Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats

Hyatt ti

a
—— — SHADE
Bsiuerm
oF ae eae

eo ae |
[ie ce
contents Fronear |i

Index Front/Rear ei

EDGES TRIMMED/UNTRIMMED

BOARD HEIGHT* ~

LETTERING—GOLD/FOIL
LEATHER T.P.-SHADE

Other Instructions:

** for library use
* for bindery use onl

_ DUNN & WILSON LTD., FALKIRK

oe Periodical and Reference Binding

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 30

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD
1974

grea

TAD 101008 10 rk me:
SAUT AION AQ

Wa? ¢

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion 990. Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816 (Insecta, Sei eae Soe:
nation of a type-species under the plenary powers ...

Lectotype fixations for Papilio midamus Linnaeus and Papilio mulciber
Cramer (Insecta, Lepidoptera)

Opinion 991. Hetererannis Warren, 1904 (Insecta, y SPREE: age
nation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... : ;

Opinion 992. Gammarus aequicauda (Martynov, 1931) (Crustacea,
Amphipoda): validated under the plenary powers

Opinion 993. Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778 as Apa eetton
of a neotype under the plenary powers

Opinion 994. Tatura Butler, [1888] (Insecta, ee peesenon
of a type-species under the plenary powers : are

Opinion 995. Psodos Treitschke, 1825 Cniee a a validation
of emendation from Psoidos

Opinion 996. Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoi-
dea): designation of a type-species under the plenary powers

Opinion 997. Anoplius Dufour, 1844 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): desig-
nation of a type-species under the plenary powers together with the
designation of neotypes for two nominal species

Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): designation
of a neotype in accordance with accustomed usage. Problems
arising from the misidentification of the species by Savigny (1822 &
1826). By R. W. Sims (Department of PEI: British Museum
(Natural History), London S.W.7) oe , ‘

Request that the International Commission rule to correct the homonymy
in the family-group name DREPANIDAE, currently in use in
Insecta and Pisces. By C. G. Gruchy (Ichthyology Unit, National
Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) Ae

Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda): proposed designation of a type-
species under the plenary powers. By H. A. Rehder Laie
Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

Til

Page

Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola): proposed suppression
under the plenary powers. By Willem N. Ellis (Jnstitut voor
Taxonomische Zoélogie, het Zoélogisch Museum, University of
Amsterdam) and Peter F. Bellinger (Biology Department, San
Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California) .

Haematopinus eurysternus (Denny, 1842) (Haematopinidae, Anoplura,
Insecta): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Ke
Chung Kim and Christian F. Weisser (The Frost Entomological
Museum, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity, University Park, Pa. 16802, U.S.A.)

Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): pro-
posed validation under the plenary powers. By N. L. Tzvetkova
(Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) ...

Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae): proposed sup-
pression under the plenary powers. By O. W. Richards (University
of London, London, England) 3 See Pe eo Ae

Lachryma Sowerby, [1832] (Mollusca): proposed addition to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology. By W. O. corohere
(Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) .. p

Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): request for the designation of a
type-species under the plenary powers. By A. G. Beu (New
Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, Lower Hutt, New Zealand)

LORIIDAE (Aves)—Author and date: proposal for amendment of Opinion
938. By G.N. Kashin (Moscow)

Formica maxima Moore, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed sup-
pression under the plenary powers in accordance with Article 23
(a-b). By W. D. L. Ride (The Western Australian Museum,
Francis Street, Perth, W.A. 6000, Australia) and R. W. Taylor
(Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra a
A.C.T. 2601, Australia) "5 : ‘

Application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenée,
1877 (Lepidoptera, Thyrididae, Striglinae). By Paul E. S. ie
(British Museum (Natural History) London S.W.7) .

Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera-Heteroptera, Coreidae):
a request for the validation of the commonly used type-species.
By R. O’Shea (Biological Sciences Group, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut 06268) rd aS at 13

Page

Opinion 998. Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Insecta,
Orthoptera): neotype designated under the plenary powers

Opinion 999. Plautus Brunnich, 1772 (Aves): suppressed under the
plenary powers = Sh — ae ie a

Opinion 1000. Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 Caste PURER SEI,
designation of a type-species s

Opinion 1001. Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] als COP a
validated under the plenary powers

Opinion 1002. Phalaena tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758: refusal to
use the plenary powers to designate a neotype

Proposed suppression of the name Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895
(Pisces: Galaxiidae). By R. M. McDowall (Fisheries Research
Division, iy of scsi and Fisheries, Wellington, New
Zealand) . “a é a a a BN “oe aE

Embletonia pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854, the specific name to be
protected against the nomen oblitum Tergipes adspersus Nordmann,
1845 (Mollusca Opisthobranchia). By Henning Lemche (Univer-
sitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetetsparken 15, 2100 Copen-
hagen @, Denmark) "yy

Polycera faeroensis—Request for a ruling on authorship and date
(Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). By Henning Lemche (Univer-
sitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetetsparken 15, 2100 Copen-
hagen @, Denmark) or

Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae):
a proposal to designate a neotype under the plenary powers. By
F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley Rural Station, Colorado pes
Colorado, 80911, U.S.A.) ae ze 3 a

Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): request for
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Karel
BeneS (Afrika 20, Prague 6), Tikahiko Naito (Entomological Labora-
tory, College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai,
Osaka) and Teiichi Okutani (Entomological Laboratory, Faculty Su
Agriculture, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe) :

Page

(Hl

Psednura longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920 (Insecta, Orthoptera): request for
use of the plenary powers to set aside all previous lectotype desig-
nations and to designate as lectotype a syntype here specified. By
K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700,
Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) oe ois aaa

Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed sup-
pression under the plenary powers. By C. O. van Regteren Altena
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands)

Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda, Enoplida): a request for sup-
pression; Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 proposed for the Official List.
By W. D. Hope (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560) and D. G.
Murphy (National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20014)

Cerithium Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda): proposed preservation by
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Richard
(Joseph R.) Houbrick (Smithsonian lian sci Center,
Washington, D.C. 20560) oe 5

Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea):
proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By David Rosen
(Department of Entomology, The Hebrew iit wet is
Agriculture, Rehovet, Israel) ihe

Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
suppression under the plenary powers in order to preserve Droso-
phila mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942. By H. L. Carson
(University of Hawaii), D. E. Hardy (University of Hawaii), L. H.
Throckmorton (University of Chicago), M. Wasserman (City
University of New York) and M. R. Wheeler (University of Texas)

Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae): request
for suppression under the plenary powers of the designation by
Macquart, 1827 of H. jaculus Fallén as type of the genus in favour
of H. nebulosus Fallén in order to conserve consistent usage. By
George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o
U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A. 20560), Harold
Robinson (U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A. 20560),
Hans Ulrich (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig,
Bonn, Germany) and Richard L. Hurley ee State pdb
Arcata, California, U.S.A. 95521) de

Page

102

104

108

112

118

Oscinella Becker, 1909: proposed designation of type-species, under the
plenary powers (Diptera, Chloropidae). By C. W. Sabrosky (Syste-
matic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)

Leucospis gigas Fabricius (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Leucospidae): proposed
to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. By
Z. Bouéek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London)

Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, Milichiidae): proposed designation of
type-species, under the plenary powers. By C. W. Sabrosky
(Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,
U.S.D.A.) sng Be.

Opinion 1003. Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda):
placed on the Official List of Generic Names : eS. ee

Opinion 1004. SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955 (Trilobita):
validated under the plenary powers ee a ig ne.

Opinion 1005. Trypeta Meigen, 1803 (Insecta: Diptera); Trypetes
Schoenherr, 1836 (Insecta: Coleoptera); Trypetesa Norman, 1903
(Crustacea: Cirripedia): removal of homonymy in Family-Group
Names under the plenary powers ss wed oes

Opinion 1006. Poteriocrinus hemisphericus Shumard, 1858 (Echino-
dermata, Crinoidea): designation of a neotype under the plenary
powers ie eh oP he

Opinion 1007. Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884 sags aaa
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers

Opinion 1008. Siphona Meigen, 1803 and Haematobia Lepeletier and
Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Diptera): designations of type-species
under the plenary powers ae ag Sa: ine Le

Opinion 1009. Vanikoro Quoy and Gaimard, 1832 Dieta Gas-
tropoda): made available under the plenary powers..

Opinion 1010. Callopanchax Myers, 1933 (Pisces): cEseEaer of a
type-species under the plenary powers Ree

Opinion 1011. Cypselus abessynicus Streubel, 1848 aie eevee
suppressed under the plenary powers . :

Vil

Page

121

124

126

142

147

151

153

155

157

167

Vill

Opinion 1012. Thalascaris Bate, 1878 ae a a sup-
pressed under the plenary powers Bs

Opinion 1013. Priapus humanus Linnaeus, 1758 and Holothuria priapus
Linnaeus, 1767 (Priapulida): suppression under the plenary powers

On the specific name of the Hottentot Teal. By W. D. L. Ride
(President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia): proposed validation
under the plenary powers. By W. D. L. Ride alma Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) f

Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): proposed designation under
the plenary powers. By the late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B.
Hastings ena of the British Museum Cars Fe
London) $5 ae : oa a ;

The type-species of the genus Pseudanisakis Layman & Borokova, 1926
(Nematoda). By D. I. Gibson (British Museum (Natural History),
London S.W.7) : ae be 2s “a8 35. te

Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea, Jurassic): an application
to designate as lectotype a specimen other than that wrongly
identified as the pew By T. A. Getty (Portsmouth City Museum,
England) . i ‘ite BS ate ae sa ae

Apis rotundata Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed sup-
pression of lectotype and designation of neotype in accord with
Megachile rotundata Auct. By R. B. Roberts (Department of
Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.)

Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Foraminifera): proposal for suppression under
the plenary powers. By Richard W. Ponder (Geology Department,
James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queens-
land, Australia) = nl

Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina,
Eriophyoidea): proposal for designation under the plenary powers, of
type-species in harmony with current use. By V. G. Shevtchenko
(Vice-President of the Acarology Section, All-Union Entomological
Society, U.S.S.R.) = SS a

Request for a ruling on the stem of Family-Group Names based on the
type-genus Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758. By V. D. Vladykov stl
fessor of Biology, University of Ottawa, Canada) he ;

Page

169

171

173

177

182

185

190

193

196

198

Establishment of a neotype for Pseudogeloius decorsei (1. Bolivar, 1905)
(Insecta, Orthoptera, Pyrgomorphidae). By D. Keith McE.
Kevan (Department of Entomology and Lyman Entomological
Museum and Research Laboratory, Macdonald Campus, McGill
University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, Que., Canada) ao oa

Synalpheus neptunus (Dana, 1852): neotype. By A. H. Banner and
D. M. Banner Claes Institute adi Marine page ieee a
Hawaii) = ‘

Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Attacidae): proposed
designation of a type-species By Claude Lemaire (17 Rue
d’ Edimbourg, 75008 Paris, France) Bes ake

PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia): proposed suppression
of Family Name under the plenary powers; together with valida-
tion of Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 (Mammalia) not Klun-
zinger, 1879 (Pisces). By Philip D. Gingerich ee sae
Museum, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) ...

“Gen.n., Sp.n” after 1930: is the generic name available? By Curtis
Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology hick U.S. eee of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)... ; os :

Proposed emendation to Nysson of the name Nysso Latreille, 1796
(Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). By A. S. Menke (Systematic Entom-
ology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., clo U.S. National Museum, Washington
D.C.), R. M. Bohart (Department of Entomology, University of
California, Davis, California) and O. W. Richards (c/o Department
of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) London, England)

Euplilis Risso, 1826 (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae): proposed suppression
under the plenary powers in favour of Rhopalum Stephens, 1829.

By A. S. Menke, R. M. Bohart and O. W. Richards acca as
given in the paper above) : =

Index to Authors
List of Decisions in this volume
Index to Key Names ...

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published
volume 30

Page

200

203

205

207

210

217

219
221
223

224

231

Page

Corrigenda 233
Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the

present volume was published... ae a on By ih 234

Instructions to Binder ae See in S55 Aas ae 3351S

} Volume 30, Part 1 6th July, 1973
pp. 1-64

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
OMENCLATURE

fp NAT mess a
ot wide

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page
_ Election of Officers and Council 1
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology
_ Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on oe ety 8 in
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 1
Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases . . 1

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
_ Zoological Nomenclature
and
‘Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1.
1973

Price Three Pounds
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE | re. &
A. The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (8
August 1973)

Vice-President: Dr. L. B. HottHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (28 August 1963)

Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, i
S.W.7) (30 January 1968)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) (16 | December
1954). Pisces; Echinodermata

Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958).
Arthropoda, ecology m

Dr. Henning LemcueE (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). é
Opisthobranchia ; Phylogeny

Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) F
(31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea Te.

Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, :
Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography

Professor E. BiInDER (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962). ’
Mollusca

Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, y
Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca

Dr. L. B. HotrHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 7
(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea en)

Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at ‘Harvard College, Cambridge, rae
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithol logy; Evolution =

Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) —
(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda

Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)
(President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil a

Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY WS. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, <>
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics — + =

Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, ‘Tucson, — ‘
Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia

Dr. Eugene ElsENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, = ,
U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology

Mr. R. V. MeLviLLe (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S. W. 7) 0°
January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology

Dr. Y. I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, Uz S.S.R.) Nt
(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea

Professor F. M. BAYER (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S. A) 7%
(20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics A y

Dr. John O. Cortuiss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U. S.A) 20

February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics

Prof. Dr. H. K. ERBEN (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitit Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 &
February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology ;

Professor T. HABE (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 197). :
Marine Biology

Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh
EH | \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca

Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW 75 BD) (20
February 1972). Lepidoptera Me

Dr. A. WILLINK (Unstituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical se
Hymenoptera -

Prof. B. B. RoHpENDORF (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, iMescoie U.S.S. R=
(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 7

sh G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) ( (28 September 1972). -

epidoptera

Dr. a Dupuis (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, ie 28 September 1972).

Diptera

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 30, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 6th July 1973

Election of Officers and Council

In accordance with the By-Laws, Section ILA, The Commission has held
an election for Officers and Council following the VIIth International Congress
of Zoology, Monaco, 1972. The following have been elected: arn

President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (2 Ds
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis é

Councillors: Dr. O. Kraus 11 JULI973
Prof. E. Mayr Seer
Dr. C. W. Sabrosky Nees a

S Le

NOTICES
(a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the

Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the
present part of the Bulletin [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli-
cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b]:

(1) Designation of a type-species for Nicodrilus Bouche, 1972 (Oligochaeta).
Z.N.S.) 272.

(2) Correction of homonymy of DREPANIDAE in Insecta and Pisces. Z.N.(S.)
1958.

(3) Designation of a type-species for Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda).
Z.N.(S.) 2007.

(4) Suppression of Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola).
Z.N.(S.) 2008.

(5) Validation of Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842 (Insecta, Anoplura).
Z.N.(S.) 2009.

(6) Validation of Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Crustacea, Amphi-
poda). Z.N.(S.) 2015.

(7) Suppression of Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Insecta, Hymenoptera).

Z.N.(S.) 2017.

(8) Designation of a type-species for Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda).
Z.N.(S.) 2021.

*(9) Suppression of Formica maxima Moore, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera).
Z.N.(S.) 2023.

*(10) Suppression of Daristane Walker, 1859 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.)
2025.

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(11) Designation of a type-species for Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta,
Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 2026.

The following new applications have been received since the publication of Vol. 29(4)
on 29 December 1972 [those marked with an asterisk ask for the application of Articles
23 (a-b) and 79(b).]

*(1) Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda : Enoplida), a request for suppression;
Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 proposed for the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2031 (W. D,
Hope & D. G. Murphy).

(2) Cerithium Brugiére, [1789], (Gastropoda): proposed preservation by designation
of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2032 (R. Houbrick).

(3) Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea); proposed
suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2033 (D. Rosen).

(4) ARENARIIDAE Stejneger, 1885 (Aves), validation of. Z.N.(S.) 2034 (Kashin).

*(5) Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera); proposed suppression
under the plenary powers in order to preserve Drosophila mercatorum Patterson
and Wheeler, 1942. Z.N.(S.) 2035 (H. L. Carson, L. H. Throckmorton, M.
Wasserman & M. R. Wheeler).

(6) Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae): request for
suppression under the plenary powers of the designation by Macquart, 1827 of
H. jaculus Fallén as type of the genus in favour of H. nebulosus Fallén in order to
conserve consistent usage. Z.N.(S.) 2036 (G. C. Steyskal, H. Robinson, H.
Ulrich & R. L. Hurley).

(7) Oscinella Becker, 1909: proposed designation of type-species, under the plenary
powers (Diptera, Chloropidae). Z.N.(S.) 2037 (C. W. Sabrosky).

*(8) Leucopsis gigas Fabricius (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Leucopsidae) proposed
to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Z.N.(S.) 2038
(Z. Bouéek).

(9) Ammonites defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea, Jurassic), an application to
designate as lectotype a specimen other than that wrongly identified as the
holotype. Z.N.(S.) 2039 (T. A. Getty).

(10) Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, Milichiidae): proposed designation of type-
species, under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2040 (C. W. Sabrosky).

*(11) Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): request for suppres-
sion under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2041 (G. L. Voss).

(12) Apis rotunda Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed suppression
of lectotype and designation of neotype in accordance with Megachile rotundata
Auct. Z.N.(S.) 2042 (R. B. Roberts).

c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET DOYLE
Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant
London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on

March 1973 Zoological Nomenclature

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING FAMILY NAMES
CASSIDAE AND HARPIDAE. Z.N.(S.) 1938
(See volume 28 : 56-58)

By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.)

I am in full agreement with Dr. A. G. Beu’s application to retain the family name
HARPIDAE as a taxon in the Mollusca, with the exception of his reference to the earliest
usage of the family-group name. The earliest such name that I have been able to find
is HARPINA Bronn, 1849 (Handb.Gesch.Natur. 3 (2) : Index paleont. sect.B (Enum.
paleont.) : 469, introduced to comprise the genera Harpa and Dolium. This is
obviously the reference by Grassé et al. that puzzled Cernohorsky (Bull. Zool. Nomencl.
29 : 109) : Franc (Grassé et al., Traité Zoologie 5 : 310) has in error written Brown
instead of Bronn as the author of the family name Harpidae.

Thus the family-group name to be placed on the Official List should be: HARPIDAE
Bronn, 1849, as HARPINA (Mollusca).

The family-group name HARPEDIDAE, suggested by Cernohorsky would be quite
similar to HARPIDIDAE Whittington, 1950 (Trilobita), based on Harpides Beyrich, 1849.
The name HARPETIDAE is to be preferred.

I likewise support Beu’s application regarding the family-group name CASSIDAE,
with the correction of the earliest type designation of Cassis as pointed out by
Cernohorsky (loc. cit.).

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE GENERIC
NAME ONISCIDIA H. & A. ADAMS, 1853. Z.N.(S.) 1983
(see volume 29, pages 41-43)

By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand)

I have recently received a comment on my proposal on the genus-group name
Oniscidia pending with the Commission, from Dr. W. K. Emerson, the senior author
of the genus-group name Cancellomorum Emerson & Old, which was supposed to have
replaced Oniscidia of authors.

A recent literature discovery of a further use (or possible subsequent erection of
Oniscidia) coupled with Dr. Emerson’s contention that Oniscidia of H. & A. Adams,
1853, is merely another misspelling of Oniscia, necessitates further information to be
supplied to the Commission; (Dr. Emerson also stated that H. & A. Adams did not
intend to propose the new generic name for they credit Oniscidia to Swainson). My
comments are as follows:

H. & A. Adams’ intentions in erecting Oniscidia have no bearing on this case,
since they consider Oniscidia to be a valid genus-group taxon as demonstrated by their
generic diagnosis and inclusion of species. Their citation of “Swainson” as author of
Oniscidia is incidental and as erroneous as all other authors’ citation of Swainson as
author of Oniscidia, which was a mere misspelling.

Dr. Emerson’s contention that H. & A. Adams’s Oniscidia is also a misspelling
(and he suggests that the Commission clarify the interpretation of Article 19 of I.C.Z.N.)
is of considerable significance, should the Commission rule that Oniscidia is a mis-
spelling. E. A. Smith (Journ. Malacology. 1895, 4 : 14) acknowledges the genus-
group name Oniscidia as a valid name and properly credits the authorship to H. & A.
Adams, 1853, together with a reference to publication and page. Smith also includes 6
species in Oniscidia. Should the Commission rule that Oniscidia H. & A. Adams,
1853, is a misspelling (as claimed by Dr. Emerson), then Oniscidia E. A. Smith, 1895,
would be the next available erection of the genus-group name, since Oniscidia H. & A.
Adams (if ruled a misspelling) would not enter into nomenclature (Article 33(b) of the
Code), and would not pre-occupy Oniscidia E. A. Smith, 1895. I doubt that Smith’s

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1, July 1973.

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Oniscidia, which is properly credited to H. & A. Adams, 1853, could be ruled to bea
misspelling of Oniscia Sowerby.

I thought it advisable to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that the
elimination of Oniscidia H. & A. Adams, 1853, would not automatically solve the
taxonomic problem, as E. A. Smith’s Oniscidia of 1895 would also have to be taken
into consideration.

P. A. Maxwell and A. G. Beu (New Zealand Geological Survey, D.S.I.R.,
Lower Hutt, New Zealand)

We strongly support the application by Cernohorsky (1972, Bull. Zool. Nomencl.,
19 : 41-3) to have Oniscidia placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
We agree with Cernohorsky’s interpretation that H. and A. Adams (1853, Genera of
Recent Mollusca, | : 220) clearly differentiated the taxon from Morum Roding, 1798
(=Oniscia Sowerby, 1824; = Oniscidia Swainson, 1840, incorrect subsequent spelling
of Oniscia Sowerby) and gave a good diagnosis and included a list of species that
define the taxon exactly in the now current sense of Oniscidia = Cancellomorum
Emerson and Old, 1963.

However, Dr. W. K. Emerson and Mr. Cernohorsky have pointed out to us
Morch’s usage of “‘Oniscidia Sw[ainson]” a year earlier than that of H. and A. Adams.
Morch (1852, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D’Aguirra & Gadea
Comes de Yoldi : 111) clearly set out Oniscidia as a subgenus discrete from Morum
“Bolt.” Roding, synonymised with Morum the names “‘Oniscia, Sow. Theliostoma
Aut. Sow. Gen. Lambidium Link’’, included in Oniscidia the single species cancellata
Sowerby, 1824 (type-species of Oniscidia as now currently used =Cancellomorum
Emerson and Old) and included three species in Morum that define it as now currently
used. Therefore we consider that Morch regarded Oniscidia as a separate name and
was using it for a taxon separate from Oniscia, and was not simply repeating Swainson’s
incorrect subsequent spelling. We consider that, despite MOrch’s attributing it to
“Sw[ainson]’, Oniscidia should be treated in the same way as the many other briefly-
introduced generic names in his Yoldi catalogue, and be regarded as an available new
name proposed in this work. At least one previous author (Olsson, 1931, Bull. Amer.
Paleont., 17 (63) : 94-96) attributed Oniscidia (consistently incorrectly spelled Oniscidea)
to Morch, although without citing a date or bibliographic reference; as far as we are
aware he can have been referring only to MGrch’s usage in the Yoldi catalogue.

Proposals of names to replace invalid usage of Oniscidia Swainson for this taxon
have not found general acceptance, especially in Australasia, and we strongly urge
the acceptance of Oniscidia M6rch, 1852 (type-species, by monotypy : Oniscia
cancellata Sowerby, 1824) as the valid name for the taxon.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF HYLA CRUCIALIS
(AMPHIBIA). Z.NAS.) 1982
(see volume 29, pages 39-40)

By Ronald I. Crombie (National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C. 20009, U.S.A.)

Trueb’s (1972) proposal for the conservation of Hyla lichenata (Gosse, 1851) and
suppression of the overlooked senior synonym Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826, is uncon-
vincing. The use of the plenary powers to preserve the generally unfamiliar name of
a poorly known species is of questionable necessity.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

There is no doubt that the names Hyla crucialis Harlan (1826 : 64), H. lichenata
(Gosse 1851 : 362) and H. anochloros (Gosse 1851 : 364) all apply to the same species;
I was aware of this when I first brought the problem to Dr. Trueb’s attention in 1971.
It cannot be denied that H. /ichenata prevails in the literature. However, are any of
the three names involved in ‘“‘general current use’’?

Declaration 43 (Bull. Zool. Nomencl., vol. 27, pts. 3/4, p. 135, Dec. 1970) states
(paragraph iii) that, “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 does not
constitute publication in the sense of Article 23b,”! and later (paragraph iv) that,
each“ citation of a name is to be considered on its own merits regardless of the nature
or the title of the work in which the name appears’’...The inference is that mere
publication of a name without adding information does not constitute usage for the
purposes of establishing a name in the literature. The West Indian herpetological
literature is littered with cases of a single paper’s being published in two or more
journals, often without change. Faunal checklists and other papers containing no
new information are also common. Under these criteria, most of the papers cited by
Trueb to substantiate H. lichenata’s entrenchment in the literature are invalidated.
Barbour’s papers (1930, 1935, 1937) are mere lists with no new data. Nieden (1923)
is a translation of Boulenger (1882). Duellman (1960, 1970) and Taylor (1948) mention
H. lichenata in passing in discussions of other groups of hylid frogs. Trueb’s (1970)
comments are speculatory as she had not examined a specimen of H. lichenata at that
time. Tyler (1971) used /ichenata although I had informed him of the existence of the
Harlan name before publication.

Almost all recent authors have depended on the data provided by Dunn (1926, 1929)
Only Lynn (1940), Lynn and Dent (1943), and Panton (1952) added small amounts of
information on the species. The most recent review of Jamaican amphibians (Schwartz
and Fowler, in press) used the name Hyla crucialis on the authority of a paper (Crombie,
MS) I had written but delayed publishing pending the recommendations of the Inter-
national Congress on the dispute over Article 23b (see Mayr et al 1971, Collette et
al 1972, and Corliss 1972). Unfortunately, Dr. Trueb’s proposal appeared before the
issue could be resolved.

The name Hyla lichenata (Gosse) is not in current use as defined by the ‘“‘five
different authors in at least ten publications” criterion of the old Article 23b and the
new, revised Article 79b. Furthermore, the name is unfamiliar to many herpetologists,
even some working in the West Indies. The species remains known from less than two
dozen specimens, many lacking locality data. This paucity of specimens is partly
due to the secretive habits of the frog but primarily reflects the lack of work on Antillan
hylids. The fact that Harlan’s Hy/a crucialis, published by a pioneer herpetologist in
a well known journal, has remained overlooked for 145 years is ample evidence that
West Indian tree frogs are a poorly studied group. MHarlan’s type specimen is still
extant (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 2180), although it has been unrecog-
nized as a type for many years.

The statute of limitations was instituted to protect well known names from replac-
ment by obscure senior synonyms. To use this statute to suppress older names in
poorly studied groups or names overlooked by careless early workers is inappropriate.
Stability would not be best served by setting aside a valid senior synonym represented
by a type specimen in favour of an infrequently used younger name with no type.
As a concerned student of the ecology and systematics of West Indian hylid frogs,
I disagree with Dr. Trueb’s proposal. The case involves two trivial, poorly documented
names and I see no reason why priority should not prevail. I recommend that Hyla
crucialis Harlan, 1826, be used instead of its junior synonym Hyla lichenata (Gosse,
1851) as the name of the large Jamaican tree frog.

1The substance of this provision is now embodied in Art. 79 (b) (i) of the Code, see Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 29 : 186, 1972. R.V.M.
°This provision appears as Art. 79 (b) (ii) of the Code. R.V.M.

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REFERENCES
Barsour, T. 1930. A list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Zoologica 11
(4) : 61-116.
Po T. 1935. A second list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. /bid. 19
(3) : 77-141.

BarBour, T. 1937. Third list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool. 82 (2) : 77-166.

BouLENGER, G. A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the
collection of the British Museum. 2nd. Ed. London, xvi + 503 pp.

Co.teTTeE, B. B., D. M. CouHen and J. A. Peters. 1972. Stability in zoological
nomenclature. Science 177 : 452-453.

Coruiss, J. O. 1972. Priority and stability in zoological nomenclature: Resolution
of the problem of Article 23b at the Monaco Congress. Science 177 : 1120.

Crompiz, R. I. MS. The ecology and systematics of Jamaican hylid frogs.

DUELLMAN, W. E. 1960. Redescription of Hyla valancifer. Studies of American
hylid frogs. II. Herpetologica 16 (1) : 55-57.

DUELLMAN, W. E. 1970. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Monogr. Mus. Nat.
Hist., Univ. Kansas, 1, xi + 753 pp

Dunn, E. R. 1926. The frogs of Jamaica. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 38 (4) :
111-130.

Dunn, E.R. 1929. On the trail of the snorer. Nature 13 (2) : 110-112.

GosseE, P. H. 1851. A naturalist’s sojourn in Jamaica. Longman’s Brown, Green,
and Longman’s, London, v—xxvi + 508 pp.

HARLAN, R. 1826. A new species of Hyla. American Journ. Sci. Arts 10 : 64-65.

Lynn, W.G. 1940. I. Amphibians. Jn Lynn, W. G. and C. Grant, The herpetology
of Jamaica. Bull. Inst. Jamaica, Sci. Ser., no. 1 : 1-148 (1-60).

Lynn, W. G. and J. N. Dent. 1943. Notes on Jamaican amphibians. Copeia 1943
(4) : 234-242.

Mayr, E., G. G. Simpson, and E. EIssENMANN. 1971. Stability in zoological nomen-
clature. Science 174 : 1041-1042.

NieDEN, F. 1923. AnuralI. Subordo Aglossa and Phaneroglossa, Sectio. 1, Arcifera.
Das Tierreich, Lief. 46, Berlin, i-xxxii + 584 pp.

PANTON, E. S. 1952. Our ground and tree frogs—Glimpses into their life and

habits. Nat. Hist. Notes Nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica 5 (53) : 87-92 + 94.

ScHwartz, A. and D. C. Fowier. In press. The Anura of Jamaica: A progress
report. Stud. Fauna Curacao and other Carib. Islands.

TayLor, E. H. 1948. Two new hylid frogs from Costa Rica. Copeia 1948 (4) :
233-238.

Trues, L. 1970. The evolutionary relationships of casque-headed treefrogs with
co-ossified skulls (family Hylidae). Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 18 :
547-716.

Trues, L. 1972. Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia) : Proposed suppression
under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1982, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 (1) : 39-40.

Tver, M. J. 1971. The phylogenetic significance of vocal sac structure in hylid
frogs. Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 19 : 319-360.

ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE GENUS NAME TEUTHIS
LINNAEUS (PISCES) BE SUPPRESSED. Z.N.(S.) 1721

By D. J. Woodland (Department of Zoology, University of New England, Armidale,
N.S.W., 2351, Australia)

This comment relates to proposals before the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature on the generic name Siganus Forsskal, 1775 and Teuthis
Linnaeus, 1766 (Nielsen & Klausewitz Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 16, Taylor Bull. zool.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

Nomencl. 26 : 178, and Woodland Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 190). In particular it is
a clarification of the status of the specimen designated by Taylor (/oc. cit.) as lectotype
of Teuthis javus Linnaeus, 1766 and discussed by Woodland (/oc. cit., para. 6).

I have now examined the said specimen from the Gronovius collection (British
Museum (Nat. Hist.) Reg. No. 1853, 11. 12. 30). Wheeler (1958, Bull. British Museum,
Nat. Hist., Histological Series 1 : 231) was correct in asserting that this specimen was
not of that species generally known as Teuthis javus Linnaeus but of that generally
known as Siganus oramin Bloch, 1801. In belief that the specimen was of that species
described by Gronovius (1763, Zoophylaci) as his species no. 352, which was later
adopted by Linnaeus as his Teuthis javus (loc. cit., p. 507), Wheeler (loc. cit., p. 231)
nominated the specimen as “‘holotype’’ and suggested a number of nomenclatural
changes. However, as I will show these changes are not necessary since the specimen
does not belong to that species described and figured by Gronovius.

We may consider Gronovius’ description of his species no. 352 as consisting of
two parts, the verbal and the figure (Joc. cit., p. 113, pl. 8, fig. 4). The figure is unmis-
takeably of that species generally known as Teuthis javus Linnaeus; there is no room
for confusion. On the other hand because of the use of qualitative terms most of the
verbal description could apply to either the species figured or the specimen 1853.
11.12.30. However, one portion of the description does not tally with the specimen,
though it does agree with the species figured. Quote, “infra oculos in utroque latere
regio lata, quae squamis minutis confusanei obtecta est’’, i.e. below the eyes on either
side a broad region covered with small scales. The scale cover on the cheeks is a
distinctive characteristic of Teuthis javus Linnaeus. The specimen, 1853.11.12.30,
has no scales on the cheeks which is typical of the species to which it belongs (although
there may be a few weak scattered scales in some specimens). Furthermore, Gronovius
(loc. cit.) describes his species as ‘dark liver-brownish with frequent oblongish spots
on the sides, bluish-white, oriented longitudinally, towards the abdomen broader and
more variegated’’ translated). Again this fits his illustration but not the species
represented by the specimen. In addition Teuthis javus Linnaeus is unique amongst
its family in having more than 30 scale rows between the lateral line and the bases of
the anterior dorsal spines; specimen 1853.11.12.30 has 21 to 23 scale rows.

I am forced to conclude that the verbal description and figure of the Gronovius
species no. 352 are of the one species, Teuthis javus Linnaeus as widely understood.
I am also led to conclude that there is no evidence that specimen 1853.11.12.30 has
contributed even in part to Gronovius’ species no. 352. This is not altogether
surprising for as Wheeler (/oc. cit., pp. 188-9) stated the British Museum did not acquire
the whole Gronovius collection, and what it did acquire contained some specimens
that were not described by Gronovius.

Since Linnaeus’ Teuthis javus (loc. cit., p. 507) is essentially a précis of Gronovius’
species no. 352, and is in fact diagnosed by Linnaeus as a siganid by the ventral fin
formula and is that species widely known as Teuthis javus by the description of the
colour pattern (longitudinal bluish spots), it follows that the designation of specimen
1853.11.12.30 as lectotype must be considered null and void. The specimen on which
Gronovius species no. 352 and hence Teuthis javus Linnaeus were based remains lost.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NEOTYPE OF THE GRAPTOLITE
SPECIES GRAPTOLITHUS NILSSONI BARRANDE, 1850, Z.N.(S.) 1934

By I. Strachan (Geology Department, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT,
England.)

The purpose of the proposal by D. Palmer appears to be the stability of the use of
the specific name ni/ssoni among the graptolite faunas of the Silurian so that past and
present stratigraphic usage is kept as near together as possible. In this context the
authorship of the name is immaterial since there are no other graptolites with the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

same specific name which could cause confusion. It is also clear from the historical
account that graptolite workers have been aware since 1876 of the difficulties in the
interpretation of Barrande’s description and figures and, in consideration of this, the
effective diagnosis of the species has been that of Lapworth 1876, none of Barrande’s
type material agreeing with the general usage of the last 100 years. What Palmer does
not seem to have considered is the effect of abandoning the name Graptolithus nilssoni
Barrande, 1850 altogether. Under Art.70b, Urbanek can be considered as establishing
a new species in 1963 as the type of his new genus, Neodiversograptus nilssoni sensu
Urbanek 1954, since this is a very clear indication of his intentions. If this is accepted,
the stratigraphic usage of the name remains as Palmer wishes to have it but there is no
necessity to designate a neotype unless it is insisted that all species with unsatisfactory
(by modern standards) type specimens must have currently ‘satisfactory’ neotypes
designated.

Further objections to the proposal for a neotype can be made on a matter of general
principle and with special reference to Art.75 (on neotypes). 1. It is a dangerous
precedent to allow existing type material to be totally suppressed for the sake of
retaining a trivial name whose usage has always been subject to some uncertainty,
and which in this case is unnecessary for the purpose stated.

Under Art.75 : the following may be noted:

2. since Barrande’s types exist, there can be no need to designate a ‘‘neotype” in
the usual meaning of the term.

3. there are no “exceptional circumstances’’ (75.a.i) since Urbanek (1966) has
already provided the new name required for the closely allied species Lobo-
graptus progenitor.

4. Qualifying conditions 75.c.3, 4 and 5 are specifically excluded in Palmers’
proposals.

I therefore wish to raise an objection to the proposals for the use of the plenary
powers as set out in Z.N.(S.) 1934 on grounds of a) being quite unnecessary for the
retention of the stratigraphic name and the precise definition of the species and b)
not meeting the conditions for a neotype as laid down in the code.

The problem of the date of authorship of Urbanek’s species remains since his
original description of the genus Neodiversograptus in 1963 gives as type species
Monograptus nilssoni Lapworth, 1876, sensu Urbanek, 1954. At face value this might
give N. nilssoni Urbanek, 1954 but consideration of the example quoted under Art. 70 (b)
would suggest N. nilssoni Urbanek 1963.

For tidiness, Graptolithus nilssoni Barrande, 1850 could perhaps be suppressed as a
nomen dubium since he did not designate a type and his specimens are probably not
specifically identifiable under the modern criteria for species.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

OPINION 990

TREPSICHROIS HUBNER, 1816 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus 7repsichrois Hubner, 1816, made prior to the present
Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Papilio mulciber Cramer,
1777, is hereby designated to be type of that genus.

(2) The generic name Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816 (gender : feminine),
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Papilio
mulciber Cramer, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology with the Name Number 1971.

(3) The specific name mulciber Cramer, 1777, as published in the binomen
Papilio mulciber (type-species of Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816) is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2491.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1897)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Lt.-Col.
C. F. Cowan in August 1969. Lt—Col. Cowan’s application was sent to the
printer on 26 August 1969 and was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 26 : 240-242. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers
in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the
other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21: 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 August 1971 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (71)21 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 : 242. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 25 November 1971 the state of the voting was as follows;

Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Munroe, Mayr, Bonnet, Lemche, Simpson, Eisenmann, Jaczewski, Melville,
Tortonese, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Forest, Kraus

Negative votes—none (0)

On Leave of Absence—one (1): Vokes

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Alvarado, Starobogatov

Commissioner Brinck returned a late affirmative vote. Commissioner Ride,
in returning his vote, wrote, ‘““We are told that P. midamus L. “covered two
species” one of which is currently regarded as ‘‘midamus proper”’ and the other
P.mulciber. Before he publishes an Opinion in this case, I ask that the Secretary
should satisfy himself that midamus is now securely fixed in the manner assumed
in the application.”

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

LECTOTYPE FIXATIONS FOR PAPILIO MIDAMUS LINNAEUS
AND PAPILIO MULCIBER CRAMER (INSECTA—LEPIDOPTERA)

By C. F. Cowan

It has been pointed out to me that, before the International Commission
could approve my application (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 (5/6): 240-242, April
1970) for the designation of Papilio mulciber Cramer, 1777, as type-species of
Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816, the identity of Papilio midamus Linnaenus, 1758
(with which P. mulciber has been formerly confused) should be securely fixed.
I should have appreciated the need for this, and remedy it now.

2. Moore (1883: 312) acted as first reviser in correctly establishing the
interrelationship of the two species under discussion which are referred to below
by the names under they have been universally known ever since, in order to
avoid circumlocution. However, neither Moore nor any other author estab-
lished type specimens to ensure that present usage cannot be upset.

3. The insects in question are the two sexes of P. midamus L. and the male
only of P. mulciber Cramer (which is dimorphic, with a striped female). All
three are dark brown on the upperside, with a bright blue ““Morpho-like”’ gloss
on the forewing which also has some scattered bluish spots on the disc. The
key differences are;

P. midamus hindwing upperside bears two parallel rows of whitish sub-
marginal spots, and the male inner margin is strongly bowed.

P. mulciber hindwing upperside is immaculate, and the male forewing inner
margin is straight.

4. Linnaeus (1758: 470, no. 75) described P. midamus in the customary
way, with a diagnostic paragraph followed by references to published figures
and the locality Asia, and closing with a descriptive paragraph. Both para-
graphs fit either sex of P. midamus perfectly, and both exclude P. mulciber by
mentioning the hindwing upperside series of submarginal spots. However, his
three references are;

[De Geer, 1748,] Act. Stockh. 1748: pl. 6 figs. 1,2. [— P. midamus 2]
Ehret, [1748] pict.: pl. 3. [— P. mulciber 3]
Ehret, [1749] pict.: pl. 11. [— P. midamus 3]

The inclusion here of Ehret’s plate 3 was the source of later confusion. The
probable reason for its inclusion will appear.

5. Linnaeus (1758: 2) tells us that he had already examined and attached
written descriptions to the specimens in the collection of Queen Louisa Ulrica,
that he had examined De Geer’s collection, and that he himself possessed
material from, inter alia, China through Osbeck. There is good reason to
believe his description was from a specimen and not from illustrations; a
manuscript note in his own copy of the 1758 work indicates that he possessed
the species; and it does not seem that he owned copies of the works he cited.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1]

6. When in 1764 he published his work on the Queen’s collection, Linnaeus
repeated verbatim his 1758 text for P. midamus with the significant exception
that he substituted for the closing paragraph a longer one which describes the
P. mulciber male (posticae supra nigrae, absque punctis). This paragraph was
no doubt taken from the existing draft already mentioned, in compiling which
Linnaeus would have noted the Ehret plate 3 reference.

7. In the Linnaean collection now are three male specimens labelled
respectively ;

(a) “75 midamus’’, “Midamus 765”, and a modern circular red label

printed “‘Type’’. [The 75 is the species number in the genus Papilio
of Linnaeus, 1758, and the 765 is the reference in Linnaeus, 1767.
This specimen has the abdomen glued on upside-down, so displaying
the whitish spot on it noted by Linnaeus in his closing paragraph in
1758}.

(b) ‘““Midamus”’, and “China, M. of Rock.’’ [The Marchioness of Rocking-
ham was an old family friend of Sir James E. Smith, owner of the
collection after Linnaeus’s death].

Specimens a and b are P. midamus as now known, and specimen c is
P.mulciber Cramer as nowknown. The first label on specimen a differs from the
others in being long and narrow. Mr. W. H. T. Tams and Mr. P. E. S. Whalley
assure me that this is an original Linnaean label and that there is every indication
that this specimen itself was in Linnaeus’s collection. This agrees with the
opinion of Corbet (1942: 94), who later (1945: 92) deduced that this specimen
was obtained by Pehr Osbeck at Canton, and finally (1949: 186—187) gave a
good summary of the case. It was probably Corbet who, shortly before his
death in 1948, added the modern “‘Type”’ label to it. Specimens b and c are
clearly later additions, as is the second label on specimen a.

8. It is evident that Linnaeus possessed P. midamus and the Queens’
collection held P. mulciber before 1758, and that Linnaeus had drafted a des-
cription of the latter in the Queen’s Museum. In preparing that draft he noted
Ehret’s plate 3. In 1758 he described his own specimen of P. midamus, giving
two correct references but adding Ehret’s plate 3. In 1764 he simply replaced
his descriptive paragraph with the diraft in the Queen’s collection. In 1767 he
reverted to his 1758 text.

9. I now designate as LECTOTYPE of Papilio midamus Linnaeus, 1758:
470, no. 75 the male specimen now labelled ‘‘75 midamus”’ and ‘‘Type”’ in the
Linnaean collection, to which a lectotype label will be added if this paper is
published.

10. I further designate, as LECTOTYPE of Papilio mulciber Cramer, the
male specimen described and figured by Cramer, 1777: 45, pl. 127, fig. C.
Cramer gave the habitat of the species as China and Coromandel. His figured
specimen is small, with the forewing spots white rather than blue, which is
characteristic of the latter area. The type locality should therefore be taken as
southern India, east coast. This designation is called for because no original
Cramer specimen can be traced.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REFERENCES

Corset, A. S. 1942. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (3).
Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 11 (6) : 91-94

— 1945. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (4). ibid. 14
(7-8) : 91-94

— 1949. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (6). ibid. 18
(9-10) : 184-190.

CRAMER, P. 1777 (in 1775-1782, 4 vols., see Opinion 516, appendix 3). U/tlandsche
Kapellen 2. 152 pp., pls. 97-192. 4°. Amsterdam

Eunret, G. D. 1748-1759. Plantae ac Papiliones rariores, depicti et aeri incisae.
15 pls. fol. London

Geer, C. De. 1748. Beskrifning om en Chinesisk och en inlandsk Fjaril... K.
svenska VetenskAkad. Hand. 9 (3) : 208-230, pl. 6

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae ed. 10,1. 824 pp. 8°. Holmiae

—— 1764. Museum S.R.M. Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae... vi +720 pp. 8°.
Holmiae

— 1767. Systema Naturae ed. 12. 1 (2). pp. 533-1327. 8°. Holmiae

Moore, F. 1883. A monograph of Limnaina and Euploeina, two groups of diurnal
Lepidoptera... (2), Euploeina. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883 (3) : 253-324,
pls. 29-32.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
mulciber, Papilio, Cramer, 1777, Uitl. Kapellen 2: 45, 150, pl. 127, figs. C,D
Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (1) :16

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (71)21 were cast as set above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 990.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

5 July 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13

OPINION 991

HETERERANNIS WARREN, 1904 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) :
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Hetererannis Warren, 1904, are hereby set aside, and the
nominal species Glena macdunnoughi Sperry, 1952, is hereby designated to be
type of that genus.

(2) The use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for Monroa
Warren, 1904, is hereby refused.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1898)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr. Frederick H. Rindge in August 1969. Dr. Rindge’s application was sent to
the printer on 26 August 1969 and was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 26 : 243-244. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as
to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials.

The following comment was received from Dr. L. B. Holthuis: “The applica-
tion by Dr. Rindge is incomplete and contains some inaccuracies.

“(1) The type-species of Monroa is not ‘Cymatophora quinquelinearia
Warren (not Packard) 1904’ since such a name does not exist. Unless the
Commission makes use of its plenary powers here, the type-species of Monroa
is Cymatophora quinquelinearia Packard ... .

“Dr. Rindge makes the error of thinking that a generic name is based on the
specimens that the author had before him when describing the genus. Actually,
however, the genus is based on the type-species, and through that on the type
specimen of that species, whether or not that is available to the author of the
genus.

“(2) The proper citation of the species actually meant by Dr. Rindge here is
Cymatophora quinquelinearia sensu Warren, 1904 (not Packard) (see Code,
Art. 51(b)).

(3) Nowhere in the application is given the date of C. quinquelinearia
Packard or Hulstina formosata Hulst; and should the author’s name Hulst not
be placed in parentheses ?

“(4) As the generic name Monroa falls as a junior synonym of an older name,
whichever of the species Cymatophora quinquelinearia Packard or Hulstina
formosata Hulst is the type-species, it seems entirely superfluous to invoke the
plenary powers here to change the type-species of the genus.

“(5) For Hetererannis the same situation pertains as that discussed in
para. (1) of this letter. The type-species of that genus is Boarmia obliquaria
Grote....

Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(6) In the case of Hetererannis there are good arguments for the use of
the plenary powers to make Glena macdunnoughi Sperry (not the subspecies) its
type.”

The contents of Dr. Holthuis’s letter were conveyed to Commissioners at
the time of voting.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule, on Voting Paper (72)1 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 : 244, para. (a) (on Monroa Warren),
and on Voting Paper (72)2 either for or against the proposal set out ibid.
para. (b) (on Hetererannis Warren). At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

V.P.(72)1. Affirmative votes—six (6), received in the following order:
Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Binder.

Negative votes—nine (9) : Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes,
Melville, Brinck, Forest, Ride.

Commissioner Kraus returned a late negative vote and Commissioner
Starobogatoy a late affirmative vote.

V.P.(72)2. Affirmative votes—fourteen (14): Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann,
Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck,
Forest, Binder, Ride.

Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes.

On Leave of Absence—one (1): Munroe.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the genera and species con-
cerned in the present Ruling:
Hetererannis Warren, 1904, Novit. Zool. 11 : 106
macdunnoughi, Glena, Sperry, 1952, Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 51 : 73
Monroa Warren, 1904, Novit. Zool. 11 : 555

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (72)! and 2 were cast as
set out above, that the proposal contained in Voting Paper (72)2 only has been
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being
the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 991.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

24 August 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

OPINION 992

GAMMARUS AEQUICAUDA (MARTYNOV, 1931) (CRUSTACEA,
AMPHIPODA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy:

(a) plumicornis Costa, 1853, as published in the binomen Gammarus

plumicornis;

(b) tunetanus Simon, 1885, as published in the binomen Gammarus tunetanus.

(2) The specific name aequicauda Martynov, 1931, as published in the
binomen Carcinogammarus aequicauda, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2492.

(3) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :

(a) plumicornis Costa, 1853, as published in the binomen Gammarus

plumicornis (Name No. 985);
(b) tunetanus Simon, 1885, as published in the binomen Gammarus
tunetanus (Name No. 986).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1900)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr. J. H.Stock in August 1969. Dr. Stock’sapplication wassent to the printer on
18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 :
49-50. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in
the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications
(Constitution Art. 12b: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). No comment was
received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)3 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 49-50. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twelve (12), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Eisenmann, Vokes, Jaczewski, Mayr, Bonnet, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck,
Forest, Binder, Ride

Negative votes—three (3): Simpson, Lemche, Sabrosky.

On Leave of Absence—one (1) : Munroe.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes.
Commissioner Simpson commented as follows: “G. aequicauda and G. plumi-
cornis have been used for supposedly distinct species and their synonymy (not

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Pavt 1. July 1973.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

established in any case by data submitted) is a zoological, not a nomenclatural
problem. It would therefore be incorrect for the Commission to suppress
either one on nomenclatural grounds. The status of G. tunetanus is a separate
question and should be so submitted.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
aequicauda, Carcinogammarus, Martynoy, 1931, Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 60 (3/4) : 593
plumicornis, Gammarus, Costa, 1853, Rendiconto Soc. R. Borbonica, Acad. Sci
(n.s.) 1853 : 176
tunetanus, Gammarus, Simon, 1885, Explor. sci. Tunésie : 6

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)3 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision
of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 992.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

24 August 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17

OPINION 993

ECHINOCORYS SCUTATA LESKE, 1778 (ECHINOIDEA):
DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the neotype designated by Wind
(1959) for the nominal species Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778, is hereby
suppressed, and the specimen described and figured by Peake and Melville
(1970) is hereby designated to be the neotype of that species.

(2) The generic name Echinocorys Leske, 1778 (gender: feminine), type-
species, by designation by Lambert, 1898, Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1972.

(3) The specific name scutata Leske, 1778, as published in the binomen
Echinocorys scutatus [sic], as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above
(type-species of Echinocorys Leske, 1778) is hereby placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2493.

(4) The generic name Echinocorytes Leske, 1778 (a junior objective synonym
of Echinocorys Leske, 1778, through the first reviser action of Peake & Melville,
1970) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2006.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1903)

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Mr. N. B. Peake and Mr. R. V. Melville in September 1969. The application
was sent to the printer on 18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 55-59. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b;
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials.

The application was opposed by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky and supported by
Mr. C. W. Wright (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 211) and Dr. R. B. Stokes. Mr.
Melville’s reply to Dr. Sabrosky’s criticism was published ibid. : 212.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)4 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 57. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—thirteen (13), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Simpson, Lemche, Vokes, Jaczewski, Mayr, Bonnet, Melville, Tortonese,
Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride.

Negative votes—none (0).

On Leave of absence—one (1): Munroe.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.
Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes.
Commissioner Sabrosky did not vote.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Echinocorys Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175)
Echinocorytes Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175)
scutata, Echinocorys, Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175)

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for Echinocorys Leske, 1778 : Lambert, 1898, Bull. Soc. belg. Géol. Paléont.,
Hydrol. (2) 1 : 179.

The following is the original reference for the description of the neotype of
Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778 : Peake & Melville, 1970, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
27 : 57, 57-58, pl. 2.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 4 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 993.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

7 September 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19

OPINION 994

TATURA BUTLER, [1888] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): DESIGNATION
OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type-species for
the nominal genus Tatura Butler, [1888], are hereby set aside, and the nominal
species Hypolycaena lebona Hewitson, [1865], is hereby designated to be type-
species of that genus.

(2) The generic name Tatura Butler, [1888] (gender : feminine), type-species,
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Hypolycaena lebona
Hewitson, [1865], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 1973.

(3) The specific name /ebona Hewitson, [1865], as published in the binomen
Hypolycaena lebona (type-species of Tatura Butler, [1888]) is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2494

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1912)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Lt.-Col.
C. F. Cowan in December 1969. The application was sent to the printer on
18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 :
63-64. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed
serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to
eight entomological serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 19 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)6 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 64. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twelve (12), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Simpson, Eisenmann, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese,
Forest, Binder, Ride. ,

Negative votes—three (3): Lemche, Vokes, Ride.

On Leave of absence—one (1): Munroe.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatoy returned late affirmative votes.
The following comments were made by Commissioners returning negative votes:

Prof. H. E. Vokes (28.ii.72): 1 am inclined to agree with Cowan’s para. 7
suggestion that use of the plenary powers is not warranted to save a name that
is in jeopardy because of the original author’s carelessness; and especially
since it only has ‘possible future subgeneric’ status (para. 6).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Prof. P. Brinck (5.v.72): An affirmative vote would be to confuse a case
which is so far quite simple. In my opinion the name should stay where it is:
an invalid junior objective synonym.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
lebona, Hypolycaena, Hewitson, [1885], ///. diurn. Lep., Lyc. (2) : 51, pl. 23
Tatura Butler, [1888], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1887(4) 9 572.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)6 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 994.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

7 September 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21

OPINION 995

PSODOS TREITSCHKE, 1825 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
VALIDATION OF EMENDATION FROM PSOIDOS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the emendation to Psodos of the
generic name Psoidos Treitschke, 1825, is hereby validated.

(2) The generic name Psodos Treitschke, 1825 (gender: feminine), type-
species, by designation by Duponchel, 1829, Phalaena equestrata Fabricius,
1777, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with
the Name Number 1974.

(3) The specific name quadrifaria Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen
Phalaena quadrifaria, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2495.

(4) The generic name Psoidos Treitschke, 1825 (Ruled under the plenary
powers to be an incorrect original spelling for Psodos) is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2007.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 362)

The present case was first submitted to the Commission at the International
Congress of Zoology in Paris, 1948, by Dr. H. Berthet. Dr. Berthet’s applica-
tion was approved at that Congress, but the information furnished to the Com-
mission on that occasion was later found to be defective. On these grounds
Mr. Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, decided that no action
should be taken to render an Opinion on the case until the matter had been
further examined.

The case was resubmitted to the orice of the Commission by Lt.-Col.
C. F. Cowan in January 1970. This application was sent to the printer on
10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 :
101-102. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to other the prescribed
serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to
eight entomological serials. The proposals were supported by Mr. D. S.
Fletcher, Mr. A. Watson and Dr. I. W. B. Nye and opposed by Dr. George C.
Steyskal (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 11).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 19 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)7 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 102. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—thirteen (13), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese,
Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Negative votes—two (2): Simpson, Sabrosky.

On leave of absence—one (1): Munroe.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes.

Prof. G. G. Simpson: Another case of de minimis ... It is ridiculous to
waste time on such a detail, and stability and comprehension are not really at
stake. As for the learned etymological argument, metathesis of omodvoc to
Psoidos is surely at least as likely as to Psodos, and the original and legal form
Psoidos is quite likely what was meant all the time.

Dr. E. Eisenmann: If it is true that usage for 140 years has been in accord with
Treitschke’s 1827 spelling or emendation (which is not denied), I favour the
application.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Psodos Treitschke, 1825, in Ochsenheimer, Schmett. von Europa 5 (2) : 434
Psoidos Treitschke, 1825, an incorrect original spelling for Psodos q.v.
quadrifaria, Phalaena, Sulzer, 1776, Abgek. Gesch. Ins. Linn. 1 : 162

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for
Psodos Treitschke, 1825 : Duponchel, 1829, in Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. France
C3) 2 ile

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)7 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 995.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
13 September 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23

OPINION 996

ACANTHOPLEUROCERAS HYATT, 1900 (CEPHALOPODA,
AMMONOIDEA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Acanthopleuroceras
Hyatt, 1900, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Ammonites
valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, is hereby designated to be the type of that
genus;

(b) the operation of the Law of Homonymy (Art. 59c) is hereby suspended
in the case of Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, so that it is not
invalidated by the action of Oppel, 1862, in referring Turrilites valdani
d’Orbigny, 1843, to the genus Ammonites, and then replacing the
junior secondary homonym Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844,
by Ammonites binotatus Oppel, 1862;

(c) the specific name natrix Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen
Ammonites natrix, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900 (gender: neuter),
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ammonites
valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology with the Name Number 1975.

(3) The specific name valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, as published in the binomen
Ammonites valdani, as defined by the lectotype designated by Getty, 1970,
(type-species of Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900) is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2496.

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) natrix Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Ammonites natrix

(as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above) (Name
No. 987);

(b) binotatus Oppel, 1862, as published in the binomen Ammonites binotatus
(a junior objective synonym of Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844)
(Name No. 988).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1909)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. T. A.
Getty in November 1969. Dr. Getty’s application was sent to the printer on
10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 :
105-109. Public Notice of the possible use of plenary powers in the present
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed
serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184), and
to two palaeontological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. M. K.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Howarth, who proposed an amendment, Dr. D. T. Donovan, Dr. H. Bremer
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 8-10), Dr. G. Ja. Krymgolts and Dr. Karl Hoffman.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)8, in Part | either for or
against the use of the plenary powers to designate a type for Acanthopleuroceras,
and in Part 2 for either Alternative A (Dr. Getty’s proposals set out in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 27 : 107-108) or Alternative B (Dr. Howarth’s proposals set
out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28:9). At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Part |. Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order:
Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky,
Melville, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride.

Negative votes—none (0).

Part 2. For Alternative A—two (2): Bonnet, Brinck:

For Alternative B—thirteen (13): Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann,
Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Melville, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Forest, Binder, Ride.

On leave of absence—one (1): Munroe.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late votes in favour of
Alternative A.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900, in Zittel, Textbook of Palaeontology 1 : 578.
binotatus, Ammonites, Oppel, 1862, Paldont. Mitt. 1 : 155
natrix, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petrefaktenkunde : 162
valdani, Ammonites, d’Orbigny, 1844, Paléont. frang., Terr. jurass. 1 : 255, pl. 71

The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for
Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844 : Getty, 1970, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 :
107, pl. 3

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)8 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper as Alternative B has
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken,
being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 996.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

14 September 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

OPINION 997

ANOPLIUS DUFOUR, 1844 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS TOGETHER WITH THE
DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPES FOR TWO NOMINAL
SPECIES

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Anoplius Dufour, 1834, made prior to the present Ruling
are hereby set aside and the nominal species Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763,
is hereby designated to be the type of that genus.

(2) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-specimens for the
nominal species Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763, and Sphex niger Fabricius,
1775, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and it is directed that
these species be interpreted according to the neotypes described by van der
Vecht and Menke, 1968.

(3) The generic name Anoplius Dufour, 1834 (gender: masculine), type-
species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphex nigerrimus
Scopoli, 1763, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 1976.

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Sphex nigerrimus

(type-species of Anoplius Dufour, 1834) (Name No. 2497);
(b) niger Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sphex niger (Name
No. 2498).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1845)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr.J.van der Vechtand Dr. A. S. Menke in May 1968. Theapplication was sent
to the printer on 13 May 1968 and was published on 27 September 1968 in
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 120-124. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b;
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials.

Dr. H. Lemche asked that, if the proposals were approved by the Com-
mission, the Opinion should make it clear that the neotype specimens were
chosen by the applicants and not by the Commission. The wording of the
present Ruling met with his approval.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)9 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 122-123. At the close of the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski,
Melville, Tortonese, Brinck Forest, Binder, Ride.

Negative votes—none (0).

On leave of absence—one (1): Munroe.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Anoplius Dufour, 1834, Annis Soc. ent. Fr. 2 : 484
niger, Sphex, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 350
nigerrimus, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. Carn. : 295
The following are the original references for the selection of neotypes for
species concerned in the present Ruling:
For Sphex niger Fabricius, 1775 : van der Vecht & Menke, 1968, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 25 : 122-123
For Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763 : van der Vecht & Menke, 1968, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 25 : 123

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)9 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 997.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
14 September 1972

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27

LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (ANNELIDA,
OLIGOCHAETA) : DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE. PROBLEMS
ARISING FROM THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE SPECIES
BY SAVIGNY (1822 & 1826). Z.N.(S.)272

By R. W. Sims (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History),
London, SW7 5BD.)

The name Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, has been widely applied to
the earthworm known as the Lob or Dew Worm in Britain, and the Night-
crawler in North America, although the original description of the species was
imprecise. The name occurs in many university schedules and is familiar to
students as that of the common laboratory earthworm which has been described
in numerous text-books. The identity of the species has seldom caused con-
troversy or difficulty, particularly as Michaelsen (1900 : 511) defined a Lob
Worm as Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, in the monograph which is
universally accepted as the foundation of modern oligochaete taxonomy.
Comparatively recently Tetry (1937), after re-examining material which
Savigny had described from the Paris region, regarded terrestris Linnaeus, 1758
as being indeterminate, and followed a few authors who had previously applied
the name Lumbricus herculeus (Savigny, 1826) to the Lob Worm. Now Bouché
(1970 & 1972) has in turn followed Tetry, and since his later work is mono-
graphic, the replacement of the name ferrestris Linnaeus, 1758, could become
more widespread. The rejection of this name can lead only to confusion
especially as Stiles & Hassall (1903) designated the taxon as the type-species of
the genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758, which is the type-genus of the well-known
family Lumbricidae Claus, 1880.

Disagreement over the scientific name that should be applied to the Lob
Worm has stemmed from Savigny (1822 and 1826) who twice misidentified
material and Tetry (1937) and Bouché (1970) who have not followed general
usage and the spirit and the provisions of the Code. The criteria employed in
the discussions on the scientific name of the Lob Worm are sometimes highly
subjective, and not suprisingly some of the opinions are irreconcilable. It is
essential that this disagreement should be resolved in the interests of stability
and universality of earthworm nomenclature. The change of name of the
earthworm species which is the classical teaching ‘type’ in many countries
and whose name appears in most general zoological text-books, can lead only to
confusion. Equally serious is the situation which could arise if one small
group of workers uses a different name for this familiar species To meet this
threat to the nomenclature of the most well-known of all earthworms, a Lob
Worm is designated as the neotype of Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (see
Appendix) and application is made for these scientific names to be placed on
the appropriate lists of Official Names.

Savigny (1822) first misidentified material when he erected a new monotypic
genus Enterion for Lumbricus terrestris (part) : Linnaeus, 1766, for a series of

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30 ,Part 1. July 1973.

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

earthworms which had come from Egypt. The identity of his specimens is
unknown yet Savigny applied the name again (1826) this time to a worm from
the Paris region whose identity is known. Since then the name ‘‘Enterion
terrestre Savigny, 1826” has been applied to a species of Allolobophora Eisen,
1874, which was recently designated the type-species of Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972.
Application is therefore made for Enterion to be placed on the Index of
Rejected Names, and for a new type-species to be designated for Nicrodrilus
Bouché, 1972, since the binomen Enterion terrestre : Savigny, 1826, was
introduced as the result of a misidentification.

SURVEY

1. Linnaeus (1758 : 647) described Lumbricus terrestris on external
characters which are inadequate for accurately determining the species. He pro-
vided the observation “Habitat in Humo; ascendit noctu’’ which has been
accepted as indicating a Lob Worm.

The synonymy contains references to several worms but few are identifiable
and together they refer to more than one species. The synonym “Raj. inf. |
Lumbricus major’ undoubtedly refers to a Lob Worm and Ray (1710: 1)
referred to it by the alternative vernacular name of Dew Worm, but from the
descriptions of other synonyms, e.g. “Raj inf. 2 Lumbricus terrestris minor”
and “‘S/oan jam. 2 p.189 Lumbricus terrestris minor rubicundus’’, it is clear that
other species are involved.

2. Linnaeus (1766 : 1076), the first reviser, listed Lumbricus terrestris
and included the statement “exit supra terram tempore nocturno pro copula”
which refers to a particular aspect of the breeding behaviour of the Lob Worm
which is different from that of many other species of earthworm, in particular
representatives of the genus A/lolobophora Eisen, 1874.

