ate Fan
Shakey Bernie spe)
1A "
begat fit!
see fiat tnens fit
reyes
i
a ub V9 De, a eM ean Pt
ih
The
Bulletin
Zoological Nomenclature
HIG. Gs The Official Periodical
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Volume 59, 2002
Published on behalf of the Commission by
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature clo The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K.
ISSN 0007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Senta
touts is
nom
5 ,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notices . :
The International Commission on Zaiosteal Nomenclature sadl its wpubleations
Addresses of members of the Commission
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. :
Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zeslositcall Nowendeine,
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in iain — sais 1986-2000. Et seis Pant
The International Code of Zeolorical Nomencianirs :
Applications
Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed fixation of Lycosa alacris ‘C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species to conserve the usage of Pardosa and of Alopecosa Simon, 1885. T. Kronestedt, C.D. Dondale & A.A. Zyuzin.
Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 (currently Hippa pacifica; Crustacea, Amornenele proposed precedence over aoe marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846. C.B. Boyko & A.W. Harvey Mel or ene eluent BAM TAR LOA is. elie). OK te Oo
Pagurus clypeatus Pabrfeis, “1787 (currently Coenobita clypeatus; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed replacement of syntypes by a vee P.A. ARenes or & L.B. Holthuis
Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 (ineesin, Goltopen: argos’ conservation a usage of the specific name. S.E. Thorpe.
Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (currently Ronindon Bens sarees iimecers Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. F.-T. Krell .
Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.V. Kozlov.
Tetrapedia Klug, 1810, T. divenstnes ree, 1819 andl jasaonipallorant Safina, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for 7. diversipes. C.D. Michener & J.S. Moure.
Comments
On the establishment of the new name LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) as a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879. W.R. Lourengo; F. Kovarik dye :
On the proposed conservation not the snesilien name oF Hy i oporus Fisere etus 5 atametiae & Brisout in Fairmaire, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera). G.N. Foster.
On the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). D.L. ME K. Maes; J.B. eee D.H. Janzen; B. Landry 2
On the proposed conservation of ‘the gesaihe names a Dianulites en 0- politana Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 (Bryzoa). N. See P.N. Wyse Jackson, C.J. Buttler & M.M. Key Jr.; R.J. Cuffey
On the proposed conservation a the specie name of TLaph oc taciy fbn chaguensis Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura). W.R. Heyer & U. Caramaschi . :
On the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne obesus Baird, 1859 over that of Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia, ilar R.W. McDiarmid et al. . bee
On the proposed conservation are usage of 15 seamnaell specie names based on a wil species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock & C.P. Groves .
nA BW bd
48
II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1986 (Case 3166). Campanularia noliformis McCrady, 1859 (currently Clytia noliformis; Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): specific name conserved by the designation ofa neotype . ee OPINION 1987 (Case 3111). Pachycerianiias moni, “1904 (Criath. eihoreay: Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912 designated as the type species. OPINION 1988 (Case 3135). Scyllarus orientalis Lund, 1793 (currently Thenus orientalis; Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype designated . Pech deycwex hea OPINION 1989 (Case 3103). Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species . OPINION 1990 (Case 3076). Tanaecia heringi Niepelt, 1935 (Insecta, epdoneran specific name placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : OPINION 1991 (Case 3131). Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): specific name conserved . ; OPINION 1992 (Case 3085). Lacerta undata A. Smith, 1838 (currently Parkanlents undata; Reptilia, Sauria): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype OPINION 1993 (Case 2980). Procoptodon Owen, 1874 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) and the specific names of P. rapha Owen, 1874 and P. pusio Owen, 1874: conserved . OPINION 1994 (Case 3095). Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844
(currently C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia, Chiroptera): usage of the generic and -
specific names conserved . nrc. Peer ne ees race. oe |
OPINION 1995 (Case 3004). LorisIpAE Gray, 1821, GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 and INDRIIDAE Burnett, 1828 (Mammalia, Primates): conserved as the correct original spellings
Information and instructions for authors .
Notices . : 2
Council of the ermetional Camatssion on Woolerien! Nomensame : =o
Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
20th Pacific Science Congress, Bamgkolle Thailand! We 21 March 2003
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies .
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — _ Supplement 1986-2000 wes Ul lat ae ata is Lan oS =:
Applications
Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879 and Setidium Schmidt, 1879 (Porifera): proposed conservation by the designation of Scleritoderma flabelliformis Sollas, 1888 as the type species of Scleritoderma. A. Pisera & C. Lévi
Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Caciitiaties ; Janii; Moline. Gastropoda): Bee conservation of the specific name. F. Giusti & G. Manganelli Fi nag ee Sis at ae ER Skea SP irene aie area) Oo ea
Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of H. granulatus Richardson, 1908 as the type species. K.L. Merrin & G.C.B. Poore
Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 (currently Orphnaeus brevilabiatus) and Chomatobius brasilianus Humbert & Saussure, 1870 (currently O. brasilianus) (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. D. Foddai, A. Minelli & L.A. Pereira . sega aa daoypirall tee® Soak Ot eedg A eines U ic aera ae
Cryptotermes dudleyi Banik, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed precedence over Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna .
63
65
68
69 70
70 71 Tk 72
73
74
77
85
90
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 and Philoscaptus Bréthes, 1919 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Podalgus cuniculus Burmeister, 1847 as the type species of Podalgus. F.-T. Krell . Re A At sccuigea OM i oR et gts tte
Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed validation of the lectotype designation. A. Smith ae
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, @oleopier): aropesad consenation oF 65 specific names. L.H. Herman
Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Menidanrec): Rropecede conservation of the specific name. J.B. Heppner & T.C. Emmel she
Catocala alabamae Grote, 1875 (Insecta, cee. proposed conseravion of the specific name. L.F. Gali
E.L. Holmberg (1917, 1918), ‘Las agpacies “angendinas de. Cochin (Gees, Hymenoptera): proposed suppression of 139 names applied to groups of species. C.D. Michener . Pps as : one pene ead oar
Comments
On the proposed designation of Isospora suis Biester, 1934 as the type species of Isospora Schneider, 1881 (Protista, Apicomplexa). S.J. Upton; A. Wakeham-Dawson
On the proposed conservation of Hiya alti He ean 1821 (Mollusca, ‘Casinapadta) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; and proposed emendation of HyDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera) to HYDROBIUSINA, sO removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). A. Falniowski & M. Szarowska ;
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of TMclbasaine saiantes ied, 1904 (currently Jkeda taenioides; Echiura). E.B. Cutler
On the proposed precedence of Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 over Revie marmoratus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1846 (Crustacea, Anomura). L.B. Holthuis .
On the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). W. Speidel & W. Mey; J.C. Shaffer
On the proposed emendation of spelling of MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) to MACROPODUSINAE, so removing the homonymy with MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia). R. van der Laan .
On the proposed placement of the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Ossichiives, Cyprinodontiformes) on the Official List. W. Villwock; J. Holéik; R.H. Wildekamp; I. Doadrio; P. Keith et al. STI oT ay Bh er
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1996 (Case 3158). Helix lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 and Helix punctata Miller, 1774 (currently Otala punctata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): usage of the specific names conserved by the replacement of the syntypes of H. /ucorum with a neotype . “he SRSREY eRe
OPINION 1997 (Case 3175). Leelee coral Ran lett TLarmanele, 1822 (currently Pomacea canaliculata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved . sits
OPINION 1998 (Case 3123). DOLICHOPODINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (Insecta, Grylloptera): spelling emended to DOLICHOPODAINI, so removing the homonymy with DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Diptera) ;
OPINION 1999 (Case 3096). Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 (ecers Lepidoptera): Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830 designated as the type species, and Dichrorampha: given precedence over Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 . 5
OPINION 2000 (Case 3132). Eudorylas Aczél, 1940 and Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved by the designation of Pipunculus fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844 as the type species of Eudorylas
Ill
141
143
IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
OPINION 2001 (Case 3157). Halictoides dentiventris Nylander, 1848 (currently Dufourea dentiventris,; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved ? OPINION 2002 (Case 3162). Ceratichthys micropogon Cope, 1865 Guasaily Nocomis micropogon; Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): usage of the specific name
conserved by the designation of a neotype
OPINION 2003 (Case 3163). Holacanthus ciliaris hermadensis Goode, 1876 (ennai Holacanthus bermudensis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): usage of the subspecific name conserved by the designation of a neotype . 5
OPINION 2004 (Case 3167). Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850 and Neaiieana Hellmayr, 1936 (Aves, Passeriformes): conserved
OPINION 2005 (Case 3022). Catalogue des PTHerem “hs Wiiseuna d ‘Histoire Naturelle by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803): placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature Ai Sees
Nomenclatural Note The true identity of Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775 (Crustacea, enue L183. Holthuis aha CAE SOc eee ee ab abn ee aa
Correspondence Description of taxa. A. Saboori
Information and Instructions for Authors
Notices . ,
Membership of the Commission andl its 5 Comme -
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Howlers — “Siapllenaai 1986- 2000.
General Article Neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). W. Foissner .
Applications
Halcampella Andres, 1883 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa, Actiniaria): proposed designation of H. maxima Hertwig,1888 as the type species. E. Rodriguez & P.J. Lopez-Gonzales.
Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (currently Gisortia gisortiana; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850. J.-M. Pacaud & L. Dolin
Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 (Arachnida, Seanpiones): aimed precedence a the specific name over the subspecific name of Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877. L.E. Acosta.
Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 (currently Barysnre Ee GOH ntera) aad Gillan brachypterus Haan, 1842 (currently Duolandrevus brachypterus) (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. H. Baur & A. Coray .
Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and Jridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. C.L. Bellamy .
Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed pera over Psephidonus Gistel, 1856. L.H. Herman
Lesteva Latreille, 1797 and Anthophagus Gravennonss 1302 (incon, Guleopreeny proposed designation of L. punctulata Latreille, 1804 as the pee species of Lesteva. L.H. Herman
Mycetoporus mulsanti Ganeibaten 1895 (Gases. Colkonieca pepesedl conser- vation of the specific name. M. Schiilke aes Le Sat ts Hd
145
147
149
15]
153
155
158
159
161 162 163 164
165
170
173
176
180
185
188
191
194
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. S.E. Brooks, T.A. Wheeler & N.L. Evenhuis
Sauripterus Hall, 1843 (Osteichthyes, Smenaioaratls aroynoeed consemmiiion as the correct original spelling. J.E. Jeffery, M.C. Davis, N.H. Shubin & E.B. Daeschler
Comments
On the proposed fixation of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae) to conserve the usage of Pardosa and of Alopecosa Simon, 1885. P. Stys & J. Buchar. On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Shenton memncucties Villers, 1789 (currently Pentodon bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera). B.C. Ratcliffe On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). E.D. Edwards & M.S. Upton .
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Chlorops meigenii Loewy, 1866 (Insecta, Diptera). T.A. Wheeler & S. Boucher :
On the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne abosns Bard) 1858 over that of Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia, Squamata). K. Nagy
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2006 (Case 3171). Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926 (Trilobita): conserved . :
OPINION 2007 (Gre 3164). Kalotermes Hagen 1853 (ncecta: Tsopteray Temes flavicollis Fabricius, 1793 designated as the type species . :
OPINION 2008 (Case 3149). 30 species-group names originally publichedia as junior primary homonyms in Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved.
OPINION 2009 (Case 3118). Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 and Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic names conserved by the designation of Bupr estis nitida Rossi, 1794 (currently A. fulgurans (Schrank, 1789)) as the type species of Anthaxia .
OPINION 2010 (Case 3154). Sermo oplandtinins Sisaties, 1952 (amenity gain (Sidis) splendidulus; Insecta, ee neotype retained as the name-bearing type . :
OPINION 2011 (Case 3061). Hemibagri us Bleeker 1862 (Osteichthyes, Silirifonnesy Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840, B. flavus Bleeker, 1846 and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846: previous fixations of type specimens not to be set aside . 3
OPINION 2012 (Case 3041). Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 andl ephiodan Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): conserved, and C. gibbus and R. vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 designated as the eee y type species of Cynodon and Rhaphiodon .
OPINION 2013 (Case 3173). Phrynidium crucigerum mibichrenctets & Mais, 1856 (currently Atelopus cruciger; aun: Anura): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype .
OPINION 2014 (Case 3136). Croitanhey tus asain Cerin & Tiennen 1972 (Reptilia, Squamata): specific name conserved .
OPINION 2015 (Case 3145). Dactyloa binenaate Wicerenct 1834 (camentlly Avo biporcatus) and Anolis petersii Bocourt, 1873 (Reptilia, Sauria): specific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. biporcatus
Information and Instructions for Authors
Notices .
ICZN Dikeresion List now + Avesletbi @ulmne
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. :
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zeclars7— Suaslamant 1986-2000.
V
196
to Nn
VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . Financial Report for 2001
Applications
Prositala Germain, 1915 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over Massaihelix Germain, 1913. B. Verdcourt & A.C. van Bruggen . :
Phrynus ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843 (Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed ayiseilere: of the specific name over Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 and mee lunatum Pallas, 1772. P. Weygoldt
Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleomian aneresed arecsdlees over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). M.L. Jameson & H.F. Howden . si
Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation, 2a Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833. S. Bily & C.L. Bellamy . 2. geo eae
Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed ares over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828. M. Elgueta & G. Kuschel : ‘
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation a 17 specific names. L.H. Herman .
Opomyza Fallén, 1820 (Insecta, Dinca pope canearnien of usage i designation of a neotype for its type species Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758. JAWeAS vani Zui lens > lathe Benkeccib = bss Nants iitkene nese nenes
Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis Storr, 1975 (currently C. yampiensis; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation of a neotype. L.A. Smith . P
Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 (currently Liolaemus periglac mks Repules Sauria): proposed precedence over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909. J.A. Scolaro & J.M. Cei .
Comments
Draft proposal to amend Article 74.7.3: request for comments from the Commission and zoological community. W. Pulawski, I.M. Kerzhner, D.J. Brothers & N.L. Evenhuis; A. Wakeham-Dawson .
On the proposed precedence of Bolboceras hy, 1819 (uly) (insein. Csiemee) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). P.J. Harpootlian .
On the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Ga, 1835 ana Tridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. S. Bily
On the proposed conservation of 65 ee names in the family STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera). A. Wakeham-Dawson
Nomenclatural Notes Type specimens: dead or alive? A. Wakeham-Dawson, S.: Morris & P.K. Tubbs; M.L. Dalebout & C.S. Baker
Acaulona peruviana Townsend, 1913 (sea, Dilsisea appihetion i Arnelle 15. 8 oe the Code. R. Toma . Peas
Indexes, etc.
Authors in volume 59 (2002) :
Names and works placed on Official Lists andl ladienas i in waiting of the Commcen published in volume 59 (2002) . :
Key names in Applications, Comments and iNomenclnecl Notes pupirsned! in volume 59 (2002) . ,
Information and Instructions for Auvihons
Publication dates and pagination of volume 59 (2002).
Instructions to binder .
Table of Contents of volume 59 (2002)
236 237
281
282
286
289 291
295 305 306 306 LZ ‘
Bulletin
of | Zoological — a
ew rie a Or *
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2002 is £120 or $215, 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. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.)
Vice-President Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Executive Secretary Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (United Kingdom)
Members :
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
(Spain; Coleoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof Dr W. Bohme (Switzerland; Ichthyology) (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof D. J. Brothers Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology) ~ Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera) - Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca)
Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) ID ye 1. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol
Prof Dr O. Kraus (The Netherlands; Odonata)
(Germany, Arachnology) Secretariat Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mrs A. Gentry Mrs S. Morris Mr J. D. D. Smith
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2002
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 i
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 59, part | (pp. 1—68) 27 March 2002
Notices
(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised 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 58, part 4 (published on 19 December 2001). Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published.
Case 3220. Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (currently Gisortia gisortiana; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850. J.-M. Pacaud & L. Dolin.
Case 3221. Geomyza, Opomyza and Palloptera Fallén, 1820 and Balioptera Loew, 1864 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of G. hackmani Nartshuk, 1984 and O. apicalis Meigen, 1830 as the type species of Geomyza and Balioptera respectively, and the designation of a neotype for Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758 (the type species of Opomyza). J.W.A. van Zuiylen, P.L.Th. Beuk & E.P. Nartshuk.
Case 3222. Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name in accordance with Article 23.9 of the Code. J.B. Heppner & T.C. Emmel.
Case 3223. Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Lampsilis, Leptodea or Ligumia ochracea; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the specific name. J.R. Cordeiro.
Case 3224. Mycetoporus mulsanti Ganglbauer, 1895 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Schiilke.
Case 3225. Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and P. palluma (Molina, 1782) (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the names by the
D Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. R. Etheridge & J.M. Savage.
Case 3226. Lacépéde, B.G.E. de, 1788, Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupedes Ovipares: proposed rejection as a non-binominal work. J.M. Savage.
Case 3227. Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 (currently Orphnaeus brevi- labiatus) and Chomatobius brasilianus Humbert & Saussure, 1870 (currently O. brasilianus) (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. D. Foddai, A. Minelli & L.A. Pereira.
(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 by the third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 28 zoologists from 20 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 members are elected by secret ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of TUBS or Congresses 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 animals according to taxonomic judgements’. The Fourth Edition was published in 1999 by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission; its provisions came into effect on 1 January 2000 and supersede those of the previous (1985) edition. Official texts are available in English, French, German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish, and other texts are in preparation. Details of how to obtain the Code are given on page 6.
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 superfamily. 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 individual 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 in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and assistance will be given by the Secretariat.
The Bulletin is published four times each year (subscription for volume 59 for 2002 is £120 or $215). It contains 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. Abstracts of applications are also placed on the Commission’s website (www.iczn.org). The Commission makes
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 3
a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only after a suitable period for comments; all Opinions are published in the Bulletin and their titles are given in the Commission website. The Bulletin also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such contributions are invited and should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
The Commission’s rulings are summarized 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 Supplement updating the period to 2000 was published in March 2001. Details of how to obtain the 1987 volume and the Supplement are given on page 6.
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 nomenclatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications.
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity (not-for-profit company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is based in London, and the Trust is established there to handle the financial and management affairs of the Commission. Income from the sale of publications covers less than half the costs of the service given to zoology by the Commission. Financial support is given by academies, research councils, institutions and societies from a number of countries, and also by individuals; despite this assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint. Donations to the Trust are gratefully received and attention is drawn to the possible tax advantage of legacies.
For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities and publica- tions see BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991). A Centenary History of the Commis- sion — Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — describes the development of zoological nomenclature and the role of the Commission; it was published in 1995.
The books listed above may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or AAZN, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Addresses of members of the Commission
Dr M. ALONSO-ZARAZAGA Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain
Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-7004, U.S.A.
Prof Dr W. BOHME Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn 1, Germany
Dr P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Natal Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa
Dr D.R. CALDER Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6
Dr H.G. COGGER c/o Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia
Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Dr W.N. ESCHMEYER Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A. (Vice-President)
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Dr N.L. EVENHUIS Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. (President)
Prof R.A. FORTEY The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Dr R.B. HALLIDAY CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Dr I.M. KERZHNER Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia
Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King- Platz 3, D-20146 Hamburg 13, Germany (Councillor)
Prof Dr G LAMAS Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru
Dr E. MACPHERSON Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain
Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Geneve 6, Switzerland
Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 42694, 04299-970 Sao Paulo, Brazil
Prof S.F. MAWATARI Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan
Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy r
Dr P.K.L. NG Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260
Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhayn, Denmark
Dr L. PAPP Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary
Prof D.J. PATTERSON School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
Dr G ROSENBERG Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A.
Prof D.X. SONG College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071002 China
Dr P. STYS Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniénd 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic
Mr J. VAN TOL Naturalis, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Darwinweg 3, 2333 CR Leiden, The Netherlands
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Members
The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.)
Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Dr B.F. Kensley (U.S.A.) Managing Director) (U.K.) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland)
Dr Keyi Baba (Japan) Dr M. Luc (France)
Prof Per Brinck (Sweden) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain)
Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy)
Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.)
Sir Neil Chalmers (U.K.) Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.)
Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.)
Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia) Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.)
Dr R.W. Crosskey (U.K.) Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands)
Mr M.N. Dadd (U.K.) ; Dr G.B. White (U.K.)
Dr N.L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.) Prof H.B. Whittington (U.K.) Prof J. Forest (France) ‘
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 5)
Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Dr PHILIP K. TUBBS retired from the post of Executive Secretary of the Commission and Editor of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 14 January 2002. Dr Tubbs was appointed to the post on 7 September 1985, having pre- viously been a University Lecturer in Biochemistry in the University of Cambridge, England.
During his 16 years work for the Commission Dr Tubbs has served under four Presidents, Prof Ride, Prof Kraus, Prof Minelli and Dr Evenhuis. He was a member of the Editorial Committee for the 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and has been involved with translations of the Code into Chinese, Czech, German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish. Dr Tubbs has overseen the preparation of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (published in 1987) and its Supplement (2001) giving details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895, and also the Centenary History of the Commission — Towards Stability in the Names of Animals (1995). During his time as Executive Secretary and Editor, 615 Opinions have been published giving rulings of the Commission.
The Commission and the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature have appointed Dr ANDREW WAKEHAM-DAWSON as Executive Secretary and Editor of the Bulletin to succeed Dr Tubbs. Dr Wakeham-Dawson has worked as an ecologist in the U.K. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and has published extensively on Lepidoptera including a book on Madeiran butterflies.
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement 1986-2000
The volume entitled Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (ISBN 0 85301 004 8) was published in 1987. It gave details of the names and works on which the Commission had ruled and placed on the Official Lists and Indexes since it was set up in 1895 through to the end of 1985. The volume contained 9917 entries, 9783 being family-group, generic or specific names and 134 relating to works.
In the 15 years between 1986 and the end of 2000 a further 601 Opinions and Directions have been published in the Bulletin listing 2371 names and 14 works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes. Details of these 2385 entries are given in a Supplement of 141 pages (ISBN 0 85301 007 2) published early in 2001. Additional sections include (a) a systematic index of names on the Official Lists covering both the 1987 volume and the Supplement; (b) a table correlating the nominal type species of genera listed in the 1987 volume with the valid names of those species when known to be different; and (c) emendments to the 1987 volume.
The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or $110 each, and £100 or $170 for both volumes ordered together.
Individual buyers of the volumes for their own use are offered a price of £50 or $85 for each volume, and £90 or $150 for both.
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Individual members of the American or European Association for Zoological Nomen- clature are offered a price of £45 or $70 for each volume, and £80 or $120 for both.
Prices include postage by surface mail; for Airmail, please add £3 or $5 for each volume.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to “ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
The extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ISBN 0 85301 006 4) was published (in a bilingual volume in English and French) in August 1999. It came into effect on 1 January 2000 and entirely supersedes the 3rd (1985) edition.
The price of the English and French volume of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered:
Individual members of a scientific society are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48): the name and address of the society should be given.
Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price £24 or $39).
Postgraduate or undergraduate students are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48): the name and address of the student’s supervisor should be given.
Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy).
Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to “ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on the following publications for personal use:
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals —a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to £15 and from $50 to $25;
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission’s quarterly journal) — discount valid for up to four years; for 2002 the discounted price would be £60 or $107.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 7
Case 3174
Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed fixation of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species to conserve the usage of Pardosa and of Alopecosa Simon, 1885
Torbjorn Kronestedt
Department of Entomology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: torbjorn.kronestedt@nrm.se)
Charles D. Dondale
Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre (ECORC), Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa KIA 0C6, Canada (e-mail: cdond@istar.ca)
Alexey A. Zyuzin Abylai Khan Avenue, 131-38, 480091 Almaty, Kazakhstan Republic
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to fix Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of the wolf spider genus Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847. In 1898 Simon gave Lycosa striatipes C.L. Koch, 1837 as the type, but this taxon has long been classified in Alopecosa Simon, 1885 and acceptance of it as the type species of Pardosa would cause Alopecosa to be replaced by Pardosa; a substitute name would be required for the genus now commonly called Pardosa. The originally included nominal species Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 is identifiable from its description and an original specimen exists. P. alacris has generally been treated as a junior synonym of P. lugubris (Walckenaer, 1802), but the names alacris and lugubris have recently been shown to refer to distinct though very closely related taxa. Aranea chelata O.F. Miller, 1764 was at one time considered to be the oldest synonym of P. alacris and P. lugubris, but this name is unidentifiable and has been unused for many years; its suppression is proposed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Araneae; LYCosIDAE; Pardosa; Pardosa alacris; Pardosa lugubris; Alopecosa; Alopecosa striatipes; Aranea chelata; wolf spiders.
1. Pardosa was established by C.L. Koch (1847, p. 100; for the date see Sherborn, 1914) as a subgenus of Lycosa Latreille, 1804 containing nine species of European wolf spiders, including L. striatipes C.L. Koch, 1837, L. alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 and Aranea monticola Clerck, 1758; no type species was fixed.
2. Menge (1850, p. 62) treated Pardosa as a separate genus containing three species. Ohlert (1851, p. 6) gave P. monticola as an ‘example’ of the genus, but under Article 67.5.1 of the Code this cannot be interpreted as a valid type species designation.
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
3. The first author who tried to designate a type species for Pardosa was Thorell (1870, p. 190). His choice was Aranea lugubris Walckenaer, 1802 (p. 239), which he stated to be a senior synonym of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 (Heft 120, pl. 17, fig. 18), a nominal species which (unlike A. /ugubris) was included by Koch when he established Pardosa. In normal circumstances this would be a valid designation of
Lycosa as a subgeneric name when splitting Lycosa into five subgenera and that ‘his sub-genus Pardosa appears to us [i.e. to Thorell] to embrace the forms in which the type of the Lycosoidae is best developed’. Thorell therefore adopted Lycosa, rather than Pardosa, as the valid name of the genus for which he selected L. /ugubris as the type species and in consequence his action is not a type fixation for Pardosa. Nor did Thorell validly fix the type species for Lycosa, because many years previously Latreille (1810, p. 424) had designated Aranea tarantula Linnaeus, 1758 and the genus is currently interpreted in this sense.
4. The first author to give a formally correct type species designation for Pardosa was Simon (1898, p. 362) who stated that the type was Lycosa striatipes C.L. Koch, 1837 (p. 22), the first species listed by Koch (1847) when establishing Pardosa. However, Bésenberg (1903, p. 391) and Dahl (1908, p. 342) included this species in the genus Alopecosa Simon, 1885 (under the name Tarentula Sundevall, 1832, for which see Dondale & Redner, 1979, pp. 1033-1034), and since those authors the name Alopecosa (= Tarentula auct.) striatipes (C.L. Koch, 1837) has been widely used (e.g. Charitonov, 1932; Roewer, 1954; Bonnet, 1955; Lugetti & Tongiorgi, 1969; Fuhn & Niculescu-Burlacu, 1971; Platnick, 1998), despite the circumstance that the original description was based on a juvenile specimen and its specific identity implicitly doubtful (Simon, 1937, p. 1133). The type specimen of L. striatipes C.L. Koch, 1837 is apparently no longer in existence: Dr M. Moritz (pers. comm. 1983) informed us that he was unable to find it in the C.L. Koch collection of the Zoologisches Museum, Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin. Tikader & Malhotra (1980), Tanaka (1993) and Yin et al. (1997) mentioned ‘Pardosa striatipes C.L. Koch’ as being the type species of Pardosa, but if L. striatipes were treated as the type species of Pardosa then the generic name Alopecosa Simon, 1885 (p. 10) would become a junior synonym of Pardosa and a substitute name would be required for the genus now called Pardosa. Like Pardosa, Alopecosa (type species Aranea fabrilis Clerck, 1758) is in wide use. Rather than accept these consequences, Bonnet (1951, p. 307) proposed that Simon’s (1898) designation should be ignored: “I] vaut mieux dire que le type choisi par Simon était mal choisi et ne pas en tenir compte’.
5. Charitonov (1932, p. 21) erroneously [in terms of modern Codes] considered that Thorell (1870; see para. 3 above) had validly designated Aranea lugubris Walckenaer, 1802 as the type species of Pardosa. Charitonov considered that Pardosa lugubris (Walckenaer) was a junior synonym of both P. alacris (but see para. 6 below) and of the older name Aranea chelata O.F. Miiller, 1764 (p. 94), and he therefore listed A. chelata as the type species. However, A. chelata was not an originally included nominal species, and under Article 69.2.2 Charitonov’s act can be regarded as a designation of the originally included Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species for Pardosa (see Zyuzin, 1979, p. 434 and 1980, p. 167); however, it had been preceded by Simon’s designation in 1898 of L. striatipes (see para. 4 above). Bonnet’s later (1951, p. 307) selection of L. hortensis Thorell, 1872 (which he synonymized with
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 9
Pardosa saccata sensu C.L. Koch, 1847) is also invalid, but despite this Bonnet (1958), Roewer (1959) and Fuhn & Niculescu-Burlacu (1971) cited L. hortensis as the type species.
6. The identification of Aranea chelata Miller, 1764 with A. lugubris Walckenaer, 1802 is dubious. Miller's name was almost completely neglected (see Bonnet, 1958, p. 3381) until Dahl (1908, p. 449) argued that it was a senior subjective synonym of A. lugubris. Following Dahl (1908), a number of 20th-century araneologists (such as Charitonov, 1932) used the name Pardosa (or Lycosa) chelata instead of lugubris or alacris for the same species. However, Simon (1937) maintained the use of P. lugubris because he regarded the synonymy with A. chelata as doubtful. Miller’s material is lost (Horn et al., 1990) and the original description of A. chelata is not sufficient for identification; it would fit not only P. /ugubris but also other lycosid species occurring in Denmark, the type locality of A. chelata. We propose that the name Aranea chelata O.F. Miller, 1764 should be suppressed because it has not been used for many years and as a very old nomen dubium it can only be a source of instability.
7. The name Pardosa lugubris (Walckenaer, 1802) has been widely accepted in modern major works (e.g. Roewer, 1954; Bonnet, 1958; Tongiorgi, 1966; Fuhn & Niculescu-Burlacu, 1971; Tyshchenko, 1971; Zyuzin, 1979 and 1980; Roberts, 1985; Platnick, 1998); P. alacris (C.L. Koch, 1833) has been treated as a junior synonym of P. lugubris. However, P. lugubris and P. alacris have recently been shown on morphological and behavioural grounds to refer to separate but very closely related taxa (Topfer-Hofmann & von Helversen, 1990; Kronestedt, 1992; Topfer-Hofmann, Cordes & von Helversen, 2000); the name P. Jugubris has also been applied in the past to the recently recognised species P. saltans Topfer-Hofmann, 2000. Walckenaer’s original material of Aranea lugubris does not exist but a male neotype has been designated (T6pfer-Hofmann, Cordes & von Helversen, 2000, p. 265) and is deposited in the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt; a male syntype of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 is preserved in the Zoologisches Museum of the Humboldt-Universitat in Berlin (specimen ZMB 1986).
8. As mentioned in para. 4 above, acceptance of the first valid designation of type species for Pardosa (that of Lycosa striatipes by Simon, 1898) would upset the universal usage of both Pardosa and Alopecosa. We propose that the originally included species Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 should be accepted as the type species, as fixed by Charitonov in 1932 (see para. 5 above), because this taxon is clearly identifiable from its description and an original specimen exists (see preceding para.). An alternative would be the closely related Aranea lugubris Walckenaer, 1802, but as mentioned above this nominal species was not originally included, no original specimen exists, and the name has been applied to more than one taxon and only very recently been distinguished from L. alacris.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 before that of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 by Charitonov (1932);
(b) to suppress the name chelata O.F. Miller, 1764, as published in the binomen Aranea chelata, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (gender: feminine), type species Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 by the fixation by Charitonoy (1932), as ruled in (1) above; (b) Alopecosa Simon, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Aranea fabrilis Clerck, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) alacris C.L. Koch, 1833, as published in the binomen Lycosa alacris (specific name of the type species of Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847); (b) fabrilis Clerck, 1758, as published in the binomen Aranea fabrilis (specific name of the type species of Alopecosa Simon, 1885; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name chelata O.F. Miller, 1764, as published in the binomen Aranea chelata and as suppressed in 1(b) above.
References
Bésenberg, W. 1903. Die Spinnen Deutschlands. Zoologica (Stuttgart), 14: 385-465.
Bonnet, P. 1951. Difficultés de nomenclature chez les aranéides. IV. La question Lycosa- Tarentula-Pardosa. Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 86: 295-307.
Bonnet, P. 1955. Bibliographia araneorum, vol. 2, part 1. 918 pp. Douladoure, Toulouse.
Bonnet, P. 1958. Bibliographia araneorum, vol. 2, part 4. Pp. 3027-4230. Douladoure, Toulouse. \
Charitonoy, D.E. 1932. Arachnologica varia. IV. [Uber eiige Gattungen und Typenarten der Lycosiden.] /zvestiya Biologicheskogo Nauchno-issledovatelskogo Instituta i Biologicheskoi Stantsii pri Permskom Gosudarstvennom Universitete, 8: 19-24. [In Russian with German summary. ]
Clerck, C.A. 1758. Sénska spindlar... Aranei Svecici, descriptionibus et figuris.. . illustrati. xvi, 154 pp., 6 pls. Stockholm.
Dahl, F. 1908. Die Lycosiden oder Wolfspinnen Deutschlands und ihre Stellung im Haushalte der Natur, nach statistischen Untersuchungen dargestellt. Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicae Naturae Curiosorum, 88: 175-678.
Dondale, C.D. & Redner, J.H. 1979. Revision of the wolf spider genus A/opecosa Simon in North America (Araneae: Lycosidae). Canadian Entomologist, 111: 1033-1055.
Fuhn, I.E. & Niculescu-Burlacu, F. 1971. Arachnida. Fam. Lycosidae. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania, 5(3): 1-256.
Horn, W., Kahle, I., Friese, G. & Gaedike, R. 1990. Collectiones entomologicae. 573 pp. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik,
Berlin. Koch, C.L. 1833. Arachniden. In Herrich-Schaffer, G.A.W., Heften 119-121 of Panzer, G.W.F., Faunae insectorum Germaniae initia; oder Deutschlands Insecten . . . Regensburg.
Koch, C.L. 1837. Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, Heft 1. Zeh, Nurnberg.
Koch, C.L. 1847. Die Arachniden, vol. 14 (parts 3-6, pp. 89-210). Lotzbeck, Nurnberg.
Kronestedt, T. 1992. The identity of Pardosa alacris (C.L. Koch 1833) (Arachnida: Araneae: Lycosidae). Senckenbergiana Biologica, 72: 179-182.
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur ordre naturel des animaux composant la classe des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes. 444 pp. Paris.
Lugetti, G. & Tongiorgi, P. 1969. Ricerche sul genere Alopecosa Simon (Araneae-Lycosidae). Atti della Societa Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Memorie (B), 76: \—100.
Menge, A. 1850. Verzeichniss Danziger Spinnen. Neueste Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Danzig, 4(3): 57-71.
Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina. xxiv, 96 pp. Gleditsch, Hafniae et Lipsiae.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 11
Ohlert, E. 1851. Beitrage zur Diagnose und Revision der preussischen Spinnengattungen. Zur offentlichen Priifung der Schiiler der héheren Burgschule, Konigsberg, 1851: 1-8.
Platnick, N.I. 1998. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1992-1995. With redescriptions 1940-1980. 976 pp. New York Entomological Society and American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Roberts, M.J. 1985. The spiders of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 1. 229 pp. Harley Books, Colchester.
Roewer, C.F. 1954. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940, bzw. 1954, Band 2, Abteilung a. 923 pp. Institut Royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles.
Roewer, C.F. 1959. Araneae Lycosaeformia II (Lycosidae). Exploration du Parc National de 'Upemba, Mission G.F. De Witte, 55: 1-518.
Sherborn, C.D. 1914. On the dates of publication of C.W. Hahn and C.L. Koch, “Die Arachniden’ 1831-1849. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)14: 143-144.
Simon, E. 1898. Histoire naturelle des araignées, vol. 2, part 2. Pp. 193-380. Roret, Paris.
Simon, E. 1937. Les arachnides de France, vol. 6. part 5. Pp. 979-1298. Roret, Paris.
Tanaka, H. 1993. Lycosid spiders of Japan. IX. The genus Pardosa C.L. Koch — amentata group. Sonoda Women’s College Studies, 27: 261-318.
Thorell, T. 1870. On European spiders. Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis, (3)7: 109-242.
Tikader, B.K. & Malhotra, M.S. 1980. Lycosidae (wolf-spiders). Pp. 249-446 in: Fauna of India, (Araneae), vol. 1(2). Zoological Survey of India, Delhi.
Tongiorgi, P. 1966. Italian wolf spiders of the genus Pardosa (Araneae: Lycosidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Harvard), 134: 275-334.
Tépfer-Hofmann, G. & von Helversen, O. 1990. Four species of the Pardosa lugubris-group in Central Europe (Araneae, Lycosidae) — a preliminary report. Bulletin de la Société Européenne d’Arachnologie, Numéro hors série, 1: 349-352.
T6pfer-Hofmann, G., Cordes, D. & von Helversen, O. 2000. Cryptic species and behavioural isolation in the Pardosa lugubris group (Araneae, Lycosidae), with description of two new species. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 11: 257-274.
Tyshchenko, V.P. 1971. [An identification guide to the spiders of the European part of the USSR.] Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 105: 1—281. [In Russian.]
Walckenaer, C.A. 1802. Faune Parisienne, Insectes; ou histoire abrégée des Insectes des environs de Paris... , vol. 2. Paris.
Yin, C.M., Peng, X.J., Xie, L.P., Bao, Y.-H. & Wang, J.F. 1997. Lycosids in China. 317 pp. Hunan Normal University Press, Changsha.
Zyuzin, A.A. 1979, 1980. A taxonomic study of Palaearctic spiders of the genus Pardosa (Aranei, Lycosidae). Part 1. The taxonomic structure of the genus. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 58: 431-447 [1979, in Russian]; Entomological Review, 58: 165-185 [1980, English translation].
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Case 3106
Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 (currently Hippa pacifica; Crustacea, Anomura): proposed precedence over Remipes marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846
Christopher B. Boyko
Department of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. and Department of Biology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, U.S.A. (e-mail: cboyko@amnh.org)
Alan W. Harvey
Department of Biology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460, U.S.A. (e-mail: aharvey@gasou.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this aplication is to conserve the usage of the specific name of Hippa pacifica (Dana, 1852) for an Indo-Pacific sand or mole crab “(family HIPPIDAE). The extant syntypes of R. marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846 are apparently specimens of H. pacifica. It is proposed that R. pacificus Dana, 1852 should take precedence over R. marmoratus. A lectotype is designated for R. pacificus.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Anomura; HIPPIDAE; Hippa; Hippa pacifica; mole crabs; Indo-Pacific.
1. Jacquinot (1846, pl. 8, figs. 22-26) introduced the name Remipes marmoratus for an illustration of a mole crab, based on an unknown number of specimens from an unspecified locality. The date of this publication has been variously given as ‘1852 or earlier’, 1853 or 1855, but Clark & Crosnier (2000, p. 416) have shown that the part containing plate 8 was published in July 1846. Later, Jacquinot & Lucas (1853, p. 97) described the species, citing four specimens from “Rafles-Baie (cote nord-ouest de la Nouvelle-Zélande)’. However, as originally pointed out by Filhol (1885, p. 408), ‘Rafles-Baie’ (Raffles Bay) is not in New Zealand, but on the Northern Territory coast of Australia. All four syntypes are in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN Hi-84). Jacquinot & Lucas (1853, p. 98, footnote) pointed that there were errors in the drawing of R. marmoratus by Jacquinot (1846), remarking that ‘la figure 22 de la planche 8, répresente ce filet [antenna] hérissé de longs cils; les quatre individus de cette espéce qui ont été déposés dans les collections du Muséum et sur lesquels nous avons fait cette description, ont tous au contraire ce filet interne [antennal flagellum] enti¢rement glabre’.
2. Dana (1852, p. 407) described Remipes pacificus (currently Hippa pacifica), based on an unknown number of specimens collected from ‘Island of Ovalau, Feejee Group; Sandwich Islands; Samoan Group?’. Dana (1852, p. 408) compared his specimens with Jacquinot’s (1846) figure and distinguished the two species by the fact that ‘the Remipes marmoratus of Hombron and Jacquinot . . . has the outer antennae
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 13
[= antennules] very much more slender than in the pacificus’. Dana (1855, pl. 25, figs. 7a-g) later figured R. pacificus, which does indeed appear specifically different from Jacquinot’s (1846) figure of R. marmoratus. The only syntype of R. pacificus that appears to be extant is an alcohol-preserved female, 13.7 mm carapace length (CL), from the Sandwich Islands (= Hawaii), and deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ 1406). No types are listed as being in the collections of The Natural History Museum, London (Evans, 1967), nor have we found type specimens in the collections of the United States National Museum. We think the prospect of locating other syntype material is unlikely since these three institutions are the only known repositories of Dana’s type material (Evans, 1967). As MCZ 1406 is the only known syntype, and in excellent condition, we herein select it as lectotype for R. pacificus.
3. There has been confusion about the identity of Remipes marmoratus and its possible synonymy with one or more of the other nominal species of Remipes, much of which was caused by the assertion by Miers (1878, pp. 316-317) that most reported species of Remipes were based on a single variable taxon which he incorrectly called R. testudinarius Latreille, 1806 (= Hippa adactyla Fabricius, 1787; see Haig, 1970). This was only two years after he (Miers, 1876, p. 59) mentioned R. marmoratus in a list of the New Zealand fauna, although he had seen no specimens. After Miers (1878) authors correctly split the ‘R. testudinarius’ group into separate species again, but had difficulty in placing R. marmoratus. It has been variously considered as a synonym of R. testudinarius, R. pictus Heller, 1861 or H. adactyla. De Man (1896, p. 462) did not cite R. marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846 in his revision of Remipes Latreille, 1806 (a junior subjective synonym of Hippa Fabricius, 1787), but indicated ‘nur R. marmoratus White bleibt nun noch unverstandlich.’ White (1847, p. 58) listed the name “R. marmoratus n.s.’ without description or figure reference, thus rendering it a nomen nudum.
4. Haig (1974) mentioned R. marmoratus as a possible synonym of Hippa pacifica. She stated that she had examined the type material of R. marmoratus, consisting of four soft-shelled specimens, and observed that *. . . although I did not compare them critically with material of Hippa pacifica, | noted that they agree in the number of setiferous pits near the lateral margin of the carapace and in having a two-segmented flagellum’ (Haig, 1974, p. 182). Recognizing that the illustration of R. marmoratus was published before the description and probably earlier than 1852 (‘18[?] in her synonymy list), she suggested that “Should careful comparison of the two species prove them to be synonymous, the unused name marmoratus might have to be suppressed to insure the stability of pacificus’ (Haig, 1974, pp. 182-183). Since Haig (1974), marmoratus has been treated as a questionable synonym of H. pacifica (Haig, Murugan & Balakrishnan Nair, 1986, p. 290; Boyko & Harvey, 1999, p. 401).
5. During a recent visit to the Muséum national in Paris, one of us (C.B.B.) examined the four syntypes of Remipes marmoratus. They are highly decalcified, making determination of sex difficult, but there appear to be two males (9.2—10.3 mm CL) and two females (8.4-10.2 mm CL). Examination of the specimens confirms Haig’s (1974) observations, and also shows that Jacquinot’s (1846) illustration is incorrect as to the shape of the antennules; they are identical to those found on typical H. pacifica, including the lectotype (MCZ 1406). All evidence therefore indicates that R. marmoratus and H. pacifica are synonymous.
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
6. The species was listed under the specific name Hippa pacifica or Remipes pacificus in Zoological Record 17 times between 1864 and 1998. This number is undoubtedly an underestimate of the number of times this species was cited in species lists and other papers during this period (e.g. Efford, 1972; Haig, 1974; Bauchau, 1985; Haig, Murugan & Balakrishnan Nair, 1986; Ramos & Rios, 1995). H. pacifica is the most widely distributed member of the family Hippipar, and is the most frequently collected and studied member of its genus. Not only has H. pacifica been cited numerous times in taxonomic (e.g. Haig, 1974) and regional survey papers (e.g. Ramos & Rios, 1995), but it is also an important experimental animal that is used in studies of intraspecific competition and intertidal zonation (e.g. Haley, 1982), sex reversal (Wenner, 1972), color change (e.g. Bauchau & Passelcq-Gerin, 1987), various aspects of population biology (Wenner, Ricard & Dugan, 1987) and reproductive biology (Matthews, 1956). In contrast, the species was listed under the specific name marmoratus in Zoological Record only once between 1864 and 1998, and that was more than a century ago as a synonym of R. testudinarius (see Miers, 1878). Nomenclatural stability will not be served by replacing the name Hippa pacifica by the binomen H. marmorata.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the specific name pacificus Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Remipes pacificus, precedence over marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846, as published in the binomen Remipes marmoratus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pacificus Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Remipes pacificus and as
defined by the lectotype designated in para. 2 above, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846, as published in the binomen Remipes marmoratus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846, as published in the binomen Remipes mar- moratus, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over pacificus Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen Remipes pacificus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements
We thank Nguyen Ngoc-Ho, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, for assistance during the first author’s visit, Ardis Johnston, Harvard University, for the loan of the specimen of Remipes pacificus, and Paul Clark, The Natural History Museum, London, and Alain Crosnier, Paris, for assistance regarding the publications of Jacquinot.
References
Bauchau, A.G. 1985. Les espéces du genre Hippa recueillies sur les plages septentrionales de la Papouasie-Nouvelle Guinée (Crustacea, Decapoda, Anomura). Indo-Malayan Zoology, 2: 309-318.
Bauchau, A.G. & Passeleq-Gerin, E. 1987. Morphological color changes in anomuran decapods of the genus Hippa. Indo-Malayan Zoology, 4: 135-144.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 15
Boyko, C.B. & Harvey, A.W. 1999. Crustacea Decapoda: Albuneidae and Hippidae of the tropical Indo-West Pacific region. Jn Crosnier, A. (Ed.), Résultats des Campagnes Musorstom, vol. 20. Mémoires du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 180: 379-406.
Clark, P.F. & Crosnier, A. 2000. The zoology of the Voyage au pole sud et dans l’Océanie sur les corvettes /’Astrolabe et la Zélée exécuté par ordre du roi pendant les années 1837—1838-1839-1840 sous le commandement de M. Dumont-D’Urville, 1842-1854: titles, volumes, plates, text, contents proposed dates and anecdotal history of the publication. Archives of Natural History, 27: 407-435.
Dana, J.D. 1852. Crustacea. part 1. United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 13. viii, 685 pp. Sherman, Philadelphia.
Dana, J.D. 1855. Crustacea. United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 13 (Atlas). 27 pp., 96 pls. Sherman, Philadelphia.
Efford, I.E. 1972. The distribution of the sand crabs Hippa strigillata (Stimpson) and Hippa pacifica (Dana) in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Decapoda, Anomura). Crustaceana, 23: 119-122.
Evans, A.C. 1967. Syntypes of Decapoda described by William Stimpson and James Dana in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). Journal of Natural History, 1: 399-411.
Filhol, H. 1885. Recherches zoologiques, botaniques et géologiques faites a Ile Campbell et en Nouvelle Zélande. Académie des Sciences. Récueil de Mémoires .. . relatifs a lobservation du passage de Venus sur le Soleil (Zoologie), vol. 3, part 1. 576 pp. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Haig, J. 1970. The status of Remipes testudinarius Latreille, and designation of a neotype for Hippa adactyla J.C. Fabricius (Decapoda, Hippidae). Crustaceana, 19: 288-296.
Haig, J. 1974. A review of the Australian crabs of family Hippidae (Crustacea, Decapoda, Anomura). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 17: 175-189.
Haig, J., Murugan, T. & Balakrishnan Nair, N. 1986. Hippa indica, a new species of mole crab (Decapod, Anomura, Hippidae) from the south west coast of India. Crustaceana, 51: 286-292.
Haley, S.R. 1982. Zonation by size of the Pacific mole crab, Hippa pacifica Dana (Crustacea: Anomura: Hippidae) in Hawaii. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 58: 221-231.
Jacquinot, H. 1846 [July]. Crustacés, part 19, pls. 5, 8 in Hombron, J.B. & Jacquinot, C.H. (Eds.), Voyage au pole sud et dans I’Océanie sur les corvettes ’ Astrolabe et la Zélée:
exécuté... pendant . . . 1837-1840, sous le commandement de M.J. Dumont d’Urville, capitaine de vaisseau.. . . sous la direction supérieure de M. Jacquinot, . . . Zoologie. Gide, Paris.
Jacquinot, H. & Lucas, H. 1853. Crustacés. Pp. 1-107 in Hombron, J.B.& Jacquinot, H. (Eds.), Voyage au pole sud et dans I’Océanie sur les corvettes Y Astrolabe et la Zélée; exécuté. . . pendant . . . 1837-1840, sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont d’Uryille, capitaine de vaisseau . . . sous la direction supérieure de M. Jacquinot, .. . Atlas d'Histoire Naturelle, Zoologie, vol. 3. Gide, Paris.
Man, J.G., De. 1896. Bericht ber die von Herrn Schiffscapitan Storm zu Atjeh, an den westlichen Kusten von Malakka, Borneo und Celebes sowie in der Java-See gesammelten Decapoden und Stomatopoden. Vierter Theil. Zoologische Jahrbticher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Geographie und der Biologischen Thiere, 9: 459-514.
Matthews, D.C. 1956. The origin of the spermatophoric mass in the sand crab, Hippa pacifica. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 97: 257-268.
Miers, E.J. 1876. Catalogue of the Stalk- and Sessile-eyed Crustacea of New Zealand. 136 pp.., 3 pls. Jansen, London.
Miers, E.J. 1878. Revision of the Hippidea. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, (Zoology), 14: 312-336, pl. 5.
Ramos, G.E. & Rios, R. 1995. Los ‘reculambai’ o ‘canchunchos’ (Crustacea: Decapoda: Hippoidea: Hippidae y Albuneidae) de la costa del Pacifico de Colombia. Pp. 92-109 in Cantera, J.R. & Restrepo, J.D. (Eds.), Delta del Rio San Juan, Bahias de Malaga
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
y Buenaventura, Pacifico Colombiano, vol. 2. Colciencias, Universidad EAFIT y Universidad del Valle.
Wenner, A.M. 1972. Sex ratio as a function of size in marine crustacea. American Naturalist, 106: 321-350.
Wenner, A.M., Ricard, Y. & Dugan, J. 1987. Hippid crab population structure and food availability on Pacific shorelines. Bulletin of Marine Science, 41: 221-233.
White, A. 1847. List of the Specimens of Crustacea in the Collection of the British Museum. 143 pp. British Museum, London.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 7)
Case 3183
Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 (currently Coenobita clypeatus; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed replacement of syntypes by a neotype
Patsy A. McLaughlin
Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington University, 1900 Shannon Point Road, Anacortes, WA 98221—9081B, U.S.A. (e-mail: patsy@sos.net)
- Lipke B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accustomed usage of the name of the common West Indian land hermit crab Coenobita clypeatus (Fabricius, 1787), the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829. The two existing syntypes represent two different and equally well known Indo-Pacific species: Coenobita rugosus Milne Edwards, 1837 and C. violascens Heller, 1862. It is proposed that stability should be maintained by the replacement of the two existing East Indies syntypes of Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 with a West Indies neotype in the sense of the usage of the name since 1919. This will also conserve the names C. rugosus and C. violascens. The names of Coenobita Latreille, 1829 and of its type species, Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1575 (March 1990).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Decapoda; COENOBITIDAE; Coenobita; Coenobita clypeatus; C. rugosus; C. violascens; hermit crabs; West Indies.
1. The specific name of Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 has been misinterpreted for many years and, with one exception, incorrectly applied to a large and common West Indian species of the land hermit crab genus Coenobita Latreille, 1829. The nominal genus Coenobita was established by Latreille (1829, p. 77) with “Pagurus clypeatus Fab., Herbst (1791) as the only included species.
2. Fabricius (1787, p. 328, figs. 116, 117) established the name Pagurus clypeatus citing both of Herbst’s (1791, p. 22, pl. 23, figs. 2A, B), at the time unpublished, figures of ‘Cancer clypeatus’. It appears as though he based his description on the larger of the two specimens figured by Herbst. The type locality was cited as ‘India orientali’. Two specimens in the Herbst collection in the Naturhistorisches Forschungsinstitut Museum fiir Naturkunde zu Berlin (personal examination by PMcL) agree with Herbst’s figures with the exception that the stridulating ridge, present on the larger specimen, is not shown plainly in Herbst’s figure (1791, pl. 23, fig. 2B), nor is it mentioned in his description. Herbst’s specimens do not represent a single species. The larger figure represents the common Indo-Pacific species known as Coenobita rugosus Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 241; see para. 4 below); the smaller
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
figure appears to be another Indo-Pacific species, C. violascens Heller, 1862 (p. 524). As with all of Herbst’s material, the labels were changed during the 19th century by either W. Peters or E. von Martens (resident curators in the Berlin Museum). The label accompanying Herbst’s Coenobita specimens presently reads “C. rugosa’, and that is what Sakai (1999, p. 12) meant when he noted that “Coenobita rugosa’ was in the Herbst collection. Sakai’s figure (1999, pl. 3G) is Herbst’s larger specimen of Cancer clypeatus (i.e. Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 in its original sense).
3. From Olivier’s (1811, p. 643) description and color notes of “Pagurus clypeatus’ and the subsequently published illustration (Latreille, 1818, pl. 311, fig. 1), Owen (1839, p. 84) rightly concluded that Olivier’s taxon was not conspecific with that of Herbst (1791), to whom he (Owen) attributed authorship of the species. It was Olivier’s (1811) ‘Pagurus clypeatus’ upon which Jarocki (1825) based his new genus Carcinion, an unused name which, as a senior objective synonym of Coenobita Latreille, 1829, was suppressed by the Commission in Opinion 1575 (March 1990; BZN 47: 67-68). Owen (1839) described Olivier’s species “Pagurus clypeatus’ as Coenobita olivieri, basing his interpretation on Olivier’s description and figure, and also a specimen from the ‘Sandwich’ (Hawaiian) Islands. Although Owen (1839) was the only 19th or 20th century carcinologist to correctly interpret Pagurus ¢lypeatus Fabricius (Herbst’s Cancer clypeatus), he believed, incorrectly, that Herbst’s figures represent a single specimen (with fig. 2B as an enlargement of fig. 2A); the syntypes are, however, two distinct species (see para. 2 above).
4. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 238) presented a diagnosis of the genus Coenobita (spelled as Cenobita) and briefly described several species. The species included, among others, ‘Cenobita clypeatus’ with reference to Herbst (1791), Fabricius (1798) and Latreille (1803; 1818; 1829); C. diogenes, with reference to Catesby (see para. 7 below) and Latreille (1818), and his own new species C. rugosa. Although Milne Edwards gave only a general description of the species he incorrectly identified as C. clypeatus, he did note the equally developed coxae of the fifth pereopods (a characteristic of C. brevimanus Dana, 1852). In his description of C. rugosus (as rugosa, but Coenobita is masculine), Milne Edwards specifically mentioned the stridulating tubercles; only the taxon currently known as C. clypeatus (see para. 7 below) was illustrated (Milne Edwards, 1837, p. 240, pl. 22, figs. 11—13).
5. Dana (1852, p. 473; 1855, pl. 30, figs. 4a, b) cited and illustrated the general characters Milne Edwards (1837) had attributed to Coenobita clypeatus and estab- lished the ‘variety’ brevimanus for a specimen from Balabac Passage (Malaysia) with a more circular chela, the outer surface of which was smoother than in the nominotypical ‘variety’. As a result of Milne Edwards’s misinterpretation of Herbst’s (1791) taxon, Coenobita brevimanus Dana, 1852 was commonly reported as C. clypeatus for the next 100 years (e.g. Hilgendorf, 1869; De Man, 1902; Borradaile, 1903; Alcock, 1905; Fize & Seréne, 1955; 29 additional references have been given to the Commission Secretariat). Rathbun (1910, p. 314) was the first to recognize the distinctiveness of C. brevimanus, and to call attention to the fact that Dana’s species was the Coenobita clypeatus of Alcock (1905, p. 142, pl. 15, figs. 1, 1a), not the Cancer clypeatus of Herbst (1791). Terao (1913, p. 388) proposed the new name Coenobita hilgendorfi for the Indo-West Pacific species that Hilgendorf (1869) and Alcock (1905) had incorrectly identified as Coenobita clypeatus. After Rathbun (1919) the name Coenobita clypeatus was accepted by most subsequent authors dealing with
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 19
the West Indian form (see Schmitt, 1935, p. 207; Provenzano, 1959, p. 359; Chace & Hobbs, 1969, p. 123; De Wilde, 1973; Rodriguez, 1980, p. 220). Although it took quite a long time before brevimanus was generally accepted for the Indo-West Pacific species this name is now in current use (e.g. Ball & Haig, 1972; Nakasone, 1988; Burggren & McMahon, 1988).
6. Hilgendorf (1869, p. 98) attributed authorship of Coenobita clypeatus to Milne Edwards (1837; see para. 4 above), and included only the report by Dana (1852, 1855) in his synonymy. From his description, figures, and the one remaining specimen of his “C. clypeatus’ (= C. brevimanus) still in the Berlin Museum (personal examination by - PMcL), it is clear that he accepted Milne Edwards’s interpretation of Coenobita clypeatus (= C. brevimanus). Apparently Hilgendorf, like Owen, believed that Herbst’s description and illustrations were based on a single specimen, and that it was no longer extant because the larger of the two Herbst specimens did not agree with his interpretation of C. clypeatus. In his identification of the smaller of Herbst’s specimens as “Coenobita diogenes’ it appears that Hilgendorf was also following the remarks and diagnosis of Milne Edwards. Accordingly, Hilgendorf concluded that Herbst had made a mistake in stating the type locality of Cancer clypeatus as the East Indies, but not until Schmitt (1935, p. 208) was Hilgendorf’s (1869) locality ‘correction’ noticed.
7. The West Indian species of Coenobita was first mentioned and illustrated as “Cancellus Terrestris Bahamensis The Hermit Crab / Bernard l’hermite’ by Catesby (1743, pl. 33, figs. 1, 2) (the 1754 2nd edition is cited in the literature). Catesby’s figures were reproduced by Latreille (1818, pl. 284, figs. 2, 3) as Pagurus diogenes citing “L[innaeus], p. 1049, no. 58’ (= 1767, not 1758). Milne Edwards (1837) transferred P. diogenes to Coenobita and in all subsequent reports in the 19th and early 20th centuries the West Indian species was referred to as Coenobita diogenes. Rathbun (1897) listed the species as “Coenobita diogenes (Linnaeus)’ also citing Linnaeus (1767, p. 1049) and Milne Edwards (1837, p. 240, pl. 22, figs. 11-14) in her synonymy. In contrast, Benedict (1901) reported ‘Cenobita diogenes (Latreille)’, including in his synonymy Latreille (1818) and Milne Edwards (1837).
8. Subsequently, when Rathbun (1919, p. 329) again reported on the West Indian Coenobita, her synonymy included Cancer diogenes Linnaeus (Edwards, in Catesby, 1771 [3rd edition], pl. 33, figs. 1, 2) from Florida; Herbst’s (1791) description and illustrations of Cancer clypeatus, attributed to Latreille (incorrectly cited with the date and reference of Olivier, 1811); and Milne Edwards’s (1837) report of Cenobita diogenes. It is unclear whether Rathbun (1919) was aware at that time of Hilgendorf’s (1869) erroneous ‘correction’ of Fabricius’s (1787) type locality for Pagurus clypeatus (Herbst’s Cancer clypeatus) from East Indies to West Indies. Having earlier (Rathbun, 1910, p. 314) distinguished between Alcock’s (1905, p. 142, pl. 15, figs. 1, la) ‘Coenobita clypeatus Latreille (= C. brevimanus Dana) and Herbst’s (1791) Cancer clypeatus, Rathbun (1919) emphatically rejected the specific name diogenes for the West Indian species of Coenobita, stating correctly that Linnaeus’s (1758, p. 631) description of Cancer diogenes applied to a species of Petrochirus. Following Rathbun’s (1919) adoption of ‘Coenobita clypeatus Herbst’ for the Atlantic species, many authors discontinued the use of the specific name diogenes for this taxon. However, Rathbun’s (1919) use of C. clypeatus was either not widely known, or perhaps not always accepted, as reports of Coenobita diogenes continued to appear in
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
the literature for another 35 years (e.g. Kinzig, 1921; Kammerer, 1926; Pearse, 1929a, b; Haas, 1950; Fize & Seréne, 1955). Rathbun’s (1919) application of the name ‘Coenobita clypeatus Herbst’ was emphasized by Holthuis (1959), who provided more detailed information on Cancer diogenes Linnaeus, 1758.
9. Morgan & Holthuis (1988, BZN 45: 18-20) applied to the Commission for the conservation of the generic name Coenobita Latreille, 1829, which was threatened by the senior synonyms Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 and Cenobites Berthold, 1827, and also possibly by the senior subjective synonym Eremita Osbeck, 1765. The names Coenobita and its type species Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1575 (March 1990). In their proposal, Morgan & Holthuis cited the type species of Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 as ‘Pagurus clypeatus Oliv. (= Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787). However, as mentioned in para. 3 above, Pagurus clypeatus sensu Olivier, 1811 is not Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787.
10. Not only has the identity of Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 been incorrectly interpreted, so has its authorship. As pointed out by Morgan & Holthuis (1989, p. 177), authorship of this nominal taxon has been attributed most frequently to Herbst (1791), but also to Fabricius, 1798 (e.g. Dana, 1852; Henderson, 1888), to Latreille, 1825 (e.g. Alcock, 1905; Fize & Seréne, 1955; Yaldwyn & Wodzicki, 1979), and to Milne Edwards, 1837 (Hilgendorf, 1869; Whitelegge, 1897).
11. In view of the misunderstanding and misuse of the specific name c/ypeatus for more than 200 years, the most appropriate action is to request the Commission to designate, in accordance with Article 75.6 of the Code, a West Indies neotype for Pagurus clypeatus; the meaning of the specific name would thus be fixed as it has been understood since Rathbun (1919). As neotype we propose the male specimen described and illustrated by Chace & Hobbs (1969, p. 123, figs. 33, 34b, c), United States National Museum, Washington, No. USNM 126773, station 17, Batali River, N. of Savane, Dominican Republic, collected in 1964 by R.L. Zusi, on dry land at an elevation of about 60 m. Setting aside the Herbst syntypes of P. clypeatus will conserve the specific names of the two East Indian taxa Coenobita rugosus Milne Edwards, 1837 and C. violascens Heller, 1862 (see para. 2 above).
12. The International Commission -on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1767 and to designate the male specimen USNM 126773, referred to in para. 11 above, as the neotype;
(2) to add to the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 (specific name of the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829) an endorsement recording that the species is defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) rugosus Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Cenobita
rugosus; (b) violascens Heller, 1862, as published in the binomen Cenobita violascens.
Acknowledgements The first author is indebted to C. Oliver Coleman for the many courtesies extended during her visit to the Naturhistorisches Forschungsinstitut Museum fiir Naturkunde
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 21
zu Berlin and for the subsequent loan of the Hilgendorf specimens. We acknowledge, with thanks, the comments offered by the many carcinologists queried on this question. The assistance of Rafael Lemaitre in locating the Chace and Hobbs specimen is also gratefully acknowledged. This is a scientific contribution from the Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington University.
References
Alcock, A. 1905. Anomura. Fasc. I. Pagurides. Catalogue of the Indian decapod Crustacea in the collections of the Indian Museum, vol. 2. x1, 197 pp., 16 pls. Indian Museum, Calcutta.
- Ball, E.E. & Haig, J. 1972. Hermit crabs from eastern New Guinea. Pacific Science, 26: 87-107.
Benedict, J.-E. 1901. Four new symmetrical hermit crabs (Pagurids) from the West India region. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 23: 771-778.
Borradaile, L.A. 1903. Land crustaceans. Pp. 64-100, figs. 12—23, pl. 3 in Gardiner, J.S. (Ed.), The fauna and geography of the Maldive and Laccadive Archipelagoes, being an account of the work carried on and of the collections made by an expedition during the years 1899 and 1900, vol. 1. University Press, Cambridge.
Burggren, W.W. & McMahon, B.R. (Eds.). 1988. Biology of the land crabs. xii, 479 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Catesby, M. 1743. The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands... , vol. 2, part 7. Pls. 21-40. London.
Catesby, M. 1771. The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands... , Ed. 3, vol. 2. 126 pp. London.
Chace, F.A., Jr. & Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1969. The freshwater and terrestrial decapod crustaceans of the West Indies with special reference to Dominica. Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian Biological Survey of Dominica. United States National Museum Bulletin, 292: 1-258.
Dana, J.D. 1852. Crustacea, part I. United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 13. viii, 685 pp. Sherman, Philadelphia.
Dana, J.D. 1855. Crustacea. United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 13 (Atlas). 27 pp., 96 pls. Sherman, Philadelphia.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum ... , vol. 1. xx, 348 pp. Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae systematicae. 572 pp. Hafniae.
Fize, A. & Seréne, R. 1955. Les pagures du Vietnam. Note 45. ix, 228 pp., 35 figs., 6 pls. Institut Océanographique, Nhatrang.
Haas, F. 1950. Hermit crabs in fossil snail shells in Bermuda. Ecology, 31(1): 152.
Heller, C. 1862. Neue Crustaceen, gesammelt wahrend der Weltumseglung der k. k. Fregatte Novara. Zweiter vorlaufiger Bericht. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesell- schaft in Wien, 12: 519-528.
Henderson, J.R. 1888. Report on the Anomura collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76. Pp. xi, 221, 21 pls. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1872-76 . . . (Zoology), vol. 27, part 69. xi, 221 pp., 21 pls. H.M.S.O., London.
Herbst, J.F.W. 1791. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse nebst einer systematischen Beschreibung ihrer verschiedenen Arten, vol. 2. vii, 226 pp., pls. 22-46. Lange, Berlin, Stralsund.
Hilgendorf, F. 1869. Crustaceen. Pp. 69-116, pls. 1-6 in van der Decken, C.C. (Ed.), Reisen in Ost-Afrika in den Jahren 1859-1865, vol. 3, part 1. Winter, Leipzig & Heidelberg. Holthuis, L.B. 1959. The Crustacea Decapoda of Suriname (Dutch Guiana). Zoologische
Verhandelingen, 44: 1-296.
Jarocki, F.P. yon. 1825. Zoologiia czyli zwiézetopismo ogdlne, podlug naynowszego systematu, vol. 5. Cesarsko-Krol, Warszawa.
Kammerer, P. 1926. Pflege un Zucht weiterer wirbelloser Landtiere. Il. Landbewohnende Crustaceen. Pp. 590-592 in Abderhalden, E. (Ed.), Handbuch der biologischen
i) No
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Arbeitsmethoden, vol. 9. Teil 1, 2 Halfte, Heft 3, Lieferung 207. Pp. 587-602. Berlin, Vienna.
Kinzig, H. 1921. Untersuchunger ueber den Bau der Statocysten einiger decapoden Crustaceen. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorisch-Medizinischen Vereins zu Heidelberg, (N.S.)14: 1-90.
Latreille, P.A. 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 6. 391 pp., 14 pls. Paris.
Latreille, P.A. 1818. Crustacés, arachnides et insectes. 39 pp., 265 pls. in: Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois régnes de la nature, vol. 24. Paris.
Latreille, P.A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal, exposées succinctement et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres. 570 pp. Bailliere, Paris.
Latreille, P.A. 1829. Les crustacés, les arachnides et les insectes, distribués en familles naturelles. Jn Cuvier, G. (Ed.), Le Régne Animal, Ed. 2, vol. 4. xxvii, 584 pp. Déterville, Paris.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Man, J.G. De. 1902. Die von Herrn Professor Kiikenthal im Indischen Archipel gesammelten Dekapoden und Stomatopoden. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 25: 467-929.
Milne Edwards, H. 1837. Histoire naturelle des crustacés, vol. 2. 532 pp. Atlas, 32 pp.. 42 pls. Roret, Paris.
Morgan, G.J. & Holthuis, L.B. 1989. Nomenclatural problems associated with the genus Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Decapoda, Anomura). Crustaceana, 56(2): 176-181:
Nakasone, Y. 1988. Land hermit crabs from the Ryukyus, Japan, with a description of a new species from the Philippines (Crustacea, Decapoda, Coenobitidae). Zoological Science, 5: 165-178.
Olivier, G.A. 1811. Histoire Naturelle. Insectes. Zoology. In: Dictionnaire encyclopédique méthodique. vol. 8. 722 pp. Liege, Paris.
Owen, R. 1839. Crustacea. Pp. 77-92, pl. 25 in Beechey, F.W. (Ed.), The zoology of Captain Beechey’s voyage. . . to the Pacific and Behring’s straits performed in His Majesty's ship Blossom . . . in the years 1825, 26, 27 and 28. Bohn, London.
Pearse, A.S. 1929a. Observations on certain littoral and terrestrial animals at Tortugas, Florida, with special reference to migrations from marine to terrestrial habitats. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory, Carnegie Institute, Washington, 26: 205-223.
Pearse, A.S. 1929b. Two new mites from the gills of land crabs. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory, Carnegie Institute, Washington, 26: 225-230.
Provenzano, A.J., Jr. 1959. The shallow-water hermit crabs of Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 9: 349-420.
Rathbun, M.J. 1897. List of the decauod Crustacea of Jamaica. Annals of the Institute of Jamaica, 1(1): 1-46.
Rathbun, M.J. 1910. Decapod crustaceans collected in Dutch East India and elsewhere by Mr. Thomas Barbour in 1906-1907. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Harvard College), 52(16): 303-317.
Rathbun, M.J. 1919. Stalk-eyed Crustaceans of the Dutch West Indies. Pp. 317-348 in Boeke, J. (Ed.), Rapport betreffende een voorlopig onderzoek naar den toestand van de visscherij en de industrie van zeeproducten in de kolonie Curagao, vol. 2. Departement van Kolonien, Netherlands.
Rodriguez, G. 1980. Los crustaceos decapodos de Venezuela. 494 pp. Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Caracas.
Sakai, K. 1999. J.F.W. Herbst-collection of decapod Crustacea of the Berlin Zoological Museum, with remarks on certain species. Naturalists. Publications of Tokushima Biological Laboratory, Shikoku University, No. 6. 45 pp., 21 pls. Shikoku University, Tokushima Biological Laboratory, Tokushima.
Schmitt, W.L. 1935. Crustacea Macrura and Anomura of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 15(2): 125—227.
Terao, A. 1913. A catalogue of hermit-crabs found in Japan (Paguridea excluding Lithodidae), with descriptions of four new species. Annotationes Zoologicae Japonenses, 8(2): 355-391.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 23
Whitelegge, T. 1897. The fauna of Funafuti. 6. The Crustacea. Memoirs of the Australian Museum, 3: 7-151.
Wilde, P.A.W.J. De. 1973. On the ecology of Coenobita clypeatus in Curagao, with reference to reproduction, water economy and osmoregulation in terrestrial hermit crabs. Studies on the Fauna of Curagao and other Caribbean Islands, 144: 1-138.
Yaldwyn, J.C. & Wodzicki, K. 1979. Systematics and ecology of the land crabs (Decapoda: Coenobitidae, Grapsidae and Gecarcinidae) of the Tokelau Islands, Central Pacific. Atoll Reseach Bulletin, 235: 1—S3.
~ Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Case 3176
Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name
S.E. Thorpe
Department of Entomology, Auckland Museum, Private Bag 92016, Auckland, New Zealand (e-mail: sthorpe@akmuseum.org.nz)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the long and universal usage of the name Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 for a well-known spider beetle (family ANOBIIDAE, Subfamily PTININAE) of significant economic importance. Boieldieu pro- posed the name as a replacement for the junior primary homonym Ptinus pilosus White, 1846 (a dorcatomine anobiid from New Zealand) with which he had misidentified his new taxon, but it is proposed that, in accord with both taxonomic reality and usage, P. tectus should be deemed to be the name of a then new nominal species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; ANOBIIDAE; — PTININAE; DORCATOMINAE; Ptinus tectus; spider beetles.
1. The nominal species Ptinus pilosus White, 1846 (p. 8) was described from material collected in New Zealand. The name is an invalid junior primary homonym of Ptinus pilosus Miiller, 1821. Hinton (1941, p. 358) pointed out that White’s species belongs to the subfamily DoRCATOMINAE, not the priNINAE. The combination Dorcatoma pilosa (White, 1846) has been used recently by Kuschel (1990, p. 54), who was apparently unaware that the specific name was a junior primary homonym and therefore invalid.
2. Boieldieu (1856, p. 652) described-a species from Van Diemen’s Land under the heading ‘P¢[inus] tectus, Mihi’. The species which he actually described is a well-known spider beetle of significant economic importance which has become universally known by that name. Recent major works which have used the name Ptinus tectus Boieldieu include Lawrence (1991), Lawrence & Britton (1994), and Lawrence et al. (2000). Lawrence (1991, p. 444) stated ‘the best known ptinids are those which have become pests of stored products and have been spread worldwide by human transport. Examples are . . . and P[{tinus] tectus Boieldieu’. Other authors who have recently used the name include Archibald & Chalmers (1983), Waller (1984), Booth, Cox & Madge (1990), Vavra (1993), Borowski (1996), Klimaszewski & Watt (1997) and Philips (2000); a list of further references is held by the Commission Secretariat. When he established Ptinus tectus, Boieldieu (1856, p. 652) listed Prinus pilosus White, 1846 as a synonym and stated “J'ai éte le nom de cette espéce, car celui qui lui a été donne d’abord appartenait déja a une espéce décrite par Miiller’. It is evident that Boieldieu proposed his name Prinus tectus expressly as a replacement (a nomen novum) for P. pilosus White, 1846, wrongly believing that White’s species was the same as the one described by himself.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 25
This means that the name Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 formally applies to White’s dorcatomine species (Article 72.7 of the Code), and not to the taxon for which it has always been used.
3. Hinton (1941, p. 358) pointed out the problem, and attempted to solve it by claiming that Boieldieu (1856) had effectively proposed two homonymous names, one of them, Ptinus tectus (a), for the new species that Boieldieu was dealing with (i.e. the well-known ptinine), the other, Ptinus tectus (b), a replacement for Prinus pilosus White, 1846. He then claimed that Ptinus tectus Boieldieu (a) had place priority, and was therefore the valid name for the ptinine. He stated (p. 359) that ‘therefore P. tectus (b), over which P. tectus (a) has place priority, must be renamed again. I herewith propose the name Dorcatoma pilosellus, nom. nov. = Ptinus pilosellus’. He evidently intended D. pilosellus (recte pilosella) to be a replacement name for Ptinus pilosus White, 1846, nec Miller, 1821. However, Hinton’s proposed solution is not in accordance with the Code. Furthermore, D. pilosella Hinton, 1941 is itself a junior primary homonym (of Dorcatoma pilosella Reitter, 1901), and, following the subjective synonymy set out in Hudson (1934, p. 198, footnote), the valid name for the dorcatomine species is oblonga Broun, 1880, as published in the binomen Dorcatoma oblonga.
4. In order to conserve the long and universal usage of Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856, I propose that it be treated as the name of a then new nominal taxon and not as a replacement name for the dorcatomine species P. pilosus White, 1846.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that fectus Boieldieu, 1856, as published in the binomen Ptinus tectus, is to be treated as the specific name of a then new nominal species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tectus Boieldieu, 1856, as published in the binomen Ptinus tectus and as ruled in (1) above to be treated as the name of a then new nominal species.
References
Archibald, R.D. & Chalmers, I. 1983. Stored product Coleoptera in New Zealand. New Zealand entomologist, 7: 371-397.
Boieldieu, A. 1856. Monographie des Ptiniores. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)4: 629-686.
Booth, G.R., Cox, M.L. & Madge, R.B. 1990. ITE guides to insects of importance to man. 3. Coleoptera. vi, 384 pp. CAB International, Cambridge University Press.
Borowski, J. 1996. Beetles — Coleoptera. Spider beetles — Ptinidae. Polskie Towarzystwo Entomologiczne klucze do Oznaczania Owadow Polskie, 149: 1-45. [In Polish.]
Hinton, H.E. 1941. The Ptinidae of economic importance. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 31: 331-381.
Hudson, G.V. 1934. New Zealand beetles and their larvae. 236 pp. Ferguson & Osborn, Wellington.
Klimaszewski, J. & Watt, J.C. 1997. Coleoptera: family-group review and keys to identifi- cation. Fauna of New Zealand, 37: 1-199.
Kuschel, G. 1990. Beetles in a suburban environment: a New Zealand case study. Plant Protection Report, no. 3. 118 pp. DSIR, Auckland.
Lawrence, J.F. 1991. Ptinidae (Bostrichoidea) (including Gnostidae, Ectrephidae). Pp. 444-445 in Stehr, F.W. (Ed.), Immature Insects, vol. 2. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Lawrence, J.F. & Britton, E.B. 1994. Australian Beetles. 192 pp. Melbourne University Press, Victoria.
Lawrence, J.F., Hastings, A.M., Dallwitz, M.J., Paine, T.A. & Zurcher, E.J. 2000. Beetles of the World: A key and information system for families and subfamilies. CD ROM Version 1.0 for MS-Windows. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Philips, T.K. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of the New World Ptininae (Coleoptera: Bostrichoidea). Systematic Entomology, 25: 235-262.
Reitter, E. 1901. Analytische Ubersicht der palaearktischen Gattungen und Arten der Coleopteren-Familien: Byrrhidae (Anobiidae) und Cioidae. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereins in Briinn, 40: 1—64.
Vavra, J. 1993. New species of beetles (Coleoptera) for the territory of Slovakia. Klapalekiana, 29: 61-62. [In Czech.]
Waller, J.B. 1984. Stored product pests. Pp. 169-184 in Scott, R.R. (Ed.), New Zealand pest and beneficial insects. 383 pp. Lincoln University College of Agriculture, Canterbury, New Zealand.
White, A. 1846. Insects of New Zealand. Pp. 1-23 in Richardson, J. & Grey, J.E. (Eds.), The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Erebus & Terror, . . . Longman, Green, London.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 27
Case 3201
Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (currently Pentodon bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name
Frank-Thorsten Krell
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: F.Krell@nhm.ac.uk)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (SCARABAEIDAE, DYNASTINAE), Which is a junior primary homonym of S. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 (SCARABAEIDAE, RUTELINAE). Despite the homonymy both specific names have been used since publication and are currently in use; they have never been treated as congeneric and neither has been included in the original genus since 1798. The name Pentodon bidens punctatus (Villers) refers to the west and central Mediterranean subspecies of a common Palaearctic rhinoceros beetle; Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus) refers to a common chafer occurring in the eastern part of the U.S.A. and southern Ontario.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; DYNASTINAE; RUTELINAE; Pentodon bidens punctatus; Pelidnota punctata; rhinoceros beetles; chafers; Mediterranean; eastern North America.
1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 350) described Scarabaeus punctatus from ‘India’. In 1775 Fabricius (p. 33) transferred the species (from America’) to his new genus Melolontha. Later Latreille (1802, p. 152) placed it in his new genus Rutela, and finally MacLeay (1819, p. 158) established the genus Pelidnota for the species and this classification has been maintained. The specific name has been continuously treated as valid since its first publication. The identity of the species is unequivocal because Linnaeus (1764, p. 23) subsequently described it in detail and there is a specimen in the collection of the Zoological Museum, Uppsala which has been considered to be an original specimen (see Landin, 1956, p. 11); Wallin (1994, p. 43) incorrectly recorded that Landin (1956) had designated this specimen as the lectotype. The type locality (‘India’), given as a locality for the species by Linnaeus in all his publications, was that indicated for other American species (see Landin, 1956). The name Pelidnota punctata refers to a well known chafer, called the spotted grape beetle, from the eastern U.S.A. and southern Ontario, Canada, included in the subfamily RUTELINAE (see Hardy, 1975 and Arnett, 2000). It has occasionally been reported to be a pest (Hayes, 1925, p. 90)
2. Villers (1789, p. 40, pl. 1, fig. 3) described Scarabaeus punctatus from ‘Occitania circa Nemausum’ (Nimes in southern France). In 1798 Fabricius (p. 21) transferred the species to Geotrupes Latreille, 1796. Hope (1837, p. 92) designated S. punctatus Villers as the type species of his new genus Pentodon (SCARABAEIDAE, DYNASTINAE), where it has remained. No type specimens are known. Endrddi (1969, p. 166)
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
supposed them to be in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Lyon but there are no Pentodon specimens amongst the old collections in this museum; Villers’ collection is most probably destroyed (J. Clary and H. Labrique, in litt., 2000). The specific name punctatus Villers has been treated as valid since its publication (see the recent works of El-Hariri, 1968; Georghiou, 1977; and Peez & Kahlen, 1977; a list of 12 earlier publications is held by the Commission Secretariat). Since Endrédi’s (1967) revision of Pentodon, P. punctatus has generally been treated as a geographic subspecies of Pentodon bidens (Pallas, 1771) (see, for example, Endrédi, 1985; Baraud, 1992; and Carpaneto & Piattella, 1995).
3. The name Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 has unused junior synonyms. S. punctulatus Rossius, 1790 (p. 9) has not been used as valid since the early 19th century and is a junior homonym of S. punctulatus Gmelin, 1788. The synonym Pentodon castaneus Mulsant, 1842 (p. 384), described as a variety of P. punctatus Villers, has never been treated as a valid name; the original author himself neglected it in the second edition of his monograph of French scarab beetles (Mulsant & Rey, 1871, p. 242).
4. As noted in paras. 1 and 2 above, the names Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus, 1758) and Pentodon bidens punctatus (Villers, 1789) are both currently in use for well-known and common taxa. Pelidnota punctata had already been removed (in 1775) from Scarabaeus before S. punctatus Villers was described. The latter species was removed from Scarabaeus in 1798. Thus, the species have never been treated as congeneric and neither has been included in the original genus since 1798. The two species are currently placed in different subfamilies, which are sometimes treated as families. Replacement of the well known name Pentodon punctatus (Villers) by the unused junior synonym Pentodon castaneus Mulsant, 1842 (see para. 3 above) would cause considerable and unnecessary confusion and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.5 of the Code.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name punctatus Villers, 1789,
as published in the binomen Scarabaeus punctatus, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819 (type species by monotypy Scarabaeus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758); (b) Pentodon Hope, 1837 (type species by original designation by Hope (1837) Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus punctatus (specific name of the type species of Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819); (b) punctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus punctatus (specific name of the type species of Pentodon Hope, 1837) (not invalid by the ruling in (1) above).
References
Arnett, R.H. 2000. A handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico. xix, 1003 pp. CRC, Boca Raton.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 29
Baraud, J. 1992. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea d'Europe. Faune de France et Régions Limitrophes, 78: 1-856.
Carpaneto, G.M. & Piattella, E. 1995. Coleoptera Polyphaga V (Lucanoidea, Scarabaeoidea). In Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle Specie della Fauna Italiana, 50: 1-18.
El-Hariri, G. 1968. A list of recorded Syrian insects and Acari. 160 pp. Aleppo.
