MARE Uy
i Cae: it
GSS Nai
LO ME aH
ny ville
“Wy Pa ty
BO oe
faced
ine
pene
Ra
yA
4}
ny
LEO Gt END!
Baath
i
ay
f
¢
L
if
io
i
/
:! on
pc oat
heed
Cai et
as
ist,
iy)
LA, aAaRAoCoA
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
VOLUME 43
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
1986
(All rights reserved)
gM wiod JavOTRR
\ LA
Q
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notices .
Special Announcements
On the proposed amendment to Article 51c of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature. G. C. Steyskal, N. E. Woodley, A.
Freidberg, R. C. Froeschner, W. N. Mathis, N. L. Evenhuis; C. L.
Staines
On the proposed completion of the Official List entry for Rhabditis
Dujardin, [1855] (Nematoda). W. Grant Inglis; R. V. Melville
Sur CAECILIIDAE chez les Amphibiens et chez les Psocopteres. A.
Dubois
On the application concerning Robertus O. Pickard- Cambridge, 1879
(Arachnida, Araneae). O. Kraus; B. J. Kaston; K. Thaler . ,
On the proposed conservation of Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta,
Lepidoptera). I. M. Kerzhner & V.I. Kuznetsov; J.D. Bradley . .
On the proposed conservation of Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia).
H. M. Smith ;
On the proposed grant of precedence to THRESKIORNITHIDAE
Richmond, 1917 (Aves) over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838.
K. E. Campbell; A. R. Phillips; S. L. Olson, A. M. Rea & P.
Brodkorb
On the proposed conservation of Southernia Allgen, 1929 by the sup-
pression of Southernia Filipjev, 1927 (Nematoda). W. Grant Inglis .
On the proposed conservation of Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera). Executive Secretary . .
Opinion 1369. Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Crustacea, ‘Isopoda)
Opinion 1370. Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
Opinion 1371. Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 and Troodon
wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931 (Reptilia, Dinosauria) . .
Opinion 1372. Donax hanleyanus Philippi, 1847 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) .
Opinion 1373. Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876 and ig hinds Stal.
1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera). . . : ‘
Opinion 1374. Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (Reptilia, Serpentes) F
Opinion 1375. Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855
and Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) .
Opinion 1376. Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981
(Mollusca, Bivalvia) . .
Opinion 1377. Chelydra osceola ‘Stejneger, 1918 (Reptilia, Testudines),
given nomenclatural precedence over C. /Jaticarinata Hay, 1916 and
C.sculptaHay,1916 . . . Ser eee a eh es |
Opinion 1378. Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 and Crinodes Herrich-
Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .
Opinion 1379. Gonodontes rectisectaria Herrich- Schiiffer, [1855] and Pero
Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). . . ee
Opinion 1380. Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
Opinion 1381. Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .
Opinion 1382. Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera) .
Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1966 (Lepidoptera). J. S. Dugdale .
Il
Page
IV Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Mammalia, Marsupialia). J. A.
Mahoney & W.D.L.Ride . .
Cholus Germar, 1824 and Archarias Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera).
C.W.O’Brien&G.J.Wibmer .
ryophthorus Germar, 1824 and Bulbifer Dejean, ‘1821 ‘Insecta,
Coleoptera). C. W. O’Brien & G. Osella : weet,
Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840, Menoetius Dejean, 1821 and Ptilopus
Schoenherr, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C. W. O’Brien & G. J.
Wibmer . . eae
Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C W. (oy Brien .
Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 and Eccoptus Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleop-
tera).C.W. O’Brien & G.J.Wibmer. .
Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822 (Echinoidea, Cidaroidea) as ‘type species
of Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883. C. W. Wright & A. B. Smith
Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea)
M.K.Howarth .
Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. V. Melville. .
De la Cépéde, 1788-1789, ‘Histoire Naturelle des Serpens’, proposed
rejection as a non-binominal work. R. V. Melville . .
ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea, Decapoda) and ATYIDAE
Thiele, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) T. K. Crosby & A. Carpenter .
Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes, Lamniformes). L. J. V.
Compagno & W.I. Follett . .
Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 and ‘Phalaena rusticella Clerck, 1759
(Insecta, Lepidoptera). P. R. Seymour
Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 and Microgaster robiniae Fitch, 1859
(Insecta, Hymenoptera). J.B. Whitfield. .
Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 and Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1907 H. M.
Lew Ton&G.C.B.Poore . .
Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera) j non i Stronzylaspis
Thomson, 1860 and Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859. E.G. Riley .
Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed setting aside
of first-reviser action of Jago, 1981. K. H. L. Key & N. D. Jago;
comment by K. McE. Kevan
Calymene Brongniart (Trilobita) in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 and
Trilobus tuberculatus Brinnich, 1781. H. B. Whittington & D. J.
Siveter
Dates and authorship of the text volumes of Histoire Naturelle Section of
Savigny’s Description del’Egypte. M.E. Tollitt . .
Tubulanus Renier, [1804] and T. aad Renier RK, (Polychaeta)
R. V. Melville
Notices .
Special Announcements ;
On Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita). vee B. Whittington :
On Olpium Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida). R. Schuster
On Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera). J. Péricart; W. R.
Dolling , : seo:
On Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Copepoda). Zi: Kabata ;
Opinion 1383. Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)
Opinion 1384. Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia, Serpentes) .
Opinion 1385. Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832 (Reptilia, Sauria)
50
5
58
62
66
69
WZ
75
78
80
84
89
93
96
99
100
102
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 Vv
Opinion 1386. Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . 128
Opinion 1387. Curculio picirostris Fabricius, 1787 (Insecta, Coleoptera,
Curculionidae). . . Sia MAT po rests: (AG Dias as oe 130
Opinion 1388. Callionymus gen Pallas, 1770 is ee
Callionymidae). . . 132
Opinion 1389. Phascolosoma cumanense e Keferstein, 1867 (Sipunculida) . 134
Opinion 1390. Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 (Osteichthyes) ._ . 136
Opinion 1391. Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] (Insecta,
MErIGOpterayi.? Ye) 2F Paee eee eee bitte PY Ve food eA ee 138
Opinion 1392. Reptomultisparsa dOrbigny, 1853 ee
Cyclostomata) . . ay ¥. 140
Opinion 1393. Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) . Ae: 142
Opinion 1394. Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides ornatus
Pocock, 1902 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) . . Aya 144
Opinion 1395. Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Brachiopoda) . Ae 146
Opinion 1396. Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera,
Byrrhidae) . . 148
Opinion 1397. Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera,
Colydidae) . . . 150
Opinion 1398. Capys Hewitson, [1865] (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) . ie 152
Opinion 1399. Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Diptera, Calliphoridae) . 154
Bubo Dumeril, 1806 and Surnia Duméril (Aves). R. V. Melville 156
Antispila Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). E. S. Nielsen & I. W. B.
INver?)s.1: hee 158
Heteroclonium bicolor Cope, 1896 (Reptilia, Squamata). S. C. Ayala a AE 160
On the names of two species of Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Cnidaria,
Hydrozoa). P. F.S.Cornelius&C.Ostman . . 163
Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera). G. C. D. Griffiths, K. A.
Spencer & G.C.Steyskal . . 5 170
Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). W. R. M. Mason : 173
Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (Insecta, Heteroptera). A.Jansson . . 175
Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Corixidae).
A.Jansson . . 178
Calcarina calcar @ Orbigny, 1839 '(Protozoa, "Foraminiferida). ae us
Hansen... ; 181
Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera). K. A. Spencer & G. C. ‘Steyskal 183
Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera). H.Silfverberg . . 186
Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). M.
Mroczkowski . . . 188
Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Th. ‘oo H.
Kemperman&H.E.Coomans . . 191
Siphamia Weber, 1909 and iia permutata Klausewitz, 1966
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes). J. E. Randall, E. A. Lachner & T. H.
racer, WaMe wate) AL PRT Rien Ce Rema Os | ER he rags) 193
Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 Naga pees ag ah J. C. Watt & R. A.
Crowson. . 196
SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913, MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 and E EUROMPHALIDAE
de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda, Archaeogastropoda). The late J.
Brookes Knight: R.L.Batten& E.Yochelson . . : 199
Laplysia viridis Montagu, 1804 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet sae 205
Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda). C. H.C. Brunton& D.E.Lee. . 210
0 LE
VI Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 OP aae Cre:
Brunton& D.E.Lee. .
Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda). Cc. H. Cc. Brunton &
DAE eer
Trichomonas Donne, “1836 (Protozoa, Mastigophora). Executive
Secretary) a aed. "4
Notices .
Special Announcements X
On Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C. Bordon ght
On Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera). R. E. Blackith;
M.LaGreca& R.F.Chapman . . eas
On Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes). G. F. Mees :
On ‘Histoire Naturelle des Serpens’ (Lacépéde, 1788-89). H. M. Smith .
Opinion 1400. Simia fascicularis Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Primates)
Opinion 1401. Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera) .
Opinion 1402. Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . .
Opinion 1403. Lumbricus lacteus Orley, 1881 (Annelida, Oligochaeta)
Opinion 1404. Jndodorylaimus elongatus Bagri, 1982 (Nematoda,
Dorylaimida) . .
Opinion 1405. Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 “Insecta,
Hymenoptera). .
Opinion 1406. Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
Opinion 1407. Lamia aethiops Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera) .
Opinion 1408. Hypocryphalus mangiferae Stebbing, 1914 aia
Coleoptera). . 3
Opinion 1409. Adianthus bucatus ‘Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia) .
Opinion 1410. Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
Opinion 1411. Drymus ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Insecta, Hemiptera)
Opinion 1412. Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841 (Tunicata,
Ascidiaea) :
Opinion 1413. Delphinus truncatus Montagu, 1821 (Mammalia, Cetacea)
Opinion 1414. Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) .
Opinion 1415. Polygnathus bilineatus Roundy, 1926 (Conodonta) .
Opinion 1416. Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera)
Opinion 1417. Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes)
Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869. (Repania: Graithiseua abel Rhahdedon
Fleischmann, 1831 (Reptilia, Serpentes). W. Brinkmann . . .
Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). A. E. Bogan & J. D.
Williams .
Ammonites neubergicus fa 1858 ict ahiadenadal pirsmeemeeieay R. i
Henderson & W. J. Kennedy
Corixa albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 pamser Heteroptera). A. ker
I. M. Kerzhner .
Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Digtere): R. Ww. .Gednknen Beran! " P.
Mesnil & D. M. Wood
Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 Garyonde Chditnatonsbitay, J D. 'D.
Bishop ,
PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda). v. N. Andironove
N. V. Vyshkvartzeva . a See Sai a ea a
288
297
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 and Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 (Insecta,
Coleoptera). G. J. WibmerandC.W.O’Brien_.
Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjéstedt, 1920) (Insecta, Orthoptera). i's H. i:
Key
Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874 (Insecta, " Orthoptera
(Gryllovtera)).D.K.McE. Kevan . .
Proposed new term ‘Nomenclaturally valid’, an amendment to the Code.
R. V. Melville yee
Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia, “Multituberculata). N. B. Simmons .
Notices . Sr) oh eer a NS a ea
Special Announcements
Instructionsto Authors.
Publication of Official Lists
Financial Reportfor1985. . . . sperma wale key, ees tg
Comment on Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (Hymenoptera). R. A.
Wharton. .
Comment on THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 (Aves). Ww. i
Bock... é
Opinion 1418. Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825] (pee a eines).
Opinion 1419. Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 (Mammalia, Rodentia)
Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes). A. F. Stimson & S. B. McDowell
Filellum serpens (Hassall, 1848) (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). P. F. S. Cornelius
SoD3R. Calder... Je Rate
Lycaena mirza P\6tz, 1880 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). T: B. Larsen
Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera). K. A. Spencer . :
Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneida). O. Kraus & A. Loerbroks
Trypanosoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Protozoa, ee
phora).M.E.Tollitt . . :
Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera). L A. Rubtsov .
Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (Insecta, Diptera). I. A. Rubtsov .
Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck, 1801 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). P. ei &
W.Riegraf . . :
Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes). M. Kottelat
Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Insecta, Coleoptera). R. D. Pope &
ue. Watt — i
Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida). R. i Hoffman :
Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). R. A. Wharton . Ya
Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.
Mroczkowski (fa mee ee oe
Index to Authors . ;
List of Decisions in this volume ‘
Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in n 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 .
VII
ire es ISSN 0007-5167,
The Bulletin
of Zoological
Nomencl ature
The Official Organ of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
BRITISH MUSEUM} |
f (WATURAL HISTORY) |
30 APR 1986
PURCHASED {
; ZOO OLOGY LIBRARY §
The Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature
Published by: C.A.B. International
On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o British Museum (Natural History)
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent
to: ;
CENTRAL SALES
C.A.B. INTERNATIONAL
FARNHAM ROYAL
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K.
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1986.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically,
mechanically, 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. 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) (Vice-
President) Echinoidea; Asteroidea
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Secretary-General)
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 (Jnstitute of Biology and Geology, University of
Troms6, 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
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) 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 Entomolgy 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, Beijing, 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
| Pil BAS Per Bl Zase Dr. I.W.B. Nye
Mr. D. Curry Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D.
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, ( Administrator)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 ]
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 43, part 1 (pp. i-ii, 1-114) 9 April 1986
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
normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist
who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution, 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) Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Mammalia, Marsupialia):
proposed conservation by the suppression of Mustela quoll
Zimmermann, 1783. Z.N.(S.) 2472. J.A. Mahoney & W.D.L.
Ride.
(2) Cholus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed sup-
pression of Archarias Dejean, 1821. Z.N.(S.) 2485. C.W.
O’Brien & G.J. Wibmer.
(3) Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation by the suppression of Bulbifer Dejean, 1821.
Z.N.(S.) 2486. C.W. O’Brien & G. Osella.
(4) Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation by the suppression of Menoetius Dejean, 1821
and Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823. Z.N.(S.) 2487. C.W. O’Brien
& G.J. Wibmer.
(5) Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation and designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2488.
C.W. O’Brien.
(6) Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation by the suppression of Eccoptus Dejean, 1821.
Z.N.(S.) 2489. C.W. O’Brien and G.J. Wibmer.
(7) Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (Echinoidea, Cidaroidea): proposed
designation of Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822 as type
species. Z.N.(S.) 2505. C.W. Wright & A.B. Smith. —
(8) Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822 (Cephalopoda,
Ammonoidea): proposed exemption from the Principle of
Homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2479. M.K. Howarth.
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Clausilia) Draparnaud, 1805 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed correction of Opinion 119. Z.N.(S.) 872. R.V.
Melville.
De La Cépéde, 1788-89 ‘Histoire Naturelle des Serpens’ and
later editions: proposed rejection as a non-binominal work.
Z.N.AS.) 1985. R.V. Melville.
ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea, Decapoda) and
ATYIDAE Thiele, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposals
to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2357. T.K. Crosby &
A. Carpenter.
Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes, Lamni-
formes); proposed conservation by the use of the relative
precedence procedure. Z.N.(S.) 2414. L.J.V. Compagno &
W.I. Follett.
Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera):
proposed conservation by the suppression of Phalaena rusti-
cella Clerck, 1759. Z.N.(S.) 2468. P.R. Seymour.
Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera):
proposed conservation by the suppression of Microgaster
robiniae Fitch, 1859. Z.N.(S.) 2506. J.B. Whitfield.
Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera) non
Strongylaspis Thomson, 1860: proposed designation of
Cassida atripes Leconte, 1859 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2492.
E.G. Riley.
Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed
conservation by setting aside the first-reviser action of Jago,
1981. Z.N.(S.) 2425. K-H.L. Key & N.D. Jago.
Type species of the genus Calymene Brongniart (Trilobita) in
Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 and proposed suppression of
the name tuberculatus Bruinnich, 1781: rider to Z.N.(S.) 637.
H.B. Whittington & D.J. Siveter.
Tubulanus Renier, [1804] and T. polymorphus Renier, [1804]
(Polychaeta): proposed reinstatement under the plenary
powers. Z.N.(S.) 1094. R.V. Melville.
(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications
have been received since going to press for vol. 42 (4) (published on 6
December 1985):
(1)
(2)
Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2532.
M. Mroczkowski.
Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes):
proposed designation of a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2533. W.R.
Taylor.
Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2534. M. Mroczkowski.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 3
(4) Family-group names among bees (Insecta, Hymenoptera):
proposed conservation under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2535.
D. Michener.
(5) Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia, Ornithopoda): pro-
posed conservation under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2536.
W. Brinkmann.
(6) Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro-
posed conservation by suppression of Brius Dejean, 1821.
Z.N.(S.) 2537. H. Silfverberg.
(7) Tantilla annulata Boeltger, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes):
proposed conservation by suppression of Homalocranion
supracinctum W. Peters, 1863. Z.N.(S.) 2539. L.D. Wilson.
(8) CLEONINAE Schoenherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation, Z.N.(S.) 2540. R.S. Anderson
(9) Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe, 1912 (Pisces,
Apogonidae): proposed conservation of the specific name by
suppression of N. sphenura (Ehrenberg, 1884). Z.N.(S.) 2541.
O. Gon.
(10) TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Brachyura) and
TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposals
to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2542. G. Morgan.
(11) Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda): proposed suppression.
Z.N.(S.) 2543. C.H.C. Brunton & D.E. Lee.
(12) Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (Brachiopoda):
proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2544. C.H:C. Brunton &
DE Les:
(13) Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 and Harpa ventricosa
Lamarck, 1816 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed con-
servation by suppression of H. delicata Perry, .1811 and
H. urniformis Perry, 1811. Z.N.(S.) 2548. H.A. Rehder &
R.E. Petit.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
CHANGE OF NAME OF OUR PUBLISHERS
In keeping with its new international image, the Commonwealth
Agricultural Bureaux has been renamed C.A.B. International. This change
was agreed by the 29 member countries at the Tenth Quinquennial Review
Conference, held in London in September 1985. The Conference also
agreed to a draft new Constitution, and this document is currently under
ratification procedures by member governments.
The provision of information and scientific services in agriculture
and related fields will remain the primary functions of C.A.B. International.
However, the organisation will also be aiming to provide a broader range
of services and will be welcoming to membership other countries,
<<<
4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
including non-Commonwealth countries, which wish to join the traditional
Commonwealth country membership.
The organisation is controlled by an Executive Council composed
of nominees of the various governments, including one for the United
Kingdom Dependent Territories.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
March 1986
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5lc OF
THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Z.N.(S.)2474
(see vol. 41, pp. 149-150; vol. 42, pp. 10-12, 209)
(1) By George C. Steyskal (retired) and Norman E. Woodley (Systematic
Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o U.S. National Museum
NHB-168, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 20560); Amnon Freidberg (Department of
Zoology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel 69-000); Richard C. Froeschner
and Wayne N. Mathis (Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 20560); and Neal L.
Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000—A, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 96817)
We are in favour of the proposed amendment, chiefly because we believe that
the loss of time spent checking names merely to find out whether or not their
authors’ names should be in parentheses far outweighs the small advantage of
knowing that a specific combination is not original while not knowing what was the
original combination. The argument that comprehensive lists are or soon will be
available in certain groups is as much an argument for the proposal, perhaps even
more, than against it.
The fact that a considerable body of literature, including the great Fliegen der
palaearktischen Region (occupying more than a meter of shelf space), is without
the presently required parentheses shows how well they can be dispensed with.
Legitimization of such works by abrogation of the requirement for the use of
parentheses would not prevent anyone from continuing to use them if he so wished.
Abrogation of the requirement would do no harm, but it would make things a little
easier and save some time.
The confusing practice of citing subsequent author’s names immediately
after the species-name is already ruled against in the Examples following Art.
51(b).(i). We therefore recommend complete removal of Art 51(d), including
paragraph (i), and the whole of Art. 51(c), but the addition to Art 51(a) of the
clause: ‘if cited, none other than the name of the original author (authors) may
immediately follow the species-group name.’
(2) By C. L. Staines, Jr. (3302 Decker Place, Edgewater, MD 21037, U.S.A.)
Gagné et al. have made some good points in their proposal. To an author of
both taxonomic and general biology papers there is always the question of whether
or not to use parentheses. I am of the opinion that the requirement for parentheses
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 5
be dropped for biological or ecological papers but retained for taxonomic ones.
This would allow a researcher to trace the nomenclatural status of a species for his
literature review.
The only valid alternative that I can see for taxonomists would be to list all
the combinations under which a specific name has appeared. This system is followed
by some workers but seems even more cumbersome than the present system.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED COMPLETION OF THE OFFICIAL LIST
ENTRY FOR RHABDITIS DUJARDIN, [1855] (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.)937
(see vol. 42, pp. 197-198)
By W. Grant Inglis (Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser, GPO Box 1625, Adelaide,
South Australia 5001)
The former Secretary has advanced proposals intended to overcome a prob-
lem which I, and others, had thought to have been resolved in 1928 when the name
Rhabditis was purportedly placed on the Official List of Generic Names by Opinion
104, with R. terricola as ‘type by subsequent designation’ (see Dougherty, E. C.
1955, J. Helminthol. vol. 29, pp. 105-152). That not being so, the proposals are
acceptable because they do not alter the situation as it is generally understood.
Nevertheless, they seem vacuous because they do not (1) alter or protect the status
of either the generic or the specific name, nor (2) solve any known, obvious or
anticipated problem in nomenclature, because of the provisions of Article 78f(iv).
The proposals refer to Dougherty’s brief paper of 1953 (Thapar Commemor-
ative Volume, pp. 69-76) but the justifications for those conclusions are given ina
later paper (1955, J. Helminthol., vol. 29, pp. 105-152). In this a very persuasive
case is made for treating R. terricola as a species of that genus and so, by default,
as its type species. This conclusion was reached, and still stands, on the basis of
Dujardin’s original description so that any reference to R. aspera Bitschli, 1873 is
superfluous.
The significant question for the Commission, however, is whether it is necess-
ary to add either name to either Official List. As I read the latest edition of the Code
this would give no additional protection to either name, and there is no evidence
that either is at risk. The only slight advantage might be to make anyone considering
the possibility of changing the generic name to think again, because Rhabditis now
supplies the root for higher-taxon names up to Class and Subclass.
Note by R. V. Melville (former Secretary)
I am grateful to Dr Inglis for the additional information he has supplied.
However, he misunderstands the formal position, which is that the putting into
effect of the decision in Opinion 104 on Rhabditis and R. terricola was postponed in
1958, pending clarification of the taxonomic status of R. terricola. My proposals
merely aimed to complete this piece of unfinished business before the Commission,
and I maintain that this should be done.
Dougherty’s 1955 paper shows that Dujardin’s original description of the
species does not allow it to be identified beyond doubt. It is only as a result of
Reiter’s work (1928, Arb. zool. Inst. Univ. Innsbruck, vol. 3, pp. 93-184) that that
description can be used to recognise R. aspersa Biitschli as conspecific with R.
terricola Dujardin, so that reference to the latter still has point.
6 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
It is true that placing a name on the Official List does not give that name
any added protection against hitherto undiscovered senior homonyms or synonyms;
that protection is afforded by Article 781. But at least the status of the names
involved has been thoroughly examined and this alone provided a measure of
security.
COMMENTAIRE SUR CAECILIIDAE CHEZ LES AMPHIBIENS ET CHEZ
LES PSOCOPTERES: NOUVEAUX ELEMENTS ET NOUVELLE
PROPOSITION. Z.N.(S.)2333
(see vol. 40, pp. 124-128; vol. 41, pp. 108-109, 207-208 and vol. 42, pp. 220-221)
par Alain Dubois (Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum national
d Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France)
Les propositions faites par Moore, Nussbaum & Mockford (1983), par
Smith & Polhemus (1984) et par Moore (1984) pour résoudre ce cas d’>homonymie
dans le groupe-famille sont intéressantes mais reposent sur une connaissance
incomplete de la bibliographie sur cette question. Comme nous l’avons montré par
ailleurs (Dubois, 1984, 1985), le premier nom du groupe-famille disponible pour la
famille d’Amphibiens Gymnophiones comprenant le genre Caecilia Linné, 1758
n’est pas CAECILIADAE Gray, 1825, mais CECILINIA Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814, nom
fondé sur Cecilia [Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814], une émendation injustifiée de
Caecilia Linné, 1758 (pour plus de détails, voir Dubois, 1985).
L’application des Articles 32(c) (iii) et 35(d)(ii) du nouveau Code exigerait
dans ce cas de corriger automatiquement le nom CECILINIA Rafinesque-Schmaltz,
1814 en CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814, mais alors le probleme
d’homonymie avec le nom de famille de Psocopteres subsisterait.
Nous proposons comme solution a ce probleme d’homonymie Il’action
suivante, a notre avis bien plus simple et économique que celles suggérées jusqu’ici:
il suffirait que la Commission décide de suspendre dans ce cas l’application des Art.
32(c)(ili) et 35(d)(ii) du Code, de manieére a rétablir la simple primauté du Principe
de Priorité. Le nom valide de la famille d’Amphibiens Gymnophiones serait alors
CECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814, et ’homonymie avec le nom CAECILIIDAE
Kolbe, 1880 serait levée sans qu’aucune autre action soit nécessaire.
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES
DUBOIS, A., 1984. Miscellanea nomenclatorica batraehaneee (V). Alytes, vol. 3,
fasc. 3, pp. 111-116.
DUBOIS, A., 1985. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica (VID. Alytes, vol. 4, fasc.
2, pp. 61-78.
MOORE, T. E., 1984. Caeciliidae in Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera): reply to
Smith, Lanham, and Polhemus, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, fasc. 4, pp.
207-208.
MOORE, T. E., NUSSBAUM, R. A. & MOCKFORD, E. L. 1983. Caeciliidae in
Amphibia and Insecta (Psocoptera): proposals to remove the homonymy.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, fasc. 2, pp. 124-128.
RAFINESQUE-SCHMALTZ, C. S. 1814. Fine del prodromo d’erpetologia
siciliana. Specchio Sci., vol. 2, pp. 102-104.
SMITH, H. M. & POLHEMUS, J. T., 1984. Caeciliidae in Amphibia and Insecta
(Psocoptera): alternative proposals to remove the homonymy. Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 41, fasc. 2, pp. 108-109.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 7
COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING ROBERTUS O.
PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, 1879 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAB). Z.N.(S.)1481
(see vol. 42, pp. 81-84)
(1) By Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum,
Martin—Luther—King—Platz 3, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany)
According to Bonnet’s catalogue, Ctenium was used 10 times and Robertus
13 times prior to 1939, both by various authors. As Levi mentions in his application,
Ctenium was used by Kaston in his 1946 revision of North American species, and in
regional lists since. So Ctenium cannot be considered a forgotten name.
On the other hand, Robertus has always been the preferred name, and since
Levi & Levi, 1962, Ctenium has remained practically unused. On this evidence it
seems advisable to have Robertus now stabilised.
The type species of the two genera are not very similar; they may even
represent different species groups (see Wiehle, 1937, figs 261-263 and 270-272).
Moreover, our knowledge of the two genera is still limited to the western Palaearctic
and Nearctic regions (Europe and North America). Nobody knows how many
species may exist in other regions or how widely distributed the genera may be.
Under such conditions we should not interfere with taxonomic freedom nor
prejudice future taxonomic judgment. Ctenium is an available name without nomen-
clatural defects, introduced by Menge, one of the classical authors in arachnology,
far ahead of his contempories. I therefore propose that the ‘relative precedence’
procedure be used here. Professor Levi agrees with this.
The following changes should therefore be made to the original Levi
application:
(1)(b) to rule that the generic name Robertus O. Pickard—Cambridge,
1879, is to be given precedence over the generic name Ctenium
Menge, 1871, whenever the two names are considered synonyms;
(2)(b) Robertus O. Pickard—Cambridge, 1879 (gender: masculine), type
species, by monotypy, Robertus astutus O. Pickard—Cambridge,
1879, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over
Ctenium Menge, 1871, whenever the two names are considered
synonyms;
(c) Ctenium Menge, 1871 (gender: neuter), type species, by monotypy,
Erigone pinguis Westring, 1851, with an endorsement that it is not
to be given priority over Robertus O. Pickard—Cambridge, 1879,
whenever the two names are considered synonyms;
(existing (c) becomes (d))
(3)(c) livida Blackwall, 1836, as published in the binomen Neriene livida
(the valid name at the date of this application of the type species of
Ctenium Menge, 1871);
(existing (c) becomes (d))
(4) delete.
REFERENCE
WIEHLE, H. 1937. In Tierwelt Deutschlands. Part 33, Spinnentiere oder Arach-
noidea, VIII: Familie 26, Theridiidae, pp. 119-220, 286 figs.
8 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
(2) Additional comments have been received from Professor B. J. Kaston (Depart-
ment of Zoology, College of Science, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
92182, U.S.A.) and Professor Konrad Thaler (/nstitut fiir Zoologie, Universitat
Innsbruck, Universitdtstrasse 4, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria. Professor Kaston
supports Levi’s application (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 42, pp. 81-84) with regard to both
Argyrodes Simon, 1864 and Robertus. Professor Thaler agrees so far as Argyrodes is
concerned, but prefers Ctenium Menge, 1871 to Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge,
1879 on the grounds of priority and because Menge described and illlustrated
Ctenium in detail whereas Robertus was described less precisely.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF
LASPEYRESIA HUBNER, [1825] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2421
(see vol. 41, pp. 110-113; vol. 42, pp. 8-10)
(1) By I. M. Kerzhner & V. I. Kuznetsov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences
of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad, U.S.S.R.)
We are unable to interpret the figures in the comment by Bradley er ai. It
would be incorrect to judge from them that usage of Cydia predominated in
1973-1984, especially in the U.S.S.R.. From papers reviewed in 1973 in Review of
applied entomology Series A (apparently the same as the CAB database) 64 used
Laspeyresia and only 3 used Cydia. For 1983 corresponding figures are 41 and 46.
From papers reviewed in 1983, Laspeyresia was used alone in the U.S.S.R. (8
papers), Poland (4), G.D.R. (2), Netherlands (2), Bulgaria (2), Sweden (2), Greece
(2), Romania (1) and Israel (1). It was dominant also in F.R.G. (5:1) and France
(3:1). Usage was equal in Italy, Switzerland, Hungary and Canada. Cydia was used
alone in U.K. (6), Australia (4), India (4), Czechoslovakia (3), Nigeria (3), New
Zealand (2), Finland (1), Yugoslavia (1) and Senegal (1) and was dominant in the
U.S.A. (13:4). It seems that Cydia reached slightly preferential usage in 1982 or 1983
only.
(2) By J. D. Bradley (c/o British Museum (Natural History) and C. J. Hamilton
(Commonwealth Institute of Entomology)
We give below the latest figures from the CAB database, i.e. everything in the
Review of applied entomology Series A from January 1973 to May 1985. We give
figures for citations:
(a) anywhere in the work reviewed, i.e. a single count, whether in title or
text
(b) citations in the titles of papers only.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 9
The second set of figures seems to support our case even more strongly than
the first:
Soviet (%) Non-Soviet (%) Total
Laspeyresia
anywhere 74 (9.9) 671 (90.1) 745
in title 41 (15.8) 218 (84.2) 259
Cydia
anywhere 253 (14.6) 1480 (85.4) 1733
in title 50(3:3) 145 (96.7) 150
Laspeyresia and/or Cydia
anywhere 254 (14.6) 1482 (85.4) 1736
in title 44 (11.1) 353 (88.9) 397
Laspeyresia and Cydia
anywhere 73 (9.8) 669 (90.2) 742
in title 2 (16.7) 10 (83.3) 12
Laspeyresia not Cydia
anywhere 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3
in title 39 (15.8) 208 (84.2) 247
Cydia not Laspeyresia
anywhere 180 (18.2) 811 (81.8) 991
in title 3222) 135 (97.8) 138
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF HYLA LACTEA
DAUDIN, 1803 (AMPHIBIA). Z.N.(S.)2341
(see Vol. 41, pp. 122-124)
By Hobart M. Smith (EPOB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, U.S.A.)
Despite Stimson’s (Vol. 42, pp. 6-7) arguments to the contrary, a reason-
able case exists for conservation of Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803. Stimson’s case for
suppression of Hy/a lactea Laurenti, 1768, solely for purposes of the Principle of
Priority, and not of Homonymy, appears to be premised upon a key objective of
the Code to promote stability of nomenclature. Failure of suppression of Hyla
lactea Laurenti, 1768, for purposes of the Principle of Homonymy, would eliminate
Daudin’s homonym, making its subjective junior synonym Sphaenorhynchus
eurhostus Rivero, 1969 the valid name for the species. On the contrary, suppressing
Laurenti’s Hyla lactea for purposes of the Principle of Homonymy (as well as of
Priority, to which Stimson agrees), as proposed by Lynch and Duellman, would
leave it as a valid name, of which both Hyla aurantiaca Daudin, 1803, and
S. eurhostus Rivero, 1969, are invalid subjective junior synonyms.
10 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Although ‘stability’ is not and probably should not be explicitly defined in
the Code, Art. 79c does imply that usage over a 50 year period is a criterion of
stability. A name uncontested for that period of time, immediately prior to the
present, is, in effect, a nomen veneratum, a concept not so named but clearly implicit
(even though not adequately emphasised) in provisions (particularly Art. 79) of the
Code. Nomina venerata are simply names used without contest for the immediately
preceding 50 years; they are not automatically conserved, but, if presented, a case
made for them to be conserved is assured of consideration by the Commission.
Names with less than 50 years of uncontested use have no such assurance. In other
words, stability is certainly a consideration for nomina venerata; it is not necessarily
a consideration for names with lesser periods of uncontested usage.
Applying these thoughts to the present case, it is obvious that S. eurhostus
has much less than the desirable 50 years of usage —no more than 16 — whereas
Hyla lactea Daudin has been in existence for 182 years and has been accepted as
valid intermittently throughout that time. It seems to me much more in the interest
of stability to perpetuate that name than to conserve a 16-year-old one even if the
latter has had more usage during its brief existence than the former.
Stimson also suggested that, in order to clear the way for retention of Hyla
hypocondrialis Daudin, 1803, as a valid name, Lynch & Duellman should cite 10
publications by at least 5 different authors during the last 50 years wherein that
name was accepted, conforming with Art. 79c of the Code. However, that article
pertains to synonyms, whereas Lynch & Duellman made it clear that the older name
Hyla lactea Laurenti, 1768, which has simply been ignored by herpetologists
throughout its history, despite having been suggested as a synonym of H. hypo-
condrialis as early as 1803 (by Daudin), is a nomen dubium of uncertain allocation,
and for that reason had justifiably been ignored. Therefore, the names H. lactea
Laurenti, 1768, and H. hypocondrialis Daudin, 1803, are not synonyms, and the
latter need not therefore be supported by explicit data on frequency of its use.
Both petitions attest to the wide and current use of the name (in the combination
Phyllomedusa hypocondrialis). However, it would be useful to conserve Daudin’s
name while these related matters are under consideration.
Accordingly, I recommend approval by the Commission of all of Lynch and
Duellman’s requests, and in addition that the following be considered:
(5) placement of the specific name hypocondrialis as used in the combi-
nation Hyla hypocondrialis Daudin, 1803, p. 29, holotype lost, type-
locality, ‘Surinam’, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED GRANT OF PRECEDENCE TO
THRESKIORNITHIDAE RICHMOND, 1917 (AVES) OVER PLATALEINAE
BONAPARTE, 1838. Z.N.(S.)2136
(see vol. 41, pp. 240-244)
(1) By Kenneth E. Campbell (Natural History Museum, Los Angeles County,
Los Angeles 90007, U.S.A.)
I wish to record my strong opposition to the placement of THRESKIOR-
NITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology
in place of the widely recognised and long-used PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 11
Priority, the bedrock of zoological nomenclature, demands that the latter
name be retained, if not in specific recommendation, then in the spirit of the
Code. Temporary convenience in names desired by a few should not invalidate the
principles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
(2) By Allan R. Phillips (Apartado Postal 370, San Nicolas de los Garza 66450,
Nuevo Leon, México)
The application of Eisenmann, Mayr and Parkes is surprisingly inaccurate
from the start. The incorrect name THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 is
by no means in ‘almost universal’ use outside North America, and is not even in
universal use in the United States (see, for example, Brodkorb, 1963, Bull. Florida
State Mus., vol. 7, p. 277; Olson and James, 1983, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., no. 365,
pp. 33). The weight placed (para. 2 of the Application) on usage being ‘now over-
whelmingly in favour of THRESKIORNITHIDAE’ (even if that were true) is a
reversion to the long-discredited principle of auctorum plurimorum, whose instability
was resolved many decades ago by universal adoption of the basic, non-political
principle of priority.
The argument that family names should not be based on atypical genera (cf.
Recommendation 64A of the Code) ignores both the basic principle of priority and
the fact that just such genera were likely to attract attention and receive early names,
and so it is not valid against PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838. A number of avian
families are named after spectacular genera which are hardly ‘representative’.
Para. 5 of the Application refers to the principle of continuing the taxonomic
concept when a family-group name has to be replaced (Article 39 of the 1961 Code);
this is not over-riding in the latest (1985) Edition, and extension of any subfamily
name (not just PLATALEINAE) requires adjusting boundaries.
Point 9 of the Application is well taken. EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854
indeed appears to be the correct name if the ibis group is considered a subfamily.
This, however, is another reason not to use THRESKIORNITHIDAE or any
suprageneric name based on Threskiornis. (I should perhaps explain that the use of
THRESKIORNITHIDAE (and some other names) in Monson and Phillips’ Anno-
tated Checklist of the Birds of Arizona, 2nd Ed. (1981) was due to the University of
Arizona Press’ refusal to correct a number of errors in Monson’s first draft, seen
only later by me. Thus this text does not always reflect my opinions or knowledge).
Point 10, the question of how to deal with the names EUDOCIMINAE and
PLEGADIDAE Mathews, 1913, shows the complications caused by departures
from correct nomenclature, and thus the undesirability of interference with
priority—exactly what Eisenmann et al. propose!
The 1961 Code introduced the application of the principle of priority to
family-group names. Since Codes and Commissions derive their authority from the
will of zoologists at large, the Commission would be well advised to support at least
the more reasonable articles of the Code. Having decided on priority, let it maintain
priority, applying the rules to ail. If some are exempted, more and more zoologists
will ignore the Commission and its recent Codes.
In summary, PLATALEIDAE is preferable and correct: it has priority,
avoids a bad discrepancy among dates of subfamily names, and, contra Eisenmann,
Mayr and Parkes, is in world-wide use and is the current name in the field guides to
the birds of some continents. It is being used increasingly by those working on the
phylogeny and paleontology of these birds. To ignore all this in favour of someone’s
he Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
personal preference will only undermine the Commission’s credibility and aleniate
increasing numbers of zoologists.
(3) By Storrs L. Olson (Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.), Amadeo
M. Rea (Natural History Museum P.O. Box 1390, San Diego, California 92112,
U.S.A.), and Pierce Brodkorb (Department of Zoology, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, 32611, U.S.A.)
In applying to give the family name THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond,
1917, ‘precedence’ over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838, Eisenmann, Mayr, and
Parkes have contended that the use of PLATALEIDAE as the family name for the
ibises and spoonbills would ‘upset general usage’ and might be confusing. We would
point out that the name THRESKIORNITHIDAE itself had never been used any-
where prior to 1917, yet when it was introduced no one seems to have admitted to
being particularly confused by it at the time. One might ask whether nomenclature is
to be dictated by the inability to comprehend it of those who are not trained in its
use, or by the mentally deficient for whom the unfamiliar only provokes confusion.
In their application, Eisenmann et a/. have clearly attempted to equate cur-
rent familiarity with ‘general usage’. This ignores the fact that systematic zoologists,
as opposed to birdwatchers who need use only the most recent field guides, must
avail themselves to the entire literature of their discipline. For the first 159 years of
formal nomenclatural history of the ibises and spoonbills (1758-1917), al/ higher-
level group names that included these birds were formed on some name other
than Threskiornis. Eisenmann et al. have themselves documented the fact that
THRESKIORNITHIDAE was far from universally accepted after Richmond
proposed it in 1917 and that alternative names were in regular use at least up until
* the 1960's.
Their application does not reflect the fact that many of the most active
zoologists and paleontologists currently engaged in original systematic research
on ibises have favoured PLATALEIDAE over THRESKIORNITHIDAE in their
publications, at least when not obliged to follow the dictates of editors who insist
that authors conform with ‘majority usage’. Furthermore, PLATALEIDAE con-
tinues to be used in recent general works in areas outside North America (e.g.
Pizzey, 1980; Maclean, 1985).
We do not feel that counting the number of papers and books that use one name
or another is an appropriate activity for systematic zoologists. Nor is it proper to
advocate a particular nomenclatural usage because it is employed in works that are
subjectively judged to be ‘important’, ‘authoritative’, or ‘prestigious’, as might be
inferred from Eisenmann et al. Because of the vagueness and uncertainty of deter-
mining what shall be taken as ‘general’ or ‘current’, the Code of Nomenclature of
the American Ornithologists’ Union (1908), which provided a foundation for the
modern International Code, unequivocally disavowed the principle of auctorum
plurimorum (pp. x, xlvii), which is what Eisenmann et a/. are now trying to resurrect.
Even if such an unworkable principle were in effect, it is certain that in the total litera-
ture of systematic ornithology the name used for the family of ibises and spoonbills
would most frequently be something other than THRESKIORNITHIDAE.
Some subfamilial name must be retained for the use of those who would
segregate the spoonbills from the typical ibises. Therefore, Eisenmann et al. have
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 13
proposed that PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838, be retained, but that the Com-
mission use its plenary powers to give THRESKIORNITHIDAE precedence as the
name of the family. This would mean that the family would contain a subfamily
based on an older name. Now this we do find confusing, as well as inconsistent,
illogical, and unnecessary.
The law of priority is wonderfully simple and can be easily and immediately
applied by any zoologist. Had priority been in effect earlier for the formation
of family group names it would have prevented the unnecessary introduction of
the names THRESKIORNITHIDAE and PLEGADIDAE in the first place. Just
because there have been ‘no adequate available synonymies for family-group names’
of birds does not mean that sound nomenclatural rules should give way to poor
scholarship. We particularly deplore the many recent ad hoc attempts by ornithol-
ogists to subvert various rules of nomenclature in order to preserve names that are
judged in some quarters to be more familiar (see also Olson’s comments in Wetmore
et al., 1984, p. 553).
In summary, it is our contention (a) that a case has not been made that the
continued use of PLATALEIDAE as the family name for ibises and spoonbills would
‘upset general usage’ and (b) that the retention of the older name PLATALEINAE
as a subgroup of the younger name THRESKIORNITHIDAE would result in an
illogical and contradictory situation that could not and would not be adopted by
conscientious and knowledgeable systematists. Therefore we strongly oppose the
application of Eisenmann et a/., and we recommend that PLATALEIDAE be used
as the family-level name for the ibises and spoonbills. If a subfamilial name be
needed for typical ibises, it would probably be best to use the oldest available name,
EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854, so as not to clutter the literature with further
applications and opinions.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS‘ UNION. 1908. The code of nomenclature
adopted by the American Ornithologists’ Union. Revised edition Ixxxv pp.
New York.
MACLEAN, G. 1985. Roberts’ birds of Southern Africa. Sth ed. lii+848 pp. John
Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
PIZZEY, G. 1980. A field guide to the birds of Australia. 460 pp. Princeton, N.J.
WETMORE, A., PASQUIER, R., & OLSON, S. L. 1984. Birds of the Republic of
Panama. Part 4. vi+670 pp. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 150(4).
FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF
SOUTHERNIA ALLGEN, 1929 BY THE SUPPRESSION OF SOUTHERNIA
FILIPJEV, 1927 (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S)940
By W. Grant Inglis (Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser, GPO Box 1625, Adelaide,
South Australia 5001)
The former Secretary has resurrected part of a proposal made by Allgen in
1959 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17, pp. 86-88) on which I commented adversely in 1961
(vol. 18, p. 8). I still do so, some quarter of a century later. My previous opposition
14 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
was based on the principle that the problem, if it existed, could be solved by renam-
ing rather than by action of the Commission. I still believe that this is a sensible
and obvious solution to such minor problems. However, Gerlach & Riemann, 1974,
Verdoff. Inst. Meeresforschung Bremerhaven Suppl. vol. 4 (2), p. 552, rightly conclude
that Filipjev’s use of Southernia was a lapsus. Further, it has also been demonstrated
that Southernia Allgen, 1929 is a junior subjective synonym of Cyartonema Cobb,
1920, on what I consider very good grounds (see Juarion, J. V., 1973, Veroff. Inst.
Meeresforchung Bremerhaven vol. 14, pp. 81-86). No action is, therefore, necessary
by the Commission.
Note by R. V. Melville
I am grateful to Dr Inglis for pointing out that Southernia Allgen, 1929, is a
subjectively invalid name. As a result, I wish to withdraw this application.
NOTES ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF DAPSILARTHRA
FOERSTER, 1862. ZN(S.) 2312 (see vol. 41, pp. 53-55 and vol. 42, pp. 101-103)
By the Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Dr G. C. D. Griffiths has drawn attention to a printing error in his Comment
on this case, and also to an oversight in the Commission office over the publication
of a note by Mr R. V. Melville, then Secretary.
The first error refers to Dr Griffiths’ comment in vol. 42, p. 101: the first
generic name in para. 2, line 6 should (like the second) be spelt Gnamptodon, and not
Gnaptodon.
A note by the Secretary had been discussed in correspondence between Dr
Griffiths and Mr Melville, but unfortunately the agreed version was not that sent
for printing. The note in vol. 42, p. 103 should be cancelled, and replaced by the
following:
(4) Note by R.V. Melville
The Commission must clearly decide on the relative status of Gnamptodon
Haliday, 1833 and Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837. Haliday used Gnamptodon in 1833,
1837 and 1840; he used Gnaptodon only once, in 1837. The Greek word gnampto
means to bend or curve and relates to the shape of the mandible in these species; the
Greek word gnapto may be either a variant spelling of gnampto, or a word meaning
to comb or card wool (the preferred spelling is knapto). The expression ‘combtooth’
would have no relevance to an anatomical feature of these species. There is thus
some evidence that Gnaptodon is indeed, as Dr Griffiths holds, a subsequent spell-
ing (in my view, simply an erroneous one, without status in nomenclature) of
Gnamptodon.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 15
OPINION 1369
ASTACILLA CORDINER, 1793 (CRUSTACEA, ISOPODA):
CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that
Astacilla is the correct original spelling of the name published as ‘Astacillae’
by Cordiner, 1793.
(2) The name Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (gender: feminine), type
species by subsequent designation by Fowler, 1912, Oniscus longicornis
J. Sowerby, 1805, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
(3) The name J/ongicornis J. Sowerby, 1805, as published in the
binomen Oniscus longicornis (specific name of the type species of Astacilla
Cordiner, 1793) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2319
An application for the validation of the generic name Astacilla
Cordiner, 1793 was first received from Dr B. Kensley (Smithsonian Institu-
tion, Washington D.C., U.S.A.) on 10 September 1979. After a long period
of correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printer on 19 April 1983
and published in Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 40, 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 one specialist and ten general serials. A comment
pointing out an earlier type species designation for Astacilla was received —
from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) and
published in Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 72. No other comments were
received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985)37 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 164. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Mroczkowski, Savage, Kabata, Corliss,
Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Cogger, Lehtinen,
Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—one (1) Halvorsen.
No votes were returned by Bayer, Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng.
Holthuis commented: ‘The proposals set out on page 164 of vol. 40
of the Bulletin should be amended in so far as that in line 2 of para. (2)
16 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
the words “by designation herein” should be changed to “by subsequent
designation by Fowler, 1912” (Report of the New Jersey State Museum for
1911, p. 525). [Several Commissioners made this point and it has been
incorporated in the present ruling.]
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Astacilla Cordiner, 1793, Remarkable ruins and romantic prospects of North
Britain. With ancient monuments and singular subjects of natural
history, plate 4
longicornis, Oniscus. J. Sowerby, 1805, The British Miscellany, part 4, p. 31.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Astacilla Cordiner, 1793: of Oniscus
longicornis J. Sowerby, 1805 by Fowler, 1912, Report of the New Jersey
State Museum for 1911, p. 525.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985)37 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 Opinin No. 1369.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 17
OPINION 1370
NEADMETE OKUTANII PETIT, 1974 DESIGNATED AS TYPE
SPECIES OF NEADMETE HABE, 1961 (MOLLUSCA,
GASTROPODA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Neadmete Habe, 1961 are
hereby set aside and Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974 (=“‘N. japonica Smith”
sens. Habe, 1861) is hereby designated as type species of that genus.
(2) The name Neadmete Habe, 1961 (gender: feminine), type species
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Neadmete okutanii
Petit, 1974, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
(3) The name okutanii Petit, 1974, as published in the binomen
Neadmete okutanii (specific name of the type species of Neadmete Habe,
1961) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2420
An application for the use of the plenary powers to change the type
species of Neadmete Habe, 1961 was first received from Dr R. E. Petit
(North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, U.S.A.) on 25 August 1982. It was
sent to the printers on 19 April 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol.
40, 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 ten general
and two specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 39 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 174. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Mroczkowski, Savage, Kabata, Corliss,
Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Cogger, Lehtinen,
Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—none (0).
No votes were returned by Bayer, Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
18 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Neadmete Habe, 1961, Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan, vol. 2,
appendix, p. 28
okutanii, Neadmete Petit, 1974, Venus, vol. 33(3), p. 110.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 39 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. 1370.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 19
OPINION 1371
PACHYCEPHALOSAURUS BROWN & SCHLAIKJER, 1943
AND TROODON WYOMINGENSIS GILMORE, 1931
(REPTILIA, DINOSAURIA): CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Tylosteus Leidy, 1872 and the specific name ornatus published in conjunc-
tion with it, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943
(gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Pachycephalo-
saurus grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931, as published in the
binomen Troodon wyomingensis (the valid name at the time of this ruling for
the type species of Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE Sternberg, 1945 (type genus
Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
(5) The generic name Tylosteus Leidy, 1872 and the specific name
ornatus published in conjunction with it and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Indexes of
Rejected and Invalid Generic and Specific Names in Zoology, respectively.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2323
An application for the conservation of Pachycephalosaurus Brown &
Schlaikjer, 1943 and Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931 was first received
from Dr D. Baird (Princeton University, New Jersey, U.S.A.) on 8 October
1979. After correspondence a revised draft was sent to the printers on 19
April 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 184-187. 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 ten general and two specialist serials.
No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Morith Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 41 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 186. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order:
20 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Corliss, Alvarado,
Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng, Cogger, Lehtinen, Schuster,
Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—one (1) Mroczkowski.
No votes were returned by Bayer, Gruchy and Kraus.
Mroczkowski commented: ‘As Tylosteus Leidy, 1872 and Pachy-
cephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 are only subjective synonyms, I
think that the relative precedence procedure should have been adopted in
this case’.
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:
ornatus, Tylosteus, Leidy, 1872, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1872,
p. 40
PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE Sternberg, 1945, J. Paleontol., vol. 19(5), p. 535
Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, Bull. am. Mus. nat. Hist.,
vol. 82(5), p. 132
Tylosteus Leidy, 1872, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1872, p. 40
wyomingensis, Troodon, Gilmore, 1931, Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 79(9),
pp. 1-4.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 41 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. 1371.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 pA |
OPINION 1372
DONAX HANLEYANUS PHILIPPI, 1847 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA):
CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary power the specific name hilairea
Guerin, 1832, as published in the binomen Donax hilairea, is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of
the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name hanleyanus Philippi, 1847, as published in the binomen
Donax hanleyanus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(3) The name hilairea Guérin, 1832, as published in the binomen
Donax hilairea 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.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2152
An application for the conservation of Donax hanleyanus Philippi,
1847 was first received from Dr W. Narchi (University of Sado Paulo, Brazil)
on 29 September 1975. After correspondence a revised draft was sent to the
printers on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 188.
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 ten general serials and one
specialist serial. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 42 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 188. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—eighteen (18) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Alvarado, Uéno, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Cogger, Schuster, Bernardi,
Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—four (4) received in the following order: Kabata,
Hahn, Schuster, Ride.
No votes were returned by Bayer, Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng.
The following comments were returned by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:
Ride: ‘No case has been established prima facie that stability is
threatened (Article 79). No evidence has been presented that confusion will
result from the adoption of hilairea Guérin, 1832 for the species’.
22 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Kabata, Hahn and Lehtinen made similar comments.
Bernardi: ‘Je vote “pour” bien que, 4 mon avis, Walter Narchi
devrait mieux justifier (au moyen de citations bibliographiques) que “the
species D. hanleyanus is used by many authors in the area of fisheries. . . etc,
etc.”’. Cela est important pour décider de ne pas appliquer la loi de priorite.
Au lieu d’affirmer simplement l’intérét economique ou en biologie général
d’un nom du groupe-espéce il est preferable de prouver cet état de fait’.
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:
hanleyanus, Donax, Philippi, 1847, Zeits. f- Malakozool., vol. 4, p. 84
hilairea, Donax, Guérin, 1832, Iconographie du Regne Animal de G. Cuvier.
pl. 30, fig. 4.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 42 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. 1372.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 28
OPINION 1373
PANESTHIA SAUSSURII WOOD-MASON, 1876 DESIGNATED
AS TYPE SPECIES OF CAEPARIA STAL, 1877 (INSECTA,
DICTYOPTERA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary power all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Caeparia Stal, 1877 are hereby
set aside and Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876 is hereby designated
as type species of that genus.
(2) The name Caeparia Stal, 1877 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Panesthia saussurii
Wood-Mason, 1876, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology.
(3) The name saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876, as published in the
binomen Panesthia saussurii (specific name of the type species of Caeparia
Stal, 1877) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2284
An application to designate Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876
as type species of Caeparia Stal, 1877 was first received from Dr L. M. Roth
(U.S. Army Research & Development Command, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)
and Dr A. B. Gurney (U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A.) on
7 September 1978. After correspondence a revised draft was sent to the
printer on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp.
205-206. 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 ten general and eight
entomological serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr D. K.
McE. Keven (McGill University, Quebec, Canada).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 44 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 206. At the
close of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was
as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski,
Corliss, Bayer, Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen,
Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell, Cogger
Negative Votes—none (0).
No votes were received from Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng.
24 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Caeparia Stal, 1877, Ofr. Sv. Vet-Akad. Forhandl., vol. 34(10), p. 37
saussurii, Panesthia, Wood-Mason, 1876, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, vol. 45,
p. 190.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 44 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. 1373.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 25
OPINION 1374
BOIGA FITZINGER, 1826 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES):
CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Jbiba
Gray, 1825 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species
by subsequent designation by Cope, 1860, Coluber irregularis Bechstein,
1802, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name irregu/aris Bechstein, 1802 as published in the binomen
Coluber irregularis (specific name of the type species of Boiga Fitzinger,
1826) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name /biba Gray, 1825, as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2404
An application for the conservation of Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 was
first received from Dr J. B. Rasmussen (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark) and Mr A. F. Stimpson (British Museum (National History),
London) on 28 January 1982. It was sent to the printer on 20 July 1983 and
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 209-210. 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 ten general and three herpetological serials. A
supportive comment was received from Professor H. B. Smith (University of
Colorado, U.S.A.).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 46 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 209-210. At the
close of the voting period on 16 December 19835 the state of the voting was
as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski,
Corliss, Bayer, Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng,
Cogger, Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—none (0).
No votes were received from Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng.
Holthuis commented: ‘As far as I can see the author’s name of both
Coluber irregularis and Coluber trigonatus is Bechstein only, and not
26 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Merrem in Bechstein nor Schneider in Bechstein respectively. Bernstein’s
citations of Merrem and of Schneider as the authors, p. 239 and p. 256
respectively (the latter wrongly paginated as 156 and cited as such in the
application) are not sufficient. There is no clear evidence in “the contents
of the publication that ... some other person [than Bechstein] is alone
responsible both for the name and for satisfying the criteria of availability”
(Art. 50a of the Code). Neither is there any statement to the effect that the
descriptions of these species are not by Bechstein in this volume, nor in the
introduction of vol. 1 of Bechstein’s book’. [This point was put to one of
the co-authors (AFS), who agreed with the changed wording and this is
incorporated into the present ruling].
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:
Boiga Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren
nattrlichen Verwandtschaften, pp. 29, 60
Ibiba Gray, 1825, Ann. Phil., vol. 10, p. 209
irregularis, Coluber, Bechstein, 1802, Herrn de la Cepéde’s Naturgeschichte
der Amphibien. . . p. 239.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent desig-
nation of a type species for the nominal genus Boiga Fitzinger, 1826: of
Coluber irregularis Bechstein, 1802 by Cope, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci,
Philadelphia, p. 264.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 46 were
cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper
have been duly adopted under the plenary power, and that the decision so
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1374.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 27
OPINION 1375
GLOSSODORIS EHRENBERG, 1831, HYPSELODORIS
STIMPSON, 1855 AND CHROMODORIS ALDER & HANCOCK,
1855 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA):
CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for
those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831;
(b) Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (gender: feminine), type species
by subsequent designation by Gray, 1847, Doris (Glossodoris)
xantholeuca Ehrenberg, 1831.
(b) Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy, Doris magnifica Quoy & Gaimard, 1832.
(c) Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species
by monotypy, Goniodoris obscura Stimpson, 1855.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) pallida Rippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831, as published in the
binomen Doris pallida (the valid name at the time of this ruling
for the type species of Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831).
(b) magnifica Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, as published in the
binomen Doris magnifica (specific name of the type species of
Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855).
(c) obscura Stimpson, 1855, as published in the binomen Goniodoris
obscura (specific name of the type species of Hypselodoris
Stimpson, 1855).
(4) The family-group name CHROMODORIDIDAE (correction of
CHROMODORIDAE) Bergh, 1892 (type genus Chromodoris Alder & Hancock,
1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology.
(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, as suppressed under the plenary
power in (1) (a) above;
(b) Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, as suppressed under the plenary
power in (1) (b) above.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2432
An application for the conservation of Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 13831,
Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 and Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 was
28 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
received from Dr W. B. Rudman (Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia)
on 18 January 1983. After correspondence a revised draft was sent to the
printers on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp.
211-220. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary power in the case
was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to ten general serials and
one specialist serial. No comments were received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 47 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 215-216. At the
close of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was
as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski,
Corliss, Bayer, Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Cogger,
Lehtinen, Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—one (1) Thompson.
No votes were returned by Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng. Thompson
commented: ‘The argument is made that Actinodoris and Pterodoris should
be suppressed so that Chromodoris and Hypselodoris can be used to pre-
serve current usage. The proposal, however, clearly documents that that
usage has been confused, as Chromodoris has been applied to three different
concepts over the years. So by merely following the Code, Actinodoris, a
name with an untainted history, would be used instead of the confused
name Chromodoris. Hence I voted against this proposal’.
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:
Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones
animalium evertabratorum sepositis insectis quae ex itinere per
Africam borealem et Asiam occidentalem. Decas 1, Mollusca.
CHROMODORIDAE Bergh, 1892, Malacologische Untersuchungen in Reisen im
Archipel der Philippinen von Dr C. Semper, Sect 2, vol. 3(18), p. 1103
Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855, Monograph of the British nudi-
branchiate Mollusca, Appendix, p. xvii
Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones
animalium evertabratorum sepositis insectis quae ex itinere per
Africam borealem et Asiam occidentalem. Decas 1 Mollusca.
Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 7(10),
p. 389
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 29
magnifica, Doris, Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, Voyage de |’ Astrolabe, Zool., vol.
2, Mollusques, p. 270
obscura, Goniodoris, Stimpson, 1855, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol.
7(10), p.388
pallida, Doris, Ruppell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831 in Rippell, E., Atlas zu der
Reise im nérdlichen Africa, p. 33, pl. 10, fig. 1
Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones
animalium evertebratorem sepositis insectis quae ex itinere per
Africam borealem et Asiam occidentalem. Decas 1, Mollusca.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831: of
Doris (Glossodoris) xantholeuca Ehrenberg, 1831, by Gray, 1847, Proc.
zool. Soc. Lond., 1847, p. 164.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 47 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. 1375.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
30 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
OPINION 1376
CUSPIDARIA (RHINOCLAMA) ADAMSI MORGAN &
HEPPELL, 1981 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF
RHINOCLAMA DALL & SMITH, 1886 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Rhinoclama Dall & Smith
in Dall, 1886 are hereby set aside and Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi
Morgan & Heppell, 1981 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:
(a) Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886 (gender: feminine), type
species by designation under the plenary power in (1) above,
Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981;
(b) Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1890 (gender: feminine), type
species by original designation Neaera philippinensis Hinds,
1843.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981 as published in the binomen
Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi (specific name of the type
species of Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886);
(b) philippinensis Hinds, 1843, as published in the binomen Neaera
philippinensis (specific name of the type species of Luzonia Dall
& Smith in Dall, 1890).
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2151
An application for the designation of Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama)
adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981 as type species of Rhinoclama Dall &
Smith in Dall, 1886, was first received from Dr R. E. Morgan (then of Dove
Marine Laboratory, North Shields, U.K.) on 29 September 1975. After a
period of correspondence a revised application was prepared under the
joint authorship of Mr D. Heppell (Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh)
and Dr Morgan (University Marine Biological Station, Isle of Cumbrae,
Scotland). This was received on 19 October 1981, sent to the printer on 20
July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 221-224. 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 ten general serials and one specialist
serial. No comment was received.
On 7 September 1984 a communication from Mr Heppell was
received recording the whereabouts of Adam’s types of Neaera rugata
(previously unknown) as in the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 31
This discovery did not affect any aspect of the application and is recorded
here as a correction to a statement contained in paragraph 4 of the original
application.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 48 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 223. At the close
of the voting period in 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Bayer, Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Cogger, Lehtinen (in part), Schuster,
Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Heppell
Negative Votes—4 (four) received in the following order:
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen (in part), Dupuis.
No votes were returned by Gruchy, Kraus and Zheng.
Starobogatov commented: ‘The concept of customary or general
usage could not reasonably be applied to rare species which had only been
studied by one or two specialists’.
Dr Lehtinen voted against para. 9 (4) of the application and along
with Dr Ride pointed out that there was no need to place Cuspidaria adamsi
Thiele, 1934 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology as the name was a nomen nudum and as such unavailable. This
point is incorporated into the present ruling.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
adamsi (Rhinoclama), Cuspidaria, Morgan & Heppell, 1981, Phil. Trans. r.
Soc., B, 294, no. 1071, p. 546
Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 12,
p. 282
philippinensis, Neaera, Hinds, 1843, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., (11), p. 78
Rhinoclama Dall & Smith, 1886, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., vol. 12,
p. 300.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 48 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
32 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1376.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 33
OPINION 1377
CHELYDRA OSCEOLA STEJNEGER, 1918 GIVEN
NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER CHELYDRA
LATICARINATA HAY, 1916 AND CHELYDRA SCULPTA HAY,
. 1916 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the
specific name osceola Stejneger, 1918, as published in the binomen Chelydra
osceola is to be given nomenclatural precedence over /aticarinata Hay, 1916,
as published in the binomen Chelydra laticarinata, and sculpta Hay, 1916,
as published in the binomen Chelydra sculpta, whenever it is considered to
be a synonym of either of them.
(2) The name osceola Stejneger, 1918, as published in the binomen
Chelydra osceola, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural pre-
cedence over /aticarinata Hay, 1916, as published in the binomen Chelydra
laticarinata, and sculpta Hay, 1916, as published in the binomen Chelydra
sculpta, whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of them.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with endorsements that neither is to be given
priority over osceola Stejneger, 1918, as published in the binomen Chelydra
osceola, when considered to be a synonym of that name:
(a laticarinata Hay, 1916, as published in the binomen Chelydra
laticarinata;
(b) sculpta Hay, 1916, as published in the binomen Chelydra
sculpta.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2282
An application for the conservation of Chelydra osceola Stejneger,
1918 was first received from Professor H. M. Smith, Dr R. B. Smith and Dr
D. Chiszar (University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.) on 19 September 1978.
After some correspondence, a revised draft, proposing conditional sup-
pression, was sent to the printer on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 40, pp. 225-227. Public notice of the possible use of plenary
power in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to
ten general and three herpetological serials. A supportive comment was
received from Dr P. C. H. Pritchard (Florida Audubon Society, Maitland,
Florida, U.S.A.).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 49 for or
34 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 226. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski,
Corliss, Bayer, Alvarado, Ueno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng,
Cogger, Lehtinen, Schuster, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—one (1) Bernardi.
No votes were returned by Gruchy and Kraus.
Bernardi commented: ‘Je vote contre parce que toute décision
nomenclatorique me semble prématurée au sujet du Chelydra osceola
puisqu’il n’est pas certain que les espéces fossiles C. Jaticarinata et
C. sculpta sont cospécifiques avec C. osceola, il ne s’agit que de probabilités.
Supposons, par example, qu’il s’agisse de sous-espéces chronologiques.
On aurait C. osceola osceola 1918 et C. osceola laticarinata 1916. C’est
peu satisfaisant 4 mon avis. La question ne se réduit donc pas a simple
synonymie éventuelle’.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
laticarinata, Chelydra, Hay, 1916, Ann. Rep. Florida State geol. Surv., vol. 8,
p: i2
osceola, Chelydra, Stejneger, 1918, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 31,
p. 89
sculpta, Chelydra, Hay, 1916, Ann. Rep. Florida State geol. Surv., vol. 8,
pois:
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 49 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. 1377.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 55
OPINION 1378
PHALAENA BELLATRIX STOLL, 1780 DESIGNATED AS TYPE
SPECIES OF CRINODES HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1855
(INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type designations
hitherto made for the nominal genus Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 are
hereby set aside and Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 is hereby designated as
type species of that genus.
(2) The name Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (gender, masculine)
type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name bellatrix Stoll, 1780, as published in the binomen
Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 (specific name of the type species of Crinodes
Herrich-Schaffer, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2436
An application for the designation of Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780
as the type species of Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer (together with proposals to
designate Gonodontis rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 as type species of
Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855) was first received from Dr D. S. Fletcher and
Dr I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 1 March
1983. After some correspondence a slightly revised draft was sent to the
printers on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp
231-236. 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 ten general and nine
entomological serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr J. D.
Holloway (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) and published
in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 72. Further unpublished support was received
from Dr H. Banziger (Chiang Mai University, Thailand), Dr S. Sugi (Tokyo,
Japan), Dr P. Viette (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and Dr
H. Inoue (Otsuma Women’s University, Japan).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 51 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 233, 1(a), 2(a)
and 3(a). At the close of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of
the voting was as follows:
36 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Bayer,
Alvarado, Uéno, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng, Cogger, Lehtinen,
Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Schuster, Heppell
Negative Votes—one (1) Kabata.
Hahn abstained. Bayer voted with the majority. No votes were
returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Kraus.
Dr Hahn, in abstaining, said that at the present time no action was
necessary: Crinodes and Tarsolepsis, and also Gonodontis and Pero, were
distinct genera with separate type species, a case would need to be made by
anyone who, in the future, wishes (for example) to replace Tarsolepsis by
Crinodes.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
bellatrix, Phalaena, Stoll, 1780, in Cramer, Uitlandsche Kapellen ( Papillons
exot.), vol. 4, p. 32, pl. 305, fig. F
Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, Systematische Bearbeitung Schmetterlinge
Europa, vol. 6, p. 91.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 51 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. 1378.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 37
OPINION 1379 P
GONODONTIS RECTISECTARIA HERRICH-SCHAFFER, [1855]
DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF PERO
HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1855 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855
are hereby set aside and Gonodontis rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855] is
hereby designated as type species of that genus.
(2) The name Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (gender: feminine), type
species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Gonodontis
rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855] is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855] as published in
the binomen Gonodontis rectisectaria (specific name of the type species of
Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2436
An application for the designation of Gonodontis rectisectaria
Herrich-Schiaffer, [1855] as the type species of Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855
(together with proposals to designate Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 as type
species of Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855) was first received from Dr D. S.
Fletcher and Dr I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London)
on | March 1983. After some correspondence a slightly revised draft was
sent to the printer on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40,
pp 231-236. 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 ten general
and nine entomological serials. A supportive comment was received from
Dr J. D. Holloway (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) and
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 72. Further unpublished support
was received from Dr H. Banziger (Chiang Mai University, Thailand), Dr
P. Viette (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and Dr H. Inoue
(Otsuma Women’s University, Japan).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 52 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 233, 1(b), 2(b),
3(b). At the close of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the
voting was as follows:
38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Bayer,
Alvarado, Uéno, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng, Cogger, Lehtinen,
Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Schuster, Heppell
Negative Votes—one (1) Kabata.
Hahn abstained. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and
Kraus.
Dr Hahn, in abstaining, said that at the present time no action was
necessary: Crinodes and Tarsolepsis, and also Gonodontis and Pero, were
distinct genera with separate type species. A case would need to be made by
anyone who, in the future, wishes (for example) to replace Tarsolepsis by
Crinodes.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855, Systematische Bearbeitung Schmetterlinge
Europa col. 6, p. 91
rectisectaria, Gonodontis, Herrich-Schaffer, [1855], Sammlung neuer oder
wenig bekannter aussereuropdischen Schmetterlinge, vol. 1(1), pl. 58,
fig. 325.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 52 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. 1379.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 39
OPINION 1380
EUPHAEDRA HUBNER, [1819] (INSECTA,
LEPIDOPTERA): CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Najas
Hiibner, [1807] is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] (gender: feminine), type
species by subsequent designation by Scudder, 1875, Papilio cyparissa
Cramer, [1775] is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
(3) The name cyparissa Cramer, [1775], as published in the binomen
Papilio cyparissa (specific name of the type species of Euphaedra Hubner,
[1819] is hereby placed on the official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Najas Hiibner, [1807], as suppressed under the plenary
power in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Genetic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1686
An application for the conservation of Euphaedra Hubner, [1819]
was first received from the late Mr F. Hemming on 26 November 1964. It
was sent to the printers on 4 December 1964 and published in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 22, p. 102. No comments were received and on 19 April 1967 the
members of the Commission were asked to vote on V.P. (67) 27 for or
against the proposals set out in the application. At the close of the voting
period on 19 July 1967 there were 19 affirmative, one negative and two
late affirmative votes. Two comments were received from members of the
Commission with their voting papers, both suggesting that Najas Hubner,
[1807] should be suppressed by use of the plenary powers rather than asa
nomen oblitum. The application presented Najas Hiibner, [1807], as a case
for rejection under the Code (2nd ed.), Article 23b. At the time of the
voting period this Article was the subject of an investigation by a special
committee appointed by the Council of the Commission. The voting papers
were therefore cancelled.
On 19 July 1973 a comment from Col. C. F. Cowan (then of
Berkhamsted, U.K.) was received suggesting that the phrase “as a nomen
oblitum’ be deleted from the title of Z.N.(S.).1686 as well as two others
(S.1687 and S.1688) and that the cases be approved as they stood. This
was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 30, pp. 133-134. Due to procedural
difficulties no action was subsequently taken.
40 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
On 26 September 1983 a revised and updated version of the
Euphaedra/Najas case (S.1686) was received from Col. C. F. Cowan
(Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, U.K.) along with a similarly revised version
of S.1687 (see Opinion 1381). Both cases were sent to the printers on 5
October and both were published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, S.1686 on pp.
243-245 and 8.1687 on pp. 245-247. 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 ten general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 54 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 244. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Corliss,
Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Zheng,
Lehtinen, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Schuster, Dupuis,
Heppell, Cogger
Negative Votes—none (0).
Bayer returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by
Gruchy and Kraus.
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:
cyparissa, Papilio, Cramer, [1775], Uitlandsche Kapellen. . . vol. 1, (4), p. 63,
pl. 39, figs D, E
Euphaedra Hubner, [1819], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, p. 39
Najas Hiibner, [1807], Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, vol. 1, pl. [60].
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Euphaedra Hiner, [1819]: of
Papilio cyparissa Cramer, [1775], by Scudder, 1895, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts
Sci., vol. 10, p. 172.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 54 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
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 41
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1380.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
42 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
OPINION 1381
OUROCNEMIS BAKER, 1887 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Aetheius Hiibner, [1819] is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy, Anteros axiochus Hewitson, [1867] is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name archytas Stoll, [1787] as published in the binomen
Papilio archytas (the valid name at the time of this ruling for the type
species of Ourocnemis Baker, 1887) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Aetheius Hubner, [1819] as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1687
An application for the conservation of Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 was
first received from the late Mr F. Hemming on 26 November 1964. It was
sent to the printers on 4 December 1964 and published in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 22, p. 103. No comments were received.
Due to certain procedural difficulties with Article 23b at the time,
the case was never voted on (see the history of the case Z.N.(S.)1686,
Opinion 1380).
On 19 July 1973 a comment from Col. C. F. Cowan (then of
Berkhamsted, U.K.) was received suggesting that the phrase ‘as a nomen
oblitum’ be deleted from the title of Z.N.(S.)1687 as well as two others
(S.1686 and §.1688) and that the cases be approved as they stood. This
was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 30, pp. 133-134. Again due to
procedural difficulties no action was subsequently taken.
On 26 September 1983 a revised and updated version of the
Ourocnemis/Aetheius case (S.1687) was received from Col. C. F. Cowan
(Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, U.K.) along with a similarly revised version
of S.1686 (see Opinion 1380). Both cases were sent to the printers on 5
October and both were published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, S.1686 on pp.
243-245 and S.1687 on pp. 245-247. 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 ten general and nine entomological serials. No comment was received.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 43
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 55 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 245-246. At the
close of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was
as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Corliss,
Alvarado. Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Zheng,
Lehtinen, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Schuster, Dupuis,
Heppell, Cogger
Negative Votes—none (0).
Bayer returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by
Gruchy and Kraus.
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:
Aetheius Hubner, [1819], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge (7), p. 109
archytas, Papilio, Stoll, [1787], Aanhangsel van het werk de uitlansche
Kapellen, p. 25, pl. 5, fig. 5
Ourocnemis Baker, 1887, Trans, entomol. Soc. Lond., 1887 pp. 175—176,
pl. 9.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 55 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. 1381.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
44 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
OPINION 1382
ZEUGOPHORA KUNZE, 1818 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Auchenia Thunberg, 1792, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (gender: feminine), type
species by subsequent designation by Westwood, 1838, Crioceris subspinosa
Fabricius, 1781, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names of
Zoology.
(3) The name subspinosa Fabricius, 1781, as published in the
binomen Crioceris subspinosa (specific name of the type species of
Zeugophora Kunze, 1818) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Auchenia Thunberg, 1792, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2405
An application for the conservation of Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 was
first received from Dr H. Silfverberg (Zoological Museum of the University
of Helsingfors, Finland) on 22 January 1982. It was sent to the printers on 5
October 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 252-254. Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part
of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and nine entomological serials. No
comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 56 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 253. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Corliss,
Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Zheng,
Cogger, Lehtinen, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Schuster,
Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes—none (0).
Bayer returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by
Gruchy and Kraus.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 45
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:
Auchenia Thunberg, 1792, Nova Acta Upsala, vol. 5, pp. 95, 116
subspinosa, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum, vol. 1, p. 155
Zeugophora Kunze, 1818, Neue Schr. naturf. Ges. Halle, vol. 2(4), p. 71.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Zeugophora Kunze, 1818: of
Crioceris subspinosa Fabricius, 1781 by Westwood, 1838, An introduction to
the modern classification of insects. (Synposis of the genera of British
insecta), p. 42.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 56 were
cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper
have been duly adopted under the plenary power, and that the decision so
taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1382.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
46 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
TRIOX YCANUS DUMBLETON, 1966 (LEPIDOPTERA), A GENUS
BASED ON A MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES, WITH PROPOSAL
OF NEW NAMES FOR THE TAXONOMIC GENUS AND SPECIES
INVOLVED. Z.N.(S.)2462
By J.S. Dugdale (Entomology Division DSIR, Auckland, New Zealand)
A. G. Butler, 1877, p. 381, pl. xlii, fig. 7, described and had
illustrated a large hepialid moth, collected in central North Island, New
Zealand, either by or for J. D. Enys. Butler named this unique specimen
Porina enysii, and the specimen is in the collections at the British Museum
(Natural History).
2. During an examination of type specimens of New Zealand
Lepidoptera in the British Museum (Natural History) in 1980-1981, I
examined the holotype of Porina enysii. I found that Butler’s artist had
depicted the colour pattern faithfully, and there is no trace of pink on
the pale brown hindwings. He had drawn the antennae as short, simple
unpectinate organs. There is no indication in Butler’s description as to
whether the specimen had antennae although in descriptions of other moths
in his 1877 paper, Butler usually mentioned the antennae. In 1965, when
W. H. T. Tams had the holotype photographed for L. J. Dumbleton, the
antennae were missing.
3. Edward Meyrick reviewed the New Zealand HEPIALIDAE
(Meyrick, 1890) and on p. 207 of his paper noted that he had seen Butler’s
type and that it was ‘badly damaged’. By ‘badly damaged’, Meyrick may
have meant that the antennae were missing, as the body and wings are still
in good condition. In his redescription, Meyrick stated that, apart from the
Butler type, he had also seen ‘a specimen in Mr Fereday’s collection’ also
badly damaged. I have examined this specimen; it is a male of an oxycanine
species with a squashed body, short, unpectinate antennae, faintly pink-
tinged ochreous hindwings and a forewing pattern like the specimen figured
by Hudson, 1928, pl. xli, fig. 5.
4. G. V. Hudson, in Wellington, New Zealand, produced the first of
his monographic accounts of New Zealand Lepidoptera in 1898. On p. 133,
and on pl. xiii, fig. 10 of that work, he described and depicted a large
hepialid moth with simple male antennae, which he referred to as Porina
enysii. He gave the adult emergence time as December and January, and
noted, as a diagnostic feature, ‘the hindwings are pinkish brown, tinged
with ochreous on the termen’. The specimen is still in Hudson’s collection.
5. Alfred Philpott, 1927a, p. 39 and fig. 19 described and depicted
the male genitalia of Porina enysii based on a specimen from Wellington,
sent by Hudson. That is, he figures the genitalia of the species described by
Hudson (q.v.) under the name Porina enysii, that has simple male antennae
and pinkish ochreous or brown hindwings and emerges in December and
January.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 47
6. In his definitive monograph on New Zealand Lepidoptera,
Hudson, 1928, pp. 361-362, pl. xli, figs 4-10, repeats his 1898 description
and gives seven illustrations of colour forms. All have simple, short
antennae, and pinkish ochreous or brown hindwings. All records are from
the North Island; the emergence period is given as December—January.
Some of the specimens are from Wellington Botanical Gardens, a lowland
site within the city.
7. L. J. Dumbleton revised the New Zealand HEPIALIDAE in 1966.
His only access to the types held in the British Museum (Natural History)
was photographs of whole insects provided by W. H. T. Tams. Dumbleton,
1966, p. 940, erected the subfamily OXYCANINAE within HEPIALIDAE to
accommodate those genera with forewing vein R4 branching from a
common R2-R4 stem, as distinct from the HEPIALINAE, which have vein R4
branching from a common R4-RS stem. On p. 942 (key) and p. 943 he
described as new the genus Trioxycanus to include three large oxycanine
species with ‘filiform’ or ‘feebly’ dentate male antennae. He designated as
type species Porina enysii Butler. His description and an illustration of male
genitalia agree with those of Philpott (q.v.). He published without comment
the photograph of the holotype of Porina enysii Butler provided by the
British Museum (Natural History).
8. When I examined the material identified as Porina enysii in the
British Museum (Nat. Hist.) I found that Butler’s type was neither con-
specific nor congeneric with, nor in the same sub-family (sensu Dumbleton),
as the other 10 specimens, which are all from around Wellington.
9. Butler’s Holotype of Porina enysii has:
(a) hepialine forewing venation, that is R4 and RS share a
common stem separate from R2-R3;
(b) lost the antennae;
(c) hindwings which are not tinged pink and which are not ‘tinged
with ochreous on the termen’, but are a uniform light brown;
(d) genitalia that accord (in those features that could be seen) with
the features characteristic of the hepialine Aoraia leonina (Phil-
pott) as depicted by Dumbleton, 1966, fig. 32—36, p. 933.
(e) the thorax covered by loose, dark, woolly hair-like scales, with
a pallid collar behind the head characteristic of Aoraia
Dumbleton species, and not —as in the species depicted by
Hudson and taken by Philpott and Dumbleton to be Porina
enysii — covered in a dense, smooth, ochreous pile, unicolorous
over the whole thorax.
10. Therefore it would appear that:
(1) Porina enysii Butler, 1877 is a hepialine on venational and
genital characters exhibited by the unique type male. It is a
member of the genus Aoraia Dumbleton 1966, pp. 928 (key),
930-931. The emarginate tegumen on the genitalia of Butler’s
type indicates that it is a member of the montane forest-
subalpine scrub-inhabiting populations of Aoraia leonina
48 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
(Philpott, 1927b) as revised by Dumbleton, (1966, pp. 937-939)
with an adult emergence period over March—April;
(2) Butler’s artist drew the antennae as filiform whereas they
should have been drawn as pectinate;
(3) Porina enysii sensu Meyrick, 1890 is a mixture, being based on
Meyrick’s inspection of Butler’s type and on Butler’s artist’s
fabrication (the imaginary antennae), and Fereday’s male (an
oxycanine) collected in the North Island;
(4) Porina enysii sensu Hudson, 1898, 1928 and Philpott, 1927
cannot be that of Butler, as they differ in venational and genital
characters that are of subfamily significance in Dumbleton’s
classification;
(5) Dumbleton’s citing of the hepialine Porina enysii Butler as the
type species of the oxycanine genus Trioxycanus is a misidenti-
fication of type species as outlined in Article 70(a) and should
be brought to the attention of the Commission*.
11. This episode came about because of two things: first, Butler’s
artist put everyone off the scent by drawing imaginary antennae. Secondly,
there is a superficial wing-pattern similarity between the taxa involved.
12. None of the taxa involved in this case is of known economic
importance, nor is the literature on them extensive enough to prompt
consideration of conservation of names. I therefore propose that:
(1) Trioxycanus enysii (Butler, 1877), now be included with Aoraia
Dumbleton, 1966, and be an available name for North Island
populations at present included in Dumbleton’s concept of
Aoraia leonina (Philpott, 1927b), as figured by Dumbleton; it is
thus a subjective senior synonym of A. /eonina in Dumbleton’s
concept of that species;
(2) as Butler’s specimen has been figured by Dumbleton as
representing (a) the type of Porina enysii Butler and (b) the type
species of Trioxycanus Dumbleton, then Trioxycanus becomes
a junior subjective synonym of Aoraia Dumbleton.
13. Because there is clearly a valid entity formerly called (variously)
Porina enysii or Trioxycanus enysii, and because it has been well character-
ised by Hudson, Philpott and Dumbleton in their publications quoted
above, I propose a new generic name for Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1966
(misidentified type species) and a new specific name for enysii sensu
Meyrick (in part), Hudson, Philpott, Dumbleton et auct.
Dumbletonius Dugdale, gen. nov. pro Trioxycanus Dumbleton,
based on misidentified species.
*The latest reviser (Dumbleton) had no first-hand access to the types, and this instance
underlines the necessity for:
(a) revisers to be extremely careful to establish that their type species are surely identified, as
examination by proxy — however well-intentioned and well-qualified —is not sure enough,
and (b) types to be available—in a very strict sense — to revisers.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 49
Dumbletonius sylvicola Dugdale, nom. nov. pro Porina ensyii auct.
(e.g. Hudson, 1898, p. 133, pl. xiii, fig. 10), nec Butler, 1877.
The genus name is in memory of the late L. J. Dumbleton; the specific
name indicates that this species is primarily a forest-dweller. Holotype male
labelled ‘Wellington 25.1.10’ (no collector) ‘Holotype male, Dumbletonius
sylvicola Dugdale’, in good condition, forewing markings and hindwing
colour resembling that depicted by Hudson, 1928, pl. xli, fig. 4, New
Zealand Arthropod Collection, DSIR, Auckland.
14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to rule that the type species of the nominal genus Trioxycanus
Dumbleton, 1966 is the nominal species named by Dumbleton,
namely, Porina enysii Butler, 1877;
(2) to place the generic and specific names mentioned in (1) above
on the appropriate Official Lists with endorsements that this is
without prejudice to the taxonomic validity of Trioxycanus vis-
a-vis Aoraia Dumbleton, 1966 or of Porina leonina Philpott,
1927 vis-a-vis Porina enysii Butler, 1877.
REFERENCES
BUTLER, A. G. 1877. On two collections of heterocerous Lepidoptera from New
Zealand, with descriptions of new genera and species. Proc. zool. Soc.
London for 1877, pp. 379-407, pls xlii, xliii.
DUMBLETON, L. J. 1966. Genitalia, classification and zoogeography of the New
Zealand Hepialidae (Lepidoptera). New Zealand J. Sci., vol. 9, pp. 920-998,
115 figs.
HUDSON, G. V. 1898. New Zealand moths and butterflies (Macrolepidoptera).
London, West Newman & Co, 144 pp., 52 pls.
1928. The butterflies and moths of New Zealand. Wellington, Ferguson &
Osborn, 386 pp., 52 pls.
MEYRICK, E. 1890. Descriptions of New Zealand Lepidoptera. Trans. Proc. New
Zealand Inst., vol. 22, pp. 204-220.
PHILPOTT, A. 1927a. The male genitalia of the Hepialidae. Trans. r. entomol. Soc.
London, vol. 75, pp. 35-41, 27 figs.
1927b. New Zealand Lepidoptera: notes and descriptions. Trans. Proc. New
Zealand Inst., vol. 57, pp. 703-709.
2, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
DASYURUS HALLUCATUS GOULD, 1842 (MAMMALIA,
MARSUPIALIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF MUSTELA QUOLL ZIMMERMANN,
1783. Z.N.(S.)2472
By J. A. Mahoney (Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of
Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) and W. D. L. Ride (School of
Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Belconnen,
Australian Capital Territory, Australia)
Since the establishment of the name Dasyurus hallucatus Gould,
1842, the Australian Northern Quoll has been known by no other specific
name. For most of the time it has been used in the original combination
Dasyurus hallucatus, and during the last 58 years, also in the alternative
combination Satanellus hallucatus. This stable use of hallucatus is now
threatened by the earlier name Mustela quoll Zimmermann, 1783.
2. The name Mustela quoll Zimmermann was first used in 1777 by
Zimmermann in Specimen Zoologiae geographicae . . ., a work subsequently
rejected for zoological nomenclature by the Commission because it is not
wholly binomial (Opinion 257, 1954). The name was later established by
Zimmermann in Geographische Geschichte des Menschen .. (1778-1783).
3. Mustela quoll Zimmermann, 1783, is based wholly upon a ver-
nacular name, Quoll, and a description, in Hawkesworth’s account of the
voyage of Captain James Cook to the eastern coast of Australia in 1770
in H.M.S. Endeavour, Bark (Hawkesworth, 1773). The species is described
in volume 2 of Geographische Geschichte des Menschen... under the
vernacular name Quoll that was used by Hawkesworth. Quoll is a represen-
tation of a word in the Aboriginal Guugu Yimidhirr language. It applies to
a species of quoll inhabiting the vicinity of the mouth of the Endeavour
River where the Endeavour was beached for a period, undergoing repairs
(see Mahoney & Ride, 1984).
4. Zimmermann, 1780 (zweiter band, p. 312) describes the Quoll
thus, following the entries for Mustela, under the heading Unbestimmtere
Arten,
‘(f) Der Quoll. Banks in Hawkesw. Account. Vol. III. p. 626.
Der Quoll gleicht dem IItis; der Rticken ist braun mit Weiss
gefleckt; der Bauch ganz weiss. Man fand es auf Neustidwallis,
der Ostkuste von Neuholland.’
In the succeeding volume (1783, dritter band, p. 181) Zimmermann lists
‘(3) Der Quoll, Mustela Quoll. Neu-Siid- Wallis.’
By this use, in both volumes, of the same vernacular name that is
used for no other species in the work, the description is linked unmistakably
within the same work (although in different volumes published in different
years) with the scientific name.
5. Professor L. B. Holthuis has drawn our attention to the similarity
between this case and that dealt with in Opinion 11 (1910, Smithson. Inst.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 51
Publ. No. 1938, pp. 17-18) in which consideration is given to the method of
type selection for genera used by P. A. Latreille, 1810 in the work ‘Considér-
ations 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’.
Latreille’s work consists of 3 parts. The second part lists and describes the
genera and gives their names in both Latin and the vernacular (French).
6. The third part is entitled ‘Table des genres avec l’indication de
Vespéce qui leur sert de type’ and gives a list of the names, in French, of
the genera each followed by the name, in Latin, of, in most cases, a single
species. The Commission held that the citation of the species name with
the vernacular name of the genus (but linked with the scientific name and
description of the genus, in the second part of the work, by the use of the
vernacular name in both places) constituted a valid designation of type
species.
7. There is little doubt that the name Mustela quoll Zimmermann,
1783, based on Quoll, is an available name for the species currently known
as Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842. No type specimen is known to be
extant for M. quoll Zimmermann, 1783, but there is a drawing of the Quoll
made during Cook’s voyage and this, combined with the linguistic evidence
from the distribution of the Guugu Yimidhirr language, which is within the
range of Dasyurus hallucatus, leave little doubt as to its taxonomic identity
(see Mahoney & Ride, 1984).
8. Although, as far as is known, Mustela quoll Zimmermann has
never previously been applied to the species currently called Dasyurus
hallucatus, it is not a forgotten name. Between 1934 and 1954 it was widely,
but mistakenly, used for another species of Dasyurus, D. viverrinus (Shaw,
1800), occurring in south-eastern Australia. Even the widely used Grzimek’s
Animal Life Encyclopedia (Heinemann, 1972) currently uses it in that sense.
When attributed, the name M. quoll was credited to Zimmermann, 1777. Its
use has become progressively less common since the Commission rejected
Zimmermann’s 1777 work in Opinion 257 (see para. 2).
9. As stated above, Mahoney & Ride, 1984, have shown that the
association with D. viverrinus can no longer be upheld. Accordingly, we
conclude that the introduction into the literature of the specific name quoll,
in a different sense, would introduce confusion.
10. Although the name Dasyurus quoll for D. viverrinus has virtually
ceased because of Opinion 257, the use of the name in popular works as a
name derived from an Australian Aboriginal language has firmly attached
it to that species as its vernacular name (see Corbet & Hill, 1980, p. 12 and
Strahan, 1981, p. 31), and the mistaken association of Hawkesworth’s
published description with D. viverrinus continues in the literature (see
Troughton, 1974, p. 39).
11. Because of a mistaken belief that M. quo// was not subsequently
made available by Zimmermann in Geographische Geschichte des Menschen
... (see Ride, 1964, pp. 14,15), it has not been used from that later work.
52 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Although technically not a forgotten name, because of its use from the
earlier work, it has now re-emerged from a state of de facto suppression in a
new use that would both upset stability (see para. 1), and universality and
cause confusion (see paras. 8, 9 and 10).
12. Unfortunately, the case cannot be dealt with under the special
provisions of Art. 79b. Accordingly, we must seek a ruling from the Com-
mission under the normal exercise of the plenary powers (Art. 79a), that the
name Mustela quoll Zimmermann, 1783, as published in volumes 2 and 3
of Geographische Geschichte des Menschen. . (1780-1783), be partially
suppressed (i.e. suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority only).
13. In the event that the Commission takes the view that Mustela
quoll is not available from Zimmermann Geographische Geschichte des
Menschen .. (1780-1783) and, therefore, does not require suppression,
the name is next used by Bechstein, 1800 (Thomas Pennant’s allgemeine
Uebersicht der vierfiissigen Thiere .. ., pp. 392, 693) in a manner that would
make it available. Bechstein describes ‘Der Quoll’, calls it ‘Mustela Quoll’,
refers to both Hawkesworth, 1773 and Zimmermann’s 1778-1783 ‘geogr.
Zool.’ giving volume and page numbers as well as providing a description
derived from a quoll described under the vernacular name Spotted Martin
in ‘Stockdale’s Bot. Bay’ (Phillip, A. 1789. The voyage of Governer Phillip
to Botany Bay..., p. 276). This species (distinct from those referred to as
Dasyurus viverrinus and D. hallucatus in this application) is the species
currently known as Dasyurus maculatus (Kerr, 1792).
14. Dasyurus maculatus (Kerr, 1792) is not threatened by Bechstein’s
usage. Moreover it is our view that Bechstein’s usage is no more than a
re-use (and an erroneus application) of Zimmermann’s Mustela quoll from
Geographische Geschichte des Menschen . ... However, if the latter is not an
available name, then there is no doubt that M. quoll of Bechstein becomes
an available name in its own right and poses a threat to stability of Dasyurus
hallucatus Gould. No further action by the Commission would be required
because we would remove that threat by selecting a neotype comformable
with Bechstein’s description that would make Mustela quoll sensu Bechstein,
1800, a junior objective synonym of Dasyurus maculatus (Kerr, 1792).
15. In summary the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is requested to:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name quoll
Zimmermann, 1783, as published in the binomen Mustela
quoll, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for
those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) place the specific name hallucatus Gould, 1842 as published in
the binomen Dasyurus hallucatus on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(3) place the specific name quoll Zimmermann, 1783 as published
in the binomen Mustela quoll and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 53
REFERENCES
BECHSTEIN, J. M. 1800. Thomas Pennant’s allgemeine Uebersicht der vierfiissigen
Thiere. Aus dem Englischen tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen und Zusdtzen
versehen. Zweyter band. Verlage des Industrie-Comptoir’s, Weimar, pp. i-xi,
pp. 323-768.
CORBET, G. B. & HILL, J. E. 1980. A world list of mammalian species. British
Museum (Natural History), London. viii+ 226 pp.
GOULD, J. 1842. Characters of a new species of Perameles, and a new species of
Dasyurus. Proc. zool. Soc. London. 1842, pp. 41-42.
HAWKESWORTH, J. 1773. An account of the voyages undertaken by the order
of His Present Majesty for making discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere,
and successively performed by Commodore Byron, Captain Wallis, Captain
Carteret, and Captain Cook, in the Dolphin, the Swallow, and the Endeavour:
drawn up from the Journals which were kept by the several Commanders, and
from the Papers of Joseph Banks, Esq. Illustrated with cuts, and a great variety
of charts and maps relative to countries now first discovered, or hitherto but
imperfectly known. Volume 3, W. Strahan & T. Cadell, London, pp. 411-799
(Ist edition), pp. 1-395 (2nd edition).
HEINEMANN, D. 1972. Marsupial carnivores, marsupial anteaters, and mar-
supial moles (Tasmanian devil and Tasmanian wolf by Bernhard Grzimek),
pp. 70-95 in Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia. Volume 10 (Mammals 1).
English edition. H. C. B. Grzimek (Editor-in-chief). Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, Melbourne. 627 pp.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.
1945 Opinion 11. Smithson. Inst. Publ. No. 1938, pp. 17-18.
1954. Opinion 257. Opin. Decl. int. commn. zool. Nomencl. vol. 5, pp.
231-244.
LATREILLE, P. A. 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. F. Schoell, Paris.
444 pp.
MAHONEY, J. A. & RIDE, W. D. L. 1984. The identity of Captain Cook’s
quoll, Mustela quoll Zimmermann, 1783 (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Aust.
Mammal., vol. 7, pp. 57-62.
PHILLIP, A. 1789. The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay; with an account of
the establishment of the Colonies of Port Jackson & Norfolk Island; compiled
from authentic papers, which have been obtained from the several Departments.
To which are added, the Journals of Lieuts. Shortland, Watts, Ball, & Capt.
Marshall; with an account of their new discoveries embellished with fifty five
copper plates, the maps and charts taken from actual surveys, & the plans &
views drawn on the spot, by Capt. Hunter, Lieuts. Shortland, Watts, Dawes,
Bradley, Capt. Marshall, &c. J. Stockdale, London. 6+ii+vili+x+xii+
298 + 1xxiv pp.
RIDE, W. D. L. 1964. A list of mammals described from Australia between the
years 1933 and 1963 (comprising newly proposed names and additions to the
Australian faunal list). Bull. Aust. mamm. Soc., No. 7, suppl., pp 1-15.
STRAHAN, R. 1981. A dictionary of Australian mammal names. Pronunciation,
derivation, and significance of the names; with biographical and bibliographical
notes. Angus & Robertson Publishers, Sydney. xxiv + 196 pp.
