Bulletin of zoological nomenclature

Wi
hrc Paty
NAME oe
Danstuonts
Hadas

vale
Pre iret tote
Maa
UME Cl, ie
i
is ,
id
f

a 4
i

eae rly
th ity , ’ , if i
SON RSL) baer Mane ruta AU sh) ns
Ai Wai ‘ > a
eer

4

f

,

4
, , * f
'
erie aati?) $ 4 i ea
ely f ; Beit ; Sty ia)
fyi , y , MAG Lena
Nh lats : Cty } Oo ;

ae!
ls
Oth
Phy

a x th
‘ 4

resent Gy Hy

Mealy rath
ea UA ‘ ys ae
Stet hs sii ihe fee

mo
opty
Tye
Miia

The

Bulletin

Faclan ical
N ae ool

We ZI The Official Periodical

of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Volume 49, 1992

Published on behalf of the Commission by

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o The Natural History Museum

Cromwell Road

London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

ISSN 0007-5167
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

4
\
ys
aa 7 »
a *
i AN
-= ' F. \
Mm, ~
NETH SE
+4 “es , :
“
t-ss ‘i 7 ?
{ >
PMG
Conk e
ee

i
z

Lye in ms ial seal |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notices . ‘ :
The International Commission on 1 Zoological Nomenclature and its publications é
Addresses of members of the Commission . :

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — — Second Supplement to
190)". rik CI Netty PRR SAL EE

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies . 5

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints :

Applications

Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda): proposed conser-
vation in their accepted usage. B. Baturo } .

.Balea Gray, 1824 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. “iM ‘Warén :

Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of
Helix candiota Mousson, 1854 as the type species. F. Giusti & G. Manganelli

Lincus Stal, 1867 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation, and L. croupius
Rolston, 1983: proposed conservation of the specific name. L.H. Rolston .

Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation, and
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 : proposed designation of Staphylinus striatulus
Fabricius, 1792 as the type species. M.K. Thayer .

Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera pro-
posed conservation of the specific name. B. Aukema & M.L. Luff .

Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as ‘the
correct original spelling. R.B. Angus . :

Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. A. N. Nilsson

Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of
Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species; proposed conservation of
Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829; and proposed precedence of Mycetoporus over
Ischnosoma.J.M.Campbell. . .

Rhipidocystis. Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): proposed designation of
R. baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type species. S.V. Rozhnov !

Graptolithus clintonensis (currently Monograptus clintonensis; Graptolithina): pro-
posed attribution to Hall, 1852, and designation of a lectotype. D.K. Loydell

Monograptus crenulatus (currently Monoclimacis crenulata; Graptolithina): proposed
attribution of the specific name to Elles & Wood, 1911, and proposed designation of
a lectotype. D.K. Loydell, E.E. Bull & P. Storch . ‘

Scylliorhinus atlanticus Koefoed, 1927 (currently Apristurus atlanticus: Chondrichthyes,
Carcharhiniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. K. Nakaya & B.
Séret :

Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida): proposed conservation. S. G. ‘Lucas

Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed
conservation of both generic and specific names. I. Tattersall, E.L. Simons & M.
Vuillaume-Randriamanantena. . .

Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire, 1842 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed
conservation of the specific name. P.D. Jenkins & C.P. Groves

Comments

On the article Problems in the Nomenclature of Higher Taxonomic Categories by Ya.I.
Starobogatov. A.P. Rasnitsyn : d

On the proposed conservation in their accepted usage of the nominal taxa Bucephalus
Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda). C.B. Srivastava; D.I.
Gibson; O.N. Pugachev; J.C. Pearson

On the proposed suppression of the generic name Relemnites Lamarck, 1 799 (Mollusca,
Coleoidea), with a proposal that the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 be
ruled unavailable and be replaced by PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922. P.K. Tubbs .

62

66

II

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). B. Roth; A.G. Beu, B.A. Marshall& W.F.Ponder . .
On the proposed conservation of Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) as the correct spelling. D. Heppell hele

On the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed i in Pistoire abré epee
des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762) (Crustacea and
Insecta). D.R. Ragge; R.D. Pope; J. LaSalle

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906
(Crustacea, Branchiopoda). D. Belk . : :

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier,
1827. (Amphibia, Caudata) H.M. Smith.

On the proposed conservation of the generic and specific 1 names of Palaeopropithecus
ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates). E. Delson et al.

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1662. Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently
Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific names
conserved; and Placostylus Beck, 1837: L. fibratus designated as the type species .

Opinion 1663. sitesi 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Se
conserved .

Opinion 1664. RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): given precedence over
TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840.

Opinion 1665. Potamilus Rafinesque, "1818 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): not suppressed. L

Opinion 1666. Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and
Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta):
specific names conserved. .

Opinion 1667. Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): Chelifer
taierensis With, 1907 designated as the type species . .

Opinion 1668. Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): given
precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870. . . :

Opinion 1669. Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): ‘conserved . :

Opinion 1670. Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): specific
name conserved. .

Opinion 1671. Str ophomena de Blainville, 1824 (Brachiopoda): Leptaena - planumbona
Hall, 1847 designated as the type species. . .

Opinion 1672. Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 and dneuilla Schrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes,
Anguilliformes): placed on the Official List of Generic Names. :

Opinion 1673. LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): spelling
confirmed . .

Opinion 1674. THRESKIORNITHIDAEPoche, 1904(Aves, Ciconiiformes): given precedence
over PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 and EUDOCIMIDAE Bonaparte, 1854.

Instructions to Authors .

Notices . :

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — — Second Supplement to
1990n eo: ft

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — “Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies . :

Applications

Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Jsis
encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species. P. Alderslade . :

Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of
P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type species. M.F.L. Armengol & M.O. Mancenido .

Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (currently Melanella (Balcis) alba; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Waren ¢

112

Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation of
Amicytheridea triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species. S.C. Khosla, S.R. Jakhar &
M.H.Mohammed. . . ‘

Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 (currently Aquarius paludum; Insecta, Heteroptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. N.M. Andersen .

Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (usecta: Coleoptera):
proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. G.H. Nelson.

. TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE Robineau- Desvoidy,
1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of homonymy, and TACHYPORIDAE
MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over TACHINUSIDAE
Fleming, 1821. A.F. Newton, M.K. Thayer & C.W. Sabrosky :

Copromyza limosa*Fallén, 1820 (currently Leptocera (Rachispoda) limosa; Insecta,
Diptera): proposed replacement of lectotype, so conserving usage of the specific
name and also that of Leptocera ( Rachispoda) lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855). K.C. Kim
& J. Rohacek :

’ Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 (Insecta, Diptera) proposed replacement ‘of ‘the
holotype by a neotype. D. Grimaldi .

EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed " precedence over
GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829. W.N. Mathis & T. Zatwarnicki . .

Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation of C, lidastes propython
Cope, 1869 as the type species.C.R. Kiernan. . .

Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] (currently Wiarancetan pivaacae “Aves,
Procellariiformes): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by desig-
nation of a neotype. J.-F. Voisin et al. RR:

Comments

On the citation of names in Zoological Record as evidence of general scientific use. M.J.
Thorne

On the proposal tor remove e the homonymy between CLAVIDAE .e McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria,
Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D.L. Tippett

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus to Schlotheim,
1813, and the proposed Baba Lt ofa Seek y (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea).
Bo. Tozer :

On the proposed conservation of some generic. names first proposed i in Histoire abrégée
des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762). F.-T. Krell; S.J.
Brooks ,

On the proposed conservation of the neotype designation for “Paladin ‘eichw aldi
(Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825) (Trilobita). H.B. Whittington . ‘
On the proposed conservation of Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 and Glyptagnostus

Whitehouse, 1936 (Trilobita). A.W.A. Rushton; H.B. Whittington .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier,
1827 (Amphibia, Caudata). H.M. Smith. F

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, and ‘the
designation of a neotype for H. versicolor Le Conte, 1825 Cen. aaa H-M.
Smith, K.T: Fitzgerald & L.J. Guillette, Jr. . :

On the proposed conservation of the names Epicrium Wagler, 1 828 andi ICHTHYOPHIIDAE
Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona), and on the conservation of EPICRIIDAE
Berlese, 1885 (Arachnida, Acari).P.K.Tubbs. . .

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 (Reptilia,
Squamata). R.E. Ballinger; L.E. Brown; W.W. Tanner; R.C. Stebbins; J.B. Iverson;
D. Chiszar; C. Gans; A.P. Russell; L.J. Vitt Pe ee ces bly ger eee

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1675. Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea): Planaria lactiflorea Johnston,
1828 designated as the type species :

Opinion 1676. Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres):
Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & aprantins in Fischer, 1885 iene as the nee
species. Pot gt ene og tee oe erty :

Il

153

155

157

158

IV

Opinion 1677. Haustator Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved .

Opinion 1678. Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved, dnd
Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821“designated as the type species .

Opinion 1679. Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Arion “hortensis
Férussac, 1819 confirmed as the type species . .

Opinion 1680. Buthus vittatus Say, 1821 (currently Genivuroiles wet@ius)) Gentian
hentzi Banks, 1904 (currently Centruroides hentzi) and Buthus vittatus Guérin
Méneville, [1838] (currently Bothriurus vittatus) (Arachnida, ine nine”
namesconserved . . : sot

Opinion 1681. Vatellus Aubé, [1837] (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . way.

Opinion 1682. Plusia falcifera Kirby, 1837 (currently Anagrapha falcifera; Insecta,
Lepidoptera): specific name conserved

Opinion 1683. Simulium (Nevermannia) juxtacrenobium (Insecta, Diptera): specific name
first available from the intended original description by Bass & Brockhouse, 1990 .

Opinion 1684. Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): gender fixed as
masculine. .

Opinion 1685. Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): given precedence
over Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826 . .

Opinion 1686. Natrix gemonensis Laurenti, 1768 (currently Coluber pemanaatay
Coluber viridiflavus Lacépéde, 1789 and Coluber helveticus Lacépéde, 1789 em |
Natrix natrix helvetica) (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific names conserved . :

Opinion 1687. Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (Aves, Gruiformes): not suppressed .

Opinion 1688. Coccyzus euleriCabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): specificname conserved

Instructions to Authors .

Notices .

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — — Second Supplement to
1990 vp Keessties

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — ‘Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies .

Applications

Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, a, desi conservation of both
generic and specific names. D.R. Calder. SOUR:

Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 (currently | Upogebia ‘capensis: Crustacea,
Decapoda): proposed replacement of neotype, so conserving usage of capensis and
also that of G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently Upogebia africana). N. Ngoc-Ho &
GiG BE Pooress

Podisus Herrich- Schaeffer, 1851 (Insecta, Heteroptera): " proposed conservation of
P. vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 as the type species. D.B. Thomas & W.R.
Dolling :

ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820. (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over
CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819. H. Silfverberg :

Catocala connubialis Guenée, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of
the specificname.L.F.Gall. . . :

METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera), “METOPIINI Rafiray, 1904 (Insecta,
Coleoptera), and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of
homonymy. M.K. Thayer, A.F. Newton & T. Pape .

Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed ‘designation of
Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 as the type species. L.Ruz. . .

Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and Cynolebias splendens Myers, 1942
(Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conservation of the specific names.
C.J. Ferraris, Jr. & K.J. Lazara :

Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed designation of Pilimacnis
perplexa Feltes, 1991 as the type species. R.M. Feltes

159
160

184

187 .

191
194

196

200

205

207
209

Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation of the
specificname.R.G.Webb . .

Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed. place-
ment of both the generic and specific names on Official Lists, and Leptobrachium
parvum Boulenger, 1893 (currently Megophrys parva): proposed conservation of the
specific name. A. Dubois.

Anisolepis grilli Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia, “Squamata): proposed conservation ‘of the
specific name. R. Etheridge & E.E. Williams Se at att Bee ee

Comments

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). R.E. Petit & D. Wilson .

On the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859
(Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). J.K.
Tucker; D.R. Calder, L.D. Stephens & A.E. Sanders .

‘On the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed i in Histoire abrégée
des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762). L.B. Holthuis;
H. Silfverberg; P.K. Tubbs . ;

On the proposed conservation of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Prinus Linnaeus, 1767 and
Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera). P.K. Tubbs :

On the proposed suppression of the generic names Acrydium and Acridium, and. on the
conservation of Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). P.K. Tubbs

On the proposed conservation of the names Lincus Stal, 1867 and croupius Rolston,
1983 (Insecta, Heteroptera). L.B. Holthuis; L.H. Rolston . ; rae

On the proposed conservation of the generic name Helophorus Fabricius, Migs
(Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling. A. Smetana; G.N. Foster; A.F.
Newton, Jr.; J.A. Owen; P.J. Spangler; D.T. Bilton; H. Silfverberg . .

On the proposed conservation of Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera). t B.
Holthuis; V. Mahnert.

On the proposed conservation of the specific n names ‘of Cynolebias ‘Opalescens and
C. splendens, both of Myers (1942) (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes). A. Gentry

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 and
designation of a neotype re a M.R. Pee R.G. be vecsen
H. Griffith; R.G. Zweifel. :

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1689. Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): conserved. .

Opinion 1690. Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola
barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): lectotype designation confirmed . .

Opinion 1691. Polygyra Say, 1818 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Polygyra septemvolva Say,
1818 designated as the type species, and POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 given precedence
Over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 . Sod alyae gol eae i eR is ea

Opinion 1692. Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 and Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828
(Annelida, Polychaeta): conserved

Opinion 1693. Coccinella undecimnotata ‘Schneider, [1792] (currently Hippodamia
(Semiadalia) undecimnotata; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved

Opinion 1694. Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved .

Opinion 1695. Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes,
Cypriniformes): not conserved .

Opinion 1696. HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912(1865) (Aves, Procellariiformes): conserved

Instructions to Authors .

Notices .

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Ne

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second | Supplement to
1990 IS iio! ee ein ig. AMie 9 Tn) BF vhs, He

213

217

221

VI

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints .

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies .

Financial Report for 1991 .

Applications

Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation by the designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta Benson, 1842. F.
Naggs. .

Taningia danae Joubin, ‘1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): " proposed precedence 0 over
Taningia persica (Naef, 1923). M. Vecchione & C.F.E. Roper.

Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conser-
vation with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as the type species.
L.B. Holthuis

Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824, Somatodes Schénherr, 1840 and ‘the specific name
of Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation. R.T. Thompson. .

Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka: Osteichthyes, Cyprini-
formes): proposed conservation of the specific name. F.B. Cross & J.T. Collins. .

Mugil curema and M. liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. L. Alvarez-Lajonchere,
E. Trewavas & G.J. Howes. .

Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri: ‘Reptilia, Saurischia): pro-
posed replacement of the lectotype by a neotype. E.H. Colbert, A.J. Charig, P.
Dodson, D.D. Gillette, J.H. Ostrom & D. Weishampel .

Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed replacement of
inappropriate lectotype. A.J. Charig & B. H. Newman . :

Pseudoxyrhopus Gunther, 1881 (Reptilia, Serpentes): Pere conservation. HL M.
Smith, K.L. Williams, V. Wallach & D. Chiszar . Hale!

Comments

On the date of publication of John McCrady’s hydrozoan paper Gymnopthalmata of
Charleston Harbor. D.R. Calder, L.D. Stephens & A.E. Sanders; A.Gentry . . .

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. Giannuzzi-Savelli_.

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Melanella (Balcis) alba (Da
Costa, 1778) (Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. Giannuzzi-Savelli .

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus (Cephalopoda,
Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the designation of a lectotype. G. Tichy
On the proposed conservation of Chrysobothris and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829

(Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spellings. R.L. Westcott; S..Bily .

On the proposed replacement of the lectotype of Leptocera (Rachispoda) limosa
(Fallen, 1820) (Insecta, Diptera). T.A. Wheeler

On the proposed conservation of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida).
S. Bandyopadhyay. ; iSeries eh Ae

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1697. Chelifer museorum Leach, 1817 (currently Cheiridium museorum;
Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): specific name conserved . .

Opinion 1698. Brahmaea Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera Bombyx ¢ certhia
Fabricius, 1793 confirmed as the type species . ;

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 49 (1992) IM e

Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in ‘rulings of the Commission published in in
volume 49 (1992) . :

Key names and works i in Applications and Comments published in volume 49 (1992).

Instructions to authors . .

Publication dates and pagination of volume 49 (1992) .

Instructionsto binder . . sey ea

Table of Contents of volume 49 (1992) .

. é ati wv ~ sy?
Volume 49, Part 1, 26 March 1992 pp. 1-100 = | (N
| PR ee : ,

Bulletin

Pockosical
~ Nomenclature

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1992 is £75 or
$145, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers
President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Members
Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) Prof W. D.L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czechoslovakia; Heteroptera)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany; Arachnology) (Russia; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) | Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Secretariat

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)

Mr J.D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Miss D. Allan, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1992

reas eee ee CF i. Fe 1 y
t Soewr geared F ‘ ALL
bey ny agen “

“art

iUAY)

97 MAR 1992

4

a RY

~ o> %

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

— Volume 49, part 1 (pp. 1-100) 26 March 1992

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication,
‘but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting
comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions).

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience
wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 48, part 4 (published on 19 December 1991). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.
(1) Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 (currently Upogebia capensis; Crustacea,
Decapoda): proposed designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 2827).
N. Ngoc-Ho & G.C.B. Poore.

(2) Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of
Spiraxis mandarina Pfeiffer, 1855 as the type species. (Case 2833). F. Naggs.

(3) Mugil curema Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2834).
L. Alvarez-Lajonchere, E. Trewavas & G.J. Howes.

(4) Alestes Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): proposed

conservation. (Case 2835). J. Géry & V. Mahnert.

(5) Pleurobranchus testudinarius Cantraine, 1835 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed

conservation of the specific name. (Case 2838). W.B. Rudman.
(6) Wadicosa Zyuzin, 1985 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed designation of
Wadicosa commoventa Zyuzin, 1985 as the type species. (Case 2839).
A.A. Zyuzin.

(7) Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia, Saurischia):
proposed replacment of the lectotype by a neotype. (Case 2840). E.H. Colbert,
A.J. Charig, P. Dodson, D.D. Gillette, J.H. Ostrom & D. Weishampel.

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published
in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the
day of publication of the Bulletin.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its
publications

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895
by the Third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 29
zoologists from 19 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions
(including palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the
auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), and members are
elected by zoologists attending General Assemblies of [UBS or Congresses of its associ-
ated bodies. Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for
membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, which
is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names of
animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according to |
taxonomic judgements’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission.
Suggested amendments to the Code should be sent to the Secretariat.

Observance of the rules in the Code enables a biologist to arrive at the valid name for
any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and superfamily. Its
provisions can be waived or modified in their application to a particular case when
strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an indi-
vidual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission
takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications should follow
the instructions on the inside back cover of the Bulletin, and assistance will be given by
the Secretariat.

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It
contains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is
an invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which
may also be published. The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case ~
only after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin,
which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such
contributions may be sent to the Secretariat.

The Commission’s rulings are summarised in The Official Lists and Indexes of Names
and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895-1985 was published in
1987, and a free supplement covering 1986-1990 was issued in 1991. Copies may be
obtained from the Secretariat.

In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the
Commission’s Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may
have nomenclatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity (non-profit making
company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present based
in London, and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial
affairs of the Commission. The sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 3

Lists and Indexes) covers less than half of the costs of the service given to zoology by the
Commission. Support is given by academies, research councils, associations and
societies from a number of countries, and also by individuals, but despite this assistance
the level of income remains a severe restraint and donations to the Trust are gratefully
received.

For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities see BZN 48:
295-299 (December 1991).

Addresses of members of the Commission

Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027,

ULS.A.

Dr P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia
(Vice-President)

Prof J.O. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, U.S.A. (Councillor)

Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

Prof Dr G. HAHN Institut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-Universitdt, D-3550
Marburg, Germany

Prof DrO. HALVORSEN Zoological Museum, Sars GT, 1. N-0562 Oslo 5, Norway

Mr D. HEPPELL Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers
Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K.

Prof L.B. HOLTHUIS Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The
Netherlands

Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station,
Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5K6, Canada

Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King- Platz
3, D-2000 Hamburg 13, Germany (President)

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

Dr E. MACPHERSON Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08039 Barcelona,
Spain

Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 434, CH-1211 Geneve 6,
Switzerland

Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa
Postal 7172, 04263 Sao Paulo, Brazil

Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova,
Ttaly

Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhayn, Denmark

Dr I.W.B. NYE c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
(Secretary-General) ;

Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia

Dr J.M. SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables,
Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor)

Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER /Jnstitut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz,
Austria

Dr Y.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
naberezhnaya 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

Dr P. STYS Katedra zoologie, University Karlovy, Viniéna 7, 124 44 Praha 2, Czechoslovakia

Dr F.C. THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya naberezh-
naya 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunin-cho 3-23-1,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan

Prof A. WILLINK Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205,
4000 Tucuman, Argentina

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Members

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)

Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
Dr H.M.F.P.André

Dr Keiji Baba

Prof Per Brinck

Prof J.H. Callomon

Dr N.R. Chalmers

Dr H.G. Cogger

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius

Prof C.B. Cox

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S.
Dr R.W. Crosskey

Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B.

Prof J. Forest

Dr R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.I.Biol.

Prof L.B. Holthuis

Prof Dr O. Kraus

Dr M. Luc

Dr E. Macpherson

Mr R.V. Melville

Dr J.L. Norenburg

Dr I.W.B. Nye

Dr E.P.F. Rose

Dr G.B. White

Prof H.B. Whittington, F.R.S.

Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Royal Society)

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987.
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled
since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works have been added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional
entries, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume.
Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from
which the Official Lists and Indexes can also be ordered at the price shown (postage
included). Payment should accompany orders.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 5

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110

or

The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to
members of A.A.Z.N.)

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (Price
£19 or $35) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB
Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
(Price $35, or $32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany orders.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies

Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most volumes of the Opinions
and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are
still available. Prices on application to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

The subscription rate for the Bulletin (Vol. 49 for 1992) is £75 or $145. However, the
Trust is offering a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of
all cases in particular disciplines. For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will
receive copies of all Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to either the
Crustacea or the Mollusca as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature. Offprints are available back to 1980.

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD,
U.K.., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2251

Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda):
proposed conservation in their accepted usage

Barbara Baturo
Inland Fisheries Institute, ul. Oczapowskiego 10, 10-957 Olsztyn 5, Poland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve in their accepted usage the
generic and specific names of an important trematode parasite of freshwater fishes —
Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827. The name B. polymorphus was based on cercariae,
but it has been shown that these develop into the adult trematode first named as
Rhipidocotyle campanula (Dujardin, 1844), a senior synonym of R. illensis (Ziegler,
1883). A neotype for B. polymorphus is proposed to avoid transfer of this long
recognized name to R. campanula, with resulting confusion at both generic and specific
levels.

1. In European freshwater fishes two common species of trematodes of the family
BUCEPHALIDAE, known as Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827 and Rhipidocotyle
illensis (Ziegler, 1883), have been recognized. It had been assumed that the adult form
called Bucephalus polymorphus developed from the cercaria described under this name
by Baer in 1827, but the cercaria of the trematode now known by that name was not
described until recently, although it was figured by Kinkelin et al. (1968).

2. While studying the biology of these two species, both of which occur in Poland, I
examined bivalves (the first intermediate host), cyprinid fishes (the second inter-
mediate host) and predatory fishes (the definitive host). I found two different cercariae
from which I experimentally obtained the metacercariae of two species, but the meta-
cercariae of Rhipidocotyle illensis developed from cercariae identical with those
described by Baer as Bucephalus polymorphus. Detailed data on the morphology of all
developmental stages can be found in Baturo (1977).

3. Asa result of this study it has become necessary to set in order the names of these
two species of Trematoda. For stability of nomenclature it is necessary to maintain the

Anapplication for the conservation of the nominal taxa Bucephalus and B. polymorphus was received from
Dr Baturo on 27 February 1978. Extensive correspondence took place between her and the then Secretary of
the Commission (Mr R.V. Melville), and a revised version of her application was published in July 1979
(BZN 36: 30-36). A comment opposing Dr Baturo’s application was received from Dr C.B. Srivastava
(Zoological Survey of India) on 5 January 1981. Further extensive correspondence took place, with efforts to
reconcile points of difference between Dr Baturo and Dr Srivastava. This correspondence eventually lapsed
without publication of Dr Srivastava’s comment and without the Commission voting upon Dr Baturo’s
application. In view of its importance, the case has now been reopened. Dr Baturo’s application is here
reprinted with some modifications. A condensed version of Dr Srivastava’s comment is published on BZN
49: 62-66, together with comments in support of Dr Baturo’s application from Dr D.I. Gibson (Parasitic
Worms Division, The Natural History Museum, London), Dr O.N. Pugachev (Parasitic Worms Department,
Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg) and Professor J.C. Pearson (Department of
Helminthology, University of Queensland).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 7

name Bucephalus polymorphus, commonly used and accepted in all keys, textbooks and
monographs. The other species, which belongs to the genus Rhipidocotyle Diesing,
1858 (p. 313), should under the Principle of Priority be called R. campanula (Dujardin,
1844), although it has been known by the junior subjective synonym R. illensis (Ziegler,
1883). The history of the case is as follows.

4. Baer (1827, p. 570) established the genus Bucephalus for the new species
B. polymorphus (the type species by monotypy). He based the description on sporocysts
and cercariae from the bivalves Anodonta mutabilis and Unio pictorum.

5. In 1844 Dujardin described from the intestine of the pike (Esox /ucius) small
adult trematodes which he thought represented the same species as metacercariae
that he had earlier found on the branchia of Cyprinus idus. He classified them in
the genus Distoma Retzius, 1786 and gave them the new specific name campanula
" (p. 435). Dujardin’s description of the anterior organ suggests that he was dealing with
the adult trematode usually known by the name Rhipidocotyle illensis (Ziegler,
1883).

6. Siebold (1848) gave the first short description of an adult trematode from the
intestine of Perca fluviatilis and Lucioperca sp., and erected the new genus
Gasterostomum for it with the new species fimbriatum. Siebold expressed the assump-
tion that the cercaria described by Baer as Bucephalus polymorphus was a larva of this
adult stage.

7. Wagener (1852, 1857, 1858) gave a more accurate description of Gasterostomum
fimbriatum, together with drawings of the adult stages. He stated (1852) that
G. fimbriatum was characterised by five tentacles on the anterior organ. In his next work
(1857) he presented drawings and said that G. fimbriatum Siebold was probably a
synonym of Bucephalus polymorphus Baer. A year later Wagener considered
G. fimbriatum Siebold and Distoma campanula Dujardin to be synonyms of
B. polymorphus. He regarded G. fimbriatum Siebold as a sexually mature and tail-less
B. polymorphus Baer.

8. Ever since Wagener’s papers, the view has been adopted that the adult trema-
tode G. fimbriatum Siebold, characterised by the presence of long tentacles on the
sucker, develops from the cercariae described in 1827 under the name Bucephalus
polymorphus. Diesing questioned this view in 1858, but because of erroneous
interpretations by this author in other matters his works have not been taken into
account.

9. In 1883 Ziegler obtained metacercariae experimentally by infecting the cyprinid
Leuciscus erythrophthalmus with B. polymorphus cercariae developed in the mussel
Anodonta mutabilis from the Ille river. In describing and illustrating the material
obtained, he pointed out the morphological differences between the specimens reared
and G. fimbriatum Siebold, but he did not determine unequivocally the specific dis-
tinction of these two forms. He stipulated, however, that, in case the differences
observed by him should prove to be specific differences, he proposed to call the reared
form Gasterostomum illense (p. 542, footnote).

10. Lithe (1909) considered G. fimbriatum as a synonym of B. polymorphus Baer,
but the description and drawing included in the key correspond to i//ensis. Similarly,
Eckmann (1932) acknowledged the existence of only one species, recognising
G. fimbriatum as a synonym of B. polymorphus and questioning whether the form
obtained by Ziegler was a separate species. Eckmann (1932) also studied the type

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

specimens of Gasterostomum galeatum (Rudolphi, 1819) and G. minimum Wagener,
1852 and synonymized them, thereby making G. ga/eatum the valid name of the type
species of Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858.

11. A return to the former concept of the occurrence of more than one species of
BUCEPHALIDAE in European freshwater fishes dates from the work of Koval (1949), who
recorded two species in the fishes of the Dnieper river. She described one of them as a
new species, Bucephalus markewitschi (p. 206), and used the name B. polymorphus Baer
for the second species, which corresponds with G. illense Ziegler.

12. This taxonomic arrangement was not accepted. Vejnar (1956), for example,
asserting the existence of two species of trematodes in percid fishes, regarded the
form with tentacles as B. polymorphus Baer and identified the other species with the
forms described by Ziegler. He transferred this species to Rhipidocotyle, using the
combination Rhipidocotyle illense [sic] (Ziegler, 1883). Vejnar’s view was supported by
Kozicka (1959), who included in her work the history of the study of one of these
trematodes, together with detailed descriptions and drawings of adult worms of
both species. Kozicka treated the name B. markewitschi Koval as a synonym of
B. polymorphus Baer. The characters mentioned by Kozicka as differentiating the two
taxonomic species have become key characters and are quoted in all recent mono-
graphs and keys (e.g. Skrjabin, 1962; Yamaguti, 1971; Bykhovskaja-Pavlovskaja et al.,
1962; Ergens & Lom, 1970).

13. Dollfus (1968) discussed the problems of synonymy once again. Presenting the
documentation of the manuscript of the chapter on trematodes from Dujardin’s
L’Histoire naturelle des Helminthes, he drew attention to the similarity of the drawing
of Distoma campanula made by Dujardin to Rhipidocotyle illensis and proposed the
combination Rhipidocotyle campanula (Dujardin, 1845) as the valid name for this
species.

14. Kinkelin et al. (1968), in a study of the pathogenic effects of cercariae, presented
photographs of three developmental stages. Cercariae from the bivalve Dreissena
polymorpha differ from B. polymorphus cercariae from Anodonta mutabilis and Unio
pictorum drawn by Baer. The metacercariae and adults are characterised by finger-like
tentacles on the anterior sucker. Although the authors did not discuss this problem in
their paper, thanks to their correct documentation the adult stage with finger-like
tentacles on the anterior sucker (“Bucephalus polymorphus’ auct.) was for the first time
associated with its corresponding cercaria. My study (Baturo, 1977) confirms that these
are successive developmental stages of one species.

15. Thus, in accordance with the Principle of Priority, the species commonly known
as Rhipidocotyle illensis (Ziegler, 1883), whose adult develops from cercariae described
by Baer (1827), should bear the name polymorphus Baer, 1827, while the forgotten
name fimbriatum Siebold, 1848, should be restored for the species widely known as
Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827. At the same time, it would be necessary to regard
the generic name Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858, as a synonym of Bucephalus Baer, 1827,
and to use the forgotten name Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848 for the genus known at
present as Bucephalus.

16. The introduction of such changes in accordance with the Principle of Priority
would conflict with current usage. The key characters of trematodes are based on the
morphology of the adults and metacercariae, not on the cercariae. Likewise, most data
in the literature concern these two developmental stages. Both species are common

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 9

parasites of fishes and are widely met as metacercariae and adults. For many practising
parasitologists the cercariae from which the metacercariae and adults develop are often
unknown — as witness the paper by Kinkelin et al. (1968) in which the authors,
presenting adequate photographic documentation, did not observe the fact that they
were dealing with unknown cercariae. Strict application of the Principle of Priority to
the nomenclature of these common fish parasites would lead to much confusion and
erroneous identification of material.

17. Through the co-operation of Dr G. Hartwich, syntypes of G. fimbriatum
Siebold, 1848 have been found in the Zoological Museum, Humboldt University,
Berlin. By designating one of these as the lectotype of G. fimbriatum (and in 1979 I
designated microscopic preparation No. 1655b in the first printing of this paper in BZN
36: 33) and also as the neotype of Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827, stability of
" nomenclature can be achieved. The latter action, however, can only be taken by the
Commission under its plenary powers, because the proposed neotype is not ‘consistent
with what is known of the former name-bearing type’ as is required under Article
75d(4) of the Code.

18. Before putting precise proposals to the Commission, it is desirable to clarify the
status of the genus Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858. This was proposed by Diesing (1858,
pp. 313, 361) with two included species, Distoma gracilescens Rudolphi, 1819 (pp. 111,
409) and Gasterostomum minimum Wagener, 1852 (p. 558), neither of which was desig-
nated as type species. According to Eckmann (1932, p. 99), Stiles & Hassall (1908,
p. 358) were the first authors to cite a type species, and chose gracilescens. However,
Stiles & Hassall only said ‘(type probably gracilescens)’, and under Article 67c(3) that
cannot be accepted as a valid designation. Nicoll (1914, p. 490) definitely designated
Gasterostomum minimuin Wagener, 1852 (p. 558), and that stands as the first valid type
species designation for Rhipidocotyle. The valid name for this species is Rhipidocotyle
galeata (Rudolphi, 1819, p. 86).

19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimen for
the nominal species Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827 and to designate micro-
scopic preparation No. 1655bin the Zoological Museum, Humboldt University,
Berlin, as neotype of that species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Bucephalus Baer, 1827 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy

Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827;

(b) Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Nicoll, (1914) Gasterostomum minimum Wagener, 1852 (a
junior subjective synonym of Monostoma galeatum Rudolphi, 1819);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) polymorphus Baer, 1827, as published in the binomen Bucephalus poly-

morphus (specific name of the type species of Bucephalus Baer, 1827) and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) galeatum Rudolphi, 1819, as published in the binomen Monostoma galeatum
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of the type species of
Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858).

(c) campanula Dujardin, 1844, as published in the binomen Distoma campanula;

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848 (a junior objective synonym of
Bucephalus Baer, 1827);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name fimbriatum Siebold, 1848, as published in the binomen
Gasterostomum fimbriatum (a junior objective synonym of the specific name of
Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827).

Acknowledgements

I should like to express my gratitude to Miss G. Supel for her help in translating
my work and to Docent Dr hab M. Mroczkowski for his advice in formulating my
application.

References

Baer, K.E. von. 1827. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der niedern Thiere. Nova Acta Physico-Medica
Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiossorum, 13: 523-762.

Baturo, B. 1977. Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827 and Rhipidocotyle illense (Ziegler, 1883)
(Trematoda, Bucephalidae): morphology and biology of developmental stages. Acta
Parasitologica Polonica, 24: 203-220.

Bykhoyskaja-Pavlovskaja, I.E:, Gusev, A.V., Dubinina, M.N. & six others. 1962. [Key to parasites
of freshwater fish of the U.S.S.R.| Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, No. 80. 776 pp. Izdatel’stvo
Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow & Leningrad. [In Russian.]

Diesing, C.M. 1836. Monographie der Gattungen Amphistoma und Diplodiscus. Annalen des
Wiener Museums der Naturgeschichte, 1: 235-260.

Diesing, C.M. 1850. Systema Helminthum, vol. 1.679 pp. Braumiuller, Vindobonae.

Diesing, C.M. 1858. Revision der Myzhelminthen. Abtheilung: Trematoden. Sitzungsberichte
der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 32: 307-390.

Dollfus, R.P. 1968. Les trematodes de /’Histoire naturelle des Helminthes de Félix Dujardin
(1845). Mémoires du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, (A)54: 117-196.

Dujardin, F. 1844. Histoire naturelle des helminthes ou vers intestinaux. xvi, 654, 15 pp. Roret,
Paris.

Eckmann, F. 1932. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Trematodenfamilie Bucephalidae. Zeitschrift fiir
Parasitenkunde, 5: 94-111.

Ergens, R. & Lom, J. 1970. Puvodci parasitarnich nemoci ryb. 383 pp. Academia, Prague.

Kinkelin, P. de, Tuffery, G., Leynaud, G. & Arrigton, J. 1968. Etude épizootiologique de la
bucephalose larvaire 4 Bucephalus polymorphus (Baer 1827) dans le peuplement piscicole du
Bassin de la Seine. Recherches Vétérinaires, 1968(1): 77-98.

Koval, V.P. 1949. Novyj vid Bucephalus v rybak Dnepra. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 68:
205-208. [In Russian.]

Kozicka, J. 1959. Parasites of fishes of Druzno lake (Parasitofauna of the biocoenosis of Druzno
lake — part viii). Acta Parasitologica Polonica, 7:\—72.

Lithe, M. 1909. Parasitische Plattwiirmer. 1. Trematoden. Die Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands
(Ed. A. Brauer), 17: 1-217.

Nicoll, W. 1914. The trematode parasites of fishes from the English Channel. Journal of the
Marine Biological Association of the U.K., (2)10: 466—S05.

Poche, F. 1907. Einige Bemerkungen zur Nomenclatur der Trematoden. Zoologischer Anzeiger,
31: 124-126.

Rudolphi, C.A. 1819. Entozoorum synopsis, cui accedunt mantissa duplex et indices locupletissimi.
810 pp. Berlin.

Siebold, Th. C. 1848. Lehrbuch der vergleichende Anatomie der wirbellosen Tiere. xv, 679 pp.
Berlin.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 11

Skrjabin, K.I. 1962. Semejstvo Bucephalidae Poche, 1907. Trematody zhivotnykh i cheloveka (Ed.
K.I. Skrjabin), Izd. A.N. SSSR, 20: 183-551. Moscow & Leningrad. [In Russian. ]

Stiles, C.W. & Hassall, A. 1908. Index-catalogue of medical and veterinary zoology. Subjects:
Trematoda and trematode diseases. 398 pp. Washington, D.C.

Vejnar, F. 1956. Prispevek k helminthofaune nasich okounovitych ryb. Sbornik Vysoke Skoly
Zemedelske a Lesnicke Fakulty v Brne, (B)25: 161-176.

Wagener, G.R. 1852. Enthelminthica No. III. Ueber Distoma dimorphum Diesing. Distoma
marginatum Rud. Archiv fiir Anatomie, Physiologie und Wissenschaftliche Medizin, 1852:
555-569.

Wagener, G.R. 1857. Beitrage zur Entwicklungs-Geschichte der Eingeweidewiirmer. Natuur-
kundige Verhandelingen van der Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem,
13: 1-112.

Wagener, G.R. 1858. Enthelminthica No. IV. Ueber Distoma campanula (Gasterostoma
fimbriatum Siebold) Duj. und Monostoma bipartitum Wedl. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 24:
250-256.

Yamaguti, S. 1971. Synopsis of digenetic trematodes of vertebrates, vol. 1, 1074 pp.; vol. 2, 349 pls.
Keigaku, Tokyo.

Ziegler, H.E. 1883. Bucephalus und Gasterostomum. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie,
39: 537-571.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2247

Balea Gray, 1824 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation

Anders Waren

Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Sektionen for Evertebratzoologi, Box 50007,
S-10405 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Balea Gray, 1824,
currently in use for a genus of pulmonate gastropods of Europe, the Azores and the
Canary Islands (family CLAUSILIDAE Morch, 1864, subfamily BALEINAE). The name has
been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 335) but is
threatened by the senior objective synonym Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778, for which
suppression is proposed. During the last 70 years the name Strombiformis has been
occasionally and invalidly used for a prosobranch genus, correctly named Eulima
Risso, 1826 (family EULIMIDAE Philippi, 1853, which includes more than 4,000 species,
world-wide, all parasitic on echinoderms).

1. Risso (1826, p. 123) proposed the generic name Eulima and included four nominal
species, including (p. 123, pl. 4, fig. 39) Helix subulatus *Brocchi, 1814’, but he did not
designate a type. Brocchi (1814, p. 305, pl. 3, figs. Sa, b) treated subulatus as though it
were a new species but it is probable that he was referring to Turbo subulatus Donovan,
1804 (pl. 172, text), an unnecessary replacement name for Strombiformis glaber Da
Costa, 1778 (p. 117). Brocchi’s illustrated specimen of subulatus, from the Italian
Neogene, was figured by Pinna & Spezia (1978, p. 141, pl. 26, figs. 4, 4a). Ihave examined
Brocchi’s specimens in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Milan, and cannot dis-
tinguish them from the Recent species S. glaber Da Costa, 1778. Herrmannsen (1847
(April), p. 431) designated Turbo subulatus Donovan (i.e. S. glaber) as the type species
of Eulima. Later designations of the nominal species Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (p.
767) by Gray (1847 (November), p. 160) and by Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus
(1883, p. 188) as the type of Eulima are invalid; moreover, politus was not a species
originally included in the genus. A search in several museums in the U.K. failed to
reveal any type material of either Strombiformis glaber or Turbo subulatus Donovan,
1804 and I designated a specimen from south Devon (Norman collection) in the
Natural History Museum, London as neotype of both nominal taxa (no. BM(NH)
1911.10.26.28452; see Warén, 1989, p. 220, pl. 26, figs. 1, 2). The species has recently
been figured (Fretter & Graham, 1982, fig. 295; Waren, 1984a, figs. 76, 77; Waren,
1984b, figs. 78, 79). No specimens of Risso have been found in the Muséum National
d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, where most of the Risso collection is kept, and the species
was not mentioned by Arnaud (1978).

2. The name Balea was proposed by Gray (1824, p. 61) for pulmonate gastropods
(family CLAUSILIDAE). Gray included three species, among them Pupa fragilis
Draparnaud, 1801 (p. 64), and placed Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 767) in the
synonymy of fragilis (inappropriately in view of the dates). Herrmannsen (1846, p. 103)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 13

designated T. perversus Linnaeus, the senior synonym, as the type species of Balea. The
name Balea was placed on the Official List of Generic Names (Opinion 335, March
1955) with Pupa fragilis Draparnaud, 1801 incorrectly given as the type species.

3. Harris(1894, p. 31) designated Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species
of Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778 (p. 107), a name introduced for a genus of nine
species, including perversus and Strombiformis glaber Da Costa, 1778. Harris noted: ‘In
1778 Da Costa employed the name Strombiformis to designate certain land and marine
mollusca, his first species, and therefore the type of the genus, being Turbo perversus
Linn.’. This is a valid designation, although the reason given for the choice of type
species is not mandatory today (see Recommendation 69B(11) of the Code), and
renders Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778 a senior objective synonym of Balea Gray, 1824.
_ The name Balea has consistently been used for the genus and has appeared in popular
field guides as well as works on taxonomy, ecology and distribution (see, for example,
the following representative recent publications: Kerney, Cameron & Jungbluth
(1983), Pfleger & Chatfield (1983), Abbott (1989, p. 68) and Vaught (1989, p. 84)). The
name Strombiformis has never been used for the genus typified by perversus and I
propose that it be suppressed.

4. Iredale (1915, p. 293) did not recognise Harris’s (1894) type designation and
selected Strombiformis glaber Da Costa, 1778, the type species of Eulima Risso, 1826
(see para. | above), as the type species of Strombiformis. Among later treatments of the
EULIMIDAE, Winckworth (1934, p. 12), Wenz (1940, p. 833), Fretter & Graham (1962,
pp. 643, 662), Keen (1971, p. 443), Powell (1979, p. 138) and Graham (1988, p. 520) did
not include Strombiformis as a valid name in the family. On the other hand, Thiele
(1929, p. 227), Dell (1956, p. 79) and Abbott (1974, p. 126) adopted Strombiformis in
the EULIMIDAE, with S..glaber Da Costa as the type species. Vaught (1989, p. 41)
doubtfully included Strombiformis in the EULIMtDAE. In revisions of the family (Warén,
1984b, p. 43; Bouchet & Warén, 1986, p. 318) I urged that Harris’s valid type desig-
nation for Strombiformis should be followed to avoid nomenclatural confusion con-
cerning Eulimaas the valid name for the genus. Suppression of the name Strombiformis
would further stabilise usage of Eulima.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Strombiformis Da Costa,
1778 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 Eulima
Risso, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Herrmannsen (1847) Turbo subulatus Donovan, 1804 (an unnecessary
replacement name for Strambiformis glaber Da Costa, 1778);

(3) to amend the entry for Balea Gray, 1824 on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology to record the type species as Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758 by
subsequent designation by Herrmannsen (1846);

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name glaber Da
Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Strombiformis glaber (senior objective
synonym of the specific name of Turbo subulatus Donovan, 1804, the type species
of Eulima Risso, 1826);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778, as suppressed in (1) above.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

References

Abbott, R.T. 1974. American seashells, Ed. 2. 663 pp., 24 pls. Van Nostrand, New York.

Abbott, R.T. 1989. Compendium of landshells. A color guide to more than 2,000 of the world’s
terrestrial shells. 240 pp. American Malacologists Inc., Melbourne, Florida.

Arnaud, P.M. 1978. Revision des taxa malacologiques Méditerranéens introduits par Antoine
Risso. Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Nice, 5: 101-150.

Bouchet, P. & Waren, A. 1986. Revision of the northeast Atlantic bathyal and abyssal Aclididae,
Eulimidae, Epitoniidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Bollettino Malacologico Supplemento, 2:
297-576.

Brocchi, G. 1814. Conchiologia fossile subapennina con osservazioni geologiche sugli apenninie sul
suolo adiacente, vol. 2. Pp. 241-712, 16 pls. Stamperia Reale, Milano.

Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1883. Les mollusques marins du Roussillon, vol. 1,
part 4. Pp. 137-195. Paris.

Da Costa, E.M. 1778. Historia naturalis testaceorum Britanniae or, the British conchology... xii,
254, vii pp., 17 pls. Published by the author, London.

Dell, R.K. 1956. The archibenthal Mollusca of New Zealand. Bulletin of the Dominion Museum,
Wellington, 18: 1-235.

Donovan, E. 1804. The natural history of British shells, vol. 5. Pls. 145-180. Published by the
author & Rivington, London.

Draparnaud, J. 1801. Tableau des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 116 pp. Renaud,
Montpellier.

Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1962. British prosobranch molluscs. 755 pp. Ray Society, London.

Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1982. The prosobranch molluscs of Britain and Denmark. Part 7
(‘Heterogastropoda’). Journal of Molluscan Studies Supplement, 11: 363-434.

Graham, A. 1988. Molluscs: prosobranch and pyramidellid gastropods. Synopses of the British
Fauna, new series, 2(Ed.2): 1-662.

Gray, J.E. 1824. On Balea. Zoological Journal, 1: 61-62.

Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of
the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. 7

Harris, G.F. 1894. On the alternation of the generic name Clausilia. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 1(2): 31.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846, 1847. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia, vol. 1. Pp. xxvii, 1-232
(1846); Pp. 233-637 (1847). Fischer, Cassellis.

Iredale, T. 1915. Some more misused molluscan generic names. Proceedings of the Malacological
Society of London, 11(5): 291-306.

Keen, A.M. 1971. Sea shells of tropical West America, Ed. 2. xiv, 1064 pp., 22 pls. Stanford
University Press, Stanford.

Kerney, M.P., Cameron, R.A.D. & Jungbluth, J.H. 1983. Die Landschnecken Nord- und
Mitteleuropas. 384 pp., 24 pls., 368 distribution maps. Parey, Hamburg.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Morch, O.A.L. 1864. Fortegnelse over de i Danmark forekommende Land- og Ferskvands-
bléddyr. Videnskablige Meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske Forening i Kjdbenhayn, 1863:
265-367.

Philippi, R.A. 1853. Handbuch der Conchyliologie und Malacozoologie. xx, 548 pp. Anton, Halle.

Pinna, G. & Spezia, L. 1978. Catalogo dei tipi del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano. V. I
tipi dei gasteropodi fossili. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico
di Storia Naturale di Milano, 119(2): 125-180.

Pfleger, V. & Chatfield, J. 1983. A guide to snails of Britain and Europe. 216 pp. Hamlyn, London.
[Published in German (1984) and French (1989)].

Powell, A.W.B. 1979. New Zealand Mollusca. xiv, 500 pp., 82 pls. Collins, Auckland.

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe méridionale et
particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4 (Apergu sur
histoire naturelle des mollusques... et des coquilles; Observations sur différents
annelides...). 439 pp., 12 pls. Levrault, Paris.

Thiele, J. 1929. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1, part 1. Pp. 1-376. Fischer,
Stuttgart.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 15

Vaught, K.C. 1989. 4 classification of living Mollusca. xii, 189 pp. American Malacologists Inc.,
Melbourne, Florida.

Waren, A. 1984a. An anatomical description of Eulima bilineata Alder with remarks on and a
revision of Pyramidelloides Nevill (Mollusca, Prosobranchia, Eulimidae). Zoologica
Scripta, 12(4): 273-294.

Waren, A. 1984b. A generic revision of the family Eulimidae (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia).
Journal of Molluscan Studies Supplement, 13: 1-96.

Waren, A. 1989. Designation of neotypes of ‘Melanella alba (Da Costa, 1778)’ and ‘Eulima glabra
(Da Costa, 1778)’. Journal of Conchology, 33(4): 219-224.

Wenz, W. 1940. Gastropoda. Prosobranchia. Jn Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der
Paldozoologie, vol. 6, Teil 4, Lieferung 6. Pp. 721-960. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Winckworth, R. 1934. Names of British marine Mollusca. 2. Journal of Conchology, 20(1): 9-15.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2634

Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
designation of Helix candiota Mousson, 1854 as the type species

F. Giusti & G. Manganelli

Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4,
I-53100 Siena, Italy

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Helix candiota Mousson,
1854, an originally included nominal species, as the type species of the terrestrial snail
genus Yeromunda (HYGROMIIDAE). The name of the present type species, Helix turbinata
Cristofori & Jan, 1832, is indeterminate but referred to Sicilian material, whereas
Xeromunda was based on Greek specimens.

1. Monterosato (1892, p. 25) established Yeromunda for a group of the “Xerophilae’
living in mainland Greece and ‘Siria’ (Syra, one of the Cyclades islands), and placed in
it ‘H. turbinata, Candiota’. Xerophilae was a vernacular name derived from Xerophila
Held, 1837, and not a family-group name. In the same year ‘Hel. turbinata’ was desig-
nated as the type species in an anonymous (but believed to be written by Kobelt, the
editor of the Nachrichtsblatt) report (1892, p. 152) of the Monterosato paper.

2. Although Monterosato and Kobelt did not specify the authorship of the Helix
turbinata referred to, it is clear that it must have been the one usually known at the time
as H. turbinata Cristofori & Jan, 1832, or more simply as H. turbinata Jan. They could
not have intended to refer to H. turbinata Gmelin, [1791] (p. 3668) or Deshayes, 1830
(p. 265), because those do not belong to the ‘Xerophilae’, and H. variabilis Cafici, 1883
(p. 32), which included a ‘var. turbinata’, was placed by Monterosato in a different
‘group’ of the Xerophilae, namely Xerolauta Monterosato, 1892 (p. 23).

3. Helix turbinata Cristofori & Jan, 1832 was described (Conchylia, p. 4, locality;
Mantissa, p. 2, description) as living in Sicily. No type material exists, since the
collection of Cristofori and Jan in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in Milan was
destroyed in the second world war. The original description is very brief, and might
include many species, e.g. of Cernuella Schliter, 1838. Xeromunda, on the other hand,
was based on Greek specimens (the Monterosato collection in the Museo Civico di
Storia Naturale in Rome contains only Greek material), and Mousson (1854, p. 10) had
described Helix candiota from Greek localities as a species distinct from H. turbinata of
Sicily; he regarded the latter as a synonym of H. aradasii Pirajno di Mandralisca, 1842
(p. 6). Mousson pointed out that Pfeiffer (see, for example, 1848, p. 155) had used the
name ‘turbinata Jan’ for Greek specimens. K obelt (1877, pp. 106-107), while recogniz-
ing that H. turbinata had been based on Sicilian specimens, nevertheless on the grounds
of usage continued to use the name for the Greek species: it was presumably in this
(Greek) sense that he meant ‘Hel. turbinata’ when in 1892 he designated the type species
of Xeromunda. The identity of H. turbinata Cristofori & Jan and H. aradasii has been
disputed, and since Pfeiffer various workers have used H. turbinata for Sicilian and/or

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 17

Greek material. This name is not only a junior primary homonym but is also indetermi-
nate, and it has a confused history (see Manganelli & Giusti, 1989; further details have
been given to the Commission Secretariat).

4. It is therefore recommended that Helix candiota Mousson, 1854 (p. 10) be desig-
nated as the’ type species of Xeromunda. This is the earliest available name for the
species named ‘H. turbinata, Candiota’ by Monterosato when he proposed Xeromunda
and that meant by Kobelt when he designated turbinata as the type species. The desig-
nation of H. candiota is in accordance with past and current usage of Xeromunda
(Hesse, 1934; Fuchs & Kaufel, 1936; Clerx & Gittenberger, 1977; Hausdorf, 1988,
1990; Manganelfi & Giusti, 1989).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892, and to designate Helix candiota
Mousson, 1854 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Xeromunda
Monterosato, 1892 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Helix candiota Mousson, 1854;

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

- Mousson, 1854, as published in the binomen Helix candiota (specific name of the
type species of Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892).

References

Cafici, C. 1883. Note su alcune conchiglie terrestri della Sicilia. // Naturalista Siciliano, 2: 29-33.

Clerx, J.P.M. & Gittenberger, E. 1977. Eniges tiber Cernuella (Pulmonata, Helicidae).
Zoologische Mededelingen, 52: 27-56.

Cristofori, J. De & Jan, G. 1832. Catalogus in IV sectiones divisus rerum naturalium in Museo
exstantium Josephi De Cristofori et Georgii Jan... Sectio Ifa. Conchyliologia. (Conchylia
terrestrium et fluviatilia, 8 pp.; Mantissa, 4 pp.). Carmignani, Parma.

Deshayes, G.P. 1830. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des vers, vol. 2. vii, 594 pp.
Agasse, Paris.

Fuchs, A. & Kaufel, F. 1936. Anatomische und systematische Untersuchungen an Land- und
Siisswasserschnecken aus Griechenland und von den Inseln des Agdaischen Meeres. Archiv
ftir Naturgeschichte, (2)5(4): 541-662.

Gmelin, G.F. [1791]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes).
Pp. 3021-3910. Lugduni.

Hausdorf, B. 1988. Zur Kenntnis der systematischen Beziehungen einiger Taxa der Helicellinae
Ihering 1909 (Gastropoda: Hygromiidae). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 119(1—3): 9-37.
Hausdorf, B. 1990. Die Xeromunda-Arten des griechischen Festlandes (Gastropoda:

Hygromiidae). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 119(4-6): 107-132.

Hesse, P. 1934. Zur Anatomie und Systematik palaearktischer Stylommatophoren. Zoologica
(Stuttgart), 33 (Heft 85): 1—S9.

Kobelt, W. 1877. Jn Rossmassler, E.A., Jconographie der Land- und Stisswasser-Mollusken, mit
vorztiglicher Berticksichtigung der europdischen noch nicht abgebildeten Arten, vol. 5. 129 pp..,
30 pls. Kreidel, Wiesbaden.

[Kobelt, W.] 1892. Literaturbericht. Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malacozoologischen
Gesellschaft, 24(7-8): 149-152.

Manganelli, G. & Giusti, F. 1989. Notulae Malacologicae, XLIII. Xeromunda Di Maria Di
Monterosato in Italy (Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). Bollettino Malacologico, 25: \—22.

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Monterosato, T.A. (Di Maria di). 1892. Molluschi terrestri delle isole adiacenti alla Sicilia. Atti
della Regia Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Belle Arti di Palermo, (3)2: 1-33.

Mousson, A. 1854. Coquilles terrestres et fluviatiles, recueillies par M. le Prof. Bellardi dans un
voyage en Orient. 59 pp. Zurcher & Furrer, Zurich.

Pfeiffer, L. 1848. Monographia Heliceorum viventium..., vol. 1. xxii, 484 pp. Brockhaus, Lipsiae.

Pirajno di Mandralisca, E. 1842. Nota di talune specie di Molluschi terrestri e fluviatili di Sicilia.
Giornale di Scienze, Lettere e Arti della Sicilia, 230: 1-10.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 19

Case 2798

Lincus Stal, 1867 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation, and
L. croupius.Rolston, 1983: proposed conservation of the specific name

’ L.H. Rolston

Department of Entomology, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station,
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70803, U.S.A.

- Abstract. The main purpose of this application is the conservation of the shield bug

generic name Lincus Stal, 1867 (PENTATOMIDAE) by the suppression of the unused senior
subjective synonym Audinetella Spinola, 1850. Species of Lincus are vectors of diseases
of cultivated palms in South America caused by flagellates (Phytomonas sp.). One of
these species is L. croupius Rolston, 1983, and the conservation of its specific name by
the suppression of the unused subjective synonym bipunctata Spinola, 1850 is also
proposed.

1. Spinola (1850, p. 86) described the genus Audinetella (see also p. 35) with the
single included species Audinetella bipunctata (p. 88).

2. The two female syntypes of Audinetella bipunctata, preserved in the Museo
Regionale di Scienze Naturale, Turin (Casale, 1981, p. 56), are not conspecific. One is
Lincus croupius Rolston, 1983 (p. 12) and the other a Paralincus species that is
apparently unnamed. Spinola’s description, however, fits only Lincus croupius in
several critical characters. He described the species as 10 mm in length, the 2nd and 3rd
antennal segments as subequal in length, the anterior prothoracic angles as lobate
(emphasizing this character by italics), and the legs as unarmed. The Lincus croupius
specimen is 10.9 mm in length, the 2nd and 3rd antennal segments are each | mm, the
anterior prothoracic angles are lobate, and the legs are unarmed. By contrast, the
Paralincus sp. specimen is 13.5 mm long, the 2nd antennal segment is 1.7 mm in length
and the 3rd is 1.1 mm, the anterior prothoracic angles are small and triangular, and all
femora are armed with numerous tubercles. Therefore, there is no doubt that the
binomen Audinetella bipunctata applies to the Lincus croupius specimen, and it is indeed
possible that the Paralincus specimen was added at a later date by a person unknown.

3. Audinetella Spinola, 1850 is senior to both Lincus Stal, 1867 (p. 524; type species
by monotypy Pentatoma rufospilota Westwood, 1837, p. 44) and Paralincus Distant,
1911 (p. 246). However, the name Audinetella and the specific name of A. bipunctata
have not appeared in the primary literature since the original description.

4. There is a considerable number of systematic papers in which Lincus has been
used as a valid name (Stal, 1867, 1872; Distant, 1899, 1900; Breddin, 1904, 1908;
Rolston, 1981, 1983, 1989; and Dolling, 1984). There are 35 described species in the
genus and some of these are known or suspected vectors of palm diseases caused by
flagellates (Phytomonas sp.). In the past few years considerable work has been done on
vector species of Lincus (Perthuis, Desmier de Chenon & Merland, 1978, 1985; Desmier

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

de Chenon, 1984; Perthuis, 1985; Louise, Dollet & Mariau, 1986; Liceras & Liceras de
Hidalgo, 1987; Dollet & Wallace, 1987; Couturier & Kahn, 1989; Llosa, Couturier, &
Kahn, 1990; Rasplus, Pluot-Sigwalt, Llosa & Couturier, 1990). Several of these papers
report Lincus croupius Rolston, 1983 asa vector of ‘hartrot’ of coconut palms. Since the
names Lincus and croupius are in current use in both taxonomic and applied literature
their replacement by the unused senior subjective synonyms Audinetella and bipunctata
would be disruptive.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

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

(a) the generic name Audinetella Spinola, 1850;
(b) the specific name bipunctata Spinola, 1850, as published in the binomen
Audinetella bipunctata;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lincus Stal,
1867 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Pentatoma rufospilota
Westwood, 1837;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) rufospilota Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen Pentatoma-

rufospilota (specific name of the type species of Lincus Stal, 1867);
(b) croupius Rolston, 1983, as published in the binomen Lincus croupius;

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Audinetella Spinola, 1850, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name bipunctata Spinola, 1850, as published in the binomen Audinetella
bipunctata and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

Acknowledgement
W.R. Dolling provided a photocopy of Spinola’s 1850 separates and reprints of his own
papers on Lincus.

References

Breddin, G. 1904. Neue Rhynchotenausbeute aus Sid-Amerika. Societas Entomologica, 18(20):
153-154.

Breddin, G. 1908. Beitrage zur Systematik der Pentatomiden Sidamerikas. Zweites Stick.
Sitzungs-Berichten der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1908: 24—36.

Casale, A. 1981. Cataloghi. IT. Collezione Emitterologica di Massimiliano Spinola. 120 pp. Museo
Regionale de Scienze Naturale, Torino.

Couturier, G. & Kahn, F. 1989. Bugs of Lincus spp. vectors of Marchitez and Hartrot (oil palm
and coconut diseases) on Astrocaryum spp., Amazonian native palms. Principes, 33(1):
19-20.

Desmier de Chenon, R. 1984. Recherches sur le genre Lincus Stal, Hemiptera Pentatomidae
Discocephalinae, et son role éventuel dans la transmission de la Marchitez du palmier a huile
et du Hart-Rot du cocotier. Oléagineux, 39(1): 1-6.

Distant, W.L. 1899. XLIX. Rhynchotal notes. III. Heteroptera: Discocephalinae and
Pentatominae (part). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)4(24): 421-445.

Distant, W.L. 1900. Contributions to a knowledge of the Rhynchota. II. Rhynchota of Central
America. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 1900: 687-695.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 21

Distant, W.L. 1911. XXVIII. Rhynchotal Notes. LIII. Neotropical Pentatomidae. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, (8)7(39): 242-258.

Dollet, M. & Wallace, F.G. 1987. Compte rendu du premier Phytomonas workshop — Cayenne,
Mars 1987. Oléagineux, 42(12): 461-468.

Dolling, W.R. 1984. Pentatomid bugs (Hemiptera) that transmit a flagellate disease of cultivated
palms in South America. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 74: 473-476.

Liceras, L. & Liceras de Hidalgo, J. 1987. Lincus sp. (Hem.: Pentatomidae), agente vector de la
‘marchitez subita’ de la palma aceitera en el Peru. Revista Peruana de Entomologia, 30:
103-104.

Llosa, J.F., Couturier, G. & Kahn, F. 1990. Notes on the ecology of Lincus spurcus and
L. malevolus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae: Discocephalinae) on Palmae in forests of
Peruvian Amazonia. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)26(2): 249-254.

Louise, C., Dollet, M. & Mariau, D. 1986. Recherches sur le Hartrot du cocotier, maladie a
Phytomonas (Trypanosomatidae) et sur son vecteur Lincus sp. (Pentatomidae) en Guyane.
Oléagineux, 41(10): 437-449.

Perthuis, B., Desmier de Chenon, R. & Merland, E. 1978. Revelation of the Marchitez sorpresiva
vector of the oil palm—the bug Lincus lethifer Dolling (Hemiptera Pentatomidae
Discocephalinae). Oléagineux, 33(5): 216-217.

Perthuis, B., Desmier de Chenon, R. & Merland, FE. 1985. Mise en évidence du vecteur de la
Marchitez sorpresiva du palmier a huile, la punaise Lincus lethifer Dolling (Hemiptera
Pentatomidae Discocephalinae). Oléagineux, 40(10): 473-475.

Rasplus, J.-Y., Pluot-Sigwalt, D., Llosa, J.F. & Couturier, G. 1990. Hexacladia linci,
n. sp. (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) endoparasite de Lincus malevolus Rolston (Heteroptera:
‘Pentatomidae) au Pérou. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)26(2): 255-263.

Rolston, L.H. 1981. Ochlerini, a new tribe in Discocephalinae (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae).
Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 89(1): 40-42.

Rolston, L.H. 1983. A revision of the genus Lincus Stal (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae:
Discocephalinae: Ochlerini). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 91(1): 1-47.

Rolston, L.H. 1989. Three new species of Lincus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from palms. Journal
of the New York Entomological Society, 97(3): 271-276.

Spinola, M. 1850. Tavola sinottica dei generi spettanti alla classe degli insetti arthrodignati Hemip-
tera Linn., Latr. Rhyngota Fabr., Rhynchota Burm. 138 pp. Camera, Modena.

Stal, C. 1867. Bidrag till Hemipterernas Systematik. Conspectus generum Pentatomidum
Americae. Ofversigt af Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, 24(7):
522-532.

Stal, C. 1872. Enumeratio Hemipterorum. 2. Enumeratio cimicinorum Americae. Kongliga
Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 10(4): 3-65.

Westwood, J.O. 1837. A catalogue of Hemiptera in the collection of the Rev. F.W. Hope with short
Latin descriptions of new species, part 1. 46 pp. London.

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2764

Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation,
and Coprophilus Latreille, 1829: proposed designation of Staphylinus
striatulus Fabricius, 1792 as the type species

Margaret K. Thayer

Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the names
Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 and Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 for genera of rove beetles
(STAPHYLINIDAE). Acrolocha is threatened by the senior objective synonym Elonium
Leach in Samouelle, 1819, a name that has caused confusion because it has been used
for two completely different taxa, Acrolocha and Coprophilus in the OMALIINAE and
OXYTELINAE respectively. The usage of Coprophilus is maintained by the proposed —
designation of Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792 as the type species.

1. Leach in Samouelle (1819, p. 175) erected the new genus Elonium, giving
Omalium striatum as its type and only included species; he did not cite an author’s name
with the species. The name Elonium has been credited to Samouelle by some subsequent
authors.

2. Stephens (1829a, p. 25) and Curtis (1829, col. 29) both placed Omalium striatum
Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 119) in Omalium Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 111) and Staphylinus
striatulus Fabricius, 1792 (p. 525) in Elonium, apparently regarding Leach’s citation
of the former species as an error for the latter. Stephens (1833, col. 108; 1834,
p. 349) continued to place O. striatum Gravenhorst in Omalium and (1833, col. 107)
S. striatulus Fabricius in Elonium (although he treated Elonium as a synonym of
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829; see para. 3). :

3. Latreille (1829, p. 439) erected the new genus Coprophilus, with ‘Omalium
rugosum Gravenhorst’ as the only species named. Gravenhorst (1802, p. 115) attributed
Staphylinus rugosus (placed in Omalium) to Olivier (1795; genus no. 42, p. 30), who in
turn referred it to S. rugosus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 267). Olivier repeated Fabricius’s
description and mentioned two more Fabrician references, as well as providing illus-
trations (pl. 5, fig. 43). It follows from this that the nominal species Staphylinus rugosus
Fabricius, 1775 is the type of Coprophilus by monotypy. However, at least since 1829
(Curtis, cols. 29, 30; Stephens, 1829a, p. 24; 1829b, pp. 293, 297), rugosus Fabricius has
been consistently placed in Oxytelus Gravenhorst, 1802. The name rugosum ‘Ol.’ or
‘Grav.’ has been treated as a synonym of Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792 and
placed in Elonium or Coprophilus (see para. 2). Like Stephens (1833), Erichson (1839,
p. 609) and Lacordaire (1854, p. 120) listed E/onium as a synonym of the younger name
Coprophilus without comment. These authors and also Kraatz (1857, p. 1000) kept
striatum Gravenhorst in Omalium.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 23

4. Thomson (1858, p. 38) erected the new genus Acrolocha with Omalium striatum
[no author cited] as type species by original designation and monotypy; the combi-
nation Acrolocha striata (Gravenhorst, 1802) has been widely used since (see para. 12).
Acrolocha is thus a junior objective synonym of Elonium (see para. 1).

5. Tottenham (1949, p. 359) followed Stephens and Curtis of 1829 (and Westwood,
[1838], p. 18) in regarding Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius as the type species of

’ Elonium. As part of his justification, Tottenham said ‘...besides, it is inconceivable that
at that date [1819] Samouelle [sic, correctly Leach] should have separated striatum
Gravenhorst from the genus Omalium... The true Omalium striatum Gravenhorst,
1802, has never béen taken in Britain’. In 1954 Tottenham stated (p. 38) that the wide
distribution of S. striatulus in Britain supported the idea that Leach was actually
dealing with that species when he erected Elonium (see also para. 2), although on p. 19
he suggested that previous British records of Acrolocha striata (Gravenhorst) actually
referred to A. sulcula (Stephens, 1834) (see para. 10).

6. Blackwelder (1952, p. 146) agreed with Tottenham (1949) that ‘an error is evi-
dent in Samouelle’s citation...’ and that the original designation of Omalium striatum
as type species of Elonium referred to S. striatulus Fabricius, which is placed in the
OXYTELINAE. He corrected Tottenham’s attribution of Elonium to Samouelle, giving
Leach as the author. Arnett (1960, pp. 238, 255), Watanabe & Shibata (1961, p. 43),
Burakowski, Mroczkowski & Stefanska (1979, p. 81), Muona (1979, p. 19) and
Hayashi (1981, p. 88) followed Blackwelder and Tottenham, using the name Elonium in
the OXYTELINAE without comment.

7. Steel (1957, p. 157) used the name Acrolocha, without comment, in revising the
genus of OMALIINAE that includes Omalium striatum Gravenhorst, which he treated as a
junior synonym of Staphylinus minutus Olivier, 1795 (genus no. 42, p. 38).

8. Herman (1970, p. 367) disagreed with Stephens, Tottenham and Blackwelder’s
interpretation of Leach’s intention, arguing that his designation of striatum as type
should be taken literally, with E/onium being a senior objective synonym of Acrolocha
and belonging to the OMALIINAE. This leaves Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 as the name for
the genus of OXYTELINAE that includes striatulus. Herman pointed out (apparently for
the first time) that Stephens never explained why he regarded Leach’s designation of
‘Omalium striatum as an error for Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius.

9. As stated in para. 3, the type species of Coprophilus is formally Staphylinus
rugosus Fabricius, 1775, but since the year (1829) when Latreille proposed Coprophilus
that nominal species has been placed in Oxytelus, while S. striatulus Fabricius, 1792 has
been synonymized with ‘Omalium rugosum Gravenhorst’. I propose that S. striatulus be
designated as the type species of Coprophilus. The following authors use Coprophilus in this
sense: Kloet & Hincks(1977), Moore & Legner (1979), Harde(1984) and Uéno, Kurosawa
& Sato (1985) and a further list of 41 references is held by the Commission Secretariat.

10. Kloet & Hincks (1977, p. 23) followed Tottenham (1954, p. 19, but not p. 38: see
para. 5) in saying that the name striatum Gravenhorst, 1802 (placed in either Omalium
or Acrolocha) has been widely used by British authors for what is really Anthobium
sulculum Stephens, 1834 (p. 336), first described from Britain. It is possible, perhaps
even likely, that Leach was one, or the first, of these authors. This would explain his
seemingly unlikely choice of a species (striatum) not then occurring in Britain as the
type species of his genus E/onium. No one appears to have considered either specimens
or the text accompanying the type species designation of Elonium in attempting to

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

understand Leach’s intent. Leach’s collection is in the Natural History Museum,
London (Hammond, 1972, p. 130). My search in late 1989 of both the general and
British collections there failed to uncover any Leach specimens of striatum, striatulus
or sulculum, so Leach’s own collection offers no help. Although brief, Leach’s (1819,
p. 174) characterization of Omalium (s.1., including his new genera Elonium and
Anthobium) included: ‘thorax transverse-quadrate, the anterior angles rounded’.
Examination of specimens of the three species in question shows that: striatulus has the
pronotum quadrate to slightly elongate, with the anterior corners strongly narrowed
and protruding forward alongside the head; striatum has the pronotum transverse with
obtusely angulate anterior corners; and su/culum has the pronotum slightly transverse
with distinctly rounded anterior corners. These observations and current knowledge of
the history of the British fauna suggest, in agreement with Tottenham (1954, p. 19) and
Kloet & Hincks (1977), that what Leach meant by Omalium striatum was actually the
species now correctly known as sulculum Stephens, and not striatulus Fabricius.
Elonium Leach was, therefore, based on a misidentification of the type species.

11. There seems no reason to ignore both Leach’s text and his apparent intent by
designating Staphylinus striatulus as the type species of Elonium. This leaves a choice
between Omalium striatum Gravenhorst (the nominal species given by Leach) and
Anthobium sulculum Stephens (the taxonomic species Leach was probably dealing —
with). There seems no doubt that the two are congeneric (e.g. Steel, 1957), and choice
of either as type species would result in the use of E/onium Leach in Samouelle (1819)
for the genus of OMALIINAE usually known as Acrolocha Thomson, 1858, even since
Herman’s (1970) paper (see para. 8).

12. My search of the literature reveals only six relatively recent uses of Elonium for
the genus generally known as Acrolocha: Moore & Legner (1974, p. 553; 1975, p. 187),
by myself (Thayer, 1978, p. 148 — actually a misidentification based on Moore &
Legner (1974)), Uhlig & Vogel (1981, p. 84), Lohse & Lucht (1989, pp. 126, 285) and
Koch (1989, p. 221). The last two are not really independent uses. All other works I
have examined use the name Acrolocha instead of Elonium; Harde (1984), Mahler
(1987) and Zanetti (1987) are examples, and a list of 28 works by 25 authors in the last
40 years is held by the Commission Secretariat. I know of five relatively recent uses of
Elonium in the OXYTELINAE, i.e. as asynonym of the much more widely used Coprophilus
(see para. 6).

13. Because of (1) the confusion engendered by past use of the name Elonium for two
completely different taxa in the OMALIINAE and OXYTELINAE, (2) the existence of the
more widely used name Coprophilus for the latter of these, and (3) the existence of the
much more commonly used junior synonym Acrolocha for the other, I propose that
the best course to promote stability of nomenclature is to suppress the name Elonium
and to continue to use Coprophilus and Acrolocha for the two genus-group taxa
involved. Although neither of the genera is of economic or medical importance (with
concomitant frequent citation), it is an undesirably confusing situation.

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the generic name Elonium Leach in Samouelle, 1819 for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 25

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for Coprophilus Latreille,
1829, and to designate the nominal species Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius,
1792 as the type species of the genus;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Omalium striatum Gravenhorst, 1802;
(b) Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by designation
in (1)(b) above Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792:
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) striatum Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Omalium striatum
(specific name of the type species of Acrolocha Thomson, 1858);
(b) striatulus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Staphylinus striatulus
(specific name of the type species of Coprophilus Latreille, 1829);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Elonium Leach in Samouelle, 1819, as suppressed in (1)(a) above.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by U.S. National Science Foundation grant BSR-8806625. I
thank J.H. Frank, A. Smetana, L. Toth, M. Uhlig, and L. Zerche for comments on the
manuscript, A. Zanetti for calling my attention to two recent references and S.-I.
Naomi and A.F. Newton, Jr. for suggestions that improved the original proposal. I
also thank P.M. Hammond and R.J.W. Aldridge for their considerable help during my
visit to the Natural History Museum, London.

References

Arnett, R.H. 1960. The beetles of the United States. xii, 1112 pp. Catholic University Press,
Washington.

Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae with an essay on
genotypy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 200: 1-483.

Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefanska, J. 1979. Chrzaszcze (Coleoptera), Kusakowate-
Staphylinidae, czesc 1. Katalog Fauny Polski (Catalogus faunae Poloniae ), 23(6): 1-310.

Curtis, J. 1829-[1831]. A guide to an arrangement of British insects. vi pp., 256 cols. Published by
the author, London.

Erichson, W.F. 1839. Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg, vol. |, part 2. Pp. 385-740. Morin, Berlin.

Erichson, W.F. 1840. Genera et species Staphylinorum, insectorum coleopterorum familiae, part 2.
Pp. 401-954. Morin, Berlin.

Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta..., vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Proft,
Hafniae.

Grayenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera microptera Brunsvicensia nec non exoticorum quotquot
exstant in collectionibus entomologorum Brunsvicensium in genera, familiae et species
distribuit. \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard, Brunsvigae.

Hammond, P.M. 1972. On the type material of Staphylinidae (Col.) described by T. Marsham
and J.F. Stephens. Entomologist’s Gazette, 23: 129-135.

Harde, K.W. 1984. 4 field guide in colour to Beetles. 334 pp. Octopus Books, London.

Hayashi, N. 1981. [Illustrations for identification of the Coleopterous larvae living in dead trees.]
Memoirs of the Educational Institute for Private Schools in Japan, 81: 83—96. [In Japanese.]

Herman, L.H. 1970. Phylogeny and reclassification of the genera of the rove—beetle subfamily
Oxytelinae of the world (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History, 142: 343-454.

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1977. A checklist of British insects, Coleoptera and Strepsiptera.
Handbooks for the identification of British Insects, Ed. 2, vol. 11, part 3. xiv, 105 pp. Royal
Entomological Society of London, London.

Koch, K. 1989. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, Okologie Band 1, vol. El. 440 pp. Goecke & Evers,
Krefeld.

Kraatz, G. 1857. Omalini. Pp. 904-1019 in: Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands, Abt. |
(Coleoptera), vol. 2. (Staphylinii). Pp. 377-1080. Nicolai, Berlin.

Lacordaire, J.T. 1854. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres, vol. 2. 548 pp.
Roret, Paris.

Latreille, P.A. 1829. Le Reégne animal...(Ed. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D.), Ed. 2, vol. 4. Crustacés,
arachnides et partie des insectes. 584 pp. Déterville, Paris.

Leach, W.E. 1819. Class V. Insecta. Pp. 134-304 in: Samouelle, G., The entomologist’s useful
compendium. 496 pp., 12 pls. Boys, London.

Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. 1989. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 12. 1. Supplementband mit
Katalogteil. 346 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Mahler, V. 1987. Sjette tillaeg til ‘Fortegnelse over Danmarks biller’ (Coleoptera).
Entomologiske Meddelelser, 54: 181—235.

Moore, I. & Legner, E.F. 1974. Bibliography (1758 to 1972) to the Staphylinidae of America
north of Mexico (Coleoptera). Keys to the genera of the Staphylinidae of America north
of Mexico exclusive of the Aleocharinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Hilgardia, 42:
511-563.

Moore, I. & Legner, E.F. 1975. A catalogue of the Staphylinidae of America North of -
Mexico (Coleoptera). Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California Special
Publication, no. 3015. 514 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Moore, I. & Legner, E. F. 1979. An illustrated guide to the genera of the Staphylinidae of America
north of Mexico exclusive of the Aleocharinae (Coleoptera). Division of Agricultural
Sciences, University of California Priced Publication, no. 4093, 332 pp. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.

Muona, J. 1979. Staphylinidae. Pp. 14-28 in: Silfverberg, H. (Ed.), Enumeratio Coleopterorum
Fennoscandiae et Daniae. 79 pp. Helsingfors Entomologiska Bytesforening, Helsinki.
Olivier, G.A. 1795. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes... Coléopteres, vol. 3. 495 pp.

Paris.

Steel, W.O. 1957. Notes on the Omaliinae. (8) The genus Acrolocha Thomson. Entomologist’s
Monthly Magazine, 93: 157-164.

Stephens, J.F. 1829a. The nomenclature of British insects,...68 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London.

Stephens, J.F. 1829b. A systematic catalogue of British insects, part 1. xxxiv, 416 pp. Baldwin &
Cradock, London.

Stephens, J.F. 1833. The nomenclature of British insects,... Ed. 2 part 1. 135 columns. Baldwin &
Cradock, London. :

Stephens, J.F. 1834. Stenidae-Omalidae. Pp. 305-368 in: Illustrations of British entomology ...,
Mandibulata, vol. 5. Baldwin & Cradock, London.

Thayer, M.K. 1978. Redescription of Xenicopoda Moore and Legner (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae,
Omaliinae) with supplementary notes. Psyche, 84: 142-149.

Thomson, C.G. 1858. Fors6k till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kungliga
Vetenskapsakademiens Férhandlingar, 15: 27-40.

Tottenham, C.E. 1949. The generic names of British Staphylinidae with a check list of the species.
Pp. 343-466 in: The generic names of British insects, vol. 1 (1934-1949), part 9. Royal
Entomological Society of London, London.

Tottenham, C.E. 1954. Coleoptera Staphylinidae. Section (a) Piestinae to Euaesthetinae. Hand-
books for the identification of British insects, vol. 4, part 8a. 79 pp. Royal Entomological
Society of London, London.

Ueno, S.-I., Kurosawa, Y. & Saté, M. 1985. The coleoptera of Japan in color, vol. 2. viii, 514 pp.
Hoikusha Publishing Co., Osaka, Japan.

Uhlig, M. & Vogel, J. 1981. Zur Staphylinidenfauna der Umgebung von Waren/Miritz
(Mecklenburg). Unter besonder Beriicksichtigung der Naturschutzgebiete “Ostufer der
Miritz’, “Ostufer des Feisnecksees’, und des Flachennaturdenkmals ‘Wienpietschseen’. 5.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 pH |

Beitrag zur Faunistik der Sta

phylinidae (C oleoptera). Mitteilungen aus dem
Museum in Berlin, 57: 75-168.

zoologischen

Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.
- Zanetti, A. 1987. Coleoptera. Staphylinidae. Omaliinae. Fauna d'Italia, 25: 1-472.

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2782

Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

B. Aukema

Plant Protection Service, P.O. Box 9102,6700 HC Wageningen,
The Netherlands

M.L. Luff
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NEI 7RU, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the ground
beetle Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 by suppression of its unused senior homonym
Carabus mollis Strom, 1768.

1. Strom (1768, p. 330) described a species mollis in the genus Carabus Linnaeus,
1758. This name is a junior subjective synonym of Carabus vaporariorum Linnaeus,
1758 (p. 415). Since its publication the specific name mollis Strom, 1768 has been cited
only by Schoyen (1880, p. 179) and Silfverberg (1977, p. 42) as a synonym and as a
- homonym respectively.

2. In 1802 (p. 456) Marsham described mollis in Carabus, now placed in Calathus
Bonelli, 1810, from Ealing, U.K. The species name Calathus mollis is well-established.
At least 30 different authors have applied this binomen during the last 20 years (e.g.
Freude, Harde & Lohse, 1976, p. 206; Kloet & Hincks, 1977, p. 4 and Trautner &
Geigenmiuller, 1987, p. 288). A list of a further 40 references has been given to the
Commission Secretariat. A male lectotype for Calathus mollis, here designated, is kept
in the Natural History Museum, London. It is labelled ‘Lectotypus Carabus mollis
Marsham/Des. B. Aukema 1990’.

3. Duftschmid (1812, p. 124) described and named Carabus ochropterus. Since then -
ochropterus has been treated either as a synonym of Calathus melanocephalus
(Linnaeus, 1758, p. 356) (see, for example, Schatzmayr, 1937, p. 44 and Jeannel, 1942,
p. 845), or as a synonym of Calathus mollis (see, for example, Putzeys, 1873). The type
of Carabus ochropterus is lost (Gusenleitner, 1984).

4. Silfverberg (1977, p. 42) pointed out that, as a junior primary homonym,
Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 cannot be used. He suggested use of the name Calathus
ochropterus (Duftschmid, 1812) for the species. C. ochropterus was described from the
Schneeberg near Vienna. Since mollis Marsham (a species of coastal dunes and blown
sands) is not known from Austria (Aukema, 1990), and is unlikely to occur there, it
seems highly improbable that ochropterus represented the same species as mollis
Marsham.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name mollis Strom, 1768, as

published in the binomen Carabus mollis, and all uses of the name Carabus mollis

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 29

prior to that by Marsham, 1802, 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 mollis
Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Carabus mollis and as defined by
the lectotype designated in para. 2 above;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name mollis Strom, 1768, as published in the binomen Carabus mollis and as
suppressed in (1) above.

Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Dr. L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden,
The Netherlands) for his comments on the manuscript.

References

Aukema, B. 1990. Taxonomy, life-history and distribution of three closely related species of the
genus Calathus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 133: 121-141.

Bonelli, F.A. 1910. Observations entomologiques. I. Memorie della Accademia delle Scienze di
Torino, 18: 21-78.

Duftschmid, C. 1812. Fauna Austriae, vol. 2. 311 pp. Linz.

Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. 1976. Adephaga 1. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 2. 302
pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Gusenleitner, F. 1984. Das Ratsel um den Verbleib der Caspar Erasmus Duftschmid-Kollektion.
Koleopterologische Rundschau, 57: 93-95.

Jeannel, R. 1942. Coleoptéres Carabiques. Faune de France, 40: 572-1173.

Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1977. A checklist of British insects. Coleoptera and Strepsiptera.
Handbooks for the identification of British insects, Ed. 2, vol. 11, part 3. xiv, 105 pp. Royal
Entomological Society of London, London.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica...., vol. 2. 547 pp., pls. 13-30. White, London.

Putzeys, J. 1873. Monographie des Calathides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique,
16: 19-96.

Schatzmayr, A. 1937. I. Calathus d’Europa. Pubblicazioni del Museo Entomologico ‘Pietro Rossi’
Duino, 2: \—50.

Schoyen, W.M. 1880. Coleopterologiske Notitser. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 1: 177-185.

Silfverberg, H. 1977. Nomenclatoric notes on Coleoptera Adephaga. Notulae Entomologicae, 57:
41-44.

Strom, H. 1768. Beskrivelse over Norske Insecter. Andet Stykke. Kongelige Norske Videnskabers
Selskabs Skrifter, 4: 313-371.

Trautner, J. & Geigenmiiller, K. 1987. Tiger beetles — groundbeetles. ///ustrated key to the
Cicindelidae and Carabidae of Europe. 488 pp. Margraf, Aichtal, Germany.

Communication No. 431, The Biological Station, Wijster, The Netherlands

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2796

Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation
as the correct original spelling

R.B. Angus

Department of Biology, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham,
Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Helophorus Fabricius,
1775 for an important genus of water beetle, originally spelt E/ophorus. Illiger (1801)
emended this to Helophorus and this spelling is now almost universally used. However,
Illiger’s emendation was unjustified and it is proposed to rule that Helophorus is the
correct original spelling.

1. Fabricius (1775, p. 66) established the genus Elophorus for two species of water
beetle, Silpha aquatica Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 362) and a new species Elophorus minutus
(p. 66).

2. Latreille (1810, p. 428) designated *E. aquaticus Fab.’ as the type species.
Fabricius had stated that the name Si/pha aquatica referred to the Linnaean species.

3. Fabricius gave no indication of the derivation of his name Elophorus. Illiger
(1801, p. 138) emended it to Helophorus on the grounds that the first part was derived
from the Greek ‘helos’, a swamp. Smetana (1985, p. 18), however, pointed out that the
name more probably means ‘callus-bearer’, and refers to the distinctive swollen ridges
on the pronotum. Irrespective of the etymological derivation, Illiger’s emendation to
Helophorus is unjustified under Article 33b of the Code.

4. Illiger’s emendation to Helophorus has been accepted by most modern authors.
Almost all recent works on these beetles in such areas as agricultural entomology,
ecology and palaeontology as well as systematics have used the spelling Helophorus
(e.g. Balfour-Browne (1958), Fernando (1958), Angus (1970, 1982, 1992), Lohse
(1971), Richards & Davies (1977), Coope (1979), Smetana (1985, 1988), Hansen (1987),
Friday (1988) and Shatrovskiy (1989)). The only important recent works to use the
spelling Elophorus are Chiesa (1959) and McCorkle (1965). Even the older literature
has a preponderance of usage of Helophorus. As a summary of older work, Knisch
(1924, p. 66) listed 39 authors of major works using the spelling Helophorus and 11
using Elophorus. A further measure of the relative degree of usage of the two spellings is
that, of the approximately 180 species at present known, 20 were originally attributed
to Elophorus, six to other genera and all the rest to Helophorus (data from Smetana
(1985, Nearctic), Shatrovskiy (1989, eastern U.S.S.R.) and Angus (1992, Europe and
adjacent lands)).

5. Helophorus is thus seen to be a large genus, important in the study of various
aspects of entomology. As such it is important that the spelling ‘He/ophorus’ used in the
great majority of works, especially the more recent ones, should be maintained.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 31

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 generic
name Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 is deemed to be Helophorus;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Helophorus
Fabricius, 1775 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by
Latreille (1810) Silpha aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, spelling ruled in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name aquatica
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Silpha aquatica (specific name of
the type species of Helophorus Fabricius, 1775);

(4) to place on‘the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original
spelling of Helophorus).

References

Angus, R.B. 1970. Genetic experiments on Helophorus F. (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae).
Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 122: 257-276.

Angus, R.B. 1982. Separation of two species standing as Helophorus aquaticus (L.) (Coleoptera,
Hydrophilidae) by banded chromosome analysis. Systematic Entomology, 7: 265-281.
Angus, R.B. 1992 [in press]. Insecta: Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae: Helophorinae. Stisswasserfauna

‘von Mitteleuropa, vol. 20, section 10, part 2.

Balfour-Browne, W.A.F. 1958. British water beetles, 3.210 pp. Ray Society, London.

Chiesa, A. 1959. Hydrophilidae Europae — Coleoptera Palpicornia. 199 pp. Forni, Bologna.

Coope, G.R. 1979. Late Cenozoic fossil Coleoptera: evolution, biogeography, and ecology.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10: 247-267.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae.

Fernando, C.H. 1958. The colonization of small freshwater habitats by aquatic insects. 1. General
discussion, methods and colonization in the aquatic Coleoptera. Ceylon Journal of Science
(Biological Science), 1(2): 117-154.

Friday, L.E. 1988. A key to the adults of British water beetles. Field Studies, 7: 1-151.

Hansen, M. 1987. The Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna
Entomologica Scandinavica, 18: 1-254.

Illiger, K. 1801. Namen der Insekten-Gattungen, ihr Genetiv, ihr grammatisches Geschlecht, ihr
Silbenmass, ihr Herleitung; zugleicht mit den Deutschen Benennungen. Magazin fiir
Insektenkunde, 1: 125—162.

Knisch, A. 1924. Coleoptorum Catalogus, pars 79: Hydrophilidae. 306 pp. Junk, Berlin.

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. Schoell, Paris.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Lohse, G.A. 1971. Familienreihe Palpicornia. Pp. 95—156 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse,
G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, 3. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

McCorkle, D.V. 1965. Subfamily Elophorinae. Pp. 23-38 in Hatch, M.H., (Ed.), The beetles of
the Pacific Northwest, part 4. University of Washington Publications in Biology, vol. 16.
University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Richards, O.W. & Davies, R.G. 1977. Imms’ general textbook of entomology, Ed. 10, vol. 2. Pp.
421-1354. Chapman & Hall, London.

Shatrovskiy, A.G. 1989. Hydrophilidae. Pp. 264-293 in Ler, P.A. (Ed.), Keys to the insects of the
Far East of the U.S.S.R. Nauka, Leningrad. [In Russian.]

Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the subfamily Helophorinae of the Nearctic Region (Coleoptera:
Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 131: 1-154.

Smetana, A. 1988. Review of the family Hydrophilidae of Canada and Alaska (Coleoptera).
Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 142: 1-316.

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2776

Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation

Anders N. Nilsson
Department of Animal Ecology, University of Umeda, S-901 87 Umeda, Sweden

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Meladema
Laporte, 1835, for a genus of water diving beetles. It is threatened by Scutopterus
Dejean, 1833, an unused senior synonym.

1. Dejean (1833, p. 54) established the name Scutopterus (attributed to Eschscholtz)
for three species of diving beetles: Scutopterus coriaceus ‘Hoffmanseg’ (a nomen
nudum), Dytiscus lanio Fabricius, 1775 (p. 231), and Dytiscus pustulatus Rossi, 1792
(p. 68). Crotch (1873, p. 404) selected coriaceus as type species, but this is not a valid
type designation as this species was only included as a nomen nudum by Dejean. —
Nilsson, Roughley & Brancucci (1989, p. 307) designated Dytiscus lanio as type species
of Scutopterus.

2. Laporte (1835, p. 98) was the first author to describe the species coriacea, which he
placed in the new genus Mel/adema without reference to the name Scutopterus. The type
species of Meladema is M. coriacea Laporte, 1835 by monotypy.

3. Aubé ([1837], p. 94, see Méquignon in Guignot, 1932, p. 547 for the date of
publication) used Meladema as a division of Colymbetes Clairville, 1806. Chenu (1851,
p. 206) noted that Meladema corresponded to Scutopterus ‘Eschscholtz’, which had
never been described. Chenu also noted that an American species, probably Dytiscus
(Meladema) distigma Brulle, [1838] (p. 48; see Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 389
for the date of publication), belonged to this subgenus. Gemminger & Harold (1868,
p. 447) erroneously attributed Scutopterus to Lacordaire (1835, p. 308; in fact the
reference is to Cymatopterus ‘Eschscholtz’ in Dejean, 1833 (p. 54)) and placed
Meladema Laporte as a synonym. They also added the Holarctic species Colymbetes -
dahuricus Mannerheim in Aubé, [1837] (p. 99) and the Nearctic Agabus angustus
LeConte, 1850 (p. 213) to Scutopterus.

4. Wollaston (1871, p. 220) and Crotch (1873, p. 404) both followed Gemminger &
Harold’s usage of the name Scutopterus and Crotch added the new species S. hornii.
Sharp (1882, p. 606) reclassified the genus with only S. angustus and S. hornii in
Scutopterus, and M. coriacea, M. lanio and M. imbricatain Meladema. Sharp’s classifi-
cation has been adopted by all subsequent authors. However, Balfour-Browne (1943,
p. 172) suggested that Scutopterus (attributed to ‘Aubé, 1836’) was a junior synonym of
Meladema, and provided Neoscutopterus as a new name for Scutopterus sensu Sharp.
The synonymy recognized by Balfour-Browne was based on the erroneous assumption
that Scutopterus was first made available by Aube ({1837], p. 94), with the consequence
that Crotch’s (1873) type designation was accepted as valid.

5. The name Meladema has been in continuous use since Sharp’s (1882) monograph
(see, for example, Zimmermann, 1920, p. 214; Guignot, 1932, p. 654; Zimmermann &

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 33

Gschwendtner, 1936, p. 101; Guignot, 1961, p. 768 and Franciscolo, 1979, p. 615). The
name Scutopterus was erroneously applied to the two Nearctic species angustus and
hornii (see para. 4), until Balfour-Browne (1943) replaced it with Neoscutopterus. Since
then Scutopterus has been cited as a junior synonym of Meladema (e.g. Guignot, 1961,
p. 768). As Dejean’s senior synonym has been unused since Balfour-Browne (1943), it
would seem desirable for stability of nomenclature, as suggested by Nilsson, Roughley
’ & Brancucci (1989, p. 314), to suppress the name Scutopterus Dejean thereby retaining
the more familiar name Meladema Laporte.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked: j

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Scutopterus Dejean, 1833
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 Meladema
Laporte, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Meladema coriacea
Laporte, 1835;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name coriacea
Laporte, 1835, as published in the binomen Meladema coriacea (specific name of
the type species of Meladema Laporte, 1835);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Scutopterus Dejean, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Aube, C. [1837]. Pp. 65-224 in: Dejean, P.F.M.A. (Ed.). Iconographie et histoire naturelle des
Coléoptéres d'Europe, vol. 5 (Hydrocanthares). 415 pp., 45 pls. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Balfour-Browne, J. 1943. A new generic name in the Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the
Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)12: 172.

Brulle, A. [1838]. Insectes Coléoptéres. Pp. 17—56 in d’Orbigny, A., Voyage dans |’Amerique
Meridionale, vol. 6, part 2. 222 pp., 32 pls. Paris.

Chenu, J.C. 1851. Encyclopédie d’histoire naturelle. Coléoptéres, vol. 1. 312 pp. Schneider, Paris.

Crotch, G.R. 1873. Revision of the Dytiscidae of the United States. Transactions of the American
Entomological Society, 4: 383-424.

Dejean, A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, part 1.
96 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Korte, Flensburgi et Lipsiae.

Franciscolo, M.E. 1979. Coleoptera Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae. Fauna
d'Italia, 14: 1-804.

Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de. 1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum, vol. 2. Pp. 425-752. Monachii,
Paris.

Guignot, F. 1932. Les Hydrocanthares de France. 1057 pp., 5 pls. Douladoure, Toulouse.

Guignot, F. 1961. Revision des Hydrocanthares d’Afrique (Coleoptera Dytiscoidae), part 3.
Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge, Sciences Zoologiques, 90: 659-995.

Lacordaire, T. 1835. Cymatopterus. Pp. 308-309 in Boisduval, M.M. & Lacordaire, Th., Faune
entomologique des environs de Paris, vol. 1. 696 pp., 3 pls. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Laporte, F.L. de. 1835. Etudes entomologiques, ou description d‘Insectes nouveaux; et observations
sur la synonymie, part 1. (Carnassiers). 195 pp., 4 pls. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

LeConte, J.L. 1850. General remarks upon the Coleoptera of Lake Superior. Pp. 209-241 in
Agassiz, L., Lake Superior; its physical character, vegetation and animals. 428 pp., 8 pls.
Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, Boston.

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Nilsson, A.N., Roughley, R.E. & Brancucci, M. 1989. A review of the genus and family-group
names of the family Dytiscidae Leach (Coleoptera). Entomologica Scandinavica, 20(3):

287-316.
Rossi, P. 1792. Class 1. Eleuterata Dytiscus. Pp. 66-70 in: Mantissa insectorum...., vol. 1. 148 pp.

Polloni, Pisis.
Sharp, D. 1882. On aquatic carnivorous Coleoptera or Dytiscidae. Scientific Transactions of the

Royal Dublin Society, (2)2: 179-1003.

Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history
portions of some French voyages.... The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including
Zoology, Botany and Geology, (7)7: 388-392.

Wollaston, T.V. 1871. On additions to the Atlantic Coleoptera. Transactions of the Entomologi-
cal Society of London, 2: 203-314.

Zimmermann, A. 1920. Dytiscidae. Pp. 208-296 in: Coleopterorum Catalogus, part 71. 296 pp.
Junk, Berlin.

Zimmermann, A. & Gschwendtner, L. 1936. Monographie der paldarktischen Dytisciden. 7.
Colymbetinae. (Colymbetini: Rhantus, Nartus, Melanodytes, Colymbetes, Meladema).

Koleopterologische Rundschau, 22: 81-102.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 35

Case 2733

Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
designation of Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species;
proposed conservation of Jschnosoma Stephens, 1829; and proposed

_ precedence of Mycetoporus over Ischnosoma

J.M. Campbell

Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Research Branch,
Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0C6

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst,
1806 as the type species of Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 in accordance with univer-
sal understanding and usage. The genus, which is widespread in Europe, Siberia and
North America, is included in the large family of rove beetles STAPHYLINIDAE. It is
proposed that Jschnosoma Stephens, 1829 should also be conserved and that
Mycetoporus should be given precedence over Jschnosoma.

1. Stephens (1829a [June], p. 22) introduced the generic name /schnosoma in a list
of British insects; there were ten included species, including Tachinus splendidus and
T. punctus, both of Gravenhorst, 1806 (pp. 24 and 27 respectively), and the name is
therefore available (Article 12b(5) of the Code). No type species was designated. The
name and the list of included species was repeated in Stephens, 1829b ({July], p. 268; see
Fletcher in Nye, 1979, p. xv for the dates of publication of Stephens’s works). Subse-
quently, descriptions of the genus and of the included species were published (Stephens,
1832, p. 168) but again no type was designated.

2. Mannerheim (1831, p. 476) established the generic name Mycetoporus with five
included species, including Tachinus splendidus and T. punctus, but did not designate a
type. The date of Mannerheim’s work has been variously cited by subsequent authors
as 1830 or 1831, with or without reference to the Mémoires présentés a l’Académie
Impériale des Sciences de St Pétersbourg. Mannerheim’s paper was presented to mem-
bers of the Academy in June 1830 and published in vol. | of the Mémoires in February
1831. A number of authors have cited the name Mycetoporus from an ‘extract’ from the
Memoires with the date 1830. Blackwelder (1952, p. 465), however, recorded the extract
as ‘1831, not 1830’. A review by Audinet-Serville of Mannerheim’s work (as an extract
from the Mémoires) appeared in the Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie
(vol. 24, pp. 211-236); this included a description of Mycetoporus and was also
published in February 1831. Both Sherborn (1928, p. 4224) and Neave (1940, p. 234)
listed Mycetoporus Mannerheim as first published in the Mémoires in 1831, which I
accept here.

3. Stephens adopted the name Mycetoporus Mannerheim in the second edition
(1833, col. 95) of his (1829a) list of insects, treating his own name /schnosoma as a junior
synonym, and in 1835 (p. 434) he noted that ‘the generic name [Mycetoporus] employed
is that of Mannerheim, which he characterised previously to the appearance of my

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Ischnosoma, and therefore to be adopted’. However, /schnosoma Stephens was made
available in June 1829 (see para. 1), before the publication of Mycetoporus.

4. Gistl (1834, p. 9) established the genus Leichotes and included six species, two of
which were 7. splendidus and T. punctus. Blackwelder (1952, p. 212) designated
splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species of Leichotes, rendering Leichotes a
junior subjective synonym of Jschnosoma Stephens, 1829 and Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831.

5. Westwood ([1838], p. 19; see Direction 63 (June 1957) for the date of publication)
designated T. splendidus as the type species of Mycetoporus; the type species desig-
nations in Westwood’s Synopsis of the genera of British insects were accepted as valid in
Opinion 71 (January 1922). Westwood listed /schnosoma Stephens as a synonym of
Mycetoporus. Between 1838 and 1859 Mycetoporus was consistently used as the valid
name for the genus in a number of publications, including the important works of
Erichson (1839a, p. 411; 1839b, p. 281), Heer (1839, p. 295), Maklin ((1847]),
Redtenbacher (1849, p. 687; 1858, p. 176), Lacordaire (1854, p. 59), Jacquelin du Val
(1856, p. 28) and Kraatz (1857, p. 455).

6. Thomson (1859, p. 47) divided Mycetoporus Mannerheim into two genera,
Mycetoporus and Ischnosoma Stephens. He designated ‘ Tachyporus punctus Gyllenhal,
1810, p. 250° (that is, Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806) as the type species of ~
Mycetoporus, and ‘Tachyporus splendidus Gyllenhal, 1810, p. 249° (that is, Tachinus
splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806) as the type species of Ischnosoma, apparently overlook-
ing the earlier designation by Westwood. Thomson’s concept of two genera was fol-
lowed by Sahlberg (1876, pp. 196-203) and Rey (1883, pp. 68, 110). Other authors
retained Thomson’s type species designations but considered Jschnosoma to be a sub-
genus of Mycetoporus: Fowler (1888, p. 212), Ganglbauer (1895, p. 367), Luze (1901,
p. 662), Eichelbaum (1909, p. 201) and Reitter (1909, pp. 99, 100). With a few excep-
tions noted below, all subsequent authors have either placed all species in Mycetoporus
without recognizing subgenera (Horn, 1877, p. 1200; Hatch, 1957) or have followed
Fowler and Ganglbauer and treated Ischnosoma as a subgenus of Mycetoporus.

7. Gozis (1886) cited Ischnosoma as a synonym of Mycetoporus and designated
Mycetoporus brunneus (Marsham, 1802, p. 524) as the type species of both genera;
Mycetoporus brunneus was described by Paykull (1789) as Staphylinus brunneus. These
designations are invalid because Staphylinus brunneus was not an originally included .
species of Mycetoporus and also because of the earlier designations of Westwood
({1838]) and Thomson (1859). Gozis (1886, p. 14) proposed the new name Mytreroxis
for the genus Jschnosoma as used by Thomson and designated Tachinus splendidus
Gravenhorst, 1806 as its type species. Myteroxis is thus a junior objective synonym of
Mycetoporus.

8. Strand (1935) argued that Jschnosoma Stephens became available only in 1832,
not 1829. He further argued that Jschnosoma Stephens was a junior homonym of
Ischnosoma Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (Osteichthyes). Based on these interpretations,
Strand (1935, p. 293) proposed the new name Jschnosomata to replace the seemingly
junior homonym. The fish name Jschnosoma is available (Article 1le) from Cuvier
(1829 [before 31 March], p. 328), where ‘Jschnosoma bicirrhosum, Spix, xxv’ was pub-
lished in the synonymy of Cuvier’s new species Osteoglossum vandellii. The name
Ischnosoma appeared on Spix’s plate (1829, pl. 25); Spix & Agassiz’s work was pub-
lished between 22 May and 4 July 1829 (see Kottelat, 1988, pp. 71, 72, 77 and BZN 46:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 37

130 for the dates of publication). Agassiz (1829, p. 47) treated Jschnosoma as a junior
synonym of Osteoglossum. Both names Jschnosoma and Osteoglossum were retained
by Valenciennes (1847, pp. 287, 307), but /schnosoma was later synonymized with
Osteoglossum (Gunther, 1868, p. 278). Jschnosoma has not been used since as a valid
name in ichthyology. As stated in para. |, the beetle name /schnosoma Stephens was
apparently published in June 1829. Since the date of the fish name is probably earlier I
’ propose that all uses of Jschnosoma before Stephens (1829) should be suppressed.

9. Tottenham (1939) assumed that Westwood ({1838]) had proposed 7. splendidus as
the type species for both Mycetoporus and Ischnosoma, rendering the two names
objective synonyfns. He recognized that Thomson’s (1859) designation of T. punctus as
the type species of Mycetoporus was invalid. He proposed (1939, p. 226) the new name
Schinomosa for the genus referred to by Thomson as Mycetoporus and designated

‘ Tachyporus punctus (Gyllenhal, 1810; that is, Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806) as
its type species. This name has not been used except in later papers by Tottenham (1949,
pp. 378, 423; 1956, p. 231), and Blackwelder (1952, p. 252) considered it to be a
synonym of Mycetoporus.

10. Blackwelder (1952, p. 252), in his important work on the generic names of the
family STAPHYLINIDAE, used the name M ycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 forthe genus, but
did not recognize subgenera. He (1952, p. 204) followed Strand (1935) in assuming that
the name /schnosoma Stephens, 1829 was a junior homonym of /schnosoma Spix, 1829.

11. A strict interpretation of the Code would necessitate using Jschnosoma
Stephens, 1829 (type species Tachinus splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806 by Thomson’s
1859 designation) as the name for the nominal genus, with Mycetoporus Mannerheim,
1831 treated as a junior objective synonym. The name Schinomosa Tottenham, 1939
(type species Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806; see para. 9) would replace the long
established name Mycetoporus Mannerheim.

12. It is highly desirable to conserve the understood sense of both /schnosoma
Stephens, 1829 and Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831, as used in the taxonomic liter-
ature for over 130 years since Thomson (1859) adopted both names as valid. Over 150
species are placed in Mycetoporus, distributed primarily in the north temperate zone,
but occurring in all major faunal regions except South America. Jschnosoma has
been considered a subgenus of Mycetoporus by most modern authors (Lohse, 1964, p.
223; Tichomirova, 1973, pp. 147-148), but a revision of the North American species
of the group (Campbell, in preparation) has shown that the two groups should be
independently recognized at the generic level.

13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked: .

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the generic name Jschnosoma Cuvier, 1829, and all uses of the
name Jschnosoma prior to Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829, for the purposes of
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831 prior to the designation by Thomson (1859) of Tachinus
punctus Gravenhorst, 1806;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (gender: masculine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Thomson (1859) Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst,

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

1806, as ruled in (1)(b) above, with the endorsement that it is to be given
precedence over Jschnosoma Stephens, 1829 whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms;

(b) Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent
designation by Thomson (1859) Tachinus splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806, with
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

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

(a) punctus Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Tachinus punctus
(specific name of the type species of Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831);

(b) splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Tachinus
splendidus (specific name of the type species of Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829);

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

Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Ischnosoma Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes), as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Leichotes Gistl, 1834 (a junior subjective synonym of Jschnosoma Stephens,
1829 and Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831);

(c) Myteroxis Gozis, 1886 (a junior objective synonym of Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831);

(d) Ischnosomata Strand, 1935 (a junior objective synonym of Jschnosoma
Stephens, 1829);

(e) Schinomosa Tottenham, 1939 (a junior objective synonym of Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831).

References

Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae with an essay on
genotypy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 200: 1-483.

Cuvier, G. 1929. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation pour servir de base a l'histoire
naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée, Ed. 2, vol. 2. xvii, 406 pp.
Déterville, Paris.

Eichelbaum, F. 1909. Katalog der Staphyliniden-Gattungen nebst Angabe ihrer Literatur,
Synonyme, Artenzahl, geographischen Verbreitung und ihrer bekannten Larvenzustande.
Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 17: 71-280. :

Erichson, W.F. 1839a. Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 385-740. Morin,
Berlin.

Erichson, W.F. 1839b. Genera et species Staphylinorum, insectorum coleopterorum familiae. Pp.
1-400, 5 pls. Morin, Berlin.

Fletcher, D.S. 1979. In Nye, I.W.B., Generic names of moths of the world, vol. 3 (Geometroidea).
xx, 243 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Fowler, W.W. 1888. The Coleoptera of the British Islands, vol. 2 (Staphylinidae). 444 pp., pls.
37-70. Reeve, London.

Ganglbauer, L. 1895. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa, vol. 2 (Staphylinoidea 1). 880 pp. Gerold’s
Sohn, Vienna.

Gistl, J. 1834. Die Insecten-Doubletten aus der Sammlung des Herrn Grafen Rudolph von Jenison
Walworth zu Regensburg, No. | (Kafer). 35 pp. Jacquet, Munich.

Gozis, M. des. 1886. Recherche de l’espéce typique de quelques anciens genres. Rectifications
synonymiques et notes diverses. 36 pp. Montlucon.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia coleopterorum micropterorum. xvi, 236 pp. Gottingae.

Giinther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 7. xx, 512 pp. British
Museum, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 39

Gyllenhal, L. 1810. Jnsecta Svecica. Classis 1 (Coleoptera sive Eleuterata), vol. 1, part 2. 660 pp.
Leverentz, Scaris.

Hatch, M.H. 1957. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest, part 2 (Staphyliniformia). University of
Washington Publications in Biology, 16: 1-384.

Heer, O. 1839. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica, part 1, fasc. 2. Pp. 145-360. Orelii, Fuesslini &
Sociorum, Turici.

Horn, G.H. 1877. Synopsis of the genera and species of the Staphylinidae tribe Tachyporini of the

F United States. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 6: 81—128.

Jacquelin du Val, P.N.C. 1856. Genera des coléoptéeres d’Europe..., vol. 2. Pp. 1-32. Deyrolle,
Paris.

Kraatz, G. 1857. .Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Abt. 1 (Coleoptera), vol. 2
(Staphylinii). Pp. 377-1080. Nicolaischen, Berlin.

Kottelat, M. 1988. Authorship, dates of publication, status and types of Spix and Agassiz’s
Brazilian fishes. Spixiana, 11(1): 69-93.

- Lacordaire, T. 1854. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléopteéres, vol. 2. 548 pp. Libraire
Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.

Lohse, G.A. 1964. P. 264 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas,
vol. 4 (Fam. Staphylinidae). 264 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Luze, G. 1901. Bolitobiini. Revision der palaarktischen Arten der Staphyliniden-Gattungen
Bryocharis Boisd. et Lac., Bolitobius Mannh., Bryoporus Kraatz und Mycetoporus Mannh.
Verhandlungen der K.K. Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 51(9): 662-746.

Maklin, F.G. [1847]. Ad Cognitonem specierum Fennicarum generis Mycetopori Symbolae ....

Helsingforsiae. 16 pp. Helsingfors.

Mannerheim, C.G. von. 1831. Précis d’un nouvel arrangement de la famille des Brachélytres de
Pordre des insectes coleopteres. Mémoires présentés al’ Académie Impériale des Sciences de
St.-Pétersbourg par Divers Savans, et lus dans ses Assemblées, 1(5): 415-501.

Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannicae, sistens insecta Coleoptera Britanniae indigena
secundum methodum linnaeanam disposita, vol. 2. Pp. 235-548. White, London.

Neaye, S.A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 3 (M-P). 1065 pp. Zoological Society of London,
London.

Redtenbacher, L. 1849. Fauna Austriaca. Die Kafer, nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet.
xxvil, 883 pp. Gerold, Vienna.

Redtenbacher, L. 1858. Fauna Austriaca: Die Kafer, nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet,
Ed. 2. cxxxvi, 1017 pp., 2 pls. Gerold’s Sohn, Vienna.

Reitter, E. 1909. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches, vol. 2. 392 pp., pls 41-80.
Lutz, Stuttgart. P

Rey, C. 1883. Tribu des Brévipennes. Deuxiéme rameau. Bolitobiates. Annales de la Société
Linnéenne de Lyon, (2)29: 13-125, 125/1-7.

Sahlberg, J. 1876. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Brachelytrorum Fenniae, | (Staphylinidae). 247 pp.
Societas pro Faunas et Flora Fennica, Helsingfors.

Sherborn, C.D. 1928. Index Animalium ... , part 17 (MUNDA-NYX). Pp. 4195-4450. British
Museum, London.

Spix, J.B. de & Agassiz, L. 1829-1831. Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per
Brasiliam ... Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr J.B. de Spix, ... Digessit, descripsit et
observationibus anatomicis illustravit Dr L. Agassiz. xvi, 11, 138 pp., 98 pls. Wolf, Monachii.

Stephens, J.F. 1829a. The nomenclature of British insects; being a compendious list of such species
as are contained in the Systematic Catalogue of British Insects, and forming a guide to their
classification, & c. & c. 68 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London.

Stephens, J.F. 1829b. A systematic catalogue of British insects, part 1. xxxiv, 416 pp. Baldwin &
Cradock, London.

Stephens, J.F. 1832. Ischnosoma. Pp. 168-171 in: Illustrations of British entomology....
Mandibulata, vol. 5. Baldwin & Cradock, London.

Stephens, J.F. 1833. The nomenclature of British insects together with their synonymes; being a
compendious list of such species as are contained in the systematic catalogue of British insects,
and of those discovered subsequently to its publication; forming a guide to their classification,
part 1. 135 columns. Baldwin & Cradock, London.

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Stephens, J.F. 1835. Appendix. Pp. 365-440 in: Illustrations of British entomology...
Mandibulata, vol. 5. Baldwin & Cradock, London.

Strand, E. 1935. Revision von Gattungsnamen palaearktischer Coleoptera. Folia Zoologica
Hydrobiologica, 7(2): 282-299.

Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 1. 304 pp. Lund.

Tikhomirova, A.L. 1973. Morfoekologicheskiye osobennosti i filogenez stafilinid (s katalogom
fauny S.S.S.R.) [Morphological and ecological features and phylogeny of the Staphylinidae
(with a catalogue of the fauna of the U.S.S.R.)]. 190 pp. Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.,
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and Ecology of Animals, Moscow.
[In Russian.]

Tottenham, C.E. 1939. Some notes on the nomenclature of the Staphylinidae (Coleoptera), part
2. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)8(12): 227-237.

Tottenham, C.E. 1949. The generic names of the British Staphylinidae with a check list of the
species. Pp. 343-466 in: The generic names of British insects...., vol. 1 (1934-1939), part 9.
Royal Entomological Society, London.

Tottenham, C.E. 1956. Contributions a l'étude de la faune entomologique du Ruanda-Urundi
(Mission P. Basilewsky 1953). 87 (Coleoptera Staphylinidae: Steninae, Xantholininae,
Staphylininae, Tachyporinae et Pygosteninae). Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge,
Sciences Zoologiques, 51: 221—332.

Valenciennes, A. 1847. In Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. & Valenciennes, A., Histoire naturelle des poissons,
vol. 19. xix, 544 pp. Bertrand, Paris.

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 17-32. Published with An
introduction to the modern classification of insects ... , vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 113-160. Longman, —
Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

———————$<—<———

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 41

Case 2760

Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): proposed
designation of R. baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type species

.S.V. Rozhnov

Paleontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya ul. 123,
Moscow 117321, Russia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Ordovician eocrinoid name
Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 in its accustomed usage. In 1913 Bather designated R. gigas
Jaekel, 1901 as the type species. However, this nominal species was composite and
Hecker [Gekker] (1940) invalidly designated R. baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type species.
It is proposed that Bather’s designation of R. gigas be set aside, thereby validating
Hecker’s designation of R. baltica and conserving Rhipidocystis in its accustomed
usage.

1. Ina paper published early in 1901, although date-marked 1900, Jaekel established
the genus Rhipidocystis (p. 672) with two new species, R. baltica and R. gigas, neither of
which was given as the type species. R. baltica was named in the description of text-fig. 3
(p. 665) which Jaekel thought to be a stem appendage; this is the only text-figure
relevant to Rhipidocystis. The second species, R. gigas, was briefly described in the text
(p. 672).

2. Bather (1913, p. 371) examined the original specimens which Jaekel had attri-
buted to Rhipidocystis gigas and which had been collected from several different
localities. Bather had some doubts whether they all belonged to R. gigas (‘I do not
know on what evidence Specimen 4 is placed in the same species, or indeed in the same
genus as the others; but I assume that material evidence does, or did, exist’). He thought
that R. baltica was probably conspecific with R. gigas and (p. 369) designated R. gigas
as the type species of Rhipidocystis. Hecker (1940, p. 16), without mentioning Bather’s
designation of a type species, designated R. baltica. In the Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Ubaghs (1968, p. S489) accepted Bather’s designation of R. gigas as the
type species. Bockelie (1981, pp. 141, 146) also accepted Bather’s designation.

3. Hecker [Gekker] (1938, p. 421) demonstrated that Jaekel’s genus Rhipidocystis
was composite, being based on parts from four different genera:

(a) The ‘thecae’ consisted of fragments of the ophiocistioid Volchovia Hecker, 1938

and thecae of the eocrinoid Bockia Hecker, 1938.
(b) The ‘stem joints’ belonged to the solute Dendrocystites kuckersianus Hecker,
1938, transferred by Gill & Caster (1960, p. 16) to their new genus Heckericystis.

(c) The ‘root bladders’ (Wurzelblasen) were representatives of Bockia.

(d) The ‘stem appendages’ (Stielanhange) on which R. baltica Jaekel was based were

eocrinoid, and Hecker restricted Rhipidocystis to this sense.

4. If the nominal species R. gigas were to remain as the type species of Rhipidocystis,
the concept of the four genera Rhipidocystis, Volchovia, Heckericystis and Bockia

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

would change from the present. The alternative, which I favour, would be to set aside
Bather’s designation of R. gigas as the type species of Rhipidocystis and to accept
Hecker’s (1940) designation of R. baltica.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 prior to that by Hecker (1940) of Rhipidocystis
baltica Jaekel, 1901;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Rhipidocystis
Jaekel, 1901 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Hecker (1940) Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name baltica Jaekel,
1901, as published in the binomen Rhipidocystis baltica (specific name of the type
species of Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901).

Acknowledgements

I am sincerely grateful to Prof R.Th. Hecker, Prof G. Ubaghs and Dr G. Sprinkle for
discussion of this case, and for Dr Sprinkle’s help in improving the English of the
application.

References

Bather, F.A. 1913. Caradocian Cystidea from Girvan. Transactions of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, 49(6): 359-529.

Bockelie, J.F. 1981. The Middle Ordovician of the Oslo Region, Norway, 30. The eocrinoid
genera Cryptocrinites, Rhipidocystis and Bockia. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 61: 123-147.

Hecker [Gekker], R.Th. 1938. New data on Rhipidocystis Jkl (Order Digitata n.o., Class
Carpoidea Jkl) and on a new genus Bockia (Subclass Eocrinoidea Jk1, Class Crinoidea Mill.)
from the Ordovician of Leningrad Province, U.S.S.R., and Estonia. Compte Rendu
[Doklady ] Académie des Sciences de l’U.R.S.S., (2)19(5): 421-425. [In Russian. ]

Hecker [Gekker], R.Th. 1940. Carpoidea, Eocrinoidea and Ophiocistia from the Ordovician of
Leningrad region and Estonia. Académie des Sciences de l'U.R.S.S. [Trudy] de l'Institut
Paléontologique, 9(4): 5—82. [In Russian.]

Gill, E.D. & Caster, K.E. 1960. Carpoid echinoderms from the Silurian and Devonian of
Australia. Bulletin of American Paleontology, No. 185, 41: 1-71. :

Jaekel, O. 1901. Ueber Carpoideen, eine neue Classe von Pelmatozoen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
geologischen Gesellschaft, 52(4): 661-677.

Ubaghs, G. 1968. Eocrinoidea. Pp. 455-495 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, part S, Echinodermata 1, vol. 2. Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 43

Case 2815

Graptolithus clintonensis (currently Monograptus clintonensis;
Graptolithina): proposed attribution to Hall, 1852, and designation
of a lectotype

D.K. Loydell

Institute of Earth Studies, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed
SY23 3DB, Wales, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve in its accepted usage the specific
name of the Silurian graptolite Monograptus clintonensis. In 1843 Hall established the
nominal species clintonensis but figured a specimen of Monograptus priodon (Bronn,
1835). Hall later (1852) described the diagnostic characters of clintonensis and figured
specimens agreeing with those characters. It is proposed that the nominal species
clintonensis be attributed to Hall, 1852, and that one of the specimens figured in his
1852 paper be designated the lectotype.

1. Hall (1843, pp. 74~75, fig. 12 on p. 72) described Graptolites clintonensis from the
‘upper green shale at Sodus, Williamson, Rochester, and numerous intermediate
points’ in New York State, and indicated that the new specific name referred to his
figured specimen. His brief description could apply to any monograptid with hooked
thecae. His figured specimen, housed in the American Museum of Natural History,
New York (specimen no. 30956), is from Shaker’s Mill, Sodus, Wayne County, New
York. I have examined this specimen, which is an example of Monograptus priodon
(Bronn, 1835) (p. 56).

2. Hall later (1852, p. 39) described and figured further specimens which he
described as Graptolithus clintonensis from Sodus, Williamson and Rochester. His
diagnosis for the species stated ‘serrae long, deeply cut into the stipe’. This feature is not
characteristic of M. priodon, the thecae (‘serrae’) of which overlap for one-half or more
of their length distally and the metathecal hooks of which comprise less than half of the
dorso-ventral width of the rhabdosome, the prothecae being approximately parallel to
the rhabdosome axis. Hall (1852, p. 39) noted that one of the ‘distinctive characters’ of
the thecae (‘serrae’) of Graptolithus clintonensis was ‘the depth to which they are cut
into the stipe’. Hall (1852, pl. A17, figs. lah) figured five specimens which are housed
in the American Museum of Natural History (specimen nos. 30951-30952, 30954—
30956). I have examined these specimens, which are of two species. Distal fragments of
M. priodon are figured in figs. 1b (specimen no. 30956, which is the specimen figured in
1843), lc (specimen no. 30952) and 1g—h (stated in the records of the American
Museum of Natural History to be specimen no. 30955 — if so, the figures are not
accurate representations of the specimen). The specimens figured in fig. la (specimen
no. 30951) and figs. 1d-f (specimen no. 30954) are of a different species and match
precisely, in terms of thecal morphology, Hall’s 1852 description of Graptolithus
clintonensis.

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

3. Lapworth (1880, p. 69) discussed the species and stated: ‘As regards
M. Clintonensis, Hall, the differences [from M. priodon] are so marked that the question
of identity may soon be disposed of’. He noted that the distal thecae of what he
considered to be M. clintonensis were ‘wholly destitute of anything like overlap’.

4. Ruedemann (1908, pp. 450-453, text figs. 427-431, pl. 29, fig. 1) described new
material of M. clintonensis from New York. His description combined features which
agreed with Hall’s 1852 description of M. clintonensis (proximally) and those of
M. priodon (distally). I have examined Ruedemann’s figured material which is housed
in the New York State Museum, Albany (specimen nos. 7309-7313). Specimen no.
7309 (text fig. 427) is a distal fragment of M. priodon. The other specimens agree with
Hall’s 1852 description of M. clintonensis. These include specimen no. 7313 (pl. 29,
fig. 1) which Ruedemann described as a typical specimen. Ruedemann later (1947,
pl. 85) used copies of his 1908 figures to illustrate M. clintonensis. He again described
specimen no. 7313 (pl. 85, fig. 48) as a typical specimen.

5. To summarise, the specific name clintonensis has been used for two species. The
specimens figured by Hall (1852) in pl. A17, figs. la and 1d—f and the specimen figured
by Ruedemann (1908, 1947) as a ‘typical specimen’ agree with Hall’s 1852 description
of clintonensis. Some distal fragments (including that figured by Hall, 1843, fig. 12) are
specimens of M. priodon. Monograptus clintonensis has not been recorded from outside ~
North America. However, I have recently found this distinctive species in collections I
have made in Wales, suggesting that it may be of value in international correlation.

6. It is desirable that Hall’s specific name clintonensis should be retained for those
specimens which agree with his 1852 description of the species. I therefore propose that
the specific name clintonensis be attributed to Hall, 1852. Subject to acceptance of this
proposal, I designate as lectotype the specimen figured by Hall, 1852, pl. A17, fig. la,
which is the longest of his figured specimens. This is specimen no. 30951 in the
American Museum of Natural History, New York; it is from Shaker’s Mill, Sodus,
Wayne County, New York.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name clintonensis Hall, 1843, as

published in the binomen Graptolites clintonensis, and all uses of that name prior
to the publication of Graptolithus clintonensis Hall, 1852, 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 clintonensis
Hall, 1852, as published in the binomen Graptolithus clintonensis and as defined
by the lectotype designated in para. 6 above;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name clintonensis Hall, 1843, as published in the binomen Graptolites
clintonensis and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Hall, J. 1843. Geology of New York. Part IV. Survey of the Fourth Geological District. 683 pp.
Albany.

Hall, J. 1852. Palaeontology of New York. Volume IT, containing descriptions of the organic
remains of the Lower Middle Division of the New York System. 362 pp. Albany.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 45

Lapworth, C. 1880. On Linnarsson’s recent discoveries in Swedish geology. (Part II). Geological
Magazine, (2)7: 68-71.

Ruedemann, R. 1908. Graptolites of New York. Part 2. Graptolites of the higher beds. New York
State Museum Memoir, 11: 1-583.

Ruedemann, R. 1947. Graptolites of North America. Geological Society of America Memoir, 19:
1-652. ~

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2826

Monograptus crenulatus (currently Monoclimacis crenulata;
Graptolithina): proposed attribution of the specific name to Elles &
Wood, 1911, and proposed designation of a lectotype

D.K. Loydell

Institute of Earth Studies, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed
SY23 3DB, Wales, U.K.

E.E. Bull

Grant Institute of Geology, University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings,
West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, Scotland, U.K.

P. Storch

Geological Survey, Malostranské nam. 19, Praha 1, Mala Strana 118 21,
Czechoslovakia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve in its accepted usage the specific
name of the Silurian graptolite Monograptus crenulatus. Tornquist (1881) established
the nominal species crenulatus and Elles & Wood (1911) used his name for specimens
from Wales which have since been shown to be non-conspecific with Tornquist’s
species, which is a synonym of Monograptus vomerinus vomerinus (Nicholson, 1872).
Monograptus crenulatus sensu Elles & Wood gives its name to the important
Monoclimacis crenulatus Biozone. It is proposed that the nominal species crenulatus be
attributed to Elles & Wood, 1911, and that one of the specimens figured by them be
designated lectotype.

1. Tornquist (1881, pp. 438, pl. 17, figs. 4a—d) described a new species Monograptus
crenulatus from the ‘retiolitesskiffern’ (Silurian) of Nitsj6 and Stygforsen, Sweden.

2. Wood (1906, p. 657) erected the Monograptus crenulatus Biozone, the type
locality being the Trannon River section in Wales.

3. Elles & Wood (1911, pp. 412-413, text figs. 278a—e, pl. 41, figs. 4a—d) in their
Monograph of British Graptolites described and figured specimens which they named
Monograptus vomerinus (Nicholson, 1872) var. crenulatus (Tornquist). All the speci-
mens figured, except that figured as pl. 41, fig. 4d, were from Wood’s (1906) collections
from the Trannon district. This monograph, published between 1901 and 1918, became
the standard guide for graptolite identification for the 50 years subsequent to its
publication and is still widely used.

4. Prior to 1970 Elles & Wood’s specimens of Monograptus crenulatus had been
universally accepted as specimens of M. crenulatus T6érnquist. References to
M. crenulatus during this period are based on Elles & Wood’s (1911) description (e.g.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 47

Pribyl, 1940, pp. 7-8, pl. 2, figs. 17-18; Waterlot, 1945, p. 76, fig. 323 (pars); Miinch,
1952, p. 120, pl. 38, figs. 6a—b; Romariz, 1962, pp. 264-265, pl. 13, fig. 19).

5. In 1970 Rickards (p. 177) questioned the validity of T6érnquist’s species
Monoclimacis crenulata, and referred to Monoclimacis crenulata sensu Elles & Wood.
Bjerreskov (1975, pp. 56-57) measured specimens of Monograptus crenulatus
TOrnquist from the type areas of Nittsjo and Stygforsen. She concluded: “These speci-

"mens have measurements so close to those of Monograptus vomerinus vomerinus and a
revision will probably show that they have to be included in this species. However,
M. crenulatus sensu Elles & Wood is quite different from M. vomerinus vomerinus, and
this form should be maintained as a separate species or subspecies’.

6. Examination by one of us (D.K.L.) of the type material of Monoclimacis
crenulata (Tornquist) and of the neotype of Monoclimacis vomerina vomerina confirms
that, contrary to Elles & Wood’s thinking, the two are conspecific. This neotype was
selected by Strachan (1971, p. 65) as BU 1542, housed in the Lapworth Museum of
Birmingham University, and figured by Elles & Wood (1911, pl. 41, fig. 1a); it is from
the Riccarton Beds of Elliotsfield, S. Scotland.

7. Monoclimacis crenulata (sensu Elles & Wood) has been used widely as an indi-
cator of the Monoclimacis crenulata Biozone. Rickards (1976, p. 166) noted that the
recognition of the M. crenulata Biozone was based largely on the occurrence of
M. crenulata (sensu Elles & Wood). Cocks et al. (1984, p. 173, fig. 69) included the
M. crenulata Biozone as part of the ‘standard scale of graptolite zones’ in their paper
The Llandovery Series of the Type Area. Rickards (1989, p. 269, fig. 169), in A global
standard for the Silurian System, included the Monoclimacis crenulata Biozone in his
table of biozones ‘most widely in use in international correlation’.

8. It is desirable to retain the accepted usage of the species Monoclimacis crenulata
and of the Monoclimacis crenulata Biozone. We therefore propose that the specific
name crenulata be attributed to Elles & Wood (1911) and not to Tornquist (1881).
Subject to acceptance of this proposal, we select the specimen figured by Elles & Wood
(1911) as text fig. 278a as the lectotype of Monograptus crenulatus Elles & Wood, 1911.
This specimen, from Wood’s (1906) collection of graptolites from the Trannon area, is
housed in Birmingham University, where it is registered as BU 1555 (see Strachan,
1971, p. 108).

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name crenulatus Tornquist,
1881, as published in the binomen Monograptus crenulatus, and all uses of that
name prior to its publication by Elles & Wood (1911), 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 crenulatus
Elles & Wood, 1911, as published in the trinomen Monograptus vomerinus
crenulatus and as defined by the lectotype designated in para. 8 above;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name crenulatus Térnquist, 1881, as published in the binomen Monograptus
crenulatus and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

| Bjerreskoy, M. 1975. Llandoverian and Wenlockian graptolites from Bornholm. Fossils and
Strata, 8: 1-94.

|

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Cocks, L.R.M., Woodcock, N.H., Rickards, R.B., Temple, J.T. & Lane, P.D. 1984. The
Llandovery Series of the Type Area. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History),
Geology, 38: 131-182.

Elles, G.L. & Wood, E.M.R. 1911. A monograph of British graptolites. Part 8. Palaeontographi-
cal Society (Monograph), 359-414.

Miinch, A. 1952. Die Graptolithen aus dem anstehenden Gotlandium Deutschlands und der
Tschechoslowakei. Geologica, 7: 1-157.

Pyibyl, A. 1940. Revise ceskych graptolitu rodu Monoclimacis, Frech. Rozpravy II. Tridy Ceské
Akademie, 50: 1-19.

Rickards, R.B. 1970. Jn Burgess, I.C., Rickards, R.B. & Strachan, I. The Silurian strata of the
Cross Fell area. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 32: 167-182.

Rickards, R.B. 1976. The sequence of Silurian graptolite zones in the British Isles. Geological
Journal, 11: 153-188.

Rickards, R.B. 1989. Exploitation of graptoloid cladogenesis in Silurian stratigraphy. Pp. 267—
274 in Holland, C.H. & Bassett, M.G. (Eds.). A global standard for the Silurian System.
National Museum of Wales, Geological Series, No. 9. 325 pp. Cardiff.

Romariz, C. 1962. Graptolitos do Silurico Portugués. Revista da Faculdade de Ciéncias de Lisboa,
(C)10: 114-305.

Strachan, I. 1971. A synoptic supplement to ‘A monograph of British graptolites by Miss G.L.
Elles and Miss E.M.R. Wood’. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1-130.

Térnquist, S.L. 1881. Om nagra graptolitarter fran Dalarne. Geologiska Foreningens i Stockholm
Forhandlingar, 5: 434-445.

Waterlot, G. 1945. Les graptolites du Maroc. Notes et Mémoires, Protectorat de la République
Francaise au Maroc. Division des Mines et de la Géologie, Service Géologique, 63: 1-112.

Wood, E.M.R. 1906. The Tarannon Series of Tarannon. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London, 62: 644-701.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 49

Case 2797

Scylliorhinus atlanticus Koefoed, 1927 (currently Apristurus atlanticus;
Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): proposed conservation of the
specific name

K. Nakaya

Laboratory of Marine Zoology, Faculty of Fisheries, Hokkaido University,
Minato-machi, Hakodate, Hokkaido 041, Japan

’ B. Séret

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire d’Ichtyologie générale et
appliquée, Antenne Orstom, 43 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Apristurus
atlanticus (Koefoed, 1927), which is currently in use for an Atlantic scyliorhinid
(catshark). The name is threatened by the unused senior synonym Scyllium?
spinacipellitum Vaillant, 1888.

1. Vaillant (1888, p. 60, pl. 1, figs. 3, 3a and 4) described two species of scyliorhinid
sharks, Scyllium? spinacipellitum and S. acutidens, from deep waters off the Canary
Islands. The types of these two species (MNHN 1884-384 and MNHN 1884-385) are
preserved in the collection of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Close
examination of the type specimen (MNHN 1884-384) of S. spinacipellitum caused us
(Nakaya & Séret, 1989, p. 977) to synonymize Vaillant’s species with Scylliorhinus
atlanticus Koefoed, 1927 (p. 18). It may be noted in passing that Scylliorhinus is an old
unjustified emendation of Scyliorhinus Blainville, 1816.

2. The specific name spinacipellitum has never been used as a valid name since 1888.
Bertin (1939, p. 68, footnote 1) mentioned the name in a catalogue of the type speci-
mens in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Fowler (1967, p. 356) doubtfully
included S. spinacipellitum in the synonymy of Scyliorhinus canicula (Linnaeus, 1758),
and that synonymy was followed by Compagno (1984, p. 358; 1988, p. 122). We have
been unable to find any other mention of the name spinacipellitum.

3. The name Apristurus atlanticus (Koefoed, 1927) has been used in such taxonomic
works as Bigelow & Schroeder (1944, p. 22; 1948, p. 220), Bigelow, Schroeder &
Springer (1953, p. 217), Cadenat & Maul (1966, p. 778), Springer (1966, p. 613; 1979,
p. 14), Taylor (1972, p. 71), Nakaya (1975, p. 23), Cadenat & Blache (1981, p. 185),
Compagno (1984, p. 261; 1988, p. 168), Gubanov, Kondurin & Myagkov (1986, p. 92)
and also in popular books such as Ellis (1983), Reader’s Digest (1986) and Springer &
Gold (1989). Hence the name A. at/anticus is commonly used whereas S. spinacipellitum
has almost never been mentioned. Use of the name S. spinacipellitum would cause
confusion and disturb the stability of nomenclature for this species.

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name spinacipellitum Vaillant,
1888, as published in the binomen Scy/lium? spinacipellitum, for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name atlanticus
Koefoed, 1927, as published in the binomen Scylliorhinus atlanticus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name spinacipellitum Vaillant, 1888, as published in the binomen Scyllium?
spinacipellitum and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Bertin, L. 1939. Catalogue des types de poissons du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle.
Cyclostomes et Sélaciens. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, (2)11(1):
51-98.

Bigelow, H.B. & Schroeder, W.C. 1944. New sharks from the western North Atlantic.
Proceedings of the New England Zoological Club, 23: 21-36.

Bigelow, H.B. & Schroeder, W.C. 1948. Sharks. Pp. 59-576 in Tee-Van, J., Breder, C.M.,
Hildebrand, S.F., Parr, A.E. & Schroeder, W.C. (Eds.), Fishes of the western North
Atlantic, no. 1, part 1. 517 pp. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research, Yale -
University, New Haven.

Bigelow, H.B., Schroeder, W.C. & Springer, S. 1953. New and little known sharks from the
Atlantic and from the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard College, 109(3): 213-276.

Cadenat, J. & Blache, J. 1981. Requins de Méditerranée et d’Atlantique (plus particuliérement
de la cote occidentale d’Afrique). Faune Tropicale, 21: 1-330.

Cadenat, J. & Maul, G.E. 1966. Note d’ichtyologie ouest-africaine. 43. Description d’une espéce
nouvelle du genre Apristurus, Apristurus maderensis (Sélaciens, Scyliorhinidae). Bulletin de
l'Institut Fondamental d’ Afrique Noire, (A)28(2): 769-782.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. Sharks of the world. FAO species catalogue, vol. 4, part 1. (FAO
Fisheries Synopsis no. 125), 655 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1988. Sharks of the Order Carcharhiniformes. 486 pp. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.

Ellis, R. 1983. The book of sharks. 256 pp., 20 pls. Robert Hale, London.

Fowler, H.W. 1967. A catalogue of world fishes (7). Quarterly Journal of Taiwan Museum,
20(3-4): 341-366. :

Gubanoy, E.P., Kondurin, V.V. & Myagkov, N.A. 1986. Sharks of the world oceans. 272 pp.
Agropromizdat, Moscow. [In Russian].

Koefoed, E. 1927. Fishes from the sea bottom. Report of the Scientific Results of Michael Sars
North Atlantic Deepsea Expedition 1910, 4(1): 1-148.

Nakaya, K. 1975. Taxonomy, comparative anatomy and phylogeny of Japanese catsharks,
Scyliorhinidae. Memoir of Faculty of Fisheries, Hokkaido University, 23(1): 1-94.

Nakaya, K. & Séret, B. 1989. Scyllium spinacipellitum Vaillant, 1888, a senior synonym of
Apristurus atlanticus (Koefoed, 1927) (Chondrichthyes, Scyliorhinidae). Bulletin du
Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, (4)11(A,4): 977-982.

Reader’s Digest. 1986. Sharks. Silent hunters of the deep. 208 pp. Reader’s Digest Services, New
South Wales.

Springer, S. 1966. A review of western Atlantic cat sharks, Scyliorhinidae, with descriptions of a
new genus and five new species. Fishery Bulletin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 65:
581-624.

Springer, S. 1979. A revision of the catshark, Scyliorhinidae. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Circular, no. 422. 152 pp.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 51

Springer, V.G. & Gold, J.P. 1989. Sharks in question. The Sn
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Taylor, L.R., Jr. 1972. Apristurus kampae, a new species of scyliorhinid shark from the eastern
Pacific Ocean. Copeia, 1972(1): 71-78.

Vaillant, L. 1888. Poissons. Jn Masson, G. (Ed.), Expéditions Scientifiques du Travailleur et du
Talisman pendant les années 1880-83. 406 pp., 25 pls. Paris.

uthsonian answer book. 187 pp.

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2807

Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida): proposed
conservation

Spencer G. Lucas

New Mexico Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 7010, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87194, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Triassic dicynodont name
Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 by suppression of the virtually unused senior subjective
synonym Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936.

1. Huene (1935, p. 76) established a new species of the genus Dicynodon Owen, 1845,
D. turpior, for a partial skeleton of a dicynodont reptile from Triassic strata near
Chiniqua, Rio-Grande-do-Sul, Brazil.

2. Caldas (1936, p. 249) established the new genus and species Diodontosaurus
pedroanum for the skull of a dicynodont reptile collected from the same strata as
Huene’s near SAo0-Pedro, Rio-Grande-do-Sul, Brazil. Caldas described and illustrated
the holotype skull of Diodontosaurus pedroanum and made it clear that he was naming a
new taxon which he contrasted with two other dicynodont taxa. Under Article 13 of the
Code, this is fully adequate to make Diodontosaurus pedroanum an available name.
Diodontosaurus pedroanum is the type species of Diodontosaurus by monotypy. The
holotype skull of D. pedroanum is extant and is registered as DGM no. 530R (Divisao
de Geologia e Mineralogia, Ministerio das Minas e Energia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). It
has been illustrated by Beltrao (1966, fig. 34) and Cox (1968, figs. SE, 8E).

3. Romer (1943, p. 336) established the new genus and species Dinodontosaurus
oliveirai for a dicynodont skeleton from the same Triassic strata in the same general
area from which Huene’s and Caldas’s specimens were derived.

4. Cox (1965, pp. 475-476) transferred Dicynodon turpior to Dinodontosaurus .
Romer, thus creating the new combination Dinodontosaurus turpior (Huene, 1935). He
also considered Dinodontosaurus oliveirai to be a junior subjective synonym of
Dinodontosaurus turpior. Cox stated that the type species of Dinodontosaurus was
D. turpior. This is incorrect in that, in accordance with Articles 67 and 68, the type
species is D. oliveirai, which is a junior subjective synonym of D. turpior.

5. Cox (1968, p. 9) acknowledged the existence of the name Diodontosaurus
pedroanum Caldas, and considered its holotype to be a specimen of Dinodontosaurus
turpior. He asserted that ‘Tupi Caldas’s description is so brief and so poorly illustrated
that it cannot be regarded as a satisfactory basis for the identification of a new taxon,
and Dinodontosaurus [sic] pedroanum must therefore be regarded as a nomen nudum’.
King (1988, pp. 105-106) followed Cox in listing ‘Diodontosaurus Tupi Caldas,
1936 nomen nudum’ as a subjective synonym of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 and
‘Diodontosaurus pedroanum Tupi Caldas, 1936 nomen nudum’ as a subjective synonym
of Dinodontosaurus turpior (Huene, 1935). Mones (1986, p. 71), however, listed

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 53

Diodontosaurus and Diodontosaurus pedroanum as names distinct from Dinodonto-
saurus and Dinodontosaurus turpior.

6. Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 and turpior Huene, 1935 are widely recognized as
the valid names for the Brazilian Triassic dicynodont described by Huene (1935),
Caldas (1936) and Romer (1943). These names have been used in lists and research
papers by, for example, Anderson & Cruickshank (1978, p. 35), Barberena, Araujo &
’ Lavina (1985, p. 14) and Ochev & Shishkin (1989, p. 163); a representative list of 17
further papers is held by the Commission Secretariat. Dinodontosaurus has given its
name to the subfamily DINODONTOSAURINAE Keyser & Cruickshank, 1979. I am not
aware of the use*of the name Diodontosaurus in publications other than those cited in
paras. 2 and 5 above.

7. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would recognize Diodontosaurus

‘pedroanum Caldas, 1936 as a senior subjective synonym of Dinodontosaurus oliveirai
Romer, 1943. Diodontosaurus would become the valid name, thereby replacing a widely
accepted generic name with a virtually forgotten name that differs by only a single
letter.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Diodontosaurus Caldas,
1936 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 Dinodonto-
saurus Romer, 1943 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Dinodonto-
saurus oliveirai Romer, 1943 (a junior subjective synonym of Dicynodon turpior
Huene, 1935);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name turpior
Huene, 1935, as published in the binomen Dicynodon turpior (senior subjective
synonym of the specific name of Dinodontosaurus oliveirai Romer, 1943, the type
species of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Anderson, J.M. & Cruickshank, A.R.I. 1978. The biostratigraphy of the Permian and the
Triassic. Part 5. A review of the classification and distribution of Permo-Triassic tetrapods.
Palaeontologia Africana, 21: 15-44.

Beltrao, R. 1966. Paleontologia de Santa Maria e Sado Pedro do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Boletim do Instituto de Ciéncias Naturais da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, 2: 3-114.

Barberena, M.C., Araujo, D.C. & Lavina, E.L. 1985. Late Permian and Triassic tetrapods of
southern Brazil. National Geographic Research, 1: 5-20.

Caldas, J.A.L.T. 1936. Paleontologia do Rio-Grande-do-Sul o fossil de Sao-Pedro. Revista
Instituto Historico e Geografico do Rio-Grande-so-Sul, 16: 243-249.

Cox, C.B. 1965. New Triassic dicynodonts from South America, their origins and relationships.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, (B) 248: 457-516.

Cox, C.B. 1968. The Chafiares (Argentina) Triassic reptile fauna. IV. The dicynodont fauna.
Breviora, 295: 1-27.

Huene, F. von. 1935. Die fossilen Reptilien des stidamerikanischen Gondwanalandes an der Zeiten-
wende. Ordnung Anomodontia. Lieferung I. 92 pp. Heine, Tiibingen.

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Keyser, A.W. & Cruickshank, A.R.I. 1979. The origins and classification of Triassic dicynodonts.
Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa, 82: 81-108.

King, G.M. 1988. Anomodontia. In Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. (Ed. Kuhn). 174 pp.
Fischer, Stuttgart.

Mones, A. 1986. Palaeovertebrata Sudamericana catalogo sistematico de los vertebrados fosiles
de America del Sur Parte 1 Lista Preliminar y Bibliografia. Courier Forschungsinstitut
Senckenberg, 82: 1-625.

Ochey, V.G. & Shishkin, M.A. 1989. On the principles of global correlation of the continental
Triassic on the tetrapods. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 34: 149-173.

Owen, R. 1845. Description of certain fossil crania discovered by A.G. Bain, Esq., in sandstone
rocks at the south-eastern extremity of Africa, referable to different species of an extinct
genus of Reptilia (Dicynodon), and indicative of a new tribe or sub-order of Sauria.
Transactions of the Geological Society of London, (2)7: 59-84.

Romer, A.S. 1943. Recent mounts of fossil reptiles and amphibians in the Museum of

Comparative Zoology. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
92: 331-338.

vl

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 55

Case 2785

Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates):
proposed conservation of both generic and specific names

_Ian Tattersall

Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New
York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.

Elwyn L. Simons

Duke University Primate Center, 3705 Erwin Road, Durham, North Carolina
A7705,.U.S.A.

Martine Vuillaume-Randriamanantena

Service de Paléontologie, E.E.S.S., B.P. 906, Université d’Antananarivo,
Madagascar; Institut de Paléontologie and Laboratoire d’ Anatomie Comparee,
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 75005 Paris, France

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic and specific names
of Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899, universally in use for a subfossil
lemur from Madagascar. The names are threatened by the unused senior subjective
synonyms Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895 and T. grandidieri Filhol, 1895.

1. Filhol (1895, p. 13) proposed the new generic and specific names Thaumastolemur
grandidieri for a primate on the basis of a distal humeral fragment recovered in 1868 by
Alfred Grandidier at the subfossil site of Ambolisatra, in southwestern Madagascar.

2. Guillaume Grandidier (1899, p. 345, fig. on p. 346) proposed the name Palaeo-
propithecus ingens for a partial mandible from the nearby site of Belo-sur-Mer and in
1900 (p. 216) added to the hypodigm further mandibular fragments from Ambolisatra.
Since that time authors have universally used the name Palaeopropithecus ingens for the
species represented by the mandibular specimens from Belo and Ambolisatra, and an
extensive literature has accumulated that employs this name.

3. In 1902 (p. 498) G. Grandidier synonymised Thaumastolemur grandidieri with
the prior name Megaladapis madagascariensis Major, 1894 (p. 16, based on a nearly
complete skull and mandible of another taxon, a large subfossil lemuroid from
Ambolisatra). Grandidier repeated this synonymy in 1905 (p. 54). Between the latter
date and 1990 the name Thaumastolemur grandidieri was to our knowledge never used
once apart from being listed as a junior synonym of M. madagascariensis. Trouessart
(1897, p. 54) seems to have been the last author to cite Thaumastolemur as a valid name.
The holotype of Filhol’s species apparently went unstudied subsequent to its mention
by Grandidier (1905).

4. In later years the formerly vexed question of the association of the cranial and
postcranial elements of the skeleton of Palaeopropithecus was satisfactorily resolved

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

both by the efforts of Carleton (1936) and Lamberton (see, for example, 1947), and by
the discovery of an almost complete associated skeleton (MacPhee et al., 1984).

5. Recently, Vuillaume-Randriamanantena (1990) has relocated the holotype distal
humerus of Filhol’s (1895) Thaumastolemur grandidieri, no. 1906-17 in the collections
of the Institut de Paléontologie in Paris. Her study of this element shows that, rather
than belonging to Megaladapis madagascariensis, it represents the species known
universally in the literature of this century as Palaeopropithecus ingens.

6. If this conclusion is accepted, as we believe proper, Palaeopropithecus ingens
G. Grandidier, 1899 becomes a junior subjective synonym of Thaumastolemur
grandidieri Filhol, 1895. However, allowing Filhol’s never-used name to replace the
long-entrenched Palaeopropithecus ingens would result in considerable confusion, and
would violate the criteria of stability of nomenclature (Articles 23b and 79c of the
Code). This is particularly the case since the name Palaeopropithecus is not only
widely cited in the specialized systematic literature but appears in literally hundreds of
citations in the extensive secondary literature, in several languages, on primate biology.
Among major primary works using the name Palaeopropithecus are Standing (1908),
Saban (1963) and Tattersall (1982). Texts and works of reference in wide current use
that employ this nomenclature include Simons (1972), Fleagle (1988) and Martin
(1990). A list of a further 19 references showing usage of the name is held by the ~
Commission Secretariat.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

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

Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) the generic name Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895;

(b) the specific name grandidieri Filhol, 1895, as published in the binomen
Thaumastolemur grandidieri;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Palaeo-
propithecus G. Grandidier, 1899 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ingens
G. Grandidier, 1899, as published in the binomen Palaeopropithecus ingens
(specific name of the type species of Palaeopropithecus G. Grandidier, 1899);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name grandidieri Filhol, 1895, as published in the binomen Thaumastolemur
grandidieri and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Carleton, A. 1936. The limb bones and vertebrae of the extinct lemurs of Madagascar. Proceed-
ings of the Zoological Society of London, 110: 281-307.

Filhol, H. 1895. Observations concernant les mammiféres contemporains des Aepyornis a
Madagascar. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 1(1): 12-14.

Fleagle, J. 1988. Primate adaptation and evolution. 486 pp. Academic Press, New York.

Grandidier, G. 1899. Description des ossements des lémuriens disparus. Bulletin du Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle, 5(7): 344-348.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 57

Grandidier, G. 1900. Note sur des ossements d’animaux disparus. Bulletin du Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, 6(5): 214-219.

Grandidier, G. 1902. Observations sur les lemuriens disparus de Madagascar: collections
Alluaud, Gaubert, Grandidier. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 8(7):
497-502.

Grandidier, G. 1905. Recherches sur les lemuriens disparus et en particulier sur ceux qui vivaient
a Madagascar. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)7(1): 1-142.

Lamberton, C. 1947. Contribution a la connaissance de la faune subfossile de Madagascar. Note
XVI. Bradytherium ou Palaeopropitheque? Bulletin de l'Académie Malgache, (2)26: 89-140.

MacPhee, R.D.E., Simons, E.L., Wells, N. A. & Vuillaume-Randriamanantena, M. 1984. Team
finds giant lemur skeleton. Geotimes, 29(1): 10—11.

Major, C.I.F. 1894 On Megaladapis madagascariensis, an extinct gigantic lemuroid from
Madagascar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B)185: 15-38.
Martin, R.D. 1990. Primate origins and evolution. 804 pp. Princeton University Press, New

Beerscy:

Saban, R. 1963. Contribution a l’étude de l’os temporal des primates. Mémoires du Muséum
National d Histoire Naturelle, (2, A)29: 1-377.

Simons, E.L. 1972. Primate evolution: an introduction to man’s place in nature. 322 pp. Macmillan,
New York.

Standing, H. 1908. On recently discovered subfossil primates from Madagascar. Transactions of
the Zoological Society of London, 18: 69-162.

Tattersall, I. 1982. The primates of Madagascar. 382 pp. Columbia University Press, New York.

Trouessart, E.L. 1897. Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium, Ed. 2, vol. 1. v, 664
pp. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin.

Vuillaume-Randriamanantena, M. 1990. Palaeopropithecus ingens Grandidier, 1899 synonyme
de Thaumastolemur grandidieri Filhol, 1895. Comptes Rendus de |’ Académie des Sciences de
Paris, (2)310: 1307-1313.

A comment on this application by E. Delson et a/. appears on BZN 49: 73.

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Case 2770

Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 (Mammalia,
Primates): proposed conservation of the specific name

Paulina D. Jenkins

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Colin P. Groves

Department of Prehistory and Anthropology, Australian National University,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Hylobates
entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842, currently in use for the white-handed

gibbon of south-west Thailand and Tenasserim (Burma, or Myanmar). The name has

been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 1219) but is
threatened by two senior subjective synonyms, Simia longimana Schreber, [1774] and
S. albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828.

1. The generic name Hylobates Illiger, 1811 (p. 67) was placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 122 (January 1931). Subsequently, the specific
name of Homo Jar Linnaeus, 1771 (p. 521), the type species of Hylobates by monotypy,
was placed on the Official List of Specific Names (Direction 22, November 1955). In
Opinion 1219 (September 1982; see also BZN 35: 197—198) a neotype for Homo lar was
designated under the plenary powers which attached the name to the Malayan white-
handed gibbon (the ‘petit gibbon’ of Buffon, 1766, pl. 3), type locality ‘Malacca’, in

accordance with current understanding and usage. The specific name of Hylobates.

entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 (p. 717), currently in use for the white-
‘handed gibbon of Thailand and Tenasserim (the ‘grand gibbon’ of Buffon, 1766, pl. 2),
was also placed on the Official List in Opinion 1219. However, the name entelloides has
two senior subjective synonyms and this problem has so far not been resolved. The
name is currently used as a subspecies of Hylobates lar (Linnaeus).
2. In his description of Homo lar Linnaeus (1771) cited two previous references:
‘Golock. Act. Angl. 1769. pl. 71. t. 3.
Gibbon. Buff. anim. XIV. p. 92. t. 2, 3?’.
The second of these citations refers to Buffon’s two plates (1766, pls. 2 and 3) which
were reproduced in Schreber ({1774], p. 67, pl. 3; see Sherborn, 1891, p. 588 for the date
of publication) under the name Simia longimana; Schreber’s specific name is therefore a
junior subjective synonym of Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771. Latreille (1804, p. 276) was the
first to separate Buffon’s large and small gibbons, undifferentiated by Linnaeus and
Schreber, into separate taxa, referring to the former as Pithecus Jar Linnaeus and the

ee —

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 59

latter by a new name, P. varius. The attachment of the name /ar to the Malayan white-
handed gibbon in Opinion 1219 renders /ar a senior subjective synonym of varius
Latreille, 1804, and also of P. variegatus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 (p. 88), a name
which was also proposed for Buffon’s small gibbon (see Groves, 1972, p. 12).

3. I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1842, p. 717) described Hylobates entelloides, the
name currently in use for the Thailand subspecies of white-handed gibbon, on three
individuals of different ages and sexes collected by a missionary, Monsieur Barre, from
‘la presqu ile Malaise, le douzieme degré de latitude nord’. Saint-Hilaire (1851) listed
the syntypes in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris and noted that two of the
specimens (mounted) had been illustrated (Saint-Hilaire, [1843], pp. 532-535, pl. 29).
Rode (1938, p. 205) also listed the syntypes and noted one (no. 4a, adult male) as the
‘holotype’; this does not constitute designation of a lectotype (Article 72b(vii)). Groves
(1972, p. 13) reported that ‘the type skin appears to be no longer extant’. However, a
further search by one of us (C.P.G.) has since confirmed that the specimens listed by
Rode (an adult male with a young male clinging to it, and an adult female) are in fact
still present in the type collection of the Muséum in Paris, and that they are indeed
specimens (in pale colour phase) of the taxon described by Groves (1972) as Hylobates
lar entelloides. In his revision of the HYLOBATIDAE, Groves (1971, pp. 74-75) considered
that Simia longimana Schreber, [1774] was not only a junior synonym (in part) of Homo
lar but was also a senior subjective synonym (in part) of Hylobates entelloides. With the
exception of the invalid use of /ongimana by Simonetta (1957, p. 62) to include the
Malayan and Sumatran white-handed gibbons the name has not been used since
Schreber’s [1774] publication and we propose that it be suppressed.

4. The nominal species Simia albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828 (pp. 107-109) was
based on two specimens from the ‘Sumatra collection’ presented to the museum of the
Zoological Society of London by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. One syntype, a skin
with skull, is now in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London, specimen
no. BM(NH) 1855.12.24.6, but the whereabouts of the other syntype is unknown. The
date of publication for the name a/bimana given by Gray ([1871], p. 10) as ‘Horsf. Zool.
Journ. 1820’, and repeated by Simonetta (1957, p. 63), was an error since the Zoological
Journal was published from 1824 to 1835. The name albimana has been used to refer to
the white-handed gibbon of north Sumatra (Chenu, [after 1850], p. 67, pl. 10 bis; Kloss,
1929, p. 118; Miller, 1942, p. 131) but Fooden (1969, p. 629) and Groves (1972, p. 12)
considered the type locality given for a/bimana to be incorrect. Fooden thought the
species was more likely to be Malayan but Groves (1972, p. 12), following an
examination of the existing syntype, considered it to be a specimen of the species from
Tenasserim and southern Thailand. The name albimana is thus a senior subjective
synonym of Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 and we propose that it
be suppressed to conserve the much used name entelloides. To adopt albimana for the
Thailand subspecies would be destabilising and would result in considerable confusion,
particularly as the name has been used in the past for a Sumatran gibbon. Since
Groves’s (1972) work no author has adopted the name albimana for the Thailand
gibbon and the next available name for the northern Sumatran gibbon, Hy/obates lar
vestitus (Miller, 1942) (p. 131; described as H. albimanus vestitus), has been universally
used (see the references cited below).

5. The name entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 is universally in use for the
white-handed gibbon from Thailand and Tenasserim and appears in works on primate

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

biology, ecology and conservation, as well as taxonomy. The name has been used in the
following representative list of recent publications which cover these fields: Fooden
(1971), Creel & Preuschoft (1976, 1984), Chivers (1977), Roonwal & Mohnot (1977),
Haimoff, Gittins, Whitten & Chivers (1984), Marshall, Sugardjito & Markaya (1984),
Marshall & Sugardjito (1986) and Tuttle (1986).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(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) longimana Schreber, [1774], as published in the binomen Simia longimana;
(b) albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828, as published in the binomen Simia
albimana;:

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:

(a) longimana Schreber, [1774], as published in the binomen Simia longimana
and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828, as published in the binomen Simia-
albimana and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Buffon, G.L.L. de. 1766. Histoire naturelle, général et particuliére, avec la acne du cabinet du
Roi, vol. 14. 411 pp., 41 pls. Imprimerie Royale, Paris.

Chenu, J.C. [after 1850]. Encyclopédique d'Histoire naturelle. Quadrumanes. 312 pp., 34 pls.
Paris.

Chivers, D.J. 1977. The lesser apes. Pp. 539-598 in H.S.H. Prince Rainier III of Monaco &
Bourne, G.H. (Eds.), Primate conservation. xviii, 658 pp. Academic Press, New York.
Creel, N. & Preuschoft, H. 1976. Cranial morphology of the lesser apes: a multivariate statistical
study. Pp. 219-303 in Rumbaugh, D.M. (Ed.), Gibbon and siamang, vol. 4 (suspensory
behavior, locomotion, and other behaviors of captive gibbons; cognition). viii, 316 pp.

Karger, Basle.

Creel, N. & Preuschoft, H. 1984. Systematics of the lesser apes: a quantitative taxonomic analy-_
sis of craniometric and other variables. Pp. 562-613 in Preuschoft, H., Chivers, D.J.,
Brockelman, W.Y. & Creel, N. (Eds.), The lesser apes: evolutionary and behavioural biology.
xiii, 709 pp. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Fooden, J. 1969. Color-phase in gibbons. Evolution, 23: 627-644.

Fooden, J. 1971. Report on primates collected in western Thailand January-April, 1967.
Fieldiana (Zoology), 59(1): 1-62.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I. 1812. Tableau des Quadrumanes, ou des animaux composant le
premier Ordre de la Classe des Mammiféres. Annales du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, 19:
85-122.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I. 1842. Sur les singes de l’ancien monde, spécialement sur les genres
Gibbon et Semnopitheque. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de |’Académie des
Sciences, 15: 716-720.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I. [1843]. Description des mammiféres nouveaux ou imparfaitement
connus de la collection du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle et remarques sur la classification et
les caracteres des mammiféres. Premier Mémoire. Famille des singes. Archives du Muséum
d Histoire Naturelle, 2: 485-592.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I. 1851. Introduction et catalogue des Primates. Pp. xv, vii, 96 in Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire, I., Prevost, F. & Pucheran, [J.], Catalogue méthodique de la collection des

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 61

mammiferes, de la collection des oiseaux et des collections annexes du Muséum d'Histoire
Naturelle de Paris. Gide & Baudry, Paris.

Gray, J.E. [1871]. Catalogue of the monkeys, lemurs, and fruit-eating bats in the collection of the
British Museum. viii, 137 pp. British Museum, London.

Groves, C.P. 1972. Systematics and phylogeny of gibbons. Pp. 1-89 in Rumbaugh, D.M. (Ed.),
Gibbon and siamang, vol. | (evolution, ecology, behaviour and captive maintenance). x, 263

. pp. Karger, Basle.

Haimoff, E.H., Gittins, S.P., Whitten, A.J. & Chivers, D.J. 1984. A phylogeny and classification
of gibbons based on morphology and ethology. Pp. 614-632 in Preuschoft, H., Chivers,
D.J., Brockelman, W.Y. & Creel, N. (Eds.), The lesser apes: evolutionary and behavioural
biology. xiii, 709 pp. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium... xviii, 301 pp. Berlin.

Kloss, C.B. 1929. Some remarks on the gibbons, with the description of a new subspecies.

: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1929(8): 113-127.

Latreille, P.A. 1804. Tableau méthodique des singes. Pp. 275—298 in Sonnini, C.S. (Ed.), Histoire
naturelle générale et particuliére, par Leclerc de Buffon, vol. 36 (Histoire naturelle des singes).
302 pp. Dufart, Paris.

Linnaeus, C. 1771. Regni animalis appendix. Mammalia. Pp. 521-523 in: Mantissa plantarum
altera generum editiones VI et specierum editionis IT. Pp. [iv], 143—588. Salvii, Holmiae.
Marshall, J.T. & Sugardjito, J. 1986. Gibbon systematics. Pp. 137-185 in Swindler, D.R. &
Erwin, J. (Eds.), Comparative primate biology, vol. | (systematics, evolution and anatomy).

xvi, 820 pp. Liss, New York.

Marshall, J.T., Sugardjito, J. & Markaya, M. 1984. Gibbons of the /ar group. Pp. 533-541 in
Preuschoft, H., Chivers, D.J., Brockelman, W.Y. & Creel, N. (Eds.), The lesser apes:
evolutionary and behavioural biology. xiii, 709 pp. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Miller, G.S. 1942. Zoological results of the George Vaderbilt Sumatran expedition, 1936-1939.
Part V— Mammals collected by Frederick A. Ulmer, jr., on Sumatra and Nias. Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 94: 107-166.

Rode, P. 1938. Catalogue des types de mammiféres du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle.
Ordres des Primates, sous-ordre des simiens. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, (2)10(3): 202-251.

Roonwal, M.L. & Mohnot, S.M. 1977. Primates of south Asia: ecology, sociobiology, and
behavior. xviii, 420 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Schreber, J.C.D. von. [1774]. Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen,
vol. 1. 188 pp., 62 pls. Weigel, Leipzig.

Sherborn, C.D. 1891. On the dates of the parts, plates and text of Schreber’s ‘Saugthiere’.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1891(4): 587-592.

Simonetta, A. 1957. Catalogo e sinonimia annotata degli ominoidi fossili ed attuali (1758-1955).
Atti della Societa Toscana di Scienze Naturali Residente in Pisa, (B)64: 53-112.

Tuttle, R.H. 1986. Apes of the world, their social behavior, communication, mentality and ecology.
Pp. xix, 421 pp. Noyes Publications, New Jersey.

Vigors, N.A. & Horsfield, T. 1828. Observations on some of the mammalia contained in the
Museum of the Zoological Society. Zoological Journal, 4(13): 105-113.

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Comment on the article Problems in the Nomenclature of Higher Taxonomic
Categories by Ya.1. Starobogatov
(See BZN 48: 6-18)

A.P. Rasnitsyn
Paleontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya 123, Moscow 117868-7,
Russia

I consider the proposals by Starobogatov (1991) to be important and timely, and
I agree with them with a single though important reservation. I feel a mistake the
proposition (BZN 48: 13) to allow formal availability of a descriptive (non-typified)
name with its author and date, for this will prevent its replacement by the typified name.
Indeed, under this proposal the typified name will be a junior synonym of the descrip-
tive name. Until the names of higher taxa are entirely regulated by the Code the current
practice is better, that is the use of descriptive names despite their having no formal
availability.

Additionally, I think that hemihomonymy (see pp. 8-9) would be more securely
avoided if suprageneric names ended in -i and -ae, not -es.

Comments on the proposed conservation in their accepted usage of the nominal taxa
Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda)
(Case 2251; see BZN 36: 30—36, 49: 6-11)

Editorial Note: A detailed comment opposing Dr Baturo’s application was received
from Dr Srivastava (Zoological Survey of India) on 5 January 1981. Extensive corre-
spondence took place between Dr Srivastava, Mr R.V. Melville (then Secretary of the
Commission) and Dr Baturo between January 1981 and April 1985. A condensed
version of Dr Srivastava’s comments is now published for the first time. Comments in
support of Dr Baturo’s application from Dr D.I. Gibson (Head of the Parasitic Worms
Division, The Natural History Museum, London), from Dr O.N. Pugachev (Head of
the Parasitic Worms Department, Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St
Petersburg) and from Professor J.C. Pearson (Professor of Helminthology, Department
of Parasitology, University of Queensland) are also published. Dr Gibson’s comment
takes recent usage into account.

(1) C.B. Srivastava
Zoological Survey of India, 8 Lindsay Street, Calcutta-16, India

This comment opposes Dr Baturo’s application to conserve the generic name
Bucephalus Baer, 1827, with type species B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 in place of
Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848, with type species G. fimbriatum Siebold, 1848, and to use
Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858, with type species R. galeatum (Rudolphi, 1819) in place of
Bucephalus Baer, 1827, with type species B. polymorphus Baer, 1827. The history of the
confused classification of bucephalid trematodes shows that application of the normal
rules of zoological nomenclature is more desirable than invoking the plenary powers of
the Commission to stabilise the systematics of this group.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 63

Stunkard (1976, p. 309), while discussing the systematics of these trematodes,
remarked: ‘The taxonomy of the bucephalid trematodes is complicated because of
unsupported and unwarranted presumptions between larval and adult stages’. He
further stated (p. 313): ‘The status of Bucephalus polymorphus von Baer, 1827 and
Gasterostomum fimbriatum von Siebold, 1848, long regarded as specifically identical

. and the only bucephalid species in freshwater hosts in Europe, is equivocal. Bucephalus
polymorphus is the name of a cercaria whose adult stage is yet to be disclosed and the
larval stages of G. fimbriatum are unknown’.

Baturo (1977), while working on freshwater fish parasites of Goslawickie and
Slesinske Lakes (Central Poland), collected bucephalid sporocysts and cercariae from
the bivalve Dreissena polymorpha, completed their development and found that they
developed into adults resembling Gasterostomum fimbriatum Siebold, 1848 which, on
account of misconceptions by earlier workers, is known as Bucephalus polymorphus
Baer, 1827. These larval stages, though, did not correspond to the cercaria described by
Baer (1827) under the name Bucephalus polymorphus, yet Baturo (1977) put them under
this name. She found sporocysts and cercariae of another bucephalid parasitising the
bivalve Unio pictorum in Lake Slesinske, which were identical with those described by
Baer (1827) as Bucephalus polymorphus from Unio pictorum and Anodonta mutabilis in
European freshwaters. She completed the life history of these larval stages and found
that they developed into adult Rhipidocotyle illensis (Ziegler, 1883), a fact already
suspected by Ziegler (1883). Baturo wrongly named this cercaria as Rhipidocotyle
illensis instead of Bucephalus polymorphus, thus further complicating the confused
status of bucephalid worms. In following the rules of zoological nomenclature, Baturo
(1977) should have adopted the genus Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848, with its type
species fimbriatum and relegated the genus Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 and the species
Rhipidocotyle illensis (Ziegler, 1883) (= Distoma campanula Dujardin, 1845) to the
synonymy of the genus Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and the species B. polymorphus Baer,
1827. Instead of following this normal procedure she appealed to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in the name of stability, to disregard the
‘forgotten’ name Gasterostomum with its type species fimbriatum.

The generic name Bucephalus with its type species polymorphus was based on the
larval form, whereas the genus Gasterostomum with its type species fimbriatum was
described on adult worms. Synonymy was based on the erroneous assumption that the
larva Bucephalus polymorphus develops into the adult Gasterostomum fimbriatum.
Under Article 23f(ii) of the [1985] Code the Principle of Priority applies “even if two or
more generations, forms, stages or sexes of a species are named as different taxa’.

That the generic name Gasterostomum Siebold is not a forgotten name is evident
from the fact that the question of its validity has been repeatedly raised.

A parallel case occurs in this family where the cercaria Bucephalopsis haimeanus
Lacaze-Duthiers, 1854 was supposed to have developed into the adult Bucephalopsis
gracilescens Rudolphi, 1819, but the life history was never proved. In this case Hopkins
(1954) restricted the generic name Bucephalopsis to the cercaria haimeanus and pro-
posed a new generic name Bucephaloides for the adult gracilescens. Srivastava &
Chauhan (1973), while agreeing with the restriction of the generic name Bucephalopsis
to the cercaria haimeanus, refuted the proposal of a new name Bucephaloides for the
adult species since a senior synonym Prosorhynchoides Dollfus, 1929, with type species
ovatus by original designation, based on the adult characters, was available. They

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

resurrected the genus Prosorhynchoides Dollfus, 1929, for all the adult species included
under the genus Bucephalopsis, relegating Bucephaloides Hopkins, 1954, to its
synonymy. This contention has been accepted by Stunkard (1974).

In the case of parasites where larval stages are different from adults and both are
described as separate species, such complications are bound to arise when the life
histories are worked out. It is advisable to apply the Principle of Priority to such cases.

In view of the foregoing comments it would be desirable for the Commission to reject
Dr Baturo’s application, and to declare valid the name Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848
(type species Gasterostomum fimbriatum Siebold, 1848) and the name Bucephalus Baer,
1827, rejecting the name Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 as its synonym.

Additional references

Hopkins, S.H. 1954. The American species of trematode confused with Bucephalus
(Bucephalopsis) haimeanus. Parasitology, 44: 353-370.

Srivastava, C.B. & Chauhan, B.S. 1973. A review of Indian gasterostomes (Trematoda). Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, 67: 1-13.

Stunkard, H.W. 1974. The life cycles, intermediate hosts and larval stages of Rhipidocotyle
transversale Chandler, 1935 and Rhipidocotyle lintoni Hopkins, 1954: life cycles and system-
atics of bucephalid trematodes. Biological Bulletin, 150: 294-317.

Stunkard, H.W. 1976. The life cycles, intermediate hosts and larval stages of Rhipidocotyle
transversale Chandler, 1935 and Rhipidocotyle lintoni Hopkins, 1954: life cycles and
systematics of bucephalid trematodes. Biological Bulletin, 150: 294-317.

(2) David I. Gibson
Parasitic Worms Division, Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum,
London SW7 SBD, U.K. ;

I fully support Dr Baturo’s application for the following reasons:

(i) The work of Wallet & Lambert (1984) has confirmed Baturo’s (1977) results
concerning the identity of the cercaria which develops into adults currently
recognised as Bucephalus polymorphus.

(ii) The only major compendia of European freshwater fish parasites currently in
use as identification manuals, those of Bykhovskaya-Pavlovskaya et al. (1962;
translated into English, 1964) and Bauer (1987; translation now in preparation);
both use the current conceptions of the adult forms of Bucephalus polymorphus
and Rhipidocotyle campanula (= illensis). The former has been widely used and
cited in the past, and the latter is being and will be widely used in the future.

(iii) The names currently in use are now well accepted and regularly used in surveys,
checklists and other studies of the parasites of freshwater fish parasites in
Europe and the former Soviet Union (e.g. Osmanov, 1971; Kennedy, 1974;
Ergens et al., 1975; Tell, 1980; Ivantsiv & Chernogorenko, 1984; Pojmanska,
1985; Walter, 1988). Between 1988 and 1990 I have found eight references
referring to Bucephalus polymorphus and nine to Rhipidocotyle campanula or its
synonym in European fishes.

(iv) In relation to one of Dr Srivastava’s comments, although Gasterostomum is not
exactly a ‘forgotten’ name becauses its archaic vernacular ‘gasterostome’ is still
in occasional usage, it is an ‘unused’ name, only rarely being referred to except
in synonymy for at least the past 60 years.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 65

(v) Strict application of the Code would mean that adults now referred to as
Bucephalus polymorphus would become Gasterostomum fimbriatum and adults
currently known as Rhipidocotyle campanula (or R. illensis) would become
Bucephalus polymorphus. Such an exchange of well-established names would
cause considerable confusion, not least amongst ecologists and other associated
parasitological disciplines, with a resulting loss or confusion of data.

(vi) The change of the name Bucephalus to Gasterostomum and the replacement of
Rhipidocotyle by Bucephalus would have major repercussions outside the
European freshwater arena, since both genera contain species from freshwater
fishes in other parts of the world, notably North America, and both contain
numerous species in marine fishes from various parts of the world.

(vii) A solid nomenclatural base for the systematics of bucephalids in European
freshwater is necessary because recent work (Taskinen et al., 1991) has shown
that there is a second species of Rhipidocotyle in European waters, the cercaria
of which has a gross morphology similar to that which develops into adults
currently recognised as Bucephalus polymorphus. This new form will shortly be
described.

It is my belief that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should be
used with a certain amount of common sense and not applied rigidly in every instance.
In view of the considerable confusion which would be caused by the rigid application of
the Principle of Priority, I am of the opinion that this is a case where it would be apt and
sensible for the Commission to use its powers and accede to Dr Baturo’s application.

Additional references

Bauer, O.N. (Ed.) 1987. [Keys to the parasites of the freshwater fish fauna of the USSR.], vol. 3. 583
pp. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Leningrad. [In Russian.]

Bykhovskaja-Pavlovskaja, L.E., Gusey, A.V., Dubinina, M.N. & six others. 1962. [Key to parasites
of freshwater fish of the U.S.S.R.] 776 pp. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, No. 80. [English
translation. 1964. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. ]

Ergens, R., V.A. Gussev, N.A. Izyumova & K. Molnar. 1975. Parasite fauna of fishes of the Tisa
River Basin. Rozpravy Ceskoslovenske Akademiae Ved, Rada Matematickych a Prirodnich
Ved, 85(2): 3-117.

Ivantsiv, V.V. & Chernogorenko, M.I. 1984. The life cycle of Rhipidocotyle illense (Trematoda,
Bucephalidae). Vestnik Zoologii, 1984(2): 66-69, [In Russian.]

Kennedy, C.R. 1974. A checklist of British and Irish freshwater fish parasites with notes on their
distribution. Journal of Fish Biology, 6: 613-644.

Osmanoy, S.O. 1971. [Parasites of fish of Uzbekistan.] 532 pp. Izdatel’stvo ‘FAN’ Uzbekskoi
S.S.R., Tashkent. [In Russian. ]

Pojmanska, T. 1985. An analysis of seasonality of incidence and maturation of some fish
Parasites, with regard to thermal factor. IV. Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827. Acta
Parasitologica Polonica, 30: 25-34.

Taskinen, J., Valtonen, E.T. & Gibson, D.I. 1991. Studies on bucephalid digeneans parasitising
molluscs and fishes in Finland. I. Ecological data and experimental studies. Systematic
Parasitology, 19: 81-94.

Tell, H. 1980. [On abundantly occurring fish parasites of Lake Peipus-Pskov]. Hiidrobioloogilised
Uurimused, 9: 98-109. [In Russian.]

Wallet, M. & Lambert, A. 1984. Caractérisation de la cercaire de Bucephalus polymorphus Baer,
1827 (Trematoda, Bucephalidae): chétotaxie et systéme excréteur. Annales de Parasitologie
Humaine et Comparée, 59: 583-588.

Walter, U. 1988. Zur Parasitenfauna von Stizostedion lucioperca aus Boddengewassern der
Ostseekiiste der DDR. Angewandte Parasitologie, 29: 215-219.

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

(3) O.N. Pugachev
Parasitic Worms Department, Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences,
Universitetskaya nab. 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

With reference to Dr Baturo’s application to the Commission regarding Bucephalus
polymorphus, 1 should like to support her proposal and to draw your attention to
similar problems which can arise when the Code is applied rigidly in relation to
parasitic worms with complex life-cycles. The Code was developed essentially for
free-living organisms, where the number of conflicting cases based upon names derived
from different life-history stages are few in relation to those of parasitic organisms. In
view of this, there should be some flexibility in the application of the Code and,
perhaps, future additions to the Code. In this particular instance, if the Code is applied
rigidly, then much confusion could result.

(4) J.C. Pearson
Department of Parasitology, University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia

I support whole-heartedly Dr Baturo’s application to the Commission on .
Bucephalus and the combination Bucephalus polymorphus.

Report on the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799
(Mollusca, Coleoidea), with a proposal that the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE
Owen, 1838 be ruled unavailable and be replaced by PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922
(Case 2571; see BZN 43: 355-359; 44: 48, 194; 45: 50; 46: 267-272)

P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The previous history of this case was summarized in BZN 46: 267-269. The appli-
cation by Drs P. Doyle and W. Riegraf proposed the suppression of the generic name
Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and the specific name of the (indeterminate) type species ©
B. paxillosa Lamarck, 1801. In contrast to the vernacular collective name ‘belemnites’,
Belemnites has for many years been essentially unused as a generic name although the
family name BELEMNITIDAE has remained in common use. BELEMNITIDAE, in recent times
treated as though typified by the nominal genus Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (p. 9),
has previously been attributed to d’Orbigny (1845) but Mr D. Heppell has pointed out
that it was made available by Owen (1838, p. 127). The application called for the
designation of Passaloteuthis as the type genus of the BELEMNITIDAE by the use of the
Commission’s plenary powers; this was widely supported, and, as reported in BZN 46:
268, in March 1989 the Commission voted in favour by 20 votes to 3. However, in
dissenting, Prof W.D.L. Ride asked that the case be resubmitted because he considered
that the designation of Passaloteuthis as the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE would be
‘seriously upsetting’ by being a departure from a fundamental principle of the Code,
namely Article 63 (eponymous families and type genera). Prof Ride proposed that
Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843, the type species of Passaloteuthis, be ruled

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 67

to be also the type species of Belemnites and that the latter name be then deemed a
junior objective synonym of Passaloteuthis: thus the only function of Belemnites
would be to stand as the formal type genus of BELEMNITIDAE. Responses to Prof Ride’s
proposals by eight palaeontologists were published in BZN 46: 269-272 and a ninth (by
Dr T. Engeser, Universitat Hamburg, Germany) was noted on the voting papers sent to
Commissioners in September 1990; with one exception they supported the original
course. In the September 1990 vote the Commission was asked either (a) again to
approve the Doyle & Riegraf application or (b) to accept Prof Ride’s alternative.
Thirteen Commissioners voted in favour of each course, and no Opinion has been
issued.

Drs Doyle and Riegraf have reiterated that any retention of Belemnites as a generic

. Name, even as a synonym deemed to be junior, would be unacceptable to workers in the
belemnite field. In the light of the above history they now propose that BELEMNITIDAE
should be abandoned in favour of PASSALOTEUTHIDINAE Naef, 1922 (p. 230), which was
treated as a superfamily by Saks & Nal’nyaeva (1967). The emended suffix -IDINAE is
both correct and in accord with other family-group names based on generic names
ending in -teuthis. Dr Doyle has pointed out that the valid specific name of Belemnites
bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843, the type species of Passaloteuthis, is bisulcatus
de Blainville, 1827 (p. 79).

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to contirm the previous (March 1989) vote suppressing the generic name
Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and the specific name of B. paxillosa Lamarck, 1801;

(2) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 is
unavailable because the name of the type genus of the nominal family has been
suppressed;

(3) to confirm the previous (March 1989) placement of the following names:

(a) Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology; ;

(b) Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology;

(c) paxillosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Belemnites paxillosa,
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology;

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bisulcatus de
Blainville, 1827, as published in the binomen Belemnites bisulcatus (senior sub-
jective synonym of Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843, the type species of
Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915);

(5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922 (type genus Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915);

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838, as ruled in (2) above to be unavail-
able because the name of its type genus Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 has been
suppressed.

References

Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1827. Mémoire sur les Bélemnites, considérées zoologiquement et
géologiquement. 136 pp., 5 pls. Paris.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Lissajous, M. 1915. Quelques remarques sur les bélemnites Jurassiques. Bulletin de la Société
d Histoire Naturelle de Macon, 1915(1): 1-32.

Naef, A. 1922. Die fossilen Tintenfische. 322 pp. Fischer, Jena.

Owen, R. 1838. Descriptions of some new and rare Cephalopoda. Transactions of the Zoological
Society of London, 2(2): 103-130.

Saks, V.N. & Nal’nyaeva, T.I. 1967. Recognition of the superfamily Passaloteuthaceae in the
suborder Belemnoidea (Cephalopoda, Dibranchia, Decapoda). Doklady Akademii Nauk
SSSR, 173: 438-441. [In Russian.]

Comments on the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling,
1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2729; see BZN 48: 92-96, 244-246)

(1) Barry Roth
Research Associate, Museum of Paleontology, University of California, San Francisco,
U.S.A.

I write in support of the application by Petit & Wilson regarding the availability of .
the putative genus-group name Fusus Helbling, 1779. The crucial point is made in para.
10 (BZN 48: 93): the name cannot continue to be accepted for one purpose (as a senior
homonym of Fusus Bruguiére, 1789) and rejected for another (as a senior subjective
synonym of Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 and Cumia Bivona-Bernardi, 1838); such a
split requires action by the Commission.

The suggestion of BZN 48: 94, para. 17, a ruling that Fusus Helbling is unavailable, is
a reasonable solution. Partisans of the name Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815, which would
fall as a junior objective synonym of Fusus Bruguiere, 1789, would undoubtedly prefer
another form of solution, but in any event action by the Commission is warranted.

(2) A.G. Beu
DSIR Geology and Geophysics, P.O. Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

B.A. Marshall
National Museum of New Zealand, P.O. Box 467, Wellington, New Zealand

W.F. Ponder
Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, New South Wales 2000, Australia

We should like to comment on the case of Fusus Helbling, 1779. We have seen the
comment by Prof Emily Vokes (BZN 48: 245-246) and essentially agree with her,
although we go a little further with our alternative proposals.

In our opinion the question of availability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779, as
presented by Petit & Wilson (BZN 48: 92-96), is largely irrelevant to the main question
of nomenclatural stability inherent in their case. By far the major point of stability at
issue here is that, since Dall (1906) advocated the adoption of Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815
in place of Fusus Bruguiére, 1789, the usage of Fusinus in this sense has become the
normal, thoroughly accepted practice by 100% of malacologists and palaeontologists.
The genus group now universally known as Fusinus comprises several large,

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 69

spectacular, tropical Indo-West Pacific species, and consequently Fusinus has been
used as the valid name in many scientific papers and a large number of popular books
during this century. Petit & Wilson are swimming against a very strong tide of well
established usage and there is no doubt that the reintroduction of Fusus Bruguiére in
place of Fusinus would cause far more instability than would leaving the status quo.
We agree, however, with Petit & Wilson that Fusus Helbling is an unsatisfactory
name to have available for the Mediterranean species often known as Colubraria
reticulata (de Blainville, [1829], p. 118, pl. 4D, fig. 5) (see paras. 5 and 6 of the
application). Tris is because the rank and status of genera are uncertain in this group
and it is possible that Fusus Helbling could threaten the stability of the much better
known, universally accepted name Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 (pp. 76, 251).

_ Although their type species are different the taxonomic distinction between these

nominal genera is based largely on the protoconch and on differences in the shell size,
whereas developmental differences alone are not now accepted by most authors as
having any taxonomic significance above species level. Once again the name Colubraria
is so well known and consistently used for a large group of tropical Indo-West Pacific
and Caribbean gastropods that its replacement by Fusus Helbling would be a major
upset to the stability of nomenclature (as was pointed out by Cernohorsky, 1971,
p. 153). A junior subjective synonym, Cumia Bivona-Bernardi, 1838, is available to
replace Fusus Helbling should the Colubraria reticulata group prove to differ from
Colubraria at the generic level, and thus a new name would not be required.
It should be pointed out that Iredale (1915, pp. 465-466; 1929, p. 288) twice used the
family-group name FUSIDAE in place of what in more recent years has been known as
COLUBRARIIDAE; the second reference was not listed by Petit & Wilson in their appli-
cation. Iredale clearly thought Fusus Helbling a genus distinct from, but closely related
to, Colubraria. Most authors would now agree that genera related to Colubraria belong
in the BUCCINIDAE, so nomenclatural difficulties are unlikely to arise over the family-
group name.
In our opinion the best solution to this case is to reject both Fusus Helbling, 1779
and Fusus Bruguiére, 1789. This solution will allow the greatest possible stability in
nomenclature by maintaining the status quo, allowing continued usage of Colubraria
Schumacher, 1817 and Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 respectively. Suppression of Fusus
Helbling for priority but not for homonymy will ensure that Fusus Bruguiére remains a
junior homonym and thus invalid; in view of the doubt whether Fusus Helbling is
available (BZN 48: 244-245), we propose that the Commission’s plenary powers be
used to suppress the name.
In place of the proposals made by Petit & Wilson (BZN 48: 94-95), the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Fusus Helbling, 1779 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 following names:
(a) Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent
monotypy by Lamarck (1799) of the replaced nominal genus Fusus
Bruguiére, 1789, Murex colus Linnaeus, 1758;

(b) Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Colubraria granulata Schumacher, 1817;

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) colus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex colus (specific
name of the type species of Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815);
(b) granulata Schumacher, 1817, as published in the binomen Colubraria granu-
lata (specific name of the type species of Colubraria Schumacher, 1817);
(4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the following names:
(a) Fusus Helbling, 1779, as suppressed in (1) above;
(b) Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 (a junior homonym of Fusus Helbling, 1779).

Additional references

Blainville, H.M.D. de. [1829]. Malacozoaires ou animaux mollusques. Faune Frangaise, livraison
20. Pp. 81-160, pls. Levrault, Paris.

Iredale, T. 1929. Queensland molluscan notes, No. 1. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 9:
261-297.

Schumacher, C.F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers testacés...1v, 287 pp.,
22 pls. Copenhague.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874
(Mollusca, Gastropoda) as the correct spelling
(Case 2769; see BZN 48: 27-30, 322-323)

David Heppell
Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh EH1 1JF,
U.K.

I write in reply to the comment by Drs Bouchet & Warén (BZN 48: 322-323).

In a draft of my application I argued for the conservation of the spelling Laiocochlis
Dunker & Metzger, 1874 on the grounds that this was the intended original spelling. I
later changed my proposal to conserve the spelling Laeocochlis because the original
authors had adopted the latter in their subsequent works, and because I believed that
this spelling was in accordance with majority usage (see para. 4 on BZN 48: 28). [am
therefore delighted that Drs Bouchet & Warén have been able to tip the balance by
providing more examples of the usage of Laiocochlis. Even though these authors have
shown that there have been subsequent usages of the original spelling Laiochochiis, I
still believe that this name should be suppressed as an incorrect original spelling, but of
which name? Usage is actually fairly evenly divided (although Bouchet & Waren have
not spoiled their case by giving additional examples of usage of Laeocochlis) and, no
doubt, reflects nothing more than authors following Thiele (1929) or Wenz (1940),
rather than following proper latinization or original (intended) orthography. After
agreeing to suppress the earliest spelling Laiochochlis (and also the unused spelling
Laeochochlis) under the plenary powers, the Commission should determine the spelling
to be placed on the Official List by a simple majority.

When the valid name for the type species is placed on the Official List to complete the
ruling, the name Cerithium sinistratum Nyst, 1835 should replace Triforis macandraeae
A. Adams, 1856 in proposal (3) of para. 6 of my application.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 71

Comments on the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed in
Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762)
(Crustacea and Insecta)

(Case 2292; see BZN 48: 107-134)

- (1) David R. Ragge
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.
I have read the relevant parts of Dr Kerzhner’s application and shown them to
appropriate colleagues. The proposals about Mantes Geoffroy and Mantis Linnaeus
. (BZN 48: 113, para. D.3) are entirely reasonable and I am sure will be acceptable to all
orthopterists.

(2) R.D. Pope
Brackley Burn, Slinfold, Sussex RH13 7RU, U.K.

I amin full support of Dr Kerzhner’s proposals concerning the coleopterous generic
names published for the first time in Geoffroy’s Abrégée. His monumental and very
thoroughly researched plan provides the neatest solution to the existing problems
concerning Geoffroy’s genera. No change in existing taxonomic interpretation is
involved and nomenclatural stability will be greatly enhanced when all the names are
placed on either the Official Lists or the Official Indexes.

The proposals are a great improvement on Silfverberg’s (1978) scheme to use
Miller as the ‘author’ of all Geoffroy’s generic names, even those that are used today
in taxonomic senses quite different from Geoffroy (see Kerzhner’s para. A.7). The
cumbersome, and therefore undesirable, attribution ‘Geoffroy in Miller’ is not
needed and, more importantly, it is not necessary to accept Silfverberg’s assertion that
*... the fact that Miiller’s [i.e. Geoffroy’s] description does not always agree with the
genus as subsequently defined is irrelevant’. This kind of statement, even if conform-
ing with the Code, does nothing to improve the status of nomenclature in the eyes of
non-taxonomists.

(3) John LaSalle
CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K.

The following comment applies to the Hymenoptera name Eulophus (see BZN 48:
116, para. H.3).

(1) I am in favour of Kerzhner’s proposal concerning the generic name Eulophus.
His proposal will give credit to the author who proposed this name rather than a
subsequent author who merely used the name as Geoffroy intended without critical
study or knowledge of this taxon. This proposal would promote stability because,
although there is general agreement on usage of the name Eulophus, there is presently
confusion concerning authorship and type species. However, this proposal needs two
minor corrections.

(2) Olivier (1791) should be corrected to Olivier (1792) in reference to the name
Eulophus. Actual publication dates for the various sections of Olivier’s Encyclopédie

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Méthodique are given by Sherborn & Woodward (1906). For Vol. 6, which includes
Eulophus on p. 454, pages 1-368 were published in 1791 and pages 369-704 in 1792.

(3) The type species of Eulophus should be corrected to be Jchneumon ramicornis
Fabricius, 1781 by subsequent monotypy by Fabricius (1781, p. 441), not by Olivier
(1792). Although Fabricius described ramicornis in the genus [chneumon, he used the
name Eulophus in connection with this species, and made it clear that this species
represented Eulophus as used by Geoffroy (1762) and DeGeer (1778, p. 200). This
makes Jchneumon ramicornis the first nominal species assigned to Eulophus.

(4) Thus Kerzhner’s request (BZN 48: 116, para. H.5) to place Eulophus on the
Official List of Generic Names should be amended to read:

Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy
(Fabricius, 1781) Jchneumon ramicornis Fabricius, 1781.

(5) Iapologise to Dr Kerzhner for not realising that these corrections were necessary
and bringing them to his attention prior to his submitting his proposal.

Additional references

DeGeer, C. 1778. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Insekten, aus dem Franzosischen tibersetzt und.
mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben von J.A.E. Gétze, vol. 2(2). 384 pp. Nurnberg.

Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1906. On the dates of publication of the natural history
portions of the ‘Encyclopédie Méthodique’. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)17:
577-582.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Artemia franciscana
Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda)
(Case 2728; see BZN 47: 178-183; 48: 57, 246-248)

Denton Belk
Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University, 411 S.W. 24th Street, San
Antonio, Texas 78207-4666, U.S.A.

I agree with Dr Holthuis (BZN 48: 247) on his point that the Commission needs the
support of workers in the field to make a successful resolution of this case. I think
comments demonstrate that these workers do support conservation of the specific
name franciscana. Support comes (see BZN 48: 57) from the highest levels of the
leading organizational center for information exchange and training in Artemia
research, the Artemia Reference Center in Gent, Belgium, and from the only recent
worker to use one of the older subjective synonyms, Dr Francisco Amat. However, I
disagree with Holthuis that ‘it is rather senseless to deal with the single species A.
franciscana and leave the rest as messy as it is now’. It is only in Eurasia and Africa
that Artemia nomenclature is a mess. In the Americas there exists a stable nomenclature
and research is proceeding in an orderly way into the true species status of the taxa.
Conservation of the specific name of Artemia franciscana as proposed will preserve this
desirable situation.

While I agree with Dr Bowman (BZN 48: 247) that Bowen et al. (1978) should have
followed the Code and used the oldest available name (fertilis), the situation we

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 73

are faced with is one in which nomenclatural stability is established and universally
accepted by way of the name franciscana. It would be a failure of the Code as an
instrument for stable nomenclature to upset the existing stability in an effort to correct
the error of Bowen et al. (1978).

I should point out for the record that Dr Bowman was mistaken in referring to
‘Bowman and Belk’s error’ since I am not one of the authors of Bowen et al. (1978).

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridactylum
Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata)
(Case 2771; see BZN 48: 238-239)

Hobart M. Smith
EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.

I write to support the application by Harold Dundee to conserve the specific name of
Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827. Approval by the Commission would be a distinct
service to biology.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic and specific names of
Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates)
(Case 2785; see BZN 49: 55—57)

Eric Delson (and 16 others, named below*)
Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central
Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.

We are active researchers and teachers of primate evolution and write to support the
application by Tattersall, Simons & Vuillaume-Randriamanantena to conserve the
name Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 by suppressing its senior subjective
synonym Thaumastolemur grandidier Filhol, 1895. As clearly stated by the authors,
continued usage of the long-accepted name Palaeopropithecus is desirable for nomen-
clatural stability. Resuscitation of the unused name Thaumastolemur would engender
confusion and add nothing to systematics or nomenclature. We strongly recommend
that the Commission rules in favor of the application, and as soon as possible under the
Code.

*Glenn Conroy (Washington University, St Louis), Herbert H. Covert (University of Colorado,
Boulder), John G. Fleagle (State University of New York at Stony Brook), Dan Gebo (Northern
Illinois University), Philip Gingerich (University of Michigan), Laurie Godfrey (University of
Massachusetts, Amherst), Nancy Simmons Greenwald (American Museum of Natural History,
New York), Terry Harrison (New York University), Andrew Hill (Yale University), Clifford J.
Jolly (New York University), William Jungers (State University of New York at Stony Brook),
R.D.E. MacPhee (American Museum of Natural History), Mike Rose (New Jersey Medical
School), Alfred L. Rosenberger (National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution), Jeffrey
Schwartz (University of Pittsburgh) and Frederick S. Szalay (City University of New York, Hunter
College).

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

OPINION 1662

Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786
(currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): specific names conserved; and Placostylus Beck, 1837:
L. fibratus designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the specific name aurismalchi Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix
aurismalchi, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the following specific names are hereby ruled to be available:

(i) fibratus Martyn, 1784, as published in the binomen Limax fibratus;
(1i) hebraea Martyn, 1786, as published in the binomen Nerita hebraea;

(c) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Placostylus Beck,
1837 are hereby set aside and Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 is designated as the:
type species.

(2) The name Placostylus Beck, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology: y

(a) fibratus Martyn, 1784, as published in the binomen Limax fibratus (specific name
of the type species of Placostylus Beck, 1837);

(b) hebraea Martyn, 1786, as published in the binomen Nerita hebraea.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) aurismalchi Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix aurismalchi and
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) elongata Lightfoot, 1786, as published in the binomen Voluta elongata (a junior
objective synonym of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784).

History of Case 2641

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Limax fibratus Martyn,
1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, and the designation of L. fibratus as the type
species of Placostylus Beck, 1837, was received from Dr Philippe Bouchet (Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 5 February 1988. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 47: 12—18 (March 1990). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals.

An opposing comment from Dr R. Tucker Abbott (American Malacologists, Inc.,
Melbourne, Florida, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 47: 202 (September 1990), together
with a reply by the author of the application and a comment in support from Dr
Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli (Societa Italiana di Malacologia, Milan, Italy). Acomment
by Mrs Anthea Gentry (Secretariat, ICZN) on the status of Martyn’s (1784-1787)
work The universal conchologist was published at the same time.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 715

Comments in support from Drs Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet,
Stockholm, Sweden) and from Simon Tillier (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, France) were published in BZN 48: 54 (March 1991).

It was noted on the voting paper that in November 1990 Dr Bouchet passed to the
Secretariat a copy of a message he had received from Dr Tucker Abbott. The latter
wrote that he acquiesced over Martyn’s work and that he would in future use the
name Placostylus fibratus (Martyn, 1784). He also wrote ‘the earliest name may be
Helix aurismalchi Miller, 1774, based on Spengler’s specimen (from New Caledonia,
fide Chemnitz)” (see BZN 47: 13, para. 3). Dr Bouchet commented (in litt.) that his
objection to the name aurismalchi, unused since 1848, was similar to that for Bulimus
bovinus Bruguiére (see BZN 47: 202), namely that Miller could not have described in
- Europe in 1774 a shell from New Caledonia when this island was discovered by Cook in
the same year.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 15—16. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Halvorsen.

No votes were received from Cogger and Starobogatov.

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:
aurismalchi, Helix, Miller, 1774, Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium..., vol. 2, p. 112.
elongata, Voluta, Lightfoot, 1786, A catalogue of the Portland Museum..., p. 30.
fibratus, Limax, Martyn, 1784, The universal conchologist..., vol. 1, pl. 25.
hebraea, Nerita, Martyn, 1786, The universal conchologist..., vol. 3, pl. 109.
Placostylus Beck, 1837, Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi Musei Principis Augustissimi
Christiani Frederici, p. 57.

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

OPINION 1663

Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the specific name pustulosa Gray, 1853, as published in the binomen Fryeria
pustulosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Fryeria Gray, 1853 are
hereby set aside and Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, 1869 is designated as the type
species.

(2) The name Fryeria Gray, 1853 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in
(1)(b) above Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, 1869, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name rueppelii Bergh, 1869, as published in the binomen Fryeria riippelii.
(specific name of the type species of Fryeria Gray, 1853), is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Reyfria Yonow, 1986 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Fryeria
Gray, 1853).

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: ;

(a) pustulosa Gray, 1853, as published in the binomen Fryeria pustulosa and as

suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) rippelii Bergh, 1869, as published in the binomen Fryeria riippelii (an incorrect
original spelling of rueppelii Bergh, 1869).

History of Case 2682

An application for the conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh,
1869 was received from Drs D.J. Brunckhorst (University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Queensland, Australia), W.B. Rudman (The Australian Museum, Sydney South, New
South Wales, Australia) and R.C. Willan (University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Queensland, Australia) on 28 September 1988. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 46: 161-164 (September 1989). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

Comments from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden,
The Netherlands) and from Mr Robert Burn (Geelong, Victoria, Australia), together
with a reply by the authors of the application, were published in BZN 47: 288-290
(December 1990). Mr Burn considered that use of the name pustulosa Gray, 1853 for
the type species of Fryeria would not cause confusion, so he opposed proposal (1)(a) on
BZN 46: 163. Prof Holthuis suggested that this proposal was unnecessary because, in
his view, pustulosa Gray was not available under Article 111 of the Code. The authors
did not accept this and maintained their proposal that the name of the nominal type
species of Fryeria should be ruled to be Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, 1869.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 77

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 163. At the close of the voting period on | December
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis
(in part), Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov,
Thompson (in part), Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 8: Bayer, Dupuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Minelli, Savage
and Schuster. +

No vote was received from Cogger.

Holthuis and Thompson did not vote for proposals 1(a) and S(a).

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:
Fryeria Gray, 1853, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)11: 221.
pustulosa, Fryeria, Gray, 1853, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)11: 221.
Reyfria Yonow, 1986, Journal of Natural History, 20: 1418.
rueppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, Kjobenhavn, (3)5: 514.
ruppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, Kjobenhavn, 3(5): 514.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

OPINION 1664

RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): given precedence over
TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and other family-group names
based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 are hereby given precedence over TRUNCATELLIDAE
Gray, 1840 and other family-group names based on Truncatella Risso, 1826 whenever
their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.

(2) The name RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (type genus Rissoa Desmarest, 1814) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with the endorsement
that it and other family-group names based on Rissoa are to be given precedence over
TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 (type genus Truncatella Risso, 1826) and other family-
group names based on Truncatella whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon.

(3) To the entry for TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology is hereby added the endorsement that it and other family-
group names based on Truncatella Risso, 1826 are not to be given priority over
RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and other family-group names based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814
whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.

(4) The entry for BITHYNIIDAE Gray, 1857 on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology is hereby amended to give Troschel (1857) as the author of the name.

(5) The name Rissoa Desmarest, 1814, type species by subsequent designation by
Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1884) Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 1814, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(6) The entry for Truncatella Risso, 1826 on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology is hereby amended to state that its type species by subsequent designation by
Lowe (1855) is Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826 (a junior subjective synonym of Helix
subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767).

(7) The name ventricosa Desmarest, 1814, as published in the binomen Rissoa
ventricosa (specific name of the type species of Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), is hereby -
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(8) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for subcylindrica,
Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 is hereby amended to state that it is the senior subjective
synonym of Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826, the type species of Truncatella Risso,
1826.

History of Case 2699

An application for the conservation of the family-group name RISSOOIDEA (or
RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 by giving it precedence over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (or
TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840 was received from Drs G. Rosenberg & G.M. Davis
(Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) on 28 December
1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47: 104-109 (June 1990).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. In relation to the proposed place-
ment of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 on the Official List (proposal (4) on BZN 47: 107),

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 79

a comment from Drs Alfred F. Newton & Margaret K. Thayer (Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), published in BZN 47: 286-287 (December
1990), pointed out that this family-group name is a junior homonym of HYDROBIIDAE
Mulsant, 1844 (type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815), a name currently in use in the
Insecta (Coleoptera). Dr Rosenberg, one of the authors of the application, noted (in
_ litt.) that HYDROBIIDAE in molluscs is a well known large family of some 100 genera and
more than 1,000 species and that a name change ‘would cause great confusion’. The
status of the name HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 did not affect the application on the
relative precedence of the senior names RISSOOIDEA and TRUNCATELLOIDEA and, since
objection could be made to placing a junior homonym on an Official List of Names,
proposal (4) on BZN 47: 107 was withdrawn. It should be noted that HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel should remain in use, even though a junior homonym, in the absence of a
‘Commission ruling resolving its homonymy. References to HYDROBIIDAE and to
Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and its type species have been withdrawn from the present
case because further consideration is necessary. Proposal (10) on BZN 47: 107 was also
withdrawn; it is not normal practice to place nomina nuda on the Official Indexes and
there was no reason to do so in this case. The application noted (BZN 47: 105, para. 8)
that the citation of the type species of Truncatella in Opinion 344 (1955) was wrong, and
that the Official List entry needed correction.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 106-107, with the withdrawals noted above. At the
close of the voting period on | December 1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye,
Ride, Savage, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Lehtinen, Macpherson, Schuster and Starobogatov.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Starabogatov commented that in his view [cf. BZN 47: 105, para. 4] consideration
of the relative precedence of RISSOIDAE and TRUNCATELLIDAE was ‘the same as the
discussion of relative priority of CANIDAE against FELIDAE’.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

BITHYNIIDAE Troschel, 1857, Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer natiirlich
Classification, vol. 1(2), p. 101.

Rissoa Desmarest, 1814, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, (3)1: 7.

RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 152.

subcylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 1248.

Truncatella Risso, 1826, Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe méridionale et
particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4, p. 124.

TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840, Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum, Ed. 42, p. 117.

ventricosa, Rissoa, Desmarest, 1814, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris,
(3)1: 8.

The following is the reference for the designation of Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 1814 as the
type species of the nominal genus Rissoa Desmarest, 1814:

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G.-F. 1884. Les mollusques marins de Roussillon, vol. 1,
part 7, p. 262.

The following is the reference for the designation of Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826 (a junior
subjective synonym of Helix subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767) as the type species of the nominal
genus Truncatella Risso, 1826:

Lowe, R.T. 1855. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 22: 217.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 81

OPINION 1665

Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): not suppressed

Ruling

(1) The name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (gender: masculine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Morrison (1969) Unio alatus Say, 1817, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) The namie alatus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio alatus (specific
name of the type species of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of
Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818).

History of Case 2558

An application for the conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 was received from
Dr Mark E. Gordon (Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Cookeville,
Tennessee, U.S.A.) on 23 November 1987. After correspondence the case was pub-
lished in BZN 47: 19-21 (March 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

A comment in support from Dr Arthur H. Clarke (Ecosearch Inc., Portland, Texas,
U.S.A.) was published in BZN 47: 205-206 (September 1990), together with an oppos-
ing comment from Drs Arthur E. Bogan (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), James D. Williams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville,
Florida, U.S.A.) & Samuel L.H. Fuller (Florida State Museum of Natural History,
Gainesville, U.S.A.). A further comment in support from Dr Douglas G. Smith
(Museum of Zoology, University of Massachusetts, Amhurst, U.S.A.) was published in
BZN 48: 142-143 (June 1991).

It was noted on the voting paper that, although no species were included in Potamilus
Rafinesque, 1818 for 150 years, as a result of Morrison’s 1969 statement (see BZN 47:
19, para. 5) it became a senior objective synonym of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (the
type species of both nominal genera is Unio alatus Say, 1817). Bogan, Williams & Fuller
noted (BZN 47: 206-207) that Potamilus had had extensive recent use and considered
that it would therefore be a mistake to suppress it. Instead of the proposals on BZN 47:
20, which sought to suppress Potamilus and place Proptera on the Official List, Bogan
et al. proposed that Potamilus should be confirmed as the valid name for the genus.

Both alternatives, the original proposal for the conservation of Proptera Rafinesque,
1819 by the suppression of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (BZN 47: 20; Proposal A),
and the placement of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 on the Official List (BZN 47: 207;
Proposal B), were offered for voting. The first course involved the use of the
Commission’s plenary powers, but these were not required for the second course since
it did not involve the suppression of names.

Decision of the Commission
On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the
close of the voting period on | December 1991 the votes were as follows:

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Proposal A — 8: Bock, Corliss, Dupuis, Kraus, Minelli, Nielsen, Starobogatov,
Ueno.

Proposal B — 18: Bayer, Cocks, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata,
Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Thompson, Trjapitzin and Willink

No vote was received from Cogger.

Voting for proposal B, Hahn commented: ‘As the comments clearly show, specialists
do not agree in this case. Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 is apparently not more often used
than Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818. In such a situation the best way is to follow the Code
and retain the older name’. Martins de Souza commented: ‘As both names, Potamilus
and Proptera are being used, I vote for the adoption of the Principle of Priority’. Nye
commented: ‘Potamilus is clearly not an unused senior synonym. Each synonym is in
current use so priority should be the arbiter’.

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:
alatus, Unio, Say, 1817, in Nicholson, W., First American edition of the British Encyclopedia or .
dictionary of arts and sciences, vol. 2 (B—E), pl. 4, fig. 2.
Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 3: 355.
Proptera Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle, 88: 420.

The following is the reference for the designation of Unio alatus Say, 1817 as the type species of
the nominal genus Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818:
Morrison, J.P.E. 1969. Annual Reports of the American Malacological Union, 1969: 24

The following is the reference for the designation of Unio alatus Say, 1817 as the type species of
the nominal genus Proptera Rafinesque, 1819:
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847. Indices generum malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2, p. 41.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 83

OPINION 1666

Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata)
and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta)
(Annelida, Polychaeta): specific names conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed:

(a) lepidota Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Aphrodita lepidota, for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

(b) minuta Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Aphrodita minuta, and
all other uses of this name before the publication of A. minuta Fabricius, 1780,
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) imbricata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Aphrodita imbricata;

(b) minuta Fabricius, 1780, as published in the binomen Aphrodita minuta.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) lepidota Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Aphrodita lepidota and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) minuta Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Aphrodita minuta and as
suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2452

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata
Linnaeus, 1767 and A. minuta Fabricius, 1780 was received from Dr Susan Chambers
and Mr David Heppell (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.) on 30
September 1983. The case was held pending proposed taxonomic revisions and was
eventually published in BZN 46: 22-24 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

A comment from Dr Mary E. Petersen (Zoological Museum, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark), published in BZN 47: 207-209 (September 1990), supported
the conservation of Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 by suppressing the earlier unused
homonym A. minuta Pennant, 1777, but preferred the name Aphrodita imbricata
Linnaeus, 1767 to be given precedence over A. /epidota Pallas, 1766, rather than the
proposed suppression of the latter name. A reply by the authors of the application was
published at the same time.

Dr Petersen considered that leaving the name A. /epidota available for possible future
use would be advantageous since it was almost certain that revision of A. imbricata
would result in that nominal species being split. While agreeing the latter point, Dr
Chambers & Mr Heppell noted that, in the absence of type material, the name /epidota
Pallas, 1766 could not be applied with confidence.

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 23. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata,
Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli (in part), Nielsen,
Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Bayer, Minelli (in part) and Thompson.

Dupuis and Holthuis abstained.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Minelli voted for the suppression of Aphrodita minuta Pennant, 1777 but not for
the suppression of A. lepidota Pallas, 1766. Dupuis commented: ‘Pending a better
taxonomic knowledge of the genus I think it is premature to decide the case from a
mere nomenclatural point of view’. Holthuis, Minelli, Ride and Thompson expressed
support for the course suggested by Dr Petersen, namely that the name imbricata be
given precedence over /epidota. The Executive Secretary consulted Dr Nielsen
(University of Copenhagen) on this point; he replied (in agreement with Chambers &
Heppell, BZN 47: 210) that Pallas’s name could not be appropriately assigned to any .
particular taxon which might be differentiated from imbricata.

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:
imbricata, Aphrodita, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2), p. 1084.
lepidota, Aphrodita, Pallas, 1766, Miscellanea Zoologica, p. 94. é
minuta, Aphrodita, O. Fabricius, 1780, Fauna Groenlandica, p. 314.
minuta, Aphrodita, Pennant, 1777, British Zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, p. 38 (quarto edition).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 85

OPINION 1667

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): Chelifer
taierensis With, 1907 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the
nominal genus Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 are hereby set aside and Chelifer taierensis
With, 1907 is désignated as type species of the genus.

(2) The name Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Chelifer taierensis With, 1907, is
. hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name taierensis With, 1907, as published in the binomen Chelifer taierensis
(specific name of the type species of Thalassochernes Beier, 1940), is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2734

An application for the designation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type
species of Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 was received from Dr Mark S. Harvey (Western
Australian Museum, Perth, Australia) on 27 July 1989. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 47: 176-177 (September 1990). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 177. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
taierensis, Chelifer, With, 1907, Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 30: 55. ¥
Thalassochernes, Beier, 1940, Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und
Geographie der Tiere, 74: 182.

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

OPINION 1668

Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): given
precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards,
1879 is hereby given precedence over the name Palaega Woodward, 1870 whenever the
two names are considered to be synonyms.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in

Zoology:

(a) Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, with the endorse-
ment that it is to be given precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 whenever
the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) Palaega Woodward, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Palaega
carteri Woodward, 1870, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority
over the name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 whenever the two namesare .
considered to be synonyms.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, as published in the binomen Bathynomus
giganteus (specific name of the type species of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards,
1879);

(b) carteri Woodward, 1870, as published in the binomen Palaega carteri (specific
name of the type species of Palaega Woodward, 1870).

History of Case 2721

An application to give the generic name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 prece-
dence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 was received from Drs Joel W. Martin & Hans
G. Kuck (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California,
U.S.A.) on 7 April 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47:
27-29 (March 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. :

A comment in support from Prof Jacques Forest (Muséum National d Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, France) was published in BZN 47: 212-213 (September 1990). An
opposing comment from Prof Rodney M. Feldmann (Kent State University, Kent,
Ohio, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 47: 290-291 (December 1990). Prof Feldmann
accepted the subjective synonymy of Palaega Woodward, 1870 and Bathynomus Milne
Edwards. 1879, and pointed out that there is no provision requiring that names based
on living taxa should have precedence over those (such as Palaega) based on fossils.

Comments on the application were published in BZN 47: 291—293 from six members
of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society (Drs Gary C.B. Poore,
Museum of Victoria, Abbotsford, Australia & Keiji Baba, Kumamoto University Faculty
of Education, Kumamoto, Japan; Prof J.Y. Liu, Institute of Oceanology, Quindao,
People’s Republic of China; Prof L.B. Holthuis, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum,
Leiden, The Netherlands; and Dr Thomas E. Bowman and Dr Austin B. Williams,
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 87

U.S.A.). None of these comments opposed the application, and they expressed doubts
about Palaega carteri, the type species of Palaega, being congeneric with Bathynomus
giganteus. Poore & Baba, Liu and Holthuis were willing to support the application
while Bowman and Williams said it was unnecessary.

Comments from Prof Sergio de Almeida Rodrigues (Universidade de Sado Paulo, Sao
Paulo, Brazil) and Dr Neil L. Bruce (Queensland Museum, South Brisbane, Australia)
supporting the precedence of Bathynomus were published in BZN 48: 57—58 (March
1991).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
_ proposals published in BZN 47: 28. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Holthuis, Kabata,
Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage,
Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell and Martins de Souza.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Voting for, Cocks and Minelli agreed with the comments by members of the
Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society. Ride commented: ‘From the
comments it is clear that Palaega carteri will be regarded as a nomen dubium by some
and hence a cause of instability while Pa/aega remains senior to Bathynomus. In the
status proposed, Palaega can be used as a collective group name or a generic name
without compromising stability’. Voting against, Hahn commented: ‘Palaega is of
similar importance for palaeontologists as Bathynomus for neontologists, therefore I
see no reason to give precedence to Bathynomus over Palaega’. Martins de Souza wrote:
‘Comments by Bowman, Bruce, Holthuis and Williams have indicated that Palaega
carteriis not congeneric with Bathynomus giganteus’; he therefore saw no reason to give
precedence to Bathynomus.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, Comptes Rendus de |’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, 88: 21.
carteri, Palaega, Woodward, 1870, Geological Magazine, 7: 496.
giganteus, Bathynomus, A. Milne Edwards, 1879, Comptes Rendus de |’ Academie des Sciences,

Paris, 88: 21.

Palaega Woodward, 1870, Geological Magazine, 7: 496.

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

OPINION 1669

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867] is
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Dalla Mabille, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Lindsey (1921) Cyclopides eryonas Hewitson, 1877, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name eryonas Hewitson, 1877, as published in the binomen Cyclopides
eryonas (specific name of the type species of Dalla Mabille, 1904), is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867], as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(5) The name EUMESIIDAE (type genus Ewmesia Felder & Felder, [1867]) (name of the
type genus suppressed in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected —
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2720

An application for the conservation of the name Dalla Mabille, 1904 was received
from Drs Stephen R. Steinhauser, Lee D. Miller & Jacqueline Y. Miller (A//yn Museum
of Entomology, Sarasota, Florida, U.S.A.) and Charles A. Bridges (Urbana, Illinois,
U.S.A.) on 29 March 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47:
184-186 (September 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No
comments were received. It was noted on the voting paper that approximately 120
nominal taxa (species and subspecies) are currently placed in the genus which, with the
exceptions noted in the application, has always been called Dalla.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the ~
proposals published in BZN 47: 185-186. At the close of the voting period on |
December 1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno,
Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No vote was received from Cogger.

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:
Dalla Mabille, 1904, Genera Insectorum; 17: 107.
eryonas, Cyclopides, Hewitson, 1877, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 325.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 89

Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867], Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte ‘Novara’ um die Erde,

p. 504. .
EUMESIIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867], Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte ‘Novara’ um die Erde,

p. 504.

The following is the reference for the designation of Cyclopides eryonas Hewitson, 1877 as the
type species of the nominal genus Dalla Mabille, 1904:
' Lindsey, A.W. 1921. University of Iowa Studies in Natural History, 9(4): 58.

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

OPINION 1670

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): specific
name conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name carnivora Fabricius, 1794, as
published in the binomen Musca carnivora, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen
Calliphora vicina, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) carnivora Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Musca carnivora and as
suppressed in (1) above;
(b) erythrocephala Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Musca erythrocephala
(a junior primary homonym of Musca erythrocephala DeGeer, 1776).

History of Case 2712

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Calliphora vicina
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 was received from Drs Knut Rognes (Stavanger
Laerhogskole, Stavanger, Norway) and Robert E. Blackith (University of Dublin,
Ireland) on 20 February 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47:
187-189 (September 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No
comments were received. As noted on BZN 47: 189, the application was supported by
Dr A.C. Pont (formerly of The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.).

Attention is drawn to the invalidity of the specific name erythrocephala Meigen,
1826, which is still sometimes used for Calliphora vicina.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 188-189. At the close of the voting period on 1.
December 1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Nielsen.

No vote was received from Cogger.

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:

carnivora, Musca, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta..., vol. 4, p. 313.

erythrocephala, Musca, Meigen, 1826, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifliigeligen Insekten, vol. 5, p. 62.

vicina, Calliphora, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires présentés par divers savants al’ Académie
des Sciences de I’ Institut de France, (2)2: 435.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 91

OPINION 1671

Strophomena de Blainville, 1824 (Brachiopoda): Leptaena planumbona
Hall, 1847 designated as the type species

. Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Strophomena de
Blainville; 1824 are hereby set aside and Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 is
designated as the type species;

(b) the specific name rugosa de Blainville, 1824, as published in the binomen
Strophomena rugosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Strophomena de Blainville, 1824 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation in (1)(a) above Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name planumbona Hall, 1847, as published in the binomen Leptaena
planumbona (specific name of the type species of Strophomena de Blainville, 1824) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name rugosa de Blainville, 1824, as published in the binomen Strophomena
rugosa and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2747

An application for the designation of Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type
species of Strophomena de Blainville, 1824 was received from Dr L.R.M. Cocks (The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 10 November 1989. After correspondence
the case was published in BZN 47: 274-276 (December 1990). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from Dr A.W.A. Rushton (British
Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, U.K.) and from Sir Alwyn Williams
(The University, Glasgow, U.K.) were published in BZN 48: 54 (March 1991). A further
comment in support from Dr C.H.C. Brunton (The Natural History Museum, London,
U.K.) was noted on the voting paper.

In the application the names Strophomena and rugosa were attributed to de
Blainville’s Manuel de Malacologie of 1825 (see BZN 47: 274, para. 3) but it
subsequently became apparent (see below) that they had previously been published in
1824.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 275-276. At the close of the voting period on |
December 1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

No vote was received from Cogger.

Heppell commented: ‘The genera (including the new genera) included by de
Blainville in his Manuel de Malacologie (1825) were also published by him in the
alphabetically arranged sequence of the second edition of the Dictionnaire des Sciences
Naturelles. This predates the Manuel at least as far as volume 32 (November 1824), and
so the generic name Strophomena and the specific name rugosa should be dated from
their first publication on p. 302 of that volume, and not from 1825 as given in the
application’.

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:
planumbona, Leptaena, Hall, 1847, Natural History of New York, p. 112.
rugosa, Strophomena, de Blainville, 1824, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, Ed. 2, vol. 32,
p. 302.
Strophomena de Blainville, 1824, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, Ed. 2, vol. 32, p. 302.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 93

OPINION 1672

Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 and Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes,
Anguilliformes): placed on the Official List of Generic Names

~ Ruling
(1) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology: .

(a) Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Bory de Saint- Vincent (1827) Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758;

(b) Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Muraena
anguilla Linnaeus, 1758.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) helena Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Muraena helena (specific
name of the type species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758);

(b) anguilla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Muraena anguilla (specific
name of the type species of Anguilla Schrank, 1798).

History of Case 1173

An application for the confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of Muraena was received from Miss Ruth A. Cooper (Secretariat, International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) and Mr Oliver A. Crimmen (The Natural
History Museum, London, U.K.) on 21 September 1989. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 46: 259-261 (December 1989). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

The generic name Muraena, consistently used for moray eels, was placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Opinion 77 (January 1922) with the universally
accepted type species M. helena Linnaeus, 1758. However, in 1958 Muraena was with-
drawn from the List for further investigation: the earliest designation of a type species
was believed to be that by Bleeker (1865) of M. anguilla Linnaeus, 1758. M. anguilla is
the type species by monotypy of Anguilla Schrank, 1798, the common river eel, and
strict adherence to the Régles [Code] would have resulted in the transfer of the name
Muraena from the moray to the common eel and the loss of the name Anguilla as a
junior objective synonym.

The application by Cooper & Crimmen (BZN 47: 259-261) sought to set aside
Bleeker’s (1865) designation of anguilla as the type of Muraena and accept that by
Jordan & Gilbert (1882) of helena, thereby conserving both generic names, Muraena
and Anguilla, in their accustomed usages.

A comment from:Mr Alwyne Wheeler (Epping Forest Conservation Centre,
Loughton, Essex, U.K.), published in BZN 47: 138 (June 1990), noted that the name
Anguilla dated from Schrank (1798), and not Shaw (1803) as cited in the application.
Comments from Dr F.C. Thompson (United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington D.C., U.S.A.) and from one of the authors of the application (Ruth
Cooper), published in BZN 47: 139, pointed out that Commission action was not
required to conserve the name Muraena in its accustomed sense: the designation by

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Bory de Saint-Vincent (1827) of helena as the type species predated that by Bleeker
(1865) and helena is thus the valid type species of the genus.

The Commission was asked to agree to place both Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 and
Anguilla Schrank, 1798 on the Official List, with Muraena helena and M. anguilla, both
of Linnaeus, 1758, the respective type species.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the
close of the voting period on 1 December 1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling *
given in the present Opinion:
Anguilla Schrank, 1798, Fauna Boica, vol. 1, part 2, p. 304.
anguilla, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 245.
helena, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 244.
Muraena Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 244.

The following is the reference for the designation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of the nominal genus Muraena Linnaeus, 1758:
Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. 1827, in Audouin, [J.V.] et al. (Eds.), Dictionnaire classique
d Histoire naturelle, vol. 11, p. 305.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 95

OPINION 1673

LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): spelling
confirmed .

Ruling

(1) It is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the
generic name Liparis Scopoli, 1777, is LIPAR-.

(2) The name Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (gender: feminine), type species by absolute
tautonymy Cyclopterus liparis Linnaeus, 1766, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name /iparis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Cyclopterus liparis
(specific name of the type species of Liparis Scopoli, 1777) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (type genus Liparis Scopoli, 1777), spelling con-
firmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 2440

An application for the confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 was
received from Dr Kenneth D. Vogt (Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A.) on 25 April 1983.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 130-131 (June 1988). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment from Prof L.B. Holthuis
(Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) was published in BZN
45: 292 (December 1988), together with a comment in support from Mr Alwyne
Wheeler (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). A comment in support from
Prof E. Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 46: 45 (March 1989). A comment on the
etymology of Liparis from Prof H.D. Cameron (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 47: 296-297 (December 1990). Comments
from Drs B.A. Korotyaev & E.P. Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, St Petersburg,
Russia) and Dr H. Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) were reported by
Dr P.K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary, ICZN) in BZN 47: 297-298 (December 1990).
Use of the plenary powers was not specifically requested in this case (BZN 45: 131) and
Prof Cameron (BZN 47: 297) stated that the correct spelling of the family-group name
was LIPARIDAE. The Commission was asked to confirm formally this spelling and to
agree to place the name on the Official List.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 131. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno,
Willink

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

Negative votes — |: Lehtinen.
No vote was received from Cogger.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

Liparis Scopoli, 1777, J.A. Scopoli... Introductio ad Historiam naturalem, sistens genera Lapidum,
Plantarum et Animalium..., p. 453.

liparis, Cyclopterus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(1) p. 414.

LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861, Catalogue of the fishes of the eastern coast of North America, from Greenland
to Georgia, p. 47.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 97

OPINION 1674

THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904 (Aves, Ciconiiformes): given
precedence-over PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 and EUDOCIMIDAE
Bonaparte, 1854

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904 and other family-
group names based on Threskiornis Gray, 1842 are hereby given precedence over
PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 and EUDOCIMIDAE Bonaparte, 1854 and other family-

group names based on Platalea Linnaeus, 1758 or Eudocimus Wagler, 1832, or on any

‘other nominal genus placed in the same family-group taxon as Threskiornis.

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

(a) Threskiornis Gray, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig-
nation Tantalus aethiopicus Latham, 1790;

(b) Platalea Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Gray (1840) Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus, 1758;

(c) Eudocimus Wagler, 1832 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Reichenow (1877) Scolopax rubra Linnaeus, 1758.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) aethiopicus Latham, 1790, as published in the binomen Tantalus aethiopicus
(specific name of the type species of Threskiornis Gray, 1842);

(b) /eucorodia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Platalea leucorodia
(specific name of the type species of Platalea Linnaeus, 1758);

(c) rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scolopax rubra (specific name
of the type species of Eudocimus Wagler, 1832).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904 (type genus Threskiornis Gray, 1842), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Threskiornis are to
be given precedence over those based on Platalea Linnaeus, 1758, on Eudocimus
Wagler, 1832, or on any other nominal genus placed in the same family-group
taxon as Threskiornis:

(b) PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 (type genus Platalea Linnaeus, 1758), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Platalea are not to
be given priority over those based on Threskiornis Gray, 1842;

(c) EUDOCIMIDAE Bonaparte, 1854 (type genus Eudocimus Wagler, 1832), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Eudocimus are not
to be given priority over those based on Threskiornis Gray, 1842.

History of Case 2136

An application to place the widely used name THRESKIORNITHIDAE on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and to give it precedence over PLATALEINAE
Bonaparte, 1838 and other competing family-group names was received from Prof

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

E. Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.), Dr K.C. Parkes (Carnegie Museum of Natural History,
Pittsburgh, U.S.A.) and the late Dr E. Eisenmann on 31 July 1975. After long delays the
case was published in BZN 41: 240-244 (November 1984). Notice of the case was sent
to appropriate journals.

Comments in opposition from Dr Kenneth E. Campbell (Natural History Museum,
Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.), from Dr Allan R. Phillips (San Nicolas de los Garza,
Nuevo Leon, Mexico) and from Dr Storrs L. Olson (National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., U.S.A.) were published in BZN 43:
10-13 (April 1986).

Prof Walter J. Bock (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress (SCON)). Columbia University, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A.) reported on the support for the application from SCON following a
Congress meeting in 1986 (published in BZN 43: 324; December 1986). No further
action was taken pending a proposed comprehensive application from SCON on bird
family-group names.

Following an Ornithological Congress in December 1990 Prof Bock (in litt., April
1991) pointed out that the name THRESKIORNITHIDAE was first proposed by Poche
(1904, p. 498), and not by Richmond (1917) as was stated in the original application.
The name should therefore be cited with this date. Poche’s authorship rendered the
name senior to PLEGADIDAE Mathews, 1913 and no action was necessary with regard to
the latter name.

In his letter Prof Bock mentioned three further family-group names, not previously
cited in this case, based on genera included in the THRESKIORNITHIDAE auctt. These were
‘Geronticeae’ (type genus Geronticus Wagler, 1832) and ‘Phimoseae’ (type genus
Phimosus Wagler, 1832), both appearing in a table by Bonaparte (1855, p. 725), and
FALCINELLINAE Des Murs, 1860 (pp. 428, 537; type genus Falcinellus Gray, 1840 (p. 67),
which is a junior synonym of Plegadis Kaup, 1829, and also a junior homonym).
Although senior to THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904, not one of these three names has
been used as valid for many years, and there seemed no reason to delay further the
present case (primarily concerned with THRESKIORNITHIDAE and PLATALEIDAE) for them
and their type genera (and the type species of these) to be considered de novo.

The original proposals (BZN 41: 244) did not ask for the placing of any type genera
or species on the Official Lists, although they were mentioned in the preceding text. In
keeping with normal practice they were included in revised proposals on the voting
paper, together with the revised date for THRESKIORNITHIDAE.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
revised proposals. At the close of the voting period on | December 1991 the votes were
as follows:

Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kraus, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 8: Bayer, Dupuis, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen,
Macpherson and Thompson.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992 99

Holthuis commented: ‘The strict use of priority here is the safest, simplest, least
messy and most logical solution. Platalea and PLATALEIDAE are well-known names.
Each time family names based on genera of this group published between 1838 and
1904 are found, the Commission has to act. I cannot accept the phrase ‘on any other
nominal genus...’ in revised proposal (1)’. Kabata commented: ‘The opposing com-
_ ments of Campbell, Phillips and Storrs seemed to me quite compelling and I share the
views of these three commentators’. Thompson commented: ‘Given that the ornitho-
logical community is divided on this question, it is best to follow the Principle of
Priority’. -

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

aethiopicus, Tantalus, Latham, 1790, Index Ornithologicus, sive Systema Ornithologiae..., vol. 2,
p. 706.

EUDOCIMINAE Bonaparte, 1854, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (4)1(1): 142.

Eudocimus Wagler, 1832, Isis (von Oken), p. 1232.

leucorodia, Platalea, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 139.

Platalea Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 139.

PLATALEINAE Bonaparte, 1838, A geographical and comparative list of the birds of Europe and
‘North America, p. 48.

rubra, Scolopax, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 145.

Threskiornis G.R. Gray, 1842, Appendix to a list of the genera of birds, p. 13.

THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 27: 498.

The following is the reference for the designation of Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the nominal genus Platalea Linnaeus, 1758:
Gray, G.R. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus,
p. 67.

The following is the reference for the designation of Scolapax rubra Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of the nominal genus Eudocimus Wagler, 1832:
Reichenow, A. 1877. Journal fiir Ornithologie, 25(2): 145.

Other references mentioned in the Opinion are:
Bonaparte, Prince C.-L. 1855. Tableaux synoptiques de l’ordre des Hérons. Comptes Rendus
Hebdomadaires des Séances de |’Academie des Sciences, 40: 718-725.
Des Murs, O. 1860. Traité générale d’oologie ornithologique au point de vue de la classification. xix,
640 pp. Klincksieck, Paris.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(1) March 1992

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission;
other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; the Commission’s Secretariat
reserves the right to return applications not so prepared.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out
the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. “Daudin (1800,
p. 39) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and
followed by the number of pages, the publisher and place of publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the .
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could
be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text in IBM PC format. It would also be
helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main
references where this is possible.

Applicants would be well advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same
field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications
and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation in their accepted usage of the nominal taxa Bucephalus
Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda). C.B. Srivastava; D.I.
Gibson; O.N. Pugachev; J.C. Pearson

On the proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 799 (Mollusca,
Coleoidea), with a proposal that the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 be
ruled unavailable and be replaced by PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922. P.K.Tubbs .

* On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). B. Roth; A.G. Beu, B.A. Marshall& W.F.Ponder . .

On the proposed conservation of Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) as the correct spelling. D. Heppell ae

On the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed i in Histoire abrégée
des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762) (Crustacea and
Insecta). D.R. Ragge; R.D. Pope; J. LaSalle :

. Onthe proposed conservation of the specific name of Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906
(Crustacea, Branchiopoda). D. Belk . :

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridacty lum Cuvier,
1827. (Amphibia, Caudata) H.M. Smith. ‘

On the proposed conservation of the generic and specific 1 names ‘of Palaeopropithecus
ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates). E. Delson et al.

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1662. Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently
Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific names
conserved; and Placostylus Beck, 1837: L. fibratus designated as the type species .

Opinion 1663. Fryeria oe 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, were cases
conserved ..

Opinion 1664. RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): given precedence over
TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 . . .

Opinion 1665. Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): not suppressed. ;

Opinion 1666. Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and
Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta):
specific names conserved. .

Opinion 1667. Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): Chelifer
taierensis With, 1907 designated as the type species . .

Opinion 1668. Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): given
precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 .

Opinion 1669. Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved . ;

Opinion 1670. Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): specific
name conserved. .

Opinion 1671. Strophomena de Blainville, 1824 (Brachiopoda): Leptaena planumbona
Hall, 1847 designated as the type species. . .

Opinion 1672. Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 and Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes,
Anguilliformes): placed on the Official List of Generic Names. é

Opinion 1673. LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): spelling
confirmed

Opinion 1674. THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904 (Aves, Ciconiiformes): given precedence
Over PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 and EUDOCIMIDAE Bonaparte, 1854.

Instructions to Authors .

100

CONTENTS _

Notices

Addresses of members of the Commission. . . . - .

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . . =
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in Zool By - Secon dS
1990 a

The International ¢ Code of Zoological Notenelasie’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies . 2

Applications

Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827
vation in their accepted usage. B. Baturo Be reat

Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, pe ances :
Helix candiota Mousson, ete as the type species. F. Giusti &

Rolston, 1983: proposed conservation af the specific name. L.t
Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 coaster! a. ee :

-posed conservation of the specific name. B. "Ankems EM Li
Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 —* satis oe —

Tachinus punctus Gsaikonk 1806 as the we species; pro
Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829; and ‘Proposed eens
Ischnosoma.J.M,Campbell. . . . .
Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoide

Graptolithus clintonensis (currently Monograptus clinionensis::
posed attribution to Hall, 1852, and designation of. a lectot

attribution of the specific name to Elles & Wood, 1911, and proposed esi a
a lectotype. D.K. Loydell, E.E. Bull & P. Storch . Be ye
Scylliorhinus atlanticus Koefoed, 1927 (currently pester atlantic
Carcharhiniformes): proposed conservation of the eon
Beret oc :
Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Syapida: hes
Lucas .

Starobogatov. A.P. era pie

Bulletin

Fclovical
- Nomenclature

whee a

logical? ane Jature -

ee Me : a

a

€

\ |
‘ = \

zy , '

ey / ;

S

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1992 is £75 or
$145, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers
President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Members
Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) Prof W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)
(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czechoslovakia; Heteroptera)

Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany, Arachnology) (Russia; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno (Japan; Entomology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Secretariat

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J.D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1992

MATIED AI tae”
bUet ) URAL, be 61 U0RY)

| 95 JUN 1982

e URCHS any 101

OTR E

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 49, part 2 (pp. 101—180) 25 June 1992
Notices i

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication,
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting
comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions).

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience
wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 49, part | (published on 26 March 1992). Under Article
80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission
is published.

(1) Trachypora Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 (Cnidaria, Tabulata): proposed

designation of T. elegantula Billings, 1860 as the type species. (Case 2745).
F. Tourneur.

(2) Conservation of usage of generic names in the BUPRESTIDAE Leach, 1815
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of Phaenops Dejean, 1833 and
Palmar Schaefer, 1949, together with the designation of Buprestis acuminata
DeGeer, 1774 and B. variolosa Paykull, 1799 as the type species of Melanophila
and Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 respectively. (Case 2837). H. Muhle.

(3) Platynectes Régimbart, 1878 and Gueorguievtes Vazirani, 1976 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2841). A. Nilsson.

(4) Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation.
(Case 2842). J.E. Randall.

(5) Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation
of a neotype. (Case 2843). ILM. Kerzhner & E. Heiss.

(6) Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of a
neotype. (Case 2844). D.T. Bilton.

(7) Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed precedence
over Taningia persica (Naef, 1923). (Case 2845). M. Vecchione & C.F.E. Roper.

(8) Xylotrogus brunneus Stephens, 1830 (currently Lyctus brunneus) and
Cryptophagus advena Waltl, 1834 (currently Ahasverus advena) (Insecta,

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2846).
R.D. Pope.

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published
in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the
day of publication of the Bulletin.

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has recently been estab-
lished to facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and to
support the Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with infor-
mation on the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to buy the
Code and the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the Treasurer.
Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural Council are Dr
H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof A. Minelli (Italy) and Dr
C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open to all European
zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr E. Macpherson, Instituto de
Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n 08039 Barcelona, Spain.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £19 or $35, but.
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £15 or $29;
payment should accompany orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987.
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled
since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, Nati.aal Museum
of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 103

Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official Lists
and Official Indexes. A supplement has been Prepared giving these additional entries,
together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. Copies
‘ can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is offering a subscription for
individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular disciplines.
For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will receive copies of all Applications,
Comments and Opinions relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca as soon as
they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Offprints are available
back to 1980.

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies

Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most volumes of the Opinions
and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are
still available. Prices on application to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2788

Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation
of Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species

Philip Alderslade

Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences, Darwin, Northern Territory
0801, Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the designation by Nutting
(1910) of Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species of the coral genus Mopsea
Lamouroux, 1816 (family Isipmae). An earlier designation was of Isis dichotoma
Linnaeus, 1758, an unidentifiable species of a different family. Species placed in
Mopsea are found on the Australian continental shelf, in Antarctic waters, New
Caledonia and the Moluccas but the group is paraphyletic.

1. The genus Mopsea was established by Lamouroux (1816, p. 465) in the family
Isideae (now ISIDIDAE) with the originally included nominal species Mopsea verticillata
Lamouroux (1816, p. 467) and Mopsea dichotoma (see paras. 3 and 4 below). Mopsea
verticillata was a new name for Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815 (p. 415) and was clearly
based on specimens, as shown by Lamouroux’s characteristic notation ‘Museum
d’Hist. Nat.’ and Lamarck’s ‘Mus., no.’ in their descriptive accounts. Lamouroux cited
Lamarck’s name encrinula in the synonymy of verticillata and defined the species
almost verbatim in Lamarck’s words (Lamarck wrote ‘subbipinnatis’ and Lamouroux
wrote ‘subpinnatis’ which was probably nothing more than a transcription error).
Lamouroux gave no justification for the new name and it is not certain whether
verticillata and encrinula are objective or subjective synonyms.

2. Extensive investigations of relevant specimens at the Université de Caen and _
the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris have been conducted by Mme
M.-J. d’Hondt who has made available to me fragments of three lots from the Lamarck
Collection in Paris. There are indications that amongst this material is not only the
specimen(s) apparently used by Lamarck for establishing Jsis encrinula but possibly
also that used by Lamouroux for Mopsea verticillata. All the material seems to belong
to a single taxonomic species.

(i) The largest lot is labelled ‘Isis encrinula. Lk. Mopsea verticillaris. Lamx. De La
N[ouv]elle Hollande par MM Péron and Lesueur 1809’. Mme d’Hondt has indicated
that this has been treated by the Muséum as the type of Isis encrinula. The specimen has
been recently illustrated and described by Bayer & Stefani (1987, pl. 18, fig. 1). I
designate it as the lectotype of Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815.

(ii) The second lot consists of three fragments and has also been illustrated by Bayer
& Stefani (1987, pl. 18, fig. 2). It is accompanied by the following three labels: (a) ‘g.
verticillaris. var?’ in ink in the handwriting of Lamarck; (b) ‘Espéce nouvelle voisine des
Gorgoniae mais 4 axe articulé’ in pencil, thought to be possibly in the handwriting of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 105

Lamouroux; (c) ‘Jsis, Gorgonia verticillaris. Lk. var? Primnoa verticillaris. Milne Edw.
et J. Haime. Antilles’ in an unknown hand. My research indicates that the species is
endemic to Australian waters and would not be found in the Antilles, and Mme
d’Hondt has suggested that ‘Antilles’ is a transcription error for ‘Australasie’.

(iii) The last specimen consists of three very small fragments accompanied by
‘labels ‘Isis encrinula’ and ‘Isis encrinule. Jsis encrinula nouv. holl.’ in Lamarck’s
handwriting.

3. Lamouroux (1812, p. 188) had earlier published the nomen nudum Melitea
verticillaris, and its taxonomic position was disputed by Lamarck (1815, p. 410) who
stated that it should be placed in Jsis, based on axial characteristics. When Lamouroux
(1816, p. 465) established Mopsea verticillata he indicated that the same material was

‘involved: ‘Ces Polypiers, que j’avais mis d’abord parmi les Mélitées 4 cause du peu
d’épaisseur de l’écorce, et que M. de Lamarck a replacé parmi les Isis, forment un genre
bien distinct de l’ordre des Isidées’. Mme d’Hondt has suggested that it is quite possible
that the material alluded to by Lamouroux is that referred to in (ii) above. She has
pointed out that in the preliminary remarks (1812, p. 182) preceding his synopsis
Lamouroux indicated that the work that followed was an improvement on Lamarck’s
earlier generic arrangement, and included the Australian material collected by Peron
and Lesueur which was on display in the public galleries of the Muséum. If the labels
and their glued positions on the display base are taken into account it could be inferred
that Lamarck was the first to have seen that specimen, which he called ‘g. verticillaris.
var?’ and that the second label, commenting on the axis, was applied by Lamouroux
who subsequently employed the nomen nudum Melitea verticillaris for this specimen,
and in 1816 the name Mopsea verticillata. However, Mme d’Hondt, whose hypothesis
fits the available evidence very well, admits that it is likely to remain forever conjectural
whether this specimen was seen by Lamouroux. There is also doubt as to the status of
the fragments in (1) above. When Lamarck (1815) disputed Lamouroux’s taxonomic
positioning of Melitea verticillaris he also established Isis encrinula in the same article,
apparently not realising the similarities. It is possible he based /sis encrinula on the
fragments in (iii) above, as the label on lot (i) mentions Mopsea which was not
published until 1816. Bayer & Stefani (1987) had not seen lot (iii) above but considered
the first two to be identical and even suggested that they may be portions of the same
colony.

4. Mopsea dichotoma was originally established as [sis dichotoma by Linnaeus
(1758, p. 799) on the basis of a figure and brief description of ‘Hippuris coralloides
carnea, CAPENSIS, geniculus limosis’ published by Petiver (1702, p. 7, pl. 3, fig. 10).
Isis dichotoma was described more fully by Pallas (1766, p. 229) evidently on the basis of
a specimen which might or might not have been the same species as Petiver’s.

5. Mopsea dichotoma appears to have been included by Lamouroux (1816) solely on
the strength of the previously published accounts he cited (Petiver, 1702; Seba, [1759];
Pallas, 1766; Esper, 1788; Gmelin, [1791]; Lamarck, 1815) since he did not mention any
specimens. He did however make reference to Lamarck’s account (1815, p. 415) of Isis
dichotoma where Lamarck indicated material to hand with his notation ‘Mus., no.’.
Lamarck’s brief descriptive remarks were mainly based on the work of Pallas (1766,
p. 229) and Esper (1788, p. 43, pl. 5) and he admitted to only having seen a decorticated
specimen: ‘Je n’ai pas vu l’écorce; on la dit rouge, et chargée de papilles osculiféres’. The
small specimen from the Lamarck collection labelled ‘Jsis dichotoma’ in Lamarck’s

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

handwriting, possibly seen by Lamouroux and kindly made available to me by Mme
d’Hondt, is in fact a portion of an articulated Adeona skeleton which is a bryozoan and
not a gorgonian. Wright & Studer’s (1889, p. 42) statement that the ‘original specimens
(sic) of Lamarck’s Jsis dichotoma... agrees (sic) in all particulars’ with material from
Port Jackson collected on the Challenger expedition cannot be explained. I therefore
conclude that neither Lamarck nor Lamouroux had an actual specimen attributable to
Isis dichotoma Linnaeus. However, any specimens that may have been used by Pallas
and later authors (including Lamarck) in describing Jsis dichotoma are completely
irrelevant to the identification of Linnaeus’s species which was based solely on Petiver’s
(1702) account.

6. Isis dichotoma Linnaeus, 1758 was made the sole species of a new genus
Mopsella by Gray ([1858], p. 284) which evidently belongs to the scleraxonian family
MELITHAEIDAE rather than to the holaxonian family IstpIDAE Kiikenthal, 1924 (p. 65).
The axial characters of the decorticated South African species illustrated by Petiver
clearly indicate that it was a melithaeid. Several melithaeids, including ‘Melitodes
dichotoma (Pallas) reported by Hickson (1900, p. 80) and Wrightella coccinea Gray,
1870, have been reported from South Africa and the specific identity of Isis dichotoma
will never be known with certainty but it is certainly not an isidid.

7. The first designation of a type species of Mopsea is that by Milne Edwards &
Haime (1850, p. lxxxi) who selected Mopsea dichotoma, remarking only that the axis
differed from Jsis in originating from the horny nodes rather than from the calcareous
segments. This indicates that they believed Mopsea dichotoma to be an isidid on the
basis of published accounts and (like Lamouroux) had failed to take note of the swollen
nature of the horny axial nodes shown in Petiver’s illustration, which in fact places
it with Lamouroux’s (1816, p. 458) Melitea group subsequently included in the
MELITHAEIDAE. Accepting /sis dichotoma as the type species is obviously unsatisfactory.
Lamouroux, it seems, had no material on hand and based the species solely on pub-
lished accounts that he incorrectly interpreted. Its recognition as the type species would
make Mopsea a nomen dubium in the MELITHAEIDAE as the senior objective synonym of
Mopsella Gray, [1858]. Species of IsIDIDAE now assigned to Mopsea would require a
new generic name. The problem created by the designation of [sis dichotoma as the type
species of Mopsea was recognised by Bayer & Stefani (1987, p. 57) but no remedial _
action was taken.

8. Nutting (1910, p. 17), unaware of the (1850) type designation by Milne Edwards
& Haime, designated Mopsea encrinula (i.e. Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815) as the type
species of the genus. Nutting’s invalid designation of Jsis encrinula reflects consistent
usage of the name Mopsea, and unquestionably represents Lamouroux’s original con-
cept of it. Lamouroux’s definition of the genus establishes the colony form as pinnately
branched (‘a rameaux pinnés’) as is the case with Isis encrinula.

9. The name Mopsea encrinula (Lamarck, 1815) has been used by all authors since
Ehrenberg (1834, p. 355), occurring in at least 16 publications. A representative list of
references, additional to those cited in this application, is held by the Commission
Secretariat. Kiikenthal’s summary of the gorgonians (1924, p. 437) recognised 11
nominal species of Mopsea. Kikenthal overlooked the publication of Briggs (1915)
containing a further two species, and six species have been added to the genus since then
(Thomson & Rennet, 1931; Tixier-Durivault, 1970; Utinomi, 1975; Bayer & Stefani,
1987).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 107

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the
nominal genus Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 prior to that by Nutting (1910) of Jsis
encrinula Lamarck, 1815;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mopsea
Lamouroux, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Nutting (1910) Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815, as ruled in (1) above;

(3) to place ‘on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name encrinula
Lamarck, 1815, as published in the binomen Jsis encrinula (specific name of the
type species of Mopsea Lamouroux, 1850), and as defined by the lectotype
designated in para. 2 of this application.

Acknowledgements

This submission could not have been compiled without the extensive research efforts of
Mme Marie-José d’Hondt of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, and
her willingness to loan me valuable material from the Lamarck Collection, for which I
am extremely grateful. I thank Frederick Bayer for constructive criticism. This work
has been improved by discussions with Hal Cogger, Sandy Bruce, Helen Larson, Lyle
Vale, Ann Hoggett and especially Carden Wallace.

References

Bayer, F.M. & Stefani, J. 1987. Isididae (Gorgonacea) de Nouvelle-Calédonie: nouvelle clé des
genres de la famille. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)9(A,1): 47-106.

Briggs, E.A. 1915. Report on the Alcyonarians obtained by the F.I.S. ‘Endeavour’ on the Eastern
and Southern Coasts of Australia. Part I. Biological Results of the Fishing Experiments
carried on by the F.LS. ‘Endeavour’, 1909-4, 3(2): 59-94.

Ehrenberg, C.G. 1834. Beitrage zur physiologischen Kenntnis der Corallenthiere im allgemeinen,
und besonders des rothen Meeres, nebst einem Versuche zur physiologischen Systematik
derselben. Abhandlungen der Koniglichen (Preussischen ) Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin, 1832(1): 225-380,

Esper, E.J.C. 1788. Die Pflanzenthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Farben erleuchtet nebst
Beschreibungen, vol. 1. 96 pp. Raspischen Buchhandlung, Nurnberg.

Gmelin, J.F. [1791]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes). Pp.
3021-3910. Lipsiae.

Gray, J.E. [1858]. Synopsis of the families and genera of axiferous zoophytes or barked corals.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1857: 278-294.

Gray, J.E. 1870. C, atalogue of lithophytes or ston 'y corals in the collection of the British Museum. iv,
51 pp. British Museum, London.

Hickson, S.J. 1900. The Alcyonaria and Hydrocorallinae of the Cape of Good Hope. Marine
Investigations in South Africa, 1(5): 67-96.

Kiikenthal, W. 1924. Gorgonaria. Das Tierreich, 47: 1-478.

Lamarck, J.B. de. 1815. Sur les polypiers corticiféres. Mémoires du M uséum d'Histoire Naturelle,
1: 401-416.

Lamouroux, J.V.F. 1812. Extrait d’un mémoire sur la classification des Polypiers coralligénes
non entiérement pierreux. Nouveaux Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de
Paris, 3(63): 181-188.

Lamouroux, J.V.F. 1816. Histoire des Polypiers coralligénes flexibles, vulgairement nommés
Zoophytes. \xxxiv, 560 pp. Poisson, Caen.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Milne Edwards, H. & Haime, J. 1850. 4 monograph of the British fossil corals. Part 1 (Introduc-
tion; corals from the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations). Ixxxv, 71 pp. Palaeontographical
Society, London.

Nutting, C.C. 1910. The Gorgonacea of the Siboga Expedition. V. The Isidae. Siboga-Expeditie.
Monographs, 13(b2): 1—24.

Pallas, P.S. 1766. Elenchus zoophytorum sistens generum adumbrationes generaliores et
specierum cognitarum succinctas descriptions cum selectis auctorum synonymis. xvi, 177, 28,
451 pp. Hagae.

Petiver, J. 1702. Gazophylacii naturae & artis decas prima...., [Pages unnumbered, 50 pls.].
Bateman, London.

Seba, A. [1759]. Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio, et iconibus arti-
ficiosissimus expressio, per universam physices historiam..., vol. 3. [22], 212 pp., 116 pls.
Janssonio-Waesbergios, Amstelaedami.

Thomson, J.A. & Rennet, N.I. 1931. Alcyonaria, Madreporaria and Antipatharia. Scientific
Reports. Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914, (C, Zoology & Botany), 9(3): 1-46.

Tixier-Durivault, A. 1970. Les Octocoralliaires de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Pp. 171-350 in:
L’Expedition frangaise sur les récifs coralliens de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, vol. 4. 376 pp. Paris.

Utinomi, H. 1975. Octocorallia collected by trawling in western Australia. Publications of the
Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 22(5): 237-266.

Wright, E.P. & Studer, Th. 1889. Report on the Alyconaria collected by H.M.S. Challenger
during the years 1873-1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S.
Challenger during the years 1873-76. Zoology, 31: 1-314.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 109

Case 2801

Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
confirmation of P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type species

Maria F. Lopez Armengol & Miguel O. Mancenido

Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata,
Paseo del Bosque s/n., (1900) La Plata, Argentina

_ Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the nominal genus

Potamolithus from Pilsbry (1896, December), with P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type
species, in accordance with universal acceptance. The generic name is available from a
paper by Pilsbry & Rush (1896, November) which appeared a month earlier, but
P. rushii was there only a nomen nudum and so not eligible to be the type species.
Species of Potamolithus (family HYDROBIIDAE, subfamily LITHOGLYPHINAE) typically
inhabit freshwater streams in the Neotropical region and are of considerable
biogeographical and palaeontological interest.

1. The generic name Potamolithus first appeared, without description, in a paper by
Pilsbry & Rush (1896, November, p. 80). Most of the 16 nominal species and subspecies
included in the genus (including rushii; see para. 2 below) were nomina nuda and only
four had available names: Lithoglyphus buschii Frauenfeld, 1865 (p. 530, pl. 11),
Paludina lapidum @’Orbigny, 1835 (p. 29) and Lithoglyphus tricostatus and L. conicus,
both of Brot, 1867 (pp. 68 and 69, pl. 1, figs. 4 and 5 respectively). The authors noted
(p. 78, footnote) that ‘the... new forms will be described in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.
and the next number of Nautilus, space being lacking in this number’. Inclusion of the
four available specific names renders the name Potamolithus available by indication
(Article 12b(5) of the Code), but to our knowledge none of these nominal species has
ever been designated as the type.

2. Subsequently, Pilsbry alone (1896, December, pp. 86-89; see also Clench &
Turner, 1962, pp. 131, 175 for the dates of publication) published a second paper,
giving a formal definition of the genus Potamolithus (p. 86), and of all its constituent
species in the form of a diagnostic key. Pilsbry designated the new species Potamolithus
rushii Pilsbry, 1896 (p. 87) as the type. However, rushii was not among the available
nominal species included in the November publication and this designation is therefore
invalid (Articles 67g and 69a(i)).

3. Pilsbry (1911, p. 566) cited himself alone as the author of the generic name (from
the November paper) and rushii as the type species. Other workers have adopted the
name Potamolithus from the second (December) paper, crediting authorship to Pilsbry
(1896), and have accepted P. rushii as the type species. The genus includes both Recent
and fossil species and these workers include Formica Corsi (1900, p. 329), Parodiz
(1955, p. 96; 1965a, p. 1; 1965b, p. 273; 1969, p. 111), Jaeckel (1969, p. 814, pl. 3, fig. 65),
Clench & Turner (1962, p. 122), Pons da Silva & Davis (1983, p. 131), Davis & Pons
da Silva (1984, p. 75), Mancenido & Damborenea (1984, p. 439) and Morton (1987,
p. 206)..

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

4. To maintain P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the universally accepted type species of
Potamolithus and authorship of the generic name as Pilsbry (1896), we propose that the
Commission should rule that the generic name is to be taken as first available from the
second (December) paper, with P. rushiias the type. The holotype of P. rushii, specimen
no. 69686 in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, came from Paysandt on
the Uruguay River, Uruguay.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the generic name Potamolithus is deemed to

be first available from Pilsbry (1896, December);

(2) to confirm that the type species of the nominal genus Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896
is by original designation Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896;

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Potamolithus
Pilsbry, 1896 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, as
confirmed in (2) above, Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896;

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name rushii Pilsbry,
1896, as published in the binomen Potamolithus rushii (specific name of the type
species of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896). ;

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge earlier correspondence by one of us (M.F.L.A.) with
Mr R.V. Melville (former Secretary to the Commission) and editorial assistance from
the present Secretariat. Drs G.M. Davis and M.A. Garback (Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia) who supplied copies of Pilsbry’s original specimen labels, and
Dr M. Griffin (La Plata) who aided in obtaining relevant bibliography, have also been
very helpful.

References

Brot, A.L. 1867. Descriptions d’espéces nouvelles de coquilles terrestres et fluviatiles américaines.
Journal de Conchyliologie, (3)7: 68-71.

Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1962. New names introduced by H.A. Pilsbry in the Mollusca & .
Crustacea. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publication, 4: 1-218.
Davis, G.M. & Pons da Silva, M.C. 1984. Potamolithus: morphology, convergence, and relation-

ships among hydrobioid snails. Malacologia, 25(1): 73-108.

Formica Corsi, A. 1900. Moluscos de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay. Anales del Museo
Nacional de Montevideo, 2(15): 291-368.

Frauenfeld, G.R. 1865. Zoologische Miscellen V. Verhandlungen der Zoologischen-Botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 15(3): 525-536.

Jaeckel, S.G.A., Jr. 1969. Die Mollusken Siidamerikas. Monographiae Biologicae, 19: 794-827.

Mancenido, M.O. & Damborenea, S.E. 1984. Megafauna de invertebrados paleozoicos y
mesozoicos. Pp. 413-465 in Ramos, V.A. (Ed.), Geologia y recursos naturales de la Provincia
de Rio Negro. Relatorio IX Congreso Geologico Argentino, Buenos Aires.

Morton, L.S. 1987. Gastropodos de las Formaciénes San José y Chiquimil (Mioceno tardio),
Catamarca y Tucuman, Argentina. Ameghiniana, 23(3—4): 203-211.

Orbigny, A.D. d’. 1835. Synopsis terrestrium et fluviatilium molluscorum in suo per Americam
meridionalem itinere, ab A. d’Orbigny collectorum. Magasin de Zoologie, Classe 5
(Mollusques), 5(62): 23—44.

Parodiz, J.J. 1955. La validez del nombre Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1839 (Moll. Gastr.).
Neotropica, 1(6): 95—96.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 111

Parodiz, J.J. 1965a. The hydrobid snails of the genus Potamolithus (Mesogastropoda —
Rissoacea). Sterkiana, 20: 1-38.

Parodiz, J.J. 1965b. Relaciones y evidencias paleontologicas de Potamolithus. Comunicaciones
de la Sociedad Malacologica del Uruguay, 1(9): 273-278.

Parodiz, J.J. 1969. The Tertiary non-marine Mollusca of South America. Annals of the Carnegie
Museum, 40: 1-242.

’ Pilsbry, H.A. 1896. Notes on new species of Amnicolidae collected by Dr. Rush in Uruguay. The
Nautilus, 10(8): 86-89.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1911. Non-marine Mollusca of Patagonia. Report of the Princeton University
Expeditions to Patagonia 1896-1899, Zoology, 3(5): 513-633.

Pilsbry, H.A. & Rush, W.H. 1896. List, with notes, of land and fresh water shells collected by Dr.
Wm. H. Rush in Uruguay and Argentina. The Nautilus, 10(7): 76-81.

Pons da Silva, M.C. & Davis, G.M. 1983. D’Orbigny’s type specimens of Paludestrina
(Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) from southern South America. Proceedings of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 135: 128-146.

il Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2526

Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (currently Melanella (Balcis) alba;
Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name

Anders Warén

Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Sektionen for Evertebratzoologi, Box 50007,
S-10405 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
prosobranch mollusc Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 which is threatened by the
unused senior subjective synonym Turbo laevis Pennant, 1777. The name albus, a senior
subjective synonym of Balcis montagui Leach in Gray, 1847, the nominal type species of
Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847, is universally in use. The name Balcis relates to a group of
species which is considered to be subgenerically distinct from Melanella Bowdich, 1822
(in the world-wide family EULIMIDAE Philippi, 1853, which includes more than 4000-
species, all parasitic on echinoderms).

1. Pennant (1777, p. 130) described a gastropod species as Turbo laevis. His descrip-
tion was brief: ‘7.[urbo] with eight smooth spires [whorls], nearly obsolete. Tab. 1xxix’.
Pennant’s plate shows eight very roughly executed drawings but the figures are not
distinguished by name, number or any other means. The figure which relates to this
description cannot be identified with certainty although the top figure is smooth and
may represent it. Da Costa (1778, p. 117) doubtfully included /aevis in his new species
Strombiformis glaber but neither Pennant’s description nor supposed figure noted
the brownish spiral bands characteristic of this species, which are very resistant to
wear, remain visible in most fossil specimens and are mentioned by all later authors.
Eighteenth and 19th century authors (see, for example, Jeffreys, 1867, pp. 167, 203)
considered /Jaevis to be a senior synonym of Balcis alba (Da Costa, 1778) (see para. 3 -
below), but the name has not been used as valid since it was published.

2. Pennant (1777, p. 130) described a second mollusc as Turbo albus ina similar, very
brief manner: ‘7.[urbo] with eight spires, striated transversely [spirally]; white. Tab.
Ixxix’. The bottom figure on Pennant’s plate fits this description of T. albus but it is
not possible to be sure of the identity of this species. Jeffreys (1867, p. 167) considered
albus Pennant to be a junior synonym of Turbonilla lactea (Linnaeus, 1758) (family
PYRAMIDELLIDAE) but this is improbable since the latter species has axial sculpture only,
like all related pyramidellids.

3. Da Costa (1778, p. 116) proposed the name albus for a ‘milk white’ species in his
genus Strombiformis and indicated that he was unsure whether it was the same as Turbo
albus Pennant. Da Costa’s description was brief but it leaves little doubt that he was
referring to a taxon distinct from T. albus Pennant, 1777 (see also para. 6). Donovan
(1804, pl. 177, text) was the first author to give a clear description and illustration of
Da Costa’s species, although he uncritically accepted that Pennant had been dealing
with the same taxon. Almost all subsequent authors have ignored Pennant’s name and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 113

have adopted albus Da Costa (1778) as valid. The meaning of Pennant’s name is
unclear but it is desirable that it be suppressed to avoid confusion.

4. Pulteney (1799, p. 49), in a work approved as available by the Commission
(Opinion 1233, December 1982), included a species polita in Helix, citing Turbo laevis
Pennant in synonymy. Montagu (1803, p. 398) followed Pulteney, citing Turbo politus
- Gmelin (i.e. Linnaeus) and T. /aevis Pennant as synonyms of polita. Both Pulteney and
Montagu decribed the species and subsequently (Montagu, 1808, p. 141; Rackett in
Pulteney, 1813, p. 55) Strombiformis albus Da Costa was listed as a synonym. Gmelin’s
species politus ([1791], p. 3612) is that of Linnaeus (1758, p. 767; see Gmelin, [1792],
pp. 4058, 4112) but the descriptions of Pulteney and Montagu could not have been
based on politus Linnaeus, from the Mediterranean, since the latter is not known from
. Britain. There has been confusion in the past over the usages of the name politus
Linnaeus and politus sensu Montagu (see para. 6).

5. Gray (1847a (October), p. 271) published Leach’s page-proof name Balcis. Two
of the included nominal species, testacea and arcuata, are nomina nuda. The third,
montagui, is available by indication (Article 12b(1) of the Code). Gray wrote ‘Balcis
montagui. Helix polita Mont.’, referring to Montagu’s (1803) description of ‘polita’.
Evidently Leach had realized that Montagu had not been dealing with T. politus
Linnaeus. The nominal species montagui is thus the type of Balcis by monotypy, and the
later designation by Gray (1847b (November), p. 160) of Helix subulatus Donovan,
1804 is invalid; subulatus was not a nominal species included in the genus in the October
publication.

6. Hanley (1855, p. 354) reported the earlier presence of ‘a wretched example’ of
Turbo politus in Linnaeus’s material, which could not then be found (Dance, 1966,
p. 22 doubted the existence of such a specimen), and noted the discrepancy in size
between Linnaeus’s species politus (‘grani hordei [barley grain] magnitudine’) and that
called ‘politus’ by Montagu (15-20 mm.). Jeffreys (1867, pp. 167, 203) and other authors
of that time used politus Linnaeus to include politus sensu Montagu (=montagui
Leach in Gray). Martel (1905, p..328), however, pointed out that malacologists were
confusing two species and considered that the name Turbo politus Linnaeus referred
exclusively to a small Mediterranean species, while the much larger Atlantic species
should be called Eulima alba (Da Costa). Dautzenberg (1927, p. 162) followed this
view. Both Martel and Dautzenberg considered that Da Costa (1778) had been in error
in referring, even doubtfully, under his name Strombiformis albus to Pennant’s (1777)
Turbo albus, which was not a eulimid but possibly a young turritellid. Dautzenberg
thought that Da Costa had confused the figures on Pennant’s plate; he also noted that
T. laevis Pennant was an earlier synonym of albus Da Costa. Winckworth (1934,
pp. 12-13) discussed the nomenclature of the British genera of EULIMIDAE and con-
cluded that ‘B.[alcis] montagui = B. alba(Da Costa)’ was the valid type species of Balcis
Leach, but did not mention the earlier name Turbo albus Pennant. This notation for the
type species was followed by Wenz (1940, p. 835).

7. The specific name alba Da Costa, 1778 is much in use (see, for example, the recent
works of Cabioch, Grainger, Keegan & K6nnecker (1978), Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli
& Bedulli (1990, pp. 34, 184) and Smith & Heppell (1991, p. 28)) and it is very desirable
to maintain stability of its nomenclature. The species is placed either in Balcis Leach in
Gray, 1847 or in Melanella Bowdich, 1822 (p. 27); I consider that Balcis should be
regarded as a subgenus of Melanella. There are a few later subjective synonyms (Eulima

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

anglica Sowerby, 1834, E. porcellana and E. subangulata, both of Sowerby, 1866) but
none has been used since the original description; introduction of any of these names
would cause confusion. The species was figured by Fretter & Graham (1982, p. 415, fig.
298), Warén (1984, p. 32, figs. 49, 50) and Graham (1988, p. 526, fig. 224). I designated a
specimen from Plymouth, U.K. (Winckworth collection) in the Natural History
Museum, London as the neotype (specimen no. BM(NH) 1984126; see Warén, 1989,
p. 222, pl. 26, figs. 3, 4). I also discussed the identity of 7. politus Linnaeus, now placed
in Melanella Bowdich, 1822, and designated a specimen from the Golf de Gabes,
Tunisia in the Zoological Museum, Uppsala as the neotype of this species (see Warén,
1988, pp. 20, 21, fig. 13). I now propose that the specific names of Turbo laevis and
T. albus, both of Pennant (1777), be suppressed.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(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) laevis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo laevis;
(b) albus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo albus;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Balcis Leach
in Gray, 1847 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Balcis montagui
Leach in Gray, 1847 (a junior subjective synonym of Strombiformis albus Da
Costa, 1778);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name albus Da
Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Strombiformis albus and as defined by
the neotype designated by Warén (1989) (senior subjective synonym of the
specific name of Balcis montagui Leach in Gray, 1847, the type species of Balcis
Leach in Gray, 1847);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:

(a) /aevis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo laevis and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) albus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo albus and as.
suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Bowdich, T.E. 1822. Elements of conchology including the fossil genera and the animals, vol. |
(Univalves). 79 pp., 19 pls. Paris & London.

Cabioch, L., Grainger, J.N.R., Keegan, B.F. & Kénnecker, G. 1978. Balcis alba, a ‘temporary’
ectoparasite on Neopentadactyla mixta Ostergren. Pp. 237-240 in McLusky, D.S. & Berry,
A.J. (Eds.), Physiology and behaviour of marine organisms. xv, 388 pp. Pergamon Press,
Oxford.

Da Costa, E.M. 1778. Historia Naturalis testaceorum Britanniae or, the British conchology... xii,
254, vii pp., 17 pls. Author, London.

Dance, S.P. 1967. Report on the Linnaean shell collection. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of
London, 178(1): 1-24.

Dautzenberg, P. 1927. Mollusques provenant des campagnes scientifiques du Prince Albert!* de
Monaco dans l’ocean Atlantique et dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Résultats des Campagnes
Scientifiques accomplies par le Prince Albert', 72: \—400.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 115

Donovan, E. 1804. The natural history of British shells, vol. 5. Pls. 145-180. Author & Rivington,
London.

Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1982. The prosobranch molluscs of Britain and Denmark. Part 7
(‘Heterogastropoda’). Journal of Molluscan Studies Supplement, 11: 363—434.

Gmelin, J.F. [1791], [1792]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1. Part 6 (Vermes),
pp. 3021-3910 ([1791]); part 7 (Index), pp. 3911—4120 ([{1792]). Lugduni.

* Graham, A. 1988. Molluscs: prosobranch and pyramidellid gastropods. Synopses of the British

Fauna, new series, 2 (Ed.2): 1-662.

Gray, J.E. 1847a (October). Leach’s classification of British Mollusca. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, 20(133): 267-273.

Gray, J.E. 1847b (November). A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219.

Hanley, S. 1855. Ipsa Linnaei conchylia. The shells of Linnaeus... 556 pp., 5 pls. Williams &
Norgate, London.

Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British conchology, or account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the British
Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 4. 486 pp., 8 pls. Van Voorst, London.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Martel, H. 1905. Coquilles marine de Cancale. Iconographie et critique de quelque petites
éspeéces. Bulletin de la Société Scientifique et Médicale de l'Ouest, 14: 326-332.

Montagu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica or natural history of British shells..., vol. 2. Pp. 293-606,
16 pls. Hollis, Romsey.

Montagu, G. 1808. Supplement to Testacea Britannica with additional plates. v, 183 pp.., pls.

17-30. Woolmer, Exeter.

Pennant, T. 1777. British Zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4 (Crustacea, Mollusca, Testacea). 154 pp., 93 pls.
Octavo edition. White, London.

Pulteney, R. 1799. Catalogues of the birds, shells, and some of the more rare plants of Dorsetshire...
92 pp. Author, London.

Rackett, T. 1813. Pulteney’s Catalogues of the birds, shells, and some of the more rare plants of
Dorsetshire... With additions; and a brief memoir of the author. iv, 110 pp., 23 pls. Author,
London.

Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Annotated check-list of Mediterranean
marine mollusks. 348 pp. Libreria Naturalista Bolognese, Bologna.

Smith, S.M. & Heppell, D. 1991. Checklist of British marine Mollusca. National Museums of
Scotland Information Series, 11: 1-114.

Waren, A. 1984. A generic revision of the family Eulimidae (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia).
Journal of Molluscan Studies Supplement, 13: 1-96.

Warén, A. 1988. The identity of Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (Prosobranchia, Eulimidae).
Bollettino Malacologico, 24: 17-24.

Waren, A. 1989. Designation of neotypes of ‘Melanella alba (Da Costa, 1778) and “Eulima glabra
(Da Costa, 1778)’. Journal of Conchology, 33(4): 219-224.

Wenz, W. 1940. Gastropoda. Prosobranchia. Jn Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der
Paldozoologie, vol. 6, Teil 4, Lieferung 6. Pp. 721-960. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Winckworth, R. 1934. Names of British marine Mollusca. 2. Journal of Conchology, 20(1): 9-15.

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2789

Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation
of Amicytheridea triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species

S.C. Khosla, S.R. Jakhar & M.H. Mohammed
Department of Geology, M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur 313001, India

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Amicytheridea triangulata
Bate, 1975, a species from Middle Callovian (Middle Jurassic) beds of Tanzania, as the
type species of the ostracod genus Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (PROGONOCYTHERIDEIDAE).
Bate originally designated Procytheridea ihopyensis Grekoff, 1963 as the type species,
but misidentified his material which belongs to an as yet unnamed taxon; it is proposed
that the second originally included species, A. triangulata, be designated as the type.

1. Bate (1975, p. 190) established the genus Amicytheridea from Middle Callovian
beds of Tanzania and included two nominal species in it: Procytheridea ihopyensis
Grekoff, 1963 (p. 1747), which he designated as the type species, and the new species
Amicytheridea triangulata Bate, 1975 (p. 192), for which the holotype was deposited in
The Natural History Museum, London (specimen No. Io. 6114). A. triangulata was
fully described and illustrated (pp. 192-193, pl. 7, figs. 14-16, text-figs. 1la—c). Com-
parison of Grekoff’s pl. 6 (P. ihopyensis) with Bate’s pl. 7 caused Neale (1982, p. 184) to
realize that the (still not named) species considered to be Procytheridea ihopyensis by
Bate is not conspecific with that described by Grekoff (1963) from the Bathonian/
Callovian of the Majunga Basin, Madagascar. The holotype of P. ihopyensis is
deposited at the Institut Francais du Pétrole, Rueil-Malmaison, France (specimen
no. H279).

2. Given that Bate’s specimens from Tanzania are not conspecific with that of
Procytheridea ihopyensis described by Grekoff (1963), Bate’s species could be
designated as the type species of Amicytheridea under a new name, or the second of the -
two originally included species (i.e. triangulata) could be designated as the type. We
prefer the latter course. Except for a lesser number of anterior marginal pore canals,
triangulata shows all the essential characteristics of the genus as described by Bate
(1975):

3. Realizing that Bate had misidentified Procytheridea ihopyensis, Dépéche (in
Dépéche, Le Nindre, Manivit & Vaslet, 1987, p. 230) revised Amicytheridea and (p. 231)
designated A. oblonga, a newly described species from the Middle Callovian of central
Saudi Arabia, as the type species. This designation is invalid both because the ‘replace-
ment’ of Bate’s original designation was done without reference to the Commission
(Article 70b of the Code) and because A. oblonga was not an originally included species.

4. Besides Tanzania, species of Amicytheridea occur in the Upper Callovian of the
Majunga Basin, Madagascar (Grekoff, 1963, p. 1749), the Callovian of Kachchh, India
(our own observation), and central Saudi Arabia (Dépéche, in Dépéche, Le Nindre,
Manivit & Vaslet, 1987, p. 230). The generic name has appeared in publications by Bate
(1977a, 1977b), Bhatia (1984) and Dingle (1988).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 LT

5. 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 Amicytheridea Bate, 1975, and to designate Amicytheridea
triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Amicytheridea
Bate, 1975 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Amicytheridea triangulata Bate, 1975;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name triangulata
Bate, 1975, as published in the binomen Amicytheridea triangulata (specific name
of the type species of Amicytheridea Bate, 1975).

References

Bate, R.H. 1975. Ostracods from Callovian to Tithonian sediments of Tanzania, East Africa.
Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History), Geology, 26(5): 161-223.

Bate, R.H. 1977a. Upper Jurassic Ostracoda from Tanzania, East Africa. Actes du sixiéme
Colloque Africain de Micropaléontologie — Tunis 1974. Annales des Mines et de la

_ Géologie, Tunis, 28: 163-183.

Bate, R.H. 1977b. Jurassic Ostracoda of the Atlantic Basin. Developments in Palaeontology and
Stratigraphy, 6: 231—244.

Bhatia, S.B. 1984. Ostracode faunas of the Indian Subcontinent — their paleozoogeographic and
paleoecologic implications. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India, 20: 1-8.

Depéche, F., Le Nindre, Y., Manivit, J. & Vaslet, D. 1987. Les ostracodes du Jurassique d’Arabie
Saoudite central: systematique, répartition stratigraphique et paleogéographique. Geobios
(mémoire spécial), 9: 221-275.

Dingle, R.V. 1988. Marine ostracod distributions during the early breakup of Southern
Gondwanaland. Developments in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy, 11: 841-854.

Grekoff, N. 1963. Contribution a l’étude des ostracodes du Mésozoique moyen (Bathonien-
Valanginien) du Bassin de Majunga, Madagascar. Revue de l'Institut Francais du Pétrole et
Annales des Combustibles Liquides, 18(12): 1709-1762.

Neale, J.W. 1982. Aspects of the subfamily Schulerideinae. Pp. 178-192 in Bate, R.H.,
Robinson, E. & Sheppard, L.M. (Eds.), Fossil and Recent Ostracods. 492 pp. Ellis Horwood,
Chichester, England.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2794

Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 (currently Aquarius paludum; Insecta,
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

N. Moller Andersen

Zoologisk Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15,
DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the water-
strider Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 by the suppression of the virtually unused
senior subjective synonym alatus Retzius, 1783, originally published for a ‘variety’ of
Aquarius najas (De Geer, 1773).

1. When describing Cimex najas, De Geer (1773, p. 311) distinguished two forms,
both of which he illustrated: one was wingless (tab. 16, figs. 8, 9), the other winged and
with two spines posteriorly (tab. 16, figs. 7, 13).

2. Retzius (1783, p. 89), in his interpretation of insect species described by De Geer
(1773), applied the name var. a apterus to the wingless form of Cimex najas and var.
B alatus to the winged form with two posterior spines. -

3. Reuter (1988, p. 716) listed Cimex najas var. a apterus Retzius, 1783 as Gerris
najas (De Geer) and var. B alatus Retzius, 1783 as a synonym of G. paludum Fabricius,
1794 (p. 188). In De Geer’s collection in the Natural History Museum, Stockholm,
there are two wingless females of what is currently called Aquarius najas (De Geer) and
one winged female of what is currently A. paludum (Fabricius). The latter is probably
the specimen De Geer (1773) described as the winged and spinous form of his Cimex
najas and which Retzius (1783) named var. alatus.

4. If Retzius’s names are treated as names of subspecific rank, alatus Retzius, 1783
has priority over paludum Fabricius, 1794. However, Retzius’s names had never been
used to denote species-group taxa until Kanyukova (1982, p. 74) implied that Gerris
paludum Fabricius, 1794 could be replaced by G. alatus Retzius, 1783: she referred to
the rule (Article 4Se of the 1964 Code) which stated that ‘variety’ names given before
1961 were to be interpreted as subspecific. On the other hand, the Fabrician name has
been adopted in the literature (taxonomic as well as ecological) since the early 19th
century (a list of 10 representative works is held by the Commission Secretariat).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name a/atus Retzius, 1783, as published
in the trinomen Cimex najas var. alatus, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name paludum
Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Gerris paludum and as interpreted
by the lectotype designated by Andersen (1990, p. 59);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 119

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the
name alatus Retzius, 1783, as published in the trinomen Cimex najas var. alatus
and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Andersen, N.M. 1990. Phylogeny and taxonomy of water striders, genus Aquarius Schellenberg
(Insecta, Hemiptera, Gerridae), with a new species from Australia. Steenstrupia, 16: 37-81.

De Geer, C. 1773. Mémoires pour servir al'histoire des Insectes, vol. 3. 696 pp., 44 pls. Hesselberg,
Stockholm.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 4. 472 pp. Proft, Hafniae.

Kanyukova, E.V. 1982. Water-striders (Heteroptera, Gerridae) of the fauna of the U.S.S.R.
Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, Leningrad, 105: 62-93. [In Russian.]

Retzius, A.I. 1783. Caroli De Geer Genera et Species Insectorum. 220 pp. Leipzig.

Reuter, O.M. 1888. Revisio synonymica Heteropterorum Palaearcticorum quae descripserunt
auctores vetustiores (Linnaeus 1758 — Latreille 1806). Acta Societas Scientiarum Fenniae,
15: 441-812.

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2772

Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct original spellings

G.H. Nelson

College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, 309 East College Plaza,
Pomona, California 91766-1889, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the buprestid generic
names Chrysobothris and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829. The names originally appeared as
Chrysobotris and Dicerea, but those spellings have not been used.

1. The spellings Chrysobotris and Dicerea were published by Eschscholtz (1829,
p. 9). Since the names appear only once, it is impossible to verify from the original paper |
that misspellings were involved. However, Dr. M.G. Volkovitsh (in litt.) reports that
Dr. G. Ljubarskij has examined the original collection of Eschscholtz in the Zoological
Museum of Moscow and the spellings Dicerca and Chrysobothris were used on the
labels.

2. The spelling Chrysobothris (meaning ‘gold pits’) has been used by all authors from
the time of Solier (1833, p. 310) to the present, except Westwood ([1838], p. 24) who
used the original spelling Chrysobotris.

3. In the case of Dicerca, this spelling has been used by all authors from Faldermann
(1835, p. 143), Spinola (1837, p. 102) and Mannerheim (1837, p. 53) to the present,
except Westwood ([{1838], p. 24) who used the spelling Diceraea; the Commission
Secretariat has a list of 31 references. Leraut (1983, p. 6) drew attention to Eschscholtz’s
‘lapsus calami’ in recording the genus name Dicerea, a name that makes no sense (the
Greek roots dis = two and cercos = tail, by alluding to the elytral prolongations, make the
correct spelling Dicerca). He pointed out that although most authors had used Dicerca -
‘Lacordaire, 1835’ this is an unjustified emendation of Dicerea Eschscholtz and only the
earlier name should be used, in accordance with the Code. He also suggested that the
corresponding tribe should be DICEREINI and not DICERCINI as used at present.

4. Westwood ([{1838], p. 24) designated Buprestis chrysostigma Linnaeus, 1758
(p. 409) as the type species of Chrysobothris (spelt Chrysobotris) Eschscholtz, 1829, and
Buprestis aenea Linnaeus, 1761 (p. 213) as the type species of Dicerca (spelt Diceraea)
Eschscholtz, 1829. The type species designations in Westwood’s Synopsis of the genera
of British insects were accepted as valid in Opinion 71 (January 1922). The dates of
publication of the work were set out in Direction 63 (June 1957).

5. Chrysobothris and Dicerca are the type genera of CHRYSOBOTHRINI Gory &
Laporte, [1839] and DICERCINI (“Dicercites’) Kerremans, 1893 (p. 107).

In November 1991 an independent application for the conservation of the spelling of Dicerca was received
from Herr Hans Mihle (Pfarrstrasse 10, D-8063 Pfaffenhofen/Glonn, Germany).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 121

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the correct original spellings of the generic
names Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 1829 and Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829 are
Chrysobothris and Dicerca respectively;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Westwood ([1838]) Buprestis chrysostigma Linnaeus,
1758;

(b) Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Westwood ([1838]) Buprestis aenea Linnaeus, 1761;

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

(a) chrysostigma Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buprestis
chrysostigma (specific name of the type species of Chrysobothris Eschscholtz,
1829);

(b) aenea Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Buprestis aenea (specific
name of the type species of Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

- the following names:

(a) Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 1829 (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original
spelling of Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829);

(b) Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829 (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original
spelling of Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829).

References

Eschscholtz, J.F. 1829. Atlas, enthaltend Abbildungen und Beschreibungen neurer Theirarten,
wahrend des Flottcapitains von Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der Russisch-
Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetie in den Jahren 1823—1826, vol. 1. 17 pp. Berlin.

Faldermann, F. 1835. Additamenta entomologica ad faunam Rossicam. Nouveaux Mémoires de
la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 4(2): 137-159.

Gory, H.L. & Laporte, F.L. de (Comte de Castelnau). [1839]. Chrysobothrites. Chrysobothridae.
77 pp. In: Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres....., vol. 2. Bailliére,
Paris.

Kerremans, C. 1893. Essai de groupement des buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique
de Belgique, 37: 94-122.

Leraut, P. 1983. Mise a jour de la nomenclature de quelques genres de Buprestides de France.
Entomologica Gallica, 1(1): 5-8.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Svecica...., Ed. 2. 578 pp. Salvii, Stockholmiae.

Mannerheim, C.G. von. 1837. Enumeration des buprestides, et description de quelques nouvelles
espéces de cette tribu de la famille des sternoxes, de la collection de M. le Comte
Mannerheim. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 10(8): 3-126.

Solier, A.J.J. 1833. Essai sur les buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 2:
261-316.

Spinola, M. 1837. Lettre addressée a la Sociéte Entomologique de France, sur un group de
buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 6: 101—122.

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 17-32. Published with
An introduction to the modern classification of insects...., vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 113-160.
Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2786

TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of
homonymy, and TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed precedence over TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821

Alfred F. Newton, Jr. & Margaret K. Thayer

Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.

Curtis W. Sabrosky

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. (Present address: 205 Medford Leas,
Medford, New Jersey 08055, U.S.A.)

Abstract. The name TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 is in universal use for a very
large family of Diptera, but is a junior homonym of the staphylinid beetle family-group
name TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (based on Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802). Fleming’s
name is a senior synonym of TACHYPORINAE MacLeay, 1825 but is not in current use
at any rank. It is proposed that the entire name of Tachinus be taken as the stem to
remove homonymy with TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, and that the usage of
TACHYPORINAE MacLeay be conserved.

1. The beetle name TACHINIDAE, based on Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 134), was
first used by Fleming (1821, p. 49) for a group also including Tachyporus Gravenhorst,
1802 (p. 124). His article is usually cited as ‘Leach, 1817’ but it was actually written by
Fleming (article signed Q.Q., meaning J. Fleming according to the list of Supplement
contributors in vol. 1, p. xxxviii) and was published in July 1821 (according to the list of |
publication dates given in vol. 6, part 2).

2. Family-group names based on Tachinus were used by several authors during the
19th century for a group also including Tachyporus. Almost all of these authors attri-
buted the family-group name to Mannerheim (1830, p. 11). The catalogues of Agassiz
(1846a, pp. 157-158; 1846c, p. 360) and Handlirsch (1925, p. 573) listed uses including
that by ‘Leach, 1817’, i.e. Fleming (1821). Agassiz (1846c, p. 360) gave the emendation
TACHINOIDAE with each name.

3. MacLeay (1825, p. 49) first proposed the name TACHYPORIDAE, implicitly based
on Tachyporus. Numerous uses of names based on this genus (for taxa including
Tachinus as well) followed. Apparently because most authors regarded Mannerheim
(1830) as the author of TACHINIDAE (under which interpretation that name is a junior
synonym of TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825), family-group names based on Tachyporus
have been in virtually universal use since 1840 for taxa including Tachinus and
Tachyporus (and additional genera). A list of more than 50 references showing this
usage (selected from a much larger number) is held by the Commission Secretariat.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 123

4. TACHYPORINAE MacLeay, 1825 is the next oldest name after Fleming’s 1821 name
in the current concept of the staphylinid subfamily, which includes over 30 genera and
1300 species around the world. The widespread and consistent use of this name for the
past century and a half argues for giving it precedence over a name based on Tachinus.

5. In recent decades, family-group names based on Tachinus have been used by
- Coiffait (1954, p. 48), Coiffait & Saiz (1968, p. 413) and Outerelo & Gamarra (1985,
p. 116). These names were used for groups explicitly subordinate to TACHYPORINAE and
excluding Tachyporus; no usage earlier than Coiffait (1954) was discussed. Such a
group is not presently in general use (e.g. not by Coiffait, 1982), and there are no
existing family-group names based on any genus placed with Tachinus in a taxon
excluding Tachyporus.

6. In Diptera, TACHINIDAE dates from Robineau-Desvoidy (1830, p. 185), who pro-
posed ‘Tachinariae’ based on Tachina Meigen, 1803 (p. 280) as a stirps (section) of
his tribe Entomobiae, family Calypteratae. This name was cited by Agassiz (1846b,
p. 38; 1846c, p. 360), in the second instance as the emendation TACHINOIDAE without
comment on the homonymy with the name in Coleoptera.

7. The name TACHINIDAE was used universally for this dipterous family from
1830-1909, in the early years at various ranks and with a variety of endings. Hendel’s
(1908) resurrection of the long-buried names of Meigen (1800) brought up the name
Larvaevora Meigen (1800, p. 38) as a senior synonym of Tachina, resulting in the family
name LARVAEVORIDAE. This change was widely resisted, with resulting divergence of
usage beginning in 1910, but with usage of Tachina and TACHINIDAE predominating.
The literature was reviewed by Sabrosky (1952; BZN 6: 131—141), who presented (1954;
BZN 9: 225-240) the results of a world-wide questionnaire concerning usage of Meigen
(1800) versus Meigen (1803) names. The work by Meigen (1800) was suppressed by the
Commission (1963) in Opinion 678, and dipterists rapidly put the long-festering dis-
pute behind them. Since then (or even before, in anticipation of the ruling) usage of
TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 has been virtually unanimous.

8. The TACHINIDAE are a large, important and varied family, perhaps second in size
to the TIPULIDAE among the families of Diptera, with an estimated 8200 species world-
wide. Many species are of economic importance as parasites of insect pests. The classifi-
cation of the family is difficult and delimitation of genera is a matter of much difference
of opinion. For example, Sabrosky & Arnaud (1965) listed 414 genera in America north
of Mexico, but Wood (1987) recognized fewer than 300 genera in the same area.

9. Universal modern usage of TACHINIDAE in Diptera can be demonstrated by ten
current regional catalogues and manuals: Sabrosky & Arnaud (1965), Colless &
McAlpine (1970), Zimin, Zinov’eva & Shtakel’berg (1970 (and 1988)), Guimaraes
(1971), Crosskey (1977, 1980), Hardy (1981), Herting (1984), Wood (1987) and
Cantrell & Crosskey (1989). A list of 67 further references using the name is held by the
Commission Secretariat.

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name
Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 is TACHINUS-;

(b) torule that family-group names based on Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 are
to be given precedence over those based on Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802;

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Tachina Meigen, 1803 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Brauer (1893, p. 489) Musca grossa Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 596);

(b) Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Latreille (1810, p. 427) Staphylinus rufipes Linnaeus, 1758
(p. 423);

(c) Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Latreille (1810, p. 427) Staphylinus chrysomelinus
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 423);

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

(a) grossa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca grossa (specific
name of the type species of Tachina Meigen, 1803);

(b) rufipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Staphylinus rufipes
(specific name of the type species of Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802);

(c) chrysomelinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Staphylinus
chrysomelinus (specific name of the type species of Tachyporus Gravenhorst,
1802);

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

(a) TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, type genus Tachina Meigen, 1803
(Insecta, Diptera);

(b) TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821, type genus Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (spell-
ing emended in (1)(a) above) (Insecta, Coleoptera), with the endorsement
that it and other family-group names based on Tachinus are not to be given
priority over those based on Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802;

(c) TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825, type genus Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802
(Insecta, Coleoptera), with the endorsement that it and other family-group
names based on Tachyporus are to be given precedence over those based on
Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in

Zoology the name TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (spelling emended in (1)(a) above

to TACHINUSIDAE).

Acknowledgements

This application arose from work by A.F.N. and M.K.T. on a manuscript concerning
family-group names in Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera) and independent work by
C.W.S. on family-group names in Diptera. We thank J.H. Frank for establishing
contact between us as a result of reviewing the Coleoptera manuscript. A.F.N. and
M.K.T. also thank R.B. Madge for calling their attention to the correct authorship of
‘Leach 1817’ names.

References

Agassiz, J.L.R. 1846a. Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina_ systematica generum
Animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium, .... Coleoptera. xi, 170 pp. Jent et Gassmann,
Soloduri.

Agassiz, J.L.R. 1846b. Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum
Animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium,.... Diptera. vi, 42 pp. Jent et Gassmann, Soloduri.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 125

Agassiz, J.L.R. 1846c. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis..... vill, 393 pp. Jent et
Gassmann, Soloduri.

Brauer, F. 1893. Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Muscaria schizometopa (ex-
clusive Anthomyidae). Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-kéniglichen zoologisch-botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 43: 447-525.

Cantrell, B.K. & Crosskey R.W. 1989. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 733-784 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.),
Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum
Press, Honolulu, and Brill, Leiden.

Coiffait, H. 1954. Les Tachinus de France, position du genre et description d’une espéce nouvelle
(Col. Staphylinidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (6)123: 43-60.

Coiffait, H. 1982. Contribution a la connaissance des Staphylinides de l’Himalaya (Népal,
Ladakh, Cachemire) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Senckenbergiana Biologica, 62:
21-179.

Coiffait, H. & Saiz, F. 1968. Les Staphylinidae (sensu lato) du Chili. Pp. 339—468 in Delamare

Deboutteville, C. & Rapoport, E. (Eds.), Biologie de l’Amérique australe, vol. 4. Documents
biogéographiques et écologiques. 472 pp. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
Paris.

Colless, D.H. & McAlpine, D.K. 1970. Diptera. Pp. 656-740 in: The insects of Australia. A
textbook for students and research workers. 1029 pp. Division of Entomology, CSIRO,
Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Crosskey, R.W. 1977. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 586-697 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E.
(Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 3. 854 pp. University Press of

-Hawaii, Honolulu.

Crosskey, R.W. 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), London.

Fleming, J. 1821. Insecta. Pp. 41-56, pl. 85 in: Supplement to the fourth, fifth and sixth editions of
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 5. 584 pp. Constable, Edinburgh.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera microptera Brunsvicensia.... \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard,
Brunsvigae.

Guimaraes, J.H. 1971. A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. 104.
Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). 333 pp. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao
Paulo, Sao Paulo.

Handlirsch, A. 1925. Systematische Ubersicht. Pp. 377-1140 in Schréder, C. (Ed.), Handbuch
der Entomologie, vol. 3. Geschichte, Literatur, Technik, Paléontologie, Phylogenie,
Systematik. viii, 1201 pp. Fischer, Jena.

Hardy, D.E. 1981. Diptera Cyclorrhapha IV. Jn Zimmerman, E. C. (Ed.), Insects of Hawaii, vol.
14. vii, 491 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Hendel, F. 1908. Nouvelle classification des mouches a deux ailes (Diptera L.). D’aprés un plan
tout nouveau par J. G. Meigen, Paris an VIII (1800 v. s.). Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-
koniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 58: 43-69.

Herting, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palaearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur
Naturkunde, (A)369: 1-288.

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animeaux composants les
classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes... 444 pp. Schoell, Paris.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

MacLeay, W.S. 1825. Annulosa Javanica, no. 1. xii, 50 pp., 1 pl. Kingsbury, Parbury and Allen,
London.

Mannerheim, C.G. 1830, Précis d'un nouvel arrangement de la famille des brachélytres, de l’ordre
des insectes coléoptéres. 87 pp. St. Petersbourg.

Meigen, J.W. 1800. Nouvelle classification des mouches a deux ailes (Diptera L.) d’aprés un plan
tout nouveau. 40 pp. Perronneau, Paris.

Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungseintheilung der europdischen zweifligeligen
Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger ), 2: 259-281.

Outerelo Dominguez, R. & Gamarra Hidalgo, P. 1985. Las familias y géneros de los estafilinidos
de la Peninsula Ibérica. Claves para la identificacién de la fauna espanola, part 10. 139 pp.
Universidad Complutense, Madrid.

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Robineau-Desvoidy, A.J.B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires préséntés par divers savants
al’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, (2)2: 1-813.

Sabrosky, C.W. & Arnaud, P.H., Jr. 1965. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 961-1108 in Stone, A.,
Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W., Foote, R.H. & Coulson, T.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera
of America north of Mexico. Agricultural Handbook no. 276. iv, 1696 pp. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Wood, D.M. 1987. Tachinidae. Pp. 1193-1269 in McAlpine, J.F. (Ed.), Manual of Nearctic
Diptera, vol. 2. Monograph No. 28. Pp. 675-1332. Biosystematics Research Centre,
Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

Zimin, L.S., Zinov’eva, K.B. & Shtakel’berg, A.A. 1970. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae).
Pp. 678-798 in Bei-Bienko, G. Ya. (Ed.), Opredelitel nasekomykh Europeiskoi chasti SSSR,
vol. 5, part 2. 943 pp. Nauka, Leningrad. [Translated into English (1988) as Family
Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). Pp. 1111-1310 in Keys to the insects of the European part of the
U.S.S.R., vol. 5, part 2. xxii, 1505 pp. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington, D.C.]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 127

Case 2803

Copromyza limosa Fallén, 1820 (currently Leptocera (Rachispoda)
limosa; Insécta, Diptera): proposed replacement of lectotype, so
conserving usage of the specific name and also that of Leptocera

- (Rachispoda) lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855)

Ke Chung Kim
The Frost Entomological Museum, Department of Entomology, Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, U.S.A.

Jindrich Rohacek
Slezské Zemské Muzeum Opava, 746 46 Opava, Czechoslovakia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
common Holarctic saprophagous sphaerocerid fly Leptocera limosa (Fallén, 1820) in
its current usage. In 1972 one of the female syntypes was designated as the lectotype,
but this has now been identified as Leptocera lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855). It is proposed
that a male syntype should be designated as replacement lectotype.

1. Fallen (1820, p. 8) established the name Copromyza limosa based on an unstated
number of specimens. Four probable syntypes (three females and one male) are in the
Diptera Collection of the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm. Another male
specimen with a handwritten label and a small red square in the collection in Lund
University may also be a syntype of this species (see Kim, 1972, p. 205). In 1967 Kim
found and examined these specimens at the two institutions and (1972, p. 205) desig-
nated as lectotype of Copromyza limosa a female in Fallén’s collection at Stockholm
bearing his handwritten label ‘C. /imosa 2’. Kim also designated as paralectotypes
one male (without Fallén’s label) and one female. The third female syntype, with
Fallén’s handwritten label ‘C. limosa 3’, was identified as Leptocera lutosa
(Stenhammar, 1855).

2. Limosina lutosa was first described by Stenhammar (1855, p. 380). The male
lectotype and four male and one female paralectotypes, designated by Kim (1972,
p. 206), are in the Stenhammar collection at Uppsala University.

3. Prior to Duda’s work (1918, pp. 51, 59) both names /imosa and /utosa had been
used in a confusing manner. The distinction between these two taxonomic species was
not generally recognised until more recent work (e.g. Richards, 1930; Duda, 1938),
particularly that of Sabrosky (1949) which included genitalia studies. Duda’s (1918)
redescription of /imosa has been accepted by subsequent workers. Leptocera limosa and
L. lutosa are common Holarctic saprophagous flies which have been dealt with in
numerous taxonomic papers and recorded in almost all synecological studies, particu-
larly those dealing with marshy and shore ecosystems. A representative list of 27
publications is held by the Commission Secretariat.

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

4. In 1989 Rohacek, in his monographic research on the western Palearctic species
of Rachispoda, discovered a problem with the lectotype designation of limosa (see
Rohacek, 1991). Of the four syntypes at Stockholm, only the male designated by Kim
(see para. | above) as a paralectotype belongs to the taxon currently interpreted as
limosa; the other three females, including the lectotype, belong to the taxon known as
lutosa. If Kim’s lectotype designation is maintained the nominal taxon Leptocera
(Rachispoda) lutosa would be a junior synonym of L. (R.) limosa and a new name would
be needed for the taxon currently known as Jimosa. This would cause endless confusion
in the taxonomy of the Leptocera limosa/lutosa complex and slow the progress of work
in the taxonomy and biology of the sPHAEROCERIDAE. It is important that the current
use of the nominal taxa /imosa and Jutosa should remain unchanged.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the lectotype designation made by Kim
(1972) for Copromyza limosa Fallén, 1820, and to designate in its place as
lectotype the male syntype in Stockholm;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) limosa Fallén, 1820, as published in the binomen Copromyza limosa and as

defined by the lectotype designated in (1) above;
(b) /utosa Stenhammar, 1855, as published in the binomen Limosina lutosa and
as defined by the lectotype designated by Kim (1972).

Acknowledgements

Weare indebted to Dr S.A. Marshall (Department of Environmental Biology, University
of Guelph, Canada), Dr Allen L. Norrbom (USDA/ARS, U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), Dr Brian R. Pitkin (Department of Entomology, The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky (formerly of the
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA/ARS, U.S. National Museum, Washington,
D.C., U.S.A.) for making invaluable suggestions and editorial comments, and for their
support for this application.

References

Duda, O. 1918. Revision der Europaischen Arten der Gattung Limosina Macquart (Dipteren).
Abhandlungen der K.K. Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 10(1): 1-240.

Duda, O. 1938. Sphaeroceridae (Cypselidae). Pp. 1-182 in Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der
Palaearktischen Region. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.

Fallén, C.F. 1820. Diptera Sueciae Heteromyzides. 10 pp. Berlingianis, Lundae.

Kim, K.C. 1972. Notes on types of Sphaeroceridae by Fallén, Stenhammar, and Zetterstedt, with
lectotype of Copromyza equina. (Fall.) (Diptera). Entomological News, 83: 203-217.

Richards, O.W. 1930. The British species of Sphaeroceridae (Borboridae, Diptera). Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London, 1930: 261-345.

Rohacek, J. 1991. A monograph of Leptocera (Rachispoda Lioy) of the West Palaearctic area
(Diptera, Sphaeroceridae). Casopis Slezského Muzea Opava, (A)40: 97-288.

Sabrosky, C.W. 1949. ‘Leptocera lutosa’: a complex of Nearctic species. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Washington, 51: 1-24.

Stenhammar, C. 1855. Skandinaviens Copromyzinae granskade och beskrifne. Kongl.
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1853: 257-442.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 129

Case 2804

Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
replacement of the holotype by a neotype

David Grimaldi

Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate a neotype in accordance with
‘current usage for the nominal species Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916. Examin-
ation of the holotype shows that it belongs to an un-named species which has been
consistently misidentified as Drosophila testacea von Roser, 1840. D. putrida is widely
used in ecological, genetic and evolutionary studies and is restricted to the eastern
U.S.A.

1. North America has two species belonging to the small, Holarctic Drosophila
testacea species group. Their species status and nomenclature have never been critically
examined and some confusion exists, partly as a result of the long and consistent
misidentification of Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916. The holotype of putrida is a
male in perfect condition in the American Museum of Natural History (type locality:
Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). I recently examined the holotype and its para-
types. The specimens actually belong to a species which since about 1940 has been
misidentified as Drosophila testacea von Roser, 1840.

2. Confusion began when two externally distinct North American species in the
group were fully recognized, and the name testacea was applied to the species most
similar to the true (European) testacea, although current work has shown that the
North American ‘testacea’ is a different, morphocryptic species. Few voucher speci-
mens exist in collections from all the biological work done on the two North American
species, so it is impossible to confirm the identity of the putrida/‘testacea’ referred to in
older papers. However, there are specimens collected in Austin, Texas in the 1940’s in
the University of Texas collection at the American Museum of Natural History which
have labels identifying putrida in the sense recognized today. Patterson & Stone (1952)
distinguished the two species on the basis still adhered to, as does Strickberger’s (1962)
key which is in wide use today. Apparently, no one had ever checked Sturtevant’s type
specimen of putrida.

3. The three species in the testacea-group are abundant inhabitants of forests, and
have been favored subjects for studies in ecology, genetics and evolution. An extensive
literature exists; major papers that treat either one or both of the Nearctic species
are the following: Carson & Stalker, 1951 (breeding sites); Dorsey & Carson, 1956
(host finding behavior); Grimaldi, 1985 (niche biology); Grimaldi & Jaenike, 1983
(putrida hosts), 1984 (larval competition); Jaenike, 1978, 1986 (host selection), 1988
(parasitism of ‘testacea’); Jaenike & Grimaldi, 1983 (oviposition population genetics);
Jaenike et al., 1983 (toxin resistance); James & Jaenike, 1990 (‘sex ratio’ meiotic drive);
Lacy, 1982, 1983, 1984 (host use and population genetics); Levitan, 1954 (distributional

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

records); Miller & Weeks, 1964 (distributional records); Montague & Jaenike, 1985
(parasitism); Patterson & Stone, 1952 (distributions, internal reproductive organs,
distinguishing characters, chromosomes); Patterson & Wagner, 1943 (distributions);
Patterson & Wheeler, 1949 (North American Drosophilacatalogue); Sabath, Richmond
& Torella, 1973 (temperature controlled color polymorphism); Strickberger, 1962
(key to North American Drosophila); Throckmorton, 1962a, 1962b, 1975 (Drosophila
phylogeny); Ward, 1949 (metaphase chromsomes); Wharton, 1943 (metaphase
chromosomes); Wheeler, 1981a (world catalogue); Wheeler, 1981b (Nearctic fauna).
Adoption of putrida in the sense of the holotype would cause serious confusion because
the name, as used in the above literature, would be transferred to the other species. The
references listed in this paragraph all agree upon a diagnosis of putrida as having a pair
of presutural acrostichal setulae that are stouter, decumbent and only about twice the
length of other, standard acrostichal setulae.

4. A revision of the testacea-group is completed, utilizing adult specimens from all
known localities of the range, as well as electrophoresis studies, mating tests and
ecological characteristics. There is no doubt that the species represented by the
D. putrida neotype proposed below, from New Jersey, also occurs in the locality
(Massachusetts) of the holotype and that no other species share the diagnostic traits of
the proposed neotype.

5. In accordance with Recommendation 75E of the Code, I refer the case to the
Commission to set aside the existing type material of D. putrida and to confirm the
designation of a neotype belonging to the taxonomic species that North American
Drosophila workers have been consistently referring to as putrida for the last 50 years.
What has been called ‘testacea’ in North America needs a new name, diagnosis and
designated type. The putrida neotype I propose is an adult malespecimen labelled as
‘Drosophila (D.) putrida Sturtevant, 1916, NEOTYPE, Det. D.A. Grimaldi’ from
‘U.S.A.: New Jersey: Morris County, Pompton Plains, June, 1986, D.A. Grimaldi,
coll.’, and deposited in the American Museum of Natural History. No problem would
exist in reconciling Sturtevant’s original (1916) and subsequent (1921) descriptions of
putrida with the neotype, since he omitted crucial diagnostic details of the presutural
setae which externally distinguish the species. His description could apply to any of
the testacea-group species; indeed, it was this insufficently detailed description _
contributed to the continued misidentification.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for
the nominal species Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 and to confirm the
neotype designation proposed in para. 5 above;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name putrida
Sturtevant, 1916, as published in the binomen Drosophila putrida and as defined
by the neotype designated in (1) above.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Curtis W. Sabrosky for his suggestions on an early draft of this
proposal, and to John Jaenike and Avis James (University of Rochester) for additional
references and collaborative work on the species status of American and European
‘testacea .

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 131

References

Carson, H.L. & Stalker, H.D. 1951. Natural breeding sites for some wild species of Drosophila in
the Eastern United States. Ecology, 32: 317-330.

Dorsey, C.K. & Carson, H.L. 1956. Selective responses of wild Drosophilidae to natural and
artificial attrahents. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 49: 177-181.

- Grimaldi, D. 1985. Niche separation and competitive coexistence in mycophagous Drosophila

(Diptera: Drosophilidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 87:
498-511.

Grimaldi, D. & Jaenike, J. 1983. The Diptera breeding on skunk cabbage, Symplocarpus foetidus
(Araceae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 91: 83-89.

Grimaldi, D. & Jaenike, J. 1984. Competition in natural populations of mycophagous
Drosophila. Ecology, 65: 1113-1120.

. Jaenike, J. 1978. Host selection by mycophagous Drosophila. Ecology, 59: 1286-1288.

Jaenike, J. 1986. Intraspecific variation for resource use in Drosophila. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society, 27: 47—-S6.

Jaenike, J. 1988. Parasitism and male mating success in Drosophila testacea. American
Naturalist, 131: 774-780.

Jaenike, J. & Grimaldi, D. 1983. Genetic variation for host preference within and among
populations of Drosophila tripunctata. Evolution, 37: 1023-1033.

Jaenike, J., Grimaldi, D.A., Sluder, A.E. & Greenleaf, A.L. 1983. a-Amanitin tolerance in
mycophagous Drosophila. Science, 221: 165—167.

James, A.C. & Jaenike, J. 1990. ‘Sex ratio’ meiotic drive in Drosophila testacea. Genetics, 126:
651-656.

Lacy, R.C. 1982. Niche breadth and abundance as determinants of genetic variation in
populations of mycophagous drosophilid flies (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Evolution, 36:
1265-1275.

Lacy, R.C. 1983. Structure of genetic variation within and between populations of mycophagous
Drosophila. Genetics, 104: 81—94.

Lacy, R.C. 1984. Predictability, toxicity, and trophic niche breadth in fungus-feeding
Drosophilidae (Diptera). Ecological Entomology, 9: 43—54.

Levitan, M. 1954. Drosophilidae in New York and New Jersey. The American Midland
Naturalist, 52: 453—459.

Miller, D.D. & Weeks, L. 1964. Drosophila collections near the Blue Ridge of southwestern
North Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 72: 93-114.

Montague, J.R. & Jaenike, J. 1985. Nematode parasitism in natural populations of myco-
phagous drosophilids. Ecology, 66: 624—626.

Patterson, J.T. & Stone, W.S. 1952. Evolution in the genus Drosophila. 610 pp. MacMillan,
New York.

Patterson, J.T. & Wagner, R.P. 1943. Geographical distribution of species of the genus
Drosophila in the United States and Mexico. University of Texas Publications, 4313:
217-281. .

Patterson, J.T. & Wheeler, M.R. 1949. Catalogue of described species belonging to the genus
Drosophila, with observations on their geographical distribution. University of Texas
Publications, 4920: 207-233.

Sabath, M.D., Richmond, R.C. & Torella, R.M. 1973. Temperature-mediated seasonal color
changes in Drosophila putrida. The American Midland Naturalist, 90: 509-512.

Strickberger, M.W. 1962. Key to United States species of the genus Drosophila. Pp. 111-122 in
Strickberger, M.W. (Ed.), Experiments in Genetics with Drosophila. Wiley, New York.

Sturtevant, A.H. 1916. Notes on North American Drosophilidae with descriptions of twenty-
three new species. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 9: 323-343.

Sturtevant, A.H. 1921. The North American species of Drosophila. Carnegie Institute of
Washington Publications, 301: 1-150.

Throckmorton, L.H. 1962. The problem of phylogeny in the genus Drosophila. University of
Texas Publications, 6205: 207-343.

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Throckmorton, L.H. 1962. The use of biochemical characteristics for the study of problems of
taxonomy and evolution in the genus Drosophila. University of Texas Publications, 6205:
415-487.

Throckmorton, L.H. 1975. The phylogeny, ecology, and geography of Drosophila. Pp. 421—469 in
King, R.C. (Ed.), Handbook of genetics, vol. 3. Plenum, New York.

Ward, C.L. 1949. Karyotype variation in Drosophila. University of Texas Publications, 4920:
70-79.

Wharton, L.T. 1943. Analysis of the metaphase and salivary chromosome morphology within
the genus Drosophila. University of Texas Publications, 4313: 282-319.

Wheeler, M.R. 1981a. The Drosophilidae: a taxonomic overview. Pp. 1-97 in Ashburner, M.,
Carson, H.L. & Thompson, J.N. (Eds.), The genetics and biology of Drosophila, vol. 3a.
429 pp. Academic Press, New York.

Wheeler, M.R. 1981b. Geographical survey of Drosophilidae: Nearctic species. Pp. 99-121 in
Ashburner, M., Carson, H.L. & Thompson, J.N. (Eds.), The genetics and biology of
Drosophila, vol. 3a. 429 pp. Academic Press, New York.

—$—$<—$S——

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 133

Case 2706

EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence
over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829

Wayne N. Mathis

Department of Entomology, NH B—-169, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Tadeusz Zatwarnicki

Department of Zoology, Academy of Agriculture, ul. Cybulskiego 20, 50-205,
Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the long and universally used
name EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 for shore flies, despite the existence of the older
family-group name ‘Gymnomyzides’ Latreille, 1829, based on Gymnomyza Fallen,
1810 (a junior subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804). The authors advocate
usage of subfamily and tribe names based on Gymnomyza, but retention of EPHYDRIDAE
for the family.

1. As part of a world catalogue on the dipterous family EPHYDRIDAE, commonly
known as shore flies, we recently compiled a list of all family-group names for the
purpose of determining their correct Latin orthography, date and authorship. In so
doing we discovered a few discrepancies in family-group names published in recent
catalogues (Wirth, 1965, 1968; Cogan & Wirth, 1977; Cogan, 1980, 1984; Mathis,
1989). These points for the most part are minor and will be remedied in the forthcoming
catalogue, but one will require a ruling by the plenary powers of the Commission,
which is the purpose of this application. We have discussed the issues in this case
elsewhere (Mathis & Zatwarnicki, 1990).

2. Latreille (1829, p. 535) proposed the family-group name ‘Gymnomyzides
(Gymnomyzides)’, basing it on the generic name Gymnomyza Fallen, 1810 (p. 19, as the
8th division of Musca but with no included species (see para. 6)). Although the family-
group name was used in a subsequent publication (Audouin, Blanchard, Doyére &
Milne Edwards, 1849, pp. 421, 423) and in translations such as those by M’Murtrie
(1831) and Griffith & Pidgeon (1832, p. 716), it was not adopted generally by con-
temporaries (Meigen, 1830, 1838; Haliday, 1837, 1839; Stenhammar, 1844; Loew,
1860; Schiner, 1864), and for almost 150 years it has remained unused.

3. Eight years after Latreille’s proposal of GYMNOMYZIDAE, Zetterstedt (1837, p. 48)
proposed the subfamily name EPHYDRINAE based on Ephydra Fallen, 1810 (p. 22). The
type species of this genus is Ephydra riparia Fallén, 1813 (p. 246) by subsequent desig-
nation of Curtis (1832, pl. 413, text). All subsequent authors known to us have used
EPHYDRIDAE as the family name, although sometimes with a variant spelling. In a
previous application by one of us (W.N.M.), published in 1981 (BZN 38: 201-204) and

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

which resulted in Opinion 1321 (BZN 42: 177-179; June 1985) giving EPHYDRIDAE
precedence over HYDRELLIINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, 12 representative references
were cited; we now add Canzoneri & Meneghini (1983), Mathis (1989), Mathis &
Zatwarnicki (1990) and others cited in this application. The names EPHYDRIDAE,
Ephydra and its type species E. riparia were placed on the relevant Official Lists in
Opinion 1321.

4. The precedence of EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt (1837, p. 47) over GYMNOMYZIDAE
Latreille (1829, p. 536) seems clearly warranted and in the interest of nomenclatural
stability. Latreille’s name has been used by us at subfamilial and tribal levels (Mathis &
Zatwarnicki, 1990; Mathis, 1991a, 1991b; Zatwarnicki, 1991, 1992).

5. Suppression of Gymnomyza, and thus rendering as unavailable any family-group
name based on it, is an option we considered for resolving this case but we do not
advocate it for the following reason. PSILOPINAE Cresson, 1925 (p. 241; based on Psilopa
Fallen, 1823), the relevant subfamilial name currently used (e.g. in the works men-
tioned in paras. 1 and 3 and elsewhere) at present includes two family-group nominal
taxa that are older. Apart from GYMNOPINI (see below) the family-group name
LIPOCHAETINI Becker, 1896 (p. 275; based on Lipochaeta Coquillett, 1896, p. 220) is
much older than PSILOPINAE and might replace the latter regardless of the status of
names based on Gymnomyza. However, the relationships of Lipochaeta and related
genera to other tribes are not fully resolved (Mathis & Zatwarnicki, 1990), and the tribe
may prove to be a specialized lineage within another shore-fly subfamily. We feel that
adhering to priority at the subfamilial and tribal levels will best serve stability. Family-
group names based on Gymnomyza are the oldest in the family and are the least likely
ever to need replacement. At the tribal level, GYMNOMYZINI Latreille, 1829 will replace
GYMNOPINI Cresson, 1922 (p. 326), based on Gymnopa Fallen, 1820 (p. 10).

6. A type species was not assigned to Gymnomyza nor were any named species ever
included in the genus; Fallen (1810) included an unnamed species. We (Mathis &
Zatwarnicki, 1990, p. 10) have designated Syrphus subsultans Fabricius, 1794 (p. 304)
as the type species. This nominal species is a senior subjective synonym both of
Gymnopa aenea Fallen, 1820 (p. 10), the type species of Gymnopa, and of Mosillus
arcuatus Latreille, 1805 (p. 390), the type species of Mosillus Latreille, 1804 (p. 196).
Thesynonymy of Gymnomyzaand Mosillus was first suggested by Hendel (1910, p. 310).
Mosillus is the valid name and in recent years has been that in use for the genus, but no
family-group name has been based on it.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that family-group names based on Ephydra

Fallen, 1810 are to have precedence over those based on Gymnomyza Fallén,
1810 (a junior subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804);

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mosillus
Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy by
Latreille (1805) Mosillus arcuatus Latreille, 1805 (a junior subjective synonym
of Syrphus subsultans Fabricius, 1794, type species of Gymnomyza Fallen,
1810);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name subsultans
Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Syrphus subsultans (a senior subjec-
tive synonym of Mosillus arcuatus Latreille, 1805, the type species of Mosillus

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 135

Latreille, 1804, and the specific name of the type species of Gymnomyza Fallen,

1810);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 (type genus Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810, a junior
subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804) with an endorsement that it and
other family-group names based on Gymnomyza are not to be given priority over
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 and other family-group names based on Ephydra
Fallén, 1810 whenever Ephydra and Mosillus or Gymnomyza are placed in the
same family-group taxon;
to add to the entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 an endorsement that it is to be given precedence
over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 (type genus Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810 (a
junior subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804)) whenever Ephydra and
Mosillus or Gymnomyza are placed in the same family-group taxon.

(5

~~

References

Audouin, J.V., Blanchard, E.H.N., Doyére, L. & Milne Edwards, H. 1849. Les insectes. In Cuvier,
‘G.L.C.F.D., Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation...., Ed. 4, vol. 2. 443 pp.
Paris.

Becker, T. 1896. Dipterologische Studien 4. Ephydridae. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift,
41(2): 91-276.

Canzoneri, S. & Meneghini, G. 1983. Ephydridae e Canaceidae. Fauna d'Italia, 20: 1-337.

Cogan, B.H. 1980. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 655-669 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), A catalogue of the
Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Cogan, B.H. 1984. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 126-176 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of
Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 10. 402 pp. Elsevier, Budapest.

Cogan, B.H. & Wirth, W.W. 1977. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 321-339 in Delfinado, M.D. &
Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 3 (Suborder
Cyclorrhapha excluding Division Aschiza). 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Coquillett, D.W. 1896. A new subfamily of Ephydridae. Entomological News, 7(7): 220-221.

Cresson, E.T., Jr. 1922. Studies in American Ephydridae (Diptera). III. A revision of the species
of Gymnopa and allied genera constituting the subfamily Gymnopinae. Transactions of the
American Entomological Society, 47(4): 325-343.

Cresson, E.T., Jr. 1925. Studies in the dipterous family Ephydridae, excluding the North and
South American faunas. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 51(3):
227-258.

Curtis, J. 1832. British entomology, being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects
found in Great Britain and Ireland...., vol. 9. Unnumbered pages, pls. 386—433. Author,

London.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta...., vol. 4. 472 pp. Proft,
Hafniae.

Fallen, C.F. 1810. Specimen entomologicum novam Diptera disponendi methodum exhibens. 26 pp..
1 pl. Lund. -

Fallén, C.F. 1813. Beskrifning Ofver nagra i Sverige funna Vattenflugor (Hydromyzides).
Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1813: 240-257.

Fallén, C.F. 1820. Oscinides Sveciae. 10 pp. In: Diptera Sveciae....continens, vol. 2. Unnumbered
pages. Lund.

Fallén, C.F. 1823. Hydromyzides Sveciae. 12 pp. In: Diptera Sveciae....continens, vol. 2.
Unnumbered pages. Lund.

Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. 1832. The class Insecta arranged by the Baron Cuvier, with supplemen-
tary additions to each order, and notices of new genera and species by George Gray, Esq.

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Volume the second. /n Griffith, E. et al. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity
with its organization by the Baron Cuvier, vol. 15. 796 pp. Whittaker, Treacher, London.

Haliday, A.H. 1837. Notes, &c upon Diptera. The Entomological Magazine, 4(2): 147-152.

Haliday, A.H. 1839. Remarks on the generic distribution of the British Hydromyzidae (Diptera).
Annals of Natural History, 3: 217-224, 401-411.

Hendel, F. 1910. Ueber die Nomenklatur der Acalyptratengattungen nach Th. Beckers Katalog
der palaarktischen Dipteren, Bd. 4. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 29: 307-313.

Latreille, P.A. 1804. Tableau méthodique des insectes. Pp. 129-200 in: Nouveau dictionnaire
@ histoire naturelle, vol. 24. (Caractéres et Tables). 258 pp., 5 pls. Déterville, Paris.

Latreille, P.A. 1805. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 14.
432 pp. Dufart, Paris.

Latreille, P.A. 1829. Suite et fin des insectes. Jn Cuvier, G.C.L.F.D., Le régne animal distribué
dapres son organisation...., Ed. 2, vol. 5. 556 pp., 20 pls. Paris.

Loew, H. 1860. Die Europaeischen Ephydrinidae und die bisher in Schlesien beobachteten Arten
derselben. Jn: Neue Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Dipteren, part 7. 46 pp. Mittler, Berlin.

Mathis, W.N. 1989. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 639-649 in Evenhuis, N.L- (Ed.), Catalog of the
Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions, special publication no. 86. 1155 pp.
Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Mathis, W.N. 1991a. Studies of Gymnomyzinae (Diptera: Ephydridae), III: A revision of the
shore fly subgenus Pseudohecamede Hendel of the genus Allotrichoma Becker. Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology, 522: \—28.

Mathis, W.N. 1991b. Classification of the shore flies (Diptera: Ephydridae), past, present, and
future. Pp. 209-227 in Weismann, L., Orszagh, I. & Pont, A.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Second International Congress of Dipterology. 468 pp. SPB Academic Publishing, The
Hague.

Mathis, W.N. & Zatwarnicki, T. 1990. Taxonomic notes on Ephydridae (Diptera). Proceedings
of the Biological Society of Washington, 103(4): 891-906.

Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten eurpdischen zweifligeligen
Insekten, vol. 6. xi, 401 pp. Hamm. :

Meigen, J.W. 1838. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, vol. 7. 434 pp. Hamm.

M’Murtrie, H. 1831. The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organization, by the
Baron Cuvier. The Crustacea, Arachnides and Insecta. Translated from the French with notes
and additions, vol. 4. 495 pp. New York.

Schiner, I.R. 1864. Die Fliegen (Diptera). Pp. 81-288 in: Fauna Austriaca, vol. 2. xxxii, 658 pp.
Wien.

Stenhammar, C. 1844. Forsok till gruppering och revision af de svenska Ephydrinae. Kongliga
Vetenskaps-Academiens Handlingar, 1843(3): 75-272.

Wirth, W.W. 1965. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 734—759 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W.,-
Foote, R.H. & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico.
Agricultural Handbook No. 276. iv, 1696 pp. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington.

Wirth, W.W. 1968. Family Ephydridae. Jn Papavero, N. (Ed.), A catalog of the Diptera of the
Americas south of the United States, part 77. 43 pp. Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria
de Agricultura, Sao Paulo.

Zatwarnicki, T. 1991. Changes in nomenclature and synonymies of some genera and species of
Ephydridae (Diptera). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 39(4): 295-333.

Zatwarnicki, T. 1992. A new classification of Ephydridae based on phylogenetic reconstruction
(Diptera Cyclorrhapha). Genus, 3(2): 65-119.

Zetterstedt, J.W. 1837. Conspectus familiarum, generum et specierum dipterorum, in fauna
insectorum Lapponica descriptorum. /sis (von Oken), 1837: 26—67.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 137

Case 2718

Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation of
Clidastes propython Cope, 1869 as the type species

Caitlin R. Kiernan

University of Alabama at Birmingham, P.O. Box 590133, Homewood,
Alabama 35259, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Clidastes propython Cope,

' 1869 as the type species of the North American Upper Cretaceous mosasaur genus

Clidastes Cope, 1868, in accordance with universal understanding and usage. At
present the genus has a nominal type species, C. iguanavus Cope, 1868, which is in-
distinguishable from some species of Mosasaurus Conybeare in Parkinson, 1822 and is
from a later geological horizon than Clidastes as generally used.

1. Cope (1868a, p. 181) proposed the new generic and specific names Clidastes
iguanavus for a single anterior thoracic vertebra of a mosasauroid lizard from ‘a marl
pit near Swedesboro’, Gloucester Co., N.J.’ (Cope, 1868b, p. 233). The holotype,
no. 1601 in the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, was collected
from the Marshalltown Formation of the Matawan Group (Late Campanian, Upper
Cretaceous). The nominal species iguanavus is thus the type of Clidastes by monotypy.

2. Recently, a re-examination of the single vertebra referred to Clidastes iguanavus
has indicated that it is indistinguishable from anterior thoracic vertebrae of some
members of the genus Mosasaurus Conybeare in Parkinson, 1822 (p. 298) (family
MOSASAURIDAE Gervais, 1853, p. 471). The specimen is insufficient for identification to
species level but closely resembles Mosasaurus conodon (Cope, 1881) (p. 588). Clidastes
iguanavus is based on material inadequate for definitive diagnosis and should be con-
sidered a nomen dubium or, following Mones (1989, p. 232), a nomen vanum (i.e. an
available but taxonomically unassignable name). The name iguanavus was included in
a faunal list for the Marshalltown Formation (Russell, 1988, p. 34) but, other than
Cope’s holotype, I have found no instance of material being referred to the nominal
species.

3. A further 12 nominal species were subsequently included in Clidastes (see
Merriam, 1894, p. 35). Russell (1967, pp. 121, 124-131) synonymized many of these
nominal species and recognized only four taxa: C. propython Cope, 1869 (p. 258),
C. liodontus Merriam, 1894 (p. 35) and C. sternbergii Wiman, 1922 (p. 13, text-figs. 4-9,
pls. 3—4), which were based on well defined material, and C. iguanavus Cope, 1868.
Later, Russell (1970, pp. 369-371) placed sternbergii in the genus Halisaurus Marsh,
1869 (p. 395). Under my previous name (Wright, 1987, p. 99) I included in Clidastes an
as yet undescribed species from the Early Campanian of Alabama, Nebraska and
Wyoming.

4. In addition to Clidastes iguanavus being indeterminate, recent advances in
mosasaur biostratigraphy have favored the abandonment of this nominal species as the

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

type of the genus. Russell (1967, pp. 205—206) reported a change in the composition of
North American mosasaur faunas between the Early and Late Campanian. Wright
(1986a, p. 146; 1986b, p. AS1) has documented this phenomenon in Alabama and the
western interior of the U.S.A., and concluded that Clidastes (sensu propython)
is not known to occur later than the Early Campanian. However, the holotype of
C. iguanavus was collected from sediments of Late Campanian age and is the only
post-Middle Campanian specimen from North America purported to belong to
Clidastes.

5. Wright (1987, p. 99) recognized the difficulties surrrounding the name Clidastes
iguanavus and suggested that Clidastes be considered a nomen vanum and that it could
be replaced with its junior synonym Edestosaurus Marsh, 1871 (p. 447). However,
Clidastes is one of the most widely known names in the MOSASAURIDAE. The taxon
dominates many mosasaur assemblages and hundreds of specimens are found in collec-
tions around the world. For 123 years Clidastes has been considered a valid generic
name in all taxonomic, morphological, paleoecological and biostratigraphic literature
concerning the MOSASAURIDAE, particularly in the last three decades (see, for example,
the recent works of Romer (1971), Thurmond & Jones (1981) and Carroll (1988); a
representative list of a further 12 references demonstrating the usage of the name is held.
by the Commission Secretariat). The ubiquity of the name has been strengthened by the
occasional use of the informal taxonomic word ‘clidastoid’ when speaking of Clidastes
and its descendants (see, for example, Russell, 1967, p. 206). Replacement of the name
Clidastes with the obscure junior synonym Edestosaurus will not promote nomen-
clatural stability. Such an action would encounter considerable resistance and would
lead to a protracted period of confusion and I therefore recommend retention of
Clidastes. ‘

6. I propose that the Commission use its plenary powers to designate Clidastes
propython Cope, 1869 (p. 258) as the type species of Clidastes. This was the first
nominal species decribed from well preserved material to be included in the genus
and is the species on which, de facto, the genus is based. The holotype, no. 10193 in
the Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia, was collected from the Mooreville Chalk
of the lower Selma Group (Early Campanian, Upper Cretaceous) of west central
Alabama. The specimen consists of most of the skull, most of the pectoral girdle,
parts of both forelimbs and an incomplete axial skeleton (axis-atlas complex, five’
cervical, 16 dorsal and 35 caudal vertebrae, and many rib fragments). Adoption of
C. propython Cope as the type of Clidastes will maintain the name in its current
universal usage.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the

nominal genus Clidastes Cope, 1868 and to designate Clidastes propython Cope,
1869 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Clidastes
Cope, 1868 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above
Clidastes propython Cope, 1869;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name propython
Cope, 1869, as published in the binomen Clidastes propython (specific name of
the type species of Clidastes Cope, 1868).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 139

Acknowledgements
I thank S.W. Shannon, G.L. Bell, Jr. and Drs K. Derstler and R.T. Bakker for their
suggestions and guidance. Additional thanks are due to the late Dr R.D. Estes.

References

Carroll, R.L. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. xiv, 698 pp. Freeman, New York.

Conybeare, W.D. 1822. Fossil crocodiles and other saurian animals. Pp. 284-304 in Parkinson, J.,
Outlines of 6ryctology. An introduction to the study of fossil organic remains... vii, 346 pp.
Author, London.

Cope, E.D. 1868a. [Remarks on Clidastes iguanavus, Nectoportheus validus and Elasmosaurus].
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 20: 181.

- Cope, E.D. 1868b. On some Cretaceous Reptilia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, 20: 233-242.

Cope, E.D. 1869. On the reptilian Orders PyYthonomorpha and Streptosauria. Proceedings of the
Boston Society of Natural History, 12: 250-266.

Cope, E.D. 1881. A new Clidastes from New Jersey. American Naturalist, 15(7): 587-588.
Gervais, P. 1853. Observations relatives aux reptiles fossiles de France (Deuxiéme partie).
Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de |’ Académie des Sciences, 36: 470—474.
Marsh, O.C. 1869. Notice of some new mosasauroid reptiles from the Greensand of New Jersey.

American Journal of Science, (2)48(144): 392-397.

Marsh, O.C. 1871. Notice of some new fossil reptiles from the Cretaceous and Tertiary
formations. American Journal of Science, (3)1(6): 447—459.

Merriam, J.C. 1894. Ueber die Pythonomorphen der Kansas-Kreide. Palaeontographica, 41:
1-39.

Mones, A. 1989. Nomen dubium vs. nomen vanum. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 9(2):
232-234.

Romer, A.S. 1971. Vertebrate paleontology, Ed. 3, Impression 3. viii, 468 pp., 443 text figs.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Russell, D.A. 1967. Systematics and morphology of American mosasaurs. Bulletin of the Peabody
Museum of Natural History, 23: \—241.

Russell, D.A. 1970. The vertebrate fauna of the Selma Formation of Alabama. Part 7, the
mosasaurs. Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs, 3(7): 363-380.

Russell, D.A. 1988. Checklist of North American marine Cretaceous vertebrates including fresh
water fishes. Occasional Papers of the Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, 14: \—57.

Thurmond, J.T. & Jones, D.E. 1981. Fossil vertebrates of Alabama. 244 pp. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Williston, S.W. 1897. Range and distribution of the mosasaurs. Kansas University Quarterly, 6:
177-189.

Wiman, C. 1922. Some reptiles from the Niobrara group in Kansas. Bulletin of the Geological
Institution of the University of Upsala, 18: 9-18.

Wright, K.R. 1986a. A preliminary report on the biostratigraphic zonation of Alabama
mosasaurs. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science, 57(3): 146.

Wright, K.R. 1986b. On the stratigraphic distribution of mosasaurs in western and central
Alabama. P. A51 in: Abstracts, Fourth North American Paleontological Convention.
Boulder.

Wright, K.R. 1987. The mosasaur Clidastes: new specimens and new problems. Journal of the
Alabama Academy of Science, 58(3): 99.

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Case 2784

Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] (currently Macronectes giganteus;
Aves, Procellariiformes): proposed conservation of usage of the specific
name by designation of a neotype

J.-F. Voisin', R.K. Brooke’, W.J. Bock?, W.R.P. Bourne’, J. Cooper’,

J.P. Croxall°, R. Escalante, S. Haftorn’, O. Hogstad®, P.S. Humphrey’,

S. Hunter!®, Chr. Jouanin', K. Lambert!!, P. Leraut!?, P.D. Shaughnessy??,
F. Vuilleumier!* & J. Warham!° (Addresses on p. 143)

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current universal under-
standing and usage of the specific names of Macronectes giganteus (Gmelin, [1789]) and
M. halli Mathews, 1912 for the southern, antarctic and the more northern, subantarctic
species of giant petrel respectively (family PROCELLARIIDAE). The name giganteus (type
species of the genus Macronectes Richmond, 1905) was based on a description of the
second species. It is proposed that a neotype for giganteus be designated.

Résumé. L’ objet de cette requéte est de conserver l’ usage couramment accepté des noms
spécifiques de Macronectes giganteus (Gmelin, [1789]) et M. halli Mathews, 1912 pour,
respectivement, le pétrel géant antarctique et le petrel geant subantarctique (famille des
PROCELLARIIDAE). Le nom de giganteus (espéce-type du genre Macronectes Richmond,
1905) est fondé en fait sur une description de la seconde de ces-deux espéces. II est
propose de désigner un néotype pour giganteus.

1. The genus Macronectes Richmond, 1905 was thought, until relatively recently, to
include only one species, Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] (p. 563), the giant petrel of
southern oceans. Bourne & Warham (1966) showed that two sibling species were
involved, which they called M. giganteus and M. halli Mathews, 1912 (p. 187; described
as M. giganteus halli). One of us (Voisin, 1968) later confirmed these findings. Bourne &
Warham (1966, p. 64) designated specimen no. 91.6.16.6 in the collections (now at
Tring) of the Natural History Museum, London as ‘the Type’ of M. halli. The speci-
' men, taken from the Kerguelen Islands in 1840 by the Antarctic Expedition under Sir
James Clarke Ross, is one of those studied by Mathews and is to be regarded as the
lectotype.

2. Various morphological and biological characteristics of the two species have been
studied by a number of authors (see, for example, Bourne & Warham, 1966; Voisin,
1968, 1976, 1982, 1988; Johnstone, 1971, 1974; Voisin & Bester, 1981; Hunter, 1983,
1987). The two species have very similar measurements in the localities where they
co-exist, which does not permit their separation. Their plumages become progressively
lighter with age and show significant differences in old birds only. The southern species,
giganteus, is polymorphic, with a grey, white-headed dark form and a white form. The
birds of the more northerly species, halli, are darker, browner and have lighter under-
parts, and have no white form. The most obvious morphological difference is the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 141

colour of the bill, which is green or green-tipped in giganteus and reddish-brown in
halli. Unfortunately, this character, which is apparent even in fledglings, fades rapidly
after death and disappears completely in specimens which have been kept in fluids or in
poor conditions, which was often the case in the early days of ornithology.

3. The nominal species Procellaria gigantea was proposed by Gmelin ({1789]), who

. summarised the description given by Latham (1785, pp. 396-397, pl. 100) and latinized
the latter’s vernacular ‘giant petrel’. Gmelin was the first to publish the name, which
had been used in manuscripts for some time; he may never have seen a specimen. The
birds described by Latham are supposed to have been taken off Staten Island (Isla de
los Estados, Argentina) during Cook’s first voyage, 1768-1771 (see Mathews, 1912,
pp. 181, 186; Bourne & Warham, 1966). They have disappeared from the Natural

History Museum, London, if they ever reached it. Mathews (1912, p. 2) noted ‘what-
ever became of the birds cannot now be definitely ascertained, but apparently none of
the specimens met with on the first voyage came into the possession of the British
Museum’. There are today only illustrations made by S. Parkinson, the artist on Cook’s
first voyage, of two specimens of these giant petrels, nos. 17 (an unsigned pencil sketch)
and 18 (an unsigned painting) in the Museum in London (Banks collection), but neither
can be determined to species (Voisin, 1981). Mathews (1912, pp. 181-182) reproduced
the unpublished descriptions by Solander of these two illustrations.

4. Latham’s (1785) description does not correspond with these illustrations, nor
with Solander’s descriptions which Latham seems to have ignored. Latham’s and
Gmelin’s descriptions, and Latham’s accompanying figure, were based on mature birds
and clearly relate to the species now called M. halli. In his description of the birds
Latham noted that “Captain Cook met with them in vast numbers in Christmas
Harbour, Kerguelen’s Land (Cook’s Last Voy., i, p. 87; ii, p. 205)’, where halli is very
common and giganteus extremely rare (see Thomas, 1983, p. 137; Weimerskirch, Zotier
& Jouventin, 1989; Voisin, pers. obs.). Mathews (1912, pp. 183, 187) considered that
Latham’s description did not apply to the Kerguelen breeding bird but it now seems
highly probable that Latham based his description on observations, pictures and
even specimens of halli retrieved from the Kerguelen Islands on Cook’s last voyage,
1776-1780 (see Godman, 1909, p. 262). Mathews (pp. 2, 3) noted that the specimens
and drawings collected on this last voyage passed into the Banks collection where they
were studied by Latham. A painting of a giant petrel (no. 39 in the Banks collection)
made on the Kerguelen Islands by W. Ellis, one of the artists on Cook’s third voyage, is
unfortunately unidentifiable to species (see Mathews, 1912, pp. 2, 183; Lysaght, 1959,
p. 328).

5. Recognition that the name gigantea Gmelin, [1789], based on Latham’s (1785)
description, relates to the northern giant petrel means that this is the valid name for the
species currently called Macronectes halli Mathews, 1912, and the southern species,
currently called gigantea, requires a new name. Procellaria ossifraga Forster, 1844
(p. 343) is a junior synonym of Gmelin’s name but there is no type material and it is not
possible to determine its specific identity from the published description; the name has
not been used since its original publication. The transfer of the name gigantea to the
species currently called halli is very undesirable and would cause great confusion.
Since 1966 all authors have used the names gigantea and halli as Bourne & Warham
defined them, in both taxonomic and ecological works (see, for example, Marchant &
Higgins, 1990, pp. 356-376; Sibley & Monroe, 1990, pp. 320, 321; Warham, 1990; a list

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

of a further 50 works demonstrating usage of the names is held by the Commission
Secretariat). Procellaria gigantea is the type species by monotypy of the genus
Macronectes Richmond, 1905 (p. 76; a replacement name for the invalid Ossifraga
Hombron & Jacquinot, 1844 (p. 357), a junior homonym of the raptor name Ossifraga
Wood, 1835).
6. We propose that nomenclatural stability should be maintained by designating a
neotype for Macronectes giganteus in its universally accepted sense following Bourne
& Warham (1966). We therefore designate specimen no. 1911 340 in the Catalogue
Général of the Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammiféres et Oiseaux, Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris as the neotype. It is a specimen collected at Admiralty Bay,
King George Island, South Shetlands, not far from a breeding colony (Gain, 1913). No
subspecies of M. giganteus has been described from this locality and M. halli does not
nest there. The specimen is an adult male with the dark underparts and white head
characteristic of M. giganteus. It bears two white labels noting (1) “Mission Antarctique
Francaise 1908-1910, no. 914, voyag. date 30.12.1909’ and (2) morphological details,
anda red label noting ‘Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] neotype, C.G. 1911 no. 340’.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to designate specimen no. 1911 340 in the Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, for which the data are given in para. 6
above, as the neotype for the nominal species Procellaria gigantea Gmelin,
[1789];
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Macronectes
Richmond, 1905 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Procellaria
gigantea Gmelin, [1789]; 4
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) gigantea Gmelin, [1789], as published in the binomen Procellaria gigantea
(specific name of the type species of Macronectes Richmond, 1905) and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) halli Mathews, 1912, as published in the trinomen Macronectes giganteus
halli and as defined by the lectotype designated by Bourne & Warham
(1966).

References

Bourne, W.R.P. & Warham, J. 1966. Geographical variation in the giant petrels of the genus
Macronectes. Ardea, 54(1—2): 45-67.

Forster, J.R. 1844. Procellaria ossifraga. Pp. 343-344 in Lichtenstein, H. (Ed.), Descriptiones
animalium quae itinere ad maris australis terras per annos 1772 1773 et 1774 suscepto collegit
observavit et delineavit Ioannes Reinaldus Forster. Academica, Berolini.

Gain, L. 1913. Oiseaux antarctiques. Deuxiéme Expedition Antarctique Frangaise (1908-1910).
200 pp., 15 pl. Sciences Naturelles, Documents Scientifiques, Paris.

Gmelin, J.F. [1789]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 2 (Aves). Pp. 233-1032.
Lugduni.

Godman, F. du Cane. 1909. A monograph of the petrels (Order Tubinares ), part 4. Pp. 233-296,
pls. 67-84. Witherby, London.

Hombron, J.B. & Jacquinot, C.H. 1844. Remarques sur quelques points de l’anatomie et de la
physiologie des Procellaridées, et essai d’une nouvelle classification de ces oiseaux. Comptes
Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de |’ Académie des Sciences, 18: 353-358.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 143

Hunter, S. 1983. Identification of giant petrels Macronectes spp. Sea Swallow, 32: 72-76.

Hunter, S. 1987. Species and sexual isolating mechanisms in sibling species of giant petrels
Macronectes. Polar Biology, 7: 295-301.

Johnstone, G.W. 1971. Birds in the hand. Giant petrels. Australian Bird Bander, 9: 83-84.

Johnstone, G.W. 1974. Field characters and behaviour at sea of giant petrels in relation to their
oceanic distribution. Emu, 74: 209-218.

_ Latham, J. 1785. A general synopsis of birds, vol. 3, part 2. Pp. 329-628, pls. 96-106. Leigh &
Sotheby, London.

Lysaght, A. 1959. Some eighteenth century bird paintings in the library of Sir Joseph Banks
(1743-1820). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1(6):
251-371.

Marchant, S.M. & Higgins, P.J. (Eds.). 1990. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and
Antarctic birds, vol. 1, part A (Ratites to ducks). 735 pp. Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.

“Mathews, G.M. 1912. The birds of Australia, vol. 2. Part i, pp. 1-120, pls. 68-81; part 2, pp.
121-236, pls. 82-94. Witherby, London.

Richmond, C.W. 1905. New generic name for the Giant Fulmar. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, 18: 76.

Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L. Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. xxiv,
1111 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.

Thomas, Th. 1983. Données récentes sur l’avifaune des iles Kerguelen (Terres australes et
antarctiques frangaises). L’Oiseau et la Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie, 53(2): 133-141.

Voisin, J.-F. 1968. Les pétrels geants Macronectes halli et Macronectes giganteus de Vile de la
Possession. L’Oiseau et la Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie, 38 (special): 95—122.

Voisin, J.-F. 1976. Observations sur les pétrels geants de l’ile aux Cochons (archipel Crozet).
Alauda, 44(4): 411—430.

Voisin, J.-F. 1981. Quelle espéce Gmelin a-t-il décrite sous le nom de Procellaria gigantea? Le
Gerfaut, 71(2): 251-255.

Voisin, J.-F. 1982. Observations on the Falkland Islands giant petrel Macronectes giganteus
solanderi. Le Gerfaut, 72(4): 367-380.

Voisin, J.-F. 1988. Breeding biology of the northern giant petrel Macronectes halli and the
southern giant petrel M. giganteus at ile de la Possession, iles Crozet, 1966-1980.
Cormorant, 16: 65—97. .

Voisin, J.-F. & Bester, M.N. 1981. The specific status of giant petrels Macronectes at Gough
Island. Pp. 215-222 in Cooper, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the symposium on the birds of the sea
and shore, 1979. African Seabird Group, Cape Town.

Warham, J. 1990. The petrels, their ecology and breeding systems. viii, 440 pp. Academic Press,
London.

Weimerskirch, H., Zotier, R. & Jouventin, P. 1989. The avifauna of the Kerguelen Islands. Emu,
89: 15-19.

' Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammiféres et Oiseaux, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon,
75005 Paris, France. * Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town,
Rondebosch 7700, South Africa. * Department of Biological Sciences, Sherman Fairchild Center for Life
Sciences, Columbia University in the City of New York, N.Y. 10027, U.S.A. * Department of Zoology,
University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB9 2TN, U.K.° British Antarctic Survey, High Cross,
Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 OET, U.K. ° Departamento de Zoologia, Museo Nacional de Historia
Natural, Casilla de Correo 399, Montevideo, Uruguay.’ Zoologisk Avdeling, Vitenskapsmuseet, Universitetet i
Trondheim, N-7004 Trondheim, Norway. * Zoologisk Institutt, Universitetet i Trondheim, N-7055 Dragvoll,
Norway.° Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, Dyche Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454,
U.S.A. '°20 London Road, Saffron Walden, Essex CB11 4ED, U.K. '' Dr.-Kurt-Barthel-Strasse 35,
D(O)-2520 Rostock 21, Germany. * Laboratoire d'Entomologie, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45
rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. * CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology, P.O. Box 84, Lyneham, ACT
2602, Australia. '* American Museum of Natural History, Department of Ornithology, Central Park West at
79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. '° Department of Zoology, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch 1, New Zealand.

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Comment on the citation of names in Zoological Record as evidence of general scientific
use

M. Joan Thorne
Editorial Manager, Biosis U.K., Garforth House, 54 Micklegate, York YO1 1LF, U.K.

In acomment (BZN 48: 148—150) on the proposed precedence of the fish family name
HOMALOPTERIDAE Over BALITORIDAE, Drs P.K.L. Ng & K.K.P. Lim have discussed the
usage of those names. They are apparently using (p. 149) the number of occurrences of
HOMALOPTERIDAE in Zoological Record to support the view that this family name does
not have wide scientific usage. However, because of our policy of standardizing the
classification and placement of names this argument is not necessarily valid.

Classification for the Record consists of placing the name(s) used in an article under
the appropriate Zoological Record controlled vocabulary heading. Wherever possible
our headings are based on generally accepted published authorities, or on internal
records compiled over a number of years. Thus the heading names in the Record might,
or might not, be the classification given in the article. This policy makes information
retrieval very straightforward: users have to look in only one place to find all entries for
a particular name. However, the placement does not simply reflect what has been used
in the literature. This matter is something which we would like to resolve for the future,
but consistent retrieval is our first priority.

Asa matter of interest, following revision of our controlled vocabulary for Zoological
Record (vol. 128) we base the classification of fishes on Eschmeyer’s Catalog of the
Genera of Recent Fishes (California Academy of Sciences, 1990).

Comment on the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859
(Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2710; see BZN 48: 192-195)

Donn L. Tippett
Division of Mollusks, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

I write to point out that there is no need to make available the name CLAVUSINAE
for the gastropod subfamily previously known as CLAVINAE and more recently as
DRILLIINAE; the latter name should continue in use for the group, in accordance with
Article 60 of the Code.

That the name CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 cannot be used is unfortunate since modern
workers have become used to it, but there can be no question about its impropriety, as
explained in the application. However, the next available name, DRILLIINAE Olsson,
1964, is certainly a satisfactory alternative: it unambiguously represents the same
group of species and, since Cernohorsky (1985) adopted the name, it has come into
common usage (see, for example, Vaught, 1989, p. 57).

It appears that the only significant hesitation in adopting the name DRILLIINAE is
contained in the statement ‘although DRILLIINAE is at present considered to be a
synonym of CLAVINAE, future research may prove the two groups to be biologically

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 145

and taxonomically distinct’ (para. 6.of the application). This is, in fact, very unlikely.
The type genera, Clavus Montfort, 1810 and Drillia Gray, 1838 (p. 28), of the two
nominal subfamilies have type species (C/avus flammulatus Montfort, 1810 and Drillia
umbilicata Gray, 1838 respectively) which are similar and differentiable at the generic
level only. Not only are their shells alike but their radular structure is of the same type

’ (the latter is common to all the species in this grouping as now understood). In addition,

although there is little available anatomical data, in those cases where it is known there
is a very similar poison gland and bulb. Thus, although future research might well
demonstrate differences, there is little to suggest the likelihood of there being two
significantly different groups, at least at the subfamily level. It may also be noted that in
the older literature, such as H.& A. Adams (1853), the taxa concerned were often

‘included in the one genus Drillia.

To make the name CLAVUSINAE available would be an artificial solution to the
homonymy problem (if in fact there is a problem) and could itself be a cause of
instability. I therefore oppose the application.

Additional references

Adams, H. & A. 1853. The genera of Recent Mollusca, vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 65-96. Van Voorst,
London.

Gray, J.E. 1838. On some new species of quadrupeds and shells. Annals of Natural History; or,
Magazine of Zoology, Botany, and Geology, 1(1): 27-30.

Comment on the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus to
Schlotheim, 1813, and the proposed designation of a lectotype (Cephalopoda,
Ammonoidea) :

(Case 2732; see BZN 48: 31-35, 246)

E:T: Tozer
Geological Survey of Canada, 100 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, V6B 1R8

1. Urlichs’s proposal (BZN 48: 33, 34) is to attribute the specific name of
Ammonites nodosa to Schlotheim, 1813, rather than to Bruguiere, 1789, and to accept
Ammonites nodosa Schlotheim, 1813 as the type species of Ceratites de Haan, 1825. I
consider these proposals to be unnecessary and undesirable, particularly since the
original specimen of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére has been discovered and proposed as
lectotype. I therefore now propose to the Commission that this original specimen be
confirmed as the lectotype. In the following paragraphs I spell out in some detail the
history of this important case.

2. Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére, 1789 (p. 43) is based on an illustration (pl. 39,
no. 262) in an anonymous work published simultaneously in Paris and The Hague in
1742. The Paris edition is entitled Traité des Pétrifications and the Hague edition
Mémoires pour servir a l’'Histoire Naturelle des Pétrifications dans les quatre parties du
Monae. Apart from the title pages the books are the same. The author is disguised as
‘B***_ These works are attributed to Louis Bourguet (1678-1742). He interpreted the

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

‘pétrifications’ as remains of extinct organisms. After revocation of the Edict of Nantes
(1685) his interpretations were probably considered heretical and it was evidently for
this reason that he chose anonymity. The illustration in these books was redrawn, with
acknowledgement of the source, from fig. 25 (p. 159) in Scheuchzer’s Meteorologia et
Oryctographia Helvetica (1718). Scheuchzer’s illustration is reproduced by Rieber &
Tozer (1986, p. 829). Although these old illustrations are not very good, the drawings
and descriptions were nevertheless good enough to characterize an ammonoid species
recognizable to Schlotheim (1820, p. 67), Philippi (1901, p. 409), Spath (1934, p. 477)
and others mentioned below. Ammonites nodosa Bruguieére is important because it was
designated the type species of Ceratites de Haan, 1825 (p. 39) by Smith (1904, p. 382).