Endrédi, S. 1967. Die Rassenkreise der Gattung Pentodon (Col., Dynastinae). Rovartani K@ézlemények, (Series Nova), 20: 167-195.
_ Endrédi, S. 1969. Monographie der Dynastinae. 4. Tribus: Pentodontini (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). Entomologische Abhandlungen, Staatlichen Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 37: 147-208.
Endrédi, S. 1985. The Dynastinae of the world. Series Entomologica, 28: 1-800.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae . . . 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. 572 pp. Hafniae.
Georghiou, G.P. 1977. The insects and mites of Cyprus. 347 pp. Benaki Phytopathological Institute Kiphissia, Athens.
Gmelin, J.F. 1788. Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4. Lipsiae.
Hardy, A.R. 1975. A revision of the genus Pelidnota of America north of Panama (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae; Rutelinae). University of California Publications in Entomology, 78: \-43.
Hayes, W.P. 1925. A comparative study of the history of certain phytophagous scarabaeid beetles. Technical Bulletin, Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State Agricultural College, 16: 1-146.
Hope, F.W. 1837. The Coleopterist’s manual, containing the Lamellicorn insects of Linneus and Fabricius. 123 pp., 3 pls. Bohn, London.
Landin, B.-O. 1956. The Linnean species of Lamellicornia described in Systema Naturae, Ed.10 (1758). (Col.). Entomologisk Tidskrift, 77: 1-18.
Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 3. 468 pp. Dufart, Paris.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1764. Musewmn S:ae R:ae M-tis Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae. 116 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.
MacLeay, W.S. 1819. Horae entomologicae: or essays on the annulose animals, vol. 1, part 1. Pp. 1-160. Bagster, London.
Mulsant, E. 1842. Histoire naturelle des coléoptéres de France. Lamellicornes. 623 pp. Maison, Paris.
Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1871. [Histoire naturelle des coléoptéres de France.] Tribus des Lamellicornes. Annales de la Société d'Agriculture, Histoire Naturelle et Arts Utils de Lyon, (4)3: 155-530.
Peez, A. von & Kahlen, M. 1977. Die Kafer von Siidtirol. Faunistisches Verzeichnis der aus der Provinz Bozen bisher bekannt gewordenen Koleopteren. 525 pp. Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck.
Rossius, P. 1790. Fauna Etrusca sistens Insecta quae in provinciis Florentina et Pisana praesertim collegit, part 1. Masi, Liburni.
Villers, C. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, fauna Suecicae. . . , vol. 1. xvi, 766, 8 pp. Piestre & Delamolliere, Luguduni.
Wallin, L. 1994. Catalogue of type specimens. 4 (Linnaean specimens), Ed. 3. 128 pp. Uppsala University Zoological Museum, Uppsala.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Case 3188
Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name
Mikhail V. Kozlov
Section of Ecology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland (e-mail: mikoz@utu.fi)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Nemophora violella (Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851) for a common and widely distributed European bisexual fairy moth (family ADELIDAE) which is associated with several Gentiana species. The name is threatened by the senior synonym Tinea cupriacella Hiibner, 1819 which (although originally based on a male specimen of what has long been called N. violella) for almost 150 years has been frequently used for another (apparently parthenogenetic) species associated with Scabiosa, Dipsacus, Succisa and Sedum. The latter species has at present no valid name. However, there has been no consistency in the use of the specific name cupriacella and its suppression 1s proposed both to conserve N. violella and because the name is a source of confusion.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; ADELIDAE; Nemophora; Nemophora violella; Nemophora cupriacella; fairy moths; Europe.
1. Hiibner (1819, pl. 67, fig. 445) illustrated a male moth under the name of Tinea cupriacella. The name is available under Article 12.2.7 of the Code. The dates of publication of the parts of Htibner’s work were set out by Hemming (1937; see particularly p. 214, para. 240 and p. 301 for the date of pl. 67). Hiibner’s specimen undoubtedly belongs to a bisexual species whose larvae feed on Gentiana, which for almost 150 years has been known as Nemophora violella (Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851, p. 19, published in the combination Nemotois violellus).There was no description of the latter species in Stainton’s work but the name was made available by reference to Herrich-Schaeffer’s illustrations labelled ‘viole/lus’ (1850, pl. 33, fig. 230, male; fig. 231, female); Herrich-Schaeffer had also illustrated ‘cupriacellus’ (1850, pl. 31, fig. 220, female; 1851, pl. 37, fig. 252, male). Herrich-Schaeffer’s plates carry only specific, and not binominal, names and hence did not make violellus available in 1850; the descriptive text (p. 97) for both Nemotois violellus and N. cupriacellus did not appear until 1854 (see Hemming, 1937, p. 588 for the publication dates of vol. 5 of Herrich-Schaeffer’s work). Since both the specific name and its application to a taxon were due to Herrich-Schaeffer he is the author (Article 50.1.1 of the Code), but it only became available when combined with Nemotois in Stainton’s publication. The specific name violella has lately been spelled as viole/lus when in combination with Nemophora, but violella is correct under Article 31.2.
2. Examination of more than 130 publications, including revisions, faunistic lists and biological notes, shows that the name Nemophora cupriacella has been used
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 31
inconsistently. Several authors have applied it to an apparently parthenogenetic (female only) species of European fairy moth associated with Scabiosa, Dipsacus, Succisa and Sedum, and this use of the name has resulted in considerable confusion in morphological descriptions and in geographical records of the two distinct species involved. Other authors have provided confusing descriptions of male external characters and figured male genitalia which in fact belong to several species.
3. Zeller (1853) confused the parthenogenetic and bisexual species, as can be seen from his note (p. 60) on the absence of males from several localities, and he later (1878, p. 121) suspected the synonymy of the specific names of Nemophora cupriacella and N. violella. Frey (1856, p. 44) published the description of a male under the name cupriacella, but mentioned that specimens from Switzerland were all females. Several authors have stated that males of N. cupriacella were unknown (see Wocke, 1874, p. 47; Sorhagen, 1886, pp. 155-156; Disqué, 1901, p. 201; Héfner, 1918, pp. 218-219; Waters, 1929, p. 66; Suomalainen, 1978, p. 65), despite the fact that the nominal species was based by Hiibner on a male. However, description of male external features were published by Heinemann (1877, p. 83), Snellen (1882, p. 498), Meyrick (1895, pp. 796-797), Spuler (1910, p. 468), Jacobs (1949, p. 216, pl. 13, fig. 25) and Heath & Pelham-Clinton (1976, p. 294, pl. 13, fig. 7a, which is an incorrectly identified specimen of N. cuprella (Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775)). The male genitalia of ‘N. cupriacella’ figured by Pierce & Metcalfe (1935, p. 109, pl. 66) are those of an incorrectly determined specimen of N. fasciella (Fabricius, 1775); those figured by Kuppers (1980, p. 333), who claimed the existence of intermediate forms linking N. cupriacella and N. violella, are identical to N. violella (figured on p. 337). Especially confusing is the work by Zaguljaev (1978), who published clearly different figures of male genitalia for N. violella (p. 100, which corresponds to the current understanding of this species) and N. cupriacella (p. 99, which is probably an incorrectly determined specimen of N. fasciella). Kovacs & Kovacs (1999) published a figure of male genitalia for N. cupriacella, based most probably on an incorrectly identified male of N. istrianella (Stainton, 1851). Some authors have indicated that they could not confidently discriminate between N. cupriacella and N. violella (see Zeller, 1878, p. 121 and Sterneck & Zimmermann, 1933, p. 149).
4. The only feature which has been used consistently to distinguish between the bisexual N. violella and the parthenogenetic species which has been referred to as Nemophora cupriacella is the larval host plants: the first species feeds on Gentiana whereas the second feeds on Scabiosa, Dipsacus, Succisa and Sedum. However, this consistency has resulted simply from references to earlier works, rather than from the use of reared material, and has not helped authors to correctly identify N. cupriacella. For example, none of 56 specimens (including 41 males) which Kovacs & Kovacs (1999, p. 27) investigated for their revision was reared from a larva; these authors mentioned the host plant of “N. cupriacella (in the sense of the parthenogenetic species) but combined this information with a description of male characters of another species (probably N. istrianella).
5. In contrast to the inconsistent use of the name Nemophora cupriacella, there has been long-standing consistency in the use of the younger name N. viole/la for the bisexual species. None of the authors noted in para. 3 above misidentified N. violella.
6. I propose that the specific name of Nemophora cupriacella (Hiibner, 1819), a senior synonym of N. violella (Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851), be suppressed.
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
An alternative would be to propose the designation of a neotype for N. cupriacella in the sense of the parthenogenetic species, but this would be inappropriate because the name was not only based on a bisexual species but has been applied to several taxa. The parthenogenetic species will require a new name and formal description (M.V. Kozlov, in prep.) because at present no valid name exists for it.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name cupriacella Hubner, 1819, as published in the binomen Tinea cupriacella, 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 violel/is Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851, as published in the binomen Nemotois violellus;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name cupriacella Hiibner, 1819, as published in the binomen Tinea cupriacella and as suppressed in (1) above.
References Z
Disqué, H. 1901. Verzeichniss der in der Umgegend von Speyer vorkommenden Klein- schmetterlinge. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift ‘Iris’, 14: 197-228.
Frey, H. 1856. Die Tineen und Pterophoren der Schweiz. 430 pp. Ziirich.
Heath, J. & Pelham-Clinton, E.C. 1976. Incurvariidae. Pp. 277-300 in Heath, J. (Ed.), The moths and butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 1. Oxford.
Heinemann, H. 1877. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Abteilung 2 (Klein- schmetterlinge), Band. 2 (Die Motten und Federmotten). 825 pp. Braunschweig.
Hemming, F. 1937. Hiibner. A bibliographical and systematic account of the entomological works of Jacob Hiibner, vol. 1. xxxiv, 605 pp. Royal Entomological Society of London, London.
Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1850, 1851, 1854. Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, Band 5 (Die Schaben und Federmotten). Tineides. Pls. 24-36 (1850); pl. 37 (1851): pp. 73-224 (1854). Regensburg.
H6fner, G. 1918. Die Schmetterlinge Karntens. HI. Jahrbuch des naturhistorischen Lands- museums von Kdrnten, 29: 121—238.
Hiibner, J. 1819. Lepidoptera VIII. Tineaes Plate 67. Sammlung Europdischer Schmetterlinge. Augsburg.
Jacobs, S.N.A. 1949. The British Lamproniidae and Adelidae. Proceedings and Transactions of the South London Entomological and Natural History Society, 1947-48: 209-219.
Kovacs, Z. & Kovacs, S. 1999. Familia Adelidae (Lepidoptera) in Romania. Buletinul de Informatii al Societtii Lepid. din Romania, 10: 9-66.
Kiippers, P.V. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Taxonomie und Phylogenie der Westpaldarktischen Adelinae (Lepidoptera: Adelidae). 497 pp. Wahl, Karlsruhe.
Meyrick, E. 1895. 4 handbook of British Lepidoptera. 843 pp. London.
Pierce, F.N. & Metcalfe, J.W. 1935. The genitalia of the Tineid families of the Lepidoptera of the British Islands. 116 pp., 68 pls.Warmington.
Snellen, P. 1882. De Vlinders van Nederland, vol. 2. 1196 pp. Leiden.
Sorhagen, L. 1886. Die Kleinschmetterlinge der Mark Brandenburg und einiger angrenzenden Landschaften. 368 pp. Berlin.
Spuler, A. 1910. Die Schmetterlinge Europas, Band 2. 523 pp. Stuttgart.
Stainton, H.T. 1851. A catalogue of the Tineidae obtained from Herr Joseph Mann, of Vienna, in 1849. Appendix to Systematic Catalogue of the British Tineidae and Pterophoridae. Pp. 15-28. London. ;
Sterneck, J. & Zimmermann, F. 1933. Prodromus der Schmetterlingsfauna Bohmens. WU. Thiel: (Microlepidoptera). 152 pp. Karlsbad.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 33
Suomalainen, E. 1978. Two new cases of parthenogenesis in moths. Nota Lepidopterologica, 1(2): 65-68.
Waters, E.G.R. 1929 A list of the Micro-Lepidoptera of the Oxford district. 67 pp. Oxford.
Wocke, M.F. 1874. Verzeichniss der Falter Schlesiens. Zeitschrift fiir Entomologie, Breslau, (N.F.)4: 1-108.
Zaguljaev, A.K. 1978. Fam. Adelidae — long-horn moths. Pp. 92-112 in Medvedev, GS. (Ed.), Key for determination of insects of the European part of the USSR, vol. 4 (Lepidoptera), part 1. Leningrad. [In Russian.]
Zeller, P. 1853. Sieben Tineaceen — Gattungen. Linnaea Entomologica, 8: 1-87.
Zeller, P. 1878. Beitrag zur Lepidopteren — Fauna der Ober-Albula in Graubiinden. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 39: 81-165.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Case 3184
Tetrapedia Klug, 1810, T. diversipes Klug, 1819 and Exomalopsis Spinola, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenuptera): proposed conservation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for 7. diversipes
Charles D. Michener
Division of Entomology (Snow Entomology Collection), Natural History Museum and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A. (e-mail: michener@ku.edu)
Jesus S. Moure
Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Parana, Caixa Postal 19020, 81531—970 Curitiba, Paranda, Brazil
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the sense in which the anthophorine bee generic names Tetrapedia Klug, 1810 and Exomalopsis Spinola, 1853 have been used for more than a century; both are the basis of tribal names. The type species of Tetrapedia is T. diversipes Klug, 1810; a misidentification of this species by Smith (1854) and Friese (1899) was not recognized by any subsequent author until Moure (2000). The only existing type specimen belongs to Exomalopsis, but transfer of the name Tetrapedia to the genus always called Exomalopsis and disappearance of the latter name would cause great confusion. It is proposed that a neotype for 7. diversipes should be designated in accordance with Article 75.6 of the Code to conserve the universal understanding of this nominal species and of the genera and tribes mentioned above.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; APIDAE; TETRAPEDIINI; EXOMALOPSINI; Tetrapedia; Tetrapedia diversipes; Exomalopsis; bees; Brazil.
1. The genus Tetrapedia and the single nominal species T. diversipes were described by Klug (1810) on the basis of specimens from Brazil. The description of the genus (pp. 33-35) is unusually detailed, that of the species (pp. 35-36) is also detailed but limited largely to color of the integument and hair. The illustrations (pl. 1) consist of a colored habitus figure and line drawings of the middle leg, hind leg, labium and maxilla.
2. Smith (1854, pl. 7, fig. 10) illustrated a species purporting to be Tetrapedia diversipes. His illustration shows three subequal submarginal cells, but in Klug’s (1810) description and illustration (and in the genus Exomalopsis Spinola, 1853, p. 89) the first and third submarginal cells are longer than the second. Moreover, in Smith’s illustration the hind tibial spur is hidden; presumably there was only one short spur, not two long spurs as in Klug’s illustration. Details im the illustration by Smith (1854) make it obvious that he misidentified his specimen(s).
3. Friese’s (1899) monograph of Tetrapedia characterized *T. diversipes’ in Smith’s sense and clearly described features such as the hind basitarsal tooth of the male. This
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 35
concept of T. diversipes became accepted by subsequent authors, who evidently failed to examine Klug’s (1810) work; examples are Moure (1941), Michener & Moure (1957), Roig-Alsina & Michener (1993), Michener, McGinley & Danforth (1994) and Michener (2000). Others referred to the tibial spurs, ma'e posterior basitarsi, or other structures, showing clearly that they were concerned with Tetrapedia or T. diversipes in the sense of Smith (1854) and Friese (1899), and not in that of Klug (1810); such authors include Schrottky (1902), Ducke (1910, 1912), Michener (1944, 1954), Ayala (1988) and Moure (1995). The nest structure of Tetrapedia auctt. appears to be distinctive (Wille & Daly, 1958). Various faunal works also followed the classification of Michener & Moure (1957) and recognized Tetrapedia as characterized by those authors. No work before Moure (2000) recognized that 7. diversipes as described and illustrated by Klug (1810) and shown by his existing type specimen (see below) has slender paired hind tibial spurs and other features of Exomalopsis.
4. Klug’s description and figures show that he confused specimens of two genera (and tribes). The single original specimen now in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin (seen by both of us) is a specimen belonging to Exomalopsis (tribe EXOMALOPSINI) and has been described in detail by Moure (2000). The genus Exomalopsis is in need of revision, but according to Dr. Fernando A. Silveira of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais the specimen is probably E. collaris Friese, 1899 (of which E. vernoniae Schrottky, 1909 is a probable synonym). That Kiug’s habitus illustration of T. diversipes was based on an Exomalopsis species (and thus agrees with the existing type specimen) is clearly shown by the long middle basitarsus of the figure, as long as the tibia, a feature not found in the other similar genera. Klug’s drawings of detached legs and mouthparts, on the same plate as the habitus, are not based on Exomalopsis, and must have been based on material, now lost or not recognized, of a superficially similar large black species of Paratetrapedia Moure, 1942 (tribe TAPINOTASPIDINI); perhaps the specimen was dissected and subsequently discarded. In several characters the structure shown by Klug’s line drawings agrees with that of Paratetrapedia, not Exomalopsis.
5. Tetrapedia diversipes auctt., currently (and by definition) placed in the tribe TETRAPEDINI, 1S an entirely different insect from the existing type specimen (tribe EXOMALOPSINI), in spite of superficial similarity. Some generic or tribal characters of Klug’s exomalopsine specimen and habitus illustration are the following (contrasting characters of T. diversipes auctt. in parentheses): hind tibial spurs two (not one), hind and middle tibial spurs minutely pectinate or apparently simple (not short and coarsely pectinate), scopa dense and well shaped (not irregular and consisting of coarse, radiating hairs).
6. If steps are not taken to stabilize the name Tetrapedia diversipes in the sense understood since Smith (1854), or at least Friese (1899), a series of nomenclatural changes would result. Exomalopsis Spinola, 1853 would become replaced by Tetrapedia Klug, 1810. As a result of the transfer of the name Tetrapedia to the taxon now known as Exomalopsis, the genus now called Tetrapedia would have to be called Lagobata Smith, 1861, the next available synonym. The tribe now called EXOMALOPSINI would be called TETRAPEDIINI, and that now known by the latter name would require a new name. The approximate numbers of species involved, should such changes be made, are (using current terminology) 83 in Exomalopsis and 13 in Tetrapedia.
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
7. Moure (2000) proposed the new name Tetrapedia dentipes for T. diversipes auctt., but since the nominal species T. diversipes is (and has always been cited as) the type species of Tezrapedia this would not solve the problems mentioned above. We propose that a neotype should be designated in accordance with Article 75.6 of the Code to define the nominal species T. diversipes in the sense that it has been known for more than a century. The proposed neotype is a male (because the best specific characters are in that sex) from Nova Teutonia, Santa Catarina, Brazil, collected in October 1951 by L.E. Plaumann; it will be deposited in the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin. The specimen agrees with material identified as T. diversipes Klug, 1810 in various museums, and specifically with the photograph (under the name T. dentipes) in Moure (2000) which shows the large hind basitarsal tooth.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of name-bearing type for the nominal species Tetrapedia diversipes Klug, 1810 and to designate the specimen proposed in para. 7 above as the neotype;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Tetrapedia Klug, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Tetrapedia diversipes Klug, 1810; (b) Exomalopsis Spinola, 1853 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Smith (1854) Exomalopsis auropilosa Spinola, 1853;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names:
(a) diversipes Klug, 1810, as published in the binomen Tetrapedia diversipes and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of Tetrapedia Klug, 1810);
(b) auropilosa Spinola, 1853, as published in the binomen Exomalopsis auro- pilosa (specific name of the type species of Exomalopsis Spinola, 1853).
References
Ayala, R. 1988. Abejas silvestres (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) de Chamela, Jalisco, México. Folia Entomologica Mexicana, 77: 395-493.
Ducke, A. 1910. Contribution a la connaissance de la faune hymenoptérologique du nord-est du Brésil (fin). Revue d’Entomologie (Caen), 28: 97-122.
Ducke, A. 1912. Die natiirlichen Bienengenera Siidamerikas. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere, 34: 51-116.
Friese, H. 1899. Monographie der Bienengattungen Exomalopsis, Ptilothrix, Melitoma und Tetrapedia. Annalen des K. K. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, 14: 247-304.
Klug, F. 1810. Einige neue Piezatengattungen. Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, Magazin fiir neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesammten Naturkunde, 4: 31-45.
Michener, C.D. 1944. Comparative external morphology, phylogeny and a classification of the
bees. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 82: 151-326.
Michener, C.D. 1954. Bees of Panama. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
104: 1-176.
Michener, C.D. 2000. The bees of the world. xiv, 913 pp. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.
Michener, C.D., McGinley, R.J. & Danforth, B.N. 1994. The bee genera of North and Central
America. viii, 209 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Michener, C.D. & Moure, J.S. 1957. A study of the classification of the more primitive non-parasitic anthophorine bees. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 112: 395-452.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 37
Moure, J.S. 1941. Notas sobre abelhas do grupo Tetrapedia Klug. Revista de Entomologia (Rio de Janeiro), 12: 515-521.
Moure, J.S. 1995. Redescricao de alguns exemplars tipos de espécies neotropicais de Tetrapedia Klug, descritos por Friese em 1899 (Apoidea, Anthophoridae), 1. Espécies pertencentes a Tetrapedia (s. str.). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 12: 915-926.
Moure, J.S. 2000. Nota sobre 0 tipo de Tetrapedia diversipes Klug, 1810. Boletim do Museu
Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Zoologia, 16: 83-89.
Roig-Alsina, A. & Michener, C.D. 1993. Studies of the phylogeny and classification of long-tongued bees. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 55: 124-162.
Schrottky, C. 1902. Ensaio sobre as abelhas solitarias do Brasil. Revista Museu Paulista, 5: 330-613.
Smith, F. 1854. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, part 2 (pp. 199-465). British Museum, London.
Smith, F. 1861. Descriptions of new genera and species of exotic Hymenoptera. Journal of Entomology (London), 1: 146-155.
Spinola, M. 1853. Compte rendu des hyménoptéres inédits provenants du voyage ento- mologique de M. Ghiliani dans le Para en 1846. Memoire della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, (2)13: 19-94.
Wille, A. & Daly, H.V. 1958. Pp. 74-76 in Michener, C.D., Observations on the ethology and nest structure of neotropical anthophorine bees. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 39: 69-96.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Comments on the establishment of the new name LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) as a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 (Case 3120a; see BZN 58: 280-281)
(1) Wilson R. Louren¢o
Laboratoire de Zoologie, Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
I should like to express my support for the establishment by Fet & Bechly of the new scorpion family name LIOCHELIDAE as a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879. This avoids any need for the undesirable emendment of the very widely used damselfly name ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (Odonata) to avoid homonymy.
(2) Frantisek Kovarik P.O. Box 27, CZ-145 01 Praha 45, Czech Republic
I fully agree with the revised proposal of Fet & Bechly, that is the introduction of the scorpion name LIOCHELIDAE, which is based on the valid generic name Liocheles, as a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879.
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout in Fairmaire, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3147; see BZN 58: 105-107, 305)
G.N. Foster The Balfour-Browne Club, 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ, Scotland
I write in support of Hans Fery’s proposal that the name Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout, 1859 be conserved by the suppression of H. neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1854. Dr Fery is correct in stating that the name discretus has been in continuous use for over a century, and that neuter has not been used except by Adam (1996).
One purpose of the Code is to achieve stability, and I believe that. coleopterists have travelled a long way in the last decade in achieving an agreed and Code- compliant European checklist. This is essential if we are to accomplish some ecological and wildlife objectives without bewildering policy makers and would-be coleopterists by introducing a plethora of name changes. Changes are, indeed, taking place on the basis of improved knowledge of the evolution of the group, as revealed by DNA markers. The danger is that these important changes, which are potentially confusing in themselves, will be brought into disrepute by being associated with some rather mischievous changes created by a worker not in touch with the overriding needs for nomenclatural stability and systematic rigour.
Comments on the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 3048; see BZN 56: 31-33; 57: 46-48; 58: 305-306)
(1) David L. Wagner
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, U-Box 43, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043, U.S.A.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 39
I am writing in support of Dr Alma Solis’s application for the conservation of the subfamily name NYMPHULINAE. The subfamily is a well known group of micro- lepidoptera and the name has universal meaning among New World lepidopterists. I have not heard mention of the name ACENTROPINAE in my 20 years as a professional lepidopterist.
The name NYMPHULINAE has been in universal use on the American continent, and every collection in North America has been curated using it. Obviously there is much literature, many databases and collection inventories that would be affected by a change of name. Given the greater emphasis on stability in the new Code (4th Edition) there is ample justification to conserve the junior name.
(2) K. Maes
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museums of Kenya, Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya
Although the name ACENTROPINAE is older than NYMPHULINAE, the latter has been widely in use. David Agassiz has already stated (BZN 58: 306) that the name NYMPHULINAE has been widely used in the Americas, Asia and Australasia. At present I am finalizing a checklist of the CRAMBIDAE of the Afrotropical region. There is no publication dealing with the Afrotropical fauna in which the name ACENTROPINAE iS used and I am sure that a change to this name would cause confusion among non-taxonomists, an argument that is correctly put forward by Prof D. Janzen (comment (4) below).
As a taxonomist I feel that we should provide stability in nomenclature, something that can easily be maintained in this case by a simple ruling. I therefore support Dr Solis’s application for the conservation of the family-group name NYMPHULINAE by giving it precedence over ACENTROPINAE.
(3) John B. Heppner
Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box 147100, Gainesville, Florida 32614, U.S.A. and Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.
I completely agree with the proposal to conserve the family-group name NYMPHULINAE. Comments by other supporters, noting that only Drs Speidel and Mey have recently used the name ACENTROPINAE, clearly point out that general usage throughout the world and over many years is with the name NYMPHULINAE. The new Code (1999) clearly specifies that long-used family-group names should not be overturned for older names that have not been in prevailing use.
There is a fashion, particularly among specialists in Europe, to find long unused names and to adopt them because they have ‘priority’. The name NYMPHULINAE has been in use since before 1900 and all our recent literature (except for papers by Speidel and Mey) uses this name. Thus, the Commission should ratify usage and conserve the name NYMPHULINAE.
(4) Daniel H. Janzen
Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
A decision to abandon the name NyMPHULINAE 1n favor of ACENTROPINAE, no matter how ‘correct’ in terms of date priority, would be tragic for the user community, of which I am one. I am an ecologist, conservationist and biodiversity biologist who works primarily in Costa Rica. The nymphulines are common, prominent and well known moths. I can name more than 75 biologists in Costa Rica who can identify the group by sight and know them as nymphulines, people who have called them that ever since I began to teach them that name in the late 1970s. This was then reinforced by the efforts made by Alma Solis and Jenny Phillips in the 1990s to sort out the taxonomy of the group in Costa Rica to species level and to produce an inventory.
Entomologists and entomologically-related people in Brazil, Venezuela, Panama, Guatemala and Mexico are also fully aware of the group. I feel sure that, even if a name change were adopted, a whole generation of people involved with the moths as living animals will go on calling them nymphulines, both in conversation and in literature.
(5) Bernard Landry Muséum ad histoire naturelle de Genéve, C.P. 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland
I support the proposal to give precedence to the name NYMPHULINAE Over ACENTROPINAE. The reason of priority given by Speidel and Mey in their comment (BZN 57: 46-48) opposing this application is valid. However, in view of the strong discrepancy in numbers of genera and species in the NYMPHULINAE before they were synonymized with the ACENTROPINAE (by inclusion of the single species Acentria ephemerella Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775), I believe that the name NyMPHULINAE should take precedence.
Now that we are faced with a choice of names, that which is least damaging with regard to the published works relating to this group, especially in fields outside taxonomy, should prevail. By making the application Dr. Solis has taken a legitimate step to enhance the stability and ease of use of the classification.
Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa) i
(Case 3160; see BZN 58: 215-219)
(1) Nils Spjeldnaes
Department of Geology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
I have discussed at length with the authors the nomenclatural problems involved in this submission about Diplotrypa Nicholson, 1879, but we do not agree; I therefore submit my differing views cn the subject.
1. The genus Diplotrypa was established (as a subgenus of Monticulipora) by Nicholson (1879). He gave a more detailed description in (1881). He made Favosites petropolitana Pander (1830) the type species; his description is not based on topotype material, but on material from the Upper Ordovician of Sweden, given to him by Professor G. Lindstrom. As indicated by the name, the original type material (which
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 41
is now lost) of petropolitana came from the St Petersburg area in Russia. Dybowski (1877) redescribed petropolitana Pander based on topotype material. His version of the species is entirely different from that of Nicholson. In modern terminology, they do not even belong in the same suborder.
2. Nicholson in his 1881 book refused to accept the validity of Dybowski’s
-redescription of Favosites petropolitana, even though he knew about both Steinmann’s criticism (1881, p. 22) and the Rules (then of palaeontological nomenclature).
3. Nicholson’s books (1879, 1881) had represented a great progress in the methodology in describing Early Palaeozoic bryozoans, and the result was that the dominating American scientists in the field (Ulrich and Bassler) accepted not only his methods but also his questionable nomenclature.
4. In Europe Dybowski’s solution was partly accepted, and a species called petropolitana was referred to Diplotrypa (following Nicholson) and Dianulites (as suggested by Dybowsk1).
5. The issue is complicated by the fact that Nicholson earlier (1876, p. 86, pl. V, fig. 6) and in the second edition of his Manual of Palaeontology (1879, vol. 1, p. 202, fig. 90) described and illustrated (from thin sections) *“Chaetetes petropolitanus Pander’. In both cases the bryozoan is widely different from his Swedish material (in Nicholson 1879 and 1881), but evidently belonging to the genus Prasopora Nicholson & Etheridge (1877). None of these descriptions (and others where petropolitanus is mixed up with whiteavesi Nicholson 1881), are from topotype material.
6. The suggestion (first put forward by Bassler in 1911; see para. 6 of the application) to accept two petropolitana species — Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 and Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 — is, in my opinion not appropriate since it would accept Nicholson’s breach of the Rules, and would follow not the first, but the second (or third) of his versions of petropolitana.
7. Dybowski referred his taxon to the genus Dianulites Eichwald. The type species of this genus, D. fastigiatus, has recently been redescribed by Taylor & Wilson (1999). It is rather different from the widespread group of hemispherical bryozoans with the same microstructure as Dybowski’s version of petropolitana, which will lack a generic name if Nicholson’s version is accepted.
8. It should be noted that Dybowski’s methods were as advanced as Nicholson’s. They both used thin sections but Nicholson’s morphological terminology was later generally accepted. Dybowski’s opinion on petropolitana was probably the accepted one in the Baltic Region.
9. Lonsdale (in Murchison, 1845) described and figured Chaetetes petropolitanus from the St Petersburg Region. The figured thin section, preserved in The Natural History Museum, London, belongs to the same group, or perhaps even the same species, as that described by Dybowsk1.
10. If Diplotrypa is accepted with Nicholson’s 1879 and 1881 definition, based on the Swedish material, this will raise another nomenclatural problem. I have studied Nicholson’s original thin sections, together with extensive material of similar hemispherical bryozoans from the Balto-Scandic Region, and the types definitively belong in the family HALLOpoRIDAE. Hall (1851) named a genus Calopora but, because of homonymy, it was renamed Hallopora by Bassler (1911). Diplotrypa, if defined according to Nicholson (1879 and 1881), will have priority over both Hallopora and
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
a number of genera of Ordovician halloporids. Since Nicholson’s types — like many hemispherical bryozoans — lack most of the distinctive characters for determining both genus and species, the correct placement will depend on finding new and better preserved material. This may easily lead to rejection of Hallopora, one of the commonly used generic names of Ordovician halloporids.
11. In my opinion, the optimal solution will be to follow the Code strictly, accepting Dybowski’s (and Lonsdale’s) interpretation of petropolitana Pander, and reserving the name Dip/otrypa for this group. The material falling under Nicholson’s interpretation can easily be accommodated in the genus Panderpora Bassler, 1953, with the type species dybowskii Bassler, 1911, which in my opinion is a subjective synonym of Diplotrypa in the sense of Nicholson (1879).
Additional references
Hall, J. 1851. New Genera of Fossil Corals. American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)11: 398401.
Lonsdale, W. 1845. Description of some characteristic Palaeozoic corals from Russia. In Murchison, Verneuil & Keyserling, Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, 1: 591-634.
Nicholson, H.A. 1876. Notes on the Palaeozoic Corals of the State of Ohio. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)18: 85-95.
Nicholson, H.A. 1879. A manual of palaeontology, Ed. 2. 511, 531 pp. Blackwood, Edinburgh and London.
Nicholson, H.A. & Etheridge, R. 1877. On Prasopora grayae, a new genus and species of Silurian corals. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 388-392.
Steinmann, G. 1882. Referat von: Nicholson, H.A. 1881. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie, Mineralogie und Palaeontologie, 1882: 314-319.
Taylor, P.D. & Wilson, M.A. 1999. Dianulites Eichwald 1829: an unusual Ordovician bryozoan with a high-magnesium calcite skeleton. Journal of Paleontology, 73: 38-48.
(2) Patrick N. Wyse Jackson Department of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Caroline J. Buttler Z
Department of Geology, National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP, Wales, U.K.
Marcus M. Key, Jr.
Department of Geology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-2896, U.S.A.
We welcome this opportunity to comment on some of the points (above) made by Prof Nils Spjeldnaes who we feel has misunderstood the reason for our application in the first place.
In our application we have simply asked the Commission to set aside the authorship of the specific name petropolitana Pander, 1830, which had been used subsequently as the specific name for two very different bryozoan taxa in the genera Dianulites and Diplotrypa, and to conserve the names and authorship of these specific concepts which are in line with 20th century conceptual usage. This is particularly important given that Diplotrypa petropolitana, in the taxonomic sense of Nicholson
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 43
(1879), is the type species of Diplotrypa. As it is uncertain what species Pander (1830) originally described, our request has been made in order to avoid potential future confusion over the issue.
Below we address some of the comments made by Spjeldnaes which we feel require clarification:
In 1877 Dybowski in describing some hemispherical bryozoans from the Baltic region used the name Dianulites petropolitana (Pander, 1830) for one such taxon. He provided a good description based on internal and external features and illustrated the major characteristics of the taxon. It is asserted by Spjeldnaes that Dybowski had priority over the name petropolitana (Pander, 1830) by virtue of his revision and that Nicholson in 1879 when he erected the genus Diplotrypa chose to ignore this. There is no evidence to suggest that Nicholson knew of Dybowski’s publication when he published his book two years later. In any case, priority is not applicable in this case as Pander’s (1830) name was used by both authors for two quite distinct bryozoan taxa. Neither had any idea of the true attribution of Pander’s species as his descriptions are of external colony morphology only and none of the characteristic internal features were originally described or illustrated.
Subsequently Nicholson (1881) acknowledged Dybowski’s work but still regarded his 1879 concept of petropolitana to be valid. Although Nicholson in earlier works (1874, 1875a, b, c, 1876) used the name petropolitana with Chaetetes he later (1881) regarded this as belonging to his species Diplotrypa whiteavesii Nicholson, 1879. At that time there was a great deal of confusion regarding the correct identity of many Lower Palaeozoic hemispherical bryozoans. It is the concept of the name as applied by Nicholson in 1879 as the type of Diplotrypa that is critical, not earlier misapplications of a specific name.
Spjeldnaes points out that many species presently in Dianulites do not resemble the turbinate-shaped type species D. fastigiatus. This is certainly true, but his assertion that they will lack a generic name if Nicholson’s concept of petropolitana is accepted is not correct, as two distinct taxa are being confused. Nicholson’s concept of petropolitana was never allied to Dianulites. It is possible that all non-turbinate Dianulites species may need to be accommodated in a new genus. Spjeldnaes’s comments on methodologies are not relevant to this case. Reference is made to Lonsdale’s (in Murchison, 1845) description of Chaetetes petropolitanus. We have examined this specimen in The Natural History Museum, London and it is referable to Dianulites. It has no bearing on our application.
Spjeldnaes is concerned that nomenclatural problems will arise with regard to the family HALLoporIDAE Bassler, 1911, if Nicholson’s definition of Diplotrypa is accepted. We can only assume that he believes that Diplotrypa becomes the type genus of the family by virtue of being the earliest described genus contained within it. This is not the case. The genus Diplotrypa as erected by Nicholson is certainly valid and conceptually sound. The type genus of the family HALLOPoRIDAE is Hallopora Bassler, 1911 (= Calopora), and not the older genus Diplotrypa. Revision of the authorship of the type species of Diplotrypa from Pander, 1830 to Nicholson, 1879 does not affect this issue at all.
In coming to his conclusions Spjeldnaes acknowledges that Dybowski’s and Nicholson’s concepts of the species they described are entirely different. We quite agree and our application hinges on this.
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Spjeldnaes has proposed the rejection of Nicholson’s name (and concept) of the species petropolitana and the adoption of Dybowski’s name (and therefore concept) of petropolitana as type species for Diplotrypa Nicholson, 1879. Such a course of action would be incorrect and invalid, as Dybowski’s concept of petropolitana is different from that of Nicholson, and does not belong in Diplotrypa, but rather in Dianulites. Indeed, this action would lead to the disappearance of Diplotrypa Nicholson, 1879, which (contrary to its description) would become a junior synonym of Dianulites Eichwald, 1829, and would (as documented in para. 6 of our application) be contrary to the usage of names throughout the 20th century. In our original application we have asked that Pander’s authorship of the name be set aside, and that authorship of the type species of Diplotrypa be attributed to Nicholson, 1879; this preserves the usage of Dip/otrypa and its type species.
Additional references
Nicholson, H.A. 1874. Descriptions of some species of Chaetetes from the Lower Silurian rocks of North America. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 30: 499-515.
Nicholson, H.A. 1875a. Report upon the palaeontology of the province of Ontario. Hunter, Rose & Co., Toronto. o
Nicholson, H.A. 1875b. On some massive forms of Chaetetes, from the Lower Silurian. Geological Magazine, (2)2: 175-177.
Nicholson, H.A. 1875c. Description of the corals of the Silurian and Devonian systems. Palaeontology of Ohio, vol. 2, part 2 (Palaeontology), pp..181—242.
Nicholson, H.A. 1876. Notes on the Palaeozoic corals of the state of Ohio. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)18: 85-95.
(3) Support for the conservation of the names Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 has been received from Professor Roger J. Cuffey (Department of Geoscience, 412 Deike Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A.).
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura) (Case 3172; see BZN 58: 116-118)
W. Ronald Heyer
Amphibians and Reptiles, MRC 162, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-1062, U.S.A.
Ulisses Caramaschi
Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional! UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
We are studying the systematics of the complex of frogs associated with the name Leptodactylus ocellatus, which includes the species known as L. chaquensis Cei, 1950. One of us (W.R.H.) has assembled a bibliography of Leptodactylus. This 1s sufficient to support Cei’s statement in his application that the name L. chaquensis has been used very extensively for the species (there are at least 156 citations of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 45
name), and the species is commonly used as a laboratory animal (54 of the 156 references). In contrast, the name typica (or typicus) has never been used for the species since 1950.
We support the application.
Comment on the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne obesus Baird, 1859 over that of Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia, Squamata) (Case 3143: see BZN 58: 37-40, 229, 307-308)
Roy W. McDiarmid (USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0111, U.S.A.), Kevin de Queiroz (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-0162), Kent Beaman (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California 90007-4057), Brian Crother (Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana 70402-0736), Richard Etheridge (San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182-4614), Oscar Flores-Villela (Museo de Zoologia, Fac- ultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, México Distrito Federal 04510, Mexico), Darrel Frost (American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192), L. Lee Grismer (La Sierra University, 4700 Pierce Street, Riverside, California 92515-8247), Bradford D. Hollingsworth (San Diego Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 121390, San Diego, California 92112), Maureen Kearney (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496), Jimmy A. McGuire (Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-3216), John Wright (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California 90007-4057), George Zug (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-0162)
We write to oppose the proposal by Montanucci et al. to give precedence to the specific name of Euphryne obesus Baird, 1859 over Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856. In our view this proposal runs counter to promoting stability and universality in nomenclature.
The proposal is based on two issues: first, uncertainty regarding the type locality of Sauromalus ater, and second, a greater number of papers using the name obesus than the name ater.
The uncertain type locality of Sauwromalus ater is irrelevant to the precedence of the name ater relative to the name obesus; uncertainty about a type locality is not usually considered sufficient reason for granting precedence to a junior synonym, provided that the synonymy can be established based on characters of the type specimen.
Sauromalus ater is the type species of the genus Sauromalus, and ater has been in use as a valid name longer than any other specific name in combination with Sauromalus. Moreover, following Bocourt’s (1870) and Coues’s (1875) treatments of Euphryne obesus as a junior synonym of Sauromalus ater, ater was the name used for all the populations of chuckwalla lizards affected by the proposal of Montanucci et
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
al. in several important papers published prior to 1923 (Cope, 1875, 1900; Yarrow, 1882; Stejneger, 1891; Stejneger & Barbour, 1917; Van Denburgh, 1922). The names Sauromalus ater and S. obesus were applied to different putative species by Schmidt (1922), and both names were treated as valid in four successive editions of the influential Check list of North American amphibians and reptiles (Stejneger & Barbour, 1923, 1933, 1939, 1943), Shaw’s (1945) review of the genus, and several subsequently published works not restricted to the fauna of the United States (Smith & Taylor, 1950; Etheridge, 1982; Flores-Villela, 1993; Liner, 1994; de Queiroz, 1995). In a more recent review of the genus, Hollingsworth (1998) treated the names Sauromalus ater and S. obesus as synonyms and, following the Principle of Priority, used S. ater as the valid name of the taxon, as did Crother et al. (2000). Thus, the senior name S. ater has been in continuous use since it was first published in 1856 while, prior to the proposal by Hollmgsworth (1998), the junior name obesus had been in continuous use only since 1922.
Papers using the name obesus are indeed more abundant than those using the name ater (para. 6 of the application), but this discrepancy reflects the large number of papers published on taxa occurring in the United States. The source of data used by Montanucci et al. (para. 6) is an extensive bibliography of 626 references on lizards of the genus Sauromalus (Beaman et al., 1997). Montanucci et al. point out that over 100 papers dealing with the distribution of chuckwallas used the name S. obesus. However, 97 of the 168 papers (58%) included in the Distribution category, the largest of the many subject categories indexed in the bibliography, deal only with populations occurring within the United States. These references, by the nature of their geographic focus, would not be expected to use the name S. ater, which from 1922 to 1998 was applied to populations occurring only in Mexico. Moreover, as noted by Montanucci et al., 46 papers used the name S. afer, and 46 is not an insignificant number.
Greater discrepancies are found for references indexed under the headings Physiology (124 total references) and Thermoregulation (29), which report the findings of studies that often require extensive instrumentation in laboratory settings and consequently have relied on more agcessible mainland populations as the source of research. Populations that occur on uninhabited or sparsely peopled islands, especially those lacking fresh water, are generally less accessible and therefore less studied than comparable mainland populations. From 1945 to 1998 the name S. ater was applied to populations restricted to islands in the southern part of the Gulf of California, Mexico. As independently pointed out by the compilers of the biblio- graphy (Beaman et al., 1997), studies requiring large sample sizes and long-term observations, including many behavioral and ecological studies (of which 117 were indexed in the bibliography), also have almost exclusively focused on the more accessible populations of Sauromalus from the U.S.A. that were then called S. obesus. None of these studies is diminished by a change in the scientific name, nor would a name change have any known harmful effect on the scientific community or the public.
The titles and author names in the bibliography indicate that the preponderance of publications using the name Sauromalus obesus reflects a discrepancy in the numbers of scientists working in the’ U.S.A. versus Mexico. In a cursory examination, we recorded only 22 papers (3.5%) in the bibliography (Beaman et al., 1997) written in
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 47
Spanish by Mexican scientists. Moreover, between the years 1922 and 1998, a time interval that accounts for 580 (93%) of the papers in the bibliography, the name S. obesus was applied to the populations of chuckwallas in the United States. It is not surprising, therefore, that more has been written about chuckwallas called, until recently, S. obesus, but this has little bearing on the appropriate scientific name for these populations.
Granting the name obesus precedence over ater on the basis of frequency of use is questionable for several inter-related reasons. First, it trivializes the Principle of Priority. Although any proposal to grant a junior synonym precedence over a senior synonym sets aside priority, this case differs from other such cases in that the senior synonym has been used often and continuously as the valid name of a species since it was first published. Therefore, the proposal to grant precedence to the junior synonym rests entirely on a difference in the numbers of times the two names have been used.
Second, the proposal rests on a misapplication of the concept of stability, by considering the names of only some of the relevant populations. Specifically, it focuses on a change in the species name applied to some populations from obesus to ater, while disregarding the change in the species name applied to other populations from ater to obesus that would occur if the order of precedence of these names were to be reversed. The reason that the precedence of these names is at issue is a taxonomic proposal based on the conclusion that two species formerly considered separate constitute a single species (Hollingsworth, 1998). Such a taxonomic proposal will result in a change in the name applied to some of the populations in question regardless of which name has precedence. This situation contrasts sharply with those in which an older name is discovered for what is considered a single species both before and after discovery of that name, and in which nomenclatural stability for all populations in question can be achieved by granting precedence to the junior synonym.
Third, and of considerable concern to us, is the consequences of using the number of citations, rather than priority, to determine precedence in cases involving taxonomic unification. Are we to anticipate that each time a study proposes to unify species that occur on opposite sides of an international border, practiced nomen- claturists in the larger and/or wealthier country will move to set aside priority in an attempt to preserve ‘their’ name if that name is junior but has been used in more published articles? Such actions will constantly jeopardize nomenclatural stability, as is the case with more than 145 years of use of the name Sauromalus ater. This practice is not only contrary to the purpose of the Code but also gives a bad impression to zoologists in the developing world by effectively, though unintentionally, presenting a chauvinistic perspective that results in a form of nomenclatural imperialism. Montanucci and his co-authors could be interpreted as arguing a U.S.-centric view that rests on a discrepancy in the number of biologists in the United States versus Mexico.
We are in a period of unprecedented availability of old literature. This will allow a number of older names for well-known taxa to be found and, in a some cases, suppressing such names or reversing their order of precedence will be necessary. Although justification for these actions will often involve the numbers of publications in which competing names have been used, it is critical to distinguish between cases
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
involving forgotten or long unused names and those involving names that have all been in use, some more frequently than others.
In summary, the proposal to give the specific name obesus Baird, 1859 precedence over its senior subjective synonym ater Duméril, 1856, is based on questionable reasoning and would not promote nomenclatural stability or continuity. Accord- ingly, we ask that the Commission reject the proposal.
Two of us (K. de Queiroz and R.W. McDiarmid) have formulated a proposal that the holotype of Sauromalus ater should be set aside and that a neotype be designated, fixing the type locality as Isla Espiritu Santo, Gulf of California, Mexico. This was the locality to which Smith & Taylor (1950) restricted the species (para. 2 of the application).
Additional references
Crother, B.I., Boundy, J., Campbell, J.A., de Queiroz, K., Frost, D.R., Highton, R., Iverson, J.B., Meylan, P.A., Reeder, T.W., Seidel, M.E., Sites, J.W. Jr., Taggart, T.W., Tilley, S.G & Wake, D.B. 2000. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular, 29: 1-82.
de Queiroz, K. 1995. Checklist and key to the extant species of Mexican iguanas (Reptilia: Iguania). Publicationes Especiales del Museo de Zoologia, Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México, 9: 1-48.
Etheridge, R.E. 1982. Checklist of iguanine and Malagasy iguanid lizards. Pp. 7-37 in Burghardt, G.M. & Rand, A.S. (Eds.), Iguanas of the world. Their behavior, ecology, and conservation. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Flores-Villela, O. 1993. Herpetofauna Mexicana. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication, 17: 1-73.
Liner, E.A. 1994. Scientific and common names for the amphibians and reptiles of Mexico in English and Spanish. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular, 23: 1-113.
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals
(Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54: 119-129, 189; 55: 43-46, 119-120; 56: 72-73, 280-282; 58: 231-234)
Anthea Gentry
Littlewood, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH17 SEB, U.K.
Juliet Clutton-Brock
Working Group on Nomenclature, International Council of Archaeozoology, clo Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 49
Colin P. Groves
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia
Our application has received many comments since it was published and is now due for a ruling by the Commission. Before it is submitted for voting we should like to make clear the current situation in the usage of the names for wild species with domestic derivatives, how this might be seen to differ from a strict interpretation of the Code, and the consequences which would result from approval of our proposals.
Many wild species and their domestic derivatives share the same name. However, in a few, well known, cases the two are named separately: the wild species and their domestic derivatives are recognisable as distinct entities and it is usually necessary to separate them. Among these are 15 mammals in which the name for the wild ancestor postdates or is contemporary with that of the domestic form.
The treatment of wild and domestic forms as recognizable and distinct biological species, as conceived by the majority of workers, usually presents no problems in nomenclature. However, confusion arises when, in a minority of cases, the two forms are treated as conspecific and the senior name (based on the domestic form) is adopted, or when the forms are treated as separate and the name for the domestic form is then transferred to the wild taxon. Our application seeks to stabilise the current majority usage of the 15 names for wild mammal species, which are the first available names in use based on wild populations.
Our intentions regarding the names for wild and domestic forms, both when they are treated as separate species (two names) and when they are included in one species (one name), have been set out by ourselves (see BZN: 54: 128) and in comments by others (see, for example, Corbet in BZN 53: 193, Kitchener in BZN 53: 194, and Uerpmann in BZN 58: 233). The nomenclatural situation is no different from any other in taxonomy but, in accord with majority usage for several years, we do not follow priority in our use of names when the two forms are indistinguishable and are treated as one species. In BZN 58: 234 we noted: ‘Approval of our proposals by the Commission will merely ratify the current nomenclatural situation: names based on wild populations will continue to be used for wild species and will include those for domestic forms if these are considered conspecific’. As noted above, our proposals apply to a very limited number of taxa.
Most commentors on our application have approved our proposals and there has been considerable support from workers in zoology, archaeozoology, palaeontology, conservation, ecology, ethology and endangered species management. There have been a few commentors who are not in favour but this seems to be because they have misunderstood the intention of the application: they have assumed that we were either proposing the suppression of senior names based on domestic forms or that two alternative names should be adopted as valid for the wild species. As noted in BZN 54: 127-129 and above, neither assumption is correct.
In this application we have confined our attention to the names for 15 wild ancestral species and have made no proposals for the naming of domestic animals. Names based on domestic animals in Linnaeus (1758, 1766) and other authors are available (Article 1.2.1 of the Code) but have not been universally adopted; having
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
been misapplied to the wild species by some authors they are inevitably compro- mised. A number of systems, some of which are notational, for naming domestic forms are currently in use (see para. 3 of the application). Approval of the current application will settle part of the problem and will allow the use of names for domestic animals to be formalised by subsequent agreement between all those interested.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 51
OPINION 1986 (Case 3166)
Campanularia noliformis McCrady, 1859 (currently Clytia noliformis; Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cnidaria; Hydrozoa; CAMPANULARIIDAE; hydroids; medusae; C/ytia noliformis.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species Campanularia noliformis McCrady, 1859 are hereby set aside and the fertile hydroid colony from Castle Harbour, Bermuda, and now in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada (collection no. ROMIZ B365), is designated as the neotype.
(2) The name noliformis McCrady, 1859, as published in the binomen Campanularia noliformis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3166
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Campanularia noliformis McCrady, 1859 by the designation of a neotype was received from Mr Alberto Lindner (Centro de Biologia Marinha, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Sebastido, Brazil) and Dr Dale R. Calder (Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada) on 19 May 2000. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 57: 140-143 (September 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposal published in BZN 57: 141-142. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Boéhme, Bouchet, Brothers, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys
Negative votes — 1: van Tol.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Calder abstained since he was co-author of the case.
Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: noliformis, Campanularia, McCrady, 1859, Proceedings of the Elliott Society of Natural History, 1: 194.
Sy) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
OPINION 1987 (Case 3111)
Pachycerianthus Roule, 1904 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912 designated as the type species
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cnidaria; Anthozoa; Ceriantharia; Pachycerianthus; Pachycerianthus multiplicatus.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Pachycerianthus Roule, 1904 are hereby set aside and Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912 is designated as the type species.
(2) The name Pachycerianthus Roule, 1904 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary power in (1) above Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912, as published in the binomen Pachycerianthus multiplicatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3111
An application to conserve the usage of Pachycerianthus Roule, 1904 by the designation of P. multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912 as the type species was received from Dr Eamonn Kelly and Dr Brendan F. Keegan (Martin Ryan Marine Science Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland) on 13 January 1999. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 57: 11-13 (March 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
A comment in support was published in BZN 57: 166 (September 2000).
Decision of the Commission .
On | September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 12. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys
Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and van Tol.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
multiplicatus, Pachycerianthus, Carlgren, 1912, The Danish Ingolf Expedition, vol. 5, part 3, [0 5):
Pachycerianthus Roule, 1904, Compte Rendu de I’ Association Francaise pour Il’ Avancement des Sciences, 32me session (Angers, 1903), p. 793.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 53
OPINION 1988 (Case 3135)
Scyllarus orientalis Lund, 1793 (currently Thenus orientalis; Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype designated
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Decapoda; scyLLARIDAE; Thenus orientalis; shovel-nose lobsters; Indian Ocean; West Pacific Ocean.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Scyllarus orientalis Lund, 1793 are hereby set aside and the female specimen from Padang, Sumatra, Indonesia, no. ZRC-1999.0481 in the Zoological Reference Collection, National University of Singapore, is designated as the neotype. The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name orientalis Lund, 1793, as published in the binomen Scyllarus orientalis, is hereby emended by the deletion that it is the valid name (senior subjective synonym) for Thenus indicus Leach, 1815, the type species of Thenus Leach, 1815, and by the addition of an endorsement that it is defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. The name indicus Leach, 1815, as published in the binomen Thenus indicus (specific name of the type species of Thenus Leach, 1815), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
— No 7
@)
ma
History of Case 3135
An application for the designation of a neotype for Scyllarus orientalis Lund, 1793 was received from Drs P.J.F. Davie (Queensland Museum, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) and T.E. Burton (University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia) on 19 August 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 84-86 (June 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
The names Thenus Leach, 1815 and Scyllarus orientalis Lund, 1793 (then thought to be a senior subjective synonym of Thenus indicus Leach, 1815, the type species of Thenus Leach, 1815 by monotypy) were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 519 (August 1958). However, the typification of S. orientalis was not then considered.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 86. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Boéhme, Bouchet, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 2: Brothers and Rosenberg.
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Original references
The following are the original references to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion and to the name on an Official List, entry emended by the ruling:
indicus, Thenus, Leach, 1815, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 11: 338. orientalis, Scyllarus, Lund, 1793, Skrifter af Naturhistorie-Selskabet. Kiobenhavn, 2(2): 22.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 55
OPINION 1989 (Case 3103)
Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CHRYSOMELIDAE; Orsodacne; Orsodacne cerasi; leaf beetles; plant pests.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 are hereby set aside and Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758 is designated as the type species.
(2) The name Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary power in (1) above Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name cerasi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela cerasi (specific name of the type species of Orsodacne Latreille, 1802), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3103
An application to conserve the usage of Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 by the designation of Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species was received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) on 6 November 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 94-96 (June 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 57: 227-228 (December 2000).
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 95. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 25: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Béhme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — none.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cerasi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 376. Orsodacne Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 3, p. 223.
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
OPINION 1990 (Case 3076)
Tanaecia heringi Niepelt, 1935 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; Tanaecia heringi; Tanaecia coelebs; southeast Asia.
Ruling (1) The name heringi Niepelt, 1935, as published in the bmnomen Tanaecia heringi, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3076
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 was received from Dr Takashi Yokochi (Owariasahi, Aichi, Japan) on 7 January 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 177-178 (September 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 September 2000. The proposal to conserve the specific name of Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 by the suppression of T. heringi Niepelt, 1935 received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds majority (13 votes in favour and seven against; four Commissioners did not vote).
Shortly before the case was sent for voting a comment in support of the application was received from Dr Bernard d’Abera (c/o The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and was recorded on the voting papers.
A number of Commissioners commented on their voting papers. Bouchet com- mented: ‘The application fails to document the usage of the name coelebs. Only five references are cited in support’. Lamas commented: ‘I recommend strict adherence to priority in this case. The presumption that Corbet (1941) was unaware of the publi- cation of Niepelt’s (1935) name is not tenable; it indicates carelessness on the part of Corbet who, in attempting a revision of Tanaecia, should at least have consulted Zoological Record where in 1935 Niepelt’s publication and name were cited. Further, as both names correspond to what is regarded as ‘the rarest Malayan species’ (of Tanaecia) they have been mentioned infrequently in the literature. I see no disaster in replacing Tanaecia coelebs by its senior subjective synonym, as butterfly taxonomists and enthusiasts surely will get used easily and quickly to the name Tanaecia heringi Niepelt’. Stys commented: ‘Clearly all authors except Yokochi publishing on Tanaecia have simply ignored the name of a taxon published in an international journal and relied on the subsequent monograph by Corbet (1941). A line must be drawn between observance of continuity and supporting an inadequate scientific work’.
Under the Bylaws the application was submitted for a revote.
Decision of the Commission
On 1| September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the proposals published in BZN’56: 178. The voting paper cited the comments above. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 57
Affirmative votes — 9: Bock, Evenhuis, Fortey, Mahnert, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson
Negative votes — 16: Alonso-Zarazaga, Béhme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Since there was a majority against the conservation of the junior synonym, the specific name of Tanaecia heringi Niepelt, 1935 is placed on the Official List as the valid name.
Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
heringi, Tanaecia, Niepelt, 1935, Internationale Entomologische Zeitschrift, 29(2): 13.
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
OPINION 1991 (Case 3131)
Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): specific name conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Cypriniformes; CYPRINIDAE; freshwater fish; sand shiner; Notropis stramineus; Notropis ludibundus; North America.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power 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) ludibunda Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Cyprinella ludibunda: (b) lineolatus Putnam, 1863, as published in the binomen A/burnus lineolatus. (2) The name stramineus Cope, 1865, as published in the binomen Hybognathus stramineus and as defined by the lectotype (catalogue no. ANSP 4131 in the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan) designated by Fowler (1910), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ludibunda Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Cyprinella ludibunda and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) lineolatus Putnam, 1863, as published in the binomen A/burnus lineolatus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.
(3
wm
History of Case 3131
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 was received from Prof Reeve M. Bailey (Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) on 16 June 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 240-246 (December 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Comments in support were published in BZN 57: 111-112 (June 2000) and BZN 57: 171 (September 2000). An opposing comment was published in BZN 57: 168-170. A reply from the author of the application to the opposing comment was published in BZN 57: 171-172.
It was noted on the voting paper that the list of publications using the names Notropis stramineus and N. ludibundus compiled by Mr William Poly (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, U.S.A.) and mentioned in his comment (BZN 57: 171) had been brought up to date by him (in litt. to the Commission Secretariat, August 2001). In addition to the usage references cited in the application and in the comment by Gilbert et al. (BZN 57: 168-170), the list included. 173 works in which the name stramineus had been used at specific rank, and 16 works in which it had been used for a subspecies of N. deliciosus (Girard, 1856). These publications were post 1959 and most dated from the 1980s and 1990s. There were 15 additional
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 59
publications using /udibundus, all since 1989 when the name was reintroduced by R.L. Mayden and C.R. Gilbert (para. 2 of the application).
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 243. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Bohme, Brothers, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 8: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Kraus, Minelli and Patterson.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Calder commented: “The case for conservation of the specific name of Notropis stramineus (Cope, 1865) has been undermined by usage of its senior subjective synonym WN. ludibundus (Girard, 1856) in several influential works over the past decade’. Cogger commented: ‘A number of relevant questions have not been addressed. How many and what species are represented in the paralectotypic series of N. lundibundus and how many are extant, ie. is the problem caused by an inappropriate lectotype designation or would selection of a different syntype as lectotype have created the same problem? To argue that two properly established names be suppressed on the basis of their subjective synonymy with a well used (but not universally used) junior name is, in my view, unwarranted’. Eschmeyer commented: “The name /udibundus is being adopted by ichthyologists (see para. 7 of the application), and I favor following priority’.
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:
lineolatus, Alburnus, Putnam, 1863, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1: 9.
ludibunda, Cyprinella, Girard, 1856, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8(5): 35. (Issued in the serial in 1857 but published as a separate in 1856.)
stramineus, Hybognathus, Cope, 1865, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 16(8): 283.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Hyhognathus stramineus Cope, 1865:
Fowler, H.W. 1910. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 62: 274.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 OPINION 1992 (Case 3085) Lacerta undata A. Smith, 1838 (currently Pedioplanis undata;
Reptilia, Sauria): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauria; LACERTIDAE; Pedioplanis undata; western sand lizard; spotted sand lizard; Namibia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species Lacerta undata A. Smith, 1838 are hereby set aside and the adult male specimen from near Windhoek, Namibia, in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (NMW 31886), is designated as the neotype.
(2) The name undata A. Smith, 1838, as published in the binomen Lacerta undata and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. ‘
History of Case 3085
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Lacerta undata A. Smith, 1838 by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr Werner Mayer (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria) and Prof Wolfgang Bohme (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, Bonn, Germany) on 2 March 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 100-102 (June 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposal published in BZN 57: 101-102. At the close of the voting period on | December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 22: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Stys
Negative votes — I: van Tol.
Bohme abstained since he was co-author of the case.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner, Rosenberg and Song.
Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
undata, Lacerta, A. Smith, 1838, Magazine of Natural History, (2)14: 93.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 61
OPINION 1993 (Case 2980)
Procoptodon Owen, 1874 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) and the specific names of P. rapha Owen, 1874 and P. pusio Owen, 1874: conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Marsupialia; MACROPODIDAE; Procoptodon; Procoptodon rapha; Procoptodon pusio; Halmaturotherium; Halmatutherium; kangaroos; Pleistocene; Australia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power 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 names: (1) Halmaturotherium Krefft, 1872; (ii) Halmatutherium Krefft, 1873; (b) the specific names: (i) scottii Krefft, 1870, as published in the binomen Halmaturus scottii; (ii) thomsonii Krefft, 1870, as published in the binomen Halmaturus thomsonii.
(2) The name Procoptodon Owen, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Macropus goliah Owen in Waterhouse, 1846, 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) goliah Owen in Waterhouse, 1846, as published in the binomen Macropus goliah (specific name of the type species of Procoptodon Owen, 1874):
(b) rapha Owen, 1874, as published in the binomen Procoptodon rapha;
(c) pusio Owen, 1874, as published in the binomen Procoptodon pusio.
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Halmaturotherium Krefft, 1872, as suppressed in (1)(a)(1) above; (b) Halmatutherium Krefft, 1873, as suppressed in (1)(a)(11) above.
(5) The foliowing names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) scottii Krefft, 1870, as published in the binomen Halmaturus scottii and as suppressed in (1)(b)(i) above;
(b) thomsonii Krefft, 1870, as published in the binomen Halmaturus thomsonii and as suppressed in (1)(b)(11) above.
History of Case 2980
An application for the conservation of Procoptodon Owen, 1874, P. rapha Owen, 1874 and P. pusio Owen, 1874 was received from Dr Angela C. Davis and Prof W.D.L. Ride (Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) on 21 April 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 103-107 (June 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 105-106. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 1: Cogger.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Voting against, Cogger commented: ‘While I would certainly favour priority being given to the junior Owen names in prevailing use over the senior Krefft names whenever an author considers them to be synonyms, the subjectivity of the synonymy would make me unwilling to permanently suppress the senior names which may well be found, in future studies, to represent distinct taxa’.
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:
goliah, Macropus, Owen in Waterhouse, 1846, A natural history of the Mammalia. Vol. 1, p. 59.
Halmaturotherium Krefft, 1872, The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, no. 637, vol. 14, p. 327.
Halmatutherium Krefft, 1873, The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, no. 686, vol. 16, p. 238.
Procoptodon Owen, 1874, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 164: 786.
pusio, Procoptodon, Owen, 1874, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 164: 788.
rapha, Procoptodon, Owen, 1874, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 164: 788.
scottii, Halmaturus, Krefft, 1870, New South Wales Parliamentary Paper. Wellington Caves ( Correspondence relative to exploration of), p. 9.
thomsonii, Halmaturus, Krefft, 1870, New South Wales Parliamentary Paper. Wellington Caves ( Correspondence relative to exploratian of), p. 9.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 63
OPINION 1994 (Case 3095)
Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia, Chiroptera): usage of the generic and specific names conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Chiroptera; MySsTACINIDAE; VESPERTILIONIDAE; Chalinolobus; Mystacina; Chalinolobus tuberculatus; Mystacina tuberculata; Mystacina velutina; bats; New Zealand.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power the name Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844
is hereby ruled to be not invalid (under Article 49 of the Code) as a
consequence of the inclusion by Gray (1843) of the taxon within the nominal
species Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Mystacina Gray, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- nation Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843;
(b) Chalinolobus Peters, 1866 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) tuberculata Gray, 1843, as published in the binomen Mystacina tuberculata (specific name of the type species of Mystacina Gray, 1843);
(b) tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844, as published in the binomen Vespertilio tuberculatus (specific name of the type species of Chalinolobus Peters, 1866).
(4) The name Mystacops Lydekker, 1891 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Mystacina Gray, 1843).
(5) The name velutina Hutton, 1872, as published in the binomen Mystacina velutina, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843).
—~ i) 7
GB
ma
History of Case 3095
An application for the conservation of the usage of the names Mystacina and M. tuberculata, both of Gray (1843), and of Chalinolobus Peters, 1866 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844, was received from Drs Hamish G. Spencer and Daphne E. Lee (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) on 11 August 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 250-254 (December 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Comments in support were published in BZN 57: 117-118 (June 2000). An opposing comment was published in BZN 57: 172-176 (September 2000). A reply
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
from the authors of the application was published at the same time (BZN 57: 176) and included the proposal that the Commission use its plenary power to rule that the specific name of Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently Chalinolobus tuberculatus) is not invalid (under Article 49 of the Code) as a consequence of the inclusion by Gray (1843) of the taxon within the nominal species Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 253 and 57: 176. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Eschmeyer, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg
Negative votes — 5: Evenhuis, Kraus, Minelli, Stys and van Tol.
Cogger abstained.
No votes were received from Alonso-Zarazaga, Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Cogger and Nielsen commented that lectotypes or neotypes should be designated for the taxa involved. j
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:
Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, Monatsberichte der Kéniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften zu Berlin, 1866: 680. (Published in the serial in 1867 but issued as a separate in 1866).
Mystacina Gray, 1843, in Dieffenbach, E., Travels in New Zealand; with contributions to the geography, geology, botany, and natural history of that country, vol. 2, p. 296.
Mystacops Lydekker, 1891, in Flower, W.H. & Lydekker, R. An introduction to the study of mammals living and extinct, p. 671.
tuberculata, Mystacina, Gray, 1843, in Dieffenbach, E., Travels in New Zealand; with contributions to the geography, geology, botany, and natural history of that country, vol. 2, p. 296. :
tuberculatus, Vespertilio, J.R. Forster, 1844, Descriptiones Animalium quae in Itinere ad Maris Australis Terras per Annos 1772, 1773 et 1774 suscepto . . ., p. 62.
velutina, Mystacina, Hutton, 1872, Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 4: 185.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 65
OPINION 1995 (Case 3004)
LORISIDAE Gray, 1821, GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 and INDRIIDAE Burnett, 1828 (Mammalia, Primates): conserved as the correct original spellings
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Primates; LORISIDAE; LORIDAE; GALAGIDAE; GALAGONIDAE; INDRIIDAE; INDRIDAE; Galago; Galago senegalensis; Indri; Lemur indri; lorises; bushbabies; lemurs; Asia; East Indies; Africa; Madagascar.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29
(2) (3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
the stems of the following generic names are as shown:
(a) Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: the stem is LorIs-;
(b) Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: the stem is GALAG-.
It is hereby ruled that the correct original spelling of the family-group name
based on Indri E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 is INDRIIDAE Burnett, 1828.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Galago senegalensis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796;
(b) Indri E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (gender: masculine), type species by absolute tautonymy Lemur indri Gmelin, 1788.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) senegalensis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, as published in the binomen Galago senegalensis (specific name of the type species of Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796);
(b) indri Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Lemur indri (specific name of the type species of Indri E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796).
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:
(a) LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 (type genus Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796);
(b) GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 (type genus Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796):
(c) INDRIDAE Burnett, 1828 (type genus Indri E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796), ruled in (2) above to be the correct original spelling.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:
(a) LORIDAE Gray, 1821 (spelling emended to LorisIDAE by the ruling in (1)(a) above);
(b) GALAGONIDAE Gray, 1825 (spelling emended to GALAGIDAE by the ruling in (1)(b) above);
(Cc) INDRIDAE Burnett, 1828 (ruled in (2) above to be an incorrect original spelling).
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
History of Case 3004
An application for the conservation of the spellings of the primate family-group names LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 and GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 was received from Drs Jeffrey H. Schwartz (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), Jeheskel Shoshani (Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.), Jan Tattersall (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.), Elwyn L. Simons (Duke University Primate Center, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.) and Gregg F. Gunnell (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) on 13 November 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 165-168 (September 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
A comment in support of these proposals was published in BZN 56: 73 (March 1999). An opposing comment was published in BZN 57: 51 (March 2000). A reply by the authors of the application, together with Prof Friderun Ankel-Simons, was published in BZN 57: 121-123 (June 2000).
In relation to para. 4 of the application, the conservation of Loris was subsequently approved by the Commission; the name and that of the type species, Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1922 (March 1999).
A further proposal to conserve the spelling of INDRIIDAE Burnett, 1828 as the correct spelling for the family-group name based on Jndri E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 was put forward by Drs Kenneth Mowbray (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.), lan Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz and published in BZN 57: 228-231.
A comment in support of the conservation of all three family-group names LORISIDAE, GALAGIDAE and INDRIIDAE was published in BZN 58: 61—62 (March 2001).
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 55: 166-167 and 57: 229-230. The proposals to conserve the family-group names LORISIDAE, GALAGIDAE AND INDRIIDAE were Offered for voting in three parts (Votes 1, 2 and 3). In Vote (1) Commissioners were asked to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 55: 166-167, (1)(a), (4)(a) and (5)(a). In Vote (2) Commissioners were asked to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 55: 166-167, (1)(b), (2), (3), (4)(b) and (5)(b). In Vote (3) Commissioners. were asked to vote on the proposals set out in BZN 57: 229-230. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2001 the votes were as follows:
Votes 1 and 2. Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Béhme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 2: Kraus and Minelli.
Vote 3. Affirmative votes — 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 1: Minelli.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002 67 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:
GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825, Annals of Philosophy, (N.S.)10: 338 (incorrectly spelled as GALAGONT- DAE).
Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, Magasin Encyclopédique, ou journal des sciences, des lettres et des arts, (2)1(1): 49.
GALAGONIDAE Gray, 1825, Annals of Philosophy, (N.S.)10: 338 (an incorrect original spelling of GALAGIDAE).
Indri E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, Magasin Encyclopédique, ou journal des sciences, des lettres et des arts, (2)1(1): 46.
indri, Lemur, Gmelin, 1788, Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 42.
INDRIDAE Burnett, 1828, Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature, and Art, (N.S.)4: 307 (incorrectly spelled as INDRIIDAE).
INDRUDAE Burnett, 1828, Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature, and Art, (N.S.)4: 307 (an incorrect original spelling of INDRIDAE).
LORIDAE Gray, 1821, London Medical Repository, 15(1): 298 (an incorrect original spelling of LORISIDAE).
LORISIDAE Gray, 1821, London Medical Repository, 15(1): 298 (incorrectly spelled as LoRIDAE).
senegalensis, Galago, E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, Magasin Encyclopédique, ou journal des sciences, des lettres et des arts, (2)1(1): 49.
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(1) March 2002
INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis- sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned.
General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.
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 to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.
References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication.
Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application.
Contents — continued
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1986 (Case 3166). Campanularia noliformis McCrady, 1859 (currently Clytia noliformis; Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype . :
OPINION 1987 (Case 3111). aclacroriliens Roule 1904 (Gatidertn, Anthozoa): Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912 designated as the type species.
OPINION 1988 (Case 3135). Scyllarus orientalis Lund, 1793 Cee Thenus orientalis; Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype designated .
OPINION 1989 (Case 3103). Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 (insects! Neoleanteray Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species .
OPINION 1990 (Case 3076). Tanaecia heringi Niepelt, 1935 (Insecta, Denidontera): specific name placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ee
OPINION 1991 (Case 3131). Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): specific name conserved . :
OPINION 1992 (Case 3085). Lacerta undata A. Smith, 1838 (currently lpediopian undata; Reptilia, Sauria): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
OPINION 1993 (Case 2980). Procoptodon Owen, 1874 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) and the specific names of P. rapha Owen, 1874 and P. pusio Owen, 1874: conserved .
OPINION 1994 (Case 3095). Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia, eee usage of the generic and specific names conserved . :
OPINION 1995 (Case 3004). LORISIDAE Cres, 1821, GALAGIDAE 2 Gres, 1925 om INDRUDAE Burnett, 1828 (Mammalia, Primates): conserved as the correct original spellings
Information and instructions for authors .
61
63
65
68
CONTENTS
Notices .
The International Commision on eoleueal iNemeablauce aad Ws pubNeations
Addresses of members of the Commission
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.
Executive Secretary of the International Commission on esbisied Nowencltnee
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in ce -- peg 1986-2000. E Poe eis
The International Code a Zoolosienl Nomenclature :
Applications
Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed fixation of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species to conserve the usage of Pardosa and of Alopecosa Simon, 1885. T. Kronestedt, C.D. Dondale & A.A. Zyuzin.
Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 (currently Hippa pacifica; Crustacea, nomi. proposed precedence over He marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846. C.B. Boyko & A.W. Harvey : Re Gp igttdh ose he
Pagurus clypeatus Fabrene “1787 (currently Coenobita clypeatus; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed replacement of syntypes by a neotype. P.A. ae & L.B. Holthuis
Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 Geen Coleone: oneced eancnied on tee of the specific name. S.E. Thorpe.
Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (currently Peden dues ie ae dace Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. F.-T. Krell .
Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stamton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.V. Kozlov.
Tetrapedia Klug, 1810, T. Sra: Klug, 1819 and Podaiense Cringe 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for T. diversipes. C.D. Michener & J.S. Moure.
Comments
On the establishment of the new name LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) as a substitute. for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879. W.R. po F. Kovarik cS
On the proposed orca of the Sones name ce Hiaronor us cacrene Faitmoue & Brisout in Fairmaire, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera). G.N. Foster.
On the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). D.L. we K. Maes; J.B. Heppner; D.H. Janzen; B. Landry :
On the proposed conservation of ‘the erecne names ate Diaguliten rae politana Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 (Bryzoa). N. Spjeldnaes; P.N. Wyse Jackson, C.J. Buttler & M.M. Key Jr.; R.J. Cuffey :
On the proposed ein OF the Saegibe name coi Dep todaceslue chaguensis C cal 1950 (Amphibia, Anura). W.R. Heyer & U. Caramaschi .
On the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne obesus Baird. 1359 over that of Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia, eee a R.W. McDiarmid etal. . ce
On the proposed Cone auen oh usage of 15 rnc Secs names pacer on soni species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock & C.P. Groves .
Page
nAkwWNre
nn
45
48
Continued on Inside BackCover
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset
Bulletin Piiekal
Nomenclature
~ eee a Or *
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2002 is £120 or $215, 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. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Vice-President Executive Secretary
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof Dr W. Bohme (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer l (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany, Arachnology) Secretariat
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (United Kingdom)
Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)
Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2002
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 69
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 59, part 2 (pp. 69-160) 28 June 2002
Notices
(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised 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 or her 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 59, part 1 (published on 27 March 2002). Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission 1s published.
Case 3229. Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1960 (Archaeocyatha): proposed precedence over Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950. F. Debrenne, A.Yu. Zhuravlev & P.D. Kruse.
Case 3230. Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): proposed conservation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 and its designation as type species, with designation of a neotype. R.J. Mutter.
Case 3231. STAPHYLINIDAE (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of 17 specific names. L.H. Herman.
Case 3232. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and M. densicostata Reeve, 1861 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): designation of a neotype. F.G. Thompson & E.L. Mihalcik.
Case 3233. Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii: Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. F. Giusti & G. Manganelli.
Case 3234. Ascalaphus Fabricius, 1776 (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed conservation. M.J. Dawson.
Case 3235. Sclerocrinus Jaekel, 1891 (Crinoidea, Cyrtocrinida): proposed conservation. H. Hess.
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Case 3236. Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed conservation. M.S. Harvey.
Case 3237. Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
validation of the lectotype designation. A. Smith.
Case 3238. Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed conservation.
M.S. Harvey.
Case 3239. Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence
over Evanystes Gistel, 1856. V.I. Gusarov.
Case 3240. Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus; Mammalia,
Chiroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Happold. Case 3241. Status of butterfly (Insecta, Lepidoptera) names introduced by Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775. O. Kudrna & J. Belicek.
(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion 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.
Council of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
The following members of the Commission constitute the Council of the Commission:
Dr N.L. Evenhuis (President)
Dr W.N. Eschmeyer (Vice-President)
Prof P. Bouchet
Prof D.J. Brothers
Dr I.M. Kerzhner
Prof Dr O. Kraus
Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Since the last meeting of the Commission in Athens in August 2000, one Commissioner (Prof W.D.L Ride, Australia; Mammalia, a past-President of the Commission) has retired. One member of the Commission (Prof C. Dupuis, France; Heteroptera) retires this year (2002) and at the next meeting (planned for Bangkok in March 2003), two members will reach the end of their current terms of service: Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) and Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany; Arachnology). A number of actual and prospective vacancies thus exist, and the Commission invites nominations from any person or institution of potential candidates for election.
The nationalities and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be found on the Commission’s website (www.iczn.org) or on the inside cover of each part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 71
Article 2.2 of the Commission’s Constitution prescribes that ‘the members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distin- guished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature’. It should be noted that ‘zoology’ here includes the applied biological sciences (medicine, agriculture, etc.) that use zoological names.
Nominations made since 1999 will automatically be taken into account and need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the age, nationality and qualifi- cations (by the criteria mentioned above) of each nominee should be sent as soon as possible to The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
20th Pacific Science Congress, Bangkok, Thailand, 17-21 March 2003
This Congress is being hosted by the Government of Thailand, the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) in collaboration with the Thai Academy of Science & Technology (TAST) and with the support of Pacific Science Association. It will be held at the Sofitel Central Plaza Bangkok Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand. It is intended that the next meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will take place during the Congress.
The theme of the Congress is ‘science and technology for healthy environments’ and includes sessions on modified and natural environments such as agricultural ecosystems, oceans and coral reefs, terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. Details are available from: XX Pacific Science Congress Secretariat, c/o National Research Council of Thailand, 196 Phaholyothin Rd., Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. Tel: +66 2 5792690, 9406369, Fax: +66 2 5613049, 9406369.
The Congress website is: http://www.nrct.go.th/Pacific20th/Index.html
All zoologists attending the Congress will be able to take part in elections to fill vacancies on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies
Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most of the Opinions and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are still available. Prices on application to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
1) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
The extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ISBN 0 85301 006 4) was published (in a bilingual volume in English and French) in August 1999. It came into effect on 1 January 2000 and entirely supersedes the 3rd (1985) edition.
The price of the English and French volume of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered:
Individual members of a scientific society are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the society should be given.
Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price £24 or $39).
Postgraduate or undergraduate students are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the student’s supervisor should be given.
Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25’/ discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy). ’
Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on the following publications for personal use:
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals —a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to £15 and from $50 to $25;
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission’s quarterly journal) — discount valid for up to four years; for 2002 the discounted price would be £60 or $107.
Official texts of the Code in several languages have been authorized by the Commission, and all (including English and French) are equal in authority. German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish texts have now been published and others are planned. Details of price and how to buy the published texts can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses:
German — books@insecta.de
Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp
Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu
Spanish — menb168@mnen.csic.es
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 73
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement 1986-2000
The volume entitled Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (ISBN 0 85301 004 8) was published in 1987. It gave details of the names and works on which the Commission had ruled and placed on the Official Lists and Indexes since it was set up in 1895 through to the end of 1985. The volume contained 9917 entries, 9783 being family-group, generic or specific names and 134 relating to works.
In the 15 years between 1986 and the end of 2000 a further 601 Opinions and Directions have been published in the Bulletin listing 2371 names and 14 works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes. Details of these 2385 entries are given in a Supplement of 141 pages (ISBN 0 85301 007 2) published early in 2001. Additional sections include (a) a systematic index of names on the Official Lists covering both the 1987 volume and the Supplement; (b) a table correlating the nominal type species of genera listed in the 1987 volume with the valid names of those species when known to be different; and (c) emendments to the 1987 volume.
The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or $110 each, and £100 or $170 for both volumes ordered together.
Individual buyers of the volumes for their own use are offered a price of £50 or $85 for each volume, and £90 or $150 for both.
Individual members of the American or European Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a price of £45 or $70 for each volume, and £80 or $120 for both.
Prices include postage by surface mail; for Airmail, please add £3 or $5 for each volume.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.:si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to “AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Case 3217
Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879 and Setidium Schmidt, 1879 (Porifera): proposed conservation by the designation of Scleritoderma flabelliformis Sollas, 1888 as the type species of Scleritoderma
Andrzej Pisera
Instytut Paleobiologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Twarda 51 155, 00-818 Warsaw, Poland (e-mail: apis@twarda.pan.pl)
Claude Lévi
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés Marins et Malacologie, 57 Rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France (e-mail: levi@mnhn.fr)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accustomed understand- ing and usage of the names for two genera of sponges, Sc/eritoderma and Setidium, both of Schmidt (1879) (family SCLERITODERMIDAE), by the designation of Scleritoderma flabelliformis Sollas, 1888 as the type species of Scleritoderma. At present the type species by monotypy of these genera, Scleritoderma paccardi Schmidt, 1879 and Setidium obtectum Schmidt, 1879 respectively, are conspecific. The name Scleritoderma relates to a group of five species from the tropics world wide at 15° north and south; the name Setidium relates to a single species from the Caribbean. The specific name obtectum is given precedence over paccardi.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Porifera; Demospongiae; ‘lithistids’; SCLERITODERMIDAE; Scleritoderma; Setidium; Scleritoderma paccardi; Scleritoderma flabelliformis; Setidium obtectum; sponges.
2
1. The sCLERITODERMIDAE currently consist of a group of polymorphic, massive, encrusting, ear, foliated, cup-to-vase shaped or flabellate sponges with choanosomal desmas as thorny or tuberculated rhizoclones; ectosomal spicules when present are various acanthorhabds/acanthostrongyles, styles or smooth strongyloxeas; microscleres when present are spinose sigmaspires.
