. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, {1}(4): 217-365. Burch, J.B. & Chung, P.-R. 1985. An outline of classification of the freshwater and land snails of Korea, with an annotated bibliography. Special Publication of the Mukaishima Marine Biological Station, 1985: 33-44. Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1948. A catalogue of the family Truncatellidae with notes and descriptions of new species. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 1(13): 157-212. Coan, E. 1964. A proposed revision of the rissoacean families Rissoidae, Rissoinidae, and Cingulopsidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Veliger, 6: 164-171. Davis, G.M. 1979. The origin and evolution of the gastropod family Pomatiopsidae, with emphasis on the Mekong River Triculinae. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph 20. vii, 120 pp. Davis, G.M. 1980. Snail hosts of Asian Schistosoma infecting man: evolution and coevolution. Pp. 195-238 in Bruce, J.I. & Sornmani, S. (Eds.), The Mekong Schistosome. Malacological Review, Supplement 2. xiv, 282 pp. Desmarest, A.G. 1814. Description des coquilles univalves du genre Rissoa de M. de Fréminville. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, (3)1: 7-9, pl. 1, figs. 1-7. [Author as ‘Desmarets’] Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1801. Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fiuviatiles de la France. 116 pp. Renaud, Montpellier. Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire Naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. [x] + viii, 164 pp. Plessan, Paris. Golikov, A.N. & Starobogatov, Y.I. 1975. Systematics of prosobranch gastropods. Malacologia, 15: 185-232. Gray, J. E. 1840. [The zoological collections]. Pp. 18-152 in: Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum. Ed. 42. 370, [vi] pp. Trustees, British Museum, London. Gray, J. E. 1847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. Gray, J. E. 1857. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands. xvi, 335 pp., 12 pls. Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, London. Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821a. System der Erd- und Flussschnecken der Schweiz. Neue Alpina, 1: 194-268. Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821b. System der Erd- und Sisswasser Gasteropoden Europa’s. Jn Sturm, J. (Ed.), Deutschlands Fauna, vol. 6, part 5. 60 pp., 3 pls., 1 foldout table. Nurnberg. Haszprunar, G. 1988. A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the streptoneurous gastropods. Pp. 7-16 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847-1849. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2. Pp. 1-352 (1847), pp. 353-492 (1848), pp. 493-612 (1849). Fischeri, Cassellis. Houbrick, R. S. 1988. Cerithioidean phylogeny. Pp. 88—128 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. Koronéos, J. 1979. Les Mollusques de la Gréce. viii, 36 pp., 48 pls. Athénes. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2). Pp. 533-1328 + [1-36]. Salvu, Holmiae. Lowe, R.T. 1855. Catalogus molluscorum pneumonatorum insularum Maderensium. Proceed- ings of the Zoological Society of London, 22: 161—218. Nordsieck, F. 1972. Die europdischen Meeresschnecken (Opisthobranchia mit Pyramidellidae; Rissoacea). xiii, 327 pp. Fischer, Stuttgart. Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehduseschnecken ( Prosobranchia), Ed. 2. xii, 539 pp. Fischer, Stuttgart. Ponder, W.F. 1985. A review of the genera of the Rissoidae (Mollusca: Mesogastropoda: Rissoacea). Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 4, 221 pp. ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 109 Ponder, W. F. 1988. The truncatelloidean (=rissoacean) radiation — a preliminary phylogeny. Pp. 129-164 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. Ponder, W. F. & Warén, A. 1988. Classification of the Caenogastropoda and Heterostropha — a list of the family-group names and higher taxa. Pp. 288-326 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. Radoman, P. 1973. New classification of fresh and brackish water Prosobranchia from the Balkans and Asia Minor. Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Beograd, Editions hors série, 32: 1-30. Radoman, P. 1983. Hydrobioidea — a superfamily of Prosobranchia (Gastropoda). Vol. 1 (Systematics). Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Monographs, 547(57): 1-256. Risso, A. 1813a. Observations geologiques sur la presqu’ile de Saint-Hospice aux environs de Nice, département des Alpes maritimes. Journal des Mines, 34(200): 81-98. Risso, A. 1813b. Observations géologiques sur la presqu’ile de St.-Hospice, département des Alpes-Maritimes. Nouveau Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 3(71): 339-342. Risso, A. 1826. Histoire Naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe Meridionale et particu- liérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. vii, 439 pp., 12 pls. Levrault, Paris. Starobogatov, Y.I. 1970. Fauna molliuskov i zoogeograficheskoe raionirovanie kontinentalnykh vodoemov zemnogo shara. 372 pp. Akademiia nauk SSR. Zoologicheskii Institut, Leningrad. Stimpson, W. 1865. Researches upon the Hydrobiinae and allied forms. Smithsonian Miscel- laneous collections, 201: 1-59. Thiele, J. 1929. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde. vol. 1(1) (Loricata./Gastropoda), part I: Prosobranchia (Vorderkiemer). 376 pp. Fischer, Jena. Troschel, F.H. 1857. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer natiirlich Classification, vol. 1(2), pp. 73-112, pls. 5-8. Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin. Tryon, G.W. 1883. Structural and Systematic Conchology, vol. 2, 430 pp., pls. 23-91. Author, Philadelphia. Upatham, E.S., Sornmani, S., Kitikoon, V., Lohachit, C. & Burch, J.B. 1983. Identification key for the fresh- and brackish-water snails of Thailand. Malacological Review, 16: 107-134. Vayssiére, A. 1886. Etude sur l’organisation de la Truncatella truncatula (Draparnaud). Journal de Conchyliologie, 33: 253-288, pls. 12-13. Wenz, W. 1939. Gastropoda. Part 3: Prosobranchia. Pp. 481—720 in Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6. viii, 720 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin. Woodward, S.P. 1851-1854. A Manual of the Moilusca. Part 1 (1851), pp. 1-158, pls. 1-12; part 2 (1854), pp. 159-330, pls. 13-24. Weale, London. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Case 1643 Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed designation of a neotype Peter B. Mordan The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Fred. R. Woodward Natural History Department, Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove, Glasgow G3 8AG, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Anodonta anatina (Linnaeus, 1758) in its accustomed usage for acommon species of European freshwater mussel by the designation of a neotype. This will also conserve the name Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler, 1835). 1. Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 706) was based on an unknown number of specimens and three references. On the same page Linnaeus erected the nominal species Mytilus cygneus, also for mussels from European freshwater habitats. 2. Mytilus cygneus is the type species by monotypy of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 (p. 87) and the specific names cygnea and anatina have long been in usage in Anodonta. Both specific names were placed on the Official List of Specific Names by Opinion 336 (March 1955), but that Opinion did not clarify the taxonomic meaning of either name. 3. Ellis (1962, p. 18) commented that ‘The European species of Anodonta have been much confused in the past, and the nomenclature is not yet stabilised... several writers... have united all the European Anodonta sensu stricto into a single ‘fundamental species’. The studies of Bloomer (1937, 1938) [and later workers, e.g. Baagoe, Hvilsom & Pedersen (1986)] have clearly demonstrated the specific distinctness of Anodonta cygnea and A. anatina’. 4. In general the shell of cygnea is roundly rectangular in outline with the straight dorsal margin parallel to the ventral one; anterior margin broadly curved; height approximately the same anterior and posterior to the umbones, which are traversed by a well-marked series of concentric, sometimes bifurcating ridges (rugae), lying more- or-less parallel to the growth lines; colour tending to yellow or yellowish green, rarely rayed; valves relatively thin, generally of uniform thickness throughout, growth lines normally visible from inside when viewed against the light. Animal normally a rich orange-yellow colour. The shell of anatina tends to be roundly triangular in juveniles since the dorsal margin is not parallel to the ventral one; anterior margin comparatively narrow, sloping abruptly ventrally; height greatest posterior to umbones which are traversed by well-marked, transverse wavy rugae, which are often discontinuous and tend to cross the growth lines; colour green or olive green, tending to become darker Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 1 posteriorly, often rayed; valves tending to be thicker, normally thickened antero- ventrally, growth lines not as apparent as in cygnea when viewed from inside against the light, especially anteriorly. Animal normally a cream-white colour. 5. The collection of the Linnean Society of London contains a shell inscribed ‘218’ and ‘“cygneus’ in Linnaeus’s handwriting (see Bloomer, 1938, pp. 39-40). This specimen was accepted as ‘the type’ (i.e. the lectotype) of A. cygnea by both Bloomer and Ellis (1962, p. 19), and previously Kennard & Woodward (1920, p. 215) had written “... the inscribed and numbered specimen... quite establishes... the identity [of A. cygnea]’. This specimen has been described by Bloomer (1938, pp. 36, 39-40, pl. 2, fig. 2) and Ellis (1962, p. 19), and is in accordance with modern usage of cygnea. 6. No equally satisfactory type for Anodonta anatina exists. In 1964 Dr H. Lemche published (BZN 21: 432-434) an application for the designation of a neotype of Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus. Lemche’s application and a comment on it by Prof P. Brinck (BZN 22: 213-214) pointed out that the Linnaean specimens of ‘anatinus’ in the collections of the Linnean Society of London and the Zoological Museum in Uppsala are examples of the species known as Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler, 1835, p. 112) and not of Anodonta anatina auct. Hanley (1855, pp. 144-145) had previously noted this fact in his examination of the Linnean Society collection, pointing out that ‘had the winged variety of cygnea, ordinarily termed A. anatina, been designated by our author [Linnaeus], he would scarcely have written in his own copy ‘similis 28 (Unio pictorum) sed absque cardine’’. Hanley figured one of the Linnean Society ‘anatina’ (= compla- nata) on pl. 2, fig. 1. Later workers have continued to ignore Hanley’s findings, using A. anatina for the species under consideration. Brinck showed that Linnaeus’s concept of ‘anatinus’ was undoubtedly composite and included both anatina and complanata of later authors. Lemche proposed as a neotype a specimen from an artificial moat in Copenhagen, while Brinck considered that a specimen from a natural lake would be more appropriate. Designation of a neotype would avoid transferring the name anatina to complanata auct. and hence from Anodonta to Pseudanodonta Bourguignat, 1877. Other workers commented on the case (BZN 21: 435; 22: 214-215), including A.E. Ellis who supported a neotype and who had been instrumental in having Mytilus anatinus placed on the Official List of Specific Names. Neotype designation was also supported by Bowden & Heppell (1968, p. 251) who said that transfer of the name anatina ‘would be contrary to the interests of stability and would only add to the [taxonomic and nomenclatural] confusion’. 7. In 1968-69 there was correspondence between the Secretary of the Commission, Brinck and Lemche, in which Lemche withdrew his suggested Danish neotype and Brinck said that the so-called ‘types’ of the supposedly synonymous species Anodonta __ piscinalis Nilsson, 1823 (p. 116) were probably not original material; it was suggested that a suitable Swedish lake specimen could be collected and be designated neotype of both anatina and piscinalis. For various reasons the case lapsed at this point. 8. Subsequently six specimens were collected from Lake Dagstorp in Sweden, and were examined by Ellis. In a letter to the then Commission Secretary, he tentatively suggested that one of them might possibly be suitable as a neotype, the others being juvenile or not characteristic of anatina auct., but no neotype designation was published. 9. By 1989 workers were under one of two impressions, both incorrect. Some thought that Lemche’s application had been ratified, i.e. that a neotype of A. anatina 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 had been designated, whilst others believed that there existed some fundamental obstacle to the use of the name anatina in the accustomed sense. In August 1989 Dr G. Falkner (Munchen, Federal Republic of Germany) suggested at a Workshop meeting, at the Tenth International Malacological Congress in Tiibingen, that anatina should replace complanata in Pseudanodonta, in agreement with the existing Linnaean specimens but contrary to Lemche’s application (see para. 6) and to general usage. Falkner further suggested that Anodonta anatina auct., sometimes known as Anodonta piscinalis Nilsson, 1823, should be called Anodonta radiata (Miller, 1774, p. 209), the types of which still exist in the Copenhagen Museum. Some members of the Work- shop provisionally supported these proposals, and in September 1989 Dr Falkner and Dr T. von Proschwitz (G6éteborg, Sweden) asked the Executive Secretary of the Commission whether there were any doubts or obstacles relating to this course of action. 10. The Secretary sent summaries of the case’s history to Drs Falkner and von Proschwitz and to various workers, pointing out that the proposal in para. 9 would change both the used names Anodonta anatina and Pseudanodonta complanata and, much more seriously, would transfer the name anatina to the Pseudanodonta species (see para. 6). On the other hand, designation of a neotype for Anodonta anatina would conserve both names (and would leave both radiata and piscinalis available should this be taxonomically desirable). 11. Support for the designation of a neotype for Anodonta anatina was expressed by all those who replied: Dr A.E.Bogan (The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, U.S.A.), Prof P. Brinck (University of Lund, Sweden), Mr D. Heppell (Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.), Dr T. von Proschwitz ( Naturhistoriska Museet, Géteborg, Sweden) and Mrs H.C.G. Ross (Ulster Museum, Belfast, U.K.). These correspondents included members of the Workshop mentioned in para. 9. 12. Mr A.E. Ellis had doubted whether any of the Lake Dagstorp specimens (see para. 8) were adequately illustrative of the differences between the shells of A. cygnea and A. anatina; Mr D. Heppell wrote to the Commission Secretary ‘the two species are actually far more morphologically distinct in some parts of their distribution (e.g. the British Isles) than in others... Thus whereas there would be no difficulty in picking a neotype from a British locality which would unquestionably represent anatina, a specimen from a Scandinavian locality... is much more difficult’. 13. We have examined the Lake Dagstorp specimen referred to in para. 8, and share the late Mr Ellis’s reservations concerning its suitability. We therefore designate as neotype of Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 the shell from near Llangynidr, Brecon, Wales, U.K. figured by Bloomer (1938, pl. 5, fig. 11, and mentioned on p. 43) and cited by Ellis (1962, p. 22), which is preserved in The Natural History Museum, London (registration number 1989164). This specimen clearly shows the shell characteristics of M. anatinus as described in para. 4. Bloomer considered it to be typical (i.e. not a variety) of anatina, as did Ellis (1962). 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 and to confirm the neotype designation in para. 13 above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 113 (2) to make endorsements to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as follows: (a) to add to the entry for Mytilus cygneus Linnaeus, 1758 the words ‘as defined by the lectotype fixed by Bloomer (1938)’; (b) to add to the entry for Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 the words ‘as defined by the neotype designated by Mordan & Woodward (1990) [present reference]’. References Baagoe, P., Hvilsom, M.M. & Pedersen, B.V. 1986. The species rank of Anodonta anatina (L.) and A. cygnea (L.) with remarks on Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler). Bivalvia: Unionidae. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjobenhavn. 146: 75-83. Bloomer, H.H. 1937. On distinguishing the shell of Anodonta cygnea from A. anatina. Journal of Conchology, 20: 321-327. Bloomer, H.H. 1938. The British species of Anodonta Lamarck, and their varieties. Journal of Conchology, 21: 33-48. Bourguignat, J.R. 1877. Descriptions de deux nouveaux genres Algériens,... des familles et des genres de Mollusques... Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles de Toulouse, 3: 49-101. Bowden, J. & Heppell, D. 1968. Revised list of British Mollusca. 2. Unionacea — Cardiacea. Journal of Conchology, 26: 237-272. Ellis, A.E. 1962. British freshwater bivalve molluscs. The Linnean Society of London Synopses of the British Fauna, vol. 13. 92pp. Hanley, S.C.T. 1855. Ipsa Linnaei Conchylia. The shells of Linnaeus, determined from his manuscripts and collection. 556 pp. Williams & Norgate, London. Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1920. On the Linnean species of non-marine Mollusca that are represented in the British fauna, with notes on the specimens of these and other British forms in the Linnean collections. Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 34: 203-215. Lamarck, J.B. de. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles ... Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 63-91. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae Ed. 10, Vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium ..., vol. 2, 224 pp. Heineck & Faber, Havniae & Lipsiae. Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia molluscorum sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. 124 pp. Schuboth, Lund. Réssmassler, E.A. 1835. Diagnoses Conchyliorum terrestrium et fluviatilium, vol. 1, 134 pp. Arnold, Dresden & Leipzig. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Case 2762 Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving Bollandia Reed, 1943 Gerhard Hahn Institut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-Universitat, Hans-Meerwein- Strasse, D-3550 Marburg, Fed. Rep. Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Carboniferous trilobite name Griffithides Portlock, 1843 in its accustomed usage by setting aside an overlooked type species designation. In 1846 Oldham designated Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 as type of Griffithides, but the subsequent designation by Vogdes (1890) of G. longiceps Portlock, 1843 is universally accepted. In 1943 Reed designated Asaphus globiceps as the type of his new subgenus Bollandia. It is proposed that Oldham’s designation of Asaphus globiceps as type of Griffithides be set aside to conserve Griffithides and Bollandia in their accustomed usage. 1. Portlock (1843, p. 310) established the genus Griffithides with four included species. These were, in page order: p. 310 Griffithides longiceps sp. nov. p. 311 Griffithides platyceps sp. nov. p. 311 Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 (p. 240) p. 312 Griffithides longispinus sp. nov. Portlock did not designate a type species. 2. Oldham (1846, p. 188) designated Asaphus globiceps as the type species of Griffithides, using the following words: ‘In 1843, Portlock... established... two new genera, Griffithides and Phillipsia, of the former of which the Griffithides globiceps may be considered the typical species’. All subsequent workers on Carboniferous trilobites neglected Oldham’s designation, with one exception. Weber (1937, p. 66) gave Asaphus globiceps as the type species of Griffithides, but gave no reason. He did not quote Oldham’s work either on p. 66 or under ‘literature’. 3. Woodward (1883, pp. 27—28) in his fundamental work on British Carboniferous trilobites did not give a type species for Griffithides. He repeated (pp. 30-32) Oldham’s description of Asaphus globiceps but omitted the sentence in which Oldham designated it as type species of Griffithides. 4. Vogdes (1890, p. 116), referring to Griffithides, wrote: “Type, Griffithides longiceps Portlock’, but made no further comment. Vogdes listed Oldham’s 1846 work on p. 56 of his bibliography but did not notice, or did not accept, that Oldham had designated Asaphus globiceps as the type species. 5. Weller (1936, p. 706) revised Griffithides. He accepted G. longiceps as its type species with the following remark: “by subsequent designation (Vogdes, 1890)’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 115 6. Reed (1943, p. 58) discussed the type species of Griffithides thus: ‘It is generally acknowledged that Gr. longiceps, Portlock, should be regarded as the genotype, though Weber (1937, p. 66) apparently chooses Asaphus globiceps Phillips (1836, p. 240, pl. xxil, figs. 16-20), and puts Gr. Jongiceps as merely characterizing a group of the genus’. Reed accepted G. longiceps as the type species of Griffithides and (p. 62) designated Asaphus globiceps as the type species of his new subgenus Bollandia (p. 62) which he placed within the genus Permoproetus Toumansky, 1935. 7. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Weller (1959, p. 399) gave G. longiceps as the type species of Griffithides and Asaphus globiceps as the type species of Bollandia. He diagnosed both genera as corresponding to those type species. 8. Since 1959, all authors have followed the type species designations for Griffithides and Bollandia as given in the Treatise. For example, both Griffithides (with type species G. longiceps) and Bollandia (with type species Asaphus globiceps) have been used by Boucek & Pribyl (1960, p. 30), Osmolska (1970, pp. 33, 108), Morris (1988, pp. 35, 102) and Tilsley (1988, pp. 163, 168). A representative list of nine more papers by five authors using Griffithides or Bollandia with these type species designations is held by the Commission Secretariat. 9. To accept Oldham’s designation of Asaphus globiceps as type species of Griffithides would have the following consequences: a). Bollandia becomes a junior objective synonym of Griffithides. b). The name Griffithides must be transferred to the species currently attributed to Bollandia, and the species currently attributed to Griffithides are without a name. These consequences disturb the current usage of the nominal genera Griffithides and Bollandia and, in order to conserve these nominal genera in their current usage, I propose the setting aside of all designations of type species for Griffithides prior to that by Vogdes (1890). 10. 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 Griffithides Portlock, 1843 prior to that by Vogdes (1890) of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Bollandia Reed, 1943 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836; (b) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Vogdes (1890) Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843, as ruled in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) globiceps Phillips, 1836, as published in the binomen Asaphus globiceps (specific name of the type species of Bollandia Reed, 1943); (b) longiceps Portlock, 1843, as published in the binomen Griffithides longiceps (specific name of the type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843). References Boucek, B. & Piibyl, A. 1960. Revise trilobiti slovenského svrchniho karbonu. Revision der Trilobiten aus dem slowakischen Oberkarbon. Geologické Prace, 20: 5-49. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Morris, S.F. 1988. A review of British trilobites, including a synoptic revision of Salter’s monograph. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1-316. Oldham, J. 1846. On Griffithides globiceps, Portlock, and some other Carboniferous Limestone fossils. Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin, 3(3): 188-194. Osmdlska, H. 1970. Revision of non-cyrtosymbolinid trilobites from the Tournaisian-Namurian of Eurasia. Palaeontologia Polonica, 23: 1-165. Phillips, J. 1836. [//ustrations of the geology of Yorkshire; or, a description of the strata and organic * remains: accompanied by a geological map, sections, and diagrams, and figures of the fossils. Part 2. The Mountain Limestone District. xx, 253 pp. Murray, London. Portlock, J.E. 1843. Report on the geology of the county of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh. xxxi, 784 pp. Milliken, Dublin. Reed, F.R.C. 1943. The genera of British Carboniferous trilobites. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (11)10: 54-65. Tilsley, J.W. 1988. New data on Carboniferous (Dinantian) trilobites from the Peak District, Derbyshire, England. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 47: 163-176. Vogdes, A.W. 1890. A bibliography of Paleozoic Crustacea from 1698 to 1889 including a list of North American species and a systematic arrangement of genera. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey, 63: 1-177. Weber, V.N. 1937. Trilobites of the Carboniferous and Permian system of U.S.S.R. 1. Carboniferous trilobites. Paleontology of U.S.S.R. Monographs, 71: 1-160. [In Russian with English summary.] Weller, J.M. 1936. Carboniferous trilobite genera. Journal of Paleontology, 10: 704-714. Weller, JM. 1959. PHILLIPSIIDAE. Pp. 399-403 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Woodward, H. 1883. A monograph of the British Carboniferous trilobites. Part 1. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), \-38. EE a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 117 Case 2687 Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Lech Borowiec Department of Zoology, Agricultural University, Cybulskiego 20, 50-205 Wroclaw, Poland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of a flea beetle, Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912, which is threatened by an unused senior synonym. 1. In 1893 Weise (p. 1010) described a ‘var. /uctator’ under Longitarsus aeruginosus . The name /uctator has never been used by subsequent authors, but under Article 45g(ii) the name is to be treated as subspecific. 2. Heikertinger (1912, p. 69) showed that the ‘variety’ described by Weise as /uctator is the winged form of an independent species, which he named Longitarsus symphyti. This name has been used by all subsequent authors. A representative list of six important works on European CHRYSOMELIDAE in which symphyti is used is held by the Secretariat. The species is widespread in west and central Europe, except the Mediterranean subregion. 3. As the name /uctator has not been used in entomological literature since its proposal for a “variety” and the name symphyti has gained wide usage for this species of flea beetle, it is desirable for the sake of stability that the older synonym be suppressed. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to suppress the specific name /uctator Weise, 1893, as published in the combi- nation Longitarsus aeruginosus var. luctator, 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 symphyti Heikertinger, 1912, as published in the binomen Longitarsus symphyti; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name /uctator Weise, 1893, as published in the combination Longitarsus aeruginosus var. luctator and as suppressed in (1) above. References | Heikertinger, F. 1912. Skizzen zur Systematik und Nomenklatur der palaarktischen Halticinen, Entomologische Blétter, 8(3): 65-70. Weise, J. 1893. Chrysomelidae in Erichson, W.F. (Ed.), Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands, vol. 6, part 1, xiv, pp. 961-1161. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Case 2738 Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species Mary E. Burridge Royal Ontario Museum, Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Canada M5S 2C6 Darrell J. Siebert Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. Carl Ferraris, Jr. Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824, a genus of small cobitid fishes from Southeast Asia, commonly known as the coolie loaches, in accordance with accustomed interpretation and usage. The generic name was first published (1823) as Acantophthalmus but this spelling has not been used and its suppression is proposed. 1. In 1823 van Hasselt (p. 133) proposed the generic name Acantophthalmus for some of the loaches with an erectile suborbital spine. The genus included Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758, but the three other species, including fasciatus, were nomina nuda, as noted by Kottelat (1987, p. 371). C. taenia is thereby fixed as the type species of Acantophthalmus by monotypy; its inclusion makes Acantophthalmus an available name (Article 12b(5) of the Code). 2. The work by van Hasselt consists of parts of letters sent from Java to Temminck at the Leiden museum, two of which contained several new fish names and which were published by the latter in 1823 after van Hasselt’s death. A series of drawings sent by van Hasselt to Temminck, which were subsequently seen by Valenciennes, have never been published and are now presumed to have been lost (Kottelat, 1987, p. 368). A subsequent (1824a, b) French translation of the letters from the original Dutch con- tained many alterations in the text and ‘corrections’ in the spelling of several of the names which were probably made by Valenciennes (see Alfred, 1962, p. 80). For example, Acantophthalmus and Acantopsis, both genera of loaches, are two names spelled differently in the 1823 and 1824 versions. An ‘h’ was added to the ‘Acant-’ prefix ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 119 in both names, to produce Acanthophthalmus and Acanthopsis (van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824b, pp. 376-377). The spellings Acanthophthalmus and Acanthopsis are unjustified emendations but, under Article 33b(i1), are available names. Cobitis taenia remains the type species of the nominal genus Acanthophthalmus. The French version of the second communication, in which the name Acanthophthalmus appeared, is unsigned; however, van Hasselt’s name was published at the end of the first letter (1824a, p. 92), and the name Acanthophthalmus (1824) is ascribed to him. The spelling Acanthophthalmus was adopted by later authors. Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1846, pp. 25—26) attributed authorship of the name Acanthophthalmus to Kuhl and van Hasselt but clearly it should be ascribed to van Hasselt alone, and is correctly cited as van Hasselt in Temminck (Recommendation 51B of the Code). (The authorship and dates of publication of the various parts of Histoire Naturelle des Poissons by Cuvier & Valenciennes are set out in Opinion 580, December 1959). 3. Inthe same 1823 Dutch work, van Hasselt (p. 133) also proposed the new generic name Noemacheilus, with the single included species fasciatus. The binomen was repeated in the 1824 French translation with the spelling unchanged but in both ver- sions it is a nomen nudum. Valenciennes (1846) described the species fasciatus, which lacks the suborbital spine, from a specimen and one of van Hasselt’s drawings sent to him by Temminck. Valenciennes did not accept Noemacheilus as a taxonomically distinct genus, and placed all the loaches in Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. 4. Valenciennes (1846, p. 77) also provided a description for van Hasselt’s species Acanthophthalmus fasciatus (see para. 1), and renamed it Cobitis kuhlii to avoid hom- onymy within Cobitis. Bleeker (1858, p. 304) listed and described the genera of loaches known to inhabit the ‘Archipelagi Indici’, including Acanthophthalmus (attributing the name to van Hasselt). In 1863, Bleeker (p. 364) designated ‘Acanthophthalmus fasciatus van Hasselt’ (which he listed (p. 367) as ‘= Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes’) as the type species of Acanthophthalmus, although, as pointed out in para. 1, Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 is the type species by monotypy. Bleeker excluded C. taenia from Acanthophthalmus. Bleeker’s concept of the genus has been adopted by subsequent authors and is still current today, although it is illegitimate under the modern Code because of the exclusion of C. taenia. 5. Also in 1863, Bleeker (pp. 362, 364) designated Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and recently the Commission validated this designation (Opinion 1500, June 1988). Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 thus became a junior objective synonym of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and it was so placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. It follows that Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 is also a junior objective synonym of Cobitis. 6. Blyth (1860, p. 169) described a new genus, Pangio, for Cobitis cinnamomea | McClelland, 1839 (p. 304), which McClelland had unnecessarily proposed as a replace- | ment name for C. pangio Hamilton, 1822. C. cinnamonea is currently included among the coolie loaches. Following Bleeker (1863, pp. 363, 364), Pangio has consistently been considered as a junior subjective synonym of Acanthophthalmus and has had no sub- sequent use (see Systematic Index of the Pisces sections of Zoological Record, 1864 to 1989). It was adopted, however, by Kottelat in 1987 (p. 371), who drew attention to the considerable confusion that the loss of the generic name Acanthophthalmus as a junior objective synonym of Cobitis would cause. Acceptance of Pangio as the name for the 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 coolie loaches would upset nearly 130 years of consistent usage of Acanthophthalmus in both the technical and popular literature. Several species are now included in the genus and the name Acanthophthalmus appears in catalogues and guides, including Nelson (1985, p. 127), Roberts (1989), Smith (1965, pp. 287, 299-301) and Weber & de Beaufort (1916, pp. 30-35), as well as taxonomic works. A representative list of 14 references, ranging from 1868 to 1989, which demonstrate use of the name is held by the Commission Secretariat. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 and to designate Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Acanthoph- thalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(b) above Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name kuhilii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846, as published in the binomen Cobitis kuhlii (specific name of the type species of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824); (4) toamend the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology for the name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823, to note its suppression as in (1)(a) above. Acknowledgements R.M. Bailey, W.I. Follett, V.G. Springer and R. Winterbottom read previous versions of our manuscript, or discussed various issues contained in it. We gratefully acknowl- edge their comments and advice. This is not to be taken as their agreement with, or endorsement of, our solution to these problems. References Alfred, E. 1962. The Javanese Fishes described by Kuhl and van Hasselt. Bulletin of the National Museum, State of Singapore, 30: 80-88. Bleeker, P. 1858. Nieuwe geslachten van Cobitinen. Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch- Indié, 16(5): 302-304. Bleeker, P. 1863. Sur les genres de la famille des Cobitioides. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde, 1: 361-368. Blyth, E. 1860. Report on some fishes received chiefly from the Sitang River and its tributary streams, Tenasserim Provinces. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 29: 138-174. Hasselt, J.C. van. 1823. In Temminck, C.J. Uittreksel uit een’ brief van den Heer J.C. van Hasselt, aan den Heer C.J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentie Bantam, den 29sten December 1822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter-Bode, voor het jaar 1823, 2(35): 130-133. Hasselt, J.C. van. 1824a. In Temminck, C.J. Sur les poissons de Java. Extrait d’une premiére lettre du Dr J.-P. van Hasselt a M C.J. Temminck. (Algem. Konst. en Letterbode, mai 1823). Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Geologie, 2 (Zoologie): 89-92. “ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 121 Hasselt, J.C. van. 1824b. Jn Temminck, C.J. Extrait d’une seconde lettre sur les poissons de Java, écrite par M Van Hasselt a M C.J. Temminck, datée de Tjecande, résidence de Bantam, 29 décembre 1822. (Alg. Konst en Letter bode, 1823, aout, no. 35). Suite de la derniére, écrite en octobre 1822. (Voyez l’extrait de la premiére, dans le Bulletin de mai, no. 73). Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Geologie, 2 (Zoologie): 374-377. Kottelat, M. 1987. Nomenclatural status of the fish names created by C.J. van Hasselt (1823) and of some cobitoid genera. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 33(4): 368-375. McClelland, J. 1839. Indian Cyprinidae. Asiatic Researches; or Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring into the History, the Antiquities, the Arts and Sciences, and Literature of Asia, 19(2): 217-471. Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. Ed. 2, xv, 523 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York. Roberts, T.R. 1989. The freshwater fishes of western Borneo (Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia). Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 14: 1-210. Smith, H.M. 1965. The freshwater fishes of Siam or Thailand. Ed. 2, 622 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprinted from U.S. National Museum Bulletin, No. 188, 1945). Valenciennes, A. 1846. Cyprinoides. Pp. 1-90 in Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A., Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 18. xix, 505 pp. Bertrand, Strasbourg. Weber, M. & Beaufort, L.F. de. 1916. The fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, vol. 3 (Ostariophysi: Cyprinoidea, Apodes, Synbranchi). 455 pp. Brill, Leiden. Zoological Record. 1864-1989. Pisces in: The Zoological Record, vols. 1-124. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Case 2693 Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the specific name Robert G. Webb Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Environmental Biology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0519, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 for a turtle by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym Testudo rostrata Thunberg, 1787. 1. Thunberg described the turtle Testudo rostrata in 1787. As noted by Lonnberg (1896, p. 33), Thunberg first mentioned the name Testudo rostrata with only brief comments in Latin (1787a, p. 21). Later in the same year he repeated the comments and gave a more elaborate description in Swedish (1787b, p. 179); this paper was published in German the following year (1788, p. 173). The comments in the first paper (1787a) are adequate to make the name available. 2. Webb (1985, p. 85) described and figured the holotype of Testudo rostrata from the Linnaean Collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of Uppsala and outlined the history of the name. He demonstrated that Testudo rostrata is a senior synonym of Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann. Testudo rostrata has not been used as a valid name since Lonnberg (1896, p. 34) considered it to be a synonym of Trionyx swinhonis (correct original spelling swinhoei) Gray, 1873. Trionyx or Rafetus swinhoeiis regarded as a distinct species (Meylan & Webb, 1988). 3. The name Trionyx ( Aspidonectes) sinensis was made available by Wiegmann in the work Beitrdge zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde von Dr. F. J. F. Meyen (p. 189). This work is usually dated as published in 1835. However, Dr. R. I. Crombie, Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., has made a detailed study of Wiegmann’s original publications and the incidental literature surrounding Meyen’s Reise and_has established that it appeared in 1834. Thus, the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann was made available in 1834. 4. In Opinion 660 (1963, BZN 20: 187-190), the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann was conserved by suppression of the senior synonym Testudo semimembranacea Hermann, 1804 and was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. It is now necessary to conserve it against its senior subjective synonym Testudo rostrata. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name rostrata Thunberg, 1787, _ as published in the binomen Testudo rostrata, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; ii! Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 123 (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name rostrata Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Testudo rostrata, and as suppressed in (1) above. (3) toamend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name sinensis Wiegmann, as published in the binomen Trionyx sinensis, to be taken from 1834 and not 1835. References Lénnberg, E. 1896. Linnean type-specimens of birds, reptiles, batrachians and fishes in the Zoological Museum of the R. University in Upsala. Bihang till Kongl.Svenska Vetenskaps- Akademiens Handlingar, 22(4) (1): 1-45. Meylan, P. A. & Webb, R. G. 1988. Rafetus swinhoei (Gray) 1873, a valid species of living soft- shelled turtle (Family Trionychidae) from China. Journal of Herpetology, 22: 118-119. Thunberg, C. P. 1787a. Pp. 19-32 in Museum Naturalium Academiae Upsaliensis, Part 2. Litteris Director Johan Edman, Upsaliae. Thunberg, C. P. 1787b. Beskrifning pa trenne skéld-paddor. Kongl. Vetenskaps Academiens nya Handlingar, 8: 178-180. Thunberg, C. P. 1788. Beschreibung dreyer Schildkréten. Kéniglich-Schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Neue Abhandlungen, 8: 171-180. Webb, R. G. 1985. Taxonomic status of Testudo rostrata Thunberg, 1787 (Testudines, Trionychidae). Herpetologica, 41: 84-88. Wiegmann, A. F. A. 1834. Beitrage zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, von Dr. F. J. F. Meyen. Siebente Abhandlung. Amphibien. Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae, 17: 183-268. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Comment on the adoption of ‘Protected Works’ for purposes of zoological nomenclature (See BZN 44: 79-85; 45: 45-47, 144, 145; 46: 9, 185-186) Darrel Frost Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454, U.S.A. I do think that ‘Protected Works’ would be helpful in stabilizing nomenclature. I realize that in my position as compiler of Amphibian Species of the World this may sound self-serving, but I have been surprised at the number of times at pro- fessional meetings that nomenclature users (e.g. zoo and medical personnel, ecolo- gists, etc.) asked me why something along these lines was not done. Of course, they would rather the names of species never changed, but then they do not understand that we have a need to portray relationship, not just a simple naming convention. Maybe the solution is to adopt works with the proviso that proposals for excepting individual names be submitted to a special committee within the Com- mission (or appointed by the Commission) within five years. Protected Works would not obviate future petitions, but certainly would put an end to the endless exhumations of forgotten (and reasonably so) names from ancient literature. The status of family-group names is particularly knotty, as although these names are comparatively rare compared to all nomenclature they require an astounding amount of time to resolve (and even then inherent ambiguity in the Code makes many decisions questionable). Comments on the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta) (Case 2554; see BZN 46: 229-232) (1) R. Thomas Becker Department of Geology, University of Southampton SO9 5NH, U.K. One of the proposals in this application (BZN 46: 231, para. 14) is the suppression of the almost unused polychaete generic name Clymenia Orsted, 1844. It is unnecessary to do this, because this name is a junior homonym of Clymenia Minster, 1834 (p. 43), which is in use for a genus of Upper Devonian ammonoids and is the basis of family- group and order names. Additional reference Miinster, G. 1834. Mittheilungen an Professor Brown gerichtet. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1834: 42-43. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 125 A similar comment has been received from Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, D-3550 Marburg (Lahn), Fed. Rep. Germany). (2) Andrew Mackie National Museum of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3NP, Wales, U.K. Fredrik Pleijel Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden The aims of Nilsen & Holthe’s application are to retain two junior subjective synonyms: Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 and oculata Zaks, 1923. While we believe this desirable and agree with the suppressions proposed, we would like to draw attention to an overlooked point. Nilsen & Holthe (BZN 46: 231, para. 12) regard Galathowenia Kirkegaard, 1959 as a junior synonym of Myriochele. There is, however, no consensus on this matter. Galathowenia and Myriochele are regarded as distinct valid genera in several recent works (Kirkegaard, 1983; Blake, 1984; Imajima & Morita, 1987) not referred to in the application. Myriochele oculata is regarded by several authors (Blake & Dean, 1973; Kirkegaard, 1983) as a senior synonym of Galathowenia africana Kirkegaard, 1959, the type species of Galathowenia. Additional references Blake, J.A. 1984. Polychaeta Oweniidae from Antarctic Seas collected by the United States Antarctic Research Program. In Hutchings, P.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Polychaete Conference. The Linnean Society of New South Wales, Sydney. Blake, J.A. & Dean, D. 1973. Polychaetous annelids collected by the R/V Hero from Baffin Island, Davis Strait, and West Greenland in 1968. Bulletin of the Southern Californian Academy of Sciences, 72(1): 31-39. | Imajima, M. & Morita, Y. 1987. Oweniidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Japan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, Ser. A, 13(3): 85-102. | Kirkegaard, J.B. 1983. Bathyal benthic polychaetes from the N.E. Atlantic Ocean, S.W. of i | | | | | the British Isles. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 63(3): 593-608. (3) Susan Chambers National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K. I would like to support the conservation of the names Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 _ and oculata Zaks, 1923 as proposed by Nilsen & Holthe (BZN 46: 229-232). 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Comments on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Case 2662; see BZN 46: 165-166, 189-190) (1) Robert J. Raven Queensland Museum, P.O. Box 300, South Brisbane, 4101 Queensland, Australia Levi & Kraus present a case for the precedence of Aphonopelma over the older Rhechostica. The information given in their application is incomplete, however. Nobody naming any material from central America or southern North America ever considered the taxonomic status of Rhechostica until I did so (Raven, 1985). The family THERAPHOSIDAE has not been revised, either in its entirety or in any region, including North America. A group so long left without revision becomes, as did the THERAPHOSIDAE, a nomenclatural and taxonomic nightmare. Three generic names (Eurypelma, Aphonopelma and Rhechostica) have been applied to one species, Eurypelma californicum Ausserer, 1871. Despite all activities of taxonomists, U.S. experimentalists in fact persist in using the binomen Eurypelma californicum for this common U.S. spider used in physiological and anatomical studies. That species has been used only once in the combination Aphonopelma californicum. Hence, the name Eurypelma Koch, 1850 still ranks higher in usage than any other. Most of those uses refer to what some prefer to call Aphonopelma. The name Rhechostica has not been forgotten by any cataloguer. The application by Levi & Kraus (1989) omits mention of Simon (1903) and Petrunkevitch (1928). The latest catalogue (Platnick, 1989) upholds the usage of Rhechostica. The most recent papers cited in the application are dated 1986. However, Raven (1985) was published in December of 1985 and since then a number of authors (e.g. Bevington, 1989; Harvey, 1989; Lowe, 1989; Schmidt, 1989; Smith, 1986, 1989) have cited Rhechostica as the senior synonym of Aphonopelma. Many in the scientific world and the pet trade who keep in touch with the literature concerning names of animals have adopted Rhechostica since my careful study of the type species of all mygalomorph genera where some representative, if not the types, existed. My change was a change from total confusion to stability. The alternative is yet another change simply for the sake of name-changing. No contention exists about the greater usage of Aphonopelma over Rhechostica in the past. However, Eurypelma is the most frequently used name for theraphosids in North America. Use of either Aphonopelma or Eurypelma is the result of incomplete studies. I consider that Rhechostica should be retained rather than Aphonopelma, so that the stability so far gained remains. Additional references Bevington, M. 1989. Theraphosides— some feeding observations. Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 4: 28-29. Harvey, D.A.D. 1989. The classification of mygalomorph spiders. Part 2. Nemesiidae, Theraphosidae and Paratropididae. Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 5: 21-26. Lowe, B. 1989. Moulting yearly? Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 4: 29. Petrunkevitch, A. 1928. Systema aranearum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 29: 1-270. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 127 Platnick, N.I. 1989. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1981-1987: A supplement to Brignoli’s A catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. 680 pp. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Raven, R.J. 1985. The spider infraorder Mygalomorphae (Araneae): cladistics and systematics. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 182: 1-180. Schmidt, G. 1989. Vogelspinnen: Vorkommen, Lebensweise, Haltung und Zucht, mit Bestimm- ingsschlissel fiir alle Gattungen. 126 pp. Blichel & Philler, Minden. Simon, E. 1903. Histoire Naturelle des Araignées. 2nd Ed., part 4. 381 pp. Roret, Paris. Smith, A.M. 1986. Species file: Rhechostica seemanni (Cambridge, 1897). Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 1: 22-26. Smith, A.M. 1989. The tarantula: classification and identification guide. Fitzgerald, London. (2) Support for the application by Levi & Kraus (BZN 46: 165-166) has been received from the following (see also BZN 46: 189-190): J.C. Cockendolpher (Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A.), B.Y. Main (University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009), D. Ubick (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 9411, U.S.A.) and T. Yaginuma (3-7-14 Harinakano, Higashisumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 546, Japan). Comments on the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. graminis Koch, 1857 (Insecta, Homoptera) (Case 2695; see BZN 46: 119-122) (1) Evelyna M. Danzig Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. I support the proposal of Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero. The names Fonscolombia and F. graminis date from the reference ‘Lichtenstein, 1877b’ given in the application. This paper in the Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine appeared before 11 July 1877, while the reference *1877a’ was published on 5 September (see Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)7, bulletin bibliographique, pp. 35, 43). In a third paper published in 1877 (late August), which is not mentioned in the application, Lichtenstein clearly stated (p. 491) that his graminis was distinct from Coccus radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, and he synonymized it with Tychea graminis Koch. Koch (1857, p. 296) established the genus Tychea with two new species, T. graminis (p. 298) and T. amycli (p. 300); the first was designated as type species by Kirkaldy (1906, p. 9). The original description of T. graminis was based on a mixture of an unidentifiable scale insect from the family PSEUDOCOCCIDAE and an aphid, which according to Schouteden’s (1906) interpretation is identical to Tetraneura ulmi (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 452) (see Morrison & Morrison, 1966, p. 80; Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976, p. 444). Neither the generic name Tychea nor the species name T. graminis are in use (see BZN 46: 120, para. 6) and they are a source of potential confusion. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Accordingly, in addition to the proposals on BZN 46: 120-121, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and graminis Koch, 1857, as published in the binomen Tychea graminis, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Tychea Koch, 1857, as suppressed in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name graminis Koch, 1857, as published in the binomen Tychea graminis and as suppressed in (1) above. [These supplementary proposals are supported by Dr Y. Ben-Dov]. Additional references Eastop, V.F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1976. Survey of the World’s aphids. 573 pp. Junk, The Hague. Kirkaldy, G.W. 1906. Catalogue of the genera of the hemipterous family Aphidae, with their typical species, together with a list of the species described as new from 1885 to 1905. The Canadian Entomologist, 38: 9-18. Koch, C.L. 1857. Pp. 275—335 in Die Pflanzenlause, Aphiden (1854-1857). 335 pp. Lotzbeck, Nurnberg. Lichtenstein, J. 1877. Weitere Beitrage zur Geschichte der Wurzel-Lause. Homoptera antho- genetica. Stettiner entomologische Zeitung, 38: 489-492. Morrison, H. & Morrison, E.R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publications, No. 1015, 206 pp. Schouteden, H. 1906. Catalogue des Aphides de Belgique. Mémoires de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 12: 189-246. (2) P.K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature As first proposed, in the Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 14: 35 (see Dr Danzig’s comment above), the specific name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 was formally an unjustified emendation (replacement name) of radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, 1834 (see BZN 46: 119, para. 2). For procedural propriety, proposal (1) in BZN 46: 120, para. 12 should be replaced by: ‘(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877, as published in the binomen Fonscolombia graminis, is to be treated as the specific name of a then new nominal species, now defined by the type specimen designated by Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero, 1989.’ Acceptance of this proposal would fix the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 as F. graminis by monotypy (cf. proposal (2) on BZN 46: 121). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 129 Comments on the valid name for the butterfly known as ‘Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905’ or ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 2617; see BZN 45: 29-32) (1) L.B. Holthuis Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands The authors are incorrect in their interpretation (BZN 45: 30, para. 5) of the expres- sion ‘a number of individuals within a species’ in the Code definition of ‘aberration’: it applies to a population as to any other set of individuals. The names a/facariensis Ribbe, 1905 and australis Verity, 1911 are both unavailable, and it is up to the authors to find the first available use of alfacariensis or australis. (2) E.J. Reissinger Kemnaterstrasse 31/1, D-8950 Kaufbeuren, Fed. Rep. Germany S. Wagener Hemdener Weg 19, D-4290 Bocholt, Fed. Rep. Germany (1) Ribbe (1905, p. 137) described a new ‘Form’ [sic] of Colias hyale from Andalusia but unfortunately the ‘ab.’ in the name Colias hyale ab. alfacariensis formally renders the name unavailable under Article 45f(ii) of the Code, although ‘Form’ denotes a subspecies (Article 45g(i1)). (2) On the other hand, following German linguistic usage, it is quite clear that Ribbe was not describing an aberrant or seasonal morph, but stated clearly that the taxon was characteristic of a particular geographical! area. In the contemporary literature the use of ‘var.’, ‘form’ and ‘ab.’ was not clearly differentiated. In 1906 (p. 134) and 1907 (p. 89) Ribbe himself mentioned ‘Colias hyale v. alfacariensis’, but unfortunately he did not refer to his 1905 description and thereby make the name available. (3) Verity’s 1911 (p. 347; cf. BZN 45: 30, para. 6) description of the ‘race’ australis from Andalusia appeared in January 1911; in October his Index Systématique (p. XXXIV) explicitly showed that the word ‘race’ was to be interpreted as infrasubspecific (see BZN 45: 30, para. 8). Entirely formally, australis could be held to be available from January 1911. Whether available or not, it is now evident that alfacariensis and australis are synonyms for a distinct species of butterfly (Berger, 1944, 1945), known in English as Berger’s Clouded Yellow. (4) Considered from their intentions, it is quite clear that Ribbe (1905) wanted to describe a ‘Form’ or ‘Varietas’ (subspecies) whereas Verity (1911) was describing what in his view was an infrasubspecific taxon. (5) Verity (1916, p. 99) described and gave the name calida to the Colias hyale of the summer generation (only) from Tuscany; from taxonomic considerations it is known that he was dealing with Colias alfacariensis/australis. In 1923 Verity & Querci (1923, p. 15) applied ‘Colias hyale, L., race calida, Vrty.’ to specimens of both generations, and _ the name calida Verity, 1916 is available under Article 45 of the Code (see Cockayne, 1952, p. 166), or from Verity & Querci, 1923, under Article 10c. It would be destabilizing to use this name for the entire species. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 (6) Bubacéek (1924, p. 23) differentiated ‘Colias hyale v. alfacariensis Ribbe’ of Andalusia from the ‘Nominatform’. Under Article 45g(ii) this can make alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 available as from its original publication for a ‘Form’ even if the ‘content of the work’ [the use of ‘ab.’, but not the meaning] had given it infrasubspecific rank. Even if this were held not to be so, C. alfacariensis would be available under Article 10c as from Bubacek, 1924, but to cite this authorship and date would be wholly artificial. (7) We contend that Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, C. australis Verity, 1911 (January) and C. calida Verity, 1916 can be considered available under the Code. (8) As noted in BZN 45: 30, para. 9, lectotypes of both C. alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 and C. australis Verity, 1911 have been designated, although that of the latter has disadvantages (the original specimens of Verity include C. hyale as wellas C. australis; their origin is doubtful and they do not agree with Spanish specimens). (9) To assure a consensus in the use of the name for this taxon, we therefore request the Commission, using its plenary powers where necessary, to declare that: (1) the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the combination Colias hyale ab. alfacariensis, is an available name; (2) the name australis Verity, 1911, published as a race of Colias hyale hyale, is not an available name; (3) the name calida Verity, 1916, as published in the combination Colias hyale calida, is an available name. Additional references Bubaéek, O. 1924. Uber eine Lepidopterenausbeute aus Andalusien. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 73: 22-24. Cockayne, E.A. 1952. Colias calida Verity: the correct name for the butterfly lately added to the British list. The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 64: 166-168. Ribbe, C. 1906. Eine Sammelreise nach Stid-Spanien. Insekten-Borse, Leipzig, 23: 134. Ribbe, C. 1907. Eine Sammelreise nach Stid-Spanien. Jnsekten-Borse, Leipzig, 24: 88-89. Verity, R. 1916. The British races of butterflies: their relationships and nomenclature. The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 28: 98-99. Verity, R. & Querci, O. 1923. Races and seasonal polymorphism of the Grypocera and of the Rhopalocera of peninsular Italy. The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 35 (supplement): 1—21. (3) O. Kudrna Karl-Strauss-Strasse 21, D-8740 Bad Neustadt-Salz, Fed. Rep. Germany I cannot see any evidence in this application that I have not written about previously (Kudrna, 1982). The name Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 is the oldest available name for the species. I see no reason for bending the rules to attribute the authorship to the (supposed) original discoverer — after all, it was Berger (or rather Berger & Fountaine) who discovered the species. Reference Kudrna, O. 1982. On the nomenclature of Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 20: 103-110. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 131 (4) W.G. Tremewan The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5 BD, U.K. (1) I have studied the literature involved in this case. It is clear from Ribbe’s 1905 description of the nominal taxon a/facariensis that he was referring to a geographical population and not to an aberration. Ribbe’s use of the terms ‘ab.’ and ‘var.’ were not consistent, and it is therefore my opinion that the availability of any nominal taxon described by him should be based on interpretation. The fact that he cited the name of his ‘Form’ alfacariensis with the prefix ‘ab.’ is, in my opinion, a mere technicality which should not render the name unavailable. (2) As Balleto & Kudrna (1986) and I (Tremewan, 1988) have pointed out, the 2000 names proposed by Verity also cause many problems. It isan enormous and unjustified waste of time and effort to search the literature for citations which may have ‘validated’ a name now used in the species-group. In the particular case of the burnet moth genus Zygaena | suggested (p. 239) that the Commission might be asked to rule that the name of any nominal taxon now used at specific or subspecific rank should be ruled to be available from its original publication, even if it had been published as an addition toa trinomen. (3) The Preamble to the Code (p. 3) states ‘The object of the Code is to promote | stability and universality in the scientific names of animals...’; therefore, it should be interpreted in such a manner as will do just this. Unlike ‘nomenclaturists’, most scien- tists use nomenclature as a tool to promote taxonomy and other sciences and do not _ regard it as a ‘science’ in itself. (4) I therefore fully support the application, and request that the International _ Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to rule that Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 is an available name. Additional references Balletto, E. & Kudrna, O. 1986. An annotated catalogue of the Burnets and Foresters (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) named by Roger Verity. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 24: 226-249. Tremewan, W.G. 1988. The problem of infrasubspecific names in some groups of Lepidoptera. Nota Lepidopterologica, 10: 236-240. (5) P.K. Tubbs | Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature For the last 40 years there has been confusion about the valid name for this butterfly. With a few exceptions (see BZN 45: 29, para. 2 and the above comment by Dr O. Kudrna) it has been referred to as either Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or C. australis Verity, 1911, with australis having been used perhaps slightly more often; Reissinger’s | recent checklist (1989, pp. 164-166, 181) uses alfacariensis. There is no doubt that both names refer to the taxon which was described as a full species by Berger (1945, p. 33), who wrote that ‘Colias alfacariensis RIBBE connue jusqu’a présent sous le nom de Colias | hyale L. race calida vty., nouvelle pour la science, est une bonne espéce... Le nom ! | d’alfacariensis RIBBE étant plus ancien que celui de calida vty. doit désigner la nouvelle 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 espece’. Under Article 10c the name alfacariensis Berger, 1945 (rather than 1948, as proposed by Dr Kudrna) is available, but probably not valid for reasons of priority. Five years later, having been advised (but on mistaken grounds; see BZN 45: 30, para. 7) by F. Hemming that alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 was unavailable, Berger adopted australis Verity, 1911; unfortunately this name also suffers from the drawbacks discussed in the application and the comments above, and the subsequent confusion began. It is high time that this situation, which is entirely a matter of nomenclatural niceties, is resolved. For reasons of both early date and usage it seems extremely desirable that either alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or australis Verity, 1911 should be adopted as the nomenclaturally valid name; any other choice (for example, calida Verity, 1916 or Verity & Querci, 1923; alfacariensis Bubacek, 1924 or Berger, 1945) would introduce fresh argument and instability. The original application (BZN 45: 29-32) did not explicitly ask the Commission to set aside the Code’s provisions in this case. This is necessary to fix the status of either alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or australis Verity, 1911, and I propose that the Commission should use its plenary powers to rule that one or the other of these two names is to be deemed available. Additional reference Reissinger, E.J. 1989. Checkliste Pieridae DUPONCHEL, 1835 (Lepidoptera) der West- palaearktis (Europa, Nordwestafrika, Kaukasus, Kleinasien). Atalanta, 20: 149-185. Comments on the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 2719; see BZN 46: 252-254) (1) F. Christian Thompson Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. I oppose this application by White & Seymour. The application contains a number of errors: . (a) The original spelling has been used by other authors in addition to Linnaeus (for example, Miller, 1776, p. 173). (b) Musca heraclei Fabricius, 1794 is not a subsequent use of Musca heraclii Linnaeus but a new and independent proposal for another species of fruit fly, now known as Tephritis postica (Loew, 1844). (c) While ‘heracle?’ is the correct genitive of Heracleum, the plant genus, ‘heraclii’ is also a correct genitive. Harper’s Latin Dictionary (1888 edition) includes two alternative spellings of the same Latin words referring to either the city Heraclea (Heraclea or Heraclia) or to the personage Hercules (Heracleus or Heraclius). As there is no evidence of what Linnaeus based his name on, I would not question Linnaeus’s Latin derivation. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 133 (d) If one does want to argue that Linnaeus incorrectly derived his name, then Loew’s emendation (1844, p. 323) is valid. (e) The first use of the spelling heraclei for Musca heraclii Linnaeus was by de Villers (1789, p. 507; see also Gmelin, 1790, p. 2858). The difference in spelling between heraclii and heraclei is minimal. Hence, the standardization on the correct original spelling (heraciii) is unlikely to cause confusion. For economically important species which have common names, such as this species (celery fly), changes in scientific nomenclature cause virtually no confusion. For example, the cabbage root maggot, an important pest, was known for many years as Anthomyia brassicae Wiedemann (or Bouché). Pont (1981) showed that the proper specific name for the species was radicum Linnaeus. This radical change caused no confusion to at least the American community of economic entomologists as they use the common name exclusively. When needing to cite the scientific name, these entomologists merely use whatever is given in the most recent Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms list that is maintained by the Entomological Society of America. I believe the confusion caused by change in the spelling of heraclii will be even less and, hence, the proposed change is unjustified. Additional references Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae... Ed. 13, vol. 1: Regnum Animale, pt. 5 (Insecta, pp. 2225-3020). Lipsiae. Loew, H. 1844. Kritische Untersuchung der europdischen Arten des genus Trypeta Meig. Zeitschrift fiir Entomologie (Germar ), 5: 312-437. Miller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu Animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige- narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. xxxii + 274 pp. Havniae. Pont, A. 1981. The Linnaean species of the families Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae (Insecta, Diptera). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 15: 165-175. | Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae suecicae descriptionibus..., vol. 3. nai id es ii + 657 pp., 4 pls. Lugduni. (2) Ian M. White CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K. I should like to reply to Thompson’s above remarks. (a) Seymour and I did miss the fact that the spelling heraclii had been used by a few 18th century authors; Thompson has been unable to find any 20th, or even 19th, century authors who used any spelling other than heraclei, and the purpose of this case is to reject that purely 18th century spelling of this pest of celery. Fabricius (1794) does not make it clear that his Musca heraclei is a new species, although he does not mention Linnaeus. Fabricius redescribed other Linnaean species, and it is likely that he was doing so in this case and failed to mention Linnaeus; there is no proof either way. This doubt over what Fabricius was describing was noted in the application (BZN 46: 252, para. 2). The Fabricius collection was not consulted as this appears to be a peripheral issue to the established use of the non-Linnaean spelling. Thompson notes that the heraclei of Fabricius is now interpreted as Tephritis postica (Loew), a species associated with Onopordon (Asteraceae or Compositae). Fabricius named several tephritids (b ~— 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 after plants which are known to be hosts of monophagous or oligophagous species. Each of these tephritids has subsequently been interpreted as a species that attacks a different plant family to the plant genus from which the Fabrician name clearly derives. Fabricius described a Musca onopordinis, now interpreted as a synonym of Euleia heraclei (Linnaeus), which attacks Heracleum and related genera; conversely, his Musca heraclei is now interpreted as T. postica which attacks Onopordon. The descrip- tion of M. onopordinis even refers to ‘Carduis’, presumably meaning a thistle such as Onopordon sp. This apparent reversal of Fabrician names suggests that even when specimens exist in the Fabricius collection it is likely that they have been placed against the wrong names by some post-Fabricius worker (this is known to have happened to the Linnaean collection). As there is no way of proving what Fabricius was describing, the simplest course is to assume that Fabricius was re-describing the Linnaean heraclii but with a modified spelling. (c) There is evidence of the Latin derivation used by Linnaeus, as he clearly states ‘Habitat in foliis, Heraclii; subcutanea’, meaning below the leaf cuticle of ‘Heraclii’. Although it is possible for ‘Heraclii’ to refer to the city Herculea or to the personage of Hercules, they are unlikely candidates for leaf mining! (d) We have not argued that Linnaeus incorrectly derived his name, only that the rule of original spelling being correct be set aside in the interest of stability. (ec) Weaccept that some other 18th century workers used the spelling heraclei before Fabricius (1794), in which case we need not worry about what Fabricius meant by heraclei. The difference between the spelling heraclii and heracleiis minimal and the issue need not have been raised were it not for the confusion being caused by a recent catalogue which introduced an erroneous spelling ‘heracleii’. Thompson refers to another econ- omically important species in which a complete change of specific name occurred; we suspect that such a complete change of name is more readily accepted by applied entomologists than a small change in spelling. We do not wish to change our application as a result of Thompson’s comments. Comments on the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 (Case 2629; see BZN 45: 288-291; 46: 132-134) (1) Gary Gibson & John Huber Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada We are writing to support the comment by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 132-134) opposing the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 in favour of Physcus Howard, 1895, as requested by Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani (BZN 45: 288-291). We can add little to the logical argument presented by LaSalle & Boutek for reten- tion of Coccobius. We feel strongly that nomenclatural stability and universality are achieved through the Principle of Priority based on sound taxonomic reasoning and compliance with the rules established in the Code. Gahan & Fagan (1923) validly - : a 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 135 designated Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg as the type species of Coccobius, and the designation of a neotype for C. annulicornis by LaSalle & Boucek definitively clarifies the application of this name. Suppression of Coccobius in favour of Physcus would disrupt stability in nomenclature that has been achieved since Hayat (1983). For these reasons we do not support the application of Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani to suppress Coccobius. (2) Gennaro Viggiani Dipartimento di Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria, Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Via Universita 100, 80055 Portici, Italy Here are my reactions to the comment by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 132—134). The above comment by Gibson & Huber adds nothing new to the case. 1. LaSalle & Boucek say that the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (BZN 45: 288-291) ‘would do more to disrupt stability than to promote it’. This is not true. Hayat (1984) stated ‘The genus Coccobius Ratzeburg (till recently as Physcus; but see Hayat, 1983) contains 58 species’. Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 was absolutely ignored in taxonomy and in applied entomology until 1983. Boucek had himself used Physcus and not Coccobius. 2. The Principle of Priority ‘is to be used to promote stability and is not intended to be used to upset a long accepted name in its accustomed meaning through the introduc- tion of an unused name that is its senior synonym’ (Article 23b of the Code). The proposal by LaSalle & Boucek would cause just such an upset. 3. Allthe arguments by LaSalle & Boucek in favour of the resurrection of Coccobius are based on ‘personal communications’ and on a specimen in the Natural History Museum, London, from Novitzky’s collection said to have been compared long ago with the type of Coccobius annulicornis. When Hayat (1983) studied this specimen it ‘was on a card with the antennae missing and the head partly eaten by psocids’. Now, according to LaSalle & Boucek, the same specimen ‘fortunately’ is accompanied by one of the antennae. 4. The subsequent action by LaSalle & Bouéek to sink in synonymy (just in their comment) a well-known species, Physcus testaceus Masi, 1910, treated in a great number of papers, demonstrates how they produce ‘stability’. They use the rather satis- factory description of a well-known species to recognize in a specimen, or rather the remains of a specimen, a senior synonym. They do not give a redescription, but simply _ replace Physcus testaceus with a newly defined *Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg’. The | purported designation by LaSalle & Boucek of a ‘neotype’ of Coccobius annulicornis is completely contrary to Article 75b of the Code. 5. LaSalle & Boucek say (BZN 46: 133, para. 10) ‘As the name Coccobius is shown to have both its usage and its identity established, and as Rosen et al. have not provided sufficient evidence to support their proposal to suppress Coccobius in favour of | Physcus...’. This gives a completely false impression. LaSalle & Boucek (para. 8) give only five references for the use of Coccobius, three of which are by Hayat. On the other hand, Physcus has been used by many aphelinid workers, including Annecke, Compere, De Bach, De Santis, Ferriére, Flanders, Howard, Masi, Nikol’skaya, Silvestri and Yasnosh. [The Commission Secretariat has a list of 85 references besides those cited in _ the application.] 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 6. I invite those interested in the APHELINIDAE and in biological control to give their views to the Commission. (3) David Rosen Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76-100, P.O. Box 12, Israel I should like to reply to the objection to the conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895, as proposed by Rivnay, Viggiani and myself, which has been made by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 132-134). LaSalle & Boucek ‘contend that the suppression of the name Coccobius would disrupt stability rather than promote it’. I am afraid that this statement is entirely incomprehensible to me. All they tell us is that a damaged specimen has been found, that one of its missing antennae has been located, and that ‘a reasonable assumption’ can be made as to its identity, and that this, in the absence of type material, should be regarded as sufficient grounds for synonymizing the well-known generic name Physcus under Coccobius. They conveniently ignore the fact, clearly demonstrated in our appli- cation, that the name Coccobius was misinterpreted — and unused — for nearly a century and a half, whereas the name Physcus was clearly interpreted and in constant use for most of that period. Even if Coccobius is unequivocally recognized as a senior synonym of Physcus, how on earth would its resurrection promote nomenclatural stability? LaSalle & Bouéek claim that the name Coccobius ‘has been used in systematic and biological control literature’, but in support of this statement they cite only five publi- cations, all of them subsequent to Hayat’s resurrection of Coccobius, and three of them by Hayat himself. Where was this name from, say, 1895 to 1983? We, on the other hand, have presented the Commission Secretariat with a partial list including scores of publications — some biological, many systematic, several dealing with biological control — that have all used the name Physcus, and this list can be easily doubled. LaSalle & Bouéek go on to state that ‘Hayat’s (1983) work in which he re-established the name Coccobius is the first modern treatment of the APHELINIDAE...’. With all due respect, I have to disagree. Hayat’s is a fine paper, but one cannot simply dismiss the earlier, excellent revisional work of De Santis, Nikol’skaya, Yasnosh, Compere, Ferriere and others, all of whom have used the generic name Physcus! LaSalle & Bouéek are, in effect, trying to take us back to a time when the Principle of Priority reigned supreme and the favorite pastime of some taxonomists was to unearth long-forgotten senior synonyms. The present Article 23b, emphasizing stability, was adopted for precisely this type of situation! Of course, when a case is so ambiguous, one can always resort to a gimmick: Take the damaged specimen in question and designate it as neotype. This unnecessary proposal is not justified by the evidence, does not solve any systematic or nomenclatural problem, and does not serve any purpose but for winning an argument. For the sake of nomenclatural stability, the CORES | is pee requested to reject it and let Coccobius rest in peace. Finally, a word about ‘sentimentality’. This is not the first time that I have been accused of advocating ‘the maintenance of previously used names for sentimental reasons’. Why should the conservation of a well-known name be considered more Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 137 ‘sentimental’ than the resurrection of an old, forgotten name? Let us leave sentimen- tality aside and concentrate on the rational, scientific aspects of the problem. The Commission has acted in favor of stability in many similar cases. To cite just two examples with which I have been personally familiar, the generic name Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 was suppressed in favor of Microterys Thomson, [1876] (Opinion 1110) and the specific name a/bidus Westwood, 1837 was suppressed in favor of mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 (Opinion 1405), although in both cases the types of the senior synonyms were available. I do hope that a similar decision will be made in this case. In conclusion, I can only repeat what I wrote several years ago on a similar case (1985, BZN 42: 215): ‘Systematists, myself included, would of course not find it difficult to adapt [to the name change]... However, numerous field biologists all over the world, who do not read taxonomic papers unless they are forced to do so, would be confused... So, it is not out of sentimentality that I favor the junior synonym in this case. It is only out of my concern for the users of systematic information, and for the respect that they may or may not have for the science and practice of systematics, that I recommend the suppression of [the senior synonym]... In my opinion the careless replacement of well-established names by long-forgotten senior synonyms would only serve to deepen the unfortunate rift between field biologists and some systematists. For the sake of systematics, let us not alienate those who depend on us for a stable nomenclature’. (4) John LaSalle CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K. Our comment (BZN 46: 132-134) is not intended to alienate or cause undue con- fusion with field biologists, biological control workers, or other non-systematists who rely on systematics for the provision of stable names (nor do we wish to alienate the authors of the proposal). However, systematics has rules which provide stability: these rules should be used where applicable, and stability will best be served when priority is _ overturned only in cases where the evidence presented is both overwhelming and timely (by waiting several years after the recognition of Coccobius before approaching the Commission, and thereby giving the name Coccobius time to become established in the literature, the authors have removed whatever valid arguments they might once have had). This case is nothing more than a question of usage versus priority. The Code allows for the suppression of an unused senior synonym only in cases where the use of that | name rather than a well accepted junior synonym would disturb stability or cause undue confusion. Even if one assumes that Coccobius is an unused name, which it no longer is, this case does not rest on impassioned pleas or lists of works using the name _ Physcus in the past, but simply on the assumption that use of Coccobius would disturb | stability and cause confusion. Such an assumption is contradicted by facts: since Coccobius was recognized in 1983, far more references have used the name Coccobius than Physcus. I have deposited with the Commission Secretariat a list of 24 references published since 1983 and using the name Coccobius in its currently recognized sense. This list contains works by over 30 authors from nine countries, and includes catalogues, keys, studies on biological control, biology, systematics, a data base of natural enemies, and 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 a list of preferred names of economic insects. It appears to me that there is no question here; at the present time both priority and usage favor Coccobius. Comment on the need for stability in fish family-group names (See BZN 47: 97-100) Nigel Merrett The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. I fully endorse Mr Wheeler’s view that changes to family-group names for purely grammatical reasons, such as those proposed by Steyskal (1980), may have unfortunate and wide-ranging implications for stability. I support his call for the establishment of a specialist committee on fish nomenclature to give guidance on the most pragmatic solution to such proposals. Comments on the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving Anguilla (Case 1173; see BZN 46: 259-261) (1) Alwyne Wheeler Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IG10 4AF, U.K. The generic name Anguilla dates not from Shaw (1803, p. 15) as stated, but from Schrank (1798, pp. 304, 307). This fact has been cited by authors including Blache et al. (1973, pp. 220-222). The type species by monotypy is Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758. The use of the specific name vulgaris by Shaw was clearly (not ‘possibly’ as in the application) to avoid tautonymy following the Linnaean precepts of taxonomy which were later encoded in the Strickland Code of Nomenclature in Zoology (Strickland, 1842). Although the avoidance of tautonymy was not encoded until that date it was shunned by adherents of the Linnaean system of nomenclature in accordance with the aphorisms set out in Linnaeus’s Critica Botanica (see Hort, 1938). For discussion of the nomenclature of fishes with the specific name vulgaris see Wheeler (1988). References Blache, J., Bauchot, M.-L. & Saldanha, L. 1973. In Hureau, J.C. & Monod, T. (Eds.), Check-list of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean, vol. 1, xxii, 683 pp. UNESCO, Paris. - Hort, A. 1938. The ‘Critica Botanica’ of Linnaeus. 239 pp. The Ray Society, London. Schrank, F. von P. 1798. Fauna Boica, vol. 1, part 2. x11, 720 pp. Nurnberg. Strickland, H.E. 1842. Report of a Committee appointed ‘to consider of the Rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1842: 105-121. Wheeler, A. 1988. The nomenclature of the sole, Solea solea (Linnaeus, 1758). Journal of Fish Biology, 33: 489-490. ; | | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 139 (2) F. Christian Thompson Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, Washington, D:C., U.S.A. No action by the Commission is required to conserve the name Muraena Linnaeus in its accustomed usage as in 1827 Bory de Saint-Vincent (p. 305) designated Muraena helena Linnaeus as type species. This designation is much earlier than Bleeker’s. Reference Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. 1827. In Audouin, [J.V.] et al. (Eds.), Dictionnaire classique d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 11. 615 pp. Rey & Gravier, Paris. (3) Ruth A. Cooper Secretariat, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. This case is thus resolved without need for action by the Commission. In the light of the above comments, the following information is given on the genera and species involved. Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (p. 304), type species by monotypy Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 245). Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 244), type species by subsequent designation by Bory de Saint-Vincent (1827, p. 305) Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 244). Further comment 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; 45: 52-54, 145-153, 216) P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Goujet, J.P. Hugot, J. Pierre & S. Tillier Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 75005 Paris, France The recently published Contributions to the History of Herpetology (Adler, 1989) contains an Index of Authors in Taxonomic Herpetology compiled by John S. Applegarth. We quote the following paragraph from the introduction to this Index: ‘Note. — It is the personal opinion of the compiler that the methods and recent writings of Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington are inconsistent with acceptable practices of taxonomy, and that such writings should be rejected by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore Mr Wells and Mr Wellington are not included in this compilation. For further opinions on this matter see Herpetological Review, 16: 4-7 and 69, and Australian Entomological Society News Bulletin, 21: 66-69.’ We are outraged by this attitude, which is best compared with the Stalinist falsifi- cation of history. Such statements demonstrate that the ‘anti- Wells & Wellington’ | group of persons will not be satisfied with a rejection by the Commission of their works: | their names should also disappear from the History of Herpetology. In the next step 140 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 will we be told that Wells and Wellington have simply never existed? Or perhaps they should be physically eliminated using an ice-pick? We therefore urge the Commission to reject the application to suppress the works by Wells & Wellington for the very reasons that some of us have expressed earlier (BZN 45: 146-149; The Australian Herpetologist, 528: \—5). Reference Adler, K. 1989. Contributions to the History of Herpetology. Contributions to Herpetology, 5: 1-202. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 141 OPINION 1587 Orbitolina d@’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 prior to that of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 by Davies (1939) are hereby set aside. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in | Zoology: (a) Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Davies (1939) Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as confirmed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Madreporites lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) concava Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Orbulites concava (specific name of the type species of Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850); (b) lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805, as published in the binomen Madreporites lenticularis (specific name of the type species of Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963). ‘History of Case 2663 An application for the confirmation of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type species of Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 was received from Prof R. Schroeder (Universitét Frankfurt, Frankfurt a. M., Fed. Rep. Germany) & Mr M. Simmons (BP Research Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, U.K.) on 4 May 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 254-257 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appro- priate journals. No comments were received. With reference to para. 3 (p. 254) of the application, it might be clearer to say that the expressions ‘specific type’ and ‘type’ of ‘Parker & Jones (1860, p. 35) mean simply ‘species’, rather than ‘typical form of a species’; as stated in the application Parker & Jones did not designate a type species for Orbitolina. | Decision of the Commission | On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 256. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: | Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. | No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov. | | 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2, p. 197. lenticularis, Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1805, Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstande, Heft 8, no. 80. Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850, Prodrome de Paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques & rayonnés faisant suite au cours élémentaire de Paléontologie et de Géologie stratigraphiques, vol. 2, p. 143. Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963, Neues Jahrbuch fir Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen, 117: 348. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 143 OPINION 1588 Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): holotype replaced by a lectotype Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the holotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 is hereby set aside. (2) The specimen illustrated in Fig. 1 of Goodman (1987) is hereby designated as the lectotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei, with the type locality ‘near Kampala, Uganda’ and the host ‘Pelusios sp.’. (3) The name beadlei Goodman, 1987, as published in the binomen Hapalorhynchus beadlei and as defined by the lectotype designated in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2653 An application for the replacement of the holotype by a lectotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 was received from Dr T.R. Platt (Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A.) on 6 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 258-259 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting papers that the application had the support of Dr J.D. Goodman, the author of H. beadlei. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 258-259. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, UVéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Kraus and Mahnert. No votes were received from Starobogatov and Trjapitzin. Kraus considered that the taxonomic status of Hapalorhynchus beadlei was at present too confused to warrant action by the Commission. Two members of the Commission suggested that the proposed type specimen could be a neotype but not a lectotype, since a holotype had been designated previously. This is not the case, how- ever, since the Commission has, using its plenary powers, set aside the previous holotype (which differed from the published description and figure of H. beadlei). Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987, Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 106: 80. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1589 Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Phyllodoce breviremis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888, as published in the combination Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Phyllodoce breviremis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2633 An application for the conservation of Phyllodoce (Carobia) breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865 (a marine paddle worm) was received from Dr F. Pleijel (University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden) on 30 December 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 260—261 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 260. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 9: Bayer, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, ‘Mroczkowski and Tryapitzin. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Bayer, Hahn, Mroczkowski and Nye would have preferred giving rubiginosa Saint- Joseph, 1888 precedence over breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865 to the suppression of the latter name. Heppell considered insufficient evidence had been presented (or probably existed) to depart from priority. Dupuis drew attention to the existence of a type specimen for breviremis but not for rubiginosa. 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: breviremis, Phyllodoce, de Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Annelés Marins et d'Eau Douce, vol. 2, p. 132. rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia), Saint-Joseph, 1888, Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie ), (7)5: 282. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 145 OPINION 1590 Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) itis hereby ruled 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) the specific name melanotica Wolfenden, 1905, as published in the binomen Gaussia melanotica, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (c) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 are hereby set aside and Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 is designated as type species. (2) The name Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (gender: feminine), type species designated in (1)(c) above Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the binomen Pleuromma princeps (specific name of the type species of Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (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 ruling in (1)(a) above. History of Case 2622 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 was received from Dr K. Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on | September 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 188-190 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 189, with an additional proposal on the voting paper to set aside all previous fixations of type species for Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 and to designate Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1897 as the type. It was emphasised that this involved no change in the effect of the proposals as published, but would achieve a more clearly worded ruling. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson (in part), Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Cogger, Dupuis and Holthuis. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Holthuis did not see that use of the name scotti Giesbrecht, 1897 for Scott’s species would cause any confusion. Thompson supported the conservation of the name princeps Scott, 1894, but said that the suppression of melanotica Wolfenden, 1905 was not needed. 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: Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905, Plankton Studies, part 1, p. 5. melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905, Plankton Studies, part 1, p. 5. princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoological Series, 6: 42. scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 20: 254. _ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 147 OPINION 1591 Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) It is hereby confirmed that the type species of the nominal genus Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 is Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956. (2) The name Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (gender: feminine), type species as confirmed in (1) above Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956, as published in the binomen Troglocarcinus heimi (specific name of the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2636 An application for the confirmation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 as the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 was received from Dr R.K. Kropp (Ocean Sciences-Ventura Operations, Ventura, California, U.S.A.) on 12 January 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 262-263 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting paper that the species heimi Fize & Seréne is described on p. 378. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 262. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Bayer 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: Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980, Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, (A)6: 137. heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Seréne, 1956, Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 80(5,6): 378. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1592 Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Ruling _(1) Under the plenary powers the name Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bodotria arenosa Goodsir, 1843, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name arenosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Bodotria arenosa (specific name of the type species of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901 (type genus Bodotria Goodsir, 1843) 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) Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatural purposes). History of Case 2645 An application for the conservation of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 was received from Drs M. Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Bucuresti, Romania) & L:B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 22 February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 264-266 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Dr Holthuis (in litt. to the Commission Secretariat, 17 April 1988) stated that the last use of the name Cuma for any species of Bodotria was in 1903, and that for the first four species (of the 32 known) which are listed in the Bodotria section of Crustaceorum Catalogus (1988) there are 23 authors with 37 papers within the last 50 years. Additional reference Bacescu, M. 1988. Genus Bodotria. Pp. 34-49 in Gruner, H.E. & Holthuis, L.B. (Eds.), Crustaceorum Catalogus. Part 7. Cumacea 1 (Families Archaeocumatidae, Lampropidae, Bodotriidae, Leuconidae). 173 pp. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 265. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 149 Negative votes — 4: Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Savage and Tryjapitzin. No vote was received from 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: arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 128. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 128. BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901, Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 19: 273. Cuma Humphrey, 1797, Museum Calonnianum, p. 35. Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris (1)13: 287. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1593 Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815; (b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854; (c) any use of the name Iphinoe prior to Iphinoe Bate, 1856. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (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) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) quinquemaculata Dufour, 1820, as published in the binomen Uroctea quinque- maculata (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). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1845, 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). History of Case 2643 An application for the conservation of Iphinoe Bate, 1856 was received from Drs M. Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Bucuresti, Romania) & L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 22 February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 267-269 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from two mollusc specialists, Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden) and Richard S. Houbrick (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.), were published in BZN 46: 190-191 (September 1989). Dr Warén pointed out that the replacement name Neoiphinoe Habe, 1978 is available for Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 (even though proposed because of a mistaken priority assumption; cf. para. 6 of the application). Norman’s (1869) first reviser action (para. 3 of the application) gave Bate’s Iphinoe precedence over Cyrianassa Bate, 1856; the former name is thus Homer valid as its senior homonyms have been suppressed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 151 Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 268-269. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Mroczkowski. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Lehtinen and Mroczkowski did not consider the suppression of the name Jphinoe H. & A. Adams to be justified. 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: Halia Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 458. Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 107. Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854, The genera of recent Mollusca arranged according to their organization, vol. 1, p. 280. Iphinoe Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)18: 187. quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820, Annales générales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 5: 200. trispinosa, Cuma, Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 126. Uroctea Dufour, 1820, Annales générales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 5: 198. Venilia Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 460. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1594 Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, and any use of that name prior to Leucon Kroyer, 1846, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Sars (1879) Cuma nasica Kre@yer, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name nasica Kre@yer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma nasica (specific name of the type species of Leucon Kreyer, 1846), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (type genus Leucon Kroyer, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2644 An application for the conservation of Leucon Kroyer, 1846 was received from Drs M. Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Bucuresti, Romania) & L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 22 February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 270-271 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting paper that Leucon Schoenherr is wrongly described in the Abstract of the application as a ‘synonym’ of Leucon Kroyer; this should have read ‘homonym’. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 271. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from 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: Leucon Kroyer, 1846, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, n. ser., 2: 208. Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 2, part 1, p. 285. LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878, Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab, 3: 466. nasica, Cuma, Kreyer, 1841, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (1)3: 524. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 153 OPINION 1595 Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewiti Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 are hereby set aside and Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894 is designated as type species. (2) The name Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name Joewii Klapalak, 1894, as published in the binomen Aleuropteryx loewii(mandatory correction of Léwii; specific name of the type species of Aleuropteryx Low, 1885), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905, type genus Aleuropteryx Low, 1885, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2651 An application for the designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894 as the type species of Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 was received from Drs J.D. Oswald (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) & M. Meinander (Helsingfors Universitet, Helsingfors, Finland) on 14 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 272-274 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 273. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Kabata, Starobogatov 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: ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 29: 225. Aleuropteryx Low, 1885, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Abt. 1), 91: 79. loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalak, 1894, Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 30: 122. 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1596 Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera) Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers 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) are hereby set aside. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Van der Weele (1910) Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758, as conserved in (1) above; (b) Sialis Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Hemerobius lutarius Linnaeus, 1758. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (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). History of Case 2655 An application for the conservation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802, was received from Dr J.D. Oswald (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) on 19 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 275-277 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members ‘of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 276. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Bayer 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: lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 550. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 155 phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 547. Semblis Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae..., p. 305. Sialis Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 3, p. 290. The following is the reference for the designation of Phryganea phalaenoides as the type species of Semblis: Van der Weele, H.W. 1910. Megaloptera. Collection Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys Longchamps. Catalogue Systématique et Descriptif, fasc. 5, p. 55. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1597 Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic and specific names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the names Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 and robynsii Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus robynsii, are hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name angusticolle Stephens, 1834, as published in the binomen Coryphium angusticolle (specific name of the type species of Coryphium Stephens, 1834), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834, an incorrect spelling of Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833. (5) The name robynsii Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus robynsii and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2627 An application for the conservation of both the generic and specific names Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 was received from Dr L. Zerche (Unstitut fir Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmachnow der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissen- schaften der DDR, Eberswalde-Finow, DDR) on 2 October 1987 and published in BZN 45: 197-198 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr M.K. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, U.S.A:) was published in BZN 46: 44 (March 1989). Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 197-198. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, payee Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Martins de Souza abstained because of a reference indicating that Coryphium Stephens might have been published in 1832, which would have made the application redundant. The date 1834 is however correct. enous . { Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 157 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: angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834, Illustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 5, p. 344. Coryphium Stephens, 1834, [//ustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 5, p. 344. Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834, L’Institut (Journal général des Sociétés et Travaux scientifiques de la France et de l’Etranger ), 2(42): 76. Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, Recueil Encyclopédique Belge, p. 121. robynsii, Harpognatus, Wesmael, 1833, Recueil Encyclopédique Belge, p. 121. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1598 Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 designated as the respective type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Ophonus Dejean, 1821 are hereby set aside and Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 is designated as type species; (b) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Tachys Dejean, 1821 are hereby set aside and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 is designated as type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796; (b) Tachys Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828. (3) The following names are hereby placed 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). History of Case 2585 An application for the designation of Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 as the respective type species of Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 was received from Dr H. Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) on 7 November 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 278-279 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 278-279. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 159 Lehtinen commented that the application did not give any reason for the retention of Tachys Dejean, 1821, and accordingly he voted against the proposals relating to that nominal genus [however, reference was made in the application to a relevant paper by Erwin (1974)]. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ophonus Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 13. sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796, Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia, part 30, p. 4. scutellaris, Tachys, Stephens, 1828, I/lustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 2, p. 5. Tachys Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 16. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1599 Papilio carthami Hibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names carthami and major conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published in the trinomen Papilio malvae maior, and all uses of the name maior Fabricius, 1793, 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 Specific Names in Zoology: (a) carthami Hubner, [1813], as published in the binomen Papilio carthami; (b) major Staudinger, 1879, as published in the trinomen Syrichthus serratulae major. (3) The name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published in the trinomen Papilio malvae maior and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2623 An application for the conservation of the specific names of the Skipper butterflies Papilio carthami Hubner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major Staudinger, 1879 was received from Dr R. de Jong (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 7 September 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 280-282 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 281. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. No votes were received from Kabata and Starobogatov. Dupuis abstained. Thompson considered insufficient evidence had been provided to justify the suppression of the name maior Fabricius, 1787. 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: carthami, Papilio, Hubner, [1813], Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1, pl. 143. maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2, p. 91. major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 14: 292. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 161 OPINION 1600 Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, Diptera): neotype designation confirmed Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Tachina orbata, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen designated as neotype by Crosskey (1967). (2) The name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Tachina orbata and as defined by the neotype designated by Crosskey (1967), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2632 An application for the confirmation of the designation of a neotype for Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 was received from Drs R.W. Crosskey (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) & H. Shima (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) on 23 December 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 199-201 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 201. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Macpherson. No votes were received from Starobogatov or Trjapitzin. Savage abstained, as he did not consider any action necessary because the neotype designation had not been formally challenged. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830, Aussereuropdische zweifligelige Insekten, 2: 336. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1601 Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826): suppressed for nomenclatural purposes Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following work is hereby suppressed for nomenclatural purposes: 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. (2) The above work, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. History of Case 2654 An application for the suppression of the Rapport... was received from Dr C.W. Sabrosky (USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC, U.S.A.) on 11 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 283-287 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received, but the application was supported by a number of entomologists (see BZN 45: 287, para. 10). Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 287. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Dupuis commented that he had in 1963 published doubt concerning the valid publication of the Rapport. Original reference The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, 1826, Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, Rapporteur), 24 pp., Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 163 OPINION 1602 Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as published in the binomen Tenthredo bicinctaflava, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name zonula Klug, 1817, as published in the binomen Tenthredo zonula, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as published in the binomen Tenthredo bicinctaflava and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2628 An application for the conservation of the specific name Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817, was received from Dr A. Taeger (nstitut fiir Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmach- now der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Eberswalde-Finow, DDR) on 2 October 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 202-203 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. With reference to paras. | and 2 of the application it should be noted that both bicinctafiava Christ, 1791 and zonula Klug, 1817 are based in part on ‘La mouche-a-scie 4 deux bandes jaunes’ of Geoffroy (p. 275 in Histoire abregée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol.2, 690 pp., pls. 11-22. Durand, Paris.). Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 203. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Starobogatov or Trjapitzin. Original reference 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: bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791, Naturgeschichte, Klassification und Nomenclatur der Insekten vom Bienen, Wespen und Ameisengeschlecht, p. 442. zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817, Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Magazin fiir die neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesammten Naturkunde, Berlin, 8(1814): 137. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1603 Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 is deemed to be the name of a then new nominal genus, and not a replacement name for Stylephorus Shaw, 1791. (2) Under the plenary powers all previous type fixations for Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 are hereby set aside and Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (2) above Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 (a junior subjective synonym of Ophiognathus ampullaceus Harwood, 1827); (b) Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Stylephorus chordatus Shaw, 1791. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ampullaceus Harwood, 1827, as published in the binomen Ophiognathus ampullaceus (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829, 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) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (type genus Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824); (b) STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Stylephorus Shaw, 1791). History of Case 2625 An application for the conservation of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 was received from Drs W.N. Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) & C.R. Robins (University of Miami, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) on 14 September 1987 and published in BZN 45: 204-206 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 was, strictly speaking, originally a replacement name for Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (cf. para. 2 of the application), although treated by all subsequent workers as a new nominal genus. The name chordatus cannot be used for Mitchill’s Saccopharynx species under Article 49 of the Code and it never has been so used. Cuvier (1829, p. 355; para. 4 of the application) described the genus jointly under the two names Saccopharynx Mitchill and Ophiognathus Harwood. He referred to “Le Saccopharynx flagellum de Mitchill’ (sic), without mentioning chordatus for which (in its Saccopharynx sense) flagellum was evidently a replacement name. Of the species Ophiognathus ampullaceus Harwood, 1827 Cuvier wrote that while it might not be identical to flagellum it ‘manifestement’ belonged to the same genus. It is clear | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 165 that Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 is the appropriate nominal type species. Subsequent workers have synonymised flagellum and ampullaceus and the latter name is treated as valid. As first submitted the application by Drs Eschmeyer & Robins did not include the suppression of ampullaceus, and proposals (1) and (6) on BZN 45: 205 were withdrawn. Proposal (2) was also amended, and the proposals were given in their amended form on the voting papers. The amended proposals achieve the stabilisation of existing usage and the purpose of the published application. Decision of the Commission On | December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 205, amended as noted above. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990 the votes were as foilows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Martins de Souza abstained. Lehtinen considered that the name Ophiognathus Harwood, 1827 should be used instead of Saccopharynx, since the latter was published as a replacement name for Stylephorus Shaw, 1791. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ampullaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1827: 51. chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1: 90. SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo Neerlandicae, 6: xxxiii. Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824, Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1(1): 86. STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839, On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and reptiles or monocardian animals, vol. 2, p. 47. Stylephorus Shaw, 1791, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1: 90. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1604 ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Epicrium Wagler, 1828 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Caecilia glutinosa (specific name of the type species of Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (type genus Jchthyophis Fitzinger, 1826) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Epicrium Wagler, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (6) The name EPICRIDAE (published as ‘Epicria’) Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus Epicrium Wagler, 1828) (invalid because the name of the type genus is suppressed in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2616 An application for the conservation of ICHTHYOPHUDAE Taylor, 1968 was received from Drs M. Wilkinson & R.A. Nussbaum (University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) on 6 July 1987 and published in BZN 45: 207-209 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr H.M. Smith (University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 46: 134 (June 1989). It should be noted that Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758 appears on p. 229 of Systema Naturae (Ed. 10, vol. 1), not p. 299 as stated in para. 1 of the application. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 208. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Lehtinen and Schuster commented that the suppression of Epicrium Wagler, 1828 would avoid familial homonymy between caecilians and mesostigmatid mites. In the latter group EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 is a well established family, based on Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877. Thompson considered that there was no reason given to : e * ) > \ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 167 suppress Epicrium, and that it would have been possible to give ICHTHYOPHIIDAE precedence over EPICRIIDAE. [Note by P.K. Tubbs. The status of family-group names derived from suppressed names of type genera requires further consideration by the Commission. In the present case Epicrium Wagler, 1828 has been suppressed ‘but not for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy’, and its derived family name EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 can no longer threaten junior synonyms such as ICHTHYOPHIDAE Taylor, 1968. In order to protect the junior homonym EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 mentioned by Drs Lehtinen and Schuster it is necessary that EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger be not just nomenclaturally invalid but that it be unavailable, i.e. that it ceases to have any status in nomenclature. Auto- matic suppression of family name availability would be desirable in this case, and probably should apply to most if not all cases where the name of a type genus is, or has been, suppressed by the Commission using its plenary powers. Pending consideration of this, EPICRIDAE Berlese, 1885 is conserved under Article 80 of the Code (maintenance of existing usage)]. 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: EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium... fasciculus primus: Amblyglossae (Conspectus geographicus ), p. 34. Epicrium Wagler, 1828, Isis, von Oken, 21(7): col. 742. glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 229. ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968, The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review, p. 46. Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natiirlichen verwandt- schaften nebst einer Verwandtschaftstafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptiliensammlung des KK. zoologischen Museums zu Wien, p. 36. . 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 OPINION 1605 Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name pennatribus Cope, 1869 (May), as published in the binomen Thorius pennatribus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Thorius Cope, 1869 (May) (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Thorius pennatribus Cope, 1869 (May) (= pennatulus Cope, 1869 (June)), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name pennatulus Cope, 1869 (June), as published in the binomen Thorius pennatulus (specific name of the type species of Thorius Cope, 1869 by virtue of the ruling in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name pennatribus Cope, 1869, as published in the binomen Thorius pennatribus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2650 An application for the conservation of Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 was received from Drs H.M. Smith, J. Hanken & D. Chiszar (University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) on 14 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 210-211 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 211. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Nye would have preferred to treat pennatribus as an incorrect original spelling. Thompson considered insufficient evidence had been provided to determine whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 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: pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (May), American Naturalist, 3(4): 222. pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (June), Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 21: 111. Thorius Cope, 1869 (May), American Naturalist, 3(4): 222. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 169 OPINION 1606 Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADISAEIDAE): conserved as the correct spelling of the generic and specific names Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the spelling of both the generic and specific names Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 are hereby ruled to be correct, despite their publication in the spelling Semeioptera Wallacei. (2) The name Semioptera Gray, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859, spelling conserved in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name wallacii Gray, 1859, as published in the combination Paradisaea (Semeioptera) Wallacei (specific name of the type species of Semioptera Gray, 1859, spelling conserved in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Semeioptera Gray, 1859 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Semioptera Gray, 1859). (5) The name wallacei Gray, 1859, as published in the combination Paradisaea (Semeioptera) Wallacei, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of wallacii Gray, 1859). History of Case 2441 An application for the conservation of the spelling of Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Wallace’s Standard Wing Bird of Paradise) was received from Ms M. LeCroy (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 3 May 1983 and pub- lished in BZN 45: 212—213 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment from Jifi Mlikovsky (Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Praha), together with a reply by the author of the application and Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.), was published in BZN 46: 49-50 (March 1989). The original report in The Literary Gazette (March 1859) has been examined (cf. para. 2 of the application). The spelling Semeioptera Wallacei appeared (p. 406) in a Zoological Society meeting report which stated ‘... Mr G.R. Gray proposed the subgeneric name Semeioptera, and he further added the provisional specific name of Wallacei, in commemoration of the indefatigable energy [of] Mr Wallace...’. The report included a description of the bird, used by Gray in proposing the names. Authorship of these names is thus to be attributed to Gray. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 212-213. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 Minelli, Mroczkowski (in part), Nielsen, Nye (in part), Ride, Savage, Schuster (in part), Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Lehtinen. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Nye and Schuster accepted the spelling Semioptera, but considered that wallacei should be retained as being correct for reasons of both priority and derivation. Holthuis commented that the names Semeioptera and wallacei could have been suppressed. Ride said the Commission should have been asked to choose between suppression and the course put forward on the voting papers, namely to rule that the Literary Gazette names were incorrect original spellings. Thompson said that the Commission could have ruled that The Literary Gazette was not a publication in the sense of the Code. 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: Semeioptera Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (an incorrect original spelling of Semioptera). Semioptera Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (incorrectly spelled as Semeioptera). wallacei, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (an incorrect original spelling of wallacii). wallacii, Paradisaea (Semioptera), Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (incorrectly spelled as wallacei). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 171 OPINION 1607 Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: (a) all uses of the specific name domesticus, published in combination with Mus Linnaeus, 1758, prior to its use by Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, are hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the specific name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the trinomen Mus musculus domesticus, is to be given precedence over all names, with the exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758, that are considered to be synonyms of it. (2) The name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the trinomen Mus musculus domesticus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over all names, with the exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758, that are considered to be synonyms of it. (3) The name domesticus Rutty, 1772, as published in the binomen Mus domesticus, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a nomen nudum). History of Case 2640 An application for the conservation of Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (the western European house mouse) was received from Dr G.B. Corbet (The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, U.K.) on 26 January 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 214-215 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 215. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Lehtinen, Nye and Savage. No vote was received from Starobogatov. Dupuis and Mroczkowski abstained. Voting against, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Nye considered that the name domesticus Rutty, 1772 should have been ruled to be available; voting for, Thompson was of the same view. Heppell said that the Commission could have ruled that Mus domesticus Rutty, 1772 was to be interpreted in the sense of Schwarz & Schwarz (1943). Dupuis and Mroczkowski abstained because they considered the case needed more infor- mation and discussion. Supporting the application, Ride drew attention to the import- ance of there being designated a lectotype (or neotype) of the nominal species Mus 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, preferably a specimen of known karyotype. Savage would have supported the application if such a type had been designated. 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: domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772, An essay towards a natural history of the county of Dublin..., vol. 1, p. 281. domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, Journal of Mammalogy, 24: 65. —— tL ee Contents—continued Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1587. Orbitolina dOrbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava lamarck; 18'16.confirmed as the type species ce Opinion 1588. Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): holotype replaced by a lectotype : Opinion 1589. Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint- Joseph, 1888 ‘(currently also Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved Opinion 1590. Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, Copepoda): specificnameconserved. . . . . Opinion 1591. Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 confirmed as the type species. mee Opinion 1592. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved . Opinion 1593. Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Opinion 1594. Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Saat Opinion 1595. Aleuropieryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewii ii Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species... Opinion 1596. Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phiyganeaphalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera) Opinion 1597. Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic and specific names conserved . . Opinion 1598. Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 designated as the respective type species : Opinion 1599. Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major Staudinger, 1879 (currently bothin Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names carthami and major conserved . . Opinion 1600. Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Per ibaca orbata: Insecta, Diptera): neotype designation confirmed . . Opinion 1601. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826): suppressed for nomenclatural purposes... Opinion 1602. Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, “Hymenoptera): specific name conserved. Opinion 1603. Saccopharynx ‘Mitchill, 1824. (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): conserved Opinion 1604. ICHTHYOPHIIDAE : Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved . Opinion 1605. Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name conserved . Opinion 1606. Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADISAEIDAL): conserved as the correct spelling of the generic and specific names . Opinion 1607. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz 1943 (Mammalia; Rodentia): specific name conserved INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS 141 143 Authors preparing papers for publication in the Bulletin should follow the instructions printed on the inside back cover of previous parts of the Bulletin. CONTENTS Notices . Call for nominations fort new v members of the International Commission on n Zoological Nomenclature . . : Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology- Supplement : The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature General Articles Bully for Brontosaurus. Stephen Jay Gould F Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability. Alwyne Wheeler eye SSO Cte oes oe Applications Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation. D. Kadolsky . RISSOOIDEA (Or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence Over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840. G. Rosenberg & G. M. Davis . Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anoioite anatina: Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed designation of a neotype. P. B. Mordan & F. R. Woodward . Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving Bollandia Reed, 1943. G. Hahn Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. L. Borowiec . Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): pro- posed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species. M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert & C. Ferraris Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the specificname. R.G. Webb . PPE Ce See Oy Comments On the adoption of ‘Protected Works’ for purposes of zoological nomenclature. D. Frost . On the proposed conservation of the generic name " Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta). R. T. Becker; A. Mackie & F. Pleijel; S. Chambers On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, oe over Rhechostica Simon, 1892. R. J. Raven On the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as s the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. see Koch, 1857 (Insecta, ame E.M.Danzig;P.K.Tubbs. . . On the valid name for the butterfly one as ‘Colias pearroe ss Ribbe, 1905" or ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ (Insecta, Lepidoptera). L. B. Holthuis; E. J. Reissinger & S. Wagener; O. Kudrna; W. G. Tremewan; P.K. Tubbs . : On the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera). F. C. Thompson; I. M. White. On the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. G. Gibson & J. Huber; G. bees D. Rosen; J. LaSalle . ar _ On the need for stability in fish family- -group n names. 'N. Merrett. i On the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving Anguilla. A. Wheeler; F. C. Thompson; R. A. Cooper : On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. Ww. Wells & C. R. Wellington. P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. ee JSP: Bee J. Pierre & S-Aullicr = i aoe sa obnes ae? E ‘ Continued on Inside Bac: Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Bulletin Bealocical 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 1990 is £65 or $125, postage included; the rates for 1991 will be £70 or $135. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) (Norway; Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) 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 1990 173 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 47, part 3 (pp. 173-240) 28 September 1990 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication, but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. (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 47, part 2 (published on 29 June 1990): (1) Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed confirmation of L. hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Marion, 1885 as the type species. (Case 2768). D. Heppell. (2) Laiocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. (Case 2769). D. Heppell. (3) Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771 (currently Hylobates lar; Mammalia, Primates) and Hylobates entelloides Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842: proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2770). P.D. Jenkins & C.P. Groves. (4) Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed conser- vation of the specific name. (Case 2771). H.A. Dundee. (5) Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct original spellings. (Case 2772). G.H. Nelson. (6) Schizopus LeConte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2773). G.H. Nelson. (7) Scatophaga Meigen, 1803 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. (Case 2774). G.A. Parker. (8) Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2776). A.N. Nilsson. (9) Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2777). A.N. Nilsson. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 (10) Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer de Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 (currently Paladin eichwaldi; Trilobita): proposed conservation of neotype designation. (Case 2778). G. Hahn. (11) Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2779). B. Aukema & M.L. Luff. (12) Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840 (currently Macropterygius trigonus; Reptilia, Ichthyopterygia): proposed replacement of neotype by rediscoverd holotype. (Case 2779). E.E. Spamer & H.S. Torrens. (13) Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas, 1781 as the type species. (Case 2780). L.V. Egorov. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular disciplines. For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will receive copies of all Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to either the Crustacea or Mollusca as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This service will start with the present volume, but offprints are available back to 1980. Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomen- clature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany orders. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895 up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and three works have been added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 175 additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- ture. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.). 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Case 2734 Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species Mark S. Harvey Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the nominal species Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species of the pseudoscorpion genus Thalasso- chernes Beier, 1940. In his definition of Thalassochernes, Beier had misidentified the species he was studying as Chelifer pallipes White, 1849. 1. The first pseudoscorpion to be described from New Zealand, Chelifer pallipes White, 1849 (p. 6), was only briefly characterised by White, based upon an unstated number of specimens from an unnamed locality. C.J. With (1905, p. 111) gave an amplified description, along with the first illustrations, of a specimen he regarded as the holotype in the British Museum (Natural History) collections, registration number BM 1845.93. s 2. Ellingsen (1910, p. 376) attributed three females from New Zealand (two from Stephen’s Island and one without precise locality) to Chelifer pallipes White, 1849. Apparently basing his redescription on Ellingsen’s material, Beier (1932, p. 111) transferred C. pallipes to Haplochernes Beier, 1932 (p. 108). 3. Beier (1940, p. 182) designated Chelifer pallipes as type species of his new genus Thalassochernes (p. 182) and attributed to this nominal species a further New Zealand specimen from Pitt Island. He subsequently identified further specimens from various localities in New Zealand as Thalassochernes pallipes (1948, p. 537; 1966, p. 369; 1967, p. 293). 4. In 1931, Chamberlin (p. 291) established the genus Philomaoria, with type species Philomaoria novazealandica (p. 291), based on a number of specimens from New Brighton, New Zealand. 5. In 1976, Beier (p. 241) transferred Chelifer pallipes (sensu With, 1905) to Philomaoria, declaring it to be a senior synonym of the type species Philomaoria novazealandica. 6. In 1976, Beier (p. 215) attributed the specimens that had been identified as pallipes by Ellingsen (1910) and by himself (Beier, 1932, 1940, 1948, 1966, 1967) to Thalasso- chernes taierensis, originally published as Chelifer taierensis by With (1907, p. 55). Beier wrote: ‘Ellingsen was responsible for the misinterpretation of Chelifer pallipes White, 1849, a species now placed in Philomaoria. Since 1932 I have consistently used the name pallipes for the present species’, i.e. Thalassochernes taierensis (With). 7. It is clear that Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 was based upon a misidentified type species and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70b to select a type species for Thalassochernes. The two options available have different ramifications: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Ley (1) to select the nominal species Chelifer pallipes, rendering Thalassochernes a junior subjective synonym of Philomaoria and leave Chelifer taierensis without a valid generic name; and (2) to select the species actually in front of Beier (1940) (1.e. Chelifer taierensis), leaving Thalassochernes as a valid genus within the CHERNETIDAE. The second option would accord with current usage (e.g. Beier, 1976) and be in the interests of stability. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to useits plenary powers to set aside all previous type species designations for the nominal genus Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 and to designate Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as type species of the genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Thalasso- chernes Beier, 1940 (gender: masculine), type species as designated in (1) above Chelifer taierensis With, 1907; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name faierensis With, 1907, as published in the binomen Chelifer taierensis (specific name of the type species of Thalassochernes Beier, 1940). References Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea II. Subord. Cheliferinea. Tierreich, 58: 1-294. Beier, M. 1940. Die Pseudoscorpionidenfauna der landfernen Inseln. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 74: 161-192. Beier, M. 1948. Uber Pseudoscorpione der Australischen Region. Eos, 24: 525-562. Beier, M. 1966. Zur Kenntnis der Pseudoscorpioniden-Fauna Neu-—Seelands. Pacific Insects, 8: 363-379. Beier, M. 1967. Contributions to the knowledge of the Pseudoscorpionidea from New Zealand. Records of the Dominion Museum, 5: 277-303. Beier, M. 1976. The pseudoscorpions of New Zealand, Norfolk, and Lord Howe. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 3: 199-246. Chamberlin, J.C. 1931. A synoptic revision of the generic classification of the chelonethid family Cheliferidae Simon. (Arachnida). Canadian Entomologist, 63: 289-294. Ellingsen, E. 1910. Die Pseudoskorpione des Berliner Museums. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoolog- ischen Museum in Berlin, 4: 357-423. White, A. 1849. Descriptions of apparently new species of Aptera from New Zealand. Proceed- ings of the Zoological Society of London, 17: 3-6. With, C.J. 1905. On Chelonethi, chiefly from the Australian region, in the collection of the British Museum, with observations on the ‘coxal sac’ and on some cases of abnormal segmentation. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)15: 94-143, 328. With, C.J. 1907. On some new species of the Cheliferidae, Hans., and Garypidae, Hans., in the British Museum. Journal of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 30: 49-85. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Case 2728 Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name Denton Belk Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, Texas 78285, U.S.A. Sarane T. Bowen Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, California 94132, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of a broadly distributed North American species of brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906. The name is threatened by four senior subjective synonyms. 1. Thompson (1834, p. 107) described the new genus and species Artemis guildingi on the basis of a single female specimen sent to him by the Reverend L. Guilding. The name Artemis is a junior homonym of Artemis Kirby & Spence, 1828 (Lepidoptera), and was presumably an unjustified emendation of Artemia Leach, 1819, since Thompson refers to ‘Artemis salinus [sic], or Brine Shrimp’ (cf. BZN 37: 224). Thompson’s descrip- tion consists of the comments ‘one female probable of this Genus’ and ‘biarticulate oviferous sac’ along with two drawings, and he gave the locality as the West Indies. The current location of this specimen is unknown. Thompson’s proposed name is included in published listings of the species of Artemia but has not otherwise been used. Daday (1910, p. 117) placed it in the synonymy of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 634, from ‘Anglia’). The inadequacy of Thompson’s description makes it impossible to identify his specimen even as to genus. This name is clearly a nomen dubium. 2. Verrill (1869a, p. 248) described Artemia gracilis on the basis of specimens col- lected from large wooden tubs on a railroad bridge across an extensive salt marsh near New Haven, Connecticut. The water, which was much concentrated by evaporation, came from pools in the marsh. A search of the pools from which the water had been collected failed to produce any Artemia (Verrill, 1869a, p. 234). Verrill’s type material is in the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Connecticut (YPM No. 396, 397). Packard (1883, p. 330) discussed four nominal species from the United States (Artemia gracilis Verrill, 1869a; A. monica Verrill, 1869a; A. fertilis Verrill, 1869b; and A. utahensis Lockington, 1876) and the European A. salina (Linnaeus, 1758), and enumerated what he considered species-specific morphological differences between the American species and the European Artemia salina. Regarding Verrill’s species he stated ‘... Ido not regard the difference he [ Verrill] points out as more than individual’, and placed Verrill’s three species (together with utahensis with no explanation — one can only guess that he was influenced by the fact that both fertilis and utahensis were ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 179 names for Artemia from the same lake; cf. para. 7) under the first cited available name, gracilis. Daday (1910, p. 117), influenced by work demonstrating that the morphology of Eurasian Artemia undergoes what at that time were considered taxonomically important changes when cultured at different salinities, synonymized the four nominal species from the United States under Artemia salina. Jensen (1918) and Relyea (1937), apparently unaware of Daday’s synonymy since they did not cite his work, followed Packard in referring Artemia from Great Salt Lake, Utah, to A. gracilis. Bond (1933) found no relationship between salinity and morphology for Artemia from Monterey Bay, California, and thus chose not to follow Daday’s synonymy. 3. Kellogg (1906, p. 596), stating there were three species of Artemia recognized in America (gracilis, fertilis and monica), described a new species, Artemia franciscana, from a salt works at Redwood City on the west shore of San Francisco Bay, California. Noting the closeness of the habitats, Bond (1933) tentatively referred the Monterey Bay Artemia to A. franciscana but did not refer to gracilis at all. The Monterey Bay popu- lation had previously been referred to A. franciscana by Martin & Wilber (1921) and to A. salina by Heath (1924). Keunen (1939) demonstrated reproductive isolation between Artemia from salt works near Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, and at Monterey Bay. On the basis of these findings and others he reviewed, Keunen concluded that the American Artemia was specifically distinct from the European Artemia. He reviewed the nomenclatural history of the genus Artemia and on the basis of priority used A. gracilis Verrill, 1869 for the American species. He considered the clearly separate European species to be Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). However, most other authors were unaware of or ignored Keunen’s work and in general followed Daday (1910) in using the name 4. salina for all populations of the genus Artemia. Undoubtedly the widely used keys of Pennak (1952, 1978) and Dexter (1959) were largely responsible for the continued use in North America of the binomen Artemia salina. Belk (1975), unaware of Keunen’s work, followed the pattern set by Pennak and Dexter in publishing a key to the Anostraca of North America. 4. During the 1960’s and 70’s, Artemia came to be recognized as a complex of sibling species. Bowen et al. (1978), in a paper that cites the key works in the development of the concept of Artemia as such a complex, classified two identifiable North American sibling species as A. monica Verrill, 1869 and A. franciscana Kellogg, 1906. The Great Salt Lake population, and also populations in the West Indies (cf. para. 1), were included in franciscana. Artemia monica is a clearly defined taxon endemic to only one unique salt lake and represents no nomenclatural problem. Since the publication of Bowen et al. (1978), A. franciscana has been generally and widely accepted as the name of the broadly distributed North American species of Artemia as illustrated in these ten papers, many of which are major reviews: Abreu-Grobois (1987), Bowen & Sterling (1978), Bowen et al. (1980), Browne & Bowen (in press), Eng et al. (1990), Hedgecock et al. (1982), Lenz (1987), Mura et al. (1989), Spotte & Anderson (1988) and Vanhaecke et al. (1987). A list of 17 other references demonstrating this general acceptance of franciscana is held in the office of the Secretariat. Correspondence in the Artemia Newsletter also evidences acceptance (Abreu-Grobois, 1989; Yaneng, 1989). Artemia workers find, as did Packard (1883, p. 330), that there are no morphological characters useful in separating Verrill’s eastern United States gracilis from the western sibling species. The only examples of gracilis available for study are museum specimens. Natural habitats of gracilis are unknown. The Connecticut wooden tub type locality 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 ceased to exist long ago, and there are no reports during this century of Artemia from states east of the Mississippi River. In the only early records, Verrill (1869b, p. 430) notes an observation of Artemia by Agassiz in salines on Cape Cod and another by G.H. Perkins in tubs on a railroad bridge near Boston, Massachusetts. Without live material, gracilis cannot be studied using the methods that lead to recognition of franciscana and monica, nor can it be compared with them. Thus the relationship of gracilis to the other sibling species remains unknown, and is at this time unresolvable. This lack of access to living gracilis left Bowen et al. (1978) with only one name that could be clearly and unequivocally assigned to the populations they studied — Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906. 5. When Bowen et al. (1978) chose to apply the binomen A. franciscana Kellogg, 1906 not only to Californian material but also to the Great Salt Lake population of Artemia, the then current 1964 edition of the Code indicated in Article 23b that the name fertilis Verrill, 1869, unused since 1883, could be rejected as a nomen oblitum; the authors were unaware that this Article had been revoked from January 1973. 6. Amat Domenech (1980) demonstrated morphological differences between Artemia from Europe and California. He identified the European species as Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). He referred the American species to A. gracilis Verrill, 1869. However, his use of gracilis has not been followed by subsequent authors for reasons discussed in para. 4. 7. Packard (1883, p. 330) included in his synonymy under A. gracilis the name A. utahensis Lockington, 1876. The Lockington reference Packard cites is a report of a paper that Lockington read before the San Francisco Microscopical Society. The report (p. 137) was most likely written by Henry Lawson, editor of the journal the report appears in. It is probable that Lockington, after giving his paper, learned that Verrill (1869b) had already named the Great Salt Lake Artemia as fertilis, and so never published in full the description discussed at the San Francisco meeting. 8. Although we are advocates of the Principle of Priority, it is our opinion that stability will best be served in this instance by suppression of the names guildingi, fertilis and utahensis which have not been used as senior synonyms since their original publi- cation. The first of these, guildingi, is based on an inadequate description of a single female, now lost. The other two, fertilis and utahensis, were both described from the Great Salt Lake population which has been extensively studied and shown to be con- specific with A. franciscana on the basis of cross-fertility and similarity of isozyme patterns (Bowen, 1964; Clark & Bowen, 1967; Bowen & Sterling, 1978). Both names have remained unused since Packard (1883, p. 330) listed them as junior synonyms of A. gracilis. No author has even considered them enough to list them formally as synonyms of franciscana. There is currently a rapidly growing literature dealing with A. franciscana (cf. para. 4). The relationship of gracilis to franciscana is doubtful, as explained in para. 4. If at some future time this situation should change and the two names should be considered synonyms, assigning priority to gracilis would cause serious confusion because of the very extensive use of A. franciscana in a wide range of studies (see para. 4). 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: | | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 181 (i) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis guildingi; (ii) _fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis; (iii) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia utahensis; (b) to give precedence to the specific name franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as pub- lished in the binomen Artemia franciscana, over gracilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over gracilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) gracilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over franciscana Kellogg, 1906 as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis guildingi and as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above; (b) fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis and as suppressed in (1)(a)(il) above; (c) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia utahensis and as suppressed in (1)(a)(iil) above; Acknowledgement Our sincere thanks to Ruth A. Cooper for help and advice. References Abreu-Grobois, F.A. 1987. A review of the genetics of Artemia. Pp. 61-99 In Sorgeloos, P., Bengtson, D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia: Research and its applications, vol. 1. 359 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. Abreu-Grobois, F.A. 1989. Observations and questions with regard to Artemiataxonomy. Artemia Newsletter, 12(April): 5-8. Amat Domenech, F. 1980. Differentiationin Artemiastrains from Spain. Pp. 19-39 in Persoone, G., Sorgeloos, P., Roels, O. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), The brine shrimp Artemia, vol. 1. Morphology, genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. 318 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. Baird, W. 1852. Monograph of the family Branchiopodidae, a family of crustaceans belonging to the division Entomostraca, with a description of a new genus and species of the family, and two new species belonging to the family Limnadidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1852: 18-37. Belk, D. 1975. Key to the Anostraca (Fairy Shrimps) of North America. The Southwestern Naturalist, 20: 91-103. Bond, R.M. 1933. Observations on Artemia ‘franciscana’ Kellogg, especially on the relation of environment to morphology. /nternationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 28: 117-125. Bowen, S.T. 1964. The genetics of Artemia salina. Part 4. Hybridization of wild populations with mutant stocks. Biological Bulletin, 126: 333-344. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Bowen, S.T., Durkin, J.P., Sterling, G. & Clark, L.S. 1978. Artemia hemoglobins: Genetic variation in parthenogenetic and zygogenetic populations. Biological Bulletin, 155: 273-287. Bowen, S.T. & Sterling, G. 1978. Esterase and malate dehydrogenase isoenzyme polymorphisms in 15 Artemia populations. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 61B: 593-595. Bowen, S.T., Davis, M.L., Fenster, S.R. & Lindwall, G.A. 1980. Sibling species of Artemia. Pp. 155-167 In Persoone, G., Sorgeloos, P., Roels, O. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), The brine shrimp Artemia, vol. 1. Morphology, genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. 318 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. Browne, R.A. & Bowen, S.T. In press. Taxonomy and population genetics of Artemia. In Biology of Artemia. CRC Press. Clark, L. & Bowen, S.T. 1976. The genetics of Artemia salina. Part 7 (reproductive isolation). Journal of Heredity, 67: 385-388. Daday, E. 1910. Monographie systematique des Phyllopodes Anostracés. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (9)11: 111-489. Dexter, R.W. 1959. Anostraca. Pp. 558-571 In Edmondson, W.T. (Ed.) Fresh-water biology, Ed. 2. 1248 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York. Eng, L.L., Belk, D. & Eriksen, C.H. 1990. California Anostraca: distribution, habitat, and status. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 10(2): 247-277. Heath, H. 1924. The external development of certain phyllopods. Journal of Morphology, 38: 453-463. Hedgecock, D., Tracey, M.L. & Nelson, K. 1982. Genetics. Pp. 283-403 Jn Bliss, D.E. (Ed.-in- chief). The Biology of Crustacea, vol. 2, Abele, L.G. (Ed.), Embryology, morphology and genetics. 440 pp. Academic Press, New York. Jensen, A.C. 1918. Some observations on Artemia gracilis, the brine shrimp of Great Salt Lake. Biological Bulletin, 34: 18-33. Kellogg, V.L. 1906. A new Artemia and its life conditions. Science, (n.s.)24: 594-596. Kuenen, D.J. 1939. Systematical and physiological notes on the brine shrimp Artemia. Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie, 3: 365-449. Lenz, P.H. 1987. Ecological studies on Artemia: a review. Pp. 5-17 Jn Sorgeloos, P., Bengtson, D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia: Research and its applications, vol. 3. 535 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. Lockington, W. 1876. [A new Phyllopodous Crustacean], in [Lawson, H.] (Ed.), The Monthly Microscopical Journal: Transactions of the Royal Microscopical Society, and Record of Histological Research at Home and Abroad, 15: 137. Martin, E.G. & Wilbur, B.C. 1921. Salt antagonism in Artemia. American Journal of Physiology, 55: 290-291. Mura, G., Del Caldo, L. & Fanfani, A. 1989. Sibling species of Artemia: a light and electron microscopic survey of the morphology of the frontal knobs. Part 1. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 9: 414-419. Packard, A.S. Jr. 1883. A monograph of the phyllopod Crustacea of North America with remarks on the order Phyllocarida. Twelfth Annual Report of the U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories: A Report of Progress of the Exploration in Wyoming and Idaho for the Year 1878. (F.V. Haydn, U.S. geologist). Part 1, section 2, pp. 295-592, 39 pls. Pennak, R.W. 1952. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Wiley & Sons, New York. Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Ed. 2. 803 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York. Relyea, G.M. 1937. The brine shrimp of Great Salt Lake. The American Naturalist, 71: 612-616. Spotte, S. & Anderson, G. 1988. Chemical decapsulation of resting cysts of the anostracans Artemia franciscana and Streptocephalus seali as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 8: 22\—231. Thompson, J.V. 1834. Development of Artemis salinus, or Brine Shrimp; demonstrative of its relationship to Branchipus and other Crustaceous Phyllopoda, and to those enigmatic Fossils, the apparently eyeless Trilobites... with a new species of Artemis and of -Apus. Zoological Researches and Illustrations 1828-1834, Vol. 1, part 1, memoir 6. Pp. 103-112, 6 pls. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 183 Vanhaecke, P., Tackaert, W. & Sorgeloos, P. 1987. The biogeography of Artemia: an updated review. /nSorgeloos, P., Bengtson, D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E.(Eds.), Artemia: Research and its applications, vol. 1. 359 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. Verrill, A.E. 1869a. Descriptions of some new American Phyllopod Crustacea. American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)48: 244-254. Verrill, A.E. 1869b. New localities of Artemia. American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)48: 430. Yaneng, C. 1989. New Arfemia sibling species from PR China. Artemia Newsletter, 11(January): 40-41. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Case 2720 Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation Stephen R. Steinhauser, Lee D. Miller & Jacqueline Y. Miller Allyn Museum of Entomology, The Florida Museum of Natural History, 3621 Bay Shore Road, Sarasota, Florida 34234, U.S.A. Charles A. Bridges 502 West Main Street, Apt. 308, Urbana, Illinois 61801, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Dalla Mabille, 1904 for a hesperiid (skipper) butterfly genus by suppression of the seldom used senior subjective synonym Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867]. 1. In 1867, Felder & Felder established a new genus Eumesia (p. 504) with a single nominal species semiargentea (p. 505) which is, therefore, the type species by mono- typy. The species was based on a hesperiid specimen from Colombia with the attached head of a satyrid butterfly. The specimen, which they failed to recognize as an artefact, is now in the British Museum (Natural History) collections, registered as Rothschild Bequest, BM 1939-1, type no. H-1098. Felder & Felder ((1867], p. 504) also proposed a new family EUMESIIDAE as an intermediate familial group between HESPERIDAE and SATYRIDAE, an action resulting only from their failure to recognize the composite nature of the holotype. 2. In 1904, Mabille (p. 107) established a new genus Dalla in which he placed 47 species (eight of which he had not seen and two of which he listed as of uncertain status) plus five additional names as synonyms. He (p. 108) recognized Eumesia as a valid genus with semiargentea as the sole species, but did not make clear what he considered to be the significant difference between Eumesia and Dalla. Mabille & Boullet (1908, 1912, 1919) never finished their revision of the HESPERIIDAE, and their treatment of Eumesia and Dalla was not stated. Lindsey (1921, p. 58) designated Cyclopides eryonas Hewitson, 1877 (p. 325) as the type species of Dalla. 3. Evans (1955, p. 19) was the first worker to recognize the synonymy of Eumesia and Dalla. His action is described by Hemming (1967, p. 177) in the following terms: ‘Evans treated this generic name [Eumesia] in a strange and entirely incorrect manner. He accepted the nominal species Eumesia semiargentea as representing a taxonomically distinct species. In spite of this he rejected the generic name Eumesia on the ground that the holotype of its type species (Eumesia semiargentea) now in the British Museum was a specimen which had lost its head and on which in place of the missing head the head of some Satyrid species had been gummed. Evans’s ground for rejecting this generic name was that the substitution of this false head on the holotype vitiated the generic diagnosis given by the authors of this name. This action was misconceived, there being nothing in the Code to authorize the | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 185 rejection of a generic name on such grounds. Moreover, Evans’s contention was incorrect in fact, for only part of the original diagnosis. was concerned with the - characters of the head. Quite apart from this consideration, Evans forgot that prior to 1931 it was not necessary for an author to provide any diagnosis for a new genus, provided that he included in the genus one or more duly established nominal species. This condition was duly complied with by the authors of this generic name. The name Eumesia is therefore an available name, and accordingly Evans’s action in rejecting it was invalid’. Hemming (1967) did not himself comment on the possible subjective synonymy of Eumesia and Dalla. He treated both Eumesia (p. 177) and Dalla (p. 138) as valid generic names, although he did not consider the taxonomy. 4. Bridges (1983 (II), pp. 13, 14; 1988b (ID), p. 22) accepted Hemming’s treatment of Eumesia as an available name. He recognized Eumesia as a senior synonym of Dalla and placed in Eumesia all the species that Evans (1955, pp. 18-44) had included in Dalla, including its type species eryonas. However, he did list under Dalla (1983 (II), p. 11; 1988b (II), p. 18) four names published since Evans’ work, but this inconsistent action was a simple ‘lapsus’, understandable in such a massive undertaking. Bridges (1988c (5), pp. 1-6), having seen the proposals to the Commission in a draft of this application, has emended his earlier treatment and placed all relevant taxa (including semiargentea) in Dalla, eliminating Eumesia completely. He has asked to be included as a co-author of this application. 5. Since its publication in 1867, the name Eumesia has been used exclusively in conjunction with its type species semiargentea with two exceptions: Erschoff (1876, pp. 140-149, pl. 3, fig. 6) who described Eumesia jelskyi, and Bridges (1983, 1988b) as set out in para. 4 above. Dalla, on the other hand, has been used since 1904 in the descrip- tion of new species by at least eight authors in ten separate publications (e.g. Dalla seirocastnia Draudt, [1923], p. 923; Dalla frontinia Evans, 1955, pp. 25—26; Dalla pota Bell, 1959, p. 1) as well as in a number of catalogue-type compilations. 6. The family-group name EUMESIIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] has not been used since its description in any of the relevant taxonomic literature or in any catalogue- type compilations. It is a senior subjective synonym of HETEROPTERINAE Aurivillius, 1925 (pp. 506, 546) which is based on the well known Palearctic genus Heteropterus Dumeril, 1806 (p. 271). HETEROPTERINAE has been used by a number of authors includ- ing Aurivillius (see above); Higgins, 1975, p. 51; Miller & Brown, 1981, p. 26; Bridges, 1988a (ID), p. 1. 7. To reintroduce usage of the generic name Eumesia and the family-group name EUMESIIDAE would not be in the interests of nomenclatural stability. This family-group name would cease to be available on suppression of the name of the type genus, Eumesia. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867] 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 Dalla Mabille, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Lindsey (1921) Cyclopides eryonas Hewitson, 1877; 186° Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name eryonas Hewitson, 1877, as published in the binomen Cyclopides eryonas (specific name of the type species of Dalla Mabille, 1904); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867], as suppressed in (1) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name EUMESIIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] (type genus Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867]) (name of the type genus suppressed in (1) above). References Aurivillius, P.O.C. 1925. Family Hesperidae in Seitz, A., (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera of the World. Vol. 13. 613 pp. Kernan, Stuttgart. Bell, E.L. 1959. Descriptions of some new species of Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). American Museum Novitates, No. 1962: 1-16. Bridges, C.A. 1983. Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae, Notes on species-group names. (1): 1-129; (II): 2-41: (IID): 1-62; (IV): 1-30; (V): 1-13. Privately published, Urbana. Bridges, C.A. 1988a. Catalogue of family-group and genus-group names (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). (1): 1-8; (II): 1-3; (IID): 1-4; (IV): 1-130; (V): 1-33; (VI): 1-67; (VII): 1-18: (VIII): 1-59; (LX): 1-20; (X): 1-8. Privately published, Urbana. Bridges, C.A. 1988b. Catalogue of Hesperiidae ( Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). (1): 1-205; (11): 1-67; (IIT): 1-78; (IV): 1-54; (V): 1-20; (VI): 1-7; (App. I): 1; (App. II): 1-8. Privately published, Urbana. Bridges, C.A. 1988c. Annotations on the Catalogue of Hesperiidae. (1): 1; (2): 1; (3): 1-4; (4): 1-2: (5): 1-6. Privately published, Urbana. Draudt, M. [1923]. Family Hesperidae in Seitz, A. (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera of the World, 5: 836-1011, 1046-1055. Kernan, Stuttgart. Dumeril, A.M.C. 1806. Zoologie Analytique, ou Méthode naturelle de Classification des Animaux. 344 pp. Allais, Paris. Erschoff, N.G. 1876. [Descriptions of new species of exotic Lepidoptera]. Trudy Russkago Entomologicheskago Obshchestva, 8: 140-149. [In Russian.] Evans, W.H. 1955. A Catalogue of the American Hesperiidae in the British Museum ( Natural History). Part 4: Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. 499 pp. British Museum, London. Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1865-1867. Rhopalocera, in Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte ‘Novara’ um die Erde. 549 pp. Der Kaiserlich-K 6niglichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Wien. Hemming, F. 1967. The generic names of the butterflies and their type species (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History). Entomology, Supplement 9: 1-509. Hewitson, W.C. 1877. Descriptions of twenty three new species of Hesperidae from his own collection. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 319-328. Higgins, L.G. 1975. The Classification of European Butterflies. 320 pp. Collins, London. Lindsey, A.W. 1921. The Hesperioidea of America North of Mexico. University of Iowa Studies in Natural History, 9(4): 1-114. Mabille, P. 1904. Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. Fam. Hesperidae. Genera Insectorum, 17: 1-210. Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1908. Essai de révision de la famille des Hespérides. Annales des Sciences Naturelles Zoologie, (9)7: 167-207. Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1912. Essai de révision de la famille des Hespérides. 2. Subfamily Hesperiinae. Annales des Sciences Naturelles Zoologie, (9)16: 1-159. Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1919. Essai de révision de la famille des Hesperides. Annales des Sciences Naturelles Zoologie, (10)2: 199-258. Miller, L.D. & Brown, F.M. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America north of Mexico. 280 pp. The Lepidopterists’ Society, Memoir No. 2, Sarasota, Florida. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 187 Case 2712 Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Knut Rognes Stavanger Lerhogskole, Postboks 2521 Ullandhaug, N-4004 Stavanger, Norway Robert E. Blackith University of Dublin, Trinity College, Department of Zoology, Dublin-2, Ireland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Ca/liphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, a cosmopolitan bluebottle fly now widely known under this name. The name is threatened by Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1794, a senior synonym, but unused since its proposal. The fly is often referred to as Calliphora erythrocephala (Meigen, 1826), but this specific name is a junior primary homonym. 1. The blowfly Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (p. 435) is very common and widely distributed throughout the Holarctic Region, and has followed man into South America, the Afrotropical region (Mauritius and South Africa), northern India, Australia and New Zealand. It is a widely known and easily bred laboratory insect of great medical, veterinary and forensic importance (Zumpt, 1965; Greenberg, 1971, 1973, 1985; Smith, 1986). Itis one of the few insects to have whole monographs devoted to it (references in Smith, 1986, p. 105) and some 900 scientific publications have been based on this species, mostly in the field of insect physiology and genetics. 2. Until 1948 the fly was known under the specific name erythrocephala Meigen, 1826 (p. 62). However, Hall (1948, pp. 307-308) pointed out that Musca erythrocephala Meigen was a junior primary homonym of M. erythrocephala De Geer, 1776 (p. 146) and M. erythrocephala Fabricius, 1787 (p. 351) and therefore an invalid name. There is also a species given the replacement name Musca erythrocephala by Villers (1789, p. 137). Meigen’s name is therefore preoccupied several times over. The identity of De Geer’s, Fabricius’s and Villers’s species is not known with certainty, but they are definitely species other than Calliphora vicina. Hall (1948), acting as first reviser, selected the name vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, one of several next oldest available synonyms by Robineau-Desvoidy that were listed by Bezzi & Stein (1907). At present the species is universally known in the taxonomic literature (as opposed to the applied literature, see para. 3) under the name vicina (Hall, 1965; James, 1970, 1977; Pont, 1980; Hardy, 1981; Schumann, 1986; Rognes, 1990). Dear (1986, p. 26) recovered and labelled the holotype of Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy in Bigot’s Diptera Exotica collection in Oxford. 3. Since 1940 some 680 publications based on this insect and listed by Biological Abstracts have used the specific name erythrocephala. The name vicina first appeared in 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 the Zoological Record in 1948 and in Biological Abstracts in 1956. In the first decade after 1956 three publications used vicina whereas 79 used erythrocephala, and since then 78 have used vicina whereas 586 used erythrocephala. In very recent years the two names have been used about equally. For four decades this insect has therefore been known, de facto, by two specific names. Research papers using one name have appeared with those using the other in the same journals, often in the same volume of a journal, suggesting that some people (including editors) believe that two species are involved. Patently, the editors of non-taxonomic journals have been unable to give appropriate guidance (a fact thrown into relief by the use of garbled versions of these names such as ‘erythroencephala’, ‘vincina’ and ‘vicinia’ reported as such in Biological Abstracts for 1979 and 1987). 4. Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1794 (p. 313) was listed by Bezzi & Stein (1907, p. 546) and Schumann (1986, p. 18) as a synonym of Calliphora vomitoria (Linnaeus, 1758). The holotype of carnivora is present in the Fabrician collection (Kiel collection) in the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum in Copenhagen. It has recently been examined (Rognes, 1990) and found to be a specimen of Calliphora vicina. The name carnivora has never been used since its proposal. 5. According to the Principle of Priority the specific name carnivora Fabricius should replace vicina Robineau-Desvoidy. However, this replacement is likely to produce even further confusion and instability as regards the nomenclature of this fly species than did the replacement of erythrocephala. Considering the very slow acceptance of the name vicina since 1948 (see para. 3), the introduction of a third name for this species is likely to be even less successful. The chances are microscopic or nil that carnivora would be universally adopted in the foreseeable future. There are even ample reasons to believe that, outside the field of taxonomy, a third name may lead toa mistaken belief in the existence of yet another species, in the same manner as some editors today apparently believe that erythrocephala and vicina are two different species. Utter chaos and confusion would almost certainly be the outcome of the introduction of carnivora. 6. There also seems to be no good reason today to reinstate the name erythrocephala for this species by suppressing its senior homonyms, in view of the universal acceptance of vicinain the taxonomic literature and the growing adherence to the name vicina in the applied literature. 7. The name vicina will possibly be threatened also in the future by other older (pre-1830) names. However, we are convinced that the best course to follow to remedy the confused present state of affairs in the applied literature and to lay the foundations for a stable nomenclature in the future is to conserve the name vicina. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) touseits plenary powers to suppress the specific name carnivora Fabricius, 1794, “as published in the binomen Musca carnivora, 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 vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Calliphora vicina; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) carnivora Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Musca carnivora and as suppressed in (1) above; : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 189 (b) erythrocephala Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Musca erythro- cephala (a junior primary homonym of Musca erythrocephala De Geer, 1776). Acknowledgements We would like to thank T. Pape, A.C. Pont, C.W. Sabrosky, G.E. Shewell and J.R. Vockeroth for having read and commented upon previous drafts of the paper, and A.C. Pont for information concerning species originally described in the genus Musca and for support. References Bezzi, M. & Stein, P. 1907. Cyclorrapha Aschiza. Cyclorrapha Schizophora: Schizometopa. In Becker, Th., Bezzi, M., Kertész, K. & Stein, P. (Eds.), Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren, vol. 3. 828 pp. Budapest. De Geer, C. 1776. Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des Insectes, vol. 6. vill, 523 pp. Hesselberg, Stockholm. Dear, J.P. 1986. Calliphoridae (Insecta: Diptera). Fauna of New Zealand, vol. 8. 86 pp. Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum..., vol. 2. 382 pp. Hafniae. Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 4. 472 pp. Hafniae. Greenberg, B. 1971. Flies and disease, vol. 1 (Ecology, classification and biotic associations). 856 pp. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Greenberg, B. 1973. Flies and disease, vol. 2 (Biology and disease transmission). 447 pp. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Greenberg, B. 1985. Forensic entomology: case studies. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 31: 25-28. Hall, D.G. 1948. The blowflies of North America. 483 pp. Thomas Say Foundation. Lafayette, Indiana. Hall, D.G. 1965. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 922—932 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W.., Foote, R.H., & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. Agriculture Handbook No. 276. iv, 1696 pp. Washington, D.C. Hardy, D.E. 1981. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha 4, Series Schizophora Section Calyptratae. Insects of Hawaii, vol. 14. vi, 491 pp. University Press of Hawai, Honolulu. James, M.T. 1970. Family Calliphoridae. Jn Papavero, N. (Ed.), A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States, vol. 102. 28 pp. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo. James, M.T. 1977. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 526-556 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 3. (Suborder Cyclorrhapha (excluding division Aschiza.) x, 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Meigen, J.W. 1826. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifligeligen Insekten, vol. 5. xii, 412 pp. Schultz, Hamm. Pont, A.C. 1980. 90. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 779-800 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Robineau-Desvoidy, A.J.B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savants al’Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France, (2) 2: 1-813. Rognes, K. 1990. Blowflies (Diptera, Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna entomologica scandinavica, vol. 24. E.J. Brill, Leiden. [In press. ] Schumann, H. 1986. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 11—58 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 12. (Calliphoridae — Sarcophagidae). 265 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Smith, K.G.V. 1986. A manual of forensic entomology. 205 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae suecicae descriptionibus aucta... Tomi III (Nomenclator entomologus). 213 pp. Lugduni. Zumpt, F. 1965. Myiasis in man and animals in the Old World. A textbook for physicians, veterinarians and zoologists. iv, 267 pp. Butterworths, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 191] Case 2722 Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name Kenneth J. Lazara Department of Mathematics and Science, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York 11024, U.S.A. Michael L. Smith American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 for a self-fertilising hermaphroditic killifish. The name is threatened by the senior subjective synonym ocellatus Hensel, 1868. Through mis- identification the latter name has been used for a second species, which is correctly named caudomarginatus Seegers, 1984. 1. In 1880 Poey (p. 248) described Rivulus marmoratus on the basis of specimens from Cuba or the U.S.A. (he was uncertain of their origin). Rivas (1945) identified two specimens labeled Rivulus cylindraceus in the collection of the United States National Museum as R. marmoratus; using circumstantial evidence he stated that these specimens were Poey’s original type specimens, and of these specimens designated as lectotype specimen USNM 37429. We do not accept Rivas’s assertion that this specimen is a syntype and believe the types have been lost. This does not affect the case. 2. The species is distributed in marginal marine and semi-terrestrial habitats from southern Florida, U.S.A., through the Caribbean basin to the southern coast of Brazil. It is widely used in experimental studies because it is easily manipulated in the labora- tory and because it is the only fish that is a self-fertilising hermaphrodite. This has led to the development of clones which, being genetically uniform, provide a control for genetic variation in numerous studies involving carcinogenicity, mutagenesis, teratogenesis and other areas of environmental research. 