3. Miiller (1774 : 24) listed the length and position of the clitellum and the
number of body segments of three specimens which he examined when he
restricted Lumbricus terrestris. By modern taxonomic standards the three worms
would be considered to belong to different species. The characters of the
first worm listed indicate that the specimen was immature so it cannot be iden-
tified with certainty. The second worm may have been a representative of a
species of Dendrobaena Eisen, 1874 (or possibly of Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758,
or of Octolasion Orley, 1885 but certainly not of the genus A/lolobophora
Eisen, 1874), but the third is identifiable as a Lob Worm.

4. Savigny (1822* : 100) described the genus Enterion with Lumbricus
terrestris (part): Linnaeus, 1766 : 1076 as the single included species for a series
of earthworms from Egypt (p. 103). The description of the species is inadequate
for it to be recognised but sufficient for any Swedish earthworm to be excluded.
The type-species of Enterion (by monotypy) was clearly misidentified and the
provisions of Article 70 apply.

*Sherborn (1897 : 287) concluded that the date of publication was 1822. Sherborn’s paper has
generally been overlooked and the date of the first description of Enterion is usually cited as
1820.

Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29

5. Savigny (1826 : 180) reported on a collection of earthworms from the
Paris region and listed, among other species, Enterion herculeum and Enterion
terrestre without attributing authorship to the names or indicating whether
either was a species nova. Each brief diagnosis constituted a valid indication
under Article 16 and as the specimens have survived, there is no doubt of the
identities of the taxa. The new name Enterion herculeum was given to a Lob
Worm while Enterion terrestre was given to an earthworm until recently usually
regarded as a species of the genus Allolobophora Eisen, 1874 : 45, but now
designated the type-species of Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972: 315. Savigny has
been the only author to use the name Enterion.

6. ‘Oligochaeta’, Lf. 10 of Das Tierreich by Michaelsen was published in
1900. In this work each valid species is provided with a full synonymy;
on page 511 the synonymy of Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, contains the
name Enterion herculeum Savigny, 1826, while on page 483 the synonymy of
Helodrilus (Allolobophora) longa (Ude, 1855) contains the citation ‘1826,
Enterion terrestre (err. non Savigny 1820!), Savigny.”” Michaelsen recognized
that Savigny had misidentified his specimens and in doing so had misapplied
the name terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. This interpretation has been widely
accepted.

7. Stiles and Hassall (1903 : 118) designated terrestris Linnaeus, 1758,
as the type-species of the genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 75). (The
only other originally included species in the genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758,
was marinus Linnaeus, 1758, which is the type-species of the genus Arenicola
Lamarck, 1801 : 324, by monotypy.)

8. Tetry (1937 : 151) re-examined the material and reported on the iden-
tities of the specimens which Savigny (1826) had briefly described from the
Paris region. She applied the names Lumbricus herculeus (Savigny, 1826) to
the Lob Worm and Allolobophora terrestris (Savigny, 1826) to a species allied
to Allolobophora longa Ude, 1885 : 136.

9. Graff (1953 : 324) gave taxonomic reasons for accepting that Miiller
(1774), Michaelsen (1900) and other authors had correctly identified Lumbricus
terrestris Linnaeus, 1758.

10. Bouché (1970 : 541) argued that Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758
should be regarded as being indeterminate and that the name ferrestris was not
available. He concluded (in the English Summary) “in favour of the priority
of the name [Lumbricus herculeus] Savigny [1826] but advises to use simul-
taneously the note: Lumbricus terrestris L., em. Michaelsen, 1900, which is not
a priority name...”. The provisions of the Code were not considered in his
discussion but “arguments pratiques’” were employed.

11. (a) Bouché (1972 : 352) named the Lob Worm “Lumbricus herculeus
(Savigny, 1826) Syn. L. terrestris: Linné, 1758, em. Michaelsen, 1900” in a
comprehensive monograph on the ecology and systematics of the earthworms
of France.

(b) Bouché (1972 : 315) described the new genus Nicodrilus and designated
“N. terrestris (Savigny, 1826)”, i.e. Enterion terrestre (Linnaeus) Savigny, 1826,
as the type-species. The first available name in the synonymy containing

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

E. terrestre: Savigny, 1826, is Allolobophora giardi Ribaucourt, 1901 : 224,
(M. B. Bouché, personal communication, 8 November, 1972.)

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is invited:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having
done so, to designate Allolobophora giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, to be the type-
species of the genus:

(2) to make the following entry in the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Name No. 213 (in confirmation of Opinion 75):

Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758 (: 647) (gender : masculine), type-species,
by designation by Stiles & Hassall, 1903 (: 118), Lumbricus terrestris
Linnaeus, 1758;
(3) to place the generic name Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972 (gender : masculine),
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Allolobophora
giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology: F
(a) terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (: 647), as published in ie binomen Lumbricus
terrestris, as interpreted by the neotype designated herein (type-
species of Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758);

(b) giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, as published in the binomen Allolobophora
giardi (type-species of Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972);

(5) to place the family name LUMBRICIDAE Claus, 1880 (: 478) type-genus
Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology;

(6) to place the generic name Enterion Savigny, 1822 (: 100) (a junior
objective synonym of Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

BoucnE, M. B. 1970. Observations sur les lombricidés (3 eme série: VII, VIII, LX).
Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol, 7 : 533-547 ‘

Boucue, M. B. 1972. Lombriciens de France: Ecologie et Systématique. Annls.
Zool. Ecol. anim. Paris, (INRA), 72(2) : 1-671

Ciaus, C. 1880. Grundziige der Zoologie, (4th ed.) 1 : 821. Marburg, Elwert’sche
Verlag.

Eisen, G. 1874. Bidrag till Kannedomen om New Englands och Canadas Lumbri-
cider. Ofvers. K. Vetensk Akad. Foérh. Stockh. 30(2) : 41-49

Grarr, O. 1953. Zur Berechtigung des Artnamens Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus,
1758. Zool. Anz. 151 : 324-326

LaMARCK, J. B. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres. 1-432. Paris,
Deterville

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, (10th ed.) 1 : 1-824. Holmiae, Salvi

Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, (12th ed.) 1: 1-1364. Holmiae, Salvi

MICHAELSEN, W. 1900. Oligochaeta. Das Tierreich, 10 : 1-575

MUuier,O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium, seu animalium infusoriorum,
helminthicorum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. 1 (Alt.) :

A, 1-72. Havniae et Lipsiae, Heineck et Faber.

Ortey, L. 1885. A palaearktikus 6vben él6 terrikolAknak revisidja és elterjedése.
Ertek. Term-Tud. Kérebdl. 15 (18) : 1-34

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31

Ray, J. 1710. Historia Insectorum, 1-400. London, Churchill

Ripaucourt, E. DE. 1901. Etude sur l’anatomie comparée des lombricidés. Bull.
scient. Fr. Belg. 35 : 21-312

Savicny, J. C. 1822. Systeme des Annélides, principalement de celles des cdtes de
l’Egypte et de la Syrie . . .Descr. Egypte, (Hist. nat.) 1(3) : 3-128

Savicny, J.C. 1826. (in) Zoologie, Mem. Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr. (Hist.) 5 : 176-184

SHERBORN, C.D. On the dates of the natural history portion of Savigny’s ‘Description
de I’Egypte’. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1897 : 285-288

Stites, C. W. & HassaLt, A. 1903. The determination of generic types and a list of
roundworm genera with their original and type species. Bull. Bur. Anim. Ind.
U.S. Dep. Agric. T9 : 1-150

Tetry, A. 1937. Reévision des lombriciens de la collection de Savigny. Bull. Mus.
natn. Hist. nat. Paris, 9 : 140-155

Ube, H. 1885. Uber die Riickenporen der terricolen Oligochaeten, nebst Beitragen
zur Histologie des Leibesschlauches und zur Systematik der Lumbriciden.
Z. wiss. Zool. 43 : 87-143

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

APPENDIX

DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE NEOTYPE
OF LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758
(ANNELIDA, OLIGOCHAETA).

NEeEoTYPE. Clitellate specimen. Lawn close to the Botanical Garden, Uppsala,
Sweden. 13 Oct. 1972. Collectors: B. Axelsson, U. Lohm, T. Persson.
British Museum (Natural History) Register No. 1973.1.1.

DescriPTION. External characters Length 165 mm, maximum diameter
9 mm (not fully relaxed) Segments 153, biannulate but the hinder annulus in
each of segments /-iv is faintly subdivided and the dorsal surface is weakly tri-
annulate. Body shape mainly cylindrical anteriorly with a flattened ventral
surface, more depressed in the post-clitellar region especially the terminal
portion which being flatter and broader is paddle-shaped. Cuticle with a
bluish green iridescence; body wall heavily pigmented dorsally (specimen fixed
in dilute formalin and preserved in 80% alcohol: vinous brown above and straw
colour below, clitellum fleshy straw colour). Prostomium tanylobous with a
transverse groove at the level of the anterior surface of the peristomium.
First dorsal pore 7/8. Clitellum xxxii-xxxvii, saddle-shaped extending ventrally
to setal line 5; tubercula pubertatis single pair of low longitudinal ridges
xxxiii-xxxvi laterally to setal line b.

Setae 8 per segment, closely paired in four double longitudinal rows along
the body. Setal formula aa : ab : be : cd, mainly 5: 1:5: 4: 1 where dd=0-5
circumference but at the body extremities the setae are slightly larger and more
widely paired, the formula at cx/ being 4: 1.3: 2:1. On -xxvi ab are modified
as genital setae on (paired) low broad tumescences, on xxv ab are also slightly
modified. Lateral setae (cd) not seen in the clitellar region.

Male pores paired transverse slits xv within bc having large elevated glandular

lips, the anterior lips encroach onto xiv and the posterior lips onto xvi. Female
pores small, paired xiv within bc,4ab from b. Spermathecal pores paired,
inconspicuous in furrows 9/10 and 10/11 in setal line b.
Internal characters. First septum 4/5, septa 6/7-9/10 and 20/21-22/23 strongly
thickened. First three septa conical. A large pharynx leads into a slender
oesophagus which is specialized in x-xiii with paired pouched calciferous glands
in x and enlarged paired chambers in both xi and xii. Intestine begins in
xiv swelling in xv and xvi to form a crop which leads into a muscular gizzard in
xvii-xix. The intestinal wall in xx-xxx is constricted segmentally to form a
series of chambers which become less distinct towards the anterior end of the
clitellar region. The typhlosole extends mid-dorsally along the internal wall of
the intestine between xxi and cxviii, in the pre-clitellar region its surface is
highly convoluted.

Testes holandric, each pair of testes together with a pair of sperm funnels is
contained within a single ventral testes sac in x and xi respectively. Seminal
vesicles 3 pairs, those in 7x and xi communicate with the anterior testes sac and
those in xii with the posterior testes sac. Paired vasa efferentia lead from the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33

funnels in each testes sac, the anterior pair unite with the posterior pair to form
a pair of vasa deferentia which pass along the ventral parietes to xv. Ovaries
paired xiii, small, pendent from the posterior surface of septum 12/13 above the
ventral parietes on each side of the major vessels; a pair of short, funnelled
oviducts lead back from xiii to the exterior of xiv. Spermathecae paired ix,x;
each is globular to bean-shaped with a short duct which passes into the ventral
parietes by the hinder septum of the segment. Excretory system holonephridial.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to Dr. B. Axelsson, Dr. U. Lohm and Dr. T. Persson, Depart-
ment of Entomology, University of Uppsala, for their kindness and co-
operation in responding to my request for assistance by specially collecting the
series of earthworms from which the neotype was subsequently selected and for
presenting the specimens to the British Museum (Natural History).

NOTE In accordance with Recommendation 75A, specialists were consulted
and the following agree that it is desirable to designate a neotype of Lumbricus
terrestris L., 1758: Dr. M. B. Bouché, I.N.R.A., Dijon; Dr. G. E. Gates, 251,
Silver Road, Bangor, Maine; Dr. O. Graff, Institut fur Bodenbiologie, Braun-
schweig; Dr. B. G. M. Jamieson, University of Queensland, Brisbane; Dr. J. D.
Plisko, Institut zoologiczny PAN, Warszawa; Dr. S. Rundgren, Lunds Uni-
versitet, Lund; Dr. J. E. Satchell, Merlewood Research Station, Lancashire;
Dr. C. Stop-Bowitz, Universitetet I Oslo, Oslo; Dr. D. E. Wilcke, Rheinischen
Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat, Bonn; Dr. I. Zajonc, Vysokej skoly polno-
hospodarskej, Nitra; Dr. A. Zicsi, Institutum Zoosystematicum Universitatis,
Budapest.

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

MEMORANDUM ON THE SPECIES NAME LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS
By G. E. Gates (251 Silver Road, Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.)

Usage of L. herculeus for L. terrestris by certain French authors long bothered me
and especially after the name of L. terrestris was removed from the list of nomina
conservanda. About fifteen or so years ago I corresponded with a Swedish zoologist
who, I thought, would collect what is commonly known as the night crawler, dew
worm, etc. from the place where Linnaeus lived and might have made his observations
(to be mentioned later), with the idea that the specimens would be properly preserved
for deposition in some Swedish museum to serve as types. Years went by and nothing
further was heard of the project from Sweden and after advancing age denied me
further use of museum quarters, the file containing the correspondence was lost or
discarded and I cannot even recall the name of the correspondent.

Lumbricus terrestris obviously must be retained as the type of Lumbricus if that
generic name is to be retained. Objections by French authors to retention of terrestris
is that no species is identifiable by the Linnean characterization of the species in 1758.
Briefly, that view is incorrect. The definition of that year mentions

“adscendit noctu’’.

The only Swedish earthworm that is known to come regularly to the surface in night
time, as a normal procedure and whenever climate permits, is the same one known all
over North America, Asia, and everywhere in Europe today except in France as well
as in much of Africa, as L. terrestris. Allolobophora longa has been said to come to
the surface but it never has been shown to do so regularly and normally. Hundreds of
thousands certainly, if not millions, of earthworms have been collected in North
America. They have been ‘‘jacked” at night by people who know nothing about earth-
worm systematics. They do know that the worms they find feeding and copulating
on the surface are night crawlers, obtainable only at night, and that they can sell the
worms to organizations that supply specimens alive to anglers and experimenters or
after preservation to universities, colleges and high schools for dissection. A. longa is
present on this continent as also in Sweden, but never has been present in any of the
many hundreds of specimens “‘jacked” at night that I have personally examined and
that were examined for me by others.

In the 12th edition of the System (1767, p. 1077) an emended definition contains
a more definite statement.

exit supra terram tempore nocturno pro copula”’.
To this day, no other earthworm species that is present in Sweden has been found to
come to the surface to copulate. In fact, I do not know of any other European species
that has been shown to do so. I have dug copulating earthworms (even including
some that are male sterile) out of the soil, manure, compost, etc., but they always
were of other species, never of L. terrestris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35

REQUEST THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION RULE
TO CORRECT HOMONYMY IN THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME
DREPANIDAE, CURRENTLY IN USE IN INSECTA AND
PISCES Z. N. (S.) 1958

By C. G. Gruchy (Ichthyology Unit, National Museum of Natural Sciences,
Ottawa, Canada)

When homonyms between family-group names result from similarity,
but not identity, of genus-group names, the case is to be referred to the Commis-
sion (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1964, Art. 55(a)).
Such a case exists between the family-group name DREPANIDAE, in current use
in Insecta (Lepidoptera) and in Pisces (Perciformes). The case is simplified
somewhat by the fact that the family-group name DREPANIDAE as it applies to
Insecta (Lepidoptera) is on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
Several other family-group names, similar to DREPANIDAE, have also been
ruled upon by the Commission. The facts of the case are as follows:

1. In Opinion 610 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(4) : 267 (1961)) the family-
group name DREPANIDAE (correction of DREPANIDULID!) Boisduval [Nov., 1828]
(type genus Drepana Schrank, 1802 (Name No. 1442, Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology)) (Insecta, Lepidoptera) was placed on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name No. 307).

2. In Opinion 610 the family-group name DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891
(type genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (Name No. 1440, Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology)) (Aves) was placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology (Name No. 306).

3. In Opinion 610 the following family-group name, among others, was
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology: DREPANIDAE Mayr, 1943 (type genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820)
(Name No. 337).

4. Drepane Cuvier, 1831 (in : Cuvier, G., and A. Valenciennes, 1831, Hist.
Nat. Poissons 7 : 132) (Pisces, Perciformes) is the type-genus of the family-
group taxon DREPANIDAE Gill, 1872, in : Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 1874, 11,
(247) : 8. The type-species of Drepane Cuvier is Chaetodon punctatus Linnaeus,
1758, by subsequent designation by Jordan, 1917, Genera Fishes 1 : 136.

5. Several authors subsequent to Cuvier (in : Cuvier and Valenciennes,
1831) were of the opinion that Drepane Cuvier, 1831, was a homonym of Drepana
Schrank, 1802, and proposed substitute names as follows:

Drepanichthys Bonaparte, 1831 (Saggio d’una distribuzione metodica degli
Animali Vertebrati . . . Giorn. arcad. sienze, lettre ed arti 52 : 172;
Enixe Gistel, 1848 (Naturg. Thierr. hohere Schulen : X)}-
Harpochirus Cantor, 1849 (Catalogue Malayan Fishes, J. Roy. Asiat. Soc.,
Bengal 18 : 1144.

However, if a difference between genus-group names is due to a single

1Original reference unavailable, information from Jordan, 1917, Genera Fishes, Il : 233-234

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

letter, those names are not homonyms (Art. 57(d)). Thus Drepana Schrank,
1802, and Drepane Cuvier, 1831, are not homonyms, and the three above-
mentioned names proposed as substitutes for Drepane Cuvier, 1831, are junior
objective synonyms of that name.

6. Cope, 1869 (Supplement on some new species of American and African
fishes, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. 9 : 401) described from ‘““West African Seas’’, a
new genus and species, Cryptosmilia luna, apparently based on specimens of
Drepana punctata (Linn.). Neither Fowler (1936, Marine Fishes West Africa,
Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 70 : 899) nor Poll (1954, Expéd. Océan. Belge
Eaux Cétiéres Africaines Atlantique Sud 4, Fasc. 3A : 372) has considered
C. luna valid, and my own observations of limited material of this family from
West Africa suggest that C. Juna is conspecific with D. punctata. Therefore
Cryptosmilia Cope, 1869 is herein viewed as a junior subjective synonym of
Drepane Cuvier, 1831.

7. Drepane, as used by Cuvier, 1831, is an exact transliteration, but an
incorrect latinization of the Greek dpemévn a sickle (International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, 1964, Appendix 8) while Drepana, as used by Schrank,
1802, is a correct latinization. However, according to Article 32(a)ii (Interna-
tional Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1964) the original spelling is to be
retained despite improper latinization.

In view of the facts set out above, I request the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to:

(1) rule under its plenary powers that the stem of the genus-group name

Drepane Cuvier, 1831 for the purposes of Article 29 is DREPANE-;
(2) place the generic name Drepane Cuvier, 1831 (gender feminine) type-
species by subsequent designation by Jordan, 1917, Chaetodon punc-
tatus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) place the specific name punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Systema Naturae

Ed. X, 1: 273) as published in the binomen Chaetodon punctatus
(type-species of Drepane Cuvier, 1831) on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;

(4) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Drepanichthys Bonaparte, 1831, a junior objective synonym of
Drepane Cuvier, 1831;

(b) Enixe Gistel, 1848, a junior objective synonym of Drepane Cuvier,

1831;
(c) Harpochirus Cantor, 1849, a junior objective synonmy of Drepane
Cuvier ;
(5) place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology:

DREPANEIDAE Gill, 1874 (emendation under the plenary powers of
DREPANIDAE), type-genus Drepane Cuvier, 1831;

(6) place the following name on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology:
DREPANIDAE Gill, 1874 (an incorrect original spelling for DREPANIDAE
as a consequence of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37

NIPPONAPHERA HABE, 1961 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2007

By H. A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

1. At the suggestion of Mr. Richard E. Petit of North Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, U.S.A., I submit this application to set aside the original type
designation of Nipponaphera Habe, 1961.

2. Habe (196la, App. p. 27) proposed the genus Nipponaphera, citing
Nipponaphera lyrata (Adams & Reeve, 1850) as type; the diagnosis, discussion
and type designation are in Japanese. On p. 72, and plate 35, figure 18 of the
main part of the same work the type-species is listed and figured, and on page
73 and plate 36, figures 4 and 8, two other species are listed and figured: N.
teramachii n. sp. and N. semipellucida (Adams & Reeve). On page 27 of the
Appendix the species teramachii is placed in Trigonaphera, leaving only two
species in his new genus Nipponaphera.

3. Later in 1961 Habe (1961b, p. 435) identified the type-species as N.
funiculata (Hinds), making Cancellaria lyrata Ad. & Rve. a junior synonym.
As early as 1885 Tryon (1885, p. 83) considered Cancellaria lyrata Ad. & Rve.,
described as coming from the China Seas (Adams & Reeve, 1850, p. 42, pl. 10,
fig. 4), to be a synonym of C. funiculata Hinds (1843, p. 48; 1844, p. 43, pl. 12,
figs. 5-6) from Magdalena Bay, Baja, California, Mexico. Keen figures
Trigonostoma funiculatum (Hinds) in her book on tropical West American
mollusks, in the first edition (Keen, 1958, p. 442, fig. 709), expressing the
belief that the locality might be in error. Following Shasky’s confirmation of
the presence of this species in the Gulf of California (Shasky, 1961, p. 19),
Keen, in the new edition of her book (Keen, 1971, p. 656, fig. 1482), lists it as
Trigonostoma (Olssonella) funiculatum Hinds without question, following
Petit’s classification (Petit 1970, p. 84).

4. Thus Cancellaria funiculata appears to be a West American species,
and have as junior synonym C. /yrata Adams & Reeve, whose type locality,
“China Seas” is erroneous. This species has been assigned to the genus
Olssonella Petit, 1970 (Petit, 1.c.).

5. The species that Habe described and figured as Nipponaphera lyrata
(Adams & Reeve) and later called N. funiculata (Hinds) is not the same as
the West American species, and has been renamed N. habei Petit, 1972 (Petit,
1972, p. 103).

6. As Petit has pointed out (Petit, 1972, p. 104), if the present type designa-
tion is allowed to stand Nipponaphera would replace Olssonella Petit, 1970,
for an American group of cancellarids, and the Japanese group would require a
new name.

7. In order to retain the name Nipponaphera Habe for the largely Japanese
group, and conforming to Article 70 (a) (i), I suggest that the nominal species
actually designated as the type-species, wrongly named by Habe Nipponaphera

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

lyrata (Adams & Reeve), and renamed Nipponaphera habei Petit, 1972, be
selected as the type-species of Nipponaphera Habe.

8. In order to achieve this the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature is requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species
made prior to the present Ruling for the genus Nipponaphera Habe,
1961, and having done so to designate Nipponaphera habei Petit
(=N. lyrata Habe, 1961, not Cancellaria lyrata Adams & Reeve,
1850) as type-species of Nipponaphera;

(2) to place the generic name Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (gender: feminine),
type species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above,
Nipponaphera habei Petit, 1972, on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name habei Petit, 1972, as published in the binomen
Nipponaphera habei (type-species of Nipponaphera Habe, 1961) on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

Apams, A., and REEVE, L. 1850. Mollusca, in The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S.
Samarang. London : i-x + 1-87, 24 pl.

Hase, T. 196la. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan, 2. Osaka : i-x +
1-183, App. 1-42, 66 pl.

— 1961b. Description of Four New Cancellariid Species, with A List of the
Japanese Species of the Family Cancellariidae. Venus 21 : 431-441, pls. 23, 24

Hinps, R. B. 1843. Ten new species of Cancellaria from the collection of Sir
Edward Belcher. Proc. Soc. London 11 : 47-49

— 1844. The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Sulphur, etc. 2, Mollusca. London :
1-72, 21 pls.

Keen, A. M. 1958. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Stanford : i-viii +
1-624, illustr.

— 1971. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Second Edition. Stanford : i-xiv
+ 1-1064, illustr.

Petit, R. E. 1970. Notes on Cancellariidae (Mollusca : Gastropoda)—II. Tulane
Studies Geol. Paleont. 8 : 83-88, pl. 1

— 1972. The cancellariid genus Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 Venus 31: 103-105

SHasky, D. R. 1961. New Deep Water Mollusks from the Gulf of California.
The Veliger 4 : 18-21, pl. 4

Tryon, G. W. 1885. Manual of Conchology 7, Family Cancellariidae. Phila-
delphia : 65-98, pl. 1-7

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39

MACGILLIVRAYA GROTE, 1894 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.
Z.N.AS.) 2008

By Willem N. Ellis (/nstituut voor Taxonomische Zodlogie, het Zodlogisch
Museum, University of Amsterdam) and
Peter F. Bellinger (Biology Department, San Fernando Valley State College,
Northridge, California)

The nominal genus Macgillivraya was created by Grote, 1894, as a new name
for Triaena Tullberg, 1871, nec Hiibner, 1818. Von Dalla Torre considered
Macgillivraya Grote as a homonym of a genus of Mollusca, described by Forbes
in 1852, and replaced it by Friesea in 1895. The validity of the well-known
generic name Friesea is threatened now by considerable doubt concerning the
homonymy of Macgillivraya.

2. Inthe fifth appendix of the second volume of the Narrative of the Voyage
of the Rattlesnake Forbes amply described the new genus Macgillivrayia; this
spelling is repeated on page 386 in the explanation of the accompanying plate.
The two volumes of the Narrative are dated 1852; the volumes in the library of
the Teyler’s Stichting in Haarlem both bear an autogram “‘John Gray 1852”.

3. The genus is also briefly discussed in the Report of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science of 1852, but this time the spelling Macgillivraya
is used. The few lines of this note, which we reproduce below, are so vague
that it seems very questionable that they can be seen as a formal description:

“Among the collections made by Mr. Macgillivray is a new genus of Gastero-

podous Mollusks, floaters in the manner of Janthina, but having close

affinities of shell, animal and operculum with Jeffreysia. It appears to
throw new light on the nature of Macluria and the so-called Palaeozoic

Littorinae. Prof. Forbes proposes to name this curious shell Macgillivraya’’.
Dr. Willis, secretary of the British Association, kindly informed us that this
report was published in 1852 indeed. (Some confusion exists in literature on
this point, e.g. in the paper of Troschel, 1852, because the note of Forbes was
read July 1851).

4. Consequently, the spelling Macgillivraya Forbes has no status in
nomenclature, unless the note in the Report of the British Association amounts
to a description (which is questionable), and unless at the same time this publi-
cation takes precedence over the Narrative of the Rattlesnake Voyage (which
we could not prove or disprove). We do not know of a first reviser who
accepted one of either spellings as the correct name, nor do we know of a
deliberate emendation, made prior to 1894 giving status to the name Macgilli-
vraya. (The statement in the Nomenclator of Schulze, Kiikenthal and Heider,
1932 (3 : 1929) that such an emendation was made by de Marschall, 1873
in his Nomenclator is incorrect). The new genus of Forbes originally attracted
considerable attention because it was interpreted as a representative of a distinct
group of Mollusca (Petit de la Saussaye, 1853, Macdonald, 1855, 1856, Adams,
1857), and Adams & Adams even erected the family MACGILLIVRAYIIDAE to

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

receive this and some related genera, in 1854. However, it was soon realized
that this genus represents a group of larval forms of uncertain position (probably
near Tonna), and the genus name disappeared from malacological practice
(Fischer, 1884). Until now both spellings are in use, whenever the genus is
referred to (e.g. Allan, 1959, Treatise on invertebrate palaeontology, 1960).
5. Theconclusionis, that in all probability Macgillivraya Forbes has nostatus
in nomenclature, with the result that Macgillivraya Grote is not preoccupied.
This implies that the well-known cosmopolitan genus Friesea, which contains
approximately 70 species-group taxa and is the type genus of the subfamily
FRIESEINAE Massoud, 1967, would have to be renamed. Macgillivraya Grote
has remained unchallenged for only one year, and has virtually never been used
as a valid name. Since reintroduction of this name evidently is not in the
interest of a stable nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of
Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the nominal
genus Macgillivraya Grote, 1894;

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the names Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (suppressed under
(1) above) and Triaena Tullberg, 1871 (a junior honomym of Triaena
Hiibner, 1818);

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Friesea yon Dalla Torre, 1895, type-species by monotypy, through
Triaena, Triaena mirabilis Tullberg, 1871 (gender: feminine);

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name
mirabilis Tullberg, 1871, as published in the combination Triaena
mirabilis (type-species of Friesea von Dalla Torre, 1895).

REFERENCES

Apams, A. 1857. Ona new species of Macgillivrayia. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 19 :
373-374

— 1857. Description of two new species of Heteropodous Mollusca. Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 19 : 461-463

Apams, H., and ApaAms, A. 1853-1858. The genera of recent Mollusca; arranged
according to their organization. 1-3 London

ALLAN, J. 1959. Australian shells, with related animals living in the seas, in freshwater
and on the land. 2nd ed. Melbourne

DALLA Torre, K. W. von 1895. Die Gattungen und Arten der Apterygogenea
(Brauer). Programm k.k. Staats-Gymnasium Innsbruck 46 : 1-23

FiscHer, P. 1884. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie conchyliologique.
Paris

Fores, E. 1852. On the Mollusca collected by Mr. Macgillivray during the voyage
of the Rattlesnake. In: J. Macgillivray, Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S.
Rattlesnake, commanded by Captain Owen Stanley, R.N., F.R.S. during the
years 1846-1850. 2, Appendix 5 : 360-386, PI. 1

—— 1852. Onanew testacean discovered during the voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake.
Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci. 21, Notices and Abstracts : 77

Grote, A. R. 1894. On Triaena. Can. Ent. 26 (2) : 54

Hupner, J. 1818. Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge... Erstes
Hundert : 21

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41

MACDONALD, J. D. 1855. Remarks on the anatomy of Macgillivrayia pelagica and
Cheletropis Huxleyi (Forbes); suggesting the establishment of a new genus of
Gasteropoda. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 145 : 284-293, Pl. 16. Reprinted slightly
condensed in: Proc. R. Soc. 7 : 191-194; Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 15 : 232-234

— 1855. Further observations on the anatomy of Macgillivraya, Cheletropis, and
allied genera of pelagic Gasteropoda. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 145 : 295-297, Pl. 17.
Reprinted slightly condensed in : Proc. R. Soc. 7 : 309-311; Ann. Mag. nat.
Hist. (2) 15 : 359-361

MarscuHAaLL, A. de 1873. Nomenclator zoologicus... Wien

(Petit DE LA Saussaye, S.] (S.P.). 1853. Notice sur le genre Macgillivrayia de E.
Forbes. J. Conch. Paris 4 : 316

SaLmon, J.T. 1964-1965. An index to the Collembola. Bull. R. Soc. N.Z. 7 (1):
1-144; 7 (2) : 145-644; 7 (3) : 645-651

ScHULZE, F. E., KUKENTHAL, W., and Heiwer, K. 1932. Nomenclator animalium
generum et subgenerum. 3. Berlin

TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY (R. C. Moore ed.). 1960. Part I.
Mollusca 1. Kansas

TrOscHEL, F.H. 1852. Bericht iiber die Leistungen im Gebiete der Naturgeschichte
der Mollusken wahrend des Jahres 1851. Arch. Naturgesch. 18 (2) : 257-307
(Macgillivraya on p. 280) ne

TULLBERG, T. 1871. Fortecking ofver Svenska Podurider. Ofvers. K. Vetensk Akad.
Forh. Stockh. 28 (1) : 143-155

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HAEMATOPINUS EURYSTERNUS (DENNY, 1842)
(HAEMATOPINIDAE, ANOPLURA, INSECTA): PROPOSED
VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.1
Z.N.(S.) 2009

By Ke Chung Kim and Christian F. Weisser? (The Frost Entomological
Museum, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pa. 16802, U.S.A.)

1. The objective of the present application is to ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to preserve
the well known names Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch, 1818) (Haemato-
pinidae) and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904 (Linognathidae) by sup-
pressing Burmeister’s brief description and the material of Nitzsch, and validat-
ing H. eurysternus (short-nosed cattle louse) in the sense of Denny (1842,
Monographia Anoplurorum Britanniae, pp. 29-30, Plate 24, Fig. 5) and authors,
nec Nitzsch (1818 and 1864). The facts of this case became apparent while
engaged in revisional studies of Haematopinidae and Linognathidae. These
facts are set out below.

2. Nitzsch (1818, Magazin der Entomologie, von E. F. Germar, Halle,
Germany 3 : 305) mentioned a louse from “Bovis Tauri” under the name
Pediculus eurysternus without description and figures. A note to this species was
published posthumously in 1864, and this note showed very clearly that Pediculus
eurysternus Nitzsch (1818) was meant to be the little blue cattle louse, presently
known as Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein (1904). Nitzsch states (1864,
Zeitschr. fiir die gesamten Naturwissenschaften 23 : 27-28) that: “‘... eine Kuh
besass eine ganz eigentiimliche Laus, welche bei fliichtiger Vergleichung der
Hirschlaus nah verwandt scheint.”’; (translation: “....a cow harboured a
rather strange louse which seems on the first glance to be closely related to the
louse of the red deer.’’). It is true that Solenopotes capillatus from cattle
resembles Solenopotes burmeisteri (Fahrenholz, 1819) from the European red
deer in general appearance. However, P. eurysternus Nitzsch (1818) is a nomen
nudum.

3. Through the courtesy of Prof. Dr. Hiising, Martin-Luther-Universitat
in Halle-Wittenberg, Germany, the original material apparently used by Nitzsch
was available to us for study. The 3 females and 3 nymphs were found in the
bottle bearing a handwritten label apparently by Giebel. They were completely
dried out but still in fairly good condition. Three females and 2 nymphs were
unmistakably Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch) (nec Denny, 1842) (=Soleno-
potes capillatus Enderlein). One nymph was apparently Linognathus vituli
(Linnaeus, 1758).

1 Authorized for publication as paper no. 4206, Journal Series of the Agricultural Experiment
Station, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. 16802, U.S.A. We are
indebted to Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. for reading the manuscript with invaluable suggestions.

2 Permanent Address: Zoologisches Institut, Universitat Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43

4. Stephens (1829, Systematic Catalogue of British Insects 2 : 239) listed
Haematopinus eurysternus as “9325. 5 eurysternus. (Germ. M. (Nitz.) iii. 305).

5. Burmeister (1838, Genera quaedam Insectorum 1 (4) : Pediculus, No. 14)
listed P. eurysternus as “14 P. eurysternus: capite cum thorace latissimo pedi-
busque testaceo, abdomine albo; spiraculis in segmentorum margine prominen-
tibus. Long. 2/3’. An Ped. Vitul. Linn.? Habit. in Bove tauro.” He
recognized the work of Nitzsch (1818) and referred P. eurysternus to the little
blue cattle louse, presently known as Solenopotes capillatus.

According to the Code (Article 12), Pediculus eurysternus Nitzsch (1818) is
obviously a nomen nudum, and Burmeister’s work must be considered the first
description of this species. Thus, the author of Pediculus eurysternus should be
Burmeister (1838) not Nitzsch (1818, 1864). According to the strict application
of the Code the name Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein (1904, Zool. Anz. 28 (4) :
143-144) should become a junior synonym of Haematopinus eurysternus
(Burmeister, 1838).

6. Denny (1842, Monographia Anoplurorum Britanniae p. 29-30, Plate 25,
Fig. 5) described and illustrated a “Louse of the Ox” under the name Haema-
topinus eurysternus. He states that: “*... abdomen... with four longitudinal
rows of fuscous horny excrescences, the lateral ones surrounding the spiracula...””
Although works of Stephens, Nitzsch, and Burmeister were cited, the louse that
Denny described was in fact the species known today as Haematopinus eury-
sternus. Thus, Denny was the first author who used the name Haematopinus
eurysternus for the short-nosed cattle louse.

7. Gurlt (1843, Magazin fiir die gesamte Tierheilkunde 9 (1) : 10) described
and illustrated Haematopinus eurysternus sensu Denny, but attributed the
authorship of this species to Nitzsch (1818).

8. Giebel (1874, Insecta Epizoa: 41-42, pl. 2, fig. 8) apparently had access
to Nitzsch’s original material, notes, and illustrations. In “Insecta Epizoa,
Die auf Saugetieren und Végeln schmarotzenden Insekten, nach Christian
L. Nitzsch’s Nachlass,’’ Giebel described and illustrated Haematopinus euryster-
nus (Nitzsch) sensu Nitzsch (1818), which was subsequently described as
Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904. Giebel stated that ‘““Die Baine nehmen
vom ersten bis zum dritten Paare an Dicke zu, doch nicht im Grade wie bei der
Hirschlaus... Der Hinterleib ist bei den Weibchen breit oval... scharf
segmentiert, doch dadurch an den Randern nur gekerbt, wogegen am Rande
des dritten bis achten Segments je ein réhriges, braunes Spiraculum hervorragt.
Die Farbe ist hellbraun . . . und bei gefiilltem Magen blaulich unrein.”’; (English
translation: “Thickness of legs increasing from first to third pair, yet not in the
degree as found in the louse of the red deer... The female abdomen is broad
oval . . . strictly segmented, on the margins only crenated, but on the margin of
the 3rd to the 8th segment each with a protruding tubuliform brown spiracle.
The colour is light brown... and dirty bluish when the stomach is filled.’’).
Giebel further stated in his discussion that ‘“‘Die von ihm (Nitzsch; our insert)
gegebene Abbildung ist nach den annoch vorhandenen Spiritusexemplaren wie
alle Nitzsch’schen Zeichnungen sehr getreu und weicht von Denny’s Beschrei-
bung und Abbildung so erheblich ab, dass man an der Identitat beider gerechte
Zweifel haben muss.”’; (English translation: ‘““The figures given by him (Nitzsch)

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

are in agreement with the original alcohol specimens before me and very precise
as all other drawings of Nitzsch, differing from Denny’s description and figures
so much that the identity of both is truly in question.”). Giebel herewith
pointed out the discrepancy between Nitzsch’s and Denny’s descriptions, and
expressed his doubt about the identity of what was known as ‘eurysternus’
(Pediculus eurysternus Nitzsch, 1818; Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842—
nec Nitzsch, 1818).

9. Piaget (1880, Les Pédiculines: 648, Pl. 53, Fig. 1) used the name Haemato-
pinus eurysternus sensu Denny (1842).

10. Enderlein (1904, Zool. Anz. 28 : 144, Figs. 14 and 15) described, as
new to science, Solenopotes capillatus for the little blue cattle louse, which was
already described as Haematopinus eurysternus Nitzsch by Burmeister (1834)
and Nitzsch (1864). Thus S. capillatus in fact became a junior synonym of H.
eurysternus (Burmeister).

11. The common usage of the name Haematopinus eurysternus sensu
Denny (1842) for the short-nosed cattle louse has remained unchanged since
Denny (1842) except for Giebel (1874), and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein
has been unquestionably used since 1904. This usage has been widely accepted
by entomologists, biologists, veterinarians, livestock specialists, and others
throughout the world. These names have been uniformly used in the extensive
literature of parasitology, entomology, systematics, veterinary medicine,
livestock science and others for more than a century in the sense of Denny
(1842) and Enderlein (1904). The works of Nitzsch (1864) and Giebel (1874)
apparently did not influence subsequent workers in the use of these names.

12. The following major references used Haematopinus eurysternus sensu
Denny and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein:

Osborn, H. 1896. Insects affecting domestic animals, Bulletin of USDA
Division of Entomology, 5 (new series) : 172-175.

Ferris, G. F. 1919-1935. Contributions Toward a Monograph of the
Sucking Lice, Stanford University Publications 2 (6) : 448-452.

Ferris, G. F. 1951. The sucking lice, Mem. Pac. Coast Ent. Soc. 1.

Fahrenholz, H. 1939. Mitteilungen Ent. Verein Bremen 20 : 34.

Stojanovich, C. J., and Pratt, H. D. 1965. Key to the Anoplura of North
America, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 5, 22.

Herms, W.B. 1915. (subsequent editions to 1967). Medical Entomology
Macmillan, New York.

James, M. T., and Harwood, R. F. 1969. Herm’s Medical Entomology.
6th ed. Macmillan, N.Y. P. 143.

Busvine, J. R. 1966. Insects and Hygiene. Methuen, London, p. 253.

Chandler, A. C., and Read, C. P. 1961. Jntroduction to Parasitology.
J. Wiley and Sons, New York and London, p. 633.

Waterhouse, D. F. 1970. The Insects of Australia. Melbourne Univ.
Press, Carlton, Victoria, Australia, p. 376-386.

Richards, O. W., and Davies, R. G. 1964. A. D. Imms. A General
Textbook of Entomology. Methuen Co. Ltd., London, p. 414-417.

Tillyard, R. J. 1926. The insects of Australia and New Zealand. Angus
and Robertson Ltd., Sydney, Australia.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45

Freund, L. 1918. Eine seltene Rinderlaus in B6hmen. Lotos Naturwiss.
Ztschr. 66 : 40-41.

Freund, L. 1935. 13. Ordnung. Liause, Anoplura. /n Brohmer et al. :
Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas. 4 (3) : 1X, 1-26 (18/19).

Jancke, O. 1938. Die Anopluren Deutschlands. Jn F. Dahl : Die Tier-
welt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 35 : 43-76 (57/61/62).

Haematopinus eurysternus sensu Denny and authors is commonly used in
many hundreds of entomological and veterinary publications during the past
130 years.

13. Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904 is the type-species of the genus
Solenopotes Enderlein. Any nomenclatorial change for S. capillatus related to
Haematopinus eurysternus will cause a great confusion in the literature and
hamper the progress of science.

14. The strict application of the Code in this case will cause endless con-
fusion in the literature, and will retard the progress in the understanding of
Anoplura. Therefore, the present usage of the names Haematopinus eurysternus
(Nitzsch, 1818) sensu Denny (1842) and authors for the short-nosed cattle louse
and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein for the little blue cattle louse should remain
unchanged for stability of the nomenclature in Anoplura.

15. For the reasons set forth in the present application the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name eurysternus
Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Pediculus eurysternus,
and any other use of that combination before Denny, 1842, for the
purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the generic name So/enopotes Enderlein, 1904 (gender: masculine),
type-species, by monotypy, Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology:

(a) eurysternus Denny, 1842, as published in the binomen Haemato-
pinus eurysternus, as interpreted by the lectotype designated
herein ;

(b) capillatus Enderlein, 1904, as published in the binomen Solenopotes
capillatus (type-species of Solenopotes Enderlein, 1904);

(3) to place the specific name eurysternus Burmeister, 1838, as published
in the binomen Pediculus eurysternus (as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology.

Lectotype Designation: Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842, lectotype,
female, Britain, “1852-98”, Denny Collection; paralectotype, female, Britain,
“1852-98”, Denny Collection. These specimens are deposited in the Denny
Collection of the British Museum (Natural History). The description of this
species is referred to Ferris (1933, Contributions Toward a Monograph of the
Sucking Lice, Part 6, pp. 450-2, Figs. 263, 264).

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

16. This proposal has been supported by the following scientists:

Dr. Phyllis T. Johnson, 355 Princeton Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626,
U.S.A.

Dr. Theresa Clay, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural
History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7., England.

Dr. M. D. Murray, McMaster Laboratory, Division of Animal Health,
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Private Bag
No. 1, P.O. Glebe, N.S.W. 2037, Australia

Dr. J. H. Whitlock, New York State Veterinary College, Cornell University,
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850, U.S.A.

Dr. J. R. Georgi, New York State Veterinary College, Cornell University,
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850, U.S.A.

Dr. K. C. Emerson, Department of Entomology, National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.

Dr. Roger D. Price, Department of Entomology, Fisheries, and Wildlife,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47

GAMMARUS SETOSUS DEMENTIEVA, 1931 (CRUSTACEA:
AMPHIPODA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2015

By N. L. Tzvetkova (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad,
USSR)

Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 is a name which has firmly entered
world literature on amphipods for designating a common boreoarctic species of
shallow water gammarids circumpolar in the Arctic and distributed also in the
North Pacific along the coast of Asia to the Okhotsk Sea and along the coast of
America to the Gulf of Alaska (Bousfield and Hubbard, 1968, Nat. Mus. Canada,
Nat. Hist. Papers, No. 40: I-11; Tzvetkova, 1968, Zool. journ. 47 (3) : 640, etc.).
This species however has a senior synonym—G. spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889,
which was described by Vosseler much earlier from the area of Spitsbergen from
two specimens which were small for this species (Vosseler, 1889, Arch. Naturg.
55, Bd. I, Hft. 2 : 151).

2. G. setosus was separated by T. F. Dementieva (1931, Trans. State
Oceanographical Institute, Moscow, 1, issue 2-3: 74-82, figures 7, 8 l.c.) on
material from the west coast of Novaya Zemlya (Belushya Gulf). Though
the author did not give a complete description and figures of this species the
separation of this species complies with the requirements of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature accepted at the 15th International Zoological
Congress (Articles 11 and 13), as there was shown the main specific character—
feathery setae on the apex of the lobes of the telson and the separation of this
species from the close forms of “/ocusta’’ by some other characters. Later in
1940 Stephensen gave figures and a more complete description of the characters
of this species (which he treated as a subspecies of G. Jocusta) from the coast
of Spitsbergen (Stephensen, 1940, Tromsé Museums Scrifter, 3 (3) : 315, 321,
fig. 41).

3. Gammarus spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889 (Arch. Naturg. 55, Bd. I, Hft.
2 : 158, taf. 8, fig. 25-31) was described from two small specimens (8 mm in
length) from the area of Spitsbergen at a depth of 85 m. The main specific
character—feathery setae on the apex of the lobes of the telson was noted on
the figure and in the text (Vosseler, /.c., pl. 8, fig. 30). On the basis of this
character and the position of tufts of setae on the distal half of the upper edge
of the first segment of the peduncle of antenna I (Vosseler, l.c., fig. 27) (this
character was in addition introduced by me during the revision of the gammarids
of the “zaddachi-group”’ as a stable character of G. setosus, usable even for
juveniles) the identity of these two species, one described by Vosseler and the
other separated by Dementieva, is unquestionable. The identity of these
species was indicated further by Stephensen (1940, p. 323).

4. In the same paper Stephensen treats G. spetsbergensis of Vosseler as a
synonym of G. locusta setosus Dementieva, considering the description of
Vosseler not complete enough for the acknowledgment of his species: “The
original description is rather brief, and the figures . . . are few, reproduced on a

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

small scale and on the whole representing appendages of rather slight specific
importance. But the identity of the species is certain, for the telson (Vosseler,
p. 8, fig. 30) has feathery setae . . .”” (Stephensen, 1940 : 323, 321).

5. At present the name “sefosus”’ introduced by Dementieva has been
mentioned in publications more than 36 times by 23 different authors for the
period of 41 years after separation of G. setosus, while the name G. spetsbergensis
was mentioned only 4 times during 83 years and described by 4 authors: Vosseler
(in the original description); Stephensen (l.c.) where he treats this species as a
synonym of G. J/ocusta setosus; Stebbing, 1906, Das Tierreich, 21: 742
(“Addenda et Corrigenda”), and J. L. Barnard (1958, Allan Hancock Found.
Publ., occ. Pap., 19 : 55) in the list of specific names reduced to synonyms.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of

Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy, the specific name
spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889 (Arch. Naturg. 55, Bd. I, Hft. 2 : 158),
as published in the binomen Gammarus spetsbergensis;
(2) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology: setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Trans. State Oceanogr.
Institute I,issue 2-3 : 74-82, fig. 7-8, part.), as published in the binomen
Gammarus setosus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889, as suppressed under
(1) above.

Prof. E. F. Gurjanova and Dr. Y. I. Starobogatov, both of whom I con-
sulted, support this proposal.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49

RHOPALIDIA LEPELETIER, 1836 (HYMENOPTERA : VESPIDAE):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.
Z.N.(S.) 2017

By O. W. Richards (University of London, London, England)

Guerin-Meéneville (in Duperrey, 1831 : Plate IX, fig. 8) published the
generic name Ropalidia for the single new species, R. maculiventris (see
Bequaert, 1918 : 244). Since Bequaert pointed this out, the name Ropalidia
has been used instead of Icaria de Saussure, 1853 : 22, plates 4, 5, for a large
genus, containing many species in all tropical countries except America.

2. Lepeletier (1836 : 538) published a genus Rhopalidia for (p. 539) Rh.
rufithorax and Rh. pallens, two American species, now known as Polybia sericea
(Olivier, 1791) and Stelopolybia (Angiopolybia) pallens (Lep.), respectively.
This was an independent foundation, based on quite different insects from
Ropalidia. Although in 1838-9 (in the text accompanying the plates of
Duperrey’s work) Guérin-Meéneville adopted Lepeletier’s spelling, he pointed
out that his own species, R. maculiventris was too different to require comparison
with the two described by Lepeletier.

3. Schultz (1912 : 60), discussing Lepeletier’s genus, pointed out that
Rh. rufithorax Lep. had already been synonymised with Po/ybia sericea (Olivier)
by de Saussure and that Rh. pallens Lep. was a synonym of Polybia infernalis de
Saussure, 1854. This latter species had been included by Ducke (1910 : 517)
in his new genus Stelopolybia. Schulz therefore suggests that Rh. pallens Lep.
should be regarded as the type of Rhopalidia which should replace Ste/opolybia.
Under a more recent system, Angiopolybia Araujo, 1946 (type Rhopalidia
pallens Lep.) has been separated from Stelopolybia Ducke and Rhopalidia Lep.
would replace the generic name Angiopolybia.

4. However, it is highly undesirable to have two different genera within
the Vespidae called Ropalidia and Rhopalidia. Lepeletier’s genus has not
appeared in the literature, apart from Schulz’s reference, except as a synonym
of Polybia Lepeletier in von Dalla Torre’s Catalogue (1894).

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
requested to:

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the name Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836,
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy;

(2) place the generic name Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (as suppressed under
the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid generic names in Zoology.

REFERENCES
ArAUJO, R. L. 1946. Angiopolybia nom. n., para o conceito revalidado de ‘‘Stelo-
polybia Ducke, 1914” (Hym.—Vespidae—Polybiinae). Pap. Dep. Zool. Sec.
Agric. S. Paulo, 7 : 165-170
Bequaert, J.C. 1918. A revision of the Vespidae of the Belgian Congo, etc. Bull.
Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 39 : 1-384, 6 plates, 267 figs.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Datta Torre, K. W. Von. 1894. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, 9, Vespidae
(Diploptera). Leipzig

Ducke, A. 1910. Révision des guépes sociales polygames d’Amérique. Ann.
Mus. nat. Hungarici, 8 : 449-544, 17 figs.

Duperrey, L. I. 1826-1839. Voyage autour du monde... sur... la Coquille
pendant . . . 1822-25... 6 vols, 158 plates. Paris

LEPELETIER DE ST. FARGEAU, A. 1836. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Hyménop-
téres, 1. (Roret’s suites 4 Buffon). Paris

Saussure, H. de. 1853-58. Etudes sur la famille des Vespides,2. Paris & Geneva

ScuuLtz, W. A. 1912. Aelteste und alte Hymenopteren skandinavischer Autoren.
Berl. ent. Zs., 57 : 52-102

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

LACHRYMA SOWERBY, [1832] (MOLLUSCA): PROPOSED ADDITION
TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY.
Z.N.(S.) 2018

By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New
Zealand)

The genus-group name Lachryma was first introduced into binominal malaco-
logical literature through publication in synonymy (Article 11(d) of the Code of
ICZN) by Sowerby [1832]. The original entry reads as follows:

es {Erato] Lachryma Gray. Lachryma trifasciata, Humphrey,

MSS, Conch. Illust. f.48.”

2. The genus-group name Lachryma was thus erected by Sowerby (op.cit.)
through publication in synonymy of Erato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, 1832
(9th November 1832). The genus-group name Lachryma has remained unused
since it was considered synonymous with the chronologically prior Erato
Risso, 1826; it was once again re-introduced into literature by Iredale (1931),
but without its original date and authorship. After 1931 and prior to 1961,
the genus-group name Lachryma Sowerby, has been treated as an available
name with its original date and authorship or treated as a senior synonym by
the following authors:

Cotton & Godfrey (1932); Iredale (1935); Allan (1956 and 1959) and Cotton
(1958 and 1959).

After 1961 the genus-group name Lachryma has been accepted and used by
Iredale & McMichael (1962) and Cernohorsky (1968 and 1971).

3. Schilder (1927) proposed the genus-group name Proterato (type-species
Erato neozelanica Suter, 1917) for the same group of species which are referable
to Lachryma Sowerby. Proterato Schilder is either considered a subjective
synonym of Lachryma or is used as a subgenus of the latter for Austral-Neoze-
lanic fossil species (Cernohorsky, 1971). Schilder, (1936) considered Lachryma
Sowerby not to be an available name because of publication in synonymy
and continued to use Proterato Schilder in his own publications. Proterato
Schilder has also been used by Fleming (1966). In their latest publication on
Recent and fossil Cypraeacea, M. and F. A. Schilder (1971) continue to consider
Lachryma Sowerby as not validly established and therefore unavailable for
taxonomic usage.

4. The type-species of Lachryma Sowerby, has been cited as either Erato
lachryma Gray in Sowerby, [1832], by tautonymy or as Lachryma trifasciata
“Humphrey MS’, Sowerby [1832] by monotypy. Since a type-fixation by
monotypy takes precedence over a type-fixation by tautonymy, Lachryma
trifasciata Sowerby, [1832] (= érato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, [1832]) should
be considered as the type-species of Lachryma Sowerby, by monotypy.

Erato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, having been published simultaneously
with Lachryma trifasciata Sowerby, has priority over the latter by virtue of
the first reviser action of Reeve, 1842 (:261).

5. The date of erection of Lachryma Sowerby is also in dispute and the date

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1, July 1973.

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is variously cited as 1832 (Iredale, 1935; Cernohorsky, 1968, 1971) or as 1837
(Schilder, 1936; M. & F. A. Schilder, 1971). The genus-group name Lachryma
was erected in “A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae” which was
issued together with G. B. Sowerby’s “Conchological Illustrations”. In the
plate explanations to part 7 of the “Conchological Illustrations” dated 9th
November 1832, the following note is printed at the bottom of the page:
“N.B. A part of the Catalogue of Cypraeidae is given with this”. Shaw (1909)
considers pages 1-8 of the catalogue to have been issued with part 7 and suggests
that pages 9-18 of the catalogue have probably appeared with part 8 of the
“Conchological Illustrations” (prior to 30th November 1832). Since it has been
established through internal evidence that the first part of the catalogue
appeared already on the 9th November 1832, the Commission is requested to
set the date of publication of ‘A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae”’,
which appeared in G. B. Sowerby’s “Conchological Illustrations”, as the 30th
November 1832, under the provisions of Article 21(e) of the Code of ICZN.
6. The continued usage of the chronologically prior Lachryma Sowerby
[1832], by some authors and usage of the later subjective synonym Proterato
Schilder, 1927, by others, is untenable and nomenclatorially confusing. It has
been demonstrated that the genus-group name Lachryma Sowerby, and the
species-name trifasciata Sowerby, have been used prior to 1961 with their
original date and authorship by 4 different authors in 6 different publications.
The Commission is therefore requested to consider Lachryma Sowerby to be
an available name as from 30 November 1832, as it has satisfied the provisions of
Article 11(d) of the Code of ICZN, and the Commission is further requested:
(1) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:
Lachryma Sowerby [1832] (gender: feminine), type-species by
monotypy Lachryma trifasciata Sowerby [1832];
(2) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
lachryma Gray in Sowerby, 1832, as published in the binomen
Erato lachryma.

REFERENCES

ALLAN, J. 1956. Cowry shells of world seas: 139

ALLAN, J. 1959. Australian shells, rev. ed.: 132, 478

CERNOHORSKY, W. O. 1968. Veliger 10 : 370

CeRNoHorSKY, W. O. 1971. Rec. Auckl. Inst. Mus. 8: 106

Cotton, B.C. 1958. J. Malac. Soc. Aust. no. 2:11

Corron, B.C. 1959. Sth. Austral. Moll.: 367

Corron, B. C. and Goprrey, F. K. 1932. Sth. Austral. Nat. 13 : 45
FLEMING, C. A. 1966. N.Z. Dep. sci. ind. Res. Bull. 173 : 52

IREDALE, T. 1931. Rec. Austral. Mus. 18 : 223

IREDALE, T. 1935. Austral. Zool. 8 : 97

TREDALE, T. & McCMicHaeEL, D. 1962. Austral. Mus. Mem. no. 11: 58
Reeve, L. A. 1842. Conchologia Systemica 2 : 261

ScHILDER, F. A. 1927. Arch. Naturg. 91/A10 : 57

ScHILDER, F. A. 1936. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 22 : 86

ScHILDER, M. & SCHILDER, F. A. 1971. Mém. Inst. Roy. Sci. Nat. Belg. 85 : 86

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53

SHaw, H.O.N. 1909. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 8 : 340

Sowerby, G. B. [1832]. A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae in Concho-
logical Illustrations : 1-18

Sowersy, G. B. 1832. Conchological Illustrations pt. 7: pit. expl. f.48

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TUTUFA JOUSSEAUME, 1881 (GASTROPODA): REQUEST FOR
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2021

By A. G. Beu (New Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, Lower Hutt, New
Zealand)

During the course of a revision of the large Indo-West Pacific Bursidae
currently placed in the genus or subgenus Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (perhaps
most usually ranked as a subgenus of Bursa Réding, 1798, but modern taxonomic
analysis of this complex family has never been carried out) it became clear that
the current interpretation of the nominal species Murex lampas Linnaeus,
1758, designated as type-species of Tutufa by Jousseaume (1881, p. 175) makes
the generic name a synonym of Charonia Gistel, 1847, in the Cymatiidae. No
synonym is available to replace Tutufa. Therefore an application is made to
the Commission to designate an unambiguous species as type that will conserve
Tutufa in its current sense.

2. Linnaeus (1758, p. 748) included two references to earlier figures in
the synonymy of Murex lampas: Rondelet, 1555, p. 81 and Gualtieri, 1742,
pl. 50, fig. D. The Rondelet figure shows Charonia lampas lampas (Linnaeus,
1758) = C. nodifera (Lamarck, 1822). The Gualtieri figures clearly show the
large, common, Indo-West Pacific species of Tutufa that was also named
Murex rana var. bubo by Linnaeus (1758, p. 748), and was named Bursa (Tutufa)
rubeta var. gigantea by E. A. Smith (1914, p. 230) in the only published critical
review of Tutufa. The name Murex lampas was considered to apply to the latter
giant species of Tutufa by all the writers of the popular iconographies of molluscs
published during the nineteenth century, and became so deeply entrenched in
the scientific and popular literature of Pacific gastropods that most amateur
collectors and many molluscan taxonomists still use it, despite the fact that
recent critical analysts of Linnaeus’ molluscs (E. A. Smith, 1914, p. 227; Dodge,
1957, p. 103) considered that the name Murex lampas applied to a species of
Charonia.

3. Jousseaume (1881, p. 175) proposed the genus Tutufa in a systematic
revision of the genera of the Bursidae, including in his description the phrase
“canal postérieur trés court et largement ouvert...” (so that he cannot have
meant a species of Charonia, which has no posterior (anal) canal in the aperture),
and included the four species Murex lampas Linnaeus, 1758, Tutufa caledonensis
nov., Triton ranelloides Reeve, 1844 and Murex scrobiculator Linnaeus, 1758.
There is no doubt he intended the genus to be used for the species of Bursidae
with varices situated approximately every 270° around the spire, rather than
aligned up the sides of the spire as in all other Bursidae. The species included
in Tutufa by Jousseaume are currently included in Tutufa (lampas, cale-
donensis), Tritonoranella Oyama, 1964 (ranelloides) and Bufonariella Thiele,
1929 (scrobiculator). In common with all previous iconographers and with some
modern taxonomists, Jousseaume evidently thought the name Murex lampas
covered a single variable species of large Bursidae. Thus he was justified in

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55

stating clearly: “Genre Tutufa nobis. Type Murex lampas Linné.” However,
he did not qualify his designation by stating which of Linnaeus’ figures he
referred to and, indeed, was almost certainly unaware of the complexities of
Linnaeus’ names.

4. The writer (Beu, 1970, p. 211) has previously designated the shell
figured by Rondelet (1555, p. 81) as lectotype of Murex lampas Linnaeus,
1758 and thereby made it the valid name for the species of Charonia that was
previously called C. nodifera (Lamarck, 1822)= C. opis (Réding, 1798) = C.
gyrinoides (Brocchi, 1814), etc. Therefore, strictly speaking, Tutufa can be
construed only as a synonym of Charonia Gistel, 1847 (type species: Murex
tritonis Linnaeus, 1758, Indo-West Pacific).

5. The only existing synonym of Tutufa Jousseaume is Lampas Schumacher,
1817 (type-species: Lampas hians Schumacher, 1817; based on Martini,
Conchylien — Cabinet, vol. 4, pl. 128, figs. 1236, 1237 = Murex rana var.
rubeta Linnaeus, 1758) but this is preoccupied by Lampas Montfort, 1810, a
genus of Foraminiferida. Thus if Tutufa were to fall as a synonym of Charonia
a new name would be required to replace Jousseaume’s currently well-under-
stood name. This seems unnecessarily unfortunate when Jousseaume designated
as type a nominal species that at the time was consistently applied to the giant
species of Bursidae he intended should be type-species of Tutufa. The interpreta-
tion of the name Jousseaume used has changed through accidents of nomen-
clature and changes in the application of nomenclatural rules, and it is not the
species he wished to designate that is at fault but the name he used for it in his
designation. Thus this is a case of misidentified type-species, and under the
Code, Article 70(a), an application is made to designate a type-species under
the Commission’s plenary powers. Under Article 70(a) the choices for designa-
tion as type-species of Tutufa are (1) Charonia lampas (Linnaeus, 1758), the name
Jousseaume wrongly called his designated type-species by, and (2) the species
Jousseaume intended to designate as type-species but wrongly identified.

6. At this stage it is necessary to point out that, whereas most taxonomists
with whom the writer has discussed Indo-Pacific Bursidae regard the “forms”
included in Tutufa as part of the variation of a single species, anatomical study
by the writer has shown that the ‘“‘forms”’ are as distinct as any other molluscan
species, and distinct anatomies are associated with the previously apparent
consistent shell differences. There are at least six species of Tutufa sensu stricto.
The nomenclature of some of the species is obscure as yet, particularly the
status of the name Murex rana var. bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (which probably
applies to the large species named Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta var. gigantea by E. A.
Smith (1914, p. 230), figured by Gualtieri (1742, pl. 50, fig. D) in the figure
quoted by Linnaeus in the synonymy of Murex lampas, and is probably the
form Jousseaume thought of as typical of the broad species he meant by the
name Murex lampas) which will probably require the designation of a neotype
before it is stabilised. Therefore a type-species for Tutufa must be chosen with
care.

7. Since the initial pointing out of the occurrence of several consistent
“varieties” in Tutufa by E. A. Smith (1914), the name used most commonly
in place of the rejected Murex lampas (now applied to a species of Charonia)

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

by those authors who regarded the “forms” of Tutufa as part of the variation
of one species is Bursa (or Tutufa) rubeta, based on Murex rana var. rubeta
Linnaeus (1758, p. 748). Linnaeus’ synonymy consists of only one figure
(Rumphius, 1711, pl. 28, fig. D; figured better in a later redrawn edition:
Rumphius, 1766, pl. 28, fig. D; referred to by Rumphius (1766, p. 61) as
‘“‘Buccina tuberosa rufa, oder rothe héckerigte Kinkhérner’’) which shows a
relatively very small, extremely coarsely sculptured shell which, in combination
with the red colour, cannot be intended for any species other than Tutufa
rubeta of all authors. As one of the two oldest available names applied to species
of Tutufa, as the name most consistently used in its correct sense, and as the
most clearly identifiable of the early-named species of Tutufa (those implicitly
included in Jousseaume’s concept of Tutufa lampas), this seems the best nominal
species to choose as type-species of Tutufa.

8. Therefore in the interests of stability of nomenclature, the Commission

is requested

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type-
species for the genus Tutufa Jousseaume and, having done so, to
designate Murex rana var. rubeta Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species of
Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881;

(2) to place the generic name Jutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (gender: feminine),
type-species (by designation under (1) above) Murex rana var. rubeta
Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name rubeta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binomen Murex rana var. rubeta) on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

Beu, A.G. 1970. The Mollusca of the genus Charonia (Family Cymatiidae). Trans.
N. Soc. N.Z., Biol. Sci., 11(16) : 205-23

Dopce, H. 1957. A historical review of the mollusks of Linnaeus. Part 5. The
genus Murex of the class Gastropoda. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 113 : 73-
224

Gua tier!, N. 1742. Index Testarum Conchyliorum. Florence.

JOUSSEAUME, F, P. 1881. Description de nouvelles Coquilles. Bull. Soc. zool.
France, 6 : 172-88.

Linnagus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10,1. Regnum Animale. Stockholm

RONDELET, G. 1555. Libri de piscibus .. [part 2]. Leiden

Rumpuius, G. E. 1711. Thesaurus imaginum piscium testaceorum. Leiden

— 1766. Amboinsche Raritdten-Kammer .. .[ed. J. H. Chemnitz]. Vienna

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57

LORIIDAE (AVES)—AUTHOR AND DATE : PROPOSAL FOR
AMENDMENT OF OPINION 938. Z.N.(S.)2022

By G. N. Kashin (Moscow)

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, on the grounds
of a proposal by Prof. Ernst Mayr and Dr. H. T. Condon, has placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name LoruDAE (correction
of LORIANAE) Swainson, 1837, with the Name Number 457, and with the original
reference : On the Natural History and Classification of Birds 2: 303, of
Swainson.

However, W. Swainson was not the first author to create a family-group
name based on the generic name Lorius.

It was, one year earlier, Prideaux J. Selby, 1836 (Parrots, vol. 15 of Sir
William Jardine’s “The Naturalist’s Library’. Selby divided the family
PSITTACIDAE into five subfamilies, the fourth of which he named LORIANA on
pp. 57 and 141, and LorIANAE on p. 142. In the subfamily Selby included the
species Lorius domicellus, Charmosyna papuensis, Trichoglossus swainsoni,
T. versicolor, T. pyrrhopterus, Coriphilus kuhlii and Psittaculus galgulus. All
these species are drawn on coloured plates no. 18-24.

In view of the fact set out above, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked:

to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the
name LORIIDAE (correction of LORIANA and LORIANAE) Selby, 1836.

REFERENCES

LoriaANA & LORIANAE—SELBY, P. J. 1836. Parrots, in Naturalist’s Library, Orni-
thology 6 : 57, 141, 142

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

FORMICA MAXIMA MOORE, 1842 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23(a-b). Z.N.(S.)2023

By W. D. L. Ride! and R. W. Taylor?

The names Myrmecia regularis Crawley, 1925; Myrmecia nigriceps Mayr,
1862; and Myrmecia vindex Smith, 1858, are at present widely used for three
species of bull-dog ant in the south-west of Western Australia. The ants are
large and conspicuous members of the insect fauna and, because of their
powerful stings, are well-known. The names are in general current use in the
sense of Article 79(b)—see attached list.

2. The name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, occurs in a descriptive vocabu-
lary of the Aboriginal language. The description is undoubtedly of an ant
of the genus Myrmecia but the name lacks a type specimen. If a neotype
were to be selected from the geographical area to which the description relates,
(i.e. the south-west of Western Australia), the name F. maxima would certainly
be a senior synonym of one of the names, M. regularis, M. nigriceps, M. vindex
or Myrmecia vindex basirufa Forel, 1907 (the latter is currently held possibly
to be a full species but it is a name not in general current use—see 4 below.)

3. The name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, is not known to have been used
except in the two editions of Moore’s work (1842, 1884) and in two editions of a
contemporary general work by a missionary (Salvado 1851 and 1854).

4. Although M. vindex basirufa Forel, 1907, is not known to be a name in
general current use (see attached list), stability would not be served by causing it,
through neotype selection for F. maxima Moore, to become the junior sub-
jective synonym of F. maxima Moore, 1842, since the taxonomy of M. vindex
and M. vindex basirufa is not fully understood and F. maxima might, through
synonymy of basirufa with vindex, be caused to replace M. vindex, a stable
name in general current use.

5. The Commission is requested to use its Plenary Powers (Art. 79) to
suppress the name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not the Law of Homonymy and to place it on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names.

6. In accordance with Article 80, until the Commission’s decision is known,
the name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, is not to be used as the valid name of a
south-western Australian species of ant in the genus Myrmecia.
Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of
Miss Sara J. Meagher for drawing their attention to this name, and others,
in Moore’s work; and to Mr. L. Koch, Dr. D. L. Serventy and Mr. G. P.
Whitley for assistance.

List of publications demonstrating general current use of the names Myrmecia

'The Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, W.A. 6000, Australia
2Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59

regularis Crawley, 1925, M. nigriceps Mayr, 1862, and M. vindex F. Smith, 1858,
and the usage of M. vindex basirufa Forel, 1907.

1. Myrmecia regularis Crawley, 1925. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. Ser. 9, 16:
579-580.

Sudd, 1967 : 116; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1964 : 268 et a/.; Wheeler, G. C.
and J., 1964 :444; Douglas and Brown, 1959: 18; Freeland, 1958: 11;
Haskins, C. P. and E. F. 1955 : 116 et a/.; Haskins and Whelden, 1954: 35
et al.; Brown, 1953 : 29 et al.; Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1952 : 113; Clark, 1951 :
91 et al.

2. Myrmecia nigriceps Mayr, 1862. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien. 12 : 728.

Brown and Taylor, 1970 : 955; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1964 : 270 et al.;
Douglas and Brown, 1959 : 15 et al.; Freeland, 1958 : 11; Brown, 1953 : 22 et
al.; Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1952 : 112; Clark, 1951 : 64 et al.; Clark 1934 : 7;
Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 38 et al.; Clark, 1927 : 33.

3. Myrmecia vindex Fr. Smith, 1858. Cat. Hym. Brit. Mus. 6 : 144-145.

Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1971 : 254; Brown and Taylor, 1970 : 955; Haskins,
C. P. and E. F., 1964 : 267 et al.; Douglas and Brown, 1959 : 14 et a/.; Haskins,
C. P. and E. F., 1955 : 119; Haskins and Whelden, 1954 : 35 et a/.; Brown,
1953 : 22 et al.; Clark, 1951 : 67 et al/.; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1950 : 483;
Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 36 et al.

4. Myrmecia vindex basirufa Forel, 1907. Fauna Sudwest. Aust. 1 : 264.
The known references are: Douglas and Brown, 1959 : 17; Clark, 1951 : 70
et al.; Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 37.

REFERENCES

Brown, W. L. Jr. 1953. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Hary. 111(1) : 1-35

Brown, W. L. Jr., & TAYLor, R. W. 1970. In The Insects of Australia. Melbourne
University Press, Carlton, Vic. xii + 1029 pp. (pp. 951-959)

CLARK, J. 1927. Victoria Nat. 44 : 33-39

— 1934. Mem. natn. Mus. Vict. 8 : 5-20

—— 1951. The Formicidae of Australia, Volume \. Subfamily Myrmeciinae.
CSIRO, Melbourne. 230 pp.

Douc as, A., and Brown, W. L. JR. 1959. Insectes soc. 6(1) : 13-19

FREELAND, J. 1958. Aust. J. Zool. 6(1) : 1-18

Haskins, C. P. & Haskins, E. F. 1950. Amn. ent. Soc. Am. 43(4) : 461-491

— 1955. Insectes soc. 2(2) : 115-126

—— 1964. Insectes soc. 11(3) : 267-282

Haskins, C. P. & WHELDEN, R. M. 1954. Jnsectes soc. 1(1) : 33-37

Moore, G. F. 1842. A descriptive vocabulary of the language in common use amongst
the aborigines of Western Australia with copious meanings embodying much
interesting information regarding the habits, manners, and customs of the Natives,
and fa ae history of the country. Wm.S. Orr, London. (p. 54, word
“Kallili”.

Moore, G. F. 1884. A descriptive vocabulary of the language in common use amongst
the aborigines of Western Australia with copious meanings embodying much
interesting information regarding the habits, manners, and customs of the Natives,
and the natural history of the country. 2nd Ed. (Supplement to Diary of an
early settler in Western Australia 1830-1841.) G. F. Moore, Sydney. (p. 39,
word “‘Kallili’’.)

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SALVADO, R. 1851. Memorie storiche dell’ Australia particolarmente della Missione
Benedettina di Nuova Norcia e degli usi e costumi degli Australiani. Roma,
Congreg. de Propaganda Fide. pp. 53, 4.

— 1854. Mémoires historiques sur l’Australie. Paris, Pringuet. p. 385. A
translation by l’abbé Falcimagne with additional notes by the translator.

Supp, J. H. 1967. An introduction to the Behaviour of Ants. Edward Arnold,
London. viii + 200 pp.

WHEELER, G. C. & WHEELER, J. 1952. Am. Midl. Nat. 48(1) : 111-114

— 1964. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 57 : 443-462

—— 1971. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 47(4) : 245-256.

WHEELER, W. M. 1933. Colony Founding Among Ants. Harvard, Cambridge,
Mass. viii + 179 pp.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61

APPLICATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE GENERIC
NAME STRIGLINA GUENEE, 1877 (LEPIDOPTERA,
THYRIDIDAE, STRIGLINAE) Z.N.(S.) 2025

By Paul E. S. Whalley (British Museum (Natural History) London, SW7)

Application is made under Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b) for the suppression of
Daristane Walker, 1859, in order to maintain Striglina Guenée, 1877.
[Daristane Walker, 1859, J. Linn. Soc. 3: 193, type-species by monotypy,
Daristane tibiaria Walker, 1859, ibid, 3: 194. Striglina Guenée, 1877, Ann.
Soc. ent. Fr. 7 : 283, type-species Striglina lineola Guenée, 1877 by subsequent
designation, Whalley, 1964, Ann, Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 7 : 126.]

2. The genus Daristane Walker was originally described in the Geometri-
dae. Recently a single specimen of a thyridid moth, previously overlooked,
has proved to be the holotype specimen of Daristane tibiaria Walker. This
species is close to Striglina castaneata Hampson and is undoubtedly congeneric
with it. The name Daristane Walker therefore becomes available in the
Thyrididae and being congeneric with Striglina Guenée, should replace it.

3. I consider the generic name Striglina Guenée, while not necessarily
widely known, to have been widely used and that nomenclatural stability will
not be served by replacing it by the unknown and unused generic name
Daristane Walker.

4. The name Daristane Walker has not, to the best of my knowledge, been
used since its original description and has never been used in the Thyrididae.
A survey of the literature for a forthcoming publication on the subfamily
Striglinae shows that at least thirty authors have used Strig/ina in over eighty
different publications. The name Striglina is used in standard reference works,
e.g. Gaede in Seitz, Macrolepidoptera of the World, where it is used in each
volume that mentions the Thyrididae. The last generic revision (just over
fifty years ago) uses Striglina, (Gaede, M., 1922, Dt. ent. Z. 1922 : 26-33).

5. The generic name Striglina appears in the following references:

Esaki, T. et al, 1957, Icones Heterocerorum Jap. in color. natur. p. 148
Schaus, W., 1934, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 14: 101
Tams, W. H. T., 1935, Jns. Samoa (4) 3 : 243-244
Turner, J., 1942, Proc. R. Soc. Od (1941) : 80
Viette, P., 1954, Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 59 : 120
West, R. J., 1932, Novit. zool. 38 : 7
Whalley, P. E. S., 1962, Nat. Hist. Rennell I., Brit. Sol. Is. 4(40) : 118
— 1964, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 7 : 126
— 1967, Faune de Madagascar, 24 : 42
— 1971, Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) suppl. 17 : 64
6. The International Commission, is therefore requested :
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Daristane,
Walker, 1859, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy;

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) to place the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, as suppressed under
the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

CRINOCERUS BURMEISTER 1839 (INSECTA: HEMIPTERA-
HETEROPTERA: COREIDAE): A REQUEST FOR THE VALIDATION
OF THE COMMONLY USED TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 2026

By R. O’Shea (Biological Sciences Group, University of Connecticut, Storrs,
Connecticut 06268)

Burmeister (1839: 318) erected the generic name Crinocerus as a replacement
for Acanthocerus Palisot de Beauvois, 1818, in the erroneous belief that the
latter name was preoccupied. A number of species was included in Crinocerus
including crucifer (= Acanthocerus crucifer P de B, 1818) which as the type of
Acanthocerus is automatically the type of Crinocerus; and sanctus (=Cimex
sanctus Fabricius, 1775:709).

2. Mayr (1866) removed all the species except sanctus from Crinocerus and
placed them in a variety of existing and new genera. The type-species crucifer
was placed in Hymenophora Amyot and Serville. Thus the only species left in
Crinocerus was sanctus, although the type crucifer had been removed.

3. In spite of this, the binomen Crinocerus sanctus has been used contin-
uously since then, and has appeared in catalogues (e.g., Stal 1870) and in more
general faunistic works (e.g. Costa Lima 1940). No other name has been used
for this insect, or is at present available. Stability would be best served by
preserving the binomen in general use, Crinocerus sanctus.

4. Therefore this petition asks that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature:

(a) Use its plenary powers to:
(i) Set aside Acanthocerus crucifer Palisot de Beauvois, 1818,
as the type of Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839;
(ii) designate Cimex sanctus Fabricius, 1775, as the type of
Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839;
(b) place the generic name Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (gender:
masculine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(c) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific
name sanctus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen
Cimex sanctus Fabricius, 1775.

5. Iam very grateful for assistance received from Dr. C. W. Schaefer and
Dr. J. A. Slater, in connection with this appeal, which is part of the work carried
out under NSF Grant GB-27162, “Graduate Training in Environmental
Biology”.

REFERENCES

BurMEIsTeR, H. 1839. Handbuch der Entomologie. Band 2 Besondere Ento-
mologie. 1 Ordnung. Rhynchota. Berlin

DE Costa Lima, A. 1940. Jnsectos do Brasil 2° Tomo. Hemipteros. Escola
Nacional de Agronomia. Série Didatica N.3.

Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi & Lipsiae

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973.

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Mayr, G. L. 1866. Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in
den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859. Zoologischer Theil: Bd 1 Abth. 1. Hemiptera.
Vienna

STA, C. 1870. Enumeratio Hemipterorum 1. Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-
Akademiens Handlingar 9(1) : 143

TD NTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust

on. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director)

The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H.
M. J. Forest

7 Dr. N. E. Hickin

’ eDr.. L B. Holthuis

; ‘Dr. P. E. Kent, F.R.S.

Prof. Dre oO. Kraus

MrN.D. Riley, CBE.

: fi 7 Dr. G. F. de Witte

7S ‘The Officers of the Trust
ae Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

—___contsnrs

: (continued from front wrapper)

_ Opinions

ichrois Hiibner, 1816)... 0. ss 10

ee! Ane

uda (Martynov, 1931) . oe eG
ieskes W778\e =. a oo) Dope LS

i Be

New Cases

, 1758 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): Desig-

dance with accustomed usage. Prob-

e ‘misidentification of the ia by ee

i a py)

(Gi ;
] jenary ower A. eae aa - 37

CONTENTS, F nares,
Keogpimued from inside back wrap, he JUL 1973
e CH :
Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola): Pro gsed suppression
under the plenary powers (Willem N. Ellis and Peter li

Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842 (Insecta, Anoplura): mace
validation under the oe powers ving — Kim and Christian
F. Weisser) ae Pa
Gammarus setosus eres 1931 (chs Anietaeay® Pro-
posed validation under the plenary powers (N. L. Tzvetkova) Ph
Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): pees sup-
pression under the plenary powers (O. W. Richards) . ‘ or
Lachryma Sowerby, [1832] (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to cS
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (W. O. Cernohorsky) —
Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): Request for the designation of : a
type-species under the plenary powers(A.G.Beu) .. Sn oa.
LORUDAE (Avyes)—Author and date: Proposal for amendment of
Opinion 938 (G. N. Kashin) .. re Se es ty me
Formica maxima Moore, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed sup-
pression under the plenary powers in accordance with Article 23 (a—b)
(W. D. L. Ride and R. W. Taylor) : i
Application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenée,
1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Paul E. S. Whalley) ee =

Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera): A request for the
validation of the commonly used type-species (R. O’Shea) 2

Cuaron
Comment on the proposal concerning family names CASSIDAE and
Harpidae (H. A. Rehder) i ae ye Be ae oe
Further remarks on the availability of the generic name OniscidiaH. & A. —
Adams (Ww. O. Cernohorsky; P. A. Maxwell & A.G.Beu) . :
Comment on the proposed suppression of Ce crucialis (Ronald I.
Crombie) pie ae ae : : s eS
Addendum to the proposal that the generic name Teuthis ee Guan
be suppressed (D. J. Woodland) Be? ere a a =
Comment on the proposed es of the ae ie Graptolithus
nilssoni Barrande (I. Strachan) . SoMa cee

© 1973. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment

oe At,

ee ae

x“ /

Volume 30, Part 2 Ee 10th October, 1973
pp. 65-128 .
Le runcnace®

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS

Page
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. Ags a a 65

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. 65

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON:

Price Three Pounds
(All rights reserved)

‘ vi % i ,
0 .

VAS ‘The Offers of the: a es : ; eae

res ae pi; _ RIDE (Wesiem Australian iaaeine. Perth, Western Australia 28

ugust 1973) _

Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hournurs “(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie,
Netherlands) (28 August 1963) —

Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (nstitute of | Geological Sciences, Exhibit ion

S.W.7) (30. January abeeT.

Volume 30, Part 2 (pp. 65-128) 10th October 1973

NOTICES

(a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.

*(1) Suppression of Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces, Galaxiidae).
Z.N.(S.) 1877.
*(2) Suppression of Tergipes adspersus Nordmann, 1845 (Mollusca, Opistho-
branchia). Z.N.(S.) 2010.
(3) Designation of a neotype for Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870 (Insecta,
Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2027.
(4) Designation of a type-species for Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2028.
(5) Designation of lectotype for Psednura longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920 (Insecta,
Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2029.
*(6) Suppression of Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda).
Z.N.(S.) 2030.
*(7) Suppression of Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda: Enoplida).
Z.N.(S.) 2031.
(8) Designation of a type-species for Cerithium Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastro-
poda). Z.N.(S.) 2032.
(9) Suppression of Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera).
Z.N.(S.) 2033.
*(10) Suppression of Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera).
Z.N.(S.) 2035.
(11) Suppression of Hydrophorus jaculus Fallén as type-species of Hydro-
Phorus Fallén, 1823, in favour of H. nebulosus Fallén. Z.N.(S.) 2036.
(12) Designation of a type-species for Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta,
Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2037.
*(13) Suppression of Leucospis gallica, Villers, 1789 and Cynips lugdunaea
Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2038.
(14) Designation of a type-species for Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera).
Z.N.(S.) 2040.
(15) Suppression of lectotype and designation of neotype for Apis rotundata
Fabricius, 1793. Z.N.(S.) 2042.

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ADDITIONAL NOTICES

Attention is drawn to the following misprints not corrected in the volumes
in which they appeared:

(1) Opinion 893. Eumenidae names of Saussure (Hymenoptera): grant of
availability to certain names proposed for secondary divisions of genera. This
was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 1970: 187-191.

page 187 Line 11 from bottom: substitute “‘Pseudepipona” for ‘‘Pseudo-
pipona’’. This was a typographical error made after the galley-proof stage of
printing. The Commissioners were asked to declare the correctly spelled
name (Pseudepipona, Saussure, 1856) as available and voted for that name (not
Pseudopipona).

(2) Proposal that the genus name Teuthis Linnaeus (Pisces) be suppressed.
Z.N.(S.) 1721, published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 1972: 190-193. The most
important correction is listed first.

page 191 Line 7: “‘they did not believe’ should read “‘they did believe”

page 190 Line 4 of para. 2: “has already designated” should read “had
already designated”

page 191 Line 3 from bottom of para. 5: “grounds that species is “complex’ ”
should read “grounds that that species is ‘complex’ ”’

page 192 Line 8 from bottom of para. 7: “were not willing to substitute”
should read ‘“‘were now willing to substitute”’.

c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET GREEN
Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant
London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on

June 1973 Zoological Nomenclature

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67

CHANGE IN THE PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION’S OFFICE

Members of the Commission will be sorry to learn that Mrs Doyle has
resigned at her own request from the Commission’s office and from the post of
Scientific Assistant to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

Mrs Doyle (then Miss Spillane) joined the staff of the Commission’s office
in April 1958, when the office was situated in the house of the late Francis
Hemming not far from the London Zoo, and when the preparations for the
London Colloquium and International Congress of Zoology were entering their
final stages. With her colleagues, she worked as a note-taker at sessions of
the Colloquium, and then far into the night preparing the report of each day’s
session for scrutiny the following morning. She moved with the Commission’s
office to Parkway and later to the British Museum (Natural History). During
the period following the London Congress, when the Assistant Secretary’s
attention was largely concentrated on the work of the Editorial Committee
on the Code, she was very largely responsible for maintaining the output of
case-work and the publication of the Bulletin. When Dr China became
Assistant Secretary (later Acting Secretary), she worked closely with him in
reducing the immense backlog of case-work and in processing the very large
number of decisions taken by the Commission during that time. She was also
responsible for taking the notes and writing the reports of the Commission
and Section meetings at the Washington (1963) and Monaco (1972) Con-
gresses.

Since Dr China’s retirement from the Commission in 1969 she has upheld
the Commission’s office and maintained its output of work almost unaided.
Those whose service to the Commission matches hers can be numbered on the
fingers of one hand. Fortunately we shall not lose all touch with her, for it
is hoped to make arrangements for her to prepare the next published instalment
of the Official Lists and Indexes, working at home.

Mrs Doyle is succeeded in the Commission’s office by another ‘“Margaret’’,
Mrs Margaret Green, whose service started on 10 May 1973. Mrs Green is a
graduate in zoology of London University and has worked as a Recorder and
Senior Recorder for the Zoological Record (Entomology). She has thus an
excellent background for the work and there are stronger reasons than
homonymy for expecting excellent work from her. Dr Jan Nye has kindly
agreed to provide guidance and advice in the preparation of cases for publica-
tion.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

19 May 1973

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTAIRES: LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 272
Par M. B. Bouché

(Station de Recherches sur la Faune du Sol, I.N.R.A., 21034 Dijon, France)

Les arguments développés par Sims sont excellents et trés sérieux.
A) Ma position (1970, 1972) était:

1°) aucun argument ne permettait de reconnaitre ce qu’était Lumbricus terrestris
Linné, 1758 (discussion in Tétry, 1937, complétée par Bouché, 1970).

2°) Enterion herculeus Savigny, 1826 permettait d’identifier l’espéce couramment
désignée sous le nom de Lumbricus terrestris Linné DepPuis le travail de
Michaelsen, 1900; plusieurs auteurs maintenaient l’usage Lumbricus herculeus
(Sav.) 1826.

3°) A aucun moment, on ne peut considérer Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1826
comme synonyme de Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 et pas plus Savigny
que Tétry ou Bouché n’ont “‘misidentified” leur matériel: il s’agit de deux
taxons distincts.

4°) Si certains arguments sont “highly subjective’, d’autres sont trés concrets:
présence de descriptions suffisamment précises in Savigny, 1826 (cf. Sims:
Survey 5) et de matériel (aux types non désignés!) au Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris (révisé in Tétry, 1937, 1938).

B) Sims apporte sur le probléme “Lumbricus terrestris—Enterion herculeus” deux faits

“nouveaux”:

1°) Dans son “Survey” point 2, il attire justement l’attention sur le comportement
d’accouplement superficiel de Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 (Linné, 1766).
Ceci constitue un argument presque indiscutable de diagnose, antérieur a
Savigny, 1826.

2°) Il donne aux biologistes une base concréte et solide au taxon Lumbricus terrestris
Linné, 1758 par la désignation d’un néotype. Il serait souhaitable de donner
avec une extréme précision (quelques dizaines de métres) la localisation
type, pour permettre a l’avenir de trancher par des méthodes biologiques les
problémes taxonomiques (croisements, hétérogreffes, immunologie, etc.).
Il a été montré (Bouché, 1972 p. 126; Bouché et Beugnot, 1972) la complexité
du concept taxonomique Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 = Lumbricus
herculeus Savigny, 1826. Une description moderne se doit, pour éviter le
retour a des confusions, de permettre 4 l'avenir un retour “aux sources
biologiques” du type, dont les caractéres sont généralement trés stables
temporo-spatialement.

C) Il est maintenant certain que /’Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1822 n’est pas /’Enterion
terrestre Savigny, 1826. Cette derniére est une espéce relativement endémique
d’Europe occidentale, seulement typique dans le Bassin Parisien (Bouché,
1972: 319). Enterion terrestre Savigny 1822 est incertae sedis définitivement.

En conclusion, j’appuie les propositions faites par R. W. Sims, dans la présente note,
auprés de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Ces pro-
positions sont propres a stabiliser la nomenclature.

Bibliographie complémentaire a la précédente note:

Boucné, M. B. et BEeuGNoT M. 1972. La complexité taxonomique de Lumbricus
herculeus, illustrée par les caractéristiques des populations des stations de la
R.C.P. 40. Rev. ecol. biol. sol, 9, 4, 697-704

Tétry, A. 1938. Révision des lombriciens de la collection de Savigny (2e note).
Bull. mus. (2e sér.), 10, 1, 72-81

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CHANDA NAMA AS
TYPE-SPECIES OF CHANDA (PISCES, AMBASSIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1946

Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists,
per Bruce B. Collette, Chairman (Fishes)

Talwar (1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 104-5) has requested that the Commission
suppress previous type-species selections for the genus Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan,
1822 and designate C. nama Hamilton-Buchanan as type-species thereby making the
generic name Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 a junior objective synonym of Chanda by
virtue of having the same type-species. An ad hoc committee of the American Society
of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has been formed to comment on this case: Dr.
W. Ralph Taylor, National Museum of Natural History, Washington and Dr. Bruce
Collette, National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, Washington,
Chairman.

There is no evidence that Hamiltonia was “proposed expressly as a substitute for
Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan” as stated by Talwar. Hamiltonia as described, included
only two of the species originally placed in Chanda—H. ovata Swainson based on
Hamilton-Buchanan’s fig. 37 (of Chanda nama) and H. lata Swainson, also based on
Hamilton-Buchanan’s “‘fig. 37”. Talwar and others consider that /ata is a misprint
for /ala Hamilton-Buchanan and that the figure number is also in error. This cannot
be proven but is irrelevant because Swain (1882, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad.: 276)
designated the first species, H. ovata as the type-species of Hamiltonia. Swain listed
Bogoda Bleeker as a synonym of Hamiltonia but evidently, by omission, considered
Chanda a distinct genus. If Hamiltonia is not merely a substitute for Chanda, Jordan’s
statement (1919, The Genera of Fishes: 172) that the type-species of Hamiltonia “‘carries
the complex genus Chanda with it”’ is incorrect.

Fowler (1905, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 57 : 500) clearly designated Chanda lala
Hamilton-Buchanan as the type-species of Chanda after chronologically eliminating all
other species originally included in Chanda which had been transferred to other genera.

In the only recent review of the group, Fraser-Brunner (1954, Bull. Raffles Mus. 25)
recognized both Hamiltonia and Chanda as valid genera with their type-species ovata
(= nama) and lala respectively. Therefore, we strongly oppose Talwar’s request
because it is based on unproved assumptions regarding Hamiltonia being a substitute
for Chanda and because following his recommended course of action will make a
genus-group name unavailable before a revision has been done to determine if the
name is needed for a group of species.

COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING TRACE FOSSILS.
Z.N(S.) 1973

(See volume 29, pages 137-141)
By E. Voigt (Geolog.-Paldontolog. Institut, Hamburg)

In relation to the application cited above I want to comment that I fully support
the ruling proposed by the late Professor Hintzschel and Professor Kraus. I feel that
instructions (in the sense of a recommendation) are urgently needed not only in order
to give workers in the field of ichnotaxa a better guide and a more sound basis. It
seems still more important to me that such a recommendation certainly will lead to
more clarity in the differentiation between available and unavailable names in this
field, so that our “‘normal’’ nomenclature, as governed by the Code, will remain less
disturbed by such unavailable names, erroneously deemed available by many workers.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

By H. Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)

The application on ichnotaxa by Hantzschel and Kraus seems very balanced, but the
accompanying comments from ichnologists are so one-sided that some comment from
a zoologist seems necessary to re-establish the balance. I have happened to cooperate
in formulating the proposals presented, and it also happens that for the moment I am
myself a little bit of an ichnologist, working on animal tracks and excrements as seen
on photographs from 8.000 m depth, so I know the needs for a precise nomenclature
of these things.

Our taxonomy for animals is a couple of centuries old and has grown into a very
complex but also very sensitive system. Slight changes may cause strong and un-
wanted consequences. No doubt, if the ichnologists took over our whole taxonomy,
they would be very well off, building then on about two hundred years of experience.
But the question is whether that action would leave the zoologists in a tolerable situ-
ation. Yesterday, two of my grandchildren were playing in my house. The younger
boy wanted all the bricks for himself, and the older girl protested more and more
vividly, that she would end up in having nothing for herself. Should he be permitted
to spoil her play, or shouldn’t they rather reach some sensible compromise?

I can easily understand that ichnologists feel badly about having had their field
‘thrown out’ of zoological nomenclature in 1931, but I do think that it was nevertheless
correct to do so. When the older names (before 1931) in ichnology were not ruled out
at that same time, it was probably because it is extremely dangerous to rule retro-
actively in taxonomy. We know many cases of trouble arisen from retro-active
decisions.

After all, the ‘generic’ and ‘specific’? names of ichnotaxa are meant in a manner
differing strongly from usual zoological names, and it seems logical to ask that they be
‘earmarked’ as different. If somebody can propose a better system than that pro-
posed by the present applicants, he should hasten to do so, but it will certainly disturb
the use of zoological nomenclature if names are incorporated in large numbers in
taxonomy without having the content that they so promise.

In my present work on deep-sea photographs I have pictures of tracks of the meand-
ric type which are identical to those which, from published photos we know are found
in connection with enteropneusts, but the tracks in my material are of an animal which
it will hardly be possible to include in that class of animals. Of course, I can create
quite a number of Ichnotaxa, but it is a tremendous task for later scientists to refer them
to their correct synonomy, and the trouble of priority of names will sometimes become
grotesque. If no such obligation exists (and the ichno-names are marked so that it is
apparent), there will be no trouble either. For real fossils the same kind of trouble
sometimes appears, but by far less strongly, and so it is more tolerable.

So I want to ask all parties involved to try finding the solution that assists the
ichnologists as much as ever possible, without disturbing proper zoological nomenclature.

By Ellis L. Yochelson (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20570")

Drs. Hantzchel and Kraus have performed a valuable service in pointing out the
need for clarification of Article 16b (viii) in regard to names based on the work of an
animal. As one who does not specifically study the field, I can testify objectively to the
vitality and significance of the studies, as commented upon by Drs. Martinsson,
Teichert, and Frey following the original case. My notes from the 1958 London Col-
loquium on Nomenclature indicate that clarification of this point was requested early
in the meeting, but it was not subsequently discussed. It is high time the Commission
faced the difficulties of ichnotaxa and resolved them.

In my view, the request by Hantzchel and Kraus should not be granted, for it is
too restrictive. .There are only taxa under ICZN rules. The parataxa problem
was resolved, and what was learned there can be treated identically, regardless of the

1Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. Geological Survey.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71

kind of material on which they are based. Thus point 8 of the proposal would not be
acceptable.

Many of the names prior to 1930 which were based on “the work of an animal”
referred to galls produced by insects. Objections to this practice may well have led to
the 1931 restriction against names based on an indication. Living and fossil faunas
are different in that there is essentially no opportunity for investigations of life cycle
and different habits in extinct forms, whereas in theory at least, given enough time and
patience, the animals responsible for every particular form of gall could be traced to
the adult forms.

It makes good sense to me to adopt a declaration repealing the date of 1931 and
later in article 12, pending the next formal meeting at which the code could be amended.
Such a procedure would allow the law of priority to operate and might result in a few
individual problems that could then be handled under the plenary powers. Names
based on indications are just as valid as names based on isolated conodonts. By
allowing the rules to function in a simple straightforward manner, the spectre of dual
nomenclature for isolated conodonts and assemblages was solved. By removing the
post-1930 restriction, the rules will be allowed to operate for the “indications” of
animals. A minimum of problems results from such a course of action.

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS ANTHUS PA YTENSIS LESSON,
1837 (AVES) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
GEOSITTA_PERUVIANA LAFRESNAYE, 1847 and GEOSITTA PAYTAE
MENEGAUX AND HELLMAYR, 1906. Z.N.(S.) 1980

By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress, E. Eisenmann, Chairman

Dr. Charles Vaurie has proposed the suppression of Anthus paytensis Lesson, 1837,
a nomen dubium for over a century, and believed by its author to be a pipit (family
Motacillidae), until Zimmer (1953) showed that it was a member of the Furnariidae of
the species long known as Geositta peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847. The particular race
had been named Geositta paytae by Ménégaux and Hellmayr, 1906.

In view of the long usage, which has continued generally despite Zimmer, in the
works most used as references, we support Dr. Vaurie’s application to suppress Lesson’s
name, thereby validating the later name G. peruviana Lafresnaye as the species name
and paytae as that of the subspecies.

COMMENTS ON THE PROBLEM OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF LUCINA
(MOLLUSCA: PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 2001

(See volume 29, pages 158-161)
By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

The basic problem with genus-group names published originally in connection
with one or more illustrations, without the citation of any nominal species, has been
the question of determining the type-species. In such cases it seems to me that the
illustrations in question serve in lieu of a diagnosis, that is, they describe the taxon in
the genus-group.

2. Thus, as Keen and Abbott point out (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 29 : 158, 1972), the
determination of the type-species is to be guided by Article 69 (a) (ii) (2 and 3). Fur-
thermore, as these writers state (/.c.), it is logical to consider the species names used by
later authors in connection with the name Lucina, with or without reference to
Bruguiére’s original proposal of the name, as being available under Article 69 (a) (ii).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. Keen and Abbott (op. cit., p. 159) are therefore correct in stating that under a
strict interpretation of the Rules the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, under
type designation by monotypy, would be Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, based on
Lamarck’s citation in 1799 of this species under the name Lucina. This species was
cited as the type-species by Fischer in 1887; among the authors who have followed
Fischer in this usage in the last fifty years are: Oldroyd, 1924; Woodring, 1925;
Gardner, 1926; Prashad, 1932; Thiele, 1934; Habe, 1951; McLean, 1951; Bodylevskiy
et al, in Orlov, 1960. All these authors except Oldroyd cite Lucina as of Lamarck,
1799, and for them Venus edentula Linnaeus is quite naturally the type by monotypy;
Oldroyd credits the name Lucina to Bruguiére.

4. Most modern workers have used Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as the genus-name
for the taxon in question following in general the work of Stewart (Acad. Nat. Sci.
Philadelphia, Spec. Publ. No. 3, pp. 175-178, 1930), who made a detailed study of the
type-species of Lucina.

5. As Keen and Abbott point out (/oc. cit), the first valid use of subsequent desig-
nation of a type-species for Lucina Bruguiére appears to be that of Schumacher, 1817,
who cites Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species. This, as we shall see
below, is the species that has by a wide margin been used most frequently by authors.

6. Ihave made a survey of the workers who in the last fifty years have accepted
Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as a validly proposed genus. Of these, one, Oldroyd, 1924,
cites Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species, twelve use Venus pensylvanica as
type-species, and only two, Chavan, 1937, 1969 and Palmer, 1958, use Venus jamaicensis
Spengler, 1784 (V. pectinatus Gmelin, 1791); Palmer. however, qualifies her acceptance
of this type-species with the statement that the “validation of the type-species should
be established by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature”’.
(Palmer, Geol. Soc. America, Mem. 76, pp. 85-86, 1958).

7. We see therefore that a great majority of malacologists and paleontologists
have used Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére,
1797. The twelve mentioned above, listed chronologically, are: Stewart, 1930; Grant
and Galo, 1931; Cox, 1931; Eames, 1951; Stephenson, 1952; Olsson, 1953, 1961:
Abbott, 1954, 1958; Franc (in Grassé), 1960; Glibert, 1967; Bretsky, 1969 (doctoral
thesis), 1971; Britton, 1970 (doctoral thesis), 1972; Hertlein, 1972.

8. As Keen and Abbott state (op. cit., 159-160) ‘‘usage from 1930 to the 1960’s
{read: “‘1970’s’’] as well as legal considerations would favour the former [‘‘the accept-
ance of L. pensylvanica (Linnaeus) as type’’] and “the burden of the nomenclatural
argument would favour adoption of L. pensylvanica as type-species of Lucina”. Never-
theless they plead for the adoption of L. pectinata (Gmelin) as type-species of Lucina
on the simple grounds of expediency, because the “Treatise on Invertebrate Paleon-
tology” will be a standard reference work for years to come.

9. I submit that this is a very dubious basis for upsetting common usage in the
designation of a type-species. The acceptance of a nomenclatural usage that goes
against general usage merely because it appears in a recent monographic treatment,
could lead to such a decision being cited as a precedent for decisions on other appli-
cations for the use of the plenary powers by the Commission, applications that cite
other monographic treatments of possible unequal or doubtful competence.

10. The opinions of a single worker, merely because he has recently published a
monographic treatment, should not outweigh both legal usage under recent changes
in the Rules, and the evidence of overwhelming common usage, considerations that he
refuses to accept.

11. I would, therefore, ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to act favorably upon petitions (1) and (2) as requested by Keen and Abbott
(op. cit., p. 160);

Further, to use its plenary powers:

(1) to set aside under the plenary powers the fixation by subsequent monotypy of
the type-specimens of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as Venus jamaicensis Lamarck, 1801,
and to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73

(2) accept under the plenary powers as the type of Lucina Bruguiere, 1797, the
nominal species Venus pensylvanica Linné, as being not only the first valid type desig-
nation by subsequent designation, but also in harmony with current usage;

(3) to place the generic name Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (2) above, Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(4) to place the specific name pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Venus pensylvanica (type species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797) on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology.

By Sara S. Bretsky (Department of Earth and Space Sciences, State University of New
York, Stony Brook, New York 11790) and Joseph C. Britton (Department of Biology,
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129)

Keen and Abbott point out that this vexing question has become of particular con-
cern since the publication of Chavan’s (1969) classification of the Lucinidae in the
“Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology”’.

Each of us (Bretsky, 1969; Britton, 1970) has recently completed a doctoral dis-
sertation in which the Lucina problem is discussed. We agree with Keen and Abbott
that designation of Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, as type would create confusion and
instability in nomenclature [although this type designation was in fact accepted until
comparatively recently by some authorities, such as Gardner (1926) and Thiele (1935),
following Dall (1901)]. We also concur with them in regarding the designation by
Schumacher (1817) of Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as the earliest fully accept-
able explicit designation of a type for Lucina. We differ, however, in preferring that,
if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rules on the matter,
V. pensylvanica be chosen as type rather than Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791 (=
Lucina jamaicensis Lamarck, 1801), the species which Chavan (1937-38, 1969) has
regarded as type of Lucina, in disregard of certain provisions of the Code cited by
Keen and Abbott.

Our objections to designation of Lucina pectinata (Gmelin) as type of Lucina, and
our preference for Lucina pensylvanica (Linnaeus), are based on the following consider-
ations:

1. Keen and Abbott argue that Chavan’s enshrinement in the “Treatise” of L.
pectinata as type of Lucina presents a taxonomic fait accompli whose acceptance may
be convenient and prudent. But many neontologists—especially non-systematists—
may not refer frequently to the “Treatise”. Abbott’s own neontological works, both
technical and semi-popular (e.g., Abbott, 1954, 1958; Warmke and Abbott, 1961),
have consistently accepted L. pensylvanica as type for nearly twenty years, influencing
our own decisions about this taxonomic dilemma. As it happens, Keen’s authoritative
handbooks have not had to resolve the problem, because no near relatives of either
L. pectinata or L. pensylvanica occur in tropical west America (Keen, 1958, 1971). It
may be argued, therefore, that accepting L. pectinata as type would be detrimental to
the cause of nomenclatural stability.

2. Keen and Abbott’s prediction that the ‘‘Treatise’’ will serve as a “‘standard of
reference . . . for the next several decades” perhaps involves an overestimate of the
Jongevity of individual “Treatise” volumes. Although not all the planned volumes
have yet appeared, two early volumes have already been extensively revised (Archaeo-
cyatha, first version published 1955, revised 1972; and Graptolithina, first version
published 1955, revised 1970). Revisions or supplements to the volumes on Bryozoa
(1953), Coelenterata (1956), Ammonoidea (1957), and Miscellanea (1962) were in
preparation in 1972 (fide Teichert, ed., 1972, pp. iv-v). Thus, opinions set forth in the
Bivalvia volume may well be changed within fifteen to twenty years.

3. In suggesting that the description of Lucina Lamarck, 1801, be regarded as the
first unequivocal proposal of the generic name and that L. jamaicensis, the sole species
cited therein, be accepted as type by monotypy, Keen and Abbott fail to mention a
prior ruling (ICZN Opinion 79) which holds this work invalid for type designations
(cf. Chavan, 1952; Boss, 1966).

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. Although our unpublished dissertations have no formal standing in nomen-
clature, and may not be readily accessible to systematists outside North America,
they do provide detailed reviews of the Lucina problem which supplement the neces-
sarily brief outline given by Keen and Abbott (see Bretsky, 1969, pp. 188-194; Britton,
1970, pp. 61-69). One dissertation has been provisionally accepted for publication
(Bretsky, Palaeontographica Americana) and the other is in preparation for publication.
Excerpts from both—implicitly or explicitly referring to L. pensylvanica as type of
Lucina—have been published (Bretsky, 1970, 1971; Britton, 1972). Our disagree-
ments with Chavan’s nomenclature have therefore been recorded, although not as
fully or publicly as we might desire.

5. One argument for accepting L. pectinata rather than L. pensylvanica implies
that choice between these species would make little practical difference to lucinid
nomenclature, whereas acceptance of L. edentula would require rearrangement of
genera within the family. Chavan (1937-38, 1969) has regarded the first two species
as closely related phylogenetically, although generically distinct. In the “Treatise”
classification, he places them in the Subfamily Lucininae (and L. edentula in the Sub-
family Milthinae). Bretsky (1969, 1970, 1971), employing a broader definition of
genera, places them in the subgenera Phacoides and Lucina, respectively, of the genus
Lucina, thereby obviating the nomenclatural problem for all practical purposes. But
Britton (1970) argues that the resemblances of L. pectinata and L. pensylvanica are
(literally and figuratively) superficial, being primarily based on their similarity in having
prominent “‘dorsal areas” (regions marked off by sulci and/or by differences in sculp-
ture from the main body of the shell). Britton considers the L. pectinata group to be
most closely related to taxa which Chavan refers to the Subfamilies Myrteinae and
Milthinae. Bretsky is presently carrying out research on early Tertiary Lucinidae of
the North American Coastal Plain in an attempt to clarify the relationships among
the members of these taxa. It appears, therefore, that the unsettled phylogenetic
position of L. pectinata is a further argument in favor of retaining L. pensylvanica as
type of Lucina in the interest of nomenclatorial stability.

Therefore, we propose that the Commission consider these actions and alternatives
to those proposed by Keen and Abbott (1972):

(1) act in favor of petitions 1 and 2 proposed by Keen and Abbott concerning A)
the clarification of the issue of the “original list’? for a nominal genus that lacks
nominal species, and B) the use of plenary powers to set aside Venus edentula Linnaeus,
1758, as the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, by monotypy.

(2) designate under the plenary powers the nominal species Venus pensylvanica
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, being more compatible
with current usage than Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791 (proposed as type-species by
Keen and Abbott).

(3) place the generic name Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, (gender: feminine), type-
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Venus pensylvanica
Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [instead of Lucina
Bruguiére, 1797, (gender: feminine), type-species, Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as
proposed by Keen and Abbott].

(4) place the specific name pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Venus pensylvanica (type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797) on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

(5) place the specific name pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen
Tellina pectinata on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES CITED
AppoTt, R. T. 1954. American Seashells. Princeton, N. J., D. Van Nostrand Co.,

Aspott, R. T. 1958. The marine mollusks of Grand Cayman Island, British West
Indies. Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia, Monogr. \1

Boss, K. J. 1966. The Subfamily Tellininae in the Western Atlantic. The genus
Tellina (Part 1). Johnsonia, 4 : 217-272, pls. 127-142

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75

Bretsky, S. S. 1969. Phenetic and phylogenetic classifications of the Lucinidae
(Mollusca, Bivalvia). Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University. Ann Arbor, Mich., Univer-
sity Microfilms, Inc. (Dissertation Abstracts, 70-2071)

— 1970. Phenetic and phylogenetic classifications of the Lucinidae (Mollusca,
Bivalvia). Bull. Geol. Inst. Univ. Upsala, N.S. 2 : 5-23

— 1971. Evaluation of the efficacy of numerical taxonomic methods. Syst. Zool.
20 : 204-222

Britton, J.C. 1970. The Lucinidae of the Western Atlantic Ocean. Ph.D. Thesis,
George Washington University. Ann. Arbor, Mich., University Microfilms,
Inc. (Dissertation Abstracts, 71-12, 288)

Britton, J.C. 1972. Two new species and a new subgenus of Lucinidae (Mollusca:
Bivalvia), with notes on certain aspects of lucinid phylogeny. Smithsonian
Contrib. Zool., no. 129, 19 pp.

CHAVAN, ANDRE. 1937-38. Essai critique de classification des Lucines. Jour.
Conchyliol. 81 : 133-153, 198-216, 237-282; 82 : 59-97, 105-130, 215-243

CHAVAN, ANDRE. 1952. Nomenclatural notes on carditids and lucinids. Jour.
Washington Acad. Sci. 42 : 116-122

CHAVAN, ANDRE. 1969. Family Lucinidae Fleming, 1828. Jn Moore, R. C. (ed.),
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, pp. N492-
NS508. Lawrence, Kans., Univ. of Kansas Press

Dati, W. H. 1901. Synopsis of the Lucinacea and of the American species. Proc.
U.S. Nat. Mus. 23 : 779-834, pls. 39-42

GARDNER, JULIA. 1926. The molluscan fauna of the Alum Bluff Group of Florida.
Part Ill. Lucinacea, Leptonacea, Cardiacea. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper
142-C, pp. 101-149, pls. 18-23

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1924. Opinion 79,
Case of Lamarck’s (1801a) Systeme des Animaux sans Vertébres

KEEN, A. M. 1958. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Stanford, Calif., Stanford
Univ. Press

Keen, A. M. 1971. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Second Edition. Stanford,
Calif., Stanford Univ. Press

SCHUMACHER, C. F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers
testacées. Copenhagen, Schultz

TEICHERT, Curt (ed.) 1972. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part E, v. 1,
Second Edition, Archaeocyatha

THIELE, JOHANNES. 1935. Handbuch der Systematichen Weichtierkunde 2, pt. 3.
Amsterdam, A. Asher (1963 reprint)

WarMKE, G. L., and Appott, R. T. 1961. Caribbean Seashells. Narberth, Penna.,
Livingston Publ. Co

By Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford,
California 94305, U.S.A.)

I have been sent an advance copy by Sara Bretsky and Joseph Britton of comments
they have submitted on the matter of Lucina and fixation of the type-species. To their
general thesis I have no objection, for, as was clearly implied in our petition (Keen and
Abbott, Bull. Z.N., vol. 29, pp. 158-161), personal preference favoured Lucina pensylva-
nica as type. I would even hope that other malacologists would come forth and urge
the Commission to adopt the alternative proposal.

On one point made by Bretsky and Britton I feel I must comment: In their para-
graph 3 they imply that Keen and Abbott favored the dating of Lucina from Lamarck,
1801. In the original petition, this was described as one of the procedures adopted
by authors—actually, though he was not therein named, by Chavan. Opinion 79,
cited by Bretsky and Britton, may not really apply here, for it dealt with fixation of
type-species by Lamarck for genera proposed prior to 1801; i.e., genera of Linnaeus,
Cuvier, et a/. Could earlier usages of the name Lucina be ignored, as Chavan proposed
to do, then Lamarck’s 1801 proposal would be cleared and the sole species he cited

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

would be monotype. However, we could not concur with Chavan on the propriety
of this.

I hope that the Commission will not conclude that there is enough opposition to
our petition to invalidate it, for it is an issue that needs a solution, even a fiat solution,
but one that—it is to be hoped—will be acceptable to the majority of workers.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE
NOMINA OBLITA IN THE FAMILY ECHENEIDIDAE (PISCES) Z.N.(S.) 1967

(See volumne 28, pages 168-170)

By Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists per B. B. Collette, Chairman (Fishes)

Lachner (1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 28: 168-170) has requested the Commission
to suppress two rarely used names of remoras in favour of the widely accepted Remora
brachyptera (Lowe). An ad hoc nomenclature committee of the American Society of
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has been formed to comment on the case: Mr. W. I.
Follett, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco; Dr. C. Richard Robins,
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Dr.
Donald W. Strasburg, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bay Saint Louis, Miss.;
and Dr. Bruce B. Collette, National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory,
Washington, D.C., Chairman.

We support Lachner’s proposal to suppress Echeneis sexdecimlamellata Eydoux
and Gervais, 1838 (not 1839, stated in Revue Zoologique, Oct. 1838: 256 that the last
two parts of Magasin de Zoologie for 1837 were then on sale) and E. quatuordecim-
laminatus Storer, 1839 (Aug. 1839, see Meisel, Bibliogr. Amer. Nat. Hist., 1926, 2: 465)
and to place the name Echeneis brachyptera Lowe, 1839 (Oct. 1839, see Waterhouse,
1937, Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1937 (1): 79) on the Official List of Species Names in
Zoology. Although remoras are not commercially important fishes, they have long
attracted broad zoological attention because of their commensalism with other marine
fishes and mammals. The nomenclature of the family is stable and should not be upset
by two names that have remained virtually unused since their original description.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE STATUS OF SPECIMENS
IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION Z.N.(S.) 1968

(see volume 28, pages 171-172)
By Hemming Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)

The shells of foraminifera, brachiopods, and molluscs, etc., etc., as well as innumer-
able fossils of different kinds are based on less than whole specimens but are neverthe-
less at any time accepted for selection as primary types.

The only unfortunate thing in the problem as here presented seems to me to be that
Fittkau & Lehmann (1970) have designated a “‘neotype” instead of following the normal
procedure and make it part of the holotype.

May I suggest that the label in question is altered accordingly, and that the whole
case may then be dropped.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77

OPINION 998

GRYLLUS LOCUSTA SUCCINCTUS LINNAEUS, 1763
(INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-specimen
for the nominal species Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763, made prior
to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the specimen described and
figured by Dirsh, 1966 ( : 236, pl.2) is hereby designated to be the neotype of
that species.

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified;

(a) Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original

designation, Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Name No.
1977);

(b) Valanga Uvaroy, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species by original
designation, Acridium nigricorne Burmeister, 1838 (Name No. 1978);

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) succinctus Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Gryllus
Locusta succinctus, as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above
(type-species of Patanga Uvarov, 1923) (Name No. 2499);

(b) nigricorne Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Acridium
nigricorne (type-species of Valanga Uvarov, 1923) (Name No. 2500).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1761)

The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr. V. M. Dirsh in May 1966. Dr. Dirsh’s application was sent to the printer
on 13 June 1966 and was published on 20 December 1966 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
23: 235-238. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21:
184) and to seven entomological serials.

The further history may be found in a review of the case published by the
Secretary of the Commission, Mr. R. V. Melville, on 8 August 1969 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 26: 78-83. Of the three Alternative solutions put forward by
Mr. Melville, Solution A received no support; Solution B was supported by
P. T. Haskell, C. R. Hemming, G. Popov, P. M. Symmons, C. Ashall,
D. Hollis, J. Roffey, M. J. Richards, A. B. Gurney and K. H. L. Key. Support
for Solution C came from S. K. Tandon and B. Uvarov.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 1 June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72) 10, in part 1 either for or against
the use of the plenary powers in the present case, and in part 2 for one of the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Alternatives A, B, and C set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26: 81-82. On Voting
Paper (72)11 Commissioners were invited to vote either for or against the
proposal relating to Linnaeus’s ‘“Centuria Insectorum” as set out in para. 14,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26: 83. At the close of the prescribed voting period on
1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Voting Paper (72)10. Part 1. Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received
in the following order: Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann,
Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Melville, Alvarado, Heppell, Erben, Sabrosky,
Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatoy, Ride

Negative votes—none (0)

Part 2. For Alternative A—none (0)

For Alternative B—twenty-three (23): Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche,
Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Melville, Alvarado, Heppell,
Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov,
Ride

For Alternative C—none (0)

Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late votes in favour
of Alternative B.

Voting Paper (72)11. Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21): Vokes, Holthuis,
Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Melville, Corliss, Heppell,
Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Staro-
bogatov, Ride

Negative votes—one (1): Munroe.

Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late affirmative
votes. In returning Voting Paper (72)11 Dr. Munroe made the following
comment: “I consider authorship should except in very unusual circumstances
be determined by what the published work says and not by esoteric information.
Although works published under the names of Johansson and others of Lin-
naeus’s students have often been attributed to Linnaeus, the practice is by no
means universal. A number of works on Lepidoptera, for example, attribute
such works to Johansson or ‘Linnaeus-Johansson’. The disadvantage of
attributing them to Linnaeus is that every work ostensibly written by a possible
Linnaeus student in the period in question must be regarded with skepticism
and will require scrutiny of the ‘Official Lists’ and quite likely independent
bibliographic or historical research.

Even if the assertion quoted by Dr. Sabrosky is true (as many zoologists
believe), the situation does not differ from that of numerous wealthy or influen-
tial modern or near modern authors who have published under their own
names work prepared by their paid professional assistants or by their students,
graduate or undergraduate. I know of no instance in which the Commission
has intervened to change the nominal authorship on these grounds. I consider
this case too complex to be decided via a vote based on a subsidiary paragraph
in an application on another subject. I consider it should be raised as an
independent application and discussed on its merits. I move that the vote be
deferred until this has been done”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79

In view of Dr. Munroe’s comment the Secretary decided to defer publication
of the Commission’s decision on the authorship of ‘‘Centuria Insectorum”
pending a more thorough examination of the evidence.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on Official
Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
nigricorne, Acridium, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2): 629
Patanga Uvarov, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9)12: 362
succinctus, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. Acad. 6 : 398
Valanga Uvarov, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9)12: 345

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)10 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper as Alternative B has
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken,
being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 998.
R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
London
10 January 1973

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 999

PLAUTUS BRUNNICH, 1772 (AVES): SUPPRESSED
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Plautus
Brunnich, 1772, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Alle Link, 1807 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Alca
alle Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1979);

(b) Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
designation by Ogilvie-Grant, 1898, Alca impennis Linnaeus, 1758
(Name No. 1980).

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) alle Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Alca alle (type-species

of Alle Link, 1807) (Name No. 2501);
(b) impennis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Alca impennis
(type-species of Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791) (Name No. 2502).

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers

specified :
(a) Plautus Klein, 1760 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name No.
2008);
(b) Plautus Gunnerus, 1761 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name
No. 2009);
(c) Plotus Gunnerus, 1761 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name
No. 2010);

(d) Plautus Brunnich, 1772 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) above) (Name No. 2011).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1911)

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr. Dean Amadon, Dr. Eugene Eisenmann, Dr. George E. Watson and Dr.
Alexander Wetmore in November 1969. The application was sent to the
printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 27 : 110-112. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the
Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art.
12b; Bull zool Nomencl 21: 184) No comment was received. One correc-
tion was made by Dr Eisenmann—the generic name Pinguinus is masculine,
not feminine as stated in proposal (2)(b)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On | June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)12 either for or against the proposals
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 111-112 At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Munroe,
Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Corliss, Heppell,
Melville, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink,
Binder, Starobogatov, Ride

Negative votes—none (0)

Voting Papers not returned—one (1) : Simpson

Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Alle Link, 1807, Beschr. nat.-Samml. Univ. Rostock 2 : 46
alle, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 131
impennis, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 130
Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791, Ency. Méth. (Ornith.) 1 : 1xxxiii
Plautus Briinnich, 1772, Zool. Fund. : 78
Plautus Gunnerus, 1761, Trondheimske Selskabs Skrifter 1 : 263
Plautus Klein, 1760, Historie der Végel : 154
Plotus Gunnerus, 1761, Trondheimske Selskabs Skrifter 1 : 263
The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791; Ogilvie-Grant, 1898, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 26:
562

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 12 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 999.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

15 January 1973

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1000

MIMECOMUTILLA ASHMEAD, 1903 (INSECTA,
HYMENOPTERA) : DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903, made prior to the
present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Mimecomutilla
renominanda Bischoff, 1921, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that
genus.
(2) The generic name Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 (gender : feminine),
type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Mimeco-
mutilla renominanda Bischoff, 1921, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1981.
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :
(a) renominanda Bischoff, 1921, as published in the binomen Mimeco-
mutilla renominanda (type-species of Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903)
(Name No. 2503);

(b) purpurata Smith, 1879, as published in the binomen Mutilla purpurata
(Name No. 2504).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1917)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. D. J.
Brothers in February 1970. Dr. Brothers’ application was sent to the printer
on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
27 : 115-118. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 :
184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 1 June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72) 13 either for or against the pro-
posal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 117. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on | September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order:
Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson,
Corliss, Heppell, Melville, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer,
Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov, Ride

Negative votes—none (0)

Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83

Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903, Canad. Ent. 35 (12) : 327
purpurata, Mutilla, F. Smith, 1879, Descr. new spp. Hymenopt. B.M. : 190
renominanda, Mimecomutilla, Bischoff, 1921, Arch. Naturgesch. (A) 86 (4) : 508

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 13 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1000.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

18 January 1973

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1001

CERATINA LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (INSECTA,
HYMENOPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Clavicera
Latreille, April 1802, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] (gender : feminine),
type-species, by monotypy, Hylaeus albilabris Fabricius, 1793, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1982.

(3) The specific name cucurbitina Rossi, 1792, as published in the binomen
Apis cucurbitina, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2505.

(4) The family name CERATINIDAE (correction of CERATINAE) Latreille,
[1802-1803] (type-genus Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803]) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 471.

(5) The generic name Clavicera Latreille, 1802 (as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2012.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1919)

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr. Howell V. Daly and Dr. O. W. Richards in February 1970. The application
was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 121-122. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b;
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. The pro-
posals were supported by Prof. Leland Chandler.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 1 June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72) 15 either for or against the pro-
posal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 122. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows:

Negative votes—none (0)

Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late affirmative votes.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust Ins. 3 : 380
CERATINIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. ins. 3 : 380
Clavicera Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 432
cucurbitina, Apis, Rossi, 1792, Mant. Ins. 1: 145

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 15 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in the Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1001.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
25 January 1973

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1002

PHALAENA TINEA XYLOSTELLA, LINNAEUS, 1758: REFUSAL TO
USE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE

RULING.—(1) The application for the use of the plenary powers to
designate a neotype for Phalaena Tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby
refused.

(2) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Phalaena Tinea xylostella
Linnaeus, 1758 is to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype in the Linnaean
collection designated by Bradley, 1966, Entomologist’s Gazette 17 : 219.

(3) The specific name xylostella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com-
bination Phalaena Tinea xylostella, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2506.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1906)

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr N. Wolff in October 1969. The application was sent to the printer on 18
December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
27 : 60-62. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials.

Comments supporting the proposal were received from E. C. Pelham-
Clinton (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 130), J. A. Downes, K. Lindhart, and J.
Jorgensen.

An objection by J. D. Bradley and W. H. T. Tams (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
28 : 11-13) recommended that the Rules be applied and this was supported
by K. Sattler, W. G. Tremewan and P. E. S. Whalley.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)5 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 60-62. A note accompanying
the Voting Paper stated that a vote against this proposal would be taken as a
vote for the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 13. At the close of
the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Affirmative votes—seven (7), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Lemche, Eisenmann, Mayr, Bonnet, Tortonese, Ride.

Negative votes—seven (7): Simpson, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Brinck,
Forest, Binder.

On leave of absence—one (1): Monroe.

Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatoy returned late negative votes.
Professor Vokes did not vote. The following comments were made by Com-
missioners in returning votes:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87

Dr. E. Eisenmann (28.ii.72): “Admittedly usage throughout the twentieth
century supports the Wolff proposal and the shift of the Linnaean names by
Bradley dates to 1966—possibly in violation of Art. 23b.

Prof. H. E. Vokes (28.ii.72): “I find the respective claims of the two proposals
so at variance—and incomplete—that I do not feel able to reach any con-
clusion. For example, if (as implied by Bradley and Tams) there is more
than one specimen in the Linnaean collection, are they all of the same species
as the “‘lectotype’’, or is the ‘‘Lonicera-feeding” form also represented? . .. etc.
Hence I wish to refrain from voting either way”’.

Prof. E. Mayr (14.iii.72): “In spite of the arguments of Bradley and Tams,
I favor stabilization of the almost unanimous usage of the last fifty years or
more”’.

Prof. P. Brinck (5.v.72): “I cannot accept a moving of the name xylostella
for a species not meant by the author.”

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (10.v.72): “I vote in the affirmative despite the demon-
stration by Bradley and Tams that the Linnaean specimen and description are
against it, because I hold that the issue before the Commission is not one of
the identity of the Linnaean specimen but whether stability and universality
are served by a proposal which (a) avoids the transfer of a name from one
species to another, and (b) retains for a well-known, economically important
species the name universally applied to it.”’

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official
List by the Ruling given in this Opinion:
xylostella, Phalaena Tinea Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae ed. 10. Holmiae.
The following is the original reference for the designation of the lectotype
for Phalaena Tinea xylostella Linnaeaus, 1758: Bradley, 1966, Entomologist’s
Gaz. 17 : 219.

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)5 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted and
that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission,
is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1002.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

15 June 1973

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME GALAXIAS DELFINI
PHILIPPI 1895 (PISCES: GALAXIIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1877

By R. M. McDowall (Fisheries Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand)

It is here suggested that, because the name Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895,
has not been used since 1899, the junior synonym G. platei Steindachner, 1898,
should be retained; the latter name recurs throughout the literature on South
American galaxiids since Regan (1905) to the complete exclusion of G. delfini.

The details are as follows: In 1895 Philippi described two large galaxiids
from southern Chile, viz., G. delfini and G. grandis. The name G. grandis is a
junior homonym of G. grandis Haast, 1873 (=G. argenteus (Gmelin, 1789)).
Furthermore, as Regan (1905) pointed out, G. delfini and G. grandis Philippi
are synonyms. Later, Steindachner (1898) described another species from Chile
as G. platei.

In his revision of the family Galaxiidae, Regan (1905) states that Philippi
had given the dorsal fin ray count of G. de/fini as eight and the anal count as
18; Regan thus noted that “If it were not for this, I should have no hesitation in
regarding this species [i.e., G. de/fini] and G. platei as the same’. Thus Regan
redescribed G. platei Steindachner as a good species and made no decision on
the status of the earlier name, G. de/fini. Regan was incorrect in the figures
reported from Philippi, who actually gave the caudal count as 18 and the anal
count as 12. As such, Philippi’s description of G. delfini agrees with Regan’s
redescription of G. platei; so the former name is the senior synonym.

All subsequent authors have followed Regan (1905) in using the name
G. platei Steindachner, e.g., Lonnberg, 1907; Eigenmann, 1909, 1910, 1921,
1928; Regan, 1913, 1915; Pozzi, 1945; Fowler, 1945; Mann, 1954; de Buen,
1959; Ringuelet and Aramburu, 1961; Ringuelet, Aramburu, and Aramburu,
1967; McDowall, 1969, 1971. The name G. del/fini is used only once as a valid
species name (Delfin, 1899) following its original use by Philippi. In 1971
I reported that application had been made to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to declare G. delfini Philippi a rejected name,
as under existing rules, it was by definition, a nomen oblitum. This application
was held in abeyance pending further discussions on the use of Article 23(b),
culminating in the 17th International Congress of Zoology at Monaco, 1972.

In accordance with modifications to Article 23 it is therefore now requested
that the name G. delfini Philippi, 1895, should be suppressed under the plenary
powers as an unused senior synonym and placed on the Official Index of
Rejected Names under Article 79b. Pending the Commission’s decision,
G. platei must continue to be used as the valid name of the species in question.

LITERATURE CITED
BUEN, F. pe. 1959. Lampreas, tiburones, rayas y peces en la Estacion de Biologia
Marine de Montemar, Chile. Revta Biol. mar. 9 (1-3) : 1-200
DeFIN, F. T. 1899. Catalogo de los peces de Chile (continuacion). Revta chil.
Hist. nat. 3 (10, 11) : 153-161

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89

EIGENMANN, C. 1909. The freshwater fishes of Patagonia and an examination of the
Archiplata-Archelenis theory. Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia 3 (3) :
227-374

— 1910. Catalogue of the freshwater fishes of tropical and south temperate
America. Rep. Princeton Univ. Patagonia 3 (4) : 375-411

—— 1921. The nature and origin of the fishes of the Pacific slope of Ecuador, Peru
and Chile. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 60 : 503-523

—— 1928. The freshwater fishes of Chile. Mem. natn. Acad. Sci. 22 (11) : 1-80

Fow.er, H.W. 1945. Fishes of Chile—systemic catalogue. Apartado de la Revista
Chilena de Historia Natural. Imp. et Imparcial, San Diego. 171 pp.

Haast, J. von. 1873. Notes on some undescribed fishes from New Zealand.
Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst. 5: 272-278

LONNBERG, E. 1907. Fische. Ergebnisse Hamburg Magalhaensischen Sammelreise,
1892-3, 8 (6) : 1-16

McDowa Lt, R. M. 1969. Relationships of galaxioid fishes with a further discussion
of salmoniform classification. Copeia 1969 (4) : 796-824

— 1971. The galaxiid fishes of South America. Zool. JI Linn. Soc. 50 (1) : 33-73

MANN, G. F. 1954. La vida de los peces en aguas chilenas. Universidad de Chile,
Santiago. 342 pp.

Puiuipp!l, R. A. 1895. Die Chilenischen Arten von Galaxias. Verh. dt. wiss. Ver.
Santiago Chile 3 : 17-22

Pozzi, A. J. 1945. Sistematica y distribucion de los peces de agua dulce de la
Republica Argentina. Gaea, B. Aires 7 : 239-292

REGAN, C. T. 1905. A revision of the fishes of the family Galaxiidae. Proc. zool.
Soc. Lond. 2. : 363-384

— 1913. Antarctic fishes of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Trans.
R. Soc. Edinb. 49 (2) : 229-292

— 1915. Antarctic fishes of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Rep.
scient. Results Scott. natn. antarct. Exped. Zoology 4 : 311-374

RINGUELET, R. A., and ARAMBURU, R. H. 1961. Peces argentinos de agua dulce:
Claves de reconocimiento y caracterizacion de familias y subfamilias, con
glosario explicativo. Agro 3 (7) : 1-98

RINGUELET, R. A., ARAMBURU, R. H., and ARAMBURU, A. L. DE. 1967. Los peces
argentinos de agua dulce. Comision de Investigacion Cientifica. La Plata.
602 pp.

STEINDACHNER, F. 1898. Die Fische der Sammlung Plate. FaunaChilensis. Zool.
Jb. (Suppl.) 4 : 281-337

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

EMBLETONIA PALLIDA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1854,
THE SPECIFIC NAME TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST THE NOMEN
OBLITUM TERGIPES ADSPERSUS NORDMANN, 1845
(MOLLUSCA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA). Z.N.(S.) 2010

By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15,
2100 Copenhagen @, Danmark)

The aim of this application is to seek confirmation of the protection of the
specific name pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854 (Embletonia), which name has
recently been set aside (Roginskaya, 1970) in favour of the totally forgotten
name adspersus Nordmann, 1845 (Tergipes).

2. Nordmann (1845, Mémoir Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg 4 : 498)
described Tergipes adspersus from the Black Sea at Odessa. The hidden place
in which it was described left the name unnoticed until Roginskaya (1970,
Malac. Review 3 : 167) brought it up anew, at the same time arranging that
adspersus became used in a paper by Turpaeva (1969, Dokl. Akad. Nauk
SSSR 189 : 415).

3. Alder & Hancock (1854, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2) 14 : 105) described
what is agreed to be that same species from Birkenhead, England, as Embletonia
pallida. This latter name has since been in general use for the species in
question, a most widely distributed one all round Europe and even on the other
side of the Northern Atlantic. Roginskaya cites, in her list of synonyms, the
following usages: 2 adspersa, 25 pallida, 1 lacinulatus (misidentification),
2 mediterranea, 3 grayi, 1 ventrilabrum, and 4 bellulus (misidentifications).
Taken in general this list has a definite under-representation of the name
pallida, but even then, it shows the tendency of usage.

4. As the type localities for the two names are so widely apart, it might be
considered that adspersus may perhaps have been given to another species.
However, now it has been shown to cover the same species as pallida, it must be
rejected.

5. My suggestion is that the Commission:

(1) use its plenary power to suppress the specific name adspersus Nordmann,
1845 as cited in the combination Tergipes adspersus, for the purposes
of the law of Priority but not for those of the law of Homonymy.

(2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pallida
Alder & Hancock, 1854, as cited in the combination Embletonia
pallida;

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name adspersus Nordmann, 1845, as cited in the com-
bination Tergipes adspersus.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91

POLYCERA FAEROENSIS—REQUEST FOR A RULING ON
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE (GASTROPODA OPISTHOBRANCHIA).
Z.N. (S.) 2013

By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15,
2100 Copenhagen @, Danmark)

More than forty years ago, Lemche wrote a paper, ‘Gastropoda Opistho-
branchiata’ for The Zoology of the Faeroes edited by R. Sparck. A couple of
volumes were published at once (by Host & Son, Copenhagen), but some con-
tributions to vol. III were delayed, and with them also those papers finished in
time and intended for that part. It was only in 1971 that the whole volume
ILL was edited by S. L. Tuxen and then duly published. No reprints had been
offered for sale in 1929, but Lemche’s distribution of part LIII (his paper)
to colleagues was effective, and the paper seems known to all concerned,
including the description of Polycera faeroensis n. sp.

2. The next description of that species was by Odhner (1941, Géteborgs
Vetensk. Samh. Handl. (6) 1 B 11 : 3) and he cited Lemche, 1929 as author
and date. No other records have been published, but the species has now
been found in several localities in the British Isles, and the question whether
Lemche published or not in 1929 must be settled. Strict application of the
Rules seems to lead to a dating of Lemche’s paper as of 1971, but in those
cases in the literature where Polycera faeroensis is mentioned, it is with Lemche,
1929 as author and date.

3. I therefore ask the Commission to end the uncertainty by voting for
one of the following alternatives:

(A) Polycera faeroensis is to be regarded as validly published by Lemche,
1929;
OR (B) Polycera faeroensis is to be regarded as having been published by
Odhner, 1941.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS EDWARDS, 1870, (INSECTA:
LEPIDOPTERA: PIERIDAE): A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A
NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2027

By F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley Rural Station, Colorado Springs, Colo.,
80911, (U.S.A.)

1. This is a petition to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to conserve the name Pieris virginiensis
Edwards, 1870, as it is represented by the neotype described by Brown (1973).

2. The original description of Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870, compares
the insect with Pieris oleracea (Harris, 1829), and describes both sexes. The
type material is stated as follows: ““Not uncommon in the Kanawha district
[West Virginia] in the month of May, and there replacing oleracea. I have
received from Mr. Saunders occasional specimens taken by him at London,
Canada”.

3. The William H. Edwards Collection housed in the Carnegie Museum,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., contains ten specimens of virginiensis from the
Kanawha River region of West Virginia and three specimens from Ontario,
Canada, collected by Saunders. Although four males and one female from the
Kanawha district bear the notation “‘type”’ in red ink on the pin labels, none of
these can be considered for selection as lectotype. These marked specimens
were collected during March and April, 1871. This was well after publication of
the original description. All other Kanawha region specimens bear later dates
of capture: 1872, 1882, 1884, 1891.

The status of the Saunders specimens from Canada is doubtful. The manner
in which Edwards noticed these in the original description allows two inter-
pretations: some may consider these specimens syntypes; others may exclude
them from being syntypes by Edwards’s later action. The first interpretation
leaves the way clear to elect a Canadian specimen as lectotype. The second
interpretation allows selection of one of the Kanawha specimens as neotype.
It is this latter action that I propose to defend.

4. Itis clear from the name Edwards used for the taxon that he considered
West Virginia and not Canada to be the typical geographic area for virginiensis.

In a lengthy article Edwards (1881) leaves no doubt that at that time he had
a double conception of virginiensis. On p. 97, under an earlier caption ‘4.
VIRGINIENSIS”’ Edwards wrote: ‘‘... through Oleracea [a species-name, not a
genus-name] hyemalis comes Virginiensis which along the southern limit has in
its turns [sic] displaced Venosa, being in sequence of derivation the third
winter form. But this has no second generation ...’’ Thus it is apparent that
Edwards restricted his use of the species-name virginiensis to the single-brooded
taxon related to P. napi oleracea with a range that overlaps the southern borders
of the range of oleracea.

On p. 98 of the same article Edwards wrote: ‘““We are now prepared to
tabulate the American forms derived from Bryoniae, and I contrast them with
the corresponding European forms:”’ In the table of American forms Edwards

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93

grouped three segregates and their variants under bryoniae and kept distinct
“4. SPECIES (Southern) VIRGINIENSIS, Edw.”’
5. Inthe table just alluded to, Edwards disposes of the Canadian specimens
of “‘virginiensis” included in his original description of virginiensis in this way:
ae

2. Winter form OLERACEA HYEMALIS Harr.
Oleracea, Bois.
var. A. BOREALIS, Grote
var. B. FRIGIDA, Scud.
aberr. VIRGINIENSIS, Edw.”

6. In the light of this evidence, I believe that Edwards effectively removed
the Canadian material from consideration as syntypical of the species-name
virginiensis; retained the name virginiensis for a southern species differing from
oleracea Harris: relegated northern material to an aberrational status that may
or may not be acceptable biologically but is unequivocal nomenclatorially.

7. There are several reasons why a neotype is needed for the name Pieris
virginiensis Edwards, 1870. First, the contradictory taxonomic uses of the name
for northern and southern “virginiensis’ requires that the original use of the
name in a specific sense be supported by a type. Second, confusion can arise
between typical Pieris virginiensis and some North American forms of Pieris napi
such as has occurred in listing materials from the Rocky Mountain region.
Therefore, certain modern non-destructive means for establishing relationships,
such as photography with wave-lengths not visible to the human eye, require
that there be an official name-bearer for Pieris virginiensis. The only official
name-bearers are types. Fourth, the loss of syntypical specimens that fulfil all
of Edwards’ conditions concerning Pieris virginiensis require, in light of the
above, designation of a neotype and conservation of the name.

8. To continue the concept of the author of the name virginiensis it is
necessary to establish a neotype for the taxon. This is done in Brown (1973)
where a specimen carrying the pin label ‘“‘Virginiensis O/Kan*. Ap. ‘71’ on
which Edwards wrote in red ink diagonally in the lower left corner the word
“type” is designated the neotype at the request of W. J. Holland. This is the
specimen that is figured in color on Plate 34, figure 14, in Holland’s “The
Butterfly Book’, 1930 edition.

9. The International Commission is therefore requested :

(1) to set aside all designations of type specimen for the nominal species
Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870, made prior to the Ruling now reques-
ted and, having done so, to designate the specimen described by Brown,
1973, to be the neotype of that species;

(2) to place the specific name virginiensis Edwards, 1870, as published in
the binomen Pieris virginiensis, on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

REFERENCES
Brown, F. Martin. 1973. The types of the pierid butterflies named by William
Henry Edwards. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 99 : 29-118, fig. 24. The neotype
is designated on p. 101

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Epwarps, William Henry. 1870. The original description of Pieris virginiensis.
Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 3 : 13-14

— 1881. On Pieris Bryoniae Ochsenheimer, and its derivative forms in Europe and
America. Papilio, 1 : 83-99, pls. 2, 3

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95

ONYCHOLYDA TAKEUCHI, 1938 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2028

By Karel Benes (Africkd 20, Prague 6), Tikahiko Naito (Entomological Labor-

atory, College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka)

and Teiichi Okutani (Entomological Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe
University, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe).

Takeuchi, 1938 (Tenthredo, 2 : 218) separated the genus Pamphilius Latreille,
1802 into three subgenera, namely Pamphilius s. str., Anoplolyda Costa, 1894,
and Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938. This latter subgenus was established for
eight Japanese and E. Asiatic species characterised by a sharp basal lobe of the
tarsal claws, and Pamphilius sulphureipes Kirby, 1882, was designated as a
type-species of Onycholyda.

2. Pamphilius sulphureipes Kirby, 1882 (described from one male labelled:
“Amour”, Holotype deposited in the British Museum (Natural History),
London) belongs to the histrio-inanitus group of Pamphilius with only a small
rounded basal lobe of the tarsal claws and evidently does not belong to
Onycholyda as defined by Takeuchi, 1938.

3. Inthe Takeuchi collection, deposited in the Entomological Laboratory,
College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka), there
are three females identified as sulphureipes Kirby by Takeuchi. Two females
from Saghalien, initially described as Pamphilius viriditibialis var. aino Takeuchi,
1936, and later synonymized with P. sulphureipes Kirby (Takeuchi, 1938 :
Tenthredo, 2 : 229) do not belong to Onycholyda as defined by Takeuchi, 1938,
having only small rounded basal lobes to the tarsal claws and most probably
belong to P. sulphureipes Kirby. One specimen from Sado Island has an acute
basal lobe to the tarsal claws and apparently belongs to an undescribed species.

4. As follows from the above discussion, there is no doubt that the type-
species of Onycholyda has been misidentified. According to Article 70a
of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked to fix the type-species
of Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938.

P. sulphureipes Kirby, 1882 does not belong to this subgenus and the speci-
men on which Onycholyda is based belongs to an undescribed species. A
proposal is therefore made to fix as the type-species of Onycholyda, Pamphilius
viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, the well known species, the type of which is
preserved in the Takeuchi collection and the bionomics and juvenile stages
of which are also known (Okutani & Fujita, 1956 : Sci. Rep. Hyogo Univ.
Agric., 2(2) : 3-10).

The fixation of the type-species of Onycholyda is so much more advisable as
BeneS, 1972 (Acta ent. bohemosloy. 69 : 385) elevated Onycholyda Takeuchi,
1938 to a generic level with about twenty Holarctic and Oriental species.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. October 1973.

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5 The International Commission is therefore requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938, made prior to the Ruling now requested
and, having done so, to designate Pamphilius viriditibialis Takeuchi,
1930, to be the type-species of that genus;

(2) to place the generic name Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (gender : feminine),
type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Pamphilius viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:

(3) to place the specific name viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, as published in
the binomen Pamphilius viriditibialis (type-species of Onycholyda
Takeuchi, 1938) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97

PSEDNURA LONGICORNIS SJOSTEDT, 1920 (INSECTA,
ORTHOPTERA): REQUEST FOR USE OF THE PLENARY
POWERS TO SET ASIDE ALL PREVIOUS LECTOTYPE
DESIGNATIONS AND TO DESIGNATE AS LECTOTYPE A
SYNTYPE HERE SPECIFIED. Z.N.(S.)2029

By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P. O. Box 1700, Canberra
City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia)

Sjéstedt (1920) described and figured under the name Psednura longicornis
a new species of eumastacid grasshopper, on the basis of material collected in
Australia by E. Mjéberg which he listed as follows: “Queensland, Atherton
(Mai) 1¢ 12; Cap York 29 in spiritus (Sept.), Mus. Stockholm.” He did not
designate a holotype. In 1921 Sjéstedt synonymised this nominal species with
Moraba serricornis Walker, 1870. The material he then listed from Queensland
was specified as follows (Sjéstedt 1921): ‘‘Atherton, Yarrabah, Cape York
(Mjéberg) 1g, 29”. Comparing the 1921 with the 1920 listings, it is evident that
the former is short of one Atherton specimen and one Cape York female,
but includes a specimen from Yarrabah that was not listed in 1920.

2. The grasshopper collection in the Stockholm Museum was studied by
the author in 1958 (Key 1973). It then contained two pinned (i.e. non-spirit)
specimens labelled ‘‘Psednura longicornis” in Sjéstedt’s hand: a male from
Atherton and a female from Yarrabah. Both specimens are labelled also
“Queensl. Mjéberg’’, and the male is labelled “maj” (=May). The female
bears the additional label ““Moraba serricornis Walk. det. Y.S.’’, and the male
“—serricornis Walk.”, both in Sjéstedt’s hand. Neither bears a type label,
but it is consistent with Sjéstedt’s practice for him to have removed such labels
when he proposed the synonymy with serricornis. No trace could be found of a
female from Atherton. There seems no doubt, from the use of the name
Psednura longicornis, which Sjéstedt abandoned a year later, that the Atherton
male and the Yarrabah female must have formed part of Sjéstedt’s syntype
series. It seems likely that the 1920 listing of a female from Atherton was an
inadvertent error*, and the locality that should have been cited for this specimen
was Yarrabah. Otherwise we would have to assume (a) that the Atherton female
was lost between 1920 and 1921 (the 1921 list cites three specimens from three
localities, i.e. there could be only one from each, and the male from Atherton
has been accounted for), and (b) that the Yarrabah female (which has not been
in spirit) was overlooked in the 1920 listing.

3. Rehn (1952, p.287, footnote 382) selected as the “single type” of Jongi-
cornis the “‘figured female” and assumed that “the female... from Atherton,
Queensland, is the one that was figured’. As we have seen, there is serious
doubt whether the Atherton female ever existed; if it did, it has apparently been
lost. The Yarrabah female agrees with figures 4, 4a, 4b, and 4c of Sjéstedt’s

*Sjdstedt’s 1920 paper contains several such errors, including mis-spelling of the generic names
Oedaleus, Biroella, and Sphingonotus, and the incorrect assignment of plate 1, figures 5a and 5b
to “Psednura gecko” on p. 5, whereas on p.67 they are correctly assigned to /ongicornis.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

plate 1 and may well have been the figured female, although there can be no
certainty of this. To accept it as the lectotype would, however, be open to the
formal objections (i) that its status as a syntype is only inferential, since it was
not cited in the original publication, and (ii) that Rehn’s purported lectotype
designation, with its reference to the “Atherton female’ was equivocal. It is
questionable, therefore, whether a lectotype of /ongicornis can be considered to
exist.

4. Key (1973) nevertheless provisionally accepted the Yarrabah female as
lectotype pending a decision on the present application, which he stated was
being made. He pointed out that, in addition to the formal objections to this
specimen, there is a significant practical objection to the designation of females
as primary types in this group of grasshoppers, because they are poor in diag-
nostic features in comparison with males; he advocated use of the Commission’s
plenary powers to designate the Atherton male syntype as lectotype, and gave
the full label data for this specimen. Although the supposed status of Jongi-
cornis as a junior synonym of serricornis did not remove the need for a diagnostic
lectotype, Key (1973) has shown both of the pinned syntypes are in fact quite
distinct taxonomically from the latter species, and that /ongicornis must therefore
be reinstated.

5. Moraba serricornis Walk. is the type-species of Moraba by monotypy.
Its status and lectotype have been discussed by Key (1973). The type-species
of Psednura is Mesops pedestris Erichson, 1842, which was so designated by
Kirby (1910). The status and lectotype of that species were discussed by Key
(1969*, 1972). These two genera and their type-species could now well be
placed on the appropriate Official Lists.

6. Inthe light of the foregoing, I request that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) use its plenary powers to set aside all previous lectotype designations
for the nominal species Psednura longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920, and desig-
nate as the lectotype of that species the male syntype from Atherton
preserved in the Stockholm Museum;

(2) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920, as published in the binomen Psednura
longicornis ;

(b) serricornis Walker, 1870, as published in the binomen Moraba
serricornis (type species of Moraba Walker, 1870);

(3) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Moraba Walker, 1870 (gender : feminine), type species by mono-
typy Moraba serricornis Walker, 1870;

(b) Psednura Burr, 1903 (gender : feminine), type species, by designa-
tion of Kirby (1910), Mesops pedestris Erichson, 1842.

* By an inadvertent error, Key (1969) in one place (p. 392, line 41) refers to the “holotype”
of pedestris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99

REFERENCES

Burr, M. 1903. Orthoptera. Fam. Eumastacidae. Genera Insect., fasc. 15, 23 pp.

ERICHSON, W. F. 1842. Beitrag zur Insecten-fauna von Vandiemenland mit beson-
derer Berticksichtigung der geographischen Verbreitung der Insecten. Arch.
Naturgesch., vol. 8 : 83-287

Key, K.H. L. 1969. The primary types of the Australian Pyrgomorphidae (Ortho-
ptera: Acridoidea). Aust. J. Zool., vol. 17 : 353-414

— 1972. A revision of the Psednurini (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae). Aust. J.
Zool., Suppl. Ser., No. 14, 72 pp.

—— 1973. The primary types of the Australian Eumastacidae (Orthoptera:
Eumastacoidea). Aust. J. Zool., Suppl. Ser., no. 19, 40 pp.

Kirsy, W. F. 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera, vol. III. Orthoptera
Saltatoria. Part Il (Locustidae vel Acridiidae). London

REHN, J. A. G. 1952. The Grasshoppers and Locusts (Acridoidea) of Australia. I.
Families Tetrigidae and Eumastacidae. Melbourne

Sj6stepT, Y. 1920. Results of Dr. E. Mjdberg’s Swedish Scientific Expeditions to
Australia 1910-1913. 20. Acridoidea. Ark. Zool., vol. 12, part 20, 67pp.

— 1921. Acridoidea australica. Monographie der bisher von Australien
bekannten Heuschrecken mit kurzen Fihlern. K. svenska VetenskAkad.
Handl., vol. 62, part 3, 318 pp.

WALKER, F. 1870. Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera-Saltatoria in the
Collection of the British Museum, Part III., pp. 425-604. London.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CALYPTRAEA STRIATA GRAY, 1825 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER PLENARY POWERS
Z.N(S.) 2030

By C. O. van Regteren Altena (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden,
Netherlands)

J. E. Gray shortly described the species Calyptraea striata (1825, p. 407)
without locality. Dr. J. D. Taylor, curator of the Department of Mollusca of
the British Museum (Natural History), was so kind as to look for me in the
collection of that Museum for the holotype or other specimens of that species,
but in vain. I have not found the name Calyptraea striata Gray in other literature.

2. A year after Gray’s description Say (1826, p. 216) again published
the name Calyptraea striata as a new species. Johnston (1934, p. 96); Roger
(1936, p. 151); Morris (1951, pp. 140, 142, pl. 29 fig. 10); Abbott (1955, p. 170,
pl. 2ir); Vilas & Vilas (1970, p. 61, pl. 7 fig. 8) mentioned this species as Cruci-
bulum striatum (Say) and Richards in four publications (1936, pp. 1621, 1623,
1652; 1938, p. 1292; 1939a, p. 312; 1939b, p. 1896) as Crepidula striata Say.

3. Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825, may be regarded as an unused senior
homonym of Calyptraea striata Say, 1826. Therefore, in the interest of nomen-
clatural stability and to preserve the name Crucibulum striatum (Say, 1826) the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress both for the purposes of the Law
of Priority and that of Homonymy, the name striata Gray, 1825,
published in the binomen Calyptraea striata:

(2) to place the specific name striata Say, 1826, as published in the binomen
Calyptraea striata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name striata Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen
Calyptraea striata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology.

REFERENCES

Appott, R. Tucker. 1955. American seashells (third edition). I-XIV, 1-541,
figs. 1-100. pls. 1-40

Gray, J.E. 1825. A list of descriptions of some species of shells not taken notice of
by Lamarck. Ann. Philos., (NS) 9 (=25): 407-415

Jacosson, Morris K., & WILLIAM K. Emerson. 1961. Shells of the New York city
area. XVIII, 1-142, figs.

JOHNSTON, CHARLES W. 1934. List of marine Mollusca of the Atlantic coast from
Labrador to Texas. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 40(1) : 1-204

Morris, Percy A. 1951. A field guide to the shells of our Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
I-XX, 1-236, pls. 1-45

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101

RicHARDS, Horace G. 1936. Fauna of the Pleistocene Pamlico formation of the
southern Atlantic coastal plain. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 47 : 1611-1656,
1 fig., pls. 14

— 1938. Marine Pleistocene of Florida. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 49 : 1267-
1296, 1 fig., pls. 14

— 1939a. Marine Pleistocene of the Gulf coastal plain: Alabama, Mississippi
and Louisiana. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 50 : 297-316, pls. 1-3

— 1939b. Marine Pleistocene of Texas. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 50 : 1885-—
1898, pls. 1-3

Rocer, JuLIA ELLEN. 1936. The shell book. I-XV, 1-503, pls. I-VI, pls. 1-87

Say, THomas. 1826. Descriptions of marine shells recently discovered on the coast
of the United States. J. Ac. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6 : 207-221

Vivas, C. N. & Vitas, R. N. 1970. Florida marine shells. 1-170, map, figs. A-C,
2 diagrams, pls. 1-14

WEISBORD, NORMAN E. 1962. Late cenozoic gastropods from northern Venezuela.
Bull. Amer. Paleont., 42(193) : 1-672, pls. 1-48

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SCHISTODERA COBB, 1920 (NEMATODA: ENOPLIDA),
A REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION; OX YSTOMINA FILIPJEV,
1921 PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)2031

By W. D. Hope (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of

Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560) and D. G. Murphy (National Institute

of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,
Maryland, 20014)

Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 (:565) is the type-genus of the marine nematode
super-family Oxystominoidea Chitwood, 1935. Filipjev (1921) proposed the
name Oxystomina as a replacement of Oxystoma Biitschli, 1874 (: 270) which is
preoccupied by Oxystoma Dumeril, 1806 (Insecta).

2. Among the several names that have been accepted by systematists
as synonyms of 1Oxystomina, two have publication dates earlier than that of
Oxystomina, 1.e., Acoma Steiner, 1916, and Schistodera Cobb, 1920. Acoma
Steiner, 1916, is a junior homonym of Acoma Casey, 1890 and is, therefore,
invalid.

3. Schistodera, which is an available name has been used on but one
occasion since it was first published by Cobb (1920); this was in ““A Synopsis of
the Families and Genera of Nematoda’”’ by Baylis and Daubney (1926). Here,
both Schistodera and Oxystomina were listed as separate valid genera. Further,
these authors were aware that Oxystoma Biitschli, 1874 was preoccupied, and
they renamed the genus ““Oxystomina”’ with the note that ““The name Oxystomina
has, we believe, been proposed to replace the preoccupied name Oxystoma.
We are unfortunately unable to trace its author and date of publication”
(p. 97). Thus, Oxystomina sensu Baylis and Daubney, 1926, is both a junior
homonym and a junior synonym of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921.

4. Since Baylis and Daubney’s publication, Schistodera Cobb, 1920
has been listed as a “junior” synonym of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 in every
instance where it has appeared in the literature (Coninck, L. A. de, 1965;
Filipjev, I. N., 1934; Kreis, H. A., 1929; Schuurmans Stekhoven, J. H., 1935;
and Wieser, W., 1953). That Oxystomina has been accepted as the valid name of
the genus in question is further evidenced by the additional occasions (Allgen,
C., 1932; Chitwood, B. G., 1937; Filipjev, I. N., 1927; Gerlach, S. A., 1954;
Vitiello, P., 1970; and others) upon which it has been used, even though the
name Schistodera was not cited as a synonym or otherwise mentioned.

5. In view of the general acceptance of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 as the
valid name of the genus in question by those concerned with the systematics
of marine nematodes, and of the inconvenience that would result in changing
the name of this genus the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature is asked:

1The spelling of Oxystomina has been modified by Schuurmans Stekhoven (1935) and others
to Oxystomatina. The latter name is an unjustified emendation and is, therefore, a junior
objective synonym of Oxystomina.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Schistoder Cobb,
1920, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the generic name Oxystomina Filipjev (gender : feminine),
type-species, by monotypy through Oxystoma Biitschli, 1874, Oxystoma
elongatum Biitschli, 1874, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name e/ongatum Biitschli, 1874, as published in the
binomen Oxystoma elongata[sic] (type-species of Oxystomina Filipjev,
1921) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;

(4) to place the generic name Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

ALLGEN, C. 1932. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Marinen Nematodenfauna der
Campbellinsel. Nyt Magazine for Naturvidenskaberne, 70 : 97-198

Bay.is, H. A., and R. DAuBNey. 1926. A Synopsis of the Families and Genera of
Nematoda. 277 pages. London : British Museum

BUtscuu,O. 1874. Zur Kenntnis der Freilebenden Nematoden, insbesondere der des
Kieler WHafens. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft, 9 : 236-292

CuiTwoop, B.G. 1937. A New Genus and Ten New Species of Marine Nematodes
from North Carolina. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington
4 (2) : 54-59

Coss, N. A. 1920. Contributions to a Science of Nematology, 1X: One Hundred
New Nemas. Pages 217-343. Baltimore : Waverly Press

Coninck, L. A. DE. 1965. Systématique des Nématodes. Traité de Zoologie, 4
(2) : 586-731.

Fiuieyev, I. N. 1921. Svobodnozhivushchiya morskiya nematody okrestnastei
Sevastopolya, Il. Trudy osoboi Zoologicheskoi Laboratorii i Sevastopol’skoi
Biologicheskoi Stantsii Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk (2) 4 : 354-614

— 1927. Les Nématodes libres des Mers septentrionales appartenant a la Famille
des Enoplidae. Archiv fuer Naturgeschichte 91, (6) : 1-216.

— 1934. The classification of the free-living nemas and their relation to the
parasitic nemas. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 89 (6) : 1-63

GerLACH, S. A. 1954. Brasilianische Meeres-Nematoden. I. Boletin do Instituto
Oceanografico, 5 (1 and 2) : 3-69

Kreis, H. A. 1929. Freilebende Marine Nematoden von der Nordwestkueste
Frankreichs (Trebeurden; Cétes du Nord), Capita Zoologica 2 (7): 1-98

SCHUURMANS STEKHOVEN, J.H. 1935. Nematoda: Systematischer teil V.B: Nematoda
Errantia. Pages 1-173. Jn G. Grimpe and E. Wagler, Tierwelt der Nord- und
Ostsee. Leipzig.

ViTIELLO, P. 1970. Nématodes libres marins des vases profondes du Golfe du Lion.
I. Enoplida. Tethys 2 (1) : 139-210

Wieser, W. 1953. Free-living Marine Nematodes I. Enoploidea. Jn Reports of the
Lund University Chile Expedition 1948-1949, 10. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift,
Ny Foljd Avdelning 2, 49 (6) : 1-155

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CERITHIUM BRUGUIERE, [1789], (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED
PRESERVATION BY DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2032

By Richard (Joseph R.) Houbrick (Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting
Center, Washington, D.C. 20560)

Although the name Cerithium has been used by generations of conchologists,
the genus has had a complicated taxonomic history and is difficult to define
due to the problems in selecting and identifying a proper type-species. Com-
prehensive reviews of the synonymic history of the genus have been made by
Dall (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.: 363-369; 1907) and Wood (Contrib. from
Geol. Dept. Columbia Univ. 22(1) : 6-10; 1910).

2. The name Cerithium was first used by Fabius Columna (De Aquatilibus
Aliisque Nonnullis Animalibus, Roma, pp. 53; 57; 1616) and later adopted by
Adanson (Histoire naturelle du coquillage Sénégal: 152-160; 1757) for a shell,
“‘Le Cérite’’, from the mouth of the Gambia River on the west coast of Africa.
Adanson identified this shell with Columna’s Cerithium. As Dall (1907, cited
above) has pointed out, these authors were pre-Linnaean and not entitled to
be cited in synonymy, except historically.

3. Bruguiére (Ency. Méth., 1: xv; [1789] was the first author to use the
name Cerithium, but failed to list any species. He adopted the name Cerithium
from Adanson (1757, cited above) whose work was non-binominal. Three years
later, Bruguiére (Ency. Méth. 1 (2) 467-501; 1792) divided the genus into
three unnamed groups on the basis of canal curvature. The first of these groups
corresponds to what is now known as Rhinoclavis and the second to Cerithium,
sensu stricto. Bruguiére listed 10 species in his second group, and named
Adanson’s shell Cerithium adansonii, with “Le Cérite”’ cited in its synonymy.

4. Dall (1907, cited above) believed that the first binominal author to
recognize the group commonly known as Cerithium was Martyn (Universal
Conchologist 1, table, Nos. 12, 13; 1784), who named it Clava. Martyn used
two species, the first of which is now known as a Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840, and
the second, a species of Pyrazus Montfort, 1810. However, Martyn’s Universal
Conchologist is not consistently binominal and has been rejected by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 456, 1957).

5. Lamarck (Prodr. nouv. class.: 73; 1799) also selected an example for
the genus and used a species of what is now known as Pseudovertagus Vignal,
1904 (P. aluco Lamarck). Link (Beschr. Rostock. Sammi.: 130; 1807) and Mont-
fort (Conch. Syst. 2 : 511; 1810) followed Lamarck in their works. Two years
after his first work of 1799, Lamarck (Syst. des An. sans Vert.: 85; 1801)
selected several other species as examples of the genus and among these was
Cerithium nodulosum Bruguiére, 1792. Schumacher (Essai: 223-224; 227-228;
1817) used the name Cerithium for two different groups, crediting them to
Lamarck, and designating Cerithium aluco as the type for one and C. nodulosum
for the other. Schumacher’s work was followed by later writers. Thus, for many
years, malacologists, including Thiele (Handb. Syst. Weicht. 1 : 212-213; 1929)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105

and Wenz (Handb. Paldozool., 6, Gastropoda: 765; 1938), accepted Cerithium
nodulosum as the type-species of the genus. Dall (1907, cited above) considered
the type-species to be Lamarck’s (1799, cited above) first choice, which Dall
identified as Clava (=Pseudovertagus) aluco Lamarck, 1799. However, Stewart
(Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 78: 355-356; 1926) noted that under the present
rules of zoological nomenclature, Lamarck did not select a type.

6. The first valid subsequent designation of a type-species for the genus
after Bruguiére was that of Montfort (Conch. Syst. 2: 510-511; genus 128
(figure); 1810), who chose Cerithium virgatum, a substitute name for Murex
vertagus Linnaeus. Montfort’s figure of C. virgatum is a Rhinoclavis cited in
the synonymy as Murex vertagus Linn. and Gmel. It is thus clear that the name
Cerithium would replace Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840 (Clava Martyn) unless
Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére is accepted as the type-species!.

7. Cossmann (Essais de Paléoconchologie Comparée, Pt. 7, Paris, pp.
66-67; 1906) reviewed the problems of type-selection and indicated that
most authors have cited C. nodulosum as the type-species. He reproduced
Adanson’s figures of ““Le Cérite’’ but could not find specimens of it in the
Adanson collection. On the basis of the figures, he considered Adanson’s
shell to belong to the brackish water group Pyrazus and concluded that it
could not be the type-species for a marine genus. Cossmann also mentioned
that samples labelled ‘‘C. adansonii’”’ in the Paris collections did not resemble
the “Le Cérite’’ figure of Adanson, and concluded that “‘Le Cérite’’ had been
poorly figured and misplaced.

8. Wood (Contrib. Geol. Dept. Columbia Univ., 21 (1) : 6-10; 1910) also
discussed the problems involved in type-selection and presented a detailed
historical account of the diversity of opinion in this matter. She suggested that
the genus name be referred to Columna and that the type be Columna’s
Cerithium tuberosum. Wood contended that even though Columna’s description
appeared before 1758, he did give the genus a name which conforms to the
Linnaean system of nomenclature. She suggested that the rule referring to
1758 as the starting point be suspended in favour of referring the genus to
Columna because this would have the practical advantage of settling the question
of a type-species. Wood further suggested that if the rules discrediting pre-
Linnaean descriptions were rigidly adhered to, the genus should then be re-
ferred to Bruguiére, with C. nodulosum as the type-species.

9. Stewart (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 78: 355-356; 1926) proposed
that C. adansonii Bruguiére should be the type-species by tautonymy because
Bruguiére (1792, cited above) cites “Le Cérite’’ Adanson in the synonymy.
Stewart admitted that this was a rather strained interpretation of tautonymy
but considered that the acceptance of C. adansonii as the type-species was the
only means of saving the old and familiar name of Cerithium from the synonymy
of Clava (= Rhinoclavis).

10. Stewart’s interpretation was discussed by Woodring (Carnegie Inst.
Wash., No. 385, (2): 332-333; 1928) who suggested that Adanson’s figures of

1This is not strictly correct. All the species listed by Bruguiére, 1792, are in principle equally
eligible for subsequent designation as type-species unless referred to the genus conditionally
or with doubt. R.V.M.

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

“‘Le Cérite”’ represented something similar to the Indo-Pacific species, Cerithium
columna. However, C. columna is unknown in West Africa, the type-locality of
Adanson.

11. Fischer-Piette (J. Conchyliol. 85 (2-4) : 103-377; 1942) resolved the
uncertainty concerning the identification of Cerithium adansonii by recovering
the shell figured by Adanson and showing that C. adansonii is the same species as
C. erythraeonense Lamarck 1822. Cerithium erythraeonense does not occur in
West Africa, but is limited in distribution to the Red Sea. It may have been
accidently mixed by Adanson into his collection of shells from West Africa.
Nevertheless, the actual shell, ‘““‘Le Cérite”, of Adanson, now known to be C.
erythraeonense, may be considered the lectotype of C. adansonii.

12. Grant and Gale (Mem. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 1:756; 1931)
noted that unless a suspension of the rules is obtained, the name Cerithium
must be dropped in favour of Clava (= Rhinoclavis) because the method of
type-designation on the basis of indirect virtual tautonymy is ineffective when
opposed to a valid subsequent designation.

13. Martyn’s name, Clava, is unacceptable because his work is non-
binominal. Clava is now Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840. If Bruguiére’s C. adansonii
is not accepted as the type-species, Montfort’s designation of C. virgatum
must be selected as the type for the genus. However, Montfort’s C. virgatum
is what has long been known as Rhinoclavis vertagus (Linnaeus). If Montfort’s
type-species is valid, Cerithium would replace what is now known as Rhinoclavis,
more confusion would be introduced into the nomenclature, and the genus
Cerithium would be a different one from what was intended by the earlier
writers on the subject.

14. Vignal (Jour. Conchyliol. 58 : 138-140; 1910) and Cossmann (Ann.
Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg. 24 : 10; 1889) have used C. adansonii as the type-species
for the genus. Stewart’s proposal of the acceptance of C. adansonii as the
type-species by tautonymy has been accepted by more recent workers: Olsson
and Harbison (Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Mongr. 8 : 281; 1953); Woodring (Geol.
Survey, Prof. Pap. 306-B: 170-171; 1959); Hoerle (Tulane Stud. Geol. Paleont.
10 (1) : 3; 1972). Thus, the type-species of the genus Cerithium is, at best, a
questionable species based upon Adanson. As Woodring (1959, cited above)
has suggested, action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature referring the genus to Bruguiére and validating Cerithium adansonii
Bruguiére as the type-species is desirable.

I hereby petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
to take the following action.

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
the normal genus Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789], made prior to the
Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Cerithium
adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, to be the type-species of that genus;

(2) to place the generic name Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789] (gender: neuter),
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107

(3) to place the specific name adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, as published in
the binomen Cerithium adansonii (type-species of Cerithium Bruguieére,
[1789]) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SCEPTROPHORUS FOERSTER, 1856 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA.
CHALCIDOIDEA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)20331

By David Rosen (Department of Entomology, The Hebrew University, Faculty
of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel)

1. The genus Microterys was established by Thompson, 1875 (Scandinaviens
Hymenoptera 4:155) [actual date of publication apparently 1876] who
included in it 20 of the species described by Dalman, 1820 (Svensk. Vet. Akad.
Handi. 41 : 137, 147-172) under Encyrtus Latreille, along with 4 new species.
Thompson failed to designate a type-species, and his genus consisted of a rather
heterogeneous assemblage of species, the majority of which have since been
transferred to such diverse genera as Aphidencyrtus Ashmead, 1900; Aphycoides
Mercet, 1921; Aphycus Mayr, 1875 [1876]; Blastothrix Mayr, 1875 [1876];
Epiencyrtus Ashmead, 1900; Metaphycus Mercet, 1917; Prionomytus Mayr,
1875 [1876]; Syphophagus Ashmead, 1900; Tyndarichus Howard, 1910; and
Zeteticontus Silvestri, 1915.

2. Ashmead, 1900 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 22 : 390-394) designated Encyrtus
sylvius Dalman, 1820, as type-species, thus restricting Microterys to Thompson’s
“Section B” of the genus, comprising 8 species (Thompson, 1875, op. cit. : 157).
He added other species, listing a total of 20 species in the redefined genus.

3. Mercet, 1921, in his celebrated monograph on the Encyrtidae of the
Iberian Peninsula (Fauna Ibérica. Himendpteros. Fam. Encirtidos: 48-49),
unfortunately chose to ignore Ashmead’s decision and designated Encyrtus
aeruginosus Dalman, 1820, as type-species of Microterys Thompson, whereas
Encyrtus sylvius Dalman, 1820, was considered by him as the type-species of
the genus Encyrtus, which he (op. cit. : 34) credited to Dalman, 1820 (op. cit.),
rather than to Latreille, 1809 (Gen. Crustac. Insect 4:31). Thus, Mercet
applied the generic name “‘Encyrtus Dalman” to the group of species to which
Ashmead restricted Thompson’s genus Microterys, whereas the generic name
Microterys Thompson was used by him for the group of species otherwise
mostly known as Syrphophagus Ashmead.

4. Although Timberlake, 1923 (Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 25 : 58-59)
soon pointed out Mercet’s misinterpretation of the genera Encyrtus and Micro-
terys, several European authors—most notably Nikol’skaya, 1952 (The Chalcid
Fauna of U.S.S.R., Opred. Faun. S.S.S.R. 44 : 395, 403)—followed Mercet’s
nomenclature. However, the majority of chalcidologists apparently accepted
Ashmead’s interpretation of Microterys, and added numerous species from
various Continents to the genus as defined by him [e.g. Gahan and Fagan, 1923
(Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 124 : 51); Ishii, 1923 (Bull Imp. Plant Quar. Sta. 3 : 70,
109); Compere, 1926 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomol. 4 : 33-44), 1939 (Bull.
Entomol. Res. 30 : 16-20); Blanchard, 1940 (Anal. Soc. Cient. Argent. 130 : 123);
and others].

1This research has been financed in part by a grant made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
authorized by Public Law 480.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109

5. That long controversy was finally settled by Ferriére, 1953 (Mitt.
Schweiz. Entomol. Gesell. 36 : 16), who recognised Microterys Thompson as
understood by Ashmead, with “Encyrtus Dalman et aut. nec Latreille’’ as a
synonym. Ferriére (op. cit. : 34) also recognized Encyrtus aeruginosus Dalman
as a species of Syrphophagus Ashmead, and quoted “‘Microterys Mercet et
auct., pro parte’ as a synonym of that genus. Ferriére was soon followed by
various European workers, including Erdés and Novicky, 1955 (Beitr. Entomol.
5 : 173) and Nikol’skaya (personal communication : an annotated volume of
her 1952 monograph), who finally accepted the generic name Microterys
Thompson as applied by Ashmead, with Encyrtus sylvius Dalman as type-species.

6. However, soon after consensus was finally reached in that nomenclatural
dispute, Ferriére, 1955 (Boll. Lab. Zool. Gen. Agr Portici 33 : 361-363) made
the rather unfortunate discovery that the old, cryptic genus Sceptrophorus
Foerster, 1856, was actually a senior synonym of Microterys Thompson,
1875 [1876].

7. Foerster, 1841 (Beitrage zur Monographie der Pteromalinen Nees : 46)
described his species Encyrtus sceptriger from a single male specimen, character-
ized by rather peculiar antennae with a conspicuously elongated club. In 1856
(Hymenopterologische Studien 2 : 38-39) he established his genus Sceptrophorus,
known to him from the male sex only, and designated both Encyrtus sceptriger
Foerster, 1841, and Encyrtus paradoxus Dalman, 1820, as type-species.

8. Mayr, 1875 (Verh. Zool.-Bot. Gesell. Wien 25 : 702) [1876] regarded
Sceptrophorus Foerster as a synonym of ‘“‘Encyrtus Dalman’’. He transferred
(op. cit.: 756) E. paradoxus to the genus Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, 1844, and
described the supposed female and male of E. sceptriger from Foerster’s
material. Mayr’s description of his female of sceptriger (op. cit. : 704) agreed
rather well with Foertser’s description of the male of that species, whereas his
supposed male (op. cit. : 715) was quite different.

9. Ashmead, 1900 (op. cit. : 381) designated Encyrtus sceptriger as type-
species of Sceptrophorus Foerster, which he recognized in the female sex, and
placed in that genus also Psilophrys hyalinipennis Howard, 1885 (=Copidosoma
gelechiae Howard, 1885) and Encyrtus solus Howard, 1885, which has subse-
quently been transferred to the genus Psy/laephagus Ashmead, 1900 (see Peck,
1963, Canad. Entomol. Suppl. 30 : 385), as well as Encyrtus convexus Howard,
1896, the type material of which has since apparently been lost (B. D. Burks,
personal communication). Girault, 1917 (Entomol. News 28 : 256-257)
described a fifth species under the name Spectrophorus marilandicus, which he
compared with so/us. That species is represented by the unique female type
(U.S.N.M.), which is very poorly preserved, unrecognizable and cannot be
placed generically (B. D. Burks, communication). This leaves only sceptriger,
the type-species, in the genus Sceptrophorus Foerster.

10. Mercet, 1922 (Boll. R. Espafi. Hist. Nat. 22 : 296) redescribed Sceptro-
phorus sceptriger from a single specimen he had received from Ruschka from
Germany. He considered the specimen, with characteristic antennae, to be a
female, and noted that all characters agreed with those attributed by Mayr
to the female of E. sceptriger and not to the male of that species. However,
Mercet pointed out that the specimen resembled a male in the shape and point

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of insertion of the antennae and in the truncated abdomen, and concluded
that its true sex could not be ascertained.

11. Ferriére, 1955 (op. cit.) examined material reared by Schmutterer
in Germany from Lecanopsis formicarum Newstead. He concluded that the
specimens corresponding with the descriptions of Mayr and Mercet were males,
as was Foerster’s type of Sceptrophorus sceptriger. The “‘male’’ described by
Mayr apparently belonged to another species, probably of the genus Tricho-
masthus Thomson, 1875 [1876]. The females, which were undoubtedly con-
specific with the males of sceptriger, were found to belong to a species of Micro-
terys, identical with or closely related to M. tessellatus (Dalman, 1820). Thus,
Microterys Thomson was found to be a junior synonym of Sceptrophorus
Foerster. Ferriére, however, did not follow the conclusions of his discovery to
the bitter end. Rather than sink Microterys under Sceptrophorus, he preferred
to use the combination Microterys sceptriger (Foerster).

12. However, Graham, 1958 (Entomol. Tidskr. 79 : 151, 154, 155) referred
to Microterys Thomson as a junior synonym of Sceptrophorus Foerster. De
Santis, 1963 (Encirtidos de la Republica Argentina, Com. Iny. Cient. Prov. Bs.
As. 4 : 181) concurred and formally synonymized Microterys with Sceptrophorus.

13. Most subsequent authors have either ignored that action [e.g. Peck,
1963 (op. cit.); Tachikawa, 1963 (Revisional Studies on the Encyrtidae of Japan
Mem. Ehime Univ. VI 9 : 223-235); Sugonjaev, 1965 (Trud. Nauchno-Issled.
Inst. Zashch. Rast. 9 : 165-174); Azim, 1964 (Mushi 38 : 11-17); Annecke and
Insley, 1971 (Entomol. Mem. S. Afr. Dept. Agric. Tech. Serv. 23 : 18-19); and
others], or followed Ferriére’s precedent in preferring the generic name Micro-
terys Thomson [see Bakkendorf, 1965 (Entomol. Medd. 30 : 151); Trjapitzin,
1968 (Trud. Vsesoyuz Entomol. Obshchest. 52:61), 1971 (Ibid. 54 : 131)).

14. Sinking the generic name Microterys Thomson under Sceptrophorus
Foerster, although logical under the Law of Priority, would be most unfortunate
from the point of view of stability. Although in dispute for some 30 years,
the name Microterys has been in constant use by most chalcidologists for
nearly a century. Over 100 species have been described under that name,
and it has been very widely used in taxonomic, economic and biological litera-
ture. The name Microterys Thomson served for the creation of the tribe
Microteryni and the subtribe Microteryna in the family Encyrtidae (Erdés
and Novicky, 1955, op. cit. : 167). On the other hand, Sceptrophorus Foerster
has remained cryptic and misinterpreted during that long period, has been
known from just a few male specimens of a single species, and has never been
mentioned in the economic literature. Males seldom offer reliable generic
characters in the Encyrtidae.

15. Therefore in the interest of stability of nomenclature, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked to:-

(1) use its plenary powers to supress the generic name Sceptrophorus Foer-
ster, 1856, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the generic name Microterys Thomson, 1875 [1876] (gender :
masculine), type-species Encyrtus sylvius Dalman, 1820, as designated

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111

by Ashmead, 1900, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name sy/vius Dalman, 1820, as published in the
binomen Encyrtus sylvius (type-species of Microterys Thomson, 1875
[1876]), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;
(4) to place the generic name Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DROSOPHILA CARINATA GRIMSHAW, 1901 (INSECTA, DIPTERA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN
ORDER TO PRESERVE DROSOPHILA MERCATORUM
PATTERSON AND WHEELER, 1942. Z.N.(S.) 2035

By H. L. Carson (University of Hawaii), D. E. Hardy (University of Hawaii),
L. H. Throckmorton (University of Chicago), M. Wasserman (City University of
New York) and M. R. Wheeler (University of Texas)

The purpose of this appeal is to forestall an impending confusion in the
literature in the matter of the name of anextensively-studied species of Drosophila.
To this end, the undersigned recommend that the plenary powers of the Commis-
sion be used to suppress the name Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901, and
that it be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology. The reasons for requesting this action are enumerated briefly
below; this is followed by a detailed discussion and bibliography.

The basic facts

1. The specific name D. carinata was published by Grimshaw (1901) with
an accompanying description. Type material consists of a single teneral female
specimen collected in Kona, Island of Hawaii, in 1892.

2. Subsequent to this, this name was not used in the literature for 64
years. Hardy (1965) reports on his examination of the type specimen. He
believed it to be conspecific with Drosophila mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler,
1942.

3. The name D. mercatorum was published at a time when there was a
great intensification of work on Drosophila. The name has subsequently been
used in 52 publications and it actually appears in the titles of 19 of these papers.

4. The name mercatorum has also been used to refer not only to a species
but to an important subgroup containing three species of the rep/eta group of
Drosophila. Although subgroup designations are informal, loss of usage of this
designation would create confusion in referring to these flies.

5. Within D. mercatorum, two subspecies of very wide geographical
distribution have been described. Loss of the name would result in confusion
of nomenclature at this level also.

6. The species concerned belongs to a very difficult and interesting group
of cryptic species, the repleta group of Drosophila. Because of the wide biological
interest generated by this situation, much research has been done with genetic
techniques to clarify the status of these species. This has resulted in a large
literature.

7. In 1962, it was shown that the small amount of facultative partheno-
genesis in this species could be built into a major mode of reproduction by
artificial selection. This has led to a series of papers and the matter continues
to be actively studied at the present time.

8. Because of the fact that no sure way exists to separate pinned specimens
of females of the two subspecies of D. mercatorum from each other or from the
full species, D. repleta or D. paranaensis, considerable question remains as to

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113

the specific identity of the type specimen of D. carinata. We feel that it is
unlikely that this situation can be clarified by further research on this specimen.

Details of the case

The repleta group of the genus Drosophila, subgenus Drosophila consists
of more than 100 species which evolved in American deserts; many breed on
or have an ecological relationship to various cacti (Patterson and Stone 1952).
Wasserman (1963) has summarized data on 46 species; among them are some
of the most remarkable cases of cryptic species known. These have been uncovered
by a long series of hybridization, genetic and chromosomal studies pioneered
by Patterson and Stone and their colleagues at the Univeristy of Texas in
the 1940’s and continuing for the past 30 years.

The extraordinary case of the mercatorum subgroup has been documented
in an extensive series of papers beginning in the 1940’s with work in Brazil
(DeBarros 1946, 1949a, b, c, 1950; Dreyfus 1948, 1949, 1957; Dreyfus and
DeBarros 1947, 1948, 1949; Pereira and Dreyfus 1946) and culminated in the
definitive papers of Wasserman (1954, 1960, 1962, 1963; Wasserman and Wilson
1957). The species name mercatorum has also been employed as a subgroup
designation; it appears in approximately nineteen titles. In some cases, although
the name is not in the title, a large portion of the paper is given over to a discus-
sion of this species, its subspecies and its sibling species (e.g. Wharton 1944).

Briefly, the situation is as follows. Despite past confusion because of the
cryptic nature of the species and subspecies, four entities are now recognised
in the subgroup: (1) D. mercatorum mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942;
type from Santa Barbara, California. This was recognised as the type subspecies
by Patterson and Stone (1952). This subspecies is found in the mountains from
Chile north to California. It has been collected in Rochester, New York and is
abundant in Hawaii. This subspecies has many remarkable characteristics.
As Carson (1956) has pointed out, it seems to be on the way towards the evolu-
tion of an invasive cosmopolitan habit. Furthermore, this subspecies has been
used recently for an extended laboratory study of selection for parthenogenesis
and the study of the origin of sexual isolation (Carson 1962, 1965, 1967a;
Carson, Wei and Niederkorn 1969; Carson and Synder 1972; Doerr 1967,
Henslee 1956, Wei 1968; Ikeda 1971, 1972). This work is in active progress
at the present time. More than ten visible mutants exist; these and a number of
parthenogenetic and wild stocks have been listed annually in Drosophila
Information Service since about 1960. These references are not included in
the bibliography. The species is a superb laboratory organism. The strong
differences in its population structure from those found in D. pseudoobscura,
D. melanogaster or D. robusta and the existence of parthenogenesis seem to
assure that it will continue to be an important organism in future genetic
research.

(2) D. mercatorum pararepleta was originally described as D. pararepleta
by Dobzhansky and Pavan (1943). Following Wharton’s (1944) studies, it was
recognized as a subspecies of D. mercatorum. D. m. pararepleta is a chromo-
somally highly polymorphic subspecies found in the tropical lowlands from
southern Brazil to Colombia. It crosses easily with the much more widespread,

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

essentially monomorphic subspecies D. m. mercatorum, producing fertile
offspring.

(3) DeBarros (1950) described D. paranaensis from Brazil. Dissection of the
penis of the males (Wasserman, 1962) is the only satisfactory way known to
separate this species morphologically from either subspecies of D. mercatorum.
Wasserman (1962) shows that D. paranaensis is widespread in tropical America
as far north as Mexico. Hybrids with D. mercatorum are partially inviable and
wholly sterile in both sexes.

(4) Carson (1967b) found that the extraordinary Drosophila parasite of land
crabs in the West Indies, carcinophila Wheeler also belongs to the mercatorum
subgroup: it is chromosomally more primitive than the other two species.
This has led to further great biological interest in the mercatorum subgroup.

The difficulties posed by routine taxonomic treatment of the rep/eta group
in general and these species in particular are illustrated in microcosm by the
situation in the Hawaiian islands. Three species of the rep/eta group, D. hydei
Sturtevant, D. repleta Wollaston and the subject of this appeal, D. mercatorum
Patterson and Wheeler are known from Hawaii (Hardy 1965). D. hydei is
fairly easy to distinguish morphologically. The critical problem involves the
great similarity of D. mercatorum and D. repleta. The former usually keys to
D. repleta and females of these two species and of D. paranaensis DeBarros are
virtually indistinguishable. Hardy (1965: 204) discovered the apparent
synonymy which has prompted this appeal. Examination of the type of D.
carinata Grimshaw (a teneral female specimen) in the British Museum led him
to conclude that it was conspecific with D. mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler,
1942. In discussing the situation, however, he states: “This species is closely
related to D. repleta Wollaston and I find no really satisfactory morphological
characters for separating the Hawaiian specimens’. There follows a paragraph
detailing his studies but he nevertheless concludes that the specimen is not
D. repleta.

The difficulties described by Hardy with the Hawaiian specimens have
been widely encountered by all workers in the rep/eta group. The identification
by morphological means of females, either in pinned or living condition,
remains an essentially unsolved taxonomic problem. If offspring can be obtained
from a female, the species of the mother can ordinarily be determined by the
characteristics of her sons. Lacking this possibility, however, a single pinned
female from Hawaii might be D. repleta, D. mercatorum (of either subspecies)
D. paranaensis or, indeed a previously undescribed species.

Even if future studies on the type specimen of D. carinata were to prove
it to be synonymous with D. mercatorum, we appeal for suppression of the name.
The grounds are that a complicated literature of over 50 titles would be thrown
into confusion, as the name is employed for a subspecies, a species and a species
subgroup. This literature is international in scope and has largely been devoted
to the clarification of this extraordinarily complex and challenging biological
situation. Action by the Commission would appear to be justified under the
International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature; especially in view of the text
of Article 79(b); Suppression of unused senior synonyms. Revisions in this

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115

Article were ratified by the 17th International Congress of Zoology in September,
1972 (see Corliss, J. O. 1972 Science 178 : 1120).

Stocks of D. mercatorum are now in use at the University of Minnesota
(Carolyn Doerr), the University of Chicago at Chicago Circle (Irene Wei), the
University of Michagan (Alan Templeton and C. F. Sing), the University of
Hawaii (H. L. Carson) and Tokyo Metropolitan University (H. Ikeda). Active
research programmes are under way in all of these laboratories.

The International Commission is therefore requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name carinata Grimshaw,
1901, as published in the binomen Drosophila carinata, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the specific name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brncic, D. 1957. Las Especies Chilenas de Drosophilidae. Santiago, Chile;
Imprensa Stanley. 136 pp. D. mercatorum is listed

Carson, H. L. 1959. Genetic Conditions which promote or retard the Formation
of Species. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 24: 87-105. Discussion of
repleta group, uses the name D. mercatorum

— 1962. Selection for parthenogenesis in Drosophila mercatorum. Genetics
47 : 946

— 1965. Chromosomal Morphism in Geographically Widespread Species of
Drosophila in the Genetics of Colonizing Species. Ed. H. G. Baker and G. L.
Stebbins. New York: Academic Press. 173-192. Cites D. mercatorum and
gives distribution map for D. m. mercatorum and discusses its tendency to
become cosmopolitan

— 1967a. Selection for parthenogenesis in Drosophila mercatorum. Genetics
55 : 175-171

— 1967b. The Association between Drosophila carcinophila Wheeler and its
Host, the land crab Gecarcinus ruricola (L). Amer. Midl. Na‘. 78 : 324-343.
Crab fly is described as a member of the mercatorum subgroup

Carson, H. L., Wel, I. Y. and NiEDERKORN, J. A. Jr. 1969. Isogenicity in partheno-
genetic strains of Drosophila mercatorum, Genetics 63 : 619-628

Carson, H. L. 1971. The ecology of Drosophila breeding sites. University of
Hawaii. Honolulu: Harold L. Lyon Arboretum Lecture No. 2: 1-27. The
crab fly, D. carcinophila Wheeler is discussed as a member of the mercatorum
subgroup

Carson, H. L.and Snyper,S.H. 1972. Screening for induced mutation by partheno-
genesis in Drosophilia mercatorum. Egyptian Jour. Gen. Cytol. 1 : 256-261

CLayTon, F. E. and Warp, C. L. 1954. Chromosomal studies of several species of
Drosophilidae. Univ. Texas Pub. 5422 : 98-105. Information on members
of the mercatorum subgroup

CLAYTON, F. E. and WASSERMAN, M. 1957. Chromosomal studies of several species
of Drosophila. Univ. Texas Pub. 5721 : 125-131. Deals with D. mercatorum
and D. paranaensis

DeBarros, R. 1946. Especiacgao no sub-grup mercatorum. Gaz. Clin. (S. Paulo)
45 : 61-62

— 1949a. Um-caso de alteracao na proforcgdo entre os sexos, em D. mercatorum
pararepleta. Cienc. e Cultura, 1 : 107-110

— 1949b. Aberragdes cromosOmicas em ‘D. mercatorum pararepleta’. 1. Aneu-
ploides expontaneos. Rey. Brasil Biol. 9 : 365-376

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DeEBARROS, R. 1949c. Aberragdes cromosOmicas em ‘D. mercatorum pararepleta’.
II. Uma longa duplicagéo expontanea adjacente e invertida no cromosoma X.
Rey. Brasil. Biol. 9 : 463-466

—— 1950. A new species of the genus Drosophila, with discussion about speciation
in the mercatorum subgroup. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 10 : 265-278. Describes
D. paranaensis

DoBZHANSKY, TH. and PAVAN, C. 1943. Studies on Brazilian Species of Drosophila.
Bol. Fac. Fil. Cién. e Letr. U. Sao Paulo 36 : 7-72. D. mercatorum is discussed
as D. pararepleta

Doerr, C. A. 1967. Artificial selection for sexual isolation within a species.
M.A. Thesis. Washington University St. Louis, pp. 32. Experimental work
done entirely with D. mercatorum

Dreyfus, A. 1948. Analysis of sexual isolation between D. paranaensis females and
D.pararepletamales. Heredity2:278. Note: D.pararepleta was later described
as D. mercatorum pararepleta.

—— 1949. Analysis of sexual isolation between D. paranaensis and D. pararepleta.
Proc. 8th Int. Congr. Genet. 1948 [Stockh]. Lund: issued as a supplementary
volume of Hereditas, 1949 pp. 564-565. D. pararepleta later became D.
mercatorum pararepleta

—— 1957. Isolating mechanisms in the “‘mercatorum” subgroup of ‘Drosophila’.
I. Sexual preference and sexual isolation. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 17 : 159-167

Dreyrus, A. and DeBarRos, R. 1947. Proporgao dos sexos (sex-ratio) no subgrupo
‘mercatorum (género D.) Gaz. clin (S. Paulo) 45 : 58-61

—— 1948. Mutations chromosomiques chez les hybrides de D. mercatorum
pararepleta x D. paranaensis. S. Paulo med. 21 : 11-18

—— 1949. Sex-ratios chez certains hybrides interspécifiques de D. et son interpréta-
tion par l’analyse des chromosomes salivaires. Ric. sci. 19 : 94-104. D.
mercatorum subgroup hybrids

GrimsHAw, P. H. 1901. Fauna Hawaiiensis 3 (1) : 51-73. One specimen collected
in Kona Hawaii in 1892 was described as D. carinata

Hsu, T. C. 1949. The external genital apparatus of male Drosophilidae in
relation to systematics. Univ. Texas Publ. 4920 : 80-142. Plate XII. Figure 6
shows male genitalia of D. mercatorum

HeENSLEE, E. C. 1965. Sexual isolation in a parthenogenetic strain of Drosophila
mercatorum. Amer. Nat. 100 : 191-197

Harpy, D. E. 1965. Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 12. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha I,
Series Schizophora, Section Acalypterae I. Family Drosophilidae. Honolulu:
Univ. Hawaii Press. 814 pp.

IkepA, H. 1971. Sexual behaviour in Drosophila. 1. Multiple copulation in
Drosophila mercatorum. Jap. Jour, Genetics 46 : 419

—— 1972. Sexual behaviour in Drosophila. I. Mating competition between two
strains of Drosophila mercatorum. Jap. Jour. Genetics 47 : 348

PATTERSON, J. T. 1943. The Drosophilidae of the Southwest. Univ. Texas Bull.
4313 : 7-203. There are 17 page references to D. mercatorum in the index.
The species is figured in Color Plate V; a distribution map is given as well as col-
lecting records in tables.