2. Schmidt (1879, p. 28, pl. 2, fig. 3) established the rhizomorine lithistid genus Scleritoderma and species S. paccardi by means of a joint description. The species was based on a single specimen (catalogue no. MZUS PO175 in the Musée de Zoologie, Université de Strasbourg), probably from the Mexican Gulf but no exact location or depth was given. As the single included species in the genus, S. paccardi is the type species by monotypy. The description and illustrations were very general.
3. Subsequently, Sollas (1888, p. 316, pl. 35, figs. 26-50) described and illustrated a second rhizomorine lithistid species, Scleritoderma flabelliformis, from Ki Island in Indonesia. The species was based on five specimens (collection number BM(NH) 1891.5.4.10 in The Natural History Museum, London) and is characterized by
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 75
the presence of ectosomal acanthorhabds, choanosomal rhizoclone desmas and sigmaspire microscleres. Following Sollas’s (1888) description, the presence of ectosomal acanthorhabds has been regarded as the characteristic feature of the genus Scleritoderma. Sollas (1888, pp. 316-317) recorded that the resemblance of S. flabelliformis to S. paccardi was ‘very close’ but (pp. 346-347) that it could be very clearly distinguished.
4. We have examined the original specimen of Scleritoderma paccardi and found that it has ectosomal smooth rhabds or amphistrongyles, instead of acanthorhabds. We also found that it is morphologically very similar to the holotype (MCZ 6462 in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, collected off Havana) of another taxon, Setidium obtectum Schmidt, 1879 (p. 30, pl. 1, fig. 9, pl. 2, fig. 14), described and illustrated in the same work. Setidium obtectum also displays choano- somal rhizoclone desmas and sigmaspire microscleres, as shown by the recent revision by Pisera (1999), but smooth strongyloxeas as ectosomal spicules, instead of acanthorhabds. We believe that Scleritoderma paccardi and Setidium obtectum are conspecific and, as a consequence, the specific names are synonyms. The nominal species paccardi was established in the genus Scleritoderma and, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, as First Revisers (Article 24 of the Code) we select obtectum to take precedence over paccardi for the name of the type species of Setidium.
5. Since Sollas’s (1888) publication, the name Scleritoderma has consistently been used for a genus of five species characterised by acanthorhabds and with a world wide distribution in the tropics at 15° north and south. The name Setidium has been used for a monotypic genus lacking acanthorhabds, originally dredged off Havana (see Sollas, 1888; Lendenfeld, 1903; and Van Soest & Stentoft, 1988) and now known from several localities in the Caribbean (see Pisera, 1999). Recognition of Scleritoderma paccardi, which lacks acanthorhabds, as the type species of Scleritoderma would cause considerable confusion. Moreover, the names Scleritoderma and Setidium would become subjective synonyms, leaving the remain- ing species currently included in Scleritoderma in need of a new generic name. Sollas’s (1888) species Scleritoderma flabelliformis clearly shows the acanthorhabds charac- teristic of Scleritoderma and has been treated as a reference in the placement of other species in the genus (see, for example, Thiele, 1900; Lévi & Lévi, 1983, 1989; Van Soest & Stentoft, 1988; and Gruber, 1993). Scleritoderma flabelliformis was well described and illustrated, and original material is preserved and available for study (para. 3 above). We therefore propose that S. flabelliformis be designated as the type species of Scleritoderma, thereby maintaining the current universal usage and understanding of both the names Scleritoderma and Setidium.
6. In a forthcoming revision of the Recent genera of lithistid sponges for the international project ‘Systema Porifera’, to be published in late 2002, we have proposed that Scleritoderma paccardi should be set aside as the type species of Scleritoderma and that S. flabelliformis be designated as the type, while maintaining Setidium as a distinct genus with S. obtectum as its type.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879 and to designate Scleritoderma flabelliformis Sollas, 1888 as the type species;
716 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in (1) above Scleritoderma flabelliformis Sollas, 1888; (b) Setidium Schmidt, 1879 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Setidium obtectum Schmidt, 1879; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) flabelliformis Sollas, 1888, as published in the binomen Scleritoderma flabelliformis (specific name of the type species of Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879); (b) obtectum Schmidt, 1879, as published in the binomen Setidium obtectum (specific name of the type species of Setidium Schmidt, 1879).
References
Gruber, G. 1993. Mesozoische und rezente desmentragende Demospongiae (Porifera, ‘Lithistida’) (Palaobiologie, Phylogenie und Taxonomie). Berliner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, (E)10: 1—73. .
Lendenfeld, R. von. 1903. Tetraxonia. Das Tierreich, 19: 1-168.
Lévi, C. & Lévi, P. 1983. Eponges Tetractinellides et lithistides bathyales de Nouvelle— Calédonie. Bulletin de Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (A)1: 101-168.
Lévi, C. & Lévi, P. 1989. Spongiaires (MUSORSTOM | & 2) in Forest, J. (Ed.), Résultats des campagnes MUSORSTOM, vol. 4. Mémoires Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (A)143: 25-103.
Pisera, A. 1999. Lithistid sponge Setidium obtectum Schmidt, 1879, rediscovered. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 44: 473-477.
Pisera, A. & Lévi, C. 2002 (in press). Jn Hooper, J.N.A. & Soest, R.W.M. van (Eds.), Systema Porifera (two vols.). Plenum Press.
Schmidt, O. 1879. Die Spongien des Meerbusen von Mexico, Abt. Lithistidenl, Heft 1. 32 pp., 4 pls. Fischer, Jena.
Soest, R.W.M. van & Stentoft, N. 1988. Barbados deep-water sponges. Studies on the Fauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands, 70: 1-175.
Sollas, W.J. 1888. Report on the Tetractinellida collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76. Zoology, 25(63): 1-458.
Thiele, J. 1900. Kieselschwamme von Ternate. 1. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 25: 17-180.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 77
Case 3233
Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name
F. Giusti and G. Manganelli
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4, I-53100 Siena, Italy (e-mail for Prof Giusti: giustif@unis1.it)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 for a subterranean, eyeless pulmonate gastropod (family FERUSSACUDAE) from southern Europe. The name has been used consistently but is threatened by the subjective synonym Achatina veneta Strobel, 1855 which appeared only a few days earlier and which has remained virtually unused since publication. It is proposed that the latter specific name be suppressed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; FERUSSACIIDAE; Cecilioides janii; Cecilioides veneta; southern Europe.
1. O.F. Miiller (1774) established a new species of subterranean and eyeless pulmonate gastropod from Germany as Buccinum acicula. The taxon, currently known as Cecilioides acicula, is now recognised as widespread in Europe (family FERUSSACIIDAE). De Cristofori & Jan (1832) subsequently described the same species under the name Columna aciculoides (see para. 2 below). This name was used by later authors for a second, more local, species from northern Italy. The second species, currently known as Cecilioides janii (De Betta & Martinati, 1855) (see paras. 2 and 3 below), is also subterranean and eyeless but its shell is larger and broader and has a larger aperture. It is now known from southern Europe.
2. De Betta (1852) redescribed the species aciculoides De Cristofori & Jan, 1832 and placed it in Achatina Lamarck, 1799. As Giusti (1976) demonstrated, from De Betta’s publication it is clear that his specimens represented the smaller, widespread species, i.e. acicula Miller. De Betta (1852, pp. 76-77) noted that he had sent some of his material to Jan, and that Jan had confirmed that it was identical to his own. Thus, the name aciculoides became a junior subjective synonym of acicula. However, in an unfortunate transfer of names, De Betta (1852) and De Betta & Martinati (1855) applied the name acicula to the larger, broader and more restricted species (De Betta, 1852, figs. 2a and b) and aciculoides to the smaller, widespread one (figs. 3a and b). In 1864, De Betta reversed his use of names, adopting acicula (with aciculoides as a synonym) for the widespread species and, with a detailed description and illustration (pp. 555-558, pl. 14, figs. 4-6), Achatina janii Betta & Martinati, 1855 for the more restricted one. This nomenclature has been followed by virtually all subsequent authors (see para. 5 below).
3. The specific name of Achatina janii was made available as a conditional replacement name (Articles 11.5.1 and 12.2.3 of the Code) in a nomenclatural note by De Betta & Martinati (1855, p. 59). They pointed out that, since the name aciculoides
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
(following the correct usages of Charpentier and Pfeiffer) was a junior synonym of acicula Miller, 1774 (para. 2 above), a new name would be required for the larger, more restricted species. The name janii was adopted later in the same year by Strobel (1855b), who referred to De Betta & Martinati’s (1855) work, and by De Betta & Martinati in Massalongo (1861).
4. In 2000, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger published a paper on the nomenclature of species of Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 from the Italian and Swiss Alps. They argued that a new name must be adopted for the larger and broader species currently named C. janii. This arose because Bank et al., ‘digging in the old literature’, had discovered an older name for the species, Achatina veneta, which was first introduced in the synonymy of Achatina aciculoides auctt. in a paper by Strobel (1855a, p. 137) published a few days before that by De Betta & Martinati (1855) in which Achatina janii was established. The papers by De Betta & Martinati (1855) and Strobel (1855a) were both published in February. The title page of De Betta & Martinati’s paper records publication as “Febbrajo 1855° and Strobel, p. 144, notes “Dispensato nel 2 mese del 1855’. That the name A. veneta appeared earlier than A. janii is shown by the reference in De Betta & Martinati (1855, p. 59, footnote) to Strobel’s work. As Bank et al. (2000) noted, although published in synonymy, the specific name of Achatina veneta is available under Article 11.6.1 of the Code, having been adopted before 1961 by some authors as a valid name (see, for example, Strobel, 1857, p. 248; Kuster, 1879, p. 93; and Riezler, 1929, p. 161). Bank et al. (2000) asserted that the specific name of Cecilioides veneta ‘cannot be suppressed in favour of janii’ because both conditions of Article 23.9.1 of the Code had not been met in that the junior name janii had not been used in at least 25 works in the preceding 50 years, and the senior name veneta had not remained unused since 1899, having been adopted by Pilsbry in 1908 and by Thorson in 1930.
5. On investigation we have found that the name Cecilioides janii has been used in at least 27 publications by 33 different authors between 1971 and 1999. The publications include those by Kerney & Cameron (1979) and subsequent Dutch (1980), German (1983) and French (1999) translations, Cossignani & Cossignani (1995), Giusti, Manganelli & Schembri (1995), Manganelli, Bodon, Favilli & Giusti (1995), Goto & Poppe (1996), Bole & Slapnik (1998), Turner et al. (1998), and by two of the authors themselves of the proposed name change (Bank, 1985, p. 68 and Falkner, 1990, p. 168, fig. 5). A complete list of the works is held by the Commission Secretariat. We also found that in one of the two examples given by Bank et al. (2000) of putative usage of C. veneta since 1899 the name was not adopted as valid. Pilsbry (1908, pp. 22-23) cited Achatina veneta ‘Charpfentier], Kuester, Neunter Bercht. naturforsch. Ges. Bamberg, 1870, p. 93° in the list of synonyms of A. janii and specified that, since he had not had access to De Betta’s (1864) ‘Esame critico’ in which he (De Betta) figured the species, he used Westerlund’s account which in its turn, as Pilsbry noted, “seems to have been taken mainly from Kuester’s article of 1870, which was the first critical discussion of the species’. Pilsbry concluded, reporting a sentence from Kister (1870): ‘One might say that this species [Acicula gredleri Kuster, 1870] represents a shortened widened aciculoides, just as veneta seems to be a derivative of acicula. In the second example of veneta usage cited by Bank et al. (2000),
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 79
Thorson (1930, p. 229) considered C. veneta to be a local variety from Trento of C. aciculoides auctt.
6. The 4th Edition of the Code, which was published in 1999 and came into force in January 2000, puts stronger emphasis on stability in nomenclature than did previous editions. Thus, even if Bank et al. (2000) believed that the conditions of Article 23.9.1 (Reversal of Precedence) had not been met for the ‘automatic’ conservation of Cecilioides janii (cf. para. 4 above; Article 23.9.1 is not concerned with suppression), they should not have resurrected the name Achatina veneta in place of C. janii. Instead, they should have maintained the use of the latter name and applied to the Commission for its conservation. Bank et al. appear to have overlooked Article 23.9.3 which states that ‘If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power. While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be maintained’. We now propose that, for the sake of stability, the name Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 be conserved by the suppression of the slightly earlier but virtually unused name 4. veneta Strobel, 1855. To our knowledge, in addition to Bank et al. (2000) the latter name has been used only twice in the recent literature (Eikenboom, 1996 and Falkner, Bank & Proschwitz, 2001). Its adoption would cause considerable and unnecessary confusion.
7. Bank et al. (2000, p. 100) selected a shell of Cecilioides janii figured by Giusti (1976, p. 236, fig. 29A) as the ‘lectotype’ of both C. janii and C. veneta, supposedly rendering the names objective synonyms. The specimen selected is very probably one of De Betta and Martinati’s original syntypes of Achatina janii, collected by De Betta and preserved in the De Betta collection in the Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona and is isolated in a glass tube with a label with a red corner stating LECTOTYPE in capital letters. It is not a specimen of Strobel’s original material of veneta, which consists of a mixture of a number of shells of C. acicula and C. janii in the Museo di Storia Naturale del Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva e Funzionale dell’ Universita degli Studi di Parma. The lectotype designation is therefore valid for C. janii but not for C. veneta, and the names janii and veneta are subjective synonyms.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name veneta Strobel, 1855, as published in the binomen Achatina veneta, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855, as published in the binomen Achatina janii and as defined by the lectotype (specimen labelled LECTOTYPE on a label with a red corner in the De Betta collection in the Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona and figured by Giusti, 1976, p. 236, fig. 29A) designated by Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger (2000):
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name veneta Strobel, 1855, as published in the binomen Achatina veneta and as suppressed in (1) above.
—~ NO SS
80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
References
Bank, R.A. 1985. Verslag van een verzamelreis in noordoost-Italie. De Kreukel, 21: 57-78.
Bank, R.A., Falkner, G. & Gittenberger, E. 2000. Nomenclatural notes on a Cecilioides species of the Italian and Swiss Alps (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Ferussaciidae). Basteria, 64(4-6): 99-104.
Bole, J. & Slapnik, R. 1998. Die Landschnecken des submediterranen Gebietes Sloweniens (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Malakologische Abhandlungen, 19: 119-126.
Cossignani, T. & Cossignani, V. 1995. Atlante delle conchiglie terrestri e dulciacquicole italiane. 208 pp. Ancona.
De Betta, E. 1852. Malacologia terrestre e fluviatile della Valle di Non nel Tirolo italiano, Parte 1. Molluschi terrestri. 144 pp., 1 pl. Verona.
De Betta, E. 1864. Esame critico intorno a tre molluschi del genere Glandina Schumacher. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (3)9: 357-360.
De Betta, E. & Martinati, P.P. 1855. Catalogo dei molluschi terrestri e fluviatili viventi nelle provincie venete. 102 pp., 1 pl. Verona.
De Betta, E. & Martinati, P.P. 1861. Catalogo dei molluschi terrestri e fluviatili viventi nelle provincie venete. Jn Massalongo, A., Elenco dei molluschi terrestri e fluviatili fino ad ora conosciuti nelle prov. Venete. Arti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (3)6: 126-142.
De Cristofori, J. & Jan, G. 1832. Mantissa in secundam partem catalogi testaceorum exstantium in collectione quam possident De Cristofori et Jan... Parma.
Eikenboom, J. 1996. Een verslag van 10 jaar landslakken verzamelen in Italie. De Kreukel, 32(6-8): 61-106.
Falkner, G. 1990. Binnenmollusken und Anhang. Pp. 112-280 in Fechter, R. & Falkner, G., Weichtiere. Europdische Meeres- und Binnenmollusken. Mosaik, Munchen.
Falkner, G., Bank, R.A. & von Proschwitz, T. 2001. Check-list of the non-marine Molluscan species-group taxa of the States of Northern, Atlantic and Central Europe (CLECOM I). Heldia, 4(1/2): 1-76.
Giusti, F. 1976. Notuale Malacologicae XXIII. I Molluschi terrestri, salmastri e di acqua dolce dell’Elba, Giannutri e scogli minori dell’Arcipelago Toscano. Conclusioni generali sul popolamento malacologico dell’Arcipelago Toscano e descrizione di una nuova specie. (Studi sulla Riserva naturale dell’Isola di Montecristo, IV). Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia, (Nuova Serie) 5: 99-355.
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. 1995. The non-marine moiluscs of the Maltese Islands. Monografie Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali (Torino), 15: 1-607.
Goto, Y. & Poppe, T.P. 1996. A listing of living Mollusca, vol. 1, part 1. 469 pp.; vol. 2, part 2. Pp. 525-1036. L’Informatore Piceno, Ancona.
Kerney, M.P. & Cameron, R.A.D. 1979. A field guide to the land snails of Britain and north-west Europe. 288 pp. London. ;
Kiister, H.C. 1870. Die Binnenmollusken-Fauna von Triest, Istrien; Dalmatien und Montenegro. 11. Berichte Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Bamberg, 9: 86-101.
Manganelli, G., Bodon, M., Favilli, L. & Giusti, F. 1995. Gastropoda pulmonata. Jn Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie della fauna d'Italia, part 16. 60 pp. Calderini, Bologna.
Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium . .. Havniae.
Pilsbry, H.A. 1908. Manual of Conchology, Series 2 (Pulmonata), vol. 20 (Caecilioides, Glessula and Partulidae), part 77. 64 pp., 10 pls. Philadelphia.
Riezler, A. 1929. Die Molluskenfauna Tirols. Verdffentlichungen des Museum Ferdinandeum in Innsbruck, 9: 1-215.
Strobel, P. 1855a. Molluschi terrestri raccolti da Cristoforo Belloti nel 1853 in Dalmazia (continuazione). Giornale di Malacologia, 2: 136-141.
Strobel, P. 1855b. Beitrag zur Mollusken-Fauna von Tirol. Uebersicht der von den Gebriidern Josef und Peregrin von Strobel in Tirol gesammelten Land-Schnecken, nebst Angabe ihrer Fundorte und ihrer Nord- und Siid-Grenze gegen das Donau- und das Po-Thal. Verhandlungen des Zoologisch-Botanischen Vereins in Wien, 5: 153-176.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 81
Strobel, P. 1857. Essai d’une distribution orographico-géographique des mollusques terrestres dans la Lombardie. Memorie dell’ Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali, (2)18: 233-280. (Published in the serial in 1859 but issued as a separate in 1857).
Thorson, G. 1930. Zoogeografische und 6kologische Studien tiber die Landschnecken in den Dolomiten. Zoologische Jahrbticher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 60: 85-238.
Turner, H., Kuiper, J.G.J., Thew, N., Bernasconi, R., Riietschi, J., Wiithrich, M. & Gosteli, M. 1998. Atlas der Mollusken der Schweiz und Liechtensteins. Fauna Helvetica, 2: 1-515.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
2mm
The lectotype of Cecilioides janii (De Betta & Martinati, 1855) (fig. 1) and a shell of C. acicula (O.F. Miller, 1774) (fig. 2). Both specimens were collected in the Val di Non, northern Italy, by E. De Betta and published in his 1852 monograph as Achatina acicula and A. aciculoides respectively; they are kept in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona.
82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Case 3198
Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 (Crustacea, Isopeda): proposed designation of H. granulatus Richardson, 1908 as the type species
Kelly L. Merrin
Museum Victoria, GPO Box 666E, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia and Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Gary C.B. Poore
Museum Victoria, GPO Box 666E, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia (e-mail: gnpnoore@museum.vic.gov.au)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accustomed usage of the marine isopod genus Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 (family IsCcHNOMESIDAE), which currently contains 12 species. In 1962 Ischnosoma thomsoni Beddard, 1886 was designated as the type species, but this has the characters of the genus Haplomesus Richardson, 1908. It is proposed that Heteromesus granulatus Richardson, 1908 should be designated as the type species of Heteromesus.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Isopoda; ISCHNOMESIDAE; Heteromesus; Haplomesus; Heteromesus granulatus; Haplomesus thomsoni; marine.
1. Sars (1866, p. 115) established the genus Jschnosoma for a new species of deep-sea isopod, I. bispinosum. Richardson (1908, p. 81) divided the six species then included in Jschnosoma among four new genera: /schnomesus (a replacement name for Ischnosoma Sars, a junior homonym of the name Ischnosoma as used twice in 1829 for genera of fish and beetles), Haplomesus, Heteromesus and Rhabdomesus.
2. The type species of Ischnomesus.is Ischnosoma bispinosum Sars, 1866 (Article 67.8 of the Code), and that of Haplomesus is Ischnosoma quadrispinosus Sars, 1879 (p. 432) by monotypy. Richardson (1908) included five species in her genus Heteromesus: Ischnosoma thomsoni Beddard, 1886 (p. 169, fig. 1), £ spinosum Beddard, 1886, I greeni Tattersall, 1906 and the two new species Heteromesus granulatus (p. 82, figs. 14-18) and H. spinescens (p. 83, fig. 19). No type species was selected for Heteromesus.
3. In a revision of many crustacean families, Hansen (1916) synonymised Rhabdomesus with Ischnomesus. Hansen placed Ischnomesus, Haplomesus and Heteromesus in a new family-group taxon, the ISCHNOMESINI (p. 54), which has subsequently been used at family rank. Hansen’s diagnoses of these genera (pp. 56. 59 and 66 respectively) are widely accepted today.
4. Birstein (1960, p. 6) transferred Ischnosoma thomsoni from Heteromesus to Haplomesus, and included in the latter genus the two new species Haplomesus brevispinis (p. 11, fig. 7) and Haplomesus cornutus (p. 12, figs. 8, 9); see also Birstein (1963). Wolff (1962) referred to the type specimen of Jschnosoma thomsoni in The Natural History Museum, London, and supported Birstein’s placement of this
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 83
species in Haplomesus. The taxonomic differences between Haplomesus and Heteromesus given by Richardson (1908) and Hansen (1916) have formed the basis of the keys (Wolff, 1962; Menzies, 1962) to genera and species which are in current use.
5. Twelve species belong to Heteromesus as now understood, the most recently described being H. wolffi and H. drachi Chardy, 1974 (p. 1543, figs. 4, 5 and p. 1546, figs. 6, 7). Heteromesus has appeared in other recent works on the taxonomic diversity and ecology of the deep sea (e.g. Menzies, George & Rowe, 1973; Wolff, 1976; Gooday, 1984; Thistle & Wilson, 1987; Kussakin, 1988; Svavarsson, Stromberg & Brattegard, 1993; Svavarsson & Davidsdottir, 1994; Brandt, 1997).
6. Although Birstein (1960) had transferred Ischnosoma thomsoni Beddard, 1886 from Heteromesus to Haplomesus, a placement supported by Wolff (1962) (see para. 4 above) and by later authors, Menzies (1962, p. 121) designated 1. thomsoni as the type species of Heteromesus. This action effectively made Heteromesus a subjective synonym of Haplomesus and, if accepted, would leave the 12 species currently thought to belong to Heteromesus outside any named genus.
7. No authors have referred to Menzies’ (1962) designation of /. thomsoni as the type species for Heteromesus. His action would require the creation of a new generic name for what is currently accepted as Heteromesus. In order to preserve current usage and avoid instability or confusion we propose, under Article 70.2 of the Code, that I thomsoni should be set aside as the type species and be replaced by the originally included species Heteromesus granulatus Richardson, 1908. The holotype of H. granulatus, from south of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, U.S.A., is specimen No. 38969 in the U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, IDC.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 and to designate Heteromesus granulatus Richardson, 1908 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Heteromesus granulatus Richardson, 1908;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name granulatus Richardson, 1908, as published in the binomen Heteromesus granulatus (specific name of the type species of Heteromesus Richardson, 1908).
Acknowledgement We thank Dr G.D.F. Wilson for his comments on this proposal.
References
Beddard, F.E. 1886. Preliminary notice of the Isopoda collected during the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger. Part Ill. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1886: 97-122. Birstein, J.-A. 1960. The family Ischnomesidae (Crustacea, Isopoda, Asellota) in the north-western part of the Pacific and the problem of amphiboreal and bipolar distribution of the deep sea fauna. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 34: 3-28.
Birstein, J.A. 1963. Deep water isopods (Crustacea, Isopoda) of the north-western part of the Pacific Ocean. 213 pp. Akademia Nauk SSSR, Moscow. [In Russian. English translation by the Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre, New Dehli, 1973].
84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Brandt, A. 1997. Biodiversity of peracarid crustaceans (Malacostraca) from the shelf down to the deep Arctic Ocean. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 1533-1556.
Chardy, P. 1974. Complements a l'étude systématique des Ischnomesidae (Isopodes Asellotes) de l’Atlantique. Description de quatre especes nouvelles. Bulletin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, 179(3): 1537-1552.
Gooday, A. 1984. Records of deep-sea rhizopod tests inhabited by metazoans in the North-East Atlantic. Sarsia, 69: 45—53.
Hansen, H.J. 1916. Crustacea Malacostraca III, part 5. The Order Isopoda. Danish Ingolf- Expedition, 3: 1-262, pls. 1-16.
Kussakin, O.G. 1988. Marine and brackish-water Crustacea (Isopoda) of cold and temperate waters of the Northern Hemisphere. 3. Suborder Asellota 1. Janiridae, Santiidae, Dendrotionidae, Munnidae, Haplomunnidae, Mesosignidae, Haploniscidae, Mictosoma- tidae, Ischnomesidae. Opredeliteli po Faune SSR, 152: 1-501. [In Russian].
Menzies, R.J. 1962. The isopods of abyssal depths in the Atlantic Ocean. Vema Research Series, 1: 79-206.
Menzies, R.J., George, R.Y. & Rowe, G.T. 1973. Abyssal environment and ecology of the world oceans. 488 pp. Wiley, New York.
Richardson, H. 1908. Some new Isopoda of the superfamily Aselloidea from the Atlantic coast of North America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 35: 71-86.
Sars, G.O. 1866. Beretning om en i Sommeren 1865 foretagen zoologisk Reise ved Kysterne af Christianias og Christiansands Stifter. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne, 15: 84-128.
Sars, G.O. 1879. Crustacea et Pycnogonida nova in itinere 2-do et 3-tio Expeditionis norvegicae anno 1877 et 78 collecta. Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab, 4: 427-476.
Svavarsson, J. & Davidsdottir, B. 1994. Foraminiferan (Protozoa) epizoites on Arctic isopods (Crustacea) as indicators of isopod behaviour. Marine Biology, 118: 239-246.
Svavarsson, J., Stromberg, J.-O. & Brattegard, T. 1993. The deep-sea asellote (Isopoda, Crustacea) fauna of the northern seas: species composition, distributional patterns and origin. Journal of Biogeography, 20: 537-555.
Tattersall, W.M. 1906. The marine fauna of the coast of Ireland. Part V. Isopoda. Reports of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Scientific Investigations of the Fisheries Branch, 2: 53-142.
Thistle, D. & Wilson, G.D.F. 1987. A hydrodynamically modified abyssal isopod fauna. Deep-Sea Research, 34: 73-87.
Wolff, T. 1962. The systematics and biology of bathyal and abyssal Isopoda Asellota. Galathea Reports, 6: 1-320.
Wolff, T. 1976. Utilisation of seagrass in the deep sea. Aquatic Botany, 2: 161-174.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 85
Case 3227
Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 (currently Orphnaeus brevilabiatus) and Chomatobius brasilianus Humbert & Saussure, 1870 (currently O. brasilianus) (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names
Donatella Foddai and Alessandro Minelli
Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita degli Studi di Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58B, I 35131 Padova, Italy (e-mail: foddai@civ.bio.unipd.it; almin@civ.bio.unipd.it)
Luis Alberto Pereira
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Paseo del Bosque s.n., (1900) La Plata, R. Argentina (e-mail: lpereira@museo.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific names of Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 (currently Orphnaeus brevilabiatus) and Chomatobius brasilianus Humbert & Saussure, 1870 (currently O. brasilianus) for two widely distributed species of geophilomorph centipedes (family ORyYIDAE). Although senior subjective synonyms for these two nominal species have been used only infrequently, the junior names do not fully meet the criteria for protection under Article 23.9 of the Code. Scolopendra phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758, a senior synonym of G. brevilabiatus, has been used once as a valid name in 1901. There are two senior synonyms of the nominal species G. brasilianus — G. lineatus and G. whitei, both of Newport (1845), but neither has been used as the valid name of the taxon.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chilopoda; Geophilomorpha; oORYIDAE:; Scolopendra phosphorea; Orphnaeus brevilabiatus; Orphnaeus brasilianus; Orphnaeus lineatus; Orphnaeus whitei; geophilomorph centipedes; pantropical.
1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 638) introduced the name Scolopendra phosphorea for a geophilomorph centipede species from ‘Asia’. The specific name refers to the animal’s ability to glow by putative bioluminescence, which Linnaeus compared to that of fireflies. This light-producing mechanism is known to occur in several geophilo- morphs (see Minelli, 1978). The short description provided by Linnaeus indicates that this centipede is clearly a member of the Geophilomorpha as it has 14 antennal articles and 72-76 pairs of legs. These centipedes are now known to possess 27 to 191 pairs of legs (see Minelli, Foddai, Pereira & Lewis, 2000). The number of pairs of legs is always odd but Linnaeus may have omitted to count the last pair, which is usually
86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
quite modified and not obviously leg-like. Scolopendra phosphorea was listed by Fabricius (1781, p. 534) and Gmelin (1790, p. 3017). Newport (1845, p. 438) referred to Geophilus phosphorea [sic] as ‘Geophilidae which I have been unable to identify from imperfect description’. Lucas (1846) listed the species as “exotique et peu connue’ (exotic and little known) and Gervais (1847, p. 328) also regarded Linnaeus’s species as ‘incomplétement connus’. Indeed, its identity remains difficult to determine.
2. Haase (1887, pp. 111-112) listed S. phosphorea Linnaeus, 1770 [sic] as a possible (‘?) synonym of Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 (currently Orphnaeus brevilabiatus) on the basis of the original description of S. phosphorea, its geographical distribution and the number of pairs of legs of G. brevilabiatus known at that time. The very few descriptive details provided by Linnaeus (1758) are not enough to support this synonymy but are at least compatible with it. In particular, the distribution of Orphnaeus brevilabiatus (Newport, 1845) is pantropical and includes Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Celebes, Formosa and Madagascar (see Foddai, Pereira & Minelli, 2000). The number of pairs of legs ranges between 67-81 (Attems, 1929, p. 122) including both numbers given by Linnaeus. One of us (D.F.) checked for specimens of S. phosphorea in the series of dried centipedes in Linnaeus’s collection at the Linnean Society, London, but this species was not present there.
3. Meinert (1870, p. 17) introduced the generic name Orphnaeus and included two species: O. lividus Meinert, 1870 (p. 19) from Oahu and Nicobar and O. brasiliensis Meinert, 1870 (p. 20) from Rio de Janeiro. The generic diagnosis is clear as are the descriptions and illustrations provided for the two species. No type species was fixed for Orphnaeus by Meinert (1870).
4. Cook (1896a, p. 34) proposed Orphnaeus phosphoreus (Linnaeus) as the type species of Orphnaeus Meinert, 1870, disregarding the fact that phosphoreus (i.e. Scolopendra phosphorea Linnaeus) had not been originally included in Orphnaeus. There are three further citations of O. phosphoreus as a valid name: Cook (1896b, p. 67; 1896c, pp. 35, 37) and Pocock (1901, p. 463). The latter formally listed Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 as its junior synonym. Disregarding this synonymy, but following the likely taxonomic implications of Cook’s (1896a) designation, Attems (1929, p. 112) also incorrectly listed O. brevilabiatus (Newport, 1845) as the type species of Orphnaeus and ignored the Linnaean nominal species S. phosphoreus.
5. Crabill (1968, p. 109) established a valid type species designation for the nominal genus Orphnaeus Meinert, 1870 by selecting O. lividus Meinert, 1870 from the two originally included nominal species (Article 67.3 of the Code; see para. 3 above). At the same time he synonymized O. lividus Meinert, 1870 with O. brevilabiatus (Newport, 1845), which became the valid name for the type species of Orphnaeus, thus preserving the taxonomic concept intended by Cook (1896a) and followed by Attems (1929).
6. Despite the priority of Orphnaeus phosphoreus (Linnaeus, 1758) over O. brevilabiatus (Newport, 1845), the latter name has been consistently used as the valid name for this centipede species by all authors after Pocock (1901). Twenty nine works by 21 authors, encompassitig a span of not less than 10 years within the last 50 years, were cited in a comprehensive list provided by Foddai, Pereira & Minelli (2000).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 87
Except for its use by Pocock (1901) phosphorea would have been considered a nomen oblitum and the widely used younger name brevilabiatus automatically protected under Article 23.9 of the Code. We propose that brevilabiatus be conserved and placed on the Official List.
7. Two of the many new species described by Newport (1845) are Geophilus lineatus from Honduras and G. whitei (both on p. 436) for which no locality was given. According to Crabill (1962, p. 507) both correspond to the species currently known as Orphnaeus brasilianus (Humbert & Saussure, 1870, p. 205), originally described as Chomatobius brasilianus. We confirm this identification following personal examina- tion (D.F.) of the type material of both of Newport’s taxa in the collection of The Natural History Museum, London (G. /ineatus: the lectotype BM(NH) 200460 designated by Crabill (1962, p. 507); and G. whitei: holotype BM(NH) 200486). Crabill (1962) considered the two Newport names to be forgotten (nomina oblita) under Article 23b of the (first, 1961) edition of the Code then in force, because they apparently had not been used for more than 50 years. Mayr (1963, p. 509) supported this interpretation. However, as noted by Crabill himself, both G. lineatus and G. whitei had also been cited by Attems (1929, pp. 348-9), although as Geophilomorpha incertae sedis.
8. The name Orphnaeus brasilianus has been used for this taxon by different authors before, as well as after, Crabill’s 1962 paper (e.g. by Brolemann (1919, p. 235), Attems (1929, pp. 112-113), Verhoeff (1937, p. 6), Kraus (1957, p. 368), Crabill (1960, pp. 170-171), Mayr (1963, p. 509) and Shear & Peck (1992, pp. 2270, 2272)). A total of 15 citations was given by Foddai, Pereira & Minelli (2000, pp. 112-113).
9. Replacement of the specific name of Orphnaeus brevilabiatus by phosphorea, or O. brasilianus with either lineatus or whitei, would cause undue confusion in the nomenclature of the ORYIDAE (a group badly affected by nomenclatural problems) without offering any advantage.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scolopendra phosphorea;
(b) lineatus Newport, 1845, as published in the binomen Geophilus lineatus;
(c) whitei Newport, 1845, as published in the binomen Geophilus whitei; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Orphnaeus Meinert, 1870 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Crabill (1968) Orphnaeus lividus Meinert, 1870 (a junior subjective synonym of Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the following names: (a) brevilabiatus Newport, 1845, as published in the binomen Geophilus brevilabiatus (senior subjective synonym of Orphnaeus lividus Meinert, 1870, the type species of Orphnaeus Meinert, 1870);
(b) brasilianus Humbert & Saussure, 1870, as published in the binomen Chomatobius brasilianus;
88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scolopendra phosphorea and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) lineatus Newport, 1845, as published in the binomen Geophilus lineatus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above;
(c) whitei Newport, 1845, as published in the binomen Geophilus whitei and as suppressed in (1)(c) above.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Janet Beccaloni, Curator of the collection of Arachnida and Myriapoda, and to Mike G. Fitton, Curator of Insects of the Linnean collection, for their assistance to D.F. during a research visit to The Natural History Museum, London supported by the IHP programme to D.F. (SYS-RESOURCE MRI).
References
Attems, C. 1929. Myriapoda I. Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich, 52: 1-388.
Brélemann, H.W. 1919. Myriapodes-Chilopodes. Pp. 235-275 in: Mission du service géografique de l'armée pour la mesure d'un Arc de Méridien équatorial en Amérique du Sud sous le contréle scientifique de l Académie des Sciences 1899-1906, vol. 10. Paris.
Cook, O.F. 1896a. The genera of Oryidae. Brandtia, 7: 33-34.
Cook, O.F. 1896b. An arrangement of the Geophilidae, a family of Chilopoda. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 18(1895): 63-75.
Cook,. O.F. 1896c. Geophiloidea from Liberia and Togo. Brandtia, 8: 35-40.
Crabill, R.E., Jr. 1960. Centipedes of the Smithsonian-Bredin Expeditions to the West Indies. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 111(3427): 167-195.
Crabill, R.E., Jr. 1962. Concerning chilopod types in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 1. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (13)5: 505-510.
Crabill, R.E., Jr. 1968. Concerning the true identities of Gosiphilus and Chomatobius with redescription of the latter’s type species (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Himantariidae). Entomological News, 79: 108-112.
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum, vol. 1. Bohnii, Hamburgi et Kiloni.
Foddai, D., Pereira, L.A. & Minelli, A. 2000. A catalogue of the geophilomorph eaitinaiks (Chilopoda) from Central and South America including Mexico. Amazoniana, 16(1—2): 59-185.
Gervais, P. 1847. Classe II. Chilopodes. Pp. 210-333 in Walckenaer, M. & Gervais, P., Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Aptéres. Mémoires du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 4. Paris.
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Lepidoptera-Aptera. Pp. 2225-3020 in: Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1 (Insecta). Beer, Lipsiae.
Haase, E. 1887. Die Indisch-Australischen Myriopoden. Pt. 1. Chilopoden. Abhandlungen und Berichte des K6niglichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museum zu Dresden, 5: 1-118.
Humbert, A. & Saussure, E. De. 1870. Myriapoda nova Americana. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée, (2)22: 202-205.
Kraus, O. 1957. Myriapoden aus Peru, VI: Chilopoden. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 38: 359-404.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lucas, H. 1846. Myriapodes. Pp. 525-542 in Orbigny, A.C.V. Dessalines d’ (Ed.), Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle, vol. 8. 766 pp. Martinet, Paris.
Mayr, E. 1963. The statute of limitation and chilopod nomenclature. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 13(6): 509-110.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 89
Meinert, F. 1870. Myriapoda Musaei Hauniensis. Bidrag til myriapodernes morphologi og systematik. 1. Geophili. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (3)7: 1-128.
Minelli, A. 1978. Secretions of centipedes. Pp. 73-85 in Bettini, S. (Ed.), Arthropod venoms. Handbuch der Experimentellen Pharmakologie, vol. 48. xxxiii, 977 pp. Springer, Berlin.
Minelli, A., Foddai, D., Pereira, L.A. & Lewis, J.G.E. 2000. The evolution of segmentation of centipede trunk and appendages. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 38: 103-117.
Newport, G. 1845. Monograph of the class Myriapoda order Chilopoda; with observations on the general arrangement of the Articulata. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 19(9): 265-302; 349-439.
Pocock, R.I. 1901. The Chilopoda or centipedes of the Australian Continent. Annals of Natural History, (7)8: 451-463.
Shear, W.A. & Peck, S.B. 1992. Centipedes (Chilopoda) and Symphyla of the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70: 2260-2274.
Verhoeff, K.W. 1937. Uber einige Chilopoden aus Australien und Brasilien. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik und Geographie der Tiere, 70: 1-176.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Case 3181
Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed precedence over Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913
Michael S. Engel
Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas 66045—7523, U.S.A.
Kumar Krishna
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the specific name of Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 for an important economic termite pest species widely distributed by man. The senior specific name, Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913, has not been used since 1934 while the junior name has been universally used in an extensive biological, systematic and pest control literature . since at least 1949. It is proposed that the specific name Cryptotermes dudleyi be given precedence over Calotermes jacobsoni.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; KALOTERMITIDAE; Cryptotermes; Cryptotermes dudleyi; Cryptotermes jacobsoni; termites.
1. Holmgren (1913a, p. 48) described the species Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni from Java in a general study of termites from the Oriental region; the date of publication of 23 May is given on p. 276 of the paper. The following month, on 30 June, Holmgren (1913b, p. 14) repeated the description and referred to it as a new species, even though the name had been made available in his earlier article.
2. Banks (1918, p. 660, pl. 51, fig. 3) described and illustrated the kalotermitid species Cryptotermes dudleyi in a faunal revision of the termites of Panama and British Guiana. ;
3. From 1918 through 1934 the specific names C. jacobsoni and C. dudlyei were both in use. In 1934 Kemner (p. 49) made the last mention of C. jacobsoni as a valid species in a study of termites from Java and Celebes.
4. Snyder (1949, p. 41), in a general catalog and classification of the termites of the world, recognized that the species proposed by Banks (1918) and Holmgren (1913a, b) were conspecific, along with a few more junior species which had been established by other authors. Snyder brought the names together for the first time but, without explanation, chose the junior name, C. dudleyi, as the valid name for the species; the reason may have been the growing usage of this name in the termite literature in comparison with C. jacobsoni.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 91
5. Since the recognition of the synonymy in 1949, all subsequent authors have followed Snyder’s precedence and used the name C. dudleyi for this important and widely distributed economic pest species. All modern catalogs and revisions of the genus have either listed C. jacobsoni as a junior synonym of C. dudleyi despite its precedence (e.g., Araujo, 1977, pp. 13-14; Constantino, 1998, pp. 143-144) or overlooked the senior name altogether (e.g., Chhotani, 1970; Bacchus, 1987; Watson, Miller & Abbey, 1998). The name C. dudleyi has been widely used during the past 53 years in the literature of economic entomology, termite systematics and biology, and pest control (e.g., Harris, 1961; Krishna, 1961; Snyder & Francia, 1962; Gay, 1969; Araujo, 1970; Bess, 1970; Roonwal, 1970; Bose, 1984; Huang, Li & Zhu, 1989; Roonwal & Chhotani, 1989).
6. To use the name C. jacobsoni in place of its junior synonym C. dudleyi would bring about a change in a widely used name for a regularly encountered economic pest. The resurrection of the long forgotten name C. jacobsoni would unnecessarily create confusion and loss of continuity in a growing economic and agricultural literature and would promote nomenclatural instability. Presently preparing a new catalog and classification of the world’s termites, we propose that the name C. dudleyi should be given precedence over C. jacobsoni, although the latter name would remain available for any isopterist who may in the future consider the two to represent separate species.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, precedence over the name jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913, as published in the binomen Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913, as published in the binomen Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913, as published in the binomen Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Valerie Krishna, Charles D. Michener and Molly G. Rightmyer for comments on the petition. This work is supported by a National Science Foundation grant to catalog the termites of the world (NSF DEB-—9870097 to K. Krishna and D. Grimaldi).
References
Araujo, R.L. 1970. Termites of the Neotropical region. Pp. 527-576 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of termites, vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.
Araujo, R.L. 1977. Catalogo dos Isoptera do Novo Mundo. 92 pp. Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, Rio de Janeiro.
92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Bacchus, S. 1987. A taxonomic and biometric study of the genus Cryptotermes (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Tropical Pest Bulletin, 7: \-91.
Banks, N. 1918. The termites of Panama and British Guiana. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 38(17): 659-667.
Bess, H.A. 1970. Termites of Hawaii and the Oceanic Islands. Pp. 449-476 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of termites, vol. 2. Academic Press, New York. Bose, G. 1984. Termite fauna of southern India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India,
Occasional Paper, 49: 1-270.
Chhotani, O.B. 1970. Taxonomy, zoogeography and phylogeny of the genus Cryptotermes (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) from the Oriental region. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India, 15(1): 1-81.
Constantino, R. 1998. Catalog of the living termites of the New World (Insecta: Isoptera). Arquivos de Zoologia, Sado Paulo, 35(2): 135-231.
Gay, F.J. 1969. Species introduced by man. Pp. 459-494 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of termites, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York.
Harris, W.V. 1961. Termites: their recognition and control. xii, 187 pp. Longmans, Green, London.
Holmgren, N. 1913a (23 May 1913). Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps- Akademiens Handlingar, (2)50(2): 1-276.
Holmgren, N. 1913b (30 June 1913). Termiten aus Java und Sumatra, gesammelt von Edward Jacobson. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 56: 13-28.
Huang, F.-S., Li, G.-X. & Zhu, S.-M. 1989. The taxonomy and biology of Chinese termites — Isoptera. 2, 2, 605 pp. Tianze Press, Guangzhou. [In Chinese, with English title].
Kemner, N.A. 1934. Systematische und biologische Studien tiber die Termiten Javas und Celebes’. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3)13(4): 1-241.
Krishna, K. 1961. A generic revision and phylogenetic study of the family Kalotermitidae (Isoptera). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 122(4): 303-408.
Roonwal, M.L. 1970. Termites of the Oriental region. Pp. 315-391 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of termites, vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.
Roonwal, M.L. & Chhotani, O.B. 1989. Fauna of India and adjacent countries. Isoptera (Termites), vol. 1. [8], viii, 672 pp. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 112(3953): 1-490.
Snyder, T.E. & Francia, F.C. 1962. A summary of Philippine termites with supplementary biological notes. Philippine Journal of Science, 89(1): 63-77.
Watson, J.A.L., Miller, L.R. & Abbey, H.M. 1998. Isoptera. Pp. 163-250 in Houston, W.W.K. & Wells, A. (Eds.), Zoological Catalogue of Australia, vol. 23 (Archaeognatha, Zygentoma, Blattodea, Isoptera, Mantodea, Dermaptera, Phasmatodea, Embioptera, Zoraptera). xii, 464 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 93
Case 3202
Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 and Philoscaptus Bréthes, 1919 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Podalgus cuniculus Burmeister, 1847 as the type species of Podalgus
Frank-Thorsten Krell
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: F.Krell@nhm.ac.uk)
Abstract. The type species of Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 (SCARABAEIDAE, DYNASTINAE) is formally P. bonariensis Burmeister, 1847 but this fixation has been rejected or ignored by virtually all authors. The purpose of this application is to accept the designation by Arrow (1908) of P. cuniculus Burmeister, 1847, thereby maintaining the current usage of Podalgus for an abundant small rhinoceros beetle from the northern Afrotropics, North Africa, Arabia and west Asia to northern India, and Philoscaptus Bréthes, 1919 (type species Podalgus bonariensis, by monotypy) for South American species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; DYNASTINAE; Podalgus; Philoscaptus; Podalgus cuniculus; Philoscaptus bonariensis; rhinoceros beetles; Africa; Asia; South America.
1. Dejean (1833, p. 152) published the nomen nudum Podalgus cuniculus for an undescribed species from Senegal. Burmeister (1847) published the first description for both the genus (p. 117) and species (p. 119), rendering the names available. Podalgus cuniculus refers to a common and widespread small rhinoceros beetle (SCARABAEIDAE, DYNASTINAE) from Africa, Arabia and western Asia to northern India. Burmeister initially included some American species in Podalgus, the first listed being P. bonariensis Burmeister, 1847 (p. 118) from Argentina. He did not designate a type species for the genus.
2. Later in the same book, Burmeister (1847, p. 542) transferred some of the American species from Podalgus into his new genus Ligyrus. Lacordaire (1856, p. 408) removed the remaining American species from Podalgus and placed them in Scaptophilus Burmeister, 1847, Bothynus Hope, 1837, and in a ‘genre nouveau’ to which he did not give a name. The last comprised P. bonariensis, P. obesus Burmeister, 1847 and three other species. As a result, only the Afroasian species P. cuniculus remained in Podalgus.
3. Despite this, Reiche (1859, p. 10) designated Podalgus bonariensis from Argentina as the type species of Podalgus, and for P. cuniculus he introduced the new monotypic genus Vertumnus (however, this generic name is twice preoccupied). This taxonomic arrangement was followed only by Gemminger & Harold (1869), Fairmaire (1895; see para. 4 below) and, as far as P. bonariensis is concerned, by Bruch (1911; but not 1915 — see para. 5 below).
94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
4. Unaware of the nominal species Podalgus cuniculus, Semenow (1889) described the same taxon under the name Crator infantulus (p. 207), while introducing the new genus Crator (p. 206). Fairmaire (1895) synonymized Crator with Vertumnus Reiche, 1859 and used the latter name, unaware that it is a junior homonym. After Reitter (1899, p. 38) had noted the homonymy of Vertumnus Reiche and adopted Crator instead, this name was used occasionally until the end of the 1950s, mostly by authors working on the northern African fauna. To my knowledge the name Crator has been used only in the works by Winkler (1929), Peyerimhoff (1931), Zavattari (1934), Normand (1936), Mateu Sanpere (1950), Kocher & Reymond (1954), Kocher (1958) and Petrovitz (1958).
5. Arrow (1908, p. 341) transferred Podalgus bonariensis to the genus Ligyrus Burmeister, 1847 (which was followed by Bruch, 1915), and designated P. cuniculus as the type species of Podalgus, in accord with the early taxonomic history (see paras. | and 2 above) of the two genera. Arrow’s type species designation was accepted by Paulian (1954), Medvedev (1960), Ferreira (1966), Endrodi (1969b, 1985) and Nikolaev (1987), and was independently proposed by Prell (1936). Podalgus is currently the only generic name in use for P. cuniculus (see above; also Arrow, 1937, Baraud, 1985, and a number of regional publications on the fauna of Israel, Arabia and North Africa, a list of which is held by the Commission Secretariat).
6. Bréthes (1919, p. 602) introduced the name Philoscaptus for Lacordaire’s (1856) unnamed new genus (see para. 2 above). Podalgus bonariensis is the type by monotypy because only this species was definitely included in the genus; two other nominal species, Podalgus obesus Burmeister (= Aphonus castaneus (Melsheimer)) and Heteronychus globosus Burmeister (currently Eutheola bidentata (Burmeister)), were only tentatively included. Philoscaptus is currently treated as a distinct genus which includes two species (Endrodi, 1969a; Dechambre, 1979), and has been included in standard catalogues (Arrow, 1937 and Blackwelder, 1944).
7. The names Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 and Philoscaptus Bréthes, 1919 have been in use in their current senses since 1908 (Arrow’s type species designation) and 1919 (original publication) respectively. Acceptance of Reiche’s (1859) designation of Podalgus bonariensis as the type species of Podalgus would mean the transfer of the name Podalgus to the New World genus currently known as Philoscaptus, loss of the latter name as a junior objective synonym of Podalgus, and resurrection of the disused name Crator Semenow, 1889 for the Afroasian taxon currently known as Podalgus. As with any transfer of a name between taxa this would inevitably cause considerable and unnecessary confusion.
8. I propose that the type designation for Podalgus made by Reiche (1859) be set aside and that P. cuniculus Burmeister, 1847 be confirmed as the type species following the designation by Arrow (1908). This will allow the accustomed usages of the names Podalgus and Philoscaptus for Afroasian and American genera respectively to be maintained.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 prior to the designation by Arrow (1908) of Podalgus cuniculus Burmeister, 1847;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 95
(2)- to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Arrow (1908) Podalgus cuniculus Burmeister, 1847, as ruled in (1) above; (b) Philoscaptus Brethes, 1919 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Podalgus bonariensis Burmeister, 1847; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) cuniculus Burmeister, 1847, as published in the binomen Podalgus cuniculus (specific name of the type species of Podalgus Burmeister, 1847); (b) bonariensis Burmeister, 1847, as published in the binomen Podalgus bonariensis (specific name of the type species of Philoscaptus Bréthes, 1919).
References
Arrow, G.J. 1908. A contribution to the classification of the coleopterous family Dynastidae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1908: 321-358.
Arrow, G.J. 1937. Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 156: 1-124.
Baraud, J. 1985. Coléopteres Scarabaeoidea. Faune du Nord de l’Afrique du Maroc au Sinai. Encyclopédie Entomologique, 46: 1-652.
Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America, part 2. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 185: 189-341.
Bréthes, J. 1919. Un nuevo género, Philoscaptus, para Podalgus bonariensis Burm. Physis, 4: 602.
Bruch, C. 1911. Catalogo sistematico de los coleopteros de la Republica Argentina. Pars IV. Familias Lucanidae, Scarabaeidae (Coprini-Cetonini), Passalidae. Revista del Museo de La Plata, 17: 181-225.
Bruch, C. 1915. Suplemento al catalogo sistematico de los coledpteros de la Republica Argentina. 1 (Addenda, corrigenda y resumen). Revista del Museo de La Plata, 19: 538-573.
Burmeister, H. 1847. Handbuch der Entomologie, Band 5 (Besondere Entomologie. Fortsetzung. Coleoptera Lamellicornia Xylophila et Pectinicornia). vili, 584 pp. Enslin, Berlin.
Dechambre, R.-P. 1979. Nouveaux Dynastidae Pentodontini américains (Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea). Revue Francaise d’Entomologie, (N.S.)1: 101-105.
Dejean, [P.F.M.A.] 1833. Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. Le Compte Dejean, Livraison 2, Fascicle 2. Pp. 97-176. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Endrédi, S. 1969a. Monographie der Dynastinae. 4. Tribus: Pentodontini (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). 1 (Amerikanische Pentodontini). Entomologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 37: \-145.
Endroédi, S. 1969b. Monographie der Dynastinae. 4. Tribus: Pentodontini (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). Entomologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 37: 147-208.
Endrédi, S. 1985. The Dynastinae of the world. Series Entomologica, 28: 1-800.
Fairmaire, L. 1895. Remarque sur le genre Crator (Col.). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 64: cccliti (Bulletin entomologique).
Ferreira, M.C. 1966. Contribuigao para o estudo dos dinastineos africanos. V. Os dinastineos de la regiao etidpica. Revista de Entomologia de Mogambique, 8: 3-348.
Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. de. 1869. Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum Synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 4 (Scarabaeidae). Pp. 979-1346, [7]. Gummi, Monachii.
Kocher, L. 1958. Catalogue commenté des coléoptéres du Maroc. Fascicule VII. Lamellicornes. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique Chérifien, Série Zoologie, 16: 1-83.
Kocher, L. & Reymond, A. 1954. Entomologie. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique Chérifien, Série Générale, 2: 191-260.
96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Lacordaire, T. 1856. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres, vol. 3. 594 pp. Roret, Paris.
Mateu Sanpere, J. 1950. Escarabeidos de Ifni y del Sahara Espanol. Eos, 26: 271-297.
Medvedev, S.I. 1960. Plastinchatousye (Scarabaeidae) Podsem. Euchirinae, Dynastinae, Glaphyrinae, Trichiinae. Fauna SSSR, 10: 1-399.
Nikolaey, G.V. 1987. Plastinchatousye Zhuki (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) Kazakhstana i Srednei Azii. 232 pp. Nauka, Alma-Ata.
Normand, H. 1936. Contribution au catalogue des coléoptéres de la Tunisie. 10@me fascicule. Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Afrique du Nord, 27: 355-383.
Paulian, R. 1954. Coléoptéres Dynastides, Chironides et Dynamopides de l'Afrique noire francaise. Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Afrique Noire, (A)16: 1119-1221.
Petrovitz, R. 1958. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Scarabaeiden-Fauna des Iran. Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, 8: 1-12.
Peyerimhoff, P. de. 1931. Mission Scientifique du Hoggar envoyée de Feévrier 4 Mai 1928 par M. Pierre Bordes, Gouverneur Général de I’Algérie. Coléopteres. Mémoires de la Société d Histoire Naturelle de l'Afrique du Nord, 2: \-173._
Prell, H. 1936. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Dynastinen. Uber die Homonymieverhaltnisse der Namen von Gattungen und Untergattungen. Entomologische Blatter, 32: 145-152. Reiche, L. 1859. Notes synonymiques sur le cinquiéme volume de l Handbuch der Entomolo- gie, Par M.H. Burmeister, Berlin, 1840. Coléoptéres Lamellicornes, Xylophiles. Annales de
la Société Entomologique de France, (3)7: 5-19.
Reitter, E. 1899. Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Melolonthidae aus der europaischen Fauna und den angrenzenden Landern, enthaltend die Gruppen der Dynastini, Euchirini, Pachy- podini, Cetonini, Valgini und Trichiini. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brtinn, 37: 21-111.
Semenow, A. 1889. Diagnoses Coleopterorum novorum ex Asia Centrali et Orientali. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 24: 193-226.
Winkler, A. 1929. Catalogus Coleopterorum regionis palaearcticae, pars 9. Pp. 1009-1136. Winkler, Vienna.
Zayattari, E. 1934. Prodromo della fauna della Libia. viii, 234 pp. Pavia.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 97
Case 3237
Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed validation of the lectotype designation
Andrew Smith
W436 Nebraska Hall, Division of Entomology, University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, NE 68588-0514, U.S.A. (e-mail: asmith@unlserve.unl.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to validate the lectotype designation of Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 under Article 86.1.2 of the Code. The nominal species has very recently been considered a junior synonym of Platycoelia lutescens Blanchard, 1851, the name for a scarab beetle (family SCARABAEIDAE) from the Andes in Ecuador, Peru and southern Colombia. The lectotype designation was made under the provisions of the third (1985) edition of the Code in a paper that was accepted for publication in November 1999. However, the paper was not published until May 2000, after the fourth (1999) edition of the Code had come into operation. The lectotype designation was made without an express statement of its taxonomic purpose and is invalid under Article 74.7.3 of the fourth edition of the Code.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Leucopelaea; Leucopelaea albescens; Platycoelia lutescens; scarab beetle; Andes Mountains; South America.
1. Smith & Paucar (2000, pp. 408-409) designated a lectotype for Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 (p. 30, pl. facing p. 31) and for the first time considered the nominal species to be a junior synonym of Platycoelia lutescens Blanchard, 1851 (p. 227) (family sCARABAEIDAE), a scarab beetle that is used as a food source by the people of the Ecuadorian Highlands, South America. The paper was submitted on 12 August 1999 and accepted for publication on 23 November 1999. These dates were explicitly stated in Smith & Paucar (2000, p. 414).
2. The lectotype designation of Leucopelaea albescens was proposed under the provisions of the third (1985) edition of the Code that was in operation at the time the paper was written and before the fourth (1999) edition of the Code came into force on | January 2000. As a result, the paper did not contain an express statement of the taxonomic purpose of the lectotype designation (see Article 74.7.3 of the fourth edition of the Code).
3. Article 86.1.2 of the Code states that ‘if an author submits for publication before 1 January 2000 a work containing names and nomenclatural acts proposed under the provisions of the third (1985) edition of the Code which was then in force, but the work is not published until after 31 December 1999, the names and acts are not to be set aside on the grounds that they do not comply with the changed provisions of the fourth edition. The Commission should be asked to validate the names or acts (and is empowered to do so without giving advance notice)’.
98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked: (1) to validate the lectotype designation for Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 by Smith & Paucar (2000) under Article 86.1.2 of the Code; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Leucopelaea Bates, 1891 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) albescens Bates, 1891, as published in the binomen Leucopelaea albescens and as defined by the lectotype designated by Smith & Paucar (2000) and validated by the Commission in (1) above (specific name of the type species of Leucopelaea Bates, 1891 and a junior synonym of Platycoelia lutescens Blanchard, 1851);
(b) lutescens Blanchard, 1851, as published in the binomen Platycoelia lutescens (senior synonym of Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891, the type species of Leucopelaea Bates, 1891).
References x
Bates, H.W. 1891. Coleoptera. Pp. 7-39 in Whymper, E. (Ed.), Supplementary appendix to travels amongst the great Andes of the Equator. Murray, London.
Blanchard, E. 1851. Classe des insectes. Ordre des coléoptéres. Pp. 1-240 in Milne-Edwards, H., Blanchard, E. & Lucas, H. (Eds.), Catalogue de la collection entomologique du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle de Paris, vol. 1. Gide et Baudry, Paris.
Smith, A.B.T. & Paucar, A. 2000. Taxonomic review of Platycoelia lutescens (Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Anoplognathini) and a description of its use as food by the people of the Ecuadorian Highlands. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 93(3): 408-414.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
The illustration of Leucopelaea albescens that accompanied the original description by Bates (1891). Dorsal habitus and close-up of the anterior claw of the male. Body length 22 mm.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 99
Case 3207
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of 65 specific names
Lee H. Herman
American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. (e-mail: herman@amnh.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of 65 specific names that have been in use for many years for rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE), but which were junior primary homonyms when published. The species are now placed in several different genera and none of the species denoted by the homonyms has been considered congeneric since 1899. This case is submitted to the Commission in accord with Article 23.9.5 of the Code where both senior and junior homonyms are in current use, or in accord with Article 23.9.3 where the senior and junior homonyms are not both in current use because the senior homonyms are treated as junior synonyms and the junior homonyms have not been used in 25 works in the preceding 50 years.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; rove beetles.
1. The current paper submits 65 cases of primary homonymy in the rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE) for action under the Commission’s plenary power to conserve the existing usage of the junior homonyms. This would allow the greatest stability in the naming of these staphylinid taxa. In 35 cases, both the senior and junior primary homonyms are in current use, but in none of these cases are the taxa considered to be congeneric (Herman, 2001). Article 23.9.5 of the Code states that even though ‘the names apply to taxa not considered congeneric after 1899, an author must not automatically replace the junior homonym’ and ‘the case should be referred to the Commission’. As a result, the prevailing usage of the junior names has been retained in Herman (2001), as directed by Articles 23.9.5 and 82. In a further 27 cases, the situation is similar in that none of the taxa is considered congeneric (see Herman, 2001). In these cases the senior primary homonyms are not in current use as they are treated as junior synonyms (Article 23.9.1.1), but the junior homonyms have not been used in 25 works in the preceding 50 years (Article 23.9.1.2) and the matter is referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.3.
2. The senior and junior homonyms are presented in the form of a table (Table 1). Reference should be made to Herman (2001) for further bibliographic and nomen- clatural detail. In most cases the junior name was established after, often long after, the senior name was moved from the genus in which the names were homonyms. In most cases the junior homonym is from a non-European region and the names have been cited only rarely.
3. In three cases, Article 23.9.1 of the Code applies and I propose that the use of the junior homonyms should be maintained under Article 23.9.2 (Table 2).
100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific names in column 2 of Table 1, as originally published in binomina with the generic names in column 5, are not invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of the specific names in column 4; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) the specific names in column 4, as originally published in binomina with the genus names in column 5;
(b) the specific names in column 2, as originally published in binomina with generic names in column 5, ruled in (1) above to be not invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of the names in column 4.
Acknowledgements
I thank the following individuals who reviewed earlier drafts of this paper and suggested improvements: V. Assing (Hannover, Germany), A. Bordoni (Museo Zoologico ‘La Specola’, Firenze, Italy), G. Cuccodoro (Museum d Histoire Naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland), V. Gusarov (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas), I. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia), A. Newton (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), V. Puthz (Schlitz, Germany), M. Schiilke (Berlin, Germany), A. Smetana (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario, Canada), M. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), A. Zanetti (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, Italy) and L. Zerche (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalde, Germany).
References
Beck, L. von. 1817. Beitrdge zur baierischen Insektenfauna, oder Beschreibung und Abbildung neuentdeckter Kdfer .. ., vol. 7. Pp. 8-45. Wolffische, Augsburg.
Bernhauer, M. 1934. Beitrag zur Staphylinidenfauna Afrika’s. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 24(3): 228-248. .
Bernhauer, M. 1936a. Die Staphyliniden der Philippinen (Gattung Oxytelus). Philippine Journal of Science, 61(1): 81-87.
Bernhauer, M. 1936b. Neue Staphyliniden yom belgischen Kongo. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 29(1): 21-28.
Bernhauer, M. 1937. Beitrag zur afrikanischen Staphylinidenfauna. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)20: 289-315.
Brancsik, K. 1893. Beitrage zur Kenntniss Nossibés und dessen Fauna nach Sendungen und Mittheilungen des Herrn P. Frey . . . Jahresheft des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines des Trencsiner Comitates, 15: 202-258.
Broun, T. 1880. Manual of the New Zealand Coleoptera, part 1. 651 pp. Hughes, Wellington.
Broun, T. 1911. Additions to the coleopterous fauna of the Chatham Islands. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 43: 92-115.
Broun, T. 1915. Descriptions of new genera and species of Coleoptera. New Zealand Institute Bulletin, 1(4): 267-346.
Brullé, A. 1842. Voyage dans I Amérique méridionale .. . par Alcide d’ Orbigny . . . insectes coléoptéres, vol. 6, part 2. Pp. 57-88. Bertrand, Paris.
Cameron, M. 1920. New species of Staphylinidae from India. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 56: 141-148, 214-220.
Cameron, M. 1926. New species of Staphylinidae from India. Part Il. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1925: 341-372.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 101
Cameron, M. 1929. New species of Staphylinidae from the Belgian Congo. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 18(1): 56-65.
Cameron, M. 1930a. Staphylinidae from British North Borneo, with descriptions of new species. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 16: 160-168.
Cameron, M. 1930b. New Staphylinidae from the Malay Peninsula. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 16: 154-159.
Cameron, M. 1932. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Staphylinidae, vol. 3. xiii, 443 pp. Taylor & Francis, London.
Cameron, M. 1933a. Fauna Sumatrensis. Staphylinidae. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 76: 383-395.
Cameron, M. 1933b. Staphylinidae (Col.) from Mount Kinabalu. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 17(2): 338-360.
Cameron, M. 1941. Descriptions of new Staphylinidae (Coleopt.). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)10: 56-60, 142-147.
Cameron, M. 1943. New species of Staphylinidae (Col.) from Australia and New Guinea. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (11)10: 336-354.
Cameron, M. 1944. Descriptions of new Staphylinidae (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)13: 11-15, 49-52.
Cameron, M. 1950. Staphylinidae (Coleoptera Polyphaga). Explorations du Parc National Albert. Mission G. F. de Witte, (1933-1935), 59: 1-85.
Casey, T.L. 1894. Coleopterological notices. V. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 7: 281-606.
Coiffait, H. 1962. Nouveaux Xantholinus d Afrique du Nord (Note préliminaire). Comptes Rendus des Séances Mensuelles Société des Sciences Naturelles et Physiques du Maroc, 28: 73-74.
Coiffait, H. 1982. Contribution 4 la connaissance des Staphylinides de Himalaya (Nepal, Ladakh, Cachemire). (Insecta: Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Senckenbergiana Biologica, 62: 21-179.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean. 136 pp. Crevot, Paris.
Eppelsheim, E. 1885. Beitrag zur Staphylinidenfauna West-Afrika’s. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 29: 97-147.
Erichson, W.F. 1839, 1840. Genera et species Staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae, vol. 1. Pp. 1-400 (1839); pp. 401-954 (1840). Morin, Berolino.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, vol. 31. 832 pp. Libraria Kortii, Flensburgi & Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas . . ., vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. Bohnii, Hamburg & Kilonii.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species . . ., vol. 1. 348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologiae Systematicae . . ., vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum secundum ordines . . ., vol. 2. 687 pp. Bibliopolii Academici Novi, Kiliae.
Fauyel, A. 1903. Staphylinidae recueillis au Cameroun par le Dr. Yngve Sjéstedt. Arkiv for Zoologi, 1: 235-244.
Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. von. 1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 2. Pp. 6, 425-752. Gummi, Monachii.
Geoffroy, E.L. 1785. [New species]. Jn Fourcroy, A., Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 1. viii, 231 pp. Sub Privilegio Academiae, Parisiis.
Germar, E.F. 1823. Fauna insectorum Europae, vol. 6. Pp. 1-25. Kuemmelii, Halae.
Germar, E.F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae. Coleoptera. xxiv, 624 pp. Hendelii, Halae.
Germar, E.F. 1825. Fauna insectorum Europae, vol. 11. Pp. 1-25. Kuemmelii, Halae.
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4. Pp. 1517-2224. Lipsiae.
102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia . . . \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard, Brunsuigae.
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. 248 pp. Dieterich, Gottingae.
Gyllenhal, L. 1810. Insecta suecica descripta. Classis I. Coleoptera sive Eleuterata, vol. 1, part 2. xx, 660 pp. Leverentz, Scaris.
Heer, O. 1839. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 145-360. Orelii, Fuesslini et Sociorum, Turici.
Herman, L.H. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 1-4218.
Horn, G. 1884. Synopsis of the Philonthini of Boreal America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 11: 177-244.
Kiesenwetter, E.A.H. von. 1847. [New species]. Jn von Kiesenwetter, H. & Markel, F., Eine entomologische Excursion im Riesengebirge. Entomologische Zeitung Herausgegeben von dem Entomologischen Vereine zu Stettin, 8(3): 73-87.
Kiesenwetter, E.A-H. yon. 1858. [New species]. Jn Kraatz, G., Beitrag zur Kaferfauna Griechenlands. Zweites Stiick: Palpicornia, Silphales, Scydmaenidae, Pselaphidae, Staphylinidae. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 2: 37-67.
Kirby, W. 1837. Insects. Jn Richardson, J. (Ed.), Fauna boreali-Americana . . ., part 4. 325 pp.. 8 pls. Fletcher, Norwich.
Kirshenblat, J. 1938. O nekotorykh dal’nevostochnykh phtikakh-staflinaletn Trudy Gridobio- logicheckoi Ekspeditsii zin Akademii Nauk 1934 g. na Iaponskoe More. Vypusk, 1: 527-536.
Lacordaire, T. 1835. Jn Boisduval, J. & Lacordaire, T., Faune entomologique des environs de Paris; ou species général des insectes qui se trouvent dans un rayon de quinze a vingt lieues aux alentours de Paris, vol. 1. 696 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Laporte, F.L. 1835. Etudes entomologiques, ou description d’insectes nouveaux, et observations sur leur synonymie. 159 pp., 4 pls. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Laporte, F.L. 1840. Histoire naturelle des insectes coléoptéres, vol. 1. Pp. exxv, 324. Dumeril, Paris.
Lea, A.M. 1906. Descriptions of new species of Australian Coleoptera. Part VIII. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 31: 195-228.
LeConte, J.L. 1863. New species of North American Coleoptera. Part I. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 6(167): 1—92.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
MacLeay, W.J. 1873. Notes on a collection of insects from Gayndah. Transactions of the
Entomological Society of New South Wales, 2: 79-205.
Maklin, F.G. 1852. [New species and notes]. Jn von Mannerheim, C., Zweiter Nachtrag zur
Kaefer-Fauna der Nord-Amerikanischen Laender des Russischen Reiches. Bulletin de la
Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 25(2): 283-387.
Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica, vol. 1. xxxi, 548 pp. White, Londini.
Matthews, A. 1863. Capture of Ptilium affine, Omalium nigrum, O. brevicorne, O. testaceum,
and a new species of Omalium. Zoologist, 21: 8649-8652.
Melsheimer, F.E. 1844. Descriptions of new species of Coleoptera of the United States.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 2(2): 26-43.
Motschulsky, V. 1860. Enumération des nouvelles espéces de coléoptéres rapportées de ses
voyages. 3e partie. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 33(2):
539-588.
Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina, sive methodica descriptio insectorum agri
Fridrichsdalensis . . . xxiv. 96 pp. Gleditschii, Hafniae & Lipsiae.
Mulsant, M.E. & Rey, C. 1861. Description de quelques coléopteres nouveaux ou peu connus.
Opuscules Enlornologiques; 12: 139-188.
Nicolai, E.A. 1822. Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens Coleopterorum species Agri Halensis
. 45 pp. Grunderti, Halae.
Nordmann, A. yon. 1837. Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum. 167 pp. Academiae Caesareae Scientiarum, Petropol1.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 103
Olivier, A.G. 1795. Entomologie ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes . . . Coléoptéres, vol. 3, [genera] no. 35-65. 557 pp. Lanneau, Paris.
Olivier, A.G. 1811. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire naturelle. Insectes, vol 8, part 2. Pp. 361-722. Agasse, Paris.
Paykull, G. de. 1789. Monographia Staphylinorum Sueciae. 89 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.
Paykull, G. de. 1800. Fauna Suecica. Insecta, vol. 3. 459 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.
Redtenbacher, L. 1849. Fauna austriaca. Die Kafer, Ed. 1. Pp. 641-883. Gerold, Wien.
Rossi, P. 1792. Mantissa insectorum, exhibens species nuper in Etruria collectas, adiectis faunae etruscae illustrationibus, ac emendationibus, vol. 1. 148 pp. Polloni, Pisis.
Rottenberg, A. 1870. Beitrage zur Coleopteren-Fauna von Sicilien. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 14: 11-40.
Sachse, C.T. 1852. Neue Kafer. Entomologische Zeitung Herausgegeben von dem Entomolo- gischen Vereine zu Stettin, 13: 115-127, 142-149, 454.
Sahlberg, C.R. 1830. Insecta Fennica, dissertationibus academicis, A. Ed. 1817-1834, part 1(A). Pp. 281-360. Frenckelliana, Helsingforsiae.
Say, T. 1830. Descriptions of new species of North American insects, and observations on some already described. 41 pp. Say, Indiana.
Say, T. 1832. [Untitled continuation of: Descriptions of new species of North American insects, and observations on some already described], pp. 50-57. Say, Indiana.
Schrank, P.F. von. 1781. Enumeratio Insectorum Austriae indigenorum. 550 pp. Vidvam Eberhardi Klett et Franck, Augustae Vindelicorum.
Sharp, D.S. 1874. The Staphylinidae of Japan. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1874: 1-103. Sharp, D.S. 1876. Contribution to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley. Coleoptera, Staphylinidae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1876: 27-424. Sharp, D.S. 1889. The Staphylinidae of Japan. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)3: 28-44, 108-121, 249-267, 319-334, 406-419, 463-476.
Solier, A.J.J. 1849. Orden IL. Coleopteros. In Gay, C., Historia fisica y politica de Chile. Zoologia, 4: 105-380, 414-511.
Solsky, S.M. 1868. Etudes sur les Staphylinides de Méxique. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 5: 119-144.
Stephens, J.F. 1829. A systematic catalogue of British insects . . . xxxiv, 416, 388 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London.
Stephens, J.F. 1832. [lustrations of British entomology... Mandibulata, vol 5. 240 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London.
Strém, H. 1768. Beskribelse over Norske Insecter. Det Kongelige Norske Bidenskabers Selskabs Skrifter, 4: 313-371.
Ullrich, W.G. 1975. Monographie der Gattung Tachinus Gravenhorst (Coleoptera: Staphylini- dae) . . . 365 pp. Christian-Albrechts-Universitat, Kiel.
Villers, C. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae Suecicae descriptionibus aucta. . ., vol. 1. 789 pp. Piestre & Delamolliere, Lugdunt.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
104
SO EC
S6 EC
C6 tC
£6 EC
C6 EC
£6 EC
apniy
qoniy
spnty
anv
Capon.
sfoN Vv
apn.y
gonI1V
x (OTST TeyUaT[AD) ajiuisuo2 ‘EQ jo ‘sf="Z
x T
* (OI8T TeyueTTAD) szoyjps pdaipoydyg Jo ‘sl="y’s
#
x» (€6L1 ‘snioliqe 4) pipuato
popioy Jo ’s{="y's #
*
* (ERT “UWtI01S) wnuldU
pUIUADAIY JO “Sl="Ys #
COST \SIOYUOARIDH WIN DUIC
cO8T SIOYUSARID WiNDUC
cO8T SIOYUSARID WIN] DUIC
cO8T {SIOYUSARID WNDUCE
cO8l SIOYUSARID) WMI] DUC
cO8T \SIOYUSARID WN DUC cO8T \SIOYUSARID, Win] DUC
cO8T “JSIOYUSARIQ) UWiNI]DLUC
(9¢ ‘d “L181 199) SYJOIUAap SNAYLIDBAPW (SLI “4 “6E8I “199H) win.y wunsappoydsngy (ci ‘d
“O08 “JSIOYUSARID) pAsiu pdaApojjAyd
(68 4 “Lest
“AQIUS[) WNIDUIB.ADUL un.iydojQ “7
(os ‘d
‘TEQT “ABS) wuniDUIs.ADUL uinsajpydsngy *|
(os9g ‘di “E98T “SMOYNEIAL) SIUAOIISSDAI Dda‘porAYyd
(sti d
‘TORT ‘ISIOYUSAP.IH) pf{ns ploplay
(6L1 ‘4 “6E81 “199H) winisngo. wnsajpydsng
(rez “d ; ‘OI8T ‘Teyuel[AD) aUuuadIAasg DUMMAIDAILA,
uvder
ROLIOUy YON
jedan
TUYyse sy
vlypesny
ROLY yNoS
spurysy weyjeyD
ojo1vaR[ed
(Sr “d “6881 ‘dieys) sijoouuap
piddjsourd g (ocr ‘4 “yogt “SeseD) pAjp vda.ipoyjAyd
(1s1 4) 7861 “WeYIoD WINABIU winl]DUGC)
(gs ‘d) Ip6] ‘Wo1sWIRD WINJDULBADUL wWiNDUGC
(Z1z 4) 9061 “veT IUAOIISSDAD wnhI]DUC)
(sr “4 “Sgt “esyors) pnt sisdoypucE
(96 d “1161 ‘uno1g) SNISNGOA SNUIUOI]DULCE) (srs “d
‘O98 “AysINYosIOWN)) stuuadiaa.ig DILUIAYAIUUD JY AVNIIVINO AptuEyqns
(Z wunjos) 9po)
(9g uuInyos) S9}0N
(¢ uunyjoo) paqtiosap
AT[BUISLIO YOTyAA UL SNuAas)
(p~ wuInyoo) (s)wAUoWOY 101Uag
(¢ wunjoo) wAuowoy so1un! ay) Aq 0} paatojor saisads jo uonNqLysip s1yde1s095)
(Z uumnyos) wAuowoy Jone
({ wumnyoo) ‘ON
‘wAuowoy sorunt - “yt “wAUOWOY IOIUAS - “Y's
668] SOUIS D1LIaUASUOD PatapIsuOD Uaaq JOU aAvY sUTAUOWIOY ay) Aq pojouap satoads ay} - ,.
