(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

^e^^-^ 



0-2^ 



Date Sent 



RjjJ>Wtf^ 



No. of Vols.sent: 



Code* 



Item* 



Lettering 



5^ 




r ■ V ■ 1 ■ 



Periodical Books 



Bind to Patt. Vol. 



Bind to Rub Supplied 



MATERIAL ,^ 
SHADE i-X^ 



Bind Incomplete 



Bind No, T.P. /Index 



Adverts Out 



Adverts In 



Bind Covers in position 



„ tog. Front/Rear 



Contents Front/Rear 



Index Front/Rear 




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 

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 

(All rights reserved) 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



III 



Page 



Opinion 990. Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) : desig- 
nation of a type-species under the plenary powers 9 

Lectotype fixations for Papilio midamus Linnaeus and Papilio mulciber 

Cramer (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 10 

Opinion 991. Hetererannis Warren, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera); desig- 
nation of a type-species under the plenary powers 13 

Opinion 992. Gammarus aequicauda (Martynov, 1931) (Crustacea, 

Amphipoda): validated under the plenary powers 15 

Opinion 993. Echinocorys scutata Leslce, 1778 (Echinoidea): designation 

of a neotype under the plenary powers 17 

Opinion 994. Tatura Butler, [1888] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): designation 

of a type-species under the plenary powers 19 

Opinion 995. Psodos Treitschke, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): validation 

of emendation from Fjoff/o^ 21 

Opinion 996. Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1 900 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoi- 

dea) : designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... 23 

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 25 

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 Zoology, British Museum 
(Natural History), London S.W.I) 27 

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) 35 

Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda): proposed designation of a type- 
species under the plenary powers. By H. A. Rehder {Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 37 



rv 



Page 



Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola) : proposed suppression 
under the plenary powers. By Willem N. Ellis (Institut voor 
Taxoiwmische Zoologie, het Zoologisch Museum, University of 
Amsterdam) and Peter F. Bellinger {Biology Department, San 
Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California) 39 

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. \6m2, U.S.A.) 42 

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.) ... 47 

Rhopalidia Lepeietier, 1836 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae): proposed sup- 
pression under the plenary powers. By O. W. Richards (University 
of London, London, England) 49 

Lachryma Sowerby, [1832] (Mollusca): proposed addition to the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. By W. O. Cernohorsky 
(Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) 51 

Tuttifa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): request for the designation of a 
type-species under the plenary powers. By A. G. Ecu (New 
Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, Lower Hutt, New Zealand) ... 54 

LORiiDAE (Aves) — Author and date: proposal for amendment of Opinion 

938. By G. N. Kashin (M05C0U') 57 

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 (77;e Western Australian Museum, 
Francis Street, Perth, W.A. 6000, Australia) and R. W. Taylor 
(Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, 
A.C.T.260\, Australia) 58 

Application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenee, 
1877 (Lepidoptera, Thyrididae, Striglinae). By Paul E. S. Whalley 
(British Museum (Natural History) London S.W.I) 61 

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, 
Starrs, Connecticut 0626&) 63 



V 

Page 

Opinion 998. Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Insecta, 

Ortiioptera) : neotype designated under tVie plenary powers ... 77 

Opinion 999. Plautus Brunnich, 1 772 (Aves) : suppressed under the 

plenary powers 80 

Opinion 1000. Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : 

designation of a type-species 82 

Opinion 1001. Ceralina Latreille, [1802-1803] (Insecta, Hymenoptera): 

validated undei the plenary powers 84 

Opinion 1002. Phalaena tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758: refusal to 

use the plenary powers to designate a neotype 86 

Proposed suppression of the name Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 
(Pisces: Galaxiidae). By R. M. McDowall (Fisheries Research 
Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington, New 
Zealand) 88 

Embletonia pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854, the specific name to be 
protected against the nomen oblitum Tergipes adspersus Nordmann, 
1845 (MoUusca Opisthobranchia). By Henning Lemche (Univer- 
sitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetetsparken 15, 2100 Copen- 
hagen 0, Denmark) 90 

Polycera faeroensis — Request for a ruling on authorship and date 
(Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). By Henning Lemche (Univer- 
sitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetetsparken 15, 2100 Copen- 
hagen 0, Denmark) 91 

Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae): 
a proposal to designate a neotype under the plenary powers. By 
F. Martin Brown (Fountain Vallev Rural Station, Colorado Springs, 
Colorado, ?,Wn, U.S.A.) ...' 92 

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 of 
Agriculture, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe) ... ... 95 



VI 



Page 



Psednura longicornis Sjostedt, 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) 97 

Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed sup- 
pression under the plenary powers. By C. O. van Regteren Altena 
(Rijksmuseum \an Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) ... 100 

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, 200 1 4) ... 1 02 

Cerithium Bruguiere, 1789 (Gastropoda): proposed preservation by 
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Richard 
(Joseph R.) Houbrick (Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center, 
Washington, D.C. 20560) 104 

Sceptrophortis Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea): 
proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By David Rosen 
(Department of Entomology, The Hebrew University, Faculty of 
Agriculture, Rehovet, Israel) 1 08 

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 Te.xas) 112 

Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae) : request 
for suppression under the plenary powers of the designation by 
Macquart, 1 827 of H. jaculus Fallen as type of the genus in favour 
of H. nebulosus Fallen 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 ((/.5. National Museum, Washington D.C, U.S.A. 20560), 
Hans Ulrich (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, 
Bonn, Germany) and Richard L. Hurley (Humboldt State College, 
Areata, California, U.S.A. 9552\) 118 



VII 

Page 

Oscinella Becker, 1909: proposed designation of type-species, under tiie 
plenary powers (Diptera, Chloropidae). By C. W. Sabrosky (Syste- 
matic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) ... ... 121 

Leucospis gigas Fabricius ( I nsecta, Hy menoptera, Leucospidae) : proposed 
to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. By 
Z. Boucek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) ... 124 

Madiza Fallen, 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.) ... ' 126 

Opinion 1003. Orthoceras Bruguiere, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda): 

placed on the Official List of Generic Names 142 

Opinion 1004. scutelluidae Richter & Richter, 1955 (Trilobita): 

validated under the plenary powers 147 

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 151 

Opinion 1006. Poteriocrinus hemisphericus Shumard, 1858 (Echino- 
dermata, Crinoidea) : designation of a neotype under the plenary 
powers 153 

Opinion 1007. Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884 (Archaeocyatha) : 

designation of a type-species under the plenary powers 155 

Opinion 1008. Siphona Meigen, 1803 and Haematobia Lepeletier and 
Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Diptera): designations of type-species 
under the plenary powers 157 

Opinion 1009. Vanikoro Quoy and Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gas- 
tropoda): made available under the plenary powers... 159 

Opinion 1010. Callopanchax Myers, 1933 (Pisces): designation of a 

type-species under the plenary powers 1 64 

Opinion 1011. Cypselus abessynicus Streubel, 1848 (Aves, Apodidae): 

suppressed under the plenary powers 1 67 



VIII 

Page 

Opinion 1012. Thalascaris Bate, 1878 (Crustacea, Decapoda): sup- 
pressed under the plenary powers 1 69 

Opinion 1013. Phapus humanus Linnaeus, 1 758 and Holothuria priapus 

Linnaeus, 1767 (Priapulida): suppression under the plenary powers 171 

On the specific name of the Hottentot Teal. By W. D. L. Ride 

{President, International CommisMn on Zoological Nomenclature) 173 

Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia): proposed validation 
under the plenary powers. By W. D. L. Ride {President, Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1 75 

Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa); proposed designation under 
the plenary powers. By the late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B. 
Hastings (Formerly of the British Museum (Natural History), 
London) 177 

The type-species of the genus Pseudanisakis Layman & Borokova, 1 926 
(Nematoda). By D. I. Gibson (British Museum (Natural History), 
London S.W.I) 182 

Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea, Jurassic): an application 
to designate as lectotype a specimen other than that wrongly 
identified as the holotype. By T. A. Getty (Portsmouth City Museum, 
England) 185 

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.) 190 

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) 193 

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.) 196 

Request for a ruling on the stem of Family-Group Names based on the 
type-genus Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758. By V. D. Vladykov (Pro- 
fessor of Biology, University of Ottawa, Canada) 198 



rx 

Page 

Establishment of a neotype for Pseudogeloius decorsei (I. 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) 200 



Synalpheus neptunus (Dana, 1852): neotype. By A. H. Banner and 
D. M. Banner (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of 
Hawaii) 



203 



Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Attacidae): proposed 
designation of a type-species By Claude Lemaire (17 Rue 
d'Edimbourg, 1500% Paris, France) 



205 



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 {Yale Peabody 
Museum, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) ... 



207 



"Gen.n., Sp.n" after 1930: is the generic name available? By Curtis 
Sabrosky {Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) 



210 



Proposed emendation to Nysson of the name Nysso Latreille, 1796 
(Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). By A. S. Menke (Systematic Entom- 
ology 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 (cjo Department 
of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) London, England) 



217 



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 (addresses as 
given in the paper above) 219 



Index to Authors 

List of Decisions in this volume 

Index to Key Names 

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes 
volume 30 



in Decisions published 



221 



223 



224 



231 



Page 
Corrigenda 233 

Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the 
present volume was published 234 

Instructions to Binder 235 



Volume 30, Part 1 6th July, 1973 

pp. 1-64 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
^NOMENCLATURE 

11 JULI973 

fWtCti 



&r ?i 



^~- ' 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 applications published 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.I. 

1973 

Price Three Pounds 
{All rig/its reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMIVUSSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commission 



PresiileiU: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Aiislialian Museum, Penh, Western Australia) (28 

Augusl 1973) 
Vke-PresicleiU: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natimrlijke Historie, Leiden, The 

Netherlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 

5. 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 

1934). Pisces; Echinodermata 
Professor Per Brinck (Lands Universilets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Arthropoda, ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opisthobranchia ; Phylogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidca 
Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962). 

Mollusca 
Professor Harold E. Yokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, (7.5.-4.) (28 August 1963).' Mollusca 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) 

(28 Augusl 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) 

(President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, 

Washington, D.C, U.S.A.) 28 August 1963) (Coimcillor). Diptera; Systematics 
Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia 
Dr. Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, 

C/..S'./(.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology 
Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S.W.7.) (30 

January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. I. 5i:\KOBOGKTO\/ (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-\M, U.S.S.R.) 

(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. Bayer (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33 149, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1972). Octocorallia ; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 
February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics 
Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (Institut fiir Palaontologie, Universitat Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 

February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

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 SW75 BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Dr. A. Willink (Instiluto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical 

Hymenoptera 
Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. BERNARD! (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Dupuis (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 




BlllETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 30, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 6ih July 1973 



Election of Officers and Council 

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

President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride >; 

Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis i _ 

Councillors: Dr. O. Kraus ( 1 ^ JULW73 

Prof. E. Mayr 

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky 

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 pubhshed 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 MacgilUvrava Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola). 

Z.N.(S.) 2008. 

(5) Validation of Haeinatopinus eurvsternus Denny, 1 842 (Insecta, Anoplura). 

Z.N.(S.) 2009. 

(6) Validation of Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Crustacea, Amphi- 

poda). Z.N.(S.)2015. 

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

Z.N.(S.)2017. 

(8) Designation of a type-species for r!/?«/o Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda). 

Z.N.(S.)202I. 
*(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 

(II) 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; 
Oxyslomina Filipjev, 1921 proposed for the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2031 (W. D, 
Hope & D. G. Murphy). 

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

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

(6) Hydrophonis Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae): request for 
suppression under the plenary powers of the designation by Macquart, 1827 of 
H. jaciilus Fallen as type of the genus in favour of H. nebulosiis Fallen 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. Boucek). 

(9) Ammonites defossus Smpion, 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 Fallen, 1810 (Diptera, Milichiidae): proposed designation of type- 
species, under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2040 (C. W. Sabrosky). 

*(11) Loligo sleanisii 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 Megacbile 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 1 973 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, iVashington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.) 

1 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 Doliuni. This is 
obviously the reference by Grasse et al. that puzzled Cernohorsky (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 
29 : 109) : Franc (Grasse et al., Traite 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 (toe. 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 be a 
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 Butt, 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 MolUisca, 1 : 220) clearly differentiated the taxon from Moruni 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, Catalogiis Concliyliorum quae reliquit D. Alplionso 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. Tbeliosloma 
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 w as 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 Morch'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 Morch, 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.N.(S.) 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 liehenata (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 cnicialis Harlan (1826 : 64), H. licheimta 
(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. lichenaia 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. lichenatas 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 Boulengcr ( 1 882). Duellman (1 960, 1 970) and Taylor (1 948) mention 
H. licheimta 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. lichenaia at that 
time. Tyler (1971 ) used licheimta 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 cnicialis 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 lichenaia (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 Hyla cnicialis, 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. Harlan'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 
cnicialis Harlan, 1826, be used instead of its junior synonym Hyla licheimta (Gosse, 
1851) as the name of the large Jamaican tree frog. 



'The 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 

Barbour, T. 1930. A list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Zoologica 11 

(4) : 61-116. 
Barbour, T. 1935. A second list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Ibid. 19 

(3) : 77-141. 

Barbour, T. 1937. Third list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Bull. Miis. 

Camp. Zool. 82 (2) : 77-166. 
BouLENGER, G. A. 1882. Catalogue of the Balrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the 

collection of the British Museum. 2nd. Ed. London, xvi + 503 pp. 
COLLETTE, B. B., D. M. Cohen and J. A. Peters. 1972. Stability in zoological 

nomenclature. Science 177 ; 452^53. 
Corliss, J. O. 1972. Priority and stability in zoological nomenclature: Resolution 

of the problem of Article 23b at the Monaco Congress. Science 177 : 1 1 20. 
Crombie, R. I. MS. The ecology and systematics of Jamaican hylid frogs. 
DuELLMAN, W. E. 1960. Redescription of Hvla valancifer. Studies of American 

hylid frogs, in. Herpetotogica 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. A^a/Mre 13 (2) : 110-112. 
GossE, 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. L Amphibians. /;; 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. Eisenmann. 1971. Stability in zoological nomen- 
clature. Science 174 : 1041-1042. 
Nieden, F. 1923. AnuraL 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. Fowler. In press. The Anura of Jamaica: A progress 

report. Stud. Fauna Curasao and other Carib. Islands. 
Taylor, E. H. 1948. Two new hylid frogs from Costa Rica. Copeia 1948 (4) : 

233-238. 
Trueb, L. 1970. The evolutionary relationships of casque-headed treefrogs with 

co-ossified skulls (family Hylidae). Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 18 : 

547-716. 
Trueb, L. 1972. Hyla cruciatis Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia) : Proposed suppression 

under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1982, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 (1) : 39-40. 
Tyler, 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 Zoologv, 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 Teulhis 
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 (loc. cil.) as lectotype 
of Teiithis Javus Linnaeus, 1766 and discussed by Woodland (loc. cit., para. 6). 

I have now examined the said specimen from the Gronovius collection (British 
Museum (Nat. Hist.) Reg. No. 1 853, 11.12. 30). Wheeler (1958, Bull. Brilish Museum, 
Nat. Hist., Histological Series 1 ; 231) was correct in asserting that this specimen was 
not of that species generally known as Teutliis javus Linnaeus but of that generally 
known as Siganus oramin Bloch, 1 801 . 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 Teutliis javus (loc. cit., p. 507), Wheeler (loc. cil., 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 (loc. cit., p. 113, pi. 8, fig. 4). The figure is unmis- 
takeably of that species generally known as Teutliis 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 Teutliis 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 Teutliis 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 1853.1 1.12.30 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, Teutliis 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 (loc. 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' Teutliis Javus (loc. cit., p. 507) is essentially a precis 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 Teutliis 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 Teutliis Javus Linnaeus were based remains lost. 



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

By 1. 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 H/feiom 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 Graplolilhus nilssoni 
Barrande, 1 850 altogether. Under Art. 70b, Urbanek can be considered as establishing 
a new species in 1963 as the type of his new genus, Neodiversograpliis 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 modem 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 Neodiversograpliis in 1963 gives as type species 
Monograptus nilssoni Lapworth, 1876, sensu Urbanek, 1954. At face value this might 
give N. nilssoni Urbanek, 1 954 but consideration of the example quoted under Art. 70 (b) 
would suggest N. nilssoni Urbanek 1963. 

For tidiness, Graptolithns 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 HOBNER, 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 Trepsiclirois Hiibner, 1816, made prior to the present 
Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Papilio mulciher Cramer, 
1777, is hereby designated to be type of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Trepsiclirois Hiibner, 1816 (gender : feminine), 
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in ( I ) 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 Trepsiclirois 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. :ool. 
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 ( I ) : Yokes 

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 MJDAMUS 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): lAQ-lAl, April 
1970) for the designation of Papilio nnilciber Cramer, 1777, as type-species of 
Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816, the identity of Papilio midamus Linnaenus, 1758 
(with which P. nnilciber 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/*, 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, 1 748,] Act. Slockh. 1 748 : pi. 6 figs. 1 ,2. [— P. midamus i] 
Ehret, [1 748] pict. : pi. 3. [—P. mulciber S] 

Ehret, [1749] pict. : pi. 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 11 

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 iiigrae, 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]. 

(c) "midamus var?", and "China, M. of Rock." 

Specimens a and b are P. midamus as now known, and specimen c is 
P . mulciber Cramer ds now known. The first label on specimen adifi"ersfrom 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 
deaih 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/", midamus. giving 
two correct references but adding Ehret's plate 3. In 1764 he simply replaced 
his descriptive paragraph with the draft 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. 1 further designate, as LECTOTYPE of Papilio mulciber Cramer, the 
male specimen described and figured by Cramer. 1777: 45, pi. 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 

Corbet, A. S. 1942. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (3). 
Proc. R. eitl. Soc. Land. (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). Uillandsche 

Kapellenl. 152 pp., pis. 97-192. 4'. Amsterdam 
Ehret, G. D. 1748-1759. Plantae ac Papiliones rariores, depicti et aeri incisae. 

1 5 pis. fol. London 
Geer, C. De. 1 748. Beskrifning ora en Chinesisk och en inlandsk Fjaril . . . K. 

svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 9 (3) : 208-230, pi. 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. 1 883. A monograph of Limnaina and Euploeina, two groups of diurnal 

Lepidoptera . . . (2), Euploeina. Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 1883 (3) : 253-324, 
pis. 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, pi. 127, figs. C,D 
Trepsichrois Hubner, 1816, Verz. bekamU. Schmett. (1) :16 

CERTIFICATE 

1 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 ail designations of type-species 
for the nominal genus Hetererannis Warren, 1904, are hereby set aside, and the 
nominal species Glcna 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. 
Noinencl. 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. 

"(l)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 ohiiquaria 
Grote 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Pari I. 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 
Starobogatov 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)1 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 



Biillelin of Zoological Nnnienclatiire 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) pluniicornis Costa, 1853, as published in the binomen Gammanis 

plumiconiis: 

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

(2) The specific name aequicauda Martynov, 1931, as published in the 
binomen Carcinogaminanis 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) plumiconiis Costa, 1853, as published in the binomen Gammanis 

plumiconiis (Name No. 985); 

(b) tunetainis Simon, 1885, as published in the binomen Gammcrus 

twietanus (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'sapplicationwassent to the printeron 
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 (I) : Munroe. 

Voting Papers not returned — one (I); Alvarado. 

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

Bull. zmil. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Pa;t 1. July 197.1. 



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. luneianus 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, Carcinoganvnarus, Martynov, 1 93 1 , Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 60 (3/4) : 593 
plumicornis, Gamniarus, Costa, 1853, Rendiconto Sac. R. Borbonica, Acad. Sci 
(n.s.) 1853 : 176 
tunetanus, Gamniarus, Simon, 1885, E.xplor. sci. Tunesie : 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, 1 778 (a junior objective synonym 
of Echinocorys Leske, 1 778, 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 : 21 1) 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, Yokes, 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, Addil. J. T Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175) 
scutata, Echinocorys, Leske, 1 778, 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. Geol. Paleont., 
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, pi. 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 lebona 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, Yokes, Ride. 