3. Until recently the whereabouts, indeed even the continued existence, of
Scheuchzer’s specimen was unknown. In spite of this, in the principal works that deal
with Ceratites nodosus (e.g. Philippi, 1901, p. 409; Spath, 1934, p. 476) Scheuchzer’s
illustration was treated as that of the type specimen. Most later authors (e.g. Penndorf,
1951, p. 13; Wenger, 1957, p. 91), although they do not give the Scheuchzer and other
pre-Linnaean references in synonymy, attribute the species to Bruguiére without any
qualification. Philippi (1901) adopted a style in which the species was listed as ‘Ceratites
nodosus (Brug.) Schloth. sp.’. Philippi’s nomenclature, which was adopted by Riedel
(1916, p. 46) and Schmidt (1928, p. 303), was criticised and rejected by Spath (1934,
p. 477). Similarly criticised as being without legal foundation was the unqualified
attribution of the species to Schlotheim by Schrammen (1928, p. 41).

4. In 1985 Hans Rieber and I (Rieber & Tozer, 1986) found Scheuchzer’s illustrated
specimen in the Palaontologisches Museum of the University of Zurich, where it has
the registration number PIMUZ L/1651). Also in the Museum collection are the two
other specimens described by Scheuchzer (L/1650, L/1652). They do not resemble
Scheuchzer’s illustration which formed the basis of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére, and
were illustrated for the first time by Rieber & Tozer (1986, p. 832). They had never
been considered in discussions of the definition of Ammonites nodosa. Rieber & Tozer
(p. 831) proposed L/1651 as lectotype of Ammonites nodosa, recognizing that a
Commission ruling might be required. It was proposed as a lectotype rather than
holotype because of the existence of the two other specimens, even though Bruguiere
used only the one illustrated specimen. Shortly after publication of this proposal of a
lectotype for Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére, opposition was expressed by Urlichs &
Mundlos (1987). They proposed suppression of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére and
introduced a nominal taxon called ‘Ceratites nodosus (Schlotheim)’, which they gave as
the type species of Ceratites de Haan as having been so designated by Hyatt & Smith
(1905, p. 168). As now recognized by Urlichs (BZN 48: 32, para. 7), the first designation
was in Smith (1904, p. 382), but in both works the species was attributed to Bruguiere
and not Schlotheim. Urlichs seeks Commission sanction for these procedures.

5. Schlotheim’s role in this question must be considered. He described and illus-
trated Ammonites nodosus (1820, p. 67; 1823, p. 106, pl. 31, figs. 1a, b). This is the only
illustration of Ammonites nodosus in Schlotheim’s work. Philippi (1901, p. 65) regarded
Schlotheim’s figure as representative of Ceratites nodosus. This specimen has now been
found in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987, p. 22)
where it is registered MB: C774. Urlichs & Mundlos do not accept Schlotheim’s or
Philippi’s identifications; instead they name MB: C774 as a representative of Ceratites
(Acanthoceratites) spinosus spinosus Philippi. It should be noted that Schlotheim (1820,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 147

p. 67) gives a form of synonymy which refers to the illustrations in Scheuchzer and
the works of B***. Although he does not explicitly attribute Ammonites nodosus to
Bruguieére, he clearly considered that he was dealing with Bruguiére’s species and nota
new one.

6. Spath (1934, p. 477) agreed with the Schlotheim and Philippi identification of
’ MB: C774 but, believing that neither Scheuchzer’s nor Schlotheim’s originals could be
traced, decided that ‘the specimen figured by Philippi (1901, pl. 46, figs. 1, 1a, b) may be
considered to be the neotype’. This may be called Philippi’s specimen, which Spath
evidently did not attempt to trace. Urlichs & Mundlos have discovered that it was
destroyed by fire in Strasbourg; however, a cast is preserved in the Museum fiir
Naturkunde, Berlin (Urlichs & Mundlos, 1987, p. 10). Puzzling and seemingly incon-
‘sistent is Urlichs’s (BZN 48: 32, para. 6) statement about the Philippi specimen:
*... Philippi (1901, p. 413, pl. 46, fig. 1) described and figured as Ceratites nodosus a
specimen very similar in dimension and sculpture to Schlotheim’s figure of Ammonites
nodosus. This specimen, however, differs from Schlotheim’s (1823) Ceratites nodosus’.
It is stressed that Schlotheim figured only one specimen of Ammonites nodosus, which is
the specimen identified by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) as Ceratites (Acanthoceratites)
spinosus spinosus. Yet in the quoted passage it seems that Schlotheim’s figure is
accepted as an example of ‘Ammonites nodosus’. The meaning of ‘Schlotheim’s (1823)
Ceratites nodosus’ is not clear. No explicit reference is given, it seems that there is no
figure; also, the genus Ceratites had not been proposed in 1823.

7. There are three specimens that bear on the interpretation of Ammonites nodosa
Bruguieére:

1. Scheuchzer’s specimen (PIMUZ L/1651), the original for Ammonites nodosa

Bruguiere.

2. Schlotheim’s specimen (MB: C774), the original for Ammonites nodosus
(Schlotheim, 1823, pl. 31, figs. la, b).

3. Philippi’s specimen (1901, pl. 46, fig. 1), which was destroyed but of which there is
a cast in the Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin (Urlichs & Mundlos, 1987, p. 10).
This was ‘considered to be the neotype’ of Ceratites nodosus (Bruguiére) by Spath
(1934, p. 477).

Urlichs & Mundlos (1987, p. 4) dismiss Nos. 1 and 2 as not being representative
“Ceratites (Ceratites) nodosus (Schlotheim)’. No. 3 they consider representative but
unsuitable, having been destroyed. Instead they propose to recognize as lectotype for
‘Ammonites nodosus Schlotheim’ a specimen designated MB: C785 in the Museum fur
Naturkunde. This specimen is said to be from the Schlotheim collection but it was not
illustrated by Schlotheim or anybody else and was not explicitly mentioned in the
literature prior to its description by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987). The purpose of Urlichs’s
application is ‘to conserve the name of the Triassic ammonite Ceratites nodosus
(Schlotheim, 1813) in its current usage...’. In this case, ‘current usage’ can only be
defined as usage advocated by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987). Schlotheim, Philippi, Spath
and Wenger, over a period of more than a century, regarded ammonites resembling
Scheuchzer’s illustration as representative of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére. Of the three
specimens mentioned above, Urlichs & Mundlos (1987, p. 5) consider that only the
Philippi specimen conforms to Ceratites nodosus in ‘current usage’. They identify
Scheuchzer’s specimen (L/1651) as ‘Ceratites (Doloceratites) robustus robustus Philippi’
(Urlichs & Mundlos, 1987, p. 29). The author of Ceratites robustusisin fact Riedel (1916,

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

p. 28) as stated in para. 9 of Urlichs’s application. The only specimen of Ammonites
nodosus illustrated by Schlotheim they identify as Ceratites (Acanthoceratites) spinosus
spinosus Philippi.

8. The taxonomy adopted by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) for the ceratitids of the
Upper Muschelkalk is different from that of Schlotheim, Philippi, Spath and Wenger.
It is much more elaborate, with recognition of genera, subgenera, species and sub-
species. Their taxonomy is unarguably subjective but it is this taxonomy that Urlichs
regards as ‘current usage’. Urlichs’s proposals to the Commission are framed to
accommodate his own subjective interpretations and are contrary to the Code.

9. I propose that Scheuchzer’s specimen (PIMUZ L/1651), the original for
Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére, 1789, be recognized as the lectotype of that taxon in
accordance with the Code. The specimen is well preserved and has recently been illus-
trated (Rieber & Tozer, 1986, p. 829; Urlichs & Mundlos, 1987, p. 29). Spath (1934)
proposed a neotype for this taxon, although Urlichs (BZN 48: 33) does not accept his
designation as valid. Even so, it is desirable that the Commission should rule on this
matter in accordance with Article 75h of the Code (Status of rediscovered name-
bearing types). Acceptance of my proposal would make it unnecessary to revise the
definition of Ceratites (Ceratites). The definition of Ceratites proposed by Urlichs &
Mundlos restricts it to conform with the classification they advocate and Urlichs’s
proposals to the Commission are designed to legalize the taxonomy in Urlichs &
Mundlos (1987). These proposals have been made to ensure that the definition of
Ceratites is changed to what Urlichs wants it to be, as opposed to what it was originally
and unambiguously defined to be. Urlichs’s proposal cannot be supported and I makea
counter proposal. ‘

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to suppress the neotype designation made by Spath (1934) of the specimen
figured by Philippi (1901, pl. 46, fig. 1) for Ceratites nodosus Bruguiére, 1789 and
any other neotype designation;

(2) to confirm the lectotype designation by Rieber & Tozer (1986) of specimen
PIMUZ L/1651 in the Palaontologisches Museum, University of Zurich, for
Ammonites nodosa Bruguiere, 1789; ;

(3) to confirm the type species designation for Ceratites de Haan, 1825 by Smith
(1904) of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére, 1789;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ceratites de
Haan, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Smith (1904) as
confirmed in (3) above Ammonites nodosus Bruguiére, 1789;

(5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nodosa
Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the binomen Ammonites nodosa (specific name
of the type species of Ceratites de Haan, 1825) and as defined by the lectotype
PIMUZ L/1651 designated by Rieber & Tozer (1986).

Additional references

Hyatt, A. & Smith, J.P. 1905. The Triassic cephalopod genera of America. United States
Geological Survey, Professional Papers, 40: 1-214.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 149

Penndorf, H. 1951. Die Ceratiten-Schichten am Meissner in Niederhessen. Abhandlungen der
Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 484: 1-24.

Schmidt, M. 1928. Die Lebewelt unserer Trias. 461 pp. Ohringen.

Schrammen, A. 1928. Die Losung des Ceratitenproblems. Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen
Gesellschaft, 80: 26—42.

Wenger, R. 1957. Die Germanischen Ceratiten. Palaeontographica (A), 108: 57-129.

Comments on the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed in
Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762)
(Case 2292; see BZN 48: 107-134; 49: 71-72)

(1) Frank-Thorsten Krell
Universitat Tiibingen, Zoologisches Institut, Lehrstuhl Systematische Zoologie,
Auf der Morgenstelle 28, D-W 7400 Tiibingen 1, Germany

Before I became aware of Dr Kerzhner’s proposals I had prepared an application for
the conservation of Melolontha Fabricius, 1775, and I fully support his suggestions on
BZN 48: 121 (para. K.18). As said by Pope (BZN 49: 71), it is unacceptable to give
the authorship ‘Miller [or Geoffroy in Miller], 1764’ to names such as Melolontha
regardless of their taxonomic sense.

After Fourcroy (1785) the name Melolontha was not used in Geoffroy’s sense (i.e. in
the CHRYSOMELIDAE) until Crotch (1870) and Des Gozis (1886, p. 33). The latter used
Melolontha Geoffroy as the valid senior synonym of Clytra Laicharting, 1781, and
proposed the new generic name Ludibrius instead of Melolontha Fabricius for the
May beetle Scarabaeus melolontha Linnaeus, 1758. Only Bedel followed the restoration
of Melolontha Geoffroy, although in 1911 (p. 379) he abandoned Ludibrius for
Hoplosternus, an unjustified emendation of Oplosternus, published by Guérin-
Méneville (1838, p. 63) for the scarabaeid Melolontha (Oplosternus) chinensis. The
generic name Melolontha Fabricius, 1775 for the May beetle M. melolontha is one of the
commonest names in pure and applied entomology; Dalla Torre (1912) gave more than
13 pages of references.

I am well acquainted with Lamellicornia names, and on the grounds of their
common usage I support the conservation of Copris Geoffroy, 1762 (Kerzhner’s para.
K.9) and Platycerus Geoffroy, 1762 (para. K.23). also agree with Kerzhner (para. A.4)
that Geoffroy in Fourcroy is the correct authorship of the new specific names intro-
duced in Fourcroy’s 1785 Entomologia Parisiensis, as is pointed out by d’Aguilar &
Raimbault (1990).

Considering their usage the necessity to maintain many of Geoffroy’s names is
apparent. Their conservation with the authorship Geoffroy, 1762 as proposed by
Kerzhner is a highly stabilizing act which will avoid any future confusion about many
common generic names.

Additional references

Aguilar, J.d’ & Raimbault, F. 1990. Notes de bibliographie entomologique. 3. Geoffroy,
Fourcroy et l’Article 51 du Code de Nomenclature. Entomologiste, 46: 37—40.

Bedel, L. 1911. Synonomies de Scarabaeidae paléarctiques (Col.). Bulletin de la Société
Entomologique de France, 1911: 377-381.

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Dalla Torre, K.W. von. 1912. Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae III. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 20:
135-290 (= pars 49).

Des Gozis, M. 1886. Recherche de l’espéce typique de quelques anciens genres. Rectifications
synonymiques et notes diverses. 36 pp. Herbin, Montlugon.

Guérin-Meneville, F.E. 1838. Insectes du voyage de /a Favorite. [80 pp., pls. 225—238]. Magasin de
Zoologie, 8, (Classe ix, Insectes).

(2) S.J. Brooks
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

I agree with Kerzhner’s proposal on BZN 48: 114-115 (para. G.1) to suppress
Formicaleo and thus retain Euroleon Esben-Petersen, 1918 as the valid generic name
for the ant-lion species nostras Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785. Prior to Leraut’s (1980)
resurrection of Formicaleo it had not been in general usage for over 50 years. Even now
the name has not been widely adopted by neuropterists, and it is not used in standard
works on the MYRMELEONIDAE. On the other hand, Euroleon is well established in the
literature.

Kerzhner’s point about possible confusion between Formicaleo and Formicaleon
Banks, 1911 is also valid. Formicaleon is a well-known myrmeleonid genus and has
been widely used in the past, although at present it is treated as a junior subjective
synonym of the large and important genus Distoleon Banks, 1910, a point not referred
to by Kerzhner.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the neotype designation for Paladin eichwaldi
(Fischer yon Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825) (Trilobita)
(Case 2778; see BZN 48: 203-205)

H.B. Whittington
Sedgwick Museum, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing
Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K.

I support this proposal to stabilize the current usage of Fischer von Waldheim’s
specific name eichwaldi, as defined by Osmolska’s neotype in St Petersburg.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 and
Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936 (Trilobita)
(Case 2805; see BZN 48: 200-202)

(1) A.W.A. Rushton
British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG, U.K.

I wish to express my support for the proposal to conserve the names of the trilobite
genera Ptychagnostus and Glyptagnostus with their accepted usage. Both of these
genera, as currently understood, include species that are of great value in the inter-
continental correlation of Cambrian rocks; their names are widely used in zonal

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 151

tabulations and correlation charts: Stabilisation of their names will thus benefit
stratigraphers, as well as palaeontologists, world-wide.

(2) H.B. Whittington
Sedgwick Museum, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing
* Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K.

I strongly support this application, which will settle a long-standing difficulty and
conserve accepted usage.

‘Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridactylum
Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata)
(Case 2771; see BZN 48: 238-239; 49: 73)

Hobart M. Smith
EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.

I should like to expand my previous brief note of support (BZN 49: 73) for Dr
Dundee’s application. Every case in which the ‘nomen oblitum’ concept arises, now
embodied in Article 79 of the Code, requires a judicious consideration of the relative
merits of priority and stability. This particular case is not borderline, however. Salthe’s
(1973) synopsis for Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 cites 63 works of sufficient
scientific importance to note, and dozens more in the popular literature must have used
the name. Undoubtedly the name has appeared in many other works published after
Salthe’s account. Since the specific name quadrupeda has never been used as valid since
it was proposed by Custis (1807), application of the principle of priority in this case
would be a flagrant disservice to nomenclatural stability and should not be permitted.

Note on the proposed designation of a neotype for Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, and the
designation of a neotype for H. versicolor Le Conte, 1825 (Amphibia, Anura)
(Case 2366; see BZN 40: 165—166; 45: 138-140)

Hobart M. Smith
Department of EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334,
U.S.A.

Kevin T. Fitzgerald
Alameda East Veterinary Hospital, 9870 East Alameda, Denver, Colorado 80231,
U.S.A.

Louis J. Guillette, Jr.
Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.

In 1983 we made a proposal (BZN 40: 165-166) to deal with the taxonomic and
nomenclatural problems arising from the existence of two morphologically similar

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

treefrogs in the eastern United States. One of these is diploid, and has always been
known as Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 since its differentiation from H. versicolor
Le Conte, 1825 (which is tetraploid) by F.C. Johnson and his (mistaken) use in 1961 of
the name chrysoscelis. Very unfortunately the holotype of Cope’s nominal species is a
specimen of H. versicolor, a fact unknown to Johnson. We proposed as neotype of
chrysoscelis the holotype of H. versicolor sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947, an unused
synonym of chrysoscelis sensu Johnson. The chrysoscelis/versicolor species pair has
become a much studied case of polyploidy in animals, and it is important that the two
names should not be confused.

In September 1985 the Commission approved our proposals by a majority of 20: 3.
However, objection was made to the attribution of the authorship ‘Cope, 1880’ to the
name of a taxon different from that described by Cope. Because of this and other
questions we published a second application (BZN 45: 138-140) proposing that the
name Hyla chrysoscelis (with the same neotype) be taken from Johnson, 1961, where it
was first used in the current sense.

In March 1990 Commissioners were asked to choose between our original (BZN 40:
166) and revised (BZN 45: 139) proposals, and they approved the former by a majority
of 17:8. However, it was pointed out that the ploidy of the proposed chrysoscelis
neotype (the holotype of sandersi) had not been mentioned. It has proved technically
not possible to determine this, and we now designate a specimen of H. chrysoscelis (in
the modern sense) as the neotype of Cope’s nominal species, subject to a Commission
vote (which will not involve further use of the plenary powers) of acceptance of a
change in proposal (1)(b) on BZN 40: 166.

The proposed neotype is Texas Natural History Collection (University of Texas at
Austin) no. 37293. It is an adult male, 38 mm s-v, from 2 miles west of the Colorado
River on Highway 969, Bastrop County, Texas. It was collected in April 1970 by J.P.
and J.E. Bogart, and bears J.P. Bogart’s field no. 2043. It belongs to the ‘fast-calling’
taxon (cf. Johnson, 1961) and is diploid (J.P. Bogart, personal communication); the
karyotype conforms with the report by Ralin (1977, pp. 722-733, ‘locality 2’).

As reported by Duellmann (1977, p. 109) no type specimen exists of H. versicolor Le
Conte, 1825. Because of the need to distinguish the species from H. chrysoscelis we here
designate as neotype American Museum of Natural History specimen no. 84483. It is
an adult male, 50 mm s-v, from Alpine, Bergen County, New Jersey (original type
locality ‘northern states’). It is tetraploid (karyotype filed as AMNH K207), belongs to
the ‘slow-calling’ taxon, and was collected April 13, 1970 by Richard G. Zweifel. The
Commission voted in 1990 to place versicolor on the Official List of Specific Names.

Acknowledgements

Weare much indebted to Drs James P. Bogart (University of Guelph), Charles W. Myers
and Margaret G. Arnold (American Museum of Natural History), David G. Cannatella
(Texas Memorial Museum) and Roy W. McDiarmid (U.S. National Museum) for the
loan of specimens and for their counsel.

References

Duellmann, W.E. 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Hylidae, Controlenidae,
Pseudidae. Das Tierreich, 95: i—xix, 1-225.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 153

Ralin, D.B. 1977. Evolutionary aspects of mating call variation species complex of treefrogs
(Anura). Evolution, 31: 721-736.

Note on the proposed conservation of the names Epicrium Wagler, 1828 and
‘ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona), and on the conservation of
EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 (Arachnida, Acari)

(Case 2616 and Opinion 1604; see BZN 45: 207-209; 46: 134; 47: 166—167; 48:
152-155, 335-336)

P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

1. In Opinion 1604 (June 1990; BZN 47: 166-167) the caecilian generic name
Epicrium Wagler, 1828 was suppressed in order that the derived family-group name
EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 should not stand as a senior synonym of the widely
accepted ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968. However, Prof Alain Dubois (Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) subsequently pointed out (BZN 48: 152-154)
that -Epicrium was a valid genus with its own type species, and not, as had been
supposed, a replacement name for Jchthyophis Fitzinger, 1826. I accordingly proposed
(BZN 48: 154-155) that the suppression of Epicrium should be revoked, and that
ICHTHYOPHIIDAE be given precedence over EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger. The latter proposal
reflects the views expressed by Wilkinson & Nussbaum (BZN 45: 207-209) and Smith
(BZN 46: 134) but not by Dubois (BZN 48: 153-154); however, Prof Dubois has since
suggested that EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger should be rejected because it is a junior homonym
(see below).

2. Dr P.T. Lehtinen and Prof R. Schuster mentioned (BZN 47: 166) that the name
EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1855 (p. 129) is in use for a family of mesostigmatid mites, and is a
junior homonym of the unused EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843. The type genus of the mite
family is Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (p. 131); this was proposed for the species
E. geometricus, which is a subjective synonym of Gamasus mollis Kramer, 1876 (p. 82).
Prof Dubois (in litt., November 1991) has given a list (prepared by Dr Michel Naudo of
the Laboratoire de Zoologie (Arthropodes), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle,
Paris) of 20 references using EPICRIIDAE Berlese at family or superfamily rank; these
include André (1949), Baker & Wharton (1968), Krantz (1970), Tragardh (1942) and
Woolley (1988). It is evident that this family name should be conserved, and the
simplest way of doing this is to take the whole name of Epicrium as the stem so that
Fitzinger’s amphibian name would become EPICRIUMIDAE; it is unlikely to be used at
family rank, as pointed out by Smith (BZN 48: 336). The spelling in proposals (1)(b)
and (4)(b) on BZN 48: 155 should be amended accordingly.

3. Two further points remain. The first concerns the type species of Epicrium
Wagler, 1828. As I reported on BZN 48: 154, Wagler originally published two specific
names in association with Epicrium, i.e. hypocyana ‘Hasselt’ (with a reference given to
Boie, 1827) and his new name hasseltii, and made it clear that these were for the same
species, based on van Hasselt’s specimen. No reason was given for the proposal of
hasseltii. Strictly speaking, Epicrium thus contained one taxonomic but two nominal
species, the names of which are objective synonyms. On BZN 48: 153 (para. 3) Prof

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Dubois gave E. hasseltii as the type by monotypy, while on p. 155 I stated the same
for Caecilia hypocyana Bote, 1827. The latter is the valid name, and I now propose that
C. hypocyana be designated the type species.

4. The second point concerns the spelling of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968. It has
always been spelled in this way, and was so placed on the Official List in Opinion 1604.
On BZN 48: 335-336 Prof H.M. Smith suggested that the correct spelling should be
ICHTHYOPHEIDAE, since in Attic (Athenian) Greek the genitive of ophis (=snake) was
opheos. Cannatella (1990) pointed out, however, that in other major dialects (e.g. Doric
and Ionic) of Greek the genitive ophios was used, and that the Code (Article 1 1 b(iv) and
Glossary) does not distinguish between dialects of ‘ancient Greek’. There are many
family-group names spelled -opHmDAE which are based on generic ones ending in -ophis,
and it would be very destabilizing to change them (with varying degrees of acceptance
in the literature) to the form -OPHEIDAE.

5. In addition to the proposals on BZN 48: 155 the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the

generic name Epicrium Wagler, 1828 is EPICRIUM-;

(2) to designate Caecilia hypocyana Boie, 1827 as the type species of Epicrium
Wagler, 1828;

(3) to amend the proposals on BZN 48: 155 to conform with those above;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Epicrius
Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Epicrius geometricus Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (a junior subjective synonym
of Gamasus mollis Kramer, 1876);

(5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name mollis
Kramer, 1876, as published in the binomen Gamasus mollis (senior subjective
synonym of Epicrius geometricus Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877, the type species of
Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877);

(6) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 (type genus Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877);

(7) to confirm that the original spelling of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 is correct.

Additional references

André, M. 1949. Ordre des Acariens (Acari, Nitzsch, 1818). Pp. 794-892 in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.),
Traité de zoologie, vol. 6. 979 pp. Masson, Paris.

Baker, E.W. & Wharton, G.W. 1968. An introduction to acarology. 465 pp. Macmillan, New
York.

Berlese, A. 1885. Acarorum systematis specimen. Bullettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana,
17: 121-135.

Canestrini, G. & Fanzago, F. 1877. Intorno agli Acari italiani. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di
Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (5)4(1): 69-208.

Cannatella, D.C. 1990. Ancient Greek and ophidian orthography. Journal of Herpetology, 24(3):
322-323.

Kramer, P. 1876. Zur Naturgeschichte einiger Gattungen aus der Familie der Gamasiden. Archiv
fiir Naturgeschichte, 1876(1): 46-105.

Krantz, G.W. 1970. A manual of acarology. 335 pp. Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Tragardh, I. 1942. Zur Kenntnis der Gattung Epicrius Berlese (Acarina). Arkiv for Zoologi,
34A(4): 1-10.

Woolley, T.A. 1988. Acarology. Mites and human welfare. 484 pp. Wiley, New York.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 155

Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852
(Reptilia, Squamata)
(Case 2552; see BZN 48: 316-318)

(1) Royce E. Ballinger

- School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0118,

U.S.A.

I write in favor of the application by Drs Murphy & Smith and their solution to a
major problem in the nomenclature of Anniella. Theirs is, indeed, a very parsimonious
and practical solution. Before Hunt (1983) called attention to the problem caused by
the wrong application of a name to a specimen the treatment of A. pulchra in the
literature was as outlined by Murphy & Smith (para. 5 of the application). To ‘flip-flop’
the literature as required by Hunt’s discovery would bring unnecessary instability and
uncertainty not only to systematists but also to ecologists and other biologists.

Recently I have been working on a summary of the biology of North American
lizards. My chapter on Anniella is complicated by the name-change confusion, a prob-
lem that will require many years to overcome unless the simple solution offered by
Murphy & Smith is adopted. I urge the Commission to rule in favor of their proposal; it
is both a reasonable and appropriate solution to what will otherwise become a major
obstacle in literature searches on Anniella in the future. Although Hunt’s 1983 action
may have been formally correct, to follow his course and not retrieve the situation by
approving the designation of the neotype would be an error; two wrongs would not
make a right.

(2) Lauren E. Brown
Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Felmley Hall 206, Normal,
Illinois 61761, U.S.A.

I strongly support the application for the conservation of the specific name Anniella
pulchra Gray, 1852 and the designation of a neotype. Drs Murphy and Smith have done
an excellent job in presenting the case; it is well-written, timely and logically sound. The
name A. pulchra has been in use for a very long time and it would be extremely
unfortunate if the nomenclature were to be destabilized, resulting in confusion. I urge
the Commission to vote in favour.

(3) Wilmer W. Tanner
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, U.S.A.

I believe that Drs Murphy and Smith are correct in their analysis of the nomen-
clatural problem and concur that Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 should be maintained as
the valid name for the species; it would be most inadvisable to recognize A. nigra
argentea Hunt, 1983. Names that have been in the literature over long periods of time
and have been cited in numerous publications should not be abandoned without excep-
tional reasons. In this case I found little reason for accepting Hunt’s nomenclature for
this unique species.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

(4) Robert C. Stebbins
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720,
U.S.A.

I fully support the application by Drs Murphy and Smith to conserve the name
Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852. To change this name would result in much confusion,
more than is justified by a strict adherence to the Code.

(5) John B. Iverson
Department of Biology, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana 47374, U.S.A.

I write to register my support for the application by Drs Murphy and Smith to
conserve the name Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852. A decision in any other direction would
result in chaos in the interpretation of the literature. On the other hand, a ruling in favor
of their proposal would eliminate the confusion and stabilize the literature.

(6) David Chiszar
Department of Psychology, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 345,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0345, U.S.A.

I am writing to support the application by Drs Murphy and Smith to conserve the
name Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 in accordance with its accustomed understanding
and usage. Use of the plenary powers will be necessary to designate a neotype for the
taxon and, of course, the additional actions requested by the authors are needed to
finalize the matter. ‘

Failure to approve the application and, hence, the adoption of the nomenclatural
arrangement proposed by Hunt (1983), would create unfortunate confusion in the
literature on Anniella. Hopefully, this can be forestalled by the Commission.

(7) Further support for the conservation of Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 and the
designation of a neotype has been received from Prof Carl Gans (Department of
Biology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048, U.S.A.), Prof
Anthony P. Russell (Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Calgary, 2500
University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4) and Prof Laurie J. Vitt
(Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, The University of Oklahoma, 1335 Asp Avenue,
Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0606, U.S.A.).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 157

OPINION 1675

Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea): Planaria lactiflorea Johnston,
1828 designated as the type species

* Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the
nominal genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 are hereby set aside and Planaria
lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828,
‘is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name Jactiflorea Johnston, 1828, as published in the binomen Planaria
lactiflorea (specific name of the type species of Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2707

An application for the designation of Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as the type
species of Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 was received from Prof Ray Gibson (Liverpool
Polytechnic, Liverpool, U.K.) and Dr Frank B. Crandall (Turkey Run Research
Institute, McLean, Virginia, U.S.A.) on 30 January 1989. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 48: 22—24 (March 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropri-
ate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 23. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes— 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative vote — 1: Cogger.

Voting for, Dupuis commented that a specimen figured in McIntosh (1873-1874; see
para. 6 of the application) should be designated the neotype of Planaria lactiflorea
Johnston, 1828. Voting against, Cogger commented that to be effective the proposal
required that the type(s) of /actiflorea are extant and unequivocal and this was not the
case.

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

Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831, in Hemprich, P.C. & Ehrenberg, C.G. (Eds.), Symbolae Physicae,
seu icones et descriptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum... Pars Zoologica. Animalia
evertebrata exclusis insectis, p. 63.

lactiflorea, Planaria, Johnston, 1828, Zoological Journal, 3: 489.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1676

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres):
Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885 designated
as the type species

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that authorship of the generic name Lepidomenia is
Kowalevsky in Brock (1883).

(2) It is hereby confirmed that authorship of the specific name hystrix, as published
in the binomen Lepidomenia hystrix, is Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer (1885).

(3) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 are hereby set aside and Lepidomenia
hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885 is designated as the type species.

(4) The name Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (gender: feminine), type
species by designation under the plenary powers in (3) above Lepidomenia hystrix
Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

(5) The name hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as published in the
binomen Lepidomenia ‘hystrix (specific name of the type species of Lepidomenia
Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 2768

An application for the designation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in
Fischer, 1885 as the type species of Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 was
received from Mr David Heppell (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.) on
6 April 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47: 254-257
(December 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received.

Decision of the Commission 1

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 256. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Holthuis.

Lehtinen abstained.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
hystrix, Lepidomenia, Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, Manuel de conchyliologie et de
paléontologie conchyliologique..., p. 889.
Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883, Zoologischer Jahresbericht, 1882(3): 29.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 159

OPINION 1677

Haustator Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved

_ Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Aculea Perry, 1810 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy:

(2) The name Haustator Montfort, 1810 (gender: masculine), type species by
original designation Haustator gallicus Montfort, 1810 (a junior subjective synonym of
Turritella imbricataria Lamarck, 1804), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic

‘Names in Zoology.

(3) The name imbricataria Lamarck, 1804, as published in the binomen Turritella
imbricataria (senior subjective synonym of Haustator gallicus Montfort, 1810, the type
species of Haustator Montfort, 1810), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Aculea Perry, 1810, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2736

An application for the conservation of Haustator Montfort, 1810 was received from
Mr Richard E. Petit (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, U.S.A.) and M. Jacques Le
Renard (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 4 August 1989. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 25—26 (March 1991). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 26. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin,
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Cogger and Macpherson.

No vote was received from Nye.

Cogger commented that there did not appear to be any justification for rejecting
Aculea, and that he would have preferred to give the name Haustator precedence or to
rule that the latter was published first.

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:

Aculea Perry, 1810, Arcana, or the Museum of Natural History, pl. 15.

Haustator Montfort, 1810, Conchyliologie systématique, et classification méthodique des
coquilles..., vol. 2, p. 182.

imbricataria, Turritella, Lamarck, 1804, Annales du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
p. 216.

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1678

Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved, and
Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the correct original spelling of the generic name Helixarion Feérussac, 1821 is
deemed to be Helicarion;

(b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Helicarion Férussac, 1821
prior to that by Gray (1847) of Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 are hereby set
aside.

(2) The name Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Gray (1847) Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821, as ruled in (1)(b)
above, spelling confirmed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name cuvieri Férussac, 1821, as published in the binomen Helixarion cuvieri
and as defined by the neotype designated by Kershaw (1979) (specific name of the type
species of Helicarion Férussac, 1821), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

(4) The name HELICARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (correction of HELIXARIONIDAE;
type genus Helicarion Férussac, 1821) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The name Helixarion Férussac, 1821, ruled in (1)(a) above to be an incorrect
original spelling of Helicarion, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(6) The name HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect original
spelling of HELICARIONIDAE).

History of Case 2739 ;

An application for the conservation of Helicarion Feérussac, 1821, and the desig-
nation of Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species, was received from Drs
Brian J. Smith (Shepparton, Victoria, Australia) and Ron C. Kershaw (Launceston,
Tasmania, Australia) on 7 September 1989. After correspondence the case was pub-
lished in BZN 47: 258-262 (December 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

A comment from Dr Gary Rosenberg (The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 48: 140 (June 1991),
together with a reply by the authors of the application. Dr Rosenberg supported the
designation of Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species of Helicarion
Férussac, 1821, but opposed the adoption of the name Helicarion, although he noted
that this spelling (‘corrected’ from Helixarion by Férussac himself in 1821) had had the
greater usage. It was noted on the voting paper that the application (para. 3) recorded
only two uses of Helixarion this century; a third was Abbott (1989), who however used
HELICARIONIDAE, as pointed out by Dr Rosenberg.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 161

To settle the question of Helixarion versus Helicarion, Commissioners were asked to
vote for or against proposal (1)(a) in BZN 47: 260 on the understanding that the entries
on the Official Lists (proposals (2)-(6) in BZN 47: 261) would be made in accordance
with the result.

. Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 260-261. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1992 the votes were as follows:

Proposal (1)(a). Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cogger, Corliss,
Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de
‘Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Cocks, Holthuis, Macpherson and Stys.

Proposals (1)(b)-(6). Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger,
Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in
part), Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Macpherson.

No vote was received from Mahnert.

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:

cuvieri, Helixarion, Férussac, 1821, Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un
prodrome géneral..., p. 23 (folio), p. 19 (quarto).

Helicarion Férussac, 1821, Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un prodrome
géneéral..., p. 23 (folio), p. 19 (quarto) (incorrectly spelled as Helixarion).

HELICARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883, Annales des Sciences Naturelles ( Zoologie),(6)15: art. 2,p.9
(incorrectly spelled as HELIXARIONIDAE).

Helixarion Feérussac, 1821, Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un prodrome
géneral..., p. 23 (folio), p. 19 (quarto) (an incorrect original spelling of Helicarion).

HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883, Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie),(6)15: art. 2, p.9
(an incorrect original spelling of HELICARIONIDAE).

The following is the reference for the designation of Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the
type species of the nominal genus Helicarion Férussac, 1821:
Gray, J.E. 1847. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 169.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Helicarion cuvieri Férussac,
1821:
Kershaw, R.C. 1979. Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 4(3): 150.

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1679

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Arion hortensis
Ferussac, 1819 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 is
the type species of the genus Kobeltia Seibert, 1873.

(2) The name Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (gender: feminine), type species confirmed in (1)
above as Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

(3) The name hortensis Férussac, 1819, as published in the binomen Arion hortensis
and as defined by the lectotype designated by De Winter (1984) (specific name of the
type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2670

An application for the confirmation of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type
species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 was received from Dr Thierry Backeljau (Koninklijk
Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Brussel, Belgium) on 28 June 1988. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 47: 270-273 (December 1990). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. It was noted on the voting paper that the
application was supported by Dr N.J. Evans (The Natural History Museum, London,
U.K-Y.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 271-272. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Cogger.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
hortensis, Arion, Férussac, 1819, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des mollusques
terrestres et fluviatiles..., p. 65.
Kobeltia Seibert, 1873, Nachrichtsblatt der deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 6: 81.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Arion hortensis Férussac,
1819:
De Winter, A.J. 1984. Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 59(1): 3.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 163

OPINION 1680
Buthus vittatus Say, 1821 (currently Centruroides vittatus), Centrurus

hentzi Banks, 1904 (currently Centruroides hentzi) and Buthus vittatus
Guérin Méneville, [1838] (currently Bothriurus vittatus) (Arachnida,

-Scorpionida): specific names conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the adult male specimen in the U-S. National Museum. Washington, D.C.
labelled ‘Buthus vittatus Say, 1821, NEOTYPE, Det. S.A. Stockwell’ from
‘Brackettville, Kinney Co.., Texas, 21 May 1984 (S.A. Stockwell)’ is hereby
designated as the neotype of Buthus vittatus Say, 1821;

(b) the specific name vittatus Guérin Meneville, [1838], as published in the binomen
Buthus vittatus, is hereby ruled to be not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym of Buthus vittatus Say, 1821.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) vittatus Say, 1821, as published in the binomen Buthus vittatus and as defined by
the neotype designated in (1)(a) above;

(b) vittatus Guérin Méneville, [1838], as published in the binomen Buthus vittatus
(not invalid despite being a junior primary homonym of Buthus vittatus Say,
1821);

(c) hentzi Banks, 1904, as published in the binomen Centrurus hentzi.

History of Case 2637

The name Buthus vittatus Say, 1821 was based ona species of scorpion from Florida
and Georgia, U.S.A. An application by Drs Scott A. Stockwell (U.S. Army Natick
Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) and
Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.), published in BZN 46: 233-235 (December 1989), sought to
designate a neotype for vittatus in the sense in which the name has long been used fora
species from Texas. It was also proposed that the name should be adopted from Wood
(1863), the first author to describe the Texan species (although using the name in
synonymy), so conserving hentzi Banks, 1904, the name currently in use for the Florida
species. Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Subsequent to publication of the application it became apparent that adoption of
vittatus from Wood (1863) had a number of disadvantages (set out in BZN 48: 55.
March 1991), including a primary homonym, Buthus vittatus Guérin Meéneville, [1838],
which would be senior to vittatus “Wood, 1863’ and render the latter invalid. Drs
Stockwell and Levi therefore revised their proposals, retaining the original authorship
of vittatus Say, 1821 and using the plenary powers to desi gnate a neotype in accord with
current usage. This would remove the synonymy with hentzi Banks, 1904.

A comment from Dr Vincent D. Roth (Portal, Arizona, U.S.A.) in support of the
conservation of the names Centruroides vittatus (Say, 1821) and C. hentzi (Banks, 1904)
for the Texas and Florida species respectively was published in BZN 48: 56.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

A comment from Dr W. David Sissom (Elon College, North Carolina, U.S.A.),
published in BZN 48: 56, supported the conservation of the name vittatus Say, 1821. Dr
Sissom also proposed the conservation of vittatus Guérin Méneville, [1838]; the name is
a junior primary homonym of vittatus Say, 1821 but the species has been included in the
genus Bothriurus Peters, 1861 since 1876 and its name has never been replaced. The
name is currently in use for a species of scorpion from Chile.

The Commission was asked to vote separately on the revised application to conserve
the name vittatus Say, 1821 by designating a neotype, thereby also conserving hentzi
Banks, 1904 (proposals published in BZN 48: 55), and on the application to conserve
Buthus vittatus Guérin Méneville, [1838] (proposals published in BZN 48: 56).

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 55 and 56. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1992 the votes were as follows:

Proposals published in BZN 48: 55. Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks,
Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus,
Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride;
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Bouchet abstained.

Proposals published in BZN 48: 56. Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks,
Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 8: Bouchet, Cogger, Holthuis, Minelli, Savage, Starobogatov,
Stys and Thompson.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

hentzi, Buthus, Banks, 1904, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 56:
142.

vittatus, Buthus, Guérin Méneville, [1838], in Lesson, R.P. (Ed.), Voyage autour du monde,
exécuté par ordre du Roi, sur la corvette de sa Majesté, La Coquille, pendant les années 1822,
1823, 1824 et 1825. Par L.I. Duperrey. Zoologie, vol. 2, part 2.1, p. 50.

vittatus, Buthus, Say, 1821, Journal of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, 1: 61.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 165

OPINION 1681

Vatellus Aubé, [1837] (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved

_ Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Leucorea Laporte, 1835 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy.

(2) The name Vatellus Aubé, [1837] (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
of the replaced nominal genus Leucorea Laporte, 1835 Hydroporus tarsatus Laporte,
1835, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name tarsatus Laporte, 1835, as published in the binomen Hydroporus
tarsatus (specific name of the type species of Vatellus Aubé, [1837]), is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Leucorea Laporte, 1835, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2742

An application for the conservation of Vatellus Aubé, [1837] was received from Dr
Anders N. Nilsson (University of Umea, Umea, Sweden) on 25 September 1989. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 36—37 (March 1991). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

It was noted on the voting paper that proposals (2) and (3) in BZN 48: 37, para. 7
should be amended to read as above.

It was also noted that the dates of publication of Aube’s ({1836—1838]) work
Hydrocanthares were given by Méquignon in a footnote in Guignot (1931-1933, pp.
547-548). The date 1837 is given for pp. 65—224, which included the name Vatellus
(p. 221).

Guignot, F. 1931-1933. Les Hydrocanthares de France. xv, 1057 pp. Douladoure,
Toulouse.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 36-37, with the above amendments to (2) and (3). At
the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes— 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin,
Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Lehtinen and Thompson.

Dupuis commented that he reluctantly voted in favour, in consideration of the usage
of Vatellus; it was clear that Aubé had had no objective reason (not even that of
conditional proposal of the name) to reject Leucorea, and that the sentence used by the
aristocratic Laporte in establishing the genus (quoted in para. | of the application) was
merely an ‘understatement’ resulting from politeness, and was typical of the period.
Lehtinen commented that since Aubé was aware of Laporte’s earlier name with the

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

same type species, disregard for priority, the basic principle of nomenclature, could not
be supported.

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:
Leucorea Laporte, 1835, Etudes entomologiques, part 1 (Carnassiers), p. 106.
tarsatus, Hydroporus, Laporte, 1835, Etudes entomologiques, part 1 (Carnassiers), p. 106.
Vatellus Aubé, [1837], Hydrocanthares. Jn Dejean, P.F.M.A. (Ed.), Iconographie et histoire
naturelle des coléoptéres d’Europe, vol. 5, p. 221.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 167

OPINION 1682

Plusia falcifera Kirby, 1837 (currently Anagrapha falcifera; Insecta,
Lepidoptera): specific name conserved

~ Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name norma Hubner, [1821], as published
in the binomen Autographa norma, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name falcifera Kirby, 1837, as published in the binomen Plusia falcifera, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name norma Hubner, [1821], as published in the binomen Autographa norma
and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2748

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Plusia falcifera Kirby,
1837 was received from Drs J. Donald Lafontaine (Biosystematics Research Centre,
Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada) and Robert W. Poole (Systematic Entomology
Laboratory, c/o National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 13
November 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 41—42
(March 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were
received.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 42. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes— 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Lehtinen.

No vote was received from Savage.

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:
falcifera, Plusia, Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J. (Ed.), Fauna Boreali-Americana, part 4 (The
insects), p. 308. :
norma, Autographa, Hubner, [1821], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, p. 251.

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1683

Simulium (Nevermannia) juxtacrenobium (Insecta, Diptera): specific
name first available from the intended original description by Bass &
Brockhouse, 1990

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name juxtacrenobium
Bass & Brockhouse, 1990, as published in the binomen Simulium (Nevermannia)
juxtacrenobium, is deemed to be first available from that work and to be unavailable
from its publication as Simulium juxtacrenobium by Brockhouse, Bass, Feraday &
Straus (1989).

(2) The name juxtacrenobium Bass & Brockhouse, 1990, as published in the
binomen Simulium (Nevermannia ) juxtacrenobium, is hereby placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2799

An application for the specific name of Simulium (Nevermannia) juxtacrenobium to:
be ruled as first available from the intended original description by Bass & Brockhouse
(1990) was received from Drs Jon A.B. Bass (nstitute of Freshwater Ecology,
Monkswood Experimental Station, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, U.K.) and Charles
Brockhouse (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) on 17 December 1990. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 43-44 (March 1991). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 44. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes— 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, .
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Stys and Thompson.

Kraus commented that he hesitated in voting for the proposal since no serious
problems would be caused by the situation: there was no doubt what was meant. Stys
commented that cases involving changed authorship and definition of a name because
publications appeared in an unintended order were frequent; he considered they should
be covered by the Code and not be dealt with individually. Thompson said a neotype
designation could have allowed the name juxtacrenobium to be taken from the 1989

paper.

Original references

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:
Juxtacrenobium, Simulium (Nevermannia), Bass & Brockhouse, 1990, Aquatic Insects, 12(2): 65.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 169

OPINION 1684

Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): gender fixed as
masculine -

* Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the gender of the name Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 is
hereby ruled ta be masculine.

(2) The name Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine, as ruled in (1) above),
type species by original designation Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name auritus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Labrus auritus
(specific name of the type species of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2715

An application for the gender of the name Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 to be fixed as
masculine was received from Profs David A. Etnier (University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee, U.S.A.) and Melvin L. Warren Jr. (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
Illinois, U.S.A.) on 1 March 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN
47: 280-282 (December 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment from Dr Reeve M. Bailey (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, U.S.A.), published in BZN 48: 253-254 (September 1991), noted that while
Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 is feminine under a strict interpretation of Article 30b of the
Code, it had had ‘highly consistent treatment’ as masculine, and that the American
Fisheries Society had agreed this should be continued pending resolution of the case. A
comment in support of the application from Prof C. Richard Robins (Rosensteil School
of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) was also published in BZN
48: 254, together with a report of support from a further six ichthyologists. Among
these, Prof Robert E. Jenkins (Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia, U.S.A.) noted (in litt.)
that he would treat Lepomis as masculine in his forthcoming book (1992) on the
freshwater fishes of Virginia, to be published by the American Fisheries Society and
therefore to receive wide circulation. Prof Brooks M. Burr (Southern Illinois University
at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, U.S.A.) reported that in a field guide to 790 species
of freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico, co-authored by Prof L. Page
and himself, Lepomis had been treated as masculine ‘in accordance with common and
consistent practice over the past 40 years’.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 281. At the close of the voting period on | March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Uéno

Negative votes — 3: Cogger, Starobogatov and Trjapitzin.

No votes were received from Kraus and Willink.

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

Holthuis commented that he voted in favour of the proposal to remove any doubts
that might exist on the gender of the generic name; since the original author
(Rafinesque) had treated it as masculine, the name should be treated as such and
Commission action was unnecessary.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
auritus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 283.
Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, 88:
420.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 171

OPINION 1685

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): given precedence
over Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as pub-
lished in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, is hereby given precedence over the
specific name utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius,

_whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

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

(a) sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina
sphenocephala, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over
utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius,
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius, with
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over sphenocephala Cope, 1886,
as published in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms.

History of Case 2141

An application for Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 to be given precedence over Rana
utricularius Harlan, 1826 was received from Profs Lauren E. Brown (Illinois State
University, Normal, Illinois, U.S.A.), Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) and Richard S. Funk (University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee, U.S.A.) on 19 October 1990. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 47: 283-285 (December 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

A case for the conservation of the specific name sphenocephala Cope, 1886 by the
suppression of utricularius Harlan, 1826 was published in 1977 (BZN 33: 195-203).
Comments in support and opposition were published in BZN 34: 199-200 (February
1978) and 39: 80-84 (June 1982), and a reply by the authors of the application was
published in BZN 39: 84-90. The opposition applied particularly to the suppression of
utricularius and was largely on taxonomic grounds; because of this an impasse was
reached and the case remained unresolved. In the past decade both specific names have
had use (BZN 47: 284, para. 7), with sphenocephala predominating. The second appli-
cation briefly reviewed the history and sought to give sphenocephala precedence over
utricularius without suppressing the latter name.

On 7 May 1991 a letter in opposition was received from Dr George R. Zug (National
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Dr Zug stated that his letter
was ‘for the Commission members’ attention’ and not for publication; a version for
publication was requested but not received. Dr Zug had opposed the earlier application
on taxonomic grounds (see BZN 39: 80-81) which were not accepted by the applicants

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

(BZN 39: 84—90). In his recent letter Dr Zug said that he would not repeat those points
again but ‘I remain opposed to the use of a junior synonym (sphenocephala) when a
valid senior name (uwtricularius) is available and has been used recently and in major
publications... Since Pace (1974) the name wtricularius was gaining increasing use until
Brown et al. published a note that sphenocephala should be used... The list of 103
references [from 1924—1974] using sphenocephala [see para. 5 of the application] has
little bearing because its prior use was conceptually different from Pace’s utricularius
and thus from the concept of sphenocephala now being supported by Brown et al....
Please allow priority to determine usage’.

Dr Zug considered that wtricularius Harlan, 1826 was the valid synonym of
sphenocephala Cope, 1886. Prof Brown et al. believed that wtricularius probably
corresponded to pipiens Schreber, 1782; they pointed out that utricu/arius was unused
until Pace (1974) and urged that sphenocephala should be conserved for the southern
leopard frog for which it was in use. In an effort to settle the case they rescinded their
previous request for the suppression of utricularius, which could remain available for a
taxon within the ‘R. pipiens complex’.

A comment in support of the proposal by Brown et al. from Dr David M. Hollis
(University of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 47: 298-299 .
(December 1990). Support was also received from Prof Jay M. Savage (University of
Miami, Florida, U.S.A.)..

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 284-285. At the close of the be: period on | March
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, ees Heppell (in part),
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage,
Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Souza, Starobogatov, Stys and Thompson.

Heppell commented that to give one name precedence over the other was in-
appropriate since it did not seem possible to associate the name Rana utricularius
Harlan, 1826 with any particular segregate; R. sphenocephala Cope, 1886 should be -
conserved to maintain stability and he therefore supported the proposal to place it
on the Official List, but without any endorsement. He noted that it had been made
clear in the revised application that utricularius was unused because of its accepted
synonymy with the senior name R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, and that nothing in the
original description of uwtricu/arius indicated that Pace (1974) was correct in regard-
ing the taxon as a senior synonym of sphenocephala. The inadequate description,
absence of type material (other than Pace’s contentious neotype) and ill-defined type
locality meant that wtricularius was a nomen dubium. The resurrection of a name
long accepted as a junior synonym of one taxon in order to upset the long-
established usage of another was unjustifiable. Cogger commented that, since
sphenocephala and utricularius continued to appear in the literature as intraspecific
names, to give one precedence was inappropriate and priority should apply. Dupuis,
Macpherson, Martins da Souza and Stys commented that the taxonomy of the group
was still unsettled.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 173

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:
sphenocephala, Rana halecina, Cope, 1886, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,

23517:
utricularius, Rana, Harlan, 1826, American Journal of Science and Arts, (1)10: 60.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1686

Natrix gemonensis Laurenti, 1768 (currently Coluber gemonensis),
Coluber viridiflavus Lacépéde, 1789 and Coluber helveticus Lacépéde,
1789 (currently Natrix natrix helvetica) (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific
names conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Natrix
gemonensis Laurenti, 1768 are hereby set aside and specimen no. 1357.70 in the
Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, for which the data are given in BZN 48:
51, para. 4, is designated as the neotype;

(b) the following specific names are hereby ruled to be available despite having been
published in a rejected work:

(i) helveticus Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the binomen Coluber helveticus;
(ii) viridiflavus Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the binomen Coluber viridi-flavus. .
(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology: :

(a) gemonensis Laurenti, 1768, as published in the binomen Natrix gemonensis, and
as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above;

(b) helveticus Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the binomen Coluber helveticus and as
conserved in (1)(b)(i) above;

(c) viridiflavus Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the binomen Coluber viridi-flavus and
as conserved in (1)(b)(ii) above.

History of Case 2675

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Natrix gemonensis
Laurenti, 1768, Coluber viridiflavus Lacépéde, 1789 and Coluber helveticus Lacépéde,
1789 was received from Dr Beat Schatti (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneve,
Switzerland), Mr Andrew F. Stimson (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.)
and Dr Klaus Henle (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitdt, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany) on 1 August 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48:
50—52 (March 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 51-52. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Martins de Souza and Nye.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 175

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

gemonensis, Natrix, Laurenti, 1768, Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin reptilium emendatum...,
p. 76.

helveticus, Coluber, Lacépéde, 1789, Histoire naturelle des quadrupédes ovipares et des serpens,
vol. 2 (Histoire naturelle des serpens), p. 100.

viridiflavus, Coluber, Lacépéde, 1789, Histoire naturelle des quadrupédes ovipares et des serpens,
vol. 2 (Histoire naturelle des serpens), p. 86.

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1687

Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (Aves, Gruiformes): not suppressed

Ruling

(1) The name Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Phorusrhacos longissimus Ameghino, 1887, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) The name Jongissimus Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen
Phorusrhacos longissimus (specific name of the type species of Phorusrhacos Ameghino,
1887), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name PHORUSRHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (correction of Phororhacosidae;
type genus Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (an unjustified emendation of
Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887). ;

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:

(a) PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (an incorrect original spelling of

PHORUSRHACIDABE);
(b) PHORORHACIDAE Lydekker, 1893 (an incorrect spelling of PHORUSRHACIDAE).

History of Case 2723

An application for the conservation of Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 was received
from Drs Luis M. Chiappe & Miguel F. Soria (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales,
Buenos Aires, Argentina) on 5 May 1989. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 47: 198-201 (September 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

An opposing comment from Dr Storrs L. Olson (National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) was published in BZN 48: .
156-157 (June 1991), together with a comment from Prof Walter J. Bock (Chairman
of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON); Columbia
University, New York, U.S.A.) reporting on the support for the application from the
members of SCON. Dr Olson stated that, following the work of Brodkorb (1963, 1967)
and as mentioned by the authors of the application (para. 8 in BZN 47: 199), the prior
spelling Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 was the name in current use and he considered
that it would therefore be a mistake to suppress it. Instead of the proposals in BZN 47:
199, which sought to suppress Phorusrhacos and place Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889
on the Official List, Dr Olson proposed that Phorusrhacos should be confirmed as the
valid name for the genus, with the concomitant family-group name PHORUSRHACIDAE
Ameghino, 1889.

It was noted on the voting paper that Phororhacos (1889) was an unjustified
emendation of Phorusrhacos (1887) but was in exclusive use for many years. The
rejection of Phorusrhacos as a nomen oblitum by Cracraft (1968) under Article 23b of
the 1964 Code (see Article 79c(iii) of the current Code) was not strictly correct, since

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992 177

Brodkorb (1963, 1967) had resurrected this spelling, but it had been argued (para. 7
of the application and comment by Prof Bock) that Brodkorb himself should have
made the rejection. However, he did not do so, and Phorusrhacos entered use, with
consequent lack of uniformity.

Both alternatives, the original proposal for the conservation of Phororhacos
Ameghino, 1889 by the suppression of Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (BZN 47: 199;
Proposal A), and the placement of Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 on the Official List
(BZN 48: 157; Proposal B), were offered for voting. The latter course did not involve
the use of the Commission’s plenary powers. The family name placed on the Official
List would be PHORORHACIDAE Or PHORUSRHACIDAE respectively.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 199. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Proposal A — 14: Bock, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins
de Souza, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Ueno and Willink.

Proposal B— 15: Bayer, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata,
Lehtinen, Macpherson, Minelli, Nye, Schuster, Stys, Thompson and Trjapitzin.

Cocks commented that he agreed with Olson that priority and recent usage should be
followed. Kabata noted that both proposals A and B had merit and that under these
circumstances priority should be followed.

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:

longissimus, Phorusrhacos, Ameghino, 1887, Boletin del Museo de La Plata, 1887: 24.

PHORORHACIDAE Lydekker, 1893, The Ibis, 5: 43 (an incorrect spelling of PHORUSRHACIDAE).

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889, Actas de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, 6: 659.

PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889, Actas de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, 6:
659 (an incorrect original spelling of PHORUSRHACIDAE).

PHORUSRHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889, Actas de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, 6: 659
(incorrectly spelled as PHORORHACOSIDAE).

Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, Boletin del Museo de La Plata, 1887: 24.

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

OPINION 1688

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name julieni Lawrence, [1864], as pub-
lished in the binomen Coccyzus julieni, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name euleri Cabanis, 1873, as published in the binomen Coccygus
(= Coccyzus) euleri, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name julieni Lawrence, [1864], as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni
and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2727

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Coccyzus euleri Cabanis,
1873 was received from Drs Edwin O. Willis and Y. Oniki (Universidade Estadual
Paulista, Sado Paulo, Brazil) on 14 June 1989. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 47: 195-197 (September 1990). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

An opposing comment from Dr Richard C. Banks (National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) was published in BZN 48: 155-156 (June 1991),
together with a comment from Prof Walter J. Bock (Chairman of the Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON); Columbia University, New
York, U.S.A.) reporting on the support for the application from the members of
SCON.A reply to Dr Banks’s comment by the authors of the application was published
in BZN 48: 254-255 (September 1991), together with a further comment in support
from Drs Kenneth C. Parkes and D. Scott Wood (Carnegie Museum of Natural
History, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 196. At the close of the voting period on | March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes— 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 5: Bouchet, Heppell, Lehtinen, Nye and Thompson.

No vote was received from Kabata.

Nye commented that, since the senior synonym, Coccyzus julieni Lawrence, [1864],
has had some usage in recent years for the South American species, priority should
prevail.

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:
euleri, Coccyzus, Cabanis, 1873, Journal fiir Ornithologie, (4)1(1): 72.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

179
Julieni, Coccyzus, Lawrence, [1 864], Annals of the L

yceum of Natural History of New York, 8: 42
(Issued in the serial in 1867 but published as a separate in [1864]).

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(2) June 1992

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission;
other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; the Commission’s Secretariat
reserves the right to return applications not so prepared.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out
the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800,
p. 39) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and
followed by the number of pages, the publisher and place of publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could
be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text in IBM PC format. It would also be
helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main
references where this is possible.

Applicants would be well advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same
field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications
and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation of the neotype designation for Paladin eichwaldi

(Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825) (Trilobita). H.B. Whittington . .
On the proposed conservation of Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 and Glyptagnostus
Whitehouse, 1936 (Trilobita). A.W.A Rushton; H.B. Whittington .
On the proposéd conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridactylum Cc uvier,
1827 (Amphibia, Caudata). H.M. Smith.

- On the proposed designation of a neotype for Hy la chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, and the

designation of a neotype for H. versicolor Le Conte, 1825 sia rae
H.M. Smith, K.T. Fitzgerald & L.J. Guillette, Jr. .

On the proposedvonservation of the names Epicrium Wagler, 1 828 and ICHTHYOPHIIDAE
Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona), and on the conservation of EPICRIIDAE
Berlese, 1885 (Arachnida, Acari). P.K. Tubbs . f

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 (Reptilia,
Squamata). R.E. Ballinger; L.E. Brown; W.W. Tanner; R.C. Stebbins; J.B. Iverson;
D. Chiszar; C. Gans; A.P. Russell; L.J. Vitt EA ie OLR en ee oe

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1675. Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea): Planaria lactiflorea Johnston,
1828 designated as the type species :

Opinion 1676. Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres):
Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885 designated as the type
species. ; : ;

Opinion 1677. Haustator Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved :

Opinion 1678. Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved, and
Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 designated as the type species.

Opinion 1679. Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Arion hartensis
Férussac, 1819 confirmed as the type species a

Opinion 1680. Buthus vittatus Say, 1821 (currently Centruroides vittatus), Centrurus
hentzi Banks, 1904 (currently Centruroides hentzi) and Buthus vittatus Guérin
Meéneville, [1838] (currently Bothriurus vittatus) (Arachnida, ai sanarate: ‘sear
names conserved . . ‘eae me

Opinion 1681. Vatellus [Aubé], 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved .

Opinion 1682. Plusia falcifera Kirby, 1837 (currently gg ead falcifera; Insecta,
Lepidoptera): specific name conserved

Opinion 1683. Simulium (Nevermannia) juxiacrenobiian (Insecta, Diptera): specific
name first available from the intended original description by Bass & Brockhouse,
m0. .

Opinion 1684. Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): ‘gender fixed as
masculine. .

Opinion 1685. Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): given precedence
over Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826 .— .

Opinion 1686. Natrix gemonensis Laurenti, 1768 (currently Coluber gemonensis),
Coluber viridiflavus Lacépéde, 1789 and Coluber helveticus Lacépéde, 1789 yaa
Natrix natrix helvetica) (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific names conserved.

Opinion 1687. Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (Aves, Gruiformes): not suppressed .

Opinion 1688. Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): specific name
conserved

Instructions to Authors .

150
150

151

151

153

155

157
158
159
160

162

163
165

167

168
169
171
174
176
178

180

CONTENTS

Notices . :

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . . .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second Supplement to
1900 2. ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — “Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies .

Applications
Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): ‘proposed designation of Isis
encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species. P. Alderslade . Ne
Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation —
P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type species. M.F.L. Armengol & M.O. Mancenido >
Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (currently Melanella (Balcis) alba; Males
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Waren :
Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation
Amicytheridea triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species. S.C. Khosla, 8.R. Jakhar &
M.H.Mohammed. . . ;
Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 (currently Aquarius paludum: Insecta, Heteopienes
proposed conservation of the specific name. N.M. Andersen . ;
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera
proposed conservation as the correct original spellings. G.H. Nelson
TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, a
1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of homonymy, and TACHYPORID
MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over TACHINUSID.
Fleming, 1821. A.F. Newton, M.K. Thayer &C.W.Sabrosky . .
Copromyza limosa Fallen, 1820 (currently Leptocera (Rachispoda) limosa; Insecta,
Diptera): proposed replacement of lectotype, so conserving usage of the specific
name and also that of Leptocera (Rachispoda) lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855).
K.C. Kim &J.Rohacek. . .
Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 (Insecta, Diptera) proposed replacement of the
holotype by a neotype. D. Grimaldi . :
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed " precedence over
GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829. W.N. Mathis & T. Zatwarnicki . .
Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed designation of Clidastes propython
Cope, 1869 as the type species. C.R. Kiernan . :
Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] (currently Macronietion: givanieus: “Aves,
Procellariiformes): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name be
designation of a neotype. J.-F. Voisin et al. . Oe ee

Comments
_ On the citation of names in append Record as evidence of general scieitiing use.
MJ, Thome... «

On the proposal to remove ‘the homonymy between ‘CLAVIDAE MeCiaiy: 18
(Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE maak 1904 (Mollusca, Gasiopaie®:
D.L. Tippett. ; :

On the proposed attribution of the specific name > of Ceratites nodosus to ‘Schlotheim,
1813, and the proposed —— ofa ea (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea),
E.T. Tozer :

On the proposed conservation of s some generic: names s first proposed i in Histoire abrégée.
des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762). F.-T. Krell;
S.J. Brooks .

Continued on Inside

Bentad in Gireat Reta ho Dlensu Tange 1 ta: 3t the Dianveet Deece: Tineoieetae 1 nee

Volume 49, Part 3, 30 September 1992 pp. 181-252 ISSN 0007-5167

THE NATU at a

Z00LGGY LIBRARY

The

Bulletin

cickal
‘Nomenclature

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1992 is £75 or
$145, postage included; the rate for 1993 will be £80 or $155. All manuscripts, letters

and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell! Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President
Vice-President
Secretary-General
Executive Secretary

Members

Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda)
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen
(Norway; Parasitology)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca)
Prof L. B. Holthuis
(The Netherlands; Crustacea)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda)
Prof Dr O. Kraus
(Germany; Arachnology)
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)

Secretariat

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)

Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof W. D.L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
(Russia; Mollusca)
Dr P. Stys (Czechoslovakia; Heteroptera)
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin
(Russia; Hymenoptera)
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J.D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)

Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1992

HISTORY MUSEUM |
-1 OCT 1992 {

eds ait 181
PU RC SHAS ED
|ZOOILOGY LIBRARY]
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
-Volume 49, part 3 (pp. 181—252) 30 September 1992

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication,
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting
comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments
to the Code are also published for discussion.

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience
wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 49, part 2 (published on 25 June 1992). Under Article 80
of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is
published.

(1) Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa, Cryptostomata): proposed designation
of Ceriopora nodosa Fischer, 1837 as the type species. (Case 2847). P.N. Wyse
Jackson.

(2) Chromadora Bastian, 1865 (Nematoda): proposed designation of C. nudicapi-
tata Bastian, 1865 as the type species. (Case 2848). P.A.A. Loof.

(3) BRANCHIOSTEGIDAE Jordan, 1923 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed
precedence over LATILIDAE Jordan & Evermann, 1898. (Case 2849). J. Géry.

(4) Phyllophis carinata Gunther, 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata; Reptilia,
Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2850). H.M.
Smith, H. Ota & V. Wallach.

(5) Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over
Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819]. (Case 2851). T. Hirowatari.

(6) Banksinella luteolateralis var. albothorax Theobald, 1907 (currently Aedes
(Neomelaniconion) albothorax), B. luteolateralis var. circumluteola Theobald,
1908 (currently A. (N.) circumluteolus) and A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 1985
(Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific names and designation
of a neotype for A. (N.) albothorax. (Case 2852). T.J. Zavortink.

(7) Robulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently Lenticulina nodosa; Foraminiferida):
proposed retention of neotype despite rediscovery of syntypes. (Case 2854).
H. Meyn & J. Vespermann.

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

(8) Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 and Rotalia schloenbachi Reuss, 1863 (currently
Astacolus humilis and Notoplanulina? schloenbachi; Foraminiferida): proposed
replacement of neotypes by rediscovered lectotypes. (Case 2855). H. Meyn &
J. Vespermann.

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published
in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the
day of publication of the Bulletin.

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has recently been estab-
lished to facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and to
support the Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with infor-
mation on the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to buy the
Code and the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the Treasurer
Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural Council are Dr
H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof A. Minelli (Italy) and Dr
C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open to all European
zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr E. Macpherson, Instituto de
Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n 08039 Barcelona, Spain.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.N.Z., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of
Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £19 or $35, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £15 or $29;
payment should accompany orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987.
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled
since it was set up in 1895; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 183

of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official Lists
and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries,
together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. Copies
can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
~ Offprints

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is offering a subscription for
individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular disciplines.
For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will receive copies of all Applications,
Comments and Opinions relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca as soon as
they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Offprints are available
back to 1980.

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies

Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most volumes of the Opinions
and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are
still available. Prices on application to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Case 2806

Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed
conservation of both generic and specific names

Dale R. Calder

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s
Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 2C6; Department of Zoology,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic and specific names
of Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856, familiar in the nomenclature of hydroids and
hydromedusae. The names are threatened by the unused or seldom-used senior subject-
ive synonyms Acrochordium Meyen, 1834, and Mnestra and M. parasites, both of
Krohn (1853).

1. Meyen (1834, p. 165, pl. 28, fig. 8) established the new generic and specific names
Acrochordium album for a hydroid found on pelagic Sargassum natans in the vicinity of
the Azores. The generic name was considered to be a junior synonym of Coryne
Gaertner, 1774 (p. 40) by J.L.R. Agassiz (1862, p. 185), Bedot (1905, p. 40) and Stechow
(1923, p. 36). Acrochordium has not been used as valid since it was founded.

2. I re-examined the original description of Acrochordium album Meyen, 1834
and noted (Calder, 1988, p. 69) that it is a stolonal athecate hydroid with numerous
capitate tentacles scattered over an elongate hydranth. Based on the description and
illustrations provided by Meyen I concluded that it was congeneric with Zanclea
Gegenbaur, 1856 (p. 229), rather than with Coryne Gaertner, 1774, and possibly con-
specific with Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (p. 229, pl. 8, fig. 4), the type species
of Zanclea by monotypy. The name Z. costata was based on a medusa from the
Mediterranean. .

3. The infrequently used generic name Mnestra was established by Krohn (1853,
p. 281) for the single species Mnestra parasites Krohn, 1853 (p. 281), also from the
Mediterranean. This name was based on a medusa now known to have been deformed
through parasitization by juvenile stages of the nudibranch mollusc Phylliroe
bucephala Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (see Ankel, 1952, p. 118 and Rees, 1953, p. 219;
Krohn thought, incorrectly, that the medusa was parasitic on the mollusc). Krohn’s
taxon is regarded as conspecific with Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (see Rees, 1953,
p. 221; Picard, 1957, p. 6; Martin & Brinckmann, 1963, p. 207; Bouillon, 1985, p. 121).
Although valid under the Code, the name Mnestra parasites has always been used in the
context of parasitized medusae. Both the generic name Mnestra and the specific name
parasites have been unused as valid since Kramp (1961, p. 53) noted that M. parasites
was ‘probably identical’ with Zanclea costata.

4. The generic name Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856 has been extensively used in the
nomenclature of both hydroids and hydromedusae for more than a century (see, for
example, J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, p. 344; Bouillon, 1985, p. 121; Calder, 1988, p. 69; His

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 185

Majesty the Showa Emperor Hirohito, 1988, p. 61; Petersen, 1990, p. 141). A represent-
ative list of five additional important works in which the name has been used,
published between 1953-1991, is held by the Commission Secretariat (these works
also include references to the widely used specific name costata Gegenbaur, 1856).
The family name ZANCLEIDAE, established by Russell (1953, p. 98), is also currently
in widespread use. Replacement of Zanclea with either of the little-known earlier
subjective synonyms Acrochordium Meyen, 1834 or Mnestra Krohn, 1853 would cause
considerable-disturbance to hydrozoan nomenclature. I propose that the latter two
names be suppressed.

5. Picard (1957, p. 6, footnote) recognized that the names Mnestra and M. parasites,
both of Krohn (1853), had priority over Zanclea and costata but adopted Gegenbaur’s
* (1856) names in the expectation that the Commission would not allow Zanclea and
costata to be abandoned. However, Picard never submitted a case to the Commission
to settle the matter.

6. In addition to Mnestra parasites, I have previously discussed (Calder, 1988, p. 70)
three other possible senior subjective synonyms of Zanclea costata: Acrochordium
album Meyen, 1834, Coryne sessilis Gosse, 1853 (p. 208, pl. 14, figs. 1-3) and Tubularia
implexa Alder, 1856 (p. 439). The name 7. implexa Alder (December 1856) is now
known to have been published later than Z. costata Gegenbaur (July 1856); moreover,
there is evidence suggesting that it is a different species (see Rees & Roa, 1966). Taxo-
nomic questions remain about Z. alba (Meyen), Z. sessilis (Gosse) and Z. implexa
(Alder), however, and the relationships of these three to Z. costata Gegenbaur are
unsettled. In discussing the genus Petersen (1990, p. 141) concluded that ‘the delimi-
tation of Zanclea species is presently in a state of chaos’. Accordingly, I consider it
inadvisable to request the suppression of specific names other than parasites in this
case.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

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

Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) the generic names:
(i) Acrochordium Meyen, 1834;
(ii) Mnestra Krohn, 1853;

(b) the specific name parasites Krohn, 1853, as published in the binomen
Mnestra parasites;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Zanclea
Gegenbaur, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Zanclea costata
Gegenbaur, 1856;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name costata
Gegenbaur, 1856 (specific name of the type species of Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the following names:

(a) Acrochordium Meyen, 1834, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above;
(b) Mnestra Krohn, 1853, as suppressed in (1)(a)(ii) above;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name parasites Krohn, 1853, as published in the binomen Mnestra parasites
and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Dr P.F.S. Cornelius of The Natural History Museum, London for
comments on an early draft of the manuscript, and to Mrs A. Gentry of the
Commission Secretariat for help in the preparation of the application.

References

Agassiz, J.L.R. 1862. Contributions to the natural history of the United States of America, vol. 4.
380 pp., pls. 20-35. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.

Alder, J. 1856. Descriptions of three new British zoophytes. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (2)18(108): 439-441.

Ankel, W.E. 1952. Phyllirrhoe bucephala Pér. & Les. und die Meduse Mnestra parasites Krohn.
Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli, 23(2—3): 91-140.

Bedot, M. 1905. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 2me période (1821 a 1850).
Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 13(1): 1-183.

Bouillon, J. 1985. Essai de classification des hydropolypes-hydroméduses (Hydrozoa-Cnidaria).
Indo- Malayan Zoology, 2(1): 29-243.

Calder, D.R. 1988. Shallow-water hydroids of Bermuda: the Athecatae. Life Sciences
Contributions. Royal Ontario Museum, 148: 1-107.

Gaertner, J. 1774. Zoophyta. Quaedam Minuta. Pp. 34-41 in Pallas, P.S., Spicilega zoologica
quibus novae imprimus et obscurae animalium species..., fasc. 10. 41 pp. Lange, Berolini.
Gegenbaur, C. 1856. Versuch eines Systemes der Medusen, mit Beschreibung neuer oder wenig
gekannter Formen; zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Fauna des Mittelmeeres.

Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 8(2): 202-273.

Gosse, P.H. 1853. A naturalist’s rambles on the Devonshire coast. xvi, 451 pp., 28 pls. Van Voorst,
London.

Hirohito, His Majesty the Showa Emperor. 1988. The hydroids of Sagami Bay. 179 pp., 4 pls.
Biological Laboratory, Imperial Household, Tokyo.

Kramp, P.L. 1961. Synopsis of the medusae of the world. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, 40: 1469.

Krohn, A. 1853. Ueber die Natur des kuppelf6rmigen Anhanges am Leibe von Phyllirhoé
bucephalum. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 19(1): 278-281.

Martin, R. & Brinckmann, A. 1963. Zum Brutparasitismus von Phyllirrhoe bucephala Pér. & Les.
(Gastropoda, Nudibranchia) auf der Meduse Zanclea costata Gegenb. (Hydrozoa,
Anthomedusae). Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli, 33(3): 206-223.

Meyen, F.J.F. 1834. Beitrage zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde. Funfte
Abhandlung. Uber das Leuchten des Meeres und Beschreibung einiger Polypen und
anderer niederer Tiere. Novorum Actorum Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae
Naturae Curiosorum, 16(Supplement 1): 125-216.

Péron, F. & Lesueur, C.A. 1810. Histoire de la famille des mollusques Ptéropodes; caracteéres des
dix genres qui doivent la composer. Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 15: 57-69.

Petersen, K.W. 1990. Evolution and taxonomy in capitate hydroids and medusae (Cnidaria:
Hydrozoa). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 100(2): 101—231.

Picard, J. 1957. Etudes sur les hydroides de la superfamille Pteronematoidea. 1. Genéralites.
Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique de Monaco, 1106: \—12.

Rees, W.J. 1953. Note on Phyllirrhoe bucephala Péron and Lesueur and Mnestra parasites
Krohn. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 29: 219-221.

Rees, W.J. & Roa, E. 1966. Asexual reproduction in the medusa Zanclea implexa (Alder).
Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, 129: 39-41.

Russell, F.S. 1953. The medusae of the British Isles. 530 pp. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Stechow, E. 1923. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und anderer
Gebiete. 11 Teil. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und
Geographie der Tiere, 47(1—3): 29-270.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 187

Case 2827

Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 (currently Upogebia capensis;
Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed replacement of neotype, so conserving
the usage of capensis and also that of G. africana Ortmann, 1894
(currently Upogebia africana)

N. Ngoc-Ho
Laboratoire de Zoologie ( Arthropodes), Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75231 Paris, France

Gary C.B. Poore

Department of Crustacea, Museum of Victoria, Swanston Street, Melbourne,
Victoria 3000, Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accustomed usage of the
specific names of two South African species of prawns: Upogebia capensis (Krauss,
1843) and U. africana (Ortmann, 1894). The latter species is commonly known as the
mud-prawn or mud-shrimp. It is proposed to designate a replacement neotype for
capensis from material of the species as presently understood; the previously designated
neotype is a specimen of africana.

1. Three species of Gebia Leach, 1815 (p. 342; family UPOGEBIIDAE) were described
from South Africa. Gebia major var. capensis Krauss, 1843 (p. 54) was originally
described as a variety of Gebia major de Haan, [1841] (pl. 35, fig. 7; text (p. 165)
published in [1849]; see Sherborn & Jentink (1895, p. 150) and Holthuis (1953, p. 37) for
the dates of publication). The type material from Table Bay is now lost. The original
description was short and by modern standards very incomplete and cannot be
definitely reconciled with any single species known today. G. subspinosa Stimpson,
1860 (p. 22) was described from Simon’s Bay; the fate of its type material is unknown.
G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (p. 22, pl. 2, fig. 4) was described from Port Elizabeth. The
holotype of this species is in the Zoological Museum, Strasbourg; it isa male without its
abdomen (cephalothorax length 19.5 mm). Although in rather poor condition, it still
shows the main characteristics of the species.

2. Since 1910 all three species have been referred to the genus Upogebia Leach, [1814]
(pp. 386, 400; see Rathbun, 1897, p. 154, footnote for the date of publication). Until
1947 there was confusion between the three taxa and usually only one nominal species,
U. capensis, was recognised (see, for example, Stebbing, 1900, p. 45; Stebbing, 1910;
Balss, 1916, p. 34; Lenz & Strunck, 1914, p. 291; de Man, 1927, pp. 32-34; de Man,
1928, pp. 37, 41, 51). Barnard (1947, pp. 380, 381; 1950, pp. 514-520, fig. 96) revised the
South African species of Upogebia and concluded that two species were involved:
U. capensis (Krauss), characterised by a subdistal spine on the upper border of the
merus of pereopod | and coxal spines on pereopods 1-3, and U. africana (Ortmann),

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

characterised by the absence of these spines. Stimpson’s nominal species Gebia
subspinosa was considered to be a synonym of U. capensis as the presence of coxal
spines was mentioned in its original description.

3. Barnard’s taxonomic arrangement has been generally adopted and at least 15 papers
have been published since 1950 using his nomenclature. Besides agreeing on Barnard’s
morphological definition of the species, several authors have agreed on their ecologicaland
geographical separation which is consistent with their type localities. There are no river
outlets in Table Bay, and Krauss’s material of U. capensis was therefore almost certainly
from a marine rather than an estuarine habitat; the species is currently regarded as mainly
marine to 80 metres depth, from southwestern and southern Africa between Lideritz and
Mossel Bay (Hill, 1981; Branch & Branch, 1981; Kensley, 1981). U. africana is estuarine
to 18 metres depth mostly in eastern South Africa between Olifants River and Natal
(Siegfried, 1962; Hill, 1977; Branch & Branch, 1981; Kensley, 1981; Hanekom, 1982;
Martin & Baird, 1987; Hanekom & Erasmus, 1988; Zoutendyk & Bickerton, 1988). A
further six references demonstrate this usage (Schaefer, 1970; Hill & Allanson, 1971;
Ngoc-Ho, 1979, 1991; Emmerson, 1983; Atkinson & Taylor, 1988) and this is the usage
in general marine biology texts in South Africa.

4. Sakai (1982, p. 44, fig. 9c, pls. A6, D5—6) selected a neotype for Upogebia capensis
(Krauss, 1843) from material collected from Knysna, eastern South Africa by Hartmann
in 1967, and originally identified as africana Ortmann, 1894 (see Hartmann-Schroder &
Hartmann, 1974, p. 49). The specimen is a male, 55 mm in total length, housed in the
Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg (catalogue no. ZMH 30877, selected from material
originally registered as ZMH 29852). Sakai considered that U. africana was a junior
synonym of U. capensis, and his selection of a neotype for capensis from material
commonly assigned to U. africana in effect sank the latter name. The name U. subspinosa
was revived by Sakai for what has beencommonly called U. capensis, and the latter name
was applied to U. africana (as defined by the holotype and as generally understood).

5. Sakai’s (1982) selection of a neotype for Upogebia capensis has been ignored,
probably not deliberately, by 10 authors in seven ecological papers since 1982 (see para.
3 above) and followed by only one (Holthuis, 1991, p. 233), who noted the unfortunate
consequence that the name capensis has been transferred from one species to the
other. The neotype upsets the nomenclature generally adopted since Barnard’s (1947).
and (1950) papers, and it came from material collected at the Knysna estuary (G.
Hartmann, personal communication) which is not only far from Table Bay but is
ecologically different and outside the geographical range of Upogebia capensis as gener-
ally understood (see Kensley, 1981, p. 31). In order to preserve the current usage of
Upogebia capensis we propose that Sakai’s (1982) neotype should be set aside and a
replacement selected from material corresponding to the U. capensis of authors,
collected in a marine environment, within the accepted geographical range and as close
as practicable to the original type locality. The proposed replacement neotype, speci-
men no. 14895 in the South African Museum, Cape Town, was determined by K.H.
Barnard as an ovigerous female with carapace length 22 mm and total length 65 mm; it
is from Saldanha Bay, South Africa.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the neotype designation of Sakai (1982) for

Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 and to designate in its place specimen no.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 189

14895 in the South African Museum, for which the data are given in para. 5
above;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) capensis Krauss, 1843, as published in the trinomen Gebia major var. capensis
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) africana Ortmann, 1894, as published in the binomen Gebia africana.

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof L.B. Holthuis for comments on this proposal, and Dr G. Hartmann
(Zoologische Museum, Hamburg) and Ms M. van der Merve (South African Museum)
for the loan of material.

References

Atkinson, R.J.A. & Taylor, A.C. 1988. Physiological ecology of burrowing decapods. Symposia
of the Zoological Society of London, 59: 201-226.

Balss, H. 1916. Crustacea II: Decapoda Macrura und Anomura (ausser Fam. Paguridae).
Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Meeresfaune Westafrikas, 2(1): 11-46.

Barnard, K.H. 1947. Descriptions of new species of South African decapod Crustacea, with notes
on synonymy and new records. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (11)13(102):
361-392.

Barnard, K.H. 1950. Descriptive catalogue of South African decapod Crustacea (crabs and
shrimps). Annals of the South African Museum, 38: 1-837.

Branch, G. & Branch, M. 1981. The living shore of South Africa. 272 pp., 60 pls., 388 figs. Struik,
Cape Town.

Emmerson, W.D. 1983. Tidal exchange of two decapod larvae Palaemon pacificus (Caridea) and
Upogebia africana (Thalassinidea) between the Swartkops River estuary and adjacent
coastal waters. South African Journal of Zoology, 18(4): 326-330.

Haan, W. de. [1841], [1849]. Crustacea. In Siebold, P.F. de, Fauna Japonica, sive Leer
animalium, quae in intinere per Japoniam... annis 1823-1830 collegit. P\s. 33-37, 39-42, 47
[1841]; pp. 165-243 [1849]. Lugduni-Batavorum.

Hanekom, N.M. 1982. A study of two thalassinid prawns in the non-Spartina regions of the
Swartkops estuary. Occasional Bulletin of the Zoological Society of Southern Africa, 2:
99-100.

Hanekom, N.M. & Erasmus, T. 1988. Variations in size compositions of populations of Upogebia
africana (Ortmann) (Decapoda, Crustacea) within the Swartkops Estuary and possible
influencing factors. South African Journal of Zoology, 23(4): 259-265.

Hartmann-Schroder, G. & Hartmann, G. 1974. Zur Kenntnis des Eulitorals der afrikanischen
Westkiste zwischen Angola und Kap der Guten Hoffnung und der afrikanischen Ostkuste
von Sudafrika und Mocambique unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Polychaeten und
Ostracoden. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut, 69
(Erganzungsband): 1-514.

Hill, B.J. 1977. The effect of heated effluent on egg production in the estuarine prawn
Upogebia africana (Ortmann). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 29(3):
291-302.

Hill, B.J. 1981. Respiratory adaptations of three species of Upogebja (Thalassinidea, Crustacea)
with special reference to low tide periods. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, 160(2): 272-279.

Hill, B.J. & Allanson, B.R. 1971. Temperature tolerance of the estuarine prawn Upogebia
africana. Marine Biology, 11(4): 337-343.

Holthuis, L.B. 1953. On the dates of publication of W. de Haan’s volume on the Crustacea of P.F.
von Siebold’s ‘Fauna Japonica’. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural
History, 3(1): 36-47.

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Holthuis, L.B. 1991. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 13. Marine lobsters of the world. An annotated
and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries known to date. FAO Fisheries
Synopsis, 125(13): 1-292.

Kensley, B. 1981. On the zoogeography of southern African decapod Crustacea, with a distri-
butional checklist of the species. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 338: \—64.

Krauss, F. 1843. Die Stidafrikanischen Crustaceen. Eine Zusammenstellung aller bekannten
Malacostraca... 68 pp., 4 pls. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.

Leach, W.E. [1813]-{1814]. Crustaceology. Jn: Brewster, D. (Ed.), The Edinburgh Encyclopedia,
vol. 7. Part 1, pp. 383-384 [1813]; part 2, pp. 385-437 [1814].

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 genera composing three of these
classes into orders, & c, and descriptions of several new genera and species. Transactions of
the Linnean Society of London, 11(2): 306-400.

Lenz, H. & Strunk, K. 1914. Die Dekapoden der Deutschen Stidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. 1.
Brachyuren und Macruren mit Ausschluss der Sergestiden. Deutsche Stidpolar-Expedition,
Zoologie, 15(7,3): 257-345.

Man, J.G. de. 1927. A contribution to the knowledge of twenty-one species of Upogebia Leach.
Capita Zoologica, 2(5): 1—S8.

Man, J.G. de. 1928. The Decapoda of the Siboga Expedition. Part 7. The Thalassinidae and
Callianassidae collected by the Siboga-Expedition with some remarks on the Laomediidae.
Siboga-Expeditie, 39a(6): 1-187.

Martin, A.P. & Baird, D. 1987. Seasonal abundance and distribution of birds on the Swartkops
estuary, Port Elisabeth. Ostrich, 58(3): 122-134.

Ngoc-Ho, N. 1979. A taxoriomic study of six species of Upogebia Leach (Crustacea, Decapoda,
Thalassinidea) in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History), London. Bulletin
of the British Museum ( Natural History), Zoology, 35(2): 127-200.

Ngoc-Ho, N. 1991. Sur quelques Callianassidae et Upogebiidae de la Nouvelle Calédonie
(Crustacea, Thalassinidea). Pp. 281-311 in Richer de Forges, B. (Ed.), Le benthos des fonds
meubles de Nouvelle-Calédonie, vol. 1. ORSTOM Editions, Paris.

Ortmann, A. 1894. Crustaceen. Zoologische Forschungsreisen in Australien und dem
Malayischen Archipel. Denkschriften der Medicinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft
zu Jena, 8: 3-80.

Rathbun, M.J. 1897. Revision of nomenclature of the Brachyura. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, 11: 153-167.

Sakai, K. 1982. Revision of Upogebiidae (Decapoda, Thalassinidea) in the Indo-West Pacific
region. Researches on Crustacea. The Carcinological Society of Japan, Special Number, 1:
1-106.

Schaefer, N. 1970. The functional morphology of the foregut of three species of decapod
crustacea: Cyclograpsus punctatus (Milne-Edwards), Diogenes brevirostris Stimpson, and
Upogebia africana (Ortmann). Zoologica Africana, 5(2): 309-326.

Sherborn, C.D. & Jentink, F.A. 1895. On the dates of the parts of Siebold’s ‘Fauna Japonica’ and
Giebel’s ‘Allgemeine Zoologie’ (first edition). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London, 1895: 149-150. ;

Siegfried, W.R. 1962. A preliminary report on the biology of the mud-prawn Upogebia africana
(Ortmann). /nvestigational Report. Department of Nature Conservation, 1: 24.

Stebbing, T.R.R. 1900. South African Crustacea. Marine Investigations in South Africa, 1: 14-66.

Stebbing, T.R.R. 1910. General catalogue of South African Crustacea. Annals of the South
African Museum, 6: 281-593.

Stimpson, W. 1860. Prodromus descriptionis animalium evertebratorum, quae in Expeditione ad
Oceanum Pacificum Septentrionalem, a Republica Federata missa, Cadwaladaro Ringgold
et Johanne Rodgers Ducibus, observavit et descripsit. Pars VIII: Crustacea Macrura.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 12: 22-47.

Zoutendyk, P. & Bickerton, I. 1988. Burrow identification of some estuarine organisms. South
African Journal of Zoology, 23(3): 235-238.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 19]

Case 2828

Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed
conservation of P. vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 as the type species

D.B. Thomas

USDA-ARS Subtropical Agricultural Research Station, 2301 South
International Boulevard, Weslaco, Texas 78596, U.S.A.

W.R. Dolling

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Podisus Herrich-
Schaeffer, 1851 in its accustomed usage for a genus of predatory stink-bugs important
as biological control agents. Kirkaldy’s (1909) designation of P. vittipennis Herrich-
Schaeffer, 1851 as the type species is preceded by Schouteden’s (1907) designation of
P. punctipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851. The earlier designation would make Podisus a
junior subjective synonym of Apateticus Dallas, 1851, and the genus as universally
understood would be replaced by Te/epta Stal, 1860, rejected as a junior synonym of
Podisus for over 120 years.

1. In July 1851, Dallas (p. 105) established the genus Apateticus for a single new
species halys (p. 105). This specific name is a synonym of the older name Halys lineolata
Herrich-Schaeffer, 1840 (p. 69) giving the valid combination Apateticus lineolatus
(Herrich-Schaeffer).

2. In November 1851, Herrich-Schaeffer (p. 296) established the genus Podisus for
some previously described but unspecified species, plus five new ones which he named:
punctipennis (p. 338), which is a junior synonym of Apateticus lineolatus (Herrich-
Schaeffer, 1840); strigipes (p. 338), which has been transferred to Perillus Stal, 1862;
vittipennis (p. 339); pallipes (p. 339); albiseptus (p. 339). No type species was designated.

3. Stal (1860, p. 10) proposed the nominal genus Telepta to contain six species but
did not fix any of them as type species. Subsequently, Kirkaldy (1909, p. xviii) desig-
nated T. crassimargo Stal, 1860 as the type species of Te/epta. Stal (1870, p. 49) himself
placed Telepta in synonymy with Podisus.

4. Distant (1902, p. 254) stated that /ineolatus was the type species of Podisus.
However, this was not a valid type species designation under the modern Code, since
lineolatus was not one of the nominal species originally included by Herrich-Schaeffer
when he proposed Podisus and Distant did not cite the synonymy of /ineolatus with any
of the originally included nominal species.

5. Schouteden (1907, p. 70), presumably relying on the type species selection by
Distant (1902) but not actually citing him, stated: ‘D’ailleurs le type de Podisus et de
Apateticus est le méme et il fallait deja nommer a nouveau le sous-genre Podisus

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

s. str. des auteurs antérieurs’. Schouteden noted that ‘le type du genre (et sous-genre)
Apateticus est A. lineolatus Herrich-Schaeffer (Halys Dallas)...’. In the list of species
Schouteden cited the synonymy of /ineolatus with punctipennis thereby, under Article
69a(v) of the Code, validly designating punctipennis as the type of Podisus. Schouteden
recognized that Podisus thus became a synonym of the older name Apateticus Dallas,
having synonymous type species. Schouteden (1907, p. 68) proposed a new genus
Eupodisus to hold those species previously placed under Podisus, listing Eupodisus as a
subgenus of Apateticus and placing Telepta Stal as a synonym of his new name.
Schouteden (p. 70) designated Apateticus modestus Dallas, 1851 as type species of
Eupodisus.

6. Kirkaldy (1909, p. xxviii) rejected Schouteden’s arrangement and selected
Podisus vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer as type species of Podisus. Kirkaldy (p. 18) placed
Eupodisus and Telepta as synonyms of Podisus, listing Podisus as a subgenus of
Apateticus.

7. All subsequent workers have considered Podisus and Apateticus as separate
genera. Since Schouteden (1907) and Kirkaldy (1909), none of the species listed by
them under the genus-group names Podisus or Eupodisus has appeared in the primary
literature in combination with Apateticus, Telepta, Eupodisus or any genus-group name -
other than Podisus. In one instance the combination Apateticus (Eupodisus) mellipes
(Bergroth, 1891) appeared in a book on Brazilian insects (Costa-Lima, 1940, p. 49).
This single usage may be sufficient to prevent Eupodisus Schouteden, 1907 from being
thought of as an unused name, but it is still a junior subjective synonym of Te/epta Stal,
1860. The generic name Podisus is well established in the ecological literature since it
contains several ecologically important species. For example, McPherson (1980) pro-
vided a bibliography of 74 published articles on the prey of just one species, Podisus
maculiventris Say, 1831. A list of a further 20 recent publications on Podisus is held by
the Commission Secretariat.

8. If Schouteden’s validation of Distant’s selection of Apateticus lineolatus (=
Podisus punctipennis) is allowed to stand, then the genus long known as Podisus would
be called Telepta, a name which has not been used since it was proposed in 1860 and put
into synonymy by Stal in 1870.

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly _
asked:

(1) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Podisus Herrich-
Schaeffer, 1851 prior to the designation by Kirkaldy (1909) of Podisus vittipennis
Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Podisus
Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Kirkaldy (1909) Podisus vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vittipennis
Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851, as published in the binomen Podisus vittipennis (specific
name of the type species of Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851).

References

Costa Lima, A.D. 1940. Insetos do Brasil, vol. 2, capitulo xxii. Hemipteros. 351 pp. Escola
Nacional de Agronomia, Rio de Janeiro.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 193

Dallas, W.S. 1851. List of the specimens of hemipterous insects in the collection of the British
Museum, part 1. 364 pp. British Museum, London.

Distant, W.L. 1902. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Rhynchota, vol. |
(Heteroptera). 438 pp. Secretary of State for India, London.

Herrich-Schdeffer, G.A.W. 1840. Pp. 61-108 in: Die wanzenartigen Insecten, vol. 5, part 2.
Zeh’schen Buchhandlung, Nurnberg.

Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1851. Pp. 257-348 in: Die wanzenartigen Insecten, vol. 9, part 6.
Lotzbeck, Nurnberg.

Kirkaldy, G.W. 1909. Catalogue of the Hemiptera (Heteroptera), vol. 1 (Cimicidae). x1, 392 pp.
Dames, Berlin.

McPherson, J.E. 1980. A list of the prey species of Podisus maculiventris (Hemiptera:
Pentatomidae). Great Lakes Entomologist, 13: 17-24.

Schouteden, H. 1907. Heteroptera, fam. Pentatomidae, subfam. Asopinae (Amyoteinae). Jn
Wytsman, P.A.G. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, part 52. 82 pp. Wytsman, Bruxelles.

Stal, C. 1860. Bidrag till Rio Janeiro-traktens, hemipter-fauna. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-
Akademiens Handlingar, 2(7): 1-84.

Stal, C. 1870. Enumeratio Hemipterorum. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Handlingar, 9(1): 1-232.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Case 2795

ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence
over CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819

Hans Silfverberg

Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, N. Jarnvadgsgatan 13, SF-00100
Helsingfors, Finland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the well known beetle family
name ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (type genus Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762) by giving it
precedence over CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 (type genus Choragus Kirby, 1819).

1. The genus Choragus and family CHORAGIDAE were introduced by Kirby (1819,
p. 447) for the single species C. sheppardi (p. 448).
2. The name ANTHRIBIDAE was introduced by Billberg (1820, p. 39, as Anthribides).
The type genus is Anthribus; the history of this name has been discussed by Kerzhner
(BZN 48: 118), who has proposed that it be conserved with the authorship of Geoffroy
(1762, p. 306). Isupport Kerzhner’s proposals and, on the assumption that they will be
accepted by the Commission, I do not suggest below any action concerning Anthribus
or the name of its type species (see proposals (1)(c), (6)(c) and (9)(h) on BZN 48: 126,
127 and 129). Nominal species were first included in Anthribus by Forster (1770), and
A. fasciatus Forster, 1770 (p. 5) was designated as type species by Jordan (1931, p. 287).
3. The family name ANTHRIBIDAE has been used in numerous works, relating to all
parts of the world. CHORAGINAE has been used occasionally at subfamily rank within
the ANTHRIBIDAE, but so far as I know never for a family-group taxon containing
Anthribus, even when its priority Over ANTHRIBIDAE has been acknowledged (see
Holloway, 1982, p. 14). A change of the well established usage would only cause
confusion. A list of 11 representative works to illustrate the usage of ANTHRIBIDAE has
been given to the Commission Secretariat.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name ANTHRIBIDAE
Billberg, 1820 is to be given precedence over the name CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Choragus
Kirby, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Choragus sheppardi
Kirby, 1819;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name sheppardi
Kirby, 1819, as published in the binomen Choragus sheppardi (specific name of
the type species of Choragus Kirby, 1819);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (type genus Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Anthribus are to
be given precedence over those based on Choragus Kirby, 1819;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 195

(b) CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 (type genus Choragus Kirby, 1819), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Choragus are
not to be given priority over those based on Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762.

References

Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. ii, 138 pp. Gadelianis,
Stockholm.

Forster, J.R. 1770. A catalogue of British insects. 16 pp. Eyres, Warrington.

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris. Vol. 1,
Xxvili, 523 pp. Durand, Paris.

Holloway, B.A. 1982. Anthribidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Fauna of New Zealand, no. 3. 264 pp.
DSIR, Wellington.

Jordan, K. 1931. Anthribidae versus Platystomidae. Novitates Zoologicae, 36: 281-287.

Kirby, W. 1819. A century of insects, including several new genera described from his cabinet.
Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 375-482.

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Case 2811

Catocala connubialis Guenée, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Lawrence F. Gall

Entomology Division, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut 06511, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
Connubial Underwing moth Catocala connubialis Guenée, 1852. This name is threat-
ened by its unused senior synonym Phalaena amasia Smith, 1797 which was long
thought to be invalid as a junior secondary homonym of Catocala amasia (Esper).
However, it is now known that Esper’s name was not published until 1804. Smith’s
name amasia is therefore available and it is now proposed that it be suppressed.

1. In 1797, J.E. Smith (p. 179) described and named as Phalaena amasia a new
species of Catocala Schrank, 1802 from Virginia and Georgia. He figured two speci-
mens on pl. xc, a male (upper right) and a female (lower left), stating: ‘In this species the
sexes differ more than usual in the colour of their upper wings. From the beautiful male
our character is taken, according to general custom in insects as well as birds; but it
applies also to the female as much as possible’. Early Nearctic Catocala workers
recognized that the two specimens figured as amasia were not conspecific. The name
amasia was subsequently restricted to the male upon which Smith had based his diag-
nosis. Smith’s figured female was referred to Catocala similis Edwards, 1864 (see Grote
& Robinson, 1866; Hulst, 1884; Smith, 1893; Dyar, 1903).

2. At the close of the 18th century, in Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen..., Esper
described a Catocala species from Turkey as Noctua amasia. Throughout the 19th and
20th century literature the date of Esper’s work was cited as 1796 (see Hampson, 1913, .
p. 115; Nye, 1975, p. 198); Sherborn & Woodward (1901, p. 139) accepted this date.
Only recently has it been shown (Heppner, 1981, p. 253) that both the text (Theil 4,
Band 2, Abschnitt 2, p. 55) and illustrations (Theil 4, Band 2, Abschnitt 1, pl. 194, figs.
1-2) comprising the description of amasia Esper were in fact not published until 1804.

3. In his catalogue of the NocTUIDAE, Hampson (1913) placed amasia Esper as a
synonym of Phalaena puerpera Giorna, 1791 (p. 104), and amasia Smith as a species in
the genus Ephesia Hiibner, 1818 (p. 11). In the Seitz volumes, Warren (1914) followed
Hampson’s treatment of these two taxa.

4. In their revision of the Nearctic Catocala, Barnes & McDunnough (1918, p. 17)
showed that Hampson’s division of Catocala into separate genera on the basis of adult
leg spination was without merit, and placed Ephesia and Hampson’s other genera as
synonyms of Catocala. Nearctic workers (e.g. McDunnough, 1938; Forbes, 1954;
Sargent, 1976; Hodges, 1983; Covell, 1984) have universally followed Barnes &
McDunnough’s generic treatment; indeed, Catocala is the only genus used by most
Nearctic workers since the latter part of the 19th century. In the post-Hampson

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 197

Palearctic literature, Ephesia was treated as a valid genus by some authors (e.g. Draudt,
1939; Forster & Wohlfahrt, 1971) or subgenus (Agenjo, 1959). However, more recent
Palearctic workers (e.g. Martin, 1980; Inouye et al., 1982; Sugi et al., 1987) have treated
Ephesia as-a synonym of Catocala. Poole, in his Catalogue of the World Noctuidae
(1989), transferred to Catocala all taxa originally described in Ephesia and the other
Hampsonian genera.

5. Beutenmiuller (1907, p. 146) was apparently the first Nearctic worker to address
the secondary homonymy involving amasia that occurs by treating Catocala as the only
valid-generic name. He resolved this homonymy by citing amasia Smith, 1797 as
preoccupied by amasia Esper which he thought to date from 1786. He then placed
Catocala amasia Smith under the synonymy of Catocala cordelia Edwards, 1880 (p. 59).
Barnes & McDunnough (1917, 1918) followed Beutenmiiller’s taxonomic treatment,
differing only in dating amasia Esper to 1796. McDunnough (1938, p. 118) later moved
cordelia to the synonymy of Catocala connubialis Guenée, 1852 (p. 105), and it is now
widely recognized that cordelia and amasia were names given to a morph that can be
bred from connubialis females (and vice versa).

6. Since 1938 connubialis Guenée has appeared exclusively as the specific name in the
Nearctic Catocala literature. The name has been used in the two subsequent descrip-

_ tions of new forms for the species (Brower, 1940; Muller, 1960) and other taxonomic

works on Catocala (Gall & Hawks, 1990); a book devoted to Catocala (Sargent, 1976):
three principal monographs and catalogues treating moths (Forbes, 1954; Hodges,
1983; Poole, 1989); a field guide to moths (Covell, 1984); regional faunistic treatments
(Tietz, 1952; Ferguson, 1953; Kimball, 1965; Brower, 1974; Nelson & Loy, 1983); the
experimental zoological literature (Sargent, 1974; Sargent & Owen, 1975; Gall, 1991);
and throughout numerous shorter reports on Catocala distributions and life histories
including the annual Season Summaries of the Lepidopterists’ Society. Hodges’s (1983)
list cites ‘amasia (J.E. Smith, 1797), part’ under the synonymy of Catocala similis, but
omits amasia from the synonymy of connubialis, and Poole’s (1989) catalogue fails to
mention J.E. Smith’s name. The original edition (Holland, 1903) of the Moth Book
treated amasia Smith as a valid nominal species, and several reprintings during the first
half of the 20th century retained the old 1903 taxonomy. Hence, the reprinted Moth
Book fell badly out of step with taxonomic treatments reported in the literature, as was
acknowledged in the prefaces and introductions to later volumes. Only in 1968, when
Holland’s tome was republished with taxonomic emendations by A.E. Brower, was the
name connubialis Guenée finally substituted for amasia Smith. Nevertheless, it is clear
that the Moth Book reprintings had no significant impact on the already long accepted
usage of the name connubialis.

7. As outlined above, the name amasia Smith, 1797 has since the works of
Beutenmiuller (1907) and Barnes & McDunnough (1917, 1918) been erroneously
treated as a junior, rather than senior, secondary homonym of amasia Esper in the

- genus Catocala. To reintroduce amasia Smith as a senior synonym of connubialis

Guenée, 1852 would upset long-standing nomenclatural usage.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name amasia Smith, 1797, as
published in the binomen Phalaena amasia, for the purposes of the Principle of
_Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name connubialis
Guenée, 1852, as published in the binomen Catocala connubialis;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name amasia Smith, 1797, as published in the binomen Phalaena amasia and
as suppressed 1n (1) above.

References

Agenjo, R. 1959. Las Catocala Schrk., 1802, espanolas, con mas amplias consideraciones
respecto a las de mayor interés forestal (Lep. Noct.). Eos (Madrid), 35: 301-384.

Barnes, W. & McDunnough, J. 1917. Check list of the Lepidoptera of boreal America. 392 pp.
Herald Press, Decatur.

Barnes, W. & McDunnough, J. 1918. Illustrations of the North American species of the genus
Catocala. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, (2)3: 1-47.

Beutenmiiller, W. 1907. Notes on and descriptions of new forms of Catocala. Bulletin of the
American Museum of Natural History, 23: 145-151.

Brower, A.E. 1940. Descriptions of some new Macrolepidoptera from eastern America. Bulletin
of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 35: 138-140.

Brower, A.E. 1974. A list of the Lepidoptera of Maine — Part 1, the Macrolepidoptera. Univer-
sity of Maine (Orono) Life Sciences and Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin,
66: 1-136.

Covell, C.V. 1984. A field guide to the moths of eastern North America. 496 pp. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston.

Dyar, H.G. 1903. A list of North American Lepidoptera and key to the literature of this order of
insects. 723 pp. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Edwards, H. 1880. Notes upon the genus Carocala, with descriptions of new varieties and species.
Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 3: 53-62.

Edwards, W.H. 1864. Descriptions of certain species of Catocala, found within the United States.
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 2: 508-512.

Esper, E.J.C. [1804]a. Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen.
Theil 4 (Die Eulenphalenen). Band 2. Abschnitt 1. Pp. 373-698, pls. 184-198. Walthers,
Erlangen.

Esper, E.J.C. [1804]b. Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen.
Theil 4 (Die Eulenphalenen). Band 2. Abschnitt 2. Pp. 1-85. Walthers, Erlangen.

Ferguson, D.C. 1953. The Lepidoptera of Nova Scotia: part 1, Macrolepidoptera. Proceedings of
the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, 23: 1-375. :

Forbes, W.T.M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. III. Noctuidae.
Memoirs of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, 329: 1-433.

Forster, W. & Wohlfahrt, T.A. 1971. Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas, vol. 4 (Eulen,
Noctuidae). 329 pp. Keller, Stuttgart.

Gall, L.F. 1991. Evolutionary ecology of sympatric Catocala moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
III. Experiments on female oviposition preference. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera,
29: 217-233.

Gall, L.F. & Hawks, D.C. 1990. Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae). I. Type material in the Strecker collection, with lectotype designations.
Fieldiana (Zoology), (2)59: 1-16.

Giorna, M.E. 1791. Calendario entomologico, ossia osservazioni sulla stagioni proprie agl’ insetti
nel clima Piemontese, e particolarmente ne’ contorni di Torino. 146 pp. Torino.

Grote, A.R. & Robinson, C.T. 1866. Lepidopterological notes and descriptions, no. 2. Proceed-
ings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 6: 1-30.

Guenée, A. 1852. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Species général des Lépidoptéres, vol. 7
(Noctuelites), part 3. 441 pp. Roret, Paris.

Hampson, G.F. 1913. Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Phalaenae in the British Museum, vol. 12. 626
pp. British Museum, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 199

Heppner, J.B. 1981. The dates of E.J.C. Esper’s Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen... 1776-
[1830]. Archives of Natural History, 10: 251-254.

Hodges, R.W. 1983. Check list of the Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico. 284 pp. University
Press, Cambridge.

Holland, W.J. 1903. The moth book. 479 pp. Doubleday, Page & Co., New York.

Holland, W.J. 1968. The moth book (unabridged republication of the 1903 Doubleday edition,
with annotations and foreword by A. E. Brower). 479 pp. Dover, New York.

Hiibner, J. 1818. Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, bestehend in Bekundigung
einzelner Fliegmuster neuer oder rarer nichteuropdischer Gattungen. Erstes Hundert. 40 pp.,
35 pls., figs. 1-200 (plates published [1808—1818]). Augsburg.

Hulst,G.D. 1884. The genus Catocala. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 3: 14-56.

Inouye, H., Sugi, S., Kuroko, H., Moriuti, S. & Kawabe, A. 1982. Moths of Japan, vol. 2. 552 pp.
Kodansha, Tokyo.

Kimball, C.P. 1965. The Lepidoptera of Florida: an annotated checklist. 363 pp. State of Florida
Department of Agriculture, Gainesville.

Martin, M. 1980. [On the morphology of the genitalia of genera Mormonia Hb., Catocala
Schrk., and Ephesia Hb. (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)]. Uchenye Zapiski Tartuskogo
Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 13(516): 36-53. [In Russian.]

McDunnough, J. 1938. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of
America. Part 1. Macrolepidoptera. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of
Sciences, 1: 1-272.

Muller, J. 1960. A new melanic form of Catocala connubialis from New Jersey (Noctuidae).
Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 14: 177.

Nelson, J.M. & Loy, P.W. 1983. The Underwing Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) of Oklahoma.

Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 63: 60-67.

Nye, I.W.B. 1975. The generic names of moths of the world, vol. 1 (Noctuiodea (part): Noctuidae,
Agaristidae, and Nolidae). 568 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Poole, R.W. 1989. Noctuidae, part 3. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, (2)118: 1015-1314.

Sargent, T.D. 1974. Melanism in moths of central Massachusetts (Noctuidae, Geometridae).
Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 28: 145-152.

Sargent, T.D. 1976. Legion of night: the Underwing Moths. 222 pp. University of Massachusetts
Press, Amherst.

Sargent, T.D. & Owen, D.F. 1975. Apparent stability in hindwing diversity in samples of moths
of varying species composition. Oikos, 26: 205-210.

Schrank, F.P. 1802. Fauna Bioica. Durchgedachte Geschichte der in Baiern einheimischen und
zahmen Thiere, vol. 2. 173 pp. Krull, Ingolstadt.

Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. The dates of Esper’s ‘Schmetterlinge’. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, (7)7(37): 137-140.

Smith, J.B. 1893. A catalogue, bibliographical and synonymical, of the species of moths of the
lepidopterous superfamily Noctuidae, found in boreal America. Bulletin of the United
States National Museum, 44: 1-424.

Smith, J.E. 1797. The natural history of the rarer lepidopterous insects of Georgia including their
systematic characters, the particulars of their several metamorphoses, and the plants on which
they feed. Collected from the observations of Mr. John Abbot many years resident in that
country, vol. 2. Pp. 101-214, pls. 51-104. Bensley, London.

Sugi, S., Yamamoto, M., Nakatomi, K., Sato, R., Nakajima, H. & Owada, M. 1987. Larvae of the
larger moths in Japan. 453 pp. Kodansha, Tokyo.

Tietz, H.M. 1952. The Lepidoptera of Pennsylvania. 194 pp. Pennsylvania Agricultural
Experiment Station, Pennsylvania State College of Agriculture.

Warren, W. 1914. Subfamily Catocalinae, pp. 301-444 in: Seitz, A. (Ed.) The Macrolepidoptera of
the world. Section I: The Macrolepidoptera of the Palearctic Region. Tome III: Noctuiform
Phalaenae. Kernen, Stuttgart.

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Case 2793

METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera), METOPIINI
Raffray, 1904 (Insecta, Coleoptera), and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908
(Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of homonymy

Margaret K. Thayer & Alfred F. Newton, Jr.

Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.

Thomas Pape
Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Kobenhavn @, Denmark

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to avoid homonymous family-group names
in three orders of Insecta. It is proposed that the complete generic names of Metopias
Gory, 1832 and Metopia Meigen, 1803 be adopted as the stems for the corresponding
family-group names, giving METOPIASINI Raffray, 1904 (Coleoptera) and METOPIAINI
Townsend, 1908 (Diptera). The subfamily name METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868
(Hymenoptera) based on Metopius Panzer, 1806 would remain unchanged.

1. Family-group names based on the stem METOPI- are in use in three orders of
Insecta: METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868 (Hymenoptera, ICHNEUMONIDAE), METOPIINI
Raffray, 1904 (Coleoptera, PSELAPHIDAE) and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Diptera,
SARCOPHAGIDAE). All three names are cited by Handlirsch (1925, p. 578 (Coleoptera),
p. 738 (Hymenoptera), p. 1025 (Diptera)), but the homonymy has never been con-
fronted. The three names are based on non-homonymous generic names having ident-
ical stems. In accordance with Article 55b of the Code this case is referred to the
Commission.

2. The name ‘Metopioidae’ was first used by Foerster (1868, pp. 142, 159) for a
family of ichneumons, based on Metopius Panzer, 1806 (p. 78). This name is in general
use as the subfamily METOPIINAE. Some recent uses in major works are: Townes &
Townes (1959, p. 3), Townes (1971, p. 89), Fitton & Gauld (1976, p. 254), Krombein
et al. (1979, p. 547) and Fitton (1984, p. 353). The METOPIINAE are a world-wide group of
over 500 species, all parasitic on Lepidoptera (Townes & Townes, 1959; Fitton, 1984).
The type species of Metopius, Sphex vespoides Scopoli, 1763 (p. 296), was designated by
Viereck (1912, p. 176).

3. The name METOPIINI Raffray (1904, p. 106), based on Metopias Gory, 1832 (pl. 42;
type species by monotypy Metopias curculionoides Gory, 1832), was proposed for a
tribe of PSELAPHIDAE (Coleoptera). This name has been in general use, including the
following works: Raffray (1908, p. 186; 1911, p. 76), Park (1942, p. 204; 1951, pp. 61, 62;
1952, pp. 13, 14), Comellini (1983, p. 437) and Newton & Chandler (1989, p. 41).
Jeannel (1949, p. 42; 1955, p. 8) used the spelling METOPIASINI without explanation,
attributing the name to Raffray. Metopias has been used from the start as masculine.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 201

As a masculine Greek noun ending in -as it has the stem METoPI- (Code, p. 209,
Appendix D) so Jeannel’s spelling is incorrect, although we recommend its adoption
(see below). The METOPIINI Raffray are a small Neotropical group of about 40 species of
no known economic importance.

4. The name METOPIINI was proposed by Townsend (1908, p. 64) for a tribe of
Diptera, implicitly based on Metopia Meigen, 1803 (p. 280). This name has been
commonly used for a tribe of SARCOPHAGIDAE, subfamily MILTOGRAMMATINAE, for
instance by Rohdendorf (1935, p. 95; 1967, p. 66), Lopes et al. (1977, p. 560), Verves
(1986- p. 88; 1989, p. 117) and Lopes (1989, p. 723), although other authors have
avoided any subdivisions of the MILTOGRAMMATINAE (e.g. Downes, 1965, p. 936;
Shewell, 1987, p. 1185 and Pape 1987, p. 27). The sarcophagid METOPIINI are wide-
spread in all zoogeographical regions but with greatest diversity in the Palearctic. The
biology of the more than 100 species is poorly known, but several are kleptoparasites in
nests of sphecid wasps and solitary bees (Ferrar, 1987). The type species of Metopia is
by monotypy Musca leucocephala ‘Panzer’ (i.e. Rossi, 1790, p. 306), a senior subjective
synonym of Tachina argyrocephala Meigen, 1824 (p. 372; see Stein, 1900, p. 132) but a
junior primary homonym of Musca leucocephala de Villers, 1789. Brauer (1893, p. 503)
invalidly gave T. argyrocephala as the type species.

5. Of the three homonymous family-group names discussed above, METOPIINAE
Foerster, 1868 in the Hymenoptera is the oldest, has been in the most widespread use,
and applies to the largest and most highly-ranked group. It therefore seems advisable to
allow this name to stand as valid.

6. METOPIINI Raffray, 1904 in the Coleoptera is also in general use and has no
available synonyms (Newton & Chandler, 1989). In our opinion the best course would
be to emend the stem of the type genus to remove the homonymy with METOPIINAE
Foerster and establish a family-group name recognizably based on Metopias.

7. METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 in the Diptera has been divided into several subtribes
(Rohdendorf, 1967, p. 66; Verves, 1989, p. 177); the next oldest name among these
could be used as a replacement tribal name. If, in accordance with Verves’s (1989)
concept, a subtribe is recognized with only Metopia included, it would still need a name.
In our opinion, the best course again would be to emend the stem of the type genus
to remove the homonymy with METOPIINAE Foerster and establish a family-group
name clearly based on Metopia.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name
Metopia Meigen, 1803 is METOPIA-;

(b) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name
Metopias Gory, 1832 is METOPIAS-;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Metopia Meigen, 1803 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Musca leucocephala Rossi, 1790 (a senior subjective synonym of Tachina
argyrocephala Meigen, 1824 but a junior primary homonym of Musca
leucocephala de Villers, 1789);

(b) Metopias Gory, 1832 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Metopias curculionoides Gory, 1832;

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

(c) Metopius Panzer, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Viereck (1912) Sphex vespoides Scopoli, 1763;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) argyrocephala Meigen, 1824, as published in the binomen Tachina
argyrocephala (valid subjective synonym of the specific name of Musca
leucocephala Rossi, 1790, the type species of Metopia Meigen, 1803);
(b) curculionoides Gory, 1832, as published in the binomen Metopias
curculionoides (specific name of the type species of Metopias Gory, 1832);
(c) vespoides Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Sphex vespoides
(specific name of the type species of Metopius Panzer, 1806);
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology:
(a) METOPIAINI Townsend, 1908, type genus Metopia Meigen, 1803 (spelling
emended in (1)(a) above) (Insecta, Diptera);
(b) METOPIASINI Raffray, 1904, type genus Metopias Gory, 1832 (spelling
emended in (1)(b) above) (Insecta, Coleoptera);
(c) METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868, type genus Metopius Panzer, 1806 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera);
(5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology:
(a) METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (spelling emended to METOPIAINI in (1)(a) above);
(b) METOPIINI Raffray, 1904 (spelling emended to METOPIASINI in (1)(b) above).

Acknowledgement

We thank Dr C.W. Sabrosky for providing helpful discussion and references regard-
ing usage of METOPIINI in Diptera, and for establishing communication between
M.K.T./A.F.N. and T.P.

References

Brauer, F. 1893. Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Muscaria Schizometopa (exclusive
Anthomyidae). Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Koéniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 43: 447-525. ;

Comellini, A. 1983. Notes sur les Psélaphides néotropicaux (Coleoptera). 4- Le genre Metopioxys
de la tribu des Metopiini. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 90: 437-456.

Downes, W. L., Jr. 1965. Family Sarcophagidae. Pp. 933-961 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W.,
Wirth, W.W., Foote, R.H. & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north
of Mexico. iv, 1696 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.

Ferrar, P. 1987. A guide to the breeding habits and immature stages of Diptera Cyclorrhapha.
Entomonograph, 8: 1-907.

Fitton, M.G. 1984. Subfamily Metopiinae. Pp. 353-363 in Gauld, I.D. (Ed.), An introduction to
the Ichneumonidae of Australia. 413 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Fitton, M.G. & Gauld, I.D. 1976. The family-group names of the Ichneumonidae (excluding
Ichneumoninae) (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology, 1: 247-258.

Foerster, A. 1868. Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Ichneumonen. Verhandlungen des
Naturhistorischen Vereines der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westphalens, 25: 135-221.

Gory, H.L. 1832. Metopias. Metopias. Gory. Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 42 [2 pp. text, 1 pl.].

Handlirsch, A. 1925. Systematische Ubersicht. Pp. 377-1140 in Schréder, C. (Ed.), Handbuch
der Entomologie, vol. 3. (Geschichte, Literatur, Technik, Palaontologie, Phylogenie,
Systematik). viii, 1201 pp. Fischer, Jena.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 203

Jeannel, R. 1949. Les Psélaphides de l'Afrique Orientale (Coleoptera). Mémoires du Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle, (2)29: 1-226.

Jeannel, R. 1955. Les Psélaphides de |’Afrique australe. Mémoires du Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, (A, Zoologie)9(1): 1-196.

Krombein, K. V., Hurd, P. D., Jr., Smith, D. R. & Burks, B. D. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera
in America north of Mexico, vol. 1. xvi, 1198 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington.

Lopes, H. de Souza. 1989. Family Sarcophagidae. Pp. 721—732 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog
of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu & Brill, Leiden.

Lopes;“H. de Souza, Kano, R., Shinonaga, S. & Kurahashi, H. 1977. Family Sarcophagidae.
Pp. 557-583 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the
Oriental Region, vol. 3. x, 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungs Eintheilung der europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger ), 2: 259-281.

Meigen, J.W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, vol. 4. 428 pp. Hamm.

Newton, A.F., Jr. & Chandler, D.S. 1989. World catalog of the genera of Pselaphidae
(Coleoptera). Fieldiana: Zoology, (2)53: 1-93.

Panzer, G.W.F. 1806. Kritische Revision der Insektenfauna Deutschlands, vol. 2. [12], 271 pp.
Felsecker, Nurnberg.

Pape, T. 1987. The Sarcophagidae (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna
Entomologica Scandinavica, 19: 1-203.

Park, O. 1942. 4 study in neotropical Pselaphidae. x, 403 pp., 21 pls. Northwestern University,
Evanston & Chicago.

Park, O. 1951. Cavernicolous pselaphid beetles of Alabama and Tennessee, with obser-
vations on the taxonomy of the family. Geological Survey of Alabama, Museum Paper, 31:
1-107.

Park, O. 1952. A revisional study of neotropical pselaphid beetles. Part One. Tribes
Faronini, Pyxidicerini and Jubini. Chicago Academy of Sciences, Special Publication, 9(1):
1-49.

Raffray, A. 1904. Genera et catalogue des Psélaphides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de
France, 73: 1-400.

Raffray, A. 1908. Coleoptera. Fam. Pselaphidae. Fascicule 64 in Wytsmann, P. (Ed.), Genera
Insectorum. 487 pp., 9 pls. Rome.

Raffray, A. 1911. Pselaphidae: Part 27 in Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus. 222 pp.
Junk, Berlin.

Rohdendorf, B.B. 1935. Sarcophaginae. Pp. 49-128 in Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der
Palaearktischen Region. Lieferung 88. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.

Rohdendorf, B.B. 1967. [Historical development of sarcophagids] (Diptera, Sarcophagidae).
Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Akademia Nauk SSSR, 116: 1-92. [In Russian.]
Rossi, P. 1790. Fauna Etrusca, sistens insecta quae in provinciis Florentina et Pisana

praesertim collegit Petrus Rossius, vol. 2. 348 pp., 10 pls. Masi, Liburni.

Scopoli, J.K. 1763. Entomologia Carniolica, exhibens insecta Carnioliae indigena...., [34]. 420 pp.,
37 pls. Trattner, Vindobonae.

Shewell, G.E. 1987. Sarcophagidae. Pp. 1159-1186 in McAlpine, J.F. (Ed.), Manual of Nearctic
Diptera, vol. 2. Pp. vi, 675-1332. Monograph No. 28. Biosystematics Research Centre,
Ottawa.

Stein, P. 1900. Die Tachininen und Anthomyinen der Meigen’schen Sammlung in Paris.
Entomologische Nachrichten, 26: 129-157.

Townes, H. 1971. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part 4. Memoirs of the American Entomological
Institute, 17: 1-372.

Townes, H. & Townes, M. 1959. Ichneumon-flies of America north of Mexico: 1. Subfamily
Metopiinae. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 216: 1-318.

Townsend, C.H.T. 1908. The taxonomy of the muscoidean flies, including descriptions of new
genera and species. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 51(2): 1-138.

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Verves, Yu.G. 1986. Family Sarcophagidae. Pp. 58-193 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue
of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 12. 265 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Verves, Yu.G. 1989. The phylogenetic systematics of the Miltogrammatine flies (Diptera,
Sarcophagidae) of the world. Japanese Journal of Medical Science & Biology, 42: 111-126.

Viereck, H.L. 1912. Tryphoninae — a review. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington, 14: 175-178.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 205

Case 2812

Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 as the type
species

Luisa Ruz

Laboratorio de Zoologia, Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Avenida Brasil
2950, Valparaiso, Chile

' Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Camptopoeum submetallicum
Spinola, 1851 as the type species of the South American panurgine bee genus Acampto-
poeum Cockerell, 1905 in accordance with current usage. The original designation was
based on a misidentified type species.

1. Cockerell (1905, p. 320) established the nominal genus Acamptopoeum and
included a single nominal species, Camptopoeum trifasciatum Spinola, 1851 (p. 197),
which he designated as the type species. However, Cockerell’s characterization of C.
trifasciatum does not match the original one given by Spinola but that of the female of
Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 (p. 198). Both Cockerell for C. trifasciatum
and Spinola for C. submetallicum described the abdomen as having hair bands and
bluish metallic color. These characters are quite different from C. trifasciatum sensu
Spinola, the abdomen of which has yellow integumental bands, no hair bands and is
never metallic bluish. It is clear that Cockerell misidentified C. trifasciatum and that the
species he cited under that name was in fact C. submetallicum.

2. Friese (1906, p. 176) established Liopoeum as a subgenus of Camptopoeum
Spinola, 1843 (p. 139); one of the included species was Camptopoeum hirsutulum
Spinola, 1851 (p. 199) which was designated as type species by Sandhouse (1943,
p. 564). Schwarz (1931, p. 78) considered Liopoeum to be very different from
Camptopoeum and treated it as a genus. C. trifasciatum and C. hirsutulum are
congeneric and so material labelled Liopoeum trifasciatum can be found in many
museums and private collections throughout the United States and South America.

3. Cockerell’s misidentification has been widely recognized, and the combination
Acamptopoeum submetallicum Spinola has been used in many papers such as Moure
(1944, p. 5), Herrera & Etcheverry (1960, p. 64), Shinn (1965, p. 279), Rozen (1967, p. 5),
Toro (1986, p. 125) and Ruz (1991, p. 221) as well as by museum workers. The purpose
of this application to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code is to conserve
the use of Acamptopoeum by designating Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola
(=‘C. trifasciatum’ of Cockerell, 1905) as the type species. To retain Camptopoeum
trifasciatum as the type species of Acamptopoeum would contravene current usage and
lead to confusion since Liopoeum would disappear as a junior subjective synonym of
Acamptopoeum, and Parafriesea Schrottky, 1906 (p. 118) (a replacement name for the
junior homonym Friesea Schrottky, 1902 (p. 418)) would stand as the generic name for
the species now placed in Acamptopoeum (see Ruz, 1991, pp. 221—222).

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 and to designate Camptopoeum
submetallicum Spinola, 1851 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in
(1) above Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name
submetallicum Spinola, 1851, as published in the binomen Camptopoeum
submetallicum (specific name of the type species of Acamptopoeum Cockerell,
1905).

References

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1905. Notes on some bees in the British Museum. Transactions of the American
Entomological Society, 31: 309-364.

Friese, H. 1906. Neue Bienenarten aus Chile und Argentina. Zeitschrift fiir Systematische
Hymenopterologie und Dipterologie, 6: 169-176.

Herrera, J. & Etcheverry, M. 1960. Actualizacion de los nombres de los apidos estudiados por
Claude Joseph. Publicaciones del Centro de Estudios Entomologicos. Universidad de Chile, 1:
61-64.

Moure, J.S. 1944. Apoidea da colegao do Conde Amadeu A. Barbiellini (Hym. Apoidea).
Revista de Entomologia, 15: \-18.

Rozen, J.G., Jr. 1967. Review of the biology of panurgine bees, with observations on North
American forms (Hymenoptera, Andrenidae). American Museum Novitates, 2297: 1-44.

Ruz, L. 1991. Classification and phylogenetic relationships of the panurgine, bees: the Calliopsini
and allies (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 54: 209-256.

Sandhouse, G.A. 1943. The type species of the genera and subgenera of bees. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum, 92(3156): 519-619.

Schrottky, C. 1902. Ensaio sobre as abelhas solitarias do Brazil. Revista do Museu Paulista, 5:
330-613.

Schrottky, C. 1906. Zur Synonymie der Apiden. Zeitschrift fiir Systematische Hymenopterologie
und Dipterologie, 6: 115-118.

Schwarz, H.F. 1931. A case of stylopization in a panurgid bee, Liopoeum submetallicum |
(Spinola). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 39: 77-79.

Shinn, A.F. 1965. The bee genus Acamptopoeum: diagnosis, key and a new species
(Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 38: 278-284.

Spinola, M. 1843. Notes sur quelques Hyménopterés peu connus, recueillis en Espagne, pendant
année 1842, par M. Victor Ghiliani, voyageur-naturaliste. Annales de la Société
Entomologique de France, (2)1: 111-144.

Spinola, M. 1851. Himenopteros. Pp. 153-560 in Gay, C., Historia Fisica y Politica de Chile, vol.
6. 572 pp. Author, Paris.

Toro, H. 1986. Lista preliminar de los apidos chilenos (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Acta
Entomologica Chilena, 13: 121-132.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 207

Case 2792

Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and Cynolebias splendens Myers,
1942 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conservation of the
specific names

Carl J. Ferraris, Jr. & Kenneth J. Lazara

Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural
History, New York, New York 10024, U.S.A.

' Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of two

species of killifishes, Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and C. splendens Myers, 1942,
which are the subjects of governmental and international conservation agency protec-
tion. The names are threatened by long unused senior subjective synonyms that have
been resurrected recently.

1. Faria & Muller (1937) described two species of killifishes (family RIVULIDAE) from
south-eastern Brazil using the names Cynopoecilus fluminensis (p. 99) and Gynopoecilus
[sic, an apparent typographical error for Cynopoecilus] sandrii (p. 98, fig. 1). The paper
in which these species were described was in a nautical journal and was not picked up by
the Zoological Record. The names apparently (see Costa & Lacerda, 1988) had not been
used in any scientific literature until Lacerda (1987) commented on the distributional
status of these species (using the widely accepted senior generic synonym Cynolebias),
noted that the names were senior subjective synonyms of C. opalescens and C.
splendens respectively, both of Myers (1942), and adopted the earlier synonyms. Costa
& Lacerda (1988) also adopted the senior synonyms in their redescriptions of the two
species.

2. In 1942, Myers described Cynolebias opalescens (p. 107) and C. splendens (p. 110).
Lazara (1984) listed nine literature citations for each of these names, during the period
1942 to 1982 (exclusive of those cited in para. 3), including both scientific and aquarist
literature.

3. In 1975 Cynolebias opalescens and C. splendens were included in the initial record
of Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and those names have been maintained on the CITES
list to date. The Association of Systematic Collections list these names in its summary
of (United States) federally controlled wildlife (Estes & Sessions, 1983). The Inter-
national Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
included both species in its Red Data Book (Miller, 1969) and continue to recognize
these species by Myers’s (1942) names in its revised Red Data Book (Miller, 1977) and
the Red List of Threatened Animals (IUCN, 1988) as endangered species.

4. Efforts to regulate international trade, or in situ conservation, of these species
depend, in part, on stable nomenclature. At present, specimens of these species presum-
ably could be exported into CITES member nations, without permit, under their
recently resurrected senior synonyms.

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

5. As the two species under discussion have been accorded protection by both
governmental and international conservation agencies under the names Cynolebias
opalescens and C. splendens, and as the specific names sandrii and fluminensis were
unused for a period of 50 years from the time the names were first proposed, during
which period the junior synonyms were used in a variety of scientific and aquarist
publications, resurrection of the senior synonyms would cause unnecessary and
preventable confusion for persons outside the community of zoological systematists.

6. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(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) fluminensis Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Cynopoecilus
fluminensis;

(b) sandrii Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Gynopoecilus
(= Cynopoecilus) sandrii;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) opalescens Myers, 1942, as published in the binomen Cynolebias opalescens,
(b) splendens Myers, 1942, as published in the binomen Cynolebias splendens;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:

(a) fluminensis Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Cynopoecilus
fluminensis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) sandrii Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Gynopoecilus
(= Cynopoecilus) sandrii and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Costa, W.J.E.M. & Lacerda, M.T.C. 1988. Identité et redescription de Cynolebias sandrii et de
Cynolebias fluminensis (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae). Revue Frangaise de Aquariologie,
14(4): 127-132.

Estes, C. & Sessions, K.W. (Eds.). 1983. Controlled wildlife, a three-volume guide to U.S. wildlife
laws and permit procedures, vol. 2 (Federally controlled species). 327 pp. Association of
Systematic Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. ‘

Faria, A. & Muller, H. 1937. Espécie da familie Cyprinodontidae, Genero Cynopoecilus,
constatadas em aguas do Brasil. Revista Naval, 37(3): 98-99.

IUCN (The IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre). 1988. 1988 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Animals. 154 pp. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, Cambridge. f

Lacerda, M.T.C. 1987. Commentarios sobre as espécies de Cynolebias incuidas na lista dos
peixes ameacados de extingao. Revista Aquariofilia, 2(3): 34-36.

Lazara, K.J. 1984. The killifish master index, a checklist of oviparous cyprinodontiform fishes. 293
pp. The American Killifish Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Miller, R.R. 1969. Red Data Book, vol. 4 (Pisces: Freshwater Fishes). Unnumbered pages.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Survival
Service Commission, Morges, Switzerland.

Miller, R.R. 1977. Red Data Book, vol. 4 (Pisces: Freshwater Fishes). Unnumbered pages.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Survival
Service Commission, Morges, Switzerland.

Myers, G.S. 1942. Studies on South American fresh-water fishes. I. Stanford Ichthyological
Bulletin, 2(4): 89-114.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 209

Case 2601

Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed
designation of Filimanus perplexa Feltes, 1991 as the type species

Ross M. Feltes

Museum of Biological Diversity, The Ohio State University, 1315 Kinnear
Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212-1192, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Filimanus perplexa
' Feltes, 1991 as the type species of the polynemid genus Filimanus Myers, 1936. This is
the taxonomic species misidentified by Myers as Polynemus melanochir Valenciennes,
1831; retention of the latter nominal species as its type would render Filimanus a junior
subjective synonym of Polynemus Linnaeus, 1758, and a new generic name would be
required for species currently placed in Filimanus.

1. Myers (1936, p. 379) established the genus Filimanus (family POLYNEMIDAE, the
threadfins) with a diagnosis based on a single specimen (USNM 72742) in the U.S.
National Museum of Natural History, Washington. He identified the specimen as
being Polynemus melanochir Valenciennes, 1831 (p. 513), and this nominal species is
thus the type of Filimanus by monotypy. The description by Valenciennes is brief but
the characters and comparisons used in his account are diagnostic. The original de-
scription was based on a drawing sent by Major Finlayson from Sumatra. Examination
of this drawing in the Bibliothéque Centrale, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, has made it quite clear to which taxonomic species Valenciennes applied the
name P. melanochir. The specimen used by Myers in his description of Filimanus was
misidentified and belongs to a then undescribed species (see para. 4). The case is
referred to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code.

2. The use of the generic name Polynemus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 317) has been quite
inconsistent and often non-monophyletic (see Myers, 1936; Feltes, 1991). Myers’s
perception of the species before him as a separate genus is entirely reasonable, as I have
discussed (Feltes, 1991, pp. 304-305).

3. Polynemus melanochir Valenciennes, 1831 is a valid species. My unpublished
studies show it is probably a sister taxon to P. paradiseus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 317) which
was designated as the type species of Polynemus in Opinion 93 (October 1926), and is
certainly congeneric. If P. melanochir were retained as the type species of Filimanus,
regardless of misidentification, it would be necessary to provide a new generic name for
the specimen examined by Myers, as well as other species (Feltes, 1991). This would not
only add another name to the literature, but contribute to the already confused state of
Polynemus by adding Filimanus to its synonymy. The name Filimanus has been used as
valid in the following representative publications: De Sylva (1984, p. 540), Gloerfelt-
Tarp & Kailola (1984, pp. 231, 347), Nelson (1984, p. 325) and Eschmeyer (1990,
p. 151). [have a forthcoming paper (Feltes, 1993, in press) that includes a discussion of
Filimanus.

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

4. In a revision of Filimanus I redescribed the species misidentified by Myers (and
others) as P. melanochir, and gave it the name Filimanus perplexa Feltes, 1991 (p. 307).
The holotype, from Bali, is specimen BMNH 1988.4.6.1. in the Natural History
Museum, London, and the specimen (USNM 72742) from Java used by Myers (1936) is
a paratype.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Filimanus Myers, 1936, and to designate Filimanus perplexa
Feltes, 1991 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Filimanus
Myers, 1936 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Filimanus perplexa Feltes, 1991;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name perplexa
Feltes, 1991, as published in the binomen Filimanus perplexa (specific name of
the type species of Filimanus Myers, 1936).

References

De Sylva, D.P. 1984. Polynemoidei: development and relationships. Ontogeny and systematics
of fishes. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publications, 1:
540-541.

Eschmeyer, W.N. 1990. Catalog of the genera of recent fishes. 697 pp. California Academy of
Sciences, San Francisco.

Feltes, R.M. 1991. Revision of the polynemid genus Filimanus, with the description of two new
species. Copeia, 1991(2): 302-322.

Feltes, R.M. 1993 (in press). Parapolynemus, new genus for the polynemid fish previously known
as Polynemus verekeri. Copeia, 1993(1).

Gloerfelt-Tarp, T. & Kailola, P.J. 1984. Trawled fishes of southern Indonesia and northwestern
Australia. 406 pp. Australian Development Assistance Bureau, Sydney.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Myers, G.S. 1936. A new polynemid fish collected in the Sadong River, Sarawak, by Dr William
T. Hornaday, with notes on the genera of Polynemidae. Journal of the Washington Academy
of Sciences, 26(9): 376-382.

Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the world, Ed. 2. 523 pp. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Valenciennes, A. 1831. Des Polynémes. Pp. 512-519 in Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. & Valenciennes, A.,
Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 7. 531 pp. Levrault, Paris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 211

Case 2821

Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation
of the specific name

Robert G. Webb

Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Environmental Biology,
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0519, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the well

’ known ranid Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942, which is a large frog found in south-central

Mexico, by the suppression of the unrecognized senior subjective synonym Rana
trilobata Mocquard, 1899.

1. Taylor (1942, p. 310) described Rana megapoda, a large frog confined to south-
central Mexico. Without exception this frog has been referred to by the specific name

_ megapoda which, however, is antedated by a previously unrecognized synonym. It

would be most unfortunate to allow R. megapoda to be changed after its unchallenged
use since the original description in 1942.

2. The previously unrecognized senior name is R. trilobata Mocquard, 1899
(p. 158). Hillis, Frost & Frost (1983, p. 73) recounted the history of the name
R. trilobata, \ong referred to the Rana pipiens complex of leopard frogs (in which
trilobata had been regarded as a subspecies of Rana berlandieri Baird, 1859), and
reallocated R. trilobata to the synonymy of Rana sinaloae Zweifel, 1954 (p. 131);
Rana sinaloae is a junior synonym of Rana pustulosa Boulenger, 1883 (p. 343), as I
have reported (Webb, 1984, p. 237). I (Webb, 1991, p. 13) have examined the holo-
type of R. trilobata (specimen no. 97-189 in the Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris) from Guadalajara, Mexico, and have demonstrated it to be a
specimen of R. megapoda and thus incorrectly allocated to the synonymy of R. sinaloae
(=R. pustulosa).

3. Rana trilobata Mocquard, 1899 has remained unused as a senior synonym of
R. megapoda Taylor, 1942, the name having been associated with other species of ranid
frogs. Rana megapoda is firmly entrenched in the primary zoological literature (see, for
example, Hillis, Frost & Wright, 1983, p. 134 and Smith & Taylor, 1948, p. 100). A
representative list of a further nine references demonstrating usage of the name is held
by the Commission Secretariat. It is in the interest of nomenclatural stability to retain
the name in its usage of the past 50 years.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name trilobata Mocquard, 1899,
as published in the binomen Rana trilobata, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name megapoda
Taylor, 1942, as published in the binomen Rana megapoda;

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name trilobata Mocquard, 1899, as published in the binomen Rana trilobata,
and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Boulenger, G.A. 1883. Descriptions of new species of lizards and frogs collected by Herr A.
Forrer in Mexico. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)11(65): 342-344.

Hillis, D.M., Frost, D.R. & Frost, J.S. 1983. Allocation and distribution of Rana trilobata
Mocquard. Journal of Herpetology, 17(1): 73-75.

Hillis, D.M., Frost, J.S. & Wright, D.A. 1983. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Rana pipiens
complex: a biochemical evaluation. Systematic Zoology, 32(2): 132-143.

Mocquard, M.F. 1899. Reptiles et batraciens recueillis au Mexique par M. Léon Diguet en 1896
et 1897. Bulletin de la Société Philomatique de Paris, (9)1(4): 154-169.

Smith, H.M. & Taylor, E.H. 1948. An annotated checklist and key to the Amphibia of Mexico.
Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 194: 1-118.

Taylor, E.H. 1942. New Caudata and Salientia from Mexico. University of Kansas Science
Bulletin, (28)11(14): 295-323.

Webb, R.G. 1984. Herpetography in the Mazatlan-Durango region of the Sierra Madre
Occidental, Mexico. Special Publication, University of Kansas Museum of Natural History,
10: 17-241.

Webb, R.G. 1991. The identity of Rana trilobata Mocquard (Anura: Ranidae). Herpetologica,
47(1): 13-21.

Zweifel, R.G. 1954. A new frog of the genus Rana from western Mexico witha key to the Mexican
species of the genus. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 53(3): 131-141.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 213

Case 2382

Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura):
proposed placement of both the generic and specific names on Official
Lists, and Leptobrachium parvum Boulenger, 1893 (currently Megophrys
parva): proposed conservation of the specific name

Alain Dubois
Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum National d’ Histoire

Naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to place the name Megophrys Kuhl & van
Hasselt, 1822 and the valid name ofits type species, M. montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822,
on theappropriate Official Lists, and to conserve the specific name of M. parva(Boulenger,
1893). The last name is threatened by the unused senior subjective synonym Xenophrys
monticola Gunther, 1864, for which suppression is proposed. The genus Megophrys
(family PELOBATIDAE Bonaparte, 1850, subfamily MEGOPHRYINAE Bonaparte, 1850)
includes over 20 species from southern, eastern and southeastern Asia.

1. The generic name Megophrys Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (ref. 1822a) was established
for a single species from Java. In the description the species was mentioned twice, under
two different spellings (see para. 5 below): montana (p. 102) and monticola (p. 104). Ina
summary of the work (Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822b, col. 475) only the spelling monticola
appeared, whilst in subsequent French translations from the original Dutch (Kuhl, 1824a,
p. 83; Kuhl, 1824b, p. 371) montana was used. Gravenhorst (1829, p. 47), acting as first
reviser, adopted montana and for a little more than a century this was universally used as
the valid name (see, for example, Tschudi, 1838, p. 82; Dumeéril & Bibron, 1841, p. 458;
Gunther, 1858, pp. 36-37; Gunther, 1864, p. 413; Gadow, 1901, p. 60; van Kampen, 1923,
p. 8; Noble, 1927, p. 75; further authors are cited in Dubois, 1982, p. 265).

2. Smith (1931, p. 12), however, considered that the spelling monticola should be
adopted, and noted: ‘I can see no reason for rejecting monticola as the correct name of
the species usually known as montana’. The name monticola was used subsequently by a
number of authors (see Inger, 1954, p. 222; Inger, 1966, p. 19, 39-41; Berry, 1975, pp. 5,
39), although others (Bourret, 1942, p. 190) continued to use montana. In 1982 I
(Dubois, 1982, pp. 263, 269) pointed out that montana was the valid spelling and this
has been followed by recent authors (Frost,,1985, pp. 413, 415; Duellman & Trueb,
1986, p. 523, fig. 19.31). I now propose that the name Megophrys Kuhl & van Hasselt,
1822, and the namé of its type species, M. montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, be
placed on the appropriate Official Lists. Four syntype specimens of M. montana,
numbered RMNH 2212, are in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The
Netherlands.

3. Kuhl & van Hasselt’s (1822) generic name appeared with two different spellings:
Mogophrys (p. 102) and Megophrys (p. 104). The former spelling was clearly a
typographical error; it was not used by the original authors in subsequent publications,

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

nor by anyone else since. In 1940 Neave (pp. 81, 198) listed both names and recorded
Megophrys as valid. Following Wagler’s (1830) unjustified emendation, the name
Megalophrys remained in use for many years, until the work of Stejneger (1926)
reintroduced Megophrys.

4. Ginther (1864, p. 414, pl. 26, fig. H) established the generic name Xenophrys fora
single new species, X. monticola, from Sikkim and the Khasi Hills. Boulenger (1893,
pp. 311, 343) placed monticola Gunther in Leptobrachium Tschudi, 1838 and (p. 344,
pl. 11, figs. 2, 2a) described a species L. parvum, based on five specimens from the Karin
Hills, Upper Burma. Subsequently, he (Boulenger, 1908, pp. 408, 419) considered
monticola Gunther and parvum to be synonyms; he transferred the species to the genus
Megalophrys Wagler, 1830 (p. 204; an unjustified emendation of Megophrys Kuhl &
van Hasselt, 1822; see para. 3 above) and adopted the junior name parva. This was to
avoid confusion with monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (although for the latter
Boulenger (pp. 408, 410, 411) used the name montana), and he noted (p. 420, footnote):
‘The specific name of [Xenophrys monticola Ginther] must be changed, as being pre-
occupied in the genus Megalophrys’. Following Boulenger (1908), the specific name
monticola Ginther, 1864 has not been used, whilst parva Boulenger, 1893 has been
universally adopted (see, for example, Nieden, 1923, p. 57; Noble, 1927, p. 75; Bourret,
1942, pp. 203-204; Taylor, 1962, pp. 266, 299-302; Gorham, 1966, p. 21; Inger, 1966,
p. 19; Waltner, 1973, p..22; Dubois, 1974, p. 353; Gorham, 1974, p. 43; Dubois, 1976,
p. 12; Frost, 1985, p. 416; a representative list of a further 11 references demonstrating
usage is held by the Commission Secretariat). Capocaccia (1957, p. 211) designated a
male specimen, no. MSNG 29412 in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, as
the lectotype of Leptobrachium parvum. Xenophrys has not been used as a valid name
since Boulenger’s (1908) work.

5. Resurrection of the name monticola Gunther, 1864 would be most unfortunate
since, although monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 is not a valid name, it has been used
in the past. Kuhl & van Hasselt’s names montana and monticola (which have the same
meaning) have been considered as being different spellings of the same name (Dubois,
1982, p. 264, footnote; 1989, p. 97). Following Gravenhorst’s (1829) first reviser action,
monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt becomes an unavailable incorrect original spelling
(Articles 24c, 32b(i) and 32d of the Code), and monticola Ginther the valid specific
name for the taxon currently called Leptobrachium parvum. If montana and monticola
Kuhl & van Hasselt were to be treated as different names, rather than spellings, for the
species, Gravenhorst’s action would render monticola an invalid (but available) junior
objective synonym of montana; monticola Gunther would be (following Boulenger’s
1908 generic placement) a permanently invalid secondary homonym (Article 59b),
replaced by parvum (following Boulenger’s synonymy) without the need for Commis-
sion intervention. To remove doubt I now propose that the name monticola Ginther be
suppressed, and that the Commission confirm the status of monticola Kuhl & van
Hasselt as an incorrect original spelling.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the specific name monticola Ginther, 1864, as published in the
binomen Xenophrys monticola for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 215

(b) to rule that the name monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as published in the
binomen Megophrys. monticola, is an incorrect original spelling of
Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Megophrys
Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as published in the binomen Mogophrys

[sic] montana (specific name of the type species of Megophrys Kuhl & van
: Hasselt, 1822);

(b) parvum Boulenger, 1893, as published in the binomen Leptobrachium parvum
and as defined by the lectotype designated by Capocaccia (1957);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Megalophrys Wagler, 1830 (an unjustified emendation of Megophrys
Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:

(a) monticola Gunther, 1864, as published in the binomen Xenophrys monticola
and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as published in the binomen Megophrys
monticola (an incorrect original spelling of montana Kuhl & van Hasselt,
1822).

References

Berry, P.Y. 1975. The amphibian fauna of Peninsular Malaysia. 130 pp. Tropical Press, Kuala
Lumpur.

Boulenger, G.A. 1893. Concluding report on the Reptiles and Batrachians obtained in Burma by
Signor L. Fea, dealing with the collection made in Pegu and the Karin Hills in 1887-88.
Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, (2a)13: 304-347.

Boulenger, G.A. 1908. A revision of the oriental pelobatid Batrachians (genus Megalophrys).
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1908: 407-430.

Bourret, R. 1942. Les Batraciens de l’Indochine. Mémoires de I'Institut Océanographique de
I’ Indochine, 6: 1-517.

Capocaccia, L. 1957. Catalogo dei tipi di anfibi del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova.
Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 69: 208-222.

Dubois, A. 1974. Liste commentée d’amphibiens récoltés au Népal. Bulletin du Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, Zoologie, (3)213(143): 341-411.

Dubois, A. 1976. Les grenouilles du sous-genre Paa du Népal (famille Ranidae, genre Rana).
Cahiers népalais-Documents, 6: 1-275.

Dubois, A. 1982. Le statut des noms génériques d’Amphibiens Anoures créés par Kuhl & van
Hasselt (1822): Megophrys, Occidozyga et Rhacophorus. Bulletin du Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, (4)4(A, 1-2): 261-280.

Dubois, A. 1989. Leptobrachium parvum Boulenger, 1893 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed
conservation. Alytes, 7(3): 97-100.

Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. xvii, 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Dumeril, A.-M.-C. & Bibron, G. 1841. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des
reptiles, vol. 8. vii, 792 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.

Frost, D.R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. v, 732 pp. Allen Press & Association of
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.

Gadow, H. 1901. Amphibia and Reptiles, part 1 (Amphibia). Pp. xiii, 1-274. Macmillan, London.

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Gorham, S.W. 1966. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Ascaphidae, Leiopelmatidae,
Pipidae, Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae, Leptodactylidae, Rhinophrynidae. Das Tierreich, 85:
1-222.

Gorham, S.W. 1974. Checklist of world amphibians up to January 1, 1970. 173 pp. New Brunswick
Museum, Saint-John.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1829. Deliciae Musei Zoologici Vratislaviensis, fasciculus primus, continens
chelonios et batrachia. xiv, 106 pp., 17 pls. Vossii, Lipsiae.

Giinther, A. 1858. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the collection of the British Museum. xvi,
160 pp., 12 pls. British Museum, London.

Giinther, A. 1864. The reptiles of British India. xxvii, 452 pp., 26 pls. Ray Society, London.

Inger, R.F. 1954. Systematics and zoogeography of Philippine Amphibia. Fieldiana: Zoology,
33(4): 183-531.

Inger, R.F. 1966. The systematics and zoogeography of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana:
Zoology, 52: 1-402.

Kuhl, H. 1824a. Sur les Reptiles de Java. Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie, 2: 79-83.

Kuhl, H. 1824b. Seconde lettre sur les reptiles de l’ile de Java. Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de
Géologie, 2: 370-371.

Kuhl, H. & van Hasselt, J.C. 1822a. Uittreksels uit brieven van de Heeren Kuhl en Van Hasselt,
aan de Heeren C.J. Temminck, Th. Van Swinderen en W. De Haan. A/gemeene Konst- en
Letter-Bode, 7: 99-104.

Kuhl, H. & van Hasselt, J.C. 1822b. Aus einem Schreiben von Dr. Kuhl und Dr. Van Hasselt
aus Java, an Professor Th. Van Swinderen zu Groningen. /sis (von Oken), 1822(4): cols.
472-476.

Neave, S.A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 3 (M-—P). 1065 pp. Zoological Society of
London, London.

Nieden, F. 1923. Amphibia. Anura I. Subordo Aglossa und Phaneroglossa, Sectio | Arcifera.
Das Tierreich, 46: 1-584.

Noble, G.K. 1927. The value of life history data in the study of the evolution of the Amphibia.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 30: 31—128.

Smith, M.A. 1931. The herpetology of Mt. Kinabalu, North Borneo, 13, bg ft. Bulletin of the
Raffles Museum, 5: 3-32.

Stejneger, L. Two new tailless amphibians from Western China. pana of the Biological
Society of Washington, 39: 53—S4.

Taylor, E.H. 1962. The amphibian fauna of Thailand. University of Kansas Science Bulletin,
43(8): 265-599.

Tschudi, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Berticksichtigung der fossilen Thiere dieser
Abtheilung der Reptilien. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchatel, 2:
1-102. (Issued in the serial in [1839] but published as a separate in 1838).

Van Kampen, P.N. 1923. The Amphibia of the Indo-Australian archipelago. xii, 304 pp. Brill,.
Leiden.

Wagler, J. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien... vi, 354 pp. Cotta, Munchen.

Waltner, R.C. 1973. Geographical and altitudinal distribution of amphibians and reptiles in the
Himalayas. Part 1. Cheetal, 16: 17-25.

——————
———

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 217

Case 2802

Anisolepis grilli Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Richard Etheridge

Department of Biology, College of Sciences, San Diego State University,
San Diego, California 92182-0057, U.S.A.

Ernest E. Williams

' Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,

Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.

Abstract. Two species of the lizard genus Anisolepis Boulenger, 1885 (family
POLYCHRIDAE) occur in southeastern Brazil, Uruguay and northern Argentina. In this
century they have been referred to as A. undulatus (Wiegmann, 1834) and A. grilli
Boulenger, 1891. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name grilli
for the species which occurs in Brazil and Misiones Provinces, Argentina. The name
is threatened by two senior subjective synonyms, Laemanctus fitzingeri and L.
obtusirostris, both of Wiegmann (1834).

1. Wiegmann (1834, p. 45) described the genus Laemanctus and included four new
nominal species. Brief descriptions were provided (p. 46) for three Brazilian species,

fitzingeri, obtusirostris and undulatus, and a lengthy description for a Mexican species,

longipes. Duméril & Bibron (1837, pp. 72-76) repeated the descriptions of fitzingeri,
obtusirostris and undulatus. Fitzinger (1843, p. 16) designated /ongipes as the type
species of Laemanctus.

2. Wiegmann’s nominal species fitzingeri, obtusirostris and undulatus have been
placed in a number of genera: by Fitzinger (1843, p. 62) in Urostrophus Dumeril &
Bibron, 1837 (type species U. vautieri Duméril & Bibron, 1837); by Gray (1845, pp.
184-185) in Ecphymotes Fitzinger, 1826 (type species Polychrus acutirostris Spix,
1825); and by Boulenger (1885b, p. 121) in Enyalius Wagler, 1830 (type species Agama
catenata Wied-Neuwied, 1821). Gray (1845) based his descriptions of the three species
entirely on those of Wiegmann (1834); his work is the last in which the name obtusiros-
tris was used as valid. Boulenger (1885b) included the latter as a synonym of undulatus.

3. Boulenger (1885a, p. 85) established the new genus Anisolepis with the single
species iheringii, based on two female specimens in the Natural History Museum,
London (catalogue nos. 1946.8.5.90—91, formerly 85.6.26.4—5). A. iheringii is therefore
the type species of the genus by monotypy. Later that year Boulenger (1885b, p. 122,
pl. 9, fig. 3) repeated the description and figured A. iheringii. In the ‘Addenda and
Corrigenda’ (1887, pp. 500-501) the species undulatus was transferred to Anisolepis and
iheringii was placed in its synonymy; undulatus has since been treated as the valid name
of the type species of Anisolepis. In 1891 (p. 909) Boulenger described A. grilli from

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Palmeira, Brazil. Peters & Donoso-Barros (1970, p. 42) subsequently synonymized the
nominal species A. /ionotus Werner, 1897 (p. 470) from Blumenau, Brazil, with grilli.
Both undulatus Wiegmann, 1834 and grilli Boulenger, 1891 are regarded as the valid
names for the Brazilian species of Anisolepis and are not considered to be synonymous
with the names of the type species of any of the genera mentioned in para. 2 above.

4. One of us (Etheridge, 1969, p. 239) briefly examined the holotypes of Laemanctus
fitzingeri, obtusirostris and undulatus in the Museum fur Naturkunde der Humboldt-
Universitat, Berlin (catalogue nos. 495, 496 and 497 respectively), and considered them
to be one species, currently known as Anisolepis undulatus. Etheridge also pointed
out that it was clear from Boulenger’s (1885b, p, 121) characterization of Enyalius
fitzingeri, as well as from an examination of his specimens, that the species known as
fitzingeri since Boulenger’s work is actually Enyalius bilineatus Duméril & Bibron, 1837
(see, for example, Burt & Burt, 1933, p. 23 and Amaral, 1937, pp. 176, iv, in which the
name fitzingeri has been misused in the sense of bilineatus). We have both (Etheridge &
Williams, 1991, p. 332) since re-examined the holotypes of fitzingeri, obtusirostris and
undulatus and compared them with one of the two syntypes of Anisolepis grilli (cata-
logue no. 1946.8.5.58 (formerly 91.9.24.10) in the Natural History Museum, London;
the second syntype, no. 1946.8.12.38 (formerly 91.11.19.27) is a skeletal preparation).
We found that, contrary to Etheridge (1969), the types of fitzingeri and obtusirostris are
conspecific with grilli, and not with undulatus. We published descriptions of the two
Brazilian species of Anisolepis, together with a diagnostic key (1991, p. 351).

5. The name Anisolepis grilli Boulenger, 1891 has been widely cited in works on
genetics, biology and ecology, as well as taxonomy, and has appeared in the following
representative list of recent publications: Gorman, Atkins & Holzinger, 1967, pp. 283,
209 and Gorman, 1973, p. 373 (chromosome number); Maderson, 1970, p. 197 (digital
scale structure); Peters & Donoso-Barros, 1970, p. 42 (synonymy; distribution and
key); Soma, Begak & Becak, 1974a, p. 227 (karyotype and DNA content); Soma, Begak
& Becak, 1974b, p. 1325 (DNA content); Gallardo, 1977, p. 125 (behavior and com-
parison with undulatus); Rand, 1982, pp. 173-174 (body size and egg clutch size);
Vanzolini, 1983, p. 127 (sympatry with Polychrus acutirostris); Olmo, 1984, p. 22
(genome size); Etheridge & de Queiroz, 1988, p. 305 (digital lamellar scales); Etheridge
& Williams, 1991 (morphology, taxonomy, distribution and relationships). The name

obtusirostris Wiegmann, 1834 has not been used for more than 150 years (see para. 2

above), and fitzingeri Wiegmann, 1834 has been misused for another species (see para. 4
above). To resurrect either of these names for the taxon currently called grilli would
cause confusion and seriously threaten nomenclatural stability. We have previously
recorded our intention to apply to the Commission for the suppression of the names
fitzingeri and obtusirostris (Etheridge & Williams, 1991, p. 332, footnote).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(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) fitzingeri Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus
fitzingeri;

(b) obtusirostris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus
obtusirostris;

:
:
|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 219

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name grilli
Boulenger, 1891, as published in the binomen Anisolepis grilli;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:
(a) fitzingeri Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus
fitzingeri and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) obtusirostris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus
obtusirostris and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Amaral, A. do. 1937. Estudos sobre lacertilios neotropicos. 4. Liste remissiva dos lacertilios do
Brasil. Memorias do Instituto Butantan, 11: 167-204, i-x.

Boulenger, G.A. 1885a. Second list of reptiles and batrachians from the Province Rio Grande
do Sul, Brazil, sent to the Natural-History Museum by Dr. H. von Ihering. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, (5)16(92): 85-88.

Boulenger, G.A. 1885b, 1887. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum ( Natural History),
Ed. 2. Vol. 2, xiii, 497 pp., 24 pls. (1885b); vol. 3, xii, 575 pp., 40 pls. (1887). British Museum,
London.

Boulenger, G.A. 1891. Description of a new iguanoid lizard of the genus Anisolepis. Annali del
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, (2)10: 909.

Burt, C.E. & Burt, M.D. 1933. A preliminary check list of the lizards of South America. Trans-
actions of the Academy of St. Louis, 28(1, 2): 1-104, inv.

Dumeéril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1837. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des
reptiles, vol. 4. 11, 577 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.

Etheridge, R.E. 1969. A review of the iguanid lizard genus Enyalius. Bulletin of the British
Museum ( Natural History), Zoology, 18(8): 231—260.

Etheridge, R.E. & de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogeny of Iguanidae. Pp. 283-368 in Estes, R. &
Pregill, G. (Eds.), Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families: essays commemorating
Charles L. Camp. xii, 631 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Etheridge, R.E. & Williams, E.E. 1991. A review of the South American lizard genera
Urostrophus and Anisolepis (Squamata: Iguania: Polychridae). Bulletin of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 152(5): 317-361.

Fitzinger, L. 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natiirlichen Verwandschaften nebst
einer Verwandtschafts-Tafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptilien-Sammlung des k.k.
zoologischen Museum's zu Wien. 66 pp. Heubner, Wien.

Fitzinger, L. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus (Amblyglossae). 106, vi pp. Braumiller
& Seidel, Wien.

Gallardo, J.M. 1977. Reptiles de los alrededores de Buenos Aires. 213 pp. Editorial Universitaria
de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.

Gorman, G.C. 1973. The chromosomes of the Reptilia: a cytogenetic interpretation. Pp. 394-424
in Chiarelli, A.B. & Cappanna, E. (Eds.), Cytotaxonomy and vertebrate evolution. xv, 783
pp. Academic Press, London.

Gorman, G.C., Atkins, L. & Holzinger, T. 1967. New karyotypic data on 15 genera of lizards
in the family Iguanidae, with a discussion of taxonomic and cytological implications.
Cytogenetics, 6: 286-299.

Gray, J.E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum.
XXvill, 289 pp. Newman, London.

Maderson, P.F.A. 1970. Lizard glands and lizard hands: models for evolutionary study. Forma et
Functio, 3: 179-204.

Olmo, E. 1984. Genomic composition of reptiles: evolutionary perspectives. Journal of
Herpetology, 18(1): 20-32.

Peters, J.A. & Donoso-Barros, R. 1970. Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part 2 (lizards
and amphisbaenians). Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297: 1-293.

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Rand, A.S. 1982. Clutch and egg size in Brazilian iguanid lizards. Herpetologica, 38(1): 171-178.

Soma, M.L., Becak, M.L. & Becak, W. 1974a. Variabilidade cariotipico e conteudo de DNA em
lacertilios (Abstract). Ciéncia e Cultura, Sao Paulo, 26(supplement): 227-228.

Soma, M.L., Begak, M.L. & Begak, W. 1974b. Estudio comparativo de conteado de DNA em 12
espécies de lacertilios. Ciéncia e Cultura, Sao Paulo, 27(12): 1324-1327.

Spix, J.B. 1825. Animalia nova sive species novae lacertarum, quas in itinere per Brasilium annis
MDCCCXVII-M DCCCXX jussu et auspiciis Maximiliani Josephi I Bavariae Regis suscepto
collegit et descriptsit Dr. J.B. Spix. 26 pp., 28 pls. Weigel, Lipsiae.

Vanzolini, P.E. 1983. Guiana-Brasilian Polychrus: distribution and speciation (Sauria:
Iguanidae). Pp. 118-131 in Rhodin, G.J. & Miyata, K. (Eds.), Advances in herpetology
and evolutionary biology. xix, 725 pp. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

Wagler, J.G. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien mit vorangehender Classification der
Sdugthiere und Vogel. vi, 354 pp. Cotta, Munich.

Werner, F. 1897. Die Iguaniden-Gattung Anisolepis Blngr. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-
KGniglischen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 46(10): 470-473.

Wied-Neuwied, M. 1821. Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815 bis 1817, vol. 2. xviii, 345 pp.
Bronner, Frankfurt am Main.

Wiegmann, A.F.A. 1834. Herpetologia Mexicana, seu descriptio amphibiorum Novae Hispaniae,
quae itineribus Comitis de Sack, Ferdinandi Deppe et Chr. Guil. Schiede in Museum Zoologi-
cum Berolinense Pervenerunt. Pars prima, saurorum species amplectens, adiecto systematis
saurorum prodromo... observationibus. vi, 54 pp., 10 pls. Luderitz, Berlin.

tN
tN

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Comment on the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling,
1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2729; see BZN 48: 92-96, 244-246; 49: 68-70)

Richard E. Petit
P.O. Box 30, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582, U.S.A.

Druid Wilson
859 East Osceola Avenue, Lake Wales, Florida 33853, U.S.A.

We wish to reply to published comments opposing our application for the rejection

_ of Fusus Helbling, 1779.

Holthuis (BZN 48: 244-245) comments that all our arguments are based on specu-
lations about Helbling’s concepts and also quoted Hemming’s statement about
*... Intermediate terms identical in character with those which it is now asked should be
rejected...’. If terms which are ‘identical in character’ can be recognized, why cannot a
term not even ‘identical in character’ be more easily recognized?

Vokes (BZN 48: 245-246) attempts to discredit our application by reference to
Commission action suppressing Xancus [RGding], 1798 in favor of the later Turbinella
Lamarck, 1799, an action opposed by all malacologists who wrote a comment.
However, Vokes quoted Keen’s 1957 statement about the ‘supposedly firm ground of
priority’. It is this firm ground that we are seeking in this application.

Vokes also made the statement that ‘every relevant work published in the last 60
years has used Fusinus...’, ignoring references in paragraphs 14 and 15 of our
application.

We particularly object to the statement made by Beu, Marshall & Ponder (BZN 49:
68-70) that since 1906 ‘... the usage of Fusinus in this sense has become the normal,
thoroughly accepted practice by 100% of malacologists and paleontologists’. This is
contrary to references given in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the application and additional
usages of Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 as a valid name can be easily located. A search of onlya
few minutes located such usage by Nicklés (1950), Knudsen (1956), Pasteur-Humbert
(1962), Barnard (1959, 1969), Ondrejickova (1972) and Kensley (1973). A thorough
search of the literature would certainly uncover more usages of Fusus Bruguiere.

It is our opinion that the only objection to this application with any validity is that
it will upset ‘stability’. The genus typified by the species Fusus (or Fusinus) colus
(Linnaeus, 1758) has not been critically monographed, or even studied in depth, in
recent years and it is a matter of conjecture at this point as to how many species will
remain in the genus after a taxonomic revision.

Additional references

Barnard, K.H. 1959. Contributions to the knowledge of South African marine mollusca. Part
2. Gastropoda: Prosobranchiata: Rhachiglossa. Annals of the South African Museum, 45:
1-237.

Barnard, K.H. 1969. Contributions to the knowledge of South African marine mollusca, Part 6.
Supplement. Annals of the South African Museum, 47: 595-661.

Kensley, B. 1973. Sea-shells of Southern Africa. Gastropods. 225 pp. Cape & Transvaal Printers,
Cape Town.

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Knudsen, J. 1956. Marine prosobranchs of tropical West Africa (Stenoglossa). A tlantide- Report,
4: 7-110.

Nicklés, M. 1950. Mollusques testacés marins de la céte d’Afrique. 269 pp. Lechevalier, Paris.

Ondrejitkova, A. 1972. Eggenburgian molluscs of Southern Slovakia. Zbornik Geologickych
Vied Zapadné Karpaty, 16: 5-147.

Pasteur-Humbert, C. 1962. Les mollusques marins testacés du Maroc. Catalogue non critique. 1.
Les gastéropodes. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique Chérifien, Série Zoologie, 23: 1-224.

Comments on the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady,
1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2710; see BZN 48: 192-195; 49: 144-145)

(1) John K. Tucker
404 S. Banker Street, Effingham, Illinois 62401, U.S.A.

I am unable to agree on the need for the proposals of Cernohorsky, Cornelius &
Sysoev concerning the mollusk subfamily name.

The issue at stake is the maintenance of nomenclatural stability and the authors
contend that their proposed action will achieve this. Applications of this nature usually
involve the conservation of a name as it has been used but their proposal introduces a
new spelling, CLAVUSINAE.

I understand the desire to preserve the Powell (1942) system of subfamily classifi-
cation in the TURRIDAE and how that might seem to be related to nomenclatural
stability, but it is my belief that the proposals will neither preserve nor improve
stability. If the authors believe that C/avus de Montfort, 1810 cannot be contained in
the DRILLIINAE then they should define the characters that separate CLAVINAE (or
CLAVUSINAE) from Olsson’s 1964 (and Morrison’s 1965, p. 2) DRILLIINAE. I myself do
not believe that nomenclatural stability exists in the TURRIDAE at the subfamily level.
Every author who has considered a subfamily classification has come to a unique
conclusion, and not all authors working on genera usually included in the CLAVINAE (or
DRILLIINAE) recognize the subfamily as valid; for example, Nordsieck (1968) placed
Clavus in the TURRINAE (although in 1977 he changed his mind).

It seems to me that the turrid name CLAVINAE does not need Commission action:
Most post-Powell authors who recognize the group do so primarily on the radular
morphology. McLean (1971), in particular, defined the CLAVINAE as based on the
possession of a prototypic radular type. If, as most authors agree, the prototypic
radular state is an ancestral condition then the CLAVINAE (or DRILLIINAE) are defined by
a plesiomorphic character state. Only apomorphic character states can be used to
determine monophyly. Therefore, from a cladistic point of view, the CLAVINAE (or
DRILLIINAE) is either a paraphyletic or polyphyletic taxon. I can see no benefit from a
ruling concerning the name of a taxon that will almost certainly be found to include
multiple sister taxa that gave rise to the other subfamilies of the TURRIDAE.

Additional references

Morrison, J.P.E. 1965. On the families of Turridae. Report. American Malacological Union, 32:
1-2.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 223

Nordsieck, F. 1968. Die europdischen Meeres-Geshduseschnecken ( Prosobranchia) vom Eismeer
bis Kapverden und Mittelmeer. viii, 273 pp., 31 pls. Fischer, Stuttgart.
Nordsieck, F. 1977. The Turridae of the European seas. 131 pp., 26 pls. La Conchiglia, Rome.

(2) Dale R. Calder

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6; Department of Zoology, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1

Lester D. Stephens
Department of History, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

Albert E. Sanders
’ The Charleston Museum, Charleston, South Carolina 29401, U.S.A.

We support the proposal of Cernohorsky, Cornelius & Sysoev to remove the
homonymy between the family-group names CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria) and
CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca) by changing the latter to CLAVUSINAE. Replacement
or respelling of the senior homonym, widely used in the literature on hydrozoans for
more than a century, would not serve the interests of nomenclatural stability.

Comments on the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed in
Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762)
(Crustacea, Insecta)

(Case 2292; see BZN 48: 107—134; 49: 71-72, 149-150)

(1) L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9157, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

I have the greatest admiration for the thoroughness and expertise with which Dr
Kerzhner treated this case and so has made possible a final decision concerning
Geoffroy’s generic names, many of which have been ‘illegally’ used since Geoffroy’s
work was rejected for nomenclatural purposes in 1954 (Opinion 228). There are a few
points, however, that need some comment.

(i) Asstated by Kerzhner and Cameron (BZN 48: 107-108, 133-134), Miller (1764) in
the introduction to his Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina simply listed Geoffroy’s names
and their Linnaean equivalents in tabular form. This does not make the Geoffroy names
available as from Miiller’s 1764 work, since Article | 1d(ii) of the Code says that ‘the status
of a previously unavailable name is not changed by its mere citation accompanied by a
reference to the work in which the name was published but was not made available’.

(ii) I do not feel competent to comment on the insect names in this application, but
can do so on the two crustacean ones (see BZN 48: 11 1—112). It seems likely that among
the insect generic names of Geoffroy (1762) there are many that could be used without
intervention by the Commission, although with a later authorship and date.

(iii) Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 is unavailable from Geoffroy (1762) under Opinion 228,
or from Miller (1764). The first use of Ase/lus as an available generic name seems to be
by Schaeffer (1766) in his Elementa Entomologica, an unpaginated work consisting of
four sections and an index. Asellus is given on the 16th page of Section 3 with a
number of characters and a reference to plate 22, the explanation of which again gives

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

characters; the description and figure make Asellus available, even though Schaeffer
did not use specific names.

(iv) Schluga (1767, p. 46) used both Asellus and Binoculus in a list of the genera of
‘Insecta’, with short diagnoses; as with Schaeffer no specific names were mentioned in
the work.

(v) The genus usually cited as Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 (or, wrongly, 1764) should be
correctly referred to as Asellus Schaeffer, 1766 (Section 3, p. [16] and pl. 22), and
Binoculus should be cited as Binoculus Schluga, 1767 (p. 46). Binoculus was suppressed
in Opinion 502 (January 1958), but the authorship was given as Miiller (1776) and this
should be changed.

(vi) Summarizing, I propose that the requests in Kerzhner’s para. B.3 on BZN 48:
112 be changed as follows:

(1) abandon;

(2) (b) amend authorship of Binoculus Miller, 1776 to Schluga, 1767; .

(3) amend authorship of Ase/lus Geoffroy, 1762 to Schaeffer, 1766;

(4) as for (3);

(5) (b) as for (2)(b).

These changes are purely editorial.

(2) Hans Silfverberg _
Universitetets. Zoologiska Museum, Jarnvdgsgatan 13, SF-00100 Helsingfors, Finland

Dr Kerzhner’s application is very thorough, and he presents good arguments for his
solution to the old problem of Geoffroy’s names. His application preserves current use,
and is therefore in the spirit of the Code. The procedure I once suggested (1978; Notulae
Entomologicae, 58: 117-119), that is attributing the names to Miller (1764), may have
stretched the Code but did not break it, and did not require Commission action.
However, I do not oppose Kerzhner’s proposals except for a detail relating to one
particular name.

The exception is Peltis (see para. K.22 on BZN 48: 122). As explained by Kerzhner,
Geoffroy used it in a sense different from current use and Miller (1776) was the first to
include nominal species (including the currently accepted type species Silpha grossa
Linnaeus, 1758) in the genus. I consider that Pe/tis should be taken from Miller (1776)
and not, as suggested by Kerzhner, from Kugelann (1792), who merely further restric-
ted the genus. Kerzhner’s proposals (6)(r) and (9)(k) in para. K.30 should be amended
accordingly.

(3) P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

1. As discussed in Dr Kerzhner’s application (BZN 48: 109, para. A.7) Geoffroy’s
1762 Histoire abrégée... contained 59 new generic names. If Kerzhner’s proposals and
those of Dr Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196) are approved 40 of Geoffroy’s names will
have been conserved, and 14 will have been suppressed to conserve the usage of the
same or other names from later authors. In the remaining five cases senior Linnaean
synonyms are in use.

2. The Commission attempted to deal with the status of Geoffroy’s generic names in
Opinion 228. It was noted in that Opinion that ‘in some cases the rejection of names as

————————————
———

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 225

first published by such authors [as Geoffroy] would clearly give rise to great confusion’.
The ruling in the Opinion denying availability to many generic names in established use
which were published in Geoffroy’s work, on the ground that he had used polynomial
specific names, has proved to be unfortunate. The decision was approved at a meeting
in July 1948, and in the Proceedings and again in 1952 (BZN 7: 198-199) ‘specialists’
were invited to apply for the conservation of appropriate Geoffroy names. Despite the
receipt of several applications [all later agreed] the Opinion was published in April
1954. It will have taken four decades and immense efforts by numerous authors, and by
the Commission and its Secretariat, to remedy the never intended consequences. So far
less than half of the names have been finally dealt with. If Dr Kerzhner’s application is
not successful the ‘illegal’ nomenclature referred to by Kerzhner and Holthuis will

- continue. I earnestly recommend acceptance of the application, with some amendments

as discussed below.

3. Sixteen Geoffroy names have already been conserved in nine separate Opinions,
and Kerzhner has proposed the conservation of 24 more (including two at present
attributed to later authors). In every instance this is based on well established usage,
and comments in support of some have been published. Eight names published by
Geoffroy have been in established use in the different senses of later authors: Crabro
Fabricius, 1775 has already been conserved, Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris
Fabricius, 1775 have been proposed by Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196), and Kerzhner
has proposed conservation of the remaining five junior homonyms.

4. Kerzhner has proposed that all the 40 Geoffroy names which have been, or should
be, conserved by the Commission’s plenary powers should be attributed to the Histoire
abrégée,1.e. to Geoffroy, 1762. However, he has suggested that the ones notin use should
be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names with the authorship
‘Geoffroy in Miller, 1764’. Miller (1764) presented a comparison of Linnaean and
Geoffroy names and descriptions. The citation ‘Geoffroy in Miller, 1764’ is cumber-
some and undesirable (Pope, BZN 49: 71); its validity has been disputed by Holthuis
(above), and there is no logical reason why it (or Miller, 1764) should be the reference for
the rejected names and Geoffroy, 1762 that for the conserved ones. This is further
discussed in para. 7 below.

5. Prof Holthuis has suggested above that the crustacean name Ase//us should be
placed on the Official List with the authorship of Schaeffer (1766), rather than being
conserved from Geoffroy (1762) as suggested by Kerzhner. The argument is that it is
unnecessary to use the Commission’s plenary powers to conserve the authorship of the
name. If Ase//us were an isolated case this would be undeniable, but, as already men-
tioned, 16 of the 40 names in use have already been conserved with Geoffroy’s author-
ship. If no more were to be, the Official List would contain 16 attributed to Geoffroy
(1762), 14 to Schaeffer (1766) and 10 to Schluga (1767), despite the fact that all had been
published in the same work. The names have for more than two centuries been referred to
Geoffroy, and not to Schaeffer or Schluga. There are further complications: for instance
Pyrochroa‘Schluga, 1767’ would need to be conserved (cf. Kerzhner’s para. K.26) by the
suppression of the spelling Pyrochora Schaeffer, 1766. Rejected names on the Official
Index would be assigned some to Schaeffer and some to Schluga. All this would be the
‘chaos and arbitrary attribution to different authors and dates’ deplored by Kerzhner in
his para. A.7. More work and delay would be needed to achieve this undesirable end,
whereas the effort needed to conserve the Geoffroy names has already been invested by

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Dr Kerzhner and others, including the Commission. For these reasons, the suggestion
of Prof Holthuis regarding Ase/lus has considerable disadvantages. However, the for-
mal proposals in Kerzhner’s application have been structured so that the Commission
will be asked to vote on a name-by-name procedure (see para. A.8), and it will therefore
be easily possible, although entirely anomalous, to attribute Asellus to Schaeffer, 1766
and to have 39 names conserved from Geoffroy, 1762.

6. I am convinced that only the acceptance of Kerzhner’s application can give
stability; it is in accord with historical reality and with the ‘invitation to specialists’
issued in association with the 1954 Opinion.

7. A procedural difficulty arises in the case of those Geoffroy names which are senior
homonyms or synonyms of names in use, and whose conservation is therefore not
requested by Kerzhner or Borowiec. These are Acrydium, Binoculus, Bruchus, Byrrhus,
Cistela, Cucujus, Formicaleo, Melolontha, Mylabris, Peltis, Rhinomacer, Tetigonia and
Tritoma. At the present moment these names cannot be suppressed from Geoffroy
(1762), even though this was done for Crabro in Opinion 144 (1943), since they are not
available from that work as a consequence of Opinion 228. Their availability from the
work of Miiller (1764) has been challenged as mentioned in para. 4 above. All of
Geoffroy’s names are available from either Schaeffer (1766) or Schluga (1767), but, as
pointed out in para. 5, it would be extremely confusing to introduce these ‘new’ author-
ships (even for purposes of suppression only). By far the most straightforward course is
to take all the names from where they appeared, Geoffroy’s work. All 59 new generic
names therein have now been considered in detail, either in Opinions already made or in
the applications of Kerzhner and Borowiec. The result is that Opinion 228 has been in
effect totally superseded, even though by instalments; the logical conclusion is the
revocation of that Opinion and this is proposed below. It should be emphasized that the
validity of no name will be affected by this seemingly drastic step. Also proposed below
are minor amendments to Kerzhner’s formal proposals incorporating those which have
been published in comments, and the addition of Forbicina, Hepa and Tinaea Geoffroy
to the Official Index as junior objective synonyms of Linnaean names. As already
mentioned, the Commission will be asked to vote on a name-by-name basis in all cases.

8. Icomment separately (BZN 49: 227-228) on Dr Borowiec’s application (BZN 45:
194-196), and on the name Acrydium (BZN 49: 228-229).

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that, notwithstanding the use of polynomial
specific names in the work by E.L. Geoffroy (1762) entitled Histoire abrégée des
insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, generic names published in that
work are deemed available for nomenclatural purposes;

(2) to delete this work from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in
Zoological Nomenclature, and to place it on the Official List of Works
Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature with an endorsement to
reflect the ruling requested in (1) above;

(3) to make such editorial changes in the Official Lists and Indexes as are necessary
from the rulings requested in (1) and (2) above, together with previous Opinions;

(4) to accept the following amendments to the proposals published by I.M.
Kerzhner in BZN 48: 107-133 (references being given to his paragraphs in each
case):

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 227

(i) amend all references to Geoffroy in Miiller, 1764 to read Geoffroy, 1762;
(ii) B.3 (2) (a) withdraw [covered by deletion of (5)(a) below];
(b) amend Miller, 1776 to read Geoffroy, 1762;
(5) (a) delete this entry from Official Index;
(b) amend Miller, 1776 to read Geoffroy, 1762;

C.2 [new para.] add Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762 to Official Index as a junior
objective synonym of Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758;

D.3 no changes [apart from amendment of Geoffroy in Miller, 1764};

E.2 (1) and (2) amend Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 to read Geoffroy, 1762;

F.2 [new para.] add Hepa Geoffroy, 1762 to Official Index as a junior objec-
tive synonym of Nepa Linnaeus, 1758;

G.2 no changes [apart from amendment of Geoffroy in Miller, 1764];

H.5 (3)(b) amend (Olivier, 1791) to read (Fabricius, 1781);

J.3. add new (4) to amend entry for Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 on the Official
Index to record that it is a junior objective synonym of Tinea Linnaeus,
1758;

K.30(3)(a) and (c) amend authorships to read Geoffroy, 1762;
(3)(b) and (7)(f) omit;
(6)(r), (7)(e) and (9)(k) amend Kugelann, 1792 to read Miller, 1776;
(8) amend Miller, 1776 to read Geoffroy, 1762.

References

Schaeffer, J.C. 1766. Elementa entomologica. 168 pp, 133 pls. Weiss, Ratisbonae.
Schluga, J.B. 1767. Primae lineae cognitionis insectorum cum figuris aeneis. 1, 47, 4 pp., 2 pls.
Kraus, Vienna.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Linnaeus,
1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2618; see BZN 45: 194-196; 48: 143-147)

P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

1. The generic names Bruchus and Mylabris were first published, with descriptions,
on pp. 163 and 266 of Geoffroy’s 1762 Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux
environs de Paris. They appeared again in Miiller (1764) and Schaeffer’s 1766 Elementa
Entomologica. The latter two works included no species in any genus, but Geoffroy
employed polynomial specific names and for this reason his work was ruled in Opinion
228 to be unavailable; the new generic names were not excepted but specialists were
asked for advice. The authorship of these names, as of 1764, has been given as ‘Miller’
by Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196) and as ‘Geoffroy in Miller’ by Kerzhner (BZN 38:
5-7; 48: 107-133), Kerzhner & Kirejtshuk (BZN 48: 143-144) and myself (BZN 48:
146-147). However, doubt exists as to whether, under Article 11d of the Code, any
names were made available in Miiller’s work, and it has been proposed (BZN 49: 226)
that generic names should now be accepted as having been made available in Geoffroy
(1762); this course has already been accepted by the Commission in 16 particular
instances. If Kerzhner’s proposals (BZN 48: 107-133) and those of Borowiec are

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

approved 40 of Geoffroy’s 59 new generic names will have been conserved, and 19
rejected or suppressed in accord with the usage of modern times.

2. Borowiec has drawn attention to the fact that Bruchus has long been accepted in
the seed beetle sense of Linnaeus (1767, p. 604) and not in that of Geoffroy, and
similarly Mylabris in the oil beetle sense of Fabricius (1775, p. 261). He has proposed
the conservation of the names in the later senses, and also that of Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767
(p. 565), in long-established use but a junior synonym of Bruchus sensu Geoffroy. These
actions have been supported by Kerzhner (BZN 48: 119, 121) and by Kerzhner &
Kirejtshuk (BZN 48: 143-144). The latter have pointed out that Laria Scopoli, 1763 is
(like Mylabris sensu Geoffroy; see Gentry, BZN 48: 144-145) a senior synonym of
Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 and they have proposed its suppression.

3. I propose that the Commission accept the proposals of Borowiec in BZN 45: 195,
with the following amendment and addition:

(1) references to ‘Miiller, 1764’ be amended to read ‘Geoffroy, 1762’. (This is subject
to the Commission accepting Proposal (1) on BZN 49: 226, relating to
Kerzhner’s proposal to conserve Geoffroy’s names; if that is not approved
Miller, 1764 could be replaced by Geoffroy in Miller, 1764 or Schaeffer, 1766,
but the names have never been attributed to Schaeffer);

(2) the addition of the proposals of Kerzhner & Kirejtshuk (BZN 48: 143).

Comment on the proposed suppression of the generic names Acrydium and Acridium,
and on the conservation of Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera)
(Case 2568; see BZN 45: 191—193; 46: 42-44)

P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

1. Family-group names based on Acrida Linnaeus, 1758 are in universal use at both
family and superfamily rank. In an application concerning the precedence of family-
group names in the Orthoptera, Key (BZN 45: 191, para. 4) mentioned the confusion.
which had been caused by the existence of the generic names Acrydium and Acridium
and derived family-group names, and proposed their suppression; this has been
supported by Kerzhner (BZN 46: 42; 48: 112) and by Dr V.R. Vickery and the late
Dr D.K. McE. Kevan (unpublished).

2. Acrydium was first published with a description by Geoffroy (1762, p. 390) in his
Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, and was cited by
Miiller (1764, p. 17). It was treated as a valid name by Schluga (1767, p. 33) a year after
Schaeffer (1766, genus 79, p. 15) had made the name Acridium available for the same
taxon (neither of these works was mentioned in Key’s application, but this does not
affect any issue). As discussed by Key in para. 4 of his application, Acrydium and
Acridium have not been used for very many years. Family-group names based on them
were used in the 19th century, with various spellings, and caused confusion because
of their similarity to the names ACRIDIDAE and ACRIDOIDEA, nominal taxa based on
Acrida Linnaeus which were introduced only later but which, as mentioned above, are
in use.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 229

3. The type species of Acrida was designated in Opinion 299 (1954) as Gryllus
turritus Linnaeus, 1758. The type species of Acrydium (= Acridium) is Gryllus stridulus
Linnaeus, 1758, so it is a senior objective synonym of Psophus Fieber, 1853, as pointed
out by Kerzhner (BZN 46: 42). Psophus is in use; it was placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Opinion 149 (1943) but its synonymy with Acrydium was not then
dealt with by the suppression of the latter. Acrida and Acrydium/Acridium (i.e.
Psophus) are entirely distinct and it is unfortunate that the names resemble each
other.

4. Complications concerning various family-group names have delayed the disposal
of Key’s application (BZN 45: 191—193). As discussed in the preceding comments it is
very desirable to settle finally the status of the 59 generic names erected by Geoffroy
. (1762). Ifthe applications of Kerzhner and Borowiec are approved Acrydium will be the
only remaining Geoffroy name (cf. Kerzhner’s para. D.1 on BZN 48: 112). Its sup-
pression is therefore proposed below, as is that of Acridium Schaeffer, 1766. Key (para.
7 on BZN 45: 192) has proposed the suppression of both generic names, but gave their
authorships as Muller, 1764 and 1776 respectively. If Proposal (1) on BZN 49: 226 is
not approved Acrydium could be taken from Geoffroy in Miller, 1764 or Schluga, 1767
(see para. 2 above). There is of course no need to place Acrida and Psophus on the
Official List.

5. 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 but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy:

(a) Acrydium Geoffroy, 1762;
(b) Acridium Schaeffer, 1766;

(2) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Acrydium Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) Acridium Schaeffer, 1766, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

Additional references

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris. Vol. 1,
xxvili, 523 pp. Vol. 2, 690 pp. Durand, Paris.

Schaeffer, J.C. 1766. Elementa entomologica. 168 pp., 133 pls. Weiss, Ratisbonae.

Schluga, J.B. 1767. Primae lineae cognitionis insectorum cum figuris aeneis. 1, 47, 4 pp., 2 pls.
Kraus, Vienna.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the names Lincus Stal, 1867 and croupius
Rolston, 1983 (Insecta, Heteroptera)
(Case 2798; see BZN 49: 19-21)

(1) L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9157, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

The arguments to save the well-known name Lincus for a genus of Heteroptera that
is important in phytopathology are convincing. However, I see no reason to suppress

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

the specific name bipunctata Spinola, 1850 in favour of croupius Rolston, 1983. It seems
a great advantage to accept the 133-year older name for the species; this gives more
nomenclatural stability as any overlooked synonym published since 1850 cannot do
any harm. Therefore, I suggest the rejection of proposals (1)(b) and (5) on BZN 49: 20,
and the substitution of bipunctata for croupius in proposal (3)(b).

(2) L.H. Rolston
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-1710,
U.S.A.

In response to the above objection by Holthuis to the suppression of the specific
name bipunctata Spinola, 1850 and the placement of croupius Rolston, 1983 on the
Official List of Specific Names, it appears to me that nomenclatural stability would be
served best by suppressing a name used once and only once in primary literature and
conserving the synonym that has been used in applied work by seven authors, in
addition to my 1983 paper. There is a manuscript in press by two additional authors (G.
Couturier & F. Kahn) that also uses the specific name croupius. This name has thus
been used by at least 10 authors in 6 papers since 1983. Perhaps it is unfortunate that I
am the author of the specific name proposed as an addition to the Official List. lam not
biased because of authorship and shall not be in the least perturbed on personal
grounds should the proposal be rejected.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the generic name Helophorus Fabricius,
1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling
(Case 2796; see BZN 49: 30-31)

(1) A. Smetana
Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Biological Division, Agriculture
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada

I am in full support of the application by R.B. Angus to conserve the name
Helophorus.

Angus correctly states that Illiger’s emendation of the original Fabricius spelling of
Elophorus to Helophorus is unjustified under Article 33b of the Code. However, the fact
that the overwhelming majority of authors, both old and recent, used IIliger’s spelling
Helophorus should be taken into consideration. I would like to emphasize here that the
spelling Helophorus is used in the recent and comprehensive treatment of the genera of
hydrophiloid beetles by Hansen (1991); this will be used as the standard reference for
many years to come. The spelling Helophorus is used consistently also in many recent
non-taxonomic papers in the fields of palaeontology (e.g. Schwert, 1992), ecology
(Koch, 1989) and economic entomology (Booth, Cox & Madge, 1990), and in recent
catalogues and checklists (e.g. Lucht, 1987; Roughley, 1991).

A return to the original Fabricius spelling Elophorus would certainly not contribute
to the stability of nomenclature.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 231
Additional references

Booth, R.G., Cox, M.L. & Madge, R.B. 1991. ITE guides to insects of importance to man. 3.
Coleoptera. 384 pp. International Institute of Entomology, London.

Hansen, M. 1991. The hydrophiloid beetles. Phylogeny, classification and a revision of the genera
(Coleoptera, Hydrophiloidea). Biologiske Skrifter 40. 367 pp. Det Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen.

Koch, K. 1989. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Okologie. Vol. 1. 440 pp. Krefeld.

Lucht, W.H. 1987. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Katalog. 342 pp. Krefeld.

Roughley, R.E. 1991. Family Hydrophilidae. Pp. 130-135 in: Bousquet, Y. (Ed.), Checklist of
beetles of Canada and Alaska. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

Schwert, D.P. 1992. Faunal transitions in response to an ice age: the late Wisconsinian record of
Coleoptera in the north-central United States. Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 46: 68-94.

(2) G.N. Foster
The Balfour- Browne Club, 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ, Scotland, U.K.

I write in support of the proposal to conserve the spelling Helophorus. I would like to
draw the Commission’s attention to the following points emphasizing the need for
conservation of usage:

1. Angus has in press the most important text to be assembled concerning the genus
Helophorus (Stisswasserfauna von Mitteleuropa, vol. 20, section 10, part 2). This has
been severely delayed already and will appear with the name Helophorus used through-
out. Elophorus would undermine the value of this magnum opus.

2. The genus includes one species (Helophorus brevipalpis) that is often the common-
est insect in flight in western Europe, and therefore frequently appears in ecological
publications. The genus also includes several crop pests. Reversion to Elophorus would
cause confusion to ecologists, some of whom would resist the change and others of
whom would remain in ignorance of it.

3. The genus features strongly in palaeoecological studies, another area in which it
would be undesirable to cause confusion by change of usage.

4. Hansen’s monograph (1991) incontrovertibly establishes the family status of the
HELOPHORIDAE, whereas previously many authors have treated Helophorus as part of
the HYDROPHILIDAE. A change in the name would cause confusion at the family level ata
time when many workers have just adjusted to use of the name HELOPHORIDAE.

(3) Alfred F. Newton, Jr.
Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois
60605-2496, U.S.A.

The spelling Helophorus has achieved near-universal use for this genus and as the
base for the family-group name based on it (HELOPHORINAE Or HELOPHORIDAE).
Although there have been a few recent uses of Elophorus, it is still possible at this time to
avoid long-term confusion in the literature by conserving Helophorus.

M. Hansen (1991) used Helophorus and HELOPHORIDAE in his recently published
comprehensive work on hydrophiloid beetles and M. Thayer and I have done the same
in a work on family-group names in the HYDROPHILOIDEA and STAPHYLINOIDEA
(Fieldiana, Zoology, in press). Both works are likely to be widely used as references for
some time, which argues further for conserving Helophorus.

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

(4) J.A. Owen
8 Kingsdown Road, Epsom, Surrey KT17 3PU, U.K.

I have read this application with great interest and wish it to be known that it has my
strong support.

(5) Paul J. Spangler
Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

I strongly recommend that the Commission conserve Helophorus as the correct name
of this taxon. Illiger’s (1801) emendation has been widely used for very many years, as is
documented in the application.

(6) D.T. Bilton
Institutionen for Genetik, Uppsala Universitet, Box 7003, S-75007 Uppsala, Sweden

I have recently seen the application to conserve the currently used spelling of the
water beetle genus name Helophorus. As someone who has worked with aquatic
Coleoptera for a considerable time I would like to support this application. Helophorus
is one of the most familiar and widespread genera of water beetles in the northern
hemisphere, and is known to many people other than students of the group. A return to
the original Fabrician spelling would be most unwelcome to people familiar with these
insects, and would only serve to confuse those who are not!

(7) Support for the conservation of the spelling Helophorus has also been received
from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, N. Jarnvdgsgatan 13,
SF-00100 Helsingfors, Finland).

Comments on the proposed conservation of Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Insecta,
Coleoptera)
(Case 2773; see BZN 48: 305-307)

(1) L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9157, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

The author of the application writes (para. 1) that he has not been able to ascertain
the exact dates of Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 and Schizopus Claparéde & Lachman, 1858
and he dates them therefore as 31 December 1858.

Ican help with Schizopus Le Conte, which was published in vol. 10, p. 70 of Proceed-
ings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (1858). The ‘Index to the
scientific contents of the Journal and Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia’, published in 1913 by the Academy, has a chapter dealing with the
dates of publication of these two serials. On p. xii there is a note that of the Proceedings
(1858=vol. 10) the receipt of the first part (pp. 1-88) was acknowledged by the
American Antiquarian Society on 19 April 1858.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 233

(2) Volker Mahnert
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland

An exact date for the publication of Claparéde & Lachman’s (1858) work, which
included the new name Schizopus, has not been easy to find. The archives of the Institut
National Genévois were unfortunately destroyed by fire in about 1963 and the univer-
sity library of Geneva does not have an entry register covering that time. However, an
entry in the register of the Société de Physique et d’ Histoire naturelle de Genéve records
receipt of the work from Claparéde himself in December 1858. This is apparently the
date of publication.

_ Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Cynolebias opalescens
and C. splendens, both of Myers (1942) (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes)
(Case 2792; see BZN 49: 207-208)

Anthea Gentry
Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The authors of the application, Drs Ferraris and Lazara, have written (30 May 1992)
that were it not for the widespread adoption of Myers’s (1942) names by government
and conservation organisations they would have supported Costa & Lacerda’s (1988)
adoption of the (1937) Faria & Muller names fluminensis and sandrii. The authors
believe that the case should be decided ‘only on the question of whether the widespread
adoption of a junior synonym outside of the systematic community is sufficient to
justify its continued use’. Some further information is noted below.

The paper (1937) in which Faria & Muller’s species were described appeared in a
military journal, published between 1937 and 1941 and of limited scientific circulation
(see Costa & Lacerda, 1988, p. 128). No type specimens were designated.

In 1942 Myers described Cynolebias opalescens and C. splendens from seasonal
ponds along the base of Serra do Petropolis, State of Rio de Janeiro. Types for both
species were designated from specimens in the Natural History Museum, Stanford
University, California (opalescens: an adult male holotype, catalogue no. 36521, and an
adult male and three female paratypes; splendens: an adult male holotype, catalogue
no. 36527, and three adult male paratypes).

Subsequently, whilst staying in Brazil between 1942 and 1944, Myers became
acquainted with Faria & Muller’s (1937) paper and agreed with the synonymies, but
considered that the earlier work ‘was not published according to scientific standards’
(Myers, 1944, p. 204; see also Myers, 1952, p. 129). Costa & Lacerda (1988, pp. 127,
128) also recorded that Myers did not accept the validity of the earlier names because he
thought that the journal in which they appeared was not available in libraries and was
therefore unknown to zoologists. With the exceptions of Lacerda (1987) and Costa &
Lacerda (1988), noted in para. | of the application, no author has adopted the specific
names fluminensis and sandrii Faria & Muller, 1937.

Additional references

Myers, G.S. 1944. Field notes of fishes of the vicinity of Rio de Janeiro. The Aquarium, 12(12):
204-206.
Myers, GS. 1952. Annual fishes. Aguarium Journal, 23(7): 125-141.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Anniella pulchra Gray,
1852 and designation of a neotype (Reptilia, Squamata)
(Case 2552; see BZN 48: 316-318; 49: 155-156)

(1) Mark R. Jennings

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology
Research Center, P.O. Box 70, San Simeon, California 93452, U.S.A.; Department of
Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco,
California 94118, U.S.A.

I feel that I am in a unique position to judge the merits of the application by Drs
Murphy & Smith and to urge the Commission to approve it. To change the current
nomenclature of Anniella would cause certain confusion.

Dr Marc P. Hayes (Portland State University) and I have recently completed a four-
year status report, Special Concern Amphibians and Reptiles in California. This docu-
ment will be widely used by a number of state, federal and local agencies, as well as
private consultants. We reviewed the taxonomy, distribution, life history and threats to
the legless lizard, Anniella pulchra, throughout its known range in California. We found
that of the 30 references we cited only one (Bury, 1985; an unpublished report) had
adopted the nomenclature proposed by Hunt (1983). Furthermore, of 1,972 museum
specimens we examined in 12 U.S. collections only 282 specimens in a single collection
were catalogued under Hunt’s arrangement. It is clear that nearly all curators and
collections managers have resisted relabelling the specimens in their charge.

Information published by Bezy & Wright (1971) and Bezy, Gorman, Kim & Wright
(1972) indicates that the taxon currently known as A. pulchra consists of at least two
distinct taxa. Hopefully, future biochemical and morphological analyses will clarify
the relationships of Anniella taxa in California. A revision of the group is inevitable
and thus the conservation of A. pulchra by selection of a neotype is the best course of
action.

Additional references

Bezy, R. & Wright, J. 1971. Karyotypic variation and relationships of the California legless
lizard, Anniella pulchra Gray (Reptilia, Anniellidae). Herpetological Review, 3(4): 71-72.

Bezy, R., Gorman, G.C., Kim, Y.J. & Wright, J.W. 1972. Chromosomal and genetic divergence in
the fossorial lizards of the family Anniellidae. Systematic Zoology, 26(1): 57-71.

Bury, R.B. 1985 (unpublished). Status report: Anniella pulchra nigra Fischer, black legless lizard
(Anniellidae: Sauria) in central California. Final report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Endangered Species, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.

(2) Robert G. Sprackland
1201 Geraldine Way, Suite 1, ‘Reptile Road’, Belmont, California 94002, U.S.A.

Despite the validity of the argument on priority, the nomenclature of Anniella
pulchra Gray, 1852 should follow the pre-Hunt (1983) status because there is over a
century of literature on this taxon which is both voluminous and very specific about the
animal it addresses. Nomenclature ought to be stable and it therefore seems logical in
this case to honour the spirit rather than the letter of the Code.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 235

(3) Hugh Griffith
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720,
U.S.A.

I write in support of the application to retain the current usage of the name Anniella
pulchra Gray, 1852.

I believe that the authors are correct in their assertion that the vast majority of
herpetologists (systematists and otherwise) understand the widespread mainland
California form to be A. pulchra. To follow Hunt (1983) and rename this species as a
subspecies of A. nigra Fischer, 1885 would introduce significant confusion to a vast
literature base for the sake of ‘correcting’ an error which arose from a complex series of

- events long ago.

I study burrowing lizards, including Anniella, and would find it awkward to
adopt Hunt’s nomenclature, as I am sure would others. I thus support the neotype
designation and the other proposals of Murphy & Smith.

(4) Richard G. Zweifel
Department of Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West
at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.

The proposal by Murphy & Smith to designate a neotype and conserve the name
Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 has my full support. Promotion of stability of nomen-
clature is one of the important functions of the Commission and may appropriately be
exercised in this case. The taxon has a large literature diverse in subject matter. Change
would serve no useful purpose and would be confusing to ecologists and physiologists
not likely to be informed regarding current nomenclature.

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1689

Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Sidisia Gray, 1858 is hereby sup-
pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The name Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (gender: masculine), type species by mono-
typy Dysidea papillosa Johnston, 1842, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

(3) The name papillosa Johnston, 1842, as published in the binomen Duseideia?
papillosa (specific name of the type species of Epizoanthus Gray, 1867), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Sidisia Gray, 1858, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2750

An application for the conservation of Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 was received from
Prof J.S. Ryland and Dr A. Muirhead (University College of Swansea, Swansea, U.K.)
on 5 December 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 19-21
(March 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in
support from Dr Mark J. Grygier (Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, Wakayama,
Japan) was published in BZN 48: 243 (September 1991).

It was noted on the voting paper that the new species papillosa Johnston, 1842 (pp.
190-190, 251, pl. 16, figs. 6, 7) was tentatively included in the new genus Duseideia
Johnston, 1842, and that Dysidea? should therefore be amended to Duseideia? in
proposal 10(3) on BZN 48: 20.

Johnston (1842, p. 185) established Duseideia with two included species, Spongia
fragilis Montagu, 1818 (p. 114, pl. 14, figs. 1,2) and D. papillosa. Later in the same work
(p. 251) Johnston altered the spelling of the generic name to Dysidea. Bowerbank
(1864), acting as first revisor, adopted the spelling Dysidea and Duseideia has not i
subsequently been used. deLaubenfels (1948) designated Spongia fragilis Montagu as
the type species of Dysidea. The names Dysidea Johnston, 1842 and Spongia fragilis
Montagu, 1818 were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1550 (September 1989);
Duseideia Johnston, 1842 (an incorrect original spelling of Dysidea) was placed on the
Official Index in the same Opinion.

In a note on Dysidea papillosa, Bowerbank (1866, p. 384) placed the species in the
ZOANTHIDAE (Anthozoa) and recorded that ‘Dr Johnston...expresses his doubts of its
being truly a sponge’.

Additional references

Bowerbank, J.S. 1864, 1866. A monograph of the British Spongiadae, vol. 1, xx, 290 pp. (1864);
vol. 2, 388 pp. (1866). Ray Society, London.

deLaubenfels, M.W. 1948. The order Keratosa of the phylum Porifera — a monographic study.
Occasional Papers of the Allan Hancock Foundation, 3: 1-217.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 237

Montagu, G. 1818. An essay on sponges, with descriptions of all the species that have been
discovered on the coast of Great Britain. Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society,
2: 67-122.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 20. At the close of the voting period on | June 1992 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,

Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink
' Negative votes — 1: Kabata.

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:
Epizoanthus Gray, 1867, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1867: 237.
papillosa, Duseideia, Johnston, 1842, A history of the British sponges and lithophytes, p. 190.
Sidisia Gray, 1858, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1858: 532.

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1690

Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola
barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): lectotype designation confirmed

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the name Helix (Helicigona) barbata is first available
from Férussac (1832) and not from Férussac (1821).

(2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby confirmed that the specimen figured and
named as H. (H.) barbata var. a by Férussac (1832, pl. 66*, fig. 3 and explanation),
designated by Gittenberger & Groh (1986), is the lectotype of the nominal species Helix
(Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832.

(3) Thename barbata Férussac, 1832, as published in the binomen Helix ( Helicigona)
barbata and as defined by the lectotype designated by Gittenberger & Groh (1986),
confirmed in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 2630

An application for the confirmation of the lectotype designation of Helix (Helicigona)
barbata Férussac, 1832 was received from Mr D. Kadolsky (Ewell, Surrey, U.K.) on 20
November 1987. After correspondence the case was published in 47: 101—103 (June
1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment by Prof Edmund Gittenberger (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum,
Leiden, The Netherlands), published in BZN 48: 53 (March 1991), supported placing on
the Official List the specific name of Helix barbata Férussac defined by the lectotype
designated by Gittenberger & Groh (1986): the specimen figured in Férussac’s (1832)
plate 66*, fig. 3. However, Prof Gittenberger disputed the date of availability cited for
the name in the application (i.e. 1832). A reply by Mr Kadolsky, published in BZN 48:
243-244 (September 1991), reiterated that H. barbata was first made available in 1832
by the publication of Férussac’s plate and explanation, and not in 1821.

A further comment, published in BZN 48: 244, noted that in Opinion 336 (March
1955) Helix lens Férussac, 1832 (fig. 2 on pl. 66*; not pl. 66, as given on BZN 10: 99, |
which illustrated different species and was subsequently renumbered as pl. 76) had been
placed on the Official List; proposals (3) and (4)(b) on BZN 47: 103, para. 8 were
therefore withdrawn from the application.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 103, with the withdrawals noted above. At the close of
the voting period on | June 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin,
Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Halvorsen, Holthuis and Ride.

Holthuis and Ride considered that the name barbata had been made available in
1821.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 239

Original references
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:
barbata, Helix (Helicigona), Férussac, 1832, Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollus-
ques terrestres et fluviatiles, Explication des planches des livraisons 22— 27; pl. 66*, fig. 3.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Helix (Helicigona) barbata
Férussac, 1832:
Gittenberger, E. & Groh, K. 1986. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 116: 222.

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1691

Polygyra Say, 1818 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Polygyra septemvolva Say,
1818 designated as the type species, and POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895
given precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Polygyra Say, 1818 prior to
the designation by Herrmannsen (1847) of Polygyra septemvolva Say, 1818 are
hereby set aside;

(b) POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 and other family-group names based on Polygyra
Say, 1818 are hereby given precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 and
other family-group names based on Mesodon Ferussac, 1821 whenever their type
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in

Zoology:

(a) Polygyra Say, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation
by Herrmannsen (1847) Polygyra septemvolva Say, 1818, as ruled in (1)(a) above;

(b) Mesodon Férussac, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Helix
thyroidus Say, 1817.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) septemvolva Say, 1818, as published in the binomen Polygyra septemvolva
(specific name of the type species of Polygyra Say, 1818);

(b) thyroidus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Helix thyroidus (specific name
of the type species of Mesodon Férussac, 1821).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (type genus Polygyra Say, 1818) with the endorse-
ment that it and other family-group names based on Polygyra are to be given
precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (type genus Mesodon Férussac,
1821) and other family-group names based on Mesodon whenever their type -
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon;

(b) MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (type genus Mesodon Férussac, 1821) with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Mesodon are not to
be given priority over POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 and other family-group names
based on Polygyra Say, 1818 whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon.

History of Case 2642

An application for the conservation of the family-group name POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry,
1895 by giving it precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 was received from Dr
K.C. Emberton (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) on
8 February 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 94-96 (June
1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment from Drs G. Rosenberg (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) & K.C. Emberton, published in BZN 47: 204-205 (September

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 241

1990), noted that the generic name Mesodon was first published by Férussac (1821) in
synonymy, and that authorship of the name is correctly ascribed to Férussac (1821)
(Article 50g of the Code, cf. paras. | and 8 of the application).

The application received the necessary two-thirds majority for approval when voted
on by the Commission. However, Mr David Heppell, voting in favour, pointed out on
his voting paper that the type species of the type genus Polygyra Say, 1818 was
P. auriculata Say, 1818 by Gray’s (November 1847) designation, and not P. septemvolva
Say, 1818 as stated in the application. He also noted that the correct date for the
publication of the name POLYGYRIDAE is 1895 (not 1894 as previously stated). A further
proposal (BZN 48: 141-142; June 1991) sought to set aside Gray’s designation in favour
of the accepted type species for Polygyra, P. septemvolva Say, 1818, designated by
- Herrmannsen (December 1847) (see BZN 46: 95). Approval of this further proposal has
allowed the ruling on the case to be completed and a combined Opinion to be published.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 95, with the amendment to the authorship (Férussac,
1821) of the name Mesodon noted above. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1991 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

Dupuis abstained.

On 1 March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposal published in BZN 48: 142. At the close of the voting period on | June 1992 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 29: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

Mesodon Férussac, 1821, Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques... suivis d’un prodrome
géneral..., part 2, p. 37 (folio), p. 33 (quarto).

MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866, American Journal of Conchology, 2: 306.

Polygyra Say, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(10): 276.

POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895, Manual of Conchology, series 2 (Pulmonata), vol. 9, p. xxxii.

septemvolva, Polygyra, Say, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
1(10): 278.

thyroidus, Helix, Say, 1817, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(6): 123.

The following is the reference for the designation of Polygyra septemvolva Say, 1818 as the type
species of the nominal genus Polygyra Say, 1818:
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847. Indicus generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2, p. 317.

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1692

Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 and Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828
(Annelida, Polychaeta): conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Phyllodoce Ranzani, 1817, and all
uses of the name Phyllodoce prior to the publication of Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818, are
hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of
Homonymy. ‘
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology:
(a) Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Phyllodoce laminosa Lamarck, 1818;
(b) Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Phyllodoce maxillosa Ranzani, 1817.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology:
(a) laminosa Lamarck, 1818, as published in the binomen Phyllodoce laminosa
(specific name of the type species of Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818);
(b) maxillosa Ranzani, 1817, as published in the binomen Phyllodoce maxillosa
(specific name of the type species of Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828).
(4) The name PHYLLODOCIDAE Orsted, 1843 (type genus Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818)
is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
(5) The name Phyllodoce Ranzani, 1817, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2765

An application for the conservation of Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 and Polyodontes de
Blainville, 1828 was received from Dr Fredrik Pleijel (Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm, Sweden) on 12 March 1990. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 48: 100-102 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate -
journals. No comments were received.

It was noted on the voting paper that the publication by Pleijel (1991) recorded as ‘in
press’ in para. 3 of the application had subsequently been published: Zoologica Scripta,
20: 225-261.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 101. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1992 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 243

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:
laminosa, Phyllodoce, Lamarck, 1818, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertéebres, vol. 5, p. 316.
maxillosa, Phyllodoce, Ranzani, 1817, Opuscoli Scientifici, Bologna, 1(2): 109.
Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 5, p. 316.
Phyllodoce Ranzani, 1817, Opuscoli Scientifici, Bologna, 1(2): 109.
PHYLLODOCIDAE Orsted, 1843, Annulatorum danicorum conspectus, fasc. | (Maricolae), p. 25.
Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828, in Levrault, F.G. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, vol.

57(VEC-VER), p. 461.

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1693

Coccinella undecimnotata Schneider, [1792] (currently Hippodamia
(Semiadalia) undecimnotata; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy: ‘

(a) oculata Thunberg, 1781, as published in the binomen Coccinella oculata;

(b) circularis Olivier, 1791, as published in the binomen Coccinella circularis.

(2) The name undecimnotata Schneider, [1792], as published in the binomen
Coccinella undecimnotata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) oculata Thunberg, 1781, as published in the binomen Coccinella oculata and
as defined by the lectotype designated by Pope (1987), suppressed in (1)(a)
above;

(b) circularis Olivier, 1791, as published in the binomen Coccinella circularis,
suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2763

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Coccinella undecimnotata
Schneider, [1792] was received from Mr Robert D. Pope (c/o The Natural History
Museum, London, U.K.) on 6 March 1990. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 48: 38—40 (March 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No
comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1991 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the

proposals published in BZN 48: 39. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Cogger and Lehtinen.

Cogger commented that he did not accept the argument that a neotype designation
for Coccinella undecimnotata Schneider, [1792] was not justified (para. 1 of the appli-
cation); he considered that to reject names in order to conserve another name which has
no extant type material was to invite further dispute and instability. Lehtinen also
commented that the existence of type material was essential in taxonomic work; when
making a choice between a name with a type and one without, arguments in favour of
the latter had to be really strong.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 245

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:

circularis, Coccinella, Olivier, 1791, Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle. Insectes, vol. 6,
p. 62.

oculata, Coccinella, Thunberg, 1781, Dissertatio entomologica. Novas Insectorum Species sistens,
part 1, p. 14.

undecimnotata, Coccinella, Schneider, [1792], Neuestes Magazin fiir die Liebhaber der
Entomologie, 1(3): 379.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Coccinella oculata
Thunberg, 1781:
Pope, R.D. 1987. Entomologica Scandinavica, 18(1): 61.

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1694

Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Rhinapion Motschulsky, 1868, and
all uses of the name Rhinapion prior to the publication of Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq
(1905), are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the
Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (gender: neuter), type species by
subsequent designation by Kissinger (1968) Apion (Rhinapion) pauxillum Beguin-
Billecocq, 1905, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name pauxillum Beguin-Billecocq, 1905, as published in the binomen Apion
(Rhinapion) pauxillum (specific name of the type species of Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq,
1905), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Rhinapion Motschulsky, 1868, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2757

An application for the conservation of Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocgq, 1905 was
received from Drs M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales,
Madrid, Spain) and M. Wanat (Muzeum Przyrodnicze, Uniwersytet Wroclawski,
Wroclaw, Poland) on 5 February 1990. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 48: 135-136 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment by one of the authors, Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga, published in BZN 48:
324 (December 1991), amplified the application. He noted that there is no known
synonym or replacement name for Rhinapion Beguin-Bellecocg, and to invent one
would upset the established nomenclature of the taxon. He also noted that new species
of economic importance are awaiting description.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 136. At the close of the voting period on | June 1992 the ~
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin,
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Holthuis and Thompson.

Bouchet commented that since the name Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 had
apparently not been much used since its description a replacement name could have
been proposed without upsetting the nomenclature.

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:
pauxillum, Apion (Rhinapion), Beguin-Billecocq, 1905, Annales de la Société Entomologique de
France, 74: 147.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 247

Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 74: 147.
Rhinapion Motschulsky, 1868, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 6(supplement): 86.

The following is the reference for the designation of Apion (Rhinapion) pauxillum Beguin-
Billecocq, 1905 as the type species of the nominal genus Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905:
Kissinger, D.G. 1968. Curculionidae subfamily Apioninae of North and Central America with

reviews of the world genera of Apioninae and world subgenera of Apion Herbst (Coleoptera),
p. 28.

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1695

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes,
Cypriniformes): not conserved

Ruling

(1) The name Pangio Blyth, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Cobitis cinnamomea McClelland, 1839 (an unnecessary replacement name for
C. pangia Hamilton, 1822), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.

(2) The name pangia Hamilton, 1822, as published in the binomen Cobitis pangia
(senior objective synonym of the specific name of Cobitis cinnamomea McClelland,
1839, the type species of Pangio Blyth, 1860), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 is hereby placed on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective
synonym of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758).

History of Case 2738

An application for the conservation of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck,
1824, and the designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846
as the type species, was received from Drs Mary E. Burridge (Royal Ontario Museum,
Toronto, Canada), Darrell J. Siebert (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and
Carl Ferraris (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 30 August
1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47: 118— ‘121 (June 1990).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Opposing comments from Drs Peter K.L. Ng, Angus D. Munro & Kelvin K.P.
Lim (National University of Singapore, Singapore) and from Dr Maurice Kottelat
(Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchen, Germany) were published in BZN 48: 59-62
(March 1991). A reply by one of the authors of the application, Dr Darrell J. Siebert,
was published at the same time (BZN 48: 63-64), together with a comment in support
from Drs Harro Hieronimus (Solingen, Germany), Jurgen Schmidt (Kamen, Germany) |
& Christian P. Steinle (Neuenburg, Germany).

A list of the additional representative references demonstrating usage of the generic
name Acanthophthalmus van Hassselt, 1824 was published in BZN 48: 64-65.

Opposing comments from Dr Rohan Pethiyagoda (The Wildlife Heritage Trust of
Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka) and from Dr Rainer Stawikowski (Gelsenkirchen,
Germany) were published in BZN 48: 251—253 (September 1991).

It was noted on the voting paper that an opposing comment had also been received
from ProfJ.S. Nelson (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), who wrote: ‘I feel that
the interests of zoological nomenclature would be best served by staying with Pangio
Blyth, 1860 as the name for what have become known as the kuhli loaches’.

It was also noted on the voting paper that until 1987 Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and
Acanthophthalmus were in long-established use in the sense of having C. taenia
Linnaeus, 1758 and C. kuhlii Valenciennes, 1846 as the respective type species, both by
designation by Bleeker (1863, pp. 362 and 364). In neither case were these designations
formally valid, and in 1986 Dr M. Kottelat applied for the conservation of C. taenia as

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 249

the type species of Cobitis (BZN 43: 360-362). This was confirmed in Opinion 1500
(June 1988). Dr Kottelat did not, however, seek to conserve Acanthophthalmus (which
formally has C. taenia as the type species; see BZN 47: 118, para. 1), and in 1987 he
introduced usage of the junior subjective synonym Pangio Blyth, 1869 (see BZN 47: 119,
para. 6) to replace Acanthophthalmus auctt. (i.e. sensu C. kuhlii). This course was
followed by many but not all authors.

In a recent publication on Acanthophthalmus kuhlii (Valenciennes, 1846), Burridge
(1992, p. 182) designated a neotype for the species: specimen no. RMNH 2688 in the
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands, collected by S. Miller
in Java between 1826 and 1832 or 1836.

The original application (BZN 47: 118-121) sought the conservation of Acanthoph-

- thalmus van Hasselt, 1824 for the kuhli loaches, with the designation of Cobitis kuhliias

the type species and the suppression of the (unused) earliest spelling Acantophthalmus
van Hasselt, 1823 (placed on the Official Index in Opinion 1500 as a junior objective
synonym of Cobitis). This course (proposal A) required the use of the plenary powers.
The alternative course was to use Pangio Blyth, 1860 (Proposal B; BZN 48: 252);
Acanthophthalmus would remain a junior objective synonym of Cobitis.

Additional reference
Burridge, M.E. 1992. Systematics of the Acanthophthalmus kuhlii complex (Teleostei: Cobitidae),
with the description of a new species from Sarawak and Brunei. Copeia, 1992(1): 172-186.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the close of
the voting period on | June 1992 the votes were as follows:

Proposal A — 8: Bock, Corliss, Dupuis, Kraus, Savage, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin
and Willink.

Proposal B — 21: Bayer, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Stys, Thompson and Uéno.

Ride commented that he considered that the usage of Pangio Blyth, 1860 since 1987
could not be ignored. Kottelat (1987) had made an adequate case (subsequently
supported by others) when he introduced the name, and the state of taxonomy in the
group was such that its introduction would not affect stability, disturb universality or
cause confusion, and its continued use was therefore justified.

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:

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt, 1824, in Temminck, C.J., Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de
Geologie, 2(Zoologie): 376.

pangia, Cobitis, Hamilton (formerly Buchanan), 1822, An account of the fishes found in the river
Ganges and its branches, p. 355.

Pangio Blyth, 1860, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 29: 169.

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

OPINION 1696

HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (1865) (Aves, Procellariiformes):
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the name Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849 and other family-group names based on Hydrb-
bata Vieillot, 1816 are hereby ruled to to be unavailable because the name of that
nominal genus has been suppressed in (1)(a) above.

(2) Thename Hydrobates Boie, 1822 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway (1884) Procellaria pelagica Linnaeus, 1758, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name pelagica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Procellaria
pelagica (specific name of the type species of Hydrobates Boie, 1822), is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (1865) (type genus Hydrobates Boie,
1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with
an endorsement that it takes the precedence of the replaced family-group name
THALASSIDROMIDAE von Muller, 1865.

(5) The name Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816, as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(6) The name HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849, ruled in (1)(b) above to be unavailable
because the name of the type genus Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816 has been suppressed, is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 2024

An application to conserve HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (1865) as the family name |

for the storm petrels was formulated by Mr R.V. Melville (former Secretary to the
Commission) and published in BZN 42: 398-400 (December 1985). Mr Melville was
considerably assisted in the preparation of the application by the late Dr Eugene
Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.), by Drs Chr.
Jouanin & J.-L. Mougin (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), and
subsequently by Dr W.R.P. Bourne (University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland)
and Dr John Warham (University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand). Dr
Eisenmann supplied a list of 29 major ornithological books in which the family-group
name HYDROBATIDAE had been adopted, demonstrating the world-wide usage of the
name. Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

An opposing comment from Dr Storrs L. Olson (National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) was published in BZN 44:
44-45 (March 1987). Acomment in support from Dr Bourne was published in BZN 45:
221-222 (September 1988). Prof Walter J. Bock (Chairman of the Standing Committee
of the International Ornithological Congress (SCON), Columbia University, New York,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992 251

U.S.A.) reported on the support for the application following a Congress
meeting in December 1990 (published in BZN 48: 158-160; June 1991).

It was noted on the voting paper that further comments in support had been received
from Dr Noél Mayaud (Ecole Normale Supérieure, 46 rue d’Ulm, Paris, France) and Dr
Warham. The latter gave a list of 13 works using HYDROBATIDAE Mathews for the storm
petrels; some of these had been mentioned by Dr Bourne.

The simplified proposals on BZN 48: 160-16] replaced those on BZN 42: 399-400:
they differed only in (i) the suppression of the objectively invalid generic name Hydro-
bata Vieillot, 1816 for the dippers in order to dispose of HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849
and (ii) the omission of action concerning Oceanites and Thalassidroma and the family-
group names OCEANITIDAE Forbes, 1881 and THALASSIDROMIDAE von Miller, 1865,
- since this was not necessary. As pointed out by Prof Bock (BZN 48: 159, line 5)
OCEANITINAE Is available for a subfamily (the long-legged storm petrels).

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 160-161. At the close of the voting period on 1 June
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatovy, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Holthuis.

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:
Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816, Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire, p. 42.
Hydrobates Boie, 1822, Isis (von Oken), col. 562.
HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849, Ornithologie européenne, ou catalogue analytique et raisonné des
oiseaux observés en Europe, vol. 1, p. 445.
HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912, Birds of Australia, vol. 2, part 1, p. 9.
pelagica, Procellaria, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. [Spaisie

The following is the reference for the designation of Procellaria pelagica Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the nominal genus H 'ydrobates Boie, 1822:
Baird, S.F., Brewer, T.M. & Ridgway, R. 1884. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology,
at Harvard College, C ambridge, Mass., 13: 403.

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(3) September 1992

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission;
other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; the Commission’s Secretariat
reserves the right to return applications not so prepared.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out
the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800,
p. 39) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. j

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be
in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and
followed by the number of pages, the publisher and place of publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could
be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text in IBM PC format. It would also be
helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main
references where this is possible.

Applicants would be well advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same
field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications
and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Contents — continued

On the proposed suppression of the generic names Acrydium and Acridium, and on the
conservation of Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). P. K. Tubbs . .
On the proposed conservation of the names Lincus Stal, 1867 and croupius Rolston,
1983 (Insecta, Heteroptera). L. B. Holthuis; L. H. Rolston. ee en eee
On the proposed conservation of the generic name Helophorus Fabricius, 1775
(Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling. A. Smetana: G. N. Foster;
A. F. Newton, Jr.; J. A. Owen; P. J. Spangler; D. T. Bilton: H. Silfverberg. of
On the proposed conservation of Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera).
L.B.Holthuis;V.Mahnert. . _ . A ea ee st So ye ats en NE
On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Cynolebias opalescens and
C. splendens, both of Myers (1942) (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes). A. Gentry
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 and
designation of a neotype (Reptilia, Squamata). M. R. Jennings; R. G. Sprackland;
H. Griffith; R. G. Zweifel CONE Sa whet Va Se oar Aan ge ep aired aks

Rulings of the Commission
Opinion 1689. Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): conserved. . ee
Opinion 1690. Helix ( Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola
barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): lectotype designationconfirmed . . . _ | :
Opinion 1691. Polygyra Say, 1818 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Polygyra septemvolva Say,
1818 designated as the type species, and POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 given precedence
OVET MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866... . . . «. eae eee, ee Pe hoe
Opinion 1692. Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 and Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828
(Annelida, Polychaeta): conserved RE ht ae ae Oe oa ae
Opinion 1693. Coccinella undecimnotata Schneider, [1792] (currently Hippodamia
(Semiadalia) undecimnotata; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved .
Opinion 1694. Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved .
Opinion 1695. Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes,
Cypriniformes): not conserved . a PAG ar ty ee ee
Opinion 1696. HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (1865) (Aves, Procellariiformes):
RN ee Ea ee ee

Instructions to Authors .

228

229

230
232

233

234

236

238

240
242

244
246

248
250
252

CONTENTS

Notes ce .
The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . .
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second Supplement to

so | ea eae ee x
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature —_ “Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints . ae
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies . et es

Applications eo
Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): i conservation of
both generic and specific names. D. R. Calder . :
Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 (currently Upogebia ‘capensis, Covetaass
Decapoda): proposed replacement of neotype, so conserving usage of capensis and
also that of G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently ae cite africana). N. Ngoc-Ho &
GC): Poor. <5,
Podisus Herrich- Schaeffer, 1851 ‘Insecta, Heteroptera): " proposed conservation of
P. vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 as the type species. D. B. Thomas & W. R. —
Dolling ‘
ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820. (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence ove
CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819. H. Silfverberg :
Catocala connubialis Guenée, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation cor -
the specificname. L. F.Gall. . .
METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera), “METOPIINI Raffray, 1904 (Insecta, 2
Coleoptera), and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of
homonymy. M. K. Thayer, A. F. Newton & T. Pape.
Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed ‘designation of 2
Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 as the type species. L. Ruz. . —
Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and Cynolebias splendens Myers, 1942
(Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conservation of the specific names.
C. J. Ferraris, Jr. & K.J. Lazara . ae
Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed designation of Filimanus 3
perplexa Feltes, 1991 as the type species. R. M. Feltes Bt :
Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation of he
specificname.R.G.Webb. . . —
Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed ‘place- .
ment of both the generic and specific names on Official Lists, and Leptobrachium
parvum Boulenger, 1893 (currently Megophrys parva): proposed conservation of the
specificname. A.Dubois. . .
Anisolepis grilli Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia, “Squamata): proposed © conservation ‘of the
specific name. R. Etheridge & E. E. Williams . pas

Comments

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779 —
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. E. Petit & D. Wilson. Es

On the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859
(Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). J. K. ;
Tucker; D. R. Calder, L. D. Stephens & A. E. Sanders .

On the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed i in Histoire abriégée :
des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762). L. B. Holthuis;
H. Silfverberg; P. K. Tubbs . ;

On the proposed conservation of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Pinus Linnaeus, 1767 and
Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera). P. K. Tubbs . ; Z

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Volume 49, Part 4, 17 December 1992 pp. 253-308 ISSN 0007-5167
THE NATURAL
- P HISTORY Mies >
. IRCHACE:
/ = ae ¢

The

Bulletin
P ioeical

Nomenclature

on Zoological i Sa

ee ve

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1992 is £75 or
$145, postage included; the rate for 1993 will be £80 or $155. All manuscripts, letters
and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers
President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Members
Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.,; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) Prof W.D.L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)
(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czechoslovakia; Heteroptera)

Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany; Arachnology) (Russia; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno (Japan; Entomology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Secretariat

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1992

PCN Ew EET FV EA Abe SIEVE
18 bil 1992

meatier y 253
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY

Wee

ae ae

RE

asd

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 49, part 4 (pp. 253-308) 17 December 1992

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication

_ but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any

zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting
comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments
to the Code are also published for discussion.

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience
wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 49, part 3 (published on 30 September 1992). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.

(1) Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Temminck, 1807 (currently
Calyptorhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed
conservation of the specific names. (Case 2856). R. Schodde & W.J. Bock.

(2) Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed replace-
ment of the lectotype. (Case 2857). A.J. Charig & B.H. Newman.

(3) Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed desig-
nation of Musca lancifer Harris, 1780 as the type species. (Case 2858). G.C.D.
Griffiths.

(4) Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation.
(Case 2859). A.S.Y. Mackie & J. Gobin.

(5) Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma meneghinii;
Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed replacement of neotype by rediscovered
lectotype. (Case 2860). R. Gatto.

(6) Ex_mrpae Curtis, 1830 and Elmis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed

conservation as correct spelling and of feminine gender respectively. (Case
2861). M.A. Jach.

(7) A.A.H. Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici... Sectio tertia.
Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) Verzeichniss einer Parthei
Insekten ...: proposed suppression with conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796)
names (Insecta, Arachnida, Crustacea). (Case 2862). I.M. Kerzhner.

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

(d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published
in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the
day of publication of the Bulletin.

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has recently been estab-
lished to facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and
to support the Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with
information on the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to
buy the Code and the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the Treasurer
Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural Council are
Dr H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof A. Minelli (Italy) and
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open to all European
zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo
Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes. .

Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.N.Z., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of
Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £19 or $35, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £15 or $29;
payment should accompany orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987.
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled
since it was set up in 1895; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official Lists
and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 255

together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. Copies
can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies

Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most volumes of the Opinions
and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Financial Report for 1991

Unfortunately 1991 was a year of decreasing income and increasing costs, the result
of which was that the Trust made a loss of £8,112 for the year. This is nearly 13% of the
income for the year, and is a large increase on the deficit of £1,324 (2% of the income)
for the previous year.

Nearly half the Trust’s income came from sales of publications. The Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature yielded an income of £25,482, an increase of £1,585 on the
previous year. The J/nternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Official Lists
and Indexes produced £3,100 (down by £1,722), giving a total income from publications
of £28,582, a small decrease of £137. Income from grants remained at £9,000, but the
amounts received from donations (£14,348) and investment interest (£11,424) were
down by £1,244 and £802 respectively. The total income for the year was £63,552, a
decrease of £2,320 from 1990.

The main expenditure of the Trust in 1991 was £57,791 for salaries and National
Insurance of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature; the increase of £7,404 was mainly because one full-time post had been
vacant for much of the. previous year. Printing and distribution of the Bulletin and
postage on sale of other publications amounted to £9,422. General expenses (£3,463),
audit fee (£650) and depreciation of office equipment (£338) brought the total
expenditure for the year to £71,664, an increase of £4,468.

During the current depressed financial climate and lower rates of interest it is difficult
for the Trust’s income to keep up with the annual increase in costs. Subscription rates
for the Bulletin are adjusted annually to cover higher costs, but, unless grants and
donations are to increase annually in a similar proportion, it is difficult to see how
the Trust’s work can continue at its present level. The size of the deficit for 1991 and
the prospect for 1992 have been a cause for immediate concern, and necessitate
retrenchment.

The Commission’s Secretariat was again housed in the Natural History Museum,
London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express its
thanks to all the donors listed at the end of this report who supported its work during
the year.

M.K. HOWARTH
Secretary and Managing Director

4 June 1992
List of donations and grants received during the year 1991
Academia Sinica, Taiwan £105 Australian Museums £463
R. Alvarado £20 British Ecological Society £500
Agricultural and Food Research Freshwater Biological Association,
Council, U.K. £2,000 U.K. £5
American Association for Zoological German Zoological Society £155
Nomenclature £6,107 Medical Research Council, U.K.

W. Ansell £4 £2,000

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 257

Natural Environment Research Spanish Council for Scientific Research
Council, U.K. £2,000 £1,800

Royal Danish Academy of Sciencesand Swedish National Science Research
Letters £98 Council £1,000

Royal Entomological Society of Swiss National Science Foundation
London £300 £2,000

Royal Society of London £1,000 Unione Zoologica Italiana £224

Science and Engineering Research U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences £477
Council, U.K. £2,000 Zoological Societies of Japan £590

South African Foundation for
Research Development £500
Total £23,348

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED

31 DECEMBER 1991
Income
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £25,482
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 2,168
Official Lists and Indexes 932
28,582
GRANTS, DONATIONS AND COVENANTS 23,546
BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 11,424
34,970
63,552
Expenditure
SALARIES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE 57,791
OFFICE EXPENSES 3,463
AUDIT FEE 650
PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF
PUBLICATIONS 9,422
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 338
71,664

Deficit for the year 8,112

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2833

Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed conservation by the designation of a neotype for
Achatina erecta Benson, 1842

Fred Naggs

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the subulinid land
snail generic names Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935, and that of the
specific name of Achatina erecta Benson, 1842. When establishing Tortaxis Pilsbry
designated Achatina erecta as the type species but he was accepting a misinterpretation
of this species and in fact dealing with Spiraxis mandarinus Pfeiffer, 1855 (originally
included as a nominal species but since synonymized with ‘A. erecta’). The syntypes of
Achatina erecta Benson are specimens of Bulimus gracilis Hutton, 1834, the type species
of Allopeas. It is proposed that usage be maintained by designating a neotype for
A. erecta in the established sense.

1. The subulinid land snail Achatina erecta Benson, 1842 (p. 487) was briefly
described, without figures, from a collection made by T. Cantor in coastal areas of
south-east China. Four specimens from the type series are held in the collections of the
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta (registration number M2262 4/4).

2. Reeve (1849, pl. 16, fig. 69) redescribed and figured ‘ Achatina erecta’ based on five
rather bleached shells in the H. Cuming collection, collected by Largilliert from
Nanking (Nan-ching), now in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London
(registration number 1991104). A. erecta Benson has been accepted by all subsequent
workers in the sense of Reeve (for example Pilsbry, 1906, pp. 7-8, pl. 2, figs. 24-26; Yen,
1939, p. 110, pl. 11, fig. 2; Brandt, 1980, p. 107).

3. Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 (p. 5) was established with the original designation of
A. erecta Benson, 1842 as the type species. Pilsbry mentioned Reeve (1849) when citing
A. erecta but did not recognise that the species dealt with by Benson and by Reeve were
different, although he noted that Benson’s description was “very incomplete’.

4. Having examined the Calcutta type series of Achatina erecta Benson I have ident-
ified them as large individuals of Bulimus gracilis Hutton, 1834 (p. 93), a widespread
synanthropic species, 11 syntypes of which are in the Natural History Museum,
London (registration number 1856.9.15.68). B. gracilis is the type species of Allopeas
Baker, 1935 (p. 84), published as a subgenus of Lamellaxis Strebel & Pfeffer, 1882
(p. 109) but which I consider should be given generic rank. The syntypes of Achatina
erecta are in general agreement with Benson’s description but differ in several respects
from ‘Achatina erecta’ as described and illustrated by Reeve (1849). Two very distinct
species are represented; A. erecta sensu Reeve does not belong to Lamellaxis or to
Allopeas but to Tortaxis as described by Pilsbry and as it has since been understood.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 259

5S. It is apparent that Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 was based upon a misidentified type
species and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code. It also
follows from para. 4 that under the provisions of the Code Tortaxis is a senior subjec-
tive synonym of Allopeas Baker, 1935, although such a synonymy does not result from
Pilsbry’s or any subsequent treatment of Tortaxis.

6. I consider Spiraxis mandarina (correctly mandarinus) Pfeiffer, 1855 (p. 9), one
of the several nominal species originally placed in Tortaxis, to be synonymous with
‘Achatina erecta’ sensu Reeve (1849) and later authors. Pfeiffer had noted that
S. mandarinus was ‘allied to Achatina erecta, Bens., which is also a Spiraxis’. Three
syntypes of S. mandarinus are in the Natural History Museum, London (registration
number 1987034, H. Cuming collection, locality ‘China’); they are specimens of
‘A. erecta Benson’ as used by and since Reeve (for example in references in para. 7
below). The name mandarinus has not been in recent use.

7. As Tortaxis Pilsbry and Allopeas Baker are well-established names it is desirable
to conserve their current usage. Examples of the use of Tortaxis include Yen, 1939,
1942; Zilch, 1959, 1973; Brandt, 1980 and Chen & Gao, 1987. References to Allopeas
include Pilsbry, 1943; Zilch, 1959, 1973; Marcus & Marcus, 1968; Mitra, Biswas &
Rahman, 1976; Joo, Kwon & Habe, 1979; Brandt, 1980; Azuma, 1982; Hamada, 1983;
Habe, 1985.

8. The type species of Tortaxis has always been given, correctly, as Achatina erecta
Benson, 1842 but this name has been used in the taxonomic sense of Spiraxis
mandarinus Pfeiffer, 1855, as mentioned in para. 6. The usages of Tortaxis Pilsbry,
1906, T. erectus (Benson, 1842) and Allopeas Baker, 1935 would all be conserved by the
designation of one of the specimens of ‘A. erecta’ seen by Reeve (1849) (see para. 2
above) as the neotype of Achatina erecta Benson, 1842. I propose that the specimen
now labelled 1991104A (height 21.6 mm, width 6.8 mm and 7.4 whorls) be designated
as the neotype of A. erecta.

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for
the nominal species Achatina erecta Benson, 1842 and to designate as neotype
the specimen 1991104A in the Natural History Museum, London, mentioned in
paras. 2 and 8 above;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 (gender: masculine), type species by original

designation Achatina erecta Benson, 1842;
(b) Allopeas Baker, 1935 (gender: neuter), type species by original designation
Bulimus gracilis Hutton, 1834;

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

(a) erecta Benson, 1842, as published in the binomen Achatina erecta (specific
name of the type species of Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906), and as defined by the
neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) gracilis Hutton, 1834, as published in the binomen Bulimus gracilis (specific
name of the type species of Al/opeas Baker, 1935).

References
Azuma, M. 1982. Coloured illustrations of the land snails of Japan. 333 pp. Hoikusha, Osaka.

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Baker, H.B. 1935. Jamaican land snails, 3. The Nautilus, 48(3): 83-88.

Benson, W.H. 1842. Mollusca. Jn Cantor, T., General features of Chusan, with remarks on the
flora and fauna of that island. Part 2, animals observed at Chusan. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (1)9: 486-487.

Brandt, A.J. 1980. An annotated checklist of the non-marine molluscs of Hong Kong. Pp.
101-108 in Morton, B. (Ed.), The malacofauna of Hong Kong and southern China. 345 pp.
Hong Kong University Press.

Chen, D.-N. & Gao, J.-X. 1987. On a new species of land snail from China (Stylommatophora:
Subulinidae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 12(1): 20-22.

Habe, T. 1985. Land molluscs of Torishima Island between Izu Ids. and Ogasawara Ids.
Chiribotan, 16(1): 20-21.

Hamada, T. 1983. The living snails of Allopeas clavulinum kyotoense captured by tiny ants.
Chiribotan, 14(3): 58.

Hutton, T. 1834. On the land shells of India. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3: 81-93.

Joo, I.Y., Kwon, O.K. & Habe, T. 1979. The land snails in island Chejudo. Korean Journal of
Limnology, 12(1—2): 3540.

Marcus, E. & Marcus, E. 1968. Uber einige Subulinidae (Pulmonata von Sao Paulo). Beitrdge zur
Neotropischen Fauna, 5: 186-208.

Mitra, T.R., Biswas, S.K. & Rahman, R. 1976. Observations on the feeding habits of A/lopeas
gracile (Hutton) (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Subulinidae) in field and laboratory. Science
Reports of the Yokosuka City Museum, 22: 23-28.

Pfeiffer, L. 1855. Descriptions of nine new species of land-shells in the collection of H. Cuming
Esq. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 23: 7-9.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1906. Achatinidae: Stenogyrinae and Coeliaxinae. Jn Tryon, G.W., Jr, Manual of
Conchology, ser. 2, vol. 18 (Pulmonata). 357 pp., 51 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1943. Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico), vol. 2. 53, 1113 pp.
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Monographs, No. 3, Philadelphia.

Reeve, L.A. 1849. Monograph of the genus Achatina. 23 plates and text in: Conchologia Iconica:
or, illustrations of the shells of molluscous animals, vol. 5. Reeve, Benham & Reeve, London.

Strebel, H. & Pfeffer, G. 1882. Familie Stenogyridae. Pp. 96-125 in Strebel, H., Beitrag zur
Kenntniss der Fauna mexikanischer Land- und Susswasser-Conchylien, vol. 5. 144 pp., 19 pls.
Herbst, Hamburg.

Yen, T.-C. 1939. Die chinesischen Land- und Siisswasser-Gastropoden des Natur-Museums
Senckenberg. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 444:
1-233.

Yen, T.-C. 1942. A review of Chinese gastropods in the British Museum. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 24: 170-289.

Zilch, A. 1959. Euthyneura, Gastropoda. In Wenz, W., Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6, Teil-
2, Lieferung 2. 200 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Zilch, A. 1973. Die Typen und Typoide des Natur-Museums Senckenberg, 51: Mollusca:
Achatinacea (2): Ferrussaciidae, Subulinidae. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 103(1-—3):
99-152.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 261

Case 2845

Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed
precedence over Taningia persica (Naef, 1923)

Michael Vecchione

National Marine Fisheries Service, Systematics Laboratory, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Clyde F.E. Roper

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the specific name of
Taningia danae Joubin, 1931, a cosmopolitan large deep-sea squid which is a major food
of sperm whales. A small paralarval specimen originally named as Octopodoteuthis
persica Naef, 1923 certainly belongs to Taningia and probably to the only recognized
species, T. danae; the name persica never has been used as valid.

1. The deep-sea squid Taningia danae was described by Joubin (1931, p. 181) based
on a single small specimen (68'mm total length, about 40 mm mantle length) from the
tropical eastern Atlantic. The species is almost cosmopolitan, and the total length may
be over 2 m; most large specimens have been recovered from the stomachs of sperm
whales (Roper & Vecchione, in press). While Joubin recognized the new species as
belonging to the ‘Octopodoteuthidae’ (correctly OCTOPOTEUTHIDIDAE, but usually
spelled OCTOPOTEUTHIDAE), he felt that the pair of large photophores on the tips of
arms II were so distinctive as to warrant the erection of the new genus Taningia. The
description and illustrations are quite detailed and comprehensive, and the holotype is
deposited in the Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, where it has been examined by one
of us (C.F.E.R.).

2. Some specimens reported as Cucioteuthis unguiculata (Molina, 1782) are most
probably Taningia danae. Molina (p. 199) described his Sepia unguiculata from a
‘cuttlefish’ taken off Chile in 1769 on Cook’s first voyage, and based it on Cook’s
description and a preserved arm. This nominal species was made the type of a genus
Cucioteuthus (later emended to Cucioteuthis) by Steenstrup (1882, p. 153). All descrip-
tions and illustrations of C. unguiculata lack any clear indication of the photophores at
the arm tips which are characteristic of T. danae, and some reports may easily relate to
large specimens of Octopoteuthis species. Specific and even generic identification of
‘Cucioteuthis unguiculata’ cannot be made, and its names (which have not been used for
many years) are best left as nomina dubia.

3. A nomenclatural problem exists from a name applied to a paralarval specimen.
Chun (1910, p. 144) described a paralarva of 4.7 mm mantle length from the Gulf of
Aden as the larva of an Octopodoteuthis (= Octopoteuthis Riippell, 1844) species. He

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

stated that the arms bore only suckers and that especially noteworthy were the knoblike
swellings at the tips of arms II. His figures (pl. 17, figs. 1, 2 and 10) clearly show these
swellings, which are undoubtedly precursors of the photophores characteristic of
Taningia.

4. Naef (1923, p. 337) recognized this as a species distinct from the known
Octopodoteuthis, and erected the name O. persica based on Chun’s description and
figures. No additional specimens have been assigned to O. persica and we have been
able to find only four mentions of the name. Clarke (1966, p. 187) noted that O. persica
was based on a larval form and speculated that it might prove synonymous with O.
sicula. Young (1972, p. 41) stated: “The specimen shows distinct swellings near the tips
of arms II and extremely broad fins. Both features are strongly suggestive of the genus
Taningia, and | think it safe to transfer this species from Octopoteuthis to Taningia’. In
effect Young proposed the new combination Taningia persica (Naef, 1923) but he was
misquoted by Clarke (1980, p. 162) and Stephen (1985, p. 110). Clarke stated that
‘Young may be correct in considering that O. persica is probably a young Taningia
danae’, while Stephen said that Young ‘considered Octopoteuthis persica and O. indica
to be nomina dubia because their small size precluded accurate identification. He also
believed that O. persica was really the young of Taningia danae...’.

5. An extensive review of specimens and literature (Roper & Vecchione, in press)
leads us to conclude that Taningia should remain monospecific. Because O. persica
clearly belongs to Taningia, the name persica Naef, 1923 has priority over danae
Joubin, 1931. However, persica never has been used as valid, whereas danae is widely
and continuously used (e.g. Clarke, 1967, 1980, 1983; Zeidler, 1981; Roper, Sweeney &
Clarke, 1985; Nesis, 1987; Okutani & Tsukada, 1988; Fiscus, Rice & Wolman, 1989.
The Commission Secretariat has a list of 29 further references). Consequently, we feel
that danae should have precedence over persica; because T. persica is based on a single
paralarval specimen the possibility remains that it represents a distinct species, and if
this is verified in the future the name could then be used.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name danae Joubin, 1931, as published

in the binomen Taningia danae, is to be given precedence over the name persica
Naef, 1923, as published in the binomen Octopodoteuthis persica, whenever the ;
two names are considered to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Taningia
Joubin, 1931 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Taningia danae
Joubin, 1931;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) danae Joubin, 1931, as published in the binomen Taningia danae (specific

name of the type species of Taningia Joubin, 1931), with the endorsement
that it is to be given precedence over the name persica Naef, 1923, as pub-
lished in the binomen Octopodoteuthis persica, whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms;

(b) persica Naef, 1923, as published in the binomen Octopodoteuthis persica,
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name danae
Joubin, 1931, as published in the binomen Taningia danae, whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 263
References

Chun, C. 1910. Die Cephalopoden. 1. Teil: Oegopsida. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der
Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf der Dampfer ‘Valdivia’ 1898-1899. 402 pp. (text), 66 pls.
(atlas): Fischer, Jena.

Clarke, M.R. 1966. A review of the systematics and ecology of oceanic squids. Advances in
Marine Biology, 4: 91-300.

Clarke, M.R. 1967. A deep-sea squid, Taningia danae Joubin, 1931. Symposia of the Zoological
Society of London, 19: 127-143.

Clarke, M.R. 1980. Cephalopods in the diet of sperm whales of the southern hemisphere and
their bearing on sperm whale biology. Discovery Report, 37: 1-324.

Clarke, M.R. 1983. Cephalopod biomass — estimation from predation. Memoirs of the National
Museum of Victoria, 44: 95-107.

Fiscus, C.H., Rice, D.W. & Wolman, A.A. 1989. Cephalopods from the stomachs of sperm whales
taken off California. NOAA Technical Report NMFS, 83: 1-12.

Joubin, L. 1931. Notes préliminaires sur les cephalopodes de croisiéres du Dana (1921-1922). 3e
Partie. Annales de l'Institut Océanographique, 10: 169-211.

Molina, G.I. 1782. Saggio sulla storie naturale del Chili. 367 pp. Tommaso d’ Aquino, Bologna.

Naef, A. 1923. Die Cephalopoden. Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli, 35(1,1): 149-863.

Nesis, K.N. 1987. Cephalopods of the world; squids, cuttlefishes, and allies. 351 pp. T.F.H.
Publications, Neptune, New Jersey. [English translation.]

Okutani, T. & Tsukada, S. 1988. Squids eaten by lancetfish and tunas in the tropical Indo-Pacific
Oceans. Journal of the Tokyo University School of Fisheries, 75: 1-44.

Roper, C.F.E., Sweeney, M.J. & Clarke, M.R. 1985. Cephalopoda. Pp. 117-205 in Fischer, W. &
Hureau, J.C. (Eds.), FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Southern Ocean
(Fishing Areas 48, 58, and 88) (CCAMLR Convention area). 232 pp. Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Living Resources, FAO, Rome.

Roper, C.F.E. & Vecchione, M. (In press). A geographic and taxonomic review of Taningia danae
Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda: Octopoteuthidae), with new records and observations on
bioluminescence. Bulletin of the Tokai Regional Fisheries Research Laboratory.

Steenstrup, J. 1882. Notae Teuthologicae. Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes
Selskabs Forhandlinger, 1882: 143-168.

Stephen, S. 1985. The systematics of the pelagic squid genus Octopoteuthis Riippell, 1844
(Cephalopoda; Teuthoidea) with emphasis on species in the North Atlantic. 205 pp.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s.

Young, R.E. 1972. The systematics and areal distribution of pelagic cephalopods from the seas
off southern California. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 97: 1-159.

Zeidler, W. 1981. A giant deep-sea squid, Taningia sp., from South Australian waters.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 105: 218.

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2787

Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea):
proposed conservation with designation of S. antipai Bacescu &
Muradian, 1974 as the type species

L.B. Holthuis

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of the cumacean
genus Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 by deeming that the type species was
originally designated as Styloptocuma antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974. The name
Styloptocuma was not made available in 1974 since Bacescu & Muradian omitted to
designate a type species. Availability at present dates from publication of the name in
Zoological Record (1979) with citation of a type species.

1. Bacescu & Muradian (1974, p. 74) described a new genus of Cumacea which they
named Styloptocuma, with three included species none of which was stated to be the
type species. One species was new and the other two were Cumella gracillima Calman,
1905 and Cumella egregia Hansen, 1920. The name of the new species was given as
‘Styloptocuma antipai n.g.n.sp.’ on pp. 71 and 76 and in the explanation of pl. 1. Under
Article 68b(i) of the Code the formula ‘n.g.n.sp.’ does not constitufe a type species
designation for a genus established after 1930. To be available a genus-group name
published after 1930 must ‘be accompanied by the fixation of a type species... by
original designation or by indication’ (Article 13b). It follows that Styloptocuma
Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 is not an available name.

2. Styloptocuma was first made available in 1979 in Zoological Record (vol. 111,
section 10, p. 182) in the systematic index dealing with the Cumacea, where the type _
species of Styloptocuma was cited as S. antipai with reference to the paper by Bacescu &
Muradian (1974). Authorship of this section of Zoological Record (and hence of the
genus Styloptocuma) is attributed to H. Gwynne Vevers and 39 other staff of Zoological
Record who are all named on p. iii of the publication.

3. In Crustaceorum Catalogus (Bacescu, 1992) 11 species are assigned to Stylopto-
cuma, which is invariably attributed to Bacescu & Muradian (1974). The 1974 descrip-
tion is clear, the authors give a key to the three species known to them at that time, and
the new species Styloptocuma antipai is extensively figured and described. To attribute
authorship of Styloptocuma to Vevers and 39 others would be contrary to usage over
the 18 years since Bacescu & Muradian’s paper, would not be generally acceptable to
cumacean workers and would indeed be absurd.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the type species of Styloptocuma Bacescu &

Muradian, 1974 is deemed to be Styloptocuma antipai Bacescu & Muradian,
1974 by original designation;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 265

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Styloptocuma
Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (gender: neuter), type species by original designation
Styloptocuma antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as ruled in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name antipai
Bacescu & Muradian, 1974, as published in the binomen Styloptocuma antipai
Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (specific name of the type species of Styloptocuma
Bacescu & Muradian, 1974).

References

Bacescu, M. 1992. Cumacea II. Crustaceorum Catalogus, 8: 175-468.

Bacescu, M. & Muradian, Z. 1974. Campylaspenis, Styloptocuma, Atlantocuma, new genera of
Cumacea from the deep waters of the Atlantic. Revue Roumaine de Biologie, 19: 71-78.
Vevers, H.G. and 39 others. 1979. Crustacea. Zoological Record, (for 1974), 111( 10): i-xxii,

1-241.

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2825

Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824, Somatodes Schonherr, 1840 and the
specific name of Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation

R.T. Thompson

c/o Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names Pachyrhynchus
Germar, 1824 and Somatodes Schodnherr, 1840 for two genera of weevils
(CURCULIONIDAE) occurring in southeast Asia and South Africa respectively. Both
names are threatened by the long-overlooked name Somatodes Schonherr, 1823 which
is a senior subjective synonym of Pachyrhynchus and a senior homonym of Somatodes
Schénherr, 1840. The conservation is also proposed of P. moniliferus Germar, 1824, the
type species of Pachyrhynchus.

1. Schénherr’s (1823) synoptic table of weevils includes (col. 1139) a family-group
Somatodides, comprising two ‘cohorts’. The nominate cohort contains a single genus
and species, Somatodes sanctus, and is defined with the words “Thorax pone oculos
non lobatus’. Under Article 12b of the Code the generic and specific names are both
available, as also is the family-group name Somatodides.

2. In 1826 (pp. 9, 91) Schénherr adopted the name Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824
(p. 336) in place of his 1823 Somatodes and (p. 88) introduced the family-group name
Pachyrhynchides in place of Somatodides. In 1833 (p. 513) he listed S. sanctus as a
synonym of P. moniliferus Germar, 1824 (p. 336), the only species originally included in
Pachyrhynchus, and adopted P. moniliferus.

3. In 1840 Schénherr (p. 800) re-introduced the name Somatodes, with a single
species Somatodes misumenus Gyllenhal in Schénherr, 1840 (p. 801), for a quite differ-
ent group of weevils. This generic name and the family-group name based upon it, :
SOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863 (p. 319), have remained in use ever since (e.g.
Péringuey, 1885 (p. 141), 1908 (p. 321); Hesse, 1928 (p. 132). Coleopterorum Catalogus
(Schenkling & Marshall, 1931) lists four genera and 10 species in the SOMATODINAE).

4. Somatodes Schénherr, 1823 has never been used since Schonherr’s adoption in
1826 of Pachyrhynchus. However, it is still an available name and threatens both
Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (of which it is a senior subjective synonym) and
Somatodes Schénherr, 1840 (of which it is a senior homonym). In consequence,
SOMATODINI Schénherr, 1823 is a senior subjective synonym of PACHYRHYNCHINI
Schénherr, 1826 (p. 88). The SOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863 are a small and obscure
group of South African weevils, whereas the PACHYRHYNCHINI are an important south-
east Asian group which includes the well-known ‘Easter egg weevils’ of the Philippines
and some important pests of cacao in Papua New Guinea. The names PACHYRHYNCHINI
Schonherr, 1826 and Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 were conserved by the suppression
of the bird name Pachyrhynchus Wagler, 1822 and, together with P. moniliferus

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 267

Germar, 1824, placed on relevant Official Lists in Opinion 928 (August 1970). How-
ever, if a name placed on an Official List is a synonym of another available name the
principle of priority applies unless the Commission rules otherwise (Article 78f(iv)).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)
(6)

(7)

to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names:

(a) the generic name Somatodes Schénherr, 1823, and all uses of Somatodes
prior to the publication of Somatodes Schénherr, 1840, for the purposes of
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the specific name sanctus Schénherr, 1823, as published in the binomen
Somatodes sanctus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for
those of the Principle of Homonymy;

to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Somatodes

Schonherr, 1840 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Somatodes

misumenus Gyllenhal in Schonherr, 1840;

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name misumenus

Gyllenhal in Schonherr, 1840, as published in the binomen Somatodes

misumenus (specific name of the type species of Somatodes Schénherr, 1840);

to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name

SOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863 (type genus Somatodes Schénherr, 1840);

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

the name Somatodes Schonherr, 1823, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology

the name sanctus Sch6nherr, 1823, as published in the binomen Somatodes

sanctus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above;

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in

Zoology the name SOMATODINI Schonherr, 1823 (type genus Somatodes Schénherr,

1823) (unavailable because the name of its type genus has been suppressed).

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias

Naturales, Madrid, Spain, for drawing this matter to my attention.

References

Germar, E.F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae. Vol.
1.
Hesse, A.J. 1928. Some new species of Curculionidae from South Africa and South-West Africa.

xxiv, 624 pp. Hendel, Halae.

Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 16: 131-167.

Lacordaire, T. 1863. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres. 6. Curculionides.

637 pp. Roret, Paris.

Péringuey, L. 1885. First contribution to the South-African coleopterous fauna. Transactions of

the South-African Philosophical Society, 3: 74-150.

_ Péringuey, L. 1908. Description of new species of Coleoptera in the collection of the South

African Museum. Annals of the South African Museum, 5: 271-344.

Schenkling, S. & Marshall, G.A.K. 1931. Curculionidae: Dinomorphinae, Somatodinae,

Amycterinae, Gonipterinae. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 116 (sections separately paged).

Schonherr, C.J. 1823. Curculionides. /sis (von Oken), 7(10): 1132-1152 (cols.).

Schonherr, C.J. 1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica. Vol. 1. x, 338 pp. Fleischer, Lipsiae.

Schonherr, C.J. 1833. Genera et species curculionidum. Vol. 1. xii, 681 pp. Roret, Parisiis.

Schonherr, C.J. 1840. Genera et species curculionidum. Vol. 5, part 2. Pp. 465-970. Roret, Parisiis.

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2808

Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka;
Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name

Frank B. Cross & Joseph T. Collins

Division of Ichthyology, Museum of Natural History, The University of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045—2454, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Notropis
topeka (Gilbert, 1884) which is in universal usage for the Topeka shiner, a freshwater
fish of north-central North America (family CYPRINIDAE). It is threatened by the unused
senior subjective synonym Moniana tristis Girard, 1857.

1. Girard (1857) described many new species of CYPRINIDAE and CATOSTOMIDAE,
mostly collected by naturalists and medical personnel attached to the early western
railway and boundary surveys. His descriptions were often inadequate and the type
series composite and, unfortunately, much of the type material has subsequently been
lost (see Gilbert, 1978, pp. 5-6). More complete descriptions and illustrations for most
species published in two subsequent papers (Girard, 1858, 1859), together with the
work of Jordan (1885) and others, has allowed the status of most nominal species to be
ascertained. However, the identity of a few species has remained problematic.

2. The name Moniana tristis Girard, 1857 (p. 201) has been rarely, if ever, used and
has been unassignable to any taxon for a number of reasons: the original description
was vague enough to be applicable to more than one species and there was no illus-
tration; the type material has not been relocated (two of the five syntypes, listed by
Girard, 1858, p. 278 and originally in the U.S. National Museum, Washington, have
recently been found but three are still missing); the type locality is uncertain and the
collection date questionable. Neither of Girard’s descriptive accounts of this species _
(1857, 1858) indicated a locality of capture; Girard (1858, p. 278) cited a ‘Mr Kreuzfeld’
as having collected the syntypes in ‘1854’, in apparent reference to Dr Creutzfeldt
(a botanist associated with the Gunnison expedition that passed through parts of
Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Utah in 1853) who however died in October 1853
(see Mayden, 1987, p. 791). The taxon was recorded by Gilbert (1978, p. 84) as ‘not
definitely identifiable’.

3. Dr C.L. Hubbs examined a single specimen (catalogue no. 1793) in the type
collection at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, and identified it as
Moniana tristis Girard, 1857. Mayden (1987, pp. 790-791) considered the specimen to
be one of Girard’s original syntypes and identifiable as a juvenile of Notropis umbratilis
(Girard, 1857) (p. 193). Since the specimen appeared to be the only surviving syntype
and since the names tristis and umbratilis were published in the same work, Mayden
recommended that Moniana tristis ‘be considered a junior synonym, in part, of
Notropis umbratilis’. He also concluded that ‘it is probable that the original five
specimens in the syntypic collection represented more than one species’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 269

4. Dr C.R. Gilbert subsequently discovered a second syntype of Moniana tristis
amongst the type material of North American fishes in the Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle in Paris (see Mayden & Gilbert, 1989, p. 1087, fig. 1). The specimen (catalogue
no. MNHN-427) is compatible with Girard’s description but is unquestionably assign-
able to the species currently known as Notropis topeka (C.H. Gilbert, 1884). Mayden &
Gilbert designated this second specimen as the lectotype of M. tristis Girard and placed
topeka in the synonymy of tristis on the grounds that Girard’s (1858) redescription
better fits topeka than umbratilis. They adopted the senior name (i.e. tristis Girard,
1857). We believe this action created nomenclatural instability. Placing the name tristis
as a junior synonym of umbratilis, as initially proposed by Mayden (1987), would have
disposed of tristis whilst maintaining the stability of topeka. We also believe that the
- locality data and date of collection given by Mayden (1987, pp. 790-791) and Mayden
& Gilbert (1989, p. 1088) are speculative (see para. 2 above).

5. The name Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (p. 13) was based on three
specimens from Shunganunga Creek, a tributary of the Kansas River. One specimen
(catalogue no. 36609 in the U.S. National Museum) was subsequently (C.H. Gilbert,
1885, p. 513) mentioned as the ‘type specimen’. This is not unambiguously a lectotype
designation and may simply refer to its being a syntype, as accepted by C.R. Gilbert
(1978, pp. 9, 84). The latter recorded further original material in the National Museum
and in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. The name, as Notropis topeka
(Gilbert, 1884), has been used consistently during this century for the fish called the
Topeka shiner from north-central North America. The name has appeared in all major
checklists (Robins et al., 1980, p. 25 and earlier editions; Lee et al., 1980, p. 317) and in
all the current field guides for the states in which it occurs: Iowa (Bailey, 1956, p. 333);
Kansas (Cross, 1967, p. 128; Cross & Collins, 1957, p. 71); Minnesota (Phillips, Schmid
& Underhill, 1982, p. 140); Missouri (Pflieger, 1971, p. 360; 1975, p. 161, fig. 55b (p.
121)); Nebraska (Morris, Morris & Witt, 1972, p. 89); South Dakota (Bailey & Allum,
1962, p. 68; Owen, Elsen & Russell, 1981, p. 159). The latest edition of the checklist by
Robins et al. (1991, p. 23) retains the name Notropis topeka, with a comment (p. 77)
referring to Mayden & Gilbert (1989) and the present application (justifying retention
of topeka under Article 80 of the Code). To maintain stability in the usage of topeka we
propose that the doubtful name ¢ristis Girard, 1857, unused until 1989, be suppressed.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name tristis Girard, 1857, as published

in the binomen Moniana tristis, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name topeka
Gilbert, 1884, as published in the binomen Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the
name tristis Girard, 1857, as published in the binomen Moniana tristis and as
suppressed in (1) above.

References

Bailey, R.M. 1956. A revised list of the fishes of lowa with keys for identification. Pp. 325-377
in Harlan, J.R. & Speaker, E.B., Jowa fish and fishing, Ed. 3. lowa State Conservation
Commission, Des Moines.

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Bailey, R.M. & Allum, M.O. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. University of Michigan Museum of
Zoology. Miscellaneous Publications, 119: 1-131.

Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. University of Kansas. Museum of Natural
History Miscellaneous Publications, 45: 1-357.

Cross, F.B. & Collins, J.T. 1975. Fishes in Kansas. 189 pp. University of Kansas. Museum of
Natural History Public Education Series No. 3.

Gilbert, C.H. 1884. Notes on the fishes of Kansas. Bulletin of the Washburn College Laboratory of
Natural History, 1(1): 10-16.

Gilbert, C.H. 1885. Description of three new fishes from Kansas. Proceedings of the United States
National Museum, 7(33): 512-514.

Gilbert, C.R. 1978. Type catalogue of the North American cyprinid fish genus Notropis. Bulletin
of the Florida State Museum. Biological Sciences, 23(1): 1—104.

Girard, C. 1857. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the fresh waters of the United
States of America, west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the museum of the
Smithsonian Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
8(5): 165-213.

Girard, C. 1858. Fishes. General report on the zoology of the several Pacific railroad routes.
United States Pacific Railroad Survey, 10(4): 1-400.

Girard, C. 1859. Ichthyology of the boundary. United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, 2(2):
1-85.

Jordan, D.S. 1885. Identification of the species of Cyprinidae and Catostomidae, described by Dr
Charles Girard, in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for
1856. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 8(500): 118-127.

Lee, D.S., Gilbert, C.R., Hocutt, C.H., Jenkins, R.E., McAllister, D.E. & Stauffer, J.R., Jr. 1980.
Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. 867 pp. North Carolina State Museum of Natural
History, Raleigh.

Mayden, R.L. 1987. Identification of Moniana tristis Girard (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae).
Copeia, 1987(3): 790-792.

Mayden, R.L. & Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Notropis ludibundus (Girard) and Notropis tristis
(Girard), replacement names for N. stramineus (Cope) and N. topeka Ciba) (Teleostei:
Cypriniformes). Copeia, 1989(4): 1084-1089.

Morris, J., Morris, L. & Witt, L. 1972. The fishes of Nebraska. 98 pp. Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission, Lincoln.

Owen, J.B., Elsen, D.S. & Russell, G.W. 1981. Distribution of fishes in North and South Dakota
basins affected by the Garrison Diversion Unit. 211 pp. University of North Dakota, Grand
Forks.

Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. University of Kansas Publications.
Museum of Natural History, 20(3): 225—S70.

Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. viii, 343 pp. Missouri Department of Conservation, -
Jefferson City.

Phillips, G.L, Schmid, W.D. & Underhill, J.C. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota region. 248 pp.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. -

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B.
1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada, Ed. 4.
American Fisheries Society. Special Publication, 12: 1-174.

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada, Ed. 5.
American Fisheries Society. Special Publication, 20: 1-183.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 271

Case 2834

Mugil curema and M. liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific names

Luis Alvarez-Lajonchere

Departemento de Maricultura, Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras,
Barlovento, Playa, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba

Ethelwynn Trewavas
- Pincent’s Hill House, Calcot, Reading RG3 5TU, U.K.

Gordon J. Howes

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of Mugil
curema and M. liza, both of Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1836) (family
MUGILIDAE). The name curema is threatened by two senior subjective synonyms, M.
brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831 and M. gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831, but it is
in use for the Atlantic white mullet, a species which is widely distributed in the Gulf of
Mexico, the Caribbean and the Atlantic coast of North and South America, and the
coast of West Africa. The name /iza refers to the liza mullet which occurs along coasts
from Bermuda and the southern tip of Florida to Natal, Brazil; this name is threatened
by brasiliensis. Both species are of considerable economic importance.

1. The identity of the nominal species Mugil brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831
(p. 134, pl. 72) has remained problematic. The species was described with ‘Pinna dorsali
posteriore, caudali et anali squamulis minutissimis obtectis’, and the anal fin was stated
to have 14 rays. Agassiz listed his material as two spirit specimens and a larger, dried
specimen in the Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich. Jordan & Swain (1884, p. 269)
quoted a report by Dr Spaugenberg, then curator of the museum, that a dried fish in the
collections was the basis of Spix’s figure; they identified it as a specimen of Mugil
trichodon Poey, 1875 (p. 66, pl. 8, figs. 4-8), a species with densely scaled soft dorsal and
anal fins and eight anal fin rays. The spirit specimens were thought to represent two
further, distinct species. Jordan (1887, p. 571) listed brasiliensis with Mugil liza
Valenciennes, 1836 (p. 83) cited as a synonym. Subsequently, Jordan & Evermann
(1896, p. 810) placed brasiliensis in the section of their key to species distinguished by
‘soft dorsal and anal fins almost naked’ and eight anal fin rays (or rarely seven), with M.
liza as one of its synonyms. This usage was adopted by Schultz (1949, p. 114) and others
(see Thomson, 1964, p. 7). On the other hand, Giinther (1861, p. 431) adopted the name
for a species with scaly dorsal and anal fins and considered M. curema Valenciennes,
1836 (p. 87), which has nine anal fin rays, to be a synonym. This was followed by Poey
(1875, p. 61) and others (see Thomson, 1964, p. 7). Since the identity of the taxon was

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

uncertain and the type material no longer extant (see para. 3 below), Trewavas (1950)
recommended that the name brasiliensis should not be used; this was followed by
Carvajal Rojas (1972, p. 18) who adopted the names curema and liza. Thomson (1964,
p. 6) listed brasiliensis as a species inquirenda.

2. Alvarez-Lajonchere (1975) recognised that the description (by Agassiz) and the
drawing (by Spix) of Mugil brasiliensis in the original work present several characters in
which it resembles M. liza and others that suggest M. curema; he also pointed out that
there are inconsistencies between the description and drawing, and between these and
the characters found in the genus Mugil and family MUGILIDAE. Poey (1875, p. 63) had
previously noted the imperfection of the drawing. Alvarez-Lajonchere (1975) con-
sidered brasiliensis to be a nomen dubium and we consider that nomenclatural stability
would be best served by suppressing the name.

3. Agassiz’s (1831) original specimens of Mugil brasiliensis (see para. 1 above),
formerly housed in the Munich museum, are believed to have been destroyed by
bombing in 1944. Four alcohol-preserved specimens reputedly from Spix’s collection
were rediscovered in the Neuchatel Museum, Switzerland, by Dr M. Kottelat, who
listed (Kottelat, 1988, p. 84) two of them as putative syntypes. The four specimens have
now been examined by one of us (G.J.H.) and colleagues Drs I.J. Harrison and C.
Dufour, who found that three specimens represent a Liza species and one Mugil cf.
hospes. The fact that the genus Liza Jordan & Swain, 1884 does not occur in American
waters casts considerable doubt on their being Spix’s specimens. Kottelat noted that
Agassiz arranged exchanges of material with other workers and it is possible that these
specimens, which have no documentation, derive from some other source.

4. The name Mugil gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831 (pl. 109) was based on an illus-
tration of a specimen from Cuba. The plate has long been recognised as inadequate,
Valenciennes (1836, p. 88) noting simply that the colour was too brown and too
uniform. Poey (1875, p. 64, pl. 8, figs. 1-3) provided the first description of a taxon
under this name and this has been cited, together with Desmarest’s drawing, in sub-
sequent references to the species. However, Poey’s description of a Cuban mullet witha
narrower lip than his ‘M. brasiliensis’ and other features suggest that he may have been
referring to M. incilis Hancock, 1830 (see Alvarez-Lajonchere, 1976). Poey (1866,
p. 332) considered under one species the names brasiliensis, curema and gaimardianus,
remarking that the last had priority; later (1875, p. 61) he tentatively included.
gaimardianus and curema in the synonymy of brasiliensis. Jordan & Evermann (1896,
pp. 814-815) gave another description which clearly corresponds to M. curema
Valenciennes, as Rivas (1949a) pointed out. For this reason Rivas (1949b) did not
include gaimardianus among the species found in Florida waters. Mefford (1955),
followed by Robins (1958), Broadhead (1958) and Bullis, Roe & Gatlin (1972, p. 44),
listed gaimardianus as distinct from curema. Other authors, for example Meek &
Hildebrand (1923, p. 279), have placed the name gaimardianus (1831) in the synonymy
of curema (1836), inappropriately in view of the dates.

5. Alvarez-Lajonchere (1975) pointed out that from the body form of the fish
Desmarest’s (1831) drawing could be identified as either M. curema Valenciennes or
M. trichodon Poey, 1875, but that there are inconsistencies between the figure and the
characters found in these species. The numbers of pelvic and anal fin rays portrayed are
not found in the genus Mugil, while features shown in the ventral fin do not occur in the
MUGILIDAE.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 273

6. Desmarest (1831) did not mention the existence of original material for his new
species. Poey (1875) referred to'a specimen classified by Desmarest at the Jardin des
Plantes, Paris, but this has not been found. Although there are no specimens from Cuba
among the syntypes of M. curema there is one labelled ‘Cuba-Desmarest’ (catalogue
number MNHN A3613 in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) among
the syntypes of M. petrosus Valenciennes, 1836. One of us (E.T.) has identified this
specimen as curema. Since Desmarest mentioned no other mullet from Cuba it is
possible that this is the holotype of gaimardianus, but this cannot be proved. Accepting
it as a specimen of curema can do no more than support the usual synonymising of
petrosus with curema. In the absence of type material the name Mugil gaimardianus
Desmarest can only be applied to a species in which the individuals show the same
- characteristics as Desmarest’s published drawing. We consider the name to be a nomen
dubium since it is impossible to apply it with certainty to any taxon of the species group.
For the sake of stability in the nomenclature we propose that the name be suppressed.

7. The name Mugil curema Valenciennes, 1836 was proposed for a South American
species. The syntypes in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (catalogue
nos. MNHN A3653, A4641, A4655 and A4671) leave no doubt as to the identity of
the taxon. In describing curema, Valenciennes (p. 88) stated that he was certain that
brasiliensis and gaimardianus referred to the same species: ‘nous n’hésitons pas a lui
rapporter le mugil brasiliensis de Spix’ and ‘c’est cette espéce que M. Desmarest a fait
representer dans la Dictionnaire classique d’histoire naturelle sous le nom de mugil
Gaimardianus’. Valenciennes’s (1836) syntypes of M. liza are in good condition in the
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; it is apparent that more than one species is
represented but M. /iza as currently understood is a well-recognised and documented
species (see Thomson, 1964, p. 47).

8. The names Mugil curema and M. liza are in use for the white and liza mullets of
South America. Both names appear in the checklist of Robins et al. (1980, p. 49), a
number of identification guides (see, for example, Guitart, 1975, pp. 309, 310, 313, figs.
236, 239; Thomson, 1977; and Menezes, 1983, pp. 3—S, figs. 5, 7) and in the literature on
fish farming (Oren, 1981). A list of a further 21 references demonstrating usage of the
names is'held by the Commission Secretariat.

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) touseits 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) brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831, as published in the binomen Mugil
brasiliensis;

(b) gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831, as published in the binomen Mugil
gaimardianus;

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

(a) curema Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836, as published in the
binomen Mugil curema;

(b) Jiza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836, as published in the
binomen Mugil liza;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology

the following names:
(a) brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831, as published in the binomen Mugil
brasiliensis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

(b) gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831, as published in the binomen Mugil
gaimardianus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Alvarez-Lajonchere, L. 1975. Estudio sistematico de Mugil brasiliensis, Mugil gaimardianus y
Mugil curema. Investigaciones Marinas, (8)14: 1-18.

Alvarez-Lajonchere, L. 1976. Segunda adicion a la bibliografia de la familia Mugilidae (Teleostei)
publicada por FAO en 1972. Investigaciones Marinas, (8)23: 1-77.

Broadhead, G.C. 1958. Growth of the black mullet (Mugil cephalus L.) in west and northwest
Florida. Technical Series. Florida State Board of Conservation, 25: 1-29.

Bullis, H.R., Roe, R.B. & Gatlin, J.C. 1972. The Southeast Fisheries Center bionumeric code.
Part 1: fishes. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF, 659: 1-95.

Carvajal Rojas, J. 1972. Contribucion al conocimiento de la biologia de las lagunas y rios de
Campoma y Buena Vista (Venezuela), especialmente del robalo Centropomus parallelus
Poey. Cuadernos Oceanographia, 3: 3—36.

Desmarest, A.G. 1831. Muge gaimardien, Mugil gaimardianus. Pp. 129-130, pl. 109 in Audouin,
[J.V.] et al. (Eds.), Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle, vol. 17 (Atlas et illustration des
planches). vii, 141 pp., 160 pls. Rey & Gravier, Paris.

Guitart, D.J. 1975. Sinopsis de los peces marinos de Cuba, vol. 2 (Class Osteichthyes). Pp.
141-323. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. Instituto de Oceanologia, Havana.

Giinther, A. 1861. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 3 (First order, Acanthop-
terygii). xxv, x, 586 pp. British Museum, London.

Jordan, D.S. 1887. A preliminary list of the fishes of the West Indies. Proceedings of the United
States National Museum, 9: 554-608.

Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1896. The fishes of North and middle America. Part 1. Bulletin of
the United States National Museum, 47: 1—1240.

Jordan, D.S. & Swain, J. 1884. A review of the American species of marine Mugilidae.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 7 (17, 18): 261-275.

Kottelat, M. 1988. Authorship, dates of publication, status and types of Spix and Agassiz’s
Brazilian fishes. Spixiana, 11(1): 69-93.

Meek, S.E. & Hildebrand, S.F. 1923. The marine fishes of Panama. Field Museum of Natural
History. Zoological Series, 15(1): 1-330.

Mefford, H.P. 1955. The silver mullet fishery in south Florida. Reports of the Florida State Board
of Conservation, 55(34): 1-55.

Menezes, N.A. 1983. Guia pratico para conhecimento e identificagao das tainhas e paratis
(Pisces, Mugilidae) do litoral brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 2(1): 1-12.

Oren, O.H. (Ed.). 1981. Aquaculture of grey mullets. xxi, 507 pp. International Biological
Programme 26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Poey, F. 1866. Revista de los tipos Cuvierianos y Valenciennianos correspondientes a los Peces
de la isla de Cuba. Pp. 308-338 in: Repertorio fisico-natural de la Isla de Cuba, vol. 1.
Habana.

Poey, F. 1875. Poissons de l’ile de Cuba. Espéces nouvelles décrites. Annals of the Lyceum of
Natural History of New York, 11(3-4): 58-70.

Rivas, L.R. 1949a. Key to the Florida and Gulf of Mexico fishes of the genus Mugil (mullets). 3
pp. University of Miami (mimeographed).

Rivas, L.R. 1949b. Check list of the Florida game and commercial marine fishes. Educational
Series. Florida Board of Conservation, 4: 5-39.

Robins, C.R. 1958. Check list of the Florida game and commercial marine fishes. Educational
Series. Florida Board of Conservation, 12: 5—44.

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B.
1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada, Ed. 4.
American Fisheries Society. Special Publication, 12: 1-174.

Schultz, L.P. 1949. A further contribution to the ichthyology of Venezuela. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum, 99: 1-211.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 275

Spix, J.B. de & Agassiz, L. 1831. Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam...
Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr J.B. de Spix,... Digessit, descripsit et observationibus
anatomicis illustravit Dr L. Agassiz, part 2. Pp. 83-138, pls. E-G, 46-76, 50a, 50b, 56a, 56b,
69a, A-F. Wolf, Monachii.

Thomson, J.M. 1964. A bibliography of systematic references to the grey mullets (Mugilidae).
Technical Papers. Division of Fisheries and Oceanography. C.SI.R.O., 16: 1-127.

Thomson, J.M. 1977. Mugilidae. 11 sheets in Fischer, W. (Ed.), FAO species identification sheets
for fishery purposes. Western Central Atlantic (Fishing area 31), vol. 3 (Bony fishes,
Holocentridae to Pomacanthidae). FAO, Rome.

Trewavas, E. 1950. The status of the American mullets Mugil brasiliensis and M. curema. Copeia,
1950(2): 149.

Valenciennes, M.A. 1836. Des muges ou mulets. Pp. 7-155 in: Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, M.A.
(Eds.), Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 11 (famille des Mugiloides). xx, 506 pp. Levrault,
Paris.

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2840

Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia,
Saurischia): proposed replacement of the lectotype by a neotype

Edwin H. Colbert

Museum of Northern Arizona, Route 4, Box 720, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001,
USA.

Alan J. Charig

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Peter Dodson

School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3800 Spruce
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.

David D. Gillette

Division of State History — Antiquities, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101-1182, U.S.A.

John H. Ostrom
Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, U.S.A.

David Weishampel

School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21205,
U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to propose a neotype for the well-known
Triassic dinosaur Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887, the type species of Coelophysis Cope,
1889. Hunt & Lucas (1991) have suggested that Cope’s name is a nomen dubium
because of the fragmentary nature of the original type material; they erected a new
nominal taxon Rioarribasaurus colberti Hunt & Lucas, 1991. This action is unnecessary
and confusing. Extraordinarily abundant remains of this dinosaur are known from the
general locality and the horizon where Cope’s specimens were found. It is proposed
that a complete skeleton, the holotype of R. colberti, be designated as the neotype of
Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 thereby rendering C. bauri a senior objective synonym of
R. colberti and providing a much more informative type specimen.

1. Cope (1887a, p. 368) named two dinosaur species, Coelurus bauri and C. longi-
collis, based upon fragmentary fossils collected by David Baldwin in 1881 from Upper
Triassic sediments at two localities in northern New Mexico (Rio Arriba County),

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 277

namely Arroyo Seco near its confluence with the Chama River and near Cerro Blanco.
No holotypes were designated and there were no illustrations. Cope subsequently
(1887b, pp. 221—227) transferred the two nominal species to the genus Tanystrophaeus
and added a-new species, 7. willistoni.

2. In 1889 Cope (p. 626) established the new genus Coelophysis for the three species
he had described, but none was designated as the type species. Cope’s specimens
(isolated fragmentary skeletal elements with no skull bones or teeth) and species were
redescribed by von Huene (1915, pp. 500-507), who provided the first illustrations.
American Museum of Natural History numbers were given to 38 specimens by von
Huene; several were listed as ‘types’ of each of the three species but this action has no
validity under the Code.

. 3. Hay (1930, p. 186) designated Coelophysis bauri as the type species of the genus.

Welles (1984, pp. 159-160) selected as ‘lectotype’ for C. bauri a fragmentary ilium
(specimen AMNH 2708) from among the Cope fossils. This designation is however
invalid: the specimen had been placed by Cope (1887b) in Coelurus longicollis and was
assigned to C. bauri only by von Huene (1915).

4. In 1947 a prolific deposit of Triassic dinosaur skeletons was discovered at Ghost
Ranch, New Mexico, by a party from the American Museum of Natural History
(Colbert, 1947, pp. 392-399). Blocks of fossil bones were obtained composed almost
entirely of dinosaur skeletons, identified by Colbert (1947) as C. bauri. The quarry from
which they were recovered is probably within 2 km of the Arroyo Seco locality from
which Baldwin had collected many of the fossils described by Cope (see para. 1) and is
approximately at the same stratigraphic level (in Baldwin’s words ‘four hundred feet
below gypsum stratum’; see also Schwartz & Gillette, in press). Additional collections
from this quarry were made by several museums in 1948, 1981, 1982 and 1985, and
particularly important cooperative excavations were made in 1981 and 1982 by the
Carnegie Museum, the New Mexico Natural History Museum, the Museum of
Northern Arizona, and the Peabody Museum of Yale University.

5. For the better part of a century the generic name Coe/ophysis has been widely used
as representing an ancestral theropod dinosaur. Since 1948 this usage has been based
on full knowledge of the skeleton as exemplified by the numerous complete specimens
from the Ghost Ranch quarry.

6. Padian (1986, pp. 45-60) reviewed Cope’s material, listing the 38 specimens
figured by von Huene (see para. 2) and seven further original specimens. In an extensive
review Colbert (1989) included these and about 100 subsequently excavated specimens
(which represent only a fraction of those now prepared or being prepared) from six
major North American museums and concluded that all the Coelophysis specimens
are properly included in the single species C. bauri, of which they represent various
ontogenetic stages. Colbert (p. 33), at that time unaware of the invalid selection by
Welles mentioned in para. 3, designated specimen AMNH 2722, a series of four sacral
vertebrae, as the lectotype of Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887.

7. Rowe & Gauthier (1990, pp. 152-153, 165-168) presented a study of theropods
that identifies an early radiation of forms that these authors termed Ceratosauria. They
explicitly, and independently of Colbert (1989), accepted Coelophysis bauri as the
proper name for the Ghost Ranch material and used the characters in this material for
their analyses. This is consistent with the historical usage of the name and illustrates the
importance of this taxon to the understanding of the evolution of Theropoda.

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

8. Hunt & Lucas (1991, p. 191) erected a new nominal taxon, Rioarribasaurus
colberti, for the fossils from the Ghost Ranch Quarry, claiming that Coelophysis bauri
(Cope, 1887) is a nomen dubium. This action was based on their contention that the
lectotype designated by Colbert (see para. 6) is not diagnostic; they correctly pointed
out that the earlier selection by Welles was invalid. Hunt & Lucas maintained that the
Ghost Ranch quarry is at a different horizon from that of the sediments from which
Baldwin had collected the fossils for Cope, an argument strongly disputed by Schwartz
& Gillette (in press; see also para. 4 above). The establishment of new generic and
specific names is unnecessary because individual bones from Ghost Ranch are
obviously identical to corresponding elements in the Cope fossils. Hunt & Lucas did
not dispute the synonymy of C. bauri (as always understood) and R. colberti so their
name should not be used as valid.

9. The name Coelophysis bauriis more than 100 years old and is solidly entrenched in
the literature, both technical and popular. C. bauri is now known from many hundred
specimens of which a large proportion consists of articulated skeletons. It has been
designated as the official State Fossil of New Mexico and it is the logo of the New
Mexico Museum of Natural History.

10. Although the specimen designated by Colbert (1989; see para. 6) as the lectotype
of C. bauri is in our opinion undoubtedly conspecific with the complete articulated
skeleton (AMNH 7224 in the American Museum of Natural History) which is the
holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti, it is desirable to make the synonymy of the two
nominal species objective and to have a much more informative type specimen of
C. bauri. None of Cope’s original material is suitable for the latter purpose. We there-
fore propose that specimen AMNH 7224 be designated the neotype of C. bauri, thereby
rendering bauri a senior objective synonym of R. colberti. The generic names Coelurus
and Rioarribasaurus also become objective synonyms.

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for

the nominal species Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887;

(2) to designate the articulated skeleton AMNH 7224 in the American Museum of
Natural History as the neotype of the nominal species Coelurus bauri Cope,
1887;

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coelophysis
Cope, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Hay
(1930) Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887;

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bauri Cope,
1887, as published in the binomen Coelurus bauri and as defined by the neotype
designated in (2) above (specific name of the type species of Coelophysis Cope,
1889);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Rioarribasaurus Hunt & Lucas, 1991 (a junior objective synonym of
Coelophysis Cope, 1889);

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name colberti Hunt & Lucas, 1991, as published in the binomen
Rioarribasaurus colberti (a junior objective synonym of Coelurus bauri Cope,
1887).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 279
References

Colbert, E.H. 1947. The little dinosaurs of Ghost Ranch. Natural History, 56: 392-399, 427-428.

Colbert, E.H. 1989. The Triassic dinosaur Coelophysis. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, 57:
1-160.

Cope, E.D. 1887a. The dinosaurian genus Coelurus. American Naturalist, 21: 367-369.

Cope, E.D. 1887b. A contribution to the history of the Vertebrata of the Trias of North America.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 24: 221-227.

Cope, E.D. 1889. On a new genus of Triassic Dinosauria. American Naturalist, 23: 626.

Hay, O.P. 1930. Second bibliography and catologue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America.
Publication No. 390, vol. 2. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Huene, F. von. 1915. On reptiles of the New Mexican Trias in the Cope Collection. Bulletin of the
American Museum of Natural History, 34: 485-507.

. Hunt, A. & Lucas, S. 1991. Rioarribasaurus, a new name for a late Triassic dinosaur from New
Mexico (USA). Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 65: 191-198.

Padian, K. 1986. On the type material of Coelophysis Cope (Saurischia; Theropoda) and a new
specimen from the Petrified Forest of Arizona (Late Triassic: Chinle Formation). Pp. 45-60
in Padian, K. (Ed.), The beginning of the age of dinosaurs. Faunal change across the Triassic-
Jurassic boundary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rowe, T. & Gauthier, J.A. 1990. Ceratosauria. Pp. 151-168 in Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, P. &
Osmolska, H. (Eds.), The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Schwartz, H.L. & Gillette, D.D. 1992. Geology and taphonomy of the Coelophysis quarry, Upper
Triassic Chinle Formation, Ghost Ranch, New Mexico. Journal of Paleontology (in press).

Welles, S.P. 1984. Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda) osteology and compari-
sons. Palaeontographica, (A)185: 85-180.

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2857

Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed
replacement of inappropriate lectotype

Alan J. Charig

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Bernard H. Newman
47 Hoop Street, Pearston 5680, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the use of the name
Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 for the ornithischian dinosaur to which it is
invariably applied. The existing lectotype, misguidedly designated by Lydekker (1888),
is a mere fragment now known to represent a bipedal theropod dinosaur phylogeneti-
cally remote from Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 (type species S. harrisonii) as generally
envisaged. A new lectotype is proposed, a nearly complete skeleton (presently a
paralectotype) in the Natural History Museum, London, on which the concept of
Scelidosaurus has always been based.

1. Owen (1859), in an article on ‘Palaeontology’ in the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
introduced (p. 150) the generic name Scelidosaurus in the following terms: ‘Genus
SCELIDOSAURUS, Ow. — By this name is indicated a Saurian with large and hollow
limb-bones, with a femur having the third inner trochanter, and with metacarpal and
phalangial [sic] bones, adapted for movement on land. The fossils occur in the lias at
Charmouth, Dorsetshire’. No specific name was mentioned. This description, which.
was repeated in 1860 (p. 258), applies also to other dinosaur genera known at that time
and in consequence does not differentiate Scelidosaurus from those genera; neverthe-
less, it satisfies the criteria of availability, and Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 should be cited
with that date of publication. This contrasts with the views of authors such as Newman
(1968, p. 40), who, acting on the incorrect advice of Charig, gave 1861 (see para. 2
below) as the date of first valid publication of the name Scelidosaurus and listed
Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 as a nomen nudum.

2. In 1861 Owen (p. 1) established the new species Scelidosaurus harrisonii on the
incomplete remains of five fossil reptiles, all stated to have come from the upper part
of the Lower Lias in the vicinity of Charmouth; the material was described as fully
as its only partly developed state would permit and it was well illustrated. Owen
did not designate a holotype, and the type series therefore consisted of five syntypes.
S. harrisonii is the type species of the genus by subsequent monotypy.

3. The most informative syntype in the series was a nearly complete skull and lower
jaw (pp. 7-14), lacking only the tip of the snout, and crudely developed to some degree

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 281

with hammer and chisel. The other syntypes were a femur (pp. 2-3); a knee-joint (pp.
3-4); an ungual phalanx (p. 5); and (pp. 5—7) remains which, according to Owen, ‘most
probably formed part of a very young or foetal Scelidosaur’.

4. Aposteranial skeleton belonging to the same individual as the skull was recovered
shortly afterwards; this, like the skull itself, was prepared according to the techniques
then in use and was described as fully as possible by Owen (1863). At that time the skull
and skeleton (presently no. R.1111 in the Palaeontology Department of the Natural
History Museum, London) together represented the most complete individual dino-
saur ever found in Britain; that may still be true today, 129 years later. It is upon this
unique individual and this alone that our present concept of Scelidosaurus rests. We
propose the designation of this specimen as the replacement lectotype of Scelidosaurus

- harrisonii.

5. Another specimen (BM(NH) Pal. Dept. no. 39496) in Owen’s 1861 material was
the isolated knee-joint (i.e. the distal end of the femur in articulation with the proximal
ends of the tibia and fibula), as mentioned in para. 3. Lydekker (1888, p. 182) described
it thus: ‘The adjacent extremities of the right femur, tibia and fibula, cemented together
by matrix, of a large individual; from Charmouth. The type; figured by Owen, op. cit.
pt. i, pl. ii, figs. 1-3’. The surprising fact that Lydekker really did consider this specimen
to be the type is made clear by his Catalogue entry (p. 181) for R.1111, which states:
‘This specimen indicates an individual much smaller than the type [39496], its total
length being about 11 feet 3 inches’. Lydekker’s reasons for choosing the knee-joint as
‘the type’ are unknown (as noted above, it was far from being the best of Owen’s
syntypic series, nor was it the first specimen mentioned in his published description); it
may have been because of the larger size of the original animal, or he may simply have
made a mistake. Intentional or not, his action constitutes designation of a lectotype
under Article 74a of the Code; the knee-joint is thus the lectotype of S. harrisonii, and
Owen’s four other syntypes (including R.1111) are paralectotypes.

6. Woodward & Sherborn (1890) followed Lydekker in his mistaken belief (or unex-
plained action); their stated practice (p. xxii) was to indicate ‘the type specimen of each
accepted species... in square brackets after the record of the locality’, which in this case
they gave (p. 283) as ‘[Right femur, tibia, and fibula; Brit. Mus.]’.

7. Eighty years after Lydekker’s designation of the knee-joint as the lectotype it was
discovered by Newman (1968) that this specimen, developed out of the rock by acetic
acid (pl. 7, fig. 2), was derived from an entirely different type of animal — a bipedal
theropod dinosaur rather than an ornithischian. The consequences of this revised
identification are as follows: (a) Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 is a junior subjective
synonym of Megalosaurus Buckland, 1824; (b) S. harrisonii may be a synonym of
M. bucklandi von Meyer, 1832, the type species of Megalosaurus; and (c) the
ornithischian dinosaur always known as S. harrisonii has no available name.

8. Much of the anatomy of specimen R.1111 remains undescribed, for it was still
encased in hard limestone in Owen’s time; indeed, some elements (such as the pubis and
ischium) were completely hidden and their presence could only be surmised. During the
nineteen-sixties, however, the senior author (A.J.C.) instigated the complete chemical
development and redescription of the specimen, and most of the missing elements were
subsequently revealed in a generally excellent state of preservation; the development is
now almost finished, with only one block still requiring treatment. When the osteology
of Scelidosaurus is eventually published it will be better known than that of almost any

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

other dinosaur, and considerably better than that of many extant reptiles. It was upon
fossil vertebrates from the Lower Lias of Lyme Regis and Charmouth that the tech-
niques of acid preparation were first worked out (Toombs, 1948; Rixon, 1949; Toombs
& Rixon, 1959), and R.1111 — in particular its skull — is the supreme example of a
superbly preserved specimen prepared by those techniques.

9. In recent years new material of the genus has been discovered in southern
England. One such find is the so-called ‘small Scelidosaurus’ or ‘juvenile Scelidosaurus’
BM(NH) Pal. Dept. no. R.6704 (referred to in Rixon, 1968; Charig, 1972 (pp. 123,
138-140); Thulborn, 1977; Charig, in preparation); another is a specimen of the neck
region (a part of the animal that is mostly lacking in R.1111) acquired by the Natural
History Museum, London, from the Japanese dealer Ryoichi Ebisawa; a third speci-
men is in the Bristol City Museum. A closely related genus (Emausaurus Haubold,
1990) has been described from the Upper Lias (Lower Toarcian) of northern Germany.

10. It was upon the ‘small Scelidosaurus’ that the discovery was made (Charig, 1972,
pp. 123-124) that the ornithischian pubis — the most characteristic feature of that
order — was primitively without a properly developed anterior ramus. This confirmed
the belief that the posterior ramus represents the true pubis, rotated backwards.

11. Scelidosaurus is an important and much discussed genus, as shown by the
following:

(1) at the time of its-discovery and original description specimen R.1111 was not
only one of the most complete dinosaur skeletons known but also represented a
dinosaur quite unlike any other found previously (or indeed since, apart from a
few very close relatives found all much less complete in rocks of similar age);

(2) until Broom (1911) described Geranosaurus, Scelidosaurus was the geologically
oldest ornithischian dinosaur known;

(3) Scelidosaurus remains at the centre of the controversies surrounding the origin
and early radiation of the Ornithischia, the relationships between the major
subdivisions of the Thyreophora, and the vexed question of whether or not the
quadrupedal ornithischians were primarily or secondarily quadrupedal;

(4) it is the type genus of the family SCELIDOSAURIDAE Huxley, 1869 (Cope was
actually the first to use the family name, in a two-part lecture read in September
1868 and April 1869 but not published until December 1871; see p. 91 of that.
work), and is also the basis of the higher taxon Scelidosauria of some authors;

(5) Scelidosaurus appears not only in esoteric articles: it is often mentioned and
illustrated in popular works (indeed, models of the restored animal can be
bought in museum shops), and it is therefore not unknown to the general public.

12. In view of the above it is highly desirable that the accepted nomenclature, as used
at present by everyone, should be conserved. The International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of a lectotype of

Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861;

(2) to confirm the designation in para. 4 above of the skull and skeleton BM(NH)
Pal. Dept. no. R.1111 in the Natural History Museum, London, as the
replacement lectotype;

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Scelidosaurus
Owen, 1859 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy
Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 283

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name harrisonii
Owen, 1861, as published in the binomen Scelidosaurus harrisonii and as defined
by the lectotype confirmed in (2) above (specific name of the type species of
Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859).

References

Broom, R. 1911. On the dinosaurs of the Stormberg, South Africa. Annals of the South African
Museum, 7: 291-308.

Buckland, W. 1824. Notice on the Megalosaurus or great fossil lizard of Stonesfield. Transactions
of the Geological Society of London, (2)1: 390-396.

_ Charig, A.J. 1972. The evolution of the archosaur pelvis and hind-limb: an explanation in
functional terms. Pp. 121—155 in Joysey, K.A. & Kemp, T.S. (Eds.), Studies in vertebrate

_ evolution: essays presented to Dr F.R. Parrington, F.R.S. 284 pp. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

Cope, E.D. 1871. Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, (2)14: 1-252.

Haubold, H. 1990. Ein neuer Dinosaurier (Ornithischia, Thyreophora) aus dem unteren Jura des
nordlichen Mitteleuropa. Revue de Paléobiologie, 9(1): 149-177.

Huxley, T.H. 1869. On the Dinosauria of the Trias, with observations on the classification of the
Dinosauria. Nature, 1: 146.

Lydekker, R. 1888. Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum ( Natural
History), part 1. xxviii, 309 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Meyer, H. von. 1832. Palaeologica zur Geschichte der Erde und ihrer Geschépfe. xii, 560 pp.
Schmerber, Frankfurt am Main.

Newman, B.H. 1968. The Jurassic dinosaur Scelidosaurus harrisoni, Owen. Palaeontology, 11:
40-43.

Owen, R. 1859. Palaeontology. Pp. 91-176 in: Encyclopaedia Britannica (Ed. 8), vol. 17. 815 pp.
Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh. _

Owen, R. 1860. Palaeontology or a systematic summary of extinct animals and their geological
relations. xv, 420 pp. Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh. [Also Ed. 2, 1861.]

Owen, R. 1861. A monograph of a fossil dinosaur (Scelidosaurus harrisonii, Owen) of the Lower
Lias. In: A monograph of the fossil Reptilia of the Liassic Formations. Monograph of the
Palaeontographical Society, 1: 1-14.

Owen, R. 1863. A monograph of a fossil dinosaur (Scelidosaurus harrisonii, Owen) of the Lower
Lias, Part II. Jn: A monograph of the fossil Reptilia of the Liassic Formations. Monograph
of the Palaeontographical Society, 2: 1-26.

Rixon, A.E. 1949. The use of acetic and formic acids in the preparation of fossil vertebrates.
Museums Journal, 49(5): 116.

Rixon, A.E. 1968. The development of the remains of a small Scelidosaurus from a Lias nodule.
Museums Journal, 67(4): 315-321.

Thulborn, R.A. 1977. Relationships of the Lower Jurassic dinosaur Scelidosaurus harrisonii.
Journal of Paleontology, 51(4): 725-739.

Toombs, H.A. 1948. The use of acetic acid in the development of vertebrate fossils. Museums
Journal, 48(3): 54-55.

Toombs, H.A. & Rixon, A.E. 1959. The use of acids in the preparation of vertebrate fossils.
Curator, 2(4): 304-312.

Woodward, A.S. & Sherborn, C.D. 1890. 4 catalogue of British fossil Vertebrata. xxxv, 396 pp.
Dulau, London.

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Case 2814

Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed
conservation

Hobart M. Smith

Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.

Kenneth L. Williams

Department of Life Science, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches,
Louisiana 71497, U.S.A.

Van Wallach

Department of Herpetology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.

David Chiszar

Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado 80309-0345, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Pseudoxy-
rhopus Gunther, 1881. The name is in current universal usage for a genus of snakes
from Madagascar but was originally published as an unnecessary replacement for
Homalocephalus Jan, 1863, which has not been used for over 100 years.

1. The generic name Homalocephalus Jan, 1863a (p. 286) was proposed for the single
new species H. heterurus Jan, 1863. The name was used by the author in two later
publications (Jan, 1863b, p. 52; Jan & Sordelli, 1866, pl. 4, fig. 2) but has appeared in.
only two other publications in the primary literature (Boettger, 1877, p. 32; Hoffmann,
1886, p. 1679).

2. The taxonomic genus to which Jan (1863) applied the name Homalocephalus is
valid and has been recognized as such consistently. Giinther (1881, p. 359), however,
proposed a replacement name, Pseudoxyrhopus, explaining that ‘Jan described under
the name Homalocephalus a genus of Colubrine Snakes from Madagascar... whilst
admitting the snake described by him as the type of a distinct genus, I am compelled to
change the name, which is preoccupied in Entomology’. Giinther did not mention the
insect name but it seems likely that he was referring to Homalocephala Zetterstedt, 1838
(col. 749) in the Diptera; there is no name Homalocephalus other than Jan’s (1863).
Hoge (1958, p. 51) recorded Pseudoxyrhopus as a ‘nomen novum pro Homalocephalus
Jan 1863, non Zetterstedt 1838’. Williams & Wallach (1989, p. 125) noted that
Pseudoxyrhopus was a ‘substitute name for Homalocephalus Jan; erroneously believed
to be preoccupied by Homalocephala Zetterstedt (1838) Diptera’. They also noted that
the name Pseudoxyrhopus ‘needs conservation’. The 1985 Code (as well as previous

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 285

editions) states (Article 56b) that genus-group names differing by one letter are not to
be regarded as homonyms.

3. Giinther (1881) established the new name microps for a second species of
Pseudoxyrhopus; this was erroneously cited as the type species of the genus by Welch
(1982, p. 182). Under Article 67h Homalocephalus heterurus Jan, 1863 is the type species
of both Homalocephalus and Pseudoxyrhopus.

4. Compliance with the principle of priority would require the use of the senior name
Homalocephalus Jan, 1863. However, with the single exception of Hoffmann (1886),
Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881 has consistently been used in all works in which the
genus has been regarded as distinct. There are eight nominal species in the genus, all
endemic to Madagascar (see Brygoo, 1983, pp. 37, 55). An additional species, Xenodon
‘punctatus Peters, 1880, included in the genus by Boulenger (1890, p. 314), Guibé (1959,
pp. 227-228) and Welch (1982, p. 182), has been shown (Hoge, 1958, pp. 49-52) to
belong in the unrelated genus Sordellina Procter, 1923 from Brazil.

5. Acursory review of the literature reveals that Pseudoxyrhopus Giinther, 1881 has
been used as valid in at least 34 works by 30 authors since it was proposed. Recent
authors include Bellairs (1969, p. 540), Blanc (1971, pp. 122, 126), Brygoo (1987, pp. 9,
12), Domergue (1969, pp. 16, 17, 20), McDowell (1987, p. 37), Romer (1956, p. 58) and
Underwood (1967). A list of a further 20 references, additional to those cited in the
course of this application, is held by the Commission Secretariat. Pseudoxryhopus is the
type genus of the family-group (tribe or subfamily) PSEUDOXYRHOPINI Or PSEUDOXY-
RHOPINAE Dowling, 1975 (p. 169) which includes nine genera (Dowling, 1986). The
family-group name has appeared in further publications (Smith, Smith & Sawin, 1977,
p. 118 and Dowling, Highton, Maha & Maxson, 1983, p. 323).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Homalocephalus Jan, 1863
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 Pseudoxy-
rhopus Gunther, 1881 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy of the
replaced nominal genus Homalocephalus Jan, 1863, Homalocephalus heterurus
Jan, 1863;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name heterurus Jan,
1863, as published in the binomen Homalocephalus heterurus (specific name of
the type species of Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Homalocephalus Jan, 1863, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Bellairs, A. d’A. 1969. The life of reptiles, vol. 2. Pp. 283-590. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

Blanc, C.P. 1971. Les reptiles de Madagascar et des iles voisines. Annales de l'Université de
Madagascar, 8: 95-178.

Boettger, O. 1877. Die Reptilien und Amphibien von Madagascar. Abhandlungen herausgegeben
von der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 11: 1-56.

Boulenger, G.A. 1890. On the Ophidian genus Pseudoxyrhopus, Gthr. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (6)6(34): 311-314.

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Brygoo, E.R. 1983. Les ophidiens de Madagascar. Memorias do Instituto Butantan, 46: 19-58.

Brygoo, E.R. 1987. L’endémisme des reptiles de Madagascar. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de
France, 112(1—2): 5—38.

Domergue, C.A. 1969. Clé simplifiée pour la détermination sur le terrain des serpents communs
de Madagascar. Bulletin de l’Académie Malagache, 45(2): 13-26.

Dowling, H.G. 1975. A provisional classification of snakes. Yearbook of Herpetology, 1: 167-170.

Dowling, H.G. 1986. Prodromus of anew classification of Serpentes. Il (Arrangement of genera).
22 pp. Unpublished ms.

Dowling, H.G., Highton, R., Maha, G.C. & Maxson, L.R. 1983. Biochemical evaluation of
colubrid snake phylogeny. Journal of Zoology, 201: 309-329.

Guibé, J. 1959. Les serpents de Madagascar. Mémoires de I'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar,
(A)12: 189-260.

Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1881. Seventh contribution to the knowledge of the fauna of Madagascar.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)7(41): 357-360.

Hoffmann, C.K. 1886. Reptilien. III. Schlangen und Entwicklungsgeschichte der Reptilien.
Pp. 1569-1680 in: H.G. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, vol. 6, part 3,
Lieferungen 50—53. Winter, Leipzig.

Hoge, A.R. 1958. Die systematische Stellung von Xenodon punctatus Peters 1880 und Philodryas
taeniatus Hensel 1868. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 34(1): 49-56.

Jan, G. 1863a. Enumerazione sistematica degli ofidi appartenenti al gruppo Coronellidae.
Archivio per la Zoologia, |’ Anatomia e la Fisiologia, 2(2): 211—330.

Jan, G. 1863b. Elenco sistematico degli ofidi descritti e disegnati per l’iconografia generale. 143 pp.
Lombardi, Milan.

Jan, G. & Sordelli, F. 1866. Iconographie générale des ophidiens, vol. 1, livraison 17. 6 pls.
Bailliére, Paris.

McDowell, S.B. 1987. Systematics. Pp. 3-50 in Seigel, R.A., Collins, J.T. & Novak, S.S., Snakes:
ecology and evolutionary biology. xiv, 529 pp. Macmillan, New York.

Romer, A.S. 1956. Osteology of the reptiles. 772 pp. University of Chicago, Chicago.

Smith, H.M., Smith, R.B. & Sawin, H.L. 1977. A summary of snake classification (Reptilia,
Serpentes). Journal of Herpetology, 11(2): 115-121.

Underwood, G. 1967. A contribution to the classification of snakes. x, 179 pp. British Museum
(Natural History), London.

Welch, K.R.G. 1982. Herpetology of Africa: a checklist and bibliography of the orders Amphis-
baenia, Sauria and Serpentes. x, 293 pp. Krieger, Malabar, Florida.

Williams, K.L. & Wallach, V. 1989. Snakes of the world, vol. 1 (Synopsis of snake generic names).
viii, 234 pp. Krieger, Malabar, Florida.

Zetterstedt, J.W. 1838. Sectio Tertia (Diptera). Conspectus familiarum et generum dipterorum
Lapponiae. Cols. 496-868 in: Insecta Lapponica descripta. Voss, Lipsiae.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 287

Comments on the date of publication of John McCrady’s hydrozoan paper
Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor

(1) Dale R: Calder

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6; Department of Zoology, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 1A1

Lester D. Stephens
Department of History, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A.

Albert E. Sanders
The Charleston Museum, Charleston, South Carolina 29401, U.S.A.

In an application (BZN 48: 192—195) by Cernohorsky, Cornelius & Sysoev to remove
the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey,
1904 (Mollusca) the uncertain dating of McCrady’s paper in which the name was
published was briefly discussed. The matter is of nomenclatural relevance because the
dates of two classic papers on Hydrozoa published by McCrady in the same journal, in
which approximately 40 new names were established, have been variously cited as 1856,
1857, 1858 or 1859.

McCrady’s paper Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor is a key work in the
taxonomy of hydroids and hydromedusae. Besides CLAVIDAE, new names for three
other families, nine genera and 28 species were published, many of which are valid
today (see Stephens & Calder, 1992, pp. 44, 45). The date on the cover of vol. 1 of the
Proceedings of the Elliott Society of Natural History of Charleston, South Carolina,
in which McCrady’s paper appeared, is given as 1859. Cernohorsky et al. provision-
ally adopted 1859 as the date but they referred (para. 3) to unspecified evidence indi-
cating that parts of the Proceedings were published piecemeal before their eventual
inclusion in the completed volume. Evidence indicates that vol. | of the Proceedings
was indeed published in parts, between 1856 and 1859, but we have concluded that
the number including McCrady’s Charleston Harbor paper did not appear until
1859. The date of McCrady’s work (1859) given in the application is therefore
correct.

The first number of vol. 1 of the Proceedings was published no later than 6 June 1856.
A meeting of the Elliott Society on that date recorded (Proceedings, 1: 30; 1859): ‘the
Secretary reported the first number of the proceedings as published, and distributed to
members, correspondents, and many learned Societies, both in Europe and America’.
The Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History (5: 400; 1856) recorded under
‘Books received during the quarter ending June 31 (sic), 1856... Proceedings of the
Elliott Society No. 1, 8vo, pp. 1-24’. Thus, Number | contained pages 1-24 and
covered the proceedings from 1 November 1853 to 24 July 1855.

The Proceedings of the Elliott Society does not mention the publication of Number 2.
However, listed among ‘Books received during the quarter ending Dec. 31, 1856’ in the
Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History (6: 95; 1857) was ‘Proceedings of
the Elliott Society, pp. 25-46. 8vo. Pamph.’. Number 2 therefore contained pages
25—46 and covered the proceedings from 18 January 1856 to 30 July 1856.

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Several records exist pertaining to the publication of Number 3. The Proceedings of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (9: Appendix, ix; 1858) reported that
on ‘Sept. 15th 1857’ the Academy received the ‘Proceedings of the Elliott Society,
pp. 49-104’. Number 3 thus contained pages 49-104 and included proceedings from 14
November 1856 to 1 April 1857. It incorporated (pp. 55—90, pls. 4-7) a detailed account
of the well known hydrozoan Turritopsis nutricula McCrady, 1857 (see Calder, 1988,
pp. 8-10, figs. 5, 6; Stephens & Calder, 1992, p. 42).

It is not clear whether the Elliott Society intended to publish a fourth number before
issuing a complete first volume. We are not aware that it did so. At the meeting of 2
August 1858 the Corresponding Secretary read a letter (dated 24 July) from William
Sharswood in Philadelphia saying ‘the fourth part of the proceedings has not been
received, if published’ (Proceedings, 1: 288; 1859). By the spring of 1859 the entire first
volume was published. A local newspaper, the Charleston Mercury, reported on 16
May 1859 that as of 11 May ‘the first volume of the Proceedings is now complete, and...
all numbers after the third can be obtained at Russell & Jones’, King-Street’ (see
Stephens & Calder, 1992, p. 50). The volume as published contained 294 pages of text, a
seven-page index and 14 plates. It included proceedings from 1 November 1853 to 15
December 1858. We conclude that the final material (pp. 103-294), which included
McCrady’s paper Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor (pp. 103-221), was published
no later than 11 May 1859.

The date of 1859 differs from that (1857) previously given for the publication of
McCrady’s paper (Stephens & Calder, 1992, pp. 44, 50, 53). However, the later date is
supported by footnotes, dated June 1858, added by McCrady to pp. 105 and 125 of his
paper. The first referred to ‘the delay which has unavoidably attended the publication
of this paper’, which had been presented orally to the Society in spring 1857.

Acknowledgement
We thank P.F.S. Cornelius, London, for his review of an early draft of this comment.

References

Calder, D.R. 1988. Shallow-water hydroids of Bermuda: the Athecatae. Life Sciences~
Contributions. Royal Ontario Museum, 148: \—-107.

McCrady, J. 1857. Description of Oceania (Turritopsis) nuticula nov. spec. and the embryological
history of a singular medusan larva, found in the cavity of its bell. Proceedings of the Elliott
Society of Natural History of Charleston, South Carolina, 1: 55—90.

Stephens, L.D. & Calder, D.R. 1992. John McCrady of South Carolina: pioneer student of North
American Hydrozoa. Archives of Natural History, 19(1): 39-54.

(2) Anthea Gentry
Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

McCrady’s Charleston Harbor paper was presented to members of the Elliott
Society at a meeting on 15 April 1857. My findings from a British journal corroborate
those of Calder et al. that the main portion of this paper (pp. 105-221, pls. 8-12) did not
appear until 1859, but there is evidence that the first two pages (pp. 103, 104) of the
work were published in 1857. No new names were included in the first two pages.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 289

The Linnean Society of London Was one organisation to which pre-1859 publi-
cations of the Elliott Society were sent. The register of ‘Presents made to the Linnean
Society 17 February 1852 —6 November 1861’ records the receipt of the proceedings of
the Elliott Society, including ‘sheets 7-1]. 1856-57. 8vo’ on 5 November 1857. Examin-
ation of the (1859) published vol. 1 of the Proceedings shows that signatures (or
‘sheets’) 7-11 comprise pp. 49-104: this was the part received by the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia on 15 September 1857 (see preceding comment). It is

appearance of this second page, I have been enabled to introduce into this Monograph
several new genera and species, discovered since that time [1857], as well as to make
some important alterations in the text from comparatively recent information. This
will account for the small number of genera [14] and species [1 9] here mentioned [p. 2],
in comparison to the actual number which follows’.

Reference

McCrady, J. 1857, 1859. Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor. Proceedings of the Elliott
Society of Natural History of Charleston, South C arolina, 1: 103-104 ( 1857); 105-221 ( 1859).

Comment on the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling,
1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2729; see BZN 48: 92-96, 244-246; 49: 68-70, 22 1—222)

Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
Via Mater Dolorosa 54, 90146 Palermo Pallavicino, Italy

I fully agree with the Proposals of Beu, Marshall & Ponder (BZN 49: 68-70). To
accept the names Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 and Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 is the
solution that best serves nomenclatural stability.

Comment on the Proposed conservation of the specific name of Melanella ( Balcis ) alba
(Da Costa, 1778) (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2526; see BZN 49: 112-1 15)

Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
Via Mater Dolorosa 54 , 90146 Palermo Pallavicino, Italy

I strongly support Warén’s application for the conservation of the specific name of
Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778.

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Dr Warén has produced an excellent and well-written presentation of the case and I
agree that the name a/bus should be maintained. A well entrenched name should not
be abandoned without exceptional reasons as such a change would result in much
confusion, more than is justified by a strict adherence to the priority principle.

Comment on the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus
(Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the designation of a lectotype
(Case 2732; see BZN 48: 31-35, 246; 49: 145-149)

G. Tichy
Institut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Universitat Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34/III,
A-5020, Salzburg, Austria

The transfer of the specific name of Ceratites (Ceratites) nodosus to Ceratites
(Doloceratites) robustus Riedel, 1916, which is the consequence of Tozer’s proposals
(BZN 49: 148), would result in confusion rather than stability. I support the application
by Urlichs (BZN 48: 31-35) to conserve the established usage of the name nodosus.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Chrysobothris and Dicerca Eschscholtz,
1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spellings
(Case 2772; see BZN 49: 120-121)

(1) Richard L. Westcott
Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310-0110,
Us.

Dr Nelson has proposed the conservation of the accepted spellings of Chrysobothris
and Dicerca. He has provided sound reasoning for this and I support him whole-
heartedly. I know that all my colleagues, worldwide, feel the same. As pointed out by
Nelson, those spellings have been in use since 1833 and 1835 respectively, with only two
exceptions. The latest exception (Leraut, 1983) was an unfortunate and ill-advised .
endeavor by someone who, I understand, is not even a coleopterist, let alone a specialist
in the BUPRESTIDAE.

The genus Dicerca is Holarctic, with 27 species Nearctic and 16 Palearctic. They are
medium-sized buprestids which are popular with collectors. Much literature on this
group exists, although I am not aware that any species are of economic importance. On
the other hand, Chrysobothris contains hundreds of diverse species worldwide, some of
which are very serious pests. The literature on the genus is overwhelming.

Nobody, least of all science, would be served by regressing to the original, obviously
misspelled, names. I trust the Commission will uphold Dr Nelson’s proposals.

(2) Svatopluk Bily
National Museum, Kunratice 1, 148 00 Praha 4, Czechoslovakia

I support the conservation of both Chrysobothris and Dicerca for the reasons given
by Dr Nelson; this will keep the nomenclature stable.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 291

Comment on the proposed replacement of the lectotype of Leptocera (Rachispoda)
limosa (Fallén, 1820) (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2803; see BZN 49: 127-1 28)

Terry A. Wheeler
Department of Biology, Carleton Universit ‘y, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

I support Kim & Rohaéek’s proposal to replace the lectotype of C opromyza limosa
Fallén. Most North American workers with the exception of Gapasin & Kim (1972; not
cited in-the application) have used the name /imosa as defined by Duda (1918). In
studies on the New World Rachispoda I have found limosa and lutosa to be widespread
in North America, with /imosa at least partly synanthropic. Synonymy of limosa and
lutosa through acceptance of Kim’s lectotype designation would cause unnecessary

confusion in the status of these common species.

Gapasin & Kim (1972, published 15 November) addressed the status of, among
other species, Jimosa and lutosa, including lectotype designations for both species
(which were unnecessary in view of Kim’s earlier designations published on 14 July
1972). The incorrect redescription and illustrations of Jimosa by Gapasin & Kim were
in accord with the mistaken lectotype designation.

Additional references

Gapasin, D.P. & Kim, K.C. 1972. Taxonomic notes on five common Holarctic species of
Leptocera (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 65:
1245-1258.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia,
Synapsida)
(Case 2807; see BZN 49: 52-54)

S. Bandyopadhyay
Geological Studies Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 203 Barrackpore Trunk Road,
Calcutta 700 035, India

I strongly feel that Dr Lucas is quite right regarding the status of the name
Dinodontosaurus, which should be conserved because of its wide acceptance and usage.
I support his arguments and proposal.

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

OPINION 1697

Chelifer museorum Leach, 1817 (currently Cheiridium museorum;
Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name nepoides Hermann, 1804, as pub-
lished in the binomen Chelifer nepoides, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Cheiridium Menge, 1855 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent
designation by Simon (1879) Chelifer museorum Leach, 1817, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name museorum Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Chelifer
museorum (specific name of the type species of Cheiridium Menge, 1855), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name nepoides Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Chelifer
nepoides and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2791

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Chelifer museorum Leach,
1817 was received from Dr Mark S. Harvey (Western Australian Museum, Perth,
Australia) on 1 October 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48:
103-104 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received. ¢

It was noted on the voting paper that the syntype of Chelifer museorum Leach, 1817
in the Natural History Museum, London is no. 138 (Leach collection).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 103—104. At the close of the voting period on | June
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno,
Willink

Negative votes — 2: Macpherson and Thompson.

No vote was received from Halvorsen.

Kabata commented that he voted for the proposal because of the absence of the
original specimens on which Hermann (1804) based his decription of Chelifer nepoides
(para. 1 of the application); otherwise he did not believe that a return to the earlier name
would result in undue 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:
Cheiridium Menge, 1855, Neueste Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 5(2): 36.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 293

museorum, Chelifer, Leach, 1817, The zoological miscellany; being descriptions of new or interest-
ing animals, vol. 3, p. 50.
nepoides, Chelifer, Hermann, 1804, Mémoire Aptérologique, p. 116.

The following is the reference for the designation of Chelifer museorum Leach, 1817 as the type
species of the nominal genus Cheiridium Menge, 1855:
Simon, E. 1879. Les arachnides de France, vol. 7 (Les ordres des chernetes, scorpiones et
opiliones), p. 43.

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

OPINION 1698

Brahmaea Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Bombyx certhia
Fabricius, 1793 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Bombyx certhia Fabricius, 1793,
designated by Hampson ([1893]), is the type species of the nominal genus Brahmaea
Walker, 1855.

(2) The name Brahmaea Walker, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Hampson ([{1893]) Bombyx certhia Fabricius, 1793, as con-
firmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name certhia Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Bombyx certhia
(specific name of the type species of Brahmaea Walker, 1855), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2737

An application for the confirmation of Hampson’s ([{1893]) designation of Bombyx
certhia Fabricius, 1793 as the type species of Brahmaea Walker, 1855 was received from
Drs W.A. Nassig (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Frankfurt, Germany) and
I.W.B. Nye (South Nutfield, Surrey, U.K.) on 16 August 1989. After correspondence
the case was published in BZN 48: 137-139 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission e

On 1 March 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 138. At the close of the voting period on | June 1992
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 29: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Brahmaea Walker, 1855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the
British Museum, vol. 5, p. 1200.
certhia, Bombyx, Fabricius, 1793, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 3, part 1,
p. 412.

The following is the reference for the designation of Bombyx certhia Fabricius, 1793 as the type
species of the nominal genus Brahmaea Walker, 1855:
Hampson, G.F. [1893]. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, moths, vol. 1, p.29.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Alderslade, P.

Alvarez-Lajonchere, L.

Andersen, N.M.
Angus, R.B. .
Armengol, M.F. Li
Aukema, B. :

Ballinger,R.E.
Bandyopadhyay, S.
Baturo, B. 1
Belk, D. .

Beu, A.G.

Bilton, D.T.
Bily,S..

Bock: WJ. .
Bourne, W.R.P.
Brooke, R.K..
Brooks, S.J.
Brown, L.E.

Bull, E.E.

Calder, D.R. .
Campbell, J.M.
Charig, A.J.
Chiszar,D. .
Colbert, E.H. .
Collins, J.T.
Cooper, J.
Cross, F.B.
@roxall J.P» 7.

Delson, E.
Dodson, P. .
Dolling, W.R.
Dubois, A.

Escalante, R. .
Etheridge, R. .

Feltes, R.M. .
Ferraris, C.J. .
Fitzgerald, K.T.
Foster, G.N. .

Gall, L.F.
Gentry, A.

Giannuzzi- Savelhe R.

Gibson, D.I.
Gillette, D.D.
Giusti, F.
Griffith, H.
Grimaldi, D. .

AUTHORS IN VOLUME 49 (1992)

Groves, 'C\P) 5.2.
Guillette, L.J. Jr. .

Haftorn, S.
Heppell, D.
Hogstad,O. .
Holthuis, L.B.
Howes, G.J. .
Humphrey, P.S.
Hunter, S.

Iverson, J.B. .

Jakhar,S.R. .
Jenkins, P.D. .
Jennings, M.R.
Jouanin, C.

Khosla, S.C. .
Kiernan, C.R.
Kim, K.C.
Krell, F.-T.

Lambert, K. .
LaSalle, J.
Pazataskos.) =
Leraut, P. .
Loydell, D.K.
Lucas, S.G.
Luff, M.L.

Mahnert, V. .
Mancenido, M.O.
Manganelli, G.
Marshall, B.A.
Mathis, W.N. :
Mohammed, M.H.

Naggs, F.
Nakaya,K. .
Nelson,G.H.. .
Newton, A.F. Jr. .
Ngoc-Ho, N. .
Nilsson, A.N.

Ostrom, J.H. .
Owen, J.A.

Papesis
Pearson, J.C. %
Petit, RE:
Ponder, W.F..

295

223, 229, iy 264
271
140
140

“120

296

Poore, G.C.B.
Pope,;RID:
Pugachev, O.N.

Ragge, D.R. .
Rasnitsyn, A.P.
Rohacek, J.
Rolston, L.H.
Roper, C.F.E.
RothyBowe v:
Rozhnov, S.V.

Rushton, A.W.A.

Ruz L.

Sabrosky, C.W.
Sanders, A.E.
Séret,B. .

Shaughnessy, P.D.

Silfverberg, H.
Simons, E.L. .
Smetana, A. .
Smith,H.M. .
Spangler, P.J.

Sprackland, R.G.

Srivastava, C.B.
Stebbins, R.C.
Stephens, L.D.
Storch, P.

Tanner, W.W.
Tattersall, I.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

fore iupie
73, 151, 284

Thayer, M.K. : 22, 122, 200
Thomas, D.B. Sy Od Ore ee 191
hoampsonviRels bots eee 266
ironne: Mids. NN eetns. fea |). 144
‘ICING ee RRL me been PINTS ie, 290
GippettDe. ss” Lie ee: 144
LOS) 8 BS RG emma) OR REF 145
PEW AVS ha | |. yl en 271
Tubbs, P.K. 66, 153, 224, 227, 228
adiucker TK). , ; 222
WMecchione: Mi eet (shies 261
MoIsin J.nEs.. Josue take we 140
Vuillaume-Randriamanantena, M. BTSs)
Winilenmicr: FP: \.- 0: sean eee 140
Wallach: Vi. <2 "> <seeeee 284
Waren<A. os. ><... i.) 7 oe
Wianhamns Ji 4... >... 1. 7) eee 140
WebbcRiGe 7+.) : 2) (eta 211
WeishampelaD 4) .\, \j.1 siete nee 276
Wiesicott.~R1o: cy oro eg) Cee 290
Wheeler, T.A. Se Giejt et 291
Whittington, H.B. ma Thc eae 150, 151
WilltamssBB ys, “S02 Coat 217
Wallamse KL We o*.se chee 284
Malson Deis): oes unl, ee Aes 221
Zatwarmicks, Tn aes 133
Pxpcitel Gr: iu 0a en 235

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 297

NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF THE
COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 49 (1992)

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 49 are listed below under
three headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on
the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type and
(except for the family-group names) italicised.

Family-Group Names

BITHYNIIDAE Gray, 1857 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664
EUDOCIMIDAE Bonaparte, 1854 (Aves) Op. 1674

~EUMESIIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1669

HELICARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda) Op. 1678
HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda) Op. 1678
HYDROBATIDAE Degland, 1849 (Aves) Op. 1696
HYDROBATIDAE Mathews, 1912 (1865) (Aves) Op. 1696
LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1673
MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Gastropoda) Op. 1691
PHORORHACIDAE Lydekker, 1893 (Aves) Op. 1687
PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) Op. 1687
PHORUSRHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) Op. 1687
PHYLLODOCIDAE Orsted, 1843 (Polychaeta) Op. 1692
PLATALEIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 (Aves) Op. 1674
POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) Op. 1691
RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664
THRESKIORNITHIDAE Poche, 1904 (Aves) Op. 1674
TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664

Generic Names

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1695
Aculea Perry, 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1677

Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea) Op. 1675
Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1672
Bathynomus Milne Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda) Op. 1668
Brahmaea Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1698
Cheiridium Menge, 1855 (Pseudoscorpionida) Op. 1697
Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1669
Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Anthozoa) Op. 1689
Eudocimus Wagler, 1832 (Aves) Op. 1674

Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1669
Fryeria Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) Op. 1663

Haustator Montfort, 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1677
Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) Op. 1678

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Helixarion Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) Op. 1678
Hydrobata Vieillot, 1816 (Aves) Op. 1696

Hydrobates Boie, 1822 (Aves) Op. 1696

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Gastropoda) Op. 1679
Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Solenogastres) Op. 1676
Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1684
Leucorea Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 1681

Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1673

Mesodon Feérussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) Op. 1691
Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1672
Palaega Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda) Op. 1668

Pangio Blyth, 1860 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1695

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) Op. 1687
Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (Aves) Op. 1687
Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 (Polychaeta) Op. 1692
Phyllodoce Ranzani, 1817 (Polychaeta) Op. 1692
Placostylus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) Op. 1662

Platalea Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Op. 1674

Polygyra Say, 1818 (Gastropoda) Op. 1691

Polyodontes de Blainville, 1828 (Polychaeta) Op. 1692
Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Bivalvia) Op. 1665
Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Bivalvia) Op. 1665

Reyfria Yonow, 1986 (Gastropoda) Op. 1663

Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Coleoptera) Op. 1694
Rhinapion Motschulsky, 1868 (Coleoptera) Op. 1694
Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664

Sidisia Gray, 1858 (Anthozoa) Op. 1689

Strophomena de Blainville, 1824 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1671
Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Pseudoscorpionida) Op. 1667
Threskiornis Gray, 1842 (Aves) Op. 1674

Truncatella Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664

Vatellus Aubé, [1837] (Coleoptera) Op. 1681

Specific Names

aethiopicus, Tantalus, Latham, 1790 (Aves) Op. 1674
alatus, Unio, Say, 1817 (Bivalvia) Op. 1665

anguilla, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1672
aurismalchi, Helix, Miiller, 1774 (Gastropoda) Op. 1662
auritus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1684
barbata, Helix (Helicigona), Férussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) Op. 1690
carnivora, Musca, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera) Op. 1670
carteri, Palaega, Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda) Op. 1668
certhia, Bombyx, Fabricius, 1793 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1698
circularis, Coccinella, Olivier, 1791 (Coleoptera) Op. 1693
cuvieri, Helixarion, Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) Op. 1678

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 299

elongata, Voluta, Lightfoot, 1786 (Gastropoda) Op. 1662
eryonas, Cyclopides, Hewitson, 1877 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1669
erythrocephala, Musca, Meigen, 1826 (Diptera) Op. 1670
euleri, Coccygus (= Coccyzus), Cabanis, 1873 (Aves) Op. 1688
falcifera, Plusia, Kirby, 1837 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1682
fibratus, Limax, Martyn, 1784 (Gastropoda) Op. 1662
gemonensis, Natrix, Laurenti, 1768 (Reptilia) Op. 1686
giganteus, Bathynomus, Milne Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda) Op. 1668
hebraea, Nerita, Martyn, 1786 (Gastropoda) Op. 1662
helena, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1672
helveticus, Coluber, Lacépéde, 1789 (Reptilia) Op. 1686
hentzi, Centrurus, Banks, 1904 (Scorpionida) Op. 1680
hortensis, Arion, Férussac, 1819 (Gastropoda) Op. 1679
hystrix, Lepidomenia, Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885 (Solenogastres) Op. 1676
imbricataria, Turritella, Lamarck, 1804 (Gastropoda) Op. 1677
imbricata, Aphrodita, Linnaeus, 1767 (Polychaeta) Op. 1666
julieni, Coccyzus, Lawrence, [1864] (Aves) Op. 1688
juxtacrenobium, Simulium (Nevermannia), Bass & Brockhouse, 1990 (Diptera) Op.
1683
lactiflorea, Planaria, Johnston, 1828 (Nemertea) Op. 1675
laminosa, Phyllodoce, Lamarck, 1818 (Polychaeta) Op. 1692
lepidota, Aphrodita, Pallas, 1766 (Polychaeta) Op. 1666
leucorodia, Platalea, Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Op. 1674
liparis, Cyclopterus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1673
longissimus, Phorusrhacos, Ameghino, 1887 (Aves) Op. 1687
maxillosa, Phyllodoce, Ranzani, 1817 (Polychaeta) Op. 1692
minuta, Aphrodita, Pennant, 1777 (Polychaeta) Op. 1666
minuta, Aphrodita, Fabricius, 1780 (Polychaeta) Op. 1666
museorum, Chelifer, Leach, 1817 (Pseudoscorpionida) Op. 1697
nepoides, Chelifer, Hermann, 1804 (Pseudoscorpionida) Op. 1697
norma, Autographa, Hubner, [1821] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1682
oculata, Coccinella, Thunberg, 1781 (Coleoptera) Op. 1693
pangia, Cobitis, Hamilton, 1822 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1695
papillosa, Duseideia?, Johnston, 1842 (Anthozoa) Op. 1689
pauxillum, Apion (Rhinapion), Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Coleoptera) Op. 1694
pelagica, Procellaria, Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Op. 1696
planumbona, Leptaena, Hall, 1847 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1671
pustulosa, Fryeria, Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) Op. 1663
rubra, Scolopax, Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) Op. 1674
rueppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869 (Gastropoda) Op. 1663
riippelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869 (Gastropoda) Op. 1663
rugosa, Strophomena, de Blainville, 1824 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1671
septemvolva, Polygyra, Say, 1818 (Gastropoda) Op. 1691
sphenocephala, Rana halecina, Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1685
subcylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664
taierensis, Chelifer, With, 1907 (Pseudoscorpionida) Op. 1667
tarsatus, Hydroporus, Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 1681

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

thyroidus, Helix, Say, 1817 (Gastropoda) Op. 1691

undecimnotata, Coccinella, Schneider, [1 792] (Coleoptera) Op. 1693
utricularius, Rana, Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1685
ventricosa, Rissoa, Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) Op. 1664

vicina, Calliphora, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1670
viridiflavus, Coluber, Lacépéde, 1789 (Reptilia) Op. 1686

vittatus, Buthus, Guérin Méneville, [1838] (Scorpionida) Op. 1680
vittatus, Buthus, Say, 1821 (Scorpionida) Op. 1680

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

301

KEY NAMES AND WORKS IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS

IN VOLUME 49 (1992)

(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 297-300)

Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (Hymenoptera) .
Acridium Schaeffer, 1766 (Orthoptera) .

Acrochordium Meyen, 1834 (Hydrozoa)

Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Coleoptera).

Acrydium Geoffroy, 1762 (Orthoptera) .

aenea, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera)

africana, Gebia, Ortmann, 1894 (Crustacea, Depapioda)
alatus, Cimex najas, Retzius, 1783 (Heteroptera) .
albimana, Simia, Vigors & Horsfield, 1828 (Mammalia)
albus, Strombiformis, Da Costa, 1778 (Gastropoda).
albus, Turbo, Pennant, 1777 (Gastropoda) .

Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Gastropoda) .

amasia, Phalaena, Smith, 1797 (@epidapiccak
Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Ostracoda) . ;
ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (Coleoptera)

antipai, Styloptocuma, Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 Gaaabieea)
aquatica, Silpha, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera).
argyrocephala, Tachina, Meigen, 1824 (Diptera) .

Asellus Schaeffer, 1766 (Isopoda) . ;

atlanticus, Scylliorhinus, Koefoed, 1927 (Chonduackthyes).
Audinetella Spinola, 1850 (Heteroptera) eros}

Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) .

Balea Gray, 1824 (Gastropoda) ;

baltica, Rhipidocystis, Jaekel, 1901 (Becton)

bauri, Coelurus, Cope, 1887 (Reptilia) .

Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Coleoidea) .

BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 (Coleoidea) .

Binoculus Schluga, 1767 (Branchiopoda)

bipunctata, Audinetella, Spinola, 1850 (Heteroptera)
bisulcatus, Belemnites, de Blainville, 1827 (Coleoidea) . :
brasiliensis, Mugil, Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831 oe oe
Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (Coleoptera) SEERA Ee
Bucephalus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda) .

campanula, Distoma, Dujardin, 1844 (Trematoda) .
candiota, Helix, Mousson, 1854 (Gastropoda) BRM)
capensis, Gebia major, Krauss, 1843 (Crustacea, Becapodal.
Ceratites de Haan, 1825 (Ammonoidea)

CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera)

Choragus Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera) .

Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Galcuptera):

Page
205
228
184

22
228

120, 290

187
118
58

112, 289

112, 289
258
196
116
194
264

30, 230
200
223

wind

19):229

112, 289
12

4]

276

66

66

223
195229
66

271
227
u662

. 6,62
16
187

145, 290

194
194

120, 290

302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) . ¢ 120, 290
chrysomelinus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gelesiatcea) « 122
chrysoscelis, Hyla, Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, Anura) . 151
chrysostigma, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) . 120, 290
CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Hydrozoa) . 144, 222, 287
CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Gastropoda) 144, 222, 287
Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia) ; 137
clintonensis, Graptolites, Hall, 1843 (Geaptolithinay, 43
clintonensis, Graptolithus, Hall, 1852 (Graptolithina) 43
Coelophysis Cope, 1889 (Reptilia) 276
colberti, Rioarribasaurus, Hunt & Lucas, 1991 Geniliay ( 2 \eatth Wee
Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda) . 68, 221, 289
colus, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) 68, 221, 289
connubialis, Catocala, Guenée, 1852 (Lepidoptera) . 196
Copris Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) . 149
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 (Coleoptera) 22
coriacea, Meladema, Laporte, 1835 (Coleopten): 32
costata, Zanclea, Gegenbaur, 1856 (Hydrozoa) . é 184
crenulatus, Monograptus, Tornquist, 1881 (Graptalithinay 46
crenulatus, Monograptus vomerinus, Elles & Wood, 1911 (Graptolithina)! 46
croupius, Lincus, Rolston, 1983 (Heteroptera). 19, 229
curculionides, Metopias, Gory, 1832 (Coleoptera) ‘ 200
curema, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Gsigiohthytall cual
danae, Taningia, Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda). Jip26l
Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera). 120, 290
Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera). 120, 290
dichotoma, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Anthozoa) 104
Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia) 52, 291
Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936 (Reptilia) . 52, 291
eichwaldi, Asaphus, Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 (Trilobita) . 150
Elonium Leach in Samouelle, 1819 (Coleoptera) . new) BAL

Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera). 30, 230
encrinula, Isis, Lamarck, 1815 (Anthozoa) . 104
entelloides, Hylobates, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 (Mainifialia) 58
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Diptera) . — Rin 48 133
EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 (Acari) . 153
Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (Amphibia, Giisnaplaonse 153
Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (Acari) . 153
erecta, Achatina, Benson, 1842 (Gastropoda) . 258
Eulima Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda). : 12
Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762 (Hymenoptera) . 71
Euroleon Esben-Petersen, 1918 (Neuroptera) . 149
Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes) 3 209
fimbriatum, Gasterostomum, Siebold, 1848 Giremsataua 6, 62

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

fitzingeri, Laemanctus, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia) .
fluminensis, Cynopoecilus, Faria & Muller, 1937 (Osteichthyes)
Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762 (Thysanura) . PAs:
Formicaleo Geoffroy, 1762 (Neuroptera)

franciscana, Artemia, Kellogg, 1906 (Branchiopoda)

Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 (Gastropoda). :

Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda).

Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Gastropoda) .

gaimardianus, Mugil, Desmarest, 1831 (Osteichthyes) .
galeatum, Monostoma, Rudolphi, 1819 (Trematoda)
Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848 (Trematoda)

gigantea, Procellaria, Gmelin, [1789] (Aves)

gigas, Rhipidocystis, Jaekel, 1901 (Eocrinoidea) .
glaber, Strombiformis, Da Costa, 1778 (Gastropoda)
Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936 (Trilobita)

gracilis, Bulimus, Hutton, 1834 (Gastropoda) .
grandidieri, Thaumastolemur, Filhol, 1895 (Mammalia)
granulata, Colubraria, Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda)
grilli, Anisolepis, Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia)

grossa, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera)

Gymnomyza Fallen, 1810 (Diptera) . : ,
GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 (iniccae
GYMNOPINI Cresson, 1922 (Diptera)

halli, Macronectes giganteus, Mathews, 1912 (Aves).
harrisonii, Scelidosaurus, Owen, 1861 (Reptilia) .
Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) .

Hepa Geoffroy, 1762 (Heteroptera) . ‘

heterurus, Homalocephalus, Jan, 1863 GRepuliave
Homalocephalus Jan, 1863 (Reptilia).

hypocyana, Caecilia, Boie, 1827 (Amphibia, (eenanaahiasia).:

ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona)
ithopyensis, Procytheridea, Grekoff, 1963 (Ostracoda)

illense, Gasterostomum, Ziegler, 1883 (Trematoda) .

ingens, Palaeopropithecus, Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia) .
Ischnosoma Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes)

Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829 (Coleoptera)

Ischnosomata Strand, 1935 (Coleoptera)

Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Gastropoda).
laevis, Turbo, Pennant, 1777 (Gastropoda).

lar, Homo, Linnaeus, 1771 (Mammalia)

Leichotes Gistl, 1834 (Coleoptera)

limosa, Copromyza, Fallén, 1820 Gigi:

Lincus Stal, 1867 (Heteroptera)

303

rah
207, 233
224

149

72

68, 221, 289

68, 221, 289
68, 221, 289

271
65:62
¥6;.62

140

41

12

150

258

353.73

68, 221, 289

217

122

133

133

133

140
280
30, 230
224
284
284
153

153
116
G6NG2
553773
35

35

35

Spevniguiva
112, 289
58

A ee
127, 291
19, 229

304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

liza, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes) .

longimana, Simia, Schreber, [1774] (Mammalia) .
lutosa, Limosina, Stenhammar, 1855 (Diptera)

macandraeae, Triforis, Adams, 1856 (Gastropoda) .

Macronectes Richmond, 1905 (Aves) i

Mantes Geoffroy in Miller, 1764 (Orthoptera)

Mantis Linnaeus, 1758 (Orthoptera). :

Megalophrys Wagler, 1830 (Amphibia, Aaa)

megapoda, Rana, Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura) .

Megophrys Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura).
Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) .

melanochir, Polynemus, Valenciennes, 1831 (Osieichithyes)
Melolontha Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) .

Metopia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) .

METOPIAINI Townsend, 1908 (agers

Metopias Gory, 1832 (Coleoptera)

METOPIASINI Raffray, 1904 (@alsaptota)(:

METOPIINAE Foerster, 1868 (Hymenoptera) .

METOPIINI Raffray, 1904 (Coleoptera) .

METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Diptera)

Metopius Panzer, 1806 (Hymenoptera) .

misumenus, Somatodes, Gyllenhal in Schonherr, 1840 (Galespisials
Mnestra Krohn, 1853 (Hydrozoa)

mollis, Carabus, Marsham, 1802 (Galaga):

mollis, Carabus, Strom, 1768 (Coleoptera) .

mollis, Gamasus, Kramer, 1876 (Acari) .

moniliferus, Pachyrhynchus, Germar, 1824 (Catecptaia)
montagui, Balcis, Leach in Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) :
montana, Megophrys, Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Asura)
monticola, Megophrys, Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura) .
monticola, Xenophrys, Gunther, 1864 (Amphibia, Anura) . ;
Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Anthozoa) . :
Mosillus Latreille, 1804 (Diptera).

Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Galeapteia)

Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) .

Myteroxis Gozis, 1886 (Coleoptera) .

nodosa, Ammonites, Bruguiére, 1789 (Ammonoidea)
nodosus, Ceratites, Schlotheim, 1813 (Ammonoidea)

obtusirostris, Laemanctus, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia) .
oliveirai, Dinodontosaurus, Romer, 1943 (Reptilia) .
opalescens, Cynolebias, Myers, 1942 (Osteichthyes) .

PACHYRHYNCHINI Schonherr, 1826 (Coleoptera) .
Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera) R

58

127%) 291

70
140
71
71
213
211
alls
32
209
149
200

184
28
28

153

266

112, 289

213

213

ats .

104

133
35

227
35

145, 290
145, 290

217
52294
207, 233

266
266

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

Palaeopropithecus Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia)
paludum, Gerris, Fabricius, 1794 (Heteroptera)
parasites, Mnestra, Krohn, 1853 (Hydrozoa) . :
parvum, Leptobrachium, Boulenger, 1893 (Amphibia, nen
PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922 (Coleoidea)
Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (Coleoidea).
paxillosa, Belemnites, Lamarck, 1801 (Coleoidea)
pedroanum, Diodontosaurus, Caldas, ee
Peltis Muller, 1776 (Coleoptera) . :
perplexa,Filimanus, Feltes, 1991 foutcichtlivess
persica, Octopodoteuthis, Naef, 1923 (Cephalopoda)
‘ perversus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) .
Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Heteroptera)
politus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) .
polymorphus, Bucephalus, Baer, 1827 (Trematoda) .
Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Gastropoda) .
propython, Clidastes, Cope, 1869 (Reptilia)
Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881 (Reptilia) .
PSILOPINAE Cresson, 1925 (Diptera).

Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Orthoptera)

Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 (Coleoptera) .
Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 (Trilobita) .

pulchra, Anniella, Gray, 1852 (Reptilia). y
punctus, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) .
putrida, Drosophila, Sturtevant, 1916 (Diptera) .

ramicornis, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1781 (Hymenoptera)
Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 (Trematoda) .
Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Eocrinoidea) ’
Rioarribasaurus Hunt & Lucas, 1991 (Reptilia) .
rufipes, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera)
rufospilota, Pentatoma, Westwood, 1837 (Heteroptera)
rushii, Potamolithus, Pilsbry, 1896 (Gastropoda) .

sanctus, Somatodes, Schonherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) .

sandrii, Cynopoecilus, Faria & Muller, 1937 (Osteichthyes)
Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 (Reptilia) . nec
Schinomosa Tottenham, 1939 (Coleoptera)

Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Coleoptera) .

Scutopterus Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) .

sheppardi, Choragus, Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera)

sinistratum, Cerithium, Nyst, 1835 (Gastropoda).

Somatodes Schonherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) .

Somatodes Schonherr, 1840 (Coleoptera) .

SOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863 ieoleapicray,
SOMATODINI Schonherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) . : :
spinacipellitum, Scyllium?, Vaillant, 1888 (Chondnichthyes) :

305

55;\73
118
184
213

66

66
tv166
525291
224
209
261

12

191

112, 289

6,'62
109
137
284
133
228
227
150

155, 234

35
129

Legal
96362
4]

276
122

19, 229
109

266

207, 233

280
35
232
az
194
70
266
266
266
266
49

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

splendens, Cynolebias, Myers, 1942 (Osteichthyes) .
splendidus, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) .
striatulus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera)
striatum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera)
Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778 (Gastropoda) .

Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Cumacea) . :
submetallicum, Camptopoeum, Spinola, 1851 (Hymenoptera).
subsultans, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera)

subulatus, Turbo, Donovan, 1804 (Gastropoda) .

Tachina Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) .

TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Galapisaos :
TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) .
Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) . :
TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Coleoptera) .
TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Coleoptera)
Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) .

Taningia Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda) . ‘

testacea, Drosophila, von Roser, 1840 (Diptera) .
Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895 (Mammalia).

Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 (Lepidoptera)

topeka, Cliola (Hybopsis), Gilbert, 1884 (Osteichthyes).
Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 (Gastropoda). 3

triangulata, Amicytheridea, Bate, 1975 (@uuncndcit :
tridactylum, Amphiuma, Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata) .
trilobata, Rana, Mocquard, 1899 (Amphibia, Anura) .
tristis, Moniana, Girard, 1857 (Osteichthyes) .

turpior, Dicynodon, Huene, 1935 (Reptilia).

versicolor, Hyla, Le Conte, 1825 (Amphibia, Anura)
vespoides, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763 (Hymenoptera) .
vittipennis, Podisus, Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 pEistena ices)
Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Gastropoda).

Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856 (Hydrozoa) .

207, 233
35

22

22

12

264

205

133

12

122
122
122
122
12
#22
122
261
129
55, 73
224
268
258

. 116
73y 45k
2a
268
52, 291

151
200
19k .
16

184

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris

71, 149, 223

McCrady, J. 1857, 1859. sie pinciptaleetate oe Gladestan Hanmide Proceedings of the

Elliott Society of Natural History of Charleston, South Carolina, 1: 103-221

287

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992 307

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission;
other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; the Commission’s Secretariat
reserves the right to return applications not so prepared.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out
the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800,
p. 39) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and
followed by the number of pages, the publisher and place of publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could
be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text in IBM PC format. It would also be
helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main
references where this is possible.

Applicants would be well advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same
field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications
and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49(4) December 1992

PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF THE PRESENT

VOLUME
Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication
1 1-100 26 March 1992
2 101-180 25 June 1992
3 181-252 30 September 1992
4 253-308 17 December 1992
INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER

The present volume should be bound up as follows:
Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-308
Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume

Contents — continued

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1697. Chelifer museorum Leach, 1817 (currently Cheiridium museorum;
Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): specific name conserved . .

Opinion 1698. Brahmaea Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Bombyx certhia
Fabricius, 1793 confirmed as the type species . I bk es

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 49 (1992) . ;

Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in ‘rulings of the Commission published in in
volume 49 (1992) .

Key names and works in Applications and Comments published in volume 49 (1992).

Instructions to authors .

Publication dates and pagination of volume 49 9(1992) .

Instructionsto binder . . :

Table of Contents of volume 49 (1992) .

CONTENTS

Notices .

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second Supplement to
1990 ‘ y

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — ‘Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints 3

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies . ares

Financial Report for 1991 . ae

Applications

Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation by the designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta Benson, 1842.
FNapes os

Taningia danae Joubin, ‘1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): “proposed precedence 0 over
Taningia persica (Naef, 1923). M. Vecchione & C.F.E. Roper. oe

Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed conser-
vation with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as the type a species.
L.B. Holthuis 3

Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824, ‘Somatodes Schénherr, 1840 and the specific name : of
Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser-
vation. R.T. Thompson .

Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Natropis topeka: Osteichthyes,
Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. F.B. Cross &
J.T. Collins. .

Mugil curema and M. liza Valenciennes : in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. L. Alvarez-Lajonchere,
E. Trewavas & G.J. Howes . ;

Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia, “Saurischia):
proposed replacement of the lectotype by a neotype. E.H. Colbert, A.J. Charig,
P. Dodson, D.D. Gillette, J.H. Ostrom & D. Weishampel .

Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed replacement of
inappropriate lectotype. A.J. Charig & B.H. Newman .

Pseudoxyrhopus Giinther, 1881 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation. ec M.
Smith, K.L. Williams, V. Wallach & D. Chiszar . Se ee ay

Comments

On the date of publication of John McCrady’s hydrozoan paper Gymnopthalmata of
Charleston Harbor. D.R. Calder, L.D. Stephens & A.E. Sanders; A. Gentry .

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). R. Giannuzzi-Savelli

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Melanella (Balcis) ‘alba (Da
Costa, 1778) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) R. Giannuzzi-Savelli

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus (Cephalopoda,
Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the designation of a lectotype.G. Tichy .

On the proposed conservation of Chrysobothris and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829
(Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spellings. R.L. Westcott; S. Bily .

On the proposed replacement of the lectotype of Leptocera (Rachispoda) limosa
(Fallén, 1820) (Insecta, Diptera). T.A. Wheeler

On the proposed conservation of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida).
S. Bandyopadhyay. ee ee : o. oe

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Page

253
254
254

254
255
255
256

258
261

266

268

7

|

”

Cy a. Sa ape;

ted ; .

Sey Taste te

tipsy pt etodyt ate ¢ 4 ) ? ih nen)
thas

hy

‘Nate
wae

Ty,
Reali telyt

er
ned
anne