"9141 OY} UTYIIM ATUO doURAIIaI oALY WY) 01 parfdde sraquNu ay) pure sor[lURJqns UIYIIM Jopso [eoHaqeydye ul pasuvse or soueN
‘ARM
UONPULIOFUT JOYyIO pure stukuOWOY AreUMIId JOTUAS TOY) YIM ‘UOMBAIAsUOD 10} pasodoad o1v yey) (stAUOWIOY AreUUIId JolUN!) saweU oYtoads 79 “Tf FIGEL
105
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
£6 €¢ 9PHIV
€6 EC IPHIV
C6 EC PPSHIV
£6 EC 9SHIV
S6 EC IPHIV
66:
on los
gpniy
S6 EC MNIV
(Z wunyos) F apo)
*
brel
“‘TOppOMyovyg Mijas ‘§ Aq paoedai sem ‘7 ‘unignp uswoU ="]
« (O81 “UOSYoLIq) sunsixa
snjdjoup jo “sf="y's #
SIeak ()¢
jSP] OY} UI sIOyINe py] Aq sout ZZ sve] 1e pyea se poyo= "yl ‘g0u0 AyTUO payTo ‘wniqnp ustou="y's
*
» (SSL ‘snovuuly) smauosuyo
snsoddyony, Jo ‘s'f="y's #
*
s1oyne LZ Aq suoneoryqnd 67 sea] 12 UT PlTRA se pajzId uaaq
sey “yl “po@] aours
(9 uuwMnyos) $910NJ
8SLI ‘snovuury snuydydnig
cO8I “\SIOYUSARID snjadxC cO8T “‘JSIOYUSABID) snjaidxE
cO8T “|SIOYUSARID snjazaxoQ
cO8T Ys1oyuaaRIy snjal{xEQ
SLLI ‘snioniqe{ sniodAxoQ
8SLI ‘snovuury snuydydnig
(¢ uuuNyoo) peqiiosap Aj[eursiio yoty ul snuas)
(11 “d ‘Zp suas) ¢6L1 “IQAYO S1/pploystoulany
snuydydvig “7
(9€07 “) O6LT ‘utoUID SI|DPlOYALOUlady snuydydvig “|
(Ip d “prs Jouoys[a) snjnaipd snjdjoupy
(S19 “4 ‘TT8T “IOIAI[O) SIU40I1g Sn]salg
(Op 4) ZZ81 “Ie[OSIN snypidva1aqy snjajAxEQ (601 4
‘TORT “IsTOYUSARID) SNINULOD SNYJAISKID]
(pes “d
‘Gall Saeestaa!) snppydazouvjaut snsodAyov I,
(iz d ‘TOSI ‘Is1OYUARID) snuuIguoD SnYyIUOpY
ROLIOUTY *S
(96¢ “d
TOS] ‘snioriqe.) SIDPlOYALOWADY SNYINUOAT
AVNINITAHAV.LS Ayrueyqng
ROLY YON 2 odoing
onorearyed
ooIvAR]e|
sourdi|iyd
PISSNY U1OISeA
a1oyMas]a pue adoing ul proidsapiy
(~ uuINos) (s)wiAuow0y 101Uag
(¢ uwNyos) wAuowoy zon! 94} Aq 0} patiajar satsads yo uOnNGLysIp d1ydeas0asy
(SLI “4 “1981 “AOX 2 JURS[N]\) snnadpd snuuyadiny
(ST “d “e7gT ‘ieutieD) siusoog Snipa
(pd ‘¢zgy “reuttay) srypdpaiaqy snipalg
(98 ‘d
“BOC6I “Tonevyuag ) SNINUAOD sndjoup AVNITALAXO Arueyqng
(6zs “d)
S61 IQueysiny snypydasounjau snsod&x@Q
AVNINOdAXO ATIWEqNS
(ors d
‘ZOgT ‘weysie) SHUUIIUOI SNWUOApo]AX
(Z uwnyjoo) wAuowoy Jo1une
rl
ta
(a
IT
Ol
(| wurnyoo) “ON
panunuos *] aque,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
106
« (6€81 “J99H) smgnp snipan@ jo -sf="y's
6781
(LLT “4 “6 E81 “109H)
(Lez “d “peel “lonvyusog)
£6 ET WNIV # ‘suoydayg snysuojiy SNUDJUOUL SnipanG@ osu0D SNUDJUOLU SNLIGDH) €Z x (EE8I ‘suaydaqs) smjnosnisan] (60r “d snijjQ Jo -st="y’s 8SLI “CE8] S1lep1ooNT) (61€ “4 “6P8T “9110S) €6 ET WNIV # ‘snovuurq snuydydnig siuuadiyaund sniyi¢Q PuUasIY 2? Ama siuuadiyound sniapuq TZ (Ori ‘d (zz “d “EL8 “AvaTory) “€681 “souvig) 6781 S1/DP1OYAAOWADY SIDplOYyALOUlaDY S 6 ET BNIY . ‘suoydayg snyjuojiyd sniadsapzy Ivosesepeyy SNYIAAIDIG. 1Z (9¢ “d “6gc1 ‘1IMyAea) | SNIDISNSUD SNUIISP *¢ * (ZL1 “4 “sgLt “Aoryoan) (68L1 ‘Wn yAed) syns SNIDISNBUD SNBNY “ZT snuajsy Jo “sl="¢ (eez 4) I8L1 (oze “d ‘6rst ‘uoneiedaid ur 1oded °Z SSLI ‘yueryos smpjsnsup “Ial[os) snipjsnsup ‘C6 ET BPNIV ‘umnignp uswoU= "| ‘snoeuury snuydydoig snuyaydvis’ “| eyit@) sndjosopiay) 0Z « (8S8T “AXsINYOs}OW]) SHUALJLADUL (og ‘d snyjuoiqny Jo ‘sf="ys 6781 ‘OLS ‘B1aqua}10y) 5 (ge ‘d ‘peg ‘dieys) €6 ET WONIV # ‘suaydayg snyjuojiyd SNINWAIW SHYJUOAGDH uedee snynuiu snip > 61 8SL1 (Zr “d “ggLI ‘snovuurT) (gor “d ‘oggy “unorg) 66 ET BAY * ‘snovuury snuyacydnig snasoqjy snjiydopadag purleoZ MON, snasoqy sniufpy 81 * . sia (¢ JSP] Ur stoyINe p7 Aq (Lee “d (uc ‘d suonvorygnd gz ysvo| 8SLI “TSLT ‘snioliqe4) ‘TO8I “S1OYUSAVIH) S6ETONTY 1¥ Ul pryRa se poqio ‘yf ‘snovuury snuydydnis snnpinu snsoddyov], onoivared SNMP SNIUSI LI (gL ‘4 8SLI (96 “4 “GEST “UosyorIg) ‘Ops ‘o10de7T) 66 ET BOIV “i ‘snovuury snuydydnig SYDUIMA] §NB4A103110 [izelg Sijpuiuisay snyonuojag 91 (Z wunyos) (9 uuIN]oOd) (¢ uuInyos) (~ WuNTOS) (¢ uuINyos) (7 wumyoo) ({ wumnyoo) apoD $9}0N] poaqiiosep (s)wAuow0y 1019S wAuowoy sorunt ay) wAuowoy 1o1une ‘ON,
Ay[Bursi10 YyoTyAA UL snus
Aq 0} padiajor saisads jo uonNqLysip s1ydeis005)
a
panunuod “] aqeL
107
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
————— ————————————————————
C6 eC FSHTV
S 6 EC MSHIV
£6 eC WINTV
S6 EC IPH
$6 eC 9NIV
CS 6 EC IPHIV
C6 eC 9PHIV
C6 ec 9PHTV
Soed MPV
C6 EC MNIV
(Z wuNyos) apo)
* (uonesedaid ut aded)
x (ZOS] ‘IS1OYUsAvIH) wnjoundyjnu wniyIvAgoT jo ‘sf="y's #
*
*
s1voKk ()¢
jse] Ul sioyjne py Aq suonvorygnd /] \seay
je Ul pea se payo="yl
* x €€8T ‘Suoydays syjoaiajnf smpan@ jo “st
SB 9T61-LO61 PaHo="q's
(9 uutnyos) S9}0N
6c81 ‘suaydayg snyjuojiyd
681 ‘suoydayg snyjuopiyd
8SLI ‘snovuury snuidydnis
681 ‘uosyong snuiovjidaT
8SLI ‘snovuury snuydydnis
6781 ‘suoydaig snyjuopiyd
6c81 ‘suaydayg snyjuopiy
6c81 ‘suaydarg snyjuojiy
681 ‘suoydaiyg snyjuopiyd
6c8I ‘suaydayg snysuopiyd
(pI ‘4 “981 ‘daeys) SUDAAIGD SNUMMOABPIDT
(6zz 4) TERI ‘sudydais SnJDUsOI SNYLUOIY
(gz d “681 ‘TImyAed) WUNIID]SA] wUnIYIDAGOT
(ogg “d ‘6ggT ‘uosyortg) syigap snidajowos
(L6s ‘TOST ‘stusriqe4) siuuadyna snyonuojag
(g¢ “d “e9gt ‘a1U0D27) SNIDAS SNIUSIGOAN
(90s “4 ‘orgy “wosyotig) smnpia snjasudig (cLz “4 “6E8T 99H) snyjapjound snipan@ (9L1 “4 “9181
‘dieys) snnbuidoid SNULUO.LAPAV
(617 “4 “6E81 99H) siuuadioid snipan@
ROLIOUy YNOS UJOY}AOU Iw RWUED
osuo0g
ROLY ION 2 edoing
pound MON
VISALIA, 2 vISoUOpUyT
ROLOWY YON
visouopuy
voOLIoUry YON
(111 4)
TES] “UOIOUIRD SuDAagD SNYJUOLY (691 4 “OL8I ‘divys) snjpusoo snuUulo.apavnd
(sos “d
“TO8T ‘sntoliqe4) SNaIDISA] SNPLON (sz 4)
OS6] ‘UOTOWIeD syigap snuiopidaT
(or d
‘TORT ISIOYUSAVID) siuuadyna sniadsayy (tre d
‘Cp6] “UOIOUIeD) snjpis Sniadsapy (ore d
“GeEo] “UOIOWIRD) snnpia SnLqvy
(1c “4 “pgs “UIOH) snyaipjound sniiqoy (6g 4
“PECS] “UOIOWIB)) snnbuidoad snigqpy) (cle d
‘TS8T WIPIRIN) siuuadiaid smigqoy
Ic
67
87
Ké
97
PT
(¢ wumnjod) paqiiosop Aypeursi10 yoy ur snus)
(p utuNyoo) (s)wiAuowoy 1019S
(€ uuuNjod) wAuowoy Jorn! oy} Aq 0} pastayar saisads jo uonNLysIp s1yde1s005
(Z uwnyos) wAuowoy Jo1une
({ uwinyos) ‘ON
eu
ponunuoD “T aqeL.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
108
£6 INV
C6 EC MPHIV
£6 ¢ IHIV
SIGE S1OD AV,
C6 EC FSHIV
C6 EC FH IV
£6 ¢¢ 9PNty
SNAG CICMEN/
(ZL uunjos) — apo)
* uonroyqnd
[eursi1o Jaye pari
jou winiqnp uswou= ‘7 (LLLI
*9ZA0OL)) SNIIIDAOYIJOAGNA snpliapang Jo 'St="|
#
*
* (ZO8I “‘{SIOYUSAPID) SUIISDADUID
sniuosyoiig jo “sf="y's it
*
*
SIBdK 0S
jse] Ul suonvorqnd 8¢ Ul s1OyINL OC
Aq prea se poyio="yl « (€6L1
‘snioiqe) snpiajnf
smipan@ jo “s'f="y's #
(9 uuInjoo) Sa}0N]
8SLI ‘snovuury snuycydnig
6781 ‘suoydaig snysuopiy
6781 ‘suaydarg snysuopiyg
6781 ‘suoydayg snyjUojiyd
6781 ‘suoydarg snysuopiyd
8sLI ‘snovuury snudydnig
6781 ‘suaydayg snyjuopiyg
6781 ‘suoydayg snyjuopiyd
(¢ wuInyos) paqiiosap
Ayjeutsiz0 yoy ul snus)
(0c ‘d) 68L1 ‘SILA SnaiovA041 snuydydnis *Z
(OLI ‘4 “SLT “Aosyoan)
SNILIDAOY] SNPLAAPAVD *| (19 d
“QCQ] “Iolemuasary) STADINALA SNIUOSYOAT
(06s ‘d “3981 “‘ploley 2 Jadururuon) SdANABIU SNIUOSY IAT
(cer “4 “O81 “uosyorg) snpiigdy snipanG
(Z1S “4 ‘Opgt ‘uosysi1q) SIUNYy sniusiqoan
(gz “d ‘TORI “ISIOYUSARID) . snypjourg sdoyjosajayy
(OIL ‘4
“orl “oyoequarpay) 4ojor1g snipan@
(6e1
“EL8 “Avaory)) sypajsny snsadsayy
POLIOULY ION
PIpuy
Pury
oaulog
PIpuy
onoievarled
uoojUIeD
PIe.sny
(p wuINyoo) (s)wiAuowoy 101g
(¢ wuInyoo) wAuowoy sont ay)
Aq 0} passajas saisads jo uonNqLysip s1ydesd0a5
(OL ‘4
‘ZO8T “IS1OYUoARID) SNIIIDAOYI SNYIUO[IYT (get d)
TL6I “UOIOLUBD) STADINALA SNYIUO[IY |
(cit d)
$881 “uneysjaddy SdadAB1Uu SNYJUO/IY (e91 “d)
ROES] ‘UOIBWIRD snpLiqdy snyjuopiyd (901 ‘d)
TES] ‘UOIAWUIRD SIPMUAY SNYJUO[Y
(gL d ‘9081 ‘IstoyuoAvID) SNIDIOUIG SAYJUOPY
(Orc 4) E061 ‘eAnvz AOJOIIG SNYJUOJIY (tre “d)
€p6] “UoIOWIRD SIDAISND SNYJUOLIY J
(Z wuinjos) wAuowoy Joins
Iv
OF
6£
8E
Le
9¢
St
PE
({ uunyos) ‘ON
panunuod “fT aqey,
109
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
(p71
(pz d)
SSI “d “908T “IssoyuearID) q9e6l Joneyusog 66 ET WNIV . ‘snovuury snudydnig sisdyo snua]y osu0D sisduya snuydydnig 6r « (9081 SIOYUSARID) sisdayr (9 “3y (sg ‘d) snuafy jo sf="y's 8SLI ‘¢ 1d ‘Crs “otma) 6C6] “WOrsUIeD €6 ET BNIV # ‘snovuury snudydnig SNWOILIND Snug] osu0d = snuiooiinn snuydydnig SF 8SLI (pc “4 “68LI (9Z1 “4) g9gt “Axs[OS 66 €T BNIV * ‘snovuury snuydydoig ‘{jnyxAeg) siuffp snoaap PIRWIILNH Ww ODIXI/ siuiffp snuydydnig LY * sIea (¢ ISP] UI sIOyINe 0c Aq suoneoyqnd ¢¢ UI pHeA se payto “yl ‘SLO6I LS6l UI pl[eA se pois “Y's jnq (cL d) “(68L1 ‘[1nyxAVd) supiiva (p7z “d “zegt ‘suaydais) Lyg] “Tonemuasony C6 ETIAIIY snyjuopyg josl=Yys 7g ‘suaydaig snipanO AojonUun snyUopiyd adoing 4ojooiun snipan@ OF x (ZO8I \SIOYUIARID) sadiq/p snyjuojiyg Jo -st="y's (1zz “d “zest ‘sueydaig) (6L7 4) ST6T ‘uno1g €6 ET BUNTY # 6C8] ‘Suoydaig snipano siuuadyAy snysuoplygd purleaz MON, siuuadiyary snipand Sr + (8SLI (191 d “snoeuuly) sa10])1] “TOS “JSIOYUSARID) snjiydopadag jo ‘sf="y's 8SLI (L6 ‘4 “Z6LI ‘Issoy) snsojuauio] €6 ET INAV # ‘snoeuuly snuydydnig snsojuaiuo) snjiydopadag POLIOUTW YON SnavApAID] tr (Liz “4 (Lp d) Leg] “uuewpioN ‘0T6[ “Uo1oUIeD) 8SLI suaospandind suagspandind 66 ET WNIV e ‘snoeuury snuidydnig snuydydvig PIPU] snovApaqD]| €r (rog “d 8SL1 (7p d “gcz ‘snovuurT) “Le6] “Joneyuog) C6 ET BPNIV . ‘snoeuury snudydnig snjpjjnsig snualg epuesy) snjnjInsIg snov.ApAID]g Zp (Z wuInyoo) (9 uunyos) (¢ uuInjos) (p wuNnyjos) (¢ wuINyos) (Z uumnyoo) ({ wurnyoo) apon Sj}0N pequiosop (s)wAuoul0y 1013S wAuowoy Jotun oy} wAuowoy Jo1une “ON
A][BUISLIO YT UL Snuas
Aq 0} patsiayjor saisads jo uonngiysip sd1ydevis095
ponunuod *] age.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
110
o*
Ost
‘uosysuig snoupday snyUuopiyd Jos f="¢ *(QAOQR 67 29S) PI[PA
S6 ET BNIV AyWUdaLINS 1k “7 2? “|
*
(1821
‘SnIoLiqe 4) Snjjaulsinu snulyovoy, JO ‘sf B SI “p "] Jo sfare “¢ 2 7 “OUIBU pl[RA
B Apjuatind st ‘| ATU ‘7 jo ‘yl Areunid v st “| + # (OI8T Tequal[AD) smuapyinbsinb -g
jo s{e stg
xf
‘(ZO8T “ISIOYUDSAPID) SUDI1IAS ‘q JO "STR St °Z x 8981 ISPs] 1B
sous LEQ] ‘UUPUpION snispanps “g jo st
PB PalapIsuod udaq SPY INQ “6681 eUls prTeA
SB po} uaaq sey “|
C6 eC ISHIV
© 6 eC IPHIV
(L1¢€ “4 “6p8t “19110S) siuuadyna snyjuopiyd *€ (or
‘TORT “ISIOYUSARID) siuuadyna sniadsafy *7 (L6s “d
“LOST ‘sniotiqe.4) stuuadyns snyonuojag *| (691 ‘d “SgL{ “Aosyoon) SNIDUIBADU SNUIYIDT, “7 (97 “4 “CLLI “SNIOLIQe{) SNIDUIBADUL SNYIUO[IY *€
(cee “4 “89LT
“WIOI]S) SNIDUIBADLU SAYUO[IY TY “T
(zd “b9L1
“IO[[NIJA) SMIpUIs.ADUL
8SLI ‘snovuury snuydydnig
8SLI
(9¢1 “d) q0e6] “Uor1dtURD
PISOUOPU] 2 PISAR[RIA szuuvadifna snuljdAydnig 7S
(11 4) pre! “UOTSLUB) SNIDUIBADUL
(Z wunyos) apo)
(9 utunyoo) $9}0N]
‘snovuury snudydnig snyUojlyd *{ PIpUy snuydydnis IS : (or 4 “SET “ollep109er7T) SNIDIpIUIp snyuo]Iyd °€ (L¢ ‘d “ogg “Aes) SNIDIPIUNP SNYIUOPIY “T (StI “d) 8SL1 (9ze d ‘OEgt “Sr10qtueS) SE8I “o}0dvy ‘snovuuly snuydydnig sninipiuuip snyjuopiyg “| ROLY YING snpipiuup snuydydrig 0S (¢ uuinyoo) (7 WuUNOS) (¢ wuINyos) (Z wwnyos) ({ uumyoo) paqiiosap (s)wiAuoW0Y 101U9g wAuowoy 10r1unt 34) wAuowoy Jo1une ‘ON
Aj[eursi10 YyoTyM UL snd)
Aq 0} paaiajoi soisads jo uonNqLysip s1ydeaso0ay
panunuoD ‘T qe
111
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
——————————————————————
, uonrolqnd souls pasnun ‘UINIGNp UoUWIOU FB ST °Z
(L707 “4) O6LI “uHoUTD
» (LLLI 4ojoaig snuydydvig ‘TZ (sti ‘d *9Z90H)) 1ID.AJA]aOBUO] 8SLI (17 “4 “68L1 ‘TIM yAed) “SEg] ‘ajzode7T) €6 ET WONIV aT OmSilertaay ‘snovuurq snuydydni¢ A0J021g DAIISAT “| eurAny dojo21g snstdouax LS * (ZO8T “SIOYUSARIDH) snynpipuayds (s6r -d snLiqny Jo “sf= "Y's 6781 (397 “4 ‘6esI ‘OP8T “wosyoig) €6 ET INIYV # ‘suoydarg snyjuojiy ‘IaaH) SUD snLigvyH voLauUry YINOS sypup snsddouax 9s (9€07 “4) 06L1 ‘UIIWID SIpploYys1owavy snundydnig *€ (965 ‘d uoneoygnd suis pasn ‘TOSI ‘snioriqe4) jou ‘UINnIqnp UoWOU *¢ SIDployALowaDvy A snyonuojag ‘T br6l (11 “d ‘Zp snus) c6LT (pe “d “p7gy “euttey) “‘IoppeMyoRy_ 1ujaws “S BSL “IdIAYO SIjpploystowany S1]DpLoyAdOUlany 66 ET BNIV Aq poorjdal sem ‘| ‘snovuury snuydydois snuydydvis | Avnsvieg 29 [Izeig snsddoyjunXx ss * (€L81 “Kea ovy) Sdao1.p (ge, d (spe “d) sniuojoajaz jo ‘s[="y's IZ8I “EL QT] ‘AvaoryA) 976] “UOIBWIRD €6 ET WNIV # ‘uvalag snujoyjuny snaaid snuojoajaz jedan 2 vIpuy snaaid snuyoylUunXy ¢S * (gest ‘suoydaig) snpisnd (Lip d snuspidaT jo ‘sf="y's I@81 “CEST “ollep109R7) (EZ d) 7961 “WeYIOD €6 ET IBNIV # ‘uvalag snuoyjuny sninunu snuiapjdaT RLIOS|V snjnuiu snuyoylUudy €S (Z uunyos) (g uumnyoo) (¢ wuInjos) (p uuINyoo) (€ wUUN]OS) (Z uuwmyoo) ({ uutnyoo) apop S9}0N poqtiosop (s)wiAuowl0y 101UaS wAuoutoy sorunt oy} wAuowoy Jorn ‘ON
Ayjeursiz0 yoryA ur snuas)
Aq 0} paaiayaa saisads jo uonnqiysip o1ydess0ay
a
panunuod *f qe.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
2
a el
*
tr6l
ul a0u0 ATUO pa}lo= "7 “EP6l Joplamyxoeyla
(s9¢ “d “6g ‘susydais) snaaid snsododag *T
(9¢z
(68¢ “d)
snuoga sniodoidoy TO8T “6E8T “uosyoliq) TL6l “UOIOUIPD) €6 ET WIV Aq poorjdar ‘#4 *[ = “JSIOYUDAVIDH snulyod_[ snaaid sniodosdo) | IewurAyy 2 PIPUT snaaid snuiyan J, 79 ZO8T (ore “4 “6EgT “Wosyoig) (Loc 4) SL6t “YETIN C6 ET BPPHAY * “JSIOYUSABIO) SNULYID [ SMAUUNAG snsodosdoy IvUUPAT SNAUUNAG SNUIYID [| 19 (6c 4 (19 “d) cO8T “QOS ISLOYUSARIH) GEST WOsyoiig C6 ES FPNIV * “|SIOYUSAR IQ) SNULYID [, SIAD][IXD UOYJIPAOT BOLISULY YON STAD]JIXD SNULYID [ 09 «x CO8T YSIOYUSARID SnjpUsIS (176 “4 ‘OrsI snuyany, Jo ‘Sf="ys ZO8I (S61 4) TERT ‘sueydais BISQUOpU] ‘uosyoliq) sadiajnf €6 €7 WBNTV # “JSIOYUSARID snUuIYyID LT, sadiajnf snuiyan J, 3 vUIyoOpU] ‘vIpuy snyd1oulouly an T, 6S x CO8T , sIOYUSARID SnIDUSIS (osz d smuyony, Jo sl="y"s TOSI (S61 4) TERT ‘sueydars “6ST “Wosyslig) €6' ET BNIV # ‘“JSIOYUIARID snuzyov ], sypaidy snuiyan J, SOIPUT ISOM syvaidp snsodosdoy gs g AVNIVOdAHOVL Ayrureyqng (Z uunjos) (9 wunjos) (¢ uwinyjos) (p uunjos) (€ uuInjos) (Z uumjoo) (] uunyjos) apop Saj0N| peqiiosap (s)wiAuow0Yy 101Uag wiAuowoy Jorun{ ay} wAuowoy JoruNe ‘ON
AT[BUISIIO YoTYyA UL Snua+y
Aq 0} pasiaya4 satsads yo uoynqiysip d1ydeis0a5
on ———————
ponunuoD “T qe.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
no an
apn.y apN.LV
See
6 EC PPHIV ‘6 eC BPHIV
Z apniy Z any
(Z, wurnjoo) apo)
*
S19 ()¢
JSP] IOAO SIOYING [¢E Aq suoneoryqnd (jp jsvg] jv ul payo= "yt
‘wmnignp usuiou B="y ‘Ss
* sivak (¢ ISP] UI s1OYyINe
Sz Aq ‘sou 0g ISeO|
1e prea se payo="yt “20IM} ATUO poo ‘uiniqnp uswoU ="Y'S sIBvak (¢
JSP] JOAO sIOYyINe ZZ Aq suoneroygnd [¢ ise]
}@ Ul prea se payo="y'l ‘uInIgnp uawOU="y's
8SLI ‘snovuury snuydydnig
8SLI ‘snoeuury smupdydvig.
8SLI ‘snovuury snuaydnig
winjI]qo uawo0U
(9¢07 “4) O6LT “WEI sajojpydaa snuycydnig
winqy]qo uawoU
(CLI 4) SgLt “Aoryoan snyoydasounjaiu snuydydvig
wimnjy[qo uawoUu
(Och “d) 68LI “SITINA snapuisdd snuydydvig
POLIO YON pur o1o1eaeyeg UId}SOAA AVNINITAHAVLS ApiWEyqng
odoing ur praidsapi yy
winjo9}01d uawoU (cd
‘TORI “JSIOYUSARID) sajojpydaa sniusig
winqoo}01d uswo0U (ccc ‘d
“L8LI “sntotiqe4) pjpydazounjau pda.poyjAyd
winjo9}01d usulou (olr
‘00ST “WnAked) vapuistd vavavjodvyy
AVNUTVINO Apiueyqns
(9 uumnyos) S3}0N
(¢ wunjod) paqiiosap Ajpeursis0 yoryAd ul snuasy
(pf wuINod) (s)wiAUOWOY 101UaG
(€ wuIN[od) wAuowoy ro1unt ay) Aq 0} patiayaa saisads jo uOHNqLysip s1ydess0a5)
(Z wunjos) wAuowoy Jo1une
(| wumnyjoo) ‘ON
‘wuXuowoy rorunt - “yf ‘wAUOWOY JoTUaS - “YS “668 SUIS OIoUASUOD pasopIsuod Udaq JOU savy stUAUOUTOY ay} Aq paj}ouap satoads ay} - » ‘g1qe) dy) UIIIM AyTUO aoUvAg[al DALY WY} 0} pordde sroquinu oy} puR sorTURIqns UTYITIM Japsio [eoHaqeydy]e ur pasuvsse ore soureN,
‘OPOD 9) JO T'S'ET QIITY Jopun pourejureul oq pjnoys osn ssoym swAUOWOY JOTUN! say] *Z FQUL
“AD
114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Case 3222
Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name
John B. Heppner
Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services, P.O. Box 147100, Gainesville, Florida 32614, U.S.A. (e-mail: heppnej@doacs.state.fl.us)
Thomas C. Emmel
McGuire Centre for Lepidoptera Research, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118525, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A. (e-mail: tcemmel@ufl.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 for the well-known swallowtail butterfly from western North America (family PAPILIONIDAE). The name is threatened by the unused senior subjective synonym P. antinous Donovan, 1805, which until 1985 had been thought to be an Australian species. It is proposed that the senior synonym is suppressed and the case is brought to the Commission under Recommendation 23A of the Code.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; PAPILIONIDAE; Papilio eurymedon; Papilio antinous; swallowtail butterfly; western North America; Mexico.
1. Donovan (1805, pl. 16) illustrated a new species of swallowtail butterfly (family PAPILIONIDAE), naming it Papilio antinous. The holotype is in the Australian National Insect Collection (see Upton, 1985, p. 167). Donovan was mistaken in thinking that the species came from New South Wales, Australia. Later, Godart in Latreille & Godart (1819, p. 54) further compounded the error by identifying the origin of this species as New Holland (a former name for Australia). The nominal taxon P. antinous has remained in the listings of Australian species until 1985, when its inclusion in the Australian fauna was demonstrated to be erroneous by Upton (1985).
2. Lucas (1852, p. 140) described a new swallowtail butterfly, Papilio eurymedon, from California (U.S.A.). This species is the well-known and common pale or pallid tiger swallowtail of the western United States and Canada (see Scott, 1986, p. 182: Emmel et al., 1998b).
3. P. antinous has not been used as a valid name in relation to the North American fauna. Upton (1985, p. 169) examined the holotype of P. antinous and discovered it to be conspecific with specimens of P. ewrymedon. The name P. antinous is therefore a senior subjective synonym of P. eurymedon. The only reference to the name P. antinous in North American literature prior to 1985 was by Doubleday (1844; 1846), who mistakenly synonymised P. antinous with the name for an eastern North American swallowtail, Papilio turnus Linnaeus, 1771 (currently P. g/aucus Linnaeus,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 115
1758); this synonymy has not been repeated subsequently by other authors. Under Article 23.9.6 of the Code, ‘the mentioning of a name in a synonymy, or its mere listing in an abstracting publication, or in a nomenclator or other index or list of names must not be taken into account in determining usage under Articles 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2. Accordingly, neither Upton (1985) nor Doubleday (1844; 1846) constitutes a valid use of the name antinous.
4. Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (or in various other combinations such as Pterourus eurymedon) is the name that has been applied to this taxon since Lucas first described the species. This name has been used exclusively in North American literature for over 140 years, e.g. Morris (1862, p. 4), Dyar (1902, p. 2), Comstock (1927, p. 24), Brown et al. (1957, p. 229), Scott (1986, p. 182), Emmel (1998, p. 826), Opler (1999, p. 140) and numerous other publications, a list of which dates from 1844 to 1999 and is held by the Commission’s Secretariat.
5. Boisduval (1852, p. 280) also described the pale tiger swallowtail and gave it the name Papilio eurymedon, but this post-dated the publication of Lucas’s (1852) description. Boisduval put forward the name in an oral presentation on 25 February 1852, but this was not published until August 1852. Lucas, who meant merely to note some new Californian species in Boisduval’s collection, had his paper published first in March/July 1852, and hence his name has priority (see Emmel et al., 1998a, p. 3; 1998b, p. 77).
6. According to Upton (1985, p. 169) there would appear to be a clear case for application to the Commission for suppression of the name P. antinous, thereby preventing the threat to the established stability of the name P. eurymedon. Both conditions of Article 23.9.1 of the Code are met in relation to the names P. antinous and P. eurymedon and the case for suppression of the name P. antinous is brought to the Commission under Recommendation 23A of the Code.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name antinous Donovan, 1805, as published in the binomen Papilio antinous, 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 eurymedon Lucas, 1852, as published in the binomen Papilo eurymedon;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name antinous Donovan, 1805, as published in the binomen Papilio antinous and as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Boisduyal, J.A.B.D. de. 1852. Lépidoptéres de la Californie. Annals de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)10: 275-324.
Brown, F.M., Eff, D. & Rotger, B. 1957. Colorado butterflies. 369 pp. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver.
Comstock, J.A. 1927. The butterflies of California. 334 pp., 63 pls. Los Angeles.
Donovan, E. 1805. An epitome of the natural history of the insects of New Holland, New Zealand, New Guinea, Otaheite, and other islands in the Indian, Southern, and Pacific Oceans. . . 4 pp., 41 pls. London.
Doubleday, E. 184448. List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collections of the British Museum. 2 vols. British Museum, London.
116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Doubleday, E. 1846-51. The genera of diurnal Lepidoptera, comprising their generic characters, a notice of habitats .. . 534 pp., 67 pls. Longman, London.
Dyar, H.G. 1902. A list of North American Lepidoptera and key to the literature of the Order of Insects. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 52: \—723.
Emmel, T.C. (Ed.). 1998. The systematics of western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville.
Emmel, J.F., Emmel, T.C. & Mattoon, S.O. 1998a. The types of Californian butterflies named by Jean Alphonse Boisduvyal: designation of lectotypes and a neotype, and fixation of type localities. Pp. 3-76 in Emmel, T.C. (Ed.), The systematics of western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville.
Emmel, J.F., Emmel, T.C. & Mattoon, S.O. 1998b. The types of Californian butterflies named by Pierre Hippolyte Lucas: designation of lectotypes and fixation of type localities. Pp. 77-81 in Emmel, T.C. (Ed.), The systematics of western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville.
Latreille, P.A. & Godart, J.B. 1819. Encyclopédie Methodique, vol. 9. 328 pp. Agasse, Paris.
Lucas, P.H. 1852. Description de nouvelles espéces de lépidoptéres appartenant aux collections entomologiques de Musée de Paris. Revue et Magazin Zoologique, (2)4: 140-141.
Morris, J.G. 1862. Synopsis of the described Lepidoptera of North America. Part |. Diurnal and Crepuscular Lepidoptera. 358 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Opler, P.A. 1999. A field guide to western butterflies, Ed. 2. 540 pp. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Scott, J.A. 1986. The butterflies of North America. 583 pp., 64 pls. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Upton, M.S. 1985. Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852: a synonym of Papilio antinous Donovan, 1805 (Papilionidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 38: 165-170.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 117
Case 3210
Catocala alabamae Grote, 1875 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name
Lawrence F. Gall
Entomology Division, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, U.S.A. (e-mail: lawrence.gall@yale.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Catocala alabamae Grote, 1875 for a small, yellow-hindwinged moth from North America (family NocTUIDAE). The name is threatened by the earlier synonym Catocala polygama Guenée, 1852, which has been applied in the past to other species. The name C. polygama has not been used as valid for many years, and since 1938 it has been erroneously treated as a junior synonym of C. grynea (Cramer, 1780). It is proposed that the name C. po/ygama be suppressed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; NocTUIDAE; Catocala; Catocala alabamae; Catocala grynea; Catocala polygama; moths; North America.
1. In 1852 Guenée described and illustrated (p. 105, pl. 16, fig. 2) a male specimen of a new, small yellow-hindwinged species of Catocala Schrank, 1802 as Catocala polygama. He gave the provenence of the moth as ‘Amérique septentrionale’.
2. In his revision of the Nearctic Catocala, Grote (1872, pp. 15-16) noted ‘I have before me a number of specimens (Canada to Virginia) which differ in appearance among themselves but which I cannot separate into species, and which I refer to Guenée’s C. polygama. | think we have to do with a single variable species’. Grote distributed specimens determined by him as polygama to many workers and thus the name polygama sensu Grote became widely used for one of the common and much collected Catocala species occuring in northeastern North America.
3. In 1875 Grote described (p. 427) another small, yellow-hindwinged species from the southern United States as Catocala alabamae (type locality Demopolis, Alabama). He compared alabamae to the ubiquitous eastern Nearctic species C. grynea (Cramer, 1780, index; originally published as Phalaena grynea).
4. In the first of two treatises on Catocala, Hulst (1880, pp. 6-7) placed Grote’s alabamae as a variety of grynea and treated polygama Guenée as valid. In his second treatise, Hulst (1884, pp. 35-39) noted, correctly, that Grote (1872) had misidentified Guenée’s species polygama. Hulst placed polygama Guenée as a synonym of grynea Cramer, 1780, and, to resolve Grote’s misidentification, proposed the new name blandula for the species the latter had called polygama. Hulst (1884, p. 36) noted ‘The description of polygama, Guen., seems to fit this species [grynea]; the figure [given by Guenée], which is poor, seems more like var. alabamae; neither description nor figure approach the insect identified as polygama by Grote’. Under his treatment of blandula, Hulst (1884, p. 39) added: “With regard to polygama, Guen., a glance at his figure Noct. 3, pl. 16, f. 2, will convince any one that this species [b/andula] could not
118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
have been intended. The primaries and secondaries are entirely different. The description accords with grynea, and the figure fits it as well as any species known to me’.
5. Smith (1893) followed Hulst in placing both polygama Guenée and alabamae as synonyms of grynea, and used blandula for polygama sensu Grote. Dyar (1903) apparently avoided the issue of Grote’s misidentification, and listed polygama as a full species with blandula as its synonym, and treated alabamae as a full species. Hampson (1913) placed polygama as a synonym of grynea, blandula as a synonym of crataegi Grote, 1876, and treated alabamae as a full species.
6. In their monograph of the Nearctic Catocala, Barnes & McDunnough (1918, p. 40) treated polygama Guenée as a synonym of grynea, and both blandula and alabamae as full species, indicating: ‘It should be borne in mind that the ‘polygama Guenée’, referred to by Lintner, Saunders, and others of the older authors is not the true species but probably what we have designated as blandula Hulst . . . Guenée’s figure of polygama is very poor but we do not see to what other species [i.e. grynea] it can be referred; it is certainly not blandula’. In his Nearctic macrolepidopteran checklist, McDunnough (1938) followed Barnes & McDunnough’s (1918) treatment of these Catocala names.
7. Since McDunnough (1938), the names blandula and alabamae have been used exclusively in the Nearctic literature for the respective species. Similarly, C. polygama has not been used as a valid name since 1938; it was listed as a synonym of grynea in Tietz (1972), Hodges et al. (1983) and Poole (1989), and as a synonym of alabamae in Forbes (1954, p. 335: ‘probably pol/ygama Guenée’). Unquestionably, Grote’s (1872) misidentification of polygama Guenée, 1852, Hulst’s (1884) placement of both polygama Guenée and alabamae as synonyms of grynea, and the relative scarcity of specimens for this group of closely related species were all responsible for the unstable position of the name polygama in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Dyar’s (1903) catalogue was the last major taxonomic work to use the name polygama as valid rather than treat it as a synonym. Holland’s (1903) Moth Book, the most widely available popular book on Nearctic moths in the 20th century, treated C. polygama as a full species and pictured a specimen of C. mira Grote, 1876 under the name polygama. Hence, both Dyar (1903) and Holland (1903) were responsible for continued sporadic erroneous use of polygama as the species name for either blandula or mira (for example, Engel, 1909; Rowley & Berry, 1910; Schroers, 1914; Leonard, 1928). Holland’s mistake was well known (see Forbes, 1954, p. 335, for a succinct statement) and not repeated in the taxonomic literature, although the Moth Book was not corrected until its 1968 reprinting.
8. Occasionally adults of the group of closely related, small yellow-hindwinged species of Catocala can be difficult to determine, but as a result of recent collecting, rearing and life history work it is now firmly established that alabamae, blandula and grynea are all distinct species. The adults breed true, and the larvae are also readily separable. Although Guenée’s original illustration (1852, pl. 16, fig. 2) of polygama is clearly not blandula Hulst, 1884, a detailed re-examination shows that it is not grynea either. The figure is an acceptable, albeit somewhat stylized, rendering of alabamae, as Hulst (1884, p. 36) originally suggested (para. 4 above). Guenée’s figure of polygama agrees with Grote’s (1875) description and type of alabamae (accounting for sexual differences: the alabamae type is a female, whereas Guenée’s figure is a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 119
male) in The Natural History Museum, London, as well as with other specimens of alabamae from the Gulf Coast of the southern United States, especially Florida (Gall & Hawks, in press). Thus, since McDunnough (1938), and also for the most part since Barnes & McDunnough (1918), the name polygama Guenée, 1852 has been erroneously treated as a junior synonym of grynea Cramer, 1780, rather than as a senior synonym of alabamae Grote, 1875. Reintroduction of the name polygama in place of alabamae would upset established nomenclatural usage and would cause considerable and unnecessary confusion, and I therefore propose that polygama be suppressed. Recent works which demonstrate the usage of the name alabamae include Forbes (1954), Sargent (1976), Covell (1984) and Poole (1989). A representative list of a further seven publications, dating from 1965 to 1999, in which the name has been adopted is held by the Commission Secretariat.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name polygama Guenée, 1852, as published in the binomen Catocala polygama, 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 alabamae Grote, 1875, as originally published in the binomen Catocala alabamae:
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name polygama Guenée, 1852, as published in the binomen Catocala polygama, and as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Barnes, W. & McDunnough, J.H. 1918. Illustrations of the North American species of the genus Catocala. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, (n.s.) 3: 1-47. Covell, C.V. 1984. A field guide to the moths of eastern North America. 496 pp. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Cramer, P. 1779. Die Uitlandsche Kapellen Voorkomende in Drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, vol. 3. Pp. 1-104, pls. 193-252. Baalde, Amsterdam.
Dyar, H.G. 1903. A list of North American Lepidoptera and key to the literature of this Order of insects. 723 pp. Government Printing Office, Washington.
Engel, H. 1909. A preliminary list of the Lepidoptera of western Pennsylvania collected in the vicinity of Pittsburgh. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 5: 27-69.
Forbes, W.T.M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. III. Noctuidae. Memoirs of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, 329: 1-433.
Gall, L.F. & Hawks, D.C. In press. Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala (Noctuidae). Ill. The types of William H. Edwards, Augustus R. Grote, and Achille Guenée. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 56.
Grote, A.R. 1872. On the North American species of Catocala. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 4: 1-20.
Grote, A.R. 1875. On North American Noctuae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 27: 418-427.
Grote, A.R. 1876. On species of Catocala. Canadian Entomologist, 8: 229-232.
Guenée, A. 1852. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Species general des lepidoptéres, vol. 7 (Noctuelites, vol. 3). 441 pp. Roret, Paris.
Hampson, G.F. 1913. Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Phalaenae in the British Museum, vol. 12. 626 pp. London.
Hodges, R.W. 1983. Check list of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. 284 pp. University Press, Cambridge.
Holland, W.J. 1903. The moth book. 479 pp. Doubleday, Page, New York.
120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Holland, W.J. 1968. The moth book (unabridged republication of the 1903 Doubleday edition, with annotations and foreword by A.E. Brower). 479 pp. Dover Publications, New York.
Hulst, G.D. 1880. Remarks upon the genus Catocala, with a catalogue of species and accompanying notes. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 3: 2-13.
Hulst, G.D. 1884. The genus Catocala. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 7: 14-56.
Leonard, M.D. 1928. A list of the insects of New York. Cornell University Agricultural Station Memoir, 101: 1-633.
McDunnough, J.H. 1938. Check List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part I. Macrolepidoptera. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 1: 1-275.
Poole, R.W. 1989. Noctuidae. Part 3. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, (n.s.)118: 1015-1314.
Rowley, R & Berry, L. 1910. Notes on the life stages of Catocalae: a summer’s record and incidental mention of other Lepidoptera. Entomological News, 21: 441-455.
Sargent, T.D. 1976. Legion of night. the underwing moths. 222 pp. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Schroers, P.A. 1914. Preliminary list of Heterocera captured in and around St. Louis, Missouri. Entomological News, 25: 59-61.
Smith, J.B. 1893. A catalogue bibliographical and synonymical of the species of moths of the lepidopterous superfamily Noctuidae found in boreal America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 44: 1-424.
Tietz, H.M. 1972. An index to the described life histories, early stages and hosts of the Macrolepidoptera of the Continental United States and Canada. 1041 pp. Allyn Museum of Entomology, Sarasota.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
ihe } H
Nearctic species of Catocala moths. a: C. polygama Guenée (1852), type, original drawing. b: C. grynea (Cramer, 1780). ce: C. alabamae Grote (1875), type. d: C. blandula Hulst (1884), type. ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 121
Case 3215
E.L. Holmberg (1917, 1918), ‘Las especies argentinas de Coelioxys’ (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed suppression of 139 names applied to groups of species
Charles D. Michener
Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7523, U.S.A. (e-mail: michener@ku.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is the suppression of 139 names which were published by E.L. Holmberg in 1917-1918 for divisions and subdivisions of the megachilid bee genus Coelioxys Latreille, 1809 (family MEGACHILIDAE). These names were devised for a key to species of Coelioxys which occur in Argentina; they have never been used as names for taxa nor have type species been fixed, but under Article 10.4 of the Code they are available as genus-group names and, unless they are suppressed, some would be senior synonyms of currently accepted subgenera of Coelioxys, and possibly senior homonyms of genus-group names in use in other taxonomic fields.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; Apoidea; MEGACHILIDAE; Coelioxys; bees; Argentina.
1. Holmberg (1917, 1918a, 1918b) published 139 uninominal names for infra- generic groups of species of the bee genus Coelioxys Latreille, 1809 (family MEGACHILIDAE) which occur in Argentina. Each group was characterized in keys and in descriptive synopses.
2. Under Article 10.4 of the Code Holmberg’s names for divisions and sub- divisions of Coelioxys are available as genus-group names; even if they are regarded as names established for ‘certain assemblages of taxonomic convenience known as collective groups’ (Article 42.2.1) they would still be available for purposes of homonymy (Article 56.1). However, the names have never been used for taxa by subsequent authors and no type species have been designated for the groups. His names have not been cited in the Zoological Record or in compendia such as Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus. | have previously (Michener, 2000, p. 527) noted their existence and cautioned against their use.
3. In his Introduction Holmberg (1917, pp. 544-545) discussed his classification as follows (translated from the Spanish): ‘In the present state of our knowledge it would be useless to attempt to group the species of Coelioxys in the form of scientifically unimpeachable subgenera. Many of our species are known only by one sex; others only from extremely brief descriptions . . . I propose for our species eleven groups, artificial like all those which have been tentatively established for this interesting genus’. He expressed the hope that his provisional arrangement would assist understanding of the species, but this has not proved to be the case (see para. 6 below).
122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
4. Holmberg divided each of his major sections of Argentinian Coelioxys in a very complicated and hierarchical way, each level being further subdivided. For example, a section called Erythrobasis was described and divided into two major subsections which were described and named as Haematonotos and Melanonotos. Haematonotos (contain- ing 10 species) comprised Cohort 1 while Melanonotos (61 species) comprised Cohorts 2-9. The cohorts themselves were neither named nor described, but they were further divided into groups which were and species were assigned to the subsidiary groups. As an example, Cohort 3 included 16 named groups at various levels.
5. Holmberg reported 82 Argentinian species of Coelioxys, some of them new, and in classifying their characters introduced 136 names for divisions of the genus; the genus-group names outnumbered the species because of the hierarchical tiers of his classification system. The new species are adequately described and some of his specific names are in use, so his works (as distinct from the genus-group names) should not be suppressed for nomenclatural purposes.
6. Schrottky (1920) did not accept Holmberg’s treatment of Coelioxys and remarked (p. 191, in translation) ‘without wishing to deny in any way the quality of Dr Holmberg’s work, I must admit that his classification confuses me in several respects’, and he did not adopt any of Holmberg’s names for supraspecific taxa.
7. Of 15 subgeneric names currently used in the genus Coelioxys (see Michener, 2000) all but two were published after Holmberg’s works and would probably fall as junior synonyms, with resultant instability, if Holmberg’s names were recognized. For example, Coelioxys vidua Smith, 1854, the type species of Glyptocoelioxys Mitchell, 1973, was included by Holmberg (1917, p. 559) in the section of Coelioxys named Erythrobasis, its subsection Melanonotos and successively less inclusive named components of the latter.
8. As mentioned in para. 2 above none of Holmberg’s supraspecific names have been used. In order to conserve both the currently accepted subgeneric names in Coelioxys and genus-group names in other taxonomic fields which might otherwise be junior homonyms, I urge the Commission to suppress all the genus-group names established by Holmberg (1917, 1918a,b) for his tentative classification of Coelioxys.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy the genus-group names published by Holmberg (1917, 1918a, 1918b) which are listed in the Appendix below;
(2) to place the names suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
References
Holmberg, E.L. 1917. Las especias argentinas de Coelioxys. Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Buenos Aires, 28: 541-591.
Holmberg, E.L. 1918a. Suplemento I a las especias argentinas de Coelioxys. Physis (Buenos Aires), 4: 1-13.
Holmberg, E.L. 1918b. Suplemento I a las especias argentinas de Coelioxys, num. 2. Physis (Buenos Aires), 4: 145-166.
Michener, C.D. 2000. The bees of the world. xiv, 913 pp. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Schrottky, C. 1920. Himenopteros nuevos 0 poco conocidos sudamericanos. Revista do Museu Paulista, 12(2): 177-227. :
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 123
Appendix
The page number for each name refers to its publication in Holmberg (1917) except where (1918a) or (1918b) is indicated.
Acraspedon, 561 Acrodontomeros, 548 Acrolepis, 573 Alethodiastictos, 576 Allodiastictopelte, 549 Alloliopelte, 549 Allotropoglyptos, 554 Amaurocraspedon, 581 Amauropoda, 564 Amblyptyche, 558 Anacanthomeros, 548 Analogodonta, 574 Anamictochromata, 565 Anepiodonta, 558 Ankyloptyche, 559 Apediopelte, 561 Aphanes, (1918b) 146 Aponaulax, 571 Apophaneros, (1918b) 145 Atelemelanos, 563 Atelerythros, 567 Ateletritos, 578 Augopelte, (1918b) 153 Aulacotetartos, 571 Autodon, 559 Autogoniodes, 590 Bathycoelios, 554 Brachyepiodonta, 582 Brachymesodon, 560 Brachyparatasis, 569 Canonicacros, 579 Canonicopempton, (1918a) 2 Catabrachys, 567 Catadolichos, 567 Cerasionotos, 586 Choristochromata, 564 Colobopempton, 587 Cryptocraspedon, 569 Cryptoptyche, 558 Deuteros, 581 Deuterythros, 567 Diaphoroglyptos, 581
Diastictopelte, 553 Diatelerythros, 583 Dichromatopoda, 564 Didiastictopelte, 558 Diestecodonta, 573 Digymnoptyche, 547 Dileucocraspedon, 582 Diliopelte, 558 Dipephricoptyche, 548 Diplotritaenia, 584 Dolichomesodon, 560 Eleuthrobothrios, 548 Engycampyle, 578 Epicolobos, 547 Epidiodonta, 557 Erythrobasis, 546 Erythronotos, 557 Erythropleurae, 553 Exechoparatasis, 570 Gymnoptyche, 553 Haematonotos, 546 Hegumenerythros, 575 Hemistilpnos, 566 Heptodonta, 585 Hexodonta, 586 Holochromatogaster, 562 Holomeros, 573 Horatocraspedon, 553 Hypanodonta, 567 Hypobrachys, 585 Hypodolichos, 585 Hypodontophora, 560 Hypomonodon, 559 Hypotriodonta, 559 Toeidopoda, 562 Toeidospilos, 565 Labidiopempton, 546 Lagochilos, (191\8a) 2 Leucocraspedon, 561 Liopelte, 557 Lioteropelte, 549 Melanerythronotos, 553
124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Melanobasis, 549 Melanomesonotos, 587 Melanonotos, 546 Melanopleurae, 554 Melanospilos, 565 Menoeiderythros, 566 Mesodonta, 579 Metadiacopes, 573 Metentomes, 573 Monochromatopoda, 562 Opisthocoronis, 548 Orthocolobos, 558 Orthoptyche, 559 Oxyepiptyche, 547 Oxyeschatia, 560 Palinanalogodonta, 582 Palindeuteros, 583 Palinanalogodonta, 582 Palindiestecodonta, 582 Pantelochroma, 578 Pantelomelas, 567 Pantelostilpnos, 566 Panterythromera, 579 Paradoxotetartos, 548 Pediopelte, 561 Penerythros, 562 Pephricoptyche, 553 Phaenodonta, 582
Phanerocraspedon, 568 Phaneroptyche, 559 Phlyctenopelte, 576 Platycatapiesis, 578 Platyeschatia, 560 Pleonelasoncolobos, 579 Pleurodonta, 581 Plusierythra, 566 Porrhocampyle, 576 Porrhodontion, 559 Proteros, 579 Proterythromera, 579 Proterythros, 567 Protomonon, 583 Pycnocrossos, 553 Pycnodiastictopelte, 549 Pycnotrematos, (1918b) 153 Tapinotetartos, 572 Tetarterythros, 583 Tridiastictopelte, 562 Triliopelte, 561 Trimononerythros, 583 Trioeidomera, 578 Tritaenia, 567 Ukanomalos, 547 Utodeuteros, 576 Utritos, 579
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 125
Comment on the proposed designation of Isospora suis Biester, 1934 as the type species of Isospora Schneider, 1881 (Protista, Apicomplexa) (Case 3187; see BZN 58: 272-274)
(1) Steve J. Upton
Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, U.S.A. (e-mail: coccidia@ksu.edu)
Asa coccidial biologist who has published over 150 species descriptions and redescrip- tions during the last 20 years, I write in opposition to the proposal to designate /sospora suis Biester, 1934 as the type species of the genus /sospora Schneider, 1881.
In his application Modry has proposed the designation of a new type species for Isospora and to transfer the genus and some species from the EIMERIIDAE Minchin, 1903 into the sarcocysTIDAE Poche, 1913. While I concur that a new type species should be designated, and agree with the published literature that the genus is polyphyletic and currently includes members of two separate families, I disagree with the proposed approach since it would involve needlessly giving a new generic name to virtually all species within both families. Instead, it is desirable to retain the majority (80% of the total number) of the more than 250 Isospora species in the EIMERUDAE and exclude approximately 50 species, including / suis, most closely allied with the saRcocysTIDAE. The excluded species would then receive a new generic name, the first available being the commonly used Cystoisospora Frenkel, 1977 (see para. 4 below). The following points are presented for consideration.
1. The original description by Schneider (1881) of the genus Jsospora and illustration of the oocysts strongly suggest that it represented an avian pseudoparasite. Although reported to have been found associated with ‘a little black slug’, the shape and characteristics of the oocysts and sporocysts are identical to the general isosporan morphology found in passeriform and related birds; the parasite has never been rediscovered. The only originally included species, 1 rara Schneider, 1881, was reported to produce two piriform spores. The line drawings and description are both clear about the shape of the sporocysts and it is quite obvious that each had what are now termed Stieda bodies (sporocyst plugs) at the pointed ends, typical of avian isosporans. By the end of the 19th century over 30 different avian species and one lizard were known hosts for these morphologically similar isosporans (see Candorelli Francaviglia & de Fiore, 1892; Hagenmiiller, 1898; Labbe, 1893, 1896, 1899; Laveran, 1898; Sjébring, 1897). The only isosporan known at this time to lack Stieda bodies on the sporocysts was an anuran isosporan (currently 1. lieberkuehni (Labbé, 1894)).
2. For Isospora, Schneider (1881) was uncertain about the exact numbers of sporozoites within each sporocyst and he simply referred to the sporozoites as being ‘numerous’. This uncertainty led to a taxonomic scheme at the generic level based solely on perception errors about the numbers of sporozoites within the sporocysts (see Labbé, 1893, 1894, 1896, 1899). Thus, the genus Jsospora was erroneously defined as being polyzoic (see Labbé, 1893). Subsequently new genera were intro- duced to accommodate the differing numbers of sporozoites. The genus Diplospora Labbé, 1893 (p. 1301 in Comptes Rendus de I’ Académie des Science, (3)116 and not p. 407 in (3)117 as cited by Modry, 2001, BZN 58: 273) was defined as having sporocysts each with four sporozoites, and two new species D. lacazii and D. rivoltae were proposed for isosporans from the goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Linnaeus and
126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus respectively. Some authors accepted the name Isospora as valid for these morphologically similar coccidia (see Laveran, 1898; Sj6bring, 1897), whereas others employed the multi-generic scheme accepting the new genus Diplospora for the avian isosporans (see Hagenmiiller, 1898). Laveran & Mesnil (1902) recognized the trivial nature of the errors and synonymized the various genera with Isospora. The generic name Jsospora has been in continual use since 1902 for those homoxenous coccidia within the EIMERIIDAE containing two sporocysts, each sporocyst possessing four sporozoites. By far the majority of the isosporan species were avian.
3. Recent findings have shown the nominal genus Jsospora to be polyphyletic: it may soon need to be split into two or more genera. Limited molecular analyses by Carreno et al. (1998), Carreno & Barta (1999), Franzen et al. (2000), Barta et al. (2001) and Modry et al. (2001) have shown that at least one primate isosporan (J. belli Wenyon, 1923 from humans), two carnivore isosporans (J. felis Wenyon, 1923 from felids and I. ohioensis Dubey, 1975 from canids), as well as /. suis Biester, 1934 from piglets and I. lieberkuehni (Labbé, 1894) from frogs, are all more closely related to the cyst-forming coccidia (i.e. Toxoplasma and Sarcocystis) than to two of the avian (passeriform) isosporans (J. robini McQuistion & Holmes, 1988 from Turdus migratorius Linnaeus and I. gryphoni Olsen, Gissing, Barta & Middleton, 1998 from Carduelis tristis Linnaeus). All valid primate and carnivore isosporans lack Stieda bodies, as do the morphologically similar 1. suis from swine and J. lieberkuehni from frogs, whereas avian isosporans all have distinct Stieda bodies.
4. The genus Cystoisospora Frenkel, 1977 (type species Isospora felis Wenyon, 1923) was established for those isosporans of carnivores that form dormant unizoite stages in multiple organs of facultative intermediate hosts (see Frenkel, 1977). None of the species possessed Stieda bodies on the sporocysts. Dormant unizoite cysts have been reported for J. belli in humans (see Michiels et al., 1994; Lindsay et al., 1997; Restrepo et al., 1987; Velasquez et al., 2001), but not for / suis from swine (see Pinckney et al., 1993). Since 1977 most of the commonly studied isosporans of carnivores and primates have already been transferred into Cystoisospora (family SARCOCYSTIDAE).
5. If Isospora suis were designated the type species of ee, and if the genus is split into two genera as commonly suggested, it would result in the ‘historically wrong’ lineage being assigned to the sARCocysTIDAE and name changes for virtually all existing species. I propose the retention of Jsospora within the EIMERUDAE thereby conserving the published names of approximately 80% of the species. The type species should be an avian isosporan with early historical significance, and Diplospora lacazii Labbé, 1893 (para. 2 above) is a suitable choice since its taxonomic status has been extensively reviewed (see Levine, 1982).
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to set aside the proposals in BZN 58: 273 (Case 3187);
(2) to use the plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus /sospora Schneider, 1881 and to designate Diplospora lacazii Labbe, 1893 as the type species;
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Jsospora Schneider, 1881 (gender: feminine), type species Diplospora lacazii Babbe; 1893 as designated in (2) above;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 127
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /acazii Labbé, 1893, as published in the binomen Diplospora lacazii (specific name of the type species of Isospora Schneider, 1881);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Diplospora Labbé, 1893 (a junior objective synonym of Isospora Schneider, 1881).
Additional references
Barta, J.R., Martin, D.S., Carreno, R.A., Siddall, M.E., Profous-Juchelka, H., Hozza, M., Powles, M.A. & Sundermann, C. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the other tissue coccidia: Lankesterella and Caryospora. Journal of Parasitology, 87: 121-127.
Candorelli Francaviglia, M. & de Fiore, C. 1892. Un caso di psorospermosi intestinale nel Coccotrhaustes vulgaris. Bollettino della Societa Romana per gli Studi Zoologici, 1: 68-74.
Franzen, C., Muller, A., Bialek, R., Diehl, V., Salzberger, B. & Fatkenheuer, G. 2000. Taxonomic position of the human intestinal protozoan parasite /sospora belli as based on ribosomal RNA sequences. Parasitology Research, 86: 669-676.
Frenkel, J.K. 1977. Besnoitia wallacei of cats and rodents: with a reclassification of other cyst-forming isosporoid coccidia. Journal of Parasitology, 63: 611-628.
Hagenmiiller, M.P. 1898. Sur une nouvelle coccidie, parasite du Gongylus ocellatus. Comptes Rendus des séances de la Société de Biologie, 5: 73-75.
Labbé, A. 1893. Sur les coccidies des oiseaux. Comptes Rendus de ! Académie des Sciences, (3)116: 1300-1303.
Labbé, A. 1894. Recherches zoologiques et biologiques sur les parasites endoglobulaires du sang vertébres. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, (3)2: 55-258.
Labbé, A. 1896. Recherches zoologiques, cytologiques et biologiques sur les coccidies. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, (3)4: 517-654.
Labbé, A. 1899. Sporozoa. In Bitschli, O. (Ed.), Eine Zusammenstellung und Kennzeichnung der rezenten Tierformen. Das Tierreich, 5: 1-180.
Laveran, A. 1898. Sur les modes des reproduction d’/sospora lacazei. Comptes Rendus des séances de la Société de Biologie, 5: 1139-1142.
Laveran, A. & Mesnil, F. 1902. Sur la coccidie trouvée dans le rein de la Rana esculenta et sur Vinfection générale quelle produit. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences (Paris), 135: 82-87.
Levine, N.D. 1982. Isospora passeris n. sp. from the house sparrow Passer domesticus, I. lacazii, and related Apicomplexan protozoa. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 101: 66-74.
Lindsay, D.S., Dubey, J.P., Toivio-Kinnucan, M.A., Michiels, J.F. & Blagburn, B.L. 1997. Examination of extraintestinal tissue cysts of Isospora belli. Journal of Parasitology, 83: 620-625.
Michiels, J.F., Hofman, P., Bernard, E., Saint Paul, M.C., Boissy, C., Mondain, V., LeFichoux, Y. & Loubiere, R. 1994. Intestinal and extraintestinal /sospora belli infection in an AIDS patient. A second case report. Pathology Research, 190: 1089-1093.
Modry, D., Slapeta, J.R., Jirku, M., Obornik, M., Lukes, J. & Koudela, B. 2001. Phylogenetic position of a renal coccidium of the European green frogs, ‘Isospora’ lieberkuehni Labbé, 1894 (Apicomplexa: Sarcocystidae) and its taxonomic implications. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 51: 767-772.
Pinckney, R.D., Lindsay, D.S., Toivio-Kinnucan, M.A. & Blagburn, B.L. 1993. Ultrastructure of Isospora suis during excystation and attempts to demonstrate extraintestinal stages in mice. Veterinary Parasitology, 47: 225-233.
Restrepo, C., Macer, AM. & Radany, E.H. 1987. Disseminated extraintestinal isosporiasis in a patient with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 87: 536-542.
Sjobring, N. 1897. Beitrage zur Kenntnis einiger Protozoen. Zentralblatt fiir Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene. I. Abteilung Originale, 22: 675-684.
128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Velasquez, J.N., Carnevale, S., Mariano, M., Kuo, L.H., Caballero, A., Chertcoff, A., Ibanez, C. & Bozzini, J.P. 2001. Isosporosis and unizoite tissue cysts in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Human Pathology, 32: 500-505.
(2) Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary)
L.C.Z.N., clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U_K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Two different approaches for resolving nomenclatural difficulties relating to Isospora Schneider, 1881 have been proposed to the Commission. The first approach was published as Case 3187 in BZN 58: 272-274 (December 2001) and the second in the comment above. Without expert advice it will be difficult for the Commission to provide a ruling that will best serve the medical and veterinary professions as well as protistologists and parasitologists. It has been drawn to the attention of the Secretariat by Dr Upton that discussions on the taxonomy of Isospora are planned for the 10th International Congress of Parasitology, which will be held in British Columbia, Canada, in August 2002. Numerous coccidian biologists will be present, and one session will attempt to reach a consensus on how to split the genus Jsospora, name the resulting genera and resolve the type species issue. The Commission Secretariat hopes to publish a summary of the discussion on Jsospora in the Bulletin in due course. This will allow the Commis- sion to take into consideration the recommendations of the Congress when ruling in relation to Case 3187.
Further comments on all aspects of this case are invited.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; and proposed emendation of spelling of HyDRoBiNA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera) to HYDROBIUSINA, sO removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca)
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145; 56: 56-63, 143-148, 187-190, 268-270; 58: 56-58, 140-141, 301-303)
Andrzej Falniowski and Magdalena Szarowska
Department of Malacology, Institute of Zoology, Jagiellonian University, Ingardena 6, 30-060 Krakow, Poland
We fully support the application.
The phylogeny and taxonomy of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, based on shell morphology, ultrastructure and soft part anatomy, have been studied in our Department of Malacology for about 30 years (see Falniowski, Dyduch & Smagowiez, 1977; Falniowski, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990; Falniowski & Szarowska, 1995; Falniowski, Szarowska & Mazan, 1996). Thus, we feel well qualified to present our views on the current application.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 129
1. The restriction that Radoman (1977) made in the locality where Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 was collected is little justified. As previously noted in a comment on this case (BZN 58: 301), Draparnaud (1805) might have collected his specimens at any locality in France. Where Hydrobia taxa are concerned, the occurrence of a species at a locality is certainly not so constant that we can be sure that the species currently found is the same as that collected 200 years ago. In fact, the occurrence of a species of Hydrobia is the result of several factors (see, for example, Fenchel, 1975a, 1975b; Hylleberg, 1975, 1976; Lappalainen, 1978) and different species can be found in nearly the same habitats. It must also be stressed that the brackish water habitats of Hydrobia are very unstable. Therefore, the present occurrence of Hydrobia acuta species at the restricted type locality does not prove its presence at the time Draparnaud was collecting.
2. In his selection of the lectotype of Hydrobia acuta, Boeters (1984) followed the letter of the Code without regard to its spirit. The main principle of the Code is to support and ensure the stability of nomenclature but this, unfortunately, is not what Boeters achieved. Possessing the two syntypes of H. acuta, Boeters had to choose one of them as the lectotype. The shells seemingly belonged to two species, one of them (putatively) Ventrosia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) while the character states of the other corresponded to H. acuta as understood from the abundant literature. In fixing a type for H. acuta, Boeters thus had two alternatives: (1) to designate the acuta-like shell as the lectotype and to recognise the other specimen as a distinct species, probably V. ventrosa; or (2) to designate the ventrosa-like shell as the lectotype and to leave the other shell as an indeterminate ‘Hydrobia sp.’. If he had chosen alternative (1), stability of the names Hydrobia acuta, Hydrobia, Ventrosia and HYDROBIIDAE would all have been secured. His choice of alternative (2) has caused many problems, well documented by Wilke et al. and Giusti et al. (BZN 58: 301-303).
3. We cannot agree with the arguments of Boeters et al. (BZN 56: 56-63) that stability of nomenclature would be achieved by transferring the taxonomic under- standing of the name Hydrobia acuta to Ventrosia ventrosa. It does not make much sense to give examples of how Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 was understood as Hydrobia many years before the name Ventrosia was introduced. It must also be said that there are many species of Hydrobia and they are the subjects of important and extensive research by marine biologists, ecologists, parasitologists and others. Therefore, the undesirable consequences following acceptance of the unfortunate designation of the H. acuta lectotype by Boeters (1984) would be profound and not limited to the field of malacology.
4. We agree with Naggs et al. (BZN 56: 143-148) that type specimens in the Mollusca are mostly empty shells and their identity may well not be in doubt. Some species of Hydrobia may be determined by their shells if numerous specimens from one locality are carefully examined. However, Hydrobia acuta is a special case because we do not know (1) where the original material was collected, nor (2) how many and which species are part of the sample. We have examined several thousand specimens of H. acuta, Ventrosia ventrosa and Peringia ulvae, some hundreds of them anatomically, and must state that it is not possible to determine these species without a knowledge of their soft part anatomy and pigmentation (see Muus, 1967; Falniowski, 1986, 1987, figs. 1, 2 and 4; Falniowski & Szarowska, unpublished data).
130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Considering all the above, it is our view that replacement of the lectotype for Hydrobia acuta by a neotype is very necessary.
Additional references
Falniowski, A. 1986. Pigmentation in Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant, 1777) and H. ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) (Hydrobiidae, Prosobranchia) from the Polish Baltic. Acta Hydrobiologica, 28: 443-449.
Falniowski, A. 1988. Female reproductive organs of Hydrobia ulvae and H. ventrosa (Hydrobioidea, Prosobranchia) from Puck Bay (Southern Baltic Sea). Malakologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde Dresden, 13: 27-31.
Falniowski, A. 1990. Anatomical characters and SEM structure of radula and shell in the species-level taxonomy of freshwater prosobranchs (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Prosobranchia): a comparative usefulness study. Folia Malacologica, 4: 53-142.
Falniowski, A., Dyduch, A. & Smagowicz, K. 1977. The molluscs collected in 1973 in the Puck Bay. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 22; 507-531.
Falniowski, A. & Szarowska, M. 1995. Can poorly understood new characters support a poorly understood phylogeny? Shell-structure data in Hydrobiid systematics (Mollusca: Gastro- poda: Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae). Journal of Pogiosicat Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 33: 133-144.
Falniowski, A., Szarowska, M. & Mazan, K. 1996. Shell SEM outer and inner structure and assoaeeern phylogeny. VII. Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant, 1777) (Prosobranchia: Rissoacea: Hydrobiidae). Malakologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde Dresden, 18: 25-33.
Fenchel, T. 1975a. Factors determining the distribution patterns of mud snails (Hydrobidae). Oecologia (Berlin), 20: 1-19.
Fenchel, T. 1975b. Character displacement and coexistence in mud snails (Hydrobiidae). Oecologia ( Berlin), 20: 19-32.
Hylleberg, J. 1975. The effect of salinity and temperature on egestion in mud snails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae). A study on niche overlap. Oecologia ( Berlin), 21: 279-289.
Hylleberg, J. 1976. Resource partitioning on basis of hydrolytic enzymes in deposit-feeding mud snails (Hydrobiidae). II. Studies on niche overlap. Oecologia ( Berlin), 23: 115-125.
Lappalainen, A. 1978. Seasonal recruitment and population structure of coexisting mud snails (Hydrobiidae) in the Baltic Sea. In: Cyclical phenomena in marine plants and animals. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Muus, B.J. 1967. The fauna of Danish estuaries and lagoons. Meddelingen fra Danmarks Fiskerei Hay., (N.S.)5: 1-316.
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Thalassema taenioides Ikeda, 1904 (currently Ikeda taenioides; Echiura) (Case 3212; see BZN 58: 277-279)
Edward B. Cutler
Utica College of Syracuse University; currently Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.
I write in full support of Dr T. Nishikawa’s application to conserve the specific name of Ikeda taenioides (Ikeda, 1904) for the echiuran from the coasts of Japan. It is my view that he has uncovered all of the relevant literature. He has personal familiarity with the organism under consideration and I urge the Commission to concur with this request.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 131
Comment on the proposed precedence of Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 over Remipes marmoratus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1846 (Crustacea, Anomura) (Case 3106; see BZN 59: 12-16)
L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
I do not see the necessity to use the plenary power to give precedence to the specific name of Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 over R. marmoratus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1846.
Both names have always been used for the same species and thus there is no question of confusion. Remipes marmoratus is not a forgotten name; its identity has been discussed by various authors, as mentioned in the application, and the existence of type material makes it possible to identify the species. The name Hippa pacifica (Dana, 1852) is not a widely used name as shown by the applicants, who found only 17 uses reported in Zoological Record between 1864 and 1998. The species is not of medical importance nor is it used in applied science. I do not see any harm in a change from pacificus to marmoratus and certainly not enough reason to suspend the Code.
The author of the name R. marmoratus is cited in the application as Jacquinot, 1846. However, the first mention of the name was on pl. 8 in livraison 17 of ‘Atlas d Histoire naturelle Zoologie par MM. Hombron et Jacquinot’ published in 1846. There is no indication in this livraison that Jacquinot is the sole author. This claim was made much later, namely in the text volume (1853, p. 4) where it is said that Jacquinot was responsible for the new species (with the named exception of a few). This later claim is, of course, invalid.
Comments on the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 3048; see BZN 56: 31-33; 57: 46-48; 58: 305-306; 59: 38-40)
(1) Wolfgang Speidel and Wolfram Mey
Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
In her application, Alma Solis has put forward understandable reasons for giving precedence to the family-group name NYMPHULINAE Over ACENTROPINAE. In a com- ment (BZN 57: 46-48), we stated that these reasons, at least in our view, may not be sufficient. A comment has subsequently been published by Agassiz (BZN 58: 305-306). We generally agree with all the statements made by the latter except for two, newly introduced into the discussion:
(1) We did not say in our comment that we were the only authors to have used the family-group name ACENTROPINAE as valid, neither in Europe nor in Asia (cf. Agassiz’s comment on BZN 59: 306).
132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
(2) We agree that there are some species of major economic importance in the group, and their names should be conserved. The synonymy of the available family-group names, however, has no influence on the use of generic and specific names for these species. The majority of species in the group have no economic importance and ‘considerable disruption’ in the literature by synonymising the family-group names need not be feared. Generally, we see problems with including ‘economic importance’ as an argument in the discussion on the application of family-group names.
We did not intend to provoke a long discussion on the application of a family-group name in the Microlepidoptera. In such a scarcely-studied group and with the comparatively short time since the synonymy of the names NyMPHULINAE and ACENTROPINAE was made and even shorter time since this synonymy was generally accepted, we think it is difficult to apply the criterion of ‘general usage’.
(2) Jay C. Shaffer Department of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, U.S.A.
I wish to add my support to the application by Dr Alma Solis to conserve the subfamily name NYMPHULINAE. I have worked with pyralid moths since the 1960s and have been familiar with the ndme NYMPHULINAE since my undergraduate days (even farther back in time). I had not heard of the name ACENTROPINAE until recently and am unaware of any use prior to Speidel (1981). The name apparently has not been used for well over 100 years.
The central purpose of the Code is to promote stability of names. The use of the name ACENTROPINAE in place of the familiar NyMPHULINAE runs counter to that purpose.
Comment on the proposed emendation of spelling of MacRopopINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) to MACROPODUSINAE, So removing the homonymy with MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia)
(Case 2661; see BZN 58: 297-299)
Richard van der Laan
Hogeschool van Utrecht, Institute of Life Sciences and Chemistry, Chemical Research and Development, Postbus 13272, 3507 LG Utrecht, The Netherlands
I have found that in an aquarist publication Hoedeman introduced the name MACROPODINAE for a group of ANABANTIDAE in 1948, which is considerably earlier than the date cited (Liem, 1963) in the application. The group was diagnosed in a key (p. 2) to the subfamilies of the ANABANTIDAE (A. II. 1. Dorsal and anal fins both with more than 12 spines). The emended family-group name MACROPODUSINAE should therefore be attributed to Hoedeman (1948).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 133
There is also an English version of Hoedeman’s work, entitled Encyclopedia of water life, loose leaf 1948-195?, which I have not seen. The name MACROPODINAE also appeared in Hoedeman (1954, pp. 472 and 476).
Additional references
Hoedeman, J.J. 1948. In Hoedeman, J.J. & de Jong, J.C.M. (Eds.), Encyclopaedie voor den aquariumhouder, 1947-1962. Loose leaf edition, 56 parts. De Regenboog, Amsterdam. Hoedeman, J.J. 1954. Aquariumvissen-encyclopaedie. 527 pp. De Bezige Bij, Amsterdam.
Comments on the proposed placement of the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes) on the Official List (Case 3028; see BZN 58: 110-115)
(1) W. Villwock
Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
I support the application by Prof Dr M. Kottelat and Mr A. Wheeler.
I protest strongly against the invalid introduction of the generic name Lebias Goldfuss, 1820 by Dr K.J. Lazara in 1995 in place of the well known and long used name Aphanius Nardo, 1827. I shall continue to use Aphanius because the adoption of Lebias would lead to considerable confusion in the literature concerned.
(2) Juraj Holeik Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dibravska cesta 9, 842 06 Bratislava, Slovakia
I support the conclusions of the application by Kottelat & Wheeler to place Aphanius on the Official List. I agree with them that, as most species of Aphanius are threatened and listed as endangered in most of the Mediterranean region, the nomenclatural change to Lebias proposed by Lazara (1995) is very unfortunate. I urge the Commission to approve the application and retain the name Aphanius.
(3) R.H. Wildekamp Aug. de Witstraat 5, 5421RK Gemert, The Netherlands
I write to support the application that has been submitted to the Commission by Kottelat & Wheeler to place the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 on the Official List. My use of the name was explained in Wildekamp, Kiicgiik, Unltisayin & van Neer (1999).
Additional reference
Wildekamp, R.H., Kiiciik, F., Unliisayin, M. & van Neer, W. 1999. Species and subspecies of the genus Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Pisces, Cyprinodontidae) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 23: 23-44.
134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
(4) Ignacio Doadrio
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, Madrid 28006, Spain
I support the application to place the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 on the Official List.
I include the following list of recent references in which I have adopted the name: Doadrio, Perdices & Machordom (1996), Perdices, Carmona & Doadrio (2001) and Doadrio, Carmona & Fernandez-Delgado (2002).
Additional references
Doadrio, I., Carmona, J.A. & Fernandez-Delgado, C. 2002. Morphometric study of the Iberian Aphanius (Actinopterigii, Cyprinodontiformes) with descriptions of two new species. Folia Zoologica.
Doadrio, I., Perdices, A. & Machordom, A. 1996. Allozymic variation of the endangered killifish Aphanius iberus (Val., 1846) and its application to conservation. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 45: 259-271. :
Perdices, A., Carmona, J.A. & Doadrio, I. 2001. Nuclear and mitochondrial data reveal high genetic divergence among Atlantic and Mediterranean populations of the Iberian killifish Aphanius iberus (Teleostei, Cyprinodontidae). Heredity, 87: 314-324.
(5) Support for the application has been received from Dr Philippe Keith (Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire d'Ichtyologie, 43 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris, cedex 05, France), Dr Jérg Freyhof (Leibniz-Institut ftir Gewdsserdkologie und Binnenfischerei, Miiggelseedamm 310, D-12561 Berlin, Germany), Prof Yoannis Leonardos (Biological Applications and Technology Department, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece), Dr Roberta Barbieri (National Centre of Marine Research, Institute of Inland Waters, Ag. Kosmas, GR-166 04 Hellenikon, Athens) and Prof P.S. Economidis (Aristotle University, School of Biology, Zoology Department, Box 134, GR-540 06, Thessaloniki, Greece).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 135
OPINION 1996 (Case 3158)
Helix lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 and Helix punctata Miller, 1774 (currently Otala punctata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): usage of the specific names conserved by the replacement of the syntypes of
H. lucorum with a neotype
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Pulmonata; HELICIDAE; Helix lucorum; Otala punctata; edible snails.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Helix lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and the specimen labelled as the neotype (length 32.71 mm, diameter 39.96 mm) in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen is designated as the neotype.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) Jucorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Helix Jucorum and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) punctata Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix punctata.
History of Case 3158
An application to conserve the usage of the specific names of Helix lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 and Helix punctata Miller, 1774 by the replacement of the syntypes of H. lucorum with a neotype was received from Drs Christian Van Osselaer, Frédéric Chérot and Bernard Tursch (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Laboratoire de Bio- Ecologie, Brussels, Belgium) and Dr Thierry Backeljau (Institut royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels, Belgium) on 4 May 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 8-12 (March 2001).
Decision of the Commission
On | December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 11. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — none.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Bouchet commented: ‘It would have been possible to select a lectotype of Helix castanea Olivier, 1801 as the neotype of H. lucorum Linnaeus, 1758. One ‘probable’ syntype, from among three in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, was illustrated by Tillier & Mordan (1983, Journal of Conchology, 31: 157, pl. 6, fig. 1). In
136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
this way H. mutata Lamarck, 1822 (the first available replacement name for the homonymous H. castanea Olivier) would have been an objective, rather than subjective, synonym of H. lucorum. Helix castanea Olivier, 1801, non Muller, 1774, was also renamed H. mahometana Bourguignat, 1860’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: lucorum, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 773. punctata, Helix, Miller, 1774, Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium, seu Animalium infusoriorum, Helminthicorum et Testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia, vol. 2, p. 21.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 137
OPINION 1997 (Case 3175)
Ampullaria canaliculata Lamarck, 1822 (currently Pomacea canaliculata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Natica canaliculata; Amauropsina canaliculata; Pomacea canaliculata; Gastropoda; NATICIDAE; AMPULLOSPIRIDAE; AMPULLARIIDAE; Eocene; Recent; apple snails; pest species.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name canaliculata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ampullaria canaliculata, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Ampullaria canaliculata Lamarck, 1804.
(2) The name Amauropsina Chelot, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Ampullaria canaliculata Lamarck, 1804, 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) canaliculata Lamarck, 1804, as published in the binomen Ampullaria canaliculata (specific name of the type species of Amauropsina Chelot, 1885);
(b) canaliculata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ampullaria canaliculata (not invalid by the ruling in (1) above).
The name canalifera Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ampullaria
canalifera, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Ampullaria
canaliculata Lamarck, 1804).
(4
—
History of Case 3175
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Ampullaria canaliculata Lamarck, 1822, a junior primary homonym of Ampullaria canaliculata Lamarck, 1804, was received from Dr Robert H. Cowie (Center for Conservation Research and Training, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.), Dr Neal L. Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) and Dr Alan R. Kabat (c/o National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on
19 September 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 13-18 (March 2001). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 16. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 22: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Eschmeyer, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Negative votes — 1: Cogger.
Evenhuis abstained.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Cogger commented: ‘Retention of primary homonymous names by the same author (albeit with different dates of publication) is especially confusing and, in my view, should be avoided whenever possible. The solution suggested but rejected by the applicants in para. 7 of the application (to adopt Ampullaria canalifera Lamarck, 1822 in place of A. canaliculata Lamarck, 1804) would have been preferable to the one requested’.
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:
canaliculata, Ampullaria, Lamarck, 1804, Annales du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, §(25): 32.
canaliculata, Ampullaria, Lamarck, 1822, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 6, part 2, p. 178. ;
canalifera, Ampullaria, Lamarck, 1822, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 7, p. 549.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 139
OPINION 1998 (Case 3123)
DOLICHOPODINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (Insecta, Grylloptera): spelling emended to DOLICHOPODAINI, so removing the homonymy with DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Diptera)
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; Grylloptera; }DOLICHOPODIDAE; DOLICHOPODAINI; Dolichopus; Dolichopoda; \ong-legged flies; camel crickets; cave crickets.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Dolichopoda Bolivar, 1880 (Grylloptera) is DOLICHOPODA-.
(2) The name Dolichopoda Bolivar, 1880 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Gryllus (Tettigonia) palpata Sulzer, 1776, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Grylloptera).
(3) The name palpata Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Gryllus (Tettigonia) palpata (specific name of the type species of Dolichopoda Bolivar, 1880) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Grylloptera).
(4) The entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for the name DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809 is hereby emended to record that it was first published in the correct form by Agassiz (1846) (Diptera).
(5S) The name DOLIcHOPODAINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888, type genus Dolichopoda Bolivar, 1880 is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Grylloptera).
(6) The name DoLicHoropini Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (spelling emended to DoLICcHoPoDAINI by the ruling in (1) above) (Grylloptera).
History of Case 3123
An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names DOLICHOPODINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (Insecta, Grylloptera) and DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Diptera) was received from Drs Spyros D. Skareas and Scott E. Brooks (Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, McGill University (Macdonald Campus), Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada) on 16 September 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 147-150 (September 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
The names of Dolichopus Latreille, 1796 and of its type species, Dolichopus ungulatus Linnaeus, 1758, and the family-group name DoLICcHopop1DAE Latreille, 1809 (Diptera), were placed on Official Lists in Direction 49 (November 1956). However, the homonymy with the gryllopteran family-group name DOLICHOPODINI was not then considered.
140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 148-149. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — none.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index, and to the emended entry on an Official List, by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Dolichopoda Bolivar, 1880, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)10(1): 72.
DOLICHOPODAINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888, Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Kéniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wein, 38: 256 (incorrectly spelled as DOLICHOPODINI).
DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809, Genera crustaceorum et insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita . . ., vol. 4, pp. 239, 290.
DOLICHOPODINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888, Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Kéniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wein, 38: 256 (an incorrect original spelling of DOLICHOPODAINI).
palpata, Gryllus (Tettigonia), Sulzer, 1776, Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten Nach dem Linnaeischen System, p. 83.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 141
OPINION 1999 (Case 3096)
Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830 designated as the type species, and Dichrorampha: given precedence over Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; Microlepidoptera; TORTRICIDAE; moths; Dichrorampha; Dichrorampha plumbagana; Amaurosetia; Amaurosetia albinella.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power:
(a) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 are hereby set aside before the designation by Fernald (1908) of Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830;
(b) the name Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 is hereby given precedence over the name Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Fernald (1908), as ruled in (1)(a) above, Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Westwood (1840) Phalaena albinella Linnaeus, 1758, with the endorse- ment that it is not to be given priority over the name Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) plumbagana Treitschke, 1830, as published in the binomen Grapholitha plumbagana (specific name of the type species of Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845);
(b) albinella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena albinella (specific name of the type species of Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835).
— i) —
(3
m
History of Case 3096
An application for the conservation of the generic name Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 by giving it precedence over Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 was received from Dr Leif Aarvik (Zoological Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway) on 13 August 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 210-213 (December 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 211-212. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet (part), Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, van Tol
Negative votes — 1: Stys.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Bouchet voted for the designation of Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830 as the type species of Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845, but not for giving the latter name precedence over Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835. He commented: “As the name Amaurosetia has been treated as a junior synonym of Borkhausenia Hubner, 1825 (family OECOPHORIDAE; para. 1 of the application), and it has not been used (apart from Leraut, 1997) during the 20th century, this should have been reflected in the proposals. Instead it was proposed that Amaurosetia be treated as a potentially valid name in the TORTRICIDAE and, in my view, this might be a threat to stability’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: albinella, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 541. Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835, Illustrations of British Entomology, vol. 4 (Haustellata), p. 353. Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)3: 185. plumbagana, Grapholitha, Treitschke, 1830, Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 8, p. 218.
The following is the reference for the designation of Phalaena albinella Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835:
Westwood, J.O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, p. 114. Published with Introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 2.
The following is the reference for the designation of Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830 as the type species of the nominal genus Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845:
Fernald, C.H. 1908. The genera of the Tortricidae and their types, p. 56.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 143
OPINION 2000 (Case 3132)
Eudorylas Aczél, 1940 and Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved by the designation of Pipunculus fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844 as the type species of Eudorylas
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; PIPUNCULIDAE; Eudorylas; Eudorylas fuscipes; Microcephalops; Microcephalops banksi; Microcephalops opacus; Neodorylas.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Eudorylas Aczél, 1940 are hereby set aside and Pipunculus fuscipes
Zetterstedt, 1844 is designated as the type species.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Eudorylas Aczél, 1940 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Pipunculus fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844;
(b) Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Pipunculus banksi Aczél, 1940.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844, as published in the binomen Pipunculus fuscipes and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 296, type number ZML 2442:1 in the Zetterstedt collection in Lund) designated by Collin (1956) (specific name of the type species of Eudorylas Aczél, 1940);
(b) banksi Aczél, 1940, as published in the binomen Pipunculus banksi (specific name of the type species of Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989).
The name Neodorylas Kuznetzov, 1995 is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective
synonym of Eudorylas Aczél, 1940).
2
—
(3
—
(4
wma
History of Case 3132
An application for the conservation of the name Eudorylas Aczél, 1940 was received from Dr Marc De Meyer (Koninklijk Museum voor Midden Afrika, Tervuren, Belgium) and Dr Jeff Skevington (University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia) on 4 August 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 19-23 (March 2001). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
It was noted on the voting paper that Cephalops opacus Fallén, 1816 was the type species of Eudorylas Aczél, 1940, but the original designation was apparently based on an error. Cephalops opacus and Pipunculus vestitutus Becker, 1900, a species placed in the pipunculid genus Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989, were synonyms (paras. 7, 8 and 10 of the application) and, as a consequence, the name Micro- cephalops was formally a junior subjective synonym of Eudorylas. The application recorded (Abstract, paras. 7 and 12) that the proposed designation of Pipunculus
144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844 as the type species of Eudorylas, in accord with the usage of Eudorylas, would also conserve the current usage of the name Microcephalops. It was proposed that the names of Microcephalops and of its type species, P. banksi Aczél, 1940, be placed on Official Lists in addition to the proposals in para. 13 on BZN 58: 21-22.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 21—22. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — none.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
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:
banksi, Pipunculus, Aczél, 1940, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 132: 152.
Eudorylas Aczél, 1940, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 132: 151.
fuscipes, Pipunculus, Zetterstedt, 1844, Diptera Scandinaviae disposita et descripta, vol. 3, p. 953.
Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989, Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique (Entomologie), 59: 120.
Neodorylas Kuznetzov, 1995, International Journal of Dipterological Research, 6(4): 326.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Pipunculus fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844:
Collin, J.E. 1956. Opuscula Entomologica, 21(2-3): 151.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 145
OPINION 2001 (Case 3157)
Halictoides dentiventris Nylander, 1848 (currently Dufourea dentiventris; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; APOIDEA; HALICTIDAE; Dufourea; Halictoides; Dufourea dejeanii; Dufourea dentiventris; Palaearctic.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the specific name dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Dufourea dejeanii, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Halictoides Nylander, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Cockerell & Porter (1899) Halictoides dentiventris Nylander, 1848, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name dentiventris Nylander, 1848, as published in the binomen Halictoides dentiventris and as defined by the lectotype (female specimen no. 5153 in the Zoological Museum, Helsinki) designated by Ebmer (1976) (specific name of the type species of Halictoides Nylander, 1848), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Dufourea dejeanii and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3157
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Halictoides dentiventris Nylander, 1848 by the suppression of the senior synonym Dufourea dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841 was received from Dr P.A.W. Ebmer (Puchenau, Austria) on 14 April 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 32-33 (March 2001). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 33. At the close of the voting period on | March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 20: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Brothers, Calder, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song
Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Cogger, Stys and van Tol.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Bouchet commented: ‘The application (paras. | and 2) indicates 20 usages of the name Halictoides dentiventris since 1935. In my view this does not justify the use of the plenary power to set aside priority’. Cogger commented: ‘While I accept the need
146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
to preserve usage of the name Halictoides dentiventris, it is unlikely that the systematics of this group is so firmly established that further taxonomic changes in the group to which dentiventris belongs will not occur. Suppression of the name of a species with extant type(s) is unwarranted in such cases, and maintenance of existing usage of the junior name is best achieved by giving priority to that name whenever the two are considered to be synonyms’. Stys commented: ‘The case does not seem to merit the use of the plenary power and, in my view, priority should be followed’.
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: dejeanii, Dufourea, Lepeletier, 1841, Histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 2, p. 228. dentiventris, Halictoides, Nylander, 1848, Notiser ur Sdllskapets pro fauna et flora Fennica, vol. 1, p. 195. Halictoides Nylander, 1848, Notiser ur Sallskapets pro fauna et flora Fennica, vol. 1, p. 195.
The following is the reference for the designation of Halictoides dentiventris Nylander, 1848 as the type species of the nominal genus Halictoides Nylander, 1848:
Cockerell, T.D.A. & Porter, W. 1899. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)4: 420.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Halictoides dentiventris Nylander, 1848: °
Ebmer, A.W. 1976. Nachrichtenblatt der Bayerischen Entomologen, 25: |.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 147
OPINION 2002 (Case 3162)
Ceratichthys micropogon Cope, 1865 (currently Nocomis micropogon, Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Cypriniformes; CyPRINIDAE; Nocomis micropogon; river chub; North America.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Ceratichthys micropogon Cope, 1865 are hereby set aside and specimen no. USNM 166416 in the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., is designated as the neotype.
(2) The name micropogon Cope, 1865, as published in the binomen Ceratichthys micropogon and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3162
An application to conserve the specific name of Ceratichthys micropogon Cope, 1865 by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr Carter R. Gilbert (Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.) and the other members of the joint Common and Scientific Names Committee of the American Fisheries Society and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists on 19 May 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 214-217 (December 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On | December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 216. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, van Tol
Negative votes — 1: Stys.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Bouchet commented: “The application addresses only partially the stability of names for species in the genus Nocomis Girard, 1856. The name Luxilus kentuckiensis Rafinesque, 1820 was used until 1926 (para. 5) and remains available. The fact that the original description “did not list any diagnostic characters” (para. 5) applies to many descriptions of nominal species in current use and it is nomenclaturally unacceptable to disregard a name on such weak ground. The name L. kentuckiensis is the oldest that applies to a species of Nocomis from Kentucky and, in my view, stability would have been best achieved by designating a neotype and adopting it for the species in question’.
148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
micropogon; Ceratichthys, Cope, 1865, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 16(5): 277.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 149
OPINION 2003 (Case 3163)
Holacanthus ciliaris bermudensis Goode, 1876 (currently Holacanthus bermudensis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): usage of the subspecific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perciformes; POMACANTHIDAE; Holacanthus bermudensis; blue angelfish; Western Atlantic.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal subspecies Holacanthus ciliaris bermudensis Goode, 1876 are hereby set aside and specimen no. CAS-SU 363 in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, is designated as the neotype.
(2) The name bermudensis Goode, 1876, as published in the trinomen Holacanthus ciliaris bermudensis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name isabelita Jordan & Rutter, 1898, as published in the binomen Angelichthys isabelita is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Holacanthus ciliaris bermudensis Goode, 1876).
History of Case 3163
An application to conserve the subspecific name of Holacanthus ciliaris bermudensis Goode, 1876 by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr Carter R. Gilbert (Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.) and the other members of the joint Common and Scientific Names Committee of the American Fisheries Society and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists on 19 May 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 218-222 (December 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On | December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 221. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 22: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, van Tol
Negative votes — 2: Calder and Stys.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Calder commented: ‘I am in favour of stabilizing the name Holacanthus bermudensis for the well known blue angelfish but the neotype is from Florida and, in my view, this is excessively far away from the type locality of Bermuda’.
150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 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: bermudensis, Holacanthus ciliaris, Goode, 1876, Bulletin of the United States National Museum,
5: 43. isabelita, Angelichthys, Jordan & Rutter, 1898, in Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W., Bulletin of
the United States National Museum, 47(2): 1684.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 151
OPINION 2004 (Case 3167)
Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850 and Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936 (Aves, Passeriformes): conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Passeriformes; THRAUPIDAE; EMBERIZIDAE; THRAUPINAE; Schistochlamys; Neothraupis; Schistochlamys capistrata; Schistochlamys ruficapillus capistrata; Neothraupis fasciata; tanagers; South America.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power:
(2
(3
(4
)
wm
w—
(a) the following names are hereby suppressed:
QQ) Diucopis Bonaparte, 1850 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(i) Neothraupis Berlepsch, 1879 and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850 prior to that by P.L. Sclater (1886) of Tanagra capistrata Wied, 1821 are hereby set aside.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by P.L. Sclater (1886) Tanagra capistrata Wied, 1821, as ruled in (1)(b) above;
(b) Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by G.R. Gray (1855) of the replaced nominal genus Diucopis Bonaparte, 1850, Tanagra fasciata Lichtenstein, 1823.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) capistrata Wied, 1821, as published in the binomen Tanagra capistrata (specific name of the type species of Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850);
(b) fasciata Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Tanagra fasciata (specific name of the type species of Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936).
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Diucopis Bonaparte, 1850 (suppressed in (1)(a)(1) above);
(b) Neothraupis Berlepsch, 1879 (suppressed in (1)(a)(ii) above and a junior objective synonym of Cyanicterus Bonaparte, 1850);
(c) Callithraupis Berlepsch, 1879 (a junior objective synonym of Cyanicterus Bonaparte, 1850 and of Neothraupis Berlepsch, 1879).
History of Case 3167 An application for the conservation of the generic names Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850 and Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936 by the designation of Tanagra
S52) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
capistrata Wied, 1821 as the type species of Schistochlamys was received from Mr Steven M.S. Gregory (Northampton, Northamptonshire, U.K.) on 2 October 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 162-165 (September 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
It was noted on the voting paper that the sentence in para. 5 of the application which stated ‘Recognition of Tanagra fasciata as the type species of Schistochlamys would mean the loss of Neothraupis Hellmayr as a junior synonym of Schistochlamys, and a new name would be needed for the taxon currently known as Neothraupis .. should be emended to read *. . . a new name would be needed for the taxon currently known as Schistochlamys ....
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 164. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 2: Bohme and Minelli.
Lamas abstained.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
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:
Callithraupis Berlepsch, 1879, Ornithologisches Centralblatt, 4(8): 63.
capistrata, Tanagra, Wied, 1821, Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815-1817, vol. 2, p. 179.
Diucopis Bonaparte, 1850, Conspectus Generum Avium, part 1, p. 491.
fasciata, Tanagra, Lichtenstein, 1823, Verzeichniss der Doubletten des zoologischen Museums der Konigl. Universitat zu Berlin, p. 32.
Neothraupis Berlepsch, 1879, in Schalow, H*, Ornithologisches Centralblatt, 4(7): 55.
Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936, Field Museum of Natural History Publications, Zoology Series, 13(9): 432.
Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850, Avium Systema Naturale, Atlas, pl. 77.
The following is the reference for the designation of Tanagra capistrata Wied, 1821 as the type species of the nominal genus Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850: Sclater, P.L. 1886. Catalogue of birds in the British Museum, vol. 11 (Fringilliformes, part 2. Coerebidae, Tanagridae and Icteridae), p. 301.
The following is the reference for the designation of Tanagra fasciata Lichtenstein, 1823 as the type species of the nominal genus Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936: Gray, G.R. 1855. Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of birds contained in the British Museum, p. 73.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 153
OPINION 2005 (Case 3022)
Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d@’Histoire Naturelle by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803): placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire; Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (1803).
Ruling (1) The work entitled Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) is hereby confirmed as available for nomenclatural purposes. (2) The above work is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature.
History of Case 3022
An application to place the work entitled Catalogue des mammiferes du Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle (Paris) by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) on the Official List, and thus resolve instability in the use of names established in it, was received from Dr Peter Grubb (London, U.K.) on 1 September 2000. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 58: 41-52 (March 2001). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
It was noted on the voting paper that support for the application had been received by Dr Robert S. Voss (American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, U.S.A.) who noted: ‘The rejection of Geoffroy’s work would, as stated in para. 8 of the application, lead to changes in the accepted names of a number of taxa and would have no compensating advantages’.
The paper by Voss, Lunde & Simmons, cited as ‘In press’ in para. 8(c) of the application, was published in June 2001 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 263. The black-handed tamarin of southeastern Amazonia was cited under the name Saguinus niger E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803 and an adult male neotype was designated (specimen no. AMNH 96500 from Cameta, Brazil).
The specific name of Sciurus (currently Xerus or Euxerus) erythropus was placed on the Official List in Opinion 945 (March 1971) attributed to Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803).
Decision of the Commission
On | December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 47. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
154
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Negative votes — none.
No vo
tes were received from Dupuis, Kraus, Ng and Rosenberg.
Approval by the Commission of the placement of the Catalogue on the Official List means that authorship and date of the following names established in it are
attributa
ble to E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803):
(Page numbers refer to the Catalogue; the currently accepted name of the taxon is
given in 13. 46. 47. 61. 69. ile 113
Poo Oe oD do
TD ge Ge) Go) AS 3S) BS) SS)
Original
124. 134. 140. 142. 165. 176. WT, 186.
186. 192. 195. 195. 202. ANS 259. . 269.
square brackets)
Sagouin niger [Saguinus midas niger]
Vespertilio borbonicus |Scotophilus borbonicus| Pteropus rufus [P. rufus]
Phyllostoma crenulata [Mimon crenulatum) Erinaceus aegyptius |Hemiechinus auritus aegyptius] Scalopus [Scalopus|
. Civetta indica |Viverricula indica]
Felis yagouaroundi | Herpailurus yagouaroundi] Canis niloticus [Vulpes vulpes niloticus] | Phalangista maculata [Spilocuscus maculatus] Didelphis nudicaudata {[Metachirus nudicaudatus]| Cavia cristata [Dasyprocta cristata]
Sciurus rufiventer [Sciurus niger rufiventer] Sciurus pusillus [Sciurillus pusillus]
Lemmus albicaudatus [A senior homonym of Otomys (= Mystromys) albicaudatus A. Smith, 1834?|
Lemmus niloticus [Arvicanthus niloticus]
Mus alexandrinus [Rattus rattus alexandrinus]| Mus guyannensis [Proechimys guyannensis|
Mus cahirinus [Acomys cahirinus]
Dipus pyramidum [Gerbillus pyramidum|
Manis crassicaudata [Manis crassicaudata] Antilope equina [Hippotragus equinus]
Antilope caama [Alcelaphus buselaphus caama].
reference
The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1803. Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 155
Nomenclatural Note
The true identity of Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775 (Crustacea, Stomatopoda)
L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
In 1818 Lamarck gave the name Squilla scabricauda (currently Lysiosquilla scabricauda; family LYSIOSQUILLIDAE) to the mantis shrimp, one of the best known stomatopod Crustacea of the Western Atlantic. However, for many years the name has been considered as pre-dated by the synonym Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775, which was based on a larva. The name vitreus has been mentioned as referring to the larval form but it has not been adopted for the adult crustacean, and scabricauda has been used in numerous publications. To avoid any possible confusion in November 2000 I submitted an application to the Commission seeking the suppression of vitreus. The case was announced in BZN 58: | (March 2001).
Fabricius’s (1775) rather general description of Astacus vitreus fitted the larva of Lysiosquilla scabricauda and mentioned no characters that would make the synonymy impossible. The type locality of vitreus was given by Fabricius as ‘in Oceana atlantico’ which, as I showed (Holthuis, 2000, pp. 12-13), was most likely near Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and within the range for L. scabricauda.
Hansen (1895) gave special attention to the identity of Astacus vitreus, and was sure that it was the larva of Lysiosquilla scabricauda, and most later authors followed him. Hansen pointed out that the correct name for the species should be Lysiosquilla vitrea (Fabricius, 1775) but, in his view, to adopt that specific name was absurd and would lead to unlimited confusion. He suggested that the nomenclature for adults and larvae should be kept separate. He continued to use the name Lysiosquilla scabricauda for the species, as have all subsequent authors even if agreeing that Astacus vitreus was an older synonym. Under L. scabricauda, Gurney (1946) referred to Hansen and noted ‘Lysierichthus vitreus is its larva’. Manning (1969), in his monographic review of the Stomatopoda of the Western Atlantic, cited Astacus vitreus in the synonymy of Lysiosquilla scabricauda with a question mark and noted (p. 33) ‘Several larval forms, including Astacus vitreus Fabricius . . . have been identified with Lysiosquilla scabricauda. As all of these identifications are tentative, the names are accompanied with a question-mark in the synonymy’.
In his description of Astacus vitreus, Fabricius (1775) referred to “Mus. Banks’. There are no existing type specimens of the species (see White, 1847 and Zimsen, 1964) but Wheeler (1986) recorded that Fabricius based his description on material in the collection of Sir Joseph Banks, most probably the drawing by Sydney Parkinson made during the outward journey of James Cook’s first circumnavigational voyage in the Endeavour (August 1768 to July 1771). The drawing forms part of the collection given by Banks before 1815 to the Linnean Society of London and in 1863 passed to the British Museum and thence to The Natural History Museum, London.
Mrs Anthea Gentry (The Secretariat, ICZN) recently pointed out to me that the drawing of Astacus vitreus was reproduced by Wheeler (1983, p. 209, pl. 189b). It
156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
shows enlarged dorsal and ventral views, as well as a natural sized view, and is annotated ‘Cancer vitreus’ and ‘Sydney Parkinson pinxt 1768’ on the front, and ‘Coast of Brasil’ on the reverse, possibly by Fabricius when he studied Banks’s collection (see Wheeler, 1983, pp. 200-201).
I have recently received on loan the publication by Wheeler (1983) in which Parkinson’s figures of Astacus vitreus were reproduced and found that the drawing represents a larva of Alima Leach, 1816, most probably A. neptuni (Linnaeus, 1768), instead of the expected Lysiosquilla larva. It seems clear that none of the previous authors who dealt with the nomenclature of L. scabricauda had seen this illustration. As noted above, Fabricius’s (1775) description was rather general and fitted both species, although it now seems certain that an A/ima larva was meant. Fabricius’s (1775) description fits Parkinson’s figures very well.
The first mistake in the identification of Astacus vitreus was made by Desmarest (1823) who synonymised vitreus with Smerdis vulgaris Leach, 1818, the latter being very similar to species of Lysiosquilla, judging by Leach’s figure. Leach’s type specimen originates from West Africa and certainly is not L. scabricauda.
Since Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775 is not a senior synonym of Lysiosquilla scabricauda Lamarck, 1818 but a junior synonym of Alima neptuni (Linnaeus, 1768), there is no need for Commission action to conserve the name scabricauda and I have therefore withdrawn my application. The larval form A. neptuni was known as A. hyalina Leach, 1817 until Manning & Lewinsohn (1986, pp. 13, 14) demonstrated that the names were synonyms and adopted neptuni. Manning (1962) had already shown that A. hyalina referred to the larva of the adult stomatopod Squilla alba Bigelow, 1893, which Manning (1969, pp. 127-139) considered distinct from other species of Squilla Fabricius, 1793 and placed in the genus Alima. I (Holthuis, 2000, p. 18) designated the lectotype of A. alba as the neotype of A. neptuni (for which species there was no existing type material), rendering A. neptuni the valid name in accord with current usage. To the synonymy of A. neptuni, A. hyalina and A. alba must now be added Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775, judging from Parkinson’s figure of the latter.
The name Cancer neptuni was published (p. 226) in a zoological Appendix to vol. 1 (Regnum Animale, 1766, 1767) of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae (Edition 12). This Appendix (pp. 223-228) was published in 1768 following vol. 3 (Regnum Lapideum, pp. 5-222) of the work. There is also a botanical Appendix to vol. 2 (Regnum Vegetabile, 1767), and a single addition to vol. 3. Part of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae (Ed. 12), vol. 3 (Regnum Lapideum) dealing with fossil animals (pp. 153-174) was rejected for nomenclatural purposes by the Commission in Opinion 296 (October 1954). Fitton (1978; see also Wheeler, 1991) thought that the zoological Appendix might have also been ‘accidentally suppressed’, but it 1s clear from the original application (BZN 2: 88) and subsequent comments (reproduced in the Opinion) that only the section on Petrificata was at issue, and thus Cancer neptuni Linnaeus, 1768 is an available name.
References
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species... . 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae.
Fitton, M.G. 1978. The species of ‘Jchneumon’ (Hymenoptera) described by Linnaeus. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 10: 361-383.
Gurney, R. 1846. Notes on stomatopod larvae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 116: 133-175.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 157
Hansen, H.J. 1895. Isopoden, Cumaceen und Stomatopoden der Plankton-Expedition. Ergebnisse der Plankton-Expedition der Humboldt Stiftung, 2(Gc): 1-105.
Holthuis, L.B. 2000. Nomenclatural notes on eighteenth century Stomatopoda (Hoplocarida). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 20: 12-19.
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. 1818. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 5. 612 pp. Déterville, Paris.
Linnaeus, C. 1768. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 3 (Regnum Lapideum), Appendix Tomi | (Animalium). Pp. 223-228. Salvi, Holmiae.
Manning, R.B. 1962. Alima hyalina Leach, the pelagic larva of the stomatopod crustacean Squilla alba Bigelow. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 12(3): 496-507.
Manning, R.B. 1969. Stomatopod Crustacea of the Western Atlantic. Studies in Tropical Oceanography, 8: 1-380.
Manning, R.B. & Lewinsohn, C. 1986. Notes on some stomatopod Crustacea from the Sinai Peninsula, Red Sea. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 433: 1-19.
Schotte, M. & Manning, R.B. 1993. Stomatopd Crustacea from Tobago, West Indies. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 106(3): 566-581.
Wheeler, A. 1983. Animals. Pp. 195-241, pls. 186-222 in Carr, D.J. (Ed.), Sydney Parkinson. Artist of Cook’s Endeavour voyage. xv, 300 pp., 253 pls. British Museum (Natural History), Croom Helm, London.
Wheeler, A. 1986. Catalogue of the natural history drawings commissioned by Joseph Banks on the Endeavour voyage 1768-1771 held in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 3 (Zoology). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical series, 13: 1-171.
Wheeler, A. 1991. Caroli Linne. Systema Naturae, Editio 12, Tomus 1, Regnum Animale (1766). A microfiche reproduction of the author’s personal annotated copy from the Linnean Society of London, with an historical introduction by Alwyne Wheeler. 15 pp. The Natural History Museum, London.
White, A. 1847. List of the specimens of Crustacea in the collection of the British Museum. viii, 143 pp. British Museum, London.
Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
Cumctr~ UM Friis
ty Meche Sint BE
Drawing of a crustacean larva made by Sydney Parkinson during Cook’s first voyage, 1768-1771, named Astacus vitreus by Fabricius (1775). Fabricius’s taxon was subsequently erroneously identified as the larval stage of the mantis shrimp, Lysiosquilla scabricauda (Larmarck, 1818), but is now known to be probably conspecific with Alima neptuni (Linnaeus, 1768). Enlarged dorsal (left), ventral (right) and side (centre) views (life size approximately 40 mm).
158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Correspondence
Description of taxa
Alireza Saboori
Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Tehran University, Karaj-Iran
It is very important that taxonomists can understand papers which include descriptions of new taxa. Unfortunately, some descriptions are written in non-Latin based national languages (such as Persian and Chinese etc.) and these are not easy for many taxonomists to translate. I propose that the Commission ratifies English as the common scientific language for description of all new animal taxa. This would greatly improve understanding of these descriptions for zoologists around the world.
Correspondence on this subject, or any other topic related to nomenclature, is invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; it should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002 159
INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; authors submitting general papers and comments should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned.
General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.
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 to the Commission. Abstracts will be prepared by the Secretariat. Text references should give dates and pages in parenthesis, e.g.
Hinton (1941, p. 358) pointed out the problem and attempted...
When an author(s) has published more than one work in a particular year, and these are referred to in the text, the works should be differentiated using a, b, ¢ etc. in the text and reference list, e.g.
... the name continued to appear in literature for another 35 years (e.g. Kinzig, 1921; Pearse, 1929a, b).
Up to four authors’ names in a multi-authored publication are given the first time the work is cited in the text, then et al. (not in italics) is used.
References. These should give all authors of a publication. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names that are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. For both periodical and book citations, lines subsequent to the first are indented. Authors’ initials always follow the surname.
1. Periodicals. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics. The title of the paper is given in Roman script, capitals are only used for proper nouns in English, and where appropriate in other languages, e.g.
Miers, E.J. 1878. Revision of the Hippidea. Journal of the Linnean Society of
London, (Zoology), 14: 312-336.
The author and volume number are given in bold. The year of publication is not in bold and is followed by a full stop. A comma separates periodical title and series/volume/part number. A colon separates series/volume/part number and page numbers. A hyphen separates first and last page of relevance. The reference ends with a full stop.
160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(2) June 2002
Series numbers are given in parenthesis (but not in bold) before the volume number; part or issue numbers are given in parenthesis after the volume number (but not in bold), e.g.
Memoire della Reale Academia delle Scienze di Torino, (2)13: 19-94.
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, (Harvard College), 52(16):
303-317.
Papers by more than one author are cited as shown below, with an ampersand (&) before the last author in a list (ampersands are similarly used in the text); commas separate surname and initials; full stops separate initials and come after the last initial. There is no space between initials, e.g.
Michener, C.D. & Moure, J.S. 1957. A study of the...
Michener, C.D., McGinley, R.J. & Danforth, B.N. 1994. The bee genera...
2. Book titles. These should be in italics and followed by the number of pages (both Roman and Arabic numerals where appropriate) and plates, the publisher and place of publication, e.g.
Michener, C.D. 2000. The bees of the world. xiv, 913 pp. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
If a title is given in Latin, publisher and place of publication may also be given in their latinized form and as in the original publication, e.g.
Gmelin, J.F. 1788. Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4. Lipsiae.
Long titles may be abbreviated, but should continue to make sense, e.g.
Owen, R. 1839. Crustacea. Pp. 77-92, pl. 25 in Beechey, F.W. (Ed.), The zoology
of Captain Beechey’s voyage... to the Pacific and Behring’s straits performed in Her Majesty’s ship Blossom .. . in the years 1825, 26, 27 and 28. Bohn, London.
Plate is indicated by pl. and several plates are indicated by pls. (both are followed by a full stop). Editor is abbreviated to (Ed.) and editors to (Eds.) (both are followed by a full stop). Book edition is abbreviated to Ed. (no parenthesis). Page is abbreviated to p. or P. (if it appears after a full stop) and pages to pp. or Pp. (if it appears after a full stop). Edition (Ed.) and volume number (vol.) are separated from the title by a comma. Part number is separated from volume by a comma. Page number is separated by a full stop from volume or part number and by a comma from plate number. Multiple authors follow the same style as for periodicals. The reference ends with a full stop, e.g.
Smith, A.B. & Jones, B. 2001. In search of rare animals, vol. 1, part 3. 254 pp., 6 pls.
Submission of Application
Two copies should be sent to: Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. If possible, accompany the printed copies of the application with a version saved in a Word (preferably) or .rtf file on an IBM PC compatible disk or as an e-mail attachment. Where possible photocopies of the relevant pages of the main references should be provided with an application.
The Commission’s Secretariat is willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application.
Contents — continued
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Thalassema taenioides Ikeda, 1904 (currently Ikeda taenioides; Echiura). E.B. Cutler 5, hoe ee Oe
On the proposed precedence of Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 over Remipes marmoratus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1846 (Crustacea, Anomura). L.B. Holthuis .
On the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). W. Speidel & W. Mey; J.C. Shaffer
On the proposed emendation of spelling of MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) to MACROPODUSINAE, so removing the homonymy with MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia). R. van der Laan .
On the proposed placement of the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Cxsentives, Cyprinodontiformes) on the Official List. W. Villwock; J. Holeik; R.H. Wildekamp; I. Doadrio; P. Keith et al. Pa Rog Nt eo oo ait Lae See Sa
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1996 (Case 3158). Helix lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 and Helix punctata Miiller, 1774 (currently Otala punctata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): usage of the specific names conserved by the replacement of the syntypes of H. Jucorum with a neotype . = ieee a ne
OPINION 1997 (Case 3175). Acapella banaleuiatn Lavina, 1822 (currently Pomacea canaliculata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved . :
OPINION 1998 (Case 3123). DOLICHOPODINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (inseetal Grylloptera): spelling emended to DOLICHOPODAINI, so removing the homonymy with DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Diptera)
OPINION 1999 (Case 3096). Dichrorampha Gueneée, 1845 incectal Lepidoptera): Grapholitha plumbagana Treitschke, 1830 designated as the type species, and Dichrorampha: given precedence over Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 . ;
OPINION 2000 (Case 3132). Eudorylas Aczél, 1940 and Microcephalops De Meyer 1989 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved by the designation of Pipunculus fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844 as the type species of Eudorylas
OPINION 2001 (Case 3157). Halictoides dentiventris Nylander! 1848 (Gumently Dufourea dentiventris; Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved 5
OPINION 2002 (Case 3162). Ceratichthys micropogon Cope, 1865 (exnently Nocomis micropogon; Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
OPINION 2003 (Case 3163). Holacanthus ciliaris Honiions Gawtte, 1876 (cueently Holacanthus bermudensis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): usage of the subspecific name conserved by the designation of a neotype . ,
OPINION 2004 (Case 3167). Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1350 ond INeaacopts Hellmayr, 1936 (Aves, Passeriformes): conserved BSS
OPINION 2005 (Case 3022). Catalogue des mammiféres du Muneura d'Histoire Naturelle by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803): placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature . Sec ae
Nomenclatural Note The true identity of Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775 (Crustacea, Stomatopoda). L.B. Holthuis eee bata yoo Sun)
Correspondence Description of taxa. A. Saboori
Information and Instructions for Authors
135
137
139
141
143
145
147
155
158
159
CONTENTS
Notices . ; ;
Council of the Iniermatiogal Commmnad on waulneical ivumeuelatane :
Call for nominations for new members of the International Coens on Zoological Nomenclature ‘
20th Pacific Science Congress, avec: het 17- 21 March 2003
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies . fogs
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoolosy — _ Supplement 1986-2000 SER ecw Genes ; ae
Applications
Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879 and Setidiwm Schmidt, 1879 (Porifera): proposed conservation by the designation of Scleritoderma flabelliformis Sollas, 1888 as the type species of Scleritoderma. A. Pisera & C. Levi .
Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cea ee Mollaces Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. F. Giusti & G. Manganelli Se ence cS Sich Os aig.
Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of H. granulatus Richardson, 1908 as the type species. K.L. Merrin & G.C.B. Poore
Geophilus brevilabiatus Newport, 1845 (currently Orphnaeus brevilabiatus) and Chomatobius brasilianus Humbert & Saussure, 1870 (currently O. brasilianus) (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. D. Foddai, A. Minelli & EA. Pereira = SOS
Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 Gee Isontee: proposed pees over Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna .
Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 and Philoscaptus Bréthes, 1919 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Podalgus cuniculus Burmeister, 1847 as the type species of Podalgus. F.-T. Krell . :
Leucopelaea albescens Bates, 1891 (Insecta, Coleoptera): propoeed validation GE the lectotype designation. A. Smith Ss
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Colonies): sateae seatess cae ice 65 specific names. L.H. Herman
Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, endaper). ar asad Eouceavanien of the specific name. J.B. Heppner & T.C. Emmel :
Catocala alabamae Grote, 1875 (Insecta, Lone proposed Contention of the specific name. L.F. Gall
E.L. Holmberg (1917, 1918), ‘Las especies Gresntinee qe Cocks: (nscale Hymenoptera): proposed suppression of 139 names applied to groups of species. C.D. Michener . ; Ca Oe eee
Comments
On the proposed designation of Isospora suis Biester, 1934 as the type species of Jsospora Schneider, 1881 (Protista, Apicomplexa). S.J. Upton; A. Wakeham-Dawson
On the proposed conservation OE Hyaiohis arian, 1821 @viollusea: ‘Galraneda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; and proposed emendation of HYDROBINA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera) to HYDROBIUSINA, SO removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). A. Falniowski & M. Szarowska
Page
69 70
70 71 71 72
73
74
77
82
85
128
Continued on Inside BackCover
Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD
3 Volume 59, Part 3, 30 September 2002, pp. 161-232 ISSN 0007-5167
Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature
le Official Periodical 10; ommui 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 2002 is £120
or $215, 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. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Vice-President Executive Secretary
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof Dr W. Bohme (Germany, Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) ~ Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera) - Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany; Arachnology) Secretariat
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (United Kingdom)
Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)
Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2002
SMITHSON AT
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 161
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LIBRARIES Volume 59, part 3 (pp. 161—232) 30 September 2002 Notices
(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised 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 or her 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 59, part 2 (28 June 2002). Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published.
Case 3243. Lyda gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Shinohara, M. Viitasaari & V. Vikberg.
Case 3244. Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Termes bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis. M.S. Engel, K. Krishna & C. Boyko.
Case 3245. Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera): proposed conservation by the designation of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species. H. Coxall.
Case 3248. Prositala Germain, 1915 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- vation. B. Verdcourt & A.C. van Bruggen.
Case 3249. Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- vation. R.L. Minton & A.E. Bogan.
Case 3250. Cavia acouchy Erxleben, 1777 (currently Myoprocta acouchy; Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. G.E.I. Ximines.
(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by
NOV.1.5 U2,
162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin.
Membership of the Commission and its Council
The following list shows the year of election of all Commissioners, and the composition of the Council consisting of the President, Vice-President and four Commissioners:
2000 Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga
1988 Prof W.J. Bock
2001 Prof Dr W. Bohme
1991 Prof P. Bouchet (Council member from 1999) 1996 Prof D.J. Brothers (Council member from 1999) 2000 Dr D.R. Calder
1976 Dr H.G. Cogger
1972 Prof C. Dupuis
1996 Dr W.N. Eschmeyer (Vice-President from 1998) 2001 Dr N.L. Evenhuis (President from 2001)
2001 Prof R.A. Fortey
2001 Dr R.B. Halliday
1996 Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Council member from 1999) 1963 Prof Dr O. Kraus (Council member from 1996) 2000 Prof Dr G. Lamas
1989 Dr E. Macpherson
1989 Dr V. Mahnert
1988 Prof U.R. Martins de Souza
1996 Prof S.F. Mawatari
1989 Prof A. Minelli
2000 Dr P.K.L. Ng
1988 Dr C. Nielsen
1996 Dr L. Papp
1996 Prof D.J. Patterson
2000 Dr G. Rosenberg
1996 Prof D.X. Song
1991 Dr P. Stys
2001 Mr J. van Tol
For details relating to the election and length of service of Commissioners, Council members and Officers see the Commission’s Constitution published with the Code (pp. 264-271 of the English/French text) and the Commission’s Bylaws published in BZN 34: 176-184; BZN 42: 316-317.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 163
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
The extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ISBN 0 85301 006 4) was published (in a bilingual volume in English and French) in August 1999. It came into effect on 1 January 2000 and entirely supersedes the 3rd (1985) edition.
The price of the English and French volume of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered:
Individual members of a scientific society are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the society should be given.
Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price £24 or $39).
Postgraduate or undergraduate students are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48): the name and address of the student’s supervisor should be given.
Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy).
Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on the following publications for personal use:
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals —a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to £15 and from $50 to $25;
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission’s quarterly journal) — discount valid for up to four years; for 2002 the discounted price would be £60 or $107.
Official texts of the Code in several languages have been authorized by the Commission, and all (including English and French) are equal in authority. German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish texts have now been published and others are planned. Details of price and how to buy the published texts can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses:
German — books@insecta.de
Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp
Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu
Spanish — menb168@mncn.csic.es
164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement 1986-2000
The volume entitled Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (ISBN 0 85301 004 8) was published in 1987. It gave details of the names and works on which the Commission had ruled and placed on the Official Lists and Indexes since it was set up in 1895 through to the end of 1985. The volume contained 9917 entries, 9783 being family-group, generic or specific names and 134 relating to works.
In the 15 years between 1986 and the end of 2000 a further 601 Opinions and Directions have been published in the Bulletin listing 2371 names and 14 works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes. Details of these 2385 entries are given in a Supplement of 141 pages (ISBN 0 85301 007 2) published early in 2001. Additional sections include (a) a systematic index of names on the Official Lists covering both the 1987 volume and the Supplement; (b) a table correlating the nominal type species of genera listed in the 1987 volume with the valid names of those species when known to be different; and (c) emendments to the 1987 volume.
The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or $110 each, and £100 or $170 for both volumes ordered together.
Individual buyers of the volumes for their own use are offered a price of £50 or $85 for each volume, and £90 or $150 for both.
Individual members of the American or European Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a price of £45 or $70 for each volume, and £80 or $120 for both.
Prices include postage by surface mail; for Airmail, please add £3 or $5 for each volume.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 165
Neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora)
Wilhelm Foissner
Universitat Salzburg, Institut fiir Zoologie, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, A—5020 Salzburg, Austria
Abstract. Historically, most soft-bodied species of heterotrophic protists (Protozoa) have been difficult to preserve and consequently lack type material that can be re-investigated. This causes taxonomic and nomenclatural problems and increases the degree of subjectivity in the identification of these organisms. There are hardly any ciliate species whose identity has not been queried, or will be disputed as new data become available. However, recently methods have been developed that allow ciliates (Ciliophora) to be preserved in a way that allows type material to be preserved and re-examined. The current paper proposes that ciliate species are accurately re-described and neotypes designated that can be preserved using the new methods. The paper also proposes that the Commission should consider waiving Article 75.3.6 of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) in relation to ciliates and other groups of protists and small Metazoa. This Article states that neotypes should be designated from specimens that come as near as practicable from the original type locality. The reasons why the Article should be waived for these organisms are discussed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Protozoa; Ciliophora; protists; ciliates; neotypification; type locality.
Introduction
This paper aims to stimulate discussion about the absence of or inadequate quality of type material for protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). To date, this important problem has been largely ignored by the scientists concerned and by the scientific community in general. The lack of interest in protist nomenclatural problems is illustrated by the low number of relevant cases published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and an ignorance of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature displayed in recent publications by protozoologists. There are probably two main reasons for this: (i) there are very few people studying these minute organisms and even fewer are interested in their alpha-taxonomy and nomenclature, and (ii) there is a lack of type material, which causes nomenclatural problems and leaves identification extremely subjective. Similar problems exist in most ‘microfaunal’ groups and even more severely in the nematodes (Nematoda).
Inadequate type material
The lack of type material is the result of historical problems with the preservation of ciliate specimens and more than 90% of all described ciliates lack type material. Where it does exist, species are often represented by material that fails to show the diagnostic features. Further, in some cases material is difficult to obtain because it is deposited in private collections (see Foissner & Pfister, 1997).
166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
The lack of type material is one of the most difficult problems facing proto- zoologists involved in ciliate or other protozoan alpha-taxonomy. There are innumerable examples of poorly described species, doubtful identifications, and problematic redescriptions. Although my own research group may recognize a thorough redescription as ‘authoritative’, others may not. Berger (1999), for example, assigned Onychodromopsis flexilis Stokes, 1887, accurately redescribed and neo- typified by Petz & Foissner (1996), to Allotricha, a genus and species which has never been illustrated or accurately described. Obviously, in the absence of reliable type material, no consensus can be reached and ciliate identification and nomenclature must remain a matter of choice.
Improved methods for preserving ciliates
At present, most ‘modern’ ciliate types are deposited at two centres: the Smithsonian Institution in the U.S.A. (Corliss, 1972; Cole, 1994) and the Biology Center of the Museum of Upper Austria in Linz (Aescht, 1994). In the last 30 years, protozoologists have developed improved methods for preserving these soft-bodied organisms, allowing reliable type material to be obtained and preserved. Specimens are impregnated with silver nitrate and/or protargol to show the arrangement of somatic and oral cilia (known as infraciliature or the silverline system), which are among the most important features in ciliate alpha-taxonomy (Foissner, 1991). Under certain circumstances other methods such as the Feulgen reaction are used to examine the main features in the nuclear apparatus.
Usually, light- and/or electron-microscopical micrographs and molecular data alone are not sufficient for description of species, but may add important additional data to the information available from conventional (silver) preparations. The methods needed will depend on the group of protists under consideration. What is important is that the feature(s) mentioned in the description can be seen in the designated type material. Often several “holotype specimens’ might be necessary because not all features can be seen in a single specimen or preparation. Here, the concept of the hapantotypes can be applied (Article 73.3).
A solution to taxonomic and nomenclatural difficulties in the ciliates
Many protist taxonomic and nomenclatural problems could be solved by the provision of type material using the new methods mentioned above. The present practice of using illustrations as holotypes does not solve the underlying problem because these illustrations often cannot be examined to reveal new data when an existing description is found to be incomplete or inaccurate. Further, features which are considered as unimportant at the time of description may later become decisive taxonomic characters for comparison with new species. Neotypification is the one way to overcome these and related problems and to bring stability in ciliate taxonomy and identification. This was emphasized by Corliss (1972), who established some neotypes for ‘difficult’ ciliates in the sixties. Likewise, Medioli & Scott (1985) established neotypes for some testate amoebae.
Generally, however, neotypification has not been practised widely in the protists. It was only recently that my own research group adopted this valuable approach to clarifying protist taxonomy and nomenclature (Foissner, 1997, 1999b; Foissner & Brozek, 1996; Foissner & Dragesco, 1996; Foissner & Kreutz, 1996; Petz & Foissner,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 167
1996). However, it is a practice that several specialists have since followed (Agatha & Riedel-Lorjé, 1998; Petz et al., 1995; Song et al., 2001). Neotypification is especially useful when:
(1) (2)
(3)
(6)
no type material is available (holotype specimen and hapantotypes; see Article 73.3), but identification of the taxon is comparatively straightforward;
type material is available, but too poorly preserved for the diagnostic features to be recognizable. This situation may need to be referred to the Commission;
the original description is so incomplete and/or based on so few specimens that any identification becomes a matter of arbitrary judgement. Alternatively, such descriptions could be considered as referring to species indeterminate. How- ever, this would greatly increase the number of scientific names because many original descriptions of ciliates are very incomplete. We prefer, where possible, to identify our taxa in relation to previously described species, and to redefine these species by detailed redescriptions. We ensure that the redescription is based on material which shares at least one main distinctive feature of the original material;
it has been argued that the species has one or more subjective synonyms. This indicates that the taxon has a questionable identity in the literature and, in the absence of type material, creates a ‘classical’ justification for neotypification; there are several similar species whose identity will be fully differentiated by neotypification;
there are competing redescriptions for a taxon.
Article 75 of the Code
Most of the neotypes that my group has designated are in accordance with Article 75 of the Code. However, as protists form resting cysts, have a wide geographical distribution, and often lack any type material (Corliss, 1993), it is sometimes difficult to designate neotypes that fully satisfy Article 75. In some cases our ciliate neotype designations do not comply with Article 75.3.6 as they were not collected from or near the type locality. As such, these and similar neotypifications could be considered to be invalid. However, we do not consider Article 75.3.6 to be relevant to protist neotypes for the following reasons:
(1)
(2)
(3)
most ciliates and protists are cosmopolitan, at least at the morphospecies level (Finlay et al., 1996; Foissner, 1999a). In addition, many are symbionts, commensals, or parasites of metazoan animals that often have a much wider biogeographical distribution than the narrow definition of ‘type locality’ implies;
the existing uncertainties can be overcome only by making types universally available to protozoologists. The improvements in protist taxonomy that neotypification produces far outweigh the possible danger of misidentified neotypes that can occur from specimens selected out of original type locality;
as there are only a few alpha-taxonomists working with ciliates, it is difficult for them to obtain neotype material from or near the type locality. The application of Article 75.3.6 could prevent neotypes from ever being designated;
168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
(4) the likelihood of re-discovering ciliates and other protists at a certain locality is not guaranteed because the organisms may be in a dormant (cystic) stage for most of their life and laboratory cultivation is often unsuccessful.
Conclusion
To sum up, I suggest that neotypes of protists, especially ciliates, should be freed from the type locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the Code, provided that neotypification is based on a thorough redescription of the organism and usable neotype material has been deposited in an acknowledged repository. In addition, existing neotypes that have already been designated from other than original type localities should be validated by the Commission.
Acknowledgements
I thank David Patterson (Australia), Michael Dolan, John Corliss, Neil Evenhuis (U.S.A.) and Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Commission Secretariat, London) for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Aescht, E. 1994. Die Erforschung der Urtiere (Protozoen) in Osterreich. Kataloge des Oberésterreichischen Landesmuseums, Neue Folge, 71: 7-79.
Agatha, S. & Riedel-Lorjé, J.C. 1998. Morphology, infraciliature, and ecology of some strobilidiine ciliates (Ciliophora, Oligotrichea) from coastal brackish water basins of Germany. European Journal of Protistology, 34: 10-17.
Berger, H. 1999. Monograph of the Oxytrichidae (Ciliophora, Hypotrichia). 1080 pp. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Boston, London.
Cole, L. 1994. Catalog of type specimens in the international protozoan type collection. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 561: 1-28.
Corliss, J.O. 1972. Current status of the international collection of ciliate type-specimens and guidelines for future contributors. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 91: 221-235.
Corliss, J.O. 1993. Should there be a Ee code of nomenclature for the protists? BioSystems, 28: 1-14.
Finlay, B.J., Corliss, J.O., Esteban, G. & Reichel: T. 1996. Biodiversity at the microbial level: the rune of free- ie ciliates in the biosphere. Quarterly Review of Biology, 71: 221-237.
Foissner, W. 1991. Basic light and scanning electron microscopic methods for taxonomic studies of ciliated protozoa. European Journal of Protistology, 27: 313-330.
Foissner, W. 1997. Faunistic and taxonomic studies on ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from clean rivers in Bavaria (Germany), with descriptions of new species and ecological notes. Limnologica, 27: 179-238.
Foissner, W. 1999a. Protist diversity: estimates of the near-imponderable. Protist, 150: 363-368.
Foissner, W. 1999b. Notes on the soil ciliate biota (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from the Shimba Hills in Kenya (Africa): diversity and description of three new genera and ten new species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 319-389.
Foissner, W., Agatha, S. & Berger, H. 2002. Soil ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from Namibia (Southwest Africa), with emphasis on two contrasting environments, the Etosha region and the Namib Desert. Denisia (Linz), 5: 1-1490.
Foissner, W. & Brozek, S. 1996. Taxonomic characterization of Pseudohaplocaulus infra- vacuolatus nov. spec. and Vorticella chlorellata Stiller 1940, epiplanktonic peritrichs (Ciliophora, Peritrichia) attached to coenobia of Anabaena (Cyanophyta), including a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 169
redescription of V. chlorostigma (Ehrenberg, 1831). Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 81: 329-351.
Foissner, W. & Dragesco, J. 1996. Updating the trachelocercids (Ciliophora, Karyorelictea). III. Redefinition of the genera Trachelocerca Ehrenberg and Tracheloraphis Dragesco, and evolution in trachelocercid ciliates. Archiv fiir Protistenkunde, 147: 43-91.
Foissner, W. & Kreutz, M. 1996. Redescription of Platyophrya sphagni (Penard 1922) Foissner 1993 (Protozoa, Ciliophora). Linzer biologische Beitrdge, 28: 745-756.
Foissner, W. & Pfister, G. 1997. Taxonomic and ecologic revision of urotrichs (Ciliophora, Prostomatida) with three or more caudal cilia, including a user-friendly key. Limnologica, 27: 311-347.
Medioli, F.S. & Scott, D.B. 1985. Designation of types, for one genus and nine species of arcellaceans (thecamoebians), with additional original reference material for four other species. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 15: 24-37.
Petz, W. & Foissner, W. 1996. Morphology and morphogenesis of Lamtostyla edaphoni Berger and Foissner and Onychodromopsis flexilis Stokes, two hypotrichs (Protozoa: Ciliophora) from Antarctic soils. Acta Protozoologica, 35: 257-280.
Petz, W., Song, W. & Wilbert, N. 1995. Taxonomy and ecology of the ciliate fauna (Protozoa, Ciliophora) in the endopagial and pelagial of the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Stapfia (Linz), 40: 1-223.
Song, W., Petz, W. & Warren, A. 2001. Morphology and morphogenesis of the poorly-known marine urostylid ciliate, Metaurostylopsis marina (Kahl, 1932) nov. gen., nov. comb. (Protozoa, Ciliophora, Hypotrichida). European Journal of Protistology, 37: 63-76.
Comments on this article are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
o
7:
a ex
res a
Cree tee
eGeue Ne” 3
Figs. 1-3. Two of several ciliate species neotypified in Foissner et al. (2002). 1, 2: Ventral views of Metopus gibbus Kahl, 1927 in vivo and after protargol silver impregnation. This species was erroneously synonymized with M. striatus McMurrich, 1884 in a recent revision. 3: Silver nitrate impregnated specimen of Platyophryides latus (Kahl, 1930), a species with a complicated taxonomic history settled by neotypification.
170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3206
Halcampella Andres, 1883 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa, Actiniaria): proposed designation of H. maxima Hertwig, 1888 as the type species
E. Rodriguez and P.J. Lopez—Gonzalez
Departamento de Fisiologia y Zoologia, Facultad de Biologia, Universidad de Sevilla, Reina Mercedes 6, 41012—Sevilla, Spain (e-mail: fani@us.es)
Abstract. The purpose of this application under Article 61.1.3 of the Code is to designate Halcampella maxima Hertwig, 1888 as the type species of the soft-bottom dwelling genus of sea anemone Halcampella Andres, 1883 (family HALCAMPOIDIDAE). The nominal species Halcampa endromitata Andres, 1881 is the type species by monotypy but is a nomen dubium and has not been recognized since its use by Andres in 1883.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cnidaria; Anthozoa; Actiniaria; HALCAMPOIDIDAE; Halcampella; Halcampella endromitata; Halcampella maxima; sea anemones.
1. Andres (1883, p. 315) established the genus Halcampella to accommodate the anthozoan species Halcampa endromitata Andres, 1881 (p. 331) from the Mediterranean. His paper was reprinted the following year (Andres, 1884) where the reference to Halcampella appears on page 103. Both papers referred to Halcampella as ‘gen. nov.’. Andres distinguished Halcampella from the genus Halcampa Gosse, 1858 by the number and disposition of the tentacles (12 in Halcampa and more abundant in Halcampella). The diagnostic characters for Halcampella given by Andres were so broad that species of several genera could be included. Andres’s description of Halcampella endromitata is so vague that the species cannot be recognized with confidence, and it has not been reported since its original description. Furthermore, Carlgren’s comments (1949, pp. 28-29) on Andres’s manuscript notes about the internal anatomy of H. endromitata indicate a mesentery disposition pattern similar to that shown by some species of the family EDWARDSIDAE. Andres’s specimens cannot be located and must be presumed lost. We agree with Chintiroglou, Doumenc & Zamponi (1997, p. 66) and den Hartog (pers. comm.) that JH. endromitata should be considered a nomen dubium.
2. Hertwig (1888, p. 29) described a second species in the genus Halcampella, H. maxima, from Philippine waters. Hertwig’s species description is more accurate and detailed than Andres’s description of H. endromitata, including for the first time anatomical characters to the diagnosis of the genus: “Ilyanthidae with six powerfully developed pairs of mesenteries, but with numerous rudimentary mesenteries, and numerous tentacles’. However, Hertwig had no opportunity to examine specimens of H. endromitata for comparative purposes.
3. Carlgren (1931, p. 30) established another species which he included in the genus Halcampella, H. robusta from near Tristan da Cunha, mid-Atlantic. He examined Hertwig’s type material of H. maxima and compared it with his new species; both
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 171
species agree in general with the diagnostic anatomical features given by Hertwig in 1888. Carlgren did not make any comparisons or references to H. endromitata.
4. In his important monograph on sea anemones, Carlgren (1949, p. 28) gave the prevailing diagnosis of the genus Halcampella. He referred for the first time to H. endromitata as the ‘genotype’ of the genus. Basing his conclusions on Andres’s notes on H. endromitata he included that species, together with H. maxima and H. robusta, in Halcampella, although stressing the absence of details of some necessary characters in the description of H. endromitata. The explanations given by Carlgren about Andres’s notes are confusing, because of the possible description of the edwardsiid mesentery pattern in H. endromitata: ‘moreover that 6 pairs of mesenteries were perfect, 8 mesenteries of which are arranged as the macrocnemes in Edwardsia and stronger than the others, and that microcnemes were present only in the uppermost part of the body’.
5. Following Carlgren (1949, p. 28), the genus Halcampella is currently placed in the family HALCAMPOIDIDAE Appellof, 1896 and includes the three species H. endromitata (the type species), H. maxima and H. robusta. The genus is characterised by an elongate body divisible into physa, scapus and scapulus; physa more or less distinct, scapus with tenaculi; no sphincter; tentacles short, more numerous than the mesenteries in the aboral part of the body, their longitudinal muscles ectodermal; radial muscles of oral disc ectodermal to meso-ectodermal; siphonoglyphs weak; six pairs of perfect and fertile mesenteries, two pairs of directives; microcnemes only in the uppermost part of the body; retractors strong, restricted, forming numerous high folds; parietobasilar muscles rather well developed.
6. The nominal genus Halcampella is not often cited, the most recent reference being by Fautin (1998) to an indeterminate species from the Californian coast. In a recent paper, we (Rodriguez & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2002) describe a new species of Halcampella, H. fasciata, from the Weddell Sea and the Antarctic Peninsula. We compare this species with H. maxima and (p. 44) designate a lectotype (SMNH-type-1160) of H. maxima from the collections in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. In this application we propose that the Commission should designate H. maxima as the type species of Halcampella.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Halcampella Andres, 1883 and to designate Halcampella maxima Hertwig, 1888 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Halcampella Andres, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Halcampella maxima Hertwig, 1888;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name maxima Hertwig, 1888, as published in the binomen Halcampella maxima (specific name of the type species Halcampella Andres, 1883).
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to pay tribute to the late Dr Koos den Hartog (the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden) for his unfailingly kind assistance on sea anemone taxonomy and to thank Drs Sabine Stohr and Karin Sindermark (Swedish
172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Museum of Natural History, Stockholm) for the loan of the type material of Halcampella maxima and H. robusta.
References
Andres, A. 1881. Prodromus neapolitanae actiniarum faunae addito generalis actiniarum bibliographiae catalogo. Mittheilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 2(3): 305-371.
Andres, A. 1883. Le Attinie. Atti della Reale Accademia de Lincei, Memorie, (3)14: 211-673.
Andres, A. 1884. Le Attinie. Fauna und Flora Golf, Neapel, Monograph, 9: 1-460.
Carlgren, O. 1931. Zur Kenntnis der Actiniaria Abasilaria. Arkiv for Zoologi, 23A(3): 1-48.
Carlgren, O. 1949. A survey of the Ptychodactiaria, Corallimorpharia and Actiniaria. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (4)1(1): 1-121.
Chintiroglou, Ch., Doumenc, D. & Zamponi, M. 1997. Commented list of the Mediterranean Actiniaria and Corallimorpharia (Anthozoa). Acta Adriatica, 38(1): 65—70.
Fautin, D.G. 1998. Class Anthozoa: Orders Actiniaria, Ceriantharia, and Zoantharia. /n Scott, P.V. & Blake, J.A. (Eds.), Taxonomic atlas of the benthic fauna of the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel, vol. 3, Pp. 113-139.
Hertwig, R. 1888. Report on the Actiniaria dredged by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Supplement. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76, Zoology, 26: 1—56.
Rodriguez, E. & Lopez-Gonzalez, P.J. 2002. A new species of Halcampella (Actiniaria, Halcampoididae) from the eastern Weddell Sea and the Antarctic Peninsula. Scientia Marina, 66(1): 43-52.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Halcampella maxima Hertwig, 1888. Lateral view of the lectotype (left) and one of the paralectotypes (right). Scale bar 50 mm.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 173
Case 3220
Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (currently Gisortia gisortiana; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850
Jean-Michel Pacaud
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Laboratoire de Paléontologie UMR 8569 CNRS, 8 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France
(e-mail: pacaud@mnhn.fr)
Luc Dolin I rue des Sablons, Mesvres, 37150 Civray-de-Touraine, France
Abstract. The purpose of this application under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code is to conserve the widely used specific name Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 for an Eocene fossil species of cowrie (family CYPRAEIDAE) from western Europe by giving it precedence over the senior subjective synonym Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; CyPRAEIDAE; Gisortia; Gisortia gisortiana; Cypraea coombii; cowrie; Eocene; western Europe.
1. The name Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (p. 948) was given to an Eocene fossil species of cowrie (family CyPRAEIDAE). This nominal species is the type species by original designation of the genus Gisortia Jousseaume, 1884 (p. 89). The name O. gisortiana has been used by numerous authors. A list of 25 representative references, which include Vredenburg (1927), Schilder (1930), Wenz (1941), Walls (1979), Burgess (1985) and Lorenz & Hubert (1999), has been given to the Commission Secretariat.
2. Cossmann (1886, p. 434) made an unjustified emendation of gisortiana to gisortiensis. The bibliographic reference Ovula gisortiana Valenciennes, 1843, intro- duced by Deshayes (1865, pp. 568-569), refers to an oral presentation at the Académie des Sciences de Paris. It has never been published (see Vredenburg, 1927) and as such is an unavailable name.
3. Cypraea coombii Sowerby was described in Dixon (1850, p. 188, pl. 8, fig. 6). However, with the exception of systematic lists (see Article 23.9.6 of the Code), this name has had only limited use (see Schilder, 1929, pp. 299-300, 306).
4. Schilder (1929, p. 306) noted the similarity between the nominal taxa C. coombii and O. gisortiana. Discoveries of new specimens from the Late Ypresian of Gan (see Dolin, Dolin & Lozouet, 1985) and from the Early Lutetian of the Paris Basin show that the species C. coombii (type material from the Lower Bracklesham beds (Lutetian), England; Schilder, 1929, p. 306) is probably conspecific with the species O. gisortiana (type material from the Middle Eocene of Gisors (Lutetian), France; Schilder, 1929, p. 306) making the name O. gisortiana a junior subjective synonym of the name C. coombii.
174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
5. We propose that the specific name of Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859, which is in widespread use, be given conditional precedence over the little-used name Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850 in accord with Article 81.2.3 of the Code. Commission approval will mean that if the two names are considered to be synonyms, gisortiana becomes the valid name for the taxon.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name gisortiana Passy, 1859, as published in the binomen Ovula gisortiana, precedence over the name coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, as published in the binomen Cypraea coombii, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Gisortia Jousseaume, 1884 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) gisortiana Passy, 1859, as published in the binomen Ovula gisortiana, with
the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, as published in the binomen Cypraea coombii, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms (specific name of the type species of Gisortia Jousseaume, 1884);
(b) coombii Sowerby in. Dixon, 1850, as published in the binomen Cypraea coombii, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name gisortiana Passy, 1859, as published in the binomen Ovula gisortiana, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name gisortiensis Cossmann, 1886, as published in the binomen Ovula gisortiensis (an unjustified emendation of Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859).
References
Burgess, C.M. 1985. Cowries of the world. 289 pp. Seacomber Publications.
Cossmann, M. 1886. Observations sur quelques grandes Ovules de l’éoceéne. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 3(14):-433—437.
Deshayes, G.P. 1865. Description des Animaux sans vertébres découverts dans le bassin de Paris, vol. 3, parts 45-50. Pp. 201-669, pls. 86-107. Bailliére, Paris. :
Dolin, C., Dolin, L. & Lozouet, P. 1985. Paleoecology of some classic Tertiary localities in the Aquitaine and Paris Basins of France. Mississippi Geology, 5(4): 4-13.
Jousseaume, F. 1884. Etude sur la famille des Cypraeidae. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 9: 81-100.
Lorenz, F. & Hubert, A. 1999. A guide to worldwide cowries, Ed. 2. 584 pp., 128 pls. Conchbooks.
Passy, A. 1859. Description d’une grande Ovule du terrain tertiaire parisien. Comptes Rendus de I’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, 48(1): 948.
Schilder, F.A. 1929. The Eocene Amphiperatidae and Cypraeidae of England. Proceedings of the Malacological Society, 18(6): 298-311.
Schilder, F.A. 1930. The Gisortiidae of the world. Proceedings of the Malacological Society, 19(3): 118-138.
Sowerby, J. de C. 1850. Notes and descriptions of new species [Mollusca]. Pp. 163-194, pls. 2-9 in Dixon, F., The geology and fossils of the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of Sussex. London.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 175
Vredenburg, E.W. 1927. A review of the genus Gisortia with description of several species. Paleontologica Indica, 7(3): 1-124.
Walls, J.G. 1979. Cowries, Ed. 2. 286 pp. Neptune, New Jersey.
Wenz, W. 1941. Gastropoda, vol. 6. Pp. 961-1200, figs. 2788-3416. Borntraeger, Berlin.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
2
1. Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859, Holotype by monotypy (MNHN-LP, Cast no. R62966) from Lutetian (Eocene) of Mont-de-Magny, Gisors (Eure), height: 290 mm. 2. Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, Lectotype (BMNH, no. 71708a) from Lutetian (Eocene) of
Bracklesham (England), height: 165 mm.
176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3213
Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed precedence of the specific name over the subspecific name of Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877
Luis E. Acosta
CONICET — Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Av. Vélez Sarsfield 299, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina (e-mail: lacosta@com.uncor.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code is to conserve the well known specific name of Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 for a scorpion (family BOTHRIURIDAE) from Argentina by giving it precedence over the little used subspecific name Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877. Pocock’s nominal species is the type of Orobothriurus Maury, 1976—a genus currently including 10 species from Andean and sub-Andean localities in Argentina and Peru, most occurring at high altitude.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; BOTHRIURIDAE; Urophonius; Orobothriurus; Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus; Bothriurus alticola; Argentina.
1. Thorell (1877a, p. 180) described the new species Cercophonius brachycentrus (currently placed in Urophonius Pocock, 1893) and followed it with a description of a juvenile specimen, which he denoted (p. 183) as a variety of the species, Var. B, bivittatum [recte bivittatus]. Thorell suggested that the specimen, which is deposited in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in Stockholm, might represent a distinct species. ;
2. All contemporary authors ignored the variety and, for example, in their publications Thorell (1877b, 1878), Pocock (1893) and Kraepelin (1894, 1899) did not mention bivittatus. Mello-Leitao (1931, p. 100) was the first author to cite the taxon as a subspecies, Urophonius brachycentrus bivittatus. Thereafter, Mello-Leitao (1933, 1934, 1938, 1939, 1945) and Abalos (1959, 1963) cited the trinomen, in all cases either just as part of a list or in referring to Thorell’s (1877a) description.
3. As part of a revision of Urophonius brachycentrus, Maury (1977, p. 148) was the first author to re-examine the type of U. b. bivittatus. Despite poor preservation of the single specimen (several legs had been lost), he was able to determine that it did not belong in the genus Urophonius but most probably represented a juvenile specimen of Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 (p. 357, fig. 1), described from Mendoza in the high Andes of Argentina and the type species of Orobothriurus Maury, 1976 (p. 14) by original designation. Maury (1977), however, made no comment on the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 177
valid name for the specimen. Subsequently, Acosta & Maury (1998) cited U. b. bivittatus as of doubtful status, whereas Lowe & Fet (2000) continued to list the subspecies as valid in Urophonius.
4. I have examined the type specimen (paras. 1 and 3 above) of C. b. bivittatus Thorell, 1877 and can confirm Maury’s (1977) suggestion that it is a specimen of Orobothriurus alticola (Pocock, 1899). The names bivittatus and alticola are therefore synonyms and a strict following of priority would result in bivittatus becoming the valid name for the species currently known as alticola. This would threaten nomenclatural stability. Nearly all citations of the name bivittatus are either included in lists or just quote Thorell’s (1877a) original description. No new material has ever been attributed to the taxon and those authors mentioning it have incorrectly cited it as a subspecies within Urophonius and not in the sense of the genus Orobothriurus. In other words, with the exception of Maury (1977), no author knew for certain what taxon the name bivittatus represented. In contrast, the original description of Bothriurus alticola by Pocock (1899) is good, based on an adult male and an adult female specimen deposited in The Natural History Museum, London, and includes a general illustration of the female (fig. 1). Maury’s (1976) redescription of alticola was complete, with many illustrations of the type material. Lowe & Fet (2000, p. 35) listed 10 authors in 20 publications, with one exception (1911) dating from the 1930s onwards, as having adopted the name alticola for the species. In recent years in further revisionary work on Orobothriurus, 1 have consistently cited the species under this name (see Acosta & Ochoa, 2000, 2001; Ochoa & Acosta, 2002).
5. The type specimen of Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877 is a small juvenile and the taxonomic status of the species might be considered uncertain by some authors. Occurrences of species of Orobothriurus in Argentina are in high montane localities so that, at the present state of knowledge, the existence of further species cannot be discounted. I therefore propose that the name Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 be given conditional precedence over C. b. bivittatus, im accordance with Article 81.2.3 of the Code. Commission approval will mean that if the two names are considered to be synonyms, a/ticola becomes the valid name for the taxon. The name bivittatus will remain available for use if taxonomically required for a species or subspecies distinct from alticola.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name alticola Pocock, 1899, as published in the binomen Bothriurus alticola, precedence over the name bivittatus Thorell, 1877, as published in the trinomen Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Orobothriurus Maury, 1976 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) alticola Pocock, 1899, as published in the binomen Bothriurus alticola, with
the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name bivittatus Thorell, 1877, as published in the trinomen Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3
mH
178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
(b) bivittatus Thorell, 1877, as published in the trinomen Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name alticola Pocock, 1899, as published in the -binomen Bothriurus alticola, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Dr Torbjérn Kronestedt (NRS) for the loan of the holotype of Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus, and to Drs W. David Sissom and Wilson R. Lourengo for comments on an early draft of this proposal.
References
Abalos, J.W. 1959. Scorpionida. Primeras Jornadas Entomoepidemiologicas Argentinas, 2: 591-593.
Abalos, J.W. 1963. Scorpions of Argentina. Pp. 111-117 in Keegan, H.L. & MacFarlane, W.V. (Eds.), Venomous and poisonous animals and noxious plants of the Pacific region. Pergamon Press.
Acosta, L.E. & Maury, E.A. 1998. Scorpiones. Pp. 545-559 in Morrone, J.J. & Coscaron, S. (Dirs.), Biodiversidad de Artroépodos argentinos. Una perspectiva biotaxonomica. Ed. Sur, La Plata.
Acosta, L.E. & Ochoa, J.A. 2000. Nueva especie de Orobothriurus Maury del Pert (Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). Revue Arachnologique, 13(10): 135-144.
Acosta, L.E. & Ochoa, J.A. 2001. Two new species of Orobothriurus from Argentina and Peru, with comments on the genus systematics (Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). Fet, V. & Selden, P. (Eds.), Scorpions 2001. British Arachnological Society.
Kraepelin, K. 1894. Revision der Scorpione. II. Scorpionidae und Bothriuridae. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 11(1): 1-248.
Kraepelin, K. 1899. Scorpiones und Pedipalpi. Das Tierreich, 8: 1-265.
Lowe, G. & Fet, V. 2000. Family Bothriuridae Simon, 1880. Pp. 17-53 in Fet, V., Sissom, W.D., Lowe, G. & Braunwalder, M.E., Catalog of the scorpions of the world (1758-1998 ). v, 690 pp. New York Entomological Society.
Maury, E.A. 1976. Escorpiones y escorpionismo en el Peru. V: Orobothriurus, un nuevo género
de escorpiones altoandinos. Revista Peruana de Entomologia, 18: 14-25.
Maury, E.A. 1977. Comentario sobre dos especies de escorpiones del género Urophonius
(Bothriuridae). Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’,
Entomologia, 5(7): 143-160.
Mello-Leitao, C. 1931. Nota sobre os Bothriuridas sul-americanos. Archivos do Museu
Nacional, 33: 75-113.
Mello-Leitao, C. 1933. Notas sobre escorpides sul-americanos. Archivos do Museu Nacional,
34: 9-46.
Mello-Leitao, C. 1934. Estudo monografico dos escorpides da Republica Argentina. Octava
Reunion de la Sociedad Argentina de Patologia Regional del Norte (1933). 97 pp.
Mello-Leitao, C. 1938. Notas sobre alacranes argentinos. Notas del Museo de La Plata,
Zoologia, 3(9): 83-95.
Mello-Leitao, C. 1939. Les arachnides et la zoogeographie de |’Argentine. Physis, 17(49):
601-630.
Mello-Leitaéo, C. 1945. Escorpides sul-americanos. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 40: 1-468.
Ochoa, J.A. & Acosta, L.E. 2002. Orobothriurus atiquipa, a new bothriurid species (Scorpiones) from Lomas in southern Peru. The Journal of Arachnology, 30.
Pocock, R.I. 1893. A contribution to the study of Neotropical scorpions. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)12(68): 77-103.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 179
Pocock, R.I. 1899. Scorpions and spiders. Pp. 356-360 in Fitz Gerald, E.A., The highest Andes, a record of the first ascent of Aconcagua and Tupungato in Argentina, and the exploration of the surrounding valleys. xvi, 390 pp., 48 pls. Methuen, London.
Thorell, T. 1877a. Etudes scorpiologiques. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 19: 75-272.
Thorell, T. 1877b. Sobre algunos aracnidos de la Republica Argentina. Periodico Zoologico, 2(4): 201-218.
Thorell, T. 1878. Sobre algunos aracnidos de la Republica Argentina. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Cordoba, 2(3): 255-272.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3200
Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 (currently Euthystira brachyptera) and Gryllus brachypterus Haan, 1842 (currently Duolandrevus brachypterus) (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names
Hannes Baur
Department of Invertebrates, Natural History Museum, Bernastrasse 15, CH-3005 Bern, Switzerland (e-mail: hannes.baur@nmbe.unibe.ch)
Armin Coray
Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Augustinergasse 2, CH-4001 Basel, Switzerland
Abstract. The purpose of this application under Article 23.9.5 of the Code is to conserve the specific names of Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 (currently Euthystira brachyptera Caelifera, ACRIDOIDEA) and G. brachypterus Haan, 1842 (currently Duolandrevus brachypterus Ensifera, GRYLLOIDEA) for two distinct species of grasshopper and cricket (Orthoptera) respectively. These two specific names are junior primary homonyms of G. brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Metrioptera brachyptera Ensifera, TETTIGONIOIDEA) a bush cricket. A third junior primary homonym, G. brachypterus Linnaeus, 1763 (Phasmida) was later in 1763 given the replacement name G. necydaloides by Linnaeus (currently Pseudophasma phthisicum (Linnaeus, 1758)) a stick-insect. None of these species has been considered congeneric since the mid—nineteenth century.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Orthoptera; Phasmida; Ensifera; TETTIGONIOIDEA; Gryllus brachypterus; GRYLLOIDEA; Duolandrevus brachypterus; Caelifera; AcRIDOIDEA; Euthystira brachyptera; bush crickets; crickets; grasshoppers; phasmids.
1. Linnaeus (1761, p. 237) established the name Gryllus brachypterus for a species of bush cricket (Ensifera, TETTIGONIOIDEA) from Sweden, based on material in De Geer’s collection. Linnaeus, (1767, p. 698) synonymised G. brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 with G. (Tettigonia) viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 without explanation. The specific name was resurrected by De Geer (1773, pp. 434436, pl. 22, figs. 2, 3) in combination with Locusta Geoffroy, 1762 (nec Linnaeus, 1758). Gmelin (1790, p. 2068) was the last to use brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 in its original combination. According to Marshall (1983, p. 384) no material of the species is present in the collection of the Linnean Society, London. The species was considered to belong in one of a number of different genera by various subsequent authors; a list of five genera and 28 references is held by the Commission Secretariat. Caudell (1908, p. 31) established the currently accepted usage in combination with Metrioptera Wesmaél (1838, p. 592) [Ensifera, TETTIGONIOIDEA] (e.g. Chopard, 1952; Harz, 1969; Otte, 1997;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 181
Heller et al., 1998; Ragge & Reynolds, 1998; 21 additional references are held by the Commission Secretariat). Several junior synonyms of the specific name are known (see Zeuner, 1941, pp. 40-41). Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 is the type species of Metrioptera by monotypy.
2. Linnaeus (1763a [June], p. 14, no. 32) again introduced the name Gryllus brachypterus for a new species of phasmid described under Gryllus (Mantis). Under Article 57.4 of the Code ‘the presence of different subgeneric names . . . is irrelevant to the homonymy between the names concerned’. Almost as soon as it was published Linnaeus apparently recognized a problem in giving the same name to a different species. In the second edition of the dissertation, published later in the same year, the new replacement name Gryllus necydaloides was given by Linnaeus (1763b [September], p. 397). The species number, description and habitat (Surinam) is exactly the same as that published for brachypterus in the first edition (Linnaeus, 1763a). No synonyms were indicated for this taxon. This nominal species, whose name is a junior primary homonym of Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761, has long been known by another specific name as well as other generic names. Marshall (1983, pp. 379, 384) cited its current usage in Pseudophasma. Marshall (1983, p. 381) stated that “Linnaeus proposed (an) unnecessary replacement name . . . for brachyptera [sic]. However it was not Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 but the homonymous species described by Linnaeus (1763a) for which the replacement name necydaloides was given (Linnaeus, 1763b). The subgenus G. (Mantis) was raised to full generic rank and the species cited as M. necydaloides by Linnaeus (1767, pp. 689, 691). The name necydaloides is currently treated as a junior synonym of Pseudophasma phthisicum (Linnaeus, 1758). This nominal species has not been known by its original binomen after it was first published.
3. Ocskay (1826, p. 409) described a new species of grasshopper (Caelifera, ACRIDOIDEA) with the name Gryllus brachypterus based on material from Hungary. According to Otte (1995, p. 164) the type series is lost. Furthermore, the neotype designation by Harz (1975, p. 648) is invalid because it failed to meet the qualifying conditions of Article 75(d) of the Code then in force (1964) (see also Marshall, 1983, pp. 376-377). Nevertheless the specific name of Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 has long been used in combination with other generic names such as Gomphocerus Thunberg, 1815 (see Burmeister, 1838, p. 651) in the early 19th century and Chrysochraon Fischer, 1853 during the second half of the 19th century. The currently accepted usage in combination with Euthystira Fieber in Kelch (1852, p. 2) was established by Bey-Bienko (1932, p. 45; see Coray & Lehmann, 1998, pp. 125-127) and followed by, for example, Chopard (1952), Jago (1971), Yin, Shi & Yin (1996), Heller et al. (1998), Ragge & Reynolds (1998). Sixteen additional references are held by the Commission Secretariat. In a few recent works, however, the name has been cited as Chrysochraon (Euthystira) brachyptera [sic] (Ocskay, 1826) (see Harz, 1975; Thorens & Nadig, 1997). Several synonyms are known, but have not been used for the species (see Yin et al., 1996, pp. 285-286). Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 is the type species of Euthystira by subsequent designation of Bey-Bienko (1932, p. 43).
4. Haan (1842, p. 230) gave the name Gryllus brachypterus to a new species of cricket (Ensifera, GRYLLOIDEA) from Java. The work was published in parts between 1842 and 1844 (see Horn & Schenkling, 1928, p. 494). Following Sherborn (1922,
182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
p. 853) we adopt the year 1842 as the date of publication for the original description of Gryllus brachypterus Haan. Although he mentioned some specimens, the type series is considered lost (see Otte, 1988, p. 289). The name was used by Walker (1869, p. 42). Saussure (1877, pp. 271-272) redescribed the species and transferred it to Landrevus, an unjustified emendation of Landreva Walker, 1869. Kirby (1906, p. 50) introduced the new generic name Duolandrevus and used the combination D. brachypterus which is currently in use (see Chopard, 1967; Otte, 1988, 1994). We are not aware of a junior synonym for the species (see Otte, 1994). Gryllus brachypterus Haan, 1842 is the type species of Duolandrevus by original designation.
5. The specific names of Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 and G. brachypterus Haan, 1842 are junior primary homonyms of G. brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 and of G. brachypterus Linnaeus, 1763. However, none of these species is now included in the original genus Gry/lus Linnaeus, 1758. The first mentioned two junior homonyms have been consistently in use since their establishment and neither has been used as congeneric with the senior homonym after 1877. Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 is the type species of Metrioptera Wesmaél, 1838; G. brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 is the type species of Euthystira Fieber in Kelch, 1852 and G. brachypterus Haan, 1842 is the type species of Duolandrevus Kirby, 1906. To avoid confusion that would result from upsetting the long-established usage of these junior homonyms and in the interest of nomenclatural stability, we propose that under Article 23.9.5 of the Code these names be conserved, as the species concerned have not been considered congeneric after 1899.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the following names are not invalid:
(a) brachypterus Ocskay, 1826, as published in the binomen Gryllus brachypterus, by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761 and of Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1763;
(b) brachypterus Haan, 1842, as published in the binomen Gryllus brachypterus, by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761, of Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1763 and of Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Metrioptera Wesmaél, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Gryllus brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761;
(b) Euthystira Fieber in Kelch, 1852 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Bey-Bienko (1932) Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826;
(c) Duolandrevus Kirby, 1906 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Gryllus brachypterus Haan, 1842;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) brachypterus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Gryllus brachypterus (specific name of the type species of Metrioptera Wesmaél, 1838);
(b) brachypterus Ocskay, 1826, as published in the binomen Gryllus brachypterus (specific name of the types species of Euthystira Fieber in Kelch, 1852) (not invalid by the ruling in (1)(a) above); i
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 183
‘(c) brachypterus Haan, 1842, as published in the binomen Gryllus brachypterus (type species of Duolandrevus Kirby, 1906) (not invalid by the ruling in (1)(b) above).
Acknowledgements We thank Elsa Obrecht and Christian Kropf of the Natural History Museum, Bern, for critical reading of the manuscript.
References
Bey-Bienko, G.Y. 1932. Orthoptera Palaearctica Critica. 11. The group Chrysochraontes (Acrididae). Eos, 8: 43-92.
Burmeister, H. 1838. Zweite Ordnung. Kaukerfe Gymnognatha (Erste Halfte). Pp. 397-756 in: Handbuch der Entomologie, Besondere Entomologie, vol. 2. Enslin, Berlin.
Caudell, A.N. 1908. Fam. Locustidae. Subfam. Decticinae. Fasc. 72, Orthoptera in Wytsman, P.A.G., Genera Insectorum. 43 pp. Bruxelles.
Chopard, L. 1952. Orthoptéroides. Faune de France, 56: 1-359.
Chopard, L. 1967. Gryllides Fam. Gryllidae: Subfam. Gryllinae (Trib. Gymnogryllini, Gryllini, Gryllomorphini, Nemobiini). Orthopterorum Catalogus, vol. 10. 211 pp. Junk, Gravenhage.
Coray, A. & Lehmann, A. W. 1998. Taxonomie der Heuschrecken Deutschlands (Orthoptera): Formale Aspekte der wissenschaftlichen Namen. Articulata, Beiheft 7: 63-152.
De Geer, C. 1773. Mémoires pour servir a Uhistoire des insectes, vol. 3. ii, 696 pp. Hosselberg, Stockholm.
Fieber, F.X. 1852. Orthoptera Oliv. (et omn. Auct.) oberschlesiens. Pp. 1-19 in Kelch, A., Grundlage zur Kenntniss der Orthopteren (Gradfliigler) oberschlesiens, und Grundlage zur Kenntniss der Kafer oberschlesiens . .. Erster Nachtrag. Ratibor.
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4 (Insecta). Pp. 1514-2224. Lipsiae.
Haan, W. de. 1842. Bijdragen tot de Kennis der Orthoptera. Pp. 45-248 in Temminck, C.J. (Ed.), Verhandelingen over de natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche Bezittingen, door de Leden der natuurkundige Commissie in Indié en andere Schrijvers, vol. 3. Leiden.
Harz, K. 1969. Die Orthopteren Europas/The Orthoptera of Europe (Ensifera). Series Entomologica, vol. 5. xx, 749 pp. Junk, The Hague.
Harz, K. 1975. Die Orthopteren Europas/The Orthoptera of Europe (Caelifera). Series Entomologica, vol. 11. 939 pp. Junk, The Hague.
Heller, K.-G., Korsunoyskaya, O., Ragge, D.R., Vedenina, V., Willemse, F., Zhantievy, R.D. & Frantsevich, L. 1998. Check—list of European Orthoptera. Articulata, Beiheft, 7: 1-61.
Horn, W. & Schenkling, S. 1928. Index Litteraturae Entomologicae, Serie 1. Die Welt-Literatur liber die gesamte Entomologie bis inklusive 1863, vol. 2. Pp. 353-704. Berlin-Dahlem.
Jago, N.D. 1971. A review of the Gomphocerinae of the world with a key to the genera (Orthoptera, Acrididae). Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 123: 205-343.
Kirby, W.F. 1906. A synonymic catalogue of Orthoptera II. Orthoptera Saltatoria, part | (Achetidae et Phasgonuridae). viii, 572 pp. Longmans, London.
Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Suecica. 578 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1763a. Centuria Insectorum Rariorum. 32 pp. Upsaliae.
Linnaeus, C. 1763b. CXXI Centuria Insectorum. Amoenitates Academicae, 6: 384-415.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Marshall, J.A. 1983. The orthopteroid insects described by Linnaeus, with notes on the Linnaean collection. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78: 375-396.
Ocskay, F. de. 1826. Gryllorum Hungariae indigenorum Species aliquot. Nova Acta Physico—Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino—Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum, 13: 407-410.
184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Otte, D. 1988. Bark Crickets of the Western Pacific Region (Gryllidae: Pteroplistinae). Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 140: 281-334.
Otte, D. 1994. Orthoptera Species File 1: Crickets (Grylloidea). A Systematic Catalog. 120 pp. Orthopterist’s Society at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Otte, D. 1995. Orthoptera Species File 5: Grasshoppers (Acridomorpha) D. 630 pp. Orthopterist’s Society at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Otte, D. 1997. Orthoptera Species File 7: Tettigonioidea. 373 pp. Orthopterist’s Society at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Ragge, D.R. & Reynolds, W.J. 1998. The songs of the grasshoppers and crickets of Western Europe. x, 591 pp. Harley, Colchester.
Saussure, H.L.F. de. 1877. Mélanges Orthoptérologiques (Vme Fascicule) 3. Gryllides. Mémoires de la Société de Physique et d’ Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, 25: 1-352.
Sherborn, C.D. 1922. Index animalium . . ., part 2, 1801-1850, vol. 1, A—B. cxxxix, 943 pp. British Museum, London.
Thorens, P. & Nadig, A. 1997. Atlas de distribution des Orthopteres de Suisse. Documenta Faunistica Helvetiae, 16: 1-236.
Walker, F. 1869. Catalogue of the specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria and supplement to the Blattari@ in the collection of the British Museum, part 1. 224 pp. British Museum, London.
Wesmaél, C. 1838. Enumeratio methodica Orthopterorum Belgii. Bulletin de Il’ Académie Royale des Sciences et des belles—lettres de Bruxelles, 5: 587-597.
Yin, X., Shi, J. & Yin, Z. 1996. A synonymic catalogue of grasshoppers and their allies of the world (Orthoptera: Caelifera). 1266 pp. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. Zeuner, F. 1941. The classification of the Decticinae hitherto included in Platycleis Fieb. or Metrioptera Wesm. (Orthoptera, Saltatoria). Transactions of the Royal Entomological
Society of London, 91: \—S0.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
H
t
H ret t
i
t
t
{
\ i
Euthystira brachypterus (Ocskay, 1826) from Northern Switzerland, in copula. Photograph: A. Coray.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 185 Case’ 3193
Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema
C.L. Bellamy
Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab, California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 70.2 of the Code, the usage of the buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and JIridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 by the designation of Chrysodema sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. At present C. sumptuosa Laporte & Gory, 1835 is the valid type species of both genera. The name Chrysodema refers to a genus of 100 species found in the Australasian, Oriental and eastern Palaearctic regions and Jridotaenia refers to a genus comprised of 80 species from the tropical African, Australian and Oriental regions.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Chrysodema; Tridotaenia; Chrysodema sumptuosa; Chrysodema sonnerati; jewel beetles; Africa; Australasia; eastern Palaearctic; Oriental region.
1. Laporte & Gory (1835, p. 1) introduced the generic name Chrysodema including 33 nominal species and their diagnoses, descriptions and illustrations. The first two species listed were C. sumptuosa (p. 2) from Ind(es)—Or(ientales): Singapore and C. sonnerati (p. 3) from Indes—Orientales. Chrysodema sumptuosa was subsequently designated as the type species of Chrysodema by Duponchel (1843, p. 653).
2. The generic name Jridotaenia was introduced by Deyrolle (1864, p. 25) with a diagnosis, and a key to 11 nominal species. The first species listed was Chrysodema sumptuosa Laporte & Gory, 1835. Kurosawa (1982, p. 192) subsequently designated Chrysodema sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema and (p. 188) designated C. swmptuosa as the type species of Jridotaenia, apparently unaware that Duponchel had designated it as the type species of Chrysodema. Chrysodema sonnerati has been included in Chrysodema since its original publication.