3. The species has been listed consistently as R. marmoratus in the American Fisheries Society’s list of names (Robins et al., 1980, p. 33, and the earlier editions of 1960 and 1970) and marmoratus is the only name applied to the species in the experimental and genetic literature prior to Seegers, 1984 (see para. 4 below). Reports which have used the name, in a variety of disciplines, include Rivas, 1945 (species characteristics); Parenti, 1981, pp. 482-483 (systematics); Harrington & Rivas, 1958 (distribution and ecology); Koenig et al., 1982 (value as an experimental subject); Mittwoch, 1973 (genetics); Harrington, 1975 (sex determination); Massaro et al., 1975 (isozymes); Snelson, 1978 (conservation status); Davis, 1986 (use as a pollution indicator); Park & Kim, 1984 (response to diethylnitrosamine), Abel et al., 1988 (response to hydrogen sulfide); Park & Lee, 1988 (scale growth); Lindsey, 1988 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 (meristic variation); Ali et al., 1988 (microanatomy of photoreceptors). The name is used by conservationists monitoring endangered populations and the general public interested in the species’ unique life history. It is therefore familiar to many non- systematists working with Recent fishes. A list of a further 100 references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 4. The name Rivulus ocellatus was proposed by Hensel in 1868 (p. 365) for a fish from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The holotype, cat. no. ZMB 7448, is in the Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin (Seegers, 1984, p. 302). The species was known only from the single specimen for 116 years and has rarely been mentioned other than by misidentification (see para. 6 below), although it occurs in the following few faunal lists and lists of synonymies: Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1891, p. 64), Garman (1895, p. 137), Eigenmann (1910, p. 454), Regan (1912, p. 497), Myers (1927, p. 125), von Ihering (1931, p. 261), Fowler (1954, p. 222), and Hoedeman (1956, p. 199; 1959, pp. 49, 52; 1961, p. 65). In 1984 Seegers identified and studied an aquarium stock from Rio de Janeiro and concluded that ocellatus and marmoratus are conspecific. He adopted the prior name ocel/atus in accord with the Principle of Priority but contrary to the general acceptance of marmoratus as the long-established name for the taxon. 5. A few authors (Thyagarajah & Grizzle, 1986; Grizzle & Thyagarajah, 1987; Park & Yi, 1989) have used the trinomen R. ocellatus marmoratus, citing Seegers (1984) as the source. Seegers (p. 304) actually stated that the trinomen could be used only if subspecies were found in the future. No one has suggested that differences exist to justify use of subspecific names. 6. In 1906 Kohler (p. 407, fig. on p. 406) reported the import of a fish that he identified as R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868 and which has since become known under that name. Seegers (1984, p. 302) found that this fish did not agree with the description of ocellatus and proposed a new specific name, caudomarginatus. Of the few known papers that use the name ocellatus, most use it as a misidentification sensu Kohler; these are Bogershausen (1910, p. 317), Regan (1912, p. 497, in part), Dreiser (1922, p. 222), von Thering (1931, p. 261, in part), Innes (1932, p. 247), Stoye (1935, p. 107 and pl. 47), Arnold & Ahl (1936, p. 342), Rachow (undated, no. 641), Fowler (1954, p. 222, in part), Hoedeman (1956, p. 119; 1959, p. 44; 1961, p. 70), Terceira (1974, p. 115), Seegers (1980, p. 141) and Sterba (1983, p. 500). Thus, through the misidentifications cited above, the name ocellatus is associated with a fish other than marmoratus. 7. We believe that to upset 109 years of extensive usage of the name Rivulus marmoratus would be a disservice to users of the biological literature. Article 23(b) of the Code states that the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and should not be used to overturn a long accepted name in its accustomed meaning. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, 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 specific name marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific name ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus and as suppressed in (1) above. j — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 193 References Abel, D.C., Koenig, C.C. & Davis, W.P. 1987. Emersion in the mangrove forest fish Rivulus marmoratus: a unique response to hydrogen sulfide. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 18(1): 67-72. Ali, M.A., Klyne, M.A., Park, E.H. & Lee, S.H. 1988. Pineal and retinal photoreceptors in embryonic Rivulus marmoratus Poey. Anatomischer Anzeiger, 167(5): 359-369. Arnold, J.P. & Ahl, E. 1936. Fremdldndische Stisswasserfische. 592 pp. Wenzel & Sohn, Braunschweig. Boégershausen, W. 1910. Etwas vom Rivulus ocellatus. Wochenschrift fiir Aquarien- und Terrarienkunde, 7(23): 317-318. Davis, W.P. 1986. The role of Rivulus marmoratus in research on aquatic pollutants. Journal of the American Killifish Association, 19(1): 70-80. Dreiser, J.E. 1922. Meine Erfahrungen bei der Zucht von Rivulus ocellatus, tenuis, und strigatus. Wochenschrift fiir Aquarien- und Terrarienkunde, 19: 222-223. Eigenmann, C.H. 1910. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of tropical and south temporate America. In Scott, W.B. (Ed.), Reports of the Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia, 1896-1899, vol. 3 (Zoology), part 4, pp. 375-511. Pierpont Morgan Publication Fund, Princeton. Eigenmann, C.H. & Eigenmann, R.S. 1891. A catalog of the fresh-water fishes of South America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 14 (842): 1-81. Fowler, H.W. 1954. Os peixes de agua doce do Brasil. Arquivos de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo, 9 (4a): 1-400. Garmam, S. 1895. The cyprinodonts. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard University, 19(1): 1-179. Grizzle, J.M. & Thyagarajah, A. 1987. Skin histology of Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus: apparent adaptation for aerial respiration. Copeia, 1987(1): 237-240. Harrington, R.W., Jr. 1975. Sex determination and differentiation among uniparental homo- zygotes of the hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Cyprinodontidae: Atheriniformes). Pp. 249-262 in Reinboth, R. (Ed.), Intersexuality in the Animal Kingdom. xv, 449 pp. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Harrington, R.W., Jr. & Rivas, L.R. 1958. The discovery in Florida of the cyprinodont fish Rivulus marmoratus, with a redescription and ecological notes. Copeia, 1958(2): 125-130. Hensel, R. 1868. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Wirbelthiere Stdbrasiliens. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte Wiegman, 34(1): 323-375. Hoedeman, J.J. 1956. Die bisher beschreibenen Formen und Arten der Gattung Rivulus Poey. Aquarien Terrarien, 3: 199-202. Hoedeman, J.J. 1959. Rivulid fishes of Surinam and other Guyanas, with a preliminary review of the genus Rivulus. Studies on the Fauna of Surinam and other Guyanas, 3(7): 44-98. Hoedeman, J.J. 1961. Studies on cyprinodontiform fishes. 8. Preliminary key to the species and subspecies of the genus Rivulus. Bulletin of Aquatic Biology, 2(18): 65—74. Thering, R., von. 1931. Cyprindontes brasileiros (Peixes ‘Guarus’) Systematica e informacgoes biologicas. Archivos do Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, 4: 243-279. Innes, W.T. 1932. Goldfish varieties and tropical aquarium fishes. Ed. 15, 317 pp. Innes & Sons, Philadelphia. Koenig, C.C., Abel, D.C., Klingensmith, C.W. & Maddock, M.B. 1982. Usefulness of the self- fertilizing cyrinodontid fish, Rivulus marmoratus, as an experimental animal in studies involving carcinogenesis, teratogenesis, and mutagenesis. 129 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Kohler, W. 1906. Neimportierte bezw. erstmalig nachgeztichtete Zahnkarpfen (Poeciliidae), 2. A. Eigebarende Zahnkarpfen (Poeciliidae oviparae). 3. Neu importierte Rivulus-Arten. In Wichand, B. & Kohler, W. (Eds.), Diesjahrige Neuheiten in Wort und Bild. Blatter fiir Aquarien- und Terrarien- Kunde, 17(41): 404408. Lindsey, C.C. 1988. Factors controlling meristic variation. Pp. 197-274 in Hoar, W.S. & Randall, D.J. (Eds.), Fish physiology, vol. 11 (The physiology of developing fish), part B (Viviparity and posthatching juveniles). 436 pp. Academic Press, San Diego. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Massaro, E.J., Massaro, J.C. & Harrington, R.W., Jr. 1975. Biochemical comparison of genetically-different homozygous clones (isogenic, uniparental lines) of the self-fertilizing fish Rivulus marmoratus. Pp. 439-453 in Markert, C.L. (Ed.), Isozymes 3. xxi, 965 pp. Academic Press, New York. Mittwoch, U. 1975. Chromosomes and sex differentiation. Pp. 438-446 in Reinboth, R. (Ed.), Intersexuality in the Animal Kingdom. xv, 449 pp. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Myers, G.S. 1927. An analysis of the genera of neotropical killifishes allied to Rivulus. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (9)19(109): 115-129. Parenti, L.R. 1981. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of cyprinodontiform fishes (Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 168(4): 335-557. Park, E.H. & Kim, D.S. 1984. Hepatocarcinogenicity of diethylnitrosamine to the self-fertilizing hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Teleostomi: Cyprinidontidae). Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 73(4): 871-876. Park, E.H. & Lee, S.H. 1988. Scale growth and squamation chronology for the laboratory- reared hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Cyprinodontidae). Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 34(4): 476-482. Park, E.H. & Yi, A.K. 1989. Photoreactivation rescue and dark repair demonstrated in UV-irradiated embryos of the self-fertilizing fish Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus Teleostei Aplocheilidae. Mutation Research, 217(1): 19-24. Poey, F. 1880. Revisio piscium cubensium. Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 9(2): 243-261. Rachow, A. [undated]. Rivulus ocellatus. No. 641 in Holly, M., Meinken, H. & Rachow, A.C., (Eds.), Die Aquarienfische in Wort und Bild. Looseleaf pages, unnumbered. Alfred Kernan Verlag, Stuttgart. Regan, C.T. 1912. A revision of the poeciliid fishes of the genera Rivulus, Pterolebias, and Cynolebias. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)10(59): 494—S08. Rivas, L.R. 1945. The discovery and redescription of the types of Rivulus marmoratus Poey, a cyprinodont fish from Cuba. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 35(3): 95-97. 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. Ed. 4. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, No. 12: 1-174. Seegers, L. 1980. Killifische, eierlegende Zahnkarpfen im Aquarium. 174 pp. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart. Seegers, L. 1984. Zur Revision der Rivulus-Arten Suidost-Brasiliens mit einer Neubeschreibung von Rivulus luelingi n. sp. und Rivulus caudomarginatus n. sp. (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae: Rivulinae). Zoologische Beitrage N.F., 28(2): 271-320. Snelson, F.F., Jr. 1978. Threatened Rivulus. In Pritchard, P.C.H. (series Ed.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Pp. 18-19 in Gilbert, C.R. (Ed.), vol. 4, Fishes. xviii, 58 pp. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Sterba, G. 1983. The Aquarium Encyclopedia. 609 pp. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Stoye, F.H. 1935. Tropical fishes for the home. 2nd Ed., 284 pp., 175 pls. Carl Mertens, New York. Terceira, A.C. 1974. Killifish, their care and breeding. 143 pp. Pisces Publishing Corporation, Norwalk, Connecticut. Thyagarajah, A. & Grizzle, J.M: 1986. Nuclear glycogen and lipid in hepatocytes of a fish, Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64(12): 2868-2870. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 195 Case 2727 Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name Edwin O. Willis & Y. Oniki Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista, C.P. 178 Rio Claro 13500, Sao Paulo, Brazil Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873, long established in general use for the South American pearly- breasted cuckoo. The name is made invalid by the senior subjective synonym C. julieni Lawrence, [1864]. 1. The name Coccyzus julieni was established by Lawrence, probably in 1864, fora single specimen of a cuckoo found on Sombrero Island, in the north Leeward Islands of the West Indies. In a full description the bird was characterised by small size, white under the wings and absence of rufous colour in the primary wing feathers. The speci- men is now in the American Museum of Natural History (cat. no. AMNH 44495); itis a young bird of unknown sex and lacks its original label. 2. The serial volume in which Lawrence’s paper (which included the new specific name julieni) was published is dated 1867. However, the foot of the first page (p. 42, ref. a) of the paper bears the date 1864 in small type and the paper is listed in The Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1879, p. 176) with two dates: ‘[1864]’ for the paper itself and ‘1867’ when citing the serial volume. Lawrence’s paper is listed (p. 56) in the first volume (for 1864) of The Record of Zoological Literature, published in 1865. Peters (1940, p. 42) adopted the date 1864, as have other authors. 3. Coccyzus julieni was considered by Hellmayr (1929, p. 432) as a possible junior synonym of C. americanus (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 111), the yellow-billed cuckoo, which has the type locality of South Carolina, U.S.A. C. julieni was also listed as a synonym of americanus by Laubmann (1939, p. 189), Peters (1940, p. 42), Griscom & Greenway (1941, p. 150), and Steinbacher (1962, p. 55). It was thought to be a subspecies of americanus by Cory (1919, p. 335), Gyldenstolpe (1945, p. 90) and Steullet & Deautier (1945, p. 779). . 4. Banks (1988, p. 87), however, thought that the identification of julieni as americanus was incorrect and that, following a direct comparison with a series of specimens of the North American C. americanus and the South American species C. euleri Cabanis, 1873, the single specimen of julieni was unquestionably to be identified as the South American species. C. eu/eri (originally published with the spell- ing error Coccygus) is the pearly-breasted, or southern yellow-billed, cuckoo, a bird described (p. 72) from Cantagalo, Rio de Janeiro State, southeastern Brazil. Type material is in the collections of the zoological museum in Berlin. Ridgway (1916, p. 20), Pinto (1964, p. 169) and Greenway (1978, p. 112) had previously indicated that julieni was to be identified with the species euw/eri. Banks (1988) suggested that the type 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 specimen of julieni was almost certainly a vagrant individual of euleri. This species migrates north to Surinam (Haverschmidt, 1968, p. 150), Guyana (Chubb, 1916, p. 438), Venezuela (Cherrie, 1916, p. 311) and Colombia (Hilty & Brown, 1986, p. 217). The bird collected was found hiding in a crevice on a rocky islet (Lawrence, p. 98, ref. b), an inappropriate situation for a species that normally inhabits forest or scrub canopy and edge. 5. The specific name julieni Lawrence, [1864] is a senior subjective synonym of euleri Cabanis, 1873. Ridgway (1916, p. 20), Pinto (1964, p. 169) and Banks (1988, p. 90) adopted julieni on the grounds of priority, although Greenway (1978, p. 112) wrote ‘julieni, now euler’. Pinto later (1978, p. 155) used only the name euleri without comment, even though including the type locality of julieni. The name Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 has been used consistently for the South American pearly-breasted cuckoo. Authors of major check-lists who have used the name include Peters (1940, p. 42), Meyer de Schauensee (1970, p. 112, pl. 24, and the later edition of 1982) and Walters (1980, p. 83). A representative list of more than 30 references, principally covering the last 50 years, is held by the Commission Secretariat. This includes a number of guides and catalogues to the birds of South American countries. Acceptance of the name julieni Lawrence, [1864] in place of euleri Cabanis, 1873 would upset stability of usage in the extensive literature, especially in South America. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name julieni Lawrence, [1864], as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) toplace on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name euleri Cabanis, 1873, as published in the binomen Coccygus (= Coccyzus) euleri; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name julieni Lawrence, [1864], as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni, and as suppressed in (1) above. References Banks, R.C. 1988. An old record of the pearly-breasted cuckoo in North America and a nomenclatural critique. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 108(2): 87-91. Cabanis, J. 1873. Coccygus euleri n. sp. aus Brasilien. Pp. 72-73 in Protokoll der 48. Monats- Sitzung. Verhandelt Berlin, den 4 November 1872. Journal ftir Ornithologie, (4)1(1) (year 21): 71-73. Cherrie, G.K. 1916. A contribution to the ornithology of the Orinoco region. Science Bulletin. The Museum of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 2(6): 133a—374. Chubb, C. 1916. The Birds of British Guiana, based on a collection of F.V. McConnell, vol. 1. liii, 528 pp. Quaritch, London. Cory, C.B. 1919. Catalogue of birds of the Americas. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 13 (2, 2): 313-607. (Publication 203). Greenway, J.C. 1978. Type specimens of birds in the American Museum of Natural History. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 161(1): 1-305. Griscom, L. & Greenway, J.C. 1941. Birds of Lower Amazonia. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 88(3): 81-344. Giinther, A.C.L.G. (Ed). 1865. The Record of the Zoological Literature, vol. | (for 1864). vii, 634 pp. Van Voorst, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 197 Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945. A contribution to the ornithology of northern Bolivia. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3)23(1): 1-300. Haverschmidt, F. 1968. Birds of Surinam. xxx, 445 pp., 40 pls. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh & London. Hellmayr, C.E. 1929. A contribution to the ornithology of northeastern Brazil. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 12(18): 233-501. (Publication 255). Hilty, S.L. & Brown, W.L. 1986. 4 Guide to the Birds of Colombia. xii, 836 pp., 69 pls. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Laubmann, A. 1939. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Gran Chaco-Expedition. Vol. 5, Die Vogel von Paraguay. Vol. 1, xv, 246 pp. Strecker & Schroder, Stuttgart. Lawrence, G.N. [1864a]. Descriptions of new species of birds of the families Tanagridae, Cuculidae, and Trochilidae, with a note on Panterpe insignis. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 8: 41-46 (for 1867). Lawrence, G.N. [1864b]. Catalogue of birds collected at the Island of Sombrero, W.I., with observations by A.A. Julien. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 8: 92-106 (for 1867). Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1970. A Guide to the Birds of South America. xiv, 470 pp., 50 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. Peters, J.L. 1940. Check List of the Birds of the World, vol. 4. xu, 291 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pinto, O.M. de O. 1964. Ornitologia Brasiliense, vol. 1, xiv, 182 pp., 25 pls. Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brasil. Pinto, O.M. de O. 1978. Novo Catalogo das Aves de Brasil, primeira parte. Empr. Grafica da Revista das Tribunais, Sao Paulo. Ridgway, R. 1916. The birds of North and Middle America. Part 7. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 50(7): 1-543, pls. 1-24. Royal Society of London. 1879. Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1864-1873, vol. 8 (IBA-ZWI]). 1310 pp. Royal Society of London, London. Steinbacher, J. 1962. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Vogel von Paraguay. Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 502: 1-106. Steullet, A.B. & Deautier, E.A. 1945. Catalogo sistematico de las Aves de la Republica Argentina. Obra del Cincuentenario del Museo de la Plata, 1(4): 733-932. Walters, M. 1980. The Complete Birds of the World. xii, 340 pp. David & Charles, London. 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Case 2723 Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed conservation Luis M. Chiappe & Miguel F. Soria Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Av. Angel Gallardo 470, 1405 Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889, which has been widely used for a genus of fossil giant flightless birds from South America. The name was first published as Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, based on a single bone then thought to be mammalian, but although this spelling did not appear again for 75 years and was rejected in 1968 as a nomen oblitum it has had extensive recent usage. 1. In 1887 Ameghino (p. 24) proposed a new genus and species, Phorusrhacos longissimus, based on a fragmentary mandible found in Miocene deposits in southern Patagonia, Argentina (although Ameghino interpreted them as Eocene). He assumed the bone to be mammalian (Edentata, or anteaters, armadillos and sloths). 2. In 1889 Ameghino (p. 659) emended the generic name to Phororhacos, and pro- posed a family PHORORHACOSIDAE. The family name was corrected to PHORORHACIDAE by Lydekker (1893, p. 43) and this spelling was accepted by Ameghino and all subsequent workers. 3. Ameghino (1891a, p. 255) realized that P. Jongissimus was a giant flightless bird. Based on a series of finds he described further species of Phororhacos (1891a, 1891b, 1895, 1897, 1898, 1900-1903, 1904, 1910). Ona single occasion (1898, p. 235) the genus appeared as Phororhacus, but elsewhere in that paper it was spelled Phororhacos and we assume that Phororhacus was simply a misprint. 4. Phororhacos has been used as a valid fossil bird genus by numerous workers (e.g. Lydekker, 1893; Mercerat, 1897; Andrews, 1896, 1899; Glangeaud, 1898; Rovereto, 1914; L. Kraglievich, 1920, 1929-32, 193la, 1931b, 1932, 1940; Saez, 1927a, 1927b, 1936; Sinclair & Farr, 1932; Cabrera, 1939; Patterson, 1941; J.L. Kraglievich, 1946; Piveteau, 1950, 1955; Patterson & J.L. Kraglievich, 1960; Romer, 1966; Rusconi, 1967; Cracraft, 1968, 1969; Marshall, 1978). 5. Sclater (in a footnote (p.41) in Lydekker’s 1893 paper), Loomis (1914) and Mathew & Granger (1917) used the incorrect spellings Phororhacis, Phororhacus and Phororhachos respectively. 6. Except for Brodkorb (1963, 1967; see para. 7 below) no workers had used the name Phorusrhacos since Ameghino’s first paper of 1887 when Cracraft (1968, p.33, footnote), citing Article 23b of the Code then in force, formally rejected it as a nomen oblitum (i.e. a name not used as valid for more than 50 years and with a junior synonyn in general use). That Article said that ‘a nomen oblitum is not to be used unless the Commission so directs’, and added ‘...a zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer it to the Commission...’. Cracraft was correct in his rejection, although he did not refer Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 199 the case to the Commission. Article 79c(iii) of the present Code says ‘A name must not be used without the approval of the Commission [our italics] if it was rejected... [as a nomen oblitum in 1968]...To remove uncertainty, the case should be referred to the Commission asking for the suppression of the rejected name’. This shows that Cracraft’s omission to refer the case in 1968 did not invalidate his rejection of Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, and we are applying for its suppression. 7. Brodkorb (1963, p. 111, footnote) considered Phorusrhacos valid, and he also proposed the replacement family name PHORUSRHACIDAE. He repeated this point of view in his 1967 Catalogue of fossil birds (pp. 157, 162-165). Brodkorb’s resurrection of a name which had been used only once (75 years earlier and based on a single fragmentary bone not then recognized as avian) was completely unjustified. 8. Despite this, most recent authors have followed Brodkorb and used Phorusrhacos (Feduccia, 1980; Tonni, 1980; Mourer-Chauviré, 1981, 1983; Alvarenga, 1982; Cracraft, 1982; Olson, 1985a, 1985b; Tonni & Tambussi, 1986, 1988; Vuilleumier, 1987; Caroll, 1988; Peters, 1989). In total, however, far more workers (see para. 4, and also others) have used Phororhacos. 9. Under Article 40a of the Code the family name PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (the correct spelling of PHORORHACOSIDAE: see para. 2) which has been widely used (e.g. by authors listed in para. 4), is valid and is not to be replaced by PHORUSRHACIDAE Brodkorb, 1963. It would be highly confusing to have different valid spellings (Phorusrhacos, PHORORHACIDAE) for the genus and the family. Since two spellings of both names have been used we request a definitive resolution from the Commission. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (rejected as a nomen oblitum by Cracraft, 1968) 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 Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (gender: masculine), type species by indication under Article 67h of the Code Phorusrhacos longissimus Ameghino, 1887; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /ongissimus Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Phorusrhacos longissimus (specific name of the type species of Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (type genus Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, as suppressed in (1) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names; (a) PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (an incorrect original spelling of PHORORHACIDAE); (b) PHORUSRHACIDAE Brodkorb, 1963 (name of the type genus suppressed in (1) above). Acknowledgments We want to thank Drs A. Bachman and J.F. Bonaparte (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales) and the Commission Secretariat for their useful comments, and also Dr A. Walton (Southern Methodist University) who reviewed the English manuscript. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 References Alvarenga, H.M.F. 1982. Uma gigantesca ave fosil do Cenozoico Brasileiro: Physornis brasiliensis sp. n. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 54(4): 697-812. Ameghino, F. 1887. Enumeracion sistematica de las especies de mamiferos fosiles coleccionados por Carlos Ameghino en los terrenos Eocenos de la Patagonia austral y depositados en el Museo de La Plata. Boletin del Museo de La Plata, 1887: \—26. Ameghino, F. 1889. Contribucion al conocimiento de los mamiferos fosiles de la Republica Argentina. Actas de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, 6: 1\-1028. Ameghino, F. 189la. Mamiferos y aves fosiles argentinos: especies nuevas: adiciones y correcciones. Revista Argentina de Historia Natural, 1: 240-259. Ameghino, F. 1891b. Enumeracion de las aves fosiles de la Republica Argentina. Revista Argentina de Historia Natural, 1: 441—453. Ameghino, F. 1895. Sur les oiseaux fossiles de la Patagonie. Boletin del Instituto Geografico Argentino, 15: 501—602. Ameghino, F. 1897. South America as the source of the Tertiary Mammalia. Natural Science, 11(68): 256-264. Ameghino, F. 1898. Sinopsis geologica-paleontologica de la Argentina. Segundo Censo de la Republica Argentina, vol. 1, pp. 112-255. Ameghino, F. 1900-03. L’age des formations sédimentaires de Patagonie. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 50: 109-130, 145-165, 209-229; 51: 20-39, 65-91; 52: 189-197, 244-250; 54: 161-180, 220-249, 283-342. Ameghino, F. 1904. Paleontologia Argentina: relaciones filogenéticas y geograficas. Anales del Instituto de Ensenanza General, 1: 11-84. Ameghino, F. 1910. Geologia, Paleontologia y Antropologia de la Republica Argentina. La Nacion, numero extraordinario del 25 de Mayo de 1910. Andrews, C.W. 1896. Remarks on the Stereornithes, a group of extinct birds of Patagonia. The Ibis, (7)2: 1-12. Andrews, C.W. 1899. On the extinct birds of Patagonia. 1. The skull and skeleton of Phororhacos inflatus Ameghino. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 15(3)1: 55-85. Brodkorb, P. 1963. A giant flightless bird from the Pleistocene of Florida. The Auk, 80: 111-115. Brodkorb, P. 1967. Catalogue of fossil birds, part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichthyornithiformes, Charadriiformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Series, 2(3): 106-218. Cabrera, A. 1939. Sobre vertebrados fosiles del Plioceno de Adolfo Alsina. Revista del Museo de La Plata, Paleontologia, 2: 3-35. Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. 698 pp. Freeman, New York. Cracraft, J. 1968. A review of the Bathornithidae (Aves, Gruiformes), with remarks on the relationships of the Suborder Cariamae. American Museum Novitates, 2326: 1-46. Cracraft, J. 1969. Systematics and evolution of the Gruiformes (Class, Aves). 1. The Eocene family Geranoididae and the early history of the Gruiformes. American Museum Novitates, 2388: 1-41. Cracraft, J. 1982. Phylogenetic relationships and transantarctic biogeography of some gruiform birds. Geobios, Mémoire Spécial 6: 393-402. Feduccia, A.J. 1980. The age of birds. 196 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Glangeaud, Ph. 1898. Les oiseaux géants de la Patagonie. Le Naturaliste, (2)260: 53-56. Kraglievich, J.L. 1946. Noticia preliminar acerca de un nuevo y gigantesco Estereornito de la fauna Chapadmalense. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 142: 104-121. Kraglievich, L. 1920. Sobre aves fosiles de la Republica Argentina. E/ Hornero, 2(1): 1-8. Kraglievich, L. 1929-32. Una gigantesca ave fosil del Uruguay, Devicenzia gallinali n. gen. et sp. tipo de una nueva familia Devicenziidae del orden Stereornithes. Anales del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo, (2)3: 323-353. Kraglievich, L. 1931a. El despertar de los estudios paleontologicos en la Republica del Uruguay. Archivos de la Sociedad de Biologia de Montevideo, 2(1): 32-39. Kraglievich, L. 1931b. Contribucion al conocimiento de las aves fosiles de la época arauco— entrerriana. Physis, 10: 304-315. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 201 Kraglievich, L. 1932. La antiguedad pliocena de las faunas de Monte Hermoso y Chapadmalal deducidas de su comparacion con las que le precedieron y sucedieron, pp. 19-136. El Siglo Ilustrado, Montevideo. Kraglievich, L. 1940. Descripcion de la gran ave pliocena Mesembriornis milnedwardsi. Obras de Geologia y Paleontologia, vol. 3, pp. 639-666. Taller de impresiones Oficiales, La Plata. Loomis, F.B. 1914. The Deseado Formation of Patagonia. 232 pp. Rumford Press, Amherst, Massachusetts. Lydekker, R. 1893. On the extinct giant birds of Argentina. The Ibis, 5: 40-47. Marshall, L.G. 1978. The terror bird. Bulletin of Field Museum of Natural History, 49(9): 6-15. Mathew, W.D. & Granger, W. 1917. The skeleton of Diatryma, a gigantic bird from the Lower Eocene of Wyoming. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 37: 307-326. Mercerat, A. 1897. Note sur les oiseaux fossiles de la République Argentine. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 43: 222-258. Mourer-Chauviré, C. 1981. Premiere indication de la presence de Phorusrhacides, famille d’oiseaux géants d’Amerique du Sud, dans le Tertiaire européen: Ameghinornis nov. gen. (Aves, Ralliformes) des Phosphorites du Quercy, France. Géobios, 14(5): 637-647. Mourer-Chauviré, C. 1983: Les Gruiformes (Aves) des Phosphorites du Quercy (France). 1. Sous-ordre Cariamae (Cariamidae et Phorusrhacidae), systematique et biostratigraphie. Palaeovertebrata, 13(4): 83-143. Olson, S.L. 1985a. Faunal turnover in South American fossil avifaunas: the insufficiencies of the fossil record. Evolution, 39(5): 1174-1177. Olson, S.L. 1985b. The fossil record of birds. Pp. 79-252 in Farner, D., King, J. & Parkes, K. (Eds.), Avian Biology, vol. 8. Academic Press, New York. Patterson, B. 1941. A new phororhacoid bird from the Deseado Formation of Patagonia. Field Museum of Natural History, Geological Series, 8(8): 49-54. Patterson, B. & Kraglievich, J.L. 1960. Sistematica y nomenclatura de las Aves fororracoideas del Plioceno Argentino. Publicaciones del Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales y Tradicionales de Mar del Plata, 1(1): 3—-S1. Peters, D.S. 1987. Ein ‘Phorusrhacide’ aus dem Mittel-Eozan von Messel (Aves: Gruiformes: Cariamae). Pp. 71-87 in Mourer-Chauvire, C. (Ed.), L’evolution des oiseaux d’aprés le témoignage des fossiles. Documentes des Laboratoires de Géologie, Lyon (no. 99). Piveteau, J. 1950. Origine et évolution des oiseaux. Pp. 792-835 in Grasse, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie, vol. 15. 1164 pp. Masson et Cie, Paris. Piveteau, J. 1955. Oiseaux. Aves Linné. Pp. 994-1091 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 5. 1113 pp. Masson et Cie, Paris. Romer, A.S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, Ed. 3. 468pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rovereto, C. 1914. Los estratos araucanos y sus fosiles. Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Buenos Aires, 25: 1-250. Rusconi, C. 1967. Animales extinguidos de Mendoza y de la Argentina, pp. 5-489. Edicion Oficial, Mendoza, Argentina. Saez, M.D. de. 1927a. Las aves corredoras fosiles del Santacrucense. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 103: 304-315. Saez, M.D. de. 1927b. Liornis minor, una especie nueva de ave fosil. Physis, 8: 584. Saez, M.D. de. 1936. Estado actual y problemas de la Paleornitologia Argentina. Obras del Cincuentenario del Museo de La Plata, 2: 23-32. Sinclair, W.J. & Farr, M.S. 1932. Aves of the Santa Cruz Beds. Pp. 157-191 in Scott, W.B. (Ed.), Reports of The Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia (1896-1899), vol. 7, part 2. Princeton, New Jersey. Tonni, E. 1980. The present state of knowledge of the Cenozoic birds of Argentina. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 330: 105-114. Tonni, E. & Tambussi, C. 1986. Las Aves del Cenozoico de la Republica Argentina. 4 Congreso Argentino de Paleontologia y Bioestratigrafia, 2: 131-142. Tonni, E. & Tambussi, C. 1988. Un nuevo Psilopterinae (Aves: Ralliformes) del mioceno tardio de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Republica Argentina. Ameghiniana, 25(2): 155-160. Vuilleumier, F. 1987. Suggestions pour des Recherches sur les avifaunes cenozoiques d’ Amerique du Sud. Pp. 239-248 in Mourer-Chauviré, C. (Ed.), L’evolution des oiseaux d’aprés le témoignage des fossiles. Documentes des Laboratoires de Géologie, Lyon (no. 99). 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Comments on the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2641; see BZN 47: 12-18) (1) R. Tucker Abbott American Malacologists Inc., P.O. Box 2255, Melbourne, Florida 32902-2255, U.S.A. I object to the conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784. Martyn’s names were ruled to be unavailable in Opinion 456 (March 1957), and the next available name is Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792. This has been used as B. bovinus by Bosc (1802, p. 111), as Auricula bovina by Lamarck (1822, p. 134) and Deshayes (1838, p. 328), as Placostylus fibratus var. bovinus by Pilsbry (1904), and as P. bovinus by Zilch (1960, p. 497, where it is cited as the type species of the genus Placostylus Beck, 1837) and Abbott (1989, p. 102). I object to the Commission gradually chiseling away at valid names by the piecemeal conservation of unavailable Martyn and Chemnitz names. Martyn’s work was entirely hand-painted and was not published until Chenu’s 1845 reprint. Additional references Abbott, R.T. 1989. Compendium of landshells. A color guide to more than 2,000 of the world’s terrestrial shells. 240 pp. American Malacologists Inc., Melbourne, Florida. Bosc, L.A.G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des coquilles, vol. 4, 280 pp., 36 pls. Crapelet, Paris. Jn Buffon, G.L.L. de, Histoire naturelle de Buffon, classée... d'aprés le systéme de Linné... par R.R. Castel... nouvelle édition. Chenu, J.C. 1845. Le Conchyliologiste Universel ou figures des coquilles... par T. Martyn. Ouvrage revue. In Chenu, J.C., Bibliotheque Conchyliologique, ser. 1, vol. 2. vi, 32 pp., 56 pls. Franck, Paris. (2) Philippe Bouchet Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, Paris, France Dr Abbott’s objection (above) to the use of the name Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 does not introduce facts that I have not already stated in my application. I have given the reasons why I do not consider the name Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 1792 to be applicable to a New Caledonian species of Placostylus Beck, 1837 (see BZN 47: 13, paras. 5, 6). These are that Bruguiere gives New Holland (= Australia) for the origin of his species, and that he refers to a figure published by Lister in 1770 (and copied by Favanne in 1780), which was four years before the discovery of New Caledonia by Cook. Dr Abbott states that the name bovinus has been used and lists six references. I did not say that the name had not been used and my application refers to 13 uses of bovinus. I did not cite Abbott (1989) simply because Dr Abbott’s book was still in press when I submitted my application. Dr Abbott’s list does not add anything to the facts as I have already explained them (para. 5 of my application). Dr Abbott does not address the continuous confusion that has surrounded the name bovinus, used at times during the 19th century for a New Zealand species of Placostylus but never, except once by Abbott himself, as the name for a New Caledonian species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 203 If Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 is rejected the next available name is Voluta elongata Lightfoot, 1786 (an objective synonym; see para. 4 of my application) and not Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792 (a questionable subjective synonym; see para. 6). I have carefully given evidence of the continuous usage, in the older and more recent literature, of the name fibratus Martyn, 1784 for a New Caledonian species of Placostylus (para. 9). My application remains unaffected by Dr Abbott’s superficial comments. (3) Anthea Gentry Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Dall (1907, p. 191) and Iredale (1921, p. 131) noted that copies of Martyn’s Universal Conchologist show variations in both the text and plates. For example, the name Nerita hebraea, which is also involved in Dr Bouchet’s application, appears as Nerita litteris Hebraicis notatus in the table (vol. 3, pl. 109) in some copies of the work, including that in the Natural History Museum, London. This is due to the specific name and descrip- tive phrase having been exchanged in two columns of text. The plates were engraved and then hand coloured; in his introduction to the work, Martyn (1784, vol. 1, p. 8) wrote ‘The engraving will consist merely of a delicate outline, as a certain guide for the relative proportions of the parts: to this the utmost skill and labour of the painter will be added...’. The variability between copies of the work was noted in Opinion 456 (March 1957) but the work was taken as published according to the then existing Rules of Nomenclature. In the background material to the Opinion it was noted that ‘There is nothing in any one copy... that contradicts or is inconsistent with anything in any other copy’. The work was rejected by the Commission for nomenclatural purposes because the author did not apply the ‘principles of binominal nomenclature’. As mentioned in Dr Bouchet’s application, nine names for New Zealand mollusc species have pre- viously been made available from Martyn’s work and Opinion 456 invited specialists to apply for the ‘validation’ of further names. The present application seeks to make two additional names available by use of the Commission’s plenary powers. The engravings in Chenu’s 1845 work, referred to in Dr Abbott’s comment, are black and white. Dall (1907, p. 185) referred to the work as a ‘so-called reprint... which turns out to, be entirely unreliable’, and (p. 191) ‘the discrepancies between the tables [in Martyn] and Chenu’s list are so great that it does not seem reasonable to refer them merely to carelessness’. Dall concluded that ‘it was from one of the altered copies [of Martyn] that Chenu’s badly printed list was taken, adding a number of errors of his own’. Iredale (1921, p. 131) also noted that there were discrepancies between the two works. Additional reference Iredale, T. 1921. Unpublished plates of T. Martyn, conchologist. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 14(4): 131-134. (4) Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli Societa Italiana di Malacologia, c/o Acquario Civico, Viale Gadio 2, 20121 Milan, Italy 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 I strongly support Dr Bouchet’s application for the conservation of Natica hebraea Martyn, 1786. This is a clear-cut case where a familiar well-known name of a species of wide economic importance should be stabilised and preserved. Comment on the proposed precedence of POLYGyRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2642; see BZN 46: 94-96) G. Rosenberg & K.C. Emberton Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A. The application did not mention that both the generic name Mesodon and the specific name /eucodon were first published by Férussac (1821, p. 37 folio, p. 33 quarto) in the synonymy of Helix thyroidus (Say, 1817). This had been noted by Kennard (1942, p. 117). Férussac attributed Mesodon leucodon to Rafinesque. The generic name Mesodon is available under Article 1le of the Code, with authorship ascribed to Férussac (1821) (Article 50g). Under Article 671 its type species is ‘that nominal species first directly associated with it under an available species-group name’ (i.e. Helix thyroidus). The specific name leucodon seems not to have been used as valid since its original (1821) publication and was not mentioned by Rafinesque himself in 1831. It was not listed by Sherborn (1927). Therefore, it would not be available through usage as the type species of Mesodon. Herrmannsen (1847, p. 40) designated Helix thyroidus Say, 1817 as the type species, which was reported by Kennard (1942, p. 117). The genus Mesodon was described by Rafinesque in 1831 (p. 3), with the single included species maculatum (a nomen dubium), thereby making the name available from the time of its first appearance in synonymy (Ferussac, 1821). Rafinesque (1831) and subsequent authors (Scudder, 1882, p. 208; Tryon, 1887, pp. 113, 150) cited the name Mesodon from ‘Rafinesque, 1819’. The name appears as Mesodon leucodon (Rafinesque in McMurtrie, 1819, p. 66) but both the generic and specific names are nomina nuda. The family-group name MESODONTINAE was introduced by Tryon in the American Journal of Conchology (1866, p. 306), as stated in the application, and was discussed by him (1867, pp. 4, 38) in the continuation of his work. Tryon reprinted this work as a book, in which MESODONTINAE appeared or was discussed on pp. 55, 71 and 75. The book was published in parts which were available by subscription. We have not found any evidence to indicate that publication of parts of the book preceded publication of the corresponding parts of the journal. The application requested that the family name POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 be given precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866. It would have been better to ask for ‘family-group names based on Polygyra Say, 1818’ to be given precedence as there is the same problem at subfamily and superfamily levels. Additional references Férussac, J.B.L. de’A. de. 1821. Tableau systématique des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un prodrome général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles, part 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 205 (Tableaux particuliérs des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, classe des gasteropodes: Tableau de la famille des Limacons), pp. 1—94 folio, pp. 1-90 quarto. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847-1849. Indicus generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2. xl, 717 pp. Fischer, Cassellis. Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 25: 105-118. Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Conchology. Pp. 65-66 in McMurtrie, H., Sketches of Louisville and its environs. Vili, 255 pp. Louisville, Kentucky. Rafinesque, C.S. 1831. Enumeration and account of some remarkable natural objects in the cabinet of Prof. Rafinesque, in Philadelphia; being animals, shells, plants, and fossils, collected by him in North America, between 1816 and 1831.8 pp. Philadelphia. Scudder, M. 1882. Nomenclator Zoologicus. xix, 340 pp. Government Printing Office, Washington. Sherborn, C.D. 1927. Index Animalium, 1801—1850, section 2. Part 14, pp. 3393-3746 Tryon, G.W. 1866-1868. A monograph of the terrestrial Mollusca inhabiting the United States. 159, xliv pp., 18 pls. Published by the author, Philadelphia. Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton, 1834) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) (Case 2683; see BZN 46: 226-228) R.W. Scott Amoco Production Company, 4502 East 41st Street, Post Office Box 3385, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102, U.S.A. I would like to support the proposed conservation of the name Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834. Although in 1970 I used the name corrugata for specimens that now would be called pitcheri, | agree that corrugata was inadequately described and its type locality cannot be determined so that topotypes cannot be collected. Fay also made this case in 1975. I believe that modern standards are more rigorous and that future taxonomic studies will be served better by ruling in favor of this case. This species is one of the most abundant and age-diagnostic species in this part of the Cretaceous section. It also has paleoecological significance. Stabilization of this name will permit future studies of phylogeny and paleobiogeography of this group of oysters to proceed without being sidetracked. Comments on the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) (Case 2558; see BZN 47: 19-21) (1) Arthur H. Clarke Ecosearch Inc., 325 East Bayview, Portland, Texas 78374, U.S.A. I wish to express my wholehearted support for the conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819. Although the recently exhumed senior objective synonym Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 has been used by some recent authors in faunal lists and other local studies, Proptera has been the overwhelming choice of authors of monographs and other taxonomically critical works. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 The use of both Proptera and Potamilus for the same genus has led to confusion among non-specialists and will continue to do so. For example, one species of Proptera (capax Green, 1833) is included on our federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species, and disagreements among specialists about its correct name have weakened the perceived credibility of malacologists in contested cases involving the conservation of that species. Other examples could also have been cited but the point is that stable nomenclature is more than an academic convenience. The lack of stability hinders our ability to get on with much more serious biological issues, issues such as ensuring the very survival of species. (2) Arthur E. Bogan Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A. James D. Williams U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Research Laboratory, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, Florida 32606, U.S.A. Samuel L.H. Fuller Florida State Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A. We consider that simple priority should govern the choice of generic names in this case, and recommend against the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 by the suppression of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818. The generic concept for the species variously grouped with Unio alatus Say, 1817 has changed continuously over the last 170 years. This is a problem in unionid systematics. It is only in the past 20 years that some sort of stability in North American unionid nomenclature has arisen. This stability is based on re-examination of the types and taking the earliest available name regardless of what names may have been used for the last 30 years. Gordon (BZN 47: 20, para. 6) remarked that Morrison’s 1969 action was ‘solely to reintroduce an unused Rafinesque name’. What would replacing one Rafinesque name with another accomplish? Morrison was working to bring about stability in the nomenclature by trying to recognize the earliest available names, especially those overlooked or ignored but validly proposed and with priority. A survey of the use of Potamilus in the recent unionid literature was made. The molluscan section of the Zoological Record from 1969 to 1989 was examined for articles using Potamilus. Only one citation was found. This paucity of citations is not truly indicative of the use of Potamilus in the published literature. A sample of the extensive use of Potamilus in this period has been given to the Commission Secretariat, consisting of 104 citations by 84 authors from the United States, Canada and Great Britain. These consist of (i) state and federal agency surveys and reports (23 references); (11) workshops and published symposia (6 papers); (ili) reports listing state or federal endangered or threatened species in Potamilus (22 references); (iv) reports of unionids in archaeologi- cal contexts (11 references); (v) journal papers using Potamilus (31 references); (vi) unionid surveys of river basins or states (4 books); (vii) checklists, dissertations, etc. (7 references). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 207 Potamilus has been used in the United States Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Program since 1974. Not only is it used for two species of Potamilus on the federal endangered species list but is used in a number of state endangered species lists as well. Since Potamilus is listed on the United States federal list of endangered species it has been picked up by the IUCN Red Data Book on endangered invertebrate species (IUCN, 1986). The American Malacological Union and the Council of Systematic Malacologists working with the American Fisheries Society produced a checklist of the molluscan fauna of North America north of Mexico based on all available published literature. Several preliminary lists were widely circulated and a draft version published (American Malacological Union, 1985). All submitted comments were carefully con- sidered. The first edition of this checklist was published as a special publication of the American Fisheries Society (Turgeon et al., 1988). This checklist uses Potamilus. This survey illustrates that the use of Potamilus in the published literature is in fact widespread. This is in direct contrast to the impression given by Gordon (BZN 47: 20, para. 8). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) not to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Morrison (1969) Unio alatus Say, 1817; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alatus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio alatus (specific name of the type species of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818). Additional References American Malacological Union. 1985. Suggested draft list of common names for mollusks occurring from America north of Mexico. Shells and Sealife, 17(2): 45-85. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1986. 1986 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. 105 pp. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Emerson, W.K., Lyons, W.G., Pratt, W.L., Roper, C.F.E., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.G. & Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special Publication no. 16. vii, 277 pp., 12 pls. Bethesda. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta) (Case 2452; see BZN 46: 22-24) (1) Mary E. Petersen Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark Chambers & Heppell have pointed out that the specific name imbricata is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Aphrodita lepidota Pallas, 1766, and that A. minuta 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Fabricius, 1780 is preoccupied by the senior primary homonym Aphrodita minuta Pennant, 1777. I see no reason not to support conservation of the specific name imbricata as long as lepidota is believed to represent the same taxon. However, I suggest that a conditional suppression of lepidota would be preferable as this would leave the name J/epidota available should it become desirable to recognize specific differences between some of the forms currently being referred to imbricata. As indicated below, this is not unlikely. Harmothoe imbricata is generally considered to be well known and widely distributed. Critical examination of other such species (e.g. Capitella capitata by Grassle & Grassle, 1976; Terebellides stroemii by Williams, 1984; Chaetopterus variopedatus by Petersen, 1984 and in preparation) has revealed the ‘well known’ name in each case to be used for several species and has resulted in recognition of additional taxa, often those previously considered junior synonyms. That characters may be found at all levels, from behavioral to ultrastructural, has been elegantly shown by Westheide & Rieger (1987) for three very similar species of the Microphthalmus listensis complex, previously believed to bea single species. Most authors have remarked on the great biological and morphological variation shown by specimens identified as H. imbricata, which is claimed to be cosmopolitan, but no one has yet undertaken a critical revision of the species on a worldwide or even northern European basis. We therefore still do not know how many distinct taxa are being referred to this name. The species undoubtedly varies greatly in color pattern and ornamentation of the scales, but it has also been reported to show variation in spawning season and reproductive biology. In European waters, Rasmussen (1956; the Isefjord, Denmark) and Daly (1972; Cullercoats, England) found H. imbricata to have large eggs brooded under the elytra, whereas Cazaux (1968; Arcachon, France) found small eggs freely spawned. This suggests that two or more taxa are present here; reports of the taxon from other areas (e.g. Izuka, 1912, Japan; Blake, 1975, northern California) may represent something else again. Linnaeus’ original description of imbricata (type locality Iceland) does not mention any specific color pattern, only that the color pattern is variable. Variations similar to those described for H. imbricata as presently defined also occur in other scaleworms, e.g. H. elisabethae (McIntosh, 1900) (M.E. Petersen, unpublished observations). The type locality of /epidota is between England and Belgium, in the southern North Sea, and Arcachon is on the Bay of Biscay (coast of France). If some of the free-spawning ‘imbricata’ from Arcachon fit the description of /epidota and can be distinguished from Icelandic imbricata that brood their eggs, imbricata could be restricted to a brooding form (which seems to be the type of breeding biology most often reported for this species) and /epidota to a free-spawning form. Any redescription of lepidota should, of course, be based on material from as close to the type locality as possible, and not from Arcachon. Until a critical comparison of these forms has been made, I do not feel it is desirable to suppress /epidota unconditionally. It is possible that more than one taxon will be distinguished and I cannot see how conditional suppression could endanger nomenclatural stability. Chambers & Heppell point out that the name Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) is threatened by the senior homonym Aphrodita minuta Pennant, 1777, erected for a species from off Anglesey, Wales (the Irish Sea). Revisions in progress (Chambers, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 209 see BZN 46: 23; M.E. Petersen, in preparation) have shown that P. minuta has been misinterpreted by most later workers and thus is not as widespread as believed (Petersen, 1983, pp. 64-65). Although there are still some points that need clarification and require examination of newly collected material from the type locality (an attempt to obtain such is currently being made), the species is described in some detail, and it is desirable that the name minuta be retained for Fabricius’ species. It is really not clear whether Pennant merely created what he considered a more appropriate name for /epidota or whether he thought he had a new species. His descrip- tion of minuta states only that the species is an ‘APH. with small scales; slender; not an inch long.’ (Pennant, 1777, p. 45, pl. 24, fig. 29; 1812, p. 87, pl. 26, fig. 4) and, together with the figure, could either be interpreted as a Pholoe or a polynoid, although the latter is the more likely. If a polynoid, the species could belong to-any of a number of genera, and is either indeterminable or at best a junior synonym of /epidota. I fully agree with Chambers and Heppell that recognition of minuta Pennant serves no useful purpose, and I support their request for its suppression. Acknowledgements Susan Chambers (Edinburgh), Anthea Gentry (ICZN Secretariat), and the Department of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., provided help with the early literature. The manuscript was read by Dr Claus Nielsen and Danny Eibye-Jacobsen, Copenhagen, whose comments and suggestions are gratefully acknowledged. Additional references Blake, J.A. 1975. The larval development of Polychaeta from the northern California Coast. HI. Eighteen species of Errantia. Ophelia, 14: 23-84. Cazaux, C. 1968. Etude morphologique de développement larvaire d’annélides Polychetes. (Bassin d’Arcachon). I. Aphroditidae, Chrysopetalidae. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 109: 477-543. Daly, J.M. 1972. The maturation and breeding biology of Harmothoe imbricata (Polychaeta: Polynoidae). Marine Biology, 12(1): 53-66. Grassle, J.P. & Grassle, J.F. 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator Capitella (Polychaeta). Science, 192: 567-569. Izuka, A. 1912. The errantiate Polychaeta of Japan. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, 30(2): 1-262. Pennant, T. 1812. British Zoology. A new (fifth) edition, vol. 4, 380 pp., 95 pls. London. Petersen, M.E. 1983. Pholoe minuta: a cosmopolitan species or a victim of the ‘Characteristic Species Disease’? Pp. 64-65 in: Programme of Polychaete Conference, Australian Museum, July 1983. (Unpublished programme abstract.) Petersen, M.E. 1984. Chaetopterus variopedatus (Annelida: Polychaeta): Another victim of the ‘characteristic species’ disease. American Zoologist, 24(3): 62A. Rasmussen, E. 1956. Faunistic and biological notes on marine invertebrates III. The repro- duction and larval development of some polychaetes from the Isefjord, with some faunistic notes. Biologiske Meddelelser af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 23(1): 1-84. Westheide, W. & Rieger, R.M. 1987. Systematics of the amphiatlantic Microphthalmus-listensis- species-group (Polychaeta: Hesionidae): Facts and concepts for reconstruction of phylogeny and speciation. Zeitschrift fiir Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 25(1): 12-39. Williams, S.J. 1984. The status of Terebellides stroemi (Polychaeta; Trichobranchidae) as a cosmopolitan species, based on a worldwide morphological survey, including description of new species. Pp. 118-142 in P.A. Hutchings (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Polychaete Conference, Sydney. The Linnean Society of New South Wales. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 (2) Susan Chambers & David Heppell Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K. We were interested to see Dr Petersen’s comments (above) on the proposed conser- vation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 and A. minuta Fabricius, 1780, and were pleased to have her support and additional information regarding A. minuta. We also carefully considered her alternative proposals for conditional suppression of the specific name /epidota, but are unable to agree with that for the reasons given below. We agree that there are probably several taxa included under H. imbricata, and that H. lepidotais probably a colour form of the same taxon, given our current knowledge of the species. If the name /epidota were to be suppressed only conditionally, however, it would not be available for use for a segregate species unless it could be shown that the morphological, developmental or behavioural differences which characterized the new species were present in individuals of the ‘/epidota’ colour form, but not in those of typical ‘imbricata’. As the ‘lepidota’ form is well known from populations studied throughout the distribution range of imbricata, we doubt that any such correlation between the distinctive colour pattern and other observable differences would have been overlooked by all previous workers. There seem, therefore, to be only two alternative actions: to acknowledge the priority of /epidota and use the name in place of imbricata; or to suppress /epidota and accept imbricata as the valid name. Perhaps it would have been better if Malgren, or some other worker last century, had accepted /epidota as the name to use, but they were working before an agreed code of nomenclature had been accepted. They regarded the name imbricata as representing the typical form of the species, and /epidota as the name of the variety of it. The relative priority of the names was subordinate to their interpret- ation. We believe sufficient usage of the names in that sense warrants conservation of the name of the typical form as the name of the species, and this can only effectively be done by total suppression of the name of the variety. Even if some of the ‘free-spawning’ individuals of ‘imbricata’ were of the ‘lepidota’ form, we do not think that would justify retention of the name. For such individuals to be recognized as a distinct species other, primarily morphological, characters would need to be associated, and we believe it would be impossible, in the absence of original type material, to show that these were found in the specimens described by Pallas. It would be preferable to introduce a new name, with a full new description. As Cazaux’s observations have not been repeated elsewhere the possibility remains that the develop- mental anomalies observed by him were an artefact of the handling techniques involved. As H. imbricata in laboratory conditions will readily shed scales, it seems not unlikely that they would also shed eggs normally brooded under the scales. Cazaux was unable to find any other point of distinction from normal H. imbricata. He did not give a description of the parent animals and, as noted by Daly (1972), did not describe those stages between the egg and the trochophore which correspond to the protected stage. After reconsidering our original proposals and responding to the comments, we believe that our request for the suppression of the name /epidota for the purposes of the Principle of Priority should stand. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 211 Reply to a comment on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Case 2662; see BZN 46: 165-166, 189-190; 47: 126-127) Herbert W. Levi Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. Otto Kraus Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat Hamburg, Martin- Luther-King-Platz 3, D-2000 Hamburg 13, Fed. Rep. Germany In his comment on this case Raven (BZN 47: 126-127) refers to the listing of Rhechostica in catalogues. However, the mentioning of names in catalogues, lists and nomenclators does not constitute usage for the purposes of the Principle of Priority (see Article 79c(2,i) of the Code). Raven’s discussion of the usage of Eurypelma Koch, 1850 is not relevant to the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma over Rhechostica. As we pointed out before (BZN 46: 165, para. 4), Rhechostica had remained unused for 93 years until resurrected by Raven (1985). One of us (H.W.L.) has found that amongst North American arachnologists who have talked or written about this case all except one (R.C. West; see BZN 46: 190) support the rejection of Rhechostica. Comment on the proposed conservation of /xodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and I. woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by replacement of the holotype of I, angustus (Case 2696; see BZN 46: 167-169) G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology) c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 SHU, U.K. Non-systematists become habituated to the name used for any species of applied importance. The knowledge of such species becomes embodied in textbooks and reports using the familiar name, so that any taxonomic reinterpretation of the species takes a while to become widely understood and accepted. Name changes for familiar species are therefore unpopular, but may be taxonomically necessary for biological reasons. Changes in usage of important species names are unjustifiable simply to fulfil the Principle of Priority and other rules of the Code. In the field of medical and veterinary entomology there are conspicuous precedents for replacement of type specimens in order to conserve the accepted meaning of a species name. For example, the case of the mosquito Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) involving designation of a neotype as proposed by Mattingly et al. (BZN 19: 208-219) was settled by Opinion 711 (1964). The case of Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 involved designation of a neotype by Harbach et al. (1985) without recourse to the Commission. Both cases involved keeping the familiar name for a medically important species, despite conflicting evidence concerning the biological identity of original type specimens. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 The proposed conservation of the names Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and I. woodi Bishopp, 1911, involving replacement of the holotype of J. angustus by the neotype proposed by Robbins & Keirans in keeping with accustomed usage, should be supported as the most expedient solution to the taxonomic problem raised by their observation that the holotypes of these nominally different species appear to be conspecific, whereas these two names have always been used unambiguously for two biologically distinct tick species of some medico-veterinary importance. Additional reference Harbach, R.E., Dahl, C. & White, G.B. 1985. Culex (Culex) pipiens Linnaeus (Diptera: Culicidae): concepts, type designations, and description. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 87: 1-24. Comments on the conservation of the spelling of the specific name of Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina) (Case 2725; see BZN 47: 24-26) The proposed ruling that the accepted spelling of the specific name of the mite Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) be deemed correct although it was first pub- lished as ‘rubustulus’ has been supported in letters received from 31 persons: Richard C. Axtell (North Carolina, U.S.A.); Gerald T. Baker (Misssissippi, U.S.A.); A.K. Datta (Assam, India); R.M. Emberson (Canterbury, New Zealand); G.P. Hall (Western Australia); Robert D. Hall (Missouri, U.S.A.); W. Hirschmann (Nurnberg, Fed. Rep. Germany); T.M. Ho (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia); E. Holm (New South Wales, Australia); Robert W. Husband (Michigan, U.S.A.); K.H. Hyatt (Wales, U.K.); H. Koehler (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany); G.W. Krantz (Oregon, U.S.A.); E.E. Lindquist (Ontario, Canada); M. Luxton (Liverpool, England); W. Niedbala (Poznan, Poland); Roy A. Norton (New York, U.S.A.); James H. Oliver, Jr. (Georgia, U.S.A.); J.C. Otto (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany); F. Pegazzano (Firenze, Italy); G.W. Ramsay (Auckland, New Zealand); M.K.P. Smith Meyer (Pretoria, South Africa); R.V. Southcott (South Australia); M. Spear (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.); Victor F. Stanis (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.); G. Takaku (Sapporo, Japan); P.D. Theron (Potchefstroom, South Africa); M.B. Usher (York, England); M.M.H. Wallace (Canberra, Australia); D.E. Walker (Florida, U.S.A.); F.E. Wendt (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany). Comment on the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda) (Case 2721; see BZN 47: 27-29) Jacques Forest Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75231 Paris, France Je me permets d’apporter un appui total a la proposition présentée par Martin & Kuck, visant a conserver le nom de Bathynomus, établi pour un genre d’Isopode par A. Milne Edwards en 1879 et menacé par une mise en synonymie récente avec le genre fossile Palaega Woodward, 1870. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 213 Je suis tout a fait d’accord avec argumentation des deux auteurs de la requete, retenant deux points principaux: 1. La synonymie des deux genres est douteuse. 2. Le nom de Bathynomus a été applique de fagon continue a un nombre croissant d’especes et son emploi est habituel dans la littérature carcinologique. Dans l’intérét de la stabilite de la nomenclature, je souhaite vivement que la Commission preserve l’usage de Bathynomus. Comments on the proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda) (Case 2711; see BZN 46: 236-238) (1) Richard C. Brusca Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 1390, San Diego, California 92112, U.S.A. I would like to state briefly my support for the proposition of Lowry & Stoddart favoring the designation of the nominal species Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936. I believe Lowry & Stoddart are correct in their assessment of the situation, and that other amphipod workers would welcome this official clarification of a long-standing problem. (2) Michael H. Thurston Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Deacon Laboratory, Godalming, Surrey GU8 SUB, U.K. I support the case made for the designation of L. cubensis as the type species of Shoemakerella. It is clear that Pirlot (1936) based his concept of Shoemakerella on his own material and on the specimens received from Shoemaker. The separation of L. nasuta and L. cubensis is valid. While the illustrations provided by Dana lack much of the detail required by modern taxonomists, such detail as is given can be relied upon. The structure of uropod 3 provides an unequivocal separation of the two species. (3) Support for the proposals on BZN 46: 237 was also received from Prof Krzysztof Jazdzewski, Uniwersytet Lodzki, Lodz, Poland. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 2678; see BZN 46: 241-243) (1) M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga Seccion de Entomologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, J. Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain I cannot support the application to conserve Fabricius’s specific name viridicollis. We (entomologists and biologists in general) should be prepared to handle synonymies, 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 even of common species. Moreover, a lectotype of Curculio cloropus Linnaeus, 1758 has been designated, thereby fixing the identity of this species. I do not want to be an accomplice of Fabricius (and other authors) who made a large number of errors simply because of scientific procedure. If an error is found, it should be corrected in a publication, and be checked (and the correction accepted) by other workers interested in the same subject. I would like to call attention to the fact that the name Phyllobius cloropus has been used recently (Tempére & Péricart, 1989, pp. 47, 475) as the valid name for the species. These French authors took the logical attitude which I defend. Additional reference Tempere, G. & Péricart, J. 1989. Coleoptéres Curculionidae, quatrieme partie. Faune de France, 74: 1-534. (2) Editorial note Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The paper by Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga (1988), in which they demonstrated the synonymy between C. cloropus and C. viridicollis (and in which Thompson wrote (p. 84) that he proposed to apply to the Commission to be able to use the junior synonym viridicollis as the name for the species), is cited in the recently published update of Coléoptéres Curculionidae (1989). Dr J. Péricart (J0 rue Habert, F-77130 Montereau, France) has noted (in litt.) that he had accepted changes in the nomenclature resulting from strict compliance with the Principle of Priority, but only if they had been adopted in previous publications. In other cases, where the name in use was the younger synonym, he had kept that name although indicating that priority would dictate the senior synonym (unless there had been a Commission ruling to the contrary). According to this procedure he (Péricart) would have used the name viridicollis for the species but, by mistake, did not do so. Many changes had been needed during the printing of the publication and this particular one had been overlooked. He, himself, strongly favoured using the name viridicollis. Comment on the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 2716; see BZN 46: 179-180, 47: 48) G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology) c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 5HU, U.K. I support Dr Boorman’s application to uphold Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) for two reasons: First, to maintain consistency in usage (Article 23b) of puncticollis as the specific name of a well known biting midge that ‘is readily identified and not involved in any taxonomic problem’ (BZN 46: 179, para. 4). Secondly, the application wisely allows for the possibility that C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) may, in the light of future studies, prove to be not synonymous with Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 215 C. puncticollis. Biosystematics of haematophagous Diptera is increasingly complicated by the unveiling of sibling species complexes (see Service, 1988). In such cases, available synonyms may be ascribed appropriately to each newly recognised biological species comprising a complex. Until the specific integrity of C. puncticollis (sensu lato) is researched throughout its range in the Mediterranean, it will be advisable to give precedence to the name puncticollis but also to retain algecirensis. Additional reference Service, M.W. 1989. Biosystematics of haematophagous insects. The Systematics Association special volume No. 37. xi, 363 pp. Comments on the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 2702; see BZN 46: 247-249) (1) G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology) c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 5HU, U.K. It is a sad coincidence that the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 comes soon after the death in 1986 of Fritz Peus, doyen of German culicidologists. This American mosquito’s name is merely a homonym, not an eponym, of the man’s and there was no connection between them. A convincing argument is advanced by Eldridge & Harbach for upholding the name C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 and suppressing its senior synonym C. peus which had been misapplied to the more widespread and medically important species C. stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 in most publications during the years 1958-1988. The alternative of designating the holotype of C. stigmatosoma as neotype of C. peus would involve setting aside the latter’s holotype, an action likely to provoke some criticism, in order to sustain recent usage of the name C. peus. However, the standard textbook of North American mosquitoes by Carpenter & LaCasse (1955) had applied the name C. stigmatosoma as now proposed and some workers have continued with this usage throughout. We are told in the proposal that editors have quickly readopted the name C. stigmatosoma since it was reported by Strickman (1988) that C. peus is a senior synonym of C. thriambus and not of C. stigmatosoma. In view of the extensive literature pertaining to the species C. stigmatosoma, much of it published under the name C. pews, much confusion would arise if C. peus is now given precedence over C. thriambus. Therefore, I support the proposal to suppress C. peus. Additional reference Carpenter, S.J. & LaCasse, W.J. 1955. Mosquitoes of North America (north of Mexico). vi, 360 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 (2) Daniel Strickman Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, APO San Francisco, California 96346-5000, U.S.A. The authors of the application were kind enough to allow me to review their manuscript before it was published. I completely agree with their action. Their arguments are well-reasoned and pertinent. If the application is accepted, it will result in a useful stabilization of nomenclature for two important mosquito species of the northern hemisphere. Comments on the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) (Case 2762; see BZN 47: 114-116) (1) Sir James Stubblefield 35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W13 8BE, U.K. I strongly support the proposal to accept Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843, and Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 as the type species of Bollandia Reed, 1943. (2) H.B. Whittington Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K. I write in strong support of Case 2762, the application to conserve the meaning of the Carboniferous trilobite name Griffithides Portlock, 1843 by setting aside an over- looked type species designation. I believe it will be in the best interests of stability in nomenclature to take this action. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 217 OPINION 1608 Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Marssonopora Lang, 1914 are hereby set aside and Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 is designated as type species. (2) The name Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name densispina Levinsen, 1925, as published in the binomen Membranipora densispina (specific name of the type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2657 An application for the designation of Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914 was received from Dr P.D. Taylor (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) & Prof E. Voigt (Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 8 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 88—90 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 89-90. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Schuster was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, Naturvidenskabelig og mathematisk Afdeling, 8, 7: 316. Marssonopora Lang, 1914, Geological Magazine, NS, decade 6, 1: 438. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1609 Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): conserved Ruling (1) Itis hereby ruled that A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. by Benett (1831) is an available work. (2) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: (a) the generic name Drepanites Benett, 1831, and all other uses of that name prior to Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the specific name striatus Benett, 1831, as published in the binomen Drepanites striatus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Diener (1915) Arpadites (Drepanites) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893; (b) Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- nation Ammonites falcatus Mantell, 1822. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893, as published in the binomen Arpadites (Drepanites) hyatti (specific name of the type species of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893); (b) falcatus Mantell, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites falcatus (specific name of the type species of Hyphoplites Spath, 1922). (5) The work A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. by E. Benett (1831), as ruled in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. (6) The name Drepanites Benett, 1831, as suppressed in (2)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (7) The name striatus Benett, 1831, as published in the binomen Drepanites striatus and as suppressed in (2)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2668 An application for the conservation of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 was received from Drs E.E. Spamer & A.E. Bogan (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A.) on 9 June 1988 and published in BZN 46: 19-21 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment by Mr C.W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) was pub- lished in BZN 46: 187-188 (September 1989), together with a reply by the Executive Secretary of the Commission. : A comment was received from Prof D.T. Donovan (Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, London, U.K.), who noted that Miss Benett Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 219 presented a copy of her 1831 Catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. to the British Museum, Bloomsbury, inscribed ‘British Museum, from the Author’, indicating her wish for the work to be publicly available. A recent publication (reference below) by the authors of the application and one other has given in detail the background to Benett’s work and the extensive way in which it was distributed and taken note of by her contemporaries. The paper docu- ments the large number of taxa established by Benett, and cites the present localities of her collection which includes type material for species proposed by her and subsequent authors; Drepanites striatus Benett is discussed on p. 144 et seq. Spamer, E.E., Bogan, A.E. & Torrens, H.S. 1989. Recovery of the Eltheldred Benett collection of fossils mostly from Jurassic-Cretaceous strata of Wiltshire, England, analysis of the taxonomic nomenclature of Benett (1831), and notes and figures of type specimens contained in the collection. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 141: 115—180. Decision of the Commission On | March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 20. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza (in part), Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Martins de Souza (in part). Schuster was on leave of absence. Martins de Souza said there did not appear sufficient reason to suppress the name Drepanites Benett, 1831 to conserve Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893. Original references The following are the original references to the names and work placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Drepanites Benett, 1831, A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts., p. 3, pl. 16. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893, Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Geologischen Reichsanstalt, 6(2): 495. falcatus, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822, The fossils of the South Downs; or illustrations of the geology of Sussex, p. 117, pl. 21, figs. 6, 12. hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites), Mojsisovics, 1893, Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-K6niglichen Geologischen Reichsanstalt, 6(2): 495. Hyphoplites Spath, 1922, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 53(6): 110. striatus, Drepanites, Benett, 1831, A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts., p. 3, pl. 16. Benett, E. 1831. 4 catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. iv,9 pp., 18 pls. Vardy, Warminster. The following is the reference for the designation of Drepanites hyatti as the type species of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893: Diener, C. 1915. Cephalopoda triadica. In Frech, F. (Ed.), Fossilium catalogus. 1. Animalia. (8), p. 129. 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1610 Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: (a) the specific name nucleus Phillips, 1829, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus, and all other uses of that name prior to Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 before that of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by Roman (1938) are hereby set aside. (2) The name Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (gender: masculine), type species Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by the ruling in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name nucleus Roemer, 1841, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus (specific name of the type species of Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name nucleus Phillips, 1829, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2403 An application for the confirmation of Sayn in Kilian (1910) as the author of the nominal genus Valanginites, and of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type species, was received from Drs P.F. Rawson (University College London, London, U.K.) and E. Kemper (Bundesanstalt fiir Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 18 January 1982. After correspondence, and a delay arising from a move by the senior author, the case was published in BZN 46: 91-93 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support were received from Mr C.W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) and Dr M.K. Howarth (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 92. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Tryjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Macpherson. Schuster was on leave of absence. ip ste Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 221 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: nucleus, Ammonites, Phillips, 1829, I/lustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire, p. 174. nucleus, Ammonites, Roemer, 1841, Die Versteinerungen des Norddeutschen Kreidegebirges, part 2, p. 87. Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910, Lethaea geognostica, Teil 2 (Das Mesozoicum), Band 3 (Kreide), Liefrung 2, p. 194. The following is the reference for the designation of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as the type species of Valanginites: Roman, F. 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. Essai de genera, p. 386. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1611 Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as published in the binomen Heliophanus albosignatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name kochii Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Heliophanus kochii, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as published in the binomen Heliophanus albosignatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2647 An application for the conservation of the specific name of one of the jumping spiders, Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868, but with the spelling kochi, was received from Dr J. Proszynski (Zaklad Zoologii WSPR, Siedlce, Poland) on 4 March 1988. The application sought the suppression of the senior subjective synonym albosignatus L. Koch, 1867. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 108-109 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application was supported by Mr F.R. Wanless (Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). It was noted on the voting papers that a recent major monograph by Wesolowska (1986) on the genus Heliophanus C.L. Koch, 1835 uses the spelling kochi; see also BZN 46:108—109, para. 5. The proposals of para. 6 on BZN 46: 109, (1)(a) for the suppression of the specific name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, and (1)(b) that kochi should be deemed to be the correct spelling of the specific name first published as kochii by Simon (1868), were presented separately for voting. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 109, amended as above. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Proposal (1)(a). Affirmative votes — 19: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — 7: Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli and Ueno. Proposal (1)(b). Affirmative votes — 13: Bock, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — 13: Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Savage and Uéno. Schuster was on leave of absence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 223 Proposal (1)(a) was thus carried, but since there was no majority for proposal (1)(b) the name kochii Simon, 1868 is conserved with its original spelling. Dupuis abstained from both votes, commenting ‘Je crains que les habitudes de Simon, en matiere de nomenclature, aient comporte beaucoup de précipitation et diverses négligences. Je ne peux donc pas me prononcer sur la confiance aveugle qu’on parait lui accorder en matiére de taxonomie’. Heppell commented that ‘the Commis- sion should not be asked to rule on the correct spelling of individual specific names which differ only in an —/ or —ii termination. It is already difficult enough in many cases to discover which variant is the correct original spelling, and to require zoologists to consult also the Official Lists for such a trivial matter seems quite wrong. Many zool- ogists (and zoological editors) routinely employ a single —/ termination because of their incorrect interpretation of the rules. Others believe that the —i and —ii terminations can simply be regarded as permissible alternatives. It would be far better to have such a simple remedy to this vexed and continuing problem than to have individual cases determined piecemeal on the basis of perceived usage’. 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: albosignatus, Heliophanus, L. Koch, 1867, Verhandlungen der Zoologisch—Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 17: 871. kochii, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)8: 699. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1612 Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus; Arachnida, Araneae): 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) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen A/tus illibatus; (b) inequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Aftus inequalipes; (c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen A ttus guttatus. (2) The name penicillatus Simon, 1875, as published in the binomen Aftus penicillatus, 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) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Afttus illibatus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) imequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus inequalipes and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen Attus guttatus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above. History of Case 2648 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 was received from Dr J. Proszynski (Zaklad Zoologii WSPR, Siedlce, Poland) on 4 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 110-111 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application was supported by Mr F.R. Wanless (Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). Decision of the Commission On | March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 111. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink Negative votes — 8: Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mroczkowski, Savage and Uéno. Schuster was on leave of absence. Dupuis abstained: Simon’s nomenclatural acts had caused very many problems (see comment on BZN 47: 223). Uéno noted that the types of all the nominal species were preserved in major museums, and commented that future specialists might conclude that the taxa concerned were distinct. Cogger and Mroczkowski agreed, adding that the applicant’s aim could be met by giving precedence to the name penicillatus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 in) NM nN 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: guttatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 11: 119. illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)8: 541. inequalipes, Attus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)8: 614. penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)5: xcii. Bulletin des Seances (Seance du 28 Avril 1875). 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1613 Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea, Copepoda) Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Jsochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889; (b) the specific name /ongisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen Tsochaeta longisetosus. (2) The name Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (gender: feminine), type species by indication (Article 67h) Leuckartia flavicornis Claus, 1863, 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) flavicornis Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Leuckartia flavicornis (specific name of the type species of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898); (b) longiremis Sars, 1907, as published in the binomen Pseudaugaptilus longiremis. (4) The name LUCICUTIIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name /sochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889, as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (6) The name Jongisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen Isochaeta longisetosus 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 2666 3 An application for the conservation of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907 was received from Dr K. Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 25 May 1988 and published in BZN 46: 97—100 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 98-99. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 5: Cogger, Hahn, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Mahnert. Schuster was on leave of absence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 227 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: flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863, Die Frei Lebenden Copepoden mit Besonderer Berticksichtigung der Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres, p. 183. Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889, Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, (4)5(11), semestre 1: 812. longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907, Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique, 101: 24. longisetosus, Isochaeta, Thompson, 1903, The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)12(67): 26. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898, Das Tierreich, 6: 110. LUCICUTIDAE Sars, 1902, An account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4 (Copepoda, Calanoida), parts 7 and 8 (Centropagidae and Diaptomidae), p. 73. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1614 Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Trapecia Berthold, 1827 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- sequent designation by H. Milne Edwards (1842) Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828 (a junior subjective synonym of Cancer cymodoce Herbst, 1801), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name cymodoce Herbst, 1801, as published in the binomen Cancer cymodoce (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828, the type species of Trapezia Latreille, 1828), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Trapecia Berthold, 1827, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2542/2 An application for the conservation of Trapezia Latreille, 1828 was submitted by Miss R.A. Cooper (formerly of the Secretariat, I.C.Z.N.) following the discovery that Case 2542 (see BZN 44: 95-96), which proposed to eliminate the homonymy between TRAPEZIIDAE in decapods and bivalves, could not otherwise be completed. The case was published in BZN 46: 104-105 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 105. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Schuster was on leave of absence. See also Opinion 1615, BZN 47: 229-230 for the family-group name TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886. 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: cymodoce, Cancer, Herbst, 1801, Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 3, part 2, p. 22. Trapecia Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s natiirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus dem Franzésischen mit Anmerkungen und Zusdatzen, p. 255. Trapezia Latreille, 1828, Encyclopédie méthodique d'Histoire naturelle (Insectes ), vol. 10, p. 695. __ a id No \o Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1615 TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 for the purposes of Article 29 is Trapez-. (2) The name Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by Stewart (1930) Trapezium perfectum Megerle von Miuhlfeld, 1811 (a junior subjective synonym of Chama oblonga Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name oblonga Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chama oblonga (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Trapezium perfectum Mergerle von Muhlfield, 1811, the type species of Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfield, 1811), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886, type genus Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea); (b) TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, type genus Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 (Mollusca), spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above. History of Case 2542 An application to remove the homonymy between TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca) was received from Dr G.J. Morgan (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia) on 9 December 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 95—96 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr L.B. Holthuis, who suggested that a molluscan family name of TRAPEZIUMIDAE would avoid possible future homonymy with a family name which might be derived from the hemipteran genus Trapezus Distant, 1882. However, Trapezus was synonymised with Cryphula Stal, 1874 by Barber in 1918 (see Slater, J.A., 1964, Lygaeidae of the World, vol. 2, p. 814). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 95—96. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. The vote was thus unanimous, but problems with both the type species and the date of the crustacean genus Trapezia were found after voting. Consequently no Opinion 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 was published, and a second case was published to resolve these problems (see BZN 46: 104-105). The Opinion 1614 relating to the second case is now published (see BZN 47: 228), and the Opinion resulting from the 1988 vote is now completed. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: oblonga, Chama, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 692. TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, Journal de Conchyliologie, 64(4): 265 (as TRAPEZIIDAE). TRAPEZIDAE Miers, 1886, Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of HMS Challenger, (Zoology, Part 49), vol. 17, p. 163. Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811, Magazin fiir die neuesten Entdecklungen in der gesammten Naturkunde von Der Gesellschaft Naturforschaft Freunde zu Berlin, 5: 68. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 931 OPINION 1616 Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 prior to the designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 by Marshall (1916) are hereby set aside. (2) The name Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Marshall (1916) Prochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834, as published in the binomen Ptochus porcellus (specific name of the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2646 An application for the confirmation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 as the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 was received from Mr R.T. Thompson (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 24 February 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 28—29 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support was received from Dr Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) who noted that conservation of the accepted meaning of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 would help to stabilise the generic nomenclature of weevils, which is confused at present. It was noted on the voting paper that the genus Prochus has been treated in a number of major publications and that it is the type genus of the large tribe PTOCHINI Reitter, 1912, which includes some 20 genera and 400 species. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 29. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson Schuster was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman in Schénherr, 1834, Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 2, part 1, p. 483. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Ptochus Schonherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio methodica cum generum characteribus, descriptionibus atque observationibus variis, p. 188. The following is the reference for the designation of Ptochus porcellus as the type species of Ptochus: Marshall, G.A.K. 1916. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Rhynchophora: Curculionidae (part 1), p. 259. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 233 OPINION 1617 Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over Zelica Hiibner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825] Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Rosema Walker, 1855 is hereby given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Rosema Walker, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Kirby (1892) Rosema dorsalis Walker, 1855, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names; (b) Zelica Hitbner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena zelica Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Rosema Walker, 1855, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (c) Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena epigena Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Rosema Walker, 1855, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dorsalis Walker, 1855, as published in the binomen Rosema dorsalis (specific name of the type species of Rosema Walker, 1855); (b) zelica Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena zelica (specific name of the type species of Zelica Hubner, [1825]); (c) epigena Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena epigena (specific name of the type species of Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]). History of Case 2665 An application for Rosema Walker, 1855 to be given precedence over two senior subjective synonyms was received from Dr P. Thiaucourt (Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 16 May 1988 and published in BZN 46: 123-125 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 124. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell (in part), Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride (in part), Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Schuster was on leave of absence. 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Ride and Heppell would have preferred outright suppression of Zelica and Rhogalia. Heppell commented: ‘No reason is given why Rosema should not be conserved simply by the suppression of Zelica and Rhogalia. Indeed, from the evidence presented this would seem by far the best solution. There are no complications at either family or species level, and there has been no usage of the senior generic names this century. Let us leave the always complicating procedure of conditional precedence only for those few cases where there is real doubt about the consequences of suppressing a senior subjective synonym’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, part 4, p. 1168. epigena, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790], Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den Heere Pieter Cramer, p. 72. Rhogalia Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 396. Rosema Walker, 1855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, part 4, p. 1159. zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790], Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den Heere Pieter Cramer, p. 73. Zelica Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 396. The following is the reference for the designation of Rosema dorsalis as the type species of Rosema: Kirby, W.F. 1892. A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. | (Sphinges and Bombyces), p. 581. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 235 OPINION 1618 Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement lectotype Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of lectotype for Musca azurea Fallén, 1817 prior to that by Sabrosky (1956) are hereby set aside. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- nation Musca azurea Fallén, 1817; (b) Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phormia terraenovae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) azurea Fallen, 1817, as published in the binomen Musca azurea (specific name of the type species of Protocalliphora Hough, 1899) and as defined by the lectotype designated by Sabrosky (1956); (b) terraenovae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Phormia terraenovae (specific name of the type species of Protophormia Townsend, 1908). History of Case 2658 An application for the conservation of usage of Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 and its type species Musca azurea Fallén, 1817 by the designation of a replacement lectotype was received from Dr C.W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 26 April 1988. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 46: 126-129 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 129. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. Schuster was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: azurea, Musca, Fallen, 1817, Kongliga Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, 1816: 245. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Protocalliphora Hough, 1899, Entomological News, 10: 65. Protophormia Townsend, 1908, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, no. 1803, 51(2): 123. terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires présentés par divers savans a l’ Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, 2: 467. The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: Sabrosky, C.W. 1956. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)25(9-10): 178. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 237 OPINION 1619 Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, is hereby given precedence over the specific name conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 2680 An application to give precedence to Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 over E. conyzae Hering, 1933 was received from Drs I.M. White (CAB Institute of Entomology, London, U.K.) & P. Harris (Agricultural Research Station, Regina, Canada) on 6 September 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 30-32 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 31. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, — Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Kabata, Macpherson and Mahnert. Schuster was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933, Amateur de Papillons, 6: 309. Jjaceana, Euribia, Hering, 1935, Markische Tierwelt, 1: 169. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 OPINION 1620 Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by citation of Lapworth (1876) as author Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the subspecific name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as published in the combination Graptolites lobiferus Var. f exiguus, and all other uses of that name before its publication by Lapworth (1876), are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name exiguus Lapworth, 1876, as published in the binomen Monograptus exiguus and as interpreted by the lectotype designated in BZN 46: 33, para. 6, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as published in the combination Graptolites lobiferus Var. B exiguus, and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2674 An application for the conservation of the accepted usage of Monograptus exiguus by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author was received from Mr D.K. Loydell (University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales, U.K.) on 27 July 1988. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 46: 33—34 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Margaret Sudbury (Rickmansworth, U.K.) was published in BZN 46: 191-192. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 34. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Holthuis Schuster was on leave of absence. Holthuis would have preferred a neotype selection for the nominal species Graptolites exiguus Nicholson, 1868, and continued attribution of exiguus to Nicholson. 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: exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus Var. B, Nicholson, 1868, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 24: 533. exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876, Geological Magazine, (2)3: 503. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 239 OPINION 1621 Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all first reviser actions regarding the specific names vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Osteoglossum vandellii, and bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in combination with the manuscript generic name [schnosoma, are hereby set aside, and it is ruled that bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is to be deemed a senior objective synonym of vandellii Cuvier, 1829; (b) Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species of the nominal genus Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829. (2) The name Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (gender: neuter), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen ‘Jschnosoma’ bicirrhosum (specific name of the type species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Osteoglossum vandellii, and as ruled in (1)(a) above to be a junior objective synonym of bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen ‘/schnosoma’ bicirrhosum, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2659 An application for the fixation of Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the type species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 was received from Dr M. Kottelat (Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchen, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 28 April 1988. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 46: 130-131 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. With regard to Proposal (1)(a) of BZN 46: 130, para. 4: a simpler course in this case would have been to suppress the unused specific name vandellii Cuvier, 1829 (except for the purposes of homonymy). The author of the application would not accept this suggestion. Both specific names vandellii and bicirrhosum are available as from Cuvier, 1829 (the latter under Article lle of the Code), and are thus objective synonyms (i.e. two names for the same taxon). The first reviser action of Agassiz (1831; see para. 2) gave precedence to vandellii, but this was never followed and the application sought to follow universal usage by setting aside the action of Agassiz. Decision of the Commission On | March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 46: 130-131. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Kabata, Ride and Savage. Schuster was on leave of absence. Dupuis abstained because, although he supported the aims of the proposals, he considered that the authorship of the name bicirrhosum should be ‘Spix in Cuvier, 1829” and not simply ‘Cuvier, 1829’ [however, Article 50g of the Code specifies the latter citation]. Heppell, Holthuis, Ride and Savage said (in agreement with a comment by the Executive Secretary on the voting papers) that the name vandellii should have been suppressed for purposes of priority. Partly for this reason, and partly because since Cuvier (1829) had published two binomina the Commission could not ‘confirm O. bicirrhosum as the type species of Osteoglossum by monotypy’ (proposal (1)(b) on BZN 46: 130), Heppell abstained and Holthuis, Ride and Savage voted against. From an entirely formal point of view two new nominal species were established in Cuvier’s paper, even though both specific names referred to the same taxon (i.e. they are objec- tive synonyms). The Commission’s vote adopted O. bicirrhosum as the type species of Osteoglossum and the Ruling records this decision. 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: bicirrhosum, Ischnosoma, Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribuée d’apres son organisation pour servir de base al’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie compareée, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 328. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829, Le regne animal distribué d’apreés son organisation pour servir de base al’histoire naturelle des animaux et d introduction a l’anatomie comparée, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 328. vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation pour servir de base al’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie compareée, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 328. Contents—continued Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1608. Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): ae densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species... ote ne 217 Opinion 1609. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): conserved . . 218 Opinion 1610. Valanginites Saynin Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the He SPeCles. 220 Opinion 1611. Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name Consenved! sor... 222 Opinion 1612. Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus: Arachnida, Araneae): specific nameconserved . . 224 Opinion 1613. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea, Copepoda): . « . epee 226 Opinion 1614. Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved ee 228 Opinion 1615. TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed. . 229 Opinion 1616. Prtochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ‘Ptochus porcelis Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species. . . . 231 Opinion 1617. Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]. . . . 233 Opinion 1618. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement lectotype i. . 235 Opinion 1619. Furibia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. . . 237 Opinion 1620. Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by citation.of Lapworth(1876)asauthor ..-: i 6 Die. ee a. 238 Opinion 1621. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated asthe typespecies . . . . . 239 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin 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 name in parentheses. Author’s name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission’s 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 title 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 Executive Secretary, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360K B (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. CONTENTS Notices . . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature E : Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- -Supplement : Applications Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species. M.S. Harvey . : Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. D. Belk & S. T. Bowen Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. ‘Ss. R. Steinhauser, L. D. Miller, J. Y. Miller & C. A. Bridges ; Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. K. Rognes & R. E. Blackith . Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed c conser- vation of the specific name. K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith. Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of ‘the specific name. E. O. Willis & Y. Oniki Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed ‘conservation. L. M. Chiappe & M. F. Soria 3 (aig ate Sh aaah Ie iaoe rae Comments On the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. T. Abbott; P. Bouchet; A. Gentry; R. Giannuzzi-Savelli . 4 On the proposed precedence of POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Rosenberg & K. C. Emberton . . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton, 1834) (Mollusca, Bivalvia). R. W. Scott. : On the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, ‘1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). A. H. Clarke; A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams & S. L. H. Fuller . On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M. E. Petersen; S. Chambers & D. Heppell : On the proposed precedence of Apianonelius Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) 0 over Rhechostica Simon, 1892. H. W. Levi & O. Kraus. : On the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and i: “ woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by peerage of the holotype of J. angustus. G. B. White . : On the conservation of the spelling of the specific name . of Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina). R.C. Axtelletal. . On the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda). J. Forest. : On the proposed designation of Lysionax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as : the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda). R. C. Brusca; M. H. Thurston On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. Mecangcs P.K. Tubbs . On the proposed precedence ‘of Culicoides. puneticollis (Becker, 1903) over C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White . On the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White; D. Strickman RSS On the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species of ey Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita). Sir J. Stubblefield; H. B. Whittington . : fe ree ee ok Continued on Inside Back Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset "1 > Leer a b Volume 47, Part 4, 20 December 1990 pp. 241-311 ISSN 004 The Bulletin sical 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 1990 is £65 or $125, postage included; the rates for 1991 will be £70 or $135. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Secretary-General Executive Secretary Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.,; Brachiopoda) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fed. Rep. Germany, Trilobita) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway; Parasitology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Prof A. Willink (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Miss D. Allan, 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 1990 ; i | cane i 21 MEP 109 fl $1 DEC 1898 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 47, part 4 (pp. 241-311) 20 December 1990 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication, but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. (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 47, part 3 (published on 28 September 1990). Under Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published. (1) Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2782). B. Aukema & M.L. Luff. (2) Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct spellings, and proposed conservation of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Rhizophagus. (Case 2783). H. Silfverberg. (3) Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, 1789 (currently Macronectes giganteus; Aves, Procellariiformes): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype. (Case 2784). J.-F. Voison & 16 others. (4) Palaeopropithecus ingens Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation of both generic and specific names. (Case 2785). I. Tattersall & E.L. Simons. (5) TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of homonymy, and TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825: proposed precedence over TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821. (Case 2786). A.F. Newton Jr., M.K. Thayer & C.W. Sabrosky. (6) Styloptcuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed con- servation with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as the type species. (Case 2787). L.B. Holthuis. AL HISTORY) 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 (7) Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Octocorallia): proposed designation of Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species. (Case 2788). P. Alderslade. (8) Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation of A. triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species. (Case 2789). S.C. Khosla, S.R. Jakhar & M.H. Mohammed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular disciplines. For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will receive copies of all Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to either the Crustacea or Mollusca as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This service will start with the present volume, but offprints are available back to 1980. Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. Price £19 or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomen- clature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany orders. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895 up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and three works have been added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- ture. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 243 The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, 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.). 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report for 1989 The Trust made a small operating loss of £353 during the year 1989, whichis 0.6% of the total income of £60,930 received during that year. It demonstrates the extent to which the Trust relies on the continuation of its generous grants and donations. Approximately half the Trust’s income came from sales of publications. Foremost amongst these were the four parts of the 1989 volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which yielded an income of £20,400. Sales of the Official Lists and Indexes amounted to £5,907 in 1989, bringing the total sales since publication in June 1987 to £24,031 by the end of 1989; the profit on that publication is now £8,084, after the printing costs have been deducted. Sales of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature recovered to £2,614 in 1989, after the abnormally low figure of less than half that amount in 1988, and this reflects the steps taken by the Trust to sell the Code direct rather than through an agent. The remaining half of the Trust’s income was from grants, donations and interest. Grants of £1,000 from the Royal Society and £2,000 each from the U.K. Agricultural and Food Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council were received with thanks. The Trust also wishes to express its thanks to the donors listed at the end of this report who supported its work during the year. Income from deeds of covenant amounted to £213, and bank and investment interest came to £10,213. Finally royalties from sales of the Code translated into other languages yielded £694. All the sources of income showed an increase over the amounts received in 1988, except for the Official Lists and Indexes, which decreased from the high level of sales during the first 18 months after publication. The expenses of the Trust in 1989 amounted to £61,238. The largest amount was for the salaries and national insurance (£48,981) and office expenses (£2,780) of the Secre- tariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Printing and distribution of the Bulletin amounted to £8,982. Minor expenses of £290 for depreciation of office equipment and £250 for the audit fee brought the total expenses up to £61,283. The Commission was again housed in the Natural History Museum and we thank the Trustees and Director for their continuing support. M.K. HOWARTH Secretary and Managing Director 5 June 1990 | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Donations received included the following: Academia Sinica, Taiwan, £118 Academy of Science, U.S.S.R., £507 American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, £5,825 Australian Museums, £142 British Ecological Society, £500 Dr D.G. Broadley, Zimbabwe, £100 Freshwater Biological Association, £5 Dr K. Hulsemann, £30 Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Barcelona, £500 Prof Dr O. Kraus, £20 Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, £101 Swiss Academy of Science, £1,990 Unione Zoologica Italiana, £212 Total £10,050 245 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1989 Income SALE OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes GRANTS DONATIONS AND COVENANTS ROYALTIES BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST Expenditure SALARIES AND FEES OFFICE EXPENSES AUDIT FEE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT Deficit for the year 21,396 2,641 5,907 9,000 11,079 694 10,213 48,981 2,780 250 8,982 290 29,944 30,986 60,930 61,283 £353 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature General Session of the Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 Present: Prof Dr O. Kraus (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Bock, Cogger, Corliss, Heppell, Lehtinen, Minelli, Ride, Savage, Schuster and Thompson. Dr Tubbs (Executive Secretary), Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith from the Secretariat also present. The President welcomed Dr Bock and Prof Minelli as new members of the Commission attending their first meeting. 1. Apologies for absence were received from Commissioners Bayer, Cocks, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno and Willink. 2. The minutes of the previous General Session of the Commission (Canberra, October 1988) as published in BZN 46: 7-12 were accepted and signed. The report of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature (Canberra, October 1988) as published in BZN 46: 14-18 was discussed. 3. Specialist Nomenclature Committees A number of Specialist Nomenclature Committees established by relevant Congresses now existed and were available to assist the Commission by advising on applications submitted to the Commission and the impact of such applications on taxonomy. However, there were some areas where there was a fear that the existence of such a committee would impinge on the freedom of taxonomists. It was stressed that Nomenclature Committees would need to be recognized as being committees of the Commission. If their role was to be widened to areas such as compiling and considering registers of names, it was important to spell out clearly the role of the committees. In this context, Prof Bock agreed to draw up draft Terms of Reference for Nomenclature Committees based on his experience of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) of the International Ornithological Congress. The importance of proceeding with the establishment of Specialist Nomenclature Committees in appropriate areas that did not yet have them was agreed. 4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr Tubbs reported that in 1989 there were 327 subscribers to the Bulletin from 45 countries. As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoologi- cal Nomenclature was introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular areas. Initially this would cover the Crustacea and the Mollusca. 5. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology In the three years since publication 481 copies of this book had been sold and a further 51 copies had been distributed free to Commissioners, reviewers, etc. A supple- ment listing all the additional entries in the five years since compilation of the book would be issued early in 1991. It was suggested that there would be advantage in providing the updated book for sale on disk in addition to book form. It was agreed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 247 that production on disk would be explored with Biosis for report to the next meeting at Amsterdam. 6. Financial Position Dr Tubbs said that the Trust’s expenditure in 1990 would be about matched by income. Expenditure would be lower than anticipated due to a temporary saving in salary arising from the resignation of a member of the Secretariat and to economies in printing costs by providing copy on disk. Income was higher than expected mainly due to an increased contribution from the American Association for Zoological Nomencla- ture and donations from a number of countries that had not recently provided support, particularly Australia, Germany, South Africa, Spain and Japan. The Commission expressed warm appreciation to those institutions and individuals that had made con- tributions enabling the Commission’s work to continue and progress, and also to those whose efforts had led to such contributions being made. It had recently been suggested that a European Association for Zoological Nomenclature should be established with the objective of furthering the interests of the Commission’s work and of co-ordinating financial support for the Trust. Fifteen European countries had Commissioners or Trustees who would be well placed to co- ordinate activities within their own countries. Dr Macpherson had offered to provide overall co-ordination from Spain. Commissioners welcomed the proposition and RESOLVED to work towards the establishment of such an Association. It was suggested that a first step forward would be for Dr Macpherson to write to representa- tives in each European country requesting a list of institutions and individuals who might be approached for support. It was known that some countries were unable to contribute research council or other government support to an organisation based abroad, such as the Trust. How- ever, it might be possible for such countries to make additional contibutions to I.U.B:S. earmarked for the Trust. Such contributions from government sources would be additional to funds generated by the European Association for Zoological Nomencla- ture, or otherwise given. Dr Ride undertook to place this proposition before the next 1.U.B.S. Officers Meeting. 7. Commission Procedures Commissioners were aware that there was a widespread belief that the procedures followed by the Commission were too slow and cumbersome and that there was a large backlog of cases awaiting publication or decision. It was important to correct this conception and to ensure that cases could be dealt with expeditiously. The Secretary was asked to provide details so that Commissioners could respond to criticisms made to them. It was furthermore RESOLVED that the Secretariat would prepare an article explaining procedures and how these were implemented in practice. This article could be published in the Bulletin and also perhaps in Systematic Zoology. 8. Election of Commissioners at the next I.U.B.S. Assembiy There would be five vacancies on the Commission to be filled at the meeting of I.U.B.S. to be held at Amsterdam in September 1991; one of these vacancies already existed, but it was agreed not to fill it by the casual vacancy procedure. Calls for 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 nominations had been widely published and nominations had been received from several countries. 9. Proposed Suppression for Nomenclatural Purposes of three Herpetological Works An application for the suppression of three herpetological works by R.W. Wells and C.R. Wellington had been published in the Bulletin (June 1987) and a number of comments had been received and published. Commissioners agreed that, while the taxonomic content of works lay outside its area of involvement, the Commission did have a responsibility to prevent loss of universality in the use of names and it was on this issue that action might be appropriate. Before a vote was taken on the application it would be desirable to receive from the Nomenclature Committee of the International Herpetological Congress a statement, quantified as far as possible, on the loss of universality in the use of names arising from these publications. It was agreed that the Committee should be asked to supply such a statement. It was pointed out that this case highlighted the difficulties that could arise from the publication of large numbers of destabilising names or nomenclatural acts, and that this problem had been exacerbated by modern publishing techniques. A long-term solution was desirable, and it was suggested that one way would be to compile a list of sources, both journals and book publishers, in which names would have to be published or be registered in order to be accepted as available. 10. Register of Names (a) Generic Names Dr Ride and Dr Tubbs reported on continuing discussions between I.U.B.S., the Commission Secretariat and Biosis on possible liaison in preparing registers of names. Commissioners recognized the value of such lists and welcomed the proposed collabor- ation with Biosis. A register of generic names could be based on Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus and Zoological Record. It would be necessary to provide for breakdown into systematic groups, enabling specialists to identify errors. After appropriate periods for consultation and amendments it could be ruled that only the names on the lists should be accepted as available, with authors and dates as given therein. Other names published before the compilation date of the register would be deemed unavail- able. It was important that the data bases should be prepared so that they could be searched in a variety of ways, using fields such as name, author, date, place of publi- cation and systematic group, and that matters such as nomina nuda, junior homonyms, type species and actions by the Commission (such as placement on the Official Lists) could be taken into account. A committee (the President, Commissioners Cogger, Ride and Thompson and the Executive Secretary) was set up to give guidance on such lists, and to respond to difficulties that would doubtless arise. It was RESOLVED to enter into negotiations with Biosis with a view to developing a data base of generic names asa list of available names. A paper would be prepared for discussion by the Commission and the Section of Zoological Nomenclature at Amsterdam putting forward a formal proposition along these lines. (b) Family-Group Names Dr Bock described the list of about 1250 available family-group names of living birds prepared under his Chairmanship by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. After a number of remaining problems had been resolved it might be Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 249 possible for the Commission to adopt such a list as a base-line so that other previously existing names were deemed not to exist as available names. Workers in other areas could be encouraged to prepare lists of family-group names in their own areas. With this in mind Dr Bock agreed to prepare a note setting out the procedures he had developed for drawing up such a list. (c) Names of Higher Taxa Although taxa higher than family-group were outside the remit of the Commission it was thought desirable to try to introduce some degree of conformity in the use of such higher taxa. It was suggested that a list, perhaps based on Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms (McGraw-Hill, 1982) which covered extant taxa, should be drawn up for circulation to Commissioners for comment. Commissioners Heppell, Savage and the Executive Secretary would compile this for consideration at the next Commission meeting. (d) Specific Names It was suggested that the Commission could receive lists of available species-group names in discrete groups of animals, and that, after appropriate consideration by specialists in the groups concerned, such names could be ruled to be the only ones available. It was agreed that this would be discussed by the Commission and the Section of Zoological Nomenclature in Amsterdam. 11. New Edition of the Code At the last Commission meeting at Canberra an Editorial Committee (Chairman: Commissioner Thompson) had been set up to work towards a new edition of the Code. Dr Thompson made a report and explained that there would be an open meeting of the Commission on 5th July to consider possible amendments to the Code. Additionally, an ICSEB Round Table Discussion on 6th July would have a more general discussion on issues of biological nomenclature involving the Botanical, Zoological and other Codes. There was general agreement that a new edition should not follow the numbering of Articles in the 3rd Edition since a number of closely related issues were dispersed throughout the Code and needed to be brought together. A small group of Commissioners met after the formal conclusion of the Commission meeting to identify issues for further consideration at the Commission’s Open Meeting on Sth July. 12. Conclusion In closing the meeting, the President expressed the view that the meeting had made significant progress and that it was important to emphasise to the zoological community the positive approach adopted by the Commission. He reminded Commis- sioners that the centenary of the Commission’s establishment would occur in 1995 and that recognition of this, perhaps in the form of a Centenary History, would be appropriate. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Open Meeting of the Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990 Present: Prof Dr O. Kraus (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Bock, Cogger, Corliss, Heppell, Lehtinen, Ride, Savage, Schuster and Thompson. Commission Secre- tariat: Dr Tubbs (Executive Secretary), Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith. Dr R. Bieler, Dr D. Goujet, Miss C. Hine, Dr J.H. Kirkbride, Dr M. Kraus, Miss J. McIntosh, Dr P. Mikkelsen, Dr J. Reveal, Dr G. Rosenberg, Professor J.R.P. Ross and Dr C.W. Sabrosky. 1. The President opened the meeting by welcoming all present. He explained that the aim of the meeting was to explain the Commission’s policy and the way in which it operated, and to seek the views of zoologists present. The Commission was now work- ing towards a fourth edition of the Code. A draft would be prepared for consideration by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature and for comment by zoologists, and an input from the user community at this stage would be of great value. 2. The President summarised the deliberations of the Commission in session on 4 July, referring particularly to (a) the intention to develop a register of names in use, starting with generic names, (b) discussions that had taken place on the value of a list of names of taxa at ranks higher than family-group, and (c) the continued use of publi- cation as a primary criterion of availability. These issues are spelled out in the Minutes of the General Session of the Commission. The President believed that the Commission had achieved a measure of stability in zoological nomenclature, but he stressed that additional funding was essential to enable new activities to be implemented. 3. Dr Reveal, speaking as Co-President of ICSEB IV, welcomed the Commission’s acceptance of ICSEB as a forum for meetings with the zoological community, since it was more representative of working taxonomists than meetings of the General Assembly of IUBS. He recognised that, for constitutional reasons, the Commission operated through IUBS. 4. Dr Tubbs outlined the role of the Commission’s Secretariat based at the Natural History Museum, London. He described the procedure whereby applications received from zoologists were prepared for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, voted upon by the Commission and the outcome published in an Opinion. Additionally, the Secretariat fulfilled an important advisory function. 5. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion on major policy issues at present under consideration for the next edition of the Code. At the President’s invitation, Dr Ride (former President of the Commission and Chairman of the Editorial Committee for the 3rd Edition of the Code) guided the meeting. He explained that comments received on the present edition, and proposals that had been made for emendations, fell into six main areas requiring decisions on policy. These areas were Availability, Priority, Language, Homonymy, Orthography and Types. Each area was then considered in turn. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 251 6. Availability (a) Publication ( Article 8) Modern publishing techniques had exacerbated the diffi- culties that could arise when publication per se resulted in destabilising names or nomenclatural acts automatically entering zoological nomenclature. The scale of such work could now be so great that a review of policy was warranted. One possible solution would be to develop a system whereby names made available under the exist- ing criteria would then need to be registered in a single journal, as in bacterial nomenclature. Another solution could be to restrict publication of new names to a designated list of journals and book publishers with approved standards of refereeing and peer review; such works would have to be registered for nomenclatural purposes. There was overwhelming support for the need to extend the present criteria for avail- ability by some form of registration. The Commission was asked to explore options. A majority favoured registration of works in preference to a register of new names. The meeting also considered whether it would be desirable to require, henceforth, all formal descriptions purporting to define nominal taxa to be in one of the languages of the Code, such languages to be decided. The proposal was supported. (b) Designation of Types and Descriptions ( Article 13) There was strong support for a requirement that the establishment of a species-group name must in future require the explicit designation of type specimen(s). Such holotypes or syntypes should be labelled and deposited in a publicly accessible collection, as is now the case for neotypes, unless there were circumstances when this requirement could not be met, e.g. for specimens that for physical or legal reasons could not be preserved. A majority also favoured retention of the requirement that a new family-group name should be accompanied by a description of the taxon to which it applied rather than be made available merely by being a new name based upon the name of an included genus. 7. Priority (Article 23b) (a) Species-Group Names This Article placed on a worker wishing to secure current general usage of a junior name the onus to apply to the Commission for its conservation despite the fact that the introduction of forgotten and destabilizing names is contrary to the Principle of Priority as stated in the Code. It would be advantageous to require a worker wishing to introduce a forgotten senior synonym replacing a junior synonym in current use to justify that action. The meeting accepted unanimously that the require- ment to apply to the Commission for the conservation of a junior synonym in use should be removed from Article 23 and that the different components relevant to the conservation of such names currently in Articles 23, 79 and 80 be brought together in the Code. (b) Family-Group Names The application of the Principle of Priority to family- group names was proving to be destabilizing and laborious. It raised problems that could best be dealt with by the development of registers of family-group names that would be conserved against earlier names. It was agreed that the Commission should develop this option. 8. Language (Article 11) (a) Family-Group Names The Code’s insistence on classical grammar created problems in the formation of the stem of family-group names. The meeting agreed unanimously that, while the stem of family-group names should be based on classical 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 grammar, the Code should permit departure when established usage would be upset by emendation. There was no support for disturbing current usage either by reverting to original orthography or by applying strict rules of classical grammar. It was agreed that the Code should contain its own rules of orthography that would make grammatical arguments redundant. (b) Agreement of Gender The meeting explored the concept of abandoning the requirements of Latin grammar in the agreement of an adjectival specific name with the gender of the genus with which it was combined. This could be achieved by considering either that all genera were of one gender, or that the original spelling of the specific name would be preserved on recombination. The meeting was evenly divided between those favouring and those against abandoning agreement in gender. If gender agree- ment was abandoned, a decision would have to be made whether adjectival specific names would be spelled (a) as in most common current usage, (b) as originally published, or (c) as converted to a single gender form. The meeting did not have a consensus view on the alternatives. 9. Homonymy (Article55) In many instances homonymy in family-group names is caused by the similarity (but not identity) of the names of their type genera. It had been suggested that such homonymy could be permitted when confusion was unlikely to be caused. However, the view of the meeting was strongly that increased use of data bases made it more important than hitherto to avoid homonymy in family-group names, even when occurring in widely different animal groups. 10. Orthography (a) Use of the Termination -i or -ii (and Gender Equivalents) in Specific Names (Article 31a) The Code requires use of the original termination of specific names formed as nouns in the genitive case from personal names unless the name was other- wise incorrectly formed; this requirement to maintain original orthography was widely held to be unnecessarily pedantic. There was no support in the meeting for maintaining the requirement as it stood; a few members would prefer to require the use of a single *-” termination for all names formed from those of male persons (e.g. smithi, salvadorii), but a considerable majority favoured treating -i and -ii as being permissible alternatives with users having freedom of choice between them. (b) Spellings Selected by the First Reviser (Article 24) The Principle of the First Reviser sometimes generated problems, as, for example, when a first reviser action had been overlooked. One possibility would be to apply page or line priority to the use of simultaneously published names, but such an option received no support from mem- bers who preferred to maintain the Code as it stood. It was suggested that it might be advantageous for this Article to be amplified so that, when an author of simultaneously published names later considered synonyms subsequently used only one of those names, that author would be accepted as first reviser, unless another author had already made a choice between them and had thereby become the first reviser. 11. Types (a) Type Specimens The meeting reiterated the view (para. 6b above) that type specimens must be designated and, as the property of science, be publicly accessible. (b) Invalidity of Type Genera ( Articles 39, 40) At present when the name of a type genus is found to be invalid as a junior homonym the family-group name must be Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 253 replaced by the next oldest synonym. There was unanimous agreement that the taxo- nomic usage should be maintained by requiring it to be replaced by the name based on the valid name of the type genus. It was also agreed unanimously that continuity of a family-group name in general usage should be maintained as in the current Code, even if based on a type genus itself rejected as a junior synonym. (c) Misidentification of Type Genera and Species ( Articles 41,65, 70) Articles 41 and 65 of the Code required that, if stability and continuity in the meaning of a family- group name were threatened by the discovery that its type genus was based on a misidentified type species, or by the discovery of an overlooked type fixation, the case was to be referred to the Commission for a ruling. Similarly, Article 70 requires that cases of misidentified type species of genera must be referred to the Commission. The need to involve the Commission in all such cases was questioned. If the current provision was to be replaced by an automatic provision, options would be to accept the nominal type genus or species as cited, even though considered to be misidentified, or to adopt as type the nominal taxon considered to have been actually involved. No consensus was reached and the Commission was asked to give the matter further consideration. (d) Action by the Commission to Set Aside Type Specimens to Clarify Nomina Dubia (Recommendation 75E) The present position was that the Commission was required to use its plenary powers to suppress the type status of an existing type specimen and to designate a neotype when this was needed to clarify a nomen dubium. It was agreed that there could be advantage if the Commission’s involvement in such cases did not need recourse to the plenary powers. 12. Restructuring the Code The 3rd Edition of the Code had maintained the arrangement of earlier editions. It was agreed that, in the next edition of the Code, there was a need to bring together subjects that in the present edition were widely separated, for example in the case of protecting names in use against unused senior synonyms Articles 23b, 79c and 80c could be unified (see 7a above). 13. Thanks to Participants In closing the meeting the President expressed his thanks to Dr Ride who had guided the discussion on major policy issues relating to the next edition of the Code and to all those present who had helped in the development of these policies. He said that the views of the meeting were of great help to the Commission and would be considered further in the process of developing a 4th Edition of the Code. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Case 2768 Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed designation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowaleysky in Fischer, 1885 as the type species David Heppell Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh BHI 1JF, UK. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to establish the correct authorship and dates for the solenogaster names Lepidomenia and L. hystrix, and to designate L. hystrix as the type species of the genus in accordance with universal understanding and usage. 1. Both the generic and specific names of the binomen Lepidomenia hystrix were proposed in ways which have continued to cause confusion as to the correct attribution of date and authorship. Pilsbry (1898, p. 310) commented on ‘the decidedly confused literature’ and summarized the problem as follows: ‘The name Lepidomenia was first used by Kowalevski in 1881 [sic] or 1883 in connection with Neomenia coralliophila and a Marseilles form supposed to be specifically the same as coralliophila, but apparently identical with what was subsequently described as L. hystrix. Simroth has chosen to restrict Lepidomenia to the later described species, although the record would incline one to choose WN. coralliophila as the type.’ No doubt because Kowalevsky’s introduc- tion of Lepidomenia was made in a literature-recording journal (1883) and not in the primary zoological literature, Pilsbry attributed the name to Kowalevsky & Marion, 1887. This attribution is still sometimes found in modern works (e.g. Jones & Baxter, 1987, p. 28). The spelling “‘Kowalevsky’ is adopted here, as that is the transliteration used by the author himself in non-Russian works, but he is also commonly cited as Kovalevsky, Kowalevski or Kowalewsky. 2. In 1872 Kowalevsky discovered two new species of Solenogastres associated with corals at La Calle, Algeria, which he assigned to the genus Neomenia Tullberg, 1875. The first of these, N. gorgonophila, appeared in an abstract (Kowalevsky in Brandt, 1880, p. 190), which was followed by a full description in vol. 37 of Izvéstiva Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya... (Kowalevsky, 1881a). The single specimen of the second species was described as N. corallophila (Kowalevsky, 1881b). The description of this species was intended for publication in an appendix to vol. 37 (1881) of Izvéstiya, and this was announced in vol. 41 (part 1, back cover, also published in 1881). The paper was, however, never published in that form and it is omitted from the index to Izvéstiya publications, 1863 to 1894 (Ivanovskii, 1894). Kowalevsky’s work was, nevertheless, included in literature-recording publications (Zoologischer Anzeiger (1882, p. 422), Zoologischer Jahresbericht (1883, pp. 19, 28-29) and Zoological Record (1883, vol. 19, Mollusca, p. 8)) which noted it among the publications for 1882 as being published in 1881 in volume 43 of the Izvéstiya (or a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 255 vernacular equivalent of the title of that periodical). Soulsby and Townsend’s Catalogue of the books... in the British Museum (Natural History) (Supplement) (1933, p. 585) recorded that only ‘author’s copies’ of the work were in existence. It was listed without comment as a separate publication by Kowalevsky & Marion (1887, p. 7, footnote) and in a bibliography of Kowalevsky’s papers appended to his biography -(Dogel’, 1945, p. 150). A copy of Kowalevsky’s work in the library of the Natural History Museum, London, shows no evidence that it is merely an unpublished proof; according to the plates it is a preprint of a paper intended for vol. 43 of the /zvéstiya. Kowalevsky’s paper was presumably withdrawn from publication in the /zvéstiya at the last minute, and the completed text and plates issued as separates only (the entry in the Zoologischer Jahresbericht (1883, p. 19, no. 67) acknowledges ‘Referat nach gutiger briefl. Mittheilung des Herrn Verfassers’). In the Museum copy the specific name of the solenogaster is spelled corallophila throughout, and it is odd, therefore, that all three literature-recording journals cite the name as ‘coralliophila’. 3. In 1882 Kowalevsky and Marion collected what they believed was a second specimen of Neomenia corallophila, also associated with a coral, from the north coast of the island of Ratonneau, near Marseilles. An abstract of Kowalevsky’s 1881(b) paper, published by Brock (1883), incorporated details of this second specimen, evidently supplied by Kowalevsky. The second specimen was in better condition than the first and its features resulted in the species being placed in a new genus, Lepidomenia (p. 29), the name referring to the characteristic scaly integument. This is the first valid introduction of the generic name and it is formally attributed to ‘Kowalevsky in Brock’ (Recommendation 51B of the Code). The single nominal species originally included was Neomenia corallophila (incorrectly spelled coralliophila; see para. 2 above) which, in this 1883 usage, was a composite of the Algerian and French specimens. 4. As early as January 1883 Kowalevsky and Marion realised that the Marseilles specimen of Neomenia represented a species distinct from the Algerian corallophila. Marion (1883, p. 69) listed the Marseilles specimen as Lepidomenia hystrix. The specific name was a nomen nudum here, but Marion indicated that a full description would be given in the ‘Recueil’ of the museum. This must have been a provisional title for the new periodical, as the description was eventually published in the Annales (Kowalevsky & Marion, 1887, pp. 7-25), although a shortened version of the paper appeared the previous year (Marion & Kowalevsky, 1886, pp. 757-759) from which the name would be available. However, the specific name validly dates from a year earlier: Fischer (1885, pp. 884-889) incorporated an article by Marion on the Aplacophora; this included a description of the genus Lepidomenia and a figure of part of the scaly, spinous integument of Lepidomenia hystrix. This illustration (drawn by Marion) is an indication sufficient to make the name hystrix available from 1885 (Article 12b(7) of the Code), and the attribution of the name to Marion and Kowalevsky (p. 889) established the joint authorship. Authorship of the name would be formally cited as “Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer’ (Recommendation 51B of the Code). The attribution of Lepidomenia to ‘Marion, 1884 on the same page is presumably to a manuscript usage. 5. Simroth (1893a) proposed the new generic names Nematomenia (p. 324; type species Dondersia flavens Pruvot, 1890) and Echinomenia (p. 325; type species Neomenia corallophila Kowalevsky, 1881). He retained hystrix as the sole species in Lepidomenia (see also Simroth, 1893b, pp. 138, 233) and this has been interpreted (wrongly; see Article 69b of the Code) as fixing L. hystrix as the type species of the 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 genus. Thiele (1913a, p. 38) synonymized Echinomenia with Nematomenia (see also Thiele, 1913b, p. 14). Since then, corallophila and hystrix have been placed consistently in Nematomenia and Lepidomenia respectively. 6. Both species appear to be rare. Neomenia (currently Nematomenia) corallophila is known only from the type specimen. Lepidomenia hystrix is possibly known only from the type locality (Salvini-Plawen, 1969), although Salvini-Plawen (1986, p. 191) gives Llansa (Spain) as a doubtful additional locality. Specimens from north of the island of Riou, near Marseilles, described as L. hystrix by Swedmark (1956, p. 93) were subse- quently identified as a new species, L. swedmarki, by Salvini-Plawen (1985, p. 103). There is also some doubt about the identity of specimens recorded as L. hystrix from Strangford Loch, Northern Ireland, by Boaden (1966, p. 127) and from off the north coast of Brittany by Swedmark & Teissier (1967, p. 70). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to confirm the authorship of the generic name Lepidomenia as Kowalevsky in Brock (1883); (2) to confirm the authorship of the specific name hystrix (as published in the bino- men Lepidomenia hystrix) as Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer (1885); (3) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883, and to designate Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as the type species; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (3) above Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885; (5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as published in the binomen Lepidomenia hystrix (specific name of the type species of Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883). References Boaden, P.J.S. 1966. Interstitial fauna from Northern Ireland. Verdffentlichungen des Instituts fiir Meeresforschung in Bremerhaven, Sonderband 2: 125-130. Brandt, A. 1880. Verhandlungen der zoologischen Section der VI. Versammlung russischer Naturforscher und Arzte. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 3: 186-191. Brock, J. 1883. Mollusca. A. Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte. Zoologischer Jahresbericht, 1882(3): 16-47. Dogel’, V.A. 1945. A.O. Kovalevskii, 1840-1901. 153 pp., 1 pl. Akademii Nauk SSR, Moscow. [In Russian.] Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique ou histoire natur- elle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 9, pp. 785-896. Savy, Paris. Ivanovskii, A.A. 1894. Publications of the Society from 15 October 1863 to 1 August 1894. Bibliographical index. Izvéstiya Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universiteté, 89: 1-30 (60 columns). [In Russian.] Jones, A.M. & Baxter, J.M. 1987. Molluscs: Caudofoveata, Solenogastres, Polyplacophora and Scaphopoda. Synopses of the British Fauna (N.S.), 37: 1-123. Kowalevsky, A.O. 188la. Neomenia gorgonophila. Izvéstiya Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universiteté, 37(1): 181-186. [In Russian. ] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 257 Kowalevsky, A.O. 1881b. On Neomenia corallophila and Coeleplana metschnikowii. 5 pp., 2 pls. Moscow. [In Russian. ] Kowalevsky, A.O. & Marion, A.F. 1887. Contributions a l’histoire des Solenogastres ou Aplacophores. Lepidomenia hystrix: nouveau genre de la famille des Neoméniées. Annales du Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, 3(1): 7-25. Marion, A.F. 1883. Esquisse d’une topographie zoologique du golfe de Marseille. Annales du Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, 1(1): 1-108. Marion, A.F. & Kowalevsky, A.O. 1886. Organisation du Lepidomenia hystrix, nouveau type de Solénogastre. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’'Académie des Sciences. Paris, 103(17): 757-759. Pilsbry, H.A. 1898. Order Aplacophora von Ihering. Manual of Conchology, vol. 17, part 68, pp. 281-310. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1969. Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky, 1886. Schede Malacologiche del Mediterraneo, No. 98 Ab 01. Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1985. New interstitial Solenogastres (Mollusca). Stygologia, 1(1): 101- 108. Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1986. Caudofoveata e Solenogastres del Mediterraneo. Bolletino Malacologico, 22(9—12): 189-196. Simroth, H. 1893a. Kritische Bemerkungen tiber die Systematik der Neomeniidae. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 56(2): 310-327. Simroth, H. 1893b. Aplacophora. Pp. 133-233 in: H.G. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier- Reichs, vol. 3, part 1. Winter, Leipzig. Soulsby, B.H. & Townsend, A.C. 1933. Catalogue of the books, manuscripts, maps and drawings in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 7, Supplement (J-O). 967 pp. British Museum, London. Swedmark, B. 1956. Etude de la microfaune des sables marins de la région de Marseille. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 93 (Notes et Revue No. 2): 70-95. Swedmark, B. & Teissier, G. 1967. Structure et adaptation d’ Halammohydra adherens. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 8: 63-74. Thiele, J. 1913a. Antarktische Solenogastren. Deutsche Stidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903, 14(Zoologie, 6): 35-65. Thiele, J. 1913b. Mollusca. Solenogastres. Das Tierreich, 38: 1-57. 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Case 2739 Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation, and proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Ferussac, 1821 as the type species Brian J. Smith 5 Talinga Crescent, Shepparton, Victoria 3630, Australia Ron C. Kershaw 45 West Tamar Road, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Helicarion Férussac, 1821 for an Australian genus of semislugs (terrestrial pulmonates). The name first appeared (about three months earlier) as Helixarion but this spelling was altered by the author. It is proposed to rule that Helicarion is the correct original spelling, and to designate Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species, in accordance with accustomed understanding and usage. 1. The Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques suivis d’un Prodrome général... (often referred to as the Prodrome) was a companion work to the Histoire naturelle, général et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. The Prodrome was issued in instalments (livraisons) of a few pages with livraisons 9-16 of the Histoire naturelle... over the years 1821—1822. Both works were begun by J.B.L. d’A. de Férussac and subsequently edited and published by his son (A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de Férussac) following his death. The Prodrome was published in two versions, large and small, termed ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ by Kennard (1942, p. 12), the folio being on superior paper. Connolly (1912, p. 53) thought that the two editions appeared at different times but they were apparently published simultaneously (Kennard, 1942, p. 106). The Prodrome contained two parts: Part 1, Tableaux systématiques géenéraux de l’embranchement des mollusques, divisés en familles naturelles, and Part 2, Tableaux particuliérs des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, classe des gastéropodes: Tableau de la famille des Limaces (pp. 1-27), Limagons (pp. 1-94 folio, pp. 1-90 quarto, which included ‘Corrections et Additions’ on pp. 71—76 folio, pp. 67—72 quarto), and Auricules (pp. 95-114 folio, pp. 91-110 quarto). The text on each page of the folio and quarto editions is the same. However, the folio contains a four-page ‘Avertissement’ at the beginning of the Tableau de la famille des limagons which causes the subsequent pagination to differ in the two versions. The contents of each livraison and the dates of publication have been set out by Sherborn & Woodward (1901, pp. 74-76; text only) and Kennard (1942, pp. 12-17, 105—118; text and plates). The livraison contents given by Bourguignat (1925, pp. 15-18) are accurate but the publication dates are misleading (Kennard, 1942, p. 13). Part 2 of the Prodrome (1821) appeared before Part 1 (1822). 2. The generic name Helixarion first appeared in the Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des limagons (p. 23 folio, p. 19 quarto), published in livraison 9 on 6 April 1821 (Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 75; Kennard, 1942, p. 109). Bourguignat (1925, p. 16) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 259 gave the date 1820 for livraison 9 but this is thought to be incorrect (Kennard, 1942, p. 106). The name Helixarion also appears in the ‘Explanation des planches’ (p. vi) in the Histoire naturelle..., also published in livraison 9. The generic name appears seven times in livraison 9 with the spelling Helixarion (Kennard, 1942, p. 116). 3. Ferussac regarded the original spelling of the generic name as incorrect and amended it in his section ‘Corrections et Additions’ of the Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des limagons (p. 71 folio, p. 67 quarto): ‘p. 23 [folio, p. 19 quarto] Tableau synoptique, premier genre: Helixarion; lisez Helicarion’. The ‘Corrections et Additions’ were published in livraison 11 on 13 July 1821 (Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 75; Kennard, 1942, p. 109). Ferussac always subsequently used the spelling Helicarion. It appears, for example, in his ‘Recapitulation des espéces mentionnées dans le Tableau de la famille des limagons’ (p. 75 folio, p. 71 quarto), also published in livraison 11, and the Prodrome, Part 1 (Tableaux systématiques généraux de l’embranchement des mollusques..., p. XXxi), published in livraison 15 on 13 April 1822 (Kennard, 1942, p. 110). Subsequent usage has been overwhelmingly in favour of Helicarion even when, before the dating of Ferussac’s work had been investigated, it was believed that the spelling Helixarion dated from 1819. Férussac’s correction of the spelling was mentioned by Watson (1920, p. 110, footnote), Iredale (1937, p.7), Baker (1941, p. 265) and Burch (1976, p. 145), all of whom adopted Helicarion. Iredale noted that Helicarion had been ‘spelt Helixarion, but corrected in Errata’. Watson wrote: ‘On pp. 19 and 20 (or 23 and 24) of Feérussac’s Tabl.... Fam. des limagons, 1821 the word is misspelt Helixarion; but on p. 67 (or 71) of the same work Feérussac himself corrected this blunder, and it would seem a pity to ignore his correction’. Baker also noted: ‘Although Helixarionis certainly the prior spelling, Ferussac himself corrected it to Helicarion and the original form may have been a misprint, even if it does occur in two papers, both of which probably appeared with livraison 9’. Kennard (1942, p. 116) also mentioned the emendation but considered it invalid. Other authors who have used Helicarion include Quoy & Gaimard (1824, p. 465), Gray (1847, p. 169), Fischer (1883, p. 459), Adams & Adams (1855, p. 226), Tryon (1885, p. 168), Thiele (1931, p. 638), Rensch (1932, pp. 30, 31), Solem (1966, p. 24), Franc in Grassé (1968, p. 581), Van Mol (1973), and Kershaw (1979, 1981). Authors who have used Helixarion are Thon (1829, p. 149), Bourguignat (1883, p. 9), Neuville & Anthony (1909, p. 324) and Zilch (1959, p. 309). 4. Férussac established the genus Helixarion (= Helicarion), and the two included species, cuvieri and freycineti (1821, Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des limagons, pp. 23, 24 folio, pp. 19, 20 quarto), but did not select a type species. Quoy & Gaimard (1824, p. 465) further described the species freycineti and commented that it had ‘served for the establishment of the genus’. Under Article 69a(iv) of the Code this is a subsequent designation of freycineti as the type species. Thon (1829, p. 149) followed this designation and stated that freycineti was the type species because it was the larger of the two included species. He mentioned cuvieri as a second, smaller species. Gray (1847, p. 169) selected cuvieri as the type species, apparently unaware of the earlier designation. Gray’s selection was logical in that cuvieri was the first species to be mentioned, it was adequately described and illustrated from a shell which Férussac had in his possession, and would be acceptable to most workers on that basis. Gray stated (p. 130) that where it was not clear which species an author had intended for the type of a genus, he had ‘chosen either the best known species, or, if the author has given figures, the species which he has figured’. H. cuvieri was illustrated, but not named, on pl. 9, 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 fig. 8 of the Histoire naturelle... (livraison 4, 18 September 1819; see Kennard, 1942, p. 109), the legend for which appeared in Histoire naturelle... ‘Explanation des planches’ (p. vi) (livraison 9, 6 April 1821). H. freycineti was figured later on a supplementary plate (Histoire naturelle..., pl. 9A, figs. 3 and 4, together with H. cuvieri, figs. 1 and 2) in livraison 13 (10 November 1821; see Kennard, 1942, p. 110), with the explanation (Histoire naturelle... ‘Explanation des planches supplémentaires’, pp. i, ii) in livraison 17 (2 November 1822; see Kennard, 1942, p. 106). (The generic name here appears as Helicarion). Kennard (1942, p. 116) was aware of Thon’s (1829) citation of freycineti as the type species and commented that the earlier designation meant that Gray’s (1847) designation of cuvieri was invalid. 5. The subfamily HELICARIONINAE in Australia is divisible into two discrete groups, which can be characterised by features of the ovotestis, epiphallic gland-flagellum, penial structure and the oviduct (Kershaw, unpublished). The distribution of these groups may suggest separate migrations from the north. Helicarion cuvieri and H. freycineti are classified in different genera which cannot be included in the same group. H. cuvieri is considered to have relatively primitive features and a number of related species occur scattered within eastern Australia. H. freycineti, on the other hand, is clearly related to a range of mostly north eastern species placed in several genera. H. cuvieri has long been recognised as the type species of the genus Helicarion (see, for example, Zilch, 1959, p. 309 (who used Helixarion) and Burch, 1976, p. 134). In a revision of the genus, one of us (Kershaw, 1979, 1981), unaware of Kennard’s (1942) paper, accepted the authority of Zilch with regard to the type species. The generic name Helicarion is established and well known for south eastern snails. The implications of the recognition of H. freycineti as its type species would be complex and difficult to predict but at the least would require the introduction of a new generic name for the clearly morphologically related group of south eastern species, the exclusion of a number of well known species from the genus, and a reappraisal of other established genera. It may be noted that Feérussac (1821, Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des limagons, p. 24 folio, p. 20 quarto) wrote that he was not at all acquainted with the shell of H. freycineti. Kershaw (1979, pp. 150, 155, figs. 1, 16) designated a neotype for cuvieri and a lectotype for freycineti, and provided detailed descriptions of this type material; both specimens are in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 6. Both spellings of the family name, HELICARIONIDAE and HELIXARIONIDAE, are in use, the former being that most frequently seen. Authorship of the former name (published as the sub-family HELICARIONINAE) is usually ascribed to Godwin-Austen (1883 (October), p. 146), while Bourguignat (1883 (April), p. 9) is cited as author of the latter name. Recent authors who have adopted the spelling HELIXARIONIDAE are Kira (1955, p. 176) and Vaught (1989, p. 96). Recent authors using HELICARIONIDAE include Thiele (1931, p. 637), Baker (1941, p. 208), Zilch (1959, p. 295, even though he used Helixarionas the generic name), Solem (1966, p. 22; 1978, p. 92), Franc in Grassé (1968, p. 578), Boss in Parker (1982, p. 1076), and Tillier (1984, p. 174). It would be confusing to spell the generic and family-group names in different ways. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to rule that the correct original spelling of the generic name Helixarion Férussac, 1821 (April) is deemed to be Helicarion; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 261 (b) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Helicarion Férussac, 1821 prior to that by Gray (1847) of Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Gray (1847) Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821, as ruled in (1)(b) above, spelling confirmed in (1)(a) above; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cuvieri Férussac, 1821, as published in the binomen Helixarion cuvieri (specific name of the type species of Helicarion Férussac, 1821); to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HELICARIONIDAE (correction of HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat,1883 (April)) (type genus Helicarion Férussac, 1821); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Helixarion Férussac, 1821, ruled in (1)(a) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Helicarion; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883, an incorrect original spelling of HELICARIONIDAE. (3 a (4 — Acknowledgement Our thanks are due to Mr David Heppell of the National Museums of Scotland for his extensive assistance with this submission. References Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1855. The Genera of Recent Mollusca; arranged according to their organization, vol. 2, part 23, pp. 221-252. Van Voorst, London. Baker, H.B. 1941. Zonitid snails from Pacific Islands, part 3. Genera other than Microcystinae. Bulletin of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 166: 205-346. Boss, K.J. 1982. Mollusca. Pp. 945-1166 in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms, vol. 1. xvu, 1166 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. Bourguignat, J.R. 1883. Histoire malacologique de l’Abyssinie. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (6)15: art. 2, 9-162. Bourguignat, J.R. 1925. Dates des livraisons de lHistoire des Mollusques de Feérussac et Deshayes. Journal de Conchyliologie, 69(1): 15-18. Burch, J.B. 1976. Outline of classification of Australian terrestrial molluscs (native and introduced). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 3(3—4): 127-156. Connolly, M. 1912. Note on the existence of two editions of Ferussac’s Tableaux Systématiques. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 10(2): 53. Férussac, J.B.L. de’A. de. 1821-1822. Tableaux systématique des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un prodrome général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles. Pp. xlviil, 1-27, 1-110 folio edition; pp. xlviii, 1-27, 1-114 quarto edition. Bertrand, Paris. Férussac, J.B.L. de’A. de. 1819-{1832]. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. Oeuvre posthume de M" le Baron J.B.L. d’Audebard de Férussac... continue, mis en ordre, et publié par MT le Baron d’Audebard son fils... xvi, 128, 96a-z, 96a-A pp., 163 pls. Bertrand, Paris. Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie Conchyliologique ou histoire naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 5, pp. 417-512. Savy, Paris. Franc, A. 1968. Sous-class des Pulmonés. Pp. 325-607 in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), Mollusques gastéropodes et scaphopodes. Traité de Zoologie. Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie, vol. 5, part 3. Masson et Cie, Paris. 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Godwin-Austen, H.H. 1883. Land and freshwater Mollusca of India..., part 4, pp. 95-163. Taylor & Francis, London. Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. Iredale, T. 1937. A basic list of the land Mollusca of Australia, part 2. The Australian Zoologist, 9(1): 1-39. Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 25: 12-17, 105-118. Kershaw, R.C. 1979. Redescription of Helicarion cuvieri from southern Tasmania and Helicarion freycineti from New South Wales (Pulmonata: Helicarionidae). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 4(3): 145-156. Kershaw, R.C. 1981. Redescription of the genus Helicarion and of Helicarion niger (Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) from Victoria (Pulmonata: Helicarionidae). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 5(1—2): 17-32. Kira, T. 1955. Coloured illustrations of the shells of Japan. 204 pp. Hoikusha, Osaka. Neuville, H. & Anthony, R. 1909. Recherches sur les mollusques d’Abyssinie (materiaux de la collection Maurice de Rothschild). Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (9) 8: 241-341. Quoy, J.R.C & Gaimard, J.P. 1824. Voyage autour du monde... exécuté sur les corvettes de S.M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820, vol. 3 (Zoologie). 712 pp. Pillet Aine, Paris. Rensch, I. 1932. Neue Landmollusken aus dem Bismarck-Archipel, 3. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 98: 27-36. Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. On the dates of publication of the Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles and the Tableau systématique des animaux mollusques, by the Barons Férussac and G.P. Deshayes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)8(43): 74-76. Solem, A. 1966. Some non-marine mollusks from Thailand, with notes on classification of the Helicarionidae. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis, 24: 1-110. Solem, A. 1978. Classification of the land Mollusca. Pp. 49-97 in Fretter, V. & Peake, J. (Eds.), Pulmonates, vol. 2A (systematics, evolution and ecology). 540 pp. Academic Press, London. Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1, part 2 (Gastropoda. 2. Opisthobranchia (Hinterkeimer). 3. Pulmonata (Lungenschnecken), pp. 377-778. Fischer, Jena. Thon, D. 1829. Helixarion, Férussac (Mollusca). Pp. 149-150 in Ersche, J.S. & Gruber, J.G. (Eds.), Allgemeine Encyklopdadie der Wissenschaften und Kiinste, section 2 (H-N), part 5 (Heinrich (Minnesanger) — Hequaesi). xii, 412 pp. Gleditsch, Leipzig. Tillier, S. 1984. Patterns of digestive tract morphology in the limacisation of helicarionid, succineid and athoracophorid snails and slugs (Mollusca: Pulmonata). Malacologia, 25(1): 173-192. Tryon, G.W. 1885. Manual of Conchology; structural and systematic, series 2, vol. 1, pp. 1-364, 60 pls. (Testacellidae, Oleacinidae, Streptaxidae, Helicoidea, Vitrinidae, Limacidae, Arionidae). Published by the author, Philadelphia. Van Mol, J.J. 1973. Notes anatomiques sur les Helicarionidae (mollusques, gasteropodes, pulmonés). 2. Etudes des genres Pseudaustenia, Dyakia, Helicarion et comprenent la description de Papuarion, genre nouveau. Discussion sur la classification des Helicarionidae et affinités des Urocyclidae. Annales de la Société Royale Zoologique de Belgique, 103: 209-237. Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. xii, 189 pp. American Malacologists, Inc., Melbourne, Florida. Watson, H. 1920. The anatomy of two species of Helicarion from tropical Africa. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 14(2,3): 91-113. Zilch, A. 1959. Part 2 (Euthyneura), no. 2, pp. 201-400 in Wenz, W. (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Borntraeger, Berlin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 263 Case 2588 Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli Via Mater Dolorosa 54, 90146 Palermo, Italy Anthea Gentry Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. An application to confirm the spelling of a marine gastropod genus as Haminoea was published in 1987; the spellings Haminaea and Haminea are also in use. Subsequent investigation has shown that the name derives from Haminaea, which appeared in a paper by Leach which was formally unpublished but nevertheless widely circulated. The purpose of the present application is to rule that Haminaea Leach, [1820] is nomenclaturally available. 1. An earlier application (BZN 44: 166-167) sought to stabilise the spelling of the generic name Haminoea. Amended proposals were sent to the Commission for voting in March 1989 but further investigations and comments received during the voting period showed the need for more information and an Opinion has not been published. 2. Earlier authors (Herrmannsen, 1852, p. 60; Jeffreys, 1867, p. 437; Iredale, 1914, p. 172) commented that there were three alternative spellings for the generic name and, as noted previously (BZN 44: 166, para. 4), these spellings (Haminaea, Haminoea and Haminea) are currently in use. This is due to the presence of an ‘ae’ diphthong in the original spelling of the name (Haminaea), and its complex history of publication. 3. The generic name Haminaea appeared in two works by Leach, Classification of British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820]. Accord- ing to Robert Burn (Geelong, Australia; 1990, in litt.) the name is an alternative spelling of the classical Aminaea, a district in Picenum on the Adriatic, famous for its wines. In his introduction to the Synopsis (p. xii) Leach wrote ‘I have invariably named the genera, as far as possible, from their essential characters’. Where this was not possible Leach chose classical or biblical names which ‘would not carry with them any descrip- tive significance’ (see Knight, 1900, pp. 272, 275). Leach died before either of the works could be formally published and this was only undertaken many years later by Gray (1847 (October) and 1852 respectively) for his ‘excellent friend and first teacher in zoology’. Nevertheless, both works were available to conchological workers in Britain and Europe from 1820 onwards through page proofs and hand-written copies of the page proofs. In his introduction to Leach’s Classification (1847, p. 267) Gray wrote that ‘several British conchologists had even taken the trouble to copy the proof sheets of his work’ and that ‘several copies of Dr Leach’s list were in several cabinets at the time he was at work on the subject’ (see also para. 8 below). In his preface to Leach’s Synopsis, 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Gray (1852, p. vii) noted that “this work was in the course of printing when the Author was prevented from completing it by ill health, in 1820. The first 116 pages were actually printed and the plates engraved, and more than one copy of the Proofs were in circu- lation at the time of its interruption’. Gray (1847, p. 268) also noted that ‘Risso, Capt. Brown and others have published several of them [Leach’s names] in their works’. Indeed, in reviewing Risso’s 1826 work on molluscs from the south of France, Bourguignat (1861, pp. 17-22) commented at length on the large number of names for genera that had been derived from Leach’s manuscript (cited as 1820); he noted that Leach had spent a period in Nice during his illness when he had met Risso. Brown (1827, preface) wrote that he ‘found it necessary to introduce some of Dr Leach’s Genera’, and many of the names in his work were attributed to ‘Leach MSS’. In his 1844 work, Brown (preface) noted ‘In recording the names of those to whom the Author is indebted for aid... he must particularly notice those of his late lamented friend Dr Leach,... [who] with that noble liberality for which he was prominently distinguished — although engaged with a similar work at the time the Author was preparing his First Edition — threw open his treasures for his use, and otherwise aided him as far as possible in his investigations’. Again, a number of names in this work were credited to ‘Leach MSS’ and ‘Leach, Moll.’, with references to the page proofs of Leach’s Synopsis. Brown (p. 134) further cited Leach’s work: ‘Synopsis of British Mollusca, 1820 (Unpublished)’. In the introduction to his revision of Turton’s Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, Gray (1840, p. 1) noted that other authors had ‘all, in a great measure, worked from the collection now under my charge, which contains the materials used by Dr Leach in preparing his as yet unedited work on British Mollusca’, and (p. 58) that copies of Leach’s work (‘London, 1820. 8vo; not yet published’) were in the possession of other workers. Herrmannsen (1846, 1847-1849, 1852) also cited Leach’s manuscript (‘1820. Brit. Moll.’) and credited several names to it; furthermore, he recognised that a number of names in Risso (1826) and Turton (1831) originated in Leach’s unpublished work (see, for example, 1846, pp. 80, 580, 582). In 1846 (p. 1, footnote) Herrmannsen noted “Leachii Synopsis Molluscorum Britanniae, liber rarissimus, typis quidem jam anno 1820 excusus, sed hucusque pub- lici juris non factus... omni auctoritate destituitur’. In 1852, Herrmannsen (p. 60) recorded the name Haminaea credited to ‘Leach mscr., t[este] Gray, 1847, Ann. Mag. N.H., XX’. Knight (1900, p. 271) referred to part of Leach’s Synopsis having been in type and circulated from 1820. The name Haminaea would thus have been known to many from Leach’s two manuscripts. There is a bound copy of the page proofs of Leach’s Synopsis [1820] in the mollusc library of the Natural History Museum, London (see Woodward’s Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (Natural History), 1910, p. 1072); Haminaea appears on p. 57. The proofs are marked, possibly in C.D. Sherborn’s handwriting, ‘1820, or more likely 1819’. Gray (1847 (November), p. 161) gave their date as 1819, although earlier (1840, p. 58) as 1820. They were certainly in circulation by 1820 and have been cited with the latter date by subsequent authors. 4. The name appeared, but with the spelling Haminoea, in the Conchology section of Part 2 (The natural history of the district... by Turton & Kingston) of The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide (1830), by ‘N.T. Carrington and others’. The Catalogue of the library of the BM(NH) (1915, p. 2155), following Jeffreys (1867, pp. 108, 231), mentioned that the portion on conchology ‘seems to have been issued separately in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 265 1829’. Copies of this ‘separate’ publication, entitled Conchology. An enumeration of such marine shells as have been found on the adjacent coasts, were included in editions of A guide to the watering places on the coast between the Exe and the Dart. It appears that there were editions for 1817, 1818 (McMillan, 1961, p. 37), and 1821, and Burns (1990, in litt.) refers to an 1823 edition. The Enumeration was anonymous and unpaginated (it has 20 pp.) and does not include the name Haminoea. The introduction (p. viii) to the guide notes the anonymity of the contributors: ‘Delicacy forbids the publisher from revealing the names of those who have assisted him; the articles of conchology, and botany, will speak for themselves: for the rest, he craves the indulgence of a liberal public’. By about 1828 the guide became The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide, and in 1830 this included a second part (The natural history of the district...) by Turton & Kingston, with a revised version of the Enumeration, entitled Conchology and, for the first time, a supplementary portion called Conchology, arranged on the amended system. The latter included the first appearance of the generic name Haminoea (genus no. 63). Part 2 of The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide was issued bound in with the Teignmouth guide and as a separate publication, in both cases without pagination (but c. 200 pp.); the 1829 date for publication given by Jeffreys probably referred to a proof copy and 1830 is the correct date (Iredale, 1914, pp. 171-172). There was at least one subsequent edition of The Teignmouth guide, in 1832. 