PATTERSON, J. T. and Stone, W. S. 1952. Evolution in the genus Drosophila 610 pp.
New York: Macmillan Co. Thereare31pagereferencesto D.m. mercatorumand
D. m. pararepleta listed in the text. Pages 425-27 are devoted to the subgroup
and there are two tables and one figure dealing with them

PATTERSON, J. T. and WAGNER, R. P. 1943. Geographical description of species of
the Genus Drosophila in the United States and Mexico. Univ. Texas Publ.
4313 : 217-281. Distributional information on D. mercatorum

PATTERSON, J. T. and WHEELER, M. R. 1942. Description of new species of the sub-
genera Hirtodrosophila and Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ. 4213 : 67-109.
Contains description of D. mercatorum on ppl. 93-94

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117

Pereira, E. N. and Dreyfus, A. 1946. Isolamento sexual no sub-grupo mercatorum.
Gaz. clin [S. Paulo]. 45 : 54-57. Experiéncias sObre isolamento sexual no
sub-grupo mercatorum (género Drosophila)

Pipkin, S. B. 1956. Sex ratios in wild population of Drosophila. Genetics 41 : 656.
Mentions mercatorum subgroup

Prevosti, A. 1953. Two newly introduced species of Drosophila found in Europe.
D.I.S.27:110. Records D. mercatorum from Spain.

Stone, W. S. 1955. Genetic and chromosomal variability in Drosophila. Cold
Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 20 : 256-270. Includes information on
D. mercatorum

StTuRTEVANT, A. H. 1921. The North American Species of Drosophila. Carnegie
Inst. Wash. Publ. 301 : 150 pp. Méisidentifies D. mulleri in Hawaii, supp.
126-127

THROCKMORTON, L. H. 1962. The problem of phylogeny in the genus Drosophila.
Univ. Texas Publ. 6205 : 207-343. Figures and discussion using the name
D. mercatorum

Warp, C. L. 1949. Karyotype variation in Drosophila. Univ. Texas Pub. 4920 : 70-
79. Contains information on D. mercatorum

WASSERMAN, M. 1954. Cytological studies of the repleta group. Univ. Texas Publ.
5422 : 130-152. Extensive information on D. mercatorum

— 1960. Cytological and phylogenetic relationships in the repleta group of the
genus Drosophila. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 46 : 842-859. Contains information
on D. mercatorum

— 1962. Cytological Studies of the repleta Group of the Genus Drosophila:
Ill. The Mercatorum Subgroup. Univ. Texas Publ. 6205 : 63-71. A thorough
treatment of the mercatorum subgroup of species

— 1963. Cytology and phylogeny of Drosophila. Amer. Nat. 97 : 333-352.
Elaborate phylogeny includes mercatorum subgroup

WASSERMAN, M. and Witson, F. D. 1957. Further Studies on the repleta group.
Univ. Texas Publ. 5721 : 132-156. Considerable discussion of subgroup
mercatorum (5 pages of material)

Wel, Y. 1968. Mode of inheritance and sexual behaviour in the parthenogenetic
strains of Drosophila mercatorum. M.S. Thesis Washington University.
St. Louis, Missouri. pp. 63

Wuarton, L. T. 1943. Analysis of the metaphase and salivary chromosome
morphology within the genus Drosophila. Univ. Texas Bull. 4313 : 282-319.
Chromosomes of D. mercatorum described

WuartTon, L.T. 1942. Ananalysis of the repleta group of Drosophila. Univ. Texas
Bull. 4228 : 23-52. Information on D. mercatorum

— 1944. Interspecific hybridization in the repleta group. Univ. Texas Publ.
4445 : 175-193. This paper deals mostly with the mercatorum—pararepleta
situation

WHEELER, M. R. 1949, The insemination reaction in intraspecific matings of
Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ. 4920 : 143-156. Includes information on
D. mercatorum

— 1960. A new genus and two new species of Neotropical flies (Diptera: Droso-
philidae). Ent. News. 71 : 207-213. Describes D. carcinophila

WHEELER, M. R. and HAMILTON, N. 1972. Catalog of Drosophila species names
1959-1971. Univ. Texas Publ. 7213 : 257-268. D. mercatorum is listed as a
synonym of D. carinata

ZIMMERMAN, E. 1943. Immigrant species of Drosophila in Hawaii (Diptera:
Drosophilidae). Proc. Haw. Ent. Soc. 11 : 345-350. Specimen obtained in
Hawaii later referred to D. mercatorum

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HYDROPHORUS FALLEN, 1823 (INSECTA, DIPTERA,
DOLICHOPODIDAE): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE DESIGNATION BY MACQUART,
1827 OF H. JACULUS FALLEN AS TYPE OF THE GENUS IN
FAVOUR OF H. NEBULOSUS FALLEN IN ORDER TO CONSERVE
CONSISTENT USAGE. Z.N.(S.) 2036

By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington D.C., USA 20560), Harold Robinson (U.S.
National Museum, Washington D.C., USA 20560), Hans Ulrich (Zoologisches
Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, Bonn, Germany) and Richard L.
Hurley (Humboldt State College, Arcata, California, USA 95521)

The genus Hydrophorus was erected by Fallén, 1823 : 2 with the following
species included and without designation of a type-species:

1. H. regius (Fabricus) (Dolichopus); 2. H. binotatus Fallén; 3. H. litoreus
Fallén; 4. H. nebulosus Fallen (page 3); 5. H. armiger Fallén; 6. H. rostratus
(Fabricius) (Musca); 7. H. jaculus Fallén.

2. There is general agreement (Coquillett, 1910 : 554; Collin, 1940 : 268;
Hardy and Kohn, 1964 : 254; Foote, Coulson, and Robinson, 1965 : 504;
Hurley, 1965: 7; Robinson, 1970b: 56), insofar as workers have even considered
the question of the type-species, that the first valid designation of a type-species
of Hydrophorus was by Macquart (1827a : 249; 1827b : 37) in the statement
“L’Hydrophore jaculus, qui est le type du genre...”

3. There is a case of misidentification in this type selection. Macquart
divided the large and heterogeneous group known as Hydrophorus by Fallén
and as “Medeterus Fisch.’ by Meigen into two parts (the spelling Medeterus
is either an error or an unjustified emendation). Macquart used the two
available names for the two parts, but he defined ‘““Medeterus” (instead of
Hydrophorus) as having the “‘style des antennes dorsal” and used other characters
which are not those of Medetera carnivora Fischer, 1819, the monotypical
type of the genus Medetera Fischer, 1819. It is now recognized that Medetera
carnivora Fischer (not mentioned by Macquart) and Musca rostrata Fabricius,
1775 (cited by Macquart as ‘‘Medeterus rostratus Fischer, Meigen’’) are synonyms
of Medetera diadema (Linnaeus, 1767) [Musca]. Medetera diadema has an
apical arista (see Lundbeck, 1912 : 329, fig. 102). AHydrophorus jaculus, now
placed in Medetera, also has an apical arista (see Kowarz, 1877 : pl. 2, fig. 4)
and clearly cannot have been the species so identified by Macquart. This
error was already noted by Kowarz, 1877 : 39): ‘“‘Macquart... schliess sich
wesentlich den Anschauungen Meigen’s an, zerlegte aber Medeterus Mg. in
zwei Gattungen und wihlte fiir die Arten mit apicaler Fihlerborste irrthiimlich
den Gattungsnamen Hydrophorus und fiir jene mit dorsaler Fiihlerborste den
Gattungsnamen Medeterus’’.

4. Wahlberg (1844 : 110), disregarding Macquart’s action, was apparently
the first to use Hydrophorus in the sense in which it is now used. His concept
was followed by Haliday, 1851; Rondani, 1856; and Loew, 1857. Since the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zowlogical Nomenclature 119

time of Loew, the concept has been generally accepted and a voluminous
literature has accumulated pertaining to Hydrophorus in that sense. Only
Coquillett (1910 : 554) drew the strictly interpreted conclusions from Macquart’s
type designation that Hydrophorus is a junior synonym of Medetera Fischer and
that Hydrophorus of authors should be called Aphrozeta Perris, 1849-1850.

5. If Macquart’s type designation and, by consequence, Coquillett’s
procedure be accepted, an old-established name of a large and world-wide
genus, Hydrophorus of authors, would have to be discarded and replaced by
an unknown name, which, apart from its author (Perris) and Coquillett, was
never used. Furthermore, it would be necessary to change the name of the
subfamily typified by the genus. The subfamily Hydrophorinae Lioy, 1864
(as Hydrophoriti) or Schiner, 1864 (as Hydrophorinae) is still in common use
(Robinson, 1970a, 1970b) as the name of a sharply defined subfamily containing
more than ten genera, and one distinct from the equally commonly used
Medeterinae Lioy, 1864 (as Medeteriti).

6. Inasmuch as the concept of Hydrophorus has consistently and for so
long a time been such as to include only the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of the originally
included species (H. binotatus, H. litoreus, H. nebulosus), we believe that it is in
the interest of taxonomic clarity and continuity to suppress Macquart’s type
designation as being based upon a misidentification and to select a type-species
from one of these three according to the provisions of article 70a of the Code.
We therefore proposed that NV. nebulosus be designated type-species because out
of these three species it is the one most easily recognized, one that represents
well the traditional concept of the genus, and one that has never been in taxonomic
confusion with any other species.

7. Therefore, in the interests of stability in nomenclature, the Commission
is requested :

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
the genus Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 made prior to the ruling now
requested, and having done so, to designate Hydrophorus nebulosus
Fallén, 1823, as the type-species of the said genus;

(2) to place the generic name Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (gender : masculine),
type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823, on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name nebulosus Fallén, 1823, as published in the
binomen Hydrophorus nebulosus (type-species of Hydrophorus Fallen,
1823) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and

(4) to place the subfamily name Hydrophorinae Lioy, 1864 or Schiner.
1864 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES
CoLiin, J. E. 1940. Critical notes on some recent synonymy affecting British species
of Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Ent. monthly Mag. 76 : 261-271
CoquiLLeTT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera.
Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 (no. 1719): 499-647
Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. 823 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae
FALLEN, C. F. 1823. Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae. 22 pp., Lundae

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

FiscHER [DE WALDHEIM], G. 1819. Notice sur une mouche carnivore, nommé
Medetére. Progr. Soc. imp. Natural, (Moscou) 15 Dec. 1819: 5-11, 1 pl.

Foote, R. H., Coutson, J. R. and Ropinson, H. 1965. Family Dolichopodidae
(Dolichopidae). Jn Stone, A., et al., A catalog of the Diptera of America north
of Mexico. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., Agr. Handbook no. 276

Hauipay, A. H. 1851. Family XXI. Dolichopidae. Jn Walker, F., et al., Insecta
Britannica. Vol. 1 (=Diptera, Vol. 1): 144-221

Harpy, D. E. and Konn, M. A. 1964. Family Dolichopodidae. Jn Zimmerman,
E. C., Insects of Hawaii, Vol. 11: 1-5, 10, 12-257, 421-422. Honolulu

Hur.ey, R. L. 1965. A revision of the nearctic species of Hydrophorus (Diptera,
Dolichopodidae). 187 pp., Ann Arbor: University Microfilms no. 65-7114

Kowarz, F. 1877. Die Dipteren-Gattung Medeterus Fischer. Verhandl. KK.
zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 27 : 39-76, pl. 2

LINNAEUS, C. 1767. Systemae naturae per regna tria naturae. Ed. 12 (rev.), Vol. 1,
Pt. 2 : 533-1327. Holmiae

Lioy, P. 1864. I Ditteri distribuiti secondo un nuovo metodo di classificazione
naturale. Dispensa sesta. Ati Ist. Veneto di Sci., Lett. ed Arti (ser. 3) 9:
719-771. This part contains transactions of a meeting of 20 April 1864

Loew, H. 1857. Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Ster Beitrag. Progr.
K. Realsch. Mereritz 1857 : 1-56

LuNpBECK, W. 1912. Diptera Danica, Part IV. Dolichopodidae. 416 pp.
Copenhagen

Macquart, J. 1827a. Insectes Diptéres du nord de la France. Platypézines, etc.
Rec. Trav. Soc. Sci. Agr. Arts Lille 1826/1827 : 213-291, 1 pl.

— 1827b. Idem. Vol. 3: 159 pp., 4 pls. Lille.

MEIGEN, J. W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifliigeligen Insekten. Vol. 4, xii + 428 pp., pls. 33-41. Hamm.

Perris, E. 1849 or 1850. Lettre de M. Edouard Perris 4 M.*** sur une excursion
dans les grandes Landes. Mém. Acad. Sci. Lyon. 2 : 433-506

Rosinson, H. 1970a. The subfamilies of the family Dolichopodidae in North and
South America (Diptera). Papéis Avulsos de Zool., S. Paulo 23 : 53-62

— 1970b. Family Dolichopodidae (Dolichopidae). Jn Vanzolini, E. P., and
PAPAVERO, N. A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United
States. Dept. Zool. Secr. Agr., S. Paulo, fasc. 40 : 1-92

RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Vol. 1, 228 pp. Parmae

Scuiner, J. R. 1864. Catalogus systematicus dipterorum Europae. xii + 115 pp.
Wien. With “Vorrede” dated “Mai 1864” a

WAHLBERG, P. F. 1844. Nya Diptera fran Norbotten och Lulea Lappmark. Ofvers.
Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. (Stockholm) 1: 106-110

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121

OSCINELLA BECKER, 1909: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF
TYPE-SPECIES, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (DIPTERA,
CHLOROPIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2037

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)

Between 1910 and 1912, Theodor Becker, great German Dipterist, published
a world revision of the dipterous family Chloropidae in a series of monographs
of the various faunal regions. The first (March 15, 1910) covered the Palae-
arctic Region, and in this he proposed the generic name Oscinella for a large
group of small and predominantly black grass flies hitherto known as Oscinis
Latreille (1804). Oscinis technically could not be used because its earliest
valid type designation made it a synonym of Chlorops Meigen (1803), which con-
tains larger, usually yellow and black striped species in a different subfamily
than Oscinella. The genus Oscinella, obviously polyphyletic, has been divided
in recent years, but the name Oscinella has always been retained for O. frit
(Linnaeus), the European frit fly, and its congeners. The literature on that
one species alone, O. frit, is extensive because of its considerable damage to
cereals, especially in the Palaearctic Region.

2. Aldrich (1929 : 91) designated O. frit as type-species in line with com-
mon usage. Unfortunately, he overlooked the fact that only a few months
before Becker’s important monograph on the Palaearctic Chloropidae, the name
Oscinella appeared in a short paper on the results of an expedition to Ethiopia
and East Africa (Becker, 1909). It appeared in the heading of a brief descrip-
tion as “Oscinella deficiens nov. sp. [Oscinis olim]’’. The genus was not diag-
nosed or described, and not even marked as new, as if the author assumed—as he
no doubt did—that his monograph would appear first. Under the Rules of that
day, however, Oscinella was at that point an available name by indication, and
O. deficiens was fixed as its type-species. Aldrich recognized this soon after
his designation of frit, and published a correction in 1930, but the change
caused no difficulty for him and many others because they still used Oscinella
in a broad sense that encompassed both frit and deficiens.

3. Duda, beginning in 1929 a series of papers on Chloropidae, proceeded
to divide Oscinella, and his groups (Conioscinella, Tropidoscinis, etc.) have
been accepted throughout the world, but he continued to base Oscinella s. str.
on frit. The extensive economic literature naturally continued to use Oscinella
for the frit fly and its relatives.

4. The writer early recognized (1941) that the type-species of Oscinella
was O. deficiens Becker, but the point did not cause difficulty because at that
period he continued to use Oscinella in a broad sense, following Aldrich and
Malloch, and because O. deficiens was an African species and not yet within his
purview.

5. The identity of Oscinella deficiens is unknown. On several occasions,
both by letter and in person, the writer has searched for the holotype without
success in the collection of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Some years ago, about 1948, Professor Séguy stated that the type had then been
lost for some time. There is thus no way to be sure to what genus it belongs,
but one can be certain from items in the brief description (“grisea, opaca”’, and
“triangulo deficiente’’) that it does not belong in Oscinella as interpreted by
Oscinella frit, i.e., frontal triangle distinct and polished black. Possibly it
belongs in Duda’s genus Conioscinella.
6. If the type-species of Oscinella were to be maintained as O. deficiens,
then the generic name Oscinella would be based on a species dubia, and, if
one were to make the assumption mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it
would be transferred to the genus now widely known as Conioscinella Duda
(1929). The latter has had some usage in all faunal regions, but chiefly in
taxonomic and faunistic works. By itself, it has no great claim to conservation,
but a change of meaning of Oscinella would carry with it seeds of confusion.
7. As far as I know, there is only one name available to replace Oscinella
for the frit group and associated species: Paroscinella Becker (1913), originally
published as a subgenus of Oscinella for a small group of species that may not be
congeneric or even consubgeneric with frit. With one exception in 1914,
that name has never been used except in nomenclators and in my list of type-
species of genus-group names in Chloropidae (1941). It is not presently
accepted as a subgenus of Oscinella.
8. Becker based a new subfamily name Oscinellinae on Oscinella, and that
has continued in use to the present time. Presumably this would not be affected
by any change because Oscinella in either meaning would be a member of the
same subfamily group.
9. In summary, maintenance of Musca frit as type-species of Oscinella
would maintain continuity in the use of Oscinella in the extensive literature
of applied entomology, avoid the confusion of change of meaning of Oscinella
from the frit group to a generically different group of species, and avoid the
weak and potentially dangerous situation of basing Oscinella on what is, presently
at least, a species dubia. For these reasons, the Commission is requested:
(1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress all previous type fixations
for Oscinella Becker, 1909, and to designate Musca frit Linnaeus,
1758, as type-species ;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
name Oscinella Becker, 1909 (gender: feminine), type-species Musca
frit Linnaeus, 1758, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)
above; and

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology frit Linnaeus,

1758, as published in the binomen Musca frit (type-species of Oscinella
Becker, 1909).

LITERATURE CITED
ALpRICH, J. M. 1929. Three new acalyptrate Diptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 31 :
89-91 (Oscinella, p. 91)
— 1930. Notes on the synonymy of Diptera, No. 4. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 32 :
25-28 (Oscinella, p. 28)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123

BECKER, TH. 1909. Collections recueillies par M. Maurice de Rothschild dans
l'Afrique orientale anglaise. Insectes: Diptéres nouveaux. Bull. Mus. Natl.
d’Hist. Nat. (Paris) 15 (3) : 113-121. (O. deficiens, p. 120)

— 1910. Chloropidae. Eine monographische Studie, I. Teil. Palaarktiches
Region. Archivum Zoologicum (Budapest) 1 : 33-174

SaBrosky, C. W. 1941. An annotated list of genotypes of the Chloropidae of the
world. Amn. Ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 735-765

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

LEUCOSPIS GIGAS FABRICIUS (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA,
LEUCOSPIDAE) PROPOSED TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL
LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY _ Z.N.(S.)2038

By Z. Bouéek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London)

Tourette’s summary of his French illustrated description of a Leucospid
species (1780 : 746) reads “‘Cinips (lugdunaea) nigra, maculis luteis notata,
Ffemoribus ...”’ but he failed to give it a clearly binominal name. This seems
to have been evident already to Villers (1789 : 261) and to Gmelin (1790 : 2653),
who proposed Leucospis gallica Villers and Cynipslugdunaea Gmelin, respectively,
for Tourette’s species. Another name, Leucospis gigas, was eventually proposed
by Fabricius (1793 : 245), although he at the same time referred to Villers’
publication, while the Gmelin paper was probably not known to him or somehow
escaped his attention. From the way in which Fabricius quotes Villers’ descrip-
tion it can be assumed that even in this case he had only some second-hand
information or simply disregarded its validity. In any case, probably due to
Fabricius’ authority, his name gigas has been in use ever since, while L. gallica
Villers and L. /ugdunaea (Gmelin) were forgotten and since 1790 not used
except in synonymy. Tourette’s paper is very rare and so the reviser of the
group, Schletterer (1890), could not check it and probably assumed from
Fabricius’ action that Tourette also used the name gigas, as may be seen from
his citation in the synonymy (1890 : 203). This certainly contributed to the
removal of any doubt about the validity of the name in subsequent years.

I came across this problem when preparing a revision of the world species
of the group. The purpose of my proposal is to maintain a name which has
been in current use for 180 years, but the usage of which could be upset by a
strict application of the Law of Priority.

The International Commission is therefore requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ;

(a) gallica Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Leucospis gallica;
(b) Jugdunaea Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cynips
lugdunaea;

(2) to place the specific name gigas Fabricius, 1793, as published in the
binomen Leucospis gigas, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;

(3) to place the specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology.

There are more than thirty papers in which the name Leucospis gigas F.
has been used during the last fifty years (while the other two names have not
been used at all), out of which I selected the following ten to satisfy the provisions
of the Code:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125

Berland, L., 1934a, Revue fr. Ent. 1 : 66-68

—— 1934b, Bull Soc. zool. Fr. 59 : 172-175

Bouéek, Z., 1959, Acta ent. Mus. natn. Pragae 33 : 438, 442-443

Bytinski-Salz, H., 1963, Acta ent. Mus. natn. Pragae 35 : 527-530

Ceballos, G., 1941-1943, Las tribus de los Himenopteros de Espafia. Madrid.
(p. 180)

Grandi, G., 1951, Introduzione allo studio della Entomologia. 2. Bologna (p.
1033)

Grassé, P. P., 1951, Traité de Zoologie. 10, 1 : 933, 944

Giinther, K. and others, 1968, Jnsekten, Urania Tierreich. (p. 320)

Nikolskaja, M. N., 1952, Opred. Faune SSSR, 44 : 79

— 1960, Fauna SSSR. Hymenoptera, 7, 5 : 197, 204-207

OTHER REFERENCES

Fasricius, J. C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica. 2. viii + 519 pp. Copenhagen
and Kiel

GmeLIN, J. F. 1970. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. | (5): 2225-3020. Leipzig

SCHLETTERER, A. 1890. Die Gruppe der Hymenopteren-Gattungen Leucospis Fab.,
Polistomorpha Westw. und Marres Walk. Berl. ent. Z. 35 : 141-302, pls. 5-6

TOURETTE, DELA. 1780. Mémoire sur une nouvelle espéce de mouche, du genre des
Cinips, trouvée dans l’enceinte de la Ville de Lyon. Mém. Mathem. Phys. 9 :
730-746, pl. 1

Vitters, C. DE. 1789. Caroli Linnaei Entomologia. 3. 657 pp., pl 8. Lyon

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

MADIZA FALLEN, 1810 (DIPTERA, MILICHIIDAE): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2040

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural
Research Service, USDA‘)

The dipterous genus Madiza was briefly diagnosed by Fallén (1810 : 19)
based on three unnamed species (“‘Sp. Sv. 3’ = Species Sveciae 3). In 1820,
Fallen described the genus with five new species: /aevigata, oscinina, glabra,
pinguis, and sordida, in that order, with no clue as to which were the original
three. No type-species was fixed. The first two species are now in the family
CHLOROPIDAE, the third and fifth in MILICHIIDAE, and the fourth in AGROMYZIDAE.
Strictly interpreted, Madiza is a chloropid, but through a combination of
circumstances, overwhelming usage has long considered it a milichiid. The
purpose of this application is to request that its milichiid placement be confirmed
by designation, under the plenary powers, of Madiza glabra Fallen as the
type-species.

2. Macquart (1835 : 584) proposed a new genus Siphonella for three new
species and Madiza oscinina Fallen, which he designated as the type-species,
and this genus is universally accepted in the CHLOROPIDAE. Rondani (1856 :
128), surely not in ignorance of Macquart’s proposal, designated M. oscinina
as the type-species of Madiza, and this is, unfortunately, the earliest valid
designation of a type-species for Madiza. It was accepted as such by Coquillett
(1910), Malloch (1913), and a few other chiefly American authors, and it is the
basis for the slight amount of usage of Madiza in the CHLOROPIDAE. On the
other hand, Hendel (1903 : 251, 1910 : 307) concluded on the basis of his
principle of elimination that M. glabra was the type-species and that the name
Madiza belonged in the family miLicumpDAE (““Madiza Fall. 1810. Von den drei
Arten wurden zwei durch Siphonella Macqu. 1835 absorbient, so dass der
Fallensche Name fiir M. glabra zu gelten hat.””—Hendel, 1910 : 307).

3. In 1941 I published ‘An annotated list of genotypes of the Chloropidae
of the world,” in which I concluded that ““Madiza and Siphonella are isogeno-
typic and therefore absolute synonyms”’ because the oldest valid type designa-
tions for those nominal genera had picked M. oscinina Fallén, a chloropid.
Because Madiza was consistently used in Europe as a milichiid, I published a
short explanation of my conclusion in an English journal, and this led to a
mutually unconvincing exchange with J. E. Collin (Sabrosky, 1942, 1943;
Collin, 1942, 1943). Collin argued that oscinina was not one of the three
unnamed species upon which Fallén founded the genus in 1810, that it was
obvious that the 1820 description was expanded “to include the newly dis-
covered species oscinina’’, and, based on his particular interpretation of Opinion
46, that oscinina could not be the type-species of Madiza because “‘it does not
agree with the original generic publication”, and that therefore Rondani’s

'Mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127

designation of oscinina was invalid and Hendel’s selection of glabra must be
accepted. Incidentally, in the face of Collin’s stout contention that oscinina
was not one of the three original but then unnamed species, study of the Fallén
Collection in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum in Stockholm in 1953 revealed
an interesting bit of evidence. Under Madiza, the name labels for the first
three species, /aevigata, oscinina, and glabra in the same sequence as published,
are on the same kind of paper with the same now pale ink. The last two
species, pinguis and sordida, are on a different kind of paper and in blacker ink.
This bears out my belief that oscinina was indeed one of the original three
species. Fallén must have added the last two between 1810 and 1820.

4. Nevertheless, regardless of the merits of the arguments of Sabrosky
and Collin, the question of whether oscinina did or did not come under the
original generic description is nomenclaturally irrelevant, and certainly so now
that Opinion 46 has been cancelled and the new Code has more precise rules
for genera proposed without species included by name. The case of Madiza
falls under Article 69a(ii) of the Code: “If no nominal species were included
at the time the genus was established, the nominal species-group taxa that
were first subsequently and expressly referred to it are to be treated as the only
originally included species’. Item (3) under that subsection specifies that
“If two or more nominal species were simultaneously referred to a nominal
genus, all are equally eligible for subsequent type-designation”. Hence the
five species described by Fallén (1820) are to be treated as the originally included
species. The first valid designation of an originally included species was that
of Rondani (1856), who chose oscinina. Under the code, therefore, Madiza
belongs in the family CHLOROPIDAE.

5. Taxonomists in general had not accepted Madiza as a chloropid,
however, partly because Macquart had established the genus Siphonella for
oscinina, and this was widely accepted, and partly, in this country, because of
the prestige of Hendel and the acceptance of his conclusion that glabra was
the real type of Madiza. With few exceptions, Madiza has been used for an
extremely common genus in the family MILICHIIDAE. It has been used, for
example in such general and influential works as Lindner’s “Die Fliegen der
palaarktischen Region” (Milichiidae by W. Hennig, 1937), the Faune de France
(Milichiidae by Seguy, 1934), faunal series in the USSR, and Kloet and Hincks’
“Check List of British Insects (1945)”. In‘*A Catalog of the Diptera of America
North of Mexico” (1965), I adopted Madiza in the MILICHUDAE in the interests of
stability and universality, but with a note that Suspension of the Rules would
be required. This same course is being followed in catalogues of Diptera of the
Neotropical, Oriental and Ethiopian Regions now in preparation.

6. Madiza in the MILICHIIDAE has been the basis of the subfamily name
MADIZINAE Czerny (1909 : 278) one of the two subfamilies into which the
family is customarily divided (or three if one includes the CARNINAE).

7. Accordingly, the Commission is requested

(1) to excercise its plenary powers to suppress all previous type fixations

for Madiza Fallen, 1810, and to designate Madiza glabra Fallen, 1820,
as type-species;

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
Madiza Fallén, 1810 (gender : feminine), type-species Madiza glabra
Fallén, 1820, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology glabra Fallén,
1820, as published in the binomen Madiza glabra Fallén (type-species
of Madiza Fallen, 1810); and

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology
MADIZINAE Czerny, 1909 (type-genus Madiza Fallen, 1810).

LITERATURE CITED
CoLun, J. E. 1942. Entomologist’s Mon. Mag. 78 : 171-2
—— 1943. Ibid. 79 : 107-108
CoquiLLeTT, D. W. 1910. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 37 : 499-647
CZERNY, L., in CZERNY and Strost. 1909. Verh. zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien. 59 : 121-301
FaLLén, C. F. 1810. Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disponendi methodum
exhibens. 26 pp. Lund
— 1820. Oscinides Sveciae. 10 pp. Lund.
HENDEL, F. 1903. Wien. ent. Ztg. 22 : 249-252.
—— 1910. Ibid. 29 : 307-313
Macquart, J. 1835. Histoire naturelle des Diptéres. Vol. 2, 703 pp.
MALLocu, J. R. 1913. Can. Ent. 45 : 175-178
RoNDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 1, 228 pp.
Sasrosky, C. W. 1941. Annls. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 735-765
—— 1942. Entomologist’s mon. Mag. 78 : 169-171
—— 1943. Ibid. 79 : 106-107

- 2 Novi973 }
» PURCH }

Rant ae ee eitacery Life President

Hon. ‘The Lord Hurcomb, GC. B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

ewene The Members of the Trust

The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H.
Joresteeney. |

rrancis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing

_
“\E
a
fe) 71.
Opi 80
Opi 82
oO 84
Oo 86
88
90
oe
92
95
97

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Proposed sup-
pression under the plenary powers (C. O. van Regteren Altena) ..

Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda: Enoplida): Proposed suppression
under the plenary powers (W. D. Hope and D. G. Murphy)

Cerithium Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda): Proposed designation of a
type-species under the plenary powers (J. R. Houbrick)

Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed suppre
sion under the plenary powers (David Rosen)

Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed sup-
pression under the plenary powers (H. L. Carson, D. E. Hardy et al.)

Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): Request for suppression of
Macquart’s designation of type-species (G. C. Steyskal, Harold
Robinson et al.) .

Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta, Diptera): "Proposed designation of 2 a
type-species under the plenary powers (C. W. Sabrosky) Pa

Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposal to
place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Z. Boucek)

Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed designation of a Ee
species under the plenary powers (C. W. Sabrosky). . ; §

Comments

Commentaires: Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (M. B. Bouché) ..

Comments on the proposed designation of Chanda nama as type-species
of Chanda (Pisces, Ambassidae) (Nomenclature Committee,
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, per B. B.
Collette, Chairman (Fishes)

Comments on the application concerning ‘trace “fossils (E. Voigt; H.
Lemche and E. L. Yochelson) . :

Comment on proposal to suppress Anthus paytensis Lesson, 1837 (Aves)
(Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress, per E. Eisenmann, Chair-
man)

Comments on the problem “of the ‘type- species ‘of Lucina (Mollusca)
* (H. A. Rehder, S. S. Bretsky and M. Keen) .

Comments on the proposed suppression of two 1 nomina 1 oblita in the
family Echeneididae (Pisces) (Nomenclature Committee, American
Society of Ichthyologists and Ba ees i per B. B. Collette,
Chairman) ;

Comment on the proposed ‘ruling on the status ‘of specimens in the
Thienemann collection (H. Lemche) .

© 1973. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire

Page

100
102
104
108
112

118
121
124

126

69
69

71
71

Pen Aetasnss

Volume 30, Parts 3/4 28th June, 1974
pp. 129-235, 1 pl. T.P. X

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
*¢ + NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS

Page
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:
Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature of voting on me iesie he pubes in the Bulletin os
Zoological Nomenclature re es A A

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases oa as re

‘ (continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON:

c/o British Museum eat pent Cromwell Road,
London, SW7 5B

1974

Price Three Pounds
(All rights reserved)

7 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL

= ea ie Grminetttar hs Goamsioaia

ese. eae dent: Dt, W oe | ae

eee alee : 1) SoS BE Es gees

qi, ‘ “6 LS

Sere Neh Uti of Gala Scie, Esibiton Rood, London,

ors B. The Members of the Commission _

on) oe (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

toe ai Se ee ee a oe Naa eee
Professor or Pe Buc (End CnvertesZolgisk nstitton, Land, Swede) (9 May 1958),
Ti ee ae ee

“(Canada Department fees uate Division Se Ottawa,
aay Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962)
Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans,
oe geet cre
00) jut und 2 YG i Germany)
_D. L. Rape (Western n Austr aan luseum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)
ae eer so dea scat eat Psi
ae Ag Cea Re, York, New York 10024,
Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S.W.7.) (30

Y ; ‘Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R)
ite FB oe ech imag Te of Ml , Florida 33149, U.S.A.)
Corts College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20

|. ERBE? a ae Universitit Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20
Professor (Naina Since sem, Ueno Park, Toky, Japan) (20 February 1972)
ae te Mle Ao Lb STS BD)
of. A. WILL tne Unsiute el Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical
f. B. B. pa eS Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.)
f. G. Be IS ckieason (Maslin Netionad oP Histoire Notarele Paris, France) (28 September 1972).
. Dupurs (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972).

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 30, Parts 3/4 (pp. 129-235 1 pl. T.P. X) 28th June 1974

NOTICES

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the
present part of the Bulletin [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli-
cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b]:

(1) Suppression of Anas punctata Burchell, 1822 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 794.
(2) Validation of Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.)
1724.
*(3) Suppression of Scoptes Hiibner [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.)
1748.
(4) Suppression of Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842 (Brachiopoda).
Z.N.(S.) 1798
(5) Designation of a neotype for Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa).
Z.NAS.) 1826.
(6) Designation of type-species for Latona Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca,
Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 1923.
(7) Designation of a type-species for Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova,
1926 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 2020.
(8) Designation of a lectotype for Ammonites defossus Simpson, 1843
(Ammonoidea). Z.N.(S.) 2039.
(9) Designation of a neotype for Apis rotundata Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2042.
*(10) Suppression of Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Protozoa, Foraminifera).
Z.N(S.) 2043.
(11) Designation of type-species for Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus
Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina, Eriophyoidea). Z.N.(S.) 2044.
(12) Designation of a neotype for Geloius decorsei I. Bolivar, 1905 (Insecta,
Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2046.
(13) Designation of a type-species for Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta,
Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2049.
*(14) Suppression of PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia).
Z.N.(S.) 2052.

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(15) Validation of Nysson Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.)

2055.
*(16) Suppression of Euplilis Risso, 1826 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.)
2056.
c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET GREEN
Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant
London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on
October 1973 Zoological Nomenclature

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

DuriNG the XVIII General Assembly of the International Union of Biolo-
gical Sciences at Ustaoset, Norway, 26 September to | October 1973, the Com-
mission held a special session under Article 11(b) of its Constitution (Bull.
29 : 77), of which a full report will be published in the Bulletin as soon as
possible. This meeting decided that a third edition of the International Code
of Zoological Nomenclature should be prepared, to include the amendments
approved by the Monaco (1972) International Congress of Zoology—which have
been published in the Bulletin and are already in force—and the Constitution
of the Commission (as an Appendix to the Code) in both French and English.
The President has appointed an Editorial Committee to prepare this edition and
has instructed it to take into account all outstanding proposals for the amend-
ment of the Code that have been received by the Commission since the Washing-
ton (1963) Congress and not yet acted upon by the Commission. The new
edition will be published as soon as possible after any new changes in the Code
have been approved by the Division of Zoology of IUBS at the next General
Assembly in 1976 (before which they must be published in the Bulletin).

In the meantime it is proposed to publish, as a special number of the
Bulletin, the French and English texts of the amendments to the Code approved
at Monaco and both texts of the Constitution of the Commission as amended
at Monaco (no French text of the Constitution has yet appeared). This will
enable zoologists who possess copies of the Code to keep up to date with the
most recent amendments in force. After the third edition has been published
it is the Commission’s intention that no further amendments shall be published
for a substantial number of years.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
October 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13]

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS HYLA CRUCIALIS HARLAN,
1826 (AMPHIBIA) Z.N.(S.) 1982

By Michael J. Tyler
(South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia)

The action of Trueb (1972) requesting the Commission to exercise its plenary
powers to suppress the name crucialis, as used in the combination Hyla crucialis
Harlan, 1826, in favour of conservation of the junior synonym Hy/a lichenata (Gosse,
1851) is based on two criteria: demonstration that Hy/a crucialis was a genuine nomen
oblitum, and that /ichenata had been used extensively and exclusively in subsequent
literature.

Crombie (1973) has criticised the proposal on a number of grounds, and has
recommended strict application of the Law of Priority. He has further drawn
attention to the fact that Tyler (1971) ‘“‘used /ichenata although I had informed him
of the existence of the Harlan name before publication.”

Trueb’s application and Crombie’s comments have now to be considered in the
context of the amendments to Articles 79 and 80 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 29, pt. 4,
Dec. 1972).

Crombie has attempted to invalidate the basis of Trueb’s case by demonstrating
that several of the literature references to /ichenata cited by her, do not constitute
“usage” in the sense now defined in Article 79 (b) i. Hence much of his own case
relies upon assessing the merits of some of them, to influence interpretation under
Article 79 (b) ii. Nevertheless, in discussing the inadequate state of knowledge of the
species, and the limited number of references to it, he mentions 5 papers not cited by
Trueb in her application. Three of them (Dunn, 1929; Panton, 1929; Lynn and Dent,
1943), do contribute new data. It should be noted that Trueb cited papers only as an
example of usage, not to provide an exhaustive and complete list as may now be
necessary.

Additional references to the use of the name /ichenata appear in Barbour (1910),
Noble (1927, 1929, 1931). Of these, Noble (1929) reports larval gut contents. The
other papers by Noble draw heavily upon data published by Dunn (1926), but the
1931 reference is highly relevant to the present assessment. In illustrating the species,
and discussing its possible phylogenetic relationships to other West Indian hylid
frogs under the topic of parallel evolution, Noble did more than anyone else to pub-
licise the name. It will not be disputed by herpetologists that the 1931 text (reprinted
by Dover in 1954) was the standard worldwide reference work on the Amphibia for
several decades. Hence it is surprising that Crombie contends: “the name is un-
familiar to many herpetologists, even some working in the West Indies.”

In October 1970 Mr. Crombie advised me of his discovery of the description of
Hyla crucialis, and of his certainty that it was a senior synonym of lichenata. In
the same month Furged him to undertake his responsibility as discoverer of the name
to refer it to the Commission. Dr. Trueb has taken that initiative, and I record my
complete support of her proposal.

REFERENCES

Barsour, T. 1910. Notes on the herpetology of Jamaica. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.
52 (15) : 273-301

Crompigz, R. I. 1973. Comment on the proposed suppression of Hyla crucialis
(Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1982. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 30, (1) : 4-6

Dunn, E. R. 1926. The frogs of Jamaica. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 38, (4) :
111-130

Dunn, E.R. 1929. On the trail of the snorer. Nature, 13 (2) : 110-112

Gosse, P.H. 1851. A naturalist’s sojourn in Jamaica. London, 508 pp.

Haran, R. 1826. A new species of Hyla. Amer. J. Sci. Arts. 10 (7)

Lynn, W. G., and Dent, J. N. 1943. Notes on Jamaican amphibians. Copeia
1943 (4) : 234-242

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Nosie, G.K. 1927. The value of life history data in the study of the evolution of the
Amphibia. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 30 : 31-128

Nosie, G. K. 1929. The adaptive modifications of the arboreal tadpoles of Hop-
lophryne and the torrent tadpoles of Staurois. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.
58 (7) : 291-334

Nose, G. K. 1931. The Biology of the Amphibia. McGraw-Hill

PANTON, E.S. 1952. Our ground and tree-frogs—glimpses into their life and habits.
Nat. Hist. Notes. Nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica, 5 (53) : 87-92

Trues, L. 1972. Ayla crucialis Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia): proposed suppression
under plenary powers. Z.N.(S). 1982. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 (1) : 39-40

Tyxer, M. J. 1971. The phylogenetic significance of vocal sac structure in hylid
frogs. Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 19 : 319-360

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE OF
LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 272
(See vol. 30; 27-31)

By Per Brinck (Department of Animal Ecology, University of Lund, Sweden)

When Bouché (1972) dropped (Lumbricus) terrestris Linnaeus and replaced it with
L. herculeus Savigny, I found it regrettable as being contrary to the provisions of the
Code. On the other hand, this use of the names is a local French tradition since the
misidentifications (1822, 1826) by Savigny of the species. Therefore I did not regard
it seriously. I agree, however, that it is wise to avoid future confusion by designation
of a neotype, so I support the application by Dr. Sims.

May I add a few details. Linnaeus’s first reference (1758: 647) is ““Fn. svec. 1271”
which refers to his first edition of Fauna svyecica (Holmiae, 1746). There he lists L.
terrestris as a Swedish species (as he had already in Animalia per Seuciam observata,
Upsaliae, 1736; probably printed in 1742), mentioned the vernacular names in Swedish
(metmask, daggmask) and wrote “...Coeiint hi vermes supra terram approximatis
collaribus, hinc exeundo e terra ad copulam tumulos effodiunt, hortis et ambulacris
molesti...’’ which is a good characterization of L. terrestris auctorum. Linnaeus
commented on his Fauna suecica in a series of lectures, 1749-52 (edited by E. Lonnberg,
Stockholm, 1913: Linnés fdreslasningar Gfver djurriket). It contains a long and
detailed description of traits of the life history of Lumbricus terrestris (pp. 291-2),
containing behavioural observations which, to my knowledge, do not exist in the
modern literature. It is true that a passage deals with species which are remote from
L. terrestris which was at least at that early time a composite species. Linnaeus com-
mented on these worms ‘“‘... they look very different, but are I suppose the same
species” (transl.).

COMMENTS ON THE CASE OF AGLAJA RENIER (MOLLUSCA) Z.N.(S.) 1092
(See volume 29, pages 127-130)

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)

I do not oppose the main purpose of the application by Lemche for the conservation
of Aglaja Renier and the two originally included species. However, I would comment
on several associated matters.

2. (Paragraph 6) Lemche cites Bergh, 1894, as author and date of Aglajidae, as
‘prescribed’ by Article 40. On the contrary, Article 40b states only that the junior
family-group name takes the date of the rejected senior family-group name, not its
author, and this is borne out by the wording of Recommendation 40a. Under this
recommendation, the citation should be Aglajidae Pilsbry, 1895 (1894). The correct
name of the author is Pilsbry, not Pilsbury or Pilsby as variously stated. Furthermore,

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

Doridiidae was not an invalid original spelling of Aglajidae but an independent pro-
posal based on another nominal genus, and it fell into synonymy when its type-genus,
Doridium, was regarded as a synonym of Aglaja.

3. (Paragraph 9) What does “‘taken over” mean? Was Acera an emendation of
Akera, a misidentification of Akera, or a new and independent proposal? If the first,
it could not have a “new type-species”’; its type-species would be that of Akera. If
the second, it has no standing and should be disregarded here. If the third, it would
become a junior synonym of Aglaja Renier, 1807, if the conservation of the latter is
approved, and no further action would be needed.

4. (Paragraph 12) Aglaia, under the one-letter rule, is not a homonym but a distinct
name and need not be treated here, especially so since it is not a problem anyway in
ornithology. More importantly for our present case, there is really no complication
in family-group names. Aglainae Swainson, 1837, was proposed for several genera
that included Agelaius Viellot. Swainson’s family-group name was an incorrect
original spelling, it should be corrected to Agelaiinae, and the erroneous spelling
Aglainae has no standing in nomenclature (Art. 32c) and need not be dealt with officially.

5. (Paragraph 14) Aglaia Brady, 1867, is also a junior homonym of Aglaia
Swainson, 1827, an even greater reason why it presents no problem here.

6. (Paragraph 16, proposals) for the reasons given above, I consider that pro-
posals 2b, 6d, and 7a are unnecessary, that Aglajidae should be credited to Pilsbry,
1895 (1894), and that the status of Doridiidae should be corrected.

By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Department of Geology, The University, Leicester, England)

Dr. Lemche states that Aglaia Brady, 1867 is considered a junior synonym of
Paracypris and thus presents no problem. Not all taxonomists would agree. In
1947 I recognised the taxonomic validity of the genus represented by Brady’s name and
proposed the new name Aglaiocypris Sylvester-Bradley, 1947 asa replacement. It has
been recognised as a genus distinct from Paracypris by Swain (1961) and van Morkhoven
(1963) and has been made type-genus of a subfamily “‘Aglaiocyprinae” by Schneider
(1960; now Aglaiocypridinae Schneider, 1963). In consequence it would seem to me
desirable for the Commission to place the name Aglaia Brady, 1867 (Ostracoda
Crustacea) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
as junior homonym of Aglaja Renier, 1807 (Aves).

REFERENCES

Sars, G. O. 1923. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Vol. TX, Ostracoda.
pp. 68-69

SCHNEIDER, G. F. 1960. In: Osnovii Paleontologii: Chlenistonogie, Moscow, p. 349

— 1963. In: M. I. Mandelstam & G. F. Schneider, Iscopaemye Ostracody SSSR,
Leningrad, pp. 73-74

Swain, F. M. 1961. Family Paracyprididae Sars, 1923, pp. Q245-246, in Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part Q, Arthropoda 3, Crustacea, Ostracoda.
Geol. Soc. America, 442 pp.

SYLVESTER-BRADLEY, P. C. 1947. Some Ostracod Genotypes. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.
Ser. 11, vol. xiii, pp. 192-199

VAN MorkKHoVEN, F. P. C.M. 1963. Post-Palaeozoic Ostracoda. Vol. Il Generic
Descriptions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 478 pp.

COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE FOUR OUTSTANDING REQUESTS
AFFECTING BUTTERFLY GENERIC NAMES (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA).
CASES Z.N.(S.) 1686, 1687, 1688, 1748.

By C. F. Cowan (Little Gaddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts., HP4 1PL, England)

The following four cases were submitted over seven years ago. No comments
have been published on them, and all are strongly supported. They are the only
cases outstanding which affect butterfly generic names.

2. (a) Najas sts [1807] v Euphaedra Hiibner [1819].—(Bull. zool. Nomencl.

22 (2): 102)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) Aetheius Hiibner [1819] v Ourocnemis Baker, 1887.—(id.: 103)
(c) Gonophlebia Felder, 1870 [Jun.] v Pseudopontia Plétz, 1870 [Sep.]|—{id: 104)

These three cases are similar. In each, the former name of the pair was obscurely
published and has been seldom employed, whereas the latter is well known and in
universal use. The late Mr. Francis Hemming put the cases succinctly, but unfor-
tunately used the phrase “‘as a nomen oblitum” at the ends of both his titles and of the
first subparagraphs of his formal requests. This phrase is presumably the cause of the
ensuing delay, as Article 23(b) covering nomina oblita has since been inoperative.
He used the phrase nowhere else in his relevant texts, which are eloquently cogent in
the causes of stability and universality without invoking Article 23(b).

3. I recommend that the words ‘‘as a nomen oblitum” be deleted from the titles
and from the end of subparagraphs (1) of the closing paragraphs in each of these
applications, and that the three cases be then approved as they stand.

4. Scoptes Hiibner [1819] v Capys Hewitson (1865).—(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23

(4): 165-166)

This case is similar in principle to the foregoing. It was submitted by Mr. N. D.
Riley who, in his last paragraph, made a valid designation of type-species for Scoptes
Hiibner, which thereby became a senior objective synonym of Capys Hewitson (the
correct reference to which is J//. diurn. Lep. (Lyc.), part (2): 59, wrapper dated June
1865). This designation was necessary because, due to the very anomalous group of
species originally included in Scoptes, any other designation would have raised extre-
mely complex taxonomic problems.

5. Here again, Riley used in his title the phrase ‘‘a case of a forgotten name”’,
and the case has no doubt been shelved in consequence. But, as he makes clear in
his text, and particularly since his designation of the type-species, the suppression of
Scoptes is urgent in the cause of stability and universality in nomenclature, and I
strongly support it.

6. I therefore (since Riley did not formulate his case) request the International
Commission:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress, for the purposes of the Law of Priority

but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic name Scoptes
Hiibner [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett.: 111;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name
Capys Hewitson (1865), Ill. diurn. Lep. (Lyc.) (2): 59 (gender: masculine),
type-species by monotypy Papilio alpheus Cramer [1777], Uitl. Kapell. 2
(16): 131, pl. 182, figs. E, F;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name
alpheus Cramer [1777], as published in the binomen Papilio alpheus (type-
species of Capys Hewitson (1865));

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Scoptes Hiibner [1819], as suppressed under the plenary powers
in (1) above.

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE
GENERIC NAME ARGIOPE J. A. EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS 1842, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE LAW OF HOMONYMY. _ Z.N.(S.) 1798.

By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

The object of Dr. Levi’s application in this case (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 200) was
to validate an invalid emendation by changing a single letter, and to confirm an
invalid type-species designation, both of which had been accepted for over 100 years.
His application received massive support and a unanimous affirmative vote by the
Commission. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the first voting paper put to the
Commission in this case was incorrectly drafted and that, in consequence, it is necessary

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135

to seek a further vote from the Commission. The case is an object lesson in the
need for the utmost care and attention to detail in preparing even the most apparently
simple and straightforward cases.

In the first place, the spelling Argiope of the Arachnid name was first published by
Thorell in 1869. It was then a stillborn junior homonym of the available generic
name Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps in Brachiopoda. Col. Cowan has shown
(Bull. 28 : 7) that this senior homonym ought to be suppressed in the interests of the
stability of its junior synonym Megathiris d’Orbigny, 1847. Until that is done,
however, it is impossible to take steps to validate the spelling Argiope in Arachnida.

In the second place, Col. Cowan has shown that ‘“‘Argyopes Latreille’’ Agassiz,
1846 is a misinterpretation of a vernacular name as a zoological name, and that
“‘Argiopes Agassiz’ Levi, 1970 is a lapsus. Both these names should be placed on the
Official Index for the right reasons (namely, because they are incorrect subsequent
spellings), whereas no action is called for in the case of Argyopes Latreille, 1829.

Thirdly, although Dr. Levi mentioned in his application that Argiope is the type-
genus of a family ARGIOPIDAE Simon, 1890, no proposals were made concerning that
family-name. The reason for this is clear when one reads Dr. Levi’s paper on ‘“‘The
spider genera Gea and Argiope in America’”’, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 136 : 319-352, 1968,
where he treats ARGIOPIDAE as an invalid junior synonym of ARANEIDAE Latreille,
1806. There is thus no call for the name to be placed on the Official List, though it
remains available for use by any zoologist who wishes to place Araneus and Argiope
in separate families. This ought to have been explained to the Commission.

The proposals which ought to have been put before the Commission (and which
are set out below) involve a use of the plenary powers for a purpose which has not
been advertised and upon which, therefore, workers in the group affected (Brachiopoda)
have not been given an opportunity to comment. It is accordingly necessary to
publish these corrected proposals and wait the statutory period before publishing the
Opinion on Dr. Levi’s application.

The Commission is therefore requested:
1. To use its plenary powers.
(a) to suppress the generic name Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842,
for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy;
(b) to validate the emendation to Argiope of the generic name Argyope
Audouin, 1826.

2. To place the generic name Argiope (emendation under the plenary powers
in 1(b) above of Argyope) Audouin, 1826 (gender: feminine), type-species,
by subsequent designation by Bonnet, 1955, Aranea sericea Olivier, 1798, on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

3. To place the specific name /obata Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen
Aranea lobata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

4. To place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Argyope Audouin, 1826 (ruled under the plenary powers in 1(b) above
to be an invalid original spelling of Argiope);

(b) Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842 (suppressed under the plenary
powers in 1 (a) above for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and
the Law of Homonymy

(d) “Argiopes Agassiz” Levi, 1970, an incorrect subsequent spelling of
Argiope Audouin, 1826.

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF EUDYPTES
SCLATERI BULLER, 1888 AND NG ies ROBUSTUS (OLIVER, 1953).
Z.N.AS.) 1893

By R. A. Falla (Nature Conservation Council, Wellington, New Zealand), John Warham
(Zoology Dept., University of Canterbury, Christchurch) and C. A. Fleming (N.Z.
Geological Survey, Lower Hutt, New Zealand)

We wish to support Henning Lemche’s modification (Vol. 29, p. 43) of George
Watson’s proposals regarding these names as set out in Vol. 23, pages 92-93.

We had previously and independently concluded that Oliver’s nomenclatural
proposals (1953, Emu 53: 185-187) were unsatisfactory. Unlike Oliver, we believe
that the identity of the type of Eudyptes atratus Finsch is not now determinable. As
Watson pointed out, Oliver’s proposals for renaming the Erect-crested and Snares
Crested Penguins have been followed by some workers and not by others, resulting in
confusion, at least on the part of non-specialists. We consider that Lemche’s formu-
lation would ensure both nomenclatural stability and eliminate confusion. In par-
ticular it would perpetuate the long and consistent use of the name Eudyptes sclateri
Buller for the Erect-crested Penguin. Hence we urge the International Commission
to put into effect the proposals as modified by Dr. Lemche:

(1) under the plenary powers to suppress the specific name atratus Finsch, 1875,
as published in the binomen Eudyptes atratus, for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the names Eudyptes sclateri Buller, 1888 and Eudyptes robustus Oliver,
1953 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name atratus Finsch, 1875, as suppressed in (1) above.

COMMENT ON THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE ZEBRA OR BANDED
DUICKER. Z.N.S.) 1908
(see volume 27, page 104)

By W. F. H. Ansell (P.O.Box 1, Chilanga, Zambia)

Kuhn (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 14-15) does not add any further information
to this case apart from his reference to Antilope zebrata Robert? 1836 which he says
may antedate both Ogilby, 1837 and Gray, 1838. [The full reference to Antilope
zebrata Robert, 1836 is Echo du Monde Savant No. 18 (Div. 2): 77. MAG].

In the last century, and in the earlier parts of this, most authors used doria un-
critically and apart from Kuhn himself, modern authors have accepted zebra as
valid, following Allen’s observation in 1939. As far as actual current usage is con-
cerned IJ think the balance is clearly in favour of zebra, which is one good reason for
its retention.

Technically, Ogilby applied his name to Antilope mhorr, as I maintained in my
original application, although he may have intended to use doria for the zebra duicker,
described by Bennett (1832).

I am unaware whether Kuhn’s proposal to correct Ogilby’s ‘‘obvious lapsus’’ is
possible under the Code since “‘lapsus calami”’ is mentioned only in Article 32 which
deals with spelling and is not relevant to the present issue. I see no advantage in such
action apart from making Cephalophula Knottnerus-Meyer 1907 available for the
zebra duicker as a genus or subgenus should it be required and presumably it is a
synonym of Gazella!

Kuhn overlooks the fact that Sundevall (1847, H. svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Hand.
1845 : 196) explicitly pointed out that Ogilby had named A. doriae (sic) without
description and citing only A. dama and A. mhorr. J doubt if Sundevall would count
as “first reviser” in terms of Article 24 but I think he would be in an analogous position.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137

FURTHER COMMENT ON THE VALID EMENDATION OF -ii ENDINGS OF
PATRONYMS. Z.N.(S.) 1913

By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research
Service, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560)

The changes in the Code suggested by Smith, Stuart, and Conant (1971, Bull. zool.
Nomencl., 27 : 250) and supported by the Nomenclatural Committee of the American
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (1972, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 29 : 106), if
adopted, would tend toward further irregularity and confusion by substituting personal
preference or idiosyncrasy for an unambiguous rule. It would also be an invitation
to carelessly or poorly informed persons to treat endings freely that are presently
clearly covered. The change is contrary to a basic purpose of the Code as stated in its
preamble, paragraph 2. The problem of distinguishing properly between -i and -ii
in general is so complex, from the viewpoints of both classical grammar and modern
usage, that, it seems to me, the Code as presently constituted is about as close to the
best solution as it could be.

COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION TO VALIDATE DONAX VARIABILIS
SAY, 1822 UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S) 1923

(see volume 27 : 205-206)
By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Dr. Boss’s application in this case was submitted for a vote in 1973. The result
of the voting was 22 in favour of the proposal to suppress variabilis Schumacher,
1817 (Latona), 1 against, 1 voting paper not returned and 2 late affirmative votes.
The following comments were received with voting papers:

Prof. H. E. Vokes (16.i.1973): “It would seem desirable to place Latona on the
Official List—or, at least to make some definite statement regarding the substitution
of cuneatus Linné for variabilis Schum., since it is the type-species of Latona which is
still a valid name”.

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (21.iii.1973): “I vote for this proposal to remove doubt as to
the status of D. variabilis Say; but there could be some argument as to whether
Article 59(b) would require the replacement of D. variabilis Say when D. variabilis
(Schumacher, 1817) is not a valid name in Donax. The Article should be clarified in
this respect.”

The situation now is that the familiar binomen Donax variabilis Say, 1822, has
been conserved; but that the valid nominal genus-group taxon Latona Schumacher,
1817, is left without a nominal type-species. There is fortunately no doubt as to the
valid name for that species (cuneatus Linnaeus, 1758). It is, however, evident that,
since that nominal species was not originally included in Latona (which was mono-
typical), the plenary powers must be used to make it the type-species. The following
additional proposals are therefore now put before the Commission:

(4) to use the plenary powers to suppress all designations of type-species hitherto
made for the nominal genus-group taxon Latona Schumacher, 1817 and to
designate the nominal species Donax cuneatus Linnaeus, 1758 to be the
type-species ;

(5) to place the generic name Latona Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine)
(type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (4) above Donax
cuneatus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(6) to place the specific name cuneatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Donax cuneatus (type-species by designation under the plenary
powers in (4) above of Latona) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF OPINION 610
(FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED ON GENERIC NAMES HAVING THE
STEM DREPAN-). Z.N.AS.) 1958

By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Readers of the Bulletin ought to be made aware that Dr. Gruchy’s recently published
paper (30 : 35-6) on the homonymy between the family-group names DREPANIDAE in
Lepidoptera and in Pisces is not in fact the first application addressed to the Commis-
sion on this subject. In January 1971 Dr. K. V. Lakshminarayana and Dr. K. V. Rama
Rao, of the Zoological Survey of India, sent in an application which was, as it happened,
in need of correction in certain respects. Not only did this application not take account
of the ruling given in Opinion 610 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 267-269) wherein DREPA-
NIDAE had been placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as
the name of the Lepidopteran family involved, but it provided no references to the
authors and dates of the family-group names involved.

The receipt in May 1971 of Dr. Kashin’s proposals for technical amendments
to the authors and dates of the family-group names in question (Bull. 28 : 119-120)
caused the application by Dr. Lakshminarayana and Dr. Rama Rao to be overlooked.
This was the more unfortunate because Opinion 610 and Dr. Kashin’s application dealt
with homonymy between Lepidoptera and Aves only; the new application was the first
inkling that the Commission had that a third group—Pisces—was also involved.
Apologies are therefore offered to Dr. Lakshminarayana and Dr. Rama Rao. Fortun-
ately Dr. Gruchy’s paper covers all the points in which their earlier application needed
attention.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO CONSERVE THE SPECIFIC NAME
PALLIDA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1854, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN
EMBLETONIA PALLIDA Z.N.(S) 2010
(see volume 30, page 90)

By I. S. Roginskaya (/nstitute of Oceanology, Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R.,
I Letnjaja, J-387, Moscow)

The purpose of the present comment is to ask the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to reject the proposal to use its plenary powers to conserve
the specific name pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854, as cited in the binomen Embletonia
pallida and to bring forward evidence not referred to in Dr. Lemche’s application on
this subject.

The specific name adspersa was introduced for a species of nudibranch from Odessa
on the Black Sea by Nordmann (1845, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersb. 4 (6) : 498, pl. 1,
figs. 4-5). Four years later Schultze (1849, Arch. Naturgesch. 15 : 268-279) under
the name Tergipes lacinulatus described the development of the same species from the
Baltic Sea. Subsequently Alder & Hancock obtained this species from the British
Coast and described it as a new species Embletonia pallida (1854, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
ser. 2,14: 102-105). This name was later used by most authors in Western Europe.
Subsequently Costa in 1866 independently described the same species from the Mediter-
ranean under the name Tenellia mediterranea (1866, Annuar. Mus. zool. Univ. Napoli 3 :
76, pl. 3, fig. 7).

For a long time this species was considered by most authors to belong to the genus
Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851. It was Pruvot-Fol who first revealed the hetero-
geneous structure of the genus Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 and placed E.
en Tenellia Costa, 1866 (type-species Tenellia mediterranea by original desig-
nation).

The taxonomic review by me in 1970 (Roginskaya, Malacological Review 3 :
167-174) revealed the priority of Nordmann’s name adspersa and at the same time
showed the striking confusion in the use of generic and specific names applied to this

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

species. While most authors in West Europe and America used for this species the
specific name pallida (in combinations Embletonia pallida and Tenellia pallida), the
specific name adspersa (in combinations Tergipes adspersus and Tenellia adspersa)
was used by Russian and Romanian researchers of the Black Sea and of the Azov Sea.

The priority of Nordmann’s name is evident. The name adspersa cannot be
qualified as a nomen oblitum or unused senior synonym (in spite of the fact that
pallida is much more widely known) and be suppressed as Dr. Lemche proposes
(Opisthobranch Newsletter 1972 4 (8) ; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30 : 90) as at the moment
of handing in this application this name has not only been used more than ten times
by more than five different authors during the last 50 years, but has been continuously
cited in Russian and Romanian literature for nearly 130 years and has been the
subject of zoological and physiological research. The list of citations is attached.

The name adspersa is the valid name for the type-species of Tenellia Costa.

I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) to rule that the Law of Priority is to be applied in this case;

(2) to place the specific name adspersus Nordmann, 1845, as published in the

binomen Tergipes adspersus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

LisT OF CITATIONS

Only the pages where Tergipes adspersus and Tenellia adspersa are mentioned are given.

1. ULIANIN, V. N. 1872. Contributions to the fauna of the Black Sea. Izv.
imp. Obshch. Lyub. Estest. Antrop. Etnogr. imp. Mosk. Univ. 9 : 87, 107.

2. Ostroumorr, A. 1893. Catalogue des Mollusques de la Mer Noire et d’Azov
observés jusqu’a ce jour a l’état vivant. Zool. Anz. 16 No. 422 : 246.

3. Sovinsky, W. K. 1904. Introduction to the study of the Ponto-Caspian-

Aralian marine basin considered as a separate zoogeographic province. Zap.

kiev. Obshch. Estest. 18 : 25, 150. Suppl: 144, 145.

. Mitacuewitcu, K. O. 1916. Les Mollusques de la Mer Noire et de la Mer
d’Azov Vol. 1 Faune de Ja Russie et des pays limitrophes. Petrograd : 132.

. Grossu, A. 1956. Mollusca Gastropoda Prosobranchia si Opisthobranchia.
Fauna Repub. pop. rom. 3 fasc. 2 : 202.

. CHUKHCHIN, V. D. 1960. The pelagic larvae of gastropod molluscs from the
Black Sea. Trav. Sta. biol. Sebastopol 13 : 111, fig. 25.

. Gomoiu, M. T. 1961. Contributii la cunoasterea citorva nudibranchiate
(Gastropoda-Opisthobranchia) din partea vestica a Marii Negre. Comunle
Acad. Rep. pop. rom. 10, tom. 11 : 1251.

8. Gomoru, M.T. 1966. Specile de Opisthobranchiate din Marea Neagra. Hidro-
biologia 7 : 145.

9. VinoGRADOV, K. A., LosovskayYA, G. B., and KAMINSKAYA, L. D. 1967. [Chapter
12. A short review of invertebrate fauna of the north-western part of the Black
Sea. Jn: The biology of the north-western part of the Black Sea. Odessa Dept.,
A. O. Kowalevsky Institute of the Biology of the South Seas, Academy of Sciences
of Ukranian SSR.,] ‘““Naukova Dumka” : 193.

10. TurPAEVA, E. P. 1969. Symphysiological relationships in oligomixt bio-
cenosis of the sea fouling. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 189 (2) : 415-417.

11. RocinskayA, I. S. 1970. Tenellia adspersa, a nudibranch new to the Azov
Sea, with notes on its taxonomy and ecology. Malac. Rey. 3 : 167-174.

12. Maxksimovy, V. N., TURPAEVA, E. P., and SIMKINA, R. G. 1971. Intensity of the
effects produced by a simultaneous action of several factors on the population of
the sea barnacle Balanus improvisus Darwin. Okeanologiya 2 : 1090.