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 returning negative votes : 

Prof. H. E. yokes (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, Hrpolvcaena, Hewitson, [1885], ///. diurn. Lep., Lye. (2) : 51, pi. 23 
Tatura Butler^ [1888], Proc. zool. Sac. Land. 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 

1 September 1972 



Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclalure 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 orifice 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 : 1 1). 

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. 11 : 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 I. 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 (TJco5to? 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, 1 825, //; 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. Lepid. France 
7(2) : 112. 

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, 1 844, 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, 1 844, 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, 1 820, 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. !2b; 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 1 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. 11 : 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: 

/'ar/ 1. Affirmative votes — fifteen (15), received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Yokes, 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, 
Yokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Melville, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Forest, Binder, Ride. 

On leave of absence — one (1): Munroe. 

Yoting Papers not returned — one (I): 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, Palaont. Mitt. 1 : 155 
natrix. Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petrefaktenkunde : 162 
valdani. Ammonites, d'Orbigny, 1844, Paleont.franf., Terr, jurass. 1 : 255, pi. 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, pi. 3 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Yoting Paper (72)8 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal contained in that Yoting 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 Sphe.x nigerrinms Scopoii, 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 nigerrinms Scopoii, 1763, and Sphe.x niger Fabrxius, 
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 (I) above, Sphex nigerrinms 
Scopoii, 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) nigerrinms Scopoii. 1763, as published in the binomen Sphex nigerrinms 

(type-species o{ 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 Vecht and 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. Noniencl. 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, Yokes, 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, Annls Soc. enl. Fr. 2 : 484 
niger, Sphe.x, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 350 
nigerrinnis, Spliex, 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 oj Zoology, British Museum [Natural History), 

London, SWl 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 Bouche 
(1970 & 1972) has in turn followed Tetry, and since his later work is mono- 
graphic, the replacement of the name terrestris 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 Bouche (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. zoot. Nomeml.. 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 Bouche, 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 
Bouche, 1972, since the binomen Enterion terrestre : Savigny, 1826, was 
introduced as the result of a misidentification. 

SURVEY 

1. Linnaeus (1758:647) described Lwnbricus 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. 1 
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 "Sloan 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 Allolobophora 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 Allolobophora 
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. Nomencl., 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 Bouche, 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 51 1 the synonymy of Lumhricus 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 Lumhricus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 75). (The 
only other originally included species in the genus Lumhricus Linnaeus, 1758, 
was marinus Linnaeus, 1 758, 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 Lumhricus 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 M tiller 
(1774), Michaelsen (1900) and other authors had correctly identified Lumhricus 
terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. 

10. Bouche (1970 : 541) argued that Lumhricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 
should be regarded as being indeterminate and that the name terrestris was not 
available. He concluded (in the English Summary) "in favour of the priority 
of the name [Lumhricus herculeus] Savigny [1826] but advises to use simul- 
taneously the note: Lumhricus 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) Bouche (1972 : 352) named the Lob Worm "Lumhricus herculeus 
(Savigny, 1826) Syn. L. terrestris: Linne, 1758, em. Michaelsen, 1900" in a 
comprehensive monograph on the ecology and systematics of the earthworms 
of France. 

(b) Bouche (1972 : 315) described the new genus Nicodrilus and designated 
"TV. 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. Bouchi, 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 Bouche, 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 Bouche, 1972 (gender : masculine), 
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Allolobophora 
giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, on the Otficial List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) terrestris Linnaeus, 1 758 ( : 647), as published in il.e 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 Bouche, 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 

Bouche, M. B. 1970. Observations sur les lombricides (3 erne serie: VII, VFII, IX). 

Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol, 7 : 533-547 
Bouche, M. B. 1972. Lombriciens de France: Ecologie et Systematlque. Annls. 

Zool. Ecol. anim. Paris, (INRA), 72(2) : 1-67! 
Claus, C. 1880. Grundziige der Zoologie, (4th ed.) 1 : 821. Marburg, Elwert'sche 

Verlag. 
ElSEN, G. 1874. Bidrag till Kannedomen om New Englands och Canadas Lumbri- 

cider. Ofvers. K. VetenskAkad. Forh. Stockh. 30(2) : 41^9 
Graff, O. 1953. Zur Berechtigung des Artnamens Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 

1758. Zool. Anz. 151 : 324-326 
Lamarck, J. B. 1801. Sysleme des animau.x sans vertebres. 1-432. Paris, 

Deterville 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, {\Oth ed.) I : \-S24. Holmiae, Salvi 
Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, (12th ed.) 1 : 1-1364. Holmiae, Salvi 
MiCHAELSEN, W. 1900. Oligochaeta. Das Tierreich, 10 : 1-575 
MiJLLER, O. F. 1 774. Vermium terrestrium elfluvialilium, seu animalium infusoriorum, 

helminthicorum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. 1 (Alt.) : 

1-72. Havniae et Lipsiae, Heineck et Faber. 
Orlev, L. 1885. A palaearktikus ovben eld terrikoMknak revisioja es elterjedese. 

Ertek. Term-Tud. Korebol. 15(18) ; 1-34 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 

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

RiBAUCOURT, E. DE. 1901. 6tude sur ranatomie comparee des lombricides. Bull. 

scient. Fr. Belg. 35 : 21-312 
Savigny, J. C. 1822. Systeme des Annelides, principalement de celles des cotes de 

rfigypte et de la Syrie . . .Descr. Egypte, (Hist, nat.) 1(3) : 3-128 
Savigny, 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 rfigypte'. Proc. zoot. Soc. Lond. 1897 : 285-288 
Stiles, C. W. & Hassall, 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. 79 : 1-150 
Tetry, a. 1937. Revision des lombriciens de la collection de Savigny. Bull. Mus. 

nam. Hist. nal. Paris. 9 : 140-155 
Ude, H. 1885. Cber die Ruckenporen der terricolen Oligochaeten, nebst Beitragen 

zur Histologic des Leibesschlauches und zur Systematik der Lumbriciden. 

Z. wiss. Zool. 43 : 87-143 



32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE NEOTYPE 

OF LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758 

(ANNELIDA, OLIGOCHAETA). 

Neotype. 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 i-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 .y.v-y//-.v-y.yv;7, saddle-shaped extending ventrally 
to setal line h; 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=Q-5 
circumference but at the body extremities the setae are slightly larger and more 
widely paired, the formula at cxl 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 .yv within be having large elevated glandular 
lips, the anterior lips encroach onto xiv and the posterior lips onto xvi. Female 
pores small, paired .y/i' within be, \ab from b. Spermathecal pores paired, 
inconspicuous in furrows 9/10 and 10/1 1 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 .Y and enlarged paired chambers in both xi and xii. Intestine begins in 
,y/i' swelling in .yi' and xvi to form a crop which leads into a muscular gizzard in 
xvii-xix. The intestinal wall in .y.y-.y.y.y 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 .y; respectively. Seminal 
vesicles 3 pairs, those in ix and xi communicate with the anterior testes sac and 
those in xii with the posterior testes sac. Paired vasa efTerentia lead from the 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part I. 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 ,vv. 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 75 A, specialists were consulted 
and the following agree that it is desirable to designate a neotype of Lumbricus 
terrestris L., 1758: Dr. M. B. Bouche, 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 Universitiit, Bonn; Dr. \. 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. Alloloboplwra 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 drepanidulidi) 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, 1 802, and proposed substitute names as follows : 

Drepanichthys Bonaparte, 1831 (Saggio d'una distribuzione metodica degli 
Animali Vertebrati . . . Giorn. arcad. sienze, teltre ed arti 52 : 1 72 ; 
Enixe Gistel, 1848 (Naturg. Thierr. hohere Schulen : IX)i- 
Harpochirus Cantor, 1849 (Catalogue Malayan Fishes, J. Roy. Asiat. Soc, 
Bengalis : 1144. 
However, if a difference between genus-group names is due to a single 

'Original reference unavailable, information from Jordan, 1917, Genera Fishes, II : 233-234 
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 



36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

letter, those names are not homonyms (Art. 57(ci)). 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, Exped. Ocean. Beige 
Eaux Cotieres Africaines Atlantique Sud 4, Fasc. 3 A : 372) has considered 
C. luna valid, and my own observations of limited material of this family from 
West Africa suggest that C. luna is conspecific with D. punctata. Therefore 
Cryptosmilia Cope, 1869 is herein viewed as a junior subjective synonym of 
Drepane Cuvier, 1 83 1 . 

7. Drepane, as used by Cuvier, 1831, is an exact transliteration, but an 
incorrect latinization of the Greek 8pe7tavri 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 pubUshed 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 ruUng 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 (1961a, 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; A'. 
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 A'. 
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, pi. 10, 
fig. 4), to be a synonym of C. funiculata Hinds (1843, p. 48; 1844, p. 43, pi. 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 (Olssonelld) 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. lyrata Adams & Reeve, whose type locality, 
"China Seas" is erroneous. This species has been assigned to the genus 
Olssonella Petit, 1970 (Petit, I.e.). 

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 

Ivrala (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 lyrala 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 
Adams, A., and Reeve, L. 1850. Mollusca, in The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 

Samarang. London : i-x + 1-87, 24 pi. 
Habe, T. 1961a. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan, 2. Osaka : i-x -|- 

1-183, App. 1-42, 66 pi. 

— 1961b. Description of Four New Cancellariid Species, with A List of the 

Japanese Species of the Family Cancellariidae. Venus 21 : 431-441, pis. 23, 24 
Hinds, R. B 1843. Ten new species of Cancellaria from the collection of Sir 
Edward Belcher. Proc. Soc. London 11 : 47-49 

— 1844. Tlie Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Sulphur, etc. 2, Mollusca. London : 

1-72, 21 pis. 
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, pi. 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 Veliger4 : 18-21, pi. 4 
Tryon, G. W. 1885. Manual of Conchology 7, Family Cancellariidae. Phila- 
delphia : 65-98, pi. 1-7 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 

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

Z.N.(S.) 2008 

By Willem N. Ellis (Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, liet Zoologisch 

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, 1 894, as a new name 
for Triaena TuUberg, 1871, nee 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. In the fifth appendix of the second volume of the Narrative of the Voyage 
of the Rattlesnake Forbes amply described the new genus Macgillivrayia: this 
speUing 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 MoUusks, floaters in the manner of lanthina, but having close 

affinities of shell, animal and operculum with Jejfreysia. 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 1 894 giving status to the name Macgilli- 
vraya. (The statement in the Nomenclator of Schulze, Kukenthal 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. The conclusion is, that in all probability A/ac^////vra;a Forbes has no status 
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, 1 894 ; 

(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 
Hubner, 1818); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 

Friesea von 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 
Adams, A. 1857, On a 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 : 461^63 

Adams, H., and Adams, 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. Stoats-Gymnasium Innsbruck 46 : 1-23 
Fischer, P. 1884. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paleontologie conchyliologique. 

Paris 
Forbes, 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. On a new 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 

HObner, J. 1818. Zutrage 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, PI. 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, PI. 17. 

Reprinted slightly condensed in : Proc. R. Soc. 7 : 309-311; .4nn. Mag. nat. 

Hist. (2) 15 : 359-361 
Marschall, a. de 1873. Nomenclator zoologicus . . . Wien 
[Petet 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 Heider, K. 1932. Nomenclator animalium 

generum et subgenerum. 3. Berlin 
Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology (R. C. Moore ed.). I960. Part I. 

MoUusca 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) 
Tullberg, T. 1871. Fortecking ofver Svenska Podurider. Ofvers. K. VetenskAkad. 

Fork. Stockh. 28 (I) : 143-155 



42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

HAEMATOPINUS EURYSTERNUS (DENNY, 1842) 

(HAEMATOPINIDAE, ANOPLURA, INSECTA): PROPOSED 

VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. i 

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, 
nee 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 1 864, 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 eigentijmliche 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 burineisteri (Fahrenholz, I8I9) from the European red 
deer in general appearance. However, P. eurysternus Nitzsch (181 8) 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) (nee Denny, 1842) ( = Soleno- 
potes capillatus Enderlein). One nymph was apparently IJnognathus vituli 
(Linnaeus, 1758). 

' 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, T>.C. for reading the manuscript with invaluable suggestions. 

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

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part I. 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; spiracuiis 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, pi. 2, fig. 8) apparently had access 
to Nitzsch's original material, notes, and illustrations. In "Insecta Epizoa, 
Die auf Saugetieren und Vogeln 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 Dickezu, 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 rohriges, 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 — 
nee Nitzsch, 1818). 

9. Piaget ( 1 880, Les Pediculines : 648, PI. 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). 

1 1 . 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 US DA 
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) : 448^52. 

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. Introduction 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, AustraHa, 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 Bohmen. Lotos Naturwiss. 
Ztschr. 66 : 40-41. 

Freund, L. 1935. 13. Ordnung. Lause, Anoplura. //? Brohmer et al. : 
Die Tiernelt Mitteleuropas. 4 (3) : IX, 1-26 (18/19). 

Jancke, O. 1938. Die Anopluren Deutschlands. In 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 
1 30 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. 

1 5. 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/e/;o/»o/ei 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 pubhshed 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 pubhshed 
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, 
rthaca, 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. 



Bill lei in oj Zoolof;ical 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-ll: 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. Naiurg. 
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 I.e.) 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 1 1 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 "locusta" 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. locusta) from the coast 
of Spitsbergen (Stephensen, 1940, Troniso 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, I.e., pi. 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. I.e., fig. 27) (this 
character was in addition introduced by me during the revision of the gammarids 
of the "zaddaclii-gTOiip" 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 "setosus" 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 (I.e.) where he treats this species as a 
synonym of G. locusta 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. 1, 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 OflScial 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 Nomenclalwe 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-Meneville (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) Guerin-Meneville adopted Lepeletier's spelling, he pointed 
out that his own species, R. macidiventris 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 Polybia 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 Stelopolybia. 
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 Rfiopalidia. 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 

Dalla Torre, K. W. Von. 1894. Catalogus Hymenopteronim, 9, Vespidae 

(Diploptera). Leipzig 
DucKE, A. 1910. Revision des guepes sociales polygames d'Amerique. Ann. 

Mus. nat. Himgarici, 8 : 449-544, 17 figs. 
DuPERREY, L. I. 1826-1839. Voyage autour dii monde . . . sur . . . la Coquille 

pendant . . . 1822-25 ... 6 vols, 158 plates. Paris 
Lepeletier de St. Fargeau, A. 1836. Hisloire naturelle des Insectes. Hymenop- 

teres, 1. (Roret's suites a Buffon). Paris 
Saussure, H. de. 1853-58. Etudes sur la famille des Vespides, 2. Paris & Geneva 
ScHULZ, 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 Lacliryma 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: 

"5 [Erato] Lachryma Gray. Lacliryma 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 Proierato (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] (= Erato 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. Nomeml., Vol. 30, Part 1, July 197.1. 



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 na.me 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 1 1(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 : 1 39 

Allan, J. 1959. Australian shells, rev. ed.:\32, 418 

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

Cernohorsky, W. O. 1971. Rec. Auckl. Inst. Mus. S: 106 

Cotton, B. C. 1958. J. Malac. Soc. Ausl. no. 2 : \\ 

Cotton, B. C. 1959. Sih. Austral. Moll.: 367 

Cotton, B. C. and Godfrey, F. K. 1932. Sth. Austral. Nat. 13 : 45 

Fleming, C. A. 1966. N.Z. Dep. sci. iiid. Res. Bull. 173 : 52 

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

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

Iredale, T. & McMicHAEL, D. 1962. Austral. Mus. Mem. no. \l: 5% 

Reeve, L. A. 1842. Conchologia Systemica 2 : 261 

Schilder, F. A. 1927. Arch. Naturg. 91/AlO : 57 

Schilder, F. A. 1936. Proc. Malac. Soc. Land. 22 : 86 

Schilder, M. & Schilder, F. A. 1971. Mem. Inst. Roy. Sci. Nat. Belg. 85 : 86 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 

Shaw, H. O. N. 1909. Proc. Malac. Sac. Lond. 8 : 340 

SowERBY, G. B. [1832]. A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae in Concho- 

logical Illustrations : 1-18 
SowERBY, 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 Roding, 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, 
pi. 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 posterieur tres 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 Linne." 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 (Roding, 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, pi. 128, figs. 1236, \Til = 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 3xt {\) 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, pi. 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) ruheta, based on Murex rana var. rubeta 
Linnaeus (1758, p. 748). Linnaeus' synonymy consists of only one figure 
(Rumphius, 17n, pL 28, fig. D; figured better in a later redrawn edition: 
Rumphius, 1766, pi. 28, fig. D; referred to by Rumphius (1766, p. 61) as 
"Buccina tuberosa rufa, oder rothe hockerigte Kinkhorner") 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 imphcitly 
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 
Tw/M/a Jousseaume, 1881; 

(2) to place the generic name Tutufa 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 CAa/-ort/a (Family Cymatiidae). Trans. 

N. Sac. N.Z., Biol. Sci., 11(16) : 205-23 
Dodge, 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 
GuALTiERi, N. 1742. Index Testarum Conchyliorum. Florence. 
Jousseaume, F. P. 1881. Description de nouvelles Coquilles. Bull. Soc. zool. 

France, 6 : 172-88. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Syslema Naturae, ed. 10, 1. Regnum Animate. Stockholm 
Rondelet, G. 1555. Libri de piscibiis . . .[part 2]. Leiden 
Rumphius, G. E. 1711. Thesaurus imaginum piscium testaceoruin. Leiden 
1766. Amboinsche Raritdten-Kamwer . . .[e6. i. W. Chemmtz]. Vienna 



1 

i 



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 
^flf .P';°P.°'''' "^y P^f- ^'■"^t Mayr and Dr. H. T. Condon, has placed on the 
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name loriidae (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 Naturalisfs 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 Lorms domicellus, Charnwsyna papuensis, Triclwglossus swainsoni 
r. versicolor, T. pyrrhopterus, Coriphilus kulilii 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 

Loriana & Lorianae-Selby, P. J. 1836. Parrots, in Naturalisfs 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. Ridel anj r w. Taylor^ 

The names Myrniecia 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, 1 842, 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 Oflficial 
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 
^Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601. Australia 
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 

regularis Crawley, 1925, M. nigriceps Mayr, 1862, and \f. vindex F. Smith, 1858, 
and the usage of M. vindex basirufa Forel, 1 907. 

1. Mxnnecia regularis Crawley, 1925. Ann. Mag. nal. Hist. Ser. 9, 16 : 
579-580. ' 

Sudd, 1967 : 1 16; Haskins, C. P. and E. P., 1964 : 268 et al.; Wheeler, G. C. 
and J., 1964:444; Douglas and Brown, 1959:18; Freeland, 1958:11; 
Haskins, C. P. and E. F. 1955 : \\6 el al.; Haskins and Whelden, 1954 : 35 
etal.; Brown, 1953 ; 29 etal.: Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1952 : 113: Clark, 1951 : 
91 et al. 

2. Myrmecia nigriceps Mayr, 1862. Verb, 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 e/ al.: Freeland. 1958 : 11 ; Brown, 1953 : 22 et 
al.: Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1952 : 1 12; 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 e? al.: Haskins, 
C. P. and E. F., 1955 : 119; Haskins and Whelden, 1954 : 35 et al.; Brown, 
1953 : 22 et al.; Clark. 1951 : (>1 et al.: Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1950 : 483; 
Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 36 et al. 

4. Myrmecia vindex basirufa Forel, 1907. Fauna Sudwesl. 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. Bittl. Mus. camp. Zool. Harv. 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 1. Subfamily Myrmeciinac. 

CSIRO, Melbourne. 230 pp. 

Douglas, 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. /(ho. e«r. 5of. -4m. 43(4) : 461^91 

1955. /Hjfctorac. 2(2) : 115-126 

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

Haskins. C. P. & Whelden, R. M. 1954. Insectes 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 the natural 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 I830-I841.) G. F. Moore, Sydney, (p. 39, 
word "Kallili".) 



60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Salvado, R. 1851. Memorie sloriche dell' Australia particolarmeiile della Missione 
Benedettina di Nuova Norcia e degli usi e costumi degli Australiani. Roma, 
Congreg. de Propaganda Fide. pp. 53, 4. 