5. Kingston was a botanist who collaborated with Turton on the natural history part of the guide, and the conchology section, revised from the Enumeration, was probably by Turton alone. Jeffreys (1867, p. 231) mentioned the ‘Enumeration of marine shells... a copy of which was presented to me by Dr Turton ‘from the author” and (p. 433) ‘Turton in his little treatise entitled Conchology, arranged on the amended system’. Winckworth (1932, p. 231), McMillan (1961, p. 37), Thompson (1976, pp. 18, 98, 117; 1988, p. 40) and Thompson & Brown (1976, p. 24) have all attributed Haminoea (as ‘Haminea in Thompson and Thompson & Brown) to Turton alone, and the name would be formally attributed to ‘[Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington’ (Recommendation 51B of the Code). Turton’s conchological publications show many references to Leach’s Synopsis (see, for example, Turton (1831) in which several names are cited with references to Leach’s page proofs) and it seems that the spelling Haminoea arose in transcription either between Leach’s proofs and Turton’s manuscript for his Conchology, arranged on the amended system, or between the latter and the printed page. After carefully studying how Turton wrote ‘a’ and ‘o’ in a letter written in 1828, Burn (1990, in litt.) suspects that the spelling Haminoea was a printer’s error. 6. Gray formally published Leach’s Classification [1818] in October 1847, and Leach’s Synopsis [1820] in 1852 (see para. 3 above). Leach’s name Haminaea appeared in these publications on pp. 268 and 40 respectively. 7. The spelling Haminea first appeared in Gray’s (1847 (November), p. 161) publi- cation A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types, the name being based on ‘Leach MSS 1819”. In fact, Leach’s [1820] work used the spelling Haminaea (para. 3 above). It is noteworthy that Gray’s own bound copy of his November 1847 publication in the Natural History Museum, London, which is interleaved with notes by the author (see Catalogue of the library of the BM( NB), 1904, p. 713), includes many alterations and insertions to the text made by Gray in his own hand; one is an emenda- tion of the printed ‘Haminea’ to ‘Haminaea’, together with an addition ‘1818. l.c. xx 268 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Brit. Moll.’ (referring to the name in Leach’s [1818] manuscript and its 1847 publication (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20: 268)) after ‘Leach MSS 1819’. 8. It is thus evident that the spellings Haminoea and Haminea arose from the name Haminaea in Leach’s widely circulated [1818] and [1820] manuscripts, where the name was spelt with an ‘ae’ diphthong. As mentioned in para. 2 above, all three spellings of the name are in use. The original application sought to conserve the spelling Haminoea; however, stability in the nomenclature would be better served by conserving Haminaea, Leach’s original spelling and the source of the other two, through a Commission ruling that the name Haminaea be deemed available from Leach, [1820]. In 1847 Gray, in his introduction to Leach’s Classification (p. 267), wrote ‘I am much inclined, as these names were for years exhibited in the Museum collection and in the cabinets of Mr Stephens, the late Mr James Sowerby, my own and others, to regard them as published and having priority from 1818’. However, Gray’s 1847 published text of Leach’s [1818] paper indicates that the name Haminaea was probably a nomen nudum in 1818 (there is no copy of this manuscript in the Natural History Museum, London). In the [1820] page proofs of Leach’s Synopsis the genus and species are described on p. 57 (see also p. 40 of the work as published by Gray in 1852) and the name would be available. It is proposed that only the name Haminaea should be made available from Leach’s [1820] manuscript; no other names in current usage are attributed to Leach’s [1818] or [1820] works and disturbance in mollusc nomenclature would be caused in making the whole of these manuscripts available. To avoid any confusion in the future about the availability of other names, we propose that Leach’s Classification of the British Mollusca [1818] and Synopsis of Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] be suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. 9. Leach’s [1820] MS included three species in Haminaea: H. cuvieri, H. dilatata and H. elegans, H. cuvieri being a replacement name for Bulla hydatis auctt. B. hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 was excluded from Haminaea as Leach believed this “belonged to a very different genus’, but [Turton] in Turton & Kingston (1830, genus no. 63) noted that Haminoea (sic) included B. hydatis, and Gray (1847 (November), p. 161) designated B. hydatis as the type species of Haminea (recte Haminaea; see para. 7) ‘Leach MSS 1819’; neither Turton nor Gray cited an author for hydatis. Brown (1844, p. 57) and Jeffreys (1867, p. 439) considered hydatis auctt. (= cuvieri Leach) to be included in hydatis Linnaeus, while Forbes & Hanley (1853, p. 531) thought that it was ‘probably’ included. Herrmannsen (1852, p. 60) gave hydatis Linnaeus as the type species of Haminaea. Pilsbry (1895, p. 352), Winckworth (1932, p. 231), Zilch (1959, p. 41 (citing the generic name as ‘Haminaea Turton & Kingston, 1830’)) and Cernohorsky (1985, p. 63 (citing the name as ‘Haminea Leach in Gray, 1847’)) accepted Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. 10. As mentioned in the original application (BZN 44: 166, para. 5), the family- group name HAMINEINAE (= HAMINEIDAE) Pilsbry, 1895 (p. 351) was based on the spelling Haminea. However, Pilsbry’s list of authors who had previously used the generic name (p. 352) included ‘Haminea Leach MS. Gray, P.Z.S., 1847 p. 161’ and ‘Haminaea Leach, Moll. Gt. Brit., p. 40, 1852’. The name Haminea was an incorrect subsequent spelling or unjustified emendation of Leach’s Haminaea (para. 7 above) and it is proposed that the spelling HAMINAEIDAE be formally adopted. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 267 (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the works The classification of the British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] by W.E. Leach; (b) to rule that the generic name Haminaea Leach is deemed to be available in A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820], despite suppression of the work in (1)(a) above; (c) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Haminaea Leach, [1820] and to designate Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species; (2) to rule that the correct original spelling of the family-group name HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 is deemed to be HAMINAEIDAE; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Haminaea Leach, [1820] (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)(c) above Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hydatis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bulla hydatis (specific name of the type species of Haminaea Leach, [1820]); (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HAMINAEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (spelling emended in (2) above) (type genus Haminaea Leach, [1820]); (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Haminoea [Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Haminaea Leach, [1820]; (b) Haminea Gray, 1847, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Haminaea Leach, [1820]; (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (spelling emended to HAMINAEIDAE in (2) above). (8) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology the papers The classification of the British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] by W.E. Leach, as suppressed in (1)(a) above. Acknowledgement We thank Dr Robert Burn for his interesting and helpful letter on Haminaea which included a number of additional references. References Bourguignat, J.R. 1861. Etude synonymique sur les mollusques des Alpes Maritimes publiés par A. Risso en 1826. 84 pp., | pl. Bailliére, Paris. Brown, T., Captain. 1827. [/lustrations of the conchology of Great Britain and Ireland. v pp., 52 pls. Lizars, Edinburgh. Brown, T., Captain. 1844. [/lustrations of the recent conchology of Great Britain and Ireland... xiii, 145 pp., 59 pls. Smith, Elder & Co., London. Cernohorsky, W.O. 1985. The taxonomy of some Indo-Pacific Mollusca Part 12. With remarks on two American gastropod species. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 22: 47-67. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1853. A History of British Mollusca and their shells, vol. 3. 616 pp. Van Voorst, London. Gray, J.E. 1840. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, with figures of each of the kinds, by William Turton, M.D. A new edition, thoroughly revised and much enlarged. 1x, 324 pp., 12 pls. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. Gray, J.E. 1847 (November). A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846-1849. Indicus generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 1, xxvii, 636 pp. (1846); vol. 2, xlii, 717 pp. (1847-1849). Fischer, Cassellis. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1852. Indicus generum Malacozoorum. Supplementa et corrigenda, v, 140 pp. Fischer, Cassellis. Iredale, T. 1914. On some invalid generic names. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 11(3): 170-178. Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 4. 486 pp., 8 pls. Van Voorst, London. Knight, G.A.F. 1900. The etymology of the names Azeca and Assiminea. Journal of Conchology, 9(9): 271-276. Leach, W.E. [1818]. The classification of the British Mollusca. (Page proofs, unpublished, not seen). Leach, W.E. [1820]. A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 1-160, 179-192 pp., 2, 6-10 pls. (Page proofs, unpublished, in the Natural History Museum, London, and perhaps else- where). Leach, W.E. 1847 (October). Jn Gray, J.E. (Ed.). The classification of the British Mollusca. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20(133): 267-273. Leach, W.E. 1852. Jn Gray, J.E. (Ed.), A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 376 pp.. pls. 2-13. Van Voorst, London. McMillan, N.F. 1961. Book notes, especially relating to Turton’s works. Journal of Conchology, 25(1): 36-38. Pilsbry, H.A. 1895. Tryon’s manual of Conchology; structural and systematic, vol. 15. 436 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe méridionale et particu- liérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4 (Apergu sur histoire naturelle des mollusques... et des coquilles; Observations sur différents annelides...). 439 pp., 12 pls. Levrault, Paris. Thompson, T.E. 1976. Biology of opisthobranch molluscs, vol. 1. 207 pp., 21 pls. Ray Society, London. Thompson, T.E. 1988. Molluscs: benthic opisthobranchs (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Keys and notes for the identification of the species. 356 pp., 146 pls. (Synopses of the British fauna, new series, No. 8, Ed. 2). Brill, Leiden. Thompson, T.E. & Brown, G.H. 1976. British opisthobranch molluscs (Mollusca; Gastropoda): keys and notes for the identification of the species. 203 pp., 1 pl., 105 figs. (Synopses of the British fauna, new series, No. 8). Academic Press, London. (Turton, W.] [1817]. Conchology. An enumeration of such marine shells as have been found on the adjacent coasts (20 pp., unpaginated) in Anon, A guide to the watering places on the coast between the Exe and the Dart; including Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay...with a short description of the neighbourhood. Introduction, pp. v—vii; part 1 (Teignmouth), 1-98 pp.; part 2 (Dawlish and its vicinity), 1-84 pp.; part 3 (Torquay and its vicinity), 5-72 pp. Teignmouth. Turton, W. 1831.4 manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands... viii, 152 pp., 10 pls. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green, London. Turton, W. & Kingston, J.F. 1830. Part 2, The natural history of the district; or, lists of the different species of animals, vegetables and minerals, and their respective localities, scientifically arran- ged...(c. 200 pp., unpaginated) in Carrington, N.T. et al., The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide... (Part 1 has 230 pp., paginated). Teignmouth. Winckworth, R. 1932. The British marine Mollusca. Journal of Conchology, 19(7): 211-252. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 269 Woodward, B.B. 1904, 1910, 1915. Catalogue of the library of the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 2 (E-K), pp. 501-1038 (1904); vol. 3 (L-O), pp. 1039-1494 (1910); vol. 5 (SO-Z), pp. 1957-2403 (1915). British Museum (Natural History), London. Zilch, A. 1959. Part 2 (Euthyneura) in Wenz, W. (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of Schindewolf, O.H. von (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. xu, 834 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Case 2670 Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species Thierry Backeljau Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Vautierstraat 29, B-1040 Brussel, Belgium Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm the nominal species Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species of the terrestrial slug subgenus Kobeltia Seibert, 1873, in accordance with existing usage. The original description was of a misidentified species. 1. Seibert (1873, p. 81) considered a slug which he supposed was Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 to be generically distinct from other species of Arion Férussac, 1819 and proposed the new name Kobeltia. This name was neglected by subsequent authors for more than half a century until Hesse (1926, p. 66) adopted it as a ‘section’ within the genus Arion, with A. hortensis Férussac as the first included species. Most authors since have followed Hesse’s system of classification, replacing ‘section’ by ‘subgenus’. 2. Férussac’s nominal species A. hortensis (1819, pp. 65—66) is represented by pl. 2 (not pl. 12 as cited on p. 65), figs. 4-5. He also described A. hortensis var. a (1819, pp. 65-66, pl. 2, fig. 6), which may well be the species later described by Mabille (1868, p. 137) as A. distinctus (Davies, 1979, p. 123; see para. 6 below); this variant is excluded from the type series of A. hortensis by Article 72b of the Code. The dates of publication of Férussac’s work were investigated by Sherborn & Woodward (1901, pp. 74-76; text only) and Kennard (1942, pp. 12-17, 105—118; text and plates). 3. Seibert’s interpretation of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 when he proposed Kobeltia was based on the work of Lehmann (1873, pp. 21—24, pl. 2, figs. 4a, pl. 7, fig. 4). Lehmann’s description and figures, however, are not of A. hortensis but a species currently referred to as Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus. This latter species was originally described as Limax fasciatus by Nilsson in 1823 (pp. 3—5) and it has been studied in detail by a number of authors, including Likharev & Wiktor (1980, pp. 407-409). Lehmann’s misidentification of A. hortensis was noted by Simroth (1885, pp. 277-278, 288), who assigned Lehmann’s species to A. bourguignati Mabille, 1868 (p. 138). 4. Cockerell (1891, p. 20) considered A. bourguignati to be a junior subjective synonym of A. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 (p. 76), which Hesse (1926, p. 65) selected as the type species of his ‘section’ (now subgenus) Carinarion. Lohmander (1937) suggested that three very closely related species had been confused under the name ‘circumscriptus’: A. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 s.s., A. silvaticus Lohmander, 1937 and Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823. Whether these are indeed distinct biological species is still a much debated issue (Backeljau et al., 1987). 5. Acceptance of Seibert’s designation of A. hortensis sensu Lehmann (1873), now recognised (Backeljau & De Bruyn, 1990, in press) to be Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, as the type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 would undoubtedly give rise to much Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 271 confusion in the nomenclature of what is already a taxonomically complex group. In addition, if fasciatus and circumscriptus are considered to be synonyms, or to belong in the same subgenus, Carinarion Hesse, 1926 would become a junior subjective synonym of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873. Following Hesse’s (1926) monograph the identity of the type species of Kobel/tia has been understood as ‘Arion hortensis’ (see para. 6 below) and not Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823. A list of more than 40 references is held by the Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the name Kobeltia in which Hesse’s interpretation of the genus group has been adopted, and I have not found a single paper in which fasciatus is even included in the subgenus. 6. Recently, Davies (1977, p. 173; 1979, p. 123) has shown that three distinct taxon- omic species have been known under the name ‘A. hortensis’. The first of these species is A. hortensis s.s. (Férussac, 1819, p. 65, pl. 2, figs. 4-5). The species is known from the British Isles, parts of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. Two original specimens, labelled ‘montagnes env. de Clermont (Oise)’, are in the Museum National d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, one of which has been dissected and was designated as the lectotype by De Winter (1984, p. 3, fig. 3). The second species, A. distinctus Mabille, 1868 (p. 137), is probably the species represented by Férussac’s A. hortensis var. a (1819, pl. 2, fig. 6). Itis found in much of Europe and North America and has a type locality at Sevres, near Paris. No original material survives but a neotype (no. alcohol 9120 in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, collected from Sévres in 1983) was designated by De Winter (1984, p. 3, figs. 2 and 4). The third species, A. owenii Davies, 1979 (p. 126), may possibly be the same as Limax subfuscus Draparnaud, 1805, cited by Taylor (1905, p. 217) as A. hortensis Ferussac var. subfusca. A. owenii has a holotype, BM(NH) 197910, from East Donegal in Ireland. The species is known from the north of Ireland and locally in southern Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. The three species differ in their genitalia, spermatophores, mating behaviour and, to a lesser extent, in their external morphology (Davies, 1977, 1979; Backeljau, 1981; De Wilde, 1983; and Backeljau & Marquet, 1985), and have been shown to be biochemically distinct (Backeljau, 1985a and b). All three are included in the subgenus Kobeltia. 7. A number of 20th century authors have described Kobeltia (see, for example, Hesse, 1926, p. 66; Germain, 1930, p. 77; Wiktor, 1973, p. 43; Likharev & Wiktor, 1980, p. 409; and Grossu, 1983, pp. 55—58). Backeljau & De Winter (1987, p. 177) discussed the problem of three closely related species having hitherto been confused as ‘A. hortensis’. To avoid further confusion, and to rectify Seibert’s earlier mistake in the identity of hortensis with Limax fasciatus, now propose to confirm A. hortensis Ferussac, 1819, as defined by the lectotype designated by De Winter (1984), as the type species of Kobeltia. It may be noted that most, if not all, of the older records of ‘A. hortensis’ from Germany, Seibert’s native country, are actually of A. distinctus, and only one record of A. hortensis s.s. is known (Backeljau & De Winter, 1987). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) toconfirm that Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819, is the type species of the nominal genus Kobeltia Seibert, 1873; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (gender: feminine), type species Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819, as confirmed in (1) above; 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hortensis Férussac, 1819, as published in the binomen Arion hortensis (specific name of the type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873), and as defined by the lectotype designated by De Winter (1984). References Backeljau, T. 1981. Biometrie, ecologie, ethologie en systematiek van het Arion hortensis complex in Belgié. Unpublished Lic. thesis, Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen. 78 pp. Backeljau, T. 1985a. A preliminary account of species specific protein patterns in albumen gland extracts of Arion hortensis s.1. (Pulmonata, Arionidae). Basteria, 49(1—3): 11-17. Backeljau, T. 1985b. Estimation of genic similarity within and between Arion hortensis s.1. and A. intermedius by means of isoelectric focused esterase patterns in hepatopancreas homogenates (Mollusca, Pulmonata: Arionidae). Zeitschrift fiir zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 23(1): 38-49. Backeljau, T., Ahmadyar, S.Z., Selens, M., Van Rompaey, J. & Verheyen, W. 1987. Comparative electrophoretic analyses of three European Carinarion species (Mollusca, Pulmonata: Arionidae). Zoologica Scripta, 16: 209-222. Backeljau, T. & De Bruyn, L. 1990. On the infrageneric systematics of the genus Arion Férussac, 1819 (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 60: 35-67. Backeljau, T. & De Winter, A.J. 1987. An electrophoretic characterisation of three paratypes of Arion fagophilus De Winter, 1986, with notes on the subgeneric division of the genus Arion Férussac, 1819 (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Zeitschrift fiir zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 25(3): 169-180. Backeljau, T. & Marquet, R. 1985. An advantageous use of multivariate statistics in a biometrical study on the Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae) in Belgium. Malacological Review, 18(1—2): 57-72. Cockerell. T.D.A. 1891. Arion circumscriptus, Johnston= Bourguignati, Mab. The British Naturalist, 1891(1): 20. Davies, S.M. 1977. The Arion hortensis complex with notes on A. intermedius Normand (Pulmonata: Arionidae). Journal of Conchology, 29(4): 173-187. Davies, S.M. 1979. Segregates of the Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae), with the description of a new species, Arion owenii. Journal of Conchology, 30(2): 123-127. De Winter, A.J. 1984. The Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae): designation of types, descriptions, and distributional patterns, with special reference to the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 59(1): 1-17. Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 164 pp., 13 pls. Colas, Paris. Férussac, J.B.L. d’A. de. 1819-[1832]. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliere des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. Oeuvre posthume de Mr le Baron J.B.L. d’Audebard de Férussac ,.. continué, mis en ordre, et publié par Mr le Baron d’Audebard son fils... xvi, 128, 96a—z, 960-—A pp., 163 pls. Bertrand, Paris. Germain, L. 1930. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles (premiére partie). Faune de France, 21: 1-477. Grossu, A.V. 1983. Gastropoda Romaniae. Ordo Stylommatophora. 4. Suprafam.: Arionacea, Zonitacea, Ariophantacea si Helicacea. 563 pp. Editura Litera, Bucuresti. Hesse, P. 1926. Die Nacktschnecken der palaearktischen Region. Abhandlungen des Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 2(1): 1-152. Johnston, G. 1828. A few remarks on the class Mollusca, in Dr. Flemming’s work on British animals; with descriptions of some new species. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 5: 74-81. Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 25(1): 12-17, 25(3): 105-118. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 273 Lehmann, R. 1873. Die lebenden Schnecken und Muscheln der Umgegend Stettins und in Pommern mit besonderer Berticksichtigung ihres anatomischen Baues. 328 pp., 22 pls. Fischer, Cassel. Likharev, ILM. & Wiktor, A. 1980. The fauna of the slugs of the USSR and adjacent countries (Gastropoda terrestria nuda). Fauna SSSR Mollyuski, (122)3(5): 1-437. [In Russian.] Lohmander, H. 1937. Uber die nordischen Formen von Arion circumscriptus Johnston. Acta Societatis pro Fauna et Flora fennica, 60: 90-112. Mabille, J. 1868. Des limaciens européens. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, (2)20: 129-146. Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia molluscorum sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. xx, 124 pp. Lundae. Seibert, H. 1873. Die colorirten Tafeln des Lehmann’schen werkes. Nachrichtsblatt der deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 6: 79-82. Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. On the dates of publication of the Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles and the Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques, by the Barons Férussac and G.P. Deshayes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)8(43): 74-76. Simroth, H. 1885. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der deutschen Nacktschnecken und ihrer europaischen Verwandten. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 42(2): 203-366. Taylor, J.W. 1905. Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. Testacellidae, Limacidae, Arionidae, part 2. Pp. 161-224. 21 pls. Taylor Brothers, Leeds. Wiktor, A. 1973. Die Nacktschnecken Polens, Arionidae, Milacidae, Limacidae (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora). Monografie Fauny Polski, 1: 1-182. 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Case 2747 Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species L.R.M. Cocks Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the name of the important Ordovician brachiopod genus Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 by designating Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as its type species in place of the poorly known species Strophomena rugosa de Blainville, 1825. 1. The brachiopod genus Strophomena has given its name not only to the family STROPHOMENIDAE King, 1846 and the superfamily STROPHOMENACEA, but also to the suborder Strophomenidina and the order Strophomenida; this last is the most numerous order of articulate brachiopods with more than a thousand genera and includes the productids and chonetids. This classification has been accepted for a long time and forms an integral part of the brachiopod volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Williams, 1965). 2. However, the nominal genus Strophomena is not well founded and this appli- cation proposes action to stabilise the name. The problem has been well known for over a hundred years, being discussed at length by, among others, Davidson (1853, pp. 105— 108), Hall & Clarke (1892, pp. 246-250), Nickles (1903, pp. 214-217) and Pope (1976, p. 154), but never resolved. 3. Rafinesque & Clifford (1820, p. 232) referred to ‘plusieurs nouveaux genres, tels que gonotrema, diclisma, pleurinia, stropheria, strophomenes, clipsilis etc., outre les vrais genres terebratula et productus’ when describing a new fauna from the Ordovician of Kentucky; however, there was no further description of ‘strophomenes’ apart from making clear that they were shells. Defrance (1824, p. 5) used the phrase ‘de coquilles bivalves du genre Strophoméne’ when describing a block from the Silurian of Dudley, England; in a table (p. 110) he stated that ‘Strophoméne’ had three species but he did not name them. De Blainville (1825, p. 513) was the first to give a proper description of the genus and also the first to use the spelling Strophomena, thereby establishing the name. Under Article 50a of the Code, authorship must be attributed to de Blainville even though he attributed authorship to Rafinesque. 4. De Blainville mentioned only one species by name, ‘“Strophomena rugosa Rafin.’, which is therefore the type species by monotypy with de Blainville as the author. He figured (pl. 53, fig. 2) the dorsal and ventral valves of one specimen of Strophomena rugosa, although the plate was probably not published until September 1827 (note in the copy in the Natural History Museum, London). The two figures show a generalised shield-shaped brachiopod which might represent a strophomenid, but could be a rafinesquinid or even a form within an entirely different superfamily such as an orthid. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 275 De Blainville omitted to mention any locality or geological horizon for Strophomena or S. rugosa. 5. King (1846, p. 28) named the family STROPHOMENIDAE to include Strophomena and related genera and it is this work which forms the basis of the key position that Strophomena and the strophomenids occupy today. This position was reinforced by the substantial monograph of Davidson (1853, 1871) who attributed many species to the genus. However, several nineteenth century authors agonised about the true identity of the genus and in particular the species rugosa. 6. Hall & Clarke (1892, p. 246), referring to Strophomena rugosa, wrote ‘there seems to be sufficient reason to believe that it is the same species which was subsequently described as Leptaena planumbona’. This species, named by Hall (1847, p. 112), is a well-founded and properly described brachiopod from the Ordovician Trenton Limestone of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. 7. Subsequent authors have tended to follow Hall & Clarke in using planumbona to define their concept of Strophomena. Nickles (1903, p. 215) did not accept that de Blainville’s description or figures justified Hall & Clarke’s synonymy with Leptaena planumbona. Nevertheless, he accepted Hall & Ciarke’s solution to the problem, writing that ‘the wisest solution of the difficulties and the one that observes the real intent, if not the exact letter of the law of priority is to recognize ... the genus Strophomena ... with the Strophomena planumbona (Hall) asits type’. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Williams (1965, p. H384) gave the type species of Strophomenaas‘S. rugosa (conspecific with Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847)’. Pope (1976, p. 154) wrote that ‘authors sub- sequent to Nickles ... also based Strophomena upon S. planumbona (Hall) and ‘the type should be fixed as Strophomena planumbona (Hall) by appeal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature so that no uncertainty continues’. 8. Recent systematic papers (e.g. Cocks, 1978, p. 107; Rice, 1987, p. 157) correctly cite the nominal species Strophomena rugosa as the type species of Strophomena, it being the only originally included species. However, the name Strophomena rugosa has not been used in anything other than a formal sense since de Blainville (1825) and its true identity is uncertain. Since Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 is currently used as a valid name for the type species of Strophomena, stability would be achieved by designation of L. planumbona as the type species of Strophomena. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 and to designate Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species; (b) to suppress the specific name rugosa de Blainville, 1825, as published in the binomen Strophomena rugosa, 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 Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)(a) above Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name planumbona Hall, 1847, as published in the binomen Leptaena planumbona (specific name of the type species of Strophomena de Blainville, 1825); 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name rugosa de Blainville, 1825, as published in the binomen Strophomena rugosa, and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1825. Manuel de Malacologie et de Conchyliologie. 664 pp. Levrault, Paris. Cocks, L.R.M. 1978. A review of British Lower Palaeozoic brachiopods, including a synoptic revision of Davidson’s Monograph. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), \—256. Davidson, T. 1853. British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1 (Introduction): 1-136. Davidson, T. 1871. British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 3(7): 249-397. Defrance, J.L.M. 1824. Tableau des Corps Organisés Fossiles. xvi, 136 pp. Levrault, Paris. Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York. Volume 1, containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower division of the New York System. Natural History of New York, 1-338. Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1892. An introduction to the study of the genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda, vol. 8, part 1. 367 pp. Geological Survey of the State of New York, Albany, INSYe King, W. 1846. Remarks on certain genera belonging to the class Palliobranchiata. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 18: 26—42, 83-94. Nickles, J.M. 1903. The Richmond group in Ohio and Indiana and its subdivisions, with a note on the genus Strophomena and its type. American Geologist, 32: 202-218. Pope, J.K. 1976. Comparative morphology and shell histology of the Ordovician Strophomenacea (Brachiopoda). Palaeontographica Americana, 8(49): 129-213. Rafinesque, C.S. & Clifford, J.D. 1820. Prodrome d’une monographie des Turbinolies fossiles du Kentucky. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques, Brussels, 5: 231—235. Rice, W.F. 1987. The systematics and biostratigraphy of the Brachiopoda of the Decorah Shale at St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations, Minnesota Geological Survey, No. 35: 136— 166. Williams, A. 1965. Strophomenidina. Pp. H362-412 in Moore R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part H (Brachiopoda). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 277 Case 2703 HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 Harro Hieronimus P.O. Box 170243, D-5650 Solingen 1, Fed. Rep. Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give precedence to the commonly used family-group name for the flat loaches HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 over the unused senior synonym BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. 1. In a study of Indian and Indochinese loaches of the genus Balitora Gray, 1830 Kottelat (1988) reported that although interrelationships among members of the family HOMALOPTERIDAE have been variously interpreted, its type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 has always been considered closely related to Balitora Gray, 1830 and placed in the same family, subfamily and tribe. Thus his rediscovery of the hitherto overlooked family-group name BALITORINAE Swainson, 1839 (p. 190) means the family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (p. xxviii) is a junior subjective synonym of BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. In accordance with Article 23 of the Code, I am referring this case to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature together with a proposal to preserve nomenclatural stability. 2. The family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 has been widely accepted by zoologists. All recent publications use this name (e.g. Hora, 1920; Hora, 1931; Hora, 1932; Hora, 1941; Silas, 1953; Jayaram, 1981). The family-group name BALITORIDAE has not been used for any of the homalopterid fishes since Swainson established it (1839) until Kottelat (1988) nearly 150 years later. 3. Kottelat (1988, p. 489) himself admits that the replacement of HOMALOPTERIDAE by BALITORIDAE creates additional confusion in the suborder Cobitoidei. I cannot follow Kottelat in his opinion that an immediate introduction of the family-group name BALITORIDAE, which had been overlooked for about 150 years, would help to create a stable nomenclature (Kottelat, 1988, p. 489). 4. Kottelat (1988, p. 489) expects changes in systematics and nomenclature in the suborder Cobitoidei. Under these circumstances all possible attempts have to be made to stabilize nomenclature. 5. In 1986 Kottelat (BZN 43: 360-362) proposed the designation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of the genus Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. He referred (p. 361) to the fact that otherwise the family HOMALOPTERIDAE would become a subfamily of COBITIDAE. In Opinion 1500 (June, 1988) the Commission used its plenary powers to designate Cobitis taenia as type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and thus stabilized the family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859. However, the name remains threatened by the discovery of the unused senior synonym BALITORIDAE. 6. The type genus of HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 is Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (p. 133), the type species of which is H. ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 by subsequent monotypy. Homaloptera is available by description but the two species originally included in it (H. fasciata van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 and H. javanica van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823) are both nomina nuda. On p. 132 of van Hasselt’s work, Homaloptera is spelt Homalophra. Kottelat (1987) acted as first reviser and selected the commonly used spelling Homaloptera. The specific name ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833 is a nomen nudum in the book Handboek der Dierkunde ... (1833a), the description given on p. 211 referring to the genus only. However, in the accompanying atlas (1833b) Verzameling der Platen ..., (to which no mention is made in the Handboek, although it is referred to in the translation from the 2nd Dutch edition, 1856-1858), p. 8 (Verklaring der platen) states that pl. 13 fig. 12 is ‘Homaloptera ocellata v. Hass; eene nieuwe, vroeger nog niet afgebeelde, soort uit Java. Fig. 12b. Kop van dezen visch, van boven gezien. (11. bl. 211)’. Plate 13, figure 12 depicts a whole fish, fig. 12b the head of a fish, so the name is available. The type genus of BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 is Balitora Gray, 1830 (pl. 88). The type species of this genus is Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 (pl. 88) by subsequent designation by Jordan (1919, p. 178). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 over the family-group name BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Balitora Gray, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Jordan (1919) Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 (type genus of BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839); (b) Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent monotypy Homaloptera ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833 (type genus of HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859); (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) brucei Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Balitora brucei (specific name of the type species of Balitora Gray, 1830); (b) ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833, as published in the binomen Homaloptera ocellata (specific name of the type species of Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823); (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823) with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830); (b) BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830) with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823). References Bleeker, P. 1859. Enumeratio specierum piscium hucusque in Archipelago indico observatarum, adjectis habitationibus citationibusque ubi descriptiones earum recentiores reperiuntur, nec con speciebus Musei Bleekeriani Bengalensibus, Japonicis, Capensibus Tasmanicisque. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo-Neerlandicae, 6: xxxvi, 1-276. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 279 Gray, J.E. 1830-1835. Tlustrations of Indian zoology, chiefly selected from the collection of General Hardwicke. 2 vols., 200 pls. (part fishes on pp. 1-255). Longman, Brown, Green & Longman, London. Hasselt, J.C. van. 1823. In Temminck, C.J. Uittreksel uit een’ brief van den. Heer J.C. van Hasselt, aan den Heer C.J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentie Bantam, den 29sten December 1822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter- Bode, 2(35): 130-133. Hoeven, J. van der. 1833a. Handboek der Dierkunde of grondbeginsels der natuurlijke geschiedenis van het dierenrijk, vol. 2. x, v, 698 pp. Sulpke, Amsterdam. Hoeven, J. van der. 1833b. Verzameling der Platen, behoorende tot het Handboek der Dierkunde. 12 pp, 20 pls. Sulpke, Amsterdam. Hora, S.L. 1920. Revision of the Indian Homalopteridae and of the genus Psilorhynchus (Cyprinidae). Records of the Indian Museum, 22(2): 195—215. Hora, S.L. 1931. Classification of the homalopterid fishes. Records of the Indian Museum, 33(1): 67-69. Hora, S.L. 1932. Classification, bionomics and evolution of homalopterid fishes. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, 12(2): 263-330. Hora, S.L. 1941. Homalopterid fishes from peninsular India. Records of the Indian Museum, 43(2): 221-232. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 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. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45(2): 178-179. Jayaram, K.C. 1981. The freshwater fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka — a handbook. xx + 475 pp. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. Jordan, D.S. 1919. The Genera of Fishes. Part 2. From Agassiz to Bleeker, 1833-1858, twenty-six years, with the accepted type of each. Pp. 11x, 163—284, i-xiii. Stanford University. Kottelat, M. 1987. Nomenclatural Status of the Fish Names Created by J.C. van Hasselt (1823) and of some Cobitoid Genera. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 33(4): 368-375. Kottelat, M. 1986. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Proposed desig- nation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species and request for a ruling on the stem of the family-group name COBITIDIDAE Swainson, 1839. $.2566. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 43(4): 360-362. Kottelat, M. 1988. Indian and Indochinese species of Balitora (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) with descriptions of two new species and comments on the family-group names BALITORIDAE and HOMALOPTERIDAE. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 95(2): 487-504. Silas, E.G. 1953. Classification, zoogeography and evolution of the fishes of the cyprinoid families HOMALOPTERIDAE and GASTROMYZONIDAE. Records of the Indian Museum, 50(2): 173-264. Swainson, W. 1839. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and reptiles. In Lardner, D. (Ed.), The Cabinet Cyclopedia, vol. 2. 448 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Greene & Longmans, and Taylor, London. 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Case 2715 Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine gender for the name David A. Etnier Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0810, U.S.A. Melvin L. Warren Jr. Department af Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6501, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to fix as masculine the gender of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819, for a genus of fish, including important food, game and laboratory research species. This is in accordance with Rafinesque’s original intention and almost universal usage until 1988 when the gender was amended to feminine on etymological grounds with which the authors disagree. 1. In 1819 Rafinesque (p. 420) established the generic name Lepomis and designated Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 283) as the type species; he established two new species which he called Lepomis cyanellus and L. macrochirus. Although he did not state that the gender of Lepomis was masculine, it is clear from the ending of the three specific names that this was his intention. 2. Rafinesque did not specify the derivation of Lepomis, but this can be inferred from his two subgenera, Pomotis and Apomotis. He characterized Pomotis as having ‘opercule auriculé’ (an ear on the opercle) and Apomotis as ‘opercule sans auricle’. Since Pomotis and Apomotis both use the Greek poma (n., a lid or cover) to mean the operculum or gill cover, we conclude that the ending of Lepomis stems from the same Greek root. That this interpretation is correct is confirmed in that Rafinesque charac- terized Lepomis as having ‘téte et opercules écailleux’ (head and opercles scaled). Furthermore, in a paper the following year, Rafinesque (1820, p. 30) stated that ‘the name means scaly gills’. Jordan & Gilbert (1877, p. 102) also considered Lepomis to be derived from /epis plus poma. 3. Lepomis has almost universally been treated as masculine as in Rafinesque’s 1819 paper. A notable early exception was Rafinesque himself who, in his 1820 paper, treated Lepomis as feminine as indicated by his use of the specific names pallida, trifasciata, salmonea and notata. More recently, Bailey & Robins (1988, p. 100) pointed out that Brown (1954, pp. 332, 683) considered the name to be derived from the Greek lepis (f., scale) and omis (f., a fish); in this Brown was not consistent since he gave as an example Lepomis auritus with a masculine ending. Bailey & Robins accepted Brown’s derivation and treated Lepomis as feminine, ‘correcting’ a number of specific names to Lepomis aurita, L. cyanella, L. gibbosa, etc. They added that all these names were Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 281 incorrectly assigned masculine endings in the 1980 and earlier editions of the American Fisheries Society’s List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada (Robins et al., 1980). 4. We do not accept Bailey & Robins’ argument that Lepomis should be treated as feminine on account of the etymology suggested by Brown (1954) and have sought the views of Professor H.D. Cameron (Professor of Greek and Latin, Adjunct Curator in the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan). In a letter (29 January 1990) to the Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Professor Cameron wrote: ‘It is perfectly clear that Lepomis is not a properly formed Greek compound, no matter what Rafinesque thought he was doing. The rules of Greek noun formation would not permit such an invention. Rafinesque, by his inattention to philo- logical nicety, created a problem which cannot be solved by appeal to etymology or grammar. I am convinced that they [the authors of this application] have rightly construed what Rafinesque thought he was doing, but still his result is grammatically unacceptable. It is for this reason that... I have come round to the opinion that the name must be legally considered an arbitrary combination of letters, and the gender determined by the original author’. Professor Cameron added that, since Lepomis ended with the feminine suffix -omis, it could be argued under Article 30b of the Code that the name should be treated as feminine irrespective of Rafinesque’s original intentions on etymology and gender. 5. Weconsider that, irrespective of the derivation of the name Lepomis and since it is ‘almost universally regarded as masculine’ (Bailey & Robins, 1988, p. 100) in accord- ance with Rafinesque’s original intention, it would bein the interests of stability for it to be ruled by the Commission as masculine. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the gender of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 is masculine; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine, as ruled in (1) above), type species by original designation Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name auritus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Labrus auritus (specific name of the type species of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819). Acknowledgements We thank Reeve M. Bailey and Howard D. Cameron, University of Michigan; Brooks M. Burr, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; C. Richard Robins, University of Miami; and James E. Shelton, University of Tennessee for their views on the derivation and gender of Lepomis and comments on an earlier draft of this petition. William E. Eschmeyer, California Academy of Sciences; Larry M. Page, Illinois Natural History Survey; and Reeve M. Bailey provided copies of papers unavailable to us. Thanks also to the many North American ichthyologists who expressed interest in the timely resolution of this matter by indicating their feelings on the gender of Lepomis. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 References Bailey, R.M. & Robins, C.R. 1988. Changes in North American fish names, especially as related to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1985. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45: 92-103. Brown, R.W. 1954. Composition of Scientific Words. 882 pp. Privately published, Baltimore. Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1877. On the genera of North American fresh-water fishes. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1877, 83-104. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 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. Rafinesque, C.S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or Natural History of the Fishes Inhabiting the River Ohio and its Tributary Streams. 90 pp. Lexington, Kentucky. 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, Ed. 4. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 12. 174 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 283 Case 2141 Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence over Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826 Lauren E. Brown Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61761-6901, U.S.A. Hobart M. Smith University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. Richard S. Funk College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37901-1071, U.S.A. Abstract. Conservation of the name Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 for a common American leopard frog by suppression of R. utricularius Harlan, 1826 was proposed in 1977. The latter name was essentially unused because it was considered a synonym of R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, but it was revived in 1974 as a supposed senior synonym of R. sphenocephala. Objections on taxonomic grounds to the proposed suppression of R. utricularius prevented completion of this case; it is now proposed that R. sphenocephala be given precedence over R. utricularius. 1. In 1977 we published an application (BZN 33: 195-203) for the conservation of the species-group name sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (p. 517). As was stated in that application, Cope’s name (usually cited as from Cope, 1889) has been extensively used for acentury, either as Rana sphenocephala or as R. pipiens sphenocephala, for a leopard frog from the south-eastern United States; it was first published (as R. halecina spheno- cephala) to replace R. oxyrhynchus Hallowell, [1856] (p. 142), which is a junior primary homonym of the name of an African frog, R. oxyrhynchus Smith, 1849. 2. R. oxyrhynchus Hallowell, [1856] was published for a leopard frog from Florida. A more northerly distributed taxon is R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, of which R. halecina Daudin, 1802 is a junior subjective synonym. As discussed in the original application, and in the references cited there and below, pipiens and sphenocephala are taxonomi- cally distinct within the ‘R. pipiens complex’. Frogs of this group are very widely studied for a variety of purposes. 3. In 1826 Harlan (p. 60) described R. utricularius from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but, as we discussed previously, this did not become the accepted name for any taxon because of the seniority of pipiens or halecina, and it had been unused for very many years before being resurrected by Pace (1974). Pace used the spelling ‘utricularia’, but utricularius is a noun meaning ‘bagpiper’. In adopting the name, Pace considered that Harlan had differentiated his wtricularius from halecina (= pipiens) in ways which 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 showed that utricularius was a senior synonym of sphenocephala, but we have given reasons (BZN 33: 197-198) for disputing this synonymy and for considering that utricularius corresponded to pipiens. Pace (1974) went further, and proposed two sub- species, R. utricularia utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala (the latter considered to be restricted to peninsular Florida), but her basis for this was mistaken (BZN 33: 199— 200). She designated a specimen from Philadelphia and one from Volusia County, Florida as neotypes of u. utricularia and u. sphenocephala respectively. 4. In our original application we proposed the suppression of the name R. virescens, in addition to that of R. utricularius. As mentioned in paras. 2 and 10 of that appli- cation, virescens was not made available until Cope, 1889 (p. 397), although Cope assumed that it was available from earlier authors. Since virescens is junior to spheno- cephalaand utricularius, has been used only once in the last 50 years and Cope’s concept of the species was composite (including pipiens, sphenocephala and perhaps other frogs; BZN 33: 200), we do not now propose any formal action concerning it. 5. Our proposal to conserve sphenocephala by suppressing utricularius received sup- port from 18 zoologists (BZN 34: 199-200). However eight authors (BZN 39: 80-84) objected to the suppression of utricularius, on the grounds that this name had acquired some usage since Pace (1974) and that the extent of speciation within the ‘R. pipiens complex’ was not fully worked out. With a reply (BZN 39: 84-90), we noted that the Commission Secretariat had been given a list of 103 references using sphenocephala from the 50 years before Pace’s action. We also provided 46 similar references from the following seven years, during which time utricularius had been little used. While agree- ing that the taxonomy of the leopard frogs needed further studies we reiterated (BZN 39: 89) that the replacement of sphenocephala by utricularius had been in error, and was destabilizing and contrary to the Code. 6. Because the Commission cannot form taxonomic judgements and objection had been made to the suppression of utricularius this case has remained unresolved, with consequent risk to stability. In correspondence the Executive Secretary has suggested that sphenocephala Cope, 1886 could be given precedence over utricularius Harlan, 1826 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. We believe that this course will maintain stability. 7. Wehave given the Commission Secretariat a (non-exhaustive) list of 11 works since 1982 which have used sphenocephala. These include: Frost (1985), Amphibian Species of the World; the major work by Duellman & Trueb (1986), Biology of Amphibians; and Ashton & Ashton’s 1988 handbook on the amphibians of Florida. Many journal papers have also used sphenocephala. In contrast very few papers have used utricularius: three which do, none of them taxonomic or with an implication that there is more than one southern leopard frog, are Mushinsky (1985), Alford (1986) and Wilbur & Semlitsch (1990). The recent check list of Collins (1990) has unfortunately followed Pace (1974) in giving (on p. 13) both R. utricularia utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala. 8. For the reasons set out above and those previously published in the Bulletin, we now withdraw our previous proposals (BZN 33: 201) and instead ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, is to be given precedence over the name uwtricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 285 (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name wtricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. References (See also BZN 33: 195-203; 34: 199-200; 39: 80-90; and references therein). Alford, R.A. 1986. Habitat use and positional behavior of anuran larvae in a northern Florida temporary pond. Copeia, 1986(2): 408-423. Ashton, R.E. & Ashton, P.S. 1988. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida, part 3 (The Amphibians). 191 pp. Windward Publishing, Miami. Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles, Ed. 3. Herpetological Circular no. 19, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. iv, 41 pp. Oxford, Ohio. Cope, E.D. 1886. Synonymic list of the North American species of Bufo and Rana, with de- scriptions of some new species of Batrachia, from specimens in the National Museum. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23: 514-526. Cope, E.D. 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 34: 1-525. Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, T. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. Frost, D.R. 1985. Amphibian Species of the World. 732 pp. Allen Press and the Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. Hallowell, E. 1856. [No title]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8: 141-143. Harlan, R. 1826. Descriptions of several new species of batracian reptiles, with observations on the larvae of frogs. American Journal of Science and Arts, (1)10: 53-64. Mushinsky, H.R. 1985. Fire and the Florida sandhill herpetofaunal community: with special attention to responses of Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. Herpetologia, 41: 333-342. Pace, A.E. 1974. Systematic and biological studies of the leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex) of the United States. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, no. 148. 140 pp. Wilbur, H.M. & Semlitsch, R.D. 1990. Ecological consequences of tail injury in Rana tadpoles. Copeia, 1990(1): 18-24. [A comment on this application appears in BZN 47: 298-299]. 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Comment on the proposed placement of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on the Official List of Family-Group Names (Case 2699; see BZN 47: 104-109) Alfred F. Newton, Jr. & Margaret K. Thayer Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A. One of the proposals in this application (BZN 47: 107, para. 13 (4)) is to place the family-group name HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821) on the Official List of Family-Group Names. However, this name is a junior homonym of HYDROBIIDAE Mulsant, 1844 (type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815), a name in current use for a subfamily or tribe of HYDROPHILIDAE (Insecta: Coleoptera). The name in Coleoptera was first proposed in French form as a ‘branche’ HYDROBIAIRES (Mulsant, 1844, p. 116), which was further divided into two ‘rameaux’, including HYDROBIATES (Mulsant, 1844, p. 117). Thename was used againin French form as the tribe HYDROBIIDES by Lacordaire (1854, p. 454). It was apparently first latinized as HYDROBII by Fairmaire & Laboulbéne (1855, p. 227). Since then, the name has come into general use for a large group of HYDROPHILIDAE, treated as either a tribe HYDROBIINI of the subfamily HYDROPHILINAE or a separate subfamily HYDROBIINAE; in both cases, subgroups are often recognized that include a subtribe HYDROBIINA or tribe HYDROBIINI, respectively. The family-group name has generally (but not universally) been attributed to Mulsant (1844), hence is available from that date (Article 1 1f(iii) of the Code). Some representative monographs or general works showing usage of HYDROBIINAE, HYDROBIINI and/or HYDROBIINA as valid groups include LeConte (1861), Horn (1873), Bedel (1881), Kuwert (1890), Ganglbauer (1904), Reitter (1909), Knisch (1924), Orchymont (1942), Blackwelder (1944), Brues et al. (1954), Crowson (1955), Arnett (1963, 1985) and Hansen (1987). At the highest recently-used rank, HYDROBIINAE in- cludes about 30 genera and over 700 described species, or about a third of the family HYDROPHILIDAE (Hansen, 1987). At this level, several alternative (but junior) family- group names based on included genera are available. At the lowest rank, however, the nominotypical subgroup (tribe or subtribe) has no available alternative family-group names (Hansen, 1990). The Code (Article 55b) requires that cases of homonymy in family-group names resulting from type genera with similar (but not identical) names must be referred to the Commission for a ruling to either: (a) observe priority and replace the junior homonym (in this case, the gastropod HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857), or (b) amend the stem of one of the generic names involved to remove the homonymy. Since we are not familiar with available junior synonyms or other potential solutions concerning the use of HYDROBIIDAE in Mollusca we refrain from making any specific proposal here, and refer this problem to malacologists for further action. Until a specific proposal dealing with this homonymy is submitted to the Commis- sion and a ruling made, we feel that HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 should not be placed on the Official List as proposed on BZN 47: 107. The status of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel is not directly relevant to resolving the main problems addressed in Case 2699. The present comment illustrates a difficulty that may arise in applications designed to address other problems. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 287 Additional References Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. A manual for identification. x1, 1112 pp. Catholic University Press, Washington. Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1985. American insects. A handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico. xiv, 850 pp. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville. Bedel, L. 1881. Faune des Coléopteres du bassin de la Seine. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, Volume hors série: 359 pp., 1 pl. Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America. Part I. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No. 185, xu, 188 pp. Brues, C.T., Melander, A.L. & Carpenter, F.M. 1954. Classification of insects. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 108. v, 917 pp. Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 187 pp. Nathaniel Lloyd, London. Fairmaire, L. & Laboulbéne, J.J.A. 1855. Faune entomologique frangaise ou description des insectes qui se trouvent en France: Coléopteéres, Vol. 1, Part 2 (pp. 181-370). Deyrolle, Paris. Ganglbauer, L. 1904. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa. Die Kafer der Osterreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie, Deutschlands, der Schweiz, sowie des franzdsischen und italienischen Alpenge- bietes. Vol. 4, Part 1. Dermestidae,... Georyssidae, Drvopidae, Heteroceridae, Hydrophilidae. 