13. TuRPAEVA, E. P. 1972. A system of symphysiological relationships in the
biocenosis of marine fouling. Trudy vses. nauchno.-issled. Inst. morsk. ryb
Khoz. Okeanogr. 77 : 168.

14. CHuKHCHIN, V. D. 1972. The pelagic larvae of Gastropoda. Jn Vodyanit-
skii, V. A. (Ed.), Identification key to the Fauna of the Black Sea and of the Azov
Sea Vol. 3. Freeliving invertebrates. Arthropods, (except Crustacea), Mollusca,
Echinodermata, Chaetognatha, Chordata. Naukova Dumka, Kiev. : 175, fig. 6.

NH nA ff

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

15. Goxikxov, A. N. andSrarosocatov, J. I. 1972. Class Gastropoda. In: Vodyanitskii,
V. A. (Ed.) (Tom. cit. above) : 155.

16. SPHON, GALE G. 1972. An annotated list of the nudibranchs and their allies
from the West coast of North America. Opisthobranch Newsl. 4 (10-11) : 69.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF LACHRYMA SOWERBY (MOLLUSCA)
Z.N.(S.) 2018

(See volume 30, pages 51-53)

By Professor Ernst Mayr
(Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass. 02138,
USA)

The application on Lachryma (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30: 51) is rather misleading.
Publication in 1832 of this name in synonymy was not a valid introduction in the
eyes of most zoologists. The wording of Article 11(d) does not bring out sufficiently
that already long prior to 1961 there was divided opinion about the availability of
names introduced in synonymy. In large areas of zoology such names were always
considered unavailable. Numerous statements to this effect were published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in the 1950’s. The fact that the name Lachryma
was not used for 100 years was due not only to the fact that it was considered an
alternate name for Erato but also that it was considered an unavailable nomen nudum.
Schilder was therefore completely right in proposing, in 1927, a new generic name
(Proterato) for the neozelanica group of species.

The name Lachryma, if it is considered available at all, is a complete synonym of
Erato in the synonymy of which it was introduced. Its type species, according to
ae 67(i) is the same as that of Erato, regardless of any other type species listed by

owerby.

If the name Lachryma were to be considered an available name for a group of
species not congeneric with Erato and with a different type species one would have
to credit Iredale (1931) as the original author.

The facts of the case indicate to me clearly that Schilder, in his various publi-
cations, was quite correct in rejecting Lachryma Sowerby 1832 as an unavailable name
and that Fleming (1966) was correct in adopting Proterato Schilder.

COMMENT ON:

(A)—PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF LYDA INANIS KLUG
(INSECTA). Z.N.(S.) 1944
(See volume 29, page 25).

(B)—PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PTERODACTYLUS
CRASSIPES MEYER (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1977
(See volume 29, pages 30-31).

(C)—PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PHAROPTERYX BENOIT
RUPPELL (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1981
(See volume 29, pages 37-38).

(D)—PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF HYLA CRUCIALIS

HARLAN (AMPHIBIA). Z.N.(S.) 1982
(See volume 29, pages 39-40).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141

(E)—PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF STRIGLINA GUENEE
(LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2025
(See volume 30, pages 61-62).

By I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Due mainly to the doubtful status and later deletion of Article 23(a) and (b)
from the Code and its replacement by Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b), the above cases have
been published in which the proposers have requested that in order to protect a
junior name in general current use, its senior subjective synonym should be placed
on the appropriate Official Index of rejected names. In effect, the Commission is
being asked to endorse a subjective synonymy, in most instances recently established
by the proposer of the case. Subjective synonymy is a matter of taxonomic judgement
and the Commission should only be asked to ratify such matters in exceptional cir-
cumstances. In addition, the placing of a name on an Official Index of rejected names
prevents the future use of the name by any zoologist who may hold the view that the
two names represent separate taxa, and it is inevitable that applications will soon be
made for some of the rejected names to be reinstated.

It is my opinion that in these cases of subjective synonymy, the senior name should
remain nomenclaturally available and should not be placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Names. The priority of the unused senior synonym should,
however, be suppressed by requesting the Commission to:-

(1) use its plenary powers to rule that the junior name in general current use is
to be given precedence over the unused senior name by any zoologist who
considers that the two are either congeneric or conspecific (as appropriate);

(2) validate the junior name in general current use by placing it on the appro-
priate Official List, thus ensuring its precedence without further application
to the Commission if another older name for the taxon is later found to
exist.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1003

ORTHOCERAS BRUGUIERE, 1789 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA):
PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (gender:
neuter) type-species, by subsequent designation by Miller, Dunbar and Condra
(1933) Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1983.

(2) The specific name regularis Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen
Orthoceratites regularis (type-species of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2507.

(3) The family-group name ORTHOCERATIDAE M’Coy, 1844 (type-genus
Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 472.

(4) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:

(i) Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 (an unused senior objective synonym of

Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789);
(ii) Orthocera Modeer, 1789 (an unused senior objective synonym of Nodosaria
[Lamarck], [1816]);
(5) The following generic names are ruled invalid by reason of being junior
homonyms of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789;

(a) Orthoceras Batsch, 1791; (b) Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795

(d) Orthoceras Perry, 1811;

(e) Orthoceras Blainville, 1825;

(f) Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831;

(g) Orthoceras Phillips, 1836;

(h) Orthoceras Balashoy, 1956.

(6) The generic name Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816] (gender: feminine),
type-species, by selection by Children, 1823, Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) is hereby placed on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1984.

(7) The specific name radicula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Nautilus radicula (type-species by selection by Children, 1823, of Nodosaria
[Lamarck] [1816]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2508.

(8) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(i) those names suppressed under the plenary powers in (4) above:
(a) Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 (Name No. 2013)
(b) Orthocera Modeer, 1789 (Name No. 2014)

(ii) the eight generic names declared in (5) above to be invalid junior

homonyms of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143

(c) Orthoceras Batsch, 1791 (Name No. 2015)
(d) Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795 (Name No. 2016)
(e) Orthoceras Schrank, 1796 (Name No. 2017)
(f) Orthoceras Perry, 1811 (Name No. 2018)
(g) Orthoceras Blainville 1825 (Name No. 2019)
(h) Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831 (Name No. 2020)
(i) Orthoceras Phillips, 1836 (Name No. 2021)
(j) Orthoceras Balashov, 1956 (Name No. 2022)
(iii) the following junior homonyms of Orthocera Modeer, 1789:
(k) Orthocera Lamarck, 1799 (Name No. 2023)
(1) Orthocera J. Sowerby, 1812 (Name No. 2024)
(m) Orthocera Fleming, 1815 (Name No. 2025)
(n) Orthocera Blainville, 1828 (Name No. 2026)

(iv) the following reputed generic names published in a non-binominal
work by a non-binominal author;

(0) Orthocerata Soldani, 1780 (Name No. 2027)
(p) Orthoceratia Soldani, 17911 (Name No. 2028).

(9) The family-group name ORTHOCEROTIDAE Teichert & Miller, 1936
(rendered invalid by the suppression under the plenary powers in (4) above of
Orthoceros Brunnich, 1771) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 456.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 44)

This case has a long history, being originally brought before the Com-
mission by the late Dr. A. K. Miller in 1930 in a slightly different form. Much
correspondence has been entered upon and a report was compiled many years
later by Mr. R. V. Melville which was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17,
1959: 9-24, This includes a detailed historical survey as well as the situation in
1959.

The case was submitted in its present form by Mr. R. V. Melville in March
1970. Mr. Melville’s application was sent to the printer on 1 July 1970 and was
published on 23 December 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 180-193. Public
Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial pub-
lications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184), and to four
specialist serials.

The proposals were supported by the following: C. Teichert, F. E. Eames,
R. H. Cummings, A. H. Smout, M. K. Howarth, and V. N. Shimansky (see
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 186-193). Objections were received from C. H.
Holland and R. H. Flower (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 188-193.)

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 4 January 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)17 on the proposals set out in

1 The reference to Orthoceratia Soldani, 1780 given in the application in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
27, 1970: 186, para. 5(d) is incorrect.

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 185-186. The Voting Paper was divided into two
parts: in Part 1 Commissioners were invited to vote for either A, the use of the
plenary powers to suppress Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 or for B, the addition
to the Official List of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (Bull. 27 : 185); in Part 2
either for or against the proposals set out under “Part 2” on pages 185-186 of
volume 27 of the Bulletin. At the close of the prescribed voting period on
4 April 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Part 1. A. Affirmative votes—two (2), received in the following order:
Lemche, Eisenmann.

B. Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Munroe, Mayr, Sabrosky, Vokes, Habe, Rohdendorf,
Starobogatov, Binder, Tortonese, Bernardi, Simpson, Bayer, Brinck, Ride,
Corliss, Alvarado, Nye.

Part 2. Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Munroe, Lemche, Mayr, Sabrosky, Eisenmann, Vokes,
Habe, Rohdendorf, Starbogatoy, Binder, Tortonese, Bernardi, Simpson,
Bayer, Brinck, Ride, Corliss, Alvardo, Nye.

Negative votes—none (0).

Commissioner Heppell returned a late vote for Part 1 proposal A, and for
Part 2. Commissioner Kraus returned a late vote for Part 1 proposal B and
for Part 2.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Erben, Willink, Dupuis.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. H. Lemche (7.1.73): “This is another important case where a name of
long standing but without the necessary clear content, is proposed for preser-
vation with a newly invented (in this case not even quite strict) content.

I find that in these cases two different paths of thinking are mixed in an
unacceptable manner. Firstly there is the attempt to preserve well known
concepts under their well known names, and this idea has always had my
fullest support. Secondly, there is the sentimental feeling that well known
names should not be permitted to disappear even though they may not have any
legal definition. But it is dangerous to preserve such hollow names, solely by
putting some strict concept into them and then affording the rest of mankind to
accept the new and restricted interior. Most people will still recognize them
from the outside, with no regard to the restricted interior, and in general
communication, it will for a very long time remain impossible to known directly
from the citation of the name, whether it is used as seen from the exterior in
the old and confused sense, or as seen with a clear knowledge of what had at a
certain date become established inside. In the present case, if the name
Orthoceras becomes accepted, the general use of that name as a waste basket
is to stop immediately (in spite of Mr. Melville’s statement—I am sorry).
If, however, the name is suppressed, any use of it is ipso facto a statement that
no detailed taxonomic information is thereby presented. Dr. Flower’s
suggestion will make the name freely available as a waste basket also in the
future. Therefore, I prefer his solution’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145

Prof. F. M. Bayer (22.iii.73): “I vote in favour of preserving Orthoceras
and giving it a stable base, in spite of the objections of Dr. Flower, which have
substantial scientific merit. However, the long and wide usage of Orthoceras
in the literature makes its retention highly desirable. In reaching this decision,
I have had the valuable assistance of Dr. G. Voss, a specialist in Recent cepha-
lopods, who teaches graduate level students in the systematics, evolution, and
biology of the Cephalopoda”’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official

Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:

Nodosaria Lamarck, 1816, Ency. méth. (Vers): pl. 465

Orthocera Modeer, 1789, (Illust. quaedam in R.D. Ambr. Soldani opus egreg.
Saggio Orittograffico dictum) first published as a part of Testaceogr. ac
Zoophytogr. parvae et microsc. tomus primus: 41-43

Orthocera Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 80

Orthocera J. Sowerby, 1812, Min. Conch. 1 : 127

Orthocera Fleming, 1815, Ann. Phil. 5 : 201-206

Orthocera Blainville, 1828, Dict. Sci. nat. 36 : 485

Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth., Hist. nat. Vers, pt. i, page xvi

Orthoceras Batsch, 1791, Sechs Kupfertafeln mit Conchylien des Seesandes:
(no page nos.)

Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795, Prodromus in Syst. nat. Hist. Test.: 10

Orthoceras Schrank, 1796, Samml. Nat. Phys. Aufsatz: 131

Orthoceras Perry, 1811, Conch. nat. Hist. Shells: pl. LI.

Orthoceras Blainville, 1825, Man. Malac.: 379

Orthoceras Deshayes, 1813, Descr. Coquilles caract. Terrains 215:

Orthoceras Phillips, 1836, Jil. Geol. Yorks: 237

Orthoceras Balashov, 1956, emend. pro Orthoceros Brunnich, 1771 Ezheg.
yses. paleont. Obshch 15 : 233

Orthocerata Soldani, 1780, Saggio Orittografico, ovvero osservazioni sopra
le terre nautilitiche ed ammonitiche della Toscana: 106

Orthoceratia Soldani, 1791, Testaceographiae ac Zoophytographiae parvae et
microscopicae tomus primus: pt. 2, 91

ORTHOCERATIDAE M’Coy, 1844, A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous
Limestone fossils of Ireland (London): 6

Orthoceros Brunnich, [1771] Zoologiae Fundamenta: 232, 246

ORTHOCEROTIDAE Teichert & Miller, 1936, in Kindle & Miller, 1939, Geol.
Soc. America Special Paper 23: 1

radicula, Nautilus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10:71

regularis, Orthoceratites, Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petref. : 54

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)17 were cast as set out above,
that the proposals contained in that Voting Paper have been duly adopted

{46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1003.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

3 September 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147

OPINION 1004

SCUTELLUIDAE RICHTER & RICHTER, 1955 (TRILOBITA):
VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that the family-
group name SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955 (a replacement name for
SCUTELLIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925, non Gray, 1825) is to be given priority
over the family-group names THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, and
GOLDIIDAE Raymond, 1913 by any zoologist who believes that these names or
either of them, apply to the family-group taxon that contains the nominal
genus Scutellum Pusch, 1833.

(2) The family-group name SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955 (type-
genus Scutellum Pusch, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology with the endorsement specified under the plenary
powers in (1) above, with the Name Number 473.

(3) The genus-group name Scutellum Pusch, 1833 (gender : neuter), type-
species, by monotypy, Scutellum costatum Pusch, 1833, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1985.

(4) The species-group name costatum Pusch, 1833, as published in the
binomen Scutellum costatum (type-species of Scutellum Pusch, 1833) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2509.

(5) The family-group name BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847 (invalid by
reason of being based on the name of a junior homonym) is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with
the Name Number 466.

(6) The genus-group name Brontes Goldfuss, 1839 (non Fabricius, 1801)
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2029.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1789)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Prof.
H. B. Whittington and Prof. H. E. Erben in January 1967. The application
was sent to the printer on 3 May 1967 and was published on 20 September 1967
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 230-233. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12(b):
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184).

The proposals were supported by Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
24 : 322-323), Drs. D. L. Bruton, E. C. Stumm, J. Shirley, E. N. K. Clarkson,
A. R. Orminston, G. Hemmingsmoen, D. Meischner, F. Prantl, P. Hupé,
Prof. J. Sdzuy, Drs. F. Liitke and Z. A. Maksimova. The proposals were
opposed by Dr. J. T. Temple.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 15 May 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)28 either for or against the proposal
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 231-232. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 15 August 1969 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Brinck,
Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Bonnet, Vokes, Obruchev, Sabrosky, Uchida,
Simpson, Jaczewski, Evans, Melville, Forest, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Ride,
Mertens, Kraus.

Negative votes—two (2): Holthuis, do Amaral.

On leave of absence—one (1): Tortonese.

Voting papers not returned: one (1): Munroe.

Commissioner Binder returned a late affirmative vote.

However, Commissioner Holthuis, in returning his negative vote, pointed
out that there were several technical flaws in the proposals. He commented:
“T believe that the normal application of the Code here is the best solution for
the present problem.

“The name THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, evidently is the valid name
for the family. Of the arguments against this name, only that of usage seems
of some importance. But the difference in usage between this name and its
rival seems slight, being for the last ten years only 2 authors against. Also the
fact that only 6 authors published on the family in the last 10 years shows that
the name SCUTELL(U)IDAE is not such a well known one that its salvation
justifies the complicated procedure requested by the applicants.

“There are several technical flaws in the proposal.

1. It has not been indicated when the spelling SCUTELLUIDAE was published
first and by whom. [This was in fact done by R. & E. Richter, Senck. Leth.
36 : 291, 30 September 1955. R.V.M.].

2. Since Brontes Goldfuss, 1839 is a junior homonym of Brontes Fabricius,
1801, it is invalid and so is the family name based onit. There is therefore no
need to ask for the suppression of BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847 under the
plenary powers. The name can be placed on the index without any other
action.

3. The name GOLDIIDAE Raymond, 1913 cannot be suppressed as long
as the name of its type-genus Goldius de Koninck, 1841, is still available.
Either Goldius has to be suppressed also or GOLDIIDAE has to be placed on the
Official List with SCUTELLUIDAE with the annotation that it is to be used only
by zoologists who think the two names represent different family-group taxa.

“However, as said above, I believe the strict application of the Code is more
simple and advisable here.”

Therefore, on 1 June 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.) (73)1 for the
proposals set out in the Secretary’s letter of 31 May 1973, an extract from
which appears below.

Mr. R. V. Melville (Letter to the Members of the Commission 31.v.1973):
“To these indisputable points I may add that the use of the plenary powers
is not necessary to rule that the stem of family-group names based on Scutellum
Pusch, 1833 is SCUTELLU-. Those powers need only be used to direct that

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter is to be given priority over its senior subjective
synonyms THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, and GoLDIDAE Raymond,
1913. It is the central purpose of the application to achieve this end and the
massive vote of the Commission in favour of that purpose has settled the point
once forall. None of the points raised by Professor Holthius justifies reopening
that question.

The only question at issue, as I see it, is the correct form of the Ruling to
be given in the Opinion. Here I venture to differ in one respect from Professor
Holthuis. Having ruled under the plenary powers that SCUTELLUIDAE is to
be given priority over its senior synonyms THYSANOPELTIDAE and GOLDIIDAE,
it seems to me unnecessary to place these two latter names on the Official
List with the counterpart endorsements that they are to be used only by zoo-
logists who believe them to denote different taxa from SCUTELLUIDAE. I have
two reasons for holding this view. First, the point seems to me so obviously
implicit in the ruling concerning SCUTELLUIDAE as to be not worth stating.
Secondly, and more seriously, it would involve Official List action in respect
of both Thysanopeltis (as requested by the applicants) and Goldius. But both
these generic names are currently treated as subjective synonyms of Scutellum,
which is the senior name of the three. I cannot see what purpose is served by
placing names currently held to be junior subjective synonyms on the Official
List.

It therefore seems to me that the Commission’s Ruling in this case should
take the following form:

1. It is hereby ruled under the plenary powers that the family-group name
SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955 (a replacement name for SCUTELLIDAE
Richter & Richter, 1925, non Gray, 1825) is to be given priority over the family-
group names THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, and GOLDIIDAE Raymond,
1913, by any zoologist who believes that these names, or either of them, apply
to the same family-group taxon.

2. The family-group name SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955 (type-
genus Scutellum Pusch, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology with the endorsement specified under the plenary
powers in 1 above.

3. The genus-group name Scutellum Pusch, 1833 (gender: neuter), type-
species, by monotypy, Scutellum costatum Pusch, 1833, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

4. The species-group name costatum Pusch, 1833, as published in binomen
Scutellum costatum (type-species of Scutellum Pusch, 1833) is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

5. The family-group name BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847 (invalid by
reason of being based on the name of a junior homonym) is hereby placed on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.

6. The genus-group name Brontes Goldfuss, 1839 (non Fabricius, 1801)
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology”.

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

At the close of the prescribed voting period on | July 1973 the state of the
voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Binder, Brinck, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Lemche, Erben, Corliss, Willink, Ride,
Melville, Mayr, Tortonese, Habe, Bayer, Nye, Bernardi, Starobogatov, Heppell,
Vokes, Kraus, Alvarado.

Negative votes—one (1): Rohdendorf.

Voting papers not returned—three (3): Dupuis, Munroe, Simpson.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on the
Official List and Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847, K. Bohm. Gesell. Wiss. (Prague), Abh. 5 : 55
Brontes Goldfuss, 1839 (non Fabricius, 1801), Nova Acta Phys. Med. Acad.
Caes. Leop. Carol. 19 : 360
costatum, Scutellum, Pusch, 1833, Geognostische Beschreibung von Polen,
sowie den iibrigen Nord-Karpathenldandern. Pt. 1 : 119
Scutellum Pusch, 1833, (tom. cit.): 119
SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955, Senkenbergiana leth. 36 : 291.

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (69)28 and (O.M.) (73)1 were
cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in Voting Paper (69)28 and
modified by Voting Paper (O.M.) (73)1 have been duly adopted under the
plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1004.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
6 September 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

OPINION 1005

TRYPETA MEIGEN, 1803 (INSECTA: DIPTERA); TRYPETES
SCHOENHERR, 1836 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA); TR YPETESA
NORMAN, 1903 (CRUSTACEA: CIRRIPEDIA):
REMOVAL OF HOMONYMY IN FAMILY-GROUP NAMES
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby directed that the
stem of the generic name Jrypetes Schoenherr, 1836, is to be TRYPETID- in
forming names of the family-group.

(2) The generic name Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836 (gender: masculine)
type-species, by original designation, Trypetes rhinoides Gyllenhal in Schoenherr,
1836, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
the Name Number 1986.

(3) The specific name rhinoides Gyllenhal in Schoenherr, 1836, as published
in the binomen Trypetes rhinoides (type-species of Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836),
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2510.

(4) The family-group name TRYPETIDINAE Pierce, 1919, (type-genus Trypetes
Schoenherr, 1836) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names
in Zoology, with the Name Number 474.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1733)

The present case was originally submitted to the office of the Commission
on 21 December 1965 by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky and Dr. E. C. Zimmerman.
An amended version of the application, submitted by Mr. R. V. Melville on
19 March 1970, was sent to the printer on 1 July 1970 and was published on
23 December 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 198-199. Public Notice of the
possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as
well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b;
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials and one
Crustacean serial. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 4 January 1973, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)18 either for or against the
proposals as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 199. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 4 April 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes: twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Melville,
Holthuis, Munroe, Lemche, Dupuis, Mayr, Sabrosky, Eisenmann, Vokes, Habe,
Rohdendorf, Starobogatov, Binder, Tortonese, Bayer, Brinck, Bernardi, Ride,
Corliss, Alvarado, Nye, Willink.

Negative votes—one (1): Simpson.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Voting Paper not returned—one (1): Erben.

Commissioner Heppell returned a late affirmative vote and Commissioner
Kraus abstained from voting.

The following comment was made by Commissioner Simpson (22.v.1973)
in returning his vote: “The application contains an evident error in paragraph
7(4) as it asks the Commission to recognize Lacordaire, 1866 as the (fictitious)
author of TRYPETIDINAE, whereas the application itself shows that Lacordaire
was in fact the (fictitious) author of TRYPETIDAE and that Pierce, 1919, is as far
as has been shown, the author of TRYPETIDINAE and hence the (fictitious) author
of TRYPETIDIDAE”’.

This point has been duly noted and corrected in the Opinion.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
rhinoides, Trypetes Gyllenhal, in Schoenherr, 1836, Gen. et Sp. Curc. III (2): 596
Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836, Gen. et Sp. Curc. III(2): 595
TRYPETIDINAE Pierce, 1919, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 21 : 33

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)18 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision
of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 1005.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
7 September 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153

OPINION 1006

POTERIOCRINUS HEMISPHERICUS SHUMARD, 1858
(ECHINODERMATA: CRINOIDEA) DESIGNATION OF A
NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the nominal
species hemisphericus Shumard, 1858 as described in the binomen Poteriocrinus
hemisphericus Shumard, 1858 is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype
designated by Moore & Strimple, 1970 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 203, pl. 4).

(2) The generic name Delocrinus Miller & Gurley, 1890 (gender: masculine),
type-species by original designation, Poteriocrinus hemisphericus Shumard,
1858, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
the name Number 1987.

(3) The specific name hemisphericus Shumard, 1858, as published in the
binomen Poteriocrinus hemisphericus and as interpreted by reference to the
neotype designated by Moore & Strimple, 1970 (type-species of Delocrinus) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name
Number 2511.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1905)

The present application was submitted to the Office of the Commission by
Dr. R. C. Moore and Mr. H. L. Strimple in September 1969. The application
was sent to the printer on 1 July 1970 and was published on 23 December 1970
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 202-204. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials.

The application was supported by J. J. Burke, and N. G. Lane & G. D.
Webster (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 75). Dr. H. Lemche asked that the Opinion
should make it clear that the neotype was chosen by the applicants and not by
the Commission. This has been done.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 4 January 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)20 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 203. At the close of the voting
period on 4 April 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Melville,
Holthuis, Munroe, Lemche, Mayr, Sabrosky, Eisenmann, Vokes, Habe,
Rohdendorf, Starobogatov, Binder, Tortonese, Bayer, Brinck, Simpson,
Ride, Corliss, Alvarado, Nye, Willink.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Bernardi, Erben.

Commissioners Heppell and Kraus returned late affirmative votes.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Commissioner Dupuis abstained from voting and in returning his voting
paper wrote (1.i. 1973): ““Explication de mon abstention: la requéte est raison-
nable en apparence, mais la création de néotypes est toujours dangereuse”’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Delocrinus Miller & Gurley, 1890, J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist. 13 : 9
hemisphericus, Poteriocrinus 1858, Shumard in Shumard & Swallow, St. Louis
Acad. Sci., Trans. 1 : 221

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)20 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1006.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

10 September 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155

OPINION 1007

COSCINOC YATHUS BORNEMANN, 1884 (ARCHAEOCYATHA):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884, made prior to the
present Ruling, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species, Coscinocyathus
dianthus Bornemann, 1884, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that
genus.

(2) The generic name Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884 (gender: masculine)
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Coscino-
cyathus dianthus Bornemann, 1884, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1988.

(3) The specific name dianthus Bornemann, 1884 as published in the binomen
Coscinocyathus dianthus (type-species of Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884)
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2512.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1924)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Francoise Debrenne in March 1970. Dr. Debrenne’s application was sent to
the printer on | July 1970 and was published on 23 December 1970 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 27 : 207-208. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well
as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 4 January 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)22 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 207-208. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 4 April 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty one (21), received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Munroe, Lemche, Mayr, Sabrosky, Eisenmann, Vokes,
Habe, Starobogatov, Binder, Tortonese, Bayer, Brinck, Bernardi, Simpson,
Ride, Corliss, Alvarado, Nye, Willink.

Negative votes—two (2): Dupuis, Rohdendorf.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Erben.

Commissioner Heppell returned a late negative vote and Commissioner
Kraus returned a late affirmative vote.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Prof. E. Mayr (8.i.1973): “It was rather improper to describe the new genus
Tubicoscinus in an application to the Commission. I hope some way will be

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

found to validate the genus properly. The publication in this place can pro-
bably be set aside because it was made conditionally: “if this proposal is
accepted’’.””

Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (4.ii.1973): ““My reason for voting against is as follows.
Dr. F. Debrenne has proposed to establish a new type-species for an old genus
in consequence of the discovery of new morphological features of the old
type-species. The proposal is motivated by the desire to conservate the old
generic name for the majority of species. This proposal is undoubtedly wrong
and disregards the rules of Code (Article 70): the type-species of Coscinocyathus
was determined by Ting (1937) and verified by Debrenne (1964). The designa-
tion of another type-species is not desirable, especially in such a little elaborated
group as Archaeocyatha’’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884, Z. dt. geol. Ges. 36 : 704
dianthus, Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884, Z. dt. geol. Ges. 36 : 704

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)22 were cast as set out above,

that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1007.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
21 September 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157

OPINION 1008

SIPHONA MEIGEN, 1803 AND HAEMATOBIA LEPELETIER AND
SERVILLE, 1828 (INSECTA: DIPTERA): DESIGNATIONS OF
TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Siphona Meigen, 1803, made prior to this present Ruling
are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776,
is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus.
(2) The designation by Westwood (1840) of Conops irritans Linnaeus as
type-species of Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville, 1828 is hereby confirmed.
(3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Siphona Meigen, 1803 : 281 (gender: feminine) (type-species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above Musca geniculata De
Geer, 1776) (Name No. 1989);

(b) Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville, 1828 : 499 (gender: feminine)
(type-species Conops irritans Linnaeus, 1758 by designation of West-
wood, 1840) (Name No. 1990);
(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) geniculata De Geer, 1776: 38 as published in the binomen Musca
geniculata De Geer (type-species of Siphona Meigen, 1803) (Name
No. 2513);

(b) irritans Linnaeus, 1758 : 604, as published in the binomen Conops
irritans Linnaeus (type-species of Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville,
1828) (Name No. 2514).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 195)

This case was first brought to the attention of the Commission in May,
1945 by Dr. A. J. Nicholson of Canberra through Dr. S. A. Neave, the then
Director of the Imperial Institute of Entomology (now the Commonwealth
Institute of Entomology). The buffalo fly at that time was causing much
trouble in Australia where there was disagreement as to its correct name.
The species was also an economic problem in America and therefore it was
desirable to reach a solution which would have wide acceptance. The case
was a complicated one and the situation under the existing Code is not the
same as when the case was first presented.

Dr. Curtis Sabrosky drew all the threads together in the light of the present
Code. His application was received in October 1970, was sent to the printer
on 26 October 1970 and was published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
27 : 234-237. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to seven
entomological serials. No comment was received.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)1 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 236-237. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 28 May 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order:
Holthuis, Eisenmann, Lemche, Binder, Mayr, Corliss, Vokes, Habe, Alvarado,
Rohdendorf, Melville, Willink, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Heppell,
Nye, Brinck, Ride, Bernardi, Bayer.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—four (4); Munroe, Simpson, Erben, Dupuis.

Commissioner Kraus returned a late affirmative vote.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
geniculata, Musca, De Geer, 1776, Mémoires pour servir al’histoire des Insectes
vol. 6 : 38
Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville, 1828, Encyl. Méthod., Insectes vol. 10,
livr. 100 : 499
irritans, Conops, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, ed. 10 : 64
Siphona Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenkunde 2 : 281.

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)1 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1008.

R. V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
24 September 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159

OPINION 1009

VANIKORO QUOY AND GAIMARD, 1832
(MOLLUSCA: GASTROPODA): MADE AVAILABLE
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby directed:

(a) that the generic name Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, (type-species,
by monotypy Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck, 1822) is made available,
to be treated as a latinized word from Quoy & Gaimard, 1832;

(b) that the gender of the above generic name is feminine;

is VANIKOR-;

(d) that the following generic names are ruled unjustified emendations of

Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832: Vanicoro Gray, 1842; Vanicora
Paetel, 1887, Vanikora Whitfield, 1891; Vanikoroia Martin, 1914;
Vanikoroa Cossman, 1924.

(2) The generic name Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, made available under
the plenary powers in (1) above (gender, as ruled under the plenary powers in
(1) above, feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck,
1822 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with
the Name Number 1991.

(3) The specific name cancellatus Lamarck, 1822, (as published in the binomen
Sigaretus cancellatus) type-species, by monotypy, of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard,
1832) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2515.

(4) The family-group name VANIKORIDAE Gray, 1840 (a justified emendation
of VANCOROIDAE) (type-genus Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) is hereby placed
on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number
475.

(5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci-
fied:

(a) the five unjustified emendations of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832:

Vanicoro Gray, 1842 (Name No. 2030); Vanicora Paetel, 1887 (Name
No. 2031); Vanikora Whitfield, 1891 (Name No. 2032); Vanikoroia
Martin, 1914 (Name No. 2033); Vanikoroa Cossman, 1924 (Name
No. 2034);

(b) the four objective synonyms of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832:
Merria Gray, 1839(?) (Name No. 2035); Leucotis Swainson, 1840
Name (No. 2036); Narica d’Orbigny (ex Récluz MS), 1842(?) (Name
No. 2037); Nioma Gray, 1842 (Name No. 2038);

(c) the four unjustified emendations of names listed in (b) above: Leucotus
G. B. Sowerby II, 1842 (Name No. 2039); Niomia Gray, 1842 (Name
No. 2040); Merrya Récluz, 1846 (Name No. 2041); Niona Paetel,
1887 (Name No. 2042).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(6) The following Family-group names are hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:

(a) VANICORIDAE Gray, 1840 (an incorrect original spelling in consequence
of the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above) (Name No.
467);

(b) NARICIDAE Récluz, 1846 (Name No. 468) and (c) MERRIIDAE Hedley, 1917
(Name No. 469) based on objective junior synonyms of Vanikoro
Quoy & Gaimard, 1832.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1524)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Robert Robertson in March 1962. The application was sent to the printer on
9 March 1962 and was published on 10 September 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
19 : 332-336. The application was again published on 29 March 1971 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 27 : 238-245, together with the comments received on the case
and a revised set of proposals. In both instances public notice of the possible
use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same parts of the
Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art.
12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two molluscan serials. The pro-
posals put forward by Mr. Melville, the author of the second application, were
supported by Prof. Myra Keen, Dr. Harald Rehder and Mr. Joshua Baily, Jr.

Dr. Ride asked that the Opinion should state that Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard
1832 is a latinized word, or treated as such, and available from Quoy & Gaimard,
1832. The wording of the present Ruling complies with his wish.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)2 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 245. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 28 May 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order:
Holthuis, Eisenmann, Lemche, Binder, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Vokes, Habe,
Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Melville, Willink, Dupuis, Starobogatov, Sabrosky,
Tortonese, Heppell,* Nye, Brinck, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride.

*Commissioner Heppell was against proposal (4).

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3); Munroe, Erben, Kraus.

The following comments were made by Commissioners after they had re-
ceived the Voting Paper:

Dr. D. Ride (in a letter to The Secretary and Members of Council 19.iv.73):
“The question is whether the Commission has, within these powers [those
specified in Article 79] the power to take a “vernacular”, published prior to a
name, and validate its use from the earlier date as though it were a name.

In the case of the generic name Vanikoro, I have examined Quoy and Gaimard
Astrolabe 2 : 239, and have no doubt that their use of Vanikoro is not a “‘nomen-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161

clatural act” in the meaning of the Code (Vanikoroisavernacular—not a name—
therefore it is not a name to be validated. Rather it is a word which could
require to be made available as a name. Similarly the proposal by Quoy &
Gaimard to introduce it into vernacular use is not a nomenclatural act.

The name Vanicoro dates from Gray, 1842; there it seems to have been based
upon the vernacular use by Quoy & Gaimard and was amended to Vanikoro
by Adams & Adams, 1854.

If a majority of Councillors takes the view (as I do) that the Commission
does not have the power to convert a vernacular (non-name) into an available
name, we should ask the Secretary to withdraw the Voting Paper.

The same result (but with authorship attributed to Gray) can be achieved
through re-presenting the case in the form of a request to the Commission to
validate the unjustified emendation of Vanicoro Gray, 1842, to Vanikoro (i.e.
to validate the nomenclatural act of Adams & Adams), and to suppress Merria
and Leucotis”’.

Mr. Melville (in reply to Dr. Ride, 30.iv.73): “I agree that the request to
“validate” the name, should have been worded to “‘make the name available”.
As Dr. Robertson points out it is “invalid” (i.e. unavailable) on two grounds,
(i) that it was proposed in synonymy, and (ii) that it was proposed as a vernacular
name. I differ from you however, as to the extent of the Commission’s plenary
powers. I think that they extend to the making available of a name that is
defective in both the ways described provided that the name in question is not
at the same time a nomen nudum. Thus, if Vanikoro in Quoy & Gaimard’s
work is furnished with enough descriptive or illustrative matter to rescue it
from the third defect, then I hold that the Commission can, under its plenary
powers, make it an available name as from those authors and that date.

If that view is accepted by the other members of the Council, then it seems
to me that, if Dr. Robertson’s proposals gain the necessary majority vote, it is
only necessary, when writing the Opinion, to make the necessary changes of
wording. Again, given Council approval I should not think it necessary to
put this change to a vote of the Commission, since it would clearly be in accor-
dance with the spirit and intention of the majority vote.

If that view is not accepted by the Council, then clearly the present Voting
Paper must be withdrawn’.

Prof. E. Tortonese (in returning his voting paper, 9. iv.73): “I do not object
to the proposal as a whole, but wonder why Vanikoro is not considered mas-
culine”. [This was explained in a footnote Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 335.]

Mr. D. Heppell (in returning his voting paper 30. iv.73): “I do not agree
with section (4) of the proposals. Whether one accepts Vanicoro Gray as an
incorrect subsequent spelling (Robertson, comment p. 244) or as an unjustified
emendation (Proposal 1(d)), VANIKORIDAE must take priority from Gray,
1840. As VANICOROIDAE is an incorrect original spelling of the family-name
(Proposal 6(a)), VANIKORIDAE Adams & Adams, 1854, is a justified emendation,
taking the date and authorship of the original spelling Article 33(a)(i). Also
ef. Article 32(c). Even under Article 40(b) VANIKORIDAE Adams & Adams would

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

take priority from 1846, the date of the rejected NARICIDAE”’.

Prof. E. Mayr (replying to Mr. Melville’s (30. iv.73) letter to the Council
4.v.73): “I agree with your interpretation that the Commission has the authority
to make the name Vanikoro available as of 1832. In view of the fact that the
species on which the name was based was excellently illustrated (Plate 66 bis,
Figures 20-22) I would think that there is no real problem. Any other action
than that proposed by Dr. Robertson would lead to disturbance of stability.

I agree with you furthermore that the vote of the Commission be accepted
but that the Opinion be written in order to meet the criticism raised by Dr.
Ride”.

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (9.v.73) “‘From the discussion on the name Vanikoro,
it is clear that one of the crucial points here is whether or not Vanikoro is a
vernacular name. The spelling of the name is such that we cannot prove that
it is either one or the other. Only circumstantial evidence has been brought
forward to support the view that it is a vernacular name.

“This evidence consists only of the fact that Quoy & Gaimard in the same
paragraph in which they introduce the name Vanikoro speak of ‘son genre
Vélutine’, using the French word for the generic name Velutina and furthermore
that the name Vanikoro is not italicized by them. The first point (the use of
Vélutine) is no proof that also Vanikoro is used in the vernacular, as latin and
latinized names are used by Quoy and Gaimard in the rest of the text. Further-
more, authors at that time were not very strict in italicizing scientific names,
and there is no provision in the present Code requiring zoologists to do so.
The vernacular status of Vanikoro cannot be proven (neither can we prove the
opposite). The situation would be entirely different if the authors had stated
“Jes indigénes l’appellent Vanikoro” but they speak of “former un genre
nouveau... . sous le nom de Vanikoro”’; and thus definitely intended the word
Vanikoro to be the scientific name for a genus. As I see it, the Commission
in this case certainly can rule that the name Vanikoro Quoy and Gaimard,
1832, must be considered a latinized word and that it therefore is an available
name.

“T fully agree that the name Vanikoro cannot be validated by the Commission.
In fact, the Commission cannot declare any name valid: as soon as the Com-
mission indicates a name to be valid (i.e. the oldest available name for a taxon)
it transgresses on the field of taxonomy. The only thing the Commission can
do is to definitely state names to be available. It is up to taxonomists to decide
which among available names in their views are valid’’.

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (5.vi.73): “I agree that Vanikoro is a vernacular, at least
the general weight of topographical usage in Quoy and Gaimard would so
indicate—unitalicized Natice for Natica, Pneumoderme for Pneumoderma,
etc., both in the vernacular heading of each description and in discussions of the
text.

“In my opinion, under the plenary powers and Suspension of the Rules, the
Commission can do virtually anything, nomenclaturally that is. It can declare
an unavailable name available as of a certain date. I approve your proposed
procedure”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
cancellatus, Sigaretus Lamarck, 1822, An. s. vert. 6(2) : 208
Leucotis Swainson, 1840, Treat. Malacol.: 346
Leucotus G. B. Sowerby II, 1842, Conch. Man. (ed. 2): 172
Merria Gray, 1839(?) in Beechey Zool. Blossom: 137
MERRIIDAE Hedley, 1917, J. Proc. R. Soc. N.S.W. 51: Suppl., p. M62
Merrya Récluz, 1846 [‘1845”] Mag. Zool. (2) 7 (9): 7
Narica Orbigny (ex Récluz MS) 1842(?) in Sagra Cuba, Moll. (French ed.) 2 : 39
NARICIDAE Recluz, 1846 [“‘1845”] Mag. Zool. (2)7(9):6
Nioma Gray, 1842 Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 44): 60
Niomia Gray, 1842, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 44): 90
Niona Paetel, 1887 Cat. Conch. (ed. 4) 1: 511
Vanicora Paetel, 1887, Cat. Conch. (ed. 4) 1 : 511
Vanicoro Gray, 1840, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42), [issue 2] : 152
VANICOROIDAE Gray, 1840, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) [issue 2]: 121
Vanikora Whitfield, 1891, Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 3 : 387-388
VANIKORIDAE H. & A. Adams, 1854 Gen. Rec. Moll. 1 : 374
Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, Voy. Astrolabe, Zool. 2 : 239
Vanikoroa Cossmann, 1924, Essais Paléoconch. Comp. 13 : 163
Vanikoroia Martin, 1914, Samml. Geol. Reichs-Mus. Leiden (n.f.) 2(4):170

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)2 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1009.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

3 October 1973

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1010

CALLOPANCHAX MYERS, 1933 (PISCES): DESIGNATION
OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Callopanchax Myers, 1933, made prior to this Ruling
are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Aphyosemion occidentale Stenholt
Clausen, 1966, is hereby designated to be type-species of that genus.
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Callopanchax Myers, 1933 (gender: masculine), type-species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above Aphyosemion occidentale
Stenholt Clausen, 1966 (Name No. 1992);

(b) Fundulopanchax Myers, 1924 (gender: masculine), type-species by
original designation Fundulus gularis var. caerulea Boulenger, 1915
(Name No. 1993);
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) occidentale Stenholt Clausen, 1966, as published in the binomen Aphyo-
semion occidentale (type-species of Callopanchax Myers, 1933) (Name
No. 2516);

(b) sjoestedti Lénnberg, 1895 as published in the binomen Fundulus
sjoestedti (Name No. 2517).

(4) The generic name Roloffia Stenholt Clausen, 1966 (a junior objective
synonym of Callopanchax Myers, 1933) is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2043.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1910)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Pro-
fessor G. S. Myers in November 1969. Professor Myers’ application was sent
to the printer on 1 July 1970 and was published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 27 : 246-249. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as
to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one fish serial. The proposals were supported by the
Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 105) and by E. Trewavas and P. H.
Greenwood (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 193). Objections were received from
D. F. E. Thys van den Audenaerde (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 139) and H. Grimm.

Commissioners Holthuis and Sabrosky pointed out that caerulea Boulenger,
1915 is a junior synonym of Fundulus sjoestedti Lonnberg, 1895 and the latter
should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. This has
been done.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)3 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 249. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 28 May 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Lemche, Binder, Mayr, Corliss, Vokes, Habe, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Melville,
Willink, Dupuis, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Brinck, Bayer,
Heppell.

Negative votes—four (4): Eisenmann, Simpson, Ride, Bernardi.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Munroe, Erben

Commissioner Kraus returned a late negative vote.

Commissioners Holthuis and Sabrosky were against paragraph 3(b) of the
proposals.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (5.iii.73): “As Fundulus sjoestedti Lénnberg, 1895 is a
senior synonym of Fundulus gularis var. caerulea Boulenger, 1915, the name
sjoestedti and not caerulea should be placed on the Official List’’.

Dr. E. Eisenmann (5.ii.73): “In a case where usage is not overwhelming and
confusion would result, it is best to follow the rules strictly and apply the general
principles’.

Prof. E. Mayr (16.iii.73): “I want to have the following comment added to
my vote—Since the “golden pheasant” had been universally known for over
fifty years as sjoestedti, it would have been far better to set the original type
designation aside and designate a neotype conforming to universal usage’.

Prof. G. G. Simpson (23.iii.73): ““Objections by Thys van den Audenaerde
seem to me cogent and not adequately answered by Trewavas and Greenwood”.

Dr. C. Dupuis (2.iii.73): “Tl ne devrait pas y avoir besoin de pleins pouvoirs
de la Commission car il est bien évident que le type désigné au 1933, ‘Fundulus
sjoestedti Lénnberg 1895’ sensu Myers = occidentale Clausen’’.

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (25.iv.73): “Re proposal 3(b): caerulea is a junior
synonym of Fundulus sjoestedti Lonnberg. Therefore, either sjoestedti should
be the specific name placed on the Official List, or the plenary powers should
have been requested to suppress sjoestedti and to validate caerulea’.

Dr. W. D.L. Ride (17.v.73): “There is no need for the Commission to employ
plenary powers in this case as sought in the application. The case is covered
in the options (i) and (iii) specified in Article 70(a) as being open to the Com-
mission. However, like Article 79, Article 70(a) requires the Commission to
form a judgement, first, as to which option will best serve stability and univer-
sality. Paragraph 5 of the objection by Dr. Thys van den Audenaerde contains
the only precise information given to us on current usage (i.e. that Roloffia
S. Clausen is in wide general use in aquarium literature); one can only infer
from the application that, while the employment of Callopanchax Myers for the
“golden pheasant” had never been questioned up to 1966, its employment was
slight.

“The remaining arguments for and against the proposal to adopt alternative

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(i) centre about questions concerning the actions which S. Clausen and Myers
should have taken at various times. While one cannot but agree that, had the
proper taxonomic and nomenclatorial acts been taken by those concerned, the
problem would have been avoided, yet these points are irrelevant to the question
as to which option in Article 70(a) should be exercised, or whether the Com-
mission should employ the plenary powers (Art. 79).

“T am of the opinion that no case has been made which would justify the
use of the plenary powers. Further, on the basis of evidence of stability or
uniformity before us, it seems that we can do no other than to adopt alternative
(iii) of Art. 70(a) and designate F. sjoestedti Lénnberg, 1895, as type-species
of Callopanchax Myers, 1933”.

Prof. G. Bernardi (13.v.73): ‘“‘Je considére comme trés juste les remarques
de Thys van den Audenaerde: il faut corriger et non entériner les erreurs
systématiques commises”’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
Callopanchax Myers, 1933 Copeia 1933 (4) : 184
Fundulopanchax Myers, 1924 Am. Mus. Novit. 116 : 1-11
occidentale, Aphyosemion Stenholt Clausen, 1966 Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 73 : 331
Roloffia Stenholt Clausen, 1966 Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 73 : 338
sjoestedti, Fundulus Loénnberg, 1895 Ofvers. K. VetenskAkad. Forh. Stockh.
52: 191

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)3 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in this present Opinion No. 1010.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

4 October 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167

OPINION 1011

CYPSELUS ABESS YNICUS STREUBEL, 1848 (AVES, APODIDAE):
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name abessynicus
Streubel, 1848, as published in the binomen Cypselus abessynicus, is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy.

(2) The specific name galilejensis Antinori, 1855, as published in the binomen
Cypselus galilejensis is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2518.

(3) The specific name abessynicus Streubel, 1848, as published in the binomen
Cypselus abessynicus is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Number 989.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1914)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr.
C. W. Benson and Mr. H. K. Brooke in December 1969. The application
was sent to the printer on 26 October 1970 and was published on 29 March
1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 253-254. Public Notice of the possible use
of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin and also to the
other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to ten ornithological serials. Dr. H. Lemche criticized the
application and this was answered by the authors (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 3-4).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)4 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 254. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 28 May 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Eisenmann, Lemche, Binder, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Vokes, Habe, Alvarado,
Melville, Willink, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Brinck, Ride,
Bayer, Heppell.

Negative votes—three (3): Rodhendorf, Dupuis, Bernardi.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Munroe, Erben.

Commissioner Kraus returned a late affirmative vote.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (16.v.73); “Benson & Brooke (paragraph 3 of their
application) state that all attempts to trace the type of Cypselus galilejensis
Antinori, 1855, have failed. Yet if we accede to their request to suppress
C. abessynicus it will be because of its synonymy with C. galilejensis (as demon-
strated by them in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 4, para. 2). I am of the opinion
that, if the Commission votes in the affirmative, they should follow this by

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

removing any remaining instability by selecting an appropriate neotype for
C. galilejensis”’.

Prof. G. Bernardi: “S’estime d’une maniére générale que sauf dans des cas
exceptionnels (intérét économique) il n’est pas souhaitable d’accepter un
mauvais travail systématique simplement parce que l’erreur est réepandu pendant
une longue durée. Dans le cas présent il me semble tout a fait inutile d’user des
pleins pouvoirs 4 propos de ceux noms subspécifiques, intéressant seulement
des spécialistes. Le piétre travail taxonomique d’Antinori, qui n’a pas examiné
le type disponible d’ abessynicus ni compris le sens exact du terme ‘“‘Abyssinia”’
doit étre sanctionné par la mise en synonymie du nom galilejensis (dont le
type est en outre perdu). Au contraire grace 4 l’excellent travail systématique
de Benson et Brooke le nom abessynicus peut désormais étre employé en toute
certitude pour désigner la sous-espéce d’Apus affinis s’étendant du Maroc a
lAfghanistan’”’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on the
Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
abessynicus, Cypselus, Streubel, 1848, Isis von Oken 1848 col. 354
galilejensis, Cypselus Antinori, 1855, Naumannia: 307

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)4 were cast as set out above,
and that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision
of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 1011.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

5 October 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169

OPINION 1012

THALASCARIS BATE, 1878 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA):
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Thalascaris
Bate, 1878, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Thalascaris Bate, 1878, suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2044.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1928)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L.
B. Holthuis in April 1970. The application was sent to the printer on 1 July
1970 and was published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 257-258.
Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given
in the same part of the Bulletin and to the other prescribed serial publications
(Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist
serial. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)5 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl.27 : 258. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 28 May 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Holthuis,
Eisenmann, Lemche, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Vokes, Alvarado, Rohdendorf,
Melville, Willink, Dupuis, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Heppell,
Nye, Binder, Brinck, Ride, Bernardi, Bayer.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Munroe, Erben, Habe.

Commissioner Kraus returned a late affirmative vote.

In returning his voting paper Commissioner Dupuis made the following
comment (2.iii.73): “Il est cependant dommage de donner un type a un nomen
nudum! II serait préférable de ne pas officialiser cette désignation de type”’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCE
The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official
Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Thalascaris Bate, 1878, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5)2 : 282

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)5 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1012.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

5 October 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171

OPINION 1013

PRIAPUS HUMANUS LINNAEUS, 1758 AND HOLOTHURIA
PRIAPUS LINNAEUS, 1767 (PRIAPULIDA):
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific names Aumanus
Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the binomen Priapus humanus and priapus
Linnaeus, 1767 as published in the binomen Holothuria priapus are hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Priapulus Lamarck, 1816, (gender: masculine),
type-species by monotypy, Priapulus caudatus Lamarck, 1816, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1994.

(3) The specific name caudatus Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen
Priapulus caudatus, (type-species by monotypy of Priapulus Lamarck, 1816) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2519.

(4) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names
in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) humanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Priapus humanus

(Name No. 990);
(b) priapus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Holothuria priapus
(Name No. 991).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1932)

The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Dr. J.
van der Land in September 1970. The application was sent to the printer on
26 October 1970 and was published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
27 : 267-268. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184). No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)8 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 267-268. At the end of the pre-
scribed voting period on 28 May 1973 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Eisenmann,
Lemche, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Vokes, Alvarado, Melville, Willink, Dupuis,
Starobogatov, Tortonese, Nye, Binder, Brinck, Ride, Bernardi, Bayer, Heppell.

Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Rohdendorf, Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Munroe, Erben, Habe.

Commissioner Heppell asked that his vote be counted with the majority,
and Commissioner Kraus returned a late affirmative vote.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (5.11.73): ““Dr. van der Land informed me that a strict
application of the Rules will not cause an undesirable confusion in the nomen-
clature of this not very common species’’.

Mr. D. Heppell (24.v.73): “Please count my vote with the majority. I
believe this is one of the rare cases where there is an equal weight of argument
for stability and for priority. The proposer is not firmly in favour of one or
the other possible outcome and I have no strong views on the case myself”’.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
caudatus, Priapulus, Lamarck. 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres

Shy
humanus, Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 656
Priapulus Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans yvertébres 3 : 77
priapus, Holothuria Linnaeus, 1767, Systema naturae (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 1091

CERTIFICATE
I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)8 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1013.

R. V. MELVILLE

Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

9 October 1973

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

ON THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE HOTTENTOT TEAL. Z.N.(S.) 794

By W. D. L. Ride (President, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

Ride and Cain (/bis 1954 : 318) recorded that the type specimen of
Anas punctata Burchell, 1822, is a female Maccoa Duck. They pointed out
that under a strict application of the Rules the name maccoa Eyton, 1838 for
the Maccoa Duck would need to be replaced by the name punctata Burchell,
1822, while the name hottentota Eyton, 1838 would replace punctata Burchell
as the name for the Hottentot Teal. Ride, Cain, Meinertzhagen, Hemming
and Noakes submitted the case for the attention of the Commission (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1956, 12 : 35-48) but the application was complex and a number of
different opinions were expressed such that the matter was never brought to a
vote.

2. Since the name maccoa had been in use for the Maccoa Duck and the
name punctata had been in use for the Hottentot Teal for a considerable period
of time, the applicants felt that the transfer of the name from one species to
another was to be deplored and could only cause confusion.

3. In order to prevent the transfer of names the applicants considered
three possibilities as follows:

(1) By appointing an undoubted specimen of the Hottentot Teal as a “‘neo-
type” of the species Anas punctata Burchell, 1822.

(2) By suppressing Burchell’s original description, (Trav. S. Afr. 1 : 283)
and validating the first suitable usage of the name Anas punctata as applied to
the Hottentot Teal.

(3) By suppressing the name Anas punctata Burchell and allowing the first
available synonym to take its place. This is Querquedula hottentota Eyton,
1838. The Hottentot Teal would thus receive a different name, but a transfer
and the confusion attendant on it would be avoided.

4. Since the type specimen of Burchell’s species existed, the applicants did
not consider requesting the Commission to appoint a neotype. Further, the
applicants considered that stability would best be served by retaining for both
species the names by which they are at present known. This meant that the
somewhat simpler third alternative was rejected in favour of the second.

5. The application was complicated by a number of secondary considera-
tions which were introduced in order to establish the validity, or otherwise, of
all the names involved in the case. There were a considerable number of these.

6. Comments received by the Secretary fall into a number of discrete
categories, summarised as follows:

(1) Agreement with published proposals (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 45-48):
Dr. J. B. Taylor (Port Elizabeth, S. Africa); Dr. V. G. H. van Someren (Ngong,
Kenya) (provided that Burchell’s type of Anas punctata and the description
of the Maccoa duck really agree).

(2) Partial support:

Dr. Dean Amadon (American Museum Natural History, New York) wishes at
least to see the name punctata preserved for the Hottentot Teal).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) Opposed to the published proposals:

South African Ornithological Society’s List Committee (per P. A. Clancey,
Hon. Secretary). ‘It is felt that the proposals are likely to cause as much, if
not more confusion than strict application of the Rules”. (Later Mr. Clancey
wrote in his own name that he thought that the name hottentota should be
accepted for the Hottentot Teal and probably not more than twelve systematists
in the whole of Africa would be affected by the change. In a recent letter
(21.v.73) Mr. Clancey writes: ‘‘My view is to suppress punctata Burchell under
your plenary powers, and declare A. hottentota as the correct name of the
Hottentot Teal and Oxyura maccoa as that of the Maccoa Duck”.

Professor S. Dillon Ripley (Yale University) opposes on the grounds that the
proposals are too cumbersome and involve the setting aside of a type-specimen,
which ought to be inviolate, as “representing the very touchstone, the essential
proof of what is being described”. The proposals carry the doctrine of “‘nomina
conservanda’”’ too far and in any case the junior synonym is well known.

Dr. Nagamichi Kuroda (Tokyo) supports Professor Ripley’s view, having
received a copy of his letter.

(4) Qualified support (i.e. to accept the original of Smith, 1845 Jil. Zool.
S. Africa pl. 105 as neotype of Anas punctata):
Dr. Henning Lemche (Copenhagen) supports on the grounds that the pro-
posals are too complex and that the action he favours was adopted in the case of
Papilio plexippus (North American Monarch Butterfly) where the Linnean type
was found not to agree with current use of the name (see Opinion 282).

7. Following discussions with Ride, the Secretary wrote to the South
Africa Museum and Durban Museum and Art Gallery asking if a neotype could
be found in those collections. The Directors of the Institutions, Dr. Barry
(per J. M. Winterbottom) and Dr. P. A. Clancey advised that no suitable
specimen is available.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore

requested to:

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name punctata Burchell,
1822, as published in the binomen Anas punctata (Tray. S. Afr. 1 : 243)
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law
of Homonymy;

(2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:

(a) hottentota Eyton, 1838, as published in the binomen Querquedula
hottentota (Mon. Anatidae: 129);
(b) maccoa Eyton, 1838, as published in the binomen Erismatura
maccoa (Mon. Anatidae: 169);
(3) to place the specific name punctata Burchell, 1822, as published in the
binomen Anas punctata, and suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

ACANTHOM YS LEUCOPUS GRAY, 1867 (MAMMALIA):
PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.
Z.N.(S.) 1724

By W. D. L. Ride (President, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

I have recently looked out the correspondence on the case of Acanthomys
leucopus raised by Calaby, Horner and Taylor in 1966 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
22 : 330-331). This matter has been delayed for much too long and I have
now re-examined it in the light of the amendments to Article 59, made at
Monaco (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 180) in 1972, in the hope that these will
clarify the matters over which Dr. E. Mayr and I have been in disagreement.
His view that there was no need for action by the Commission has resulted in
the matter not being brought to a vote to date.

I am of the opinion that the position is now clarified and should go forward
to the Commission without delay. It is as follows:

1. Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1867 : 598) was
rejected by Alston (1877) Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1877 : 124 footnote, on grounds
of its secondary homonymy with Mus leucopus Rafinesque, 1818, thus: “‘This
A. leucopus, [Gray]. ..clearly belongs to true Mus and not to Acanthomys
Lesson (= Acomys, Geoffr.). It will therefore require to be renamed, Gray’s
specific title being preoccupied by the common North American Mouse,
Mus leucopus, Rafinesque (Hesperomys leucopus auctt.).”

2. In 1879, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.: 646, Alston proposed the replacement
name M. terraereginae for the species formerly known by the junior secondary
homonym A. leucopus Gray, 1867.

3. In accordance with Article 59(b)(i) of the Code, the secondary homonym
so rejected cannot be restored unless the use of the replacement name is
contrary to existing usage. The use of M. terraereginae Alston, 1879 is con-
trary to existing usage.

4. From 1879 to 1920 M. terraereginae Alston had a period of acceptance
but Thomas (1920) Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 6 : 424 footnote, restored /eucopus
to use on the grounds that although “rightly renamed” by Alston, “Gray’s name
should apparently be reinstated” because the species involved were no longer
considered congeneric.

5. Accordingly, during the last fifty years, M. terraereginae has not been
applied to any species of Australian rat while, during that period, /eucopus
has been used constantly (whether for the right or wrong reason) in all major
works. This is demonstrated by reference to the succession of “standard
works” on Australian mammals issued since 1926, and by reference to the three
principal scientific revisionary works, which embrace Australian Rattus,
published during the same period.

Le Souer, A. S. & BuRRELL, H. 1926. The wild animals of Australasia.

London, George G. Harrap, p. 125.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TROUGHTON, E. Le G. 1941. Furred animals of Australia. Sydney,
Angus & Robertson, p. 285 (with subsequent editions to 1967).

Ripe, W. D. L. 1970. <A guide to the native mammals of Australia.
With drawings by Ella Fry. Melbourne, Oxford University
Press, p. 138.

IREDALE, T. & TROUGHTON, E. LE G. 1934. Checklist of the mammals
recorded from Australia. Mem. Aust. Mus. 6 : 1-122.

Tate, G. H. H. 1951. The rodents of Australia and New Guinea. Bull.
Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 97 : 183-430.

TayLor, J. M. & Horner, E. B. 1973. Systematics of native Australian
Rattus (Rodentia, Muridae). Bull. Am. nat. Hist. 150 : 1-130.
6. Thecase should now be referred to the Commission for a vote to suppress,
by use of the plenary powers, the name M. terraereginae Alston, 1879, and also
to designate A. leucopus Gray, 1867, to be the valid name of the species as being
that name which will, in its judgement, best serve stability and uniformity of
nomenclature (Article 59(b)(i)).
7. This application is supported by J. Mary Taylor and B. Elizabeth
Horner. Professor Horner writes (27.v.1973): “As additions to the listings
cited by Calaby, Horner, and Taylor, in 1966, and by Ride, in his application
of 1973, of works published within the last fifty years that use the specific name
leucopus for the Australian rat, I offer the following:
Tate, G. H. H. 1953. Notes on the mammals of Cape York Peninsula.
In: Brass, L. J., Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 68.
Summary of the 1948 Cape York (Australia) Expedition. Bull.
Am. Nat. Hist. 102 : 199-203.

MISONNE, X. 1969. African and Indo-Australian Muridae. Evolutionary
trends. Annils Mus. r. Afr. cent. (Zool.) 172 : 1-219.”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177

ESCHARA SPONGITES PALLAS, 1766 (BRYOZOA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1826
By the late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B. Hastings (28 Kew Gardens Road,
Richmond, Surrey; formerly of the British Museum (Natural History), London

(The following is the text of a revised application by the above authors
which was first published in 1967 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 316-318. It is
reproduced here for the benefit of Members of the Commission and interested
zoologists who may not have access to that earlier publication. R.V.M.)

1. The name Stylopoma was introduced by Levinsen in 1909 in the ex-
planation of Plate XVIII and in the legend to that plate. In the former the
two species assigned to Stylopoma are referred to as Schizoporella (Stylopoma)
longirostris Hincks and Schizoporella (St.) spongites (Pallas), whereas in the
latter they are given as Stylopoma longirostris Hincks and St. spongites Pall.,
respectively. Whether Levinsen intended the name as a subgenus of Schizo-
porella Hincks by his use of parentheses in the explanation of Plate XVIII is
not clear, as he used parentheses apparently with an entirely different meaning
in other parts of the work, e.g., Electra (Heterooecium) amplectens Hincks on
p. 147 and in the explanation of Plate IX, and Catenaria (Vittaticella) elegans
(Busk), Catenaria (Vittat.) fusca (MacGilliv.) and Catenaria (Vittat.) cornuta
(Busk) in the explanation of Plate XIII—in these instances it is probable that
the name in parentheses indicates that it is a synonym. This, however, could
not have been Levinsen’s intention with regard to Stylopoma and Schizoporella.
In the legend to Plate XVIII the name is given full generic rank.

2. The type-species of Stylopoma, chosen from the two originally included
species by Canu and Bassler (1920, p. 359), is Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766,
p. 45.

3. Pallas (p. 46) gave the localities from which the species came as “Mare
Mediterraneum & Americanum”.

4. Although Harmer (1930, p. 79) has pointed out that Pallas included
several species in Eschara spongites, Pallas gave a good description of a Medit-
erranean specimen in the “Museo Serenissimi Principis Auriaci” and com-
mented that the specimen figured by Gualtieri (1742, figure after Title of Pt. iv)
was very similar to it inits character. Pallas’s remarks (p. 47) on the American
specimens indicate that they belonged to other species (cf Harmer, 1930,
p. 79—“The American specimens included probably belonged to other
species’).

5. In the hundred years following Pallas, several authors used his specific
name spongites, either combined with Eschara, Cellepora or Millepora, for
Mediterranean material (see Jelly, 1889, p. 234).

6. Smitt (1872, p. 42, pl. 8, figs. 161-163) used the name spongites, as
Hippothoa spongites, for a species from Florida.

7. Waters (1909, p. 144), treating his own species Lepralia errata (1878,
p. 11), L. errata, stadium Hemeschara (1879, p. 39, pl. 10, fig. 5), from the
Bay of Naples, as a variety of Schizoporella unicornis (Johnston), noted that it

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

“is what Pallas described as Eschara spongites” and that it “is not the S.
spongites of Smitt, Hincks and Thornely”. [Harmer, (1957, pp. 1035, 1034)
referred the Hincks and Thornely material to Stylopoma parviporosum (Canu and
Bassler) and S. duboisii (Audouin), respectively.]

8. Later in the same year (1909, p. 324) Levinsen re-described Smitt’s
species and introduced the name Sty/opoma (see paragraph 1, above). Al-
though he referred to the species as Schizoporella spongites (Pallas) Smitt, he did
not restrict spongites to the American material, but included a specimen
from Aor, Malacca, Burma, (p. 325) and one from Java (pl. XVIII, fig. 4d).

9. By 1918, Waters (p. 17) recognized that Eschara spongites Pallas in-
volved three species, namely ,(a) Schizoporella unicornis forma errata (Waters)
[ = Lepralia errata Waters, an erect form], (b) S. sanguinea Norman, another
Mediterranean but encrusting species, and (c) the American S. spongites of
Smitt and Levinsen. He suggested that, as “the first two species are well
known under other names”’ [i.e., later names], spongites should be applied to
the American species. However, he made no designation of a type-specimen.

10. Osburn (1914, p. 207), Canu and Bassler (1920, p. 359; 1930, p. 40),
and Hastings (1930, p. 721) used spongites for the American species.

11. Pallas not only included Gualtieri’s figure of Porus Anguinus . . . in his
synonymy of Eschara spongites, but he also commented on the specimen in his
remarks (see paragraph 4, above). Thus, in accordance with Article 74b of
the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, Harmer’s choice (1930,
p. 80) of Gualtieri’s figure as type of the species appears to be valid—Harmer
wrote, ‘“‘Pallas’ citation of Gualtieri makes it possible, however, to retain his
name in the sense usually accepted; and Gualtieri’s figure is thus to be regarded
as the type of Eschara spongites’”. The later statement of Hastings (1932,
p. 420) that “The genotype of Stylopoma is the W. Indian species figured by
Levinsen”’ is incorrect.

12. The name Stylopoma spongites (Pallas) is thus restricted to the Mediter-
ranean form, and is not available for the American species.

13. Hastings (1932, p. 420), Marcus (1937, p. 91; 1955, p. 296) and Osburn
(1940, p. 424; 1947, p. 29; 1952, p. 336), accepted Harmer’s restriction of the
name to the Mediterranean species. Following the suggestion of Canu and
Bassler (1923, p. 102), they placed the Recent American species in the synonymy
of Cellepora informata Lonsdale (1845, p. 505, 2 figs.), using the combination
Stylopoma informata (Londsale).

14. Cheetham and Sandberg (1964, p. 1030) stated the nomenclatorial
problems of both Stylopoma and Eschara spongites, and gave reasons (p. 1031)
for rejecting the synonymy of the Recent American species with Cellepora
informata.

15. It appears from the foregoing that the choice by Harmer (1930) of a
Mediterranean lectotype for Eschara spongites Pallas was strictly lawful, but
invalidates current usages as follows:

i. of the genus Stylopoma Levinsen for a distinctive group of species.
ii. of the name Stylopoma spongites (Pallas) for a well-known American
(warm Atlantic) species.
iii. of the name Schizoporella errata (Waters) for a common Mediterranean

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179

and ship-fouling species.

16. By rejecting Harmer’s selection and choosing a specimen of the
American species as neotype of Eschara spongites Pallas, these usages would all
remain undisturbed.

17. Moreover, as the Mediterranean species is also known from the
American coast (certain records of Schizoporella unicornis being based on
S. errata), this course would avoid the transference of the name spongites from
one American species to another.

18. We, therefore, ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of a type-specimen
for Eschara spongites Pallas 1766, made prior to the Ruling now
requested, and having done so, to designate:

(a) Levinsen’s dry specimen from St. Jean (St. John) Bay, W. Indies,
10 fath., in Universitetets Museum, Copenhagen, redescribed by
Hastings (in press), as neotype of Eschara spongites Pallas;

(2) to place the generic name Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909, (gender : neuter),
type-species, chosen by Canu and Bassler, 1920, p. 45, Eschara
spongites Pallas, 1766, on to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.

(3) to place the following specific names on to the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology:

(a) spongites Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Eschara
spongites (type-species of Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909);

(b) errata Waters, 1878, as published in the binomen Lepralia errata;

REFERENCES
CaNu, F. & BAssLer, R.S. 1920. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 106, 879 pp.
—— 1923. Op. cit., 125, 302 pp.
— 1930. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 76, (13), 73 pp.
CHEETHAM, A. H. & SANBDERG, P. A. 1964. J. Paleontology, 38 (6), pp. 1013-1046
GUALTIERI, N. 1742. Index Testarum Conchyliorum, Florentiae
Harmer, 8. F. 1930. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 141, pp. 68-118
— 1957. Rep. Siboga Exp., XXVIII d, pp. i-xv, 641-1147
Hastincs, A. B. 1930. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 697-740
— 1932. Rep. Gt. Barrier Reef Exp., 4 (2), pp. 399-458
JELLY, E.C. 1889. A Synonymic Catalogue of the Recent Marine Bryozoa. London
LEvINSEN, G. M. R. 1909. Morphological and Systematic Studies on the Cheilo-
stomatous Bryozoa. Copenhagen
LONSDALE. W. 1845. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London, 1, pp. 495-509
Marcus, E. 1937. Bol. Fac. Filos. Ciénc. S. Paulo, Zool. 1, pp. 1-224
— 1955. Arg. Mus. Nat. Rio de Janeiro, 92, pp. 273-324
OsBuRN, R.C. 1914. Pap. Tortugas Lab., 5, pp. 181-222
— 1940. Sci. Surv. Porto Rico and Virgin Islands, 16 (3), pp. 321-486
— 1947. Rep. Allan Hancock Atlantic Exp., 5, pp. 1-66
—— 1952. Rep. Allan Hancock Pacific Exp., 14 (2), pp. 271-611
PaLias, P.S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum...Hagae Comitum
Smitt, F. A. 1873. K. Svenska Vetensk.-Akad. Handl., 11 (4), pp. 3-230
Waters, A. W. 1878. Proc. Manch. Lit. & Phil. Soc., 18 (8), pp. 8-11
—— 1879. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (5) 3, pp. 28-43
— 1909. J. Linn. Soc. Zool. London, 34, pp. 123-181
—— 1918. J. Linn. Soc. Zool. London, 34, pp. 1-45

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr. LEMCHE’S COMMENTS:

Following circulation of the foregoing paper, Dr. Lemche drew attention
to the following points; the introduction of the unofficial term “‘paraneotype”’;
the lack of precise details of the proposed neotype—these having been given in
Hastings* (1968) referred to in the application as “‘in press”; and the lack of
any accompanying description or figure—Levinsen’s having been considered to
be good and sufficient.

As a result of correspondence between Dr. Lemche, Dr. Hastings and
the Commission’s office, this revised application now includes a reproduction
of Levinsen’s description of the proposed neotype and photographs of it (plate 1)
kindly provided by Dr. Lemche and Mrs. Bille-Hansen.

Paragraph 18(1)(b) of the original application is withdrawn, but in all other
respects the case stands as there presented, with the supplementary material
now provided.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEOTYPE OF ESCHARA SPONGITES PALtas 1766
REPRODUCED FROM LEVINSEN, 1909 : 324

Levinsen’s “lyre-shaped’’ mandibles are those called “‘spatulate” in the
explanation of plate 1. He did not mention the falciform avicularia.

“SCHIZOPORELLA SPONGITES (PALLAS) SMITT. HIPPOTHOA
SPONGITES SMITT, KGL. SVENSKA VETENSK. AKAD. HANDL.
11 B., No. 4, 1873, p. 42, Pl. VIII, figs. 161-163. (Pl. XVIII, figs. 4a—d).

The zocecia are rectangular, weakly arched, with numerous, scattered, fairly
large pores, between which there are larger or smaller tubercles. Frequently
there is a tubercle-shaped projection proximally to the aperture. The anter of
the aperture is broad, almost semicircular or semielliptical with lateral margins
converging somewhat proximally, and its poster is on each side provided with a
long, low hinge-tooth. The narrow sinus, somewhat contracted at its origin, is
rounded at the end, and at its beginning there is as a rule a small, conical pro-
jection on each side, which is directed inwards. The operculum, the accessory
part of which gradually becomes very narrow from the broad distal part, ends
in a less strongly chitinized, disc-like part, which fits into the bottom of the
sinus. Distally to this the accessory part is on each side provided with a longi-
tudinal thickening. Each distal wall is provided within its basal margin with
ca. 10 and each lateral wall in its distal half with ca. 5 uniporous rosette-plates.

The occia are of enormous size, equalling the smaller zocecia in length with
at the same time a breadth up to one and a half times that of the zoeecia. They
are almost spherical and their very thick wall is mainly composed of a tuber-
culated net-work of ribs, with numerous scattered pores at the bottom of the
meshes. They quite cover the distal half of the zocecium to which they belong

* Hastings, A. B. 1968. Some type and other specimens involved in the problem of
Stylopoma Levinsen (Polyzoa). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), 16: 353-364.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Plate | Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181

(as well as the proximal half of the distal zocecium), and this is only seen on
removal of the frontal wall of the ocecium. Such an ocecium must therefore
during its formation send down a part on each side outide the respective avi-
cularium, and these two parts meet proximally to the zocecial aperture. The
semicircular ocecial opening which cannot be seen from the frontal surface, is
partially closed by two finger-shaped prolongations almost meeting at the tips,
which spring from the two corners of the opening. There can here be no doubt
that the eggs must pass directly from the zocecial aperture into the ocecium
(see page 67).

The avicularia appear in two different forms, the one of which has an elong-
ated triangular, the other a lyre-shaped mandible. The former, which are of
somewhat small size, appear on the single zocecia to a number of 1-5 and usually
on each side of the aperture, with the mandible directed obliquely outwards and
distally. On the others the mandible may point in different directions. The
avicularia with lyre-shaped mandible, which occur in much smaller numbers, are
considerably larger, but vary however a good deal in size. In the basal part of
the colony, where they are equal in size to the zoccia, they always take the
place of the zoccia.

The species occurs as incrusting colonies, which have superficial budding.
West Indies, St. Thomas and St. John, 15-20 fathoms”’.

Plate 1

Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 proposed neotype

Fic. 1. Whole colony, showing the regular series of zooids of the primary layer:
a zone of ovicells and centrally, the beginning of the disorientated growth of
zooids.

Fic. 2. Part of the primary layer showing: a. spatulate avicularium directed distally
as one of the paired zooids at the start of a new series. b. another spatulate
avicularium directed distally. c. oblique spatulate avicularium. Avicularia
b and c are not at the start of new series. The statement of Hastings (1968 :
362) is thus not always true.

Fic. 3. Another part of the primary layer showing: a. proximally directed spatulate
avicularium at the start of a new series of zooids. f. falciform avicularium
almost covering two zooids. a. orifice of ovicell.

Fic. 4. Outline of operculum after Levinsen.

Scale: Figs. 1-3. The line drawn on each photograph represents 1 mm.
Fig. 4. The line drawn represents 0.1 mm. (10-! mm.)

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE GENUS PSEUDANISAKIS
LAYMAN & BOROVKOVA, 1926 (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.) 2020

By D. I. Gibson (British Museum (Natural History) London SW7)

Layman & Borovkova (1926) erected Pseudanisakis as a sub-genus of
Anisakis Dujardin, 1845, for some adult nematodes from Raja radiata whose
denticular apparatus formed a complete ring around the mouth. Layman &
Borovkova (1926) believed these specimens to be identical with those described
by Rudolphi (1819) as Ascaris rotundata. Pseudanisakis was raised to the
generic level by Mosgovoi (1950). Yamaguti (1941) also erected a genus
Pseudanisakis (nec Layman & Borovkova, 1926) to hold a new species of
nematode from a ray; but as this is a junior homonym of Pseudanisakis Layman
& Borovkova, 1926, it has been re-named by Mosgovoi (1950). Wiilker (1930)
erected the genus Anacanthocheilus within which he placed some nematodes
from Raja oxyrhynchus which he considered to be identical with Ascaris rotundata
of Rudolphi (1819). Punt (1941) used the name Eustoma rotundatum (Rud.,
1819) for specimens from Raja clavata which he considered to be synonymous
with specimens from the same host that had been named Eustoma truncata by
van Beneden (1871).

Hartwich (1957) has examined Rudolphi’s (1819) original specimens of
Ascaris rotundata from Squalus glaucus (now Prionace glauca), and considers
that they are, in fact, specimens of the genus Acanthocheilus Molin, 1858.
He also concluded that they are identical to Acanthocheilus bicuspis (Wedl, 1855)
(= A. quadridentatus Molin, 1858), which therefore becomes A. rotundatus
(Rud., 1819) Hartwich, 1957. Hartwich (1957) then revived Eustoma
truncata van Beneden, 1871, as the next available name for E. rotundatum
(Rud., 1819) of Punt (1941), and indicates that Anisakis (Pseudanisakis) rotun-
data (Rud., 1819) of Layman & Borovkova (1926), Anacanthocheilus rotundatus
(Rud., 1819) of Wiilker (1930) and Pseudanisakis rotundata (Rud., 1819) of
Mosgovoi (1950) are all synonyms of this species. However, Williams &
Richards (1968) show that Eustoma Piette, 1855, is an available name for a
Jurassic prosobranch mollusc, and that Eustoma van Beneden, 1871, should
therefore be discarded. Similarly, Eustoma truncata van Beneden, 1871, is
unrecognisable, because the original mention of this name did not include a
description and, in agreement with Yamaguti (1961: p. 32), it seems impossible
to identify the species or genus from van Beneden’s (1871) illustrations. The
location of Beneden’s types is not known and they are apparently lost. As
indicated by Williams & Richards (1968), the next available name for the
genus is Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova, 1926. Nevertheless, the ano-
malous position of the appellation Pseudanisakis rotundata (Rud., 1819),
provisionally accepted by Williams & Richards, has been noted recently by
Dollfus (1970) and Margolis (1970). It is clear, therefore, that a new name is
required for the type-species of this genus.

The new name P. tricupola Gibson, 1973, proposed for Pseudanisakis
rotundata auctorum, non (Rud., 1819) is based upon specimens from Raja

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183

radiata present in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History).
This species has been described in detail by Williams & Richards (1968) and
Gibson (1973).

Ascaris rotundata was originally described as a parasite of the sharks
Prionace glauca and Galeorhinus galeus by Rudolphi (1819). Bellingham
(1844), however, recorded, without a description, specimens under the same
name from Raja batis and Gadus morhua. This record from R. batis, which was
almost certainly inaccurate, was repeated by Dujardin (1845), Diesing (1851),
von Linstow (1878), Orley (1885) and Stossich (1896) in their major works on
helminths. Rays, therefore, became accepted hosts of this species. The
picture was further distorted when the first detailed descriptions of ‘“‘Ascaris
rotundata Rud.” by von Linstow (1880) and Jagerskidld (1894) were both from
rays. Hartwich’s (1957) work has shown that Ascaris rotundata in its original
sense is in fact a species of Acanthocheilus, whereas in its recent sense it had
become Pseudanisakis. Layman & Borovkova (1926) had therefore mis-
identified the type-species of Pseudanisakis. Pseudanisakis cannot be considered
asynonym of Acanthocheilus, because there are distinct morphological differences
between the two genera. Pseudanisakis spp. appear to be primarily parasites of
rays, whereas Acanthocheilus spp. are parasites of sharks and dogfishes.

The Commission is requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova, 1926, and having done so to
designate Pseudanisakis tricupola Gibson, 1973, as type-species of that
genus;

(2) to place the generic name Pseudanisakis L. & B., 1926 (gender: feminine)
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers, P. tricupola,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name tricupola Gibson, 1973, as published in the
binomen Pseudanisakis tricupola (type-species of Pseudanisakis
Layman & Borovkova, 1926) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

REFERENCES

BELLINGHAM, O. 1844. Catalogue of Irish Entozoa with observations. Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 167-174

VAN BENEDEN, P.-J. 1871. Les poissons des cdtes de Belgique, leurs parasites et
leurs commensaux. Mém. Acad. r. Belg. Cl. Sci. 38 : 1-100

Digsinc, C. M. 1851. Systema helminthum If. Vindobonae

Dottrus, R. Po. 1970. Les vers nématodes du Hareng. C. r. Congr. Socs. say.
(Pau, 1969) Sect. Sci. 94 (3) : 351-426

DuJaARDIN, F. 1845. Histoire naturelle des Helminthes ou vers intestinaux. Paris.

Gipson, D. I. 1973. The genus Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova, 1926
(Nematoda : Ascaridida). J. nat. Hist. 7 : 319-340

Hartwicu, G. 1957. Zur Systematik der Nematoden-Superfamilie Ascaridoidea.
Zool. Jb. 3 : 211-252

JAGERSKIOLD, L. A. 1894. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Nematoden. Zool. Jb., Abt.
Anat. 7 : 449-532

LayMaN, E. M. & Borovkova, M. J. 1926. Parasitic worms of the skate (Raja
radiata Don.) from material of the 15th Federal Helminthological Expedition.
Rab. parzit. Lab. mosk. gos. Univ. : 9-15 (in Russian)

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Von Linstow, O. 1878. Compendium der Helminthologie. Hannover

— 1880. Helminthologische Untersuchungen. Arch. Naturgesch. 47 : 41-54

MarGoLis, L. 1970. Nematode diseases of marine fishes. Jn : Snieszko, S. F. (Ed.)
Symp. on diseases of fishes and shellfishes. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 5 :
190-208

Moscovol, A. A. 1950. Notes on the foundation of the genus Pseudanisakis
(Layman & Borovkova, 1926) nov. gen. Trudy gel’mint Lab. 4 : 17-24 (in

ye Russian)

Oriey, L. 1885. A czapaknak és Rajaknak belféregei. Termeszetr. Fuz. 9:
97-126 [Summary: Die Entozoen der Haien und Rochen. Termeszetr. Fuz.
9 : 216-220]

Punt, A. 1941. Recherches sur quelques nématodes parasites de poissons de la
mer du nord. Mém. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg. 98 : 1-110

Rupoteui, C. A. 1819. Entozoorum synopsis cui accedunt mantissa duplex et
indeces locupletissimi. Berolini

StossicH, M. 1896. Il genere Ascaris Linné. Boll. Soc. adriat. Sci. nat. 17 : 9-120

WituiaMs, H. H. & RicHARDs, D. H. H. 1968. Observations on Pseudanisakis
rotundata (Rudolphi, 1819) Mosgovoi, 1950, a common but little known
parasite of Raja radiata Donovan in the northern North Sea. J. Helminth.
42 : 199-220

WULKER,G. 1930. Uber Nematoden aus Nordseetieren. II. Zool. Anz. 88 : 1-16

Yamacutl,S. 1941. Studies on the helminth fauna of Japan. Part33. Nematodes
of fishes. Il. Jap. J. Zool. 9 : 343-396

— 1961. Systema Helminthum Vol. Ul. Parts 1 & II. The nematodes of
vertebrates. Inter-Science Publishers Ltd., London

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185

AMM. DEFOSSUS SIMPSON, 1843 (AMMONOIDEA, JURASSIC),
AN APPLICATION TO DESIGNATE AS LECTOTYPE A SPECIMEN
OTHER THAN THAT WRONGLY IDENTIFIED AS THE HOLOTYPE

Z.N.(S.) 2039

By T. A. Getty (Portsmouth City Museum, Portsmouth, England)

1. Amm. defossus was proposed by Simpson (1843, p. 15) for an evolute
ammonite, 1} in. (44.5 mm) diameter, with a quadrate aperture and straight
ribs, projected on the venter, without keel or furrows. The original description
was repeated by Simpson (1855, p. 48; 1884, p. 78), with some additional
details, and he was at pains to emphasise that the species should not be confused
with Amm. maculatus Young and Bird, 1822 (Simpson, 1843, 1855), Amm.
arcigerens Phillips, 1829 (Simpson, 1843, 1855, 1884), Amm. figulinus Simpson,
1855 (Simpson, 1855, 1884) or with Amm. capricornus Schlotheim, 1820 (Simpson
1884). These are all species now placed in the genera Aegoceras Waagen,
1869 (type species by subsequent designations: Amm. capricornus Schlotheim,
1820—Haug, 1900, p. 82) and Oistoceras Buckman, 1911 (type species by original
designation: Amm. figulinus Simpson, 1855).

Its stratigraphical horizon was said to be:

(a) Marlstone (Simpson, 1843)

(b) M[iddle] Lfias] (Simpson, 1855)

These are not conflicting statements, but all refer to the sandy beds (Staithes
Beds, Young and Bird, 1822, 1828), which span the Carixian-Domerian
boundary in Robin Hood’s Bay, Yorkshire (Buckman in Fox-Strangways and
Barrow, 1915).

2. Since Simpson (1843-1884) stated explicitly that his species was based
on Beans’ MSS, he must have seen the specimens of Amm. defossus in the Bean
Collection, which passed to the Leckenby Collection and are now in the Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge (B11945-6 on the same block. They are referred to in a
MS note in the British Museum copy of Simpson, 1843). Of these, B11945
(figured by Donovan and Forsey, in press, pl. 3, fig. la, b) is marked with an
“X” and Leckenby has written on the block, “‘Specimen marked ‘‘X”’ is Bean’s
type. Mr. B. first named and distinguished this species—the other must be
the same”. It is 41 mm. diam. and preserved in a ferruginous sandstone.
The whorl-section is round between the ribs and square on them, but the aperture
is crushed. The ribs are straight, passing over the venter without projection,
there is no keel. This specimen is a member of Aegoceras Waagen. The
other specimen (B11946; figured by Donovan and Forsey, pl. 3, fig. 2) is 40 mm.
diam. and also preserved in a sandy matrix. It has a distinctly quadrate
aperture, the ribs are projected on the venter, a character diagnostic of
Oistoceras Buckman, and it is without keel or furrows. This specimen matches
Simpson’s original (1843) description most nearly and both are from the horizon
stated by Simpson (1843-1884). They are here regarded as syntypes of Amm.
defossus Simpson, together with the next.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. Buckman (1913, pl. 76) overlooked Bean’s specimens and figured the
single specimen identified as Amm. defossus in Simpson’s (unpublished)
“Catalogue of the Contents of Whitby Museum” (No. 103) as the “holotype”’.
This specimen, 40 mm. diam., is preserved in brown calcite, unlike anything
known from the Staithes Beds. The outer whorl is quadrate and the ribs
are projected on the venter, but the inner whorls are distantly ribbed and
the nucleus is smooth. Moreover, there is a low, but distinct, keel connecting
the ventral chevrons. This specimen cannot be the holotype of the original
description, but is regarded as a syntype, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary.

4. When figuring the “holotype”, Buckman (1913, p. 76b) cited Amm.
althii Herbich (1878, pl. XX E, fig. 1) as a comparable species. From the
figure of Herbich’s type (Vadasz, 1908, p. 371, pl. 9. fig. 6-7) it is clear that
it is a member of Euagassiceras Spath (1924, p. 208; type species by original
designation: Amm. sauzeanus d’Orbigny, 1844, p. 304, pl. 95, fig. 4-5). Arkell
(1956, p. 185) was in error when he identified Amm. althii as a member of
Gagaticeras Buckman, 1913 (Getty, 1973:12).

Similarly, comparison of the alleged holotype of Amm. defossus with the
holotype of Amm. transformatus Simpson, 1844 (Buckman, 1913, pl. 75),
placed by Simpson (1855, 1884) in the section: “Keel between two furrows—
(a) Furrows weak’, shows an almost identical ventral aspect. Buckman (1913)
considered Amm. transformatus to be an Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875, now inter-
preted as Euagassiceras (Spath, 1924, p. 208; Donovan, 1952, p. 742; Guérin-
Franiatte, 1966, p. 363).

The resemblances between Amm. transformatus Simpson, Amm. althii
Herbich, Amm. sauzeanus d’Orbigny and Buckman’s “holotype” of Amm.
defossus are so close that there can be no doubt that they are congeneric (Spath,
1919, p. 170; 1925, p. 362; 1936, p. 452; 1938. p, 162; Donovan, 1952, p. 743;
Donovan and Forsey, in press). Buckman (1913, p. vi) had noted the “remark-
able” similarity to Agassiceras (now Euagassiceras), butdismissed it as superficial
and due to “cyclical homoeomorphy’”’.

It is apparent that Simpson (1843) based the description and stratigraphical
horizon of Amm. defossus on Bean’s specimens and later misidentified a quite
different species from a different horizon as the same form. Another known
case where Simpson misidentified his own species is that of Amm. multanfractus
Simpson, 1855. One of the examples listed in Simpson’s “Catalogue” is a
specimen of Amm. gagateus Young and Bird, 1828 (Howarth, 1962, p. 102,
pl. 14, fig. 7).

5. The difficulty arises in this case that Buckman (1913, p. vi) established the
genus Defossiceras, with Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843, as the type species by
original designation. If the nominal type species is interpreted by the alleged
holotype, authors who believe that it is congeneric with Amm. sauzeanus
d’Orbigny must use the genus Defossiceras Buckman, which has priority over
the better known name Euagassiceras Spath. This difficulty was avoided by
Arkell (in Moore, 1957, p. L239) who accorded separate generic status to both.
It is now considered, however, that the differences between Amm. defossus
sensu Buckman (1913) and Amm. sauzeanus d’Orbigny (1844) are, at most,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187

of only specific rank, as noted in (4) above.

From the time of its proposal, the name Euagassiceras has been in constant
use in the literature of all countries and the type species is the index of one of
the subzones of the standard scheme for the Sinemurian Stage (Dean, Donovan
and Howarth, 1961). On the other hand, Defossiceras has remained virtually
unused. Buckman, (1913, p. vii) discussed its supposed systematic position
in the light of Simpson’s stratigraphic information and placed it in the family
Amaltheidae, but it was not mentioned by Howarth (1958) and most references
explicitly refute this relationship (see (3) above). The only other citations of
Defossiceras are by Behmel and Geyer (1966, pl. 17, pl. 1, fig. 7), who employed
the name for a species belonging to Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900, and by
Guérin-Franiatte (1966, p. 355), who mistakenly considered it to be a synonym
of Gagaticeras Buckman. It is clearly undesirable that a name so little used,
and about which there is so much confusion, should have priority over a
well-established and unequivocally interpreted name, with consequent distur-
bance of the nomenclature.

6. It is accepted by the Secretariat of the Commission in the spirit of
Recommendation 74A that subsequent citation of a specimen as the “holotype”
of a species is to be treated as designation of the lectotype (Mrs. M. Doyle,
in litt. pro Mr. R. V. Melville, 1973), so that it is necessary to exercise the
plenary powers to alter the status of the so-called “holotype” (recte lectotype)
of Amm. defossus.

The difficulty described in 5. above can be overcome and the present
conflicting evidence of the stratigraphy (Simpson, 1843-1884) and morphology
of the type specimen can be resolved, if one of Bean’s specimens described in
2. above is selected as the lectotype.

7. The effect of the proposal made in 8. below would be to make Defos-
siceras Buckman, 1913, a junior subjective synonym of Oistoceras Buckman,
1911, in accordance with the interpretation by Blake (in Tate and Blake, 1876,
p. 282, pl. 8, fig. 9), who figured as Aegoceras defossum a specimen subsequently
identified as Oistoceras (Spath, 1938, p. 162). Defossiceras would thereby
cease to compete for priority with Euagassiceras Spath, 1924, which may be
retained for Lower Sinemurian species allied to Amm. sauzeanus d’Orbigny,
thus stabilizing the nomenclature.

8. It is, therefore, proposed that the International Commission for
Zoological Nomenclature should:

(a) use its plenary powers to suppress all previous designation of type-
specimens for the nominal species Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843,
and having done so,

(b) select as lectotype of Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843, that one of the
three syntypes which most closely fits the original description, i.e. the
original of Donovan and Forsey, pl. 3, fig. 2 (Sedgwick Museum
B11946).

(c) place the specific name defossus Simpson, 1843, as published in the
binomen Ammonites defossus, and is defined in (b) above, on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REFERENCES

ARKELL, W. J. 1956. Jurassic Geology of the World, xv + 806 p., 46 pl. Edinburgh
and London

ARKELL, W. J., in Moore, R. C. 1957. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, pt.
L Mollusca (4). Cephalopoda. Ammonoidea. xxii + 490 p. Geol. Soc.
Amer. and Kansas Univ. Press

BEHMEL, H. and Geyer,O.F. 1966. Beitrage zur Stratigraphie und Paladontologie des
Juras von Ostspanien, III Stratigraphie und Fossilfiihrung in Unterjura von
cal ae (Provinz Teruel), Neues Jahrb. Geol. Paldont. Abh. 124 : 1-52,
pl. 1-6

BuckMAN, 8. S. 1911. Yorkshire Type Ammonites, 1, pt. 3: 4p., 8 pl. London and
Thame

— 1913. Ibidem. 2, pt. 10; 2 p., 9 pl.; 2, pt. 11;2p.,7 pl. London and Thame

— in Fox-Strancways, C. and Barrow, G. 1915. Geology of the country
between Whitby and Scarborough. 2nd ed., p. 59-102. Mem. Geol. Surv.
Gt. Britain

DEAN, W. T., Donovan, D. T., and Howartu, M.K. 1916. The Liassic Zones and
Subzones of the North West European Province, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.)
Geol. 4 : 437-505, pl. 63-75

Donovan, D. T. 1952. The ammonites of the Blue Lias of the Bristol District,
II Arietitidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 5 : 717-752, pl. 17-19

— and Forsey, G. F. in press. Systematics of Lower Liassic Ammonitina.
Paleont. Contrib. Univ. Kansas

Getty, T.A. 1973. A revision of the generic classification of the family Echioceratidae
(Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) (Lower Jurassic) Paleont. Contrib. Univ. Kansas
Paper 63 : 1-32

GUERIN-FRANIATTE, S. 1966. Ammonites du Lias inférieur de France. Psilocera-
taceae. Arietitidae. 455p., 231 pl. Paris

HauG, E. 1900. Revue critique de Paléozoologie, 4 (2) : 78-86

Hersicu, F. 1878. Das Székerland. Mitt. Jahrb. Ungarn. k. Anst. 5 : 1-365, pl.
1-20M

HowartH, M. K. 1958. The Ammonites of the Liassic family Amaltheidae in
Britain, xxxvii + 53 p., 10 pl. Palaeontogr. Soc. [Monogr.] London

— 1962. The Yorkshire type ammonites and nautiloids of Young and Bird,
Phillips and Martin Simpson. Palaeontology 5 : 93-136, pl. 13-19

Hyatt, A. 1875. Genetic Relations of the Angulatidae. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat.
Hist. 17 : 15-23

— 1900. Jn ZittEL, K. A. vON ed. EASTMAN, R. C. 1896-1900. Textbook of
Paleontology, 1 : 502-592. London

OrBiGNy, A. D’ 1842-1851. Paléontologie francaise. Terrains jurassiques, I.
Céphalopodes. 642 p., 234 pl. Paris

Puituies, J. 1829. Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire; or, a description of the
strata and organic remains of the Yorkshire Coast, xvi + 192 p., 14 pl. York.

SCHLOTHEIM, E. von. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde, 437 p., 29 pl. Gotha

SIMPSON, et 1843. A Monograph of the Ammonites of the Yorkshire Lias. 60 p.
London

—— 1855. The Fossils of the Yorkshire Lias: described from Nature, 149 p. London
and Whitby

— 1884. The Fossils of the Yorkshire Lias: described from Nature, with a carefully
Lesa section of the strata and the fossils peculiar to each, xxiv + 256 p.

itby

SPATH, L. F. 1919. Notes on Ammonites. Geol. Mag. 6 : 115-122

— ee The ammonites of the Blue Lias. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Lond. 35 : 186-211,
pl.

— 1925. Notes on Yorkshire Ammonites, VIII. More Lower Liassic Forms
Naturalist, No. 827: 359-364

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189

— 1936. The Ammonites of the Green Ammonite Beds of Dorset, Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc. Lond. 92 : 438-455, pl. 33

— 1938. A catalogue of the ammonites of the Liassic family Liparoceratidae in the
British Museum (Natural History). ix + 191 p., 26 pl. London

Tate, R. and Biake, J. F. 1876. The Yorkshire Lias, viii + 475 p., 19 pl. London

Vapasz, M. E. 1908. Die unterliassische Fauna von Alsorakos im Komitit
Nagykiikull6, Mitt. Jahrb. k. Ungar. Geol. Reichsanst. 16 . 307-406, pl. 6-11

WaacEN, W. 1869. Die Formenreihe des Amm. subradiatus, Benecke’s geogn. pal.
Beitr. 2 : 181-256, pl. 16-20

YounG, G. and Birp, J. 1822. A geological survey of the Yorkshire Coast; describing
the strata and fossils occurring between the Humber and the Tees, from the
German Ocean to the Plain of York, iv + 332 p.,17 pl. Whitby

—— 1828. Ibidem. 2nd ed., iv + 367 p., 17 pl. Whitby

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

APIS ROTUNDATA FABRICIUS, 1793 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF LECTOTYPE AND DESIGNATION
OF NEOTYPE IN ACCORD WITH MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA
AUCT. Z.N<S.) 2042

By R. B. Roberts (Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon)

1. The purpose of this application is to request that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary power to suppress
the lectotype of Apis rotundata Fabricius, and authorize designation of a neotype
in accord with Megachile rotundata auct. nec Fabricius.

2. The nomenclatural details are given below.

The current name of the bee Megachile rotundata auct. nec Fabricius is based
on a misidentification of more than 150 years standing (Hurd, 1967). As
early as 1962, Dr. T. B. Mitchell questioned the identity of Megachile rotundata
auct. Subsequently, Dr. P. D. Hurd, Jr., examined the collections of Fabricius
in Kiel and Copenhagen. Of the four specimens labelled as this species in
Kiel, two were found to belong to the genus Osmia and two damaged specimens
were identified as Megachile (Eutricharaea). A single specimen was found
in Copenhagen which, unlike those in Kiel, agreed with the original description
of Apis rotundata Fabricius. Dr. Hurd (1967) designated this specimen as
lectotype of Apis rotundata Fabricius. Dr. Hurd also stated that Apis rotundata
Fabricius is not the same species as Megachile rotundata auct.

3. In Dalla Torre’s 1896 catalogue of the world bee fauna, Apis
rotundata Fabricius was transferred to the genus Megachile. Apis pacifica
Panzer, 1798, is listed as a junior synonym of Megachile rotundata (Fabricius)
(ibid.). No doubt Dalla Torre based the synonymy of Apis pacifica Panzer with
Apis rotundata Fabricius on the following statement by Panzer (1806): “Prof.
Fabricius advised me that the specimens of my pacifica sent to him are certainly
his rotundata”. According to Dalla Torre, various combinations of Panzer’s
Apis pacifica occurred in the literature only five times between 1798 and 1896.

4. After Mitchell had questioned the identity of Megachile rotundata
auct., the late Otto Rebmann discovered the types of Apis pacifica Panzer
in the Berliner Zoologisches Museum. He designated a lectotype and stated
that Apis pacifica Panzer is the same species as Megachile rotundata auct. nec
Fabricius (Rebmann, 1967).

5. The problem could be considered resolved were it not for the extenuating
circumstances outlined below. Megachile rotundata auct. is a Palaearctic
species, ranging from Europe and North Africa to Mongolia. It was intro-
duced into the United States during or shortly after World War II (Mitchell,
1962). Having spread rapidly from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast, it is
now found throughout most of North America. In the early 1960’s this
species was domesticated as a pollinator of alfalfa (Stephen, 1961: Bohart,
1962). Alfalfa, or lucerne, is the most important forage crop in the world.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19]

Producers of alfalfa seed have been able to increase yields approximately
tenfold through the use of Megachile rotundata auct. Production and sale
of these bees has become a big business. The bees have been exported in
commercial quantities from the American Northwest to every continent save
Antarctica. This insect has become so important that the Entomological
Society of America Committee on Common Names of Insects has proposed that
the name “alfalfa leafcutting bee” be formally adopted as the common name of
“‘Megachile rotundata (Fabricius) (Wressel, 1972).

6. By now the number of scientific papers, technical and lay bulletins
on the husbandry of this species and control of its numerous parasites, pre-
dators and diseases must number inthe hundreds. Furthermore, the commercial
availability of this bee has made it the subject of publications on circadian
rhythms and toxicology, as well as diet and host specificity. Thus the name
“‘Megachile rotundata (Fabricius)” is firmly established in a large and rapidly
growing body of literature.

7. Inthe five years since publication of Rebmann’s paper, I have seen only
one publication substituting Megachile pacifica (Panzer) for Megachile rotundata
auct. (Holm and Skou, 1972). The great majority of authors have chosen
to ignore the name Megachile pacifica (Panzer). If the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature approves the course of action outlined
below, then Megachile pacifica (Panzer) will become a junior synonym of
Megachile rotundata (Fabricius).

8. The proposed neotype is consistent with Megachile rotundata auct.
as described by Dr. T. B. Mitchell (1962, pp. 122-124). The neotype is a female
labelled as follows: top label, “Simontornya Hu. occ. leg. Pillich, 12.8.33
C. can.”; middle label, “MM. rotundata F. 9, det. J. D. Alfken 1935’; bottom
label, ‘“‘NEOTYPE, Apis rotundata Fabricus, 2, R. B. Roberts 1973”. The
neotype is from the collection of Dr. T. B. Mitchell, who has generously agreed
to deposit it in the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen.

9. Considering the long established use of the name “Megachile rotundata
(Fabricius)” for this important insect, I believe unnecessary confusion would
result from substitution of the name Megachile pacifica (Panzer). Thus, in
the interests of the stability and universality of nomenclature, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all type selections for Apis rotundata
Fabricius, 1793, made prior to the ruling now asked for and, having
done so, to rule that the species is to be interpreted by reference to the
neotype specimen designated above;

(2) to place rotundata Fabricius, 1795, as published in the binomen Apis
rotundata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES CITED

Bonart, G. E. 1962. How to manage the leafcutter bee for alfalfa pollination.
Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 144

DALLA Torre, C. G. 1896. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, Volume X, Apidae.
Leipzig. p. 446

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Hou, S. N. and Skou, J. P. 1972. Studies on trapping, nesting, and rearing of
some Megachile species (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) and on their parasites in
Denmark. Entomologica Scandinavica 3 : 169-180

Hurp, P. D., yr. 1967. The identity of Megachile rotundata (Fabricius) and M.
argentata (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Entomologiske Meddelelser
35 : 3-10

MITCHELL, T. B. 1962. Bees of the eastern United States, Volume II. North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 152 : 122-24

PANZER, G. W. F., 1798. Faunae insectorum Germanica initia. 5 : 56

PANZER, G.W.F. 1806. Kritische Revision der Insectenfauna Deutschlands, nach dem
System bearbeitet. Ntirnberg 2 : 244

REBMANN, O. 1967. 2. Beitrag zur Kenntiss der Gattung Megachile Latr. (Hym.,
Apidae). Was ist “Megachile argentata auct.” und Megachile rotundata
Entomologische Zeitschrift 77 : 169-171.

STEPHEN, W.P. 1961. Artificial nesting sites for the propagation of the leafcutter bee,
Megachile (Eutricharaea) rotundata, for alfalfa pollination. Journal of Economic
Entomology 54 : 989-993

WressEL, H. B. 1972. Proposed additions to the list of common names of insects,
1970. Entomological Society of America, Bulletin 18 : 101

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193

RENOIDEA BROWN, 1827 (FORAMINIFERA)
PROPOSAL FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS Z.N.(S.) 2043
By Richard W. Ponder (Geology Department, James Cook
University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia)

The generic name Renoidea Brown (1827) was introduced in a confused
sense and has fallen into disuse since 1844. Galloway (1933) selected R.
glabra Brown (1827) as the type species but it is synonymous with Vermiculum
subrotunda Montagu (1803) which in turn is the type species by original desig-
nation of the well known genus Miliolinella Wiesner (1931). To maintain
stability and to prevent confusion the International Commission is asked to
discard the name Renoidea on the basis of the arguments given below.

2. Brown’s introduction of Renoidea in 1827 was thoroughly confused. No
type was designated. The three species ascribed to it belong to two major
groups of Foraminifera: R. glabra Brown (1827, p. i, pl. 1, figs. 20, 21) and
R. rotundata Brown (1827, p. i, pl. 1, figs. 14, 15) both belonging to Suborder
Miliolina and R. marginata (Montagu, 1803) is included in Suborder Rotaliina.
No description of Renoidea or its included species is given in Brown (1827).
No type specimen has been designated for R. glabra and the location of Brown’s
type series is unknown to British foraminiferal workers (pers. comm., Dr. C.
G. Adams).

3. The first description of Renoidea and its species is given in Brown’s
second edition (Brown, 1844); all the descriptions are brief and non-diagnostic.
Here R. glabra and R. rotundata are referred to Triloculina and R. marginata is
referred to Biloculina. The polymorphinid R. oblonga Brown (1844), a species
illustrated in Brown (1827) but not listed in his systematic index, is the only
species Brown retained in Renoidea.

4. There are few references to Renoidea in the literature. Williamson (1858,
p. 78) synonymised Renoidea with Biloculina and his synonymy is followed by
Brady (1884, p. 139). Galloway (1933, p. 123) selected R. glabra as the genotype
of Renoidea and synonymised Renoidea with Triloculina. Loeblich and Tappan
(1964, p. C466) have endorsed this opinion. Renoidea is also listed in Sherborn
(1893) and Ellis and Messina (1940). Renoidea has not been employed as a
useful generic category since R. oblonga was assigned to it well over a century
ago.

5. It is unfortunate that Galloway designated R. glabra as the type of
Renoidea. R. glabra Brown (1827) is a junior synonym of Vermiculum subrotunda
Montagu (1803, type figure in Walker and Boys, 1784, fig. 4) and illustrated
by near identical, perhaps copied figures of the latter species. It is even
possible that Brown confused R. glabra with R. rotundata (? = subrotunda)
in his plates.

The synonymy of R. glabra with V. subrotunda leads to considerable comp-
lication as V. subrotunda is the genotype of Miliolinella Wiesner (1931) and
it therefore could be argued that Renoidea is the senior synonym of Miliolinella.
This would be unfortunate as Miliolinella has been firmly entrenched in the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

literature for 42 years. During these years it has been used extensively as
indicated by the number of species originally assigned to it, including Milio-
linella antarctica Kennett, 1967; M. californica Rhumbler, 1936; M. chaoyii
Huang, 1970; M. chui Huang, 1970; M. chukchiensis Loeblich and Tappan,
1953; M. iongchunae Huang, 1970; M. laysanensis Rhumbler, 1936; M. loeblichi
Bermudez and Seiglie, 1963; M. microstoma Warren, 1957; M. parva Mangin,
1960; M. robusta Cushman and Todd, 1948; M. temeii Huang, 1970; M. vellai
Srinivasan, 1966; M. vigilax Vella, 1957; M. warreni Anderson, 1961; and
M. wiesneriana Rhumbler, 1936. Miliolinella is also the type-genus of the
Subfamily Miliolinellinae Vella (1957) which cannot by changed in name or
definition if Miliolinella were rejected as a junior synonym in favour of Renoidea
(Article 40). Accordingly, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Renoidea Brown,
1827 for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy;
(2) to place the generic name Renoidea Brown, 1827, as suppressed under
the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

ANDERSEN, H.V. 1961. Genesis and paleontology of the Mississippi River mudlumps,
Pt. Il, Foraminifera of the mudlumps, lower Mississippi delta. Bull. Geol.
Sury. Dept. Consery. La. 35 : 1-208

BERMUDEZ, P. J., & SEIGLIE, G. A. 1963. Estudio sistematico del los Foramini-
feros del Golfo de Cariaco. Boln Inst. oceanogr., Cumana 2 (2) : 1-267

Brapy, H. B. 1884. Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger,
during the years 1873-1876. Rep. scient. Results Voy. Challenger (Zool.)
9: 1-814

Brown, T. L. 1827. Jllustrations of the conchology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Edinburgh and London: i-v

— 1844. Illustrations of the Recent conchology of Great Britain and Ireland, with
the descriptions and localities of all the species. (Ed. 2) London : 1-145

CusHMAN, J. A., & Topp, R. 1948. Foraminifera from the Red Bluff—Yazoo
Section at Red Bluff, Mississsippi. Contr. Cushman Lab. foram. Res. 24 : 1-12.

Exuis, B. F., & Messina, A. 1940. Catalogue of Foraminifera. Am. Mus. Nat.
Hist.

Ga.toway, J. J. 1933. A manual of Foraminifera. Bloomington, Ind. : 1-483.

Huana, T. 1970. New Foraminiferida from the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan, China.
Proc. Geol. Soc. China 13 : 108-114

KeENneTT, J. P. 1967. New Foraminifera from the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Contr.
Cushman Fdn. foramin. Res. 18 : 133-135

LoesticH, A. R. Jr., & TappAN, H. 1953. Studies in Arctic Foraminifera.
Smithson. misc. Collns 121 (7) : 1-150

— 1961. Suprageneric classification of the Rhizopodea. J. Paleont. 35 : 245-330

—— 1964. Sarcodina chiefly “thecamoebians” and Foraminiferida. Jn: Moore,
R. C., (Ed.) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. 1-2: C1-C900

MANGIN, M. 1960. Révision des Miliolidés de la collection Terquem du “Pliocéne
supérieur” de L’ile de Rhodes. Rev. Micropaléont. 3 (1) : 37-51

Monrtacu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica, or natural history of British shells, marine,
land and fresh water, including the most minute. London: 1-606

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195

RHUMBLER, L. 1936. Foraminiferen der Kieler Bucht, gesammelt durch A. Remane
Teil If (Ammodisculinidae bis einschl. Textulinidae). Kieler Meeresforsch.
1 : 179-242

SHERBORN, C. D. 1896. An index to the genera and species of the Foraminifera.
Smithson. misc. Collns. 1031 : 241-485

SRINIVASAN, M. S. 1966. Descriptions of new species and notes on taxonomy of
Foraminifera from the upper Eocene and lower Oligocene of New Zealand.
Trans. R. Soc. N. Z. (Geol.) 3 (17) : 231-256

VELLA, P. 1957. Studies in New Zealand Foraminifera. New Zealand Geol.
Surv. Paleont. Bull. 28 : 1-64

Warren, A. D. 1957. Foraminifera of the Buras-Scotfield Bayou region, southeast
Louisiana. Contr. Cushman Fdn foramin. Res. 8, (1) : 29-40

Wa ker, G., & Boys, W. 1784. Testacea minuta rariora, nuperrime detecta in
arena littoris Sandvicensis a Gul. Boys, arm S.A.S. multa addidit, et omnium
figures ope microscopii ampliates accurate delineavit. Geo Walker, London:
1-25

Wiesner, H. 1931. Die Foraminiferen der deutschen Siidpolar Expedition 1901-
1903. Dt. Siidpol. Exped., 20 (Zool. 12) : 53-165

WILLIAMSON, W. C. 1858. On the Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain. Ray. Soc.
Publs. : 1-107

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ERIOPH YES SIEBOLD, 1851 AND PH YTOPTUS DUJARDIN, 1851
(ACARINA, ERIOPHYOIDEA): PROPOSAL FOR DESIGNATION,
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF TYPE-SPECIES IN
HARMONY WITH CURRENT USE. Z.N.(S.) 2044

By V. G. Shevtchenko (Vice-President of the Acarology Section, All-Union
Entomological Society, U.S.S.R.)

In 1971, R. A. Newkirk and H. H. Keifer published an article (Eriophyid
Studies C-5, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agriculture) containing essential
changes in the nomenclature of eriophyid mites. Their paper was discussed
by Soviet eriophyiodlogists during the Second All-Union Symposium on
Tetrapodili held in Leningrad in 1972, and I have been asked by my colleagues to
submit this application which has their whole-hearted support.

The following genera are discussed in Newkirk and Keifer’s paper:

(a) Aceria Keifer, 1944. Type-species by original designation Eriophyes
tulipae Keifer, 1938.

(b) Eriophyes Siebold, 1851. Originally this genus was described without
included nominal species. Keifer (1938) designated the species Phytoptus
vitis Pagenstecher, 1857 as the type-species of this genus (Bull. Calif. Dep.
Agric. 27(3) : 301) and this action was subsequently accepted by all acarologists.
However Newkirk and Keifer (1971) discovered that the first nominal species
referred to Eriophyes was Eriophyes labiatiflorae F. Thomas, 1872 described
on the basis of Bremi-Wolff’s specimens of dried plant parts of Origanum
vulgare L. damaged by this mite. Consequently, /abiatiflorae is the type-
species by subsequent monotypy. (Code, Article 69(a)(ii)(2)).

(c) Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851. Originally this was described without included
nominal species. Keifer (1938 : 301) designated Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa,
1889 (p. 126) as the type-species of this genus and this was accepted by all
acarologists. However, Newkirk and Keifer, (1971) discovered that Pagen-
stecher, 1857 had referred four binominals to Phytoptus and therefore designated
one of these, Phytoptus tiliae, as the type-species of this genus in accordance
with Article 69(a)(ii)(3).

(d) Phytocoptella Newkirk and Keifer, 1971. The type-species of this genus
by original designation is Phytoptus corniseminus Keifer, 1939 : 144.

(e) Colomerus Newkirk and Keifer, 1971. The type-species of this genus
by original designation is Eriophyes gardeniella Keifer, 1964 : 9-10.

The actions of Newkirk and Keifer (1971) are in complete formal agreement
with the provisions of the Code. However, as a result of their findings, Aceria
is a synonym of Eriophyes; Phytoptus vitis Pagenstecher, previously regarded as
type-species of Eriophyes is transferred to the new genus Colomerus (for which
there are no reasons for its establishment, to my mind); the definition of Phy-
toptus becomes the same as that of the recent usage of Eriophyes when Phytoptus
vitis was type-species and the generic concept of Phytoptus as based on Phytoptus
avellanae, is without a name. The new genus name provided by Newkirk
and Keifer is Phytocoptella.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197

Taking into consideration that:

i. the changes of the names of the main genera of Eriophyoidea which were
made by Newkirk and Keifer (1971) are not in accordance with the principles of
stability of nomenclature and would cause the utmost confusion for many
years and that:

ii. the genera discussed above include many species of great economic
importance, as plant pests, and that a large scientific and applied literature
exists on these genera, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside ail previous designations of type-

species for the genera Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin,

1851 made prior to the proposed ruling and having done so, to desig-

nate Phytoptus vitis Pagenstecher, 1857 as type-species of Eriophyes

Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1899 as type-species

of Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic

Names in Zoology:

a. Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 (gender: masculine) (type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Phytoptus
vitis Pagenstecher, 1857)

b. Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (gender: masculine) (type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Phytoptus
avellanae Nalepa, 1889)

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology:

a. vitis Pagenstecher, 1857, as published in the binomen Phytoptus
vitis (type-species of Eriophyes Siebold, 1851);

b. avellanae Nalepa, 1889, as published in the binomen Phytoptus
avellanae (type-species of Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851).

LITERATURE CITED

DujJarDIN, F. 1851. Observations zoologiques. Amnls. Sci. nat. (Zool.) 15 (3) :
158-173.

Kerrer, H.H. 1938. Eriophyid Studies 2. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 27 (3) : 301-323

—— 1938. Eriophyid Studies 3. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 28 (2) : 144-162

— 1944. Eriophyid Studies 14. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 33 (1) : 18-38

—— 1964. Eriophyid Studies B-12 Calif Dept. Agric.: 1-20

Nacepa, A. 1889. Beitrage zur Systematik der Phytopten. Sber. Alcad. Wiss.
Wien. Abt. 1. 98 : 112-156

Newkirk, R. A. & Kerrer, H. H. 1971. Revision of types of ERIOPHYES and
PHYToPTUS. Eriophyid Studies, C-5, Agric. Res Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. :
1-14

PAGENSTECHER, A. H. 1857. Uber Milben besonders die Gattung Phytoptus. Verh.
naturh.-med. Ver Heidelb. 1 : 46-53

SieBOLD, C. To. E. von. 1851*. Uber Eriophyes. Jber. schles. Ges. vaterl. Kult.
28 : 88-89

Tuomas, F. 1872. Schweizerische Milbengallen Z. ges. Naturw. Halle 39 : 459-472

* The date of publication of Siebold’s work is not certain. Newkirk and Keifer follow
A. C. Oudemans (1937 Oudemans, Kritisch historisch overzicht der Acarologie Part 3.
Leiden: 1270) who believes that the name Eriophyes was published not later than March 1851.
I follow A. Nalepa (1898, 1910, 1929) and think it was published in 1850.

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE STEM OF FAMILY-GROUP
NAMES BASED ON THE TYPE-GENUS PETROM YZON
LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 2045

By V. D. Vladykov (Professor of Biology, University of Ottawa, Canada)

The object of this application is to determine the correct stem of family-
group names based on Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 the generic name for the
Holarctic lampreys.

2. The name Petromyzon is not a classical Greek word. Its meaning is,
however, apparent enough from its composition: metpo-rock and put@ to suck.
The Secretary of the Commission very kindly obtained the following advice
on the possible ways in which nouns might be formed from such a verb:

(1) metpopvG@v \ Petromyzon with a long o as masculine nominative

metpopvCeyv f{ singular of the present participle of the verb “‘to suck
rocks” treated as a substantive. Stem Petromyzont-.

(2) metpopuCwv Petromyzon with a short o, the neuter of the same
adjective, same stem.

(3) metpopvCwv Petromyzon with a long o, an improbable masculine
third declension noun from myzo (pvCw) to suck. (The
o is long). The genitives of such nouns, can probably,
be either -ontos or -onos i.e. the stem can be either
-ont or -on-, but -ontos is commoner.

(4) netpopvCov Petromyzon with a short o, an improbable second
declension neuter noun, stem Petromyz-, giving Petro-
myzidae.

3. Thus the inferences that may best be drawn from treating Petromyzon
as though it were a classical Greek word clearly favour the stem, for the
purposes of zoological nomenclature, as PETROMYZONT-. Moreover, the name
has generally been treated as masculine, so the alternative (1) above is the
most favoured.

4. Usage does not give a clear cut answer one way or the other. The
first five uses of the name are:

Petromyzonides Risso, 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales Productions
de I’ Europe Meéridionale et particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des
Alpes Maritimes. Paris & Strasbourg, page 113.

Petromyzonidae Bonaparte, C.LJ.L. 1832 Saggio d’una distribuzione
metodica degli Animali Vertebrati a sangue freddo. Roma, page 41.

Petromyzonini Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1832 (Tom. et pag. cit.).

Petromyzidae Yarrell, W. 1836. A history of British Fishes. London,
pages 457-468.

Petromyzontidi Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1841. Jconographia della Fauna

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199

Italica per le quattro classi degli Animali Vertebrati. Roma, page 2.

Among recent North American authors:

1. In “A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United
States and Canada” (3rd edition) American Fisheries Society Special Publication
No. 6, 1970, Petromyzontidae was used.

2. Hubbs, C. L. & Potter, I. C., 1971. Distribution, phylogeny and
taxonomy Jn: Hardisty, M. W. & Potter, I. C. (Eds.) The biology of lampreys

Vol. 1. Academic Press, London. Petromyzonidae was used.

The applicant’s preference is for PETROMYZONIDAE. However in a recent
work: Lampetra pacifica, a new nonparasitic species of lamprey (Petromy-
zontidae) from Oregon and California. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 20 (2):
205-213, 1973 the editor insisted on the spelling Petromyzontidae in the title
of the article, but a footnote indicates that the author (V.D.V.) prefers the
spelling Petromyzonidae.

5. The Commission is therefore requested to rule whether the stem of
family-group names based on the type-genus Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 is

(a) PETROMYZONT-,

(b) PETROMYZON- or

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEOTYPE FOR PSEUDOGELOIUS
DECORSEI (I. BOLIVAR, 1905) (INSECTA; ORTHOPTERA;
PYRGOMORPHIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2046

By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology and Lyman Entomological

Museum and Research Laboratory, Macdonald Campus, McGill University,
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Que., Canada)

Bolivar (1905, Bol. R. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 5 : 286) described, as a member of
the genus Geloius Saussure, 1899, a species, decorsei, based upon two specimens
(3, 2) from “Madagascar, Ambovombe’’. As indicated by Kevan, Akbar
and Singh (1964, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 90 : 122) and by others subsequently,
the type specimens are lost. Kevan et al. (/.c.) therefore proposed as a neotype
the only other specimen known to have previously been referred to the species.
This was a female in the Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt Universitat,
Berlin, whichcame from Andranohinaly, not far from Tulear in S.W. Madagascar,
but some 400 km. from Ambovombe which lies in the extreme south of the
island.

Kevan (1965, Eos, Madr. 40 [1964]: 516) again referred to this Berlin
neotype.! He correctly transferred the species to the related genus Pseudo-
geloius Dirsh, 1963, but mentioned that, in Bolivar’s original description, the
male cerci are said to be conical and “‘prolongados adentro en el apico’”’, and
thus less elaborate than in other species of that genus. Because of this, it was
suggested that the original male specimen may have been immature. This now
seems improbable.

Kevan (1968, Eos, Madr. 43 : 582) once more referred to the Berlin neotype.
He noted that females of Pseudogeloius species are very difficult to distinguish,
but, on the basis of morphological similarity and locality, he believed P. maha-
falensis Descamps and Wintrebert, 1966, to be specifically identical with the
Berlin neotype of Geloius decorsei (and there would appear to be no good reason
to alter this view). P. mahafalensis was therefore synonymized with P. decorsei
(Bolivar). Kevan (/.c.) also drew attention to the rather wide separation of the
neotype locality from Ambovombe, which is in a region whence P. mahafalensis
is unknown (species of Pseudogeloius have rather limited geographical ranges,
a fact which was only established after the designation of the Berlin neotype).
At the same time, however, he pointed out an ambiguity in Bolivar’s original
text: “Madagascar, Ambovombe” could mean two different localities in Mada-
gascar, not one, there being precedents for such an interpretation in Bolivar’s
works. The implication was that, though one of the syntypes of decorsei was a
male specifically different from the Berlin neotype (i.e., not conspecific with
P. mahafalensis) and from Ambovombe, the other, the female syntype, could
well have been from an unspecified Madagascar locality. Thus the specific
identity of the Berlin neotype could, by stretching a point, be rendered com-
patible with what could be gathered from parts of the original description.
Kevan further noted that “‘all the formalities demanded by the International

1 By a typographical error at first mention, the sex was incorrectly indicated as male.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201

Code of Zoological Nomenclature have not yet been completed in respect
of the neotype of Geloius decorsei, so that it would be technically possible to
set aside that neotype in favour of another from a more appropriate locality.
Such action, however, would only serve to confuse the issue further and would
raise additional problems in synonymy”. We are now faced with just such a
problem.

Wintrebert (1972, Annis Mus. r. Afr. cent. (Zool). 198 : 64) has recently
discovered specimens which seem indisputably referable to the same species
as Bolivar’s male syntype of decorsei—which Kevan (1968, /.c.) regarded as being
from Ambovombe whether or not the female syntype came thence. Wintrebert
(l.c.) considered the Berlin neotype designation to be invalid and selected a
new, male, neotype (and a female ‘“‘neallotype”’) from Antarikatarika, not far
from Ambovombe, and now in the Muséum National d‘Histoire Naturelle,
Paris. The proposed invalidation was based upon three main points: (1) the
Berlin neotype is allegedly of the wrong sex (particularly important in view of
the difficulty of distinguishing females of different species of Pseudogeloius);
(2) the locality whence the Berlin neotype came is too remote from the [specified]
type locality; and (3) the Berlin neotype does not (it is asserted) conform with
the original description of the types.

These arguments are telling, but they do not, of themselves, constitute
groundsuponwhich the 1954 neotype designation may be invalidated. Although
it is to be preferred, nothing in the International Code makes it mandatory
that a neotype must be of the same, let alone the more readily distinguishable
sex as, or that it be more nearly topotypic than practicable with the original
type(s)—and there is an element of doubt about exactly whence the female
syntype of decorsei may have come, besides which the neotype locality was as
near as practicable to Ambovombe at the time it was designated. Further, the
facts that females of Pseudogeloius are all very much alike and that the original
description was rather inadequate make it very difficult to claim disagreement with
the original description so far as the female is concerned. The 1954 neotype
designation may have been an unfortunate one (it involved the only possible
specimen known to the authors at the time), but, so far as it went, it did not
contravene any rule of procedure. It may, however, be regarded as being
technically invalid merely on the grounds that there are some minor irregularities
that do not conform with the requirements of the Code. It is indeed rare that
such requirements are ever met in establishing a neotype; invalidity on this
basis must be very common in entomology!

Whether or not all the provisions of the Code are met, neotype designations,
once made, should not lightly be rejected, but it would seem that there are good
reasons why this should be done in this case, especially as it has already been
indicated that the door remains open for such action (Kevan, 1968, /.c.).
Although it has been stated that confusion would arise if the Berlin neotype
were set aside and another designated in its place, even more confusion could
result in the present circumstances if the lost male syntype were ever to be
recovered. If there be a choice, the more logical of the two proposed neotypes
that should be recognized would be the Paris male, which agrees with Bolivar’s
description and which is clearly conspecific with his male syntype.

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Not least of the difficulties that would result from insisting that the earlier
Berlin neotype designation should stand would be that the species to which the
more recently proposed Paris neotype belongs would require anew name. This
would be quite contrary to the intention of Kevan’s (1968, /.c.) somewhat
circuitous rationale, which was aimed primarily at limiting the current number
of names in Pseudogeloius. Recognition of the Paris neotype would release
Pseudogeloius mahafalensis from synonymy, thus obviating the necessity for an
additional name. The rejected Berlin neotype would thus be referable to that
species, which is well described and comparatively well known, while the name
P. decorsei would be applicable to the species represented by the Paris neotype,
the two species not being identical and apparently not sympatric.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
requested, in the interests of stabilizing nomenclature, to use its plenary powers
to declare as neotype of Geloius decorsei I. Bolivar, 1905, Bol. R. Soc. esp.
Hist. nat. 5 : 286 [ = Pseudogeloius decorsei (Bolivar)] the male specimen so
designated by Wintrebert (1972, Annls Mus. r. Afr. cent. (Zool.) 198 : 64) and
to set aside as neotype the female designated by Kevan, Akbar and Singh
(1964, Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 90 : 122), and, having done so, to place the specific
name decorsei Bolivar, 1905, as published in the binomen Geloius decorsei, on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203

S YNALPHEUS NEPTUNUS (DANA, 1852); NEOTYPE. (Z.N.(S.) 2047)

By A. H. Banner and D. M. Banner (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology,
University of Hawaii)

In our studies on the systematics and distribution of the alpheid shrimps
(Crustacea: Malacostraca: Decapoda: Natantia: Alpheidae) we found con-
siderable confusion in the separation of Synalpheus neptunus (Dana, 1852) and
Synalpheus theano De Man, 1911. In our collections, presently under study,
we have a series of specimens of these species from Australia and the Philippines,
the latter from the Sulu (= Sooloo) Sea, Dana’s type location. Comparison
of the two species indicated that the criteria previously used in their separation
were unreliable, but the armature of the tip of the third maxilliped, a character-
istic previously ignored, gave a certain separation between the two species.
We were able to examine De Man’s holotype for S. theano, but were unable to
find Dana’s type for S. neptunus. In fact, since about 1948 we have been search-
ing for the type specimens of Dana. In the U.S. Exploring Expedition:
Crustacea, he described seventeen new species from the Pacific. Before our
designation of a neotype for Alpheus diadema Dana in 1953, we wrote to all
major museums of the United States where his collections might have been
deposited and found that none had records of any of his specimens of alpheids.
Drs. Schmitt and Chase at the Smithsonian suggested that the entire collection
was probably destroyed by fire, either at the Philadelphia Academy of Science
or in the Chicago Museum of Natural History. [Our own early correspondence
on this was destroyed by a fire in 1961].

2. We had some indications that possibly the type specimens were extant
for S. neptunus for H. C. Coutiére in 1909 (Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 36(1659) : 88)
made reference to “two typical male examples [of S. neptunus] from the Sooloo
Sea’. We considered whether these specimens were from the actual type series
of Dana, or merely, as Coutiére stated in translation “typical specimens” from
the type location. We discussed this with Dr. Lipke Holthuis of the Rijks-
museum van Natuurlijke Historie of Amsterdam, who agreed that we should
ignore Coutiére’s reference and instead establish a neotype based on our
topotypic specimens.

3. Dana only specified as the location “‘Sooloo Sea at six and a half and
nine fathoms; also Feejee Islands’. In our collection from the Sulu Sea we
had 243 specimens of this species from Jolo and near Zamboanga, as well as
specimens from Australia. To clarify permanently the separation of the
two species (S. neptunus and S. theano) we designated one of the specimens from
near Zamboanga as a neotype, together with a neoparatypic series; the neotype
has been deposited in the Smithsonian Institution (Cat. No. 135645). The
manuscript describing the neotype and making the differentiation between the
two species under consideration was submitted to Crustaceana on 2 December
1970. The page proof was dated 22 February 1972 by E. J. Brill. The descrip-
tion finally appeared in volume 23, part 1, issued in July, 1972.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. Between the return of the proof and the issuance of the journal, Mrs.
Banner was able to visit the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University where she discovered two small fragmentary specimens labelled
“Alpheus neptunus” and “type” bearing the U.S. Exploring Expedition label
as coming from the Sulu Sea and an additional label “U.S. Exploring Expedition
—Smithsonian Exchange”. The MCZ catalogue number was 1470. The
specimens were both males (possibly immature) of 8-10 mm. Neither was
intact with all appendages, but they were well preserved. Neither was desig-
nated as the holotype (or “‘type”’). It is questionable whether either was the
specimen described by Dana as he specified that his specimen was “‘8—9 lines”
or about 19 mm in length. They were in complete agreement with the neotype
we had designated, including the armature of the third maxilliped. (We should
mention that our neotype, one of the largest from the Sulu Sea was only 12 mm.
long, and that only in our Australian collections did we find specimens reaching
to or exceeding the length of Dana’s specimen).

5. Article 75(f) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
states: “If, after the designation of a neotype, original type-material is found
to exist, the case is to be referred to the Commission”. We respectfully suggest
that inasmuch as the two specimens of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
cannot be Dana’s holotype because of their size, as they are fragmentary, and
as by all criteria used by Dana for his original description and by us in our
redescription, of the same species as the neotype we have designated, our
designation of a neotype be allowed to stand.

6. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to place the specific name neptunus Dana, 1852, as published in the
binomen Alpheus neptunus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
with an endorsement specifying that the neotype of the species is the specimen
designated by Banner & Banner (1972 Crustaceana 28 : 24).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205

LONOMIA WALKER, 1855 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA,
ATTACIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A
TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 2049

By Claude Lemaire (17 Rue d’Edimbourg, 75008 Paris, France)

The object of the present application is to request the Commission to
designate the nominal species Lonomia obliqua Walker, 1855, as the type-
species of the nominal genus Lonomia Walker, 1855.

History of the Case:

(1) Walker (1855 : 1191) described the genus Lonomia for the four following
species: submacula, apicalis, obliqua and albigutta.

(2) The first designation of a type-species, Phalaena Attacus achelous
Cramer [1777], for Lonomia was made by Draudt ({1930] : 763) who, at the same
time, synonymised with achelous two of the originally included species: Lonomia
obliqua Walker and Lonomia albigutta Walker. L. achelous (Cramer), a
Guiano-Amazonian taxon, and L. obliqua Walker, a South-east Brazilian
and Uruguayan taxon, are two different species with quite characteristic male
genitalia.

The situation is covered by the article 69(a) (iv) of the Code: “‘if an author
designates . . . as type-species a nominal species that was not originally included
[in this case achelous], and if, but only if, at the same time, he synonymizes that
species with one of the originally included species, his act constitutes designation
of the latter as type-species of the genus’. Such provisions are to be rigidly
construed and thus cannot be applied to the foregoing designation since two,
not one, of the originally included species were synonymized at the same time.
The selection by Draudt of achelous was therefore invalid.

(3) Phalaena Attacus achelous Cramer was designated again, by Bouvier
(1933 : 1942), as the type-species of the genus Lonomia. This designation
was also invalid as achelous was not originally included in the genus.

(4) Michener’s (1952 : 414) designation of Lonomia obliqua Walker as the
type-species of Lonomia cannot be accepted because he misidentified this
species, citing it incorrectly as a junior synonym of achelous Cramer. The
illustration of the male genitalia which accompanies Michener’s paper is of
achelous, not obliqua'.

The situation is covered by Article 70(a) of the Code:

“Misidentified type-species—If a zoologist considers that such species was
misidentified, he is to refer the case to the Commission to designate as the
type-species ... whichever species will in its judgement best serve stability
and uniformity of nomenclature”’.

(5) The designation of Lonomia obliqua Walker, 1855, not sensu Michener,
1952, as the type-species of the nominal genus Lonomia Walker, 1855 is here
proposed as it accords better with the Article 70(a) and Recommendation 69B
of the Code, than any of the three other included species:

(a) Lonomia submacula Walker and Lonomia apicalis Walker (1855 : 1192)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.
1 See Lemaire, 1973: 819

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

are junior synonyms of Darala falcata Walker (1855 : 985)! and were, with
the latter, removed to the genus Periga Walker, 1855 (a subgenus of Lonomia,
with type-species Periga circumstans Walker, 1855, by monotypy). If either
submacula or apicalis were selected as the type-species of Lonomia, Periga
Walker (1855 : 1197) would be relegated as a subjective synonym of the nominal
genus Lonomia and a new subgenus would have to be erected for the species
traditionally placed in Lonomia.

(b) Lonomia albigutta Walker, 1855 (fourth cited nominal species) is a
synonym of obliqua Walker, 1855 (third cited nominal species).

Proposals:

(i) to use the plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-
genus for Lonomia Walker, 1855 made prior to the ruling here
requested ;

(ii) having done so, to designate the nominal species Lonomia obliqua
Walker, 1855 as the type-species of the genus Lonomia Walker,
1855;

(iii) to place the generic name Lonomia Walker, 1855, List. Specim.
Lepid. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 5: 1191 (gender, feminine), type-
species Lonomia obliqua Walker, 1855, on the Official list of
Generic Names in Zoology;

(iv) to place the specific name obliqua Walker, 1855, List. Specim.
Lepid. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 5 : 1194, as published in the binomen
Lonomia obliqua, type-species of the nominal genus Lonomia, on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

Bouvier, E. L. 1933. Sur les papillons hétérocéres de la tribu des Lonomiicae,
groupe terminal des Hemileucides. C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 196 :
1941-1944

Draupt, M. 1929-1932. 12 Familie Saturnidae [sic], Gross-Schmetterl. Erde
6 : 713-827

Lemaire, C. 1973. Revision du Genre Lonomia Walker [Lep. Attacidae]. Annis.
Soc. ent. fr. (N.S.) 8 (1972) : 767-861

MICHENER, C. D. 1952. The Saturniidae (Lepidoptera) of the Western Hemis-
phere. Morphology, Phylogeny, and Classification. Bull. Am. Mus. nat.
Hist. 18 (5) : 435-502

WALKER, F. 1855. List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection
of the British Museum, 4 : 777-976; id, 5 : 977-1257

1See Lemaire, 1973: 819, 820 respectively

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207

PLATYCHOEROPIDAE LYDEKKER, 1887 (MAMMALIA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF FAMILY NAME UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS; TOGETHER WITH VALIDATION OF
PLAT YCHOEROPS CHARLESWORTH, 1855 (MAMMALIA)
NOT KLUNZINGER, 1879 (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 2052

By Philip D. Gingerich ( Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.)

The principal object of the present application is to ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress
a virtual nomen oblitum, which, so long as it remains an available name, re-
presents a potential threat to the nomenclature of an important group of early
mammals. The name concerned is PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887.

2. In 1887, Lydekker (Cat. Foss. Mamm. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 5 : 3)
proposed that Platychoerops richardsonii Charlesworth, 1855, represented a
new family of Mammalia, which he named PLATYCHOEROPIDAE. In 1897,
Trouessart (Catalogus Mammalium 1 : 75) named a new family PLESIADAPIDAE,
based on the genus Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877, from the late Palaeocene of
France. Teilhard (1922, Annis. Paléont. 11 : 51) first noted the close relation-
ship of Platychoerops and Plesiadapis, considering them generically synonymous.
Simpson (1929, Am. Mus. Novitates No. 354 : 4, 11-12) recognized both Platy-
choerops and Plesiadapis as valid genera, and placed them together in
Trouessart’s family PLESIADAPIDAE.

3. Virtually all subsequent authors have followed Simpson’s (1929)
placement of Plesiadapis and Platychoerops in PLESIADAPIDAE.

Pertinent publications are:

Jepsen, 1930, Proc. Am. phil. Soc., 69 : 490.

Abel, 1931, Die Stellung des Menschen: 262.

Simpson, 1945, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 85 : 61.

Hill, 1953, Primates, Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, 1 : 702.

Piveteau, 1957, Traité de Paléontologie, 7 : 46.

Buettner-Janusch, 1963, Evolutionary and Genetic Biology of Primates, 1 : 58.

Russell, 1964, Mém. Mus. nat. Hist. natur., 13 : 80.

Romer, 1966, Vertebrate Paleontology: 382.

McKenna, 1967, Coll. internat. Cent. nat. Rech. sci., Paris, 163 : 607.

Simons, 1972, Primate Evolution: 284.

No author has utilized Lydekker’s name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE for this family
subsequent to its proposal in 1887. Suppression of PLATYCHOEROPIDAE
Lydekker, 1887, in favour of PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897, seems clearly
warranted in the interest of nomenclatural stability.

4. A separate problem of nomenclature involves the spelling and priority
of the genus name Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 (Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci.
24 (1854 Liverpool) Notices & Abstr.: 80). Platychoerops is mentioned only
once in Charlesworth’s original publication, where it is spelled with an ambiguous
ligature. The spelling was interpreted as Platychoerops by Lydekker (1887,
Cat. Foss. Mamm. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 5: 4) and almost all subsequent

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

authors. The ligature was interpreted as ae, yielding Platychaerops, by Schulze,
et al. (1935, Nomenclator Animalum, Akad. Wiss., Berlin: 2717), by Hill
(1953, Primates, Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy 1 : 722), and by Simons
(1972, Primate Evolution: 284). At the time of Charlesworth’s publication the
ligature employed in the original spelling of Platychoerops was apparently
occasionally utilized when printing both ae and oe. For example, in a paper
from this period by Owen (1865, Geol. Mag. 2 : 341) a single ligature, identical
to that used in Charlesworth’s publication, was used to join both ae in Palaeo-
therium and oe in Choeropotamus.

5. The ambiguity in Charlesworth’s spelling of Platychoerops is equivalent
to the ambiguity of multiple original spellings, and normally would be resolved
by utilizing the spelling employed by the first revisor, in this case Lydekker
(1887). However, in 1879, Klunzinger (Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien 16 : 255)
proposed the name Platychoerops muelleri for a new genus and species of
Australian fish, thereby possibly preempting Lydekker’s definitive spelling of
Platychoerops Charlesworth. Platychoerops muelleri Klunzinger is nowregarded
as a junior synonym of Achoerodus gouldii (Richardson) (see Marshall, 1965,
Fishes of Great Barrier Reef: 290; and Norman, 1966, Orders, Families and
Genera of Recent Fishes: 349).

6. This problem of ambiguous original spelling and possible generic homo-
nymy can be solved in two ways. Either the Commission can rule that Charles-
worth’s genus should be spelled Platychaerops, thus providing a one-letter
difference from Platychoerops Klunzinger; or the Commission can rule that
the spelling of Charlesworth’s genus is Platychoerops, making Platychoerops
Klunzinger a junior homonym. The latter ruling seems preferable because it
preserves the spelling utilized by the first reviser (and by almost all subsequent
authors) of a valid genus widely used in the literature on early mammals, while
the resulting junior homonym Platychoerops Klunzinger is an unused junior
synonym of Achoerodus Gill.

7. The Commission is therefore requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the family name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE
Lydekker, 1887, for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the family name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE (as suppressed in (1) above)
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the family name PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897 (type genus
Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877), on the Official List of Family Names in
Zoology;

(4) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology;

(a) Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877 (J. Zool., Paris 6 : 76) (gender masculine),
type species by monotypy Plesiadapis tricuspidens Gervais, 1877
(loc. cit.);

(b) Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 (Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci. 24
(1854 Liverpool) Notices & Abstr.: 80) (gender: masculine),
type species by monotypy Platychoerops richardsonii Charlesworth,
1855 (loc. cit.):

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209

(5) to place the junior generic homonym Platychoerops Klunzinger, 1879
(Pisces) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology;

(6) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:

(a) tricuspidens Gervais, 1877, as published in the binomen Plesiadapis
tricuspidens (type species of Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877);

(b) richardsonii Charlesworth, 1855, as published in the binomen Platy-
choerops richardsonii (type species of Platychoerops Charlesworth,
1855).

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

“GEN.N., SP.N.” AFTER 1930: IS THE GENERIC
NAME AVAILABLE? Z.N.(S.) 2054

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)

In recent years, a number of publications have used the format “X-us
albus, new genus, new species,” “gen.n., sp.n.,”” or similar expression equivalent
in meaning, at the head of a single combined description. In my opinion,
this does not constitute a valid, legitimate publication of the generic name,
and the generic name is unavailable in zoological nomenclature. The contrary
opinion is held by some taxonomists. The present statement is intended to
outline the problem and to ask the Commission for a clear and unambiguous
declaration of principle.

2. For brevity in discussion, the International Rules of Zoological Nomen-
clature (1905, the ““Régles” of the substantive French edition) are referred to as
the ‘“‘Rules’’, the “International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by
the XV International Congress of Zoology” (1961, 1964) as the “‘Code’’ (the
few changes in the 1964 edition do not affect the present problem), the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as the ‘Commission’,
an International Congress of Zoology as ““Congress’’, and the Bulletin of Zoo-
logical Nomenclature as “BZN”.

3. In the Code, there are two aspects of the problem: (1) the availability
of the names in that method of description, and (2) type-designation. This
application is concerned only with the first of these problems. The second is
answered in the Code, Art. 68 a.i: “The formula ‘gen.n., sp.n.,’ or its exact
equivalent, applied before 1931 [italics mine] to only one of the new nominal
species included in a newly established nominal genus, is to be interpreted as
original designation if no other type species was designated”. The implication
is that after 1930 such a formula is not to be construed as original designation;
however, the Code is admittedly remiss in not making a positive statement no
matter how clear the implication may seem.

HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM

4. The Rules stated the basic condition for availability of a name in
Article 25, the Law of Priority, as follows: ‘“That this name [of a genus or species]
was published and accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or a descrip-
tion”. There was no mention of publication as “gen.n., sp.n.’’, nor of the
type designation by that method.

5. Opinion 7 of the Commission, adopted between 1907 and 1910 and
published by the Smithsonian Institution in July 1910 in “Opinions 1 to 25”,
concentrated on type designation and accepted the expression “‘n.g., n.sp.”
(or equivalent) as a valid form of original designation in the “publication of a
new genus for which no other species is otherwise designated as genotype”’.
This Opinion automatically accepted the generic name as available under the
Rules.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211

6. Opinion 22 accepted “Ceraticthys vigilax, B. & G.,”’ so published and
described without mention that the names were new, as constituting a “new
genus, new species.” The Commission ruled that Baird and Girard had
published “‘Ceraticthys as a monotypic genus, describing the genotype (C.
vigilax).””

7. Opinion 43 of the Commission, published by the Smithsonian Institution
in February 1912 in “Opinions 38 to 51”, dealt with “The status of genera the
type-species of which are cited without additional description”. The genera in
question (e.g., Alloderma Ashmead) were published in tabular keys, with
type-species cited by name but not described. The Commission noted in its
discussion that this method was essentially that adopted in many zoological
papers: A new monotypic genus with a “single diagnosis to cover both the genus
and the species’. Then this trenchant statement: “In the opinion of the Com-
mission this method of publication is only tolerated because it is more or less
sanctioned by practice, but it is not to be recommended, and Mr. Crawford
[the applicant in the case] is correct in the interpretation that the characters
given cover both the genus and the species, and that nomenclatorially both
names are available under the Code” [““Code”’ here means the Rules.]

8. In 1927, the 10th Congress (Budapest) adopted a significant amendment
(new Section C) to Article 25 of the Rules, effective Jan. 1, 1931. The Com-
mission’s report was published in 1929 in the Proceedings of the Congress,
Part I, pp. 139-156 (Article 25 discussed on pp. 148-150), but the text of the
amendment had already been published in 1927 and 1928 in various scientific
journals. This amendment provided that a generic or specific name published
after Dec. 31, 1930 would have no status of availability “unless and until it is
published either”’:

(1) With a summary of characters (seu diagnosis; seu definition; seu con-
densed description) which differentiate or distinguish the genus or the species
from other genera or species;

(2) Or with a definite bibliographic reference to such summary of characters
(seu diagnosis; seu definition; seu condensed description). And further;

(3) In the case of a generic name, with the definite unambiguous designation
of the type species (seu genotype; seu autogenotype; seu orthotype)”’.

In its report, (Congress Proceedings, paragraph 105), the Commission
clearly stated that after Dec. 31, 1930 “‘no name (1) based solely upon illustrations
(figures), or (2) based solely upon bibliographic references to illustrations, or
(3) based solely on the designation of a genotype, or (4) proposed in anatomical,
embryological, histological, morphological, pathological, and physiological
discussions, but without a summary of characters, is to be recognized until. . .
[such a summary is published, and that author then becomes the author of the
name)’.

Further, in paragraph 107, the Commission revealed the fundamental
philosophy behind the proposal: “. . . it is felt that the wording recommended
will settle this controversy if authors will interpret it under the general principle
of trying to render one’s own work more intelligible to other authors”.

9. Decisions of the Commission and of the Section on Nomenclature,
confirmed by the 13th Congress, Paris, July 1948:

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(a) In BZN 3: 80 (Mar. 14, 1950), in item 19 of Secretary Hemming’s
Memorandum to the Commission, referring to Opinion 43, he proposed that
words should be inserted in a new code to make it clear that ‘‘a specific name
published, prior to Ist January, 1931, jointly with a new generic name is to be
treated as having been published with an ‘indication’, where the new genus and
the new species are described jointly, no separate description being given for
either”. Secretary Hemming closed the paragraph with these significant words:
“Tt is necessary to limit this amendment to names published before Ist January,
1931, for names published in the foregoing manner would not satisfy the require-
ments of proviso (c) added to Article 25 with effect from that date”. The pro-
posed rule to give effect to Opinion 43 was adopted (BZN 4 : 149-150, May 25,
1950).

(b) In BZN 3 : 104-105, Commission President Karl Jordan noted that it
would be desirable to clarify the status of a new nominal species published with a
generic name that did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25(c). The
Commission adopted a provision making clear that the status of a trivial name
is not adversely affected by the fact that the generic name with which it was first
published is unavailable because it does not satisfy the requirements of Article
25(c) (BZN 4 : 227-228, May 25, 1950).

10. Further decisions toward a new code were passed at a Colloquium
on Nomenclature preceding the 14th Congress, Copenhagen, August 1953,
and were confirmed by the Section and the Congress. These were reported
in a volume entitled ‘Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature”,
edited by Secretary Hemming and published late in 1953. The only relevant
provision is that in paragraph 109 (p. 61), in which Article 25c(1) is modified
to state that the author ‘“‘attempts to indicate differentiating characters for the
genus, species or subspecies concerned’’, thus avoiding the implication of
subjective interpretation as to whether the characters stated really did differen-
tiate the taxon.

11. The next step was the preparation of a Draft Code by Professor
J. C. Bradley, bringing together decisions by Congresses and the Opinions
of the Commission. This lengthy “Bradley Draft’? was published in BZN,
vol. 14 (1957-58), in time for consideration at a second Colloquium on Nomen-
clature preceding the 15th Congress, London, August 1958. In this Draft,
Article 6 dealt with the Rule of Availability: For a name published after 1930,
“it must be either (1) accompanied by a statement intended to give differen-
tiating characters of its taxon,..”. The other provisions of old Article 25c,
noted in my paragraph 8, are not repeated here as they are irrelevant to the
present problem.

12. The Code (1961) represented the results of the London and earlier
decisions, edited by an Editorial Committee and approved by the Commission.
Articles 10-20 deal with Availability. Article 12 requires that before 1931
a name must be “accompanied by a description, definition, or indication”’.
Article 16 defines indications, and one of the kinds (16. a.vi) is “‘a single combined
description of a new nominal genus and a new nominal species, which provides
an indication for each name” (the “gen.n., sp.n.” formula). However,
Article 13 provides that ‘‘a name published after 1930 must be either (i) accom-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213

panied by a statement that purports to give characters differentiating the taxon;
or...” (here follows the conditions, irrelevant to the present problem, of
bibliographic reference and replacement name). Further (Article 13b), a
genus-group name first published after 1930 must be accompanied by “the
definite fixation of a type-species”. Article 17(3) protects the availability of
a species-group name if “the genus-group name with which it is first combined
is invalid or unavailable’.

13. A number of propositions for amendment of the Code were before
the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature at the 17th Congress,
Monaco, September 1972. In BZN 29 : 83 (Aug. 23, 1972), as one step in
meeting the criticism that the Code too frequently left the reverse of some
provisions to inference, I proposed a new Section (c) in Article 13, and with
slight change in wording it was adopted (BZN 29 : 188, Dec. 29, 1972): ‘*(c)
Exclusions.—After 1930, a name proposed only by ‘indication’ under any of
the methods listed in Article 16(a), clauses (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii) is
not available’. However, we failed to note the special provision in Article
17(3) which protected the species-group name in the “‘gen.n., sp.n.” cases of
single combined description, and this provision will have to be taken account
of in a new edition of the Code. The important point is that this provision
makes it clear that after 1930, a generic name proposed in the “‘gen.n., sp.n.”
formula is not available from that point. Obviously, my proposal expressed
my own belief in the meaning of the Code on that problem, but I did point out
that considerable differences of opinion existed, and I stated that a separate
paper would be prepared.

EXAMPLES

14. Many examples have been seen, of varying degrees between clearly
acceptable and clearly, in my view at least, unacceptable names. A few are
cited here, not in criticism of any individuals but in order to have a series of
concrete examples before us.

(a) Schmitz, 1931 (Dec. 28), ‘“‘Neue termitophile Dipteren von Buitenzorg,
Java, “‘(Natuurhist. Maanblad 20: 176): ‘“Dicranopteron philotermes n.g.
n.sp. 9. (Fig. 2). Stellt man diese Gattung zu den Metopininae, wozu
sie wahrscheinlich gehért, so gelangt man mit meinem Gattungsschliissel
(Revision d. Phoriden, 1929, S. 80 ff) zu Pheidolomyia, Rhynchomicropteron and
Gymnophora subg. Capraephora. Sie ist aber mit keiner derselben identisch.
Die gewélbte Stirn tritt vorn zwischen die relativ kleinen Fiihlergruben. Senk-
borsten fehlen. Hauptaugen verkleinert, Ocellen vorhanden. ...”’ [11 lines of
more characters]. Then, toward the end of the long paragraph, and con-
tinuous with it, without indentation: “Typus: D.philotermes n. sp. bei Macro-
termes gilvus, Java. Korperlange iiber 2 1/2 mm, mit brauner Stirn, braunem
Thorax, grauem Hinterleib und gelblichen Beinen. Die etwas lederartigen
Fliigel verkleinert, stark gelbbraun getriibt’”’.

Here, although the expression ‘‘n.g. n.sp.” is used, there is nevertheless a
clear separation between a statement of generic characters, including the place
of the genus in a published generic key, and a brief specific description. There
is also the definite and unambiguous designation of a type-species.

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) Curran, 1934, ‘‘Heliaea mirabilis, new genus and species” (Bull. Amer.
Mus. Nat. Hist. 66 : 517). The description is a characteristic species descrip-
tion, like the many others in the long article in which it appears, stating the
sex, details of color, pollinosity, length, designation of holotype, etc. What is
headed “new genus and species” (=gen.n., sp.n.) is actually the species
description of H.mirabilis; ““Heliaea, n.gen.’’ appears on p. 492 in the key to
genera and is properly diagnosed there. The situation is comparable to that
of Schmitz (1931), although the format is different.

(c) Curran, 1934, ‘“‘The families and genera of North American Diptera’’;
Eighteen new genera, each based on one new species, are described on pp.
464-471, at the end of the key to the genera of Tachinidae. The genera had
already appeared in the generic key, pp. 419-463, and they are thus published
with a diagnosis or definition. Each description consists of a single paragraph,
headed by the name of the new genus, and ending with the name of the species,
designated as type-species of the genus but apparently without species descrip-
tion. For example, on p. 465:

““Chaetonalia, new genus

““Male.—Head almost twice as high as long; cheeks very narrow; face...
[ll-line description]. Length, 5.5 mm. Genotype:—C. /Jateralis, n.sp.
(Panama)”’’.

The genus is separately diagnosed in the key, of course, but this description
by itself is the “gen.n., sp.n.” formula: a single combined description for
genus and species. The description, including non-generic details such as the
sex of the type, the color of the pollinosity, and the length, is obviously a
specific rather than a generic description, but in a reversed format the species
name closes rather than begins the paragraph. Realistically and pragmatically,
it seems best to regard this as the species description that accompanies the genus,
which had already been diagnosed in the generic key.

(d) Heller and Linnavuori, 1968 (Stuttgarter Beitr. zur Naturk. 186 : 6),
described a new species of leafhopper, family Cicadellidae, as ““Okaundua
(Ly. in litt.) crassicauda n.sp.”” However, the formal description of Okaundua
new genus, with O. consita new species as type-species, was not published by
Linnavuori until a year later (1969, Bull. Inst. frang. d’ Afrique Noire 32, Ser
A(4): 1177). The first publication (1968) was not labeled “‘gen.n., sp.n.”’,
and the later publication shows that it was not so intended, but both names in
1968 depend in fact on the same description and the situation is essentially
that of “gen.n., sp.n.”’, as interpreted in Opinion 22. The specific name
crassicauda dates from 1968, but Okaundua is available only from 1969.

(e) Bagnall, 1949 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 2 : 94) provides the reverse
of the preceding example: The genus is described but not the species. In the
Collembola, the heading ‘“‘“Genus HOLOTOMODES, nov.” is followed by a 7-line
generic diagnosis, including comparison with other genera. Then this para-
graph: “Genotype: Holotomodes hibernica Bagnall, sp. ined., Ireland. Two
other new species are in my collection, awaiting description—both from the
British Isles’. This case might be interpreted in two different ways. Both
names depend on the same description, hence the situation is essentially that of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215

“gen.n., sp.n.’”’ and corresponds exactly to that outlined in Opinion 43. Under
the Code, the specific name is available, protected under Article 17(3), but the
generic name is unavailable, in my view. Under another interpretation, the
description is clearly a generic diagnosis, based on three species, one named but
undescribed (the author himself tells us that!), the other two unnamed. The
genus is thus based on a nomen nudum, it violates the rule calling for definite
fixation of a type-species (Art. 13b), and the generic name is accordingly
unavailable.

(f) Osmdlska, Roniewicz, and Barsbold, 1972, ‘‘A new dinosaur, Gallimimus
bullatus n.gen., n.sp. (Ornithomimidae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mon-
golia’’ (Palaeontologia Polonica 27 : 103-143). On page 105, after introductory
remarks, is the following:

“Genus Gallimimus nov.

“Type species: Gallimimus bullatus n.sp.

“Diagnosis.—The genus is monotypic; the generic characters are those
of the type species”’.

The derivation of the name and the stratigraphic and geographic ranges
are given, but these are irrelevant for our problem. Then follows: ““Gallimimus
bullatus n.sp.”, described and figured in great detail on pp. 106-134.

Here the authors appear, technically, to have satisfied the strict letter of the
law: There is a definite statement under generic “‘diagnosis” in addition to a
detailed description under the specific name. This cleverly appears to avoid
violation of the Code, but in actual fact it is still a case where both genus and
species depend on the same combined description, in other words essentially
the “‘gen.n., sp.n.”” situation. Certainly it is patently exaggerated and un-
realistic to claim that all 29 pages of details in the species description are also
generic characters.

In this case there is a peculiar twist that makes it possible to argue that
Gallimimus is available. On page 134 are two paragraphs of “Discussion”,
and in these Gallimimus is compared with other genera in its family. For
example, “‘it [Gallimimus] is different from Struthiomimus in three of the charac-
teristics considered by Russell (1972) to be of generic value: the length of the
presacral vertebral column, which is equal to the length of the hind limb (the
pedal digits excluding) in Gallimimus n.gen. while it is more than that in
Struthiomimus; ...[{etc.J’. The statements although buried in the discussion
far back in the paper, do appear to diagnose the genus Gallimimus, by notation
of certain characters considered as generic by another author on another genus
of the family. Other comparisons are also made on pp. 134-138 in the general
discussion of the skull, mandible, and postcranial skeleton. But one should
not have to search through over three dozen pages to see whether truly generic
characters are cited or generic comparisons made.

DISCUSSION
15. All of the generic names in the foregoing examples, if they had been
proposed before 1931, would have been available in zoological nomenclature
under Articles 12 and 16a (vi) of the Code. The question is whether or not a

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

generic name proposed after 1930 by the “‘gen.n., sp.n.” formula is available.

16. In my opinion, a generic name published in a “‘gen.n., sp.n.”’ situation
after 1930 is and should be unavailable. The characters in the descriptions,
as seen in the examples cited, may range all the way from all generic to all
specific. Characters defining and differentiating each taxon, if indeed both do
occur somewhere in a description, are jumbled together and one cannot say
that each taxon is or purports to be defined and differentiated. Availability in
such cases is by “indication” (Art. 16 a.vi), which applies before 1931 (Art. 12)
but not after 1930 (Art. 13a).

17. For names published after 1930, the Code requires that a taxonomist
assist his colleagues and his science by stating the characters by which he has
recognized the genus as new, and by “definite fixation of a type-species’’.
Publication as ‘“‘gen.n., sp.n.”” does neither. The taxonomist who has studied
and recognized the genus as new is in the best position to state the basis upon
which it is recognized as new! He is the authority; he should help others.

18. Accordingly, the Commission is requested to issue a Declaration of
principle confirming beyond any argument or difference of interpretation that
after 1930, proposal of a generic name solely in a “gen.n., sp.n.”” combination
without separate diagnosis of the genus does not thereby make the name avail-
able. The exact wording and its position in the Code may be left to an Editorial
Committee, but I suggest that either a rewording of Article 13a.i or additon of a
Subsection (iv) to Article 13a would be appropriate. First a decision in
principle is needed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217

PROPOSED EMENDATION TO NYSSON OF THE NAME
NYSSO LATREILLE, 1796 (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE).
Z.N.(S.) 2055

By A. S. Menke (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A. c/o U.S. National
Museum Washington, D.C.)

R. M. Bohart (Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis,
California) and

O. W. Richards (c/o Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural
History) London, England)

This is a reapplication of the petition of Benson, Ferriére, and Richards
(1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 214) which, for lack of action was removed from
further consideration by the Commission in 1963 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 81).

2. Latreille (1796, Préc. Car. Gener. Ins., p. 125) published the genus Nysso.
Nysso is a Greek finite verb meaning “I puncture” and as such does not agree
with Article 11 (f) of the Code which states that generic names must be based
on “a noun in the nominative singular...”. Being a verb, the nominative
singular of nysso does not exist in either Greek or Latin. The complete sentence
under Article 11 (f) ends in “‘or be treated assuch”’. It is quite likely that Latreille
regarded Nysso as a noun, and in any case the name is available as a valid generic
name under the “... treated as such” part of 11 (f). It is possible that Nysso
was merely a typographical error or it might be regarded as an arbitrary com-
bination of letters and treated as a Latin word (Art. 11(b)) but the meaning of
nysso applies well to a wasp and it is highly unlikely that Latreille concocted
the word arbitrarily.

3. In all subsequent works Latreille used the spelling Nysson instead of
Nysso (1802-1803, Hist. Nat. Génér. Part. Crust. Ins. 3 : 340; 1804, Nouv. Dict.
Hist. Nat. 24 : 180, 1804-1805, Hist. nat. Génér. Part. Crust. Ins. 4 : 305; 1809,
Gen. crust. Ins. 4:90; 1810, Consid. Génér. Ord. Nat. Anim., p. 438). Un-
fortunately, Latreille does not mention the spelling Nysso in these later works,
but it seems obvious that his usage of the spelling Nysson was deliberate and
hence Nysson is an unjustified emendation under Article 33(a)(ii). But one is
led to assume that the original spelling Nysso may have been a printers’ lapsus
although there is no clear evidence. In any case all workers to the present
day have traditionally used Nysson.

4. Nysso was published without included species, but Latreille (1802-1803)
placed two species in the genus Nysson. Shuckard (1837, Essay Indig. Foss.
Hymen., p. 99) designated one of these, Crabro spinosus Fabricius, 1775 [=
Sphex spinosus Forster, 1771], as type species. Benson, Ferriére, and Richards
indicated that Latreille, 1810, gave the first valid type species designation,
but this is not true because he did not use one of the originally included species.

5. Nysson is the basis for the subfamily and tribal names Nyssoninae and
Nyssonini, but these names would not be altered with Nysso as the stem. How-
ever, a dozen or more sphecid generic names have been created with the suffix
-nysson or -isson.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 3/4. June 1974.

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. Obviously, it is highly desirable that Nysson be adopted, either as a
valid emendation of Nysso, or as its corrected original spelling, and that the
name Nysso be thrown out for the purposes of priority. Therefore, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to:

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the name WNysso Latreille 1796,
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of
Homonymy, and to validate the unjustified emendation Nysson
Latreille, 1802-1803;

(2) put Nysson Latreille, 1802-1803 (gender : masculine), type-species by
subsequent designation by Shuckard 1837, Crabro spinosus Fabricius,
1775 [= Sphex spinosus Forster, 1771], on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology;

(3) place the specific name spinosus Forster, 1771, as published in the
binomen Sphex spinosus, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;

(4) place the generic name Nysso Latreille, 1796, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;

(5) place the family group name Nyssoninae (correction of ““Nyssoniens,
Nyssonii’’”) Latreille, 1804 (type-genus Nysson Latreille, 1802-1803),
on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219

EUPLILIS RISSO, 1826 (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
IN FAVOR OF RHOPALUM STEPHENS, 1829. Z.N.(S.) 2056

By A. S. Menke (Systematic Entomology, Laboratory U.S.D.A., c/o U.S. National
Museum, Washington, D.C.),

R. M. Bohart (Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis,
California) and

O. W. Richards (c/o Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural
History) London, England)

The purpose of this petition is to resubmit a proposal to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress
the generic name Euplilis Risso, 1826, and to place the generic name Rhopalum
Stephens, 1829, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The original
application by Benson, Ferriére, and Richards (1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 : 217) proposed essentially the same action as requested here. The Com-
mission considered the application (file Z.N.(S.) 133) but deferred making a
decision until supplementary statements were received setting out the nature
and extent of the confusion that would result if the Régles were strictly applied
(1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 413-415). No supplementary information was
received and this reapplication became necessary following the statement of
intention by the Acting Secretary in April, 1963 to close all files in the back-log
of applications submitted before October 1959 and uncompleted (1963, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 20 : 81).

2. The details of the case are: Stephens (1829, Nomencl. British Ins., p. 34)
established the genus Rhopalum, and Curtis (1837, British Ent. 14: pl. 656)
designated Crabro rufiventris Panzer, 1799 [= Sphex clavipes Linnaeus, 1758]
as type-species. Pate (1935, Ent. News 46 : 246) discovered the apparently
completely ignored but valid generic name Euplilis published by Risso (1826,
Hist. Nat. Europ. Merid. 5 : 227). Pate designated Crabro rufiventris Panzer
as the type-species of Euplilis thus making it a senior objective synonym of
Rhopalum. The Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Ento-
mological Society of London (1937, Gen. Names British Ins. 5 : 88), cognizant
of Pate’s revelation, proposed submitting the case to the Commission in an
effort to employ the plenary powers to suppress Euplilis. This led ultimately to
the petition of Benson, Ferriére and Richards.

3. Use of the name Euplilis: With one known exception (Evans and
Matthews, 1971, J. Australian ent. Soc. 10 : 1-4) all New World authors have
used this name since 1935. A search of the literature revealed some 20 references
by 7 different authors. However, most of these uses of Euplilis consist of
geographic records or biological studies. The only major taxonomic use of
Euplilis is Krombein (1951, Hymen. Amer. North Mexico, Synoptic
Catalog, U.S. Dept. Agr., Monogr. 2, pp. 1018-1019). Euplilis has served as
the basis for only one name: Eupliloides Pate, 1946, a subgenus of Crossocerus.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974.

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. With one exception known to us (Zavadil and Snoflak, 1948, Kutilky
(Sphecidae) Ceskoslovenské Republiky, Ent. Prir. Ent. Listu, 13) all Old
World authors have chosen to ignore Euplilis, and since 1935 a sizeable taxo-
nomic literature has built up around the name Rhopalum. Two authors
alone (Tsuneki and Leclercq) have published 40 papers in which Rhopalum was
used taxonomically; these include three papers by Leclercq and two papers by
Tsuneki which contain keys or are of a revisionary nature, and one world
catalog by Leclercq. A cursory survey of European literature reveals that at
least five other authors have used Rhopalum in regional faunal works con-
taining keys to species. Furthermore, Rhopalum has served as the basis for
six generic names: Holcorhopalum Cameron, 1904; Calceorhopalum Tsuneki,
1952; Latrorhopalum Tsuneki, 1952; Aporhopalum Leclercq, 1955; Zelorhopalum
Leclercq, 1955; and Jsorhopalum Leclercq, 1963. Hence itis clear that Rhopalum
should be conserved as the name for the taxon in question, a cosmopolitan
genus, and with over 100 species, one of the largest genera in the Sphecidae.

5. In the interests of stability and universality of nomenclature, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Euplilis Risso,
1826 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the generic name Rhopalum Stephens, 1829 (gender: neuter),
type-species by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1837, Crabro
rufiventris Panzer, 1799 [= Sphex clavipes Linnaeus, 1758], on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name clavipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Sphex clavipes, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;

(4) to place the generic name Euplilis Risso, 1826, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

INDEX TO AUTHORS

Kashin, G. N.
Keen, Myra...

Kevan, D. K. McE.

Key, K. H. L.

Kim, Ke Chung

Lemaire, Claude

221

Page
57
75

200
97
42

205

Page
Ansell, W. F. H. 136
Banner, A. H. 203
Banner, D. M. 203
Bellinger, Peter F. ... 39
Benes, Karel 95:
Beu; A. G:, <3: 4, 54
Bohart, R. M. ... 217,219
Bouéek, Z. ... 124
Bouché, M. B. 68
Bretsky, Sara S. 73
Britton, Joseph C. ... 73
Brinck, P. 132
Brown, F. Martin ... 92
Carson, H. L. ise eS 112
Cernohorsky, W. O. Sash 5)
Collette, Bruce B. ... ... 69, 76
Cowan, C. F. im ... 10, 133
Crombie, Ronald I. ae 4
Eisenmann, E. st ae 71
Ellis, Willem N.... oie 39
Falla, R. A.... ae a 136
Fleming, C. A. are ree 136
Gates, G. E. a ae 34
Gingerich, Philip D. iad 207
Getty, T. A. iis see 185
Gibson, D. I. ee se 182
Gruchy, C. G. das was 35
Hardy, D. E. a8 one 112
Hastings, Anna B. ... ee 177
Hope, W. D. “iat ae 102
Houbrick, Richard ... a 104

Hurley, Richard L.... & 118

Lemche, H. ... . 70, 76, 90, 91
McDowall, R. M. . 88
Mayr, E. 140
Maxwell, P. A. Ss 4
Melville, R. V. 134, 137, 138
Menke, A. S. =e 217, 219
Murphy, D. G. “of as 102
Naito, Tikahiko ... wee 95
Nye, I. W. B. a ‘int 141
Okutani, Teiichi... Ae 95
O’Shea, R. ... oe BS 63
Ponder, Richard W. as 193
Rehder, Harald A. ... Seis 7A!

Richards, O. W. 49, 217, 219

Ride, W. D. L. 58, 173, 175
Robinson, Harold ... ass 118
Roberts, R. B. bs ue 190
Roginskaya, I. S. ... ee 138
Rosen, David ar ae 108

Sabrosky, Curtis W. 121,126, 132,210

Shevtchenko, V. G. Ae 196
Sims, R. W.... <a 2s 27
Steyskal, George C. 118, 137
Strachan, I. ... ee om 7
Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. ... 133

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Taylor, R. W. ae nae 58
Thomas, The late H. Dighton 177
Throckmorton, L. H. ds 112
Tyler, Michael J. ... a. 131
Tzvetkova, N. L. ... oh 47
Ulrich, Hans we es 118
van Regteren Altena, C. O. 100

Vladykov, V.D._... Me 198

Voigt, E.

Warham, John
Wasserman, M.

Weisser, Christian F.

Whalley, Paul E. S.
Wheeler, M. R.
Woodland, D. J.

Yochelson, Ellis L....

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223

LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME

Opinion Page
990 (Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816) “ee a). xt oon it 9
991 (Hetererannis Warren, 1904) se as ao aie os 13
992 (Gammarus aequicauda (Martynov, 1931)) arts ams S. ifs)
993 (Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778)... by Hg 4c ae 17
994 (Tatura Butler, [1888]) se ae Nae oe any so 19
995 (Psodos Treitschke, 1825) ... tse ast am £3 “tat 21
996 (Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900) ... Sie a ne _ 23
997 (Anoplius Dufour, 1844)... nae ; 5% ag as 25
998 (Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763) 25 a 3 77
999 (Plautus Brunnich, 1772) ... oe =a ae _ — 80

1000 (Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903) ... es ca esi, = 82
1001 (Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803]) ... rm” va ay a 85
1002 (Phalaena tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758) a ee aes 86
1003 (Orthoceras Bruguiere, 1789) aoe aa ae aD ons 142
1004 (SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955)... = hea ae 147
1005 (TRYPETIDINAE Pierce, 1919) ae bY 3 Hae 2 as 151
1006 (Poteriocrinus hemisphericus Shumard, 1858)... 2 — 153
1007 (Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884) aa ee 155
1008 ee Meigen, 1803 and Haematobia Lepeletier & Serville,

1828) .. ne aoe Bes pe 1 3 157
1009 (Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, | 1832) es me he Fu 159
1010 (Callopanchax Myers, 1933) ao Say ai Ros ae 164
1011 (Cypselus abessynicus Streubel, 1848) _ ... oes te eds 167
1012 (Thalascaris Bate, 1878)... sa 73 ae bees So 169

1013 (Priapus humanus Linnaeus, 1758 and Holothuria priapus
Linnaeus, 1767)... bic sae or ee adi ie 171

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

INDEX TO KEY NAMES

abessynicus, Cypselus, Streubel, 1848
Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900
adansonii, Cerithium, Brugiére, 1792
adspersus, Tergipes, Nordmann, 1845

aequicauda, Carcinogammarus, Martynov, 1931

Aetheius Hiibner [1819]
Aglaja Renier, 1807 ...
alpheus, Papilio, Cramer 1777
Anoplius Dufour, 1834

Argiope J. A. Hales Dedanuchamne, 1842

“‘Argiopes Agassiz” Levi, 1970

“* Argiopes Latreille” Agassiz, 1846 ...
Argyope Audouin, 1826

Anthus paytensis Lesson, 1837
atratus, Eudyptes, Finsch, 1875
avellanae, Phytoptus, Nalepa, 1889 ...

binotatus, Ammonites Oppel, 1862 ...
brachyptera, Echeneis, Lowe, 1859 ...
BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847 ...
Brontes Goldfuss, 1839

Callopanchax Myers, 1933
cancellatus, Sigaretus, Lamarck, 1822
capillatus, Solenopotes, Enderlein, 1904
Capys Hewitson (1865) F
carinata, Drosophila, Grimshaw, 1901
CASSIDAE Latreille, 1825

caudatus, Priapulus, Lamarck, 1816...
Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] ;
CERATINIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] ...
Cerithium Bruguiére [1789] ...
Clavicera Latreille, April 1802
clavipes, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758
Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884 ...
costatum, Scutellum, Pusch, 1833
Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839..

crucialis, Hyla, Harlan, 1826

crucifer, Acanthocerus, Palisot de Beanie: 1818.

cucurbitina, Apis, Rossi, 1792
cuneatus, Donax, Linnaeus, 1758

Page

167

» » 205
90, 138
15

134
132
134

134
135
135
135

136
196

23
76
147
147

164

159

134

112

3,4

171

105

219

155

147

B03 63
4, 131, 140
63

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Daristane Walker, 1859

decorsei, Pseudogeloius (Bolivar, 1905)
defossus, Ammonites, Simpson, 1843
doria, Antilope, Ogilby, 1837

Drepane Cuvier, 1831

delfini, Galaxias, Philippi, 1895
Delocrinus Miller & Gurley, 1890 ...
dianthus, Coscinocyathus, Bornemann, 1884
DREPANEIDAE Gill, 1874
Drepanichthys Bonaparte, 1831
DREPANIDAE Gill, 1874

Echeneis brachyptera Lowe, 1839

Echeneis quatuordecimlaminatus Storer, 1839
Echeneis sexdecimlamellata Eydoux & Gervais, 1838
Echinocorys Leske, 1778

Echinocorytes, Leske, 1778 ...

elongatum, Oxystoma, Biitschli, 1874

Enixe Gistl, 1848

Enterion Savigny, 1822

Eriophyes Siebold, 1851

errata, Lepralia, Waters, 1878

Euphaedra Hiibner [1819]

Euplilis Risso, 1826 oe
eurysternus, Haematopinus, Denny, 1842 ne
eurysternus, Pediculus, Burmeister, 1838

faeroensis, Polycera, Lemche, 1929 or Odhner, 1941
Friesea von Dalla Torre, 1895

frit, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 ...

Fundulopanchax Myers, 1924

galilejensis, Cypselus, Antinori, 1855
gallica, Leucospis, Villers, 1789
geniculata, Musca, De Geer, 1776 ...
giardi, Allolobophora, Ribaucourt, 1901
gigas, Leucospis, Fabricius, 1793

glabra, Madiza, Fallén, 1820
Gonophlebia Felder, 1870 [Jun.]

Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763...

habei, Nipponaphera, Petit, 1972... oa
Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville, 1828 ...
HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849

225

Page

61
200
185
136

88
153
155

76
76
76
17
17
102
36
30
196
177
133
219

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Harpochirus Cantor, 1849

hemisphericus, Poteriocrinus, Shumard, 1858

Hetererannis Warren, 1904 ...
hottentota, Querquedula, Eyton, 1838
humanus, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758 ...
Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823

irritans, Conops, Linnaeus, 1758

lachryma, Erato, Gray in Sowerby, 1832
Lachryma Sowerby, [1832]

Latona Schumacher, 1817

lebona, Hypolycaena, Hewitson, [1865]
leucopus, Acanthomys, Gray, 1867 .
Leucotis Swainson, 1840 ts
Leucotus G. B. Sowerby II, 1842
lichenata, Hyla (Gosse, 1851)

lobata, Aranea, Pallas, 1772 ...
Lonomia Walker, 1855

longicornis, Psednura, Sees 1920.
LORIIDAE Selby, 1836 .. j
Lucina Brugiére, 1797 j
lugdunaea, Cynips, Gmelin, 1790
LUMBRICIDAE Claus, 1880

Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758

maccoa, Erismatura, Eyton, 1838
macdunnoughi, Glenea, Sperry, 1952
Macgillivraya Grote, 1894

Madiza Fallén, 1810 ... xii
MADIZINAE Czerny, 1909 ie ag Decariaee
maxima, Formica, Moore, 1842

mercatorum, Drosophila, Patterson & Wheeler, 1942

Merria Gray, 1839(?)

MERRIIDAE Hedley, 1917

Merrya Récluz, 1846...
Microterys Thomson, 1875 ...
midamus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758
Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903
mirabilis, Triaena, Tullberg, 1871
Monroa Warren, 1904

Moraba Walker, 1870

mulciber, Papilio, Cramer, 1777

206

96
ST
71, 73, 75

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227

Page
Najas Hiibner, [1807]... PP oat ads a se ee ar g3
nama, Chanda, Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822... ate whe us oe aS 69
Narica d’Orbigny (ex Récluz MS) 1842( 9)... ee fe L¥ HY gr 159
NARICIDAE Récluz, 1846 5s : ae aon 353 a ay so» “160
natrix, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820 a, ae ads vee eas igs 23
nebulosus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823 Ke we = fe AAS ve TS.
neptunus, Synalpheus (Dana, 1852) ... he oa igh 3 re 72203
Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972 ae 4 it a as en Bes RA 30
niger, Sphex, Fabricius, 1775 sits = ib a aoe Me a 25
nigerrimus, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763... 1 Pe ed ce ee SF 25
nigricorne, Acridium, Burmeister, 1838 _... he Rs Be, tes oy 77
nilssoni, Graptolithus, Barrande, 1850 mae Pe ME ats A Nae 7
Nioma Gray, 1842... ae te ise or PE Ms Hee Het CASO
Niomia Gray, 1842 ... ee a a aan Ris ne ate ser 159
Niona Paetel, 1887... te id aa ve = he ee fom SO
Nipponaphera Habe, 1961... Ms ue Kes bck Abs ss ye 38
Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816] ey eS os EF iS #5 yanmal42
Nysso Latreille, 1796... ea sae ak ie aye me 33 SPQ
Nysson Latreille, 1802-1803 ... sts oe Bes ise a. vi syerp2Q 7.
NYSSONINAE Latreille, 1804 ... , ans oe fe noe A wry
obliqua, Lonomia, Walker, 1855 ___.... we 3 eat faa bse .. 206
occidentale, Aphyosemion, Stenholt Clausen, 1966 ae ra ate Sa gl66
Oniscidia H. & A. Adams, 1853... eS hs nee wat Rs es 3
Onycholyda Takeucki, 1938 ... um or wes _ Re = ean 95
Orthocera Modeer, 1789 fh, me bs nk a it ise eee (2
Orthocera Lamarck, 1799... ae: od “rh “re wes aie wa ELAS
Orthocera J. Sowerby, 1812 ... he eer are ae ne ae eae! 5}
Orthocera Fleming, 1815... a8; aA & ae 3 ae svar A143
Orthocera Blainville, 1828 ... AS a ost sibs te eat cols
Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 ... eae 5 oe ett a, oe i, 1142.
Orthoceras Batsch, 1791 Ray = ae ay, ee. ae ae win 0 142:
Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795 ... eae ce ae. re ie a : arg
Orthoceras Schrank, 1796... Ma ae a ne i we ser eg?
Orthoceras Perry, 1811 re ae 3 Bb ide 43 ene Peel 42
Orthoceras Blainville, 1825 ... ae 48 BE +. 63% an peg 42,
Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831 ... oa nm wt Mi wes 2 AeOTAD
Orthoceras Phillips, 1836... ws ahs #3: =P et wf Se er yl42
Orthoceras Balashov, 1956 ... ae os: =e aes as om seg wryl42
Orthocerata Soldani, 1780... 3. eo ie eee Se ee Shee GS
Orthoceratia Soldani, 1791 . Se oe ae ee Aa iz eer 48
ORTHOCERATIDAE M’Coy, 1844 he ase ee an oH rs 2. s0 0142
Orthoceros Brunnich, 1771 ... hve oe +2 Me ot yore 42:

ORTHOCEROTIDAE Teichert & Miller, 1936 . a #C WW Ses 4. olds

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ourocnemis Baker, 1887
Oscinella Becker, 1909
Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921

pallida, Embletonia, Alder & Hancock, 1854
Patanga Uvarov, 1923 * aay
paytensis, Anthus, Lesson, 1837

pedestris, Mesops, Erichson, 1842 ...

PETROMYZONTIDAE, PETROMYZONIDAE OF PETROMYZIDAE 2

Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851

platei, Galaxias, Steindachner, 1898
PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887...
Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 ...
Platychoerops Klunzinger, 1879
PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897
Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877 a:
plumicornis, Gammarus, Costa, 1953
Priapulus Lamarck, 1816

priapus, Holothuria, Linnaeus, 1767
Psednura Burr, 1903 .

Pseudanisakis egiriect & perov kava, 1926
Pseudopontia P\6tz, 1870 [Sep.]
Psodos Treitschke, 1825

Psoidos Treitsche, 1825

punctata, Anas, Burchell, 1822
punctatus, Chaetodon, Linnaeus, 1758
purpurata, Mutilla, Smith, 1879

quadrifaria, Phalaena, Sulzer, 1776 ...
quatuordecimlaminatus, Echeneis, Storer, 1839

radicula, Nautilus, Linnaeus, 1758 ...

regularis, Orthoceratites, Schlotheim, 1820
Renoidea Brown, 1827

renominanda, Mimecomutilla, Bischoff, 1921
rhinoides, Trypetes, Gyllenhal in Schoenherr, 1836
Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 ... a Moe
Rhopalum Stephens, 1829

richardsonii, Platychoerops, epsdecarte 1855
robustus, Eudyptes, Oliver, 1953

Roloffia Stenholt Clausen, 1966

rotundata, Apis, Fabricius, 1795

rubeta, Murex rana var., Linnaeus, 1758

Page

90,

134
121
102

138
77
71
96

198

196
88

207

207
15

171

171
96

182

134
21
21

173
36
82

21
76

142
142
193

82
151

49
219
207
136
164
190

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229

Page
sanctus, Cimex, Fabricius, 1775... Pee es or. eee ee} std 63
Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 = exe sae -— a a snl 8
Schistodera Cobb, 1920 = ~ i is ee &i ae ctexwrelO2
sclateri, Eudyptes, Buller, 1888 aes ss Jes aan 2.5 ite ested 36
Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] eh Sa sae ee be ie We son Ww
scutata, Echinocorys, Leske, 1778 ... bys Ar at ame fis site 17
SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955... a ee Ren ale an vd
Scutellum Pusch, 1833 ies a a ad a oor aiaod47
serricornis, Moraba, Walker, 1870 . % igs beg wes wai ats 96
setosus, Gammarus, Dementieva, 1931 te f mt os “yi sid 48
sexdecimlamellata, Echeneis, Eydoux & Gervais, 1838 2s see oda ees 76
Siphona Meigen, 1803 cfs ae ae he ea “fe ee ST
sjoestedti, Fundulus, Lonnberg, 1895 as aon oe Bsa wae = 6 164,
Solenopotes Enderlein, 1904 .. ie 8 sat sb. ne pia a 45
spetsbergensis, Gammarus, Neston 1889 . e se er wie ae oh 48
spinosus, Sphex, Forster, 1771 ae ave ney ay are a Sa 27)
spongites, Eschara, Pallas,1776 es = eae ae “ ee
striata, Calyptraea, Gray, 1825 Aen mee a a ea awe <0 200
striata, Calyptraea, Say, 1826 id wwe arr e, ae ee ) O00
Striglina, Guénée, 1857 oy a aes He he Ss ae 61, 141
Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909... gs 8 one es a sia en LTT
succinctus, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus, 1763 ag eee ons se 2 77
sylvius, Encyrtus, Dalman, 1820... ar ak an aie hy eol08
Tatura Butler, [1888] ... or a APE a 7 dh wes ste 19
terraereginae, Mus, Alston, 1879... os ae wee oS = 175
terrestris, Lumbricus, Linnaeus, 1758 i ae ats = 27, 32, 34, 68, 132
Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766 aa ae A. “fs te ne ee ee 6
Thalascaris Bate, 1878 a i oe inp — ee at .. 169
Thienemann collection = EP “Ae $3 # we Hs oa 76
Trace fossils... ee re se ae a ap oe .-. 69, 70
Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816 see can oF; Ree a Ao a ae 9
Triaena Tullberg, 1871 oft poh ree ie — ze a. 40
tricupola, Pseudanisakis, Gibson, 1973 ze we ro ms ae ere |.
tricuspidens, Plesiadapis, Gervais, 1877... ee 2 ne: ee om) 207
Trypeta Meigen, 1803 a He cies she wit ie wee aa eolat
Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836 ... ces acs Te a5 te ae rey ty fe
Trypetesa Norman, 1903... aay fe Se os di ave we LSD
TRYPETIDINAE Pierce, 1919 ... aa we was oh ie “ee we VSL
tunetanus, Gammarus, Simon, 1885... ees ah =: re tee ae 15
Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881... Lee me mee sis aa se sa 56
Valanga Uvarov, 1923 he sia eS Pas bin no ste F
valdani, Ammonites, d’Orbigny, 1844 ee se aes ee ee wee 23

Vanicora Paetel, 1887 ae es et re aad aa ay at S15S

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
VANICORIDAE Gray, 1840 __.... ive es ibs .t oe sd 2 60
Vanicoro Gray, 1842... ry ts aes Ws a 3. we eer OTIS
VANIKORIDAE Gray, 1840... rr sea A vs tes ae seoweys9,
Vanikora Whitfield, 1891... he ~ is FS th 1h se NSD
Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 ... bes Abe whe ne bet fe So
Vanikoroa Cossmann, 1924 ... oe Be aes i A, ee Pere =
Vanikoroia Martin, 1914... aoe st oh Ph Be ce LLMIUTSD
variabilis, Donax, Say, 1822... wks tes is sea A fa oss
virginiensis, Pieris, Edwards, 1870 ... ees Be i ¥S. ote a 92
viriditibialis, Pamphilius, Takeuchi, 1930 ... vee ad a, a ie 95
vitis, Phytoptus, Pagenstecher, 1857... Was ay tea ny ye Pore 6)
xylostella, Phalaena Tinea, Linnaeus, 1758... ae Te oat att at 86

zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838 ... ies ee fs = na wh J RaS86

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231

NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN
DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 30

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology

Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900
Alle Link, 1807

Anoplius Dufour, 1834
Callopanchax Myers, 1933
Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803]
Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884
Delocrinus Miller & Gurley, 1890
Echinocorys Leske, 1778
Fundulopanchax Myers, 1924
Haematobia Lepeletier & Serville, 1828
Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903
Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816]

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology

aequicauda, Carcinogammarus,
Martynoy, 1931

alle, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758

cancellatus, Sigaretus, Lamarck, 1822

caudatus, Priapulus, Lamarck, 1816

costatum, Scutellum, Pusch, 1833

cucurbitina, Apis, Rossi, 1792

dianthus, Coscinocyathus, Bornemann,
1884

galilejensis, Cypselus, Antinori, 1855

geniculata, Musca, De Geer, 1776

hemisphericus, Poteriocrinus, Shumard,
1858

impennis, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758

irritans, Conops, Linnaeus, 1758

lebona, Hypolycaena, Hewitson, 1865

mulciber, Papilio Cramer, 1777

niger, Sphex, Fabricius, 1775

nigerrimus, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763

Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789
Patanga Uvarov, 1923
Pinguinis Bonnaterre, 1791
Priapulus Lamarck, 1816
Psodos Treitschke, 1825
Scutellum Pusch, 1833
Siphona Meigen, 1803
Tatura [Butler], 1888
Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816
Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836
Valanga Uvarov, 1923
Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832

nigricorne, Acridium, Burmeister, 1838

occidentale, Aphyosemion, Stenholt
Clausen, 1966

purpurpata, Mutilla, Smith, 1879

quadrifaria, Phalaena, Sulzer, 1776

radicula, Nautilus, Linnaeus, 1758

regularis, Orthoceratites, Schlotheim,
1820

renominanda, Mimecomutilla, Bischoff,
1921

rhinoides, Trypetes, Gyllenhal in
Schoenherr, 1836

scutata, Echinocorys, Leske, 1778

sjoestedti, Fundulus, Lonnberg, 1895

succinctus, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus,
1763

valdani, Ammonites, d’Orbigny, 1844

xylostella, Phalaena Tinea, Linnaeus,
1758

Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology

CERATINIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803]
ORTHOCERATIDAE M’Coy, 1844
SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955

TRYPETIDINAE Pierce, 1919
VANIKORIDAE Gray, 1840

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

Brontes Goldfuss, 1839

Clavicera Latreille, 1802

Echinocorytes Leske, 1778

Leucotis Swainson, 1840

Leucotus G. B. Sowerby II, 1842

Merria Gray, 1839(?)

Merrya Recluz, 1846

Narica d’Orbigny, (ex Récluz MS)
1842(?)

Nioma Gray, 1842

Niomia Gray, 1842

Niona Paetel, 1887
Orthocera Modeer, 1789
Orthocera Lamarck, 1799
Orthocera J. Sowerby, 1812
Orthocera Fleming, 1815
Orthocera Blainville, 1828
Orthoceras Batsch, 1791

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (contd.)

Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795
Orthoceras Schrank, 1796
Orthoceras Perry, 1811
Orthoceras Blainville, 1825
Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831
Orthoceras Phillips, 1836
Orthoceras Balashov, 1956
Orthocerata Soldani, 1780
Orthoceratia Soldani, 1791
Orthoceros Brunnich, 1771
Plautus Klein, 1760

Plautus Gunnerus, 1761
Plotus Gunnerus, 1761
Plautus Brunnich, 1772
Psoidos Treitschke, 1825
Roloffia Stenholt Clausen, 1966
Thalascaris Bate, 1878
Vanicora Paetel, 1887
Vanicoro Gray, 1842
Vanikora Whitfield, 1891
Vanikoroa Cossman, 1924
Vanikoroia Martin, 1914

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology

abessynicus, Cypselus, Streubel, 1848
binotatus, Ammonites, Oppel, 1862

humanus, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758

natrix, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820

plumicornis, Gammarus, Costa, 1853
priapus, Holothuria, Linnaeus, 1767

tunetanus, Gammarus, Simon, 1885

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847
MERRIIDAE Hedley, 1917
NARICIDAE Récluz, 1846

JUL 1974 |

ORTHOCEROTIDAE Teichert & Miller,
1936
VANICORIDAE Gray, 1840

vol, 23:

page 165.
page 165.
page 166.

vol. 30:

page 2.
page 36.
page 42.

page 76.

page 100.
page 108.

page 109.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233

CORRIGENDA

Title, line 1, & para. 2. line 1: “‘1864” should read “1865”
Para. 2, line 1: “page 58” should read ‘‘59””
Para. 7, line 7: ‘“‘pl. 183’’ should read ‘182”

Line 25: “‘Leucopsis’”’ should read Leucospis

Line 2 from bottom; second use of DREPANIDAE should read DREPANEIDAE
Title, line 1: “‘eurysternus (Denny, 1842)” should read “‘eurysternus Denny,
1842”

Line 9 from bottom: ‘“‘Hemming Lemche” should read “Henning Lemche”’
Line 15: Insert (after pl. 21r) “Jacobson & Emerson (1961, p. 151 with
figure); Weisbord (1962, p. 218);”

Line 6, and thereafter: ‘“‘Thompson”’ should read *‘Thomson”

Line 15: ““Syphophagus” should read ‘“‘Syrphophagus”

Line 4, and thereafter: “‘recognized”’ should read ‘“‘recognised”

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED

Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication
(pages)
1 1-64 6th July, 1973
Py 65-128 10th October, 1973
3/4 129-235 28th June, 1974

T.P.-x

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER

The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P.—X, 1-235

Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the
volume.

ra 4 Sn rea UA tava poh Nite anthr eRL

gaavia OF eEAOTMUATeA!

PASTEIOCDLANS OF DATRCOPS\PUSLICATION OF O45 SEVERADS ae
PARTS Te WHA TRE PRES? VOLUME WAM Mist Ree a ee

Part Ne er ace of Poe ane Bf PAlcal

BEE 1 TT spwollet + qu bewvod ad tae araliry reper
‘ aS : ph Oar, PE
4 =) aos bony bee, 19%

The

sci to belo ad F0 ni hewod of hives afiia ied af Yo Grervo3) eroqqarw aT

im ails oe
me ts Be i ‘ve ay

» ae

&
i“

wt
ware 4
a rik.
ead

INTERNATIONAL ras 08 200,08 NC
The Honorary Life President
The Rt. Hine aie eK (Cama)

‘for under - o”
Rene on, 8) Ke creniiens), proporal Soro ies ets ;

Pa hen name available? (Curtis Sabrosky >
| ees phi oo Bofart and. M, aoe Jae

es eae emma
ee

comes sclateri Buller, i888 and
es robuaa CO Coliven 1053) GR — (R. Se wishin and

ofthe zebra banded duicker “FH.
Commenton = the specific name or We Hi AsociD
Comment on ie spi rane ono iva ita ite
plenary power (R Vv. ; Mew ie) Sey

na cpio ie pit ane pln Alera

to the Official List of Generic! Names

aimee: SMe is ion

Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire

4
} be »

Pa x a
ae Ses af | ae
eats yp ue oe ab
ar
ae ay
? *

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats