Skip to main content

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats 


; SM beds ate 
Tbe 
}}} f Hi} 
i . Ni 
Peat ta Hit 
POG \ 


eA 
Pts 
iim 


_ 
. 
{ 
v ae 
iH] 
NK 
5) 


%& 


atl 
<pnie 


vee 


: Bt 
Bor 


ay] 


i 
ee 
te 


ie 


7 ot 
‘on 
ahh 
i \- 

on 
AL he 


- oe. eT » _ : L 
i PA) 4] 


PUM | BTN OF 


ie j 
ia 


ry 
at 


ab al dig Ai 


Ae 


\ 4 ae a 


“s% 


NOMENCLATUR 


ie Client Cina 


— 
a 


BUOED Hae SAG NOMENC LATU RE 


VOLUME 42 


THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


The Official Organ of 


THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


VOLUME 42 


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 
1985 


(All rights reserved) 


3% 


34. 10.00% a6. wita as! 
ae Ss AAUTAIS 213 MOM 


re mee es 
ew ¥ — yaad ae 
pag.) tee ee W OR ve cs 
LIT) et ea ; Lah 
fi /-_ Pr a | : > 
P< yt . 2 ts 
sy ont | 
3 ™ 
em) 4 4 ‘ 
- Ad Ta) 2 Sag oe HO vt | 


“ye MHOSsiiwroo JAMONTAMR 
y cad ano, eae 


oe aM usOv 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Notices prescribed by the International Congress of sities 

Special Announcements . : 

Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia). A. F. Stimson . . 

Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), W. Speidel. ) 

Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). R. W. Hodges; W. E. 
Miller; J. D. Bradley, W. G. Tremewan, K. Tuck & C. J. 
Hamilton. . ‘ 

Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Secretary 

On the proposed amendment to Article 51c of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature. J. C. Cokendolpher, O. F. Francke & 
D. Quintero Jn.. 

On the proposed amendment to Article 0b of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature. C. W. Wright : 

Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes).W.R.Taylor . . 

Opinion 1288. Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 

Opinion 1289. Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia, Cetacea) 

Opinion 1290. Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera). 

Opinion 1291. Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia) 

Opinion 1292. Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda) 

Opinion 1293. Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793 (insect, Hymen- 


optera). .-.. 
Opinion 1294. Fea ide Quatrefages, 1841 " (Coelenterata, 
Actiniaria) 


Opinion 1295. Actinia Ligiaene 1767, ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 
(Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta rebdgiat 1820 
(Echinodermata, Holothurioidea). . 

Opinion 1296. Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Bivalvia) . 

Opinion 1297. Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . 

Direction 116. PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . 

Direction 117. Correction of Entry No. 462 in the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology concerning Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 
(Mollusca, Bivalvia). (Correction to Opinion 94). . 

Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda, Vermetidae). A. Myra Keen & M. G. Hadfield . 

Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte 
(Aves). M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault . 

Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari). R. A. Norton . 

Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda). J. B. Jones . 3 

Description of new taxa based on enzyme data. J. E. Jelnes; R. Fortuner. 

Authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral enon of Great 
Britain. C. W. Wright & R.J.Cleevely . . 

Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda). The Secretary 

Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda). The Secretary 

Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (Cestoda) The Secretary. . 

Homonymy in the families HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) 
and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 naan: midccntiw J. G.M. 
Raven. 5 : Mirko. , shy’: 


Ill 


IV Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 
(Arachnida, Araneae).H.W.Levi . . 

Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Olpiidae). M. S. 
Harvey & V. Mahnert : 

Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria). W. R. Branch & D. i 
Broadley. . city 

Erigone Audouin, 1826 (Arthropoda, Araneae). A. F. Millidge . 

Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera). J.E.O’Hara . 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology 

Special Announcements . 

Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). G. Cc. D. Griffiths: 
R. Wharton; C. van Achterberg 

Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia). 'R. i” Cifelli: M. F. 
Sorias, 
Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (nsecta, Diptera, Simuliidae). I. M. 
Kerzhner; H. Zwick; J. E. Raastad; R. W. Crosskey. . 
Proposal to amend Article 70 of the Code. J. R. Vockeroth; K. ec A. 
Hamilton. . . ‘ or 

Opinion 1298. Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Acarina) we! 

Opinion 1299. Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brulle, 1835 Insecta, 
Coleoptera). . 4 

Opinion 1300. TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria) 

Opinion 1301. Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) 

Opinion 1302. Nabis ee Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, 
Nabidae). . . 

Opinion 1303. Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 
(Insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera). . . 

Opinion 1304. Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and Isis ochra- 
cea Linnaeus, 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa) . 

Opinion 1305. Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 and Lamprocabera Inoue, 
1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). . . 

Opinion 1306. Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 and Ledella Verrill & Bush, 
1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . . 

Opinion 1307. Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 
(Insecta, Coleoptera). . ’ 

Opinion 1308. Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : 

Opinion 1309. Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys ee 1835 
(Reptilia, Testudines). 

Opinion 1310. Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera) . 

Opinion 1311. Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hunger 
ford, 1930 (Insecta, Heteroptera). . : 

Opinion 1312. Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 

Opinion 1313. Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 and Emys cataspila, 
Gunther, 1885 (Reptilia, Testudines). . 3 

Opinion 1314. Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera). ; 

Opinion 1315. Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 and Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). . . 

Opinion 1316. Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 (Foraminifera) . 

Opinion 1317. Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Insecta, Protodonata) . . 

Opinion 1318. Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 and Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 
(Reptilia) (correction of ruling given in Opinion 92) . 5 ae 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Opinion 1319. Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . 

Opinion 1320. Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 and Manatus bomen 
Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883 (Mammalia, Sirenia) 

Opinion 1321. EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 and HYDRELLIIDAE 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) . . 

Opinion 1322. Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799, non Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) . 

Opinion 1323. Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera) 

Opinion 1324. Diademodon Seeley, 1894 and Cynochampsa Owen, 1859 
(Reptilia, Therapsida) . . 

Opinion 1325. Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 (Insecta, ‘Hemiptera, Heterop- 
tera)’ . © 

Opinion 1326. Cimex guadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemip- 
tera, Heteroptera). . : 

Opinion 1327. Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (Insecta, Trichoptera) 

Direction 118. ARGYNNIDAE, APATURIDAE and LIMENITIDINAE (Insecta, 
Lepidoptera) (corrections to entries in Official List) . 

Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] (Nematoda). The Secretary. : 

Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). The Secretary. 

Southernia Allgen, 1929 and Southernia Filipjev, 1927. The Secretary . 

Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): proposed con- 
servation by suppression of Entomobrya cavicola Banks, 1897. 
P.F. Bellinger . . 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology 

Special Announcements . 

On proposed amendment to Article 5c of the Code. B. C. Ratcliffe: ik R. 
Vockeroth; R. W. Crosskey and others. . 

Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926. K. G. A. Hamilton; 
M. Boulard; P.Lauterer. . . : 

Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870. D. Rosen xr : 

Chromis Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes). S. O. Kullander; A. R. Emery : 

HOLOTHUROIDEA. L. B. Holthuis .. = hte 

Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]. J. D. Bradley & K. Sattler : 

CAECILIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta. M. H. Wake. 

Opinion 1328. Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Coleoidea) . 

Opinion 1329. Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 Vote 
Galigidae) rt : 

Opinion 1330. Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Nematoda) . ; 

Opinion 1331. SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) 
and MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Insecta, Coleoptera). 

Opinion 1332. Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia australis 
(Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda) . . 

Opinion 1333. Ipnops murrayi Ginther, 1878 (Ostiechthyes). 

Opinion 1334. Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (Coleoptera) . 

Opinion 1335. Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera) 

Opinion 1336. Five specific names proposed for Heterodera A. Schmidt, 
1871 (Aschelminthes, Nematoda) by B. A. Cooper, 1955 . 

Opinion 1337. Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 as type species 
of Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida) . . 

Opinion 1338. Thrips rufus Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). 

Opinion 1339. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 


VI Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Opinion 1340. Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Arachnida, Araneae). 

Opinion 1341. Simulium amazonicum Goeldi (Insecta, Diptera). 

Opinion 1342. Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) 

Opinion 1343. Kinosternon alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980 and 
Kinosternon oaxacae, Berry & Iverson, 1980 (Reptilia, 
Testudines . 

Opinion 1344. Mayorella Schaeffer, "1926 given nomenclatural pre- 
cedence over Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (Rhizopoda, 
Amoebida) . . Sa Pe Peep eps eh 

Opinion 1345. Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, Sertularia volubilis 
Linnaeus, 1758 and Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 
(Coelenterata, Hydroida) , 

Opinion 1346. Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere crispata 
Brady, 1868 and Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 Cee 
Ostracoda) . . 

Opinion 1347. Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) . 

Opinion 1348. Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . 

Opinion 1349. Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827 and Anoa HEN 
Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . . . 

Opinion 1350. Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . 

Opinion 1351. Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) 

Opinion 1352. Eurhinus Sch6énherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): a i 
fied emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807 . . ‘ 

Opinion 1353. Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Hemiptera) . ; 

Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae). W. R. Dolling 

Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823; Cycloderes 
Sahlberg, 1823 and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 Insecta, 
Coleoptera). A. T. Howden. 

Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 (Mammalia, Chiroptera). i “de 
RoguinandC. Weber . . 

Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, Decapoda). ir B. 
Holthuis and R. B. Manning : F 

Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria). R. Ww. Seaton. 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology 

Special Announcements 2 eee: 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: General 
Meeting, Budapest, 2-6 September, 1985 

Financial Report for 1984 . ; 

Comment on proposed amendment of Article Tb of Code. Ww. ‘Dz > 
RIdewaan. erage 

Opinion 1354. Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1874 (Lepidoptera) 

Opinion 1355. Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda) . 

Opinion 1356. Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda) 

Opinion 1357. ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 and ANUROPODIDAE 
Stebbing, 1893 (Crustacea). . ihe 

Opinion 1358. Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 
(Insecta, Hemiptera) . 

Opinion 1359. UROPLAT- as the stem of family- -group | names in Reptilia, 
Sauria and Insecta, Coleoptera 

Opinion 1360. Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera) . 


269 


271 


274 
277 
279 


281 
283 
285 


287 
291 
293 


296 
302 
304 
306 
311 
312 


313 
323 


327 
330 
332 
335 
338 
341 


344 
347 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Opinion 1361. Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839 and Phalaena 
posticata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . 

Opinion 1362. Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 and Phalaena hirtata 
Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 

Opinion 1363. Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . 

Opinion 1364. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura) . 

Opinion 1365. Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera) . . 

Opinion 1366. Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . 

Opinion 1367. Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) 

Opinion 1368. Pan and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia, Carnivora) 

Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes). A.R. McCune. . . 

Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Cephalopholis sexmaculata 
(Rtippell, 1830) (Osteichthyes, Serranidae). J. E. Randall, M. L. 
Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia & P. C. Heemstra 

Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita). P. D. Lane . 

Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 and Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 
(Insecta, Thysanoptera). D. J. Brothers & L. A. Mound : 

HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 
(Insecta). M.C. Day . 3 

Request for ruling that French theses submitted for Docteur du Troisiéme 
Cycle are not published. G. C. Hewitt & V. Rousset . ‘ 

THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and THAIDIDAE 
Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae). P. T. Lehtinen 

Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790) (Insecta, See: Blateridae). 
M. Mroczkowski . . 

Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera). ED P. Nartshuk & R. 
Rozkosny . . 

Musca trilineata Linnaeus, ‘1767 (Insecta, Diptera). E: 'P. Nartshuk & R. 
Rozkosny : he 

Family names for the storm petrels and dippers. ig V. Melville. 

Index to Authors . father. 

List of Decisions in this volume : 

Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in . Decisions published i in this 
volume 

Index to Key Names. 

Corrigenda. . : 

Particulars of the dates of ‘publication of the several parts i in which the 
present volume was published . 

Instructions to Binder . 


Vil 


has nee cal od a Boe ile jtatiallvess 2p xt eg 
oo ie as sree. en a 


f ‘y r mda =) € = } x e 

4 ~ ears . ° as a 
4 s Z —* Sealy eas Wal 
7. 


a ere wail, 


- (sii x Pek. 2 ieee fatal ee 
, is he . ' atti: pS nd A it ed eG ’ 
: — . (gattcinpae’ Shs is dBi 


is 4 . 


; 
n 
1 
’ . 
’ 
, 
u ¢ 
vind 
i 4 
* 
-, 
o 
— ry 
t 
e : ‘ 
‘ » 4 * 
‘ all 
‘ 4 a Nhe peasants 3 ee 


r 
“2 BA se 


a { ALA, 4 3 
Sit). Rate nes 


yl tg Lae ‘yk, 


te i. s Fa “ vs fpardiis age ca Big 
piesa Limpert rs sh ape 


2 April 1985 Volume 42 Part 1 
pp. i-ii, 1-98 ISSN 0007-5167 


The Bulletin 
of Zoological 
Nomenclature 


The Official Organ of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


BRITISH MUSEUM 
(NATURAL HISTORY) 
2° APR 1985 


PURCHASED 
| ZOOLOGY LIBRARY | 


COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX 


The Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature 


Published by: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux 


On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o British Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 


. 
a 
q 
q 


Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent 
to: 


COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX 
FARNHAM ROYAL 
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. 


. 
: 
CENTRAL SALES : 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1985. 
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- 
duced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechan-— 
ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the 
prior permission of the copyright owner. 


THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of 
Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia). 

Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, 
Lund, Sweden). 

Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 SBD). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


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


Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) 
(30 September 1972) ( Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 

Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, 
Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; 
Asteroidea 

Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) 
(30 September 1972) Mollusca 

Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) ( Councillor) Crustacea 

Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 
75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 

Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, 
Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 

Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk. ul. 
Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 

Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 
Hamburg 13, Germany ) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced 
Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) 
(President): Mammalia: Recent and Fossil 

Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National 
Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) Diptera 

Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 
September 1976) Reptilia: E D P Methods 

Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 
Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 

Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 
Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) 
Parasitology 

Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 

Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) (Councillor) Octocorallia; Systematics 

Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, 
U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 


il 


Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 
SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 

Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 

Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of 
Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 

Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 
SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda 

Mr. David HEPPELL, (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 
Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca 

Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 
249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology 

Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, 
A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari 

Dr. SHUN-ICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 
Hyakunincho 3-23-1, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) 
Entomology 

Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucumdan, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 
Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical 
Hymenoptera 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Members of the Trust 
Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) 
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) 
Prof. Per Brinck 
Prof. J.H. Callomon 
Prot.©.Ba@ox 
Mr. D. Curry 
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 
Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. 
Prof. J. Forest 
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 
Dr. G.C. Gruchy 
Dr. R.H. Hedley, F.I.Biol. 
Dr. L.B. Holthuis 
Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Dr. M. Luc 
Dr. I.W.B. Nye 
Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. 
Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) 
Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. 
Dr. G.B. White 
Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for the Royal Society) 


B. The Officers of the Trust 
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller ) 
Mr. ME. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) 
Mr. J.D.D. Smith (Administrator) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 | 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 42, part | (pp. i-ii, 1-98) 2 April 1985 
NOTICES 


(a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circumstances the 
Commission may start to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each appli- 
cation. 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 (any marked with an asterisk 
involve the application of Articles 23b and 79b): 


(1) Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda, VERMETIDAE): proposed suppression 
of two equivocal generic names. Z.N.(S.) 2340. A. Myra 
Keen & M. G. Hadfield. 

*(2) Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus 
Bonaparte, 1855 (Aves): proposed conservation by the sup- 
pression of Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829. Z.N.(S.) 2277. 
M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault. 

(3) Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari): misidentifi- 
cation of the type species Notaspis humeralis Hermann, 1804. 
Z.N.(S.) 2374. R. A. Norton 

*(4) Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed 
conservation by the suppression of Pseudoclavella Bassett- 
Smith, 1898. Z.N.(S.) 2390. J. B. Jones. 

(5) The description of new taxa on enzyme data: a matter for 
discussion. Z.N.(S.) 2458. J. E. Jelnes; R. Fortuner. 

(6) Authorship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral Conchology 
of Great Britain. Z.N.(S.) 2483. C. W. Wright & R. J. 
Cleevely. 

(7) Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda): proposed desig- 
nation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 1156. The Secretary. 

(8) Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda): proposed confir- 
mation of entry on the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 1157. The 
Secretary. 


(9) 


(10) 


(11) 


(12) 


*(13) 


(14) 


(15) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (Cestoda): proposed con- 
firmation of entry on Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2498. The 
Secretary. 

Homonymy in the families HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 
1847 (Trilobita) and HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2331. J. G. M. Raven. 

Argyrodes Simon, 1864, and Robertus O. Pickard- 
Cambridge, 1879 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conserv- 
ation by the suppression of Argyrodes Guénée, 1845 and 
Ctenium Menge, 1871. Z.N.(S.) 1481. H. W. Levi. 

Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, 
Olpiidae): proposed designation of type species and related 
problems. Z.N.(S.) 2484. M.S. Harvey & V. Mahnert. 
Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conserv- 
ation by the suppression of Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, 
Z.N.(S.) 2377. W. R. Branch & D. G. Broadley. 

Erigone Audouin, 1826 (Arthropoda, Araneae): proposed 
designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2480. A. F. Millidge. 
Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposal 
to designate type species and neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2491. J. E. 
O’Hara. 


(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications 
have been received since the publication of vol. 41(4) on 30 November 1984 
(any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b and 


79(b): 


(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 
(5) 
(6) 


Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823; 
Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823; and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to maintain current usage. 
Z.N.(S.) 2490. A. T. Howden. 

Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to 
designate type species. Z.N.(S.) 2492. E. G. Riley. 

Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposal 
to stabilise the nomenclature. Z.N.(S.) 2493. P. F. S. 
Cornelius & C. Ostman. 

Micronecta meridionalis (Costa, 1860) (Insecta, Heteroptera): 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2494. A. Jansson. 
Napomyza Haliday, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposal to 
validate type species. Z.N.(S.) 2495. G. C. D. Griffiths. 
HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and 
HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): pro- 
posal to resolve problem of homonymy of family group 
names. Z.N.(S.) 2496. M. C. Day. 


(7) 


(8) 


(9) 


(10) 


(11) 


(12) 


(13) 


(14) 


*(15) 


(16) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 3 


Proposal that French theses submitted for the degree of 
Docteur du 3° cycle do not constitute publication. Z.N.(S.) 
2497. G. C. Hewitt & V. Rousset. 

Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminifera): proposed conserv- 
ation by the suppression of Florilus de Montfort, 1808 and 
Nonionina d@’Orbigny, 1826. Z.N.(S.) 2499. F. T. Banner. 
Sabella Linnaeus, 1767 and _ Bispira Kroyer, 1856 
(Polychaeta): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 
2500. P. Knight-Jones. 

Proposed amendment to 3rd Edition of Code: types of taxa 
whose names are junior synonyms. Z.N.(S.) 2501. D. 
Heppell. 

Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera): proposed conserv- 
ation by suppression of Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808. 
Z.N.(S.) 2502. F. T. Banner. 

Eugynothrips’ Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, Thrysanoptera, 
Phlaeothripidae): proposed designation of type species. 
Z.N.(S.) 2503. D. J. Brothers & L. A. Mound. 

Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminifera): proposed conser- 
vation. Z.N.(S.) 2504. F. T. Banner. 

Cidaris clavigera Konig in Mantell, 1822 (Echinoidea, 
Cidaroidea): proposed designation as type species of Tylo- 
cidaris Pomel, 1883. Z.N.(S.) 2505. C. W. Wright & A. B. 
Smith. 

Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (Hymenoptera, Braconidae): 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2506. J. B. Whitfield. 
Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 
2507. Th. C. M. Kemperman & H. E. Coomans. 


SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 


GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATIONS TO THE COMMISSION 


The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is the official publication 
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It is 
published 4 times a year (in April, June, September and December) by 
the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux on behalf of the International 
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Applications to the Commission are 
published in the Bulletin. Time is then given for comments to be received, 
published and considered before the Commission votes for or against the 
proposals in an application. The Commission’s final decision is published in 
the Bulletin in the form of an Opinion. 


a Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


These guidelines have been prepared for the benefit of zoologists 
preparing applications to the Commission. They are not intended to be 
restrictive and cannot cover all situations. 

Applications should be prepared in accordance with the Inter- 
national Code of Zoological Nomenclature (3rd Edition: published 
February 1985). Particular attention should be paid to the 
principles for use of the Commission’s plenary powers (Article 79). 


Title should indicate the main names concerned. When the appli- 
cation is for the conservation of one name by the suppression of 
another, the name to be conserved should precede that to be sup- 
pressed. The class and order should be given in the title. For 
example: 
DELPHINUS TRUNCATUS MONTAGU, 1821 (MAM- 
MALIA, CETACEA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION 
BY SUPPRESSION OF DELPHINUS NESARNACK 
LACEPEDE, 1804 


Author(s) Name(s) and Address(es) should be listed and the 
address(es) underlined. 


Text should consist of a series of numbered paragraphs setting out 
the case and leading up to the request to the Commission. The 
advantages (and any disadvantages) of the request should be 
spelled out. References in the text should be attributed to 
individual pages of the publications. 


A case to suppress a name on the grounds that it has not been used 
as a senior synonym of a name in general current usage should be 
supported by a list of 10 publications by at least 5 different authors 
over the last 50 years in which the junior synonym has been applied 
to a particular taxon as its valid name. The individual page 
references should be given. 


The final paragraph of the text should be framed along the follow- 
ing lines, as appropriate: 
‘The International Commission on Zoological Nomencla- 
ture is accordingly asked: 
(1) to use the plenary powers to..... 
(2) to place on the Official List... .. 
(3) to place on the Official Index..... d 


References should start with the author’s name in capital letters, 
followed by the year of publication and the title of the paper in full. 
In the titles of papers, capital letters should be used only for proper 
nouns and for all nouns in German. The name of the journal 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 5 


should be given in full and underlined. Series number, volume 
number, part or fascicule number, pagination and plate and figure 
numbers should be given in arabic figures. The title of books 
should be underlined and followed by the number of pages and 
plates, and the publisher and place of publication. When a 
reference has been translated or transliterated, the original lan- 
guage should be stated in square brackets at the end. References 
should be provided for all publications mentioned in the text, 
including particularly those in which the names included in the 
formal proposal to the Commission were established. Example of 
reference: 
WISE, K. A. J. 1957. A new species of Lithocolletis 
(Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) from New Zealand. 7; he 
Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London. 
Series B, Vol. 26, parts 1-2, pp. 26-28, pl. 2, fig. 1. 


Applicants should consult recently published parts of the Bulletin 
and construct their applications in accordance with practices used 
there. The Secretariat can provide specimen copies of applications 
and is willing to offer advice at an early stage in the preparation of 
an application. 


Applications should be typed in double spacing and submitted in 
duplicate to: 
The Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o British Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road 
London SW7 5BD, U.K. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
February 1985 


6 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF HYLA LACTEA 
DAUDIN, 1803 Z.N.(S.)2341 
(see vol. 41, pp. 122-124) 


By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD) 


The object of this petition by Lynch & Duellman to suppress Hyla lactea 
Laurenti appears to be threefold: to conserve Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis (Daudin, 
1803), to validate Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838 and to conserve Sphaenorhynchus 
lacteus (Daudin, 1803). The first has my full support, the second I consider 
unnecessary and the third I strongly oppose. 

Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis is widely used and the only name currently in 
use for the species. To replace it with Hyla lactea Laurenti, 1768, a name virtually 
unused in the last 200 years and whose identity is open to doubt, would certainly not 
be in the best interests of stability. I therefore agree that H. /actea Laurenti should 
be suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority. 

Lynch & Duellman state that the currently used generic name Sphaenorhyn- 
chus Tschudi is invalid because its type species is a junior primary homonym. I 
can find nothing in the Rules to suggest that homonymy of its type species in any 
way affects the validity or availability of a nominal genus. Thus no action by the 
Commission is needed to conserve Sphaenorhynchus. Its type species should be cited 
as Hyla lactea Daudin, an invalid senior subjective synonym of Sphaenorhynchus 
eurhostus Rivero. 

The third objective of Lynch & Duellman’s petition is to conserve the specific 
name Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803, a junior primary homonym of Ayla lactea 
Laurenti, 1768. With this I cannot agree. A search of the literature reveals that there 
has been little stability of nomenclature as far as this species is concerned. Hyla 
aurantiaca Daudin, 1803, was in general use until 1961 when Rivero (Bull. Mus. 
comp. Zool., Hary. vol. 126, p. 137) indicated that it was a junior primary homonym 
of Hyla aurantiaca Laurenti, 1768. During the next few years Hyla lactea Daudin 
enjoyed a brief resurrection until Rivero (Copeia, 1969, p. 701) pointed out that this 
name too was preoccupied and proposed Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus (nom. nov. pro 
Hyla aurantiaca Daudin). In all, I found 25 references to this species published in the 
last SO years. Of these, 12 use aurantiaca (the latest in 1970) and 3 use Jactea 
(between 1961 and 1966). Since 1969 there have been 10 uses of eurhostus. To the 
best of my knowledge this last is the only name currently in use and includes among 
its users both Lynch and Duellman. My search of the literature may not have been 
exhaustive but I find it difficult to believe that I have overlooked sufficient references 
to change the picture significantly. To use the plenary powers to overthrow a cur- 
rently accepted name in favour of a little used one is surely unthinkable. I therefore 
totally oppose the proposal to suppress Hy/a /actea Laurenti for the purposes of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

Finally, I see that Lynch & Duellman do not cite 10 publications by at least 5 
different authors during the last 50 years in which the name Phyllomedusa hypocon- 
drialis is used as a senior synonym (Art. 79b). These authors should be asked to sup- 
ply this information. When this has been done, I suggest the Commission be asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name /actea Laurent, 
1768, as published in the combination Hyla lactea, for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 a 


(2) asin Lynch & Duellman. 

(3) to place the specific name eurhostus Rivero, 1969, as published in 
the combination Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus, on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) to place the generic name Sphaenorhynchus Tschudi, 1838 (gender: 
masculine, type species by monotypy, Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803, a 
junior primary homonym of Ayla lactea Laurenti, 1768, and an 
invalid senior subjective synonym of Sphaenorhynchus eurhostus 
Rivero, 1969) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES FOR 
NYMPHULA SCHRANK, 1802. Z.N.(S.)2384 
(see vol. 39, pp. 209-212) 


By W. Speidel (Gerwigstrasse 18, D-7500 Karlsruhe 1, West Germany) 


I support the application of Fletcher & Nye, 1982, concerning the species 
best known as Nymphula stagnata (Donovan, 1806). 

In 1793 Hubner first published a figure of this species under the name 
Phalaena potamogalis. Unfortunately, this was a misidentification of Phalaena 
potamogalis [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, which is an unjustified emendation of 
Phalaena (Geometra) potamogata Linnaeus, 1758, a completely different species 
now considered to be synonymous with Phalaena (Geometra) nymphaeata 
Linnaeus, 1758. 

When Schrank described his genus Nymphula, he included a species potamo- 
galis in the sense of Hubner, 1793 and 1796 and it was this species that Moore, 1887, 
cited as the type species of the genus. The valid specific name for this species is 
stagnata Donovan, 1806, and Fletcher & Nye were quite right to ask the Commis- 
sion to designate that species as the type species of Nymphula. This corresponds with 
Schrank’s and Moore’s concept of the genus. 

Account must, however, be taken of Phalaena nitidulata [Hufnagel], 1767 
(pp. 618-619) from the vicinity of Berlin, which was placed in the synonymy of 
Nymphula nymphaealis Treitschke, 1829, non [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 by 
Treitschke. This is the same species as Phalaena stagnata Donovan. The description 
by [Hufnagel] strongly supports Treitschke’s interpretation: ‘Phalaena nitidulata, 
Der Wasservogel. Schneeweiss mit einigen irregularen hellbraunen Zeichnungen. 
Aufenthalt der Phalane bei Gewdssern im Grase. Zeit der Phalane Julius und 
August. Grosse der Phalane von der dritten. Selten.’ [Hufnagel] also described 
Phalaena nymphaeata as being ‘of the third size’, which was his way of giving 
the relative size of each species. We cannot be completely sure of the identity of 
{Hufnagel’s] species except by reference to Treitschke’s interpretation. 

In order to avoid any confusion, and to conserve a well-known name, I ask 
the Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nitidulata 
[Hufnagel], 1767, as published in the binomen Phalaena nitidulata, for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 


8 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 


[HUFNAGEL], 1767. Fortsetzung der Tabelle von den Nachtvégeln, welche die 3te 
Art derselben, nehmlich die Spannenmesser (Phalaenas Geometras Linnaei) 
enthalt. Berlinisches Mag., vol. 4 (6), pp. 599-626. 

SPEIDEL, W. 1983. The Acentropinae (Lepidoptera Crambidae) from Spain and 
Portugal. SHILAP Revta lepid., vol. 11, pp. 83-86. 

TREITSCHKE, F. 1829. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 7. Leipzig, 252 pp. 

MOORE, F. 1884-1887. The Lepidoptera of Ceylon, vol. 3. London, 578 pp., pls 
144-215. 


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF LASPEYRESIA 
HUBNER, [1825]. Z.N.(S.)2421 
(see vol. 41, pp. 110-113) 


(1) By R. W. Hodges (Systematic Entomology Lab USDA, c/o U.S. National 
Museum, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.) 


The following view of Dr Kuznetsov and Dr Kerzhner’s case for the suppres- 
sion of Cydia Hiibner, [1825] is given for the Commission’s consideration before a 
decision is taken: 

1. Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] is a junior homonym of Laspeyresia R.L., 
1817; 

2. The oldest synonym of Laspeyresia Hiibner [1825] is Cydia Hubner, 
[1825]; 

3. Cydia Hubner, [1825] is the valid replacement name for Laspeyresia 
Hubner, [1825], based on priority. This argument was used and fol- 
lowed by Bradley, 1972 and others as indicated in paragraph 8 of 
Kuznetsov & Kerzhner’s statement; 

4. Other arguments have little relevance for the future. Either decision will 
cause some workers difficulty; however, the decision based on priority, 
the basic principle of the Code, provides for stability of nomenclature. 

The following point, though not germane to my argument, should be signifi- 
cant to the Commission: four checklists (Bradley, 1972 in Kloet & Hincks, Check- 
list of British Insects, pt 2, Lepidoptera; Léraut, 1980, Liste systématique et 
synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique et Corse; Powell, 1983 in Hodges, 
Checklist of Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico; and Powell, in press, in 
Heppner, Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, Checklist, part 1) that treat a significant 
part of the world’s lepidopteran fauna use Cydia Hiibner, [1825] as the valid name 
and cite Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] as a junior homonym of Laspeyresia R.L., 


1817. 
I strongly urge the Commission not to suppress Laspeyresia R.L., 1817. 


(2) By William E. Miller (University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, 
U.S.A.) 


As an active tortricidologist, I should like to comment on the proposal by 
Kuznetsov & Kerzhner to conserve Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] by suppressing 
Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 and Cydia Hiibner, [1825]. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 “) 


The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, as I understand it, 
requires that Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] be rejected in favour of Laspeyresia R.L., 
1817 because of priority and homonymy. The proposal argues that applying the 
Code would cause the loss of the name Laspeyresia for a genus of common and 
important moths. The proposal cites relative counts of usage of the several pertinent 
names in Entomology Abstracts between 1974 and 1978, showing that Laspeyresia 
was the dominant name in that period. 

I believe that stable nomenclature is best served when the Code is overriden 
only for reasons of unusual merit. It seems to me that the issue before the Commis- 
sion comes down to how compelling the case is for conserving Laspeyresia. The 
argument that current usage of Laspeyresia dominates is greatly weakened when the 
usage figures in the same source are updated to the present. Thus, in Entomology 
Abstracts between January 1979 and July 1984 I count 130 uses of Cydia to only 56 
of Laspeyresia. This shows a reversal of the trend cited in the proposal and shows 
that usage of Laspeyresia is rapidly declining in favour of Cydia. 

In conclusion, I see little reason why the Commission should exercise its 
plenary powers as requested by the proposers. 


(3) By J. D. Bradley (formerly of the British Museum (Natural History) and of the 
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), W. G. Tremewan, K. Tuck 
(British Museum (Natural History), London) and C. J. Hamilton (Commonwealth 

Institute of Entomology, London) 


With reference to the proposal to suppress Cydia Hubner, [1825] in favour of 
Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825], we offer the following comments for consideration by 
the Commission: 

(1) Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (TORTRICIDAE) is a junior homonym of 
Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 (NOCTUIDAE) as stated by Nye, 1975, Generic 
Names of Moths of the World, vol. 1, p. 269; 

(2) The first available replacement name for Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] is 
Cydia Hubner, [1825]; 

(3) Cydia Hubner, [1825], with Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] as a synonym, 
was used in 1972 in the revised Kloet & Hincks Checklist of British 
Insects part 2, Lepidoptera. The synonymy has since been absorbed 
without dissent in the world taxonomic and applied (economic) 
entomological literature. Cydia is accepted as the valid name in current 
western European, North American, Japanese and Indo-Australian 
faunal lists and other publications, as shown in the attached tabulation 
based on a computer search at the library of the Commonwealth 
Institute of Entomology by one of us (C.J.H.); 

(4) The use of Cydia in place of Laspeyresia is now well established and 
appears to have caused negligible disruption. 

We urge the Commission not to suppress Laspeyresia R.L., 1817 but to 
uphold the Principle of Homonymy and thus maintain present stability. 


CYDIA versus LASPEYRESIA 
Bibliometric data obtained by an online search of the agricultural entomology 
subfile of the CAB Abstracts computer database, covering the world literature 
abstracted from January 1973 to April 1984 inclusive. 


10 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


Soviet (%) Non-Soviet (%) Total 
Laspeyresia 63 (9-0) 635 (91-0) 698 
Cydia 219 (14-0) 1345 (86-0) 1564 
Laspeyresia and/or Cydia 220 (14-0) 1347 (86-0) 1567 
Laspeyresia and Cydia 62 (8-9) 633 (91-1) 695 
Laspeyresia not Cydia 1 (33-3) 2 (67-7) 3 
Cydia not Laspeyresia 157 (18-1) 712 (81-9) 869 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ZYGAENA 
ANTHYLLIDIS BOISDUVAL, [1828]. Z.N.(S.)2442 
(see vol. 41, pp. 73-76) 


Support for the proposals put forward by Naumann & Tremewan has been 
expressed by: Professor E. Aistleitner (Paddagogische Akademie, Feldkirch, Austria), 
Dr B. Alberti (Mengershausen, Germany), Dr J. S. Dabrowski (Cracow), Dr P. 
Léraut (Bonneuil-sur-Marne, France), J. J. de Freina (Munich), Dr M. R. Gomez 
Bustillo (SHILAP, Madrid), A. Hofmann (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Germany), H. 
Holzinger (Vienna), Dr T. Racheli (Universita degli Studi, Rome), Dr G. Reiss 
(Stuttgart), Dr G. Tarmann (Tiroler Landskundliches Museum, Innsbruck), H. de 
Toulgoét (Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris), Dr K.-H. Wiegel (Munich), 
W. Wipking (University of Cologne) and T. J. Witt (Munich). 

Among these, Dr Reiss makes the following points: (1) Zygaena anthyllidis 
Boisduval, [1828] has been the name exclusively used for over 150 years; (2) 
Boisduval’s description and illustrations are exceptionally accurate, as is his men- 
tion of the type locality; (3) to introduce Zygaena erebus Meigen, 1829 now would 
cause great confusion, not only because the type locality is not accurately known, 
but because of other uncertainties surrounding the name. 

R. V. MELVILLE 


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONCERNING 
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 
ARTICLE Slc. Z.N.(S.)2474 
(see vol. 41, pp. 149-150) 


(1) By James C. Cokendolpher (Department of Entomology, Texas Tech University, 
Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A.), Oscar F. Francke (Department of Biological 
Sciences, Texas Tech University), and Diomedes Quintero Jr. (Museo de 
Invertebrados, Universidad de Panama, Estafeta Universitaria, Panama) 


We are opposed to the proposed amendment by Gagné et al., 1984, to delete 
Article 5lc from the third edition of the Code. Their arguments that: (a) new 
combinations are in the majority, (b) the use of parentheses is expensive and time 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 11 


consuming, and (c) parentheses are superfluous and serve a negligible purpose in 
nomenclature, are at best weak and unsubstantiated and do not justify the deletion. 

First, nominal taxa of some groups such as certain families of Diptera might 
indeed approach having 100% new combinations, but certainly this is not the case 
in many groups: for example, only 99 of 355 (28%) Scorpiones from the Ethiopian 
region (Lamoral & Reynders, 1975), 25 of 50 (50%) Palpigradi (Rowland & Sissom, 
1980), and 14 of 54 (26%) of the New World Schizomida (Rowland & Reddell, 
1978) are recombinations. 

Second, typesetting of parentheses is no more expensive than using periods 
after abbreviations (e.g., II B III, versus I.I.B.I.1.I., or USDA versus U.S.D.A.) or 
accent marks (e.g., Gagné) because typesetting is charged by the keystroke. The use 
of italics in scientific names is considerably more expensive than the parentheses in 
question, and we are glad that Gagné et al. are not also proposing elimination of 
that rule. If The Insect Identification and Beneficial Insect Introduction Institute 
(=II B III) branch of the SEA, AR, USDA checks all insect names, including spell- 
ings of the taxa and the author’s names, we cannot imagine how the parentheses 
would require that much more time or effort. The alleged expense and complications 
arising during computerised retrieval of names might depend on the program used, 
but the software packages we are familiar with enable retrieval of an author’s name 
whether it is used with or without parentheses, or both. 

Third, for certain groups of organisms such as Palaearctic Diptera and 
U.S.A. Hymenoptera, recent synoptic and synonymic catalogues exist. Any com- 
petent zoologist can look up a specific epithet in those catalogues and easily know 
its nomenclatural history. Under these circumstances, and provided one has ready 
access to such catalogues, the information otherwise conveyed by the parentheses 
around an author’s name can be easily retrieved. In other groups, such as the 
arachnid orders Opiliones, Scorpiones, and Amblypygi in which we specialise, 
respectively, there are few catalogues and those offer limited geographical coverage. 
In other groups, and undoubtedly all those other animal taxa which remain 
uncatalogued, the information conveyed by the parentheses is critical. If the authors 
of Z.N.(S.)2474 had ever had to search through the Zoological Record, and some 
earlier catalogues, to retrieve the published literature on a given specific name they 
would certainly have acquired an appreciation for the ‘non-superfluous’ nomen- 
clatural information conveyed by the use of parentheses. If there are no parentheses 
one can initially restrict the search to a more general level of indexing, i.e., generic 
names; if there are parentheses then one must search at a less general level of index- 
ing, i.e., that of specific names! What if the specific name has been transferred from a 
masculine combination (e.g., californicus) to a feminine one (e.g., californica); can 
one rely on an index to search the literature? Are Protophthalmus jenseni Lawrence 
and Opistophthalmus jenseni Lawrence different species of scorpion? If not, under 
which binominal combination will the original description be found? Of course, 
the ‘negligible’ information conveyed by O. jenseni (Lawrence) gives us a strong 
indication about the nomenclatural history of that nominal taxon. 

If the information conveyed by parentheses ‘is of no interest to the writers or 
readers’ as stated by Gagné er al., why then assume they are interested in the 
author’s name? Many journals devoted to non-taxonomical studies of insects do not 
require the use of authors’ names when listing specific taxa. 

Perhaps some non-taxonomical zoologists fail to appreciate the amount of 
critical nomenclatural information conveyed by the use of parentheses, but that 
does not mean that parentheses do not serve a useful function. For the reasons given 
above we oppose the deletion of Article 51c. We also oppose the reduction of this 


12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


article to a recommendation. If the use or disuse of parentheses is reduced to a 
recommendation, confusion will result. The deletion of the date from the citation of 
a specific name does not convey any particular information, but the deletion of 
parentheses can be misinterpreted to represent a specific name in its original 
combination. 


REFERENCES 


LAMORAL, B. & REYNDERS, S. 1975. A Catalogue of the scorpions described 
from the Ethiopian region. Ann. Natal Mus., vol. 22, pp. 489-576. 

ROWLAND, J. M. & REDDELL, J. R. 1979. The Order Schizomida (Arachnida) 
in the New World. I. Protoschizomida and dumitrescoae group 
(Schizomidae, Schizomus). J. Arachnol., vol. 6, pp. 161-196. 

ROWLAND, J. M. & SISSOM, W. D. 1980. Report on a fossil Palpigrade from the 
Tertiary of Arizona, and a review of the morphology and systematics of the 
order (Arachnida, Palpigradida). J. Arachnol., vol. 8, pp. 69-86. 


(2) By Gerhard Hahn (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitédts-Gebiet 
Lahnberge, D-355 Marburg (Lahn), BRD 


I do not agree with the proposal of Drs Gagné, Thompson and Knutson. 
Parentheses are a useful indication and I have never found them ‘expensive and time 
consuming’, neither in preparing my Fossilium Catalogus on Carboniferous and 
Permian trilobites, nor in preparing my volume on multituberculates. Article 5lc 
should stay unchanged, in my opinion. 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 70b 
Z.N.(S.)2477 
(see vol. 41, pp. 156-158) 


By C. W. Wright (The Old Rectory, Seaborough, near Beaminster, Dorset DT8 30 Y 
U.K.) 


I do not believe that the illegal behaviour by entomologists that Sabrosky 
seeks to justify by amending the Code does, as he asserts, maintain stability and 
universality of nomenclature, since any subsequent author may well find reasonable 
grounds for disagreeing with some of the assumptions behind the behaviour. 
Moreover the notion of recognition of the species actually involved seems to me of 
doubtful validity and unlikely to produce stability. 

2. If an author Smith establishes a new genus X-us with designated type 
species A-us b-us Jones and in the same work describes as X-us b-us (Jones) certain 
specimens now held not to belong to that species, it does not necessarily mean that 
he has misidentified the type species of X-us; he may have misidentified his speci- 
mens as A-us b-us Jones, quite a different matter, or, commonly, he is less of a 
splitter than later authors who take the view that his described specimens represent a 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 13 


new species. He may very well genuinely have wished Jones’s A-us b-us to be the type 
species. 

3. Sabrosky’s proposal recalls the case of Calycoceras Hyatt, 1900, dealt 
with in Opinion 557. Hyatt had designated as type species of his new genus a nom- 
inal species that he attributed to an author who had wrongly described specimens as 
identical with the species described by the original author of the specific name. I had 
asked the Commission to rule that the nominal species of the original author should 
be the type. Commissioner Mayr argued that it was important that ‘the zoological 
concept which the author of a new taxon has for its type be regarded by subsequent 
authors’. He also referred to the ‘erroneous belief of many authors that a name is the 
type of a genus and not a zoological object’. Fortunately the Commission, Mayr 
and two others dissenting, agreed to the terms of the application. Of course a name 
as such is not the type of a genus, but no more is a zoological object; the type is a 
nominal species. Any attempt to replace this notion with that of zoological object or 
even zoological concept can only, in my view, lead to permanent confusion. 

4. Suppose that a subsequent author, faced with the situation in para 2 
above, believes that both A-us b-us Jones and three other species included by Smith 
in X-us are congeneric but that the specimens described, wrongly, by Smith as X-us 
b-us (Jones) in fact belong to a different genus. Here, if we followed Sabrosky’s 
interpretation of ‘the species actually involved’ we could well be running counter to 
‘the zoological concept’ of Smith. One can easily imagine several other types of 
confusion that could arise if the only objective criterion, the species named by the 
designator, is abandoned. 

5. My response to the Secretary’s appeal, therefore, is to argue that Article 
70b is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice and should be expunged. If, 
however, a majority of zoologists cannot accept the simple and logical rule that the 
type of a genus is a nominal species designated by the original or a subsequent 
author, and still hanker after the idea that it is a specimen or a zoological concept, 
then Article 70b might be redrafted as follows: 

(b) If a person considers that the author of a genus incorrectly identified 
specimens with the nominal species that he designated as type species, 
or that he included, and which was subsequently so designated, and if 
the genus has subsequently been widely interpreted as if the type were 
the nominal species to which the misidentified specimens belong, the 
person is to continue to regard as type species the designated nominal 
species, but may, if he believes that serious instability of nomenclature 
would be caused by maintenance of the designated type species, apply 
to the Commission to, etc. 

6. Article 70b has already moved too far from principle. It would be deplor- 
able if improper behaviour such as that quoted in para 3 of Sabrosky’s proposal 
were to be validated. The type of a genus is a nomenclatural concept, not a zoologi- 
cal one. Hence it is right that the ‘meaning’ of a genus depends on a nomenclatural 
concept of which the type species is the name-bearer. The ‘meaning’ of a genus 
should not be treated as the zoological concept that Sabrosky and Crosskey think 
that an author had in mind when he designated a (nominal) type species, and also 
described species that he then held to be congeneric; it is this notion that can lead, at 
least potentially, to variable results and hence to instability. 

7. While the nomenclatural concept is objective, in accordance with the coll- 
ective provisions of the Code, the zoological concept is subjective and therefore 
variable and cannot be pinned down by the Code. Only the type concept plus the 
definition of nominal taxon give hope of stability. 


14 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL CONCERNING BAGRUS BOSC, 1816, 
WITH REQUESTS TO PLACE BAGRE CLOQUET, 1816 ON THE OFFICIAL 
LIST AND TO SUPPRESS PORCUS GEOFFROY SAINT-HILAIRE, 1808 
Z.N.(S.)2371 
(see vol. 40, pp. 167-172) 


By William R. Taylor (National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC 
20560, U.S.A.) 


Bailey & Stewart, 1983, asked that Bagrus Bosc, September 1816, be placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. They presented evidence to show 
that Bagrus and Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in Bosc, September 1816 
were described on the same date with Bagrus having page priority. Because Bagrus 
provides the stem of a well-known family name, and because it has had somewhat 
more usage, they requested its conservation by the Commission. 

2. Aside from dates given by Sherborn, 1897, workers have not generally 
known the actual dates of publication of the contributions by Etienne and Isidore 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire to the Description de l’Egypte. The son, Isidore (1847), listed 
the significant contributions by his father and himself to this work and gave dates of 
publication. It is now clear that Porcus should be attributed to Etienne Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire and that it has several years’ priority over Bagrus Bosc. Porcus first 
appeared on plate 15 of the Poissons du Nil issued in 1808; but the description of the | 
genus was completed from his father’s notes and published by Isidore in 1827. The ‘| 
folio-sized natural history plates in Description de l’Egypte were in many cases 
published years before written descriptions appeared; but the names on the plates 
are available by indication (Article 12a(7)). 

3. Evidence that all the plates of Poissons du Nil were published and avail- 
able to Bosc, Cuvier, etc., prior to 1816 is as follows: 

(a) Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire stated (1847, p. 425): “La part de collab- 
oration de Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire dans le grand ouvrage sur l’Egypte, 
se compose des parties suivantes: Dans I’atlas, t. I*t de la partie rela- 
tive a l’histoire naturelle: 1° 7 planches de Mammiferes (17 espéces); 
2° 8 de Reptiles (25 espéces); 3° 17 de Poissons du Nil (29 espéces); 
4° 10 de Poissons de la Méditerranée et de la mer Rouge (28 espéces). 
Ces magnifiques planches, dessinées par Redouté jeune, . . . en Egypte, 
... a Paris de 1802 a 1807, ont été publiées, partie en 1808 (Poissons du 
Nil), partie en 1813 (Mammiféres et Reptiles), partie en 1817 (Poissons 
de la mer Rouge et de la Méditerranée). 

‘Dans le tome I* du texte de l’Histoire naturelle. ..1° Histoire | 
naturelle des Poissons du Nil, 1809 [part]; ... 2° Description des Reptiles 
qui se trouvent en Egypte, 1809 [part]; ... 3° Description des Crocodiles 
d’Egypte, 1829. — Le texte des autres planches de Poissons et de 
Reptiles a été publié, en 1827, par l’auteur de cet ouvrage, d’apreés les | 
notes de Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. 

‘Dans le tome II... Description des Mammifeéres qui se trouvent 

en Egypte, 1813 [part]. ..” 
In general agreement with Isidore’s summary, Jomard in Monglond, 
1957, columns 323-330, indicated that the 27 plates illustrating fishes 
were published from 1809-1817. I believe, however, that some of the 
dates for the text given by Jomard are probably in error. These dates 
were correctly stated by Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. 


(b 


— 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 15 


(c) The 17 plates depicting Nile fishes, aside from three illustrating only 
anatomical details, were all cited by Cuvier, November 1816, in Le 
Régne animal, ed. 1, vol. 2. Plates 18 to 27 illustrating Red Sea and 
Mediterranean fishes were not cited in that edition because they were 
not published till 1817. At least six of the plates 18 through 27 were 
cited in the second edition of Le Régne animal, published in 1829. 

(d) Thus it appears certain that the 17 plates of fishes of the Nile appeared 
in 1808 or at the latest 1809, and that plates 18-27 of Mediterranean 
and Red Sea fishes were published in 1817. 

4. Two species of Porcus were illustrated by H. J. Redoute for Etienne in 
plate 15: Le Bayad fitilé, Porcus bayad, and Le Bayad docmac, Porcus docmac. The 
type species of Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is Silurus bajad Forskal, 1775 
(= Porcus bayad Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire; it is clear from Isidore’s text, Hist. 
nat., vol. 1, p. 303, that Etienne’s bayad is an unjustified emendation of Forskal’s 
bajad), by subsequent designation by Jordan & Evermann, 1917, Genera of Fishes, 
vol. 1, p. 107. Jordan & Evermann incorrectly said that the description and/or plates 
were published (‘dated’) in 1817 or 1818. 

5. Bagrus Bosc, 1816. with type species Si/urus bajad Forskal by subsequent 
designation by Bailey & Stewart, 1983, op. cit., is a junior objective synonym of 
Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808. 

6. Bagre Cloquet, 1816. Bagre is to be treated as masculine because it is 
latinised from the Spanish and Portuguese masculine noun bagre, denoting catfish 
throughout much of tropical America. Its origin is probably from the Arabic baghir 
or baghar. The type species is Si/urus bagre Linnaeus, 1766, by absolute tautonymy, 
through listing in the synonymy of Bagre pimelodinus Cloquet. The descriptions, 
in part, of B. pimelodinus, and of the other included synonym, Pimelodus bagre 
Lacépede, apply not to Silurus bagre Linnaeus but to Silurus marinus Mitchill. I 
suspect that Mitchill’s species belongs to another genus and that Bagre bagre 
(Linnaeus) is the only taxonomic species in the genus Bagre. 

7. I support the proposal to place BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 on the Official 
List. Bleeker, 1858, pp. V, 49, etc., first used a subfamily ‘Bagrichthyoidei’ and 
‘cohors Bagrini’ to include Bagrus and other siluroid fishes. It happens that Bleeker 
had previously described a bagrid fish as Bagrichthys, leading to the false impression 
that that name provides the stem of Bagrichthyoidei. I believe that Bagrus provides 
this stem, by analogy with Bleeker’s ‘subfamily Plotosichthyoidei and ‘phalanx 
Plotosini’, both based on the generic name Plotosus. 

8. Because of the long uncertainty as to the dates of publication of Porcus 
and Bagrus, because the latter name has in recent years become widely accepted as 
the generic name for a group of African bagrid fishes, and because it provides the 
stem of its family name, I ask the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature: 


(a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Porcus Etienne 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to place on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology: 

(i) Bagre Cloquet, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species, by absolute 
tautonymy, Silurus bagre Linnaeus, 1766; 

(ii) Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
subsequent designation by Bailey & Stewart, 1983, Silurus bajad 
Forskal, 1775; 


16 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


(c) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(i) bagre Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Silurus bagre 
(specific name of type species of Bagre Cloquet, 1816); 
(ii) bajad Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Silurus bajad 
(specific name of type species of Bagrus Bosc, 1816); 
(d) to place BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 (type genus, Bagrus Bosc, 1816) on 
the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 


GEOFFROY SAINT-HILAIRE, ISIDORE. 1847. Vie, travaux, et doctrine 
scientifique d’Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire par son fils. Paris, 479 pp. 

LINNAEUS, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 1. 

MONGLOND, A. 1957. La France révolutionnaire et impériale. Annales de biblio- 
graphie méthodique et description des livres illustrés, vol. 8 (années 
1809-1810). Paris. (SJOMARD, E. F., columns 268-343.) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 17 


OPINION 1288 
SPHINX TIPULIFORMIS CLERCK, 1759 (INSECTA, 
LEPIDOPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
salmachus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sphinx salmachus, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name tipuliformis Clerck, 1759, as published in the 
binomen Sphinx tipuliformis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2916. 

(3) The specific name salmachus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Sphinx salmachus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1137. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2138 


An application for the conservation of Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 
1759, was first received from Dr N. P. Kristensen (Universitets Zoologiske 
Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) on | August 1975. It was sent to the printer 
on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 37, pp. 154-156. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general and eight entomological journals. No 
comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)13 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 155. At the close of the 
voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following 
order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Corliss, Alvarado, 
Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen 

Negative Vote — Hahn. 

Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Bernardi and 
Sabrosky. 

Hahn commented: ‘Important details are missing here: are 
salmachus and tipuliformis objective or subjective synonyms, are their types 
preserved and, following this, should the relative precedence procedure not 
have been better used? These things are not clear and so I vote against.’ 


18 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
salmachus, Sphinx, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 493 
tipuliformis, Sphinx, Clerck, 1759, Icones Insectorum rariorum...e C. Linn. 

Syst. Nat. allegatis, pt. 1, pl. 9, fig. 1. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)13 were cast as set 
out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly 
adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1288. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
11 July 1984 » 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 19 


OPINION 1289 
MESOPLODON GERVAIS, 1850 (MAMMALIA, CETACEA); 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Nodus 
Wagler, 1830, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by original designation, Delphinus sowerbiensis 
Blainville, 1817, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2228. 

(3) The specific name bidens Sowerby, 1804, as published in the 
binomen Physeter bidens (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, of the 
type species of Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2917. 

(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) Nodus Wagler, 1830, as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above (Name Number 2144); 

(b) Micropteron Eschricht, 1849, an incorrect subsequent spelling 
of Micropterus Wagner, 1846 (Name Number 2145); 

(c) Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849, an incorrect subsequent spelling 
of Micropterus Wagner, 1846 (Name Number 2146). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2081 


An application for the conservation of Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 
was first received from Dale W. Rice (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) in 1965. A second application in the same 
sense was received from Dr Kenneth E. Kinman (University of Kansas) in 
November 1977. A joint application by both authors was eventually sent to 
the printer on 9 October 1979 and published on 25 April 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 30-33. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general serials and two mammalogical serials. No 
comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984) 14 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 32-33. At the close of 
the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 


20 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, 
Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
bidens, Physeter, Sowerby, 1804, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 7, p. 10 
Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850, Ann. Sci. nat. (3), Zool., vol. 14, p. 16 
Micropteron Eschricht, 1849, K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. (5), vol. 1, p. 97 
Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849, K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. (5), vol. 1, p. 98 
Nodus Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amphibien, p. 34. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)14 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1289. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

11 July 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 21 


OPINION 1290 
LEPTINOTARSA CHEVROLAT, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA); 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not 
for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, prior to the designation by 
Motschulsky, 1860, of Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858 as type 
species of that genus are hereby set aside. 

(2) The generic name Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Motschulsky, 1860, 
as ratified under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Leptinotarsa heydenii 
Stal, 1858, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2229. 

(3) The specific name heydenii Stal, 1858, as published in the 
binomen Leptinotarsa heydenii (specific name of type species of 
Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Speci- 
fic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2918. 

(4) The generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2147. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2048 


An application for the conservation of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 
was first received from Dr Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology 
Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C.) and Dr 
Richard L. Jacques, Jr. (Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, New 
Jersey) on 7 June 1973. It was sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and 
published on 20 September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 144-145. 
Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same 
part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and 
seven entomological serials. No comment was received. 


FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION 


On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1978)4 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 145. Although at the 
close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 there were 21 affirmative votes and 


22 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


no negative votes, no Opinion was published because of a point raised by 
Dr L. B. Holthuis. He pointed out that the acceptance by the applicants of 
Chevrolat’s citation of juncta Germar’ under Polygramma as an available 
name logically entailed also the acceptance of the citations of ‘alternata 
Klug’ under Polygramma and of ‘cinctipennis Chev.’ under Leptinotarsa as 
available names also. Chrysomela juncta Germar, 1834, is a chrysomelid of 
the same subfamily as Polygramma; ‘alternata Klug’ must be taken to be 
Agra alternata Klug, 1834, Jahrb. Insektenk. vol. 1, p. 60, a ground beetle; 
and ‘cinctipennis Chev.’ as Altica cinctipennis Chevrolat, 1834, Coleopt. 
Mex. (3), no. 86, a species placed in a different subfamily from Leptinotarsa. 
In spite of the unlikelihood of coleopterists of the quality of Dejean and 
Chevrolat making such taxonomic allocations, the acceptance of those 
- logical conclusions radically alters the presentation of the case. V.P.(78)4 
was accordingly cancelled. 


REPUBLICATION OF THE CASE 


Dr White accordingly prepared a fresh application which was 
received on 28 November 1979. A slightly revised form of this was sent to 
the printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 119-120. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was again given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as 
to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven entomological 
serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)15 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 120. At the close of the 
voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three, received in the following order: 
Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobo- 
gatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, 
Bayer, Ueno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. 

Dupuis commented: ‘Je pense, néanmoins, qu'il aurait fallu 
simultanément prendre des dispositions pour conserver Leptinotarsa 
decemlineata [the scientific name of the Colorado Potato Beetle] au cas 
ou l’on découvrirait que decemlineata et heydenii ne peuvent demeurer 
congéneres.’ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 23 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
heydenii, Leptinotarsa, Stal, 1858, Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Forh. vol. 15, 

p. 475 
Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, in Dejean, Cat. Coleopt. vol. 5, p. 397 
Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, in Dejean, Cat. Coleopt. vol. 5, p. 397. 

The following is the original reference to a type-species designation 
ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Leptinotarsa heydenii 
Stal, 1858, as type species of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, by Motschulsky, 
1860, in Schrenk, Reisen Forsch. Amurldnde, vol. 2(2), p. 182. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)15 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly 
accepted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being 
the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
is truly recorded in the present Opinion 1290. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

12 July 1984 


24 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


OPINION 1291 
ANTILOPE ZEBRA GRAY, 1838 (MAMMALIA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name zebrata Robert, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Antilope zebrata, is hereby suppressed for the pur- 
poses of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) it is hereby ruled that the specific name zebra Gray, 1838, as 
published in the binomen Antilope zebra, is to be given pre- 
cedence over the specific name doria Ogilby, 1837, as published 
in the binomen Antilope doria, whenever the two names are 
considered synonyms. 

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

(a) zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, 
with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the 
specific name doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen 
Antilope doria, whenever the two names are considered 
synonyms (Name Number 2919); 

(b) doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, 
with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, 
whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name 
Number 2920). 

(3) The specific name zebrata Robert, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Antilope zebrata, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1138. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1908 


An application for the conservation of the name Antilope zebra 
Gray, 1838 as the name of the zebra duiker was first received from Mr W. F. 
H. Ansell (then of Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and National Parks, 
Zambia) on 10 November 1969. It was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 
and published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, p. 104 on 10 August 1970. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to two 
mammalogical serials. A critical comment by Dr Hans-Jirg Kuhn 
(Anatomisches Institut, Frankfurt, Germany) was published in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 28, pp. 14-15 on 10 August 1971. Mr Ansell’s reply was 
published in vol. 30, p. 136 in Bull. zool. Nom. on 6 July 1973. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 25 


In the light of these exchanges it was decided to put forward a fresh 
application, and this was published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 152-153 (the delay at this stage was largely due to the 
difficulty of procuring a copy of the original reference to Antilope zebrata 
Robert). Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case 
was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, 
to seven general and two mammalogical serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on voting Paper (1984)16 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 153. At the close of the 
voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobo- 
gatov, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, 
Uéno, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen 

Negative Votes — two (2): Holthuis, Cogger. 

Dupuis returned an invalid vote against proposals other than those 
presented for a vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Commis- 
sion with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: ‘The difference between zebra and zebrata is so minor that 
it seems to me not worth while to use the plenary powers to get rid of the 
latter. Strict adherence to the Code solves the problem most easily and 
elegantly; moreover, A. doria then offers no problem.’ 

Cogger: ‘If Antilope doria is indeed a junior objective synomym of A. 
mhorr, as the applicant contends, then the application is redundant. If the 
converse, then taxonomic resolution should precede the nomenclatural.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
doria, Antilope, Ogilby, 1837, Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 4, no. 47, p. 121 
zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838, Ann. nat. Hist. vol. 1 (1), p. 27 
zebrata, Antilope, Robert, 1836, Echo du Monde savant, 1 May 1836, Sci. 

nat. géogr., first page. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)16 were cast as set 
out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly 


26 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1291. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 July 1984 


Bull. zool..Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 27 


OPINION 1292 
VOLUTA PAPILIO LINK, 1807 (GASTROPODA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the 
specific name papilio Link, 1807, as published in the binomen Voluta 
papilio, is to be given precedence over the specific name /eucostoma Gmelin, 
1791, as published in the binomen Voluta leucostoma, whenever the two 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) papilio Link, 1807, as published in the binomen Voluta papilio, 
with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over 
leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Voluta 
leucostoma, whenever the two names are considered synonyms 
(Name Number 2921); 

(b) /eucostoma Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Voluta 
leucostoma, with an endorsement that it is not to be given 
priority over Voluta papilio Link, 1807, whenever the two 
names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2922). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1777 


An application for the suppression of three unused specific names of 
species of Voluta was first received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland 
Institute and Museum, New Zealand) on 29 September 1966. It was sent to 
the printer on 8 November 1966 and published on 6 March 1967 in Bull. 
zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 53-54. Public notice of the possible use of the plen- 
ary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the 
statutory serials and to two malacological serials. Owing to the then 
unsatisfactory state of affairs surrounding Article 23b, the case was set 
aside. 

A revised application was received on 24 November 1978. This 
showed that two of the three names originally involved could be dealt with 
automatically; only Voluta leucostoma Gmelin, 1791 was still a threat to 
the stability of nomenclature. After an exchange of correspondence this 
application was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 
September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 149-151. Public notice of 
the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part 
of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and 
two malacological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)7 for or against the 


28 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 176. At the close of the 
voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: 
Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, 
Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen, Dupuis 

Negative Votes — two (2) Ride, Heppell. 

No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Ride: ‘No case is made for the need to preserve V. leucostoma 
Gmelin, 1791; it is a forgotten name and the applicant has “tno doubt” that 
it is a synonym of V. papilio Link, 1807. The Commission should be asked 
to suppress V. Jeucostoma under Article 79b. Unless there is good reason for 
it, applicants should not seek to preserve forgotten senior synonyms under 
the relative precedence procedure. Such action is liable to confuse the 
nomenclature of the group.’ 

Heppell: ‘If there was a good case for the suppression of V. 
leucostoma thirteen years ago, there is an even better one now, as it has 
remained unused and doubtless will so continue. Why, therefore, does 
Cernohorsky ask for a relative-precedence decision?’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
leucostoma, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3457 
papilio, Voluta, Link, 1807, Beschr. nat. Samml. Univ. Rostock (3), p. 127. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)17 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1292. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

27 July 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 29 


OPINION 1293 
SCOLIA QUINQUECINCTA FABRICIUS, 1793 IS THE TYPE 
SPECIES OF HETERELIS COSTA, 1887 (INSECTA, 
HYMENOPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Heterelis Costa, 1887 are 
hereby set aside and the nominal species Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 
1793, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Heterelis Costa, 1887 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Scolia 
quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2230. 

(3) The specific name quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, as published in 
the binomen Scolia quinquecincta (specific name of type species of Heterelis 
Costa, 1887) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2923. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1175 


The earlier history of this case was reviewed in a report by the 
Secretary to the Commission published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 37, pp. 117-118. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)18, for or against 
the proposals set forth in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 118. At the close of the 
voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Savage, Cocks, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, 
Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

No votes were returned by Bernardi and Dupuis. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


30 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


Heterelis A. Costa, 1887, Prospetto degli imenotteri italiani (2), p. 104 
quinquecincta, Scolia, Fabricius, 1793, Entomol. Syst., vol. 2, p. 234. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion Number 1293. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

27 July 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 31 


OPINION 1294 
EDWARDSIA DE QUATREFAGES, 1841 (COELENTERATA, 
ACTINIARIA): CONSERVED 


RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name 
Edwardsia da Costa, 1834, and all uses of that name prior to its publication 
by de Quatrefages in 1841, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Carlgren, 1949, 
Edwardsia beautempsii de Quatrefages, 1842) is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2231. 

(3) The specific name beautempsii de Quatrefages, 1842, as 
published in the binomen Edwardsia beautempsii (specific name of type 
species of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2924. 

(4) The family-group name EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 (type genus 
Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 563. 

(5) The generic name Edwardsia de Costa, 1834, 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 
2149. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.((S.)2261 


An application for the conservation of the generic name Edwardsia 
de Quatrefages, 1841 was first received from Dr R. B. Williams (Tring, 
Herts, U.K.) on 14 April 1978. It was sent to the printer on 17 May 1979 
and published on 25 October 1979 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 175-179. 
Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven 
general serials and two in the field of marine biology. 

Mr R. K. Brooke (University of Cape Town) and Professor J. H. Day 
(Rosebank, South Africa) observed that there was no need to conserve the 
family-group name EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881; Dr Williams replied that 
this proposal was an integral part of the case to be considered by the 
Commission (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 135-136). No other comment 
was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 6 July 1983 the members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1983)7 for or against the 


32 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 176. At the close of the 
voting period on 6 October 1983 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski*, Hahn, Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Schuster*, Bayer, Uéno*, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride*, Dupuis, 
Halvorsen, Brinck, Corliss, Alvarado, Heppell* (those marked thus * voted 
against placing EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 on the Official List) 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

A late affirmative vote was returned by Cocks. Welch was on leave 
of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Kraus, Lehtinen 
and Savage. 

One of the problems mentioned (but not fully addressed) in the 
application concerned the status of Milnea Reichenbach as cited by Wright, 
1866, Rec. zool. Lit. vol. 2, p. 782. That name is clearly a nomen nudum as 
of that citation, but it was proposed as a replacement name for Edwardsia 
de Quatrefages, 1841, and, if available, would clearly validly replace that 
name and preoccupy Milnea Lydekker, 1891 (Aves). Ride commented on 
this name in his voting paper as follows: ‘While the protection of Edwardsia 
is not needed against Milnea Reich. (the latter is a junior objective synonym 
of the former once the homonymy has disappeared), a palaeo-ornithologist 
should be asked to consider its effect on Milnea Lydekker, 1891. However, 
this issue raises the possibility that there may be a family-group name prior 
to EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 based on Milnea Reichenbach or on some 
other, undetected, replacement name for Edwardsia de Q.’ Dr Williams was 
asked if he knew of any such names but knew of none and found none. 
Further, Dr C. A. Walker (British Musuem, Natural History) could find no 
trace of ‘Milnea Reichenbach, 1866’ in the palaeo-ornithological literature; 
a search of the botanical literature (since Reichenbach was a botanist) was 
equally fruitless, but revealed that, if the name existed in botany, it would 
be invalid as a junior homonym of Milnea Roxburgh, 1824 and Milnea 
Rafinesque, 1838. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
beautempsii, Edwardsia, de Quatrefages, 1842, Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.), (2) vol. 

18, p. 69 
Edwardsia da Costa, 1834, Cenni zoologici (Naples), p. 62 
Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, I’ Institut vol. 9, p. 427 
EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881, Mitt. zool. Stat. Neapel, vol. 2, p. 333. 

The following is the original reference for a type-species designation 
ratified by the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Edwardsia beautempsii 
de Quatrefages, 1842 as type species of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, by 
Carlgren, 1949, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl. (4) vol. 1, p. 23. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 33 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(83)7 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal for the use of the plenary powers contained therein 
has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision 
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly 
recorded in the present Opinion Number 1294. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

14 August 1984 


34 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


OPINION 1295 
ACTINIA LINNAEUS, 1767 AND ACTINIIDAE RAFINESQUE, 1815 
(COELENTERATA, ACTINIARIA) AND PENTACTA GOLDFUSS, 
1820 (ECHINODERMATA, HOLOTHURIOIDEA): CONSERVED 


RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the generic name Priapus Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the generic name Actinia Pallas, 1766 is hereby suppressed for 
the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle 
of Homonymy; 

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

(a) Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
subsequent designation by Thompson, 1858, Priapus equinus 
Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2232); 

(b) Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
monotypy, Actinia doliolum Pallas, 1766 (Name Number 
2233); 

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

(a) equinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Priapus 
equinus (specific name of type species of Actinia Linnaeus, 
1767) (Name Number 2925); 

(b) doliolum Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Actinia 
doliolum (specific name of type species of Pentacta Goldfuss, 
1820) (Name Number 2926). 

(4) The family-group name ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (type 
genus Actinia Linnaeus, 1767) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 564. 

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

(a) Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 2150); 

(b) Actinia Pallas, 1766, as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) (b) above (Name Number 2151). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)825 


The urgency of the need to conserve the generic name Actinia 
Linnaeus, 1767 was first mentioned to the Commission’s Secretariat by the 
late Professor F. Pax in 1954. No application was, however, submitted at 
that time. In 1979 Dr P. L. F. Cornelius (British Museum, Natural History), 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 35 


on behalf of himself and of Dr Ray Williams (Tring) and Miss Ailsa Clark 
(British Museum, Natural History) announced that they were preparing a 
joint application on this subject. This was received on 3 April 1981, was sent 
to the printers on 25 August 1982 and published on 7 December 1982 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 288-292. Public notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the statutory serials, to seven general periodicals and two marine 
biological periodicals. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)20 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 290-291. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — (16) received in the following order: Melville, 
Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, 
Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, Heppell 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and 
Willink. 

The applicants had originally attributed the family-group name 
ACTINIIDAE to Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool. vol. 1, p. 166. Dr Holthuis 
observed on his voting paper that the name should be attributed instead to 
Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 155. This was accepted by Dr 
Cornelius and is incorporated in the present ruling. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Actinia Pallas, 1766, P.S. Pallas Misc. zool., p. 152 

Actinia Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1088 
ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 155 
doliolum, Actinia, Pallas, 1766, P. S. Pallas Misc. zool., p. 152 
equinus, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 656 
Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool. vol. 1, p. 177 

Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 656. 

The following is the original reference to a type-species designation 
accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Priapus equinus 
Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767, by Thompson, 
W., 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. London, p. 146. 


36 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)20 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adop- 
ted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1295. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

2 October 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 37 


OPINION 1296 
REQUEST FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO 
CONSERVE NETTASTOMELLA CARPENTER, 1865 (BIVALVIA) 
REFUSED 


RULING.— (1) The request for the use of the plenary powers to 
conserve Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865, through the suppression of 
Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, is hereby refused. 

(2) The generic name Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 (gender: neuter), 
type species, by monotypy, Pholas darwinii G. B. Sowerby II, 1849, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2234. 

(3) The specific name darwinii G. B. Sowerby II, 1849, as published 
in the binomen Pholas darwinii (specific name of type species of Netastoma 
Carpenter, 1864) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2927. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1054 


An application for the conservation of Nettastomella Carpenter, 
1865 through the suppression of its senior objective synonym Netastoma 
Carpenter, 1864 was first received from Mr Joshua L. Baily (San Diego, 
California) on 12 December 1955. For reasons that cannot now be 
determined it was never published. A fresh application in the same sense 
was received from Dr Eugene V. Coan and Dr George L. Kennedy on 19 
September 1976. After considerable correspondence, this was sent to the 
printer on 23 January 1980 and published on 19 June 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 114-116. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to 
the statutory serials, to seven general periodicals and three malacological 
periodicals. 

The application was supported by Professor Ruth D. Turner 
(Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts) but opposed 
by Dr Lee A. Schremp and Dr Jack D. Mount (University of California, 
Riverside), who asked that Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 and Pholas darwinii 
G. B. Sowerby II, 1849 be placed on the Official List. This comment was 
published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 9 on 26 February 1981. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)21 either for the 
original proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 115 (Alternative A) 
or for the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 9 (Alternative B). 


38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


At the close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the 
voting was as follows: 

For Alternative A—seven (7) received in the following order: 
Schuster, Binder, Starobogatov, Uéno, Hahn, Brinck, Corliss 

For Alternative B—eight (8) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Savage, Heppell, Sabrosky, 
Kraus. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 

Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

darwinii, Pholas, G. B. Sowerby II, 1849, Thesaurus conchylium, vol. 2 (10), 
p. 490, pl. 107, figs. 76-77 

Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, Rep. brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1863, pp. 529, 
540, 605, 635, 637, 684. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)21 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 Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1296. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

3 October 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 39 


OPINION 1297 
XENOCREPIS PURA MAYR, 1904 DESIGNATED AS TYPE 
SPECIES OF XENOCREPIS FOERSTER, 1856 (INSECTA, 
HYMENOPTERA) 


RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 are 
hereby set aside and Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 is hereby designated as 
type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, 
Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2235. 

(3) The specific name morys Walker, 1848 as published in the 
binomen Pteromalus morys (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the 
type species of Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2928. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1437 


The application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the type 
species of Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 was made in a report by the Secretary 
sent to the printer on 14 October 1980 and published on 26 February 1981 
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 74-75. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and 
was sent to the statutory serials, to seven general periodicals and eight 
entomological periodicals. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)22 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 75. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell (in 
part), Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, 
Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Vote — Heppell (in part). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and 
Willink. 

Heppell voted for the use of the plenary powers but against placing 
any names on the Official List. He observed: ‘It is obviously important for 
the Commission to clarify whether Caenocrepis arenicola or Xenocrepis 


40 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


pura is the type species of Xenocrepis Foerster. It would seem to be doubtful 
whether or not Xenocrepis sensu Ashmead represents the same taxon as 
Xenocrepis Foerster, and therefore I have no hesitation in voting for the fix- 
ation of X. pura as the type by the use of the plenary powers. The remainder 
of the proposals, however, seem to bring in complicated taxonomic con- 
siderations of whether Xenocrepis is a junior synonym of Mesopolobus and 
X. pura a junior synonym of Pteromalus morys. I can see no justification for 
putting the latter on the Official List of Specific Names and little for putting 
Xenocrepis on the Official List of Generic Names. Whatever the Commis- 
sion may believe is the status of names on the Official Lists, entomologists 
are certain to conclude that these names would not have been placed there 
unless they were intended to be used as the valid names of the taxa in 
question. Consequently, I vote for the principal proposition but against the 
subsidiary proposals.’ 

In reply to a request from the Secretary, Dr. Z. Boucek (of the 
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) provided the following 
reply: ‘It would be satisfactory if the type species of Xenocrepis were fixed 
as the X. pura Mayr, but it is immaterial whether either name is placed on 
the Official Lists, whatever their status may be. The main thing is to avoid 
destabilization of names, if Xenocrepis is regarded as a valid genus instead 
of as a part of the large genus Mesopolobus. If Ashmead’s action was 
accepted as correct, Caenocrepis Thomson could not be used as a valid 
name, and that genus, as understood, contains at least one species of econ- 
omic importance used in the USSR in biological control against a weevil 
pest of sugarbeet. That would change the name of that genus; hence it is a 
relatively important matter to have the type species fixed as proposed.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
morys, Pteromalus Walker, 1848, List Hym. Coll. Brit. Mus. (2), p. 197 
Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856, Hym. Stud. Aachen (2), p. 64. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1297. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

3 October 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 41 


DIRECTION 116 
PAPILIONIDAE LATREILLE, [1802] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): 
REVISION OF OFFICIAL LIST ENTRY 


RULING.— (1) Entry No. 233 in the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology is hereby deleted and replaced by the following: 
PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as ‘Papilionides’), Hist. nat. gén. partic. 
Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 387, type genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 
233). 

(2) The family-group name Papilionides Latreille, [1802] (same 
reference as in (1) above), an incorrect original spelling of PAPILIONIDAE, is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 500. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2245 


An application for the correction of the Official List entry for the 
family-group name PAPILIONIDAE was first received from Lt-Col C. F. 
Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over-Sands, U.K.) on 5 January 1978. 
It was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 
1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 167-168. No use of the plenary powers 
was entailed. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)4 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 167-168. At the close of 
the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23), received in the following 
order: Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Schuster, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Holthuis, Binder, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Corliss, 
Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Lehtinen, Dupuis 

Negative Votes—none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi and Sabrosky. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCE 


The original reference for the names placed on an Official List and 
an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Direction is given in 
paragraph (1) of the Ruling above. 


42 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)4 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 Commis- 
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Direction 
No. 116. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 June 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 43 


DIRECTION 117 
CORRECTION OF ENTRY NO. 462 IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF 
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY CONCERNING SPHAERIUM 
SCOPOLI, 1777 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) 
(CORRECTION TO OPINION 94) 


RULING.— (1) Entry No. 462 in the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology is hereby corrected to read: Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (gender: 
neuter), type species, by monotypy, Tellina cornea Linnaeus, 1758. 

(2) The generic name Cyclas Lamarck, [1798], a junior objective 
synonym of Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2148. 

(3) The family-group name CYCLADIDAE (as ‘Cycladia’) Rafinesque, 
1820 (invalid because the name of its type genus is a junior objective 
synonym rejected before 1961) is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 501. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1892 


The present case began as an application received on 27 June 1969 
from Dr Arthur H. Clarke (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa) 
for the resolution of the homonymous use of the family name SPHAERIIDAE 
in both Mollusca (Bivalvia) and Insecta (Coleoptera). Although this issue 
has not yet been resolved by two votes of the Commission, certain 
peripheral issues can now be cleared away as a correction to Opinion 94. 

Dr Clarke asked for the use of the plenary powers to rule that 
SPHAERIDAE be accepted as the correct spelling of the coleopteran family 
name (type genus of the family, Sphaerius Waltl, 1838). His application 
was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 235-237. 
After the possible use of the plenary powers in the case had been 
duly advertised, the question was put to the vote in V.P.(71)15 on 9 June 
1971. Support had been expressed by Mr David Heppell. Although Dr 
Clarke’s proposals received a favourable vote by 15 votes to two, comments 
from Dr Starobogatov and Professor Tortonese caused me to re-examine 
the case. I found certain omissions in Dr Clarke’s proposals, and put for- 
ward fresh proposals in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 60-62. These attracted 
a number of comments and counter-proposals which led to the issue of 
V.P.(84)19 on 12 March 1984. This voting paper was divided into two parts, 
one concerned with the molluscan names, the other with the coleopteran 
names. Two alternatives were offered in each part. Part | offered: 

Alternative A (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 62, paras (2) (a), (3), (7) 
and (8)), namely, to place the bivalve family name SPHAERIIDAE 
Jeffreys, 1862(1820) on the Official List, to correct entry no. 462 in 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and to place the 


oo Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


junior objective synonyms Cyclas and CYCLADIDAE on the Official 
Index. 

Alternative B (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 202, paras (1), (2)(b), 
(3)(b), (4)(b) and (5)), namely to use the plenary powers to 
designate Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818 as the type species of 
Cyclas Lamarck, [1798] with associated Official List action for 
Cyclas (and associated names) in Bivalvia and Sphaerius (and 
associated names) in Coleoptera. 

At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984, the state of the 
voting was as follows: 

For Alternative A — nineteen (19), received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Brinck, 
Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, Alvarado, Bayer, Uéno, Cogger, 
Kraus, Ride, Heppell, Dupuis 

For Alternative B—three (3): Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Schuster. 
(It will be seen that this vote authorises the placing of SPHAERIIDAE 
Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (type genus Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777) on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. This is not being done on the 
present occasion because the status of that name under Article 55 remains 
to be clarified). 

V.P.(84)19 Part 2 offered: 

Alternative A: use of the plenary powers as requested in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 32, p. 61, para (1) with associated proposals on p. 62, 
paras (2)(b), (4) and (5), namely to rule that the stem of 
family-group names based on Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 (Coleoptera) 
is SPHAERIUS—with associated Official List action for 
SPHAERIUSIDAE, Sphaerius, and Sphaerius acaroides Waltl, 1838. 
Alternative B: use of the plenary powers as requested in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 38, p. 158, para (a), with associated proposals in paras 
(b), (c) and (d), namely to suppress Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and place 
on the respective Official Lists Microsporus Kolenati, 1846, 
Microsporus obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, and MICROSPORIDAE 
Reichardt, 1976. 

At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 the state of the 
voting was as follows: 

For Alternative A—ten (10) received in the following order: 
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Binder, Hahn, Corliss, 
Alvarado, Cogger, Kraus © 

For. Alternative B—ten (10) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Bayer, Schuster, Uéno, Ride, Heppell, 
Dupuis. 

Lehtinen abstained in both parts. The votes in Part 2 by Trjapitzin 
and Starobogatov were invalid. No votes were returned by Bernardi and 
Sabrosky. 

The issue in Part 2 of V.P.(84)19, which is the original issue raised by 
Dr Clarke, will thus have to be submitted for a third vote, in due course. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 45 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Direction: 
CYCLADIDAE (as ‘Cycladia’) Rafinesque, 1820, Ann. gén. Sci. phys., vol. 5, p. 
318 (see also Prime, T., 1851, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., p. 155) 
Cyclas Lamarck, [1798], Tabl. encycl. trois régnes de la nature, pls 301, 302. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)19 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposals contained in Part 1, Alternative A of that voting 
paper have been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Direction No. 117. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

30 July 1984 


46 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


SPIROGLYPHUS DAUDIN, 1800 AND STOA DE SERRES, 1855 
(MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA, VERMETIDAE): PROPOSED 
SUPPRESSION OF TWO EQUIVOCAL GENERIC 
NAMES.Z.N.(S.)2340 
By A. Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, 
California 94305, U.S.A.) and Michael G. Hadfield (Kewalo Marine 
Laboratory, Pacific Biomedical Research Center, University of Hawaii, 
41 Ahui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, U.S.A., to whom any enquiries or 
requests for offprints should be addressed) 


This application seeks suppression of two nominal genera based on 
species not now adequately interpretable. The first is Spiroglyphus Daudin, 
1800 (p. 39). Two species were described under it, S. politus (p. 49) and 
S. annulatus (p. 50, figs 28-29). Daudin considered both to be tubicolous 
annelids corroding a channel on other shells. He figured only one. Both 
were said to come from the Indian Ocean, the figured form entrenched on a 
fissurellid gastropod (a keyhole limpet). He had not seen living animals. 
Gray, 1840, cited Spiroglyphus as molluscan — a genus of marine snails. He 
allocated it to the family VERMETIDAE based on Vermetus which Cuvier, 
1800, table 5, had also described and correctly considered a gastropod. 

2. Vermetus was published twice in 1800: first by Cuvier: Legons 
anat. comp. vol. 1, table 5; the date of this is taken from J. typ. bibl. year 3, 
p. 218, 30 Germinal an 8 [=19 April, 1800], and the second by Daudin: 
Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu connues de 
Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes, p. 34; the date of this is taken from J. 
typ. bibl. year 4, p. 43, 15 Brumaire an 9 [=5 November, 1800]. 

3. Morch, principal reviser of the VERMETIDAE in the 19th century, 
selecting in 1861 the figured form as type species, reinterpreted its type 
locality and identified it as the sole entrenching vermetid of the Caribbean 
area. Actually, at least three such are known there now. Moreover, there 
are keyhole limpets in the Indo-Pacific that match Daudin’s figure well, and 
vermetids of both Caribbean and Indo-Pacific areas have entrenching 
species. 

4. Faced with questions about the type locality and the morphology 
of the type species and having discovered that annelid specialists were like- 
wise uncertain about Daudin’s figure, one of us (Keen, 1961) suggested that 
the name Spiroglyphus should be set aside and regarded as a genus dubium 
until such time as type material could be recovered or a suitable neotype lot 
be selected. In the twenty years since this judgement was published, search 
has not revealed either Daudin’s original material or a plausible specimen 
for replacement. Meanwhile the alternative name Dendropoma Morch, 
1861 (p. 153) (which then seemed preferable because it was based on extant 
type material in the British Museum (Natural History)), has gained 
currency not only among malacologists but also among ecologists and 
earth scientists, who are realising the usefulness of these mollusks as precise 
indicators of intertidal levels and hence of any shoreline changes. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 47 


5. The second generic name, Stoa De Serres, 1855 (p. 238) was also 
described as applying to tubicolous annelids that were ‘perforating’, i.e. 
entrenching. De Serres named three species but did not select any one as 
type species, nor has a selection been made since. He said the animals 
corroded channels, especially in bivalves, and that the operculum, which 
was intact in one specimen, was steeply conic, solid and calcareous. He 
commented on its lack of a pedicel or stalk such as other serpulid genera 
exhibited and assumed it might have broken off. If his figure was accurate, 
the operculum is unlike that of any known vermetid, with a marked notch 
on the outer margin. M6rch, 1861—1862, who dismissed Stoa as a synonym 
of two earlier names (Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Siphonium Gray, 
1850) was unable to recognise any of De Serres’ three species among the 
abundant vermetid material in European museums that he studied. His 
treatment of the taxon, however, was ambiguous. After synonymizing it 
and without defining Stoa as a separate unit, he cited the name subgeneri- 
cally for six species, under ‘Siphonium’ (actually an invalid name, pre- 
occupied by Siphonium Link, 1807). He reprinted De Serres’ descriptions 
but cited only one under the subgenus Stoa, the other two being considered 
Spiroglyphus by him. Subsequently, Stoa was cited in molluscan literature 
only as a synonym until 1939, when J. R. le B. Tomlin used it subgenerically 
for a new vermetid, again without designating the type species or supplying 
a diagnosis. It has not been used since. 

6. De Serres stated that his specimens of Stoa were in the collections 
of the Université de Montpellier, but inquiry there has not produced any 
information about them. They can thus be presumed to be lost. If the 
operculum was as described — calcareous, steeply conic and solid — one 
can doubt that Stoa was based on molluscan material. Moreover, 
Fauchald, 1977, in a compilation of generic names of annelid polychaetes, 
lists Stoa under the family SPIRORBIDAE, classing it as ‘invalid’ and 
‘indeterminable’. 

7. Suppression of these two names would at present seem to have no 
adverse effect on nomenclatural stability. No family-group names are 
involved. Spiroglyphus as a generic name in the Mollusca has appeared in 
only one major faunal work in the last twenty years, and the author of that 
work now plans (personal communication) to adopt Dendropoma in future 
editions. Meanwhile, more than a dozen journal articles have been 
published, by various authors, in which the name Dendropoma appears 
either in the title or the abstract. Dendropoma has also been used, in pre- 
ference to Spiroglyphus, in at least four major faunal works. The late Dr 
Olga Hartman, a specialist on polychaete annelids, included Spiroglyphus in 
her 1959 list of possible genera (p. 47), but she regarded it as ‘doubtful’ 
(personal communication). Fauchald, 1977, did not list the name. Although 
Spiroglyphus was used by Californian palaeontologists for certain fossil 
annelids, this is generally conceded now to have been misidentification. The 
name Stoa, except for the ambiguous and inconsistent citation of Morch in 
1861, was used in Mollusca only once since its proposal in 1855, and then 


48 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


only as an undefined subgenus. Although of doubtful status, the unit is not 
completely rejected by annelid specialists. It would seem, then, that sup- 
pression would not cause problems in either field. Of the two names, only 
Spiroglyphus gained any status, when it was cited in Mollusca by various 
authors between — roughly — 1860 and 1960. Reviving it now involves 
morphologic problems and, because it has priority, would require tax- 
onomic readjustments in the classification of the family. The recommended 
replacement, Dendropoma, is based upon extant type material from known 
provenance, readily interpretable. 

8. A number of malacologists who have been consulted on this pro- 
posed petition have offered no dissent. Their attitude seems to be that 
achieving stability by suppressing the names Spiroglyphus and Stoa 
would be preferable to trying to validate them, then having to readjust a 
classification that is coming into acceptance. 

9. Therefore, the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, in the interests of current usage and nomenclatural stability, 
is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(a) the generic name Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800, as being 
based upon unidentifiable material; and to place the name 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic 
Names in Zoology; 

(b) the generic name Stoa De Serres, 1855, as being based 
upon unidentifiable material; and to place the name on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology; 
the specific names annulatus and politus, as published in the 
binomina Spiroglyphus annulatus and S. politus Daudin, 
1800, and to place them on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; 
the specific names perforans (p. 241), ammonitiformis (p. 
240) and spirulaeformis (p. 241) as published in the 
binomina Stoa perforans, S. ammonitiformis and S. 
spirulaeformis De Serres, 1855, and to place them on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology; 

(2) to place the generic name Dendropoma Morch, 1861 (gender: 
neuter), type species, by designation of Keen, 1961, Siphonium 
(D.) lituellum Morch, 1861 (p. 154), on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name /ituellum Morch, 1861 as proposed in 
the binomen Siphonium (Dendropoma) lituella (specific name 
of type species of Dendropoma MOrch, 1861) on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology. 


— 


(c 


(d 


~~ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 49 


REFERENCES 


DAUDIN, F. M. 1800. Recueil de mémoires et de notes sur des espéces inédites ou peu 
connues de Mollusques, de Vers, et de Zoophytes. Paris, privately printed, 
pp. 1-50, 4 pls. 

DE SERRES, M. 1855. Notes sur un nouveau genre d’annélide tubicole perforant. 
Ann. Sci. nat., Paris, Zool., ser. 4, vol. 4, pp. 238-243, 1 pl. 

FAUCHALD, K. 1977. The polychaete worms: definitions and keys to the orders, 
families, and genera. Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, Science 
Ser., no. 28, 188 pp., 42 figs. 

GRAY, J. E. 1840. Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum. London, 42nd 
ed. p. 118. 

HARTMAN, O. 1959. Catalogue of polychaetous annelids of the world. Allan 
Hancock Foundation Occasional Paper No. 23, pt. 1, p. 47. 

KEEN, A. M. 1961. A proposed reclassification of the gastropod family 

Vermetidae. Bull. British Mus. (Nat. Hist.), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 183-212, 2 pls. 

MORCH, O. A. L. 1861-1862. Review of the Vermetidae. Part I. Proc. Zool. Soc. 
London for 1861, no. 2, pp. 145-181, Sept., 1861; Part II, ibid, no. 3, pp. 
326-365, pl. 25, Apr., 1862; Part III, ibid, for 1862, no. 1, pp. 54-83, June, 
1862. 


50 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


CARPOPHAGA AURORAE PEALE, 1848 AND SERRESIUS 
GALEATUS BONAPARTE, 1855 (AVES): PROPOSED 
CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF COLUMBA 
R. FORSTERI WAGLER, 1829. Z.N.(S.)2277 


By Murray D. Bruce (8 Spurwood Road, Turramurra, N.S.W. 2074, 
Australia), D. T. Holyoak (Dept. of Geography, University of Nottingham, 
University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England) and J.-C. Thibault (Parc 
Natural Régional de Corse, Rue Général Fiorella, B.P. No 417, 20184 
Ajaccio Cedex, Corse, France). 


This application is designed to preserve the long established and 
generally used specific names of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 (U.S. 
Expl. Exped., Birds vol. 8, p. 201) (type locality Aurora Island = Makatea, 
Tuamotu Archipelago), a fruit pigeon from Tahiti (Society Islands) and 
Makatea, and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 (C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 
vol. 41, p. 1110) (type locality Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands), a fruit 
pigeon from the Marquesas Islands. Both are currently placed in the genus 
Ducula (Goodwin, 1983, Pigeons and doves of the World, 3rd. ed., p. 320). 

2. Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 (Isis von Oken col. 739) (based 
on Columba globicera var. ? of Reinhold Forster MS., from Tahiti) has been 
variously identified as a senior subjective synonym of both Carpophaga 
aurorae Peale, 1848 (see paragraph 5 below) and Serresius galeatus 
Bonaparte, 1855 (see paragraph 4 below). 

3. According to Art. 26(d) of the Code as amended as Monaco (Bull. 
zool. Nomencl. vol. 29, pp. 72-73 & 188, 1972, approving Declaration 42, 
1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 23, pp. 198-200), an abbreviation in a 
compound name is to be written out in full. Hence Wagler’s name would 
become either reinholdiforsteri if the given name is put in the genitive case or 
reinholdforsteri if not. Subsequent authors have mostly quoted the name as 
‘Columba forsteri Wagler, 1829’ which is technically incorrect. This usage 
invites confusion with Columba Forsteri Desmarest, 1826 (Dict. Sci. nat. ed. 
Levrault vol. 11, p. 340), which was proposed as a new name for Columba 
porphyracea Temminck, 1821 (Trans. Linn. Soc. London vol. 13, p. 130) from 
Tongatabu and Ulietea. Columba Forsteri Desmarest, 1826 has usually 
been regarded as an objective synonym of Prilinopus porphyraceus 
(Temminck, 1821). The name Columba forsterii was also used by Prévost (in 
Knip, 1838-1843 Les Pigeons 2nd edition, vol. 2, p. 87, pl. 47) for the bird 
later named as Hemiphaga forsteni ‘Temminck’ Bonaparte, 1854 (C.R. 
Acad. Sci. Paris vol. 39, p. 1077). 

4. Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 was identified as a senior 
subjective synonym of Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 1855 by the following 
authors: 

(1) Gray, 1859. Cat. Bds Trop. Is. Pacific Ocean. 
(2) Wigglesworth, 1891. Abh. Ber. K. zool. anthr. Mus. Dresden 
1890-1891 (6). 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 51 


(3) Lysaght, 1957. Ibis vol. 99, pp. 118-120 (as ‘Ducula forsteri 
(Wagler), 1829’, with recommendation that this name should 
be used to replace Serresius galeata [sic] Bonaparte). 

5. Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 was identified as a senior 
subjective synonym of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 by the following 
authors: 

(1) Salvadori, 1893. Cat. Bds br. Mus. vol. 21, pp. 172-173 (identi- 
fied as the same as Carpophaga wilkesii Peale, 1848 (U.S. Expl. 
Exped. Bds vol. 8, p. 203), but with reservations; Carpophaga 
wilkesii Peale, 1848 was recognised as a junior subjective 
synonym of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 by Townsend & 
Wetmore (1919, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. vol. 63, p. 190), 
Murphy (1924, Am. Mus. Novit. No. 115, p. 8) and Mathews 
(1927, Syst. Av. Australas. vol. 1, p. 45)). 

(2) Mathews, 1927. Syst. Av. Australas. vol. 1, p. 45 (in synonymy 
of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 as ‘?Columba forsteri 
Wagler’). 

(3) Stresemann, 1950. Auk vol. 67, pp. 84-87 (as ‘Ducula forsteri 
(Wagler, 1829), with a recommendation that this name should 
not be adopted, ‘for the benefit of uniformity and stability’). 

We believe that the latter is the correct identification because Ducula 
aurorae is the only large fruit pigeon on Tahiti and the locality of Forster’s 
bird is given as Tahiti. However, others contend that there may formerly 
have been a second large species on Tahiti identical with D. galeata of the 
Marquesas Islands. 

6. Forster (1844, Descript. Animal., ed. Lichtenstein, p. 166) gave the 
locality for his Columba globicera Varietas as ‘insulae Otaheite’ which 
Wagler quoted as ‘Habitat in insula Otaheite’. Murphy (1924, Am. Mus. 
Novit. vol. 115, pp. 7-8), Mayr (1940, Am. Nat. vol. 74, p. 270), Amadon 
(1943, Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1237, p. 12), Thibault & Thibault (1973, Oiseau, 
Rey. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 67) and Holyoak (1974, Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 44, 
pp. 163-164; 1975, Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, pp. 341-344) have firmly 
established that Ducula galeata (Bonaparte) is known only from the 
Marquesas Islands, where D. aurorae (Peale) is unknown, the latter species 
being known with certainty only from Tahiti and Makatea. Lysaght (op. 
cit.) suggested that ‘the giant pigeon [D. galeata auct.], found only in the 
Marquesas, should be known as Ducula forsteri (Wagner) [sic] 1829, the 
type locality being Tahiti’. However, there is no evidence for the former 
occurrence of a second species of large pigeon on Tahiti, beyond a state- 
| ment rejecting the idea by Bonaparte and an unsupported suggestion of for- 
| mer occurrence of another form by Bruner (1972, Field Guide to Birds of 
| French Polynesia, p. 67) in a popular guide produced by cyclostyling. 
| Bonaparte (1855, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris vol. 41, p. 1111) stated: ‘On a assuré 
| aM. Jardin qu'il est plus frequent a Otahiti; mais j’ai peine a le croire, ne 
trouvant du reste pas étonnant qu’un oiseau si remarquable ait un nom 
| dans la langue d’un pays ou on l’importerait seulement’. 


52 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


7. The fruit-pigeon of Tahiti and Makatea has been universally 
known as Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848. A sample list of the literature 
mainly of the last fifty years but including some earlier standard works that 
were relied on for nomenclature is given in Appendix 1. 

8. With the few exceptions noted in paragraph 4 above, the fruit- 
pigeon of the Marquesas Islands has been universally known as Serresius 
galeatus Bonaparte, 1855. A sample list of the literature, mainly of the last 
fifty years but including some earlier standard works that were relied on for 
nomenclature, is given in Appendix 2. 

9. While a proposal to accept Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 in 
place of either aurorae or galeata (depending on which identification were 
accepted), would be in accordance with the Principle of Priority, either 
replacement would disturb stability and universality of usage and cause 
confusion because of the disparate views as to its identity. Art. 79 of the 
Code allows that a junior name may be validated in the interest of pro- 
moting stability and universality of usage or avoiding confusion. As noted 
in paragraph 5 above, Wagler’s name has not been adopted in place of 
Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 by any recent author, whereas numerous 
authors have used Peale’s name as indicated under paragraph 7 above. 
Intolerable confusion could arise if Columba R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829 were 
now adopted in place of Carpophaga aurorae Peale, 1848 or Serresius 
galeatus Bonaparte, 1855. Even if Wagler’s name (following Lysaght’s 
view) is interpreted as a senior synonym of Serresius galeatus Bonaparte, 
1855 (which we consider would be incorrect), usage of galeatus has been 
almost universal, as indicated in paragraph 8 above. The suppression of 
Wagler’s name (of uncertain applicability to one or other) is preferable 
to a ruling that Peale’s or Bonaparte’s names should merely be given pre- 
cedence over it, as it must apply to one or the other of the species currently 
known as Ducula aurorae or D. galeata. The birds of the Society Islands 
and the Marquesas Islands are now sufficiently well known for it to be 
extremely improbable that a second species of large pigeon exists in either 
archipelago. 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is, 
therefore, requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name R. 
Forsteri Wagler, 1829, as published in the binomen Columba R. 
Forsteri Wagler, 1829, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) aurorae Peale, 1848, as published in the binomen 
Carpophaga aurorae; 

(b) galeatus Bonaparte, 1855, as published in the binomen 
Serresius galeatus; 

(3) to place the specific name R. Forsteri Wagler, 1829, as 
published in the binomen Columba R. Forsteri and suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 53 


APPENDIX 1 


Recent and major books and papers using the specific name aurorae for the fruit- 
pigeon of the Society Islands: 

SALVADORI, 1893. Cat. Bds Br. Mus. vol. 21, pp. 172, 180. 

TOWNSEND & WETMORE, 1919. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zocl. vol. 63, p. 190. 
MURPHY, 1924. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 115, p. 8. 

MATHEWS, 1927. Syst. Av. Australia. vol. 1, p. 45. 

PETERS, 1937. Checklist Bds World vol. 3, p. 43. 

MAYR, 1940. Am. Nat. vol. 74, p. 270. 

AMADON, 1943. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1237, p. 12. 

GREENWAY, 1958. Extinct and vanishing bds World, p. 17. 

GOODWIN, 1967. Pigeons and doves World, pp. 385, 387, 398. 

THIBAULT & THIBAULT, 1973. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 67. 
EDWARDS, 1974. Coded list bds World, p. 41. 

HOLYOAK, 1974. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 44, pp. 11, 163-164, 183-184. 
THIBAULT, 1974. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. D vol. 278, p. 2478. 

THIBAULT & RIVES, 1975. Bds of Tahiti, p. 92. 

THIBAULT & THIBAULT, 1975. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, p. 91. 

GRUSON, 1976. Checklist Bds World, p. 42. 

HOLYOAK & THIBAULT, (1984). Bull. Mus. natn. d’Hist. nat., Paris, sér. A. 
Tome 127. 


APPENDIX 2 


Recent and major books and papers using the specific name ga/eatus for the fruit- 
pigeon of the Marquesas Islands: 

SALVADOR], 1893. Cat. Bds Br. Mus. vol. 21, p. 171. 

MURPHY, 1924. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 115, p. 7. 

MATHEWS, 1927. Syst. Ay. Australia. vol. 1, p. 44. 

PETERS, 1937. Checklist Bds World vol. 3, p. 43. 

ADAMSON, 1939. Bull. Bernice P. Bishop Mus. vol. 159, p. 64. 

MAYR, 1940. Am. Nat. vol. 74, p. 270. 

GREENWAY, 1958. Extinct and vanishing bds World, p. 95. 

KING, 1958. Elepaio vol. 19, p. 16. 

GOODWIN, 1967. Pigeons and doves World, pp. 385, 387, 399. 

THIBAULT, 1973. Bull. Soc. Et. Océaniennes, Polynésie orientale vol. 15, p. 268. 
THIBAULT, 1973. Alauda vol. 41, p. 314. 

THIBAULT & THIBAULT, 1973. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 43, p. 67. 
EDWARDS, 1974. Coded list bds World, p. 41. 

HOLYOAK, 1975. Oiseau, Rev. fr. Orn. vol. 45, pp. 215, 217, 341-344, 363. 
GRUSON, 1976. Checklist Bds World, p. 43. 

HOLYOAK & THIBAULT, (1984). Bull. Mus. natn. d’Hist. natn., Paris, sér. A, 
Tome 127. 


54 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


HUMEROBATES SELLNICK, 1928 (ARACHNIDA, ACARI): 
MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES NOTASPIS 
HUMERALIS HERMANN, 1804. Z.N.(S.)2374 


By Roy A. Norton (State University of New York, College of Environmental 
Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210, U.S.A.) 


This application is a plea for the Commission to use its plenary 
powers to designate Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936 as type 
species of Humerobates, in conformity with general usage. 

2. Hermann, 1804, p. 92, proposed the name Notaspis humeralis for 
an arboricolous oribatid mite species from Strasbourg, France. 

3. Banks, 1895, p. 7, proposed the name Oribata arborea for an 
arboricolous oribatid mite species collected from Sea Cliff, New York, 
U.S.A. 

4. Sellnick, 1928, p. 11, proposed the genus Humerobates with 
Notaspis humeralis Hermann, 1804 designated as type species. 

5. Jacot, 1931, p. 379, designated Oribata arborea a subspecies of H. 
humeralis (sensu Sellnick). His use of the heading ‘Humerobates humeralis 
arborea subsp. nov.’ was in error and Jacot corrected original reprints to 
read ‘Humerobates humeralis arborea (Banks, p. 7)’. 

6. Grandjean, 1936, provided conclusive evidence, never since ques- 
tioned, that the species studied and illustrated by Sellnick, 1928, was not 
Notaspis humeralis; therefore, the type species of Humerobates was mis- 
identified. Grandjean, p. 79, then proposed the genus Diapterobates with 
Trichoribates numerosus (Sellnick) designated type species. At the same time 
it was suggested that 7. numerosus was a junior subjective synonym of 
Notaspis humeralis (sensu Hermann). Grandjean, p. 77, proposed the new 
name Humerobates rostrolamellatus for the species misidentified by Sellnick 
and considered it to be the type species of Humerobates Sellnick, 1928. 

7. Jacot, 1938, considered Grandjean’s interpretation of the identity 
of Notaspis humeralis to be correct, but despite the misidentification implied 
that the rules of nomenclature required the type species of Humerobates to 
be the species bearing the name N. humeralis. He also implied, and later 
in 1940 specified, that Humerobates was therefore a junior synonym of 
Trichoribates Berlese, 1910 (he did not recognise Grandjean’s proposed 
genus Diapterobates). The problem of the synonymy and the type species of 
Trichoribates and Murcia C. L. Koch, 1835 will be the subject of a 
later application to the Commission. To provide a generic name for 
Humerobates rostrolamellatus and its American subspecies, H. rostrolamel- 
latus arboreus, Jacot, 1938, p. 14, proposed the genus Banksinus, with the 
older of the two species-group taxa, Oribata arborea, designated as type 
species. This resulted in the combinations Banksinus arboreus (Banks) and 
B. arboreus rostrolamellatus (Grandjean). 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 55 


8. Grandjean, 1971, p. 868, proposed the family HUMEROBATIDAE 
consisting of the single genus Humerobates. 

9. Since its proposal, the name Banksinus has been used only once in 
the primary zoological literature, by Jacot, 1940. In contrast, Humerobates 
has been in continuous use (in the sense of Sellnick and Grandjean) since its 
proposal. This includes major systematic monographs such as Willmann, 
1931; Sellnick, 1960; Kunst, 1971; Balogh, 1972 and earlier papers, and 
Shaldybina, 1975. The latter four, and all other published systematic works 
dealing with this group, list Humerobates rostrolamellatus as type species of 
Humerobates. Approximately three dozen publications of a distributional, 
ecological or morphological nature have used the name H. rostrolamellatus. 
Members of this species have some minor economic significance (Massee, 
1932; Krantz & Lindquist, 1979) and are considered to be bioindicators of 
sulphur dioxide air pollution (Lebrun et a/., 1978; André et al., 1982). 

10. Since strict adherence to nomenclatural rules would necessitate 
a change of the widely used name Humerobates and also affect the inter- 
pretation of the family name HUMEROBATIDAE, the International Com- 
mission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Humerobates 
Sellnick, 1928, and having done so to designate Humerobates 
rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, as type species for that 
genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Humerobates rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 
1936, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name rostrolamellatus Grandjean, 1936, 
as published in the binomen Humerobates rostrolamellatus 
(specific name of the type species of Humerobates Sellnick, 
1928) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


ANDRE, H. M., BOLLY, C. & LEBRUN, P. 1982. Monitoring and mapping air 
pollution through an animal indicator: a new and quick method. J. appl. 
Ecol., vol. 19, pp. 107-111. 

BALOGH, J. 1972. The oribatid genera of the world. Academiai Kiado, Budapest. 
pp. 1-188, 71 pl. 

BANKS, N. 1895. On the Oribatoidea of the United States. Trans Am. entomol. 
Soc., vol. 22, pp. 1-16. 

GRANDIJEAN, F. 1936. Les oribates de Jean Frédéric Hermann et de son pére 

(Arachn. Acar.). Annis Soc. entomol. France., vol. 105, pp. 27-110. 

1971. Nouvelles observations sur les oribates. Acarologia, vol. 12, pp. 

849-876. 

HERMANN, J. F. 1804. Mémoire Aptérologique. F. L. Hammer, Strasbourg, pp. 
1-152, 9 pl. 


56 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


JACOT, A. P. 1931. A common arboreal moss mite Humerobates humeralis. Occ. 

Pap. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., vol. 5, pp. 369-382, 1 pl. 

1938. Some new western North Carolina moss-mites. Proc. entomol. Soc. 

Washington, vol. 40, pp. 10-15. 

1940. New oribatid mites from South Africa. Ann. Natal Mus., vol. 9, 

pp. 391-400. 

KRANTZ, G. W. & LINDQUIST, E. E. 1979. Evolution of phytophagous mites 
(Acari). Ann. Rev. Entomol., vol. 24, pp. 121-158. 

KUNST, M. 1971. Nadkohorta Pancirnici— Oribatei. in Daniel & Cerny. Klic 
zvireny CSSR, pp. 531-580. Ceskoslovenska Akademie Ved. Praha. 

LEBRUN, P., JACQUES, J. M., GOOSSENS, M. & WAUTHY, G. 1978. The 
effect of interaction between the concentration of SO, and the relative 
humidity of air on the survival of the bark-living bio-indicator mite 
Humerobates rostrolamellatus. Wat. Air Soil Poll., vol. 10, pp. 269-275. 

MASSEE, A. M. 1932. Some injurious and beneficial mites on top and soft fruits. 
J. Pomol., vol. 10, pp. 106-129. 

SELLNICK, M. 1928. Formenkreis: Hornmilben, Oribatei. Tierwelt Mitteleur., vol. 

3, lief. 4, pp. 1-42. 

1960. Formenkreis: Hornmilben, Oribatei. Tierwelt Mitteleur., vol. 3, lief. 4, 

pp. 45-134. 

SHALDYBINA, E. S. 1975. Family Ceratozetidae, in: A key to the soil-inhabiting 
mites. Sarcoptiformes. Nauka, Moscow. pp. 277-303. 

WILLMANN, C. 1931. Moosmilben oder Oribatiden (Oribatei). Tierwelt Dtl., vol. 
22, pp. 79-200. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 57 


HATSCHEKIA POCHE, 1902 (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): 
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF 
PSEUDOCLAVELLA BASSETT-SMITH, 1898 Z.N.(S.)2390 


By J. B. Jones (Fisheries Research Division, P.O. Box 297, Wellington, 
New Zealand) 


The purpose of this application is to retain the generic name 
Hatschekia Poche, 1902 and to suppress as a forgotten name Pseudoclavella 
Bassett-Smith, 1898. 

2. In 1898 Bassett-Smith (1898, pp. 92-96) proposed a new genus 
and species of parasitic copepod, Pseudoclavella ovalis, two syntype speci- 
mens of which he deposited in the British Museum (Natural History) (Cat. 
no. 98.12.2.13). Unfortunately, although his description of the specimens 
was reasonably accurate, his illustrations were poor. 

3. Poche (1902, pp. 16-17) recognising the composite nature of 
Clavella Oken, 1815 as it was then constituted, and without any reference to 
Pseudoclavella, proposed the removal of four species of Clavella to a new 
genus which he named Hatschekia, designating C. hippoglossi Kroyer, 1838 
as the type species. Krgyer’s specimens no longer exist, but the species is 
common and well described. 

4. Meanwhile, Brian (1902, p. 38), also without reference to 
Pseudoclavella, proposed the transfer of seven species of Cycnus to Clavella, 
and these were subsequently transferred to Hatschekia by Goggio (1905, 
pp. 215-217). 

5. Goggio noticed the similarity between certain Hatschekia species 
and Pseudoclavella, and in a note (1905, p. 219) remarked, ‘Veramente 
questa specie si avvicina, come del resto anche la Hatschekia (Clavella) 
labracis Van Ben., al genere Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith (reference) per la 
presenza delle appendici addominali: la colloco pero nel genere Hatschekia 
perche, fra l’altro, queste sono rappresentate da un solo paio, mentre al 
posta del 2 paio di appendici addominali non si trovano tutt’al piu che due 
setole’. Had Goggio access to the type of Pseudoclavella he would undoubt- 
ably have transferred H. labracis and H. cernae into Pseudoclavella and the 
rest of Hatschekia would eventually have followed. 

6. By the time Wilson (1922) published his review of the North 
American DICHELESTHIIDAE, there were 25 recognised species of Hatschekia 
and one species of Pseudoclavella. Wilson, in comparing the genera within 
this family, apparently relied heavily on Bassett-Smith’s illustrations, and 
(p. 9) listed a number of differences between Pseudoclavella and Hatschekia, 
particularly in the structure of the antenna II and the third and fourth legs. 

7. Yamaguti (1963) was also misled by the structure of the third and 
fourth legs and transferred Pseudoclavella to the PSEUDOCYCNIDAE (p. 171). 
Hatschekia (Yamaguti, 1963, pp. 135-140) had grown to approximately 75 
described species. 


58 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


8. Pillai (1969, pp. 171-172) finally re-examined the type specimen 
of Pseudoclavella ovalis and transferred the species to Hatschekia without 
commenting on the problems of priority that might occur. 

9. Hatschekia now contains about 100 species. Since 1960 the 
following authors have described species ascribed to Hatschekia: 

Kabata, 1981, 1979, 1965 

Ho & Dojiri, 1978 

Cressey, 1970 

Hewitt, 1969 

Lewis, 1967 

Yamaguti & Yamasu, 1960 

The genus was transferred to a new family HATSCHEKIIDAE, by Kabata 
(1979). Pseudoclavella, while always recognised as a valid genus, has never 
been used as a senior synonym of Hatschekia. 

10. The present application seeks to place the proposal of Pillai 
(1969) on a proper footing. The International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is therefore requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name 
Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898 for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the 
generic name Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by original designation, Clavella hippoglossi Kroyer, 
1838; 

(3) to place the specific name hippoglossi Kroyer, 1838, as 
published in the binomen Clavella hippoglossi (specific name of 
the type species of Hatschekia Poche, 1902) on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the generic name Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898, 
as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


BASSETT-SMITH, P. W. 1898. Further new parasitic copepods found on fish in 
the Indo-tropical region. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. 2, pp. 77-98. 
BRIAN. A. 1902. Note su alcuni Crostacei parassiti dei Pesci del Mediterraneo. 

Atti Soc. ligust. Sci. nat. geogr., vol. 13, pp. 30-45, | plate. 

CRESSEY, R. F. 1970. Hatschekia pacifica new species (Copepoda, Caligoida) a 
parasite of the sand bass, Paralebrax nebulifer (Giard). Proc. biol. Soc. 
Wash., vol. 82(66), pp. 843-846. 

GOGGIO, E. 1905. Intorno al genere Clavella Oken (Hatschekia Poche). Archo. 
zool. ital., vol. 2, pp. 215-225, 4 figs. 

HEWITT, G. C. 1969. Two new species of Hatschekia (Copepoda, Dichelesthiidae) 
from New Zealand waters. N.Z. JI mar. freshw. Res., vol. 3, pp. 159-168. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 59 


HO, J. S. & DOJIRI, M. 1978. A new species of Hatschekia (Copepoda, Dicheles- 
thiidae) parasitic on leopard coral trout in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. 
J. Parasitol., vol. 64(4), pp. 727-730. 

KABATA, Z. 1965. Parasitic Copepoda of Fishes. Rep. B.A.N.Z. Antarctic. Res. 

Exped., ser. B, vol. 8(6), pp. 1-16. 

1979. Parasitic Copepoda of British Fishes. London BM(NH) for The Ray 

Society, monograph 152, i-xii, 468 pp., 2031 figs. 

1981. Relegation of Hatschekia acuta Barnard, 1948 to synonymy with 

Hatschekia conifera Yamaguti, 1939. (Copepoda: Syphonostomatoida). 

Can. J. Zool., vol. 59(11), pp. 2080-2084. 

LEWIS, A. G. 1967. Copepod crustaceans parasitic on teleost fishes of the 
Hawaiian Islands. Proc. U.S. Natn. Mus., vol. 121, pp. 1-204. 

PILLAI, N. K. 1969. Notes on some copepod parasites in the collection of the 
British Museum (N.H.), London. J. mar. biol. Ass. India, vol. 11(1-2), 
pp. 149-174, 138 figs. 

POCHE, F. VAN. 1902. Bemerkungen zu der Arbeit des Herrn Bassett-Smith, A 
Systematic Description of Parasitic Copepoda found on Fishes, with an 
Enumeration of the known Species. Zool. Anz., vol. 26, pp. 8-20. 

WILSON, C. B. 1922. North American parasitic copepods belonging to the family 
Dichelesthiidae. Proc. U.S. Natn. Mus., vol. 60, art. 5, pp. 1-100. 

YAMAGUTI, S. 1963. Parasitic Copepoda and Branchiura of Fishes. Interscience, 
New York, 1104 pp. 

——& YAMASJU, T. 1960. New parasitic copepods from Japanese fishes. Publs 
Seto mar. biol. Lab., vol. 8, pp. 141-152. 


60 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


THE DESCRIPTION OF NEW TAXA ON ENZYME DATA: 
A MATTER FOR DISCUSSION. Z.N.(S.)2458 


(1) By Jens Erik Jelnes (Thyboron Alle 82, 2720 Vanloese, Denmark) 


The widespread use of isoenzyme techniques, electrophoresis and 
isoelectric focusing, in studies of molecular biology has had an impact on 
studies in taxonomy and phylogeny of species in different animal groups. 
As early as 1963, Manwell & Baker discovered two sibling species of the sea 
cucumber Thyonella gemmata using starch gel electrophoresis. In their 
study they were able to relate the isoenzyme pattern to some differences 
in morphology. The first formal description of new taxa on the basis of 
isoenzyme pattern (Ayala, 1973) were two subspecies of the Drosophila 
willistoni group. Since then, several studies using the isoenzyme technique 
have revealed the presence of sibling species within what was considered 
one morphological species; generally, these discoveries were made on 
sympatric material. Grassle & Grassle, 1976, found the polychaete Capitella 
capitella to be composed of six sibling species, the oligochaete Lumbricillus 
rivalis was shown to be composed of three sibling species (Christensen & 
Jelnes, 1976), the prosobranch Goniobasis floridensis consists of two species 
(Chambers, 1978). It is beyond the scope of this contribution to mention all 
such cases, but it is due time, through a debate, to obtain some agreement 
on procedures for describing taxa, if necessary, solely from enzymic 
evidence. In literature one can find examples where diagnostic enzymes can 
not readily be examined by other workers due to inadequate description of 
the methodology used. It would be fruitful if the suggestions resulting from 
the discussion opened by this paper could be included in the International 
Code for zoological nomenclature. 

2. What is to be discussed applies on/y to the formal description of 
new taxa, although the recommendations might have an impact on other 
isozymic work. 

3. The first four recommendations suggested apply to the reprodu- 
cibility of diagnostic enzyme characters. This is of great importance, as a 
zoological taxon should be described from diagnostic characters that are 
readily recognisable for colleagues. It does not suffice to state that 18 
specified enzymes were investigated using 11 different buffers. It might well 
be that an enzyme is diagnostic in one buffer but not in another, e.g. the 
enzyme glutamate—oxaloacetate transaminase has clearly different mobili- 
ties in the species Bulinus tropicus and B. permembranaceus using buffer C 
(Jelnes, 1979), whereas the enzyme mobilities are identical using buffer B 
(Henriksen & Jelnes, 1980) (unpublished observations). 

4. I therefore suggest the four following recommendations: 

(1) gel medium (starch, polyacryl amide, cellulose acetate, etc.) 
and gel concentration (where applicable) should be clearly 
specified, preferably with the name of the manufacturer; 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 61 


(2) chemical composition of buffers used, either in grams per litre 
or molarity, as well as pH of the buffers, should be clearly 
stated; 

(3) it should appear clearly in which gels, characterised by the 
buffer, the different enzymes are stained, and what the staining 
mixture is composed of; 

(4) the procedure of scoring should be indicated. Is it (a) relative 
mobility to a standard marker, (b) relative mobility to the cor- 
responding enzyme of a specified strain, (c) direct comparison 
between enzyme bands between the different taxa on the gels, 
or (d) isoelectric point. 

The last three recommendations suggested apply to the concept of the 
holotype. It is fully realised that these might not apply to all groups of 
animals, but it is of importance for possible later morphological studies that 
some material be preserved, labelled properly according to the ICZN as 
holotype and paratypes. 

(5) if possible, not whole animals, but parts of no obvious mor- 
phological significance, should be used for enzyme studies. The 
part of one individual that is not used should be preserved and 
labelled as the holotype, and those of other individuals from 
the same locality of similar phenotype or genotype, should be 
kept and labelled as paratypes; 

(6) if whole animals have to be used for enzyme studies, care 
should be taken to select the type locality as a locality where 
only the new taxon is found, i.e. without closely related 
species. This has to be shown by analysis of a number of 
specimens. The holotype and paratypes can then be designated 
from the remaining individuals of the collection, constituting 
only the new taxon as revealed enzymewise; 

(7) A photograph of the zymograms showing the diagnostic 
characters should be provided along with the description, pre- 
ferably showing the band position(s) of the related species as 
well. 

5. There is no doubt that in the future, enzymic characters will come 
to play a more important role in systematic work. For those unacquainted 
with the use of enzymic data in systematics, Avise, 1974, has provided an 
informative account. I shall look forward to a hopefully fruitful debate on 
the subject. 


REFERENCES 


AVISE, J. C. 1974. Systematic value of electrophoretic data. Systematic Zoology, 
vol. 23, pp. 465-481. 


62 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


AYALA, F. J. 1973. Two new subspecies of the Drosophila willistoni group 
(Diptera: Drosophilidae). Pan—Pacific Entomol., vol. 49, pp. 273-279. 
CHAMBERS, S. M. 1978. An electrophoretically detected sibling species of ‘Gonio- 
basis floridensis’ (Mesogastropoda: Pleuroceridae). Malacologia, vol. 17, 

pp. 157-162. 

CHRISTENSEN, B. & JELNES, J. E. 1976. Sibling species in the oligochaete worm 
Lumbricillus rivalis revealed by enzyme polymorphism and breeding experi- 
ments. Hereditas, vol. 83, pp. 237—244. 

GRASSLE, J. P. & GRASSLE, J. F. 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution 
indicator Capitella (Polychaeta). Science, vol. 192, pp. 567-569. 

HENRIKSEN, U. B. & JELNES, J. E. 1980. Experimental taxonomy of Biom- 
phalaria (Gastropoda: Planorbidae) I. Methods for experimental taxonomic 
studies on Biomphalaria carried out by horizontal starch gel electrophoresis 
and staining of twelve enzymes. J. Chromatogr., vol. 188, pp. 169-176. 

JELNES, J. E. 1979. Experimental taxonomy of Bulinus. II. Recipes for horizontal 
starch gel electrophoresis of ten enzymes in Bulinus and description of 
internal standard systems and two new species of the Bulinus forskalii 
complex. J. Chromatogr., vol. 170, pp. 405-411. 

MANWELL, C. & BAKER, C. M. A. 1963. A sibling species of sea cucumber 
discovered by starch gel electrophoresis. Comp. Bioch. Physiol., vol. 10, 
pp. 39-53. 


(2) by Renaud Fortuner (Department of Food & Agriculture, 1220 N Street, 
Room 340, Sacramento CA 95814, U.S.A.) 


A zoological name published after 1930 is available only if it is 
‘accompanied by a description or definition that states in words the charac- 
ters that are purported to differentiate the taxon’ (Article 13a(i)). The type 
affords the standard of reference that determines the application of the 
name (Article 61). It is evident that the differentiating characters given in 
the original description of a taxon must be visible in the type of this taxon. 
This is generally the case in taxa described and differentiated from purely 
morphological data. If a scientist suspects errors in the description of a 
taxon he may study his type and propose his own interpretation of the 
morphological data. 

2. Nowadays, however, more and more non-morphological charac- 
ters are used to differentiate new taxa. Recently the nematode species 
Radopholus citrophilus was established by Huettel, Dickson & Caplan, 1984 
(Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, vol. 51, pp. 32-35) and differentiated by 
its chromosome number and by seven diagnostic loci in starch gel electro- 
phoresis. These characters are not visible in the traditional glycerine 
mounts that constitute the type and the type series of the new species. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 63 


3. ask the Commission to study this problem and to provide means 
for checking the accuracy of the description of a new taxon based on such 
non-morphological criteria. The type series might be allowed to include 
photographs or permanent mounts showing chromosomes or protein 
migration; or a living culture of the type population might be maintained, 
from which fresh specimens could be taken and processed to verify chromo- 
somes or proteins. Whatever solution is eventually found, I think it is 
important to give the new criteria equal status with the traditional 
morphological criteria. 


64 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


AUTHORSHIP AND DATES OF THE SOWERBYS’ MINERAL 
CONCHOLOGY OF GREAT BRITAIN. Z.N.(S.)2483 


By C. W. Wright (The Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, 
Dorset DT8 30 Y) & R. J. Cleevely (British Museum ( Natural History), 
London SW7 SBD) 


The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, published between 1812 
and 1845, is recognised to be of fundamental importance in British 
invertebrate palaeontology, containing as it does 640 plates and the descrip- 
tions of many fossil invertebrates, the majority of them new. 

2. The work was issued irregularly in parts. On the covers of the 
individual parts, James Sowerby was given as the sole author up to Part 70 
which has the printed date of 1 May 1823. Thereafter the covers include 
the phrase ‘continued by J. de C. Sowerby’; Part 71 is dated 1 June 1823. 
In fact, James Sowerby died on 25 October 1822. An indication of the 
consequent change is given on the back cover of Part 66 (dated 1 November 
1822) when ‘Messrs. Sowerby’ make the customary request for information 
previously requested by James Sowerby. 

3. The dates of issue of the parts are of importance in questions of 
priority. In 1855 Renevier, after examining the set of parts in the British 
Museum and then consulting James de Carle Sowerby, published a list of 
dates for the parts of the Mineral Conchology in the Bull. Soc. vaudoise Sci. 
nat. but only referred to the plate numbers they contained. R. B. Newton, 
1891, produced a table listing the parts and plates that were published in 
each year. Sykes in 1906, after examining the only known surviving set of 
the original wrappers, published a more detailed list that revised the plate 
groupings for parts in volumes 4, 5 and 6. Minor amendments to that list 
have been made by Cleevely, 1974, who also emphasised that the printed 
dates cannot be entirely relied upon but have to be accepted without other 
evidence. 

4. Renevier, 1855, attributed all the plates and descriptions up to 
pl. 383 (in Part 66, dated November 1822) to James Sowerby and all 
subsequent plates beginning with pl. 384 (in Part 67, dated January 1823) to 
J. de C. Sowerby. R. B. Newton, 1891 p. 323, stated that James Sowerby 
completed Nos. 1-65 and that after his death in 1822, the subsequent 
portions Nos. 66-113, were brought out by his son, James de Carle 
Sowerby. Sykes, 1906, did not refer to the change in authorship. Sherborn 
noted in his copy of Renevier’s paper that plate 377 was the last described 
by James Sowerby and in his Jndex animalium, 1922-33, he gave J. de C. 
Sowerby as the author of all the new species described in Part 66 and 
subsequently. 

5. In a published letter commenting on the pirated editions of the 
Mineral Conchology that were issued by Agassiz, J. de C. Sowerby, 1839, 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 65 


gave an account of the method employed by the family in producing 
material for the work: 


‘The author James Sowerby being much more partial to the pictorial 
department, referred the principal part of the text to his two eldest sons, 
myself and Mr G. B. Sowerby, while he executed the plates wholly himself: 
and he continued his task regularly, even during a long and painful illness 
until within three or four days of his death in 1822... For some time 
previous to this sad event, it had fallen to my lot to describe the whole of the 
shells, and now I was obliged, in addition, to engrave the plates, a few only 
having been done in advance by my father.’ 


However, while this passage throws some light on the way in which the text 
was drafted it cannot be taken as giving conclusive evidence on authorship; 
there is no evidence either way whether James Sowerby read through or 
took responsibility for the publication of the parts issued in 1822 that 
carried his name on their covers. 

6. It has been suggested (Cleevely, 1974) that in view of J. de C. 
Sowerby’s remarks, the authorship of the seven new molluscan species 
described in Part 66, i.e. pl. 378: Cypraea coccinelloides, C. retusa, C. 
avellana [all now Trivia]; Pl. 379: Auricula pyramidalis [= Melampus]; PI. 
381: Plagiostoma rusticum and Pl. 382 Plagiostoma laeviusculum [both 
= Lima]: P|. 383: Gryphaea nana [= Nanogyra] should be attributed to him. 
However, on the same basis it could be argued that for an undefined period 
before the death of James Sowerby the authorship of all new names ought 
to be attributed to James, James de Carle and G. B. Sowerby. 

7. The change of authorship from James to J. de C. Sowerby is thus 
given by: 

(i) Renevier, 1855, as from pl. 384, dated 1 January 1823; 

(ii) Newton, 1891; Sherborn, 1922—33; and Cleevely, 1974, as from pl. 378. 
dated | February 1822 [but known to be later]; 

(iii) the printed wrappers of the Mineral Conchology itself, as from pl. 408, 
dated 1 June 1823. 

Such confusion is intolerable. Unless a ruling is given, future authors on the 

basis of published statements will be free to choose between these three 

alternatives and between the various sets of publication dates. 

8. It has to be assumed that the only basis that Newton and 
Sherborn had for their action of changing the authorship of the species 
described in Part 66 is the evidence mentioned in paragraph 5 above and 
the date of James Sowerby’s death. Neither of these authors provided any 
other information, nor is there any document in the volumes of Mss Notes 
& Correspondence relating to the Evidence of Dates of Books accumulated 
by C. D. Sherborn to substantiate his action. 

9. In accordance with accepted practice the evidence of the covers as 
to authorship should be followed, but, to the best of our knowledge, for 
many years all authors have accepted either Renevier’s or Sherborn’s date 


66 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


for the change of author. Arkell, 1934, p. viii, specifically followed Renevier 
and in fact, all recent usage has adopted the same practice, e.g.: Harmer, 
1925; Arkell, [1930]; Cox & Arkell, 1948; the compilers of British Cainozoic 
Fossils, 1959 & 1975; H. B. Stenzel in the Treatise of Invertebrate Palaeon- 
tology, Part N, 1971; Duff, 1975. 

10. It might be argued that a simple method of overcoming the 
difficulty over authorship would be to refer all new species in the Mineral 
Conchology to ‘Sowerby’ thereby avoiding the need for establishing the 
particular member in that family who was responsible. However, general 
usage over many years has been to differentiate between James and James 
de Carle Sowerby. Further, the adoption of such a practice would not allow 
for the differing degree of palaeontological understanding of father and son 
that in part was the result of the development of the science over the period 
during which the Mineral Conchology was published. 

11. For the removal of uncertainty over authorship and to ensure 
stability of nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is requested to rule that: 

(a) the publication dates of the pages and plates of the Mineral 
Conchology of Great Britain, 1812-1845, are to be taken as set 
out by Cleevely, 1974 (and reproduced here as an Appendix); 

(b) the change of authorship from James to James de Carle 
Sowerby is to be taken as stated by Renevier in 1855; thus, all 
species described and figured in vols | to 3 and vol. 4, pages 
1-114 and plates 1 to 383 (parts | to 66) are to be attributed 
to James Sowerby and all those described and figured in 
subsequent pages and plates are to be attributed to James de 
Carle Sowerby. 


REFERENCES 


ARKELL, W. J. 1929-37. A monograph of British Corallian Lamellibranchs. 

Monogr. palaeontogr. Soc., London. xxxviii+ 392 pp., 55 pls. 

1934. Ammonites of the English Corallian Beds. Part 1. Monogr. palaeon- 

togr. Soc., London; xxxii+30 pp., pls. A—B, i-vi. 

BRITISH MUSEUM (Natural History), 1961. British Cainozoic Fossils. Brit. Mus. 
(Nat. Hist.), London, Ist ed. 1961; 5th ed. 1975: vit+ 132 pp., 44 pls. 

CLEEVELY, R. J. 1974. The Sowerbys, the Mineral Conchology, and their fossil 
collection. J/. Soc. Biblphy. nat Hist., vol. 6 (6), pp. 418-481. 

COX, L. R. & ARKELL, W. J. 1948. A Survey of the Mollusca of the British Great 
Oolite series... A Nomenclatorial Revision... Pt. 1. Monogr. Palaeontogr. 
Soc., London, xxiii+ 105+ [xlii] pp. 

DUFF, K. L. 1975. Palaeoecology of a bituminous shale—the Lower Oxford Clay 
of central England. Palaeontology, vol. 18 (3), pp. 443-482. 

HARMER, F. W. 1920-25. The Pliocene Mollusca of Great Britain. Vol. 2, 
Supplement to S. V. Wood, Monograph of the Crag Mollusca. Monogr. 
palaeontogr. Soc., London, pp. i-xili+ 485-856. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 67 


NEWTON, R. B. 1891. Systematic list of the F. E. Edwards collection of British 
Oligocene and Eocene mollusca in the British Museum (Natural History). 
Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), London, xxviii+ 365 pp. 

PALMER, K. V. W. 1966. Who were the Sowerbys? Sterkiana, No. 23: 1-6. 

RENEVIER, E. 1855. Dates de la publication des espéces contenues dans les 
planches de la Conchologie minéralogique de la Grande Bretagne. Bull. Soc. 
vaudoise Sci. nat., vol. 4, pp. 318-320. 

SHERBORN, C. D. 1922-1933. Index animalium, 1801-1850. Brit. Mus. (Nat. 

Hist.), London, 9 vols. 

[Cypraea avellana: p. 620; Cypraea coccinelloides: p. 1376; Plagiostoma 

laeviusculum: p. 3380; Gryphaea nana: p. 4248; Auricula pyramidalis: p. 5334; 

Cypraea retusa: p. 5487; Plagiostoma rusticum: p. 5697.] 

MSS Notes and Correspondence. Evidence of Dates of Books. 2 vols. 

B.M.(N.H.) Palaeontology Library. [Amongst the items relating to the 

Mineral Conchology [690-697] only the annotated copy of Renevier’s 

pamphlet and a letter from Professor Renevier dated 12 October 1888 have 

any bearing.] 

SOWERBY, J. de C. 1839. Letter on the subject of the French Edition of the 
Mineral Conchology. Mag. nat. Hist., London, New Ser., vol. 3, pp. 
418-420. 

STENZEL, H. 1971. Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, 
Vol. 3; Oysters. Geol. Soc. Amer. & Univ. Kansas, Lawrence, pp. i-iv+ 
N953-N1224. 

SYKES, E. R. 1906. On the dates of publication of Sowerby’s ‘Mineral Conchology’ 
and ‘Genera of Recent and Fossil shells’. Proc. malacol. Soc. Lond., vol. 7, pp. 
191-194. 


68 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


APPENDIX 


PUBLICATION DATES OF THE MINERAL CONCHOLOGY 
Based on Sykes (1906) and the full set of wrappers in the B.M.(N.H.) 
Vol. I: 18 Parts 


Part Plates Pages Date 
1 1-3* i-vui, 9-16 June Ist, 1812 
4-9 17-32 Aug. Ist 
3 10-15 33-48 Feb. Ist, 1813 
4 1621 49-60 Apr. Ist 
5 22-27 61-72 June Ist 
6 28-33 73*-76*, 73-84 Aug. Ist 
7 33 bis, 34-38 73**-84** Oct. Ist 
8 39-44 85-96 Dec. Ist 
9 45-50 97-108 Feb. Ist, 1814 
10 51-56 109-124 Apr. Ist 
11 57-62 125-140 June Ist 
12 63-67** 141-152 Aug. Ist 
13 68-73 153-168 Oct. Ist 
14. 74-78** 169-178 Dec. Ist 
15 79-84 179-194 Feb. Ist, 1815 
16 85-90 195-202 Apr. Ist 
17 91-96 203-218 June Ist 
18 97-102 219-234, & Index to 
Vol. [pp. 2] Aug. Ist 


Vol. II: 17 Parts 


19 103-108 1-12 Oct. Ist, 1815 
Includes Supplementary Index to Vol. 1: 8 
20 109-114 13-28 Dec Ist 
21 115-120 29-44 Feb. Ist, 1816 
22 121-126 45-60 Apr. Ist 
23 127-132 61-72 June Ist 
24 133-138 [73-84] = 77-78 Aug. Ist 
25 139-144 85-100 Oct. Ist 
26 145-150 101-116 Dec. Ist 
27 (151-156 117-128 Feb. Ist, 1817 
28 157-162 129-140 Apr. Ist 
29 163-168 141-154 June Ist 
30 169-174 155-166 Aug. Ist 
31 175-180 167-178 Oct. Ist 
32 181-184, 184A, 185-1869 179-194 Dec. Ist 
33 187-192 195-210 Feb. Ist, 1818 
34 193-198 211-224 Apr. Ist 
35 199-203** 225-235 & Index to 
Vol. II: [237-239] June Ist 


N.B. Supplementary Index to Vol. II (pp. 240-251) appeared in No. 38 
(Dec. Ist, 1818). 


Vol. III: 18 Parts 
36 6204-209 
37. 210-215 
38 216-221 
39 222-227 
40 228-233 
41 234-239 
42 240-245 
43 246-248* 
44 249-253** 
45 254-259 
46 260-265 
47 266-271 
48 272-277 
49 278-283 
50 284-289 
51 290-294** 


52 295-300 
53 301-306 


Supplementary Index to Vol. III published in No. 61 (June Ist, 


Vol. IV: 17 Parts 
54 307-312 
55 313-318 
56 319-324 
57 325-330 
58 331-336 
59 337-342 
60 343-348 
61 349-354 
62 355—-359** 
63 360-365 
64 366-371 
65 372-377 


66 378-383 


67 384-388** 
68 389-394 
69 395-400 
70 401-4079 


1-16 

17-28 

29-40 

41-48 

49-58 

59-68 

69-80 

81-88 

89-98 

99-106 

107-118 

119-126 

127-138 

139-150 

151-162 

163-166, 166*—167* 
167-170 

171-178 

179-184 & Index to 
Vol. III: [185-186] 


1-8 
9-16 
17-24 
25-32 
33-44 
45-56 
57-68 
69-76 
771-82 
83-90 
89b, 91-96 
97-104 


105-114 


115-122 

123-130 

131-138 

139-148 & Index to 
Vol. IV: [149-151] 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 69 


Aug. Ist, 1818 
Oct. Ist 
Dec. Ist 
Feb. Ist, 1819 
Apr. Ist 
June Ist 
Aug. Ist 
Oct. Ist 
Dec. Ist 
Feb. Ist, 1820 
Apr. Ist 
May Ist 
May Ist, 1821 
June Ist 
July Ist 


Aug. Ist 
Sept. Ist 


Oct. Ist 
1822): 187-194 


Nov. Ist, 1821 
Dec. Ist 
Jan. Ist, 1822 
Feb. Ist 
Mar. Ist 
Apr. Ist 
May Ist 
June Ist 
July Ist 
Aug. Ist 
Sept. Ist 
Oct. Ist 


Jan. Ist, 1823 
Feb. Ist 
Apr. Ist 


May Ist 


Supplementary index to Vol. IV published in No. 73 (Aug. Ist 1823): 153-160 


70 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


Vol. V: 16 Parts 


71 408-413 1-12 June Ist, 1823 
72 414-419 13-20 July Ist 
73 420-425 21-32 Aug. Ist 
74 426431 33-40 Sept. Ist 
75 432-437 41-48 Nov. Ist 
76 438-443 49-64 Dec. Ist 
77 445-450 65-72 Jan. Ist, 1824 
78 *444, 451-455 63*—64*, 73-78 Mar. Ist 
79 456-461 79-90 Apr. Ist 
80 462-467 91-98 May Ist 
81 468-473 99-114 Aug. Ist 
82 474-479 115—130 Nov. Ist 
83 480-485 131-138 Dec. Ist 
84 486491 139-144 Mar. Ist, 1825 
85 492-497 145-152 May Ist 
86 498-503 153-168 & Index to 
Vol. V: [169-171] Sept. Ist 


* Note on cover=“‘this table was accidentally passed over in No. 77, which should 
have begun with it”’. 


Vol. VI: 19 parts 


87 504-509 1-12 Feb. Ist, 1826 
88 510-515 13-28 Mar. Ist 

89 516-521 29-36 Apr. Ist 

90: -$22-S27 37-44 May Ist 

Ol) 528—955 45-50 July Ist 

92 534-539 51-76 Sept. Ist 

93 540-545 771-86 Nov.. Ist 

94 546-551 87-96 Jan. Ist, 1827 
95) 5552-951 97-108 Mar. Ist 

96 558—562** 109-120 May Ist 

97 563-568 121-132 Aug. Ist 

98 569-574 133-140 Sept. Ist 

99. 575-580 141-156 Nov. Ist 

100 581-586 157-164 Jan. Ist, 1828 
101 3587-591 165-184 June Ist 

102 592-597 185-200 Aug. Ist 

103 598-603 201-214 Jan. Ist, 1829 
104 604-609 215-230, Title & Index 


to Vol. VI: [231-235] — July Ist, 1829 
105 Portrait of James Sowerby: Preface to the General Indexes and the 
Systematical Index to the Six volumes by J. de C. Sowerby: [239}-250 
Aug Ist, 1835 


Vol. VII: 8 Parts 


106 


610-6137 
614-618** 
619-623** 
624-628** 
629-633** 
634-638** 
639-643** 
644-648 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


71 


Alphabetical Index to the first 6 vols.: 1-11 March, 1840 


1-8 
9-16 
17-24 
25—40 
41-48 
49-56 
57-80 


Oct. 1840 
Mar. 1841 
Feb. 1843 
Jan. 1844 
Mar. 1844 
Nov. 1844 
Jan. 1846 


All parts contain 6 pls, except for those marked * = 3, ** =5, gp=7, + =4 


72 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


HYMENOLEPIS WEINLAND, 1858 (CESTODA): PROPOSED 
DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)1156 


By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
(CIOMS Case No. 1) 


There are two reasons why the Commission should give urgent 
consideration to the generic name Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858. The first is 
connected with the work of the Council of International Organisations of 
Medical Sciences, an affiliate of the World Health Organisation. This 
Council is drawing up an international nomenclature of diseases, in several 
volumes. Vol. II, part 4 deals with the parasitic diseases of the human 
species. The Commission’s Secretariat has undertaken to verify the nomen- 
clatural status of the scientific names involved (some 700 in number), 
excluding names in the order-class group. The second reason is that 
Hymenolepis was placed on the Official List by the ruling given in Opinion 
77 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73(1), pp. 71-73, 1922); but when the first 
instalment of the Official List of Generic names in Zoology in book form 
was being prepared in 1958, the entry concerning Hymenolepis was found to ° 
be defective. The name was therefore given a number on the Official List 
(No. 243) but full publication of the entry was deferred. 

2. The entry for Hymenolepis in Opinion 77 reads in full: 

‘Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858a, 52; tsd Taenia diminuta Rud., 

1819a, 689 (type host Mus rattus: Brazil). [HSW; S.]’ 

This is to be interpreted as follows: the references ‘1858a’ and ‘1819a’ are 
to the comprehensive bibliography published by Stiles & Hassall, 1902, in 
the Index Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology; ‘tsd’ means type 
[species] by subsequent designation; ‘HSW; S’ means that the case had been 
studied by a committee of the Helminthological Society of Washington and 
by Stiles. 

3. The facts are that Hymenolepis was established by Weinland, 
1858, pp. 49-57, by a lengthy discussion and description. Only one species, 
H. flavopunctata Weinland, 1858, ibid., is referred to the genus in the text, 
but in a footnote to p. 52 is found: ‘The Taenioids belonging to this genus 
live in insectivorous Mammalia and birds, and we may distinguish two sub- 
genera, which separate pretty well those of the Mammalia from those of the 
birds, viz.: Subg. 1, Lepidotrias Weinl.... Nearly all the species living in 
insectivorous Mammalia. As the type we may consider Taenia murina, 
Dujardin; and besides this belong here [10 previously described species] and 
Hymenolepis flavopunctata. Subg. 2, Dilepis Weinl.... The tapeworms of 
this subgenus live particularly in insectivorous birds and we may consider 
Taenia angulata Rudolphi as its type.’ Three other previously described 
species were referred to Dilepis. 

4. It will be seen that Taenia diminuta Rudolphi was not originally 
included in the genus and therefore that it cannot be the type species under 


| 
| 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 73 


Article 67g. The type species, by original designation, is clearly Taenia 
murina Dujardin, and Lepidotrias is a junior objective synonym of 
Hymenolepis. 

5. Stiles further misunderstood the situation when he said (1896, p. 
32): ‘Weinland proposed this genus, with Taenia flavopunctata as type, but 
as this form is identical with Taenia diminuta the name H. diminuta is here 
inserted as type species.’ This has been accepted ever since. As Hymenolepis 
has been used in this sense in many hundreds of works, and is still so used, it 
is clearly desirable to regularise this usage. H. diminuta and H. nana (von 
Siebold, 1852) occur in humans and present medical problems. Lepidotrias 
does not appear ever to have been used. 

6. The family-group name HYMENOLEPIDINAE (as ‘Hymenolepinae’) 
was established by Perrier, [1896], p. 1852. 

7. According to Burt, 1980, the H. diminuta infests some 70 species 
and subspecies of mammals, including humans, and some birds, and is 
found in all countries. The larva infests some 57 species of insects, some of 
which are closely associated with humans. There is recent evidence of 
pathological effects in humans at the physiological and biochemical levels. 
He lists 348 references, about 75% of which have appeared in the last 50 
years; they are by many different authors. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species 
hitherto made for Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 and to designate Taenia 
diminuta Rudolphi, 1819 as type species of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) 
above, Taenia diminuta Rudolphi, 1819, on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology: 

(3) to place the specific name diminuta Rudolphi, 1819, as published 
in the binomen Taenia diminuta (specific name of type species of 
Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858) on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology; 

(4) to place the family-group name HYMENOLEPIDINAE Perrier, [1896] 
(type genus Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858) on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


BURT, M. J. B. 1980 in ARAIT, H. P. ed. Biology of the tapeworm Hymenolepis 
diminuta. Academic Press, 733 pp. (pp. 1-57). 

RUDOLPHI, C. A. 1819. Entozoorum Synopsis, cui accedunt mantissa duplex et 
indices locupletissimi. Berlin, pp. x, 811 (p. 689). 

STILES, C. W. 1896. Report on the present knowledge of the tapeworms of poultry. 
Bull. Bur. Anim. Ind. U.S. Dept. Agric., no. 12, 73 pp., 20 pls. 

WEINLAND D. F. 1858. Human Cestoides. An essay on the tapeworms of Man. 
Cambridge [Mass.], 93 pp. 


74 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


ECHINOCOCCUS RUDOLPHI, 1801 (CESTODA): PROPOSED 
CONFIRMATION OF ENTRY ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. 
Z.N.(S.)1157 


By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
(CIOMS Case No. 2) 


The same reasons why the Commission should give urgent attention 
to the case of Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 (see pp. 72-73) apply also to the 
case of Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801: the entry in Opinion 84 placing this 
name on the Official List was found to be defective in 1958 (when the Name 
Number 283 was allotted to it); and the name figures in the CIOMS list of 
human parasitic diseases. 

2. The full entry for Echinococcus in Opinion 84 reads as follows: 

‘Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801a, 52-53, type granulosus (in sheep; 

Europe).’ 

Echinococcus was described by Rudolphi, 1801, Archiv Zool. (Wiedemann), 
vol. 2(1), pp. 52-53 and 55 for the parasitic worms divided by Goeze into 
Taenia visceralis, cerebrina, multiceps and Taenia visceralis socialis granulosa. 
Neither of those specific names is available, since both are polynominal. 
Rudolphi did not designate a type species nor clearly indicate which of 
Goeze’s species he regarded as valid. However, ‘Taenia granulosa’ is always 
cited as the type species. It was first formally so designated by Stiles & 
Stevenson, 1905, Bull. Bur. Anim. Ind. U.S. Dept. Agric., vol. 80, p. 13 as 
‘Taenia visceralis socialis granulosa’. That designation under a polynominal 
name cannot be accepted as valid. 

3. The specife name granulosa was first made available, in the 
binomen Hydatigena granulosa, by Batsch, A. G. C., 1796, Naturgeschichte 
der Bandwurmgattung (Halle), pp. 87-88. By his synonymic reference to 
‘GOtze, p. 258’ he shows that he is referring to the nominal species described 
by Goeze, 1782, Versuch Naturg. Eingeweidewiirmer, pp. 42, 192, 258. The 
species is cited as ‘Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786) in two recent 
authoritative reference works: Yamaguti, 1959, Systema Helminthum, vol. 
2, p. 442, and Wardle & Mcleod, 1952, Zoology of Tapeworms, p. 391. 

4. Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 is clearly to be regarded as a genus 
established without any included species, since none were then cited under 
available names (Art. 69a(i)). The species (or one of those species) first 
subsequently referred to it must therefore be the type species. The first sub- 
sequent reference of species to the genus that I have traced is by Rudolphi 
himself. In 1805, Bemerk. Gebiet Naturges., Med. Thierarzneyk. Reise 
Deutschland, Holland, Frankreich, part 2, p. 41, he cited ‘Echinococcus 
granulosus mihi’. This is to be read as a citation of Hydatigena granulosa 
Batsch, 1786, which is in consequence the type species of Echinococcus by 
subsequent monotypy. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 75 


5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly asked: 

(a) to confirm the entry of Echinococcus on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology and to complete it as follows: 
Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species, 
by subsequent monotypy, Hydatigena granulosa Batsch, 1786 
(Name Number 283); 

(b) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the 
specific name granulosa Batsch, 1786, as published in the 
binomen Hydatigena granulosa (specific name of type species 
of Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801). 


76 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


ANOPLOCEPHALA BLANCHARD, 1848 (CESTODA): PROPOSED 
CONFIRMATION OF ENTRY ON OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)2498 


By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
(CIOMS Case No. 3) 


The generic name Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 was placed on the 

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 77 as follows: 
‘Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848e, 344-345; tsd Taenia perfoliata 
Goeze, 1782a, 43, 353 (type host Equus caballus; Europe). [HSW; 
S] [Not Anoplocephala Stal, 1870, hemipteron.]’ 

This is to be interpreted as follows: ‘Blanchard, 1848e’ refers to the com- 

prehensive bibliography published by Stiles & Hassall, 1902, in the Index 

Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology; ‘tsd’ means type [species] by 

subsequent designation; ‘HSW; S’ means that the case had been studied by 

a committee of the Helminthological Society of Washington and by Stiles. 

When the first instalments of the Official Lists were being prepared 
in 1958, the Name Number 242 was allotted to Anoplocephala; but the entry 
was not completed because the statement in Opinion 77 was found to be 
defective: Goeze, 1782 is not a binominal work, and consequently no name 
acquired availability by having been published in it. In addition, the ruling 
gives no indication of how, by whom or where the type species was 
designated. 

2. Anoplocephala, like Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (p. 74), must be 
considered to be a genus established without any included species (Article 
69a(i)), since none was referred to it under an available name. The first 
subsequent reference of species to the genus that I have traced was by van 
Beneden, 1858, Compte rendu Acad. Sci. Paris, Suppl. vol. 2, p. 144, as 
follows: ‘M. Blanchard a proposé le nom d’anoplocephala [sic] pour le Ténia 
de cheval et celui du lapin (Tenia perfoliata et pectinata) a cause de l’absence 
de trompe et de crochets’. This is to be read as a reference to the first use of 
those specific names as available names. For perfoliata this is Schrank, 
1788, Verz. der bisher hinlanglich bek. Eingeweidewtirmer, p. 37. What is 
to be read as T. perfoliata Schrank, 1788 was first subsequently designated 
as type species of Anoplocephala by Braun, 1900, Bronn’s Klassen und 
Ordnungen Tierr, vol. 4, p. 1657. 

3. Before these particulars can be incorporated in the Official List 
entry for Anoplocephala, and before T. perfoliata Schrank can be entered on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the status of Taenia equina 
Pallas, 1781 must be considered. Goeze’s original name for 7. perfoliata— 
T. equina perfoliata—could be taken for a normal trinomen, with perfoliata 
used with subspecific rank, were it not for the fact that the polynominal 
character of his work makes all names in it unavailable. T. equina Pallas, 
though senior to 7. perfoliata Goeze, seems to have been treated as an 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 7 


invalid synonym of it from an early date and then to have disappeared alto- 
gether from use as a valid name. I have examined the Supplements Part 3, 
Parasite-subject index, to the Index Catalogue from Supplement 15, 1966 to 
Supplement 23, 1982. I find 48 uses of perfoliata by a large number of 
authors; and no mention of equina in combination with either Anoplo- 
cephala or Taenia. Furthermore, Lichtenfels, 1975, Proc. helminthol. Soc. 
Washington, vol. 42, special issue, p. 9, lists ‘T. equina Pallas, 1781, part’ in 
the synonymy of A. perfoliata, though no clear disposition is made of the 
remainder of the species. It seems certain that the name serves no useful 
purpose and that it can be suppressed without causing any disturbance to 
stability of nomenclature. 

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name equina 
Pallas, 1781, as published in the binomen Taenia equina, for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to confirm the entry of Anoplocephala on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology and to complete it as follows: 
Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Braun, 1900, Taenia 
perfoliata Schrank, 1788 (Name Number 242); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
perfoliata Schrank, 1788, as published in the binomen Taenia 
perfoliata (specific name of type species of Anoplocephala 
Blanchard, 1788); 

(4) to place the generic name Anoplocephala Stal, 1870 (a junior 
homonym of Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848) on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the specific name equina Pallas, 1781, as published 
in the binomen Taenia equina, and as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


NOTE ADDED IN PROOF 


I am grateful to Dr Ralph Lichtenfels (Biosystematic Parasitology 
Laboratory USDA, Beltsville, Maryland U.S.A.) for having ‘checked the card files of 
the Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology to determine whether any 
additional records of Taenia equina were known, especially between Stiles & 
Hassall’s 1912 “‘Cestoda and Cestodaria” and the publication of the parasite- 
subject index which began in 1966’. There were only two such references and I have 
verified both of them, as follows: 

(1) Becker, R., 29 Sept. 1923, Zur Nomenklatur der Pferdebandwiirmer 
(Anoplocephalidae), Centralbl. Bakteriol. etc., Abt. 1, Originale, vol. 91 (1), pp. 
63-67. In this historical review, Taenia equina Pallas is referred to, but not as a 
valid name; T. perfoliata is recognised as valid. 


78 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


(2) Sprehn, C. E. W. 1932, Lehrb. Helminthol., pp. 407. 416. Taenia equina 
Pallas is divided into three parts: one is treated as an invalid synonym of 
Anoplocephala perfoliata (Goeze, 1782), the second as an invalid synonym 
of A. magna (Abildgaard, 1789), and the third as an invalid synonym of 
Paranoplocephala mamillana (Mehlis, 1831). 
It is thus practically certain that Taenia equina Pallas has not been used as a 
valid name at least since 1912, and probably for very much longer. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 79 


HOMONYMY IN THE FAMILIES HARPIDAE HAWLE & CORDA, 
1847 (TRILOBITA) AND HARPIDAE BRONN, 1849 (MOLLUSCA, 
GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.)2331 


By J. G. M. Raven (Binnenweg 46, 2264 MK Leidschendam, 
The Netherlands) 


The problem of homonymy in the HARPIDAE was first raised as part 
of Z.N.(S.)1938, published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 28, pp. 57-58. In 
Opinion 1023 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, pp. 127-129, a ruling was made 
on part of the case but the HARPIDAE problem was deferred, pending further 
investigation. The present application seeks to resolve this issue. 

2. Homonymy, as defined in Article 55 of the Code, exists between 
the family-group names HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) and 
HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Both family-group names 
are correctly derived as specified in Articles 11(e) and 29 of the Code, the 
former from the generic name Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 (p. 358) and the latter 
from the generic name Harpa [RGding], 1798 (p. 149). 

3. In 1847 Hawle & Corda (p. 161) erected the trilobite family 
HARPIDES based on the genus Harpes Goldfuss, 1839. Miller, 1889 (p. 524) 
corrected the name to HARPIDAE. 

4. In 1849 Bronn (p. 469) erected the gastropod family HARPINA 
based on the genus Harpa [R6ding], 1798. Chenu, 1859 (p. 204) used the 
name HARPIDAE in the modern sense. 

5. In accordance with Article 55(a) of the Code, I refer this case to 
the Commission. Although there are no formal grounds for preferring con- 
servation of one family-group name over the other, in view of the following 
facts it is requested that the trilobite name be conserved; firstly that the 
trilobite family antedates that of the gastropods, and secondly, that the 
trilobite family contains more genera and species than the gastropod 
family, namely twelve genera (Moore, 1959) as against three (Rehder, 
1973). 

6. In altering the spelling of the gastropod family-group name, I 
believe the insertion of the letter ‘a’ preceding the ending ‘idae’ could be 
sufficiently distinct. Therefore I request that the gastropod family be 
emended as HARPAIDAE. The procedure of using the complete name has 
precedent in the case of Merops (Aves) and Merope (Insecta), where each 
resulted in the family name MEROPIDAE. To avoid homonymy, the Commis- 
sion ruled that Merope (Insecta) should form the family name MEROPEIDAE 
(Opinion 140, 1943). 

7. I therefore request that the Commission: 

(1) use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name 
Harpa [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda) for the purposes of Article 
29 is HARPA-; 


80 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


(2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology: 
(a) Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 (Trilobita), (gender: feminine), type 
species, by monotypy, Harpes macrocephalus Goldfuss, 
1839; 
(b) Harpa [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda), (gender: feminine), 
type species, by monotypy, Buccinum harpa Linnaeus, 
1758; 
(3) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 
(a) HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (type genus Harpes 
Goldfuss, 1839) (Trilobita); 
(b) HARPAIDAE Bronn, 1849 (type genus Harpa [Réding], 
1798) (Gastropoda). 
I wish to thank Professor L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum voor 
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) for his considerable help in the preparation of 
this appeal. 


REFERENCES 


BRONN, H. G. 1849. Handbuch der Geschichte der Natur, 3(3) Index Palaeontolo- 
gicus. Stuttgart, 980 pp. 

CHENU, J. C. 1859. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique, 
vol. 1. Paris, vii +508 pp., 3707 figs. 

GOLDFUSS, G. A. 1839. Beitrage zur Petrefactenkunde. Nova Acta Acad. Caes. 
Leop. Carol., vol. 19(1), pp. 358 & 359. 

HAWLE, I. & CORDA, A. J. C. 1847. Prodrom einer Monographie der BGhmischen 
Trilobiten. K. Bohm. Gesell. Wiss. (Prague), (Abhandl.), 5, 176 pp., 7 pl. 

LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae ed. 10, Holmiae, p. 738. 

MILLER, S. A. 1889. North American geology and paleontology. 644 pp., 1194 figs. 

MOORE, R. C. (Ed.) 1959. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part O, 
Arthropoda 1. Kansas University Press, xix + 560 pp. 

REHDER, H. A. 1973. The Family Harpidae of the world. Indo-Pacif. Mollusca, 

__ vol. 3(16), pp. 207-274. 
[RODING], P. F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum part 2, viii+ 199 pp. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 81 


ARGYRODES SIMON, 1864, AND ROBERTUS O. PICKARD- 

CAMBRIDGE, 1879 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE): PROPOSED 
CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF ARGYRODES 
GUENEE, 1845 AND CTENIUM MENGE, 1871. Z.N.(S.)1481 


By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) 


The purpose of the present request is for the International Commis- 
sion on Zoological Nomenclature to permit the accustomed usage of two 
generic names of the spider family THERIDIIDAE: Argyrodes and Robertus. 
Present use of the names does not correspond with the strict application of 
the Rules. 

2. A previous application (which included two lesser used generic 
names: Dipoenura and Theonoe) was published in 1962, Bull. zool. Nom., 
vol. 19(1), pp. 43-47. Because of accidental irregularities in procedure by 
the Secretary of the Commission at the time and despite considerable sup- 
port, the voting paper issued in 1963 was cancelled. Under Article 80 the 
two names, Argyrodes and Robertus, have been protected since 1962. 


Argyrodes Simon, 1864 


3. Argyrodes Simon, 1864, Hist. Nat. Araignées, ed. 1, p. 253, with 
type species by tautonymy Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, Hist. Ins. 
Apt., vol. 2, p. 282, from southern Europe and North Africa, is preoccupied 
by Argyrodes Guénée (1845, Ann. Soc. entomol. France, ser. 2, vol. 3, p. 322) 
(Lepidoptera) with type species by monotypy Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 
1787. 

4. Strand, 1928, Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 93, p. 42, first noted the 
homonymy and proposed the name Argyrodina for Argyrodes Simon. In the 
1940s Conopistha Karsch, 1881, Berliner entomol. Zeitschr., vol. 25, p. 39, 
with type species by original designation C. bonadea Karsch, ibid., from 
Japan, was recognised as a subjective synonym of Argyrodes Simon. 
Between 1940 and 1962 Conopistha was generally used as the name for the 
genus. A revision of the American spiders of the genus by Exline & Levi, 
1962, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 127, pp. 73-203, and a study of all 
theridiid genera by Levi, 1962, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 127, pp. 1-72 
place both Ariamnes Thorell, 1869, Nova Acta reg. Soc. Sci. Uppsala, 
ser. 3, vol. 7, p. 37 (new name for Ariadne Doleschall, 1857, Nat. Tijdschr. 
Nederland Ind., vol. 13, p. 410, preoccupied by two older homonyms, with 
type species by monotypy A. flagellum Doleschall) and Rhomphaea L. 
Koch, 1872, Die Arachniden Australiens, vol. 1, p. 289, with type species by 
monotypy R. cometes L. Koch, 1872, as additional subjective synonyms of 
Argyrodes, both antedating Conopistha Karsch, 1881. For the last 20 years 
most authors have used the name Argyrodes. 


82 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


5. If we follow the Principle of Priority, the genus should be called 
Ariamnes, a name previously used for a small group of rare tropical — 
spiders. However, those who disagree with the synonymy may still consider 
Conopistha or Rhomphaea the generic name. Others, like Bonnet, 1953 
(Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2(1), p. 704) continue to consider Argyrodes 
as the correct name. Besides being the oldest name of this assemblage of 
species, Argyrodes is the type genus of a taxon in the family group. Simon, 
1892, Hist. Nat. Araignées, vol. 1, p. 496, divided the THERIDIIDAE 
into groups, one of which he called ARGYRODEAE. Later authors (e.g. 
Petrunkevitch, 1928, Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci., vol. 29, p. 45) have 
interpreted ARGYRODEAE as a subfamily name, and have changed it to | 
ARGYRODINAE. Argyrodes contains about 70 American species, and at least 
100-200 species in the tropics and subtropics of other parts of the world. 

6. According to Prof. W. T. Forbes and Dr E. G. Munroe (personal 
communication, 1961), Argyrodes Guénée (type species Tinea vinetella 
Fabricius) is a junior objective synonym of Eucarphia Hibner, [1825], Verz. 
bekannt. Schmett., sign. 23, p. 364, which contains three species, with Tinea 
vinetella Fabricius, 1787 as type species, by subsequent designation by 
Ragonot, 1885, Entom. mon. Mag., vol. 22, p. 18. Argyrodes Guénée 
cannot, therefore, be used for a lepidopteran genus as proposed by Guénée. 

7. The genus Argyrodes contains many species which are klepto- 
parasites in the webs of other spiders, and whose interesting predatory 
behaviour has been studied by several zoologists in recent years. 

8. The preservation of Argyrodes (spiders) through the suppression 
of Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) is thus advisable for 3 reasons: 

(a) The continued widespread usage of Argyrodes in the aranean 
literature (e.g. Bonnet, 1955), owing to non-acceptance of the 
earlier senior homonym. 

(b) The fact that the generic name is the basis of an available and 
currently used name of the family group. 

(c) The uncertainty of what replacement name for Argyrodes 
(spiders) to adopt, owing to disagreement among specialists 
about the generic relation of the various generic names in the 
Argyrodes group. 

All these difficulties would be removed at once if Argyrodes 
(Lepidoptera) were suppressed. 


Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 


9. B. J. Kaston, 1946, Amer. Mus. Novitates, No. 1306, p. 1, pointed 
out that Simon, 1884, Arachnides de France, vol. 5, p. 195 incorrectly 
rejected Ctenium Menge, 1871, Schrift. naturf. Ges. Danzig ser. 2, vol. 2, 
p. 292, type species, by monotypy, Erigone pinguis Westring, 1851, Géteborg 
k. Vet. Vitter. Samh. Handl., vol. 2, p. 43 (= Neriene livida Blackwall, 1836), 
because he thought it preoccupied by Ctenia Lepeletier, 1825, Encycl. 
Méth., vol. 10, p. 650. Simon proposed the name Pedanostethus (1884, 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 83 


Arachnides de France, vol. 5, p. 195) as replacement for Crenium Menge. 
However, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879, The Spiders of Dorset, 
p. 103, type species, by monotypy, R. astutus O. Pickard-Cambridge 
(= Neriene neglecta O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, Trans. linn. Soc. London, 
vol. 27, p. 443), was found to be a senior subjective synonym. 

10. Between 1884 and 1911 Pedanostethus was generally used for the 
genus. From 1907 to the present time Robertus has been in use in Europe, 
and, until Kaston’s 1946 paper, in North America. 

11. At present Robertus is used. A. Holm, who has studied species of 
the genus, uses Robertus. The late H. Wiehle, a specialist in the THERIDIIDAE, 
published a short discussion on names indicating his preference for 
Robertus (1960, Zool. Jahrbiicher, Abt. Syst., vol. 88, p. 237). The name has 
also been used by Tullgren (1949, Entomol. Tidskr., vol. 70, p. 60) and by 
G. H. Locket & A. F. Millidge (1953, British Spiders, Ray Soc., vol. 2). In 
the United States Crenium has been used in Kaston’s revision of North 
_ American species (cited above) and in several regional lists. During the last 
20 years the predominant use has been Robertus. 

12. Universality of use demands that one or the other name be used 
for the genus. Usage strongly favours Robertus. It is therefore requested 
that the Commission use its plenary powers to suppress Ctenium. 


(1) The International Commission is therefore asked to use its 
plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the generic name Argyrodes Guénée, 1845, and all 
uses of that name prior to the publication of Argyrodes Simon, 
1864, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to suppress the generic name Ctenium Menge, 1871, for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The Commission is also asked to place the following generic 
names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Argyrodes Simon, 1864 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
tautonymy, Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841: 

(b) Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 (gender: masculine), 
type species, by monotypy, Robertus astutus Pickard- 
Cambridge, 1879: 

(c) Eucarphia Hiibner [1825], type species, by subsequent desig- 
nation by Ragonot, 1855, Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787 
(Lepidoptera). 

(3) The Commission is requested to place the following specific 
names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, as published in the binomen 
Linyphia argyrodes (specific name of type species of Argyrodes 
Simon, 1864); 

(b) neglectus Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, as published in the bi- 
nomen Neriene neglecta (the valid name at the date of this 


84 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


application, of the type species of Robertus O. Pickard- — 
Cambridge, 1879); 

(c) vinetella Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Tinea 
vinetella (specific name of type species of Eucarphia Hubner, 
[1825]) (Lepidoptera). 

(4) Finally, the Commission is asked to place the following generic 
names as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) and (b) above, on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Argyrodes Guénée, 1845; 
(b) Ctenium Menge, 1871. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 85 


OLPIUM L. KOCH, 1873 (ARACHNIDA, PSEUDOSCORPIONIDA, 
OLPIIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES AND 
RELATED PROBLEMS. Z.N.(S.)2484 


By M. S. Harvey (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, GPO Box 1700, 
Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) and V. Mahnert (Muséum d Histoire naturelle, 
Genéve, Switzerland) 


The pseudoscorpion species described in the work Description de 
1 ‘Egypte ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en 
Egypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée francaise have generally been 
ascribed to Savigny. However, while Savigny was responsible for publishing 
the first eight plates of the work some time prior to 1826 (possibly in 1812, 
see Sherborn, 1897), and was responsible for naming the species treated in 
the first four plates (Bonnet, 1945), there is no doubt that the name Chelifer 
hermannii (along with the other two species) was established, in the 
meaning of Article 50 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 

-clature, by Audouin in 1826. Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, is a junior 
homonym of Chelifer hermanni Leach, 1817, and Simon (1879) provided 
the replacement name Olpium savignyi Simon, 1879. 

: 2. L. Koch (1873) erected the genus Ol/pium, with four included 

: species, Olpium dimidiatum L. Koch, 1873, Olpium chironomum L. Koch, 

1873, Olpium graecum L. Koch, 1873, and ‘Olpium Hermannii Sav.’ (i.e. 

Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826), but did not designate a type species. 

Simon (1879) by subsequent designation fixed Chelifer hermanni Savigny 
_ sensu L. Koch as the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873, noting that 

'Koch’s description of that species did not agree with Savigny’s (i.e. 
Audouin’s). At the same time he suggested that this species could be identi- 
fied as Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849. That view also has been generally 
accepted, and Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849 has been consistently treated as 
the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873. Olpium pallipes Lucas, [1846] has 
been mentioned in the literature many times, and is widely distributed in 
southern Europe and northern Africa (Beier, 1963). Its female holotype has 
recently been redescribed by Heurtault (1979). 

3. The problem of the type species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873, is not 
resolved automatically by the International Code on Zoological Nomen- 
clature. Article 69 does not apply to the case because even though the 
nominal taxon Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, was originally included in 
Olpium by Koch, it was a misidentification, but not a stated misidentifica- 
tion. Chelifer hermannii Audouin sensu L. Koch, 1873, and Obisium pallipes 
Lucas, [1846], are not originally included species in terms of Article 69. 
Article 70a does not strictly apply either because the type species was 
designated explicitly in the sense of a previous misidentification. Similarly 
Article 70b is not applicable because Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, 


86 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


was not designated the type species of a new nominal genus, but of a pre- 
established nominal genus. Therefore, the Commission is requested to use | 
its plenary powers to designate Obisium pallipes Lucas, [1846] as the type | 
species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873. 

4. Two other options are available, both of which have considerable 
disadvantages: (a) to designate the nominal species Chelifer hermannii 
Audouin, 1826, as type species—this is undesirable because Chelifer 
hermannii Audouin, 1826, is regarded as a nomen dubium (see (5) below); or 
(b) to set aside under the plenary powers Simon’s (1879) designation of 
Olpium hermanni ‘Savigny’ sensu L. Koch, and to designate one of the other 
three species originally included in the genus Olpium L. Koch, 1873 — these 
three taxa have since been removed from the genus, and if this course were 
followed, stability would not be well served, because Olpium L. Koch, 1873, 
is the type species of the family OLPIIDAE Banks, 1895. 

5. The type material of Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, is not 
present in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and is con- 
sidered lost. The diagrams presented with the original description (Plate 8, 
Fig. 5) clearly show that the species belongs in the genus Minniza Simon, 
1881, but they are not sufficiently detailed to determine its specific identity, 
and four species of Minniza Simon, 1881, are currently known from Egypt. 
Thus, Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826, and its replacement name, Olpium 
savignyi Simon, 1879, are regarded as nomina dubia. 

6. Simon (1881) described Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, and cited 
‘Chelifer Hermanni Sav., Egypte, Ar., pl. VIII, f. 5, 1827’ under the species 
name, thus giving the appearance that it was offered as another replacement 
name for Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826. Indeed, at the end of the 
description he stated ‘Le nom d’Hermanni ne peut étre maintenu, ayant été 
employé par Savigny par confusion avec le C. Hermanni de Leach, qui est 
synonyme de C. cancroides L.’ If this interpretation is accepted Olpium 
kochi Simon, 1881, becomes a junior objective synonym of Olpium savignyi 
Simon, 1879. However, the specimens on which Simon (1881) based his 
description of Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 (lodged in the Muséum national 
d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and examined by V.M.) do not conform to the 
original description or diagrams of Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826. They 
represent a distinct species of the genus Olpium L. Koch, 1873, and were 
recently redescribed by Mahnert (1981). If Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, can 
be treated as a new species separate from Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826 
(even though Simon wrote ‘Olpium kochi E. Simon’ rather than his custom- 
ary ‘n.sp.’), the specimens in Paris can be treated as its type material, as was 
done by Mahnert (1981). We consider that this is desirable and therefore 
ask the Commission to rule that Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 denotes a differ- 
ent nominal species from Chelifer hermannii Audouin, 1826. A lectotype 
male for Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, is here designated from ‘nord de la 
grande Pyramide’, Egypt, collected by A. Letourneux, and deposited in 
the Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, Paris (Simon collection number 
3329, preparation number 84-86). The female is designated as a paralec- 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 87 


totype. If this course is not followed, Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, remains 
a junior objective synonym of Olpium savignyi Simon, 1879, and a new 
species name needs to be created for this material. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
hereby requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers 

(a) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made 
for the nominal genus Olpium Koch, 1873 and to designate 
Obisium pallipes Lucas, 1849 as type species of that genus; 
(b) to rule that the specific name kochi Simon, 1881, as 
published in the binomen Olpium kochi, denotes a different 
nominal species from hermannii Audouin, 1826, as published 
in the binomen Chelifer hermannii; 

(2) to place the generic name Olpium L. Koch, 1873 (gender: 
neuter), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with 
the type species, as designated in (1) above, Obisium pallipes 
Lucas, 1849; 

(3) to place the specific name pallipes Lucas [1846], as published 
in the combination Obisium pallipes, (specific name of type 
species of Olpium L. Koch, 1873) on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the specific name kochi Simon, 1881, as published in 
the combination Olpium kochi Simon, 1881, on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the family-group name OLPIIDAE Banks, 1895 (type 
genus, Olpium L. Koch, 1873) on the Official List of Family- 
Group Names in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


AUDOUIN, V. 1826. Explication sommaire des planches d’arachnides de Egypte 
et de la Syrie. In Description de l’Egypte ou recueil des observations et des 
recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée 
frangaise. \st edition. Vol. 1, part 4, Paris (C. L. F. Panckoucke), pp. 99-186. 

BANKS, N. 1985. Notes on the Pseudoscorpionida. J. N.Y. entomol. Soc., vol. 3, 
pp. 1-13. 

BEIER, M. 1963. Ordnung Pseudoscorpionidea. Bestimmungsbiicher zur Boden- 
fauna Europas. Berlin (Akademie-Verlag), vol. 1, pp. i-vi, 1-313. 

BONNET, P. 1945. Bibliographia araneorum. Vol. 1, Toulouse (Douladoure), pp. 
i-xvii, 1-832. 

HEURTAULT, J. 1979. Complément 4 la description de Olpium pallipes Lucas, 
1845, type de la famille Olpiidae (Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions). Rev. suisse 
Zool., vol. 86, pp. 925-931. 

KOCH, L. 1873. Uebersichtliche Darstellung der europdischen Chernetiden 
( Pseudoscorpione ). Nurnberg (Bauer and Raspe), pp. i—vi, 1-68. 


88 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


LEACH, W. E. 1817. On the characters of the genera of the family Scorpionidea, 
with descriptions of the British species of Chelifer and Obisium. In LEACH, 
W. E. The zoological miscellany; being descriptions of new or interesting | 
animals. London (Nodder), pp. 48-53. 

LUCAS, H. 1849. Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés. Part I. Crustacés, 
Arachnides, Myriapodes et Hexapodes. In Exploration scientifique de 
l’Algérie pendant les années 1840, 1841, 1842. Zoologie, Vol. 2, Paris 
(Imprimerie Nationale), pp. i-xxv, 1-403. 

MAHNERT, V. 1981. Taxonomische Irrwege: Olpium savignyi Simon, O. kochi 
Simon, O. bicolor Simon (Pseudoscorpiones). Folia entomol. Hung., vol. 42, 
pp. 95-99. 

SHERBORN, C. D. 1897. On the dates of the Natural History portion of Savigny’s 
‘Description de l’Egypte’. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 1897, pp. 285-288. 

SIMON, E. 1879. Les arachnides de France. Vol. 7, Paris (Librairie Encyclopédique 

de Roret), pp. 1-316. 

1881. Descriptions d’arachnides nouveaux d’Afrique. Bull. Soc. zool. France, 

vol. 6, pp. 1-15. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


This application has benefited immensely from the nomenclatural 
expertise of Dr K. H. L. Key (CSIRO, Canberra). Dr W. D. L. Ride kindly 
viewed a draft of the manuscript. Dr A. D. Austin and Mr R. V. Melville 
assisted with some of the older literature. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 89 


ICHNOTROPIS PETERS, 1854 (REPTILIA, SAURIA): PROPOSED 
CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THERMOPHILUS 
FITZINGER, 1843. Z.N.(S.)2377 


By William R. Branch (Port Elizabeth Museum, P.O. Box 13147, 
Humewood 6013, South Africa) and Donald G. Broadley (National 
Museum, P.O. Box 240, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe) 


The purpose of this application is to suppress a generic name not 
used in the literature during the last hundred years and which is a senior 
synonym of /chnotropis Peters, 1854. 

2. In 1843 Fitzinger erected the genus Thermophilus, designating 
Tropidosaura capensis ‘Dumeéril & Bibron’ (i.e. Algyra capensis A. Smith, 
1838) as the type species (Syst. Rept., p. 21). 

3. In 1854 Peters erected the genus Jchnotropis (Mber. Acad. Wiss. 
Berl., p. 617), of which the type species by subsequent designation by 
FitzSimons, 1943, p. 349, is J. macrolepidota Peters, 1854 (= Algyra capensis 
A. Smith). 

4. In 1921 Boulenger (Monograph of the Lacertidae, vol. 2, pp. 
179-193) cited the use of Ichnotropis Peters by 12 authors in 17 papers, but 
overlooked the name Thermophilus Fitzinger. 

5. In 1957 Loveridge pointed out that the name Thermophilus 
Fitzinger had priority over Jchnotropis Peters and urged that the Commis- 
sion be requested to set aside the older name (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., 
vol. 117, pp. 149, 233). 

6. Since 1921, the name Jchnotropis Peters has been used in at least 
35 papers by 16 authors. In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code, 
approved by the XVII Congress in 1972, the following is a selection of ‘at 
least 5 different authors and in at least 10 different publications’ in which 
Ichnotropis Peters has been used during the last 50 years: 

Cott, H. B. 1934, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1934, vol. 1, pp. 145-173. 

FitzSimons, V. F. 1943. The Lizards of South Africa. Transvaal 
Mus. Mem., vol. 1, xv +528 pp. 

Witte, G. F. de & Laurent, R. F. 1942. Rev. Zool. Bot. Africa, vol. 
36(2), pp. 165-180. 

Loveridge, A. 1953. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 110(3), pp. 
143-322. 

Mertens, R. 1955. Abh. senkenb. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 490, pp. 
1-172. 

Marx, H. 1956. Fieldiana Zool., vol. 39, pp. 5-9. 

Laurent, R. F. 1964. Publgdes cult. Co. Diam. Angola, vol. 67, pp. 
1-165. 

Broadley, D. G. 1967. Arnoldia Rhodesia, vol. 3(24), pp. 1-5. 

Pianka, E. R. 1971. Ecol., vol. 52(6), pp. 1024-1029. 

Broadley, D. G. 1971. Puku. No. 6, pp. 1-143. 


90 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


7. Since its establishment, the generic name Thermophilus Fitzinger 
has not been formally used again. 

8. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the International. 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: 


(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name 

Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, for the purposes of the Principle 

of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

to place the generic name IJchnotropis Peters, 1854 (gender: 

feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by 

FitzSimons, 1943, macrolepidota Peters, 1854, on the Official 

List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

to place the specific name capensis A. Smith, 1838, as published — 
in the binomen Algyra capensis (the valid name at the date of 

this request of the type species of Ichnotropis Peters, 1854) on | 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

to place the generic name Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843, as 

suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the 

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 91 


ERIGONE AUDOUIN, 1826 (ARTHROPODA, ARANEAE): 
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2480 


By A. F. Millidge (Little Farthing, Upper Westhill Road, Lyme Regis, 
Dorset DT7 3ER, England) 


The purpose of the present application is to ask the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to set 
aside Erigone vagans Audouin, 1826 (fide Sherborn, 1897, Proc. zool. Soc. 
Lond., pp. 285—288) as the type species of the genus Erigone Audouin, 1826 
and to designate as the type species Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830. 

2. Erigone is a large and well-known spider genus. As currently con- 
stituted, more than 200 species are listed for this genus in the published 
catalogues (vide C. F. Roewer, 1942, Katalog der Araneae, vol. 1, 
pp. 719-728; P. Bonnet, 1956 Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2(2), pp. 
1740-1780; P. Brignoli, 1983, Catalogue of the Araneae described between 
1940 and 1981, pp. 336-337). The genus is widely distributed, and there are 
few areas in the world where Erigone species are not present. 

3. The type species of Erigone Audouin, 1826 (Description de 
lEgypte: Histoire Naturelle, vol. 1(4), p. 115) is Erigone vagans Audouin, 
1826 (ibid., p. 116) by monotypy. Comparison of the genitalia of Erigone 
vagans with those of other Erigone species, however, indicates (A. F. 
Millidge, 1984, Bull. Br. arachnol. Soc., vol. 6(6), p. 265) that E. vagans is 
not congeneric with the vast majority of the species which have been 
assigned to Erigone; E. vagans does not, in fact, have the female epigynum 
and the male palpal organ of the well-known and easily recognisable 
‘Erigone type’. 

4. This situation will necessitate the transfer of approximately 150 
species from Erigone to a new genus; this estimate takes into account that 
some Erigone species listed in the catalogues quoted above have sub- 
sequently been moved to other genera. Many of the species to be trans- 
ferred to a new genus are common and widespread, and have been known 
in the literature as Erigone species for 50-150 years; a change in the generic 
name would consequently produce a good deal of undesirable confusion in 
the arachnological literature. 

5. In order to preserve the name Erigone for the many species which 
(i) have always been known by this name, and (ii) have the characteristic 
genitalia associated with the name Erigone, it is requested that the designa- 
tion of Erigone vagans as the type species of the genus Erigone be set aside 
and Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830 (K. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 
1829, p. 212) be designated instead as the type species. This latter species, 
which was the second to be described under the name Erigone, has the 
female epigynum and the male palpal organ of the typical ‘Erigone’ form, 

and has been well described in the literature (e.g. W. Kulczynski, 1902, Bull. 
Acad. Cracovie, 1902(8), p. 541; G. H. Locket & A. F. Millidge, 1953, 


| 


92 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


British Spiders, vol. 2, p. 311; H. Wiehle, 1960, Tierwelt Deutschlands, vol. 
47, p. 576). 

6. If it is agreed that the Commission should take the action — 
requested, then it will subsequently become necessary to place vagans in a 
new genus. Apart from vagans, the species to be transferred from Erigone 
to this new genus would be few in number and of limited distribution (e.g. 
Erigone afroalpina Holm, 1962, Zool. Bidr. Upps., vol. 35, p. 73), and 
these few name changes would cause only a minor ripple in nomenclatural 
stability. 

7. In summary the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is requested to: 

(1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type — 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Erigone Audouin, 
1826, and to designate Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830 as © 
the type species of that genus; 

(2) place the generic name Erigone Audouin, 1826 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Erigone longipalpis Sundevall, 1830, on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) place the specific name /Jongipalpis Sundevall, 1830 (specific 
name of the type species of Erigone Audouin, 1826) on the . 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 93 


ACTIA ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, 1830 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): 
REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2491 


By James E. O’Hara (Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, 
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3) 


Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, is a cosmopolitan genus belonging 
to the SIPHONINI with about 60 described species. The only valid type species 
designation for Actia makes it a senior objective synonym of Elfia 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1850. Current authors do not accept this type species 
designation because it was based upon a misconception of the species 
involved, and they continue to regard Elfia as a valid genus of moderate size 
in the NEAERINI (a tribe whose affinities to the SIPHONINI are unresolved). 
The unofficially accepted type species of Actia, A. pilipennis R.-D., 1830, isa 
junior secondary homonym of Tachina pilipennis Fallén, 1810; a valid Actia 
species. Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838, has been recognised as a junior sub- 
jective synonym of A. pilipennis R.-D. since Robineau-Desvoidy’s second 
treatment of Actia in 1850, and has been used as a replacement name for A. 
pilipennis R.-D. since at least the 1920s. This junior subjective synonym, A. 
lamia (Mg.), has no type, but syntypes survive of the junior secondary 
homonym, 4A. pilipennis R.-D. To fix the synonymy of A. pilipennis R.-D. 
and A. Jamia (Mg.), a syntype of the former is designated below as lectotype 
of that species and neotype of A. Jamia. The Commission is requested to 
suppress all type designations hitherto made for Actia R.-D. and to use its 
plenary powers to designate Roeselia lamia Mg. as type species, to preserve 
Actia and Elfia in their accepted usage. Details of the application follow. 

2. In 1830 Robineau-Desvoidy described the new genus Actia and 
included in it new species A. pilipennis and A. cingulata (1830, pp. 85-86). 
Subsequently Robineau-Desvoidy removed cingulata and placed it in his 
new genus E/fia along with one new species (1850, pp. 190-191). A year 
later Robineau-Desvoidy revised Actia and added one new species to the 
already included pilipennis (1851, pp. 185-187). In his final (and post- 
humous) work Robineau-Desvoidy retained Actia and Elfia in the senses 
established in his 1850 and 1851 publications, and designated cingulata 
R.-D., 1830, as type species for the latter (1863, p. 672). Unfortunately, he 
did not similarly designate a type species for Actia. 

3. Most authors of the late 1800s and early 1900s followed 
Robineau-Desvoidy’s concept of Actia, but were uncertain about the iden- 
tity and placement of E. cingulata (R.-D.). For example, Elfia was placed as 
a synonym of Actia in the catalogue by Bezzi & Stein (1907), with cingulata 
R.-D. questionably placed as a synonym of Actia frontalis (Macquart). 
(Bezzi & Stein did not explain why they replaced pilipennis R.-D. with fron- 
talis Macq., 1845, rather than with the more senior synonym, /amia Mg., 
1838. Later Jamia Mg. became entrenched in the literature as the recognised 
replacement name for pilipennis R.-D.). Coquillett (1910, p. 503) may have 
relied upon Bezzi & Stein’s catalogue when he mistakenly considered 


94 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


cingulata R.-D. and pilipennis R.-D. synonyms and designated cingulata 
R.-D. as type species of Actia. In so doing Coquillett fixed Elfia as junior 
objective synonym of Actia. 

4. Coquillett’s type species designation in 1910 went unchallenged 
for many years because cingulata R.-D. was generally unrecognised. Mesnil 
(1954) attributes Stein (1924, p. 141) with first recognising the true identity 
of cingulata R.-D., though Stein’s recognition was overlooked by many of 
his contemporaries. When the identity of cingulata R.-D. was eventually 
established, it became apparent that the species did not conform to the 
genus based upon pilipennis R.-D., as indeed recognised earlier by 
Robineau-Desvoidy in his works subsequent to 1830. Only two major revi- 
sionary works to my knowledge accepted Coquillett’s type species designa- 
tion once the distinction between pilipennis R.-D. and cingulata R.-D. — 
became clear. These were Townsend’s Manual of Myiology (1940, p. 189) | 
and Mesnil’s revision of African Actia and allies (1954). In the latter, Mesnil 
(1954, p. 5) followed Coquillett’s designation in part because he misunder- 
stood Robineau-Desvoidy’s own explanation (1863, p. 672) about the tribal 
placements of Actia and Elfia (but see Mesnil’s subsequent position in 
paragraph 7 below). 

5. Rondani first treated the genus Actia briefly in 1856, keying the 
genus and adding below the generic epithet, ‘Spec. Typ: (Nova) Vitripennis 
Mihi’ (1856, p. 60). A few years later Rondani (1859, pp. 18-19) fully des- ’ 
cribed Actia vitripennis, clearly using the name as a replacement name for 
Actia pilipennis R.-D. because the latter is a junior secondary homonym of 
A. pilipennis (Fallén). Bezzi (1926, p. 238) considered the two publications 
by Rondani sufficient to fix pilipennis R.-D. as type species of Actia, and 
concluded that Coquillett’s designation of cingulata was in error. Herting 
(1974, p. 19) similarly regarded Rondani’s type designation as valid, even 
though he recognised that in 1856 vitripennis was a nomen nudum and that 
the name was not validated until Rondani’s description of the species in 
1859. 

6. Contrary to the opinions of Bezzi and Herting in paragraph 5 
above, Rondani’s 1856 type designation cannot be accepted because it 
does not fulfill the necessary requirements of the Code. If Rondani had 
simultaneously described vitripennis as a replacement name for pilipennis 
R.-D. and designated it type species of Actia, then under Article 69a(iv) 
pilipennis R.-D. would automatically become the type species of Actia. 
Since Rondani’s type designation was in 1856 and his species description in 
1859, his designation is invalid. 

7. At least two authors (Mesnil, 1963, p. 814 and van Emden, 1954, 
p. 63) have argued that Actia became monotypic when cingulata R.-D. 
was removed from it by Robineau-Desvoidy in 1850, and concluded that 
pilipennis R.-D. was fixed as type species of Actia from that time forth. 
However, there is no provision under the Code for acceptance of a type 
species designation by subsequent elimination of included species, so this 
interpretation by these authors must be rejected. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 95 


8. Despite attempts like those above to lend credence to the use of 
pilipennis R.-D. as type species of Actia, the evidence presented here indi- 
cates that the only valid type species designation was that of cingulata R.-D. 
by Coquillett in 1910. It is therefore necessary to suppress Coquillett’s type 
species designation in order to preserve both Actia and Elfia in their current 
usage. That this interpretation is favoured by the majority of specialists is 
evident from the following list of recent works which employ both Actia 
and Elfia in the sense of Robineau-Desvoidy, and whose authors explicitly 
state that suspension of the I.C.Z.N. rules is required to validate this usage: 
Sabrosky & Arnaud (1965, p. 1061), Guimaraes (1971, p. 164), Crosskey 
(1973, p. 136; 1976, p. 211; 1980, p. 852) and Andersen (1983, p. 12). Those 
who favour this interpretation also recognise A. pilipennis R.-D. as a junior 
secondary homonym of A. pilipennis (Fallén), and replace the name with A. 
lamia (Mg.). The type of /amia is lost, so its synonymy with pilipennis R.-D. 
is disputable unless action is taken to preserve it permanently. Below 
pilipennis R.-D. and lamia Mg. are made objective synonyms by designation 
of a neotype for Jamia Mg. from among the syntypes of Robineau- 
Desvoidy’s A. pilipennis. To further stabilize this synonymy, the specimen 
chosen as neotype of /amia Mg. is also designated lectotype of A. pilipennis 
R.-D. The Commission is requested to designate Roeselia lamia Meigen as 
type species of Actia rather than Actia pilipennis R.-D. to avoid possible 
confusion of the latter name with its senior homonym, A. pilipennis 
(Fallen). 

9. If the Commission rules against this proposal, then the genus 
Elfia must be called Actia, and the old Actia must be renamed. Besides the 
nomenclatural objections to this raised above, one must also consider the 
effects a reapplication of the name Actia would have on host/parasite 
records. Published records would probably be frequently misinterpreted, 
and undated parasite records existing in collections or on unpublished lists 
as ‘Actia sp.’ would become equivocal. 

10. The syntype series of Actia pilipennis R.-D. is composed of 6 
specimens: 5 males and | specimen lacking head and abdomen. They have 
been examined and one specimen has been chosen to serve as lectotype of 
pilipennis R.-D. and neotype of Jamia Mg. The following information about 
the specimen is provided to satisfy the conditions of lectotype and neotype 
designations outlined in Articles 74 and 75 respectively: Male, length 
44mm, good condition though slightly mouldy, without labels (type- 
locality published as Saint-Sauveur, France), deposited in the Muséum 
National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris). The specimen is consistent with the 
original descriptions of Actia pilipennis R.-D. (1830, p. 86) and Roeselia 
lamia Meigen (1838, p. 254). A label bearing the following information has 
been attached to this specimen: ‘Lectotype of Actia pilipennis R.-D., 
Neotype of Roeselia lamia Mg., O'Hara designation, Selected 1984’. The 
species, under the name Actia lamia, is keyed and fully described by Mesnil 
(1963, pp. 814, 820). 


96 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 


11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type © 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Actia Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830, and having done so to designate Roeselia 
lamia Meigen, 1838, as type species of that genus; 

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

(a) the generic name Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: 
feminine), type species Roeselia lamia Meigen, 1838, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above; 

(b) the generic name Elfia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: 
feminine), type species Actia cingulata Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830, by designation of Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, thereby 
removing Elfia from objective synonymy with Actia under 
the plenary powers of (1) above; and 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) the species name Jamia Meigen, 1838, as published in the 
binomen Roeselia lamia (specific name of type species of 
Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) and as defined by the 
neotype designated above; 

(b) the species name cingulata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as 
published in the binomen Actia cingulata (specific name of 
type species of E/fia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1850). 

Special thanks are extended to Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky for his 
valuable advice concerning an early draft of this proposal. 


REFERENCES 


ANDERSEN, S. 1983 Phylogeny and classification of Old World genera of 
Siphonini (Diptera: Tachinidae). Entomol. scand., vol. 14, pp. 1-15. 

BEZZI, M. 1926. A new tachinid (Dipt.) from Australia, with notes on the forms 
with obliterated fourth vein. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., series 9, vol. 17, pp. 
236-241. 

BEZZI, M. & STEIN, P. 1907. Band III. Cyclorrapha Aschiza. Cyclorrapha 
Schizophora: Schizometopa. In BECKER, T., BEZZI, M., KERTESZ, K. 
and STEIN, P. Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren. 828 pp. Budapest. 

COQUILLETT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of 
Diptera. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 37, pp. 499-647. 

CROSSKEY, R. W. 1973. A conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of Australia, 

including keys to the supraspecific taxa and taxonomic and host catalogues. 

Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Entomol. Suppl., vol. 21, 221 pp. 

1976. A taxonomic conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the Oriental 

Region. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Entomol. Suppl., vol. 26, 357 pp. 

1980. 93. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882. In CROSSKEY, R. W., ed., 

Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical region. 1437 pp. London. 

EMDEN, F.:I. VAN 1954. Diptera Cyclorrhapha. Calyptrata (1) Section (a). 
Tachinidae and Calliphoridae. Roy. entomol. Soc. Lond., Handb. Ident. brit. 
Ins., vol. 10, part 4(a), 133 pp. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 1, April 1985 97 


FALLEN, C. F. 1810. Férs6k att bestamma de i Sverige funne flugarter, som kunna 
foras till slagtet Tachina. K. Vetensk. Acad. Nya Handl., series 2, vol. 31, pp. 
253-287. 

GUIMARAES, J. H. 1971. 104 Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). In A catalogue 
of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. 333 pp. Sao Paulo. 

HERTING, B. 1969. Notes on European Tachinidae (Dipt.) described by Rondani 

(1856-1868). Mem. Soc. entomol. ital., vol. 48, pp. 189-204. 

1974. Revision der von Robineau-Desvoidy beschriebenen europdaischen 

Tachiniden und Rhinophorinen (Diptera). Stuttgart. Beitr. Naturk., series A, 

no. 264, 46 pp. 

1975. Nachtrage und Korrekturen zu den von Meigen und Rondani 

beschriebenen Raupenfliegen (Dipt. Tachinidae). Stuttgart. Beitr. Naturk.., 

series A, no. 271, 13 pp. 

MACQUART, J. 1845. Nouvelles observations sur les insectes Diptéres de la tribu 
des Tachinaires. Ann. Soc. entomol. France, series 2, vol. 3, pp. 237-296. 

MEIGEN, J. W. 1838. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen 
zweifliigeligen Insekten. Vol. 7: ‘oder Supplementband’, xii+ 434 pp. Hamm. 

MESNIL, L. P. 1954. Genres Actia Robineau-Desvoidy et voisins (Diptera 

Brachycera Calyptratae). Explor. Parc natn. Albert, Miss G. F. de Witte 

(1933-1935), vol. 81, 41 pp. 

1963. 64g. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae). Pp. 801-848. In LINDNER, E., ed., 

Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, vol. 8. Stuttgart. 

ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Inst. de France, Sci. 

Math. et Phys., Acad. Roy. des Sci., Mém. présentés par divers Savans, series 

2, vol. 2, 813 pp. Paris. 

1850. Myodaires des environs de Paris (suite). Ann. Soc. entomol. France, 

series 2, vol. 8, pp. 183-209. 

1851. Myodaires des environs de Paris (suite). Ann. Soc. entomol. France, 

series 2, vol. 9, pp. 177-190. 

1863. Histoire naturelle des Diptéres des environs de Paris. Vol. 1, xvi+ 1143 

pp. Paris. 

RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 1. Genera Italica 

ordinis dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in familias et stirpes 

aggregata. 228 pp. Parma. 

1859. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 3. Species Italicae ordinis 

dipterorum in genera characteribus definita, ordinatim collectae, methodo 

analitica distinctae, et novis vel minus cognitis descriptis. Pars secunda: 

Muscidae, Siphoninae et (partim) Tachininae. 243 pp. Parma. 

STEIN, P. 1924. Die verbreitetsten Tachiniden Mitteleuropas nach ihren Gattungen 
und Arten. Arch. Naturgesch., series A, vol. 90(6), pp. 1-271. 

TOWNSEND, C. H. T. 1940. Manual of myiology in twelve parts. Part 10: Oestroid 
generic diagnoses and data (Anacamptomyiini to Frontinini). 335 pp. Sao 
Paulo. 


haga aurorae Peale, 1848 and Serresius galeatus Bonaparte 
(Aves). M. D. Bruce, D. T. Holyoak & J.-C. Thibault . 

‘obates Sellnick, 1928 (Arachnida, Acari). R. A. Norton . 

ekia Poche, 1902 (Crustacea, Copepoda). J. B. Jones . 

ption of new taxa based on enzyme data. J. E. Jelnes; R. Fortuner. 
ship and dates of the Sowerbys’ Mineral skins of Great 
Britain. C. W. Wright & R. J. Cleevely . ; 

‘olepis Weinland, 1858 (Cestoda). The Secretary 

eoccus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda). The Secretary 

locephala Blanchard, 1848 (Cestoda) The Secretary. . 

onymy in the families HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (Trilobita) 
d HARPIDAE ania 1849 onan hi) ated J. G. M. 


Sean Araneae). H. W. Levi , 
. Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida, Otpiidae). M. S. 
ee Mahnert 


CONTENTS 


Officers and Members of the Commission. 

Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. 
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology 
Special Announcements Se Se 


Comments 


Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia). A. F. Stimson... 

Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), W. Speidel. ‘ 

Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). R. W. Hodges; Ww. E. 
Miller; J. D. Bradley, W. G. Tremewan, K. Tuck & C.J. 
Hamilton. : : 

Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Secretary | 

On the proposed amendment to Article S5Ic of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature. J. C. Cokendolpher, O. F. Francke & 
D. Quintero Jn.. ! 

On the proposed amendment to Article 70b of the International Code of | 
Zoological Nomenclature. C. W. Wright 

Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Pisces, Siluriformes). W. R. Taylor 


Opinions 


Opinion 1288. Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 
Opinion 1289. Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia, Cetacea) 

Opinion 1290. Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . 
Opinion 1291. Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia) : 
Opinion 1292. Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda) ; 
Opinion 1293. Scolia eee Fabricius, 1793 (nsecta, Hymen- 


optera) 
Opinion 1294. Edwardsia “de Quatrefages, 1841 " (Coelenterata, 
Actiniaria) . 


Opinion 1295. Actinia Linnaeus, 1767, ACTINIIDAE “Rafinesque, 1815 
(Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta sabi jt 1820 
(Echinodermata, Holothurioidea). 

Opinion 1296. Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Bivalvia) 

Opinion 1297. Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . 
Direction 116. PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . ry 
Direction 117. Correction of Entry No. 462 in the Official List of 

Generic Names in Zoology concerning Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 

(Mollusca, Bivalvia). (Correction to Opinion 94). 


New and revived cases Piers 


Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 and Stoa De Serres, 1855 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda, Vermetidae). A. Myra Keen & M. G. Hadfield . 
Continued on Inside Back Cov vel 


27 June, 1985 Volume 42 Part 2 
pp. iii-iv, 99-204 ISSN 0007-5167 


- The Bulletin 


of Zoological 
: Nomenclature 


7 The Official Organ of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


BRITISH MUSEUM 
(NATHRAL HISTORY) 
2:6 JUL 1985 

| PURCHASED - 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 


COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX 


The Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature 


Published by: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux 


On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o British Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 


to: 


CENTRAL SALES 4 Y 
COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX ‘a 
FARNHAM ROYAL 

SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1985. 
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- 
duced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechan- 
ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without t ‘he 
prior permission of the copyright owner. 7. 


a 
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON... ihenai 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of 
Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia). 

Vice-President; Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, 
Lund, Sweden). 

Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 SBD). 


B. The Members of the Commission 
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 


Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) 
(30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 

Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, 
Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; 
Asteroidea 

Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) 
(30 September 1972) Mollusca 

Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea 

Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 
75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 

Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, 
Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 

Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk. ul. 
Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 

Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 
Hamburg 13, Germany ) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced 
Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) 
(President ): Mammalia: Recent and Fossil 

Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 
September 1976) Reptilia: E D P Methods 

Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 
Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 

Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 
Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) 
Parasitology 

Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 

Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) (Councillor) Octocorallia; Systematics 

Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, 
U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 

Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 
SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 

Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 


Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of 
Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 

Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 
SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda 

Mr. David HEPPELL, (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 
Edinburgh EH1 I JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca 

Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 
249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology 

Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Jnstitut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, 
A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari 

Dr. SHUN-ICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 
Hyakunincho 3-23-1, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) 
Entomology 

Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucumdan, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 
Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical 
Hymenoptera 

Dr. G. C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 
0M8) (15 April 1985) Ichthyology 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Members of the Trust 
Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) 
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) 
Prof. Per Brinck 
Prof. J.H. Callomon 
Prof. C.B. Cox 
Mr. D. Curry 
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 
Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. 
Prof. J. Forest 
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 
Dr. G.C. Gruchy 
Dr. R.H. Hedley, F.I.Biol. 
Dr. L.B. Holthuis 
Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Dr. M. Luc 
Dr. I.W.B. Nye 
Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. 
Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) 
Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. 
Dr. G.B. White 
Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for the Royal Society) 


B. The Officers of the Trust 
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 
Mr. ME. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) 
Mr. J.D.D. Smith ( Administrator ) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, April 1985 99 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN CLATURE 


UN a ec es 


Volume 42, part 2 (pp. iii-iv, 99-204) 27 June 1985 
I wh hoe 4 
NOTICES 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to 
vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
six months after the publication of each application. This period is nor- 
mally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who 
wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his con- 
tribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as 
possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve 
months of the date of publication of the application. 
(b) 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: 
(1) Southernia Allgen, 1929: proposed conservation by suppres- 
sion of Southernia Filipjev, 1927 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 940. 
The Secretary. 

(2) Folsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): pro- 
posed conservation by suppression of Entomobrya cavicola 
Banks, 1897. Z.N.(S.) 2210. P. F. Bellinger. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications 
have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (1) (published on 2 April 
1985) (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b 
and 79c): 

*(1) Filellum Hincks, 1868 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposed 

conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2508. P.F.S. Cornelius & D.R. Calder. 
(2) Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 (Crustacea, Isopoda): request for 
confirmation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2509. H.M.L. Ton & 
G.C.B. Poore. 

(3) ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Coleoptera) and EUGLENIDAE Stein, 
1878 (Flagellata): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2510. 
M. Mroczkowski & S. A. Slipinski. 

(4) Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Coleoptera, Cucujoidea): proposed 

conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2511. I.C. Watt & R.A. Crowson. 

*(5) Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca): proposed conser- 

vation. Z.N.(S.) 2512. A.E. Bogan & J.D. Williams. 
(6) ‘Nomenclaturally valid’: a useful new term in nomenclature. 
Z.N.(S.) 2513. R.V. Melville (Secretary). 

(7) Hydatigena taeniaeformis Batsch, 1786 (Platyhelminthes, 
Cestoda): proposed conservation. Z.NAS) oi 2514. «C.C. 
Bursey. 


100 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


(d) Guidelines for applications to the Commission. Intending appli- 
cants should draw up their applications in line with the Guidelines 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 42, part 1, 
pages 3-5. Copies of the Guidelines can be obtained from the Secretary. 


SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 


CHANGES IN THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP 


The retirement from the Commission of Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky (of 
the Systematic Entomology Laboratory, United States Department of Agri- 
culture, c/o United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 
reaching the age limit is recorded with great regret. Dr Sabrosky has given 
22 years of painstaking and valuable service as a Commissioner; from 1977 
until the spring of 1983 he was President. His contribution to the prep- 
aration of the 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature was of the highest value. My personal debt to his encourage- 
ment and friendship is immense. 

Dr G. C. Gruchy (of the National Museum of Natural Sciences, 
Ottawa, Canada) was elected on 15 April this year to the place vacated by 
Professor Harold Welch. His speciality is Ichthyology. 


THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 
THIRD EDITION 


This was published on 12 February 1985, for the International Trust 
for Zoological Nomenclature, by the British Museum (Natural History). 

This new edition, with official French and English text on facing 
pages, has been approved by the International Union of Biological Sciences 
and is the only set of rules of worldwide authority that guides zoologists 
and palaeontologists who are describing new families, genera and species. It 
is an indispensable working tool for all taxonomists and those engaged in 
identification services in applied fields. 

The price is £15+ £1.50 postage and packing. Pre-paid orders should 
be sent to the Publications Department, British Museum (Natural History), 
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD. Orders from applicants in North 
America should be sent to the University of California Press, 405 Hilgard 
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
June 1985 


a a a SW i 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 101 


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF DAPSILARTHRA 
FOERSTER, 1862. Z.N.(S.)2312 
(see vol. 41, pp. 53-55) 


(1) By Dr G. C. D. Griffiths (Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, 
Canada) 


I support the intent of van Achterberg’s submission regarding the need to 
protect the name Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 against any possible attempt to sub- 
stitute Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 for it, but consider his exposition unnecessarily 
complex. Two issues are involved: what is the correct spelling of Gnamptodon/ 
Gnaptodon, and which species should be recognised as the type species? Protection 
of Dapsilarthra will be automatic if the question of the type species of Gnamptodon/ 
Gnaptodon is settled. 

Gnamptodon and Gnaptodon are not different names but different spellings of 
the same name. When a name is spelt in two different ways in the same paper, this is 
evidence that one or other spelling is a lapsus or error of some kind. The fact that we 
are not dealing with two different names is shown by Haliday’s inclusion of only 
Bracon pumilio Nees in Gnaptodon in 1837 and his citation of the same species as the 
type of Gnaptodon in 1840. Since the spelling Gnamptodon was used by Haliday at 
least three times (in 1833, 1837 and 1840, as cited by van Achterberg) while the 
spelling Gnaptodon appears only once (in 1837), clearly Gnamptodon was the 
intended spelling. Van Achterberg’s preference for Gnaptodon is no doubt due to 
that spelling having been used in his 1983 revision and other recent literature. If 
recent usage is sufficient ground for the Commission to rule Gnaptodon to be the 
spelling to be used, I have no objection to this. But the case should be argued in 
terms of usage, not through the stratagem of treating Gnamptodon and Gnaptodon 
as different names when they are not. 

A ruling on the type species of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 is needed because 
the type species, by monotypy, Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], was misidentified. 
This specific name is at present applied to an alysiine braconid placed in Dapsilarthra. 
In Haliday’s (1833) key the gaping (exodont) mandibles characteristic of alysiine 
braconids are denoted by the phrase ‘Mandibulae hiantes’. But Gnamptodon, with 
rufiventris as sole included species, is denoted by ‘mandibulae forcipatae’. Therefore 
Haliday did not intend to apply the name to an alysiine braconid and it is not 
necessary to assume any change in Haliday’s concept of Gnamptodon between 1833 
and 1837. The species included in 1837, Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834, could represent 
the species misidentified as Bassus rufiventris in 1833, although this cannot be 
determined with certainty. Designation of Bracon pumilio Nees, 1834 as type species 
of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 would solve the problem and remove any possible 
threat to Dapsilarthra. 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 


ACHTERBERG, C. VAN 1983. Tijdschr. Entomol., vol. 126, pp. 25—57. 
NEES VON ESENBECK, C. G. D. 1834. Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus affinum 
monographiae etc. Stuttgart and Tubingen. 


102 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


(2) By R. Wharton (Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College 
Station, Texas) 


I should like to express my support for the proposal to conserve Dapsilarthra 
Foerster, 1862. I believe that the suppression of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 will 
result in greater stability and consistency of usage in the BRACONIDAE. However, I 
am surprised to find that the proposal is inconsistent with the radical changes the 
same author has proposed for generic names in this family, which are based on strict 
priority (van Achterberg, 1979, 1982). 

Some minor points may be helpful to the Commission in considering this 
case: (1) Dapsilarthra in its widest sense has been the subject of recent studies by 
K6nigsmann, 1959, Griffiths, 1968a, b, Wharton, 1980 and van Achterberg, 1983. 
Griffiths and Wharton are at present rearing and collecting material to be used ina 
revision of the Nearctic species. Dapsilarthra is quite diverse (Wharton, 1980; van 
Achterberg, 1983) and is unlikely to be maintained in its present sense (Wharton, 
1980). However, D. apii (Curtis, 1826), the type species of Dapsilarthra, and D. 
rufiventris (Nees), the type species of Gnamptodon, are in separate but apparently 
closely related species groups. Thus any reorganisation at the generic level will 
probably lead to the retention of both species in Dapsilarthra s.s. 

(2) There are several generic names available for the species now placed in 
Dapsilarthra; and Adelura Foerster, 1862 has been used in the past about as 
frequently as Dapsilarthra (Shenefelt, 1974). Thus the contention that Dapsilarthra 
is ‘... long established and much used ...’ (vol. 41, p. 54, lines 28-29) is a weak 
argument for its conservation. The similar statement that ‘... Dapsilarthra has been 
used consistently for the genus since 1862 ...’ (vol. 41, p. 54, lines 24-25) is 
somewhat misleading because of the widespread use of Adelura until Strand, 1928, 
showed that it was a junior homonym. Even after this discovery, one of the most 
detailed biological studies on any species of Dapsilarthra, that by Keilin & Tate, 
1943, used the combination Adelura apii (Curtis). 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 


GriFFITHs, G. C. D. 1968a. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 18, pp. 5-62. 

1968b. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 18, pp. 63-152. 

KeILin, D. & Tate, P. 1943. Parasitology, vol. 35, pp. 27-36. 

KONIGSMANN, E. 1959. Beitrs. Entomol., vol. 9, pp. 580-608. 

SHENEFELT, R. 1974. Hymenopterorum Catalogus (nov. ed.) Pars 11, Braconidae 7, 
p. 986. Junk, The Hague. 

STRAND, E. 1928. Arch. Naturges., vol. 92(A), p. 51. 

VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1979. Tijdschr. Entomol., vol. 122, pp. 241-279. 

1982. Entomol. Ber., vol. 42, pp. 133-139. 

Wuarton, R. A. 1980. Univ. California Publs Entomol., vol. 88, pp. 1-112. 


(3) Replies by Dr van Achterberg 


(1) to Dr Griffiths: The statement that there is doubt about the identity of the 
nominal type species of Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833, p. 265 (where it is clearly indi- 
cated) and of Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837, p. 220, where only one species is included, is 
in my opinion incorrect. If the interpretation of these species by Haliday is taken as 


} 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 103 


the basis for the interpretation of the genera, the uncertainty about both names will 
continue. As Dr Griffiths correctly notes, there is no proof that Haliday’s Bracon 
pumilio Nees, 1834, is the same as his Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], 1814; it is even 
unlikely. For instance, according to the original descriptions, the colour of the two 
species is very different and this should have been noted by Haliday. However, 
Haliday made some sort of mistake and the case should be settled to avoid possible 
confusion in the future. 

(2) to Dr Wharton: I agree with most of these remarks. I prefer the appli- 
cation of generic names to be based strictly on priority. However, if this increases 
the chance of confusion (in this case, two generic names differing only in one letter, 
both proposed by the same author in a conflicting manner) the case should, in my 
opinion, be brought before the Commission. The solution proposed is to conserve 
the name most in use at the moment. Therefore whether the term ‘much used’ or 
another is used is not important: it is a relative statement. Dapsilarthra is commonly 
accepted as the name for the genus that includes Bassus rufiventris Nees, [1812], 1814 
and Alysia apii Curtis, 1826 (see e.g. Shenefelt, 1974, pp. 986-991). 

Adelura Foerster, 1862 (non Bonaparte, 1854; = Adelurola Strand, 1928) has 
been used extensively, but in terms of its type species it is not closely related to 
Dapsilarthra; its use for the group including D. rufiventris and D. apii was incorrect 
and cannot be accepted. Of the available names for this genus Dapsilarthra has 
indeed been the most consistently used since 1862. 


(4) Note by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


The Commission must clearly decide on the relative status of Gnamptodon 
Haliday, 1833 and Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837. On the direct evidence of the 1837 
work, on the assumption that Haliday knew what he was doing, they must be 
regarded as separate names; for Gnamptodon is sunk as a synonym of Opius (Opius) 
Wesmael, 1835 (though it is difficult to see why), while Gnaptodon is a separate 
subgenus of Opius, with its own type species. 

Furthermore, it is not necessary to treat Gnaptodon as a misspelling of 
Gnamptodon. The Greek verb gnampto means to bend or curve; the Greek word 
gnapto means to card or comb wool. Haliday was a good enough classicist to have 
known this. 

I therefore conclude that Dr Griffiths’ argument has little to sustain it and 
that Dr van Achterberg’s original proposals should be preferred. 


DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR ADIANTHUS BUCATUS 
AMEGHINO, 1891 (MAMMALIA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS: A 
RESPONSE. Z.N.(S.)2430 
(see vol. 41, pp. 56-57, 208-211) 


(1) By Richard L. Cifelli (Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural 
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 20560, U.S.A.) 


A comprehensive review of the ADIANTHIDAE, published recently (Cifelli & 
Soria, 1983), includes detailed discussion of all issues raised by Schoch in his 
critique, which otherwise largely reiterates the substance of my joint proposal with 


104 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


Soria for designation of a neotype (Cifelli & Soria, 1984). For clarification here and 
by way of summary, the review of Cifelli & Soria (1983): 


(1) established the ADIANTHIDAE as a unique and holomonophyletic group 


(2 


(3 


(4 


(5 


rd 


— 


~— 


pertaining to the indigenous South American order Litopterna 
(Mammalia). The morphological integrity of this group and its roster 
of constituent taxa have, however, been long and universally recog- 
nised (see primary zoological literature citations in Cifelli & Soria, 
1983), so that modifiers used by Schoch such as ‘presumably’, 
‘usually’, and ‘certain authors’, implying doubtful usage of this 
family-group name, are inappropriate in this context; 

provided diagnoses for the ADIANTHIDAE and for all subordinate taxa 
contained by the family; 

discussed the observable morphology of the type figure of Adianthus 
bucatus Ameghino, 1891 and of MACN A1812 (referred to that species 
by Ameghino in 1894) with respect to these diagnoses, concluding that 
the former pertained to a caviomorph rodent while the latter clearly 
represents a distinct species of ADIANTHIDAE as that family is univer- 
sally conceived. Schoch’s assertion to the contrary, the loss of the type 
specimen was in no way ‘convenient’ for us in making this evaluation 
or in assessing the possible solutions to the problem. While the 
description and figure of the type are sufficient to determine rodent 
rather than litoptern affinities for the original specimen, no more speci- 
fic identification or assessment of validity is possible until more com- 
plete materials, including but not limited to another tooth sufficiently 
similar to it, are discovered. (It is conceivable, for instance, that the 
type of Adianthus bucatus belonged to a presently recognised species 
otherwise known only from the lower dentition.) Should the Commis- 
sion designate MACN A1812 as neotype of Adianthus bucatus, thereby 
leaving the original type figure of that species nameless, it is therefore 
uncertain at present whether or not a new name will be required for it; 
selected and designated MACN A1812 as neotype of Adianthus 
bucatus Ameghino, 1891, noting that a proposal for action by the 
Commission on the matter had been made; 

presented all existing evidence as to the geographic and stratigraphic 
provenience of all materials pertaining to the ADIANTHIDAE. While it is 
virtually certain that the two specimens in question were collected 
from different localities, there is considerable doubt as to the origin of 
the type. MACN A1812 was obtained at a locality (Corriguen Aike) 
not visited by Carlos Ameghino—brother of Florentino Ameghino— 
when he made the collection which includes the type (Ameghino, 
1913-1936, vol. 20, pp. 146 ff.). Available evidence, consisting of an 
oblique reference (Ameghino, 1903—1904a), implies but does not 
establish the locality (Karaiken) from which the type derived (Cifelli & 
Soria, 1983, p. 8); this locality is of a slightly earlier age (Marshall & 
Pascual, 1977) than that of MACN A1812. 


2. Schoch’s suggestion that, in accordance with Article 75 of the Code, ‘it is 
logical to wait until more material of Adianthus bucatus is collected from the fauna 
from which it is derived and designate one such future specimen the neotype’ is in 
contradiction with his acceptance (without restudy) of our contention that the figure 
and description given by Ameghino (1891) are adequate (designation of such a 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 105 


neotype is thus excluded by the provisions of Article 75a). This is, in any case, 
irrelevant because the proposal concerns suppression of an existing type and 
designation of a neotype under Article 79, not Article 75, of the Code. 

3. Aside from issues dealt with explicitly in the revision of the family (Cifelli 
& Soria, 1983), Schoch’s sole stated objection to designation of MACN A1812 as 
neotype of Adianthus bucatus is that ‘confusion will remain in the older literature’. 
Such confusion will inevitably remain. Because Adianthus bucatus has not univer- 
sally been applied to a single species, no course of action (including, as Schoch 
advocates, retention of the species-name with the figure of the original type and its 
transferral to the Rodentia) will rectify confusion in the early literature except, 
perhaps, suppression of the name entirely. The evidence presented in a recent review 
(Cifelli & Soria, 1983) should, in any case, be sufficient to clarify misunderstanding 
due to an error made by Ameghino nearly 100 years ago and never correctable in a 
strict sense. 

4. The promotion of stability is the expressed central purpose of the Code; 
that of the plenary powers, Article 79, to suspend the provisions of the Code ‘if such 
application to a particular case would in its [the Commission’s] judgment disturb 
stability or universality or cause confusion’. Designation of MACN A1812 as 
neotype of Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 would preserve usage and convention 
in concept of the species and therefore of the genus and of the family ADIANTHIDAE, 
whereas retention of the species name with the type figure, their removal to another 
order, and the erection of new names would cause considerable confusion. Designa- 
tion of MACN A1812 as neotype would, first, preserve tradition in concept and 
usage (a tradition established, in fact, by Ameghino [1894] himself). Adianthus 
bucatus is a species universally considered as pertaining to a group of small, mor- 
phologically distinctive litopterns (see Cifelli & Soria, 1983, for literature citations). 
The name, if retained with the type figure, would be new to the Rodentia and, as 
noted above, is in this case presently of uncertain validity within that order (should, 
for instance, Adianthus bucatus be found to be synonymous with another described 
rodent species, further confusion could ensue). Secondly, and more fundamentally, 
designation of the neotype would permit maintenance of the family-group name 
ADIANTHIDAE. Because Adianthus (type species A. bucatus) is the type genus of the 
group of litopterns under consideration, removal of the species Adianthus bucatus 
from the family will necessitate application of another family-group name to them. 
No other such name has ever been proposed or used, so that the name would be 
entirely new to zoological nomenclature. Proposal of a new name would clearly 
have a disruptive effect on nomenclature: in addition to usage in the primary 
zoological literature (cited in Cifelli & Soria, 1983), the family-group name 
ADIANTHIDAE is widely cited in general reference works on South American mammal 
evolution (e.g., Patterson & Pascual, 1972; Simpson, 1980; Marshall et al., 1983; 
Cifelli, 1985) and in comprehensive treatments of mammalian evolution, classifica- 
tion, and systematics (e.g., Trouessart, 1898-1899; Palmer, 1904; Simpson, 1945; 
Romer, 1966; Savage & Russell, 1983), which are standard reference works for 
non-specialists. 


REFERENCES 


AMEGHINO, F. [1891]. Caracteres diagnosticos de cincuenta especies nuevas de 
mamiferos fosiles argentinos. Rev. Argentina Hist. nat., vol. 1, pp. 129-167. 


106 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


— 1894. Enumération synoptique des espéces de mammiferes fossiles des forma- 
tions éocénes de Patagonie. Bol. Acas. nac. Cien. Cordoba, vol. 13, pp. 
259-452. 

—— 1903-1904a. Nuevas especies de mamiferos cretacicos y terciarios de la 
Republica Argentina. An. Soc. cien. Argentina, vol. 56 (1903), pp. 193-208; 
vol. 57 (1904), pp. 162-175, 327-341; vol. 58 (1904), pp. 35-41, 56-71, 
182-192, 225-240, 241-291. 

—— 1913-1936. Orbas completas y Correspondencia cientifica. Edicion oficial 
ordenada por el gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Torcelli, A., ed. 
La Plata, Impresiones Oficiales, vols. 1-24. 

CIFELLI, R. L. 1985. South American ungulate evolution and extinction. In: Webb, 
S. D. and Stehli, F., eds., The Great American Interchange. Plenum Publ. Co., 
New York, in press. 

— & Soria, M. F. 1983. Systematics of the Adianthidae (Litopterna, Mammalia). 
Amer. Mus. Novitates no. 2771. 

—  & Soria, M. F. 1984. Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia): 
proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. 
Nomen., vol. 41, pp. 56-57. 

MARSHALL, L. G., HOFFSTETTER, R. & PASCUAL, R. 1983. Mammals and strati- 
graphy: geochronology of the continental mammal-bearing Tertiary of 
South America. Palaeovertebrata, Montpellier, Mem. Extr. 1983, pp. 1-93. 

— & PAScuAL, R. 1977. Nuevas marsupiales Caenolestidae del ‘Piso Notohip- 
pidense’ (SE de Santa Cruz, Patagonia) de Ameghino. Sus aportaciones a la 
cronologia y evolucion de las comunidades-mamifero del Cenozoico medio y 
tardio sudamericano. Obra del Centenario Del Museo de La Plata, vol. 5, pp. 
11-28. 

PALMER, T. S. 1904. Index generum mammalium: a list of the genera and families of 
mammals. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Repts. North American Fauna, no. 23, pp. 
1-984. 

PATTERSON, B. & PASCUAL, R. 1972. South American fossil mammals. Jn: Keast, A., 
Erk, F. C. and Glass, B. eds., Evolution, Mammals, and Southern Continents. 
State Univ. New York Press, Albany, pp. 247-309. 

Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition. Univ. Chicago Press, 
Chicago, pp. 1-468. 

SavaGE, D. E. & RUSSELL, D. E. 1983. Mammalian Paleofaunas of the World. 
Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading, pp. 1-432. 

Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of 
mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 85: 1-350. 

— 1980. Splendid Isolation: The Curious History of South American Mammals. 
Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, pp. 1-266. 

TROUESSART, E.-L. 1898-1899. Catalogus Mammalium tam Viventium quam 
Fossilium, Nova Edito (Prima Completa). R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin, 
vol. 1-2: 1-1469. 


(2) By M. F. Soria (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadivia’, 
Ay. Angel Gallardo 470, [1405] Capital Federal, Republica Argentina) 


Dr Cifelli’s reply to Dr Schoch covers most of the points that need to be dealt 
with, but I should like to add a few remarks. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 107 


(1) A simple reading of Schoch’s comment shows his inadequate knowledge 
of the problem of A. bucatus, because he ignored (as Cifelli shows) our 
comprehensive reivew of the ADIANTHIDAE (Cifelli & Soria, 1983). 

(2) Schoch’s statement relies for much of its support on his paragraph 4, in 
which he misunderstood the sense given to the name A. bucatus by both Patterson, 
1940 and Simpson & Minoprio, 1949: 

Patterson, 1940, compared his specimen not, as Schoch suggests, 
with the type specimen of A. bucatus, but with that of A. patagonicus 
Ameghino, 1904. On p. 17, footnote 3, he says of A. bucatus: *... from an 
examination of the inadequate figure, it is impossible to homologise the 
remaining two [fossettes] with the fossettes of other described specimens.’ 

Simpson & Minoprio, 1949, referred to the genus Adianthus but not 
to A. bucatus by name. They clearly described features of the type 
specimen of A. patagonicus, as when, for instance (p. 7), they indicated the 
presence of a ‘strong parastylar spur’. Ameghino’s 1891 description and 
figure of the type specimen of A. bucatus show no such character. 

Starting from this confusion, Schoch states ‘Thus workers have not 
universally applied the name Adianthus bucatus to the same species. 
Sometimes it is applied to the species represented by Ameghino’s (1891) 
original, and presumably lost, type and sometimes to the the species 
represented by M.A.C.N. no. A1812’. This conclusion does not fit the 
facts. After Ameghino, 1891, all workers who have studied A. bucatus 
(Ameghino, 1894, 1896, 1898; Scott, 1910; Patterson, 1940; Simpson & 
Minoprio, 1949, 1950; Simpson, Minoprio & Patterson, 1962; Soria, 1981; 
Bond & Vucetich, 1983) have followed Ameghino’s 1894 concept of the 
species, based on the hemimandible MACN A-1812 (Schoch’s rendering 
of this number is incorrect). Occasional mentions of the original type 
(e.g. Patterson, 1940, see above) do not affect this. Schoch seems to have 
confused ‘specimens’ with ‘species’ and not to have distinguished between 
A. bucatus and A. patagonicus. 

Schoch states ‘Scott (1910) and Soria (1981) mistakenly took 
M.A.C.N. no. A1812 [sic] to be the type or neotype [sic] of Adianthus 
bucatus’. In 1981 (p. 29) I wrote ‘... resultaria aceptable tomar la hemi- 
mandibula como neotipo...’ (‘...it would be acceptable to take the 
hemimandible as the neotype...’). I did not say that the hemimandible 
‘was’ or ‘must be’ the neotype. I compared the figure of the type specimen 
of A. bucatus with that of the type specimen of A. patagonicus (see also 
Cifelli & Soria, 1983). I concluded that those species are not congeneric 
and proposed the new combination Proheptaconus patagonicus. I based 
this on a comment by Simpson, Minoprio & Patterson, 1962, p. 248: ‘We 
cannot attempt to solve or even state these problems here, and indeed 
their solution probably must await discovery of better post-Deseadean 
specimens and perhaps also arbitrary designation of neotypes or nomina 
conservanda’. 

(3) The type specimen of A. bucatus is presumably lost, as Cifelli & Soria, 
1983, 1984, point out. As Schoch appears not to agree, I offer the following 
information: 


(a) After his first description of 1891, Ameghino never mentioned 
the type again. Until 1904 Adianthus was a monotypic genus, so that up to 
that date any mention of the genus was equivalent to a mention of the type 


108 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


species. In 1896, when he mentioned only the generic name, he cited the 
teeth features of the hemimandible MACN A-1812 alone. In 1903-1904a 
he described the second species of Adianthus, A. patagonicus, of which the 
type is an isolated third upper molar (MACN A-52-218), but he did not 
compare this with the type of A. bucatus. In his monograph on the phylo- 
genetic morphology of ungulate upper molars, he figured only the type 
specimen of A. patagonicus (1904b, figs 98, 100). 

(b) In 1900 Scott visited Ameghino but was unable to examine the 
Litopterna of the Ameghino collection for lack of time (Scott, 1910, p. 1). 
In his treatise on Santacrucian Litopterna (1910) he considered the hemi- 
mandible as the type specimen of A. bucatus and (p. 154) mentioned some 
features of the type specimen of A. patagonicus when discussing the genus. 
If Scott knew the type specimen of A. bucatus it is inexplicable that he did 
not refer to it, especially as he gave a reference to Ameghino, 1891. 

(c) When the Ameghino Collection was incorporated in the Seccion 
Paleozoologia of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino 
Rivadivia’, all specimens were numbered and card-indexed. Under 
A. bucatus only the hemimandible MACN A-—1812 was found and 
(erroneously) considered as the type. 

(d) I have been working on the fossil mammal collections of the 
Museum (including the Ameghino Collection) since 1974. I have located 
many missing specimens and, of course, a good number of type specimens 
(many recorded in internal reports). I have searched especially for 
specimens believed to be lost. In several such searches I was unable to find 
the type specimen of A. bucatus. 

(e) There is no evidence that any other worker has been able to 
examine this specimen. Had anyone been able to do so, I believe it would 
have been mentioned at least once in the last 94 years. For these reasons I 
believe that Schoch has no grounds for supposing that it was convenient 
for us that the type specimen was lost. We suspect that the type was lost 
during Ameghino’s lifetime. Indeed, it was Ameghino, 1894, who set up 
the specimen MACN A-~—1812 as a sort of informal neotype. 

Hence the proposal to designate MACN A—1812 as the neotype of 
Adianthus bucatus (Cifelli & Soria, 1983, 1984) is the best way to preserve 
stability and to respect the traditional criteria for the ADIANTHIDAE, for its 
type genus Adianthus, and for the type species of that genus, universally 
recognised as small and peculiar Litopterna. The other alternative, to pro- 
pose a new name for the hemimandible with the removal of A. bucatus to 
the Rodentia, would merely increase the degree of confusion shown by the 
antecedents cited above, as pointed out by Cifelli in his reply. This would 
be contrary to nomenclatural stability. 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 


AMEGHINO, F. 1896. Sur l’évolution des dents des mammiféres. Bol. Acad. nac. 


Cienc. Cordoba, vol. 14, pp. 381-517. 

1898. Segundo censo de la Republica Argentina. Capitulo I. Territorio. 
Tercera parte, Sinopsis geologico-paleontologica. Buenos Aires, Taller 
Tipograf. Penit. nac., vol. 1, pp. 113-225. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 109 


1904b. Recherches de morphologie phylogénétique sur les molaires 

supérieures des ongulés. An. Mus. nac. Buenos Aires, vol. 3 (10), pp. 1-541. 

BOND, M. & VUCETICH, M. G. 1983. Indalecia grandensis gen. et sp. nov. del 
Eocene Temprano del Noroeste Argentino... Rev. Assoc. geol. Argentina, 
vol. 38 (1), pp. 107-117. 

SIMPSON, G. G. & MINOPRIO, J. L. 1950. La fauna del Deseadense de 
Mendoza. Resumen. Colaboracion. An. Soc. cient. Argentina, vol. 149, pp. 
245-253. 

——_., & PATTERSON, B. 1962. The mammalian fauna of the Divisadero 

Largo formation, Mendoza, Argentina. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 

117 (4), pp. 239-293. 


COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING ATRACTOCERA 
LATIPES MEIGEN, 1804. Z.N.(S.)2393 
(see vol. 41, pp. 83-93, 211) 


(1) By I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
199034, U.S.S.R.) 


Professor I. A. Rubtsov has asked me, as Secretary of the Soviet committee 
on zoological nomenclature, to comment on the disputed views of this case put 
forward by him and by Dr Crosskey. I am not a dipterologist, but I prefer a stable 
nomenclature and objective information. Prof. Rubtsov has provided me with some 
facts but I have personally verified all the references and have studied many other 
sources not indicated by him. I use /atipes throughout in the pre-1972 sense and do 
not differentiate between narrow and broad applications of the name (the latter for 
a group of sibling species) because I regard both usages as important. References to 
RAE followed by the year and number of the work reviewed are to the Review of 
Applied Entomology Ser. B. Medical and Veterinary. Nearly all the other references 
are to works already mentioned in the discussion. 

Rubtsov puts forward the following arguments: 

(1) Medical and veterinary importance of the species. — Rubtsov stated: ‘Asa 
very active bloodsucker it has great medical and veterinary importance. It is 
included in many monographs. .., in many bulletins of WHO... and in hundreds 
of papers’. Crosskey & Davies, 1972, said, to the contrary: ‘not a blackfly species of 
any medical and veterinary importance’. Crosskey, 1984, remarks: ‘In North 
America and Europe... the species has no such importance, and indeed there are 
extraordinarily few biting records for it. There is some man-biting nuisance attribu- 
table to the species, but localised to eastern U.S.S.R. The species has never been the 
target of any control operation nor is it even mentioned in a recent book concerned 
with SIMULIIDAE as pests (Laird, 1981)’. The above statements are the only ones seen 
by me. 


110 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


For the U.S.S.R. (half of the area of the species) Rubtsov, 1956, stated: 
‘Malicious bloodsucker. Attacks man and domesticated animals’ and Gutsevich 
included the species (‘mass attacks on man and livestock’) in the Soviet Great 
Medical Encyclopaedia (ed. 2, 1961, vol. 19, p. 367). Neither of these references 
limits the pest to ‘eastern U.S.S.R.’. I have also found references to ‘important 
species biting man and livestock’ (RAE 1983, 2007, Switzerland) and ‘mass 
bloodsucking species’ (RAE 1983, 2333, Czechoslovakia). In England it was 
shown by Davies and others, 1962, Trans. r. entomol. Soc. London, vol. 114, pp. 
25-26, using serological methods, that the species feeds mostly on birds, 
predominantly domestic birds, but also on man and domestic animals. In Canada it 
is, and in England it is supposed to be (Davies et al., loc. cit.; RAE 1976, 1333, 
etc.) a vector of leucocytozoonosis, a dangerous and widely distributed disease of 
domestic and wild birds (see Laird, ed., 1981, p. vii). References to bloodsucking 
habits, abundance and wide distribution of the species are numerous. Davies et al. 
(loc. cit.) analysed about 280 bitings of /atipes, much more than of any other British 
species. 

The title of Laird’s 1981 book — Blackflies: the future for biological methods 
in integrated control— shows his concern. Crosskey’s chapter on geographical 
distribution contains a table of 43 ‘more important’ species in the world fauna with 
a note that not all vectors of leucocytozoonosis are included. It is the only general 
review of blackfly species as pests in the book and does not include /atipes. But the 
species is mentioned in the book on 15 pages (add p. 292 to the index) in six papers 
by eight authors working in England, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, Canada and 
U.S.A. All used ‘/atipes’ or ‘latipes auctt.’ and none mentioned ‘vernum’. This goes 
counter to Crosskey’s arguments. In the index to the book I found only 14 other 
species mentioned on 14 or more pages. 

(2) Importance of latipes as a type species. — This is not commented on by 
Crosskey & Davies, 1972 or Crosskey, 1984. Regardless of the taxonomic status of 
Cnetha, there will be no problem if Rubtsov’s proposal is accepted. Otherwise, the 
type species of Cnetha and Pseudonevermannia will have to be designated by the 
Commission using its plenary powers (Art. 70a). 

(3) Doubtful status of the presumed holotype. — Rubtsov suggested that the 
presumed holotype disagrees with Meigen’s figure and with the known distribution 
of the species. Neither point is mentioned by Crosskey & Davies, 1972 or by Zwick 
& Crosskey, 1981, and only the second is discussed by Crosskey, 1984. He regards 
Rubtsov’s suggestion that the specimen was received from France or England after 
1804 as a ‘remarkable, groundless and unwarranted assumption’ although Zwick & 
Crosskey, 1981, correctly mentioned that Meigen received much material from 
various countries after 1804. In 1818 or later Meigen obtained the Baumhauer col- 
lection (50,000 specimens) mainly from western and southern France and including 
many small and delicate species of the suborder Nematocera to which the blackflies 
belong. English Diptera (but perhaps not Nematocera) were sent to Meigen by 
Leach (see Morge, 1974, pp. 121, 122, ‘Leach’ misprinted as ‘Beach’; Meigen, 
1818-1838, Syst. Beschr. zweifi. Ins., numerous references to Baumhauer; for Leach 
see vol. 2, p. 348, vol. 3, p. 292, etc.). 

According to Horn & Kahle, 1936, Entomol. Beihefte Berlin-Dahlem, vol. 3, 
p. 171, Meigen specimens, possibly including types, exist in Vienna, Bonn and 
Halle/Saale, besides Paris. I can add Berlin and Leningrad. No effort seems to have 
been made to study these specimens in revising Meigen’s blackfly species. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 111 


The problem of ‘types’ in old collections is discussed by Mayr, 1969, 
Principles of systematic Zoology, para 13.48, and I agree with his conclusions: 
‘Evidence derived from old types must be treated with extreme care and discrimi- 
nation and never be used to upset stable nomenclature.’ I agree further with Rubstov 
that, even in the absence of any doubts about the holotype, conservation of the 
name in its accustomed use was necessary. 

(4) Usage of the name. — Crosskey in Laird, ed., 1981, lists selected identi- 
fication keys mostly published in taxonomic monographs. According to my calcu- 
lations, 12 of these (for the Palaearctic, U.S.S.R., Scandinavia, British Isles, France, 
Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Italy, east Canada and parts of U.S.A.) use /atipes and 
only two (for Iceland and Michigan) use vernum. Numerous papers in which this 
common and widespread species is used in ecological, physiological, parasitological 
and other studies and published before 1972 use /atipes. For the post-1972 period I 
used the indexes to RAE. I agree that such evidence is not complete and that it does 
not reflect the nature and importance of publications, but I think it gives objective 
evidence on the usage of names, and in my opinion, usage is usage (Art. 79b(ii)) and 
cannot be discounted even if the author is dead or did not show awareness of the 
proposed nomenclatural changes. From 1972 to 1975, RAE indexes only Jatipes 
(except for Crosskey & Davies, 1972). From 1976 to 1984, number 5, 16 papers 
using /atipes are given and 20 using vernum. Clearly, even in recent years, vernum has 
not acquired very considerably predominant usage. 

The problem of a neotype is identical in both Rubtsov’s proposal and 
Crosskey’s counterproposal (for vernum). In both cases a neotype is desirable, but 
the identity of the species can be fixed by reference to Davies, 1966, as already 
indicated by Rubtsov. 


(2) By Heide Zwick, Limnologische Flussstation d. Max-Planck-Instituts f. 
Limnologie, Postfach 260, D-6407 Schlitz, West Germany 


I wish to comment on the proposal by Rubtsov (1984, Bull. zool. Nom. 41(2), 
pp. 83-86) and counter-proposal by Crosskey (ibid., pp. 86-93) on the inter- 
pretation of the name J/atipes Meigen, 1804, and in particular to comment on 
paragraphs 9 and 13 of Rubtsov’s application. 

For more than 15 years I have studied sIMULIIDAE, and have spent much time 
elucidating the identity and status of European species described by early workers 
such as Enderlein, Fries, Friederichs, Lundstrém, Meigen, and Zetterstedt. A paper 
on Meigen’s types has already been published (Zwick & Crosskey, 1981) and the 
results of studies on the other workers are now being prepared for publication. Thus 
I am well aware of the /atipes — vernum problem, and I feel qualified to comment on 
the proposals. 

I fully agree with Crosskey, and strongly support his arguments which have 
been made in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 
His proposal to introduce the name vernum Macquart, 1826 for /atipes sensu auct., 
nec Meigen (Crosskey & Davies, 1972) has been accepted by most simuliid special- 
ists. Even in countries where current literature can be difficult to obtain authors are 
beginning to use the name vernum (e.g. Jedli¢ka, 1976; Joost & Zimmermann, 1983). 


112 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


The main point which arises from Rubtsov’s proposal (paragraph 9) seems 
to be that he does not accept that the single male in the Meigen collection under the 
name Jatipes is in fact the holotype male of /atipes Meigen, 1804. 

The Meigen collection of simuliids has been carefully looked after since it 
was purchased in 1840 by the Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. So 
closely has it been looked after that it was not until 1969 that experienced simuliid 
workers first received permission to make genital preparations which are essential 
for identifying species. Earlier workers had to be content with examining unsatis- 
factory external features, and many of their identifications are no more than 
guesswork. 

In 1978 I studied the male /atipes of Meigen and I am convinced (like 
Crosskey & Davies, the first revising authors) that it is the male which Meigen refers 
to in his original description (1804) for the following four reasons: 

(1) the male bears a label ‘latipes’ in Meigen’s handwriting (note Zwick & Crosskey 
1981, p. 227); 

Meigen very precisely noted: ‘Ich fing nur einmal ein Mannchen im Mai in einer 
Hekke’. The proper translation is: Only once I caught one male on a hedge in 
May. Later, in 1818, he repeated: ‘Nur einmal im Mai das Mannchen’. (Trans- 
lation: Only once a male [was caught] in May) and gave a more detailed 
description which evidently must have been based on the same specimen as in 
1804; 

in the old catalogue of the Paris Museum (from 1840 — compare fig. 1 in Zwick 
& Crosskey, 1981) there are 2 specimens mentioned under the name of Jatipes 
(No. 525). Two specimens are in the collection of Meigen: one being a male, 
the other being a female (which has not been mentioned by Meigen) and 
misidentified; 

(4) the figure of /atipes, drawn by Meigen (pl. 223, fig. 9) shows a male and is in 

accordance with his descriptions. 

I cannot agree with Dr Rubtsov’s argument that because the male in ques- 
tion has no collecting label it may have been added to the collection subsequently. 
At the time of Meigen it was not usual to give locality information on labels. 
Furthermore, if it was a subsequently added specimen, it would mean that the 
holotype male was lost and someone must have placed another male in the correct 
place and added the handwritten label of Meigen onto the pin! 

Taking all these points into account I consider that there is no reason to 
reject this specimen as being the holotype of /atipes Meigen. If even more absolute 
proof is required before this conclusion can be accepted by others we may as well 
stop all our efforts to identify and revise the type-specimens of early authors [and 
thereby lose one of our fundamental bases in taxonomy]. 


(2 


~~ 


(3 


~— 


Paragraph 13. 

In my view a neotype is not needed for Jatipes Meigen, 1804. I consider that 
the specimen in the MNHN, Paris, number 525, is the holotype of /atipes Meigen, 
1804 as shown by the first revising authors (Crosskey & Davies, 1972). The name 
vernum Macquart, 1826 has been successfully introduced for the species /atipes 
sensu auct. (=sensu Edwards, 1915, 1920; Rubtsov, 1956, 1959-1964; Davies, 1966, 
1968). 

To the best of our knowledge types of vernum Macquart do not exist, and the 
designation of a neotype would be desirable. However, this is not necessary at the 
moment, and should only be done by a specialist who is revising all species of 
the vernum-group. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 113 


Finally, I would like to comment on Rubtsov’s paragraph 12. The type locality of 
vernum Macquart is most probably northern France, as Macquart lived at Lille. 
Despite a special collecting trip by Dr L. Davies to this area at the right time (May), 
there is still no appropriate specimen available to make a neotype designation. 
The only specimens I could provide are from Schlitz, Federal Republic of Germany, 
some 300 km east of Lille, and these would not be appropriate for such an important 
designation. 


REFERENCES 


CROSSKEY, R. W. & DAVIES, L. 1972. The identities of Simulium lineatum 
(Meigen), S. /atipes (Meigen) and S. vernum Macquart (Diptera: Simuliidae). 
Entomologist’s Gaz. vol. 23, pp. 249-258. 

JEDLICKA, L. 1976. Black flies (Diptera, Simuliidae) spread in middle Slovakia. 
Acta F.R.N. Univ. Comen. — Zoologia vol. XX, Bratislava, pp. 97-127. 
JOOST, W. & ZIMMERMANN, W. 1983. Dreijdhrige Emergenz-Untersuchungen 
an einem rhithralen Gewdsser des Thiiringer Waldes als Beitrag zur Okologie, 
inbesondere Produktionsbiologie merolimnischer Fraktionen der Bergbach- 
Biozonose.— Dissertation zur Promotion A. Karl-Marx-Universitat 

Leipzig, Sektion Biowissenschaften, Leipzig, Juni 1983, 275 pp.+ XLII pp. 

ZWICK, H. & CROSSKEY, R. W. [1981]. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the 
blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) described by J. W. Meigen. Aquatic Insects, 
vol. 2 (1980), pp. 225—247. [issued in 1981]. 


(3) By Jan E. Raastad (Zoological Museum, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway N-0562) 


It is correct, as stated by Rubtsov, that /atipes sensu Edwards, now 
commonly recognised as vernum Macquart, 1826, is very common and widely dis- 
tributed and that it is a very active blood sucker. However, the species seems to be 
almost exclusively a bird biter of little or no veterinary medical importance. The 
species will therefore be of little practical interest, but for the taxonomist much time- 
consuming work will be caused by an attempt to separate what are possibly sibling 
species covered under the shadow of a long-standing misidentification. 

This species has for long been placed in the genus-group taxon Eusimulium 
Roubaud, 1906. Rubtsov, 1974, AN SSR Trudy zool. Inst. vol. 53, pp. 230-281, 
erroneously split Eusimulium and re-assessed Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, which 
correctly has Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 as type species. Raastad, 1979, 
Rhizocrinus, vol. 11, pp. 1-28, argued against this course and re-evaluated Cnetha 
Enderlein, 1921, which is based on /atipes Meigen sensu Enderlein. 

It seems reasonable to question the identity of the species that was before 
Enderlein. Was it Jatipes Meigen, 1804, or /atipes auctorum? Enderlein does not 
say much about this species, which he clearly did not know very well, and there 
is not much in the literature to clarify the matter. However, in 1936 (Tierwelt 
Mitteleuropas, vol. 6 (3)2, pp. 36-42 he presents a fairly accurate drawing (fig. 82) of 
the third leg of a female Cnetha latipes showing a deep tibial pedisulcus. This shows 
that Enderlein was not basing his Cnetha on the true /atipes Meigen as that species 


114 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


has only a very shallow pedisulcus. Apparently Enderlein followed Edwards (Bull 
entomol. Res. vol. 6, pp. 23-42) in his misidentification of /atipes Meigen. If so (and 
this is what we have to assume), Cnetha is a genus based on a misidentified type 
species and vernum Macquart, 1838 would be its most suitable type species. 

Thus there is not much to support Rubtsov’s view. On the contrary, his pro- 
posal means a threat to existing stability of nomenclature. To follow his application 
would mean setting back simuliid taxonomy at least 10 years. I must therefore fully 
support the alternative action proposed by Crosskey. 


(4) By R. W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), London) 


I had not intended to advert again to Rubtsov’s request concerning the 
simuliid specific name /Jatipes Meigen, 1804, but the comments by Dr Kerzhner in 
support of Rubtsov’s position do not give a sufficiently exact account of the situ- 
ation; further comment is now needed on matters raised by Dr Kerzhner so that the 
Commission can be more fully informed before deciding its standpoint. 

Three main issues are involved in Rubtsov’s request and in my opposition to 
it (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 83-93, 1984). They are: 

(1) Is the male specimen accepted as the holotype of /atipes Meigen, 1804, by 
Crosskey & Davis, 1972, to be recognised and treated as the holotype or not? 

(2) Even if it is held to be the holotype, are there grounds for disregarding 
its characters and interpreting /atipes in its misidentified sense? That is to say, 
are there grounds for reverting to pre-1972 usage based on a then-unrecognised 
misidentification and for maintaining ‘usage’. 

(3) What is the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, a genus based on the 
nominal species /atipes Meigen, 1804? 


(1) The holotype question. Dr Heide Zwick has dealt so carefully and effec- 
tively with this matter in her comment (pp. 111-113) that there can be no reason to 
doubt that the male specimen labelled by Meigen as /atipes (Paris Museum) is the 
one referred to in Meigen’s works. There is no contrary evidence, and therefore no 
ground for not accepting it as the holotype. 

Kerzhner refers to the ‘doubtful status of the presumed holotype’, though it 
is hard to see how it can be doubtful in the light of Zwick’s comments. As I stressed 
earlier, if we do not accept evidence of the kind marshalled by Zwick as sufficiently 
conclusive for type status then we might as well cease all attempts to fix the identity 
of early-described species by objective appeal to their types. 

In his comments Kerzhner disputes the Crosskey and Zwick interpretation of 
the specimen as holotype on the grounds that Meigen received Diptera from various 
sources (including France and England) after the 1804 description of Jatipes and 
might have substituted another specimen for the original one. Rubtsov and 
Kerzhner appear to assume that this actually happened, but provide no substanti- 
ating evidence that it did or even might have done. References by Kerzhner to 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 HS 


Meigen’s receipt of dipterous specimens from England and France do nothing to 
support the Rubtsov-Kerzhner position. As I said previously, ‘there is no documen- 
tary evidence that Meigen ever received simuliid material from these countries’ (I 
stress the word simuliid because Kerzhner appears to have overlooked it and to 
have assumed that my statement referred to Diptera as a whole). Meigen described 
certain other Diptera from these countries in his 1818 et seq. works, but not 
simuliids. Rubtsov’s statement (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 84) that subexcisum 
(=/atipes) ‘has never been found in West Germany’ is not correct. It was found 
there a few years ago by Prof. Dr W. Riihm at Briickel (Hannover) (unpublished, 
Zwick to Crosskey, in /itt. 23. ii. 1985), and is currently being reported from West 
Germany at the present time (Erpelding, in press). 

On the type question, Kerzhner states that some of Meigen’s Diptera 
material ‘possibly including types’ is present in Museums other than in Paris. This is 
correct, and a few of Meigen’s nominal species of SIMULIIDAE were described from 
Austria — a fact giving rise to the obvious likelihood that the types of these species 
could be preserved in Vienna. However, for the SIMULIIDAE, there is no actual or 
presumptive evidence for the existence of original specimens in a collection other 
than Meigen’s own (since 1840 in Paris Museum) or possibly in that of the 
Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. Paris and Vienna are the only two locations 
in which Meigen types of SIMULIIDAE can reasonably be expected to be found and 
recognised. In criticism of the Zwick-Crosskey acceptance of the Paris specimen as 
latipes holotype, Kerzhner attempts to imply that because some Meigen Diptera 
found depositories other than Paris the Jatipes type did also. This is a tendentious 
argument that he attempts to support by a statement that Zwick and Crosskey 
apparently made ‘no effort’ to study Meigen specimens that might or might not be in 
collections other than Paris. 

In fact, Zwick and Crosskey could not have written their account of 
Meigen’s simuliids without considering the nominal species for which Vienna was 
the likely depository (on the basis of the descriptions). No Meigen simuliids are 
present today in Vienna, as was made clear throughout the Zwick & Crosskey 1981 
work. With the aid of the dipterist at the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, this 
collection was searched for any specimens that might, by any possibility, be Meigen 
types of simuliids recorded by him from Austria; none was found (nor, it should be 
noted, in German collections examined by Zwick, including Berlin). Kerzhner’s 
implication of negligence by Zwick and Crosskey is unfounded. 

Kerzhner has not commented on Rubtsov’s own acceptance of certain 
specimens in Paris as Meigen simuliid types, for example (Rubtsov, 1963, p. 546) 
that of Simulium argyreatum Meigen, 1838 on which Rubtsov comments ‘Die uns 
im Jahre 1958 gebotene Gelegenheit, die Typen von Meigen im Muséum d’Histoire 
naturelle in Paris (1 Mannchen). ..’. It is not evident from Rubtsov’s application or 
Kerzhner’s support of it why they consider the Crosskey—Davies—Zwick acceptance 
of type status for the /atipes specimen in Paris is suspect when the Rubtsov 
interpretation for other types is apparently not. 

The information given by Kerzhner that there is Meigen material in 
Leningrad, if correct, is unfamiliar to most dipterists but is in any case irrelevant: 
Rubtsov has worked with the Leningrad collection for some 50 years and would 
long since have found any Meigen specimens of SIMULIIDAE. 

In summary, Rubtsov and Kerzhner appear to have made no case justifying 
an assumption that the male specimen of /atipes so named in Meigen’s hand is not a 
type specimen. I therefore continue to request that the Commission rule that this 
specimen is to be accepted as the holotype of Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804. 


116 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


(2) Maintenance of latipes in the sense of pre-1972 usage. My comments here 
allude to Kerzhner’s comments Nos. | and 4 together, as if there is an argument 
favouring the maintenance of pre-1972 usage of the name /atipes it can only be hung 
on the putative medico—veterinary importance of the species concerned — the one 
renamed as vernum Macquart after reinterpretation of /atipes from its holotype. 

I do not differ from Kerzhner in the view that usage of a name should in 
some circumstances be maintained, and it is important that the Commission should 
use its plenary powers from time to time (in the interests of stability) to preserve a 
well-known name when it is threatened by a technical provision of the Code. But 
such action should be used sparingly, and only when a very important animal is 
concerned — e.g. a severe pest, pathogen, or disease vector for which the name has 
significance to more than a small group of specialists. 

The blackfly species to which the name /atipes Meigen was for a long time 
misapplied cannot by any reasonable yardstick be regarded as an important pest of 
man or livestock, despite the attempts of Rubtsov and Kerzhner to depict it in this 
light. It is unknown to all but workers on SIMULIIDAE, although familiar to a range of 
specialists of various kinds working in the context of this family. It takes bloodmeals 
mainly from birds, but in parts of its range also from mammals. Most simuliid 
species are bloodsuckers, and several hundred have been reported to bite man and 
domestic animals, but we do not on that account regard every one as a pest—with 
a sacrosanct name that must never be changed in the light of better taxonomic 
knowledge. 


In the /atipes case it is essential to distinguish between reports of bloodsuck- 
ing by this species per se, and reports that provide evidence that this bloodsucking is 
a serious menace to man or livestock. Kerzhner’s comments seem to equate one with 
the other. A specific example is his reference to Davies et al. (1962), who showed 
that wild-caught flies in Britain had fed on birds. What has this to do with pest 
status for /atipes sensu authors in Britain? Kerzhner does not note that, later, in his 
definitive monograph of British Simuliidae, Davies (1966, p. 442) could only say this 
of its habits — ‘Adult females appear to bite birds, although there is no precise 
knowledge of the species of birds attacked’. Also, Dr Kerzhner will not be aware 
that in the last 16 years I have collected /atipes sensu authors from 203 breeding sites 
in England and not once either seen, or been bitten by, the adult fly. The species has 
no pest status in Britain, but the paper of Davies et al. (1962) was, as Kerzhner 
notes, abstracted in the Review of Applied Entomology. The importance of the point 
here is that citations of /atipes sensu authors in the secondary recording periodicals, 
upon which both Rubtsov and Kerzhner have laid stress, are not evidence for an 
assertion of major pest status; if the primary literature is traced it will be found that 
almost all the secondary citations (in the RAE, WHO works, etc) relate to no more 
than casual findings on bloodsucking. This is so even for the work specifically selec- 
ted for reference by Kerzhner: the bloodfed flies reported by Davies et al. were not 
found as part of a special investigation prompted by the bloodsucking habit but 
were precipitin-tested to determine the blood-source (mammalian or avian) after 
being incidentally trapped. 

Kerzhner mentions Crosskey in Laird, 1981, a work in which I published a 
list of the major simuliid pests. A serious pest cannot be precisely defined. A ‘short 
list’ of major pests on a world scale must be selective, disregarding occasional or 
localised less severe pests in areas where really important ones also occur. My list 
excluded J/atipes (sensu authors, not Meigen) because — although a nuisance in 
parts of the steppe/forest-steppe — it does not on any reasonable assessment have 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 117 


the same socio-economic significance as the major simuliid pests of the U.S.S.R. 
(which are included in the table). Kerzhner says that /atipes is mentioned on 15 
pages in Laird, 1981. So it is, but in no case as a pest. 

To urge a case for the maintenance of usage requires an exaggerated argu- 
ment by which a minor pest status for /atipes (sensu authors, not Meigen) in the 
U.S.S.R. is allowed to hold sway as if it were representative of the importance of the 
species throughout its enormous Holarctic range. Despite the importance that 
Rubtsov and Kerzhner claim for the species in the U.S.S.R. they cannot point to 
any work specifically on the control of this putatively important pest. The reason for 
this is that it has never been the target of any insecticidal or biological control pro- 
gramme: it is not so important a pest. Notably, the other specialists commenting on 
the case (from Canada, Germany, Norway, where the species occurs) have not men- 
tioned that it is a pest in these areas. Raastad (pp. 113-114) specifically says that it 
has little or no medico-veterinary importance, and Cupp & Gordon, 1983, for the 
U.S.A., summarise (as vernum) its ‘Medical-veterinary importance’ thus: ‘occasional 
[biting] nuisance in New York and Michigan’. It is probable, as Kerzhner says, that 
the species transmits (in common with many other ornithophilic simuliids) the pro- 
tozoan parasite Leucocytozoon, but it is not among the few simuliid species that are 
the carriers of economically important leucocytozoonosis amongst poultry in North 
America. 

Kerzhner points out, as part of Rubtsov’s case, that the name Jatipes has 
gone on being used in its old usage sense in the literature of several countries, despite 
Crosskey & Davies (1972) having adopted (because of misidentification revealed by 
the type) the name vernum Macquart for it. This is true, but it would be surprising 
if it was otherwise — because it takes a while for corrections to nomenclature to 
become generally known, and because Rubtsov’s taxonomic papers are influential 
source-works. Workers in the U.S.S.R. and a few elsewhere (relying on Rubtsov’s 
works) have naturally continued to use /atipes in the traditional sense, not being 
aware of the misidentification. Rubtsov in fact ignored the Crosskey & Davies 1972 
work from the time of its publication up to his application to ICZN (1983), though 
he has in his work just published (Rubtsov & Yankovsky, 1984), whilst continuing 
the use of /atipes in its misidentified sense, now cited it in a footnote (p. 103). 

In defence of usage Kerzhner argues that in his opinion ‘usage is usage’, 
unconnected with whether an author ‘is dead or did not show awareness of the pro- 
posed nomenclatural changes’: in other words, ignorant use of a name is just as 
important in deciding the merits of a case involving misidentification as informed 
use, and the usage of names by authors who never knew of the nomenclatural prob- 
lem at all (because dead or scientifically inactive) just as relevant as that of aware 
and actively involved specialists. 

If the Jatipes case concerned a nomenclatural change brought about by 
synonymy, i.e. because an even older (pre-1804) name applying to the same species 
had been ‘lost’ for a century or two and then been used to supplant /atipes Meigen as 
its senior synonym, I would be in full agreement with Rubtsov and Kerzhner. In 
such a circumstance it would obviously have been very detrimental to stability of 
nomenclature to have supplanted the use of Jatipes, and preservation of the junior 
synonym would have been extremely desirable. In such a situation mere counting of 
literature ‘usages’ could be meaningful and relevant to a Commission decision. It is 
not relevant where — as in the actual case under consideration — the question is not 
one of straightforward synonymy (involving the same species) but one of misidenti- 
fication (involving different species). In the latter circumstance what matters most is 


118 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


the literature and usage after the misidentification has been discovered and made 
known — for this alone determines whether the action taken by the discoverer(s) of 
the misidentificatidn has been deemed correct and desirable by authors au fait with 
the new situation. 

The prime point for the Commission to consider is, therefore, not how many 
times the word /atipes happens to have appeared in the literature, but whether the 
nomenclatural change first introduced by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, in the light of 
new evidence has or has not been accepted by the generality of those working on 
SIMULIIDAE — in particular by the specialists in taxonomy (who in turn influence the 
use of names in the non-taxonomic sphere). Supporting comments (this issue of 
BZN) for the nomenclatural readjustments introduced by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, 
and restated by Zwick & Crosskey, 1981, as they emanate from taxonomists in 
several countries, indicate that predominating specialist opinion favours the use of 
the name vernum Macquart for /atipes sensu authors, not Meigen. 

In summary, the blackfly species Jatipes sensu Edwards, etc. (vernum 
Macquart) is not a familiar pest of such over-riding importance that the Commis- 
sion should give it exceptional nomenclatural treatment and rule in favour of 
pre-1972 usage, and Kerzhner fails to make a case that it is. He similarly does not 
establish that perpetuation of the name in its misidentified application is wanted by 
taxonomists aware of the nomenclatural situation. In fact, comments submitted on 
the case strongly suggest otherwise. 


3. The type-species of Cnetha Enderlein. The genus Cnetha Enderlein was first 
described in an identical key published almost simultaneously in two periodicals 
(Enderlein, 1921a p. 199 and 1921b p. 44). Eight nominal species were included, and 
‘latipes (Meig. 1804)’ was designated as the type species (original designation) in 
both works. 

Enderlein continued subsequently to recognise his genus as valid in 
SIMULIIDAE, mentioning Cnetha in 13 additional works published between 1921 and 
1936. Limits of the genus fluctuated, some species being added and others removed, 
but the nomenclatural pivot was consistently /atipes (Meigen, 1804) and was cited as 
such in two of the 13 post-original works in which the genus was mentioned 
(Enderlein, 1925, 1930). 

It is not in doubt that Enderlein misidentified the species he designated as 
type species of Cnetha. He used the specific name /atipes Meigen, both when he 
founded Cnetha upon it and subsequently, in exactly the same sense as his pre- 
decessor Edwards (1915, 1920): neither specialist saw Meigen’s material or ever 
became aware that their sense of /atipes was different from Meigen’s. This is clear 
from the characters consistently cited by Enderlein as defining or categorising 
Cnetha and latipes, and Dr Raastad deals with this point in his comments. 

To confirm Enderlein’s misidentification beyond any possible doubt, how- 
ever, I have examined (whilst preparing these comments) specimens identified by 
him and still in the Berlin Museum (loaned to me by courtesy of Dr H. Schumann). 
There are three pinned adult male specimens bearing Enderlein’s determination 
labels dated 1920 or 1921, i.e. at or about the time of Cnetha description (1921); each 
is accompanied by an excellent preparation (Canada Balsam on celluloid) of one 
hind leg and dissected genitalia. One specimen from Silesia has his 1921-date 
identification label as “‘Cnetha latipes (Meig.)’, and the other two from Ledingen, 
Norway, have his 1920 and 1921 determination labels as ‘Simulium latipes Meig.’ 
and ‘Cnetha latipes (Meig.)’ respectively. The dilated hind basitarsus, genital parts, 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 119 


and all other characters, are those diagnostic for the morphospecies /atipes sensu 
Edwards, and not for /atipes Meigen as interpreted from its holotype, i.e. they are 
the characters of the morphospecies vernum Macquart following the Crosskey & 
Davies (1972) use of this name for the misidentified /atipes of earlier authors. 
Enderlein’s misidentification is unequivocally confirmed from the Berlin Museum 
specimens named by him as /atipes Meigen. 

According to Kerzhner’s comment No. 2 the problem of the misidentified 
type species of Cnetha was ‘not commented’ upon by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, 
when they published on the true identity of /atipes. Contrary to what Kerzhner says, 
these authors dealt with this aspect in a special comment (p. 254 of their paper) as 
follows: ‘Lastly with regard to /atipes Meigen we call attention to the fact that 
this nominal species is the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921, and of 
Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926, both of which are based on a misidentified type 
species in view of the true identity of /atipes. No practical problem of nomenclature 
arises as Cnetha and Pseudonevermannia remain in synonymy with Eusimulium 
Roubaud regardless of the misidentification; the case does not therefore require sub- 
mission to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at this time’. 
What more should these authors have said on the matter? 

Enderlein’s highly split generic system found little favour, and Cnetha was 
hardly at all used as the valid name for a genus-group taxon until Rubtsov, 1974, 
restored it to generic use for the ‘/atipes’ (authors) species group previously in 
Eusimulium Roubaud. Baranov, 1936, adopted Cnetha as valid for a genus, and 
Vargas et al., 1946, for a subgenus, both citing /atipes Meigen as its type; these are 
the only authors who gave validity to Cnetha until Rubtsov, 1974. Neither of them 
knew of the misidentification, and each used the then universally accepted meaning 
of Jatipes. In the period 1936-1974 such few other authors as mentioned Cnetha 
listed the name as a synonym, either of Simulium Latreille (e.g. Smart, 1945) or 
of Eusimulium (e.g. Edwards, 1931; Rubtsov, 1962; Stone, 1963); synonymy with 
Eusimulium was the status quo for Cnetha at the time the misidentification of its type 
species was discovered. 

The finding that /atipes Meigen had been misidentified had at the time (1972) 
no nomenclatural bearing on genus-group names because both the actual and the 
misidentified species were still placed in the same genus-group taxon (Eusimulium 
as genus or subgenus) and the generic names based on J/atipes (Cnetha and 
Pseudonevermannia) were long-buried synonyms. The situation is changed now that 
Rubtsov (1974 et seq.) uses Cnetha as the name for a genus considered by him to be 
valid, and (as Kerzhner says) it is desirable for the Commission to determine what 
the type species of Cnetha (also Pseudonevermannia, see later) should be. This is par- 
ticularly necessary because, to complicate the issue, the species named by Enderlein 
as type of Cnetha no longer belongs to the same genus-group taxon as the one 
intended to be the type. Rivosecchi & Cardinali, 1975, erected the genus Hellichiella 
for the assembly of species known to their predecessor authors either as the annulum 
or the subexcisum group within Eusimulium, designating H. saccai (Rivosecchi, 
1967) as type species. Rubtsov & Yankovsky, 1982, erected the genus Boreosimulium 
also for the annulum group, designating B. annulum (Lundstrom, 1911) as type 
species, and indicating that it included the 10 species of that group (one of which 
is subexcisum, i.e. latipes Meigen). In their latest work Rubtsov & Yankovsky, 
1984, have restricted Hellichiella to its type species, and have placed all other 
annulum-subexcisum group species in Boreosimulium. 

From the situation as described it follows that, because the correctly inter- 
preted name /atipes Meigen is a senior synonym of subexcisum, the effect of 


120 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


designating the species named as type species of Cnetha Enderlein would be to make 
this name a senior synonym of Boreosimulium (and of Hellichiella also, for other 
taxonomists who prefer not to adopt the refined taxonomic splitting favoured by the 
Russian workers mentioned). Hellichiella is becoming well accepted as a valid name 
for the taxon containing /Jatipes Meigen, recently used for example (as also /atipes in 
its correct sense with subexcisum as its synonym) in the cytological work of Rothfels 
& Golini, 1983. There would be no virtue in switching the name Cnetha to a concept 
that has never borne it before and at the same time forcing into synonymy at least 
one and probably two recently proposed and currently used generic names; the 
Commission is asked therefore, in determining the type species of Cnetha, not to fix 
the species named by Enderlein, but instead to fix the one actually before Enderlein 
that he intended to be the type. 

If the actual species on which Enderlein based Cnetha, not the one he named, 
is fixed as type species, stability is maintained and Rubtsov’s (1974 et seq.) concept 
for this taxon is upheld; the name can continue in use for the same taxon as that to 
which it is and has in the past been applied (i.e. to an assemblage of species centring 
on Jatipes sensu Edwards, not Meigen). This preserves Rubtsov’s application of the 
name Cnetha. 

The last question for the Commission concerning Cnetha is by what name 
this species, the one actually used by Enderlein to found the genus, should be 
known. I have already put the case (Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pp. 86-93) that this spe- 
cies should be known as vernum Macquart, following the taxonomic clarification of 
Crosskey & Davies 1972 and acceptance of their action by a majority of workers 
since. As a corollary I now ask the Commission to designate Simulium vernum 
Macquart, 1828, as type species of Cnetha. 

As a ‘tidying-up’ operation, the type species of Pseudonevermannia Baranov 
should be fixed by the Commission whilst dealing with that of Cnetha. The situation 
is comparable. This name was proposed (Baranov, 1926, p. 164) for a new subgenus 
in a key to subgenera of Simulium, with ‘latipes Meig. 1804’ cited as type species. It 
was never mentioned again by Baranov in his substantial oeuvre on SIMULIIDAE, 
although he subsequently (Baranov, 1935, p. 100; 1936, p. 191) assigned the type 
species to Cnetha, implicitly but not explicitly recognising the objective synonymy 
of his Pseudonevermannia with Cnetha. No author since its description has used 
Pseudonevermannia as a valid name, and it has been listed only a few times as a 
synonym, e.g. of Nevermannia Enderlein by Rubtsov, 1940, of Simulium by Smart, 
1945, of Cnetha by Vargas et al., 1946, and of Eusimulium by Stone, 1963 and 
Crosskey, 1969. It is certain from Baranov, 1927, where he figured the branching of 
the four-filamented pupal gill (under the name Nevermannia latipes) and from his 
mention of such a gill in the original characterisation for Pseudonevermannia, that 
Baranov based this taxon on the same actual species as that used by Enderlein to 
found Cnetha, the species now known to be misidentified, and to which vernum is 
now applied. As Pseudonevermannia is isogenotypic with Cnetha both nominal 
genera should be similarly treated in determining their type species. 


Conclusion and request for action 


Rubtsov and Kerzhner have not satisfactorily shown: (a) that the specimen 
accepted as holotype of /atipes Meigen by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, does not have 
such status; or (b) that /atipes sensu Edwards is a pest of such severity that it 
warrants the intervention of the Commission to ensure continued application of the 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 121 


name /atipes Meigen to it; or (c) that the name vernum Macquart now in use for the 
misidentified /atipes sensu Edwards has not found general acceptance. 

I agree with them that the type species of Cnetha Enderlein, nominally based 
on /atipes Meigen, needs to be decided by the Commission now that the name is in 
use again by some authors as the valid name for a genus-group taxon. 

There has not as yet been a need for specialists to redescribe Simulium vernum 
Macquart under this name. In practice the morphospecies concerned is identified by 
reference to descriptions and figures of it under the former name /atipes. As Dr 
Davies (now retired) coauthored the original paper establishing the existence of the 
misidentification, I suggest (in agreement with the last paragraph of Dr Kerzhner’s 
comment) that the Commission should rule that the name S. vernum Macquart is to 
be interpreted by reference to the specimens described and figured by Davies, 1966, 
1968, under the misapplied name Simulium latipes Meigen. 

I therefore wish to replace my original requests by the following. I now ask 
the Commission: 

(1) under the plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species 
hitherto made for the nominal genera Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Pseudonever- 
mannia Baranov, 1926 and to designate Simulium vernum Macquart, 1826 as the 
type species of both nominal genera; 

(2) (as Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 92, para 12(1)); 

(3) to rule that the specific name vernum Macquart, 1826, as published in the 
binomen Simulium vernum, be interpreted by reference to the specimens described 
and figured by Davies in 1966 and 1968; 

(4) to place Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Simulium vernum Macquartt, 
1826, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) latipes Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Atractocera latipes, 
as interpreted by reference to the holotype identified by Crosskey & 
Davies, 1972; 

(b) vernum Macquart, 1826, as published in the binomen Simulium 
vernum, as interpreted by reference to the specimens described and 
figured by Davies in 1966 and 1968 (specific name of type species of 
Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926). 

(6) to place Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926 (a junior objective synonym 
of Caetha Enderlein 1921 through the action taken under the plenary powers in (1) 
above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


BARANOV, N. 1926. Eine neue Simuliiden-Art und einige Bemerkungen tiber das 
System der Simuliiden. Neue Beitr. syst. Insektenk. vol. 3, pp. 161-164. 
—1927. Guide for the identification of simuliid pupae [In Serbian]. Glasn. cent. 

hig. Zav., Beogr. vol. 2(4), pp. 91-93. 

1935. K poznavanju golubactke muSsice II [Croatian = Contribution to know- 
ledge of the Golubatz fly II]. Vet. Arh. vol. 5 (2-3), pp. 58-140. 

1936. K poznavanju golubatke muésice III [Croatian=Contribution to 
knowledge of the Golubatz fly III]. Vet. Arh. vol. 6 (3-4), pp. 137-220. 
CROSSKEY, R. W. 1969. A re-classification of the Simuliidae (Diptera) of Africa 


122 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


and its islands. Bull. Br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Entomol.), Suppl. vol. 14, pp. 

1-195. 

1981. Geographical distribution of Simuliidae. Pp. 57-68 in Laird, M. (Ed.), 

Blackflies: the future for biological methods in integrated control. xii + 399 

pp. Academic Press, London etc. ‘ 

— & DAVIES, L. 1972. The identities of Simulium lineatum (Meigen), S. latipes 
(Meigen) and S. vernum Macquart (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomologist’s 
Gaz. vol. 23, pp. 249-258. 

CUPP, E. W. & GORDON, A. E. (eds.). 1983. Notes on the systematics, distribu- 
tion, and bionomics of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the northeastern 
United States. Search: Agriculture, No. 25, 75 pp. 

DAVIES, L. 1966. The taxonomy of British black-flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). Trans. 

r. entomol. Soc. Lond. vol. 118, pp. 413-511. 

1968. A key to the British species of Simuliidae (Diptera) in the larval, pupal 

and adult stages. Freshwat. biol. Assoc. scient. Publ. No. 24, 126 pp. 

EDWARDS, F. W. 1915. On the British species of Simulium—I. The adults. Bull. 

entomol. Res. vol. 6, pp. 23-42. 

1920. On the British species of Simulium—II. The early stages; with correc- 

tions and additions to Part I. Bull. entomol. Res. vol. 11, pp. 211-246. 

1931. Diptera of Patagonia and South Chile. Part II. Nematocera (excluding 

crane-flies and Mycetophilidae). 331 pp. British Museum (Natural History), 

London. 

ENDERLEIN, G. 192la. Das System der Kriebelmiicken (Simuliidae). Dt. 

tierdrztl. Wochenschrift vol. 29, pp. 197-200. 

1921b. Die systematische Gliederung der Simuliiden. Zool. Anz. vol. 53, pp. 

43-46. 

1925. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Simuliiden und ihrer Verbreitung. 

Zool. Anz. vol. 62, pp. 201-211. 

1930. Der heutige Stand der Klassifikation der Simuliiden. Arch. klassif.. 
phylogen. Entomol. vol. 1, pp. 77-97. 

ERPELDING, G. (in press). First record of Simulium (Helichiella) latipes 
(Meigen, 1804) in South-West Germany (Diptera: Simuliidae). Entomol. 
Generalis, vol. 10. 

RIVOSECCHI, L. & CARDINALI, R. 1975. Contributo alla conoscenza dei 
simulidi italiani. XXIII. Nuovi dati tassonomici. Riv. Parassitol. vol. 36, pp. 
55-78. 

ROTHFELS, K. & GOLINI, V. I. 1983. The polytene chromosomes of species of 
Eusimulium (Hellichiella) (Diptera: Simuliidae). Can. J. Zool. vol. 61, pp. 
1220-1231. 

RUBTSOV, I. A. 1940. Blackflies (fam. Simuliidae). Fauna SSSR vol. 6(6), 533 pp. 

(In Russian). 

1962. Simuliidae (Melusinidae) [part]. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 14, pp. 

257-304. (In German). 

1963. Simuliidae (Melusinidae) [part]. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 14, pp. 

529-560. (in German). 

1974. On the evolution, phylogeny and classification of blackflies 

(Simuliidae: Diptera). Trudy zool. Inst. Leningr. vol. 53, pp. 230-282. (In 

Russian). 

— & YANKOVSKY, A. V. 1982. New genera and subgenera of blackflies 
(Diptera, Simuliidae). Entomol. Obozr. vol. 61, pp. 183—187. (In Russian: 
English transl. in Entomol. Rev., Washington. vol. 61, pp. 176-181). 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 123 


& 1984. Key to the genera of Palaearctic blackflies. Opredeliteli po 

Faune SSSR, vol. 142; pp. 1-175 (In Russian). 

SMART, J. 1945. The classification of the Simuliidae (Diptera). Trans. r. entomol. 
Soc. Lond. vol. 95, pp. 463-532. 

STONE, A. 1963. An annotated list of the genus-group names in the family 
Simuliidae (Diptera). U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 1284, 28 pp. 

VARGAS, L., MARTINEZ PALACIOS, A. & DIAZ NAJERA, A. Similidos de 

Mexico. Datos sobre sistematica y morfologia. Descripcion de nuevos 

subgéneros y especies. Revta Inst. Salubr. Enferm. trop., Méx. vol. 7, pp. 

101-192. 


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND ARTICLE 70 OF THE 
CODE Z.N.(S.)2477 
(see vol. 41, p. 156) 


(1) By J. R. Vockeroth (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) 


I wish to support the amendment concerning misidentified type species 
proposed by Sabrosky. The Secretary has pointed out (p. 158) that the proposal 
conflicts with Articles 67e and 69a(i) of the third edition of the Code. I would 
suggest, therefore, that these articles be amended to remove this conflict. The 
wording could perhaps be as follows: 

Article 67e. Add at end ‘except in the case of misidentified type species, when 
the provisions of Article 70b will allow a species other than an orginally included 
nominal species to be fixed as the type species.’ 

Article 69a(i). Add after ‘[Art. 70c]’ ‘except in the case of misidentified 
type species, when the provisions of Article 70b will allow a species other than an 
originally included nominal species to be fixed as the type species.’ 


(2) By K. G. A. Hamilton (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, 
Ottawa, Ontario K1A OC6, Canada) 


This amendment is long overdue; it seeks to provide stability by adhering to 
the original author’s intent in describing a genus-group name. The Secretary’s 
comments at the end of the article do not invalidate Sabrosky’s provisions, because 
(a) the misidentified species is originally included, even though the nominal species 
may not be, and (b) subsequent naming of the type species should no more 
invalidate a genus-group name than the subsequent naming of a genus-group name 
would invalidate a species-group name (Article 17(3)). 


124 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1298 
TYROPHAGUS OUDEMANS, 1924 (ACARINA): CLARIFICATION 
OF NAME OF TYPE SPECIES AND CONSERVATION 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name 
dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus, 
is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by original designation, Acarus putrescentiae 
Schrank, 1781, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2236. 

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

(a) putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, as published in the binomen 
Acarus putrescentiae (specific name of type species of 
Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924) as interpreted by the neotype 
designated by Robertson, 1959 (Name Number 2929); 

(b) Jongior Gervais, 1844, as published in the binomen 
Tyroglyphus longior, and as interpreted by the neotype 
designated by Robertson, 1959 (Name Number 2930). 

(4) The family-group name TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 (type 
genus Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 565. 

(5) The specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the 
binomen Acarus dimidiatus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1139. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1450 


An application for the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as 
published in the binomen Acarus dimidiatus, to be declared a nomen 
dubium was first received from Dr Phyllis L. Robertson (now of the Univer- 
sity of New South Wales) on 18 February 1960. For reasons that cannot 
now be known this was not then published. A revised application was 
eventually sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 
1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 125-129. Public notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general periodicals, eight 
entomological periodicals and one acarological periodical. No comment 
was received prior to the voting. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 15 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)23 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 128-129. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: 
Melville, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell (in part), Binder, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Votes — two (2): Holthuis, Heppell (in part). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 

Heppell voted for all the proposals except the one to place the 
family-group name TYROPHAGIDAE on the Official List. He said: “There is no 
discussion of the family name in the application and there is no requirement 
for the Commission to consider its validity. In a case where there have been 
no comments from zoologists it seems to me wrong to take any action con- 
cerning a family name when there are no nomenclatural reasons for so 
doing.’ 

Holthuis commented: ‘My negative vote concerns the use of the 
plenary powers to suppress Acarus dimidiatus Hermann, 1804. If a neotype 
can be chosen for the dubious species A. putrescentiae, why not for A. 
dimidiatus? The choice of neotype could either make A. dimidiatus a junior 
synonym (when it can be eliminated) or link it to a specimen of the taxon 
for which it is not used. The applicant gives very little information on 
present usage of the name. In Hughes, 1961, The Mites of Stored Food, 
Tech. Bull. 9, Min. Ag. Fish. Food, London) both Tyrophagus dimidiatus 
(Hermann) and T. /ongior (Gervais) are recognised. One solution would be 
to choose as neotype a specimen of the species for which Hughes used the 
name. In any case it seems better to postpone any action in connexion with 
the name until acarologists decide which species would best bear the name. 
It is regrettable that no comments have been received from acarologists. 
Dr L. van der Hammen, the acarologist at the Leiden Museum, though not 
a specialist in this group, said that he could see no need to suppress the 
name so long as there are different opinions as to its identity.’ 

Dr Robertson replied as follows: ‘It is important to bear in mind not 
only that Oudemans erected the genus Tyrophagus, but also that he was the 
first to refer A. dimidiatus Hermann to it. Thus action to deal with 
dimidiatus should most reasonably be approached in terms of the concept 
held by Oudemans. 

‘It is suggested that a neotype be designated for dimidiatus. But 
Oudemans used the name for the species that currently has worldwide 
acceptance as Tyrophagus longior (Gervais, 1844), one of the most wide- 
spread and best known of the stored-product Tyrophagus species. A 
neotype for dimidiatus from Oudemans’ material would thus lead to the 


126 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


relegation of /ongior as a junior synonym and so regenerate, rather than 
resolve, the many years of nomenclatural confusion in Tyrophagus. 

‘It is further suggested that a neotype be designated from Mrs 
Hughes’ 1961 material. But this would be to ignore the fact that that 
material is in strong disagreement with Hermann’s original description: it 
lacks chelicerae of a type “which are not articulated at all as in other mites”’; 
its hysterosoma is not spherical, it is not divided by a transverse suture, 
and it does not have yellowish-green and white coloration. Moreover, it has 
not been found, either by Mrs Hughes or apparently by other present-day 
acarologists, in Hermann’s original habitat — moss. 

‘It may be added that Hermann’s description appears to be appli- 
cable more to one of the primitive moss mites than to a Tyrophagus. That 
is, it may have been an oribatid —a member, say, of Tragardh’s (1932) 
Palaeacariformes, currently Palaeacaroidea, a group not recognised at the 
time of Oudemans’ 1924 work. 

‘It is suggested that designating a neotype for putrescentiae (the type 
species of Tyrophagus) itself furnishes grounds for doing the same for 
dimidiatus. But the situations regarding the two are completely different. 
Morphological features clearly defined by Hermann concerning the form of 
the chelicerae, and the shape, suturing and coloration of the hysterosoma, 
debar dimidiatus from being accepted as a species of Tyrophagus. But there 
are no such characters debarring putrescentiae from such acceptance. 
Further, Oudemans was unable to find a Tyrophagus in the habitat — 
moss— of Hermann’s species, while he did find his putrescentiae in 
Schrank’s original habitat. 

‘It should be emphasised that the Tyrophagus problem concerning 
dimidiatus is not centred essentially on acarologists being unable to agree 
between themselves on which species should bear the name. Rather it is 
agreed that dimidiatus should not have been introduced into the genus in 
the first place (see Johnston & Bruce, 1965, Ohio Agric. R & D Center, 
Research Bull. 977). Hermann originally described characters that exclude it 
from recognition as any species of Tyrophagus at all. 

‘Any uncertainty as to the Tyrophagus species to which the name 
dimidiatus might conceivably be applied has been a personal problem for 
each individual acarologist who attempted to use the name. For example, 
Oudemans himself demonstrated uncertainty when he first used dimidiatus 
for the species that he later called australasiae, and then by transferring it to 
the species now accepted as Jongior. In 1948 Mrs Hughes used tenuiclavus 
for the species she accepted as /ongior in 1961; in 1957 she used dimidiatus 
for this species, but transferred that name to a completely different species 
in 1961. None of these determinations appears to be related in any way to 
the characteristics of the species originally described by Hermann. 

‘Such uncertainty and doubt in the views of individual acarologists 
lends support to the application to suppress dimidiatus as a threat to 
stability of nomenclature. This would formalise the results of the intensive 
basic research already done on Tyrophagus by a number of workers and 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 127 


which is unlikely to be repeated. It would bring to Tyrophagus nomencla- 
ture a much-needed stability in the long term, facilitating the continuing 
build-up of knowledge of this worldwide but extremely difficult genus.’ Dr 
Holthuis later withdrew his objection. Dr Robertson’s application was then 
supported by Professor J. G. Rodriguez (University of Kentucky College of 
Agriculture). 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
dimidiatus, Acarus, Hermann, 1804, Mem. Apter., p. 85, pl. 6, fig. 4 
longior, Tyroglyphus, Gervais, 1844, Hist. nat. Ins. (Apteéres), vol. 3, p. 262, 

pl. 35, fig. 5 
putrescentiae, Acarus, Schrank, 1781, Enum. Ins. Austriae indig., p. 521 
TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924, Entomol. Ber. Amsterdam, vol. 6, pp. 203, 

207 
Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924, Entomol. Ber. Amsterdam, vol. 6, p. 250. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)23 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1298. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

4 October 1984 


128 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1299 
ATHYREUS MACLEAY, 1819 AND GLYPTUS BRULLE, 1835 
(INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Glyptus 
Hoffmannsegg, 1818 and all uses of that name prior to the publication of 
Glyptus Brullé, 1835 are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle 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) Athyreus Macleay, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
subsequent designation by Howden & Martinez, 1963, 
Athyreus bifurcatus Macleay, 1819 (Name Number 2237); 

(b) Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
monotypy, Glyptus sculptilis Brullé, 1835 (Name Number 
2238). 

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

(a) bifurcatus Macleay, 1819, as published in the binomen 
Athyreus bifurcatus (specific name of type species of Athyreus 
Macleay, 1819 (Name Number 2931); 

(b) sculptilis Brullé, 1835, as published in the binomen Glyptus 
sculptilis (specific name of type species of G/yptus Brullé, 1835 
(Name Number 2932). 

(4) The generic name G/yptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, 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 
2152. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1583 


An application from Professor H. F. Howden (now of Carleton 
University, Ottawa, Canada) for the suppression of Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 
1818 was first received on 26 November 1962. As it was presented in terms 
of Article 23b then in force, no action was taken on it then. The case was 
reopened in 1979 and a revised application was sent to the printer on 15 
April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, 
pp. 191-192. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general periodicals and seven entomological periodicals. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)24 for or against 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 129 


the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 192. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, 
Corliss 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Athyreus Macleay, 1819, Horae entomol., vol. 1 (1), p. 123 

bifurcatus, Athyreus, Macleay, 1819, Horae entomol., vol. 1 (1), p. 124 
Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, Wiedemann’s Zool. Mag., vol. 1 (2), p. 85 
Glyptus Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins., vol. 5, Coleoptera II, p. 83 

sculptilis, Glyptus, Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins., vol. 5, Coleoptera II, p. 84. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)24 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1299. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

4 October 1984 


130 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1300 
TEIIDAE GRAY, 1827 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE 
OVER AMEIVIDAE FITZINGER, 1826 (REPTILIA, SAURIA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the family-group name TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) 
is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family-group name 
AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795) whenever the 
two names are applied to the same taxon. 

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

(a) Teius Merrem, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
subsequent designation by Burt & Burt, 1933, Teius viridis 
Merrem, 1820 (Name Number 2239); 

(b) Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
absolute tautonymy through Temapara tupinambis Ray, 1693, 
Tupinambis monitor Daudin, 1802 (Name Number 2240); 

(c) Ameiva Meyer, 1795 (gender: feminine) type species, by 
monotypy, Ameiva americana Meyer, 1795 (Name Number 
2241). 

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

(a) teyou Daudin, 1802, as published in the binomen Lacerta teyou 
(specific name of type species of Teius Merrem, 1820) (Name 
Number 2933); 

(b) teguixin Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lacerta 
teguixin (the valid specific name at the time of this ruling for 
the type species of Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (Name Number 
2934); 

(c) ameiva Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lacerta 
ameiva (the valid specific name at the time of this ruling for the 
type species of Ameiva Meyer, 1795 (Name Number 2935). 

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

(a) TEMDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) with an 
endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence 
Over AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 
1795) whenever the two names are applied to the same taxon 
(Name Number 566); 

(b) AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795) 
with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) whenever 
the two names are applied to the same taxon (Name Number 
567). 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 131 


(5) The unavailable family-group name TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 502. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1920 


An application for the conservation of the family-group name 
TEIDAE Gray, 1827 was first received from Dr William Presch (now of 
California State University, Fullerton, California) on 20 February 1970. In 
the circumstances of the time it was overlooked. In February 1980 a revised 
draft was prepared by the Secretariat and sent to Dr Presch for examina- 
tion. His amended draft was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and 
published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 194-195. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general 
. Serials and three herpetological serials. 

In a comment published on 30 September 1982 in vol. 39, pp. 
157-158, Professor H. M. Smith, Mrs R. B. Smith and Dr David Chiszar 
showed that TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 was in fact an unavailable name and 
therefore did not threaten the stability of TEmDAE Gray, 1827 as Dr Presch 
had thought. On the other hand, they did show that the stability of TENDAE 
was threatened by AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 and accordingly asked that 
TEMDAE be given nomenclatural precedence over that name. Dr Presch fully 
accepted this comment. 

In a further comment published on 30 December 1983 in vol. 40, pp. 
196-197, Mr Andrew Stimson corrected certain factual errors concerning 
the respective type species of Teius Merrem, 1820 and Tupinambis Daudin, 
1802. No other comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)25 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 157-158, taking into 
account the corrections of fact published in vol. 40, pp. 196-197. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, 
Heppell 

Negative Votes — one (1): Dupuis. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 


132 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


On 13 July 1984 Monsieur Dupuis wrote to the Secretary in the 
following terms: ‘Je suis dans l’obligation morale, et sans doute juridique, 
de vous demander de suspendre le vote relatif 4 la conservation de TEMDAE.’ 

‘Le dernier commentaire publié relatif a ce cas se trouve dans Bull. 
zool. Nom. vol. 40(4) paru le 30 décembre 1983 et j’estime qu’ouvrir le vote 
le 13 juin 1984 ne respecte pas l’esprit de la régle des six mois.’ 

‘De plus, Lescure et Cei ont soumis a la Commission une 
proposition — malheureusement encore inédite — pour la conservation de 
Ameiva oculata d’Orbigny & Bibron, 1837, qui, selon ces mémes auteurs, 
est le seul nom valide pour Teius teyou des auteurs, non Daudin. Dans ce 
méme manuscrit Lescure & Cei estiment nécessaire de désigner un néotype 
pour Lacerta teyou Daudin. Or, la proposition du Dr Presch suggérant de 
placer Teius teyou (Daudin) sur la Liste Officielle, il vaudrait mieux que ce 
nom y soit défini sans ambiguité. A mon avis il serait plus sage d’attendre 
les commentaires définitifs de nos collégues — et en particulier la publica- 
tion de leur requéte précitée — que de voter dans la précipitation. Si vous 
ne suivez pas mon point de vue, je vous demande de considérer que je vote 
contre la proposition du Dr Presch.’ 

On receipt of Monsieur Dupuis’ comment I consulted Mr Andrew 
Stimson (British Museum (Natural History) London). He was inclined to 
agree with Monsieur Dupuis, but pointed out (a) that the nominal type 
species of Teius Merrem, 1820 must be Lacerta teyou Daudin, irrespective 
of the biological species involved; (b) that that is the only originally 
included nominal species remaining in the genus; (c) that the two biological 
species remaining in the genus were for long considered conspecific, so that 
it is unlikely they will ever be placed in different genera. Having regard to 
the length of time that had elapsed since the first receipt of Dr Presch’s 
application, therefore, I judged it best to publish the decision of the 
Commission reached in the present case. In reply to Monsieur Dupuis I 
pointed out that the six months’ rule applied only to cases involving the use 
of the plenary powers. The most recent comment mentioned by him did not 
involve any unadvertised use of those powers, so that the six months’ rule 
was not relevant. I also pointed out that the publication of the application 
by MM. Lescure and Cei depended upon my receiving answers to questions 
that are still open. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Ameiva Meyer, 1795, Syn. Rept. (Gottingen), p. 31 

ameiva, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 202 
AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept., p. 21 

teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 208 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 133 


TENDAE Gray, 1827, Phil. Mag. (2) vol. 1, p. 53 

Teius Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph., pp. 13, 60 

teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802, Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Rept., vol. 3, 
p. 195 

TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos. vol. 26 (N.S. vol. 10), p. 199 

Tupinambis Daudin, 1802, Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Rept., vol. 3, p. 5. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)25 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1300. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
18 October 1984 


134 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1301 
ARTEMIA LEACH, 1819 (CRUSTACEA, BRANCHIOPODA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the generic name Artemesia Latreille, 1816 is hereby suppres- 
sed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the generic name Artemisus Lamarck, 1818 is hereby suppres- 
sed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(c) the generic name Artemia Leach, 1819 is hereby given nomen- 
clatural precedence over Eulimene Latreille, 1816, whenever 
the two names are regarded as synonyms. 

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

(a) Artemia Leach, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- 
quent designation by Lucas, 1840, Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 
1758, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over Eulimene Latreille, 1816, whenever the two 
names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2242); 

(b) Eulimene Latreille, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
monotypy, Eulimene albida Latreille, 1816, with an endorse- 
ment that it is not to have priority over Artemia Leach, 1819, 
whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name 
Number 2243). 

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

(a) salinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cancer 
salinus (specific name of the type species of Artemia Leach, 
1819) (Name Number 2936); 

(b) albida Latreille, 1816, as published in the binomen Eulimene 
albida (specific name of the type species of Eulimene Latreille, 
1817) (Name Number 2937). 

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

(a) Artemisia Latreille, 1816, as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 2153); 

(b) Artemisus Lamarck, 1818, as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) (b) above (Name Number 2154). 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 133 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1984 


An application by Professor J. H. Lochhead (Department of 
Zoology, University of Vermont, U.S.A.) for the resolution of certain 
nomenclatural problems relating to Artemia Leach was first received on 18 
October 1971. After extensive correspondence a revised draft was sent to 
the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 4 December 1980 in Bull. 
zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 223-227. Public notice of the possible use of plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to nine general periodicals and one crustacean periodical. 
The application was supported by Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rikjsmuseum van 
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) who also clarified two points. Mathews (1911, 
Novitates Zoologicae, vol. 18(1), p. 18) noted that the four volumes of the 
first edition of Cuvier’s Régne Animal were published on 7 December 1816, 
not in 1817 as mentioned on the title page. The date of Artemisia Latreille is 
thus 1816 (in Regne Anim. (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68). The first type designation for 
the genus Artemia Leach that is known is by Lucas, 1840 (Histoire naturelle 
des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Myriapodes, p. 289). Dr Lochhead 
accepted Dr Holthuis’s points. No other comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)26 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 226. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Dupuis, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, 
Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 
Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
albida Latreille, 1816 in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68 
Artemia Leach, 1819, Entomostraca in Dict. Sci. Nat. vol. 14, p. 543 
Artemisia Latreille, 1816, in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal, (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68 
Artemisus Lamarck, 1818, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, 
vol. 5, p. 135 
Eulimene Latreille, 1816 in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (ed. 1) vol. 3, p. 68 
salinus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, (ed. 10) vol. 1, p. 634. 


136 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


The following is the original reference to a type species designation 
accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Cancer salinus 
Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Artemia Leach, 1819, by Lucas, P. H., 
1840, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Myriapodes, 
p. 289. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)26 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1301. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

18 October 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 137 


OPINION 1302 
NABIS CAPSIFORMIS GERMAR, [1838[ (INSECTA, 
HETEROPTERA, NABIDAE): CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name 
angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Nabis angusts, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name capsiformis Germar, [1838], as published in the 
binomen Nabis capsiformis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2938. 

(3) The specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the 
binomen Nabis angustus, and as suppressed by use of the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1140. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2147 


An application for the use of plenary powers to suppress the specific 
name angustus Spinola, 1837, was first received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner 
(Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, USSR) 
on 8 September 1975. After much correspondence concerning the dating of 
the Germar work, a revised application was sent to the printer on 12 August 
1980 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 
205-207. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in 
the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general 
serials and nine specialist serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)29 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., col. 38, p. 206. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Dupuis, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Kraus, Brinck, 
Corliss 

Negative Votes — one (1); Hahn. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 

Dupuis commented: ‘Une étude de C. M. G. von Hayek (Arch. Nat. 
Hist., 11(2), 1983: 207-208) confirme bien que les livralsons 25-28 ne 
peuvent pas appartenir au tome IV (quatre) de la revue de Silberman et sont 
nécessairement postérieures a juin 1838. La date établie par Kerzhner pour 
Nabis capsiformis me parait dont correcte.’ 


138 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


Hahn commented: ‘Nabis angustus should be suppressed only if 
competing with N. capsiformis, but not completely as wished by Dr 
Kerzhner.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
capsiormis, Nabis, Germar, [1838], Silbermann’s Rev. entomol. t. 5, p. 132 
angustus, Nabis, Spinola, 1837, Essai sur les genres d’insectes appartenants a 

l’ordre des Hémipteéres . .. Génes, p. 107. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)29 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1302. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

23 October 1984 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 139 


OPINION 1303 
COCCUS LINNAEUS, 1758 AND PARTHENOLECANIUM SULC, 
1908 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, HOMOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES 
DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Coccus coryli, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, are hereby set aside and Coccus 
hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby designated as type species 
of that genus; 

(c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908, are hereby set aside and 
Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844, is hereby designated as 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) Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Coccus 
hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2244); 

(b) Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 (gender: neuter), type species, by 
original designation, Coccus tiliae Linnaeus, 1758 (Name 
Number 2245); 

(c) Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (gender: neuter), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Lecanium 
corni Bouché, 1844 (Name Number 2246). 

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

(a) hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Coccus hesperidum (specific name of type species of Coccus 
Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Number 2939); 

(b) tiliae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coccus tiliae 
(specific name of type species of Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893) 
(Name Number 2940); 

(c) corni Bouché, 1844, as published in the binomen Lecanium 
corni (specific name of Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908) (Name 
Number 2941). 

(4) The generic name Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (a junior objective 
synonym of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2155). 


140 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


(5) The specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Coccus coryli, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1141. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2125 


An application for the designation of type species for the scale insect 
genera Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 was first 
received from Dr Evelyna Danzig and Dr I. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, 
Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) on 21 April 1975. After an exchange of 
correspondence it was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published 
on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 147-152. Public notice 
of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and eight 
entomological serials. 

On 9 December 1981 a comment was received from Dr Halina 
Komosinska and Dr M. Mroczkowski (Zoological Institute, Academy of 
Sciences, Warsaw). They objected to the rejection of Lecanium Burmeister, 
1835 and asked that the plenary powers be used to designate Lecanium corni 
Bouche, 1844, as type species of that genus, thus rendering Partheno- 
lecanium Sulc, 1908, a junior objective synonym. Their arguments from 
usage were rebutted by Danzig & Kerzhner, who demonstrated the pro- 
gressive displacement of Lecanium by Eulecanium and Parthenolecanium. 
These comments were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 147-152, on 
30 April 1981. No other comments were received. - 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)27 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 150-151. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, 
Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky, Corliss, Heppell 

Negative Vote — one (1); Mroczkowski. 

Holthuis abstained from voting. Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, 
Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Brinck, Dupuis, Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 

Holthuis and Mroczkowski complained that no choice had been 
offered between the Danzig/Kerzhner proposals and the Komosinska/ 
Mroczkowski proposals. The failure to offer this choice on the voting paper 
is regretted. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 141 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 455 
corni, Lecanium, Bouche, 1844, Entomol. Z. Stettin, Jahrg. 5(8), p. 298 
coryli, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 456 
Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893, Trans. amer. entomol. Soc., vol. 20, p. 54 
Lecanium Burmeister, 1835, Handb. Entomol., vol. 2, p. 69 
hesperidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 455 
Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908, Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 44, p. 36 
tiliae, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 456 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)27 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1303. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

23 October 1984 


142 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1304 
MELITHAEA MILNE EDWARDS & HAIME, 1857 AND ISIS 
OCHRACEA LINNAEUS, 1758 (COELENTERATA, ANTHOZOA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) It is hereby ruled that Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 
1857, is an available name and is to be treated as an unjustified 
emendation of Melitea Lamouroux, 1812; 

(b) the spelling ochracea Linnaeus, 1767 in the binomen Isis 
ochracea is to be treated as a justified emendation of Isis 
ocracea Linnaeus, 1758. 

(2) The generic name Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 
(gender: feminine), made available under the plenary powers in (1)(a) 
above, type species, through Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, Isis ochracea 
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2247. 

(3) The specific name ochracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Jsis ochracea (ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above to be 
a justified emendation of ocracea Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2942. 

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

(a) Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, a junior homonym of Melitea 
Peron & Lesueur, 1810 (Name Number 2156); 

(b) Melitodes Verrill, 1864, a junior objective synonym of 
Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 (Name Number 
2157). 

(5) The spelling ocracea Linnaeus, 1758, as ruled under the plenary 
powers in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Isis ochracea 
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1142. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2150 


An application concerning Melithaea ochracea (Linnaeus, 1758) was 
first received from Dr Katherine Muzik and Dr F. M. Bayer (then both 
of University of Miami) on 25 September 1975. After an exchange of cor- 
respondence it was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 8 
December 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 228-232. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and to 
two marine biological serials. No comment was received. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 143 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)30 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 230. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Vote — one (1) Binder. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis and Lehtinen. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, Nouv. Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, vol. 3(63), 6, 

p. 188 
Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, Histoire naturelle des coralliaires 

ou polypes proprement dits, p. 199 
Melitodes Verrill, 1864, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 1, p. 38 
ochracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 1287 
ocracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 799. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)30 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1304. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

23 October 1984 


144 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1305 
BAPTA CANDIDARIA LEECH, 1897 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
LAM PROCABERA INOUE, 1958 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958, are 
hereby set aside and Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 is hereby designated as 
the type species. 

(2) The generic name Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bapta 
candidaria Leech, 1897, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2248. 

(3) The specific name candidaria Leech, 1897, as published in the 
binomen Bapta candidaria (specific name of type species of Lamprocabera 
Inoue, 1958) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2943. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2160 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the orig- 
inally designated nominal type species of Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 was 
first received from Professor H. Inoue (Otsuma Women’s University, Tokyo) 
on 31 December 1975. An improved draft was sent to the printer on 15 
April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, 
pp. 163-164. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general serials and eight entomological serials. No 
comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)31 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 164. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, 
Corliss 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 145 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
candidaria, Bapta, Leech, 1897, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 19, p. 198 
Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958, Tinea vol. 4, p. 253. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)31 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1305. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

24 October 1984 


146 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1306 
LEDELLA BUSHAE WAREN, 1978 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
LEDELLA VERRILL & BUSH, 1897 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 
are hereby set aside and Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 is hereby designated as 
the 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) Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ledella 
bushae Warén, 1978 (Name Number 2249); 

(b) Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Yoldia lucida Lovén, 1896 (Name 
Number 2250). 

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

(a) bushae Warén, 1978, as published in the binomen Ledella 
bushae (specific name of type species of Ledella Verrill & Bush, 
1897) (Name Number 2944); 

(b) lucida Lovén, 1846, as published in the binomen Yoldia lucida 
(specific name of type species of Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897) 
(Name Number 2945). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2238 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type 
species for the nominal genus Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, was first 
received from Dr Anders Warén (University of Goteborg, Sweden) on 17 
November 1977. A revised version was submitted on 20 April 1980, sent to 
the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 38, pp. 134-137. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general serials and three malacological serials. No 
comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)32 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 136. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 147 


Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, Sabrosky, 
Heppell 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Alvarado, Bernardi, Bayer, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
bushae, Ledella, Warén, 1978, Sarsia, vol. 63, pp. 213-214 
Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, Amer. J. Sci. vol. 3, p. 54 
lucida, Yoldia Loven, 1846, Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Forh. vol. 3 (6), 
p. 188 
Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897, Amer. J. Sci. vol. 3, p. 55. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)32 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1306. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
25 October 1984 


148 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1307 
PTINELLA MOTSCHULSKY, 1844 AND NEPHANES THOMSON, 
1859 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 are hereby set aside and 
Ptilium apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839 is hereby designated 
as type species of that genus; 

(b) the generic name Titan Matthews, 1858 is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle 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) Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Prilium 
apterum Guérin-Meéneville, 1839 (Name Number 2251); 

(b) Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
original designation, Trichopteryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841 
(Name Number 2252). 

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

(a) apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839, as published in the binomen 
Ptilium apterum (specific name of type species of Ptinella 
Motschulsky, 1844) (Name Number 2946); 

(b) titan Newman, 1834, as published in the binomen Trichopteryx 
titan (the valid name at the date of this ruling for the type 
species of Nephanes Thomson, 1859) (Name Number 2947). 

(4) The generic name Titan Matthews, 1858, as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2158. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (S.)2258 


An application for the conservation of the generic names Ptinella 
Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 was first received from 
Dr Olof Bistr6ém (University Zoological Museum, Helsinki) on 28 March 
1978. After an exchange of correspondence, a revised draft was sent to the 
printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 169-172. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven entomological serials. 
No comments were received. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 149 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)33 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 170. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, Starobogatov, 
Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Vote (in part): Mroczkowski. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 

Mroczkowski voted for the proposals concerning Ptinella but 
against those concerning Nephanes. He commented: ‘Titan Matthews, 1858 
is not a forgotten name. It was used as a valid name in 1978, Catalogus 
faunae Poloniae, part XXIII, Coleoptera, vol. 5, Histeroidea and 
Staphylinoidea except Staphylinidae, p. 79; and by Gerhardt, 1900, Z. 
Entomol (Breslau), vol. 25, p. 4. In reply, Dr Bistr6ém provided ten 
references to papers by ten different authors since 1960, all using Nephanes 
for this genus. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
apterum, Ptilium, Guérin-Méneville, 1839, Dict. pitt. hist. nat. phén. nature, 

p. 621 
Nephanes Thomson, 1859, Skand. Coleopt., vol. 1, p. 62 
Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. 17, p. 819 
Titan Matthews, 1858, Zoologist, vol. 16, p. 6108 
titan, Trichopteryx, Newman, 1834, Entomol. Mag., vol. 2, p. 201. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)33 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly 
adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1307. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

25 October 1984 


150 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1308 
APHIS CALLUNAE THEOBALD, 1915 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the specific name callunae Theobald, 1915, as published in the binomen 
Aphis callunae, is to be given precedence over the specific name betulina 
Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis betulina, whenever the two 
names are held to be synonyms. 

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

(a) callunae Theobald, 1915, as published in the binomen Aphis 
callunae, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence 
over Aphis betulina Walker, 1852, whenever the two names are 
held to be synonyms (Name Number 2948); 

(b) betulina Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis 
betulina, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority 
over Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 whenever the two names 
are held to be synonyms (Name Number 2949). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (S.) 2283 


An application for the conservation of Aphis callunae Theobald, 
1915 was first received from Dr H. L. G. Stroyan (MAFF Plant Pathology 
Laboratory, Hatching Green, Harpenden, U.K.) on 26 March 1976. It was 
held back pending the publication elsewhere of a paper on the rediscovery 
of Walker’s type material of Aphis betulina but was sent to the printer on 15 
April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, 
pp. 173-175. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general serials and seven entomological serials. No 
comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)35 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 175. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, 
Corliss 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 151 


Negative Votes — none (0). 
Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
betulina, Aphis, Walker, 1852, List Spec. homopt. Ins. Colls brit. Mus., 
vol. 4, p. 1039 
callunae, Aphis, Theobald, 1915, Entomologist, vol. 48, pp. 260-261. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)35 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1308. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
25 October 1984 


152 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1309 
GEOEM YDA GRAY, 1834, AND RHINOCLEMM YS FITZINGER, 
1835 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED 


RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 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) Geoemyda Gray, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species by 
original designation, Testudo spengleri Gmelin, 1789 (Name 
Number 2253); 

(b) Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species 
by subsequent designation by Lindholm, 1929, Testudo dorsata 
Schoepff, 1801, Name Number 752 on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, (= Testudo 
punctularia Daudin, 1801. Name Number 1906 on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology) both in Opinion 660 
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, pp. 187-190. Rhino- 
clemmys Fitzinger, 1835 is hereby given Name Number 2254. 

(3) the specific name spengleri Gmelin, 1789, as published in the 
binomen Testudo spengleri (specific name of the type species of Geoemyda 
Gray, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2950. 

(4) the generic name Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832 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 
2159. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (S.)2287 


An application for the use of plenary powers to conserve the generic 
names Geomyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 was first 
received from Professor Hobart Smith (Department of Environmental, 
Population and Organismic Biology (DEPOB), University of Colorado, 
Boulder, U.S.A.) and Dr Carl H. Ernst (Department of Biology, George 
Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.) and Dr Rozella B. Smith 
(DEPOB) on 2 October 1978. After some correspondence, a revised 
manuscript was sent to the printers on 15 April 1980 and published on 4 
December 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 233-239. Public notice of 
the possible use of plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general periodicals and 
three specialist periodicals. No comment was received. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 153 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)36 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 236-237. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, 
Corliss 

Negative Votes—none (0). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and 
Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832. Atl. J. and Friend of Knowl., vol. 1, p. 64 
Geoemyda Gray, 1834, Proc. zool. Soc. London. 1834, p. 100 
Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien., vol. 1, p. 115 
spengleri Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed 13, vol. 1. p. 1043. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)36 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1309. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 October 1984 


154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1310 
EUTERMES EXITIOSUS HILL, 1925 (INSECTA, ISOPTERA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
australis Walker, 1853, as published in the binomen Termes australis, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name exitiosus Hill, 1925, as published in the 
binomen Eutermes exitiosus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2951. 

(3) The specific name australis Walker, 1853, as published in the 
binomen Termes australis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1143. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2290 


An application for the conservation of Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 
was first received from Dr J. A. L. Watson and Dr F. J. Gay (Division of 
Entomology, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia) on 7 November 1978. It was held 
back pending the publication of a paper on the lectotype of Termes australis 
Walker, 1853, but was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published 
on 30 April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 142-146. Public notice of 
the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part 
of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and 
seven entomological serials. No comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)37 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 144. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Vote — one (1) Hahn. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 

Hahn commented: ‘Termes australis should be suppressed only if 
competing with E. exitiosus, not completely.’ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 155 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
australis, Termes, Walker, 1853, List specs neuropt. Ins. Coll. brit. Mus., 

part 3, p. 525 
exitiosus, Eutermes, Hill, 1925, Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria N.S. vol. 37, p. 222. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)37 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1310. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

25 October 1984 


156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1311 
CORISELLA LUNDBLAD, 1928 AND KRIZOUSACORIXA 
HUNGERFORD, 1930 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 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) Corisella Lundblad, 1928 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
subsequent designation by Hungerford, 1948, Corixia 
mercenaria Say, 1832 (Name Number 2255); 

(b) Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by original designation, Corixa femorata Guérin- 
Meneville, 1857 (Name Number 2256). 

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

(a) mercenaria Say, 1832, as published in the binomen Corixia 
mercenaria (specific name of type species of Corisella 
Lundblad, 1928) (Name Number 2952); 

(b) femorata Guerin-Méneville, 1857, as published in the 
binomen Corixa femorata (specific name of type species of 
Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930) (Name Number 2953). 

(4) The generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832, 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 
2160. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2299 


An application for the conservation of Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and 
Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 was first received from Dr Antti Jansson 
(Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) on 3 April 1979. It was 
sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. 
zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 197-200. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was published in the same part of the Bulletin 
and was sent to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and seven 
entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)38 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 199. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 


| 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 157 


Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Dupuis, Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, 
Brinck, Corliss 

Negative Votes—none (0). 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Cogger, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832, Registro trimestre No. 1 (3), p. 335 

Corisella Lundblad, 1928, Zool. Anz., vol. 79, pp. 148, 158 

femorata, Corixa, Guérin-Méneville, 1857, Moniteur univ., no. 330, p. 1298 

Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930, Pan-pac. Entomol., vol. 7, p. 22 

mercenaria, Corixia, Say, 1832, Descr. new spp. heteropt. Hemipt. N. 
America, p. 39. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)38 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1311. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

25 October 1984 


158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1312 
HELIOTHIS OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): 
GENDER AND STEM DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) It is hereby ruled: 

(a) that the stem of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 
1816 for the purposes of Article 29 is HELIOTH-; 

(b) that the gender of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 
1816, is feminine. 

(2) The family-group name HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) Boisduval, 
1828, type genus Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
568. 

(3) The generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Samouelle, 1819, 
Phalaena dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2257. 

(4) The specific name dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the 
binomen Phalaena dipsacea, (specific name of the type species of Heliothis 
Ochsenheimer, 1816) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology with the Name Number 2954. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2306 


An application for a ruling on the stem and gender of Heliothis 
Ochsenheimer, 1816, was first received from Dr I. W. B. Nye (British 
Museum (Natural History), London) on 15 May 1979. It was sent to the 
printer on 13 July 1979 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 186-189, with an additional comment by the Secretary 
published on p. 190. The application received support from Dr R. Feige 
(Caracas, Venezuela) and Dr W. Reed (Jnternational Crops Research 
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, India). No adverse comment 
was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)39 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 189. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Binder, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss, 
Heppell 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 159 


Negative Votes — none (0). 
Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. 
No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, p. 856 
HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) Boisduval, 1828, Europaeorum Lepidopterorum 
Index Methodicus, p. 94 
Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Eur. vol. 4, p. 91. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)39 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 Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1312. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

29 October 1984 


160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1313 


TESTUDO SCRIPTA SCHOEPFF, 1792 AND EMYS CATASPILA 
GUNTHER, 1885 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ventri- 
cosa Gray, 1855, as published in the binomen Emys ventricosa, is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) scripta Schoepff, 1792, as published in the binomen Testudo 
scripta (Name Number 2955); 

(b) cataspila Ginther, 1885, as published in the binomen Emys 
cataspila (Name Number 2956). 

(3) The specific name ventricosa Gray, 1855, as published in the 
binomen Emys ventricosa, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1144. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2315 


An application for the conservation of Emys cataspila Gunther, 
1885 was first received from Dr J. M. Legler (University of Utah, Salt Lake 
City, U.S.A.), Professor H. M. Smith and Dr R. B. Smith (University of 
Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.) on 26 June 1979. After some correspondence it 
was agreed that Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 should also be included in 
the application for conservation. A revised manuscript was sent to the 
printers on 15 April 1980 and published on 4 December 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 37, pp. 240-246. Public notice of the possible use of plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to six general and four specialist periodicals. No comment 
was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)40 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 244. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: 
Melville, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, Binder, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, Corliss 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 161 


Negative Votes — one (1): Holthuis. 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of absence. 
No voting papers were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 

Holthuis commented: ‘It seems best to me, in this case of a sub- 
species, the nomenclatural status of which is far from settled, to adopt strict 
priority.’ 

Hahn commented: ‘The authors wish to suppress only the species- 
group name ventricosa Gray, 1855, but not mobilensis Holbrook, 1838. Are 
ventricosa and mobilensis not synonyms, as indicated in the first paragraph, 
and does mobilensis not compete with cataspila? 

Professor Hobart M. Smith replied on behalf of all the authors of 
the application: ‘Through the help of Dr John B. Iverson, I’ve learned 
that the latest revisionary work on this group of turtles (Joseph P. Ward, 
1984, ‘‘Relationships of chrysemyd turtles of North America (Testudines: 
Emydidae),” Spec. Publs. Mus. Texas Tech. Univ., (21): 1-50) places 
Holbrook’s 1838 Emys mobilensis (p. 38) as a junior synonym of Emys 
hieroglyphica Holbrook, 1836, now Pseudemys (Pseudemys) concinna 
hieroglyphica. This same author places scripta, to which ventricosa and 
cataspila belong, in the genus Trachemys. 

‘Hence there need be no concern that mobilensis of Holbrook enters 
into nomenclatural conflict with either ventricosa or cataspila. We never- 
theless much appreciate the Commission member’s concern.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
cataspila Gunther, 1885, Biologia centrali-americana, Reptilia and 

Batrachia, p. 4, pl. 6, fig. B 
scripta Schoepff, 1792, Historia testudinum iconibus illustrata, p. 16, pl. 3, 

figs. 4.5 
ventricosa, Gray, 1855, Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of British 

Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises), p. 28, pl. 14. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)40 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1313. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

30 October 1985 


162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1314 
HYDROPHORUS NEBULOSUS FALLEN, 1823, Is THE TYPE 
SPECIES OF HYDROPHORUS FALLEN, 1823 (INSECTA, 
DIPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designation of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823, are 
hereby set aside and Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallen, 1823 is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name AHydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) 
above, Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2258. 

(3) The specific name nebulosus Fallén, 1823, as published in 
the binomen Hydrophorus nebulosus (specific name of type species of 
Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2957. 

(4) The subfamily name HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864 or Schiner, 
1864 (type genus Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 569. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2036 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to fix the type 
species of Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 was first received from Dr George 
Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National 
Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) and others on 1 March 1973. The sub- 
sequent history of the case was told in the following report that was sent to 
the members of the Commission with Voting Paper (84)41: 


HYDROPHORUS FALLEN, 1823: REPORT ON A MAJORITY VOTE 
LESS THAN A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY 


The main point at issue in this case is the choice of type species for the 
nominal genus Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823. In this genus of aquatic Diptera 
the arista of the antennae is dorsal, whereas in the related genus Medetera 
Fischer, 1819, it is apical. 

2. In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 118-120, Steyskal and others 
showed that Macquart, 1827, had designated H. jaculus Fallén, 1823, one of 
the originally included species, as type of Hydrophorus. They claimed that 
there was a misidentification in this designation, because in H. jaculus the 
arista is apical as it is in the type species of Medetera, M. carnivora Fischer, 
1819, and its two senior synonyms, Musca rostrata Fabricius, 1775, and 
Musca diadema Linnaeus, 1787. Reference to the Commission was there- 
fore obligatory under Article 70a of the Code. Macquart had, in effect, 
synonymised Hydrophorus and Medetera. In consequence, the genus in 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 163 


which the arista is dorsal would have to be called Aphrozeta Perris, a name 
used only once (by Coquillett, 1910) since its publication. 

3. [This paragraph showed that the date of Aphrozeta is to be cited 
as 1850 and is not relevant in the present context.] 

4. To avert the consequences outlined in paragraph 2 of this report, 
Steyskal and others asked that the plenary powers be used to set aside all 
designations of type species for Hydrophorus and that H. nebulosus Fallén, 
1823 be designated as type. This is one of the originally included species and 
its arista is dorsal. 

5. In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 173-177 Hendrickson & Roback 
commented on the application by Steyskal and others. They agreed that 
Macquart’s designation of H. jaculus should be set aside, thus implicitly 
accepting the need to conserve Hydrophorus as the name of the genus in 
which the-arista is dorsal, and they agreed that, if this was not done, 
Hydrophorus would have to be replaced by the practically unused 
Aphrozeta. They opposed the choice of H. nebulosos as type species because 
they thought it was an aberrant species, and proposed H. binotatus Fallen, 
1823 in its place. 

6. In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 79-80 Steyskal replied that H. 
nebulosus, apart from its additional wing spots, was in fact entirely compat- 
ible with the traditional concept of Hydrophorus. He said that H. binotatus, 
on the other hand, not only showed some unusual features but was easily 
confused with another species. 

7. Hendrickson & Roback had claimed that there was no misidenti- 
fication involved in Macquart’s designation of H. jaculus. Their request 
for the use of the plenary powers to designate H. binotatus was therefore 
based solely on the need to conserve Hydrophorus in its accepted sense. 
However, the arguments they adduce on this side of their case are not 
strong. They merely show that Macquart had accepted an earlier (1824) 
error of Meigen’s in dealing with Medeterus (sic) and Hydrophorus and do 
not seriously weaken the argument of Steyskal and others on this point. 

8. On 24 February 1977 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote on V.P.(77)9 either for the proposals of Steyskal and others 
(Alternative A) or for those of Hendrickson & Roback (Alternative B). At 
the close of the voting period on 23 May 1977 there were 13 votes for 
Alternative A and 9 for Alternative B— a majority less than a two-thirds 
majority for Alternative A. 

9. The matter therefore comes down to a simple choice as to which 
of two species— H. nebulosus Fallén, 1823, or H. binotatus Fallen, 
1823 — is to be the type species of Hydrophorus. This is a taxonomic choice, 
and I have therefore been seeking independent specialist advice to guide the 
Commission. Dr C. E. Dyte (Ministry of Agriculture Slough Laboratory, 
Slough, U.K.) had already supported Steyskal and others. Eventually, in 
August 1983, with the help of Mr R. W. Sims (British Museum (Natural 
History), London) and Dr Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad), 
Professor O. P. Negrobov (Voronezh University, U.S.S.R.) wrote to say that 


164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


he too supported the choice of H. nebulosus as type species ‘as it does not 
differ greatly from other species of the genus, including the hypopygium 
(Negrobov, 1977, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, 
Lief. 316, figs 1127-1130). The external difference in wing spots is not 
important.’ 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


The above report was sent, with Voting Paper (1984)41, on 13 
September 1984 to the members of the Commission for a vote under the 
Three-Month Rule. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984, 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes for H. nebulosus: twenty-one (21), received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, 
Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, 
Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Affirmative Votes for H. binotatus: none (0) 

Negative Votes, Late Votes, Abstentions: none (0). 

No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Lehtinen and 
Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
binotatus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823, Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae, 
p. 3 
HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864, Atti r. Ist. Veneto Sci., Lett. Arti (3), vol. 9, 
p. 762 
Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823, Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae, p. 3 
nebulosus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823, Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae, 


pes 
CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)41 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1314. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

17 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 165 


OPINION 1315 
EOLIS ALDERI COCKS, 1852 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
AEOLIDIELLA BERGH, 1867 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 are hereby set aside and Eolis 
alderi Cocks, 1852 is hereby designated as type species of that 
genus; 

(b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy: 

(i) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen 
Eolida soemmerringii; 

(ii) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the binomen 
Aeolidiella soemmeringii. 

(2) Entry No. 1720 on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology is hereby amended so as to read: Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (gender: 
feminine) type species, by designation under the plenary powers, Eolis 
alderi Cocks, 1852. 

(3) The specific name alderi Cocks, 1852, as published in the 
binomen Eolis alderi (specific name of type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 
1867) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 2958. 

(4) Entry No. 2152 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
is hereby deleted. 

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

(i) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen 
Eolida soemmerringii, and as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) (b) (i) above (Name Number 1145); 

(ii) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the binomen 
Aeolidiella soemmeringii, and as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) (b) (ii) above (Name Number 1146). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1986 


An application for the clarification of the type species of Aeolidiella 
Bergh, 1867 was first received from the late Dr Henning Lemche on 28 
October 1971. This was never published because of difficulties over Dr 
Lemche’s choice of a neotype for Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828. In 
November 1979 consultations were opened with Dr T. E. Thompson and 
Dr Gregory H. Brown. On 14 March 1980, revised proposals were received 
from Dr Brown. After some correspondence this was sent to the printer on 
24 February 1981 and published on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. 


166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


vol. 38, pp. 294-296. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general serials and one specialist serial. Support 
was received from Dr Jean Tardy (Institut Universitaire de Technologie, La 
Rochelle, France). 

Dr Holthuis objected to the proposed changes in the Official Lists 
and suggested that a neotype for the species that was before Bergh in 1867 
could be designated as neotype of Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828. 
This, however, proved impracticable. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)44 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 295-296. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-one (21) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, 
Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Lehtinen and Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
alderi, Eolida, Cocks, 1852, Naturalist, vol. 2, p. 1 
soemmeringii, Aeolidiella, Bergh, 1882, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien for 1882, 

p.8 
soemmerringii. Eolida, Leuckart, 1828, Breves Animalium, p. 16. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)44 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1315. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

17 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 167 


OPINION 1316 
GLOBIGERINA CERROAZULENSIS COLE, 1928 
(FORAMINIFERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
applanata Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globigerina 
applanata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) cerroazulensis Cole, 1928, as published in the binomen Globi- 
gerina cerroazulensis (Name Number 2959); 

(b) tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962, as published in the binomen 
Globigerina tropicalis (Name Number 2960). 

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

(a) applanata Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globi- 
gerina applanata, and as suppressed under the plenary powers 
in (1) above (Name Number 1147); 

(b) globosa Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globi- 
gerina globosa (a junior primary homonym of Globigerina 
globosa von Hagenow, 1842) (Name Number 1148). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2248 


An application for the conservation of Globigerina cerroazulensis 
Cole, 1928 was first received on 27 January 1978 from Dr R. M. Jeffords 
(then of Exxon Production Research Co., Houston, Texas) on behalf of him- 
self, Dr R. M. Stainforth (2910 Cook St, Victoria, B.C., Canada) and Dr 
K. Sztrakos (13 rue Gouveno, 77310 Ponthierry, France). After some cor- 
respondence it was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published 
on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 45-49. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and 
three specialist serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)45 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 47. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 


168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. 

Hahn commented: ‘In the case of applanata/cerroazulensis the facts 
are clear, but not so in the case of globosa/tropicalis. The type of G. globosa 
Hantken is “interpreted” as a juvenile specimen of tropicalis, but can it 
also be interpreted as an adult of some other species? Once again this is a 
situation where I should prefer to use the relative precedence procedure.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
applanata, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883, Ertek. Termesz. Koérebél Tud. 

Akad., vol. 13, p. 11, pl. 2, fig. 3 
cerroazulensis, Globigerina, Cole, 1928, Bull. amer. Paleontol., vol. 14, no. 

53,p.17 
globosa, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883, Ertek. Termesz. Kérebél Tud. Akad., 

vol. 13, p. 11, pl. 2, fig. 7 
tropicalis, Globigerina, Blow & Banner, 1962, in Eames, F. E. et al, 

Fundamentals of mid-Tertiary stratigraphic correlation, p. 124. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)45 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1316. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

21 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 169 


OPINION 1317 
TUPUS SELLARDS, 1906 (INSECTA, PROTODONATA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) The generic name Tupus Sellards, 1906 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by monotypy, Tupus permianus Sellards, 1906, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2259. 

(2) The specific name permianus Sellards, 1906, as published in the 
binomen Tupus permianus (specific name of type species of Tupus Sellards, 
1906) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 2961. 

(3) The generic name Typus Sellards, 1909 (an unjustified 
emendation of Tupus Sellards, 1906) is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2161. 

(4) The family-group name TyPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names 
in Zoology with the Name Number 503. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2359 


An application for the conservation of the unjustified emendation 
Typus Sellards, 1909 was first received from Professor Frank M. Carpenter 
(Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, Mass.) and Dr Paul Whalley 
(British Museum (Natural History) London) on 2 September 1980. It was 
accompanied by a counter-proposal by Mr D. L. F. Sealy (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) to the effect that the correct original spelling be 
retained. Both were sent simultaneously to the printer on 24 February 1981 
and published side by side on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, 
pp. 285-287. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general serials and nine entomological serials. No further 
comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)46 either A for 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 286, or B for those set 
out on p. 287. At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

For Alternative A—four (4) received in the following order: 
Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder 

For Alternative B — seventeen (17) received in the following order: 


170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Uéno, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, 
Dupuis. 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Lehtinen and Savage. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Hahn: ‘I fully agree with the objection raised by Mr Sealy in his 
paragraph 2.’ 

Starobogatov: ‘We must avoid using a nomenclatorial term as a 
generic name.’ 

Alvarado: ‘I do not agree with the spelling TUPIDAE.’ 

Ride: ‘In my opinion no case is made that to revert to the correct 
original spelling would “disturb stability or universality or cause con- 
fusion”’. In the absence of such a case the Commission is not entitled to use 
the plenary powers.’ 

Dupuis: ‘L’argumentation du point 2 de M. Sealy est excellente; elle 
souligne une lacune du Code.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to names placed on Official 
Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
permianus, Tupus, Sellards, 1906, Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 22, p. 249 
Tupus Sellards, 1906, Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 22, p. 249 
TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. K1., vol. 
96, p. 62 
Typus Sellards, 1909, Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 27, p. 151. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)46 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal in Alternative B of that voting paper has been duly 
adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1317. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

23 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 aa 


OPINION 1318 
(OPINION CORRECTING THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 92) 
LACERTA VELOX PALLAS, 1771 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
EREMIAS WIEGMANN, 1834 (REPTILIA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 are 
hereby set aside and the nominal species Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 is 
hereby designated as the type species of that genus. 

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

(a) Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lacerta 
velox Pallas, 1771 (Name Number 432); 

(b) Ommateremias Lantz, 1928 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Lacerta arguta Pallas, 1773 (Name 
Number 2260). 

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

(a) velox Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen Lacerta velox 
(specific name of type species of Eremias Wiegmann, 1834) 
(Name Number 2962); 

(b) arguta Pallas, 1773, as published in the binomen Lacerta 
arguta (specific name of type species of Ommateremias Lantz, 
1928) (Name Number 2963). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1172 


In February 1957 the late Mr Francis Hemming (then Secretary to 
the Commission) discovered an error in the ruling given in Opinion 92. 
That ruling gave Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 as type species of Eremias 
Wiegmann, 1834; but Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept. p. 21, had validly 
designated Lacerta variabilis Pallas, 1811 as type species. He therefore 
sought advice from several sources but received no clear indication of a 
course to follow. Accordingly, when the first instalment of the Official Lists 
in book form was being compiled in 1958, the case of Eremias was deferred. 

In December 1980, Mr A. F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural 
History), London) kindly examined an application prepared in the 
Secretariat. This was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published 
on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 283—284. The possible 
use of the plenary powers in the case was announced in the same part of the 


172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


Bulletin and was sent to the statutory serials as well as to seven general and 
three herpetological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)47 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 283—284. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen 
and Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 
Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

arguta, Lacerta, Pallas, 1773, Reise Russland, vol. 2, p. 718 

Eremias Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetol. Mexic. (1), p. 9 

Ommateremias Lantz, 1928, Bull. Mus. Géorgie (4) p. 2 

velox, Lacerta, Pallas, 1771, Reise Russland, vol. 1, p. 457. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)47 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1318. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

23 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 173 


OPINION 1319 
NOMIOIDES SCHENCK, 1866 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): 
DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species for the nominal genus Nomioides Schenck, 1866 hitherto made are 
hereby set aside and the nominal species Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, is 
hereby designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (gender: masculine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Apis 
minutissima Rossi, 1790, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2261. 

(3) The specific name minutissima Rossi, 1790, as published in the 
binomen Apis minutissima (specific name of the type species of Nomioides 
Schenck, 1866) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2964. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2178 


An application for the use of plenary powers to designate a type 
species for Nomioides Schenck, 1866 was first received from Dr Y. A. 
Pesenko and Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 5 May 
1976. After much correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 
24 February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 225-227. 
Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven 
general serials and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)48 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 226. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen 
and Savage. 

Heppell commented: ‘I believe that the genus Nomioides could be 
accepted as of feminine gender if that is in accordance with universal usage 
(as stated by the applicants). There is at least one feminine -oides generic 


174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


name on the Official List (Cecilioides), which is universally treated as 
feminine by malacologists.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 
Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

minutissima, Apis, Rossi, 1790, Fauna Etrusca, vol. 2, p. 109. Liburni (Pisis) 
Nomioides Schenck, 1866, Berlin Entomol, Zeitschr., vol. 10, p. 333. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)48 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1319. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

23 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 175 


OPINION 1320 
HYDRODAMALIS RETZIUS, 1794 AND MANATUS INUNGUIS 
NATTERER IN PELZELN, 1883 (MAMMALIA, SIRENIA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the generic name Manati Steller, 1774 is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the specific name exunguis Natterer in Diesing, 1839, as 
published in the binomen Manatus exunguis, is hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name AHydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by monotypy, Hydrodamalis stelleri Retzius, 1794, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2262. 

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

(a) gigas Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the binomen Manati 
gigas (the valid name at the time of this ruling of the type 
species of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794) (Name Number 2965); 

(b) inunguis Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883, as published in the binomen 
Manatus inunguis (rendered nomenclaturally valid under the 
plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name Number 2966). 

(4) The generic name Manati Steller, 1774, as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) (a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2162. 

(5) The specific name exunguis Natterer in Diesing, 1839, as 
published in the binomen Manatus exunguis, and as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
1149. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2338 


An application for the conservation of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 
and Manatus inunguis Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883 was first received from Dr 
Daryl P. Domning (Howard University, Washington D.C.) on 12 March 
1980. It was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 
April 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 130-133. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was published in the same 
part of the Bulletin and sent to the statutory serials as well as to seven 
general serials and two mammalogical serials. No comment was received. 


176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)50 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 131-132. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen 
and Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
exunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Diesing, 1839, Ann. wiener Mus. Naturges., 

vol. 2(2), p. 230, footnote 
gigas, Manati, Zimmermann, 1780, Geographische Geschichte des Menschen 

und die vierftissigen Thiere, vol. 2, p. 426 
Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794, K. svensk. Vetenskaps Akad. Hand. (2) vol. 

15, p22 
inunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, 

vol. 33, Beiheft, pp. 89-94 
Manati Steller, 1774, Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka, p. 97. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)50 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1320. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

30 January 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 ty / 


OPINION 1321 
GRANT OF NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE TO 
EPHYDRIDAE ZETTERSTEDT, 1837 OVER HYDRELLIIDAE 
ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, 1830 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the family-group name EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over the family-group name HYDRELLIIDAE 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, whenever the two are subjectively considered to 
be synonyms. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Ephydra Fallen, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species, by sub- 
sequent designation by Curtis, 1832, Ephydra riparia Fallén, 
1813 (Name Number 2263); 

(b) Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Coquillett, 1910, 
Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Name Number 
2264). 

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

(a) riparia Fallén, 1813, as published in the binomen Ephydra 
riparia (specific name of type species of Ephydra Fallen, 1810) 
(Name Number 2967); 

(b) flaviceps Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Notiphila 
flaviceps (valid name, at the time of this ruling, of the type 
species of Aydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) (Name 
Number 2968). 

(4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (type genus Ephydra Fallen, 
1810) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
(type genus Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) whenever the 
two are subjectively considered to be synonymous (Name 
Number 570); 

(b) HYDRELLIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (type genus Hydrellia 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) with an endorsement that it is not 
to be given priority over EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 
whenever the two names are subjectively considered to be 
synonymous (Name Number 571). 


178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2334 


An application for the grant of nomenclatural precedence to 
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830 was first received from Dr Wayne N. Mathis (National Museum of 
Natural History, Washington D.C.) on 30 January 1980. After an exchange 
of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 12 August 1980 and 
published on 30 July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 201-204. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general 
and eight entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)49 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 202—203. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Hoithuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Corliss, Kraus, 
Bayer, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Vote — one (1): Ride. 

Heppell abstained from voting. No votes were returned by Bernardi, 
Cogger, Halvorsen, Lehtinen, Savage. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the Commis- 
sion with their voting papers: 

Ride: “HYDRELLIIDAE has not so far been used at familial level. Its 
replacement at that level by EPHYDRIDAE is unambiguous and will cause no 
confusion. Both names will continue in use at subfamilial and tribal levels. I 
do not consider that the use of the plenary powers is warranted.” 

Heppell: ‘I abstain. I should prefer the Commission to reconsider the 
general problem of priority of family-group names rather than deal with 
individual cases separately. Many cases of this type are ignored or over- 
looked, and the date and authorship of family-group names are probably 
less important than the stability of their taxonomic significance.’ 

Dupuis: ‘Sur le fond, je vote pour les propositions de Mathis: (1) con- 
servation des deux noms; (2) inversion de la priorité de typification des taxa 
supergénériques. Toutefois, je vote contre la formulation, car deux taxa 
supergénériques qui n’ont pas le méme génre-type ne sont pas objective- 
ment “synonymes”. Je propose de dire, soit (a) “lorsque les deux 
genres-types sont inclus dans le méme taxon’’, soit (b) “to be subjectively 
synonyms’’.’ [This has been borne in mind in drafting the present ruling. 
The use of the word ‘considered’ had been thought a sufficient indication of 
a subjective synonymy. R.V.M.] 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 179 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 

Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Ephydra Fallen, 1810, Specimen entomologicum novam Diptera disponendi 
methodum exhibens, p. 22 

EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, Jsis (Oken), col. 48 

flaviceps, Notiphila, Meigen, 1830, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins., vol. 6, p. 72 

Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Acad. roy. Sci., Mém. prés. divers 
savans, vol. 2, p. 790 

HYDRELLIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Acad. roy. Sci., Mém. prés. divers 
savans, vol. 2, p. 783 

riparia, Ephydra, Fallén, 1813, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl. for 1813, (2), p. 
246. 


The following are the original references to designations of type 
species accepted in the present Opinion: of Ephydra riparia Fallén, 1813 as 
type species of Ephydra Fallen, 1810 by Curtis, 1832, British Entomology, 
vol. 9, p. 413; of Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Acad. roy. 
Sci., Mém. prés. divers savans, vol. 2, p. 791; as type species of Hydrellia 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Coquillett, 1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 
Be, p. 553. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)49 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1321. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

30 January 1985 


180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1322 
BUPRESTIS NANA PAYKULL, 1799, NON GMELIN, 1790 
(INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name nana 
Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Buprestis nana, and all other 
uses of that name prior to its use by Paykull, 1799, are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name nana Paykull, 1799, as published in the 
binomen Buprestis nana, and as conserved under the plenary powers in (1) 
above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 2969. 

(3) The specific name nana Gmelin, 1790, as published in the 
binomen Buprestis nana, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) 
above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1150. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2346 


An application for the conservation of Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799 
was first received from Dr Maciej} Mroczkowski (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, 
Warsaw) on 29 May 1980. After some exchanges of correspondence it was 
sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 11 March 1982 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 59-60. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to seven general serials and eight entomological 
serials. The application was supported by Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological 
Museum of the University, Helsinki). No adverse comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)51 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 60. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Halvorsen, 
Lehtinen and Savage. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 181 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official 
List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

nana, Buprestis, Gmelin, 1790, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 1940 

nana, Buprestis, Paykull, 1799, Fauna suecica, vol. 2, p. 233. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)51 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1322. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

30 January 1985 


182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1323 
BYRRHUS SEMISTRIATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, 
COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the specific name semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen 
Byrrhus semistriatus, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the 
specific names picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the binomen Byrrhus 
picipes, and rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus 
rufipes, by anyone who considers that these three names, or any two of 
them, denote the same taxon. 

(2) The generic name Simplocaria Stephens, 1829 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by subsequent designation by Jacquelin du Val, 1859, Byrrhus 
semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2265. 

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

(a) semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen 
Byrrhus semistriatus (specific name of type species of Simplo- 
caria Stephens, 1829) with an endorsement that it is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over Byrrhus picipes Olivier, 1790 
and Byrrhus rufipes Kugelann, 1792 by anyone who considers 
that all three names or any two of them denote the same taxon 
(Name Number 2970); 

(b) picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the binomen Byrrhus 
picipes, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority 
over Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who 
considers that both names denote the same taxon (Name 
Number 2971); 

(c) rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus 
rufipes, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority 
over Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who con- 
siders that both names denote the same taxon (Name Number 
2972). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N. (s.)2317 


An application for the grant of nomenclatural precedence to Byrrhus 
semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 over Byrrhus picipes Olivier, 1790 and Byrrhus 
rufipes Kugelann, 1792 was first received from Dr M. Mroczkowski 
(Zoological Institute, Warsaw) on 31 August 1979. It was sent to the printer 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 183 


on 24 February 1981 and printed on 30 November 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 38, pp. 292-293. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general serials and to eight entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)52 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, pp. 292-293. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Binder 

Negative Vote — one (1): Ride 

Abstention — Ueno. 

No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and 
Savage. 

Uéno commented: ‘I cannot vote on this application at present, 
though I am inclined to vote against it. Dr Mroczkowski does not clarify 
whether Olivier’s type of B. picipes is in existence or not. If it does exist and 
is in good condition and is identical with that of Fabricius’s B. semistriatus, 
I believe the name picipes should be revived, even if doing so may cause 
some confusion among byrrhid taxonomists. Since the beetle seems to 
have no other importance than in pure taxonomy, I feel it unnecessary to 
use plenary powers in this case.’ This comment was passed on to Dr 
Mroczkowski who said in reply that, so far as he knew, Olivier’s type of 
B. picipes did not exist. He added that Kugelann’s collection had been 
completely destroyed. 

Ride commented: ‘While it is clearly desirable to conserve semis- 
triata, 1 am not convinced that there is a good reason for preserving B. 
picipes and B. rufipes. Neither name has been used in the last 50 years 
(picipes has not been used in systematic works since 1847 and since then has 
been listed up to 1911, but not as a senior synonym; rufipes has not been 
used since its original description except in listings up to 1911 as a junior 
synonym). On the other hand, semistriata has been in continuous use since 
1847. Although no details are presented, it seems that a prima facie case is 
established that the stability of semistriata is threatened (Art. 79b). No case 
is presented that warrants the preservation of the others. I-consider that the 
Commission should only use the relative precedence procedure when a case 
is made that justifies the preservation of the names concerned. We should be 
asked to suppress picipes and rufipes.’ 


184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
picipes, Byrrhus, Olivier, 1790, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des 
Insectes, no. 13, p. 9. 
rufipes, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792, Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol., vol. 1 


(2-4), p. 485 

semistriata, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, vol. 4, p. 
437 

Simplocaria Stephens, 1829, Nomenclature of British Insects, Mandibulata, 
val, 35;p.,9. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (84)52 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1323. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London. 

4 February 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 185 


OPINION 1324 
DIADEMODON SEELEY, 1894 AND DIADEMODON TETRAGONUS 
SEELEY, 1894 CONSERVED BY THE SUPPRESSION OF 
CYNOCHAMPSA OWEN, 1859 AND CYNOCHAMPSA LANIARIA 
OWEN, 1859 (REPTILIA, THERAPSIDA) 


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

(a) the generic name Cynochampsa Owen, 1859; 
(b) the specific name /aniaria Owen, 1859, as published in the 
binomen Cynochampsa laniaria. 

(2) The generic name Diademodon Seeley, 1894 (gender: masculine), 
type species, by original designation, Diademodon tetragonus Seeley, 1894, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2266. 

(3) The specific name tetragonus Seeley, 1894, as published in the 
binomen Diademodon tetragonus (specific name of type species of 
Diademodon Seeley, 1984) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2973. 

(4) The generic name Cynochampsa Owen, 1859, as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2163. 

(5) The specific name /aniaria Owen, 1859, as published in the 
binomen Cynochampsa laniaria, and as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1151. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2249 


An application for the conservation of the generic name 
Diademodon Seeley, 1894 and the specific name tetragonus Seeley, 1894 as 
published in combination with Diademodon, was first received from Dr 
Fred Grine (University of Witwatersrand, South Africa) on 23 June 1980. 
After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 
and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 50-53. 
Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven 
general serials, three herpetological serials and two palaeontological serials. 
Support was received from Dr C. E. Gow (University of the Witwatersrand) 
and Dr M. A. Cluver (South African Museum, Cape Town). No adverse 
comment was received. 


186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)54 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 52-53. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Willink, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Starobogatov, 
Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Binder 

Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: Cocks, 
Hahn, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Dupuis. 

Lehtinen returned a late affirmative vote. No voting papers were 
returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their votes: 

Cocks: ‘The issues do not seem to me to be sufficiently important to 
invoke plenary powers and I would sink Diademodon in the normal way.’ 

Hahn: ‘The synonymy between Cynochampsa laniaria and 
Diademodon tetragonus has not been, and cannot be, proved because 
Cynochampsa is founded on an isolated snout that lacks all important 
diagnostic features. Thus Cynochampsa and Diademodon may be synonyms 
but are not necessarily so. The Commission should therefore not suppress 
Cynochampsa laniaria completely, but only so far as it competes with 
Diademodon tetragonus.’ 

Mroczkowski: ‘I think that the “relative precedence” procedure 
should have been adopted in this case.’ 

Ride: Although, strictly speaking, the replacement of Diademodon 
by Cynochampsa would not cause any ambiguity (Cynochampsa has never 
been used for anything else), the uncertain stratigraphic position of C. 
laniaria would undoubtedly introduce instability and uncertainty into the 
application of the names of this important group. I consider that the use of 
the plenary powers is justified on that ground.’ 

Heppell: ‘This seems too subjective for me to give my vote in favour 
of the proposal. The author does not establish that the usage of 
Diademodon by the authors cited was notwithstanding their acceptance of 
Cynochampsa as a senior synonym, even at the generic level. From the 
evidence presented, most, if not all, of these authors could have regarded C. 
laniaria as a Diademodontid incertae sedis. It is also not clear why the 
author states ““Owen’s 1859 paper was published unaltered in 1860” yet 
dates C. Janiaria from the later paper. Were the names nomina nuda in 
1859?’ 

[On receiving Mr Heppell’s comment I made further enquiries into 
the circumstances surrounding Cynochampsa laniaria. The name was 
published twice by Owen in the publications of the Geological Society of 
London. The first occasion was in the Abstracts of Proceedings no. 31, p. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 187 


116. This is part of the proceedings for the Session 1858-59 and deals with 
the meeting of 20 April 1859. The Librarian of the Society tells me that 
these Abstracts would certainly have been published in 1859. The binomen 
is there accompanied by a full description and is available. The second 
occasion was in the Society’s Quarterly Journal, vol. 16, pt. 1, Proceedings, 
p. 61, pl. 3, figs. 1-4, dated 1860. Both components of the binomen there- 
fore date from 1859 and this has been taken as their date in drafting the 
present Ruling. R.V.M.] 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 

Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Cynochampsa Owen, 1859, Q. J. geol. Soc. London (1) Proc. geol. Soc. 
London, vol. 16, p. 61 

Diademodon Seeley, 1894, Phil. Trans. roy. Soc. London (B) vol. 185, p. 1030 

laniaria, Cynochampsa Owen, 1859, Q. J. geol. Soc. London (1) Proc. geol. 
Soc. London, vol. 16, p. 61 

tetragonus, Diademodon, Seeley, 1894, Phil. Trans. roy. Soc. London, (B) 
vol. 185, p. 1030. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)54 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1324. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

5 February 1985 


188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1325 
CAPSUS ATER JAKOVLEV, 1889 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, 
HETEROPTERA): NOT REJECTED AS A JUNIOR HOMONYM OF 
CIMEX ATER LINNAEUS, 1758 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that 
the specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen Capsus 
ater, is not to be rejected as a junior homonym of the specific name ater 
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex ater, by any zoologist 
who places those species in different genera. 

(2) The specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the 
binomen Capsus ater, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be rejected as a junior 
secondary homonym of ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Cimex ater by any zoologist who places those species in different genera 
(Name Number 2974). 

(3) The specific name ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Cimex ater, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be interpreted as a senior 
secondary homonym of ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen 
Capsus ater by any zoologist who places those species in different genera 
(Name Number 2975). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.((S.)2148 


An application for the use of plenary powers to make the specific 
name ater Jakovlev, 1889, nomenclaturally valid, was first received from Dr 
I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 18 September 1975. 
After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 
March 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pp. 288-291. Public 
notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and nine entomological serials. 
Comment was received from Professor L. B. Holthuis which was published, 
together with a reply from Dr Kerzhner containing modified proposals, in 
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 162-163. No other comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)55 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, p. 163. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Willink, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 189 


Starobogatov, Alvarado, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, 
Sabrosky 

Negative Votes — four (4) received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Mroczkowski, Kraus, Binder. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger and Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

ater, Capsus, Jakovlev, 1889, Horae Soc. entomol. Rossicae, vol. 24, p. 344 
ater, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, p. 447. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)55 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1325. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
13 February 1985 


190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1326 
CIMEX QUADRIPUNCTATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, 
HEMIPTERA, HETEROPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name 
quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Cimex 
quadripunctatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle 
of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, as published 
in the binomen Lygaeus quadripunctatus, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2976. 

(3) The specific name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, as published in 
the binomen Cimex quadripunctatus, and as 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 1152. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2148 


An application for the use of plenary powers to make the specific 
name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, nomenclaturally valid, was_ first 
received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 18 
September 1975. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the 
printers on 24 March 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, 
pp. 288-291. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and 
nine entomological serials. Comment was received from Professor L. B. 
Holthuis which was published, together with a reply from Dr Kerzhner 
containing modified proposals for the suppression of quadripunctatus 
Villers, 1789, in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 163-163. No other comments 
were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)56 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 163. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Hahn, Brinck, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, 
Uéno, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, 
Dupuis, Sabrosky 

Negative Votes — two (2) received in the following order: Kraus, 
Binder. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 191 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official 
List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
quadripunctatus, Cimex, Villers, 1789, Linn. Entomol, p. 535 
quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794, Entomol. Syst., vol. 4, p. 172. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)56 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1326. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

13 February 1985 


192 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


OPINION 1327 
HOLOCENTROPUS McLACHLAN, 1878 (INSECTA, 
TRICHOPTERA): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the generic name Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 is to be given nomen- 
clatural precedence over the generic name Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 
whenever the two names are considered synonyms. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by original designation, Philopotamus dubius Rambur, 
1842, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813, whenever the 
two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2267); 

(b) Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by monotypy, Phryganeolitha vetusta Germar, 1813, with an 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Holo- 
centropus McLachlan, 1878, whenever the two names are 
considered synonyms (Name Number 2268). 

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

(a) dubius Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen 
Philopotamus dubius (specific name of the type species of 
Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878) (Name Number 2977); 

(b) vetusta Germar, 1813, as published in the binomen Phry- 
ganeolitha vetusta (specific name of the type species of 
Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813) (Name Number 2978). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1591 


An application for the conservation of Holocentropus McLachlan, 
1878 was first received from D. E. Kimmins (Department of Entomology, 
British Museum (Natural History), London) on 16 January 1963. The appli- 
cation was rewritten and resubmitted by Dr P. C. Barnard (Department of 
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on 5 April 1982. 
After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 25 August 1982 and 
published on 7 December 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 293-296. 
Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same 
part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, six general and nine 
entomological serials. No comment was received. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 193 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)58 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 294-295. At the 
close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, 
Bayer, Binder 

Negative Votes — one (1): Heppell. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis, Halvorsen and Savage. 

Heppell commented: ‘I sympathize with the intention of the appli- 
cant to conserve the name Holocentropus but from the evidence presented I 
can find no justification for the use of the relative precedence procedure in 
this case. The applicant has presented the strongest possible case for the 
suppression of the name Phryganeolitha (based on a species of uncertain 
identity, the type material of which is lost, and virtually unused since its 
original proposal), which he admits was the original purpose of the appli- 
cation. Although it is stated in the introduction that the ‘original intentions’ 
of the application have been retained, the Commission has now in fact been 
offered the option of adding Phryganeolitha to the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Names. 

‘I accept that if the Commission were offered the choice of either 
rejection or conditional suppression then the votes might provide no clear 
majority for either alternative. I believe, however, that the Commission 
should be asked to lay down clear guidelines to applicants as to when the 
relative precedence procedure should be requested. This should not be left 
to the whim of the author or the discretion of the Secretary and, I believe, 
should be reserved for those few cases where there is a genuine possibility of 
both names involved being required to denote separate taxa. In the present 
case I would have readily voted for the rejection of the unused and super- 
fluous name, but in the absence of such a proposal doubt if the conservation 
of Holocentropus is threatened because its synonymy with the senior 
Phryganeolitha is not susceptible to proof.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 

Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

dubius, Philopotamus, Rambur, 1842, Histoire naturelle des Insectes. 
Névropteres, p. 503 

Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878, A monographic revision and synopsis of the 
Trichoptera of the European fauna. Part 7, p. 400 


194 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813, Magazin Entomol. (Germar ), vol. 1, p. 17 
vetusta, Phryganeolitha, Germar, 1813, Magazin Entomol. (Germar ), vol. 1, 
p. 17, 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985)58 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1327. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

18 February 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 195 


DIRECTION 118 
CORRECTIONS TO THREE ENTRIES IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF 
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY: ARGYNNIDAE, 
APATURIDAE, LIMENITIDINAE (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) The following corrections are hereby made to the 
entries in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology under the 
Name Numbers stated: 

(a) Name Number 228. ARGYNNIDAE. For ‘Duponchel, 1844, Cat. 
méth. Lépid. Europ.: 2’ read ‘Duponchel, [1835] (in Godart, 
J.B.) Hist. nat. Lép. pap. France, Suppl., vol. 1, livr. 23, pp. 394, 
B95’; 

(b) Name Number 229. APATURIDAE. For ‘Boisduval, 1840, Gen. 
Index meth. europ. Lepid.: 24 read ‘Genera et Index methodicus 
europaeorum Lepidopterorum, p. 24’; 

(c) Name Number 231. LIMENITIDINAE. For ‘Butler, 1869, Cat. 
diurn. Lep. Fabricius: 57 read ‘Butler, [12 February 1870], Cat. 
diurn, Lep. Fabricius, p. 57. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2187 


A request for the correction of a number of entries in the official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology was first received from Lt-Col. C. F. 
: Cowan (Grange—over—Sands, England) on 24 June 1976. His request was 
_ divided into a number of instalments; that containing the three names here 
dealt with was sent to the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 30 
July 1981 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 228. No use of the plenary powers 
was involved. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
_ to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)53 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. Vol. 38, p. 228. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes —twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, 
Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Lehtinen returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. 

Heppell commented: ‘The proposed corrections are matters of fact, 
not opinion. Why would the Commission wish to perpetuate inadvertent 


196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


errors? I suggest that the Secretary seek permission to publish such correc- 
tions without requiring a Commission vote, subject only to a prior check on 
the accuracy of the information. Or perhaps a notification of a proposed 
change could be published, if there is any uncertainty about the information 
supplied, and the correction made, if no contrary evidence is received before 
an agreed time has elapsed. Such an arrangement could prove particularly 
useful for correcting date and authorship of family-group names, which are 
often incorrectly cited in the zoological literature.’ 


REPLY TO MR HEPPELL 


Mr Heppell’s concern for the swift and smooth dispatch of business 
is appreciated. However, the Official Lists and Indexes are the property and 
responsibility of the Commission. No name should be added or removed, or 
any entry altered, without the Commission’s consent; and that consent 
should be seen to have been attained openly after the proposed alteration 
has been published. 

To seek permission from the Commission to make an alteration is 
surely equivalent to calling for a vote. 

The idea of a “‘notification-and-challenge” procedure was intro- 
duced at the Copenhagen (1953) Congress in relation to a number of points 
in the old Rules. It is in fact of little practical use due to the lack of 
challengers and was not retained in the 1961 Code. It would provide an 
uncertain way to accuracy and completeness of List and Index entries. 

The present procedure is indeed cumbersome and uses resources of time, 
effort and Bulletin space that might be put to better use. The Commission 
might like to consider delegating authority to make alterations of fact to the 
Lists and Indexes to a standing committee or to the Council; such changes 
to be simply announced in the Bulletin. The introduction of such a policy 
would, I believe, require no more than a change in the By—Laws. [R.V.M.] 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)53 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 Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Direction No. 118. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

5 February 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 197 


RHABDITIS DUJARDIN, [NOV. 1844] (NEMATODA): PROPOSED 
COMPLETION OF OFFICIAL LIST ENTRY. Z.N.(S.)937 


By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
(CIOMS Case no. 4) 


Opinion 104 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73 (5), pp. 25-28, 1928) pur- 
ported to place the generic name Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845a (sic) on the 
Official List. When the first instalments of the Lists were prepared for 
publication in book form in 1958, entry no. 483 for Rhabditis was not com- 
pleted because of doubts about the identity of the nominal type species of 
Rhabditis, R. terricola Dujardin. However, since Dougherty’s action in 1953 
(Thapar commemorative volume, pp. 69-76) and its general acceptance, the 
taxonomic situation has stabilised. As the nomenclatural facts are clear and 
call for no intervention by the Commission, the way is clear for completion 
of the entry in the Official List. 

2. The date of publication of Rhabditis Dujardin, Hist. nat. 
Helminth., pp. 239-243 is [Nov. 1844], as stated by Sherborn, Index 
Animalium, p. 5492. The evidence for this is in Bibliographie de la France, 
33e année (47e de la collection), No. 44, samedi 2 nov. 1844, p. 574, entry 
no. 5460. 

3. Rhabditis was established with four included nominal species: R. 
terricola Dujardin [Nov. 1844], Vibrio acetis O. F. Miller, 1783, V. triticis 
Steinbuch, 1799 and V. glutinis O. F. Miller, 1783. 

4. Stiles & Hassall, 1905, Bull. Bur. anim. Ind., no. 79, pp. 45—46, 
134, thought that Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 25 (2), p. 129, 
had designated R. terricola as type species. In fact, Bastian merely referred 
to ‘the typical R. terricola’, and from the context, he may have meant ‘typi- 
cal specimens of the species’ rather than ‘the typical species of the genus’. 
Even the latter would still not have constituted a designation of a type 
species. However, the fact that Stiles & Hassall clearly stated their belief 
and clearly accepted that R. terricola was the type species means that they 
themselves made the designation under Article 69a(iv). 

5. At that time the identity of R. terricola was in doubt. It remained 
so until Dougherty, 1953, Thapar commem. vol., pp. 69-76, synonymised 
the clearly identifiable R. aspera Bitschli, 1873 with it. Biitschli described 
his species in N. Acta (Verh.) k. leop.-carolin. deutsch. Akad. Naturf., vol. 
36 (5), pp. 100, 113. This has been accepted by Goodey, T., 1963, Soil 
freshw. Nematodes (London, Methuen), p. 208; by Tarjan, A. C., 1960, 
Checklist plant soil nematodes (Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville), p. 140; 
and by Tarjan & Hopper, B. E., 1974, Nomenclatorial compilation plant and 
soil Nematodes (Soc. Nematol.), p. 293. In this little-studied group, usage is 
thus constituted. 

6. Various species of Rhabditis have been found in human faeces 
and the female genital tract and in cutaneous lesions. Their pathogenic role 
is uncertain. 


198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 

asked: 

(1) to complete entry no. 483 in the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology as follows: Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Stiles & 
Hassall, 1905, Rhabditis terricola Dujardin, [Nov. 1844]; 

(2) to place the specific name terricola Dujardin, [Nov. 1844], as 
published in the binomen Rhabditis terricola (specific name of 
type species of Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 199 


TORNATELLINA PFEIFFER, 1842 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): 
PROPOSED DIRECTION TO COMPLETE A RULING IN 
OPINION 119. Z.N.(S.)1147 


By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


In Opinion 119 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 23-28, 1931), 
six generic names of gastropods were placed on the Official List. Among 
these was Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842, with the type species stated as ‘clausa 
Pfeiffer’. When, in 1958, the first instalment of the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology in book form was being prepared, Tornatellina was given 
the Name Number 550; but the entry on the Official List was not completed 
because of doubts as to the correctness of the ruling in Opinion 119. The 
facts are simple and allow a ruling to be reached without the use of the 
plenary powers. 

2. The name Tornatellina was first proposed by H. H. Beck, 1838 
[see Kadolsky, 1971, Arch. Molluskenk., vol. 101, p. 193 for this date], Index 
Moll. Mus. Chris. Fred., p. 80 and four specific names were cited with 
it — clausa, trochiformis, trochlearis and archimedes, all new. All the names 
are nomina nuda. 

3. Tornatellina was made available by L. Pfeiffer, 1842, Symb. hist. 
helic. (2). The genus is described on p. 5 and four species on p. 55. Three of 
these—clausa, trochiformis and trochlearis — were attributed to Beck. No 
type species was designated. J. E. Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London, 
p. 125 first validly designated Tornatellina clausa Pfeiffer, 1842 as type 
species of Tornatellina. This name has for long been regarded as a junior 
synonym of Strobilus bilamellatus Anton, 1839. Verzeichniss Conch. Sammi. 
Anton, p. 46. This is still accepted as the valid name for the species. 
Tornatellina (ACHATINIDAE, TORNATELLININAE) and Strobilus (ACHATINELL- 
IDAE, PITYSINAE) are now both recognised as valid genera (see Pilsbry & 
Cooke, 1933, Nautilus, vol. 47, pp. 59-62). The type species of Strobilus 
is S. turritus Anton, 1839, p. 46, by subsequent designation by Gray, 
1847, p. 175 (misspelled as ‘Strombilus Alton’). Opinion 119 purported to 
reject Strobilus Anton because of homonymy with Strobila Sars, 1829, a 
coelenterate, but the names are not homonyms under the present Code. 

5. The Commission is accordingly requested: 

(1) to place the generic name Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Gray, 
1847, Tornatellina clausa Pfeiffer, 1842, on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology (Name Number 550); 

(2) to place the specific name bilamellatus Anton, as published in 
the binomen Clausilia (Strobilus) bilamellatus) (the valid name 
at the time of this request for the type species of Tornatellina 
Pfeiffer, 1842) on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 


200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


SOUTHERNIA ALLGEN, 1929: PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY 
THE SUPPRESSION OF SOUTHERNIA FILIPJEV, 1927 
(NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.)940 


By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


In 1959 the late Dr Carl Allgén presented a number of problems of 
nematode nomenclature for resolution by the Commission (Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 17, pp. 86-88). The discovery of a mistake in the presentation of 
one of these problems led to the voting paper eventually issued on the case 
being cancelled. Among those problems, the one here presented afresh is the 
only one now calling for the attention of the Commission. 

2. Demania Southern, 1914 (Nematoda) was found to be a junior 
homonym of Demania Laurie, 1906 (Crustacea) and was replaced by 
Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney, 1926. Filipjev, 1927, Arch. Naturges., 
vol. 91, p. 14, proposed Southernia also as a new replacement name for 
Demania Southern non Laurie. Southernia Filipjev, 1927 is thus a junior 
objective synonym of Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney and has not been 
used. 

3. Allgén, 1929, Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 57, p. 436, proposed 
Southernia for the single new species S. zosterae (pp. 437-438), a free-living 
marine nematode from off the west coast of Sweden. In spite of the fact that 
Southernia Allgén is a junior homonym of Southernia Filipjev, it has been 
regularly used and no new replacement name has been proposed for it. 
Gerlach, S. A. & Riemann, F., 1973, The Bremerhaven Checklist of Marine 
Nematodes, Veréff. Inst. Meeresforsch. in Bremerhaven, Suppl. 4, pts 1 and 
2, lists nine uses of the name as a valid name between 1929 and 1973; later 
references can readily be supplied. 

4. In the light of this evidence, the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name 
Southernia Filipjev, 1927 and all uses of that name prior to the 
publication of Southernia Allgén, 1929, for the purposes of 
both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to place the generic name Southernia Allgén, 1929 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by monotypy, Southernia zosterae 
Allgén, 1929, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name zosterae Allgén, 1929, as published in 
the binomen Southernia zosterae (specific name of type species 
of Southernia Allgén, 1929) on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927, as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 201 


FOLSOMIA CANDIDA WILLEM, 1902 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA): 
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF 
ENTOMOBRYA CAVICOLA BANKS, 1897. Z.N.(S.)2210 


By Peter F. Bellinger (Department of Biology, California State University, 
Northridge, California 91330, U.S.A.) 


Banks, 1897, p. 380, described the new species Entomobrya cavicola 
from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. The figure accompanying his description 
makes it clear that the species is not an Entomobrya but a Folsomia 
(ISOTOMIDAE). This was first recognised in print by Christiansen, 1960, p. 42, 
where cavicola Banks is transferred to Folsomia on the basis of this figure. 
Salmon, 1964, p. 334, placed cavicola as a synonym of Folsomia fimetaria 
(Linnaeus, 1758). There are ten other references to the name cavicola Banks 
in the literature; nine of these are merely references to the original descrip- 
tion or type locality (e.g. Wolf, 1934-1938, vol. 3, p. 123; Barr, 1968, pp. 
166-167). 

2. Type specimens of E. cavicola Banks are in the United States 
National Museum. The label on one slide reads ‘Entomobrya cavicola 
Banks = Folsomia fimetaria (L.), det. J. T. Salmon, 1958’ and ‘Mammoth 
Cave, Ky. Coll. R. E. Call. Cotype no. 4321’; the label bears a red stripe, 
presumably applied by Salmon. The specimen is in fair condition and 
obviously belongs to Fo/somia. Unfortunately, it is not F. fimetaria (L.) as 
currently recognised, but F. candida Willem, 1902. Two other slides marked 
‘cotype’ carry specimens that are also identifiable as F. candida. According 
to the Law of Priority, the name candida should now be replaced by the 
senior name cavicola Banks. 

3. The various white, blind species of Folsomia (including fimetaria 
and candida) were not distinguished clearly until recent years. The descrip- 
tion of Podura fimetaria by Linnaeus, 1758, p. 609, could apply to any of 
these (or, in fact, to members of several other genera of ISOTOMIDAE or 
ENTOMOBRYIDAE). In 1767, Linnaeus changed the description of the species; 
Podura fimetaria of the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae (p. 1014), and 
of later authors for more than a century, is a species that does not jump, 
generally considered to be an Onychiurus (the name Onychiurus fimetarius is 
still in use, though illegally, for a widespread European species). Modern 
interpretations of P. fimetaria Linnaeus, 1758, are based on its assignment 
by Tullberg, 1872, p. 78, to Isotoma, and by Borner, 1903, p. 142, to 
Folsomia; and on the interpretation of the name by Stach, 1947, p. 154. 

4. Willem, 1902, p. 280, described ‘Folsomia candida nov. gen., nov. 
sp.’ from the Rochefort cave, Belgium. The genus is monotypic. In the years 
following, Folsomia was generally accepted as the valid generic name for 
species formerly placed in Jsotoma that have the last three abdominal seg- 


| ments fused; but candida was regarded, following Borner, 1903, p. 142, asa 
| 


202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


synonym of fimetaria. The two species were first distinguished by Stach, 
1947, p. 178, who applied the name candida to a common European cave 
species (though without examining material from the type locality of can- 
dida), and the name fimetaria, as noted above, to a different species that is 
also widespread. Following Stach’s redescriptions, F. candida was generally 
recognised by other authors as a very common species that appears to be 
more generally distributed than fimetaria sensu Stach; the latter, for 
example, is rare in the Nearctic region, where F. candida is widespread and 
abundant in many localities. 

5. F. candida is facultatively parthenogenetic, and quite variable; in 
North America there are two distinct phenotype clusters, A and B, which 
are usually distinguishable, but extensive intergradation between them 
makes their taxonomic separation impractical. Stach’s description applies 
to form B, and this is apparently the only form found in Europe generally 
(according to Gisin in a letter to Christiansen); the type specimens of 
cavicola Banks clearly belong to form A. 

6. Nomenclature in this group is further complicated by the name 
Folsomia cavicola Cassagnau & Delamare, 1955, p. 381, proposed for a 
species from a cave in Lebanon, which has also been applied to some British 
material (Goto, 1956, p. 12). The original description is generally similar to 
that by Stach of F. candida, with some characters like those of form A and 
some like those of form B; the name is placed as a synonym of candida by 
Gisin, 1960, p. 184 and Palissa, 1964, p. 156. On the other hand, Salmon, 
1964, pp. 332-333, lists it as a separate species; this is the only entry for F. 
cavicola to be found in this fundamental reference. 

7. Since its recognition following Stach’s redescription, F. candida 
has become a favourite experimental animal. More than twenty authors 
have published papers dealing with this species as a test animal in experi- 
ments on litter breakdown, population growth, competition, and insecticide 
and herbicide assays. In addition, there are many references in the literature 
to its systematic position, morphology, distribution, habitats and biology; 
in all, F. candida is mentioned in over 400 papers published since 1947 (a list 
has been deposited with the Commission’s Secretariat). 

8. The substitution of cavicola Banks for candida Willem as required 
by strict application of the Law of Priority would result in the disappear- 
ance of a well-known name, that of the nominal type species of Folsomia; 
would cause confusion because of the homonymous, and possibly synony- 
mous, cavicola Cassagnau & Delamare; and would lead to permanent 
uncertainty because of the possible restriction of the name candida to form 
B, if that is regarded as specifically distinct. The International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name cavicola 
Banks, 1897, as published in the binomen Entomobrya cavi- 
cola, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those 
of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to place the generic name Folsomia Willem, 1902 (gender: 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 203 


feminine), type species, by monotypy, Folsomia candida 
Willem, 1902, on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name candida Willem, 1902, as published in 
the binomen Folsomia candida (specific name of type species of 
Folsomia Willem, 1902) on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


BANKS, N. 1897. Thysanura. In CALL, R. E., Some notes on the flora and fauna of 
Mammoth Cave, Ky. Am. Nat., vol. 31, pp. 380-382. 

Barr, T. C., Jr. 1968. Ecological studies on the Mammoth Cave system of 
Kentucky. I. The biota. Int. J. Speleol., vol. 3, pp. 147-204. 

BORNER, C. 1903. Neue altweltliche Collembolen, nebst Bemerkungen zur 
Systematik der Isotominen und Entomobryinen. Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf. 
Freunde Berlin for 1903, pp. 129-182. 

CASSAGNAU, P. & DELAMARE, C. 1955. Biospeleologica XXV. Mission Henri 
Coiffait au Liban (1951). 3. Collemboles. Archs. Zool. exp. gén., vol. 91, 
pp. 365-395. 

CHRISTIANSEN, K. 1960. A preliminary survey of the knowledge of North American 

cave Collembola. Am. midl. Nat., vol. 64, pp. 39-44. 

& BELLINGER, P. 1980-81. The Collembola of North America north of the Rio 

Grande. iii + 1322 pp. Grinnell College. 

Gisin, H. 1960. Collembolenfauna Europas. 312 pp. Geneva, Muséum d’Histoire 
Naturelle. 

Goto, H. E. 1956. Folsomia cavicola Delamare Deboutteville, 1954 (Collembola, 
Isotomidae, new to Britain. Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 92, pp. 12-13. 

Linnaeus, C. Systema Naturae ed. 10, vol. 1, 824 pp. Holmiae, Laur. Salvii. 

1767. Systema Naturae ed. 12, vol. 1, 1327 pp. Stockholm, L. Salvi. 

Pauissa, A. 1964. Insekten 1 Teil. Apterygota. Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. IV (1a), 
407 pp. Leipzig, Quelle & Meyer. 

SALMON, J. T. 1964-65. An index to the Collembola. Bull. Roy. Soc. New Zealand, 
vol. 7, pp. 1-651. 

STacu, J. 1947. The apterygotan fauna of Poland in relation to the world fauna of this 
group of insects. Family Isotomidae. 488 pp. Acta monogr. Mus. hist. nat. 


polon. 
TULLBERG, T. 1872. Sveriges podurider. K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., vol. 10 
(10), pp. 1-70. 


WitteM, V. 1902. Note préliminaire sur les collemboles des grottes de Han et de 
Rochefort. Ann. Soc. entomol. Belgique, vol. 46, pp. 275-283. 

WoLr, B. 1934-38. Animalium cavernorum catalogus, vol. Ill. 918 pp. ’s 
Gravenhage, Junk. 


204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 2, June 1985 


APPENDIX 


Characteristics of forms A and B of F. candida (Christiansen & 
Bellinger, 1980, p. 633) 


Characteristic Form A Form B 

Ventral manubrial setae 23-30 16—22 

Third abdominal segment: ia ae 64-80 -50—-63 
segment length 

Two basal manubrial setae Ist>2nd I1st~2nd 

Manubrium/dens ‘60-66 -66—-75 


Of 75 populations from various parts of the United States, 31 
belonged to form A, 29 to form B and 14 were intermediate in character. 
Neither form was geographically localised. 


5 4 be 
- 

pinion 1316. Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 (Foraminifera) . 

Op nion 1317. Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Insecta, Protodonata) . , 

Opinion 1318. Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 and Eremias baci 1834 

(Reptilia) (correction of ruling eee in Opinion 92) 


ion 1320. Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 and Manatus Ca Miah Nat- 
i in Pelzeln, 1883 (Mammalia, ae 


xs Sci. mieouda ; 

pint on 1325. Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 (Insecta, ‘Hemiptera, Heterop- 
By tera) . F 

pinion 1326. Cimex quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemip- 
Fe ee Heteroptera) i 


di on 118. ARGYNNIDAE, APATURIDAE and LIMENITIDINAE (Insecta, 
“ Lepidoptera) (corrections to entries in Official List) 


i New and revived cases 
tis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] (Nematoda). The Secretary 

ellina Pfeiffer, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). The Secretary 

rnia Allgen, 1929 and Southernia Filipjev, 1927. The Secretary 
lsomia candida Willem, 1902 (Insecta, Collembola): proposed con- 
‘servation by suppression of Entomobrya cavicola Banks, 1897. 
Be Bellinger . aes bie le ee ty Dene 


167 
169 


171 
173 


175 
aT 


180 
182 


185 
188 


190 


192 
195 


197 


199 
200 


201 


In ernational Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express 
AD] eciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British 
seum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. 


CONTENTS 


Officers ai Members of the Commission ; 

Members of the International. Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Notices prescribed by the International vlan ae of Zoology 
Special Announcements eee sa P tena ae 


. Comments — 

Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). G.C.D. Griffiths: 
R. Wharton; C. van Achterberg . 

Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (winainiilia), 'R. oe Cifelli; M. F. : 
Soria. . 

Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, Simuliidae). I. M. 

; Kerzhner; H. Zwick; J. E. Raastad; R. W. Crosskey : ; 

Proposal to amend Article 70 of the Code. J. R. Vockeroth; K. '& x, 

_ Hamilton 2 ; 

. Opinions 

Opinion 1298. T ‘yrophagus Oudemans, 1924(Acarina) . . 

Opinion 1299. Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brulle, 1835 Insecta, 
Coleoptera) . . : 

Opinion 1300. TENDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria) 

Opinion 1301. Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) 

Opinion 1302. Nabis ene Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, 
Nabidae) 

Opinion 1303. Coccus Linnaeus, “1758 and Parthenolecanium Sule, 1908 
(Insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera) . . 

Opinion 1304. Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and sis ipa 
cea Linnaeus, 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa) ‘ 

Opinion 1305. Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 and Lamprocabera Inoue, 
1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 3 go 14. 

Opinion 1306. Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 and Ledella Verrill & Bush, 5.) Rae 
1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . . 

Opinion 1307. Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 . 
(Insecta, Coleoptera) . p 

Opinion 1308. Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : 

Opinion 1309. Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys ee 1835") 
(Reptilia, Testudines) : 

Opinion 1310. Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera) . 

Opinion 1311. Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hunger 
ford, 1930 (Insecta, Heteroptera) . % 

Opinion 1312. Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . ante 

Opinion 1313. Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 and Emys cataspila,Gun- _ 
ther, 1885 (Reptilia, Testudines). . Aes 

Opinion 1314. Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera) 

Opinion 1315. Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 and Aeolidiella re 1867 ae 
lusca, Gastropoda) . : ; 


Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Do 


30 September, 1985 Volume 42 Part 3 
pp. v—vi, 205-310 ISSN 0007-5167 


‘The Bulletin 
of Zoological 
a Nomenclature 


The Official Organ of the International | 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


BRITISH MUSEUM 
(NATURAL HISTORY) 
29 OCT 1985 


PURCHASED 
1 ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 


) COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX 


The Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature 


Published by: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux | 
On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 


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


CENTRAL SALES 


FARNHAM ROYAL 
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K. 


COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAU? 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclatur 
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may b 
duced in any form or by any means, electronically aa ne 
ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, wi a 


prior permission a the copyright owner. 


THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of 
Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia). 

Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, 
Lund, Sweden). 

Executive Secretary: Dr. P.K. TUBBS (British Museum (Natural History). 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). 


B. The Members of the Commission 
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 


Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) 
(30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 

Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, 
Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; 
Asteroidea 

Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 
RA Leiden, The Netherlands ) (30 September 1972) ( Councillor) Crustacea 

Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 
75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 

Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, 
Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 

Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk. ul. 
Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 

Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 
Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced 
Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) 
(President): Mammalia: Recent and Fossil 

Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 
September 1976) Reptilia: E D P Methods 

Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet 
Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 

Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Jnstitute of Biology and Geology, University of 
Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) 
Parasitology 

Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 

Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) (Councillor ) Octocorallia; Systematics 

Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, 
U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 

Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 7LL, U.K.) 
(23 August 1979) Palaeontology 

Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 

Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of 
Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 


Vi 


Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 
SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda 

Mr. David HEPPELL, (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 
Edinburgh EH1 1 JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor ) Mollusca 

Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 
249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology 

Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, 
A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari 

Dr. SHUN-ICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 
Hyakunincho 3-23-1, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) 
Entomology 

Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 
Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical 
Hymenoptera 

Dr. G. C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 
0M8) (15 April 1985) Icthyology 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Members of the Trust 
Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) 
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director ) 
Prof. Per Brinck 
Prof. J.H. Callomon 
Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius 
Prof. C.B. Cox 
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 
Mr. D. Curry 
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 
Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. 
Prof. J. Forest 
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 
Dr. G.C. Gruchy 
Dr. R.H. Hedley, F.1.Biol. 
Dr. L.B. Holthuis 
Dr. M.K. Howarth 
Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Dr. M. Luc 
Dr. R.B. Manning 
Mr. R.V. Melville 
Dr. I.W.B. Nye 
Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. 
Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) 
Dr. G.B. White 
Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for the Royal Society ) 


B. The Officers of the Trust 
Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller) 
Mr. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) 
Mr. J.D.D. Smith (Administrator) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 205 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 42, part 3 (pp. v—vi, 205-310 30 September 1985 


NOTICES 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to 
vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
six months after the publication of each application. This period is nor- 
mally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who 
wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his con- 
tribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as 
possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve 
months of the date of publication of the application. 

(b) 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 (any marked with an asterisk 
involve the application of Articles 23b and 79b): 

(1) Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae): 
proposed designation of a type species under the plenary 
powers. Z.N.(S.) 2464. W.R. Dolling. 

(2) Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823; 
Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823; and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to maintain current usage. 
Z.N.(S.) 2490. A.T. Howden. 

(3) Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Crustacea, 
Decapoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 
2467. L.B. Holthuis & R.B. Manning. 

*(4) Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria): pro- 
posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2363. R.W. Seaton. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications 
have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (2) (published on 27 June 
1985) (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23b 
and 79c): 

(1) Dates and authorship of the text volumes of the Histoire 

Naturelle section of Savigny’s ‘Description de l’Egypte.’ 
Z.N.AS.) 2515. M.E. Tollitt. 

(2) Chromis ternatensis (Bleeker, 1856) (Pisces, Pomacentridae): 
proposed conservation by suppression of Chromis caerulea 
(Cuvier, 1830). Z.N.(S.) 2516. J.E. Randall, M.L. Bauchot & 
M. Desoutter. 

*(3) Siphamia Weber, 1909 (Pisces, Apogonidae): proposed con- 
servation by suppression of Beanea Steindachner, 1902. 
Z.N.(S.) 2517. J.E. Randall, E.A. Lachner & T.H. Fraser. 


206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


(4) Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera): 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2519. A. Jansson. 

(5) Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 (Insecta, Heteroptera): 
designation of neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2520. A. Jansson & I.M. 
Kerzhner. 

(6) Non-marine mollusca of Madeira. Z.N.(S.) 2521. H.W. 
Walden. 

(7) What’s in a (sub-specific) name? Z.N.(S.) 2522. R. Fortuner. 

(8) Oncomera Stephens, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed 
designation of Dryops femorata Fabricius, 1792 as type 
species. Z.N.(S.) 2523. V. Suihla. 

*(9) Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjostedt, 1920) (Insecta, Orthop- 
tera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2524. K.H.L. Key. 


(d) Guidelines for applications to the Commission. Intending appli- 
cants should draw up their applications in line with the Guidelines 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 42, part 1. 
pages 3-5. Copies of the Guidelines can be obtained from the Executive 
Secretary. 


SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 
CHANGES IN TRUST MEMBERSHIP 


The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature announces 
with regret that Sir Eric Smith, CBE, FRS has relinquished his membership 
of the Trust. The Trust expresses its warm thanks to Sir Eric for much help 
and encouragement during his seven years of membership. 

The Trust has pleasure in announcing the election of the following 
new members: 

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) 

Dr M.K. Howarth (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) 

Dr R.B. Manning (National Museum of Natural History, Washington 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 


RETIREMENT OF MR. R.V. MELVILLE AS SECRETARY 


Mr Richard V. Melville retired from the Secretaryship of the Interna- 
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the conclusion of the 
XXII General Assembly of I U B S at Budapest on 7 September 1985. Mr 
Melville, who had been successively Chief Palaeontologist and Assistant 
Director to the Institute of Geological Sciences (now the British Geological 
Survey), was Secretary of the Commission for more than 17 years. 

His association with the Commission began more than 30 years ago. 
He played a prominent part in the 1953 Copenhagen Colloquium and the 
International Congress of Zoology Section on Nomenclature, assisting 
Secretary Hemming to prepare the daily summaries of the proceedings. In 
addition, he verified and saw through to publication the “Copenhagen — 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 207 


Decisions’ — described by Secretary Hemming as “that indispensible work 
of reference to all systematists”’. 

In May 1958, Mr Melville was seconded from the Geological Survey 
and Museum for 18 months as Assistant Secretary of the Commission in 
order to be Secretary of the London Colloquium and Congress Section on 
Nomenclature and of the Editorial Committee of the Ist Edition of the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 

In 1968, Mr Melville was elected a member of the Commission and 
appointed its Secretary. Outstanding amongst his many achievements as 
Secretary and Editor of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature have been 
the preparation of some 500 Opinions, the handling of the Appeal for 
Funds to ensure the Commission’s survival, and his secretaryship of the 
Editorial Committee culminating in the publication, earlier this year, of the 
3rd Edition of the Code. 

The zoological community as a whole owes a great debt to Richard 
Melville for his dedication to zoological nomenclature and the wisdom and 
skill which he has shown in administering the Commission’s affairs. His 
experience and scholarship will be greatly missed within the Secretariat and 
by the Council but will continue to be available within the Commission 
through his continuing membership as a Commissioner. 

Richard Melville’s many friends in zoology will wish him health in a 
long and well-earned retirement. 

As a result of changing requirements in the management of the 

Commission’s affairs, and with the agreement of the Management Com- 
mittee of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, the duties 
of the Secretary of the Commission and of the Scientific Controller of the 
International Trust are being rearranged. 
: Dr Philip Kingsley Tubbs, MA, PhD (Cambridge), has been appoin- 
_ ted Executive Secretary of the Commission and will be responsible for the 
management of its affairs. An Honorary Secretary of the Commission will 
be appointed from the Commission to fulfil statutory requirements. 

Dr Tubbs is a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and 
a former University Lecturer in Biochemistry in the University of 
Cambridge. Dr Tubbs brings to the Secretariat the experience of long associ- 
ation with the Commission of Enzyme Nomenclature of the International 
Union of Biochemistry and membership of the Editorial Board of the Bio- 
chemical Journal and of the Biochemical Society’s Publications Advisory 
Committee. He has a long-standing interest in Lepidoptera. 


W.D.L. RIDE 

President 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
September 1985 


208 


mits. 


CLOSURE OF CERTAIN FILES 


The backlog of several hundred files is being reviewed as time per- 
A number of files are found no longer to have any meaning because 


the problems they present are now capable of automatic resolution. The 
following files have accordingly been closed: 
Z.N.(S.) 


104 


Eunice Cuvier, 1817 for Official List 

Anidanthus Whitehouse, 1926, type species for 

Nyctalemon Dalman, 1825, for Official List 

Brisson, 1760, Ornithologia, status of names in, see Direction 21 
Thirty-two generic names in Polyzoa for the Official List 

Terado senegalensis Blainville, 1824 and T. petiti Récluz, 1849, status of 
Martini & Chemnitz, Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, availability of 
generic names in, see Opinion 182 

Rhynchonella Fischer de Waldheim, 1809, for Official List, see Opinion 190 
‘-ites’ names, validation of certain 

‘-crinus’ and ‘-crinites’ names, validation of 

Dipoeneura Lioy, 1864 and Aneurina Lioy, 1864, validation of 

Holoplagia Enderlein, 1912, alleged misidentified type species 

Astrea Lamarck, 1801, spelling of 

Song birds, family-group names of 

Corbicula Megerle, 1811, family-group name for 

Aonyx Lesson, 1827, for Official List 

Cynictis Ogilby, 1833, for Official List 

Potos Geoffroy & Cuvier, 1795, correct names for type species 

Hemiptera, Heteroptera family-group names in, see Opinions 244, 245, 281 
Subjective synonyms, declaration on 

Rafinesque’s family-group names in Mollusca, for Official List 

Kurtzia Rybowski & Grockowski, 1898, proposed conservation 

Hinnites Defrance, 1821, spelling of 

Benthodesmus Goode & Bear, 1882, proposed designation of type species 
Martyn, 1784, The Universal Conchologist, status of names in, see Opinion 456 
Siphonaptera, family-group names in 

Linnaeus’s Coleoptera Lamellicornia names, for Official List 

Fabricius’s Coleoptera Lamellicornia names, for Official List 

Atylenchus decalineatus Cobb, 1913, neotype designation 

Porifera, proposed conservation of certain specific names 

Sciurus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, for Official List 

Bryozoa specific names, for Official List 

Mallophaga specific names, for Official List 

Eurete Semper, 1868, gender of 

Foraminifera, family-group names in 

Erebia cassioides (Reiner & Hohenworth, 1792), identity of 

Nematode names, for Official Lists and Indexes 

Tinocallis zelkovae Dshibladze, 1957 and T. zelkowae Takahashi, 1919, 
declaration on secondary homonymy 

Lithocolletis Hubner, 1825, proposed validation 

Hippurites flabellifer Cragin, 1893, proposed suppression 

ARENARIIDAE Stejneger, 1885, proposed validation 

Ectopistes migratoria (Linnaeus, 1766), proposed conservation 

Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott & Rines, 1975, a scientific name for the Loch 


Ness Monster 
R.V. MELVILLE August 1985 


eee 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 209 


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5lc OF 
THE CODE. Z.N.(S.)2474 
(see vol. 41, pp. 149-150; vol. 42, pp. 10-12) 


(1) By Brett C. Ratcliffe (University of Nebraska State Museum; Past President, the 
Coleopterists Society) 


I am very much opposed to the idea of no longer using parentheses as pro- 
vided for in Article 5lc. Parentheses serve a utilitarian purpose by indicating the 
changed generic status of a name originally proposed in another genus. This is a 
valuable tool in tracing the nomenclature of a beast as well as the historical usage of 
its name by others. In some groups, such as many vertebrates, where the taxonomy 
and nomenclature are well established, this may not be so important. With insects 
and other invertebrates, however, alpha level taxonomy is on the cutting edge of our 
knowledge about these animals, and tools such as parentheses are helpful in our 
understanding of their taxonomy. I strongly urge the retention of parentheses. 


(2) By J. R. Vockeroth (Biosystematics Research Institute. Canada) 


I agree wholeheartedly with the proposal by Gagné, Thompson & Knutson 
that the requirement that parentheses be used with the name of an author of a 
species-group name in any generic combination other than the original, be deleted 
from the Code. 

The information conveyed by the use of parentheses is very limited and of 
value only to those (primarily taxonomists) who may wish to determine the original 
combination or examine the original description; I feel, therefore, that the time 
spent in ensuring that parentheses are used in accordance with the requirement of 
previous codes of nomenclature is unjustified. 

Since 1965 the publication of several regional catalogues of Diptera (and by 
1990 it is probable that all species will have been catalogued) has made the infor- 
mation mentioned above readily available for most species of the order; for this 
group, the use of parentheses is, or soon will be, nearly superfluous. I do not know 
whether other groups are as well served, but think many are or soon will be. 

Of far more value to those who wish to determine original combinations or 
examine original descriptions is the date of publication of a species-group name — 
X-us albus Smith, 1850 gives much more useful information than X-us albus (Smith). 
I approve of the wording of Article 22 of the Code: ‘Citation of the date of publi- 
cation of a name is optional . . .’ but would suggest that a third Recommendation be 
added: 

‘Recommendation 22e. In works of significance in taxonomy the date of 
publication of each included species-group name should be given.’ 


(3) By R. W. Crosskey and others (Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History), Londen) 
[Signatories are at the end of this comment] 


Gagné et al. (1984) have formally proposed to the Commission that the 
parenthesising of authors’ names for species removed from their original genera 
should no longer be mandatorily required by the Code. Only opinions opposed to 
this have been published (BZN, 42, pp. 10-11). We wish to give the fullest possible 


210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


support to Gagné ef al. in their cause, and to note our disappointment that the 
new edition of the Code still enshrines this outmoded mandatory requirement. The 
parenthesising of authors’ names is simply taxonomic ritual, sanctified by time, 
without sufficiently sensible purpose to justify perpetuation in modern taxonomy. It 
tells us that a named species no longer remains where its describer first placed it, that 
is all; it does not tell us whence it came, who translocated it or when, or how we can 
discover these things. 

We agree with all that Gagné et al. have said about the practical incon- 
veniences imposed by Article 51c; anyone who has had routinely to search out 
whether ‘the author’s name should be in brackets’ for long lists of names to be 
issued in documentation of a non-taxonomic kind (e.g. in economic literature) will 
be fully acquainted with the futility of this particular form of time-wasting. 

There are, however, other aspects not yet raised. We wish to call attention to 
these. 

(1) Lumped and split classification. Whether an author’s name is to be paren- 
thesised rests on generic transfer, without regard to the existence of subgeneric 
names, even though generic and subgeneric names are coordinate. Name combi- 
nation is the guiding principle, not transfer of actual animal taxa from one grouping 
to another. The effect of this is unfortunate, as it means that parentheses must come 
and go like a tennis-ball across the bracketing net when one school of taxonomists 
recognises many small genera in a refined classification and another school treats 
these as subgenera in a broad-genus classification. The literature then presents 
a baffling picture to the non-taxonomist, faced with seemingly haphazard and 
inconsistent treatment of authors’ names. 

(2) Non-taxonomic zoologists. Names and their attributes (authorship. 
dating, etc.) are part of the service industry provided by taxonomists for zoologists 
at large. The ‘audience’ for such names is wider today than it ever was, and 
taxonomy itself is moving far from its morphological roots into realms of chemo- 
taxonomy, cytology, ethology, etc. where its practitioners function far removed 
from the mysteries of the Code — even if they know the Code exists. Taxonomists 
need good reason if they are to thrust mandatorily upon all zoologists such arcane 
requirements as that of Article Slc. 

Conclusion. Most provisions of the Code have a role to play in ensuring the 
stability and universality of nomenclature that justifies their existence. Article Slc 
does not. It is impossible to show that it is essential in taxonomic practice. It says 
next to nothing of value either to taxonomist or non-taxonomist; it is an empty 
provision already widely disregarded. We urge the abolition of this misbegotten 
mandatory requirement. 


REFERENCE 


GAGNE, R. J., THOMPSON, F. C. & KNUTSON, L. V. 1984. International Code 
of Zoological Nomenclature: amendment proposed to Third Edition: pro- 
posal concerning Article 5lc. Z.N.(S.)2474. Bull. zool. Nomen., vol. 41, pp. 
149-150. 


The signatories to this comment are: 

R. W. Crosskey (Diptera) and P. C. Barnard (Trichoptera), B. Bolton (Hymen- 
optera), D. J. Carter (Lepidoptera), M. C. Day (Hymenoptera), W. R. Dolling 
(Hemiptera), M. G. Fitton (Hymenoptera), I. D. Gauld (Hymenoptera), P. M. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 211 


Hammond (Coleoptera), K. M. Harris (Diptera), C. M. F. von Hayek (Coleoptera), 
D. Hollis (Hemiptera), J. D. Holloway (Lepidoptera), I. J. Kitching (Lepidoptera), 
R. B. Madge (Coleoptera), L. A. Mound (Thysanoptera), A. C. Pont (Diptera), 
R. D. Pope (Coleoptera), G. S. Robinson (Lepidoptera), K. Sattler (Lepidoptera), 
A. J. Shelley (Diptera), K. G. V. Smith (Diptera), R. T. Thompson (Coleoptera), A 
Watson (Lepidoptera), R. I. Vane-Wright (Lepidoptera). 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF TIBICINA 
AMYOT, 1847 AND LYRISTES HORVATH, 1926. Z.N.(S.)239 
(see vol. 41, pp. 163-184) 


(1) By K. G. A. Hamilton (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, 
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC6, Canada) 


This is actually a compound amendment, and must be treated in two parts, 2 
and 3 below. 

2. Suppression of TIBICENIDAE Van Duzee, 1916: it is abundantly clear that 
this name is causing confusion with TIBICININAE Distant, 1905, and some action 
must be taken to clear up this situation. Traditionally, fixation of at least a one letter 
spelling difference has been used to clear up cases of family-group homonymy, but 
in this case (probably unique) the names both appear in the same family, and there- 
fore the confusion would still exist. Therefore alternative B of the proposal cannot 
be accepted under any circumstances. This does not signify approval of alternative 
A, which (for reasons cited under 3, below) must be accepted only as a last resort to 
alternative B. Three other alternatives must be considered first: 

2a. Fixation of the stem of TIBICEN as TIBICIN-, and rejection of TIBICINIDAE 
Van Duzee, 1916 non Distant, 1905, under Article 53. Since this would suppress the 
name by homonymy rather than by declaring it unavailable, the status of Tibicen as 
a valid genus would not be affected. 

2b. Rejection under the plenary powers of TIBICINIDAE Van Duzee, 1916, by 
declaration that that part of Van Duzee’s work is suppressed for nomenclatural 
purposes. Again this would not affect the status of Tibicen. 

2c. Suppression of TIBICININAE Distant, 1905, and of Tibicina Amyot, 1847 in 
favour of CICADETTINAE Buckton, 1890 and a new genus for the 5 species formerly 
placed in Tibicina. 

3. Suppression of Tibicen Berthold, 1827: despite harrowing stories of the 
misuse of this name in the 1800’s modern usage has fixed a consistent sense for 
Tibicen. To change it now, even for such a lovely name as Lyristes, would involve 
world-wide confusion, and would change the name of at least one well known 
species, the Dog—day cicada, Tibicen pruinosa (Say). Contrast this with Tibicina, 
which is applied to only 5 species, none of which are widely represented in the 
literature. 

4. If none of the above proposals meet the approval of the ICZN, then I 
would reluctantly accept suppression of Tibicen (alternative A) in preference to 
fixation of the misspelled Van Duzee family-group name (alternative B). 


212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


(2) By Michel Boulard (Ecole pratique des hautes Etudes et Muséum national 
d Histoire naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France) 


La Commission internationale de Nomenclature zoologique aura bient6t a 
se prononcer sur les statuts respectifs des noms de genre Lyristes, Tibicen et Tibicina 
ainsi que sur leurs dérivés du groupe-famille. Le Secrétaire de la Commission a fait 
paraitre une étude deétaillée a ce propos en concluant par la mise en présence de deux 
solutions dites “‘alternative A” et ‘alternative B” (Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41 (3), 
pp. 180 et 181). 

Parmi les interventions écrites qu’a suscitées l’exposé du probléme et 
son traitement éventuel, le manuscrit du commentaire, que Monsieur K. G. A. 
Hamilton a envoyé au Bulletin m’a été transmis. I] a retenu mon attention et j’en 
remercie son auteur. Ce commentaire contient des propositions qui appellent de 
ma part certaines remarques et appréciations, que je donne ci—aprés a la suite de 
chacune des dites propositions retranscrites en italiques. 


2) L’alternative B n'est, en aucun cas, acceptable. 
Je partage entiérement cette opinion: l’existence, pour des taxa du groupe- 
famille différents, de deux noms ayant méme radical est a bannir. 


2a + 2b) Rejeter TIBIC()NIDAE Van Duzee 1916 (sic) mais conserver Tibicen 

Sauf a respecter la question du radical, cette proposition n’est autre que celle 
avancée par China (1964). C’est une ‘solution’ en apparence seulement: elle est 
illégitime et ne résout rien en profondeur; j’ai déja expliqué pourquoi (cf. Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 41 (3), pp. 176-177). 


2c) Supprimer TIBICININAE Distant, 1916 (sic) et Tibicina Amyot, 1847, en faveur de 
CICADETTINAE Buckton, 1890 (sic) et d’un nouveau genre a créer. 

Outre que la, on se trompe de cible au risque d’accroitre l’imbroglio, cette 
double proposition n’est pas soutenable: d’une part Tibicina est un nom valide et 
correctement établi avec C. haematodes Scopoli, 1763 (espéce des plus anciennes et 
des mieux connues) pour espéce-type (cf. Amyot, 1847, Ann. Soc. entomol. France 
(2), vol. 5, p. 154; cf. Kolénati, 1857, Bull. Soc. imp. Naturalistes Moscou, Sec. Biol., 
vol. 30, p. 415; cf. Melville & Sims, 1984, Bull. zool. Nom., 41 (3), p. 165 et, d’autre 
part, le taxon ainsi nommé est le genre—type, fixé et par tous reconnu, d’un taxon 
du groupe-famille qu’il définit — Articles 29 et 35b — depuis l’origine formelle de 
celui-ci: TIBICININAE Distant, 1905 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 15, p. 304; ibid., 
vol. 16, p. 22), ainsi que des taxa subordonnés. I] semble nécessaire de rappeler que 
ce taxon du groupe—famille a été implicitement fondé en 1847 (Amyot, op. cit., pp. 
153-154) selon des critéres de groupe, reconduits par Distant et toujours en vigueur, 
avec Tibicina comme premier taxon cité, suivi, entre autres, de Cicadetta (op. 
cit., p. 156). La Sous—famille des TIBICININAE — dont en toute logique et en vertu de 
article 23 d(i), on devrait attribuer la paterniteé a Amyot —englobe la tribu des 
CICADETTINI, Buckton, 1889 (The Entomol., vol. 22, p. 270: “CICADINAE’). 

Je profite de l’occasion offerte pour signaler que la référence ‘Buckton, 1890’ 
pour le groupe des Cicadettes, que l’intervenant reprend de Metcalf, Z.P., 1963 
(Gen. Cat. Homopt., fasc. VIII, part 2, p. 270), est une bévue de catalogue; laquelle 
apparait moins grave toutefois que celle remarquée dans la citation: “TIBICINNAE, 
Buckton, 1889” (op. cit., p. 1). Buckton, en 1889 (op. cit., loc. cit.), puis en 1890 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 213 


(Monograph of the British Cicadae or Tettigidae, p. xxxiv) mentionne le genre 
Cicadetta comme exemple de sa tribu des “CICADINAE’ qui se trouve ainsi parfaite- 
ment définie dés 1889: son tableau est clair a ce sujet. Il est clair aussi que Buckton y 
oppose les ‘CICADINAE’ a un second ensemble de Cigales nommé, dualité sympto- 
matique: tout d’abord ‘TIBICINAE’ (1889), loc. cit.), puis ““TIBICENINAE” (1890, loc. 
cit.) mais, chaque fois, sans aucune diagnose ni support générique. Ces deux 
derniers termes, en vertu de I’article 11 alinea (e) du Code, sont des nomina nuda et 
comme tels inutilisables avec la référence Buckton. 


3, avec implication du 2c) Jmposer Tibicen pour cause ‘d’usage moderne’ et de la 
faiblesse numérique en espéces de Tibicina. 

Se rendre a cette proposition serait dresser des tabous, dont la Science n’a nul 
besoin, et choisir l’action inquisitoriale. Ce serait oublier que le progrés scientifique 
repose, en partie, sur la rectification des erreurs, 4 partir du moment ou celles-ci sont 
débusquées; le progrés n’a guére a meénager l’usage, surtout quand ce dernier est 
‘moderne’ et donc d’installation relativement récente. Le rétablissement de Cicada 
dans son concept originel, aprés plus de 100 années de fourvoiement est, de ce point 
de vue, exemplaire. J’ai montré (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 (3), pp. 170-178) que 
maintenir Tibicen serait s’acharner a ne pas traiter le mal a la base, perpétuer la 
confusion, jeter un discrédit sur la taxonomie que ce terme se trouve galvauder: 
soit par méconnaissance des textes de Latreille, soit par application bornée d’un 
postulat d’écriture, toutes choses qui ont conduit (Kirkaldy, 1906; Van Duzee, 1914) 
a l’affubler d’une acception opposée a celle de sa conception! Nous avons vu ou cela 
a mené... Imposer Tibicen ne peut étre que nuisible a la stabilite de la Nomen- 
clature. A l’inverse, Lyristes jouit de toute garantie taxonomique. La denomination 
scientifique révisée: Lyristes pruinosus (Say) pour l’espéce populairement appelee 
‘the Dog—day Cicada’ peut, certes, procurer quelque géne, mais celle-ci sera 
momentanée et chez de rares spécialistes routiniers. La rigueur est a ce prix, elle ne 
prend pas en compte le confort personnel et temporaire. Quoi qu’il en soit, l’usage 
du mot Tibicen et de ses dérivés ne bénéficie pas de l’acceptation générale et se 
trouve en dehors des dispositions de l’article 40 (a) relatif a la conservation des 
noms. 

Enfin, je suis contraint de souligner qu’une rectification nominative n’a rien a 
voir, non plus, avec le nombre d’espéces du taxon visé, c’est évident. A ce propos, 
je signale a notre collégue que, pour le genre Tibicina (sensu stricto, a type C. 
haematodes Scop.), l'on connait actuellement non pas 5, mais 14 espéces, révisées 
(11) ou décrites (3) par mes soins (1972, 1977, 1981, 1983); la méprise de l’estimé 
morphologiste tient, en partie, dans le méli-mélo di a la conservation de Tibicen, 
sensu Van Duzee, par Metcalf! (cf. Boulard, 1972, p. 168, notamment). 


4) Accepter la suppression de Tibicen (alternative A). 
Ce serait, pour Mr Hamilton, le recours. Prenons-en acte: en fin d’analyse, 
supprimer Tibicen est la bonne solution. 


Appendice: Addenda et Corrigenda 

Dans ma contribution (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 (3), pp. 166-179 et 181-184) 
quelques coquilles, erreurs ou omissions n’ont pu étre corrigées avant la parution. Je 
le fais ci—aprés: 


214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Errata 
p. 167, alin. 6, ligne 2, lire:... entrepris des recherches. . . 
p. 168, note 2 en bas de page, ligne 2, lire:. .. mononymique’, qui parut. . . 
ibid., note 3 en bas de page, ligne 1, lire:. .. plus ou moins les cymbales; 
p. 171, alin. 15, derniére ligne, lire: divagatoire. 
p. 173, alin. 20, ligne 12:. . . affirmations non fondées. 
p. 174, note 7 en bas de page: supprimer la derniére phrase. 
p. 176, alin. 28, ligne 2, lire:... un an plus tot... 


References omises: 


DISTANT, W. L., 1905, Rhynchotal Notes —X XXIII. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 
16, pp. 22-35. 

KIRKALDY, G. W., 1906. Current notes. The Entomol., vol. 39, pp. 283-287. 

KOLENATI, F., 1857. Homoptera Latreille, Leach. in: Meletemeta entomologica, 
Bull. Soc. imp. Naturalistes Moscou, Sec. Biol., vol. 30, pp. 399-429. 

LATREILLE, P. A., 1802. Cicadaires; Cicadariae. in: Histoire naturelle générale et 

particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes (Suite a Buffon, vol. 3, pp. 256-263. 

1804. Ibid., vol. 12, pp. 293-337. 

OSHANIN, V., 1908. Verzeichnis der palaearktischen Hemipteren mit besonderer 
Beriicksichtigung ihrer Verteilung im Russischen Reiche. II. Homoptera. III. 
Lieferung. Annuaire Mus. Acad. Zool. imp. Sci., vol. 13, pp. 385-492. 


(3) By P. Lauterer (Jilova 33, CS—639 00 Brno, Czechoslovakia) 


In the Cicadoidea the nomenclature of the best-known genera and of the higher 
categories based on them has for long presented a problem. The existence of the 
generic names Tibicen Berthold, 1827 (type species Cicada plebeja Scopoli, 1763) 
and Tibicina Amyot, 1847 (type species Cicada haematodes Scopoli, 1763) caused 
misunderstandings because the subfamily name TIBICININAE can be derived from 
each of them. Monsieur Boulard has carefully analysed the various possible | 
solutions to this problem with ample citations from the literature. | 

I prefer the solution offered in Alternative A because: (1) it is not hostile to | 
stability of nomenclature because many specialists currently use the names in this | 
sense; (2) it removes the misunderstandings that arise from the co-existence of 
Tibicen and Tibicina and the homonymous family-group names based on them. I 
believe most specialists in Homoptera will prefer Alternative A. 


PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF APHELINUS MYTILASPIDIS LE 
BARON, 1870: REPLY TO AUSTIN ET AL. Z.N.(S)2320 
(see vol. 39, pp. 73-76; vol. 40, pp. 70-71) 


By David Rosen (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Levi Eshkol School of 
Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76-100, P.O. Box 12, Israel) 


I am not convinced by the arguments of Austin et al. I am afraid that their 
lack of appreciation of the problems of field biologists, typical of many museum 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 215 


scientists, would result, if adopted by the Commission, in far more than ‘a slight 
amount of inconvenience’, or even ‘some initial inconvenience’. 

The name mytilaspidis has been used in hundreds of biological, ecological 
and applied biological control papers. Systematists, myself included, would of 
course not find it difficult to adapt to its replacement by an obsolete name such as 
albidus. However, numerous field biologists all over the world, who do not read 
taxonomic papers unless they are forced to do so, would be confused. It would take 
them years to realise that the enormous amount of practical information on 
mytilaspidis should now be referred to a/bidus. How on earth would this ‘undoubt- 
edly stabilise the nomenclature’? What would be gained, except for the upholding of 
the Principle of Priority? 

So, it is not out of sentimentality that I favor the junior (100-year-old) 
synonym in this case. It is only out of my concern for the users of systematic 
information, and for the respect that they may or may not have for the science and 
practice of systematics, that I recommend the suppression of albidus in favor of 
mytilaspidis. In my opinion the careless replacement of well-established names by 
long-forgotten senior synonyms would only serve to deepen the unfortunate rift 
between field biologists and some systematists. For the sake of systematics, let us 
not alienate those who depend on us for a stable nomenclature. 


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC NAME 
CHROMIS CUVIER, 1814 (OSTEICHTHYES) SHOULD BE MASCULINE. 
Z.N.(S.)2329 
(see vol. 37, pp. 247-255) 


(1) By Sven O. Kullander (Swedish Museum of Natural History, 
Stockholm S—104 05, Sweden) 


I object to the proposal by Bailey and others because I consider it directed 
against stability of nomenclature and totally unwarranted. The case is of interest to 
me as a specialist working on South American CICHLIDAE. Most of the genera with 
names ending in —chromis are in this family. My opinion is based on the following 
considerations: 

(1) Emery, 1975, has shown that (a) the gender of the Greek noun chromis is 
variable, at least in usage; (b) Cuvier treated the generic name Chromis as feminine 
when he established it, and (c) the gender of generic names ending in —chromis is to 
be determined from authors’ statements or indications. He pointed out that almost 
uniform treatment of this name as masculine in the ichthyological literature does 
not make it necessary to refer the name to the Commission; Chromis is a major 
genus of the POMACENTRIDAE, where the nomenclature is already confused. 

I agree with (a), (b) and (c) above and consequently feel that the problem has 
already been solved by Emery’s 1975 paper, which has guided usage in the matter of 
the gender of Chromis for nearly ten years. Acceptance of the proposal by Bailey er 
al. would have a negative effect on stability and cast doubt on the ability of active 
working taxonomists to take nomenclatural decisions in accordance with the Code. 

(2) Bailey et al. ask that Chromis be ruled to be masculine in line with preva- 
lent usage, and that names ending in —chromis be ruled to be masculine because most 
such names are so treated. They say that unless unity is imposed, authors and 


216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


editors, and such users as ethologists and aquarists will experience difficulty. I do 
not find these arguments either logical or strong. 

I agree that it is convenient that all generic names ending in —ops should be 
masculine, but such names are found throughout the animal kingdom. Chromis and 
names ending in —chromis are found only in a relatively small number of perciform 
fishes. The two cases are not comparable and the comparison of them by Bailey et 
al. is not valid. It would be more straightforward to rule that all generic names must 
be masculine. 

(3) Bailey et al. make much of the fact that Papiliochromis Kullander, the 
only generic name ending in —chromis originally stated to be feminine, is invalid. I 
cannot accept this, because the alleged senior synonym cited by Bailey et al. is an 
unavailable name. Furthermore, Papiliochromis contains a species with a feminine 
adjectival name, P. altispinosa (see Kullander, 1981). 

(4) Bailey et al. list six valid pomacentrid generic names ending in —chromis. 
These genera contain nine species between them. Since, according to their list, 
Chromis has over 50 species, it would be more logical to ask that all these names be 
feminine, rather than the reverse. 

The 38 valid genera of cichlids listed by Bailey et a/. with names ending in 
—chromis are mostly small. Only five of them have more then five species. One 
hundred and twenty-nine species are involved, but many have patronymic names or 
nouns in apposition. Moreover, as indicated by Bailey et a/., there is much nomen- 
clatural shifting in the CICHLIDAE following recent revisions. I find no case for a 
change in the gender of Chromis. On the other hand, the secondary reports on these 
revisions offer an excellent opportunity for the publication of a manual of genders of 
cichlid names, which would be useful to those people that Bailey et a/. think would 
find difficulties. 

There are other gender problems in the CICHLIDAE that would make such a 
manual desirable, apart from the —chromis problem. Examples are: names ending in 
—acara from Amerindian Acara (masculine), usually treated as feminine; names 
ending in —cara from Greek cara (neuter), usually treated as feminine; names 
ending in —odon (masculine), occasionally treated as feminine or neuter. 

To sum up: (a) Chromis Cuvier, 1814 is feminine under Article 30a(i) (2); 
(b) Emery’s 1975 paper gives guidance in this matter. It was published in a widely 
distributed journal (Copeia) and no facts have emerged to show that his conclusions 
are incorrect; (c) it has not been shown that problems would arise from treating 
Chromis as feminine and names ending in —chromis as masculine where appropriate. 

I therefore recommend that the Commission reject proposal 6(1) of Bailey et 
al. and the relevant part of 6(2). 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCE 


KULLANDER, S. O. 1981. The Bolvian (sic) ram; a zoogeographical problem and 
its taxonomic solution. DCG—Jnf., vol. 12, pp. 61-79. 


(2) By Alan R. Emery (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, 
Canada) 


Bailey et al. have asked the Commission to rule that the gender of Chromis be 
masculine in spite of their admission that the correct gender under the Code is 
feminine, as pointed out by Emery, 1975. They also accept that only the name 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 217 


Chromis is affected by Emery’s conclusion; the gender of generic names ending in 
—chromis is determined by the original author’s indications. They also agree that this 
is so because chromis is of variable gender and thus the gender of any name ending 
in that word is subject to the arbitrary decision of the author of the name. Only in 
cases where there is no indication of gender from any included specific name could 
there be confusion. But that case too is nicely governed by the Code, which provides 
that such names must be automatically masculine. This happens to be the gender 
Bailey et al. desire. They also established, with the help of a classical scholar, Dr 
H. D. Cameron, of the University of Michigan, that chromis may be either 
masculine or feminine. 

2. Emery, 1975, pointed out that others, while accepting the correctness of 
his conclusions, did not agree with his course of action. 

3. The essence of the request by Bailey et al. seems to be pragmatism. Thus, 
they say ‘... we may anticipate varied use in the future and needless difficulty for 
authors and editors alike’ and ‘. .. the adjectival accorded to each new species in a 
genus ending in —chromis will vary with each author’s view’. 

4. They defend the view that there will be a dichotomy of gender used by 
noting the recent description of a cichlid genus, Papiliochromis Kullander, 1977, 
which the author chose to be feminine; a choice which, under the Code, was his to 
make. They also point to the fact that Chromis has been variously considered 
masculine or feminine through the years. Only two of the works they cite post-date 
Emery, 1975, and both use the masculine gender, as was usual before Emery’s paper. 

5. Bailey er al. defend their pragmatic stance by noting the numerous species 
(probably of the order of 500 or more) that have —chromis in their generic names, 
and whose endings could thus be affected. They imply that such instability will be an 
inevitable result of the strict application of the Code. 

6. I disagree with that conclusion and believe that the rules of the Code are 
clear and do not promote instability for the following reasons: 

(a) The Code states that, for names derived from words of variable gender, 
the original describer should state or indicate the gender to be used. Thenceforth the 
gender of that particular name is stable. If the gender is not stated or indicated by 
the author it is masculine by default. This rule also applies to compound words; thus 
any —chromis name for which the author did not fix the gender is masculine by 
default (Article 30a(i) (2)). This is not the case for Chromis: the decision was made 
by the original describer. 

(b) It is not necessary to conclude that Kullander, 1977, was influenced by 
Emery, 1975, in choosing feminine for his new name Papiliochromis. He gives no 
reason for his choice and may just as easily have been influenced by the gender of the 
name of its closest relative, Apistogramma [correctly neuter, Ed.] as by Emery’s 
paper, which he did not cite. Emery specifically stated: ‘Several have worried that if 
Chromis is changed to feminine it could affect the nomenclature of other groups, 
such as the cichlids, particularly Hemichromis and Haplochromis, but these fears 
are unfounded because the gender of each generic name must be considered 
independently, based on the author’s use. It happens that Hemichromis and 
Haplochromis remain masculine’. 

(c) The fact that a generic name has fixed the ending of a specific name in no 
way makes that ending sacrosanct. If the species is found to belong more properly in 
another genus, it takes the ending appropriate to the gender of the new generic 
name. This may be inconvenient for non-taxonomists familiar with the old spelling, 
but it does not detract from the long-term stability of nomenclature. Bailey et al. 
chose a particularly unfortunate example in citing Haplochromis ‘with approxi- 


218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


mately 300 species’. This genus has recently been restricted to only five species by 
Greenwood (1979, p. 317), one of the authors of Bailey. et al. He suggested that the 
remaining species be transferred to other genera. He recommended transferring one 
particularly large assemblage from Lake Malawi to Cyrtocara, a genus with a 
non-masculine name. Thus the genus with the most contentious name (for Bailey et 
al.) is no longer relevant and all the species they hoped would not have the endings 
changed are liable to be changed anyway, and perhaps only temporarily. 

7. Several criticisms of Emery (1975) by Bailey et a/. can be rebutted: 

(a) They wrongly claim that Emery regarded Desmarest, 1814, to be 
non-binominal. He specifically dated Chromis from that work, which he could not 
have done if he had regarded it as non-binominal. He cited non-binominal uses of 
Chromis by Browne, 1756 and of Chromis by Lacepéde, 1802. 

(b) They claim that Cuvier was inconsistent in his treatment of Chromis as 
feminine. I find no such inconsistencies. In 1814, in Desmarest, he referred seven 
species to the genus, but only two of their names (both new, and both feminine) are 
combined with Chromis; the others are combined with the names of the genera 
(Labrus, Sparus) from which they were transferred. Many species now placed in 
Chromis were described in Heliases, which is masculine. 

(c) Emery did indeed note the use of feminine endings in the 1960 and 
masculine endings in the 1970 editions of Bailey er a/. He refrained from pointing 
out the inconsistencies in gender endings in the 1960 edition. 

(d) The spelling ‘Desmarets’ for ‘Desmarest’ was taken from a French work 
(Hureau & Monod, 1973, p. 424) because I had no access to the original work. 
‘Desmarest’ is, of course, correct. 

8. The proposal by Bailey er a/., 1980,dealing with an issue where the Code 
gives a clearly defined answer, can only lead to confusion and to further requests to 
except nomenclaturally impeccable names from the application of the Code. I there- 
fore ask the Commission not to use the plenary powers to rule that Chromis and 
names ending in —chromis are masculine but to let the rules of the Code apply. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 


It is a pleasure to acknowledge the diligent help of Dr R. Winterbottom in 
criticizing this manuscript. Part of this study was supported by a Natural Sciences 
and Engineering Research Council Grant to the author. 


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 


BROWNE, P. 1756 (2nd edit. 1759). Civil and natural history of Jamaica. London. 

DEAN, B. 1916. A bibliography of fishes. Vol. 1, publications by authors A-K. New 
York, Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 

HUREAU, J. C. & MONOD, T., Eds. 1973. CLOFNAM I, vol. 1. Checklist of the 
fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Paris (Unesco), 
683 pp. 

LACEPEDE, G. B. 1802. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3. Paris, Plassan. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 219 


COMMENT ON THE REVISED PROPOSALS FOR STABILISATION OF 
THE NAMES OF CERTAIN GENERA AND SPECIES OF 
HOLOTHUROIDEA Z.N.(S.)1782 
(see vol. 39, pp. 29-35) 


By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, RA 2300 
Leiden, Netherlands) 


Parts (1), (2) and (3): In the cases Acolpos Brandt, 1835 vs. Thymoscia 
Pearson, 1914; Trepang Jaeger, 1833 vs. Halodeima Pearson, 1914; and 
Gymnochirota Brandt, 1835 vs. Semperothuria Deichmann, 1958, one wonders if it is 
really worth while using the plenary powers to save the junior of these pairs, all of 
which, if I understand the application correctly, are only in use as subgenera. Also 
the advantage of being able to use names as old as 1835 instead of those published in 
1914 and 1958 seems quite great to me. If, however, usage is such that the strict 
adherence to the Principle of Priority would make chaos, I would favour the course 
by which the junior name is given precedence over the senior, rather than suppress 
the senior name outright. 

Part (4) Oncinolabes: | am not greatly impressed by the arguments in favour 
of suppressing the specific name mollis Brandt, 1835. In the last 52 years its junior 
synonym has only been used 6 times (and 3 of these by the same author). Would it 
not be much simpler to follow the Rules and adopt the name mollis for the species, 
and not to go to all the rigmarole of having the (evidently) rather insignificant name 
glabra Semper, 1868, conserved? 

Part (5) Holothuria aethiops: The same situation as in the previous case exists 
here, except that there are 10 publications (4 by the same author) in the last 50 years 
using the junior synonym. 

Part (6) Holothuria glaberrima: If glaberrima Risso, 1827, is suppressed, 
then all usages of the name Holothuria glaberrima prior to the establishment of 
Holothuria glaberrima Selenka, 1867 should also be suppressed. The date of Risso’s 
name is September 1827 (see Sherborn, Index Anim. 1800-1850, vol. 1, p. cviii; and 
Monod & Hureau, 1977, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Nice, vol. 5, p. 161). 

I am not convinced, in any of these 6 cases, that a consistent application 
of the Principle of Priority is not the simplest, shortest and best way out of the 
problems. 


COMMENTS ON THE REPORT ON GLYPHIPTERIX HUBNER, [1825] 
Z.N(S.)2115 
(see vol. 41, pp. 250-253) 


By J. D. Bradley (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, U.K.) 
and K. Sattler (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) 


In his recent report on Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825], the Secretary of the 
Commission submitted a revised proposal for consideration by the Commission. 
His proposal hinges on the assumption that Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, is an 
emendation of Glyphipterix Hibner, [1825]; this assumption is demonstrably false. 

The Secretary’s report asserts that in 1827 Curtis knew Hiibner’s works when 
establishing the name Glyphipteryx, but this is not entirely correct. Curtis was 


220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


certainly aware of Hiibner’s Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, making fre- 
quent reference throughout his text to plates and figures in that work. However, in 
none of Curtis’s folios published before 1835 is there a direct or indirect reference to 
the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, which is the only work of Hubner relevant 
to this case. In 1835, that is eight years after the publication of Glyphipteryx, and 
subsequently, Curtis includes-genera from Hiibner’s Verzeichniss in his synonymies. 
Moreover, in folio 563, published 1 September 1835, Curtis stated with reference to 
Cynaeda Hibner, [1825], Verzeichniss, p. 346, ‘I indicated this peculiar insect as a 
Genus in my Guide, unconscious at that time of Hubner having done so before 
me...’. The Guide referred to was published in 1829—{1831], and the part relevant 
to this case appeared in [1831], four years after the publication of Glyphipteryx. In 
this Guide there is further indirect evidence to show that as late as 1831 Curtis was 
unaware of the existence of Hubner’s Verzeichniss. 

Curtis used the term ‘Nobis’ to indicate new taxa as well as emendations; 
however, in the latter case he invariably cites the emended name as well; for example 
‘Argyromiges Nob. — Argyromis Ste.’ (1829, folio 284) or ‘Radiellus Nobis. — 
radiella Hiib. Schmet.’ (1826, folio 109). No such reference is made under 
Glyphipteryx. 

In folio 535 (published 1 February 1835) Curtis accepted the name Harpi- 
pterix Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss, p. 407, citing it exclusively (four times) in this 
spelling. Moreover, he specifically stated ‘I have therefore adopted Hibner’s name 
of Harpipterix (Scythe—winged)’. 

The contention that Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825], and Glyphipteryx Curtis, 
1827, were confused in the past, or are likely to be confused in the future, seems 
almost irrelevant as these taxa are widely separated in the classification of the 
Lepidoptera. Similar cases of close orthography exist in generic names elsewhere, 
and as there is no evidence of confusion in the current literature there is no 
justification to suppress Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827. 

In view of these facts we believe that this case is best resolved without 
recourse to the plenary powers, as outlined in our previous proposal in Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 35, p. 72, which we re-submit in full for reconsideration by the 
Commission. 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY 
BETWEEN CAECILIIDAE IN AMPHIBIA AND INSECTA (PSOCOPTERA) 
Z.N.(S.)2333 
(see vol. 40, pp. 124-128) 


By Marvalee H. Wake (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, 
California 94720, U.S.A.) 


I support the initial proposal offered by R. A. Nussbaum and E. Mockford 
as published in vol. 40, pp. 124-128. The family names proposed by Nussbaum and 
Mockford have the utility of simplicity and discrete association with the members 
they represent. I see Smith & Polhemus’ point about the absence of a nominal genus 
with the spelling implied by the family name CAECILIONIDAE, but find the arguments 
about potential problems less than compelling. The arguments for both the formal 
and vernacular names suggested by Smith & Polhemus pose spelling and pronunci- 
ation problems, and lack the clarity of association and discrete separation of the 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 221 


names proposed by Nussbaum & Mockford. While utility might not be the most 
impressive argument to nomenclatural purists, I can assure you that it has great 
appeal to those of us, who, as in this case, are the primary ‘users’ of such a 
classification. 


909) Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1328 
BELEMNITES MUCRONATUS SCHLOTHEIM, 1813 (COLEOIDEA): 
CONSERVED AND NEOTYPE DESIGNATED 


RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name mucronatus Link, 1807, as published in the 
binomen Belemnites mucronatus, and all other uses prior to 
its use by Schlotheim, 1813, are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) all designations of type specimen hitherto made for the 
nominal species Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813, are 
hereby set aside and specimen number kca 5/2 in the collec- 
tions of the Niedersachsisches Landesamt fiir Bodenforschung, 
Hanover, BRD, is designated as neotype of that species. 

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

(a) Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by subsequent designation by Herrmannsen, 1846, Belemnites 
mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Name Number 2269); 

(b) Belemnella Nowak, 1913 (gender: feminine), type species 
by subsequent designation by von Bilow-Trummer, 1920, 
Belemnites lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Name Number 
2270); 

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

(a) mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the binomen 
Belemnites mucronatus, and as defined by the neotype desig- 
nated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (specific name 
of the type species of Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840) (Name 
Number 2979) 

(b) lanceolatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the binomen 
Belemnites lanceolatus (specific name of the type species of 
Belemnella Nowak, 1913) (Name Number 2980). 

(4) The family name BELEMNITELLIDAE Pavlow, 1914 (type genus 
Belemitella d’Orbigny, 1840) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 572. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1160 


An application for the use of plenary powers to attribute Belemnites 
mucronatus to Schlotheim, 1813 and to designate a neotype in conformity 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 223 


with current usage was first received from Dr J. A. Jeletzky, then of the 
Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, on 8 September 1956. After a long 
period of correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 17 
December 1963 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 21, pp. 268-302. 
Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the same 
part of the Bulletin and to the statutory serials, six general and two palaeon- 
tological serials. The application was supported in general terms by Dr C. 
W. Wright (London), Mr R. V. Melville (British Embassy, Paris), Professor 
D. T. Donovan (Hull University, U.K.) and Dr C. L. Forbes (University of 
Cambridge, U.K.). Alternative proposals concerning the neotype selection 
were received from Mr N. B. Peake (Norwich, U.K.) & Dr. J. M. Hancock 
(Kings College, London) and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22, pp. 
343-345. Support for these proposals was received from Mr R. V. Melville 
and Mr C. J. Wood (Geological Survey and Museum, London, U.K.) and 
published in Bul. zool. Nom., vol. 23, pp. 70-71. A further comment 
concerning the proposed neotype was received from Dr D. P. Naidin 
(Lomonosov University of Moscow, USSR) and published in Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 28, pp. 131-138. A comment by Dr W. K. Christensen 
(Mineralogisk-Geologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark), Prof. Dr G. 
Ernst (/nstitut fiir Paldontologie der Freien Universitat Berlin), Prof. Dr F. 
Schmid (Niedersdchsisches Landesamt fiir Bodenforschung, Hannover, BRD), 
Dr M. G. Schulz (Geol.-Paldont. Institut der Universitat Kiel, BRD) and Mr 
C. J. Wood (Institute of Geological Sciences, London, U.K.) offering alter- 
native proposals to those of Jeletzky and Naidin for the designation of a 
neotype was published in Geol. Jahrb., vol. A9, pp. 41-45. These were 
eventually drafted into a revised and updated application by the Secretary 
and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 141-145. Reasons for the 
rejection of the two previous proposals by Jeletzky and Naidin are given in 
the abstract preceding the application on p. 141. No other comments were 
received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-month rule on Voing Paper (1984)59 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 144-145. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, 
Schuster, Bayer, Heppell (in part), Binder 

Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. 


224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: “A much more sensible solution would have been to make 
the neotype for Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807, as; 

(1) then Link’s name had not to be suppressed under the plenary 
powers; 

(2) the valid specific name for the species would have been 6 years 
older, and thus less likely to have senior synonyms or senior 
homonyms; 

(3) the specific name remains the same; 

(4) Link’s species is so vaguely described that any neotype material 
fits it, and as no type material of it is known to exist, the 
neotype selection could have been done without recourse to the 
plenary powers. 

Of Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, on the other hand, we know 
that it is (at least partly) based on a species different from the one for which 
the name is used at present and which is represented by the neotype. 

‘The procedure adopted now is unnecessarily complicated. How- 
ever, as it produces the desired solution I vote for it.’ 

Heppell: ‘I vote for the proposals in this case but believe there should 
be a small emendation to the wording of paragraph 8(1)b. That used is 
appropriate only for cases where an existing holotype or lectotype designa- 
tion is set aside by the Commission in favour of a new lectotype designation 
from the original type series. In cases of neotype designation it is usually 
necessary to show that all original material (including in this case the 
specimen(s) figured by Breynius and Faujas) has been lost or destroyed, and 
that the neotype is consistent with the original type material (whereas in this 
case the applicants state that the Breynius figures illustrate a species not 
even congeneric with Belemnitella mucronata auct.) In this case, therefore, 
it is obviously necessary not only to set aside the earlier designations of 
neotype by Jeletzky and by Naidin, but also to set aside all original type 
material extant or illustrated. For that reason I believe paragraph 8(1)b of 
the application should have read; ‘to set aside all original type material and 
all designation of type material hitherto made...’ and that this should be 
indicated in the published Opinion.’ [This has been done. RVM] 

‘As the nominal species B. mucronata is now to be defined by the 
neotype designated under the plenary powers it would seem immaterial 
whether the name is attributed to Link, 1807, or to Schlotheim, 1813, except 
to indicate the date of its priority. I would have thought in those circum- 
stances that the earlier attribution would have been preferable, but if the 
applicants are content that no other name published between 1807 and 1813 
is likely to complicate the issue I am happy to acquiese in what seems to 
have become general usage.’ 

Dupuis; ‘Jai pris a la lettre argument selon lequel “stratigraphic 
nomenclature would be violently disturbed by the transfer of the term 
‘“Mucronata zone’ from a Campanian to a Maestrichtian zone’. Pour 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 225 


oeuvrer conformément a ce souci, il convenait, me semble-t-il, de se référer 
a un “topotype” provenant de la localité stratotypique de la zone a 
mucronata. Barrois, 1876 est cite comme l’auteur de cette “zone”. La 
requéte, telle qu’elle figure au Bull. 39: 141-145 ne permet cependant pas de 
juger s'il existe un rapport objectif entre le stratotype (if any) de Barrois et 
les stratotypes implicites d’Angleterre, de Russie ou d’Allemagne que l’on 
nous propose, avec autant de candidats néotypes pour mucronata que de 
nations. Il ne semble pas, au demeurant, que l’on ait recherché des 
matériaux de Barrois. Aussi longtemps qu’un candidat néotype ne provien- 
dra pas de la localité stratotypique (vraisemblablement située dans le Bassin 
anglo-parisien) je resterai sourd a l’argument de “current usage’, mis en 
avant pour la forme et aussitdt éclipsé par des considérations plus ou moins 
nationalistes.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Belemnella Nowak, 1913, Bull. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Ser. B, 1913, pp. 393, 


403-405 

Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840, Paléontologie francaise, Terr. Crét., vol. 1 
(Ceph), p. 59 

BELEMNITELLIDAE Pavlow, 1914, Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg, vol. 
21(4), p.7 


lanceolatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813, Leonhard’s Tasch. Min., vol. 7, 
peek 

mucronatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813, Leonhard’s Tasch. Min., vol. 7, 
pe 1it. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)59 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1328. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

20 February 1985 


226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1329 
GALAGO CRASSICAUDATUS E. GEOFFROY, 1812 (PRIMATES, 
GALIGIDAE): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type 
specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Galago crassicaudatus E. 
Geoffroy, 1812 are hereby set aside and the specimen described by Olson, 
1980, is hereby designated as neotype of that species. 

(2) The specific name crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812, as published 
in the binomen Galago crassicaudatus. and as defined by reference to the 
neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2981. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2285 


An application for the designation of a neotype for Galago crassi- 
caudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 was first received from Dr T. R. Olsen (now of 
City University of New York, U.S.A.) on 29 September 1978. After some 
correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 9 October 1979 
and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 
176-185. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in 
the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general 
and two specialist serials. The application was supported by W. F. H. 
Ansell (St. Ives, Cornwall, U.K.). No adverse comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)60 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 181 At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, 
Schuster, Bayer, Heppell 

Negative Votes — two (2) Dupuis, Binder. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were received from 
Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen and Savage. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Dupuis: La requéte mise aux voix concerne essentiellement des ques- 
tions taxinomiques. Elle n’apporte que des informations nomenclatoriales 
insuffisantes (quelles sont les autres espéces et sous-espéces en cause? Quelle 
est l’espéce-type d’ Otolemur? Quels sont le statut, l’auteur et la date de 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 227 


garnettii?). Elle ne donne aucune certitude taxinomique (Pourquoi, en 1951 
encore, le specimen de Londres était-il déterminé garnettii? Pourquoi, en 
1963 encore, y avait-il des divergences quant a l’identité spécifique du crane 
de Paris?). Des requérants, fussent-ils docteurs de 1979, peuvent certes 
estimer leurs avis taxinomiques plus déterminants que ceux de leurs 
devanciers. Ils doivent cependant, a l’instar de ceux-ci, avant de porter 
atteinte au statut des types, soumettre leurs éléments d’appréciation aux 
jugements de la collectivité zoologique sous une forme autre que celle d’une 
thése plus ou moins microfilmable. 

En ces conditions, j’estime qu'il n’y a pas matiére a un vote de 
nomenclature et, a tout le moins, qu’on ne peut pas voter objectivement. Je 
vote toutefois contre, en considération de deux postulats de méthode et 
d’éthique: 1) un néotype constitue toujours un faux historique; 2) le BM 
(NH) posséde assez de types et n’a nul besoin de s’enrichir d’un néotype 
contestable! 

Binder: ‘The holotype of Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy is not 
lost and has been usable since it was established. We cannot start replacing 
old types just because somebody has a better specimen.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following is the original reference to a name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
crassicaudatus, Galago, E. Geoffroy, 1812, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 

19, p. 166. 

The following is the original reference to the proposition of a 
neotype for Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812: 

Olsen, T. R. 1980. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 182-183. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)60 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1329. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

20 February 1985 


228 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1330 
PRODORYLAIMUS ANDRASSY, 1959 (NEMATODA): 
TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED 


RULING — Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959, 
are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides 
Altherr, 1968 is designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (gender: 
masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) 
above, Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name Number 2271. 

(3) The specific name Jongicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, as published in 
the binomen Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides (specific name of the type 
species of Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name Number 2982. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2129 


An application for the use of plenary powers to designate a type 
species for Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 was first received from Dr 
P. A. A. Loof (Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, The Netherlands) on 18 
June 1975. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the 
printers on 9 October 1979 and published on 8 May 1980 in Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 37, pp. 34-36. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general and six specialist serials. Comment was received 
from Dr L. B. Holthuis (in litt.) and together with a reply from Dr Loof was 
incorporated in V.P. (1984) 7 as an alternative proposal. On 12 March 1984 
the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three- 
month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)7 for either Dr Loof’s or Dr Holthuis’s 
proposals. At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 there were 
fourteen (14) affirmative votes for Dr Loof’s proposals and nine (9) affirm- 
ative votes for Dr Holthuis’s proposals. Two (2) Commissioners did not 
return their voting papers. Thus while Dr Holthuis’s proposals received a 
minority affirmative vote and may be considered to have been rejected, Dr 
Loof’s proposals received a majority smaller than two-thirds. A revote was 
therefore taken on Dr Loof’s proposals alone. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)61 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 36. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 229 


Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, 
Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Ride, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, 
Heppell, Binder 

Negative Votes — four (4) received in the following order: Brinck, 
Mroczkowski, Willink, Kraus. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger, Dupuis and Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on Official 

Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

longicaudatoides, Prodorylaimus, Altherr, 1968, Limnol., vol. 6(2), p. 270 

Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959, Acta. zool. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae, vol. 5, p. 
196. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)61 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1330. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 February 1985 


230 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1331 
SPHAERIIDAE JEFFREYS, 1862 (1820) (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) 
AND MICROSPORIDAE REICHARDT, 1976 (INSECTA, 
COLEOPTERA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST 


RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and all subsequent uses of that name are hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle 
of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Microsporus Kolenati, 1846 (gender: mascu- 
line), type species, by monotypy, Microsporus obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2272. 

(3) The specific name obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, as published in 
the binomen Microsporus obsidianus (specific name of type species of 
Microsporus Kolenati, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2983. 

(4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (type genus Sphaerium 
Scopoli, 1777) (Name Number 573); 

(b) MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (type genus Microsporus 
Waltl, 1838) (Name Number 574). 

(5) The generic name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838, 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 
2164. 

(6) The family-group name SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 (invalid 
because the name of its type genus has been suppressed under the plenary 
powers) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 504. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1892 


An application for the removal of the homonymy of the family name 
SPHAERIIDAE in Mollusca and Insecta was first received from Dr Arthur H. 
Clarke (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa) on 20 June 1969. It 
was sent to the printer on 26 August 1969 and published on 7 April 1970 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 235-237. Public notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin 
as well as to the statutory serials and to seven entomological serials. The 
application was supported by Mr D. H. Heppell (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, 
p. 130). 

On 9 June 1971 the members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1971)15 for or against the 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 231 


proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 235—236. At the close of the 
voting period there were fifteen affirmative votes and two negative votes. 
The latter were accompanied respectively by a comment (from Professor 
Tortonese) and a set of alternative proposals (from Dr Starobogatov) that 
caused me to re-examine the case and present a revised version of it in Bull. 
zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 60-62 (published on 27 March 1975). Comments 
were published in vol. 32, pp. 201—204 and vol. 38, pp. 157-161. 

On 12 March 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)19 in two parts, 
one dealing with the Molluscan names and the other with the Coleopteran 
names. In Part | they were invited to vote either for the proposals set out in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 62, paragraphs (2)(a), (3), (7) and (8), or for 
those set out in paragraphs (1), (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b) and (5). At the close of 
the voting period on 12 June 1984 there were nineteen votes in favour of the 
first alternative and three in favour of the second. In Part 2 of V.P. (84)19 
the members were asked to vote either for the proposals set out in vol. 32, 
p. 61, paragraphs (1), (2)(b), (4) and (5), or for those in vol. 38, p. 158, 
paragraphs (a) to (d). At the close of the voting period on 12 June 1984 
there were ten votes in favour of each alternative. 

The result of this vote was to decide the issue of the generic names 
involved, on which the Secretary and Dr Starobogatov had differing views, 
but not to resolve Dr Clarke’s original problems of the homonymous family 
names. The decision so taken was published as Direction 117 (Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 42, pp. 43-45). 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)63 either for 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 203 and on p. 62, para- 
graphs (2)(a), (2)(b), (4) and (5) or for those set out in vol. 38, p. 158, paras 
(a)(d). At the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of 
the voting was as follows: 

For the first alternative; — fifteen (15) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, 
Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Binder 

For the second alternative—four (4) received in the following 
order: Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin. 

Lehtinen returned a late vote for the second alternative. No votes 
were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Halvorsen, Dupuis and Savage. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 204 


232 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Microsporus Kolenati, 1846, Melet. entomol. vol. 5, p. 64 
obsidianus, Microsporus, Kolenati, 1846, Melet. entomol. vol. 5, p. 64 
SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845, Naturges. Ins. Deutschland, Abth. 1, vol. 3, 
p. 38 
SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820), British Conchology vol. 1, p. 1 
(Under Article 40b this name takes the date in parentheses of 
Cycladia Rafinesque, 1820, Ann. gén. Sci. phys. vol. 5, p. 318) 
Sphaerius Waltl, 1838, Isis (Oken), 1838, column 272. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(84)63 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 Iaternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is 
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1331. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 Februay 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 233 


OPINION 1332 
CALAMOECIA AUSTRALICA SARS, 1908 AND CALAMOECIA 
AUSTRALIS (SEARLE, 1911) (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): 
PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE CONFUSION REJECTED 


RULING. — (1) The request to use the plenary powers to suppress 
the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but 
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy is hereby refused: 

(a) australis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella 
australis; 

(b) viridis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella 
viridis. 

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

(a) australica Sars, 1908 as published in the binomen Calamoecia 
australica (Name Number 2984); 

(b) australis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella 
australis (Name Number 2985). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2242 


An application for the use of plenary powers to remove potential 
confusion between Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia 
australis (Searle, 1911) was first received from Dr I. A. E. Bayly (then of 
Department of Zoology, Westfield College, London, now of Monash Univer- 
sity, Victoria, Australia) on 21 December 1977. After some correspondence 
a revised draft was sent to the printers on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 
September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 165-166. Public notice of 
the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin, to the statutory journals, to seven general and two specialist 
serials. No comment was received. 

On 12 March 1984 the Commissioners were invited to vote under the 
Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)5 for or against the proposals set 
out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, p. 166. At the close of the voting period on 
12 June 1984 there were 15 affirmative and 8 negative votes and a less than 
two-thirds majority resulted. The following comments were returned by 
members of the Commission with their voting papers: 

Willink: ‘I don’t see any reason to change one of the names as it 
seems to me that the two are different enough to keep them’. 

Mroczkowski: ‘I vote against because the names “australian” (latin: 
australica) and “southern” (latin: australis) are of different origin and 
meaning. Moreover, as the specific names australica and australis are not of 
the same origin and meaning, and are not variable spellings (Art. 58), the 
danger of confusion is minimal and the whole petition is groundless.’ 

Hahn: ‘The words australis and australica differ in more than one 
letter and are easily distinguishable—I cannot see a confusion. If the 


234 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Commission would follow the application of Dr Bayly, hundreds of names 
would have to be suppressed, differing only in -is and -ica, and confusion 
would certainly follow. Therefore, I strictly vote no.’ 

Kraus: ‘There is, apparently, sufficient difference between the two 
congeneric specific names australica and australis. Confusion may be easily 
prevented by a minimum of attention. Concrete cases of confusion are not 
mentioned in the application, and it is only referred to in the aspect of 
“obvious potential for confusion’”’.’ 

Heppell: ‘No case has been made that the “obvious potential for 
confusion” would be sufficient for the ICZN to lose any sleep over it. If 
we can cope with the abundant literature on both Littorina littorea and L. 
littoralis we can surely cope with Calamoecia australica and C. australis.’ 

A report on the case was prepared by the Secretary and circulated to 
the Commissioners at the time of the subsequent revote. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)62 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 166. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — one (1) Alvarado 

Negative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Ride, Kraus, 
Corliss, Schuster, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger and Savage. 

Binder commented: ‘The potential for confusion is not very great. 
Since the proposition was not accepted by a two-thirds majority vote of the 
Commission, it shows that the case is not convincing enough to justify an 
exemption of the rules and it should clearly be rejected.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
australica, Calamoecia, Sars,1908, Arch, math, Naturvidensk., vol. 29(7), p.12 
australis, Brunella, Searle, 1911, Victorian Nat., vol. 27, p. 176 


NOTE ON THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THIS CASE 


Although the proposals to place australica, Calamoecia and 
expansa, Brunella on the Official List and australis, Brunella and viridis, 
Brunella on the Official Index were rejected, an entry in the Official List is 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 235 


the only way in which the fact can be recorded that the specific names 
australica Sars, 1908 and australis Searle, 1911 have been considered by the 
Commission. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)62 were 
cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been rejected, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded 
in the present Opinion No. 1332. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 February 1985 


236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1333 
IPNOPS MURRAYI GUNTHER, 1878 (OSTIECHTHYES): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Lychnoculus Murray, 1877 and the associated specific name mirabilis 
Murray, 1877, as published in the binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Jpnops Giinther, 1878 (gender: masculine), 
type species, by monotypy, /pnops murrayi Giinther, 1878, is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2273: 

(3) The specific name murrayi Ginther, 1878, as published in the 
binomen Jpnops murrayi (specific name of the type species of Jpnops 
Ginther, 1878) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2986. 

(4) The family-group name IPNOPIDAE Jordan, 1923 (type genus 
Ipnops Giinther, 1878) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 575. 

(5) The generic name Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2165. 

(6) The specific name mirabilis, Murray, 1877 as published in the 
binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
1153. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1393 


An application for the conservation of both the generic and specific 
names Jpnops murrayi Giinther, 1878 was first received from Dr G. W. 
Mead (then of U.S. Department of Interior, Washington D.C.) on 21 
October 1958. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the 
printers on 31 January 1962 and published on 10 September 1962 in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 19, pp. 295-296. Public notice of the possible use of plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, to the 
statutory serials, to seven general and one specialist serial. No comments 
were received. 

Due to the problematical interpretation of Article 23b at that time, 
the case was never voted upon. In 1981 the case was rewritten and published 
on 11 March 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 27-28. Public notice of 
the possible use of plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin, to the statutory serials, to seven general and four specialist 
serials. No comments were received. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 237 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (84)42 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 28. At the close 
of the voting period on 13 December the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Uéno, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, 
Ride, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger and Savage. 

Ride commented: ‘Although no evidence of usage of Jpnops murrayi 
is given beyond a general statement (Art. 79c), I accept that the Secretary 
has confirmed the statement and assume that a prima facia case is 
established’. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
IPNOPIDAE Jordan, 1923, Stanford Univ. Publ. Biol. Sci., vol. 3, p. 155 
Ipnops Gunther, 1878, Ann. mag. Nat. hist., ser. 5, no. 8, 1878, p. 187 
Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, Science Lectures for the People, ser. 9, vol. 4, 


Pp) ia2 

mirabilis, Lychnoculus, Murray, 1877, Science Lectures for the People, ser. 
9, vol. 4, p. 132 

murrayi, Ipnops, Gunther, 1878, Ann. mag. Nat. hist., ser. 5, no. 8, 1878, 
p. 187. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)42 were 
cast as set out above, that the proposal has been duly adopted under the 
plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded 
in the present Opinion No. 1333. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

27 February 1985 


238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1334 
HARMINIUS FAIRMAIRE, 1851 (COLEOPTERA): 
TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED 


RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genera Harminius Fairmaire, 1851, 
and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898, are hereby set aside, and the nominal 
species Athous spiniger Candéze, 1860, is designated as type species of both 
genera. 

(2) The generic name Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (gender: mascu- 
line), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, 
Athous spiniger Candéze, 1860, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2274. 

(3) The specific name spiniger Candéze, 1860, as published in the 
binomen Athous spiniger (specific name of the type species of Harminius 
Fairmaire, 1851 and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898) is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2987. 

(4) The generic name Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 (a junior objec- 
tive synonym of Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 by reason of the ruling given 
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 2166. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2264 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type 
species for Harminius Fairmaire, 1851, was first received from Dr E. C. 
Becker (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) on 2 May 1978. 
After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 
9 October 1979 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 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 statutory serials, to seven general and seven 
specialist serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1984)34 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 50. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Schuster, Savage, Heppell, 
Binder, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Hahn, Kraus, Brinck, 
Corliss 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 239 


Negative Vote — none (0) 

Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Halvorsen and Ride were on leave of 
absence. 

No votes were returned by Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Willink. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis; “Would the indication of a neotype for H. castaneus not be 
simpler? What happens to that species anyway? Or is H. castaneus auct. 
considered a synonym of H. spiniger?’ This comment was passed on to 
Dr Becker who pointed out that he was reluctant to select a specimen of 
spiniger (=castaneus auct.) because this species does not fit Fairmaire’s 
description which described H. castaneus as an eucnemid, although sub- 
sequent authors classified it as an elaterid. Dr Becker further explained that 
he considered H. castaneus Fairmaire a species dubia and that H. castaneus 
auct. and H. spiniger would be impossible to synonymise due to the 
omission by most authors using ‘castaneus’ to specify from where their 
specimens originated. 

Dr Holthuis replied to these comments by pointing out the limi- 
tations in making H. spiniger the type of Harminius, as Fairmaire’s descrip- 
tion of this genus is also unlikely to fit that for the genus Athous for which 
Dr Becker wants to use it. It was further suggested that the Code should be 
followed and Harminius and castaneus used for the genus and species for 
which they were intended or else both considered taxa dubia. 

Dr Holthuis also noted that by placing H. castaneus as a species 
dubia it remains a threat to later established names. Finally, it was sug- 
gested by Dr Holthuis that, as the type locality of H. castaneus Fairmaire is 
Sicily, authors who recognise two species of Italian Harminius auct. would 
use H. castaneum auct. for the Southern species (H. spiniger). 

Dr Becker replied by stating that he did not know of any species 
from Sicily that would match Fairmaire’s description of H. castaneus. 
However he was willing to designate a specimen of H. spiniger as neotype if 
the Commission demanded it, although he felt this would be inconsistent 
with Article 75d(4). 

Dr Holthuis intimated that he did not want to force his ideas on Dr 
Becker and they were only meant as an easier solution to the problem. The 
present Opinion has therefore been prepared around the original proposals. 

Mroczkowski: ‘The generic name Harminius was described by 
Fairmaire one year earlier in November 1851 in Rev. mag. zool. Paris, (2), 
vol. 3, p. 527-528.’ This has been incorporated into the present Opinion. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 Rev. mag. zool. Paris, (2), vol. 3, p. 527-528. 


240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898, Atti. Soc. Nat. Modena, (3), vol. 16, p. 162 
spiniger, Athous, Candéze, 1860, Mem. Soc. r. Sci. Liége, vol. 15, p. 460-461. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (84)34 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1334. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

28 February 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 241 


OPINION 1335 
NEPA CINEREA LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the first reviser action of Esaki, 1926 is hereby set aside; 

(b) it is hereby ruled that the specific name cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 
is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name 
rubra Linnaeus, 1758, whenever the two names are considered 
synonyms. 

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

(a) cinerea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa 
cinerea, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence 
over rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa 
rubra, whenever the two names are considered synonyms 
(Name Number 2988); 

(b) rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa rubra, 
with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758, whenever the two names are 
considered synonyms (Name Number 2989). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2144 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to conserve the 
name Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 was first received from Dr I. M. 
Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad) on 4 September 1975. It was sent 
to the printers on 12 August 1980 and published on 30 April 1981 in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 138-141. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 

On 13 June 1984 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984) 28 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 140. At the close of the 
voting period on 13 September 1984 there were fifteen (15) affirmative votes 
and (2) negative. During the voting Professor L. B. Holthuis questioned the 
total suppression of Nepa rubra and recommended the use of the relative 
precedence procedure. This proposition was put to Dr Kerzhner and he 
agreed. Accordingly V.P. (1984)28 was re-issued offering the choice of 
either republishing the case and giving public notice of the revised pro- 
posals suggested by Professor Holthuis or the more parsimonious alterna- 
tive of voting directly on the relative precedence procedure, details of which 
were included in a paper circulated to all Commissioners. This voting 
paper was despatched on 13 September 1984 but at the close of the voting 
period on 13 December 1984 some Commissioners had voted for both 


242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


alternatives although they were mutually exclusive. This fact was brought 
to the attention of the Commissioners concerned and their votes adjusted 
accordingly. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)28 for or 
against the alternatives described above. At the close of the voting period 
on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Brinck, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, 
Trjapitzin, Halvorsen, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride, 
Corliss, Bayer, Dupuis, Binder 

Negative Votes — one (1) Heppel. 

Lehtinen was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Cogger, Savage, Schuster and Uéno. 

Heppell commented: ‘If a majority of the Commission has already 
voted for paragraphs 9(1—3) of the application, the specific name rubra is 
rejected whatever action any second or subsequent ‘reviser’ may have 
taken. Paragraph 9(1) is merely stating what is implied in the action 
requested in paragraph 9(3) and a vote for 9(1) is an automatic consequence 
of voting for 9(3). It would be impossible to vote against 9(1) but for 9(3). 
Therefore Holthuis’s objection seems quite groundless and this second vote 
totally unnecessary. The applicant has shown that rubra is either a synonym 
of cinerea or a nomen dubium. What possible reason can there be for 
preserving this name, for its use in the future in any sense can only be 
contrary to the stability of zoological nomenclature? Let us reserve the use 
of conditional suppression for those few cases where there is a genuine 
reason for caution owing to taxonomic uncertainty.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
cinerea, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 440 
rubra, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 440. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)28 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 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 243 


taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1335. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

30 April 1985 


244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1336 
FIVE SPECIFIC NAMES PROPOSED AS NEW FOR THE GENUS 
HETERODERA A. SCHMIDT, 1871 (ASCHELMINTHES, 
NEMATODA) BY B. A. COOPER, 1955 RULED TO BE AVAILABLE 


RULING. — (1) The request for the use of plenary powers to 
conserve Heterodera urticae Mathews, 1970, through the suppression of 
Heterodera urticae Pogosyan, 1962, is hereby refused. 

(2) The specific names bifenestra, limonii, methwoldensis, polygoni 
and urticae as published in the binomina Heterodera bifenestra, Heterodera 
limonii, Heterodera methwoldensis, Heterodera polygoni and Heterodera 
urticae in the paper by B. A. Cooper, 1955, ‘A preliminary key to British 
species of Heterodera for use in soil examination’, pages 269-280, in 
D. K. McE. Kevan (Ed.) Soil Zoology, Proceedings of the University of 
Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, Butterworth, are 
hereby ruled available for use in zoological nomenclature and placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) bifenestra Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen 
Heterodera bifenestra (Name Number 2990); 

(b) limonii Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera 
limonii (Name Number 2991); 

(c) methwoldensis Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen 
Heterodera methwoldensis (Name Number 2992); 

(d) polygoni Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen 
Heterodera polygoni (Name Number 2993); 

(e) urticae Cooper, 1955, as published in the binomen Heterodera 
urticae (Name Number 2994). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2066 


An enquiry into the status of five new nematode names was first 
received from Dr A. R. Stone (Rothamsted Experimental Station, U.K.) on 
20 February 1974. The need for a ruling on the availability of these names 
was identified and a draft application was prepared and subsequently 
revised, at the request of Dr Stone, to incorporate a request for the use of 
plenary powers to suppress Heterodera urticae Pogosyan, 1962. The result- 
ing draft was sent to the printers on 27 August 1974 and published on 31 
December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, pp. 225-227. Public notice of 
the possible use of plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, seven general and one 
nematological serial. 

Critical comments questioning the basis on which the names should 
be ruled unavailable were received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum 
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands), Dr W. M. Watts and Dr S. 
Andersson (DSIR, Auckland, New Zealand and National Swedish Institute 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 245 


for Plant Protection, Akarp, Sweden) and Dr R. M. Jeffords (Houston, 
Texas, U.S.A.) and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 32, p. 100, vol. 32, pp. 
207-208 and vol. 33, pp. 69-70 respectively. 

Support for the proposals was received from Dr J. F. Southey 
(MAFF, Harpenden, U.K.), Dr H. J. P. Mathews (Ministry of Agriculture, 
Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland, U.K.), Dr R. H. Mulvey (Biosystematics 
Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) and Dr A. M. Golden (USDA, 
Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1978)25 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 226-227. At the 
close of the voting period on 27 December 1978 the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—three (3) received in the following order: 
Tortonese, Welch, Kraus 

Negative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: 
Melville, Mroczkowski, Brinck, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, 
Willink, Habe, Binder, Corliss, Heppell, Bayer, Cogger, Nye, Dupuis, 
Bernardi. 

Ride was on leave of absence, Sabrosky abstained. No votes were 
returned by Starobogatov. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Eisenmann: ‘With some regret, I must agree with those objecting to 
the application that Cooper’s 1955 names are available under the Code. 
This view would not preclude rejection of such names by exercising the 
plenary powers, if an application showed reasons such as maintenance of 
predominant usage, avoidance of confusion etc.’ 

Alvarado: ‘I think that the names fulfil the requirements of Article 
13a. The comments by L. B. Holthuis seem strong enough to me. In the 
Code there is a well established point: ‘rules for nomenclatural purposes’. 
Taxonomy is another question.’ 

Bayer: ‘I concur fully with the arguments against this proposal 
raised by Holthuis, Watts & Andersson, and Jeffords.’ 

Cogger: ‘I agree with the comments made by the application’s 
opponents, notably those of Jeffords. Recognition of Cooper’s names 
does not raise a nomenclatural problem but rather a taxonomic one which 
can be solved by taxonomic specialists using the conventional methods of 
systematic zoology.’ 

Heppell: ‘The comments against the proposals demonstrate that 
Cooper’s specific names are available nomenclaturally, even if they are 


246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


species inquirendae taxonomically. It seems farcical to me that if the 
Commission rejects this application it is obliged to enter such names on the 
Official List of Specific Names which is thereby reduced to a mere index of 
its decisions.’ 

Kraus: ‘A decision by the Commission is necessary as the question of 
the availability of Cooper’s names evidently is a source of controversy. I 
feel that the original author (Cooper) as well as the editor (Kevan) expressly 
did not have the intention to introduce new names in 1955. There is no 
necessity to place doubtful names (for species inquirendae) on the Official 
List,’ 

Nye: ‘These names published by Cooper in 1955 fulfilled the require- 
ments of the Code and were thereby established.’ 

Bernardi: ‘Les noms de Cooper me semblent utilisables au sens du 
Code.’ 

Depuis: ‘Ce.vote est conforme a l’avis recueilli auprés de M. Michel 
Luc, spécialiste en phytonématodes.’ 

Sabrosky: ‘It seems to me that many of the comments do not cor- 
rectly consider the real point of the application, indeed the application itself 
does not do justice to the problem. It is not a question of the importance of 
the names, of usage, of Pogosyan’s apparent misidentification, of the 
editor’s note, nor the obvious undesirability of the method. The real point 
lies in a question of principle. Are such names as those of Cooper to be 
recognized as available? 

‘I concede that if the Cooper (1955) names are considered to be 
conditional names in the sense of the Code (Art. 17(8) 2nd ed., Art. 15 3rd 
ed.), then they are available. The fundamental question is whether they are 
truly conditional names or whether they are merely names used ‘as tempor- 
ary means of reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names 
in zoological nomenclature’. This was the fundamental question addressed 
in my application (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29, pp. 131-134, 1972) regarding 
the interpretation of the Code provision ‘names proposed for other than 
taxonomic use’. (Art. 1 2nd ed.). 

‘If Cooper’s names were to be voted available, I maintain that that 
action would be inconsistent with Art. 1b(6) the provision of which now 
appears to be consistent with a decision of the International Congress of 
Zoology. 

‘The Bradley Draft, to review the background, gave expression to 
a Copenhagen Decision (p. 63, para. 114) as Art. 1, Sec. 2; ‘A Latin or 
latinized designation of an animal shall be assumed to be a name for use in 
zoological nomenclature unless its author, in publishing it, made it clear 
that such was not his intention.’ This was further stated in the Bradley 
Draft Art. 6, Sec. 6a: ‘Extra-nomenclatural names. — If it is clear that a 
given name was not intended for use in zoological nomenclature, it shall not 
be available and shall lack status for any nomenclatural purpose.’ The 2nd 
edition of the Code expressed this concisely — in retrospect too concisely — 
as ‘names proposed for other than taxonomic use, are excluded’ [from 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 247 


zoological nomenclature, Art. 1]. The 3rd edition of the Code has 
somewhat expanded the expression in an attempt to be more meaningful: 
‘as temporary means of reference and not for formal taxonomic use as 
scientific names in zoological nomenclature’. 

‘In all these expressions and in the cases that are involved, obviously 
there are names involved. Obviously there is some kind of taxonomic use, 
since names must be intended to separate | from 2, or a from b, etc, but they 
may not be for ‘formal taxonomic use’. Even vernacular names can have 
taxonomic use of a sort. Obviously the real question must be the clarity of 
the author’s statement of his usage of ‘names’. 

‘In the case of Cooper’s names, I am convinced that he made it 
abundantly clear that he was not proposing the names for formal use. (See 
quotations from Cooper in Sabrosky, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29, p. 131; 
unfortunately Stone did not quote Cooper’s most significant sentences). 
Cooper himself made clear his use of inverted commas; it was not an 
editorial insertion as Jeffords thought possible (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33, 
p. 69). 

‘The argument on “conditional names” apparently stems from 
Secretary Melville’s use of that expression, as quoted by Stone (Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 31, p. 226.). I consider that incorrect (Cooper said “provisional” 
and not “conditional”’) and particularly unfortunate because it immediately 
focused attention (Holthuis and others) on the ‘“‘conditional proposal rule” 
for names proposed before 1961, Code Article 17(8) 2nd ed.; 15 3rd ed. For 
example Jeffords (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33, p. 69), who specifically stated 
that he had not read Cooper (1955), accepted the argument of Watts & 
Andersson, who accepted Melville’s statement that Cooper’s names were 
conditionally proposed. I consider it significant that Jeffords went on to say 
“it [the Code provision, Art 1 2nd ed., Art. 1b(6) 3rd ed.] should be applied 
only where an author clearly and explicitly states or demonstrates within a 
publication that the names are not intended for taxonomic use ...’’. That 
is exactly what Cooper made clear (cf. quotations in Sabrosky, Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 29, p. 131), and I consider that his publication is a typical 
example of the problem before us. 

‘Truly conditional names, on the other hand, even though “pro- 
visional” in the sense that they are not adopted at the time of first publi- 
cation, are nevertheless proposed for formal taxonomic use, if and when the 
taxon for which they are proposed should come to be regarded as distinct. 
They are not proposed as temporary means of reference. They are intended 
to be a permanent name, if and when needed, which is quite different from 
the Cooper and other names cited in my application’. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


bifenestra, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, A preliminary key to British species 
of Heterodera for use in soil examination in Soil Zoology, Pro- 
ceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School 
in Agricultural Science, D. K. McE. Kevan (ed.), Butterworth, 
London, pp. 275, 278 

limonii, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., pp. 273, 274, 275, 276, 278 

methwoldensis, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., pp. 277, 279 

polygoni, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., pp. 273, 276, 277, 279 

urticae, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955, ibid., p. 279. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)25 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been 
duly rejected under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1336. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

9 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 249 


OPINION 1337 
SELKIRKIA COLUMBIA CONWAY MORRIS, 1977 DESIGNATED 
AS TYPE SPECIES OF SELKIRKIA WALCOTT, 1911 (PRIAPULIDA) 


RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 are 
hereby set aside and Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, 
Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2275. 

(3) The specific name columbia Conway Morris, 1977 as published 
in the binomen Selkirkia columbia (the valid name at the time of this ruling 
for the type species of Selkirkia Walcott, 1911) is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2995. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2171 


An enquiry concerning the nomenclature of certain Cambrian fossils 
was first received from Dr Simon Conway Morris (Department of Geology, 
University of Cambridge) on 8 March 1976. After a period of correspon- 
dence a formal application was received on 19 May 1976. After further 
correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 16 February 1978 
and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pp. 49-50. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to six general and 
two palaeontological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1985)1 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 50. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen and Binder. 

Holthuis commented: ‘The taxonomy of the three species is still very 
unsettled and uncertain. Furthermore none of the three seem to be of great 
importance in general, applied or popular science, and are not frequently 
used. Therefore it seems to me that there is no good reason not to apply the 


250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


rules strictly. From the application it is not clear to what genus Orthotheca 
major Walcot, 1908 (and its synonym Selkirkia gracilis Walcot, 1911) are to 
be assigned, otherwise than that it is different from the genus containing 
S. columbia. Mr Melville (in litt.) informs me that this genus is the 
true Orthotheca Novak, 1877. In that case Selkirkia would disappear in 
synonymy and cause no harm. A new generic name then has to be coined 
for S. columbia. As that species received its specific name columbia very 
recently (1977), evidently without causing any confusion, why should a new 
generic name cause so much confusion that the plenary powers of the 
Commission are needed to avoid that? [This comment resulted in prolonged 
correspondence, via the Secretary, between Dr Holthuis and the applicant. 
This eventually resulted in Dr Holthuis changing his vote to ‘for’. RVM]. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
columbia, Selkirkia, Conway Morris, 1977, Special Pap. Palaeontology, No. 
20, p33 
Selkirkia Walcott, 1911, Smithson. misc. Collns., vol. 57(5), p. 120. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1337. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

10 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 251 


OPINION 1338 
THRIPS RUFUS HALIDAY, 1836 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA); 
CONSERVED FOR THE TYPE SPECIES OF APTINOTHRIPS 
HALIDAY, 1836 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) The specific name rufus Haliday, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa [sic] is hereby exempted 
from the application of the Principle of Homonymy and of 
Article 49: 

(b) All type designations hitherto made for the nominal species 
Thrips ( Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, are hereby set aside 
and a specimen in the Haliday Collection, National Museum 
of Ireland, Dublin with the slide data, ‘Haliday/Haliday 
Collection/N.M.I. 20.2.82’, is hereby designated as neotype of 
that species; 

(c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
taxon Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836, are hereby set aside and the 
nominal species Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, is 
hereby designated as type species of that taxon; 

(2) The genus-group name Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (gender: 
masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in l(c) 
above, Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2276. 

(3) The specific name rufus Haliday, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Thrips ( Aptinothrips) rufa, as conserved under the plenary powers 
in l(a) above, and as defined by the neotype designation in 1(b) above, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2996. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2067 


An application for the suppression of Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 so 
as to validate 7. rufa Haliday, 1836 was first received from Dr L. A. 
Mound and Mrs J. M. Palmer (Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History), London) on 2 April 1974. A revised draft was sent to the 
printers on 5 April 1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 31, pp. 228-229. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to six general and seven entomological serials. Support 
was received from Dr K. O’Neill (USDA, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.). 

On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1978)26, for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom, vol. 31, pp. 288-289. At 
the close of the voting period on 27 December 1978 the state of the voting 


252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


was eighteen affirmative and two negative notes with one abstention. No 
Opinion was issued because of the comments of two members of the Com- 
mission. The comments were passed to the applicants who responded by 
drafting a new application which took into account the points raised in the 
comments. This revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 
and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 36-39. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part 
of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, six general and nine 
entomological serials. Comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis 
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) questioning the use of the 
term ‘nomenclaturally valid’. The Secretary (in /itt.) explained that a 
‘nomenclaturally valid’ name is an available name that is neither a junior 
homonym nor a junior objective synonym. Dr Holthuis agreed with 
the definition but objected to its use until formally adopted by the 
Commission. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper (1985)2 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 38-39. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Savage, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, 
Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Bayer, 
Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride, Schuster 

Negative — four (4) received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Lehtinen, Kraus, Cogger. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: ‘I still have to protest about the use of the term ““nomen- 
claturally valid” of which I still do not know the meaning, and which is 
neither used in the Code and certainly not in the Glossary.’ 

Cogger: ‘While sympathetic to the basic proposal to conserve cur- 
rent usage of the long-standing Thrips rufa (sic) Gmelin, 1790, the solution 
proposed is both cumbersome and illogical, failing in its stated objective by 
associating the name with Haliday, 1836 rather than Gmelin, 1790. If “all 
subsequent [to 1836] authors have used the name rufa in the sense of 
Haliday but have referred to it as ‘rufa’ Gmelin, 1790”, I fail to see why its 
proposed association with Haliday, 1836 is less likely to “cause confusion 
among the many applied workers who use the name” than associating the 
name with Goeze, 1778! To suggest that the use of Gmelin’s rufa is inap- 
propriate (despite Article 18) while Haliday’s rufa is not, defies logic. Few 
modern workers, especially applied ones, are likely to refer to the original 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 253 


descriptions. Further, the setting aside of the Principle of Homonymy, 
implicit in the proposal, is unwarranted and itself likely to lead to unnecess- 
ary confusion. Consequently I could support only the proposers’ first 
suggestion, viz. designate a neotype for Thrips rufus Goeze, 1778, utilizing 
Haliday material.’ 

Heppell: ‘I object to the terminology used in sections 1a and 3 of the 
proposals. Why is the expression “nomenclaturally valid” introduced? If 
this is intended to mean “enabled to be used as a valid name by removal of 
the known obstacles to the use of the name as a valid name’”’, then we have 
the term “‘conserved name” (see Code Glossary). A name cannot be ruled to 
be “‘nomenclaturally” valid without altering the sense of the term “‘valid”’ as 
defined in the Code, where it is made explicit that a taxon may have only 
one valid name. I would also point out that “the specific name rufa” cannot 
in any case be a valid name for a species without contravening Article 5. 
Furthermore it seems unnecessary to use ‘““combination”’ when binomen is 
clearly the term intended. The name of the subgenus is not part of the 
binomen and could be omitted here without loss. 

‘I also object to the stipulation “when corrected to rufus’’: this would 
seem to preclude the possibility of applying Article 34b if the species were 
for any reason transferred to a genus of feminine gender, as the proposal 
specifically excludes conservation of the feminine form. The specific name 
rufa should be placed on the Official List as in the original binomen, despite 
the incorrect gender assumed for the generic name: this would be in con- 
formity with the Commission’s precedents, e.g. the specific name vulgare 
(not vulgaris) was placed on the Official List as published in the binomen 
Octopus vulgare, even though Octopus is a genus of masculine gender. 

‘To avoid this misleading and periphrastic terminology, may I 
suggest that the Commission, if it accepts the proposals, should rule “that 
the specific name rufa Haliday, 1836, as published in the binomen Thrips 
rufa, is conserved for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy”’. From 
this it surely follows that the name is not preoccupied by Thrips rufa Goeze, 
1778, nor threatened by the provisions of Article 49.’ 

The Secretary replied: ‘The fact seems to have escaped general notice 
that we use the term “valid” with two distinct meanings: there is the sense of 
“conserved”, which may, and usually does, involve a factor of subjective 
synonymy, i.e. a conserved name is deemed to be taxonomically valid, and 
there is another sense (reflected in Hemming’s use of “validated’’) of 
“nomenclaturally sound”. I have been discussing this subject with Holthuis 
and the latest definition we have of a nomenclaturally valid name is that it is 
an available name that is neither (1) a junior homonym in the family group 
or the genus group, nor (2) a junior primary homonym in the species group, 
nor (3) a junior secondary homonym in the species group rejected before 
1961, nor (4) a junior objective synonym, nor (5) a name that has been 
suppressed by the Commission. The great majority of available names fall 
into this category, and yet there is no place for it in the family tree in the 
Glossary to the Code. 


254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


‘A name that fails any of the above tests is nomenclaturally (but not 
necessarily taxonomically) invalid — “‘objectively invalid” of the family 
tree — and cannot in any circumstances be used (plenary powers excepted). 
But a junior subjective synonym may well be nomenclaturally valid and can 
be used by anyone who does not accept the synonymy. 

“You propose the term “conserved for the Principle of Homonymy” 
in your voting paper. I should prefer to retain “‘conserved”’ for cases with 
a subjective element and say “nomenclaturally validated” here. Until 
the name has been nomenclaturally validated it cannot be treated as a 
taxonomically valid name.’ 

Ride: ‘I see no value in retaining a senior homonym of doubtful 
application merely on the grounds that it may one day be useful.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present opinion: 
Aptinothrips, Thrips, Haliday, 1836, Entomol. Mag., vol. 3, p. 445 
rufus, Thrips ( Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836, Entomol. Mag., vol. 3, p. 445. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)2 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been 
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1338. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

15 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 255 


OPINION 1339 
PAPILIO FATIMA FABRICIUS, 1793 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): 
RULED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE 
PRINCIPLE OF HOMONYMY 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
fatima Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio fatima, is 
hereby ruled to be exempt from the application of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name fatima Fabricius, 1793, as published in the 
binomen Papilio fatima and as ruled to be exempt from the application of 
the Principle of Homonymy in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2997. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2351 


An application for the conservation of the name Papilio fatima 
Fabricius, 1793 was first received from Dr G. Lamas (Museo de Historia 
Natural, Lima, Peru), Dr A. Aiello (Smithsonian Tropical Research 
Institute, Balboa, Panama) and the late Dr R. E. Silberglied on 18 June 
1980. After considerable correspondence a revised manuscript was sent to 
the printer on 24 February 1981 and published on 11 March 1982 in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 61-63. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to 
the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. 
A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van 
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) enquiring into the usage of the senior 
homonym Papilio fatima Cramer, 1780. This information was duly supplied 
by the applicants. Dr Holthuis also objected (in Jitt.) to the term ‘nomen- 
claturally valid’ on the grounds that the Commission had not yet formally 
adopted it. The Secretary pointed out that the term was meant as a simple 
expression for what the Commission does when it removes the nomen- 
clatural (as distinct from taxonomic) obstacles to the use of a name as a 
valid name. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)4 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 62. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride, Schuster 

Negative Votes — none (0). 


256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Halvorsen and Binder returned late affirmative votes. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: “The nomenclatural obstacle to the validity of Papilio 
fatima Fabricius, 1793 is the presence of the available Papilio fatima 
Cramer, 1780. If the claim that making Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 
nomenclaturally valid is removing the obstacles for this validity, then 
Papilio fatima Cramer, 1780 should be removed.’ 

Heppell: ‘I agree with Commissioner Holthuis that the expression 
“nomenclaturally valid” is otiose, especially as in the new Code ‘“‘conser- 
vation” has replaced “validation” in the statement of the Commission’s 
plenary powers [Article 79a]. On the other hand I agree with the Secretary 
that Papilio fatima Cramer should not be suppressed. Conservation of P. 
fatima Fabricius for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy suffi- 
ciently describes the action taken by the Commission. In my comments on 
the published draft of the new Code I argued for inclusion of “‘suppression 
for the Principle of Homonymy alone” among the Guiding Principles noted 
in Article 79b, for use in cases such as the present where stability of usage 
requires conservation of both primary homonyms. A precedent may be 
found in Opinion 685 where two specific names originally published as 
Ammonites laevigatus were both placed on the Official List. I believe both 
homonyms should be placed on the Official List so the status of each can be 
made clear. A parallel case is that of Thrips rufus (Opinion 1338)’. 

Bernardi: ‘Je vote pour, étant donné l’importance de Anartia fatima 
en systématique évolutive (biosystématique). Je veux noter que cette 
“tactique” portant sur la suspension du Principe d’ Homonymie ne devrait 
Etre appliquée qu’ a titre trés exceptionnel: chez les Lépidopteéres il existe de 
nombreux homonymes primaires décrits dans le genre Papilio désormais 
placés dans des genres ou des familles différents et leur “‘récupération” par 
suspension du Principe d’ Homonymie serait une source d’instabilité, méme 
si application stricte du Principe n’est pas générale ou seulement récente.’ 

Ride: ‘I support Holthuis in wishing to avoid the term ‘‘nomen- 
claturally valid”. ““Valid”’ is defined in the Glossary of the Code in such a 
way as would extend the Opinion to cover matters that the application does 
not seek — namely that fatima would become valid in all circumstances, 
including taxonomic. I consider that we should be specific in a decision 
and suggest we “declare that Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 and Papilio 
fatima Cramer, 1780 are exempt from the operation of the Principle of 


c)- 1m 


Homonymy, i.e. they are not homonyms”. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCE 


The following is the original reference to the name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
fatima, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst., vol. 3(1), p. 81. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 251) 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)4 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1339. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

15 May 1985 


258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1340 
ATTUS OTIOSUS HENTZ, 1846 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the 
binomen Attus pulcher, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) the species-group names pulcher pallida Walckenaer, 1837, and 
peregrinus Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the trinomen 
Attus pulcher pallida and the binomen Attus peregrinus, are 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name otiosus Hentz, 1846, as published in the 
binomen Aftus otiosus is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names with the Name Number 2998. 

(3) the specific and subspecific names pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, 
pulcher pallida Walckenaer, 1837, and peregrinus Walckenaer, 1837 as 
published in the combinations Attus pulcher, Attus pulcher pallida and Attus 
peregrinus and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) and (1)(b) 
above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 1154, 1155 and 1156 
respectively. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2355 


An application for the conservation of Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 was 
first received from Dr G. B. Edwards (Florida Department of Agriculture 
and Consumer Services, U.S.A.) on 17 July 1980. After some correspon- 
dence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and 
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 64-66. Public notice of the poss- 
ible use of the plenary powers in the case were given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and three 
arachnological serials. Support for the case was received from Dr Bruce 
Cutler (Minnesota, U.S.A.) and was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, 
p. 19. No other comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)5 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 65. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 


el 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 259 


Affirmative Votes— twenty-one (21) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride 

Negative Votes — two (2) received in the following order: Cogger, 
Dupuis. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: ‘On p. 65 of the application, in para. 4(1)(b) line 1 the 
words “specific names”’ should be read either as “specific and subspecific 
names” (as in para. 4(3), line 1) or as “‘species-group names’. Under 
the present wording pallida will not be suppressed.’ [This point was 
acknowledged by the Secretary and corrected in the present ruling]. 

Cogger: ‘Neither the original proposal nor Dr Cutler’s supportive 
comments convince me that the application of the Principle of Priority 
would cause such inconvenience as to justify the use of the plenary powers 
to suppress three species-group names.’ 

Ride: ‘Relative frequency of usage alone is not sufficient to justify the 
use of the plenary powers. However, despite the fact that the action of 
Chamberlin & Ivie (1944) occurred before Art. 23b was introduced, the case 
is so obviously one for which Art. 23(b) was legislated to cover, that I 
consider the Commission is justified in treating it in that manner.’ 

Dupuis: ‘L’indubitable filiation des travaux de Abbot (étude 
pionniére), de Walckenaer (classique de l’arachnologie) et de Chamberlin & 
Ivie (révision importante) me parait devoir l’emporter sur la considération 


99)9 


d’usages récents dans des “‘popular books”. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
otiosus, Attus, Hentz, 1846, Boston J. nat. Hist., vol. 5, p. 356 
pallida, pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837, Histoire naturelle des insectes 

apteres, Paris, vol. 1, p. 439 
peregrinus, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837, ibid., p. 445 
pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837, ibid., p. 439 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)5 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been 
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 


260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1340. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

15 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 261 


OPINION 1341 
SIMULIUM AMAZONICUM GOELDI, 1905 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): 
NEOTYPE DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all the original syntypes of Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, 
whether deposited in the British Museum (Natural History), 
Naturhistorisches Museum, Bern or elsewhere, and all subse- 
quent designations of lectotypes from among those syntypes, 
are hereby set aside; 

(b) the reared female specimen of Simulium amazonicum, 
deposited in the British Museum (Natural History) and whose 
data follows, is hereby designated as neotype. (S. amazonicum 
Goeldi, female, with associated pulpal pelt. BRAZIL: 
Amazonas, Bom Lugar, R. Purus. 8°42’S 67°22’W. 22.xi.1977 
(A. J. Shelley)). 

(2) The specific name amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, as published in the 
binomen Simulium amazonicum, and as defined by the neotype designated 
in 1(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2999. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2364 


An application requesting the designation of a neotype for Simulium 
amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, was first received from Dr A. J. Shelley (Depart- 
ment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on 31 
October 1980. A slightly revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 
February 1981 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 67—70. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general 
and nine entomological serials. Support for the case was received from Dr 
R. W. Crosskey (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural 
History), London) and was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 
164-165. No other comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)6 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 69. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 


262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, 
Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Vote —two (2) received in the following order: Cocks, 
Starobogatov. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: ‘The request by the applicant “to suppress all the original 
syntypes” does not sound very nice. The Code, Art. 75, Rec. 75E, talks 
about to “‘set aside the existing type material’”’; this in my opinion, is much 
better and does not give the association of poor smashed blackfly types.’ 
[This point was acknowledged by the Secretary and incorporated into the 
present ruling]. 

Cocks: ‘Since syntypes are available, they should not be rejected. 
Surely nothing would be lost if the filarid-bearing vector species was 
arbitrarily assumed to be conspecific or otherwise.’ 

Bernardi: ‘Excellent exemple de l’intérét de la Recommandation 
75E. Désormais depuis la nouvelle édition du Code, la “tactique”’ proposée 
pour cette Simulie en matiére de matériel typique est a encourager’. 

Dupuis: ‘Dans le cas particulier, je surmonte ma réprobation pour la 
routine des néotypes car, (1) le choix d’un néotype plus complet — donc 
meilleur — que d’ordinaire illustre exemplairement l’importance des stades 
ontogénétiques dans l’identification des Insectes Holométaboles, et (2) la 
légalisation des types les plus complets me parait aussi utile dans le cas des 
Simulies que dans celui des Chironomides (ou l’Opinion 1147 —cf. Bull. 
zool. Nom., 37, 1980, pp. 11-26 —a tranché en faveur de types complets). Je 
vote donc POUR, mais a condition qu’afin d’étre clairement explicite l’on 
désigne comme néotype “the complete individual comprising the pupal 
exuvium together with the emerging female imago’’. Je voterais CONTRE, si 
lon désignait seulement “the reared female specimen’’, accréditant ainsi, 
dans la forme, la pratique routiniére de types réduits 4 un stade onto- 
génétique preféréntiel.’ This comment was passed to the applicant who 
replied: ‘The proposed neotype in the BM(NH) consists of a pinned female 
with its pupal pelt in glycerine. It is important to relate the pupal and adult 
stages in species of the amazonicum group because in some cases, e.g. 
sanguineum, oyapockense, roraimense, females can only be positively 
identified when associated with their pupal pelts.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following is the original reference to the name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling in the present Opinion: 
amazonicum, Simulium, Goeldi, 1905, Mems. Mus. paraense Hist. nat. 
Ethnogr., vol. 4, p. 138. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 263 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)6 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been 
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion. No. 1341. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

15 May 1985 


264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1342 
DAMALIS PLANICEPS FABRICIUS, 1805 DESIGNATED AS TYPE 
SPECIES OF DAMALIS FABRICIUS, 1805 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Damalis Fabricius, 1805 are 
hereby set aside and Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 is hereby designated 
as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (gender: masculine), 
type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Damalis 
planiceps Fabricius, 1805, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2277. 

(3) The specific name planiceps Fabricius, 1805 as published in the 
binomen Damalis planiceps (specific name of the type species of Damalis 
Fabricius, 1805) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 3000. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2369 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the type 
species of Damalis Fabricius, 1805 was first received from Mr K. G. V. 
Smith (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), 
London) and Dr M. Chvala (Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) on 
9 January 1981. It was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and 
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 71-72. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, seven general and nine 
entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)7 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 72. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Ueno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Brinck: ‘The addition of an abstract of the application is—I 
think — very much appreciated by the public. Why not have abstracts 
constantly?’ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 265 


Heppell: ‘The details of the proposals are not consistent with the 
abstract. From the latter it is evident that the Commission is requested to 
validate the type designation of Damalis planiceps by Hull, 1962. It is all 
designations of type species prior to that act that should be set aside by the 
Commission’s ruling’. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Damalis Fabricius, 1805, Systema Antiliatorum, p. 147 
planiceps, Damalis, Fabricius, 1805, ibid., p. 148. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)7 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been 
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1342. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
15 May 1985 


266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1343 
KINOSTERNON ALAMOSAE BERRY & LEGLER, 1980 
AND KINOSTERNON OAXACAE BERRY & IVERSON, 1980 
(REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name alamose Pritchard, 1979, as published in the 
binomen Kinosternon alamose, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) the specific name oaxacae Pritchard, 1979, as published in the 
binomen Kinosternon oaxacae, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

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

(a) alamose Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen 
Kinosternon alamose (Name Number 1157); 

(b) oaxacae Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen 
Kinosternon oaxacae (Name Number 1158). 


The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 
(a) alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980, as published in the binomen 
Kinosternon alamosae (Name Number 3001); 
(b) oaxacae Berry & Iverson, 1980, as published in the binomen 
Kinosternon oaxacae (Name Number 3002). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2339 


An application for the conservation of Kinosternon alamosae Berry 
& Legler, 1980 and K. oaxacae Berry & Iverson, 1980 by the suppression 
of K. alamose Pritchard, 1979 and K. oaxacae Pritchard, 1979 was first 
received from Mr P. C. H. Pritchard (Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, 
U.S.A.) and Mr N. Pronek (7.F.H. Publications, New Jersey, U.S.A.) on 12 
March 1980 following correspondence between the applicants, Professor H. 
M. Smith (University of Colorado, U.S.A.) and the Secretary. A revised 
draft was sent to the printers on 21 January 1982 and published in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 212-213. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and three herpetological 
serials. Supportive comments were received from Professor H. M. Smith 
(University of Colorado, U.S.A.), Dr J. F. Berry (Elmhurst College, Illinois, 
U.S.A.) and Dr J. B. Iverson (Earlham College, Indiana, U.S.A.). These 
were recorded in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 71. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 267 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)8 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 213. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: 
Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen (in part), Willink, Sabrosky, 
Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, 
Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis 

Negative Votes—four (4) received in the following order: 
Trjapitzin, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Lehtinen: ‘Although supporting in principle the suggested use of 
plenary powers in the case, I see no reason to suppress Kinosternon oaxacae 
Berry & Iverson, 1979 in Pritchard, 1979. If this name too, will be sup- 
pressed, the Commission indirectly accepts the principle that the sup- 
pression of other more or less unintentionally but validly published names 
attributed to their correct authors, would be desirable by the use of the 
plenary powers. Parallel cases in other animal groups seem to be frequent, 
and as such present no threat to the stability of zoological nomenclature. 

The name of this species, as published by Pritchard, 1979 and cited 
in the application seems to differ from that of Berry & Iverson, 1980, only 
by the year of the publication. Nothing will be gained through suppression 
of an earlier date, especially when the request for suppression of K. oaxacae 
was not argued by differences in interpretation of this taxon in 1979 and 
1980. Characterization of this taxon in Pritchard’s words cannot as such 
make it attributable to Pritchard, when the authorship of Berry & Iverson 
has been unequivocally cited.’ 

Bernardi: ‘Je considére que les noms Kinosternon alamose et K. 
oaxacae de Pritchard sont des noms disponibles et leur rejet ne me semble 
pas necessaire’. 

Ride: ‘While most zoologists will sympathize with Pritchard in this 
situation, it is a situation that is not uncommon and one that the Com- 
mission has no power to correct. Application of the normal provisions of 
the Code do not, in this case, disturb stability, universality or cause 
confusion, the only conditions under which the Plenary Powers can be 
used.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
alamose, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979, Encyclopedia of Turtles. Neptune, 

N.J., T.F.H. Publ., p. 556 


268 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


alamosae, Kinosternon, Berry & Legler, 1980, Contr. Sci. nat. Hist. Mus. Los 
Angeles County no. 325, pp. 1-12 

oaxacae, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979, ibid., p. 557 

oaxacea, Kinosternon, Berry & Iverson, 1980, J. Herpetol. vol. 14, pp. 
313-320. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)8 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been 
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1343. 


R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


London 
15 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 269 


OPINION 1344 
MAYORELLA SCHAEFFER, 1926 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL 
PRECEDENCE OVER DACTYLAMOEBA KOROTNEFF, 1880 
(RHIZOPODA, AMOEBIDA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the generic name Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 is to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over the generic name Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, whenever 
the two names are considered synonyms. 

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

(a) Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by monotypy, Dactylamoeba elongata Korotneff, 1880, with an 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Mayorella 
Schaeffer, 1926 whenever the two names are considered 
synonyms (Name Number 2278); 

(b) Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Amoeba bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, 
with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over 
Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, whenever the two names are 
considered synonyms (Name Number 2279). 

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

(a) elongata Korotneff, 1880, as published in the binomen 
Dactylamoeba elongata (specific name of the type species of 
Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880) (Name Number 3003); 

(b) bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, as published in the binomen Amoeba 
bigemma (specific name of the type species of Mayorella 
Schaeffer, 1926) (Name Number 3004). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2387 


An application for the conservation of Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 
was first received from Dr F. C. Page (The Culture Centre of Algae and 
Protozoa, Cambridge, U.K.) on 21 July 1981. After some correspondence a 
revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 January 1982 and published in 
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 214-217. Public notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the statutory serials and seven general serials. No comment was 
received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)9 for or against 


270 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 215-216. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Hahn, 
Mroczkowski, Cocks, Bayer, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, 
Cogger, Ride 

Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: Trjapitzin, 
Starobogatov, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers. 

Corliss: ‘I have consulted a number of ‘“‘rhizopod”’ specialists; they 
too are in favour of the proposals.” 

Bernardi: ‘Je consideré comme “trop complexe”’ le statut proposé 
pour le nom Dactylamoeba Korotneff, placé éventuellement sur la Liste 
Officielle des noms génériques mais jouissant pas du principe de priorité.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
bigemma, Amoeba, Schaeffer, 1918, Trans. amer. micros. Soc., vol. 94, pp. 
80-88 
Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, Arch. Zool. exp. gen., vol. 8, p. 470 
elongata, Dactylamoeba, Korotneff, 1880, ibid., pp. 469-470 
Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926, Taxonomy of the Amebas, p. 56. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)9 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been 
duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1344. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

16 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 271 


OPINION 1345 
LAOMEDEA FLEXUOSA ALDER, 1857, SERTULARIA VOLUBILIS 
LINNAEUS, 1758 AND CAMPANULARIA JOHNSTONI ALDER, 
1856 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF LAOMEDEA 
LAMOUROUx, 1812, CAMPANULARIA LAMARCK, 1816 AND 
CLYTIA LAMOUROUX, 1812 (COELENTERATA, HYDROIDA) 
RESPECTIVELY 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 are hereby set aside and the 
nominal species Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus; 

(b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, other than that of Sertularia 
volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, by Naumov, 1960 are hereby set 
aside; 

(c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 are hereby set aside and the 
nominal species Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856, is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus. 

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

(a) Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, 
Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857 (Name Number 2280); 

(b) Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by designation by Naumov, 1960, ratified by use of the plenary 
powers in (1)(b) above, Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 
(Name Number 2281); 

(c) Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above; 
Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 (Name Number 2282). 

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

(a) flexuosa Alder, 1857, as published in the binomen Laomedea 
flexuosa (specific name of the type species of Laomedea 
Lamouroux, 1812) (Name Number 3005); 

(b) volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Sertularia volubilis (specific name of the type species of 
Campanularia Lamarck, 1816) (Name Number 3006); 

(c) johnstoni Alder, 1856, as published in the binomen 
Campanularia johnstoni (specific name of the type species of 
Clytia Lamouroux, 1812) (Name Number 3007). 


va 4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2326 


An application for the conservation of Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 
was first received from Dr P. F. S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, 
British Museum (Natural History), U.K.) on 19 July 1979. After some 
correspondence a revised draft with a request to vary the type species of 
Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 was received on 17 July 1980. It was sent to 
the printer on 14 October 1980 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, 
pp. 208-220. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general and three specialist serials. A comment was received 
from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) 
bringing to attention an earlier type designation for Clytia Lamouroux, 
1812. Dr Holthuis also commented on use of the species name hemis- 
phaerica by Houttuyn, 1770. These comments were passed to the applicant 
whose reply was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 222-225. No 
other comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)11 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 216-217. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Ride 

Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Brinck: ‘I agree with Dr Cornelius that it is unhappy that the 
phrase ‘les types de tous les genres’? has been accepted as indicting 
type-designations.’ 

Heppell: ‘It does not state on the voting paper whether or not the 
original proposals are modified by the notes published subsequently. The 
only point of substance, however, seems to be the date and authorship to be 
attributed to the designation of Campanularia johnstoni as type species of 
Clytia. In this case it certainly seems best to let the original proposal stand, 
and I accordingly vote for all previous designations to be set aside under the 
plenary powers in order that an unequivocally valid fixation of C. johnstoni 
as type may be made.’ 

Ride: ‘Although it does not seem to make any difference to the appli- 
cation, I think that the author should re-examine his contention (1981, 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 273 


para. 10) that C. (O.) poterium is the type of Orthopyxis by monotypy. As I 
understand his statement, two other species were included in the same work 
(even if on a later page). Page priority in the same work does not confer any 
priority in date of publication unless the work was published over a range 
of dates.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 

Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, 
vol. 2, Paris, (Verdiére), p. 112 

Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Nouv. Bull. sci. Soc. philom. Paris, vol. 3, p. 184 

flexuosa, Laomedea, Alder, 1857, Trans. Tyneside Nat. Fld. Cl., vol. 3, 
p. 122 

Johnstoni, Campanularia, Alder, 1856. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2), vol. 18, pp. 
359-360 

Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, ibid., p. 184 

volubilis, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. nat., ed. 10, p. 811. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)11 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1345. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

16 May 1985 


274 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


OPINION 1346 
CYTHEREIS DISTINGUENDA NEVIANA, 1928, CYTHERE 
CRISPATA BRADY, 1868 AND CYTHERE PAVONIA BRADY, 1866 
(CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA): TYPE MATERIAL 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under Article 75h the previously designated 
neotypes of Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere pavonia Brady, 
1866 and Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 by Athersuch & Bonaduce, 1977, 
Athersuch, 1978 and Athersuch & Whittaker, 1980 respectively, are hereby 
ruled not to be name-bearing types and the designations of lectotypes for 
Cythereis distinguenda and Cythere pavonia and of a holotype for Cythere 
crispata are hereby ratified. 

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

(a) distinguenda Neviana, 1928 as published in the binomen 
Cythereis distinguenda and as interpreted by the lectotype 
designated by Athersuch, 1982. (Name Number 3008); 

(b) pavonia Brady, 1866, as published in the binomen Cythere 
pavonia and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by 
Athersuch, 1982 (Name Number 3009); 

(c) crispata Brady, 1868, as published in the binomen Cythere 
crispata and as interpreted by the holotype identified by 
Athersuch, 1982 (Name Number 3010). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2392 


An enquiry as to the best procedure to be taken regarding the redis- 
covered type material of Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere 
crispata Brady, 1868 and C. pavonia Brady, 1866 was first received from 
Dr J. Athersuch (BP Research Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, U.K.) on 30 
September 1981. After some correspondence a draft application was 
received on 13 October 1981. This was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 
and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 226-227. No plenary powers 
were involved and no comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)12 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 227. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following 


| 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 215 


order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — one (1) Bernardi. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Cogger: ‘There is no evidence in Brady’s original description of 
Cythere crispata (reference to which is annoyingly omitted from the pro- 
posal) that Brady had before him only a single specimen. Indeed, use of the 
phrase “‘a re-examination of the specimens” while ambiguous (i.e. it could 
refer to specimens of Cythere badia), leaves the issue in doubt. Conse- 
quently without unequivocal reference to a single specimen in the original 
description, it would be more appropriate to designate the rediscovered 
type of crispata a lectotype rather than a holotype.’ [This comment was 
forwarded to the applicant who replied thus: ‘My reason for designating the 
rediscovered specimen of Cythere crispata Brady as a holotype rather than 
a lectotype is based on the fairly sound assumption that further specimens 
of the type series no longer survive. 

‘It is known that Brady’s recent Mediterranean material is confined 
to the Hancock Museum, Newcastle, the BN(NH) London and to the 
Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Scientifiques, Biarritz. A personal search 
of the collections of the first two institutions failed to recover further 
examples of this species, and documentary evidence of the collection in 
Biarritz (see The Ostracodologist 1970, No 16, p. 5) shows that no 
specimens survive here either.’] 

Heppell: “The Commission does not have to ratify the designation of 
lectotypes and holotype as requested in paragraph 2. If the three neotypes 
are set aside the original types are reinstated.’ 

Bernardi: ‘Je vote contre parce que: 

‘Cas “A” (Cythere oblonga/Urocythereis distinguenda): \a sup- 
pression du néotype n’est pas utile, puisque ce néotype et l’éventuel 
lectotype sont conspécifiques et qu’ainsi ce changement de type ne précise 
aucun probleme taxonomique; le sexe du lectotype éventuel ne pouvant 
méme pas étre déterminé avec certitude. II est préférable de conserver le 
néotype comme support du nom. 

‘Cas “B” et “C” (Cythere pavonia et Cythere crispata); puisque la 
création des néotypes est jugée invalide par un des co-auteurs de la désig- 
nation, ces deux cas relévent de I’Article 75(c) de la nouvelle édition du 
Code (“Cas exclus”). Ces deux néotypes n’ont donc “pas d’existence”’ et 
tout auteur est libre de désigner des lectotypes si la série typique est 
redécouverte, sans intervention de la Commission. 

‘L’ensemble des points discutés ici est d’un grand intéret car ils 
feront “jurisprudence” en matiére d’application des nouvelles dispositions 
du Code a propos de types. Cela mériterait une discussion générale au cours 
dun colloque ou autre réunion.’ 


276 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 

Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

crispata, Cythere, Brady, 1868, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 2, pl. 14, 
figs. 14, 15 

distinguenda, Cythereis, Neviana, 1928, Memorie Accad. pont. Nouvi Lincei, 
ser. 2, vol. 11, p. 105 

pavonia, Cythere, Brady, 1866, Trans. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 5(5), pp. 
378-379. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)12 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1346. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

16 June 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 277 


OPINION 1347 
ANTHALIA SCHOENHERRI ZETTERSTEDT, 1838 DESIGNATED 
AS TYPE SPECIES OF ANTHALIA ZETTERSTEDT, 1838 (INSECTA, 
DIPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 are 
hereby set aside and Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Anthalia 
schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2283. 

(3) The specific name schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, as published in 
the binomen Anthalia schoenherri (specific name of the type species of 
Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3011. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2380 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the type 
species of Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 was first received from Mr K. G. V. 
Smith (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), 
London and Dr M. Chvala (Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) on 
18 May 1981. It was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in 
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 220-221. Public notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the statutory serials, seven general and nine entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)13 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 221. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

Heppell commented: ‘The details of the proposals are not consistent 
with the abstract. From the latter it is evident that the Commission is 
requested to validate the type designation of Anthalia schoenherri by 


278 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Melander, 1928. It is all designations of type species prior to that act that 
should be set aside by the Commission’s ruling.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838, Insecta lapponica, p. 538 
schoenherri, Anthalia, Zetterstedt, 1838, ibid., p. 539. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)13 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1347. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

17 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 279 


OPINION 1348 
BOS GAURUS H. SMITH, 1827 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that 
the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792 as published in the combination 
Bos bubalus guavera, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name gaurus H. Smith, 1827, as published in the 
binomen Bos gaurus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology with the Name Number 3012. 

(3) the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792, as published in the 
combination Bos bubalus guavera and as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1159. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2309 


An application for the conservation of Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 
was first received from Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National University, 
Canberra) on 4 July 1979. After some correspondence a revised draft was 
sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 
39, pp. 279-280. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in 
the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, seven general and four mammalogical serials. No comment was 
received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)14 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 279-280. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, 
Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Holthuis: ‘The author’s name Knox on the last line of p. 279 of the 
application (par. 4(3)) evidently is a misprint for Kerr.’ 

Lehtinen: ‘Point (3) of the printed application includes an obvious 
but nomenclaturally essential lapsus or printing error. It should read: (3) to 


280 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


place the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792, ... not Knox, 1792.’ [This 
misprint was noted by the Secretary and is corrected in the present ruling. ] 

Hahn: ‘Apparently, the name guavera was first used by Pennant, 
1781, not by Kerr, 1792 (“‘.. . the description, as is usual with Kerr, is in fact 
only a paraphrase of Pennant’’). Why then, under (1), is written guavera 
Kerr, 1792’? [The Secretary pointed out that although the description by 
Pennant does indeed predate that of Kerr, Pennant uses only a single verna- 
cular name ‘Guavera’. Kerr’s description was the first to use an available 
binominal name]. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
gaurus, Bos, H. Smith, 1827 in Griffith’s Cuvier, Mammals vol. 4, p. 399 
guavera, bubalus, Bos, Kerr, 1792, Animal Kingdom, p. 339. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)14 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1348. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

17 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 281 


OPINION 1349 
ANTILOPE DEPRESSICORNIS H. SMITH, 1827 AND ANOA 
QUARLESI OUWENS, 1910 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the species-group name 
anoa Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Bos bubalus anoa, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) depressicornis H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen 
Antilope depressicornis (Name Number 3013); 

(b) quarlesi Ouwens, 1910, as published in the binomen Anoa 
quarlesi (Name Number 3014). 

(3) The species-group name anoa Kerr, 1792, as published in the 
combination Bos bubalus anoa, and as suppressed under the plenary powers 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1160. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2310 


An application for conservation of Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 
1827 for the Lowland Anoa and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910 for the Moun- 
tain Anoa was first received from Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National 
Museum, Canberra) on 4 July 1979. After some correspondence a revised 
draft was sent to the printers on 11 May 1982 and published in Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 39, pp. 281—282. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to 
the statutory serials, to seven general and five mammalogical serials. No 
comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)15 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 281-282. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, 
Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — one (1) Mroczkowski. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 


282 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Hahn commented: ‘In this proposal Dr Groves calls the Mountain 
Anoa “Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910”. In Grzimek’s Tierleben it is called 
‘“‘Bubalus (Anoa) depressicornis fergusoni (Lydekker, 1905).’” Why is this 
older name substituted by the younger one (I am not familiar with 
Beaufortia 1969)?’ [This question was relayed to the applicant who sent a 
xerox of his paper in Beaufortia which showed that Lydekker’s name was 
associated with the Lowland Anoa and thus fell as a junior synonym of 
Bubalus (Anoa) depressicornis (H. Smith 1827)]. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
anoa, bubalus, Bos, Kerr, 1792, Animal Kingdom, p. 239 
depressicornis, Antilope, H. Smith, 1827, in Griffith’s Cuvier, Mammals vol. 

4, p. 239 
quarlesi, Anoa, Ouwens, 1910, Bull. Dép. Agric. Indes néerl., vol. 38, p. 1. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)15 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1349. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

17 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 283 


OPINION 1350 
CONUS ANTIQUUS LAMARCK, 1810 (MOLLUSCA, 
GASTROPODA): NEOTYPE SUPPRESSED 


RULING —(1) The neotype designation of Conus antiquus 
Lamarck, 1810 made by Hall, 1964, Boll. soc. paleont. ital., vol. 3, p. 129 is 
hereby suppressed. 

(2) The specific name antiquus Lamarck, 1810, as published in the 
binomen Conus antiquus and as defined by the lectotype here designated, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 3015. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2325 


A request for the suppression of the neotype designation of Conus 
antiquus Lamarck, 1810 as a result of a rediscovered original specimen was 
first received from Dr A. J. Kohn (University of Washington, U.S.A.) on 22 
October 1979. Due to the financial position of the Commission at the time, 
the application was not sent to the printers until 11 May 1982 and published 
in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 283-284. No plenary powers were involved 
and no comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)16 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 283-284. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Corliss, 
Ueno, Schuster, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Dupuis 

Negative Votes — two (2) received in the following order: Bernardi, 
Ride. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Bernardi: ‘Je ne suis pas persuadé que la ‘“‘procedure” proposée soit 
utile. Le néotype créé en 1964 par Hall semble remplir parfaitement son rdle 
de “support du nom”’. Ceci pose, comme pour I’Opinion 1346, un probleme 
général: faut-il supprimer un néotype simplement parce que la série typique 
est redécouverte? A mon avis non, si cette activité n’apporte aucune pré- 
cision taxonomique. Revalider sans raison taxonomique une série typique 
reléve plus du ‘“‘culte” des types que de la recherche scientifique si un 


284 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


néotype existe déja.’ [Article 75h gives the Commission the choice between 
confirming the neotype or validating the rediscovered type in such cases. 
Secretary]. 

Ride: ‘My affirmative vote for a ruling “‘that the neotype .. . is not to 
be retained as a name-bearing type” (worded to conform with the 3rd Edn. 
Art. 75h) is conditional upon the Secretary confirming that the locality, 
horizon, etc., of the rediscovered syntype are sufficient for it to be useful’. 
[Monsieur B. Meétivier of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris 
was contacted and asked for information concerning the type locality of the 
lectotype. Monsieur Meétivier replied to the effect that the type locality was 
‘cone du Piémont’. Dr Ride’s vote was thus changed to a negative one]. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCE 


The following is the original reference for the name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
antiquus, Conus, Lamarck, 1810, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., vol. 15, p. 439. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)16 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 on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1350. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

20 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 285 


OPINION 1351 
GALEOPSOM YIA GIRAULT, 1916 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Euderus columbianus Ashmead, 1888 
(Name Number 2284); 

(b) Encarsia Foerster, 1878 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
original designation, Encarsia tricolor Foerster, 1878 (Name 
Number 2285). 

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

(a) columbianus Ashmead, 1888, as published in the binomen 
Euderus columbianus (specific name of the type species of 
Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916) (Name Number 3016); 

(b) tricolor Foerster, 1878 as published in the binomen Encarsia 
tricolor (specific name of the type species of Encarsia Foerster, 
1878) (Name Number 3017). 

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

(a) Trichaporus Foerster, 1856, as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) above (Name Number 2167); 

(b) Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900, an incorrect subsequent spelling 
of Trichaporus (Name Number 2168). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2402 


An application for the conservation of Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 
was first received from Dr J. LaSalle and Dr P. DeBach (Division of Biologi- 
cal Control, University of California, U.S.A.) on 14 January 1982. After 
some correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 25 August 
1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 297-301. Public notice 
of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same 
part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, seven general and nine 
entomological serials. A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis 
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) and published, together 
with a reply from the authors, in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 73-74. 
The authors accepted the point raised by Dr Holthuis in point (2) of his 
comment and this has been incorporated into the present ruling. Support 


286 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


for the original proposals was received from Professor D. Rosen (The 
Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel). 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)17 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 298-299 and as modi- 
fied in vol. 40, p. 74. At the close of the voting period on 15 April 1985 the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, 
Hahn, Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Brinck, Alvarado, Corliss, 
Uéno, Schuster, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
columbianus, Euderus, Ashmead, 1888, Can. Entomol., vol. 20, p. 103 
Encarsia Foerster, 1878, Verh. naturf. Ver. preuss. Rheinl., vol. 35, p. 65 
Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916, Entomol. News, vol. 27, p. 348 
Trichaporus Foerster, 1856, Hymenopterologische Studien, 2 Heft. 

Chalcididiae und Proctotrupini. Ernst Meer, Aachen, p. 84 
Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900, in Smith, J. R., Insects of New Jersey, 27th 

Annual Report State Board of Agr., Trenton. Supplement, p. 561 
tricolor, Encarsia, Foerster, 1878, ibid., p. 66. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)17 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1351. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

20 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 287 


___ OPINION 1352 
EURHINUS SCHONHERR, i825 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): 
RULED AS A JUSTIFIED EMENDATION OF EURHIN ILLIGER, 
1807 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that Eurhinus Sch6nherr, 1825 is a justified 
emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807. 

(b) the generic name Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority 
and the Principle 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) Eurhinus Mliger, 1807 (gender, masculine) type species, by 
monotypy, Eurhin cupratus Illiger, 1807 (as amended by 
Schénherr, 1825 and ruled under the plenary powers in (1) 
above to be a justified emendation) (Name Number 2286); 

(b) Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828 (gender: mas- 
culine), type species by subsequent designation by Schénherr, 
1833, Eurhinus scabrior Kirby, 1819 (Name Number 2287). 

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

(a) cupratus Illiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Eurhinus 
cupratus (specific name of the type species of Eurhinus Illiger, 
1807) (Name Number 3018) 

(b) scabrior Kirby, 1819, as published in the binomen Eurhinus 
scabrior (specific name of the type species of Eurhynchus Kirby, 
in Kirby & Spence, 1828) (Name Number 3019). 

(4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the 
‘Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) EURHYNCHINAE (correction of EURHYNCHIDES) Lacordaire, 1863 
(type genus Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828) 
(Name Number 576); 

(b) EURHININI (correction of EURHINIDES) Lacordaire, 1866 (type 
genus Eurhinus Illiger, 1807) (Name Number 577). 

(5) The generic name Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827- as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2169. 

(6) The generic name Eurhin Illiger, 1807 (ruled under the plenary 
powers in (1) above to be an unjustified original spelling) is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 2170. 


288 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2269 


An application for a ruling on the homonymous use of family-group 
names based on Eurhin, Eurhinus and Eurhynchus was first received from 
Dr E. C. Zimmerman (CS/RO, Canberra, Australia) on 27 June 1978. Due 
to an unexpected complication at the level of the generic names involved 
there followed a long period of correspondence between the applicant, the 
Secretary and Mr R. T. Thompson (Department of Entomology, British 
Museum (Natural History) London). This resulted in the formulation by 
Mr Thompson of alternative proposals to those of Dr Zimmerman. Both 
drafts were sent to the printer on 25 August 1982 and published together 
in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 45-47 (Zimmerman) and pp. 47-52 
(Thompson). Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, to seven general and eight entomological serials. No comment was 
received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)19 either for the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 46 (Zimmerman) or for 
those on pp. 50-51 (Thompson). At the close of the voting period on 15 
April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — Zimmerman — three (3) received in the follow- 
ing order: Hahn, Bayer, Cogger 

Affirmative Votes — Thompson — seventeen (17) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, 
Mroczkowski, Cocks, Starobogatov, Brinck, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, 
Kraus, Heppell, Ride, Schuster 

A negative vote for both sets of proposals was returned by Dupuis. 

Late affirmative votes for Mr Thompson were received from 
Halvorsen and Binder. 

Lehtinen abstained. 

No vote was returned by Bernardi. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Hahn: ‘I think that it is not necessary to change the original spelling 
of Eurhin and Eurhinus only for the purpose of removing the homonymy. 
Therefore I vote for the proposal given by Dr Zimmerman. But, as in the 
case of Scutellum and Scutella, where the Commission has introduced 
SCUTELLUIDAE, I would prefer to call the name derived from Eurhinus 
EURHINUIDAE and not EURHINUSIDAE.’ 

Dupuis: ‘Aucune des solutions proposées n’est satisfaisante, car tous 
les noms en cause sont essentiellement homonymes (n’en déplaise au Code), 
d’ou persistance des confusions. I] eut fallu retenir la solution que 
préconisait déja Latreille d’employer des noms vraiment distincts.’ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 289 


Lehtinen: ‘The choice between the parallel and simultaneously 
published applications of Zimmerman and Thompson is not the most 
satisfactory solution for this complex nomenclatural problem. The positive 
aspects of both applications should be combined to constitute a single 
application. The information given by Thompson is much more complete 
than that of Zimmerman, but, on the other hand, it seems also to show that 
in addition to Zimmerman, at least P. Vaurie, in her wide revisional work, 
has agreed that in the prevailing nomenclatural mess, the acceptance of the 
generic names that are valid according to the Code is the best alternative for 
the basis of names of family group too. 

‘Personally, I cannot accept the transfer of the validly published 
name Eurhinus Kirby, 1819 to be used for another genus by subsequent 
emendation of both of these names. A mess is a mess, in spite of any 
majority counts, and in such cases the Code should be followed rather than 
suggest complex rulings by use of the plenary powers for the generic names. 

‘There are various possibilities to solve the more theoretical problem 
of homonymy of the family-group names. The use of e.g. MACRORHINI 
instead of EURHININA Or EURHININI in BARIDINAE could be chosen, but I 
prefer to leave the details of a revised application to specialists of 
Curculionoidea.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
cupratus, Eurhin, Mliger, 1807, Magazin Insectenk. (Illiger), vol. 6, p. 309 
Eurhin Mlliger, 1807, Magazin Insectenk. (Illiger), vol. 6, p. 309 
EURHININI Lacordaire, 1866, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des 

coléopteéres, vol.7, p. 217, 220 
‘Eurhinus, Mlliger, 1807, ibid., p. 309 
EURHYNCHINAE Lacordaire, 1863, ibid., vol. 6, p. 380, 527 
Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828, An introduction to entomology, 

ed. 5, vol. 3, p. 324 
Eurhyncus Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s natiirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus 

dem Franzosischen, p. 74 
scabrior, Eurhinus, Kirby, 1819, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. 12(2), p. 428. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)19 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 


290 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1352. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

20 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 291 


OPINION 1353 
MYZUS FESTUCAE THEOBALD, 1917 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 
that the specific name festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the bino- 
men Myzus festucae, is to be given precedence over the specific name 
myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the binomen Macrosiphum 
myrmecophilum, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. 

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

(a) festucae Theobald, 1917, as published in the binomen Myzus 
festucae, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence 
over myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the bino- 
men Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, whenever the two names 
are considered synonyms (Name Number 3020); 

(b) myrmecophilum Theobald, 1916, as published in the binomen 
Macrosiphum myrmecophilum, with an endorsement that it is 
not to be given priority over festucae Theobald, 1917, as 
published in the binomen Myzus festucae, whenever the two 
names are considered synonyms (Name Number 3021). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2389 


An application for the conservation of Myzus festucae Theobald, 
1917 was first received from Dr H. L. G. Stroyan (MAFF, Harpenden, U.K.) 
on 2 September 1981. After some correspondence a draft was sent to the 
printers on 25 August 1982 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 
53-55. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in 
the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven 
general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)20 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 55. At the close of the 
Voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-two (22) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Lehtinen, Willink, Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, 
Hahn, Cocks, Starobogatov, Brinck, Alvarado, Corliss, Uéno, Schuster, 
Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Heppell, Bernardi, Dupuis, Ride 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen and Binder. 

No vote was returned by Mroczkowski. 


292 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Bernardi commented: ‘Je vote pour, mais ne serait-il pas plus simple 
de placer le nom M. myrmecophilum sur \’Index officiel des noms spécifiques 
rejetés et invalides en zoologie?’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
festucae, Myzus Theobald, 1917, Entomologist, vol. 50, p. 80 
myrmecophilum, Macrosiphum, Theobald, 1916, ibid., vol. 49, p. 49. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)20 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1353. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

24 May 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 293 


BERYTUS FABRICIUS, 1803 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, 
BERYTIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CIMEX CLAVIPES 
FABRICIUS, 1777 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S)2464 


By W. R. Dolling (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD, 
U.K.) 


The genus Berytus was founded by Fabricius, 1803, pp. 264—265, for 
two species, Cimex tipularius Linnaeus, 1758 and Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 
1775. Fabricius ‘indicated’ tipularius as the type species of his new genus 
by giving an extended description of the genus following the name of this 
species. This is not now regarded as a valid method of type species desig- 
nation but Reuter, 1888, p. 546, cited the bibliographic reference to Berytus 
tipularius of Fabricius, 1803, adding the words ‘ut typus’. On page 548 of 
the same work, Reuter stated ‘Typus generis Berytus Fabr. (1803) est 
tipularius L. (Vide supra)’. 

2. The genus Neides was founded by Latreille, 1802, p. 246, for the 
same two species, Cimex tipularius Linnaeus and Cimex clavipes Fabricius. 
Eight years later, Latreille, 1810, p. 433, validly designated tipularius as the 
type species of Neides. The two genera were widely regarded as synonymous 
and the two species as congeneric until Fieber, 1859, monographed the 
family, placing tipularius in Neides and clavipes in Berytus; this action was 
- jegitimate at the time as no type species had yet been designated for Berytus. 

Reuter, 1888, pp. 546-548, attempted to reverse the application of the 
two generic names as used by Fieber but was not followed by subsequent 
authors, all of whom agree that clavipes and tipularius are not congeneric; 
the result of his actions was only to sink Berytus as a synonym of Neides, 
leaving Berytus sensu Fieber without a name. 

3. Mulsant & Rey, 1870, established three new subgenera within 
Berytus sensu Fieber: Melorus (p. 212, for Neides hirticornis Brullé, 1835, 
‘with its synonym Berytus pilicornis Flor, 1862 and probable synonym 
Berytus trichocerus Scholtz, 1846); Lizinus (p. 212, for Berytus montivagus 
Meyer-Dur, 1841, with its synonym Berytus rotundatus Flor, 1862, and 
Berytus signoreti Fieber, 1859) and Xanthocerus (p. 224, for the two new 
species, /ongicollis and gracilis, and, dubiously, Berytus angustipennis 
Costa, 1860). No type species have ever been designated for any of these 
three subgenera; all three have been ignored by all subsequent authors. 
Xanthocerus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 is preoccupied by Xanthocerus Agassiz, 
1845: p. 168, an emendation of Xanthoceros Newman, 1842, in Coleoptera. 

4. Kirkaldy, 1900 p. 241, accepted that Berytus was a junior 
synonym of Neides and established the new genus Berytinus for Berytus 
sensu Fieber non Fabricius, designating as type species Cimex clavipes 
Fabricius, 1775. This name has been generally accepted by twentieth- 


294 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


century authors. Under the provisions of the Code it should fall as a 
synonym of either Melorus or Lizinus. 

5. Stichel, 1957, p. 44, established within Berytinus Kirkaldy the 
subgenus Berytinellus, citing as type species Berytinus montivagus Meyer- 
Dir, 1841. This subgenus is a subjective synonym of Lizinus Mulsant & 
Rey, as it includes all three species-group names eligible for designation as 
type species of Lizinus. 

6. The name of the family BERYTIDAE is based on the generic name 
Berytus which, being a junior synonym of Neides at present, is not a valid 
name. Because of this, Southwood & Leston, 1959, pp. 7, 118, changed the 
name of the family to BERYTINIDAE. Under the provisions of Article 40(a) of 
the 1961 edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 
such changes are to be maintained only if they had won general acceptance 
before 1961. This criterion obviously could not be satisfied for a name 
change proposed in 1959, so the family name remains BERYTIDAE based on 
Berytus, and not BERYTINIDAE, based on Berytinus. 

7. The main problem of nomenclature involved is that the well- 
known Palaearctic genus Berytinus Kirkaldy (= Berytus sensu Fieber non 
Fabricius) should fall as a synonym of either Melorus or Lizinus, both of 
which names are completely unfamiliar to entomologists. Berytus Fabricius 
was legitimately restricted by Fieber, 1859, to clavipes and its allies and 
became a synonym of Neides Latreille only as a result of Reuter’s (1888) fix- 
ation of tipularius as the type species of Fabricius’s nominal genus. It is 
obvious from Reuter’s work that he thought he was simply repeating Fabri- 
cius’s invalid type designation but under Article 69(a) (iii) Reuter’s action is 
a valid designation in its own right. Under Recommendation 69B(3) the 
species selected as type should have been clavipes. A secondary problem is 
that, if Reuter’s type species designation is allowed to stand, the type genus 
of the family remains as a junior synonym. There are four possible courses 
of action, which I outline below; the last three of these require intervention 
by the Commission. 

(1) The name Berytinus could be allowed to fall as a synonym of 
either Lizinus or Melorus. 
(2) The name Berytinus, type clavipes, could be placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 
(3) The names Lizinus and Melorus could be suppressed and 
placed on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology. 
(4) The name Berytus, type clavipes, could be placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and Reuter’s type 
species designation could be set aside. 
If course (1) were followed, the current name of the genus would be 
changed to an unfamiliar one and the type genus of the family would 
remain a junior synonym. If course (2) were followed, current usage would 
be preserved, Melorus and Lizinus would remain available for use as names 
of subgenera and the type genus of the family would remain a junior 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 295 


synonym. If course (3) were followed, the same situation would result 
except that these two names would not be available. If course (4) were 
followed, current usage would give way to an earlier, legitimate usage of a 
name familiar as the type genus of the family and Melorus and Lizinus 
would still be available for use as names of subgenera. 

8. Accordingly, I ask the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Berytus Fabricius, 
1803, and, having done so, to designate Cimex clavipes Fabri- 
cius, 1775, as type species of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775, on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name clavipes Fabricius, 1775, as published 
in the binomen Cimex clavipes (specific name of type species of 
Berytus, Fabricius, 1803), on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


Agassiz, L. 1845. Nomenclator zoologicus. Coleoptera. Solothiirn. 170 pp. 

FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi & Lipsiae. p. 729. 

1803. Systema Rhyngotorum. Brunswick. x+21+314 pp. 

FreBer, F. X. 1859. Die Familie der Berytideae. Wien. ent. Monatschr., vol. 3, 
pp. 200-209. 

KiRKALDY, G. W. 1900. Bibliographical and nomenclatorial notes on the 
Rhynchota. No. 1. Entomologist, vol. 33, pp. 238-243. 

LATREILLE, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des 

insectes, Vol. 3. Paris, xii+467 pp. 

1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les 

classes des crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes; avec un tableau 

méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. Paris, 444 pp. 

MuLsantT, E. & Rey, C. 1870. Histoire naturelle des punaises de France. Coréides, 
Alydides, Bérytides, Stenocéphalides. Paris, 250 pp. 

Reuter, O. M. 1888. Revisio synonymica Heteropterorum Palaearcticorum quae 
descripserunt auctores vetustiores (Linnaeus 1758—Latreille 1806) II. Acta 
Soc. Sci. fenn., vol. 15, pp. 443-812. 

SOUTHWOOD, T. R. E. & Leston, D. 1959. Land and water bugs of the British Isles. 
London. ix + 436 pp. 

STICHEL, W. 1957. Jilustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. I. Europa. 
(Hemiptera-Heteroptera Europae). Vol. 4. Heft 2. Pentatomomorpha 
Lygaeoidea Piesmidae, Berytidae, Lygaeidae (1). Berlin-Hermsdorf, pp. 
33-64. 


296 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


THYLACITES GERMAR, 1817; BRACHYDERES SCHONHERR, 
1823; CYCLODERES SAHLBERG, 1823; AND CYCLODERES 
SCHONHERR, 1823 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSAL TO 
MAINTAIN CURRENT USAGE. Z.N.(S.)2490 


By A. T. Howden (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada) 


Brachyderes and Cycloderes are two distinct genera of weevils placed 
in two different tribes. The name Thylacites is currently applied to both 
genera. If Thylacites is suppressed, the most prevalent usage of the names 
will be stabilised and the family-group name BRACHYDERINAE will agree 
with its nominate type genus, Brachyderes. 

2. Thylacites was established by Germar (1817, p. 341) but no type 
species was designated from the six valid species names that were included: 
Curculio incanus (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 385], C. fritillum [Panzer, 1794, p. 19], 
C. faber [Herbst, 1785, p. 81], C. muricatus [Fabricius, 1792, p. 489], C. 
hirsutulus (Fabricius, 1792, p. 468], and C. coryli [Fabricius, 1775, p. 148]. 
In 1819 (p. 205) Samouelle designated ‘Cur. incanus’ as the type species of 
Thylacites. This type-species designation had been completely overlooked 
for 94 years when Pierce (1913, p. 411) commented on it. The only authors 
to adopt this correct application of Thylacites in the 70 years subsequent to 
Pierce have been Leng (1920, p. 313), Arnett (1960, p. 998, ‘... compiled 
from the Leng catalog . . .’), Kissinger (1964, p. 28), and O’Brien & Wibmer 
(1982, p. 44); no European authors have done so. 

3. Chenu (1860, p. 220) subsequently designated Curculio fritillum 
Panzer (the second species in the list included by Germar) as the type 
species of Thylacites Germar. This is the next earliest available type-species 
designation after Samouelle’s designation of incanus and represents the 
usual application of the name Thylacites. Curculio incanus L. is usually 
placed in BRACHYDERINI; Curculio fritillum Panzer is usually placed in 
TANYMECINI. 

4. Recent works using Thylacites in the sense of Chenu are: Des- 
brochers des Loges (1903: revision), Winkler (1932, p. 1493), Portevin 
(1935, p. 68), van Emden (1944, p. 570), and Blackwelder (1947, p. 799). 

5. Brachyderes was established by Schénherr in 1823 (col. 1140) with 
‘Cure. incanus Auctor.’ designated as the type species. Because Samouelle 
had already designated incanus L. as the type species of Thylacites (para- 
graph 2 above), Brachyderes is a junior objective synonym of Thylacites. 
However, Brachyderes continued to be used as a valid name and Curculio 
incanus L. was specifically cited as its type species by Schénherr (1826, 
pp. 10, 103), Westwood (1838, p. 35), Thomson (1859, p. 133), Lacordaire 
(1863, p. 61), and Chenu (1860, p. 220). 

6. The Coleopterorum Catalogus (van Emden & van Emden, 1937, 
pp. 134-142) lists 17 species of Brachyderes, of which one, incanus, is 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 297 


widespread throughout Europe and Scandinavia and is now established in 
North America (A. G. Wheeler, in litt.). Dieckmann (1970, p. 111) has 
pointed out that an application should be made to the International 
Commission to conserve the name Brachyderes Schénherr. As mentioned 
in paragraph 2 above, the use of Brachyderes over its senior synonym 
Thylacites has been almost unanimous. Notable references in the last 50 
years include: van Emden (1944, p. 528), Hoffmann (1950, p. 323; 1963: 
revision), Endrédi (1960, p. 64), de Viedma (1967, p. 589), Dieckmann 
(1970, p. 111), van Boven (1972, p. 156), Baitenov (1974, p. 69), Silfverberg 
(1979, p. 64), and Smreczynski (1981, p. 262). 

7. The name Cycloderes was published by both Sahlberg and 
Schonherr in 1823, each author citing a different type species. Cycloderes 
Sahlberg could be considered the earlier name if 13 June is accepted as the 
date of its publication (see (a) below). Cycloderes Schénherr apparently was 
published in October (see (b) below). 

(a) The Cycloderes of Sahlberg (1823, p. 21) has ‘Cycloderes 
catarrhactus Schénherr’ as type species by monotypy. The 
species is well described and illustrated by Sahlberg, and the 
spelling is emended in the same work to ‘catarractus’ (loc. cit., 
p. 83). A note written by Sherborn inside the British Museum 
copy of Sahlberg 1823 states: ‘This consists of 5 dissertations 
all read [italics mine] in June 1823; for particulars see Hagen 
.... Both Hagen (1863, p. 102) and Horn and Schenkling 
(1928, p. 1035) associate pages 17 to 23 with W. Forssman on 
13 June 1823, but it is not clear if these pages were read, 
submitted, or published on that date. 

(b) The Cycloderes of Schénherr (1823, col. 1139) was established 
by listing ‘61. Cycloderes nob. Typ.: Curc. robiniae Herbst.’ 
The date of publication presumably postdates Schénherr’s 
introduction which is dated 12 July 1823. Silfverberg (in Jitt.) 
reasons that part 10 of a journal with monthly issues would 
have been published in October. Thus, it could be reasoned 
that Cycloderes Sahlberg was published four months earlier 
than Schonherr’s Cycloderes and has priority. To fix the genus, 
the Commission is requested to place Cycloderes Sahlberg on 
the Official List of Generic Names. 

8. Cycloderes Sahlberg and Cycloderes Schénherr are universally 
considered to be subjective synonyms of each other and of Thylacites, 
sensu Chenu. Hoffmann (1950, p. 417) erroneously considered Thylacites 
Germar, 1817 to be a nomen nudum and used Cycloderes Sahlberg as the 
next available name. This reasoning persisted in Hoffmann’s subsequent 
papers, in Balachowsky (1963, p. 944), and probably influenced other 
authors as well. Likewise, the influential Coleopterorum Catalogus nowhere 
cites Germar, 1817 or Schénherr, 1823. 

9. Cycloderes (Sahlberg or Schénherr) is the valid name of this 
genus of over 100 species and is apparently used more frequently than 


298 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Thylacites, sensu Chenu. Recent references using Cycloderes Sahlberg 
include: Giinther & Zumpt (1933, pp. 23-38), Antoine (1949, pp. 73-132), 
Hoffmann (1950, see above), Solari (1953, pp. 64-98), Endrédi (1960, 
p. 82), Baitenov (1974, p. 96), and Kippenberg (1981, p. 274). 

10. The family-group name ‘Brachyderides’ was first used by 
Schonherr (1826, p. 10) but is not valid since Brachyderes was a junior 
synonym at that time (Code, Article 1le). The family-group name THYLA- 
CITIDAE was first used by Kirby (1837, p. 207) who included in it only the 
otiorhynch genus Trachyphloeus. BRACHYDERINAE is much more frequently 
used than THYLACITINAE. The family-group name BRACHYDERINAE, having 
won ‘general acceptance’ in the sense of Article 40 of the Code, should 
therefore also be conserved in conjunction with the conservation of 
Brachyderes. 

11. The type-species designations of the genera may be summarised 


thus: 

Thylacites Brachyderes Cycloderes 
Samouelle, 1819 incanus — — 
Schonherr, 1823 — incanus robiniae 
Sahlberg, 1823 —_— — catarractus 
Chenu, 1860 fritillum — — 


12. Insummary, the consequences of the International Commission 
suppressing Thylacites Germar and THYLACITINAE are, (1) to conserve the 
almost universal usage of Brachyderes, (2) to conserve the generally 
accepted family-group name which would agree with the nominal type 
genus, and (3) to maintain the valid and somewhat more frequently used 
Cycloderes over the subjectively synonymous Thylacites, sensu Chenu. It 
would be desirable to have a ruling on the matter before the publication of 
the Catalog of Coleoptera of North America now in preparation since it 
will include Brachyderes incanus. 

13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
therefore requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name 
Thylacites Germar, 1817, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority; 

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by original designation, Curculio incanus Linnaeus, 
1758; 
(b) Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by monotypy, Cycloderes catarractus Sahlberg, 
1823; 
(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology: 


: 
: 
: 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 299 


(a) incanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio 
incanus (specific name of type species of Brachyderes Schonherr, 
1823); 

(b) catarractus Sahlberg, 1823, as published in the binomen Cycloderes 
catarractus Sahlberg (specific name of type species of Cycloderes 
Sahlberg, 1823). 

(4) to place the family-group name BRACHYDERINAE Schonherr, 1826 (type 
genus Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823) on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the family-group name THYLACITINAE Kirby, 1837 (type genus 
Thylacites Germar, 1817) (invalid because the name of its type genus 
has been suppressed under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The problem presented here was discussed with many coleopterists 
around the world. The opinions expressed by them do not present a con- 
sensus, and it was my own decision to proceed with this petition as the most 
effective resolution. In addition to the many helpful discussions, special 
assistance was received from M. Alonso Zarazaga, Malaga, Spain; H. 
Sufverberg, Helsinki, Finland; R. T. Thompson, London, England; D. R. 
Whitehead, Washington, D.C.; and G. Wibmer, Tallahassee, Florida. The 
contributions of everyone are gratefully acknowledged. 


REFERENCES 


AnTOINE, M. 1949. Notes d’entomologie marocaine. XLIX. Les Cyclodéres du 
Maroc. Mém. Mus. nat. Hist. Nat. (N.S.), vol. 28, pp. 73-132. 
ArRnETT, R. H., Jr. 1960. The beetles of the United States. Washington, D.C. 1112 


pp. 

BaITENOV, M. S. 1974 [Coleoptera: Attelabidae, Curculionidae from Central Asia and 
Kazakhstan. Illustrated checklist of genera and a species catalogue.] Nauka, 
Alma-Ata. 285 pp. [in Russian] 

BALACHOowsKY, A. S. (Ed.) 1963. Entomologie appliquée a !’Agriculture. 1. vol. 2. 
Paris. 1391 pp. 

BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central 
America, the West Indies, and South America. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. vol., 
185, pp. 765-925. 

CHENU, J. C. 1860. Encyclopédie d'Histoire naturelle ... Coléoptéres. part 3. Paris. 
pp. 1-360. 

DESBROCHERS DES Loces, J. 1903. Monographie des Curculionides d’Europe et des 
confins de la Méditerranée en Afrique et en Asie, appartenant au genre 
Thylacites. Le Frelon, vol. 11, pp. 117-190; vol. 12, pp. 1-52. 


300 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


DE VIEDMA, M. G. 1967. Revision del género Brachyderes Schonherr, ... Eos, 
Madrid, vol. 42, pp. 575-596. 

DIECKMANN, L. 1970. Zur Nomenklatur einiger europdischer Russelkafer— 
Gattungen. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 20, pp. 111-128. 

ENnpRODI, S. 1960. Brachyderinae. Curculionidae. Fauna Hungariae, vol. 8, pp. 
1-82. 

Fasriclus, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. Lipsiae. 832 pp. 

1792. Entomologia systematica. vol. 1, part 2. Hafniae. 538 pp. 

GeRMaAR, E. F. 1817. Magazin Entomol. (Germar), vol. 2, pp. 339-341. 

GUNTHER, K. & ZumptT, F. 1933. Curculionidae; Tanymecinae. Coleopterorum 
Catalogus, pars 131, vol. 27, pp. 1-131. 

HaGen, H. A. 1863. Bibliotheca entomologica. vol. 2, N-Z. Leipzig. 512 pp. 

Hersst, J. F. W. 1785. Natursystem aller bekannten in-und auslandischen Insecten.. . 
Kafer. vol. 1, 310 pp. 

HOFFMANN, A. 1950. Curculionides. Faune de France. vol. 52, 486 pp. 


1963. Révision des Brachydéres paléarctiques. ... Rev. Fr. Entomol., vol. 30, 

pp. 276-287. ; 

Horn, W. & SCHENKLING, S. 1928. Index litteraturae entomologicae. vol. 3 
pp. 705-1056. 

KIPPENBERG, H. 1981. 9. Unterfamilie: Tanymecinae. In: FREUDE, H., HARDE, K. 
and Louss, G. A. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 10. Krefeld. 310 pp. 

Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. Fauna Boreali- Americana .... IV. Norwich. 326 pp. 

KIssINGER, D. G. 1964. Curculionidae of America North of Mexico. South Lancaster. 
143 pp. 

LACORDAIRE, T. 1863. Histoire naturelle des insectes .... vol. 6. Paris. 637 pp. | 

LENG, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, North of Mexico. Mount _ 
Vernon, New York. 470 pp. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae 1. Editio decima reformata. Holmiae. 823 pp. 

O'BRIEN, C. W. & Wipmer, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils. Ann 
Arbor. 382 pp. 

PANZER, G. W. F. 1794. Faunae insectorum germanicae initia . . ., 18. Niirnberg. 

PrerCE, W. D. 1913. Miscellaneous contributions... . Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 45, 
no. 1988. pp. 365-426. 

PORTEVIN, G. 1935. Polyphaga: Rhynchophora. Histoire naturelle des Coléopteéres de 
France. vol. 4. Paris. 500 pp. 

SAHLBERG, C. R. 1823. Periculi entomographici ..., part 2, Aboae, pp. 17-32. 

SAMOUELLE, G. 1819. The entomologist’s useful compendium .. .. London. 451 pp. 

SCHONHERR, C. J. 1823. Curculionides. Jsis, Jena, vol. 7, cols. 1132-1146. 

1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica . . .. Lipsiae. 338 pp. 

SILFVERBERG, H. 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. 
Helsinki. 79 pp. 

SMRECZYNSKI, S. 1981. 8. Unterfamilie: Brachyderinae. In: FREUDE, H., HARDE, 
K. W. and Louse, G. A. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. vol. 10. Krefeld. 310 pp. 

SoLaRI, F. 1953. Sulla monografia dei Cycloderes (Thylacites) di Desbrochers .. .. 
Mem. Soc. entomol. ital., vol. 32, pp. 64-98. 

THOMSON, C. G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera. vol. 1. Lund. 290 pp. 

VAN Boven, J. 1972. Oeco-entomologische instructie. Natuurhistorisch Maanbl. vol. 
61, pp. 152-159. 

VAN EMDEN, F. I. 1944. A key to the genera of Brachyderinae of the world. Ann. 
Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 11, vol. 11, pp. 503-586. ; 


> 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 301 


VAN EmDEN, M. & vAN Empkn, F. I. 1937. Curculionidae: Brachyderinae 2. Coleop- 
terorum Catalogus, pars 153, vol. 27, pp. 133-196. 

WEstTwoop, J. O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. In: An introduction 
to the modern classification of insects ..... London. 158 pp. 

Winkter, A. 1932. Catalogus Coleopterorum regionis palaearcticae. vol. 2, F. 
Rhynchophora. Pars 12. Wien, pp. 1393-1520. 


302 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


STENODERMA TOLTECA SAUSSURE, 1860 (MAMMALIA, 
CHIROPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NEOTYPE 
AND VALIDATION OF THE REDISCOVERED HOLOTYPE. 
Z.N.(S.)2466 


By L. de Roguin and C. Weber (Department of Mammalogy and 
Ornithology, Museum of Geneva, Switzerland) 


The purpose of this application is to request the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the neotype of 
Artibeus toltecus toltecus (Saussure, 1860) designated by Davis, 1969, 
because of the existence of original type material deposited in the Museum 
of Geneva (MHNG). 

2. Saussure, 1860, p. 427, described and figured a new species of 


Mexican Chiroptera. He named it Stenoderma tolteca but did not designate ° 


a type specimen. 

3. Davis, 1969, p. 26, noted that no type was designated by 
Saussure, 1860, and none of the original material appeared to be extant. 
He designated as neotype a specimen from Mirador, Veracruz province, 
Mexico, (type locality as restricted by Hershkovitz, 1949) in the collection 
of the U.S. National Museum, USNM No. 38954/6981. 

4. While preparing a new version of the list of type specimens of 
birds and mammals deposited in the Museum of Geneva, we had our atten- 
tion drawn by the designation of a neotype of Artibeus toltecus toltecus 
(Saussure, 1860) in a review by Davis, 1969. This review was overlooked by 
the author of the first issue of the list of types (Baud, 1977), who mentioned 
that the holotype of to/teca was deposited in the Museum. 

5. Saussure’s holotype consists of skin and skull, MHNG No. 516. 
13, adult, sex undetermined. The skin is slightly faded, left wing is broken, 
the right wing is worn in four places. There is also a 3 cm long stitching on 
the back. Measurements, in mm, are: forearm, 41.0; thumb, without nail, 
4.0; ear, external face, 11.0; nose leaf, 9.3; breadth of interfemoral 
membrane at the anus, 4.4. All these measurements agree with those of the 
original description, in spite of a slight shrinking of the skin. The posterior 
part of the skull is missing, as are the zygomata. The lower mandible is 
intact. The holotype does not bear any original label, but it was registered 
in the entry book in August 1860 as Stenoderma tolteca Saussure. 

6. The existence in the Museum of Geneva of type material from 
Mexico described by H. de Saussure was known by some American chirop- 
terologists. For example, Miller & Allen, 1928, in writing about another 
species, Myotis californicus mexicanus (Saussure) noted: ‘Type specimen. — 
The description was based on an alcoholic specimen collected by H. de 
Saussure. If still in existence it is probably in the Museum of Natural 
History at Geneva, Switzerland, where most of Saussure’s Mexican 
material is preserved.’ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 303 


7. Ina review of the genus Leptonycteris, Hoffmeister, 1957, writing 
about nivalis nivalis (Saussure) noted: ‘Type. — Sex not known to me, No. 
515/97. Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, Switzerland, originally 
skin and skull; now skull only .. .’ It seems clear from the literature that the 
whereabouts of much of Saussures’s type material was well known. 
8. Thus, in compliance with Article 75h of the Code, we refer this 
rediscovery of the holotype of Stenoderma tolteca to the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and request that it: 
(1) suppress the neotype designation of USNM No. 38954/6981 for 
Artibeus toltecus toltecus (Saussure, 1860) made by Davis, 1969; 

(2) place the specific name tolteca Saussure, 1860, as published in 
the binomen Stenoderma tolteca, on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology, as defined by the holotype, MHNG No. 
516.13. 


REFERENCES 


BAUD, F. 1977. Catalogue des types de mammiféres et d’oiseaux du Muséum 

d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve. Rev. suisse zool., vol. 84(1), pp. 201-220. 
AVIS, W. B. 1969. A review of the small fruit bats (genus Artibeus) of Middle 

America. Southwest. Nat., vol. 14(1), pp. 15-29. 

HERSHKOVITZ, P. 1949. Mammals of northern Colombia. Preliminary report 
No. 5: Bats (Chiroptera). Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 99(3246), pp. 429-454. 

HOFFMEISTER, D. F. 1957. Review of the long-nosed bats of the genus 
Leptonycteris. J. Mamm., vol. 38(4), pp. 454-461. 

MILLER, G. S. & ALLEN, G. M. 1928. The American bats of the genera Myotis 
and Pizonyx. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 144, pp. 1-218. 

SAUSSURE, H. DE. 1860. Note sur quelques mammiféres du Mexique. Rev. Mag. 
zool., ser. 2, vol. 12, pp. 428-431. 


304 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


NEODORIPPE SERENE & ROMIMOHTARTO, 1969 (CRUSTACEA, 
DECAPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES. 
Z.N.(S.)2467 


By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 
Netherlands) and Raymond B. Manning (National Museum of Natural 
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 


This is a simple case of a genus with a misidentified type species, and 
is referred to the Commission for a decision as prescribed by Article 70b of 
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 

2. In the course of a revision of the Indo-West Pacific species for- 
merly assigned to the brachyuran genus Dorippe Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. 
entomol. Fabricii, p. 93), Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (Mar. Res. 
Indonesia, no. 9) established several new genera and subgenera. One of 
these new genera is Neodorippe Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 (op. cit, pp. 
3, 5, 11), with the type species, by original designation and monotypy, 
Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Entomol. Syst., p. 361). 

3. A recent re-examination of the type material of Fabricius’ species 
of Dorippe in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen and 
in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie at Leiden showed that the 
syntypes of Dorippe astuta Fabricius, 1798, do not belong to the species that 
Serene & Romimohtarto indicated as Neodorippe astuta, but in fact are the 
species named Dorippoides facchino (Herbst, 1785) (Versuch einer Naturge- 
schichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 1 (6), p. 190) by those authors. 
Cancer facchino Herbst, 1785, is the type species, by original designation 
and monotypy, of the subgenus Dorippe (Dorippoides) Serene & 
Romimohtarto, 1969, pp. 3, 4, 8. If Dorippe astuta is accepted as type 
species of the genus Neodorippe, that genus and Dorippoides become 
subjective synonyms. 

4. A further examination of Fabricius’ types showed that Dorippe 
callida Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Entomol. Syst., p. 362), belongs to the species 
that Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969 incorrectly identified as Neodorippe 
astuta. Serene & Romimohtarto, not having seen Fabricius’ types, evidently 
considered Dorippe callida a species incerta (as had been done by most 
previous authors) and ignored it in their revision. 


5. The genus Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969, therefore, — 


is clearly based on a misidentified type species, and the Commission should 
now decide which species should be selected as the legal type species of that 
genus. Two courses are open to the Commission: (1) to accept Dorippe 
astuta Fabricius, 1798, as the type species of Neodorippe; or (2) to use their 
plenary powers and assign Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798, as the type of 
that genus. 

6. Under solution (1) the name WNeodorippe Serene & 


Romimohtarto, 1969 would either fall as a synonym of Dorippoides Seréne _ 
& Romimohtarto, 1969, or replace that name, depending on the action of — 


A 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 305 


the first revisor in this case. A new name would then have to be introduced 
for the genus containing Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798. 

7. Under solution (2) the name Neodorippe can continue to be used 
in the sense intended by its original authors, and no further action need be 
taken. 

8. In our opinion the second course is definitely to be preferred as it 
will cause the least disturbance. 

9. The family name DORIPPIDAE has already been placed on the 
Official List of Family Names in Zoology as Name no. 355, in Opinion 688 
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. No action 
concerning that name therefore seems to be called for, were it not that the 
name on the Official List is incorrectly attributed to De Haan, 1841, while 
as far as we can make out, the first use of it (as DORIPPINA) was by Macleay, 
1838, p. 69. We therefore take this opportunity to request the Commission 
to correct this error. 

10. The following are the concrete proposals that we now submit to 
the Commission, in which we ask that it: 

(1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species 
hitherto made for the nominal genus Neodorippe Seréne & 
Romimohtarto, 1969 and, having done so, to designate Dorippe 
callida Fabricius, 1798, as the type species of that genus; 

(2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(a) Dorippoides Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by original designation and 
monotypy, Cancer facchino Herbst, 1785; 

(b) Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Dorippe callida Fabricius, 1798; 

(3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) callida Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Dorippe 
callida (specific name of the type species of Neodorippe 
Serene & Romimohtarto, 1969); 

(b) facchino Herbst, 1785, as published in the binomen Cancer 
facchino (specific name of the type species Dorippoides 
Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969); 

(4) correct the entry under no. 355 on the Official List of Family 
Names in Zoology to DORIPPIDAE (correction by White, 1847, 
List Specimens Crustacea British Museum: 53, of DORIPPINA) 
MacLeay, 1838 (in A. Smith, Illustrations of the Zoology of 
South Africa (Invertebrata), pp. 1-75, type genus: Dorippe 
Weber, 1795). 


306 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


SAGARTIA LUCIAE VERRILL, 1898 (COELENTERATA, 
ACTINIARIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE USE OF 
THE RELATIVE PRECEDENCE PROCEDURE. Z.N.(S.)2363 


By Robert W. Seaton (Department of Biological Science, Florida State 
University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, U.S.A.) 


The validity of the long and widely used specific name /uciae Verrill, 
1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae, is threatened by at least 
two and possibly three prior specific names: pustulata McMurrich, 1887, as 
published in the binomen Sagartia pustulata; lineata Verrill, 1869, as 
published in the binomen Sagartia lineata; and cavernata Bosc, 1802, as 
published in the binomen Actinia cavernata. From 1898 to 1978 the specific 
name /uciae Verrill, 1898, has never been employed as a junior synonym of 
these or any other prior names. Nomenclatural stability will be served best 
by giving nomenclatural precedence to the specific name J/uciae Verrill, 
1898, whenever prior specific names are regarded as denoting the same 
biological taxon. 

2. The intertidal sea anemone currently known as Diadumene (or 
Haliplanella) luciae is among the most widely distributed and studied of all 
coelenterates. It might now be the most widely distributed of all intertidal 
marine invertebrates (Dr L. L. Minasian, personal communication), and at 
sites where it is present it usually occurs in abundance (e.g. Verrill, 1898; 
Hargitt, 1912). Under the specific name /uciae it is cited in the primary 
zoological literature at least 125 times by 76 authors in 56 of the last 82 
years, including 29 of the last 32 years, and every year from 1963 to 1980. 
From 1950 to the present it is documented by the name /uciae in at least 
31 publications that are primarily ecological or distributional, in 13 that 
are primarily taxonomic, and in 34 that are primarily physiological or 
morphological in emphasis. (Ten of these works use /uciae as a valid name: 
Carlgren, 1952; Stephenson & Stephenson, 1952; Hedgpeth, 1954; Pax & 
Muller, 1962; Calder, 1972; Belem & Monteiro, 1977; Dunn & Hand, 1977; 
Honma & Kitami, 1978; Williams, 1979; Minasian, 1980.) In contrast, the 
specific name pustulata McMurrich, 1887, appears in two later taxonomic 
discussions (McMurrich, 1921, p. 737, footnote; Hand, 1956, p. 217), ina 
key (Parker, 1900, p. 754), and with a question mark in a list (Carlgren, 
1949, p. 102). It is never used as a senior synonym of /uciae. The specific 
name /ineata Verrill, 1869, is cited in five subsequent publications. 
McMurrich (1921, p. 737), Uchida (1932, p. 73) and Hand (1956, p. 217) 
remarked that /ineata might be a senior synonym of /uciae, but only recently 
has lineata been formally proposed or employed as a valid name for the 
species under consideration (Williams, 1978, p. 17; 1980, p. 84). The specific 
name cavernata Bosc, 1802, is often cited in the literature, but never as a 
synonym of luciae. 

3. McMurrich, 1921, was unable to decide whether or not the 
unstriped animals that he had described in 1887 as Sagartia pustulata were 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 307 


conspecific with Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898. No type material of pustulata 
exists (McMurrich, 1921, p. 733). External features aside, Diadumene luciae 
differs from its congeners primarily by the microstructural characteristics of 
everted nematocysts from acontia (Hand, 1956) and from catch tentacles 
(Seaton, unpublished). These characters, as well as the peculiarities of 
external morphology, texture and coloration attributed to pustulata 
(McMurrich, 1887, p. 60), exist in certain clones of unstriped Diadumene 
luciae from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of Florida (Seaton, 
unpublished). As Hand anticipated (1956, p. 217), re-examination of 
McMurrich’s pustulata morphotype points to that specific name as a prior 
synonym of Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898. 

4. I concur with Williams, 1978, that the original description of 
Sagartia lineata (Verrill, 1869, p. 57) is diagnostic of the species described as 
Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898. This is perhaps the only actiniarian species 
that in many cases can be identified with reasonable certainty by a color 
pattern alone: orange intermesenterial stripes (cf. Hand, 1956, p. 218). As 
Williams noted, Verrill, 1869, in fact described two of the four color ‘races’ 
recorded by Uchida, 1936, p. 895 (numbers one and four); but the stripes 
in Uchida’s animals were orange or yellowish white, not red or pink as in 
Verrill’s animals (1869, p. 57). It seems a minor distinction, yet one wonders 
why previous authors hesitated to assign validity to lineata. To my know- 
ledge such red stripes, assuming that they are entirely red and not merely 
red distally, are uncommon, and also unknown in the literature after 1869 
except for a color painting in Gosner, (1979, plate 12). I have seen such 
red-striped animals once, in a clone from Cameron, Louisiana. 

5. Uchida, 1932, p. 71, remarked that along with /ineata three other 
of Verrill’s 1869 species might be identified with /uciae: Sagartia radiata, 
Sagartia sp., and Sagartia (?) Napensis [sic]. Uchida concluded that none of 
these, including /ineata, could be accurately determined from Verrill’s 
descriptions. With the exception of /ineata, Uchida’s judgement in this 
regard seems unquestionable. 

6. The oldest reasonably certain record of the species under con- 
sideration might be the ‘Actinia cavernosa Bosc’ of McCrady (1858, p. 275, 
3 figs.), an incorrect subsequent spelling of the specific name cavernata 
Bosc, 1802. The specific name cavernosa is thus unavailable. Nothing in 
McCrady’s paper demonstrates ‘intent’ to change the spelling in the sense 
of Article 33b (i) of the third edition of the Code. The identity of Actinia 
cavernata Bosc, 1802, is uncertain. Although Bosc’s description and illus- 
tration (second edition, 1830, p. 260, plate 13 fig. 2) indicate similarities 
to Diadumene luciae (e.g. size, column texture, color pattern, habitat 
and abundance), like Andres (1881b, pp. 125-127) I recognize in Bosc’s 
cavernata a stronger resemblance to Aiptasiogeton comatus (= Paractis 
comata Andres, 1881a) than to any other species. (In his 1883 monograph, 
Rome edition, pp. 166, 167, 240, Andres changed his mind.) Bosc’s 
cavernata and McCrady’s cavernosa were both collected in the Carolinas 
and have previously been considered synonyms (Verrill, 1864, p. 17; 


308 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


Andres, 1883, p. 240; McMurrich, 1887, p. 62). Combined, the original 
descriptions of cavernata and cavernosa could only apply to Diadumene 
luciae among known Western Atlantic actiniarians, but taxonomic 
arguments based on such reasoning do not compel assent. 

7. A prima facie case (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31 (2), pp. 87-88) exists 
for suppressing the specific name pustulata McMurrich, 1887, but not for 
lineata Verrill, 1869. The specific name cavernata Bosc, 1802, cannot be sup- 
pressed without endorsement of uncertain taxonomic judgements. In view 
of the well established usage of the specific name /uciae and the confusion 
that would ensue were any prior name to be substituted for it, it seems 
appropriate and parsimonious to request conservation under the ‘relative 
precedence’ procedure. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name /uciae 
Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae, is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over the specific names pustulata McMurrich, 
1887, as published in the binomen Sagartia pustulata; lineata Verrill, 1869, 
as published in the binomen Sagartia lineata; and cavernata Bosc, 1802, as 
published in the binomen Actinia cavernata, whenever it and any one of 
them are treated as synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) luciae Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia 
luciae, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomen- 
clatural precedence as ruled under the plenary powers in (1) 


above; 

(b) pustulata McMurrich, 1887, as published in the binomen 
Sagartia pustulata; 

(c) lineata Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Sagartia 
lineata; 

(d) cavernata Bosc, 1802, as published in the binomen Actinia 
cavernata; 


each with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific 
name /uciae Verrill, 1898, as published in the binomen Sagartia luciae when 
it is considered a synonym thereof. 


REFERENCES 


ANDRES, A. 1881a. Prodromus neopolitanae actiniarum faunae, addito generalis 
actiniarum bibliographiae catalogo. Mittheil. zool. Stat. Neapel, vol. 2, pp. 
305-371. 

1881b. Intorno alla scissiparita delle attinie. Mittheil. zool. Stat. Neapel, vol. 
2, pp. 305-371. 

1883. Le Attinie, Reale Accademia dei Lincei (1882-1883), Rome. (x, +460 
pp. Pagination in this Rome edition differs from other Rome (1883) and 
Leipzig (1884) editions.) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 309 


BELEM, M. J. C. & MONTEIRO, D. C. 1977. Contribucaoes ao conhecimento da 
fauna de cnidairios de Rio de Janeiro. II. Haliplanella luciae (Verrill, 1898), 
una nova occurencia no Brazil. Univ. fed. Rio de Janeiro, Inst. Biol., Dept. 
Zool. separate 26, pp. 1-19. 

BOSC, L. A. G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des vers, contenant leur description et leurs 

moeurs; avec figures dessinées d’aprés nature, 3 vols., Paris, Déterville. 

1830. Histoire naturelle des vers...(second edition, 3 vols.) Librairie 

Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. 

CALDER, D. R. 1972. Cnidaria of the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. vol. 13 
(Suppl), pp. 100-102. 

CARLGREN, O. 1949. A survey of the Ptychodactiaria, Corallimorpharia, and 

Actiniaria. K. svenska Vetensk. Hand. (4) vol. 1 (1), pp. 1-121. 

1952. Actiniaria from North America. Ark. Zool. (2) vol. 3 (30), pp. 373-390. 

DUNN, D. F. & HAND, C. 1977. Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943 (Polychaeta): 
Request for suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Haliplanella 
Hand, 1955 (Anthozoa). Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 94-97. 

GOSNER, K. L. 1979. A field guide to the Atlantic seashore, Houghton Mifflin Co., 
Boston. 

HAND, C. 1956. The sea anemones of central California. Part III. The acontiarian 
anemones. Wasmann J. Biol. vol: 13, (for 1955) pp. 189-251. 

HARGITT, C. W. 1912. The Anthozoa of the Woods Hole region. Bull. U.S. Bur. 
Fish. vol. 32, pp. 223-254. 

HEDGPETH, J. W. 1954. Anthozoa: The anemones. Fish. Bull. U.S. Fish Wildl. 
Serv. vol. 55, pp. 285-290. 

HONMA, Y. & KITAMI, T. 1978. Fauna and flora in the waters adjacent to the 
Sado Marine Biological Station, Niigata University. Ann. Rep. Sado mar. 
Biol. Stn., Niigata Univ. no. 8, pp. 7-81. 

McCRADY, J. 1858. Instance of incomplete longitudinal fission in Actinia 
cavernosa Bosc. Proc. Elliott Soc. Sci. Art. vol. 1, pp. 275-278. 

McMURRICH, J. P. 1887. Notes on Actiniae obtained at Beaufort, N.C. Stud. biol. 

Lab. Johns Hopkins Univ. vol. 4, pp. 55-63. 

1921. Note on the systematic position and distribution of the actinian 

Sagartia luciae. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (1921), pp. 729-739. 

MINASIAN, L. L. 1980. The distribution of proliferating cells in an anthozoan 
polyp, Haliplanella luciae (Actiniaria: Acontiaria), as indicated by 
3H-thymidine incorporation. Pp. 415-420. Jn P. Tardent & R. Tardent, eds., 
Developmental and Cellular Biology of Coelenterates, Elsevier/North-Hol- 
land Biomedical Press, Amsterdam. 

PARKER, G. H. 1900. Synopses of North American invertebrates. XIII. The 
Actiniaria. Amat. Nat. vol. 34, pp. 747-758. 

PAX, F. & MULLER, I. 1962. Die Anthozoenfauna der Adria. Fauna Flora Adriat. 
vol. 3, pp. 1-343. 

STEPHENSON, T. A. & STEPHENSON, A. 1952. Life between tide marks in 
North America. Part IT. Northern Florida and the Carolinas. J. Ecol. vol. 40, 
pp. 1-49. 

UCHIDA, T. 1932. Occurrence in Japan of Diadumene luciae, a remarkable actinian 

of rapid dispersal. J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido imp. Univ. (6) vol. 2, pp. 69-82. 

1936. Influence of the currents upon the distribution of races and frequency 

of asexual reproduction in the actinian, Diadumene luciae. Zool. Mag., 

Tokyo, vol. 48, pp. 895-906. 


310 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 3, September 1985 


VERRILL, A. E. 1864. Revision of the polypi of the eastern coast of the United 
States. Mem. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. vol. 1, pp. 1-45. 

1869. Synopsis of the polyps and corals of the North Pacific Exploring 
Expedition, under Commodore C. Ringgold and Capt. John Rogers, U.S.N., 
from 1835 to 1856. Collected by Dr Wm. Stimpson, naturalist to the 
expedition. Part IV. Actiniaria. Essex Inst. (Salem, Mass.) Communs. vol. 6, 
pp. 51-104. 

1898. Descriptions of new American Actinians, with critical notes on other 
species, I. Am. J. Sci. (4) vol. 6, pp. 493-498. 

WILLIAMS, R. B. 1978. A comment on the request for suppression of Haliplanella 
Treadwell (Polychaeta) in favour of Haliplanella Hand (Anthozoa). Bull. 
zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 17-18. 

1979. A survey of the littoral anthozoa, with additional notes on some other 
marine invertebrates of Gower, South Wales. Nature Wales vol. 16, pp. 
253-266. 

1980. A further note on catch tentacles in sea anemones. Trans. Norfolk 
Norwich Nat. Soc. vol. 25, pp. 84-86 


wD 


natal ail PE alae 


y Opinion 1346. Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere crispata 
«Brady, 1868 and Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 yee cea 
‘ Ostracoda) . 

_ Opinion 1347. Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera) . 
— 1348. Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 ae ise Artiodactyla) . 


4 Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . : 

’ Opinion 1350. Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . 
Sp eition 1351. Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . 
Opinion 1352. Eurhinus Schonherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): a or 
, “9 fied emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807. . . ¥ 
- Opinion 1353. Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Heminiecs) 


am New and revived cases 

Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae). W. R. Dolling 
_ Thylacites Germar, 1817; Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823; Cycloderes 
: Sahlberg, 1823 and Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 Insecta, 
Coleoptera). A. T. Howden ; 

Stenoderma tolteca Saussure, 1860 0 (Mammalia, Chiroptera). a “de 
Roguin and C. Weber ; 


. :. _ Holthuis and R. B. Manning 
* jagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria). R. Ww. Seaton 


274 
277 
279 
281 
283 
285 
287 
291 
293 


296 
302 


304 
306 


{ternational Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express 
preciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British 
eum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. 


CONTENTS 


Officers and Members of the Commission 

Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology 
‘Special Announcements DP ade 


Comments ; 
On proposed amendment to Article Slc of the Code. B. C. Ratcliffe; J. R. 
Vockeroth; R. W. Crosskey and others . . 
Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926. K. G. A. Hamilton: 
M. Boulard; P. Lauterer : PAPE Be sat Se uk \ 
Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 D. Rosen ; 
Chromis Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes). S. O. Kullander; A R. Emery . 
HOLOTHUROIDEA. L. B. Holthuis . . 3 ; 
Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825]. J. D. Bradley & K. Sattler j 
CAECILIDAE in Amphibia and Insecta. M. H. Wake 


Opinions 
Opinion 1328. Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Coleoidea). . 
Opinion 1329. Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 basins: 
Galigidae) . . . : 
Opinion 1330. Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Nematoda) . ; ; 
Opinion 1331. SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) 
and MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : 
Opinion 1332. Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia australis ; 
(Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda) . . 
Opinion 1333. Jpnops murrayi Gunther, 1878 (Ostiechthyes) 
Opinion 1334. Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (Coleoptera) . 

Opinion 1335. Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera) ; 
Opinion 1336. Five specific names proposed for Heterodera A. Schmidt, 
1871 (Aschelminthes, Nematoda) by B. A. Cooper, 1955. . 
Opinion 1337. Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 as type species 

of Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida) 
Opinion 1338. Thrips rufus Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). 
Opinion 1339. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 
Opinion 1340. Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Arachnida, Araneae) 
Opinion 1341. Simulium amazonicum Goeldi (Insecta, Diptera) 
Opinion 1342. Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) ‘ 
Opinion 1343. Kinosternon alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980 and 
Kinosternon oaxacae, Berry & Iverson, 1980 (Reptilia, Testudines . 
Opinion 1344. Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 given nomenclatural pre- 
cedence over Dactylamoeba ceded 1880 (Rhizopoda, | 
Amoebida). . . oO nS Sd Rae? ee 
Opinion 1345. ‘baomedea Hace Alder, 1857, Sertularia volubilis 
Linnaeus, 1758 and Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 © 
(Coelenterata, Hydroida) . > yes Ble Pea Oa 


al 
6 December, 1985 Volume 42 Part 4 
pp. vii—viii, 311-420, T.P., I-VII ISSN 0007-5167 


The Bulletin 
— of Zoological 
I ora caclatare 


The Official Organ of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


The Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature 


Published by: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux 


On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o British Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 


to: 


CENTRAL SALES 


FARNHAM ROYAL 
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U. K. 


COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX 7 


All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe 
duced in any form or by any means, electronically, me 
ically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, withou 7 th 


prior permission of the copyright owner. 


Vii 


. 


THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President: Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of 
| Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia). 

Vice-President: Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, 
Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain). 

Executive Secretary: Dr. P.K. TUBBS (British Museum (Natural History), 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). 

Secretary-General: Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


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


Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, 
Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; 
Asteroidea 

Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Histoire, Postbus 9517, 2300 
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea 

Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 
75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor ) Lepidoptera 

Prof. C DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, 
Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 

Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk. ul. 
Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 

Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 
Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced 
Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) 
(President ); Mammalia: Recent and Fossil 

Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 
September 1976) Reptilia: E D P Methods 

Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 
Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 

Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 
Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) 
Parasitology 

Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 

Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) (Councillor) Octocorallia; Systematics 

Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, 
U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 

Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 7LL, U.K.) 
(23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 

Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 
199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 


Vill 


Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of 
Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 

Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 
SW7 SBD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda 

Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 
Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca 

Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 
249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology 

Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 2, 
A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari 

Dr. SHUN-ICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 
Hyakunincho 3-23-1, Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) 
Entomology 

Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 
Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical 
Hymenoptera 

Dr. G.C. GRUCHY (National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 
0M8) (15 April 1985) Ichthyology 

Dr. Z. KABATA (Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological 
Station, Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K6, Canada) (4 September 1985) Copepoda 

Dr. F.C. THOMPSON (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA c/o U.S. 
National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (4 September 1985) 
Diptera 

Prof. B.S. ZHENG (Department of Vertebrate Taxonomics and Faunistics, Institute 
of Zoology, 7 Zhongguancun Lu, Haitien, Beijung, China) (4 September 1985) 
Ichthyology 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
A. The Members of the Trust 


Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. Dr. G.C. Gruchy 
(Chairman ) Dr. R.H. Hedley, F.1.Biol. 
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Dr. L.B. Holthuis 
Managing Director) Dr. M.K. Howarth 
Prof. Per Brinck Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. J.H. Callomon Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius Dr. M. Luc 
Prof. C.B. Cox Dr. R.B. Manning 
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Mr. R.V. Melville 
Fae See Zs Dr. I.W.B. Nye 
Mr. D. Curry Dr. E.P.F. Rose, 1D: 
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) 
Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Dr. G.B. White 
Prof. J. Forest Prof. J.M. Dodd, F.R.S. (Observer for 
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. the Royal Society) 


B. The Officers of the Trust 
Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller ) 
Mr. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Assistant Zoologist) 
Mr. J.D.D. Smith, F.G.S. (Administrator ) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 311 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 42, part 4 (pp. vii—vili, 311—420, T.P., I-VI) 6 December 1985 


NOTICES 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to 
vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
six months after the publication of each application. This period is nor- 
mally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who 
wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his con- 
tribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as 
possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve 
months of the date of publication of the application. 

(b) 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 (any marked with an asterisk 
involve the application of Articles 23b and 79b): 


(1) Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes): proposed designa- 
tion of Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 as type species. 
Z.N.(S.) 2434. Amy R. McCune. 

*(2) Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Cephalopholis sex- 
maculata (Ruppell, 1830) (Osteichthyes, Serranidae): pro- 
posed conservation by suppression of Bodianus guttatus 
Bloch, 1790, Anthias argus, Bloch, 1792 and Serranus zanana 
Valenciennes, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 2470. J. E. Randall, M. L. 
Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia, & P. C. Heemstra. 

(3) Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita): proposed designation of 
Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2337. 
P2D: Lane: 

(4) Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): pro- 
posed designation of Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 as 
type species. Z.N.(S.) 2503. D. J. Brothers & L. A. Mound. 

(5) HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 
and HETEROGYNINAE Nagy, 1969 (Insecta, Hymenop- 
tera): proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2496. 
M.C. Day. 

(6) THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and 
THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae): pro- 
posals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2307. P. T. 
Lehtinen. 

(7) Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790) (Insecta, Coleoptera, 
Elateridae): proposed conservation by suppression of Elater 
bimaculatus Fourcroy, 1785. Z.N.(S.) 2345. M. Mroczkowski. 


312 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


*(8) Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conser- 
vation by suppression of Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834. 
Z.N.(S.) 2453. E. P. Nartshuk & R. RozkoSny. 

*(9) Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed 
conservation by the suppression of Musca graeca Pontop- 
pidan, 1763. Z.N.(S.) 2454. E. P. Nartshuk & R. Rosko&ny. 

(10) The family names for the storm petrels and the dippers. 
Z.N.(S.) 2024. R. V. Melville. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications 

have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (3) (published on 30 
September 1985) (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of 
Articles 23b and 79c): 

(1) Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed 
conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2525. K. H. L. Key & N. D. Jago. 

(2) Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
designation of Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 as type 
species. Z.N.(S.) 2526. A. Warén. 

*(3) Heteronota pelagica Girard, 1857 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed 
designation. Z.N.(S.) 2527. G. R. Zug. 

(4) Listrocelis pectinata Guérin-Méneville, 1830 (Insecta, Gryllop- 
tera): proposed acceptance of Phisis Stal, 1861 and Feuthras 
Stal, 1874 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2528. D. K. Mc. E. Kevan. 

*(5) Polymastodon taoensis Cope, August 1882 (Mammalia, 
Multituberculata): proposed conservation and designation as 
type species of Taeniolabis Cope, July 1882. Z.N.(S.) 2529. M. 
B. Simmons. 

(d) Guidelines for applications to the Commission. Intending appli- 
cants should draw up their applications in line with the Guidelines 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 42, part 1. 
pages 3-5. Copies of the Guidelines can be obtained from the Executive 
Secretary. 


SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 


MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION 


Professor E. E. Binder (Switzerland), who was first elected in 1962, 
and Professor Per Brinck (Sweden), first elected in 1958 and Vice-President 
since 1977, retired from the Commission on 6 September 1985. Their 
services were invaluable, and the Commission is most grateful to them. 

During the XXII General Assembly of the International Union of 
Biological Sciences in Budapest the Section on Zoological Nomenclature 
met on 4 September, and made the following elections to the Commission: 
Dr Zbigniew Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) 

Dr F. Christian Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 313 


Dr Bao-shan Zheng (China; Ichthyology). 
The Commission is glad to welcome these new members. 


ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT 


The members of the Commission have elected Professor Dr Raphael 
Alvarado (Universidad de Madrid) to be Vice-President from 1 November 
1985. 

P.K. TUBBS 
Executive Secretary 
November 1985 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


GENERAL MEETING, BUDAPEST, 2-6 SEPTEMBER 1985 


Present: W. D. L. Ride (President) in the Chair: Alvarado, Bernardi, 
Brinck, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Gruchy, Heppell, Lehtinen, 
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and the Secretary. 
Tubbs and Smith from the Secretariat also present. 


(1) Apologies for absence had been received from Bayer, Cocks, 
Kraus and Willink. 

(2) The minutes of the previous General Meeting (Ottawa, August 
1982) had been published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 40, pp. 7-13. 

(3) The Agenda was adopted as circulated with the addition of an 
item for Any Other Business. 

(4) The Secretary’s report to IUBS had been circulated. There was 
no discussion. 


5 President’s Report 

The President opened his report by paying tribute to Mr Richard V. 
Melville who would retire from the post of Secretary of the Commission at 
the end of the IUBS General Assembly. The President said that Mr 
Melville’s association with the Commission had begun more than 30 years 
ago when he played a prominent part in the 1953 Copenhagen Colloquium 
and the International Congress of Zoology Section on Nomenclature, sub- 
sequently verifying and seeing through to publication the “Copenhagen 
Decisions’’. In 1958 Mr Melville was seconded from the Geological Survey 
and Museum for 18 months as Assistant Secretary of the Commission in 
order to be Secretary of the London Colloquium and Congress Section on 
Nomenclature. In 1968 he was elected a member of the Commission and 
appointed its Secretary. Outstanding amongst his many achievements as 
Secretary and Editor of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had been 


314 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


the preparation of some 500 Opinions, the handling of the Appeal for 
Funds to ensure the Commission’s survival and his secretaryship of the 
Editorial Committee for the 3rd Edition of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature. The Commission RESOLVED to record in the 
Minutes the great debt that it and zoologists as a whole owed to Mr 
Melville. 


Other points raised in the President’s report and not recorded in 
other items of the Minutes were: 

a) Financial Position: A note on the financial position of the Inter- 
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature was circulated. The President 
pointed out that, to avoid bankruptcy and cessation of the Council’s work, 
it was essential to increase the Trust’s income. He emphasised the urgency 
of resolving the financial problem by widening the funding-base for the 
Commission’s work and urged all Commissioners to do their utmost to 
encourage funding organizations in their own countries to provide long- 
term support. The President recorded that, in addition to a grant from 
IUBS, donations had been made by the Royal Society of London and the 
British research councils; the Australian Academy of Sciences; the Royal 
Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; the Royal Society of New 
Zealand; the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; 
the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; and the Academia Sinica, Taiwan. 
He was particularly pleased to be able to announce that a most welcome 
donation had also been received from the Soviet Academy of Sciences. 

[The following resolution was adopted by the [UBS General 
Assembly: 

RESOLUTION 4: SUPPORT FOR SYSTEMS OF 
NOMENCLATURE 

Recalling the decisions and conclusions of previous General 
Assemblies on the fundamental and applied importance of 
taxonomy, including nomenclature and of the need for inter- 
national support for systems of nomenclature that will secure their 
continued function, 

Appreciating the generous support provided in recent years to 
Zoological Nomenclature by members of IUBS and, in particular, 
by the Royal Society including the British research councils, the 
Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Danish Academy of 
Sciences and Letters, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the South 
African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Royal 
Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Academia Sinica, Taiwan, 
Noting with pleasure the donation made by the USSR Academy of 
Sciences announced at the General Assembly, 

Commends to all member bodies the importance of developing and 
providing ongoing support for all systems of biological nomen- 
clature which provides a fundamental base for communication in 
biological science.] 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 515 


b) 3rd Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
clature: The 3rd Edition of the Code had been published in February 1985 
and more than 3500 of the 5000 copies printed had already been sold. The 
Trust was negotiating translation rights for a number of languages, particu- 
larly German, Italian and Spanish. Such translations would facilitate 
dissemination of the Code and also bring in a useful income to the Trust 
through royalties. Dr Trjapitzin announced that a Russian translation was 
being prepared by the USSR Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. He 
explained that the Commission, now under the Presidency of Professor 
Andrijashev and with Dr I. M. Kerzhner as Secretary, was set up in 1946 to 
encourage zoological nomenclature in a number of ways relating both to 
research and education. The Russian translation of the Code would 
incorporate the Official Lists of Names in Zoology, and the Soviet Commis- 
sioners were asked to liaise with the Secretariat who were preparing an 
updated edition of the Official Lists. The President asked Commissioners in 
those countries where a translation of the Code was not yet in hand to take 
steps to procure a translation. 

c) Council Meeting: A meeting of Council had been held on 11 
October 1984. A copy of the Minutes could be seen on request. 


6 Election of Commissioners 

i) Procedure for Elections. Although casual vacancies can be filled 
by the Commission itself (Article 4(f) of the Constitution), it was agreed 
that, to widen the Commission’s foundations, the formal election procedure 
through the Section of Nomenclature should be followed when the timing 
was feasible. 

It was suggested that meetings of ICSEB would provide additional 
opportunities for the Section of Nomenclature to meet, with the advantage 
over the IUBS General Assembly that many more systematic zoologists 
would be present. This would provide an additional opportunity for the 
election of members of the Commission, although the elections would not 
take effect until the close of the following TUBS General Assembly. A 
revision of the Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of [UBS 
was agreed (see Appendix). 

It was thought desirable that the Commission should receive more 
nominations that at present, and it was agreed that unsuccessful nominees 
should remain on the list for one further meeting of the Section. 

The Commission considered the recommendation of the Council 
that it should at the election of Commissioners depart from the procedure 
of only presenting pairs of candidates on the slate. It was agreed that to 
enable a new procedure to be adopted the Bylaws would be amended. While 
the Commission was enabled under the Constitution to submit to the 
Section a single list of unpaired vacancies providing the total nominations 
did not exceed twice the number of vacancies, there was sufficient ambiguity 
in the present wording to render amendment desirable. 

The Commission RESOLVED to propose to amend Article 4(d) to 


316 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


read: “The Commission shall prepare a list of not more than twice as many 
nominees as there are places to be filled, under procedures to be specified in 
the Bylaws, and shall present it to the Section of Nomenclature’. It was also 
decided to amend Bylaws 3 and 5 so that vacancies are not treated individu- 
ally. The Secretariat was authorised to develop new wording prescribing the 
voting procedure for voting on a single list. 

ii) Election to Vacancies. Following the retirements of Com- 
missioners Binder, Brinck and Sabrosky, there were 3 vacancies to be filled 
and papers nominating 6 candidates had been circulated. The Commission 
RESOLVED to present the Section with a single list of all these nominees; 
that there should be successive ballots in each of which the candidate hav- 
ing the most votes would be elected and have his name removed from the 
next ballot; and that a tie in any ballot should be decided by the Chairman’s 
casting vote. 

The nominees were considered using the criteria in Article 2(c) of the 
Constitution, and 3 (Kabata, Thompson and Zheng) were selected for 
recommendation to the Section under Bylaw 3(a). 

[A meeting of the Section was held on 4 September, and Drs Z. 
Kabata (Canada; Copepoda), F. C. Thompson (USA; Diptera) 
and B. S. Zheng (China; Ichthyology) were elected. Amended 
Statutes of the Section, as proposed by the Commission, were 
adopted.] 


7 Appointment of Executive Secretary and Secretary-General and their 
duties 

Following discussion of a proposal to appoint an Executive Secre- 

tary and a Secretary-General, the following changes to Bylaws were agreed 
(with renumbering as necessary): 

i) New Bylaw — The Council shall appoint an Executive Secretary 
and, in addition, it may appoint a Secretary-General. Both 
appointments shall end at the close of the next General Assembly, 
and may be renewed. The word Secretary in the Constitution and 
Bylaws shall, unless otherwise specified, mean the Executive 
Secretary. The duties of the Offices shall be as described in Bylaws 
as follows: [numbers to be inserted] 

ii) New sections of Bylaw 23: duties of the Secretariat to read: 

g) to send drafts of Opinions to the Secretary-General before publi- 
cation, and to incorporate or discuss with him any comments or 
amendments he may make within one month. 

h) to send every proposal for amendment of the Code, Constitu- 
tion and Bylaws to the Secretary-General for his agreement before 
submitting them to the Council prior to publication. 

ill) Bylaw 24 to read: 

24. Where, after the issue of a voting paper, the Executive Secretary 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 317 


discovers or is informed that the application was incomplete or 
incorrect, he shall have discretion to defer publication of the Com- 
mission’s decision, in which case he shall at once notify the 
Secretary-General. The Secretary-General shall have discretion to 
proceed with the publication; if he does not do so, the Executive 
Secretary shall within one month refer the matter to the Council. 
The Council may then declare the vote to be cancelled, or direct 
that a vote be taken under the One-Month Rule (Bylaw 33) or 
direct the Executive Secretary to publish the decision taken by the 
Commission’s vote. In any reference to the Council under this 
Bylaw the Executive Secretary may act on the decision of the 
majority of the Council responding within one calendar month. 


iv) New Bylaw 27 to read: 
27. The Secretary-General shall on request by the Executive Secre- 
tary give assistance on any matter of doubt or difficulty. 


8 Office of Vice-President 

Under Bylaw 10, it was RESOLVED that the procedure for electing 
a successor to Professor Per Brinck as Vice-President would begin on 1 
October 1985. Under Bylaw 11(b), Dr H. G. Cogger and Mr R. V. Melville 
were appointed to join the Council for the purpose of nominating two 
candidates. It was RESOLVED that, by amendment to Bylaw 11(b), this 
nomination could proceed immediately. 


9 Proposed Amendments to the Code 
A number of proposals to amend the 3rd Edition of the Code had 
been received and some of these had been published in the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature. The President pointed out that those which had 
been published could proceed to a vote. Nevertheless, he thought that the 
new edition of the Code should be given time to settle down and become 
fully used before significant amendments were decided. He had set up a 
Scrutinizing Committee to consider proposed amendments and make 
recommendations at the next IUBS General Assembly, at which time a 
decision could be taken on setting up an editorial committee for the 4th 
Edition of the Code. The Commission RESOLVED to refer all proposed 
amendments to the Scrutinizing Committee but, for the benefit of members 
present at the meeting, it was agreed to hold preliminary discussions of 
proposals that had been received to date. 
The Commission (Mr Heppell in the Chair in the President’s 

absence) proceeded to examine the proposed amendments. 

Proposed Amendment to Article 5lc: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 41(3) 

Aug. 1984: 149-150 and comments in Bull. 42(1) : 10-12 

Members were generally agreed that the use of parentheses to 

enclose the name of the author of a specific-group name in a new 

combination was of some value in taxonomic works, but of less 


318 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


value for other uses. However, this point had to be weighed against 
the disadvantage of giving misleading information when, as 
frequently happened, parentheses were wrongly omitted in a 
secondary combination. To amend Article 51c as proposed would 
have the advantage of eliminating this source of misinformation. 
Apart from a change to Recommendation 22B, there would be no 
other implications for the Code. 

Proposed Amendment to Article 59b : Bull. 41(3) : 151 

This Article makes permanently invalid a junior secondary 
homonym that has been replaced before 1961. Members preferred 
not to see a change since they considered this to be a useful provi- 
sion which was clearly worded and for which there was a let-out 
clause when stability was threatened. 

Proposed Amendment to Article 70b : ibid : 156-158 and comments 
in Bull. 42(1) : 12, 13 & Bull. 42(2) : 123 

Members agreed that there was a case for modification of the text 
and the Scrutinizing Committee should be asked to examine this in 
detail. 

Request for a Declaration clarifying the meaning of “‘suppressed”’ 
and “‘rejected’’, and the status of works not complying with Articles 8 
or 9 : Bull. 41(3) : 152-155 

This application by Drs Holthuis, Ride and Sabrosky was discus- 
sed and referred to the Scrutinizing Committee. 


10 Proposed Suppression of Works (Code Article 79) 

Papers relating to a likely request for suppression of publications 
had been circulated before the meeting. The works in question were by 
R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington (Australian Journal of Herpetology /, 
73-79, (1984) and Aus. J. Herpetol. Supplement Series No. 1 (1985)). 

Among the grounds for objection to these works by a large number 
of Australian herpetologists were: 

i) No (or inadequate) justifications are given for proposed tax- 
onomic and nomenclatural changes, which include omissions and 
errors. 

ii) The publication were not apparently subjected to impartial peer 
and editorial review. 

ili) If taken seriously they would permanently destabilize the 
nomenclature of the Australian herpetofauna. 

In discussion other points were raised. Attention was drawn to the 
question of scale (107 new genera and 470 new species) and it was pointed 
out that there was nothing new in zoologists producing works which 
destabilized taxonomy, but new methodology meant that this could be done 
more quickly and on a wider scale. It was important for the Commission’s 
credibility that it should be seen to be responding positively, although there 
were limitations as to what could be done by the Commission, whose 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 319 


competence was nomenclatural rather than taxonomic. A register of 
available names might present one way of responding to such a situation 
in the future, as also might the development of a system of registering 
acceptable publications in specified journals. 

No formal application for the suppression of the works under 
Article 79 of the Code had yet been received by the Secretariat. Article 80 
would apply when the receipt of such an application was published in the 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 


11 Specialist Nomenclature Committees 

The President outlined his proposition that a greater involvement of 
zoologists in the decision-making processes of the Commission, and a wider 
consciousness of the importance of the work of the Commission, would be 
obtained by the development of nomenclature committees to advise the 
Commission on cases in special fields. Relevant applications would be sent 
to the nomenclature committees before publication so that the applications 
could be developed and improved where necessary. 

A paper prepared by the Secretariat showed that a small number of 
taxonomic groups accounted for the great majority of the applications to 
the Commission. On this basis, it was considered that 9 nomenclature com- 
mittees should be set up, covering Mammals; Birds; Reptiles and 
Amphibia; Fishes; Insects; Crustacea; Arachnids and Arthropods (other 
than Insects and Crustacea but including Trilobites); Molluscs and 
Brachiopods; and Protists. Applications concerning other taxonomic 
groups would be dealt with by the advisory mechanism available through 
Bylaw 30. 

It was important that the nomenclature committees should make 
their recommendations to the Commission and would be committees of the 
Council. However, this would not negate the possibility of those nomen- 
clature committees which already existed in certain areas performing this 
role. It was RESOLVED that the Council would approach existing com- 
mittees through their parent bodies and would itself set up nomenclature 
committees in those areas where none existed, the Secretariat initiating 
action as soon as possible. 


12 Official Lists of Names in Zoology 

Members welcomed the intention to publish in 1986 a new and 
up-dated edition of the Official Lists and Indexes. In preparing the entries, 
the Secretariat had uncovered a number of anomalous points including 
omissions, corrections of fact and points of editorial inconsistency. 

It was agreed that these should be dealt with by the Secretariat 
rather than through a vote by the Commission. In the event of alterations, 
the entries should make it clear, by reference to the earlier entry, that a 
deliberate alteration had been made to the text. A further issue related to 
the “Declaration 21” problem. Article 67e of the 1961 and 1964 editions of 
the Code required that if a nominal species which is the type of a genus is 


320 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


found to be a junior objective synonym, the senior synonym must be cited 
as the name of the type species of the genus in question. This provision was 
deleted in the 1985 edition of the Code which provides in a Recommenda- 
tion that the type species when cited in its original binomen be accompanied 
by the senior objective synonym. To adopt the new rule retrospectively 
would affect 19 names in 10 Opinions. It was agreed that the status of 
these names that had been fixed by Opinions should be sustained by a 
relevant reference in each entry to Article 78i (Previous decisions of the 
Commission). 


13 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Members discussed the Bulletin and considered that both the con- 
tents and the format could be improved to make it more useful and attract- 
ive, thus widening the circulation. This would increase not merely the 
income from subscriptions but also the dissemination of information. 

The Secretariat reported that this view was shared by the Interna- 
tional Trust for Zoological Nomenclature which had set up a working party 
to examine the issue. Dr R. B. Manning, President of the American Associ- 
ation for Zoological Nomenclature and a member of the Trust, had under- 
taken to gather the views of zoologists in North America. 

The main points developed in the ensuing discussion concerned: 

a) The possibility of widening the contents of the Bulletin to 
include more general articles on nomenclature or perhaps, as with 
Taxon, articles on systematics, possibly in conjunction with a 
learned society. 

b) The need for much wider distribution of the Opinions which 
were a main end-product of the Commission’s work. 

c) The desirability of being able to subscribe to sub-sections of the 
Bulletin each covering particular taxonomic groups. 

d) A number of editorial points such as grouping the contents page 
into taxonomic categories, putting the editor's name on the 
volume, and a blanket statement of certification covering all 
Opinions in any one part of the Bulletin. 

These comments and any others which members wished to send to 
the Secretariat would be considered there and by the Trust’s work- 
ing party. It was hoped that a report would be made to the Trust by 
the Summer of 1986 so that any changes agreed could be 
implemented in time for the 1987 volume. 


14. Names of Higher Taxa 

Dr Starobogatov suggested that names of taxa higher than the 
family-group names should be covered by the Code. This would be 
particularly valuable for computer retrieval. Dr Lehtinen said that many 
Scandinavian zoologists were opposed to an extension of the Code to cover 
names of higher taxa. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 321 


Dr Starobogatov was invited to initiate a debate by submitting an 
article for publication in the Bulletin. 


15 Biological Nomenclature 

A Workshop on Biological Nomenclature was held on the morning 
of 4 September when the Commission was joined by a number of other 
biologists, including several botanists. 

Dr Ride initiated a discussion by referring to Resolutions 5 and 6 of 
the IUBS General Assembly at Ottawa on Common Approaches to Bio- 
logical Nomenclature and the need to assist the organizations responsible 
for biological nomenclature. He circulated the report of the Ad hoc Com- 
mittee on Biological Nomenclature which he chaired, with Dr Rita Colwell 
and Dr W. Greuter as members (to be published Biology International, 
1986). The main recommendations related to the need to undertake 
a study of the Botanical and Zoological Codes to harmonize them as far as 
possible and the desirability of registering names of taxa and ultimately 
making such regulation mandatory. 

In the course of detailed discussion, the main points made were: 

a) It would not be practicable for zoologists and botanists to use a 
common Code but some of the main differences could be reduced 
or, in some cases, eliminated. 

b) Developing technology and changes in the Codes relating to the 
definition of publication were likely to lead to a great increase in 
the number of new taxa and names, some of doubtful validity. It 
was desirable to develop a system of registering new names, 
perhaps eventually extending this to names already existing. Dr 
Cogger thought that it was essential to develop a mechanism which 
took account of irresponsible or incompetent taxonomy, although 
he recognised that this was primarily a taxonomic matter which 
was highly subjective. 

c) There might be merit in restricting the number of journals and 
publications in which new names could be published or of requir- 
ing new names to be listed in particular journals before they were 
accepted as valid. 

It was agreed that IUBS should be asked to fund a feasibility study 
to examine the scope for developing a register of names. 


Dr Corliss referred to his working party on the Nomenclature of 
Protists and circulated a preliminary report. 
APPENDIX 
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 


Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature 
(Adopted at the XXII General Assembly, Budapest, 4 September 1985) 


322 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Article 1 The Section constitutes the Section of Nomenclature specified in 
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Constitution 
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Article 2 At each General Assembly of TUBS, or at other congresses as 
prescribed in Article 4, the Section of Zoological Nomenclature shall carry 
out the functions and duties of the Section of Nomenclature set out in the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and in the Constitution of 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In particular, 
the Section shall receive and discuss proposals from the International Com- 
mission on Zoological Nomenclature and shall submit recommendations 
concerning them to IUBS. 


Article 3 The members of the Section are: 

(a) Members of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature. 

(b) At a General Assembly of IUBS, any zoologists being members 
of national or other delegations, Sections or Commissions of the Union. 

(c) Any zoologists admitted by the Commission. 


Article 4 

(a) A Session of the Section shall be held between the opening of a 
General Assembly of IUBS and its closing. 

(b) Providing all members of the Commission are notified in 
advance, Sessions may, at the discretion of the President of the 
Commission, begin before and continue after a General Assembly or an 
international congress as prescribed in this Article. 

(c) Provided all members of the Commission are notified in 
advance, Sessions may be convened by the President to be held in conjunc- 
tion with international congresses convened by a Scientific Member of 
IUBS. 


Article 5 There is no limit to the number of General Assemblies, or inter- 
national congresses as prescribed in Article 4, at which an individual may 
serve as a member of the Section. 


Article 6 

(a) The Chairman of the Section shall be the President of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 

(b) In the absence of the President, the Vice-President of the 
Commission shall be Chairman. 

(c) In the absence of both the President and the Vice-President, the 
Section shall elect a Chairman at the meeting. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 323 


Article 7 

(a) At any Session the Section may consider nominations to the 
Commission presented by the Commission in accordance with its Constitu- 
tion and Bylaws, providing that any elections to the Commission shall be 
made between the opening of a General Assembly of IUBS, or an interna- 
tional congress as prescribed in Article 4, and its closing. 

(b) In elections no one shall vote if he is a candidate. 

(c) The voting procedures of the Section shall be in accordance with 
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Commission. 

(d) Membership of the Commission of persons elected at a Session 
other than during a General Assembly of IUBS shall take effect at the close 
of the General Assembly next held. 


FINANCIAL REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1984 


Income from sales of publications was slightly greater than in 1983 
but made up differently. As in 1983, £10,000 was received under the agree- 
ment with the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux by which they print 
and market the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. From this have been 
deducted outstanding debts from 1982 to give a net figure of £9,572. 
The figure of £2,377 for ‘International Codes’ was composed of interest 
of £2,364 on money earmarked for printing of the 3rd Edition of the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and £13 from sale of 
Amendment to the 2nd Edition of the Code. Grants were received from the 
International Union of Biological Sciences, the Royal Society of London 
and the four British research councils (IUBS £3,166; Royal Society £1,000; 
Agricultural and Food Research Council £2,000; Medical Research Council 
£2,000, plus £2,000 for 1983; Natural Environment Research Council 
£2,000; Science and Engineering Research Council £2,000). The Appeal 
Fund received no large deferred covenants in 1984, so the receipts decreased 
from £41,793 to £8,687. Ordinary deeds of covenant (exempt from tax 
under British law) brought in £3,575 (£2,880 in 1983). Bank and other 
interest on reserves increased to £9,777 (£4,410 in 1983). Salaries and fees 
increased from £14,852 to £20,012 as a result of staff changes. £1,174 was 
provided to write off bad debts that have accumulated over a number of 
years. Most of these stem from 1981 when the Commonwealth Agricultural 
Bureaux undertook to publish and market the Bulletin and there was a 
change from payment in arrears to payment in advance. Strenuous efforts 
have been and are being made to collect these debts and already (1985) 
some have been paid, but it becomes increasingly difficult to locate 
individuals who have changed their addresses. 

The surplus for the year was £26,693 against £50,194 in 1983. 
Accumulated reserves total £128,793 against £106,697. The greater part of 
the reserves are invested in National Savings Income Bonds or on deposit 


324 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


as 7-day money with Coutts Finance. Working capital is deposited or on 
current account with Coutts & Co., Bankers, London. 

Anticipated changes in 1985 include income from sales of the 3rd 
Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Payment 
from the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux will be less by £5,000 but 
grants from IUBS, the Royal Society and the British research councils will 
continue at about the same rate as in 1984. Interest on reserves will be much 
the same as in 1984, but income from the Appeal cannot be forecast and 
is likely to be less than in 1984. £1,400 is expected for work done on 
the nomenclature of parasitic diseases for the Council for International 
Organizations of Medical Sciences. Tentative total income is forecast as 
£54,606. Expenditure on wages and salaries will increase as a result of Mr 
R. V. Melville’s retirement as Secretary of the Commission and the appoint- 
ment of a successor who will have to be paid more realistically. For various 
reasons office expenditure is likely to be greater than in 1984. Unusual 
expenses in 1985 include preliminary work on the Official Lists of Names in 
Zoology which it is proposed to bring up to date and publish, foreign travel 
(IUBS General Assembly, Budapest) and conference expenses (ICSEB III, 
University of Sussex). Total office expenses are forecast to be £13,500 and 
publication of the Code has cost more than £12,165. The total outgoings 
are forecast as £51,065 and the excess of income over expenditure £3,541. 

The Trust will have no difficulty in meeting all its expenses in 1985 
and 1986, although 1986 may be a difficult year. We cannot be certain of a 
payment from the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux with whom agree- 
ment to publish and market the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is 
being re-negotiated. Nor can we be certain of grants from IUBS, the Royal 
Society and the British research councils. If all are lost, income will decrease 
by some £18,500. Income from the Appeal is also likely to diminish further. 

During 1984 and 1985, the Trust has taken the opportunity to 
increase the efficiency of the office and this will speed work on zoological 
nomenclature, may increase income from publications and help to meet the 
challenge of changes proposed in the organization of the International 
Commission. 

F. G. W. JONES 

Secretary 

22 June 1985 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 


dd} TWIWIOD JUSS eUR yy AYN) SINNAG 


om dy} JO Sioquiayy] NOLONILLIHM ‘8 “H 
N 
rag) Z9S‘S1F 
(L6L) $]S09 JOOIIP paye[nuUINdY -ssaT 
000°L spun, Isniy woly uoneidoiddy 
6SE6 suoneuog sytoedg 
‘SMOT[OJ se dn opeuw SI dN} B[SUSUIO NT [BOIsO[OOZ Jo epoy [euoneusojuy oq} jo uorlIpyA Pig 118) sunuiud 1Oj uoIsiAoid eauL ‘ALON 
% €6L'871F L69°901F 
a Z9S‘S1 (2}0N 998) UOoIsIAoIg 9Yt9adg 6S1'81 
z I€Z'€l I 8ES‘88 
5 €69'b7 p86] Joy snjding p61‘0S 
r) 8ES‘88 €86] “Joquiooed 3S] ¢ 18 sourleg pre'se 
Q AAUASAY ANNAATU 
es SGNN4 GaLVINWNDOV 
Le €6L'871F L69°901F 
N ——$—$ 
¢ 1R8' ; 009°€ : 
wo) C39 v6 SOUPAPR ul P9ATed01 SJUBUSAO,) payisodaq CLYr € 
> rAlyé S1OUPaD Arpung STI 
: SAILITIAVIT LNAYUND 
S 089'I€1 L67‘011 
2. 5... ey ——_ 
<a ELI‘O€I ee 7L9‘601 
S $10°9 puey ul pue yueg 18 yseD €IS‘IZ 
nN 000‘7Z1 S}USWSOAUT 000°S8 
— 980°7 9[QPISAOSOI SOxe 4Jayj}0O pue sulosuy ZSb'l 
= CL soles Wwodj onp syuUnOWY LOL‘I 
mQ SLASSV LNaAYaNO 
LOS‘I $79 
708 uoneidooideg peye[nunsoy ‘SSIT 
60€'7 
0so'l Ieok oy} sutinp suonIppy 
6ST7'l S09 18 juowidinby xO 
SLASSV GAXI4 
. £861 


FaGl MASI aed adh LY, By. Laas Ny Lyd 


sjURjUNODOY polsyeYyO 
“OO 8 ADDIMAVUD ‘ATTUOW $861 ‘une YT] 


VNI 1dS ‘uopuoT 

‘pie peop sdury ‘¢ 

‘0861 91 861 SIOY sorurdui0D 

oy} YM Ajdutos pue a}ep jey} UO papus Iva ay} JOJ sn[dins Bunesodo sy} JO pue PRG] ‘Jaquiccaq ISTE Ie SIIeYe JO d}e}S dy} JO 
MOIA IIB} PUL 9NJ} B SAIS UOTJUSAUOD 3809 [BOIIOJSIY 9Y} Jopun posedoid useq savy YOIYyM JSN1IJ, 94} JO sjuNODOY 9} UOTUIdO INO UT 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


326 


SUOLIGNV AHL AO LYUOdaa 
€69'p7F LAdHS JONV IVE v61‘0SF 
0} poles YWAA AHL YOd SN1dUNsS 
99S‘€Z 607'LI 
891 LNAWdINO JOIIAO AO NOILVIOdUddaa 69 
— SNOILVOITENd 81 
dO NOILNAIMLSIC GNV DNILNIYd 
pLi‘I SLddd Gvd YOd NOISIAOUd — 
Or aad LIGNV S71 
ZLO‘7Z SASNAdXg AOIAO Srl‘z 
71002 Saad GNV SdIYV1VS 7S8'F1 
‘SSOT 
6S7'8P €0r'L9 
LOZ‘9E €80°9S 
6LL‘6 LSAYALNI Olr'y 
SLS‘€ INVNdAOO AO sagagaa 088°7 
189°8 GONNA TVdddV¥ €6L‘IP 
991 ‘bl SLNVUD 000‘L 
7S0°7I OZETT 
¢ suotuidg I 
86 Sst] [PIO = 
LLET sspor) [euOT}eUIS}UT | 
7LS‘6 aINjEUSWON [BOISO[OOZ Jo uNol[Nng 90€ II 
SNOILVOIT8Nd JO ATVS 
€861 


'861 HAAN ISTE GHANA AYVAA AHL XYOA LNNOOOV AUN LIGNAd Xd GNV AWOONI 
aYNLVIONAWON TVOIDOTOOZ YOA LSNUL TVNOILVNUFALNI 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 327 


COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 70b: 
FREEDOM FOR AN AUTHOR TO ACT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE 
COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF A MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES 
Z.N.S.)2477 
(see vol. 41, pp. 156-158; vol. 42, pp. 12, 125) 


By W. D. L. Ride (Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, 
ACT 2616, Australia) 


Sabrosky’s application to amend Art. 70b (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 
156-158) and the Secretary’s support (but not necessarily for Sabrosky’s solution, 
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 158) reflects the awareness that developed in the 
Editorial Committee, during the final stages of preparation of the 3rd Edition, of a 
general need for the Code to provide for an automatic solution to be followed prior 
to the Commission’s final determination. Article 80 requires existing usage to be 
maintained once a case is before the Commission, but that does not solve the prob- 
lem for the preparers of catalogues, etc., who may not be able to defer publication 
for the 2 years or more before a decision is reached by the Commission, or for those 
who wish to take an undisputed line on their own initiatives. 

2. In the case of Article 70b, the present Article requires a zoologist who dis- 
covers that a generic name is misapplied because its nominal type species does not 
belong to the genus-group taxon for which the name is in use, to refer the matter for 
determination to the Commission (together with a recommendation as to the course 
of action to provide the best remedy). 

3. Sabrosky (op. cit.) and Wright (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, p. 12) have 
argued different solutions. A third solution is adopted by the authors and editors to 
which Sabrosky refers. The solutions are: 

(1) Wright’s solution that an author is to follow Article 70a irrespective of 
the discovery (it would then be up to any other author, disagreeing with 
that action, to make a case for conservation and, thereby, to stop the new 
usage by automatically invoking Article 80 to maintain current usage); 

(2) Sabrosky’s solution that an author should maintain current usage and 
publish the evidence of misapplication and at the same time designate a 
replacement nominal type species (which would be fixed by that action 
unless subsequently set aside by the Commission acting on an appeal). In 
the event of an appeal, Article 80 would be invoked and would maintain 
current usage until a decision was reached; and 

(3) the solution adopted in the Catalogues of Diptera referred to by 
Sabrosky, that an author may use judgement as to whether there is suffi- 
cient stable usage to justify the use of solution (2); if not, solution (1) 
would be adopted. Appeals against either action would automatically 
maintain current usage. 

4. In commenting on Sabrosky’s proposal, the Secretary of the Commission 
drew attention to possible conflicts between it and Articles 67 and 69 (Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 41, p. 158). 


328 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


5. I agree with Wright that the editors of the catalogues mentioned in 
Sabrosky’s application should have followed the letter of the Code. But their actions 
highlight the need to amend Art. 70b for the reasons given by Sabrosky as well as in 
the interests of economy in the work-load of the Commission. Had the editors refer- 
red to by Sabrosky followed Art. 70b they would have referred some 76 additional 
cases (with arguments) to the Commission. Quite apart from the delays this course 
would have introduced, it would have been a costly proposition. I concur with both 
Sabrosky and Wright that a solution must be found that will enable a zoologist to 
take a definitive action that will be maintained under the Code unless an appeal 
against it is upheld by the Commission. 


6. My comments on the three solutions are: 
Solution (1): 
While nomenclaturally tidy, solution (1) is not in keeping with what is 
expected of nomenclature today by zoologists in general. 
Solution (2): 
Solution (2) is conformable with the spirit of the modern Code. However 
in making that statement I share Wright’s concern that the introduction of 
such an amendment must not, at the same time, encourage authors to 
accept the operation of that solution as an invitation to discard objectivity. 
The solution must require the author to replace one nominal type species 
with another nominal type species and recognise that the consequence of 
that action will determine the future use of the generic name under all 
circumstances. The new type species must not, itself, become at some later 
date ‘a misidentified type species’ or productive of the very confusion that 
the proposal seeks to avoid. 

To a large extent the problem raised by Wright, and in particular 
dangers in inviting changes to type species, results from the difficulty for 
zoologists to comprehend from the Code that, even though the nominal 
genus is interpreted by an entity called a nominal species (and not by a 
taxonomic species), a nominal species is not itself any sort of a species in 
the ordinary sense of a population but only the conjunction of a specimen 
(the name bearer: holotype, type, neotype, or syntypes) and a name. The 
consequences of any sloppy methodology of the sort that Wright fears are 
very clear. To behave responsibly, such an author must go back to the 
name bearer of the nominal species that is regarded as the desirable type 
species and verify its identity. 

Solution (3): 

Solution (3) more closely resembles Art. 23b in giving authors the option 
of following the ‘normal’ provisions of the Code (but subject to appeal), if, 
in their judgement, serious upset would not result from the discovery. 
However authors wishing to put into effect Solution 2 (again, subject to 
appeal) may do so legitimately. 

7. If such a solution were to be adopted, the question remains whether the 
author adopting solution 2 should be required (as in Art. 23b) to ‘register’ the action 
in the appropriate Official List or Index by invoking some such procedure as the 
prima facie provision of Art. 79. I think not. Providing the action taken to depart 
from the original type species is made explicit in the work and the basis of the 
‘misidentification’ established (to rule out the automatic acceptance of sloppy ‘mis- 
designations’ of type species) I see no reason why the procedure should not be 
covered under the principle of the first reviser. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 329 


ARTICLE 70b: COMMENT ON DR RIDE’S SUGGESTION 


By R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature) 


Dr Ride suggests that the caseload of genera based on misidentified type 
species can be lightened if cases could be dealt with under the Principle of the First 
Reviser. That principle provides a device for dealing with names or nomenclatural 
acts published simultaneously —i.e. for deciding which of two or more 
simultaneous names or acts shall have precedence over the other(s). It is not 
designed to deal with problems affecting single names, such as those involved in 
most cases of misidentified type species. I should deprecate the extension of the 
principle in that way because it would introduce a taxonomic element into the judge- 
ment of the first reviser. There is a widespread impression that the act of the first 
taxonomic reviser has a nomenclatural effect, but this is only rarely true. Taxonomic 
and nomenclatural revisions should be kept separate as far as possible. 

Dr Vockeroth’s suggestion (vol. 42, p. 123) would not diminish the caseload 
because it merely refers all cases to Article 70b. I believe that a more effective 
solution is to be found by adding provisions to Articles 68 and 69, on the following 
lines: 

Article 68 

(f) Misidentified type species. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec- 
tions e and g of Article 67, if a type species fixed in accordance with the 
provisions of the present Article is found to have been misidentified, 
the species actually involved is deemed to represent the nominal type 
species, whether it represents an originally included nominal species or 
not. 

(i) If the identity of the species actually involved is doubtful or disputed, 
the case is to be referred to the Commission and the provisions of 
Article 70b will apply. 

An analogous provision could be added to Article 69 as Section c with the 
addition of a reference to Article 69a(i) in the second line. 


330 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


OPINION 1354 


AGROTIS REDIMICULA MORRISON, 1874 (LEPIDOPTERA): 
CONSERVED FROM 1874 


RULING. — Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the 
specific name redimicula Morrison, as published in the binomen Agrotis 
redimicula, is a justified emendation of the specific name redimacula 
Morrison, 1874, as published in the binomen Agrotis redimacula. 

(2) The specific name redimicula Morrison, 1874 as published in the 
binomen Agrotis redimicula, and as validated under the plenary powers in 
(1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 3022. 

(3) The specific name redimacula Morrison, 1874, as published in 
the binomen Agrotis redimacula, and as invalidated by the ruling under the 
plenary powers in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
1161. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2305 


An application for the conservation of Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 
1874 was first received from Dr J. D. Lafontaine (Biosystematics Research 
Institute, Ottawa, Canada) on 15 May 1979. After some correspondence a 
revised draft was sent to the printers on 24 February 1981 and published in 
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 54-56. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 January 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)3 for or against 
the use of plenary powers in the case and then for either alternatives (1)(a), 
(2) and (3) set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 54-55 or for alternatives 
(1)(b), (2) and (3) set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, p. 55. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 April 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes for alternatives (1)(a), (2) and (3)—nine (9) 
received in the following order: Holthuis, Brinck, Savage, Willink, 
Sabrosky, Trjapitzin, Hahn, Corliss, Dupuis 

Affirmative Votes for alternatives (1)(b), (2) and (3) — twelve (12) 
received in the following order: Melville, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Cocks, 
Starobogatov, Bayer, Alvarado, Kraus, Heppell, Bernardi, Schuster, Ride 

Affirmative votes for (1)(b) only — one (1) Cogger 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 331 


Uéno voted against the use of the plenary powers. 

A late affirmative vote for alternatives (1)(a), (2) and (3) was 
returned by Halvorsen. 

A late affirmative vote for alternatives (1)(b), (2) and (3) was 
returned by Binder. 

Heppell commented: ‘If the plenary powers are used to conserve the 
spelling “‘redimicula’”’ from 1874, the “alternatives” presented to the Com- 
‘mission seem to be nonsense. The original spelling of the name is ‘‘redima- 
cula’’. If the Commission decides this is an incorrect original spelling, the 
correct orthography ‘‘redimicula”’ is ipso facto a justified emendation. It 
may be deemed to be “‘correct”’ but to deem it “original” is patently absurd. 
I presume ‘‘redimicula’”’ must be treated as indeclinable [Article 31b], being 
neither adjectival nor, unlike ‘“‘unimacula’’, a noun in apposition (as 
“redimiculum” is a neuter noun). It is unfortunate that this ambiguity is not 
covered in the proposed ruling.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
redimacula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874, Proc. Bost. Soc. nat. Hist., vol. 17, p. 

165 
redimicula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874, ibid., p. 165. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)3 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1354. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

18 June 1985 


532 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


OPINION 1355 
LINGULA ANATINA LAMARCK, 1801 IS THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
LINGULA BRUGUIERE, [1797] (BRACHIOPODA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genus Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] are hereby set aside and 
Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 is hereby designated as type 
species of that genus; 

(b) the specific name /ingua Lightfoot, 1786, as published in the 
binomen Mytilus lingua, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Lingula Bruguiere, [1797] (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, 
Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2288. 

(3) The specific name anatina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the 
binomen Lingula anatina (specific name of type species of Lingula 
Bruguiere, [1797]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 3023. 

{4) The specific name /Jingua Lightfoot, 1786, as published in the 
binomen Mytilus lingua, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1162. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1598 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate 
Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 as the type species of Lingula Bruguiére, 
[1797] was first received from Dr A. J. Rowell (then of the University of 
Nottingham, England) on 6 December 1963. It was sent to the printer on 17 
December 1963 and published on 7 August 1964 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, 
pp. 222-224. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials, two malacological serials and two palaeontological serials. No 
comment was received. 


FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION 


On 10 March 1966 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (66)20 for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, p. 223. At the close of the vot- 
ing period on 10 June 1966 there were 20 votes in favour and none against, 
with two late affirmative votes and three voting papers not returned. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 333 


During the voting period a note was received from Dr Harald 
Rehder (U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C.) pointing out that 
Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 was a senior subjective synonym of Lingula 
anatina Lamarck, 1801. For reasons that cannot now be ascertained, this 
caused the case to be put away and forgotten. 


REOPENING OF THE CASE 


In December 1979 Dr Rex Doescher (National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington, D.C.) wrote to enquire of the fate of Dr Rowell’s 
application. He sent copies of letters from Dr Rowell and Dr C. Emig 
(Station marine d’Endoume, Marseille, France) recommending the suppres- 
sion of Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 —a view expressed directly to the 
Secretary by Dr L. S. Hammond (James Cook University of North 
Queensland, Australia). A report on the case was accordingly prepared and 
published on 7 December 1982 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 302-304. A 
comment from Dr L. B. Holthuis pointed out that the nomenclatural status 
of Mytilus lingua was quite independent from the question of the nominal 
type species of Lingula. Considering the uncertain identity of M. lingua, 
however, he thought it even better to retain L. anatina as the type species of 
Lingula. No other comments were received. 


SECOND AND THIRD VOTES OF THE COMMISSION 


On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1984)57 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, p. 303. The fact that 
two mutually exclusive alternatives were put forward was unfortunately 
overlooked. The members were in fact asked to vote, first, for or against the 
use of the plenary powers in the case, and then either for the suppression of 
Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 or for the grant of precedence over it to 
Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801. Several members wrote to draw attention 
to the defective preparation of the voting paper, which was accordingly 
withdrawn. 

On 11 March 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1985)21 in Part | for or 
against the use of the plenary powers in the case, and in Part 2 either (a) for 
the suppression of Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 or (b) for the grant of 
precedence over it to Lingula anatina Lamarck. At the close of the voting 
period on 11 June 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 


Part 1 


Affirmative Votes —twenty (20) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Brinck, Holthuis, Alvarado, Willink, Uéno, Corliss, 


334 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Mroczkowski, Hahn, Cogger, Bernardi, Halvorsen, Binder, Schuster, 
Trjapitzin, Bayer, Ride, Lehtinen, Dupuis 
Negative Votes — two (2): Sabrosky, Savage. 


Part 2 


For alternative (a)—twelve (12): Melville, Cocks, Brinck, 
Alvarado, Corliss, Cogger, Bernardi, Halvorsen, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ride, 
Lehtinen ; 

For alternative (b)—eight (8): MHolthuis, Willink, Uéno, 
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kraus, Binder, Bayer. 

Dupuis returned a late affirmative vote for Part 1 and Part 2(b). No 
votes were returned by Heppell and Starobogatov. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
anatina, Lingula, Lamarck, 1801, Systeme des animaux sans vertébres, 

p. 141 
lingua, Mytilus, Lightfoot, 1786, Catalogue of the Portland Museum, p. 77 
Lingula Bruguiére, [1797], Tabl. encycl. trois regnes de la nature, Vers, 

Coquilles, Mollusques et Polypiers, pl. 250. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast in Voting Paper (85)21 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 1355. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

26 June 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 885 


OPINION 1356 
DACTYLOPUSIA NORMAN, 1903 (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): 
TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 
are hereby set aside and Dactylopus tisboides Claus, 1863 is hereby 
designated as 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) Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dactylopus 
tisboides Claus, 1863 (Name Number 2289); 

(b) Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Cyclops stroemii Baird, 1837 (Name 
Number 2290). 

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

(a) tisboides Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Dactylopus 
tisboides (specific name of the type species of Dactylopusia 
Norman, 1903) (Name Number 3024); 

(b) stroemii Baird, 1837, as published in the binomen Cyclops 
stroemii (specific name of the type species of Heterolaophonte 
Lang, 1948) (Name Number 3025). 

(4) The subfamily name DACTYLOPUSIINAE Lang, 1936 (corrected 
by Vervoort, 1963 from ‘DACTYLOPODIINAE’) (type genus Dactylopusia 
Norman, 1903) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 588. 

(5) The subfamily name DACTYLOPODIINAE Lang, 1936 (an incorrect 
original spelling of DACTYLOPUSIINAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 505. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1517 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type 
species for Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 was first received from Dr W. 
Vervoort (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) on 26 January 
1962. This was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and published on 11 
April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, pp. 145-147. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers was sent to the statutory serials and to 
one specialist serial. A comment raising certain objections to the case was 
received from the then Dr Per Brinck (University of Lund, Sweden) and 
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 21, p. 193. No further comments were 
received. 


336 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


On 5 October 1964 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1964) 20 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, pp. 146-147. At the close 
of the voting period on 5 January 1965 the result of the voting was fifteen 
affirmative votes and 10 negative. Two Commissioners did not return their 
voting papers and one abstained. A less than two-thirds majority was 
therefore secured and no Opinion was written. 

On | April 1982 a revised version of the application was received 
under the joint authorship of Dr W. Vervoort and Dr L. B. Holthuis 
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden). It was sent to the printers 
on 14 January 1983 and published on 29 March 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., 
vol. 40, pp. 56-57. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, 
to seven general and one specialist serial. No comment was received even 
though the case was announced in Monoculus, the copepod newsletter. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)23 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 57. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-two (22) received in the following 
order: Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Trjapitzin, 
Mroczkowski, Corliss, Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Schuster, 
Gruchy, Uéno, Brinck, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis. 

A late affirmative vote was returned by Cogger. 

No vote was returned by Starobogatov. 

Dupuis commented: ‘Dans les cas d’espéces types mal identifiées, 
jadmets, par principe, identification correcte. Ici, je vote contre, car il 
s’agit de tout autre chose: remplacer, en nomenclature, une espece type par 
une autre pour éluder, en taxinomie, le probléme — simplement possible a 
l'avenir —de la délimitation de la premiére (cela revient a créer un 
““néotype” pour un genre). 

‘Les requérants déclarent: “It is not our purpose, nor is it the 
business of the Commission, to examine the taxonomic problems affecting 
C. stroemii or D. vulgaris”. 

‘Les deux exemples cités démontrent que cette déclaration est 
incorrecte en ce qu'elle confond, sous la formule “taxonomic problems”’, 
deux sortes de problémes: 

‘a) le probléme du statut nomenclatorial d’une espéce type mal 
identifi¢e (“misidentified Cyclops stroemii’), que est du ressort de la 
Commission; 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 337 


‘b) le probleme du statut taxinomique de n’importe quelle espéce, 
probleme qui, effectivement, échappe a la compétence de la Commission. 

Les requérants, en n’examinant pas la “suitability’’ taxinomique de 
D. tisboides, respectent le principe de la non-ingérence de la Commission 
dans les problémes taxinomiques, mais, en tenant pour pertinente a la dis- 
cussion l’idée que D. vulgaris “may be a composite species”, ils contre- 
disent ce principe. Pour masquer cette contradiction, ils introduisent 
l’'argument —inconnu en nomenclature —de la “suitability” future des 
taxa et négligent la régle reconnue, et tout a fait indépendante, de 
“availability” actuelle des noms. 

‘En droit nomenclatorial, le nom de D. vulgaris est available comme 
celui d’une espéce type, méme si, taxinomiquement, l’espéce qu’il désigne 
aujourd’hui doit nécessiter plus tard une révision (par exemple au prix de la 
désignation d’un lectotype). La stabilite du nom générique typifié exige le 
maintien de ce type.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion. 

DACTYLOPODIINAE Lang, 1936, Further zool. results of the Swedish Antarctic 

Exped., vol. 3(3), pp. 22, 29 
Dactylopusia Norman, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist (7), vol. 11, p. 368 
DACTYLOPUSIINAE Lang, 1936, ibid., pp. 22, 29 
Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948, Monographie der Harpacticiden, p. 1364 
stroemii, Cyclops, Baird, 1837, Mag. Zool. Bot., vol. 1, p. 330 
tisboides, Dactylopus, Claus, 1863, Die frei lebenden Copepoden, p. 126. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)23 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1356. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

I August 1985 


338 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


OPINION 1357 
ANUROPODIDAE BACESCU, 1980 (CRUSTACEA, TANAIDACEA) 
AND ANUROPODIDAE STEBBING, 1893 (CRUSTACEA, 
ISOPODA); 
A RULING TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY 


RULING. — Under the plenary powers, the stem of the generic 
name Anuropus Beddard, 1886 (Isopoda) for the purposes of Article 29 is 
hereby ruled to be ANUROP. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980 (Tanaidacea) (gender: feminine), 
type species, by monotypy, Anuropoda francispori Bacescu, 
1980 (Name Number 2291); 

(b) Anuropus Beddard, 1886 (Isopoda) (gender: masculine), type 
species, by monotypy, Anuropus branchiatus Beddard, 1886 
(Name Number 2292). 

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

(a) francispori Bacescu, 1980, as published in the binomen 
Anuropoda francispori (specific name of the type species of 
Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980) (Name Number 3026); 

(b) branchiatus Beddard, 1886, as published in the binomen 
Anuropus branchiatus (specific name of the type species of 
Anuropus Beddard, 1886) (Name Number 3027). 

(4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) ANUROPIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (type genus Anuropus Beddard) 
(Isopoda), spelling legalised under the plenary powers in (1) 
above (Name Number 589); 

(b) ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 (type genus Anuropoda Bacescu, 
1980) (Tanaidacea) (Name Number 590). 

(5) The family-group name ANUROPODINAE (correction by Calman, 
1907 of ANUROPIDAE) Stebbing, 1893 (Isopoda), an incorrect spelling as a 
consequence of the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) above, is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 506. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2429 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to remove the 
homonymy involving ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 (Tanaidacea) and 
ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Isopoda) was first received from Dr M. 
Bacescu (Musée d’Histoire Naturelle, Bucharest, Romania), Dr J. Sieg 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 339 


(Universitat Osnabriick, FRG) and Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van 
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) on 22 November 1982. It was sent to the 
printers on 14 January 1983 and published on 29 March 1983 in Bull. zool. 
Nom., vol. 40, pp. 58-59. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
Statutory serials, to seven general and one specialist serial. No comment 
was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)24 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 59. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following 
order: Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Gruchy, 
Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, 
Hahn, Schuster, Uéno, Brinck, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis. 

A late affirmative vote was returned by Cogger. 

No vote was returned by Starobogatov. 

Dupuis commented: ‘Je vote contre la solution proposée, comme ne 
résolvant pas l’ambigiiité, puis qu’il se trouvera toujours des zoologistes 
instruits qui, spontanément, corrigeront + ANUROPIDAE Stebbing en 
ANUROPODIDAE. II etit été préférable de conserver ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing 
et de créer ANUROPODAIDAE. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

ANUROPIDAE Stebbing, 1893, History of Crustacea, p. 345 
Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980, Trav. Mus. Hist. nat. Bucuresti, vol. 22, p. 381 
ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980, Trav. Mus. Hist. nat. Bucuresti, vol. 22, p. 

384 
ANUROPODINAE Calman, 1907, Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology, vol. 7, p. 

210 
Anuropus Beddard, 1886, Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1886, p. 112 
branchiatus, Anuropus, Beddard, 1886, Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1886, p. 384 
francispori, Anuropoda, Bacescu, 1980, Trav. Mus. Hist. nat. Bucuresti, vol. 

22, p. 384. 


340 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)24 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1357. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

I August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 341 


OPINION 1358 
CALAPHIS WALSH, 1862 AND CALLAPHIS WALKER, 1870 
(INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): A RULING TO REMOVE THE 
CONFUSION 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Callaphis Walker, 1870, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 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) Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
monotypy, Aphis juglandis Goeze, 1778 (Name Number 2293) 

(b) Calaphis Walsh, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
monotypy, Calaphis betulella Walsh, 1862 (Name Number 
2294) 

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

(a) juglandis Goeze, 1778, as published in the binomen Aphis jug- 
landis (specific name of the type species of Panaphis Kirkaldy, 
1904 (Name Number 3028); 

(b) betulella Walsh, 1862, as published in the binomen Calaphis 
betulella (specific name of the type species of Calaphis Walsh, 
1862) (Name Number 3029). 

(4) The generic name Callaphis Walker, 1870, 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 
ZITA. 

(5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) CALAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1918 (type genus Calaphis Walsh, 1862) 
(Name Number 591). 

(b) PANAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1922 (type genus Panaphis Kirkaldy, 
1904) (Name Number 592). 

(6) The family-group name CALLAPHIDINAE Borner, 1952 is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 507. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N(S.)2153 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to remove the con- 
fusion caused by the existence of Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis 
Walker, 1870 in the same aphid subfamily was first received from Dr F. W. 
Quednau (Laurentian Forest Research Centre, Canada) in the form of 
an initial enquiry, on 10 April 1975. A detailed draft application was 


342 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


subsequently prepared and sent to the printer on 14 January 1983 and 
published on 29 March 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 60-61. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general 
and nine entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)25 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 60-61. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Trjapitzin, 
Mroczkowski, Corliss, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Schuster, Uéno, 
Brinck, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — three (3) received in the following order: Gruchy, 
Lehtinen, Kraus. 

A late affirmative vote was returned by Cogger. 

Dupuis abstained. No vote was returned by Starobogatov. . 

The following comments were returned by the Commissioners with 
their voting papers: 

Dupuis: ‘Je m’abstiens pour les raisons suivantes: 

‘Etant donne que Callaphis est étymologiquement la graphie la plus 
correcte, il est a présumer que spontanément, des zoologistes instruits con- 
tinueront a écrire Callaphis, méme pour Calaphis Walsh, de sorte que la 
solution proposée n’écarte pas définitivement tout risque de confusion. 

‘Plutét que d’utiliser les pleins pouvoirs, simplement pour la sup- 
pression automatique d’un “homonyme”’ plus récent, il ett été judicieux de 
les mettre a profit pour l’une ou l’autre des procédures ci-aprés: 

‘a) Déclarer que la graphie correcte de Calaphis Walsh était Cal- 
laphis. De ce fait, Callaphis Walker, tombait en homonymie et n’avait pas a 
étre supprimé. 

‘b) examiner s’il existait des synonymes de Calaphis Walsh et si, en 
méme temps, Callaphis Walker avait un usage plus frequent que Calaphis 
Walsh (la requéte ne dit rien de ces deux points). Dans ce cas, l’on pouvait 
supprimer Calaphis Walsh plutdét que Callaphis Walker’. 

Gruchy: ‘I am sympathetic to the idea of ‘removing confusion” that 
arises as a result of similar names of genera (particularly within a single sub- 
family) as elucidated in the present application, but the problems that the 
“confusion” has caused have not been stated. In this circumstance, I prefer 
to adhere more to the letter than (necessarily) the intent of the Code.’ 

Lehtinen: ‘The difference between single and double consonant is 
sufficient to separate hundreds of common words in many languages. I 
cannot see any reason to make an exception in this case.’ 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 343 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
betulella, Calaphis, Walsh, 1862, Proc. entomol. Soc. Philadelphia, vol. 1, 

p. 301 
CALAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1918, Rep. Minn. St. Entomol., vol. 18, p. 64 
Calaphis Walsh, 1862, Proc. entomol. Soc. Philadelphia, vol. 1, p. 301 
CALLAPHIDINAE Borner, 1952. Mitt. thiiring. bot. Ver., Beiheft, 3, p. 32 
Callaphis Walker, 1870, The Zoologist, vol. 5, p. 2000 
juglandis, Aphis, Goeze, 1778, Ent. Beytrdge, vol. 2, p. 311 
Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904, Entomologist, vol. 37, p. 279. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)25 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1358. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

2 August 1985 


344 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


OPINION 1359 
UROPLAT- AS THE STEM OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN 
REPTILIA, SAURIA AND INSECTA, COLEOPTERA: A RULING 
TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, the stem of the generic 
name Uroplatus Duméril, 1806 (Sauria) for the purposes of Article 29 is 
hereby ruled to be UROPLATI-. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Uroplatus Dumeéril, 1806 (Sauria) (gender: feminine), type 
species, by monotypy, Stellio fimbriatus Schneider, 1792 
(Name Number 1359); 

(b) Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835 (Coleoptera) (gender: feminine), 
type species, by subsequent designation by White, 1981, Hispa 
mucronata Olivier, 1808 (Name Number 2296). 

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

(a) fimbriatus Schneider, 1792, as published in the binomen Stellio 
fimbriatus (specific name of the type species of Uroplatus 
Dumeéril, 1806) (Name Number 3030); 

‘(b) mucronata Olivier, 1808, as published in the binomen Hispa 
mucronata (specific name of the type species of Uroplata 
Chevrolat, 1935) (Name Number 3031). 

(4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884 (emended through the ruling 
under the plenary powers in (1) above from UROPLATIDAE) 
(type genus Uroplatus Duméril, 1806) (Sauria) (Name Number 
593); 

(b) UROPLATINI Leng, 1920 (type genus Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835) 
(Coleoptera) (Name Number 594). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2373 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to remove the 
homonymy involving the use of UROPLAT- as the stem of family-group 
names in the Sauria and Coleoptera was first received from Professor H. M. 
Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, 
University of Colorado, U.S.A.), Dr U. N. Lanham (University of Colorado 
Museum) and the late Dr A. Loveridge on 10 January 1980. After some cor- 
respondence, a revised draft was sent to the printers on 14 January 1983 and 
published on 29 March 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 62-64. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 345 


same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general, 
three herpetological and eight entomological serials. No comment was 
received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)26 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 62-63. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Gruchy, Trjapitzin, 
Mroczkowski, Corliss, Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, Schuster, Uéno, 
Brinck, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — two (2) Hahn, Dupuis. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 

The following comments were returned by Members of the Commis- 
sion with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: ‘Let us hope that no one comes up with a genus Uroplatius 
or Uroplatia.’ 

Hahn: ‘T disagree on two points: (1) The stem of Uroplatus may be 
changed into ““UROPLATU-” (UROPLATUIDAE, aS SCUTELLUIDAE), but not into 
“UROPLATI-”’ — there is no “‘i” in this word! (2) The authors do not state 
why the older and not the younger name should be modified. Why not 
Uroplataini for the tribe of Coleoptera?’ 

Dupuis: ‘Tl fallait faire exactement l’inverse (la requéte n’examine 
méme pas cette possibilité): 

—UROPLATIDAE a conserver pour les Reptiles, comme étant 1°) le 
plus connu; 2° fondé sur le nom de genre le plus ancien; 3°) proposé au 
niveau supergenérique le plus élevé; 4°) propose en 1884. 

—UROPLATIINI a introduire sous forme modifiée pour les Hispinae comme 
étant: 1°) le moins connu; 2°) fondé sur le nom de genre le plus récent; 3°) 
proposé au niveau supergénérique le moins élevé; 4°) proposé en 1920.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on 

Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

fimbriatus, Stellio, Schneider, 1792, Amphibiorum physiologiae specimen 
alterum, p. 32 

mucronata, Hispa, Olivier, 1808, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des 
insectes ... vol. 6, Coléoptéres, p. 765 

Uroplata Chevrolat in Dejean, 1834, Catalogue des coléoptéeres de la 
collection de M. le comte Dejean, p. 365 

UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (5), vol. 14, p. 119 


346 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


UROPLATINI Leng, 1920, Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of 
Mexico, p. 303 

Uroplatus Duméril, 1806, Zoologie analytique, ou méthode naturelle de 
classification des animaux, p. 80. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)26 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1359. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

5 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 347 


OPINION 1360 
OECIACUS VICARIUS HORVATH, 1912 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
lunifrontis Cooper, 1870, as published in the binomen Cimex lunifrontis, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) The specific name vicarius Horvath, 1912, as published in the 
binomen Oeciacus vicarius, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3032. 

(3) The specific name /unifrontis Cooper, 1870, as published in the 
binomen Cimex lunifrontis, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2172. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2358 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to conserve the 
specific name Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 was first received from Dr 
R. C. Froeschner (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
U.S.A.), Dr E. V. Coan (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, 
U.S.A.) and Dr R. E. Ryckman (Loma Linda University, California, U.S.A.) 
on 27 August 1980. After some correspondence a revised draft was sent to 
the printers on 30 November 1982 and published on 29 March 1982 in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 65-66. Public notice of the possible use of the plen- 
ary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to 
the statutory serials, to seven general and eight entomological serials. No 
comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)27 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 66. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Gruchy, 
Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, 
Hahn, Schuster, Uéno, Brinck, Dupuis, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — none (0). 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 


348 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 

Official List and an Official Index: 

lunifrontis, Cimex, Cooper, 1870 in Baird, S. F., Ornithology, Vol. 1 Land 
Birds, pp. 105—106 

vicarius, Oeciacus, Horvath, 1912, Ann. Mus. nat. Hist. Hungary, vol. 10, p. 
261. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)27 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1360. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

7 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 349 


OPINION 1361 
LARENTIA CAPITATA HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1839, GIVEN 
NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER PHALAENA 
POSTICATA FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that 
the specific name capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839, as published in the 
binomen Larentia capitata, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over 
the specific name posticata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen 
Phalaena posticata, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. 

(2) The specific name capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839, as published 
in the binomen Larentia capitata, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3033 and with an 
endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over posticata 
Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena posticata, whenever 
the two names are considered synonyms. 

(3) The specific name posticata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the 
binomen Phalaena posticata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3034 and with an endorsement 
that it is not to be given priority over capitata Herrich-Schdaffer, 1839, as 
published in the binomen Larentia capitata, whenever the two names are 
considered synonyms. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2367 


An application for the use of the relative precedence procedure to 
conserve the specific name Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaffer, 1839 was 
first received from Dr K. Mikkola (University of Helsinki, Finland) on | 
December 1980 (see also Opinion 1362). After some correspondence a 
revised draft was sent to the printer on 30 November 1982 and published on 
15 July 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 102-105. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine 
entomological serials. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)28 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 103-104, (1)a, (2)a and 
(2)b. At the close of the voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting 
was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-two (22) received in the following 
order: Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Trjapitzin, 


350 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Mroczkowski, Corliss, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Schuster, 
Gruchy, Uéno, Brinck, Dupuis, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — one (1) Ride. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 

The following comments were returned by members of the Com- 
mission with their voting papers: 

Dupuis: ‘[I vote for] sous réserve de l’exhaustivité bibliographique et 
de l’exactitude taxonomique de la requéte.’ 

Ride: ‘The author establishes a prima facia case that stability and 
universality would be upset by the use of the senior synonym but makes no 
case for the use of the plenary powers to reverse precedence. The appli- 
cation must fail. The Commission can only use the plenary powers when 
there is a demonstration that there is a threat to stability or universality or 
that confusion is likely to result.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 

Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

capitata, Larentia, Herrich-Schaffer, 1839, Deutschlands Insekten, Heft 165, 
pl. 3 

posticata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, vol. 3(2), 
p. 196. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)28 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the Interntional Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1361. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

7 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 351 


OPINION 1362 
PHALAENA CORACINA ESPER, 1805, GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL 
PRECEDENCE OVER PHALAENA HIRTATA FABRICIUS, 1794 
(INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that 
the specific name coracina Esper 1805, as published in the binomen 
Phalaena coracina, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific 
name hirtata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena hirtata, 
whenever the two names are considered synonyms. 

(2) The specific name coracina Esper 1805, as published in the 
binomen Phalaena coracina, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3035 and with an endorsement 
that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over hirtata Fabricius, 1794, 
as published in the binomen Phalaena hirtata, whenever the two names are 
considered synonyms. 

(3) The specific name hirtata Fabricius, 1794, as published in the 
binomen Phalaena hirtata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3036 and with an endorsement 
that it is not to be given priority over coracina Esper, 1805, as published in 
the binomen Phalaena coracina, whenever the two names are considered 
synonyms. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2367 


An application for the use of relative precedence procedure to con- 
serve the specific name Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 was first received 
from Dr K. Mikkola (University of Helsinki, Finland) on 1 December 1980 
(see also Opinion 1361). After some correspondence a revised draft was sent 
to the printer on 30 November 1982 and published on 15 July 1983 in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 102-105. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)29 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 103-104, (1)b, (2)c and 
(2)d. At the close of the voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting 
was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, 


352 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Corliss, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Schuster, Gruchy, Uéno, 
Brinck, Dupuis, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — two (2) Savage, Ride. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Dupuis: {I vote for] sous réserve de l’exhaustivité bibliographique et 
de l’exactitude taxonomique de la requéte.’ 

Ride: ‘The author establishes a prima facia case that stability and 
universality would be upset by the use of the senior synonym but makes no 
case for the use of the plenary powers to reverse precedence. The appli- 
cation must fail. The Commission can only use the plenary powers when 
there is a demonstration that there is a threat to stability or universality or 
that confusion is likely to result.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references to the names placed on an 

Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

coracina, Phalaena, Esper, 1805, Die europdischen Schmetterlinge in 
Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, teil 4, Abschn. 2, 
p. 74 

hirtata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, vol. 3(2), 
p. 181. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)29 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1362. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

8 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 353 


OPINION 1363 
ANCISTROCEROIDES SAUSSURE, 1855 (INSECTA, 
HYMENOPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all type species designa- 
tions hitherto made for the nominal genus Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 
are hereby set aside and Odynerus alastoroides Saussure, 1853 is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) Entry No. 1857 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 
is hereby corrected to ‘read: Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers, 
Odynerus alastoroides Saussure, 1853. 

(3) The specific name alastoroides Saussure, 1853, as published in 
the binomen Odynerus alastoroides (specific name of the type species of 
Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3037. 

(4) The word ‘formerly’ is hereby inserted before the words ‘(type 
. species of Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855) in the entry under Name 
Number 2330 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2280 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type 
species for Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855, was first received from 
Professor J. van der Vecht (Burg Vermeerlaan 4, 3881 GZ Putten, The 
Netherlands) on 11 September 1978. After some correspondence a revised 
draft was sent to the printers on 19 April 1983 and published on 15 July 
1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 111-113. Public notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to seven general and nine entomological serials. 
No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)31 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 112-113. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Corliss, 
Lehtinen, Ride, Binder, Alvarado, Willink, Uéno, Brinck, Dupuis, Kraus, 
Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — three (3) received in the following order: Savage, 
Hahn, Schuster. 


354 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Late affirmative votes were returned from Cogger and 
Starobogatov. 

No vote was returned by Gruchy. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Hahn: ‘1 think it would be better to give precedence to Paralastor 
over Ancistroceroides, if they are thought to be synonyms, and to leave the 
type species untouched.’ 

Kraus: ‘Unfortunately, no comment has been received by any 
hymenopterologist. The reasons presented in the application are in part 
based on subjective taxonomic judgement. With regard to this aspect, and 
with regard to the fact that the Commission had been asked in 1967 to 
accept the designation of a type species for the genus Ancistroceroides 
Saussure, 1855, which was practically a nomen dubium at the time, I have 
difficulty voting in favour of the present proposal. It seems that the name 
Paralastor Saussure, 1855 has been widely used and thus should be 
retained.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCE 


The following is the original reference for the name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
alastoroides, Odynerus, Saussure, 1853, Monographie des guépes solitaires 
ou de la tribu des Euméniens, pp. 129-286, p. 147. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)31 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decisions so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1363. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

; Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

12 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 355 


OPINION 1364 
KASSINA GIRARD, 1853 (AMPHIBIA, ANURA): CONSERVED 
(see Opinion 849) 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name AHylambates Dumeril, 1853 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by monotypy, Hylambates maculatus Dumeéril, 
1853, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 
with an endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over Kassina 
Girard, 1853, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name 
Number 2297). 

(3) The specific name maculatus Dumeéril, 1853, as published in the 
binomen Hylambates maculatus (specific name of the type species of 
Hylambates Dumeéril, 1953) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3038. 

(4) The generic name Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843, 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 
2173. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2343 


An application for the conservation of Kassina Girard, 1853, was 
first received from Dr A. Dubois and Dr J. J. Morére (Muséum National 
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) and Mr A. F. Stimpson and Mr B. T. 
Clarke (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 22 April 1980. After 
some correspondence, a revised draft was sent to the printers on 19 April 
1983 and published on 15 July 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 
114-116. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven 
general and three herpetological serials. A supportive comment was 
received from Dr H. M. Smith (University of Colorado, U.S.A.). No adverse 
comments were received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)32 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 114-115. At the close of 
the voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes— twenty-three (23) received in the following 
order: Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Binder, Savage, Gruchy, 
Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, 


356 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Hahn, Schuster, Uéno, Brinck, Dupuis, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 
Negative Votes — none (0). 
Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium, p. 32 
Hylambates Duméril, 1853, Annis. Sci. nat. (Zool.), vol. 19, p. 162 
maculatus Dumeéeril, 1853, ibid., p. 165. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)32 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1364. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

12 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 S97, 


OPINION 1365 
ALLYGUS FIEBER, 1872 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA): TYPE 
SPECIES DESIGNATED 


RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Allygus Fieber, 1872, prior to 
the designation by Van Duzee, 1917, of Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794 as 
type species of that genus, are hereby set aside. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Allygus Fieber, 1872 (gender: masculine), type species, by sub- 
sequent designation by Van Duzee, 1917 and as ratified under 
the plenary powers in (1) above, Cicada mixta Fabricius, 1794 
(Name Number 2298); 

(b) Allygidius Ribaut, 1948 (gender: masculine), type species, by 
original designation, Cicada atomaria Fabricius, 1794 (Name 
Number 2299) 

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

(a) mixta Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada 
mixta (specific name of the type species of Allygus Fieber, 
1872) (Name Number 3039); 

(b) atomaria Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada 
atomaria (specific name of the type species of Allygidius 
Ribaut, 1948) (Name Number 3040). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2431 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type 
species for Allygus Fieber, 1872 was first received from Dr F. Ossiannilsson 
(Kallparksgatan, Uppsala, Sweden) on 13 December 1982. After some corre- 
spondence, a revised draft was sent to the printers on 19 April 1983 and 
published on 15 July 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol 40, pp. 119-121. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general 
and nine entomological serials. Several supportive comments were received 
prior to publication and these are listed with the application. No comment 
after publication was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)34 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 120. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 


358 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Savage, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, 
Corliss, Lehtinen, Ride, Binder, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Schuster, Uéno, 
Brinck, Dupuis, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — one (1) Kraus. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 

No vote was returned by Gruchy. 

Professor Binder asked the following questions: 

‘Que s’est-il passé entre Van Duzee, 1917 et Ribaut?’ Sur quoi repose 
Vaffirmation “Syringius ... is congeneric with Allygus if Cicada mixta 
Fabricius, 1794 is its type species””?’ [On the receipt of a satisfactory answer 
to these questions from Dr Ossiannilsson, Professor Binder voted for the 
proposals.] 

Kraus commented: ‘I vote against the proposal as the application is 
only based on nomenclatural data. There is no information with regard to 
current usage and importance of the names in question. No comment by 
any specialist in Homoptera has been made.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Allygidius Ribaut, 1948, Bull. Soc. nat. Hist. Toulouse, vol. 83, pp. 58-59 
Allygus Fieber, 1872, Katalog der Europdischen Cicadinen, nach Originalen 
mit Bentitzung der neuesten Literatur, p. 13 
atomaria, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, vol. 4, p. 37 
mixta, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica, vol. 4, p. 39. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)34 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1365. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

12 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 359 


OPINION 1366 
MACTRA SACHALINENSIS SCHRENK, 1862 (MOLLUSCA, 
BIVALVIA): CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
sybillae Valenciennes, 1858, as published in the binomen Mactra sybillae, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name sachalinensis Schrenck, 1862, as published in 
the binomen Mactra sachalinensis, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3041. 

(3) The specific name sybillae Valenciennes, 1858, as published in 
the binomen Mactra sybillae and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1163. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2332 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to conserve Mactra 
sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 was first received from Dr A. I. Kafanov (Far 
East Science Centre, Vladivostok, U.S.S.R.) on 7 January 1980. After some 
correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printer on 19 April 1983 and 
published on 15 July 1983 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 122-123. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general 
serials and one specialist serial. No comment was received. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 15 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)35 for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 122. At the close of the 
voting period on 15 July 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: 
Melville, Cocks, Holthuis, Halvorsen, Savage, Trjapitzin, Binder, Corliss, 
Ride, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Schuster, Uéno, Brinck, Kraus, Bayer, 
Bernardi 

Negative Votes—four (4) received in the following order: 
Mroczkowski, Lehtinen, Dupuis, Heppell. 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov. 

No vote was returned by Gruchy. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Uéno: ‘I would have voted against this proposal if the species in 
question had had no economic importance.’ 


360 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Mroczkowski: ‘As both the names (sachalinensis and sybillae) are 
only subjective synonyms, the relative precedence procedure should be 
adopted in this case.’ 

Lehtinen: ‘The list of references is by no means convincing. A few 
authors from two countries have used the name Mactra sachalinensis 
Schrenk, 1862, during a relatively short period. The first serious attempt to 
get more information for this species in main collections of Mollusca 
resulted in the discovery of a senior synonym — nobody knows how many 
there might be when this group is critically revised also using material and 
literature dealing with neighbouring areas.’ 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
sachalinensis, Mactra, Schrenk, 1862, Bull. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, 

vol. 4, p. 412 
sybillae, Mactra, Valenciennes, 1858, C.r. Acad. Sci., vol. 46, p. 760. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)35 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1366. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

13 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 361 


OPINION 1367 
ALPHEUS LOTTINI GUERIN, 1829 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): 
CONSERVED 


RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
sublucanus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer sublucanus, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name Jottini Guérin, 1829, as published in the 
binomen Alpheus lottini, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 3042. 

(3) The specific name sublucanus Forskal, 1775, as published in the 
binomen Cancer sublucanus and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1164. 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2370 


An application for the use of the plenary powers to conserve Alpheus 
lottini Guérin, 1829 was first received from the late Dr A. H. Banner and 
Mrs D. M. Banner (University of Hawaii at Manoa, U.S.A.) on 19 January 
1981. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 15 September 
1981 and published simultaneously with a comment from Dr L. B. Holthuis 
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) on 8 December 1981 in Bull. 
zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 297-304. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, to seven general and three specialist serials. No comment 
was received. 

Subsequent correspondence between Dr Holthuis, Dr & Mrs Banner 
and the Secretary, resulted in revised proposals for conservation being put 
forward by Dr & Mrs Banner. These were published on 7 December 1982 in 
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 286-287. Public notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to 
the statutory serials, seven general and four specialist serials. No comment 
was received. 

On 13 September 1984 the members of the Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1984)43 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 286-287. At 
the close of the voting period on 13 December 1984 the state of the voting 
was 11 positive votes and 8 negative with 6 voting papers not returned. The 
following comments were returned by members of the Commission with 
their voting papers: 


362 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Hahn: ‘As is shown by Dr Holthuis in his comment, none of the four 
names used has definitely won prominence. Therefore it would be best to 
use the oldest name, C. sublucanus.’ 

Bayer: ‘In this case I think it is best to let priority rule, as the 
nomenclature is a jumble and there is no strongly prevalent usage to be 
protected. Since there seems to be little doubt that Cancer sublucanus 
Forskal= Alpheus lottini Guérin, Forskal’s very old specific name will 
prevail. If /ottini does prove to be specifically distinct, its name is available 
for use.’ 

Heppell: ‘I consider the revised proposals the worst of all the poss- 
ible alternatives. I accept Holthuis’s argument for encouraging Forsskal’s 
name sublucanus to come into general usage. No action contrary to the 
Code is necessary and the name /ottini would remain available for use in the 
event that some authors might subsequently consider it to be taxonomically 
distinct. (Similarly if the senior name had been maintained in Opinion 846 
the junior name would have remained available for use for the segregate 
taxon.) If the revised proposals are accepted, it will always be uncertain in 
future, whenever an author uses the name sub/ucanus, whether he is intend- 
ing a taxon distinct from /ottini or whether he has overlooked or ignored the 
Commission’s ruling. I believe the device of artificially inverting precedence 
should be reserved for use in exceptional cases, whereas the Commission 
now seems to advocate its use in case after case as a means of sitting on the 
nomenclatural fence.’ 

The above comments were sent to Dr and Mrs Banner and to Dr 
Holthuis. The Banners replied with an in depth analysis of the relative 
usage of both sublucanus and Jottini from 1958 to the present. Their analysis 
showed that A. lottini had enjoyed about eight times as much usage as A. 
sublucanus — 81:2% of the 48 citations quoted since 1958. They concluded 
that: (a) all meticulous carcinologists have consistently used the name /ottini 
for almost 30 years; (b) some of the works published using Jottini will 
become standard faunal references for all biologists working in various 
regions of the Indo-Pacific for years to come; (c) the name sublucanus, a 
nomen oblitum, was introduced in 1971, contrary to the then current rules 
of zoological nomenclature; (d) since the rationale for the revival of the 
ancient name was first explained in 1979, only two responsible carcin- 
ologists, Drs Holthuis and Miya, have used the name in a total of three 
personally authored publications. These conclusions, along with a detailed 
report by the Secretary reviewing the history of the case, was sent to all 
Commissioners with a voting paper issued under Byelaw 35. The two 
alternatives offered in this voting paper were: A. Refusal to use the plenary 
powers; application of the Principle of Priority; placing of C. sublucanus on 
the Official List, or, B. Application of the first part of Article 79b(ii); sup- 
pression of C. sublucanus for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but 
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; placing of A. Jottini on the 
Official List. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 363 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 30 April 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)36, issued under 
Byelaw 35, for or against the two mutually exclusive alternatives previously 
outlined. At the close of the voting period on 30 July 1985 the state of the 
voting was as follows: 


Alternative A 


Affirmative votes—six (6) received in the following order: 
Mroczkowski, Lehtinen, Willink, Brinck, Bernardi, Heppell. 


Alternative B 


Affirmative votes — twelve (12) received in the following order: 
Melville, Kraus, Savage, Binder, Halvorsen, Corliss, Ride, Cocks, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Uéno, Schuster. 

Holthuis abstained. Late affirmative votes for alternative A were 
received from Cogger and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by 
Alvarado, Bayer, Dupuis and Gruchy. 

The following comments were returned by Commissioners with their 
voting papers: 

Bernardi: ‘Je ne suis pas partisan de suspendre le Principe de priorité 
sauf dans des cas exceptionnels (animaux a grande importance économique 
ou classiques en zoologie générale). Si l’on trouve que l’emploi de 
sublucanus Forskal peut préter 4 confusion il suffit d’écrire: sublucanus 
Forskal = /ottini Guérin, c’est-a-dire de citer la synonymie.’ 

Heppell: ‘After re-considering all the statements concerning this case 
I maintain my original conclusion that Alpheus sublucanus Forskal should 
be the valid name for the species more often known as A. Jottini. Although 
there is no doubt a preponderance of usage of the latter name this is far 
from a situation of stability. In my opinion there is insufficient cause to set 
aside priority in this case. 

‘I should like the opportunity to dispel any misunderstanding that 
may have arisen from my previous comment. As I understand Article 79, its 
whole point is to define and delimit the circumstances in which the normal 
provisions of the Code may be suspended. My statement that “No action 
contrary to the Code is necessary” [to make A. sublucanus the valid name] 
simply meant that to achieve this result the normal provisions [i.e. Articles 
1-75] of the Code did not need to be set aside by use of plenary power. I had 
thought this was self-evident and had certainly not meant to imply that the 
possible use of the plenary power to accord A. /ottini precedence over A. 
sublucanus would be action contrary to the Code in the sense which the 
Secretary has chosen to read into my words.’ 


364 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on an 
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
lottini, Alpheus, Guérin, [1829], Voyage autour du Monde ... sur... La 

Coquille, pendant . . . 1822-1825, Zoologie, vol. 2(2), p. 38, pl. 3 
sublucanus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775, Descriptiones animalium, avium, 

amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium, quae in itinere orientali, 

observavit, p. 94. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (85)36 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1367. 


R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

14 August 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 365 


OPINION 1368 
THE GENERIC NAMES PAN AND PANTHERA (MAMMALIA, 
CARNIVORA): 
AVAILABLE AS FROM OKEN, 1816 


RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) It is hereby ruled that the names Pan and Panthera are generic 
names and available as from Oken, 1816; 

(b) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal 
genera Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 are hereby 
set aside and Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 and Felis 
pardus Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby designated as type species of 
Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 respectively. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Pan Oken, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species, by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Simia 
troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 (Name Number 2300); 

(b) Panthera Oken, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Felis 
pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2301). 

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

(a) troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the binomen 
Simia troglodytes (specific name of the type species of Pan 
Oken, 1816) (Name Number 3043); 

(b) pardus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Felis 
pardus (specific name of the type species of Panthera Oken, 
1816) (Name Number 3044). 


HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)482 


The question of the status of the names in Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch der 
Naturgeschichte, was first brought to the attention of the Commission as 
early as 1944 by the late Dr W. H. Osgood of the Chicago Natural History 
Museum. His correspondence, along with that from other zoologists and a 
report from Mr F. Hemming (then Secretary of the Commission), was 
published in Bull. zool. Nom. (hereafter referred to as BZN), vol. 9, pp. 
193-218 (May 1954). This resulted in Opinion 417 (Ops. Decl. Int. Comm. 
zool. Nomencl., vol. 14, pp. 1-42, 1956) which, although rejecting volume 
3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch for nomenclatural purposes, invited 
zoologists to apply for the conservation of names, which, in the interests of 
stability, should be accepted as from that work and date. 


366 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


After the publication of Opinion 417 there was little or no corre- 
spondence regarding the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch until an application 
from Sir Terence Morrison-Scott (formerly Keeper of Zoology and Direc- 
tor, British Museum (Natural History), London) for the conservation of 
the names Pan and Panthera as from Oken, 1816, was received on 26 
August 1965. This was itself a revised version of an earlier draft submitted 
to the Commission (though never published) on 23 September 1950 asking 
for five of Oken’s mammal names to be conserved in the event of the 
Lehrbuch being rejected by the Commission. 

The later Morrison-Scott application was sent to the printer on 9 
September 1965 and published on 2 November 1965 in BZN, vol. 22, pp. 
230-232. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case 
was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, 
to seven general and two mammalogical serials. Comments were received 
from a variety of sources generally supporting the proposals of Morrison- 
Scott. Dr S. P. Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, Illinois, 
U.S.A.) opposed the proposals and preferred the conservation of 
Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 and Leo Brehm, 1829 instead of Pan and Panthera. 
His comment was published in BZN, vol. 23, pp. 67-69 along with another 
comment opposing the proposals from Dr F. Dias de Avila-Pires (Museu 
Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil). Further comments by Professor E. 
Tortonese (Museum of Natural History, Genoa, Italy), Professor E. Mayr 
(Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, U.S.A.), Dr H. Hemmer 
Unstitut fiir physiologische Zoologie, University of Mainz, BRD.), Dr 
V. Mazak (MNAHN, France and Institut of Systematic Zoology, Prague, 
CSSR) and Dr P. Leyhausen (Max-Planck-Institute ftir Verhaltenphysi- 
ologie, Wuppertal, BRD) were received and published in BZN, vol. 24, p. 3; 
vol. 24, p. 66; vol. 24, pp. 259-261; vol. 25, pp. 66-67 and vol. 25, p. 130 
respectively. A reply to Dr Mayr’s comment by Dr Hershkovitz was 
published in vol. 24, pp. 261-262. Due to the many collateral issues raised in 
these comments, voting on the original proposals was deferred. 

A second application by Dr G. B. Corbet, Mr J. E. Hill, Mrs J. M. 
Ingles and Dr P. H. Napier (Department of Zoology, British Museum 
(Natural History), London) was received on 16 November 1973. This 
incorporated the original proposals of Morrison-Scott plus all the 
published comments. It was sent to the printers on 14 January 1974 and 
published in BZN, vol. 31, pp. 29-42. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to seven general and two mammalogical serials. 

Comments were received from Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National 
University, Canberra, Australia) and Dr P. Leyhausen (Max-Planck- 
Institut). These were published along with a comment from Dr R. G. van 
Gelder (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A) offering 
revised proposals, in BZN, vol. 32, pp. 68-73. A reply to van Gelder from 
Corbet et al. was published in the same place. Public notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers in the revised proposals by van Gelder was given 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 367 


in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, and two 
mammalogical serials. 

A further comment was received from Dr S. P. Hershkovitz and 
published in conjunction with a reply from Corbet et al. in BZN, vol. 33, 
pp. 135-136. 

On 7 April 1978 the Members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on V.P. (1978) | for or against two mutu- 
ally exclusive alternatives. The first involved validating Pan Oken, 1816, 
Panthera Oken, 1816 and Tigris Oken, 1816. The second involved desig- 
nating Felis leo Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of the nominal genus Leo 
Brehm with the suppression of Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 and placing 
Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 and Leo Brehm, 1829, along with their relevant 
type species, on the Official Lists with the placement of Pan Oken, 1816, 
Panthera Oken, 1816 and Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 on the Official 
Index. The vote in favour of the former was 14 to 3. However, during the 
voting period comments were received from Mr D. Heppell and Dr W. D. 
L. Ride who both pointed out that the voting paper did not give the oppor- 
tunity to consider the alternative proposals put forward by Dr Hershkovitz 
in BZN, vol. 33, pp. 135—136, who, contrary to his earlier views, held that 
Pan could be taken from Palmer, 1904 and Panthera from Severtzow, 1858. 

As a consequence of these and other comments as well as the inter- 
nally inconsistent result of the vote on V.P. (78) | the matter was referred to 
Council on 5 December 1978. Unfortunately, the Council was itself divided 
as to the best means of approaching the problem and there followed a long 
series of exchanges between the Council members as to the various options 
open to the Commission for voting. 

The matters raised by Dr Ride and Mr Heppell in their voting 
papers were, in part, then under consideration by the Commission in con- 
nection with the 3rd edition of the Code (i.e. the status of names in works 
rejected for nomenclatural purposes and the status of names for divisions 
and subdivisions of genera). These matters are now clarified under Articles 
78h and 10e. 

At a meeting of the Council at the British Museum (Natural 
History), London on 11 October 1984, Dr Ride again raised the question 
of Pan and Panthera. It was proposed that these two names should be 
validated (i.e. made available) as from Oken, 1816, as soon as possible. 

After publication of the 3rd edition of the Code in February 1985 
the status of the case was examined jointly by Dr Ride and Mr Melville. A 
detailed report was prepared summarising the entire history of the case 
along with explanations of the consequences of voting for the particular 
options available to the Commission. A One-Month voting paper was also 
prepared for issue under Byelaw 33. 

The choice now placed before the Commission (given that Pan and 
Panthera were validated from Oken 1816 as a result of the 14 to 3 majority 
in V.P. (78) 1) was one of three alternatives. Alternative A was to confirm 
the decision reached in 1978 and complete it by designating Homo 


368 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


troglodytes Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Pan Oken, 1816 and Felis 
pardus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of Panthera Oken, 1816. - 

Alternative B(i) proposed conservation of Pan Palmer, 1904 and 
Panthera Severtzow, 1858 by the suppression of Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 
and all uses of Pan prior to Palmer, 1904 (Dr Hershkovitz’s revised pro- 
posals of 1976). This alternative further entailed suppression of Leo Brehm 
and Tigris Gray, 1843 for priority and Panthera Hibner, 1823 (an unused 
generic name in the Lepidoptera) for priority and homonymy. 

Alternative B(ii) was to give Panthera Severtzow, 1858 precedence 
over Leo Brehm, 1829 and Tigris Gray, 1843. 


DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 


On 7 August 1985 the members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the One—Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.) (1985) 1, for or 
against the alternatives outlined. At the close of the voting period on 7 
September 1985 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes—Alternative A—nineteen (19) received in the 
following order: Melville, Ride, Binder, Holthuis, Cocks, Uéno, Kraus, 
Halvorsen, Bayer, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Gruchy, Heppell, 
Corliss, Schuster, Cogger, Savage, Bernardi 

Negative Votes—Alternative A—two (2) Starobogatov, Trjapitzin. 

Affirmative Votes—Alternative B(i)—none (0). 

Negative Votes—Alternative B(i)—twenty-one (21) received in the 
following order: Melville, Ride, Binder, Holthuis, Cocks, Uéno, Kraus, 
Halvorsen, Bayer, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Gruchy, Heppell, 
Corliss, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Cogger, Savage, Bernardi 

Affirmative Votes—Alternative B(ii}—two (2): Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin. 

Negative Votes—Alternative B(ii)—nineteen (19) received in the 
following order: Melville, Ride, Binder, Holthuis, Cocks, Uéno, Kraus, 
Halvorsen, Bayer, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Gruchy, Heppell, 
Corliss, Schuster, Cogger, Savage, Bernardi. 

No votes were returned by Brinck, Dupuis, Willink and Lehtinen. 

Holthuis commented: ‘Homo troglodytes Linnaeus, 1758 (Systema 
Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 24) describes a white tropical being (‘Corpus 
album... .’) which may be an albino negro or Malay. This is also shown by 
the reference to ‘Kakurlacko’. In the colonial slang of the day, the word 
‘kakkerlak’ or ‘witte kakkerlak’ (=cockroach or white cockroach) was 
used in the East Indies to indicate someone who looked European but had 
some (or much) native Malay blood. Linnaeus’ reference to Bontius, 1658 
(in W. Piso, De Indiae utriusque re naturali et medica, pt. 3, pp. 1-160) is 
to Bontius’ (p. 84) description and figure of ‘Orang Outang sive Homo 
silvestris’. Although Bontius’ figure is rather crude and looks more like a 
hairy lady than an Orang Utan, his description is almost certainly based (at 
least partly) on the ape. Among authors there is some difference of opinion 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 369 


on what Brontius’ animal represents, but most consider it an orang utan. 
Anyhow Linnaeus’ Homo troglodytes is based on a mixture of human 
beings and the orang utan, but certainly not on the chimpanzee. The name 
troglodytes as used at present for the chimpanzee is based on Simia 
troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 (Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, p. 65). 
Blumenbach’s description and literature references leave not the slightest 
doubt that he described the chimpanzee (he also cited the vernacular 
name Chimpanse for it). That he did not just place Homo troglodytes L. 
in the genus Simia is shown by his remark on the previous page (p. 64): 
‘Linne’s Homo troglodytes ist ein Gemisch aus der Geschichte dieser 
presshaften waren Menschen [which he defined a few lines previously as 
‘Die Kackerlacken, Blasards, Albinos oder, weisse Mohren sind nicht 
einmal eine Spielart, geschweige eine besondere Gattung’], und des 
Orangutangs’. 

‘There is no good reason not to consider Simia troglodytes 
Blumenbach, 1779 a good species and it should be used as the type of Pan, 
not Homo troglodytes L.’ 

‘Troglodytes niger Geoffroy, 1812 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 19, 
p. 87) is an unnecessary name, but it is not a replacement name for Homo 
troglodytes L. It is a new name in the synonymy of which Geoffroy cited 
‘Simia troglodytes Linn., 12, 1 [evidently meaning 12th edition of Systema 
Naturae (should be 13th) first species of Simia] ‘Simia pygmaeus Screb fig. 1, 
B’ (=Schreber, Die Sdugethiere) and Simia satyrus Schreb., fig. 2 (same 
work). Actually Homo troglodytes L. is not mentioned by Geoffroy, and 
all his references are to recognizable descriptions and figures of the 
chimpanzee’. 

‘My vote for Alternative A is on the condition that Simia troglodytes 
Blumenbach, 1779 and not Homo troglodytes L. be made the type of the 
genus Pan Oken, 1816’. [This comment was circulated to Council who 
approved the designation of Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 as type 
species of Pan Oken, 1816 and this is incorporated in the present ruling.] 


ORIGINAL REFERENCES 


The following are the original references for the names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Pan Oken, 1816 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3 (Zoologie), p. 1230 
Panthera Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3, (Zoologie), 
p. 1052 
pardus, Felis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, p. 41-42 
troglodytes, Simia, Blumenbach, 1779, Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 
p. 65. 


CERTIFICATE 


I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (78)1 and 
(O.M.) (85)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in 


370 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


those voting papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, 
and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, are truly recorded in the present 
Opinion No. 1368. 


P.K. TUBBS 

Executive Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
London 

7 October 1985 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 371 


SEMIONOTUS AGASSIZ, 1832 (OSTEICHTHYES): PROPOSED 
DESIGNATION OF SEMIONOTUS BERGERI AGASSIZ, 1833 AS 
TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2434 


By Amy R. McCune (Section of Ecology & Systematics, Corson Hall, 
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0239, U.S.A.) 


The fossil ‘holostean’ Semionotus was described by Louis Agassiz in 
1832, p. 144. The only specimen of the type species ever known has been lost 
or destroyed. Another species, Semionotus bergeri has been commonly 
recognised as the type species for 120 years. I present the following case for 
designating Semionotus bergeri as the type species under the plenary 
powers. 

2. Agassiz, 1836, p. 222, explicitly designated Semionotus lepto- 
cephalus as the type species of Semionotus: ‘L’espéce type de ce gentre est le 
Semionotus leptocephalus du Lias de Boll [Germany]’. His description 
(1836, pp. 222-223) and figure (1834, Tab. 26, fig. 1) of S. leptocephalus 
were based on a single specimen from the collection of the Agricultural 
Society of Wirtemburg at Stuttgart. It was the only example of S. 
leptocephalus known to him (Agassiz, 1836, p. 222). 

3. The specimen of S. leptocephalus, described and figured by 
Agassiz, 1832, 1834, 1836, was missing as early as 1861. Fraas, 1861, who 
described several new species of Semionotus, was unable to find Agassiz’s 
specimen of S. leptocephalus in the collections of the Agricultural Society. 
There were still no other specimens of S. /eptocephalus known (Fraas, 1861) 
and apparently, other authors who had written on Semionotus had not seen 
the specimen of S. leptocephalus figured by Agassiz, e.g. Berger, 1843; 
Schauroth, 1851; Borneman, 1854. Therefore, Fraas, 1861, p. 89, suggested 
that the name Semionotus be transferred from S. leptocephalus to S. bergeri, 
a species from the late Triassic of Coburg, Germany. This action was 
acknowledged by Deecke, 1889, applauded by Schellwien, 1901 and fol- 
lowed without qualification by Woodward, 1895 and Hay, 1902. 

4. The identity of S. leptocephalus has always been ambiguous. All 
specimens of S. /eptocephalus, except the original of Agassiz, have been sub- 
sequently identified as S. bergeri, or as belonging to species of Lepidotes, 
Pholidophorus, or Heterolepidotes (Woodward, 1888; Woodward, 1895; 
Fraas, 1861; P. E. Olsen, pers. comm.; A. R. McCune, pers. obs.). It was 
noted by Agassiz, 1832, p. 223, that S. /eptocephalus bore a marked resem- 
blance to a young Lepidotes minor, and as Fraas, 1861 and Deecke, 1889, 
pointed out, Agassiz’s figure of S. leptocephalus is not sufficient to dis- 
tinguish it from Lepidotes. Indeed, the only semionotid known today from 
the Lias of Boll is Lepidotes elvensis. While Agassiz’s lithograph (1834, Tab. 


372 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


26, fig. 1) is not clearly distinguishable from Lepidotes, his working sketches 
of S. leptocephalus and L. gigas (= L. elvensis) now in the Archives de l’Etat 
de Neuchatel, are distinguishable. His sketch of S. leptocephalus (Surdez, 
1973, p. 125) is consistent with the concept of Semionotus used (cf. Larson- 
neur, 1964; Schaeffer & Dunkle, 1950; Eastman, 1905; Schellwien, 1901). 

5. All efforts to locate Agassiz’s specimens of S. leptocephalus have 
been unsuccessful. I have searched the collections of the following 
museums: Staaliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart (which now 
includes the collections of the Agricultural Society of Wirtemburg at 
Stuttgart where the specimen should have been); Muséum National 
d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (where Agassiz was studying when he des- 
cribed S. leptocephalus) and the Institut de Géologie de l'Université de 
Neuchatel (which holds Agassiz’s collection from the Académie de 
Neuchatel, where he completed Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles). 1 have 
also examined the collections in Tiibingen, Munich, Gottingen and Zurich, 
and I have been informed by curators of the collections in Coburg, East 
Berlin and Frankfurt that they do not have the specimen. I have examined 
Agassiz’s research notes, manuscripts and selected correspondence at the 
Archives de I’Etat in Neuchatel and the Houghton and the Museum of 
Comparative Zoology libraries of Harvard University for clues or incon- 
sistencies that might suggest the whereabouts of the specimen. I can only 
conclude that the specimen described as S. /eptocephalus is permanently lost 
or destroyed. 

6. Existing material of S. bergeri is adequate to serve as a reference 
for the genus Semionotus. Although Agassiz’s figure of S. bergeri (1834, 
Tab. 26, fig. 2) is not informative, several syntypes exist including the 
figured specimen. These specimens, which I am redescribing, were referred 
to Semionotus by Agassiz, 1836, p. 224, and they are consistent with his con- 
cept of Semionotus as shown by his sketch of S. /eptocephalus. 

7. There are no known specimens of S. leptocephalus, the type spe- 
cies of Semionotus. Semionotus bergeri has been used as the type species for 
120 years. Recognition of S. bergeri, rather than S. leptocephalus, as the 
type species would be in the interests of stability and universality of zoologi- 
cal nomenclature. Therefore I request that the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature: 

(1) use its plenary powers to set aside all type designations hitherto 
made for the nominal genus Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 and to 
designate Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833 as type species; 

(2) place the generic name Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above Semionotus bergeri Agassiz, 1833, on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) place the specific name bergeri Agassiz, 1833, as published in the 
binomen Semionotus bergeri (specific name of the type species of 
Semionotus Agassiz, 1832) on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 373 


REFERENCES 


AGASSIZ, J. L. R. 1832. Untersuchungen tiber die fossilen Fische der Lias- 
Formation. Jahrb. Mineral. Geogn. Geol. Petrefakt. 1832, part 3, pp. 
139-149. 

1834. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, Livraison II. Neuchatel: 

Imprimerie de Petitpierre. 

1836. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, Livraison VI. Neuchatel: 

Imprimerie de Petitpierre. 

1837. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, Livraison VIII. Neuchatel: 

Imprimerie de Petitpierre. 

BERGER, H. A. C. 1843. no title [Letter on Semionotus and Thalassides, dated 
Coburg, 24 October 1842]. Neues Jahrb. Mineral. Geogn. Petrefakt. 1843, 
p. 86. 

BORNEMANN, J. G. 1854. Ueber Semionotus im oberen Keupersandstein. Z. 
dtsch. geol. Ges. 1854, p. 615, Taf. 25. 

COSTA, O. G. 1851. Mittelheilungen an Professor Bronn gerichtet [Letter to E. 
Ruppell on the fossil fishes of the kingdom of Naples.] Neues Jahrb. Mineral. 
Geogn. Geol. Petrefakt. 1851, pp. 182-184. 

DEECKE, W. 1889. Ueber Fische aus verschiedenen Horizonten der Trias. 
Palaeontogr., vol. 35, pp. 97-138. 

EASTMAN, C. R. 1905. The Triassic fishes of New Jersey. Rep. Geol. Surv. New 
Jersey. 1904, pp. 67-102. 

FRAAS, O. 1861. Ueber Semionotus und einige Keuper-Conchylien. Jahresh. Ver. 
varterl. Naturk. Wirtemberg, vol. 17, pp. 81-101. 

HAY, O. P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of fossil vertebrata. Bull. U.S. Geol. 
Sury., vol. 179, pp. 1-868. 

LARSONNEUR, C. 1964. Semionotus normanniae du Trias supérieur de Basse- 
Normandie (France). Ann. Paléontol., vol. 50(2), pp. 101-117. 

SCHAEFFER, B. & DUNKLE, D. 1950. A semionotid fish from the Chinle for- 
mation, with considerations of its relationships. Am. Mus. Novit. No. 1457, 
pp. 1-29. 

SCHAUROTH, K. von 1851. Ueber das Vorkommen des Semionotus bergeri im 
Keuper bei Coberg. Z. dtsch. geol. Ges., vol. 3, pp. 405-410. 

SCHELLWIEN, E. 1901. Ueber Semionotus Ag. Schr. Phys. 6kon. Ges. 
Konigsberg., vol. 42, pp. 1-33. 

SURDEZ, M. 1973. Catalogue des archives de Louis Agassiz. Neuchatel: Université 
de Neuchatel, Institut de Géologie et Séminaire d’Histoire. 202 pp. 

WOODWARD, A. S. 1888. Vertebrate paleontology in some continental museums. 

Geol. Mag., dec. III, vol. 5, pp. 395-404. 

1895. Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum. British Museum 

(Natural History), 4 vols. London. 


374 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


CEPHALOPHOLIS ARGUS SCHNEIDER, 1801 AND 
CEPHALOPHOLIS SEXMACULATA (RUPPELL, 1830) 
(OSTEICHTHYES, SERRANIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION 
BY SUPPRESSION OF BODIANUS GUTTATUS BLOCH, 1790, 
ANTHIUS ARGUS BLOCH, 1792 AND SERRANUS ZANANA 
VALENCIENNES, 1828 Z.N.(S.)2470 


By John E. Randall (Bishop Museum, Box 19000-A, Honolulu, Hawaii 
96817, U.S.A.), M. L. Bauchot (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 43, 
rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France), Adam Ben-Tuvia (Department 

of Zoology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel) and Phillip C. 

Heemstra (J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Private Bag 1015, 
Grahamstown 6140, South Africa) 


A. Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 

The widespread Indo-Pacific serranid fish universally known as 
Cephalopholis argus Schneider, in Bloch & Schneider, 1801, p. 311, was first 
described as Perca miniata variety b by Forskal, 1775, p. 41, from the Red 
Sea. The name Perca miniata is now restricted to the valid species 
Cephalopholis miniata. The next description was that of Bloch, 1790, p. 36, 
pl. 224, who named the fish Bodianus guttatus (spelled gutatus in the text 
and guttatus on the plate). The type locality was given as Japan, but this is 
probably an error for Java, as pointed out for a comparable example in 
SCARIDAE by Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, p. 221. Bloch’s 
description was based on three specimens, of which only one syntype 
remains at the Zoologisches Museum in East Berlin (ZMB 5213, a dried 
skin of the right side, 231 mm SL). This was examined by the senior author. 

2. The name guttata Bloch has not been used by authors in spite of 
its priority over Cephalopholis argus Schneider. This was probably due to 
the realisation that it is preoccupied by Perca guttata Linnaeus, 1758, 
p. 292, the abundant serranid fish of the tropical western Atlantic, Epi- 
nephelus guttatus (common name, red hind). From the time of Cuvier & 
Valenciennes early authors classified groupers (subfamily EPINEPHELINAE) in 
the genus Serranus Cuvier, 1817. With both Perca guttata and Bodianus 
guttatus in Serranus, the former is a senior secondary homonym of the 
latter. The same is true when both are classified in Epinephelus, as has been 
done by Smith, 1971, who reviewed American groupers. Most recent 
authors, however, recognise the genus Cephalopholis Schneider. Perca 
guttata Linnaeus then remains in Epinephelus, and Bodianus guttatus Bloch 
shifts to Cephalopholis, where it takes priority over C. argus Schneider. 

3. We therefore request that the Commission suppress the name 
Bodianus guttatus Bloch so that the name Cephalopholis argus can be 
maintained. This grouper is one of the most common food fishes in the 
Indo-Pacific region, ranging from the Red Sea and the coast of East Africa 
to French Polynesia and the Pitcairn Group. It has been successfully 
introduced into the Hawaiian Islands. It is a distinctive species not to be 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 375 


confused with others of the genus. The name argus has been widely used, 
not only in systematic publications but also in papers dealing with the 
biology of the fish. Examples are Hiatt & Strasburg, 1960; Randall & 
Brock, 1960; Smith & Smith, 1963; Helfrich et al., 1968; Masuda et al., 
1975; Baissac, 1976; Allen & Steene, 1979; Jones & Kumaran, 1980; 
Randall, 1980; van der Elst, 1981; Shepard & Myers, 1981; Randall, 1983 
and Heemstra & Randall in Fischer & Bianchi, 1984. 


B. Anthias argus Bloch, 1792 


4. The first use of the specific name argus for a grouper was that of 
Bloch, 1792, p. 111, pl. 317, who named Anthias argus from a drawing in the 
Linke collection in Leipzig. Bloch’s colour painting shows a pale bluish- 
gray fish with scattered, small, brown spots or ocelli on head, body and fins 
(with about 21 spots or ocelli on the body). In his brief description, Bloch 
gave the dorsal fin ray count of 9 spines and 13 soft-rays (which agrees with 
the illustration). The general morphology, spotted color pattern, and 9 
dorsal fin spines can only indicate a species of Cephalopholis, but no known 
species of this genus has 13 dorsal soft-rays, and none have a bluish-gray 
body with so few spots. There is no indication in Schneider’s later account 
of Cephalopholis argus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801, p. 311) that he considered 
Anthias argus to be the same species. What is clear is that Anthias argus 
Bloch, 1792, is definitely a species of Cephalopholis and as such threatens 
the familiar name Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801, as a senior second- 
ary homonym. Therefore, in order to maintain stability we request that the 
Commission suppress Anthias argus Bloch. 


C. Cephalopholis sexmaculata (Ruppell, 1830) 

5. Serranus zanana was first described by Valenciennes in Cuvier & 
Valenciennes, 1828, p. 339, from a dried half skin of the left side (MNHN 
7271, 380 mm SL) collected at Mauritius by Commerson. Gunther, 1859, p. 
123, recognised this fish as a valid species and placed Serranus spilurus 
Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833, p. 433, in synonymy. The 
latter is now known to be a junior synonym of Labrus leopardus Lacepéde, 
1801, p. 450. Boulenger, 1895, p. 195, referred both zanana and spilurus to 
the synonymy of /eopardus. Examination of the holotype of zanana, how- 
ever, has revealed that this name is the earliest for the Indo-Pacific grouper 
Serranus sexmaculatus Rippell, 1830. Had Valenciennes given the size of 
the holotype, Giinther and Boulenger would surely not have erred in their 
synonymies, as C. /eopardus attains a maximum standard length of only 
about 150 mm. 

6. Cephalopholis sexmaculata is known throughout most of the 
tropical and subtropical Indo-Pacific region from the Red Sea (type 
locality) to French Polynesia. It is a well defined species for which only 
one junior synonym has been described. C. coatesi Whitley, 1937, from 
Queensland. The name sexmaculata has been in use since it was proposed 
and zanana has never been adopted for this species after the original 


376 


description 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


except incorrectly as a supposed equivalent to J/eopardus. 


We request therefore, that the Commission suppress Serranus zanana 
Valenciennes. Recent authors who have used the name Cephalopholis 
sexmaculata (or sexmaculatus) include Katayama, 1960; Baissac, 1976; 
Masuda et al., 1975; Allen & Steene, 1979; Rau & Rau, 1980; Shepard & 
Myers, 1981; Kyushin et al., 1982; Morgans, 1982; Randall, 1983; Russell, 
1983 and Heemstra & Randall in Fischer & Bianchi, 1984. 

7. In summary the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is requested: 


(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


ALLEN, G. 


to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific 

names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 

those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

(a) guttatus Bloch, 1790 as published in the binomen Bodianus 
guttatus; 

(b) zanana Valenciennes, 1828 as published in the binomen 
Serranus zanana; 

to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name argus 

Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Anthias argus, for the 

purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 

Homonymy; 

to place the following specific names on the Official List of 

Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) argus Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen 
Cephalopholis argus; 

(b) sexmaculata Riippell, 1830, as published in the binomen 
Cephalopholis sexmaculata; 

to place the following specific names on the Official Index of 

Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) guttatus Bloch, 1790, as published in the binomen Bodianus 
guttatus and as suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(1a) above; 

(b) zanana Valenciennes, 1828, as published in the binomen 
Serranus zanana and as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1b) above. 

(c) argus Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Anthias 
argus and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (2) 
above. 


REFERENCES 
R. & STEENE, R. C. 1979. The Fishes of Christmas Island, Indian 


Ocean. Spec. Publ. Aust. natl. Pks. Wild. Serv., no. 2, pp. 1-81. 

BAISSAC, J. DE B. 1976. Poissons de mer des eaux de l’ile Maurice. Proc. roy. Soc. 
Mauritius, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 191-226. 

BLOCH, M. E. 1785-1795. Naturgeschichte der Ausldndischen Fische, 9 parts. J. 
Morino & Co. Berlin. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 377 


& SCHNEIDER, J. G. 1801. Systema ichthyologiae, 584 pp. Sanderiano 

Commissum, Berolini. 

BOULENGER, G. A. 1895. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 1, 
391 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 

CUVIER, G. & VALENCIENNES, A. 1828. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 2, 

490 pp. F. G. Levrault, Paris. 

1833. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 9, 512 pp. F. G. Levrault, Paris. 

1840. Histoire naturalle des poissons, vol. 14, 464 pp. Pitois Levrault, Paris. 

FISCHER, W. & BIANCHI, G. 1984. FAO species identification sheets for fishery 
purposes. Western Indian Ocean. 10 volumes. Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 

FORSSKAL, P. 1775. Descriptiones animalium piscium, pp. 22-75. Molleri, 
Hauniae. 

GUNTHER, A. A. L. G. 1859. Catalogue of the fishes in the collection of the British 
Museum, vol. 1, xxxi+524 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. 

HELFRICH, P., PYAKARNCHANA, T. & MILES, P. S. 1968. Ciguatera fish 
poisoning I. The ecology of ciguateric reef fishes in the Line Islands. Occ. 
pap. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., vol. 23(14), pp. 305-382. 

HIATT, R. W. & STRASBURG, D. W. 1960. Ecological relationships of the fish 
fauna on coral reefs of the Marshall Islands. Ecol. Monogr., vol. 30, pp. 
65-127. 

JONES, S. & KUMARAN, M. 1980. Fishes of the Laccadive Archipelago, xii+ 760 
pp. Nature Conserv. Aquatic Sci. Serv., Trivandrum, Kerala. 

KATAYAMA, M. 1960. Fauna Japonica Serranidae (Pisces). viiit 189 pp. Tokyo 
News Service Ltd, Tokyo. 

KYUSHIN, K., AMAOKA, K., NAKAYA, K., IDA, H., TANINO, Y. & 
SENTA, T. 1982. Fishes of the South China Sea, 333 pp. Japan Mar. Fish. 
Resource Res. Center, Tokyo. 

LACEPEDE, B. G. E. 1801. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, xxviit+414 pp. 
Chez Plassan, Paris. 

LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, 823 pp. Holmiae. 

MASUDA, H., ARAGA, C. & YOSHINO, T. 1975. Coastal fishes of Southern 
Japan, 382 pp. Tokyo University Press. 

MORGANS, J. F. C. 1982. Serranid fishes of Tanzania and Kenya. Ichthyol. Bull. J. 
L. B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol., no. 46, pp. 1-44. 

RANDALL, J. E. 1980. A survey of ciguatera at Enewetak and Bikini, Marshall 

Islands, with notes on the systematics and food habits of ciguatoxic fishes. 

Fish. Bull., vol. 78(2), pp. 201-249. 

1983. Red Sea reef fishes, 192 pp. IMMEL Publishing, London. 

& BROCK, V. E. 1960. Observations on the ecology of epinepheline and 

lutjanid fishes of the Society Islands with emphasis on food habits. Trans. 

amer. Fish. Soc., vol. 89(1), pp. 9-16. 

RAU, N. & RAU, A. 1980. Commercial marine fishes of the Central Philippines 
(bony fishes), 623 pp. Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir technische Zusammenarbeit 

; (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn. 

RUPPELL, E. 1828-1830. Atlas zu der Reise im nérdlichen Afrika. Fische des rothen 
Meers, 141 pp. H. L. Brénner, Frankfurt am Main. 

RUSSELL, B. C. 1983. Annotated checklist of the coral reef fishes in the Capricorn- 

Bunker Group, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Spec. Publ. Great Barrier Reef 

Mar. Park Auth., no. 1, pp. 1-184. 


378 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


SHEPARD, J. W. & MYERS, R. F. 1981. A preliminary checklist of the fishes of 
Guam and the Southern Mariana Islands in A working list of marine organ- 
isms from Guam. Univ. Guam mar. Lab. tech. Rep., no. 70, pp. 61-88. 

SMITH, C. L. 1971. A revision of the American groupers: Epinephelus and allied 
genera. Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 146(2), pp. 67-242. 

SMITH, J. L. B. & SMITH, M. M. 1963. The fishes of Seychelles, 215 pp. Dept. of 
Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 

VAN DER ELST, R. 1981. A guide to the common sea fishes of southern Africa, 367 
pp. C. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd., Cape Town. 

WHITLEY, G. 1937. Further ichthyological miscellanea. Mem. Queensland Mus., 
vol. 9(2), pp. 113-148. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 379 


CHEIRURUS BEYRICH, 1845 (TRILOBITA): PROPOSED 
DESIGNATION OF CHEIRURUS INSIGNIS BEY RICH, 1845 ASA 
TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2337 


By P. D. Lane (Geology Department, Keele University, Staffs, ST5 5BG, 
U.K.) 


The generic name Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845, p. 5 was proposed to 
include species now assigned to a morphologically diverse family of 
trilobites. Amongst them were included the species C. insignis Beyrich, 1845 
and C. sternbergii (Boeck, 1828). 

2. Whidborne, 1889, p. 11 designated Trilobites sternbergii (Boeck) 
1827 (sic) = 1828, p. 37, as type species of Cheirurus. 

3. Barton, 1913, p. 547 designated Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845 
as type species of Cheirurus. 

4. The first designation has been overlooked and T. sternbergii has, 
to the best of the author’s knowledge, never been used as type species of 
Cheirurus. 

5. The second designation has been followed by all subsequent 
authors. 

6. Strict application of the Code would result in the acceptance of T. 
sternbergii as type species of Cheirurus. However, T. sternbergii has been 
accepted as type species of Boeckia Pillet, 1965 (non Malm, 1870; nec Brady, 
1871; nec Brogger, 1882; nec Thomson, 1883; nec Grimm in Sars, 
1894) = Pilletopeltis nov. nom. Pribyl & Vanék, 1973, p. 46. The name 
Cheirurus would be transferred from the genus to which it has been applied 
since 1846 (Barrande 1846a, p. 75; 1846b, p. 31) to the genus known since 
1972 as Pilletopeltis; and a new name would have to be found for Cheirurus 
of authors. 

7. A list of 10 papers by 10 authors who use C. insignis as type 
species of Cheirurus is attached. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type 
species made for the genus Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845, prior to 
the designation by Barton, 1913, of Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 
1845, to be the type species of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (gender: 
masculine) type species, by subsequent designation by Barton, 
1913, Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845, on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name insignis Beyrich, 1845, as published 
in the binomen Cheirurus insignis Beyrich, 1845, (specific name 
of the type species of Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845) on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


380 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


REFERENCES 


BARRANDE, J. 1846a. Notice préliminaire sur le Systéme Silurien et les trilobites de 

Bohéme, pp. 1-97. Leipsic. 

1846b. Nouveaux trilobites. Supplément a la notice préliminaire sur le Systéme 

Silurien et les trilobites de Bohéme. pp. 1—40. Prague. 

BARTON, D. C. 1913. A new genus of the Cheiruridae with descriptions of some 
new species. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 54, no. 21. pp. 547-556, 1 pl. 
(un-numbered). 

BEYRICH, E. 1845. Ueber einige béhmischen Trilobiten. 47 pp, | pl. Berlin. 

BOECK, C. 1828. Notitser til Laeren om Trilobiterne. Mag. Naturvidensk. for 1827, 
vol. 8, pp. 11—44, 1 pl. 

BRADY, G. S. 1871. A list of the non-parasitic marine Copepoda of the North-east 
coast of England. Nat. Hist. Trans. Northumberland Durham, vol. 4, pp. 
423-445, pls. 17-21. 

BROGGER, W. C. 1882. Die silurischen Etagen 2 und 3 im Kristianagebiet und auf 
Eker, ihre Gliederung, Fossilien, Schichtenstorungen und Contactmetamor- 
phosen. Universitats-programm (Kristiania). 376 pp., 12 pls. 

MALM, A. W. 1870. Om tva for vetenskapen nya Amfipod-species fran Bohuslan, 
af hvilka det ena ar typ for ett nytt genus inom Pontoporeinernas grupp. 
Ofvers Vetensk Akad. Forh. Stockholm, vol. 27, pp. 543-548, pl. 5. 

PILLET, J. 1965. Le genre Crotalocephalus dans le massif Armoricain. Bull. Soc. 
géol. min. Bretagne. Nouvelle Série. pp. 1-65, pls. 1—4. 

PRIBYL, A. & VANEK, J. 1972. Jn PILLET, J. Les Trilobites du Dévonien 
inférieur et du Dévonien moyen du Sud-Est du Massif armoricain. Mém. 
Soc. Et. Sci. Anjou no. 1, pp. 1-307, pls. 1-64. 

SARS, G. O. 1894. Crustacea Caspia. Contributions to the knowledge of the Car- 
cinological Fauna of the Caspain Sea. Bull. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, 
series 5, vol. 1, pp. 179-223, pls. 1-8. 

THOMSON, G. M. 1883. On the New Zealand Copepoda. Trans. New Zealand 
Inst. vol. 15, pp. 93-116, pls. S—11. 

WHIDBORNE, G. F. 1889. A monograph of the Devonian fauna of the south of 
England. Vol. 1. The fauna of the limestones of Lummaton, Wolborough, 
Chircombe Bridge, and Chudleigh. Monogr. palaeontogr. Soc. London. pp. 
1—46, pls. 1-4. 


LIST OF TEN WORKS BY TEN DIFFERENT AUTHORS, PUBLISHED IN 
THE LAST FORTY YEARS, IN WHICH THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
CHEIRURUS IS REGARDED AS CHEIRURUS INSIGNIS BEYRICH, 
1845 


BALASHOVA, E. A. 1960. Cheiruridae. In CHERNYSHEVA, N. E., 
BALASHOVA, E. A., IVSHIN, N. K., KRAMARENKO, N. N., MAK- 
SIMOVA, Z. A., POKROVSKAYA, N. V. and SUVOROVA, N. P. In 
ORLOV, YU. A. (ed.) Principles of  palaeontology.  Arth- 
ropods — Trilobitomorphs and Crustaceans (ed. CHERNYSHEVA, N. E.). 
Moscow. p. 174 [In Russian]. 

CAMPBELL, K. 8S. W. 1977. Oklahoma geol. Surv. Bull. 123, p. 111. 

CHUGAEVA, M. N. 1958. Trud. geol. Inst. [GIN] S.S.S.R. vol. 9, p. 83. [In 
Russian]. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 381 


HENNINGSMOEN, G. 1959. Cheiruridae. pp. Jn MOORE, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on 
invertebrate paleontology. Part O. Arthropoda 1. p. 0431. 

HOLLOWAY, D. J. 1980. Palaeontographica A, vol. 137, p. 29. 

LANE, P. D. 1971. Monogr. palaeontogr. Soc. London. p. 11. 

NORFORD, B. S. 1981. Geol. Surv. Canada Bull. 327. p. 10. 

PRANTL, F. & PRIBYL, A. 1948. Sb. nar. Mus. Praze, 3, Geol. (Paleont.), vol. 1, 
p. 14. 

RAMSKOLD, L. 1983. Palaeontology vol. 26, p. 177. 

THOMAS, A. T. 1981. Monogr. Paleontogr. Soc. London. p. 57. 


382 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


EUG YNOTHRIPS PRIESNER, 1926 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA): 
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CRYPTOTHRIPS CONOCEPHALI 
KARNY, 1913 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z. N. (S.) 2503 


By Denis J. Brothers (Department of Entomology, University of Natal, 
Pietermaritzburg, 3200 South Africa) and L. A. Mound (Department of 
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 
SW7 SBD, U.K.) 


One of us (DJB) has undertaken to complete the Catalogue of the 
Thysanoptera of the World compiled by the late C. F. Jacot-Guillarmod, of 
which six parts were published before the author’s death (Ann. Cape. Prov. 
Mus. (Nat. Hist.) vol. 7: 1970, part 1, pp. i-iv, 1-216; 1971, part 2, pp. 
217-516; 1974, part 3, pp. 517-976; 1975, part 4, pp. 977-1256; 1978, part 5, 
pp. 1257-1556; 1979, part 6, pp. 1557-1724). During preparation of the 
manuscript for the seventh part, various nomenclatural problems have had 
to be overcome. Most of these have been relatively straightforward, but the 
present application involves a situation where the first designation of the 
type species of a genus was overlooked or ignored and a different species 
was subsequently designated and has been generally accepted. The two 
species involved are now placed in different subgenera, so that reversion to 
the first designation would cause confusion and necessitate a new subgenus 
name. The facts are as follows. 

2. The genus Eugynothrips was established by Priesner, 1926, 
(Treubia, vol. 8 (Supplement), p. 157) to include the following species con- 
sidered typical of the new genus: Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913 
(Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg, vol. 2, p. 98); Cryptothrips intorquens Karny, 
1912 (Marcellia, vol. 11, p. 145); Cryptothrips persimilis Karny, 1913 (loc 
cit., p. 96) and probably Cryptothrips pachypus Karny, 1913 (Joc cit., p. 90). 
The following species were also included although considered atypical: 
Cryptothrips fuscipennis Karny, 1912 (loc cit., p. 142) and Cryptothrips 
circinans Karny, 1916 (Z. wiss. InsektBiol., vol. 12, p. 125) and doubtfully 
Cryptothrips tenuicornis Karny, 1912 (loc cit., p. 140) and Dolerothrips 
tubifex Karny, 1915 (Z. wiss. InsektBiol., vol. 11, p. 249). Priesner gave 
no indication of which species should be considered the type, although 
conocephali was the first species treated. According to Article 67g of the 
Code, the only species which are legitimate candidates for designation as 
the type species of Eugynothrips are C. conocephali, C. intorquens and C. 
persimilis because these are the only species included by Priesner without 
any qualification. 

3. The first mention of Eugynothrips to include some statement of 
the type species is that of Kelly & Mayne, 1934 (The Australian Thrips: 
A Monograph of the Order Thysanoptera in Australia..., Australasian 
Medical Publishing Company, Sydney, ii+81pp.). The account of 
the genus Eugynothrips on page 60 is as follows: ‘Erected to include 
Cryptothrips intorquens and 2 Javanese spp. on account of the differences 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 383 


referred to in descriptions of the genotype C. intorquens.’ This is a clear 
statement that C. intorquens was the type species and that the authors con- 
sidered it to be such. It fulfils the requirements of Article 69a (iv) and must 
be accepted as the first designation of a type species for Eugynothrips. The 
only species listed by Kelly & Mayne under that genus heading is E. smilacis 
Priesner, however. Their account of C. intorquens, which is under 
Cryptothrips on page 59, reads in part; ‘Doubtful genus... Head shorter 
than in true Cryptothrips.’ It is thus obvious that this species account was 
misplaced and that it was intended to be under Eugynothrips. The error is 
easily explained because the brief descriptions for each species and genus 
had been prepared by Kelly but they were coordinated and the final manu- 
script was completed by Mayne after Kelly’s death. There is every indica- 
tion that Mayne was unfamiliar with the complexities of the subject and 
compiled the manuscript to prevent the loss of his late friend’s work. Kelly 
would certainly have noticed and corrected this and other anomalies in the 
text during the final preparation of the manuscript had he been able to do 
so. This type-species designation has been ignored by all subsequent 
workers. 

4. Some six years after Kelly & Mayne’s treatment, Ramakrishna & 
Margabandhu, 1940 (Cat. Indian Ins., part 25, p. 50) designated the type 
species of Eugynothrips as ‘E. concephali Karny’. Priesner, 1949 (Bull. Soc. 
Fouad Ier Entomol., vol. 33, p. 129) also gave the type species as Crypto- 
thrips conocephali Karny in his world list of genera. Furthermore, in his 
redescription of the genus, Priesner, 1953 (Treubia, vol. 22, p. 357) very 
clearly designated C. conocephali as the type species. That species has 
generally been considered to be the type in all subsequent publications and 
this is the currently accepted usage (Ananthakrishnan, 1978, Zool. Surv. 
India Tech. Monogr., 1, pp. 1-69). Furthermore, Priesner, 1952 (Indian J. 
Entomol., vol. 13, p. 200) described Loepothrips as a new subgenus of 
Eugynothrips, with Dolerothrips coarctatus Karny as type species, and also 
including Cryptothrips intorquens, Cryptothrips persimilis and Dolerothrips 
tubifex. Thus two of the three species which qualify for designation as the 
type of Eugynothrips, including the species first so designated, are excluded 
from the subgenus Eugynothrips. 

5. According to Article 69a of the Code, the first designation of a 
type species subsequent to the original description of the genus, if no type 
species was designated originally, is considered the valid designation as long 
as it fulfils the provisions of that Article. This means that Kelly & Mayne’s 
1934 designation should stand and all subsequent designations are invalid. 
In that case, Loepothrips would fall as a junior subjective synonym of 
Eugynothrips and a new subgeneric name would have to be provided for 
all species currently considered to fall in the subgenus Eugynothrips. 
_ This would obviously upset current usage to a considerable extent and 
proliferate names needlessly. 

6. For the reasons set out above, we request the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: 


384 


(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type 
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Eugynothrips 
Priesner, 1926, and having done so to designate Cryptothrips 
conocephali Karny, 1913 as type species of that genus; 

to place the generic name Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Cryptothrips conocephali Karny, 1913, on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

to place the specific name conocephali Karny, 1913, as 
published in the binomen Cryptothrips conocephali (type 
species of Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926) on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 385 


HETEROGYNIDAE RAMBUR, 1866 (INSECTA, 
LEPIDOPTERA) AND HETEROGYNINAE NAGY, 1969 (INSECTA, 
HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. 

Z.N.(S.)2496 


By M. C. Day (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural 
History), London SW7 5BD U.K.) 


The purpose of this application is to ask the Commission to use its 
plenary powers under Article 55b to direct that the stem of Heterogyna 
Nagy, 1969, for the purposes of Article 29, shall be HETEROGYNA —. 

2. Rambur, 1866, p. 316, proposed a family-group name for a small 
group of zygaenoid moths. Based on Heterogynis Rambur, 1837, the 
name has invariably been formed as HETEROGYNIDAE (Fletcher & Nye, 1982, 
paii7): 

3. Nagy, 1969, p. 7, proposed a new family and superfamily of soli- 
tary wasps (HETEROGYNIDAE, — OIDEA) based on the concurrently-described 
monobasic genus Heterogyna Nagy, 1969. 

4. Day, 1984, described four further species and established the rela- 
tionships of Heterogyna Nagy. It proves to represent a group of sphecoid 
wasps undoubtedly deserving of family-group status; it is currently assigned 
status as a sub-family. A problem of homonymy of family-group names 
resulting from similarity rather than identity of spelling of names of type 
genera thus requires resolution by the Commission under Article 55b. 

5. Nagy, 1969, p. 7, proposed, since he believed the zygaenoid 
name should properly have been formed on the stem HETEROGYNID-, that 
the problem could be resolved by the adoption of the spelling HETERO- 
GYNIDIDAE. Day, 1984, p. 301, supported this view. However, my colleagues 
Dr Z. Boucek and Mr B. Bolton have since informed me that Heterogynis 
must be regarded as an unorthodox latinisation of the Greek “‘Heterogyne’. 
Under Article 29b (iii), the correctly formed stem is in fact HETEROGYN — 
rather than HETEROGYNID —. Lepidopterists naturally would not support 
the adoption of Nagy’s original proposal. An arbitrary modification of the 
stem of Heterogyna is thus proposed, such that the family-group name 
based upon it be formed as HETEROGYNAINAE (Or HETEROGYNAIDAE as the 
case may be). 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of Heterogyna 
Nagy, 1969, for the purposes of Article 29 is HETEROGYNA —; 
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology: 
(a) Heterogynis Rambur, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1892, Heterogynis 
paradoxa Rambur, 1837 (Insecta, Lepidoptera); 


386 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


(b) Heterogyna Nagy, 1969 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Heterogyna protea Nagy, 1969 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera); 

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

(a) paradoxa Rambur, 1837, as published in the binomen 
Heterogynis paradoxa (specific name of the type species of 
Heterogynis Rambur, 1837); 

(b) protea Nagy, 1969, as published in the binomen 
Heterogyna protea (specific name of the type species of 
Heterogyna Nagy, 1969). 

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

(a) HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 (type genus Heterogynis 
Rambur, 1837) (Insecta, Lepidoptera); 

(b) HETEROGYNAIDAE Nagy, 1969 (emendation, through the 
ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above, of HETERO- 
GYNIDAE Nagy, 1969), type genus Heterogyna Nagy, 1969. 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera); 

(5) to place the family-group name HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 1969 (a 
junior homonym of HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866) on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology. 


REFERENCES 


DAY, M. C. 1984. The enigmatic genus Heterogyna Nagy (Hymenoptera: 
Sphecidae; Heterogyninae). Syst. Entomol., vol. 9, pp. 293-307. 

FLETCHER, D. S. & NYE, I. W. B. 1982 in NYE, I. W. B. (Ed). The generic names 
of the moths of the World Vol. 4. xiv+ 192 pp. London. 

KIRBY, W. F. 1892. A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (moths). 
xli+ 957 pp. London. 

NAGY, C. G. 1969. A new taxon of the family Heterogynidae Latreille (Hym., 
Aculeata). Entomol. Mitt. zool. Staatsinst. zool. Mus. Hamburg, No. 64, pp. 
7-12. 

RAMBUR, P. 1837. Notice sur plusieurs Léepidoptéres du Midi de l’Espange, parmi 

lesquels se trouve le papillon eupheme d’ Espar. Ann. Soc. entomol. France, 

vol. 5, pp. 573-588. 

1866. Catalogue systématique des Lépidoptéres de l’Andalousie Vol. 2. 

93-412 pp. Paris. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 387 


REQUEST FOR A RULING THAT FRENCH THESES 
SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTEUR DU 
TROISIEME CYCLE ARE NOT PUBLISHED Z.N. (S) 2497 


By G. C. Hewitt (Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand) and 
Madame V. Rousset (Université de Montpellier, 34060 M. ontpellier, France) 


Confusion can and does arise in zoological nomenclature as a result 
of misunderstandings about dates of publication. The Code also lays down 
rules as to what constitutes publication. Theses in French universities for 
the Doctorat d’Etat clearly satisfy these rules and are generally recognized 
as publications. As many as 200 copies may be produced, they are widely 
distributed and are assigned an ISB number. 

2. However, the position of theses for Docteur du Troisiéme Cycle is 
less clear. For most purposes these are not treated as publications and they 
are not assigned an ISB number. Up till now they have been quoted as 
unpublished works by other researchers. Nevertheless, there are numerous 
individual theses that were produced and distributed in a way that might 
be thought to satisfy Article 8 of the Code. Each thesis is produced by a 
process that can assure numerous identical copies, and the copies so 
produced are simultaneously obtainable. In some cases 64 copies are 
produced and most of these are distributed to libraries. Are such theses to 
be considered published or not? 

3. It seems clear that the theses in question cannot be excluded 
under the provisions of either Article 9(8) ‘distribution only to colleagues or 
students of a note’ without unduly stretching the meaning of ‘note’; or 
under Article 9(11) ‘deposit of a document (e.g. a thesis) in a collection of 
documents, a library or other archive’. Nor do we Suggest that a precise 
value be placed on the word ‘numerous’ in the expression ‘numerous identi- 
cal copies’. On the other hand, the present is a good time to take action, for 
third cycle doctorates were phased out from the beginning of the 1984-85 
academic year. We understand that new French theses started in 1984 will 
be distributed in the same way as theses for the Doctorat d’Etat and will 
thus be considered as valid publications. 

4. We believe that the method of distribution of the third cycle 
theses is not in accordance with the spirit of Article 8 of the Code, and that 
this justifies the Commission in ruling that they are unpublished. The 
method of distribution is specified in an official decision (arrété) dated 24 
February 1976 in the Journal officiel of the French republic. This states that 
the copies must be distributed as follows: 

Three copies for deposit in the library of the university where the 

work was done; 

One copy to the relevant documentation centre of the Centre 

National de Recherche Scientifique; 

60 copies to the library of the university where the work was done 

for use in inter—university exchanges. 


388 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


The first two items clearly fall under Article 9(11). As for the third 
item, since inter-university exchanges are normally the subject of standard 
and long-lasting arrangements, the destination of each copy must be 
determined in advance, and no copies of these theses are ‘obtainable free of 
charge or by purchase’ (Article 8(2)). This defect, in our opinion, justifies 
the ruling we seek. 

5. The alternative course, to consider each thesis individually on its 
merits, seems certain to lead to confusion. 

6. Theses produced in many countries for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy contain important taxonomic contributions which are unavail- 
able because the theses in which they appear remain unpublished. We hope 
that these countries will follow the example of France and the Doctorat 
d’Etat and ensure that theses accepted for such degrees are published in 
such a way as to satisfy the Code. 

7. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to rule that theses for the degree of Docteur du Troisiéme 
Cycle in French universities are not published because, when they are first 
produced, no copies are obtainable free of charge or by purchase, as 
required by Article 8(2) of the Code. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 389 


THAIDIDAE JOUSSEAUME, 1888 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) 
AND THAIDIDAE LEHTINEN, 1967 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE): 
PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.)2307 
(see vol. 37, p. 148) 


By Pekka T. Lehtinen (University of Turku, Finland) 


Recently, Cernohorsky (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, p. 148) pointed out 
that the correct author and date for the Gastropod family name THAIDIDAE 
is Jousseaume, 1888, not Suter, 1913, as given in Opinion 886 (1969) and in 
the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology under Name Number 
439. This proposal now falls to be considered in a nomenclatural situation 
that did not exist when the original application that led to Opinion 886 was 
made (Keen, 1964, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, pp. 235-239). It did exist, how- 
ever, when the two votes on that application were taken (1968, 1969) but 
was not made known to the Commission. 

2. Thaida Karsch, 1880, Z. gesamt. Wiss. vol. 53 (ser. 3, vol. 6), p. 
389, type species, by monotypy, Thaida peculiaris Karsch, 1880, ibid., was 
found to be a senior subjective synonym of Austrochilus Gertsch in Zapfe, 
1955, Trab. Lab. Zool. Univ. Chile, vol. 2, p. 47, type species, by original 
designation, Austrochilus manni Gertsch in Zapfe, 1955, ibid., pp. 47-49. 
Thaida Karsch was made type genus of the monotypic family THAIDIDAE 
by Lehtinen, 1967, Ann. zool. Fenn. vol. 4, pp. 217, 269. Zapfe, 1955, had 
erected the subfamily AUSTROCHILINAE for Austrochilus. 

3. Marples, 1968, Proc. linn. Soc. London (Zool.) vol. 179, pp. 11-31 
raised AUSTROCHILINAE to family rank, but otherwise all who have discussed 
the status of this group have accepted the synonymy of Thaida and 
Austrochilus and the family name THAIDIDAE Lehtinen (Platnick, 1977, 
Amer. Mus. Novit. no. 2627, 23 pp.; 1978, Symp. zool. Soc. London, vol. 42, 
p. 498; Lehtinen, 1978, Symp. zool. Soc. London, vol. 42, pp. pp. 255-271; 
1980, Verh. 8 int. Arachn—Kongr., pp. 493-498; Brignoli, 1978, Symp. zool. 
Soc. London, vol. 42, pp. 285-292; Forster, 1980, Verh. 8 int. Arachn— 
Kongr., pp. 269-284. 

4. Lehtinen, 1967, pp. 296-299, after detailed analysis of the evolu- 
tion of the Hypochilomorpha, showed that the THAIDIDAE belong to a 
branch of spider evolution that does not include any other previously 
established families, and the authors cited all accept the isolated position of 
this group. A superfamily THAIDOIDEA has been established as has a taxon, 
Thaidides, above the level of the family group. Possible different interpre- 
tations of the taxonomic status of this class above the level of the family 
group (cf. Platnick, 1977) show that several names for taxa at that level can 
be used, all based on Thaida. The taxonomic loading on the name is thus 
considerable, and the evolutionary implications that it carries with it are of 
the highest interest and importance. 

5. The name AUSTROCHILIDAE had received very little usage before its 
synonymy with THAIDIDAE Lehtinen was recognised. There is no acceptable 


390 Bull. zool. Nomi, vol: 42, pt 4, December 1985 


alternative to THAID— as the stem for family-group (and higher) names in 
this group of spiders. 

6. Dr Cernohorsky, in reply to a suggestion from the Secctaeg to the 
Commission, said (letter, 13 August 1984): ‘I have no objection at all to 
accepting THAISIDAE instead of THAIDIDAE, and should this simple change of 
one letter resolve the issue, let us accept it by all means. Several workers 
in the past have spelt the name THAISIDAE.’ This was in fact the original 
spelling used by Jousseaume, 1888, Mém. Soc. zool. France, vol. 1, p. 179. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the stem of the generic name Thais [RGding], 
1798, for the purposes of Article 29 is THAIS—; 

(b) to rule that THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over AUSTROCHILIDAE Zapfe, 
1955 by anyone who believes the names to be synonyms; 

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of 

Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Austrochilus Gertsch, in Zapfe, 1955 (gender: masculine), 
type species, by original designation, Austrochilus manni 
Gertsch in Zapfe, 1955; 

(b) Thaida Karsch, 1880 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
monotypy, Thaida peculiaris Karsch, 1880; 

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

Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) manni Gertsch in Zapfe, 1955, as published in the binomen 
Austrochilus manni (specific name of type species of 
Austrochilus Gertsch in Zapfe, 1955); 

(b) peculiaris Karsch, 1880, as published in the binomen 
Thaida peculiaris (specific name of type species of Thaida 
Karsch, 1880; 

(4) to alter entry no. 439 in the Official List of Family-Group 

Names in Zoology to read ‘THAISIDAE Jousseaume, 1888”; 

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

Zoology: 

(a) AUSTROCHILIDAE Zapfe, 1955 (type genus Austrochilus 
Gertsch in Zapfe, 1955); 

(b) THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (type genus Thaida Karsch, 
1880). 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 391 


DRASTERIUS BIMACULATUS (ROSSI, 1790) (INSECTA, 
COLEOPTERA, ELATERIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY 
SUPPRESSION OF ELATER BIMACULATUS FOURCROY, 1785 
Z.NAS.) 2345. 


By Maciej Mroczkowski (Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of 
Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) 


In 1785 A. F. de Fourcroy (Entomologia parisiensis (1). p. 38) des- 
cribed from the surroundings of Paris a species called Elater bimaculatus. 
Since the description the name bimaculatus of Fourcroy has not been used 
as a valid name. Elater bimaculatus Fourcroy, 1785 is a junior synonym 
of Elater bipustulatus Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. ed. 12, p. 652), now 
Calambus bipustulatus, a very well known European species. 

2. In 1790 P. Rossi (Fauna etrusca, vol. 1, p. 182) described from 
Italy another species called Elater bimaculatus, now Drasterius bimaculatus 
(Rossi). Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi) is a common Palaearctic species 
(from North Africa through South Europe to the Caucasus). The name 
bimaculatus (Rossi) has been in continuous use till now. The oldest avail- 
able synonym is Elater binotatus Rossi, 1792 (Mant. Ins. vol. 1, p. 59) — the 
name now used for a variety of the species Drasterius bimaculatus var. 
binotatus (Rossi) (see Leseigneur, 1972, p. 62). Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 
1790, is the type species of the genus Drasterius Eschholz [= Eschscholtz], 
1829 (in Thon, Ent, Arch, II, 1, p. 33) by subsequent designation by 
Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. class. ins., vol. 2, Generic Synopsis, p. 26. 

3. As the application of the law of homonymy would disrupt 
stability and cause confusion and as on the other hand Elater bimaculatus 
Fourcroy, 1785 is an unused senior synonym, I ask the Commission to take 
the following actions: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name 
bimaculatus Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the combination 
Elater bimaculatus, and all uses prior to the publication of 
Elater bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 
to place the specific name bimaculatus Rossi, 1790, as 
published in the binomen Elater bimaculatus, on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 
Names in Zoology the specific name bimaculatus Fourcroy, 
1785, as published in the binomen Elater bimaculatus, as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. 


(2 


— 


392 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


REFERENCES 


ESCHHOLZ [=ESCHSCHOLTZ] Fr. 1829. Elaterites, Eintheilung derselben in 
Gattungen. Entomol. Archiv (Thon), Jena, vol. 2, pp. 31-35. 

FOURCROY, A. F. 1785. Entomologia parisiensis; sive Catalogus Insectorum quae 
in Agro Parisiensi reperiuntur; secundum methodum Geoffraeanam in sec- 
tiones, genera et species distributus: Cui addita sunt nomina trivialia et fere 
trecentae novae Species. Pars prima. Parisiis, VIII + 544 pp. 

LESEIGNEUR, L. 1972. Coléoptéres Elateridae de la France Continentale et de 
Corse. Bull. mens. Soc. linn. Lyon, vol. 41, Suppl., 381 pp., 384 ff. 

ROSSI, P. 1790. Fauna etrusca sistens insecta quae in provinciis Florentina et Pisana 
praesertim collegit. Tomus primus. Liburni, XXII +272 pp. 

ROSSI, P. 1792. Mantissa Insectorum exhibens species nuper in Etruria collectas 
adiectis faunae Etruscae illustrationibus, ac emendationibus. Vol. I. Pisa, 
148 pp. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 393 


MICROCHRYSA LOEW, 1855 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED 
CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF CHRYSOMYIA 
MACQUART, 1834. Z.N.(S.)2453 


By Emilia P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institut, Academy of Sciences of the 
USSR, Leningrad, USSR) and Rudolf Rozkosny (Department of 
Environmental Studies, Natural Science Faculty, J. E. Purkyné University, 
Brno, CSSR) 


Macquart, 1834, p.262, established the genus Chrysomyia for five 
species. One of them, Musca polita Linnaeus, 1758, p. 598, was designated 
as type species of Chrysomyia by Westwood, 1840, p. 130; it is also the 
type species of the genus Microchrysa Loew, 1855, p. 146, as originally 
designated. Another originally included species, Sargus xanthopterus 
Meigen, 1804 (= Musca formosa Scopoli, 1763), wrongly cited as Nemotelus 
xanthopterus DeGeer, was designated as type species of Chrysomyia 
Macquart (as Chrysomya) by Rondani, 1856, p. 468). It is also the type 
species of the genus Chloromyia Duncan, 1837. Later authors overlooked 
Westwood’s type designation and, accepting that made by Rondani, placed 
Chrysomyia Macquart in objective synonymy of Chloromyia Duncan. 

2. Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834 has not been used as a valid name in 
the primary zoological literature during the last 50 years because it was 
regarded as preoccupied by Chrysomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, now a 
valid name in the dipteran family CALLIPHORIDAE. However, as they differ in 
one letter these names are not homonyms, although in the past emendations 
such as Chrysomya Rondani, 1856 (for -myia Macquari) and Chrysomyia 
Macquart, 1835 (for -mya Robineau-Desvoidy) have been used. 

3. Microchrysa Loew, 1855 includes 36 mostly common species 
from all parts of the world. The genus name is used in numerous publi- 
cations from which those of DuSek & Rozko&Sny, 1964; Lindner, 1936; 
Lobanov, 1969; Majer, 1977; Nagatomi, 1974; Nartshuk, 1969; Oldroyd, 
1969; Rozkosny, 1973, 1982; Stackelberg, 1954 and Trojan, 1963 are 
indicated here for the fulfilment of the provisions of Article 79c of the Code. 

4. In accordance with Article 79c of the Code, the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name 
Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834 for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place the generic name Microchrysa Loew, 1855 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by original designation, Musca polita 
Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology; 
to place the specific name polita Linnaeus, 1758, as published 
in the binomen Musca polita (specific name of the type species 
of Microchrysa Loew, 1855) on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology; 


(3 


— 


394 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


(4) To place the generic name Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834, as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 


Our sincere thanks to Dr I. M. Kerzhner for his help and advice. 


REFERENCES 


DUSEK, J. & ROZKOSNY, R. 1964. Revision mitteleuropdischer Arten der 
Familie Stratiomyidae (Diptera) mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Fauna 
der CSSR. Acta. Soc. Entomol. Cechosloveniae, vol. 61(4), pp. 360-373. 

LINDNER, E. 1936. Stratiomyiidae. (in part) [Family] No. 18, pp 148 (Lief. 104) 
in Lindner, E. (ed.), Die Fliegen der paldarktischen Region. 

LOBANOV, A. M. 1969. On the morphology and ecology of larvae chamaeleon 
flies of the subfamily Sarginae (Diptera, Stratiomyidae). Entomol. Obozr., 
vol. 48(1), pp. 104-107 (in Russian). 

LOEW, H. 1855. Einige Bemerkungen tber Gattung Sargus. Verh. zool.—bot. Ges. 
Wien, vol. 5, pp. 131-148. 

MACQUARYT, J. 1834. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Diptéres., vol. 1, 578 pp. 

Paris. 

1835. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Diptéres., vol. 2, 710 pp. Paris. 

MAJER, J. 1977. Katonalegyek—gomblegyek, Stratiomyidae—Acroceridae. 
Diptera I. Faun. Hungariae, No. 129, vol. 14(10), pp. 1-75. 

NAGATOMI, A. 1977. The Sarginae and Pachygasterinae of Japan (Diptera; 
Stratiomyidae). Trans. R. entomol. Soc. London, vol. 126(3), pp. 305-421. 

NARTSHUK, E. P. 1969. Fam. Stratiomyidae in Key to identification of insects 
of the european part of the USSR, vol. 5(1), pp. 454-481. Leningrad (in 
Russian). 

OLDROYD, H. 1969 Diptera Brachycera. Section (a). Tabanoidea and Asiloidea in 
Handbook for the identification of British insects, vol. 9(4), 128 pp. London. 

RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus, vol. 1, 174 pp. Parmae. 

ROZKOSNY, R. 1973. The Stratiomyioidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and 

Danmark. Fauna. Entomol. Scandinavica, vol. 1, 140 pp. 

1973. A biosystematic study of the European Stratiomyidae (Diptera), vol. 1, 

401 pp. The Hague—Boston—London. 

STACKELBERG, A. A. 1954. On the Diptera fauna of the Leningrad Region. II. 
Diptera, Brachycera. Trudy. zool. Inst. Leningrad, vol. 15, pp. 199-228. (in 
Russian). 

TROJAN, P. 1963. Muchowki— Diptera. Zesz, 22. Stratiomyidae. Klucze oznacz. 
owad. Polski, No. 41, vol. 28(22). pp 1-72. 

WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of British Insects (part). Orders 
XIII Diptera, pp. 125—154. London. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 395 


MUSCA TRILINEATA LINNAEUS, 1767 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): 
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF MUSCA 
GRAECA PONTOPPIDAN, 1763, Z.N.(S.)2454 


By Emilia P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of 
the U.S.S.R., Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) and Rudolf RozkoSny (Department of 
Environmental Studies, Natural Science Faculty, J. E. Purkyné 
University, Brno, C.S.S.R.) 


The purpose of this application is to ask the Commission to 
suppress a virtually unused senior synonym of a common and well known 
Palaearctic stratiomyid, Oxycera trilineata (Linnaeus, 1767). 

2. Brinnich, 1761, p. 29, published a description of a remarkable 
un-named fly from Denmark, having a black abdominal marking resem- 
bling the Greek letter ‘theta’. Pontoppidan, 1763, p. 696, published a figure 
of this species, accompanied by a statement that the species was new, by 
reference to Briinnich’s description and by the name Musca graeca. The 
same data are repeated in a German translation of the work (Pontoppidan, 
1766; ' The specific name graeca, accompanied by references and a short 
description, was also used by Pontoppidan, 1765, p. 229 (as Musca) and 
Miller, 1776, p. 177 (as Stratiomys?). 

3. The name was overlooked by all subsequent workers until 
Lundbeck, 1907, p. 34, pointed out that Musca graeca Pontoppidan, 1763 
is undoubtedly conspecific with M. trilineata Linnaeus, 1767. However, 
as Pontoppidan, 1763 did not give any description, Lundbeck wrongly 
regarded his name as unavailable. Lindner, 1938, mentions ‘graeca 
Pontoppidan’ among the synonyms of Oxycera trilineata (Linnaeus). To 
our knowledge, for over 150 years the name graeca Pontoppidan was never 
used as a valid name in the primary zoological literature. 

4. Musca trilineata was described by Linnaeus, 1767, p. 980, from 
Sweden. It is now placed in the genus Oxycera Meigen, 1803, but has, in 
the past, been wrongly attributed to Fabricius, 1781 (see Lundbeck, 1907 
p. 33). Oxycera trilineata (Linnaeus) is the commonest species of the genus 
distributed over nearly the whole Palaearctic. During the last 50 years the 
name has been used as valid in dozens of publications including keys of 
regional faunas, faunistic lists and biocoenological papers. Those of 
Bankowska, 1967; Brindle, 1964; Cowan, 1977; DuSek & RozkoSny, 1974; 
Majer, 1977; Nartshuk, 1969, Oldroyd, 1969; Rozko&Sny, 1983; Stackelberg, 
1954; Trojan, 1963 and Zimina, 1976 are cited here to satisfy the provisions 
of Article 79(b) of the Code. 


'There were two editions of the German translation of Pontoppidan’s Atlas: in 1765 and 1766 
(see Bibliotheca Danica). Authors have seen the 1766 edition. 


396 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


5. In view of the above evidence, the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name graeca 
Pontoppidan, 1763, as published in the binomen Musca graeca, 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place the specific name trilineata Linnaeus, 1767, as 
published in the binomen Musca trilineata, on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name graeca Pontoppidan, 1763, as 
published in the binomen Musca graeca, and as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 


We are greatly indebted to Dr I. M. Kerzhner, Zoological Institute, 
Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, U.S.S.R., for aid and advice. 


REFERENCES 


BANKOWSKA, R. 1967. Matériaux pour I’étude des Diptéres de Bulgarie (Stratio- 
myidae, Conopidae, Pipunculidae et Acroceridae). Fragm. faun., vol. 13, pp. 
303-314. 

BRINDLE, A. 1964. Taxonomic notes on the larvae of British Diptera. The 
Clitellariinae (Stratiomyidae). Entomol., vol. 97, pp. 134-139. 

BRUNNICH, M. TH. 1761. Prodromus insectologiae siaellandicae. Hafniae, 31 pp. 

COWAN, C. F. 1977. Oxycera trilineata, (L.) (Diptera) new to Cumbria. Entomol. 
Rec. J. Var., vol. 89(6), p. 177. 

DUSEK, J. & ROZKOSNY, R. 1974. Revision mitteleuropdischer Arten der 
Familie Stratiomyidae (Diptera) mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Fauna 
der C.S.S.R. V. Gattung Oxycera Meigen. Acta bohemoslov., vol. 71, pp. 
322-341. 

LINDNER, E. 1938. Stratiomyiidae. (In part) No. 18, pp. 177-218 (Lief. 116) in 
Lindner, E. (ed.), Die Fliegen der paldarktischen Region, vol. 4 (1), No. 
18-24. 

LINNAEUS, C. 1767. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1 (2), pp. 
533-1327, Holmiae. 

LUNDBECK, W. 1907. Diptera Danica, Part 1, 166 pp. Copenhagen, London. 

MAJER, J. 1977. Katonalegyek—goémblegyek, Stratiomyidae — Acroceridae. 
Diptera I. Faun. Hungariae, No. 129, vol. 5(10), pp. 1-75. 

MULLER, O. F. 1776. Zoologiae danicae Prodromus. XXXII +282 pp. Havnia. 

NARTSHUK, E. P. 1969. Fam. Stratiomyidae in Key to identification of insects of 
the European part of the U.S.S.R., vol. 5(1), pp. 454-481. Leningrad. (in 
Russian). 

OLDROYD, H. 1969. Diptera Brachycera. Section (a). Tabanoidea and Asiloidea 
in Handbook for the identification of British Insects, vol. 9(4), 128 pp. 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 397 


PONTOPPIDAN, E. 1763. Den Danske Atlas, vol. 1. Kjoebenhavn. 

1765. Kurzgefasste Nachrichten, die Naturhistorie in Danemark betreffend. 

Aus dem Danischen tibersetzt., vol.1(1), 232pp. Kopenhagen, Hamburg. 

1766. Ddanischer Atlas, Aus dem Danischen tibersetzt von J. A. Scheiben., 

vol.1(1), 464 pp. Kopenhagen, Hamburg. 

ROZKOSNY, R. 1983. A biosystematic study of the European Stratiomyidae 
(Diptera), vol. 2, 431 pp., Hague—Boston—London. 

STACKELBERG, A. A. 1954. On the Diptera fauna of the Leningrad Region. II. 
Diptera, Brachycera. Trudy. zool. Inst. Leningrad, vol. 15, pp. 199-228. (in 
Russian). 

TROJAN, P. 1963. Muchowki-Diptera. Zesz. 22. Stratiomyidae. Klucze oznacz. 
owad. Polski, No. 41, vol. 28(22), pp. 1-72. 

ZIMINA, L. V. 1976. On the dipteran fauna of the U.S.S.R. Stratiomyidae. Sb. 
trud. zool. Muz. MGU., vol. 15, pp. 117-135. (in Russian). 


398 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


THE FAMILY NAMES FOR THE STORM PETRELS AND THE 
DIPPERS. Z.N.(S.)2024 


By R. V. Melville (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey; formerly 
Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


In November 1972 an application was received from Dr G. N. 
Kashin (Prospekt Vernadskogo No. 61, app. 53, Moscow 117415 U.S.S.R.) 
pointing out that the family name HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912, currently 
used for the storm petrels, is doubly invalid, as a junior homonym of 
HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849, for the dippers, and as a junior objective 
synonym of THALASSIDROMIDAE J. W. von Miller, 1865. Some authors also 
treat it as a junior subjective synonym of OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1882, but 
this is not universally accepted. Dr Kashin wished to see THALASSIDROMIDAE 
suppressed and HYDROBATIDAE Mathews rejected, so that OCEANITIDAE 
would be placed on the Official List as the family name for the storm petrels 
and CINCLIDAE Sundevall, 1836 as the family name for the dippers. 

2. The facts in this case are somewhat involved and have taken some 
time to collect. The two issues involved will be discussed separately. 


The dippers 


3. The valid generic name for the dippers is Cinclus Borkhausen, 
1797, Deutsche Fauna, vol. 1, p. 300, type species, through Cinclus 
hydrophilus Borkhausen, 1797, Sturnus cinclus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., 
ed. 10, p. 168. This genus is the type genus of the family CINCLIDAE 
Sundevall, 1836, K. Vetensk. Akad. Hand. for 1835, p. 91. 

4. Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816, Analyse d’une nouvelle ornithologie 
élémentaire, p. 42, type species, by subsequent designation by G. R. Gray, 
1841, List of the genera of birds, 2nd ed., p. 35, Sturnus cinclus Linnaeus, 
1758, is a junior objective synonym of Cinclus Borkhausen, 1797. It is, 
however, the type genus of HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849, Ornithologie 
européenne, vol. 1, p. 445. As a junior objective synonym of CINCLIDAE 
Sundevall, 1836, HYDROBATIDAE cannot be used for the dippers; but it is 
available as a senior homonym of HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912, which 
cannot therefore be used for the storm petrels. 

5. From this analysis it is clear that the names currently used for the 
dippers are nomenclaturally valid and no intervention by the Commission 
is necessary. 


The storm petrels 


6. The oldest generic name for the storm petrels is Hydrobates Boie, 
1822, Isis (Oken), 1822, col. 562, type species, by subsequent designation by 
Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, 1884, Mem. Mus. comp. Zooi. Harvard vol. 13, 
p. 403, Procellaria pelagica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 131. It is 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 399 


the type genus of HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912, Birds of Australia, vol. 2, 
pt 1, p. 9 which, as we have seen, is doubly invalid. 

7. Thalassidroma Vigors, 1825, Zool. J. vol. 2, pt 7, p. 405, type 
species, by original designation, Procellaria pelagica Linnaeus, 1758, is a 
junior objective synonym of Hydrobates Boie, 1822. It is the type genus of 
THALASSIDROMIDAE J. W. von Miller, 1865, Syst. Verz. Wirbelth. Mexicos 
(Reise in den V.S., Canada und Mexico) vol. 3, pt 3, p. 594. As Thalas- 
sidroma was rejected long before 1961, THALASSIDROMIDAE is invalid under 
Article 40b and the date of HYDROBATIDAE Mathews is to be cited as ‘1912 
(1865). Article 40 as a whole, however, deals only with the Principle of 
Priority and it does not follow that a date cited under its provisions is valid 
also for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy. 

8. Oceanites Keyserling & di Blasius, 1840, Wirbelthiere Europas, 
pp. xciii, 131, type species, by subsequent designation by G. R. Gray, 1841, 
List of the genera of birds, 2nd ed, p. 99, Procellaria wilsoni Bonaparte, 
1824, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, p. 231, is available for the long-legged 
storm petrels. The valid name for the type species is Procellaria oceanica 
Kuhl, 1820, Beitr. Zool. vol. 1, p. 136. It is the type genus of OCEANITIDAE 
Forbes, 1882, Rep. sci. results Challenger, Zool. vol. 4, pt 11, p. 3. 
Some ornithologists divide the HYDROBATIDAE into two subfamilies, 
HYDROBATINAE for the short-legged and OCEANITINAE for the long-legged 
storm petrels. This usage, however, is invalid because it inverts the priority 
of the two family-group names. 

9. It is clear that the current usage of HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 
1912, can only be conserved if the plenary powers of the Commission are 
used, first, to suppress HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849 for the purposes of the 
Principle of Homonymy, and secondly, to give HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 
1912 nomenclatural precedence over OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1881. The 
Commission is accordingly requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the family name HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849 
for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to rule that the family name HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 
is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family 
name OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1882, by anyone who regards 
the two names as synonyms at the same rank in the family 
group; 

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

(a) Hydrobates Boie, 1822 (gender: masculine), type species, 
by subsequent designation by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, 
1884, Procellaria pelagica Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Oceanites Keyserling & di Blasius, 1840 (gender: mascu- 
line), type species, by subsequent designation by G. R. 
Gray, 1841, Procellaria wilsoni Bonaparte, 1824; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) pelagica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 


400 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Procellaria pelagica (specific name of type species of 
Hydrobates Boie, 1822); 

(b) oceanica Kuhl, 1820, as published in the binomen Procel- 
laria oceanica (the valid name at the time of this proposal 
for the type species of Oceanites Keyserling & di Blasius, 
1840); 

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

(a) HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (1865) (type genus Hydro- 
bates Boie, 1822), as validated under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, with an endorsement that it is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1882 
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms at 
the same rank in the family group; 

(b) OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1882 (type genus Oceanites 
Keyserling & di Blasius, 1840) with an endorsement that it 
is not to be given priority over HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 
1912 whenever the two names are considered to be 
synonyms at the same rank in the family group; 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816, a junior objective synonym of 
Cinclus Borkhausen, 1797; 

(b) Thalassidroma Vigors, 1825, a junior objective synonym of 
Hydrobates Boie, 1822; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 
Names in Zoology hydrophilus Borkhausen, 1797, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Cinclus hydrophilus, a junior objective 
synonym of cinclus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Sturnus cinclus; 

(7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Family-Group Names in Zoology: 

(a) HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849, as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above; 

(b) THALASSIDROMIDAE J. W. von Miller, 1865, invalid because 
the name of its type genus is a junior objective synonym 
rejected before 1961. 


Achterberg, C. van . 


Bellinger, P.F. 
Bauchot, M.L. 
Ben-Tuvia, A. 
Boulard, M. . 
Bradley, J.D. 
Branch, W.R. . 
Broadley, D.G. . 
Brothers, D.J. 
Bruce, M.D. . 


Cifelli, R.L. 
Cleevely, R.J. 


Cokendopher, J C. ; 


Crosskey, R.W. . 


Day,M.C. . 
Dolling, W.R. 


Emery, A.R. . 


Fortuner, R. . 
Francke, O.F. 


Griffiths, G.C.D. 


Hadfield, M.G. . 
Hamilton, C.J. 


EPmilton:K.G:A;. 


Harvey,M.S._. 
Heemstra, P.C. . 
Hewitt, G.C. . 
Hodges, R.W. 
Holthuis, L.B. 
Holyoak, D.T. 
Howden, A.T. 


Jelnes, J.E. 
Jones, J.B. 


Keen, A.M. . 
Kerzhner, I.M. . 
Kullander, S.O. 


Lane, P.D. 
Lauterer, P. . 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 401 
INDEX TO AUTHORS 
Page 
102 Levi, H.W. 81 
201 Mahnert, V.. . . SS 
374 Manning, R.B. . . 304 
374 McCune, A.R. 371 
211 Melville,R.V. . . 
9,219 10, 72, 74, 76, 197, 199, 200, 329, 398 
89 Miller, W.E. Ae 
89 Millidge, A. F. 91 
382 Mound,L.A. . 382 
50 Mroczkowski, M. 391 
103 Nartshuk, E.P. . 393, 395 
64 Norton, R.A. 84 
10 
114, 209 O’Hara, J.E. . 93 
. 385 Quintero, D. Jr. . 10 
. 293 
Raastad, J.E. 113 
eis Randall, J.E. . 374 
Ratcliffe, B.C. 209 
62 Raven, J.G.M. 79 
10 Ride, W.D.L. 327 
Rogin, L. de . 302 
101 Rosen, D. . 214 
Rousset, V. Schad 
46 RoskoSsny, R 393, 395 
Fe, 
123, 211 Sattler, K. 219 
P85 Seaton, R.W. 306 
374 Soria, M.F. 106 
387 Speidel, W. a7 
. 8 Stimson, A.F. . 6 
219, 304 
50 Taylor, W.R. 14 
296 Thibaut, J.-C. . 50 
Tremewan, W.G. .9 
60 Tuck, K. .9 
Si 
Vockeroth, J.R. . 123, 209 
46 
109 Wake, M.H. . 220 
215 Weber, C. . 302 
Wharton, R. . 102 
379 Wright, C.W. 12, 64 
214 
389 Zwick, H. . 111 


Lehtinen, P.T. 


402 


Opinion 
1288 
1289 
1290 
1291 
1292 
1293 
1294 


1295 


1296 
1297 
1298 
1299 
1300 


1301 
1302 


1303 
1304 
1305 
1306 
1307 


1308 
1309 


1310 
1311 


1312 
1313 


1314 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME 


Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved 
Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia, Cetacea): conserved 
Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . 
Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia): conserved. 

Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda): conserved 

Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793 is the type species of Heterelis 
Costa, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . . 

Edwardsia De Quatrefages, 1841 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria): con- 
served’ 2517 ¢ 

Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 and ACTINIIDAE ‘Rafinesque, 1815 
(Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 
(Echinodermata, Holothurioidea): conserved 

Request for the use of the plenary powers to conserve Net- 
tastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Bivalvia): refused . 

Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 1904 (designated as type species of 
Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . : 
Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Acarina): clarification of name , of 
type species and conservation. . 

Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (Insecta, Col- 
eoptera): conserved . 

TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 given nomenclatural. precedence over 
AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (Reptilia, Sauria) : ts 
Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): conserved 3 
Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae): 
conserved . . . : 

Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (Insecta, 
Hemiptera, Homoptera): type species designated BL 
Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and Isis ochracea Lin- 
naeus 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa): conserved 

Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 is the type species of Lamprocabera, 
1958 Inoue, 1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . : 

Ledella bushae Warén, 1978 is the type species of Ledella Verrill & 
Bush, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). . 

Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. . . 
Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Hemiptera): conserved 
Geoemyda Gray, 1834 and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 
(Reptilia, Testudines): conserved P Mm; F 
Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera): conserved . ; 
Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 
(Insecta, Heteroptera): conserved : 

Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): gender and 
stem designated . . 

Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792 and Emys cataspila Ginther, 1885 
(Reptilia, Testudines): conserved . . 

Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823, is the type species of 
Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera) . 


124 
128 


130 
134 


137 
139 
142 
144 
146 


148 
150 


152 
154 


156 
159 
160 


162 


1315 
1316 
1317 
1318 
1319 
1320 


1321 


1322 
1323 


1324 


1325 
1326 


1327 
1328 


1329 
1330 


1331 


1332 


1333 
1334 
1335 
1336 
1337 
1338 


1339 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852 is the type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 
1867 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) ; 
Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 (Foraminifera): conserved , 
Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Insecta, Protodonata): conserved . . 
(Opinion correcting the ruling given in Opinion 92): Lacerta velox 
Pallas, 1771 is the type species of Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 
(Reptilia) . 

Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): designation of 
type species 

Hydrodamalis Retzius, “1794 ‘and Manatus inunguis ‘Natterer in 
Pelzeln, 1883 (Mammalia, Sirenia): conserved . . 

Grant of nomenclatural precedence to EPHYDRIDAE Zetter- 
stedt, 1837 over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
(Insecta, Diptera) . . 

Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799, non Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Coleop- 
tera): conserved . 

Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera): con- 
Senveder. =: 

Diademodon Seeley, 1894 ards Biaeemodan icheeonh Seeley, 1894 
conserved by the suppression of Cynochampsa Owen, 1859 and 
Cynochampsa laniaria Owen, 1859 (Reptilia, Therapsida) 

Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera): not 
rejected as a junior homonym of Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758. 
Cimex quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, 
Heteroptera): conserved 

Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (Insecta, ‘Trichoptera): conserved 
Belemnites mucronatus Schlotheim, 1813 (Coleoidea): conserved 
and neotype designated . . 

Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Primates, Galigidae): 
neotype designated. . . 

Prodorylaimus aa ae 1959 " (Nematoda): type species 
designated. . . 

SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, "1862 (1820) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and 
MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
placed on the Official List. . 

Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and Calamoecia auistraalis (Searle, 
1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposals to remove the confusion 
rejected . 

Ipnops miierayi Giinther, 1878 (Ostiechthyes): conserved . 
Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (Coleoptera): type species designated . 
Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera): conserved. 
Five specific names proposed as new for the genus Heterodera A. 
Schmidt, 1871 (Aschelminthes, ee by B.A. Cooper, 1955 
ruled to be available. : 3 oe) te 
Selkirkia columbia Conway Morris, 1977 designated as type 
species of Se/kirkia Walcott, 1911 (Priapulida) . . 

Thrips rufus Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): conserved for 
the type species of Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 . . 

Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): ruled to be 
exempt from the application of the Principle of Homonymy. 


403 


165 
167 
169 
171 
173 


175 


177 
180 


182 


185 
188 


190 
192 


222 
226 
228 


230 


404 


1340 
1341 


1342 
1343 
1344 


1345 


1346 


1347 


1348 
1349 


1350 


1351 
1352 


1353 
1354 


1355 
1356 


1357 


1358 
1359 
1360 
1361 
1362 
1363 


1364 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Arachnida, Araneae): conserved . 
Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Insecta, Tapio: neotype 
designated . ; 

Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 ‘designated ; as type species of 
Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera) 

Kinosternon alamosae Berry & Legler, 1980 and Kinosternon oax- 
acae Berry & Iverson, 1980 (Reptilia, Testudines): conserved 
Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 given nomenclatural precedence over 
Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (Rhizopoda, Amoebida) . . 
Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 
and Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 designated as type species 
of Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 and 
Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Coelenterata, Hydroida) respectively 
Cythereis distinguenda Neviana, 1928, Cythere crispata Brady, 
1868 and Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 aria Ostracoda): 
type material conserved . 

Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 designated as s type species of 
Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera). . . 

Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved . 
Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827 and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 
1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved . . 

Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): neotype 
suppressed. . : 
Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): conserved 
Eurhinus Schénherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ruled as a justi- 
fied emendation of Eurhin Illiger, 1807. 5 
Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Hemiptera): conserved : 
Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1874 CePISSPLE conserved from 
1874 . 

Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 is the type species of Lingula 
Bruguiére, [1797] (Brachiopoda). . 

Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda): ‘type species 
designated. . . 

ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 (Crustacea, Tanaidacea) and 
ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Crustacea, Isopoda): a 
ruling to remove the anomaly . ut rer 
Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, 
Hemiptera): a ruling to remove the confusion ; 
UROPLAT—as the stem of family-group names in “Reptilia, 
Sauria and Insecta, Coleoptera: a ruling to remove the homonymy 
Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera): conserved . 
Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839, given nomenclatural 
precedence over Phalaena nee Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, 
Lepidoptera) . . 

Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805, ‘given “nomenclatural precedence 
over Phalaena hirtata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) 
Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): type 
species designated : 

Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura): conserved (see Opinion 
849) . bee WME Tischer rar ete ater t ts 


258 
261 
264 
266 
269 


271 


274 


277 
279 


281 


283 
285 


287 
29 


330 
332 


335 


338 
341 
344 
347 
349 
351 
353 


355 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


1365 Allygus  Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera): type species 
designated . , BIEN me Sh ete 

1366 Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): con- 
served)": : 

1367 Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved 

1368 The generic names Pan and Panthera (Mammalia, Carnivora): 
available as from Oken, 1816. 


Direction 

116 PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, cee) (Insecta, Lepidoptera): revision 
of Official Listentry. . 

ik Correction of Entry No 462 i in the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology concerning Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (Mollusca, 
Bivalvia) (correction to Opinion 94) 

118 Corrections to three entries in the Official List of Family- -Group 
Names in Zoology) ARGYNNIDAE, APATURIDAE, 
LIMENITIDINAE (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . AS. oe ae 


405 


357, 


359 
361 


365 


41 


43 


195 


406 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS 
PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 42 


Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 


alamosae, Kinosternon, Berry & Legler, 
1980 
alastoroides, Odynerus, Saussure, 1853 
albida, Eulimene, Latreille, 1816 
alderi, Eolis, Cocks, 1852 
amazonicum, Simulium, Goeldi, 1905 
ameiva, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 
anatina, Lingula, Lamarck, 1801 
antiquus, Conus, Lamarck, 1810 
apterum, Ptilium, Guérin-Meéneville, 
1839 
arguta, Lacerta, Pallas, 1773 
ater, Capsus, Jakovlev, 1889 
ater, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758 
atomaria, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 
australica, Calamoecia, Sars, 1908 
australis, Brunella, Searle, 1911 
beautempsii, Edwardsia, de 
Quatrefages, 1842 
betulella, Calaphis, Walsh, 1862 
betulina, Aphis, Walker, 1852 
bidens, Physeter, Sowerby, 1804 
bifenestra, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 
bifurcatus, Athyreus, Macleay, 1819 
bigemma, Amoeba, Schaeffer, 1918 
branchiatus, Anuropus, Beddard, 1886 
bushae, Ledella, Warén, 1978 
callunae, Aphis, Theobald, 1915 
candidaria, Bapta, Leech, 1897 
capitata, Larentia, Herrich-Schaffer, 
1839 
capsiformis, Nabis, Germar, [1838] 
cataspila, Emys, Gunther, 1885 
cerroazulensis, Globigerina, Cole, 1928 
cinerea, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 
columbia, Selkirkia, Conway Morris, 
1977 
columbianus, Euderus, Ashmead, 1888 
coracina, Phalaena, Esper, 1805 
corni, Lecanium, Bouché, 1844 
crassicaudatus, Galago, E. Geoffroy, 
1812 
crispata, Cythere, Brady, 1868 


cupratus, Eurhinus, Uliger, 1807 

darwinii, Pholas, G.B. Sowerby II, 1849 

depressicornis, Antilope, H. Smith, 1827 

dipsacea, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1767 

distinguenda, Cythereis, Neviana, 1928 

doliolum, Actinia, Pallas, 1766 

doria, Antilope, Ogilby, 1837 

dubius, Philopotamus, Rambur, 1842 

elongata, Dactylamoeba, Korotneff, 
1880 

equinus, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758 

exitiosus, Eutermes, Hill, 1925 

fatima, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793 

femorata, Corixa, Guérin-Méneville, 
1857 

festucae, Myzus, Theobald, 1917 

fimbriatus, Stellio, Schneider, 1792 

flaviceps, Notiphila, Meigen, 1830 

flexuosa, Laomedea, Alder, 1857 

francispori, Anuropoda, Bacescu, 1980 

gaurus, Bos, H. Smith, 1827 

gigas, Manati, Zimmermann, 1780 

hesperidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 

heydenii, Leptinotarsa, Stal, 1858 

hirtata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794 

inunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Pelzeln, 
1883 

Johnstoni, Campanularia, Alder, 1856 

Juglandis, Aphis, Goeze, 1778 

lanceolatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 
1813 

leucostoma, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791 

limonii, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 

longicaudatoides, Prodorylaimus, 
Alther, 1968 

longior, Tyroglyphus, Gervais, 1844 

lottini, Alpheus, Guérin, 1829 

lucida, Yoldia, Lovén, 1846 

maculatus, Hylambates, Dumeéeril, 1853 

mercenaria, Corixia, Say, 1832 

methwoldensis, Heterodera, Cooper, 
1955 

minutissima, Apis, Rossi, 1790 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 407 


mixta, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 

morys, Pteromalus, Walker, 1848 

mucronata, Hispa, Olivier, 1808 

mucronatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 
1813 

murrayi, Ipnops, Gunther, 1878 

myrmecophilum, Macrosiphum, 
Theobald, 1916 

nana, Buprestis, Paykull, 1799 

nebulosus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823 

oaxacae, Kinosternon, Berry & Iverson, 
1980 

obsidianus, Microsporus, Kolenati, 
1846 

ochracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758 

otiosus, Attus, Hentz, 1846 

papilio, Voluta, Link, 1807 

pardus, Felis, Linnaeus, 1758 

pavonia, Cythere, Brady, 1866 

permianus, Tupus, Sellards, 1906 

picipes, Byrrhus, Olivier, 1790 

planiceps, Damalis, Fabricius, 1805 

polygoni, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 

posticata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794 

putrescentiae, Acarus, Schrank, 1781 

quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 
1794 

quarlesi, Anoa, Ouwens, 1910 

quinquecincta, Scolia, Fabricius, 1793 

redimicula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874 

riparia, Ephydra, Fallen, 1813 

rubra, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 


Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 


Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 
Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 
Allygidius Ribaut, 1948 
Allygus Fieber, 1872 
Ameiva Meyer, 1795 
Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 
Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 
Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980 
Anuropus Beddard, 1886 
Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 
Artemia Leach, 1819 
Athyreus Macleay, 1819 
Belemnella Nowak, 1913 


rufipes, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792 
rufus, Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa, 
Haliday, 1836 
sachalinensis, Mactra, Schrenk, 1862 
salinus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 
scabrior, Eurhinus, Kirby, 1819 
schoenherri, Anthalia, Zetterstedt, 
1838 
scripta, Testudo, Schoeff, 1792 
sculptilis, Glyptus, Brullé, 1835 
semistriatus, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794 
spengleri, Testudo, Gmelin, 1789 
spiniger, Athous, Candéze, 1860 
stroemii, Cyclops, Baird, 1837 
teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 
tetragonus, Diademodon, Seeley, 1894 
teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 
tiliae, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 
tipuliformis, Sphinx, Clerck, 1759 
tisboides, Dactylopus, Claus, 1863 
titan, Trichopteryx, Newman, 1834 
tricolor, Encarsia, Foerster, 1878 
troglodytes, Simia, Blumenbach, 1779 
tropicalis, Globigerina, Blow & Banner, 
1962 
urticae, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 
velox, Lacerta, Pallas, 1771 
vetusta, Phryganeolitha, Germar, 1813 
vicarius, Oeciacus, Horvath, 1912 
volubilis, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 
zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838 


Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 
Calaphis Walsh, 1862 
Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 
Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 
Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 
Corisella Lundblad, 1928 
Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 
Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 
Damalis Fabricius, 1805 
Diademodon Seeley, 1894 
Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 
Encarsia Foerster, 1878 
Ephydra Fallen, 1810 


408 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 
Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 
Eulimene Latreille, 1816 
Eurhinus Mliger, 1807 
Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 
1828 
Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 
Geoemyda Gray, 1834 
Glyptus Brulle, 1835 
Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 
Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 
Heterelis Costa, 1887 
Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948 
Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 
Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 
Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 
Hylambates Dumeril, 1853 
Ipnops Gunther, 1878 
Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 
Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 
Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 
Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 
Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 
Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] 
Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 


Melithaea Edwards & Haime, 1857 
Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 
Microsporus Kolenati, 1846 
Nephanes Thomson, 1859 
Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 
Nomioides Schenck, 1866 
Ommateremias Lantz, 1928 
Pan Oken, 1816 

Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904 
Panthera Oken, 1816 
Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 
Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 
Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 
Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 
Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 
Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 
Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 
Simplocaria Stephens, 1829 
Teius Merrem, 1820 
Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 
Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 
Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835 
Uroplatus Dumeril, 1806 
Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 
Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 


Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology 


ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 
AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 
ANUROPIDAE Stebbing, 1893 
ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 
APATURIDAE Boisduval, 1840 
ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, [1835] 
(in Godard, J.B.) 
BELEMNITELLIDAE Pavlow, 1914 
CALAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1918 
DACTYLOPUSIINAE Lang, 1936 
EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 
EURHININI Lacordaire, 1866 
EURHYNCHINAE Lacordaire, 1863 
HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) 
Boisduval, 1828 


HYDRELLIIDAE 

Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864 

(or Schiner, 1864) 

IPNOPIDAE Jordan, 1923 
LIMENITIDINAE Butler, 

[12 February 1870] 
MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 
PANAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1922 
PAPILIONIDE Latreille [1802] 
SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 
TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 
TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 
UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884 
UROPLATINI Leng, 1920 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 409 


Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 


alamose, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979 
angustus, Nabis, Spinola, 1837 
anoa, Bos bubalus, Kerr, 1792 
applanata, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883 
australis, Termes, Walker, 1853 
coryli, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 
dimidiatus, Acarus, Hermann, 1804 
exunguis, Manatus, Natterer in 
Diesing, 1839 
globosa, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883 
guavera, Bos bubalus, Kerr, 1792 
laniaria, Cynochampsa, Owen, 1859 
lingua, Mytilus, Lightfoot, 1786 
lunifrontis, Cimex, Cooper, 1870 
mirabilis, Lychnoculus, Murray, 1877 
nana, Buprestis, Gmelin, 1790 


oaxacae, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979 
ocracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758 
pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 
pulcher pallida, Attus, Walckenaer, 
1837 
peregrinus, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 
quadripunctatus, Cimex, Villers, 1789 
redimacula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874 
salmachus, Sphinx, Linnaeus, 1758 
soemmeringii, Aeolidiella, Bergh, 1882 
soemmerringii, Eolida, Leuckart, 1828 
sublucanus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775 
sybillae, Mactra, Valenciennes, 1858 
ventricosa, Emys, Gray, 1855 
zebrata, Antilope, Robert, 1836 


Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 


Actinia Pallas, 1766 
Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 
Artemisia Latreille, 1816 
Artemisus Lamarck, 1818 
Callaphis Walker, 1870 
Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832 
Cyclas Lamarck, [1798] 
Cynochampsa Owen, 1859 
Edwardsia de Costa, 1834 
Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843 
Eurhin Mlliger, 1807 
Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 
Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818 
Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 
Lychnoculus Murray, 1877 


Manati Steller, 1774 

Melitea Lamouroux, 1812 
Melitodes Verrill, 1864 
Micropteron Eschricht, 1849 
Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849 
Nodus Wagler, 1830 
Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 
Priapus Linnaeus, 1758 
Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 
Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 

Titan Matthews, 1858 
Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 
Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900 
Typus Sellards, 1909 


Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology 


ANUROPODINAE Stebbing, 1893 
CALLAPHIDINAE Borner, 1952 
CYCLADIDAE Rafinesque, 1820 
DACTYLOPODIINAE Lang, 1936 


PAPILIONIDES Latreille, [1802] 
SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 
TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 
TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 


410 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


INDEX TO KEY NAMES 


abbreviatella, Trichopteryx, Heer, 1841 eae as 
Actia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. . . 

Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1295). 

Actinia Pallas, 1766 (Opinion 1295). . . 
ACTINIIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Opinion 1295) 
Adelura Foerster, 1862. . ; 

Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Opinion 1315) : 

Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 (Opinion 1311) . . 
alamosae, Kinosternon, Berry & Legler, 1980 (Opinion 1343) 
alamose, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979 (Opinion 1343). 
alastoroides, Odynerus, Saussure, 1853 (Opinion 1363) 
albida, Eulimene, Latreille, 1816 (Opinion 1301). . . 
alderi, Eolis, Cocks, 1852 (Opinion 1315) . 

Allygidius Ribaud, 1948 (Opinion 1365) 

Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Opinion 1365) . . 
amazonicum, Simulium, Goeldi, 1905 (Opinion 1341) . 
ameiva, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion eee 
Ameiva Meyer, 1795 (Opinion 1300) . . 
AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (Opinion 1300) . 
ammonitiformis, Stoa, De Serres, 1855... 

anatina, Lingula, Lamarck, 1801 (Opinion 1355) 
Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Opinion 1363). 
angustus, Nabis, Spinola, 1837 (Opinion a. 
Anoplocephala Blanchard, 1848 . : 
Anoplocephala Stal,1870 . . . . 

Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Opinion 1347). 

anthyllidis, Zygaena, Boisduval, [1828] . . 
antiquus, Conus, Lamarck, 1810 (Opinion 1350). 
ANUROPIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Opinion 1357) 
Anuropoda Bacescu, 1980 (Opinion 1357). . . 
ANUROPODIDAE Bacescu, 1980 (Opinion 1357) : 
ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Opinion fie : 
Anuropus Beddard, 1886 (Opinion 1357) . . 
APATURIDAE Boisduval, 1840 (Direction 118) , 
applanata, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883 (Opinion 1316). 
apterum, Ptilium, Guérin-Meéneville, 1839 (Opinion eer 
Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (Opinion pe 

arborea, Oribata, Jacot, 1931 . 

argus, Anthias, Bloch,1792 . . : 

argus, Cephalopholis, Schneider, 1801 nig: 

arguta, Lacerta, Pallas, 1773 (Opinion 1318). 


ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (in Godart if B) ) (Direction 118) 


argyreatum, Simulium, Meigen, 1838 
Argyrodes Guénée, 1845 

Argyrodes Simon, 1864. . : 
argyrodes, Linyphia, Walckenaer, 1841 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Artemesia Latreille, 1816 (Opinion 1301) . 
Artemia Leach, 1819 (Opinion 1301) : 
Artemisus Lamarck, 1818 (Opinion 1301). . 
ater, Capsus, Jakovlev, 1889 (Opinion 1325) . 
ater, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1325) . 
Athyreus Macleay, 1819 (Opinion 1299) . . 
atomaria, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1365) 


aurifacies, Hydrellia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 pee 1321) 


aurorae, Carpophaga, Peale, 1848 . . 

australica, Calamoecia, Sars, 1908 (Opinion 1332) . 
australis, Calamoecia (Searle, 1911) (Opinion 1332) 
australis, Termes, Walker, 1853 (Opinion jsaigien 4 
AUSTROCHILIDAE Zapfe, 1955 . 

Austrochilus Gertsch, in Zapfe, 1955 


Bagrus Bosc, 1816. 
Bagre Cloquet, 1816. . . 
BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 


beautempsii, Edwardsia, de Quatrefages, 1842 (Opinion 1294) 


Belemnella Nowak, 1913 (Opinion 1328) . . 
Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 (Opinion “ptt 

bergeri, Semionotus, Agassiz, 1833 . 

Berytus Fabricius, 1803. . . 

betulella, Calaphis, Walsh, 1862 (Opinion 1358). 
betulina, Aphis, Walker, 1852 (Opinion 1308) 

bidens, Physeter, Sowerby, 1804 (Opinion 1289). . . 
bifenestra, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336) . 
bifurcatus, Athyreus, Macleay, 1819 (Opinion 1299) 
bigemma, Amoeba, Schaeffer, 1918 (Opinion 1344) . 
bilamellatus, Clausilia (Strobilus), Anton, 1839. . 
bimaculatus, Drasterius, (Rossi, 1790) . 

bimaculatus, Elater, Fourcroy, 1785 

Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823. . 
BRACHYDERINAE Schonherr, 1826 bid 
branchiatus, Anuropus, Beddard, 1886 (Opinion 1357). 
bubalus anoa, Bos, Kerr, 1792 (Opinion 1349) 
bucatus, Adianthus, Ameghino, 1891 . . 

bushae, Ledella, Warén, 1978 (Opinion 1306) 


CALAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1918 (Opinion 1358) 
Calaphis Walsh, 1862 (Opinion 1358) . . . 
CALLAPHIDINAE Borner, 1952 (Opinion 1358). 
Callaphis Walker, 1870 (Opinion 1358) : 
callida, Dorippe, Fabricius, 1798. . . 

callunae, Aphis, Theobald, 1915 (Opinion 1308). 
Campanularia, Lamarck, 1816 (Opinion 1345) . 
candida, Folsomia, Willem, 1902. . . 
candidaria, Bapta, Leech, 1897 (Opinion 1305) . 
capensis, Algyra, A. Smith, 1838. . . 

capitata, Larentia, Herrich-Schaffer, 1839 (Opinion 1361) 


412 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


capsiformis, Nabis, Germar, [1838] (Opinion ais 
catarractus, Cycloderes, Sahlberg, 1823 . . 
cataspila, Emys, Gunther, 1885 (Opinion 1313). , 
cavicola, Entomobrya, Banks, 1897 . sete 
Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 . . . 

Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832 (Opinion 1309) . 
Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 aici ae 

Chromis Cuvier, 1814 ; 

Chrysomyia Macquart, 1834 . . 

cinerea, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1335) 
cingulata, Acta, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 . . 
citrophilus, Radopholus, Huettel, Dickson & Caplan, 1984 
clausa, Tornatellina, Pfeiffer, 1842 . 

clavipes, Cimex, Fabricius,1775. . . . 

Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Opinion 1345) . 

Cnetha Enderlein, 1921. . 5 

Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1303). Wehttks 
columbia, Selkirkia, Conway Morris, 1977 (Opinion 1337) 
columbianus, Euderus, Ashmead, 1888 (Opinion ate 
conocephali, Cryptothrips, Karny, 1913. . 
coracina, Phalaena, Esper, 1805 (Opinion 1362). 
Corisella Lundblad, 1928 (Opinion 1311). . . 
cornea, Tellina, Linnaeus, 1758 (Direction 117) . 
corni, Lecanium, Bouché, 1844 (Opinion 1303) . 

coryli, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1303) . . . 
crassicaudatus, Galago, E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Opinion 1329) 
crispata, Cythere, Brady, 1868 (Opinion 1346) . 
Ctenium Menge, 1871 . . 

cupratus, Eurhinus, Illiger, 1807 (Opinion 1352). : 
CYCLADIDAE Rafinesque, 1820 (Direction 117). 
Cyclas Lamarck, [1798] (Direction ae . 
Cycloderes Sahlberg, 1823 . 

Cycloderes Schonherr, 1823 

Cydia Hiibner, [1825] . . 

Cynochampsa Owen, 1859 (Opinion 1324) 


Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (Opinion 1344). . . 
DACTYLOPODIINAE Lang, 1936 (Opinion 1356) . 
Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Opinion 1356). . . 
DACTYLOPUSIINAE Lang, 1936 (Opinion ey 
Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (Opinion 1342) . 

Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 . . 

darwinii, Pholas, G.B. Sowerby II, 1849 (Opinion 1296) . 
Dendropoma Motch, 1861. . 

depressicornis, Antilope, H. Smith, 1827 (Opinion 1349) . 
Diademodon Seeley, 1894 (Opinion 1324). . . .. . 
dimidiatus, Acarus, Hermann, 1804 (Opinion 1298) 
diminuta, Taenia, Rudolphi, 1819 . . 

dipsacea, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1312) ‘ 
distinguenda, Cythereis, Neviana, 1928 (Opinion 1346) 
doliolum, Actinia, Pallas, 1766 (Opinion 1295) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


doria, Antilope, Ogilby, 1837 (Opinion 1291). 
Dorippoides Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 . . 
dorsata, Testudo, Schoepff, 1801 (Opinion 1309) . . 
dubius, Philopotamus, Rambur, 1842 (Opinion 1327) . 


Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801. . . 

Edwardsia de Costa, 1834 (Opinion 1294). re 
Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 (Opinion 1294). . 
EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 (Opinion 1294) . 
Elfia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 . . 

elongata, Dactylamoeba, Korotneff, 1880 (Opinion 1344), 
Ephydra Fallén, 1810 (Opinion 1321) . . . 
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Opinion 1321) . 
equina, Taenia, Pallas,1781 . . F 
equinus, Priapus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1295) 

erebus, Zygaena, Meigen, 1829 . . : 

Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Opinion 1318). ; 
Eremiophilus Fitzinger, 1843 Saga oti 

Erigone Audouin, 1826. ; 

Eucarpia Hubner, [1825] . 

Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 . . 

Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 (Opinion 1303) . 

Eulimene Latreille, 1816 (Opinion 1301) 

Eurhin Mlliger, 1807 (Opinion 1352). . 

EURHININI Lacordaire, 1866 (Opinion 1352). 
Eurhinus Illiger, 1807 (Opinion 1352) . . 

Eurhinus Schonherr, 1825 (Opinion 1352). 

eurhostus Sphaenorhynchus, Rivero, 1969. . 
EURHYNCHINAE Lacordaire, 1863 (Opinion 1352) 
Eurhynchus Berthold, 1827 (Opinion 1352) . . 
Eurhynchus Kirby, in Kirby & Spence, 1828 (Opinion 1352). 
exitiosus, Eutermes, Hill, 1925 (Opinion 1310) . . 
exunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Diesing, 1839 (Opinion 1320) 


facchino, Cancer, Herbst,1785 . . . 

fatima, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793 (Opinion 1339) . Sune 
femorata, Corixa, Guérin-Meéneville, 1857 (Opinion 1311) 
festucae, Myzus, Theobald, 1917 (Opinion 1353) . 
fimbriatus, Stellio, Schneider, 1792 (Opinion 1359) . 
flaviceps, Notiphila, Meigen, 1830 (Opinion 1321) . 
flavopunctata, Hymenolepis, Weinland, 1858. . 
flexuosa, Laomedea, Alder, 1857 (Opinion 1345) . . 
Jrancispori, Anuropoda, Bacescu, 1980 (Opinion 1357). 


galeatus, Serresius, Bonaparte,1855 . . . 
Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Opinion 1351) . 
gaurus, Bos, H. Smith, 1827 (Opinion 1348) . 
Geoemyda Gray, 1834 (Opinion 1309). . 

gigas, Manati, Zimmermann, 1780 (Opinion 1320). 
glaberrima, Holothuria, Selenka,1867. . . . . 


414 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


globosa, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883 arte ous 
Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825] . 

Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827. . . 

Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (Opinion 1299) oe 

Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818 (pmmon 1299). 
Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 . . 

Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 . . . 

graeca, Musca, Pontoppidan, 1763 . ; 

granulosa, Hydatigena, Batsch, A.G.C., 1796 
guttatus, Bodianus, Bloch, 1790 . : 


Harminius Fairmaire, 1851 (Opinion cae 

HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849. . . 

HARPIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847. 

Hatschekia Poche, 1902. 

HATSCHEKIIDAE Kabata (1979) Herts 

HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) Boisduval, 1828 (Opinion 1312). 
Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Opinion 1312) . 
hermannii, Chelifer, Audouin, 1826. . . 

hesperidum, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1303) 

Heterelis Costa, 1887 (Opinion 1293) . . ; 

Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Opinion 1336) 
HETEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 . 

HETEROGYNINAE Nagy, 1969 . 

Heterogynis Rambur, 1837 

Heterogyna Nagy, 1969. . 

Heterolaophonte Lang, 1948 (Opinion 1356) . 4 

heydenii, Leptinotarsa, Stal, 1858 (Opinion 1290) 

hippoglossi, Clavella, Kroyer, 1838. . . 

hirtata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1362) . 
Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (Opinion pee 

humeralis, Notaspis, Hermann, 1804 

Humerobates Sellnick, 1928 . . 

Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Opinion 1321) PAa 
HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau- ae: 1830 si ee 1321) 
Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816 

Hydrobates Boie, 1822 . . 

HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849. 

HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 . . 

Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 (Opinion 1320) . 

hydrophilus, Cinclus, Borkhausen, 1797 


HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864 (or Schiner, 1864) (Opinion 1314) 


HY MENOLEPIDINAE Perrier, Reehg 
Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858 . 


Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 

incanus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 

insignis, Cheirurus, Beyrich, 1845 . . 

inunguis, Manatus, Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883 (Opinion 1320) 
IPNOPIDAE Jordan, 1923 (Opinion 1333) . . . . . 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


johnstoni, Campanularia, Alder, 1856 (Opinion 1345) . 
Juglandis, Aphis, Goeze, 1778 (Opinion 1358) 


Kassina Girard, 1853 (Opinion 1364) . 
kochi, Olpium, Simon, 1881 . . . . 
Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 (Opinion 131 iy? 


lactea, Hyla, Daudin, 1803 

lamia, Roeselia, Meigen, 1838. . . . 

Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Opinion 1305) NG, fF 
lanceolatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813 (Opinion 1328) 
laniaria, Cynochampsa, Owen, 1859 (Opinion 1324) 
Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 (Opinion aL veess 
Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] ‘ 

latipes, Atractocera, Meigen, 1804 . 

Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 . . . 

Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Opinion 1306) . 

Leo Brehm, 1829 (Opinion 1368) . . 

Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Opinion 1290) 
leptocephalus, Semionotus, Agassiz, 1836 . . : 
leucostoma, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791 (Opinion 1292) . ack 
LIMENITIDINAE Butler, [12 February, 1870] (Direction 118) 
limonii, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336) . 

lingua, Mytilus, Lightfoot, 1786 (Opinion 1355). 

Lingula Bruguieére, [1797] (Opinion 1355). . . 
lituellum, Siphonium (Dendropoma), Morch, 1861. . 
longicaudatoides, Prodorylaimus, Altherr, 1968 (Opinion 1330). 
longior, Tyroglyphus, Gervais, 1844 (Opinion ae 
longipalpis, Erigone, Sundevall, 1830 . . : 

lottini, Alpheus, Guérin, 1829 (Opinion 1367) 

luciae, Sagartia, Verrill, 1898. . . 

lucida, Yoldia, Lovén, 1896 (Opinion 1306) . : 
lunifrontis, Cimex, Cooper, 1870 (Opinion 1360) 
Lychnoculus Murray, 1877 Nica aa 

Lyristes Horvath, 1926. : 


macrolepidota, Ichnotropis, Peters, 1854 . . 
maculatus, Hylambates, Dumeéril, 1853 (Opinion 1364) 
Manati Steller, 1774 (Opinion 1320) . . : 

manni, Austrochilus, Gertsch, in Zapfe, 1955. 

Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (Opinion 1344) 

Melitea Lamouroux, 1812 (Opinion 1304) . . 
Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 (Opinion 1304) 
Melitodes Verrill, 1864 (Opinion 1304). . . . . 
mercenaria, Corixia, Say, 1832 (Opinion 1311) . 
Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Opinion 1289) . . 
methwoldensis, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336) 
Microchrysa Loew, 1855 . . : 
Micropteron Eschricht, 1849 (Opinion 1289) . ‘ 
MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Opinion 1331). 
Microsporus Kolenati, 1846 (Opinion 1331) . 


416 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849 (Opinion 1289). 

minutissima, Apis, Rossi, 1790 (Opinion 1319) . . 

mirabilis, Lychnoculus, Murray, 1877 (Opinion 1333) . 

mixta, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1365) . 

morys, Pteromalus, Walker, 1848 (Opinion 1297) 

mucronata, Hispa, Olivier, 1808 (Opinion 1359) . : 
mucronatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813 (Opinion 1328) 
murrayi, Ipnops, Gunther, 1878 (Opinion 1333). . 
myrmecophilum, Macrosiphum, Theobald, 1916 (Opinion 1353) 
mytilaspidis, Aphelinus, Le Baron, 1870 


nana, Buprestis, Paykull, 1799 (non Gmelin, 1790) (Opinion aon 
nebulosus, Hydrophorus, Fallén, 1823 (Opinion 1314) . 
neglectus, Neriene, Pickard-Cambridge, 1871 
Neodorippe Seréne & Romimohtarto, 1969 
Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (Opinion 1307). . 
Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 (Opinion 1296) . . 
Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Opinion 1296) . 
nitidulata, Phalaena, [Hufnagel], 1767 . 

Nodus Wagler, 1830 (Opinion 1289) . . 
Nomioides Schenck, 1866 (Opinion 1319) . 
nymphaealis, Nymphula, Treitschke, 1829 . 
Nymphula Schrank, 1802 . fe 


oaxacae, Kinosternon, Berry & Iverson, 1980 (Opinion 1343) 
oaxacae, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979 (Opinion 1343). . 
obsidianus, Microsporus, Kolenati, 1846 ay ie 
oceanica, Procellaria, Kuhl, 1820. : 
Oceanites Keyserling & di Blasius, 1840 
OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1882 . . 

ochracea, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1304) 
OLPIIDAE Banks, 1895 ae 

Olpium L. Koch, 1873 . . 

Ommateremias Lantz, 1928 (Opinion 1318) . 

otiosus, Attus, Hentz, 1846 (Opinion 1340) 

ovalis, Pseudoclavella, Bassett-Smith, 1898 


pallipes, Obisium, Lucas, [1846] . 

Pan Oken, 1816 (Opinion 1368) Me 
PANAPHIDINI Oestlund, 1922 (Opinion 1358) 
Panaphis Kirkaldy, 1904 (Opinion 1358) . 

Panthera Oken, 1816 (Opinion 1368) 

Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Direction 116). . 

papilio, Voluta, Link, 1807 (Opinion 1292) . . . 
PAPILIONIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Direction 116) . 
Papilionides Latreille, [1802] (Direction 116). E 
paradoxa, Heterogynis, Rambur, 1837. . . 
pardus, Felis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1368). 
Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (Opinion 1303). 
patagonicus, Adianthus, Ameghino, 1904 . . 
pavonia, Cythere, Brady, 1866 (Opinion 1346) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 417 


PERUNATIS SUNGIAAIWAISCH 1BSUt.t ae FP oe se Laas sn ey 389 
nelacicaProcellariawiainnaeus,W58e (5 0s) a uss, ss 398 
Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (Opinion 1295) . . . 3 > een pine Leen one 34 
peregrinus, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 ear 1340) as rs tae fe 258 
perfoliata, Taenia, Schrank,1788 . . . nf. Spee ee: 77 
perforans, Stoa,DeSerres,1855. . . . arth Oe te ea 48 
permianus, Tupus, Sellards, 1906 (Opinion 1317) “ASS oe eae igo Te 169 
picipes, Byrrhus, Olivier, 1790 (Opinion 1323) . . ..... . 182 
pilipennis, Actia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 . . . ..... . 93 
pilipennis, Tachina, Fallen, 1810. . ane ede ee 93 
planiceps, Damalis, Fabricius, 1805 (Opinion 1342). bir ettacks-<% Maly. 264 
polita, Musca, Linnaeus,1758 . . . tad Sa: ba 3 ye. 5 393 
polygoni, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336) Rae al cde ae 244 
Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Opinion 1290) . . ..... =. 21 
Porcus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808 . . . Rae ae ete ae 14 
posticata, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1361) SA esac to ee 349 
Priapus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1295). Sy NaN ahaa NUE hry 34 
Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Opinion 1330) . Mec ce tie tae eek tales 228 
protea, Heterogyna, Nagy,1969. . . . SUES EIEOE 386 
Pseudoclavella Bassett-Smith, 1898. . . . .......~. 57 
Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 (Opinion Ee Shy Sunes taylan 238 
Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926. . A Aaa = hei Bn Ly Reg i 121 
Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 (Opinion 1307) . MT oe ee 148 
pulcher, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 (Opinion 1340) ae aR egy sy 258 
pulcher pallida, Attus, Walckenaer, 1837 (Opinion 1340) . a 258 
pumilio, Bracon Nees, 1834 . . 3 Bh ager on de 101 
punctularia, Testudo, Daudin, 1801 (Opinion 1309). he add ean 152 
pura, Xenocrepis, Mayr, 1904 (Opinion 1297) . . Le Ry “teeta eB 39 
putrescentiae, Acarus, Schrank, 1781 (Opinion 1298) . patie pee 124 
quadripunctatus, Cimex, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1326). . . . . 190 
quadripunctatus, Cimex, Villers, 1789 (Opinion 1326). . . . . . 190 
quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1326) . . . . 190 
quarlesi, Anoa, Ouwens, 1910 (Opinion 1349). AUP RTSS GE 281 
quinquecincta, Scolia, Fabricius, 1793 (Opinion 1293) . ae TROT 29 
redimacula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874 (Opinion 1354) . . . . . . 330 
redimicula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1874 (Opinion se NB t csiasiigin f 330 
R. Forsteri, Columba, Wagler, 1929. . . . EA f ., ST BaOs 50 
Rhabditis Dujardin, [Nov. 1844]. . . wos MLSE MR 197 
Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (Opinion 1309) seo ee RUBY £4025 Ws 152 
riparia, Ephydra, Fallén, 1813 (Opinion 1321) . . ..... . 177 
manertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879. . . . . . ke mmtl. 81 
rostrolamellatus, Humerobates, Grandjean, 1936 . . lee (ate 54 
rufa, Thrips ( Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836 (Opinion 1338) dick Ak 251 
rubra, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1335). . . tiawse 241 
rufipes, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792 (Opinion 1323) . . on SLE 182 
rufus, Thrips ( Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836 (Opinion 1338) Hieithee 251 


rufus, Thrips, Haliday, 1836 (Opinion 1338). . . Big gat be 251 


418 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


sachalinensis, Mactra, Schrenk, 1862 (Opinion 1366) . 
salinus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1301). . 
salmachus, Sphinx, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion pone 
savignyi, Olpium, Simon, 1879 . . . 

scabrior, Eurhinus, Kirby, 1819 (Opinion 1352) . f 
schoenherri, Anthalia, Zetterstedt, 1838 (Opinion 1347) 
scripta, Testudo, Schoepff, 1792 (Opinion 1313). 
sculptilis, Glyptus, Brullé, 1835 (Opinion 1299) . 
Selkirkia Walcott, 1911 (Opinion 1337) 

Semionotus Agassiz, 1832. . . ‘ 
semistriatus, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1323) . 
sexmaculata, Cephalopholis (Ruppell, 1830) . 
Simplocaria Stephens, 1829 (Opinion 1323) . . : 
soemmeringii, Aeolidiella, Bergh, 1882 (Opinion 1315). 
soemmerringii, Eolida, Leuckart, 1828 (aes aan 
Southernia Allgén, 1929 : 
Southernia Filipjev, 1927 . . . . 

spengleri, Testudo, Gmelin, 1789 (Opinion 1309) 
SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 (Opinion 1331) . . 
SPHAERITIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Opinion 1331). 
Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 (Direction 117) . 3 
Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 (Opinion 1331). . . 
spiniger, Althous, Candéze, 1860 as at 1334) 
Spiroglyphus Daudin, 1800 

spirulaeformis, Stoa, De Serres, 1855 eee : 
stelleri, Hydrodamalis, Retzius, 1794 (Opinion 1320) : 
Stoa De Serres, 1855. : : 
stroemii, Cyclops, Baird, 1837 (Opinion 1367) ater 
sublucanus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775 (Opinion 1367) . . 
sybillae, Mactra, Valenciennes, 1858 (Opinion 1366) . 


teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1300) . 
TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Opinion 1300) . 

Teius Merrem, 1820 (Opinion 1300) . . 

terricola, Rhabditis, Dujardin, [Nov. 1844] . : 
tetragonus, Diademodon, Seeley, 1894 (Opinion 1324) : 
teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 alae ss ee 

Thaida Karsch, 1880 . . : 

THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 

THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 

THAISIDAE Jousseaume, 1888. . 
THALASSIDROMIDAE J.W. von Miiller, 1865 
Thalassidroma Vigors, 1825 . . 

Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 (Opinion 1368) 
Thermophilus Fitzinger, 1843 . ; 
ThylacitesGermar, 1817 . . 

THYLACITINAE Kirby, 1837. . 

TIBICENIDAE Van Duzee, 1916 . 

Tibicina Amyot, 1847 Ao 

TIBICININAE Distant, 1916. 

Tigris Oken, 1816 (Opinion 1368) 


Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


tiliae, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1303) . . 
tipuliformis, Sphinx, Clerck, 1759 (Opinion 1288) . 
tisboides, Dactylopus, Claus, 1863 (Opinion 1356) . 
Titan Matthews, 1858 (Opinion 1307). . . . 
titan, Trichopteryx, Newman, 1834 Se aes 1307) 
tolteca, Stenoderma, Saussure, 1860. . 

toltecus toltecus, Artibeus, (Saussure, 1860) 
Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842. . . . 

Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 (Opinion 1351) : 
Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900 (Opinion 1351) . 
tricolor, Encarsia, Foerster, 1878 (Opinion 1351) 
trilineata, Musca, Linnaeus, 1767 . . 

troglodytes, Homo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1368). aS 
tropicalis, Globigerina, Blow & Banner, 1962 (Opinion 1316) 
TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 (Opinion 1300) . 
Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (Opinion 1300). 

Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Opinion 1317) . . 
TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 (Opinion 1317). 

Typus Sellards, 1909 (Opinion 1317) . . 
TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 (Opinion 1288). 
Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Opinion 1298). 


UROPLATIIDAE Boulenger, 1884 (Opinion 1359) 
UROPLATINI Leng, 1920 (Opinion 1359) . . . 
Uroplata Chevrolat, 1835 (Opinion 1359) . 

Uroplatus Duméril, 1806 (Opinion 1359). . 
urticae, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 (Opinion 1336). 


vagans, Erigone, Audouin, 1826. . 

velox, Lacerta, Pallas, 1771 (Opinion 1318) . 
ventricosa, Emys, Gray, 1855 (Opinion 1313). 

vernum, Simulium, Macquart, 1826 . 

vetusta, Phryganeolitha, Germar, 1813 (Opinion 1327) 
vicarius, Oeciacus, Horvath, 1912 (Opinion 1360) . 
vinetella, Tinea, Fabricius,1787. . . 

volubilis, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1345) 


Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Opinion 1297). 
Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Opinion 1306) 
zanana, Serranus, Valenciennes, 1828 . . 
zebra, Antilope, Gray, 1838 (Opinion 1291) . 


zebrata, Antilope, Robert, 1836 (Opinion 1291) 
zosterae, Southernia, Allgén, 1929 


420 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt 4, December 1985 


CORRIGENDA 
Vol. 42, part 2 
page 121, line 36 for “Caetha’ read ‘Cnetha’. 
page 121, line 37 for ‘Official List ...’ read ‘Official Index 


of Rejected and Invalid...’ 


PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS 
IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED 


Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication 
(pages ) 
] 1-98 2 April 1985 
2 99-204 27 June 1985 
3 205-310 30 September 1985 
4 311-420 6 December 1985 
INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 


The present volume should be bound up as follows: 
T.P. I-VII, 1-420 


Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the 
volume. 


THAIDIDAE J ousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and 
a THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae). P.T. 
to Lehtinen. . . 389 


_ Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790) (Insecta, Coleoptera ‘Elateridae). 
M. Mroczkowski. . . 391 
Ps Riicathrysc Loew, 1855 (Insecta, Diptera). E. P. Nartshuk & R. 
Rozkosny . . 393 
Musca trilineata Linnaeus, “1767 (Insecta, Diptera). E. P. Nartshuk & R. : 
_ Rozkosny . . . 2 395 
Family names for the storm petrels and. dippers. R. V. Melville . an St 398 


% ‘The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express 
‘its ee eciahien of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British 


CONTENTS 


Officers and Members of the Commission. ; 

Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. 
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology eEpecaees 
Special Announcements 


International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: General Meet- 


ing, Budapest, 2-6 7 esise 1985. 
Financial Report for 1984. . . s 


Comment 
Comment on proposed amendment of Article 71b of Code. W.D.L. Ride 


Opinions 

Opinion 1354. Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1874 (Lepidoptera) 

Opinion 1355. Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda) . 

Opinion 1356. Dactylopusia Norman, 1903 (Crustacea, Copepoda) 

Opinion 1357. ANUROPODIDAE  Bacescu, 1980 and 
ANUROPODIDAE Stebbing, 1893 (Crustacea) . 

Opinion 1358. Calaphis Walsh, 1862 and Callaphis Walker, 1870 
(Insecta, Hemiptera). 


Opinion 1359. UROPLAT- ‘as the stem of family-group 1 names in - 


Reptilia, Sauria and Insecta, Coleoptera . . 

Opinion 1360. Oeciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemiptera). 

Opinion 1361. Larentia capitata Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839 and Phalaena 
posticata Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 

Opinion 1362. Phalaena coracina Esper, 1805 and Phalaena hirtata 
Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 


Opinion 1363. Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 (Insecta, H Hymenoptera) . 


Opinion 1364. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphibia, Anura) . 
Opinion 1365. Allygus Fieber, 1872 (Insecta, Homoptera) . . 
Opinion 1366. Mactra sachalinensis Schrenk, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . 
Opinion 1367. Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . 
Opinion 1368. Pan and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia, Carnivora) 


New and revived cases 
* Semionotus Agassiz, 1832 (Osteichthyes). A.R. McCune . : 
Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 and Cephalopholis sexmaculata 
(Rippell, 1830) (Osteichthyes, Serranidae). J.E. Randall, M.L. 
Bauchot, A. Ben-Tuvia & P.C. Heemstra . 
Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita). P.D. Lane . 

Eugynothrips Priesner, 1926 and Cryptothrips conocephali ie anay, 1913 
(Insecta, Thysanoptera). D.J. Brothers& L.A.Mound . . 
HEVEROGYNIDAE Rambur, 1866 and HETEROGYNIDAE Nagy, 

1969 (Insecta). M.C. Day . 
Request for ruling that French theses submitted for Docteur du Troisiéme 
Cycle are not published. G.C. Hewitt & V. Rousset. 


~ Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset % 


~ toh ¢ 
Sy ORE: 

x cs 

5 4 4 Ky 

se sy 

» 4 

| : z; 
| f as 
S - 

‘ ma 

w 

4" 

af 

. \ 

ay 

| 7 


4 
\ 
aga 
} 
t. 
. 
- 
. 
* a > 
e > —_ 


asia eset peered se 
oe eee 


slee 


an gey 
viry 


sth 
nyt 
hae! 


tye 


Sit? 


Hrile 
ey) 


i} 


r: 


Sos