54 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
TROUGHTON, E. 1974. Furred animals of Australia. Revised and abridged
edition (10th edition). Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty Ltd, Sydney.
xvili+ 314 pp.
ZIMMERMANN, E. A. W. 1777. Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, Quadrupedum
Domicilia et Migrationes sistens. Dedit, tabulamque mundi zoographicam
adjunxit. Theodorum Haak, et Socios, Lugduni Batavorum. xxiv + 686 pp.
1778. Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten
vierfiissigen Thiere, nebst einer hieher gehérigen Zoologischen Weltcharte.
Erster band. Weygandschen Buchhandlung, Leipzig. 308 pp.
1780. Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der vierfiissigen Thiere.
Zweiter band. Enthdlt ein vollstdndiges Verzeichniss aller bekannten
Quadrupeden. Weygandschen Buchhandlung, Leipzig. 432 pp.
1783. Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten
vierfiissigen Thiere, mit einer hiezu gehérigen Zoologischen Weltcharte.
Dritter band. Weygandschen Buchhandlung, Leipzig. 278 + 32 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 55
CHOLUS GERMAR, 1824 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
ARCHARIAS DEJEAN, 1821. Z.N.(S)2485
By Charles W. O’Brien and Guillermo J. Wibmer (Department of
Entomology, Florida A and M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307,
U.S.A.)
In this application it is proposed that the generally used generic
name Cholus Germar, 1824, in the family CURCULIONIDAE, be preserved by
the suppression of its nearly unused senior synonym Archarias Dejean,
1821, often incorrectly attributed to Lacordaire, 1866.
2. The genus Archarias was established by Dejean, 1821, p. 86,
by inclusion of three available names, Curculio hystrix Olivier, 1790, p.
503 (questionably and erroneously attributed to Fabricius), Rhynchaenus
laticollis Olivier, 1807, p. 169 (questionably but correctly attributed to
Olivier), and Curculio miliaris Olivier, 1790, p. 499 (erroneously attributed
to Fabricius). In subsequent years Dejean, 1835, p. 285, and Schoenherr,
1826, p. 262; 1833, p. 22, treated Archarias as a junior synonym of
Dionychus Germar, 1824, p. 311. Dejean, 1837, p. 309, listed Archarias
as a junior synonym of Homalonotus Schoenherr, actually Homalinotus
Sahlberg, 1823, p. 43. Schoenherr, 1836, p. 558; 1844, p. 1, treated Archarias
as a junior synonym of Cholus Germar, 1824, p. 212.
3. Germar, 1824, p. 212, established the genus Cholus with the inclu-
sion of three newly described species, sternicornis, p. 214, albicinctus, p. 214,
and geometricus, p. 215. He also listed Curculio cinctus Herbst (actually
Drury, 1782, p. 73) as congeneric. Schoenherr, 1826, pp. 20, 263, designated
Cholus albicinctus Germar as type species of Cholus Germar, 1824.
4. Lacordaire, 1866, p. 38, resurrected Archarias Dejean, 1821
stating that he was adopting this ancient name which had fallen into disuse
and was almost forgotten. He included miliaris Olivier, 1790 and several
valid species of Cholus. Unfortunately, because most workers did not con-
sider Dejean’s 1821 generic names to be available, most subsequent works
on this genus attributed Archarias to Lacordaire, e.g. Kirsch, 1869, 1889;
Gemminger & Harold, 1871; Pascoe, 1872; Chevrolat, 1881; and Faust,
1894. Pascoe, 1872, treated Archarias Lacordaire, 1866 as a junior synonym
of Cholus Germar, 1824. Champion, 1903 and Heller, 1906 also synony-
mised Archarias with Cholus. Vaurie, 1977, p. 2, designated Curculio miliaris
Olivier, 1790, as type species of Archarias Lacordaire, 1866. She also treated
the latter name as a junior synonym of Cholus Germar, 1824.
5. Archarias and Cholus are subjective synonyms and through
application of the Principle of Priority, Archarias should take precedence.
However, except in the checklist by O’Brien and Wibmer, 1982 and in
Silfverberg, 1984, Archarias Dejean has not been used as a valid name by
anyone except Lacordaire, 1866, for more than a century and a half, and
56 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Cholus has been in almost universal use, e.g. Schoenherr, 1836, 1844;
Latreille, 1825; Gemminger & Harold, 1871; Pascoe, 1872; Champion,
1903; Heller, 1906; Leng, 1920; Klima, 1936; Blackwelder, 1947; and
Vaurie, 1976, 1977. Furthermore, Cholus is the base for the subfamily name
CHOLINAE. Replacing Cholus with Archarias clearly would not be in the best
interests of stability in nomenclature.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name
Archarias Dejean, 1821, for purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the generic name Cholus Germar, 1824 (gender: mascu-
line), type species by subsequent designation by Schoenherr,
1826, Cholus albicinctus Germar, 1824, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name albicinctus Germar, 1824, as
published in the binomen Cholus albicinctus (specific name of
the type species of Cholus Germar, 1824) on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology;
(4) to place the generic name Archarias Dejean, 1821, as sup-
pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico,
Central America, the West Indies, and South America. Part 5. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus. no. 185, pp. L-IV, 765-925.
CHAMPION, G. C. 1903. Biol. cent-Americana. Insecta. Coleoptera. Rhyncho-
phora. Curculionidae. Curculioninae (part), vol. 4(4), pp. 145-312.
CHEVROLAT, L. A. A. 1881. (Diagnoses de trois nouvelles espéces de Curculio-
nides de la division des Cholides). Bull. Soc. entomol. France 1881, pp.
XXVI-XXVII.
DEJEAN, P. F. M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron
Dejean, [2—-page errata, unnumbered] + vili+ 136 pp. Paris.
1835-1837. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte
Dejean; 1835, [2nd ed., fasc. 4], pp. 257-360; 1837, 3rd ed., livr. 5,
xiv+ 503 pp. Paris.
DRURY, D. 1782. Illustrations of natural history. Vol. 3, 76 pp., London. [2—page
index, unnumbered.]
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1,
xx + 538 pp. Hafniae.
FAUST, J. 1894. Reise von E. Simon in Venezuela. Curculionidae. Stettiner
entomol. Ztg., 1893(1894), vol. 54 (10-12), pp. 313-367. (Pars secunda.)
GEMMINGER, M. & HAROLD, E. VON, 1871. Catalogus Coleopterorum
hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 8, C urculionidae, pp.
2181-2668. [+11pp. (Index Generum, Addenda, Corrigenda).] Monachii.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 =|
GERMAR, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus
illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, XXIV +624 pp. Halae.
HELLER, K. M. 1906. Neue Riisselkafer aus Central= und Sidamerika. Stettiner
entomol. Ztg. vol. 67(1), pp. 3—S0.
KIRSCH, T. F. W. 1869. Beitrage zur Kaferfauna von Bogota. Berlin entomol. Z.
vol. 13, pp. 187-224 (Fiinftes Stiick).
1889. Coleopteren gesammelt in den Jahren 1868-1877 auf einer Reise
durch Std Amerika von Alphons Sttibel. Abh. berliner zool. Mus. Dresden,
1888/9 (1889), no. (4), pp. 1-58.
KLIMA, A. 1936. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 146, Curculionidae: Cholinae,
pp. 3-32 (Vol. 29).
LACORDAIRE, J. T. 1866. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Généra des Coléopteéres,
etc., vol. 7, 620 pp. Paris. (Curculionides (suite), Scolytides, Brenthides,
Anthribides et Bruchides.)
LATREILLE, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal exposées succincte-
ment et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres, 570 pp.
Paris.
LENG, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico,
x+470 pp. Mount Vernon, New York.
O’BRIEN, C. W. & WIBMER, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils
(Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America and the West
Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Mem. amer. entomol. Inst. no. 34, pp.
i-ix, 1-382.
OLIVIER, A. G. 1790. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle. Insectes, vol.
5, pp. 1-792 [+ p. 793, Glossary.] Paris.
1807. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes, etc., Coléoptéres. vol. 5,
612 pp. Paris.
PASCOE, F. P. 1872. Contributions towards a knowledge of the Curculionidae. J.
linn. Soc. London, vol. 11, pp. 440-492. (Part III).
SAHLBERG, C. R. 1823. Periculi entomographici, species insectorum nondum
descriptas proposituri, fasciculus, 82 pp. Aboae.
SCHOENHERR, C. J. 1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica, part 4.
X+ 338 pp. Lipsiae.
1833-1844. Genera et species Curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae;
1833, vol. 1, pt. 1, xv+381 pp.; 1836, vol. 3, 858 pp.; 1838, vol. 4, pt. 2, pp.
601-1124; 1844, vol. 8, pt. 1, 442 pp. Paris.
SILFVERBERG, H. 1984. The coleopteran genera of Dejean 1821. III. Curculio-
noidea and Chrysomeloidea. Ann. entomol. fenn., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 61-63.
VAURIE, P. 1976. Revision of the Neotropical Cholinae. The subgenus Cholus
(Cholus) (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 158(1),
pp. 1-80.
1977. Revision of Cholus (Aphyoramphus). Part 1. Species Groups basalis,
breviscapus and undulatus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Cholinae). Amer.
Mus. Novit. no. 2623, pp. 1-15.
58 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
DRYOPHTHORUS GERMAR, 1824 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
BULBIFER DEJEAN, 1821. Z.N.(S.)2486
By Charles W. O’Brien (Department of Entomology, Florida A & M
University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, U.S.A.) and Giuseppe Osella
(Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, 37100
Verona, Italy)
In this application it is proposed that the generally used generic
name Dryophthorus Germar, 1824, in the family CURCULIONIDAE, be
preserved by the suppression of its unused senior synonym Bulbifer Dejean
ex Megerle MS, 1821. We wish to thank Dr M. A. Alonso Zarazaga for
bringing this nomenclatural problem to our attention.
2. The genus Bulbifer was established by Dejean ex Megerle MS,
1821, p. 99, by inclusion of a single species, Curculio lymexylon Fabricius,
1792, p. 420, type species by monotypy. In subsequent years Dejean, 1835,
p. 305 and 1837, p. 330, Schoenherr, 1826, p. 332 and 1838, p. 1088 and
Lacordaire, 1866, p. 322, treated Bulbifer as a synonym of Dryophthorus.
Lacordaire attributed Dryophthorus to Schoenherr while the others listed
Schiippel or Schiippel & Germar as author(s) without a bibliographic refer-
ence. It was common practice in the late 1700s and early 1800s to cite, as
author of a name, individuals who had reported names ‘in /itteris’ or even in
collections; e.g. Dejean, 1821, cited Megerle as the author of Bulbifer,
although the name had not been published previously. Only Silfverberg,
1984, has used the name Bulbifer as a valid name since Dejean, 1821.
3. Germar, 1824, p. 302, established the genus Dryophthorus with a
brief diagnosis and also included a single species, ‘Curculio Lymexylon
Auctor.’, which at that time was /ymexylon Fabricius, type species by
monotypy.
4. Schoenherr, 1825, column 588, listed the genus Dryophthorus
with ‘Typus: Cossonus Lymexylon Gyllenh.—Lixus idem Fabr.’.
Schoenherr, 1826, p. 333, cited as type Lixus lymexylon Fabricius.
5. The valid name for the type species of Bulbifer and Dryophthorus
is Curculio corticalis Paykull, 1792, p. 41, a senior subjective synonym of
lymexylon Fabricius, as first reported in footnote 2 by Bedel, 1885, p. 192.
6. Bulbifer and Dryophthorus are objective synonyms and through
application of the Principle of Priority, Bulbifer should take precedence.
However, Bulbifer has not been used as a valid generic name, except by
Silfverberg, 1984, for more than a century and a half, and Dryophthorus
has been in universal use, e.g. by Schoenherr, 1838; Lacordaire, 1866;
Wollaston, 1873; LeConte & Horn, 1876; Bedel, 1885; Champion, 1909;
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 59
Blatchley & Leng, 1916; Leng, 1920; Csiki, 1936: Winkler, 1939;
Blackwelder, 1947; Lukyanovich & Arnoldi, 1951; Hoffmann, 1954; Voss,
1955, 1963; Kissinger, 1964; Hatch, 1971; Folwaczny, 1973; O’Brien &
Wibmer, 1982; and Dieckmann, 1983. Furthermore, Dryophthorus is the
base for the subfamily name DRYOPHTHORINAE. Replacing Dryophthorus
with Bulbifer clearly would not be in the best interests of stability in
nomenclature.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Bulbifer
Dejean, 1821, for purposes of the Principle of Priority but not
for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the generic name Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 (gender:
masculine), type species by monotypy, Curculio lymexylon
Fabricius, 1792, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name corticalis Paykull, 1792, as published
in the binomen Curculio corticalis (the valid specific name at
the date of this application of the type species of Dryophthorus
Germar, 1824) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;
(4) to place the generic name Bulbifer Dejean, 1821, as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BEDEL, L. 1882-1888 (1885). Faune des Coléoptéres du bassin de la Seine. Ann.
Soc. entomol. France vol. 6 (hors série), Rhynchophora, pp. 1-442 [+2pp.
(Errata, Explication de la Planche)], pp. 1-16, 1882; pp. 17-64, 1883; pp.
65-144, 1884; pp. 145-200, 1885; pp. 201-280, 1886; pp. 281-384, 1887; pp.
385-442, 1888. Paris.
BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico,
Central America, the West Indies and South America. Part 5. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus. no. 185, pp. I-IV, 765-925.
BLATCHLEY, W. S. & LENG, C. W. 1916. Rhynchophora or weevils of North
Eastern America. 682 pp. Indianapolis, Indiana.
CHAMPION, G. C. 1909. Biol. cent—Americana. Insecta. Coleoptera. Rhyncho-
Phora. Curculionidae. Curculioninae (concluded), vol. 4, pt. 7, vit+-78 pp.
CSIKI, E. 1936. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 149, Curculionidae: Rhyncho-
Phorinae, pp. 3-104; Cossoninae, pp. 105—212 (Vol. 30).
1835-1837. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte
Dejean; 1835, 2nd ed., fasc. 4, pp. 257-360; 1837, 3rd ed., livr. 5, xiv-+503 pp.
Paris.
60 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
DEJEAN, P. F. M. A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron
Dejean [2-page errata, unnumbered] + vili+ 136 pp. Paris.
DIECKMANN, L. 1983. Beitrage zur Insektenfauna der DDR: Coleoptera —
Curculionidae (Tanymecinae, Leptopiinae, Cleoninae, Tanyrhynchinae,
Cossoninae, Raymondionyminae, Bagoinae, Tanysphyrinae). Beitr.
Entomol., Berlin, vol. 33(2), pp. 257-381.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1,
XX + 538 pp. Hafniae.
FOLWACZNY, B. 1973. Bestimmungstabelle der palaarktischen Cossoninae
(Coleoptera, Curculionidae) ohne die nur in China und Japan vorkom-
menden Gattungen, nebst Angaben zur Verbreitung. Entomol. Bl. Biol. Syst.
KGfer vol. 69(2), pp. 65-180.
GERMAR, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus
illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, XXIV + 624 pp., Halae.
HATCH, M. H. 1971. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol.,
vol. 16, xiv+662 pp. (Part V: Rhipiceroidea, Sternoxi, Phytophaga,
Rhynchophora, and Lamellicornia.)
HOFFMANN, A. 1954. Faune de France. 59. Coléoptéres Curculionides (Deuxiéme
Partie), pp. 487-1208. Paris.
KISSINGER, D. G. 1964. Curculionidae of America north of Mexico. A key to the
genera, v+ 143 pp. S. Lancaster, Massachusetts.
LACORDAIRE, J. T. 1866. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléopteres,
etc., vol. 7, pp. 1-620. Paris. Curculionides (suite), Scolytides, Brenthides,
Anthribides et Bruchides.
LECONTE, J. L. & HORN, G. H. 1876. The Rhynchophora of America, north of
Mexico. Proc. Am. philos. Soc. vol. 15(96), pp. i-xvi, 1-455.
LENG, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico,
x +470 pp. Mount Vernon, New York.
LUKYANOVICH, F. K. & ARNOLDI, L. V. 1951. Key to the weevils occurring in
rotten wood of the subfamily Cossoninae of the fauna of the USSR and
limitrophic countries of Europe and near Asia. Entomol. Obozr., vol. 31, pp.
549-565.
O’BRIEN, C. W. & WIBMER, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils
(Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America and the West
Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Mem. amer. entomol. Inst., no. 34,
ix+ 382 pp.
PAYKULL, G. VON. 1792. Monographia curculionum sueciae, [vii]+ 151 pp. [+1
p. emendata, unnumbered.] Upsala.
SCHOENHERR, C. J. 1825. Tabulae synopticae familiae curculionidum. Isis Oken,
heft V, columns 581-588.
1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica, part 4, X + 338 pp. Lipsiae.
1838. Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 4,
pt. 2, pp. 601-1121 [4+ pp. 1122-1124 (Corrigenda).] Paris.
SILFVERBERG, H. 1984. The coleopteran genera of Dejean 1821. III. Curculio-
noidea and Chrysomeloidea. Ann. entomol. fenn., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 61-63.
VOSS, E. 1955. Zur Synonymie und systematischen Stellung europdischer
Cossoninen-Gattungen unter Beriicksichtigung einiger Gattungen der
madeirischen Fauna. Mitt. miinch. entomol. Ges., 1954—1955(1955), vol.
44-45, pp. 182-239.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 61
1963. Erganzende Beschreibungen und Bemerkungen zu indonesischen
Arten aus der Unterfamilien Dryophthorinae und Cossoninae (Coleoptera,
Curculionidae) (176. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Curculioniden). Beaufortia,
vol. 9, pp. 219-231.
WINKLER, A. 1939. Catalogus Coleopterorum regionis palaearcticae, 1698 pp.,
Wien.
WOLLASTON, T. V. 1873. On the genera of the Cossonidae. Trans. entomol. Soc.
London, 1873, part IV, pp. 427-657.
62 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
LACHNOPUS SCHOENHERR, 1840 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
MENOETIUS DEJEAN, 1821 AND PTILOPUS SCHOENHERR, 1823
Z.N.(S.)2487
By Charles W. O’Brien and Guillermo J. Wibmer (Department of
Entomology, Florida A & M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, U.S.A.)
In this application it is proposed that the generally used generic
name Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840, in the family CURCULIONIDAE, be pre-
served by the suppression of its nearly unused senior synonyms Menoetius
Dejean ex Schoenherr MS, 1821, and Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823.
2. The genus Menoetius was established by Dejean ex Schoenherr
MS, 1821, p. 94, by inclusion of the following five available names, all
originally described in the genus Curculio: valgus Fabricius, 1775, p. 150,
now in Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840, p. 380; striga Fabricius, 1798, p. 173
and punctum Fabricius, 1798, p. 172, both now in Cratopus Schoenherr,
1826, p. 120; lateralis Fabricius, 1792, p. 454 and rutilans Olivier, 1807,
p. 333, both now in Astycus Schoenherr, 1826, p. 129. In subsequent years
Menoetius Dejean was treated as a junior synonym of Ptilopus Schoenherr,
1823, column 1140 by Schoenherr, 1823, column 1146; 1826, p. 118; 1834,
p. 28 and Dejean, 1834, p. 253.
3. Schoenherr, 1823, column 1140, established the genus Ptilopus
through the inclusion of the available name, Curculio aurifer Drury, 1773,
p. 68, attributed to Fabricius and Olivier, and designated it as type species.
The first description for this genus is Schoenherr, 1826, p. 118. In
Schoenherr, 1834, pp. 30-43, many new species were described in Ptilopus.
4. Schoenherr, 1840, p. 380, established the name Lachnopus as a
replacement name for Prilopus Schoenherr which, in error, he believed to
be a junior homonym of the diperan Psilopus Meigen, 1824, plate 35, mis-
spelled Ptilopus by Schoenherr in his explanatory footnote. Since Ptilopus
Schoenherr is properly dated 1823, his name would take priority, regardless
of the spelling of Psilopus Meigen.
5. Menoetius and Ptilopus are subjective synonyms, and Ptilopus
and Lachnopus are objective synonyms, and through application of the
Principle of Priority, first Menoetius and then Ptilopus should take
precedence over Lachnopus. However, except in the checklist by O’Brien &
Wibmer, 1982, in which they designated Curculio valgus Fabricius as type
species of Menoetius Dejean, 1821, and in Silfverberg, 1984, Menoetius
Dejean has not been used as a valid name for more than a century and a
half, and Ptilopus Schoenherr has not been used so for nearly the same
period, while Lachnopus has been in almost universal use, e.g. Schoenherr,
1845; Perroud, 1853; Lacordaire, 1863; Gemminger & Harold, 1871;
LeConte & Horn, 1876; Pierce, 1913; Blatchley & Leng, 1916; Leng, 1920;
Wolcott, 1924, 1936, 1951; Marshall, 1922, 1926, 1933, 1934; Hustache,
1932; Dalla Torre et al. 1936; Blackwelder, 1947 and Kissinger, 1964.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 63
Replacing Lachnopus with Menoetius or Ptilopus would not be in the best
interests of stability in nomenclature.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names
Menoetius Dejean, 1821, and Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823, for
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the generic name Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 (gender:
masculine), type species by original designation Curculio aurifer
Drury, 1773, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name aurifer Drury, 1773, as published in
the binomen Curculio aurifer (specific name of the type species
of Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840) on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(4) to place the generic names Menoetius Dejean, 1821, and Ptilopus
Schoenherr, 1823, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico,
Central America, the West Indies, and South America. Part 5. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus., no. 185, pp. I-IV, 765-925.
BLATCHLEY, W. S. & LENG, C. W. 1916. Rhynchophora or weevils of North
Eastern America, 682 pp. Indianapolis, Indiana.
DALLA TORRE, K. W. VON, EMDEN, M. VAN & EMDEN, F. I. VAN 1936.
Coleopterorum Catalogus, part 147, Curculionidae: Brachyderinae I, pp.
1-132 (Vol. 27).
DEJEAN, P. F. M. A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron
Dejean, [2—page errata, unnumbered] + viii+ 136 pp. Paris.
1834. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, [2nd
ed., fasc. III], pp. 177-256. Paris.
DRURY, D. 1773. Illustrations of natural history. Vol. 1, 1770 [1773 (date of
publication of the index containing the binominal names—ICZN Opinion
474, 1957)], xxvii+ 130 pp. London.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, [30]+832 pp. Flensburgi; Lipsiae.
1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1, XX+538 pp.
Hafniae.
1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae, 572 pp. Hafniae.
GEMMINGER, M. & HAROLD, E. VAN 1871. Catalogus Coleopterorum
hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 8, Curculionidae,
pp. 2181-2668. [+11 pp. (Index Generum, Addenda, Corrigenda).]
Monachii.
HUSTACHE, A. 1932. Curculionides de la Guadeloupe. Faune des Colonies
Frangaises, 1931[1932], vol. 5, pp. 1-142 (Troisi¢me partie.)
64 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.
1957. Opinion 474. Determination of the dates to be assigned for the pur-
poses of the Law of Priority to the names published in Drury’s ‘Illustrations
of Natural History’ in the period 1770-1782. Opin. & Declar. ICZN 16 (16),
pp. 297-306.
KISSINGER, D. G. 1964. Curculionidae of America north of Mexico. A key to the
genera, v + 143 pp. S. Lancaster, Massachusetts.
LACORDAIRE, J. T. 1863. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléopteres,
etc., vol. 6, pp. 1-608, 615-637. Paris (Contenant la famille des Curculio-
nides.) [No pages numbered 609-614, 615 follows 608 but nothing seems to
be missing].
LECONTE, J. L. & HORN, G. H. 1876. The Rhynchophora of America, north of
Mexico. Proc. Am. philos. Soc. vol. 15(96), xvit+455 pp.
LENG, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico,
x +470 pp. Mount Vernon, New York.
MARSHALL, G. A. K. 1922. Some injurious neotropical weevils (Curculionidae).
Bull. entomol. Res. vol. 13(1), pp. 59-71.
1926. Two new species of Curculionidae (Col.) from Haiti. Bull. entomol.
Res. vol. 17(1), pp. 53-54.
1933. New neotropical Curculionidae (Col.). Stylops, vol. 2(3), pp. 59-69.
1934. New West Indian Curculionidae (Col.). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 10,
vol. 14, pp. 621-631.
MEIGEN, J. W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
Zweifliigligen Insecten. Aachen, vol. 4: pp. 12, 428, plates 33-41. [from
Hagen, Bibliotheca Entomol., 1862].
O’BRIEN, C. W. & WIBMER, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils
(Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America, and the West
Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Mem. amer. entomol. Inst. no. 34,
ix +382 pp.
OLIVIER, A. G. 1807. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes, etc.,
Coléoptéres. Vol. 5, 612 pp. Paris.
PERROUD, B. P. 1853. Descriptions de quelques Coléoptéres nouveaux ou peu
connus. Ann. Soc. linn. Lyon, ser. 2, vol. 1, pp. 389-528. [Reprinted also as
pp. 3-142].
PIERCE, W. D. 1913. Miscellaneous contributions to the knowledge of the weevils
of the families Attelabidae and Brachyrhinidae. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. vol. 45,
pp. 365-426.
SCHOENHERR, C. J. 1823. Tabula synoptica familiae curculionidum. Isis Oken,
heft X, columns 1132-1146.
1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica cum generum characteribus,
descriptionibus atque observationibus variis seu prodromus ad synonymiae
insectorum, partem 4, X + 338 pp. Lipsiae.
1834-1845. Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae;
1834, vol. 2, pt. 1, 326 pp.; 1840, vol. 6, pt. 1, 474 pp.; 1845, vol. 8, pt. 2, 504
pp. Paris.
SILFVERBERG, H. 1984. The coleopteran genera of Dejean, 1821. III. Curculio-
noidea and Chrysomeloidea. Ann. entomol. fenn., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 60-63.
WOLCOTT, G. N. 1924. ‘Insectate Portoricensis.’ A preliminary annotated check-
list of the insects of Porto Rico, with descriptions of some new species. J.
Dep. Agric. Puerto Rico, 1923 (1924), vol. 7(1), pp. 1-313.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 65
1936. ‘Insectae Borinquenses’. A revision of ‘Insectae Portoricensis’. A pre-
liminary annotated check-list of the insects of Porto Rico, with descriptions
of some new species. Jour. Dept. Agr. Puerto Rico Vol. 7, No. 1 (January
1924), pp. 313, fig. 2. San Juan, March 5, 1924 and ‘First Supplement to
Insectae Portoricensis’. Jour. Dept Agr. Puerto Rico, vol. 7, No. 4 (October
1924), pp. 38-43, San Juan, August 1924. J. agric. Univ. Puerto Rico, vol.
20(1), pp. 1-627, [+ 3pp. (Errata), unnumbered].
1951. The insects of Puerto Rico. Coleoptera. J. agric. Univ. Puerto Rico,
1948(1950) [1951], vol. 32(2), pp. 225-416.
66 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
NEMOCESTES VAN DYKE, 1936 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION AND DESIGNATION OF TYPE
SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 2488
By Charles W. O’Brien (Department of Entomology, Florida A & M
University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, U.S.A.)
In this application it is proposed that the current usage of the generic
name Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936, be maintained by designating Geoderces
incomptus Horn, 1876, as its type species, while designating Trachyphloeus
melanothrix Kirby, 1837, as type species of Geoderces Horn, 1876, thereby
making Geoderces Horn a junior synonym of Phyxelis Schoenherr, 1843,
PD. daZ-
2. The genus Geoderces was established by Horn, 1876, p. 70, with
the designation of Trachyphloeus melanothrix Kirby, 1837, p. 202 as type
species (a misidentified type species) and the description of a new species.
Casey, 1888, p. 264, described a single new species in Geoderces. Species of
this genus were listed in numerous taxonomic and economic publications in
the early 1900s, e.g. Pierce, 1909, 1913; Blatchley & Leng, 1916; Yothers,
1916; Baker, 1930; Keifer, 1933 and Wilcox et al., 1934.
3. Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936, p. 22 was established as a replace-
ment name for Geoderces Horn because the latter is based upon a misidenti-
fied type species. Horn’s specimens were not Trachyphloeus melanothrix
Kirby (a junior synonym of Phyxelis rigidus (Say, 1831, p. 11)). Van Dyke
correctly renamed this misidentified type species (horni Van Dyke, p. 25)
but his replacement name for the genus (Nemocestes) is not valid, because
the 1961 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature requires an
application to the Zoological Commission under Article 70(a) for a ruling
on the type species. He designated *‘Nemocestes incomptus (Horn) (original
binomen Geoderces incomptus Horn, 1876, p. 72) as type species of
Nemocestes (p. 23).
4. Following Van Dyke’s revision, the name Nemocestes has been in
universal use for nearly 50 years, e.g. Lona, 1937; Hanson & Webster, 1938,
1941; Van Dyke, 1938, 1953; Foster, 1942; van Emden, 1950; Johansen &
Brannon, 1955; Clark, 1956; Eide, 1959, 1966; Breakey, 1961; Rosenstiel,
1963; Cram, 1964, 1972, 1978; Kissinger, 1964; Hatch, 1971 and Burke &
Anderson, 1976. To maintain stability in this economically important
group it is recommended here that Nemocestes be validated.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for
the nominal genera Geoderces Horn, 1876 and Nemocestes
Van Dyke, 1936, and then to designate Trachyphloeus
melanothrix Kirby, 1837, as type species of Geoderces Horn,
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 67
1876, automatically making the latter a junior synonym of
Phyxelis Schoenherr, 1843;
(b) to designate Geoderces incomptus Horn, 1876, as type
species of Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936;
(2) to place the generic name Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936, on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name incomptus Horn, 1876, as published
in the binomen Geoderces incomptus (specific name of the type
species of Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936) on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BAKER, W. S. 1930. Insect pests of sour cherries and berries. Rep. Wash. St. Hort.
Assoc. no. 26, 1930, p. 210.
BLATCHLEY, W. S. & LENG, C. W. 1916. Rhynchophora or weevils of North
Eastern America, 682 pp. Indianapolis, Indiana.
BREAKEY, E. P. 1961. A note on the life history of Panscopus torpidus (LeConte)
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pan.-Pac. Entomol., vol. 37(1), pp. 28-30.
BURKE, H. R. & ANDERSON, D. M. 1976. Systematics of larvae and pupae of
American Curculionoidea: status report, historical review and bibliography.
Southwest. Entomol., vol. 1(2), pp. 56-73.
CASEY, T. L. 1888. On some new North American Rhynchophora. Part I. Ann.
New York Acad. Sci., vol. 4, pp. 229-296.
CLARK, M. E. P. 1956. An annotated list of the Coleoptera taken at or near
Terrace, British Columbia. Part 3. Proc. Entomol. Soc. British Columbia, vol.
52, pp. 39-43.
CRAM, W. T. 1964. Inherent toleration of the larvae of the root weevils Sciopithes
obscurus Horn and Nemocestes incomptus (Horn) to common soil insecti-
cides. Proc. Entomol. Soc. British Columbia, vol. 61, pp. 17-30.
1972. The fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarrhizium anisopliae in cultures
of the root weevil Nemocestes incomptus Horn (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
J. Entomol. Soc. British Columbia, vol. 69, pp. 21-22.
1978. The effect of root weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on yield of five
strawberry cultivars in British Columbia. J. Entomol. Soc. British Columbia,
vol. 75, pp. 10-13.
EIDE, P. M. 1959. Soil fumigation to control weevil grubs in strawberries. J. Econ.
Entomol., vol. 52, pp. 3-5.
1966. The life history and control of Nemocestes incomptus (Horn), a native
root weevil attacking strawberries in western Washington. J. Econ. Entomol.,
vol. 59, pp. 1004-1005.
EMDEN, F. I. VAN. 1950. Eggs, egg-laying habits and larvae of short nosed
weevils. VII Int. Congr. Entomol., pp. 1-8.
FOSTER, R. E. 1942. Insects active throughout the winter at Vancouver, B.C. Part
1: Introduction and lists of the Coleoptera and Neuroptera. Proc. Entomol.
Soc. British Columbia, vol. 38, pp. 19-23.
HANSON, A. J. & WEBSTER, R. L. 1938 and 1941. Insects of the blackberry,
raspberry, strawberry, currant and gooseberry. St. Coll. Wash. Agric. Exp.
Sta. Pop. Bull. no. 155, 1938, 38 pp.; no. 164, 1941, 40 pp.
68 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
HATCH, M. H. 1971. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Wash. Publ.
Biol., vol. 16, xiv-+662 pp. (Part V: Rhipiceroidea, Sternoxi, Phytophaga,
Rhynchophora and Lamellicornia).
HORN, G. H. 1876. In LeConte, J. L. and Horn, G. H., The Rhynchophora of
America, north of Mexico. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., vol. 15(96), xvi+455 pp.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.
1961. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XV
International Congress of Zoology, xvii+ 176 pp.
JOHANSEN, C. A. & BRANNON, D. 1955. Insects and related pests of agricul-
ture in Washington. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. Circ. 274, 22 pp.
KEIFER, H. H. 1933. Some Pacific Coast otiorhynchid weevil larvae. Entomol.
Am., vol. 13(2), pp. 45-85.
KIRBY, W. 1937. Part the fourth and last. The insects. In Richardson, J., Fauna
Boreali-Americana; or the zoology of the northern parts of British America:
containing descriptions of the objects of natural history collected on the late
Northern Land Expeditions, under command of Captain Sir John Franklin,
R. N., xxxix + 325 pp. Norwich.
KISSINGER, D. G. 1964. Curculionidae of America north of Mexico. A key to the
genera, v + 143 pp. S. Lancaster, Massachusetts.
LONA, C. 1937. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 160, Curculionidae: Otior-
rhynchinae IT, pp. 227-412 (Vol. 27).
PIERCE, W. D. 1909. Studies of North American weevils. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus.,
vol. 37, pp. 325-364.
1913. Miscellaneous contributions to the knowledge of the weevils of the
families Attelabidae and Brachyrhinidae. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus., vol. 45, pp.
365-426.
ROSENSTIEL, R. G. 1963. Root weevils: their control in strawberry fields. Ore. St.
Univ. Ext. Circ. no. 717.
SAY, T. 1831. Descriptions of new species of Curculionites of North America, with
observations on some of the species already known, 30 pp. New Harmony,
Indiana.
SCHOENHERR, C. J. 1843. Genera et species Curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus
familiae, vol. 7, pt. 1,479 pp. Paris.
VAN DYKE, E. C. 1936. New species of North American weevils in the family
Curculionidae, subfamily Brachyrhininae, IV. Pan-Pac. Entomol., vol. 12(1),
pp. 19-32.
1938. New species of Rhynchophora (Coleoptera) from western North
America. Pan-Pac. Entomol., vol. 14(1), pp. 1-9.
1953. New Coleoptera from western North America (Carabidae, Melasidae,
Buprestidae, Curculionidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol., vol. 29(2), pp. 102-107.
WILCOX, J., MOTE, D. C. & CHILDS, L. 1934. The root weevils injurious to
strawberries in Oregon. Ore. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. no. 330, pp. 1-109.
YOTHERS, M.A. 1916. Bud weevils and other bud feeding insects of Washington.
Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. no. 124, pp. 1-43.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 69
ZYGOPS SCHOENHERR, 1825 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
ECCOPTUS DEJEAN, 1821. Z.N.(S.)2489
By Charles W. O’Brien and Guillermo J. Wibmer (Department of
Entomology, Florida A & M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, U.S.A.)
In this application it is proposed that the generally used name
Zygops Schoenherr, 1825, be preserved by the suppression of its nearly
unused senior synonym Eccoptus Dejean, 1821.
2. The genus Eccoptus was established by Dejean, 1821, p. 86, by
inclusion of a single available name, Curculio strix Olivier, 1790, p. 506,
incorrectly attributed to Fabricius. Also included were four nomina nuda.
In subsequent years, Dejean, 1835, p. 299, 1837, p. 324; Schoenherr, 1825,
column 586, 1826, p. 300, 1833, p. 24, 1838, p. 601; Desbrochers, 1891, p.
38, and Blackwelder, 1947, p. 880 treated Eccoptus as a junior synonym of
Zygops Schoenherr. Latreille, 1825, p. 395, cited ‘Eccopte (Dej., poecilmes
de la div. B de M. Germar)...’ as a valid name and Hustache, 1934, p. 23,
in error attributed Eccoptus to Latreille, 1825 and listed it as a synonym of
Zygops Schoenherr, 1826. Only Latreille, 1825, O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982,
p. 160, and Silfverberg, 1984, have used Eccoptus as a valid name since
Dejean, 1821.
3. Schoenherr, 1825, column 586, established the genus Zygops
through the inclusion of two available names and his type designation of
Poecilma wiedii Germar, 1824, p. 259. The second species included was
Rhynchaenus strix Fabricius, 1792, p. 433, actually Curculio strix Olivier,
1790, p. 506. Schoenherr, 1826, p. 301, described the genus Zygops for the
first time.
4. Eccoptus and Zygops are subjective synonyms, and through the
Principle of Priority, Eccoptus should take precedence. However, except in
the checklist by O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982 and in Silfverberg, 1984, Eccoptus
has not been used as a valid generic name for more than a century and a
half, and Zygops has been in universal use, e.g. by Dejean, 1835, 1837;
Schoenherr, 1826, 1833, 1838; Laporte, 1840; Erichson, 1847; Lacordaire,
1866; Desbrochers, 1891, 1910; Heller, 1895; Champion, 1906; Hustache,
1934 and Blackwelder, 1947. Furthermore, Zygops is the base for the sub-
family name ZYGOPINAE. Replacing Zygops with Eccoptus clearly would not
be in the best interests of stability in nomenclature.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Eccoptus
Dejean, 1821, for purposes of the Principle of Priority but not
for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the generic name Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 (gender:
masculine), type species by original designation, Poecilma
70 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
wiedii Germar, 1824, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name wiedii Germar, 1824, as published in
the binomen Poecilma wiedii (specific name of the type species
of Zygops Schoenherr, 1825) on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(4) to place the generic name Eccoptus Dejean, 1821, as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1947. Checklist of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico,
Central America, the West Indies, and South America. Part 5. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus. no. 185, I-IV, 765-925 pp.
CHAMPION, G. C. 1906. Biol. cent.-Americana. Insecta. Coleoptera. Rhyncho-
phora. Curculionidae. Curculioninae (continued), vol. 4, pt. 5, viii+ 136 pp.
DEJEAN, P. F. M. A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron
Dejean, [2-page errata, unnumbered] + viii + 136 pp. Paris.
1835-1837. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean;
1835, [2nd ed., fasc. IV], pp. 257-360; 1837, 3rd ed., livr. 5, xiv+503 pp.
Paris.
DESBROCHERS DES LOGES, J. 1891. Catalogue des Curculionides appartenant
au genre Zygops etc. Ann. Soc. entomol. Belgique, vol. 35, pp. 37-42.
1910. Etudes sur les curculionides exotiques et descriptions d’espéces
inédites. Ann. Soc. entomol. Belgique, vol. 54, pp. 123-132.
ERICHSON, W. F. 1847. Conspectus Insectorum Coleopterorum, quae in
Republica Peruana observata sunt. Arch. Naturgesch. vol. 13, pp. 67-185.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1,
XX + 538 pp. Hafniae.
GERMAR, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus
illustratae, vol. 1, Coleoptera, XXIV + 624 pp. Halae.
HELLER, K. M. 1895. Zygopiden-Studien II, mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung
der Gattung Copturus. Abh. Ber. zool. Mus. Dresden, 1894/95(1895), no. 11,
pp. 1-70.
HUSTACHE, A. 1934. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 136, Curculionidae:
Zygopinae, pp. 1—96 (vol. 30).
LACORDAIRE, J. T. 1866. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléopteéres,
etc., vol. 7, 620 pp. Paris. (Curculionides (suite), Scolytides, Brenthides,
Anthribides et Bruchides).
LAPORTE, F. L. N. DE C. DE. 1840. Histoire naturelle des insectes Coléopteéres,
vol. 2, 563 pp., Paris. (Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés, annelides,
crustacés, arachnides, myriapodes et insectes). [Vol. 2, Coléoptéres, corres-
ponds to vol. 3, animaux articuleés.]
LATREILLE, P. A. 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal exposées succincte-
ment et dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres, 570 pp.
Paris.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 vA
O'BRIEN, C. W. & WIBMER, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils
(Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America and the West
Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Mem. amer. entomol. Inst., no. 34,
ix+ 382 pp.
OLIVIER, A. G. 1790. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle. Insectes, vol.
5, pp. 1-792 [+ p. 793, Glossary.] Paris.
SCHOENHERER, C. J. 1825. Tabulae synopticae familiae curculionidum. Jsis Oken,
heft V, columns 581—588.
1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica cum generum characteribus,
descriptionibus atque observationibus variis seu prodromus ad synonymiae
insectorum, partem 4, X + 338 pp. Lipsiae.
1833-1838. Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae;
1833, vol. 1, pt. 1, XV+381 pp.; 1838, vol. 4, pt. 2, pp. 601-1124. Paris.
SILFVERBERG, H. 1984. The coleopteran genera of Dejean 1821. III. Curculio-
noidea and Chrysomeloidea. Ann. entomol. fenn., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 61-63.
72 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
TYLOCIDARIS POMEL, 1883 (ECHINOIDEA, CIDAROIDEA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CIDARIS CLAVIGERA MANTELL,
1822, AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2505
By C. W. Wright (The Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, Dorset
DTS 3QY, U.K.) and A. B. Smith (British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.)
The Cretaceous genus Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883, p. 109 is a common
fossil in the Coniacian and Santonian chalk of northern Europe. It is
widely regarded as an aberrant member of the Cidaroidea with imperforate
primary tubercules and lacking interradial peristomial plates (e.g.
Mortensen, 1934, p. 399). For these reasons Tylocidaris is currently placed
in the family PSYCHOCIDARIDAE Ikeda, 1936, which was established for
Psychocidaris Ikeda, 1935, an extant genus with the same aberrant
characters.
2. The genus Tylocidaris was established by Pomel (1883, p. 109),
who gave a full description but failed to designate a type species. He
included four species within this genus, listed as T. gibberula, clavigera,
Ramondi and Bowerbankii. The type species is generally quoted as Cidaris
clavigera Konig as designated by Lambert & Thiery (1910, p. 156) (e.g.
Mortensen 1928, p. 486; Fell 1966, p. U339; Geys 1982, p. 4; Salah &
Schmid 1982, p. 180); the correct attribution of the species is to Mantell,
1822, (p. 194). However, Savin (1905, p. 282) had previously designated
‘Tylocidaris Gibberula Aggasiz’ as the type species of Tylocidaris, selecting
the first of the four species listed by Pomel (1883) as members of that genus.
Lambert & Thiéry (1909, p. 27) accepted Cidaris gibberula Agassiz & Desor,
1846, (p. 329) as the type species of Tylocidaris but one year later, in the
influential Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides (1910, p. 156)
chose to nominate C. clavigera Mantell, 1822, as type species for the genus.
3. Cidaris gibberula Agassiz & Desor is probably not congeneric
with Tylocidaris clavigera (Mantell) or T. asperula (Romer) [= Cidaris
bowerbankii Forbes], both universally treated as typical members of
Tylocidaris. C. gibberula was based on an isolated spine from the
Cenomanian Stage of the Upper Cretaceous of France. Agassiz & Desor
1846, p. 329 gave no illustration and only the following brief diagnosis:—
‘voisin du C. cucumifera, mais 4 mamelons plus irréguliers’. The spine was
later illustrated by Desor (1855, p. 34; plate 6, fig. 3), and Cotteau (1862,
p. 234; plate 1051, figs. 15-18, plate 1054, figs. 1-7) figured additional spines
along with a test from the same locality and horizon. In both spine and test
morphology C. gibberula differs significantly from those species generally
accepted as belonging to Tylocidaris such as T. clavigera.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 73
4. To the best of our knowledge, Savin’s designation of C. gibberula
as type species of Tylocidaris has gone unnoticed or been ignored by all
authors except Lambert & Thiéry (1909, p. 27) and Cooke (1959 p. 12). To
accept Savin’s designation would mean that Tylocidaris would lose its
generally accepted connotation and consequently confusion would result.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested, in the interests of stability of nomenclature:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Ty/ocidaris Pomel,
1883, and, having done so, to designate Cidaris clavigera
Mantell, 1822, as type species of that genus;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cidaris
clavigera Mantell, 1822;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
specific name clavigera Mantell, 1822 as published in the
binomen Cidaris claviger, the specific name of the type species
of Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883.
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, L. & DESOR, E. 1846. Catalogue raisonné des familles, des genres et
des espéces de la classe des échinodermes. Ann. Sci. nat. [3], vol. 6, pp.
305-374.
COOKE, C. W. 1959. Cenozoic echinoids of eastern United States. U. S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap. 321, 106 pp.
COTTEAU, G. 1862. Paléontologie Frangaise. Terrain Crétacé: Echinides. Paris;
Victor Masson et fils. Feuilles 12-20.
DESOR, E. 1855. Synopsis des échinides fossiles. Part 1. Paris; Ch. Reinwald. pp.
3-46.
FELL, H. B. 1966. Cidaroids. In R. C. Moore (ed). Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology. Part U: Echinodermata 3(1). Geological Society of America
and University of Kansas Press: Lawrence, Kansas. p. U312—U339.
GEYS, J. F. 1982. Regular echinoids from the Turonian and the Coniacian (Upper
Cretaceous) of the Mons Basin (Belgium). Bull. Instr. r. Sci. nat. Belg., vol.
53 (3), pp. 1-20.
IKEDA, H. 1935. Preliminary report on a new cidarid sea-urchin from the western
Pacific. Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo, vol. 11, pp. 386-388.
1936. Preliminary note on a new family of the Cidaroidea. Annot. Zool.
Japan, vol. 15(4), pp. 486-489, pl. 33-34.
LAMBERT, J. & THIERY, P. 1909. Notes échinologiques: 1, sur le genre Cidaris.
Bull. Soc. Sci. nat. Haute-Marne [1909], pp. 5-32.
& 1910. Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides. Chaumont.
Fascicule II.
MANTELL, G. 1822. The fossils of the South Downs; or illustrations of the geology
of Sussex, London, 327 pp.
74 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
MORTENSEN, T. 1928. A monograph of the Echinoidea. I, Cidaroidea.
Copenhagen, C. A. Reitzel, 551 pp.
—— 1934. Notes on some fossil echinoids. Geol. Mag. 71, p. 393-407.
POMEL, M. A. 1883. Classification methodique et genera des Echinides vivants et
fossiles. Paris: Jourdan, 132 pp.
SALAH, A. A. & SCHMID, F. 1982. Die Tylocidariden (reg. Echiniden) der Ober-
Maastricht-Stufe von Danemark und NW-Deutschland. Geol. Jb. vol. A61,
pp. 177-205.
SAVIN, L. 1905. Révision des Echinides du départment de l’Isére. Bull. Soc. Stat.
Sci. nat. Arts industr. dept. Isére [4] vol. 8, pp. 109-324.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 75
AMMONITES PERARMATUS J. SOWERBY, 1822 (CEPHALOPODA,
AMMONOIDEA); PROPOSED EXEMPTION FROM THE
PRINCIPLE OF HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.)2479
By M. K. Howarth (British Museum (Natural History) London)
The purpose of this application is to ask the Commission to use
its plenary powers to safeguard the Upper Jurassic ammonite name
Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822, against being rendered invalid
under the principle of homonymy by the prior use of Ammonites perarmatus
Young & Bird, 1822, for a Lower Jurassic ammonite. A. perarmatus J.
Sowerby is also the type species of the genus Euaspidoceras Spath, 1931,
and it is advisable to retain the current interpretation of that genus without
altering the type species.
2. Ammonites perarmatus Young & Bird, 1822 (p. 249, pl. 14, fig. 11)
was first described in the first edition of A Geological Survey of the
Yorkshire Coast, for which the exact date of publication has only recently
been discovered (Howarth, 1978, p. 262). That book was listed in the 1 June
1822 issue of the Monthly Magazine (London, vol. 53, no. 368, p. 446) ina
review of books published during May 1822; also Rev. G. Young said that
his book was ‘just published’ during a lecture on the Kirkdale Cave that he
delivered to the Wernerian Natural History Society of Edinburgh on 4 May
1822 (Mem. Wernerian Soc., vol. 4, p. 262). These suggest that thé date of
publication of Young & Bird’s book was 1, 2 or 3 May 1822.
3. Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822 (p. 72, pl. 352) was first
published in volume 4, part 61, of the Mineral Conchology of Great Britain,
for which part the generally accepted data of publication is 1 June 1822
(Cleevely, 1974, p. 443). Young & Bird’s specific name was published first,
and J. Sowerby’s name is, therefore, a junior primary homonym.
4. Ammonites perarmatus Young & Bird, 1822, is currently accepted
as a coarsely ribbed and tuberculate species of the Lower Toarcian genus
Peronoceras, and the holotype is extant (Howarth, 1978, p. 263, pl. 5,
figs. 1-4).
5. Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822, is the type species
by original designation of the Callovian to Oxfordian ammonite genus
Euaspidoceras Spath (1931, pp. 326, 588), a well-known member of the
family Aspidoceratidae. That species and its holotype were described by
Arkell (1940, p. 193, pl. 41, fig. 1), and the genus has been widely used as an
Upper Jurassic ammonite during the last 50 years, especially in the import-
ant descriptions and compilative works by Arkell (1936, 1940, 1956, 1957),
Roman (1938), Basse (1952), Orlov (1958), Collignon (1959), Andjelkovic
76 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
(1961) and Wierzbowski (1975). Peronoceras perarmatum (Young & Bird)
and Euaspidoceras perarmatum (J. Sowerby) belong to two different am-
monite superfamilies (Eoderocerataceae and Perisphinctaceae respectively)
that are so far apart that confusion between them is not a possibility.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to declare that Ammonites perarmatus
J. Sowerby, 1 June 1822, is not rendered invalid by the prior
use of Ammonites perarmatus Young & Bird, 1-3 May 1822.
(2) to place the specific name perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822; as pub-
lished in the binomen Ammonites perarmatus, and as validated
under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) to place the generic name Euaspidoceras Spath, 1931 (type
species Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822, by original
designation of Spath (1931, p. 588)) on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
ANDJELKOVIC, M. Z. 1961. Ammoniten aus dem unteren Malm (Oxford) des
Stara planina-Gebirges (Serbien). Geoloski Anali balk. Poluost., vol. 28, pp.
217-240, pls. 1-4.
ARKELL, W. J. 1936. The ammonites zones of the Upper Oxfordian of Oxford,
and the horizons of the Sowerbys’ and Buckman’s types. Quart. J. geol. Soc.
Lond., vol. 92, pp. 146-187, pls. 10, 11.
1940. A monograph of the ammonites of the English Corallian Beds, part 6,
pp. Ixv—Ixxii, 191-216, pls. 41-47. Palaeontogr. Soc. (Monogr.), London.
1956. Jurassic Geology of the World. Edinburgh & London, 806 pp., 46 pls.
1957. In R. C. Moore (editor), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part L.
Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. Geol. Soc. Amer.
BASSE, E. 1952. Ammonoidea. In Traité de paléontologie, (J. Piveteau, ed.), vol. 2,
pp. 522-555, 581-688. Paris.
CLEEVELY, R. J. 1974. The Sowerbys, the Mineral Conchology, and their fossil
collection. J. Soc. Biblphy. nat. Hist., London, vol. 6, pp. 418-481.
COLLIGNON, M. 1959. Atlas des fossiles caractéristiques de Madagascar, part 4,
Argovien-Rauracien, pls. 47—95, figs. 226-364. Tananarive.
HOWARTH, M. K. 1978. The stratigraphy and ammonite fauna of the Upper Lias
of Northamptonshire. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist., (Geol.), London, vol. 29,
pp. 235-288, pls. 1-9.
ORLOV, YU. A. (ed.) 1958. Principles of Palaeontology. Vol. 6, Mollusca:
Cephalopoda II, Ammonoidea, Dibranchiata. 359 pp. Moscow.
ROMAN, F. 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. 554 pp., 53 pls. Paris.
SOWERBY, J. 1822. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, vol. 4, 349-354, pls.
69-76.
SPATH, L. F. 1931. Revision of the Jurassic cephalopod fauna of Kachh (Cutch).
Palaeontogr. indica, Calcutta (N.S.), vol. 9, mem. 2, pp. 279-550, pls. 48-102.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 ii |
WIERZBOWSKI, A. 1975. Oxfordian ammonites of the Pinar del Rio province
(western Cuba); their revision and stratigraphical significance. Acta geol.
pol., vol. 26, pp. 137-260, pls. 1-8.
YOUNG, G. & BIRD, J. 1822. A geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast. Whitby,
336 pp., 17 pls.
78 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
CLAUSILIA DRAPARNAUD, 1805 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA):
PROPOSED CORRECTION OF OPINION 119. Z.N.(S.)872
By R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)
Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 is one of the generic names for which
the Official List entry was found to be incomplete or incorrect when the first
instalment of the lists was being prepared for publication in 1958. The
relevant entry in Opinion 119 (1931) reads: ‘Clausilia (rugosa)’ in the
Summary (equivalent to the Ruling in later Opinions); and in the Statement
of Case: ‘Clausilia Draparnaud, with C. rugosa Draparnaud as type’. The
facts of the case are as follows.
2. Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll. terr. fluv. France, pp.
24, 68, was established with a number of originally included species but
with no designation or indication of type species. Two of these species are
Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 767 and Pupa
rugosa Draparnaud, 1801, Tab. Moll. France, p. 63. The first known desig-
nation of a type species was made by Turton, 1831, Land and freshwater
shells British Isles, p. 6 as ‘Turbo bidens Montagu’. Under Article 67f this is
to be read as Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758, since ‘Turbo bidens Montagu’
is not a nominal species in the sense of Article 69a(v). On p. 75, however,
Turton included ‘Turbo bidens Montagu, p. 357’ in the synonymy of
‘Clausilia rugosa Drap., p. 73’. This suggests that Turton thought that
Montagu, 1803, Testacea britt. (2), p. 357, had misidentified Linnaeus’s
species (although Montagu clearly cited it) and that rugosa was the valid
name for the species that was before Montagu. This designation as type
species of a misidentification which is then treated as an invalid name
cannot be valid.
3. Turbo bidens (or Clausilia bidens) has been wrongly cited on many
occasions. As we have seen, Turton cited ‘Turbo bidens Montagu’ as if it
were a nominal species. As late as 1922, Pilsbry, Nautilus vol. 35, p. 31-32
cited ‘Turbo bidens Draparnaud’ as type species of Cochlodina Feérussac,
1821, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Moll. Tab. Limagons, p. 28. However, neither
this unnamed species nor C. /aminata (Montagu), which is now held to
be the species that was before Draparnaud, was originally included in
Cochlodina. These confusions may arise from the fact that the original
Turbo bidens Linnaeus is unrecognizable. It is based on a figure in Gualtieri,
1742, Index Test. Conch., pl. 4, fig. C, which is itself unrecognisable.
4. Although Turton’s type-species designation cannot be accepted
(and Opinion 119 must be corrected in that particular); and though other
species, such as C. bidentata (Strom, 1765) have occasionally been put for-
ward as type species, there is no doubt that Opinion 119 stated general
usage. Since 1926, four major works of reference concur in citing Clausilia
rugosa (Draparnaud) as type species of Clausilia. These are: Kennard &
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 79
Woodward, 1926, Syn. brit. non—marine Moll., p. 270; Thiele, 1931, Handb.
syst. Weichtierk. (2), p. 538; Zilch, 1960, in Wenz. Handb. Paldozool. vol. 6,
Gastropoda, Lief. 3, p. 412; and the latest major revision of the group,
Nordsieck, 1978, Arch. Molluskenk. vol. 109, p. 264. The Commission is
accordingly asked to ratify this usage and in particular:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Clausilia
Draparnaud, 1805, and, having done so, to designate Pupa
rugosa Draparnaud, 1801 as type species of that genus;
(2) to place the generic name Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (gender:
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary
powers, Pupa rugosa Draparnaud, 1801, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name rugosa Draparnaud, 1801, as
published in the binomen Pupa rugosa (specific name of type
species of Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805) on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
80 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
DE LA CEPEDE, 1788-1789 ‘HISTOIRE NATURELLE DES
SERPENS’ AND LATER EDITIONS: PROPOSED REJECTION AS A
NON-BINOMINAL WORK. Z.N.(S.)1985
By R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)
A. INTRODUCTION
In 1972 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29, pp. 44-61, Dr L. D. Brongersma
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) analysed de la Cépéde’s
Histoire naturelle des Serpens, 1788-1789 and later editions, in exhaustive
detail. He put a number of alternative proposals to the Commission, as
follows:
I. To reject de la Cépéde (henceforth in this paper, Lacépéde),
1788-1789 and later editions as non-binominal, but to conserve
Crotalus piscivorus Lacépéde, 1788-1789, a name in general
current use.
II. If the proposal in I was unacceptable, to suppress a number
of names in Lacépéde’s work, in the interests of stability of
nomenclature.
III. To rule that Bonnaterre, 1790, is the author of the generic name
Langaha.
IV, V. To take steps to conserve Boa reticulata Schneider, 1801.
2. In view of the complexity of the case presented by Dr
Brongersma, and the mass of detail involved in it, the Secretary considered
that the case should not be taken further in the absence of any comment on
it. Eventually, in 1976, Professor Jay Savage (then of the Allan Hancock
Foundation, Los Angeles) wrote to express interest; but it was not until 1980
that he submitted his comment. It was published in 1981, Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 38, pp. 8-9. Although he had previously considered Lacépede’s work to
be binominal, he now agreed with Dr Brongersma that it was not, and
should be rejected. He disagreed with Dr Brongersma on a number of
points of detail.
3. In 1984, as Dr Brongersma had not replied to Professor Savage, I
asked Professor Dr Holthuis to re-examine the case and make recom-
mendations. I am most grateful to him for the thorough investigation he
has carried out and for the clarity of his recommendations. He came to the
same broad conclusions as Dr Brongersma.
B. IS LACEPEDE, 1788-1789 TO BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED?
4. The first question to be answered is, whether Lacépéde’s 1789
work and later editions is to be rejected as non-binominal, or accepted as an
available work. If the work is rejected, then the generic name Langaha and
the binomina Coluber lanceolatus, Dromicus cursor and Crotalus piscivorus
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 81
(all of the Ist edition, 1789) and Langaha madag (of the 2nd edition, 1790)
are lost. However, the first three merely take “‘Bonnaterre, 1790’ as author
and date, while the last becomes ‘Langaha madagascariensis Bonnaterre,
1790’. Plenary powers would have to be used to conserve Crotalus piscivorus
Lacépéde, 1789, a name in general current use.
5. If Lacépéde’s work is accepted as an available work, then Coluber
flavocaeruleus Lacépéde, 1788-1789 would replace Boa reticulata Schneider,
1801. Coluber oularsawa Bonnaterre, 1790, which would become the valid
name for the species if Lacépéde’s work was rejected, and Coluber oryzivorus
Suckow, 1798 are both unused senior synonyms of Boa reticulata, which
must at all costs be conserved.
C. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF LACEPEDE, 1789 UNDER THE
CODE?
6. I have examined Lacépéde’s 1788-1789 work thoroughly to
determine its status under the Code. I do not see how even the most indul-
gent nomenclaturist could claim that it was available. Apart from being
not consistently binominal, the book as a whole is not even consistently
latinised. In the main body of the work the descriptions of the species are
headed by vernacular names. When Latin names are cited within the text, it
is clear that it is the vernacular name, not the Latin one, that is adopted
as the valid name. The only place where names of a binominal type are
to be found is in the Tableau Meéthodique (readers should refer to Dr
Brongersma’s thorough analysis of the structure of the work).
7. The Tableau Meéthodique contains many inconsistencies of
nomenclature. As it is a detailed table of specific characters, the names in
the left-hand column must be read as specific names. Whereas 86 species
received binominal names, 52 received uninominal names, and a specific
name is not available unless it is published in combination with a generic
name (Article 1 1h(iii)). Among these uninominal names are a number of the
form ‘17me de Gronovius, /7ma Gronovii’, or ‘septemdecimagronovii’ if
spelt out and written as a single word. Such a name is not available under
Article 11h(v). In the Nomenclature section, all the generic names that
are adopted are vernacular except two — Boa and Anguis — but these are
Linnean names, not new ones.
8. It is thus clear that only a ruling under the plenary powers would
render Lacépéde’s Histoire naturelle des Serpens, 1788-1789 an available
work. It is also clear that such an action is only theoretically an option for
the Commission. The names that would thus acquire availability have never
been used and, given their early date, would introduce instability and con-
fusion on a massive scale. There seems little point in using plenary powers
to declare a work available if those same powers have then to be used to
suppress all but one of the new names in the work. Dr Brongersma has
shown that the later editions do not differ in any material respect from the
first, so that all can be rejected out of hand.
82 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
9. Dr Brongersma has also given exhaustive details of the usage of
‘the names that should be protected, and this should be consulted.
D. PROPOSALS
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to rule that Lacépéde, 1788-1789, Histoire naturelle des
Serpens, and its subsequent editions (1790, 1799, 1825, 1834,
1836) are unavailable works, and that no name acquires the
status of availability by reason of having been published in any
of them.
(2) To use its plenary powers:
(a) to suppress, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(i) oularsawa Bonnaterre, 1790, as published in the
binomen Coluber oularsawa;
(ii) oryzivorus Suckow, 1798, as published in the binomen
Coluber oryzivorus;
(b) to rule that the specific name piscivorus Lacépéde, 1788—
1789, as published in the binomen Crotalus piscivorus, is an
available name, notwithstanding that it was published in
an unavailable work;
(c) to exempt the specific name triangulum Lacépéde, 1788—
1789, as published in the binomen Coluber triangulum
(Official List of Specific Names in Zoology No. 2186) from
the ruling requested in (1) above.
(3) to place the generic name Langaha Bonnaterre, 1790 (gender:
feminine), type species, by monotypy, Langaha madagascarien-
sis Bonnaterre, 1790, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) madagascariensis Bonnaterre, 1790, as published in the
binomen Langaha madagascariensis (specific name of the
type species of Langaha Bonnaterre, 1790);
(b) piscivorus Lacépéde, 1788-1789, as published in the
binomen Crotalus piscivorus, and as conserved under the
plenary powers in (2)(b) above;
(c) reticulata Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen Boa
reticulata, and as conserved under the plenary powers in
(2)(a) above;
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology:
(a) oularsawa Bonnaterre, 1790, as published in the binomen
Coluber oularsawa, and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (2)(a)(i) above;
(6)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 83
(b) oryzivorus Suckow, 1798, as published in the binomen
Coluber oryzivorus, and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (2)(a)(ii) above;
to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works
in Zoological Nomenclature, Lacépéde, 1788-1789, Histoire
naturelle des Serpens and its subsequent editions of 1790, 1799,
1825, 1834, 1836, ruled unavailable in (1) above, with an
endorsement that no name acquires the status of availability
by reason of having been published in any of them (except as
specified in (2)(c) above).
84 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
ATYIDAE DE HAAN, [1849] (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) AND
ATYIDAE THIELE, 1926 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA):
PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.) 2357.
by Trevor K. Crosby (Entomology Division, Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand) and Alan
Carpenter (Agricultural Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Private Bag, Palmerston North, New Zealand).
Homonymy, as defined in Article 55 of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, exists between the family-group names ATYIDAE
De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea: Decapoda) and ATyIDAE Thiele, 1926
(Mollusca: Gastropoda). Both family-group names are correctly derived as
specified in Articles 1le and 29 of the Code, the former from the generic
name Atya Leach, 1816 (=Atys Leach, 1815, a junior homonym of Atys
Montfort, 1810), and the latter from the generic name Atys Montfort, 1810.
In the case of ATYIDAE De Haan the original family-group name was
ATYADEA (corrected by Dana, 1852); and Yu, 1936 used ATTIDAE as an
incorrect subsequent spelling (Holthuis, 1955). In the case of ATYIDAE
Thiele, Abbott, 1954 used ATYDAE as an incorrect subsequent spelling.
2. The generic name Atys was first used for Mollusca by Montfort,
1810, p. 342 for the gastropod species Atys cymbulus Montfort, 1810, p.
343. A. cymbulus was subsequently synonymised with A. naucum (Linnaeus,
1758, p. 726) by Pilsbry, [1895], and this synonymy was maintained by
Dodge, 1955 in his review of the molluscs described by Linnaeus. The
family placement of the genus Atys has changed several times since the
latter was described and is still a matter of dispute. Thiele, 1926, p. 106
erected the family ATYIDAE (with Atys as type genus) by removing Atys
from SCAPHANDRIDAE Sars, 1878. Abbott, 1954, p. 278 used ATYDAE as an
incorrect subsequent spelling in the index and running head of his book.
Recently Abbott, 1974, included Atys in HAMINOEIDAE Pilsbry, [1895],
in contrast to Franc, 1968, who considered four subfamilies could be recog-
nised in ATYIDAE, two of these being HAMINEINAE (= HAMINOEINAE) Pilsbry,
[1895] and ATYINAE Thiele, 1926 (HAMINOEINAE was originally described as a
subfamily of AKERIDAE Pilsbry, [1895]).
3. The generic name Atys was first used for Crustacea by Leach,
1815, p. 345, for the shrimp Atys scaber Leach, 1815, p. 345; on discovering
Atys Leach was preoccupied by Atys Montfort, he changed his Atys to
Atya (Leach, 1816, p. 421). In 1849 De Haan placed the genus Avya in the
newly-erected family-group category ATYADEA; this was altered by Dana,
1852, p. 13, to the current family name ATYIDAE. Yu, 1936, p. 88, used the
incorrect subsequent spelling ATTIDAE for ATYIDAE De Haan. Holthuis
(1955) made an application to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature (Z.N.(S.)622) on 102 generic names of Crustacea for
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 , 85
addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; one of the
names for inclusion was Atya Leach. Holthuis also asked for Atys Leach to
be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology, for scaber Leach to be placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology, for ATYIDAE De Haan to be placed on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology, and for ATYADEA De Haan and ATTIDAE
Yu to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family—
Group Names in Zoology. The application incorporating these points was
granted by the Commission (Opinion 470, Ops Decls I.C.Z.N. vol. 16, pp.
129-202, 1957).
4. The generic name Atys has also been used in Insecta for a genus
of the order Coleoptera, family SCARABAEIDAE. Reiche 1849, p. 352, des-
cribed Atys with the single species A. samenensis Reiche in Ferret &
Galinier, 1849, p. 352. Strand, 1942 p. 391, pointed out that Atys Reiche in
Ferret & Galinier was preoccupied, and proposed the replacement name
Atysilla Strand. No family-group name has been derived from Atys Reiche.
5. Pursuant to Article 55 of the Code, we refer this case to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Although there are no
formal grounds for preferring conservation of one family-group name over
the other, in view of the following facts we request that the crustacean name
be conserved:
(a) The crustacean family name antedates that of the molluscan.
(b) The crustacean family name has been placed on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as number 151
(I.C.Z.N., 1957, Opinion 470).
(c) In the indexes of volumes 24-68 of Biological Abstracts
(1950-1979) the crustacean taxon is referred to 54 times (as the
family ATYIDAE 38 times, as atyid shrimp or prawn 10 times,
and as the genus Atya 6 times), whereas the molluscan taxon is
referred to only 3 times (as the generic name Atys). However,
it should be noted that the family name ATyImDAE and the
generic name Atys have been used in books on Mollusca
published within this period although not indexed under these
names in Biological Abstracts, e.g., Abbott, 1954; Tinker, 1958;
Keen, 1960; Franc, 1968; Cernohorsky, 1972; Keen & Coan,
1974 and Powell, 1979.
(d) For medical entomology reasons, as in Africa two species of
atyid shrimps (Atya africana Bouvier, 1904, and an unidenti-
fied species) have been found to have two species of SIMULIIDAE
(Insecta: Diptera; Simulium (Phoretomyia) dukei Lewis, Disney
& Crosskey, 1969, and S. (Lewisellum) atyophilum Lewis &
Disney, 1969) associated with them (Disney, 1971). S. (P.)
dukei has been reported biting man, and is possibly a rare
vector of Onchocerca volvulus (Leuckart, 1893) (Nematoda:
ONCHOCERCIDAE) which causes onchocerciasis (Duke, 1962;
Lewis, Disney & Crosskey, 1969; Crosskey, 1973).
86
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
6. If the generic name Atys itself is ruled to be the stem, then there is
a possibility that difficulties may arise if the generic name Atysa Baly, 1864
(Insecta: Coleoptera: CHRYSOMELIDAE) is used to form a family-group name
with the stem Atys-.
7. The solution we suggest is for the Commission to alter the stem
of the molluscan type genus in a way similar to that proposed for Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767 (Melville, 1978). Atys is a classical Greek noun of a sort that
would be expected to give the genitive atydis, although its proper genitive in
Greek is atyos. Therefore, we ask the Commission to rule under its plenary
powers that the stem of Atys for the purposes of Article 29 is ATYD-,
giving the family name ATYDIDAE.
8. We therefore request that the Commission:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name
Atys Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca) for the purposes of Article 29
iS ATYD-;
place the generic name Atys Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca)
(gender: masculine), type species by original designation Atys
cymbulus Montfort, 1810 on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology;
place the specific name naucum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in
the binomen Bulla naucum (the valid name at the time of this
application for the specific name of the type species of Atys
Montfort, 1810) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;
place the family-group name ATYDIDAE Thiele, 1926 (emended
through the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) above,
of ATYIDAE) (type genus Atys Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca)) on
the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology;
place the following family-group names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:
(a) ATYIDAE Thiele, 1926 (an incorrect original spelling of
ATYDIDAE Thiele, 1926 in consequence of the ruling given under
the plenary powers in (1) above) (Mollusca):
(b) ATYDAE Abbott, 1954 (an erroneous subsequent spelling
for ATYDIDAE Thiele, 1926 (Mollusca).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Dr G. Kuschel (Entomology Division, DSIR, Auckland,
New Zealand) for his advice regarding the classical Greek name Atys, and
Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New
Zealand) for providing information on the molluscan family.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 87
REFERENCES
ABBOTT, R. T. 1954. American Seashells. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., Princeton,
541 pp.
1974. American Seashells. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York,
663 pp.
BALY, J. S. 1864. Descriptions of uncharacterized genera and species of
Phytophaga. Trans. roy. entomol. Soc. London, ser. 3, vol. 2, pp. 223-241.
BOUVIER, E. L. 1904. Crevettes de la famille des Atyidés; espéces qui font partie
des collections du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris,
vol. 10, pp. 129-138.
CERNOHORSKY, W. O. 1972. Marine Shells of the Pacific, vol. 2. Pacific
Publications, Sydney, 411 pp.
CROSSKEY, R. W. 1973. Simuliidae (Black-flies, German: Kriebelmiticken). In
SMITH, K. G. V., ed., Insects and other Arthropods of Medical Importance,
British Museum (Natural History), London, pp. 109-153.
DANA, J. D. 1852. Conspectus Crustaceorum, &c. Conspectus of the Crustacea of
the exploring Expedition under Capt. Wilkes, U.S.N. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci.
Philadelphia, vol. 6, pp. 6-28.
DE HAAN, W., 1849. Crustacea elaborante. in SIEBOLD, P. F. VON, Fauna
Japonica, vol. 6, xxi+ 230, pp. 184-186.
DISNEY, R. H. L. 1971. Association between blackflies (Simuliidae) and prawns
(Atyidae), with a discussion of the phoretic habit in simultids. J. anim. Ecol.
vol. 40, pp. 83-92.
DODGE, H. 1955. A historical review of the Mollusks of Linnaeus. Part 3. The
genera Bulla and Voluta of the class Gastropoda. Bulla. amer. Mus. nat. Hist.
vol. 107, pp. 1-158.
DUKE, B. O. L. 1962. Simulium aureosimile Pomeroy, a possible vector of
Onchocerca volvulus. Ann. trop. Med. Parsitol. vol. 56, pp. 67-69.
FRANC, A. 1968. Sous-classe des Opisthobranches. In GRASSE, P.-P., Traité de
Zoologie, vol. 5, fasc. 3, pp. 608-893, Masson et Cie, Paris.
HOLTHUIS, L. B. 1955. Proposed addition to the “Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology” of the names of one hundred and two genera of Caridea (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), including proposals for the use of the plenary
powers (a) to validate the emendation to ““Gnathophyllum” of the generic
name “Gnatophyllum”’ Latreille, 1814, and (b) to validate the family-group
names “Hippolytidae” Bate, 1888 and “Eugonatonotidae” Chace, 1937.
. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, pp. 204-228.
I.C.Z.N., 1957. Opinion 470. Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology of the names of 102 genera of Caridea (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda), & use of the plenary powers for various purposes in connection
therewith. Ops Decs int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. vol. 16, part 9, pp. 129-202.
KEEN, A. M. 1960. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Marine mollusks from
Lower California to Colombia. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 208 pp.
& COAN, E. 1974. Marine Molluscan Genera of Western North America. An
Illustrated Key. 2nd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 624 pp.
LEACH, W. E. 1815. A tabular view of the external characters of four classes of
animals, which Linné arranged under Insecta; with the distribution of the
genera composing three of these classes into orders, &c. and descriptions of
several new genera and species. Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 11, pp.
306-400.
88 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
1816. In, Supplement to the fourth, fifth and sixth editions, Encyclopaedia
Britannica, vol. 1, p. 421.
LEUCKART, K. G. F. R. 1893. Die Parasiten des Menschen und die von ihnen
herrtihrendenden Krankheiten. 2nd ed. Vol. 1, part 1, viiit+441—736 pp.
Leipzig.
LEWIS, D. J. & DISNEY, R. H. L. 1969. A new phoretic Simulium from West
Cameroon (Diptera: Simuliidae). Proc. roy. entomol. Soc. London (B), vol.
38, pp. 117-120.
; & CROSSKEY, R. W. 1969. A new phoretic species of Simulium
(Dipt., Simuliidae) from West Cameroon, with taxonomic notes on allied
forms. Bull. entomol. Res. vol. 59, pp. 229-2339.
LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. 10th ed., vol. 1. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae,
824 pp.
1767, Systema Naturae. 12th ed., vol. 1. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae, 1364 pp.
MELVILLE, R. V. 1978. Tethyidae in gastropods, sponges and ascidians: pro-
posals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 1780. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 34,
pp. 247-251. (See also Opinion 1182, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 38, pp.
174-177).
MONTFORT, D. DE, 1810. Conchyliologie systématique, et classification
méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles Univalves, non cloisonnées, vol. 2, pp.
342-344, Paris.
PILSBURY, H. A. [1895]. Tryon’s Manual of Conchology; structural and systematic.
Vol. 15, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 436 pp. + 61 pl.
POWELL, A. W. B. 1979. New Zealand Mollusca. Marine, Land and Freshwater
Shells. Collins, Auckland, 500 pp.
REICHE, L. 1849. Entomologie. In FERRET, A. & GALINIER, Voyage en
Abyssinie, dans les provinces du Tigré, du Samen et de l’Amhara, vol. 3, pp.
259-471, Paulin, Paris (dated 1847).
SARS, G. O. 1878. Bidrag til kundskaben om Norges Arktiske Fauna. I. Mollusca
regionis Arcticae Norvegiae. Christiania, 466 pp.
STRAND, E. 1942. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et paleontologica. X.
Folia zool. hydrobiol. vol. 11, pp. 386—402.
THIELE, J. 1926. In KUKENTHAL, W. & KRUMBACH, T., Solenogastres:
Mollusca: Echinoderma. Handb. Zool. Berlin, vol. 5, pp. 97-176, 177-256.
TINKER, S. W. 1958. Pacific sea shells. A handbook of common marine molluscs of
Hawaii and the South Seas. 2nd ed. C. E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, 240 pp.
YU, S. C., 1936. Report on the macrourous Crustacea collected during the Hainan
biological expedition in 1934. Chinese J. Zool. vol. 2, pp. 85-100.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 89
CARCHARIAS RAFINESQUE, 1810 (CHONDRICHTHYES,
LAMNIFORMES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE USE OF
THE RELATIVE PRECEDENCE PROCEDURE. Z.N.(S)2414
By Leonard J. V. Compagno (Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies,
P.O. Box 855, Tiburon, California 94920, U.S.A.) and W. I. Follett
(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, 94118. U.S.A.)
This application requests the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to conserve the generic
name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, p. 10, which was suppressed by Opinion
723 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22, pp. 32-36. The ruling given in Opinion 47
(Smithson. publ., No. 2026, pp. 108-109) had determined that Carcharias
Rafinesque, 1810, is monotypic and that its type species is Carcharias taurus
Rafinesque, 1810. The date of publication of the work in which Rafinesque
originally diagnosed this genus and species has been shown by Holthuis &
Boeseman, 1977 to be 1810, rather than 1809 as Fitzpatrick, 1911, p. 69,
had concluded. The extensive usage of the binomen Carcharias taurus was
noted by Bigelow & Schroeder, 1948, pp. 106-107.
Carcharias Rafinesque, ‘1809’, was suppressed by Opinion 723. This
suppression had been requested by White, Tucker & Marshall, 1961, p. 274,
‘so as to validate Odontaspis’. The type species of Odontaspis J. L. R.
Agassiz, 1838, is Carcharias ferox Risso, 1826, p. 122 (Opinion 723(3)
(c))—a species that we regard as taxonomically referable to a genus
distinct from Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810.
3. In suppressing Carcharias in favour of Odontaspis, the Commis-
sion relied upon the statement of White, Tucker & Marshall, 1961, p. 274,
that *...the respective nominal type-species of Carcharias Rafinesque,
1809, and Odontaspis J. R. L. Agassiz, 1838, are congeneric...’.
4. We disagree with that statement. These two species are not
congeneric — they are referable to taxonomically distinct genera. Characters
that differentiate Carcharias from Odontaspis include the following:
5. Genus Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810: Snout moderately depressed,
not bulbously conical, and short, length 1/2 to 2/3 of mouth width. Eyes
smaller, 0-9 to 1-4% of total length. Upper symphyseal tooth rows usually
absent; three rows of upper anterior teeth on either side of symphysis;
heterodonty strong along jaws, lateral teeth compressed and bladelike, with
flattened cusps, and posterior teeth strongly differentiated as carinate,
molariform crushers; cusplets on anterior teeth short and strongly hooked,
90 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
and cusps stout and broad-tipped; teeth larger, second lower anterior tooth
1-3 to 1-5 times height of comparable tooth in Odontaspis. First dorsal,
second dorsal, and anal fins approximately equal-sized; first dorsal fin
positioned far posteriad on back, its midbase much closer to the pelvic fin
bases than to the pectoral fin bases, and its free rear tip posterior to the
pelvic fin origins. Neurocranium with short rostral cartilages, length of
medial rostral cartilage only 28 to 29% of nasobasal length (distance from
base of medial rostral cartilage to occipital centrum); node of rostral
cartilages short and V-shaped; bases of lateral rostral cartilages anterior to
the anterior fontanelle and separated from its margin; nasal capsules not
extending below the basal plate, without a ventral projection on the inter-
nasal plate; basal plate broadly arched, width across it at orbital notches 43
to 44% of nasobasal length; anterior fontanelle wider than long; cranial
roof broadly arched; parietal fossa narrow; preorbital processes high and
angular; post-orbital processes narrowly angular; orbits low, height 42 to
43% of length; cranial height about 34% of nasobasal length.
6. Genus Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838: Snout bulbously con-
ical, not depressed, and longer, length 3/4 or more of mouth width. Eyes
larger, 1-6 to 2-3% of total length. Upper symphyseal tooth rows present;
two.rows of upper anterior teeth on either side of symphysis; heterodonty
weaker along jaws, lateral teeth little compressed and not bladelike, with
cusps little flattened, and posterior teeth not differentiated as molariform
crushers; cusplets on anterior teeth long and straight or weakly curved, not
hooked, and cusps slender and narrow-tipped; teeth smaller, second lower
anterior tooth 0-6 to 0-8 of height of comparable tooth in Carcharias. First
dorsal fin larger than second dorsal fin, and second dorsal somewhat larger
than anal fin; first dorsal fin positioned more anteriad on back, its midbase
closer to the pectoral fin bases than to the pelvic fin bases, and its free rear
tip well anterior to the pelvic fin origins. Neurocranium with longer rostral
cartilages, length of medial rostral cartilage 54 to 58% of nasobasal length;
node of rostral cartilages elongate and Y-shaped; bases of lateral rostral
cartilages confluent with the margin of the anterior fontanelle; nasal
capsules extending below the basal plate, with a ventral projection on the
internasal plate; basal plate flat, width across it at orbital notches 36 to
38% of nasobasal length; anterior fontanelle longer than wide; cranial
roof narrowly arched; parietal fossa broad; preorbital processes low and
truncate; postorbital processes broadly angular; orbits higher, height 70 to
79% of length; cranial height about 42% of nasobasal length.
7. In a forthcoming review of the sharks of this family, one of us
(L.J.V.C.) desires to demonstrate the taxonomic distinction of Carcharias
from Odontaspis, but he has been forbidden to do so by Opinion 723, which
ruled in effect that these two genera are not taxonomically distinct.
8. That ruling transgressed a fundamental precept of the Code:
‘... none [of the provisions of the Code] restricts the freedom of taxonomic
thought or action’ (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,
Preamble).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 91
We therefore request the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to use its plenary powers:
(1) to repeal the Ruling given in Opinion 723 (1) by which the
Ruling given in Opinion 47 was repealed;
(2) to reinstate Opinion 47;
(3) to repeal the Ruling given in Opinion 723 (2) (a) (i) by which
Carcharias Rafinesque, ‘1809’, was suppressed for the purpose of the Law
of Priority;
(4) to repeal the Ruling given in Opinion 723 (5) (a) by which
Carcharias Rafinesque, ‘1809’, was placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;
(5) to determine the date of original publication of the generic name
Carcharias Rafinesque to be 1810;
(6) to determine the date of original publication of the specific
name taurus Rafinesque as published in the binomen Carcharias taurus
Rafinesque to be 1810;
(7) to place the generic name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (gender:
masculine), type-species by monotypy, Carcharias taurus Rafinesque, 1810,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that
it is not to be given nomenclatural precedence over Odontaspis J. L. R.
Agassiz, 1838, whenever the two names are considered as synonyms;
(8) to augment the Ruling given in Opinion 723 (3) (c) (by which
Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, was placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology) by adding to that Ruling an endorsement that
Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, is to be given nomenclatural precedence
over Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, whenever the two names are considered
as synonyms;
(9) to place the specific name taurus Rafinesque, 1810, as pub-
lished in the binomen Carcharias taurus (specific name of type-species of
Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810), on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, J. L. R., 1838. Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles. Tome II, Neuchatel,
Vili +424 pp.
BIGELOW, HENRY B. & SCHROEDER, WILLIAM C., 1948. Sharks. In: Fishes
of the Western North Atlantic. Part One. New Haven, pp. 59-546.
FITZPATRICK, T. J., 1911. Rafinesque. A sketch of his life with bibliography. Des
Moines, 241 pp.
HOLTHUIS, L. B., & BOESEMAN, M. 1977. Notes on C. S. Rafinesque Schmalt’s
(1810) Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della
Sicilia. J. Soc. Bibliogr. nat Hist. vol. 8, pp. 231-234.
RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, C. S., 1810. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove
specie di Animali e Piante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi.
Palermo, 105 pp.
92 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
RISSO, ANTOINE, 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales Productions de I’ Europe
Meéridionale et particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes
Maritimes. Vol. 3, Paris, pp. 97-480.
WHITE, E. I., TUCKER, D. W. & MARSHALL, N. B., 1961. Proposal to repeal
the ruling given in Opinion 47 and to use the plenary powers to stabilise the
generic names Carcharhinus Blainville. 1816, Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838,
and Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, in their accustomed senses (Class
Pisces). Z.N. (S.) 920. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, pp. 273-280.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 93
PYRALIS NIGRICANA FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA,
LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF PHALAENA RUSTICELLA CLERCK, 1759.
Z.N.(S.)2468
By Paul R. Seymour (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Harpenden
Laboratory, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, U.K.)
It is proposed that the name Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794, be
granted nomenclatural precedence over Phalaena rusticella Clerck, 1759, an
unused senior synonym. The name nigricana has long been used to denote a
widely distributed palaearctic, and introduced nearctic, pest of cultivated
pea (Pisum sativum).
2. Clerck, 1759 (Icones Insectorum rariorum, pl. 10, fig. 11)
illustrated and named Phalaena rusticella as a new species but gave no
written description or account.
3. The name rusticella does not appear to have been used in the
primary zoological literature for this species until Robinson & Nielson,
1983 (Syst. Entomol., vol. 8, pp. 191-242) published a revision of the Micro-
lepidoptera described by Linnaeus and Clerck. In this work the authors
clarified the synonymy of the two names, nigricana and rusticella, drawing
upon new evidence—a recently rediscovered Clerck specimen, labelled in
Clerck’s hand as rusticella. This specimen was designated by the authors as
the lectotype of Phalaena rusticella Clerck.
4. Robinson & Nielson, 1983, p. 229, stated that ‘It is most unfortu-
nate that the identity of this name has not been realised until now. Clerck’s
figure is indisputably of the species known until now as Cydia nigricana’.
They added that ‘It may be considered that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature should be asked to suppress the name
rusticella. Cydia nigricana is an economically important species with a wide
literature, and the case for the conservation of the name nigricana is a
strong one’.
5. Fabricius, 1794 (Entomologia Systematica, vol. 3(2), p. 276)
described a new species of moth, Pyralis nigricana from England, in the
collection of Mr Francillon. John Francillon’s insect collection was dis-
persed following his death in 1817. Part of the collection was acquired by
the University Museum of Oxford and part by the British Museum at
Bloomsbury. The remainder, comprising mostly exotic species, was sold by
public auction in 1818. The species was not listed in the sale catalogue, and
no Francillon specimen of nigricana has been found either at the University
Museum, Oxford (M. Scoble, 1983, pers. comm.) or the British Museum
(Natural History) (K.R.C. Tuck, 1983, pers. comm.). There is no specimen
of nigricana in the Fabrician Collection at Copenhagen, Denmark (O.
Karsholt, 1983, pers. comm.).
94 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
6. In contrast to rusticella, the name nigricana has remained in con-
tinued use albeit in synonymy or under different generic combinations since
1794. The species has been known in the taxonomic literature as nigricana
consistently since its use by Rebel, in Staudinger & Rebel, 1901 (Catalog
der Lepidopteren des palaearctischen Faunengebiets, part 2, p. 120) and in
works of applied entomology, also from this time, as the name of a tortricid
pest causing damage to cultivated pea, Pisum sativum. The species has a
wide palearctic distribution ranging from Europe to Japan and China
(Balachowsky, 1966, p. 634). Cydia nigricana was probably introduced into
North America (Canada) in 1893 (Fletcher, 1895, Report of the Entomol-
ogist and Botanist for 1894, Experimental Farms Reports, p. 188. Ottawa,
Canada). It now occurs in most southern parts of Canada and in the
north-east and extreme north-west of the United States of America
(Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, 1981. Cydia nigricana (F.). Dist.
Maps Pests, (A) no. 421).
7. In the last decade (since 1973) there have been 56 publications
with the name nigricana in the title; these were published in 10 countries,
viz. France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark,
Sweden, Finland, Czechoslovakia and U.S.S.R. A further 41 publications
have listed or referred to the species during the same period (sources:
Agricola, C.A.B. abstracts and Zoological Record to 1980). The species is
currently placed in Cydia Hiibner, [1825] and has been abstracted under the
binomen Cydia nigricana by the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology
for over 70 years in their Review of Applied Entomology, since volume one in
1913.
8. To comply with Article 79(b) of the Code, A representative
sample of references using the specific name nigricana has been deposited
with the Commission Secretariat.
9. Together with the following colleagues, Dr D. V. Alford
(Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Bristol), Dr J. D. Bradley
(Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), Dr S. A. Ulenberg
(Plantenziektenkundige Dienst, Wageningen, Netherlands) and Dr C. Wall
(Rothamstead Experimental Station, Harpenden) who have authorised me
to make known that they are in accord with the foregoing view, I request
that in the interest of nomenclatural stability the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name rusticella
Clerck, as published in the binomen Phalaena rusticella, for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;
(2) place the specific name nigricana Fabricius, 1794, as published
in the binomen Pyralis nigricana, on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(3) place the specific name rusticella Clerck, 1759, as published in
the binomen Phalaena rusticella, and as suppressed under the
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 95
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to express my thanks to Dr Ian W. B. Nye, lately of
the British Museum (Natural History) for his help and guidance in the
preparation of this case. He strongly preferred the ‘relative precedence’
procedure. However, on the advice of the Secretary to the Commission, the
partial suppression of the senior synonym has been requested.
96 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
APANTELES ORNIGIS WEED, 1887 (INSECTA,
HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF MICROGASTER ROBINIAE FITCH, 1859
Z.N.(S.)2506
By James B. Whitfield (Department of Entomological Sciences,
201 Wellman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.)
The braconid wasp widely known as Pholetesor ornigis (Weed) is a
common parasitoid of blotchmining Lepidoptera and is perhaps the most
frequently encountered member of its genus in eastern North America.
Described as Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887, p. 6, this species has accumu-
lated a substantial literature due to its parasitism of Phyllonorycter spp. on
cultivated apple (for an introduction see Johnson et al., 1979; Pottinger &
Roux, 1971; Maier, 1984). It now serves as the type species for Pholetesor
Mason, 1981, p. 37.
2. In 1859, twenty-eight years prior to Weed’s description of ornigis,
Asa Fitch described Microgaster robiniae, p. 836, as a solitary parasitoid of
Recurvaria (now Sinoe) robiniella Fitch on black locust, Robinia pseudo-
acacia. His description was inadequate even for his own time and the
species was considered recognisable only on the basis of its light coloration.
The name robiniae has since been used only in catalogs, species lists and
keys (e.g. Viereck et al., 1916; Muesebeck, 1920; Muesebeck, Krombein,
Townes et al., 1951; Krombein et al., 1979; Mason, 1981) and then only
with reference to what is known of the type series.
3. It now appears that the two names, ornigis Weed and robiniae
Fitch, are subjective synonyms because; (a) ornigis Weed, as the name has
been traditionally applied, refers to a parasitoid with a broad host range
of blotchmining Lepidoptera on a diversity of deciduous trees, shrubs and
woody vines (Krombein et al., 1979; Whitfield, in prep, PhD dissertation),
including leafminers on black locust; (b) the holotype of Microgaster
robiniae Fitch is indistinguishable morphologically from many small
individuals of Pholetesor ornigis (Weed), differing only in its light reddish
color; (c) specimens of many species of Pholetesor which have been exten-
sively exposed to sunlight are apt to bleach to a color similar to that of the
robiniae holotype; (d) other specimens in Fitch’s collection are unusually
light or bleached in color (R. A. Wharton, pers. comm.) and (e) no fresh
specimens resembling in color the Microgaster robiniae holotype have
been recovered since, despite repeated rearings of the essentially morpho-
logically identical Pholetesor ornigis (Weed) from the type host of robiniae.
It appears that the holotype of Microgaster robiniae Fitch is a bleached
specimen of the species generally referred to as Apanteles (or now
Pholetesor) ornigis Weed.
4. The name ornigis, by contrast to robiniae Fitch, has been used in
a large number of non—-taxonomic papers during the last fifty years. For
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 |
example: Dutcher & Howitt, 1978; Gambino & Sullivan, 1982; Gibbons &
Butcher, 1961; Herbert & McRae, 1983; Hough, 1957; Johnson et al., 1978;
Martin, 1956; Putman, 1935, 1942; Weaver & Dorsey, 1965.
5. To preserve usage of the name ornigis as it has been applied
for 97 years to a well-known species, the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name robiniae, Fitch,
1859, as published in the binomen Microgaster robiniae, for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the specific name ornigis Weed, 1887, as published in
the binomen Apanteles ornigis, on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name robiniae Fitch, 1859, as published in
the binomen Microgaster robiniae, and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
DUTCHER, J. D. & HOWITT, A. J. 1978. Bionomics and Control of Lithocolletis
blancardella in Michigan. J. econ. Entomol., vol. 71, pp. 736-738.
’ FITCH, A. 1859. Fifth report on the noxious and other insects of the State of New
York. N.Y. State agric. Soc. Trans., vol. 18, pp. 781-854.
GAMBINO, P. & SULLIVAN, D. J. 1982. Phenology of emergence of the spotted
tentiform leafminer, Phyllonorycter crataegella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae)
and its parasitoids in New York. J. N. Y. entomol. Soc., vol. 90, pp. 229-236.
GIBBONS, C. F. & BUTCHER, J. W. 1961. The oak skeletonizer, Bucculatrix
ainsliella, in a Michigan woodlot. J. econ. Entomol., vol. 54, pp. 681-684.
HERBERT, H. J. & MCRAE, K. B. 1983. Effect of temperature on the emergence
of overwintering Phyllonorcyter blancardella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae)
and its parasite Apanteles ornigis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Nova
Scotia. Can. Entomol., vol. 115, pp. 1203-1208.
HOUGH, W. S. 1957. Effect of mouse-control spray of Endrin on insect life in
orchard ground cover. J. econ. Entomol., vol. 50, pp. 692-693.
JOHNSON, E. F., LAING, J. E. & TROTTIER, R. 1978. The seasonal occurrence
of Lithocolletis blancardella (Gracillariidae) and its major natural enemies in
Ontario apple orchards. Proc. entomol. Soc. Ontario, vol. 107, pp. 31-45.
, TROTTIER, R. & LAING, J. E. 1979. Degree—day relationships to the
development of Lithocolletis blancardella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) and
its parasite Apanteles ornigis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Can. Entomol.,
vol. 111, pp. 1177-1184.
KROMBEIN, K. V., HURD, P. D., SMITH, D. R. & BURKS, B. D. (Eds) 1979.
Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press, Washington, D.C. 2735 pp.
MAIER, C. T. 1984. Abundance and phenology of parasitoids of the spotted tenti-
form leafminer, Phyllonorycter blancardella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), in
Connecticut. Can. Entomol., vol. 116, pp. 443-449.
98 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
MARTIN, J. L. 1956. The bionomics of the aspen blotch miner, Lithocolletis
salicifoliella Cham. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Can. Entomol., vol. 88, pp.
155-168.
MASON, W. R. M. 1981. The polyphyletic nature of Apanteles Foerster: a
phylogeny and reclassification of Microgastrinae. Mem. entomol. Soc.
Canada, no. 115, 147 pp.
MUESEBECK, C. F. W. 1920. A revision of the North American species of
ichneumon-flies belonging to the genus Apanteles. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol.
58, pp. 483-576.
, KROMBEIN, K. V. & TOWNES, H. K., et al. 1951. Hymenoptera
of America North of Mexico. Synoptic catalog. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Monograph 2. 1420 pp.
POTTINGER, R. P. & LEROUX, E. J. 1971. The biology and dynamics of Litho-
colletis blancardella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) on apple in Quebec. Mem.
entomol. Soc. Canada, no. 77, 437 pp.
PUTMAN, W. L. 1935. Notes on the hosts and parasites of some lepidopterous
larvae. Can. Entomol., vol. 67, pp. 105-109.
1942. Host plants and parasites of some lepidopterous larvae. Can.
Entomol., vol. 74, pp. 219-224.
VIERECK, H. L., MACGILLIVRAY, A. D., BRUES, C. T., WHEELER, W. M.
& ROHWER, S. A. 1916. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Part III. The
Hymenoptera, or wasp-like insects, of Connecticut. Bull. Conn. State geol.
nat. Hist. Sury., vol. 5, no. 22, 824 pp+ 10 pl.
WEAVER, J. E. & DORSEY, C. K. 1965. Parasites and predators associated with
five species of leafmining insects in black locust. Ann. entomol. Soc. Am., vol.
58, 933-934.
WEED, C. M. 1887. Notes on some Illinois microgasters: with descriptions of new
species. Bull. Ill. State Lab. nat. Hist., vol. 3, pp. 1-8.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 99
NEASTACILLA TATTERSALL, 1921 (CRUSTACEA, ISOPODA):
REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF ASTACILLA FALCLANDICA
OHLIN, 1907 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2509
By Helen M. Lew Ton and Gary C. B. Poore (Department of Crustacea,
Museum of Victoria, Russell Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia)
Application is hereby made for official designation of type species to
preserve current long-standing usage. The case of misidentified type species
is being referred to the Commission in accordance with Article 70b of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
2. Tattersall, 1921, p. 243, when erecting the genus Neastacilla
nominated Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1907, as the type species. Subsequent
examination of the specimen from New Zealand which Tattersall identified
as Astacilla falclandica has revealed a misidentification. This specimen is
another species of Neastacilla currently being described by us. That
Tattersall based the concept of Neastacilla upon the specimen at hand is
apparent — ‘examination of its characteristics has led me to decide [that]
they are characters of generic importance’ (1921, p. 244). Comparison of
topotypic material of Neastacilla falclandica with the New Zealand material
reveals that both species possess the characters which Tattersall used to
characterise the genus. For this reason we propose that Astacilla falclandica
Ohlin, 1907, remain as the type species.
3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
hereby asked to take the following actions:
(1) to confirm that the type species of the nominal genus Neastacilla
Tattersall, 1921, is Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1907, by original
designation;
(2) to place the generic name Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 (gender:
feminine), type species, by original designation, Astacilla falc-
landica, Ohlin, 1907, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name falclandica Ohlin, 1907, as published
in the binomen Astacilla falclandica (specific name of the type
species of Neastacilla, Tattersall, 1921) on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
OHLIN, A. 1907. Wiss. Ergebn. schwed. Exped. Magellansland. vol. 2(11),
pp. 261—306.
TATTERSALL, W. 1921. Br. Antarct. Terra Nova Exped. 1910 nat. Hist.
Rep. Zool., vol. 3(38), pp. 191-258.
100 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
STRONG YLASPIS SPAETH, 1936 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) NON
STRONGYLASPIS THOMSON, 1860: PROPOSED DESIGNATION
OF CASSIDA ATRIPES LECONTE, 1859 AS TYPE SPECIES.
Z.N.(S.)2492
By Edward G. Riley (Department of Entomology, Louisiana Agricultural
Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge,
LA 70803, U.S.A.)
Spaeth, 1936 (Entomol. Rundsch., vol. 53, p. 216) proposed the
generic name Strongylaspis for a species which he identified as Coptocycla
bisignata Boheman, 1855 (Monographia Cassididarum, p. 119), type species
by original designation and monotypy. Hincks, 1950 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.,
series 12, vol. 3, p. 511) proposed Strongylocassis as a replacement name for
Strongylaspis Spaeth because the latter name is preoccupied by Strongylaspis
Thomson, 1860 (Essai d’une classification de la famille des cerambycides .. . ,
p. 313); however, in the following discussion Strongylaspis Spaeth rather
than the valid Strongylaspis Hincks is used in order to simplify as much as
possible an otherwise complex situation.
2. There are two items of evidence to indicate that Spaeth based
the genus Strongylaspis on specimens of Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859
(Smithson. Contrib. Knowl, vol. 11(6), p. 28) and not, as he believed, on
Coptocycla bisignata Boheman.
3. First, I have examined the holotype of Coptocycla bisignata
Boheman in the Riksmuseum, Stockholm, Sweden and the holotype of
Cassida atripes LeConte in the Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts and find that Spaeth’s detailed description of
the species before him conforms to the morphology of Cassida atripes but
not to that of Coptocycla bisignata. Specifically Cassida atripes has toothed
tarsal claws while those of Coptocycla bisignata are simple, and the clypeal
sculpture also differs between these species.
4. Second, three of the four specimens of Cassida atripes in the
Spaeth collection in Manchester Museum, Manchester, England are
labelled ‘bisignata Spaeth det’.
5. There is no doubt in my mind that the type species of Strongylaspis
Spaeth was misidentified by Spaeth, and that he had before him specimens
of Cassida atripes LeConte not Coptocycla bisignata Boheman.
6. The two species in question are valid and belong to different
genera in the tribe Cassidini. Cassida atripes has been accepted as a
junior synonym of Jonthonota nigripes (Olivier, 1791, Encyclopédie
meéthodique ..., vol. 5(2), p. 384) since it was so listed by Spaeth, 1914
(Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 62, p. 120), but this synonymy is in error.
Cassida atripes and the common North American Jonthonota nigripes are
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 101
neither conspecific nor congeneric. Sanderson & King, 1951 (J. Kans.
entomol. Soc., vol. 24, p. 126) considered Strongylaspis Spaeth to be a junior
synonym of Metriona Weise, 1896 (Det. entomol. Z., p. 13). This synonymy
is also incorrect since neither Cassida atripes nor Coptocycla bisignata are
congeneric with Cassida elatior Klug, type species of Metriona.
7. Since the name Strongylaspis Spaeth was synonymised in error, it
did not appear as a valid genus in subsequent taxonomic works. Suppres-
sion of C. bisignata as type species of Strongylaspis would therefore cause
no major change in the existing taxonomic literature. Cassida atripes
represents a valid and so far monotypic genus that would be left without a
name if bisignata were to be left as type species of Strongylaspis.
8. As shown in (3) above, Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936, is based on a
misidentified species. In accordance with article 70(b) of the Code, the
Commission is requested to set aside the original type species designation
and designate Cassida atripes as the type species of Strongylaspis Spaeth,
1936. This action would eliminate the need for a recharacterisation of
Strongylaspis Spaeth as well as the need for a new genus to accommodate
C. atripes. Also this action would preserve the original intention of Spaeth
by retaining the original entity in the genus he described. For these reasons
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all type designations
hitherto made for the nominal genus Strongylaspis Spaeth,
1936, and the replacement name Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950,
and to designate Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859, as type species
of that genus;
to place the specific name atripes LeConte, 1859, as published
in the binomen Cassida atripes (specific name of the type
species of Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950, replacement for
Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936) on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the generic name Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950,
(gender: feminine), replacement name for Strongylaspis
Spaeth, 1936, type species, by designation under the plenary
powers in (1) above, Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859, on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(2
—
102 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
NOMADACRIS UVAROYV, 1923 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SETTING ASIDE THE FIRST—
REVISER ACTION OF JAGO, 1981. Z.N.(S.)2525
By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Canberra) and
N. D. Jago (Tropical Development and Research Institute, London)
Following an extended discussion in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, the International Commission in its Opinion 998 (1973, Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 77-79) designated a neotype for Gryllus Locusta
succinctus Linnaeus, 1763. The effect of this action was to preserve the name
Patanga succincta (Linnaeus) for use in its accustomed sense for a species
of economic significance in southern Asia. The generic names Patanga
Uvarov, 1923 and Valanga Uvarov, 1923, with stated type species, were
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
2. Uvarov (1923) had established 19 new generic names in the tribe
‘CYRTACANTHACRINI of the family ACRIDIDAE. Those established on p. 143,
in addition to Patanga and Valanga, included Nomadacris and Austracris.
The group concerned, now treated as the subfamily CYRTACANTHACRIDINAE,
includes also the older genera Cyrtacanthacris Walker, 1870 and Schisto-
cerca Stal, 1873. Dirsh (1979) synonymised under Cyrtacanthacris the
names Valanga, Patanga, Austracris, and Nomadacris, but this action was
contested on taxonomic grounds by Jago (1981), who accepted the last
three as congeneric, but regarded Cyrtacanthacris and Valanga as distinct.
Patanga, Austracris, and Nomadacris had been published in the same
work on the same day. As first reviser, Jago gave precedence to Patanga
by selecting it as the valid name for the genus. This selection has had the
unfortunate consequence of changing the generic name of one of the most
serious pests of agriculture in Africa, the Red Locust, universally known
since 1923 as Nomadacris septemfasciata (Audinet-Serville, [1838], p. 661).
3. Not only is the Red Locust a much more serious pest than the
‘Bombay Locust’ (Patanga succincta), but it has given rise to a literature
much more extensive. During the 30 years from 1950 to 1979 inclusive, the
Review of Applied Entomology (A) listed 114 literature references to
Nomaadacris, as against only 18 to Patanga. Replacement of Nomadacris by
Patanga would be a source of serious confusion in the field of economic
entomology and of hostility and cynicism on the part of economic entomol-
ogists, especially in Africa. We are in agreement that the situation calls for
action by the International Commission under its plenary powers to set
aside the first-reviser selection of Jago (1981) and to declare that the name
Nomadacris is to have precedence over Patanga and Austracris as well as all
of the other new generic names published by Uvarov (1923) in the event of
any of those names being treated as synonymous with Nomadacris. None of
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 103
the names concerned has anything approaching the usage of Nomadacris.
The considerations supporting such a course of action are completely in line
with those that largely motivated the Commission in reaching its decision
under Opinion 998, but are even more compelling. A consequence would be
that the Bombay Locust would come to be known as Nomadacris succincta
instead of Patanga succincta, but the evidence of usage adduced above
suggests that this would be a small price to pay.
4. We accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to set aside the first-reviser action of Jago, 1981, whereby
the name Patanga Uvarov, 1923 gained priority over
Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 and Austracris Uvarov, 1923;
(b) to rule that the name Nomadacris has priority over any and
all of the new generic names published by Uvarov, 1923
that may be treated as synonymous with it;
(2) to place the following generic name on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology: Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (gender:
feminine), type species by original designation Acridium
septemfasciatum Audinet-Serville, [1838], with the indication
that the name has precedence over every other new generic
name published by Uvarov (1923):
(3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology: septemfasciatum Audinet-Serville,
[1838], as published in the binomen Acridium septemfasciatum
(type species of Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are grateful for advice from Dr W. D. L. Ride concerning the
presentation of this application.
REFERENCES
AUDINET-SERVILLE, J. G. [1838]. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Orthopteres.
Paris.
DIRSH, V. M. 1979. The species and synonymy of the genus Cyrtacanthacris
(Orth., Acrididae). Eos, vol. 53: pp. 35-50.
JAGO, N. D. 1981. The genus Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 and its recent incorrect
synonymy under Cyrtacanthacris Walker, 1870 (Acrididae, Cyrtacantha-
cridinae), with new nomenclatural changes in the Patanga-Nomadacris-
Austracris complex. Plant Prot. Bull., India, vol. 33: pp. 39-43.
LINNAEUS, C. 1763. Centuria Insectorum. Amoen. Acad., vol. 6: p. 398.
STAL, C. 1873. Recensio Orthopterorum. Revue Critique des Orthoptéres décrit par
Linné, de Geer et Thunberg. 1. Stockholm.
104 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
UVAROV, B. P. 1923. A revision of the Old World Cyrtacanthacrini (Orthoptera,
Acrididae). —I. Introduction and key to genera. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9)
vol. 11: pp. 130-44.
WALKER, F. 1870. Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the
Collection of the British Museum. Part ITI. London.
SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF NOMADACRIS
UVAROV, 1923. Z.N.(S.)2525
By K. McE. Kevan (Lyman Entomological Museum, Macdonald College Campus of
McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada,
H9X 1CO)
I am fully familiar with all the facts of this case, and as a research worker
actively involved with the taxonomic as well as the nomenclatural and economic
aspects of the problem, I most strongly urge the Commission to comply with the
proposal with the utmost expediency. We are here dealing with the name to be used
for one of the world’s most important insect pests, as well as with that for another of
major economic significance. Delay could result in a dilemma for authors and
readers in many fields, if not in widespread confusion.
A decision to give precedence to Nomadacris over Patanga would appear to
be the correct one, despite the fact that the latter genus, in a taxonomic sense,
embraces several, not merely a single, species and that at least one of these is of
major economic significance. Other concerns aside, it is also ‘tidier’ to relegate
Patanga to the status of a junior synonym in view of the problems that previously
existed in respect of the type specimen of its type species (see Opinion 998, Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 30, pp. 77-79, 1973).
It is regretted that temporary inconvenience may be caused to those con-
cerned with the Asiatic fauna. On subjective and aesthetic grounds I regret the loss
from valid scientific nomenclature (except perhaps as a subgeneric name) of what is,
historically, one of the oldest of all appropriately used existing names for an insect
genus. Patanga, after all, is old Sanskrit for a flying insect pest, even if it has not
always applied specifically to locusts!
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 105
TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS CALYMENE BRONGNIART
(TRILOBITA) JN BRONGNIART & DESMAREST, 1822 AND
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME TUBERCULATUS
BRUNNICH, 1781: RIDER TO Z.N.(S.)637
By H. B. Whittington (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, U.K.) and D. J.
Siveter (Department of Geology, Hull University, U.K.)
Whittington (1983, p. 177, paragraph 7(2)) was incorrect in stating
that Calymena blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, was the
type species of Calymene; it is the type species by original designation
of Calymena, a name which it is requested be suppressed. Calymene
Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822, was proposed (pp. 9-16)
to include four species, C. blumenbachii, C. tristani, C. variolaris, and
C. macrophtalma (presumably an inadvertent error, and should be written
C. macrophthalmus). The designation of the type species of Calymene by
Bassler (1915, p. 165) as C. tuberculata ““Bronn.” (The latter is presumably
‘a misprint for “Brunn’’., used on p. 476 by Bassler as an abbreviation for
Briinnich) is invalid since this species was not originally included in the
genus by Brongniart. The earliest valid selection of a type species known to
us is that by Shirley (1933, p. 52-53) who chose the first-named species in
Brongniart’s list, C. blumenbachii Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817.
2. Shirley (1933) selected as lectotype of C. blumenbachii a well-
preserved specimen used by Brongniart in his original description, and des-
cribed it in detail. Shirley also drew attention to C. tuberculata (Brinnich,
1781) as an older name for the species C. blumenbachii, from the Silurian
Wenlock Limestone (= Much Wenlock Limestone Formation) of Dudley,
West Midlands, England. He examined the type material of C. tuberculata
and considered it inadequate and the species as poorly described. Shirley
therefore considered the name tuberculata for a species of Calymene ‘must
be allowed to fall’ (Shirley, 1933, p. 53). In earlier years continental authors
(Lindstrém, 1885, p. 63; Schmidt, 1907, p. 53; Kegel, 1927, p. 619, text fig.
2a) had used the name tuberculata rather than blumenbachii for species of
Calymene of this type from the Silurian Wenlock Limestone. Since Shirley’s
work in 1933, however, authors (for example Whittington, 1959, p. 0 452;
Campbell, 1967, p. 24; Haas, 1968, pp. 97-100; Schrank, 1970, pp. 134-8;
Siveter, 1983, p. 70) have followed him and used the name C. blumenbachii
for the type species of the genus; R. and E. Richter, (1954, p. 19) cited
C. tuberculata as a synonym of C. blumenbachii.
3. Siveter (1986) has re-examined and described in detail the type
material of C. tuberculata and C. blumenbachii, and shown that these
106 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
specimens are very similar and should be regarded as belonging to a
single species. Both lectotypes come from the Much Wenlock Limestone
Formation of the Dudley area, England. Thus there is now strong subjec-
tive evidence that the two names are synonyms. In the interests of stability
in nomenclature the desirable course is to legalise the practice advocated by
Shirley, a practice that has been followed by authors during the past 50
years.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked, in addition to the requests 1-4 in paragraph 7 of
Whittington, 1983:
(1) to note that the type species, Calymena blumenbachii
Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817, of the genus Calymene
Brongniart, 1822, was not originally designated by Brongniart,
but subsequently designated by Shirley, 1933, p. 53;
(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name
tuberculatus, published in the binomen Trilobus tuberculatus
Briinnich, 1781 (p. 389), for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
REFERENCES
BASSLER, R. S. 1915. Bibliographic Index of American Ordovician and Silurian
fossils. U.S. nat. Mus. Bull. 92, 2 vols.
BRONGNIART, A. & DESMAREST A. G. 1822. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés
fossiles. Paris.
BRUNNICH, 1781. Beskrivelse over Trilobiten, en Dyreslaegt og dens Arten, med
en nye Arts Aftegning. Nye Sami. k. danske Skr., vol. 1, p. 389.
CAMPBELL, K. S. W. 1967. Bull. Oklahoma geol. Sury., vol. 115, pp. 1-68, pls.
1-19.
DESMAREST, A. G. 1817. in Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., 2nd ed., vol. 8, p. 517-518.
HAAS, W. 1968. Palaeontographica, vol. A 130, pp. 60-207, pls. 26-37.
KEGEL, W. 1927. Jahrb. preuss. geol. Landes., vol. 48, pp. 616-647, pls. 31, 32.
LINDSTROM, G. 1885. Ofvers. K. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl., no. 6, pp. 37-99, pls.
12-16.
RICHTER, R. & RICHTER, E. 1954, Abh. senck. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 488, pp.
1-76, pls. 1-6.
SCHMIDT, F. 1907. Mém. l’Acad. imp. Sci. St Pétersbourg, Ser. VIII, vol. 30, no. 8,
pp. xv+ 104, pls. 1-3.
SCHRANK, E. 1970. Ber. deutsch. Ges. geol. Wiss., A., Geol.-Palaont., vol. 15, pp.
109-146, pls. 1-12.
SHIRLEY, J. 1933. Mem. Proc. Manchester lit. phil. Soc., vol. 77, pp. 51-67, pl. 1.
SIVETER, D. J. 1983. Special Papers in Palaeontology, no. 30, pp. 69-88, pls. 7-10.
—— 1986. The type species of Calymene (Trilobita) from the Silurian of Dudley,
England. Palaeontology, vol. 28(4), pp. 783-792, pls. 90-91.
WHITTINGTON, H. B. 1959. Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology, vol. 0,
Arthropoda 1, p. 0.452.
— 1983. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, part 3, pp. 176-178.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 107
DATES AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE TEXT VOLUMES OF THE
HISTOIRE NATURELLE SECTION OF SAVIGNY’S DESCRIPTION
DE L’EGYPTE Z.N.(S.)2515
By M. E. Tollitt (The Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)
The dates of the Histoire naturelle section of M. J. C. L. de Savigny’s
Description de l’ Egypte have always been somewhat obscure. The authorship
of one of the parts is also contentious. Nevertheless, the work has long
been recognised as being of major importance in zoological literature as it
contains accounts of many new taxa. It is important therefore to reach a
consensus on its authorship and dating.
2. The full title of ‘Egypte’ is Description de l’Egypte, ou recueil des
observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant l’expédi-
tion de l’armée francaise, publié par les ordres de sa Majesté |’ Empéreur
Napoleon le Grand. The first edition of the Histoire naturelle section consists
of five volumes, three of double folio-sized plates (71-5 x 52 cm), of which
volumes | and 2 contain zoological material (volume 2bis being botanical
and mineralogical plates) and two folio-sized volumes (39 x 24 cm) of text.
The plates were almost certainly published independently of the text
volumes and over several years. Consequently their dating constitutes a
separate problem and is not dealt with in this paper (but see Pallary,
1934). Volume | of the text volumes consists of four discrete parts. Volume
2, although containing several individual contributions, is not expressed in
parts.
3. Sherborn, 1897, made the first complete analysis of the dates and
authors of the zoological portions of the text of the Histoire naturelle
section and because of the meticulous nature of his work and the general
familiarity with his conclusions it is his guidelines I shall follow.
4. Volume 1, part 1, Histoire naturelle des Poissons du Nil by
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (pp. 1-52) and Systéme des Oiseaux de
l’Egypte et de la Syrie by Marie Jules—César Lelorgne de Savigny (pp.
63-114; pp. 53-62 dealing with botanical topics) are given by Sherborn as
published in 1809. This date agrees with that given by Isidore Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire, 1847, p. 425, for this part of his father’s contribution. The
remaining parts of zoological interest in volume 1, part 1, are Description
des Reptiles qui se trouvent en Egypte by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (pp.
115-120 with pp. 121-160 by his son Isidore), Explication Sommaire des
Planches de Reptiles (supplement) by Jean Victor Audouin (pp. 161-184),
Description des Crocodiles de l’Egypte by E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (pp.
185—264), Suite de l’histoire naturelle des Poissons du Nil (pp. 265-310) by I.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Histoire naturelle des Poissons de la Mer Rouge
et de la Méditerranée (pp. 311-343) also by I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.
108 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
Sherborn considers all these parts as having been published in the same
year, 1827. This date is in agreement with I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1847, as
far as his own contributions are concerned but he dates his father’s parts,
‘Reptiles’ and ‘Crocodiles’, as 1809 and 1829 respectively. However, as
Sherborn points out (p. 286), this conflicts with a footnote Isidore gives in
du Petit-Thouars, 1855, p. 2, which dates the herpetological and ichthyolo-
gical parts as 1827. Thus, to standardise the dates of all these parts of
volume |, part 1, as 1827 would clearly be in the interests of stability.
5. Volume 1, part 2, Tableau systématique des Ascidiens ... by M. J.
C. L. de Savigny (pp. 1—58) is, as Sherborn notes, of minor significance
because all the specific names were published by Savigny in Mémoires sur
les Animaux sans Vertébres published in 1816. Consequently no date for this
part is given.
6. Volume 1, part 3, Systeme des Annélides by M. J. C. L. de Savigny
(pp. 1-128) Sherborn attributes, with little doubt, to a publication date of
1822.
7. Volume 1, part 4, Explication sommaire des Planches, consists of
ten zoological sections: Mollusques (pp. 1-56), Annélides (pp. 57-76),
Crustacés (pp. 77-98), Arachnides (pp. 99-186), Insectes (pp. 187-202),
Echinodermes (pp. 203-212), Zoophytes (pp. 213-214), Ascidies (pp.
215-224), Polypes (pp. 225-244) and Oiseaux (pp. 251-318). In this part
both authorship and date are uncertain due to the fact that Savigny, who is
occasionally cited as co-author with Audouin, began to lose his sight and
his precise contribution to the work is a moot point.
8. Savigny’s failing sight is highlighted by the footnote in Sherborn’s
paper referring to Cailliaud, 1827, p. 271. In this work Cailliaud states:
‘M. Savigny, de l’académie royale des sciences, s’était chargé de
cette partie relative aux insectes; mais une ophthalmie de plus
graves et plus opiniatres l’a forcé de renoncer a toute espece de
travail.’
9. Confirmation of Savigny’s eventual total loss of sight is given by
Pallary, 1926, p. 3, who notes: f
‘Malheureusment durant son séjour en Egypte, Savigny avait
contracté une maladie d’yeux qui, sous l’influence des fatigues
occasionnées par l’examen des étres microscopiques qu’il étudiait,
évolua rapidement et se changea, en 1824, en une cécité complete.
Une maladie nerveuse vint encore, hélas! aggraver son état en lui
rendant tout travail intellectuel impossible, il ne put publier le texte
qui aurait da accompagner ses planches.’
10. Sherborn was in no doubt as to the authorship of volume 1, part
4. He attributed it solely to Jean Victor Audouin as he apparently had to
begin the work again from the beginning, because Savigny did not pass any
of his manuscripts on to him after he went blind.
11. Bonnet, 1945, p. 551, discussing the arachnid section of Explica-
tion sommaire des Planches, arrives at a different conclusion regarding
authorship. He states:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 109
‘D’aprés explications données au début de l'article, Savigny avait
deja rédigé la description des Arachnides, jusqu’a la planche 4,
lorsque, malade, il fut obligé d’interrompre ses travaux. Audouin,
chargé de terminer ce travail, a repris ces descriptions, en les
adoptant, sous la forme de ses Explications sommaires et en y
ajoutant les descriptions des autres planches. II n’en est pas moins
vrai que la part de Savigny dans cet article est importante, surtout
que la publication des planches lui appartient complétement, et que
de nombreux noms nouveaux de genres et d’espéces sont de lui.
C’est la raison pour laquelle l’article, qui est uniquement signé
d’Audouin, me parait devoir étre mis comme fait en collaboration
par ces deux auteurs et qu’on doit le leur attribuer sous la forme:
[Savigny (J. C.) & Audouin].’
12. Whether this is accurate fact or sentiment for the ailing Savigny
is arguable. What is clear however, is the extent to which authors differ in
their interpretation of both the authorship and date of volume 1, part 4. For
example:
Bonnet, 1947, p. 2629, attributes Lycosa tarentulina (Arachnida) to
Savigny & Audouin, 1825;
Bouchet & Danrigal, 1982, p. 15, attribute Bursatella savigniana
(Mollusca) to Audouin, 1826;
Doderlein, 1921, p. 240, attributes Asterias savignyi (Echinoder-
mata) to Audouin, 1824;
Pallary, 1926, p. 25, attributes Bursatella savigniana (Mollusca) to
Audouin 1827;
Perrier, 1875, p. 340, attributes Asterias savignyi (Echinodermata)
to Audouin, 1809;
Roewer, 1954, p. 1572, attributes Lycosa tarentulina (Arachnida)
to Audouin, 1827;
—— 1958, p. 250, attributes Lycosa tarentulina (Arachnida) to
Audouin, 1824.
13. In general, most workers tend to cite Audouin alone as the
author of Explication sommaire des Planches, probably as a result of
Sherborn’s original paper. Thus, in following Sherborn’s analysis, the
author and date of volume 1, part 4, Explication sommaire des Planches
may be cited as J. V. Audouin, [1826].
14. In volume 2, the sections dealing with zoological topics are
Description des Mammifeéres qui se trouvent en Egypte by E. Geoffroy Saint-
Hilaire (pp. 99-144) published, according to Sherborn, in 1818, with
Description des Mammiféres qui se trouvent en Egypte by E. Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire and J. V. Audouin (pp. 733-743) and Description sommaire
des Mammifeéres carnassiers qui se trouvent en Egypte (pp. 744-750) by J. V.
Audouin published in 1829.
15. For the removal of uncertainty of both dates of publication and
authorship, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
requested to:
110 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
(1) rule that the authors and dates of publication of the zoological
portions of the text volumes of the Histoire naturelle section of
Marie Jules—César Lelorgne de Savigny’s Description de
l’Egypte are to be taken as set out in Sherborn, 1897;
(2) place the zoological portions of the text volumes of the Histoire
naturelle section of Marie Jules—César Lelorgne de Savigny’s
Description de l’Egypte on the Official List of Works approved
as available for Zoological Nomenclature.
REFERENCES
BONNET, P. 1945. Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 1, xvii+ 832 pp. Toulouse.
— 1957. Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2(3), pp. 1927-3026. Toulouse.
BOUCHET, P. & DANRIGAL, F. 1982. Napoleon’s Egyptian Campaign
(1798-1801) and the Savigny Collection of Shells. The Nautilus, vol. 96(1),
pp. 9-24.
CAILLIAUD, F. 1827. Voyage a Méroé et au fleuve blanc, vol. 4, 416 pp.
DODERLEIN, L. 1921. Die Gattung Luidia und Ihre Stammesgeschichte. Siboga-
Exped., vol. 46b, pp. 193-291.
DU PETIT-THOUARS, A. A. 1855. Voyage autour de Monde sur la frégate La
Venus Commandeée par Abel du Petit-Thouars, iii+351 pp., Gide et Baudry,
(Eds). Paris.
GEOFFROY SAINT-HILAIRE, I. 1847. Vie; Travaux et Doctrine Scientifique
D’Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. 479 pp. Paris, Strasbourg.
PALLARY, P. M. 1926. Explication des Planches de J. C. Savigny. Mém. Inst.
Egypte, vol. 11, pp. 1-138.
——1934. Marie Jules-César Savigny. Sa vie et son oeuvre. Mém. Inst. Egypte, vol.
23, pp. 1-202.
PERRIER, J. O. E. 1875. Révision de la Collection de Stellérides du Muséum
d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. 384pp. Paris.
ROEWER, C. F. 1954. Katalog der Aranaea, vol. 2, part B, pp. 1291-1751.
Bruxelles.
—— 1958. Araneae Lycosaeformia II (Lycosidae). 518 pp. Bruxelles.
SHERBORN, C. D. 1897. On the Dates of the Natural History portion of Savigny’s
‘Description de l’Egypte’. Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1897, pp. 285-288.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 111
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION DATES OF THE
ZOOLOGICAL PORTIONS OF THE TEXT VOLUMES OF THE HISTOIRE
NATURELLE SECTION OF DESCRIPTION DE L’EGYPTE
Based on Sherborn, 1897
Volume Part Pages Author(s) Date
] ] 1-52 ___ E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1809
1 ] 63-114 M.J.C.L. de Savigny 1809
1 115-120 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827
1 ] 121-160 I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827
1 1 161-184 J. V. Audouin 1827
1 1 185-264 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827
] 1 265-310 I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827
l 1 311-343 I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1827
l 2 1-58 M.J.C.L. de Savigny Not given
1 3 1-128 M.J.C.L. de Savigny 1822
1 4 1-318 J. V. Audouin 1826
2 — 99-144 E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1818
2 — 733-743 EE. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire & J. V. Audouin 1829
2 — 744-750 J. V. Audouin 1829
N.B. There is a misprint on p. 286 of Sherborn’s paper, four lines from the bottom
of the page. For Vol. II read Vol. I.
112 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
TUBULANUS RENIER, [1804] AND T. POLYMORPHUS RENIER,
[1804] (POLYCHAETA): PROPOSED REINSTATEMENT UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1094
By R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)
In Opinion 316 (1954) the Commission rejected the Prospetto della
Classe dei Vermi of Renier, [1804] as not having been duly published, and
ruled that no name became available through its appearance in that work.
The late Dr Henning Lemche applied for the reinstatement of a number of
Renier’s names; the present case appears to be the last of those not dealt
with before Dr Lemche’s death in 1977.
2. There are two possible ways of dealing with Renier’s names. One
is to rule that they are available from 1804; the other would be to accept
them from Meneghini’s Osservazioni postume di Zoologia adriatica del
Professore S. A. Renier (Venice, 1847). The disadvantage of the former
course (which has always been followed by the Commission and is adopted
here) is that it is difficult for zoologists to find out exactly what Renier said;
the disadvantage of the latter course is that it may convert junior synonyms
of 1804 names into senior synonyms of 1847 names, which can only be con-
served by the suppression of any senior synonyms proposed between 1804
and 1847. The disadvantage of the former course is, I hope, alleviated by
the reproduction of the 1804 descriptions in question.
3. Dr Ray Gibson (Department of Biology, Liverpool Polytechnic,
Liverpool, U.K.) has given invaluable help in the preparation of this case,
and this is gratefully acknowledged.
4. Tubulanus and T. polymorphus appear on p. xx of the Prospetto
della Classe dei Vermi as follows:
“VII. XXIX TUBULANO TUBULANUS TUBULAN. Renier. (e)
29 57 Tubulano moltiforme T. Polymorphus T. Polymorphe_ Renier. (f)”
Tubulanus is described at footnote e as follows: ‘Gli Animali che formano
questo nuovo genere, a mia cognizione da altri né descritti né osservati,
sono privi di qualunque organo esteriore, né hanno annelli di sorte alcuna.
La loro figura é variabile. Quando sono in distensione naturale, hanno una
figura cilindrica molto prolungata, decrescente verso l’estremita posteriore.
L’estremita anteriore é rotundata. Presso il cominciare di questa estremita
ha l’Animale uno strozzamento, mediante il quale vi apparisce come una
testa rotonda. Nella parte inferiore, subito dopo questo strozzamento, vi €
la bocca longitudinale, con due labbri rialzati laterali di colore bianco.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986 113
Tutto il remanente esterno del corpo e di colore castagno. L’interno dell’
Animale e senza visceri. La sua costruzione sembra a quella di un Tubo
vivente formato di due grosse Tonache aderenti. Queste Tonache sono
Yuna dell’altra facilmente distinguibili, e non difficilmente separabili.
Hanno color diverso. La esteriore sembra essere muscolare, perché quando
l'animale € prossimo a decomporsi, si remarcano in essa delle fibre,
specialmente circolari; e queste gli si travedono anco ad animal vivo,
laddove exeguisce una qualche forta contrazione. I] color di questa Tonaca
é roseo coll’orlo esteriore, ossia l’integumento esterno, di color castagno.
La seconda Tonaca é di color croceo carico, di sostanza piu molle e quasi
polposa. La parte di essa, che guarda e forma l’interno é papillosa a papille
laciniate disposte in ordine transversale. Questi Vermi, che per caratteri
Generici mi sembrano diversificare da quelle degli altri Generi fin ora
stabiliti, vengono a costituire un Genere nuovo. Gli ho dato il nome
generico di Tubulano, dalla lora conformazione simile a quella di un Tubo.’
5. Tubulanus polymorphus is described at footnote f as follows: “Gli
Animali di questa specie, l’unica fin qui che forma questo Genere, hanno
molta vivacita, ed una contrattilita somma, per la quale nella semplice loro
organizazione vengono continuamente a cambiarsi di figura, specialmente
coll’ ingrossarsi, assotigliarsi, rotondarsi, appianarsi, restringersi e dilatarsi
ora in questa ora in quella parte del corpo. Da questa loro varazione di
forma ho per questi Vermi desunto il nome specifico di Moltiforme. In
istato di estensione naturale arrivono alla lunghezza di sei pollici circa, e di
larghezza circa di tre linee. Vivono nel Mare. Nel mio Saggio ne dato la
descrizione e l’anatomia con le figure.’
6. In 1833 —that is between the date assigned to Renier’s [1804]
work and Meneghini’s Oservazioni of 1847 — George Johnston described
as new a worm that he called Carinella trilineata (Loudon’s Mag. nat. Hist.
vol. 6, pp. 232-233). That name has been regarded as a synonym of
Tubulanus polymorphus since at least 1905 (Burger, in Bronn’s Thier—Reich,
vol. 4, Suppl., Nemertini, Lfg 23-26, p. 406). TUBULANIDAE Biirger, 1905, p.
405 has been adopted in place of the senior name CARINELLIDAE McIntosh,
1874, Monograph of British marine annelida (Ray Soc.), vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 203,
and should be cited with the date “1905 (1874)”’.
7. In 1955 the late Dr Lemche gave the following citations of the use
of Tubulanus and of T. polymorphus as valid names: Delle Chiaje, 1829,
Mem. stor. nat. not. Anim. s. vert. regno Napoli, Mem. 4, pl. 62, figs 8, 12;
Fauvel, 1928, Faune de France vol. 16, p. 77; Claus-Grobben-Kithn, 1932,
Lehrb. Zool, ed. 10, p. 534; Hyman, 1951, Invertebrates vol. 2, p. 497
(also TUBULANIDAE); Fauna Japan, rev. ed., 1953, p. 1474. Dr Gibson adds
Friedrich, H. 1979, in Seidel, F. ed., Morphogenese der Tiere, Lief .D;-I, 136
pp.; Gibson, R., 1982a, in Parker, S. P. ed., Syn. Class. living Organisms
(New York, McGraw-Hill), vol. 1, pp. 823-846; 1982b, British Nemerteans,
Linn. Soc. Syn. brit. Fauna, n.s. No. 24, 212 pp.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly requested:
114
(a)
(b
—
(c)
(d)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 1, April 1986
to use its plenary powers to rule that the generic name Tubulanus
and the specific name polymorphus in the binomen Tubulanus
polymorphus are to be deemed to be published and available
from their use by Renier (S.A.), [1804], Prospetto della Classe
dei Vermi, a work rejected as not properly published in
Opinion 316 and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No.
DS:
to place the generic name Tubulanus Renier, [1804] (gender:
masculine); type species, by monotypy, Tubulanus polymorphus
Renier, 1804, as deemed in (a) above to be published and
available, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
to place the specific name polymorphus Renier, [1804], as
published in the binomen Tubulanus polymorphus (specific
name of type species of Tubulanus Renier, [1804], as deemed in
(a) above to be published and available, on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology;
to place the family-group name TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1905
(type genus Tubulanus Renier, 1804) (a name having pre-
cedence over its senior subjective synonym CARINELLIDAE
McIntosh, 1874 (type genus Carinella Johnston, 1833) under
Article 40b) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology with the date 1905 (1874).
Opinion 1379. Gonodontes rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, PSesl oy
Pero Herrich-Schiiffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). . 37
Opinion 1380. Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Saige Ba 4 39
Opinion 1381. Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). . . . 42
Opinion 1382. Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . 44
46
50
New and revived cases
Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1966 (Lepidoptera). J.S. Dugdale. .
Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842 (Mammalia, Marsupialia). Le
Mahoney & W. D. L. Ride .
Cholus Gawae, 1824 and Archarias Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera).
C. W. O’Brien & G. J. Wibmer 55
Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 and Bulbifer Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleop-
tera). C. W. O’Brien & G. Osella. . . 58
Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840, Menoetius Dejean, 1821 and Ptilopus
Schoenherr, 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C. W. O’Brien & G. J. ;
Witmer: .’. wae 62
Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Cw. ‘O’Brien piry 66
Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 and Eccoptus Dejean, 1821 ae: cpl
tera).C.W.O’Brien& G.J.Wibmer . . . 69
Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822 (Echinoidea, Cidaroidea) as type species
of Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883. C. W. Wright & A.B. Smith . . 72
Ammonites perarmatus J. Sowerby, 1822 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea).
M.K.Howarth . . ; fe)
Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. V. Melville . : 78
De la Cépeéde, 1788-1789, ‘Histoire Naturelle des Serpens’, proposed
rejection as a non-binominal work. R. V. Melville . 80
ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea, Decapoda) and ATYIDAE
Thiele, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) T. K. Crosby & A. Carpenter 84
Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes, Lamniformes). L. J. V.
Compagno & W.I. Follett. . 89
Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 and ‘Phalaena rusticella Clerek, 1759
(Insecta, Lepidoptera). P.R.Seymour . . 93
Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 and See robiniae ‘Fitch, 1859
(Insecta, Hymenoptera). J. B. Whitfield. 96
Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921 and Astacilla falclandica Ohlin, 1907 H.M.
LewTon&G.C.B.Poore. . . 99
_ Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936 (Insecta, Coleoptera) non Strongylaspis
Thomson, 1860 and Cassida atripes LeConte, 1859. E.G. Riley. . 100
Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed setting aside
of first-reviser action of Jago, 1981. K. H. L. Key & N. D. Jago;
NTI MA, evar os eee a oe 102
Calymene Brongniart (Trilobita) in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 and
Trilobus tuberculatus Briinnich, 1781. H. B. Whittington & D. J.
RTE ht tron) hs sacle Base) Lar ot Woe Sy ace net lg 105
Dates and authorship of the text volumes of Histoire Naturelle Section
of Savigny’s Description de I‘Egypte.M.E. Tollitt . .. 107
Tubulanus Renier, Leitich and T. pace tated Renier (1804) (Polychaeta)
SRILRMATIES Sak te Bement ates tere i al eee. Sh i oe 112
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express
its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British
Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission.
~ CONTENTS
Page
Officers and Members of the Commission ey?
Members of the caeeances ‘hiss ue Zoological Nomenclature ii
Notices 2). Soh 1
Special Announcements ; ak MS oan ar he : 3
Comments
On the proposed amendment to Article 51c of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature. G. C. Steyskal, N. E. Woodley, A.
Freidberg, R. C. Froeschner, W. N. Mathis, N. L. Evenhuis; C. L.
Staines . . 4
On the proposed completion of the Official List entry for Rhabditis
Dujardin, [1855] (Nematoda). W. Grant Inglis; R. V. Melville . . 5
Sur en re chez les Amphibiens et chez les Psocoptéres. A.
1S 6
On the application concerning Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879
(Arachnida, Araneae). O. Kraus; B.J. Kaston;K. Thaler. . . i!
On the proposed conservation of Laspeyresia Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta,
Lepidoptera). I. M. Kerzhner & V.I. Kuznetsov; J.D. Bradley. . 8
On the ite re agi ae of Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia).
HEANEL "sic 9
On the proposed grant of precedence to THRESKIORNITHIDAE
Richmond, 1917 (Aves) over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838.
K. ‘E: Campbell; A. R. Phillips; S. L. Olson, A. M. Rea & P.
Brodkorb . 10
On the proposed conservation of ‘Southernia Allgen, 1929 i the suppres-
sion of Southernia Filipjev, 1927 (Nematoda). W. Grant In es fhe 13
On the proposed conservation of Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 ( nsecta,
Hymenoptera). Executive Secretary. . . . . 14
Opinions
Opinion 1369. Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Crustacea,Isopoda) . . . . 15
Opinion 1370. Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . 17
Opinion 1371. Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 and
Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931 (Reptilia, Dinosauria). . . 19
Opinion 1372. Donax hanleyanus Philippi, 1847 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). . 21
Opinion 1373. Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876 and babies
Stal, 1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera) . ‘ 23
Opinion 1374. Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (Reptilia, Serpentes) Aue 25
Opinion 1375. Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855
and Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) . 27
Opinion 1376. Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama) adamsi Morgan & Heppell, 1981
(Mollusca, Bivalvia). . . 30
Opinion 1377. Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918 (Reptilia, Testudines),
given nomenclatural precedence over C. laticarinata Hay, 1916 and
C. sculpta Hay, 1916 . a
Opinion 1378. Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 and Crinodes Herrich-
Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, a aime, ed 35
Continued on Inside Back Cover
2
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ‘
np : me is
pp.iii-iv, 115-2200 ISSN 0007-5167
The Bulletin
of Zoological pass
Nomenclature | «9»
The Official Organ of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
8) C.A.B. INTERNATIONAL
The Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature
Published by: C.A.B. International
On behalf of: International Trust for
Zoological
British Museum (Natural History) ”
c/o
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent
to:
LE
fe y
“4
i y y
Jeff
CENTRAL SALES
C.A.B. INTERNATIONAL
FARNHAM ROYAL
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K.
© International Trust for Zoological Nemednibe 1986.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically,
mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ili
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 We
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 Je
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) (Vice-
President) Echinoidea; Asteroidea
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Secretary-General )
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 (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
-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
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. Dr. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitats-
platz 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
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Members of the Trust
Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. Dr. R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.1.Biol.
(Chairman) Dr. L.B. Holthuis
Dr. M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Dr. F.G.W. Jones
Managing Director) Sir Peter Kent, F.R.S.
Prof. Per Brinck Prof. Dr. O. Kraus
Prof. J.H. Callomon Dr. M. Luc
Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius Dr. R.B. Manning
Prof. C.B. Cox Mr. R.V. Melville
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Dr. I.W.B. Nye
BLES... E:Ziss Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D.
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)
Dr. G.C. Gruchy
B. The Officers of the Trust
Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller )
Mr. J.D.D. Smith, (Scientific Administrator )
Mr. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Zoologist)
Miss N.A. Erridge, B.Sc., (Assistant Zoologist )
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 115
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 43, part 2 (pp. iii-iv, 115—220) 9 July 1986
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
normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist
who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution, 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) Antispila Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed
validation of Antispila stadtmiillerella [Hubner] 1825 as type
species. Z.N.(S.)2463. E. S. Nielsen & I. W. B. Nye.
(2) Heteroclonium bicolor Cope, 1896 (Reptilia, Squamata): pro-
posed conservation by suppression of Chirotes diglossis Saenz,
1869. Z.N.(S.)2424. S.C. Ayala.
(3) On the names of two species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux,
1812 (Coelenterata, Hydroida) common in western Europe.
Z.N.(S.)2493. P. F. S. Cornelius & C. Ostman.
(4) Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed con-
servation by the suppression of Napomyza Curtis, 1837.
Z.N.(S.)2495. G. C. D. Griffiths, K. A. Spencer & G. C.
Steyskal.
(5) Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895 as type
species. Z.N.(S.)2397. W. R. M. Mason.
(6) Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed
conservation by the suppression of Sigara scholtzii Scholtz,
1846. Z.N.(S.)2494. A. Jansson.
(7) Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera,
Corixidae): proposed conservation by the suppression of
Sigara minuta Fabricius, 1794 and Sigara lemana Fieber,
1860. Z.N.(S.)2519. A. Jansson.
(8) Calcarina calcar D’Orbigny, 1839 (Protozoa, Foramini-
ferida): proposed conservation by the suppression of
Calcarina stellata De Férussac, 1827. Z.N.(S.)2344. H. J.
Hansen.
116
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed valida-
tion of Agromyza reptans Fallén, 1823 as type species.
Z.N.(S.)2395. K. A. Spencer & G. C. Steyskal.
Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation by suppression of Brius Dejean, 1821.
Z.N.(S.)2537. H. Silfverberg.
Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Cerambycidae):
proposed conservation by the suppression of Jsarthron
Dejean, 1835. Z.N.(S.)2534. M. Mroczkowski.
Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2507. Th. C. H.
Kemperman & H. E. Coomans.
Siphamia Weber, 1909 and Siphamia permutata Klausewitz,
1966 (Osteichthyes, Beryciformes): proposed conservation by
the suppression of Beanea Steindachner, 1902 and Beanea
trivittata Steindachner, 1902. Z.N.(S.)2517. J. E. Randall,
E. A. Lachner & T. H. Fraser.
Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed con-
servation by the suppression of Melanochroa Broun, 1882,
N.Z.(S.)2511. J. C. Watt & R. A. Crowson.
Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia, Ornithischia):
proposed conservation by suppression of Rhabdodon
Fleischmann, 1831 (Reptilia, Serpentes). Z.N.(S.)2536. W.
Brinkmann.
SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913, MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 and
EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda, Archaeo-
gastropoda): proposed conservation by suppression of
PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897, MACLUREADAE
Carpenter, 1861, MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1817 and SCHIZOSTOMA-
TIDAE Eichwald, 1817. Z.N.(S.)1212. The late J. Brookes
Knight; R. L. Batten & E. Yochelson.
Laplysia viridis Montagu, 1804 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): con-
servation proposée par la suppression de Laplisia viridis Bosc,
1801. Z.N.(S.)2408. P. Bouchet.
Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda): proposed suppression.
Z.N.(S.)2545. C. H. C. Brunton & D. E. Lee.
Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (Brachiopoda):
proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.)2546. C. H. C. Brunton &
DzEwtLee:
Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda): proposed
conservation by suppression of Craniolites brattenburgicus
Schlotheim, 1820. Z.N.(S.)2551. C. H. C. Brunton & D. E.
Lee.
Trichomonas Donné, 1836 (Protozoa, Mastigophora):
proposed confirmation of spelling. Z.N.(S.)245. Executive
Secretary.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 117
(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications
have been received since going to press for vol. 43, part 1 (published on
9 April 1986):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1891) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and
CYMATIINAE Hungerford, 1948 (Insecta, Heteropoda): pro-
posal to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.)2547. A. Jansson &
AG: Beu;
ETHMIIDAE Busch, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed
precedence over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906. Z.N.(S.)2550.
J. A. Powell.
Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed
designation of a neotype. Z.N.(S.)2552. R. W. Murphy &
H. M. Smith.
Chrysomya marginalis Wiedemann, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. Z.N.(S.)2553.
L. E. O. Braack.
Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta): pro-
posed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2554. R. Nilsen & T. Holthe.
Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation. Z.N.(S.)2555. M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga & L.
Dieckmann.
Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Pisces, Characoidea):
proposed designation of Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier,
1819 as type species. Z.N.(S.)2556. J. Gery & V. Mahnert.
PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Copepoda, Calanoidea):
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2557. V. N. Andronov &
N. V. Vyshkvartzeva.
Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Bivalvia, Eulamellibranchia).
Z.N.(S.)2558. A. M. Clarke.
Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed
confirmation of type species designation. Z.N.(S.)2559. A.
Jansson.
Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
conservation. Z.N.(S.)2560. J. A. Rubtsov.
Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of Opius gallipes Wesmael, 1835 as type species.
Z.N.(S.)2561. R. A. Wharton.
Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata):
proposed designation of a replacement neotype. Z.N.(S.)2562.
J.D. D. Bishop.
Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Gastropoda): proposed conser-
vation. Z.N.(S.)2563. W. O. Cernohorsky.
Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Asteroidea, Valvatida):
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2564. G. Breton.
Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
118 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
designation of Curculio flabellipes Olivier, 1807 as type species.
Z.N(S.)2565. G. J. Wibmer & C. W. O’Brien.
(17) Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): pro-
posed designation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type
species and request for ruling on the stem of the family
group name COBITIDIDAE Swainson, 1839. Z.N.(S.)2566. M.
Kotelot.
(18) Callianidea H. Milne-Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda);
proposed conservation by suppression of Jsea Gueérin-
Meneville, 1832. Z.N.(S.)2567. L. B. Holthuis & K. Sakai.
(19) OEDIPODINAE Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed
conservation. Z.N.(S.)2568. K. H. L. Kay.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
OBITUARY
Professor B. S. Zheng
Professor Zheng was elected to membership of the Commission on 4
September 1985, but this was cut sadly short by his death at the end of the
year.
Professor Zheng was born in December 1921. He published many
papers on fish of the Chinese region, and at the time of his death was
Vice-President of the Chinese Ichthyological Society and Editor-in-Chief of
Acta Zoologica Sinica.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES OF
CHEIRURUS BEYRICH, 1845 (TRILOBITA). Z.N.(S.)2337
(see vol. 42, pp. 379-381)
By H. B. Whittington (Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge,
Downing Street, Cambridge, U.K.)
With reference to the recently published application by P. D. Lane, asking
that the type species of Cheirurus be designated as C. insignis Beyrich, 1845, I write
in strong support of this application. The case has been put accurately and briefly,
and I am confident that it will be in the best interest of nomenclatural stability to
rule in favour of this application. I hope that the International Commission will use
its plenary powers to do so.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES OF
OLPIUM KOCH, 1873 (ARACHNIDA, PSEUDOSCORPIONIDA).
Z.N.(S.)2484
(see vol. 42, pp. 85—88)
By Reinhart Schuster (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz,
Austria)
I support the proposals made by Harvey and Mahnert. Following these an
aggravating unclear point in the taxonomy of the pseudoscorpionid genus Olpium
will be eliminated.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 119
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES
FOR BERYTUS FABRICIUS, 1803 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA).
Z.N.(S.)2464
(see vol. 42, pp. 293-295)
(1) By J. Péricart (J0 rue Habert, F-77130 Montereau, France)
The history of the generic names Berytus Fabricius, 1803 and Berytinus
Kirkaldy, 1900 is clearly explained on pages 293-294 of the application by Mr
W. R. Dolling (1985). I believe, however, that the publication of my monograph
(Péricart, 1984), which is intended as a definitive reference work, has introduced a
new situation.
2. My monograph gives careful attention to nomenclature. The family name
BERYTIDAE has been retained, for the same reasons as given by Dolling. The generic
name Berytinus (type species Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775) is used, as done by
Stichel (1957) and Southwood & Leston (1959), the name Berytus (type species
Cimex tipularius Linnaeus, 1758) being considered as a junior objective synonym of
Neides Latreille, 1802. The name Lizinus Mulsant & Rey, 1870 (type species Berytus
montivagus Meyer-Diir, 1841) is used at the subgeneric level, with Berytinellus
Stichel, 1957 as a junior synonym.
3. In order to maintain the stability of nomenclature, I recommend that the
Commission select the second, not the fourth, of the possible solutions listed by
Dolling (1985, p. 294). I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature:
(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names:
(a) Berytinus Kirkaldy, 1900 (gender masculine), type species by
original designation Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1775, and
(b) Neides Latreille, 1802 (gender masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Latreille (1810) Cimex tipularius Linnaeus,
1758;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names:
(a) clavipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cimex
clavipes (specific name of the type species of Berytinus Kirkaldy,
1900) and
(b) tipularius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex
tipularius (specific name of the type species of Neides Latreille,
1802);
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic names in
Zoology the name Berytus Fabricius, 1803, a junior objective synonym of
Neides Latreille, 1802.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
DOLLING, W. R. 1985. Berytus Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Berytidae):
proposed designation of Cimex clavipes Fabricius, 1777 as type species.
Z.N.(S.)2464. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pt. 3, pp. 293-295.
MEYER-DUR, L. R. 1841. Identitat und Separation einiger Rhynchoten. Stett.
Ent. Ztg., vol. 2, pp. 83-89.
PERICART, J. 1984. Hémiptéres Berytidae euro-méditerranéens. Faune de France,
vol. 70. Paris, iv+172 pp.
120 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
(2) By W. R. Dolling (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD, U.K.)
At the time of publication of my request (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pp.
293-295) for the designation of Cimex clavipes as the type-species of Berytus, I was
not aware that Péricart’s (1984) revision of the BERYTIDAE of the western Palaearctic
region had been published. This book will undoubtedly be accepted as the standard
work on the BERYTIDAE of the area for many years to come, and the course of action
that I had originally advocated would result in a nomenclature at variance with
Péricart’s. Stability of nomenclature would be best served by placing the generic
name Berytinus on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, as requested by
Péricart.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF HATSCHEKIA
POCHE, 1902 (COPEPODA). Z.N.(S.)2390
(see vol. 42, pp. 57-59)
By Z. Kabata (Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada V9R 5K6)
I am writing in support of this proposal. To anyone acquainted with the
genus Hatschekia it is quite obvious that the change of its name at this stage would
create a veritable havoc in the literature. Its more than 100 species are widespread
throughout the oceans of the world, particularly in the tropical and subtropical
areas. If anything, Dr Jones underestimates the presence of the genus (and its name)
in the literature.
Dr Jones’ proposal makes me wonder why I did not propose the same
measure long ago. I am sure that all who deal with parasitic Copepoda, and with
Copepoda in general, will support this proposal without reservation.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 121
OPINION 1383
APIS PILIPES FABRICIUS, 1775 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF MEGILLA FABRICIUS, 1805
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Megilla Fabricius, 1805 are
hereby set aside and Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775 is designated as type
species of that genus.
(2) The name Macropis Panzer, 1809 (gender: feminine), type species
by monotypy Megilla labiata Fabricius, [1805], is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name /abiata Fabricius, [1805], as published in the binomen
Megilla labiata (specific name of the type species of Macropis Panzer, 1809)
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Megilla Fabricius, 1805, a junior objective synonym
of Anthophora Latreille, 1803, by the type designation made under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2401
An application to change the type species of Megilla Fabricius,
1805, in order to protect the usage of Macropis Panzer, 1809, was first
received from Professor C. D. Michener (University of Kansas, U.S.A.) on
23 November 1981. After correspondence a revised draft was sent to the
printers on 20 July 1983 and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp.
207-208. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and nine entomolo-
gical serials. No comments were received. Soon after publication, however,
the author became aware that the type for Megilla (Apis acervorum) was
widely misidentified. Subsequently, a note proposing the designation of
Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775 as type species of Megilla was published in Bull.
zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 138-139; this would have the effect of making
Megilla a junior objective synonym of Anthophora Latreille, 1803.
Commissioners were asked to vote for or against this emended proposal
and to place the specific name pilipes on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology. They were also asked to place the generic name Macropis
Panzer, 1809 (see below) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 45 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 208 as emended
in vol. 41, pp. 138-139. At the close of the voting period on 16 December
1985 the state of the voting was as follows:
122 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
Affirmative Votes— twenty-two (22) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski,
Corliss, Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng,
Lehtinen, Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis,
Heppell
Negative Votes — none (0).
Cogger abstained. A late affirmative vote was returned by Bayer.
No votes were returned by Gruchy and Kraus.
In a comment, Thompson pointed out that Panzer, and not Klug,
provided the description and published the name Macropis; this has therefore
been cited as Macropis Panzer, 1809 and not as in the application.
Heppell drew attention to Direction 4 of the Commission (1954),
which had already placed the name pilipes on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology (Opinion 151 had designated Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775
as type species of Anthophora Latreille, 1803). Heppell also mentioned that
Professor Michener (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p 139) had said that A. pilipes
is a junior synonym of A. plumipes Pallas, 1772, but the Commission’s vote
did not consider this question, and the designation of A. pilipes rather than
of A. plumipes as type species of Megilla leaves that genus as a junior
objective synonym of Anthophora even if the two species should prove to be
different.
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:
labiata, Megilla, Fabricius, [1805] Systema Piezatorum, p. 333
Macropis Panzer, 1809, Fauna Insectorum Germanicae initia ... heft 107,
tab 16
Megilla Fabricius, [1805], Systema Piezatorum, p. 328.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 45 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. 1383.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
16 December 1985
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 123
OPINION 1384
DROMOPHIS PETERS, 1869 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES):
CONSERVED
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Philo-
dendros Fitzinger, 1843 and its emendation Philodendrus Agassiz, 1846, are
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for
those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Dromophis Peters, 1869 (gender: masculine), type
species by monotypy, Dendrophis praeornata Schlegel, 1837, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name praeornata Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen
Dendrophis praeornata (specific name of the type species of Dromophis
Peters, 1869) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(4) The names Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843 and Philodendrus
Agassiz, 1846, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, are
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2375
An application for the conservation of Dromophis Peters, 1869
was first received from Dr D. G. Broadley (National Museum, Bulawayo,
Zimbabwe) on 16 March 1981, and was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol.
40, pp. 189-190. 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 seven general
and three herpetological serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 43 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 190. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following
order: Melville, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Alvarado, Ueno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng, Cogger, Lehtinen,
Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Dupuis, Heppell
Negative Votes — one (1) Holthuis.
Kraus returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by
Bayer and Gruchy.
In returning his voting paper, Holthuis pointed out that the
Commission had not been asked to suppress an unjustified (and unused)
124 Bull. zool. Nom.., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
emendation of Philodendros, namely Philodendrus Agassiz, 1846. However,
even though the omission had been overlooked, the existence of the name
was before the Commission when it voted to conserve Dromophis Peters,
1869. The suppression of Philodendrus Agassiz, 1846 has therefore been
included in this 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:
Dromophis Peters, 1846, Monatsber. kénigl. Acad. Wiss. Berlin, p. 447
Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium, p. 26
Philodendrus Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis,
p. 285
praeornata, Dendrophis, Schlegel, 1837, Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens,
vol. 1; pv l57} vel. 2; p. 236:
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 43 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. 1384.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
25 January 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 125
OPINION 1385
ANOLIS CAROLINENSIS VOIGT, 1832 DESIGNATED AS TYPE
SPECIES OF ANOLIS DAUDIN, 1802 (REPTILIA, SAURIA)
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Anolis Daudin, 1802 are hereby
set aside and Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832 is designated as type species.
(2) The name Anolis Daudin, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Anolis carolinensis
Voigt, 1832, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
(3) The name carolinensis Voigt, 1832, as published in the binomen
Anolis carolinensis, (specific name of the type species of Anolis Daudin,
1802) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1603
An application for the designation of Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832
as type species of Anolis Daudin, 1802 was first received from Professor
H. M. Smith (then of University of Illinois, U.S.A.) and Dr E. E. Williams
and Dr J. D. Lazell (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on 6 May 1963, and was published in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 20, pp. 438-439. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and sent to two
herpetological serials. A supportive comment was received from Dr P. W.
Smith (//linois Natural History Survey, Urbana, U.S.A.).
On 3 October 1965 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1965) 34 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, p. 439. At the close of the
voting period there were 20 affirmative votes and one negative vote, with
four voting papers not returned. The single negative vote by Sabrosky was
accompanied by a comment which, after long correspondence and delays,
was published, with counter-proposals to the original application by Mr
A. F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr G. L.
Underwood (City of London Polytechnic) in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp.
15—19; Stimson and Underwood suggested that Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus,
1758, was the type species. A comment from Professor J. M. Savage
(University of Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) was received and published with a
reply by Stimson & Underwood in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 195. Further
comments were received from two of the original applicants, Dr E. E.
Williams and Professor H. M. Smith. These were published, with a reply by
Mr A. F. Stimson, who now supported the original proposal, in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 41, pp. 132-136. A long and detailed comment by Dr G. Mayer
(Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) was
received in July 1984. This comment was also sent to Williams, Sabrosky,
Stimson and Underwood. A revised version of the comment by Mayer was
126 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
received in June 1985, three months prior to a proposed second vote on the
original 1963 proposals. To avoid another potential delay, involved in
publication, it was agreed with Dr Mayer to include a copy of his comment
with the voting papers issued on 16 December 1985.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-month Rule on Voting Paper (1985) 57 for or
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 20, p. 439. At the close
of the voting period on 16 December 1985 the state of the voting was as
follows.
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Cocks, Willink, Savage, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Alvarado,
Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Zheng, Cogger, Lehtinen, Bernardi,
Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Schuster, Heppell
Negative Votes — two (2) Holthuis, Dupuis.
Bayer returned a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by
Gruchy and Kraus.
In a comment, Thompson pointed out that ‘the unsuitability of
Lacerta bullaris Linnaeus as type species of Anolis is because it is a ‘beta’
anole, not because the name is a nomen dubium’. Nevertheless, Daudin’s
1802 bullaris was ‘confused and composite, and clearly Stejneger (1904) was
using bullaris in the sense of carolinensis of authors’.
In voting against, Holthuis pointed out that Chenu (1856, Encycl.
Hist. nat. Reptiles et Poissons, p. 71) had designated Anolis lineatus Daudin,
1802 as type species and that this had been overlooked.
In a letter, Dupuis showed that ‘... en décembre 1802 et juin 1803,
L. A. G. Bosc a designé comme type du genre Anolis la premiere espéce
incluse et étudiée par Daudin: Lacerta bimaculata Sparrman, 1784:
(Nouveau dictionnaire d'Histoire naturelle, tome 1, p. 474; ibid., tome 11, p.
571).’ Dupuis asked that this valid type designation be considered, and
added, ‘... si cette désignation présente des inconvénients reels, il faudra
réexaminer la désignation de bullaris ... Toutefois, si, comme il est
malheureusement trop courant, les faits que j’apporte ne suspendaient pas
le vote . . . je vote contre la propositon.’
These early type designations were drawn to the attention of two of
the original authors, Professors H. M. Smith and E. E. Williams as well as
to Professor J. M. Savage and Mr A. F. Stimson. All were agreed that,
despite the undoubted priority of Bosc’s and then Chenu’s actions, only the
designation of Anolis carolensis Voigt, 1832 as type species would serve the
purposes of stabilizing nomenclature.
Since the Commission had voted to use its plenary powers ‘to set
aside all [i.e. known and unknown — PKT] designations of type species...
hitherto made... .’ the Ruling has been completed in accord with the original
application.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 127
With his vote Dupuis pointed out that ‘Daudin, Histoire naturelle,
générale et particuliére des Reptiles, Paris (Dufart), tome 4, a été présente a
l'Institut de France le 23 thermidor An 10=11 aout 1802 (cf. Proc. Verb.
Acad. Sci., 2 (1800-1804), p. 1912). Daudin y crée le genre Anolis (p. 50)’. In
accordance with this the authorship of Anolis is cited as Daudin, 1802.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Anolis Daudin, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Reptiles,
vol. 4, p. 50
carolinensis, Anolis, Voigt, 1832, in Cuvier’s Das Thierreich ... Nach der
zweiten ... Ausgabe tibersetzt und durch Zusdtze erweitert von F. S.
Voigt, p. 71.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 57 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. 1385.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
25 February 1986
128 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1386
PAPILIO ERATO LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
NEOTYPE DESIGNATED
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
specimen hitherto made for Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set
aside and the following specimen deposited in the British Museum (Natural
History) is hereby designated neotype: ‘(Berg, en Dal, Surinam, 1898-9.
Michls./erato erato Linn./866./20.20. ex coll. Riffarth/Joicey Bequest, Brit.
Mus. 1934~-120.)’.
(1) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) erato Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the binomen Papilio erato
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) doris Linnaeus, 1771, as published in the binomen Papilio
doris.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1759
An application to conserve the name Heliconius erato sensu
Aurivillius, 1882 was first received from Dr J. G. Turner (University of
Leeds, U.K.) on 5 June 1966. After correspondence between the author and
the then Secretary, Dr W. E. China, it was suggested that using the plenary
powers to designate a neotype for Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758 was the best
method of preserving current usage. The case was not proceeded with until
a revised manuscript was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 43-44
(March 1984). 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 ten general and
nine entomological serials.
Comments correcting certain facts in the case were received from
Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan (Cumbria, U.K.) and Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden). These were acknowledged by the author
and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 197.
DECISION OF THE COMMISION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)2 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 43-44. At the close of
the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Ride, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Bayer
Negative Votes — four (4) received in the following order: Lehtinen,
Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 129
Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and
Kraus.
Dupuis abstained primarily because insufficient account had been
taken of the work of Bates (1862), and also because some of the taxonomic
doubts. Bernardi did not approve of the designation of a neotype for Papilio
erato Linnaeus which was different from Linnean usage, and suggested that
species B (cf. the application) should have the specific name vesta Cramer,
[1775], erato being suppressed.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
doris, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1771, Mantissa Plantarum altera, p. 536
erato, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 467.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1386.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
130 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1387
CURCULIO PICIROSTRIS FABRICIUS, 1787 AND TYCHIUS
STEPHENSI SCHONHERR, 1836 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA,
CURCULIONIDAE): CONSERVED
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the two tychiine weevil
specimens in the Fabricius and the Sehested and Tonder Lund collections
at Copenhagen are hereby set aside as types, and the female lectotype
of Curculio cinerascens Marsham. 1802 in the British Museum (Natural
History) is hereby designated as neotype of Curculio picirostris Fabricius,
1787.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) picirostris Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio
picirostris, and as interpreted by reference to the neotype
designated under the plenary powers in (1) above;
(b) stephensi Schénherr, 1836, as published in the binomen
Tychius stepheni (sic), and as interpreted by reference to the
lectotype designated by Clark (1971, p. 10).
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) tomentosus Herbst, 1795, as published in the binomen Curculio
tomentosus (a junior primary homonym of Curculio tomentosus
Olivier, 1790);
(b) stepheni Schonherr, 1836, as published in the binomen Tychius
stepheni (an incorrect original spelling of stephensi Schonherr,
1836, in the same combination).
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2266
An application for the conservation of Curculio picirostris Fabricius,
1787 and Tychius stephensi Schonherr, 1836, was first received from Dr
W. E. Clark (then of National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
U.S.A.) on 23 May 1978. After a long period of correspondence, during
which several redrafts of the case were produced, a revised manuscript was
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 45-52 (March 1984). 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 ten general and eight specialist serials.
A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) questioning the applicant’s contention that
stepheni was an incorrect spelling of stephensi.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)3 for or against
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 131
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 50. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis (in part), Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov,
Alvarado, Schuster, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Votes — one (1) Lehtinen.
Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and
Kraus.
Holthuis voted against the treatment of the spellings stephensi and
stepheni, maintaining that the former was incorrect under Article 32(c)(ii) of
the Code unless validated under the plenary powers of the Commission.
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:
picirostris, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum sistens eorum
species nuper detectas, vol. 1, p. 101
stepheni, Tychius, Schonherr, 1836, Genera et species Curculionidum, cum
synonymia, vol. 3(1), p. 412
stephensi, Tychius, Schonherr, 1836, Genera et species Curculionidum, cum
synonymia, vol. 3(1), p. 412 '
tomentosus, Curculio, Herbst, 1795, Natursystem aller bekannten in und
auslandischen Insekten ... Die Kafer, vol. 6, p. 278.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1387.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
132 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1388
CALLIONYMUS SAGITTA PALLAS, 1770 (OSTEICHTHYES,
CALLIONY MIDAE): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that
the nominal species Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 is to be interpreted by
reference to the neotype deposited in the California Academy of Sciences,
Stanford University Collection, San Francisco, ‘No. CAS-SU 41392:
(female, 86-1mm SL, INDIA: mouth of River Hooghli, Sundarbans,
Bengal Province, ca 21°50’N 88°00’E, S. W. Kemp, 1911.)’.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) sagitta Pallas, 1770, as published in the binomen Callionymus
sagitta and as interpreted by reference to the neotype described
in (1) above;
(b) filamentosus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837, as
published in the binomen Callionymus filamentosus.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2435
An application for the designation of a neotype for Callionymus
sagitta Pallas, 1770 was first received from Dr R. A. Fricke (Staatliches
Naturhistorisches Museum, DDR) on 28 February 1983. After a period of
correspondence a revised manuscript was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol.
41, pp. 58-61 (March 1984). 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 ten
general and three specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)4 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 60. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Schuster,
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Ride, Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer,
Cogger
Negative Votes — sic (6) received in the following order: Savage,
Uéno, Lehtinen, Dupuis, Bernardi, Thompson.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
Kabata pointed out that references in the application to Article 75
of the Code should now read 75(d), not 75(c). Bernardi, Dupuis and Ueno
disapproved of the principle involved in the designation of a neotype
manifestly different from Pallas’ 1770 illustration. Dupuis said that usage
could have been most appropriately maintained by conservation of the
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 133
name Callionymus sagitta Valenciennes, 1837 and suppression of Pallas’
(1770) authorship of the specific name.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
filamentosus, Callionymus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837,
Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 12, p. 303
sagitta, Callionymus, Pallas, 1770, Spicilegia zoologica, vol. 1, (8), 29.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1388.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
134 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1389
PHASCOLOSOMA CUMANENSE KEFERSTEIN, 1867
(SIPUNCULIDA): GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER LUMBRICUS
EDULIS PALLAS, 1774
RULING. —.(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that
the specific name cumanense Keferstein, 1867, as published in the binomen
Phascolosoma cumanense, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the
specific name edule, as originally published in the binomen Lumbricus
edulis, whenever the two names are considered synonyms.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) cumanense Keferstein, 1867, as published in the binomen Phas-
colosoma cumanense, with an endorsement that it is to be given
nomenclatural precedence over edule Pallas, 1774, as originally
published in the binomen Lumbricus edulis, whenever the two
names are considered synonyms;
edule Pallas, 1774, as originally published in the binomen
Lumbricus edulis, with an endorsement that it is not to be given
priority over cumanense Keferstein, 1867, as published in the
binomen Phascolosoma cumanense, whenever the two names
are considered synonyms.
(b
—
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2379
An application for the conservation of Phascolosoma cumanense
Keferstein, 1867 (now placed in the genus Siphonosoma Spengel, 1912) was
first received from Dr E. B. Cutler (Syracuse University, U.S.A.) on 27 April
1981. After a period of correspondence a revised manuscript was published
in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 62-64 (March 1984). 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 ten general serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)5 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 14, p. 63. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Alvarado, Schuster,
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Uéno, Ride, Halvorsen, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi,
Cogger
Negative Votes—six (6) received in the following order:
Starobogatov, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Heppell, Thompson.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 135
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on an
Official List:
cumanense, Phascolosoma, Keferstein, 1867, Zeit. Wiss. Zool., vol. 17, p. 53
edule, Lumbricus, Pallas, 1774, Spicilegia Zoologica, vol. 10, p. 10.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1389.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
136 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1390
PELLONULA BAHIENSIS STEINDACHNER, 1879
(OSTEICHTH YES): REPLACEMENT LECTOTYPE DESIGNATED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of
type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Pellonula bahiensis
Steindachner, 1879 are hereby set aside and the following specimen in the
Naturhistorisches Museum of Vienna is hereby designated as lectotype:
‘(NMV. 76436:4, 76:5 mm SL, ‘Bucht von Bahia’, Steindachner coll.)’
(2) The name bahiensis Steindachner, 1879, as published in the
binomen Pellonula bahiensis and as interpreted by reference to the lectotype
designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2445
An application to designate a replacement lectotype for Pellonula
bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 was first received from Dr P. J. P. Whitehead
(British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr G. Nelson (American
Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 21 June 1983. A revised
manuscript was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 65-66 (March
1984). 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 ten general and four
specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)6 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 66. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Cogger
Negative Votes — two (2) Bernardi, Thompson.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE
The following is the original reference for the name placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
bahiensis, Pellonula, Steindachner, 1879, Sitzber. k. Acad. Wiss. Wien, vol.
80, p. 181, pl. 3, fig. 2.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 137
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1390.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
138 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1391
ZYGAENA ANTHYLLIDIS BOISDUVAL, [1828] (INSECTA,
LEPIDOPTERA): CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name
anthyllidis Hibner, [1819], as published in the binomen Lycastes anthyllidis,
and all uses of that name prior to that by Boisduval in 1828 are hereby sup-
pressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle
of Homonymy.
(2) The name anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828], as published in the
binomen Zygaena anthyllidis, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name anthyllidis Hiibner, [1819], as published in the
binomen Lycastes anthyllidis 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.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2442
An application for the conservation of Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval,
[1828] was first received from Dr C. M. Naumann (Universitat Bielefeld,
BRD) and Dr W. G. Tremewan (British Museum (Natural History),
London) on 4 May 1983. After a period of correspondence a revised manu-
script was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 73-76. Public notice
of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the
Bulletin as well as to ten general and nine specialist serials. A large number
of supportive comments were received and published in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 42, p. 10.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)7 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 74. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Votes — None (0).
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
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:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 139
anthyllidis, Zygaena, Boisduval, [1828], Essai sur une Monographie des
Zygénides, p. 78
anthyllidis, Lycastes, Hiibner, [1819], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge,
p. 118.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1391.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
140 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1392
REPTOMULTISPARSA D’ORBIGNY, 1853 (BRYOZOA,
CYCLOSTOMATA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the nominal species
Diastopora incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850 is hereby designated as type species
of the nominal genus Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853.
(2) The name Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853 (gender: feminine)
type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Diastopora
incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name incrustans d’Orbigny, 1850, as published in the
binomen Diastopora incrustans (specific name of the type species of Repto-
multisparsa d@’Orbigny, 1853) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2400
An application for the designation of Diastopora incrustans
d’Orbigny, 1850 as the type species of Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853
was first received from Dr P. D. Taylor (British Museum (Natural History),
London) on 17 November 1981. After a period of correspondence a revised
manuscript was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 77-79 (June
1984). 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 ten general and three
specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)8 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 78-79. At the close of
the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Mroczkowski, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger, shone
Negative Votes — one (1) Hahn.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
Hahn commented that Diastopora microstoma Michelin, 1846 would
have been the best choice of type species for Reptomultisparsa, since it is
listed as such by Bassler in the Fossilium Catalogus (1935) and the Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology (1953).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 141
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
incrustans, Diastopora, d’Orbigny, 1850, Prodrome de Paléontologie, vol. |,
p. 288
Reptomultisparsa d@’Orbigny, 1853, Paléontologie frangaise, terrains crétacés,
vol. 5, Bryozoaires, p. 875.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1392.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
142 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1393
CHOEROPSIS LEIDY, 1852 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA):
CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Choerodes Leidy, 1852 is hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle
of Priority but not for that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy Hippopotamus liberiensis Morton, 1849, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name /iberiensis Morton, 1849, as published in the binomen
Hippopotamus liberiensis (specific name of the type species of Choeropsis
Leidy, 1852) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(4) The name Choerodes Leidy, 1852, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2407
An application for the conservation of Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 was
first received from Drs R. M. Schoch and S. G. Lucas (Yale University,
U.S.A.) on 1 March 1982. After a period of correspondence a revised
manuscript was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 94-96 (June
1984). 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 ten general and three
specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 June 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)9 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 95. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Votes — one (1) Kabata.
No votes were returned by Corless, Gruchy and Kraus.
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:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 143
Choerodes Leidy, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 6, p. 52
Choeropsis Leidy, 1852, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, (2), vol. 2, p. 213
liberiensis, Hippopotamus, Morton, 1849, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia,
(2), vol. 1, p. 232.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1393.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
144 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1394
CENTRURUS LIMPIDUS KARSCH, 1879 AND CENTRUROIDES
ORNATUS POCOCK, 1902 (ARACHNIDA, SCORPIONES):
CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name
olivaceus Thorell, 1877, as published in the binomen Centrurus olivaceus, is
hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) limpidus Karsch, 1879, as published in the binomen Centrurus
limpidus;
(b) ornatus Pocock, 1902, as published in the binomen Centrur-
oides ornatus.
(3) The name olivaceus Thorell, 1877, as published in the binomen
Centrurus olivaceus 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.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2446
An application for the conservation of Centrurus limpidus Karsch,
1879 and Centruroides ornatus Pocock, 1902, was first received from Dr
O. F. Francke (Texas Technical University, U.S.A.) on 27 June 1983. After
a period of correspondence a revised manuscript was published in Bull.
zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 97-100 (June 1984). 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 ten general and three specialist serials. No comment was
received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)10 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 98-99. At the close of
the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Hahn, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger
Negative Votes — one (1) Thompson.
Bayer pointed out that, contrary to para. 3 of the application (Bull.
zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 97) Centrurus Ehrenberg, 1828 is not a nomen
nudum: ‘even though a full description was not given it was twice character-
ized in the original publication [on folios 1 and 6] ... It seems clear that
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 145
Centrurus is an available generic name from Ehrenberg (1828), without
included species, with type species C. galbineus Koch, 1838 fixed by
subsequent monotypy’.
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:
limpidus, Centrurus, Karsch, 1879, Mitt. Muench. Entomol. Ver., vol. 3,
p. 120
olivaceus, Centrurus, Thorell, 1877, Atti Soc. Italiana Sci. Nat., vol. 19, pp.
151-152
ornatus, Centruroides, Pocock, 1902, Biologia Centrali- Americana, p. 26.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)10 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. 1394.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
146 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1395
TOMIOPSIS BENEDIKTOVA, 1956 (BRACHIOPODA,
SPIRIFERIDA): CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Tomiopsis Cope, 1893 and all uses of that name prior to that by Benediktova,
1956, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority
and the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956, (gender: feminine),
type species by original designation Brachythyris kumpani Yanischevsky,
1935, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name kumpani Yanischevsky, 1935, as published in the
binomen Brachythyris kumpani (specific name of the type species of
Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Tomiopsis Cope, 1893, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2451
An application for the conservation of Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956
was first received from Dr N. W. Archbold and Dr G. A. Thomas (Univer-
sity of Melbourne, Australia) on 15 September 1983. A revised manuscript
was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 105-107 (June 1984). 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 ten general and two specialist serials.
No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)12 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 106-107. At the close of
the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Kabata, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Uéno, Ride, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger
Negative Votes — three (3) received in the following order: Hahn,
Lehtinen, Thompson.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
Hahn voted against because no explanation had been given of the
nomenclatural fate of the fossil edentate genus described as Tomiopsis
Cope, 1893. [As stated in the application, this name was based on a single
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 147
tooth, and no further contributions have been made since the original brief
description. The sinking of the name is unlikely to cause difficulties].
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:
kumpani, Brachythyris Yanischevsky, 1935, Uchenye Zapiski Leningrad
Gosud. Un-ta, Vyp. vol. 1, pp. 68-69
Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 Voprosy Geologii Kuzbassa, I, Materialy
Vtorogo Soveshchaniya po Stratigrafii Uglenosnykh Otlozhenii, p.
169
Tomiopsis Cope, 1893, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., vol. 31, no. 142, pp. 317-318.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1395.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
148 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1396
BYRRHUS MURINUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA,
BYRRHIDAE): CONSERVED
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are
hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) undulatus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen
Byrrhus undulatus;
(b) rubidus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus
rubidus.
(2) The name Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869 (gender: masculine)
type species by subsequent designation by Mroczkowski, 1984, Byrrhus
murinus Fabricius, 1794, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name murinus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen
Byrrhus murinus (specific name of the type species of Porcinolus Mulsant
& Rey, 1869) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) undulatus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen
Byrrhus undulatus and as suppressed under the plenary powers
in (1)(a) above;
(b) rubidus Kugelann, 1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus
rubidus and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b)
above.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2314
An application for the conservation of Byrrhus murinus Fabricius,
1794 was first received from Dr M. Mroczkowksi (Institute of Zoology,
Poland) on 30 July 1979. After a period of correspondence a revised version
was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 114-115 (June 1984). Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part
of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and eleven specialist serials. No
comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)13 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 114-115. At the close of
the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 149
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Ueno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger
Negative Votes — One (1) Thompson.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
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:
murinus, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica vol. 4, p. 437
Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869, Histoire naturelle des coleoptéres de
France, part 2, Piluliformes, p. 94. See also Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon,
vol. 17, p. 328
rubidus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792, Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol., vol.
1, Heft (2-4), p. 484
undulatus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792, Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol.,
vol. 1, Heft (2-4), p. 484.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869: of
Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 by Mroczkowski, 1984, Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 41, p. 114.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1396.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
150 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1397
RHOPALOCERUS W. REDTENBACHER, 1842 (INSECTA,
COLEOPTERA, COLYDIDAE): CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic names
Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837 and Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840, are hereby
suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for that of
the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (gender: mas-
culine), type species by monotypy Rhopalocerus setosus W. Redtenbacher,
1842, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name rondanii A. Villa & J. B. Villa, 1833, as published in
the binomen Monotoma rondanii (considered the valid name at the time of
this ruling for the type species of Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name RHOPALOCERINI Reitter, 1911 (type genus Rhopalocerus
W. Redtenbacher, 1842) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology.
(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic names in Zoology:
(a) Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above;
(b) Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840, as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above;
(c) Apistus Agassiz, 1846, a junior homonym of Apistus Cuvier in
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829.
(6) The name APISTINI Ganglbauer, 1899 (invalid because based on a
junior homonym) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2456
An application for the conservation of Rhopalocerus W.
Redtenbacher, 1842 was first received from Dr M. Mroczkowski (Institute
of Zoology, Warsaw, Poland) on 18 October 1983. A revised version was
published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 116-118 (June 1984). Public notice
of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same
issue of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and eleven specialist serials. No
comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)14 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 117-118. At the close of
the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 151
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Ueno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger
Negative Votes — One (1) Thompson.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on the
Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou, p. 186
Apistus Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, p. 29
APISTINI Ganglbauer, 1899, Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa, p. 873
RHOPALOCERINI Reitter, 1911, Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des deutschen
Reiches, vol. 3, p. 108
Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842, Die Gattungen der deutschen Kafer-
Fauna, p. 21
rondanii, Monotoma, A. Villa & J. B. Villa, 1833, Coleoptera Europae
dupleta, p. 36
Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou, (5), p. 100.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1397.
PK, TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
152 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1398
CAPYS HEWITSON, [1865] (LEPIDOPTERA, LYCAENIDAE):
CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] is hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle
of Priority but not for that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Capys Hewitson, [1865] (gender: masculine), type
species by monotypy Papilio alpheus Cramer, [1777], is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name alpheus Cramer, [1777], as published in the binomen
Papilio alpheus, (specific name of the type species of Capys Hewitson,
[1865]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1748
An application for the conservation of Capys Hewitson, [1865]
was first received from the late Dr N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural
History), London) on 8 March 1966. It was published in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 23, pp. 165-166 (October 1966). No comment was received. A short
time after publication, Article 23b of the Code, which was cited in the case,
came under investigation by a special committee appointed by the Council
of the Commission, and consequently no further action was taken.
In 1974 a proposal to complete this application was received from
Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan (Cumbria, U.K.) and published in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 30, pp. 133-134. The case was however left in abeyance until it was
republished, due to the long interval that had passed, in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 41, pp. 119-121 (June 1984). 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 ten general and eleven specialist serials. A comment was received
from Colonel Cowan and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 197. As
a consequence of this comment the Commission were asked to vote on
proposals (1)(b), (2), (3) and (4) only.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)15 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, pp. 120-121 as amended on
p. 197. At the close of the voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the
voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 153
Mroczowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Votes — None (0).
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
alpheus, Papilio, Cramer, [1777], De uitlandsche Kapellen, vol. 2 (16), p. 31
Capys Hewitson, [1865], I//ustrations of Diurnal Lepidoptera. Lycaenidae.
(Supplement), vol. 1, p. 59.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1398.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
OPINION 1399
COCHLIOM YIA TOWNSEND, 1915 (DIPTERA, CALLIPHORIDAE):
CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Callitroga Breauer, 1883, is hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle
of Priority but not for that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (gender: feminine), type
species by original designation Musca macellaria Fabricius, 1775, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name macellaria Fabricius, 1775, as published in the
binomen Musca macellaria (specific name of the type species of Cochliomyia
Townsend, 1915), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(4) The name Callitroga Brauer, 1883, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)707
An application to clarify the status of Callitroga was first received
from Dr C. W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, U.S.A.) on 30 August 1952. As no definite standpoint was
taken regarding the availability, authorship and date, it was agreed that the
application should be held in abeyance until after the London Congress of
1958, where it was hoped that a decision would be made on names first
published in synonymy.
In December 1982 the then Secretary, Mr R. V. Melville, contacted
Dr Sabrosky with a view to his rewriting and presenting the case again.
After a long period of correspondence a revised version of the case was
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 125-128 (June 1984). Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part
of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and eleven specialist serials. A
supportive comment was received from Dr Y. Z. Erizinclioglu (University
of Cambridge, U.K.).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1986)16 for or against
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 128. At the close of the
voting period on 17 April 1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 155
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Bayer, Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Votes — None (0).
Kabata and Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Corliss,
Gruchy and Kraus.
Kabata abstained because he felt that the application reflected only
one viewpoint, Dupuis primarily because the biological complexity of the
case might involve taxonomic difficulties. Thompson commented that a
type species should have been designated before suppression of Callitroga.
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:
Callitroga Brauer, 1883, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math-nat. KI., vol.
47, p. 74
Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915, J. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. 5, p. 644
macellaria, Musca, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 776.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)16 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. 1399.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
BUBO DUMERIL, 1806 AND SURNIA DUMERIL, 1806 (AVES):
PROPOSED CONFIRMATION ON THE OFFICIAL LIST.
Z.N.(S.)1051
By R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)
Among the generic names deferred for further consideration when
the first instalment of the Official Lists in book form was being prepared in
1958 were No. 29, Bubo Duméril, 1806 and No. 105, Surnia Dumeéril, 1806,
both dealt with in Opinion 67. It appears that both names can be confirmed
on the Official List without recourse to the plenary powers.
BUBO
2. Bubo was described by Duméril (1806, Zoologie analytique, p. 34)
with no included species. This was the case with all new genera proposed by
Dumeéril in this work. In the same year L. F. Froriep published C. Dumeéril’s
analytische Zoologie aus dem franzdsischen mit Zusdtzen. He cited one
species as an example of every genus and thereby fixed the type species of
each of Duméril’s new genera by subsequent monotypy. The only example
so cited (p. 35) under Bubo was Strix bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10,
vol. 1, p. 92).
3. The relevant entry in Opinion 67 reads: ‘Bubo Duméril, Zool.
Analyt., 1806, 34. Mt, Tt., Tsd., “Les Ducs” = Strix bubo Linn. (Froriep
1806, Opinion 46)’. The abbreviations mean Mt, type by monotypy; Tt,
type by tautonymy; Tsd, type by subsequent designation. Opinion 46 was
the ruling that then governed the treatment of genera proposed without
included species. It has been replaced by Article 69(a)(vii). Although all the
statements made in the entry are true, it is only necessary to cite one method
of type-species designation. :
4. The Commission is accordingly asked:
(1) to confirm the placing on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology of Bubo Duméril, 1806 (gender: masculine), type
species, by subsequent monotypy, Strix bubo Linnaeus, 1758;
(2) to place the specific name bubo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in
the binomen Strix bubo (specific name of type species of Bubo
Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
SURNIA
5. The nominal type species of Surnia Duméril (1806, Zoologie
analytique, p. 34) is fixed in the same manner as that of Bubo, namely by
subsequent monotypy by Froriep (1806, op. cit., p. 35). Dumeéril cited ‘Strix
hudlonia L.’ which is a lapsus for Strix hudsonia Gmelin, 1788 in Linnaeus,
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 57
Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1 (1), p. 295. The valid name for this species is Strix
caparoch P. L. §. Miiller, 1766, Des Ritters C. von Linne’s ... vollstdndige
Natursystem ... Suppl., p. 69. Gmelin’s type locality was Hudson’s Bay and
Miiller’s was Europe; but it is now accepted that Miiller based his Strix
caparoch on Edwards, G., 1743, Natural history of birds, pl. 62, which is one
of the items in Gmelin’s synonymy.
6. The Commission is accordingly asked:
(1) to confirm the placing on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology of Surnia Duméril, 1806 (gender: feminine), type
species, by subsequent monotypy, Strix hudsonia Gmelin,
1788;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
specific name caparoch Miiller (P.L.S.) 1766 as published in the
binomen Strix caparoch (the valid name at the date of this
application of the type species of Surnia Dumeril, 1806).
7. Tam grateful to Mr I. C. J. Galbraith (Tring Museum) for help in
compiling the facts concerning Surnia.
158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
ANTISPILA HUBNER, [1825] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
PROPOSED VALIDATION OF ANTISPILA STADTMULLERELLA
[HUBNER] 1825 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2463
By E. S. Nielsen (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, G.P.O. Box 1700,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) and I. W. B. Nye (Department of
Entomology, British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.)
The object of this case is to request the Commission to suppress an
unused type-species designation so that Antispila Hiibner, [1825], can
continue to be used in its universally accepted sense.
2. Antispila Hubner, [1825] (Verz. bekannter Schmett., p. 419) was
established for 13 originally included species. The first species was included
by Hiibner as ‘4070. Antispila Pagenstecherella. Merianella Hubn. Tin.
265.’ —1.e. Hubner was establishing A. pagenstecherella to denote his
earlier misidentification Tinea merianella Linnaeus sensu Hubner, [1805]
(Samml. eur. Schmett., vol. 8, pl. 38, fig. 265). The seventh species was
included by Hubner as ‘A. Stadtmiillerella. Pfeiferella Hibn. 398’.—i.e.,
Hiibner was establishing A. stadtmuellerella as an objective replacement
name for Tinea pfeifferella Hubner, [1813] (Sammi. eur. Schmett., vol. 8, pl.
59, fig. 398) a primary homonym of Tinea pfeifferella Hubner, [1813]
(ibidem, vol. 8, pl. 63, fig. 422) and a junior subjective synonym of Tinea
metallella [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 (Anktindung Syst. Werkes Schmett.
Wienergegend, p. 144).
3. Ever since Wocke, 1871, in Staudinger & Wocke (Cat. Lepid. eur.
Faunengeb., p. 324), Antispila has been used as a valid name for a
widely distributed and large genus in the HELIOZELIDAE based on A.
metallella (=stadtmuellerella Hiibner = pfeifferella Hubner fig. 398). A.
stadtmuellerella was designated as the type species of Antispila by Fletcher,
1929 (Mem. Dep. Agric. India (Entomol.), vol. 11, p. 17). There is, however,
an earlier and hitherto overlooked type-species designation by Hampson,
1918 (Novit. zool., vol. 25, p. 387) who habitually designated the first of the
originally included species and so cited pagenstecherella and added that
Antispila ‘may be the oldest name in this family when its type can be identi-
fied’. Hampson was therefore unaware that A. pagenstecherella had already
been placed by Heyden, 1861 (Entomol. Ztg. Stettin, vol. 22, p. 32) as
the senior synonym of Tinea vinculella Herrich-Schaffer, 1850 (Syst.
Bearbeitung Schmett. Eur., vol. 5, Tineides, pl. 40, fig. 275; 1854, ibidem,
vol. 5, p. 75). This species is currently placed in Eudarcia Clemens, 1860, in
the TINEIDAE.
4. Antispila has been consistently used for the heliozelid genus in
the literature dealing with both its taxonomy, faunistics, biology, and
morphology, including the following:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 159
Berestynska-Wilczek, 1966, Folia biol., Krakow vol. 14, p. 455
Davis, 1983, in Hodges, Check List of Lepidoptera of America
North of Mexico, p. 4
Dziurzynski, 1952, Mater. Fizjogr. Kraju, vol. 28, p. 1
Emmet, 1976, in Heath, Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and
Treland, vol. 1, p. 305
Gerasimov, 1952, Fauna SSSR, vol. 56, p. 306
Grandi, 1932, Boll. Lab. Entomol R. Ist. super. agrar. Bologna, vol.
5, p. 178
Kuroko, 1982, in Inoue et al., Moths of Japan, vol. 1, p. 57, vol. 2,
p: 457
Kuznetsov, 1978, Opred. Faune SSSR, vol. 117, p. 72
Lafontaine, 1973, Can. Entomol., vol. 105, p. 991
Wojtusiak, 1976, Klucze Oznacz. Owad. Poland, vol. 94, p. 9.
Antispila has to our knowledge never been used in the TINEIDAE.
5. In order to maintain general current usage of Antispila Hubner,
[1825], in the HELIOZELIDAE and to prevent the confusion that would occur if
it were to be transferred and used to replace Eudarcia Clemens, 1860, in the
TINEIDAE, the Commission is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all type-species desig-
nations for the nominal genus Antispila Hibner, [1825], prior to
that of Fletcher, 1929;
(2) to place the generic name Antispila Hiibner, [1825], type
species by subsequent designation of Fletcher, 1929, Antispila
stadtmuellerella Hiibner, [1825], on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name metallella [Denis & Schiffermiiller],
1775, as published in the binomen Tinea metallella (valid name,
at the time of the application, of the type species of Antispila
Hubner, [1825]) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
HETEROCLONIUM BICOLOR COPE, 1896 (REPTILIA,
SQUAMATA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION
OF CHIROTES DIGLOSSIS SAENZ, 1869. Z.N.(S.)2424
By Stephen C. Ayala (307 12th Street, Petaluma, California 94952, U.S.A.)
In 1869, Nicolas Saenz described a worm-like reptile from
Colombia under the name Chirotes diglossis, believing it to be a legged
amphisbaenid related to Chirotes (now Bipes) canaliculatus of Mexico.
Saenz’s detailed description permits identification of his specimens not as
an amphisbaenid (Suborder Amphisbaenia), but rather as a microtetid
lizard (Suborder Sauria) currently known as Bachia bicolor (Cope, 1896).
2. The genus Chirotes Cuvier, 1817 is now considered a synonym of
Bipes Latreille, 1802, the only genus of legged amphisbaenids in the New
World and limited in distribution to Mexico and the Southwestern United
States. The name dig/ossis Saenz has apparently never been used since its
original publication with reference to any amphisbaenid. Dr Carl Gans (in
lit., 24 Sept. 1982) is of the same opinion. This may be because Saenz’s
description appeared in the Annals of Colombia’s National University, a
journal not widely circulated at the middle of the previous century, and not
likely to come to the attention of students of amphisbaenids or microteiids.
3. Saenz did not formally designate a type specimen as such, but he
based his description on a specimen of imprecise origin donated to the
School of Natural Science of Colombia’s National University in Bogota
by Dr Vargas Vega. The specimen was said to be kept in the school’s
specimen cabinet. Today the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales at the
National University of Colombia has the largest collection of Colombian
lizards in the world, but its oldest specimens date only from the late 1930s
or early 1940s. It is exceptionally unlikely that Saenz’s type specimen of
diglossis, or a second specimen he said was also present, still exists.
4. The only published usage of Saenz’s name diglossis that I am
aware of is in the introduction to a list of specimens in the herpetology
collection at Colombia’s National University. Humberto Alarcon, 1979,
noted only that: ‘In 1869, while a student at National University, Nicolas
Saenz published the description of a new lizard Chirotes diglossis, following
closely the descriptions given by Duméril, Bibron & Duméril (of Bipes
canaliculatus), and specifying that the holotype was deposited in the natural
history specimen cabinet’ (my translation). There is no previous recognition
as to the correct identification of Saenz’s specimens.
5. In 1896, Cope described Heteroclonium (now Bachia) bicolor,
doubtless unaware of Saenz’s description 27 years earlier. The name bicolor
Cope has been widely used in the literature, for example by Dunn, 1944a,
1944b; Aleman, 1953; Valdivieso & Tamsitt, 1963; Nicéforo Maria, 1964;
Medem, 1968; Peters & Donoso-Barros, 1970; Hoogmoed, 1973; Maclean,
1974 and Presch, 1980. The extensive literature on the genus Bachia and B.
bicolor was recently unravelled and summarized by Dixon, 1973.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 161
6. Therefore, in the interest of nomenclatural stability, I ask the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name diglossis
Saenz, 1869, as published in the binomen Chirotes diglossis, for
the purposes of the Principles of Priority but not for those of
the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) place the specific name bicolor Cope, 1896, as published in the
binomen Heteroclonium bicolor, on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(3) place the specific name diglossis Saenz, 1869, as published in
the binomen Chirotes diglossis and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
ALARCON-P., H. 1979. Los reptiles depositados en la coleccion de herpetologia
del Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, ICN. I. Sauria y Amphisbaenia. Sciencia (Bogota),
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-35.
ALEMAN, C. 1953. Contribucion al estudio de los reptiles y batracios de la Sierra
de Perija. Mem. Soc. Cienc. nat. La Salle (Caracas), vol. 13, pp. 205-225.
COPE, E. D. 1896. On the hemipenes of the Sauria. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci.
Philadelphia 1896, pp. 461-467.
DIXON, J. R. 1973. A systematic review of the Teiid lizards, genus Bachia, with
remarks on Heterodactylus and Anotosaura. Misc. Publ. Univ. Kansas Mus.
nat. Hist., no. 57, pp. 1-47.
DOWLING, H. G. & DUELLMAN, W. E. 1974-1978. Systematic Herpetology: A
synopsis of families and higher categories. 304 pp. Hiss Publications, New
York.
DUNN, E. R. 1944a. Los géneros de anfibios y reptiles de Colombia. II. Segunda
Parte. Reptiles, orden de los Saurios. Caldasia, vol. 3, pp. 73-111.
—— 1944b. Herpetology of the Bogota area. Revta. Acad. Colombiana Cienc. exact.
fis. nat., vol. 6, pp. 68-81.
HOOGMOED, M. S. 1973. Notes on the herpetofauna of Surinam. IV. The lizards
and amphisbaenians of Surinam. 418 pp. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.
MACLEAN, W. P. 1974. Feeding and locomotor mechanisms of teiid lizards:
functional morphology and evolution. Papeis avuls. Zool. Sado Paulo, vol. 27,
pp. 179-213.
MEDEM, F. 1968. El desarrollo de la herpetologia en Colombia. Revta. Acad.
Colomb. Cienc. exact. fis. nat., vol. 13, pp. 149-199.
NICEFORO MARIA, HNO. 1964. Herpetologia. I. Suborden Sauria, Familia
Teiidae, Género Bachia. Bol. Inst. La Salle (Bogota), pp. 5-8.
PETERS, J. R. & DONOSO-BARROS, R. 1970. Catalogue of the Neotropical
Squamata. Part II. Lizards and Amphisbaenians. Smithson. Inst. Bull., vol.
297, pp. 1-293.
PRESCH, W. 1980. Evolutionary History of the South American Microteiid
Lizards (Teiidae; Gymnopthalminae). Copeia 1980(1), pp. 36-56.
162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
SAENZ, N. 1869. Descripcion del Chirotes diglossis. An. Univ. Nac. Estados Unidos
Colombia, 1869, pp. 73-74.
STEJNEGER, L. 1893. Note on the generic name Chirotes. Science, vol. 21, no.
529, pp. 157-158.
VALDIVIESO, D. & TAMSITT, J. R. 1963. Records and observations on
Colombian reptiles. Herpetologia, vol. 19, pp. 28-39.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 163
ON THE NAMES OF TWO SPECIES OF THE GENUS CLYTIA
LAMOUROUx, 1812 (CNIDARIA, HYDROZOA) COMMON IN
WESTERN EUROPE. Z.N.(S.)2493
By Paul F. S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British Museum ( Natural
History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) and Carina Ostman
(Zoologiska Institutionen, Uppsala Universitet, Box 561, S—751 22 Uppsala,
Sweden)
1. Introduction
All the known members of the hydroid genus C/ytia Lamouroux,
1812 (p. 184) are thought to have both hydroid and medusa stages in their
life cycles. One of the species, which has been variously known as Clytia
johnstoni (e.g. sensu Hincks, 1868, p. 143) and Phialidium hemisphaericum
(e.g. sensu Russell, 1953, p. 285), is in western Europe both a very common
benthic organism and one of the most abundant medusae in the plankton.
The second species treated in detail here, most frequently reported from its
hydroid stage alone under the name Clytia gracilis (Sars, 1850, p. 138, as
Laomedea), is probably the second commonest species of Clytia in the
North Sea and associated waters.
2. There are long-recognized nomenclatural problems concerning
the names of each of these species (Summary in Cornelius, 1982a, pp.
78-79). Until recently there was also a debate concerning the distinctness of
the two species from each other, and the nomenclatural questions could not
be confidently resolved. But recent work, spanning several years, on
Scandinavian populations (Ostman, 1979a, b, 1982, 1983) has resolved this
debate. The two species were characterized by Ostman on skeletal mor-
phology, nematocyst differences, anatomy of the medusae, and differences
in breeding season and habitat. More recently Cornelius (in prep. 1) has
found differences in polyp morphology between the two.
3. The species are common, and since several synoptic works are in
preparation (e.g. Cornelius, in prep. 2; Cornelius and Ryland, in prep.) it is
timely to resolve the long-standing nomenclatural issues surrounding their
names.
2. The genus name Clytia
4. Two generic names have been most frequently applied to the
genus in recent years. Phialidium Leuckart, 1856 (p. 18) has traditionally
been used for nominal species known from the medusa stage; while Clytia
Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184, has been the name by which those based on the
hydroid stage have come to be known. Rearing experiments that have
successfully linked the two stages of some of the species have revealed
nomenclatural problems in both genus and species names. However, the
case for regarding C/ytia Lamouroux, 1812, as the accepted name for the
genus is now overwhelming. The arguments have been put recently
elsewhere (Cornelius, 1982a, p. 71). For some decades it was sensible to use
164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
a dual system of names in western Europe, one (including Cl/ytia) for the
hydroid stages and the other (including Phialidium) for the medusae. The
problem was that for many years it was not known to which hydroids the
various medusae belonged, and Cl/ytia has proved one of the more intract-
able genera in which to resolve these questions. But the life cycles of so
many species of hydromedusae have now been worked out (summaries in
Russell, 1953, 1970; Naumov, 1960; Edwards, 1972) so that, in western
Europe at least, a single nomenclature is being applied throughout the
order wherever possible (e.g. Naumov, 1960; Cornelius, 1982a; in prep. 2).
The name to be used for the present genus is unquestionably Clytia. Some
aspects of the availability of and type species of Clytia which do not
impinge on the present discussion were treated in recent submissions to the
Commission on other nomenclatural problems in the Campanulariidae
(Cornelius, 1981, 1982b; ICZN Opinion 1345, 1985).
3. The species name Clytia hemisphaerica auct.
5. The most often collected Clytia species in western Europe is that
variously known as Phialidium hemisphaericum (Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1098, as
Medusa, type locality Belgian coastal plankton, the medusa stage) and
Clytia johnstoni (Alder 1856, p. 359, as Campanularia; the hydroid stage).
The complex nomenclatural history of both these species names was sum-
marised by Cornelius (1982a), who followed some other recent authors in
employing the combination Clytia hemisphaerica consequent upon rearing
studies which apparently linked the two stages. But johnstoni and hemis-
phaerica were only subjectively linked (Cornelius & Garfath, 1980, p. 283;
Cornelius, 1982a, pp. 79-80). Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1098, did not himself see a
medusa specimen when introducing the name hemisphaerica, and cited as
indication the description and sketchy illustration of Gronovius (1760,
p. 38, pl. 4, fig. 7). Millard (1966, p. 477) regarded hemisphaerica Linnaeus,
1767, and the next available name, johnstoni Alder, 1856, as relating to the
same species. Reasons for not using the name Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus,
1758, p. 811, have been discussed by both Millard (1966) and Cornelius
(1982a).
6. But the linking of johnstoni hydroid to hemisphaerica medusa was
only subjective. Although Alder’s description of the hydroid stage was
adequate and unequivocal, that of the medusa by Linnaeus, 1767, was not.
The illustration and description by Gronovius, indicated by Linnaeus, did
not include details of the gonads or time of year of collection of the
specimen, probably making it impossible to determine on which of the two
stages it was based.
7. The type series of the corresponding hydroid stage of the same
species, that of Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856 (p. 359) was examined
by Cornelius & Garfath, 1980 (p. 283). It was re-examined by PFSC and we
concur that it conforms to the now accepted concept of the species in ques-
tion. Hence we regard johnstoni Alder, 1856, as a subjective junior synonym
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 165
of hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1767, with, we feel, more justification than have
some previous authors who have taken the same view.
4. The species name Clytia gracilis auct.
8. The nominal species Laomedea gracilis Sars, 1850, p. 138 (redes-
cribed in Sars, 1857, p. 160) was based on a mixed type series representing
two species. This has caused confusion, since the species name gracilis sensu
Sars has sometimes been applied to the ‘wrong’ species of the two (sum-
mary in Cornelius, 1982a, p. 94). Dating of the Sars, 1850, paper has been
treated elsewhere (Cornelius, 1982a, p. 137). The material later illustrated
by Sars (1857, pl. 2) was identified objectively with the original description.
It comprised illustrations of two species, those today known as Gonothyraea
loveni (Allman, 1859, p. 138, as Laomedea) (viz. Sars, 1857, pl. 2, fig. 4 only)
and of the species now widely called Clytia gracilis (Sars, 1850) (viz. Sars,
1857, pl. 2, figs 1-3, 5). Cornelius (1982a, p. 92) assigned the latter illus-
trations to ‘Clytia hemisphaerica’ but this apparently erroneous step reflec-
ted the past confusion between the two species. The type series (or ‘type
illustrations’) of L. gracilis Sars, 1850, was perhaps first identified as mixed
by Stechow, 1923 (p. 111) who similarly identified the two component
species as loveni and hemisphaerica auct. We are grateful to Professor W.
Vervoort for bringing Stechow’s observation to our attention.
9. Cornelius (1982a, p. 94) introduced some stability by designating
as lectotype ‘the material resembling C. hemisphaerica’ in Sars’ (1850) series
(illustrated in 1857). When Cornelius wrote this, he did not imply a distinc-
tion between gracilis s. str. and hemisphaerica s. str. (=johnstoni); he merely
intended to designate as lectotype the material from Sars’ mixed series that
was not Gonothyraea loveni. This was prudent since the very widely used
name /oveni Allman, 1859, p. 138, would have become a junior subjective
synonym of gracilis Sars, 1850, if the other part of the mixed type series had
ever been so designated. The lectotype is here restricted to the single colony
illustrated in Sars, 1857, pl. 2, figs 1-2.
10. A concomitant necessity, having aired these problems, was for
Cornelius (1982a) to resolve the invalidity of the species name which had
become rather widely used in the combination Clytia gracilis (Sars, 1850).
There was a primary homonymy between Laomedea gracilis Sars, 1850, and
Laomedea gracilis Dana, 1846 (p. 689; lapsus pro Laomedea gracilis), which
Cornelius (1982a, p. 78) referred to Obelia dichotoma (Linnaeus, 1758,
p. 812, as Sertularia). He partly overlooked the then very recent detailed
study of the two Clytia species by Ostman (1979b) and, like some other
authors, considered the debate about the two species still unresolved. Hence
it was then premature to attempt to establish gracilis s. str., and Cornelius
introduced the nom. nov. sarsi Cornelius, 1982a, p. 78, in place of the
preoccupied Laomedea gracilis Sars. At the time, it seemed that C. sarsi
might not prove a valid species.
_ 11. But it has become apparent, through subsequent publications
by Ostman and through the two present authors examining live examples of
166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
the two species conjointly in both Norway and England, that ‘sars? is
indeed a valid species. The differences between the two species have been
touched on already (paragraph 2). Hence it seems appropriate now to
establish a valid name for ‘sarsi’ that will be acceptable and not confusing
to hydroid taxonomists and ecologists.
12. Although the name sarsi is valid it has yet to find acceptance.
The name gracilis has been widely applied to the species in question, and the
following recent references from several countries, in which gracilis has
been used in the accepted sense, establish a prima facie case for the name to
be conserved by the Commission under the plenary powers: Blanco, 1967,
p. 55; Fey, 1969, p. 393; Jagerskidld, 1971, p. 63; Leloup, 1952, p. 155;
Mammen, 1965, p. 16; Millard, 1957, p. 196; Naumov, 1960, p. 265;
Ostman, 1979a, p. 6, 1979b, p. 125, 1982, p. 156, 1983, p. 5; Rees &
Thursfield, 1965, p. 95; Rossi, 1961, p. 79; Stepanyants, 1979, p. 32;
Vervoort, 1968, p. 17. Moreover, we feel that continued use of the
combination Clytia gracilis in the sense proposed here is both sensible and
unlikely to lead to confusion. Our intention is to use this combination in
forthcoming publications.
13. Several nominal species of the genus C/ytia were described by
Forbes (1841, 1848). They were described from British material and were
certainly of one of the two species here called C. hemisphaerica and C.
gracilis. They were either based on immature stages, or the descriptions
were inadequate for assessment for other reasons. All clearly postdate the
species name hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1767 (see above), but any might pre-
date the species name gracilis Sars, 1850. In our opinion none can at present
confidently be referred to either species. The nominal species concerned are:
Thaumantias pileata Forbes, 1841, p. 84, pl. 1, figs 3a—b; T. thompsoni ibid,
p. 84, pl. 1, figs 4a—4b; T. punctata ibid, p. 85, pl. 1, figs Sa—b; T. sarnica ibid,
p. 85, pl. 1, figs 6a—b. All four were redescribed by Forbes, 1848, in his
monograph, but with partly erroneous citations of his earlier work. In the
later work Forbes introduced the following nominal species which might
also threaten the name gracilis but which in our opinion are similarly inde-
terminate: Thaumantias lineata Forbes, 1848, p. 48, pl. 11, fig. 1, and T.
inconspicua ibid, p. 52, pl. 8, fig. 3. In the interests of nomenclatural stability
we recommend in paragraph 14(1(b)) that these six species names intro-
duced by Forbes, 1841, 1848, be suppressed and placed on the Official List
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
5. Proposals
14. To conserve the established use of the species name gracilis, as
introduced in the combination Laomedea gracilis Sars, 1850, p. 138 (redes-
cribed in Sars, 1857, p. 160), the Commission is therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to suppress the specific name gracilis Dana, 1846, as
published in the binomen Lomedea (err. pro Laomedea)
gracilis and all uses of that name prior to its publication by
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 167
Sars (M.), 1850, for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(b) to suppress the specific names pileata, thompsoni, punctata
and sarnica Forbes, 1841, and the specific names /ineata
and conspicua Forbes, 1848, all as combined with the
generic name Thaumantias Eschscholtz, 1829, for the pur-
poses of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the specific name gracilis Sars, 1850, as published in
the binomen Laomedea gracilis, and as interpreted by the lecto-
type restricted herein, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
REFERENCES
ALDER, J., 1856. A notice of some new genera and species of British hydroid
zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2), vol. 18, pp. 353-362.
ALLMAN, G. J., 1859. Notes on the hydroid zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3),
vol. 4, pp. 137-144.
BLANCO, O. M., 1967. Contribucion al conocimiento de los hydrozoarios
Argentinos. Revta Mus. La Plata, N.S. (Zool.), vol. 9, pp. 243-297.
CORNELIUS, P. F. S., 1981. Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux,
1812, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposed
designations of type species by use of the plenary powers, and comments on
related genera. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 38, pp. 208-220.
1982a. Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from
the eastern North Atlantic, with a world synopsis of genera. Bull. Br. Mus.
nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 42, pp. 37-148.
1982b. Further notes on the genus—-group names in the hydroid family
Campanulariidae Johnston, 1836. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 222-225.
In preparation (1) On the use of hydranth characters in taxonomy.
In preparation (2). The thecate hydroids of western Europe and their
medusae. (Assisted by F. S. Russell). Linn. Soc. Syn. Br. Fauna.
— & GARFATH, J. B., 1980. The coelenterate taxa of Joshua Alder. Bull. Br.
Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 39, pp. 273-291.
——— & RYLAND, J. S. (In press). Hydrozoa. Jn: Ryland, J. S. & Hayward, P. J.
(editors) An introduction to the marine fauna of the British Isles. Oxford
(Oxford University Press).
DANA, J. D., 1846, 1849. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838,
1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N.
Zoophytes. Philadelphia. Vol. 1 (1846), text; vol. 2 (1849), atlas. (Dating after
Haskell, 1942.)
EDWARDS, C., 1972. The history and state of the study of medusae and hydroids.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. (B), vol. 73, pp. 247-257.
ESCHSCHOLTZ, F., 1829. System der Acalephen Berlin (F. Dimmler), pp. i—vi,
1—190, pls. 1-16.
FEY, A., 1969. Peuplements sessiles de l’archipel de Glénan. I. Inventaire:
hydraires. Vie Milieu, vol. 20, pp. 387-413.
168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
FORBES, E., 1841. Contributions to British actinology. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1),
vol. 7, pp. 81-85.
1848. A monograph of the British naked-eyed medusae: with figures of all the
species. London (Ray Society), pp. 1-104, pls 1-13.
GRONOVIUS, L.-T., 1760. Observationes de animalculis aliquot marinae aquae
innatantibus atque in littoribus Belgicis obviis. Acta helv., vol. 4, pp. 35-40.
HASKELL, D. C., 1942. The United States Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842, and
its publications 1844-1874. New York (The New York Public Library), pp.
i-xii, 1-188, pls 1-5 (unnumbered).
HINCKS, T., 1868. A history of the British hydroid zoophytes. London (Van
Voorst). vol. 1 (text), pp. i-Ixvii, 1-338, text-figs 1-45, frontis.; vol. 2 (plates),
pls 1-67.
JAGERSKIOLD, L. A., 1971. A survey of the marine benthonic macro-fauna
along the Swedish west coast 1921-1938. Acta. R. Soc. scient. litt. gothoburg.
(Zool.), vol. 6, pp. 1-146.
LAMOUROUX, J. V. F., 1812. Extrait d’un mémoire sur la classification des
polypiers coralligénes non entiérement pierreux. Nouv. Bull. sci. Soc. philom.
Paris, vol. 3, pp. 181-188.
LELOUP, E., 1952. Coelentérés. Faune Belg., pp. 1-283.
LEUCKART, R., 1856. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Medusenfauna von Nizza.
Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 22(1), pp. 1-40.
LINNAEUS, 1758. Systema naturae. 10th edition. Vol. 1, Holmiae (L. Salvii), pp.
i-iv, 1-824.
1767. Systema naturae. 12th edition. Vol. 1, pars 2. Holmiae (L. Salvii), pp.
533-1328 + 36 pp. of indexes and appendix, unpaginated.
MAMMEN, T. A., 1965. On a collection of hydroids from south India. II. Suborder
Thecata (excluding family Plumulariidae). J. mar. biol. Ass. India, vol. 7, pp.
1-57.
MILLARD, N. A. H., 1957. The Hydrozoa of False Bay, South Africa. Ann. S. Afr.
Mus., vol. 43, pp. 173-243.
1966. The Hydrozoa of the south and west coasts of South Africa. Part III.
The Gymnoblastea and small families of Calyptoblastea. Ann. S. Afr. Mus.,
vol. 48, pp. 427-487.
NAUMOYV, D. V., 1960. Gidroidy i gidromeduzy morskikh, solonovatovodnykh 1
* presnovodnykh basseinov SSSR. Fauna SSSR, vol. 70, pp. 1-626.
OSTMAN, C., 1979a. Two types of nematocysts in Campanulariidae (Cnidaria,
Hydrozoa) studied by light and scanning electron microscopy. Zool. Scripta,
vol. 8, pp. 5-12.
1979b. Nematocysts in the Phialidium medusae of Clytia hemisphaerica
(Hydrozoa, Campanulariidae) studied by light and scanning electron
microscopy. Zoon, vol. 7, 125—142.
1982. Isoenzymes and taxonomy in Scandinavian hydroids (Cnidaria,
Campanulariidae). Zool. Scripta, vol. 11, pp. 155-163.
1983. Taxonomy of Scandinavian hydroids (Cnidaria, Campanulariidae): a
study based on nematocyst morphology and isoenzymes. Acta. Univ.
upsaliensis, vol. 672, pp. 1-22.
REES, W. J. & THURSFIELD, S., 1965. The hydroid collections of James Ritchie.
Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. (B), vol. 69, pp. 34-220.
ROSSI, L., 1961. Idroidi viventi sulle scogliere del promontorio di Portofino (Golfo
di Genova) (1). Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria, vol. 72, pp. 69-85.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 169
RUSSELL, F. S., 1953. The medusae of the British Isles. Anthomedusae, Lepto-
medusae, Limnomedusae, Trachymedusae and Narcomedusae. Cambridge
(Cambridge University Press), pp. i-xili, 1-530, pls. 1-35.
1970. The medusae of the British Isles. IT. Pelagic Scyphozoa. With a supple-
ment to the first volume on hydromedusae. Cambridge (Cambridge University
Press), pp. i-xii, 1-284, pls 1-15, Is.
SARS, M., 1850. Beretning om en i Sommeren 1849 foretagen zoologisk Reise i
Lofoten og Finmarken. Nyt. Mag. Naturvid., vol. 6, pp. 121-211. (Dating of
this paper follows Cornelius, 1982a, p. 137.)
— 1857. Bidrag til Kundskaben om Middelhavets Littoral-Fauna,
Reisebemaerkninger fra Italien. Nyt. Mag. Naturvid., vol. 9, pp. 110-164.
STECHOW, E., 1923. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres,
Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. II Teil. Zool. Jb. (Syst.), vol. 47, pp. 29-270.
STEPANYANTS, S. D., 1979. Gidroidy vod antarktikh i subantarktikh. /ss/led.
Fauny Morei, vol. 22(30), pp. 1-200.
VERVOORT, W., 1968. Report on a collection of Hydroida from the Caribbean
region, including an annotated checklist of Caribbean hydroids. Zool. Verh.,
Leiden, vol. 92, pp. 1-124.
170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
NAPOMYZA WESTWOOD, 1840 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED
CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF NAPOMYZA
CURTIS, 1837. Z.N.(S.)2495
By Graham C. D. Griffiths (Department of Entomology, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada), Kenneth A. Spencer
(Exwell Farm, Bray Shop, Callington, Cornwall PL17 8QJ, U.K.) and
George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory ITBIII,
Agricultural Research Service USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum of Natural
History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.)
Thompson & Mathis (1980, p. 85) pointed out that the name
Napomyza, used now for an agromyzid genus of wide distribution contain-
ing approximately 50 species of stem or seedfeeding flies (including several
of economic importance) was first proposed by Curtis (1837, p. 282) ina
hitherto overlooked publication, with the sole included species Phytomyza
nigricornis Macquart, 1835, p. 618.
2. Curtis treated Napomyza, a name apparently derived from an
unpublished manuscript by A. H. Haliday, as synonymous with Phytomyza
Fallén (1810, p. 21), and was followed in this by Thompson & Mathis (1980).
Hendel (1934, p. 334) regarded Phytomyza nigricornis as synonymous with
Phytomyza affinis Fallén (1823, p. 3). Acceptance of this synonymy, based
on Curtis’ publication of Napomyza, would require all species presently
placed in the genus Napomyza Curtis to be given another name. In the
interests of stability this is clearly undesirable.
3. No original specimens of Phytomyza nigricornis Macquart have
survived and information from Curtis’ notebook and specimens, which are
preserved in the Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, shows that three different
species were confused by Curtis under this name. Following careful con-
sideration, Griffiths (1976, p. 21) proposed that Phytomyza nigricornis
should be treated as a nomen dubium and this is now accepted by specialists
on the AGROMYZIDAE.
4. Phytomyza affinis Fallén, the identity of which was clarified by
Spencer (1965) following study of Fallén’s types in Stockholm, is a species
entirely distinct from that assumed by Hendel (1934) and we therefore reject
the synonymy of Napomyza Curtis with Napomyza Fallen.
5. Westwood (1840, p. 152) in his ‘Synopsis’ contains the following
entry for Napomyza: ‘S.g. Napomyza A.H.H. MSS.—— | sp. P. festiva’.
This indicates that the name was proposed as a subgenus of Phytomyza and
derives from an unpublished manuscript by A. H. Haliday. Hendel (1920,
p. 148) synonymised Phytomyza festiva Meigen (1830, p. 189) with
Phytomyza elegans Meigen (1830, p. 148). Spencer (1966, p. 3) confirmed
this synonymy, after examination of the types of both elegans and festiva in
the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Griffiths (1968, p. 4)
examined specimens of this species in the Haliday collection in Dublin
which are assumed to be those referred to as Phytomyia festiva in Haliday’s
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 171
(1833) catalogue of the Diptera occurring near Holywood in Downshire.
The entry for Napomyza in Westwood’s 1840 ‘Synopsis’ thus poses no
problems of interpretation. However, Napomyza Curtis, 1837 still remains a
problem as the senior homonym.
6. Napomyza was treated as a full genus by Hendel (1920) and this is
now generally accepted.
7. On the basis of the above facts the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is requested to:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Napomyza
Curtis, 1837 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority
and the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (gender: feminine), type
species, by monotypy, Phytomyza festiva Meigen, 1830;
(3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name elegans Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen
Phytomyza elegans (valid name at the time of this application
for the type species of Napomyza Westwood, 1840);
(4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Napomyza Curtis, 1837 as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above.
REFERENCES
CURTIS, J. 1837. A guide to an arrangement of British Insects; being a catalogue of
all the named species hitherto discovered in Great Britain and Ireland. London,
vi+ 294 pp.
FALLEN, C. F. 1810. Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disponendi methodum
exhibens. Lund, 26 pp. +1 pl.
—— 1823. Phytomyzides et Ochtidae Sveciae. Lund, 10 pp.
GRIFFITHS, G. C. D. 1867. Revision of the Phytomyza syngenesiae group
(Diptera, Agromyzidae), including species hitherto known as “Phytomyza
atricornis Meigen”’. Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk., no. 177, pp. 1-28.
—— 1968. Agromyzidae (Diptera) from Ireland. Proc. Roy. Ir. Acad., vol. 67(B),
pp. 37-61.
HALIDAY, A. H. 1833. Catalogue of Diptera occurring about Holywood in
Downshire. Entomol. Mag., vol. 1, pp. 147-180.
HENDEL, F. 1920. Die palaarktischen Agromyziden (Prodromus einer Mono-
graphie). Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 84(7) (1918), pp. 109-174.
—— 1934. 59. Agromyzidae. Die Fliegen der paldarktischen Region 6 (2), pp.
321-368. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.
MACQUART, M. 1835. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Diptéres. 2. Paris, 710 pp.
MEIGEN, J. W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifliigeligen Insekten 6. Hamm, xi+401 pp.
SPENCER, K. A. 1965. A classification of Fallén’s type specimens of Agromyzidae
(Diptera) in Stockholm and Lund. Entomol. Tidskr., vol. 86, pp. 249-259.
—— 1966. A clarification of the genus Napomyza Westwood (Diptera:
Agromyzidae). Proc. Roy. entomol. Soc., Ser B, vol. 35, pp. 29-40.
172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
THOMPSON, F. C. & MATHIS, W. N. 1980. Haliday’s generic names of Diptera
first published in Curtis’ A Guide to ... British Insects (1837). J. Wash. Acad.
Sci., vol. 70, 80-89.
WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. Order xiii. Diptera Aristotle (Antliata Fabricius,
Halteriptera Clairv.). Pp. 125-158. In: An introduction to the modern
classification of insects. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. London.
158 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 173
MICROGASTER LATREILLE, 1804 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF MICROGASTER AUSTRALIS
THOMSON, 1895 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2397
By W. R. M. Mason (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0C6, Canada)
The Braconid genus Microgaster was described by Latreille (1804)
with Jchneumon deprimator Fabricius, 1798 as an included species, and in
1810 he designated (p. 436) J. deprimator Fab. as type of the genus. In 1862
Foerster subdivided Microgaster into 3 genera, Microgaster, Microplitis
Foerster, and Apanteles Foerster. He quoted Latreille’s type designation for
Microgaster, and designated (p. 245) Microgaster sordipes Nees, 1834 (vol.
1, p. 167) as type of Microplitis.
2. Microgaster was used for the entire group nowadays called
Microgastrini or Microgastrinae until Foerster (1862) restricted it. There
followed a century of stability until Nixon (1965) made another sub-
division. He kept the name Microgaster for those species that in the North
Temperate Zone form the largest part of the genus Microgaster Latr. In
Europe, for instance, about two-thirds of the species of Microgaster (sensu
Foerster) are still in Microgaster (sensu Nixon). Nixon further revised
Microgaster in 1968. The genus is large, the Shenefelt (1973) catalogue
containing 45 pages of entries.
3. The usage and limits of Microplitis Foerster have remained stable
since 1862. The N.W. European species were reviewed by Nixon (1975).
Shenefelt’s catalogue has 33 pages of listings for Microplitis, including over
140 species and at least 2,000 entries.
4. Dr C. van Achterberg (1982) has shown that the lectotype
specimen of J. deprimator Fab. is a species of Microplitis congeneric with M.
sordipes Nees, the type species of Microplitis. Through the courtesy of Dr
Paul Marsh, Washington, I have seen the notes made by Mr C. F. W.
Muesebeck when he studied the Fabricius types in 1928. They agree with Dr
van Achterberg’s observations, but the findings were never published.
5. It seems probable that Foerster (1862) misidentified /. deprimator
Fab. and that this interpretation has established the use of Microgaster
since then. Both Microgaster sensu Nixon and Microplitis Foerster are large
and widespread genera containing many important parasites of economi-
cally significant Lepidoptera. Microgaster species attack microlepidoptera
and are abundant in the Holarctic region. Microplitis species attack macro-
lepidoptera and are found world-wide, being many times more numerous
than species of Microgaster. If the already familiar and well established
name Microgaster Latr., 1804 were transferred to the genus now known as
Microplitis Foerster, 1862 it would replace the latter name and cause
endless confusion in fields of ecology and biological control. I see no good
reason to perform this game of nomenclatural musical chairs.
174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
6. A solution would be for the Commission to set aside the desig-
nation of J. deprimator Fab. as type species of Microgaster Latreille and to
designate a new type species that will preserve the usage of Microgaster, sensu
Nixon (1965, 1968). I suggest that Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895,
which Nixon (1968, p. 51) and van Achterberg (1982) synonymized with
M. deprimator Auct., would be the suitable type species.
7. The International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type
species for the nominal genus Microgaster Latreille, 1804, and
having done so, to designate Microgaster australis Thomson,
1895, as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Microgaster australis Thomson, 1895;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name australis Thomson, 1895, as published in the binomen
Microgaster australis (specific name of the type species of
Microgaster Latreille, 1804).
REFERENCES
ACHTERBERG, C. VAN 1982. Notes on some type species described by Fabricius
of the subfamilies Braconinae, Pogadinae, Microgastrinae and Agathidinae
(Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Ent. Ber., vol. 42, pp. 133-139.
FOERSTER, A. 1862. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconen. Verh.
naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl., vol. 19, pp. 225-288.
LATREILLE, P. A. 1804. Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat. vol. 24, p. 175.
— 1810. Consid. gén. ord. nat. Anim., Paris.
NEES, VON ESENBECK, C. G. 1834. Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus Affinium,
Monographium, .. . Stuttgartiae et Tubingae.
NIXON, G. E. J. 1965. A reclassification of the tribe Microgasterini (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae). Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol), Suppl. 2, pp. 3-284.
—— 1968. A revision of the genus Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae). Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol), vol. 22, pp. 33-72.
— 1975. A revision of the N.W. European species of Microplitis Foerster, 1862
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol), vol. 25,
pp. 3-30.
SHENEFELT, R. D. 1973. Braconidae 5, Microgasterinae & Ichneutinae.
Hymenopterorum C utalogus. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage.
THOMSON, C. G. 1895. Opuscula Entomologica, Lund.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 175
SIGARA SCHOLTZ]I FIEBER, [1860] (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF SIGARA
SCHOLTZII SCHOLTZ, 1846. Z.N.(S.)2494
By Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki,
P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland)
Scholtz, 1846, listed the Rhynchota from Silesia, and in a few cases
short notes on the biology of the species were provided. Sigara scholtzii (p.
106) was presented as follows: ‘S. Scholtzii Fieb. (in litt.). Bei Breslau haufig
in Lachen an der Rosenthaler Strasse und im Kratzbusch. Anmerkung.
Diese ebenfalls von Fieber ausgestellte Art wird nachstens durch den Autor
naher er6rtert werden. — Die kleinere und von ihr wesentlich verschiedene
Sigara minuta Fabr., die nicht wie S. Scholtzii in stehenden Wassern mit
schlammigem Grunde, sondern mehr in klaren Wasser der Fliisse und zwar
unter Steinen am Ufer vorkommt, fand ich bisher noch nicht. Ob unsere
Art, gleichwie S. minuta, ein deutlich wahrnehmbares Schwirren héren
lasse, nahm ich bisher noch nicht wahr.’
2. As pointed out by Lundblad, 1928, and Wroblewski, 1958, the
above note may be considered insufficient as a description of S. scholtzii
because it only gives the size of S. minuta as a smaller species and does not
even mention S. scholtzii as the basis of the comparison although it was
undoubtedly so intended. On the other hand, even indirect reference to the
size of a species may be considered by some taxonomists sufficient to make
scholtzii available and therefore the valid name for the specimen that was
before Scholtz.
3. Fieber, 1851, p. 210, listed S. scholtzii as one of the species to be
described later.
4. Fieber [1860] , pp. 89-90 (usually referred to as Fieber, 1861, but,
according to Kirkaldy, 1908, the book was printed in four parts, the first
part up to page 112 being published in 1860; cf. also Hagen, 1862) described
‘Sigara Scholtzi Fieb.’, also referring to Scholtz, 1846 and Fieber, 1851,
thus indicating that the previous references concerned the same species. The
material from which the description was drawn originated from Breslau
(Scholtz collection) and Spain (Meyer-Diir collection), and while it is not
known whether the former material is still in existence, the Meyer-Diir
collection in the American M useum of Natural History, New York,
includes a female specimen designated as the lectotype by Jansson, 1986 (in
press).
5. Micronecta meridionalis (Costa, 1862, p. 361) has hitherto been
given priority over M. scholtzi (Fieber [1860]). This inconsistency has arisen
from the words ‘XVI Kalendas Septembris 1860’ (= 17th of August, 1860,
not 16th September 1860 as stated by Kerzhner, 1974) on the title page of
Costa’s paper. This date however, only refers to the day of presentation of
the manuscript, not to the publication date. In fact the correct reference is
176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
Costa, 1862 (see Kerzhner, 1974) which makes Sigara meridionalis Costa,
1862, a junior subjective synonym of Micronecta scholtzi (Fieber, [1860]).
6. Differing opinions about the availability of the name scholtzii
Scholtz, 1846 have led to nomenclatural inconsistencies, and the specific
name has been written either as scholtzi or scholtzii and the author has been
given either as ‘Scholtz’ (e.g. Kloet & Hinks, 1964), or ‘(Fieber) Scholtz’
(e.g. Kloet & Hinks, 1945; Macan, 1956; Poisson, 1957) or as ‘Fieber’ (e.g.
Stichel, 1935; Hutchinson, 1940; Southwood & Leston, 1959). The correct
references to ‘Sigara scholtzii Scholtz’ appear only in papers in which the
name has been considered a nomen nudum, e.g. Lundblad, 1928, Poisson,
1938 and Wroblewski, 1958.
7. To stabilize the situation, the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is asked to:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name scholtzii
Scholtz, 1846, as published in the binomen Sigara scholtzii for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;
(2) place the specific name scholtzi Fieber, [1860], as published in
the binomen Sigara scholtzi and as interpreted by the lectotype
designated by Jansson, 1986, on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology;
(3) place the specific name scholtzii Scholtz, 1846 as published
in the binomen Sigara scholtzii and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
[Note: Corisa meridionalis Wallengren, 1875, a South African species now
well known as Sigara meridionalis (Wallengren), has been overlooked as
a junior secondary homonym of Sigara meridionalis Costa, 1862, but
because the latter is a synonymic name and the two are not now held to be
congeneric, there is no need to reject the former. See Article 59c].
REFERENCES
COSTA, A. 1862 (preprint date, issue published 1863). Additamenta ad Centurias
Cimicum Regni Neapolitana. Atti Ist. Incoragg. Sci. Nat. vol. 10, pp.
329-367.
FIEBER, F. X. 1851. Genera Hydrocoridum Abh. béhm. Ges. Wiss., vol. 7, pp.
181-211.
1860-1861. Die europdischen Hemiptera. Verl. Carl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien,
444 pp.
HAGEN, H. A. 1862. Bibliotheca Entomologica. I. A—M. Verl. Wilhelm Engelman,
Leipzig, 566 pp.
HUTCHINSON, G. E. 1940. A revision of the Corixidae of India and adjacent
regions. Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci., vol. 33, pp. 341-476.
JANSSON, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent
regions. Acta. entomol. Fennici, vol. 47 (in press).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 177
KERZHNER, I. M. 1974. On the dates of publication of the work of A. Costa
‘Cimicum Regni Neapolitani Centuria’ and of the family-group names
(Heteroptera) contained in it. Entomol. Rev. Washington, vol. 4, pp. 90-93.
KIRKALDY, G. W. 1908. Bibliographical and nomenclatorial notes on the
Hemiptera — No. 9. Entomologist, vol. 41, pp. 188-189.
KLOET, G. S. & HINKS, W. D. 1945. A Check List of British Insects. Buncle &
Co., Stockport, 483 pp.
1964. A Check List of British Insects. 2nd ed. (revised). Part 1: Small orders
and Hemiptera. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, vol. 11,
119 pp.
LUNDBLAD, O. 1928. Studien iiber schwedische Corixiden. VII. Uber Micronecta
minutissima (L.), M. foveifrons (Thoms.) und M. meridionalis (Costa).
Entomol. Tidskr., vol. 49, pp. 9-17.
MACAN, T. T. 1956. A revised key to the British water bugs (Hemiptera—
Heteroptera). Freshwater Biol. Assoc. Sci. Publ., No. 16, 73 pp.
POISSON, R. 1938. Les Hémiptéres aquatiques Sandaliorrhyncha de la faune fran-
cgaise. II. Micronectinae. Ann. Soc. entomol. France, vol. 107, pp. 81-120.
1957. Heéteroptéres aquatiques. Faune de France, vol. 61, 263 pp.
SCHOLTZ, H. 1846 (preprint date, serial published 1847). Prodromus zu einer
Rhynchoten-Fauna von Schlesien. Theil I. Uebers. Schles. Ges. Vaterl. Kult.,
pp. 104-164.
SOUTHWOOD, T. R. E. & LESTON, D. 1959. Land and water bugs of the British
Isles. F. Warne & Co. Ltd., London & New York, 436 pp.
STICHEL, W. 1935. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der deutschen Wanzen. Verl.
naturw. Publ., Berlin-Hermsdorf, 499 pp.
WALLENGREN, H. D. J. 1875. Insecta Transvaaliensia. Bidrag till Transvaalska
Republikens i Sdédra Africa insektfauna. Ofvers. K.VetenskAkad. Férh.
_ Stockholm, vol. 32, pp. 83-137.
WROBLEWSKI, A. 1958. The Polish species of the genus Micronecta Kirk.
(Heteroptera, Corixidae). Ann. zool. Warsaw, vol. 17, pp. 247-381.
178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
MICRONECTA GRISEOLA HORVATH, 1899 (INSECTA,
HETEROPTERA, CORIXIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY
THE SUPPRESSION OF SIGARA MINUTA FABRICIUS, 1794 AND
SIGARA LEMANA FIEBER, 1860. Z.N.(S.)2519
By Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki,
P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland)
Fabricius (1794, pp. 60-61) described Sigara minuta from material
collected from France (‘Galliae fluviis’). In the Fabricius collection in
Copenhagen Museum there are two specimens, the lectotype male and a
female paralectotype, both designated by Jansson, 1986 (in press).
2. Fieber (1844, p. 291 & 1860, p. 89; the latter is usually referred to
as Fieber, 1861, but see Hagen, 1862 and Kirkaldy, 1908), indicated that
S. minuta Fabricius, 1794, was a synonym of Micronecta minutissima
(Linnaeus, 1758) and this concept was adopted by e.g. Puton, 1886 and
Horvath, 1899. Only Wroblewski (1958, p. 250) was more cautious in
stating that it ‘may be a synonym of the Linnean species’; this cautiousness
evidently resulted from the investigation of two males of M. griseola
Horvath, preserved in the Horvath collection in Budapest, placed under the
name S. minuta and labelled ‘Coll. Fieber’.
3. Fieber (1860, p. 89) gave a description of what he called ‘Sigara
lemana Meyer’ from Switzerland, and referred to ‘Mey. Cat. Rh. d.
Schweiz’, a catalogue which was never published. The Meyer-Diir collec-
tion in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, includes the
lectotype male and three male and two female paralectotypes of S. Jemana
designated by Jansson, 1986 (in press). Puton, 1886 and Horvath, 1899,
considered S. lemana a synonym of M. minutissima (Linnaeus), but
Wroblewski, 1958, suspected that it might be the same as either M. griseola
Horvath or M. poweri (Douglas & Scott, 1869).
4. Horvath (1899, p. 103) described Micronecta griseola from
material collected from Romania. Jansson, 1986 (in press), designated a
lectotype male from the material preserved in Budapest Museum, and 11
male and 6 female paralectotypes preserved with the lectotype and in the
museums in Helsinki, Paris, Washington D.C. (coll. Poisson) and Rennes
(Poisson slide collection).
5. Jansson’s (1986) investigation of the type materials revealed that
both Sigara minuta Fabricius, 1794 and Sigara lemana Fieber, 1860, are
identical with Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899. However, owing to the
earlier incorrect identifications M. griseola has unanimously been accepted
as the valid name of the species, e.g. by Jansson, 1976, 1977a, 1977b;
Kaiser, 1966; Poisson, 1938, 1957; Stichel, 1955 and Wroblewski, 1958,
1960, 1963, 1964.
6. To preserve the present use and nomenclatural stability, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 179
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific
names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for
those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) minuta Fabricius, 1744, as published in the binomen Sigara
minuta;
(b) /emana Fieber, 1860 as published in the binomen Sigara
lemana.
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the specific name griseola Horvath, 1899, as published in
the binomen Micronecta griseola and as interpreted by the
lectotype designated by Jansson, 1986.
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in
Zoology the following specific names:
(a) minuta Fabricius, 1744, as published in the binomen Sigara
minuta and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
(a) above;
(b) /emana Fieber, 1860, as published in the binomen Sigara
lemana and as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1)(b) above.
REFERENCES
DOUGLAS, J. W. & SCOTT, J. 1869. British Hemiptera: Additions and correc-
tions. Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 5, pp. 293-297.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1794. Entomologia systematica, emendata et aucta, secundum
classes, ordines, genera, species. Vol. 4. Hafnia, 472 pp.
FIEBER, F. X. 1844. (preprint date, serial published 1845). Entomologische Mono-
graphien. II. Hydrocores. — Monographie der Gattung Sigara. Abh. bdhm.
Ges. Wiss., vol. 3, pp. 289-293.
1860-1861. Die europdischen Hemiptera. Verl. Carl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien,
444 pp.
HAGEN, H. A. 1862. Bibliotheca Entomologica. I. A-M. Ver\. Wilhelm Engelman,
Leipzig, 566 pp.
HORVATH, A. 1899. Synopsis des Micronecta paléarctiques. Revue d’Entomol.,
vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 101-104.
JANSSON, A. 1976. Records of the distribution of Micronecta species (Het.,
Corixidae) in Finland. Ann. Entomol. Fennici, vol. 42, pp. 162-166.
1977a. Distribution of Micronectae (Heteroptera, Corixidae) in Lake
Paijanne, central Finland: Correlation with eutrophication and pollution.
Ann. Zool. Fennici, vol. 14, pp. 105—117.
1977b. Micronectae (Heteroptera, Corixidae) as indicators of water quality
in two lakes in southern Finland. Ann. Zool. Fennici, vol. 14, pp. 118-124.
1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions.
Acta. entomol. Fennici, vol. 47 (in press).
KAISER, E. W. 1966. Micronecta-artene i Danmark (Hemiptera, Corixidae). Flora
og Fauna, vol. 72, pp. 139-147. [In Danish with English summary.]
KIRKALDY, G. W. 1908. Bibliographical and nomenclatorial notes on the
Hemiptera — No. 9. Entomologist, vol. 41, pp. 188-189.
180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, 10th ed., Holmiae, 823 pp.
POISSON, R. 1938. Les Hémiptéres aquatiques Sandaliorrhyncha de la faune
Frangaise. II. Micronectinae. Ann. Soc. entomol. France, vol. 107, pp.
81-120.
1957. Hétéroptéres aquatiques. Faune de France, vol. 61, 263 pp.
PUTON, A. 1886. Catalogue des Hémiptéres (Heteropteres, Cicadines et Psyllides)
de la faune paléarctique. 3-e édition. Rev. d’Entomol., Caen, vol. 5 (Beil),
100 pp.
STICHEL, W. 1955. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. II. Europa
_ (Hemiptera—Heteroptera Europae), vol. 1, Berlin-Hermsdorf, 168 pp.
WROBLEWSKI, A. 1958. The Polish species of the genus Micronecta Kirk.
(Heteroptera, Corixidae). Ann. Zool. Warsaw, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 247-381.
1960. Micronectinae (Hemiptera, Corixidae) of Hungary and some adjacent
countries. Acta zool. hung., vol. 6, pp. 439-458.
1963. Notes on Micronectinae from the U.S.S.R. (Heteroptera, Corixidae).
Ann. Zool. Warsaw, vol. 21, pp. 463-484.
1964. Notes on Micronectinae (Heteroptera, Corixidae) from North-
Western Africa. Commentat. biol., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1-16.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 181
CALCARINA CALCAR D’ORBIGNY, 1839 (PROTOZOA,
FORAMINIFERIDA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF CALCARINA STELLATA DE FERUSSAC, 1827.
Z.N.(S.)2344
By Hans Jorgen Hansen (Geologisk Centralinstitut, Ostervoldgade 10, 1350
Copenhagen, Denmark)
In 1781 Spengler published a work on foraminifera and small
gastropods from sand contained in larger gastropod shells from the
Coromandel Coast in India (the location of the Danish trading station
Tranquebar during the period 1616 to 1845). Spengler did not use Linnean
names but on the basis of his description and illustration, de Férussac,
1827, p. 182, named one of the species Calcarina stellata.
2. The species in question is conspecific with Calcarina calcar
d’Orbigny, 1826 (p. 276). The latter is, however, a nomen nudum; d’Orbigny
listed the name, but gave no description of the species and no figure (his
work was accompanied by a collection of plaster models).
3. In 1839 d’Orbigny (p. 81) described the species in his work on the
foraminifera from Cuba; he also gave an illustration (pl. 5, figs. 22, 24).
Recently Le Calvez (1977, pp. 15—17) selected and depicted a lectotype of
Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839.
4. As Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1826 is a nomen nudum the name
Calcarina stellata de Férussac, 1827 has priority. However, to my
knowledge this specific name has not been in use since 1827, while the name
Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny has been used in numerous publications (for
example by Graham & Militante, 1958; Jell et al., 1965; Betjeman, 1969;
Murray, 1973; Biswas, 1976; Hughes, 1977 and Hallock, 1979). The species
is a very common shallow water form from subtropical and tropical seas.
5. In order to stabilize the nomenclature the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby requested to:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name stellata de
Férussac, 1827, as published in the binomen Calcarina stellata,
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of
the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
specific name calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 as published in the
binomen Calcarina calcar;
(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in
Zoology the specific name stellata as published in the binomen
Calcarina stellata and as suppressed under the plenary powers
in (1) above.
[Note: the species Calcarina calcar has erroneously been mentioned as the
type species of the genus Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826. However Loeblich &
Tappan, 1962, pointed out that the correct type species of this genus is
Calcarina spengleri (Gmelin, 1791). The original type species was described
182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
from sand contained in an east Indian gastropod, Buccinum cassideum. The
shell was located in the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen and Hansen,
1980, after examination of topotypic material still contained in the shell,
selected a neotype for Calcarina spengleri. It has been shown (Hansen &
Reiss, 1971) that the species Calcarina calcar actually belongs to the genus
Pararotalia Le Calvez, 1949.]
REFERENCES
BETJEMAN, K. J. 1969. Recent foraminifera from the western continental shelf
of western Australia. Cushman Found. foram. Res. Contrib., vol. 20,
pp. 119-138.
BISWAS, B. 1976. Bathymetry of Holocene foraminifera and Quaternary sea-level
changes on the Sunda shelf. J. foram. Res., vol. 9, pp. 61-69.
FERUSSAC, A. DE. 1827. Additions et corrections du Tableau méthodique de la
classe des Céphalopodes, par M. d’Orbigny; Ordre des foraminiféres. Bull.
Sci. Nat. Géol., vol. 10, pp. 175-185.
GMELIN, J. F. 1791. Systema naturae Linnaei, ed. 13, vol. 1(6), Vermes. G. E. Beer,
Lipsiae, Germania.
GRAHAM, J. J. & MILITANTE, P. J. 1959. Recent foraminifera from the Puerto
Galera area, Northern Mindoro, Philippines. Stanford Univ. Publ. geol. Sci.,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1-132.
HALLOCK, P. 1979. Trends in test shape with depth in large symbiont-bearing
foraminifera. J. foram. Res., vol. 6, p. 107-133.
HANSEN, H. J. & REISS, Z. 1971. Electron microscopy of rotaliacean wall
structures. Bull. geol. Soc. Denmark, vol. 20, pp. 329-346.
HANSEN, H. J. 1980. On Lorentz Spengler and a neotype for the foraminifer
Calcarina spengleri. Bull. geol. Soc. Denmark, vol. 93, pp. 191-201.
HUGHES, G. W. 1977. Recent foraminifera from the Honiara Bay area, Solomon
Islands. J. foram. Res., vol. 5, pp. 45-57.
JELL, J. S., MAXWELL, W. H. G. & MCKELLAR, R. G. 1965. The significance
of the larger foraminifera in the Heron Island reef sediments. J. Paleontol.,
vol. 39, pp. 273-279.
LE CALVEZ, Y. 1977. Révision des foraminiféres de la collection d’Orbigny:
Foraminiféres de I’Ile de Cuba. Tome 2. Cah. Micropaléont., 1977, pt. 2,
pp. 1-131.
LOEBLICH, A. R. & TAPPAN, H. The status and type species of Calcarina,
Tinoporos and Epnides. Contrib. Cushman Found. foram. Res., vol. 13,
pp. 33-38.
MURRAY, J. W. 1973. Distribution and ecology of living benthic foraminiferids.
Heinemann, London. 272 pp.
ORBIGNY, A. C. V. M. D’. 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des
Céphalopodes. An. Sci. nat. Paris, vol. 7, pp. 245-314.
1839. Foraminiféres, in DE LA SAGRA, R. Histoire physique, politique et
naturelle de I’'Ile de Cuba. Paris, 224 pp.
SPENGLER, L. 1781. Nogle nyligen opdagede sma snekkers beskrivelse. K. dan.
Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., vol. 1, pp. 365-373.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 183
AGROMYZA FALLEN, 1810 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED
VALIDATION OF AGROMYZA REPTANS FALLEN, 1823 AS TYPE
SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2395
By Kenneth A. Spencer (Exwell Farm, Callington, PL17 8QJ, Cornwall,
U.K.) and George C. Steyskal (U.S. Department of Agriculture, c/o U.S.
National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.)
The genus Agromyza was originally described by Fallén (1810,
p. 21) but without named species. Fallen (1823, pp. 1—7) re-described Agro-
myza, now with 13 species and one variety. The first species, A. reptans, was
divided into Var. b., Var. c. (host plant recorded as Urtica dioica) and Var.
d. ambigua. The second species was A. aeneo-ventris (sic). Of the other
species, most are not in the genus Agromyza as currently accepted by all
specialists and are not relevant to the present submission.
2. The first type designation for Agromyza was nigripes Meigen, 1830
(by Westwood, 1840, p. 151). This designation, however, is invalid, as
nigripes was not originally included by Fallén, 1823.
3. Rondani (1856, p. 121) designated the second of Fallén’s species
as ‘Spec: Typ: Agromyza Aeneiventris Fall.’ Examination of the unique type
of A. aeneoventris in the Naturhistoriske Riksmuseet, Stockholm by
Spencer, 1965, confirmed that this is in another large, economically import-
ant genus Melanagromyza, described by Hendel (1920, p. 114) and selected
by him (as aeneiventris) as type species. Hendel’s work has been accepted by
all later specialists and his type designation has not been disputed.
4. It would clearly be highly undesirable at this stage to revert to
Rondani’s (1856) designation of aeneiventris as type species of Agromyza.
This would necessitate transferring the hundreds of species now known in
Melanagromyza to Agromyza and a new generic name would be needed
to replace Agromyza, itself a large, economically important genus of
worldwide distribution.
5. By usage since Hendel’s (1920) designation of Agromyza
aeneoventris as type of Melanagromyza, Rondani’s (1856) designation of
this species as type of Agromyza has been effectively discarded. However it
is important that these conflicting designations should be formally clarified
by the setting aside of aeneoventris as type of Agromyza.
6. Rondani (1875, p. 168), without commenting on his earlier
designation, now designated as type of Agromyza ‘Sp. typ. A. reptans Fall.’.
This designation was accepted by Hendel (1920, p. 114; 1931, p. 93) in his
two major revisionary works on Palaearctic Agromyzidae and is now
accepted by all specialists on the family. A. reptans was also treated as type
species of Agromyza in the three Diptera Catalogues of the Nearctic Region
(Frick, 1965), the Oriental Region (Sasakawa, 1977) and the Afrotropical
Region (Cogan, 1980) but with the qualification that suspension of the
rules of the Code is required to set aside the designation of Agromyza
184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
aeneoventris. A lectotype of Agromyza reptans was designated by
Nowakowski (1944, p. 188) together with illustrations of the male genitalia.
7. Accordingly, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type
species made for the nominal genus Agromyza Fallén, 1810
prior to that of Agromyza reptans Fallen, 1823 by Rondani,
1875.
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
generic name Agromyza Fallén, 1810 (gender: feminine), type
species, by action under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Agromyza reptans Fallén, 1823.
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
specific name reptans Fallén, 1823 as published in the bino-
men Agromyza reptans (specific name of the type species of
Agromyza Fallén, 1810).
[Note: Coquillett (1910, p. 504) proposed A. ambigua Fallen, 1823
(described as Var. d. of reptans; see para 1) as type of Agromyza, making the
erroneous assumption that ambigua was synonymous with nigripes, thus
following Westwood, 1840 (see para. 2). The true identity of ambigua was
established by Spencer (1965, p. 10) and this was found to represent the
senior synonym of the species previously known as niveipennis Zetterstedt
(1848). Frick (1952) in an important Revision of New World Agromyzidae,
also followed Westwood, 1840 and accepted nigripes Meigen as type of
Agromyza. However, as pointed out in para. 2, nigripes is an invalid desig-
nation as a non-included species. It is therefore considered that both
Coquillett’s and Frick’s designations can be ignored.]
REFERENCES
COGAN, B. H. 1980. Family Agromyzidae. In CROSSKEY, R. W., Catalogue of
the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. British Museum (Natural History),
London, pp. 639-647.
COQUILLETT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of
Diptera. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 37, pp. 499-647.
FALLEN, C. F. 1810. Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disponendi methodum
exhibens. Lund, 26pp.
1823. Diptera Sveciae. Vol. 2, Agromyzides Sveciae. Lund, 10pp.
FRICK, K. E. 1952. A generic revision of the family Agromyzidae (Diptera) with a
catalogue of New World species. Univ. Calif. Publs. Entomol. vol. 8, pp.
339-452.
1965. Family Agromyzidae. In STONE, A. et al. A catalog of the Diptera of
America north of Mexico. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handb., No. 276, pp. 794-805.
HENDEL, F. 1920. Die paldarktischen Agromyziden (Dipt.). (Prodromus einer
Monographie). Arch. Naturgesch. Abt. A, vol. 84, pp. 109-174.
1931. Agromyzidae (Part). Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 59, pp. 1-256.
MEIGEN, J. W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweiflugeligen Insekten 6. Hamm, 401 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 185
NOWAKOWSKI, J. T. 1964. Studien iiber Minierfliegen (Dipt. Agromyzidae) 9.
Revision der Artengruppe Agromyza reptans Fall. — A. rufipes Meig. Dtsch.
entomol. Z., vol. 11, pp. 175-213.
RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae Prodromus. 1. Parma, 226 pp.
1875. Species italicae ordinis dipterorum (Muscaria Rndn.) collectae et
observatae. Stirps XXIII. Agromyzinae. Boll. Soc. entomol. ital., vol. 7, pp.
166-191.
SASAKAWA, M. 1977. Family Agromyzidae. In DELFINDADO, M. D. &
HARDY, D. E., A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Vol. 3.
Honolulu, pp. 243-269.
SPENCER, K. A. 1965. A clarification of Fallén’s type specimens of Agromyzidae
(Diptera) in Stockholm and Lund. Entomol. Tidskr., vol. 86, pp. 249-259.
WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. Introduction to the modern classification of insects.
Synopsis of the genera of British insects. London, 158 pp.
ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1848. Diptera Scandinaviae. Disposita et descripta. Vol. 7,
pp. 2581-2934.
186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
TROPIPHORUS SCHONHERR, 1842 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION OF BRIUS
DEJEAN, 1821. Z.N.(S.)2537
By Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, N. Jarnvdgsgatan
13, SF-00100 Helsingfors 10, Finland)
Dejean (1821) introduced a considerable number of new generic
names in Coleoptera. These genera were recently listed, with their type
species (Silfverberg 1983, 1984a & 1984b). Many of them have been quite
ignored, and junior synonyms have been used in their stead. One such name
is Brius Dejean, 1821 (p. 92), with the type species Curculio mercurialis
Fabricius, 1801, as designated by Chevrolat (in d’Orbigny, 1842, Vol. 2, p.
797). Curculio mercurialis Fabricius is listed as a synonym of Curculio
carinatus Miller, 1776 (Schenkling & Marshall, 1931).
2. Tropiphorus was described by Schonherr, 1842 (p. 257), with Cur-
culio mercurialis Fabricius as type species. Since then the name Tropiphorus
has been used uninterruptedly, recently among many others by Hoffmann
(1950), Lindroth (1960), Zebe (1963), Angelov (1973), Pope (1977),
Kippenberg (1981) and O’Brien & Wibmer (1982). To replace it with an
unused senior synonym would only cause confusion.
3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Brius
Dejean, 1821, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology the
name Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842 (gender: masculine), type
species by original designation, Curculio mercurialis Fabricius,
1801;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name mercurialis Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen
Curculio mercurialis (specific name of the type species of
Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Brius Dejean, 1821, as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) above.
REFERENCES
ANGELOV, P. 1973. Taxonomische Bemerkungen iiber die Arten der Gattung
Tropiphorus Schénh. (Curculionidae, Col.) mit einer Bestimmungs-
tabelle. Acta Entomologica Jugoslavica, vol. 9, pp. 13-21.
DEJEAN, P. F. M. A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection des Coléoptéeres de M. le
Baron Dejean. Paris, pp. 1-136.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 187
HOFFMANN, A. 1950. Coléoptéres Curculionides (Premiére Partie). Faune de
France, vol. 52, pp. 1-486.
KIPPENBERG, H. 1981. 10. Unterfamilie: Leptopiinae, Jn FREUDE, H.,
HARDE, K. W. & LOHSE, G. A. (eds.) Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 10
Goecke & Evers, Krefeld pp. 276-279.
LINDROTH, C. H. 1960 (ed.) Catalogue Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae.
Lund, pp. 1-476.
O’BRIEN, C. W. & WIBMER, G. J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils
(Curculionidae sensu lato) of North America, Central America, and the
West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Memoirs of the American
Entomological Institute, vol. 34, pp. 1-382.
D’ORBIGNY, C. F. 1842. Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
POPE, R. D. 1977. In KLOET, G. S. & HINCKS, W. D. A Check List of British
Insects (2nd edit.). Part 3: Coleoptera and Strepsiptera. Handbook for the
Identification of British Insects, X1(3), pp. 1-105.
SCHENKLING, S. & MARSHALL, G. A. K. 1931. Subfam. Leptopinae. Cata-
logus Coleopterorum, vol. 114, pp. 1-83.
SCHONHERR, C. J. 1842. Synonymia Insectorum. Genera et Species Curculio-
nidum. Tom. 6, pars 2. Parisiis et Lipsiae, pp. 1-495.
SILFVERBERG, H. 1983. The coleopteran genera of Dejean, 1821. I. Carabidae.
Annales Entomologici Fennici, vol. 49, pp. 115-116.
1984a. The coleopteran genera of Dejean, 1821. II. Annales Entomologici
Fennici, vol. 50, pp. 58-60.
1984b. The coleopteran genera of Dejean, 1821. III. Curculionoidea and
Chrysomeloidea. Annales Entomologici Fennici, vol. 50, pp. 61-63.
ZEBE, V. 1963. Curculioniden im Mittelrheingebiet. Entomologische Blatter, vol.
59, pp. 113-124.
188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
TETROPIUM KIRBY, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA,
CERAMBYCIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF JSARTHRON DEJEAN, 1835. Z.N.(S.)2534
By Maciej Mroczkowski (Jnstytut Zoologii Polska Akademia Nauk, ul.
Wilcza 64, Warszawa, Poland)
The purpose of this application is to suppress a generic name not
used during the last hundred years which is a senior subjective synonym of a
very well known generic name, Tetropium Kirby, 1837.
2. In 1835 Dejean introduced two generic names: Criomorphus (p.
337) and Isarthron (p. 329). Criomorphus is unavailable (Dejean included
only one species, curtus —a nomen nudum), but Isarthron is an available
name (Dejean included three previously described species under eight
names). The type species of Jsarthron is Callidium aulicum Fabricius, 1775
(Syst. Ent., p. 190), designated by Linsley (1962, p. 85). Criomorphus was
described by Mulsant (1839, p. 58), type species, by monotypy, Callidium
aulicum Fabricius, 1775; however, this is not only a junior objective
synonym of Jsarthron but also a junior homonym of Criomorphus Curtis,
1829 (p. 194) (Hemiptera).
3. In 1837 Kirby (p. 174) described the genus Tetropium. The type
species, designated by Thomson (1864, p. 266), is Tetropium cinnamopterum
Kirby, 1837.
4. L. Redtenbacher (1845, p. 110) gave the description of Jsarthron
(on p. 153 Dejean is cited as author) but without associated nominal
species. In all subsequent systematic works prior to Linsley, 1962,
Redtenbacher (with date 1845) is wrongly cited as the author of the name
Isarthron, which is treated as a junior synonym of Tetropium Kirby, 1837.
Neave (1939, Nomencl. Zool., Il, p. 785) likewise treats Jsarthron Dejean,
1835 as a nomen nudum and cites Redtenbacher (1845) as the author.
5. L. Agassiz (1846) emended Jsarthron De}. to Isarthrum. Isarthrum
Agassiz, 1846 is, as an unjustified emendation, a junior objective synonym
of Isarthron De}.
6. Whenever (as has been the case) Callidium aulicum Fabricius,
1775 (type species of Jsarthron Dejean, 1835) and Tetropium cinnamopterum
Kirby, 1837 (type species of Tetropium Kirby, 1837) are held to be con-
generic, Jsarthron and Tetropium are subjective synonyms.
7. Only Linsley (1962, p. 85) has stated that Dejean’s name Jsarthron
is available and has priority over Tetropium Kirby, but nevertheless even he
treated Tetropium Kirby as the valid name in his monograph. In accordance
with Art. 79(c)(2) of the Code, the following is a selection of 10 different
publications in which Tetropium Kirby has been used as a valid name:
1955 Heyrovsky, L., Tesarikoviti— Cerambycidae. In: Fauna CSR, vol.
5. Praha, (on p. 148).
1961
1962
1966
1966
1973
1974
1978
1979
1981
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 189
Panin, S. & Savulescu, N. Cerambycidae (Croitori). In: Fauna
Republicii Populare Romine. Insecta. Vol. X, fasc. 5. Bucuresti, (on
p. 219).
Linsley, E. G. The Cerambycidae of North America. Part I. Univ.
Calif. Publ. Ent., Berkeley and Los Angeles. Vol. 19. (on p. 85).
Demelt, C. Cerambycidae. In: Die Tierwelt Deutschlands. 52. Teil.
Jena, (on p. 54).
Harde, K. W. Cerambycidae. In: Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, Vol. 9.
Krefeld, (on p. 16).
Allenspach, V. Cerambycidae. In: Insecta Helvetica Catalogus. Vol.
3. Zurich, (on p. 28).
Horion, A. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kafer. Vol. 12.
Uberlingen-Bodensee, (on p. 10).
Klausnitzer, B. & Konigstedt, D. Die Bockkdfer Mitteleuropas.
Cerambycidae. (Die Neue Brehm-Bucherei). Wittenberg. (on p.
161).
Silfverberg, H. (editor) 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscan-
diae et Daniae. Helsinki, (on p. 54).
Lobanov, A. L., Danilevsky, M. L. & Murzin, S. V. Systematic list
of longicorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) of the USSR. Part
I. Ent. Obozr., Leningrad, Vol. 60, (on p. 803).
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is,
for the reasons above, asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name
Isarthron Dejean, 1835, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (gender: neuter), type species,
by subsequent designation by Thomson, 1864, Tetropium
cinnamopterum Kirby, 1837;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name cinnamopterum Kirby, 1837, as published in the binomen
Tetropium cinnamopterum (specific name of the type species of
Tetropium Kirby, 1837);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Jsarthron Dejean, 1835, sup-
pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above.
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, J. L. R. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici Index universalis. Soloduri,
VIII +393 pp.
CURTIS, J. 1829. A guide to an arrangement of British insects. London, VI pp. +256
columns + | p.
DEJEAN, P. F. M. A. 1835. Catalogue des Coléoptéres. Ed. 2 (=3), 4° livraison.
Paris, pp. 257-360.
190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
FABRICIUS, J. Ch. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi et Lipsiae, 32 +832
pp.
KIRBY, W. 1837. In RICHARDSON, Sir J. (Ed.): Fauna Boreali-Americana. Part
4: Insects. Norwich.
LINSLEY, E. G. 1962. The Cerambycidae of North America. Part II. Univ. Calif.
Publ. Ent., Berkeley and Los Angeles, vol. 19, V+ 103 pp., | t., 34 ff.
MULSANT, E. 1839. Histoire Naturelle des Coléoptéres de France, Part I.
Longicornes. Paris, 11 +364 pp.
NEAVE, S. A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus. Vol. 11. D.L. London, 1025 pp.
REDTENBACHER, L. 1845. Die Gattiingen der Deutschen Kaefer-Fauna. Wien,
13+ 178 pp., 2 tt.
THOMSON, J. 1864. Systema Cerambycidarum. Mém. Soc. R. Sci. Liége, vol. 19,
538 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 191
RISOMUREX OLSSON & MCGINTY, 1958 (MOLLUSCA,
GASTROPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES.
Z.N.(S.)2507
By Th. C. H. Kemperman & H. E. Coomans (Jnstituut voor Taxonomische
Zoologie, (Zodlogisch Museum), Plantage Middenlaan 53, 1018 DC
Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Olsson & McGinty (1958) described (on p. 40) the genus Risomurex,
for which Engina schrammi Crosse, 1863, was designated the type species.
However they figured (on PI. 2) their own collected material, mis-identified
as ‘Engina schrammi Crosse’, and had not seen the holotype of Engina
schrammi in Paris.
2. Subsequently Radwin & D’Attilio (1976, p. 255, pl. 2, fig. 1)
synonymized Risomurex with Muricopsis Bucquoy, Dautzenberg &
Dollfus, 1882. The material figured as ‘Muricopsis schrammi (Crosse)’ by
Radwin & D’ Attilio evidently belongs to the same species as that figured by
Olsson & McGinty.
3. Kemperman & Coomans (1984) studied the holotype of Engina
schrammi Crosse and recognised it as being a different species from ‘Riso-
murex schrammi (Crosse) sensu Olsson & McGinty. Recently collected
material from the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica turned out to be conspeci-
fic with the shells mentioned and figured by Olsson & McGinty (1958) and
Radwin & D’ Attilio (1976). Since there is no name available the species was
thereupon described as Risomurex mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans,
1984.
4. Risomurex Olsson & McGinty is considered to be a valid genus,
distinct from Muricopsis (type species Murex blainvillii Payraudeau, 1826,
by original designation). Risomurex mosquitensis should be considered as
the type species of Risomurex, being the actual intention of the authors of
the genus. If the type designation by Olsson & McGinty is allowed to stand,
the genus would be typified by Engina schrammi Crosse, a distinct species
(which we consider also belongs to Risomurex).
5. According to Art. 70b of the Code it is for the Commission to
decide whether the type species of Risomurex Olsson & McGinty remains
(a) Engina schrammi Crosse, in which case the typification of the genus is
not based on the species originally intended, or (b) becomes Risomurex
mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, in accordance with the intention of
Olsson & McGinty. We propose that the taxon Risomurex mosquitensis
Kemperman & Coomans remains as type species for the genus.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Risomurex Olsson
& McGinty, 1958, and, having done so, to designate Risomurex
mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, 1984 (= ‘Risomurex
192 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
schrammi Crosse’ sensu Olsson & McGinty, 1958, non Engina
schrammi Crosse, 1863) as type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (gender: masculine),
type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)
above, Risomurex mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans,
1984;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the name mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, 1984, as
published in the binomen Risomurex mosquitensis (specific
name of the type species of Risomurex Olsson & McGinty,
1958).
REFERENCES
BUCQUOY, E., DAUTZENBERG, P. & DOLLFUS, G. 1882. Les mollusques
marins du Roussillon, vol. 1, pp. 1-570. Paris.
CROSSE, H. 1863. Description d’une espéce nouvelle de la Guadeloupe. J.
Conchyl., Paris, vol. 11, pp. 82-84.
KEMPERMAN, T. C. M. & COOMANS, H. E. 1984. Studies on West Indian
Marine Molluscs, 1. Risomurex mosquitensis, a new Caribbean species, with
remarks on the status of the genus Risomurex (Gastropoda: Muricidae).
Bull. Zool. Mus. Univ. Amsterdam, vol. 10 (1), pp. 1-7.
OLSSON, A. A. & McGINTY, T. L. 1958. Marine mollusks from the Caribbean
coast of Panama, with the description of some new genera and species. Bull.
Amer. Paleont., vol. 39, pp. 1-58.
RADWIN, G. E. & D’ATTILIO, A. 1976. Murex Shells of the World, pp. 1-284.
Stanford.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 193
SIPHAMIA WEBER, 1909 AND SIPHAMIA PERMUTATA
KLAUSEWITZ, 1966 (OSTEICHTHYES, PERCIFORMES):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF BEANEA
STEINDACHNER, 1902 AND BEANEA TRIVITTATA
STEINDACHNER, 1902. Z.N.(S.)2517
By John E. Randall (Bishop Museum, Box 19000-A, Honolulu, Hawaii
96817, U.S.A.), Ernest A. Lachner (National Museum of Natural History,
Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) and Thomas H. Fraser (Environmental
Quality Laboratory, 1009 Tamiami Trail, Port Charlotte, Florida 33952,
U.S.A.)
Steindachner (1902, pp. 337-338) described Beanea trivittata as a
new genus and species of the beryciform family HOLOCENTRIDAE, from a
single 36 mm specimen taken in the Gulf of Suez, Red Sea, at Tor (El Tur)
near the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula. The fish was collected by Dr
Plate from among the spines of the echinoid Diadema.
2. Nospecimens have been reported under the name Beanea trivittata
since the original description, in spite of extensive fish collecting in the
Red Sea (Randall, 1983). The name has appeared only in compilations such
as those of Jordan, 1917-1920; Fowler, 1956; Norman, 1957; Klausewitz,
1964 (in the reprint edition of Klunzinger, 1870—71) and Botros, 1971.
3. Woods (1955, p. 95) devoted a paragraph to Beanea. He repeated
the meristic data given by Steindachner, noted the discrepancy of these
counts from known holocentrid fishes, and added that B. trivittata ‘may not
even belong to the family Holocentridae’.
4. Randall, Shimizu and Yamakawa (1982, p. 2) also reiterated
some of Steindachner’s description of B. trivittata and stated, ‘With the
exception of IV anal spines (which we suspect is an error) these characters
fit the APOGONIDAE not the HOLOCENTRIDAE. Beanea appears to represent an
earlier name for Siphamia Weber (1909). We have asked Dr Rainer Hacker
and Harald Ahnelt of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna to examine
the type of Beanea trivittata for us, but the specimen was not found.
5. In his Checklist of the Fishes of the Red Sea, Dor (1984, p. 72)
included Beanea trivittata in the HOLOCENTRIDAE but as a doubtful taxon.
He quoted Randall (in /itt.), cited Randall, Shimizu and Yamakawa and
added, ‘I fully agree, the description of Steindachner fits an apogonid.’
6. The following characters given by Steindachner for Beanea trivit-
tata clearly show that it is not a holocentrid but an apogonid: Dorsal rays
VII-I1,9; pelvic rays I,5; branchiostegal rays 7; lateral-line scales 25; scales
above lateral line 1 1/2; all fin spines slender; first dorsal spine very short;
third dorsal spine longest; head bones extremely delicate and thin; scales
below lateral line smooth; three dark brown longitudinal bands on head
and body.
7. Three genera of APOGONIDAE have species in the Red Sea with
dark stripes: Apogon, Cheilodipterus and Siphamia. Cheilodopterus can be
194 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
quickly eliminated as a synonym of Beanea because it has VI dorsal spines,
a body more elongate than Myripristis (Steindachner stated that Beanea has
a body shape like this genus) and Red Sea species have more than three
dark stripes. Apogon can also be eliminated on the basis of color, as no
- species have three dark stripes as described by Steindachner. Siphamia is
represented in the Red Sea by a single species, S. permutata Klausewitz
(1966, pp. 217-222) which has all the characters mentioned in paragraph 6
above except for 25 lateral-line scales (Klausewitz recorded 23). The three
brown stripes on S. permutata are exactly as described by Steindachner for
B. trivittata. Furthermore, Klausewitz (op. cit.) and Magnus (1976) have
shown that this species hides among the spines of Diadema setosum.
8. Siphamia Weber (1909, p. 168) (type species, by monotypy,
Siphamia tubifer Weber, 1909) is a very distinctive genus, all of the species
of which possess an elongate luminous organ ventrally on the body which
passes from the branchial region nearly to the caudal fin base. Lachner (in
Schultz & collaborators, 1953) reviewed the genus, recognizing 13 species.
Fraser (1972) wrote ‘Siphamia comprises a natural group, containing at least
18 nominal species. . .. He summarized the osteology and other anatomical
features of the genus and cited studies on systematics, commensalism,
bioluminescence, etc.
9. Since there is no type specimen of Beanea trivittata the status of the
nominal taxon is doubtful, although it is a probable synonym of Siphamia
permutata Klausewitz, 1966. We recommend that the latter name be
conserved and that Beanea trivittata Steindachner, 1902 be suppressed.
10. In view of the above we ask the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Beanea
Steindachner, 1902 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name trivittata
Steindachner, 1902, as published in the binomen Beanea trivit-
tata, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for
those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(3) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
generic name Siphamia Weber, 1909 (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy, Siphamia tubifer Weber, 1909.
(4) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
following specific names:
(a) permutata Klausewitz, 1966 as published in the binomen
Siphamia permutata;
(b) tubifer Weber, 1909, as published in the binomen Siphamia
tubifer (specific name of the type species of Siphamia
Weber, 1909).
(5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Beanea Steindachner, 1902, as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 195
(6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name ftrivittata, as published in the
binomen Beanea trivittata, and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (2) above.
REFERENCES
BOTROS, G. A. 1971. Fishes of the Red Sea. Oceanogr. mar. Biol. Ann. Rev., vol. 9,
pp. 221-348.
DOR, M. 1984. CLOFRES: Checklist of the Fishes of the Red Sea. The Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, xxii+ 437 pp.
FOWLER, H. W. 1956. Fishes of the Red Sea and southern Arabia. Vol. 1. The
Weizmann Science Press of Israel, Jerusalem, 240 pp.
FRASER, T. H. 1972. Comparative osteology of the shallow water cardinal fishes
[Perciformes: Apogonidae] with reference to the systematics and evolution
of the family. Ichthyol. Bull. J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol., Rhodes Univ.
Grahamstown, no. 34, v+ 105 pp.
JORDAN, D. S. 1917-1920. The Genera of Fishes and A Classification of Fishes.
Reprint edition, 1963, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California, xvi+
800 pp.
KLAUSEWITZ, W. 1964. Die Erforschung der Ichthyofauna des Roten Meeres.
pp. i-xxxvi. Jn Klunzinger, C. B. 1870-1871, Synopsis der Fische des Rothen
Meeres, reprint edition, 1964, J. Cramer, Weinheim.
1966. Fische aus dem Roten Meer. VII. Siphamia permutatan.sp. Senckenberg
biol., vol. 47(3), pp. 217-222.
MAGNUS, D. B. E. 1967. Ecological and ethological studies and experiments on
the echinoderms of the Red Sea. Stud. trop. Oceanogr., vol. 5, pp. 635-664.
NORMAN, J. R. 1957. A Draft Synopsis of the Orders, Families and Genera of
Recent Fishes and Fish-Like Vertebrates. British Museum (Natural History),
London, 649 pp.
RANDALL, J. E. 1983. Red Sea Reef Fishes. IMMEL Publishing, London, 192 pp.
—, SHIMUZU, T. & YAMAKAWA, T. 1982. A revision of the holocentrid
fish genus Ostichthys, with descriptions of four new species and a related new
genus. Jap. J. Ichthyol, vol. 29(1), pp. 1-26.
SCHULTZ, L. P. (& collaborators). 1953. Fishes of the Marshall and Marianas
Islands. U.S. natl. Mus. Bull., 202, vol. 1, xxxii+ 685 pp.
STEINDACHNER, F. 1902. Uber zwei neue Fischarten aus dem Rothen Meere.
Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 39, pp. 336-338.
WEBER, M. 1909. Diagnosen neuer Fische der Siboga-Expedition. Notes Leyden
Mus., vol. 31, pp. 143-169.
WOODS, L. P. 1955. Western Atlantic species of the genus Holocentrus. Fieldiana
zool., vol. 37, pp. 91-119.
196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
CYCLAXYRA BROUN, 1893 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
MELANOCHROA BROUN, 1882. Z.N.(S.)2511
By J. C. Watt (Entomology Division, DSIR, Auckland, New Zealand) and
R. A. Crowson (Department of Zoology, The University, Glasgow
G12 8QG, Scotland)
Broun (1881, pp. 667-668) described and established the genus
Cyclomorpha in the combination Cyclomorpha politula. However, the generic
name is preoccupied by the molluscan genus-group name Cyclomorpha
Pease (1871, p. 464).
2. In a brief anonymous paper whose authorship has universally
and correctly been attributed to Broun (1882a) it is stated: ‘We have been
requested to publish the following alterations of the names of certain
genera recently published in Capt. Broun’s ‘Manual of the New Zealand
Coleoptera’, they having previously been used either in that order or in
other branches of zoology.
Melanochroa for Cyclomorpha....’
There follows a list of nine other replacement names for preoccupied
generic names of Broun (1880, 1881). This was repeated verbatim in Broun
(1882b).
3. Melanochroa Roeder (1886, pp. 139-140) (type species, by mono-
typy, Melanochroa dubia Roeder, 1886) was described for a genus of
stratiomyid Diptera.
4. Broun (1893, pp. 1076-1077) fully described the genus Cyclaxyra
and briefly redescribed C. politula (Broun, 1881). At the conclusion of the
species description he stated: ‘This species was formerly named Cyclomorpha,
but as I find the name has been used before, I have substituted Cyclaxyra.
As it is a very interesting genus the new name is accompanied by the
description.’ There is no mention of the name Melanochroa, which had
apparently been forgotten by Broun.
5. In the Coleopterorum Catalogus, Grouvelle (1913, p. 170) listed
Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 as the valid name for this genus, listing Cyclomorpha
Broun, 1881 and Melanochroa Broun, 1882 as synonyms.
6. Broun (1915, p. 314) described a second species, Cyclaxyra
impressa.
7. Hudson (1934, p. 189) listed ‘Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (substituted
for Cyclomorpha)’, as the valid name for the genus. Melanochroa was not
mentioned.
8. Crowson (1955, p. 99) referred to Cyclaxyra, which had pre-
viously been placed in the NITIDULIDAE, and provisionally transferred it to
SPHINDIDAE (op. cit., p. 102; see also pp. 171, 172).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 197
9. Sen Gupta & Crowson (1966, p. 62) included ‘Phalacridae, genus
Cyclaxyra Broun’ in a revised key to certain families of Clavicornia.
10. Crowson (1967a, p. 212) stated: ‘Phalacridae: The genus
Cyclaxyra Broun has the essential larval features of this group, the adult
differs from other Phalacridae in the middle coxal cavities not closed by the
sterna, the simple tarsi, and in the aedeagus, inter alia.’
11. Crowson (1967b) mentioned Cyclaxyra 5 times, while Watt
(1982) followed Crowson in including the two species of Cyclaxyra in
PHALACRIDAE.
12. ‘Crowson (1981) gave observations on the biology of Cyclaxyra
and drew attention to its systematic and biological importance as an ancient
relict in the New Zealand fauna.
13. Asa result of further systematic study, it is proposed to establish
a new family for the genus Cyclaxyra Broun, as part of a revised family
classification of Clavicornia (Crowson & Sen Gupta, in press). Thus not
only a generic name but also a family-group name is involved in this case.
14. As documented above, the name Cyclaxyra is well known, both
in New Zealand and worldwide. By contrast the name Melanochroa Broun,
1882 has never been used as the valid name for this genus since its original
publication and was forgotten even by its own author. Moreover it is
an unused senior homonym of the dipteran genus Melanochroa Roeder,
1886. Accordingly we ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to:
(1) useits plenary powers to suppress the generic name Melanochroa
Broun, 1882 for the purposes of the Principles of Priority and
of Homonymy;
(2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (gender: feminine), type species,
by monotypy, Cyclomorpha politula Broun, 1881;
(3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name
politula Broun, 1881, as published in the binomen Cyclomorpha
politula (name of the type species of Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893).
(4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Melanochroa Broun, 1882 as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above.
REFERENCES
BROUN, T. 1880. Manual of the New Zealand Coleoptera. Part 1. Colonial
Museum and Geological Survey Department, Wellington, pp. 1-651.
1881. Manual of the New Zealand Coleoptera. Part I. Colonial Museum and
Geological Survey Department, Wellington, pp. 653-774.
1882a. Alteration of generic names. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 5, vol. 9,
p. 409.
1882b. Alteration of generic names. N.Z. J. Sci., vol. 1, p. 128.
1893. Manual of the New Zealand Coleoptera, Parts V, VI, VII. New Zealand
Institute, Wellington, pp. 975-1504.
198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
1915. Descriptions of new genera and species of Coleoptera. Bull. N.Z. Inst.,
vol. 1(4), pp. 267-346.
CROWSON, R. A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera.
Nathaniel Lloyd and Co. Ltd, London, 187 pp.
1967a. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. Addenda et
corrigenda. Entomol. mon. Mag., vol. 103, pp. 209-214.
1967b. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera (with addenda
and corrigenda). E. W. Classey Ltd, Hampton, 214 pp.
1981. The biology of the Coleoptera. Academic Press, London, 802 pp.
GROUVELLE, A. 1913. Byturidae and Nitidulidae in Junk, W., Coleopterorum
Catalogus, vol. 15(56), 223 pp.
HUDSON, G. V. 1934. New Zealand beetles and their larvae. Ferguson and Osborn
Ltd, Wellington, 236 pp.
ROEDER, V. VON, 1886. Ueber drei neue Gattungen der Notocanthen. Entomol.
Nachr., vol. 12(1) no. 9, pp..137—139.
SEN GUPTA, T. & CROWSON, R. A. 1966. A new family of Cucujoid beetles,
based on six Australian and one New Zealand genera. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.,
ser. 13, vol. 9, pp. 61-85.
WATT, J. C. 1982. 1981 Presidential Address: New Zealand beetles. N.Z. Entomol,
vol. 7(3), pp. 213-221.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 199
SINUITIDAE DALL, 1913, MACLURITIDAE FISCHER, 1885 AND
EUOMPHALIDAE DE KONINCK, 1881 (GASTROPODA,
ARCHAEOGASTROPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY
SUPPRESSION OF PROTOWARTHIIDAE ULRICH & SCHOFIELD,
1897, MACLUREADAE CARPENTER, 1861, MACLURAEIDEA
GILL, 1817 AND SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE EICHWALD, 1817.
Z.N.(S.)1212
By the late J. Brookes Knight (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC,
U.S.A.), Roger L. Batten (American Museum of Natural History, Central
Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.) and Ellis
Yochelson (U.S. Geological Survey, USDI, U.S. National Museum,
Washington DC, U.S.A.)
This application was originally submitted to the Commission in
March 1957. It was published in Bull. zool. nom., vol. 18, pp. 337-339
(November 1961) and presented to the Commission for voting on 3 October
1962. A comment by Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historie, Leiden) pointed out that it was impossible to suppress a family-
group name unless the generic name on which it was based, i.e. its type
genus, was also suppressed. As a consequence of this comment an Opinion
was never published.
2. Recently the case was resurrected and analysed by the Secretariat.
Of the original proposals, one, that concerning the conservation of
ORIOSTOMATIDAE Wenz, 1938 by suppression of HORIOSTOMATIDAE Koken,
1897, was found to have an automatic solution under Article 35(d) of the
Code in that HORIOSTOMATIDAE, based on the unjustified emendation
Horiostoma Fischer, 1885 is corrected to ORIOSTOMATIDAE Koken, 1897.
The remaining proposals are still in need of Commission action and after
correspondence with one of the original authors (E.Y.) it was agreed to
rewrite the case and present it again in full.
SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913
3. The generic name Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 (p. 848)
was proposed for a bellerophontid gastropod from the Ordovician of North
America. In the same publication the family-group name PROTOWARTHIIDAE
was proposed for this and allied genera (p. 847), but appears never to have
been used. A year earlier, Koken (1896, p. 393) had proposed the name
Sinuites for congeneric forms from Europe; the type species of Sinuites is
Bellerophon bilobatus Sowerby, 1839 (p. 643) by designation by Bassler
(1915, p. 1159). For many years Protowarthia has been recognized to be a
junior subjective synonym of Sinuites.
4. Dall (1913, p. 521) proposed the family group name SINUITIDAE
based on Sinuites Koken and, although junior to PROTOWARTHIIDAE, this
has been in common usage since it was first introduced (for example: Wenz,
200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
1938, p. 97; Knight, 1947, p. 7; Piveteau, 1952, p. 409; Orlov, 1960, p. 61;
Waterhouse, 1963, p. 90; Yochelson, 1963, p. 151, 1964, p. 894; Batten,
1966, p. 6; Peel, 1975, p. 1525 and Hayami & Kase, 1977, p. 17).
MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885
5. The generic name Maclurite Lesueur, 1818 (p. 312) was evi-
dentally a /apsus for Maclurites. As pointed out by Knight (1941, p. 184),
Lesueur had, on the previous page, used the termination -ites for generic
names and -ite for the vernacular form of the same names.
7. Lesueur’s name Maclurite has been emended several times — to
Maclurita by Blainville (1823, p. 519), to Maclurites by Menke (1830, p. 53)
and to Maclurea by Emmons (1842, p. 312). Blaiville’s and Emmons’
emendations are certainly unjustified and as such are junior objective
synonyms of Maclurite Lesueur, 1818. Maclurites (Menke, 1830) however,
we consider to be a justified emendation and this form of the name has
gained general acceptance (for example by Wenz, 1938, p. 210; Knight,
1941, p. 184; Piveteau, 1952, p. 395; Miller, 1960, p. 25; Orlov, 1960, p. 83;
Yochelson, 1966, p. 748; Grasse, 1968, p. 917; Yochelson, 1975, p. 449;
Rohr, 1980, p. 153 and Yu Wen & Ning Hui, 1983, p. 199).
8. The type species of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818 is Maclurites magna
Lesueur, 1818 by designation by de Koninck (1881, p. 107).
9. Carpenter (1861, p. 216) proposed the family-group name
MACLUREADAE, and Gill (1871, p. 11) MACLURAEIDEA and MACLURAEACEA,
all based on the junior objective synonym Maclurea Emmons, 1842. Fischer
(1885, p. 805) proposed the family-group name MACLURITIDAE based on
Maclurites Lesueur, 1818. Although both MACLUREADAE Carpenter, 1861
and MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1871 have priority over Fischer’s name they have
been little used and are not adopted in the standard Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology (Knight et al., 1960). By contrast MACLURITIDAE
Fischer, 1885 has been used widely (for example by Wenz, 1938, p. 210;
Piveteau, 1952, p. 395; Orlov, 1960, p. 83; Yochelson, 1965, p. 45; Yochelson
& Jones, 1968, p. 7; Hayami & Kase, 1977, p. 21; Minichev & Starobogatov,
1979, p. 293; Yu Wen, 1979, p. 256; Rohr, 1980, p. 153 and Yu Wen and
Ning Hui, 1983, p. 199).
EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881
10. Although Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 (p. 97) and Schizostoma
Bronn ((1834], p. 95) have been considered to be the names of distinct
genera by some, others, including the applicants, consider them to be
synonyms. The type species of Euomphalus is Euomphalus pentangulatus
Sowerby, 1814, by designation by Meek & Worthen (1866, p. 158).
11. The family-group name EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (p. 106)
based on Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 has been used by almost all workers
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 201
(for example by Wenz, 1938, p. 187; Burke, 1961, p. 123; Waterhouse, 1963,
p. 98; Dickens, 1963, p. 128; Yochelson, 1963, p. 179; Batten, 1966, p. 12;
Peel & Yochelson, 1976, p. 18; Hayami & Kase, 1977, p. 23; McLean, 1981,
p. 312 and Morris & Cleevely, 1981, p. 196). By contrast the slightly earlier
family-group name SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 (p. 119) has been
little used and in the Treatise (Knight et al., 1960) we have abandoned it.
12. In view of the situation outlined the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic
names for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897
(b) Schizostoma Bronn, [1834]
(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following family-
group names for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but
not for that of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 (type genus
Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897);
(b) MACLUREADAE Carpenter, 1861 (type genus Maclurea
Emmons, 1842);
(c) MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1871 (type genus Maclurea Emmons,
1842);
(d) SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 (type genus Schizo-
stoma, Bronn, [1834].
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:
(a) Sinuites Koken, 1896 (gender: masculine), type species
by designation by Bassler (1915) Bellerophon bilobatus
Sowerby, 1839;
(b) Maclurites (justified emendation of Maclurite) Lesueur,
1818 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by de
Koninck (1881) Maclurites magna Lesueur, 1818;
(c) Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 (gender: masculine) type species
by designation by Meek & Worthen (1866) Euomphalus
pentangulatus Sowerby, 1814.
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
(a) bilobatus Sowerby, 1839, as published in the binomen
Bellerophon bilobatus, (specific name of the type species of
Sinuites Koken, 1896);
(b) magna Lesueur, 1818, as published in the binomen
Maclurites magna, (specific name of the type species of
Maclurites Lesueur, 1818);
(c) pentangulatus Sowerby, 1814, as published in the binomen
Euomphalus pentangulatus, (specific name of the type species
of Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814).
202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
(5) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology:
(a) SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913 (type genus Sinuites Koken, 1896);
(b) MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 (type genus Maclurites
Lesueur, 1818);
(c) EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (type genus Euomphalus
Sowerby, 1814).
(6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897, as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above;
(b) Schizostoma Bronn, [1834], as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1)(b) above;
(c) Maclurita Blainville, 1823 (an unjustified emendation of
Maclurites Lesueur, 1818);
(d) Maclurea Emmons, 1842 (an unjustified emendation of
Maclurites Lesueur, 1818);
(7) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group names in Zoology:
(a) PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 (type genus
Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897) as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (2)(a) above;
(b) MACLUREADEA Carpenter, 1861 (type genus Maclurea
Emmons, 1842) as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(2)(b) above;
(c) MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1871 (type genus Maclurea Emmons,
1842) as suppressed under the plenary powers in (2)(c)
above;
(d) SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 (type genus Schizostoma
Bronn, [1834]) as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(2)(d) above.
REFERENCES
BASSLER, R. S. 1915. Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and Silurian
fossils. U.S. nat. Mus. Bull., no. 92, vols. 1 & 2, pp. 1-1521.
BATTEN, R. L. 1966. The Lower Carboniferous gastropod fauna from the
Hotwells Limestone of Compton Martin, Somerset. Palaentol. Soc.
( Monogr.) London, pp. 1-109.
BLAINVILLE, H. M. D. DE 1823. Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 27,
544 pp. F. G. Levrault, Strasbourg, Paris.
BRONN, H. G. [1834]. Lethea Geognostica oder Abbildungen und Beschreibungen
der fiir die Gibergs-Formationen bezeichnendsten Versteinerungen, vol. 1,
544 pp. Stuttgart.
1947. Some new Cambrian Bellerophont Gastropods. Smithson. Misc. Col.,
vol. 106, no. 17, pp. 1-11.
BURKE, J. J. 1961. Anew Euomphalid Gastropod from the Conemaugh Formation,
Pennsylvanian. Ann. Carnegie Mus., vol. 36, pp. 123-128.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 203
CARPENTER, P. P. 1861. Lectures on Mollusca; or ‘Shellfish’ and their allies. Ann.
Rept. Smithson. Inst., 1860, pp. 151-283.
DALL, W. H. 1913. Pelycepoda, Gastropoda (pars) in Eastman, C. R. & Zittel,
K. A. von, Textbook of Palaeontology, 2nd ed., vol. 1, x +839 pp.
DECHASEUX, C. 1952. Lamellibranches. Pp. 220-374 in Piveteau, J. (ed.) Traité de
Paléontologie, vol. 2, 790 pp. Paris.
DICKENS, J. M. 1963. Permian Pelecypods and Gastropods from Western
Australia. Bureaux of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Depart-
ment of National Development Commonwealth of Australia Bulletin, no. 63,
pp. 1-150.
EICHWALD, C. E. I. VON 1871. Geognostica-palaentologische Bemerkungen, tiber
die Halbinsel Mangischlak und die Aleutischen Inseln. iii+200 pp. St
Petersburg.
EMMONS, E. 1842. Geology of New York, part 2, x +437 pp. New York, Boston
etc.
FISCHER, P. G. 1885. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie Conchyliologique
ou Histoire Naturelle des Mollusques vivants et fossiles, vol. 1, viiit896 pp.
F. Savy, Paris.
GILL, T. 1871. Arrangement of the families of Mollusks. Smithson. misc. Coll., vol.
10, no. 227, pp. 1-49.
GRASSE, P. P. 1968 (ed.). Traité de Zoologie, vol. 5, 1083 pp. Paris.
HAYAMI, J. & KASE, T. 1977. A systematic survey of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic
Gastropoda and Paleozoic Bivalvia from Japan. Univ. Mus. Univ. Tokyo.
Bull., no. 12, p. 17.
KNIGHT, J. B. 1941. Paleozoic Gastropod Genotypes. Geol. Soc. amer. sp. Pap.,
no. 32, pp. 1-510.
et al. 1960. In: Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (ed. R. C. Moore),
Part I (Mollusca 1), pp. 169-310. University of Kansas Press, xxiii+ 351 pp.
KOKEN, E. F. R. K. 1896. Die Leitfossilien. 848 pp. Leipzig.
KONINCK, L. G. DE 1881. Faune du Calcaire Carbonifére de la Belgique. Mus.
roy. Hist. nat. Belg. (Ser. Paléontol.), vol. 6, pp. 1-170.
LESUEUR, C. A. 1818. Observations on a new Genus of Fossil Shells. J. Acad. nat.
Aci. Philad., vol. 1(2), 310-313.
MCLEAN, J. H. 1981. The Galapagos rift limpet Neomphalus: relevance to
understanding the evolution of a major Paleozoic-Mesozoic radiation.
Malacologie, vol. 21, (1-2), pp. 291-336.
MENKE, C. T. 1830. Synopsis methodica Molluscorum generum omnium et specierum
earum, quae in Museo Menkeano adservantur, ed. 2, xvi+ 168 pp. Pyrmonti.
MEEK, F. B. & WORTHEN, A. H. 1866. Descriptions of Invertebrates from the
Carboniferous System. Geol. Sury. Illinois, vol. II, Palaeontology, section II,
pp. 145-223.
MINICHEV, Y.S. & STAROBOGATOYV, Y. I. 1979. The subclasses of Gastropoda
and their phylogenetic relations. Zool. Zh., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 293-304 [in
Russian].
MORRIS, N. J. & CLEEVELEY, R. J. 1981. Phanerotinus cristatus (Phillips) and
the nature of euomphalacean gastropods. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Geol.),
____ Vol. 35(3), pp. 195-224.
MULLER, A. H. 1960. Lehrbuch der Paldzoologie, vol. 2(2), xiit+448 pp. Veb
Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena.
ORLOV, Y. A. 1960. Fundamentals of Palaeontology [Osnovy paleontologii], vol.
4, Moscow, 360 pp. [in Russian].
204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
PEEL, J. S. 1975. New Silurian Gastropods from Nova Scotia and Britain. Can. J.
Earth. Sci., vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1524-1533.
— & YOCHELSON, E. L. 1976. Two new gastropod genera from the Lower
Silurian of the Oslo Region, Norway. Norsk. Geologisk. Tidsskrift, vol. 56,
pp. 15-27.
ROHR, D. M. 1980. Ordovician—Devonian Gastropoda from the Klamath
Mountains, California. Palaeontographica Abt. A, vol. 171, pp. 141-199.
SOWERBY, J. DE C. 1814. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, vol. 1, no. 9,
pp. 97-108. London.
1839. Fossil shells of the Caradoc Sandstone and Llandeilo Flags or Lower
Silurian rocks. Pp. 635-644, in Murchison, R. I. The Silurian System, founded
on geological researches in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor,
Montgomery, Caermarthen, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester,
Worcester and Stafford; with descriptions of the coalfields and overlying
formations. Xxxii+ 768 pp., London.
ULRICH, E. O. & SCHOFIELD, W. H. 1897. The Lower Silurian Gastropoda
of Minnesota. Geol. nat. Hist. Surv. Minnesota, Final Rep., vol. 3(2),
pp. 813-1081.
WATERHOUSE, J. B. 1963. Permian gastropods of New Zealand Part 1 —
Bellerophontacea and Euomphalacea. N.Z. J. Geol. Geophys., vol. 6(1),
pp. 88-114.
WENZ, W. 1938. Gastropoden in Schindwolf, O. H. (ed.), Handbuch der
Paldzoologie, vol. 6(1), viii+ 480 pp., Berlin-Zehlendorf.
YOCHELSON, E. L. 1963. The middle Ordovician of the Oslo Region, Norway.
Norsk. Geologisk. Nordskrift, vol. 43(2), pp. 133-211.
1964. Modestospira, a new Ordovician gastropod. J. Palaeontol., vol. 38,
no. 5, p. 894.
1966a. An operculum associated with the Ordovician gastropod Helicotoma.
J. Palaeontol., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 748-749.
1966b. A reinvestigation of the Middle Devonian gastropods Arctomphalus
and Omphalocirrus. Norsk Polarinst. Arbok, 1965, pp. 37-47.
1975. Early Ordovician Gastropod Opercula and Epicontinental Seas. J.
Res. U.S. Geol. Sury., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 447-450.
& JONES, C. R. 1968. Teiichispira, a new Early Ordovician Gastropod
Genus. U.S. Geol. Surv. pro. Pap., 613B, pp. B1—-B13.
YU WEN, 1979. Earliest Cambrian monoplacophorans and gastropods from
western Hubei with their biostratigraphical significance. Acta Palaeontol.
Sinica, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 233-260.
—& NING HUI, 1983. Middle Ordovician gastropods from Ruogiang,
Xinjiang. Acta Palaeontol. Sinica, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 199-201.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 205
LAPLYSIA VIRIDIS MONTAGU, 1804 (MOLLUSCA,
GASTROPODA): CONSERVATION PROPOSEE PAR LA
SUPPRESSION DE LAPLISIA VIRIDIS BOSC, 1801. Z.N.(S.)2408
par Philippe Bouchet (Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés Marina et
Malacologie, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon,
Paris)
Bosc, 1801, p. 64, décrit une Laplisia viridis avec les caractéres
suivants: ‘Seulement deux tentacules; le corps vert; le bord plus pale. Voyez
la pl. 2, fig. 4, qui la représente de grandeur naturelle [48 mm]. Se trouve sur
les cotes d’Amérique, d’ou elle a été rapportée par Bosc’. A la page 62 du
méme ouvrage, la localité-type est indiquée de facgon plus précise: baie de
Charleston.’
2. Montagu, 1804, p. 76, décrit une Laplysia viridis sans référence
aucune a Bosc. Originaire du sud de |’Angleterre, son espéce nouvelle est
illustrée (pl. 7, fig. 1).
3. L’une et lautre de ces deux espéces sont des gastéropodes
opisthobranches appartenant au genre Elysia Risso, 1818. Bien que publié
pour la premiére fois comme un synonyme (de Notarchus Cuvier), ce nom
est utilisable car il a été traite comme un nom valide avec sa date et son
auteur originels. Le nom Actaeon Oken, 1815, qui a pour espéce-type, par
monotypie, Ap/ysia [sic!] viridis Montagu, n’est pas utilisable (Opinion 417).
L’espéce décrite par Bosc et celle décrite par Montagu ne sont pas synonymes.
4. Ladifférence d’une lettre entre Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 et Laplisia
Lamarck, 1801 peut étre interprétée de deux facons:
(a) Laplisia est une émendation injustifiée de Laplysia: a lappui de
cette hypothése vient le fait que Lamarck ait écrit Laplisia a la
fois dans le texte (1801, p. 62) et dans l’index;
(b) Laplisia est une orthographe incorrecte subséquente de Laply-
sia: a Vappui de cette hypothése vient le fait que l’orthographe
Laplisia n’a méme pas été discutée lors de l’élaboration de
l’Opinion 200, qui a émendé le nom Lap/ysia Linnaeus, 1767 en
Aplysia. Laplysia et Laplisia ont la méme espéce-type, Aplysia
depilans Gmelin, 1791 (par décision de la Commission dans le
cas de Laplysia, par monotypie dans le cas de Laplisia).
5. Le probléme des noms Laplysia et Aplysia ayant été résolu par
’Opinion 200, il est préférable de retenir l’hypothése selon laquelle Laplisia
est une orthographe incorrecte subséquente, sans statut en nomenclature.
Mais dans les deux cas, selon les dispositions de l’Article 57e du Code, et
vu l’Opinion 200, les deux viridis doivent étre réputés avoir été combines
avec Aplysia. Les deux noms sont, donc, homonymes primaires et celui de
Montagu est le plus récent.
6. Le nom donné par Bosc a été trés peu utilisé. Toutes les citations
de ce nom sont des interprétations ou des commentaires sur la description
206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
originale et, a l'exception de Bosc (1817) lui-méme, n’ajoutent rien a la
connaissance de l’espéce. Liste presumée exhaustive des utilisations du nom
viridis Bosc, 1801: Cuvier, 1803, p. 295 cite ‘Apl. viridis Bosc’ et dit: ‘comme
elle a les yeux derriére les tentacules supérieurs, c’est une espéce bien
différente des autres’; Bosc, 1803, p. 553 utilise seulement le nom vernacu-
laire ‘Laplésie verte’ et précise que sa taille ‘s’éléve au plus a un pouce de
long’ [27 mm]. La figure de 1801 n’était donc pas de grandeur naturelle,
comme Bosc Il’avait affirmé; Roissy, 1804, p. 173 donne une redescription
tirée de Bosc; Bosc, 1817, p. 314, complete sa description de 1801 et en 1818
donne une figure (pl. E23, fig. 3) copiee de celle de 1801; Cuvier, 1817,
reproduit son texte de 1804 dans la série de mémoires sur les Mollusques;
Férussac, 1822a, p. xxx, cite distinctement les deux Laplysia [sic] viridis dans
le genre Actaeon Ocken [sic]; dans 1822b, p. 105, il inclut les deux espéces
dans le genre Actaeon Ocken et en donne des descriptions tirées de Bosc et
Montagu; Blainville, 1823, p. 328 donne une description d’ Aplysia viridis
Bosc tirée de Bosc. Le méme texte est publié la méme année dans le Journal
de Physique (Blainville, 1823b); Blainville, 1825, p. 472 cite sans description
lespéce de Bosc; Rang, 1828, p. 73 dans sa grande monographie des
Aplysiens décrit Aplysia viridis Bosc mais figure (pl. 22, fig. 2) ’espéce de
Montagu, copiée de sa description originale; Deshayes, 1830, p. 59 et 1836,
p. 690 mentionne Laplisia viridis et renvoie a Bosc, 1801 et 1817; Bergh,
1872, p. 178, dans un travail sur le genre Elysia, élimine dans une note en
bas de page Laplisia viridis Bosc qui selon lui serait une Aplysie et non une
Elysie; Engel, 1934, p. 84 énumére les espéces décrites ou citées par
Blainville, 1823, 1825: ‘Aplysia viridis Bosc (qui représente, comme nous le
savons maintenant, une Elysia et non une Aplysia)’; Pruvot-Fol, 1946, p.
32, dans sa révision des ELYSIIDAE, défend contre Bergh l’affirmation
d’Engel.
7. Lenom donné par Bosc, bien qu’ayant priorité sur celui donné par
Montagu, est changé par Férussac, 1822a et b (qui conserve le nom de
Montagu), probablement parce que Oken en avait fait le type d’une genre
noveau, Actaeon, genre dans lequel Férussac place les deux espéces ‘Actaeon
aplysiforme, A. Aplysiformis N.’ et ‘Laplysia virdis Bosc, vers 1, p. 64, pl. 2,
fig. 4. Aplysia viridis de Roissy, Buffon, T.v.p. 173’.
8. L’espéce de Bosc est vraisemblablement Elysia chlorotica (Gould
1870), une espéce trés commune dans les eaux saumatres de la cOte est
américaine, de la Nouvelle-Ecosse a la Caroline du Nord. Il pourrait peut-
étre aussi s’agir d’Elysia canguzua Marcus, 1955 qui n’a cependant jamais
été trouvée sur la céte des Carolines (Dr K. Clark, Florida Institute of
Technology, comm. pers.).
9. Le nom de Montagu s’est rapidement impose dans la littérature
pour désigner |’ E/ysia verte commune sur les cotes atlantiques européennes et
en Méditerranée. C’est sous ce nom qu’elle figure dans les ouvrages suivants,
choisis pour montrer que cet usage n’est limité ni 4 un pays ni a une €poque:
Cantraine, 1841, p. 66; Meyer & Mobius, 1865, p. 7; Jeffreys, 1869, p. 31;
Bergh, 1872, p. 176; Sars, 1878, p. 323; Carus, 1889-1893, p. 229; Vayssiere,
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 207
1913, p. 240; Tchang Si, 1931, p. 134; Nobre, 1938-1940, p. 77; Odhner,
1939, p. 13; Pruvot-Fol, 1954, p. 199; Nordsieck, 1972, p. 41; Fez, 1974, p.
44; Thompson & Brown, 1976, p. 52; Barletta, 1980, p. 46; Bouchet, 1984,
p. 20. Ces ouvrages servent ou ont servi de référence pour la détermination
par les non-spécialistes et le nom d’Elysia viridis (Montagu, 1804) figure
dans d’innombrables publications d’anatomie, de faunistique, ou d’écolo-
gie. Enfin, depuis une quinzaine d’années, cette espéce a servi de matériel
biologique expérimental pour l’étude de la symbiose entre les tissus
animaux et les chloroplastes des algues vertes: Taylor, 1968; Hinde &
Smith, 1972, 1975; Trench & Gooday, 1973; Trench, Boyle & Smith, 1973a
et b, 1974.
10. Si le nom de Montagu ne peut étre utilisé, le premier synonyme
utilisable est Aplysiopterus neapolitanus Delle Chiaje, 1830, p. 31. Aprés
Delle Chiaje, ce nom n’a jamais été cité dans la littérature autrement que dans
la synonymie d’ Elysia viridis (Montagu, 1804), a la suite de Cantraine, 1841.
11. Dans l’intérét de la stabilité de la nomenclature, je demande
donc a la Commission:
(1) dutiliser les pleins pouvoirs:
(a) pour régler que le nom de genre Laplisia Lamarck, 1801
est une orthographe incorrecte subséquente de Laplysia
Linnaeus, 1767;
(b) pour supprimer le nom d’espéce viridis Bosc, 1801, publié
dans le bindme Laplisia viridis, ainsi que toutes ses utilisa-
tions antérieures a celle par Montagu, 1804, vis a vis du
Principe de Priorité et du Principe d Homonymie;
(2) de placer le nom viridis Montagu, 1804, publié dans le bindme
Laplysia (émendé en Aplysia par l’Opinion 200) viridis, dans la
Liste Officielle des Noms d’Espéces en Zoologie.
(3) de placer le nom viridis Bosc, 1801, supprimé sous les pleins
pouvoirs en (1)(b) ci-dessus, dans I’Index Officiel des Noms
Spécifiques Rejetés et Invalides en Zoologie.
REFERENCES
BARLETTA, G. 1980. Gasteropodi Nudi. (Guide per il riconoscimento delle specie
animali delle acque lagunari e costiere italiane, 3). Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche, Genova. 124 pp.
BERGH, R. 1872. Malacologische Untersuchungen. Theil 1, Heft 4, pp. 177-204, in
Semper, C., 1867-1916. Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen, Band 2. Wiesbaden.
BLAINVILLE, H. M. D. DE 1823a. Article ‘Liévre marin’, pp. 316-328, in
Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles, vol. 26. Levrault, Paris.
1823b. Monographie du genre Aplysie (Aplysia Lin.). J. Physique, vol. 96, pp.
277-288.
1825. Manuel de Malacologie et de conchyliologie. Levrault, Paris. 664 pp.
208 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
BOSC, L. 1801. Histoire naturelle des Vers, contenant leur description et leurs
moeurs; avec figures dessinées d’aprés nature, tome 1. Deterville, Paris. 324
pp.
1803. Article Laplésie, pp. 552-553, in Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire
naturelle, vol. 12. Deterville, Paris. 566 pp.
1817. Article “Laplysie’, pp. 314-315, in Noveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire
naturelle, vol. 17 ((1817) et planche E23 (Mollusques) du volume 20 (1818).
Deterville, Paris.
BOUCHET, P. 1984. Les Elysiidae de Méditerranée. Ann. Inst. océanogr. Paris, vol.
60, pp. 19-28.
CANTRAINE, F. 1841. Malacologie méditerranéenne et littorale. Nouv. Mem.
Acad. Bruxelles, vol. 13, pp. 1-173.
CARUS, J. V. 1889-93. Prodromus faunae Mediterraneae. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.
854 pp.
CUVIER, G. 1803. Mémoire sur le genre Laplysia, vulgairement nommé Liévre
marin; sur son anatomie, et sur quelques-unes de ses espéces. Ann. Mus. Hist.
nat., vol. 2, pp. 287-314.
1817. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire et a l’anatomie des Mollusques. Article
9: Sur le genre Aplysia, vulgairement nommé Liévre marin. Deterville, Paris.
DELLE CHIAJE, S. 1830. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli Animali senza
Vertebre del regno di Napoli, vol. 4. Napoli, 214 pp.
DESHAYES, G. 1830. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol.
2(2), pp. 1-144. Agasse, Paris.
1836. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, 2éme édition, vol. 7.
Bailliére, Paris. 736 pp.
ENGEL, H. 1934. Les Aplysies de M. De Blainville. J. Conchyl., vol. 78, pp. 83-90.
FERUSSAC, A. 1822a. Tableaux systématiques des animaux Mollusques...
A. Bertrand, Paris. 47+ 110 pp.
1822b. Article Actaeon, pp. 104-105, in Dictionnaire classique d'histoire
naturelle, vol. 1. Rey & Gravier, Paris. 604 pp.
FEZ, S. DE 1974. Ascoglosos y Nudibranquios de Espana y Portugal. Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Valencia. 325 pp.
HINDE, R. & SMITH, D. C. 1972. Persistence of functional chloroplasts in Elysia
viridis. Nature, vol. 239(88), pp. 30-31.
—— & 1975. The role of photosynthesis in the nutrition of the mollusc
Elysia viridis. Biol. J. linn. Soc., London, vol. 7, pp. 161-171.
JEFFREYS, J. G. 1869. British Conchology, vol. 5. Van Voorst, London. 258 pp.
LAMARCK, J. B. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres. Deterville, Paris.
432 pp.
MEYER, H. A. & MOBIUS, K. 1865. Fauna der Kieler Bucht, vol. 1. Die Hinter-
kiemer oder Opisthobranchia. Engelmann, Leipzig. 86 pp.
MONTAGU, G. 1804. Description of several marine animals found on the south
coast of Devonshire. Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 7, pp. 61-85.
NOBRE, A. 1938-40. Moluscos marinhos e das aguas salobras (Fauna malacologica
de Portugal, vol. 1). Porto. 806 pp.
NORDSIECK, F. 1972. Die Europdischen Meeresschnecken. G. Fischer, Stuttgart.
327 pp.
ODHNER, N. 1939. Opisthobranchiate Mollusca from the western and northern
coasts of Norway. K. norske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., vol. 1, 1-93.
OKEN, L. 1815. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3. Zoologie; 1. Fleischlose
Thiere. A. Schmid, Iena. 850 pp.
Bull. zoel. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 209
OPINION 200. 1954. Validation, under the plenary powers, of the accustomed
usage of the generic names ‘Tethys’ Linnaeus, 1767, and ‘Aplysia’ Linnaeus,
1767 (Class Gastropoda). Opin. Decl. int. Commn. zool. Nom., vol. 3(19),
pp. 241-265.
OPINION 417. 1956. Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of volume 3 (Zoologie)
of the work by Lorenz Oken entitled ‘Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte’
published in 1815-1816. Opin. Decl. int. Commn. zool. Nom., vol. 14(1), pp.
1-42.
PRUVOT-FOL, A. 1946. Révision critique de la famille des Elysiadae. J. Conchyl.,
vol. 87, pp. 29-44.
1954. Faune de France, no. 58. Mollusques Opisthobranches. Lechevalier,
Paris. 460 pp.
RANG, S. 1828. Histoire Naturelle des Aplysiens. F. Didot, Paris. 83 pp.
RISSO, A. 1818. Mémoire sur quelques Gastéropodes nouveaux, Nudibranches et
Tectibranches observés dans la mer de Nice. J. Physique, vol. 87, pp.
368-377.
ROISSY, F. DE 1804. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des Mollusques,
tome 5 (Buffon ‘de Sonnini’, vol. 55). Dufart, Paris. 480 pp.
SARS, G. O. 1878. Mollusca Regionis Arcticae Norvegiae. Brogger, Christiania. 466
Pp.
TAYLOR, D. L. 1968. Chloroplasts as symbiotic organelles in the digestive gland
of Elysia viridis. J. mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., vol. 48, pp. 1-15.
TCHANG SI, 1931. Contribution a l’étude des Mollusques Opisthobranches de la céte
provencale. Lyon. 221 pp.
THOMPSON, T. & BROWN, G. 1976. British Opisthobranch Molluscs. Synopses of
the British fauna, vol. 8. Academic Press, London. 203 pp.
TRENCH, R. K., BOYLE, J. E. & SMITH, D. C. 1973. The association between
chloroplasts of Codium fragile and the mollusc Elysia viridis. 1. Characteristics
of isolated Codium chloroplasts; 2. Chloroplast ultrastructure and the
photosynthetic carbon fixation in E. viridis. Proc. r. Soc., (B) vol. 184(1074),
pp. 51-61, 63-81.
: & 1974. Ibid., 3. Movement of photosynthetically fixed 14C
in tissues of intact living E. viridis and Tridachia crispata. Proc. r. Soc., (B)
vol. 185(1081), pp. 453-464.
VAYSSIERE, A. 1913. Mollusques de la France et des régions voisines, 1. Doin,
Paris. 418 pp.
210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
ORBICULA CUVIER, 1798 (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION. Z.N.(S.)2545
By C. H. C. Brunton (Department of Palaeontology, British Museum
(Natural History), London SW7 SBD) and Daphne E. Lee (Geology
Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand)
This case involves the inarticulate brachiopod genus Orbicula
Cuvier, 1798 (p. 435) with its only named (and thus type) species, Patella
anomala Miller, 1776 (p. 237). P. anomala is a well understood living North
Atlantic brachiopod belonging to the family CRANIIDAE, whereas the name
Orbicula has been surrounded by confusion from its inception and for most
of its history has been applied to a genus in a different superfamily of
brachiopods, the DISCINACEA. There are fundamental differences in their
shell fabrics. The name Orbicula has been used almost entirely in synonymy
for over a hundred years. We wish to separate a group of craniid brachiopods
as a genus distinct from known genera and based upon P. anomala.
However, to reintroduce the name Orbicula would cause great confusion
to palaeontologists and zoologists studying brachiopods, and we seek the
suppression of that name in order to clear the ground for establishing a new
generic name within the CRANIDAE (Lee & Brunton, in press).
2. Miller first briefly described Patella anomala in 1776 (p. 237); in
1788 (p. 4 & pl. 5) he redescribed the species in detail and provided good
(for his day) and identifiable illustrations. In describing the shell he wrote that
the exterior [of the dorsal valve] was rough and dark brown in colour; his
coloured illustrations (pl. 5, figs 1 & 2) show this, which is the proteinaceous
periostracum. He continued by writing that the interior of the valve was
white to blueish and strongly endopunctate. This colour indicates that the
shell was calcareous, as in all craniids.
3. Cuvier (1798, p. 435) introduced the name Orbicula with a brief
and very general description of the dorsal valve. He named only P. anomala
Miller within Orbicula, but included no figures.
4. Illustrations attributed to Cuvier appeared for the first time after
his death in 1832, in the third edition of the ‘Régne Animal (1845, pp.
250-251, pl. 134), in which P. anomala and Anomia turbinata Poli, 1795
were included in Orbicula, and a clearly named species Orbicula lamellosa
(Broderip, 1833), which is now the type species of the discinid genus Discinisca
Dall, 1871, was illustrated. Discinids have brown chitino-phosphatic shells,
lacking endopunctation; they are never calcareous.
5. The confusion between chitino-phosphatic discinids and the
calcareous shelled craniids arose when, according to Dall (1871, p. 40),
some specimens sent by J. Sowerby to Lamarck were described by the latter
as Discina ostreoides in 1819 (p. 237). In 1822 (p. 468) G. B. Sowerby
published descriptions of other conspecific examples from the same
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 211
collection as Orbicula norvegica, thus associating the name Orbicula with
discinids. Because of this and also possibly because of the ambiguity of
Cuvier’s original description of Orbicula, all major brachiopod workers
until the mid-1860s used the name Orbicula solely for pedically attached
chitino-phosphatic discinids. Of about twenty papers published from 1822
to 1862 the currently held view was clearly stated by Chenu (1862, pp.
230-231) when he included Crania anomala amongst his species illustrating
Crania Retzius, 1781, and used ‘Orbicula Cuvier, 1798’ as the diagnostic
genus for a new separate family.
6. Early 19th century authors such as Gray (1825, p. 243) recognised
that P. anomala Miller was closely related to Crania craniolaris (Linnaeus,
1758), the type species of Crania Retzius, 1781, and thus made Orbicula a
junior synonym of Crania. The combination Orbicula anomala (Miller) has
not been used in any formal systematic description, but only in synonymy
listings.
7. Sherborn (1932, p. 764) listed 68 named species in the genus Orbi-
cula published between 1800 and 1850. Of these, at the most, four should be
assigned to the craniids, while the rest are fossil or living chitino-phosphatic
discinids, now placed in the Discinacea.
8. This long-standing use of the name Orbicula for discinids declined
after 1853 when Davidson (p. 128) pointed out that ‘as the term Orbicula in
the Cuvierian and Lamarckian sense is merely a synonym of Crania, we are
obliged to adopt the genus Discina, proposed and described by Lamarck in
1819...’ In a footnote on p. 128 Davidson further noted ‘that it would
certainly be more convenient, under all circumstances, to prevent confusion,
to use Discina instead of Orbicula, and to suppress altogether the latter
name’. In 1871 Dall, in a revision of craniids and discinids, also placed
Orbicula as a synonym of Crania, because P. anomala was recognised as a
Crania species.
9. In the Brachiopoda Zoological Records from 1902 there is only
one taxonomic reference (Roch, 1930, p. 421) to Orbicula, where it is placed
in the DISCINACEA. Thus for over fifty years, and virtually for over one
hundred years, the name Orbicula has been out of use. In the Brachiopod
volume of the Treatise (Williams et a/., 1965, H290) it appears as a junior
synonym of Crania, but nowhere, so far as we can determine, as a valid
name in its own right.
10. To reintroduce Orbicula for a craniid brachiopod, when it was
so widely accepted as a discinid, would further exacerbate the ‘confusion of
forms existing in this unfortunate family’ (Dall, 1871, p. 38, referring to the
DISCINIDAE). We believe that zoologists and palaeontologists would find it
hard to accept that Orbicula be reintroduced as a craniid genus.
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Orbicula
Cuvier, 1798, and any emendations, for the purpose of the
Principle of Priority.
212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
names in Zoology the name Orbicula Cuvier, 1798, as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) above.
REFERENCES
BRODERIP, W. J. 1833. Descriptions of some new species of Cuvier’s family of
brachiopods. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Vol. 1, pp. 124-125.
CHENU, J. C. 1862. Manuel de chonchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique,
Vol. 2. Masson, Paris. 327 pp.
CUVIER, G. C. F. D. 1798. Tableau elémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux.
Paris. 710 pp.
1845. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation. pt. 5, 3rd(Disciples)
edition. 2 vols. Masson, Paris. iv+257 pp. + 139 pl.
DALL, W. H. 1871. Report on the brachiopoda obtained by the U.S. Coast Survey
Expedition in charge of L. F. Pourtales, with a revision of the Craniidae and
Discinidae .Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Vol. 3, pp. 1-45.
DAVIDSON, T. 1853. On the classification of the brachiopoda. British fossil
brachiopoda. Vol. 1, pp. 41-136, pls. 26-30. Palaeontological Society
Monograph, London.
GRAY, J. E. 1825. Observations on the synonyma of the genera Anomia, Crania,
Orbicula, and Discina. Ann. Phil. London, pp. 241-244.
LAMARCK, J. B. P. A. DE M. DE 1819. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans
vertébres, Vol. 6, Pt. 1. Paris. 343 pp.
LEE, D. E. & BRUNTON, C. H. C. (in press). Neocrania n.gen. and a revision of
Cretaceous — Recent brachiopod genera in the family Craniidae. Bull. Br.
Mus. nat. Hist. (Geol.), vol. 40(4).
LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Syst. nat. Ed. 10, vol. 1, Regnum animale, ii+824 pp.
Stockholm.
MULLER, O. F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus seu animalium Daniae et
Norvegiae inigenarum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium.
Havniae. 282 pp.
1788. Zoologia Danica .. . 3rd Ed, Vol. 1. Havniae. iv+ 52 pp., 40 pl.
POLI, J. X. 1795. Testacea ustriusque Siciliae eorumque historia et anatome. Vol. 2.
Parma. 189 pp.
ROCH, E. 1930. Etudes géologiques dans la région méridionale du Maroc occidental.
Notes et Mémoires, Service des Mines et de la Carte Géologique du Maroc.
vol. 9, pp. 1-542, pls 22, 23.
SHERBORN, C. A. 1932. Index animalium. Epilogue, additions to bibliography,
additions and corrections, and index to trivia. British Museum, London.
1098 pp.
SOWERBY, G. B. 1822. Remarks on the genera Orbicula and Crania of Lamarck,
with descriptions of two species of each genus. Trans. Linn. Soc. London, vol.
13, pt. 2, pp. 465-473, pl. 26.
WILLIAMS, A. et al. 1965. Brachiopoda. Jn Moore, R. C. (Ed.) Treatise on inverte-
brate paleontology, Pt. H, 2 vols. The Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press. 927 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 213
CRIOPUS POLI, 1791 AND CRIOPODERMA POLIT, 1795
(BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION. Z.N.(S.)2546
By C. H.C. Brunton (Department of Palaeontology, British Museum
(Natural History), London SW7 5BD) and Daphne E. Lee (Geology
Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand)
This case involves two names, Criopus and Criopoderma, introduced
by Poli in 1791 and 1795, applied to a number of brachiopods. They are
available as generic names, but were used by Poli to denote different parts of
the same animal, yet at the same time to unite species now placed in different
classes, and their reintroduction would cause considerable confusion.
Neither name has been subsequently used as the supposedly valid name of a
taxon. We therefore seek their suppression.
2. Poli (1791, p. 34) introduced the name Criopus to include the soft
parts (in contrast to the external shells) of various species of brachiopod. In
1795 Poli (pp. 189-191) reused Criopus, in the binomen Criopus fimbriatus,
for the soft parts of Anomia turbinata Poli, 1795 (a craniid inarticulate) and
A. truncata Linnaeus, 1758 (a kraussinid articulate). On page 255 he
introduced the name Criopoderma in a tabulation indicating that it was the
generic name for the shells of Criopus species, and on page 261 he tabulated
Criopoderma turbinata, truncata Linnaeus and caputserpentis Linnaeus
(=retusa Linnaeus, Opinion 924, 1970) as the shells of these three species.
3. Poli’s usage follows a not unusual practice of his day in separating
the hard from the soft parts of individual species. Thus, for example, Poli’s
own well described and illustrated Anomia turbinata (p. 189, pl. 30) is
separated into its shelly valves, under Criopoderma, while its internal soft
parts are called Criopus. Even though different names were used for different
parts of an animal they are nomenclaturally available under Article 17 of
the Code. Poli’s use of Criopus and Criopoderma leads to the nowadays
untenable position of: (a) the hard parts and soft parts of single species
being separated and (b) brachiopod species currently assigned to different
classes, inarticulates and articulates, being grouped into a single genus.
4. Davidson (1853, p. 122), while placing Criopus in synonymy with
Crania Retzius, 1781, noted that it referred only to the animal (not the shell).
In 1871 Dall (p. 27 and p 35) indicated that he did not consider Criopus and
Criopoderma as true synonyms of Crania because in his view they had not
been published according to the rules of binominal nomenclature. In more
recent times the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Brachiopoda
(Williams et al., 1965, p. H290) included ‘?Criopus Poli, 1791’ (incorrectly
citing Anomia imperforata as type species) and Criopoderma Poli, 1795
(citing the first named true species Anomia turbinata as the type species).
5. Crania has an extensive and complicated synonomy. The reintro-
duction of Poli’s generic names would further complicate the situation,
especially so when any groups of craniid species were deemed separable as
genera in the modern sense.
214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
6. The name Cryopus Deshayes, 1836 (p. 314) is an unjustified
emendation of Criopus Poli, and should be similarly suppressed.
7. In his Index Universalis (p. 301) of 1848 Agassiz ‘corrected’
Criopoderma Poli to Criopododerma; since this Agassiz name is simply an
unjustified emendation it too should be suppressed.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names Criopus
Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (including Cryopus
Deshayes, 1836, Criopododerma Agassiz, 1848, and any other
emendations) for the purposes of the Principle of Priority;
(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
names in Zoology the names Criopus Poli, 1791, Cryopus
Deshayes, 1836, Criopoderma Poli, 1795 and Criopododerma
Agassiz, 1848, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
above.
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, L. 1848. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, ... x+1135 pp.
Soloduri.
DALL, W. H. 1871. Report on the brachiopods obtained by the U.S. Coast Survey
Expedition in charge of L. F. Pourtales, with a revision of the Craniidae and
Discinidae. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., vol. 3, pp. 1-45.
DAVIDSON, T. 1853. On the classification of the brachiopoda. British fossil
brachiopoda. Vol. 1, pp. 41-136. Palaeontographical Society Monograph,
London.
DESHAYES, G. P. 1836. In Lamarck, J. B. P. A. DE M. DE. Histoire naturelle des
Animaux sans vertébres, ... 2 iéme ed., revue et augmentée de notes ... par
MM. G. P. Deshayes et H. Milne Edwards. Tom 7. Paris et Londres.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1970. Opinion 924. Bull.
zool. Nom. Vol. 27, pp. 85-86.
POLI, J. X. 1791. Testacea utriusque Siciliae eorumque historia et anatome. Vol. 1,
Parma. xiv+214 pp.
1795. Testacea utriusque Siciliae eorumque historia et anatome. Vol. 2,
Parma. pp. 189.
WILLIAMS, A. et al. 1965. Brachiopoda. In Moore, R. C. (Ed.) Treatise on inverte-
brate paleontology. Pt. H, 2 vols. The Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press. 927 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 215
CRANIA TUBERCULATA NILSSON, 1826 (BRACHIOPODA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION OF
CRANIOLITES BRATTENBURGICUS SCHLOTHEIM, 1820.
Z.N.(S.)2551
By C. H.C. Brunton (Department of Palaeontology, British Museum
(Natural History), London SW7 5BD) and Daphne E. Lee (Geology
Department, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand)
This is a case for the suppression of an ill-defined senior name,
Craniolites brattenburgicus Schlotheim, 1820, on the ground that the slightly
younger and much better described synonym Crania tuberculata Nilsson,
1826, has long been accepted.
2. Schlotheim (1820, p. 246) figured, without a formal description,
Craniolites brattenburgicus from limestones and reworked limestones at
Copenhagen (the late Danian Saltholm limestone at South Harbour,
Copenhagen yields this species). His figures (pl. 28, fig. 5a, b) were poor and
of little value in species recognition. Schlotheim appears to have erected the
genus as one within his own concept of an Anomia group (Anomia is now a
molluscan genus) ignoring the creation of Crania by Retzius in 1781, or
as an (unstated) replacement for Retzius’ name. In his discussion of C.
brattenburgicus, a name very close to Crania brattensburgensis Retzius, 1781
[a junior subjective synonym of Anomia craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758, the type
species of Crania, as designated by Schmidt in 1818], Schlotheim (1820, p.
249) contrasted his species with what he called ‘Craniol. craniolaris’, but he
did not mention the Retzius specific name.
3. Nilsson (1826, p. 326, emended 1827, p. 37) described Crania
tuberculata as a new species from hard Danian limestones in Scania, south
Sweden. The species was well described and illustrated (1826, pl. 2, figs 3a—c
and 1827, pl. 3, figs 1OA—C).
4. The first review of Crania species was by Hoeninghaus (1828),
who accepted Nilsson’s C. tuberculata in the place of Schlotheim’s species
name. Hoeninghaus recorded the species from Sweden and from limestone
blocks in a sandpit near Copenhagen. He repeated and added to Nilsson’s
description and provided good illustrations (figs 7a—d).
5. In 1885 Lundgren suggested (p. 27) that brattenburgicus
Schlotheim was a mis-spelling for brattenburgensis Retzius, and rejected
Schlotheim’s name.
6. Carlsson (1958), describing the Cretaceous Crania species from
Sweden, followed a mention in a synonymy list by Wind (1953, p. 79) and
on p. 27 exhumed the name C. brattenburgicus. Schlotheim’s name was also
used by Kruytzer & Meijer (1958, p. 135) for specimens from Holland, but
later Kruytzer (1969, p. 14) rejected Schlotheim’s name in favour of Crania
tuberculata Nilsson, which had been designated as type species of Danocrania
(see 7 below).
216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
7. Kongiel (1958, p. 17) designated some late Danian beds in Poland
as being characterized by Crania tuberculata Nilsson. Rosenkrantz (1964)
reviewed Crania species in Poland, and on page 515 he erected the new
subgenus Danocrania, with Crania tuberculata Nilsson as type species
(within which he included C. brattenburgicus Schlotheim). In the synonymy
Rosenkrantz commented that Hoeninghaus’ 1828 description of C. tuber-
culata was based on Schlotheim’s specimens from ‘Copenhagen’ (certainly
there was collaboration between these authors, and Schlotheim did not die
until 1832). Furthermore, in a footnote on page 514, Rosenkrantz deplored
Carlsson’s 1958 reintroduction of Schlotheim’s name because, as he pointed
out, tuberculata had been used for 132 years; a label written by Schlotheim
with his specimens in the Humboldt University Museum, Berlin, shows that
Schlotheim had himself accepted Nilsson’s name in place of brattenburgicus,
and finally Rosenkrantz pointed out that C. tuberculata had become
adopted as the name of a zone in the Upper Danian.
8. Danocrania Rosenkrantz, 1964, is now an accepted genus with
C. tuberculata as type species.
9. In view of the poor description of Craniolites brattenburgicus
Schlotheim, 1820, and its lack of use for over 150 years, other than by three
connected publications in the mid-1950s, we propose the suppression of the
name. In contrast, the description of Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 is full
and well illustrated; his name was accepted by contemporary authors
including Schlotheim, and has remained in use ever since. C. tuberculata is a
species giving its name to a late Danian zone and it has become the type
species of Danocrania Rosenkrantz, 1964. Thus to allow the reintroduction
of Schlotheim’s name would be highly confusing to palaeontologists and
stratigraphers.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic and specific
names Craniolites and brattenburgicus Schlotheim, 1820, and
any emendations, for the purpose of the Principle of Priority;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name tuberculata Nilsson, 1826, as published in the binomen
Crania tuberculata;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Craniolites Schlotheim, 1820, as
published in the binomen Craniolites brattenburgicus, and as
suppressed in (1) above;
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name brattenburgicus Schlotheim, 1820,
as published in the binomen Craniolites brattenburgicus, and as
suppressed in (1) above.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 217
REFERENCES
CARLSSON, J. G. 1958. Le Genre Crania du terrain crétacé de la Suéde. Lunds.
Univ. Ars. N.F. Avd. 2, Bd. 45, pp. 1-32.
HOENINGHAUS, F. W. 1828. Beitrag zur Monographie der Gattung Crania.
Schiller, Krefeld. 12 pp.
KONGIEL, R. 1958. Sur les radioles des Echinides des couches a Crania tuberculata
Nilss. a Borszew prés de Sochaczew. Prace Muzeum Ziemi. vol. 2, pp. 17-27.
KRUYTZER, E. M. 1969. Le genre Crania du Crétacé supérieur et du Post-
Maastrichtien de la province de Limbourg Néerlandais (Brachiopoda:
Inarticulata). Publ. Natuurhist. Genootschap. Limburg. vol. 19, pp. 1-42.
KRUYTZER, E. M. & MEIJER, M. 1958. On the occurrence of Crania bratten-
burgica (v. Schlotheim 1820) in the region of Maastricht (Netherlands).
Natuurhist. Maandbl., vol. 47, pp. 135-141.
LUNDGREN, B. 1885. Undersokning-ar 6Ofver brachiopoderna i Sveriges
kritsystem. Lunds Univ. Ars., vol. 20, pt. 4, 72 pp.
NILSSON, S. 1826. Brattensburgspenningen (Anomia craniolaris Lin.) och dess
samslagt ingar 1 zoologiskt och geologiskt afseende undersokte. K. svenska
Vetensk Akad. Hanadl. (1825), pp. 324-328.
1827. Petrificata suecana formationis Cretaceae. Londinim Gothorum, pt. 1,
pp. 1-39. Lund.
RETZIUS, A. J. 1781. Crania order Todtenkopfs-Muschel. Schrift. Berlin Ges.
Naturforsch. Freunde, vol. 2, pp. 66—76, pl. 1.
ROSENKRANTZ, A. 1964. Note on some Cranias from central Poland. Acta
Paleontol. Polonica, vol. 5, pp. 241-272.
SCHLOTHEIM, E. F. VON. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen
Standpunkte. vol. 1, Gotha. 388 pp.
SCHMIDT, F. C. 1818. Versuch uber die beste Einrichtung zur Aufstellung...
Gotha. 252 pp.
WIND, J. 1953. Kridtaflejringer i Jylland. Flora og Fauna, vol. 59, pp. 73-84.
218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
TRICHOMONAS DONNE, 1836 (PROTOZOA, MASTIGOPHORA):
PROPOSED CONFIRMATION OF SPELLING. Z.N.(S.)245
By The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature
The flagellate Protistans known as trichomonads are universally
distributed in the intestinal and genito-urinary tracts of man and other
animals. A number of species can be pathogenic, and in particular hundreds
of papers each year refer to Trichomonas vaginalis.
2. A nomenclatural problem arises because the first description of a
trichomonad (Donné, 1836) introduced the name as Trico-monas. An
adoption of Tricomonas as the correct spelling would have particularly
serious effects for the automatic information retrieval procedures now used
to scan the medical literature, and conservation of the universally used
Trichomonas is particularly urgent since the Council for International
Organisations of Medical Sciences is preparing an authoritative
International Nomenclature of Diseases.
3. The question of Trichomonas, together with four other important
protistan genera, was in fact referred to the Commission in 1926. Although
Endamoeba and Trypanosoma were placed on the Official List by Opinion
95 (Smithson. misc. Coll. vol. 73, pp. 14-15), consideration of Trichomonas,
Balantidium and Giardia was deferred (despite apparent lack of controversy
in acceptance of the spelling Trichomonas) and no action followed.
4. The spelling of Trichomonas was next discussed in a letter from
Professor Harold Kirby of the University of California, received in January
1947. This was followed later in the year by a draft application. Due to lack
of resources the Secretary of the Commission (A. F. Hemming) did not pro-
ceed further until 1954, when, following correspondence with Dr Ellsworth
C. Dougherty of the University of California (Kirby having died in 1952).,
Dr J. O. Corliss and others, the application was prepared for publication.
Unfortunately this was never completed and the matter lapsed. The present
application relies heavily on the work of Kirby, Hemming, Dougherty and
Corliss.
5. The nomenclatural history is as follows. In a letter to the
Académie des Sciences, Donné (1836, p. 386), after a description of motile
cells found in infected vaginal fluid, wrote *... J'ai soumis ces animalcules
a l’examen de M. Dujardin: suivant cet observateur, aucun infusoire
semblable n’a été observé ni décrit; il se rapproche des Monas par sa
trompe et des Tricodes par ces cils, mais il différe des uns et des autres par la
réunion de ces deux organes; il forme donc un genre nouveau qui pourrait
porter le nom de Trico-monas vaginale’. The following year Donné (1837,
p. 464) gave the name as trico monas vaginale.
6. In 1838 Ehrenberg (p. 331) printed the name of Donné’s organ-
ism in emended form as Trichomonas vaginalis, and it has so remained ever
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986 219
since. This spelling of the specific name is correct under Article 3 I(c) of the
Code.
7. Dujardin (1841, pp. 299-300) gave an account of T; richomonas,
including in it the two species T. vaginalis and T. limacis.
8. Agassiz (1846, p. 376) listed the names Tricomonas Donné, 1837
and Trichomonas Ehr., 1838; he omitted reference to Donné’s fuller 1836
paper. Apstein (1915, p. 122) included ‘Trichomonas Donné, 1837 vaginalis
Donné, 1837’ in a list of suggested Nomina Conservanda; similarly, Stiles
and Hassall (1925, p. 27) placed in the Key Catalogue of Protozoa reported
for Man the genus Trichomonas Donné, 1837 with type vaginalis Donné,
1837.
9. Although in 1926 the Secretary of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature recommended that the Commission adopt
‘Trichomonas (Donné, 1837) Ehrenb., 1838a, 331 (emendation of
Tricomonas), mt. vaginalis Donné, 1837’, and there was no dissent, this was
never completed, as mentioned above.
10. Sherborn (1931, pp. 6581, 6590) listed the names ‘Trichomonas
F. Dujardin ... Infusoires, June 1841, 300; Trichomonas L. Agassiz,
Nomen. Zool. Index Univ. 1846—emend. pro Tricomonas, Donné’;
‘Tricomonas Donné in F. Dujardin, C.R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) III, 1836, 386’.
Sherborn omitted references to Trichomonas Ehrenberg, 1838, wrongly
implying that Agassiz had changed Donné’s spelling.
11. Neave (1940, p. 551 and p. 544) listed as generic names
‘Tricomonas Donné 1836 in Dujardin, C.R. Acad. Sci. (Paris), 3, 386’ and
‘Trichomonas (pro Trico- Donné, 1836) Dujardin 1841, ... Infusoires,
300°. Neave followed Sherborn in not referring to Ehrenburg.
12. In his 1836 description of the organism Donné made particular
reference to the cilia, and it is clear that his name is derived from the Greek
words conventionally, then as now, transliterated as trichos (=of hair) and
monas (=a unit, or cell).
13. Family-group names based on Trichomonas are TRICHOMONADI-
DEA Grassi, 1882 (p. 141); TRICHOMONADINAE Chalmers and Pekkola, 1918
(p. 251); and TRICHOMONADIDAE Wenyon, 1926 (p. 286). Under Article
11(f)(i1) of the Code the author is Grassi, 1882.
14. As noted earlier, it is of high medical and veterinary importance
that the universal spelling Trichomonas be conserved. This could be done by
suppression of the senior synonym Tricomonas Donné, 1836 in favour of
Trichomonas Ehrenberg, 1838. However, as suggested many years ago by
Kirby in his draft application to the Commission, and as was informally
agreed at that time, ‘the authorship of the genus [and discovery of the
taxon] has been credited to Donné, and it does not seem proper to alter the
authorship completely because of a correction in transliteration’.
15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the correct spelling of the
generic name Tricomonas Donné, 1836 is Ti richomonas;
220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 2, July 1986
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Trichomonas Donné, 1836 (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy Trichomonas vaginalis Donné, 1836;
spelling confirmed as in (1) above;
to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name vaginalis Donné, 1836, as published in the binomen
Tricomonas vaginale (specific name of the type species of
Trichomonas Donné, 1836);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name TRICHOMONADIDAE Grassi, 1882 (type genus
Trichomonas Donné, 1836).
(3
—
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, J. L. R. 1846. Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis. Soloduri.
vili + 392 pp.
APSTEIN, C. 1915. Nomina Conservanda. S.B. Ges. natiirf. Fr. Berlin, Jahrgang
1915, pp. 119-202.
CHALMERS, A. J. & PEKKOLA, W. 1918. Chilomastix mesnili (Wenyon, 1910).
Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., vol. 11, pp. 213-264.
DONNE, A. 1836. Animalcules observés dans les ... sécrétions des organes
genitaux de homme et de la femme. C.r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris, vol.
3, pp. 385-386.
1837. Recherches sur la nature des mucus ... description de nouveaux
animalcules découverts ... C.r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris vol. 4,
pp. 464-465.
DUJARDIN, F. 1841. Histoire Naturelle des Zoophytes. Infusoires,... Paris.
xii + 683 pp.
EHRENBERG, C. G. 1838. Die Infusionsthierchen als vollkommene Organismen.
Leipzig. xvili+ 547 pp.
GRASSI, G. B. 1882. Intorno ad alcuni protisti endoparassitici ed appartenenti alle
classi dei Flagellati, Lobosi, Sporozoi e Ciliati. Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat., vol.
24, pp. 135-224.
NEAVE, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 4. Zoological Society of London.
758 pp.
SHERBORN, C. D. 1931. Index Animalium 1801-1850, vol. T-Z. London. 695 pp.
STILES, C. W. & HASSALL, A. 1925. Bull. U.S. Hyg. Lab., vol. 140.
WENYON, C. M. 1926. Protozoology. A manual for Medical Men, Veterinarians
and Zoologists. Bailli¢re, Tindall & Cox, London, 2 vols., 1563 pp.
Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera). G. C. D. Griffiths, K. A.
Spencer & G.C. Steyskal . . Sy Eat) Pee lg eee ae 170
Microgaster Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.R.M. Mason . 173
Sigara scholtzi Fieber, [1860] (Insecta, Heteroptera).A.Jansson . . . 175
Micronecta griseola Horvath, 1899 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Corixidae). A.
|S RS A Bie hae Day ith Sik 08" a0 (A ion ca ar ea 178
Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 (Protozoa, Foraminiferida). H. J.
SUR eMnCSS GAP, i 45'V0 (AEE P RS IEREG) AS Socal. 181
Agromyza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera). K. A. Spencer & G. C.
BEER cca fs yt gs ah at ome LS Zl a hice pe Nil 183
Tropiphorus Schénherr, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg . . 186
Tetropium Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). M.
CE cE BIN Remi oo || bee > 188
Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Th. C. H.
Beomerman & H.E:Coomatiin, 3,0. 005. 2 Pa ee. 19]
Siphamia Weber, 1909 and Siphamia permutata Klausewitz, 1966
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes). J. E. Randall, E. A. Lachner & T. H.
RCE oN hs. fos ete ee MD) Cae Mea © gi OLN GE SSE Res 193
Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera). J. C. Watt & R. A.
Co RRs emt =. ke. ila al OAT eh Ni Oar aa 196
SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913, MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 and EUOMPHALIDAE
de Koninck, 1881 (Gastropoda, Archaeogastropoda). The late J.
Brookes Knight;R.L.Batten&E.Yochelson . . . . . . : 199
Laplysia viridis Montagu, 1804 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet. . 205
Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 (Brachiopoda). C. H. C. Brunton & D. E. Lee . : 210
Criopus Poli, 1791 and Criopoderma Poli, 1795 (Brachiopoda). C. H. C.
Peastemite DB Lee vi Bue et eae oe (gel sein) uutih a : 213
Crania tuberculata Nilsson, 1826 (Brachiopoda). C. H. C. Brunton &
SRC Fah Fe ch tM rd vos Lay nt ment ese ot 215
Trichomonas Donné, 1836 (Protozoa, Mastigophora). Executive
Secretary Sd PAGS Bete ech. Birk uN kee 218
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express
its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British
Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission.
CONTENTS
Page
Officers and Members Ob Die Comission 5: 2) i eke eee ee iii
Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature iv
Moticee ree ARG ose ee nmnieet oc 33) dar uth Sano, 115
Special Wauondesmenia fata.) edie acon wT pee ee 118
Con
On Cheirurus Beyrich, 1845 (Trilobita). H. B. Whittington Pee pe 118
On Olpium Koch, 1873 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida). R. Schuster 118
On pet Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Heteroptera). J. sigs G8 W. R.
LMSC. OW Ogee Ve VAP RRR Ss BRS sae 119
On Hatschekia Poche, 1902 (Copepoda). Z. Kabata 2 120
Opinions
Opinion 1383. Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . . 121
Opinion 1384. Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia, Serpentes) . ; 123
Opinion 1385. Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832 (Reptilia, Sauria) 125
Opinion 1386. Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . 128
Opinion 1387. Curculio Rarer Fabricius, 1787 (Insecta, Coleoptera,
POON ei larritc 12) Os EIS BD Bees tee RD DON sry 130
Opinion 1388. Callionymus isopitta Pallas, 1770 (Osteichthyes,
. Callionymidae) . 132
Opinion 1389. Pha. scolosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867 (Sipunculida) . 134
Opinion 1390. Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 (Osteichthyes) . . 136
Opinion — ne Geen oe Boisduval, ai. (Insecta,
138
Opinion 1392. Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, "1853. (Bryozoa,
Cyclostomata) : 140
Opinion 1393. Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Mammalia, ‘Artiodactyla). . cate 142
Opinion 1394. Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides ornatus
Pocock, 1902 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) . 4]: is 8 Seca eal ak en Oa 144
Opinion 1395. Tomiopsis eeiikiovs. 1956 (Brachiopoda) . : 146
Opinion 1396. Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera,
| Byrrhidae) . . 148
Opinion 1397. Rhopalocerus Ww. "Redtenbacher, 1842 Alnsecta
Coleoptera, Colydidae) . : 150
~ Opinion 1398. Capys Hewitson, [1865] (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) Riv 152
Opinion 1399. Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Diptera, Calliphoridae) . 154
New and revived cases
Bubo Duméril, 1806 and Surnia Duméril (Aves). R. V. Melville 156
seks Hiibner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). E. S. Nielsen & I. W.B. is
bith UENO edie’ CoN Gh sro i a eae RITES Gay lty aie 158 —
Pelad bicolor Cope, 1896 6 (Reptilia, Squamata). s.C. 160
‘On the names of two species of Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 « dain,
at P.F.S.Cornelius&C.QGstman. . . . ... 163
Continued on Inside Back Cover
are Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset
pp. y—vi, 221-314 ISSN 0007-5167
The Bulletin
of Zoological
Nomenclature
The Official Organ of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
BRITISH MU
:
8) C.A.B. INTERNATIONAL
The Bulletin of Zoological
N
trust for Zoological Nomenclature
useum (Natural History)
oad, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent
CENTRAL SALES
C.A.B. INTERNATIONAL
FARNHAM ROYAL
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K.
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1986.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically,
mechanically, 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 yy.
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) (Vice-
President) Echinoidea; Asteroidea
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) ( Secretary-General)
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 Zoologii, 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) Palaeontology
Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad
199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea
Vi
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 5BD) (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. Dr. R. SCHUSTER (Jnstitut 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
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, C.B., F.1.Biol.
Dr. M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Dr. L.B. Holthuis
Managing Director) Dr. F.G.W. Jones
Prof. Per Brinck Prof. Dr. O. Kraus
Prof. J.H. Callomon Dr. M. Luc
Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius Dr. R.B. Manning
Prof. C.B. Cox Mr. R.V. Melville
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Dr. I.W.B. Nye
B.S. EeZs: Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio)
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D.
Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Dr. G.B. White
Prof. J. Forest Dr. A.G. Marshall (Observer for the
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Royal Society)
B. The Officers of the Trust
Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller)
Mr. J.D.D. Smith (Scientific Administrator )
Mr. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Zoologist)
Miss N.A. Erridge, B.Sc. (Assistant Zoologist)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 221
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 43, part 3 (pp. v—vi, 221-314) 6 October 1986
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 normally
extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to
comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, 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) Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed
conservation by suppression of Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831
(Reptilia, Serpentes). Z.N.(S.) 2536. W. Brinckmann.
(2) Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed
conservation by the suppression of Magnonaias Utterback,
1915. Z.N.(S.) 2512. A. E. Bogan & J. D. Williams.
(3) Ammonites neubergicus Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, Ammo-
noidea): proposed conservation by the suppression of Ammo-
nites chrishna Forbes, 1846. Z.N.(S.) 2460. R. A. Henderson &
W. J. Kennedy.
(4) Dexia Meigen, 1826 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation
of Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2252.
R. W. Crosskey, B. Herting, L. P. Mesnil & D. M. Wood.
(5) Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata,
Cribrilinidae): proposed designation of a replacement neotype.
Z.N.(S.) 2562. J.D.D. Bishop.
(6) PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda): pro-
posed precedence of CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892.
Z.N.(S.) 2557. V. D. Andronov and N. V. Vyshkvartzeva.
(7) Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 and Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposal to maintain current usage by
designation of a type species for Geonemus. Z.N.(S.) 2565. G. J.
Wibmer & C. W. O’Brien.
222
(8)
(9)
(c)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjéstedt, 1920) (Insecta, Orthoptera):
proposed conservation by suppression of Acridium ambulans
Erichson, 1842, Trigoniza manca Bolivar, 1898 and Ti rigoniza
australiensis Bolivar, 1898. Z.N.(S.)2524. K. H. L. Key.
Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia, Multituberculata): pro-
posed designation of Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 as
type species. Z.N.(S.) 2529. N. B. Simmons.
Receipt of new applications. The following new applications
have been received since going to press for vol. 43, part 2 (published on 9 July
1986):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Halitherium Kaup, 1838 and Metaxytherium de Christol, 1840
(Mammalia, Sirenia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2569.
D. P. Domning.
Eucidaris Pomel, 1883 and Stereocydaris Pomel, 1883 (Echi-
noidea): revised proposals for stabilisation. Z.N.(S.) 2570.
C. W. Wright & A. B. Smith.
Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck, 1849 (Mollusca, Coleoidea):
proposed suppression of both generic and specific names.
Z.N.(S.) 2571. P. Doyle & W. Riegraf.
Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2572. M. Mroczkowski.
Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (Insecta, Hymenop-
tera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2573. Y. A. Pesenko.
Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1937 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
designation of Phytagromyza luteoscutellata De Meijere, 1924
as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2574. K. A. Spencer.
Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro-
posed conservation by the suppression of Tribolium navale
(Fabricius, 1775). Z.N.(S.) 2575. R. D. Pope & J. C. Watt.
Scleropages leichardti Ginther, 1864 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglos-
siformes): proposed emendation of specific name to leichhardti.
Z.N.(S.) 2576. T. M. Berra.
Caenolestes fuliginosus (Tomes, 1863) (Mammalia, Marsupia-
lia): proposed suppression of holotype and designation of a
neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2577. J. Bublitz.
Pararatus Ricardo, 1913 (Insecta, Diptera): request for desig-
nation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2578. G. Daniels.
Desorella Cotteau, 1855 (Echinoidea): proposed confirmation
of Desorella elata (Desor, 1847) as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2579.
E. P. F. Rose & J. B. S. Olver.
Trypansoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Protozoa,
Mastigophora): proposed confirmation of spelling. Z.N.(S.)
2580. M. E. Tollitt.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 223
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
OBITUARY
Sir Peter Kent, FRS
Sir Peter Kent, Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature between 1974 and 1984, died on 9 July 1986. He was eminent
as a petroleum geologist and rose to become Chief Geologist and then
Exploration Manager of British Petroleum. His career took him to many
quarters of the globe, including Alaska where his exploration led to the
discovery of the North Slope Oil Fields. He was also Chairman of the
Natural Environment Research Council.
Sir Peter’s wisdom and warm-heartedness, coupled with scientific and
commercial expertise, made him an ideal chairman to guide the Trust
through severe financial difficulties at a time when the demise of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was a real possibility.
Even when he gave up the chairmanship of the Trust he continued to serve as
a member and attended the Trust’s Annual General Meeting less than a
month prior to his death.
DESIGN AND PUBLICATION OF THE BULLETIN
As reported in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, p. 320, the Trust has been
reviewing the contents and format of the Bulletin with the intention of
making it more useful and attractive. The Trust has decided to introduce, as
from the 1987 volume, a number of changes in the format of the Bulletin
including a change from AS to the larger BS size. The layout of the cover and
much of the contents will be redesigned. This will enable a larger number of
applications to be included in each part.
In addition, the Bulletin will contain more general articles on
nomenclature and related issues and authors are invited to contribute such
articles. These will be especially welcome for part 1, for which the copy
deadline is 30 November 1986.
For the last four years the Bulletin has been published by CAB Inter-
national on behalf of the Trust. As from the volume for 1987, the Trust itself
will resume publication and for 1987 will hold the subscription at the 1986
rate of £53 or $102.
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is the official periodical of
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It is published
by CAB International on behalf of the International Trust for Zoological
224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Nomenclature and appears 4 times a year in March, June, September and
December. 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 at the end of each
application. The Commission’s final decision is published in the Bulletin in
the form of an Opinion.
These instructions are primarily for those preparing applications to
the Commission. However, authors of general articles or comments should
take note of the parts relevant to them. The instructions are not intended to
be restrictive and cannot cover all situations.
Applications: These should be prepared in accordance with the
3rd Edition (1985) of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. Particular attention should be paid to the principles
for use of the Commission’s plenary powers (Article 79).
Title: This should include names to be conserved. Names to be
suppressed should not normally be in the title, but will be mentioned
in the Abstract prepared by the Secretariat. When the proposals
concern a specific name it should be cited in the original binomen
and except in the case of type species the binomen in current use
should be given. Examples:
Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum
costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of
specific name.
Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (Echinoidea, Cidaroidea): proposed desig-
nation of Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822, as type species.
THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and THAIDI-
DAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposals to remove the
homonymy.
Author(s) Name(s) and Address(es): These should be on separate
lines, with the full postal addresses underlined.
Text: This should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the
details of the case and leading up to a set of formal proposals. The
advantages (and any disadvantages) of the proposals should be
included. Text references should be given with individual page
numbers (e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described . . .”). A summary of
the main points of the case will be prepared by the Secretariat.
A case to suppress a senior synonym on the grounds that it
has not been used as the valid name for a particular taxon should be
supported by a list of at least 10 publications by at least 5 different
authors over the last 50 years in which the junior synonym has
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 225
been treated as the valid name (see Article 79c). Individual page
references should be given.
The final paragraph of the text should be in the form of
formal proposals to the Commission. Example:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers...
(2) to place on the Official List .. .
(3) to place on the Official Index...
Authors are strongly advised to consult recent parts of the
Bulletin for the construction of proposals appropriate to their
particular requests.
Bibliography: References should start with the names of all authors
in lower case, followed by the year of publication and the title of the
paper, book or monograph. In the titles of papers in periodicals,
capital letters should be used only for proper nouns and all nouns
in German. The names of periodicals should be given in full and
underlined. The nominal year of publication, if different from the
actual year, should be in parentheses immediately after the volume
number. Series number, volume number, part, fascicule and pagi-
nation number should be given in arabic figures. Part number
should be in parentheses. Page numbers should be separated from
any preceding numbers by a colon. Book titles should be underlined
and followed by the number of pages, publisher and place of publi-
cation. When a reference has been translated or transliterated, the
original language should be stated in square brackets at the end.
References should be provided for all authors cited in the text and
particularly those whose names are included in the formal proposals
to the Commission. References to subsequent designations of type
species should also be given. The following are examples of reference
styles:
Wise, K. A. J. 1957. A new species of Lithocolletis (Lepidoptera:
Gracillariidae) from New Zealand. Proceedings of the Royal
Entomological Society of London, ser. B, 26 (1—2): 26-28.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, iv+824 pp.
Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae.
Dunbar, R. W. & Vajime, C. G. 1981. Cytotaxonomy of the
Simulium damnosum complex. Pp. 31-43, in Laird, M. (ed.),
Blackflies: the future for biological methods in integrated
control. xii+399 pp. Academic Press, London and New
York.
The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in
the preparation of an application and can provide specimen applications if
required.
226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Two copies of the complete paper must be provided, typed on one side
only, in double spacing with a left-hand margin of approximately 35 mm (14
inches). The printers will set the text in house style (revised from 1987) but it
would be helpful if authors would follow this style as closely as possible in
their typescript.
Typescripts should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
c/o British Museum (Natural History)
Cromwell Road
London SW7 SBD, U.K.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF BRACHYDERES
SCHONHERR, 1823 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2490
(see vol. 42, pp. 296-301)
By Carlos Bordon (U.C.V. Facultad de Agronomia, Inst. Zoologia Agricola,
Apartado 4579, Maracay 2101-A, Venezuela)
I wish to support Dr Anne T. Howden in her efforts to preserve the name
Brachyderes Schonherr, 1823.
It is unfortunate how much time I must lose in order to stay on top of all the
nomenclature changes, which seem to have become more frequent in recent years in
the CURCULIONIDAE (e.g. Kissinger, 1962; O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982, 1986). It is
my understanding that all laws should be interpreted in spirit and not down to every
point and comma. In this sense the final objective of the International Code is to
maintain nomenclatural stability, thus avoiding disorder and confusion. If an author
describes today a genus which later on proves to be a synonym, it is logical that the
name to conserve is the oldest. But I don’t understand what is to be gained from
changing, for example, Brachyderes Schénherr, 1823 to Thylacites Germar, 1817;
Otiorhynchus Germar, 1824 to Brachyrhinus Latreille, 1802 (Kissinger, 1964), or
Naupactus Schonherr, 1833 to Alceis Billberg 1820; Zygops Schonherr, 1825 to
Eccoptus Dejean, 1821; Cholus Germar, 1824 to Archarias Dejean, 1821 (O’Brien
& Wibmer, 1982). Such changes affect the names of large subfamilies and
tribes which have been in use for almost two centuries (OTIORHYNCHINAE, BRACHYDE-
NINAE, NAUPACTINI, ZYGOPINAE and CHOLINAE). This is what I would call destabilising
nomenclature.
The use of the oldest published name simply for its own sake, even though
based upon a theoretic principle of justice, does not favor anyone and simply causes
confusion. It is this confusion which the Code tries to avoid. I urge the Commission to
discourage changes in names that have long been in use and are solidly established.
(Editorial note: the Code (Article 40) provides that when the name of a type-
genus is rejected as being a junior synonym family-group names derived from it do
not normally have to be replaced. This does not of course cover Dr Bordon’s point
about the generic names themselves, where the conservation of junior names needs
application to the Commission).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 22
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF NOMADACRIS
UVAROV, 1923 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2525
(1) By R. E. Blackith (Zoology Department, Trinity College, Dublin-2, Ireland)
I further support the case for conservation of the locust generic name
Nomadacris as stated by Key and Jago (Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 43, pp. 102-103) and
supported by Kevan (loc. cit., p. 104).
Problems of nomenclature relating to organisms of major economic import-
ance should not, I believe, be decided without taking into account the reactions of
those concerned with the organism professionally but who are not particularly inter-
ested in taxonomic nomenclature. Compilers of reports and reviews on Red Locust
ecology and control, indexers and abstractors, report writers for International and
Government agencies, and writers on and teachers of ecology may often fall into such
a category, and will particularly appreciate stability.
If Nomadacris is not formally conserved, I believe that both it and Patanga will
be used concurrently by different authors in the economic literature, possibly for
several years to come, as generic names for the Red Locust. This is not an instance of
mild inconvenience for a few specialists accustomed to such matters, but of irritation
at best, and confusion at worst, for much larger numbers of workers in Applied
Entomology, to the detriment of their work and of the respect in which the
Commission is held.
(2) The proposed precedence of Nomadacris over Patanga has also been
strongly supported by Prof. Marcello La Greca (Dipartimento di Biologia Animale,
Universita di Catania, 95124 Catania, Italy) and Dr R. F. Chapman (Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A.).
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF
CEPHALOPHOLIS ARGUS SCHNEIDER, 1801
(OSTEICHTHYES). Z.N.(S.)2470
(see vol. 42, pp. 374-378)
By G. F. Mees (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA,
Leiden, The Netherlands.)
In part A, paragraph 2, of the application it is stated that the specific name
guttata Bloch, 1790: ‘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...’
Actually, Bodianus guttatus was used throughout the last century, for example
by Valenciennes (in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828, p. 357); Gunther (1859, p. 119)
and Jordan and Evermann (1896, p. 1142). Moreover, these authors recognised
Cephalopholis argus as a valid species.
Boulenger (1895, p. 189) united the two nominal species argus and guttatus
under the name Epinephelus argus. As, in the synonymy, he recorded the year of
publication of B. guttatus correctly as 1790 with that of C. argus as 1801, it may
be assumed that Boulenger had recognised the homonymy, although he did not
expressly say so.
228 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Weber & de Beaufort (1931, p. 28) stated in the synonymy of the species they
listed as Epinephelus argus: ‘Bodianus guttatus Bloch, Ausl. Fische IV, 1790, p. 36 (nec
guttatus L.)’. Clearly, if not Boulenger, then certainly Weber & de Beaufort had
definitely rejected Bodianus guttatus Bloch as a junior secondary homonym and under
Article 59b, this name remains permanently invalid.
I submit therefore, that part A and proposals (1)(a) and (4)(a) of the appli-
cation by Randall et a/. be withdrawn, as the name they wish to suppress is already
permanently invalid.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
JORDAN, D. S. & EVERMANN, B. W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle
America. Part 1. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol., 37, pp. 1-1240.
WEBER, M. & DE BEAUFORT, L. F. 1931. The Fishes of the Indo—Australian
Archipelago 6. 448 pp. E. J. Brill, Leiden.
SUPPORT FOR THE REJECTION OF ‘HISTOIRE NATURELLE DES
SERPENS’ (LACEPEDE, 1788-1789, AND LATER EDITIONS).
Z.N(S.)1985
By Hobart M. Smith (E.P.O. Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
8039, U.S.A.)
The purposes of the proposals set forth in this account (Melville, Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 43, pp. 80-83), namely to reject Lacépéde’s Histoire naturelle des Serpens
in nomenclatural contexts, but to maintain stability for some names affected by that
rejection, are thoroughly justifiable. The work itself clearly does not conform with
requirements of the Code, but in the past fear of nomenclatural repercussions of
either rejection or unreserved acceptance of the work has prevented decisive action on
its status.
Thus the proposals for conservation of the three names long widely adopted
that would be affected by rejection of Lacépéde’s work are vital adjuncts to the
latter proposal. Agkistrodon piscivorus (from Crotalus piscivorus Lacépéde), the
Cottonmouth of the southeastern United States; Lampropeltis triangulum (from
Coluber triangulum Lacépéde), the Milk snake of North, Central and northern South
America; and Python reticulatus (from Boa reticulata Schneider), of southeast Asia
and the East Indies, all qualify as nomina venerata or, in the case of Coluber trian-
gulum, have already been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
(name no. 2186, Opinion 804, 1967).
Accordingly, I enthusiastically support all proposals pertaining to this case.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 229
OPINION 1400
SIMIA FASCICULARIS RAFFLES, 1821 (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES):
CONSERVED
RULING. — (1) The specific name aygula Linnaeus, 1758, as pub-
lished in the binomen Simia aygula, is hereby suppressed for the purpose of
the Principle of Priority but not for that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The specific name fascicularis Raffles, 1821, as published in the
binomen Simia fascicularis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
(3) The specific name aygula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Simia aygula, 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.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2399
An application for the conservation of Simia fascicularis Raffles,
1821, was first received from Mrs P. H. Napier (British Museum ( Natural
History), London) and Dr C. P. Groves (Australian National University
Canberra) on 26 October 1981. 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. 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, seven general and four mammalogical 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 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 40, p. 118. 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, Savage, Trjapitzin, Binder, Corliss,
Lehtinen, Ride, Alvarado, Willink, Hahn, Gruchy, Schuster, Uéno, Brinck,
Dupuis, Kraus, Bayer, Heppell, Bernardi
Negative votes — none (0).
Mroczkowski abstained.
Late affirmative votes were returned by Cogger and Starobogatov.
Dupuis commented: [I vote for] sous réserve de l’exhaustivité biblio-
graphique et de I‘exactitude taxinomique de la requéte.’
After the vote had been completed, a comment was received from the
Earl of Cranbrook (Great Glemham House, Saxmundham, Suffolk, U.K.)
230 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
suggesting that the Linnean description of Simia aygula (see Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 40, p. 117) was composite rather than based on a single species,
and was not as clearly based on the long-tailed macaque as stated in para-
graph S of the original application. A possible solution would be the selection
of a Javan leaf monkey as neotype of Simia aygula, thereby preserving the
long established usage of the name.
In a letter to Lord Cranbrook, Dr Napier showed that Linnaeus’
description followed, almost verbatim, accounts given to Linnaeus in letters
from Pehr Osbeck in 1756, now preserved by the Linnean Society in London.
From these letters it seems that the description is based primarily on two
monkeys, one old and the other young, and perhaps in part on other speci-
mens. Although some doubts of detail remain, it is evident that Linnaeus’
description cannot have been based on the Javan leaf monkey (now referred
to as Presbytis comata Desmarest, 1822 by Napier (1985), p. 47 and Weitzel
& Groves (1985)), and did refer mainly to the long-tailed macaque. It would
therefore be inappropriate to attach the specific name aygula to the leaf
monkey by designation of a neotype. Lord Cranbrook accepted this.
REFERENCES
NAPIER, P. H. 1985. Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural
History), Part 3. London. x+111 pp.
WEITZEL, V. & GROVES, C. P. 1985. The Nomenclature and Taxonomy of the
Colobine Monkeys of Java. Intl. J. Primatol., vol. 6, pp. 399-409.
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:
aygula, Simia, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, vol. 1, p. 27
fascicularis, Simia, Raffles, 1821, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 13, p. 346.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985)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. 1400.
P.K. TUBBS
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 231
OPINION 1401
LEUCASPIS SIGNORET, 1869 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA):
CONSERVED
RULING. —(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name
Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835 and all uses of that name prior to that by
Signoret, 1869, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle
of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Leucaspis Signoret, 1869, (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy Aspidiotus pini Hartig, 1839, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name pini Hartig, 1839, as published in the binomen
Aspidiotus pini (specific name of the type species of Leucaspis Signoret, | 869),
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name LEUCASPIDINAE Atkinson, 1886 (as Leucaspiaria) (type
genus Leucaspis Signoret, 1869) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Family-group Names in Zoology.
(5) The name Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2448
An application for the conservation of Leucaspis Signoret, 1869, was
first received from Dr E. M. Danzig and Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological
Institute, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) on 17 August 1983. A revised manuscript was
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 , pp. 101-104 (June 1984). Public notice
of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the
Bulletin as well as to ten general and eleven specialist serials. No comment
was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 103. At the close of the voting period on 17 April 1986
the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Schuster, Uéno, Lehtinen, Ride,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Votes — one (1) Dupuis.
No votes were returned from Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
Dupuis voted against the Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41 :
p. 103 although he supported the conservation of Leucaspis Signoret. He
252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
considered that the specific name of the type species (pini) should be attri-
buted to Signoret rather than to Hartig, and commented ‘. . . je redoute que
le néotype plus ou moins conditionnel envisagé pour le nomen dubium de
Hartig ne fasse que compliquer la question. Pour éviter tout risque ultérieur
d’identification erronée de l’espéce-type, il eut fallu, la encore, se référer a
Signoret et si possible a son materiel’.
Bayer, although voting in favour of the proposals, commented that,
in his view, the designation of a neotype for L. pini Hartig by Danzig and
Kerzhner (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 102) was not valid since not all the
requirements of Article 75 of the Code had been met.
A member of the Commission questioned the status of the family
name LEUCASPIDOIDAE Agassiz, 1846 (Index Universalis, p. 109), based on
Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835. Since this generic name has now been totally
suppressed by the Commission it is unavailable, and it follows that the
Agassiz family name (which was never used) also has no standing.
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:
LEUCASPIDINAE Atkinson, 1886, J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. 55, pp. 271,
273-274
Leucaspis Signoret, 1869, Ann. Soc. entomol. France, (4), vol. 8, p. 865
Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835, Arch. Naturgesch, Jahrg. 1, vol. 2, p. 47
pini, Aspidiotus, Hartig, 1839, Jahresberichte tiber die Fortschritte der
Forstwissenschaft und forstlichen Naturkunde im Jahre 1836 und 1837
nebst Original-Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete dieser Wissenschaften.
Jahrg. 1, Heft. 4, p. 642.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1401.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 233
OPINION 1402
BAGRUS BOSC, 1816 (OSTEICHTHYES, SILURIFORMES):
CONSERVED
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name Porcus
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808, is hereby suppressed for the purpose of
the Principle of Priority but not for that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Bagre Cloquet, 1816 (gender: masculine) type species by
absolute tautonymy Silurus bagre Linnaeus, 1766;
(b) Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (gender: masculine) type species by subse-
quent designation of Bailey & Stewart, 1983, Silurus bajad
Forskal, 1775.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) bagre Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Silurus bagre
(specific name of the type species of Bagre Cloquet, 1816);
(b) bajad Forskal, 1775, as published i in the binomen Silurus bajad
(specific name of the type species of Bagrus Bosc, 1816):
(4) The name BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 (type genus, Bagrus Bosc,
1816) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology.
(5) The name Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808, as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2371
An application for the conservation of Bagrus Bosc, 1816, was first
received from Dr R. M. Bailey (University of Michigan, U.S.A.) and Dr D. J.
Stewart (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, U.S.A.) on 29 January
1980. After a period of correspondence a revised manuscript was published
in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 167-172 (October 1983). 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 ten general and three specialist serials.
A comment giving the dates of some of the names involved was
received from Dr W. R. Taylor (National Museum of Natural History,
Washington, U.S.A.). He also proposed the suppression of Porcus Etienne
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808 and the placing of Bagre Cloquet, 1816 on the
Official List, and these suggestions were welcomed by Dr Bailey in a letter of
28 September 1984. Dr Taylor’s proposals were published in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 42, pp. 14-15.
234 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 January 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 40, pp. 170-171, supplemented by those published in Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 42, pp. 14-15. At the close of the voting period on 17 April
1986 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) recieved in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Savage, Willink, Starobogatov, Alvarado,
Schuster, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Kabata, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Lehtinen,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Bayer, Dupuis, Bernardi, Cogger, Thompson
Negative Vote — one (1) Ride.
No votes were returned by Corliss, Gruchy and Kraus.
Ride considered that the reasons for the suppression of Porcus
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808 were insufficient.
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:
bagre, Silurus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 505
Bagre Cloquet, 1816, Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, vol. 4, pp. 52-53
BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858, Act. Soc. Sci. Indo-Neerl., vol. 4, p. 42
Bagrus Bosc, 1816, Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, vol. 3, p. 147
bajad, Silurus, Forskal, 1775, Descriptiones Animalium, avium, amphibiorum,
piscum, insectorum, vermium, quae in itinere orientali observavit, p. 66
Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1808, Description de l’Egypte, .
Histoire Naturelle, Planches, vol. 1, pl. 15.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)1 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. 1402.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
17 April 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 235
OPINION 1403
LUMBRICUS LACTEUS ORLEY, 1881 DESIGNATED AS TYPE
SPECIES OF OCTOLASION ORLEY, 1885 (ANNELIDA,
OLIGOCHAETA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:
(a) the genus-group names Jncolore Omodeo, 1952 and Purpureum
Omodeo, 1952, are hereby suppressed for the purpose of the
Principle of Priority but not for that of the Principle of
Homonymy;
(b) all previous type designations made for the nominal genus
Octolasion Orley, 1885 are hereby set aside and Lumbricus
lacteus Orley, 1881 is designated as type species.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Octolasion Orley, 1885 (gender: neuter) type species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Lumbricus
lacteus Orley, 1881;
(b) Octodrilus Omodeo, 1956 (gender: masculine) type species by
original designation, Lumbricus complanatus Dugées, 1828.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) lacteus Orley, 1885, as published in the trinomen Lumbricus
terrestris var. lacteus Orley, 1881 (specific name of the type
species of Octolasion Orley, 1885);
(b) complanatus Dugés, 1828, as published in the binomen
Lumbricus complanatus (specific name of the type species of
Octodrilus Omedeo, 1956).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Incolore Omodeo, 1952 and Purpureum Omodeo, 1952, as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above;
(b) Alyattes Kinberg, 1867, a junior homonym of Alyattes
Thomson, 1864;
(c) Octolasia Rosa, 1893 and Octolasium Michaelsen, 1900 as
unjustified emendations of Octolasion Orley, 1885.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2469
: An application for the designation of Lumbricus terrestris var. lacteus
Orley, 1885 as type species of Octolasion Orley, 1955, with proposals to
stabilize other names in the LUMBRICIDAE, was first received from Mr R. W.
Sims (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 14 March 1984. It was
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 254-258 (December 1984). Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the
236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
same part of the Bulletin as well as to nine general, and one specialist, serials.
No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 41, p. 257. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the state
of the voting was:
Affirmative votes—twenty (20) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Halvorsen, Schuster, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado,
Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis
Affirmative Votes—none (0).
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen and Trjapitzin.
Gruchy was on leave of absence.
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:
Alyattes Kinberg, 1867, Ofvers. K. Vetenskad. Férh., Stockholm, vol. 23,
p97
complanatus, Lumbricus, Dugés, 1828, Ann. Sci. nat., vol. 15, p. 289
Incolore Omodeo, 1952, Arch. zool. ital., vol. 37, p. 46
lacteus, Lumbricus, Orley, 1885, Ertek. Term. tud. Kor., vol. 15, p. 21
Octodrilus Omodeo, 1956, Arch. zool. ital., vol. 41, p. 206
Octolasia Rosa, 1893, Boll. Musei Zool. Anat. comp. R. Univ. Torino, No.
246, vol. 11, p. 3
Octolasion Orley, 1885, Ertek. Term. tud. Kor. vol. 15, p. 13
Octolasium Michaelsen, 1900, Tierreich, vol. 10, p. 504.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1403.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 237
OPINION 1404
INDODORYLAIMUS ELONGATUS BAQRI, 1982 DESIGNATED
AS TYPE SPECIES OF INDODORYLAIMUS ALI & PRABHA,
1974 (NEMATODA, DORYLAIMIDA)
Ruling.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type designations for
the nominal genus Jndodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 are set aside and
Indodorylaimus elongatus Baqri, 1982 is designated as type species.
(2) The name /ndodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (gender: masculine),
type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Indodory-
laimus elongatus Baqri, 1982, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name elongatus Baqri, 1982, as published in the binomen
Indodorylaimus elongatus (specific name of the type species of Indodory-
laimus Ali & Prabha, 1974) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2335
An application for the designation of Indodorylaimus elongatus Baqri,
1982 as type species of Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 was first received
from Dr Q. H. Baqri (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta) on 19 February
1980. After correspondence a revised draft was published in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 39, pp. 57-58 (March 1982). Additional information concerning a lecto-
type designation for Indodorylaimus elongatus Baqri, 1982 was received and
published in vol. 39, p. 285. 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 being
sent to nine general and seven specialist serials. A comment from Dr Siddiqui
(Commonwealth Institute of Parasitology, U.K.) was received and published
with a reply from Dr Bagqri in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 137-138.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 39, pp. 57-58. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the
state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17) received in the following order:
Melville, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Starobogatov,
Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Ride, Bayer,
Kraus, Cogger
Negative Votes—three (3) received in the following order: Holthuis,
Willink, Kraus.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Dupuis, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion:
elongatus, Indodorylaimus, Baqri, 1982, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, p. 57
Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974, Nematologica, vol. 19, p. 486.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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 No. 1404.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 239
OPINION 1405
APHELINUS MYTILASPIDIS LE BARON, 1870 (INSECTA,
HYMENOPTERA): CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name albidus
Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen Agonioneurus albidus, is
hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for that
of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870, as published in the
binomen Aphelinus mytilaspidis, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name albidus Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen
Agonioneurus albidus, 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.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.)2320
An application for the conservation of Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le
Baron, 1870 was first received from Professor D. Rosen (The Hebrew
University, Rehovot, Israel) and Dr P. DeBach (University of California,
U.S.A.) on 1 October 1979. After correspondence a revised draft was pub-
lished in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 73-76 (March 1982). 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 nine general and nine specialist serials. A com-
ment was received from several workers from the British Museum (Natural
History) and the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, and
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 70-71. A reply from Professor
Rosen was published in vol. 42, pp. 214-215. No further comments were
received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 39, p. 74. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the state
of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order:
Melville, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Corliss, Starobogatov, Schuster,
Halvorsen, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger
Negative Votes—three (3) received in the following order: Holthuis,
Mroczkowski, Hahn.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Dupuis, Heppel, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
In voting against, Professor Dr Hahn said that he was not convinced
that albidus was so definitely a synonym of mytilaspidis that it should be
suppressed, although he supported precedence for mytilaspidis.
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:
albidus, Agonioneurus, Westwood, 1837, Phil. Mag., ser. 3, vol. 10, p. 442
mytilaspidis, Aphelinus, Le Baron, 1870, Amer. Entomol. Bot., vol. 2, p. 360.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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 taken, being
the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1405.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 241
OPINION 1406
PHALAENA STAGNATA DONOVAN, 1806 DESIGNATED AS
TYPE SPECIES OF NYMPHULA SCHRANK, 1802 (INSECTA,
LEPIDOPTERA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type designations for
the nominal genus Nymphula are set aside and Phalaena stagnata Donovan,
1806 is designated as type species.
(2) The name Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (gender: feminine), type
species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Phalaena
stagnata Donovan, 1806, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name stagnata Donovan, 1806, as published in the binomen
Phalaena stagnata (specific name of the type species of Nymphula Schrank,
1802) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2384
An application to designate Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806 as
type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802 was first received from Dr D. S.
Fletcher and Dr I. W. B. Nye (Department of Entomology, British Museum
(Natural History), London) on 22 June 1981 and published in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 39, pp. 208-211 (September 1982). 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 nine general and nine specialist serials. A comment was received
from Dr W. Speidel (Karlsruhe, BRD) and published in Bull. zoo. Nom., vol.
42, pp. 7-8. Following correspondence between Dr Speidel, Dr Nye and the
Secretariat it was agreed that Dr Speidel should submit a separate case on the
nitidula/stagnata synonymy problem. The Commission was therefore asked
to vote on the original proposals alone.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 39, pp. 210-211. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986
the state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado,
Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger
Negative Votes—none (0).
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Dupuis, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Nymphula Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica, vol. 2(2), p. 162
stagnata, Phalaena, Donovan, 1806, Nat. Hist. Br. Insects, vol. 11, p. 10.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1406.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 243
OPINION 1407
LAMIA AETHIOPS FABRICIUS, 1775 DESIGNATED AS TYPE
SPECIES OF CEROPLESIS SERVILLE, 1835 (INSECTA,
COLEOPTERA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type species designa-
tions for the nominal genus Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 are set aside and Lamia
aethiops Fabricius, 1775 is designated as type.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (gender: masculine) type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lamia
aethiops Fabricius, 1775;
(b) Diastocera Dejean, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy, Lamia trifasciata Fabricius, 1775.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) aethiops Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Lamia
aethiops (specific name of the type species of Ceroplesis Serville,
1835);
(b) trifasciata Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Lamia
trifasciata (specific name of the type species of Diastocera
Dejean, 1835).
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2180
An application to designate Lamia trifasciata Fabricius, 1775 as type
species of Ceroplesis Serville, 1835, was first received from Dr R. C. Marinoni
(Universidade Federal do Parana, Brazil) on 14 May 1976. After correspon-
dence a revised draft was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, p. 248
(December 1983). 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 nine general
and eight specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 40, p. 248. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the
state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19) received in the following order:
Melville, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado,
Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis
Negative Votes—two (2) Kraus, Cogger. Holthuis abstained.
244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen and Trjapitzin.
Gruchy was on leave of absence.
In abstaining, Dr Holthuis said that in the absence of any information
on the frequency of usage of the two names, on the consequences of a strict
application of the code, and on the importance of the genera in general and
applied science, he felt unable to vote. Dr Ride requested that Diastocera be
placed on the Official List, and this has been done since the relevant facts
were before the Commission.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
aethiops, Lamia, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 174
Ceroplesis Serville, 1835, Ann. Soc. entemol. France, vol. 4, p. 93
Diastocera Dejean, 1835, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le
Compte Dejean, vol. 4, p. 342
trifasciata, Lamia, Fabricius, 1775, Sytemata Entomologiae, p. 174.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 22 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. 1407.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 245
OPINION 1408
HYPOCRYPHALUS MANGIFERAE (STEBBING, 1914) GIVEN
NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER CRYPHALUS INOPS
EICHHOFF, 1872 AND HYPOTHENEMUS GRISEUS
BLACKBURN, 1885 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the
specific name mangiferae Stebbing, 1914, as published in the binomen
Cryphalus mangiferae, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over inops
Eichhoff, 1872, as published in the binomen Cryphalus inops, and over
griseus Blackburn, 1885, as published in the binomen Hypothenemus griseus,
whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of them.
(2) The name mangiferae Stebbing, 1914, as published in the binomen
Cryphalus mangiferae, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural
precedence over inops Eichhoff, 1872, as published in the binomen Cryphalus
inops and over griseus Blackburn, 1885, as published in the binomen
Hypothenemus griseus, whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either
of them.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with endorsements that neither is to be given
priority over mangiferae Stebbing, 1914, as published in the binomen
Cryphalus mangiferae, when considered to be a synonym of that name:
(a) inops Eichhoff, 1872, as published in the binomen Cryphalus
inops;
(b) griseus Blackburn, 1885, as published in the binomen
Hypothenemus griseus.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2142
An application for the conservation of Hypocryphalus mangiferae
(Stebbing, 1914) was first received from Dr S. L. Wood (Brigham Young
University, Utah, U.S.A.) on 26 August 1975. After correspondence a revised
draft was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 189-190 (August 1984).
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 eleven general and eight specialist
serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 41, p. 190. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the state
of the voting was:
246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Affirmative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado,
Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis
Negative Votes—two (2) Thompson, Ride.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen, and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
Dr Ride voted against because, although he supported the conser-
vation of the specific name mangiferae, he considered that inops and griseus
should be suppressed for the purposes of priority.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
griseus, Hypothenemus, Blackburn, 1885, Trans. r. Soc. Dublin, (2), vol. 3,
p. 194
inops, Cryphalus, Eichhoff, 1872, Berliner Entomol. Zeitschr., vol. 15, p. 331
mangiferae, Cryphalus, Stebbing, 1914, Indian Forest Insects of Economic
Importance. Coleoptera, p. 542.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1408.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 247
OPINION 1409
ADIANTHUS BUCATUS AMEGHINO, 1891 (MAMMALIA):
NEOTYPE DESIGNATED
RULING—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
specimen hitherto made for Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 are hereby
set aside and the following specimen deposited in the Museo Argentino de
Ciencias Naturales is hereby designated neotype: ‘(M.A.C.N. no. A1812,
described and figured by Ameghino, 1894, Bol. acad. Nac. Cien. Cordoba vol.
13, pp. 259-452 and 1897, Bol. inst. Geogr. Argentino vol. 18, pp. 406-521,
fig. 41)’.
(2) The name Adianthus Ameghino, 1891 (gender: masculine), type
species by monotypy, Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name bucatus Ameghino, 1891, as published in the binomen
Adianthus bucatus (specific name of type species of Adianthus Ameghino,
1891), as interpreted by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (type genus Adianthus
Ameghino, 1891) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-group names
in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2430
An application for the designation of a neotype for Adianthus bucatus
Ameghino, 1891 was first received from Dr. R. L. Cifelli (Division of
Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, U.S.A.) and Dr. M. F. Soria
(Departamento de Paleontologia (Vertebrados ), Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales, Buenos Aires, Argentina) on 14 December 1982. After some corre-
spondence a revised draft was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp.
56-57. Public notice of the possible use of plenary powers was given in the
same part of the Bulletin as well as to ten general and six specialist serials. A
comment was received from Dr. R. M. Schoch ( Yale University, U.S.A.) and
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 208-211. Replies from Cifelli and
Soria were published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, pp. 103-109.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 41, pp. 56-57. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the
state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Corliss, Starobogatov, Schuster,
Halvorsen, Ride, Uéno, Alvarado, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis
248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Negative Votes—three (3) received in the following order: Willink,
Hahn, Thompson.
Mroczkowski abstained. No votes were returned by Bernardi,
Heppell, Lehtinen and Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Adianthus Ameghino, 1891, Rev. Argentina Hist. nat. vol. 1, p. 134
bucatus, Adianthus Ameghino, 1891, Rev. Argentina Hist. nat. vol. 1, p. 134
ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891, Rev. Argentina Hist. nat. vol. 1, p. 134.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1409.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 249
OPINION 1410
WILLIAMIA MONTEROSATO, 1884 (MOLLUSCA,
GASTROPODA): CONSERVED
RULING—(1) Under the plenary powers the following generic
names:
(a) Allerya Morch, 1877, and
(b) Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862
are hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (gender: feminine), type
species, by monotypy, Ancylus gussoni O. G. Costa, 1829, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name gussoni O. G. Costa, 1829, as published in the binomen
Ancylus gussoni (specific name of the type species of Williamia Monterosato
1884) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The following names:
(a) Allerya MOrch, 1877 and
(b) Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862
as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, are hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2237
An application for the conservation of Williamia Monterosato, 1884
was received from Dr H. B. Rehder (National Museum of Natural History,
Washington, U.S.A.) on 15 November 1977. After correspondence a revised
draft was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol 41, pp. 159-162. 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 eleven general and one specialist serials. A
supportive comment was received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland
Institute and Museum, New Zealand).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 41 pp. 159-162. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986
the state of the voting was:
Affirmative votes—eighteen (18) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Ride, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Bayer,
Kraus, Dupuis
250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Negative votes—one (1): Starobogatov.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Heppell, Lehtinen, and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave on absence.
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:
Allerya Mérch, 1877a, Observations sur /’Ancylus gussoni, Costa, et le
nouveau sous-genre Allerya. J. Conchyliol., vol. 25(2), p. 210
Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862, Notices monographiques sur les genres
Gundlachia, Poeyiaet Brondelia. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) vol. 14, p. 20
gussoni, Ancylus, Costa, 1829, Osservazioni Zoologiche intorno ai Testacei
dell’isola di Pantelleria, p. 10
Williamia Monterosato, 1884, Nomenclatura generica e specifica di alcune
Conchiglie mediterranee, p. 150.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1410.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 251
OPINION 1411
DRYMUS RYEII DOUGLAS & SCOTT, 1865 (INSECTA,
HEMIPTERA): NEOTYPE SET ASIDE
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the neotype designated by
Le Quesne, 1956, is hereby set aside.
(2) The name ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865, as published in the tri-
nomen Drymus sylvaticus ryeii and as defined by reference to the lectotype
designated in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, p. 263, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.)1214
An application to set aside the neotype for the nominal species
Drymus ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865 was first received from Mr L. Jessop
(Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) on
14 June 1982. After correspondence a revised draft was published in Bull.
zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 263-264 (November 1984). 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 ten general and nine specialist serials. No comment was
received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 41, p. 263. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the
state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Halvorsen, Schuster, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado,
Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis
Negative Votes—none (0).
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
ryeii, Drymus sylvaticus, Douglas & Scott, 1865, The British Hemiptera, vol. 1
Hemiptera, Heteroptera, p. 197.
252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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 decision so taken, being
the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1411.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 253
OPINION 1412
LEPTOCLINUM FULGENS MILNE EDWARDS, 1841
DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF LEPTOCLINUM MILNE
EDWARDS, 1841 (TUNICATA, ASCIDIAEA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type designations for
the nominal genus Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 are set aside and
Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841 is designated as type species.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859 (gender: neuter) type species by
monotypy, Diplosoma rayneri MacDonald, 1859 (subjective
synonym at the date of this ruling of Leptoclinum listerianum
Milne Edwards, 1841)
(b) Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 (gender: neuter) type
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841;
(c) Didemnum Savigny, 1816 (gender: neuter) type species, by sub-
sequent designation by Hartmeyer, 1909, Didemnum candidum
Savigny, 1816.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) listerianum Milne Edwards, 1841, as published in the binomen
Leptoclinum listerianum (subjective synonym at the date of this
ruling of the type species of Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859);
(b) fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841, as published in the binomen
Leptoclinum fulgens (specific name of the type species of
Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841);
(c) candidum Savigny, 1816, as published in the binomen Didemnum
candidum (specific name of the type species of Didemnum
Savigny, 1816).
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N(S.)1766
An application for the conservation of Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859
was first received from Dr F. W. Rowe (then of the British Museum (Natural
History), London) on 30 June 1966. The case was published in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 23, pp. 245-252 (December 1966). A comment was received from
Dr P. Mather (University of Queensland, Australia) and published in Bull.
zool. Nom., vol. 25, pp. 131-132 (January 1969). A reply from Dr Rowe was
received and published in vol. 28, p. 73 (December 1971). After correspon-
dence between Dr Rowe and the Secretariat a revised application involving
254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
the designation of a type species for Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841, was
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 41, pp. 260—262. Public notice of the
possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to ten general and three specialist serials. No further comments
were received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 261. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the
state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19 received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Halvorsen, Schuster, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado,
Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger
Negative Votes—none (0).
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Dupuis, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling in the present Opinion:
candidum, Didemnum, Savigny, 1816, Mémoires sur les animaux sans
vertébres, part 2, pp. 14, 194
Didemnum Savigny, 1816, Mémoires sur les animaux sans vertébres, part 2,
pp. 14, 20, 138, 184
Diplosoma, MacDonald, 1859, Trans. Lin. Soc. London, vol. 22(4), p. 375
fulgens, Leptoclinum, Milne Edwards, 1841, Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst. France,
vol. 18, p. 299
Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841, Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst. France, vol. 18,
p. 297
listerianum, Leptoclinum, Milne Edwards, 1841, Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst.
France, vol. 18, p. 300.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Didemnum Savigny, 1816: of
Didemnum candidum Savigny, 1816 by Hartmeyer, 1909, S. B. Ges. naturf.
Freunde Berl., 1909 (9): 578.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 30 were cast
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 255
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. 1412
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
OPINION 1413
DELPHINUS TRUNCATUS MONTAGU, 1821 (MAMMALIA,
CETACEA): CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name
nesarnack Lacépéde, 1804, as published in the binomen Delphinus nesarnack,
is hereby suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name truncatus Montagu, 1821, as published in the binomen
Delphinus truncatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(3) The name nesarnack, Lacépéde, 1804, as published in the binomen
Delphinus nesarnack 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.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2082
An application for the conservation of Delphinus truncatus Montagu,
1821 was received from Dr D. W. Rice (National Marine Mammal Labora-
tory, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) on 21 June 1965. For various reasons the
case was not proceeded with until a revised draft was published in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 41, pp. 274-275. 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 ten
general serials and five specialist serials. No comment was received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 41, p. 275. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the state
of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes—eighteen (18) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Corliss, Starobogatov,
Halvorsen, Schuster, Hahn, Ride, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Bayer,
Kraus, Dupuis
Negative Vote—one (1) Mroczkowski.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger, Heppell, Lehtinen, and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave on absence.
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:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 257
nesarnack, Delphinus Lacépéde, 1804. Hist. nat. cétacés, vol. 40, p. 307, pl. 15,
fig. 2
truncatus, Delphinus Montagu, 1821, Mem. Wernerian nat. Hist. Soc. vol. 3,
p72; pl. 3.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1413
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
OPINION 1414
PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807 (MOLLUSCA,
BIVALVIA): CONSERVED
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:
(a) the generic name Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799 is hereby sup-
pressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy;
(b) the generic name Panope Ménard de la Groye, 1807 is hereby
suppressed for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not
for that of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801 (gender: feminine), type species by sub-
sequent monotypy, Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793;
(b) Glycymeris da Costa, 1778 (gender: feminine), type species by
absolute tautonymy, Arca glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758;
(c) Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (gender: feminine), type
species by subsequent designation by Children, 1823, Panopea
aldrovandi Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (subjective synonym at the
date of this ruling Mya glycimeris Born, 1778);
(d) Pectunculus da Costa, 1778 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent designation by Juke-Browne, 1911, Pectunculus
capillaceus da Costa, 1778 (an objective synonym of Venus
exoleta Linnaeus, 1758).
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) siliqua Spengler, 1793, as published in the binomen Mya siliqua
(specific name of the type species of Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801);
(b) glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Arca
glycymeris (specific name of the type species of Glycymeris da
Costa, 1778);
(c) glycimeris Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Mya glyci-
meris (valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of
Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807);
(d) exoleta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus
exoleta (valid specific name for the type species of Pectunculus
da Costa, 1778).
(4) The name GLYCYMERIDIDAE Newton, 1916 (type genus Glycymeris
da Costa, 1778) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-group Names
in Zoology.
(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) (a) above;
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 259
(b) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801, a junior homonym of Glycimeris
Lamarck, 1799;
(c) Panope Ménard de la Groye, 1807, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1)(b) above;
(d) Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799, a junior homonym of Pectunculus
da Costa, 1778.
(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) capillaceus da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen
Pectunculus capillaceus (a junior objective synonym of exoleta
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus exoleta);
(b) orbicularis da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Glycy-
meris orbicularis (a junior objective synonym of glycymeris
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Arca glycymeris).
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1049
An application for the conservation of Panopea Ménard de la Groye,
1807 was first received from Professor H. E. Vokes (Tulane University, New
Orleans, U.S.A.). During the period of correspondence that followed a
similar application from the late Dr L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural
History), London) was received. With the agreement of both the authors
a joint application was sent to the printers on 22 September 1960 and
published in Bull. zool. Nom, vol. 18, pp. 184-188 (1961).
A comment was received from Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) pointing out that Ménard de la Groye’s pamph-
let Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de coquille bivalve-equivalve . . . of January
1807 must be treated as having been published for the purposes of the Code,
so that in consequence the generic name Panope should be suppressed under
the plenary powers. Mr D. Heppell (Royal Scottish Museum) discovered
earlier references to the family names PECTUNCULIDAE and GLYCYMERIDIDAE.
Further comments from Dr R Robertson (then of The Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, U.S.A.) and Professor H. E. Vokes (Tulane
University, New Orleans, U.S.A.) provided evidence of usage for the three
names Panope, Panopea and Panopaea for the genus centrally involved.
In 1983 the case was updated and completely rewritten. It was
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 40, pp. 179-183. 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 seven general and one specialist serial. No comment was
received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 16 September 1985 the members of the Commission were invited
to vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in
260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 40, p. 182-183. At the close of the voting period on 16
December 1985 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes—twenty one (21) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Cocks, Willink, Mroczkowski, Savage, Kabata, Corliss,
Alvarado, Uéno, Hahn, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Cogger, Lehtinen (in
part), Schuster, Bernardi, Ride, Thompson, Halvorsen, Heppell
Negative Votes—none (0).
Dupuis abstained. No votes were returned by Bayer, Gruchy, Kraus
and Zheng. Lehtinen voted against those parts of the proposals which
selected the spelling Panopea rather than Panope, because the latter was the
original form and had considerable usage.
Hahn pointed out that Mya glycimeris Born, 1778 is mentioned in the
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology as type species of Panopea Ménard de
la Groye, 1807. Investigation revealed that the designation, by Fleming,
1818, is invalid because Mya glycimeris Born was not one of the species
originally included in Panopea. As glycimeris Born, 1778 is a senior synonym
of aldrovandi Ménard, 1807, it has been placed on the Official List rather than
its junior synonym.
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:
capillaceus, Pectunculus, da Costa, 1778, British Conchology, p. 187
Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801, Repertorium Commentationum, vol. 1, p. 351
exoleta, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 688
GLYCYMERIDIDAE, Newton, 1916, J. Conch., vol. 15, p. 83
glycimeris, Mya, Born, 1778, Index Rerum Naturalium Musei Caesarei
Vindibonsis Pars 1, Testacea, p. 10
glycymeris, Arca, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 695
Glycymeris da Costa, 1778, British Conchology, p. 168
Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. nat. Paris, 1799, p. 83
Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801, Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres, p. 126
orbicularis, Glycymeris, da Costa, 1778, British Conchology, p. 168
Panope Ménard de la Groye, 1807, Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de coquille
bivalve-equivalve ... p. 31
Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, p. 135
Pectunculus da Costa, 1778 British Conchology, p. 183
siliqua, Mya, Spengler, 1793, Skrivt. naturhist. Selskabet, vol. 3, p. 48.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
ofa type species for the nominal genus Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807: of
Panopea aldrovandi Ménard de la Groye, 1807 by Children, 1823, Q. J. Sci.
Lit. Arts, vol. 14, p. 84.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Pectunculus da Costa 1778: of
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 261
Pectunculus capillaceus da Costa, 1778 by Juke-Brown, 1911, Proc. malac.
Soc. London, vol. 9, p. 250.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
ofa type species for the nominal genus Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801: of M ‘ya siliqua
Spengler, 1793, by Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 15, p. 190.
CERTIFICATE
[hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1985) 40 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. 1414.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
OPINION 1415
POLYGNATHUS BILINEATUS ROUNDY, 1926 DESIGNATED AS
TYPE SPECIES OF GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA)
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type designations for
the nominal genus Gnathodus Pander 1856 are set aside and Polygnathus
bilineatus Roundy, 1926 is designated as type.
(2) The name Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (gender: masculine) type
species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Polygnathus
bilineatus Roundy, 1926, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name bilineatus Roundy, 1926, as published in the binomen
Polygnathus bilineatus (specific name of the type species of Gnathodus
Pander, 1856) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2279
An application for the designation of Gnathodus texanus Roundy,
1926 as type species of Gnathodus Pander, 1856 was first received from Dr
H. R. Lane (Amoco Production Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) and
Dr W. Ziegler (Geolog.-pdldontologisches Institut, Marburg, BRD) on 4
September 1978, and published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 57-62 (July
1979). 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 ten general and two
specialist serials. Supportive comments were received from Dr F. H. T.
Rhodes (Cornell University, U.S.A.), Dr G. K. Merrill (College of Charleston,
U.S.A.) and Dr D. L. Clark (University of Wisconsin, U.S.A.) and published,
with the names of other supporters, in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 201-202.
Another supportive comment was received from Dr T. L. Thompson
(Missouri Department of Natural Resources, U.S.A.) and published in vol. 37,
p. 67. A counter comment was received from Dr H. Kozur (Staatliche
Museen Meiningens, DDR) and published with comments from Lane &
Ziegler, a reply from Kozur and a comment from Dr I. S. Barskov (Palaeon-
tological Institute, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) in vol. 38, pp. 83-93. A further
comment from Dr I. S. Barskov and Dr A. S. Alekseev was received and
published with a reply from Lane & Ziegler in vol. 39, pp. 7-13.
An updated report on the case was published in vol. 41, pp. 205-207,
in which it was proposed that, due to recent work by the original authors
(Lane & Ziegler) published in Senckenbergiana Iethaea, vol. 65, nos. 1-2,
pp. 257-263, Polygnathus bilineatus Roundy, 1926 should be designated as
type species of Gnathodus Pander, rather than Gnathodus texanus as was
originally proposed. The ruling has been accordingly modified.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 263
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 36, p. 61, as modified in vol. 41, p. 207. At the close of the voting
period on 17 July 1986 the state of the voting was:
Affirmative Votes—sixteen (16) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Corliss, Schuster,
Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Ride, Kraus, Cogger
Negative Votes—two (2): Mroczkowski, Starobogatov.
Dr Starobogatov remarked that he was in complete agreement with
Professor Barskov’s statements.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
bilineatus, Polygnathus, Roundy, 1926, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper, no. 146,
p13
Gnathodus Pander, 1856, Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen
Systems der Russisch-Baltsichen Gouvernements, p. 33.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1415.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
OPINION 1416
CNETHA ENDERLEIN, 1921 AND PSEUDONEVERMANNIA
BARANOV, 1926 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): TYPE SPECIES
DESIGNATED; ATRACTOCERA LATIPES MEIGEN, 1804:
CONFIRMATION OF HOLOTYPE
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type species desig-
nations for the nominal genera Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Pseudonever-
mannia Baranov, 1926 are set aside and Simulium vernum Macquart, 1826 is
designated as type species of both nominal genera.
(2) It is hereby ruled that the specific name /atipes, as published in the
binomen Atractocera latipes, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen
recognised by Crosskey & Davies, 1972, as the holotype of that species.
(3) It is hereby ruled that the specific name vernum Macquart, 1826, as
published in the binomen Simulia vernum, is to be interpreted by reference to
the specimens described and figured by Davies in 1966a and 1968 under the
name Simulium (Eusimulium) latipes.
(4) The name Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Simulium vernum
Macquart, 1826, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) latipes Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Atractocera
latipes and as interpreted by references to the holotype identified
by Crosskey & Davies, 1972;
(b) vernum Macquart, 1826, as published in the binomen Simulia
vernum, and as interpreted by reference to specimens described
and figured by Davies in 1966a and 1968 under the name
Simulium (Eusimulium) latipes, (specific name of the type
species of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Pseudonevermannia
Baranov, 1926).
(6) The name Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926 (a junior objective
synonym of Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 through the action taken under the
plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2393
An application to set aside the specimen considered by Crosskey and
Davies, 1972 as holotype of Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804, was first
received from Professor I. A. Rubtsov (Zoological Institute, Leningrad,
U.S.S.R.) on 19 October 1981. After correspondence it was published
concurrently with a comment from Dr R. W. Crosskey (Department of
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) London) in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 41, pp. 83-93 (June 1984). 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 ten
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 265
general and ten specialist serials. Support for Dr Crosskey’s proposals was
received from Dr D. C. Currie (University of Alberta, Canada) and Dr T. K.
Crosby (DSIR, New Zealand) and published in vol. 41, p. 211. A counter
comment was received from Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute,
Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) and published in conjunction with comments from Dr
H. Zwick (Max-Planck-Instituts f. Limnologie, BRD) and Dr J. E. Raastad
(Zoological Museum, Oslo, Norway) and a reply from Dr Crosskey, in vol.
42, pp. 109-123.
During the time between publication of these comments and voting,
Simulium (Hellichiella) latipes (Meigen, 1804) was recorded from South-
West Germany. This information was made known on the voting paper.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41,
p. 85 (Alternative A) or the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, p.
121 (Alternative B). At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986 the state
of the voting was as follows:
Alternative A—two (2) Corliss, Starobogatov
Alternative B—eighteen (18) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski,
Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Ride, Bayer,
Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
Dr Holthuis commented: ‘Had Dr Rubtsov’s application been pub-
lished immediately after the discovery by Drs Crosskey and Davies that the
holotype specimen of Atractocera latipes is Simulium subexcisum, I think that
I would have voted for the establishment of a neotype for Atractocera latipes
in Edwards’ sense. However, now that the use of the specific names vernum
and /atipes in Crosskey’s sense has been accepted by numerous dipterists it
seems wrong, at this late date, to legalize the nomenclaturally incorrect
pre-1972 usage, and cause renewed confusion.’
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:
Cnetha, Enderlein, 1921 (16 April) Dt. tierarztl. Wochenschrift. vol. 29, p. 199
latipes, Atractocera, Meigen, 1804, Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der
europdischen zweifliigligen Insekten. (Diptera Linn.) Vol. 1(1), p. 96
Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926, Neue. Beitr. syst. Insektenk, vol. 3, p. 164
vernum, Simuliua, Macquart, 1826, Rec. Trav. Soc. amat. Sci. Lille 1823-4,
1826, p. 79.
266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 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. 1416.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 267
OPINION 1417
CHROMIS CUVIER IN DESMAREST, 1814 (OSTEICHTHYES,
PERCIFORMES): GENDER CONFIRMED AS FEMININE
RULING.—_(1) The name Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814
(gender: feminine), type species by original designation, Sparus chromis
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
(2) The name chromis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Sparus chromis (specific name of the type species of Chromis Cuvier in
Desmarest, 1814) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
(3) The application asking that the gender of the generic name
Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 be ruled as masculine is refused. Since it
was treated as feminine in the original work, under Article 30(a) (i) of the
Code it is so placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. It is to
be noted that this in no way defines the gender of generic names ending in
-chromis.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2329
in Desmarest, 1814 and of names ending in -chromis was first received from
Dr R. M. Bailey (University of Michigan, U.S.A.), Dr C. R. Robins (Univer-
sity of Miami, U.S.A.) and Dr P. H. Greenwood (British Museum (Natural
published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, pp. 247-255 (December 1980). 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 nine general and two specialist serials.
A supportive comment was received from Dr W. I. Follett and Dr L. J.
Dempster (California Academy of Science, U S.A.) and published in vol. 38,
p. 284. A counter comment was received from Dr S. O. Kullander (Swedish
Museum of Natural History, Stockholm) and published with a comment from
pp. 215-218,
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for ora gainst the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nom., vol. 37, pp. 248-249. At the close of the voting period on 17 July 1986
the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative Votes—seven (7) received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Corliss, Starobogatov, Alvarado
268 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Negative Votes—thirteen (13) received in the following order:
Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Schuster, Halvorsen, Hahn, Uéno,
Thompson, Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger, Dupuis.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814, Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris (3), vol. 1,
p. 88
chromis, Sparus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 280.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986) 18 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. 1417.
P. K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 269
RHABDODON MATHERON, 1869 (REPTILIA, ORNITHISCHIA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION OF
RHABDODON FLEISCHMANN, 1831 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES).
Z.N.(S.) 2536
By Winand Brinkmann (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Freie Universitat Berlin,
Schwendenerstr. 8, D—1000 Berlin 33)
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
asked to use its plenary powers to suppress an older homonym, which has
been used only once, of Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869, in order to make valid
the use of this name for a widely-spread and well-known European dinosaur.
2. In 1831 the physician F. L. Fleischmann published his thesis
written at the then Friedrich-Alexander Universitat, Erlangen (Fed. Rep. of
Germany). In this paper (p. 26) he describes and shows two specimens of
living snakes. One of them (Tafel 2) is clearly a Montpellier Snake, Malpolon
monspessulanus Hermann, 1804, but was considered as a new genus and
species by the author and was given the binomen Rhabdodon fuscus
Fleischmann, 1831. My extensive attempts to discover an original specimen
of Fleischmann’s snake have been unsuccessful, and the type of Rhabdodon
fuscus Fleischmann, 1831 must have been lost. Fleischmann himself says in a
footnote that the specimen was kept in his private collection.
3. A revision of the literature concerned has revealed that Rhabdodon
Fleischmann, 1831 has not been recognized as a valid genus of snakes by any
of the workers who have followed. Schinz (1840, p. 50) removed Rhabdodon
Fleischmann, 1831 into synonymy. Other important publications in which
Rhabdodon fuscus is regarded as a synonym are Boulenger (1896, vol. 3,
p. 141), Giinther (1858, p. 138), Romer (1956, p. 579) and Schreiber (1875,
p. 219; 1912, p. 638). Rhabdodon fuscus is not in the lists of synonymy in two
works which are decisive for the nomenclature of European amphibians and
reptiles (Mertens & Miller, 1928; 1940). However, Mertens & Wermuth
(1960, p. 185) mentioned that Rhabdodon fuscus is a synonym of Malpolon
monspessulanus.
4. When Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (Ornithopoda) was established
two different spellings were used by the author: Rabdodon in the text of
Matheron (1869b), Rhabdodon in the text of Matheron (1869a) and at the top
of the tables in Matheron (1869b). As far as I know Gaudry (1890, p. 222)
and Zittel (1890, p. 763) were the first authors to quote this genus, and they
adopted Rhabdodonas the correct original spelling. All later workers, includ-
ing Matheron (1892) have adhered to this, and so Rhabdodon Matheron,
1869 enters into homonymy with Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831.
5. Rhabdodon priscus Matheron, 1869 (specific name corrected from
priscum) is one of the dinosaurs which are known as the first representatives
of this group of reptiles from the Upper Cretaceous of Europe. The type
material comes from Provence and is housed in the Musée d’Histoire
Naturelle, Palais Longchamp, Marseille. This material includes jaw-bones
270 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
of Rhabdodon priscus with very characteristic teeth. In the drawings pub-
lished by Matheron (1869b) one important feature of the teeth of Rhabdodon
priscus is not shown (Nopcsa, 1915). Three papers were published before
1915 (Seeley, 1881; Nopcsa, 1902, 1904) in which Rhabdodon material from
other parts of Europe (Austria, Romania) was described under the name
Mochlodon Seeley, 1881 (p. 624). In 1915 Nopcsa pointed out the mistake in
the drawings published by Matheron (1869b), and it became clear that
Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 is a genus of dinosaurs widely distributed
throughout the Upper Cretaceous of Europe, including Spain (de Lapparent
& Aguirre, 1956).
6. The type species Rhabdodon priscus is easy to define on account
of the morphology of its teeth. This is why Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 can
be clearly distinguished from other genera. I know of only two papers
published after 1915 in which Mochlodon Seeley, 1881 is used as a name of
the genus-group (Harland et al., 1967, p. 716; Weishampel & Weishampel,
1983, p. 44). All other workers have used Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 as the
name of this taxon in their studies of European dinosaurs from the Upper
Cretaceous; it has become widely known and has found its way into the
textbooks of palaeontology, e.g. Abel (1919, p. 618), Huene (1956, p. 537),
Kuhn (1936, p. 37; 1964, p. 12), Miller (1968, p. 472), Piveteau (1955,
p. 836), Romer (1956, p. 629; 1966, p. 370), and Steel (1969, p. 19). It
continues to be used at the present time.
7. From what has been said in this paper it becomes obvious that
Rhabdodon is by far the most frequently used name of this dinosaur from
the Upper Cretaceous and that information on this genus can, as a rule, be
found under Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869, whereas Rhabdodon fuscus
Fleischmann, 1831 has remained totally unused. Furthermore, it can be
stated that the taxonomy of European snakes is so well known that
Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831 is not needed as a name of the genus-group.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Rhabdo-
don Fleischmann, 1831 (type species, by monotypy, Rhabdodon
fuscus Fleischmann, 1831) for the purposes of the Principles of
Homonymy and of Priority;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869 (gender: masculine), type
species, by monotypy, Rhabdodon priscus Matheron, 1869;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name priscus Matheron, 1869, as published in the binomen
Rhabdodon priscum Matheron, 1869 (1869a, 1869b) (specific
name of the type species of Rhabdodon Matheron, 1869);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Rhabdodon Fleischmann, 1831,
suppressed as in (1) above, for the purposes of the Principles of
Priority and of Homonymy.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 271
REFERENCES
ABEL, O. 1919. Die Stémme der Wirbeltiere. De Gruyter, Berlin und Leipzig.
XVIII+ 914 pp.
BOULENGER, G. A. 1896. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural
History), Vol. 3. Trustees of the Brit. Mus. (N.H.), London. XIV + 727 pp.
FLEISCHMANN, F. L. 1831. Dalmatiae nova serpentum genera. Heyder, Erlangen
35 pp.
GAUDRY, A. 1890. Les enchainements du monde animal dans les temps géologiques:
Fossiles secondaires. Savy, Paris. 323 pp.
GUNTHER, A. 1858. Catalogue of colubrine snakes in the collection of the British
Museum. Trustees of the Brit. Mus. (N.H.), London. XVI+ 281 pp.
HARLAND, W. B. et al. (Eds.) 1967. The Fossil Record. The Geological Society,
London. XII +828 pp.
HUENE, F. 1956. Paldontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetrapoden. Fischer,
Jena. XII+716 pp.
KUHN, O. 1936. Ornithischia (Stegosauriis exclusis). In Quenstedt, W. (Ed.),
Fossilium Catalogus, 1: Animalia, Pars 78, pp. 1-81. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage.
1964. Ornithischia (Supplementum I). In Westphal, F. (Ed.). Fossilium
Catalogus, I: Animalia, Pars 105, pp. 1-80, Junk, ’s-Gravenhage.
LAPPARENT, A. F. DE & AGUIRRE, E. 1956. Algunos yacimientos de Dino-
saurios en el Cretacico Superior de la Cuenca de Tremp. Estud. geol., vol. 12,
pp. 377-382.
MATHERON, P. 1869a. Note sur les reptiles fossiles des dép6ts fluvio-lacustres
crétacés du bassin a lignite de Fuveau. Bull. Soc. géol. France, vol. 26, pp.
781-795.
1869b. Notice sur les reptiles fossiles des dép6ts fluvio-lacustres crétacés du
bassin a lignite de Fuveau. Mém. Acad. Sci. Lett. Marseille, 1868-1869, pp.
345-380.
1982. Sur les animaux vertébrés dans les couches d’eau douce crétacées du midi
dela France. Assoc. Franc. avancement Sci., Compte rendu de la 20me Session,
Marseille. Seconde partie, pp. 382-383.
MERTENS, R. & MULLER, L. 1928. Liste der Amphibien und Reptilien Europas.
Abh. sencken. naturf. Ges., vol. 41, pp. 1-62.
1940. Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas (Zweite Liste, nach dem Stand
vom | Januar 1940). Abh. sencken. naturf. Ges., vol. 451, pp. 1-56.
MERTENS, R. & WERMUTH, H. 1960. Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas
(Dritte Liste, nach dem Stand vom 1 Januar 1960). Kramer, Frankfurt.
X1+264 pp.
MULLER, A. H. 1968. Lehrbuch der Paldozoologie, Band 3: Vertebraten, Teil 2:
Reptilien und Vogel. Fischer, Jena. XIII + 657 pp.
NOPCSA, F. 1902. Dinosaurierreste aus Siebenbiirgen II (Schddelreste von
Mochlodon). Denkschr. Akad. Wiss., math.-nat. Kl., vol. 72, pp. 149-175.
1904. Dinosaurierreste aus Siebenbiirgen III (Weitere Schadelreste von
Mochlodon). Denkschr. Akad. Wiss., math.-nat. Kl., vol. 74, pp. 229-263.
1915. Die Dinosaurier des siebenbiirgischen Landesteile Ungarns. Mitt. Jb.
ungar. geol. Reichsanst., vol. 23, pp. 3-24.
PIVETEAU, J. (Ed.) 1955. Traité de Paléontologie, Tome V: Amphibiens-Reptiles-
Oiseaux. Masson, Paris. 1113 pp.
ROMER, A. S. 1956. Osteology of the Reptiles. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
XXI+772 pp.
272 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
468 pp.
SCHINZ, H. R. 1840. Europdische Fauna oder Verzeichnis der Wirbelthiere Europas,
Erster Band: Sdugethiere und Vogel. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.
SCHREIBER, E. 1875. Herpetologia europaea. Eine systematische Bearbeitung der
Amphibien und Reptilien, welche bisher in Europa aufgefunden sind.
Vieweg, Braunschweig.
1912. Herpetologia europaea. Eine systematische Bearbeitung der Amphibien
und Reptilien, welche bisher in Europa aufgefunden sind. Zweite, ganzlich
umgearbeitete Auflage. Fischer, Jena.
SEELEY, H. G. 1881. The reptile fauna of the Gosau formation preserved in the
geological museum of the University of Vienna. With a note on the geological
horizon of the fossils at Neue Welt, west of Wiener Neustadt, by Edw. Suess.
Q. J. geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 37, pp. 620-707.
STEEL, R. 1969. Ornithischia. Jn Kuhn, O. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology,
Part 15. Fischer, Stuttgart. V+ 84 pp.
WEISHAMPEL, D. B. & WEISHAMPEL, J. B. 1983. Annotated localities of
ornithopod Dinosaurs: Implications to mesozoic paleobiogeography. The
Mosasaur, vol. 1, pp. 43-87.
ZITTEL, K. A. 1890. Handbuch der Palaeontologie, 1. Abth. Palaeozoologie, III.
Band: Vertebrata (Pisces, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves). Oldenburg. Munchen
und Leipzig, 1887-1890. XII + 900 pp.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 273
MEGALONAIAS UTTERBACK, 1915 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
MAGNONAIAS UTTERBACK, 1915. Z.N.(S.)2512
By Arthur E. Began (Department of Malacology, Academy of Natural
Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, U.S.A.) and
James D. Williams (Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. 20240, U.S.A.)
This application is for the suppression of the generic name
Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, in the family UNIONIDAE. This is an unused,
senior synonym of a well known genus, Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 and as
such, poses a threat to the stability of the binomen Megalonaias gigantea
(Barnes, 1823). A decision by the Commission is requested in order to
prevent disruption of existing, universally accepted nomenclature.
2. Utterback (1915a p. 47) introduced the generic name Magnonaias
in a key to Missouri unionids and included only Unio heros Say, 1829 (pp.
291-292) in the genus. The association of U. heros with Magnonaias consti-
tutes an indication, satisfying the provision set forth in Article 12b (5) of the
Code. Later in the same year (Utterback, 1915b, pp. 123-125) he described
the genus Megalonaias and designated Unio heros Say, 1829, as type species.
However, he did not present a discussion of the earlier generic name
Magnonaias, nor did he include Magnonaias heros in the synonymy of
Megalonaias heros (Say). Since both Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, and
Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 have the same type species, Megalonaias is a
junior objective synonym of Magnonaias.
3. Utterback (1916a, p. 460, at the end of part VII), included an
erratum in which he commented:
‘Some errors have been due to improper and insufficient corrections
of the MS. which originally followed Lindahl’s “Orthography of the
Names of Naiades,’’ — an article that adheres strictly to the Interna-
tional Code. Most of the other errors are the typographical mistakes
that usually escape even the most careful proof-reading. Vol. IV.,
No. 3 —
pg. 47... line 40 for “Magnonaias”’ read “‘Megalonaias”’; .. .”
He recognised his error in using both Magnonaias and Megalonaias and
corrected Magnonaias to read Megalonaias.
4. The suggested name change in Utterback’s 1916a erratum was not
a spelling correction, but a change of the root from the Latin magnus to the
Greek megale. This change is not a justified emendation because the nomen
Magnonaias was not originally mispelled. Utterback made the etymological
change for philosophical reasons. This change is not allowed under Articles
18 and 23m of the Code. The name change proposed in the erratum is an
emendation as defined by Article 33b but is clearly an unjustified emendation
as defined by Article 33b (iii). Thus Megalonaias Utterback, 1916, automati-
274 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
cally becomes a junior objective synonym of Magnonaias, in addition to
being a junior homonym of megalonaias Utterback, 1915. The complete text
of the naiades of Missouri published in the American Midland Naturalist
was repaginated and reprinted in 1916 (Utterback, 1916b).
5. The generic name Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 has been used
extensively and exclusively in malacological literature for the species
gigantea Barnes, 1823 (=U. heros Say, 1829). Frierson (1916, p. 64) in dis-
cussing the synonymy of gigantea and heros used the name Megalonaias.
Ortmann & Walker (1922, pp. 7, 8) supported Frierson’s use of Megalonaias
gigantea. Frierson (1927, p. 62) in his checklist of freshwater bivalves of
North America, used Megalonaias as a subgenus of Amblema Rafinesque,
1820. The genus Megalonaias has been widely used in faunal surveys such
as those of Baker, 1928; Goodrich & van der Schalie, 1944; La Rocque,
1953; Murray & Leonard, 1962; Parmalee, 1967; La Rocque, 1967 and
Starobogatov, 1970. Haas (1969a, p. 284) and Burch (1975, p. 10) in surveys
of unionids used Megalonaias.
6. Megalonaias gigantea is a commercially important species. It was
one of the commonly used shells in the pearl button industry and is today a
preferred species in the Japanese cultured pearl industry (see Parmelee, 1967,
p. 33; Oesch, 1984, p. 77). Davis & Fuller (1981, p. 241) recognised the genus
Megalonaias but suggested that it was a synonym of Amblema. Haas (1969b,
p. N439) used the genus Megalonaias and in the notes listed “Megalonaias
Utterback, 1915 [= Magnonaias Utterback, 1915].’
7. The genus Magnonaias Utterback, 1915 has not been used in the
literature on North America freshwater bivalves. Vokes (1967, 1980) listed
Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, as the nomenclaturally valid generic name
followed by ‘[cf. Megalonaias Utterback, 1915], noting in the entry for
Megalonaias Utterback, 1915, ‘[Magnonaias Utterback, 1915]. Vokes
(1967, p. 205) was the first to point out the priority of Magnonaias over
Megalonaias. The listings of Haas (1969b) and Vokes (1967, 1980) are the
only occurrences of the nomen Magnonaias in the literature since the original
description.
8. In order to avoid undesirable changes in nomenclature and to
preserve the stability of generic names in the UNIONIDAE, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name
Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, for the purposes of the Principle
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the generic name Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 (gender:
feminine), type species, by original designation, Unio heros Say,
1829, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the specific name heros Say, 1829, as published in
the binomen Unio heros (specific name of the type species of
Megalonaias Utterback, 1915 and currently treated as a junior
subjective synonym of Unio giganteus Barnes, 1823) on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 275
(4) to place the generic name Magnonaias Utterback, 1915, as sup-
pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BAKER, F. C. 1928. Freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin. Bull. Wisc. geol. nat. Hist.
Sur., vol. 70(2), pp. 1-495.
BARNES, D. W. 1823. On the genera Unio and Alasmodonta; with introductory
remarks. Am. J. Sci. Arts, vol. 6, pp. 107-127, 258-280.
BURCH, J. B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North
America. 204 pp. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan.
DAVIS, G. M. & FULLER, S. L. H. 1981. Genetic relationships among recent
Unionacea (Bivalvia) of North America. Malacol., vol. 20(2), pp. 217-253.
FRIERSON, L. S. 1916. Observations on Unio giganteus Barnes. Nautilus, vol. 30(6),
pp. 61-64.
1927. A classified and annotated checklist of the North American naiades.
111 pp. Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas.
GOODRICH, C. & VAN DER SCHALIE, H. 1944. A revision of the Mollusca of
Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat., vol. 32(2), pp. 257-326.
HAAS, F. 1969a. Superfamilia Unionacea. In Das Tierreich. x +633 pp. Berlin,
Lieferung 88.
1969b [Unionacea.] pp. N411—N471, In Moore, R. C. (ed. Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, part N, vol. 1, Mollusca 6. Bivalves. Geological
Society of America, University of Kansas Press.
LA ROCQUE, A. 1953. Catalogue of the Recent Mollusca of Canada. Bull., natl.
Mus. Canada, no. 129, pp. 1-406.
1967. Pleistocene Mollusca of Ohio. Ohio. Div. geol. Sur. Bull., vol. 63(2),
pp. xiv, 113, 356.
MURRAY, H. D. & LEONARD, A. B. 1962. Handbook of unionid mussels in
Kansas. Univ. of Kansas Dept. Zool. St. Biol. Sur., Misc. Pap., no. 28, pp.
1-184.
OESCH, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiades: a guide to the mussels of Missouri. vii+ 270 pp.
Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.
ORTMANN, A. E. & WALKER, B. 1922. On the nomenclature of certain North
American naiades. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, no. 112, pp. 1-75.
PARMALEE, P. W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. [//inois State Mus. Pop.
Sci. Ser., vol. 8, pp. ix, 108 pp.
SAY, T. 1829. Descriptions of some new terrestrial and fluviatile shells of North
America. New Harmony Dis., vol 2 (19), pp. 291-292.
STAROBOGATOV, Y. I. 1970. [Mollusca fauna and Zoogeographical Partitioning of
Continental Water Reservoirs of the World.) Pp. 3-372. Akademiya Nauk
SSSR. Zoologicheskii Instituti Nauka. Leningrad 1970. [In Russian].
UTTERBACK, W. I. 1915a. The naiades of Missouri. Am. Midl. Nat., vol. 4(3), pp.
41-53.
1915b. The naiades of Missouri. — II. Am. Midl. Nat., vol. 4(4), pp. 97-152.
1916a. The naiades of Missouri. — VII. Am. Midl. Nat., vol. 4 (10), pp.
432-464.
1916b. The naiades of Missouri. (Reprinted from The American Midland
Naturalist, vol. 4, nos 1-10) 200 pp. University Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.
276 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
VOKES, H. E. 1967. Genera of the bivalvia: a systematic and bibliographic
catalogue. Bull. Am. Paleontol., vol. 51, no. 232, pp. 111-394.
1980. Genera of the Bivalvia: a systematic and bibliographic catalogue (revised
and updated). xxviit+ 307 pp. Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca,
NY.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 Pa |
AMMONITES NEUBERGICUS HAUER, 1858 (CEPHALOPODA,
AMMONOIDEA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF AMMONITES CHRISHNA FORBES, 1846.
Z.N.(S.)2460
By. R. A. Henderson (James Cook University of North Queensland,
Townsville Q 4811, Australia) and W. J. Kennedy (University Museum,
Oxford OX1 3PR, U.K.)
Ammonites neubergicus Hauer, 1858 (p. 12) is the type species by
subsequent designation by Grossouvre (1894, p. 177) of the widely distri-
buted Upper Cretaceous ammonite genus Pachydiscus Zittel, 1884, p. 466. It
is also the index fossil of a widely accepted Maastrichtian ammonite zone (see
for example Spath, 1926; Muller & Schenck, 1943; Wright, 1957; Kennedy &
Cobban, 1976; and Wiedmann, 1979).
2. The stability of the name is now under threat because our current
research has shown that neubergicus is a junior subjective synonym of
Ammonites chrishna Forbes, 1846 (p. 103).
3. Although the name chrishna has seldom been employed in the
literature, it has been used on at least three occasions in the last thirty years:
Collignon, 1955; Atabekian & Akopian, 1969; and Matsumoto et al., 1979.
4. As the type species of the widely distributed and common genus
Pachydiscus, the species neubergicus has been cited in many publications
which describe Pachydiscus and in a number of compilations of Cretaceous
ammonite taxonomy. Additionally, neubergicus is a characteristic element of
the Cretaceous faunas of Western Europe and is used as a zonal index species
of the Lower Maastrichtian Stage. For these reasons, considerable confusion
would be caused in both taxonomy and biostratigraphy if the specific name
chrishna replaced neubergicus. No adverse consequences in taxonomy or
biostratigraphy would result if chrishna were suppressed.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name chrishna
Forbes, 1846, as published in the binomen Ammonites chrishna,
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of
the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
specific name neubergicus Hauer, 1858, as published in the
binomen Pachydiscus neubergicus (specific name of the type
species of Pachydiscus Zittel, 1884);
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the specific name chrishna Forbes, 1846,
as published in the binomen Ammonites chrishna, and as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above.
278 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
REFERENCES
ATABEKIAN, A. A. & AKOPIAN, V. T. 1969. [Late Cretaceous ammonites of the
Armenian SSR (Pachydiscidae).] Proc. Armenian Acad. Sci., Earth Sci., vol. 6,
pp. 3-20. [In Russian.]
COLLIGNON, M. 1955. Ammonites néocrétacées du Menabe (Madagascar). II, Les
Pachydiscidae. An. géol. Serv. Mines Madagascar. Fasc. 21, pp. 1-98.
FORBES, E. 1846. Report on the fossil Invertebrata from southern India, collected
by Mr Kaye and Mr Cunliffe. Trans. geol. Soc. London, vol. 7, pp. 97-174.
GROSSOUVRE, A. DE 1894. Recherches sur la Craie Supérieure, 2. Paléontologie.
Les ammonites de la Craie Supérieure. Mém. Serv. Carte géol. dét. France, pp.
1-264.
HAUER, F. VON 1858. Ueber die Cephalopoden. der Gosauschichten. Beitr.
Palaeontogr. Ost., vol. 1, pp. 7-14.
KENNEDY, W. J. & COBBAN, W. A. 1976. Aspects of ammonite biology, bio-
geography, and biostratigraphy. Spec. Pap. Palaeontol., vol. 17, pp. 1-94.
MATSUMOTO, T., KANIE, Y. & YOSHIDA, S. 1979. Notes on Pachydiscus from
Hokkaido. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ., Ser. D, vol. 24, pp. 47-73.
MULLER, S. W. & SCHENCK, H. G. 1943. Standard of the Cretaceous System.
Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., vol. 27(1), pp. 262-278.
SPATH, L. F. 1926. On new ammonites from the English Chalk. Geol. Mag., vol. 63,
pp. 77-83.
WIEDMANN, J. 1979. Die Ammoniten der NW-deutschen Regensburger und
Ostalpinen Oberkreide im Vergleich mit der Oberkreidefaunen des westlichen
Mediterrangebiets. In: WIEDMANN, J. (editor). Aspekte der Kreide Europas,
pp. 335-350. E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
WRIGHT, C. W. 1957. In: MOORE, R. C. (editor). Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, pt. L, Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea, p. L128.
Geological Society of America, New York and Lawrence.
ZITTEL, K. A. 1884. Handbuch der Palaeontologie, Cephalopoda. Band 1, Abt. 2,
Lief. 3, pp. 329-522. Munich and Leipzig.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 279
CORIXA ALBIFRONS MOTSCHULSKY, 1863 (INSECTA,
HETEROPTERA): PROPOSED CONFIRMATION OF NEOTYPE
DESIGNATION. Z.N.(S.)2520
By Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, P.
Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland) and 1. M. Kerzhner
(Zoological Institute, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.)
Motschulsky (1863, p. 94) described Corixa albifrons apparently from
a single specimen collected from Ceylon (‘environs de Colombo’). The speci-
men remained in Motschulsky’s private collection which, by the beginning of
the 20th century, had ended up at the Zoological Museum, Moscow State
University. Professor G. A. Kozhevnikov, who was the director of
the museum at that time, sent most of the exotic Heteroptera from
Motschulsky’s collection to Finland for inspection by Dr E. Bergroth. How-
ever, because the collection was badly damaged by dermestids, Professor
Kozhevnikov did not send all the specimens and evidently overlooked some
of the material including the remnants of the type of C. albifrons.
2. Bergroth (1921) published a paper on Motschulsky’s types of
exotic Heteroptera. For all the species described by Motschulsky and not
sent to Finland by Professor Kozhevnikov Bergroth stated that the type
material ‘must be regarded as lost’. Of C. albifrons he further stated that
it cannot be a synonym of Micronecta striata (Fieber, 1844) [=junior
secondary homonym of Sigara striata (Linnaeus, 1758), renamed as S. siva
Kirkaldy, 1897] as had been suggested by Kirkaldy (1897) but would be
conspecific with M. lucina Distant, 1910 (the latter name thus being a
synonymic one).
3. Hutchinson (1940, pp. 379-380) quoted the original description
and discussed the identity of the species. He also gave drawings of what he
thought to be M. albifrons (Motsch.) and included the species in his key of the
Micronectinae of India.
4. Wroblewski (1962, p. 323) indicated that M. albifrons (Motsch.)
sensu Hutchinson (1940) was in fact M. ludibunda Breddin, 1905. He further
indicated that another species from the area, M. fascioclavus Chen, 1960,
‘agrees better in the pronotal pattern with the diagnose of Motschulsky,
1863’. Wroblewski continued by stating that ‘the identity of M. albifrons
(Motsch.) and M. fascioclavus Chen cannot be proved, as the type of the first
exists no more in the collection of Motschulsky in Moscow (I have verified
personally, that there remains only the pin with the labels)’.
5. Wroblewski (1968, pp. 764-765) designated the neotype and a
series of paraneotypes for M. albifrons (Motsch.). The neotype is a macrop-
terous male ona microscope slide labelled, ““Ceylon, Colombo, Jan. 29. 1896,
Madrasz leg.”’, and is deposited in the Museum of Natural History, Wroclaw
University, Poland. As well as designating the neotype, Wrdblewski also
synonymised M. fascioclavus Chen to M. albifrons (Motsch.).
280 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
6. Zhelokhovtzev & Zimina (1968) published a list of the types of
Motschulsky’s Heteroptera, indicating that the type specimen of Corixa
albifrons had been destroyed.
7. Kerzhner & Jansson (1985, p. 35) discovered remnants of
Motschulsky’s original specimen of Corixa albifrons in the Moscow Univer-
sity collections. They consisted of parts of the right hind tibia with complete
tarsi and claw, part of the left hind tibia, and part of a middle tibia. These
fragments were evidently overlooked by Wroblewski (1962).
8. Measurements made from the remnants revealed that M. siva
(Kirkaldy) is a much larger species, and the original specimen falls within the
size range of the species from which Wroblewski (1968) selected the neotype
of M. albifrons (Motsch.). However, because the remnants are not sufficient
for giving any further information for positive recognition of the species,
Kerzhner & Jansson (1985, p. 35) recommended acceptance of the neotype
designation by Wroblewski (1968).
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to rule under Article 75h that the name-bearing type of Corixa
albifrons Motschulsky, 1863 is the neotype designated by
Wroblewski (1968);
(2) to place the specific name albifrons Motschulsky, 1863, as pub-
lished in the binomen Corixa albifrons, and as defined by the
neotype confirmed in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
REFERENCES
BERGROTH, E. 1921. On the types of the exotic Hemiptera Heteroptera described
by V. Motschulsky. Rev. Russe Entomol., vol. 17, pp. 96-109.
BREDDIN, G. 1905. Ubersicht der javanischen Micronecta-Arten. Societas ent., vol.
20S ps DT
CHEN, L. 1960. A study of the genus Micronecta of India, Japan, Taiwan and
adjacent regions (Heteroptera: Corixidae). J. Kansas entomol. Soc., vol. 33,
pp. 99-118.
DISTANT, W. L. 1910. Rhynchota. Vol. V. Heteroptera: Appendix. The Fauna of
British India, London, 362 pp.
FIEBER, F. X. 1844 (1845). Entomologische Monographien. II. Hydrocores.
Monographia der Gattung Sigara. Abh. béhm. Ges. Wiss., vol. 3, pp. 289-293.
HUTCHINSON, G. E. 1940. A revision of the Corixidae of India and adjacent
regions. Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts. Sci., vol. 33, pp. 341-476.
KERZHNER, I. M. & JANSSON, A. 1985. The type specimens of Heteroptera
described by V. Motschulsky. Ann. Entomol. Fennici, vol. 51, pp. 33-44.
KIRKALDY, G. W. 1897. Notes on the genus Sigara Fabr. (Rhynchota).
Entomologist, vol. 30, pp. 238-240.
1898. Notes on aquatic Rhynchota. No. 1. Entomologist, vol. 31, pp. 2+.
MOTSCHULSKY, V. 1863. Essais d’un catalogue des insectes de l’ile Ceylan (Suite).
Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. 36(2), pp. 1-153.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 281
WROBLEWSKI, A. 1962. Notes on Micronectinae from Melanesia (Heteroptera,
Corixidae). Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 319-324.
1968. Notes on Oriental Micronectinae (Heteroptera, Corixidae). Polskie
Pismo entomol., vol. 38(4), pp. 753-779.
ZHELOKHOVTZEV, A. N. & ZIMINA, L. V. 1968. Types of Heteroptera of V.
Motschulsky in the collection of the Zoological Museum of the Moscow State
University. Sb. Trud. zool. Muz. Mosk. Gos. Univ., vol. 11, pp. 107-112 [in
Russian].
282 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
DEXIA MEIGEN, 1826 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF MUSCA RUSTICA FABRICIUS, 1775, AS
TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2252
By R. W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, England), B. Herting (Naturkundemuseum, Rosenstein 1,
7000 Stuttgart 1, West Germany), L. P. Mesnil* (Commonwealth Institute of
Biological Control, Delémont, Switzerland CH-2800), and D. M. Wood
(Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0C6)
The purpose of this application is to ask the Commission to set aside a
designation of a type species for Dexia Meigen, 1826 (TACHINIDAE) that
became binding as the result of an early Opinion, and to designate another
type species in its stead.
2. In 1922 the Commission gave a ruling in its Opinion 71 (ICZN,
1922) on the nomenclatural status of species names cited in association with
generic names in Westwood’s ‘Synopsis of the genera of British insects’
published in 1840. In the light of Westwood’s own statement (p. | of the
‘Synopsis’, footnote) that the cited species were ‘typical species’, the Com-
mission determined that such species are to be accepted as the type species of
those genera for which there were no prior valid type fixations. The genus
Dexia Meigen, 1826 originally proposed with 24 included species (Meigen,
1826), is one such genus. No type species designation for it exists in the
literature that antedates the work of Westwood (1840). The type species of
Dexia, by the operation of Opinion 71, is therefore Musca volvulus Fabricius,
1794, by designation of Westwood.
3. Westwood (1840), in common with nearly all later authors,
recognised the composite nature of Meigen’s concept of Dexia and adopted
narrower genera for the originally included species. He used Dexia in a more
restricted sense than Meigen and cited it (p. 139) as ‘Dexia Latr.’. Though not
explicitly stated, this mode of citation can only have referred to Latreille
(1829), his entry for Dexia in volume 5 of the second edition of Cuvier’s “Le
régne animal ...’, published three years after Meigen’s original description
of the genus. However, the attribution of subsequent instead of original
authorship does not invalidate Westwood’s type designation for Dexia
(Code Article 67(f)).
Westwood noted that volvulus ‘belongs to the s.g. Phyllomyia R.D.’ a
monotypic taxon (correctly Phyllomya) proposed by Robineau-Desvoidy
(1830, p. 213) for volvulus. Under today’s nomenclature Westwood’s sub-
genus Phyllomya would be Dexia sensu stricto (the nominotypical subgenus)
but use of the same name for the nominotypical subgenus and for the genus
was not established practice in Westwood’s time. His action means nomen-
claturally that Dexia Meigen is a senior objective synonym of Phyllomya
(both genera based on volvulus).
*Dr. Mesnil died on 17 May 1986 while this application was in press.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 283
4. Another restricted constituent of the old Dexia was defined by
Westwood (p. 140) and named by him ‘Dexilla Westw.’ It was stated to
contain three species, but only one —the typical species in the sense of
Westwood’s work — was named, viz. Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775 (cited as
‘D. rustica Meig.’). Hence rustica Fabricius is type species of Dexilla
Westwood by original designation and also by monotypy. (Westwood noted,
p. 140, by using a bracket-linked entry of the names, that his taxon Dexilla
was equivalent to ‘Dexia Mcq. nec Latr.’: evidently a reference to Macquart,
(1835, p. 211), but this is not nomenclaturally relevant.)
5. Westwood’s ‘Synopsis’ was overlooked by nearly all 19th century
British and continental European dipterists, and the name Dexilla
Westwood has even been omitted from each major British work this century
that should have accounted for it, e.g. the revisionary handbooks on British
Tachinidae by Wainwright (1928) and Emden (1954) and the checklist of
British insects by Kloet & Hincks (1945). No 19th century author adopted
Westwood’s classification, i.e. that with Dexia (syn. Phyllomya) based on
volvulus and Dexilla based on rustica; instead they either (Zetterstedt 1844,
1849, 1855; Walker 1849, 1853) placed rustica and volvulus congenerically in
Dexia, or (Rondani 1862; Schiner 1862; Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889)
placed rustica in Dexia and volvulus in Melanota Rondani, 1853 (replacement
name for Melania Meigen, 1838, preoccupied). So far as we know, Schiner’s
(1862, p. 558) citation of Dexilla (as a synonym of Dexia) is the only subse-
quent mention of this name in 19th century literature. Walker knew
Westwood but nevertheless neglected to mention Westwood’s Dexilla in his
works on British Diptera, though he referred (Walker 1853, p. 94) to ‘Dexia
et Dinera, Westw.” in synonymy with Dexia.
6. Rondani (1856, p. 84) designated Musca carinifrons Fallen, 1816,
an originally included species in Dexia Meigen, and this is the earliest type
designation for Dexia if Westwood’s is rejected. However, acceptance of
Rondani’s designation would cause nomenclatural havoc, irrespective of
whether he identified carinifrons correctly, because this name (by virtue of its
senior synonymy over Dinera grisea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) is the valid
name of the type species of Dinera Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. This genus is
now universally accepted as distinct from Dexia (e.g. see Herting 1984, p.
140).
7. Brauer & Bergenstamm (1889) cited only rustica Fabricius as
included in Dexia, but this action constitutes mention of an ‘example’ species
in the meaning of Opinion 98 (1928) on the Brauer & Bergenstamm works;
their action is therefore ineligible for consideration as a type species
designation.
8. The influential catalogue by Bezzi (1907) of the Palaearctic
TACHINIDAE did not cite type species as such but it established a definitive
usage by which — in accordance with the precedents set by Rondaniin a later
work (1862, pp. 73-74), and by Schiner, Brauer & Bergenstamm, and
others—the name Dexia was used for the genus containing rustica.
Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy was correctly restituted as the valid senior
284 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
synonym over Melania and Melanota for the genus containing volvulus.
Dexilla was listed by Bezzi (1907, p. 445) as a synonym of Dexia.
9. Coquillett (1910) dealing with type species formally for dipterous
genera occurring in North America, cited rustica as type of Dexia Meigen by
designation of Westwood, 1840; Dexilla was therefore listed by Coquillett as
a junior objective synonym of Dexia. The Bezzi classification, supported by
Coquillett’s designation, became firmly entrenched and universally used in
the Palaearctic literature and continues so today. It is used, for example, in
the new catalogue of Palaearctic TACHINIDAE by Herting (1984). The present
application seeks to validate this nomenclatural treatment by Commission
action.
10. Townsend (1916, p. 10) noted Coquillett’s ‘misconstruction’ of
Westwood, pointed out that Dexia as used by Brauer & Bergenstamm (i.e.
for rustica) should be Dexilla Westwood, and (p. 6) cited volvulus Fabricius
as type species of Dexia. The appearance of Opinion 71 in 1922 effectively
validated Townsend’s nomenclatural standpoint, not Coquillett’s, and in his
grand opus ‘Manual of Myiology’ Townsend (1936a, p. 120; 1936b, p. 12;
1938, p. 276; 1939, p. 21) held fast to the correct nomenclature, basing Dexia
Meigen on volvulus by designation of Westwood, 1840, and Dexilla on
rustica by monotypy (using also a suprageneric nomenclature so based). In
this he has since been almost wholly ignored. Post-Townsend only Sabrosky
& Arnaud (1965) have considered volvulus to be type-species of Dexia, with
Phyllomya R. D. as its synonym, though in doing so they recognised that
their action — though nomenclaturally impeccable — was out of step with
prevailing practice and commented (p. 1022) to this effect.
11. We concur with Townsend’s view that Coquillett misconstrued
Westwood’s action. Westwood, in a work planned as a compendium of
genera and stated intentionally to be a likeness to Latreille’s (1810)
‘Considérations générales ..tableau meéthodique de leurs genres’... etc.,
characterised as separate genera Dexia and Dexilla, naming volvulus as the
typical species of the former and rustica of the latter. Why would he diagnose
Dexilla as a genus distinct from Dexia if he intended rustica to be type of
Dexia? Coquillett’s assertion that Westwood designated rustica both as type
of Dexia and of Dexilla is untenable and Townsend rightly rejected it.
12. We consider that, interpreting Westwood’s action and the effect
of Opinion 71, there is no doubt that volvulus Fabricius is the type species of
Dexia Meigen. However, as in taxonomic practice the genus Dexia Meigen is
based by specialists on rustica, not volvulus, and the difference affects
correlated family-group nomenclature, it is highly desirable for prevailing
usage to be ratified by Commission action. This will ensure a uniform and
stable nomenclature for the genera concerned and their associated family-
group nomenclature. Currently concerned specialists have all adopted Dexia
in the usage sense based on rustica, and each has noted (in publication) the
need for Commission action to authorise this. Crosskey (1973, p. 41) gavea
general comment on the situation, and he (Crosskey 1976, p. 177; 1977, p.
601; 1980, p. 831), Mesnil (1980, p. 39) and Herting (1984, p. 143) have all
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 285
marked their citations for Dexia type with a statement that suspension of
[.C.Z.N. rules is required. This application is to achieve that suspension.
13. In the light of the foregoing statement, the Commission is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type
species hitherto made for the nominal genus Dexia Meigen,
1826, and to designate Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775, as the type
species of that genus;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:
(a) Dexia Meigen, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Musca
rustica Fabricius, 1775;
(b) Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine),
type species by monotypy, Musca volvulus Fabricius, 1794;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
(a) rustica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Musca
rustica (specific name of the type species of Dexia Meigen,
1826);
(b) volvulus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen
Musca volvulus (specific name of the type species of
Phyllomya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in
Zoology:
(a) Dexilla Westwood, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species
Musca rustica Fabricius, 1775 (a junior objective synonym
of Dexia Meigen, 1826, through the action under the
plenary powers in (1) above).
REFERENCES
BEZZI, M. 1907. Tachinidae, pp. 189-597, in Becker, T., Bezzi, M., Kertész, K. &
Stein, P. (Eds.), Katalog der Paléarktischen Dipteren, vol. 3, 828 pp.,
Budapest.
BRAUER, F. & BERGENSTAMM, F. E. VON. 1889. Die Zweifliigler der
Kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien. IV. Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der
Muscaria schizometopa (exclusive Anthomyidae). Denkschr. Akad. Wiss.,
Wien, vol. 65, pp. 69-180.
COQUILLETT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of
Diptera. Proc. U.S. natn. 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. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.) Suppl. 21, pp. 1-221.
1976. A taxonomic conspectus of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the Oriental
region. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.) Suppl. 26, pp. 1-357.
286 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
1977. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 586-697, in Delfinado, M. D. & Hardy, D. E.
(Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental region. Vol III, Suborder
Cyclorrhapha (excluding Division Aschiza). x +854 pp., University Press of
Hawaii.
1980. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882, in Crosskey, R. W. (Ed.), Catalogue of
the Diptera of the Afrotropical region. 1437 pp., British Museum (Natural
History).
EMDEN, F. I. VAN 1954. Diptera Cyclorrhapha Calyptrata (I) Section (a).
Tachinidae and Calliphoridae. Handbk Ident. Br. Insects, Vol. X, part 4(a),
133 pp., Royal Entomological Society of London.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines,
genera, species adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. 832
pp., Flensburg & Leipzig.
1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines,
genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, obervationibus, descriptionibus. Vol. 4,
472 pp., Copenhagen.
HERTING, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stuttg. Beitr.
Naturk (A), No. 369, 228 pp., Stuttgart.
I.C.Z.N. 1922. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature: Opinions 68-77. Smithson. misc. Collns, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp.
1-73.
KLOET, G. S. & HINCKS, W. D. 1945. A check list of British Insects. lix +483 pp.,
Kloet & Hincks, Stockport.
LATREILLE, P. A. 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. 444 pp., Paris.
1829. Suite et fin des insectes. Jn Cuvier, G. L. C. F. D., Le Régne animal
distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des
animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée. Ed. 2, vol. 5, xxiv+556 pp.
Paris.
MACQUART, J. 1835. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Diptéres. Vol. 2, 703 pp., Paris.
MEIGEN, J. W. 1826. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifligeligen Insekten, vol. 5, xii+412 pp., Hamm.
MESNIL, L. P. 1980. Dexiinae. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg., vol. 64f (part), pp. 1-52.
ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mém. pres. div. Sav.
Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr., vol. 2, pp. 1-813.
RONDANTL, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Vol. 1, 226 pp., Parma.
1862. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Vol. 5, 239 pp., Parma.
SABROSKY, C. W. & ARNAUD, P. H. 1965. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae).
Pp. 961-1108, in Stone, A. et al. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America
north of Mexico. Agric. Handb., No. 276, iv+ 1696 pp., Washington, D.C.
SCHINER, I. R. 1862. Fauna austriaca. Die Fliegen (Diptera). Vol. I. [part], pp.
441-674. Vienna.
TOWNSEND, C. H. T. 1916. Designations of muscoid genotypes, with new genera
and species. Insecutor Inscit. menstr., vol. 4, pp. 4-12.
1936a. Manual of Myiology. Vol. 3, 255 pp., Sao Paulo.
1936b. Manual of Myiology. Vol. 4, 309 pp., Sao Paulo.
1938. Manual of Myiology. Vol. 7, 434 pp., Sao Paulo.
1939. Manual of Myiology. Vol. 9, 270 pp., Sao Paulo.
WAINWRIGHT... J. 1928. The British Tachinidae (Diptera). Trans. entomol. Soc.
Lond., Vol. 76, pp. 139-254.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 287
WALKER, F. 1849. List of specimens of dipterous insects in the collection of the British
Museum [part]. Vol. 4, pp. 688-1172.
1853. Insecta britannica. Diptera. Vol. 2, vit+297 pp.
WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. 158 pp. [Issued as
separately paginated supplement to volume 2 (1840) of Westwood’s ‘An
introduction to the modern classification of insects ...’, London].
ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1844. Diptera scandinaviae disposita et descripta [part]. Vol.
3, pp. 895-1280, Lund.
1849. Diptera scandinaviae disposita et descripta [part]. Vol. 8, pp. 2935-3366,
Lund.
1855. Diptera scandinaviae disposita et descripta [part]. Vol. 12, pp.
xx + 4587-4942.
288 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
LEPRALIA PUNCTATA HASSALL, 1841 (BRYOZOA,
CHEILOSTOMATA: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A
REPLACEMENT NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.)2562
By J. D. D. Bishop (Departments of Palaeontology and Zoology, British
Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.)
INTRODUCTION
The marine bryozoan Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841) has been
widely recorded living on both sides of the northern Atlantic and in adjacent
seas. The name has also been given to fossils from Neogene deposits in both
the U.S.A. and Europe. It is the type species of a genus within which approxi-
mately 100 nominal species have been placed, including many fossils of
Eocene and younger age. Cribrilina is in turn the type genus of the Creta-
ceous to Recent, cosmopolitan family CRIBRILINIDAE. The exact identity of C.
punctata is therefore of importance but has, unfortunately, been the subject
of uncertainty and debate.
2. By the time of Hincks’ influential monograph of 1880 a tradition
of accepting considerable morphological variation within this species had
arisen, and the concept of C. punctata had widened to include what may
today be recognised as at least three Recent species. In an attempt to elimi-
nate the prolonged confusion that resulted, a proposal was adopted by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1974 (Opinion
1016) to establish under the plenary powers a neotype of C. punctata in
agreement with the then widespread (but incorrect) usage of the name. How-
ever, recent investigations, aided considerably by the use of scanning electron
microscopy, have shown that taxonomic understanding of the species
involved was inadequate at that time. In particular, the specimens suggested
to the ICZN as possible neotypes of C. punctata belonged to two different
species that had not yet been distinguished. Despite this earlier confusion,
the differences between these two species now appear potentially very
significant. The identity of the neotype eventually chosen has important
implications for the stability of the concept of Cribrilina and the
CRIBRILINIDAE because the specimen is considered to belong to the genus
Collarina Jullien, 1886, which is not synonymous with Cribrilina auct.
3. The purpose of this paper is therefore to propose the setting aside
of the present neotype (designated under Opinion 1016) and to request its
replacement by a specimen belonging to the other of the two species present
in the suggested neotype material at the time of the original case. This would
restore the original meanings of the generic and family group names
involved.
4. The four principal species involved in the following account are
referred to here as A, B, C and D, and are illustrated in the accompanying
plate. Spp. A and B show a very close morphological resemblance, as do spp.
Scanning electron micrographs of the four principal species of cribrimorph bryozoans discussed
in the text. Scale bars=0.15 mm. A: BMNH 1973.4.6.1 (sp.A). B: Manchester Museum 1060
(sp.B). C: BMNH 1847.9.16.118 (sp.C). D: BMNH 1985.11.20.1 (sp.D).
290 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
C and D. However there are considerable differences between these two
pairs of species, as outlined below. Accordingly, the present author would
place them in two genera: A and Bare regarded as congeneric, as are C and D.
5. Inspp. Aand Ba distinct area of inclined gymnocyst surrounds the
raised, relatively flat, costate frontal shield. The outermost intercostal pores
are set in the plane of the gymnocyst, at a distinctly lower (more basal) level
than the rest of the costate frontal shield. A large pseudopore is seen near the
base of each costa; smaller pseudopores are scattered throughout the frontal
shield. The frontal calcification closely follows the relatively straight
proximal margin of the orifice. Considerable thickening of the frontal wall is
seen just proximal to the orifice. Small avicularia may occur lateral to this
thickened bar (i.e. somewhat lateral and proximal to the orifice) and are
directed predominantly laterally. A distally directed avicularium may also
occur distally on the ovicell. The ancestrula is cribrimorph.
6. In spp. C and D little or no gymnocyst is visible frontally; the
outermost intercostal pores are not disposed markedly differently from those
nearer the midline; the entire frontal surface arches more evenly than in spp.
A and B. Although small pseudopores do occur on the frontal shield, there is
no outer zone of large pseudopores. Thickened frontal calcification arches
above the proximal margin of the orifice, leaving a distinct gap, rather than
abutting the operculum. Avicularia occur at the proximolateral corners of
the orifice, and are distolaterally directed. No avicularium is seen on the
ovicell. The ancestrula is tatiform.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
7. Flustra balzaci was described from the Mediterranean by Audouin
(1826, p. 239). Audouin’s species is commonly taken to be sp. B, although the
written account is minimal and Savigny’s figure (undated, pl. 9, fig. 8) is
somewhat ambiguous. No type material is known.
8. Lepralia punctata was described by Hassall (1841, p. 368 and pl.
IX, fig. 7) from east of Kingstown Harbour (Dun Laoghaire), Ireland. The
description and figure are ambiguous, but a specimen, registered as BMNH
1847.9.16.118, is believed to be part of Hassall’s original material subse-
quently sent to G. Johnston (see Ryland & Stebbing, 1968, p. 62). This
specimen belongs to sp. C, and is illustrated here as Fig. C.
9. The genus Cribrilina was established by Gray (1848, p. 147) with
Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 the type species by monotypy. Examination
of all the specimens listed by Gray (1848, p. 117) under C. punctata shows
that the great majority (at least 40 colonies) of the material he had examined
belonged to sp. C. The only other species present, sp. D, is represented only
by three colonies on the shell numbered 3 on the slide registered as BMNH
1847.9.16.62. It may be concluded that the concept of the genus Cribrilina
was originally based on sp. C and (possibly) sp. D. On p. 116, Gray gave the
reference ‘Cribrilina, Gray, Appendix, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1838’ for the genus
Cribrilina. This reference can not be traced, and S. F. Harmer, in a hand
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 291
written note in the index of genera in the Bryozoa Section of the BMNH,
suggested that it had probably been Gray’s intention to publish an account of
his new genera in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, but
the intention was not realised.
10. Busk (1854) under the name Lepralia punctata illustrated sp. A
(pl. XCVI, fig. 3; BMNH 1847.9.16.79), sp. C (pl. XC, figs 5 and 6; probably
BMNH 1854.11.15.142) and sp. D (pl. XCHI, fig. 4; BMNH 1899.7.1.1343).
The species was described (p. 80) as ‘very protean’.
11. Lepralia cribrosa was described from the Adriatic Sea by Heller
(1867, p. 109). Although this name was used subsequently for sp. B (see
below), type material (registration number 17021, Heller Collection of the
Institut fiir Zoologie der Universitat Innsbruck) is in fact referable to the
cribrilinid Puellina gattyae (Landsborough, 1852). Heller’s figure (pl. II, fig.
6) appears to indicate the presence of setiform papillae, structures present
throughout the genus Puellina but not in the four species of cribrimorph
(A—D) under discussion here.
12. Lepralia cribrosa Heller, 1867 was redescribed and illustrated
from Naples by Waters (1879, pp. 36 & 37 and pl. IX, fig. 4). Waters’
material (registration number 1060, Manchester Museum) belongs to sp. B
and is illustrated here as Fig. B.
13. The family CRIBRILINIDAE was established by Hincks (1879,
p. 156) for the genera Cribrilina Gray and Membraniporella Smitt; Cribrilina
is the type genus of the family (Code: Arts. 12(b)(4) and 63).
14. Anaccount of C. punctata by Hincks (1880) included illustrations
of sp. A (pl. 26, fig. 4), sp. C (pl. 24, fig. 3; designated “‘var.”’) and sp. D (pl. 26,
fig. 1). Sp. A was formally recognised (p. 191) as C. punctata var. a. C.
punctata was said to be ‘of very variable aspect’ (p. 191); ‘it appears in a
multitude of guises, and in some of them is very unlike its proper self (p. 192).
15. The genus Collarina was established by Jullien (1886, p. 607) with
‘Lepralia cribrosa Waters (non Heller)’ the type species by original designa-
tion. It will be noted that a new nominal species, Collarina cribrosa Jullien,
1886, was thereby established, and is the type species of the genus (Code: Art.
70(c) (i) and example). There is no indication that Jullien examined actual
material; rather, the genus was apparently based on Waters’ (1879) account
and figure of Lepralia cribrosa.
16. Hincks (1886, p. 266) gave an account and illustration of a form
he referred to as ‘Cribrilina punctata, Hassall, var.’, from the Adriatic. He
suggested that this variety was Heller’s Lepralia cribrosa. Hincks’ figure (pl.
IX, fig. 9) is a clear depiction of sp. B, and the available material attributable
to Hincks’ account, BMNH 1899. 5.1.437, belongs to sp. B.
17. Waters (1899, p. 9) synonymised Lepralia cribrosa sensu Waters,
1879, Cribrilina punctata, var. sensu Hincks, 1886, and Collarina cribrosa
Jullien with Flustra balzaci Audouin under the name Cribrilina balzaci
(Audouin).
18. Sp. C was described by Norman (1903, pp. 102 & 103 and pl. IX,
figs 1 & 2) as Cribrilina cryptooecium from Finnmark (northern Norway) and
292 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
other localities in Norway and the British Isles. Norman’s intention was to
recognise as distinct a species that he considered had previously been con-
fused with true C. punctata; his restricted concept of C. punctata seems from
his account to have included both sp. A and sp. D.
19. A lectotype of C. punctata was selected by Lagaaij (1952, p. 56).
The specimen, BMNH 1847.9.16.118, belongs to sp. C, is that mentioned in
paragraph 8 thought to be part of Hassall’s original material from Ireland
subsequently sent to G. Johnston, and is illustrated here as Fig. C.
20. Collarina was treated as a valid genus, and the combination
Collarina balzaci (Audouin) used, in taxonomic accounts by Gautier (1962,
p. 107) and Prenant & Bobin (1966, pp. 601 & 602).
21. An application was made to the ICZN by Ryland & Stebbing
(1968) to suppress Lagaaij’s lectotype of Cribrilina punctata under the
plenary powers on the grounds that it had been found to be conspecific with
C. cryptooecium Norman. Ryland and Stebbing applied to designate a
neotype of C. punctata sensu Norman, 1903 (non Lagaaij, 1952; non Hassall,
1841), i.e. in accordance with claimed accustomed usage of the names C.
punctata and C. cryptooecium. The suggested neotype was BMNH
1911.10.1.679a, Barlee collection. This specimen belongs to sp. D. In the
same paper, a lectotype for C. cryptooecium, BMNH 1911.10.1.700, was
chosen from Norman’s material of sp. C from Finnmark.
22. Opinion 1016 was published in 1974 in response to Ryland &
Stebbings’ proposal. Voting on the proposal was 22 affirmative, two nega-
tive. Commissioners made the following comments: Dr E. Eisenmann — ‘On
the data provided in the application it seems to me that Lagaaij’s (1952)
designation as lectotype of specimen 1847.9.16.118 was correct, and agreed
with Hassall’s (1841) description of punctata. It was Norman (1903) who
erred in calling true punctata ‘cryptooecium’ and assigning the name punctata
to a different species. No evidence is provided of overwhelming usage to
justify the transfer of the name punctata. What is needed is a new name (if
none exists in the literature) for Norman’s ‘punctata’. Prof. G. G.
Simpson — ‘The aim of the application is evidently laudable, but the device
of designating a neotype is not, none of the conditions for proposal of a
neotype evidently being met.’ Dr W. D. L. Ride — ‘I request the Secretary to
include locality and other data of collection (so far as is known) in the
designation of the neotype of Lepralia punctata when he drafts the Opinion
for publication.’ Enquiries arising from Dr Ride’s request revealed that the
collection locality of the proposed neotype, BMNH 1911.10.1.679a, was
unknown. Ryland & Stebbing were asked to suggest a second specimen, and
proposed BMNH 1973.4.6.1 from Raasay Sound (Scotland). The specimen
belongs to sp. A; it is illustrated here as Fig. A. The commissioners voted 19
affirmative to one negative on the acceptability of this neotype. A ruling was
therefore adopted whereby Lagaaij’s (1952) lectotype of C. punctata was set
aside under the plenary powers, and the specimen 1973.4.6.1 accepted as
neotype. Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841 was confirmed as type species of
Cribrilina Gray, 1848. The generic name Cribrilina Gray, 1848 was placed on
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 293
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and the specific names
punctata Hassall, 1841 (as defined by the neotype designated under the
plenary powers) and cryptooecium Norman, 1903 (as defined by the lectotype
selected by Ryland & Stebbing, 1968) were placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
CONSEQUENCES OF OPINION 1016
23. If, as is the opinion of the present author, spp. A and B are
congeneric, the selection of BMNH 1973.4.6.1 (sp. A, the var. a of Hincks,
1880) as the neotype of C. punctata means that Collarina (type species B)
becomes a junior subjective synonym of Cribrilina (type species A). Further-
more, if the four species under discussion are to be placed in two genera,
(A+B) and (C+D) (on the basis of the differences outlined in paragraphs 5
and 6), then sp. C (true Lepralia punctata Hassall = Cribrilina cryptooecium
Norman) and sp. D must be placed in a new genus. The genus concept of
Collarina has in effect been transferred to Cribrilina. The concept of the
family CRIBRILINIDAE is thereby affected.
24. Evenif the view is taken that in the present state of knowledge it is
not desirable to place sp. A ina separate genus from spp. C and D, it must be
recognised that the form of the frontal wall differs considerably within the
resultant single genus. Thus Levinsen (1909, p. 158) noted that:.. .‘the
different varieties, which Hincks refers to Cribrilina punctata, show such
great differences in the structure of the frontal shield, that some of them
cannot even be entered under his diagnosis of the genus Cribrilina’. The
probable convergent nature of the costate frontal shield within the
cribrimorph Bryozoa is widely acknowledged (e.g. Harmer, 1902; Levinsen,
1909; Lang, 1921; Voigt, 1939; Ristedt, 1979) and the possibility that the two
forms of frontal shield shown by spp. A and B and spp. C and D respectively
are convergent cannot be discounted. If future research shows their differ-
ences to be sufficiently fundamental, splitting the genus on this basis may
prove unavoidable. There is thus a danger in the present nomenclatural
position that spp. C and D, upon which the concept of the genus was based,
might be excluded from Cribrilina, if not eventually from the family
CRIBRILINIDAE. The original case was discussed solely in terms of
accustomed usage at the species-name level; there seems to be insufficient
justification for the designation of a neotype in which the frontal shield is
now known to differ significantly from that of the species to which the name
C. punctata was originally given, especially since this is the type species of a
taxonomically important genus.
PROPOSAL
25. The replacement neotype proposed below, BMNH 1985.11.20.1,
which belongs to sp. D, encrusts a bivalve shell fragment collected in c. 45m
of water at 58° 06.8’N 03° 05.2’W, in the Moray Firth c. 20km from the
294 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
Scottish coast. The specimen is illustrated as Fig. D. It is part of a series of c.
30 colonies (including young examples with the earliest growth stages intact)
encrusting bivalve fragments on a bottom classified as fine sand on the
Wentworth scale (@ mean 2.5, standard deviation 1.1; 3.0% mud and 2.2%
gravel).
26. Under the following proposal, Collarina would be a valid and
useful genus, and sp. A could be described as a new species within it. The
genus Cribrilina would be closer to its original concept, as would the family
CRIBRILINIDAE. The names Cribrilina punctata and C. cryptooecium
would be retained in the accustomed usage claimed by Ryland & Stebbing (a
usage which has certainly prevailed since the original proposal and Opinion
were published, although it should be noted that the confusion of sp. A and
sp. Dunder the name C. punctata has continued to complicate the question of
usage). C. punctata would be sp. D, not the species thought to have been
described by Hassall, which is the closely-related sp. C to be known under
this arrangement as C. cryptooecium Norman. Neither sp. A nor sp. D has in
fact ever been described as new (cf. Dr. Eisenmann’s comment reproduced in
paragraph 22).
27. The proposal has the support of Prof. J. S. Ryland, in /itt.: ‘Tam
glad that you are going to resolve what I agree is a mess... I will strongly
urge acceptance of proposal (2)...’. Proposal (2) of the typescript sent to
Prof. Ryland (which detailed the history and significance of the case and was
accompanied by SEM photographs of spp. A-D) was for the replacement of
neotype BMNH 1973.4.6.1 with an unspecified specimen belonging to sp. D.
Dr A. R. D. Stebbing stated, in /itt.: ‘I am quite prepared in this case to agree
with whatever John Ryland suggests; ...’. Fifteen out of 19 bryozoologists
additional to Prof. Ryland and Dr Stebbing who were sent the same type-
script and photographs were in favour of the replacement of the neotype
designated under Opinion 1016, either with a specimen belonging to sp. D or
by the re-instatement of Lagaaij’s lectotype (sp. C). It should be noted that
this response implies the specialists’ acceptance of the generic distinctions
recognised in the typescript (which are the same in the present paper); indeed,
the need for Cribrilina and Collarina to be maintained distinct was explicitly
stated in the replies of the following people: J. G. Harmelin (France), H. I.
Moyano (Chile), S. Pouyet (France) and L. Silén (Sweden). The remaining
four bryozoologists did not reply.
28. To restore the original meaning of the genera Cribrilina and
Collarina and of the family CRIBRILINIDAE, the Commission is therefore
requested:
(1) (a) touseits plenary powers to set aside the neotype designated in
Opinion 1016 for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841;
(b) to designate as replacement neotype for Lepralia punctata
Hassall, 1841, specimen number BMNH 1985.11.20.1, whose
details are given in paragraph 25;
(2) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zo-
ology (Name Number 2523) arising from Opinion 1016 to read:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 295
punctata Hassall, 1841, as published in the binomen Lepralia
punctata, as defined by the neotype designated in (1) (b) above.
REFERENCES
AUDOUIN, V. 1826. Explication sommaire des planches de polypes de l’Egypte et de
la Syrie publiées par Jules-César Savigny. Description de l’Egypte. Histoire
Naturelle, vol. 1, part 4, pp. 225-244.
BUSK, G. 1854. Catalogue of Marine Polyzoa in the Collection of the British Museum.
Part IT. Cheilostomata (part.). Trustees of the British Museum, London,
viii + 55—120 pp.
GAUTIER, Y. V. 1962. Recherches écologiques sur les bryozoaires chilostomes en
Méditerranée occidentale. Rec! Trav. Stn mar. Endoume, vol. 38, pp. 1434.
GRAY, J. E. 1848. List of the Specimens of British Animals in the Collection of the
British Museum. Part I. Centroniae or Radiated Animals. Trustees of the
British Museum, London, xiii+ 173 pp.
HARMER, S. F. 1902. On the morphology of the Cheilostomata. Q. J. microsc. Sci.,
New Series, vol. 46, pp. 263-350.
HASSALL, A. H. 1841. Supplement to a catalogue of Irish Zoophytes. Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist., vol. 7, pp. 363-373.
HELLER, C. 1867. Die Bryozoén des adriatischen Meeres. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges.
Wien, vol. 17, Abhandlungen pp. 77-136.
HINCKS, T. 1879. On the classification of the British Polyzoa. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.,
Series 5, vol. 3, pp. 153-164.
1880. A History of the British Marine Polyzoa. Van Voorst, London. Volume
1, cxli+601 pp. Volume 2, 83 pl.
1886. The Polyzoa of the Adriatic: a supplement to Prof. Heller’s ‘Die
Bryozoen des adriatischen Meeres,’ 1867. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Series 5, vol.
17, pp. 254-271.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
1974. Opinion 1016. Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841): designation of a
neotype under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31, pp. 19-21.
JULLIEN, J. 1886. Les Costulidées, nouvelle famille de bryozoaires. Bull. Soc. zool.
France, vol. 11, pp. 601-620.
LAGAAIJ, R. 1952. The Pliocene Bryozoa of the Low Countries and their bearing on
the marine stratigraphy of the North Sea region. Meded. geol. Sticht., Serie C,
vol. 5, pp. 1-233.
LANG, W. D. 1921. Catalogue of the Fossil Bryozoa (Polyzoa) in the Department of
Geology, British Museum (Natural History). The Cretaceous Bryozoa
(Polyzoa). Volume III. The Cribrimorphs.— Part I. Trustees of the British
Museum (Natural History), London, cx + 269 pp.
LEVINSEN, G. M. R. 1909. Morphological and systematic studies on the
cheilostomatous Bryozoa. Nationale Forfatteres Forlag, Copenhagen,
vii+431 pp.
NORMAN, A. M. 1903. Notes on the natural history of East Finmark. Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist., Series 7, vol. 12, pp. 87-128.
PRENANT, M. & BOBIN, G. 1966. Bryozoaires. II. Chilostomes Anasca. Faune
France, vol. 68, pp. 1-647.
296 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
RISTEDT, H. 1979. Skeletal ultrastructure and astogenetic development of some
cribrimorph Bryozoa. In: Larwood, G. P. & Abbott, M. B. (Eds). Advances in
bryozoology. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 13, pp. 141-152.
RYLAND, J. S. & STEBBING, A. R. D. 1968. Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841):
application for designation under the plenary powers of a neotype (Polyzoa).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 25, pp. 62-64. .
SAVIGNY, M. J. C. L. date unknown. Description de l’Egypte, Polypes, Paris, pl.
I-XIV. (See AUDOUIN.)
VOIGT, E. 1939. Uber die Dornenspezialisation bei cheilostomen Bryozoen und die
Nichtumkehrbarkeit der Entwicklung. Palaeontol. Z., vol. 21, pp. 87-107.
WATERS, A. W. 1879. On the Bryozoa (Polyzoa) of the Bay of Naples. Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist., Series 5, vol. 3, pp. 28-43.
1899. Bryozoa from Madeira. J. R. microsc. Soc., vol. 1899, pp. 6-16.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 297
PSEUDOCALANIDAE SARS, 1901 (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA):
PROPOSED PRECEDENCE OVER CLAUSOCALANIDAE
GIESBRECHT, 1892. Z.N.(S.)2557
By V.N. Andronov (Atlantic Research Institute of Fisheries and
Oceanography, Kaliningrad, USSR) and N. V. Vyshkvartzeva (Zoological
Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR)
At present the majority of carcinologists use the names for families of
Calanoida given by Sars (1900, 1901—1903, 1924-1925). In Sars’ system of
classification some subfamilies established by Giesbrecht (1892) were ranked
as families.
2. A new name PSEUDOCALANIDAE was given by Sars (1901, p. 19)
to the subfamily CLAUSOCALANINAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (p. 185) because
Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873 is the oldest genetic name in this family.
3. Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873 (p. 37) was established as a replace-
ment name for Clausia Boeck, 1865 (p 233), a junior homonym of Clausia
Claperéde, 1863 (Copepoda). The type species of Clausia Boeck (and hence
of Pseudocalanus) is by monotypy Clausia elongata Boeck, 1865 (p. 234), a
junior subjective synonym of Calanus minutus Kroyer, 1845 (pl. 41, fig. 4).
4. Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888 (p. 334) was established as a new
replacement name for Eucal/anus Claus, 1881 (p. 325), a junior homonym of
Eucalanus Dana, 1853 (Copepoda). The type species of Eucalanus Claus (and
hence of Clausocalanus) is by monotypy Calanus mastigophorus Claus, 1863
(o, 173).
5. Since 1901 carcinologists have used the name PSEUDOCALANIDAE;
a list of 35 representative references up to the present has been given to
the Commission Secretariat. From 1901 up to 1982 nobody used
CLAUSOCALANIDAE (Or CLAUSOCALANINAE).
6. Recently, however, some carcinologists, in accordance with the
Principle of Priority, have begun to use CLAUSOCALANIDAE (Bayly, 1982,
p. 162; Bowman & Abele, 1982, pp. 2,9; Vives, 1982, p. 290; Fleminger, 1983,
p. 610).
7. In the interests of stability the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars,
1901 (type genus Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873) with its
coordinate family-group names is to be given nomenclatural
precedence over CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (type
genus Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888) and its coordinate
family-group names whenever their type genera are placed
within the same family-group taxon;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology:
298 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
(a) PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (type genus Pseudocalanus
Boeck, 1873), with the endorsement that it is to be
given nomenclatural precedence over CLAUSOCALANIDAE
Giesbrecht, 1892 (type genus Clausocalanus Giesbrecht,
1888) whenever their type genera are placed within the same
family-group taxon;
(b) CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (type genus Clausoca-
lanus Giesbrecht, 1888), with the endorsement that it
is not to be given nomenclatural precedence over
PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901 (type genus Pseudocalanus
Boeck, 1873) whenever their type genera are placed within
the same family-group taxon;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic
names in Zoology:
(a) Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873 (type species by monotypy
Clausia elongata Boeck, 1865), name of the type genus of
PSEUDOCALANIDAE Sars, 1901;
(b) Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888 (type species by monotypy
Calanus mastigophorus Claus, 1863), name of the type genus
of CLAUSOCALANIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892;
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
(a) minutus Kroyer, 1845, as published in the binomen Calanus
minutus, valid specific name at the time of this ruling of the
type species of Pseudocalanus Boeck, 1873;
(b) mastigophorus Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen
Calanus mastigophorus, specific name of the type species of
Clausocalanus Giesbrecht, 1888.
REFERENCES
BAYLY, I. A. E. 1982. The genus Drepanopus (Copepoda: Calanoida): A review of
species in Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic waters, with a description of D.
bispinosus sp.n. Austral. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., vol. 33, pp. 161—172.
BOECK, A. 1865. Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster iagttagne Copepoder
Henhegrende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier.
Forh. Vidensk.Selsk., Christ., 1864 (year vol.), pp. 226-282.
1873. Nye Slaegter og Arter af Saltvands Copepoder. Férh. Vidensk.
Selsk. Christ, 1872 (year vol.), pp. 35-60.
BOWMAN, T. E. & ABELE, L. G. 1982. Classification of the Recent Crustacea. In:
Bliss, D. E., The Biology of Crustacea, vol. 1, pp. 1-27. Academic Press. New
York.
CLAUS, C. 1863. Die frei lebenden Copepoden mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der
Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres. Leipzig, 230 pp.
1881. Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Copepoden. Arb. zool. Inst. Univ.
Wien, vol. 3. pp. 313-332.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 299
FLEMINGER, A. 1983. Description and phylogeny of saacsicalanus paucisetosus,
n.gen., n.sp., (Copepoda: Calanoida: Spinocalanidae) from an east Pacific
hydrothermal vent site (21°N). Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 96, pp. 605-622.
GIESBRECHT, W. 1888. Elenco dei copepodi pelagici. Atti Accad. naz. Lincei. Rc.,
ser. 4, vol. 4, pt. 2, pp. 284-338.
1892. Systematik und Faunistik der pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von
Neapel und angrenzenden Meeres, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel,
XIX. Berlin, 831 pp. +54 tab.
KROYER, H. 1845. Crustacés. (Copepoda). In: Bernard, A., Atlas de Zoologie,
Paris. 76 pl.
SARS, G. O. 1900. Crustacea. In: Nansen, F., The Norwegian North Polar Expedition
1893-1896. Scientific Results, vol. 1. Part 5. London. 141pp. + 36 pl.
1901-1903. An Account of the Crustacea of Norway. Vol. 4. Copepoda:
Calanoida. 1901: pts. 1-2, pp. 1-28; 1902: pts. 3-12, pp. 29-142; 1903: pts. 13
& 14& suppl., pp. 143-171. Bergen.
1924-1925. Copépodes particuliérement bathypélagiques provenant des
campagnes scientifiques du Prince Albert I-er de Monaco. Res. Camp. scient.
Prince Albert I, no. 69. 1924 (atlas); 1925 (text). 408 pp., 127 pls.
VIVES, F. 1982. Sur les copepodes de la région CINECA (Parties nord et centrale).
Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer., vol. 180, pp. 289-296.
300 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
GEONEMUS SCHOENHERR, 1833 AND BRACHYOMUS
LACORDAIRE, 1863 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSAL TO
MAINTAIN CURRENT USAGE BY DESIGNATION OF A TYPE
SPECIES FOR GEONEMUS. Z.N.(S.)2565
By Guillermo J. Wibmer and Charles W. O’Brien (Department of
Entomology, Florida A and M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307,
U.S.A.)
In this application, it is proposed that the accustomed usage of the
generic names Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 and Brachyomus Lacordaire,
1863 in the family CURCULIONIDAE be maintained by the designation of an
appropriate type species for Geonemus.
2. The name Geophilus was established by Schoenherr (1823, column
1140) with two species listed in column 1141: Geophilus suturalis, cited there
as type, but a nomen nudum, and Curculio octotuberculatus Fabricius (1787,
p. 112) thus the type species by monotypy. Schoenherr (1826, p. 161) pro-
vided a description of the genus and octotuberculatus, from Cayenne, was
cited as type species on p. 14, again the only available name of the four listed
on p. 162 (including virgatus, cited there as type).
3. Geophilus Schoenherr is a junior homonym of Geophilus Leach,
1814, a myriapod genus (see Neave, 1939, p. 457). Schoenherr (1833, p. 13)
replaced it with Geonemus and listed Curculio amictus Wiedemann (1823, p.
123) as type, although by Article 67(h) of the Code the type continues to be C.
octotuberculatus. If the designation of amictus were to be upheld, Geonemus
would be a senior synonym of the well known genus Rhinoscapha
Montrouzier (1855, p. 47). Schoenherr (1834, p. 296) included in the genus
Curculio flabellipes Olivier (1807, p. 374) from S. France and Algeria.
Schoenherr’s final concept of Geonemus (1834, pp. 289-297) is clearly a
mixed assemblage, including species from Europe, the East Indies, the West
Indies, and Central and South America. Lacordaire (1863, p. 131) emended
the generic name to Geonomus, but this name was not adopted by most
subsequent workers.
4. The name Brachyomus was established by Lacordaire (1863, p.
130) to include octotuberculatus and other New World species previously
placed in Geonemus, and on pp. 131 and 132 he restricted Geonemus to three
Old World species, including flabellipes. This concept of the two genera has
been followed by all subsequent authors, e.g. Gemminger & Harold (1871,
pp. 2239-2240 & 2240); Bedel (1883, p. 31); Faust (1892, pp. 14-16); Dalla
Torre, Emden & Emden (1936, pp. 46-47); Lona (1938, p. 508); Hoffmann
(1950, pp. 360-361) and Wibmer & O’Brien (1986, pp. 73-74). Wibmer &
O’Brien (1986, p. 73) reported the error, but maintained the current usage to
maintain stability and designated octotuberculatus as type species of
Brachyomus.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 301
5. According to the rules of nomenclature Geonemus Schoenherr,
1833 and Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 are objective synonyms, both having
Curculio octotuberculatus Fabricius as the type species. Clearly this confuses
the application of both names, and the consequences can be avoided by
setting aside the fixation of Curculio octotuberculatus as type of Geonemus
and by designating for this genus an Old World type species in accordance
with current usage.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations hitherto made
of type species for the nominal genus Geonemus Schoenherr,
1833, and then to designate curculio flabellipes Olivier, 1807, as
type species, thus removing Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 from
objective synonymy with Geonemus;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:
(a) Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 (gender: masculine), type
species by designation in (1) above, Curculio flabellipes
Olivier, 1807;
(b) Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 (gender: masculine), type
species by subsequent designation by Wibmer & O’Brien,
1986, Curculio octotuberculatus Fabricius, 1787;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
(a) flabellipes Olivier, 1807, as published in the binomen
Curculio flabellipes (specific name of the type species of
Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833);
(b) octotuberculatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the
binomen Curculio octotuberculatus (specific name of the
type species of Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863).
REFERENCES
BEDEL, L. 1883. Pp. 17-64. Jn Faune des Coléoptéres du bassin de la Seine,
1882-1888. Ann. Soc. entomol. France, vol. 6 (hors série), Rhynchophora,
pp. 1-442 [+2].
DALLA TORRE, K. W. VON, EMDEN, M. VAN & EMDEN, F. VAN. 1936.
Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 147, Curculionidae: Brachyderinae I, vol. 27,
pp. 1-132. Junk, ‘s-Gravenhage.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum..., vol. 1, XX+348 pp. Proft,
Hafniae.
FAUST, J. 1892. Reise von E. Simon in Venezuela. Curculionidae. Stettiner entomol.
Ztg., vol. 53, no. 1-3, pp. 1-44. (Pars prima.)
GEMMINGER, M. & HAROLD, E. VON. 1871. Catalogus Coleopterorum
hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 8, Curculionidae,
pp. 2181—2668 [+ 11]. Gummi, Monachii.
302 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
HOFFMANN, A. 1950. Faune de France. 52. Coléoptéres Curculionides (Premiére
partie), 486 pp. Lechevalier, Paris.
LACORDAIRE, J. T. 1863. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des
Coléopteres . . . , vol. 6, pp. 1-608, 615-637. Roret, Paris. [No pages numbered
609-614; 615 follows 608 but nothing seems to be missing.]
LONA, C. 1938, Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 162, Curculionidae: Otiorrhynchinae
IIT, pp. 413-600 (Vol. 27). Junk, ‘s-Gravenhage.
MONTROUZIER, P. 1855. Essai sur la Faune de I’Ile de Woodlark ou Moiou (bei
Neuguinea). Ann. Soc. agric. Lyon, ser. 2, vol. 7, part 1, pp. 1-114.
NEAVE, S. A. (ed). 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 2, 1025 pp. The Zoological
Society of London, London.
OLIVIER, A. G. 1807. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes...,
Coléopteres, vol. 5, 612 pp. Desray, Paris.
SCHOENHERER, C. J. 1823. Curculionides. Jsis Oken, heft Z, columns 1132-1146.
1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica ..., part 4, X +338 pp. Fleischer,
Lipsiae.
1833. Synonymia Insectorum. Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia
hujus familiae, vol. 1, XV +681 pp. Roret, Paris.
1834. Synonymia Insectorum. Genera et species curculionidum,..., vol. 2,
part 1, 326 pp. Roret, Paris; Fleischer, Lipsiae.
WIBMER, G. J. & O'BRIEN, C. W. 1986. Annotated checklist of the weevils
(Curculionidae sensu lato) of South America (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea).
Mem. amer. entomol. Inst., no. 39, xvit+ 563 pp.
WIEDEMANN, C. R. W. 1823. Zweihundert neue Kafer von Java, Bengalen und
dem Vorgebirge der guten Hoffnung. Zool. Mag., vol. 2, part 1, pp. 1-135.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 303
PHAULACRIDIUM VITTATUM (SJOSTEDT, 1920) (INSECTA,
ORTHOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY
SUPPRESSION OF ACRIDIUM AMBULANS ERICHSON, 1842,
TRIGONIZA MANCA BOLIVAR, 1898 AND TRIGONIZA
AUSTRALIENSIS BOLIVAR, 1898. Z.N.(S.)2524
By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Box 1700 Canberra
2601, Australia)
Key (1938) first identified a species of injurious Australian grass-
hopper as Phaulacridium vittatum (Sj6stedt, 1920). Since that time the species
concerned has been shown to be a serious pest and has been the subject of a
considerable literature under that name. However, the specific name vittatum
is threatened by three unused senior synonyms. It is proposed that these
should be suppressed under Articles 23b and 79c of the Code.
2. Sj6stedt (1920) described two species in a new genus Biformalia: B.
vittata (p. 49) and B. gemini (p. 50). In the following year (Sjostedt, 1921) he
synonymised Biformalia with Phaulacridium Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1893,
transferring to that genus his vittata and gemini, as well as Trigoniza manca
Bolivar, 1898 (p. 96). Later he described Phaulacridium intermedium
Sjdstedt, 1931 (p. 16) and P. robustum Sjéstedt, 1932 (p. 15). Key (1938, p. 79)
synonymised vittatum, gemini, intermedium and robustum. He stated that
vittatum had priority; although there were no grounds (vis-a-vis gemini) for
that statement, it has the force of a first-reviser selection of vittatum in
preference to gemini, the two names having been published in the same work
on the same day. Key’s synonymisation of the four names has never been
challenged.
3. Key (1952, p. 127) stated that both Phaulacridium manca (Bolivar,
1898) and Acridium ambulans Erichson, 1842 (p. 251) were ‘probably’
(senior) synonyms of vittatum, but he retained the name vittatum ‘for the.
present’ (owing presumably to its already widespread use). Following
examination of the type series of manca and designation of a lectotype, Key
(1981, p. 29) confirmed his earlier conditional synonymy of that name, and
this has never been challenged.
4. The type material of Acridium ambulans has been considered lost
for at least 75 years. This species was not listed by Kirby (1910) and Sjéstedt
(1921, 1936) was unable to locate the type material and did not attempt to
interpret the name. Recently the type series has been found in the Museum
fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat in Berlin and I have been able to
examine it through the courtesy of Dr K. K. Gunther. It consists of five
well-preserved females, all of which are clearly conspecific with
Phaulacridium vittatum (see Key, 1986).
5. I have examined the holotype of Trigoniza australiensis Bolivar,
1898 (pp. 95-96) in the Instituto Espafiol de Entomologia, Madrid and find
that it too is clearly conspecific with P. vittatum (see Key, 1986).
304 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
6. Since 1938 the name Phaulacridium vittatum has been consistently
used for the economically important Australian species (the so-called ‘Wing-
less Grasshopper’) and it has been the only name applied to that species. A
cursory survey shows that it has been used by at least 10 authors in at least 21
papers covering taxonomy, biology, genetics, cytology, ecology and control
measures (a list of ten of these papers is held in the offices of the Secretariat).
Its senior synonym ambulans has not been used as a valid name during the
144 years since its publication in 1842. The senior synonym Trigoniza manca
has not been used as a valid name since it was transferred to Phaulacridium
by Sjéstedt in 1921, except for a listing without comment by Sjostedt (1936).
The senior synonym Trigoniza australiensis has not been used since its
publication in 1898, except for listings without comment by Sjéstedt (1921,
1936).
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific
names for the purpose of the Principle of Priority but not for
that of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) ambulans Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen
Acridium ambulans;
(b) manca Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen Trigoniza
manca;
(c) australiensis Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen
Trigoniza australiensis;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name vittata Sjéstedt, 1920, as published in the binomen
Biformalia vittata;
(3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) ambulans Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen
Acridium ambulans and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) (a) above;
(b) manca Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen Trigoniza
manca and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b)
above;
(c) australiensis Bolivar, 1898, as published in the binomen
Trigoniza australiensis and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) (c) above.
REFERENCES
BOLIVAR, I. 1898. Contributions a l’étude des acridiens. Espéces de la faune indo-
et austro—malaisienne du Museu Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova. Ann.
Mus. Civ. Stor. nat Giacomo Doria, vol. 39, pp. 66-101.
BRUNNER VON WATTENWYL, C. 1893. Révision du Systéme des Orthoptéres
et description des espéces rapportées par M. Leonardo Fea de Birmanie. Ann.
Mus. Civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria, ser. 2, vol. 13, pp. 1-230.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 305
ERICHSON, W. F. 1842. Beitrag zur Insecten-Fauna von Vandiemensland mit
besoncerer Beriicksichtigung der geographischen Verbreitung der Insecten.
Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 8(1), pp. 83-287.
KEY, K. H. L. 1938. The regional and seasonal incidence of grasshopper plagues in
Australia. Aust. Commonw. Counc. Sci. Ind. Res. Bull., no. 117, pp. 1-87.
1952. A provisional check-list of the Acridoidea of Tasmania (Orthoptera).
Pap. Proc. r. Soc. Tasmania, vol. 86, pp. 127-130.
1981. Lectotype designations for Australian Acrididae and Tetrigidae
(Orthoptera). Austr. CSIRO Div. Entomol. tech. Pap., no. 17, pp. 1-58.
1986. A provisional synonymic list of the Australian Acridoidea
(Orthoptera). Austr. CSIRO Div. Entomol. tech. Pap., no. 24, pp. 1-47.
KIRBY, W. F. 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera. Vol. III. Orthoptera
Saltatoria. Part IT (Locustidae vel Acridiidae). 674 pp. London.
SJOSTEDT, Y. 1920. Results of Dr E. Mjéberg’s Swedish scientific expeditions to
Australia 1910-1913. Acridiodea. Ark. Zool., vol. 12 (20), pp. 1-67.
1921. Acridiodea australica. Monographie der bisher von Australien
bekannten Heuschrecken mit kurzen Fihlern. K. Sven. Ventenskapsakad.
Handl., vol. 62(3), pp. 1-318.
1931. Acridiodea aus dem Queensland Museum zu Brisbane. Ark. Zool., vol.
23A(11), pp. 1-21.
1932. Neue Acridiodea aus dem Museum in Canberra (The Federal Capital
Territory, Australia) mit einer Revision der Gattung Chortoicetes (Orth. Trux).
Ark. Zool., vol. 23A(19), pp. 1-15.
1936. Revision der australischen Acridiodeen. 2. Monographie. K. Sven.
Vetenskapsakad. Handl., ser. 3, vol. 15(2), pp. 1-191 [1935].
WALKER, F. 1870. Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the
Collection of the British Museum. Part III, pp. 425-604. London.
306 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
PHISIS STAL, 1861 AND TEUTHRAS STAL, 1874 (INSECTA
ORTHOPTERA (GRYLLOPTERA)): CONFIRMATION OF
LISTROSCELIS PECTINATA GUERIN [-MENEVILLE], 1831 AS
TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2528
By D. K. McE. Kevan (Lyman Entomological Museum, Macdonald College,
McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste.-Anne de Bellevue, Québec,
Canada)
The object of this application is the confirmation of the nominal
species Listroscelis pectinata Guérin[-Meneville], 1831 as type species of two
genera, Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874, both based on the same
specimen which had been misidentified.
2. Stal (1861, p. 324) established the monotypic genus Phisis, giving
as ‘Typus generis: Listroscelis pectinata Guér., Serv. Hist. des Orth. p. 398.3
(3).’ Later (Stal, 1874, pp. 102 and 116) he established Teuthras, also with
only one species: ‘Listroscelis pectinata’ Serv. Orth. p. 398.3 (1839) [sic].’
These genera are therefore objective synonyms, as first pointed out by Kirby
(1906, p. 286), though he omitted to indicate the original generic name used.
3. In the earlier (1861) (Phisis) paper, Stal said he had seen only a
single ‘Specimen femineum ex insula Taiti reportavit Dom. Dr. Kinsberg’,
while in the 1874 (Teuthras) work he says simply ‘Patria: Insula Taiti.
(Mus.Holm.)’ How he came to overlook his previous action involving the
same specimen is just another of those inexplicable mysteries that are the lot
of the taxonomist to encounter. The Tahiti female before Stal is still in
excellent condition in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, and
bears his hand-written label ‘Pectinatus’ (to agree with Teuthras) as well as
two more recent printed labels ‘Taiti’ and ‘Kinsb’.
4. Stal had clearly not seen the specimen of Listroscelis pectinata that
had been very well illustrated and described by Guerin [-Méneville] (1831, pl.
10 and 1838, p. 153) [the dates of Guérin-Méneville’s work have been dis-
cussed by Sherborn and Woodward (1906) and Cowan (1970)]. This speci-
men, which is preserved in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, was
redescribed by Audinet-Serville (1838, p. 398), the source mentioned by Stal
in his proposals of Phisis and Teuthras.
5. Although the holotype of Guérin-Meéneville’s L. pectinata is male
and Stal’s specimen is female, and although they are generally similar, there
is now ample taxonomic evidence to enable me to state that they are not
conspecific. Despite some publications (e.g., Kirby (1906, p. 286)) to the
contrary, no specimen of L. pectinatais known from anywhere other than the
island of Buru in the Moluccas, far distant from Kinsberg’s locality of
Tahiti for the specimen seen by Stal. The species occurring in Tahiti could
even be referable to another genus, though this now seems improbable.
6. In view of the situation described above, it is necessary to settle the
question of whether the type species of Phisis (and of Teuthras) should be the
nominal species designated by Stal, Listroscelis pectinata, or the taxonomic
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 307
species upon which his generic description (which could apply to either) was
presumably based.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
asked:
(1) to confirm the original designations of the nominal species
Listro[s]celis pectinata Guérin[-Méneville], 1831 as type species
of the genera Phisis Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stal, 1874;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Phisis Stal, 1861 (feminine gender), type species by
original designation and as confirmed in (1) above, Listro[s]celis
pectinata Guérin[-Méneville], 1831 f
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name pectinata, as published in the binomen Listro[s]celis
pectinata, specific name of the type species of Phisis Stal, 1861;
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Teuthras Stal, 1874, a junior
objective synonym of Phisis Stal, 1861.
REFERENCES
AUDINET-SERVILLE, J.—G. 1838 (published Dec. 1838, although dated 1839).
Histoire Naturelle des Insectes Orthoptéres. Vol. 7, Suites a Buffon,...
Li}raire Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris, xiii+776 +4 pp. +14 pl.
COWAN, C. F. 1970. The Insects of the Coquille Voyage. J. Soc. Biblphy. nat. Hist.
vol. 5, pp. 358-360.
GUERIN[-MENEVILLE], F. E. 1831 and 1838, Atlas, [Pl.]. No. 10. Orthoptéres.
Jn Chapitre XIII. Insectes. Jn Histoire naturelle des Crustacées, Arachnides et
Insectes, recueillis dans le Voyage autour du Monde de la Corvette de Sa
Majesté, La Coquille, . . -Voyage autour du Monde du Capitaine Duperrey.
Zoologie 22), Division 1, pp. 152-154. Bertrand, Paris. [Whole vol.
1830-1838: pp. i-xii, 9-319, 5422 pl. +Zoophytes, by LESSON, R. P::
pp. 1-155, 16 pl.]
KIRBY, W. F. 1906. Orthoptera Saltatoria. Part I. (Achetidae et Phasgonuridae). 4
Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera, vol. 2. Trustees of the British Museum,
London. viii + 562 pp.
SHERBORN, C.D. & WOODWARD, B. B. 1906. Notes on the Dates of Publica.
tion of the Natural History portions of some F rench Voyages. Voyage autour
du Monde...sur... la Coquille pendant... 1822-25. .. Par L. J. Duperry
[sic],&c.—A Correction, Ann. Mag, nat. Hist., Ser. 7, vol. 17, pp. 335-336.
STAL, C. 1861. Orthoptera species novas descriptsit. Zoologi. I. Insecta (5), pp.
299-350. Kongl. svenska Fregattens Eugenies Resa omkring Iorden. Norstedt,
Stockholm.
1874. Recensio Orthopterorum. Revue critique des Orthoptéres décrits par
Linné, De Geer et T, hunberg, Vol. 2, Norstedt, Stockholm. iv +8 +121 pp.
308 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE INTRODUCING
THE TERM ‘NOMENCLATURALLY VALID’: A USEFUL NEW
TERM IN NOMENCLATURE. Z.N((S.)2513
By R. V. Melville (formerly Secretary) (93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond,
U.K.)
On several occasions in recent years I have felt the need for a term to
denote a name whose nomenclatural credentials are beyond reproach — that
is, it is neither a junior homonym nor a junior objective synonym and it has
not been rejected by the action of a first reviser (Article 24). I have coined the
term ‘nomenclaturally valid’ to denote such names and have used it several
times in the Bulletin. My friend Professor Dr Holthuis objects to this practice
so long as the term has not been officially adopted by the Commission and
written into the Code and Glossary. I must therefore explain more fully why I
think the term is a useful one.
2. Examples of my use of the term may help to clear the air. I have
kept no note of my use of the name so what follows is not necessarily a
complete list of examples.
(a) vol. 38, pp. 288-291, November 1981. Dr Kerzhner asked that
Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus
Fabricius, 1794 be ruled under the plenary powers to be nomen-
claturally valid names. The first is a junior secondary homonym
of Capsus ater (Linnaeus, 1758) and the second was for a time
a junior secondary homonym of Calocoris quadripunctatus
(Villers, 1789). In September 1982 (vol 39, p. 163) Dr Holthuis
commented adversely on aspects of this application. In reply
Dr Kerzhner said: ‘I think that if, as a result of nomenclatural
(not taxonomic) confusion, two or more names are used for the
same species, the nomenclatural validation of one of those
names (preferably the oldest and most used) serves stability
better than the introduction of a further name that has never
been used for the species’.
(b) vol. 39, p. 38, March 1982. The Commission was requested to
use its plenary powers to rule that Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa
[sic] Haliday, 1836 is a nomenclaturally valid name, although it
was a junior primary homonym of Thrips rufus Goeze, 1778 and
Thrips rufus Gmelin, 1790.
(c) vol. 41, p. 186, August 1984. In reporting on the long-standing
application for the conservation of Rana maculata Brocchi,
1877 and Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904, I quoted
a comment by Dr Sabrosky that offered four possible solutions
to the problem. Under Alternative C (the original proposal)
Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 would be suppressed. R. maculata
Brocchi then would become nomenclaturally valid. Under
Alternative D (Dr Sabrosky’s proposal) R. maculata Daudin
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 309
would be suppressed for priority but not for homonymy, as
would certain lectotype designations by the applicants. R.
macroglossa Brocchi, 1877 becomes nomenclaturally valid
rather than R. maculata Brocchi, which falls as junior primary
homonym.
3. The definition of ‘nomenclaturally valid’ is narrower than the
definition of ‘conserved’ because many proposals for conservation are
concerned with subjective synonymies. A junior subjective synonym is
taxonomically invalid, but it may be nomenclaturally valid at the same time.
4. The term ‘validation’ was long used by the Commission in
connexion with names being placed on the Official List. At one time it was
said that names placed on the Lists by an act of ‘validation’ were protected
against all senior synonyms and homonyms, known and unknown, but that
cannot be correct. In at least one case, both of a pair of subjective synonyms
have been placed on the List; and when the ‘relative precedence’ procedure is
applied to synonymous names, both names are placed on the List. The term
‘validation’ can now been seen to cover two different acts: ‘nomenclatural
validation’ and ‘conservation’. A name must be nomenclaturally valid before
it can be used as a taxonomically valid name in the sense of Article 23; and the
Commission can validate a name only in the nomenclatural sense.
5. I should therefore like to propose the following changes to the
third edition of the Code:
Article 23m. ‘A nomenclaturally valid name is not to be rejected...’
Article 24a, add a new Subsection (i): ‘A junior objective synonym, or
a junior homonym in the family group or the genus group, or a
junior primary homonym in the species group that is validated by
the action of a first reviser in the sense of this Article is
nomenclaturally valid.’
Article 79a, add a new Subsection (i): ‘A junior objective synonym, or
a junior homonym in the family group or the genus group, or a
junior primary homonym in the species that is validated by the use
of the plenary powers is nomenclaturally valid.’
Glossary, add a new subparagraph under ‘valid’: ‘Nomenclaturally
valid. A name that is neither a junior objective synonym, nor a
junior homonym in the family group or the genus group, nor a
junior primary homonym in the species group, and that has not
been rejected by a first reviser is a nomenclaturally valid name.’
310 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
TAENIOLABIS COPE, 1882 (MAMMALIA,
MULTITUBERCULATA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF
POLYMASTODON TAOENSIS COPE, 1882 AS TYPE SPECIES.
Z.N.(S.)2529
By Nancy B. Simmons (Department of Paleontology, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, 94572, USA)
The purpose of this application is to clarify the status of the type
species of Taeniolabis Cope, 1882a (p. 604) by: (a) suppression under the
plenary powers of the specific name of Taeniolabis sulcatus Cope, 1882a
(p. 604), type species by original designation and an unused senior subjective
synonym of Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882b (p. 684), and (b) designation
of P. taoensis Cope, 1882 as the new type species of Taeniolabis.
2. The holotype of Taeniolabis sulcatus is a broken upper second
incisor (American Museum of Natural History, Department of Paleontology
number 3038). Cope (1884, p. 193) published a second name for this speci-
men, T. scalper, and referred to the specimen again in this way in a later
publication (Cope, 1885, p. 493). T. scalper has been used as a senior
synonym only one other time, in Trouessart’s listing of fossil mammalian
taxa (1898, p. 1253). All subsequent references to this specimen cite T.
sulcatus as a senior objective synonym of T. scalper.
3. Cope (1882b, p. 684) erected the genus Polymastodon Cope, 1882
based upon the type species Polymastodon tadensis Cope, 1882. The holotype
of Polymastodon taoensis (diacritic mark omitted) consists of fragments of a
skull including the right maxilla with first and second molars (American
Museum of Natural History, Department of Paleontology number 3036).
Incorrect spellings of the specific name include taoense (Abel, 1913, p. 703;
1914, p. 39; 1920, pl 417), tabensis (Tims, 1903, p. 142; 1905, p. 1784), and
todensis (Granger and Simpson, 1929, p. 619; typographical error).
4. Cope (1885, p. 493) suggested that Taeniolabis scalper might be
synonymous with Polymastodon taoensis. This suggestion was based on
recognition that both P. taoensis and T. scalper (= T. sulcatus) are restricted
to the same stratigraphic unit within the San Juan Basin of New Mexico (the
‘Puerco Formation’ or lower part of the Nacimiento Formation, Cenozoic
System), and that the holotype of T. scalper resembles quite closely many
incisors referred to P. taoensis in size and morphology. Although Taeniolabis
has publication priority over Polymastodon (the former published in July
1882 and the latter in August), Cope (1885) preferred to retain Polymastodon
to refer to the genus. This retention was probably based on the superiority of
the holotype of P. taoensis, comparisons with which had resulted in the
establishment of additional species of Polymastodon. Polymastodon was sub-
sequently cited as the preferred generic name in three review works
(Roger, 1896, p. 6; Zittel, 1893, p. 85; Zittel, 1923, p. 432). Matthew and
Granger (1925, p. 6) were the first to indicate Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 as
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 311
“ec
the senior name for this genus [the reference reads “... Taeniolabis
(‘‘Polymastodon’’)...”’], and were soon followed by similar references in
Matthew (1928, pp. 949 and 951) and Matthew, Granger and Simpson (1928,
p. 1). Granger and Simpson (1929, p. 603) discussed the question of priority.
All subsequent workers have recognised Taeniolabis as a senior subjective
synonym of Polymastodon.
5. The suggested synonymy (Cope, 1885) of the species Taeniolabis
scalper and Polymastodon taoensis was accepted only in a single catalogue of
mammalian taxa by Roger (1896, p. 6), who listed both T. sulcatus and T.
scalper as junior synonyms of Polymastodon taoensis. Granger and Simpson
(1929, p. 615) rejected this synonymy in what remains the primary reference
for Taeniolabis, and recognised three species in the ‘Puerco Formation’ of
the San Juan Basin, New Mexico: Taeniolabis sulcatus, Polymastodon
taoensis, and Taeniolabis triserialis Granger and Simpson, 1929 (p. 619).
Polymastodon taoensis and Taeniolabis triserialis were both diagnosed on the
basis of molar tooth morphology, with incisors being non-diagnostic. As the
holotype of T. sulcatus (a single upper second incisor) exhibited no diagnos-
tic characters which could be used to distinguish it from the incisors of the
other species, T. sulcatus 1882 was recognised as a nomen dubium. Granger
and Simpson could not comfortably synonymise the taxon with either P.
taoensis Cope, 1882 or T. triserialis because of the confluent distribution of
these taxa, so T. sulcatus was retained as a separate species despite its nomen
dubium status. Granger and Simpson (1929, p. 616) concluded that ‘It is
probable that T. sulcatus is synonymous with T. taoensis, but here the latter
better-known name may reasonably be retained. . .. Until such time, there-
fore, as more abundant associated material makes it possible to determine
the specific characters shown by the I? [upper second incisor], it is proposed
to apply the little-known name T. sulcatus only to the type.’ No specimens
other than the holotype have ever been referred to T. sulcatus (or its junior
objective synonym, T. scalper).
6. Within the last fifty years there have been two references citing
Taeniolabis sulcatus as a valid name. Matthew (1937, p. 381) included a
summary of Taeniolabis in his volume on the Paleocene faunas of the San
Juan Basin, New Mexico, in which the holotype of T. sulcatus was described
with the conclusion that “The type is regarded as specifically indeterminate’.
Hahn and Hahn (1983, p. 294) included 7. sulcatus in their Fossilium
Catalogus review of the Multituberculata, with a footnote that ‘Es ist
mOglich, dass es sich um einen Incisiv von T. taoensis handelt, doch kann die
Zugehorigkeit nicht gesichert werden.’ [It is possible that it is an incisor from
T. taoensis, but membership cannot be assured].
7. Recent research concerning Taeniolabis has resulted in the
conclusion that T. triserialis is a junior subjective synonym of Polymastodon
taoensis (Simmons, in press). This synonymy means that there is only one
diagnosable species of Taeniolabis known from the ‘Puerco Formation’
(=lower part of the Nacimiento Formation) of the San Juan Basin, New
Mexico. T. sulcatus is considered synonymous with Polymastodon taoensis
312 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
based on general morphology and provenance of the holotype (Simmons, in
press).
8. That Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 has priority over Polymastodon
Cope, 1882 has previously been established. Similarly, su/catus has priority
over taoensis. Use of the specific name sulcatus, however, would upset the
stability of the long-accepted name faoensis in its accustomed meaning
through the introduction of an unused senior synonym. Although T. sulcatus
has been used as a valid name twice in the immediately preceding fifty years,
both of these citations questioned the specific identity of the taxon. In
addition, 7. sulcatus was already considered a ‘little-known name’ 57 years
ago (Granger and Simpson, 1929, p. 616). Conversely, Taeniolabis taoensis
has been used extensively in the literature of the past fifty years as the
presumably valid name for the taxon (details of nineteen references have
been given to the Commission Secretariat). Labelled illustrations of the skull
and dentition of T. taoensis have also appeared along with discussion of the
genus in several text books: Piveteau (1955, p. 33, Figure 14); Piveteau (1961,
pp. 551-552, Figures 20-21); Scott (1962, pp. 86-88, Figures 57-59); and
Gromova (1962, pp. 63-64, Figure 15). In the interest of nomenclatural
stability, it is therefore proposed that the virtually unused senior synonym
sulcatus be suppressed in favour of the specific name in general current usage,
taoensis.
9. The suppression of T. sulcatus as type species of Taeniolabis Cope,
1882 requires designation of a new type species for the genus. Clearly, the
appropriate type species for Taeniolabis is Polymastodon taoensis Cope,
1882, the holotype of which consists of skull fragments including the right
maxilla with first and second molars (American Museum of Natural History,
Department of Paleontology Number 3036).
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to set aside all previous designations of the type species for
the nominal genus Taeniolabis Cope, 1882, and to designate
Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 as the type species of that
genus;
(b) to suppress the specific name sulcatus Cope, 1882, as pub-
lished in the binomen Taeniolabis sulcatus, for the purpose
of the Principle of Priority but not for that of the Principle of
Homonymy.
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (gender: masculine), type species,
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above,
Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name taoensis Cope, 1882, as published in the binomen
Polymastodon taoensis Cope, 1882 (specific name of the type
species of Taeniolabis Cope, 1882);
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986 313
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name sulcatus Cope, 1882, as published in
the binomen Taeniolabis sulcatus, and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) (b) above.
REFERENCES
ABEL, O. 1913. Saugetiere (Palaontologie). Handworterbuch Naturwiss., vol. 8, pp.
695-759.
1914. Die vorzeitlichen SGugetiere. Gustav Fischer, Jena. 309 pp.
1920. Lehrbruch der Paldozoologie. Gustav Fischer, Jena. 500 pp.
COPE, E. D. 1882a. A new genus of Taeniodonta. Amer. Naturalist, vol. 16,
pp. 604-605. (published July, 1882).
1882b. New marsupials from the Puerco Eocene. Amer. Naturalist, vol. i6,
pp. 684-686. (published August, 1882).
1884. The Vertebrata of the Tertiary formations of the West Book I. Jn: F. V.
Hayden (ed.) Report of the U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories, Pt. III,
pp. 1-1009.
1885. Mammals from the Lower Eocene of New Mexico. Amer. Naturalist,
vol. 19, pp. 493-494.
GRANGER, W. & SIMPSON, G. G. 1929. A revision of the Tertiary Multi-
tuberculata. Bull. Amer, Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 56, pp. 601-676.
GROMOVA, V.I. 1962. Allotheria. Jn: Y. A. Orlov (ed.), Osnovy paleontologie, vol.
XII, (V.I. Gromova, ed.), pp. 63-64. Mlekopitajuschtschie, Moscow.
HAHN, G. & HAHN, R. 1983. Multituberculata. Jn: F. Wesphal (ed.), Fossilium
Catalogus, I: Animalia. Part 127, pp. 1409. Kugler Publications, Amsterdam.
MATTHEW, W. D. 1928. The evolution of mammals in the Eocene. Proc. Zoo. Soc.
London, 1927, pp. 947-985.
1937. Paleocene faunas of the San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Trans. Amer.
Phil. Soc. (new series), vol. 30, pp. 1-510.
MATTHEW, W. D. & GRANGER, W. 1925. Fauna and correlation of the Gashato
Formation of Mongolia. Amer. Mus Novit., no. 189, pp. 1-12.
MATTHEW, W. D., GRANGER, W. & SIMPSON, G. G. 1928. Paleocene
multituberculates from Mongolia. Amer. Mus. Novit., no. 331, pp. 1-4.
PIVETEAU, J. 1955. Etude systematique des Mammiféres Mésozoiques. Sous-classe
de Allotheria MARSH, 1880. Jn: P. Grassé (ed.), Traité de Zoologie, Paris.
Vol. 17 (1), pp. 30-37.
1961. Sous-classe: Alotheria MARSH, 1880. Jn: J. Piveteau (ed.), Traité de
Paléontologie, Paris, pp. 536-560.
ROGER, O. C. 1896. Verzeichniss der bisher bekannten fossilen Sdugethiere. Neu
zusammen-gestellt von Dr. Otto Roger, Kgl. Regierungs und Kreis-
Medizinrath in Augsburg. Ber. naturwiss. Vereins f. Schwaben und Newburg
(a.V.), pp. 1-272.
SCOTT, W. B. 1962. A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere. New York.
786 pp.
TIMS, H. W. M. 1903. The evolution of teeth in the Mammalia. J. Anat. Physiol.,
vol. 37, pp. 131-149.
1905. The dentition of mammals with reference to that of man. J. Amer. Med.
Assoc., vol. 45, pp. 1784-1787.
314 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 3, October 1986
TROUESSART, E. L. 1898. Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium.
Novo editio (prima completa), Pt. 2, pp. 665-1469. Friedlander und Sohn,
Berlin.
ZITTEL, K. A. 1893. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. 1. Abth. Palaezoologie. IV Band.
Vertebrata (Mammalia). Munich und Leipsig. 799 pp.
1923. Grundzuge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie). Vertebrata, (revised
by F. Broili and M. Schlosser) Fourth Ed. Munich and Berlin. 689 pp.
Dexia Meigen. 8 1926 (seta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey, B. Hering LP
Lepralia a punetata 1 ae 1841 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata). cA By ‘D.
Bishop ong
es 1901 (Crustacea, Copepoda). V. N. ‘Andronov & Ss
Geonemus Schoenherr, 1833 and ‘Brachyomus Lacordaire, 1863 (1 (I nse, atte
Coleoptera). G. J. Wibmer and C. W. O’Brien.
Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjéstedt, 1920) uae’ Orthoptera). ).K. H. L.
Phisis ‘Stal, 1861 and Teuthras Stl, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera (Gryllop-
tera)).D.K.McE.Kevan. . . ...
pgeegs term ‘Nomenclaturally valid’, an amendment to the Code.
Pe Sees ae a |
R.V.
Taeniolabis Cope, 1882 (Mammalia, ‘Multituberculata). N. B. Simmons . 310
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express
its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British
Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission.
DS ee
Page
ae ar Members ofthe Commission. . . . . ... . ae v
Members of the International Trust fa Zoological Nomenclature, ay
stag Announcements : NP Barn cle tase eae oy HONS d 223
Comments
(ou eevee Schencee: 1823 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C. Bord j 226
On Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera). R. E. me
Mz La Greca & R. F. via 227
On Cep -argus Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes). G:F. Mes) 5 227
On ‘H Sie tates Uae separ! (acepede, 1788-89). H.M. Smith . 228
Opinions
Opinion 1400. Sirnia fasticulartt Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Primates) . 229
Opinion 1401. Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera). . . . 231
Opinion 1402. Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . . . . 233
Opinion 1403. Lumbricus lacteus , 1881 (Annelida, Oligochaeta) ‘ 235
Opinion 1404. hd elongatus Baqri, 1982 a es
Dorylaimida) . 237
Opinion 1405. Aphelinus myrilaspids ‘Le Baron, 1870 Alnsecta,
PUURIGHOMTD earth Hiern 4” v2 Seren 239
- Opinion 1406. Phalaena stagnata ‘Donovan, 1806 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). 241
Opinion 1407. Lamia aethiops Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . . 243
Opinion 1408. Hypocryphalus mangiferae Stebbing, 1914 (nsecta,
CD aes Oe SE OS a) hea a ENP « STG 1 ft me 245
Opinion | 1409. Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia). alte 247
Opinion 1410. Williamia Monterosato, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . 249
Opinion 1411. Drymus ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Insecta, Hemiptera). 251
Opinion 1412. Leptoclinum fulgens Milne Edwards, 1841 (Tunicata, ]
AGRE S Wa mre UI Ne StS Ws ao had halle aa ncaa 253
Opinion 1413. Delphinus truncatus Montagu, 1821 (Mammalia, Cetacea) 256
Opinion 1414. Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . 258
Opinion 1415. Polygnathus bilineatus Roundy, 1926 (Conodonta) . 262
Opinion 1416. Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera). . . 264
Opinion 1417. dave Cuvier in thi coen easels 1814 _(Ostechthyes,
Perciformes) . pee be 267
New and revived cases
Rhabdodon istuttierors, “1869 (Reptilia, Ornithischia) and Rhabdodon
Fleischmann, 1831 (Reptilia, Serpentes). W. Brinkmann . 269
: iain oe Utterback, 1915 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). A. E. Bogan & J. D. ie
nantes neg isis 1858 (Cephalopoda, “Ammonoidea). RA.
Henderson& W.J.Kennedy. . . . . . 277
hae Cosa ion Moh a Lain Heteroptera). A Jansson & !
.M.Kerzhner_ . 279
Cieaah on Inside Back Cover
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset
Co “/UL 11 December, 1986 Volume 43 Part 4
pp. vii—viii, 315—388, T.P., I-VII ISSN 0007-5167
| The Bulletin
of Zoological
Nomenclature
The Official Organ of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
The Bulletin of Zoological
| Nomenclature _
Published by: C.A.B. International
On behalf of: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
Orders and enquiries concerning subscriptions and back numbers should be sent
to:
CENTRAL SALES
C.A.B. INTERNATIONAL
FARNHAM ROYAL
SLOUGH SL2 3BN, U.K.
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1986.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically,
mechanically, by photocopying, recording or oh
without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Vii
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
ites,
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) (Vice-
President) Echinoidea; Asteroidea
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Secretary-General)
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 Zoologii, 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
Troms6, 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
Vili
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. Dr. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdatsplatz 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
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, C.B., F.I.Biol.
Dr. M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Dr. L.B. Holthuis
Managing Director) Dr. F.G.W. Jones
Prof. Per Brinck Prof. Dr. O. Kraus
Prof. J.H. Callomon Dr. M. Luc
Dr. P.F.S. Cornelius Dr. R.B. Manning
Prof. C.B. Cox Mr. R.V. Melville
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Dr. I.W.B. Nye
E: LS: eZ:S: Dr. W.D.L. Ride (ex officio)
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D.
Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Dr. G.B. White
Prof. J. Forest Dr. A.G. Marshall (Observer for the
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Royal Society)
B. The Officers of the Trust
Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller )
Mr. J.D.D. Smith ( Scientific Administrator)
Mr. M.E. Tollitt, M.Sc., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (Zoologist)
Miss N.A. Erridge, B.Sc. ( Assistant Zoologist)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 315
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 43, part 4 (pp. vii—viii, 315—388) 11 December 1986
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 normally
extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to
comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, 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) Liasis Gray, 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed designation
of Liasis mackloti Dumeéril & Bibron, 1844 as type species.
Z.N.(S.) 2439. A. F. Stimson & S. B. McDowell.
(2) Filellum serpens (Hassell, 1848) (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): pro-
posed conservation of both generic and specific names.
Z.N.(S.) 2508. P. F. S. Cornelius & D. R. Calder.
(3) Lycaena mirza Pl6tz, 1880 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed
conservation by the suppression of Lycaena mirza Staudinger,
1874. Z.N.(S.) 2426. T. B. Larsen.
(4) Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
designation of Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924
as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2574. K. A. Spencer.
(5) Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneida): request for
confirmation of Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819 as type species.
Z.N.(S.) 2447. O. Kraus & A. Loerbroks.
(6) Trypanosoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Protozoa,
Mastigophora): proposed confirmation of spelling. Z.N.(S.)
2580. M. E. Tollitt.
(7) Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
precedence over Simulia posticata Meigen, 1838. Z.N.(S.) 2560.
I. A. Rubtsov.
(8) Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (Insecta, Diptera): pro-
posed precedence over Simulia rufa Meigen, 1838 and Simulia
borealis Zetterstedt, 1842. Z.N.(S.) 2394. I. A. Rubtsov.
(9) Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck, 1801 (Mollusca, Coleoidea):
proposed suppression of both generic and specific names.
Z.N.(S.) 2571. P. Doyle & W. Riegraf.
316
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(c)
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes. Cypriniformes): pro-
posed designation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type
species and request for a ruling on the stem of the family-group
name COBITIDIDAE Swainson, 1839. Z.N.(S.) 2566. M.
Kottelat.
Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation by the suppression of Tribolium navale
(Fabricius, 1775). Z.N.(S.) 2575. R. D. Pope & J. C. Watt.
Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida): proposed
designation of Cornalatus permutatus Attems, 1938 as type
species. Z.N.(S.) 2438. R. L. Hoffman.
Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835 as type species.
Z.N.(S.) 2561. R. A. Wharton.
Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781 (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro-
posed conservation by the suppression of Leptura marginata
O. F. Miiller in Allioni, 1766. Z.N.(S.) 2572. M. Mroczkowski.
Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have
been received since going to press for volume 43, part 3 (published on 6
October 1986):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes of three
works by R. W. Wells and C. R. Wellington: 1983: A synopsis of
the Class Reptilia in Australia (Aust. J. Herpetol., 1 (3,4));
1985a: A classification of the Amphibia of Australia (Aust. J.
Herpetol., Suppl. Ser. 1, 1-61); 1985b: A synopsis of the Reptilia
and Amphibia of New Zealand (ibid., 62-64). Z.N.(S.) 2531.
The President, the Australian Society of Herpetologists.
LARINAE Bonaparte, 1831 (Aves) and LARINAE Le Conte,
1861 (Insecta): proposal to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.)
2581. P. J. Spangler.
Filenchus Andrassy, 1954 (Nematoda): proposed designation of
Tylenchus vulgaris Brzeski, 1963 as type species. Z.N.(S.) 2582.
M. W. Brzeski, E. Geraert & D. J. Raski.
Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 as type species. Z.N.(S.)
2583. C. van Achterberg.
Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation
of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2584. D. L. Evenhuis.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
DESIGN AND PUBLICATION OF THE BULLETIN
As reported in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, p. 320, the Trust has been
reviewing the contents and format of the Bulletin with the intention of
making it more useful and attractive. The Trust has decided to introduce, as
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 317
from the 1987 volume, a number of changes in the format of the Bulletin
including a change from AS to the larger BS size. The layout of the cover and
much of the contents will be redesigned. This will enable a larger number of
applications to be included in each part.
In addition, the Bulletin will contain more general articles on
nomenclature and related issues and authors are invited to contribute such
articles.
For the last four years the Bulletin has been published by CAB Inter-
national on behalf of the Trust. As from the volume for 1987, the Trust itself
will resume publication and for 1987 will hold the subscription at the 1986
rate of £53 or $102.
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is the official periodical of
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It is published
by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and appears 4 times
a year in March, June, September and December. Applications to the
Commission are published in the Bulletin. Time is then given for comments
to be received, pubiished and considered before the Commission votes for or
against the proposals at the end of each application. The Commission’s final
decision is published in the Bulletin in the form of an Opinion.
These instructions are primarily for those preparing applications to
the Commission. However, authors of general articles or comments should
take note of the parts relevant to them. The instructions are not intended to
be restrictive and cannot cover all situations.
Applications: These should be prepared in accordance with the
3rd Edition (1985) of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. Particular attention should be paid to the principles
for use of the Commission’s plenary powers (Article 79).
Title: This should include names to be conserved. Names to be
suppressed should not normally be in the title, but will be mentioned
in the Abstract prepared by the Secretariat. When the proposals
concern a specific name it should be cited in the original binomen
and except in the case of type species the binomen in current use
should be given. Examples:
Halictus costulatus Kriechbaumer, 1873 (currently Lasioglossum
costulatum; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of
specific name.
Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 (Echinoidea, Cidaroidea): proposed
designation of Cidaris clavigera Mantell, 1822, as type species.
318
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and
THAIDIDAE Lehtinen, 1967 (Arachnida, Araneae); proposals to
remove the homonymy.
Author(s) Name(s) and Address(es): These should be on separate
lines, with the full postal addresses underlined.
Text: This should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the
details of the case and leading up to a set of formal proposals. The
advantages (and any disadvantages) of the proposals should be
included. Text references should be given with individual page
numbers (e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described .. .”). A summary of
the main points of the case will be prepared by the Secretariat.
A case to suppress a senior synonym on the grounds that it
has not been used as the valid name for a particular taxon should be
supported by a list of at least 10 publications by at least 5 different
authors over the last 50 years in which the junior synonym has
been treated as the valid name (see Article 79c). Individual page
references should be given.
The final paragraph of the text should be in the form of
formal proposals to the Commission. Example:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers...
(2) to place on the Official List .. .
(3) to place on the Official Index...
Authors are strongly advised to consult recent parts of the
Bulletin for the construction of proposals appropriate to their
particular requests.
Bibliography: References should start with the names of all authors
in lower case, followed by the year of publication and the title of the
paper, book or monograph. In the titles of papers in periodicals,
capital letters should be used only for proper nouns and all nouns in
German. The names of periodicals should be given in full and under-
lined. The nominal year of publication, if different from the actual
year, should bein parentheses immediately after the volume number.
Series number, volume number, part, fascicule and pagination
number should be given in arabic figures. Part number should be in
parentheses. Page numbers should be separated from any preceding
numbers by a colon. Book titles should be underlined and followed
by the number of pages, publisher and place of publication. When a
reference has been translated or transliterated, the original language
should be stated in square brackets at the end. References should be
provided for all authors cited in the text and particularly those whose
names are included in the formal proposals to the Commission.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 319
References to subsequent designations of type species should also be
given. The following are examples of reference styles:
Wise, K. A. J. 1957. A new species of Lithocolletis (Lepidoptera:
Gracillariidae) from New Zealand. Proceedings of the Royal
Entomological Society of London, ser. B, 26 (1-2) : 26-28.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, iv+824 pp.
Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae.
Dunbar, R. W. & Vajime, C. G. 1981. Cytotaxonomy of the
Simulium damnosum complex. Pp. 31-43, in Laird, M. (ed.),
Blackflies: the future for biological methods in integrated
control. xii+399 pp. Academic Press, London and New
York.
The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in
the preparation of an application and can provide specimen applications if
required.
Two copies of the complete paper must be provided, typed on one side
only, in double spacing with a left-hand margin of approximately 35 mm ( 15
inches). The printers will set the text in house style (revised from 1987) but it
would be helpful if authors would follow this style as closely as possible in
their typescript.
Typescripts should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
c/o British Museum (Natural History)
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, U.K.
OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES OF NAMES AND WORKS IN
ZOOLOGY
In Spring 1987, the Trust is publishing a revised and updated version
of the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. For the
first time a list of all the names and works on which the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has ruled since it was set up in
1895 will be brought together ina single volume. The entries will be arranged
in four sections giving in alphabetic order the family-group names, generic
names, specific names and works which have been placed on the Official List
or the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. There are about 9,900
entries of which 134 are for works. In addition, there will be a full systematic
index and a reference list to all relevant Opinions and Directions.
Persons wishing to have advance details of availability and price
should notify the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K.
320 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1985
During 1985, income from sales of publications amounted to £28,552
compared with £9,688 received in 1984. The large increase arose from sales of
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, published in February.
The cost of printing was £12,181, and the net surplus has enabled a substan-
tial provision to be carried forward to 1986 as a contribution towards a
reprint of the Code and the printing of the Official Lists of Names in Zoology.
Further sales of the Code will generate appreciable revenue in 1986, when the
only costs will be for the reprint for which provision has already been made.
Grants and donations brought in £14,078 (£14,166 in 1984). Grants were
made by the Royal Society (£1,000) and the Agricultural and Food Research
Council, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research
Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council (£2,000 each),
the International Union of Biological Sciences (£3,706) and the American
Association for Zoological Nomenclature (£1,372). Donations to the Appeal
Fund came from numerous sources, the largest being that made by the
British Ecological Society (£5,000). Deeds of covenant yielded £3,614
(£3,575 in 1984). Interest on invested monies increased sharply from £12,143
to £17,040. Income from all sources rose to £70,722 compared with £48,259
in 1984.
Salaries rose from £20,012 to £26,219, partly because of the appoint-
ment of a new Scientific Controller (who is also the Executive Secretary of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) and partly because
of national pay awards and the Trust’s resolve to begin to pay more realistic
wages and salaries to its staff than was hitherto possible. Office expenses
increased from £2,072 to £2,888 due to the purchase of further modern office
equipment which has already paid handsome dividends in increased
efficiency. Bad debts from unpaid subscriptions for publications accumu-
lated over several years had been written off in 1984 (£1,174). The bad debt in
1985 (£1,279) is mainly due to the loss of reclaimable income tax on a large
covenanted donation following the liquidation of the donor company.
Details of the fixed assets and depreciation are shown in the accounts.
Provision of £28,031 has been made for the reprinting of the Code and
publication of a new edition of the Official Lists of Names in Zoology,
£24,650 being appropriated from the Trust’s funds as a contribution towards
this. A decision has been made to recruit an Assistant Zoologist at an annual
cost of about £8,000, and this will constitute a future commitment. The
new appointment will enable the Trust’s staff to deal with a number of
long-standing and difficult nomenclatural problems and to clear a large
accumulation of cases requiring detailed attention.
Taking into account all the above items of income and expenditure,
the surplus for the year was £14,402 compared with £24,693 in the previous
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
321
year. Reserves increased from £128,793 to £155,663 and now include
£128,000 in National Savings Income Bonds and £22,000 on short-term
deposit with Coutts Finance Ltd.
The year has been one of change and solid achievements of which all
members and staff can be proud. Although proposed changes in the structure
and functioning of the Commission are being implemented, the Trust is well
placed financially to meet any additional costs arising from such changes in
1986 and 1987, although the long term funding of the Trust has yet to be
secured.
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
F.G. W. JONES
Secretary and Managing Director
12 June 1986
BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31st DECEMBER, 1985
1984
1,507
72
2,086
122,000
6,015
130,173
2,887
127,286
£128,793
88,538
24,693
113,231
15,562
£128,793
FIXED ASSETS
Tangible Assets (Note 2)
CURRENT ASSETS
Amounts due from Sales
Income and other Taxes recoverable
Investments
Cash at Bank and in Hand
CREDITORS: Amounts falling due
within one year (Note 3)
NET CURRENT ASSETS
ACCUMULATED FUNDS
REVENUE RESERVE
Balance at 31st December 1984
Surplus for 1985
Specific Provisions (Note 4)
P. E. KENT (Signed)
DENNIS CURRY (Signed)
274
1,084
150,000
4,690
156,048
2,875
Members of the
2,490
153,173
£155,663
113,230
14,402
127,632
28,031
£155,663
Management Committee
322
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS:—
1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES:
(a) Accounts are prepared under the historical cost accounting rules.
(b) Depreciation is calculated so as to write off the cost of Tangible Assets by reducing
instalments over their estimated useful lives as follows:
Office Equipment—10% of the written down value
2. FIXED ASSETS:
COST
Balance at 31.12.1984
Additions
(Sales)
Balance at 31.12.1985
DEPRECIATION
Balance at 31.12.1984
Provided during the year
Balance at 31.12.1985
Net Book Value at 31.12.1984
Net Book Value at 31.12.1985
CREDITORS—Amounts falling due within one year:
Sundry Creditors
Covenants received in advance
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
For Printing the 3rd Edition of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
Specific Donations
Appropriation from Trust Funds
For Printing the New Edition of the
Official Lists
Appropriation from Trust Funds
Office
Equipment
2,309
1,275
(15)
£3,569
802
277
£1,079
£1,507
£2,490
1985
2,160
715
£2,875
1985
3,381
7,250
17,400
£28,031
Total
2,309
1275
(15)
£3,569
802
277
£1,079
£1,507
£2,490
1984
202
2,685
£2,887
1984
8,562
7,000
£15,562
5. There is a future commitment to recruit an Assistant Zoologist at an estimated annual cost of
£8,000.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 323
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31st DECEMBER, 1985
1984
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
9,572 Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature 5,000
13 International Codes 23,451
98 Official Lists 86
5 Opinions 15
9,688 ——— 28,552
14,166 DONATIONS AND GRANTS 14,078
8,687 APPEAL FUND 7,438
3,575 DEEDS OF COVENANT 3,614
BANK INTEREST (Including
International Code 3rd Edition
12,143 Fund £1,743) 17,040
-- 38,571 — 42,170
48,259 70,722
Less:
20,012 SALARIES AND FEES 26,219
2,072 OFFICE EXPENSES 2,888
140 AUDIT FEE 160
1,174 PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS 1,279
_ PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION
OF PUBLICATIONS 25,496
168 DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE
EQUIPMENT 278
23,566 — 56,320
SURPLUS FOR THE YEAR
CARRIED TO BALANCE
£24,693 SHEET (see Page 2—Note 5) £14,402
REPORT OF THE AUDITORS
We have audited the accounts on pages one to three in accordance with approved
Auditing Standards and in our opinion the accounts, which have been prepared on the basis of
the accounting policies set out on page two, give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the
Trust at 31st December, 1985 and of the operating Surplus for the year ended on that date and
comply with the Companies Act 1985.
3 Kings Head Yard, MORLEY, GRAYRIGGE & CO.
London SE1 INA Chartered Accountants
324 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF APANTELES
ORNIGIS WEED, 1887 (HYMENOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2506
(see vol. 43, pp. 96-98)
By Robert A. Wharton (Department of Entomology, Texas A & M University,
College Station, Texas 77843-2475, U.S.A.)
I agree that the specific name ornigis has been used often over that last 20-30
years, but its usage prior to that was limited. Dr Whitfield, in his petition, cites only
two references to the usage of ornigis prior to 1956, and both are simply notes on host
records by Putnam. Whitfield notes that there is a ‘substantial literature’ due to
parasitism by A. ornigis of the leaf miner Phyllonorycter on apple. However, the three
references cited by Whitfield are recent, and references to ornigis cited in these papers
are also recent (Beckham er al., 1950 appears to be the earliest). Nevertheless, I
support the petition by Whitfield, since I believe stability is best served by conserving
the name ornigis, particularly since it is the name used for the type species of
Pholetesor Mason, 1981.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED GRANT OF PRECEDENCE TO
THRESKIORNITHIDAE RICHMOND, 1917 (AVES) OVER
PLATALEINAE BONAPARTE, 1838, Z.N.(S.)2136
(see vol. 41, pp. 240-244; vol. 43, pp. 10-13)
By Walter J. Bock (Chairman, Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature, International Ornithological Congress. Department of Biological
Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A.)
At its recent meeting, during the XIX International Ornithological Congress
in Ottawa in June 1986, the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
(SCON) discussed the application by the late E. Eisenmann, E. Mayr and K. C.
Parkes to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its
plenary powers to place THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology with precedence over PLATALEINAE Bonaparte,
1838. The SCON voted unanimously to once again support this application fully. The
application had its origins in early discussions of the committee in 1974 and has been
supported by the SCON ever since.
At this meeting the SCON also adopted a motion of support of the Principle
of Established Usage over the application of strict priority, noting that stability
of scientific names is the central goal of zoological nomenclature. Priority is not
the bedrock of zoological nomenclature, but only one of the methods by which
the central goal of stability of scientific names is achieved. The SCON therefore
wishes to express its strong support for the precedence sought for the name
THRESKIORNITHIDAE.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 325
OPINION 1418
GLYPHIPTERIX HUBNER, [1825] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
TINEA BERGSTRAESSERELLA FABRICIUS, 1781 DESIGNATED
AS TYPE SPECIES
RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type
species made for the nominal genus G/yphipterix Hubner, [1825] are set aside
and Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781 is designated as type species.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tinea
bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781;
(b) Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854 (gender: feminine), type species by
subsequent designation by Fletcher, 1928, Phalaena linneella
Clerck, 1759.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen
Tinea bergstraesserella (specific name of the type species of
Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]);
(b) linneella Clerk, 1759, as published in the binomen Phalaena
linneella (specific name of the type species of Chrysoclista
Stainton, 1854).
(4) The following name GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854 (type
genus Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Family-group Names in Zoology.
(5) The name Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 (an unjustified emendation
of Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825]) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2115
An application to designate Tinea bergstraesserella Fabricius, 1781
as type species of G/yphipterix Hiibner, [1825] was first received from
Dr A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) and Dr J. B. Heppner (University of Florida, U.S.A.) on 14
March 1975. After correspondence a revised version was published in Bull.
zool. Nom., vol. 34, pp. 81-84 (August 1977). 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 eight general and eight specialist serials. A comment was received
from Dr J. D. Bradley (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) and
Dr K. Sattler (British Museum ( Natural History), London) and published in
vol. 35, pp. 71-73. On 25 May 1982 the Commissioners were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule between Alternatives A (the proposals of
326 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Diakonoff & Heppner) or B (the proposals of Bradley & Sattler). At the close
of the voting period there was a less than two-thirds majority for A, which (as
it required use of the plenary powers) had therefore, under the Bylaws of the
Commission, to be voted on again.
In November 1984, a report on the case, incorporating new infor-
mation received at the previous vote, was published in vol. 41, pp. 250-253.
Further comments on the report were received from Bradley & Sattler and
published in vol. 42, pp. 219-220.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for Alternative A (the original Diakonoff and
Heppner proposals) or for Alternative B, the revised proposals set out in vol.
41, pp. 252-253. At the close of the voting period the state of the voting was
as follows:
Alternative A — four (4) — received in the following order: Melville,
Alvarado, Bayer, Cogger
Alternative B— fifteen (15)—received in the following order:
Holthuis, Savage, Cocks, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Corliss,
Starobogatov, Halvorsen, Schuster, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Ride, Kraus.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Dupuis, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
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:
bergstraesserella, Tinea, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum, vol. 2, p. 302
Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854, Insecta Britannica, Lepidoptera, p. 240
GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854, Insecta Britannica, Lepidoptera, p. 169
Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, p. 421
Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827, British Entomology, vol. 4, p. 152
linneella, Phalaena, Clerk, 1759, Icones Insectorum . . ., p. 8, pl. xii.
The following is the original reference to the subsequent designation
of a type species for the nominal genus Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854: of
Phalaena linneella Clerk, 1759 by Fletcher, 1928, Catalogue of Indian Insects,
part 16, p. 25.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 327
the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1418.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
328 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
OPINION 1419
DEMOCRICETODON FAHLBUSCH, 1964 (MAMMALIA,
RODENTIA): DEMOCRICETODON CRASSUS FREUDENTHAL,
1969 DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES
RULING. — (1) It is hereby ruled that the lectotype designation by
Fahlbusch, 1964, for Cricetodon minor Lartet, 1851, is invalid.
(2) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species made
for the nominal genus Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 are set aside and
Democricetodon crassus Freudenthal, 1969 is designated as type species.
(3) The name Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 (gender: masculine),
type species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above,
Democricetodon crassus Freudenthal, 1969, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) minor Larter, 1851, as published in the binomen Cricetodon
minus [sic], as defined by reference to the neotype designated by
Freudenthal, 1969;
(b) crassus Freudenthal, 1969, as published in the trinomen
Democricetodon brevis crassus (specific name of the type species
of Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964).
HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1854
An application requesting a decision on the interpretation of the
fossil rodent name Cricetodon minus Lartet, 1851 was first received from
Dr M. Freudenthal (Rijksmuseum van Geologie en Mineralogie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) and Dr V. Fahlbusch (Jnstitut fiir Geologie und Historisch
Geologie, Miinchen, BRD) on 24 July 1967. After correspondence a revised
version was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 25, pp. 179-183 (January
1969). Public notice of the posible use of the plenary powers was given in the
same part of the Bulletin as well as to seven general and two specialist serials.
A comment was received from Dr P. Mein (Université de Lyon, France) and
published in vol. 26, p. 122. This comment asked that no decision be taken
until the publication of a thesis, by a French worker, on fossil mammals from
Sansan, France. This was published in 1972 but made no mention of the
nomenclatural issues concerning Cricetodon. The case was re-opened in 1983
and a report published in vol. 41, pp. 245-249 which presented two alterna-
tive-courses of action. It was on these alternatives that the Commission was
asked to vote.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 329
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 17 April 1986 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule for either Alternative A, the proposals set out
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 41, p. 248, or for Alternative B, the proposals set out
in vol. 41, p. 249. At the close of the voting period the state of the voting was
as follows:
Alternative A — seventeen (17)— received in the following order:
Melville, Holthuis, Savage, Kabata, Willink, Mroczkowski, Halvorsen,
Schuster, Hahn, Uéno, Thompson, Alvarado, Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Cogger,
Dupuis
Alternative B — three (3) — received in the following order: Cocks,
Corliss, Starobogatov.
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Heppell, Lehtinen and
Trjapitzin. Gruchy was on leave of absence.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to the names placed on
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
crassus, Democricetodon brevis, Freudenthal, 1969, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 25,
p. 181
Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964, Abh. bayerischen Akad. Wiss. Math.-
Naturwiss. Klasse, N.F., vol. 118, p. 19
minor, Cricetodon, Lartet, 1851, Notice sur la colline de Sansan .. ., p. 19.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1986)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. 1419.
P.K. TUBBS
Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 July 1986
330 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
LIASIS GRAY, 1842 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF LIASIS MACKLOTI DUMERIL & BIBRON,
1844 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2439
By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London
SW7 5BD) and Samuel B. McDowell (Department of Biological Sciences,
Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07102, U.S.A.)
Gray (1842, p. 44) proposed the generic name Liasis for three species
of python, without designation of a type species. Two of these species, Liasis
childreni Gray (1842, p. 44) and Liasis olivacea (sic; note feminine ending)
Gray (1842, p. 45) were described as new (and are recognised today). The
third included species was Liasis amethystinus (sic; note spelling and mascu-
line ending), said by Gray to be the ‘Python amethystinus, Schn. Schlegel,
Phys. Serp. t.f.’, i.e. Boa amethistina Schneider (1801, p. 254) sensu Schlegel
(1837, p. 419).
2. The first designation in a valid form of a type species for Liasis was
that of Desmarest (1846, p. 337) who wrote: ‘Quatre espéces entrent dans ce
groupe [following the revision by Duméril & Bibron (1844, p. 431)]; le
type est le Boa amethystina Schneid., Daud., dont on ignore la patrie’.
Desmarest’s designation appears to have been overlooked by all subsequent
workers.
3. Since its inception Liasis has been accepted almost universally as
the correct generic name for the species childreni and olivaceus. The species
mackloti Duméril & Bibron (1844, p. 440), papuanus Peters & Doria (1878,
p. 400), albertisii Peters & Doria (1878, p. 401) and perthensis Stull (1932,
p. 26) have also been consistently referred to Liasis. Boa amethistina on the
other hand has not been consistently referred to any one genus, having been
placed in Liasis by about half the zoologists, including Duméril & Bibron
(1844, p. 433), Gray (1849, p. 91), Jan & Sordelli (1865, pl. VI), Peters &
Doria (1878, p. 399), Stull (1935, p. 391), Loveridge (1948, p. 268), de Haas
(1950, p. 520), Kinghorn (1956, p. 71), Worrell (1963, p. 97) and Stimson
(1969, p. 23) and placed in Python Daudin (1803, p. 434) by the remainder,
including Boulenger (1893, p. 83), Zenneck (1898, p. 31), Werner (1900, p. 73
and 1921, p. 235), Barbour (1912, p. 191), de Rooi (1917, p. 24), Burt & Burt
(1932, p. 563), Worrell (1951, p. 23) and McDowell (1975, p. 52).
4. We feel that to accept Boa amethistina as the type of Liasis would
be most unsatisfactory. Apart from the immediate change of Liasis (sensu
McDowell, 1975, p. 31) to Bothrochilus Fitzinger (1843, p. 24, type species by
original designation Tortrix boa Schlegel, 1837, p. 22), future stability will be
at risk to possible changes in generic assignment of the species Boa amethis-
tina and Tortrix boa. The latter was first assigned to the genus Liasis by
McDowell (1975, p. 31) having been placed in the monotypic genus Bothro-
chilus (or its junior objective synonym Nardoana Berg, 1901, p. 289) by all
authors during the previous 60 years.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 331
5. We believe that is not obligatory to accept Boa amethistina as the
type of Liasis since in our opinion the Liasis amethystinus included by Gray
in his new genus was not the same species as Boa amethistina Schneider. Thus
we have a case of ‘misidentified type-species’ in the sense of Article 70(b) of
the Code.
6. When referring ‘Python amethystinus’ to Liasis Gray stated
‘Inhabits India. Mus. Leyden’. The type of Boa amethistina Schneider was in
the Bloch collection in Berlin, as stated explicitly by Schneider, and ‘Mus.
Leyden’ must refer to the source of Gray’s material. Whether Gray borrowed
material from Leiden, visited Leiden, or based his account on Schlegel’s
description in ‘Phys. Serp. t.f.’ of certain specimens in the Leiden Museum is
unknown, but Gray’s diagnosis of Liasis would exclude the Boa amethistina
of Schneider, as well as the Saparua Island specimen figured and described by
Schlegel as Python amethystinus; but Gray’s diagnosis would include certain
specimens referred (wrongly) to Python amethystinus by Schlegel and
described by him as variations possibly induced by climate or difference in the
soil. These specimens, ccilected on Timor and Samao by H. C. Macklot and
S. Miiller, were in the ‘Mus. Leyden’ and part of the ‘Python amethystinus’ of
Schlegel, thus fitting Gray’s brief identification of what he understood that
name to mean. The disposition of Macklot & Miller’s specimens has been
recounted by Brongersma (1968).
7. However, Schlegel’s identification of these Timor and Samao
specimens was incorrect. Dumeéril & Bibron (1844, p. 440) later referred these
specimens to a new species, Liasis mackloti. Gray’s separation of Liasis from
Python was based on the lack of pits in the rostral and anterior supralabial
scutes in Liasis, in contrast to deep pits in the rostral and anterior supra-
labials of Python, and it was this very character that Duméril & Bibron used
to distinguish Liasis mackloti (with rostral and anterior supralabial pits
very faint) from ‘Liasis amethystinus’ (with deep pitting of the anterior supra-
labials and rostral). Duméril & Bibron state that their (Paris) specimen came
originally from the Leiden collection; it is quite possible that this specimen
was considered the least valuable in the Leiden collection (because not
typical) and thus the specimen to donate to another museum or, before that,
to hazard ina foreign loan, such as to Gray in London. The internal evidence,
from Gray’s own description, indicates that the snake Gray examined, in the
wrong belief that he had the ‘Boa amethistina’ of Schneider, was the Liasis
mackloti of Duméril & Bibron; Gray may, indeed, have seen the specimen
(MNHN 1625; Paris) designated by Brongersma (1968, p. 57) as lectotype of
L. mackloti. Gray would have easily missed the error, for the identification
had been made by Schlegel, the foremost authority on snake taxonomy at the
time, and Gray had no material of true Python amethistinus for comparison.
8. Thus Gray’s inclusion of amethystinus in Liasis was based on a
specimen or specimens of Liasis mackloti and it would seem appropriate that
this, the species actually before Gray, be declared the type.
9. As to the gender of Liasis, Duméril & Bibron (1844, p. 442) gave
Gray’s ‘Liasis olivacea’ the masculine form olivaceus, in agreement with
332 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
‘amethystinus’, and if a ‘first revisor’ rule is applied to determining the gender
of a name with no classical derivation and which the original describer
treated as both masculine and feminine in its first publication, then Liasis can
be taken as masculine. This has been the usage of all subsequent authors
except Gray himself, who still in 1849 (p. 91) treated the gender ambiguously,
with ‘amethystinus’ and ‘olivacea’ both included. However, it should be noted
that Gray used the masculine ending only for a specific name that would not
now be included in this genus. Fixing the type of Liasis should also be
accompanied by a fixing of this generic name as masculine.
10. The Commission is therefore requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of
type species for the nominal genus Liasis Gray, 1842, and to
designate Liasis mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Liasis Gray, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Liasis
mackloti Dumeril & Bibron, 1844;
(3) to endorse on the entry in the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology for mackloti Duméril & Bibron, 1844 that it is the type
species of Liasis Gray, 1842 by designation in (1) above.
Postscript
Since we originally submitted this application Cogger et al. (1983,
pp. 200-201), in the belief that Boa amethistina Schneider is the type-species
of Liasis, have placed Liasis in the synonymy of Morelia Gray (1842, p. 43)
and revived Bothrochilus for those species usually placed in Liasis. These
authors’ actions were based on an assumption that amethistina as the type of
Liasis cannot be construed as a misidentified type-species in the sense of Art.
70. They state ‘Had Gray nominated amethystinus as type-species of Liasis,
his designation might have been regarded as based on a misidentification
and therefore subject to resolution by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature. There is no ambiguity, however, in Desmarest’s
designation of the nominal species amesthistina of Schneider as type-species
of Liasis and although it might be argued that Schneider’s amesthistina was
not among the originally-included species in Liasis (and therefore not eligible
as type-species under Article 69(a) of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature), we believe such an argument could not be sustained, and we
regard Boa amethistina Schneider, 1801 as validly designated type species of
Liasis Gray, 1842.’
We do not accept this argument, Article 70 explicitly states that it
concerns species that an author ‘(1) refers to a new genus when he establishes
it, or (2) designates as the type-species of a new or of an established genus.’
Boa amethistina Schneider was misidentified by Gray when he referred it to
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 333
his new genus Liasis and it therefore became a ‘misidentified type-species’
as soon as Desmarest designated it the type. Whether or not Desmarest
correctly identified the species is immaterial.
REFERENCES
BARBOUR, T. 1912. A contribution to the zodgeography of the East Indian islands.
Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 44, pp. 1-203.
BERG, C. 1901. Herpetological notes. Comun. Mus. nac. B. Aires, Vol. 1, pp.
289-291.
BOULENGER, G. A. 1893. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum ( Natural
History), London, vol. 1, xiii+ 448 pp.
BRONGERSMA, L. D. 1968. Proposal to suppress Python timorensis Miller, 1844
and Python timoriensis Miller, 1857, and to add Python timoriensis (Peters,
1876) to the Official List. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 25, pp. 55—59.
BURT, C. E. & BURT, M. D. 1932. Herpetological results of the Whitney South Sea
Expedition. VI. Paciffe island amphibians and reptiles in the collection of the
American Museum of Natural History. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. Vol. 63, pp.
461-597.
COGGER, H. G., CAMERON, E. E. & COGGER, H. M. 1983. Amphibia and
Reptilia. Jn Walton, D. W. (ed.) Zoological Catalogue of Australia, vol. 1.
Canberra, vi+ 313 pp.
DAUDIN, F. M. 1803. Caractéres des vingt-trois genres qui composent I’ordre des
ophidiens. Magasin encycl. (8). Vol. 5, pp. 433-438.
D[ESMAREST], E. 1846. Liasis. in d’Orbigny, M. C. Dictionnaire universel d'histoire
naturelle, Vol. 7, p. 337.
DUMERIL, A. M.C. & BIBRON, G. 1844. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle
complete des reptiles, Paris, Vol. 6, X11+609 pp.
FITZINGER, L. 1843. Systema reptilium. Vol. 1, Vienna. 106+ vi pp.
GRAY. J. E. 1842. Synopsis of the species of prehensile-tailed snakes or family
Boidae. Zool. Misc., pp. 41-46.
1849. Catalogue of the specimens of snakes in the collection of the British
Museum. London. xv+ 125 pp.
HAAS, C. J. P. DE 1950. Checklist of the snakes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago
(Reptiles, Ophidia). Treubia, Vol. 20, pp. 511-625.
JAN, G. & SORDELLI, F. 1865. Iconographie générale des ophidiens. Paris, Livr. 9,
VI pls.
KINGHORN, J. R. 1956. The snakes of Australia. 2nd edition. Sydney, 197 pp.
LOVERIDGE, A. 1948. Australian reptiles in the Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv., Vol. 77, pp.
243-383.
McDOWELL, S. B. 1975. A catalogue of the snakes of New Guinea and the
Solomons, with special reference to those in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Part II. Anilioidea and Pythoninae. J. Herpet., vol. 9, pp. 1-79.
PETERS, W. & DORIA, G. 1878. Catalogo dei rettili e dei batraci raccolti da O.
Beccari, L. M. D’Albertis e A. A. Bruijn nella sotto-regione Austro-Malese.
Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Genova, vol. 13, pp. 323-450.
ROOIJ, N. DE 1917. The reptiles of the Indo- Australian Archipelago, Vol. 2. Leiden.
XIV + 334 pp.
SCHLEGEL, H. 1837. Essai sur la physionomie des serpens, vol. 2, La Haye. 606 pp.
334 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
SCHNEIDER, J. G., 1801. Historiae amphibiorum naturalis et literariae, Vol. 2, Jena.
VI+ 374 pp.
STIMSON, A. F. 1969. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Boidae
(Boinae + Bolyeriinae + Loxoceminae+ Pythoninae). Tierreich no. 89, XI+
49 pp.
STULL, O. G. 1932. Five new subspecies of the family Boidae. Occ. Pap. Boston Soc.
nat. Hist., Vol. 8, pp. 25-29.
1935. A check list of the family Boidae. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., vol. 40,
pp. 387-408.
WERNER, F. 1900. Die Reptilien- und Batrachierfauna des Bismarck-Archipels.
Mitt. zool. Samml. Mus. Naturk. Berl., Vol. 1 (4), pp. 1-132.
1921. Synopsis der Schlangenfamilie der Boiden auf Grundlage des
Boulenger’schen Schlangenkatalogs (1893/96). Arch. Naturgesch., Vol. 87A
(7), pp. 230-265.
WORRELL, E. 1951. Classification of Australian Boidae. Proc. R. zool. Soc.
N.S.W., year 1949-50, pp. 20-25.
1963. Reptiles of Australia. Sydney, xv + 207 pp.
ZENNECK, J. 1898. Die Zeichnung der Boiden. Z. wiss. Zool., Vol. 64, pp. 1-384.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 335
FILELLUM SERPENS (HASSALL, 1848) (CNIDARIA,
HYDROZOA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF BOTH
GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.)2508
By Paul F. S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural
History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.) and Dale R. Calder
(Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s
Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 2C6 and Department of Zoology,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 1 AI)
Introduction
The hydroid species Filellum serpens (Hassall, 1848) is common and
near-cosmopolitan in recorded distribution, but it happens that neither the
genus name nor the species name applied to it is the oldest available. Strict
application of the Code would cause confusion and a case is made for the
conservation of both names.
Coppinia Hassall, 1848
With the exception of a single genus (Cryptolarella Stechow, 1913,
p. 138), hydroids of the nominotypical subfamily LAFOEINAE of the family
LAFOEIDAE Hincks, 1868 (p. 198) have aggregated gonophores known as
coppiniae. Resembling muffs or nests, coppiniae occur on the stems and
larger branches of erect species and on the stolons of those which are reptant,
and in several genera are protected by a tangle of modified hydrothecal tubes.
Such aggregated gonophores were initially believed to be distinct taxa grow-
ing as parasites or epizoites on other hydroids. The term coppinia is derived
from the genus name Coppinia Hassall, 1848 (p. 2223; described more fully in
Hassall & Coppin, 1852, p. 160), established to accommodate a supposedly
parasitic hydroid later shown (Levinsen, 1893, p. 162) to have been just
such clustered lafoeid gonophores. Although scarcely used this century,
the name Coppinia is available and threatens the familiar and widely used
name Filellum Hincks, 1868 (p. 214), a name introduced in a well known
monograph on hydroids. Filellum serpens (Hassall, 1848) (p. 2223, as
Campanularia), type species of Filellum by monotypy, is a stolonal species
commonly found epizoic on other hydroids in all oceans. It is inconspicuous
except for its relatively large coppiniae, but is distinctive and often reported
in faunal surveys.
2. The species name serpens was published in 1848 by Gray also
(p. 151, as “Capsularia serpens, n.s.; Campanularia serpens Hassall, mss’).
Although the exact dates of publication of Gray’s or Hassall’s works could
not easily be ascertained, Sherborn (1926, p. 272) recorded Gray’s work
being shown to the Trustees of the British Museum on 31 August 1848 for
approval prior to publication. A note inside a copy in the British Museum
(Natural History) library records the receipt of the published copy by the
336 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Museum on 25 September 1848, so it can be assumed that Gray’s work was
published between 31 August 1848 and 25 September 1848. Hassall’s (1848)
paper on p. 2223 of volume 6 of Zoologist is, according to a note by C. D.
Sherborn on the title page of the Museum copy, in the eighth monthly part
for that year. Part 8 corresponded to August of 1848 and would have been
published, according to the preamble to the volume, ‘three days before the
end of each month’. Thus Hassall’s paper should have been published on 28
August 1848. If so, his use of serpens would probably have had priority over
Gray’s. We assume that this is so. Reasons for not employing the genus
names Capsularia Cuvier, 1797 (p. 665), and Reticularia Thomson, 1853
(p. 443), were given by Cornelius (1975, p. 378).:
3. The nominal species Coppinia mirabilis Hassall, 1848 (p. 2223;
described more fully in Hassall & Coppin, 1852, p. 160), type species of
Coppinia by monotypy, was based on a single colony overgrowing another
hydroid, Hydrallmania falcata (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 810) (type specimen of C.
mirabilis BMNH 1973.10.8.3, on herbarium sheet). P.F.S.C. examined the
specimen and found it to be a fertile colony of the species known today as
Filellum serpens (Hassall, 1848). The type specimen of Campanularia serpens
Hassall, 1848 (overgrowing colony of Abietinaria abietina (Linnaeus, 1758,
p. 808), British Museum (Natural History) 1973.10.8.4, on herbarium sheet)
has also been examined and found to conform to the modern concept of
F. serpens. We conclude that Hassall (1848) simultaneously and unwittingly
based two nominal species, Coppinia mirabilis and Campanularia serpens, on
material of the same species, thus making either species name available for
F. serpens auct. Of these two names we select as first revisers the more widely
used species name serpens as having priority.
4. Coppinia mirabilis Hassall, 1848, a junior subjective synonym of
Coppinia arcta (Dalyell, 1847, p. 224, as Sertularia), has commonly been
assumed to be conspecific with Lafoea dumosa (Fleming, 1820, p. 83, as
Sertularia), a species recently revised by Cornelius (1975, p. 385). This is
based on a misinterpretation of the discovery by Levinsen (1893, p. 162) that
the gonophores of hydroids belonging to the genera Lafoea Lamouroux,
1821 (p. 8), Grammaria Stimpson, 1853 (p. 9) and Filellum Hincks, 1868 (p.
214) are aggregated into coppiniae and are identical with nominal species
once referred to the genus Coppinia. It happens that the name Coppinia has
mistakenly been regarded as a junior synonym, in part or in whole, of Lafoea
(e.g. Levinsen, 1893, p. 170; Bedot, 1905, p. 61; Stechow, 1923, p. 137).
However, our reidentification of the type specimen of Coppinia mirabilis as
identical with Campanularia serpens shows that the genus name Coppinia is
available as a senior synonym of the universally used name Filellum. The
word ‘coppinia’ has become familiar in accounts of the subfamily LAFOEINAE
and promulgation of Coppinia as a genus name might well cause confusion. It
would unquestionably upset existing usage of Filellum and we consequently
request suppression of the genus name Coppinia.
5. The genera Sertularia Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 807) and Campanularia
Lamarck, 1816 (p. 112) have both long since been redefined so as to preclude
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 337
any question of the nominal species Sertularia arcta Dalyell, 1847, or
Campanularia serpens Hassall, 1848, being retained in either genus (sSummar-
ies in Cornelius, 1979, p. 249; Cornelius, 1982, p. 51). Thus Coppinia Hassall,
1848, a name scarcely used this century, is the oldest available genus name for
C. serpens. The exhaustive literature reviews of Bedot (1905, 1910, 1912,
1916, 1918, 1925) listed 58 uses of the name Coppinia between 1848 and 1905,
including the first uses of it by Hassall and Gray. Bedot listed no later uses of
Coppinia, nor are there any listed in Zoological Record. Indeed, it is remark-
able how soon the name Coppinia fell into disuse once Levinsen (1893, pp.
162, 170) showed that it was based merely on reproductive structures of
known taxa.
6. In contrast, the name Filellum Hincks, 1868, has been widely used
in the hydroid literature of the past 100 years. A list of ten major works in the
last SO years establishes a prima facie case for its continued use: Fraser, 1944,
p. 215; Naumov, 1960, p. 280; Blanco, 1967, p. 103; Calder, 1970, p. 1522;
Vervoort, 1972, p. 50; Cornelius, 1975, p. 378; Millard, 1975, p. 175;
Stepanjants, 1979, p. 48; Gili i Sarda, 1982, p. 55; Cornelius & Ryland, in
press.
Sertularia arcta Dalyell, 1847
7. We concur with the opinion of Hincks (1868, p. 219) and others
that the nominal species Sertularia arcta Dalyell, 1847 (p. 224, pl. 42) is
conspecific with Coppinia mirabilis Hassall, 1848, and hence in our view with
Fillellum serpens auct. In the first description of S. arcta it was stated by
Dalyell that its hydranth had only eight tentacles and that the planula was
green. Hincks (1868, p. 220) reported that hydranths of ‘C. arcta’ had 8-10
tentacles and were greenish-yellow. Few subsequent authors have described
the hydranth of this species. Broch (1911, fig. 20a) gave no textual description
but provided an illustration of the hydranth of Filellum serpens showing nine
tentacles. The same illustration was reproduced by Kramp (1935, fig. 54a)
and Vervoort (1946, fig. 82). Hamond (1957, p. 308, fig. 15) provided a new
illustration showing 11 tentacles, and stated in his description that the
number was ‘about 12’. Hydranths of the only species from which F. serpens
need be distinguished in British waters, Lafoea dumosa Fleming, 1820 (p. 83),
have 16 tentacles even when young and older ones have up to about 20
(P.F.S.C., unpublished). Dalyell also described L. dumosa in his 1847 work
and there seems little possibility that his S. arcta was identical with it. All
evidence corroborates Hincks’ identification as F. serpens. The species name
arcta Dalyell, 1847, which predates serpens, has like the genus name Coppinia
fallen into disuse. Neither Bedot (1925) nor Zoological Record listed uses
subsequent to 1905. Indeed, arcta and the genus name Coppinia were used
almost solely in mutual combination and the comments in paragraph 5 apply
to both genus and species names. Therefore, we request that arcta Dalyell,
1847, be suppressed in favour of serpens Hassall, 1848.
8. The species name serpens has been widely used both before the
turn of the century and since, usually in the combination Filellum serpens.
338 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
The 10 important works mentioned in paragraph 6 also illustrate the usage of
the species name serpens.
Campanularia intertexta Couch, 1844
9. The nominal species Campanularia intertexta Couch, 1844 (pp.
41-42, pl. 11, fig. 3) was referred to Lafoea dumosa (Fleming, 1820, p. 83) by
Cornelius (1982, p. 122). He reported that the type specimen of C. intertexta
was almost certainly not extant. However, the identity of this nominal species
is in doubt. The possibility that the type specimen of intertexta included
Filellum serpens has not been adequately eliminated. Couch stated that the
species as he conceived it grew on both Lafoea dumosa and Sertularella
polyzonias (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 813, as Sertularia). The latter substrate is more
typical for F. serpens and, as deduced by Cornelius (1982), it is plausible that
Couch’s type series of intertexta included F. serpens as well as L. dumosa (in
addition to Orthopyxis integra (Macgillivray, 1842, p. 465), as Campanularia:
see Cornelius, 1982, p. 122). Cornelius designated the specimen of which the
coppiniae were illustrated as lectotype of C. intertexta, expressly discrimin-
ating it from the clearly epizoic O. integra (a distinction not made by Couch).
Despite the assertion by Cornelius (1982, p. 122) it is not at present possible
to determine whether the illustrated coppinia was of L. dumosa or of F.
serpens. Nevertheless one or other is considered to have been in the mixed
type series. If the coppinia were to be identified as F. serpens, then the older
name serpens would become threatened by intertexta and an additional case
for the conservation of serpens would have to be made to the Commission. So
far as we know the name intertexta has been employed in the original sense
only twice since Couch’s work (references in Bedot, 1905-1925) and we
therefore request its suppression in favour of serpens.
Conchella Gray, 1848
10. Campanularia intertexta Couch, 1844, is the type species (by
monotypy) of the genus Conchella Gray, 1848 (p. 88). Hence, if the type
specimen of C. intertexta were identified as F. serpens, the name Conchella
might threaten the widely used genus name File//um Hincks, 1868 (see pre-
vious paragraph). The index of Bedot (1905-1925), covering literature up to
1910, indicated no subsequent uses of Conchella, whereas the genus name
Filellum had been widely used. The references listed in paragraph 6 establish
a prima facie case for the continued use of Filellum and we therefore request
that Conchella be suppressed.
Proposals
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic
names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority:
(a) Coppinia Hassall, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy, Coppinia mirabilis Hassall, 1848;
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 339
(b) Conchella Gray, 1848 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy, Campanularia intertexta Couch, 1844;
(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific
names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority:
(a) arcta Dalyell, 1847, as published in the binomen Sertularia
arcta;
(b) intertexta Couch, 1844, as published in the binomen
Campanularia intertexta;
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Filellum Hincks, 1868 (gender: neuter), type species by
monotypy, Campanularia serpens Hassall, 1848;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name serpens Hassall, 1848, as published in the binomen Cam-
panularia serpens (specific name of the type species of Filellum
Hincks, 1868);
(5) to place the following names, as suppressed in (1) above, on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology:
(a) Coppinia Hassall, 1848;
(b) Conchella Gray, 1848;
(6) to place the following names on the Official List of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) arcta Dalyell, 1847, as published in the binomen Sertularia
arcta and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (2) (a)
above;
(a) intertexta Couch, 1844, as published in the binomen
Campanularia intertexta and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (2)(b) above.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Professor W. Vervoort, Leiden, and Dr K. W.
Petersen, Copenhagen, for commenting on the typescript and to Dr I. W. B.
Nye, London, for discussing the paper by Hassall (1848). We are grateful
also to Professor Vervoort also for confirming the identity of the type
specimen of ‘Coppinia mirabilis’, and to Mr M. E. Tollitt for advice on our
submission.
REFERENCES
BEDOT, M. 1905. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 2me période
(1821 a 1850). Revue suisse Zool., vol. 13, pp. 1-183.
1910. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 3me période (1851 a
1871). Revue suisse Zool., vol. 18, pp. 189-490.
1912. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 4me période (1872 4
1880). Revue suisse Zool., vol. 20, pp. 213-469.
340 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
1916. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. Sme période (1881 a
1890). Revue suisse Zool., vol. 24, pp. 1-349.
1918. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 6me période (1891 a
1900). Revue suisse Zool., vol. 26 (Suppl.), pp. 1-376.
1925. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 7me période (1901 a
1910). Revue suisse Zool., vol. 32 (Suppl.), pp. 1-657.
BLANCO, O. M. 1967. Un nuevo aporte al conocimiento de la fauna hidroide
Argentina. Revta Mus. La Plata(N.S.) (Zool.), vol. 10, pp. 97-127.
BROCH, H. 1911. Fauna droebachiensis. I. Hydroider. Nyt. Mag. Naturvid., vol.
49(1), pp. 1-46.
CALDER, D. R. 1970. Thecate hydroids from the shelf waters of northern Canada.
J. Fish. Res. Bd Canada, vol. 27, pp. 1501-1547.
CORNELIUS, P. F. S. 1975. A revision of the species of Lafoeidae and Haleciidae
(Coelenterata: Hydroida) recorded from Britain and nearby seas. Bull. Br.
Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 28, pp. 375-426.
1979. A revision of the species of Sertulariidae (Coelenterata: Hydroida)
recorded from Britain and nearby seas. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol.
34, pp. 243-321.
1982. Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from
the eastern North Atlantic, with a world synopsis of genera. Bull. Br. Mus. nat.
Hist. (Zool.), vol. 42, pp. 37-148.
—& RYLAND, J. S. (In press) Hydrozoa. Jn: Ryland, J. S. & Hayward, P. J.
(eds) An introduction to the marine fauna of the British Isles, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
COUCH, R. Q. 1844. A Cornish fauna; being a compendium of the natural history of
the county, intended to form a companion to the collection in the museum of the
Royal Institution of Cornwall. xviit+164+8 pp. unpaginated. Royal
Institution of Cornwall, Truro.
CUVIER, G. L.C. F. D. 1797. Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux.
Paris, pp. xvi, 1-710. (Dating follows J. Typogr. Biblphique (1797), vol. 1,
pp. 81-82.)
DALYELL, J. G. 1847. Rare and remarkable animals of Scotland, represented from
living subjects: with practical observations on their nature. Vol. 1, xii+270 pp.
J. Van Voorst, London.
FLEMING, J. 1820. Observations on the natural history of the Sertularia gelatinosa
of Pallas. Edinb. phil. J., vol. 2, pp. 82-89.
FRASER, C. M. 1944. Hydroids of the Atlantic coast of North America, 451 pp.
University of Toronto, Toronto.
GILI I SARDA, J.-M. 1982. Fauna de cnidaris de les illes Medes. Treballs Inst.
catal. Hist. nat., vol. 10, pp. 1-176.
GRAY, J. E. 1848. List of the specimens of British animals in the collection of the
British Museum. Part 1. Centroniae or radiated animals, xiiit+ 173 pp. British
Museum, London.
HAMOND, R. 1957. Notes on the Hydrozoa of the Norfolk coast. J. Linn. Soc.
(Zool.), vol. 43, pp. 294-324.
HASSALL, A. H. 1848. Definitions of three new British zoophytes. Zoologist, vol. 6,
p. 2223.
& COPPIN, J. 1852. Descriptions of three species of marine zoophytes. Trans.
microsc. Soc. Lond. vol. 3, pp. 160-164.
HINCKS, T. 1868. A history of the British hydroid zoophytes, Vol. | (text) Ixvii+ 338
pp. J. Van Voorst, London.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 341
KRAMP, P. L. 1935. Polypdyr (Coelenterata). I. Remkvandapalypper og goplepo-
lypper. Danm. Fauna, vol. 41, pp. 1-208.
LAMARCK, J. B. P. A. DE 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. Vol.
2, 568 pp. Verdiére, Paris.
LAMOUROUx, J. V. F. 1821. Exposition méthodique des genres de l’ordre des poly-
piers, avec leur description et celle des principales espéces. 115 pp. Veuve
Agasse, Paris.
LEVINSEN, G. M. R. 1893. Meduser, ctenophorer og hydroider fra Gregnlands
vestkyst, tilligemed bemaerkninger om hydroidernes systematik. Vidensk.
Medar dansk naturh. Foren. (1892), vol. 5(4), pp. 143-212, 215-220, pls 5-8.
LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1, iv+824 pp. Laurentii Salvii,
Holmiae.
MACGILLIVRAY, J. 1842. Catalogue of the marine zoophytes of the neighbour-
hood of Aberdeen. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1), vol. 9, pp. 462-469.
MILLARD, N. A. H. 1975. Monograph on the Hydroida of southern Africa. Ann. S.
Afr. Mus., vol. 68, pp. 1-513.
NAUMOV, D. V. 1960. Gidroidy i gidromeduzy morskikh, solonovatovodnykh i
presnovodnykh basseinov SSSR. Fauna SSSR, vol. 70, pp. 1-626.
SHERBORN, C. D. 1926. Dates of publication of early catalogues of natural history
issued by the British Museum. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (9), vol. 17, pp. 271-272.
STECHOW, E. 1913. Neue Genera thecater Hydroiden aus der Familie der
Lafoeiden und neue Species von Thecaten aus Japan. Zool. Anz., vol. 43, pp.
137-144.
1923. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und
anderer Gebiete. II Teil. Zool. Jb. (Syst.), vol. 47, pp. 29-270.
STEPANJANTS, S. D. 1979. Gidroidy vod antarktikh i subantarktikh. Issled. Fauny
Morei, vol. 22 (30), pp. 1-200.
STIMPSON, W. 1853. Synopsis of the marine Invertebrata of Grand Manan: or the
region about the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Smithson.
Contr. Knowl., vol. 6(5), pp. 1-67. (The title page and introduction to volume 6
are dated 1854, but a note on p. 67 of Stimpson’s paper gives its date as March
1853.)
THOMSON, W. T. C. 1853. Notes on some British zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(2), vol. 11, pp. 442-444.
VERVOORT, W. 1946. Hydrozoa (C I). A. Hydropolypen. Fauna Ned., vol. 14, pp.
1-336.
1972. Hydroids from the Theta, Vema and Yelcho cruises of the Lamont-
Doherty Geological Observatory. Zool. Verh. Leiden, vol. 120, pp. 1-247.
342 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
LYCAENA MIRZA PLOTZ, 1880 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF
LYCAENA MIRZA STAUDINGER, 1874. Z.N.(S.)2426.
By Torben B. Larsen (29c Snoghoj alle, DK 2770 Kastrup, Denmark)
Christoph (1873, p. 23) proposed the name Lycaena sieversi for a
Central Asian butterfly, which the following year was named as Lycaena
mirza by Staudinger (1874, p. 90). Staudinger himself later recognised the
synonymy (e.g. Staudinger & Rebel, 1901, p. 80), and I have been unable to
trace any usage of the name this century. The species is currently placed in the
genus Vacciniina Tutt, 1909, and is always referred to as V. sieversi.
2. Plotz (1880, p. 203) gave the name Lycaena mirza to an East
African butterfly; the species is currently placed in Azanus Moore, [1881].
The specific name mirza has been universally used for this butterfly, prob-
ably on at least a thousand occasions; a list of eleven major faunistic and
taxonomic works has been given to the Commission Secretariat.
3. Kogak (1980, p. 141) noticed that mirza Plotz is a junior primary
homonym of mirza Staudinger, and proposed the replacement name
mirzaellus for the African butterfly. So far as I know mirzaellus has not been
used since.
4. Because mirza Pl6tz is in universal and widespread use, while its
senior homonym mirza Staudinger has, as a junior synonym of sieversi
Christoph, always been unused, an attempted introduction of the new
specific name mirzaellus Kocak, 1980 would cause confusion and serve no
purpose.
5. The suppression of mirza Staudinger would be a simple means of
maintaining stability. I accordingly ask the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name mirza
Staudinger, 1874, as published in the binomen Lycaena mirza,
for the purposes of the Principles of Priority and Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name mirza Pl6tz, 1880, as published in the binomen Lycaena
mirza;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the names:
(a) mirza Staudinger, 1874, as published in the binomen
Lycaena mirza and as suppressed in (1) above, and
(b) mirzaellus Kocgak, 1980, as published in the binomen
Azanus mirzaellus, as a junior objective synonym of mirza
Pl6tz, 1880.
REFERENCES
CHRISTOPH, H. 1873. Weiterer Beitrag zum Verzeichnisse der in Nord-Persien
einheimischen Schmetterlinge. Hor. Soc. ent. Ross., vol. 10, pp. 3-55.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 343
KOCAK, A. O. 1980. On the nomenclature of some genus- and species-group names
of Lepidoptera. Nota lepid., vol. 2, pp. 139-146.
PLOTZ, C. 1880. Verzeichniss der vom Professor R. Buchholz in West-Africa .. .
vom August 1872 bis November 1875 — gesammeten Schmetterlinge. Stettin
ent. Ztg., vol. 41, pp. 189-206.
STAUDINGER. O. 1874. Einiger neue Lepidopteren des europdischen Faunenge-
biets. Stettin ent. Ztg., vol. 35, pp. 87-98.
& REBEL, H. 1901. Catalog der lepidopteren des Palaearktischen Faunenge-
rbietes. 1 Thiel: Famil. Papilionidae — Hepialidae. Friedlander, Berlin.
xxx+411 pp.
344 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
PARAPHYTOMYZA ENDERLEIN, 1936 (INSECTA, DIPTERA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF PHYTAGROMYZA
LUTEOSCUTELLATA DE MEIJERE, 1924 AS TYPE SPECIES
Z.N.(S.)2574
By K. A. Spencer (Exwell Farm, Callington, PL 17 8QJ, Cornwall, England)
Hendel (1920, p. 115) erected the genus Phytagromyza, with
Domomyza flavocingulata Strobl, 1909 (p. 296) as type species.
2. Nowakowski (1962, p. 100), following examination of the male
genitalia of Domomyza flavocingulata, discovered that it was not congeneric
with the other species included in Phytagromyza, which he later transferred
as a subgenus to Cerodontha Rondani, 1861 (p. 10) (Nowakowski, 1972,
p. 748).
3. A new name was therefore needed for Hendel’s concept of
Phytagromyza. Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (p. 42) was available, with
Phytomyza xylostei Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851 (p. 145) (which is a dark
species with the third antennal segment and the scutellum black) designated
by Enderlein as type species. Enderlein clearly followed Hendel (1932) in his
mistaken concept of this species. Paraphytomyza has been accepted by all
recent specialists on the AGROMYZIDAE as a valid replacement name for
Phytagromyza sensu Hendel (1920, p. 115 and 1932, p. 275).
4. Hendel (1932, p. 299) gave a detailed re-description of ‘Phytomyza
xylostei’ as a pale species, with the third antennal segment and scutellum
yellow. He correctly included it within his concept of Phytagromyza but
misinterpreted Robineau-Desvoidy’s dark species xylostei, which is now
accepted as a junior synonym of Phytomyza aprilina Goureau, 1851 (p. 145).
5. The earliest name of the pale species is Phytomyza lonicerae
Brischke, 1881 (p. 257). However, this name is unavailable, being a homonym
of Phytomyza lonicerae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851 (p. 396), a further species
in the complex of leaf miners feeding on Lonicera (honeysuckle). De Metjere
(1924, p. 145) therefore published the new specific name /uteoscutellata as a
replacement for Jonicerae Brischke, 1881. Unfortunately Hendel (1932, p.
299), in view of his misinterpretation of xy/ostei Robineau-Desvoidy as a
pale species, treated /uteoscutellata as a synonym of xylostei.
6. The confusion over the true identity of the Lonicera leaf miners was
in part recognised by Spencer (1976, p. 309), when the type species of Para-
phytomyza Enderlein, 1936 was designated as ‘Phytagromyza luteoscutellata
de Meijere, 1924 (as Phytagromyza xylostei Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851)’.
7. In view of the above the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of
type species for the genus Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936, and
to designate Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 as
type species;
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 345
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (gender feminine), type
species Phytagromyza luteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924 by desig-
nation in (1) above;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the name /uteoscutellata de Meijere, 1924, as published in the
binomen Phytagromyza luteoscutellata (specific name of the
type species of Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936, as designated in
(1) above).
REFERENCES
BRISCHKE, C. G. A. 1881. Die Blattminirer in Danzig’s Umgebung. Schr. naturk.
Ges. Danzig, vol. 5, pp. 233-290.
ENDERLEIN, G. 1936. Notizen zur Klassifikation der Agromyziden. Mitt. dtsch.
Ent. Ges., vol. 7, p. 42.
GOUREAU,C. C. 1851. Mémoire pour servir a histoire des Diptéres dont les larves
minent les feuilles des plantes. Annis Soc. ent. Fr., vol. 9, pp. 131-176.
HENDEL, F. 1920. Die palaarktischen Agromyziden (Prodromus einer Mono-
graphie). Arch. Naturgesch., A 84 (7), pp. 109-174.
1932. Agromyzidae. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg., vol. 59, pp. 257-320.
MEIJERE, J. C. H. DE, 1924. Verzeichnis der hollandischen Agromyziden. Tijdschr.
Ent., vol. 67, pp. 119-155.
NOWAKOWSKI, J. T. 1962. Introduction to a Systematic Revision of the Family
Agromyzidae (Diptera) with some Remarks on Host Plant Selection by these
Flies. Annis zool., Warsz., vol. 20, pp. 67-183.
1972. Zweite Vorlaufige Mitteilung zu einer Monographie der europdischen
Arten der Gattung Cerodontha Rond. (Diptera, Agromyzidae). Polskie Pismo
ent., vol. 42, pp. 735-765.
ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, M. 1851. Descriptions d’Agromyzes et de Phytomyzes
écloses chez M. le Col. Goureau. Rev. Mag. Zool., vol. 3, pp. 391-405.
RONDANI, C. 1861. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. 4. Species italicae ordinis
Dipterorum, part 3, pp. 1-174.
SPENCER, K. A. 1976. The Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark.
Fauna Ent. Scand., vol. 5, part 1, pp. 1-215.
STROBL, G. 1909. Neue ésterreichische Muscidae Acalyptratae II. Wien. ent. Ztg.,
vol. 28, pp. 283-301.
346 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
HERIAEUS SIMON, 1875 (ARACHNIDA, ARANEIDA): REQUEST
FOR CONFIRMATION OF THOMISUS HIRTUS LATREILLE,
1819 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2447
By O. Kraus and A. Loerbroks (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches
Museum, Universitat Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3,
D-2000 Hamburg 13, West Germany.)
The type species of the spider genus Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (family
THOMISIDAE) was misidentified by the original author. The object of the
present application is to achieve a ruling by the Commission under the
provisions of Art. 70(b) of the Code.
2. In 1875 (p. 203) Simon introduced the generic name Heriaeus for
three nominal species: Thomisus hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824, Thomisus
setiger, O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1872, and Heriaeus savignyi Simon, 1875.
Later, he designated T. hirsutus as the type species of his genus (Simon, 1895,
p. 206).
3. Simon’s description of Heriaeus hirsutus (1875, p. 206) clearly indi-
cates that he had misidentified the species. He corrected his error in 1918 (p.
51) and introduced the new name Heriaeus oblongus for the species actually
involved. At the same time he clarified the true identity of Thomisus hirsutus
Walckenaer, 1824: ‘Latreille [1819] dit avoir regu son Thomisus hirtus. . . de
Nice ou l’espéce en question se trouve exclusivement; Walckenaer [1824, p.
85]... parle d’aprés Latreille, mais en altérant l’orthographe. . . en hirsutus’.
This clarification has been accepted by all subsequent workers. There is no
longer any doubt about the true identity of hirtus Latreille, and hirsutus has
the status of an unjustified emendation of the original spelling hirtus. As the
usage of the name hirtus has been firmly established during the last 60 years,
there is no need for the designation of a neotype.
4. According to Art. 70 of the Code, the case has to be referred to
the Commission to designate as type species one of the two species involved,
i.e. Heriaeus oblongus Simon, 1918, or Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819
(=hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824). In conformity with current practice, we
propose the nominal species T. hirtus as the type species of the genus.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to confirm that the type species of the nominal genus Heriaeus
Simon, 1875 is Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819, by original
designation;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (gender: masculine), type species
by original designation Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819
(= Thomisus hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824);
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name hirtus Latreille, 1819, as published in the binomen
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 347
Thomisus hirtus (specific name of the type species of Heriaeus
Simon, 1875);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name hirsutus Walckenaer, 1824 as
published in the binomen Thomisus hirsutus (an unjustified
emendation of Thomisus hirtus Latreille, 1819),
REFERENCES
LATREILLE, P. A. 1819. Nouv. Dictionnaire d'Histoire naturelle. ed. 2, vol. 34. Paris.
SIMON, E. 1875. Les Arachnides de France. vol. 2, 359 pp. Paris.
1875. Histoire naturelle des Araignées. ed. 2, vol. 1 (4), pp. 761-1084, figs.
838-1096. Paris.
1918. Notes sur la synonymie de plusieurs espéces de la famille des
Thomisides. Bull. Soc. et. Fr. (1), pp. 51-52.
WALCKENAER, C. A. 1824. Faune francaise, vol. 4, Aranéides (1824 & 1830),
240 pp., pls. 3-5. Paris.
348 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
TRYPANOSOMA BRUCEI PLIMMER & BRADFORD, 1899
(PROTOZOA, MASTIGOPHORA): PROPOSED CONFIRMATION
OF SPELLING. Z.N.(S.)2580
(CIOMS Case No. 6)
By M.E. Tollitt (The Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)
This application is one of several that have been generated as a result
of working with the Council for International Organizations of Medical
Sciences (CIOMS) on an international nomenclature of diseases of man (see
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 42, p. 72). In this case the familiar spelling of the specific
name of an important flagellate protozoan, Trypanosoma brucei, is threat-
ened by virtue of the fact that it is an incorrect subsequent spelling and hence
unavailable for the purposes of nomenclature.
2. Plimmer & Bradford (1899, p. 280) established the name Trypano-
soma brucii for a new species of protozoan from the blood of a dog. The
species was named, ‘in recognition of the work done in connection with it by
its discoverer Major Bruce FRS’.
3. The spelling of brucii with the double ‘i’ continued in 1900 with
Wasielewski & Senn (p. 458). A year later Laveran & Mesnil (1901a, b)
published two papers with what appears to be the first spelling using the ‘ei’
ending instead of ‘ii’. Strangely, this spelling was not followed by Mesnil &
Gazeau (1901, p. 284) who retained the original form.
4. From 1902 onwards, with the exception of Bradford & Plimmer
(1902, p. 449), the spelling brucei (but with the original Plimmer & Bradford
(1899) authorship) became almost universally used for the specific name (e.g.
Laveran & Mesnil, 1902). Even the author of the section on Protozoa in
Zoological Record for that year, H. M. Woodcock, listed Bradford &
Plimmer’s paper under the spelling brucei.
5. Such is the importance of the organism it denotes that this spelling
has appeared subsequently in thousands of references in biomedical and
veterinary literature, and, although the two versions of the specific name
differ by only one letter, a change would create difficulties with computerised
information retrieval systems. The confusion that would be caused by
reverting to the original spelling would be so great that the following support
has come from Dr B. J. Cooper (Director, WHO Health and Biomedical
Information Programme) and Dr Z. Bankowski (Executive Secretary,
CIOMS): ‘The spelling brucei has been in virtually universal use for many
years, and we fully share your view that to revert to the original spelling
would cause serious confusion. On behalf of the secretariats of both the
World Health Organisation and the Council for International Organizations
of Medical Sciences, therefore, we strongly support the proposal that the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature be requested to use
its plenary powers to rule that Trypanosoma brucei is deemed to be the
correct original spelling and thus stabilize existing usage.’
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 349
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the correct original spelling
of the specific name brucii, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, as
published in the binomen Trypanosoma brucii, is deemed to be
brucei;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 as published in the
binomen Trypanosoma brucii: spelling confirmed as in (1) above:
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name brucii Plimmer & Bradford, 1899, as
published in the binomen Trypanosoma brucii (correct original
spelling deemed to be brucei).
REFERENCES
BRADFORD, J. R. & PLIMMER, H. G. 1902. The Trypanosoma Brucii, the
organism found in Nagana, or the Tse-tse fly disease. Q. J. lic. Sci., vol. 45(3),
no. 179, pp. 449-471.