3. The composition of these two genera has varied over time, but almost all authors subsequent to Deyrolle (1864) have followed his use of the name Jridotaenia for the genus which includes Chrysodema sumptuosa (see, for example, Saunders, 1871, pp. 13-15; Kerremans, 1892, pp. 37-42; 1903, pp. 72-76; 1909, pp. 445-583; and Obenberger, 1926, pp. 125-135). The only exception was Gemminger & Harold (1869, p. 1356) who included both genera in Chalcophora Dejean, 1833. At present the name Chrysodema refers to a genus of 100 species found in the Australasian, Oriental and eastern Palaearctic regions and Jridotaenia refers to a genus comprised of 80 species from the tropical African, Australian and Oriental regions (for example
186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
see Bellamy, 1985, 1986; Holyfski, 1993; and Volkovitsh, 2001). To apply the Principle of Priority would disturb accustomed usage of two generic names that have been accepted since Deyrolle (1864). Recognition of Chrysodema sumptuosa as the type species of Chrysodema would result in the loss of the name /ridotaenia as a junior objective synonym of Chrysodema under Article 61.3.3 of the Code. All species presently known by the name /ridotaenia would be called Chrysodema and all species presently known as Chrysodema would require a new generic name. This would cause considerable confusion. Recent publications in which the name Chrysodema has been used in the sense of C. sonnerati as the type species include Hotyfski, 1994, 1997 and Bily & Volkovitsh, 1996. Examples demonstrating the current usage of the name Tridotaenia are Toyama, 1987 and Holynski, 2001. The tribe name IRIDOTAENINI was introduced by Toyama (1987, pp. 5-6) based on Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and to designate Chrysodema sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation in (1) above Chrysodema sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835; (b) Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Kurosawa (1982) Chrysodema sumptuosa Laporte & Gory, 1835;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835, as published in the binomen Chrysodema sonnerati (specific name of the type species of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835);
(b) sumptuosa Laporte & Gory, 1835, as published in the binomen Chrysodema sumptuosa (specific name of the type species of Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864).
References
Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalegue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472.
Bellamy, C.L. 1986. The higher classification of Australian Buprestidae with the description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera). Australian Journal of Zoology, 34: 583-600.
Bily, S. & Volkovitsh, M.G. 1996. Revision, reclassification and larval morphology of the genus Paratassa (Coleoptera: Buprestidae: Paratassini tribus n.). Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae, 60: 325-346.
Deyrolle, H. 1864. Description des Buprestides de la Malaisie recueillés par M. Wallace. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 8: 1-312.
Duponchel, P.A.J. 1843. Chrysodema. P. 653 in Orbigny, A.D. d’. (Ed.), Dictionnaire universel dhistoire naturelle, vol. 6. Paris.
Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. von. 1869. Catalogus coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 5. Pp. 1347-1608. Monachu, London.
Holtynski, R. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae Leach (Coleoptera). Crystal, (Zoologica) 1: 1-42.
Holynski, R. 1994. A review of Chrysodema C.G. (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) I. The subgenera Tamamushia M.C. and Thymedes Wath. Annals of the Upper. Silesian Museum, Entomology, 5: 69-96.
Holynski, R. 1997. Mroczkowskia-knot and the evolution of the subtribe Chrysochroina (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Annales Zoologici Musei Polonici Historiae Naturalis (Warszawa), 47: 179-188. :
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 187
Holynski, R. 2001. Miscellaneous notes on Jridotaenia Deyr. and related genera (Col.: Bupr.). Jewel Beetles, 10: 1-34.
Kerremans, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des Buprestides decrits de 1758 a 1890. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304.
Kerremans, C. 1903. Coleoptera, Fam. Buprestidae (cont.). Pp. 49-338 in Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, Fasc. 12b, 12c and 12d. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles.
Kerremans, C. 1909. Monographie des buprestides, vol 3. 604 pp. London, Bruxelles, Berlin.
Kurosawa, Y. 1982. A remarkable convergence found in Malayan buprestid beetles, with description of two new species from Thailand and Hainan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum Tokyo (Zoology), (A)8(4): 173-204. Laporte, F.L. de L. (Comte de Castelnau) & Gory, H.L. 1835. Monographie des Buprestides. In: Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres, vol. 1. Duméril, Paris. Obenberger, J. 1926. Buprestidae 1. Jn Junk, W. & Schlenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 84. 212 pp. Junk, Berlin.
Saunders, E. 1871. Catalogus Buprestidarum synonymicus et systematicus. xxiii, 171 pp. Janson, London.
Toyama, M. 1987. The systematic positions of some buprestid genera (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Elytra, 15: 1-11.
Volkovitsh, M.G. 2001. The comparative morphology of antennal structures in Buprestidae (Coleoptera): evolutionary trends, taxonomic and phylogenetic implications. Part 1. Acta Musei Moraviae, 86: 43-169.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Chrysodema sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835. Type specimen in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Body length: 25 mm. Photograph: T. Lander.
188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3208
Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Psephidonus Gistel, 1856
Lee H. Herman
American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. (e-mail: herman@amnh.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code is to conserve the generic name Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 for a widespread and well-known Palaearctic genus of rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE), by giving it precedence over the earlier name Psephidonus Gistel, 1856. Prior to 1952, all authors used Geodromicus as the valid name of the genus. Presently most authors continue to use Geodromicus and 50 species have been described in combination with Geodromicus since 1952, while only 11 have been described using Psephidonus. Species of Geodromicus occupy habitats near fast flowing water or at the snow line in mountains.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; Geodromicus; Psephidonus; Staphylinus plagiatus; Geobius kunzei; rove beetles; Holarctic; Oriental.
1. Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 (p. 244) was proposed as a replacement name for the preoccupied name Geodromus Heer, 1841 (p. 572). Geodromus Heer, 1841 was itself a replacement for the name Geobius Heer, 1839 (p. 193) that had been used for a Palaearctic genus of rove beetles. However, Blackwelder (1952, p. 324) resurrected Psephidonus Gistel, 1856 (p. 29), a long forgotten name, and listed Geodromicus as a junior subjective synonym.
2. The work by Gistel (1856), which included Psephidonus,; was published on 18 February 1856 (Evenhuis, 1997, p. 305). The date of publication for Geodromicus is more difficult to determine, but as it was published in part 2 (p. 244) of Redtenbacher’s work it most probably appeared in 1857 (Anonymous, 1856, 1857).
3. The type species of Geobius Heer, 1839 was fixed by subsequent designation by Lacordaire (1854, p. 136) as Staphylinus plagiatus Fabricius, 1798 (p. 180) and hence S. plagiatus is the type species of Geodromicus (Article 67.8 of the Code). The type species of Psephidonus is Geobius kunzei Heer, 1839 (p. 193) by monotypy. These species are currently considered congeneric (e.g. Herman, 2001, pp. 287-289).
4. Prior to 1952, all authors used Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 as the valid name of the genus. Presently most authors continue to use Geodromicus, while some now use Psephidonus Gistel, 1856 following Blackwelder (1952, see para. 1 above). In fact, since 1952 fifty species have been described using Geodromicus, while only 11 have been described using Psephidonus (see Herman, 2001, pp. 287-306). Although Psephidonus is older and has priority over Geodromicus, the latter has a long history of use and has been used abundantly (Herman, 2001, pp. 287-306). Recent major
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 189
works that use Geodromicus include Tottenham (1954), Hatch (1957), Smetana (1959), Palm (1961), Horion (1963), Lohse (1964), Tikhomirova (1973), Pope (1977), Watanabe (1990) and Hansen (1996). Psephidonus was unused until 1952 and since then has been used only sporadically (see Herman, 2001, pp. 287-306).
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857, precedence over the name Psephidonus Gistel, 1856, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent designation by Lacordaire (1854) Staphylinus plagiatus Fabricius, 1798, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Psephidonus Gistel, 1856 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Psephidonus Gistel, 1856 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Geobius kunzei Heer, 1839, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names:
(a) plagiatus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Staphylinus plagiatus (specific name of the type species of Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857):
(b) kunzei Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Geobius kunzei (specific name of the type species of Psephidonus Gistel, 1856).
Acknowledgements
I thank the following who reviewed an earlier draft of this paper and suggested improvements: V. Assing (Hannover, Germany), A. Bordoni (Museo Zoologico “La Specola’, Firenze, Italy), G. Cuccodoro (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneve, Switzerland), V. Gusarov (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas), P. Hammond (The Natural History Museum, London), I. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia), A. Newton (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), V. Puthz (Schlitz, Germany), M. Schiilke (Berlin, Germany), A. Smetana (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario, Canada), M. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), A. Zanetti (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, Italy), and L. Zerche (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalde, Germany). Special thanks to I. Kerzhner who provided references for dating Gistel’s (1856) work.
References
Anonymous. 1856. Eingegangene Gegenstande. A. Biicher. Verhandlungen des Vereins fiir Naturkunde zu Presburg, 1856: 105-107.
Anonymous. 1857. Theils neu, theils antiquarische fiir die Vereinsbibliothek angekauft. Verhandlungen des Vereins fiir Naturkunde zu Presburg, 1857: 41-42.
Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae, with an essay on genotypy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 200: 1-483.
190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Evenhuis, N.L. 1997. Litteratura taxonomica dipterorum (1758-1930). 2 vols. 871 pp. Backhuys, Leiden.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. 572 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafniae.
Gistel, J. 1856. Die Mysterien der europdischen Insectenwelt . . . 530 pp. Dannheimer, Kempten.
Hansen, M. 1996. Katalog over Danmarks biller. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Denmark. Entomologiske Meddelelser, 64(1): 1-112.
Hatch, M. 1957. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest. Part Il: Staphyliniformia. 384 pp. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Heer, O. 1839, 1841. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica, vol. 1, part 2 (1839). Pp. 145-360; vol. 2, part 3 (1841). Pp. 361-652. Orelii, Fuesslini et Sociorum, Turici.
Herman, L.H. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.
Horion, A. 1963. Faunistik der mitteleuropdischen Kafer. Staphylinidae. 1. Micropeplinae bis Euaesthetinae, vol. 9. xii, 412 pp. Feyel, Uberlingen—Bodensee.
Lacordaire, J.T. 1854. Histoire des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres ou exposé méthodique et critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu’ici dans cet ordre d'insectes, vol. 2. 548 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.
Lohse, G. 1964. Staphylinidae I. (Micropeplinae bis Tachyporinae) in Freude, H., Harde, K. & Lohse, G. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 4. 264 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.
Palm, T. 1961. Die schwedischen Arten der Gattung Geodromicus Redtb. mit Beschreibung einer neuen Art (Col. Staphylinidae). Opuscula Entomologica, 26: 153-157.
Pope, R. 1977. In Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.G. (Eds.). A checklist of British Insects. Ed. 2, part 3 (Coleoptera and Strepsiptera). In: Handbooks for the identification of British Insects, vol. 11, part 3. xiv, 105 pp. Royal Entomological Society of London.
Redtenbacher, L. 1857. Fauna austriaca. Die Kafer, Ed. 2. Pp. 129-976. Sohn, Wien. Smetana, A. 1959. Die tschechoslowakischen Arten der Gattung Geodromicus Redt. (Col., Staphylinidae). Casopis Ceskoslovenské Spolecnosti Entomologické, 56(4): 355-363. Tikhomirova, A. 1973. Morfoekologicheskie osobennosti 1 filogenez stafilinid (katalogom
fauny SSSR). Pp. 5-191. Iedatel’stvo Nauka, Moskva.
Tottenham, C. 1954. Coleoptera. Staphylinidae. Section (a) Piestinae to Euaesthetinae. Jn: Handbooks for the identification of British insects, vol. 4, part 8a. Pp. 1-78. Royal Entomological Society, London.
Watanabe, Y. 1990. A taxonomic study on the subfamily Omaliinae from Japan (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Memoirs of the Tokyo University of Agriculture, 31: 55-391.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 191
Case 3209
Lesteva Latreille, 1797 and Anthophagus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of L. punctulata Latreille, 1804 as the type species of Lesteva
Lee H. Herman
American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N. Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. (e-mail: herman@amnh.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application under Article 70.2 of the Code is to conserve the widespread usage of the generic names Lesteva Latreille, 1797 and Anthophagus Gravenhorst, 1802 for two groups of Palaearctic rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE) by designating Lesteva punctulata Latreille, 1804 as the type species of Lesteva. Species of Lesteva and Anthophagus have a Holarctic and Oriental distribution and are usually found in wet habitats.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; Lesteva; Antho- phagus; Staphylinus alpinus; Lesteva punctulata; rove beetles; Holarctic; Oriental.
1. The name Lesteva Latreille, 1797 (p. 75) (family sTAPHYLINIDAE) was first published with a few distinguishing characters, but without any included species. Although the date of publication of this name has long been cited as 1796, it was probably published on 13 January 1797 (see Evenhuis, 1997, p. 437). Latreille (1802, p. 129) briefly characterized the genus again with additional characters and included one species, Carabus abbreviatus Fabricius, 1779 (p. 263), with the statement ‘Gen. Lesteéve; Jesteva. (G. Antophagus [= Anthophagus]. Graven. [= Gravenhorst]) Exemple. Carabus abbreviatus. F.’ As C. abbreviatus was the only species expressly included by name, it is the type species of Lesteva by subsequent monotypy (Article 69.3 of the Code).
2. Latreille (1804, pp. 286, 366-369) redescribed Lesteva, and listed Anthophagus Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 120) as a synonym, included the nominal species listed in Anthophagus by Gravenhorst (among them Staphylinus alpinus Fabricius, 1793, p. 526), and added more including Lesteva punctulata Latreille, 1804 (p. 369). Of these, only four (including L. punctulata) remain in Lesteva (see Herman, 2001).
3. In the paragraph following the original description of Lesteva punctulata, Latreille (1804, p. 369) wrote ‘C'est d’aprés cette espéce que j’avois formé ce genre [i.e. Lesteva]’. This statement was accepted as the type species designation for Lesteva by Tottenham (1949, p. 358), but not by Blackwelder (1952, p. 218; see para. 4. below).
4. Later Latreille (1810, p. 182) again characterized Lesteva and (p. 427) listed two names, Staphylinus alpinus Fabricius, 1793 and Carabus dimidiatus Panzer, 1795. Citing Latreille’s (1810) publication, Blackwelder (1952, p. 218) regarded Staphylinus alpinus Fabricius, 1793 as the type of Lesteva Latreille, 1797, although aware that Thomson (1859, p. 48) had already fixed this species as the type of Anthophagus.
192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
5. Carabus abbreviatus Fabricius (the type of Lesteva Latreille, 1797 by subsequent monotypy, see para. | above) is currently assigned to Anthophagus Gravenhorst. If this species were accepted as the type of Lesteva, the name Anthophagus would be lost as a junior subjective synonym of Lesteva, and Lesteva would become the valid name for the taxon currently called Anthophagus (Herman, 2001, p. 241). Consequently, a new name would be required for the genus currently called Lesteva. There would be a similar result if Staphylinus alpinus Fabricius, 1793, the type species of Anthophagus Gravenhorst, were accepted as the type species of Lesteva (see para. 4 above). The next available name for Lesteva auctt. is Tevales Casey, 1894, a rarely used name proposed for a North American species (see Casey, 1894, pp. 398-399; Herman, 2001, p. 312).
6. Lesteva and Anthophagus, with 97 and 36 species respectively, are well known, largely European genera that have each been abundantly cited as separate taxa (Herman, 2001, pp. 241-266, 309-333). In accordance with Article 70.2 of the Code, I propose that LZ. punctulata should be designated as the type species of Lesteva Latreille, 1797, in accord with Latreille’s own (1804) designation, thereby maintain- ing Lesteva and Anthophagus in their widespread current usage. For a comprehensive list of usage, which is too long to publish here, see Herman (2001, pp. 241-266, 309-333).
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: F
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Lesteva Latreille, 1797 and to designate Lesteva punctulata
Latreille, 1804 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Lesteva Latreille, 1797 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Lesteva punctulata Latreille, 1804;
(b) Anthophagus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Thomson (1859) Staphylinus alpinus Fabricius, 1793;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names:
(a) punctulata Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Lesteva punctulata (specific name of the type species of Lesteva Latreille, 1797);
(b) alpinus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Staphylinus alpinus Fabricius, 1793 (specific name of the type species of Anthophagus Gravenhorst, 1802).
Acknowledgements
I thank the following who reviewed an earlier draft of this paper and suggested improvements: V. Assing (Hannover, Germany), A. Bordoni (Museo Zoologico “La Specola’, Firenze, Italy), G. Cuccodoro (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneve, Switzerland), V. Gusarov (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas), P. Hammond (The Natural History Museum, London), I. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia), A. Newton (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), V. Puthz (Schlitz, Germany), M. Schilke (Berlin, Germany), A. Smetana (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario, Canada), M. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), A. Zanetti (Museo
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 193
Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, Italy) and L. Zerche (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalde, Germany).
References
Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae, with an essay on genotypy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 200(1—-4): 1-483.
Casey, T.L. 1894. Coleopterological notices. V. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 7: 281-606.
Evenhuis, N.L. 1997. Litteratura taxonomica dipterorum (1758-1930). 2 vols. 871 pp. Backhuys, Leiden.
Fabricius, J.C. 1779. Reise nach Norwegen mit Bemerkungen aus der Naturhistorie und Oekonomie. 1xiv, 388, 12 pp. Bohn, Hamburg.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologiae Systematicae .. . , vol. 1(2). 538 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafniae.
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia . . . \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard, Brunswig.
Herman, L.H. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.
Latreille, P.A. 1797. Précis des caractéres génériques des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel. xiv, 201, 7 pp. Bourdeaux, Brive.
Latreille, P.A. 1802, 1804. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 3. 467 pp. (1802); vol. 9. 416 pp., pls. 74-80 (1804). Dufart, Paris.
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux . . . 444 pp. Schoell, Paris.
Thomson, C. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol 1. 290 pp. Berlingka Boktryckeriet, Lund.
Tottenham, C.E. 1949. The generic names of the British Staphylinidae with a check list of the species, part 9, pp. 345-466 in: The generic names of British insects . . . Royal Entomological Society, London.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3224
Mycetoporus mulsanti Ganglbauer, 1895 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name
Michael Schtilke
Rue Ambroise Paré 11, D-13405 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: mschuelke.berlin@t-online.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, the specific name Mycetoporus mulsanti Ganglbauer, 1895 for a widespread mountain species of Palaearctic rove beetle (family STAPHYLINIDAE) of ecological and conservation interest. The name is threatened by the recent resurrection of a largely unused senior synonym, Mycetoporus tenuis Mulsant & Rey, 1853.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; Mycetoporus; Mycetoporus mulsanti; Mycetoporus tenuis; rove beetles; Palaearctic; mountain forests; alpine vegetation zone.
1. The name Mycetoporus mulsanti was given to a widespread species of Palaearctic rove beetle (family sSTAPHYLINIDAE) by Ganglbauer (1895, p. 375). This species is of ecological and conservation interest, and lives in mountain forests and in the alpine vegetation zone. This name is a junior objective synonym of Mycetoporus tenuis Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (p. 54). Ganglbauer proposed the name M. mulsanti to replace M. tenuis Mulsant & Rey assuming that the latter name was a junior secondary homonym of Mycetoporus tenuis Stephens, 1832 (p. 169), a species that had originally been included in the genus Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829. The name M. mulsanti was subsequently used by almost all authors.
2. Herman (2001la, p. 35; 2001b, p. 800) was of the opinion that the name Ischnosoma tenuis Stephens, 1832 was unavailable. Herman’s reasoning was that Stephens (1832, p. 169) did not in fact describe this species. Stephens thought wrongly that he had a specimen of Staphylinus tenuis Fabricius, 1793 in front of him and consequently misidentified his material. S. tenwis Fabricius is now in the genus Rabigus Mulsant & Rey, 1876, and according to Herman (2000b, p. 800) the species, to which Stephens mistakenly attributed this name, is currently known as Jschnosoma splendidum (Gravenhorst, 1806). Herman (2001la, p. 35), therefore, considered M. mulsanti Ganglbauer to be an unnecessary replacement name, and consequently resurrected M. tenuis Mulsant & Rey as the valid name for the species.
3. However, Mycetoporus mulsanti Ganglbauer has been cited as the valid name for this species of rove beetle in numerous publications on taxonomy, zoogeography, ecology and beetle conservation. Use of the older synonym M. tenuis Mulsant & Rey would create significant instability in the European scientific literature. In a recent catalogue of the STAPHYLINIDAE, Herman (2001b, p. 801) presented only 12 biblio- graphic references by 11 different authors who used M. mul/santi as a valid name during the last 50 years. However, I have presented to the Commission Secretariat a list of 68 additional references by 59 authors citing /. mu/santi Ganglbauer as valid
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 195
in the ‘last 50 years (e.g. Comellini, 1974; Bistrom, 1985; B6hme, 1996). This list, which is compiled from my own database, is far from complete. Many additional references could be found in a more thorough search, especially in ecological and environmental studies.
4. Prior to its resurrection by Herman (2000a), the name M. tenuis Mulsant & Rey was used at least three times in the 20th century by Holdhaus & Prossen (1900, p. 140), Bernhauer (1902, p. 698) and Johansen (1914, p. 336). Therefore, the condition of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code (that the senior synonym has not been used as a valid name since 1899) is not met and an application to the Commission 1s required.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name tenuis Mulsant & Rey, 1853, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus tenuis, 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 mulsanti Ganglbauer, 1895, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus mulsanti;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name tenuis Mulsant & Rey, 1853, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus tenuis and as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Bernhauer, M. 1902. Elfte Folge neuer Staphyliniden der palaarktischen Fauna, nebst Bemerkungen. Verhandlungen der k. k. zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 52: 695-705.
Bistrém, O. 1985. Additions and corrections to Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. 2. Notulae Entomologicae, 65: 143-154.
Béhme, J. 1996. Kafer in der Bodenstreu mitteuropaischer Laubwalder. Entomologische Blatter, 92: 37-63.
Comellini, A. 1974. Notes sur coléoptéres Staphylinides de haute—altitude. Revue suisse de Zoologie, 81: 511-539.
Ganglbauer, L. 1895. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa. Zweiter Band. Familienreihe Staphylinoidea. 1. Theil: Staphylinidae, Pselaphidae. 880 pp. Gerold, Wien.
Herman, L.H. 2001a. Nomenclatural changes in the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 264: 1-83.
Herman, L.H. 2001b. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.
Holdhaus, K. & Prossen, T. 1900. Staphylinidae. Jn Verzeichnis der bisher in Karnten beobachteten Kafer. Carinthia II. Mittheilungen des naturhistorischen Landesmuseums fiir Karnten, 90; 130-153.
Johansen, J.P. 1914. Danmarks Roybiller eller billefam. Staphylinidaes danske slaegter og arter, vol 3. 660 pp. Bogtrykkeri, Kobenhavn.
Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1853. Description de quelques coléopteres nouveaux ou peu connus. Opuscula Entomologica, 2: 35-92.
Stephens, J.F. 1832. Illustrations of British Entomology, or, a synopsis of indigenous insects: containing their generic and specific distinctions; with an account of their metamorphoses, times of appearance, localities, food, and economy, as far as practicable. Mandibulata V. 240 pp. Baldwin and Cradock, London.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3130
Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation
Scott E. Brooks and Terry A. Wheeler
Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University (Macdonald Campus), Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 3V9 Canada (e-mail for S.E. Brooks: sbrook2@po-box.mcegill.ca; e-mail for T.A. Wheeler: wheeler@nrs.mcgill.ca)
Neal L. Evenhuis
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. (e-mail: neale@bishopmuseum.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the name Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 for a genus of predaceous flies in the family DOLICHOPODIDAE. This is a diverse and widespread genus of over 100 species, which are distributed in the Nearctic, Neotropical, Afrotropical and Oriental regions. The name is threatened by the little used senior synonym Paracleius Bigot, 1859.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; DOLICHOPODIDAE; Pelastoneurus; Pelastoneurus vagans, Nearctic, Neotropical, Afrotropical and Oriental regions.
1. Bigot (1859, pp. 215, 227) established the genus Paracleius for the single species of fly Dolichopus heteronevrus Macquart, 1850 (the type species of this genus by monotypy). Specimens of Dolichopus heteronevrus Macquart, 1850 are unknown and the original description is insufficient for precise identification; consequently, this species is unrecognizable (Foote et al., 1965; Dyte in litt.) but apparently belongs to Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (see Robinson, 1970).
2. Loew (1861, p. 36) established the genus. Pe/astoneurus for six New World species, which he named: Pe/astoneurus longicauda, P. lugubris, P. laetus, P. arcuatus, P. vagans and P. cognatus. Coquillett (1910, p. 586) subsequently designated Pelastoneurus vagans as the type species.
3. Robinson (1970) suggested that Paracleius Bigot, 1859 should be suppressed on the basis that the genus has generally been recognized for over one hundred years by the younger name Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861. He further stated that the type species of Paracleius Bigot, Dolichopus heteronevrus Macquart, is clearly referable to Pelastoneurus as currently defined. Dyte (1975) concurred with Robinson’s argument for the suppression of Paracleius Bigot, 1859.
4. Pelastoneurus Loew has been in wide use since its proposal in 1861 and has been repeatedly cited in the zoological literature. A representative list of 48 references is held by the Commission Secretariat. However, fewer than 25 of these were published in the last 50 years. As a result, this name cannot be considered a nomen protectum under Articles 23.9.1.2 and 23.9.2 of the Code. However, as this genus is a diverse and
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 197
widespread group of over 100 species distributed in the Nearctic, Neotropical, Afrotropical and Oriental regions (Foote et al., 1965; Robinson, 1970; Dyte, 1975; Dyte & Smith, 1980), we propose that in the interests of nomenclatural stability the Commission should conserve its widely used name Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 by suppression of the name Paracleius Bigot, 1859 under Article 23.9.3 of the Code.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Paracleius Bigot, 1859 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 Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Coquillett (1910) Pelastoneurus vagans Loew, 1861;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vagans Loew, 1861, as published in the binomen Pelastoneurus vagans (specific name of the type species of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Paracleius Bigot, 1859, as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Bigot, J.M.F. 1859. Essai d’une classification générale et synoptique de l’ordre des Insectes Diptéres. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)7: 201-231.
Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647.
Dyte, C.E. 1975. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 212-258 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 2. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Dyte, C.E. & Smith, K.G.V. 1980. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 443-463 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), A Catalog of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. British Museum (Natural History), London.
Foote, R.H., Coulson, J.R. & Robinson, H. 1965. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 482-530 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W., Foote, R.H. & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A Catolog of the Diptera north of Mexico. Agriculture Handbook No. 276. United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Loew, H. 1861. Neue Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Dipteren, Beitrag 8. 100 pp. Berlin.
Robinson, H. 1970. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 1-92 in Papavero, N. (Ed.), A Catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States, pt. 40. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Case 3203
Sauripterus Hall, 1843 (Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling
J.E. Jeffery
Instituut voor Evolutionaire en Ecologische Wetenschappen, Universiteit Leiden, Postbus 9516, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: jeffery@rulsfb.leidenuniv.nl)
M.C. Davis and N.H. Shubin
Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, 1027 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
E.B. Daeschler
Department of Vertebrate Biology, Academy. of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve Sauripterus Hall, 1843 as the correct original spelling for a fossil fish (family RHIZODONTIDAE). The genus was established with the name Sauritolepis Hall, 1840, but this has not been used since publication. In 1843, Hall introduced the replacement name Sauripteris, which was emended to Sauripterus by Woodward in 1891. Most authors have followed the change of spelling from Sauripteris to Sauripterus, but there is limited use of the alternative spelling. Stability is important as the genus is of wide interest in that it shows evidence of the evolution of the tetrapod limb.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Sarcopterygii; Rhizodontida; Sauripterus; Sauripteris; Sauripterus taylori; fossil fish; Catskill Formation; Devonian.
1. Hall (1840, p. 453) applied the name Sauritolepis taylori to an assortment of material collected from an exposure of the Catskill Formation beside the Tioga River in Pennsylvania. The material was only briefly described, but included a large, articulated fin (Hall, 1840, pp. 393-394).
2. Hall (1843, pp. 281-282) figured and described the fin and three scales from the earlier report (Hall, 1840). He abandoned the generic name Sauritolepis and established Sauripteris in recognition of the similarity of the fin to a tetrapod limb. The name Sauritolepis was never used again after Hall (1840).
3. Sauripteris taylori was used by a number of subsequent authors when referring to the material figured by Hall (1843) (e.g. Newberry, 1873, 1889; Woodward, 1890).
4. Woodward (1891, p. 364) used a revised spelling “Sauripterus, Hall’ with the correct reference and the original spelling in parenthesis, but without further comment. The new spelling is deemed to be a justified emendation through usage
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 199
under Article 33.2.3.1 of the Code. Woodward (1891, p. 179) ‘provisionally’ erected a new species, Sauripterus anglicus and moved another species, Glyptosteus favosus (Agassiz, 1844), to the genus. The revised spelling was used by Traquair (1897, p. 383) when establishing a further species, Sauripterus crassidens Traquair, 1897, and it became the standard during the 20th century (e.g. Gregory, 1912; Waterston, 1954; Andrews, 1973; Panchen & Smithson, 1987; Daeschler & Shubin, 1998; Laurin et al., 2000 and a long-list of other references that has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat. Some of these noted that the spelling had been modified).
5. However, as a small number of authors have returned to the original spelling Sauripteris (Hussakof, 1908, 1911; Broom, 1913 and more recently Shubin & Alberch, 1986; Shubin et al., 1997; Dineley & Metcalf, 1999; Johanson et al., 2000; Janvier & Villarroel, 2000), the incorrect subsequent spelling Sauripterus cannot automatically be preserved under Article 33.3.1.
6. The type series of S. tay/ori Hall, 1843 has also been a source of confusion. Hall (1843, pp. 281-282) applied the name to three scales and an articulated fin. After Hall’s death, the fin was catalogued under the number AMNH 3341 in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, along with a number of other fossils that were not part of Hall’s (1843, pp. 281-282) material. Meanwhile, the scales had been catalogued under the number AMNH 3340.
7. Hussakof’s (1908) catalogue of the fossil vertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History gave the ‘type’ as AMNH 3341 (explicitly including all the material under that number, i.e. Hall’s fin and the other fossils that had not been described by Hall in 1843 (pp. 281-282), and the scales as AMNH 3340). Subse- quently, Eastman (1917, p. 253) made reference to the ‘pectoral limb of the type specimen’. Gregory (1915, p. 360) implied that the fin alone was the holotype specimen, and (1935, p. 678) described the fin and some postcranial material, but did not make it clear which specimens belonged to the type series. Andrews & Westoll (1970a, pp. 433, 452) stated that the fin and scales formed the type series, but explicitly restricted the type series to AMNH 3341. Similarly, Andrews (1985, p. 83) stated that the ‘type’ specimen was AMNH 3341, explicitly referring only to the fin. These references cannot be considered to be a ‘fixation of a lectotype by inference’ under Article 74.6.1 of the Code, because Hall (1843) clearly indicated his type series to include both fin and scale material. To stabilise the situation, we herewith designate the articulated fin specimen figured by Hall (1843, p. 282) to be the lectotype of Sauripteris (or Sauripterus) taylori Hall, 1843, thereby preventing further confusion from the fossil material that was catalogued with the fin under AMNH 3341. This specimen is the best known of the type series (it has been figured repeatedly, e.g. Hussakof, 1908; Eastman, 1917; Gregory, 1915; Andrews & Westoll, 1970a) and also obviously belongs to a single individual. It will not be necessary to re-accession the material, as it is clearly identifiable amongst the material accessioned under AMNH 3341 (see Recommendation 72F of the Code).
8. The discovery of new material of S. taylori (e.g. Daeschler & Shubin, 1998; Davis et al., 2001), and the proposal of a close relationship between rhizodontids and tetrapods (e.g. Ahlberg, 1991; Young et al., 1992; Jeffery, 1999) has revived interest in this species. It is therefore important to stabilise the nomenclature of the genus.
9. Whilst the original spelling (Sauripteris) has technical priority, the revised spelling (Sauripterus) has had by far the widest usage since its introduction by
200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Woodward (1891). Significantly, the most frequently cited works describing specimens of this genus use the revised spelling (Andrews & Westoll, 1970a, b). Thus workers not specialising in palaeoichthyology (and therefore unfamiliar with the complex history of Sauripteris) will almost certainly use the revised spelling. Of the six recent papers to use Hall’s original spelling, none describes new material of the genus, and most address specialist palaeontological readers.
10. The preamble of the Code states its object is to ‘promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals . . ... We believe that any attempt to suppress the revised spelling is unlikely to meet with success, because of its widespread usage, whereas the suppression of the original spelling would affect a minority of palaeoichthyologists.
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to suppress the generic name Sauritolepis Hall, 1840 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that Sauripteris is an incorrect original spelling of Sauripterus Hall,
1843;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Sauripterus Hall, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species Sauritolepis taylori Hall, 1840 by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Sauritolepis Hall, 1840;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name taylori Hall, 1840, as published in the binomen Sauritolepis taylori and as defined by the lectotype designated in para. 7 above (catalogue no. AMNH 3341 in the American Museum of Natural History, New York) (specific name of the type species of the genus Sauripterus Hall, 1843);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Sauritolepis Hall, 1840, as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) Sauripteris Hall, 1843, as ruled in (1) (b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Sauripterus Hall, 1843.
References
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. A re-examination of sarcopterygian interrelationships, with special reference to the Porolepiformes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 103: 241— 287.
Andrews, S.M. 1973. Interrelationships of crossopterygians. Pp. 138-177 in Greenwood, P.H., Miles, R.S. & Patterson, C. (Eds.), Interrelationships of Fishes. 536 pp. Academic Press, London.
Andrews, S.M. 1985. Rhizodont crossopterygian fish from the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland, with a re-evaluation of this group. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 76: 67-95.
Andrews, S.M. & Westoll, T.S. 1970a. The postcranial skeleton of rhipidistian fishes excluding Eusthenopteron. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 68: 391-489.
Andrews, S.M. & Westoll, T.S. 1970b. The postcranial skeleton of Eusthenopteron foodi Whiteaves. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 68: 207-329.
Broom, R. 1913. On the origin of the Cheiropterygium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 22: 459-464.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 201
Daeschler, E.B. & Shubin, N. 1998. Fish with fingers? Nature, 391: 133.
Davis, M.C., Shubin, N. & Daeschler, E.B. 2001. Immature rhizodontids from the Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 156: 171-187.
Dineley, D.L. & Metcalf, S.J. 1999. Fossil fishes of Great Britain. 686 pp. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Eastman, C.R. 1917. Fossil fishes in the collections of the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 52: 235-304.
Gregory, W.K. 1912. Notes on the origin of paired limbs of terrestrial vertebrates. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 21: 219-220.
Gregory, W.K. 1915. Present status of the problem of the origin of the Tetrapoda, with special reference to the skull and paired limbs. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 26: 317-383.
Gregory, W.K. 1935. Further observations on the pectoral girdle and fin of Sauripterus taylori Hall, a crossopterygian fish from the Upper Devonian of Pennsylvania, with special reference to the origin of the pentadactylate extremities of Tetrapoda. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 75: 673-690.
Hall, J. 1840. Fourth Annual Report of the Survey of the Fourth Geological District. Assembly Document, Albany Institute, 50: 389-456.
Hall, J. 1843. Natural History of New York; Geology of New-York, part 4, comprising the Survey of the Fourth Geological District. 683 pp., 87 pls. Carroll & Cook, Albany, U.S.A.
Hussakof, L. 1908. Catalogue of types and figured specimens of fossil vertebrates in the American Museum of Natural History; Part I, fishes. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 25: 1-104.
Hussakof, L. 1911. The limbs of Eryops and the origin of paired limbs from fins: W.K. Gregory. Science (New Series), 33: 508-509.
Janvier, P. & Villarroel, C. 2000. Devonian vertebrates from Colombia. Palaeontology, 43: 729-763.
Jeffery, J.E. 1999. The morphology and phylogeny of the European members of Order Rhizodontida (Pisces: Sarcopterygii). 313 pp. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Cambridge Museum of Zoology.
Johanson, Z., Turner, S. & Warren, A. 2000. First East Gondwanan record of Strepsodus (Sarcopterygii, Rhizodontida) from the Lower Carboniferous Ducabrook Formation, Central Queensland, Australia. Geodiversitas, 22: 161-169.
Laurin, M., Girondot, M. & de Ricqlés, A. 2000. Early tetrapod evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 118-123
Newberry, J.S. 1873. Report of the geological survey of Ohio, vol. 1, part 2. Palaeontology. 399 pp. Nevins & Myers, Columbus, U.S.A.
Newberry, J.S. 1889. The Palaeozoic fishes of North America. 340 pp., 53 pls. Government Printing Office, Washington, U.S.A.
Panchen, A.L. & Smithson, T.R. 1987. Character diagnosis, fossils and the origin of tetrapods. Biological Reviews, 62: 341-438.
Shubin, N.H. & Alberch, P. 1986. A morphogenetic approach to the origin and basic organization of the tetrapod limb. Pp. 319-387 in Hecht, M.K., Wallace, B. & Prance, G.I. (Eds.), Evolutionary biology, Ed. 20. 417 pp. Plenum Press, New York.
Shubin, N., Tabin, C. & Carroll, S. 1997. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature, 388: 639-648.
Traquair, R.H. 1897. Additional Notes on the Fossil Fishes of the Upper Old Red Sandstone of the Moray Firth Area. Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh, 13: 376-385.
Waterston, C.D. 1954. Catalogue of type and figured specimens of fossil fishes and amphibians in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society, 16: 1-91.
Woodward, A.S. 1890. Vertebrate Palaeontology in some American and Canadian Museums. Geological Magazine, 7: 390-395.
202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Woodward, A.S. 1891. Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), Part IT... 567 pp. Longmans, London.
Young, G.C., Long, J.A. & Ritchie, A. 1992. Crossopterygian fishes from the Devonian of Antarctica: systematics, relationships and biogeographic significance. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 14: 1-77.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Sauritolepis taylori Hall, 1840. Left pectoral girdle and articulated fin, now part of catalogue no. AMNH 3341, herewith designated as the lectotype. Reproduced from Hall, 1843, pl. 3, fig. 1.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 203
Comment on the proposed fixation of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae) to conserve the usage of Pardosa and of Alopecosa Simon, 1885
(Case 3174; see BZN 59: 7-11)
Pavel Stys and Jan Buchar
Department of Zoology, Charles University, Vinicna 7, CZ-12844, Praha 2, Czech Republic
We write in support of Kronestedt, Dondale & Zyuzin’s proposal which is nomenclaturally sound, and aims to maintain usage of the generic names Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 and Alopecosa Simon, 1885 in their present and universally accepted meaning. The replacement of A/opecosa by Pardosa, and the concommitant estab- lishment of a substitute name for Pardosa, as currently used, would not only seriously disturb the nomenclature of the family LycosIDAE but would not be acceptable for the wider community of zoologists, ecologists and biogeographers.
We would like to point out that the species of the two genera concerned represent over 60% of the species of the LycosIDAE in Central Europe, and that they form one of the most important components of the epigeic arthropod fauna in the Palaearctic region (and for Pardosa, in the Nearctic and Oriental regions as well). The ecology of lycosids (jointly with the beetle family CARABIDAE) has been the subject of numerous ecological and similar studies based mainly on widely used methods of pitfall trapping. Many species of Pardosa and Alopecosa are used as bioindicators. Any drastic change of the current nomenclatural usage in favour of the Principle of Priority would cause confusion and bring the Code into disrepute.
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (currently Pentodon bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3201; see BZN 59: 27-29)
Brett C. Ratcliffe
Systematics Research Collections, University of Nebraska, W436 Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0514, U.S.A.
In his application, Dr Krell makes a cogent argument for conserving the junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 because it and its senior homonym (a ruteline scarab) have both been in constant use, without confusion, for two centuries. I support the application to conserve the junior homonym.
204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 3222; see BZN 59: 114-116)
E.D. Edwards CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
M.S. Upton Unit 2/25, Temperley Street, Nicholls, ACT 2913, Australia
We support the application by Heppner and Emmel to suppress the name Papilio antinous Donovan, 1805 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority. The name was listed in a few Australian catalogues in the 19th century for an Australian (or reputedly Australian) butterfly species. It was not mentioned again in the Australian literature until Upton (1985, p. 169) pointed out that it is a senior subjective synonym of Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 from North America and recommended that the name P. antinous be suppressed. The name P. antinous has never been associated with any true Australian butterfly and suppression of the name will not affect the nomenclature of Australian butterflies.
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Chlorops meigenii Loew, 1866 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 3190; see BZN 58: 286-287)
Terry A. Wheeler and Stéphanie Boucher
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, OC, H9X 3V9 Canada
We support the application under Article 23.9 of the Code,. for conservation by reversal of precedence of the specific name of Chlorops meigenii Loew, 1866 over that of Chlorops meigenii Fallen, 1823. Strict application of the Code in this case would cause confusion as to the correct name of the Palaearctic species referred to by most authors for over 100 years as Chlorops meigenii Loew, 1866. A number of references in addition to those cited in BZN 58: 287 use this name (or the unjustified emendation Chlorops meigeni) for the Palaearctic chloropid species. Nartshuk (BZN 58: 286, para. 3) noted, correctly, that the junior synonym Chlorops rufescens Oldenberg, 1923 cannot be used as the valid name for this species because of its homonymy with the Nearctic species Chlorops rufescens Coquillett, 1910.
The senior homonym Chlorops meigenii Fallén, 1823 has not been used as a valid name for over 100 years. Cerodontha denticornis Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Diptera, AGROMYZIDAE) is the type species of the genus Cerodontha, and is an abundant, widespread and easily recognized Palaearctic species. As the type of Chlorops meigenii Fallén, 1823 is an agromyzid and has long been considered a junior synonym of Cerodontha denticornis (e.g. Nowakowski, 1973; Papp, 1984) to reverse precedence and treat this name as junior to Chlorops meigenii Loew, 1866 would not cause
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 205
nomenclatural confusion in the AGROMYZIDAE but would remove confusion in the CHLOROPIDAE created by the recent use of two names, both junior homonyms, for the same common Palaearctic species.
Additional references
Nowakowski, J.T. 1973. Monographie der europaischen Arten der Gattung Cerodontha Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Annales Zoologici, Warsaw, 31: 1-327.
Papp, L. 1984. Family Agromyzidae. Pp. 263-343 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 9. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest.
Comment on the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne obesus Baird, 1858 over that of Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia, Squamata) (Case 3143; see BZN 58: 37-40)
Ken Nagy
Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology, and Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1606, U.S.A.
I oppose the proposal to change Sauromalus obesus (Baird, 1858) to S. ater Duméril, 1856. The change would make it difficult to access the literature in the areas of physiology and ecology.
206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
OPINION 2006 (Case 3171)
Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926 (Trilobita): conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Trilobita; phacopoid trilobites; PHACOPIDAE; Cryphops; Devonian.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the generic name Gortania Cossmann, 1909 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Phacops cryptophthalmus Emmrich, 1844 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name cryptophthalmus Emmrich, 1844, as published in the binomen Phacops cryptophthalmus (specific name of the type species of Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. ;
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Gortania Cossmann, 1909, as suppressed in (1) above;
(b) Microphthalmus Gortani, 1907 (a junior homonym of Microphthalmus Mecznikow, 1865).
(4
a
History of Case 3171
An application for the conservation of the name Cryphops was received from Dr D.J. Holioway (Museum Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) and Dr K.S.W. Campbell (Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) on 29 August 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 97-99 (June 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Additionally, as an experiment in the use of specialist websites for handling applications to the Commission, the application was placed on a specialist trilobite website (http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/ICZN3171.htm) by courtesy of the webmaster, Dr Sam Gon III of the. Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Comments were invited to be placed on the website instead of the usual practice of publication in the Bulletin. Five comments were received, three via the Secretariat and two direct to the website. A note that comments on the case had been placed on the website was published in BZN 58: 304 (December 2001), and further comments were invited.
Comments on Case 3171 placed on the trilobite website A summary of the comments is presented here because of the ephemeral nature of the website on which these were originally published.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 207
Four comments placed on the website were in favour of the application and confirmed that the senior name Gortania Cossmann, 1909 had not been used as a valid name since its publication. H.B. Whittington (University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.) added that ‘to treat Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926 as junior to the unused name Gortania Cossmann, 1909 would cause considerable confusion and serve no useful purpose’. The other supportive comments were from R. Thomas Becker (Museum fiir Naturkunde, 10115 Berlin, Germany), Adrian Rushton (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and S$.M. Gon III (Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.). An opposing comment was received from P. Bouchet (Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) who, although accepting that the list of references ‘is not exhaustive’, pointed out that the application gave only 11 references to works published in the last 50 years that have used the name Cryphops, which was far less than the 25 references requested by Article 23.9. He also pointed out that Gortania Cossmann, 1909 is a senior homonym of Gortania Rabbi, 1960 (Giornale di Geologia [Bologna], ser. 2, 28: 190).
Decision of the Commission
On | March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 98. At the close of the voting period on | June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Boéhme, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song
Negative votes — 7: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Kerzhner, Lamas, Minelli, Stys, van Tol.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
Brothers commented: ‘Although the strict application of numbers of references, as pointed out by Bouchet in his comments, would seem not to justify the suppression of Gortania Cossmann, 1909, such numbers must surely be tempered by considerations of intensity of publication activity in the field concerned. Although no information has been provided about Gortania Rabbi, 1960, suppression of Gortania Cossmann, 1909 should apparently also clarify the status of that name’. The status of Gortania Rabbi is not affected by this ruling, since Gortania Cossmann is not suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy.
Patterson commented: “This case raises issues about the use of the web. I applaud the use of the web, and urge that we promote it. | am concerned that we may not receive with fidelity all views posted and believe that the opinions should be taken into account only if the webmaster accepts an obligation to return to the Secretariat all views expressed, leaving it to the Secretariat to edit those. I am concerned that some of those commenting on the web may have no access to the Code or to its interpretation’.
Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga, Lamas, Stys and van Tol submitted comments in agreement with those of Bouchet. However, Bouchet’s comment on the number of references required refers to Article 23.9.1 of the Code, whereas this application was referred to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power (Article 23.9.3), and there was no requirement for 25 references to be presented to the Commission in support of this application.
208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
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:
Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926, Abhandlungen der Preussischen geologischen Landesanstalt, 99: 157.
cryptophthalmus, Phacops, Emmrich, 1844, Zur Naturgeschichte der Trilobiten, p. 15.
Gortania Cossmann, 1909, Revue critique de paléozoologie, 13: 67.
Microphthalmus Gortani, 1907, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna, (6)4: 229.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 209
OPINION 2007 (Case 3164)
Kalotermes Hagen, 1853 (Insecta, Isoptera): Termes flavicollis Fabricius, 1793 designated as the type species
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; Kalotermes; Proelectrotermes; KALOTERMITIDAE; termites; Middle Eocene; Recent.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Kalotermes Hagen, 1853 are hereby set aside and Termes flavicollis Fabricius, 1793 is designated as the type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Kalotermes Hagen, 1853 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Termes flavicollis Fabricius, 1793; (b) Proelectrotermes von Rosen, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation and monotypy Termes berendtii Pictet, 1856. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) flavicollis Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Termes flavicolle (specific name of the type species of Kalotermes Hagen, 1853); (b) berendtii Pictet, 1856, as published in the binomen Termes berendtii (specific name of the type species of Proelectrotermes von Rosen, 1913). The name Calotermes Hagen, 1858 (a junior objective synonym of Kalotermes Hagen, 1853) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
(3
a
(4
Se
History of Case 3164
An application to conserve the usage of the generic name of Kalotermes Hagen, 1853 by the designation of Termes flavicollis Fabricius, 1793 as the type species was received from Dr Michael S. Engel (Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and Dr Kumar Krishna (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 16 May 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 100-104 (June 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 102. At the close of the voting period on | June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 27: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol
210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
Negative votes — 0. No vote was received from Dupuis.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
berendtii, Termes, Pictet, 1856, in Pictet, F.J. & Hagen, H., Die im Bernstein befindlichen Neuropteran der Vorwelt. P. 49 in Berendt, G.C. (Ed.), Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt, vol. 2.
Calotermes Hagen, 1858, Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 32-33.
flavicollis, Termes, Fabricius, 1793, Entomologia Systematica Emendata et Aucta, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, Adjectis Synonimis, Locis, Observationibus, Descriptionibus, vol. 2, p. 91.
Kalotermes Hagen, 1853, Bericht iiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der K6niglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 18: 479-480.
Proelectrotermes von Rosen, 1913, Transactions of the Second International Congress of Entomology, Oxford 1912, 2: 331.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 211
OPINION 2008 (Case 3149)
30 species-group names originally published as junior primary homonyms in Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Buprestis; buprestids; jewel beetles.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the following specific names are not to be treated as invalid by reason of having been originally published as junior primary homonyms in combination with Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758: (1.1) arcuata Laporte & Gory, 1838; (1.2) aurata Fabricius, 1787; (1.3) bella Gory, 1840; (1.4) bilineata Latreille, 1813; (1.5) caerulea Olivier, 1790; (1.6) cayennensis Herbst, 1801; (1.7) cuprifera Laporte & Gory, 1836; (1.8) cyanipes Say, 1823; (1.9) depressa Fabricius, 1775; (1.10) drummondi Kirby, 1837; (1.11) excellens Klug, 1855; (1.12) fasciata Villers, 1789; (1.13) femorata Olivier, 1790; (1.14) flavofasciata Herbst, 1801; (1.15) foveicollis Gory, 1840; (1.16) geminatus Say, 1823; (1.17) gibbicollis Say, 1823; (1.18) haemorrhoidalis Olivier, 1790; (1.19) interrupta Laporte & Gory, 1837; (1.20) maculipennis Gory, 1841; (1.21) mucronata Laporte & Gory, 1836; (1.22) nobilis Fabricius, 1787; (1.23) picta Thunberg, 1827; (1.24) picta Waterhouse, 1882; (1.25) pumila Klug, 1829; (1.26) salicis Lewis, 1893: (1.27) sulcata Fischer von Waldheim, 1824; (1.28) variolosa Fabricius, 1801; (1.29) ventralis Waterhouse, 1882; (1.30) vetusta Boisduval, 1835.
—
212
(2)
— Ww =
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(2.1) Actenodes Dejean, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Buprestis nobilis Linnaeus, 1758;
(2.2) Carininota Volkovitsh, 1979 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Buprestis flavofasciata Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783;
(2.3) Cyphogastra Deyrolle, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- quent designation by Bellamy (1998) Buprestis foveicollis Boisduval, 1835;
(2.4) Nascio Laporte & Gory, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Buprestis vetusta Boisduval, 1835.
The following names, published in combination with Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758,
are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(3.1) arcuata Say, 1825;
(3.2) arcuata Laporte & Gory, 1838;
(3.3) aurata Pallas, 1776;
(3.4) aurata Fabricius, 1787;
(3.5) bella Gory, 1840;
(3.6) bilineata Weber, 1801;
(3.7) bilineata Latreille, 1813;
(3.8) caerulea Thunberg, 1789;
(3.9) caerulea Olivier, 1790;
(3.10) cayennensis Gmelin, 1790;
(3.11) cayennensis Herbst, 1801;
(3.12) cuprifera Kirby, 1818;
(3.13) cuprifera Laporte & Gory, 1836;
(3.14) cyanipes Fabricius, 1787;
(3.15) cyanipes Say, 1823;
(3.16) depressa Linnaeus, 1771;
(3.17) depressa Fabricius, 1775;
(3.18) drummondi Laporte & Gory, 1836;
(3.19) drummondi Kirby, 1837;
(3.20) excellens Klug, 1825; ,
(3.21) excellens Klug, 1855;
(3.22) fasciata Fabricius, 1787;
(3.23) fasciata Villers, 1789;
(3.24) femorata Olivier, 1790;
(3.25) flavofasciata Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 (specific name of the type species of Carininota Volkovitsh, 1979);
(3.26) flavofasciata Herbst, 1801;
(3.27) foveicollis Boiduval, 1835 (specific name of the type species of Cyphogastra Deyrolle, 1864);
(3.28) foveicollis Gory, 1840;
(3.29) geminatus Say, 1823;
(3.30) gibbicollis Mliger, 1803;
(3.31) gibbicollis Say, 1823;
(3.32) haemorrhoidalis Herbst, 1780:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 213
‘ (3.33) haemorrhoidalis Olivier, 1790;
(3.34) interrupta Olivier, 1790;
(3.35) interrupta Laporte & Gory, 1837;
(3.36) maculipennis Laporte & Gory, 1837;
(3.37) maculipennis Gory, 1841;
(3.38) mucronata Klug, 1825;
(3.39) mucronata Laporte & Gory, 1836;
(3.40) nobilis Linnaeus, 1758 (specific name of the type species of Actenodes Dejean, 1833);
(3.41) nobilis Fabricius, 1787;
(3.42) picta Thunberg, 1827;
(3.43) picta Waterhouse, 1882;
(3.44) pumila Mliger, 1803:
(3.45) pumila Klug, 1829;
(3.46) rauca Fabricius, 1787 (senior synonym of Buprestis geminatus Iliger, 1803);
(3.47) salicis Fabricius, 1776;
(3.48) salicis Lewis, 1893;
(3.49) sulcata Thunberg, 1789;
(3.50) sulcata Fischer von Waldheim, 1824;
(3.51) variolosa Fabricius, 1801;
(3.52) ventralis Laporte & Gory, 1838;
(3.53) ventralis Waterhouse, 1882;
(3.54) vetusta Ménetries, 1832;
(3.55) vetusta Boisduval, 1835 (specific name of the type species of Nascio Laporte & Gory, 1838).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (4.1) hungarica Scopoli, 1772, as published in the binomen Chrysis hungarica (senior synonym of Buprestis femorata Villers, 1789); (4.2) maulica Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Chrysomela maulica (senior synonym of Buprestis bella Guérin Méneville, 1830).
History of Case 3149
An application for the conservation of 31 specific names originally published as junior primary homonyms in Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 was received from Dr C.L. Bellamy (Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, U.S.A.) on 9 November 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 24-31 (March 2001). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 58: 228 (September 2001).
A comment from Dr Eduard Jendek (Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic), received during the voting period, noted that the specific name of ‘Bupestris cyanea’ was listed by Rossi (1790, pp. 189-190) with a reference to Fabricius’s (1775) description of the species (F. Sp. 282.6’) and a short diagnosis. In fact, Rossi misidentified Fabricius’s taxon and used Fabricius’s name
214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
for a species of Agrilus Curtis, 1825. Although Agrilus ‘cyanea’ Rossi was used for some time, it is an unavailable name and since Schaefer (1949, pp. 370, 371) the species has been known as A. sulcicollis Boisduval & Lacordaire, 1835. Dr Bellamy agreed with the comment and the name Buprestis ‘cyanea’ Rossi, 1790 has not been placed on the Official List.
Schaefer, L. 1949. Les buprestides de France. Tableaux analytiques des coléoptéres de la faune franco-rhénane. Famile 56. Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplement. 511 pp.
In para. 2(24) of the application, Buprestis picta Pallas, 1773 was incorrectly cited as the type species of Trachypteris Kirby, 1837. Kirby (1837) designated B. decostigma Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of his new genus, and Kiesenwetter (1857, p. 74) subsequently synonymised B. decostigma with B. picta. This was set out in Case 2837/2, published in BZN 50: 31 (para. 3) and 32 (para. 5) (March 1993).
Kiesenwetter, H. von. 1857. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands (W.F. Erichson), vol. 1 (Coleoptera), part 4 (Buprestidae).
The name Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 and that of the type species, Buprestis variolosa Paykull, 1799, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1825 (March 1996).
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 28-29. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 22: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Brothers, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — none.
Bouchet and Calder abstained.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner, Ng and Rosenberg.
The names Buprestis femorata Olivier, 1790 and Buprestis bella Gory, 1840 are ruled in (1.13) and (1.3) not to be treatéd as invalid, but it is their senior synonyms Chrysis hungarica Scopoli, 1772 and. Chrysomela maulica Molina, 1782 that are placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in (4.1) and (4.2).
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Actenodes Dejean, 1833, Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, livraison 1, p. 80.
arcuata, Buprestis, Say, 1825, Annals of the Lyceum of New York, 1: 251.
arcuata, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1838, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteéres, vol. 1, p. 159.
aurata, Buprestis, Pallas, 1776, Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reiches in den Jahren 1768-1774, p. 719.
aurata, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 178.
bella, Buprestis, Gory, 1840, Histoire naturelle et iconographie aes insectes SOUEAIEES, Monographie des buprestides, Supplement, p. 116.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 215
bilineata, Buprestis, Weber, 1801, Observationes entomologicae, continentes novorum quae condidit generum characteres, et nuper detectarum specierum descriptiones, p. 74.
bilineata, Buprestis, Latreille, 1813, in Humboldt, F.H.A. von & Bonpland, A.J.A., Voyage aux régions equinoxiales du Nouveau Continent, fait en 1799-1804, vol. 2, part 2, p. 60.
caerulea, Buprestis, Thunberg, 1789, Novas Insectorum species. 5. Dissertation, p. 91.
caerulea, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes ... Coléoptéres, genera 9-34, vol. 2(32), p. 21.
Carininota Volkovitsh, 1979, Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 58(2): 352. [In Russian; English translation in Entomological Review, 58(2), 1979].
cayennensis, Buprestis, Gmelin, 1790, Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4 (Insecta), p. 1931.
cayennensis, Buprestis, Herbst, 1801, Natursystem aller bekdnnten in- und ausldndischen Insecten, als eine Fortsetzung der Biissonschen Naturgeschichte. Der Kdfer, vol. 9, p. 56.
cuprifera, Buprestis, Kirby, 1818, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 457.
cuprifera, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1836, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres, vol. 1, p. 59.
cyanipes, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 178.
cyanipes, Buprestis, Say, 1823, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3: 164.
Cyphogastra Deyrolle, 1864, Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 8: 36.
depressa, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1771, Mantissa Plantarum, p. 533.
depressa, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae ..., p. 219.
drummondi, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1836, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteéres, vol. 1, p. 37.
drummondi, Buprestis, Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J. (Ed.), Fauna Boreali-Americana, part 4, p. 57.
excellens, Buprestis, Klug, 1825, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae-Leopoldino Carolinae, Naturae Curiosorum, 12(2): 421.
excellens, Buprestis, Klug, 1855, Bericht tiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der K6niglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1855: 644.
fasciata, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 177.
fasciata, Buprestis, Villers, 1789, Caroli Linnaei Entomologia, p. 339.
femorata, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes ... Coléop- teres, genera 9-34, vol. 2(32), p. 47.
flavofasciata, Buprestis, Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783, Iter per Poseganum, Sclayoniae provinciam mensibus Junio et Julio 1782 susceptum, p. 84.
flavofasciata, Buprestis, Herbst, 1801, Natursystem aller bekénnten in- und ausldndischen Insecten, als eine Fortsetzung der Biissonschen Naturgeschichte. Der Kafer, vol. 9, p. 306.
foveicollis, Buprestis, Boisduval, 1835, Voyage de découvertes de I’Astrolabe exécuteé, ... pendant les années 1826—1827—-1828—-1829, sous les commandement de M.J. Dumont d'Urville. Faune entomologique de I'Océan Pacifique, avec Villustration des insectes nouveaux recueillis pendant le voyage. Deuxieme partie (Coléopteres et autres ordres), p. 73.
foveicollis, Buprestis, Gory, 1840, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteéres. Monographie des buprestides, Supplement, p. 95.
geminatus, Buprestis, Say, 1823, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3: 163.
gibbicollis, Buprestis, Uliger, 1803, Magazin fiir Insectenkunde, 2: 239.
gibbicollis, Buprestis, Say, 1823, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3: 161.
haemorrhoidalis, Buprestis, Herbst, 1780, Schriften der Berlinerischen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, 1: 97.
haemorrhoidalis, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes ... Coléopteres, genera 9-34, vol. 2(32), p. 38.
hungarica, Chrysis, Scopoli, 1772, Annus V, p. 122.
216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
interrupta, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes ... Coléoptéres, genera 9-34, vol. 2(32), p. 26.
interrupta, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1837, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteres, vol. 1, p. 81.
maculipennis, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1837, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres, vol. 1, p. 111.
maculipennis, Buprestis, Gory, 1841, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteéres. Monographie des buprestides, Supplement, p. 118.
maulica, Chrysomela, Molina, 1782, Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili, p. 209.
mucronata, Buprestis, Klug, 1825, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae- Leopoldino Carolinae, Naturae Curiosorum, 12(2): 426.
mucronata, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1836, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres, vol. 1, p. 62.
Nascio Gory & Laporte, 1838, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres, publiée par monographies séparées, Genre Nascio, p. 2.
nobilis, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 410.
nobilis, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 180.
picta, Buprestis, Thunberg, 1827, Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis, 9: 47.
picta, Buprestis, Waterhouse, 1882, in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali- Americana, vol. 3, part 1 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Buprestidae), p. 15.
pumila, Buprestis, Uliger, 1803, Magazin fiir Insectenkunde, 2: 275.
pumila, Buprestis, Klug, 1829, Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones insectorum quae ex itinere per Africam borealem et Asiam occidentalem Friderici Gulielmi Hemprich et Christiani Godofredi Ehrenberg . . ., fol. 5, p. 37.
rauca, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 177.
salicis, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1776, Genera insectorum, p. 237.
salicis, Buprestis, Lewis, 1893, Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Zoology), 24: 337.
sulcata, Buprestis, Thunberg, 1789, Novas Insectorum species. 5. Dissertation, p. 90.
sulcata, Buprestis, Fischer von Waldheim, 1824, Entomographia Imperii Russici. Genera Insectorum systematica exposita et analysi iconographica instructa. Coleoptera, vol. 2, Pp lOve
variolosa, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum, vol. 2, p. 190.
ventralis, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1838, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteres, vol. 1, p. 158.
ventralis, Buprestis, Waterhouse, 1882, in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali-Americana, vol. 3, part 1 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Buprestidae), p. 14.
vetusta, Buprestis, Ménétries, 1832, Catalogue raisonné des objets de zoologie recueillis dans un voyage au Caucase et jusqu'aux frontiéres actuelles de la Perse, p. 152.
vetusta, Buprestis, Boisduval, 1835, Voyage de découvertes de I’Astrolabe exécuteé, . . . pendant les années 1826—1827-1828—1829, sous les commandement de M.J. Dumont d’Uryille. Faune entomologique de Il'Océan Pacifique, avec Villustration des insectes nouveaux recueillis pendant le voyage. Deuxiéme partie (Coléoptéres et autres ordres), p. 85.
The following is the reference for the designation of Buprestis foveicollis Boisduval, 1835 as the type species of Cyphogastra Deyrolle, 1864:
Bellamy, C.L. 1998. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 45(1): 10.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 217
OPINION 2009 (Case 3118)
Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 and Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic names conserved by the designation of Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1794 (currently A. fulgurans (Schrank, 1789)) as the type species of Anthaxia
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Trichocratomerus; Tricho- cratomerus manca; BUPRESTIDAE; Anthaxia; Anthaxia fulgurans; Buprestis nitida.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 are hereby set aside and Buprestis nitida
Rossi, 1792 is designated as the type species.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary power in (1) above Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1792 (a junior subjective synonym of Buprestis fulgurans Schrank, 1789);
(b) Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949 (gender: masculine), type species by orig- inal designation Buprestis manca Linnaeus, 1767 (a junior objective syno- nym of Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829).
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) fulgurans Schrank, 1789, as published in the binomen Buprestis fulgurans (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1792, the type species of Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 as ruled in (1) above);
(b) manca Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Buprestis manca, type species by original designation of Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949.
History of Case 3118
An application to conserve the usage of the name Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 by the designation of Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1792 (currently A. fulgurans (Schrank, 1789)) as the type species was received from Svatopluk Bily (National Museum, Praha, Czech Republic) on 15 February 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 97-99 (June 2000).
Comments in support of the application were published in BZN 57: 227 (December 2000) and BZN 58: 58 (March 2001).
It was noted on the voting paper that Buprestis manca Linnaeus, 1767 is the valid but unrecognised type species of Anthaxia (para. 2(2) of the application). The same species is also the type by original designation of Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949 (para. 3) and, as a consequence, the latter name is formally a junior objective synonym of Anthaxia.
The proposed designation of B. nitida Rossi, 1792 as the type species of Anthaxia, in accord with usage (para. 4), will also conserve the name Trichocratomerus. It was
218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
proposed that the names Trichocratomerus and its type species B. manca be placed on Official Lists in addition to the proposals in para. 5 in BZN 57: 98. Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 98 and in the voting paper. At the close of the voting period on | June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 27: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 0.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829, Abbildungen und Beschreibungen neuer Tierarten, wahrend des Flottcapitains y. Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichten Kriegsschlup Predpriaetie in den Jahren 1823-1826. Zoologischer Atlas, erste Hefte, p. 9.
fulgurans, Buprestis, Schrank, 1789, Der Naturforscher (Halle), 24: 85.
manca, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, pars 2, p. 1067.
nitida, Buprestis, Rossi, 1792, Mantissa insectorum ... , vol. 1, p. 63.
Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949, Buprestidae. Fauna of the U.S.S.R., vol. 13, no. 2, p. 102.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 219
OPINION 2010 (Case 3154)
Scymnus splendidulus Stenius, 1952 (currently Nephus (Sidis) splendidulus; Insecta, Coleoptera): neotype retained as the name-bearing type
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; COCCINELLIDAE; Nephus; Nephus (Sidis); Nephus (Sidis) splendidulus; ladybird beetles.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power the name-bearing type for Scymnus splendidulus Stenius, 1952 is hereby confirmed as the neotype designated by Flirsch (1965) and registered as type number 2659 in the Zoologica! Museum, Helsinki. (2) The name splendidulus Stenius, 1952, as published in the binomen Scymnus splendidulus and as defined by the neotype confirmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3154
An application for the retention of the neotype designated by Fiirsch (1965) as the name-bearing type of the Mediterranean coccinellid beetle Nephus (Sidis) splendidulus (Stenius, 1952) despite the rediscovery of the holotype was received from Dr Helmut Fursch (Ruderting, Germany) and Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) on 9 February 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 108-109 (June 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 109. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes—23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys
Negative votes — 4: Cogger, Kerzhner, Lamas and van Tol.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
Voting against, van Tol commented: “The authors are apparently able to establish the identity of the holotype, since they state that the holotype and neotype are conspecific. Consequently, there is no reason to retain the neotype’.
Original references
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
splendidulus, Scymnus, Stenius, 1952, Notulae Entomologicae, 32: 155.
The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Scymnus splendidulus Stenius, 1952:
Firsch, H. 1965. Mitteilungen der Miinchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 55: 204.
220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
OPINION 2011 (Case 3061)
Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes), Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840, B. flavus Bleeker, 1846 and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846: previous fixations of type specimens not to be set aside
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Siluriformes; catfish; BAGRIDAE; Hemibagrus; Hemibagrus flavus; Hemibagrus nemurus; Hemibagrus planiceps; Hemibagrus sieboldii.
Ruling
(1) The previous fixations of type specimens for Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes
in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, B. planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, B. flavus Bleeker, 1846 and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 are not to be set aside.
(2) The name Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the binomen Bagrus nemurus (specific name of the type species of Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862);
(b) planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the binomen Bagrus planiceps and as defined by the lectotype RMNH 2939 in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, designated by Ng, Goh, Ng & Dodson (1999);
(c) flavus Bleeker, 1846, as published in the binomen Bagrus flavus;
(d) sieboldii Bleeker, 1846, as published in the binomen Bagrus sieboldii.
(3
ww
History of Case 3061
An application to stabilise the usage of the specific names of: (a) Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (type species of Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862) by the designation of a single neotype for both B. nemurus and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 and (b) B. planiceps, Valenciennes, 1840 by the designation of the lectotype of B. planiceps as the neotype of B. flavus Bleeker, 1846 was received from Drs H.H. Ng, Y.Y. Goh and P.K.L. Ng (National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and Julian Dodson (Cité Universitaire, Québec, Canada) on 22 August 1997. After correspondence the case, including information in (a) above, was published in BZN 56: 34-41 (March 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The information in (b) above was added to Proposal 19(1)(a) in BZN 56: 40 by its inclusion on the second voting paper (1 March 2002).
A comment opposing the application was published in BZN 56: 200 (September 1999). A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 56: 271-272
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 221
(December 1999). The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 September 2000. The case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds majority (13 votes in favour and seven against; four Commissioners did not vote).
On 1 March 2002 the application was submitted for a re-vote under the Bylaws. It was noted on the voting paper that further information on Bleeker type material involved in the case was given by Dr M.J.P. van Oijen (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) in BZN 56: 200-201 (September 1999); this additional information does not affect the issues in the case. It was also noted that a lectotype for the nominal species Bagrus planiceps Valenciennes, 1840 (specimen RMNH 2939 in Leiden) was designated by Ng et al. in BZN 56: 38, and a lectotype for B. anisurus Valenciennes, 1840 (specimen RMNH 2956 in Leiden, not Paris as stated in BZN 56: 272) was designated by Kottelat in BZN 56: 272. The name B. planiceps has precedence over B. anisurus (para. 3 of the application). It was further noted that two Commissioners had commented on their voting papers in response to the original vote. Voting against, Calder commented: ‘Inasmuch as nomenclatural stability and universality are not threatened to any significant degree in this case (the names of both species have been stable for more than 140 years), I see no clear need to use the plenary power to designate neotypes for Bagrus nemurus, B. flavus and B. sieboldii. Instead, it is my view that the authors could, if they see “exceptional need’ for neotype designations, proceed on their own as requested in paras. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) by applying the provisions of Article 75. Based on the information provided in the application, no type material is in existence for B. nemurus (paras. 11-13, 17). The types of B. flavus ‘can never be recognized with certainty’ (para. 10). The same applies to B. sieboldii (the authors have noted in para. 17: ‘Our revision of this species-group is seriously complicated by the absence of types’). The strongest case could be made for a neotype of B. nemurus, type species of the genus Hemibagrus’. Rosenberg commented: “Based on current biological knowledge, the names involved are undoubted subjective synonyms. Since there currently are no taxonomic problems, there is no need for neotypes’.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 40 and in the voting paper. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 16: Bock, Béhme, Bouchet, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song
Negative votes — 10: Alonso-Zarazaga, Brothers, Evenhuis, Fortey, Kerzhner, Kraus, Minelli, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol.
Calder abstained.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
The comments cited above were endorsed by Brothers, Calder, Papp and Stys.
Again, the required two thirds majority for use of the plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for Bagrus flavus, B. nemurus and B. sieboldii and designate neotypes was not reached and therefore the existing type specimens are retained and accordingly the species-group names are added to Official Lists.
222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
flavus, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846, Natuur- en Geneeskundig Archief voor Neérland’s Indié, 3: 156.
Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862, Atlas ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néérlandaises, vol. 2. Siluroides, Chacoides et Heterobranchoides, p. 9.
nemurus, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 14, p. 423.
planiceps, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 14, p. 421.
sieboldii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846, Natuur- en Geneeskundig Archief voor Neérland’s Indié, 3: 155.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Bagrus planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840: Ng, H.H., Goh, Y.Y., Ng, P.K.L. & Dodson, J. 1999. BZN 56: 38.
N i) Ww
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
OPINION 2012 (Case 3041)
Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): conserved, and C. gibbus and R. vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 designated as the respective type species of Cynodon and Rhaphiodon
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Characiformes; CyNODONTIDAE; CHARACIDAE; Cynodon; Rhaphiodon; Cynodon gibbus; Cynodon vulpinus; Rhaphiodon gibbus; Rhaphiodon vulpinus; freshwater fish; South America.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power:
(a) the following names are suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy:
(i) Cynodon Cuvier, 1829 and all uses of the name Cyroien prior to the publication of Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829;
(ii) vulpinus Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Cynodon vulpinus, and all uses of the name Cynodon vulpinus prior to the publication of Cynodon vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829;
(b) the name Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 is to be treated as the name of a new genus and not as a replacement name for Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829;
(c) the name Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 is to be given precedence over Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(d) all previous type species fixations for the following nominal genera are hereby set aside:
(i) Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and Rhaphiodon vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species;
(ii) Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and Cynodon gibbus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(d)(i) above Rhaphiodon vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(d)(ii) above Cynodon gibbus Spix & Agassiz, 1829, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.
224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) gibbus Spix & Agassiz, 1829, as published in the binomen Cynodon gibbus (specific name of the type species of Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829); (b) vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829, as published in the binomen Rhaphiodon vulpinus (specific name of the type species of Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Cynodon Cuvier, 1829, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above; (b) Rhaphiodontichthys Campos, 1945 (a junior objective synonym of Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829); (c) Camposichthys Travassos, 1946 (a junior objective synonym of Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829). (5) The name vulpinus Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Cynodon vulpinus
and as suppressed in (1)(a)(ii) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3041
An application for the conservation of the usage of the names Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and the designation of C. gibbus and R. vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 as the respective type species of Cynodon and Rhaphiodon was received from Dr M. Toledo-Piza (Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil) and Dr K.J. Lazara (United States Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York, U.S.A.) on 3 February 1997. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 151-157 (September 2000).
A note in support of the application was published in BZN 58: 306 (December 2001).
A specimen of Raphiodon vulpinus in the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle, Neuchatel (catalogue no. MNHN 822), recorded by Kottelat (1988, p. 84) as ‘potential holotype’, was accepted as the holotype by Toledo-Piza (2000, p. 74, fig. 28). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 154. At the close of the voting period on | June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 25: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bohme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg, Song, van Tol
Negative votes — 2: Patterson and Stys.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
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:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 225
Camposichthys Travassos, 1946, Summa Brasiliensis Biologiae, 1: 132.
Cynodon Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a Vhistoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a l'anatomie comparée, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 312.
Cynodon Spix & Agassiz, 1829, Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam. . . Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr. J.B. de Spix ... Digessit, descripsit et observationibus anatomicis illustravit Dr. L. Agassiz, pl. 26.
gibbus, Cynodon, Spix & Agassiz, 1829, Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam ... Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr. J.B. de Spix ... Digessit, descripsit et observationibus anatomicis illustravit Dr. L. Agassiz, pl. 27.
Rhaphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829, Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam ... Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr. J.B. de Spix ... Digessit, descripsit et observationibus anatomicis illustravit Dr. L. Agassiz, pp. 59, 76.
Rhaphiodontichthys Campos, 1945, Arquivos de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo, 4: 473.
vulpinus, Cynodon, Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 312.
vulpinus, Rhaphiodon, Spix & Agassiz, 1829, Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam ... Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr. J.B. de Spix ... Digessit, descripsit et observationibus anatomicis illustravit Dr. L. Agassiz, p. 76.
226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
OPINION 2013 (Case 3173)
Phrynidium crucigerum Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856 (currently Atelopus cruciger; Amphibia, Anura): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphibia; Anura; BUFONIDAE; Afelopus cruciger; Atelopus varius; Venezuela; Neotropics.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species Phrynidium crucigerum Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856 are hereby set aside and the specimen from the vicinity of Rancho Grande on the road from Maracay to Ocumare de la Costa (ca. 1000 m above sea level), Estado Aragua, Venezuela, ZSM 93/1947/10, Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich, is designated as the neotype. The name crucigerum Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856, as published in the binomen Phrynidium crucigerum and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
—_~ i) ~—
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Phrynidium crucigerum Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856 by the designation of a neotype was received from Drs Stefan Lotters (University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany) and Enrique La Marca (Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela) on 4 September 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 119-121 (June 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on the case were received.
Decision of the Commission :
On 1 March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 120. At the close of the voting period on | June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 20: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Boéhme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Nielsen, Papp, Song, van Tol
Negative votes — 7: Kerzhner, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Patterson, Rosenberg and Stys.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
Voting against, Ng, Rosenberg and Stys commented that Létters, BOhme & Giinther (1998) accepted the synonymy of the two taxa in question, and their conclusions follow the Code. It is not evident from the application that the names of these frogs have been cited frequently other than in systematic literature. The arguments for the need for a neotype are not very compelling, therefore it would be more logical to accept the synonymy and apply a new name for the Venezuelan species.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 227 Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
crucigerum, Phrynidium, Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856, Nomenclator reptilium et amphibiorum musei zoologici berolinensis, p. 41.
228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
OPINION 2014 (Case 3136)
Crotaphytus vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972 (Reptilia, Squamata): specific name conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Squamata; CROTAPHYTIDAE; Crotaphy- tus fasciolatus; Crotaphytus vestigium; Mexico; California.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power the specific name fasciolatus Mocquard, 1903, as published in the binomen Crotaphytus fasciolatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972, as published in the trinomen Crotaphytus insularis vestigium, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) fasciolatus Mocquard, 1903, as published in the binomen Crotaphytus fasciolatus and as suppressed in (1) above;
(b) fasciatus Mocquard, 1899, as published in the binomen Crotaphytus fasciatus (a junior primary homonym of Crotaphytus fasciatus Hallowell, 1853).
(3
—
History of Case 3136
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Crotaphytus vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972 was received from Dr J.A. McGuire (Division of Natural Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.) on 23 August 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 158-161 (September 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
An opposing comment was published in BZN 58: 59 (March 2001). A reply from the author of the application, together with a supportive comment, was published at the same time.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 57: 159. At the close of the voting period on | March 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Béhme, Brothers, Calder, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Song, Stys
Negative votes — 7: Alonso—Zarazaga, Bouchet, Cogger, Lamas, Martins de Souza, Minelli and van Tol.
No votes were received from Dupuis, Kerzhner, Ng and Rosenberg.
Cogger commented: ‘It is misleading to assert (para. 5 of the application) that ‘the name Crotaphytus fasciolatus Mocquard, 1903 has never been used for the species for
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 229
which it was intended, during a period of nearly 100 years by virtue of having been incorrectly assigned to the synonymy of Gambelia wizlizenii (Baird & Girard, 1852), because the species to which it was applied was itself not recognised by herpetologists for a long time. This fact alone suggests that the taxonomy of this group of lizards will still undergo significant changes, so that the suppression of the senior subjective synonym C. fasciolatus is unwarranted. For the sake of the issues of stability and universality identified by the applicant I would agree to priority being given to the younger name C. vestigium by authors who consider the latter and C. fasciatus to be synonyms’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fasciatus, Crotaphytus, Mocquard, 1899, Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (4)1: 303. fasciolatus, Crotaphytus, Mocquard, 1903, Bulletin du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 9: 209. vestigium, Crotaphytus insularis, Smith & Tanner, 1972, Great Basin Naturalist, 32: 29.
230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
OPINION 2015 (Case 3145)
Dactyloa biporcata Wiegmann, 1834 (currently Anolis biporcatus) and Anolis petersii Bocourt, 1873 (Reptilia, Sauria): specific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. biporcatus
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauria; IGUANIDAE; Anolis biporcatus; Anolis petersii; Anolis copei; lizards; anoles; Central America.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species
Dactyloa biporcata Wiegmann, 1834 are hereby set aside and the holotype of
Anolis copei Bocourt, 1873 (MNHM 2426) is designated as the neotype.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) biporcata Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Dactyloa biporcata and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) petersii Bocourt, 1873, as published in the binomen Anolis petersii.
(3) The name copei Bocourt, 1873, as published in the binomen Anolis copei (a junior objective synonym of Dactyloa biporcata Wiegmann, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3145
An application to conserve the usage of the specific names of Dactyloa biporcata Wiegmann, 1834 and Anolis petersii Bocourt, 1873 by the designation of the holotype of A. copei Bocourt, 1873 as the neotype of A. biporcatus was received from Drs Gunther Kohler (Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) and Aaron M. Bauer (Villanova University, Villanova, PA, U.S.A.) on 4 October 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 122-125 (June 2001). The title, abstract and Keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on the case were received.
— i) 7
Decision of the Commission
On | March 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 124. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2002 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 27: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bo6hme, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Evenhuis, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol
Negative votes — 0.
No vote was received from Dupuis.
Original references
The following are the original references to names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002 231
biporcata, Dactyloa, Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetologia mexicana, seu Descriptio amphibiorum Novae fispaniae, quae itineribus Comitis de Sack, F. Deppe et C.G. Schiede in Museum Zoologicum Berolinense pervenerunt. Pars prima Saurorum species amplectens, &c, pp. 47-48.
copei, Anolis, Bocourt, 1873, in Dumeéril, M.A., Bocourt, M. & Mocquard, M. (Eds.), Recherches Zoologiques. Vol. 3, (Section 1). Etudes sur les reptiles et les Batraciens.
Mission Scientifique au Mexique et dans I' Amérique Centrale, p. 77. petersii, Anolis, Bocourt, 1873, in Dumeril, M.A., Bocourt, M. & Mocquard, M. (Eds.),
Recherches Zoologiques. Vol. 3, (Section 1). Etudes sur les reptiles et les Batraciens. Mission Scientifique au Mexique et dans I' Amérique Centrale, p. 79.
232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(3) September 2002
INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis- sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared. in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned.
General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.
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 to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.
References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.
Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application.
Contents — continued
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2006 (Case 3171). Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926 (Trilobita): conserved . ee Rc eee ners SET tr re eee
OPINION 2007 (Case 3164). Kalstenmes Hagen, 1853 (Insecta, oy Termes flavicollis Fabricius, 1793 designated as the type species . :
OPINION 2008 (Case 3149). 30 species-group names originally mpi! as junior primary homonyms in Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved.
OPINION 2009 (Case 3118). Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 and Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic names conserved by the designation of Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1794 (currently A. fulgurans (Schrank, 1789)) as the type species of Anthaxia . Sh oeetcp Ge tot eas os Vn eae aro Rueceiect ea ee TOA ane ee Ee
OPINION 2010 (Case 3154). Scymnus splendidulus Stenius, 1952 (currently Nephus (Sidis) splendidulus; Insecta, pacts neotype retained as the name-bearing (NDE 5 oc
OPINION 2011 (Crs 3061). laminas TK Bleckes 1862 (Osteichthyes, Silnufornesy Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840, B. flavus Bleeker, 1846 and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846: previous fixations of type specimens not to be set aside . ;
OPINION 2012 (Case 3041). Cynodon Spix in Spix & Aeassic, 1829 and aralataclon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): conserved, and (Ge gibbus and R. vulpinus Spix & Agassiz, 1829 peas as the Sia type species of Cynodon and Rhaphiodon . :
OPINION 2013 (Case 3173). Phrynidium crucigerum Tchtensien & Marrone: 1856 (currently Atelopus cruciger; eee Anura): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype .
OPINION 2014 (Case 3136). Groaphy tus yeti Saath & liannen 1972 MReptili Squamata): specific name conserved .
OPINION 2015 (Case 3145). Dactyloa Bivoncaia Wicemann 1834 (quently ros biporcatus) and Anolis petersii Bocourt, 1873 (Reptilia, Sauria): specific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. biporcatus
Information and Instructions for Authors
CONTENTS
Page Notices. . . cic Wet ice ew epee Se adic ce ea 161 Membership of the Commission aad its Cale Seid glands: (tbate a stash Kavarna eens 162 International Code of Zoologica) Nomenclature. . . 163
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in alge = Sanplement 1986- 2000. 164
General Article
Neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). W. Foissner . 165 Applications Halcampella Andres, 1883 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa, Actiniaria): proposed designation of
H. maxima Hertwig,1888 as the type species. E. Rodriguez & P.J. Lopez-Gonzales. 170
Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (currently Gisortia gisortiana; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850. J.-M. Pacaud& L.Dolin .... 173 Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 (Arachnida, Con nignes) eae ees ai the specific name over the subspecific name of Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877. L.E. Acosta. . . . 176 Gryllus brachypterus Ocskay, 1826 (currently Buda. brachyien) oF. Ghillus brachypterus Haan, 1842 (currently Duolandrevus brachypterus) (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. H. Baur & A. Coray . 180 Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and JIridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of C. sonnerati
Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. C.L. Bellamy. . . . 185 Geodromicus Redtenbacher, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed oe over Psephidonus Gistel, 1856. L.H. Herman . . . 188
Lesteva Latreille, 1797 and Anthophagus Gavoione 1302 (ae Coleopee: proposed designation of L. punctulata Latreille, 1804 as the che species of Lesteva.