286 pp. Karl Gerolds Sohn, Vienna. Hansen, M. 1987. The Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, 18: 1-254. Hansen, M. 1990. Revision of the genera of Hydrophiloidea, with a revised suprageneric Classifi- cation. 400 pp., 247 figs. Ph.D. thesis, Zoological Museum, Copenhagen. Horn, G.H. 1873. Revision of the genera and species of the tribe Hydrobiini. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 13: 118-137. Knisch, A. 1924. Hydrophilidae. In Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, Pars 79. 306 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. Kuwert, A. 1890 (1889). Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Hydrophiliden Europas, Westasiens und Nordafrikas. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Briinn, 28: 3-121. Lacordaire, J.T. 1854. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres. Vol. 2. 548 pp. Roret, Paris. Leach, W.E. 1815. Entomology. Pp. 57-172 in Brewster, D. (Ed.), Edinburgh Encyclopedia, vol. 9(1). Edinburgh. LeConte, J.L. 1861. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Part 1. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 3. xxv, 208 pp. Mulsant, E. 1844. Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Palpicornes. vii, 196 pp. Maison, Paris. Orchymont, A. d’. 1942. Contribution a l’étude de la tribu Hydrobiini Bedel spécialement de sa sous-tribu Hydrobiae (Palpicornia-Hydrophilidae). Mémoires du Musée Royal d Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, (2) 24: 1-68. Reitter, E. 1909. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches. Vol. 2. 392 pp. Lutz, Stuttgart. 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Comments on the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2682; see BZN 46: 161-164) (1) L.B. Holthuis Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Gray (1853) did not use pustulosa as a new scientific name when establishing Fryeria (cf. BZN 46: 162, para. 4), but just referred it to Riippell. There is therefore no new species Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853; Article 49 of the Code applies in this case, and Bergh’s (1869) proposal of the new name rippelii for Phyllidia pustulosa sensu Rippell non Cuvier is entirely in order. The Commission cannot suppress the non-existing name Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853, but it can designate F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 as type species of Fryeria. (2) Robert Burn 3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 3220 While agreeing wholeheartedly with the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853, the following comment is necessary regarding the name of the type species. Brunckhorst et al. are correct in stating that the type species is, by deliberate use of misidentification (Article 11i), Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. They are incorrect how- ever to claim that this name is an unused senior synonym of Fryeria riippelii Bergh, 1869, a taxon of somewhat dubious nomenclatural validity and unstable subsequent spelling. Usages of F. pustulosa Gray, 1853 include: 1. Martens’ (1870, p. 56) summary of Bergh’s monograph: ‘Fryeria rippellii = Phyllidia pustulosa of Ruppell, but not of Cuvier = Fr. pustulosa (Gray), Red Sea’. Martens indicated the authors of valid names by bracket enclosure. 2. Risbec (1929, pp. 45-49, figs. 1-9) identified and figured a specimen from Madagascar as ‘Fryeria pustulosa Gray. Synonymes: Phyllidia pustulosa Ruppell. Fryeria Ruppellii Bergh’. It is also worth noting that Vayssiere (1912, p. 87) described two specimens from the Gulf of Aden which he identified as ‘Fryeria pustulosa, Ruppell, 1828. Syn.: Fryeria ruppelli Bergh’, a nearly but not quite correct nomencla- tural solution of the species name. Fischer (1883, p. 530) and Tryon (1883, p. 392) both listed the species as ‘Fryeria pustulosa, Ruppell’ without further synonymy. 3. Risbec (1953, pp. 13-15, fig. 1) identified and figured a specimen from New Caledonia as ‘Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. (Syn.: Fryeria ruppelli Bergh)’. In view of the nomenclatural confusion attending the species name rippelii Bergh, 1869, my opinion is that (1) priority should apply, and (ii) use of pustulosa Gray, 1853 in the binomen Fryeria pustulosa will not cause any instability in opisthobranch gastropod literature, despite there being another species in the PHYLLIDIDAE with the same specific name, i.e. Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier, 1804. It is therefore advo- cated that the application be amended to have Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853 con- firmed as the type species, by monotypy, of Fryeria Gray, 1853, to have both Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. pustulosa Gray, 1853 placed on the respective Official Lists, and to have riippelii Bergh, 1869 and any subsequent incorrect spellings placed on the Official Index. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 289 Additional references Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie, fasc. 6: 513-608. Martens, E. von. 1870. Mollusca. Record of Zoological Literature, 6: 505—593. Risbec, J. 1929. Note zoologiques et anatomiques sur quelques opisthobranches de Madagascar. Faune des Colonies Francaises, 3: 45-62. Risbec, J. 1953. Mollusques nudibranches de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Faune de l'Union Francaise, 15: 1-189. Tryon, G.W. 1883. Structural and Systematic Conchology: an introduction to the study of the Mollusca, vol. 2. 430 pp., 69 pls. Vayssiere, A. 1912. Recherches zoologiques et anatomiques sur les Opisthobranches de la Mer Rouge et du Golfe d’Aden, Part 2. Annales de la Faculté des Sciences de Marseille, 20 (Suppl.): 5-157, pls. 1-11. (3) D.J. Brunckhorst Zoology Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia W.B. Rudman Australian Museum, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia In response to the above comments of Holthuis and Burn we would like to summar- ise our case briefly. In this summary all spellings of Bergh’s name have been corrected to ‘rueppeli’ to avoid confusion (see para. 9 of our application). Our case involves two distinct species of PHYLLIDIDAE. One species was named Phyllidia pustulosa by Cuvier (1804). The second species was misidentified as Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier by Riippell & Leuckart (1830 or 1831). Gray (1853) considered this second species to belong to a distinct genus, which he named Fryeria. He mentioned P. pustulosa Cuvier and was doubtful of the synonymy of this and the ‘P. pustulosa Ruppell’ on which he based Fryeria. Clearly under Article 11i (Deliberate use of a misidentification) and the appended Example the name of this second species is Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853, available because it is the type of a new nominal genus. Bergh (1869) considered that having two related, though not congeneric, species with the same specific name would lead to continuing confusion. He proposed the new name Fryeria rueppelii to obviate the confusion. Although this name is unnecessary under the Code it has been used by most subsequent nudibranch taxonomists. Our submission asked the Commission to use its plenary powers to legalise this usage, since the recent proposal by Yonow (1986) of the generic name Reyfria clearly shows that confusion still surrounds the use of pustulosa for the two related species. Risbec (1953) was correct in using Fryeria pustulosa Gray for Riippell & Leuckart’s species but it is noteworthy that he later changed his usage to Fryeria rueppelii Bergh when (Risbec, 1956) reporting both that species and Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier from Vietnam. The Commission Secretariat has a list of 43 works which have dealt with Ruppell & Leuckart’s taxonomic species. Very few have used Fryeria pustulosa while the great majority have employed Bergh’s replacement name Fryeria rueppelii (in various spell- ings), because it removes the confusion of using pustulosa for the two species. Burn, who now wishes to resurrect the name Fryeria pustulosa, has himself used the name Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, rather than the correct Fryeria pustulosa Gray, when reporting that species and Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier from Australia (Burn, 1975). 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Burn gives two reasons for being opposed to our submission. First, he states there is ‘nomenclatural confusion attending the species name rueppelli’. In our opinion there is no confusion in the use of the name Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, other than in spelling. Secondly, he states that use of ‘pustulosa Gray will not cause instability’. As most authors have deliberately avoided this usage to prevent confusion, Burn’s prediction is not well-founded. Paragraph 8 of our original submission (BZN 46: 162) shows that confusion has been caused by the misapplication of the names P. pustulosa Cuvier and F. pustulosa Gray. Despite the above comments by Holthuis and Burn we still feel that our interpret- ation of the Code and of the situation is correct. Our aim is to have Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (new name for Phyllidia pustulosa sensu Riippell & Leuckart non Cuvier, i.e. Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853) designated as the type species of Fryeria. We would be happy for the Commission to reach this decision by any appropriate procedure. Additional references Burn, R. 1975. A list of dorid nudibranchs of Australia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). In Thompson, T.E. Dorid nudibranchs from eastern Australia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). Journal of Zoology, London, 176: 477-517. Risbec, J. 1956. Nudibranches du Vietnam. Archives du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 7(4): 1-34. Comment on the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870 (Case 2721; see BZN 47: 27-29, 212-213) (1) Rodney M. Feldmann Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242, U.S.A. Palaega Woodward, 1870 was established as a genus of isopods nine years prior to the establishment of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. The name Palaega has been used repetitively throughout the period from 1870 to the present and for this reason must be considered a valid name. The group is well known in paleontological literature and, for that reason alone, there is no substantive basis for sustaining the proposed exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission to have Bathynomus considered the name of precedence. Description of Palaega goedertorum Wieder & Feldmann, 1989 has established the synonymy of Palaega and Bathynomus with much greater certainty than had been possible previously, based upon preservation of the entire dorsal carapace. The morphological similarity of specimens referred to Palaega goedertorum, P. carteri Woodward (type species of the genus) and Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards (type species of Bathynomus) permits clear demonstration of the generic synonymy. Although Martin & Kuck (BZN 47: 27-29) point out that many isopod genera cannot be identified unequivocally by examination of the dorsal carapace their argument is not valid in this case. In point of fact, Palaega (= Bathynomus) can be clearly distinguished from other isopod genera by the anatomy of the dorsal surface. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 291 Martin & Kuck (their para. 2) correctly observe that some fossil forms have been wrongly assigned to Palaega. This was previously noted by Wieder & Feldmann (1989), who suggested removal of certain species from the genus. Nevertheless, improper assignment to a properly proposed and defined genus does not, and cannot, warrant even conditional suppression of its name. Martin & Kuck (para. 3) suggest that the synonymy of Palaega and Bathynomus is ‘unlikely to be followed by other workers’. Although some workers may exercise the subjective judgement that Paleaga and Bathynomus are not synonymous, those that do accept the synonymy have no recourse but to adopt the senior name. Wieder & Feldmann (1989) did not accept the priority of Palaega on any basis other than clear demonstration of subjective synonymy and application of the rules of priority. To do otherwise would clearly not be in the best interest of stability of nomenclature. The suggestion by Martin & Kuck (their para. 4) that giving Bathynomus precedence over Palaega would serve the interests of stability and would avoid confusion is false. Palaegais as well known in paleontological literature as Bathynomus is in neontological literature. No criteria are defined in the Code for the conditional suppression of a senior subjective synonym other than the maintenance of a stable and universally acceptable nomenclature (Article 79). The only argument that would seem to apply in this case would be that names proposed for living organisms should be given precedence over those originally based on fossils. I argue that that concept must be rejected. Therefore, no substantive basis for exercise of the plenary powers to reject Palaega Woodward, 1870 in favor of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 has been established, and I suggest that the proposals on BZN 47: 28 be denied. Editorial Note. The comments below are from members of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society (Secretary: R.B. Manning, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (2) Gary C.B. Poore Division of Natural History, Museum of Victoria, 71 Victoria Crescent, Abbotsford, Victoria 3076, Australia Keiji Baba Kumamoto University Faculty of Education, Kurokami 2-40-1, Kumamoto, 860 Japan Martin & Kuck have presented a well argued case for precedence of Bathynomus over Palaega. Doubt about the states of many characters of fossils will always remain no matter how well preserved they are and it follows that the synonymy of fossil taxa with modern forms can only be questionable. Authors who suggest otherwise express only a subjective opinion which is unlikely to receive support from the majority. We certainly do not support such a view and one of us (G.C.B.P.), in a work in progress with N.L. Bruce, will not accept the precedence of Palaega. This attitude is supported when one looks at the most recent diagnosis of Bathynomus (Bruce, 1986). Most of the characters diagnosing the genus are not discernible in many fossils. The proposal before the Commission should be unnecessary but we support it nevertheless. 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 (3) J.Y. Liu Chinese Crustacean Society, Institute of Oceanology, Academia Sinica, 7 Nan-Hai Road, Quingdao, People’s Republic of China Considering that (1) Bathynomus is a well known and clearly defined genus, whereas Palaega is a vague taxon based on incomplete fossils, and (ii) Bathynomus is a widely recognized name in deep-sea biology and is often included in popular accounts of Crustacea and of deep-sea life, and is the only name that has been used for these isopods since 1879, I agree with Martin & Kuck’s proposal to give precedence to Bathynomus over Palaega. (4) L.B. Holthuis Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Comparing the description of the type species of Palaega, P. carteri, with Bathynomus giganteus it seems most unlikely that the two belong to the same genus. In the course of time many other fossil species have been added to Palaega; these species, usually known only from fragments, probably belong to various genera but some may indeed be Bathynomus. However, unless and until it is proved that Palaega carteriis a Bathynomus, the latter generic name has nothing to fear. Giving the name Bathynomus precedence over Palaega would do no harm and may set aside fears that eventually, if the two are synonymized, Bathynomus will disappear. Therefore, I am willing to support the application. (5) Thomas E. Bowman Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. I do not see the need for the Commission to act on this application. Wieder & Feldmann’s Palaega goedertorum seems to be a Bathynomus because of the large size and coarsely toothed posterior margin of the pleotelson, but that does not make Palaega carteri, the type species of Palaega, also a Bathynomus. The pleotelson of P. carteri resembles those of species of Aega Leach, 1815 (especially A. dentata and A. gracilipes) rather than those of Bathynomus spp., and if Palaega and Bathynomus are kept separate for the time being there should be no cause for confusion nor need for the Commission to act. Wieder & Feldmann did not give persuasive arguments for combining these genera, and might better have simply placed their new species in Bathynomus. (6) Austin B. Williams National Marine Fisheries Service, Systematic Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. I disagree with Martin & Kuck (BZN 47: 27, para. 2) that ‘Palaega is of doubtful validity’. Palaega may be a ‘form’ genus, but it has a type species, P. carteri. Nevertheless, I agree with the applicants’ stand that Bathynomus and Palaega are distinct entities. The question is, does the Commission need to use plenary powers to give precedence to Bathynomus over Palaega? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 293 This seems an ordinary case of synonymy. The Wieder & Feldmann material (P. goedertorum) can well be considered as a species of Bathynomus closely related to the extant B. giganteus. Palaega carteri and its allies can continue to be regarded as members of a ‘form genus’, admittedly somewhat nebulous because of their incompleteness. Comments on the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943 (Trilobita) (Case 2762; see BZN 47: 114-116, 216) (1) Brian A. Engel The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W. 2308, Australia I wish to record my strong endorsement for the conservation of the names Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943. Both trilobite names are entrenched in the relevant literature and, as outlined by Professor Hahn, adoption of a long neglected type designation for Griffithides would cause extensive and unacceptable confusion. (2) Carsten Brauckmann Wuppertal Fuhlrott-Museum, Auer Schulstrasse 20, 5600 Wuppertal 2, Fed. Rep. Germany I completely agree with this application and trust that Griffithides and Bollandia will be conserved in their accustomed sense. (3) S.F. Morris The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Acceptance of Asaphus globiceps as the type species of Griffithides would be disas- trous. I have doubts as to whether Oldham made a valid type designation (see BZN 47: 114, para. 2), but if he did then I support Hahn’s application to conserve Griffithides longiceps as the type species. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 2702; see BZN 46: 247-249; 47: 215-216) (1) William K. Reisen Arbovirus Field Station, University of California, Bakersfield, California 93312, U.S.A. The resurrection of Culex stigmatosoma and the rejection of C. peus as the scientific name for the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ has been accepted by most culicidologists, 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 who can readily understand that both names refer to the same species. However, transferring C. peus to replace C. thriambus would create endless problems for years to come, since the biology and arbovirus affinities of these two species differ markedly. In doing literature searches, one could never be sure which species the author was addressing, since name changes are often adopted only slowly. I urge the Commission to approve this application as rapidly as possible. As a mosquito ecologist, I need to know which name to use in my research papers, and as an Editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology I need direction in dealing with submitted manuscripts. Any delay will only enhance the chances of confusion in the literature. (2) Richard Garcia Agricultural Experiment Station, 1050 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, California 94706, U.S.A. I strongly support this application to suppress the name Culex peus Speiser, 1904 in order to avoid massive confusion in the literature. (3) Lewis T. Nielsen American Mosquito Control Association Inc., 707 East Prien Lake Road, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70606-5416, U.S.A. As Editor of The American Mosquito Control Association’s journal Mosquito Systematics, the only journal exclusively devoted to mosquito taxonomy and related disciplines, I am fully in support of the proposal that the names of the American species Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and Culex thriambus Dyar, 1921 be stabilized and that the name Culex peus Speiser, 1904 be suppressed. The unfortunate misidentification of the type specimen of C. peus and the failure to recognize that it was conspecific with C. thriambus and not C. stigmatosoma has resulted in much confusion. There was a great reluctance among mosquito systematists to accept Stone’s 1958 act of synonymizing C. stigmatosoma under C. peus (see BZN 46: 248, para. 7(2)), especially since C. stigmatosoma had been accepted as a valid species for 51 years (1907-1958) and is the subject of a considerable body of literature. Culex thriambus in turn has been accepted as a species of the southwestern United States, Mexico and Central America for 67 years (1921-1988). Correspondence with subscribers and authors of articles in Mosquito Systematics and other mosquito taxonomists indicates unanimous support of the recommendations of Eldridge & Harbach. (4) Bruce A. Harrison 12215 Parkton Court, Ft. Washington, Maryland 20744, U.S.A. As a mosquito taxonomist I firmly believe in the use of names based on priority. However, on rare occasions priority impedes progress and should be overruled. This is certainly true in regard to this case. If C. peus is not suppressed, the literature regarding Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 295 C. peus, C. stigmatosoma and C. thriambus will be confused for many years. Accord- ingly, I strongly urge the Commission to approve the proposals of Eldridge & Harbach. (5) R.A. Ward Department of Entomology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. 20307-5100, U.S.A. The ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ is of great economic and potential medical signifi- cance in the far western U.S.A., i.e. the states of California, Oregon and Washington, where it can be a serious biting pest of humans and a potential vector for arboviral diseases. With increasing urbanization, it is assuming greater importance. The American Mosquito Control Association is now using the name Culex stigmatosoma Dyar for the species as a matter of editorial policy in their Journal. Three papers have been printed since 1989 using the name C. stigmatosoma. Readers of the Journal, who are primarily concerned with research and control of mosquitoes, have readily accepted the name change. If a decision was made to reject this case there would be considerable confusion amongst applied entomologists. Comments on the stability of fish family names (See BZN 47: 97-100, 138) (1) Maurice Kottelat Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchhausenstrasse 21, D-S000 Miinchen 60, Fed. Rep. Germany I endorse Wheeler’s view that changes to spelling of family-group names for purely grammatical reasons have unfortunate and far-ranging implications for stability. I also support his call for a specialist committee on fish nomenclature. Perhaps for euphonic reasons (as is obvious to those whose mother tongue is a Romance language) authors of the last century preferred family names to end in -IDAE rather than -IDIDAE. (2) John E. Randall Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. Iam in full agreement with Wheeler. The ‘corrections’ by Steyskal (1980) on grounds of grammar have done a real disservice to ichthyology. As Wheeler has pointed out, some ichthyologists have followed these and others have not. I am with the latter group. In a book on 1100 species of fish of the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea I am not using the emended names. I recommend that these all be rejected, rather than the Commission deal with them one by one, and that the names so long in consistent use be maintained. 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 (3) Storrs L. Olson Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. In attempting to counter arguments (Steyskal, 1980) for using family-group names that are grammatically correct, Wheeler joins the ranks of those who perceive the threat of ‘confusion’ lurking behind every letter in a scientific name. Wheeler also maintains that the changes Steyskal proposed will render many names ‘almost unpronouncable’. Yet most of the cases he discusses involve no more than the insertion of the syllable ‘id’, so that the resulting name would still be easily recognized by any intelligent person familiar with the previous spelling in the first place. Perhaps the ‘fishery workers, environmental archaeologists, and ecologists’, whose interests Wheeler seeks to protect, should be concerned by his implied condescension that even those of their number perceptive enough to notice such minor changes would not have the mental capability to avoid being confused by them. As far as pronunciation is concerned, although it can be argued that ‘idid’ is exactly twice as difficult to pronounce as ‘id’, such iteration should not present an insurmountable obstacle to anyone not already in need of a speech therapist. Those who create nomenclature and are responsible for its proper use ought to have some knowledge of the basic Latin and Greek roots of scientific words and care about their preservation. With such knowledge one understands that grammatical precision actually prevents confusion, whereas grammatical lapses may create it. An excellent case in point is one of the instances mentioned by Wheeler, the incorrect name “CERATODIDAE’ versus the correct CERATODONTIDAE. The grammatically correct form is immediately recognizable as being derived from the Greek roots cerato- (horn) and -odous (tooth) whereas the incorrect form might be taken to be derived from the Latin cera (wax) and todus (a small bird). Distinguishing between these two possible etymologies, one of which is completely nonsensical, is not, in my opinion, a matter of ‘grammatical nicety’. Furthermore, there are among fishes, especially fossils, a host of genera ending in -odus that are the basis of family-group names that have been correctly formed with the ending -ODONTIDAE, e.g. Synodus, Pimelodus, Hemiodus, Helodus, Pristodus, Copodus, Cochliodus, Ptychodus, Onychodus, Psammodus, Chirodus, Pycnodus, etc. If Wheeler were heeded there would then be two sets of names based on the same root, one that is correctly formed and another (e.g. ‘CERATODIDAE’) that is not. The god Stability is unlikely to find a reliable servant in the demon Inconsistency. The advantages of clarity of meaning and consistency of usage that are conferred by precise grammar far out- weigh the unsubstantiated fear that legions of fisheries biologists will be overcome by confusion as a result of adherence to grammatical standards. Comments on the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) (Case 2440; see BZN 45: 130-131, 292; 46: 45—46; 47:97—100, 138) (1) H.D. Cameron Department of Classical Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, U.S.A. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 297 The argument by Steyskal (1980) that the name LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 is grammati- cally incorrect and should be replaced by LIPARIDIDAE is not well founded. It assumes that the stem of the generic name Liparis Scopoli, 1777 would be Liparid-, but that is incorrect. The word ‘Liparis’ first appears in the Greek geographical writer of the 3rd century B.C. Antigonus of Carystus, who states [my translation] ‘Polycritus has written that the river Liparis in Soli was not falsely named, but that it so oils you that you have no need of further unguent’. Evidently it was considered that the name of the river was derived from /iparos, ‘shiny, oily, greasy’ (cf. BZN 45: 130, para. 4). Antigonus used the word in the accusative case ‘Liparim’, which shows that the word was a Greek i-stem noun and not a consonant-stem one. A fish name Liparis was an invention of the Renaissance editors of Pliny the Elder, who derived it from the river name. It was from a list of fishes in Pliny that Rondelet (1554) took the name. He explains as follows [my translation]: ‘Tam unwilling, dear reader, to conceal from you so rare a fish, and so very worthy of notice. When I tried to preserve it, it dissolved into oil completely. This occurrence prompted me to name it a /iparis [in the accusative /iparim], which Pliny mentions, as if from J/iparos, that is, oily’. Antigonus of Carystus and Rondelet conclusively show that the stem of Liparis is Lipar- and not Liparid-. Unfortunately the Latin dictionary of Lewis & Short (1879) gave the genitive of Pliny’s name as ‘Liparidis’. There was no evidence whatsoever for this: it was nothing more than a lexicographer’s guess, and an incorrect one. It is regrettable that it has misled people. LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 is grammatically correct. (2) P.K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature According to Professor Cameron’s comment above, the original spelling of the fish family name LIPARIDAE is correct. This is the form which has been in general use and which ichthyologists wish to retain. If this view is accepted there is no formal need for Commission action concerning it, but since there has been controversy over the spelling of the name it could be argued that the placing of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 on the Official List of Family-Group Names would be in the interest of stabilizing ichthyological nomenclature. As noted in Dr Vogt’s original application (BZN 45: 130-131), and in comments which have been received from Drs B.A. Korotyaev and E.P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) and Dr H. Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland), at least three homonymous family-group names occur in the entomological literature. These are: (i) in Lepidoptera, LIPARINI Boisduval, 1834 (p. 134; also spelled LIPARIDINI), ‘invalid’ (cf. Article 39 of the Code) because the name of the type genus Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810 is a junior homonym; (ii) in Coleoptera, LIPARIDAE Pierce, 1919 (p. 23; also an unavailable ‘liparides’ mentioned by Latreille, 1829), based on Liparus Olivier, 1807 and occasionally used at tribe rank; (iii) in Diptera, LIPARINI Nartshuk, 1987 (p. 224), based on Lipara Meigen, 1830. The first two of these raise complications of a purely nomenclatural kind. The name LIPARINI Boisduval, 1843 is not in use, but it might be held that it disqualifies 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 by reason of homonymy within the family-group. It would seem undesirable that.a family-group name which was little used and which can never be used again should be regarded as threatening a generally accepted but junior homonym [for a comment on homonymous family names when one is based on a suppressed generic name see BZN 47: 167]. In Coleoptera, there is a junior objective synonym (unnecessary replacement name) of Liparus, i.e. Molytes Schoenherr, 1823, on which was based ‘MOLyTiIDEs’ Schoenherr, 1823 (col. 1143). Although Molytes itself has not been used, MOLYTINAE Schoenherr, 1823 has had limited recent use at subfamily or tribe rank (Kuschel, 1987; Zherichin, 1987); this was because Liparus is classified within the well-known HYLOBIINAE W. Kirby, 1837, the name of which is junior to MOLYTINAE. There is no doubt a case for conserving HYLOBIINAE. Drs Korotyaev and Nartshuk (see above) have suggested that the dipteran family- group name LIPARINI Nartshuk, 1987 could be emended to LIPARAINI if this were necessary to avoid homonymy. Dr Vogt’s application (BZN 45: 130-131) was concerned solely to protect the spell- ing of the fish family name LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861. According to Professor Cameron this original form is the correct spelling: since it is in wide use and since no confusion is likely between it and the insect family-group names there is little reason to alter its spelling. Because there has been controversy over the spelling during the past decade it is appropriate to ask the Commission to place LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 on the Official List of Generic Names, as Dr Vogt has done. There is clearly a need to consider the (junior) family-group names based on Liparus and Lipara (and the availability of LIPARINI Boisduval), but I suggest that this can be done in due course without adding delay to Dr Vogt’s case. Additional references Boisduval, J.B.A. 1834. Icones historiques des Lépidopteres..., vol. 2. 192 pp., 37 pls. Roret, Paris. Kuschel, G. 1987. The subfamily Molytinae (Coleoptera, Curculionidae): general notes and description of new taxa from New Zealand and Chile. New Zealand Entomologist, 9: 11-29. Pierce, W.D. 1919. Contributions to our knowledge of the weevils of the superfamily Curculionoidea. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 21: 21-36. Schoenherr, C.J. 1823. Tabula synoptica familiae Curculionidum. Vorbericht uber die Monographie derselben. /sis (von Oken), Jena, 1823: col. 1132-1146. Zherichin, V.V. 1987. Curculionidae from Nepal Himalayas. Part 1. Molytinae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, (A), 1987: 411-454. Comment on the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura) over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826 (Case 2141; see BZN 47: 283-285) David M. Hillis Department of Zoology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712-1064, U.S.A. I wholeheartedly support the suggested course of action, and I hope this matter can be resolved quickly. The name Rana sphenocephala should be given precedence over Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 299 Rana utricularius in the interest of stability; sphenocephala has been used consistently for the last century whereas utricularius was totally obscure. I agree that not suppress- ing utricularius 1s a good idea, in case future work shows support for the division within sphenocephala suggested by Pace. However, no such division is currently recognized. It is important to preserve the name Rana sphenocephala for the southern leopard frog, one of the most common frogs of the southeastern United States. I hope action by the Commission will be rapid so as to prevent further confusion. 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 OPINION 1622 Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ovalis Steindachner, 1900, as pub- lished in the binomen Heliastes ovalis, is hereby ruled not to be invalid by reason of having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of Chromis ovalis Steindachner, 1866. (2) The name ovalis Steindachner, 1900, as published in the binomen Heliastes ovalis (not invalid despite having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2681 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Chromis ovalis (Steindachner, 1900) was received from Drs W.I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, U.S.A.) & John E. Randall (Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, U.S.A.) on 29 August 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 35—37 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. The serial volume in which Steindachner’s paper was published, which included the name Heliastes ovalis (p. 502), is dated 1901. However, the paper appeared earlier, in 1900, as a separate entity (“Besonders Abgedruckt’); it was there paginated both as a separate item and as for inclusion in the serial. H. ovalis appears on p.‘20 [502]. The inclusion of pp. ‘316-318’ in the Steindachner (1901) reference cited on p. 37 of the application should be omitted. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals publishedin BZN 46: 36. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. Schuster was on leave of absence. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ovalis, Heliastes, F. Steindachner, 1900, Denkschriften der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaft- lichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, 70 (for 1901), p. 502 (p. 20 in the separate issued in 1900). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Abbott, R.T. .. ; Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. Axtell, R.C. Baba, K. Backeljau, T. Becker, R.T. Belk, D. . Beu, A.G. . Blackith, R.E. Bogan, A.E. Borowiec, L. Bouchet, P. Bour,R. . Bowen, S.T. Bowman, T.E. Brauckmann, C. Bridges, C.A. Brown, L.E. 3 Brunckhorst, D.J. Brusca, R.C. Burn, R. . ; Burridge, M.E. . Cameron, H.D. . Chambers, S. Chiappe, L.M. Clarke, A.H. i Cocks, L.R.M. . Cooper, R.A. . Crosskey, R.W. . Currant, A.P. Danzig, E.M. Davis, G.M. Dubois, A. Emberton, K.C. Engel, B.A. Etnier, D.A. Feldmann, R.M. Ferraris, C. Forest, J. Fricke, R. . 3 Froeschner, R.C. Frost, D. . Fuller, S.L.H. Funk, R.S. Garcia, R. . Garutt, W.E. AUTHORS IN VOLUME 47 (1990) Page : | 202 wi 213 pe We sl 240 12, 139, 125,2 124 178 Gentry, Alan Gentry, Anthea . Giannuzzi-Savelh, R. . Gibson, G. Gordon, M.E. Goyjet, D.. Gould, S.J. Hahn,G. . Halliday, R.B. Harrison, B.A. . Harvey, M-S. Heppell, D. Hieronimus, H. . Hillis, D.M. Hodgson, C. Hoeksema, B.W. Holthuis, L.B. Huber, J. Hugot, J.P. Jansson, A. Kadolsky, D. Kahlke, H.D. Kershaw, R.C. . Kormilev, N.A. . Kottelat, M. Kuck, H.G. Kudrna, O. LaSalle, J. . Lazara, K.J. Levi, H.W. Lister, A.M. ae IeYin: Lotto, G. De Mackie, A. Martin, J.W. Merrett, N. Miller, J.Y. Miller, L.D. Mordan, P.B. Morris, S.F. Newton, A.F. Ng, P.K.L. Nielsen, L.T. Olson, S.L. Oniki, Y. 38, 203, 46, 129, 288. 301 292 134 139 302 Perrin, W.F. Petersen, M.E. Pierre, J. Pleijel, F. Poore, G.C.B. Randall, J.E. Raven, R.J. Reisen, W.K. . Reissinger, E.J. . Rognes, K. Rosen, D. . : Rosenberg, G. . Rudman, W.B. . Scott, R.W. Sher, A.V. . Siebert, D.J. Smith, B.J. Smith, H.M. Smith, M.L. ; Soria, M.F. ; Steinhauser, S.R. - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Strickman, D. Stubblefield, Sir J. Thayer,M.K. . Thompson, F.C. Thier Sv : Tremewan, W.G. Tubbs, P.K. Viggiani, G. Wagener, S. Ward, R.A. Warren, M.L. Webb, R.G. Wheeler, A. White, G.B. White, I.M. Whittington, HB. Williams, A.B. Williams, J.D. Willis, E.O. i Woodward, F.R. . 216 ., 240 . 286 1325 45, 128, 131, 214, 211, 214, 139 139 131 297 135 215 133 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 303 NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 47 (1990) Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 47 are listed below under three headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes 1n non-bold type and italicised. Titles are given of one work placed on the Official List and one work placed on the Official Index of Works. The Opinion number is given for each entry. Family-Group Names ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595 BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 EPICRIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (Cumacea) Op. 1594 LUCICUTHDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615 TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1615 Generic Names Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595 Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 Berosus Leach, 1817 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569 Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 Cenobita Milne Edwards (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 Cenobites Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 Cuma Milne Edwards, 1828 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570 Drepanites Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1572 Eremita Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1591 Florilus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 Halia Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1581 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1845 (Gastropoda) Op. 1593 Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815 (Araneae) Op. 1593 Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Cumacea) Op. 1594 Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1594 Linthuris de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa) Op. 1608 Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1567 Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621 Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 Pelorus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570 Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 Planularia Nilsson, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Diptera) Op. 1618 Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) Op. 1618 Ptochus Schoenherr, 1826 (Coleoptera) Op. 1616 Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 Rosema Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1583 Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Trichoptera) Op. 1596 Semeioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 Semioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Megaloptera) Op. 1596 Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 Thorius Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605 Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569 Trapecia Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614 Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614 Trapezium Megerle von Miuhlfeld, 1811 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615 Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610 Venilia Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 Zelica Hubner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 Specific Names albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 albosignatus, Heliophanus, Koch, 1867 (Araneae) Op. 1611 ampullaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 arbuscula, Dendritina, d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570 arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 auris, Peneroplis, Defrance, 1824 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 305 azurea, Musca, Fallen, 1817 (Diptera) Op. 1618 beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda) Op. 1588 bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1602 bicirrhosum, ‘Ischnosoma’, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621 borneensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845 (Reptilia) Op. 1585 brantsii, Euryotis, Smith, 1834 (Mammalia) Op. 1586 breviremis, Phyllodoce, de Quatrefages, 1865 (Polychaeta) Op. 1589 bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 carthami, Papilio, Hubner, [1813] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599 chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 conglobator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1766 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933 (Diptera) Op. 1619 cymodoce, Cancer, Herbst, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614 densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925 (Bryozoa) Op. 1608 domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia) Op. 1607 domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772 (Mammalia) Op. 1607 dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 dubius, Cordylodus, Rhodes, 1953 (Conodonta) Op. 1580 dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, d’Orbigny, 1850 (Asteroidea) Op. 1579 edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 epigena, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus B, Nicholson, 1868 (Graptolithina) Op. 1620 exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina) Op. 1620 faba, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1567 falcatus, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 gigas, Ascalobotes, Bocage, 1875 (Reptilia) Op. 1585 globator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1772 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 guttatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875 (Araneae) Op. 1612 heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Serene, 1956 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1591 hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites), Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1612 inequalipes, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1612 jaceana, Euribia, Hering, 1935 (Diptera) Op. 1619 javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 kochii, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1611 lenticularis, Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1805 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 limax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 limax, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalak, 1894 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595 longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 longirostris, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 longirostris, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 longisetosus, Isochaeta, Thompson, 1903 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758 (Megaloptera) Op. 1596 magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913 (Asteroidea) Op. 1579 maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599 major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599 marmoratus, Hemitripteras, Ayres, 1854 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1583 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 nasica, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841 (Cumacea) Op. 1594 natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 nucleus, Ammonites, Phillips, 1829 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610 nucleus, Ammonites, Roemer, 1841 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610 oblonga, Chama, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615 olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1600 ovalis, Heliastes, Steindachner, 1900 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1622 penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875 (Araneae) Op. 1612 pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605 pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605 phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758 (Trichoptera) Op. 1596 porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman in Schoenherr, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1616 princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 repandus, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1572 robynsii, Harpognatus, Wesmael, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia), Saint-Joseph, 1888 (Polychaeta) Op. 1589 ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1578 sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1581 scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 scutellaris, Tachys, Stephens, 1828 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 spengleri, Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569 spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861 (Conodonta) Op. 1580 striatus, Drepanites, Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 styliferus, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1840 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1618 triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1578 trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 trispinosa, Cuma, Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621 vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1586 wallacei, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 wallacii, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1602 Work placed on the Official List of Available Works Benett, E. 1831. A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. Op. 1609 Work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works Académie Royale des Sciences de I’ Institut de France. 1826. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, Rapporteur) Op. 1601 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS (for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 303-306) Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes) Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (Osteichthyes) acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805 CO aan : alatus, Unio, Say, 1817 (Bivalvia). . alfacariensis, Colias, Ribbe, 1905 (Lepidoptera) . algecirensis, Culicoides, Strobl, 1900 (Diptera) ‘ alutaceus, Carcinochelis, Handlirsch, 1897 (Heteroptera) i anatinus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) : Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes) . angustus, Ixodes, Neumann, 1899 (Acari) Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Araneae) Archidiskodon Pohlig, 1888 (Proboscidea) . attenuatus, Steno, Gray, 1846 (Cetacea) . aurismalchi, Helix, Miller, 1774 (Gastropoda) auritus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) australis, Colias, Verity, 1911 (Lepidoptera) Balitora Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) ; BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) . . barbata, Helix (Helicigona), Ferussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) . Bathynomus Milne Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda) . rik: BITHYNIIDAE Gray, 1857 (Gastropoda) . Bollandia Reed, 1943 (Trilobita) . . Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Eorantaiterida) bovinus, Bulimus, Bruguiére, 1792 (Gastropoda) . brevimanus, Delphinus, Wagner, 1846 (Cetacea) brucei, Balitora, Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Heteroptera) Carinarion Hesse, 1926 (Gastropoda) carnivora, Musca, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera) carteri, Palaega, Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda) . cloropus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) . Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 (Hymenoptera) coffeae, Lecanium, Walker, 1852 (Homoptera) coleoptrata, Sigara, Fabricius, 1777 (Heteroptera) complanata, Anodonta, Rossmassler, 1835 (Bivalvia) cubensis, Lysianax, Stebbing, 1897 (Amphipoda) cuvieri, Helixarion, Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) cygneus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) Cymatia Flor, 1860 (Heteroptera). CYMATIAINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Heteroptera) CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Gastropoda) CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Heteroptera) Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda) Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Lepidoptera) : dentatus, Chelanops, Banks, 1895 (Pseudoscorpionida) . : dracunculus, Callionymus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) . elongata, Voluta, Lightfoot, 1786 (Gastropoda) . eryonas, Cyclopides, Hewitson, 1877 (Lepidoptera) . 307 ‘DDN: 290 . . 104 114, 216, 293 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 erythrocephala, Musca, Meigen, 1826 (Diptera) euleri, Coccyzus, Cabanis, 1873 (Aves) . Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera) EUMESIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera) femorale, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) . fertilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) fibratus, Limax, Martyn, 1784 (Gastropoda) . Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877(Homoptera) . . franciscana, Artemia, Kellogg, 1906 (Branchiopoda) freycineti, Helixarion, Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) . Fryeria Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) . giganteus, Bathynomus, Milne Edwards, 1879 meal globiceps, Asaphus, Phillips, 1836 (Trilobita) . gracilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) : graminis, Fonscolombia, Lichtenstein, 1877 (Homoptera) . graminis, Tychea, Koch, 1857 (Homoptera) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) . . . guildingi, Artemis, Thompson, 1834 (Branchiopoda) Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Gastropoda) . HAMINAEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) Haminea Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) ‘ Haminoea [Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830 (Gastropoda) hebraea, Nerita, Martyn, 1786 (Gastropoda) . sie 4 Sea fie helena, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) . Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) . HELICARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda) Helixarion Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) : HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda) heraclei, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) . heraclii, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) . HETEROPTERINAE Aurivillius, 1925 (Lepidoptera). . Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (Osteichthyes) . HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes) : hortensis, Arion, Férussac, 1819 (Gastropoda) hydatis, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) . Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Gastropoda) HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) . hystrix, Lepidomenia, WRIST es LEONEAN ESS) in Fischer, 1885 (Solenogastres) imbricata, Aphrodita, Linnaeus, 1767 (Polychaeta) julieni, Coccyzus, Lawrence, [1864] (Aves) . Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Gastropoda). . kuhlii, Cobitis, Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 (Osteichthyes) Larnaudia Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda). . lens, Helix (Helicigona), Férussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) . Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Solenogastres) . lepidota, Aphrodita, Pallas, 1766 (Polychaeta) . Be Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931 (Gastropoda) eM 114, 216, 114, 216, "104, 101 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes) . LIPARIDAE Pierce, 1919 (Coleoptera) . LIPARINI Boisduval, 1834 (Lepidoptera) . LIPARINI Nartshuk, 1987 (Diptera). Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes) . Lobactis Verrill, 1864(Anthozoa) . longiceps, Griffithides, Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) . longissimus, Phorusrhacos, Ameghino, 1887 (Aves) . luctator, Longitarsus aeruginosus, Weise, 1893 (Coleoptera) Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Proboscidea) . i marmoratus, Rivulus, Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes) . melo, Borelis, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) meridionalis, Elephas, Nesti, 1825 (Proboscidea) . MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Gastropoda) . . . minuta, Aphrodita, Fabricius, 1780 (Polychaeta) . Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Pseudoscorpionida) . Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Polychaeta) . ocellata, Homaloptera, van der Hoeven, 1833 (Osteichthyes) . ocellatus, Rivulus, Hensel, 1868 (Osteichthyes) Palaega Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda). . . pallipes, Chelifer, White, 1849 (Pseudoscorpionida) . paumotensis, Fungia, Stutchbury, 1833 (Anthozoa) . peus, Culex, Speiser, 1904 (Diptera) . oe, PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) PHORUSRHACIDAE Brodkorb, 1963 (Aves) Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (Aves) Physcus Howard, 1895 (Hymenoptera) . pitcheri, Texigryphaea, Morton, 1834 (Bivalvia) . Placostylus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) . . planumbona, Leptaena, Hall, 1847 (Brachiopoda) Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Anthozoa) : POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (Gastropoda) . Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Bivalvia) . . . primigenius, Elephas, Blumenbach, 1799 (Proboscidea) . Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Bivalvia) — . f pseudodelphis, Delphinus, Schlegel, 1841 (Cetacea) puncticollis, Culicoides, Becker, 1903 (Diptera) pusillus, Callionymus, Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes) pustulosa, Fryeria, Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) . pustulosa, Phyllidia, Cuvier, 1804 (Gastropoda) . Ranguna Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Araneae) . . Rissoa ‘Fréminville’ Risso, 1813 (Gastropoda) Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) . robustulus, Holostaspis subbadius, Berlese, 1904 (Acarina) . robustulus, Macrocheles, Berlese, 1904 (Acarina) . : rostrata, Testudo, Thunberg, 1787 (Reptilia, Testudines) rubustulus, Holostaspis subbadius, Berlese, 1904 (Acarina) . 114, 216, 293 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 rueppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869 (Gastropoda) . . rugosa, Strophomena, de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda) Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Homoptera) scutaria, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) . Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Amphipoda) 2 sinensis, Trionyx, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines) . sphenocephala, Rana halecina, Cope, 1886 eee porn Stenella Gray, 1866 (Cetacea) . . ; stigmatosoma, Culex, Dyar, 1907 (Diptera) Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda) subcylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda) . symphiti, Longitarsus, Heikertinger, 1912 (Coleoptera) . taierensis, Chelifer, With, 1907 (Pseudoscorpionida) Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Pseudoscorpionida) thriambus, Culex, Dyar, 1921 (Diptera) . Truncatella Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda) TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 (Gastropoda) Tychea Koch, 1857 (Homoptera) . utahensis, Artemia, Lockington, 1876 (Branchiopoda) . utricularius, Rana, Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia, Anura) velox, Delphinus, Cuvier, 1829 (Cetacea) ventricosa, Rissoa, Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) ‘ vicina, Calliphora, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) viridicollis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) woodi, Ixodes, Bishopp, 1911 (Acari) 176 178 "283, 298 32 104 187 213 211 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 341 CORRIGENDA Vol. 47, part 2 page 144, line 15 For ‘Phyllodoce (Carobia) breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865’ read‘ Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888’ PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication l 1-84 27 March 1990 2) 85-172 29 June 1990 3 173-240 28 September 1990 4 241-311 -20 December 1990 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: Title page, Table of Contents (I-V]), 1-311 Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume © aie ry A) pee i Me ul : i erate 3 than Gans “ ee ihe . bd Arwen aoe Moe Si i a AG HeepON = ae hihabache vine ave 440 wx "al, 2 ae) ee j ee ‘ x < sl ine 1D uh 1¥ oe iv re se ey Contents—continued Indexes, etc. Authors in volume 47 (1990) . . .. 301 Names and Works placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in ‘rulings of the Commission published i in volume 47(1990). . . .. Sages Sons 303 Key names in Applications and Comments published i in 1 volume 47 (1990) eat Rech 307 Corrigenda. . . Seg hee, Ai chy Ae ae 311 Publication dates and pagination of volume 47 (1990) . Be eet EO tee, Back Ge 311 Instructionsto binder . . ohh eee ae NG ee eee tS Se! SPs 311 Table of Contents of volume 47 (1990) . ah et re Ee ee re Leet, Sober abs rata 2 I INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin 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 name in parentheses. Author’s name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission’s 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 title 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 foliowed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360KB (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. CONTENTS Notices . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . A Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- Supplement : Financial Report for 1989 . . . International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—General ‘Session of ‘the Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—Open Meeting of ‘the Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990 Applications Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed desig- nation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & evan in Fischer, 1885 as the type species.D.Heppell . . Helicarion Feérussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation, and proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species. B. J. Smith & R.C. Kershaw . . Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed “conservation. 'R. Giannuzzi-Savelli & Anthea Gentry . Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation ‘of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species. T. Backeljau . Z Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of ‘Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species. L. R. M. Cocks. HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence Over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. H. Hieronimus . Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine gender for the name. D. A. Etnier & M.L. Warren . Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence o over r Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826. L. E. Brown, H. M. Smith & R.S. Funk . é Comments On the proposed placement of HYDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on the Official List of Family-Group Names. A. F. Newton& M.K.Thayer. . . On the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). L. B. Holthuis; R. Burn; D. J. Brunckhorst & W. B. Rudman. . . On the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870. R. M. Feldmann; G. C. B. Poore & K. Baba; J. Y. Liu; L. B. Holthuis;T. E. Bowman; A.B. Williams . . On the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943 (Trilobita). B. A. Engel; C. Brauckmann; S. F. Morris . : On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). W. K. Reisen; R. Garcia; L. T. Nielsen; B. A. Harrison;R.A.Ward. . . es On the stability of fish family names. M. Kottelat; J: E. ‘Randall: -S. 1. Olson. : On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes). H.D.Cameron;P.K.Tubbs . . On the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope 1886 6 (Amphibia, Anura) over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826. D. M. Hillis. ‘ Ruling of the Commission Opinion 1622. Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved . Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 254 258 263 270 274 277 280 283 286 288 290 293 293 295 296 298 300 | | Grnoneah : Lees if A Rat | Riley Dunn & aN ISERVATORS & BOOKBINDER: INSERVATORS & BOOKBIN re ae Se nent, Liege SSP ee See ee : - Sas : ee Ee eee ene Report Bene See See ae eae te pi Oe eee EER : ee cee st = aes ere ee BS eee = a ae eee fetes ee = Sora : aa = Set ean en os EEE RE ares Racor = te Sees Senn aes a oe z r crate z repeat