LAVERAN, C. L. A. & MESNIL, F. 1901a. Sur la mode de multiplication du
trypanosome du Nagana. C.R. Soc. Biol., vol. 53, pp. 326-329.
— 1901b. Sur la morphologie et la systématique des flagelles 4 mem-
brane ondulante (genres T; rypanosoma Gruchy et Trichomonas Donné). C.R.
Acad. Sci., vol. 133, no. 3, pp. 131-137.
& 1902. Recherches sur le traitement et la prévention du Nagana. Ann.
Inst. Pasteur, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 785-817.
MESNIL, F. & GAZEAU, P. 1901. Les trypanosomes et leur réle pathogéne. Arch.
Med. navale, vol. 75, pp. 273-295.
PLIMMER, J. R. & BRADFORD, H. G. 1899. A preliminary note on the mor-
phology and distribution of the organism found in the tsetse fly disease. Proc.
roy. Soc., vol. 65, no. 418, pp. 274-281.
WASIELEWSKI, V. & SENN, G. 1900. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Flagellaten des
Rattenblutes. Z. Hygiene InfektKrankh., vol. 28, pp. 444-472.
350 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
SIMULIUM AUSTENI EDWARDS, 1915 (INSECTA, DIPTERA):
PROPOSED PRECEDENCE OVER SIMULIA POSTICATA
MEIGEN, 1838. Z.N.(S.)2560
By I. A. Rubtsov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R,
Leningrad, 199034, U.S.S.R.)
Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (p. 33) was described from England.
The species is distributed in Central and Northern Europe and is sometimes
bloodsucking. The name is in general current use, as shown by the following
selected references: Puri (1925, p. 347, first excellent figures); Rubtsov (1940,
p. 441; 1956, p. 778; 1959-1964, p. 556); Zwolski (1959, p. 245); Ussowa
(1961, p. 178); Davies (1966, p. 488); Raastad (1975, p. 93); Patruscheva
(1976, p. 317); Zwick (1974, p. 15; 1978, p. 402); Niesiolowski (1980, p. 257);
Rubtsov & Jankovsky (1984, p. 153).
2. Simulia posticata Meigen, 1838 (p. 52) was described from Europe
without any indication of exact locality. Beginning with Schiner (1864) the
name was considered to be a junior subjective synonym of Simulium reptans
(Linnaeus, 1758).
3. Zwick & Crosskey (1981, p. 240) found S. posticata to be synony-
mous with S. austeni and have designated a lectotype of S. posticata from
the Meigen collection in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Contrary to established usage but in accordance with the Principle of
Priority they used Simulium posticatum Meigen, 1838 as the valid name and
S. austeni as a junior synonym.
4. In accordance with Article 79c of the Code the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:
(1) to rule under the plenary powers that the specific name austeni
Edwards, 1915, as published in the binomen Simulium austeni is
to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name
posticata Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia
posticata, whenever the two names are considered synonyms;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
(a) austeni Edwards, 1915, as published in the binomen Simulium austeni
with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence
over posticata Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia
posticata, whenever the two names are considered synonyms;
(b) posticata Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia
posticata, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority
over austeni Edwards, 1915, as published in the binomen Simulium
austeni, whenever the two names are considered synonyms.
REFERENCES
DAVIES, L. 1966. The taxonomy of British black-flies (Diptera, Simuliidae). Trans.
R. entomol. Soc. London, vol. 118 (14), pp. 413-511.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 351
EDWARDS, F. W. 1915. On the British species of Simulium. I. Adults. Bull. entomol.
Res., vol. 6, pp. 23-42.
MEIGEN, J. W. 1838. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifliigeligen Insecten, vol. 7 (Suppl. vol.) xii+434 pp. Hamm.
NIESIOLOWSKI, S. 1980. Meszki (Simuliidae, Diptera) rzek Widawki i Grabi.
Polskie Pismo entomol., vol. 50, pp. 413-462.
PATRUSCHEVA, V. D. 1976. Fauna and Zoogeography of black-flies (Diptera,
Simuliidae) from Siberia and Far East. Trudy biol. Inst. Sibir. Otd. Akad.
Nauk SSSR, vol. 18, pp. 309-325. [In Russian]
PURI, J. M. 1925. On the life history and structure of the early stages of Simuliidae
(Diptera, Nematocera). Parasitology, vol. 17 (3-4), pp. 295-369.
RAASTAD, J. E. 1975. Fordeling av knott (Diptera, Simuliidae) i Berbyvassdraget,
Idd i Ostfold. Fauna, Oslo, vol. 28 (2), pp. 92-96.
RUBTSOV, I. A. 1940. Fam. Simuliidae. Fauna SSSR, Diptera, vol. 6 (6), 532 pp.
Moscow and Leningrad. [In Russian]
—— 1956. Fam. Simuliidae. Fauna SSSR, Diptera, vol. 6 (6), 2nd ed. 890 pp. Moscow
and Leningrad. [In Russian]
—— 1959-1964. Simultidae (Melusinidae), in Lindner, E. Die Fliegen der Paldarkt-
ischen Region, vol. 4 (3) 689 pp. Stuttgart.
— & JANKOVSKY, A. V. 1984. Key to genera of blackflies of the Palearctic
Region, 176 pp. Leningrad. [In Russian]
SCHINER, J. R. 1864. Fauna austriaca. Die Fliegen, Diptera, vol. 2, 658 pp. Wien.
USSOVA, Z. V. 1961. Fauna of the black-flies (Diptera, Simuliidae) of Karelia and
Murmansk Region, 287 pp. Moscow and Leningrad. [In Russian]
ZWICK, H. 1974. Faunistisch-dkologische und taxonomische Untersuchungen
an Simuliidae (Diptera), unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Arten des
Fulda-Gebietes. Abh. senckenb. naturforsch. Ges., vol. 533, pp. 1-116.
— 1978. Simuliidae. Jn Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. 400 pp. Stuttgart and
New York.
— & CROSSKEY, R. W. 1981. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the blackflies
(Diptera, Simuliidae) described by J. W. Meigen. Aquat. Insects, vol. 2 (4),
pp. 225-247.
ZWOLSKI, W. 1959. Mustyki (Simuliidae) Lubelszczyzny. Annis. Univ. Mariae
Curie-Sklodowska, Sect. C, vol. 13, pp. 231-259.
352 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
SIMULIA FERRUGINEA WAHLBERG, 1844 (INSECTA,
DIPTERA): PROPOSED PRECEDENCE OVER SIMULIA RUFA
MEIGEN, 1838 AND SIMULIA BOREALIS ZETTERSTEDT, 1842
Z.N.(S.)2394
By I. A. Rubtsov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the
U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.)
Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (p. 110) was described from
Sweden. This species is now placed in the genus Helodon Enderlein, 1921.
The specific name is in general current use as shown by the following selected
references: Rubtsov (1940, p. 271; 1956, p. 199; 1959-1964, p. 138; 1974,
p. 274); Davies (1951, p. 195); Grenier (1953, p. 82); Ussova (1961, p. 44);
Carlsson (1962, p. 56); Stone (1963, p. 10); Raastad & Mehl (1972, p. 173);
Raastad (1975, p. 92) and Zwick (1978, p. 398).
2. Simulia rufa Meigen, 1838 (p. 54) was described from Europe
without indication of exact locality. The type material is lost and the name
was long regarded as a nomen dubium and not therefore used as a valid name.
I do not consider the reproduction of Meigen’s colour drawings and his
hand-written list by Morge (1976) or the short note on the doubtful identity
of S. rufa by Rubtsov (1959-1964, p. 585) as usage in the sense of Article 79c
of the Code.
3. Simulia borealis Zetterstedt, 1842 (p. 515) was first mentioned in
an itinerary published in a report on botanical research. The name was
accompanied only by a statement that the species bites badly because it is
‘almost three times as large as the largest species of this genus hitherto known
to us’ (translation from Swedish). S. borealis was subsequently considered to
be a nomen nudum and placed in synonymy of S. ferruginea beginning with
Zetterstedt (1850) himself (see Carlsson, 1962, p. 56).
4. Zwick & Crosskey (1981, p. 242) examined Meigen’s original
description and colour drawing and concluded that S. rufa was conspecific
with S. ferruginea. They further concluded that S. borealis was an available
name. Contrary to the established usage but adhering to the Principle of
Priority they used Helodon rufus (Meigen, 1838) as the valid name with
S. borealis and S. ferrugineus as junior synonyms.
5. In accordance with article 79c of the Code the International
Commission is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name fer-
ruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the binomen Simulia
ferruginea, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the
specific name rufa Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen
Simulia rufa and borealis Zetterstedt, 1842, as published in the
binomen Simulia borealis, whenever these names are considered
synonyms;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 353
(a) ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the binomen
Simulia ferruginea, with an endorsement that it is to be given
nomenclatural precedence over rufa Meigen, 1838, as pub-
lished in the binomen Simulia rufa and borealis Zetterstedt,
1842, as published in the binomen Simulia_ borealis,
whenever these names are considered synonyms;
(b) rufa Meigen, 1838, as published in the binomen Simulia
rufa, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority
over ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published in the
binomen Simulia ferruginea whenever the two names are
considered synonyms;
borealis Zetterstedt, 1842, as published in the binomen
Simulia borealis, with an endorsement that it is not to be
given priority over ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844, as published
in the binomen Simulia ferruginea, whenever the two names
are considered synonyms.
(c
—
REFERENCES
CARLSSON, G. 1962. Studies on Scandinavian blackflies (Fam. Simuliidae Latr.).
Opusc. Entomol., vol. 21(1), pp. 1-280.
DAVIES, L. 1951. Some field observations on Simuliidae (Diptera) at Hollands
fiord, Norway. Oikos, vol. 3, pp. 193-199,
GRENIER, P. 1953. Simuliidae de France et d’Afrique du Nord. Encyclo. entomol.,
ser. A, vol. 29, pp. 1-170.
MEIGEN, J. W. 1838. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifliigeligen Insecten, vol. 7 (Suppl. vol.) xii+434 pp. Hamm.
MORGE, G. 1976. Dipteren-Farbtafeln nach den bisher nicht ver6ffentlichten
—Handzeichnungen Meigens “Johann Wilhelm Meigen. Abbildung der
Europaeischen zweifliigeligen Insecten, nach der Natur’’, Pars III. Farbtafeln
CLXI-CCCV. Beitr. Entomol., vol. 26, p. 543.
RAASTAD., J. E. 1975. Fordeling av knott (Diptera, Simuliidae) i Berbyvassdraget,
Idd i Ostfold. Fauna, Oslo, vol. 28 (2), pp. 92-96.
———& MEHL, R. 1972. Night activity of blackflies (Diptera, Simuliidae) in
Norway. Nor. entomol. Tidsskr., vol. 19, pp. 172-173.
RUBTSOV, I. A. 1940. Fam. Simuliidae. Fauna SSSR, Diptera, vol. 6, (6), 532 pp.
Moscow & Leningrad. [In Russian].
1956. Fam. Simuliidae. Fauna SSSR, Diptera, vol. 6, (6) 2nd ed. 890 pp.
Moscow & Leningrad. [In Russian].
1959-1964. Simuliidae (Melusinidae), in Lindner, E. Die Fliegen der Paldark-
tischen Region, vol. 4 (3) 689 pp. Stuttgart.
1974. Evolution, phylogeny and classification of the family Simuliidae. Trudy
zool. Inst. Leningrad, vol. 53, pp. 230-281. [In Russian].
STONE, A. 1963. An annotated list of genus group names in the family Simuliidae.
Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric., no. 1284, pp. 1-28.
USSOVA, Z. V. 1961. Fauna of the black-flies (Diptera, Simuliidae) of Karelia and
Murmansk Region. 287 pp. Moscow & Leningrad. [In Russian].
WAHLBERG, F. P. “1844. Nya Diptera fran Lapland. Ofvers. K. Vetensk.
Acad. Férh., vol. 1, pp. 106-110.
354 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
ZETTERSTEDT, J. M. 1842. Berattelse om en Natur-Historisk Resa genom nagra
Provinser af Nordligare Skandinavien, och sardeles Jemtland, ar 1840.
Arsberitt. Bot. Arb. Upptack. for ar 1838, pp. 401-639.
1850. Diptera Scandinaviae xi+ 414 pp. Lundae.
ZWICK, H. 1978. Simuliidae. in Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. 400 pp.
Stuttgart & New York.
& CROSSKEY, R. W. 1981. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the black-
flies (Diptera, Simuliidae) described by J. W. Meigen. Aquat. Insects, vol. 2,
no. 4, pp. 225-247.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 355
BELEMNITES PAXILLOSA LAMARCK, 1801, (MOLLUSCA,
COLEOIDEA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF BOTH GENERIC
AND SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.)2571
By Peter Doyle (Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural
History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) and Wolfgang Riegraf
(Hollandtstrasse 55, D-4400 Muenster-Gievenbeck, Federal Republic of
Germany)
Lamarck (1799) was the first to propose the generic name Belemnites,
but did so without description or citation of any species. He later (Lamarck,
1801) repeated his generic diagnosis and proposed the single species
Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck, although without description or illustration.
This species came to be regarded as type of Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (see
Crickmay, 1933). Lamarck (1801) did, however, cite the following figures
from earlier works as Belemnites paxillosa: Klein (1731) pl. VIII, figs 2-13
and Breynius (1732) pl. 1, figs 1-14. The latter plate bears no belemnite
illustrations, and, as discussed by Crickmay (1933), Lamarck was probably
referring to Breynius’ ‘Tabula belemnitarum’ which consists of many figures
of belemnites. Those cited from this plate by Lamarck (1801) (assuming
Crickmay is correct) are all representatives of the late Cretaceous family
BELEMNITELLIDAE (namely Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840 or Belemnella
Nowak, 1913) which are characterised by deep ventral alveolar slits, clearly
shown on this plate. Of the cited belemnites from Klein’s (1731) plate (figs
2-13), two are also probably belemnitellids (figs 4, 5; both possess alveolar
slits), while the remaining twelve are nondescript and capable of fitting any
one of the numerous belemnite species. Despite this fact, Crickmay (1933)
selected Klein’s (1731) pl. VIII, fig. 7 as lectotype.
2. Although Lamarck’s concept of his genus Belemnites may have
been wide, his original description (1799, p. 81) includes the statement: ‘Cog.
droite, en c6ne allongé, pointue, pleine au sommet, et munie d’une gouttiére
latérale’ which clearly specifies a single groove (or ‘gutter’), as seen in almost
60% of the figures cited by Lamarck (1801) from the plates of Klein (1731)
and Breynius (1732) (see above). The remaining 40% display no grooves
whatsoever, and therefore Lamarck’s ‘gouttiére latérale’ may be safely
interpreted as a ventral alveolar slit. Following Lamarck, Montfort ( 1808)
illustrated a belemnite with a deep alveolar slit, and like him, alluded (p. 383)
to the presence of a single groove: ‘une gouttiére sur le tét exterieur qui est
lisse’. Montfort also repeated the citation of figures from the plates of Klein
(1731) and Breynius (1 732).
3. The next author to discuss Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck was
Schlotheim (1813, 1820) who, although clearly referring to both Lamarck
and Montfort (e.g. 1820, p. 47), has been commonly cited as author of this
species (see Riegraf et al., 1984, p. 147). However, Schlotheim did little
to restrict this species, although erecting several new belemnite species,
356 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
amongst them Belemnites mucronatus (see Christensen et al., 1982) and
Belemnites lanceolatus, based in part on figures from Breynius’ (1732)
‘Tabula belemnitarum’.
4. Voltz (1830) did restrict Belemnites paxillosa, although attributing
authorship to Schlotheim (1813). He interpreted the species as an early
Jurassic form with two dorso-lateral apical grooves, and without single
grooves, apical or alveolar, perhaps in opposition to Lamarck’s original
intentions. Subsequent authors have referred to Voltz’s interpretation as
the correct one (e.g. Crickmay, 1933; Jeletzky, 1966; Schumann, 1974;
Riegraf et al., 1984).
5. However, d’Orbigny (1843) was opposed to Voltz’s interpretation.
He believed the true nature of Belemnites paxillosa (the authorship of which
he attributed to Montfort, 1808) lay with the late Cretaceous forms charac-
terised by an alveolar slit that are now included in the BELEMNITELLIDAE
Pavlov, 1914, and consequently he renamed the early Jurassic form described
by Voltz (1830) as Belemnites bruguierianus.
6. Bayle (1878) apparently agreed with d’Orbigny, as he figured some
late Cretaceous belemnitellids (pl. XXIII, figs 1-5) with clear alveolar slits
under the name Belemnites paxillosus Lamarck, while using the name Mega-
teuthis bruguieri (d’Orbigny) for d’Orbigny’s Jurassic species. Megateuthis
Bayle, 1878 is now considered to be a genus of distinctive Middle Jurassic
forms similar to its type species Belemnites giganteus Schlotheim, 1820,
which was designated by Lissajous (1915). It is clear from his plates that
Bayle also intended that Belemnites Lamarck should be considered a senior
synonym of Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840, as nowhere does he use Belemnites
in a wider sense, using instead several new generic names (e.g. Megateuthis,
Dactyloteuthis, Pachyteuthis, Belemnopsis, etc.). This interpretation was
later followed by Bilow-Trummer (1920), Lissajous (1925), Lang (1928),
Saks & Nal’nyaeva (1967a, b, 1970) and Riegraf (1980).
7. Lissajous (1915) erected the name Passaloteuthis to include early
Jurassic belemnites characterised by their two dorso-lateral apical grooves
(as figured and described by Voltz, 1830), and based it on the type species
Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843.
8. Despite Bayle’s (1878) attempt to restrict it, the generic name
Belemnites Lamarck remained unused, except in a collective sense, until
Crickmay (1933) attempted to revive it by selecting a lectotype for its type
species, Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck. Crickmay accepted Voltz’s (1830)
interpretation of this species rather than Bayle’s (1878), and in consequence
selected Klein’s (1731) pl. VIII, fig. 7 as lectotype. This specimen does not
disagree with Voltz’s interpretation, but, as was recognised by Crickmay
himself (1933, p. 14) it is nondescript. The specimen as figured bears no
generically diagnostic features, such as grooves, and cannot therefore be
placed with certainty in any belemnite genus. In short, the ultimate stability
of the genus Belemnites Lamarck and the higher taxa derived from it rest ona
specimen that is not only generically indeterminate, but that is also lost to
science (J. A. Jeletzky, personal communication, 1982).
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 357
9. Jeletzky (1966), in his pre-Treatise work, followed Crickmay’s
interpretation, but recognised the inadequacy of the lectotype selected by
him. He suggested that a neotype be selected to stabilise the species and its
genus, as ‘an alternative attempt to select a valid type specimen from
amongst its legitimate syntypes would inevitably result in transfer of this
species to either Belemnella or Belemnitella and thus, in displacement of one
of these well-known generic as well as specific names, causing extraordinary
confusion at both generic and specific levels’ (Jeletzky, 1966, p. 140).
10. Since Jeletzky’s work, opinion has been divided. Schumann
(1974), like Crickmay and Jeletzky before him, continued to use the generic
name Belemnites Lamarck as senior synonym of Passaloteuthis Lissajous,
although without selecting a neotype as Jeletzky suggested. Most other
authors have retained the much better known, defined and used name
Passaloteuthis Lissajous (e.g. Naef, 1922; Lang, 1928; Roger, 1952; Krimholz,
1958; Saks & Nal’nyaeva, 1967a, b, 1970; Cinéurova, 1971; Stoyanova-
Vergilova, 1977; Riegraf, 1980; Riegraf et al., 1984) for the early Jurassic
forms in preference to the poorly defined name Belemnites, although all
except Saks & Nal’nyaeva have retained the family name BELEMNITIDAE
d’Orbigny, 1845.
11. Therefore, recognising the instability of the generic name Belem-
nites Lamarck, 1799, which at some future point may be transferred from its
current position as senior synonym of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915, to that
of senior synonym of either Belemnitella d’Orbigny, 1840, or Belemnella
Nowak, 1913, with corresponding consequences of priority, and because the
vernacular use of ‘belemnites’ is so widespread that its use as a nominal genus
would be bound to be misleading, the Commission is asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Belem-
nites Lamarck, 1799 and the specific name paxillosa Lamarck,
1801, as published in the binomen Belemnites paxillosa, for the
purpose of the Principle of Priority;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (gender: feminine), type
species Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843 by original
designation;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the name bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843, as published in the
binomen Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843 (specific
name of the type species of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology the name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (type
species Belemnites paxillosa Lamarck, 1801) as suppressed in (1)
above;
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name paxillosa Lamarck, 1801 (specific
name of the type species of Belemnites Lamarck, 1799) as
suppressed in (1) above.
358 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
REFERENCES
BAYLE, E. 1878. Explication de la carte géologique de France. Tome quatriéme,
premiere partie. Fossiles principaux des terrains. Atlas. Paris, 176 pls.
BLAINVILLE, M. H. D. 1827. Mémoire sur les Bélemnites considérées zoologique-
ment et géologiquement, Paris, 136 pp.
BREYNIUS, J. P. 1732. Dissertatio physica de Polythalamiis. Nova testaceorum
classe, cui quaedon praemittuntur di methodo testacea in classes et genera,
distribuendi huic adiicitur commentatiuncula di Belemnitis Prussicis tandemique
schediasma de Echinis methodice cum figuris. Gedani, 64 pp.
BULOW-TRUMMER, E. VON 1920. Fossilium Catalogus. I. Animalia. Pars II.
Cephalopoda dibranchiata. Berlin, 313 pp.
CHRISTENSEN, W. K., ERNST, G., SCHMID, F., SCHULZ, M.-G. & WOOD,
C. J. 1982. Belemnites mucronatus (Coleoidea): proposed use of the plenary
powers to attribute this name to Schlotheim, 1813, and to designate a neotype
in conformity with current usage. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pp. 141-145.
CINCUROVA, E. 1971. Stratigrafia liasu na zaklade belemnitov v Zapadnych
Karpatoch. Sb. slov. narod. Muz., vol. 17 (1), pp. 3-102.
CRICKMAY, C. H. 1933. The genotype of Belemnites; with a synopsis of North
American species of Belemnoidea. Can. Fld Nat, vol. 47, pp. 12-15.
JELETZKY, J. A. 1966. Comparative morphology, phylogeny and classification of
fossil Coleoidea. Univ. Kans. Paleont. Contr., Mollusca, Art. 7, 162 pp.
KLEIN, J. T. 1731. Descriptiones tubulorum marinorum in quorum censum relati
Lapides caudae Cancri, Gesneri, et his similes Belemnitae; eorumque alveoli.
Secundum dispositionem Musei Kleiniani Gedani apud Knodium. Gedani, 30
pp.
KRIMHOLZ, G. Y. 1958. Subclass Endocochlia. Jn: Orlov, Y. A. (ed.), Funda-
mentals of Palaeontology. VI. Mollusca-Cephalopoda II, Moscow, pp.
145-179. (English Translation of Russian original, 1976).
LAMARCK, J. B. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles. Mém.
Soc. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 1, pp. 63-91.
1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres. Paris, 432 pp.
LANG, W. D. 1928. The Belemnite Marls of Charmouth, a series in the Lias of the
Dorset Coast. Q. J. geol. Soc. London, vol. 84, pp. 179-222.
LISSAJOUS, M. 1915. Quelques remarques sur les bélemnites Jurassiques. Bull. Soc.
Hist. nat. Macon, pp. 1-32.
1925. Répertoire alpabétique des bélemnites Jurassiques précéde d’un essai de
classification. Trav. Lab. Geol. Univ. Lyon, vol. 8, 173 pp.
MONTFORT, D. 1808. Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des
coquilles. Tome I. Coquilles univalves cloisonées. Paris, 410 pp.
NAEF, A. 1922. Die fossilien Tintenfische; eine paléozoologische Monographie. Jena,
322 pp.
ORBIGNY, A. D’, 1842-1850. Paléontologie Frangaise. Terrains Oolithiques ou
Jurassiques. Tome 1. Céphalopodes. Paris, 623 pp.
RIEGRAF, W. 1980. Revision der Belemniten des Schwabischen Jura. Teil 7.
Palaeontographica A, vol. 169, pp. 128-208.
, WERNER, G. & LORCHER, F. 1984. Der Posidonienschiefer. Biostrati-
graphie, Fauna und Fazies des stidwestdeutschen Untertoarciums ( Lias Epsilon).
Stuttgart, 195 pp.
ROGER, J. 1952. Sous-Classe des Dibranchiata. Jn: PIVETEAU, J. (ed.), Traité de
Paléontologie, II. Paris, pp. 689-755.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 359
SAKS, V. N. & NAL’NYAEVA, T. I. 1967a. Recognition of the superfamily
Passaloteuthacea in the suborder Belemnoidea (Cephalopoda, Dibranchia,
Decapoda). Dokl. Acad. Sci. USSR, vol. 173, pp. 229-231. [English trans-
lation of Russian original].
& 19676. Contribution to the systematics of Jurassic and Cretaceous
belemnites. Jn SAKS, V. N. (ed.), Problems of Paleontologic substantiation of
detailed Mesozoic stratigraphy of Siberia and the Far East USSR. Leningrad,
pp. 6-26. [In Russian].
& 1970. Early and Middle Jurassic belemnites of the northern part of the
USSR. Nannobelinae, Passaloteuthinae and Hastitinae. Leningrad, 228 pp. [In
Russian].
SCHLOTHEIM, E. F. VON. 1813. Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen
in geognostischer Hinsicht. Leonhara’s Taschenbuch fiir die gesamte
Mineralogie, vol. 7, pp. 3-134.
1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beschrei-
bung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Uberreste des Thier- und
Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erléutert. Gotha, 88 pp.
SCHUMANN, H. 1974. Die Belemniten des norddeutschen Lias Gamma. Geol. Jb.,
A, vol. 12, pp. 1-85.
STOYANOVA-VERGILOVA, M. 1977. An attempt for belemnite zonal subdivision
of the Lower Jurassic sediments in Bulgaria. God. sof. Univ. Geol. Geogr. Fak..,
vol. 70 (1), pp. 181-192. [Bulgarian with English summary].
VOLTZ, M. 1830. Observations sur les Bélemnites. Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Strasbourg,
vol. 1, 70 pp.
360 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
COBITIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (OSTEICHTHYES, CYPRINIFORMES):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF COBITIS TAENIA LINNAEUS,
1758 AS TYPE SPECIES AND REQUEST FOR A RULING ON
THE STEM OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME COBITIDIDAE
SWAINSON, 1839. Z.N.(S.)2566
By Maurice Kottelat (Laboratoire d’Ichthyologie, Guéret 5, 2800 Delémont,
Switzerland)
In a study of cobitid fish systematics, I uncovered a nomenclatural
problem concerning the type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. In accordance
with Article 41 of the Code, I am referring this case to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature together with a proposal to
preserve nomenclatural stability.
2. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 303) originally contained four nominal
species: C. anableps, C. barbatula, C. taenia and C. fossilis.
3. Bleeker (1863a, pp. 362, 364) designated C. taenia as type species of
Cobitis and this has been widely accepted since then. Unfortunately, most
workers have overlooked the fact that Blyth (1860, p. 170) designated C.
barbatula as type species of Cobitis. Of the remaining originally included
species in Cobitis, C. anableps is now placed in the family ANABLEPIDAE and C.
fossilis remains in the family COBITIDAE Swainson, 1839 (p. 190), (type genus
Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758), but is not involved with this problem.
4. Cobitis barbatula is usually considered either a member of Nema-
cheilus Bleeker, 1863a (type species Cobitis fasciata Valenciennes in Cuvier &
Valenciennes, 1846, by original designation) sensu Jato or in Orthrias Jordan
& Fowler, 1903 (type species Orthrias oreas Jordan & Fowler, 1903, by
monotypy), a generic name whose use presents several taxonomic problems.
Nemacheilus sensu lato includes some 300 nominal species and is currently
being revised. It is type genus of the sub-family NEMACHEILINAE Regan, 1911.
5. Blyth’s 1860 type species designation corresponded to the thinking
at that time, when loaches with suborbital spines (now called Cobitis) were
called Acanthopsis Agassiz, 1832 and those without spines (now called
Nemacheilus sensu lato) were called Cobitis. To compound matters Blyth’s
designation appeared in a little-known work, while Bleeker’s appeared again
(1863b) in his Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néerlandaises.
Bleeker’s designation was subsequently adopted by Gunther (1868) and
quickly became widely accepted.
6. Acceptance of Blyth’s designation of Cobitis barbatula as type
species of Cobitis threatens stability for the following reasons:
(a) the name Cobitis would have to be used for a large ‘catch-all’
genus which will later undergo drastic revision (Nemacheilus
s.l.) or for a genus whose taxonomic limits are badly defined
(Orthrias);
(b) the species currently placed in Cobitis would have to be called
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 361
Acantophthalmus van Hasselt, 1823 (p. 133, type species, Cobitis
taenia Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy). This will create confusion
as arelated genus in the same subfamily has the widely used name
Acanthophthalmus sensu Bleeker, 1859 even though this name is
an incorrect subsequent spelling and therefore unavailable
under the Code. While this usage continues the risk of confusion
remains;
(c) the Cobitis taenia-like fishes would have to be called
ACANTHOPSIDAE Heckel & Kerr, 1858, instead of COBITIDAE and
the C. barbatula-like fishes would have to be called COBITIDAE
instead of NEMACHEILINAE;
(d) HOMALOPTERIDAE, Of which NEMACHEILINAE is a subfamily,
would become a subfamily of COBITIDAE.
7. A further cause of confusion in this and many other groups of fishes
was the action of Steyskal (1980) who showed that the correct orthography
of a family-group name based on Cobitis is COBITIDIDAE. This spelling had
virtually never been used, while COBITIDAE was and still is widely used.
COBITIDAE is the third most cited family-group name for Palaearctic and
Oriental fishes. Fortunately, under Article 29(d) of the amendments to the
2nd edition of the Code usage of the spelling COBITIDAE could legitimately
continue (Kottelat, 1984). However, under the present Code (1985) this is no
longer the case and so, considering the very long usage enjoyed by this
spelling, I suggest COBITIDAE be retained. Members of the family include
Cobitis taenia, Misgurnus fossilis and M. anguillicaudatus which have been
the subject of innumerable papers on morphology, histology, physiology,
biochemistry and toxicology. The change to COBITIDIDAE will create
confusion for non-systematists, non-ichthyologists and particularly for those
using electronic databases or those who did not learn classical languages. I
believe that stability of usage should prevail over strict adherence to Greek or
Latin grammar.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of
type species for the nominal genus Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758, and
to designate Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species;
(2) to rule under the plenary powers that the stem of the generic
name Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 is, for the purpose of Article 29a,
Cobit-;
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cobitis taenia
Linnaeus, 1758;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name taenia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cobitis
taenia (specific name of the type species of Cobitis Linnaeus,
1758);
362 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
(5) to place on the Official List of Family-group Names in
Zoology the name CoBITIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Cobitis
Linnaeus, 1758).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank L. B. Holthuis, V. Mahnert, T. R. Roberts and A. Wheeler for
commenting on various parts or drafts of this manuscript. This does not
imply that they share my point of view or have any responsibility for this
proposal.
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, J. L. R. 1832. Untersuchungen tiber die fossilen Siisswasser-Fische der
tertidren Formationen. Jahrb. Min. Geog. Geol. Petrefakt., vol. 3, pp. 129-149.
BLEEKER, P. 1859. Nieuwe geslachten van Cobitinen. Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind., vol.
16, pp. 302-304.
1863a. Sur les genres de la famille des Cobitioides. Ned. Tijdschr. Dierk., vol.
1, pp. 361-368.
1863b. Atlas Ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néerlandaises. 3. Cyprins.
Miller, Amsterdam, 150 pp.
BLYTH, E. 1860. Report on some fishes received chiefly from the Sitang River and its
tributary streams, Tenasserim provinces. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal., vol. 29, pp.
138-174.
GUNTHER,G. A. 1868. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum. 7. Physostomi.
British Museum, London, xx+512 pp.
HECKEL, J. J. & KNER, R. 1858. Die Siisswasserfische der Osterreichischen
Monarchie mit Riicksicht auf die angranzenden Lander. Engelmann, Leipzig,
xli+ 388 pp.
JORDAN, D. S. & FOWLER, H. W. 1903. A review of the Cobitidae, or loaches, of
the rivers of Japan. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 26, pp. 765-774.
KOTTELAT, M. 1984. Revision of the Indonesian and Malaysian loaches of the
subfamily Noemacheilinae. Jap. J. Ichthyol., vol. 31(3), pp. 225-260.
LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Laurentius Salvius, Holmiae, 824 pp.
REGAN, C. T. 1911. The classification of the teleostean fishes of the order
Ostariophysi.—1l Cyprinoidea. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 8, vol. 8, pp. 13-32.
STEYSKAL, G. C. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by
those of fishes. Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 93(1), pp. 168-177.
SWAINSON, W. 1839. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians
and reptiles. In Lardner, D. The Cabinet Cyclopedia, vol. 2. Longman, Orme,
Brown, Green & Longmans, and Taylor, London. 448 pp.
VALENCIENNES, A. 1846. Jn Cuvier, G. L. C. F. D. & Valenciennes, A. Histoire
Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 18. Octavo edition. Levrault, Paris & Strasbourg,
xix + 505 pp.
VAN HASSELT, J. C. 1823. Uittreksel uit een’ brief van den Heer J. C. van Hasselt,
aan den Heer C. J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentia Bantam,
den 29sten December 1822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter-Bode voor het jaar
1823, II deel, no. 35, Vrijdag den 16den Mei, pp. 130-133.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 363
TRIBOLIUM CASTANEUM (HERBST, 1797) (INSECTA,
COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF TRIBOLIUM NAVALE (FABRICIUS, 1775)
Z.N.(S.)2575
By Robert D. Pope (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD,
U.K.) and J. Charles Watt (Entomology Division, Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand)
The ‘rust-red flour beetle’ known as Tribolium castaneum (Herbst,
1797) is a cosmopolitan pest of stored products and an important laboratory
insect in the fields of genetics, population studies and pest management. It
has had six available names applied to it:
Dermestes navalis Fabricius, 1775 (p. 56)
Tenebrio ferrugineus Fabricius, 1781 (p. 324)
Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797 (p. 282; pl. 112, fig. 13E)
Ips testaceus Fabricius, 1798 (p. 179)
Tenebrio bifoveolatus Duftschmid, 1812 (p. 304)
Uloma rubens Laporte de Castelnau, 1840 (p. 220).
2. Since their original publication, only the first three have been used
as the valid name of the species, the others being quoted in synonymy.
3. Colydium castaneum is, by monotypy, the type species of Tribolium
W.S. MacLeay, 1825 (p. 47), the generic name in modern usage. Its identity,
found to agree with current interpretation, has been established by examin-
ation of the three female specimens so-named from Herbst’s collection
(now in the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin) all
agreeing with the original illustration (Herbst, 1797; pl. 112, fig. 13E) and
all catalogued by Gerstaecker as ‘nr. 47293’. One specimen, additionally
labelled by Gerstaecker ‘Castanea. n.Colydium cast. Ht. Trogosita ferruginea
[sic] Fab. Tenebr. ferrugin Ol. Germ. Ind. or’ is here designated as lectotype.
4. Waterhouse (1896, p. 230), by examining the original material,
discovered that Tenebrio ferrugineus Fabricius, 1781 was not a synonym of
Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797. In the same year Champion (1896, p. 82)
asserted that Dermestes navalis Fabricius, 1775 could not be one either,
and after a later review of the situation by Blair (1913, p. 222) Tribolium
castaneum (Herbst, 1797) won universal acceptance and has been consistently
used as the valid name of the species for more than 60 years.
5. Champion stated (/oc. cit.) that the original material of navalis, said
by Fabricius to be in the Banks collection at the British Museum (Natural
History), London, was missing. He based his interpretation of the species on
a subsequent description by Fabricius (1792, p. 504). We believe that our
recent search of the Banks collection has discovered the ‘missing’ material
and that it is conspecific with T. castaneum (Herbst). A single specimen,
although labelled ‘chinensis?’ in an unknown hand (Dermestes chinensis
Fabricius, 1775, p. 58 is, according to Motschulsky (1858, p. 146), an anobiid
belonging to the genus Xylerinus Latreille, 1810), is pinned and mounted on
364 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
identical paper in the same distinctive way as specimens of the same species in
the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow and the Fabricius’ own (Kiel) collection
in Copenhagen, both standing as ‘Dermestes navalis’. We beleive they are
all part of the same original series, are therefore confident of the Banks’
specimen’s authenticity, and have labelled it as lectotype.
6. It follows that the earliest available name for the ‘rust-red flour
beetle’ is Tribolium navale (Fabricius, 1775). The first use of T. navale as the
valid name for the taxon was by Seidlitz (1894, p. 583). He was followed by
Heyden, Reitter & Weise (1906, col. 493). The last occasion of its use appears
to have been that of Reitter (1911, p. 343). In the last 40 years, Tribolium
castaneum (Herbst) has appeared in the titles and content of more than 30
papers in scientific journals and in over 100 research reports (Tribolium
Information Bulletin) by at least 30 different authors. A representative list of
references has been given to the Commission Secretariat.
7. The re-discovered identity of Dermestes navalis threatens the
stability of a long-established and widely-used name. We consider that
the evidence makes a prima facie case that this is so and we therefore ask the
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name navalis
Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Dermestes navalis,
for the purpose of the Principle of Priority only;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Tribolium MacLeay, 1825 (gender: neuter), type species
by monotypy Colydium castaneum Herbst, 1797;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name castaneum Herbst, 1797, as published in the binomen
Colydium castaneum, (specific name of the type species of
Tribolium MacLeay, 1825);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name navalis Fabricius, 1775, as pub-
lished in the binomen Dermestes navalis and as suppressed in (1)
above.
REFERENCES
BLAIR, K. G 1913. Tribolium castaneum Herbst =ferrugineum, Auct. (nec Fab.).
Entomologist’s mon. Mag., vol. 49, pp. 222-224.
CHAMPION, G. C. 1896. Tribolium ferrugineum (Fabr.). Entomologist’s mon. Mag.,
vol. 32, pp. 82-83.
DUFTSCHMID, K. 1812. Fauna Austriae, vol. 2, viii+311 pp. Linz & Leipzig.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, xxxi+832 pp. Flensburgii &
Lipsiae.
1781. Species Insectorum, vol. 1, viii+ 552 pp. Hamburgi & Kilonii.
1792. Entomologia systematica, vol. 1(2), 538 pp. Copenhagen.
1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae, 572 pp. Hafniae.
HERBST, J. F. W. 1797. Natursystem aller Insecten: die Kafer, vol. 7, xi+ 346 pp.;
pls. 96-116. Pauli, Berlin.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 365
HEYDEN, L. VON, REITTER, E. & WEISE, J. 1906. Catalogus Coleopterorum
Europae, ed. 2, [iv]+750 col.+ pp. 751-774. E. Reitter, Paskau etc.
LAPORTE DE CASTELNAU, F. L. 1840. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes,
Coléopteres, vol. 2, 563 pp. P. Duménil, Paris.
MACLEAY, W. S. 1825. Annulosa Javanica, vii+50 pp., Ipl. Kingsbury, Parbury
and Allen, London.
MOTSCHULSKY, V. 1858. Sur les collections Coléoptérologiques de Linné et de
Fabricius (Continuation). (pp. 123-152) In Etudes Entomologiques, part 7,
192 pp. Imprimerie de la Société de Littérature Finnoise, Helsingfors.
REITTER, E. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches, vol. 3, 436 pp. pls
81-127. K. G. Lutz, Stuttgart.
SEIDLITZ, G. VON 1894. (pp. 401-608) In ERICHSON, W. F. [1877}-1898.
Naturgeschichte der _Insecten Deutschlands. Erste Abtheilung Coleoptera,
vol. 5(1), xxviii+877 pp. Nicolaische Verlags-Buchhandlung, Berlin.
WATERHOUSE, C. D. 1896. Note on Tenebrio ferrugineus, Fabr., in the Banksian
Collection of Coleoptera. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. Series 6, vol. 17, pp. 230-231.
366 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
CORNALATUS ATTEMS, 1931 (DIPLOPODA, POLYDESMIDA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CORNALATUS PERMUTATUS
ATTEMS, 1938 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2438
By Richard L. Hoffman (Radford University, Radford, Virginia
24142, U.S.A.)
The present case involves a generic name in the Diplopoda (milli-
pedes), erroneously based upon the type species of a much older name which
is still in use for a genus in a different family. The case is therefore referred to
the Commission under Article 70b.
2. In 1860 Henri De Saussure (p. 326) established the name Rhachido-
morpha as a new subgenus of Polydesmus Latreille, 1802, including only
the new species Polydesmus (Rhachidomorpha) tarascus De Saussure, 1860
(p. 327), which is therefore the type of Rhachidomorpha by monotypy. This
species (from Cordova, Mexico) was described solely in terms of its external
appearance, and no information about the structure of the male genitalia was
given. The subgenus was distinguished chiefly by the form of the metazonal
paranota, said to be‘. . . longuement séparées, insérées au sommet des fiancs,
réfléchies en haut (montantes), plus ou moins spiniformes . . .’.
3. In reporting on a collection of polydesmoid millipedes belonging to
the Hamburg Museum, Attems (1901, p. 95) reported what he considered to
be the same species as De Saussure’s, from the Brazilian state of Espirito
Santo. In that paper, Attems transferred Rhachidomorpha from Polydesmus
to the new status of a subgenus in Leptodesmus Saussure, 1859, viz.,
‘Leptodesmus (Rhachidomorpha) tarascus Sauss.’. Having an adult male,
Attems illustrated the genitalia with two reasonably accurate drawings
showing that the species that he had examined was in fact referable to the
family CHELODESMIDAE. His species identification was obviously based upon
a general concurrence in paranotal structure with that described by De
Saussure for his Mexican form.
4. In 1931, Attems (p. 40) without explaining his motivation, proposed
the new generic name Cornalatus with sole included species, and hence
type species by monotypy, ‘tarascus (Sauss.)’. To supplement the written
diagnosis, he provided very similar drawings to those published in 1901.
5. Seven years later, Attems (1938, p. 61) again treated Cornalatus,
citing his 1931 proposal of the name, but now specifying that the ‘Einzige Art
und Typus’ was Cornalatus permutatus Attems. This new specific name was,
at the same time (same page), proposed as a nomen novum to replace his own
earlier usage of tarascus, which he now clearly stated was ‘nec Saussure’. Ina
later volume of the same journal (Das Tierreich), Attems (1940, p. 471) also
treated tarascus De Saussure as the type and only species of the genus
Rhachidomorpha, considered correctly to be a component of the endemic
Mesamerican family RHACHODESMIDAE. In his 1938 treatment, Attems used
the same two drawings of genitalia to represent his permutatus that he had
already used in 1931.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 367
6. In his book on the generic and family-group names of Diplopoda,
Jeekel (1971, p. 255) stated that Polydesmus tarascus De Saussure, 1860, was
the type species of Cornalatus by original designation, and that Cornalatus is
in consequence a junior objective synonym of Rhachidomorpha.
7. It is my opinion however that the circumstances set out in para-
graphs 3—5 above show that the original identification of the Brazilian species
as tarascus was obviously incorrect, as later realized by Attems himself. His
consistent use of virtually identical gonopod illustrations, and use of the
expressions ‘nom. nov.’ and ‘nec Sauss.’ in the 1938 treatment, show clearly
that he realized his mistake and attempted to rectify it. Except for these
extenuating circumstances Jeekel’s interpretation of the matter would of
course be correct.
8. Cornalatus has been subsequently accepted as a valid genus for
Brazilian millipedes by Attems (1943), Schubart (1955, 1956) and Hoffman
(1980). Its suppression as a junior synonym of Rhachidomorpha would
not only entail its transfer into a different family (from CHELODESMIDAE to
RHACHODESMIDAE) but also require that a new name be proposed for the
genus now known as Cornalatus.
9. It is my belief that minimal disruption of usage and intent would
ensue from a ruling that would continue the existence of Cornalatus as a valid
chelodesmid generic name by recognizing that its original foundation upon
the species tarascus De Saussure was the result of a misidentification of the
latter by Attems.
10. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of
type species for the nominal genus Cornalatus Attems, 1931 and
to designate Cornalatus permutatus Attems, 1938 as type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (gender: masculine), type species,
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cornalatus
permutatus Attems, 1938;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name permutatus Attems, 1938, as published in the binomen
Cornalatus permutatus (specific name of the type species of
Cornalatus Attems, 1931).
REFERENCES
ATTEMS, C. 1901. Neue Polydesmiden des Hamburger Museums. Mitt. naturh.
Mus. Hamburg., vol. 18(2), pp. 85-107.
1931. Die Familie Leptodesmidae und andere Polydesmiden. Zoologica
Stuttg., vol. 30(79), pp. 1-149.
1938. Myriapoda 3, Polydesmoidea IT. Fam. Leptodesmidae, Platyrhachidae,
Oxydesmidae, Gomphodesmidae. Tierreich, vol. 69, pp. 1-487.
368 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
1940. Myriapoda 3, Polydesmoidea III. Fam. Polydesmidae, Vanhoeffeniidae,
Cryptodesmidae, Oniscodesmidae, Sphaerotrichopidae, Peridontodesmidae,
Rhachidesmidae, Macellolophidae, Pandirodesmidae. Tierreich, vol. 70, pp.
1-577.
1943. Myriopoden von Brasilien, gesammelt von E. Bresslau in den Jahren
1913/1914. Senckenbergiana, vol. 26, pp. 434-458.
HOFFMAN, R. L. 1980. Classification of the Diplopoda. Genéve, Mus. Hist. natur.,
pp. 1-237.
JEEKEL, C. A. W. 1971. Nomenclator generum et familiarum Diplopodorum: A
list of the genus and family-group names in the Class Diplopoda from the
10th edition of Linnaeus, 1758, to the end of 1957. Monogr. ned. entomol. Ver.,
no. 5, pp. 1-412.
DE SAUSSURE, H. 1860. Essai d’une faune des myriapodes du Mexique, avec la
description de quelques espéces des autres parties de l Amérique. Mem. Soc.
Phys. Hist. nat. Geneve, vol. 15(2), pp. 259-393.
SCHUBART, O. 1955. Materiais para uma fauna do Estado de Sao Paulo. Os
Leptodesmidae. Arg. Mus. Nac. (Rio de Janeiro), vol. 42, pp. 507-540.
1956. ‘Leptodesmidae’ Brasileiras II. O genero ‘Obiricodesmus’ (Diplopoda,
Proterospermophora). Rev. Brasil Biol., vol. 16, pp. 341-348.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 369
OPIUS WESMAEL, 1835 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF OPIUS PALLIPES WESMAEL,
1835 AS TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2561
By Robert A. Wharton (Department of Entomology, Texas A & M
University, College Station, Texas 77843, U.S.A.)
Wesmael (1835, p. 115) described the braconid genus Opius with 36
included species, amongst which were the nominal species Bracon carbonarius
Nees von Esenbeck, 1834 and the new species Opius procerus. He did not
select a type species.
2. Haliday (1837, p. 204 and 1839, p. 61) was the first to designate a
type species for Opius. Although the wording in Haliday (1837) (‘Typum
genericum praestabunt O. carbonarius atque proxime affinis’) could be
interpreted as ambiguous, the designation of Bracon carbonarius Nees von
Esenbeck, 1834 by Haliday (1839, p. 61) is unequivocal. The subsequent
selection by Muesebeck & Walkley (1951, p. 153) of Opius pallipes Wesmael,
1835 as the type of Opius was apparently based on the assumption that
carbonarius was not an originally included species. Wesmael (1835, p. 153)
had expressed some doubt that the specimens he referred to as Opius carbon-
arius were the same as Bracon carbonarius Nees. Haliday (1837, p. 219) had
supported this by describing carbonarius sensu Wesmael as two different
species, Opius wesmaelii and O. sylvaticus. However. since Haliday (1837,
p. 218) also synonymised Opius procerus Wesmael, 1835 with Bracon carbon-
arius Nees, Article 69a (v) applies and Opius procerus should therefore be
the type species of Opius. Thomson (1895, p. 2200) retained procerus as
distinct from carbonarius Nees (apparently the only author to do so) by citing
‘carbonarius Hal.’ in synonymy. He also accepted (p. 2202) Wesmael’s 1835
interpretation of carbonarius.
3. Foerster (1864, p. 259) described the genus Biosteres with Bracon
carbonarius Nees, 1834 as the type species. Ignoring Haliday (1837 and
1839), Foerster (1864, p. 261) used Bracon pygmaeator Nees, 1834 as the
type species of Opius. Foerster’s 1864 concept of Biosteres and Opius was
followed by Marshall (1891, p. 284) and Szépligeti (1904, pp. 161-163).
However, pygmaeator was only doubtfully included in Opius by Wesmael
and therefore cannot serve as the type species.
4. Thomson (1895, p. 2175) and Viereck (1914, p. 21) accepted the
type designation of Haliday and noted that Biosteres and Opius had the same
type species. Gahan (1915, p. 66) avoided the problem by regarding most of
the genus-group names used in the OPIINAE as synonyms of Opius. Gahan’s
1915 treatment was used until 1959, when Fischer separated Biosteres from
Opius. Fischer (1959, p. 1) accepted carbonarius as the type of Biosteres but
defined Opius on the basis of Muesebeck & Walkley’s 1951 designation of
pallipes as its type species (see para. 2). Fischer’s 1959 separation of Biosteres
from Opius is similar to that used by Foerster (1864), since the type species
370 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
used for Opius by these two workers, pallipes and pygmaeator, are closely
related (Fischer, 1972, p. 366).
5. Fischer (1971) lists 945 species under Opius and 88 species under
Biosteres. Over 100 new species have been described in these nominal genera
since 1971. Acceptance of procerus rather than pallipes as the type species of
Opius would alter the current concept of Opius, as used by at least 17 authors
in about 150 taxonomic publications since 1951, and resurrect a concept
which has not been used since Thomson (1895).
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of
type species for the nominal genus Opius Wesmael, 1835, and to
designate Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835 as type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the
name Opius Wesmael, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation in (1) above, Opius pallipes Wesmael, 1835;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name pallipes Wesmael, 1835, as published in the binomen Opius
pallipes (specific name of the type species of Opius Wesmael,
1835).
REFERENCES
FISCHER, M. 1959. Die europdischen Arten der Gattung Opius Wesm.
(Hymenoptera, Braconidae) Teil Va. Mitt. Miinch. entomol. Ges., vol. 49,
pp. 1-35.
1971. Index of World Opiinae. 187 pp. Le Frangois, Paris.
1972. Hymenoptera Braconidae (Opiinae). Tierreich, vol. 91, pp. 1-620.
FOERSTER, A. 1864. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Braconen. Verh.
naturhist. Ver. preuss. Rhein., vol. 19, pp. 225-288.
GAHAN, A. B. 1915. A revision of the North American Ichneumon-flies of the
Subfamily Opiinae. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 49, pp. 63-95.
HALIDAY, A. H. 1837. Essay on parasitic Hymenoptera. Entomol. Mag., vol. 4,
pp. 203-221.
1839. Ichneumones Adsciti. Pp. 61-65 in Westwood, J. O. Synopsis of the
Genera of British Insects. 158 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and
Longmans, London.
MARSHALL, T. A. 1891. Les Braconides, 10° Tribu—Opiidae. Pp. 280-359 in
André, E. (Ed.) Species de Hyménopteéres d'Europe et d’ Algérie, vol. 5, 635 pp.
Gray, Paris.
MUESEBECK, C. F. W. & WALKLEY, L. 1951. Braconidae. Pp. 90-184 in
Muesebeck, C. F. W., Krombein, K. V. & Townes, H. K. Hymenoptera of
America North of Mexico, Synoptic Catalog. Agric. Monogr., vol. 2, pp.
1-1420.
NEES VON ESENBECK, C. G. 1834. Hymenopterorum Ichneumonibus affinium
monographiae, genera Europaea et species illustrantes, vol. 1, 320 pp. Cottae,
Stuttgart, Tubingen.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 371
SZEPLIGETI, G. 1904. Hymenoptera Fam. Braconidae, Opiinae. Pp. 158-167 in
Wytsman, P. (Ed.). Genera Insectorum, vol. 22, 253 pp. Verteneuil et Desmet,
Bruxelles.
THOMSON, C. G. 1895. LII. Bidrag till Braconidernas kannedom. Opusc. Entomol.,
vol. 20, pp. 2141-2339.
VIERECK, H. L. 1914. Type species of the genera of ichneumon flies. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus., vol. 83, pp. 1-186.
WESMAEL, C. 1835. Monographie des Braconides de Belgique. Nouv. Mém. Acad.
R. Bruxelles, vol. 9, pp. 1-252.
BZ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
LEPTURA MARGINATA FABRICIUS, 1781 (INSECTA,
COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF LEPTURA MARGINATA O. F. MULLER IN
ALLIONI, 1766. Z.N.(S.)2572
By Maciej Mroczkowski (Jnstytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk. ul.
Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland.)
In 1766 O. F. Miller (in Allioni, p. 188) described from the province of
Torino (Turin, Italy) a species called Leptura marginata. Since that descrip-
tion the name marginata of O. F. Miiller has not been used as a valid name.
The name in question was overlooked by specialists of the CERAMBYCIDAE
and has not been used at all in catalogues or systematic works, even in
synonymy. It is not mentioned in the Synonymia Insectorum of Schénherr
(Pars 3, 1817) or the Coleopterorum Catalogus edited by W. Junk and S.
Schenkling (Cerambycidae by Lameere and Aurivillius, 1912-1923).
2. In 1781 J. C. Fabricius (p. 247) described from Norway another
species called Leptura marginata (now Acmaeops marginata), a common
species widely distributed in the Palaearctic Region from north and central
Europe through Siberia, Mongolia and northern parts of China to the coasts
of the Pacific Ocean in the Far East.
3. As the application of the Principle of Homonymy would disrupt
stability and cause confusion, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name marginata
O. F. Miller in Allioni, 1766, as published in the binomen
Leptura marginata, and all uses prior to the publication of
Leptura marginata Fabricius, 1781, for the purposes of both the
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name marginata Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen
Leptura marginata;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology the name marginata O. F. Miller in Allioni,
1766 as published in the binomen Leptura marginata and as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above.
REFERENCES
ALLIONTI, C. 1766. Manipulus Insectorum Taurinensium. Mélang. Soc. Turin, vol.
3, pp. 185-198.
FABRICIUS, J. C. 1781. Species Insectorum eorum , differentias specificas,
synonyma auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus,
descriptionibus. vol. 1, viii+ 552 pp. Hamburgi et Kilonii.
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 373
INDEX TO AUTHORS
Page
Andronov, V.N. . 297
Ayala,S.C. . 160
Batten, R. L. 199
Bishop, J. D. D. 288
Blackith, R. E. hy]
Bock, W.J. . 324
Bogan, A. E. 273
Bordon, C. 226
Bouchet, P. . 205
Bradley, J. D. 8
Brinkmann, W. 269
Brodkorb, P. 12
Brookes Knight, J. ‘(the late) . 199
Brunton, C.H.C.. 210, 213, 215
Calder, D. R. 335
Campbell, K. E. 10
Carpenter, A. . 84
Compagno, L. J. V. 89
Coomans,H.E. . 191
Cornelius, P. F. S. . 163, 335
Crosby, T. K. 84
Crosskey, R. W. 282
Crowson, R. A. 196
Dolling, W. R. 119
Doyle, P. 355
Dubois, A. . 6
Dugdale, J.S. 47
Evenhuis, N. L. 4
Follett, W. I. 89
Fraser, T. H. 193
Freidberg, A. , 4
Froeschner, R.C. . 4
Grant Inglis, W. . S515
Griffiths, G. C. D. . 170
Hamilton, C. J. 8
Hansen, H. J. . 181
Henderson, R.A. . T/T
Herting, B. . 282
Hoffman, R. L. 366
Howarth, M. K. 75
Jago,N.D. . : : 103
Jansson, A. . (75. 178, 279
Kabata,Z. . : : ; 120
Kaston, B. J. 3 , : 8
Kemperman, Th. C. H. . : 191
Kennedy, W.J. . : : 277
Kerzhner,I.M. . 8, 279
Kevan, D. K. McE. 104, 306
Key, K.H. L. 103, 303
Kottelat, M. . ; ‘ : 360
Kraus, O. : Se 340
Kuznetsov, V.I. . : : 8
Lachner, E. A. : : : 193
Larsen, T. B. ; ‘ , 342
Lees Baw 2 ’ PNOL 23215
Lew Ton,H.M. . : 99
Loerbroks, A. : : ; 346
McDowell, S.B. . : ; 330
Mahoney, J.A. . : : 50
Mason, W.R.M. . : ; 18
Mathis, W. N. : 3 : 4
Mees, G.F. . : , ; 227
Melville, R. V. :
5, 14, 78, 80, 112, 156, 308
Mesnil, L. P.(thelate) . 282
Mroczkowski, M. . 188, 372
Nielsen, E. S. : , ; 158
Nye, I. W. B. : ; ; 158
O’Brien, C. W. ; P J ;
55, 59, 62, 66, 69, 300
Olson; S)L. % < : f 12
Osella, Gil j : é 59
Ostman,C. . : : : 163
Pericart, J. . . ? ¢ 119
Phillips, A. R. - 5 { 1]
Poore,G.C.B. . ; k 99
Pope, R.D. . : : : 363
Rea,A.M. . 5 3 : 12
Ride, W. D. L. : : ‘ 50
Riegraf, W. . F d it 359
374 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Riley, E.G. .
Rubtsov, I. A.
Schuster, R. .
Seymour, P. R.
Silfverberg, H.
Simmons, N. B.
Siveter, D. J..
Smith, A. B. .
Smith, H. M.
Spencer, K. A. :
Staines, C. L. (Jr) .
Steyskal, G. C.
Stimson, A. F.
Thaler, K.
: 100
S50 5352
_ 9,228
170, 183, 344
5 4
4, 170, 183
330
8
Tollitt, M. E. : ; 107, 348
Tubbs, P. K.. 8, 14, 218
Vyshkvartzeva, N. V. 297
Watt. J.C... : : 196, 363
Wharton,R.A. . , 324, 369
Whitfield, J. B. é : 96
Whittington, H. B. é 106, 118
Wibmer, G. J. : 55, 62, 69, 300
Williams, J. D. : ; 273
Wood, D. M. 282
Woodley, N. E. 4
Wright, C. W. 72
Yochelson, E. 199
Opinion
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
139]
1392
1393
1394
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME
Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Crustacea, Isopoda): conserved
Neadmete okutanii Petit, 1974 designated as type nore of
Neadmete Habe, 1961 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): . .
Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 and Toten
wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931 (Reptilia, Dinosauria): conserved
Donax hanleyanus Philippi, 1847 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): conserved .
Panesthia saussurii Wood-Mason, 1876 designated as type species
of Caeparia Stal, 1877 (Insecta, Dictyoptera) Agha
Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (Reptilia, Serpentes): conserved a
Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 and
Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
conserved . .
Cuspidaria ( Rhinoclama ) Biome Morgan & Heppell, 1981 “desig-
nated as type species of Rhinoclama Dall & Smith, 1886 (Mollusca,
Bivalvia)
Chelydra osceola Stejneger, 1918 given nomenclatural precedence
over Chelydra laticarinata Hay, 1916 and nee aa Hay,
1916 (Reptilia, Testudines) yee
Phalaena bellatrix Stoll, 1780 desi gnated as s type species of GC ert
Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
Gonodontis rectisectaria Herrich-Schaffer, [1855] desi gnated a as type
species of Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .
Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved
Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved .
Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved .
Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): designated a as
type species of Megilla Fabricius, 1805 : a5
Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia, Serpentes): conserved . :
Anolis carolinensis Voigt, 1832 gaye as type ia of pee
Daudin, 1802 (Reptilia, Sauria) . -
Papilio erato Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). ee
designated .
Curculio picirolinte Fabricius, 1787 and Tychius ' stephensi
Schonherr, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Curculionida): conserved .
Callionymus sagitta Pallas, 1770 eens papas sis
neotype designated .
Phascolosoma cumanense ik cferstein: "1867 ‘(Sipunculida): nen
precedence over Lumbricus edulis Pallas, 1774
Pellonula bahiensis Steindachner, 1879 sites catia ‘replacement
lectotype designated . .
Zygaena anthyllidis Boisduval, [1828] ‘Insecta, Lepidoptera):
conserved . .
Reptomultisparsa a Orbigny, 1853 (Bryozoa, Cyclostomata): type
species designated :
Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): ‘conserved .
Centrurus limpidus Karsch, 1879 and Centruroides ornatus Pocock,
1902 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): conserved .
375
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Brachiopoda, Spiriferida): con-
served 3
Byrrhus murinus Fabricius, 1794 Ansecta ‘Coleoptera, Byrrhidae):
conserved . .
Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (Insecta, ‘Coleoptera
Colydidae): conserved . . =
Capys Hewitson, [1865] (Lepidopten, ieyeseuitacy: cannes
Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Diptera, Calliphoridae): conserved
Simia fascicularis Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Primates): conserved .
Leucaspis Signoret, 1869 (Insecta, Homoptera): conserved .
Bagrus Bosc, 1816 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): conserved .
Lumbricus lacteus Orley, 1881 designated as type species of
Octolasion Orley, 1885 (Annelida, Oligochaeta)
Indodorylaimus elongatus Bagqri, 1982 designated as type species of
Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida) .
Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 eee Poa
conserved . sayr
Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806 “designated | as ‘type species of
Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
Lamia aethiops Fabricius, 1775 designated as type goecies of
Ceroplesis Serville, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
Hypocryphalus mangiferae (Stebbing, 1914) given nomenclatural
precedence over Cryphalus inops Eichhoff, 1872 and Hypothenemus
griseus Blackburn, 1885 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ;
Adianthus bucatus Ameghino, 1891 (Mammalia): neotype "Gesig-
nated
Williamia Monterasite, 1884 (Moifusca, Gastropoda): Goliserved:
Drymus ryeii Douglas & Scott, 1865 Oe Hemiptera): neotype
setaside .. a aca sip smgacl. Teepe TS
Leptoclinum eens Milne Edwards, 1841 designated as type
species of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 (Tunicata, Ascidiacea)
Delphinus truncatus Montagu, 1821 (Mammalia, Cetacea):
conserved . .
Panopea Ménard de la ee 1807 (Mollusca, Bivaleay: dansebved
Polygnatus bilineatus Roundy, 1926 designated as type species of
Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta) .
Cnetha Enderlein, 1921 and Paige vernian Hiranoe: 1926
(Insecta, Diptera): type species designated; Atractocera latipes
Meigen, 1804: confirmation ofholotype . .
Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes)
genderconfirmed asfeminine . .
Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, " Lepidoptera): Tinea Bene
straesserella Fabricius, 1781 designated as type species :
Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 (Mammalia, Rodentia).
Democricetodon crassus Freudenthal, 1969 designated as type
species . Ay FES NE
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 S77
NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS
PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 43
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
adamsi, Cuspidaria ( Rhinoclama),
Morgan & Heppell, 1981
aethiops, Lamia, Fabricius, 1775
alpheus, Papilio, Cramer, [1777]
anthyllidis, Zygaena, Boisduval, [1828]
archytas, Papilio, Stoll, [1787]
bagre, Silurus, Linnaeus, 1766
bahiensis, Pellonula, Steindachner,
1879
bajad, Silurus, Forskal, 1775
bellatrix, Phalaena, Stoll, 1780
bergstraesserella, Tinea, Fabricius,
1781
bilineatus, Polygnathus, Roundy, 1926
bucatus, Adianthus, Ameghino, 1891
candidum, Didemnum, Savigny, 1816
carolinensis, Anolis, Voigt, 1832
chromis, Sparus, Linnaeus, 1758
complanatus, Lumbricus, Dugés, 1828
crassus, Democricetodon brevis,
Freudenthal, 1969
cumanense, Phascolosoma, Keferstein,
1867
cyparissa, Papilio, Cramer, [1775]
doris, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1771
edule, Lumbricus, Pallas, 1774
elongatus, Indodorylaimus, Baqri, 1982
erato, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758
exoleta, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758
fascicularis, Simia, Raffles, 1821
filamentosus, Callionymus,
Valenciennes in Cuvier &
Valenciennes, 1837
fulgens, Leptoclinum, Milne Edwards,
1841
glycimeris, Mya, Born, 1778
glycymeris, Arca, Linnaeus, 1758
griseus, Hypothenemus, Blackburn,
1885
gussoni, Ancylus, O. G. Costa, 1829
hanleyanus, Donax, Philippi, 1847
incrustans, Diastopora, d’Orbigny, 1850
inops, Cryphalus, Eichhoff, 1872
irregularis, Coluber, Bechstein, 1802
kumpani, Brachythyris, Yanischevsky,
1935
labiata, Megilla, Fabricius, [1805]
lacteus, Lumbricus terrestris, Orley,
1885
laticarinata, Chelydra, Hay, 1916
latipes, Atractocera, Meigen, 1804
liberiensis, Hippopotamus, Morton,
1849
limpidus, Centrurus, Karsch, 1879
linneella, Phalaena, Clerk, 1759
listerianum, Leptoclinum, Milne
Edwards, 1841
longicornis, Oniscus, J. Sowerby, 1805
macellaria, Musca, Fabricius, 1775
magnifica, Doris, Quoy & Gaimard,
1832
mangiferae, Cryphalus, Stebbing, 1914
minor, Cricetodon, Larter, 1851
murinus, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794
mytilaspidis, Aphelinus, Le Baron, 1870
obscura, Goniodoris, Stimpson, 1855
okutanii, Neadmete, Petit, 1974
ornatus, Centruroides, Pocock, 1902
osceola, Chelydra, Stejneger, 1918
pallida, Doris, Riippell & Leuckart,
1830 or 1831
philippinensis, Neaera, Hinds, 1843
picirostris, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787
pini, Aspidiotus, Hartig, 1839
rectisectaria, Gonodontis,
Herrich-Schaffer, [1855]
rondanii, Monotoma, A. Villa & J. B.
Villa, 1833
ryeil, Drymus sylvaticus, Douglas &
Scott, 1865
sagitta, Callionymus, Pallas, 1770
Saussurii, Panesthia, Wood-Mason,
1876
sculpta, Chelydra, Hay, 1916
siliqua, Mya, Spengler, 1793
stagnata, Phalaena, Donovan, 1806
stephensi, Tychius, Schonherr, 1836
subspinosa, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1781
378 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
trifasciata, Lamia, Fabricius, 1775
truncatus, Delphinus, Montagu, 1821
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
Adianthus Ameghino, 1891
Alyattes Kinberg, 1867
Anolis Daudin, 1802
Astacilla Cordiner, 1793
Bagre Cloquet, 1816
Bagrus Bosc, 1816
Boiga Fitzinger, 1826
Caeparia Stal, 1877
Capys Hewitson, [1865]
Ceroplesis Serville, 1835
Choeropsis Leidy, 1852
Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814
Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855
Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854
Cnetha Enderlein, 1921
Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915
Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855
Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801
Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964
Diastocera Dejean, 1835
Didemnum Savigny, 1816
Diplosoma MacDonald, 1859
Dromophis Peters, 1869
Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819]
Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831
Glycymeris da Costa, 1778
vernum, Simulia, Macquart, 1826
wyomingensis, Troodon, Gilmore, 1931
Glyphipterix Hiibner, [1825]
Gnathodus Pander, 1856
Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855
Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974
Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841
Leucaspis Signoret, 1869
Luzonia Dall & Smith in Dall, 1890
Macropis Panzer, 1809
Neadmete Habe, 1961
Nymphula Schrank, 1802
Octodrilus Omodeo, 1956
Octolasion Orley, 1885
Ourocnemis Baker, 1887
Pachycephalosaurus Brown &
Schlaikjer, 1943
Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807
Pectunculus da Costa, 1778
Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855
Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869
Reptomultisparsa @’ Orbigny, 1853
Rhinoclama Dall & Smith in Dall, 1886
Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842
Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956
Williamia Monterosato, 1884
Zeugophora Kunze, 1818
Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology
ADIANTHIDAE Ameghino, 1891
BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858
CHROMODORIDIDAE Bergh, 1892
GLYCYMERIDIDAE Newton, 1916
GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton,
1854
LEUCASPIDINAE Atkinson, 1886
PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE
Sternberg, 1945
RHOPALOCERINI Reitter, 1911
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
albidus, Agonioneurus, Westwood, 1837
anthyllidis, Lycastes, Hubner, [1819]
aygula, Simia, Linnaeus, 1758
capillaceus, Pectunculus, da Costa,
1778
hilairea, Donax, Guérin, 1832
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 379
nesarnack, Delphinus, Lacépéde, 1804
olivaceus, Centrurus, Thorell, 1877
orbicularis, Glycymeris, da Costa, 1778
ornatus, Tylosteus, Leidy, 1872
rubidus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792
stepheni, Tychius, Schonherr, 1836
tomentosus, Curculio, Herbst, 1795
undulatus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831
Aetheius Hubner, [1819]
Allerya Morch, 1877
Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840
Apistus Agassiz, 1846
Auchenia Thunberg, 1792
Brondelia Bourguignat, 1862
Callitroga Brauer, 1883
Choerodes Leidy, 1852
Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799
Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801
Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827
Ibida Gray, 1825
Incolore Omodeo, 1952
Leucaspis Burmeister, 1835
Megilla Fabricius, 1805
Najas Hubner, [1807]
Octolasia Rosa, 1893
Octolasium Michaelsen, 1900
Panope Ménard de la Groye, 1807
Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799
Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843
Philodendrus Agassiz, 1846
Porcus Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire,
1808
Pseudonevermannia Baranov, 1926
Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831
Purpureum Omodeo, 1952
Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837
Tomiopsis Cope, 1893
Tylosteus Leidy, 1872
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology
APISTINI Ganglbauer, 1899
380 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
INDEX TO KEY NAMES
Page
Actinodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (Opinion 1375). . . . OT
adamsi, Cuspidaria (Rhinoclama), Morgan & sae 1981 (Opinion
1317/6) : ; 30
Aetheius Hubner, [1819] (Opinion 1381) Fe GL aS ata ee 42
Agromyza Fallen, 1810. . . PAR Oe terre fare ee ede We RES 183
albicinctus, Cholus, Germar, 1824 ah Gs EEE ret crs toe i 55
alpheus, Papilio, Cramer, 1777 (Opinion 1398) RE Say. 152
amethistina, Boa, Schneider, 1801 . . . sand PAE area es 330
Anolis Daudin, 1802 (Opmion 385)". «<i. (6 SO Sees 125
anomala, Patella, Miller,1776 . . rome Be: Bet) bis i 210
Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Opinion 1383) of sence She eh ieee 1
anthyllidis, Lycastes, Hiibner, [1819](Opinion 1391) . . ... . 138
anthyllidis, Zygaena, Boisduval, sng oe sane Sure e eee 138
Antispila Hiibner, [1825] . . ai la 158
Aoraia Dumbleton, 1966 . . . . ashe 1s Rane 47
Apeistus Motschulsky, 1840 (Opinion 1397) . a yicly Ba Ceeee 150
APISTINI Ganglbauer, 1899 (Opinion 1397) ........ 150
Apistus Agassiz, 1846 (Opinion 1397) . . . ......e. 150
Archarias Dejean, 1821. pts, Mirae eee ome 55
archytas, Papilio, Stoll, [1787] (Opinion 1381) ees Sergi. & 42
arcta, Sertularia, Dalyell, 1847 . . toy ys Ea kee 337
Astacilla Cordiner, 1793 (Opinion 1369) . Seringlas Gf ee oe 15
ainipesn@assidambe@ontes 1859... jc... = fapars eevee an et ee 100
ALG GMECA CMM OHG Misa eiie nec ous) je. 2-43 ips esg Fephnoaavels, nolugh Sale tape 84
ERY AB ADDOUPIOST IN «x oe ve ey ws pterces, Me top geelnete 84
ADVIDAE DeHaans [1849]; 9. 5 2 a Rereicervhs Balt ieee 84
GIO AME Cle OD GR. MRT oak ote, <a, Ri eed beled yee 84
AtysMontfort,1810 . . PerOe ce ROE Copa 5 84
Auchenia Thunberg, 1792 (Opinion 1382). a els Pegh au era eee tee oee 44
UNI CEAGULeuNOmMDTUGy wis Gas ts hs 1st oie Sl. eae es BM. oh k eles 63
GUSIenG SumuliumpEawardsnl9iS) ei ees) oe a eee 350
Austracis Uvarov,1923 .. . Pe SA gen er adey tara bea) 103
australis, Microgaster, Thomson, 1895. : Shei aretaacreles Sees 173
axiochus, Anteros, Hewitson, 1867 (Opinion 1381) . BMG IOon Bone 3c 42
bahiensis, Pellonula, Steindachner, 1879 bese eee PAHs St aan 136
barbatula, Cobitis, Blyth,1860 . . 5 Bee A 360
Beaneastemaachner 902 escent uses a) sl ist ey gist lee 193
Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 - ST Tere gen Mrae ee 355
bellatrix, Phalaena, Stoll, 1780 (Gonaen 1378) . , ne tenes ie ane 35
bergstraesserella, Tinea, Fabricius, 1781 (Opinion 1418) Sieve detrei 325
Bernytinus Karkaldyil900 |e cee fe. | a sive eet ol, a covet oe) we 119
Berytus Fabricius,1803 . . . SOA ives Pilsen | aud cet SR 119
bicolor, Heteroclonium, Cope, 1896 . CERNE NRT. tat te Scape sic 160
bidens Turbo suinnhacusy li 5Sitons seis 2) :.ypredea copes eae 78
bilobatus, Bellerophon, Sowerby, 1839. . . Pty PRG ot 201
blumenbachii, Calymena, Brongniart in Desmarest, 1817. talent 105
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 (Opinion 1374) .
borealis, Simulia, Zetterstedt, 1842 . .
brattenburgicus, Craniolites, Schlotheim, 1820
brattensburgensis, Crania, Retzius, 1781
Brius Dejean, 1821 ;
brucei, Trypanosoma, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899
brucii, Trypanosoma, Plimmer & Bradford, 1899
bruguierianus, Belemnites, dV ae 1843
Bubo Duméril, 1806. . .
bubo, Strix, Linnaeus, 1758
Bulbifer Dejean, 1821
CAECILIADAE Gray, 1825. . .
Caeparia Stal, 1877 (Opinion 1373) .
calcar, Calcarina, d’Orbigny, 1839 . .
Callitroga Brauer, 1883 (Opinion 1399)
Calymene Brongniart in Brongniart & Desmarest, 1822 ‘
Campanularia Lamarck, 1816.
caparoch, Strix, Miller (P. L. S.), 1766
Capys Hewitson, 1865 (Opinion 1398) .
Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 . A
Carinella Johnston, 1833 . . . .
CARINELLIDAE McIntosh, 1874.
carolinensis, Anolis, Voigt, 1832 (Opinion 1385).
castaneum, Colydium, Herbst, 1797 . nano Ve
castaneum, Tribolium (Herbst, 1797) . .
CECILINIA Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 .
Cerodontha Rondani, 1861 .. . 6
Choerodes Leidy, 1852 (Opinion 1393).
Choeropsis Leidy, 1852 (Opinion en
childreni, Liasis, Gray, 1842 .
Cholus Germar, 1824 . .
CHROMODORIDIDAE Bergh, 1892 (Opinion 1375)
Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Opinion 1375) .
Chrysoclista Stainton, 1854 (Opinion 1418) .
cinerascens, Curculio, Marsham, 1802 (Opinion 1387).
cinnamopterum, Tetropium, Kirby, 1837
Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 . .
clavigera, Cidaris, Mantell, 1822.
clavipes, Cimex, Fabricius, 1775 .
Clytia Lamouroux,1812 . .
COBITIDIDAE Swainson, 1839
Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. .
Cochliomyia Townsend, 1915 (Opinion 1399)
Conchella Gray, 1848
Coppinia Hassall, 1848 .
Cornalatus Attems,1931 . .
corticalis, Curculio, Paykull, 1792
crassus, Democricetodon brevis, Freudenthal, ‘1969 (Opinion 1419)
crassus, Democricetodon, Freudenthal, 1969 (Opinion 1419)
382 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Crinodes Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 eee ree
Criopoderma Poli,1795 . .
Criopododerma Agassiz, 1848
Criopus Poli, 1791 SaeN tis
Cryopus Deshayes, 1836
Ctenium Menge, 1871 4
cumanense, Phascolosoma, Keferstein. 1867 (Opnnan 1389) .
Cyclaxyra Broun, 1893 . eS ROU coe, cei
Cydia Hubner, [1825] ole
cymbulus, Atys, Montfort, 1810 . pete
cyparissa, Papilio, Cramer, [1775] (Opinion 1380) .
Dapsilarthra Foerster, 1862 . .
Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 (Opinion 1419)
diglossis, Chirotes, Saenz, 1869 . . -
doris, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1771 (Opinion 1386)
Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Opinion tad
Dryophthorus Germar, 1824 . .
dumosa, Lafoea, Fleming, 1820 .
Eccoptus, Dejean, 1821. .
edulus, Lumbricus, Pallas, 1774 (Opinion 1389).
elegans, Phytomyza, Meigen, 1830 .
ensyii, Porina, Butler, 1877
ensyii, Trioxycanus (Butler, 1877) aes
erato, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 Sen 1386)
Euaspidoceras Spath,1931 . .
EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854 :
EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881
Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 . .
Euphaedra Hubner, [1819] (Opinion 1380)
falclandica, Astacilla, Ohlin, 1907
ferox, Carcharias, Risso, 1826 .
ferruginea, Simulia, Wahlberg, 1844
festiva, Phytomyza, Meigen, 1830 ; c
filamentosus, Callionymus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes,
1837 (Opinion 1388) .
Filellum Hincks, 1868
GeodercesHorn, 1876... .
geometricus, Cholus, Germar, 1824 . ees
Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 (Opinion 1375). .
GLYPHIPTERIGIDAE Stainton, 1854 (Opinion 1418) .
Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] (Opinion 1418) . 4
Glyphipteryx Curtis, 1827 (Opinion uae
Gnamptodon Haliday, 1833 seg
Gnaptodon Haliday, 1837 .
gracilis, Lomedea, Dana, 1846
gracilis, Laomedea, Sars, 1850 Sate
grangeri, st ceapagans Brown & Schlaikjer, "1943 (Opinion
137) aes oN 8 Pear
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
griseola, Micronecta, Horvath, 1899
hallucatus, Dasyurus, Gould, 1842... .
hanleyanus, Donax, Philippi, 1847 Nae 1372).
Hatschekia Poche, 1902 5
Helodon Enderlein, 1921
hemisphaericum, Phialidium, (Linnaeus, 1767)
Heriaeus Simon, 1875 . .
hilairea, Donax, Guérin, 1832 (Opinion 1372)
hirsutus, Thomisus, Walckenaer, 1824 .
hirtus, Thomisus, Latreille, 1819 . 5
HOLOCENTRIDAE Steindachner, 1902
hudsonia, Strix. Gmelin, 1788 . .
Hypselodoris Stimpson, 1855 (Opinion 1375)
hystrix, Curculio, Olivier, 1790 3
Ibiba Gray, 1825 (Opinion 1374)
incomptus, Geoderces, Horn, 1876 . .
incrustans, Diastopora, d’Orbigny, 1850 (Opinion 1392) .
intertexta, Campanularia, Couch, 1844. sex
irregularis, Coluber, Bechstein, 1802 (Opinion 1374)
TIsarthron Dejean, 1835 . 5
Johnstoni, Campanularia, Alder, 1856 .
kumpani, Brachythyris, Yanischevsky, 1935 (Opinion 1395) .
labiata, Megilla, Fabricius, 1805 Sard me
Lachnopus Schoenherr, 1840 .
lactea, Hyla, Laurenti, 1768 .
lactea, Hyla, Daudin, 1803
Langaha Bonnaterre, 1790
Laplisia Lamarck, 1801
Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767.
Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] . .
laticarinata, Chelydra, Hay, 1916 (Opinion 1377)
laticollis, Rhynchaenus, Olivier, 1807
lemana, Sigara, Fieber, 1860 .
leonina, Porina, Philpott, 1927
Liasis Gray, 1842
liberiensis, Hippopotamus, Morton, 1849 (Opinion 1393) .
limpidus, Centrurus, Karsch, 1879 (Opinion 1394) .
linneella, Phalaena, Clerck, 1759 (Opinion 1418)
livida, Neriene, Blackwall, 1836 . .
longicornis, Oniscus, J. Sowerby, 1805 (Opinion 1369).
luteoscutellata, Phytagromyza, de Meijere, 1924.
Luzonia Dall & Smith, in Dall, 1890 SS teat ie
lymexylon, Curculio, Fabricius, 1792 5
macellaria, Musca, Fabricius, 1775 (Opinion 1399)
mackloti, Liasis, Duméril & Bibron, 1844 . brats
384 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1817 .
MaclureaEmmons, 1842 . . . .
MACLUREADAE Carpenter, 1861
Maclurita Blainville, 1823 .
Maclurites Lesueur, 1818 . . .
MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 . .
Macropis Panzer, 1809 (Opinion 1383)
maculatus, Dasyurus (Kerr, 1792) ;
madagascariensis, Langaha, Bonnaterre, 1790
magna, Maclurites, Lesueur, 1818
magnifica, Doris, Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Opinion 1375)
marginata, Leptura, O. F. Miller in Allioni, 1766
marginata, Leptura, Fabricius,1781_ .
Megilla Fabricius, 1805 (Opinion 1383)
Melanochroa Broun, 1882... .
melanothrix, Trachyphioeus, Kirby, 1837 .
Menoetius Dejean, 1821 A : A
mercurialis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1801 .
meridionalis, Micronecta (Costa, 1862) .
metallella, Tinea [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 .
Microgaster Latreille, 1804 cme:
Microplitis Foerster, 1862. .
miliaris, Curculio, Olivier,1790 . . .
minor, Cricetodon, Lartet, 1851 au 1419).
minuta, Sigara, Fabricius, 1794 . .
mirza, Lycaena, Staudinger, 1874
mirza, Lycaena, Plotz, 1880 °
mirzaellus, Azanus, Kogak, 1980
Morelia Gray, 1842 . ‘
mosquitensis, Risomurex, Kemperman & Coomans, 1984
Muricopsis Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus, 1882
murinex, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1396) .
Najas Hubner, [1807] Opinion 1380
Napomyza Curtis, 1837 ae Smee
Napomyza Westwood, 1840 .
naucum, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758 .
navale, Tribolium, (Fabricius, 1775)
navalis, Dermestes, Fabricius,1775. .
Neadmete Habe, 1961 (Opinion 1370) .
Neastacilla Tattersall, 1921
Neides Latreille, 1802 . .
Nemocestes Van Dyke, 1936 . ae
nigricana, Pyralis, Fabricius, 1794 .
nigricornis, Phytomyza, Macquart, 1835 .
Nomadacris Uvarov, 1923 . Pad
obscura, Goniodoris, Stimpson, 1855 (Opinion trove
Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838 . . -
okutanii, Neadmete, Petit, 1974 Openae 1370)
olivacea, Liasis, Gray, 1842 ;
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986 385
olivaceus, Centrurus, Thorell, 1877 ag ode Sag eos, 144
Olpium Koch, 1873. . . EL doaakcac etc 118
PIUMWESACLUISSO peste Mtoe. Poise buch, he Foc slsets veo) Fe 369
Orbicula Cuvier, 1798 . . hc maim e aE 210
ornatus, Centruroides, Pocock, 1902 (Opinion 1394) Sige ct ae ela tas 144
ornatus, Tylosteus, Leidy, 1872 (Opinion ee Pica eas Plage oer eae 19
ornigis, Apanteles, Weed, 1887 . .. . Se Ce Shekhar re Wi Nae 96, 324
oryzivorus, Coluber, Suckow, 1798 . . Seco -aoimpiok sc 82
osceola, Chelydra, Stejneger, 1918 (Opinion 1377) . ROAR. ert ae 33
oularsawa, Coluber, Bonnaterre: 1790. 2 3 -. Gres 82
Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 (Opinion 1381) . . ........ 42
PACHYCEPHALOSAURIDAE Sternberg, 1945 (Opinion 1371) . 19
Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 (Opinion 1371). . . 19
pallida, Doris, Ruppell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831 een ee at alte 27
pallipes, Opius, Wesmael, 1835 . . Ante 369
araphnyioniy za Bnderiein. 936; a esis) 2) cil iste a eae shen) 344
BASS OOTCMIAISILASSATOUS. USNS) Ve i} vc) si ae pele ee stein pola 357
Patanga Uvarov,1923. . . an BE Met ck tsetse torte 103
paxillosa, Belemnites, Lamarck, 1801 a7 ota Mave ore) May Savarese oe foie te 355
pentangulatus, Euomphalus, Sowerby, 1814 . . ....... 201
perarmatus, Ammonites, J.Sowerby, 1822... ..... . 15)
perarmatus, Ammonites, Young & Bird,1822 ....... . 75
permutata, Siphamia, Klausewitz,1966 . ..... 4.4... 193
permutatus, Cornalatus, Attems, 1938 . . Beets iach REM Sy hans 366
Pero Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 (Opinion 1379) . ARAL a ech sae eee 3)
Phialidium Leuckart, 1856 . . eb icp watern ts Ms 163
Philippinensis, Neaera, Hinds, 1843 (Opinion 1376) since ae TORS 30
Philodendros Fitzinger, 1843 (Opinion 1384). . ....... 123
Philodendrus Agassiz, 1846 Semen ak BEGUM AN Se tC vote opel tc 123
Pholetesor Mason, 1981 . . th Bsals! gra? Pat ee te teed 324
Phyxelis Schoenherr, 1843 . . . ee. sd BY 66
picirostris, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787 (Opinion 1387) EE Beas a 130
pilipes, Apis, Fabricius, 1775 (Opinion 1383)... ..... . 121
piscivorus, Crotalus, Lacépéde, 1788-1789 . ........ 82
meATALEINAE Bonaparte; 1838 . fo <2) Pests. Santee, & 10
pontula®s Gyclomorpha Brounyl88l s_. ea eu onions Sel lent 197
polymorphus, Tubulanus, Renier, [1804] . . Aes hos oe oc 112
Porcinolus Mulsant & Rey, 1869 (Opinion 1396) OL svete tee) bein 148
posticata, Simulia, Meigen, 1838 BY Tu toes ace 350
praeornata, Dendrophis, Schlegel, 1837 (Opinion 1384) Sry ch AS 123
Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897. . OES OTOL te 201
PROTOWARTHIIDAE Ulrich & Schofield, "1897. «5 ORS JRA. LOD
ES Y CHOCIDARIDAB Ikeda,1936,.°) 0. «sc SRS) teh Be 72
Pterodoris Ehrenberg, 1831 ‘gala iat ce rTOLe Tre wale 27
Ptilopus Schoenherr, 1823. . . sohdatte, wie chasis. eterate 62
quail, Musicia: ZAmmMermManns W783... ccs adie se 4 be) isi 50
rectisectaria, Gonodontis, Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 eee oe. aes 37
reptans, Agromyza, Fallen, 1823. . . ite 183
386 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Reptomultisparsa d@’Orbigny, 1853 etal gui
reticulata, Boa, Schneider, 1801 . .
Rhabditis Dujardin, [1855] . . .
Rhinoclama Dall & Smith, 1886 (Opinion 1376) . 5
RHOPALOCERINI Reitter, 1911 (Opinion 1397) .
Rhopalocerus W. Redtenbacher, 1842 (Opinion meets
Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 ‘é
Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 .
robiniae, Microgaster, Fitch, 1859 .
rondanii, Monotoma, A. Villa & J. B. Villa, 1833 (Opinion 1397)
rubidus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792 oe Ase :
rufa, Simulia, Meigen, 1838 :
rugosa, Pupa, Draparnaud, 1801
rusticella, Phalaena, Clerck, 1759
sagitta, Callionymus, Pallas, 1770 (Opinion 1388) . . .
saussurii, Panesthia, Wood-Mason, 1876 aan a 1373).
Schizostoma Bronn, [1834] . 2
SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1817
scholtzi, Sigara, Fieber, [1860]
scholtzii, Sigara, Scholtz, 1846 . .
Scoptes Hubner, [1819] (Opinion 1398)
schrammi, Engina, Crosse, 1863 . .
sculpta, Chelydra, Hay, 1916 (Opinion 1377). -
septemfasciatum, Acridium, Audinet-Serville, [1838]
serpens, Campanularia, Hassall, 1848 .
serpens, Filellum, (Hassall, 1848)
Sertularia Linnaeus,1758. . . .
setosus, Rhopalocerus, W. Resitenbactien 1842 2 (Opinion 1397) .
Sinuites Koken, 1896 . . A
SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913 .
Siphamia Weber, 1909 .
Southernia Filipjev, 1927 .
Southernia Allgen, 1929. .
Spartycerus Motschulsky, 1837 (Opinion 1397) .
stadtmiillerella, Antispila, (Hubner],1825. . .
stellata, Calcarina, de Férussac, 1827 . .
stephensi, Tychius, Schonherr, 1836 (Opinion 1387)
sternicornis, Cholus,Germar, 1824 . .
strix, Curculio, Olivier,1790 . .
strix, Rhynchaenus, Fabricius, 1792
Strongylaspis Thomson, 1860
Strongylaspis Spaeth, 1936
Strongylocassis Hincks, 1950. . .
subspinosa, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1781 1 (Opinion 1382)
Surnia Duméril, 1806 S :
taurus, Carcharias, Rafinesque, 1810
taenia, Cobitis, Linnaeus,1758 . . .
terricola, Rhabditis, Dujardin, [Nov. 1844]
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
Tetropium Kirby, 1837. . .
Thaumantias Eschscholz, 1829 . . .
THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917,
tipularius, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758 . .
tomentosus, Curculio, Herbst, 1795 (Opinion 1387).
Tomiopsis Cope, 1893 (Opinion 1395). . .
Tomiopsis Benediktova, 1956 (Opinion 1395)
triangulum, Coluber, Lacépéde, 1788-1789
Tribolium MacLeay, 1825. . P
TRICHOMONADIDAE Grassi, 1882
Trichomonas Donne, 1836.
Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1866 Sues
trivittata, Beanea, Steindachner, 1902 .
Tropiphorus Schonherr, 1842. . .
tuberculata, Crania, Nilsson, 1826 .
Tuberculatus Briinnich, 1781 .
tuberculatus, Trilobus, Briinnich, 1781 .
tubifer, Siphamia, Weber, 1909
TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1905.
Tubulanus Renier, [1804]
Tylocidaris Pomel, 1883 see
Tylosteus Leidy, 1872 (Opinion 1371) .
undulatus, Byrrhus, Kugelann, 1792 (Opinion 1396)
vaginale, Tricomonas, Donné, 1836 .
vaginalis, Trichomonas, Donné, 1836
viridis, Laplisia, Bosc, 1801 . .
viridis, Laplysia, Montagu, 1804.
viverrinus, Dasyurus, (Shaw, 1800) .
wiedii, Poecilma, Germar, 1824 . .
wyomingensis, Troodon, Gilmore, 1931 (Opinion 1371)
xantholeuca, Doris (Glossodoris), Ehrenberg, 1831 (Opinion 1375)
Zeugophora Kunze, 1818 ee ii
Zygops Schoenherr, 1825 .
388
Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 43, pt 4, December 1986
CORRIGENDA
Vol. 42, part 1
page 19, line 8 (Opinion 1289)
Vol. 42, part 3
page 226, line 14 and
page 227, line 26
Vol. 42, part 4
page 355, line 15 (Opinion 1364)
Vol. 43, part 2
page 170, line 34
page 179, line 14
page 202, lines 11-12 of the
References
Vol. 43, part 3
page 253, line 4 (Opinion 1412)
page 265, line 41 (Opinion 1416)
for ‘sowerbiensis’ read ‘sowerbensis’.
for ‘Olsen’ read ‘Olson’.
for ‘Dumeril, 1953’ read ‘Duméril, 1853’.
for ‘Napomyza Fallén’ read ‘Phytomyza
Fallén’.
for ‘minuta Fabricius, 1744’ read ‘minuta
Fabricius, 1794’.
delete Reference reading ‘——1947.
Some new Cambrian Bellerophont
Gastropods. Smithson. Misc. Col. vol.
106, no. 17, pp. 1-11’.
for ‘ASCIDIAEA’ read ‘ASCIDIACEA’.
for ‘vernum, Simuliua’ read ‘vernum,
Simulia’.
PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED
Part No. Contents of Part
(pages)
1-114
115-220
221-314
315-388
WN
Date of Publication
9 April 1986
9 July 1986
6 October 1986
11 December 1986
INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER
The present volume should be bound up as follows:
T.P. I-VII, 1-388
Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the
volume.
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express
its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British
Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission.
)
CONTENTS
Notices. .
Special Announcements. . ACAI trae Si SSUES RN
Leg ilolitin CA tee iy 1.) eo MER US Ci ane RNG GMO We! Al
Publication of Official Lists . . GNM SERS ee Oh shee OL
P OiAMea UIP DORLAUT AMOS A hoo ak as al ahve. ie eee
Comments
pier AoA | Apanteles ornigis Weed, 1887 (Hymenoptera). R. A.
bape ee ait on » THRESKIORNITHIDAE Richmond, 1917 (Aves). W.J.
. . .
Opinions
Opinion 1418. Glyphipterix Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, ERO: ne
Opinion tat Democricetodon Fahlbusch, 1964 (Mammalia, Rodentia)
New and revived cases |
Liasis pus 1842 (Reptilia, Serpentes). A. F. Stimson & S. B. McDowell
five oe ok. 1848) (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). P. F. S. began:
‘ Calde by
Lycaena mirza Plétz, 1880 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). T.B. Larsen
Paraphytomyza Enderlein, 1936 (Insecta, Diptera). K. A. Spencer .
Heriaeus Simon, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneida). O. Kraus & A. Loerbroks
Trypanosoma brucei Plimmer & Bradford, 1899 (Protozoa, palace
phora).M.E.Tollitt . . . 2
Simulium austeni Edwards, 1915 (Insecta, Diptera). 1 is Rubtsov . .
Simulia ferruginea Wahlberg, 1844 (Insecta, Diptera). I. A. Rubtsov . .
ane Lael Lamarck, 1801 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). P. Doyle &
gra Set
Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes). M.Kottelat .
sina oot (Herbst, 1797) (Insecta, Coleoptera). R. D. Pope &
REM VERMA S TL ro Seana ate ay ci) Peas 60 a WA
Cornalatus Attems, 1931 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida). R. L. Hoffman .
_ Opius Wesmael, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). R.A. Wharton. .
Leptura marginata Fabricius, me ee Coleoptera). M.
Mroczkowski. . . i 4
Index to Authors. . . f a al bee
List of Decisions in this volume: . .
Names mui on Official Lists and Indexes in in Decisions 's published in this
WOMENE 4g ST a De Seeg
Index to Key Names ti Men OM, Sem ley EWS 7 SBE
Corri
Pane of the dates of publication of the several parts in which the
present volume was renny {a
Instructions to Binder . . Ae
id i a 1 ¥ h a tone ew hehe FP ¥ U
Lea A are iy ¥ Tear pg. cnet ; ‘d Pre! i be,
omy | ’ AT : a ? ah f aes
va 1} an 4 : feet ie
ay oa ei te RLY : e FG 7
: " ie ee! ’ 7 Tar 3%) ‘ “2
ba a oy » Py ‘= AQ > ‘a
j AD ‘ f > va
‘ Tats Bo) ry te <3?
is, Sree ‘ny a's eels
+ eile’ ie: Aw VE Be) 3 5
—_~ at Pat, cine Ay, Pa
Phe s+
<P. 4 PPM AA : : p
met OL eect Cd, ae WP x c
=<
)
4
7
é, J
} <
ap’ 4
Se ie
r
‘ ~
A
7 S
ae “ é re
. _
Loa p a
y AL: vi od ‘ ’ eo ‘=
a Fils (pas Sees = :
nee ad
THRE
ET Ae ON
‘i
his
in
Uy
:
Yao (U8) hee
OH eleR ii
Mi
Bay
Senn
Seite
is
i
pater
aR
Se ilalal eens
MAYAN
Ay
SN Unsere Ht)
SEAN eset
HN 5
ish oFits
Ate eWie
CAC ARN
Sasteat
Fay
sat
er)
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11