LB Herman 191] Mycetoporus mulsanti Ganson. 1895, (asecta: Coleoptera) Proposed conser-
vation of the specific name. M. Schiilke . .. . 194 Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera): oped eoeee abe SE. Brooke
T.A. Wheeler & N.L. Evenhuis . . . 196
Sauripterus Hall, 1843 (Osteichthyes, Screener proporedee. conservation as the correct original spelling. J.E. Jeffery, M¢«C. Davis, N.H. Shubin & E.B. Daeschler 198
Comments On the proposed fixation of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae) to conserve the usage of Pardosa
and of Alopecosa Simon, 1885. P. Stys & J. Buchar. . . . . 203 On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Scarabaeus quae Villers
1789 (currently Pentodon bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera). B.C. Ratcliffe . 203 On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852
(Insecta, Lepidoptera). ED. Edwards & M.S. Upton. . . 204 On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Chlorops meigenii boc 1866
(Insecta, Diptera). T.A. Wheeler & S. Boucher .. . 204 On the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne Taean Bard 1858 over
that of Sauromalus ater Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia, Squamata). K. Nagy ... . 205
Continued on Inside Back Cover
Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD
Bulletin
Zoological a Nomenclature
Ka «er wR oe a KP Or *
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2003 is £123 or $220, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £61 or $110. 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. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Vice-President Executive Secretary
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof Dr W. Bohme (Germany, Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) ~ Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera) - Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany; Arachnology) Secretariat
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (United Kingdom)
Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)
Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2002
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 233
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 59, part 4 (pp. 233-306) 19 December 2002
Notices
(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised 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 or her 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 59, part 3 (30 September 2002). Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published.
Case 3251. Thereva Latreille, [1797] and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation by designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Thereva. K.C. Holston, M.E. Irwin & F.C. Thompson.
Case 3252. Confirmation that the French version of Article 13.1.1 of the Code and the Glossary definition of ‘diagnose’ embody the respective intended meanings, and that Haemocera morii Tokioka, 1949 (Crustacea, Copepoda) is an available name. M.J. Grygier.
Case 3253. Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and L. flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of the specific names by redesignation of a lectotype for L. aenea. R. Jédicke & J. van Tol.
Case 3255. Macropodus opercularis concolor Ahl, 1937 (currently Macropodus concolor; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. I. Schindler & W. Staeck.
Case 3256. Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853. V.I. Gusarov & L.H. Herman.
234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Case 3257. Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta deserticola Barr, 1974 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. C.L. Bellamy & R.L. Westcott.
(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion 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.
ICZN Discussion List now Available Online
In an effort to improve interaction between the Commission and the zoological community, a Commission Discussion List has just been created. Subscription is free of charge and open to all with access to the Internet. Just send an e-mail to join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org, leaving the subject line and body of the message blank. :
All Commissioners (with e-mail addresses) and the Commission Secretariat are subscribers to the list. It is hoped that Commissioners will benefit from the discussions that take place on the list and participate actively to assist the zoological community with questions or problems relating to nomenclature, the role of the Commission and in particular the Code.
Hopefully, this discussion list will help bring Code-related problems out into the open and serve as a medium for constructive solutions and intelligent discussions pertaining to all aspects of zoological nomenclature.
The decision-making process of the Commission does not change with the introduction of this list. The protacol for such decisions still lies within the Constitution, By-Laws, and Articles of the Code. This discussion list exists only in an advisory capacity. The Commission Secretariat is still available for those who do not wish to use or do not have access to the discussion list and will answer questions on all aspects of the Commission and the Code. In addition, all applications to the Commission, other articles for publication in the Bulletin, orders for the Code and other publications and all other communications of an administrative nature should continue be sent to the Executive Secretary (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Neal L. Evenhuis, Commission President
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 235
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Subscriptions for volume 60 (for 2003) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are now due. The subscription price is £ 123 or US$ 220; individual zoologists wishing to subscribe to the Bulletin for their own personal use are offered a 50% discount, reducing the subscription to £ 61 or US$ 110. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ and sent to: I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Four issues of the Bulletin are published each year at the end of March, June and September and the third week of December. They are sent to subscribers by Accelerated Surface Post which should reach all subscribers in less than three weeks of publication.
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement 1986—2000
The volume entitled Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (ISBN 0 85301 004 8) was published in 1987. It gave details of the names and works on which the Commission had ruled and placed on the Official Lists and Indexes since it was set up in 1895 through to the end of 1985. The volume contained 9917 entries, 9783 being family-group, generic or specific names and 134 relating to works.
In the 15 years between 1986 and the end of 2000 a further 601 Opinions and Directions have been published in the Bulletin listing 2371 names and 14 works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes. Details of these 2385 entries are given in a Supplement of 141 pages (ISBN 0 85301 007 2) published early in 2001. Additional sections include (a) a systematic index of names on the Official Lists covering both the 1987 volume and the Supplement; (b) a table correlating the nominal type species of genera listed in the 1987 volume with the valid names of those species when known to be different; and (c) emendments to the 1987 volume.
The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or $110 each, and £100 or $170 for both volumes ordered together.
Individual buyers of the volumes for their own use are offered a price of £50 or $85 for each volume, and £90 or $150 for both.
Individual members of the American or European Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a price of £45 or $70 for each volume, and £80 or $120 for both.
Prices include postage by surface mail; for Airmail, please add £3 or $5 for each volume.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Srvith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to “AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
The extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ISBN 0 85301 006 4) was published (in a bilingual volume in English and French) in August 1999. It came into effect on | January 2000 and entirely supersedes the 3rd (1985) edition.
The price of the English and French volume of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered:
Individual members of a scientific society are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the society should be given.
Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price £24 or $39).
Postgraduate or undergraduate students are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the student’s supervisor should be given.
Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy).
Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy.
Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to “ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date.
Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on the following publication for personal use:
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals —a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to £15 and from $50 to $25;
Official texts of the Code in several languages have been authorized by the Commission, and all (including English and French) are equal in authority. German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish texts have now been published and others are planned. Details of price and how to buy the published texts can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses:
German — books@insecta.de
Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp
Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu
Spanish — menb168@muncen.csic.es
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 237
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report for 2001
The Trust’s surplus of £15,430 for the year 2000 was reduced to a deficit of £4,734 for 2001, due mainly to quickly diminishing proceeds (£14,342) from sales of the 4th edition of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature after the sales peak in 2000. That deficit would have been larger but for royalties of £11,490 obtained for publication of translations of the Code into German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish, an amount of income that is unlikely to be as high in future years. The sum of £33,820 received for other publications —the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the Official Lists and Indexes and the Centenary History of the Commission — was boosted by sales of a Supplement to the Official Lists and Indexes published during the year. £6,501 was received from donations, and interest and investment income of £10,479 brought the total income for the year to £76,632.
The main expenditures in 2001 were £62,283 for the salaries, fees and National Insurance of the Commission’s Secretariat, £5,616 for printing the Supplement to the Official Lists and Indexes, and £11,243 for printing the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- ture and for the distribution of all publications. Other costs of £1,736 for office expenses and £488 for depreciation of office equipment brought the total expenditure to £81,366.
The main work of the Commission during the year was on applications from zoologists in 21 countries to resolve problems of zoological nomenclature. These were published in the Bulletin, together with Opinions (rulings) made by the Commission on other cases. Further applications are under consideration. Advice was given by the Commission’s Secretariat in response to a large number of informal enquiries on matters of nomenclature from zoologists worldwide.
The Commission’s Secretariat was again housed in The Natural History Museum, London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express its thanks to all the donors listed below who contributed to its work during the year. Continuation of the work of the Commission for the international zoological and palaeontological community is only possible because of the support received from donors to the Trust.
M.K. HOWARTH
Secretary and Managing Director
24 April 2002
List of donations and grants received during the year 2001
American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £3,644 Dr F.M. Bayer 84 Canadian Society of Zoologists 87 European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 467 International Union of Biological Sciences 1,246 Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 205 Russian Academy of Sciences 358 St John’s College, Cambridge 250 Zoological Society of London 160
Total £6,501
238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31 DECEMBER 2001
Income — SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £28,418 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 14,342 Royalties on Code 11,490 Official Lists and Indexes 4,988 Centenary History 414
59,652
GRANTS AND DONATIONS BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST
Expenditure
SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES
OFFICE EXPENSES.
PRINTING OF SUPPLEMENT TO OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES
PRINTING OF BULLETIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT
Deficit for the year
6,501 10,479
76,632 62,283 1,736 5,616
11,243 488
$1,366
£4,734
i) Ww \o
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Case 3248
Prositala Germain, 1915 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over Massaihelix Germain, 1913
Bernard Verdcourt Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, U.K.
A.C. van Bruggen
clo National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: acvanbruggen@hetnet.nl)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Prositala Germain, 1915 for a group of African land snails (family CHAROPIDAE) by giving it conditional precedence over the little used senior subjective synonym Massaihelix Germain, 1913 whenever the type species of these genera are considered to be conspecific.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; Pulmonata; CHAROPI- DAE; Massaihelix; Prositala; Massaihelix butumbiana; Prositala fernandopoensis; African land snails.
1. The name Massaihelix was proposed by Germain (1913, p. 352) as a subgenus of the genus Halolimnohelix to include a species of African land snail (family CHAROPIDAE). The type species by monotypy is Helix butumbiana von Martens, 1895 (p. 179). As far as we are aware, this name has only been used after Germain by the following authors: Thiele (1931, p. 696), Fischer-Piette (1947, p. 91), Zilch (1960, p. 647) and Verdcourt (1969, p. 180). Massaihelix is a misleading name as its type species is neither a helicid nor does it come from Massailand.
2. Germain (1915, p. 283) proposed the name Sitala (Prositala) fernandopoensis for what he considered to be another group of African land snails (family CHAROPIDAE). On the same page, Germain designated it as the type species of a new subgenus Prositala, which he described five pages later (p. 288).
3. Verdcourt (1983a, p. 179) examined a paratype of Helix butumbiana von Martens held in The Natural History Museum (London), type material of Prositala fernandopoensis (Germain) held in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris) and specimens collected by A. Holm in East Africa. This study showed that Helix butumbiana and Prositala fernandopoensis are conspecific. Verdcourt reported his discovery by using the combination Prositala butumbiana when, according to nomenclatural priority, he should have used Massaihelix butumbiana as the valid name for this species of snail.
4. Before the discovery that Helix butumbiana and Prositala fernandopoensis were conspecific, the name Prositala was used for this group of land snails by Germain (1915, p. 288; 1916, p. 281), Connolly (1928, p. 538), Thiele (1931, p. 374) and Verdcourt (1972, p. 331).
240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
5. After the discovery that Helix butumbiana and Prositala fernandopoensis were conspecific, the name Prositala was used for this group of land snails by Verdcourt (1983b, p. 220; 1984, p. 136; 1991, p. 356), De Winter (1990, p. 308), van Bruggen (1993, p. 106), Tattersfield et al. (2001, p. 1821) and van Bruggen & Van Goethem (2001) amongst others. Various recent compilers have mentioned both generic names (Massaihelix and Prositala), but have not taken into account recent work and have overlooked Verdcourt (1983a). Vaught (1989, pp. 73, 104) doubtfully placed Massaihelix as a subgenus of Halolimnohelix (HyGROMNDAE) and Prositala as a subgenus of Philalanka in the ENDODONTIDAE. This action was followed by Millard (1997, pp. 93, 104). Schileyko (2001, p. 909) maintained Prositala and mentions ‘2 spp. but on the same page synonymised Massaihelix with Psichion Gude, 1911, which is certainly not correct.
6. We propose that the generic name Prositala Germain, 1915, which is in widespread use, be given conditional precedence over the little-used name Massaihelix Germain, 1913 in accord with Article 81.2.3 of the Code. Commission approval will mean that if the two names are considered to be synonyms, Prositala becomes the valid name for the taxon.
7. The International Commission on Zeolosical Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Prositala Germain, 1915 precedence over the name Massaihelix Germain, 1913, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Prositala Germain, 1915 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Sitala (Prositala) fernandopoensis Germain, 1915, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Massaihelix Germain, 1913 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Massaihelix Germain, 1913 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Helix butumbiana von Martens, 1895, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Prositala Germain, 1915 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) fernandopoensis Germain, 1915, as published in the binomen Sitala
(Prositala) fernandopoensis (specific name of the type species of Prositala Germain, 1915);
(b) butumbiana von Martens, 1895, as published in the binomen Helix butumbiana (specific name of the type species of Massaihelix Germain, 1913).
References
Bruggen, A.C. van. 1993. Studies on the terrestrial molluscs of Malawi, an interim progress report with additions to the check-list. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 122: 99-111.
Bruggen, A.C. van & Van Goethem, J.L. 2001. Prolegomena for a checklist of the terrestrial molluscs of the Upemba National Park, Katanga, D.R. Congo. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de. Belgique, Biologie, 71: 151-168.
Connolly, M. 1928. The non-marine Mollusca of Sierra Leone. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)1: 529-551.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 241
Fischer-Piette, E. 1947. Nécrologie Louis Germain 1878-1942. Journal de Conchyliologie, 87: 85-95.
Germain, L. 1913. Contributions a la faune malacologique de l’ Afrique Equatoriale: XX XIX. Un nouveau genre d’Helicidae de lEst africain. Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 19: 349-352.
Germain, L. 1915. Contributions a la faune malacologique de l’Afrique Equatoriale: XLI. Mollusques nouveaux des iles du Golfe de Guinée. Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 21: 283-290.
Germain, L. 1916. Etudes sur les mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles recueillis par L. Fea pendant son voyage en Afrique occidentale et aux iles du Golfe de Guinée. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, Genova, 47: 150-337.
Martens, E. von. 1895. Neue Land- und Stisswasser-Schnecken aus Ost-Afrika. Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 27: 175-187.
Millard, V. 1997. Classification of Mollusca. A classification of worldwide Mollusca. 544 pp. Rhine Road, South Africa.
Schileyko, A.A. 2001. Treatise on recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Part 7. Endodontidae, Thyrophorellidae, Charopidae. Ruthenica, Suppl. 2: 881-1034.
Tattersfield, P., Seddon, M.B. & Lange, C.N. 2001. Land-snail faunas in indigenous rainforest and commercial forestry plantations in Kakamega Forest, western Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10: 1809-1829.
Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1(2): 377-778.
Vaught, K.C. 1989. 4 classification of the living Mollusca. xii, 195 pp. Melbourne, Florida.
Verdcourt, B. 1969. On the systematic position of some East African Helicidae 1. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 99: 175-185.
Verdcourt, B. 1972. The zoogeography of the non-marine Mollusca of East Africa. Journal of Conchology, 27: 291-348.
Verdcourt, B. 1983a. The identity of Helix butumbiana von Martens (Pulmonata: Endodonti- dae sensu lato). Journal of Conchology, 31: 179-184.
Verdcourt, B. 1983b. A list of the non-marine Mollusca of East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, excluding Lake Malawi). Achatina, 11: 200-239.
Verdcourt, B. 1984. Discontinuities in the distribution of some East African land snails. Pp. 134-155 in Solem, A. & van Bruggen, A.C. (Eds.), Worldwide snails. Leiden.
Verdcourt, B. 1991. Some notes on East African endodontoid snails—Part |. Conchologist's Newsletter, 116: 352-359.
Winter, A.J. de. 1990. On some West African land snails (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Journal of Conchology, 33: 305-309.
Zilch, A. 1960. Gastropoda Euthyneura. Pp. 601-834 in Wenz, W. (Ed.), Gastropoda, Handbuch der Paliozoologie, 6(2): I-X11, 1-834. Berlin.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Case 3070
Phrynus ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843 (Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed precedence of the specific name over Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 and Phalangium lunatum Pallas, 1772
Peter Weygoldt
Institut fiir Biologie I (Zoologie), Albert-Ludwigs-Universitdt, Hauptstrasse 1, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany (e-mail: peter.weygoldt@biologie.uni- freiburg.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Phrynus ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843 for a species of whip spider from Sri Lanka (family PHRYNICHIDAE) by giving it conditional precedence over the senior subjective synonyms Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 and Phalangium lunatum Pallas, 1772. The senior synonyms have confusingly been applied to various taxa.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amblypygi; PHRYNICHIDAE; Phrynichus; Phalan- gium; Phrynichus ceylonicus; Phalangium reniforme; Phalangium lunatum; whip spider; Sri Lanka.
1. Koch (1843, p. 35; pl. 336, fig. 776) described a species of whip spider (family PHRYNICHIDAE) from ‘East India and Ceylon’ on the basis of a large female specimen (holotype specimen number ZMHB 820 in the Museum ftir Naturkunde, Humboldt- Universitat Berlin) and named it Phrynus ceylonicus.
2. He was unaware that Linnaeus (1758, p. 619) had already described this species on the basis of a slightly smaller but otherwise identical female specimen that he thought was from ‘America’ and had named Phalangium reniforme. The specimen is still present in the Uppsala University Zoological Museum, where it has the specimen number 234. In addition, Pallas (1772, p. 35; pl. 3, figs. 3, 4) had also described this species and given it the name Phalangium lunatum. This means that Phrynus ceylonicus is a junior subjective synonym of both Phalangium reniforme and Phalangium lunatum. The type species of the genus Phalangium Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 918) is P. opilio Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 918) by subsequent designation by Latreille (1810, p. 425).
3. However, both the names Phalangium reniforme and P. lunatum have been used at various times by various authors in relation to neotropical and oriental species of the PHRYNIDAE and PHRYNICHIDAE Other than the species to which the names were first given by Linnaeus and Pallas (e.g. Fabricius, 1793, pp. 432-433; Lichtenstein & Herbst, 1797, pp. 71, 79; Koch, 1840, p. 12; Latreille, 1806, p. 129; Gervais, 1844, p. 5; Blanchard, 1852, p. 170; Butler, 1873, p. 118).
4. Karsch (1879, p. 197) introduced the generic name Phrynichus and designated Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. He noted that Phalangium reniforme represented a species from Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 243
5. As a result of the different usage of the name Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 and the uncertainty of the identity of the species, later authors used the name reniforme only to cite the type species of the genus Phrynichus Karsch, 1879 (e.g. Gravely, 1915a, p. 447; Simon, 1936, p. 295).
6. The name Phrynus ceylonicus (C.L. Koch), however, has been used consistently only for the large and common species from Sri Lanka (e.g. by Gervais, 1847, p. 564; Simon, 1892, p. 50; Gravely, 1915a, p. 526, 1915b, p. 449; Werner, 1935, pp. 472, 476: Millot, 1938, p. 847; Weygoldt, 1995, p. 76, 1998, p. 19, 2000, p. 37; Weygoldt & Hoffmann, 1995, p. 2). I propose that the specific name Phrynus ceylonicus that is in use for a species of whip spider from Ceylon should be given conditional precedence over the names Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 and Phalangium lunatum Pallas, 1772 (the usage of both of which has been confused) in accord with Article 81.2.3 of the Code. Commission approval will mean that if the three names are considered to be synonyms, Phrynus ceylonicus becomes the valid name.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843, as published in the binomen Phrynus ceylonicus, precedence over the names reniforme Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalangium reniforme, and Junatum Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Phalangium lunatum, whenever it and either of the other two are considered to be conspecific; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Phrynichus Karsch, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by designation
by Karsch (1879) Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758;
(b) Phalangium Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent
designation by Latreille (1810) Phalangium opilio Linnaeus, 1758;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names:
(a) ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843, as published in the binomen Phrynus ceyloni- cus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the names reniforme Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalangium reni- forme, and lunatum Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Phalangium lunatum, whenever it and either of the other two are considered to be conspecific;
(b) reniforme Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalangium reni- forme, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843, as published in the binomen Phrynus ceyloni- cus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms (specific name of the type species of Phrynichus Karsch, 1879):
(c) lunatum Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Phalangium lunatum, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843, as published in the bnomen Phrynus ceyloni- cus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(d) opilio Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalangium opilio (specific name of the type species of Phalangium Linnaeus, 1758).
— i) ~S
Acknowledgements I am grateful to Dr Thomas Jaenson, Uppsala University Zoological Museum, and to Dr Manfred Moritz, Museum fiir Naturkunde, Humboldt Universitat Berlin, for
244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
the opportunity to study the type specimens, and to Prof Dr Otto Kraus for stimulating discussions and advice. The study was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
References
Blanchard, E. 1852. L’organisation du Régne Animal, vol. 2. 232 pp., 30 pls. Blanchard, Paris.
Butler, A.G. 1873. A monographic revision of the genus Phrynus, with descriptions of four remarkable new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)12: 117-125.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2. Proft, Hafniae.
Gervais, P. 1844. Ordre II. Phrynéides. Pp. 1-6 in Walckenaer, M. (Ed.), Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Aptéres, vol. 3. viii, 476 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.
Gervais, P. 1847. Genre Phryne. Pp. 564-566 in Walckenaer, M. (Ed.), Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Aptéres, vol. 3. xvi, 623 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.
Gravely, F.H. 1915a. A revision of the Oriental subfamilies of Tarantulidae (Order Pedipalpi). Records of the Indian Museum at Calcutta, 11: 433-455.
Gravely, F.H. 1915b. Notes on the habits of Indian insects, myriapods, and arachnids. Records of the Indian Museum at Calcutta, 11: 483-539.
Karsch, F. 1879. Uber eine neue Einteilung der Tarantuliden (Phrynidae aut.). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (Berlin), 45: 187-197.
Koch, C.L. 1840. Die Arachniden. Getreu nach der Natur Abgebildet und Beschrieben, vol. 8. Nurnberg. 4
Koch, C.L. 1843. Die Arachniden. Getreu nach der Natur Abgebildet und Beschrieben, vol. 10. Nurnberg.
Latreille, P.A. 1806. Genera crustaceorum et insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, iconibus exemplisque plurimis explicata, vol. 1. xviii, 302 pp., 16 pls. Koenig, Paris.
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur lordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes: avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. 444 pp. Paris.
Lichtenstein, A.A.H. & Herbst, J.F.W. 1797. Naturgeschichte der Insekten-Gattungen So/puga und Phalangium. In: Herbst, J.F.W. (Ed.), Natursystem der Ungefliigelten Insekten, vol. 1. Lange, Berlin.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.
Martens, J. 1978. Weberknechte, Opiliones. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 64. 404 pp. Verlag, Jena.
Millot, J. 1938. L’appareil génital des Pédipalpes. Verhandlungen des 7. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Entomologie, 1938(2): 846-865.
Pallas, P.S. 1772. Spicilegia Zoologica, vol. 9. Lange, Berolini.
Simon, E. 1892. Arachnides des iles Philippines. Appendice: Remarques sur la classification des Pédipalpes de la Famille des Tarantulidae. Annales de la Societé entomologique de France, 61: 45-52.
Simon, E. 1936. Ordo Pedipalpi. In: Fage, L. & Simon, E., Arachnida II. Pedipalpi, Scorpiones, Solifuga et Araneae 1" Partie. Mission Scientifique de Omo III (Zoologie). Mémoires de le Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 4: 293-340.
Werner, F. 1935. Scorpiones, Pedipalpi. Klasse; Arachnoidea, Spinnentiere. Pedipalpen. Jn Bronns, H.G. (Ed.), Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 5, part 4, book 8. 490 pp. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig.
Weygoldt, P. 1995. The development of the Phrynichid ‘hand’: Notes on allometric growth and introduction of the new generic name Euphrynichus (Arachnida, Amblypygi). Zoolo- gischer Anzeiger, 234: 75-84.
Weygoldt, P. 1998. Revision of the species of Phrynichus Karsch, 1879 and Euphrynichus Weygoldt, 1995 (Chelicerata, Amblypygi). Zoologica, Stuttgart, 147: 1-65.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 245
Weygoldt, P. 2000. Whip spiders (Chelicerata: Amblypygi)—their biology, morphology and systematics. 163 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup.
Weygoldt, P. & Hoffmann, P. 1995. Reproductive behavior, spermatophores, and female genitalia in the whip spiders Damon diadema (Simon, 1876), Phrynichus cf. ceylonicus (C.L. Koch) and Euphrynichus alluaudi (Simon, 1936) (Chelicerata: Amblypygi). Zoolo- gischer Anzeiger, 234: 1-18.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 55: 1.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
ig Poe Phrynus ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843. Living female from Sri Lanka.
246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Case 3097
Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June)
M.L. Jameson
University of Nebraska State Museum, W436 Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0514, U.S.A. (e-mail: mjameson!@unl.edu)
H.F. Howden
Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station ‘D’, Ottawa, Canada KIP 6 P4 (e-mail: henry.howden@sympatico.ca)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 for a group of scarab beetles (family GEOTRUPIDAE) by giving it conditional precedence over the older name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. The name Bolboceras is threatened by a single usage by Krell in 1990 of the otherwise unused name Odonteus.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; GEOTRUPIDAE; Bolboceras; Odon- teus; Odontaeus; Scarabaeus mobilicornis; Scarabaeus armiger; scarab beetle.
1. Kirby, 1819 (p. 459) proposed the generic name Bo/boceras for a genus of scarab beetle (family GEoTRUPIDAE ). Although the publication in which the name Bolboceras first appeared was dated 1818, it was not published until July 1819 (see Raphael, 1970, p. 64). Kirby did not designate a type species for the genus Bolboceras, but he did state (1819, p. 461) that the “details of Bo/boceras were taken from B. quadridens’. Curtis (1829, p. 74) subsequently designated Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775 (pp. 11-12) as the type species of Bolboceras.
2 Samouelle (June 1819, p. 189) proposed the generic name Odonteus for a genus of scarab beetle (family GEoTRUPIDAE), and Scarabaeus mobilicornis Marsham, 1802 (pp. 8-9) is the type species by monotypy. This name is a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775, but is recognised as a junior synonym of Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli, 1772 (p. 78) (see Boucomont, 1912, p. 15; Howden, 1984, p. 5; Krell, 1990, p. 104). No description of the genus was provided by Samouelle. The name Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 (p. 56) is sometimes incorrectly used in place of the name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819. Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 was synonymized with the genus Bolboceras Kirby by Cartwright (1953, p. 96).
3. After initial publication, the name Odonteus was not used until it was shown by Krell (1990) to be synonymous with and to pre-date the name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819. Despite many years of worldwide usage of the name Bolboceras for many hundreds of species (e.g. Boucomont, 1912; Neave, 1940), Krell proposed that the Principle of Priority should be implemented and that the name Odonteus Samouelle should be used instead of the name Bolboceras Kirby.
4. The genus presently includes ten species in the New World and one species (the type species) in the Old World. Old World and New World species are congeneric,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 247
and one generic name should be applied to all species (see Cartwright, 1953). The genus Bolboceras is the type genus for the tribe Bolboceratini, subfamily BOLBOCERATINAE and family BOLBOCERATIDAE (referred to here as GEOTRUPIDAE). The genus has been redescribed by Wallis (1928) and by Woodruff (1973). The taxonomy and ecology of species in the genus were discussed by Howden (1955, 1964) and Woodruff (1973). If it were not for its use by Krell in 1990, the name Odonteus could be treated as a nomen oblitum under Articles 23.9.1 and 23.9.2 of the Code.
5. As the generic name Odonteus Samouelle has not been used in the primary taxonomic literature for many years, and because the name Bolboceras Kirby has been used during this period to refer to many widespread and well-known species of scarab beetles, we do not believe that Krell’s (1990) acceptance of the priority of the name Odonteus Samouelle over the name Bolboceras Kirby will best serve nomenclatural stability. It will only cause confusion.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 precedence
over the name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819, whenever the two are considered to
be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Curtis (1829) Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Scarabaeus mobilicornis Marsham, 1802 (a junior synonym of Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli, 1772), with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus mobilicornis (specific name of the type species of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819);
(b) armiger Scopoli, 1772, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus armiger (senior synonym of the specific name of Scarabaeus mobilicornis Marsham, 1802, type species of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819).
References
Boucomont, A. 1912. Coleopterorum Catalogus. Pars 46: Scarabaeidae: Taurocerastinae, Geotrupinae. Junk, Berlin.
Cartwright, O.L. 1953. Scarabaeid beetles of the genus Bradycinetulus and closely related genera in the United States. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 103: 95-120.
Curtis, J. 1829. British Entomology; being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland. . ., vol. 6. London.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalog de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean. Patis.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. 382 pp. Lipsiae.
Howden, H.F. 1955. Biology and taxonomy of North American beetles of the subfamily Geotrupinae with revisions of the genera Bolbocerosoma, Eucanthus, Geotrupes and Pel- totrupes (Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 104: 151-319.
Howden, H.F. 1964. The Geotrupinae of North and Central America. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 39: \-91.
248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Howden, H.F. 1984. A catalog of the Coleoptera of America North of Mexico. Family Scarabaeidae. Subfamily: Geotrupinae. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricul- ture Handbook, no. 529-34a: 1-17.
Kirby, W. 1819. A century of insects, including several new genera described from his cabinet. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12(2): 375-478.
Krell, F.-T. 1990. Nomenklaturische Bemerkungen zu diversen Taxa der Scarabaeoidea orb. terr. (Coleoptera). Entomologische Blatter, 86: 103-114.
Marsham, T. 1802. Entomologia britannica, sistens insecta Britanniae indigena, secundum methodum Linnaeanum disposita. London.
Neave, S.A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1, 3. Zoological Society of London, London.
Raphael, S. 1970. The publication dates of the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series I, 1791-1875. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2: 61—76.
Samouelle, G. 1819. The entomologist’s useful compendium; or an introduction to the knowledge of British insects . . . London.
Scopoli, J.A. 1772. Annus V. Historico Naturalis. 128 pp. Christ. Gottlob Hilscher, Lipsiae.
Woodruff, R.E. 1973. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas. Volume 8. The Scarab Beetles of Florida (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Part 1. The Laparosticti (Subfamilies: Scarabaeinae, Aphodiinae, Hybosorinae, Ochodaeinae, Geotrupinae, Acanthocerinae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Contribution No. 260: 1-220. Bureau of Entomology, Gainesville, Florida.
Wallis, J.B. 1928. Revision of the genus Odontaeus, Dej. (Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera). Canadian Entomologist, 60: 119-128, 151-156, 168-176.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 55: 205.
This publication was supported by NSF/PEET (DEB-9712447) to B.C. Ratcliffe and M.L. Jameson.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bolboceras armiger Scopoli, 1772. Body length 7:5 mm. Photo by Donna Naughton, Canadian Museum of Nature. j
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 249
Case 3205
Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation, and Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833
Svatopluk Bily
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha 4, Czech Republic (e-mail: sv.bily@jelly.cz)
C.L. Bellamy
Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 81.2.2 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used generic names Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 and Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 for groups of jewel beetles by suppression of Cyphonota Dejean, 1833 (the senior synonym of Cyphosoma) and by giving conditional precedence to Halecia over its senior synonym Pristiptera Dejean, 1833. The two senior names have been used only once since 1899.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Cyphosoma; Halecia; Pristiptera; jewel beetles; Palaearctic; neotropical.
1. Dejean (1833) introduced the generic names Cyphonota (p. 79) and Pristiptera (p. 78) for two groups of jewel beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE), but did not designate type species for either genus. Cyphonota contained two species: Buprestis sibirica Fabricius, 1781 and B. tatarica Pallas, 1773 ( p. 464) (see Evenhuis, 1997, p. 594 for date of publication of Pallas, 1773). Bily (2001, p. 150) subsequently designated Buprestis tatarica Pallas, 1773 as the type species of Cyphonota. Pristiptera contained four specific names. The last three of these are nomina nuda and so the first of the included names, Buprestis blanda Fabricius, 1781 (p. 276), is the type species by monotypy of Pristiptera.
2. Mannerheim (1837, p. 91) introduced Cyphosoma as a replacement name for Cyphonota Dejean, 1833 having supposed Dejean’s name to be a homonym of Cyphonotus Fischer, 1824 (family MELOLONTHIDAE). Although Mannerheim was wrong (Cyphonota and Cyphonotus are not homonyms), the name Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 has been used continuously since 1837 for a small group of eight species from the Mediterranean region. The type species of Cyphosoma is Buprestis tatarica Pallas, 1773 by designation by Bily (2001) (see Article 67.8).
3. According to the provisions of Article 23.9.1 of the Code, we have found more than 30 authors who used the name Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 in the course of
250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
the previous 50 years in more than 35 papers. With a single exception, Holynski (1993), the name Cyphonota Dejean, 1833 has not been used after 1899.
4. Laporte & Gory (1837, p. 108) introduced the generic name Halecia. Nine species were included, but no type species was designated. Lacordaire (1857, p. 23) treated Pristiptera as a synonym of Halecia and designated Buprestis blanda Fabricius, 1781 as the type species of Halecia. There are currently 90 Neotropical species placed within Halecia. We have found an uninterrupted use of Halecia by more than 10 authors in more than 25 papers since the time of Lacordaire’s (1857) synonymy of Pristiptera under Halecia. With a single exception, Holynski (1993), the name Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 has not been used after 1899.
5. Holynski (1993) used the names Cyphonota and Pristiptera and so prevented action to conserve the junior names under Article 23.9.1 of the Code. He used both names without any comment, probably without knowledge of all the circumstances and only among other names as an example of genera of the tribes Psilopterini and Chalcophorini respectively.
6. It should be noted that Buprestis blanda Fabricius is not congeneric with the widely accepted, traditional definition of Halecia. This species was considered either in Buprestis, Pristiptera or Halecia until Théry (1930) cited K.G. Blair (The Natural History Museum, London), who considered B. blanda as a synonym of Pelecops- elaphus elongatus Thomson, 1878 (p. 24). Staig (1940) provides a detailed description of this species and a color plate that confirms the opinion of Blair and Théry. Obenberger (1958) recognized the misidentification of B. blanda by Laporte & Gory, and proposed a replacement name: blandula, for the species described and figured by them.
7. To avoid the confusion that would result by overturning the traditional stability of these genera, a new type species is needed for Halecia. Of the original nine species listed under Halecia by Laporte & Gory, 1837 (pp. 108-114), four are now placed in other genera. From the remaining five species, we herewith designate Buprestis trisulcata Laporte & Gory, 1837 (p. 112) as the type species of Halecia under Article 70.3 of the Code.
8. In summary, we make this application because: (1) the names Cyphosoma and Halecia have been used continuously since 1837 in many papers by numerous authors and their respective taxonomic definition and content are clear; (11) the only usage of the names Cyphonota and Pristiptera within the last 154 years were not accompanied by any comment and were mentioned only as examples of genera included in the tribes Psilopterini and Chalcophorini respectively; and (i) the re-introduction of Cyphonota and Pristiptera would be a source of much misunderstanding and confusion among those working in applied entomology.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to suppress the name Cyphonota Dejean, 1833 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(b) to give Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 precedence over the name Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following
names:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 251
(a) Cyphosoma Mannetrheim, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species Buprestis tatarica Pallas, 1773, by subsequent designation by Bily (2001) of the replaced nominal genus Cyphonota Dejean, 1833;
(b) Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- quent designation by Bily & Bellamy in para. 7 above Buprestis trisulcata Laporte & Gory, 1837, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Pristiptera Dejean, 1833, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(c) Pristiptera Dejean, 1833, (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Buprestis blanda Fabricius, 1781, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) tatarica Pallas, 1773, as published in the binomen Buprestis tatarica (specific name of the type species of Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837);
(b) trisulcata Laporte & Gory, 1837, as published in the binomen Buprestis trisulcata (specific name of the type species of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837);
(c) blanda Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Buprestis blanda (specific name of the type species of Pristiptera Dejean, 1833);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Cyphonota Dejean, 1833, as suppressed in (1)(a) above.
References
Bily, S. 2001. Some nomenclatural changes, lectotype designations and new synonymy in Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana, 9(2): 147-156.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le comte Dejean. Livraison 1. 96 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Evenhuis, N.L. 1997. Litteratura taxonomica dipterorum (1758-1930), 2 vols. 871 pp. Backhuys, Leiden.
Fabricius, I.C. 1781. Species insectorum ..., vol. 1. 552 pp. Carol-Ernst Bohnii, Hamburgi et Kilionii.
Fischer von Waldheim, G. 1824. Entomographie de la Russie. xx, 264 pp., 40 pls. Typis Augusti Semen Typographi Acad. Caes. Medico-chir. Excusa, Mosqua.
Holynski, R. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae Leach (Coleoptera). Crystal, Series Zoologica, 1: 1-42.
Lacordaire, J.T. 1857. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléoptéres ou exposé méthodique de critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu ici dans cet ordre d’insectes, vol. 4. 554 pp. Roret, Paris.
Laporte, F.L.N. de C. & Gory, H.L. 1837. Histoire naturelle de iconographie des insectes coléoptéres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 1. Dumeril, Paris.
Mannerheim, C.G. yon. 1837. Enumeration des Buprestides, et description de quelques espéces de cette tribu de la famille des Sternoxes, de la collection de M. Le Comte Mannerheim. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 1837(8): 1-126.
Obenberger, J. 1958. Sur le groupe du genre Halecia Cast. et Gory (Col. Bupr.). O skupini rodu kolem rodu Halecia Cast. et Gory (Col. Bupr.). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 32: 191-221.
Pallas, P.S. 1773. Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reiches, vom Jahr 1771, vol. 2. Pp. 371-744. Kayserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, St. Petersburg.
Staig, R.A. 1940. The Fabrician types of Insects in the Hunterian collection at Glasgow University. Coleoptera, part 2. x, 164 pp. Cambridge.
252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Théry, A. 1930. Observations sur quelques Buprestides: du genre Halecia C. & G. et notes diverses suivies des descriptions de quelques Buprestides nouveaux. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 70(12): 289-304.
Thomson, J. 1878. Typi Buprestidarum Musaei Thomsoniani. 103 pp. Deyrolle, Paris.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 161.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Left: Buprestis tatarica Pallas, 1773. Right: Halecia trisulcata Laporte & Gory, 1837. Scale bar is 1-00 mm.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 253
Case 3214
Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828
Mario Elgueta
Seccién Entomologia, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Casilla 787, Santiago, Chile (e-mail: melgueta@mnhn.cl)
Guillermo Kuschel
7 Tropicana Drive, Mt Roskill, Auckland, New Zealand (e-mail: g.kuschel@xtra.co.nz)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834, which is in widespread use for a genus of South American weevils (family CURCULIONIDAE), by giving it precedence over the earlier name Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828, which was used as the valid name by Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal in 1999. These beetles are of considerable interest to biogeographers, and two species are pests of fruit trees.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CURCULIONIDAE; Aegorhinus; Psuchocephalus; Aegorhinus phaleratus; Curculio leprosus; weevils; Argentina; Chile; Subantarctic subregion.
1. The genus Psuchocephalus was established by Latreille (1828, p. 597) for a single species of weevil (family CURCULIONIDAE) named as Curculio leprosus Olivier, 1807 (p. 395). C. leprosus is a junior synonym of C. vitulus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 152) and the name of the type species by monotypy of the genus Psuchocephalus. This weevil is endemic to the Magellanic forest province of the Subantarctic subregion. The name Psuchocephalus was only listed once after its original publication (in an emended spelling: Psuphocephalus) by Imhoff (1856, p. 221). However, Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal (1999, p. 140) became aware of its existence and opted for its resurrection as the valid name on the grounds of priority, although they did not use it taxonomically.
2. Erichson (1834, p. 261) established the nominal genus Aegorhinus for Aegorhinus phaleratus Erichson, 1834 (p. 262), which is the type species by monotypy. This weevil is found in the Maule province of the Subantarctic subregion and in the Central Chile subregion.
3. Psuchocephalus and Aegorhinus are subjective synonyms (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999, p. 140). Following the Principle of Priority, Pswchocephalus has priority over Aegorhinus. The name Psuchocephalus is available but has never been used taxonomically (see Article 23.9.6 of the Code) since its proposal more than one and a half centuries ago (see para. | above). Consequently, it would not be in the best interest of stability if the well established name Aegorhinus were replaced with Psuchocephalus as proposed by Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal (1999). A list of 45 works (by over 35 authors) published between 1946 and 2001 using the name Aegorhinus has
254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
been presented to the Commission Secretariat (e.g. Marshall, 1946; van Emden, 1951; Caballero, 1972; Morrone & Roig-Junent, 2000; Devotto & Gerding, 2001). In Chile, the weevils included in this genus are popularly known as ‘cabritos’ (little goats) because of their peculiar appearance. These beetles are common between Central Chile and Cape Horn (a distance of 3,800 miles) and the genus includes 22 species. About half of these species are associated with the tree genus Nothofagus, the remainder with plant genera of the families Proteaceae, Winteraceae and Gunner- aceae (all associated with the biogeography of Gondwanaland). Weevils in this genus are related to genera in Australia and New Zealand, providing evidence of the ancient link between the South American and Australasian land masses. Two species are pests of fruit trees. A key to the species in this genus has been provided by Morrone & Roig-Junent (2000).
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the name Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 precedence over the name Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Aegorhinus phaleratus Erichson, 1834, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence oyer the name Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Curculio leprosus Olivier, 1807, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) phaleratus Erichson, 1834, as published in the binomen Aegorhinus phaleratus (specific name of the type species of Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834);
(b) vitulus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Curculio vitulus (senior synonym of Curculio leprosus Olivier, 1807, the specific name of the type species of Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Psuphocephalus Imhoff, 1856 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828).
References
Alonso—Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 1999. 4 world catalogue of families and genera of Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera). 315 pp. Entomopraxis, Barcelona.
Caballero, V.C. 1972. Algunos aspectos de la biologia de Aegorhinus phaleratus Erichson (Coleoptera. Curculionidae), en el duraznero de Chile. Revista Peruana de Entomologia, 15(1): 186-189.
Devotto, M.L. & Gerding, M.M.P. 2001. Plagas de los berries en la zona centrosur. Tierra Adentro (Chile), 36: 12-14.
Erichson, W.F. 1834. Coleoptera. Pp. 219-276 in Erichson, W.F. & Burmeister, H., Beitrage zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, von Dr. F.J.F. Meyen. Sechste Abhandlung. Insekten. Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino- Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum, 16(suppl.): 217-308.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 255
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae . . . 832 pp. Libraria Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae. Imhoff, L. 1856. Versuch einer Einfiihrung in das Studium der Koleopteren. xxi, 114, 272 pp. Basel. Latreille, P.A. 1828. Rhynchophores ou Port-bec. Pp. 584-603 in B. de Saint-Vincent (Ed.), Dictionnaire Classique d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 14. Rey, Gravier & Baudouin, Paris. Marshall, G.A.K. 1946. Taxonomic notes on Curculionidae (Col.). Annals & Magazine of Natural History, (11)13: 93-98.
Morrone, J.J. & Roig-Jufent, S. 2000. Synopsis and cladistics of the American Aterpini (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Cyclominae). Entomologica Scandinavica, 30: 417-434.
Olivier, A.G. 1807. Entomologie, . . . Coléoptéres, vol. 5. 612 pp. Desray, Paris.
van Emden, F.f. 1951. Description of the larva of Aegorhinus phaleratus Er. (Coleoptera Curculionidae). Revista Chilena de Entomologia, 1: 245-248.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 249.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
5mm
BER ‘02
Aegorhinus vitulus (Fabricius, 1775). Lateral view of 21 mm long female specimen from Tres Pasos, Natales, Magallanes, Chile.
256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Case 3231
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of 17 specific names
Lee H. Herman
American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. (e-mail: herman@amnh.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of 17 specific names that have been in use for many years for rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE). These names are threatened by the limited use of senior (or, in three cases, junior) synonyms. Use of the senior (or, in three cases, junior) names would cause confusion and the matter is submitted to the Commission under Article 23.9.3 of the Code. In the three cases where conservation of the senior synonym (and in one case where conservation of the junior synonym) is necessary, the names being proposed for conservation were junior primary homonyms when published. These names were replaced to prevent homonymy, but the replacement names have not been used widely. The species represented by the homonyms are now placed in different genera and have not been considered congeneric since 1899, This matter is submitted to the Commission in accord with Article 23.9.5 of the Code.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SrAPHYLINIDAE; rove beetles.
1. This paper submits, in accord with Article 23.9.3 of the Code, 14 examples of synonymy in the rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE) for action under the Commission’s plenary power to conserve the existing usage of the junior synonym. This would allow the greatest stability in the naming of these staphylinid taxa. In a further three cases, the Commission is'asked to consider conservation of the senior synonym. Conservation of the senior name is necessary here because the names being proposed for conservation were junior primary homonyms when published and as such have been replaced. However, the replacement names have not been used widely.
2. The senior and junior synonyms are presented in the form of a table (Table 1). Reference should be made to Herman (2001) for further bibliographic and nomenclatural detail, and evidence of usage, as summarised in Table 1, has been given to the Commission Secretariat. The case is presented to the Commission in accordance with Article 23.9.3 because, even though the names being proposed for conservation are the ones in prevailing usage, they do not meet the conditions of both 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2. As a result, the junior names cannot automatically be protected without a ruling from the Commission.
3. The three senior names, and one of the junior names, that are proposed for conservation were junior primary homonyms when published. The junior and senior homonyms are presented in Table 2, with reasons why their conservation is proposed. The species represented by the homonyms are now placed in different genera and have not been considered congeneric since 1899,
4.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 257
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
@
(5
) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific names in column 2 of Table 1, as originally published in binomina with the generic names indicated in column 2, should be given precedence over the specific names in column 4, whenever they are considered to be synonyms;
) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) the specific names in column 2 of Table 1, as originally published in
binomina with the generic names indicated in column 2 of Table 1, with the endorsement, as ruled in (1) above, that they are to be given precedence or priority over the names in column 4 of Table 1, as originally published in binomina with the generic names indicated in column 4 of Table 1, whenever they are considered to be synonyms;
(b) the valid specific names in column 4 of Table 1, as originally published in binomina with the generic names indicated in column 4 of Table 1, with the endorsement that they are not to be given priority or precedence over the names in column 2 of Table 1, whenever they are considered to be synonyms;
) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific names in column 2 of Table 2, as originally published in binomina with the generic names in column 5 of Table 2, are not invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of the specific names in column 4 of Table 2;
) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific names in column 4 of Table 2, as originally published in binomina with the generic names in column 5 of Table 2, except where already listed in (2)(b) above;
) to endorse the specific names in column 2 of Table 2, as originally published in binomina with the generic names in column 5 of Table 2 and placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in (2)(a) above, that they are not invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of the names in column 4 of Table 2 as ruled in (3) above.
Acknowledgements
thank the following individuals who reviewed earlier drafts of this paper and
suggested improvements: V. Assing (Hannover, Germany), A. Bordoni (Museo
Z00
logico ‘La Specola’, Firenze, Italy), G. Cuccodoro (Muséum d’Histoire
Naturelle, Geneve, Switzerland), V. Gusarov (University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kan
sas), I. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg,
Russia), A. Newton (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois), V. Puthz
(Sch
litz, Germany), M. Schiilke (Berlin, Germany), A. Smetana (Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Ontario, Canada), M. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural
Hist
ory, Chicago, Illinois), A. Zanetti (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona,
Italy) and L. Zerche (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalde, Germany).
References
Adam, L. 1995. A Janus Pannonius Muzeum holyvagtjteménye, I. (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae). A Janus Pannonius Mizeum Evkényve, 40(1994): 39-48.
258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Adam, L. 1996a. Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) of the Biikk National Park. Pp. 231-258 in Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The fauna of the Biikk National Park. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest. f
Adam, L. 1996b. The species of Staphylinidae from Orség (Coleoptera). Saravia (pars historico-naturalis), 23: 43-67.
Baudi, F. 1870. Coleopterorum messis in insula Cypro et Asia minore ab Eugenio Truqui congregatae recensitio de Europaeis notis quibusdam additis. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 13(1869): 369-418.
Block, F.L.H. von. 1799. Verzeichniss der merkwirdigsten Insecten im Plauischen Grunde. Pp. 95-120 in Becker, W.G., Der Plauische Grund bei Dresden, mit Hinsicht auf Naturgeschichte und schéne Gartenkunst, vol. 2. xii, 368 pp. Frauenholz, Nurnberg.
De Geer, C. 1774. Mémoires pour servir a U/histoire des insectes, vol. 4. xii, 457 pp. Hesselberg, Stockholm.
Erichson, W.F. 1839. Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 385-740. Morin, Berlin.
Erichson, W.F. 1840. Genera et species Staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae, vol. 1. Pp. 401-954. Morin, Berolino.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae . . . 863 pp. Kortii, Flensburgi & Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1779. Reise nach Norwegen mit Bemerkungen aus der Naturhistorie und Oekonomie. \xiv, 400 pp. Bohn, Hamburg.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum . . ., vol. 1. 348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologiae Systematicae .. ., vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafniae.
Fauvel, A. 1865. Enumération des insectes recueillis en Savoie et en Dauphine (1861-1863) et descriptions d’espéces nouvelles. Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 9: 253-321.
Fauvel, A. 1871. Faune Gallo-Rhénane ou descriptions des insectes qui habitent la France, la Belgique, la Hollande, le Luxembourg, les provinces Rhénanes et la Valais avec tableaux synoptiques et planches gravées. Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, (2)5(1869-70): 27-192.
Flori, A. 1900. Nuove specie di coleotteri. Atti della Societa dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena, (4)1: 101-112.
Geoffroy E.L. 1785. [New species]. Jn Fourcroy, A. Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 1. viti, 231 pp. Aedibus Serpentineis, Parisus.
Grayenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia .. . \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard, Brunsuigae. :
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. 248 pp. Dieterich, Gottingae. .
Gyllenhal, L. 1810. Insecta Suecica descripta, vol. 1, part 2. xx, 660 pp. Leverentz, Scaris.
Herman, L.H. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.
Heer, O. 1839. Fauna coleopterorum Helvetica, vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 145-360. Orelii, Fuesslini et Sociorum, Turici.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Mannerheim, C.G. yon. 1830. Précis d'un nouvel arrangement de la famille des brachélytres de Vordre des insectes coléoptéres. 87 pp. St. Petersbourg.
Mannerheim, C.G. von. 1843. Beitrag zur Kaefer-Fauna der Aleutischen Inseln, der Insel Sitkha und Neu-Californiens. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 16(2): 175-314.
Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica . . ., vol. 1. xxxi, 548 pp. White, Londini.
Motschulsky, V. 1857, 1860. Enumération des nouvelles espéces de coléoptéres rapportées de ses voyages. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, (1857) 30(2): 490-517; (1860) 33(2): 539-588.
Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina, sive methodica descriptio insectorum agri Fridrichsdalensis . . . xxiv, 96 pp. Gleditschii, Hafniae & Lipsiae.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 259
Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige- narum characteres . . . 314 pp. Hallageriis, Havniae.
Nordmann, A. von. 1837. Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum. 167 pp. Academiae Caesareae Scientiarum, Petropoli.
Olivier, A.G. 1795. Entomologie ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes . .. Coléoptéres. 3, genera no. 35-65. 557 pp. Lanneau, Paris.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1795. Entomologia germanica . . . I. Eleuterata. 392 pp. Felsecker, Normibergae.
Paykull, G. de. 1789. Monographia Staphylinorum Sueciae. 89 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.
Paykull, G. de. 1792. Monographia Curculionum Suecia. 159 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.
Paykull, G. de. 1800. Fauna Suecica. Insecta, vol. 3. 459 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.
Peyron, E. 1858. Catalogue des Coléoptéres des environs de Tarsous (Caramanie), avec la description des espéces nouvelles. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)6: 353-434.
Runde, G.H. 1835. Brachelytrorum species Agri Halensis. 38 pp. Ploetzianis, Halae.
Say, T. 1830. Descriptions of new species of North American insects, and observations on some already described. 41 pp. Say, Indiana.
Stephens, J.F. 1832, 1833, 1834. Illustrations of British entomology . . . Mandibulata, vol. 5. Pp. 1-240 (1832); pp. 241-304 (1833); pp. 305-368 (1834). Baldwin & Cradock, London.
Strém, H. 1768. Beskribelse over Norske Insecter. Det Kongelige Norske Bidenskabers Selskabs Skrifter, 4: 313-371.
Tottenham, C.E. Some notes on the nomenclature of the Staphylinidae (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)8: 224-237.
Waltl, J. 1838. Beitrage zur nahern naturhistorischen Kenntnis des Unterdonaukreises in Bayern. Pp. 250-273 in Oken, L., Isis, encyclopddische Zeitschrift, vorztiglich fiir Naturgeschichte, vergleichende Anatomie und Physiologie. Brockhaus, Leipzig.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
260
QSL] ‘snevuury snuydydnig snuos dy} Ul paqiiosap AT[euIsIIO sa1sadg
TL6€¢ 2pnty (uunqt}qo
Jopun ‘s‘f ay] Jo uoNda}01d uauIOU =) 68/] IDUIS pasn udaq 10u LOLI ‘Alone vaaisaT snuos onewojne Sunudasgid sey syjoosnsup “py Jo “S's Jayjour (sz ‘d 24} Ul paqiiosap AT[BUIsIIO sarsadg ‘SOO61 Alive au) Ur pI[RA “pLL] “199D 9q) snajnf snspydoylup *Z (snaynf “PV SP Pa}IO SBM ‘| “S'S JOAQMOY SSL] ‘snavuury snqnund 0} UONPIAI UI WNjoa}01d UatOU =) ‘s1BaX ()¢ SP] OY) JOAO s1OyINe snuds dy} UI paquiosoep A][BUISIIO saIoadg (9g “d ‘Qggy] ‘wrayrouury) ¢z Aq suonvorqnd (¢ ise] (€9z ‘d “6LLI syjoasnsup snspydoyup
7@ Ul plea sev paylo useq sey sf ‘snloliqe{) smypidaqqn snspydoyjup ‘| vissny ‘edoing AVNITIVWO ApTuByqng (é
(uoneoruntuuos jeuosiad ‘zyind “A) AuiAuouds Many
(z6z “d) EEgt ‘suaydars sz1aop Snualg§ YIM dyIdadsuod si “Z C16 EC PMV’
Jaopun pajoajoid aq youURd 1 Os ‘(sivak (¢ ISP] 24} UI sIOYINe g &q suonroygnd ¢] Ajuo)
saioads payio ATUOUTUIOS B JOU (11s ‘d) LSst , si ‘s‘f 94} Ing ‘sIvdk GZ] IOAO ‘AYS[NYOSIO|] SMJYjNIAAqgnIIg SNUAIS *TZ IO} pasn usaq 10U SPY ‘S's “| (L6¢ 4) OL8I ‘Ipneg snoypj1 snuaig “| PIUDAOTS ‘aouvIy ‘ATI ‘BLIesTyY (07 “d) [LEI ‘[aaney taqvas snuaig I AVNINALS ATIWByqns (¢ uwunyoo) (p wuINjOd) (€ wuINyoo) (Z uwnyos) ({ wuinyjoo) SaJON] aouapaseid 10 Ajtio1id suAuouds 34) Aq 0} patiojor uOeAIISUOD 10} pasodo.id (pa}ej}s ‘ON UDAIS aq 0} JOU pasodold (pajE}s saidads yo uonNqLysIp J1Yyde1s005) asIMJoyjO ssojun Jorunt) wAUOUAS
ISIMJOYIO SSayuN JOIUaS) (s)uIAUOUAS
wAuowoy Areunid 101un{—y'd‘f
wiAuouds 10o1un{[—'s‘f
wAuouAs IoIuas—'s’s
“Q1q¥} OY} UIYIIM ATWO soURAQIaI DALY WAY} 01 pardde siaquinu ay} pue sarMMUejqns UIYyIM Jepio [eonaqeydye ul pasuvise s1v souleN “AGA
“UONPULIOJUI JOYIO YIM “UONPAIAsUOD J0J pasodoid are yey] (suIAUOUAS) souteU oyIoads /] “T aAIqe 1.
261
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
IEW OG SOUBNY
Japun ‘sf ay Jo uonsa}01d dyeWO}Ne Suusrdid (/p ‘d ‘q9661 :6€7 “4 ‘vo661) WepYy Aq pasn uaaq sey ‘s’s 3nq ‘s1vak 0S ISP] Ay} JaAO suoNvorgqnd
6¢ Ul SIOYINR [Z jsKd|
qe Aq plea se payto uaaq sey ‘sf
(Z sarsads *Z ajqu iL
aes) (Lez “d “vg661) Wepy
Aq ‘s‘f a0e][da1 0} pasn sem USM “9661 PUP E81 UsaMJ0q PI[PAUL ParapIsuod seBM ss
s1Bak ()¢
JS] OY} JOAO suoNRoqnd
pe Ul SIOYING /Z ISeo]
ye Aq plea sev pazlo usaq sey ‘sf
({ saroads ‘Zz aqey, a9s) Zhe “dd ‘peg ‘susydajg auuadisuoy uniqoyjup jo “yd e st “s's ayy asneseq ‘(Tp “d S661) Wepy Aq ‘S'S 10} aureu juouaoeR]doi B se pasn uaaq sey ‘sf ing ‘sivok 0S Ise] AY] I9A0 suoNKRoTqnd ST Ul sIOYINK ZZ JSRa] 1B
Aq pl[RA Se poyid uaaq sey ‘s’s
(¢ uunyoo) Sa}0N]
ZOST “JIOYUSARIH snspydoyjup snuas oy} Ul paqiiosap A]jeulsi10 satoadg (997 ‘d ‘gest ‘WBA\) Psojjia DAalsaT
ZOST “IOYUOARIH wnyjpUCE
snuas oy} Ul paqiiosap A]]euIsIIO satoadg (g satoads *[ aIqv, 29s) (SIZ “d ‘9081 YsIOYUSARIO)) wnarnisay unsajpydsng
wAuouds so1unf =
ZOST “ISIOYWSARID Winl/ DUCE
snuos ay} Ul paquiosap AT]eUIsIIO salsadg (pst “d
“6E81 ‘1a9H) Uffoyun wnsajoydsny
(p uuNTOS) aouapaseid 10 Ajtdo1id UDAIS aq 0} JOU pasodo.id (pa}E}s ASIMJOYJO SSajUN JOIUAS) (S)WIAUOUAS
Aayiny, ‘adoing
oNOIvAR]R_ W1OISO\\
adoing
(g19 d) 6E8] “UosysIg vinjound DaajsaT
ZOST “IS1OYUaARID wWiNIjYUIC. snus
2Y} Ul paquiosap AT[eUIsIIO salsadg (90c ‘4 ‘O81 ‘yeyUa[AD) 19.108 wnsajpydsng
wiAuouds JoTuas =
61ST ‘yoray wnigoyjup snuas
dy} Ul paquiosap AT[BUIsIIO salsadg (0r9 4 “EST
‘uosyoliq) auuadisuo) uinsaypydsngq
(¢ uuNyoo) suiAuouds ay} Aq 0} pasiojor saideds Jo uoyNqiysip d1y4dv.1s005
(Z uunyjoo) uoHRAIISUOD 10} pasodo.id (pa}e}s ASTMJOYIO SsayuN Jo1UNL) wWAUOUAS
vay
(| wumnyjoo)
panunuoy “T aqeL
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
a
9061 Ul OLUeU PI[RA SP pasn SRA ‘S's
(Zz soroads
‘TZ aqv Sp saroads ‘| aqv 29S) (QO8] ‘ISIOYUSARID) UNAIDS] wnsajoydsng
jo yd e st se (gez d 29661) wepy Aq (06 “4 ‘0061 “T1O[Y) SNuav0lajay Ssnuodpoj Ay YM paorydas jun sivok ~¢ JSP] AY) 190A suOTRoI|qnd
[¢€ Ul sIOyINe 97 ISRO]
ye kq plea se paqio uaaq sey ‘sf
TT 6@€¢ enV
Jopun ‘s'f ay) Jo uonsa}01d oBUO IN SuNusAsid
(sez d ‘eg661) wepy Aq
pasn uaaq sey ‘s’s Inq ‘sivak QS js] AY} JOAO suONvoqnd
€€ Ul sIOYINe YE ISRO]
1e Aq plea se poyo usaq sey ‘sf
ICV tee CIB EAN/
Japun ‘sf ay} Jo uonsa}01d oneuojne sunusasid
(sez ‘d ‘v9661) wepy 4q
pasn usaq sey ‘S's jng ‘sivok QS }SP] 94) IOAO suoNRorqnd
pS Ul SIOYINE Lp ISP]
ye Aq pl[eA sv poyio usaq svy sf
ZOS] “SIOYUoARIDH wWNDUC
snuas oy} Ul paqiiosap Al[euIsi10 saloadg (90z 4 ‘9081
\SIOYUOARIO) snapusdd snuioipojcLX
QSL ‘snovuury snuydydnig
snuas ay} Ul paquiosap AT[eulsi10 saisadg (€tp “d
“gc ] ‘snavuuly) sadianpyf pqisoa0jyd
BCL] ‘snovuury snudydnig snuas oy} Ul paquiosap Aj[VUIsII0 soloadsg
(L6 4 ‘OLLI “IAQ ‘O) 40s8un2 wunyoUCE
‘Aoyin yp “WAsgq ‘viies;y ‘edoing
ZOSI ‘ISLOYUIARIH WNIDUG snues oY} Ul paqiiosap A[[euIst10 so1oadg
(S88 d ‘Orsi
AoyIny, “eissny ‘adoing ‘uOsyoIq) snaanisay snuodpojAy
BSL] ‘snevuury snupdydpjig snuss
ay} Ul paquiosap Aj[eulsi1o0 saroads
, (spl
uvdey ‘vissny ‘adoinq = “ZL “[[nyAVq) vunjd vqusoaojyd
QSL] ‘snaeuury snudydvjig snues ay} UL paquiosap Aj[euIsi10 soroads (s9 ‘d
“6QL1 ‘TnyAeg) aunjnals winjDUICE)
OTOIBIN,
(¢ wuInjoo) SO}0N
(p~ UNOS) aouapadaid 10 Aqtio1id UAAIS 9q 0} JOU pasodo.d (pa}e}s ASIMJOYJO SsayuN J0IUaS) (s)uIAUOUAS
(¢ UUN[OS) (7 uumNyoo)
suiXuouds oy} Aq 0} patioja. satsads yo uoyNqiysip s1ydv1s005)
uoneAJgsuod 10} pasodo.id (pajzejs asIMsayjo ssajun Jorunf) wAuoUKg
({ wumnyos) ‘ON
EEE
‘panunuoy “Tf qe L
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
TT6€¢ 2n1V
Japun ‘sf ay} Jo uonsa}01d onewuoyne surusacid
(6¢c “d ‘e9661) WePY 4q
pasn usaq sey ‘s’s Ing ‘sivak YC JSP] 94} JOAO suoNvoqnd
Sp Ul sIOYINe CE ISRO]
ye Aq plea se payio uaaq sey ‘sf
TT6€? 9phty
Jopun ‘s‘f ay} Jo worsa}01d oneuojne SunusAeid
(ore “d ‘e9661) Wepy 4q
pasn ueaq sey ‘s’s ng ‘sivak YS JSP] 94} IOAO suOTeoT[gnd
€S Ul SIOYING Gp ISP9|
ye Aq plea se payio uaaq sey sf
GOGO OUEN
Jopun wornoajoid
Ss} Buuoaaid ‘s1e9k (S
JSP] 94} IOAO suONvoqnd Z] ur sroyine 6 ATU Aq
paqo yng UoNdiosap s}I sours A[snonunuos pasn useq sey ‘sf ‘pasn udaq JaAou sey AjaAMoayyo pure ZLg] aurs wiAuoUAs PI]PAUI UR Udaq SPY ’s’s
PEST ‘suaydarg snunosgo snumjadiny
(9ze “d) ONOIBIL[B
QSL] ‘snevuury snuycydvig snued ay) ul paquiosap Ayjeursi10 sotsedg
(egg “d ‘g9L] ‘wIoNS) snips snjdjoupy
(1ép A) ggg] ‘uo1heg adojijun snipalg
purlesz MON ‘oNoIR]OH
OTJIIVIL[ Pq UTOISIA
Oe8I
‘WoyIouURYy Snaojydoso1y snues dq} Ul paqiiosap Ayjeursi10 saisadg (cs ‘d “0981
“KYS[NYOSIOY]) SLIDjNALA snwUpadAdD
(p sarsads *Z age, 29s)
BSL] ‘snavuury snupdydvig snuas dy} Ul paquiosap A]jeuIsi1o saisadg (L974
‘SLL ‘smioliqe{) snsosn. snjdjoup
(60¢ °4) SORT ‘OAnR Is/JavIs snipalg AVNITALAXO ATTURIQNS
(¢ uuwMyod) S9}ON
(p WuwINyos)
aouapuasaid pue Ay1W011d UdAIs 9q 0} Jou pasodo.d (pa}e}s
(€ utunjos) swiAuouds ay) Aq 0} patiojor saiads yo uoynqiysip s1ydess0a
ASIMAIYJO SsafuN JOIUaS) (S)WIAUOUAS 2 ee eS en eee
‘panunuod ‘fT qe
(Z uunjoo) uORAJasUOD 10J pasodo.d (pa}ejs aSIMJayjo ssajun so1unf) wAUOUAS
Il
Ol
6
(7 uuwmyos)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
264
EV opte(e SI OUENY
Jopun ‘s*f ay} Jo uonsajoid onewone sunusreid
(Lec d “v9661) wepy <q
pasn ueaq sey ‘s’s yng ‘sivak ()¢ }S¥] 94) IOAO suONRoqnd
LZ UWI sIOYINK ZZ SRI]
ye Aq plRA se pajio uaeq sey ‘sf
TT Ged 2o02V
Jopun ‘sf ay} Jo uonsa}01d onevuUoine Sunusscid
(rrz “d ‘e9661) WepYy Aq
pasn uaaq sey ‘s’s yng ‘s1RaX ()¢ JSP] OY} IOAO suONvognd
O€ UI SIOYINK TE ISRO]
ye Aq plea sev payio uaaq svy s'f
TT 6 €¢ 204V
Japun ‘sf ay) Jo uonoa}01d oneuoine Sunusrcid
(orc d ‘e9661) Wepy {q
pasn ueeq sey ‘ss Inq ‘sIvak (—¢ JSP] ay} IOAO suONvorgnd
Op Ul s1OYyINR CZ SRI]
ye Aq plea se payio usaq sey ‘s'f
QSL] ‘snevuury snuydydpig snuos
ay} Ul paqiiosap A]jBuIsI1oO saioads yOg (uinjI[go
udUIOU =) PPR] SUIS pasn usaq JOU sey snipisnjd ‘OG Jo ‘s's rayjour (99] “d “SgL] ‘Aoayoan) sniaidoanjf snipan@ °Z (g6 d
‘OLLI “JOIN (O) 42qn)8 snipan© *|
QSL] ‘snovuury snuydydnig snuasd ay} Ur paqiiosap A]jeursi1o0 satsadg (ez d “pOLT “IOTINIW (O) 4ad1u snyjuopiyg
BSL] ‘snevuury snuidydpis
snuas ay} Ul paqiiosop AT[BUuIsiI0 saroads (L6 ‘d
‘OLLI “IO[QIN ‘O) Supsjauad snddoQ
o191R [OH]
onorvaryed
dJO1vAR[e
(sniajdoanyf ‘G 0} uonryar ut
winqjoajo1d uowiou =) [Ez “d ‘epg
“‘UnayIouURy snipIsDjd snipanO, val
BSL] ‘snovuury snudydpjig snuss
dU} Ul paqiiosap AT[BUIsIIO saisadg
(€zs “4 “€6LI ‘snioliqe.y) suapuajds snyjuopiy dg. €l
QSL] ‘snevuury snupdydpjg snuas
ay} Ul paqiiosap A][PUIsIIO sotoods
(igs ‘d “€6L1 ‘snioiqe..) sruuadiaid snddoQ ZI AVNINITAHAVLS ATWuByqNS
(¢ wuMyos) Soj}0N
(~ uuNyoo) aouapasa.id 10 Ajtiorid UDAIS aq 0} Jou pasodo.d (paje}s ISIMIIYJO Ssafun s0TUas) (s)wWAUOUAS
(¢ uUINyos) suiAuouds oy} Aq 0} patiojot saiseds Jo uoNGLysIp d1ydeis0a5)
(Z wuinjoo) UOHvAIISUOD 10} pasodo.d (pajzej}s asIMJayjo ssayun Jorun!) wAUOUAS
(7 wuInyoo) ‘ON
ee
‘panunuoy “T eqeL
265
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
(p soroads ‘Zz afquy, aas) (Ege “d *99/,] ‘WIOI}S) snIDLUS snjdjoup
jo yd e st css ayy se (gpz d
“eg 661) wepy Aq ‘sf YIM pasejdar SBM jNQ ‘sIv9A IG SPT DY} DAO suoneorqnd ¢z ur sioyyne Cz seo] 1e Aq plyeA se payio uaaq sey ‘s's
(¢ soroads
‘TZ AqeRL eas) (Oz “d “L8LT ‘smioliqe4) snpisjnf sniajdoinpy) jo wd e st s's aya se (Lez d ‘6€61) WeyuonoL Aq | ‘sf YIM poorydor sem jnq ‘svat ()¢ JSP] 94} IOAO suONeor[gnd
Cp Ul sIOYINe TE ISRO] 1B
Aq pl[BA se payid usaq sey ‘s’s
TT6'¢ 2hty
Jopun ‘sf ay} Jo uonsa}01d onewmoine sulusaoid
(Lpc “d ‘e9661) wepy hq
pasn usaq sey ‘s's yng ‘sieak Ys JSP] OY} IdAO suoneorqnd
ZTE Ul sIOYINE HZ SPE]
ye hq plea se pojio uaaq sey ‘s‘f
(¢ uuInjoo) S9}0N]
wAuouds 1o1unf = QSL] ‘snovuury snudydnig snuos oy} Ul paqiiosap AyTeuIsiIO soroadg
(soe “d “‘OOST ‘[[RyAvd) suwjnsuy siopydivy
suiduouds 1o1unl =
QSL ‘snovuury snuydydvig snuas
OY} Ul poquiosap A][BUISIIO 19M p 2 € ‘TZ satoads ‘6z7g] ‘suaydairg snyjuopiyg snues dy} Ul paqliosep AT[eUIsIIO sem | satloads 1000 Ul eAoge ||
0} UONRIAI UT WN{I]GO UdtOU B porepap SBM OLUPU SIL 668] SUIS (966)
Ul) 99U0 ATUO OWUeU PI[RA B SP paqID “COLL “4 ‘66L1 ‘Y9O1q) Stuuadiosnf{ 6 “p 668] GUIS SOW] Maj B OLUVU PI[RA vB SB pawn “(ce d ‘gest ‘Avs) snpunop.n “GO *¢ (s1eoA JUd9AI Ul PI]RAUI
se poyo snpisjnf ‘OG yy AuwtAuouAs) (Z1S d ‘ZOg] ‘weysiepy) sisunqyns “O °Z (gL ‘d
‘LEQ “UURUIPION) szjiuissp snipan@ °|
BSL] ‘snevuury snuydydnig snus dy} Ul paqiiosap AT[PRUISIIO satoadg
(177 “4 ‘L8LI ‘sntolige) spun snipan@
oosd0.10 py ‘odoing
OPIMPLIOM.
adoing
(p WuINyoOS) aouapaz01d 10 Ajtio1id UdAIS aq 0} Jou pasodo.d (pa}e}s ISIMIIYJO SSafUN 1OIUaS) (s)WIAUOUAS
(¢ uuINyoo) suiduouds 94} Aq 0} pa.iojor saisads Jo uoNGLysIp s1ydvis005
‘panunuoD *T qeL
wAuouds Io1uas =
QSL] ‘snovuury snuydydpig snuas dy} Ul paqiiosap AT[BUIsIIO sarsadg (gz ‘d ‘tp snuos
“COLI “IOIAYO) snipi4as SlopydipD
LI
AVNIOAAHOVL ApURyqns
wiAuouAs Ioluas =
QSL] ‘snovuury snuydydpig snuos ay} Ul paqiiosap AyjeuIsi10 sarsads (szs d
“E6L] ‘smioliqey) snpisjnf snipanO
QSL ‘snevuuryT snuydydvig snuas ay} Ul paqiiosap AT[eUIsTIO sarsadg
(os “d ‘QO8T ‘JSIOYUSARID) snj198 snipanG
(Z uwnyos) UOHLAIISUOD 10} pasodo.id (pa}e3s ASIMJayjO ssajun so1unt) wAUOUAS
oI
SI
(7 uunyoo) “ON
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
266
(¢ soroads
*T aQeL 9S) (6E8T “199H) yfoyua wnsajpydsng Ya
I poorydai pur pryeaur 7 Porepap om (Tp “d “c66T) wepy Aq uonor [nun ‘s1eaA QS ISP] ay} UI s1OYINe Zz Aq suonroygnd ¢z seg] 1” Ul plea se pays usaq sey “yt LSS eauts
PHPA sv palo jou pure (L781 ‘yeyuaT[AD) wnjpydas0.10 yjosf= ys
(cre “d) pegt ‘suaydarg
6181 “Yyoroy wniqoyjup auuadisuo] unigoyjup
(9 uunyoo) So}0NJ
(¢ utunjoo)
peqriosap A][BUISLIO YSIYAA UL snuds
(~ wUINos) (s)wAuowoy 101UaS
odoing
(¢ uwmMyoo)’ wAuowoy Jorunt ayy Aq 0} pa.siaja. saisads Jo uonngiysip s1ydvis005
(0p9 4 ‘6Egt ‘uosyorg) auuadisuo] uniajpydsnq
AVNITVWO ApUEFqNS
(Z uwunyjoo) UOHBAIISUOD JOY posodoid wAuowoy s01une
({ uumnyoo) “ON
wAuouAds Jotun - ‘s‘f wAuowoy rorunf - yf wAUOUWOY IOTUAs - “Y's “Q]GR} 94} UIYIIM ATWO DdUBAZIOI DALY WAY) O} parfdde sioquinu oy} pure saT[ULQns UIYIIM JapIO [eoNjeqeydye ul posuviie sie soueN
“APY
‘UONPULOJU! Iay}0 pue swAUOUIOY AreUTLId IOTUaS May) YIM ‘UOTRAIAsUOD 0} pasodo.d o1v yey) (suAUOWOY AreuNd sorunf) soueU oytoods Ino,y *Z aIqeL
267
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
—_— SSS
(g] soroads ‘| a[qu yi
9as) (LEX] “UUPWIpPION) SIJMLUISSD SnIpan©@
YUM 1 paovydor oym (Ez ‘d “6€61) WeYyUoNOT Aq pyeAut Pd1OpIsuOd sem nq ‘sesh OS ISP] By} UI sIOYyINe ZE Aq suoneoygnd ¢p ise] 1e Ur PIA sv pajio usaq sey ‘yt (e9¢ -d “S6LI
“IoZURq) S6L| SOUIS R.OUaS JUAaIayIp Ul pajio usaq
dAvY pur pifea se AIO\sIy SUC] B DARBY SAaWIRU YI0q
(g soroads ‘| aque aes) (ez “d “e9661) Wepy
£q (06 ‘4 “0061 “014) SNAAIOAAIOY SNULO.POLAX YA
poorjder pu sivak (¢ jsey] UI SapIAR [E Ul sIOyINY OZ ysva] 1B Aq plea se pozo ‘yf (p satoads ‘] ajqe yp aas) (907 4 ‘OrgT ‘Teyua|AD) 1qdos Unsajoydsng
aovjdar 0} (Lez “d “v9661) wepy Aq pasn sea 71 uay 9661 PUP 6E8] UdEMI0q PI[BAUI se poz seM pue (902 “4 “O1gT ‘TeyuaT[AD) 1qdos Unsajpydsngy Jo wAuouAs pl[PAul uv sI “Y's
SSL] ‘Snovuury snuydydnig
TOSI “JSIOYUSARID tun] DUC,
(Oze ‘d “L821 ‘snioriqe.4) snpisjnf sniajdoanvy)
(gIz ‘d ‘9081 As1oyuoarin) UNAIDISA] uinsajpydsngq
APIMPHOAA
Aoyiny, ‘eissny ‘adoing
(stg “d ‘g6LT ‘smiorsqe4) snpisjnf snipan@ AVNINITAHAVLS ATTURyqns
(¢gg ‘d ‘Opg] ‘uosyorsg) SNAIDISA] SNULO.APO]AY
(9 uuwMyos) Sa}0N]
(¢ uumnyoo) poquiosep
(p Wunyoo) (s)wiAuou0y 1019
(€ utuNyoo) wAuowoy Jorn
(Z uwmnyoo) UOIBAIISUOD 10}
a
(] uuMyoo) “ON
ay) Aq 0} passojo. saivads pesodoid wAuowoy Jone jo uoHNGLySIp d1ydv1s0905
——— eee
panuyuoy °Z a1qeL,
AyTeuIstI0 YOTYA UL snuasy
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
268
(| saroads *] a[qR 1 298) (OOST ‘WyAeg) stwwynsuv s1opydipy YAIA yt paoeyido1 pure ply]PAUI qI porejoap
om (PZ “d “eg66T) WePYy Aq wonor [Wun sivak (¢ \SB] OY} Ul sIOyINe Cz Aq suonroygnd ¢z ysea] 1e Ul plyea sev pajzio usaq sey “yf (Q] saroads
*T age 9as) (Loz “4 “SLLI ‘smoLiqe-{) susosns snjdjoupy JO "S'S SB pasn uaaq sey ‘Y's
QSL] ‘snevuury snuydydnig
(gee “d “39L1
‘WONS) sMDLIS snpdjoupy
(gz «d ‘Th snUas “S6L] “IOIATIO) SHIDIAIS siopyd.iwy v
» = ODD01O/ 3 AVNIMOdAHOVL AyIWeyqnS
(9 uwnyjoo) S2}0N)
(¢ wunjoo) poqiiosop A][BUIsIIO YOY UT snua+
(;, UuNToOS) (s)wiAUOWOY 101Uag
(Z uwmnjos) ({ uunyjoo) UOHBAIISUOD IOJ “ON posodoid wAuowoy Jone
(¢ wuINyoo) wAuowoy Jo1unt ay} Aq 0} patlojos sotsads jo uoHNgLysip s1ydvis005
penunuoy *Z qe
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 269
Case 3221
Opomyza Fallén, 1820 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758
Jan Willem A. van Zuijlen
Meyerijplein 6, NL-5144 CK Waalwijk, The Netherlands (e-mail: janwillem.vanzuijlen@atosorigin.com)
Paul L. Th. Beuk
Zoological Museum, Section of Entomology, Plantage Middenlaan 64, NL-1018 DH Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: paul.beuk@hccnet.nl)
Emilia P. Nartshuk
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia (e-mail: chlorops@zin.ru)
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accepted understanding and usage of the generic name Opomyza Fallén, 1820 for a group of flies (family OPOMYZIDAE) by designating, under Article 75.6 of the Code, a neotype for its type species Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758. The application also refers to other nomenclatural acts carried out under the Code in relation to the the genera Balioptera Loew, 1864, Geomyza Fallén, 1810 and Palloptera Fallén, 1820.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; OpOMYZIDAE; Opomyza; Balioptera; Geomyza; Palloptera; Opomyza germinationis; flies; Holarctic.
1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 600) proposed the name Musca germinationis for a species of fly currently known as Palloptera umbellatarum (Fabricius, 1775, p. 785) (family PALLOPTERIDAE). Palloptera umbellatarum (Fabricius, 1775) is thus an invalid name as it is a junior subjective synonym of Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758.
2. Linnaeus (1767, p. 996) proposed the name Musca combinata for specimens of a fly currently known as Opomyza germinationis (Linnaeus, 1758) (family OPOMYZI- DAE). Cogan & Dear (1975, p. 177) and the current authors have studied the type material of Musca germinationis and Musca combinata. These studies have indicated that authors subsequent to Linnaeus have confused these two names and also incorrectly applied them to species other than those intended by Linnaeus.
3. Fallén (1810, p. 18) erected the genus Geomyza to accommodate the single species Musca combinata Linnaeus, 1767, thus making it the type species by monotypy. Our examination of the type material of Musca combinata and the material of Geomyza combinata sensu Fallén revealed that the two species are not conspecific. Geomyza combinata sensu Fallén, 1810 is in fact the species known as Geomyza hackmani
270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Nartshuk, 1984 (p. 57). Since the type species of the genus Geomyza (Musca combinata Linnaeus, 1767) was misidentified and fixation of the species actually involved as the type species serves stability, Geomyza hackmani Nartshuk, 1984 is herewith designated as the type species of the genus Geomyza in accordance with Article 70.3.2 of the Code and no action by the Commission is necessary.
4. Loew (1864, p. 347), overlooking the publication by Fallén (1810) (see para. 3 above), erected the genus Balioptera to accommodate the species Musca combinata Linnaeus, 1767, Opomyza apicalis Meigen, 1830 and six other species. Coquillett (1910, p. 513) designated Musca combinata Linnaeus, 1767, the first species mentioned by Loew, as the type species of Balioptera. In Loew’s opinion the description of Musca combinata Linnaeus, 1767 could not apply to Balioptera combinata as he interpreted it, even with some freedom of interpretation of the original description (Loew, 1864, p. 352). Since he could not indicate another species to which the Linnaean description might apply he retained the Linnaean name for this species even though he suspected that a misidentification was involved. Examination of Balioptera combinata from Loew’s collection revealed that he had composite type material and that two nominal species currently known as Geomyza balachowskyi Mesnil, 1934 and Geomyza martineki Drake, 1992 respectively are actually involved. According to Article 67.2.5, Musca combinata is deemed not to be originally included since it was doubtfully included. Therefore the designation of Musca combinata as the type.species of the genus Balioptera is invalid. The second included species, Opomyza apicalis Meigen, 1830 (p. 109), is herewith designated under Article 70.3.2 of the Code as the type species of the genus Balioptera Loew, 1864 and no action by the Commission is necessary.
5. Fallén (1820b, p. 23) erected the genus Palloptera to accommodate the species Musca gangraenosa Panzer, 1798, Musca arcuata Fabricius, 1781 and the new nominal species P. marginella and P. ustulata. Westwood (1840, p. 150) designated M. umbellatarum Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of the genus Palloptera. Since M. umbellatarum was not originally included in the genus Palloptera by Fallen, this type designation is invalid (Article 67.2). Czerny (1934, p. 28) listed Palloptera ustulata Fallén, 1820 as the type species of the genus Palloptera and thereby validly designated the type species.
6. Fallén (1820a, p. 10) erected the genus -Opomyza to accommodate Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758 and two other species. Westwood (1840, p. 152) subsequently designated Musca germinationis as the type species of the genus Opomyza. However, again our examination of the type material of Musca germinationis and the material of Opomyza germinationis sensu Fallén, 1820a revealed that the two species are not conspecific. Opomyza germinationis sensu Fallén, 1820 is in fact the species that was originally named Musca combinata by Linnaeus in 1767.
7. To conserve prevailing usage of the name O. germinationis and the current meaning of the generic name Opomyza, we propose designation of a neotype for Musca germinationis that is conspecific with Opomyza germinationis sensu Fallén, 1820 (see Article 75.6). This would also allow the name M. umbellatarum Fabricius, 1775 (a junior subjective synonym of Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758) to be used for the species currently known as Palloptera umbellatarum (Fabricius, 1775).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 271
8. In Fallén’s opomyzid collection (which is deposited im the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm) there are two specimens (a male and a female) of Opomyza germinationis sensu Fallén, 1810 with accompanying labels. The male specimen with an accompanying label reading ‘Opomyza germinationis 3 2.7 is here considered to be the most suitable for designation as a neotype. The probable original type locality (Sweden) of this nominal species would thereby be retained. A summary of the names and nomenclatural acts involved in this application is provided in Table 1.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate the specimen labelled ‘Opomyza germinationis 3 2.7 in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, as the neotype:
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Opomyza Fallén, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Westwood (1840) Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name germinationis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca germinationis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of Opomyza Fallén, 1820).
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof L. Holthuis, Prof V. Trjapitzin, Prof I. Kerzhner and Dr V. Martinek for their advice and comments concerning this application, and Dr M. Fitton for allowing the second author to study the material of the Linnaean collection. We are grateful to Dr H.J.G. Meuffels for translating original Latin descriptions. E. Nartshuk received financial support for this work from R.F.F.I. (Codes 00-15-97826 and 02—04-48588).
References
Cogan, B.H. & Dear, J.P. 1975. Additions and corrections to the list of British acalypterate Diptera. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 110: 173-181.
Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type species of North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647.
Czerny, L. 1934. Lonchaeidae. Pp. 1-40 in E.R. Lindner (Ed.), Die Fliegen der paldarktischen Region, vol. 6, part 43.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species a diectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. 32, 832 pp. Korte, Flensburgi et Lipsiae.
Fallén, C.F. 1810. Specimen entomologicum novam Diptera disponendi methodum exhibens. 26 pp. Berling, Lundiae.
Fallén, C.F. 1820a. Opomyzides Sveciae. 12 pp. Berling, Lundiae
Fallén, C.F. 1820b. Ortalides Sveciae. 34 pp. Berling, Lundiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12. 1327 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Loew, H. 1864. Die Arten der Gattung Balioptera. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 8: 347-356.
Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibungen der bekannteneuropaischen zweiflugeligen Insekten, 6: 1-401.
272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Nartshuk, E.P. 1984. Flies of Bolshoi Beresovy Island associated with grasses, with description of a new species of the family Opomyzidae. Trudy zoologicheskogo instituta. Akademii nauk SSSR. Leningrad, 123: 51-59. [In Russian].
Westwood, J.O. 1840. Synopsis of British insects. Pp. 1-158 in: An introduction to the modern classification of insects ... Longman, London.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 1.
Table 1. Summary of names and nomenclatural acts in Case 3221
Name of taxon
actually Name of type designated as Nomenclatural Genus species type species problem Solution Geomyza Musca combinata Geomyza Misidentified Geomyza hackmani Fallén, 1810 Linnaeus, 1767 hackmani type species designated (under Nartshuk, 1984 Article 70.3) as type species in para. 3 Opomyza Musca Musca combinata Misidentified Proposal in this Fallén, 1820 = germinationis Linnaeus, 1767 type species application (under Linnaeus, 1758 Article 75.6) to
designate a neotype for Musca germinationis
: that is conspecific with Musca combinata
Palloptera Musca Musca Invalid type species Czerny (1934) Fallen, 1820 = wnbellatarum germinationis designation (under designated a valid type Fabricius, 1775 Linnaeus, 1758 Article 67.2) species, Palloptera ustulata Fallen, 1820 Balioptera Musca combinata No valid Invalid type species Opomyza apicalis Loew, 1864 Linnaeus, 1767 designation designation as Musca Meigen, 1830 (see para. 4) combinata was designated (under
doubtfully included in Article 70.3) as type the genus (see Article species in para. 4
o 67.2.5) and probably misidentified
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 273
Case 3196
Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis Storr, 1975 (currently C. yampiensis; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation of a neotype
L.A. Smith
Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia, 6000 Australia (e-mail: smithl@echidna.id.au)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to designate a neotype for the nominal species Ctenotus yampiensis Storr, 1975. Storr inadvertently designated a specimen of C. militaris Storr, 1975 as the holotype of C. decaneurus yampiensis, thus making the subspecific name C. yampiensis a synonym of C. militaris. In accordance with Article 75.6 it is proposed that the established usage of these names should be conserved by the designation of a specimen labelled ‘type of Ctenotus yampiensis by Storr, WAM R11741, as the neotype. Ctenotus yampiensis Storr, 1975 and C. militaris Storr, 1975 are used for Western Australia skink species (family SCINCIDAE).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauria; Lacertilia; scINCIDAE; Cteno- tus; Ctenotus yampiensis; Ctenotus militaris; skinks; Western Australia.
1. Storr (1975, p. 235) established the name Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis for a skink species (family scINCIDAE) from Wotjulum, West Kimberley, Western Australia, registering three specimens in the Western Australian Museum as original type material. He noted the holotype as having registration number R11795 and the paratypes as having registration numbers R11796 and R11797. The subspecies was subsequently elevated to specific status by Storr, Smith & Johnstone (1981).
2. In re-appraising the skinks of Western Australia, Storr et al. (1981) discovered that a mistake had been made and that the specimens registered as R11795—-11797 and published as the holotype and paratypes of Storr’s (1975) subspecies Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis were actually specimens of the species that had been named C. militaris Storr, 1975 (p. 231). The holotype of Ctenotus militaris was given the WAM register number R40779. The specimen labelled ‘Type of Ctenotus yampiensis’ had actually been given the registration number WAM R11741.
3. Evidence from Storr’s original manuscript data sheets for Ctenotus specimens from Kimberley and North West Division indicates that he was aware of the error in citing the original material for C. yampiensis. Specimens R11795—11797 are bracketed and labelled “decaneurus yampiensis’ with the comment: “11740-11742 not examined’. However, Storr subsequently found these three specimens (R11740—11742), originally intended to represent C. yampiensis, and obviously added them at the bottom of the data sheet. Registration numbers R11795-11797 have been circled and labelled ‘militaris and R11740—11742 were bracketed and labelled ‘yampiensis’; similar emend- ments were made in the register. There can be no doubt that Storr was aware of his original mistake and took informal steps to clarify the identity of C. d. yampiensis to
274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
conform to his original intent. Storr et al. (1981) redescribed C. yampiensis and revised the meristic data based on the specimens Storr had originally intended to be the type series (R11740-11742) but without formally mentioning the error. 4. The nominal taxon Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis is represented by type specimens that do not fit the original description which is a composite of what even Storr recognised to be two distinct taxa (measurements derive from specimens numbers R11795—11797 and the colour from specimens R11740—11742). The name C. d. yampiensis could be interpreted as a nomen dubium or, from evidence in the original publication and data sheets, a synonym of C. militaris. Although the nominal species was recognised as ‘rare and insufficiently known’ by Cogger, Cameron, Sadlier & Eggler (1993, p. 169), Storr’s concept of C. yampiensis 1s recorded in the Australian herpetological literature (e.g. Cogger, 1979, 1983, 2000). In accordance with Article 75.6, it is proposed that the species-group name should be conserved by the designation of the specimen labelled ‘type of C. yampiensis from Wotjulum, West Kimberley, Western Australia, register number R11741, as the neotype for C. yampiensis. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Ctenotus yampiensis Storr, 1975 and to designate the specimen labelled as the ‘type of Crenotus yampiensis from Wotjulum, West Kimberley, Western Australia in the Western Australian Museum, registration number R11741, as proposed in para. 4 above, as the neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) militaris Storr, 1975, as published in the binomen Ctenotus militaris and as defined by the holotype in the Western Australian Museum, registration number R40779;
(b) yampiensis Storr, 1975, as published in the trinomen Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.
References
=
Cogger, H.G. 1979. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. 608 pp. Reed, Sydney.
Cogger, H.G. 1983. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia, Ed. 3. 660 pp. Reed, Frenchs Forest, New South Wales.
Cogger, H.G. 2000. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia, Ed. 6. 808 pp. Ralph Curtis, Sanibel Island, Florida.
Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A. & Eggler, P. 1993. The action plan for Australian reptiles. 254 pp. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Storr, G.M. 1975. The genus Ctenotus (Lacertilia, scrncipaE) in the Kimberley and North-West Divisions of Western Australia. Records of The Western Australian Museum, 3: 209-243.
Storr, G.M., Smith, L.A. & Johnstone, R.E. 1981. Lizards of Western Australia, 1. Skinks. xii, 200 pp. University of Western Australia with Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 78.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 275
Case 3219
Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 (currently Liolaemus periglacialis; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed precedence over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909
José A. Scolaro
Centro Nacional Patagénico, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Técnicas CONICET, C. Correo 69, U9120 AWC Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina (e-mail: scolaro@cenpat.edu.ar)
José M. Cei
Departamento de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto, 5800 Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, Argentina (e-mail: fvidela@lab.cricyt.edu.ar)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used specific name Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 for a Patagonian tropidurine lizard by giving it conditional precedence over the largely unused senior subjective synonym Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; TROPIDURIDAE; Liolaemus; Liolaemus periglacialis; Liolaemus hatcheri; South America; tropidurine lizards.
1. Stejneger (1909, p. 218) described a new species of tropidurine lizard (family TROPIDURIDAE) from material collected in Southern Argentina between 1896 and 1899 by J.B. Hatcher and named it Liolaemus hatcheri. Stejneger’s descriptions of the type locality and distribution of L. hatcheri are not reliable. After its initial publication, the name has only appeared in two museum check-lists (see Burt & Burt, 1930, 1933) and in a list of names by Liebermann (1939). None of these constitutes use under Article 23.9.6 of the Code. This nominal species was later erroneously synonymized with L. magellanicus (Hombron & Jacquinot, 1847) by Donoso Barros (1970), Peters & Donoso Barros (1970) and Cei (1986).
2. A redescription of the holotype of L. hatcheri was made by Etheridge (1998). Etheridge also found specimens of L. kingii Stejneger, 1909 (p. 218) and L. lineomaculatus Stejneger, 1909 (p. 218), which are species closely related to L. hatcheri, mixed in the original jars with the redescribed holotype of L. hatcheri. Little or no collection locality or ecological information about L. hatcheri is available.
3. A tropidurine lizard from the volcanic region surrounding Belgrano Lake, Santa Cruz, was described by Cei & Scolaro (1982, p. 357) and named as Vilcunia periglacialis. In 1995 (p. 20), Etheridge moved this species to the genus Liolaemus. The type locality of L. periglacialis is Estancia Lago Belgrano, 6-10 km from Belgrano Lake, 1000 m above sea level, Santa Cruz). The species has a wide distribution that corresponds to a mainly volcanic region from latitudes 47° 40’ South to 49° South, and longitudes 71° 30’ West to 72° 10’ West. L. periglacialis lives in
276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
rocky areas on sandy ground, is almost herbivorous, with a noticeable tendency to social grouping in winter (see Cei & Scolaro, 1982). Stejneger’s reports on type locality and distribution do not coincide with the peculiar biotope found for the species (see Cei, 1986).
4. With the exception of Etheridge (1998), the name L. hatcheri has not been used after its original publication. In contrast L. periglacialis, in spite of its relatively recent establishment (1982), has been widely used (e.g. Laurent, 1984, 1995; Etheridge, 1986, 1995; Cei, 1986; Vanzolini, 1986; Etheridge & de Queiroz, 1988; Reeder & Wiens, 1996; Shine, 1985; a further 20 usage references have been submitted to the Commission Secretariat). In addition, Etheridge (1998) recorded that L. hatcheri is ‘probably a senior synonym of Vilcunia periglacialis (now named Liolaemus periglacialis) .
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982, as published in the binomen Vilcunia periglacialis, precedence over the name hatcheri Stejneger, 1909, as published in the binomen Liolaemus hatcheri, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982, as published in the binomen Vilcunia
periglacialis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name hatcheri Stejneger, 1909, as published in the combination Liolaemus hatcheri, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(b) hatcheri Stejneger, 1909, as published in the combination Liolaemus hatcheri, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982, as published in the binomen Vilcunia periglacialis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr George Zug from the U.S. National Museum, Washington, for his great courtesy in providing an excellent documentation on types from the Collection under his care, and Dr Ronald Heyer, from the same Institution, for his friendly bibliographic support.
References
Burt, C.E. & Burt, M.D. 1930. The South American lizards in the collection of the U.S. National Museum. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 78(6): 52.
Burt, C.E. & Burt, M.D. 1933. A preliminary check list of the lizards of South America. Transactions of the Academy of Sciences, St Louis, 38(1): 104.
Cei, J.M. 1986. Reptiles del centro, centro-oeste y sur de la Argentina. Herpetofauna de las zonas aridas y semiaridas. Monografie IV, Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino. 527 pp-
Cei, J.M. & Scolaro, J.A. 1982. A new species of the Patagonian genus Vilcunia, with remarks on its morphology, ecology and distribution. Journal of Herpetology, 16(4): 354-363.
Donoso Barros, R. 1970. Catalogo Herpetolégico Chileno. Boletin del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile, 31; 41-124.
Etheridge, R. 1986. Iguanid lizards of the Liolaemus groups: a preliminary cladistic analysis. X Congreso Latinoamericano de Zoologia, Vinia del Mar, Chile. Restimenes, CL-129: 278.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 277
Etheridge, R. 1995. Redescription of Ctenoblepharis adspersa Tschudi, 1845, and the taxonomy of Liolaeminae (Reptilia: Squamata: Tropiduridae). American Museum of Natural History Novitates, 3142: 1-34.
Etheridge, R. 1998. Redescription and status of Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger 1909 (Reptilia: Squamata: Tropiduridae). Cuadernos de Herpetologia AHA, Tucuman, 12(1): 31-36. Etheridge, R. & de Queiroz, K. 1988. Iguanid phylogeny. P. 631 in Estes, R. & Pregill, G. (Eds.),
Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families. Stanford University Press, California.
Laurent, R.F. 1984. On some iguanid genera related to or previously confused with Liolaemus Wiegmann. Journal of Herpetology, 18(4): 357-373.
Laurent, R.F. 1995. Segunda contribucion al conocimiento de la estructura taxonomica del género Liolaemus (Reptilia: Squamata: Tropiduridae). Cuadernos de Herpetologia AHA, 1(6): 1-37.
Liebermann, J. 1939. Catalogo sistematico y zoogeografico de los lacertilidos argentinos. Physis, 16(48): 61-82.
Peters, J.A. & Donoso Barros, R. 1970. Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part III, Lizards and Amphisbaenians. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 297: 293.
Reeder, T.W. & Wiens, J.J. 1996. Evolution of the family Phrynosomatidae as inferred from diverse types of data. Herpetological Monographs. 10: 43-84.
Shine, R. 1985. The evolution of viviparity in reptiles: an ecological analysis. Pp. 605-694 in Gans, C. & Billet, F. (Eds.), Biology of Reptiles, vol. 15. 731 pp. Wiley, New York. Stejneger, L. 1909. Batrachians and Reptiles, part II. Pp. 211-224 in Scott, W.B. (Ed.). 1905-1911: Reports of the Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896-99, 3(1):
374 pp.
Vanzolini, P.E. 1986. Addenda and Corrigenda to the Catalogue of Neotropical Squamata.
Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service, 70: 1-25.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 250. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Draft proposal to emend Article 74.7.3: request for comments from the Commission and zoological community
(1) W. Pulawski California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.
I.M. Kerzhner Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia
D.J. Brothers
School of Botany and Zoology (and Centre for Environment & Development), University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa
N.L. Evenhuis
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-0916, U.S.A.
A proposal by one us (Pulawski) to delete Article 74.7.3 from the Code was published in BZN 58(2): 133. Deletion was proposed on the grounds that the Article is unnecessary and requires repetitious statements to be made when several lectotypes are designated in a revisionary work. A number of zoologists wrote in support of the proposal, while others were in strong disagreement with the proposal, claiming that the Article is integral and important to the way that nomenclature serves taxonomy. These comments were published in BZN 58(2): 133-140. Following the original proposal to delete Article 74.7.3, Pulawski & Kerzhner wrote a formal proposal to the Commission Secretariat on 25 February 2001 and published a paper outlining their proposal in Zoosystematica Rossica, vol. 10(1): 1-7 (December 2001). This jncluded additional comments and an appeal to zoologists to inform the Commission about their attitudes towards the pro- posal. Since publication of the latter article, over 100 zoologists from around the world have sent responses to the Commission. An overwhelming majority of zoologists support deletion of the Article (to date, 105 in favor of deletion; 1 against deletion).
As currently worded, Article 74.7.3 requires that a valid lectotype designation be accompanied by a statement expressing the taxonomic purpose of the designation. The intent of introducing such a requirement was explained in detail by some of the contributors to the discussion in BZN 58(2): 133-140, especially Prof W.D.L. Ride (Chairman of the Commission’s Editorial Committee for preparation of the current edition of the Code). Article 74.7.3 may be construed as introducing some rigor into the lectotypification process in order to prevent inappropriate designations that are made purely for curatorial purposes without proper cognisance of the taxonomic and nomenclatural consequences. However, we see this wording as a potential cause of confusion and misinterpretation (an estimated 1300 lectotypes designated in publications in the year 2000 are invalid because of not following this Article), as well
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 279
as requiring an unnecessary and often repetitious task for an action that is
traditionally self-defining.
After much detailed correspondence between the four of us, we have come to an agreement that some change to Article 74.7.3 is necessary and it needs to be done quickly to avoid the rising number of invalid lectotypifications that will otherwise clog the nomenclatural system. We prefer to see total deletion of Article 74.7.3, but run the risk that the Commission may not consider such a proposal as a minor one and therefore not able to be made under Articles 78.3.2 and 80.1 of the Code.
Instead, we propose as a minor change that the wording of Article 74.7.3 be emended, an example be given for clarification, and a Recommendation be added to explain the intent of the Article further. If two-thirds of the Commissioners are in agreement with this change, and that it is essentially a matter of clarification, the Commission may immediately publish an appropriate Declaration (Articles 78.3 and 80.1 of the Code; Article 1.1 of the Constitution).
We therefore propose the following:
(1) that the wording of Article 74.7.3 be changed to: ‘contain an express state- ment of deliberate designation (merely citing a specimen as ‘lectotype’ is insufficient)’; that the following Example be added directly below Article 74.7.3: ‘Example: A statement such as “lectotype hereby designated”, “‘lectotype by present designation’, “I choose specimen X as lectotype” would fulfil this requirement, but “lectotype: specimen X”’ would not’;
(3) add the following Recommendation: ‘Recommendation 74G: Not merely for curatorial purposes. The designation of lectotypes should be done as part of a revisionary or other taxonomic work to enhance the stability of nomenclature, and not for mere curatorial convenience’;
(4) that these changes be backdated to include all publications after 31 December 1999.
(2
—
(2) Andrew Wakeham-Dawson, Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
This draft proposal was sent to Commissioners on 8 April 2002 for their opinion on whether they considered the proposal to include a minor change to the Code or not, and inviting further refinement to the wording before the proposers made a formal proposal to the Commission for a final vote. A count of votes on 22 August 2002, showed that 20 Commissioners had voted in favour of the proposal being put to formal vote, three had voted against and votes had not been received from a further five Commissioners.
In voting against the proposal, Prof Kraus wrote (18 April 2002) that in principle he was against any changes of the Code. He felt strongly that the stability of the Code itself is of high importance. He was also against any changes to Article 74.7.3. He agreed that that the brevity of the wording of Article 74.7.3 leaves it open to misunderstanding and suggested that rewording in the form of a Declaration is appropriate. He commented that lectotype designations should on/y be made — and
280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
hence be valid — as a part of revisionary or other taxonomic work (i.e. where there is composite type material), never as a purely curatorial exercise. Mechanical lectotype designation can easily lead to designation of a less than ideal specimen from syntypes, and a syntypic series may be more representative of a taxon than a single lectotype specimen. In conclusion, he strongly urged that Recommendation 74G of the proposal be transformed into a mandatory provision.
In a further communication (23 April 2002), Prof Kraus commented that Article 78.3.2 of the Code strictly applies to Declarations that clarify the Code. In his opinion, deletion of Article 74.7.3 must qualify as a major change and not just a clarification.
In voting against the proposal, Dr Cogger (17 April 2002) said that he was also against any changes to Article 74.7.3. He stated the primary purpose of this Article was to ensure that lectotype designations be made only for taxonomic purposes. While it has been argued that this is nearly always the purpose of lectotypification, experience would suggest otherwise. Lectotypes are often chosen arbitrarily and with consequent serious disruption to nomenclatural stability and universality. Such disruptions most often occur when lectotypes are designated as a result of the routine curatorial publication of catalogues such as type lists, or of regional or global ‘checklists’ that are compiled primarily from secondary sources. The utility of such publications can be seriously compromised by the nomenclatural problems they create because of inappropriate lectotype designations.
He further stated that while he would be happy to support any changes to the Article that clarify its purpose and application, he did not support a proposal that reduces the essential taxonomic purpose of lectotypification to a mere Recommendation.
In voting against the proposal, Prof Mawatari (April 2002) said that he strongly supported retention of the Article as it currently stands. He stressed that the taxonomic purpose of lectotype designations should be clearly explained in revision- ary works, particularly for readers who are not taxonomists.
Although over two-thirds of the Commissioners were in agreement with the wording of draft proposal (and accepted it as a minor change for clarification), the draft is published here to allow further comments from the Commission and the zoological community at large before it is brought to formal vote.
Comments on this draft proposal are invited and should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) before 28 February 2003.
Comment on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June) (Case 3097; see BZN 59: 246-248)
Phillip J. Harpootlian 206 Fredericksburg Drive, Simpsonville, SC 29681, U.S.A.
I write in support of Case 3097, but make the following exceptions to the statement in para. 3 that the name Odonteus was not used between its original publication and its use by Krell in 1990. Thé name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 was used at least once in the primary literature before 1990 with the original spelling and including the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 281
nominal species O. armiger Scopoli, 1772 (see Jessop, 1986). Since 1990, Baraud (1992) used Odontaeus Samouelle, with the correct authorship and date, citing Krell (1990) as the basis for this action. The use of the name Odontaeus is also being proposed for an up-coming volume in the Fauna-Iberica series:
(www.fauna-iberica.mnen.csic.es/htmlfauna/faunibe/zoolist/insecta/coleoptera/ geotrupidae.html).
Additional references
Baraud, J. 1992. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea D’ Europe. 856 pp. Faune de France 78, Federation Francaise des Sociétés des Sciences Naturelles.
Jessop, L. 1986. Dung beetles and chafers, Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea, vol. 5, part 11. 53 pp. Handbook for the Identification of British Insects. London.
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and /ridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema
(Case 3193; see BZN 59: 185-187)
S. Bily Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha 4, Czech Republic
The present situation where the two nominal genera Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 both have the same type species, C. swmptuosa Laporte & Gory, 1835, is clearly contrary to the Code and complicates my research. Dr Bellamy’s proposal to resolve the problem of synonymy by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema has my full support.
Comment on the proposed conservation of 65 specific names in the family STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3207; see BZN 59: 99-113)
Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary)
I.C.Z.N., clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
A few small errors have found their way into this application.
The Key to Table | should include the following:
# — the senior homonyms marked with this symbol have not been used as valid names since at least 1899.
j.S. — Means Junior synonym.
Sentence (2)(a) of para. 4 should read: ‘(a) the valid specific names in column 4 of Table1...’.
Sentence (2)(b) of para. 4 should read: ‘(b) the specific names in column 2 of Table 1...’.
The following sentence should be added: ‘(2)(c) the specific names in column 2 of Table 2, as originally published in binomina with generic names in column 5.’
282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Nomenclatural Notes
Type specimens: dead or alive?
(1) Andrew Wakeham-Dawson and Solene Morris
Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U_K.
Philip Tubbs 16 New Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey TW10 7HY, U.K.
It is a widespread misunderstanding that an animal species cannot be given a scientific name until a specimen has been killed and preserved as the name-bearing type specimen for that taxon. An example of this misunderstanding was published in The Daily Telegraph magazine Weekend (London; 17 November 2001). The leading article by Sandy Mitchell claimed that it had been necessary for a scientist (Julia Robinson Dean) to return to Indonesia to kill a rare bird before she could name it and thereby allow it to be added to a list of protected species. A letter outlining the error was sent in response to the magazine article by the then Executive Secretary of the Commission, Philip Tubbs. However, the letter was not published.
The Code does not require a museum specimen as type material or that the naming process requires an anatomically detailed description to be made on the basis of such material. However, every new name must ‘be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon’ (Article 13.1.1 of the Code), and since January 2000 the specimen (holotype) or specimens (syntypes) on which the name is based must be explicitly stated (Article 11.6.4.1).
In the case of the Indonesian bird, a description based on notes from the scientist's notebook, or even the picture and description that appeared in the newspaper article, would have been sufficient to make the name available. The holotype or syntypes remain the specimens of which the photographs were taken and the descriptions made, even if they are allowed to return alive to their natural habitat and are never seen again. The holotype (or syntype) is not the picture of the specimen (see Articles 72.5.6 and 73.1.4). Similarly, when a new species is described and named on the basis of DNA sequences, the specimen from which these were taken remains the holotype (or syntypes in the case of a series of specimens from which samples are taken). For example, a new species of Somalian shrike was named from a living specimen that was released after samples had been taken for DNA analysis (see Smith, Arctander, Fjeldsa & Amir, 1991; Hughes, 1992).
There are good reasons why a dead specimen cannot be required for formal naming. Capture, killing and export may be illegal, unethical or impossible (e.g. capture of a new taxon of fish seen from a deep-sea submersible may not be practical) and absence of a museum specimen to act as holotype does not prevent the naming process. Many thousands of names would be invalid if dead type specimens were mandatory. For example, many of the species named by Linnaeus were not based on
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 283
any cited type material, and name-bearing specimens have never been fixed for many well-known species.
The misconception that a dead holotype specimen is mandatory under the Code has perhaps arisen from the wording used in relation to designation of new species in early editions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961, 1964) and the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (1905) that preceded them. This misunderstanding has been compounded in textbooks on taxonomy.
However, preserved specimens have never been a mandatory requirement, al- though they have been (and still are) recommended. In 1926, the Régles were translated into English and published as the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 39: 75-104. In this document, Recommendation B (pp. 7R-8R) on Articles 1-3 recommended ‘that in published descriptions of a new species or of a new subspecies, only one specimen should be designated as type. The specimen itself should be labelled type’. Recommendation B was re-presented in the form of Article 72(a) of the First and Second Editions (1961 & 1964) of the Code (p. 75 in both editions). This stated that ‘the type of each taxon of the species-group is a single specimen’. In Article 72 of the Third Edition (1985, p. 139) it is explained that ‘the term “type” forms part of many compound terms used by taxonomists to distinguish between particular kinds of specimens’. Some of these terms do not refer to name-bearing types.
The wording of the Régles and First and Second Editions of the Code (1961 & 1964) might have been held to imply that a holotype could only be designated when a dead specimen was to hand. The Third Edition (1985) did not state that this was not the case, but Article 73(a)(iv) stated that ‘designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation’. This clearly indicated that a preserved specimen was not a mandatory requirement of the Code. Eligibility for name-bearing type status was stated in Article 72(c). In addition, the introduction to the Third Edition of the Code (1985) stated (p. xvi) that ‘although the principle [of name-bearing types] is fundamental, it is still not obligatory for name-bearing types to be designated for new species-group taxa although the Code recommends the practice and provides procedures by which the name-bearing type of any species-group taxon can be discovered and fixed’.
The introduction to the Fourth (current) Edition of the Code (1999) states (p. xxvii) that ‘when the name-bearing type of a species group taxon proposed after 1999 consists of a preserved specimen or specimens, the proposer is required to include a statement naming the collection in which the name-bearing type is or will be deposited’. From this statement, it is clear that a dead type specimen is not essential under the Code. However, it is desirable that this should be stated directly, rather than just by implication, in future editions of the Code to prevent nomenclature and taxonomy from being wrongly discredited in situations of biological conservation sensitivity or where modern techniques (e.g. blood sampling for molecular analysis etc.) are a viable alternative to killing specimens.
In the future, it may be possible to describe all species solely on the results of molecular analysis techniques from blood or other samples taken from living animals. For the time being, it is still desirable to have preserved specimens at hand
284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
to allow a full description of new taxa to be made, and for re-examination of those specimens at a later date.
In the case of marine organisms, there are some old nominal species that were based on animals only seen in the water. As no specimens were actually obtained these have not been considered ‘taxonomically sound’ (William Perrin, personal communication) even though these names remain available under the Code. The following note by Drs Dalebout and Scott Baker on the description of a new whale species illustrates the value of having preserved specimens. The use of morphological comparison and DNA analysis techniques allowed the determination and description of a new animal taxon, which would have been impossible in the absence of preserved material.
References
Hughes, A.L. 1992. Avian species described on the basis of DNA only. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7: 2-3.
Smith, E.F.G., Arctander, P., Fjeldsa, J. & Amir, O.G. 1991. A new species of shrike (Laniidae: Laniarius) from Somalia, verified by DNA sequence data from the only known individual. Ibis, 133: 227-235.
(2) Merel L. Dalebout and. C. Scott Baker
School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Beaked whales (ziPHIDAE) are among the least known of mammals (Wilson, 1992). Twelve new cetacean species have been described in the last 100 years, of which seven were beaked whales, primarily of the genus Mesoplodon. This total does not include M. bahamondi Reyes, Van Waerebeek, Cardenas & Yanez, 1995, a species now recognized as synonymous with M. traversii (Gray, 1874) (van Helden et al., 2002). Given this synonymy, the most recently described beaked whale species was M. peruvianus Reyes, Mead & Van Waerebeek, 1991.
Sightings of beaked whales at sea are generally rare due to their elusive habits and preference for deep oceanic waters. Several species have yet to be seen alive and the distinctiveness of others has been questioned. Species of beaked whales are compara- tively undifferentiated in external morphology. Species identification is based pri- marily on features of cranial morphology and, especially for the most species-rich genus Mesoplodon, on the size, shape and position of the teeth in the lower jaw. All beaked whale species (except the monotypic Tasmacetus) have a highly reduced dentition, retaining only one or two pairs of teeth in the lower jaw. In genera with a single pair of teeth, such as Mesoplodon, the teeth develop and erupt from the gum only in adult males. Females and juveniles are effectively toothless. These teeth are not used for feeding. Instead, based on observations of scarring patterns on stranded animals, males use these tusk-like teeth as weapons in intra-specific combat with other males (see Heyning, 1984). Due to the often small number of known specimens, pronounced sexual dimorphism and wide geographic distribution (all oceans except the high Arctic), the potential for the misidentification of beaked whales based on morphological features is considerable, even for experts.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 285
In the mid to late 1970s, four beaked whales (an adult male, an adult female and two calves) were stranded within 50 miles of each other along the southern coast of California. These animals were identified as Mesoplodon hectori (Hector’s beaked whale) from morphology, the first and only records of this species from the Northern Hemisphere (Mead, 1981). Three of the specimens were collected for the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, while the fourth was collected for the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.
In 1997, a database of mitochondrial (mt) DNA control region sequences was compiled to assist in beaked whale species identification (Henshaw et al., 1997: Dalebout et al., 1998). All specimens in this reference database were validated through examination by experts in cetacean morphology and the collection of diagnostic skeletal material or photographic records following the recommen- dations of Dizon et al. (2000). A sequence from one of the California specimens was included in the database but was found to differ from specimens of Southern Hemisphere M. hectori and all other species in the database at that time (Dalebout et al., 1998).
To investigate this anomaly, DNA was extracted from cartilage and tooth material from the remaining three California specimens described by Mead (1981). Phylogenetic comparisons of mtDNA control region and cytochrome 5 sequences from these specimens to a now complete reference database including all 20 recognized beaked whale species (Dalebout, 2002; see also www.dna- surveillance.auckland.ac.nz) confirmed that all four are of the same species, yet do not represent M. hectori or any other known ziphiid species. A fifth specimen, a calf stranded at Monterey in 1997 and initially identified as a neonate Ziphius cavirostris (Cuvier’s beaked whale) from external morphology, is also grouped with these anomalous California specimens in phylogenetic analyses. These analy- ses provided strong evidence that these five specimens represent a previously undescribed species of beaked whale (Dalebout et al., 2002). This conclusion was confirmed through phylogenetic analysis of nuclear DNA sequence data (Dalebout, 2002) and supported by re-examination of morphological features (Dalebout et al., 2002).
A formal description of this new species including details of diagnostic molecular and morphological features was given by Dalebout et al. (2002). This species, like M. hectori, is a small beaked whale, approximately 4 m in length, with a relatively short rostrum (beak/upper jaw). Both species have a single pair of triangular teeth set at the apex of the mandible, but there are subtle differences in position and angle of inclination. Of the four specimens stranded in California in the 1970s, the adult female and one of the calves share the same mtDNA haplotype (the mitochondrial genome is inherited only through the maternal line). These specimens were found a week apart and are probably a mother and her offspring. There are no confirmed observations of this species at sea and little is known of its ecology. We assume that like many other beaked whales, these animals eat mainly pelagic squid. The adult male bore a number of white, linear scars on its postcranial flanks, probably inflicted by the teeth of conspecific males. Although the stranding pattern of the five specimens known to date is suggestive of an eastern North Pacific distribution, there are too few records to date to draw any bounds on this. We have named this new species Mesoplodon perrini (Perrin’s beaked whale) in tribute to the American
286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
cetologist, William F. Perrin, of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service South West Fisheries Science Center (La Jolla, California) for his role in the collection of two of the known specimens of this species and his ongoing contribution to marine mammal science and conservation.
References
Dalebout, M.L. 2002. Species identity, genetic diversity and molecular systematic relationships among the Ziphiidae (beaked whales). PhD thesis, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Dalebout, M.L., Mead, J.G., Baker, C.S., Baker, A.N. & van Helden, A.L. 2002. A new species of beaked whale Mesoplodon perrini sp. n. (Cetacea: Ziphiidae) discovered through phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Marine Mammal Science, 18: 577-608.
Dalebout, M.L., van Helden, A., Van Waerebeek, K. & Baker, C.S. 1998. Molecular genetic identification of southern hemisphere beaked whales (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). Molecular Ecology, 7: 687-694.
Dizon, A., Baker, C.S., Cipriano, F., Lento, G., Palsboll, P. & Reeves, R. 2000. Molecular genetic identification of whales, dolphins and porpoises: proceedings of a workshop on the forensic use of molecular techniques to identify wildlife products in the marketplace. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWESC_286, La Jolla, California.
Henshaw, M.D., LeDuc, R.G., Chivers, S.J. & Dizon, A.E. 1997. Identification of beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) using mtDNA sequences. Marine Mammal Science, 13: 487-495.
Heyning, J.E. 1984. Functional morphology involved in intraspecific fighting of the beaked whale, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62: 1645-1654.
Mead, J.G. 1981. First records of Mesoplodon hectori (Ziphiidae) from the Northern Hemisphere and a description of the adult male. Journal of Mammalogy, 62: 430-432.
Reyes, J.C., Mead, J.G. & Van Waerebeek, K. 1991. A new species of beaked whale Mesoplodon peruvianus sp. n. (Cetacea: Ziphiidae) from Peru. Marine Mammal Science, 7: 1-24.
Reyes, J.C., Van Waerebeek, K., Cardenas, J.C. & Yaiiez, J.L. 1995. Mesoplodon bahamondi sp. n. (Cetacea, Ziphiidae), a living beaked whale from the Juan Fernandez Archipelago, Chile. Boletim de Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile, 45: 31-44.
van Helden, A.L., Baker, A.N., Dalebout, M.L., Reyes, J.C., Van Waerebeek, K. & Baker, C.S. 2002. Resurrection of Mesoplodon .traversii (Gray, 1874), senior synonym of M. bahamondi Reyes, Van Waerebeek, Cardenas and Yafiez, 1995 (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). Marine Mammal Science, 18: 609-621.
Wilson, E.O. 1992. Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Acaulona peruviana Townsend, 1913 (Insecta, Diptera): application of Article 75.8 of the Code
Ronaldo Toma
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, caixa postal 42594, Sao Paulo 04299-970, Brazil. (rtkuna@zipmail.com.br)
In 1913, Townsend (p. 93) described a species of parasitic fly (family TACHINIDAE) and named it Acaulona peruviana. His description was based on two reared specimens (a male and a female), from San Jacinto, Chira valley, Piura Department, Peru. They emerged as adults on 29 October 1912, having been collected by E.W. Rust from adults of the cotton stainer bug Dysdercus ruficollis (Linnaeus, 1764) (Hemiptera,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 287
PYRRHOCORIDAE). The syntypes were deposited in the United States National Museum, Washington D.C. (U.S.N.M). Townsend (1913) reported that Acaulona peruviana was comparatively rare and that he had collected only five specimens in the course of three years. The capture data are as follows: (1) one female, Somate, Rio Chira, 18 November 1910, on flower of Telanthera Sp.;
(2) one male on foliage, Chapaira, Rio Piura valley, 21 May 1911;
(3) two females, Cafiada de Saman, Chira valley, 14 February 1912, on flowers of Philibertella flava;
(4) one female, Sullana, Chira valley, 17 February 1912, on foliage.
In 1950 Sabrosky (pp. 369-370) stated that the cotton stainer parasite, Acaulona peruviana, had not been formally described, but that the name had been established in connection with the full-page figure published by Townsend (1928, p. 7, fig. 3). Sabrosky (1950) redescribed the species from Townsend’s figure and designated a neotype, an allotype, and seventeen neoparatypes. Four of these had the same data as the material listed by Townsend (1913).
Sabrosky (1951, p. 210), after being alerted by Dr Claude Dupuis to his oversight of the original description of Acaulona peruviana, acknowledged that he had made a mistake in redescribing the species. However, as he had been unable to find the syntypes of Acaulona peruviana deposited by. Townsend in the U.S.N.M., Sabrosky (1951) assumed that they were lost and stated that his neotype designation was still valid.
In 1989, the two supposedly lost original specimens on which the description of Acaulona peruviana was based were rediscovered in the U.S.N.M. According to Article 75.8 of the Code: ‘if, after the designation of a neotype, the name-bearing type of the nominal species-group taxon that was presumed lost is found still to exist, on publication of that discovery the rediscovered material again becomes the name- bearing type and the neotype is set aside’. As a result, Sabrosky’s (1950) neotype designation is no longer valid and herewith I designate the male syntype specimen numbered U.S.N.M. 19477 as the lectotype of the nominal species Acaulona peruviana Townsend, 1913. The taxonomic reason underlying this lectotype designation is that the female and (to a lesser extent) male genitalia of species in the genus Acaulona Wulp, 1888 are very similar and it is only possible to differentiate Acaulona peruviana from other species of the genus Acaulona by the morphology of the male genitalia whenever the yellow pruinosity of the abdomen of the specimens is not conserved.
The lectotype is a male fly in good condition with the left wing separated from the thorax and glued on a paper support (Figure 1). It is from San Jacinto, Chira valley, Piura Department, Peru, and was collected by E.W. Rust. The paralectotype is the former syntype specimen U.S.N.M. 19477 (the same number as the lectotype). It is a female in good condition, but without the fore left leg and middle right leg. It has the same data as the lectotype.
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr Ubirajara R. Martins de Souza (Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de SA0 Paulo) and Dr Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary, Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) for reading the manuscript, Dr
288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Norman Woodley for the loan of specimens and Dan Hansen for providing the bibliography. This work was supported by a grant from Fundagao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo.
Figure 1 The lectotype of Acaulona peruviana Townsend, 1913. Male, emerged on 29 October 1912, accession no. U.S.N.M. 19477. From San Jacinto, Chira valley, Piura Department, Peru. Collected by E.W. Rust. The fly is 6.8 mm in length.
References
Sabrosky, C.W. 1950. Notes on Trichopodini (Diptera, Larvaevoridae), with description of a new parasite of cotton stainer in Puerto Rico. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 40(11): 361-371.
Sabrosky, C.W. 1951. Correction on Acaulona peruviana Townsend (Diptera, Larvaevoridae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 53(4): 210.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1913. Muscoid parasites of the cotton stainer and other lygaeids. Psyche, 20: 91-94.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1928. Insectos que atacan al algodon y a la cana de azucar en el Peru. Boletin. Estacién experimental agricola de la Sociedad nacional agraria, 1: \—-29.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
AUTHORS IN VOLUME 59 (2002)
Page NCOStay LE Bi St ee ere ees 176 BakeriG Shik She Bien ae 284 Baur, H. . Styne Weide vakcane . . 180 Bellamiyay C5105 eee acs 185, 249 IBeukegi PATE) ee cttre, osane aie a sue aies 269 BilyArS cae aecaics Guides kok Boe 249, 281 BOUCH ETS stay eye ty seis, a earyaree 204 BOW KON CAB Reed SEE Pipe Nk os, i) SS 12 BroOkstSsE sas ecWie i) aghceGe 196 Brothers, D.J. 278 Buchar) Mees meter ere rn See fe 203 ButtleriCa TEA AA lhe oe ene . 42 Garamaschils pee eee Sy fe 44 (CES cI [aha sae ance wen cue Ch ta ie 275 Glution=Brockes) seen . 48 GOoraye nel oe a on cote te) 180 Gutley Rae ee see te ee . 44 CutlertEsB ay Ree Be Sees | 130 IDeegelilerr, J, 56 oe @ 66 06 198 IDRleo@ut, IMLILs so 5 5 0 5 eo oo 6 284 DENG, IML(C, ss 5 6 198 Doadrio, I. 134 Dolinalisweas. Oa 173 Dondale, C.D. . . 7 EGwardsgi ss ges oa, ae hues ok 204 GUIS IML ee aha BY ete ae 253 Emmel, T.C.. . 114 lnm IMIS; «o os 6 « 90 Evenhuis, N.L.. . . 196, 278 alniowskimwAws yarn, Sinsy a noepnniseae 128 Is@gkeer, ID, 3s oo 6 6 6 6 . 85 I OISSHEIA Wren) Seon aT ks ae 165 Foster,G.N... . . 38 Galli Eee 117 Gentry, A. . 48 Giusti, F. . . 7 WT Groves, C.P. . . 49 Harpootlian, PJ. . . 280 HarveywASWarren oct ate i a2 lnigopomer, JjB. oo oo oo & . 39, 114 Herman, L.H. 99, 188, 191, 256 Heyer, W.R. . . . 44 Holeik, J. : een SS Holthuis, L.B. WH, WB WSS) Howden, H.F. 246
Jameson, M.L. Janzen, D.H.
Jeffery, JE. . yh ek, ya
Kerzhner, I.M. I@y7 IMM, og 5 Kovarik, F. . Kozlov, M.V. . . Krell F:-ls 5 5.
Krishna, K.. . . : ;
Kronestedt, T.. . Kuschel, G. . .
Laan, R. van der Landry, B... . IE Gee aes
Lopez-Gonzalez, PJ... .
Lourengo, W.R. . .
McDiarmid, R.W. . McLaughlin, P.A. Miaess Kenran Manganelli, G. Merrin, K.L. IMIGS Wo 0 4 2 Michener, C.D. Minelli, A. Morris, S. Moure, J.S. .
Nartshuk, E.P. Pacaud, J.M.
Pereira, L.A. Pisera, A. .
Poore, GOR. .
Pulawski, W.
Ratcliffe, B.C. . Rodriguez, E. .
Saboori, A. . Schiilke, M. . Scolaro, J.A. Shaffer, J.C. . Shubin, N.H. Smith yAsear Smith, L.A. . Speidel, W. vee Spjeldnaes, N.. . Stys, P. . pie te Szarowska, M.
289
. . M4 a
290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Wine, SEs 0 oo a 6 8 Toma wRe hh sea TinbbsyEAKSeeee
Winton, IVES. a 6 5 6 6 6 oe Upton, S.J.
Wein Inne; A(Co 5 yp 0 a so Wein ZAIN, UW og o 5 a 5 0 8 Weal, BS. co a oe 8
. . 24
286 282
204 125
239 269 239
WillwockssWe Si aeci- cr ten rane 133
Wiener, ID Ne i e.ece sain tac 38 Wakeham-Dawson, A.. . 128, 279, 281, 282 Weycoldt2Poi ue in iaa) cme 242 Wheeler, TA...) 23 wee 2 1963208 Wildekanipa Re bes sey nnn: age QS WARS IAG SOM IPING 8 6 5 oo ols é 42
ZN UIZIN ACA Gitta), 2 hota, Cae 7
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 291
NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 59 (2002)
Names and Works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 59, together with emendments of existing entries, are listed below under four headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names, Specific Names and Works. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type.
Family-Group Names
DOLICHOPODAINI Brnner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (Grylloptera) Op. 1998 DOLICHOPODIDAE Agassiz, 1846 (Diptera) Op. 1998 DOLICHOPODIDAE Latreille, 1809 (Diptera) Op. 1998 DOLICHOPODINI Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (Grylloptera) Op. 1998 GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
GALAGONIDAE Gray, 1825 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
INDRIDAE Burnett, 1828 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
INDRIIDAE Burnett, 1828 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
LORIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
Generic Names
Actenodes Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 Amauropsina Chelot, 1885 (Gastropoda) Op. 1997 Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1999 Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 2009 Callithraupis Berlepsch, 1879 (Aves) Op. 2004 Calotermes Hagen, 1858 (Isoptera) Op. 2007 Camposichthys Travassos, 1946 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012 Carininota Volkovitsh, 1979 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 Chalinolobus Peters, 1866 (Mammalia) Op. 1994 Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926 (Trilobita) Op. 2006 Cynodon Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012
Cynodon Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012 Cyphogastra Deyrolle, 1864 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 Dichrorampha Guenée, 1845 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1999 Diucopis Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves) Op. 2004
Dolichopoda Bolivar, 1880 (Grylloptera) Op. 1998 Eudorylas Aczel, 1940 (Diptera) Op. 2000
Galago Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) Op. 1995 Gortania Cossmann, 1909 (Trilobita) Op. 2006 Halictoides Nylander, 1848 (Hymenoptera) Op. 2001 Halmaturotherium Krefft, 1872 (Mammalia) Op. 1993 Halmatutherium Krefft, 1873 (Mammalia) Op. 1993 Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2011
Indri Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Kalotermes Hagen, 1853 (Isoptera) Op. 2007 Microcephalops De Meyer, 1989 (Diptera) Op. 2000 Microphthalmus Gortani, 1907 (Trilobita) Op. 2006 Mystacina Gray, 1843 (Mammalia) Op. 1994
Mystacops Lydekker, 1891 (Mammalia) Op. 1994
Nascio Laporte & Gory, 1838 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 Neodorylas Kuznetzov, 1995 (Diptera) Op. 2000 Neothraupis Berlepsch, 1879 (Aves) Op. 2004 Neothraupis Hellmayr, 1936 (Aves) Op. 2004
Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1989 Pachycerianthus Roule, 1904 (Anthozoa) Op. 1987 Procoptodon Owen, 1874 (Mammalia) Op. 1993 Proelectrotermes von Rosen, 1913 (Isoptera) Op. 2007 Raphiodon Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012 Raphiodontichthys Campos, 1945 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012 Schistochlamys Reichenbach, 1850 (Aves) Op. 2004 Trichocratomerus Richter, 1949 (Coleoptera) Op. 2009
Specific Names
albinella, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1999 arcuata, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1838 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 arcuata, Buprestis, Say, 1825 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
aurata, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
aurata, Buprestis, Pallas, 1776 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
banksi, Pipunculus, Aczél, 1940 (Diptera) Op. 2000
bella, Buprestis, Gory, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
berendtii, Termes, Pictet, 1856 (Isoptera) Op. 2007
bermudensis, Holacanthus ciliaris, Goode, 1876 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2003 bilineata, Buprestis, Latreille, 1813 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 bilineata, Buprestis, Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 biporcata, Dactyloa, Wiegmann, 1934 (Reptilia) Op. 2015 caerulea, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
caerulea, Buprestis, Thunberg, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 canaliculata, Ampullaria, Lamarck, 1804 (Gastropoda) Op. 1997 canaliculata, Ampullaria, Lamarck, 1822 (Gastropoda) Op. 1997 canalifera, Ampullaria, Lamarck, 1822 (Gastropoda) Op. 1997 capistrata, Tanagra, Wied, 1821 (Aves) Op. 2004
cayennensis, Buprestis, Gmelin, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 cayennensis, Buprestis, Herbst, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
cerasi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1989
copei, Anolis, Bocourt, 1873 (Reptilia) Op. 2015
crucigerum, Phrynidium, Lichtenstein & Martens, 1856 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 2013 cryptophthalmus, Phacops, Emmrich, 1844 (Trilobita) Op. 2006 cuprifera, Buprestis, Kirby, 1818 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
cuprifera, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1836 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 cyanipes, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 293
cyanipes, Buprestis, Say, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
dejeanii, Dufourea, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera) Op. 2001 dentiventris, Halictoides, Nylander, 1848 (Hymenoptera) Op. 2001 depressa, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
depressa, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1771 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 drummondi, Buprestis, Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 drummondi, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1836 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 excellens, Buprestis, Klug, 1825 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
excellens, Buprestis, Klug, 1855 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
fasciata, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
fasciata, Buprestis, Villers, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
fasciata, Tanagra, Lichtenstein, 1823 (Aves) Op. 2004
fasciatus, Crotaphytus, Mocquard, 1899 (Reptilia) Op. 2014 fasciolatus, Crotaphytus, Mocquard, 1903 (Reptilia) Op. 2014 femorata, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
flavicollis, Termes, Fabricius, 1793 (Isoptera) Op. 2007 flayofasciata, Buprestis, Herbst, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 flavofasciata, Buprestis, Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 flavus, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2011
foveicollis, Buprestis, Boisduval, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 foveicollis, Buprestis, Gory, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
fulgurans, Buprestis, Schrank, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2009
fuscipes, Pipunculus, Zetterstedt, 1844 (Diptera) Op. 2000 geminatus, Buprestis, Say, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
gibbicollis, Buprestis, Illiger, 1803 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
gibbicollis, Buprestis, Say, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
gibbus, Cynodon, Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012 goliah, Macropus, Owen in Waterhouse, 1846 (Mammalia) Op. 1993 haemorrhoidalis, Buprestis, Herbst, 1780 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 haemorrhoidalis, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 heringi, Tanaecia, Niepelt, 1935 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1990
hungarica, Chrysis, Scopoli, 1772 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
indicus, Thenus, Leach, 1815 (Decapoda) Op. 1988
indri, Lemur, Gmelin, 1788 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
interrupta, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 interrupta, Buprestis, Olivier, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
isabelita, Angelichthys, Jordan & Rutter, 1898 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2003 lineolatus, Alburnus, Putnam, 1863 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1991
lucorum, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) Op. 1996
ludibunda, Cyprinella, Girard, 1856 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1991 maculipennis, Buprestis, Gory, 1841 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 maculipennis, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 manca, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1767 (Coleoptera) Op. 2009
maulica, Chrysomela, Molina, 1782 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008 micropogon, Ceratichthys, Cope, 1865 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2002 mucronata, Buprestis, Klug, 1825 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
mucronata, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1836 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
multiplicatus, Pachycerianthus, Carlgren, 1912 (Anthozoa) Op. 1987
nemurus, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2011
nobilis, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
nobilis, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
noliformis, Campanularia, McCrady, 1859 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1986
orientalis, Scyllarus, Lund, 1793 (Decapoda) Op. 1988
palpata, Gryllus, Sulzer, 1776 (Grylloptera) Op. 1998
petersii, Anolis, Bocourt, 1873 (Reptilia) Op. 2015
picta, Buprestis, Thunberg, 1827 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
picta, Buprestis, Waterhouse, 1882 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
planiceps, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2011
plumbagana, Grapholitha, Treitschke, 1830 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1999
pumila, Buprestis, [liger, 1803 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
pumila, Buprestis, Klug, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
punctata, Helix, Miiller, 1774 (Gastropoda) Op. 1996
pusio, Procoptodon, Owen, 1874 (Mammalia) Op. 1993
rapha, Procoptodon, Owen, 1874 (Mammalia) Op. 1993
rauca, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
salicis, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1776 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
salicis, Buprestis, Lewis, 1893 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
scottii, Halmaturus, Krefft, 1870 (Mammalia) Op. 1993
senegalensis, Galago, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) Op. 1995
sieboldii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2011
splendidulus, Scymnus, Stenius, 1952 (Coleoptera) Op. 2010
stramineus, Hybognathus, Cope, 1865 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1991
sulcata, Buprestis, Fischer von Waldheim, 1824 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
sulcata, Buprestis, Thunberg, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
thomsonii, Halmaturus, Krefft, 1870 (Mammalia) Op. 1993
tuberculata, Mystacina, Gray, 1843 (Mammalia) Op. 1994
tuberculatus, Vespertilio, Forster, 1844 (Mammalia) Op. 1994
undata, Lacerta, Smith, 1838 (Reptilia) Op. 1992
variolosa, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
velutina, Mystacina, Hutton, 1872 (Mammalia) Op. 1994
ventralis, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1838 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
ventralis, Buprestis, Waterhouse, 1882 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
vestigium, Crotaphytus insularis, Smith & Tanner, 1972 (Reptilia) Op. 2014
vetusta, Buprestis, Boisduval, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
vetusta, Buprestis, Ménétries, 1832 (Coleoptera) Op. 2008
vulpinus, Cynodon, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012
vulpinus, Raphiodon, Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2012
Work placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1803. Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle. Op. 2005
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 295
KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS, COMMENTS AND NOMENCLATURAL NOTES PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 59 (2002) (for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 291—294)
Page abbreviatus, Carabus, Fabricius, 1779 (Coleoptera) ............. 256 aberrans, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 aberrans, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera) ............. 99, 281 ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Lepidoptera) ........... 38, 131 Acraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............2.... 121 Acrodontomeros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ..........2.... 121 Acrolepis Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................. 121 acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) ........... 128 aegagrus, Capra, Erxleben, 1777 (Mammalia) ................ 48 Aesorhinus Brichsons 834\(Coleoptera)y ye sain 1-284 2 eee | 253 affinis, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1789 (Coleoptera)... ......2.2.... 99, 281 affinis, Staphylinus, Solsky, 1868 (Coleoptera) ............. 99, 281 africanus, Equus, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (Mammalia) ........... 48 alabamae, Catocala, Grote, 1875 (Lepidoptera). .............. 117 GIAGTISS) COSCMINOCHeEIS SS) (Arachnida) amen eet One eee 7, 203 albescens, Leucopelaea, Bates, 1891 (Coleoptera) ............... 97 Alethodiastictos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Allodiastictopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. 121 Alloliopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121 Allotropoglyptos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. 121 AQ TECOSA SIO, NSIS (AraewNGA) 5 555600005005 b ob oD OS 7, 203 alpinus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1793 (Coleoptera) ............. 191 alticola, Bothriurus, Pocock, 1899 (Arachnida) ............... 176 Amaurocraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. 121 Amauropoda Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Amblyptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Anacanthomeros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. 121 analis, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera). ............ 99, 281 analis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) .........2.2.2... 256 Analogodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Anamictochromata Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............ 121 Anepiodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... 121 angularis, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1800 (Coleoptera) ............. 256 angustatus, Staphylinus, Solier, 1849 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 angusticollis, Lesteva, Mannerheim, 1830 (Coleoptera) ........... 256 Ankyloptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 12] Anthophagus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) ............... 191 anilope- sleds beyronwlsosi(Coleoptera)ien eee Gee cee een 256 antinous, Papilio, Donovan, 1805 (Lepidoptera) ............ 114, 204 Apediopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121 apercaCayia Erxlebenm li 77a (Niammialia) sasan aeeneee) Seance en eee 48
AlMenes latolbinlorscy, WONT Vakprrsooyyiese)) 5 5 5655006055500 000 5 12]
296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
AphaniusiNardoss2ia(Osteichtihy.cs) yeeear aan t-me ener ee 133
apicalis, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera). ............ 99, 281 Aponaulax Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121 Apophaneros Holmberg, 1918 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 armiger, Scarabaeus, Scopoli, 1772 (Coleoptera) ............ 246, 280 Gnnee, Ios, Kear, 722 (Miaiomallia)) 2 55 55 6 oo oe ho ee 48 assimilis, Philonthus, Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) ............ 256 Atelemelanos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Atelerythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... 121 Ateletritos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121 ater, Sauromalus, Duméril, 1856 (Reptilia) ............... 45, 205 atricapillus, Oxytelus, Germar, 1825 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 atricapillus, Oxytelus, Nicolai, 1822 (Coleoptera). ........... 99, 281 atrum, Omalium, Casey, 1894 (Coleoptera). .............. 99, 281 atu Omaliummtleernl839i(Eoleoptera) eae ee eee 99, 281 Augopelte Holmberg, 1918 (Hymenoptera). ................ 121 Aulacotetartos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121 auricomus, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1929 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 281 auropilosa, Exomalopsis, Spinola, 1853 (Hymenoptera) ............ 34 australis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1943 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 australis, Philonthus, MacLeay, 1873 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 Autodon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................. 121 Autogoniodes Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 axillaris, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281 axillaris, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera). .......... 99, 281 Bathycoelios Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 bicolor, Philonthus, Fauvel, 1903 (Coleoptera) .........2.... 99, 281 bicolor, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281 bicornis, Oxytelus, Germar, 1823 (Coleoptera) ............. 99, 281 bicorniss Oxy telusm@OlivierslSiili(Colesptera) a se eee 99, 281 biguttatus, Staphylinus, Bernhauer, 1937 (Coleoptera). ......... 99, 281 biguttatus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 281 binotatus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) ......... 99, 281 binotatus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) ......... 99, 281 bivittatus, Cercophonius brachycentrus, Thorell, 1877 (Arachnida) ..... . 176 blanda, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera). .........2..... 249 Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera). .........2.2..2.2.2... 246, 280 bonariensis, Podalgus, Burmeister, 1847 (Coleoptera) ............. 93 Brachyepiodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. 121 Brachymesodon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Brachyparatasis Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 brachypterus, Gryllus, Haan, 1842 (Orthoptera) .............. 180 brachypterus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Orthoptera) ............. 180 brachypterus, Gryllus, Ocskay, 1826 (Orthoptera). ............. 180 brasilianus, Chomatobius, Humbert & Saussure, 1870 (Chilopoda)...... . 85
brevilabiatus, Geophilus, Newport, 1845 (Chilopoda) ............. 85
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 brevipenne, Omalium, Motschulsky, 1860 (Coleoptera) ......... 99% brunneus, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, brunneus, Tachinus, Ullrich, 1975 (Coleoptera) ............. 993
butumbiana, Helix, Von Martens, 1895 (Gastropoda). ...........
Canonicacros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Canonicopempton Holmberg, 1918 (Hymenoptera) ............. Catabrachys Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... Catadolichos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... cephalotes, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) ........ 99, Cerasionotos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... ceylonicus, Phrynus, Koch, 1843 (Arachnida). ...............
chaquensis, Leptodactylus, Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura) ........... chelata, Aranea, Miller, 1764 (Arachnida) .........2...2.2... 1. Choristochromata Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............
chrysis, Staphylinus, Bernhauer, 1936 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, chrysis, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 (Coleoptera) ............ 185,
clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787 (Decapoda) ...............
Coelioxys Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera). .................
cognatus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera) ............. 99% cognatus, Philonthus, Stephens, 1832 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, Colobopempton Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ..............
concinnus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera). ........ 99, concinnus, Staphylinus, Marsham, 1802 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, coombii, Cypraea, Sowerby in Dixon, 1850 (Gastropoda) ..........
cornutus, Oxytelus, Bernhauer, 1936 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, cornutus, Oxytelus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, crassicorne, Omalium, Lea, 1906 (Coleoptera) ............. 99,
Cryptocraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .........2.... Cryptoptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... cuniculus, Podalgus, Burmeister, 1847 (Coleoptera) .........2..... cupriacelawshinca LiubnermslolOndepidoptera) eared nen eee nein mee cursor, Staphylinus, Miller, 1776 (Coleoptera) ............... Cyplionoia IDeeain, 333 (College) .2 255050000000 s sooo
Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Coleoptera) ................
debilis, Leptacinus, Cameron, 1950 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, debilis, Leptacinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, denticolle, Omalium, Beck, 1817 (Coleoptera)... ........... 99, denticolle, Omalium, Sharp, 1889 (Coleoptera) .........2.... 99,
DevierossAolmbersss OWA (Eymenoptend) meee nee alee ee eae Deuterythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Diaphoroglyptos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. Diastictopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Diatelerythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Dichromatopoda Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............
298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Didiastictopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121
Diestecodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 12] Digymnoptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Dileucocraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .........2.... 121 DRA Valolranloxercy., INT (lalyyaaverevoyontes) os 5 5 5 5 5 on ee 121 dimidiatus, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera). .......... 99, 281 Dipephricoptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. 121 Dinlosporaplabbew 898i (RrOusta) meee enne enn ene nn 125 Diplotritaenia Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 discretus, Hydroporus, Fairmaire & Brisout in Fairmaire, 1859 (Arachnida) . . 38 diversipes, Tetrapedia, Klug, 1810 (Hymenoptera) .............. 34 Dolichomesodon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 dudleyi, Cryptotermes, Banks, 1918 (Isoptera) ................ 90 Duolandrevusmarbyan lO 0Gi(Oxthoptena) seen ee n-ne 180 Eleuthrobothrios Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. 121 Engycampyle Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Epicolobos olmberss 19a (Eymenopteta) eens ene nee ne 121 Epidiodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121 Ermythrobasislolmberos 19a (Elymeno per) miememen ie incnae annem 121 Erythronotos) Holmbercs 19ilv/e(Elymenoptera) in) seat e) alee 121 Erythropleurae Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 eurymedon, Papilio, Lucas, 1852 (Lepidoptera) ............. 114, 204 ButhystirakieberminkWwelchsi8s24(@Ortioptera) arene neni ee 180 Exechoparatasis Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Ecomalopsis Spinola 893i (alymenoOpteta) yaaeeenene ley neice iieenne 34 ViabrilispAnaneas @lercksslij58y (Arachnida) anaes eee 7, 203 fernandopoensis, Sitala (Prositala) Germain, 1915 (Gastropoda) ...... . 239 Verus GamelussPrzewalskin US83_ (Manni alia) ieee ac eect seamen 48 HOPES, Gs, Bocas, WSS (Miami) 5 5 5 6 oo oe doc 48 flabelliformis, Scleritoderma, Sollas, 1888 (Porifera). ............. 74 flavipes, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) ............. 256 fulgidus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) ............. 256 fulgidus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1793'(Coleoptera)) . . . 2: 2225 256 fulvipes, Tachinus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera). ........2.... 99, 281 ani. JOS, Semi, WMes7/ ((Miemoimebey 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 oo oo Oe 48 Geodromicusmedtenbachemplss/a (Coleoptera) semana ten ene 188 germinationis, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera). .............. 269 Gisortia Jousseaume, 1884 (Gastropoda) .................. N73} gisortiana, Ovula, Passy, 1859 (Gastropoda) ................ 173 gisortiensis, Ovula, Cossmann, 1886 (Gastropoda) ............. 173 glaber, Staphylinus, Muller, 1776 (Coleoptera) .............2.. 256 eraclismeblediusiauvelyalisoon (Coleoptera) aemene anal iemiennt nen enna 256 granulatus, Heteromesus, Richardson, 1908 (Isopoda). ............ 82
gratus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1943 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
gratus, Philonthus, LeConte, 1863 (Coleoptera). ............ 99, 2 guanicoe, Camelus, Miller, [1776](Mammalia)................ Gymnoptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Haematonotos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. haemorrhoidalis, Philonthus, Brancsik, 1893 (Coleoptera) ........ 99, haemorrhoidalis, Philonthus, MacLeay, 1873 (Coleoptera). ....... 99, haemorrhoidalis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) ....... oe), haemorrhoidalis, Staphylinus, Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera) ........ 99,
Halcampella Andres, 1883 (Anthozoa) ................... Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Coleoptera) ................ hatcheri, Liolaemus, Stejneger, 1909 (Reptilia) ............... Hegumenerythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. Hemistilpnos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Heptodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ Heteromesus Richardson, 1908 (Isopoda) .................. Hexodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) -...-......:..+....
hirtipennis, Quedius, Broun, 1915 (Coleoptera) ............. 9), 2
Holochromatogaster Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............ Holomeros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............2...
Horatocraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. humilis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) .........2... 99, 2 humilis, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) .........2... 99, 2 hybridus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1930 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, hybridus, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) ........... 99,
JEhyairoloua: \alemiveerivoy, itsyail (Gainey) 2s 5 0 6 0055640555008 6 EDD ROBIMDAE Mroschela liso (Gastropoda) ae ee ee HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera). ............2... HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) .............. Hypanodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Hypobrachys Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Hypodolichos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Hypodontophora Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. Hypomonodon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. Hypotriodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ..............
iloyin, Onolinn, Vales, Ns) (CORG DIS) 9 cs cls 0 os bob oboe locidonodamaolmbers Ola (clymenopteta) arc ae cmen sentry ene Voeidospiosmnolmberc el Oli (khymenoptera) a ea ene en eyo) e TODD, SUAS UTS; Sebi, MSO (COO MISE)) oo 66 008 58 0 5 5 6 0 6
Iijonagia Dsprole, Mxo4) (COWIE) o> opis 5 5 o 5 co G6 ot Ns. 72
ISCHINURIDAEB Simon o79s (Arachnida) nr yan inte ot te seen ral yp USCISONURIIN ANE) Jeger, IOS) (Oreloimene) 4 65 6 6 6 6 6 oo 6 69510 6 a 6 ¢ Isaypora SO aanclor, Ussil (BIOWSIA)) 5 0 os 6 @ 0 0 6 8 on 6a od 6 obo & HATCH, SHAN, eeu, NSO (Coloyaisra)) oo 2056 50 4 ooo 6b
Jacobsoni, Calotermes (Cryptotermes), Holmgren, 1913 (Isoptera) ....... janii, Achatina, De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (Gastropoda) ..........
300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
Kania, Caos, nies, Wes) (Colonie). 5 56 bo eo 188
Labidiopempton Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Inxearan., ID dosaorel, \Leloos., NSIS) (IRROWSID)) oo 5 5 eo po 125 iLogodilloy Inlolhimlocns, Iie} (Ishyimenooiera)) 3. 5 sc 65 noob oo oo 121 Laps GOlGhines, KYO) (ONSWNINES) 5 6 5 6 ooo de eee oe ee 133 Kestevantatrenllesly 9 ia(Coleopteta) Meena 19] Leucocraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 WencopeldeaaBateswml sola (Coleoptera) marae meiene ane ieee 97 lineatus, Geophilus, Newport, 1845 (Chilopoda) ............... 85 LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (Arachnida) .............. 38 iiopeltemolmibenese Ola (Elymen @ plete) ements ene ney ene ee 121 IsioteropeltesrlolmbersLONia (clymlenoptera) ease sine) ene 121 litoreus, Staphylinus, Broun, 1880 (Coleoptera). ............ 99, 281 littoreus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 longipenne, Anthobium, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) ............ 256 longipenne, Anthobium, Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) ............ 256 lunatum, Phalangium, Pallas, 1772 (Arachnida). .............. 242 pias, Ceraks, \Litomevsuey, 7/5) (IMiemenin@ia) 5 6 5c oo ooo 48 lutescens, Platycoelia, Blanchard, 1851 (Coleoptera) ............. 97 MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) ............... 132 MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes)............ 132 MACROPODUSINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes) .......... 132 marginatum, Omalium, Cameron, 1941 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 288 marnginatum. Omaliums Say, 832i(Coleoptera)i. 4 4 4) ne ne 99, 281 marginatus, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1944 (Coleoptera). ......... 99, 281 marginatus, Staphylinus, Miller, 1764 (Coleoptera)... ........ 99, 281 marmoratus, Remipes, Jacquinot, 1846 (Anomura) ........... Iasi Massaihelira Germaine lOlss(Gastropoda)) sence sen an cen ane ene 239 maxima, Halcampella, Hertwig, 1888 (Anthozoa). .....:....... 170 mene, Chong as, ILO, MINS (DINE) sos 565 ooo oe soo 204 Melanerythronotos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............ 121 MelanobasisiiolmbercslOlWA(Ehymenop tera) smal nears ene 121 melanocephalus, Oxyporus, Kirshenblat, 1938 (Coleoptera) ....... 99, 281 melanocephalus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) ....... 99, 281 Melanomesonotos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. 121 Melanonotos rolmbers- lila (iyamenoptera)) a aeen nine aeien cnn uncine nc aeinenne 121 Melanopleurae Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Melanospilos Holmberos Silda (Ebymenoptenra) psec ncen caine 121 Menoeiderythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .........2.... 121 Mesodontaiiolmbercas| 9a (Ehymenoptera) isan cneent enn 121 Metadiacopes tdolnbercaalOllWa (shymlenoptera) meneame cnet 121 Metentomes Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... 121 MetriopteramWiesmaclsal83 Si (Onthoptera)) ieaeenincncienennennen enone 180 OOS, Cuanouis, Sion, IOVS (RENN) 5 5 5 0 5 ob ee ee 273
mimulus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1874 (Coleoptera) ..........2... 99, 281
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 minutus, Xantholinus, Coiffait, 1962 (Coleoptera). ........... 99, mobilicornis, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) ......... 246,
Monochromatopoda Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............
montanus, Philonthus, Bernhauer, 1934 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 2
mulsanti, Mycetoporus, Ganglbauer, 1895 (Coleoptera) ........... mutus, Poephagus, Przewalski, 1883 (Mammalia) ...............
neuter, Hydroporus, Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1854 (Arachnida) .......
niger, Staphylinus, Muller, 1764 (Coleoptera). ........2..2..2... nigriceps, Philonthus, Eppelsheim, 1885 (Coleoptera) .......... of), nigrum, Omalium, Coiffait, 1982 (Coleoptera) ..........2... 99, nigrum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, nitidulus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera). .......... 99, nitidulus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) ......... 99, NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 (Lepidoptera). .......... 38, obesus, Euphryne, Baird, 1859 (Reptilia) .........2...2.... 45,2
obscurus, Carpelimus, Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) ............. obtectum, Setidium, Schmidt, 1879 (Porifera). .............2... Odonteusssamouellem(Sil9i(Coleoptera) ees -) Alen nen eonene 246, opilio, Phalangium, Linnaeus, 1758 (Arachnida) .............. Opisthocoronis Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. Onomyzammallenwels20\ (Diptera) ieee te en en aan ne nian: OnlenialsaOviseGmelinesle/4n(vianimalia) iene see ene sear aaeleeenee Opovouunnas Wlemuiny, ISK (Awesome) 5 5 5 565 $6 5050505055005 OnphnacusMementalsi/0l(Chilopoda) eae s fee. enero aren Orthocolobos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Orthoptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... Oxyepiptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Oxyeschatia Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ...............
pacificus, Remipes, Dana, 1852 (Anomura)............... 1, Palinanalogodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. Palindeuteros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Palindiestecodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............ Pantelochroma Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. Pantelomelas Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Pantelostilpnos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. Panterythromera Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. IeiROHOTAS BNE, SSS) (IDO) ov 2 oso 9 oo oe Ceo ee ok
Paradoxotetartos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. Porelosa Voom, italy (ANirevelii@) 5-5 5 5 5 6 tk ie parvulus, Oxytelus, Mulsant & Rey, 1861 (Coleoptera) ......... OY), 2
Rediopeliematolmbercanl OlW/a (hymen Optcta) eaeaemenEncne caeieiee) inne ne AMMORENTS LOR, toll (DHE). 5 0 5c oo boo eo poo oO
Aeon WileeLepny, IIS) (Collage). oo046000005 545508 Dif, 2
Penerythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................
302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
penetrans, Staphylinus, Miller, 1776 (Coleoptera) ............. 256
RentodonHopew ssi (Coleoptera) aeaenen ene eee ae 27, 203 Pephricoptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 periglacialis, Vilcunia, Cei & Scolaro, 1983 (Reptilia) ............ 275 peruviana, Acaulona, Yownsend, 1913 (Diptera) .............. 286 petropolitana, Dianulites, Dybowski, 1877 (Bryozoa) ............. 40 petropolitana, Diplotrypa, Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa) ............. 40 Phaenodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Phalangium Linnaeus, 1758 (Arachnida) .................. 242 phaleratus, Aegorhinus, Erichson, 1834 (Coleoptera) ............ 258 Phanerocraspedon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. 121 Phaneroptyche Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Rhiloscaptus Brethess LO 9K(Eoleoptera) ee een 93 Phlyctenopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121 phosphorea, Scolopendra, Linnaeus, 1758 (Chilopoda) ............ 85 PhnynichusKarscheals/9i(Anachnida) eure nln nnn eee 242 piceus, Tachinus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) ............. 99, 281 piceus, Xantholinus, Cameron, 1926 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281 picipennis, Philonthus, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) ............. 99, 281 picipennis, Philonthus, Maklin, 1852 (Coleoptera). ........... 99, 281 picipennis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1793 (Coleoptera) ............ 256 plagiatus, Quedius, Mannerheim, 1843 (Coleoptera) ............ 256 plagiatus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1798 (Coleoptera) .........2... 188 planus, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1792 (Coleoptera). ........2.2..2... 256 Platycatapiesis Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ..........2.... 121 Platyeschatia Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Pleonelasoncolobos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............ 121 Pleurodonta Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............2... 121 Plusierythra Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... 121 Podalgus Burmeister, 1847 (Coleoptera) ..............2..... 93 polygama, Catocala, Guenée, 1852 (Lepidoptera). ............. 117 Porrhocampyle Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Porrhodontion Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121 primigenius, Bos, Bojanus, 1827 (Mammalia). ................ 48 PristiprerayDej cans s3ou(Coleoptera) yee cnn nen 249 propinquus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1933 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 281 propinquus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281 RrositalatGernain-e!9 lisi(Gastropode)) ieee eee niente ene 239 Proteros lolmbers> 1917 (Eiymenoptera)ies 4) | 4 2 eee eee) eee 121 Proterythromera Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............. 121 Proterythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 Protomonon Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... 121 Psephidonus:Gistelsaltsso) (Coleoptera) eee enn 188 PsuchocephalusMWatreillew828) (Coleoptera) eaeaeenen ene eee 253 Psuphocephalus Imhoff, 1856 (Coleoptera) .................- 253 punctata, Lesteva, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera). ...........2... 256
punctatellus, Philonthus, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
punctatellus, Philonthus, Horn, 1884 (Coleoptera). ........... 99,
punctatus, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) .......... Af, 2 punctatus, Scarabaeus, Villers, 1789 (Coleoptera)... .......... Dire, punctipennis, Staphylinus, Solier, 1849 (Coleoptera). .......... OY) 2
punctulata, Lesteva, Latreille, 1804 (Coleoptera) .............. purpurascens, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1920 (Coleoptera). ........ 99, purpurascens, Staphylinus, Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) ....... . 99, putorius, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia). ............... Pycnocrossos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... Pycnodiastictopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............ Pycnotrematos Holmberg, 1918 (Hymenoptera) .............. pygmaeum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) ........... pygmaeus, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1800 (Coleoptera) ........... 99,
reniforme, Phalangium, Linnaeus, 1758 (Arachnida) ............ rivularis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) ........... 995 rivularis, Philonthus, Kiesenwetter, 1858 (Coleoptera). ......... 99, riyularis, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1789 (Coleoptera) .............. rivularis, Trogophloeus, Motschulsky, 1860 (Coleoptera) ..........
robustum, Omalium, Broun, 1911 (Coleoptera) ..........2... 99; 2
robustum, Omalium, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera). ..........2... gf), rufipennis, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1930 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, rufipennis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, rufipennis, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera). ........ Oo} rufum, Omalium, Sachse, 1852 (Coleoptera) .............. 99, rugosus, Cenobita, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Decapoda) ............. rugosus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) ..........2...
Sanroiars \alaill, Wes) (sisal mE). 6 sc 6a co Bs o ee ole a eb 6 ac SUUnIpLenusmlalleels3n(@sterchthyes) pues teem eect) id rs cs Saunimolepisellalleats40n(@steichthyes) ers eeceen ec eee ca ace Seadoo, SiS, Feel, MSV (COBDS), cisco oo 6 05 66 8 84 6 6 0 scabricauda, Squilla, Lamarck, 1818 (Stomatopoda) ............ scitus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera). ............ Scleritoderma Schmidt, 1879 (Porifera) Sencnina Soave, IS7® (Romie) 2 5 o 66 0 6 6 os 6 5 6 0 els 6 b 6 oo 6 silvestris, Felis catus, Schreber, [1777] (Mammalia)
sonnerati, Chrysodema, Laporte & Gory, 1835 (Coleoptera). ...... 185, 2
sorbi, Omalium, Gyllenhal, 1810 (Coleoptera) ...........2.2.2.. splendens, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1793 (Coleoptera) ............ THATS, Sania, OWwnise, IIIS (Cologne) ¢ sooo nob 655606050 striatus, Staphylinus, Strom, 1768 (Coleoptera) suis, Isospora, Biester, 1934 (Protista)
sumptuosa, Chrysodema, Laporte & Gory, 1835 (Coleoptera) ..... . 185, 2
taenioides, Thalassema, Ikeda, 1904 (Echiura) Tapinotetartos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. Kanareo, nares, allas, N77 (COBDS) os 5000000 s e555 oS
304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
taylori, Sauritolepis, Hall, 1840 (Osteichthyes) ............... 198
recs, Jans, Bomkhow, ISSO (Colegio) 2.550500 5 55 co sees 24 tenuis, Mycetoporus, Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (Coleoptera) .......... 194 terminalis, Staphylinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 281 terminalis, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1840 (Coleoptera). .......... 99, 281 testaceum, Omalium, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) ............. 256 testaceum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera). ........... 256 testaceus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) .......... 99, 281 Tetarterythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121 Metmapedia Kiera Sih (Elymenop tea) aaaemetse ne eninl nn ee 34 thoracicus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) ........ 99, 281 tomentosus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) ........ 99, 281 Tridiastictopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121 Triliopelte Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ................ 121 Trimononerythros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............. 121 Trioeidomera Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ............... 121 trisulcata, Buprestis, Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Coleoptera) .......... 249 Miritaenia Wolmberg. lOi7 i (lymenoptera)) ey ene eee 121 typica, Leptodactylus ocellatus, Cei, 1948 (Amphibia, Anura) ......... 44 Ukanomalos Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera). ............... 121 unicolor, Quedius, Kiesenwetter, 1847 (Coleoptera) ........... 99, 281 Utodeuteros Holmberg, 1917 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121 WiritossHolmbereasl SW (Ebymenop tera) meee eine eee nen 12] vagans, Pelastoneurus, Loew, 1861 (Diptera) ................ 196 veneta, Achatina, Strobel, 1855 (Gastropoda). ................ Val VentrosiaaRadoman's 19 /Mn (Gastropoda) aes alee cence ene 128 ventrosus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803 (Gastropoda). .............. 128 vicugna, Camelus, Molina, 1782 (Mammalia). ................ 48 viduus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1933 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281 viduus, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) ............ 99, 281 villosus, Anthophagus, Waltl, 1838 (Coleoptera). .............. 256 ywiolascensss Cenobitawkiellemels 624(Decapoda) siemens ncn 17 violellus, Nemotois, Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (Lepidoptera) .... . 30 WET, ZINiaGys, False ws, NV7S (Si@matooosk)) css 5.505050 5 oo 155 MS, Copco, lealomncus, IVS (COONS) 2 s5 565505050500 soe 253 whitei, Geophilus, Newport, 1845 (Chilopoda) ................ 85
yampiensis, Ctenotus decaneurus, Storr, 1975 (Reptilia) ........... 273
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002 305
INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis- sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned.
General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.
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 to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. “Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.
References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.
Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application.
306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59(4) December 2002
PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 59 (2002)
Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication 1 1-68 27 March 2002 2 69-160 28 June 2002 3 161-232 30 September 2002 4 233-306 19 December 2002
INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER
The present volume should be bound up as follows: Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-306
Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume
Contents — continued
Indexes, etc.
Authors in volume 59 (2002)
Names and works placed on Official Lists and ladon 1 in alin of the Commission published in volume 59 (2002) .
Key names in Applications, Comments ond Neuere Notes aubiisted in volume 59 (2002) . :
Information and Instructions for withers
Publication dates and pagination of volume 59 (2002).
Instructions to binder . j awn
Table of Contents of volume 59 (2 2002 )
CONTENTS
Notices .
ICZN iDhencaioe (ist now Available Gules
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. :
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zaclosy = Supplement 1986- 2000. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . ‘ Lae : Financial Report for 2001
Applications
Prositala Germain, 1915 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over Massaihelix Germain, 1913. B. Verdcourt & A.C. van Bruggen .
Phrynus ceylonicus C.L. Koch, 1843 (Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed Syeeiienies of the specific name over Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758 and eee lunatum Pallas, 1772. P. Weygoldt
Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera): arse precedence over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). M.L. Jameson & H.F. Howden .
Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation, and Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833. S. Bily & C.L. Bellamy . Reig ee ORME ery ip) vn
Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed Tee over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828. M. Elgueta & G. Kuschel : :
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, ee proposed conservation of 17 specific names. L.H. Herman :
Opomyza Fallén, 1820 (Insecta, .Diptera): sacnaen aagonenee oF sage ‘by designation of a neotype for its type species Musca germinationis Linnaeus, 1758. J.W.A. van Zuijlen, P.L.Th. Beuk & E.P. Nartshuk. Fee onele Te Gk
Ctenotus decaneurus yampiensis Storr, 1975 (currently C. yampiensis; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation of a neotype. L.A. Smith . :
Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 (currently Liolaemus periglac ae Reptiles Sauria): proposed precedence over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909. J.A. Scolaro & J.M. Cei .
Comments
Draft proposal to amend Article 74.7.3: request for comments from the Commission and zoological community. W. Pulawski, I.M. Kerzhner, D.J. Brothers & N.L. Evenhuis; A. Wakeham-Dawson .
On the proposed precedence of Bolboceras ore 1819 (July) (iscecas. @oleapion) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). P.J. Harpootlian .
On the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gor. 1835 ANG Tridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. S. Bily
On the proposed conservation of 65 Les names in the family STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera). A. Wakeham-Dawson
Nomenclatural Notes
Type specimens: dead or alive? A. Wakeham-Dawson, S. Morris & P.K. Tubbs; M.L. Dalebout & C.S. Baker :
Acaulona peruviana Townsend, 1913 Once: Digi): Sppliedon a Article 15. 8 of the Code. R. Toma . SESE
Page
233 234 235 235 236 237
239
Continued on Inside Back Cover
7897 5985/2, By 18/11/66 VA
Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT1 1HD
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES :
fim
8 01291 6367