1854. Memoires historiques sur I'Australie. Paris, Pringuet. p. 385. A 

translation by I'abbe Falcimagne with additional notes by the translator. 

Sudd, J. H. 1967. An introduction to the Behaviour of Ants. Edward Arnold, 

London, viii + 200 pp. 
Wheeler, G. C. & Wheeler, J. 1952. Am. Midi. Nat. 48(1) : 111-114 

1964. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 57 : 443^62 

1971. Pan-Pacif Em. 41(4) : 245-256. 

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



Biillelin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 

APPLICATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE GENERIC 

NAME STRIGLINA GUEN£E, 1877 (LEPIDOPTERA. 

THYRIDIDAE, STRIGLINAE) Z.N.(S.) 2025 

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

Application is made under Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b) for the suppression of 
Daristane Walker, 1859, in order to maintain Striglina Guenee, 1877. 
[Daristane Walker, 1859, J. Linn. Soc. 3 : 193, type-species by monotypy, 
Daristane tibiaria Walker, 1859, ibid, 3 : 194. Striglina Guenee, 1877, Ann. 
Soc. ent. Fr. 1 : 283, type-species Striglina lineola Guenee, 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 Guenee, should replace it. 

3. I consider the generic name Striglina Guenee, 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 Striglina 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, Ins. Samoa (4) 3 : 243-244 

Turner, J., 1942, Proc. R Soc. ^^(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 /., 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 ( = Cime.\ 
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, 1 839 ; 

(ii) designate Cime.x 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. I am 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. Insectos do Brasil 2 Tomo. Hemipteros. Escola 

Nacional de Agronomia. Serie Didatica N.3. 
Fabricius, 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 

Stal, C. 1870. Enumeratio Hemipterorum 1. Kong!. Svenska Vetenskaps- 
Akademiens Handlingar 9(1) : 143 




INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Members of the Trust 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) 
Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) 

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

M. J. Forest 

Dr. N. E. Hickin 

Dr. L. B. Holthuis 

Dr. P. E. Kent, F.R.S. 

Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 

Mr. R. V. Melville 

Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. 

Dr. N. R. StoU 

Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 

Dr. G. F. de Witte 

B. The Officers of the Trust 

Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) 

CONTENTS 
(continued from front wrapper) 



Opinions 

Opinion 990 (rrep5/c/iro/5 Hiibner, 1816) .. 
Opinion 991 (Hetererannis Warren, 1904) . . 
Opinion 992 (Gammarus aequicauda (Martynov, 1931)) 
Opinion 993 (Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778) 
Opinion 994 (To^i/ra Butler, [1888]) 
Opinion 995 (/"jorfoi Treitschke, 1825) 
Opinion 996 (Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900) 
Opinion 997 (Anoplius Dufour, 1844) 



10 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
24 
26 



New Cases 
Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (Annelida, Oligochaeta) : Desig- 
nation of a neotype in accordance with accustomed usage. Prob- 
lems arising form the misidentification of the species by Savigny 
(1822 & 1826) (R.W.Sims) 27 

Request that the International Commission Rule to correct homonymy 
in the family-group name drepanidae, currently in use in Insecta 
and Pisces (C. G. Gruchy) 



Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda): Proposed designation of a 
type-species under the plenary powers (H. A. Rehder) 



35 
37 



CONTENTS 

(continued from inside back wrapper) ' JUL f973 Page 

Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola): Propo^d suppression 

under the plenary powers (Willem N. Ellis and Peter FSJ ^lip^ ) .. 39 

Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842 (Insecta, Anoplura): Proposed 
validation under the plenary powers (Ke Chung Kim and Christian 
F. Weisser) 42 

Gammarus selosus Dementieva, 1931 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): Pro- 
posed validation under the plenary powers (N. L. Tzvetkova) . . 47 

Rliopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed sup- 
pression under the plenary powers (O. W. Richards) 49 

Lachryma Sowerby, [1832] (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to the 

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (W. O. Cernohorsky) 51 

Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): Request for the designation of a 

type-species under the plenary powers (A. G. Beu) .. 54 

LORiiDAE (Aves) — Author and date: Proposal for amendment of 

Opinion 938 (G. N. Kashin) 57 

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) 58 

Application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenee, 

1 877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Paul E. S. Whalley) 61 

Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera): A request for the 

validationof the commonly used type-species (R. O'Shea) 63 

Comments 

Comment on the proposal concerning family names cassidae and 

Harpidae(H. A. Rehder) 3 

Further remarks on the availability of the generic name Oniscidia H. & A. 

Adams(W.O. Cernohorsky; P. A. Maxwell & A. G. Beu) .. 3 

Comment on the proposed suppression of Hyla crucialis (Ronald I. 

Crombie) 4 

Addendum to the proposal that the generic name Teuthis Linnaeus (Pisces) 

be suppressed (D. J. Woodland) . . . . 6 

Comment on the proposed neotype of the graptolite species Graptolithus 

nilssoni Barrande (I. Strachan) . . . . 7 



CJ 1973. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering. Northants, establishment 



^ / C^'2^ 



Volume 30, Part 2 (__, 10th October, 1973 

pp. 65-128 

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 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: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Conunission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 

14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I. 

1973 

Price Three Pounds 
(All rights reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commission 



President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (fVesiern Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 

August 1973) 
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. HoLTHUis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 

Netherlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville {Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 

5. Jf.?) (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, Geneva, Italy) (16 December 

1954). Pisces; Ecliinodermata 
Professor Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Arthropods, ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opisthobranchia ; Phytogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May I960). Echinoidea, Asteroidca 
Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962). 

Mollusca 
Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca 
Dr. L. B. HoLTHUis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Instilut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) 

(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (IVeslern Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) 

(President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. 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 Eisenmann (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.) (30 

January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. I. St/krobocatov (Zoological Instiiuie, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) 

(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. BA\t.v. (Institute of Marine Science, Universityof Miami, Florida 3^149, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 
February 1972). Protozoa ; Systematics 
Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (Instilut fiir Palaonlologie, Universitcit Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 

February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

Marine Biology 
Mr. David Heppell (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 

EH I \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca 
Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SiVlS BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Dr. A. WiLLiNK (Insiituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical 

Hymcnoptera 
Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. Bernardi (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Dupuis (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 




BUllETIN OF ZOOlOGICAl IftMEMATlJRE 



Volume 30. Part 2 (pp. 65-128) 1 0th October 1973 

NOTICES 

(a) Dale 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) Suppression of Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces, Galaxiidae). 

Z.N.(S.) 1877. 
*(2) Suppression of Tergipes adspersus Nordmann, 1 845 (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 Sjostedt, 1920 (Insecta, 

Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2029. 
*(6) Suppression of Calvptraea 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 Bruguiere, 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 Hydroplwrus jacuhis Fallen as type-species of Hydro- 

phorus Fallen, 1823, in favour of//, nebulosus Fallen. 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 Fallen, 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 Ian 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: L UMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 272 

Par M. B. Bouche 

(Station lie Reclierclies sur la Faiiiie du Sol, I.N.R.A., 21034 Dijon, France) 

Les arguments developpes par Sims sont excellents et tres serieux. 

A) Ma position (1970, 1972) etait; 

l°)aucun argument ne permettait de reconnaitre ce qu'etait Lumbriciis terrestris 
Linne, 1758 (discussion in Tetry, 1937, completee par Bouche, 1970). 

2°) Enterion lierciileus Savigny, 1826 permettait d'identifier I'espece couramment 
designee sous le nom de Lumbriciis terrestris Linne depuis le travail de 
Michaelsen, 1900; plusieurs auteurs maintenaient I'usage Lumbricus lierciileus 
(Sav.) 1826. 

3°) A aucun moment, on ne peut considerer Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1826 
comme synonyme de Lumbricus terrestris Linne, 1758 et pas plus Savigny 
que Tetry ou Bouche n'ont "misidentified" leur materiel: il s'agit de deux 
taxons distincts. 

4') Si certains arguments sont "liighly subjective", d'autres sont tres concrets: 
presence de descriptions suffisamment precises in Savigny, 1826 (cf. Sims: 
Survey 5) et de materiel (aux types non designes!) au Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris (revise in Tetry, 1937, 1938). 

B) Sims apporte sur le probleme "Lumbricus terrestris — Enterion Iterculeus" deux faits 

"nouveaux" : 

1°) Dans son "Survey" point 2, il attire justement I'attention sur le comportement 
d'accouplement superficiel de Lumbricus terrestris Linne, 1758 (Linne, 1766). 
Ceci constitue un argument presque indiscutable de diagnose, anterieur a 
Savigny, 1826. 

2°) II donne aux biologistes une base concrete et solide au taxon Lumbricus terrestris 
Linne, 1758 par la designation d'un neotype. II serait souhaitable de donner 
avec une extreme precision (quelques dizaines de metres) la localisation 
type, pour permettre ^ I'avenir de trancher par des methodes biologiques les 
problemes taxonomiques (croisements, heterogreflFes, immunologic, etc.). 
II a ete montre (Bouche, 1972 p. 126; Bouche et Beugnot, 1972) la complexite 
du concept taxonomique Lumbricus terrestris Linne, 1 758 = Lumbricus 
lierculeus Savigny, 1826. Une description moderne se doit, pour eviter le 
retour a des confusions, de permettre a Pavenir un retour "aux sources 
biologiques" du type, dont les caracteres sont generalement tres stables 
temporo-spatialement. 

C) II est maintenant certain que I' Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1822 n'est pas I' Enterion 

terrestre Savigny, 1826. Cette derniere est une espece relativement endemique 
d'Europe occidentale, seulement typique dans le Bassin Parisien (Bouche, 
1972: 319). Enterion terrestre Savigny 1822 est incertae sedis definitivement. 
En conclusion, j'appuie les propositions faites par R. W. Sims, dans la presente note, 
aupres de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Ces pro- 
positions sont propres a stabiliser la nomenclature. 
Bibliographic complementaire a la precedente note: 

Bouche, M. B. et Beugnot M. 1972. La complexite taxonomique de Lumbricus 
iterculeus, illustree par les caracteristiques des populations des stations de la 
R.C.P. 40. Rev. ecol. bid. sol, 9, 4, 697-704 

Tetry, A. 1938. Revision des lombriciens de la collection de Savigny (2e note). 
Bull. mus. (2e ser.), 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 Cltanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 
1822 and designate C. noma 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 lata is a misprint 
for lala 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 Miis. 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 Hantzschel 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 diff'erentiation 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, Fart 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 !931> 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 

'Publication 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 

MfiNfiGAUX 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 o{ Anlhiis paylensis Lesson, 1837, 
a nomen diibium 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 Geosilta peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847. The particular race 
had been named Gcositta paytae by Menegaux 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 (Smitfisonian 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 
Bruguiere'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. cil., p. 159) are therefore correct in stating that under a 
strict interpretation of the Rules the type-species of Liiciiia Bruguiere, 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 Liicina. 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 Bruguiere. 

4. Most modern workers have used Lucina Bruguiere, 1797, as the genus-name 
for the taxon in question following in general the work of Stewart {Acad. Nal. Sci. 
Pliiladelpttia, 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 {he. cit), the first valid use of subsequent desig- 
nation of a type-species for Lucina Bruguiere 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. 1 have made a survey of the workers who in the last fifty years have accepted 
Lucina Bruguiere, 1797, as a validly proposed genus. Of these, one, Oldroyd, 1924, 
cites Venus edentula lAnnasus, 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 o^ Lucina Bruguiere, 
1797. The twelve mentioned above, listed chronologically, are: Stewart, 1930; Grant 
and Galo, 1931; Cox, 1931; Fames, 1951; Stephenson, 1952; Olsson, 1953, 1961: 
Abbott, 1954, 1958; Franc (in Grasse), 1960; Gilbert, 1967; Bretsky, 1969 (doctoral 
thesis), 1971; Britton, 1970 (doctoral thesis), 1972; Hertlein, 1972. 

8. As Keen and Abbott state (op. cii., 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 Bruguiere, 1797, as Venus Jamaicensis Lamarck. 1801, 
and to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 

(2) accept under the plenary powers as the type of Lnciiia Bruguiere, 1797, the 
nominal species Venus pensylvanica Linne, 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 Liicina Bruguiere, 1 797, type-species, by designation 
under the plenary powers in (2) above, Venits 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 Uicina Bruguiere, 1 797) 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 761 29) 

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 o( 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 
longevity of individual "Treatise" volumes. Although not all the planned volumes 
have yet appeared, two early volumes have already been extensively revised (Archaco- 
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, Palaeonlographica 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. edentiila 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. edentiila 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 £. 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 edentiila Linnaeus, 
1758, as the type-species oi Lucina Bruguiere, 1797, by monotypy. 

(2) designate under the plenary powers the nominal species Venus pensylvanica 
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species o^ Lucina Bruguiere, 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 Bruguiere, 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 oi Lucina 
Bruguiere, 1797, (gender: feminine), type-species, Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as 
proposed by Keen and Abbott]. 

(4) place the specific n&ms pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Venus pensylvanica (type-species of Lucina Bruguiere, 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 
Abbott, R. T. 1954. American Seashells. Princeton, N. J., D. Van Nostrand Co., 

Inc 
Abbott, R. T. 1958. The marine mollusks of Grand Cayman Island, British West 

Indies. Acad. Nalur. Sci. Pliiladelphia, Monogr. 1 1 
Boss, K. J. 1966. The Subfamily Tellininae in the Western Atlantic. The genus 

Tellina (Part I). Johnsonia, 4 : 217-272, pis. 127-142 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 

Bretsky, S. S. 1969. Phenelic 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. Svsl.Zool. 

20 : 204-222 

Brixton, J. C. 1970. The Lucinidae of the Western Atlantic Ocean. Ph.D. Thesis, 

George Washington University. Ann. Arbor, Midi., 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, Andrf. 1937-38. Essai critique de classification des Lucines. Jour. 

Concliyliol. 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. In Moore, R. C. (ed.). 

Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, pp. N492- 

N508. Lawrence, Kans., Univ. of Kansas Press 
Dall, W. H. 1901 . Synopsis of the Lucinacea and of the American species. Proc. 

U.S. Nat. Mus. 23 : 779-834, pis. 39-42 
Gardner, Julia. 1926. The moUuscan fauna of the Alum Bluff Group of Florida. 

Part III. Lucinacea, Leptonacea, Cardiacea. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 

142-C, pp. 101-149, pis. 18-23 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1924. Opinion 79, 

Case of Lamarck's (1801a) Systeme des Animaux sans Vertebres 
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 systeme des habitations des vers 

lestacees. 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 Abbott, 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 1 must comment: In their para- 
graph 3 they imply that Keen and Abbott favored the dating oi 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 al. 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. 

1 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 
hrachyptera (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 Eclieneis 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 brachvptera 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 11 

OPINION 998 

GRYLLVS LOCUST A SUCCINCTUS LINNAEUS, 1763 

(INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED 

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (I) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-specimen 
for the nominal species Gryllus Locusia succincius Linnaeus, 1763, made prior 
to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the specimen described and 
figured by Dirsh, 1966 ( : 236, pi. 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; 

{&) Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original 
designation, Grvllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Name No. 
1977); 

(b) Valanga Uvarov, 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, 1 763, as published in the combination Gryllus 

Locusta succinctus, as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above 
(type-species oi 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.)I761) 
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. HoUis, 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 I 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. Nomenct. 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, Starobogatov, 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, Acriclium, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Eiit. 2(2): 629 
Paianga Uvarov, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9)12: 362 
succinctus, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus, 1763, Anioen. Acad. 6 : 398 
Valanga Uvarov, 1923, A/m. 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 
\0 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 Plauius 
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) Pinguiiius Bonnaterre, 1791 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 

designation by Ogilvie-Grant, 1898, Alca iinpennis 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 

oi Alle Link, 1807) (Name No. 2501); 

(b) impennis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Alca impennis 

(type-species of Pinguiiius 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); 
(h) Plautus Gunnerus, 1761 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name 

No. 2009); 

(c) Ptotus 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.)I91 1) 
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. 
Noinencl. 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 1 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, 
Yokes, 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 RuUng given in the present Opinion: 
Alle Link, 1807, Beschr. nat.-Sainml. 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. Meth. (Ornith.) 1 : Ixxxiii 
Plautus Briinnich, 1772, Zool. Fund. : 78 

Plautus Gunnerus, 1761, Trondheimske Selskabs Skrifter 1 : 263 
Plautus Klein, 1760, Historic der Vogel : 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 pubhshed 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 : 1 1 7. At the close of the prescribed 
voting period on 1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-three (23), received in the following order: 
Munroe, Yokes, 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. 



1 



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 
Internationa! 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 OflScial List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1982. 

(3) The specific name cucurbit ina 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. I2b; 
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: 

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. 



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. not. gen. partic. Crust Ins. 3 : 380 
CERATINIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gen. 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) 1 5 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 Yl : 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 Starobogatov 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. Yokes (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 Tarns) there is more 
than one specimen in the Linnaean collection, are they all of the same species 
as the "lectotype", or is the "Lo/j/cera-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 (IO.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 Oflicial 
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 Uterature 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. delfini 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. delfini] 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. delfini. Regan was incorrect in the figures 
reported from Philippi, who actually gave the caudal count as 1 8 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. delfini is used only once as a vahd 
species name (Delfin, 1899) following its original use by Phihppi. 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, 1 895, 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. de. 1959. Lampreas, tiburones, rayas y peces en la Estacion de Biologia 

Marine de Montemar, Chile. Revla Biol. mar. 9(1-3) : 1-200 
Delfin, F. T. 1899. Catalogo de los peces de Chile (continuacion). Revla chil. 

Hist. nat. 3 (10, 11) : 153-161 

Bull. zool. Nomend., 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. Expect. 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 

Fowler, 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 
McDowALL, 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.Jl Linn. Soc. SO (\) : 33-13 

Mann, G. F. 1954. La vida de los peces en aguas chilenas. Universidad de Chile, 

Santiago. 342 pp. 
Philippi, 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 1 : 239-292 
Regan, C. T. 1905. A revision of the fishes of the family Galaxiidae. Proc. zool. 

Soc. Land. 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. 

sclent. 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. Fauna Chilensis. Zool. 

76. (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 0, 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, Memoir Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Petersbourg 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, 

1 845 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 0, 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 H0St & Son, Copenhagen), but some con- 
tributions to vol. Ill 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 
III 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 Polvcera faeroensis n. sp. 

2. The next description of that species was by Odhner (1941, Goteborgs 
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 P. 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. It is 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. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 

grouped three segregates and their variants under bryoniae and kept distinct 
"4. SPECIES (Southern) virginiensis, Edw." 

5. In the table just alluded to, Edwards disposes of the Canadian specimens 
of "virginiensis" included in his original description of virginiensis in this way: 

"2. . . . 

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 ta.xonomic 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 0/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 

Edwards, William Henry. 1870. The original description of Pieris virginiensis. 

Transactions o} tlie American Entomological Society, 3 : 13-14 
1881 . On Pieris Bryoniae Ochsenheimer, and its derivative forms in Europe and 

America. Papilio, 1 : 83-99, pis. 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. In the 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. Hvogo Univ. 
Agric, 2(2) : 3-10). 

The fixation of the type-species of Onycholyda is so much more advisable as 
Benes, 1972 (Acta ent. bohemoslov. 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 nridiiibialis 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 LONG ICO RN IS 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) 

Sjostedt (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. Mjoberg which he listed as follows: "Queensland, Atherton 
(Mai) 1(J IV; Cap York 2i in spiritus (Sept.), Mus. Stockholm." He did not 
designate a holotype. In 1921 Sjostedt synonymised this nominal species with 
Moraba serricornis Walker, 1870. The material he then listed from Queensland 
was specified as follows (Sjostedt 1921): "Atherton, Yarrabah, Cape York 
(Mjoberg) \3, 2$". 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 Hsted 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 Sjostedt's hand: a male from 
Atherton and a female from Yarrabah. Both specimens are labelled also 
"Queensl. Mjoberg", 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 Sjostedt's hand. Neither bears a type label, 
but it is consistent with Sjostedt'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 Sjostedt abandoned a year later, that the Atherton 
male and the Yarrabah female must have formed part of Sjostedt's syntype 
series. It seems hkely that the 1920 Usting 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 
locaUties, 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 longi- 
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 Sjostedt's 

•Sjostedt's 1 920 paper contains several such errors, including mis-spelling of the generic names 
Oedaleus, Biroella. and Spliingoiwlus, 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 longicornis. 

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 pubhcation, 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 longicornis 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 longi- 
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 longicornis 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, 1 842, 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. In the 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 Sjostedt, 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 Sjostedt, 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); 

(c) pedestris Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen Mesops 

pedestris (type-species of Psednura Burr, 1903); 

(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"" 
o( 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 Beriicksichtigung 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). Ausf. J. Zool., vol. 17 : 353^14 

1972. A revision of the Psednurini (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae). Aiist. J. 

Zool., Siippl. Ser., No. 14, 72 pp. 

1973. The primary types of the Australian Eumastacidae (Orthoptera: 

Eumastacoidea). Aiist. J. Zool., Suppl. Ser., no. 19, 40 pp. 

KlRBY, W. F. 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera, vol. III. Orthoptera 

Saltatoria. Part II (Locustidae vel Acridiidae). London 
Rehn, J. A. G. 1952. The Grasshoppers and Locusts {Acridoidea) of Australia. I. 

Families Tetrigidae and Eumastacidae. Melbourne 
SjdsTEDT. Y. 1920. Results of Dr. E. Mjoberg'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 Fiihlern. A'. svensl<a 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 pubHshed 
the name Calyptraea striata as a new species. Johnston (1934, p. 96); Roger 
(1936, p. 151); Morris (1951, pp. 140, 142, pi. 29 fig. 10); Abbott (1955, p. 170, 
pi. 21r); Vilas & VOas (1970, p. 61, pi. 7 fig. 8) mentioned this species as Cruci- 
buluni 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, 1 826. Therefore, in the interest of nomen- 
clatural stability and to preserve the name Crucibulum striatum (Say, 1 826) 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, 
pubhshed 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 
Abbott, R. Tucker. 1955. American seashells (third edition). I-XIV, 1-541, 

figs. 1-100. pis. 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): 407^1 5 
Jacobson, Morris K., & William K. Emerson. 1961. Shells of the New York city 

area. I-XVIII, 1-142, figs. 
Johnston, Charles W. 1934. List of marine Mollusca of the Atlantic coast from 

Labrador to Texas. Proc. Boston Soc. not. 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, pis. 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,, pis. 1-4 

1938. Marine Pleistocene of Florida. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 49 : 1267- 

1296, 1 fig., pis. 1^ 

1939a. Marine Pleistocene of the Gulf coastal plain: Alabama, Mississippi 

and Louisiana. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 50 : 297-316, pis. 1-3 

1939b. Marine Pleistocene of Texas. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 50 : 1885- 

1898, pis. 1-3 

Roger, Julia Ellen. 1936. The shell book. I-XV, 1-503, pis. I-Vm, pis. 1-87 
Say, Thomas. 1826. Descriptions of marine shells recently discovered on the coast 

of the United States. J. Ac. nat. Sci. Philadelpliia, 6 : 207-221 
Vilas, C. N. & Vilas, R. N. 1970. Florida marine shells. 1-170, map, figs. A-C, 

2 diagrams, pis. 1-14 

Weisbord, Norman E. 1962. Late cenozoic gastropods from northern Venezuela. 
Bull. Amer. Paleont., 42(193) : 1-672, pis. 1-48 



102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

SCHISTODERA COBB, 1920 (NEMATODA: ENOPLIDA), 

A REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION; OXYSTOMINA 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, 1 874 ( : 270) which is 
preoccupied by Oxystoma Dumeril, 1806 (Insecta). 

2. Among the several names that have been accepted by systematists 
as synonyms of ^Oxystomina, two have publication dates earlier than that of 
Oxystomina, i.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 Bayhs 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; 
FiUpjev, 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: 



•The spelling of Oxystomina has been modified by Schuurmans Stekhoven (1935) and others 
to Oxystomalina. 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 1 03 

(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 elongatum 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 Scbistodera Cobb, 1920 (as suppressed under the 

plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

References 
Alloen, C. 1932. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Marinen Nematodenfauna der 

Campbellinsel. Nyt Magazine for Naturvidenskaberne, 70 : 97-198 
Baylis, H. a., and R. Daubney. 1926. A Synopsis of the Families and Genera of 

Nematoda. 277 pages. London : British Museum 
BuTSCHLi, O. 1 874. Zur Kenntnis der Freilebenden Nematoden, insbesondere der des 

Kieler Hafens. Abhandhmgen der Senckenbergischen Naturjorschenden 

Gesellschaft, 9 : 236-292 
Chitwood, 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 
Cobb, N. A. 1920. Contributions to a Science of Nematology, IX: One Hundred 

New Nemos. Pages 217-343. Baltimore : Waverly Press 
CoNiNCK, L. A. DE. 1965. Systematique des Nematodes. Traite de Zoologie, 4 

(2) : 586-731. 
Filipjev, I. N. 1921. Svobodnozhivushchiya morskiya nematody okrestnastei 

Sevastopolya, II. Trudy osoboi Zoologichcskoi Laboratorii i Sevastopol' skoi 

Biologicheskoi Stantsii Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk (2) 4 : 354-614 

1927. Les Nematodes libres des Mers septentrionales appartenant a la Famille 

des Enoplidae. Archiv fuer Natiirgeschichte 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; Cotes du Nord), Capita Zoologica 2 (7) : 1-98 
SchuurmansStekhoven.J.H. 1935. Nematoda: Systematischerteil V.B: Nematoda 

Errantia. Pages 1-173. In G. Grimpe and E. Wagler, Tierwelt der Nord- und 

Ostsee. Leipzig. 
Vitiello, p. 1970. Nematodes 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. 7/1 Reports of the 

Lund University Chile Expedition 1948-1949, 10. Lands 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.) Hoiibrick (Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting 
Center, Washington, D.C. 20560) 

Ahhough 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 Nonmillis Animalibus, Roma, pp. 53; 57; 1616) and later adopted by 
Adanson (Histoire naturelle du coquillage Senegal: 152-160; 1757) for a shell, 
"Le Cerite", 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. Bruguiere {Ency. Meth., 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, Bruguiere (Ency. Meth. 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 Riiinoclavis and the second to Cerithium, 
sensu stricto. Bruguiere listed 10 species in his second group, and named 
Adanson's shell Cerithium adansonii, with "Le Cerite" 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, 1 840, and 
the second, a species oi 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. Samml. : 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 Bruguiere, 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, includmg Thiele (Handb. Syst. Weicht. 1 : 212-213; 1929) 

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



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 

and Wenz (Handb. Palaozool., 6, Gastropoda: 765; 1938), accepted Cerithiwu 
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 (=Pseudo\-ertagus) 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 Bruguiere 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 Bruguiere is accepted as the type-species^. 

7. Cossmann (Essais de Paleoconchologie Comparee, 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 Cerite" 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 Cerite" figure of Adanson, and concluded that "Le Cerite" 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 Bruguiere, with C. nodulosum as the type-species. 

9. Stewart {Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 78: 355-356; 1926) proposed 
that C. adansonii Bruguiere should be the type-species by tautonymy because 
Bruguiere (1792, cited above) cites "Le Cerite" 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 {=R/iinoclavis). 

10. Stewart's interpretation was discussed by Woodring {Carnegie Inst. 
Wash., No. 385, (2): 332-333; 1928) who suggested that Adanson's figures of 

'This is not strictly correct. All the species listed by Bruguiere, 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 Cerite" represented something similar to the Indo-Pacific species, Ceritliium 
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 Ceritliium 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 Cerite", of Adanson, now known to be C. 
erythraeonense, may be considered the lectotype of C. adansonii. 

12. Grant and Gale {Mem. San Diego Sac. 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 K now Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840. If Bruguiere'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 Bruguiere and validating Cerithium adansonii 
Bruguiere 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 Bruguiere, [1789], made prior to the 
Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Cerithium 
adansonii Bruguiere, 1792, to be the type-species of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Cerithium Bruguiere, [1789] (gender: neuter), 

type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, 
Cerithium adansonii Bruguiere, 1792, on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology ; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 

(3) to place the specific name adansonii Bruguiere, 1792, as published in 
the binomen Cerithium adansonii (type-species of Cerithium Bruguiere, 
[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.)2033i 

By David Rosen (Department of Entomology, The Hebrew University, Faculty 
of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel) 

1 . The genus Microterys was established by Thompson, 1 875 (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. 
Handl. 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 Aphidencvrtus Ashmead, 1900; Aphvcoides 
Mercet, 1921; Aphycus Mayr, 1875 [12,16]: 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 Iberica. Himeiiopteros. Fam. Encirtidos: 48^9), 
unfortunately chose to ignore Ashmead's decision and designated Encyrtus 
aeruginosus Dalman, 1820, as type-species of Microterys Thompson, whereas 
Encyrtus Sylvius Dalman, 1 820, was considered by him as the type-species of 
the genus Encyrtus, which he (op. cit. : 34) credited to Dalman, 1 820 (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 Svrphophagus 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 Pagan, 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 : 33^4), 1939 (Bull. 
Entomol. Res. 30 : 16-20); Blanchard, 1940(^/w/. Soc. Cient. Argent. 130 : 123); 
and others]. 

'This 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 Ferriere, 1953 {Mitt. 
Schweiz. Entomol. Gesell. 36 : 16), who recognised Microterys Thompson as 
understood by Ashmead, with "Encyrlus Dalman et aut. nee Latreille" as a 
synonym. Ferriere (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. Ferriere was soon followed by 
various European workers, including Erdos 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, Ferriere, 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 (Beit rage 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 Sludien 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 Psyllaephagus 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 solus. 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. Espan. 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 



1 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

of insertion of the antennae and in tlie truncated abdomen, and concluded 
that its true sex could not be ascertained. 

11. Ferriere, 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 sceplriger. 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 sceplriger, 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. Ferriere, 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. Inv. Cient. Prov. Bs. 
As. A : 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. Ehinie Univ. VI 9 : 223-235); Sugonjaev, 1965 (Trud. Nauchno-Issled. 
Inst. Zashch. Rast. 9 : 165-174); Azim, 1964 (Mushi 38 : 1 1-17); Annecke and 
Insley, 1971 (Entomol. Mem. S. Afr. Dept. Agric. Tech. Serv. 23 : 18-19); and 
others], or followed Ferriere'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 (Erdos 
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. 

1 5. 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 1 1 1 

by Ashmead, 1900, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(3) to place the specific name sylvius Dalman, 1820, as published in the 

binomen Encyrlus sylvius (type-species of Microterys Thomson, 1875 
[1876]), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the generic name Scepirophorus 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 an extensively-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 mercatonim 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 repleta 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 diflicult 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. 



Bullet in of Zoological Nomenclature 113 

the specific identity of the type specimen of D. carinata. We feel that it is 
unHkely 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 Pa van (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, 



1 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

essentially monomorphic subspecies D. in. 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 repleta group 
in general and these species in particular are illustrated in microcosm by the 
situation in the Hawaiian islands. Tliree species of the repleta group, D. Iiydei 
Sturtevant, D. repleta WoUaston and the subject of this appeal, D. mercatorum 
Patterson and Wheeler are known from Hawaii (Hardy 1965). D. Iiydei 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 repleta 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 tlie 1 7th 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. B/o/. 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. C'xlts D. mercatorum a.aA 
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. Midi. Na:. 78 : 324-343. 
Crab fly is described as a member of the mercatorum subgroup 

Carson, H. L., Wei, 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 Snyder, S. H. 1972. Screening for induced mutation by partheno- 
genesis in Drosophilia mercatorum. Egyptian Jour. Gen. Cytol. 1 : 256-261 

Clayton, F. E. and Ward, 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. Djals with D. mercatorum 
and D. paranaensis 

DeBarros, R. 1946. Especiagao no sub-grup mercatorum. Gaz. Clin. (S. Paulo) 
45 : 61-62 

1949a. Um caso de alteragao na proforpao entre os sexos, em D. mercatorum 

pararepleta. Cienc. e Cultura, 1 : 107-110 

1949b. Aberra^oes cromosomicas em '£). mercatorum pararepleta' . I. Aneu- 

ploides expontaneos. Rev. Brasil Biol. 9 : 365-376 



1 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

DeBarros, R. 1949c. Aberragoes cromosomicas em 'D. mercatorum pararepleta' . 
II. Uma longa duplica?ao expontanea adjacente e invertida no cromosoma X. 
Rev. Brasil. Biol. 9 : 463^66 

1950. A new species of the genus Drosophila, with discussion about speciation 

in the mercatorinn 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. Cien. 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. pararepleta males. Heredity 2 : 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 

Dreyfus, A. and deBarros, R. 1947. Propor?ao dos sexos (sex-ratio) no subgrupo 
^mercatorum' (genero D.) Gaz. cliit (5. Paulo) 45 : 58-61 

1948. Mutations chromosomiques chez les hybrides de D. mercatorum 

pararepleta ^ D. paranaensis. S. Paulo med. 21 : 11-18 

1949. Sex-ratios chez certains hybrides interspecifiques de D. et son interpreta- 
tion par I'analyse des chromosomes salivaires. Ric. sci. 19 : 94-104. D. 
mercatorum subgroup hybrids 

Grimshaw, P. H. 1901. Fauna Hawaiiensis 3 (I) : 5\-13. 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 
Henslee, E. C. 1965. Sexual isolation in a parthenogenetic strain of Drosophila 

mercatorum. Amer. Nat. 100 : 191-197 
Hardy, D. E. 1965. Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 12. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha II, 

Series Schizophora, Section Acalypterae I. Family Drosophilidae. Honolulu: 

Univ. Hawaii Press. 814 pp. 
Ikeda, H. 1971. Sexual behaviour in Drosophila. I. 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 

Patter.son, 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. There are 3 1 page references to /J.m.mercaro/w/n and 
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 descriptionof 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 1 1 7 

Pereira, E. N. and Dreyfus, A. 1946. Isolamento sexual no sub-grupo mercatonim. 

Gaz. din [S. Paulo]. 45 : 54-57. Experiencias sobre isolamento sexual no 

sub-grupo mercatorum (genero 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 : 1 10. 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 
Sturtevant, a. H. 1921. The North American Species of Drosophila. Carnegie 

Inst. Wash. Publ. 301 : 150 pp. Misidentifies 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 
Ward, C. L. 1949. Karyotype variation in Drosophila. Univ. Texas Pub. ^920 : 70- 

79. Contains information on D. mercatorum 
Wasserman, M. 1954. Cytological studies of the replela 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: 

III. The Mercarorwm Subgroup. Univ. Texas Publ. (>2Q5 : (>'i-l\. 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 Wilson, F. D. 1957. Further Studies on the repleta group. 

Univ. Texas Publ. 5721 : 132-156. Considerable discussion of subgroup 

mercatorum (5 pages of material) 
Wei, Y. 1968. Mode of inheritance and sexual behaviour in the parthenogenetlc 

strains of Drosophila mercatorum. M.S. Thesis Washington University. 

St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 63 
Wharton, 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 
Wharton, L.T. 1942. An ar\a\ysis oi 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 



1 1 8 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, Areata, California, USA 95521) 

The genus Hydrophorus was erected by Fallen, 1823 : 2 with the following 
species included and without designation of a type-species : 

1. H. regius (Fabricus) (Dolichopus); 2. H. binotatus Fallen; 3. H. litoreus 
Fallen; 4. H. nebulosus Fallen (page 3); 5. H. armiger Fallen; 6. H. rostratus 
(Fabricius) (Musca); 7. H.jaculus Fallen. 

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 Fallen 
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) [Mused]. Medetera diadema has an 
apical arista (see Lundbeck, 1912 : 329, fig. 102). Hydrophorus jaculus, now 
placed in Medetera, also has an apical arista (see Kowarz, 1877 : pi. 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 wahlte fiir die Arten mit apicaler Fiihlerborste 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 Zoological Nomenclature 1 19 

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 (//. binotatus, H. litoreus, H. uebulosus), 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 N. 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 neverbeen 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 
Fallen, 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 nebidosus Fallen, 1823, on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name nebulosus Fallen, 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, 1 864 or Schiner. 

1864 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

References 
Collin, J. E. 1940. Critical notes on some recent synonymy affecting British species 

of Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Em. 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 
Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. 823 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae 
Fallen, C. F. 1823. Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae. 11 pp., Lundae 



120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Fischer [de Waldheim], G. 1819. Notice sur une mouche carnivore, nomme 

Medetere. Progr. Soc. imp. Natural, (Moscou) 15 Dec. 1819: 5-11, 1 pi. 
FooTE, R. H., CouLSON, J. R. and Robinson, H. 1965. Family Dolichopodidae 

(Dolichopidae). In Stone, A., et al., A catalog of the Diplera of America north 

of Mexico. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., Agr. Handbook no. 276 
Haliday, a. H. 1851. Family XXI. Dolichopidae. In Walker, F., et al., Insecta 

Britannica. Vol. 1 (=Diptera, Vol. 1); 144-221 
Hardy, D. E. and Kohn, M. A. 1964. Family Dolichopodidae. //; Zimmerman, 

E. C, Insects of Hawaii, Vol. 1 1 : 1-5, 10, 12-257, 421-422. Honolulu 
Hurley, R. L. 1965. A revision of the nearctic species o^ Hydroplionis {O'vpXexSi, 

Dolichopodidae). 187 pp., Ann Arbor: University Microfilms no. 65-7114 
KowARZ, F. 1877. Die Dipteren-Gattung Medeterits Fischer. Veritandl. KK. 

zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 27 : 39-76, pi. 2 
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systemae naturae per regno 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. Atti 1st. 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. 5ter Beitrag. Progr. 

K. Realsch. Mereritz 1857 : 1-56 
LuNDBECK, W. 1912. Diptera Danica, Part IV. Dolichopodidae. 416 pp. 

Copenhagen 
Macquart, J. 1827a. Insectes Dipteres du nord de la France. Platvpezines, etc. 

Rec. Trav. Soc. Sci. Agr. Arts Lille 1826/1827 ; 213-291, 1 pi. 

1827b. Idem. Vol. 3: 159 pp., 4 pis. Lille. 

Meigen, J. W. 1824. Syslematische Beschreibung der beliannien europdischen 
zweifliigeligen Insekten. Vol. 4, xii + 428 pp., pis. 33^1. Hamm. 

Perris, £. 1849 or 1850. Lettre de M. Edouard Perris a M.'^"'^ sur une excursion 
dans les grandes Landes. Mem. Acad. Sci. Lyon. 2 : 433-506 

Robinson, H. 1970a. The subfamilies of the family Dolichopodidae in North and 
South America (Diptera). Papeis Avulsos de Zool., S. Paulo 23 : 53-62 

1970b. Family Dolichopodidae (Dolichopidae). In Vanzolini, E. P., and 

Papavero, N. a catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United 
States. Dept. Zool. Seer. Agr., S. Paulo, fasc. 40 : 1-92 

Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Vol. 1, 228 pp. Parmae 
Schiner, J. R. 1864. Catalogus systematicus dipterorum Europae. xii + 115 pp. 

Wien. With "Vorrede" dated "Mai 1864" 
Wahlberg, P. F. 1844. Nya Diptera fran Norbotten och Lulea Lappmark. Ofvers. 

Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. (Stockholm)!: 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/n7 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 Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. 

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



122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Some years ago, about 1948, Professor Seguy 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 o( 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 //•;/ 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: 

(l)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 /r;7 Linnaeus, 

1758, as published in the binomen M«ico/n7 (type-species of Ojc/ne/to 
Becker, 1909). 



Literature Cited 
Aldrich, 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. fVasli. 32 

25-28 (Oscinella, p. 28) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalwe 123 

Becker, Th. 1909. Collections recucillies par M. Maurice de Rothschild dans 

I'Afrique orientale anglaise. Insectes: Dipteres nouveaux. Bull. Miis. Nail. 

d'Hist. Nal. (Paris) 15 (3) : 113-121. (O. deficiens, p. 120) 
1910. Chloropidae. Eine monographische Studie, I. Tail. Palaarktiches 

Region. Archivum Zoologicum (QuA&ptsX) \ : 33-174 
Sabrosky, C. W. 1941. An annotated list of genotypes of the Chloropidae of the 

world. Ann. Ent. Sac. 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. Boucek {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, 
femoribus . . ." 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 CynipslugdunaeaGmt\m,xtiptct\\t\y, 
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. lugdunaea (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 1 80 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) lugdunaea 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. Noniencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 

Berland, L., 1934a, Revue fr. Ent. 1 : 66-68 

1934b, Bull Sac. zool. Fr. 59 : 172-175 

Boucek, 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 Espaiia. Madrid. 

(p. 180) 
Grandi, G., 1951, Introduzione alio studio della Entomologia. 2. Bologna (p. 

1033) 
Grasse, P. P., 1951, Traite de Zoologie. 10, 1 : 933, 944 
GiJnther, K. and others, 1968, Insekten, Urania Tierreich. (p. 320) 
Nikolskaja, M. N., 1952, Opred. Faune SSSR, 44 : 79 

1960, Fauna SSSR. Hymenoptera, 7, 5 : 197, 204-207 

Other References 
Fabricius, J. C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica. 2. viii — 519 pp. Copenhagen 

and Kiel 
Gmelin, J. F. 1970. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae. 1 (5): 2225-3020. Leipzig 
ScHLETTERER, A. 1890. Die Gruppe der Hymenopteren-Gattungen Leucospis Fab., 

Polistomorplia Westw. und Marres Walk. Berl. em. Z. 35 : 141-302, pis. 5-6 
TouRETTE, DE LA. 1780. Memoire sur une nouvelle espece de mouche, du genre des 

Cinips, trouvee dans I'enceinte de la Ville de Lyon. Mem. Matliem. Phys. 9 : 

730-746, pi. 1 
ViLLERS, C. DE. 1789. Caroli Linnaei Entomologia. 3. 657 pp., pi 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 Fallen (1810 : 19) 
based on three unnamed species ("Sp. Sv. 3" = Species Sveciae 3). In 1820, 
Fallen described the genus with five new species: laevigata, 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 milichiidae {"Madiza Fall. 1810. Von den drei 
Arten wurden zwei durch Siphonella Macqu. 1835 absorbient, so dass der 
Fallensche Name fUr 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 Fallen, 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. ColUn (Sabrosky, 1942, 1943; 
Collin, 1942, 1943). Collin argued that oscinina was not one of the three 
unnamed species upon which Fallen 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. :ool. 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 Fallen 
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, laevigata, 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. Fallen 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 Fallen (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 milichiidae 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 

(I) 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 Fallen, 1810 (gender : feminine), type-species Madiza glabra 
Fallen, 1820, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology glabra Fallen, 

1 820, as published in the binomen Madiza glabra Fallen (type-species 
o{ Madiza Fallen, 1810); and 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology 

MADlziNAE Czerny, 1909 (type-genus Madiza Fallen. 1810). 

Literature Cited 
Collin, 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 Strobl. 1909. Verh. zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien. 59 : 121-301 
Fallen, C. F. 1810. Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disponendi methodnm 
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. 1 835. Histoire naturelle des Dipteres. Vol. 2, 703 pp. 
Malloch, J. R. 1913. Caw. £■«/. 45 : 175-178 

RoNDANi, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 1,228 pp. 
Sabrosky, C. W. 1941. Annls. ent. Soc. Amer.M ■.l'i5-l(,5 

1942. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 78 : 169-171 

1943. Ibid. 79 : 106-107 




INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
A. The Honorary Life President 

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

B. The Members of the Trust 
The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C, C.H. 
Mon. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. {Secretary and Managing 
Director) 

Dr. N. E. Hickin 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis 
Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Mr. R. V. Melville 
Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. 
Dr. N. R. StoU 
Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 
Dr. G. F. de Witte 

C. The Officers of the Trust 

Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) 

CONTENTS 
(continued from front wrapper) 



Opinions 

Opinion 998 (Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763). 

Opinion 999 (Plautus Brunnich, 1772) 

Opinion 1000 (Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903) 
Opinion 1001 (Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803]) . . 
Opinion 1002 (Phalaena Tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758) 



77 
80 
82 
84 
86 



New Cases 

Galaxias delfiniVYuhppi, 1895 (Pisces, Galaxiidae): Proposed suppression 

under the plenary powers (R. M. McDowell) . . 88 

Embletonia pallida Alder and Hancock, 1854 (Mollusca, Opisthobran- 
chia): Proposed protection of specific name against a nomen 
oblitum (Henning Lemche) . . . . 90 

Polycera faeroensis (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia) : Request for a ruling 

on authorship and date (Henning Lemche) . . . . . . . . 91 

Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed 
designation of a neotype under the plenary powers (F. Martin 
Brown) 92 

Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Request for the 
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (Karel Benes, 
Tikahiko Naito and Teiichi Okutani) . . . . . . 95 

Psednura longicornis Sjostedt, 1920 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Request to set 
aside all previous lectotype designations under the plenary powers 
and to designate a syntype as lectotype (K. H. L. Key) . . 97 



CONTENTS 
(continued from inside back wrapper) Page 

Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Proposed sup- 
pression under the plenary powers (C. O. van Regteren Altena) . . 100 

Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda: Enoplida): Proposed suppression 

under the plenary powers (W. D. Hope and D. G. Murphy) 102 

Cerithium Bruguiere, 1789 (Gastropoda): Proposed designation of a 

type-species under the plenary powers (J. R. Houbrick) 104 

Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed suppre* 

sion under the plenary powers (David Rosen) 108 

Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed sup- 
pression under the plenary powers (H. L. Carson, D. E. Hardy et al.) 1 12 

Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): Request for suppression of 
Macquart's designation of type-species (G. C. Steyskal, Harold 
Robinson e/ a/.) .. 118 

Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed designation of a 

type-species under the plenary powers (C. W. Sabrosky) . . 121 

Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposal to 

place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Z. Boucek) 124 

Madiza Fallen, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed designation of a type- 
species under the plenary powers (C. W. Sabrosky). . 126 

Comments 

Commentaires: Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (M. B. Bouche) . . 68 

Comments on the proposed designation of Chanda naina as type-species 
of Chanda (Pisces, Ambassidae) (Nomenclature Committee, 
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, per B. B. 
CoUette, Chairman (Fishes) 69 

Comments on the application concerning trace fossils (E. Voigt; H. 

Lemche and E. L. Yochelson) 69 

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) • . 71 

Comments on the problem of the type-species of Lucina (Mollusca) 
' (H. A. Rehder, S. S. Bretsky and M. Keen) 71 

Comments on the proposed suppression of two nomina oblita in the 
family Echeneididae (Pisces) (Nomenclature Committee, American 
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists per B. B. CoUette, 
Chairman) . . . . . . ■ • • • • • 76 

Comment on the proposed ruling on the status of specimens in the 

Thienemann collection (H. Lemche) 76 



C. 1973. The iNTERNATiONAL TRUCT FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire 



Volume 30, Parts 3/4 28th June, 1974 

pp. 129-235, 1 pi. T.P. X 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
* NOMENCLATURE 



The OfiBcial 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 . . . . 1 

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

(continued inside back wrapper) 



LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the Intematioiial Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications OflSce 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, 
London, SW7 5BD 

1974 

Price Three Pounds 
(Alt rights reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commissioii 



President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride {Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 

August 1963) 
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The 

Netherlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, Lombn, 

S.fF.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 Universitels Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Arthropoda, ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitels Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opisthobranchia; Pbylogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado {Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May 1960). Echinoldea, Asteroidea 
Dr. E. G. Munroe {Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Hisioire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962). 

Mollusca 
Professor Harold E. Yokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisclies Museum, Hamburg, Germany') 

(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) 

(President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. 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 Eisenmann (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.) (30 

January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. I. Starobogatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-IM, U.S.S.X.) 

(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. Bayer (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1 972). Octocorallia ; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 
February 1972). Protozoa ; Systematics 
Prof Dr. H. K. Erben (Institut fiir Paliiontologie, Universitat Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 

February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

Marine Biology 
Mr. David Heppell (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 

EHl \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca 
Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW15 BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Prof A. WiLLiNK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical 

Hymenoptera 
Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. Bernardi (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Dupuis (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 



'^^. 



mmm of zooiogicai nomnciatire 



Volume 30, Parts 3/4 (pp. 129-235 1 pi. T.P. X) 28th June 1974 

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) Suppression of Anas punctata Burchell, 1822 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 794. 

(2) Validation of Acanthomvs leucopiis Gray, 1867 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 

1724. 

*(3) Suppression of Scoptes Hiibner [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 
1748. 

(4) Suppression oi Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842 (Brachiopoda). 

Z.N.(S.) 1798 

(5) Designation of a neotype for Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa). 

Z.N.(S.) 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, 

1 926 (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 Nrsson 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 1 October 1973, the Com- 
mission held a special session under Article 1 1(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 lUBS 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 131 

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, 1 826, in favour of conservation of the junior synonym Hyla licheiiata (Gosse, 
1851) is based on two criteria: demonstration that Hyla crucialis was a genuine nomen 
obliium, and that lichenata 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 lichenata 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 lichenata 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 lichenata 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 Kirged 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 
Barbour, T. 1910. Notes on the herpetology of Jamaica. Bull. Mus. Camp. Zool. 

52(15) : 273-301 
Crombie, 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. 
Harlan, 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 

Noble, G. K. 1927. The value of life history data in the study of the evolution of the 

Amphibia. ^4/1/1. New York Acad. Sci. 30 : 31-128 
Noble, G. K. 1929. The adaptive modifications of the arboreal tadpoles of Hop- 

lophryne and the torrent tadpoles of Staurois. Bull. Amer. Miis. Nat. Hist. 

58 (7) : 291-334 
Noble, 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 
Trueb, L. 1972. Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia): proposed suppression 

under plenary powers. Z.N.(S). 1982. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 (1) : 39^0 
Tyler, M. J. 1971. The phylogenetic significance of vocal sac structure in hylid 

frogs. Univ. Kansas Publ., Mils. Nat. Hist. 19:319-360 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE OF 

LUMBRICVS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 272 

(See vol. 30; 27-31) 

By Per Brinck {Department of Animal Ecology, University of Lund, Sweden) 

When Bouche (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 svecica (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, 1 749-52 (edited by E. Lonnberg, 
Stockholm, 1913: Linnes foreslasningar ofver 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, net 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-sf)ecies 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 as a 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 
(I960; 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 oi Aglaja Renier, 1807 (Aves). 

References 
Sars, G. O. 1923. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Vol. DC, 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. 

Sen 11, vol. xiii, pp. 192-199 
Van Morkhoven, F. P. CM. 1963. Post-Palaeozoic Ostracoda. Vol. II 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 Caddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts., HP4 IPL, 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 Hubner [1807] v Euphaedra Hubner [1819].— <Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 
22(2): 102) 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974. 



134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(b) Aetheius Hubner [1819] v Ourocnemis Baker, 1887.— (W.: 103) 

(c) Gonophlebia Felder, 1870 [Jun.] v Pseudopontia Plotz, 1870 [Sep.]— (;V/; 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 noinen 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 Hubner [1819] v Capys Hewitson (1865).— (Sh//. zooI. 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 
Hubner, which thereby became a senior objective synonym of Capys Hewitson (the 
correct reference to which is ///. diuni. Lep. {Lye), 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 
Hubner [1819], Verz. bekaimt. Schmett.: Ill; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name 

Capys Hewitson (1865), ///. diiirn. Lep. {Lye) (2): 59 (gender: masculine), 
type-species by monotypy Papilio alpheiis Cramer [1777], Uitt. Kapell. 2 
(16): 131, pi. 182, tigs. 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 Hubner [1819], as suppressed under the plenary powers 
in (1) above. 



PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE 
GENERIC NAME ARGIOPEi. 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 i. 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 /)r.?/o/)£> 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 Priori ty 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 lobala 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 

(c) "Argyopes Latreille" Agassiz, 1846, an incorrect subsequent spelling 

oi Argiope Audouin, 1826; 

(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 EUDYPTES ROBUSTUS (OLIVER, 1953). 

Z.N.(S.) 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 I think the balance is clearly in favour of zebra, which is one good reason for 
its retention. 

Technically, Ogilby applied his name to Antilope mliorr, 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 Gazellal 

Kuhn overlooks the fact that Sundevall (1847, H. svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 
1845 : 196) explicitly pointed out that Ogilby had named A. doriae (sic) without 
description and citing only A. dama and A. mhorr. I 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 -/( ENDINGS OF 
PATRONYMS. Z.N.(S.) 1913 

By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Researcit 
Service, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington. B.C. 20560) 

The changes in the Code suggested by Smith, Stuart, and Conant (1971, Bull, zool- 
Nomenci, 27 : 250) and supported by the Nomenclatural Committee of the American 
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (1972, Bull. zool. Nomenci, 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 -/ and -// 
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 Linne 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 sp)ecies 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. Nomenci, 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.(S.) 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 (Institute of Oceanology, Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R., 

I Letnjaja, J-3S1, 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, Mem. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. 4 (6) : 498, pi. 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. not. 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, Anmiar. Mus. zool. Univ. Napolii : 
76, pi. 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. 
pallida in 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 1 39 

species. While most auttiors 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 adspersiis 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) ; Bidl. 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 adspersiis 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. Lyiib. Eslest. Antrop. Etnogr. imp. Mask. Univ. 9 : 87, 107. 

2. OsTROUMOFF, A. 1893. Catalogue des Mollusques de la Mer Noire et d'Azov 
observes jusqu'i ce jour a I'etat 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. 

4. MiLACHEWiTCH, K. O. 1916. Les Mollusques de la Mer Noire et de la Mer 
d'Azov Vol. 1 Faune de la Russie et des pays limitrophes. Petrograd : 132. 

5. Grossu, a. 1956. Mollusca Gastropoda Prosobranchia si Opisthobranchia. 
Fauna Repub. pop. rom. 3 fasc. 2 : 202. 

6. Chukhchin, V. D. 1960. The pelagic larvae of gastropod molluscs from the 
Black Sea. Trav. Sla. biol. Sebastopol 13 : 1 1 1, fig. 25. 

7. GoMOiu, M. T. 1961. Contributii la cunoasterea citorva nudibranchiate 
(Gastropoda-Opisthobranchia) din partea vestica a Marii Negre. Comimle 
Acad. Rep. pop. rom. 10, tom. 11 : 1251. 

8. GoMoiu, M. T. 1966. Specile de Opisthobranchiate din Marea Neagra. Hidro- 
biologia 7 : 145. 

9. Vinogradov, K. A., Losovskaya, G. B., and Kaminskaya, L. D. 1967. [Chapter 
12. A short review of invertebrate fauna of the north-western part of the Black 
Sea. In: 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) : 415^17. 

11. RociNSKAYA, I. S. 1970. Tenellia adspersa, a nudibranch new to the Azov 
Sea, with notes on its taxonomy and ecology. Malac. Rev. 3 : 167-174. 

12. Maksimov, 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 improvisiis 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 
Kho:. Okeanogr. 77 : 168. 

14. Chukhchin, V. D. 1972. The pelagic larvae of Gastropoda. //; 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. 



140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

1 5. GoLiKov, A. N. and Starobogatov, 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 News!. 4 (10-1 1) : 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 JLachryma (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 1 1(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 
Art. 67(i) is the same as that of Erato, regardless of any other type species listed by 
Sowerby. 

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 L YDA INANIS KLUG 

aNSECTA). Z.N.(S.) 1944 
(See volume 29, page 25). 

(B)— PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PTERODACTYLUS 

CRASSJPES MEYER (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1977 

(See volume 29, pages 30-31). 

(C>— PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PHAROPTERYX BENOIT 

RCPPELL (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1981 

(See volume 29, pages 37-38). 

(D)— PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF NYLA 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 GUENfiE 

(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. Nomenci, 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 Bruguiere, 1789 (gender: 
neuter) type-species, by subsequent designation by Miller, Dunbar and Condra 
(1933) Orthoceralites 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, 1 820, as published in the binomen 
Orthoceralites regularis (type-species of Orthoceras Bruguiere, 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 Bruguiere, 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 thoseof theLawof Homonymy: 

(i) Orthoceras Briinnich, 1771 (an unused senior objective synonym of 

Orthoceras Bruguiere, 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 Bruguiere, 1789; 
(a) Orthoceras Batsch, 1791 ; (b) Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795 

(c) Orthoceras Schrank, 1 796 ; 

(d) Orthoceras Perry, 1811; 

(e) Orthoceras Blainville, 1825; 

(f) Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831 ; 

(g) Orthoceras Phillips, 1836; 
(h) Orthoceras Balashov, 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) Orthoceras Brunnich, 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 Bruguiere, 1789: 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 

(c) Orlhoceras Batsch, 1791 (Name No. 2015) 

(d) Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795 (Name No. 2016) 

(e) Orthoceras Schrank, 1796 (Name No. 2017) 
(0 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; 

(o) 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 
Orihoceros 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, 
1 959 : 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 I 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. Fames, 
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 1 973 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 

' 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 Bruguiere, 1789 or for B, the addition 
to the Official List of Orthoceras Bruguiere, 1789 {Bull. 11 : 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, Yokes, 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, Yokes, 
Habe, Rohdendorf, Starbogatov, 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. 

Yoting Papers not returned — three (3): Erben, Willink, Dupuis. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes: 

Dr. H. Lemche (7.i.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. melh. (Vers): pi. 465 
Orthocera Modeer, 1789, (Illust. quaedam in R.D. Ambr. Soldani opus egreg. 

Saggio Orittograffico dictum) first published as a part of Testaceogr. ac 

Zoopliytogr. parvae et microsc. tomus primus: 41-43 
Orthocera Lamarck, 1799, Mem. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 80 
Ortlwcera J. Sowerby, 1812, Min. Conch. 1 : 127 
Orthocera Fleming, 1815, Ann. Phil. 5 : 201-206 
Orthocera Blainville, 1828, Diet. Sci. nat. 36 : 485 
Orthoceras Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. meth., Hist. nat. Vers, pt. i, page xvi 
Orthoceras Batsch, 1791, Sechs Kupfertafeln mit Conchy lien 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: pi. LII. 
Orthoceras Blainville, 1825, Man. Malac: 379 
Orthoceras Deshayes, 1813, Descr. Coquilles caract. Terrains 215: 
Orthoceras Phillips, 1836, ///. Geol. Yorks: 237 
Orthoceras Balashov, 1956, emend, pro Orthoceras Brunnich, 1771 Ezheg. 

\'ses. paleont. Obshch 1 5 : 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, 1 844, 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 



146 Bui lei in 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 

Secrelary 
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, 1 847 (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. Hupe, 
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 : 2l\-lil. 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, Yokes, 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: 
"I believe that the normal application of the Code here is the best solution for 
the present problem. 

"The name thysanopeltidae Hawle & Corda, 1 847, 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 oi Brontes Fabricius, 
1801, it is invalid and so is the family name based on it. 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 goldiidae 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 for all. 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 1 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, Bernard!, Starobogatov, Heppell, 
Yokes, 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 Hawie & Corda, 1847, K. Bohm. Gesell. Wiss. {Prague), Abh. 5 : 55 
Brontes Goldfuss, 1839 (non Fabricius, 1801), Nova Acta Phys. Med. Acad. 

Caes. Leap. Carol. 19 : 360 
costatum, Scutellum, Pusch, 1833, Geognostische Beschreibung von Polen, 

sowie den iibrigen Nord-Karpathenldndern. Pt. 1 : 119 
Scutellum Pusch, 1833, (torn, 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); TRYPETESA 

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 Trypetes 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, 1 836, as published 
in the binomen Trypetes rhinoides (type-species of Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836), 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specffic 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. 11 : 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, Yokes, 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. Cure. Ill (2): 596 
Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836, Gen. et Sp. Cure. 111(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 

1 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, pi. 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 : 1 84) 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, Yokes, 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 (i.i. 1973): "Explication de mon abstention: la requete est raison- 
nable en apparence, mais la creation de neotypes 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, Poieriocrinus 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 1912 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 55 

OPINION 1007 

COSCINOCYATHUS BORNEMANN, 1884 (ARCHAEOCYATHA): 
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES 
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (I) 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. 
Fran?oise Debrenne in March 1970. Dr. Debrenne's application was sent to 
the printer on 1 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, Yokes, 
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 Comniissioners in returning their 
votes: 

Prof. E. Mayr (8.i.l973): "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. Rohdendor/(4.i\. 1 973) : "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 veriiied 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, 1 884, 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 1 57 

OPINION 1008 

SIPHONA MEIGEN, 1803 AND HAEMATOBIA LEPELETIER AND 
SERVILLE, 1828 (INSECTA: DIPTERA): DESIGNATIONS OF 
TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (I) 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, 1 758 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, 1 776 : 38 as published in the binomen Musca 

geniculata De Geer (type-species of Siphona Meigen, 1803) (Name 
No. 2513); 

(b) irritans Linnaeus, 1 758 : 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, Eiserunann, Lemche, Binder, Mayr, Corliss, Yokes, 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: 
geniculaia, Musca, De Geer, 1776, Memoires pour servir al'histoiredes Insectes 

vol. 6 : 38 
Haematobia Lepeletier and Servilie, 1828, Encyl. Method., 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 \913 



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, 1 832, (type-species, 

by monotypy Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck, 1 822) 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; 

(c) that the stem of the above generic name for the purposes of Article 29 

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, 1 832, 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, 1 822, (as pubhshed in the binomen 
Sigaretus cancellatus) type-species, by monotypy, of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 
1 832) 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 OflScial 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 Recluz 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 Recluz, 1846 (Name No. 2041); Niona Paetel, 
1887 (Name No. 2042). 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, 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 (l)(c) above) (Name No. 
467); 

(b) NARiciDAE Recluz, 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 Bally, Jr. 

Dr. Ride asked that the Opinion should state that Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard 
1 832 is a latinized word, or treated as such, and available from Quoy & Gaimard, 
1 832. 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. 11 : 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, Yokes, 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 nomenclalural act. 

The name Vanicoro dates from Gray, 1 842 ; 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 noraenclatural 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 
cf Article 32(c). Even under Article 40(b) vanikoridae Adams & Adams would 



162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

take priority from 1 846, tiie 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 
Velutine', 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 
Velutine) 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 
"ies indigenes I'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. 

"I fully agree that the name Vanikoro cannot be validatedby 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 thiag 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 Nat tea, 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 U, 1842, Conch. Man. (ed. 2): 172 
Merria Gray, 1839(?) in Beechey Zool. Blossom: 137 
MERRiiDAE Hedley, 1917, J. Proc. R. Soc. N.S.fV. 51: Suppl., p. M62 
Merrva Recluz, 1846 ["1845"] Mag. Zool. (2) 7 (9): 7 

Narica Orbigny (ex Recluz 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 : 51 1 
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 Paleoconch. 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 

OPIMON 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); 

(h) 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 Lonnberg, 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 : 1 39) 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, Yokes, 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 Lonnberg, 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.iu.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) : "II ne devrait pas y avoir besoin de pleins pouvoirs 
de la Commission car il est bien evident que le type designe au 1933, 'Fundulus 
sjoestedti Lonnberg 1 895' 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. /?/rfe(17.v.73): "Thereisno 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 (Lti) 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). 

"I 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 Lonnberg, 1895, as type-species 
of Callopanchax Myers, 1933". 

Prof. G. Bernardi (13.V.73): "Je considere comme tres juste les remarques 
de Thys van den Audenaerde: il faut corriger et non enteriner les erreurs 
systematiques commises". 

Original References 
Callopanchax Myers, 1933 Copeia 1933 (4) : 184 
Fundulopanchax Myers, 1924 Am. Mus. Novit. 116 : 1-11 
occidental, Aphyosemion Stenholt Clausen, 1966 Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 73 : 331 
Roloffia Stenholt Clausen, 1966 Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 73 : 338 
sjoestedti, Fundulus Lonnberg, 1895 Ofvers. K. VetenskAkad. Fork. 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 ABESSYNICUS 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, 1 855, 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, CorHss, Yokes, 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: "J'estime d'une maniere generale que sauf dans des cas 
exceptionnels (interet economique) il n'est pas souhaitable d'accepter un 
mauvais travail systematique simplement parce que I'erreur est repandu pendant 
une longue duree. Dans le cas present il me semble tout k fait inutile d'user des 
pleins pouvoirs a propos de ceux noms subspecifiques, interessant seulement 
des specialistes. Le pietre travail taxonomique d'Antinori, qui n'a pas examine 
le type disponible d' abessynicus ni compris le sens exact du terme "Abyssinia" 
doit etre sanctionne par la mise en synonymic du nom galilejensis (dont le 
type est en outre perdu). Au contraire grace a I'excellent travail systematique 
de Benson et Brooke le nom abessynicus pent desormais etre employe en toute 
certitude pour designer la sous-espece d'Apus qffinis s'etendant du Maroc a 
TAfghanistan". 

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 Aniisxor'i, 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 

THALASC A RIS 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, Yokes, 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): "II est cependant dommage de donner un type a un nomen 
nudum\ II serait preferable de ne pas officialiser cette designation 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 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 

OPINION 1013 

PRIAPUS HUM ANUS LINNAEUS, 1758 AND HOLOTHURIA 

PRIAPUS LINNAEUS, 1767 (PRIAPULIDA): 

SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific names humanus 
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: mascuhne), 
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 oi 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); 
(h) 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 1 973 the state of the voting was as follows : 

Affirmative votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Eisenmarm, 
Lemche, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Yokes, 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.iii.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 stabihty 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, Priapuhis, Lamarck. 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres 

3 :77 
humanus, Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 656 
Priapulus Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres 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 {Ibis 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 /"wncto/a Burchell under 
your plenary powers, and declare A. hottentota as the correct name of the 
Hottentot Teal and Oxyura niaccoa 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 ///. Zool. 
S. Africa pi. 105 as neotype o{ 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 na.mc punctata Burchell, 

1822, as published in the binomen Anas punctata (Trav. 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, 1 838, as published in the binomen Querquedula 

hottentota (Mon. Anatidae: 129); 

(b) maccoa Eyton, 1838, as published in the binomen Erismatura 

maccoa (Mon. Anatidae: 1 69) ; 

(3) to place the specific name punctata Burchell, 1 822, 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 1 75 

ACANTHOMYS 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 leucopus 
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, leucopus 
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 Souef, 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). 
Ride, W. D. L. 1970. A guide to the native mammals of Australia. 

With drawings by Ella Fry. Melbourne, Oxford University 

Press, p. 1 38. 
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 Austrahan 

Rattus (Rodentia, Muridae). Bull. Am. nat. Hist. 150 : 1-130. 

6. The case 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 I ndo- Australian Muridae. Evolutionary 

trends. Annls Mus. r. Afr. cent. (Zool.) 172 : 1-219." 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 77 

ESCHARA SPONGITES V ALL AS, 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, 

Riclimond, 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 XVIH 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.. Electro (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 in its 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, pi. 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, pi. 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 Stylopoma (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 (pi. 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. 

1 1 . 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 vaUd — 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 1 79 

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 
5. 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 Escliara 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, 1 909) ; 

(b) errata Waters, 1878, as published in the binomen Lepralia errata; 

References 
Canu, F. & Bassler, R. S. 1920. Bull. U.S. Nat. Miis.. 106, 879 pp. 

1923. Op. cit., 125, 302 pp. 

1930. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mtis., 76, (13), 73 pp. 

Cheetham, a. H. & Sanbderg, P. A. 1964. J. Paleontology, 38(6), pp. 1013-1046 
GuALTiERi, N. 1742. Index Teslarum Conchyliorum, Florentiae 
Harmer, S. F. 1930. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 141, pp. 68-118 

1957. Rep. Siboga Exp., XXVIU d, pp. i-xv, 641-1 147 

Hastings, A. B. 1930. Proc. Zoot. Soc. London, pp. (t^l-lAO 

1932. Rep. Gt. Barrier Reef Exp., 4 (2), pp. 399^5% 

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. Cienc. S. Paulo, Zool. 1, pp. 1-224 

1955. Arq. 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. 321^86 

1947. Rep. Allan Hancock Atlantic Exp., 5, pp. 1-66 

1952. Rep. Allan Hancock Pacific Exp., U (2), pp. 21\-6n 

Pallas, P. S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum . . . Hagae Comitum 
Smitt, F. a. 1873. K. Svenska Vetensk.-Akad. Hmidl., 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 



1 80 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 I) 
kindly provided by Dr. Lemche and Mrs. Bille-Hansen. 

Paragraph 18(1 )(b) of the original application is withdrawn, but in ail other 
respects the case stands as there presented, with the supplementary material 
now provided. 

Description of Proposed Neotype of ESCHAR A SPONGITES Pallas 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. HIPPOTNOA 
SPONGITES SMITT, KGL. SVENSKA VETENSK. AKAD. HANDL. 
II B., No. 4, 1873, p. 42, PI. VIII, figs. 161-163. (PI. XVIII, figs. 4a-d). 

The zooecia 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 semieliiptical 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 ooecia are of enormous size, equalling the smaller zooecia in length with 
at the same time a breadth up to one and a half times that of the zooecia. 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 zooecium to which they belong 

• Hastings, A. B. 1968. Some type and other specimens involved in the problem of 
Stylopoma Levinsen (Polyzoa). Bull. Br. Miis. nat. Hist. (Zool.), 16: 353-364. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974. 



Plate 1 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30 





Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 

(as well as the proximal half of the distal zooecium), and this is only seen on 
removal of the frontal wall of the ooecium. 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 zooecial aperture. The 
semicircular ooecial 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 zocecia, they always take the 
place of the zooecia. 

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 

Fig. 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. 

Fig. 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. 

Fig. 3. Another part of the primary layer showing: a. proximally directed spatulate 
avicularium at the start of a new series of zooids. /. falciform avicularium 
almost covering two zooids. o. orifice of ovicell. 

Fig. 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.) 



1 82 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 SlVl) 

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 (nee 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 Wulker (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, nan (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 Jagerskiold (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 o^ Pseudanisakis. Pseudanisakis cannot be considered 
a synonym 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 n&mt 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 pubhshed 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 cotes de Belgique, leurs parasites et 

leurs commensaux. Mem. Acad. r. Betg. CI. Sci. 38 : 1-100 
DiESiNG, C. M. 1851. Systema helminthum \l. Vindobonae 
DoLLFus, R. Ph. 1970. Les vers nematodes du Hareng. C. r. Congr. Socs. sav. 

(Pau, 1969) Sect. Sci. 94 (3) : 351^26 
Dujardin, F. 1845. Histoire naturelle des Helminthes ou vers intestinaux. Paris. 
Gibson, D. \. 1973. The genus Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova, 1926 

(Nematoda : Ascaridida). J. nat. Hist. 7 : 319-340 
Hartwich, G. 1957. Zur Systematik der Nematoden-Superfamilie Ascaridoidea. 

Zoot.Jb.3 : 211-252 
Jagerskiold, L. A. 1894. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Nematoden. Zoot. 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. mask. 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, /n .■ Snieszko, S. F. (Ed.) 

Symp. on diseases of fishes and shellfishes. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 5 : 

190-208 
MosGOVoi, A. A. 1950. Notes on the foundation of the genus Pseudanisakis 

(Layman & Borovkova, 1926) nov. gen. Trudy gel' mint Lab. 4 : 17-24 (in 

Russian) 
Orley, L. 1885. A czapaknak es Rajaknak belferegei. Termeszelr. Fuz. 9 : 

97-126 [Summary: Die Entozoen der Haien und Rochen. Termeszetr. Fuz. 

9 : 216-220] 
Punt, A. 1941. Recherches sur quelques nematodes parasites de poissons de la 

mer du nord. Mem. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg. 98 : 1-110 
RuDOLPHi, C. A. 1819. Entozoorum synopsis cui accedunt mantissa duplex et 

indeces locupletissimi. Berolini 
Stossich, M. 1896. 11 genere Ascaris Linne. Boll. Soc. adriat. Sci. nat. 17 : 9-120 
Williams, 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 
WOlker.G. 1930. Ober Nematoden aus Nordseetieren. II. Zool. Anz.i% : l-Xd 
Yamaguti, S. 1941. Studieson the helminth fauna of Japan. Part 33. Nematodes 

of fishes. 11. Jap. J. Zool. 9 : 343-396 

1961. Systema Helminthum Vol. 111. 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, IJ 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. 
ardgerenj Phillips, 1829 (Simpson, 1843, 1855, 1884), Amm. Jigulinus Simpson, 
1855 (Simpson, 1855, 1884) or with ^»im. ca/7ncor««5 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] L[ias] (Simpson, 1855) 

(c) L[ower] L[ias] d, R[obin] H[ood's] B[ay] (Simpson, 1884). 

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 m the Bean 
Collection, which passed to the Leckenby Collection and are now in the Sedgwick 
Museum, Cambridge (Bl 1945-6 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, pi. 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 (Bl 1946; figured by Donovan and Forsey, pi. 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, pi. 76) overlooked Bean's specimens and figured the 
single specimen identified as Anim. 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 Anim. 
althii Herbich (1878, pi. XX E, fig. 1) as a comparable species. From the 
figure of Herbich's type (Vadasz, 1908, p. 371, pi. 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, pi. 95, fig. 4-5). Arkell 
(1956, p. 185) was in error when he identified Amm. althii as a member of 
Gagaticeras BMcVman, 1913 (Getty, 1973:12). 

Similarly, comparison of the alleged holotype of Amm. defossus with the 
holotype of Amm. transformatus Simpson, 1844 (Buckman, 1913, pi. 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; Guerin- 
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), but dismissed it as superficial 
and due to "cycUcal 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, 
pi. 14, fig. 7). 

5. The difficulty arises in this case that Buckman (1913, p. vi) established the 
genus Defossiceras, with Amm. defossus Simpson, 1 843, 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 Euagassiceias 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, pi. 17, pi. 1, fig. 7), who employed 
the name for a species belonging to Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900, and by 
Guerin-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, pi. 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, pi. 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, w + S06 p., 46 p\. Edinburgh 

and London 
Arkell, W. J., in Moore, R. C. 1957. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, pt. 

L MoUusca (4). Cephalopoda. Ammonoidea. xxii + 490 p. Geol. Soc. 

Amer. and Kansas Univ. Press 
Behmel, H. and Geyer, O. F. 1 966. Beitrage zur Stratigraphie und Palaontologie des 

Juras von Ostspanien, III Stratigraphie und Fossilfuhrung in Unterjura von 

Albarracin (Provinz Teruel), Neues Jalirb. Geol. Palaont. Abli. 124 : 1-52, 

pi. 1-6 
BucKMAN, S. S. 1911. Yorkshire Type Ammonites, l,pt. 3: 4p., 8 p\. London and 

Thame 

1913. Ibidem. 2, pt. 10; 2 p., 9 pi.; 2, pt. 11 ; 2 p., 7 pi. London and Thame 

in Fox-Strangways, 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 Howarth, M. K. 1916. The Liassic Zones and 
Subzones of the North West European Province, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 
Geol. 4 : 437-505, pi. 63-75 

Donovan, D. T. 1952. The ammonites of the Blue Lias of the Bristol District, 
n Arietitidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 5 : 717-752, pi. 17-19 

and Forsey, G. F. in press. Systematics of Lower Liassic Ammonitina. 

Paleont. Contrib. Univ. Kansas 

Getty, T. A. 1 973. 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 inferieur de France. Psilocera- 

taceae. Arietitidae. 455p., 231 pi. Paris 
Haug, E. 1900. Revue critique de Paleozoologie, 4 (2) : 78-86 
Herbich, F. 1878. Das Szekerland. Mitt. Jahrb. Ungarn. k. Anst. 5 : 1-365, pi. 

1-20M 
Howarth, M. K. 1958. The Ammonites of the Liassic family Amaltheidae in 

Britain, xxxvii + 53 p., 10 pi. Palaeontogr. Soc. [Monogr.] London 

1962. The Yorkshire type ammonites and nautiloids of Young and Bird, 

Philhps and Martin Simpson. Palaeontology 5 : 93-136, pi. 13-19 

Hyatt, A. 1875. Genetic Relations of the Angulatidae. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. 
Hist. 17 : 15-23 

1900. In Zittel, K. A. von ed. Eastman, R. C. 1896-1900. Textbook of 

Paleontology, 1 : 502-592. London 

Orbigny, a. d' 1 842-1 851. Paleontologie frangaise. Terrains jurassiques, I. 

Cephalopodes. 642 p., 234 pi. Paris 
Phillips, 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 pi. York. 
ScHLOTHElM, E. VON. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde, 437 p., 29 pi. Gotha 
Simpson, M. 1843. A Monograph of the Ammonites of the Yorkshire Lias. 60 p. 

London 

1855. The Fossils of the Yorkshire Lias: described from Nature, \49p. London 

and Whitby 

1884. The Fossils of the Yorkshire Lias: described from Nature, with a carefully 

measured section of the strata and the fossils peculiar to each, xxiv + 256 p. 
Whitby 

Spath, L. F. 1919. Notes on Ammonites. Geo/. Ma^. 6 : 115-122 

1924. The ammonites of the Blue Lias. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Lond.iS : \%6-l\\, 

pi. 18 

1925. Notes on Yorkshire Ammonites, VIIL More Lower Liassic Forms 

Naturalist, No. 827: 359-364 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 89 

1936. The Ammonites of the Green Ammonite Beds of Dorset, Oho/-/ Journ 

Geol. Soc. Land. 92 : 438-455, pi. 33 

1938. A catalogue of the ammonites of lite Liassic family Liparoceratidae in the 

British Museum (Natural History), ix + 191 p., 26 pi. London 

Tate, R. and Blake, J. F. 1876. The Yorlishire Lias,\m + 415 p. A9p\. London 
Vadasz, M. E. 1908. Die unterliassische Fauna von Alsorakos im Komitat 

Nagykiikiillo, Mitt. Jahrb. k. Ungar. Geol. Reichsanst. 16 . 307^06, pi. 6-11 
Waagen, W. 1869. Die Formenreihe des Amm. subradiatus, Benecke's geogn. pal 

Beitr. 2 : 181-256, pi. 16-20 
Young, G. and Bird, J. 1 822. A geological survey of the Yorkshire Coast; describing 

the strata and fossils occurring between the Number and the Tees, from the 

German Ocean to the Plain of York, iv + 332 p., 17 pi. Whitby 

1828. Ibidem. 2nd ed., iv + 367 p., 17 pi. 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. nee Fabricius. 

2. The nomenclatural details are given below. 

The current name of the bee Megachile rotundata auct. nee 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, 1 798, 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 1 798 and 1 896. 

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. nee 
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 191 

Producers of alfalfa seed have been able to increase yields approximately 
tenfold through the use of Megachile rottmdata 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 in the 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. In the 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 outUned 
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, "M. rotundata F. V, det. J. D. Alfken 1935"; bottom 
label, "NEOTYPE, Apis rotundata Fabricus, 9, 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 

BOHART, G. E. 1962. How to manage llie leafciilter 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 

Holm, 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 
HuRD, P. D., JR. 1967. The identity of Megachile rotundata (Fabricius) and M. 

argentata (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Enlomologiske Meddeleker 

35 : 3-10 
Mitchell, T. B. 1962. Bees of the eastern United States, Volume II. North 

Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 152:1 22-24 
Panzer, G. W. F., 1798. Faunae insectorum Germanica initio. 5 : 56 
Panzer, G. W. F. 1806. Kritische Revision der Insectenfauna Deutschlands, nach dent 

System bearbeitet. Niirnberg 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 11 : 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 /Je/;o(yea 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, pi. 1, figs. 20, 21) and 
R. rotundata Brown (1827, p. i, pi. 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 (1 858, 
p. 78) synonymised Renoidea with Biloculina and his synonymy is followed by 
Brady ( 1 884, p. 1 39). Galloway ( 1 933, p. 1 23) selected R. glabra as the genotype 
oi 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 oi Miliolinella. 
This would be unfortunate as Miliolinella has been firmly entrenched in the 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Paris 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. caUfornica Rhumbler, 1936; M. chaoyii 
Huang, 1970; M. chui Huang, 1970; M. chukchiensis Loeblich and Tappan, 
1953; M. iongchunae Huang, 1970; A/, laysanensis Rhumbler, 1936; M. loeblichi 
Bermiidez and Seiglie, 1963; M. microstoma Warren, 1957; M. parva Mangin, 
1960; M. robusia 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 (I) above, on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Names in Zoology. 



References 
Andersen, H. V. 1 961 . Genesis and paleontology of the Mississippi River mudlumps, 

Pt. II, Foraminifera of the mudlumps, lower Mississippi delta. Bull. Geol. 

Surv. Dept. Conserv. 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 
Brady, 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. Illustrations of the concliology of Great Britain and Ireland. 

Edinburgh and London: i-v 

1 844. 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., & Todd, R. 1948. Foraminifera from the Red Bluff — Yazoo 

Section at Red Bluff, Mississsippi. Contr. Cushman Lab.foram. Res. 24 : 1-12. 
Ellis, B. F., & Messina, A. 1940. Catalogue of Foraminifera. Am. Mus. Nat. 

Hist. 
Galloway, J. J. 1933. A manual of Foraminifera. Bloomington, Ind. : 1^83. 
Huang, T. 1970. New Foraminiferida from the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan, China. 

Proc. Geol. Soc. China 13 : 108-114 
Kennett, J. P. 1967. New Foraminifera from the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Contr. 

Cushman Fdn. foramin. Res. 18 : 133-135 
Loeblich, A. R. Jr., & Tappan, H. 1953. Studies in Arctic Foraminifera. 

Smithson. misc. Collns 121 (7) : 1-150 

1961. Suprageneric classification of the Rhizopodea. 7. i'a/eon/. 35 : 245-330 

1964. Sarcodina chiefly "thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida. In: Moore, 

R. C, (Ed.) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. 1-2: C1-C900 

Mangin, M. 1960. Revision des Miliolides de la collection Terquem du "Pliocene 
superieur" de L'ile de Rhodes. Rev. Micropaleont. 3 (1) : 37-51 

Montagu, 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 Nomenclalure 195 

Rhumbler, L. 1936. Foraminiferen der Kieler Bucht, gesammelt durch A. Remane 

Teil H (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. Colitis. 1031 : 241^85 
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. Ciishman Fdn foramin. Res. 8, (I) : 29-40 
Walker, G., & Boys, W. 1784. Teslacea rtiinuta rariora, nuperrime detecia in 

arena litroris Sandvicensis a Gul. Boys, arm S.A.S. mulla 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. SUdpol. Exped., 20 (Zool. 12) : 53-165 
Williamson, W. C. 1858. On the Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain. Ray. Soc. 

Pubis. : 1-107 



196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

ERIOPHYES SIEBOLD, 1851 AND /-//yrO/TC/S 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 eriophyiodiogists 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. 

(Jo) 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 lahiatifiorae F. Thomas, 1872 described 
on the basis of Bremi-WolfT's specimens of dried plant parts of Origanum 
vulgare L. damaged by this mite. Consequently, lahiatifiorae 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, 1 857 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 oi 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 Newkirlc 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 all 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 P/(>'/o/j/i« 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 

v/7w Pagenstecher, 1857) 
\}. 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 Oflficial 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, 1 889, as published in the binomen Phytoptus 
avellanae (type-species of Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851). 

Literature Cited 
Dujardin, F. 1851. Observations zoologiques. Annls. Sci. nat. (Zool.) 15 (3) : 

158-173. 
K.E1FER, 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 

Nalepa, A. 1889. Beitrage zur Systematik der Phytopten. Sber. Alcad. Wiss. 

men. Abt. 1. 98 : 112-156 
Newkirk, R. a. & Keifer, 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. Ober Milben besonders die Gattung Phytoptus. Verh. 

naturh.-med. Ver Heidelb. 1 : 46-53 
Siebold, C. Th. E. von. 1851*. Ober Eriophyes. Jber. schles. Ges. vaterl. Kult. 

28 : 88-89 
Thomas, F. 1872. Schweizerische Milbengallen Z. ges. Naturw. Halle 39 : 459^72 

• The date of publication of Siebold's work is not certain. Newkirk and Keifer follow 
A. C. Oudemans (1937 Oudemans, Krilisch historisch overzicfii der Acarologie Part 3. 
Leiden: 1270) who believes that the name Eriopliyes 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 PETROMYZON 

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: Ttsxpo-rock and nv>(,m 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) netponui^cov \ Petromyzon with a long o as masculine nominative 
jtexpo(iu^cov J singular of the present participle of the verb "to suck 

rocks" treated as a substantive. Stem Petromyzont-. 

(2) Ttexponu^ojv Petromyzon with a short o, the neuter of the same 

adjective, same stem. 

(3) 7tSTpo|iu^tov Petromyzon with a long o, an improbable masculine 

third declension noun from myzo (nu^co) 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) jietponui^ov 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 r Europe Meridionale et particutierement de celles des environs de Nice et des 
Alpes Maritimes. Paris & Strasbourg, page 113. 

Petromyzonidae Bonaparte, C.L.J.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. Iconographia della Fauna 



Bull. zool. Nomend., 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 //;.■ 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 

(c) PETROMYZ-. 



200 Bulletin of Zoological /Nomenclature 

ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEOTYPE FOR PSEUDOGELOIUS 
DECORSEI(\. BOLfVAR, 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. not. 5 : 286) described, as a member of 
the genus Geloius Saussure, 1899, a species, decorsei, based upon two specimens 
(cj, $) 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. (I.e.) 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, which came 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.i 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 dpico", 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 {I.e.) 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 Beriin 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 

' 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, Aimis Mus. r. Afr. cent. (Zool). 198 : 64) has recently 
discovered specimens which seem indisputably referable to the same species 
as Bolivar's male syntype o^ decorsei — which Kevan (1968, I.e.) regarded as being 
from Ambovombe whether or not the female syntype came thence. Wintrebert 
(I.e.) 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 Museum 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 
grounds upon which the 1 954 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 o^ Pseudogeloius are all very much alike and that the original 
description was rather inadequate make it very difficult to claimdisagreement 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, I.e.). 
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 conspecLfic 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 a new name. This 
would be quite contrary to the intention of Kevan's (1968, I.e.) 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 

SYNALPHEUS NEPTUNUS (DANA, 1 852); 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 5. theano, but were unable to 
find Dana's type for 5. 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. Coutiere 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 Coutiere 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 Coutiere'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 ( 1 7 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. Tliis 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 : 1 197) 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, 1 855 (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. Miis. 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 : 1 1 94, 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 heteroceres de la tribu des Lonomiicae, 

groupe terminal des Hemileucides. C. r. hebd. Seanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 196 : 

1941-1944 
Draudt, M. 1929-1932. 12 Familie Saturnidae [sic], Gross-Schmetlerl. Erde 

6 : 713-827 
Lemaire, C. 1973. Revision du Genre Lonomia Walker [Lep. Attacidae]. Annls. 

Sac. ent.fr. {N.S.) 8 (1972) : 767-861 
MicHENER, C. D. 1952. The Satumiidae (Lepidoptera) of the Western Hemis- 
phere. Morphology, Phylogeny, and Classification. Bull. Am. Mus. nal. 

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 

iSee 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 

PLATYCHOEROPS CHARLESWORTH,1855 (MAMMALIA) 

NOT KLUNZINGER, 1879 (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 2052 

By Philip D. Gmgtnch. {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, 1 887. 

2. In 1887, Lydekker (Cat. Pass. 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 Paiaeocene of 
France. Teilhard (1922, Annls. Paleont. 11 : 51) first noted the close relation- 
ship o^ Platychoerops and Plesiadapis, considering them generically synonymous. 
Simpson (1929, Am. Mus. Novitatestio. 354 : 4, 11-12) recognized hoi\\ 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 Stelhmg des Menschen: 262. 

Simpson, 1945, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 85 : 61. 

Hill, 1953, Primates, Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, 1 : 702. 

Piveteau, 1957, Traite de Paleontologie, 7 : 46. 

Buettner-Janusch, 1963, Evolutionary and Genetic Biology of Primates, 1 : 58. 

Russell, 1964, Mem. 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. Nomenci, 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. IViss., 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 Platychaerops 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 now regarded 
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, 1 887, 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 (/Of. cit.); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 

(5) to place the junior generic homonym Plaiychoerops 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) Iricuspidens Gervais, 1877, as published in the binomen Plesiadapis 

tricuspidens (type species o{ Plesiadapis Gervais, 1877); 
(h) richardsonii Charlesworth, 1855, as published in the binomen Platy- 

clwerops richardsonii (type species of Plalvchoerops 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 "Regies" 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. Nomenci, Vol. 30, Parts 3/4. June 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 1 

6. Opinion 22 accepted "Ceraiictlivs 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 "Ceraticlhys 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. 31,1 930 "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 1st 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 : 
"It is necessary to limit this amendment to names published before 1st 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(l) is modified 
to state that the author "attempts to indicate difTerentiating 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 2 1 3 

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, 1 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. $. (Fig. 2). Stellt man diese Gattung zu den Metopininae, wozu 
sie wahrscheinlich gehort, so gelangt man mit meinem Gattungsschlussel 
(Revision d. Phoriden, 1929, S. 80 ff) zu Pheidolomyia, Rhynchomicropteron and 
Gymnophora subg. Capraephora. Sie ist aber mit keiner derselben identisch. 
Die gewolbte 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 
Flijgel 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, polhnosity, 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. 
464-47 1 , at the end of the key to the genera of Tachinidae. The genera had 
already appeared in the generic key, pp. 419^63, 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 ahnost twice as high as long; cheeks very narrow; face . . . 
[11-line description]. Length, 5.5 mm. Genotype: — C. lateralis, 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 (Stuttgarier Beitr. zur Naturk. 186 : 6), 
described a new species of leafhopper, family Cicadellidae, as "Okaundua 
(Lv. in lift.) 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, f ran f. 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 liibernica 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 ) Osmolska, Roniewicz, and Barsbold, 1 972, "A new dinosaur, Gallimimus 
bullatus n.gen., n.sp. (Ornithomimidae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mon- 
golia" (Palaeontologia Polonica 11 : 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.]". 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 



2 1 6 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 (cjo Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural 
History) London, England) 

This is a reappiication of the petition of Benson, Ferriere, 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, Prec. 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 1 1 (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 1 1 (f ) ends in "or be treated as such". 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 1 1 (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. 1 1(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. Gener. Part. Crust. Ins. 3 ; 340; 1804, Nouv. Diet. 
Hist. Nat. 24 : 180, 1804-1805, Hist. nat. Gener. Part. Crust. Ins. 4 : 305; 1809, 
Gen. crust. Ins. 4 : 90; 1810, Consid. Gener. Ord. Nat. Anim., p. 438). Un- 
fortunately, Latreille does not mention the speUing 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, Ferriere, 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 
Nyssonint, 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 Nysso Latreille 1796, 

for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of 
Homonymy, and to validate the unjustified emendation Nysson 
LatreUle, 1802-1803; 

(2) put Nysson Latreille, 1802-1803 (gender : masculine), type-species by 

subsequent designation by Shuckard 1837, Crabro spinosus Fabncius, 
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, 1 829, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The original 
application by Benson, Ferriere, 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 Regies 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: pi. 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, Ferriere 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 Hterature 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, Kutiiky 
(Sphecidae) Ceskoslovenske 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 Rfwpalum in regional faunal works con- 
taining keys to species. Furthermore, RJtopalum has served as the basis for 
six generic names: Holcorhopalum Cameron, 1904; Calceorhopalum Tsuneki, 
1952; Latrorhopalum Tsuneki, 1952; Aporhopalum Leclercq, \955 ^Zelorhopalum 
Leclercq, 1955 ; and Isorhopalum Leclercq, 1963. Hence it is 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, 

1 826 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 
riifiventris 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 



221 





Page 






Page 


Anseli, W. F. H. ... 


136 


Kashin, G. N. 
Keen, Myra... 




57 
75 


Banner, A. H. 


203 


Kevan, D. K. McE. 




200 


Banner, D. M. 


203 


Key, K. H. L. 




97 


Bellinger, Peter F. ... 


39 


Kim, Ke Chung 




42 


Benes, Karei 


95- 








Beu, A. G 


... 4, 54 


Lemaire, Claude 




205 


Bohart, R. M. 


...217,219 


Lemche, H 


.. 70, 


76, 90, 91 


Boucek, Z 


124 








Bouche, M. B. 


68 


McDowall, R. M. . 




88 


Bretsky, Sara S. 


73 


Mayr, E 




140 


Britton, Joseph C. . . . 


73 


Maxwell, P. A. 




4 


Brinck, P 


132 


Melville, R. V. 


.. 134 


, 137, 138 


Brown, F. Martin ... 


92 


Menke, A. S. 
Murphy, D. G. 




217, 219 
102 


Carson, H. L. 


112 








Cernohorsky, W. O. 
Collette, Bruce B. ... 


... 3,51 
... 69,76 


Naito, Tikahiko 
Nye, I. W. B. 




95 
141 


Cowan, C. F. 


... 10, 133 








Crombie, Ronald I. 


4 


Okutani, Teiichi 




95 


Eisenmann, E. 


71 


O'Shea, R 




63 


Ellis, WUlem N. ... 


39 


Ponder, Richard W. 




193 


Falla, R. A 


136 








Fleming, C. A. 


136 


Rehder, Harald A. . 




3, 37, 71 






Richards, O. W. . 


.. 49, 


217, 219 






Ride, W. D. L. 


.. 58, 


173, 175 


Gates, G. E. 


34 


Robinson, Harold . 




118 


Gingerich, Philip D. 


207 


Roberts, R. B. 




190 


Getty, T. A. 


185 


Roginskaya, I. S. . 


.. 


138 


Gibson, D. I. 


182 


Rosen, David 




108 


Gruchy, C. G. 


35 












Sabrosky, Curtis W. 


121,126,132,210 


Hardy, D. E. 


112 


Shevtchenko, V. G. 




196 


Hastings, Anna B. ... 


177 


Sims, R. W 




27 


Hope, W. D. 


102 


Steyskal, George C. 




118, 137 


Houbrick, Richard ... 


104 


Strachan, I 




7 


Hurley, Richard L. ... 


118 


Sylvester-Bradley, P. 


C. . 


133 



222 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



Taylor, R. W. 
Thomas, The late H. Dighton 
Throckmorton, L. H 
Tyler, Michael J. 
Tzvetkova, N. L. .. 

Ulrich, Hans 



van Regteren Altena, C. O. 100 

Vladykov, V. D 198 



age 




Page 


58 


Voigt, E 


69 


177 






112 


Warham, John 


136 


131 


Wasserman, M. 


112 


47 


Weisser, Christian F. 


42 




Whalley, Paul E. S. 


61 


118 


Wheeler, M. R. 


112 




Woodland, D. J. ... 


6 



Yochelson, Ellis L. .. 



70 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 

LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME 



Opinion 

990 {Trepsichrois Huhner, IS\6) 

991 (//ererera«/iw Warren, 1904) 

992 {Gammarus aequicauda (Martynov, 1931)) 
99'i {Echinocorys scutata Ltske, Mli,) 

994 (Ja/ura Butler, [1888]) 

995 (PTO^ojTreitschke, 1825) 

99() {Acanihopleuroceras \lyaXt, \9QQ) 

997 (/l«o/?//M5Dufour, 1844) 

998 {Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1 763) 

999 (P/owto Brunnich, 1772) 

1000 (A//weco«m////a Ashmead, 1903) 

1001 (Cera/wa Latreille, [1802-1803]) 

1002 {Phalaena tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758) 

1003 (Or//iocera5 Bruguiere, 1789) 

1004 (SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955) 

1005 (trypetidinae Pierce, 1919) 

1006 (Poteriocrinus hemisphericus ShumSLTd, 1858) 

1007 (Coic;>iocj'af/;M5 Bornemann, 1884) 

1008 {Siphona Meigen, 1803 and Haematobia Lepeletier & 
1828) 

1009 (Kam/toro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) 

1010 (Ca/Zopaw/wA: Myers, 1933) 

\0\\ {Cypselus abessynicus Strt\i\is\, l?>^%) 

1012 (r/ia/ajcarw Bate, 1878) 

\0\'i {Priapus humanus Linnaeus, 1758 and Holothuria 

Linnaeus, 1767) 



Serville, 



priapus 



Page 
9 

13 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

77 

80 

82 

85 

86 

142 

147 

151 

153 

155 

157 
159 
164 
167 
169 

171 



224 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
INDEX TO KEY NAMES 



abessynicus, Cypselus, Streubel, 1848 

Acanlhopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900 

adansonii, Cerithium, Brugiere, 1792 
adspersus, Tergipes, Nordmann, 1845 
aequicauda, Carcinogamnmrus, Martynov, 1931 
Aetheius Hnhn&r [\U9] 

/^g-Zo/a Renier, 1807 

alpheus, Papilio, Cramer 1777 
/4no/i//;«Dufour, 1834 
Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842 
'^Argiopes Agassiz" Levi, 1970 
"Argiopes Latreille" Agassiz, 1846 
Argyope Audouin, IS26 
Anlhus paylensis Lesson, 1837 
atratus, Eiidyptes, Finsch, 1875 
avellanae, Phytoptus, Nalepa, 1889 



167 

23 
105 
90, 138 

15 
134 
132 
134 

23 
134 
135 
135 
135 

71 
136 
196 



binotatus. Ammonites Oppel, 1862 
brachyptera, Echeneis, Lowe, 1859 
BRONTEiDES Hawlc & Corda, 1 847 
Bro/ito Goldfuss, 1839 



23 

76 

147 

147 



Callopanchax Myers, 1933 

cancellatus, Sigaretus, Lamarck, 1822 
capillatus, Solenopoles, Enderlein, 1904 

Cap>'i Hewitson (1865) 

carinata, Drosophila, Grimshaw, 1901 

CASSiDAE Latreille, 1825 

caudatus, Priapulus, Lamarck, 1816... 
Ceratina Latreille, [1 802-1 803] 
CERATiNiDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] ... 

Cef/7/i(wm Bruguiere [1789] 

Clavicera Latreille, April 1802 
clavipes, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758 
Coscinocyalhus Bomemann, 1884 ... 
costal um, Scutellum, Pusch, 1833 ... 

Cnnocenu Burmeister, 1839 

crucialis, Hyla, Harlan, 1826 

crucifer, Acanthocerus, Palisot de Beauvois, 

cucurbilina. Apis, Rossi, 1792 

cuneatus, Donax, Linnaeus, 1758 ... 



1818 



4, 



164 
159 

45 
134 
112 
3.4 
171 

84 

84 
105 

84 
219 
155 
147 

63 
131, 140 

63 

84 
137 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



225 



Z)flr/jte«e Walker, 1859 

decorsei, Psetidogeloiiis (Bolivar, 1905) 
defossus. Ammonites, Simpson, 1843 
doria, Antilope, Ogilby, 1837 

iJrepane Cuvier, 1831 

delfini, Galaxias, Philippi, 1895 
Delocrinus Miller & Gurley, 1890 ... 
dianthus, Coscinocyalhus, Bornemann, 1884 

DREPANEIDAE Gill, 1874 

Drepanichlhys BonapiLTte, 1831 

DREPANIDAE Gill, 1874 



Page 

61 

200 

185 

136 

36 

88 

153 

155 

36 

36 

36 



Eclieneis bracliyptera Lowe, 1 839 ... 
Eclwneis quatuordecimlaminatus SiOKT, 1839 
Eclieneis sexdecimlamellata Eydoux & Gervais, 1838 
Echinocorys lj&&]/x, MIZ 

Echinocorytes, Leske, 1778 

elongatum, Oxystoma, Biitschli, 1874 

fm-xeGistl, 1848 

£>irmoH Savigny, 1822 

fn'op/y'M Siebold, 1851 

errata, Lepralia, Waters, 1878 

Euphaedra Hiihnei [\S19] 

Eiiplilis Risso, 1826 

eurysternus, Haematopinus, Denny, 1842 
eiirysternus, Pediculus, Burmeister, 1838 



76 

76 

76 

17 

17 

102 

36 

30 

196 

177 

133 

219 

45 

45 



faeroensis, Polycera, Lemche, 1929 or Odhner, 

/>/ejea von Dalla Torre, 1895 

frit, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 

Fundulopancliax Myers, 1924 



1941 



91 

40 

121 

164 



galilejensis, Cypselus, Antinori, 1855 
gallica, Leucospis, Villers, 1 789 
geniculata, Musca, De Geer, 1 776 . . . 
giardi, Alloloboplwra, Ribaucourt, 1901 
gigas, Leucospis, Fabricius, 1 793 
glabra, Madiza, Fallen, 1820 
Gonopfilebia Fe\deT, 1870 [Jun.] 
Gryllus Loci4sta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 



167 
124 
157 

30 
124 
126 
134 

77 



habei, Nippoiiapliera, Petit, 1972 
Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville, 
HARPiDAE Bronn, 1849 



1828 



38 

157 

3 



226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Page 

Harpochiriis Cantor, \S49 36 

hemisphericus, Poleriocrinus, Shumard, \i5S ... ... ••• 153 

Helererannis Warren, 1904 13 

hottentota, Querquedula, Eyton, 1838 173 

humanus, Priapus,lAnnaeu%,\15% 171 

Hydrophorus VaWin, \i2i 118 



irritans, Conops, Linnaeus, 1758 157 



/ac/;rymo, &aro, Gray »! Sowerby, 1832 52 

Loc/jrj'maSowerby, [1832] 52,140 

Z,a/o«a Schumacher, 1817 137 

lebona, Hypolycaena, Hewitson, [1865] 19 

leucopus, Acanthomys, Gray, 1867 175 

Leucorw Swainson, 1840 159 

Z.e«comi G. B. Sowerby II, 1842 159 

lichenata, Hyla (Gosse, \^S\) 4 

lobala, Aranea, Va\\a%, Mil 135 

Lowom/a Walker, 1855 206 

longicornis, Psednura, Sjostedt, 1920 ... ... ... ... 96 

LORiiDAE Selby, 1836 57 

Lwc/na Brugiere, 1797 71,73,75 

lugdunaea, Cynips, GmeWn, 1190 124 

LUMBRiciDAE Claus, 1880 30 

Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758 30 



maccoa, Erismatura, Eyton, 1838 173 

macdunnoughi, Glenea, Sperry, 1952 13 

Macgillivraya Grole, \i94 ... 

Madiza¥a\\in, 1810 

MADiziNAE Czerny, 1909 
maxima, Formica, Moore, 1842 



40 

126 

126 

58 

merfa/orum, Z)roio;7/»7a, Patterson & Wheeler, 1942 112 

159 

160 

159 

108 

10 

82 

40 

13 

96 

>, 10 



Memo Gray, 1839(?) 
MERRiiDAE Hedley, 1917 

Menya Recluz, 1 846 

Miccor^r^'i Thomson, 1875 ... 
midamus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 
Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 
mirabilis, Triaena, Tullberg, 1871 
Monroa Warren, 1904 
MoraAa Walker, 1870 
mulciber, Papilio, Cramer, 1777 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



227 



Najas Hiibner, US07] 

nama, Chaiida, Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 
Narica d'Orbigny (ex Recluz MS) 1842(?) 

NARiciDAE Recluz, 1846 

nalrix. Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820 
nebulosus, Hydrop/iorus, Fallen, 1823 
neptunus, Synalplieus (Dana, 1852) ... 

Nicodrilus Bouchc,1972 

niger, Sphex, Fabricius, 1775 
nigerrimus, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763 
nigricorne, Acridium, Burmeister, 1838 
nilssoni, Graplolitlius, Barrande, 1850 

Moma Gray, 1842 

Mom/a Gray, 1842 

Niona Paetel, 1887 

Nipponaphera Habe, \96l 
Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816] 

Nysso Latreille, 1 796 

Nysson Latreille, 1802-1803 ... 
NYSSONINAE Latreille, 1804 ... 



Page 

133 

69 

159 

160 

23 

118 

203 

30 

25 

25 

77 

7 

159 

159 

159 

38 

142 

217 

217 

217 



oW/i7ua, Lonom/a, Walker, 1855 

occidenlale, Apftyosemion, Stenholt Clausen, 

Oniscidia H. & A. Adams, 1853 

Onycholyda Takeucki, 1938 

Orthocera Modeer, 1789 

Orthocera Lamarck, 1799 

Orthocera }. Sowerby, 1812 

Orthocera Fleming, 1815 

Orthocera Blainville, 1828 

Orthoceras Bruguiere, 1789 

Orlhoceras Batsch, 1791 

Or/Aoccroj Spalovsky, 1795 

Orthoceras Schrank, 1796 

Orlhoceras Perry, 1811 

OrrAoceras Blainville, 1825 

Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831 

Orthoceras Phillips, 1836 

Orthoceras Balashov, 1956 

Or//iocerara Soldani, 1780 

Orthoceratia Soldani, 1791 

ORTHOCERATIDAE M'Coy, 1844 

Orthoceras Brunnich, 1771 ... 
ORTHOCEROTIDAE Tcichert & Miller, 1936 



1966 



206 
166 
3 
95 
142 
143 
143 
143 
143 
142 
142 
142 
142 
142 
142 
142 
142 
142 
143 
143 
142 
142 
143 



228 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 
Oscinella Becker, 1909 
Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 



Page 

134 
121 
102 



pallida, Embletonia, Alder & Hancock, 1854 
Patanga Uvarov, 1923 
paytensis, Anthus, Lesson, 1837 
pedestris, Mesops, Erichson, 1842 

PETROMYZONTIDAE, PETROMYZONIDAE Or PETROMYZIDAE 

P/i>'ro;)r(« Dujardin, 1851 
platei, Galaxias, Steindachner, 1898 
PLATYCHOEROPiDAE Lydekkcr, 1887. 
Platychoerops ChaxXssviovlh, 1855 . 
Platychoerops KJunzinger, 1 879 
PLESIADAPIDAE Trouessart, 1897 
Plesiadapis GeTvais, \Sn 
plumicornis, Gammarus, Costa, 1953 
/'n'a/7»/w.s Lamarck, 1816 
priapiis, Holothuria, Linnaeus, 1767 

ftec/m/ra Burr, 1903 

Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova, 1926 
Pseudoponlia Plotz, 1870 [Sep.] 
ftorfoi Treitschke, 1825 
P.yo/V/oj:Treitsche, 1825 
punctata. Anas, Burchell, 1822 
punctatus, Chaetodon, Linnaeus, 1758 
purpurata, Mutilla, Smith, 1879 



90, 138 

11 

71 

96 

198 

196 

88 

207 

201 

207 

207 

207 

15 

171 

171 

96 

182 

134 

21 

21 

173 

36 

82 



quadrifaria, Phalaena, Sulzer, 1776 ... 
quatuordecimlaminatus, Echeneis, Storer, 1839 



21 
76 



radicuh. Nautilus, Linnaeus, 1758 

regularis, Orthoceralites, Schlotheim, 1820 

/?e/io/y<?a Brown, 1827 

renominanda, Mimecomutilla, Bischoff, 1921 
rhinoides, Trypetes, Gyllenhal in Schoenherr, 1836 

RJiopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 

Rhopahim Stephens, 1 829 

richardsonii, Platychoerops, Charlesworth, 1855 
robustus, Eudyptes, Oliver, 1953 

Roloffia Stenholt Clausen, 1 966 

rotundata. Apis, Fabricius, 1795 

rubeta, Murex rana var., Linnaeus, 1758 ... 



142 
142 
193 

82 
151 

49 
219 
207 
136 
164 
190 

56 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



229 



sanctus, Cimex, Fabricius, 1775 

Sceplrophorus Foerster, 1856 

Schislodera Cohh, \920 

sclateri, Eiidyptes,Qu\\eT,\ii% 

5copto Hubner, [1819] 

sculata, Echinocorys, Leske, 1778 

scuTELLuiDAB Richtcr & Richter, 1955 

5cwre//«m Pusch, 1833 

serricornis, Moraba, Walker, 1870 

selosus, Gammarus, Dementieva, 1931 
sexdecimlamellata, Echeneis, Eydoux & Gervais, 

Siphona Meigen, 1803 

sjoestedli, Fimdulus, Lonnberg, 1895 
5'o/eno/'o/eiEnderlein, 1904... 
spetsbergensis, Gammarus, Vosseler, 1889 ... 
spinosus, Sphex, Forster, 1771 
spongites, Eschara, Pallas, 1776 

striata, Calyptraea, Gray, 1825 

striata, Calyptraea, Say, 1826 

StrigUna, Guenee, 1857 

5fy/o;>onia Levinsen, 1909 

succinctus, Grylltis Locusta, Linnaeus, 1 763 
Sylvius, Encyrtus, Dalman, 1820 



1838 



Page 

63 

108 

102 

136 

134 

17 

147 

147 

96 

48 

76 

157 

164 

45 

48 

217 

177 

100 

100 

61, 141 

177 

77 

108 



raruca Butler, [1888] 

terraereginae, Mus, Alston, 1879 
terrestris, Lumbricus, Linnaeus, 1758 

TVtt/Aw Linnaeus, 1766 

Tlialascaris Bate, IS7& 

Thienemann collection 

Trace fossils 

Trepsiclirois Huhner, \S16 

Jnaena Tullberg, 1871 

tricupola, Pseudaiiisaliis, Gibson, 1973 
tricuspidens, Plesiadapis, Gervais, 1877 
Trypeta Meigen, 1803 
To/Jerei Schoenherr, 1836 ... 
Trj/Jcf Ma Norman, 1903 
TRYPETiDiNAE Picrce, 1919 ... 
tunetamis, Gammarus, Simon, 1 885 . 
7"«m/a Jousseaume, 1881 

Ka/flH^a Uvarov, 1923 

valdani. Ammonites, d'Orbigny, 1844 
Kamcora Paetel, 1887 



27, 



32, 34, 



68 



19 

175 

132 

6 

169 

76 

69,70 

9 

40 
182 
207 
151 
151 
151 
151 

15 

56 

77 

23 

159 



230 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



VANicoRiDAE Gray, 1840 

Vanicoro Gray, 1842 

VANiKORiDAE Gray, 1840 
Vanikora Whitfield, 1 89 1 ... 
Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1 832 
KaniAroroa Cossmann, 1924 ... 
Vanikoroia Martin, 1914 
variabilis, Donax, Say, 1 822 . . . 
virginiensis, Pieris, Edwards, 1 870 
viriditibialis, Pamphilius, Takeuchi, 1930 
vitis, Phyloptus, Pagenstecher, 1857... 



Page 

160 
159 
159 
159 
159 
159 
159 
137 
92 
95 
196 



xylostella, Phalaena Tinea, Linnaeus, 1758. 



86 



zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838 



136 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



231 



NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 30 



Official List of Geneiic Names in Zoology 

Acaiuhopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900 
/l//eLink, 1807 
Anoplius Dufour, 1834 
Callopanchax Myers, 1933 
Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] 
Coscinocyaihus Bornemann, 1 884 
Delocriniis Miller & Gurley, 1890 
Echinocorys Leske, 1778 
Fundulopanchax Myers, 1924 
Haematobia Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 
Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 
Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816] 



Orthoceras Bruguiere, 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 
rry/ie/ei Schoenherr, 1836 
Valanga Uvarov, 1923 
Vmiikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 



Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 

aequicaiida, Carcinogammarus, 

Martynov, 1931 
alle, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758 
cancellatus, Sigaretus, Lamarck, 1822 
caudatus, Priapulus, Lamarck, 1816 
coslatum, 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 



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 Fierce, 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 Recluz MS) 
1842(?) 



Nioma Gray, 1842 
Niomia Gray, 1842 
Niona Paetel, 1887 
Orlhocera Modeer, 1789 
Orlhocera Lamarck, 1799 
Orthocera J. Sowerby, 1812 
Orlhocera Fleming, 1815 
Orthocera Blainville, 1828 
Orthoceras Batsch, 1791 



232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (contd.) 

Orthoceias SpaXowsky, 1795 Plautus Gunntru%, 1761 

Or//;ocerai Schrank, 1796 /"/()/;« Gunnerus, 1761 

Orthoceras Perry, 1811 Plaiitiis Brunnich, 1772 

Of//;of erai Blainville, 1825 /"jo/Vyoj Treilschke, 1825 

Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831 Rolojfia Stenholt Clausen, 1966 

Orthoceras PMWps, 1836 Thalascaris Bate, 1878 

Orthoceras Balashov, 1956 Vanicora Paetel, 1887 

Orthocerata Soldani, 1780 Vanicora Gray, 1842 

Orthoceratia Soldani, 1791 Vanikora Whitfield, 1891 

Orthoceras Brunnich, 1771 Vanikoroa Cossman, 1924 

Plaiitus Klein, 1760 Vanikoroia Martin, 1914 

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 

abessynicus, Cypselus, Streubel, 1848 phimicornis, Cammarus, Costa, 1853 

binotatiis. Ammonites, Oppel, 1862 priapus, Holothnria, Linnaeus, 1767 

humamis, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758 tunetamis, Gammarus, Simon, 1885 
natrix. Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820 

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 

BRONTEiDEs Hawle & Corda, 1847 orthocerotidae Teichert & Miller, 

MERRiiDAE Hedley, 1917 1936 

NARiciDAE Recluz, 1846 VANICORIDAE Gray, 1840 



7 - .1UU974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclaiure 233 



CORRIGENDA 



vol. 23: 



page 165. Title, line 1, & para. 2. line 1 : "1864" should read "1865" 
page 165. Para. 2, line 1 : 'page 58" should read "59" 
page 166. Para. 7, line 7: "pi. 183" should read "182" 



vol. 30: 

page 2. Line 25 : "Leucopsis" should read Leiicospis 

page 36. Line 2 from bottom; second use of drepanidae should read drepaneidae 

page 42. Title, line 1 : "eurystenms (Denny, 1842)" should read "eurysternus Denny, 

1842" 
page 76. Line 9 from bottom: "Hemming Lemche" should read "Henning Lemche" 
page 100. Line 15: Insert (after pi. 21r) "Jacobson & Emerson (1961, p. 151 with 

figure); Weisbord (1962, p. 218);" 
page 108. Line 6, and thereafter: "Thompson" should read "Thomson" 

Line 15: " Syphophagiis" should read " Syrphopliagus" 
page 109. Line 4, and thereafter: "recognized" should read "recognised" 



234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL 
PARTS IN WfflCH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED 

Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication 

(pages) 

1 1-64 6th July, 1973 

2 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. 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
A. The Honorary Life President 
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) 

B. The Members of the Trust 

The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.O., C.H. 

Mon. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. {Secretary and Managing 

Director) 
Dr. N. E. Hiclcin 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis 
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Mr. R. V. Melville 
Mr. N. D. RUey, C.B.E. 
Dr. N. R. Stoll 
Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 
Dr. G. F. de Witte 

C. The Officers of the Trust 
Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) 

CONTENTS 
(continued front front wrapper) 

Opinions Page 

Opinion 1003 (OrrAocez-fli Bruguiere, 1789) 142 

Opinion 1004 (scuTELLUiDAERichter&Richter, 1955) 147 

Opinion 1005 (7>>'p«aMeigen, 1803) 151 

Opinion 1006 (Poteriocrinus hemisphericus Shumurd, IS5S) .. .. .. 153 

Opinion 1007 (Coicmoc>'af/!«5 Bornemann, 1884) .. .. .. .. 155 

Opinion 1008 (Siphona Meigen, 1803 & Haemalobia Lepeletier & Serville, 1828) 157 

Opinion 1009 (Ka/!(Ao/-oQuoy&Gaimard, 1832) 159 

Opinion 1010 (CaZ/opo/icAflA: Myers, 1933) 164 

Opinion \0\\ (CypselusabessynicusS\KMh(A,\iAi) .. .. .. .. 167 

Opinion 1012 (JVia/a^fara Bate, 1878) 169 

Opinion 1013 (Priapus humanus Linnaeus, 1758 & Holothuria priapus Linnaues, 

1767) 171 

New and Revived Cases 

On the specific name of the Hottentot Teal (W. D. L. Ride) 173 

Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia): proposed validation under the 

plenary powers (W. D. L. Ride) .. .. .. 175 

Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): proposed designation of a neotype 

under the plenary powers (The late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B. 

Hastings) 177 

The type-species of the genus Pseudanisakis Layman and Borovkova, 1926 

(Nematoda) (D. I. Gibson) 182 

Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea, Jurassic), application to designate 

as lectotype a specimen other than that wrongly identified as the holotype 

(T. A. Getty) 185 

Apis rotundata Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed suppression 

of lectotype and designation of neotype in accord with Megachile rotundata 

auct. (R. B. Roberts) 190 

Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Foraminifera) proposal for suppression under the 

plenary powers (Richard W. Ponder) .. .. .. .. .. 193 



CONTENTS 

{continued from inside back wrapper) Page 

Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phyloptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina Eriophyoidea): 
proposal for designation, under the plenary powers, of type-species in 
harmony with current use. (V. G. Shevtchenko) 196 

Request for a ruling on the stem of family-group names based on the type- 
genus /'s^ro/nyzon Linnaeus, 1 758 (V. D. Vladykov) .. .. .. 198 

Establishment of a neotype for Pseudogeloius decorsei (I. Bolivar, 1905) 

(Insecta;Orthoptera; Pyrgomorphidae)(D. Keith McE. Kevan) .. .. 200 

Synalpheus neptunus (Dana, 1 852) ; neotype (A. H. Banner and D. M. Banner) . . 203 

Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Attacidae): proposed designation 

ofa type-species (Claude Lemaire) .. .. .. .. .. .. 205 

PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia): proposed suppression of 
family name under the plenary powers, together with validation of 
Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 (Mammalia) not Klunzinger, 1879 
(Pisces) (Philip D. Gingerich) 207 

"Gen.n., Sp.n." after 1930: is the generic name available? (Curtis Sabrosky) . . 210 

Proposed emendation to Nysson of the name Nysso Latreille, 1796 (Hymenop- 

tera, Sphecidae) (A. S. Menke, R. M. Bohart and O. M. Richards) . . 217 

Euplilis Risso, 1826 (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae): proposed suppression under 
the plenary powers in favour of Rhopalum Stephens, 1829 (A. S. Metike, 
R. M. Bohart and O. M. Richards) 219 

Comments 

Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype of Lumbricus terrestris 

Linnaeus, 1758 (P. Brinck) 132 

Comments on the case of Aglaja Renier (Mollusca) (Curtis Sabrosky; P.C. 

Sylvester-Bradley) 132 

Comments supporting the four outstanding requests affecting butterfly generic 

names (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (C. F. Cowan) . . .. .. 133 

Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Argiope 

J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842 for the purposes of the Law of 

Homonymy (R. V. Melville) . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 

Comments on the proposed preservation of Eudyples sclateri Buller, 1888 and 

Eudyples robustus (Oliver, 1953) (R. A. Falla, John Warham and C. A. 

Fleming) .. .. .. .. .. .. 136 

Comment on the specific name of the zebra or banded duicker (W. F. H. Ansell) 1 36 
Further comment on the valid emendation of -ii endings of patronjons 

(George C. Steyskal) 137 

Conmient on the application to validate Donax variabilis Say, 1822 under the 

plenary powers. (R. V. Melville) .. .. 137 

Comment on proposals for the amendment of Opinion 610 (Family-group 

names based on generic names having the stem drepan-) (R. V. Melville) . . 1 38 
Comment on the proposal to suppress Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826 (Michael J. 

Tyler) • 131 

Comment on the proposal to conserve the specific name pallida Alder and 

Hancock, 1854, as published in the binomen Embtetonia pallida (L S. 

Roginskaya) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 138 

Comment on the proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names 

in Zoology of iac/!f>'ma Sowerby (Mollusca) (E. Mayr) .. .. 140 

Comment on five cases, viz. Z.N.(S.) 1944, 1977, 1981, 1982, 2025 involving 

the suppression of an unused senior synonym (I. W. B. Nye) . . 141 



© 1974. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshiiv