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

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

RDIIW^S 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



IC^AJx Vrhe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



Volume 52, 1995 



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 007-5167 

' International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 I 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 1 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications . 2 

Addresses of members of the Commission 3 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 4 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 4 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

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

1990 5 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 5 

Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature 6 

General Article 

The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review of the 

problem and of proposed solutions. J. O. Corliss II 

Applications 

Slicloslroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): proposed conservation, and 

designation of S. goiriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species. C.W. Stearn ... 18 

Aplysia jitliaiui Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. E. Martinez & J. Ortea 21 

Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Luligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, 
Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. A. Guerra & M.A. 
Alonso-Zarazaga 24 

Dodecaccria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbrialus Verrill, 1879 
(currently D. fimbriala) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the 
specific names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. P.H. Gibson & 
D. Heppell 27 

Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell. 1967 (Trilobita): proposed 

conservation. R.M. Owens & A.T. Thomas 34 

Diplocentrus mexicainis Peters, 1 861 ( Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed confirmation 

of the rediscovered holotype as the name-bearing type. W.D. Sissom 37 

Nepa ruslica Fabricius. 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843 (currently 
Diplonycbus ruslicus and Behsloma stollii: Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed 
conservation of the specific names. J.T. Polhemus & I.M. Kerzhner 40 

Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as 
the correct original spelling, and aspidiphoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859): 
proposed placement on the Official List. J.V. McHugh 44 

XANTHOLiNiNi Erichson, 1839 and quediini Kraatz. 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed precedence over senior synonyms, and Quedius Stephens. 1829: proposed 
designation of Staphylinus levicollis Brulle. 1832 as the type species. A.F. Newton. Jr. 48 

Melablastothrix Sugonjaev. 1964 (Insecta. Hymenoptera): proposed designation of 
Blastolhrix (Metablaslolhrix) isomorphu Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species. N.D. 
Voinovich. V.A. Trjapitzin & E.S. Sugonjaev 54 

Agomis Bloch & Schneider. 1801 (Osteichthyes. Scorpaeniformes): proposed conser- 
vation; AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta. Coleoptera) and agonidae Swainson, 1839 
(Osteichthyes. Scorpaeniformes): proposed removal of homonymy. B.A. Sheiko . 57 

Proposed conservation of nine specific names of southern Afrotropical birds which 

are junior synonyms. P.A. Clancey & R.K. Brooke 61 



II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of usage of Acanthoieuthis Wagner in Miinster, 1839 

and Kvlaeiio Miinster. 1842 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). D.T. Donovan; W. Riegraf; 

M. Nixon; T.S. Engeser 65 

On the proposed conservation of Liroitecu Leach. 1818 (Crustacea. Isopoda) as the 

correct original spelling. L.B. Holthuis; A. Brandt; N.L. Bruce 67 

On the proposed conservation of usage of the generic names MeUmophiki 

Eschscholtz. 1829 and Phaeiiops Dejean. 1833 (Insecta. Coleoptera). S. Bily & C.L. 

Bellamy 70 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names o( Aphodius nifus (Moll. 1782). 

A. foetidiis (Herbst. 1783) and Aegialia nifu (Fabricius. 1792) (Insecta. 

Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg; F.-T. Krell; Z.T. Stebnicka 71 

On the proposed conservation of Ischynis. Lyhus and Mycolretus Lacordaire. 1842 

and of A/t',?«c7nTi« Crotch. 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.C. Funk 73 

On the designation of Mtisca lancifer Harris. [1780] as the type species of Hydrophoria 

Robineau-Desvoidy. 1830 (Insecta. Diptera). and proposal of a neotype for 

A/. /(wW/cr. D.M. Ackland & G.C.D. Griffiths 74 

On the proposed conservation of Sicus Scopoli. 1763 and Myopa Fabricius. 1775 by 

the designation of Conops huccala Linnaeus. 1 758 as the type species of Myopa. 

and on Coenomyia Latreille. 1796 (Insecta. Diptera). A. Gentry 74 

On the proposed conservation of the usage of the specific names of Bomhiis terreslris 

and B. musconiin (Linnaeus. 1758). B. huorum (Linnaeus. 1761) and B. huinilis 

llliger. 1806 (Insecta. Hymenoptera). H. Silfverberg 76 

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelopliysis hai/ri (Cope. 1887) 

(Reptilia. Saurischia). R.M. Sullivan 76 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Liophi.s poecilogyrtis 

(Wied-Neuwied. [1824]) (Reptilia. Serpentes). L.J. Witt; E.L. Bell & K.L. 

Williams 77 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published in 

Brisson's (1762) Regnuiii Aninude. A. Mones; F. Petter; A. Turner; A.L. Gardner; 

F. de Beaufort, L. Granjon. J.M. Pons & M. Tranier; C. Jones: N. Sivasothi; 

J.L. Eger; B. Sige; M.E. Holden; S. Aulagnier; G.B. Corbet; J.-L. Hartenberger; 

H. de Bruijn; M. Vianey-Liaud; J.J. Hooker; A. Gentry 78 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1792. Ptcurotoina meiteghinii Mayer. 1868 (currently Astheiwluiiui 

incncghinii: Mollusca. Gastropoda): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype . 94 

OPINION 1793. ChU'iwpleryx Appellof. 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): confirmed 

as the correct original spelling 96 

OPINION 1794. Sigiiici coleoplmlci Fabricius. [1777] (Insecta. Heteroptera): specific 
name conserved, and Notonecta ohlkjua Thunberg. 1787: specific name placed on 
the Official List 98 

OPINION 1795. Corisa sexlineala Reuter, 1882 (currently Sigara (Tropocorixa) 
sexlineciia: Insecta. Heteroptera): specific name not conserved, and that of 
C. confltiens Fieber. 1851 placed on Official List 100 

OPINION 1796. /'/(/n/it'ftoRegimbart. 1879 (Insecta. Coleoptera): conserved . . 102 

OPINION 1797. Occoiheii Haliday in Curtis. 1837 (Insecta. Diptera): conserved, and 

//(•/i);»rra/f»i'.v/ra//,v Fallen. 1820 designated as the type species 104 

OPINION 1798. Riviiltis nuinnimiius Poey. 1880 (Osteichthyes. Cyprino- 
dontifonnes): given precedence over R occllcinis Hensel. 1868. and a neotype 
designated for R marinunilus 106 

OPINION 1799. Naiwrates Rafinesque. 1810 and .Vi77Win'.v Cuvier. 1814 

(Osteichthyes, Perciformes): conserved 109 

OPINION 1800. £myj:Dumeril. 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): conserved Ill 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 III 

OPINION 1801. Cetiosciiiriscus Huene. 1927 (Reptilia. Sauropodomorpha): Celio- 

saiin'sciis slewarli Charig. 1980 designated as the type species 113 

OPINION \^02. Dinodonlosaurus Romer. 1943 (Reptilia. Synapsida): consei^ed . . 114 

Information and Instructions for Authors 116 

Notices 117 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoologi- 
cal Nomenclature 118 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 119 

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

1990 119 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 120 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 120 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 120 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature 121 

General Articles 

Comment on Towards a harmonized bionomenclatitre for life on Earth (Hawksworth 

e/a/.. 1994). A.E. Bogan& E.E. Spamer . 126 

On the nomenclature of domestic animals. C. P. Groves 137 

Applications 

Porites Link, 1807. Gahixea Oken. 1815. Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia 

Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa. Scleractinia): proposed conservation. D.C. Potts . . 142 

Tropidoplera Ancey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of 

Endodonla wesleyi Sykes, 1896 as the type species. N.L. Evenhuis & R.H. Cowie. 148 

PLUTONIINAE Bollman. 1893 (Arthropoda. Chilopoda) and pi utoniinae Cockerell. 
1893 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed removal of homonymy. R.M. Shelley & 
T. Backeljau 150 

Cubaris nnirina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of both 

the generic and specific names. P.T. Lehtinen, S. Taiti & F. Ferrara 153 

Xerammohales Popov. 1951 (Insecta. Hymenoptera): proposed designation of 

Ammohales {Xerammohales) o.xianiis Popov, 1951 as the type species. D.B. Baker. 157 

Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and A/, agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, Hymen- 
optera): proposed conservation of the specific names. W.E. LaBerge 159 

Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa): proposed designation of 
Rliubdomeson progracUe Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 as the type species. P.N. 
Wyse Jackson & A.J. Bancroft 162 

Neclria Gray. 1840 (Echinodermata. Asteroidea): proposed designation of Neclria 

ocellala Perrier, 1875 as the type species. W. Zeidler 164 

Phyllophis carinata Giinther. 1864 (currently Elaphe carinala: Reptilia, Serpentes): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, H. Ota & V. Wallach . 166 

Aptornis Owen, [1848] (Aves): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. 

E. Weber & F.-T. Krell 170 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Fursenkoina Loebiich & Tappan, 1961 (Fora- 

miniferida). J.R. Haynes; S.A. Revets 175 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Soos, 1926 

(Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky 176 



IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

On the proposed designation of Scollia psemlohiowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type 

species of Scollia Brady & Norman. 1889 (Crustacea. Ostracoda). H.J. Oertli; 

C. Meisch; I.G. Sohn 178 

On the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach. 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda) as the 

correct original spelling. G. Bello; R.Y. George 178 

On the proposal to remove the homonymy between brachypterinae Erichson. 

[1845] (Insecta. Coleoptera) and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 (Insecta. 

Plecoptera). and proposed precedence of kateretidae Ganglbauer. 1899 over 

BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson. [1845]. P. A. Audisio; A.F. Newton 179 

On the proposed conservation of Sphaerocera Latreille. 1804 and Borophagci 

Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta. Diptera). R.H.L. Disney; B.V. Brown 181 

On the proposed conservation of HyclromaiUcs Gistel. 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by 

the designation of Sulwnamtra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type 

species. A. Dubois 183 

On the proposed conservation of Lycognatlwphis Boulenger. 1893 (Reptilia, 

Serpentes). H. Ota; R.A. Nussbaum; E.V. Malnate; E.L. Bell el al 186 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published 

in Brisson's (1762) Regmim Animale. M.R. Dawson; K. Seaman; J.R. Moreira; 

A.W. Gentry; E.R. Justo; V. Fahlbusch. K. Heissig. H. Mayr & G. Rossner; 

P.J. Boylan; D. Kock; P. Mein. M. Hugueney, C. Guerin & R. Ballesio .... 187 

On the proposed conservation of Loris E. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, 

Primates). R.H. Crompton 193 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1803. Riihiilina nodosa Reuss. 1863 (currently Lenticidina nodosa; 

Foraminiferida): neotype confirmed as the name-bearing type 194 

OPINION 1804. Crislellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (currently Aslacolus humilis; 
Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype. and Rolalia schloen- 
hachi (currently Noloplanulhuf! schloenbachi; Foraminiferida): placed on the 
Official List 196 

OPINION 1805. Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora) 
and Doridopsis guttata Odhner, 1917 (currently Dendrodoris guttata) (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): specific names conserved 198 

OPINION 1806. Ammonites nodosus (currently Ceratites nodosus; Cephalopoda, 
Ammonoidea): specific name attributed to Schlotheim. 1813, and a lectotype 
designated 200 

OPINION 1 807. 7o/inj/o«;o Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta): conserved . 204 

OPINION 1808. Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis 
Froggatt. 1898 (currently Amitermes meridionalis) (Insecta, Isoptera): neotypes 
retained following rediscovery of syntypes 206 

OPINION 1809. Bruehus Linnaeus. 1767, Plinus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylahris 

Fabricius. 1775 (Insecta. Coleoptera): conserved 208 

OPINION 1810. Cryptopliagus Herbst. 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst. 1792. Rhizophagus 
Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst. 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as the 
correct original spellings, and Lyctus hipuslulatiis Fabricius, 1792 ruled to be the 
type species of /?/;/ro/)/wg«i 211 

OPINION 1811. COLYDIIDAE Erichson, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence 
over CKRYLONIDAE Billberg. 1820 and orthocerini Blanchard. 1845 (1820); and 
Cerylon Latreille. 1802: Lyetus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 designated as the type 
species 214 

OPINION I8I2. ELMiDAE Curtis, 1830 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as the correct 

original spelling, and the gender of £/»ik Latreille. 1802 ruled to be feminine . . 217 

OPINION 1813. Alestes Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): 

conserved 219 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 V 

OPINION 1814. Calharacta amarclica hnnhergi Mathews, 1912 (currently 
Calhaiaclci skua lonnbergi) and Catharucia skua hamiltoni Hagen, 1952 (Aves, 
Charadriiformes): subspecific names conserved 222 

Informarion and Instructions for Authors 224 

Notices 225 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 226 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 227 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 227 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 227 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature. Comments by W.D.L. Ride; R.W. Crosskey; Z. Kabata: H.M. 

Smith: F.C. Thompson 228 

Applications 

Patella longicosia Lamarck. 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of 

the specific name. D.G. Herbert 234 

Glomeris Latreille. 1802 (Diplopoda): proposed conservation; Armadillo vulgaris 
Latreille. 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name; 
and Armadillo Latreille. 1802 (Crustacea. Isopoda); application for a ruling on its 
status. P.T. Lehtmen & L.B. Holthuis 236 

Monstrillu Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda): pro- 
posed conservation. M.J. Grygier 245 

Chaetodacus latifrons Hendel. 1915 (currently Bactrocera latifrons; Insecta, Diptera): 
proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Dacus parrulus Hendel, 
1912. I.M.White & N.J. Liquido 250 

Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 (Tunicata); proposed precedence over Paessleria 

Michaelsen, 1907. P. Kott 254 

Cyclodomorphus praeallus (Reptilia, Squamata): a proposal that availability of the 
specific name be taken from the intended description by Shea, 1995. W.S. Osborne 
& K. Green 257 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Stictosnoma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromato- 

poroidea) and designation of 5. gorriense Steam, 1995 as the type species. 

P. Bouchet; J. St. Jean 259 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Soos, 1926 

(Mollusca, Gastropoda). E. Gittenberger 259 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Aplysia Juliana Quoy & 

Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca. Gastropoda). A. Bebbington 260 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum 

Orsted. 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbrialus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) 

(Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. F. Pleijel 

& A.S.Y. Mackie 261 

On the proposed conservation of Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 

1967(Tri!obita). H.B. Whittington 262 

On the proposed designation of 5. pseudohrowniarui Kempf, 1971 as the type species 

of Scoriia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). R. Matzke-Karasz. . 263 

On the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea. Isopoda) as the 

correct original spelling. T.E. Bowman; E.H. Williams. Jr. & L.B. Williams; 

G. Bello 263 



VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

On the proposed conservation of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta. 

Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling, and the placement of aspidiphoridae 

Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) on the Official List. A.F. Newton. Jr. & M.K. Thayer. 264 

On the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia. Caudata) by 

the designation of Salannmdra geiiei Temminck & Schlegel. 1838 as the type 

species. H.M. Smith, D.B. Wake & M.R. Jennings 267 

On the proposed conservation of the family-group name phrynobatrachinae 

Laurent. 1941 (Amphibia. Anura). J. C. Poynton; D.R. Frost & J. M. Savage . . 269 

On the proposed conservation of Lycognathophis Boulenger. 1893 (Reptilia, 

Serpentes). L.E. Brown 271 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published 

in Brisson's (1762) Regniim Aninuilc. A. Currant: M. Freudenthal; M. Wolsan; 

C. Dupuis 271 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1815. Oiroimuhra Bastian, 1865 and Euchroimidora de Man, 1886 
(Nematoda): conserved by the designation of C. nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 as the 
type species of Chromudoni 276 

OPINION 1816. Lithohius piceiis L. Koch. 1862 (Chilopoda): specific name 

conserved 278 

OPINION 1817. Chivelki Oken. 1815 and Peimetia Oken, 1815 (Crustacea, Cope- 

poda): conserved, and /'ra«e//o rf/oc/o/i/u Oken, 1815: specific name conserved. . 279 

OPINION 1818. Rlwpulosiplmm moiuirdae Davis, 191 1 (currently Hyalomyzus 

Hio/KHv/af: Insecta. Homoptera): specific name conserved 281 

OPINION 1819. Bluiliu Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): Eideltix olivaceus 

Melichar, 1903 confirmed as the type species 282 

OPINION 1820. A.A.H. Lichtenstein's (1796, 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici ... 
Seciiu Tenia. Conlinens InsccUi and D.H. Schneider's (1800) Verzekhniss einer 
Parthei Inseklen ... : suppressed, with conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) 
names (Insecta and Arachnida) 283 

OPINION 1821. Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Nolropis topeka; 

Osteichthyes. Cypriniformes): specific name conserved 286 

Information and Instructions for .\uthors 288 

Notices 289 

Election of the President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature 290 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 290 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 290 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 291 

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

1990 291 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 291 

Financial Report for 1994 292 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature. Comments by I.M. Kerzhner & Ya.I. Starobogatov: C.W. 
Sabrosky: A. Dubois: C.J. Ferraris: G. Rosenberg; A.R. Rabat; T.S. Arnold; 
P. Bouchet; W. Wiister; N.L. Evenhuis: M. Pavesi 294 

General Article 

The changing paradigms of biological systematics: new challenges to the principles 

and practice of biological nomenclature. A. Minelli 303 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 VII 

Applications 

Puniphrunima crassipes Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed conservation 

of the specific name. W. Zeidler 310 

Metuphvcus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over 

/^enawofV/raGirault, 1911. J.S. Noyes& J.B. Woolley 313 

Dialictus Robertson. 1902 and Chloruliclus Robertson. 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): 

proposed precedence over ft/ra/unM Robertson. 1901. CD. Michener .... 316 

Monogniplus riccarlonensis Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina): proposed designation of 

a neotype. D.K. Loydell 319 

lodotropheus sprengenic Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): 

proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. J. R. Staufler. Jr 321 

Siboma ainiria Girard. 1856 (currently Gila alraria; Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. C.R. Gilbert 324 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Poriles Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa 

Oken, 1815 and Dendrophvllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa. Scleractinia). B.R. 

Rosen 328 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria cuncluirum 

Orsted. 1843 and D. fimhhatus (Verrill. 1879) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the 

designation of a neotype for A (wif/janm;. D. Heppell & P. H. Gibson .... 329 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geveri Soos. 1926 

(Mollusca. Gastropoda). G. Falkner & T. von Proschwitz 331 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier. [1797] 

and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D.T. Donovan; 

M. Vecchione & M.J. Sweeney; J.B. Messenger 333 

On the proposal to remove the homonymy between brachypterinae Erichson. [1 845] 

(Insecta, Coleoptera) and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera), and 

proposed precedence of kateretidae Ganglbauer, 1899 over brachypterinae 

Erichson. [1845]. A.F. Newton 335 

On the proposed conservation of Sphaerocera Latreille. 1804 and Borophaga 

Enderlein. 1924 (Insecta. Diptera). R.H.L. Disney 336 

On the proposed conservation of hemidactyliini Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, 

Caudata). A. Dubois 337 

On the proposed conservation oi Hydronumtes Gistel. 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by 

the designation of Salamamlra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type 

species. S. Salvidio; A. Dubois 339 

On the proposed conservation of the family-group name phrynobatrachinae 

Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura). B.T. Clarke; A. Dubois 342 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Phyllophis carinata Giinther, 

1864 (Reptilia, Serpentes). J. R. Dixon; T. Hikida. 345 

On the proposed conservation of Aplornis Owen. [1848] (Aves). B.J. Gill; W.J. Bock 346 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published in 

Brisson's (1762) /?eg«»/»i .^/(//iifl/e. A. Gentry 347 

Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 52 (1995) 351 

Names and works placed on Official Lists and Indexes in rulings of the Commission 

published in volume 52 (1995) 353 

Key^ names and works in Applications and Comments published in volume 52 (1995). 357 

Information and instructions for authors 363 

Publication dates and pagination of volume 52 (1995) 364 

Instructions to binder 364 

Table ofContents of volume 52 (1995) I 



Volume 52, Part 1, 30 March 1995 pp. 1-116 ISSN 0007-5167 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



THE NATURAL 
HISTORY Ml ISHUM 

3 1 MAR 1995 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



lC^ZjJ\ VThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological 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. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1995 is £88 
or $170. 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. 0171-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Officers 

Prof Dr O. Kraus {Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



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: MoUusca) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.: Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corhss (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.: MoUusca) 
Prof L. B. Hoithuis 

(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) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

( Switzerland: Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr 1. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
ProfW. D. L. K\ds(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 

(Ru.tsia; MoUusca) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

( Russia: Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno (Japan; Entomology) 



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 1995 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 



HISTORY Ml ISFUM 

3 1 MAR 1|995 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 52, part 1 (pp. 1-116) 30 March 1995 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on apphcations 
pubhshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their pubU- 
cation 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 51, part 4 (published on 20 December 1994). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation 
of S. typica Spizharsky, 1939 as the type species. (Case 2954). I.G. Sohn & 
I.I. Molostovskaya. 

(2) lodotropheus sprengerae Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): 
proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. (Case 2955). J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 

(3) Canipeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. 
(Case 2956). A.E. Bogan & E.E. Spamer. 

(4) Phytobius Schonherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed correction of 
entry on the Official List of Generic Names and confirmation of Curculio 
quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1787 as the type species. (Case 2957). 
H. Silfverberg. 

(5) Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Insecta, 
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2958). A. 
Jansson. 

(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. 



2 Bullclin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

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 28 
zoologists from 18 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 (lUBS), and members are 
elected by zoologists attending General Assemblies of lUBS or Congresses of its 
associated 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 pubhshed in 1985 by 
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the 
Commission. A Fourth Edition is in the course of preparation and all zoologists are 
invited to comment on a discussion draft. 

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 
individual 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 Bidletin. 
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 (not-for-profit 
company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present 
based in London, and the Trust is established there to handle the financial affairs 
of the Commission. The sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official 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 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 3 

assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint. Donations to the Trust are 
gratefully received and attention is drawn to the tax advantages of legacies. 

For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities see BZN 48: 
295-299 (December 1991). A Centenary History of the Commission is being 
published this year. 

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. U.S.A. 
Dr P. BOUCHET Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 55 rue de Buffon. 75005 Paris. France 
Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. 
Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum. P.O. Box A2S5. Sydney South. N.S.W. 2000. 

Australia (Vice-President) 
Prof JO. CORLISS P.O. Bo.x 53008. Albuquerque. New Mexico 87153. U.S.A. 
Prof C. DUPUIS Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 45 rue de Buffon. 75005 Paris. France 
Prof Dr G. HAHN Institut fiir Geologic und Paldontologie. Philipps-Universildt. D-35032 

Marburg, Germany 
Prof Dr O. 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 EHl IJF. U.K. 
Prof L.B. HOLTHUIS Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Poslbus 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- 
Plat: 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 Centre d'Estudis Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C). Cami de Santa 

Barbara sin. 17300 Blanes. Girona, Spain 
Dr V. MAHNERT Museum 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. Universitd di Padova. Via Trieste 75. 35121 

Padova, Italy 
Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum. Universitetsparken 15. DK-2100 Kohenhavn. Denmark 
Dr I.W.B. NYE do The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

(Secretary-General) 
Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology. The Australian National University. P.O. Box 4. 

Canberra. ACT. 2600. ^Wi7ra//a (Councillor) 
Prof 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 Institut fiir Zoologie. Universitdl Graz. Universildtsplatz 2. A-8010 

Graz. Austria 
Dr Ya.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of Sciences, Univer- 

sitetskaya naberezhnaya 1. St Petersburg 199034. Russia 
Dr P. STYS Department of Zoology. Charles University. Vinicna 7, 128 44 Praha 2. Czech 

Republic 
DtF.C.THOMPSO'N Systematic Entomology Laboratory. USDA. do U.S. National Museum. 

Washington. DC. 20560. USA. 
Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Universitelskaya 

naberezhnaya 1, St Petersburg 199034. Russia 



4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

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

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Members 

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

Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) 

Dr H.M.F.P. Andre (Belgium) 

Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) 

Prof Per Brinck (Sweden) 

Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) 

Prof J. H. Callomon (U.K.) 

Dr N.R. Chalmers (U.K.) 

Prof W.T. Chang (China) 

Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia) 

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (U.K.) 

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.) 

Dr R.W. Crosskey (U.K.) 

Prof J. Forest (France) 

Dr R. Harbach (U.K.) 

Prof LB. Holthuis (The Netherlands) 

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 

Dr A.M. Lister (U.K.) 

Dr M. Luc (France) 

Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) 

Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) 

Dr LW.B. Nye (U.K.) 

Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) 

Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands) 

DrG.B. White (U.K.) 

Prof H.B. Whittmgton, F.R.S. (U.K.) 

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

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

Recent issues of the Bulletin have referred to the availabiUty of a discussion draft 
of a new edition of the Code. However, the final stages of the preparation of this 
draft have been held up and it is still not available for distribution. As soon as the 
draft is ready copies will be sent without charge to all subscribers to the Bulletin and 
to members of the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomen- 
clature. Any other institution or individual may order a copy from the Executive 
Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London 
SW7 5BD. The cost of printing and postage is about £3 or US$5. Bank charges on 
currency exchange make it uneconomic to pay this amount except in sterling or US 
dollars. The draft of the Code will therefore be sent free of charge, but those able to 
pay in sterling or US dollars are asked to enclose a cheque for £3 or US$5 to cover 
the cost. 

Before completing the definitive text of the Fourth Edition, the Commission will 
(in accordance with Article 16 of its Constitution) take into account all comments 
and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original distribution. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 5 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Third Edition (pubhshed 1985) supersedes ail 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.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; there are about 9900 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, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. 
Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses. 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established 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 Lisls 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. Andre (Belgium), Dr J. -P. Hugot (France), Prof. A. MineUi 
(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, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 
28006 Madrid, Spain. 



6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Explanatory notes 

The Commission is governed by a Constitution (see Article 76d of the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature) which can only be amended by the same procedure 
as the Code itself (see Article 82a). The present Constitution is published as Appendix 
F of the third (1985) edition of the Code (pp. 236-249). Article 16 of the Constitution 
provides that amendments to the Code (and hence to the Constitution also) can only 
be voted upon by the Commission if they have been published for at least one year 
and if comments made within that period have been considered by the Commission. 
The Commission is distributing a discussion draft of a proposed fourth edition of the 
Code. It is desirable that the new edition of the Code should contain a Constitution 
which includes features whose potential merits were not evident in the circumstances 
existing when the present text was formulated, in its essentials more than 20 years 
ago. Proposed amendments to the Constitution are put forward now so that the 
Code and Constitution can be considered together and be published in the same 
volume. 

Since the Constitution is administrative rather than nomenclatural in character it 
is in the first instance a matter for the Council of the Commission rather than for the 
Code Editorial Committee. The proposed amendments were considered by the 
Council in June 1994. They include two substantial changes (in Articles 3 and 11) 
from the present Constitution, with which the present notes and proposals should be 
read. 

The proposed Article 3b(i) provides that a Commissioner should not be eligible for 
re-election after serving for 18 continuous years, after which re-election would be 
possible only following an interval of three years (Article 3b(ii)). The object of this is 
to promote turnover of membership, and to counter a widely held belief that 
membership of the Commission is effectively life-long. Provision is made to avoid a 
Presidency being cut short, and in Article 3b(iii) to allow a particularly appropriate 
person to be elected or re-elected to serve as President. If these measures were to take 
full effect in 1997, the intended effective date of the new Code, a large number of 
vacancies would immediately result. The transitional provision in Article 3b(iv) 
means that no sudden disruption and loss of experience will be caused by introduc- 
tion of the 18-year rule; however, a number of present Commissioners will reach the 
age limit (of 75 years) by 2002 and a considerable change of membership will result 
from this, in addition to the normal turnover. 

The proposed changes in Article 4 are improvements in the procedure for election 
of Commissioners but involve no changes of principle. The changes in Articles 9 and 
10 are likewise minor. 

Article 11a removes the present obligation on the Commission to have a meeting 
at every lUBS General Assembly, but not its ability to do so. The present 
requirement was natural in the circumstances of the 1970"s, when TUBS first 
succeeded the former International Congresses of Zoology as the Commission's 
supervisory body, but lUBS Assemblies can be very close in time to other Congresses 
(such as those of Evolutionary and Systematic Biology (ICSEB)) which are more 
widely attended by zoologists. A Commission meeting every third year (the interval 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 7 

between lUBS Assemblies) may be unnecessary when a new Code is not being 
prepared. The proposed Article 1 la(i) prescribes that a meeting must be held at least 
once in six years, but shorter intervals will probably be appropriate and apply in 
practice. The formal relationship between lUBS and the Commission is unaffected by 
the proposed Constitution amendments. 

The suggested changes in Articles 12 and 14 are minor. The tenor of Article 15 is 
changed to reflect the proposed change in Article lla(i), i.e. that meetings of the 
Commission will not necessarily be held at every lUBS General Assembly. The 
proposals in Articles 16 and 18 do not involve changes of principle. 

Comments on the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Commission 
are invited, and should be sent by March 1996 to the Executive Secretary (do The 
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K.). 

Proposed amendments (cf. pp. 236-249 of the Code) 

Article 1. Status and Functions of the Commission. — [No changes proposed]. 
Article 2. Membership of the Commission. — [No changes proposed]. 
Article 3. Term of service of Members of the Commission. — 

(a) Normal term. — The normal term of service of a member of the Commission shall 
be reckoned as follows: 

(i) Members shall be grouped into classes according to the date of their election or 
most recent re-election. A class consists of the members elected at a particular session 
of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the International Union of Biological 
Sciences (lUBS) together with those elected at by-elections following that session but 
preceding the next; 

(ii) within a class all members shall have equal seniority and, subject to Section (b), 
the term of their service ends at the close of the general session of the Commission 
(Article lla of this Constitution) at which their class is the most senior. 

(b) Re-election. — A member whose normal term of service terminates may be 
re-elected but: 

(i) upon completing a continuous period of service of eighteen years (or, if the 
member is President of the Commission, twenty-four years) a person shall cease to be 
a member at the next close of a general session of the Commission; 

(ii) on completion of the maximum period specified in Subsection (i) three 
years must elapse before a former member of the Commission is eligible for 
re-election; 

(iii) Subsection (ii) shall not apply when a retiring or former member is pre-elected 
by the Commission to continue as or to become its President if re-elected as a 
member; 

(iv) as a transitional arrangement, no service prior to 1 January 1985 shall be 
taken into account for the purposes of Subsection (i). 

(c) Prior termination of membership. — The membership of any member of the 
Commission shall terminate: 

(i) on the date of his or her 75th birthday; 

(ii) on acceptance by the Council of notice of resignation tendered in writing to the 
Secretary; 



8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

(iii) if, not being on leave of absence, he or she fails on five consecutive occasions 
to record a vote on questions put to the Commission for decision, provided that 
within a period of three months following such failure no written explanation has 
been made which the Council finds adequate. 
Article 4. Election of Members of the Commission. — 

(a) Notice. — The Commission shall publish, not less than one year before a general 
session of the Commission (Article I la), a notice which: 

(i) gives the names, nationalities and fields of speciahsation of the members whose 
terms of service will end at the close of that session; 

(ii) quotes Article 2b of this Constitution and invites nominations for membership 
of the Commission; 

(iii) gives a date, not less than three months before the forthcoming general 
session, by which nominations must be received. 

(b) Circulation. — The notice specified in Section (a) shall be submitted to lUBS, to 
the organizers of the Congress where the general session is to be held, and to 
appropriate journals in different parts of the world, with a request for its 
dissemination. 

(c) Nominations. — Nominations, accompanied by a statement of the fields of 
specialisation and qualifications under Article 2b of each nominee, are to be sent to 
the Secretary of the Commission. Unless the nomination contains the information, 
the Secretary shall request each nominee to give consent to the nomination and to 
provide a curriculum viiae, a list of publications, and a statement of his or her 
nomenclatural experience. 

(d) List of Candidates. — The Commission shall at a general session: 

(i) determine the number of places, which shall be not less than half the number of 
members retiring at the close of the session, to be filled by a ballot of the Section 
of Zoological Nomenclature of TUBS; 

(ii) consider the nominations which have been made in accordance with Section (c) 
and prepare from them a list of twice as many candidates as the number of places to 
be filled by ballot in accordance with Subsection (i). 

(e) Election. — The Commission shall present the list of candidates to the Section of 
Zoological Nomenclature of TUBS for an election by secret ballot. 

(f) By-elections. — The Commission may by a postal ballot fill vacancies arising from 
prior terminations of membership (Article 3c) or which have not been filled by 
election at a session of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of lUBS (Article 
4d(i)). 

[No changes are proposed in the following Articles]: 

Article 5. Duties of Members of the Commission. 

Article 6. Officers. 

Article 7. Council. 

Article 8. Election of Officers and members of Council. 

Article 9. Secretariat. — 

The Council may appoint an Executive Secretary for such a term and with 
such duties as may be fixed in the Bylaws; a member of the Commission may be 
appointed similarly as Secretary-General. The Executive Secretary may be an 
employee of an appropriate body, such as the International Trust for Zoological 
Nomenclature. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 9 

Article 10. Committees. — 

(a) Appointment and Functions. — [No change proposed]. 

(b) Submission of reports. — Each ad hoc committee shall report to the Council at the 
time stated in the terms of its appointment or when called upon by the Council to do 
so. Ad hoc committees dissolve on submitting their final report or if they are 
previously terminated by the Council. 

Article 11. Sessions. — 

(a) General Sessions. — 

(i) The President shall convene general sessions of the Commission at intervals not 
exceeding six years, to be held in conjunction with General Assemblies of lUBS, 
International Congresses of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB), or other 
international Congresses which are widely attended by zoologists. 

(ii) A general session shall include a meeting for the preparation of a list of 
candidates for election to the Commission and the presentation of that list to a 
session of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of lUBS for election by secret 
ballot (Article 4). 

(iii) A general session may begin before and continue after the Congress with 
which it is associated, providing that all members of the Commission are notified in 
advance and that elections to the Commission are held only during the period of the 
Congress. 

(b) Special Sessions. — [No change proposed]. 
Article 12. Voting. — 

(a) In ordinary cases. — [No change proposed]. 

(b) In cases involving the use of the plenary power or amendments to the Code 
or Constitution. — In such cases (see Article 79 of the Code for the use of the 
plenary power and Article 16 of this Constitution for amendments to the Code 
or Constitution) an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been taken only 
when two thirds of the votes validly cast in a postal vote lasting three months 
are in favour of the proposal, and provided that notice of the proposal had 
been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and submitted for 
publication to at least three appropriate journals at least six months (in the 
case of amendments to the Code or Constitution, twelve months) prior to the 
vote. 

(c) and (d) Conditional and negative votes. — [To be deleted and incorporated into 
Bylaws]. 

Article 13. Financial arrangements. — [No change proposed]. 

Article 14. Editorial duties of the Commission. — [Delete 'Directions' from Section 

(a)]. 

Article 15. Emergency powers. — As a result of an emergency, the Council, or 

failing this, the President, may assume and exercise such extraordinary powers as it 

(or the President if relevant) may consider necessary to secure the continued 

function of the Commission, provided that: 

(i) the powers shall cease as soon as the state of emergency permits; 

(ii) they shall not include powers to vary the Code, or to issue Declarations or 
Opinions which have not been approved by the Commission; 

(iii) they, the reasons for their assumption, and their duration, shall be reported to 
the Commission and to lUBS as soon as circumstances permit. 



10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Article 16. Amendments to the Code and Constitution. — The Commission shall 

(i) publish the proposed amendment (unless a minor amendment to the Code as 
therein defined in Article 77b) in accordance with Article 12b of this Constitution; 

(ii) receive and consider comments from zoologists that are received within one 
year of the publication of the proposal; 

(iii) vote on the proposal (which may be modified in the light of the received 
comments) in accordance with Article 12b; 

(iv) publish its decision and if two thirds or more of the votes are in the affirmative, 
declare that the proposal has become incorporated into the Code or Constitution 
subject to ratification by lUBS. 

(1 ) Provisional ratification of the proposed amendment may be sought from lUBS 
in advance of the Commission's vote, such ratification to become effective on 
the amendment's approval by the Commission under Article 12. 
Article 17. Bylaws. — [No changes proposed]. 

Article 18. Inauguration. — This Constitution and all amendments to it shall take 
eflTect when it and they have been approved by the Commission and ratified by lUBS 
in accordance with Article 16. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 11 

The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review 
of the problem and of proposed solutions 

John O. Corliss 

P.O. Box 53008. Albuquerque. New Mexico. U.S.A. 

Abstract. Among the tens of thousands of species of protists recognized today, a 
goodly number are known as 'ambiregnal" because of their past treatment both as 
algae and as protozoa, which caused their names to fall under the jurisdiction of both 
the botanical and the zoological Codes of nomenclature. Now that many of them 
have been determined to be more closely related to one another than to members of 
the plant and animal kingdoms, a solution is needed to relieve their names of the 
highly undesirable situation of being subject to different treatment by different 
workers, as is possible under the existing Codes. Six proposed solutions of the 
complicated problem are examined, with one — harmonization of the relevant Codes 
— heralded as the most likely to meet the crying needs of the situation. In addition, 
a plea is made for recommendation in the Codes of guidelines useful in the cases of 
suprafamilial names of the many diverse high-level protistan assemblages. 



The organisms widely known vernacularly as 'the protists' — roughly defined as 
including all of the protozoa, the eukaryotic algae, and the so-called 'lower fungi' 
(zoosporic and plasmodial species) — have become objects of intensive studies in 
recent years as they have been increasingly perceived not only as model cells but also 
as groups of great evolutionary significance in the origin of the 'higher' eukaryotes, 
the plants, animals, and fungi (for latest review, see Corliss, 1994a). While con- 
siderable attention has been paid to their ultrastructural, biochemical and molecular 
properties on the one hand, and to their phylogenetic interrelationships on the other, 
rather few biologists have expressed an interest in the nomenclatural problems arising 
from their high-level systematic separation from (most) plants and animals. That is, 
they can no longer be treated taxonomically as simply 'mini-plants' or 'mini-animals' 
(Corliss, 1983, 1986, 1994b). 

Directly involved in their taxonomy and nomenclature, at the lower classification 
levels particularly, are the various Codes of nomenclature, which contain both 
mandatory and recommended provisions concerning family, generic and specific 
names of all living and fossil organisms. The two Codes of special concern to the 
topic under consideration are the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature 
(Greuter et al, 1994) and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1985). 

Because the great majority of species of protists are, by widespread general 
agreement, no longer formally assignable to the kingdoms of plants or animals, their 
nomenclature might be considered to fall under no existing Code. This would be an 
unacceptable vacuum. These microbial eukaryotes might be assigned to the juris- 
diction of one or the other (or some combination of both) of the two major Codes 
named above, but this would create an almost equally unsatisfactory situation (see 
later sections of this paper). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that some 30,000 



12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

named species of protists, mostly single-celled, motile, microscopic forms with or 
without plastids, have been formally classified, simultaneously, as plants (algae or 
fungi) and as animals (protozoa). Thus, their nomenclature fell (or potentially fell) 
under two Codes at the same time. 

The special category of 'lower" eukaryotes described immediately above has come 
to be known (adopting the apt term coined by Patterson, 1986) as the ambiregnal 
protists. The principal groups involved are; all the euglenids sensu lato, dinoflagel- 
lates, cryptomonads, haptophytes, and glaucophytes; many 'chromophytes' (or 
heterokonts), particularly those whose flagella bear tripartite hairs; some 
■proteromonads"; scattered species among the 'chlorophytes' or green algae (e.g., 
Volvocales sensu lato and prasinophytes); and numerous plasmodial forms (the 
so-called myxomycetes/mycetozoa sensu lato) plus the chytrids — groups claimed by 
both mycologists and zoologists (or protistologists). 

How can we resolve the unsettled and unsettling nomenclatural problems caused 
by the protist situation and especially by the existence of the ambiregnal forms, which 
involve some 15% or more of the estimated (Corliss, 1984) 200,000 species? 

An understanding of the situation has to be the first step. Encouragingly, the very 
recent Report of an lUBS/IUMS committee on harmonization among Codes of 
nomenclature (Hawksworth et ai. 1994), published in this Bulletin (BZN 51: 
188-216) and concurrently as a Special Issue (number 30) of Biology International, 
has provided a detailed, informative background. It stresses potential resolution of 
current Code differences that are impeding pragmatic progress with respect to some 
dozen major issues, ambiregnal organisms prominent among them. That report (see 
also Hawksworth, 1991, 1992; Jeffrey, 1990; Ride, 1988; Ride & Younes, 1986) makes 
unnecessary my repetition of numerous facts. The interested reader is referred also to 
Corliss (1990, 1991, 1993) and Patterson & Larsen (1991, 1992) for recent papers 
approaching the problem solely from a protist perspective; they raise some aspects 
of the matter (see below) perhaps inadequately addressed by the Hawksworth 
committee. 



Extent of the Overall Problem 

It is not appreciated by many non-protistologically oriented biologists that the 
ambiregnal problem extends to suprafamilial taxonomic levels, as well as involving 
the lower — currently Code-regulated — categories. That there are inevitably 
some areas of overlap in proposed solutions with respect to these two categories 
complicates the situation. 

Too little attention has been paid to the effect of (the necessity of) abandoning the 
single 'kingdom Protista' concept for the more supportable multiple eukaryotic 
kingdom hypothesis in which protistan groups are distributed among at least six 
separate kingdoms (see Cavalier-Smith, 1993; Corliss, 1994a, and references therein), 
three of which may be composed solely of protists. Such distribution of diverse algal, 
fungal, and protozoan taxa amongst different kingdoms and phyla precludes their 
convenient treatment as a single top-level assemblage (and therefore completely 
eliminates the notion of a separate Code for protists: Corliss, 1993). The concomitant 
shifting of species also confounds any simple Code-regulated solution at the lower 
taxonomic levels, often with respect to non-ambiregnal as well as ambiregnal species. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 13 

Anxious to have answers to the problems addressed in this paper are not only the 
practising taxonomists and nomenclaturists of the world but also general biologists, 
textbook writers, teachers, bench investigators using whole organisms or their cells, 
ecologists and evolutionary biologists, students of conservation and biodiversity, and 
also information retrieval specialists and culture collection and type specimen 
collection managers. 



Consideration of Specific Solutions 

The strengths and weaknesses of full or partial solutions proposed in the past, and 
of resolutions currently under study, need to be considered here, albeit very briefly, 
mostly to alert the reader to progress being made. The recent increase of interest in 
the problems spelled out above is encouraging; and the outlook for successful 
resolution of most, if not all, of them is now more optimistic than it has been for 
years. 

1 . Arbitrary Assignment of (Higher) Taxa to a Given Code 

With the tacit recognition of the demise of the single kingdom Protista to embrace 
all protists (see especially Cavalier-Smith, 1993; Corliss, 1994a, b, 1995; Patterson, 
1994), it becomes clear that the notion of 'one Kingdom, one Code' is not a feasible 
one, as discussed in some detail by Corliss (1993). But it is also true that a proposal 
by Cavalier-Smith (1981, 1993) and others — that members of a given kingdom be 
arbitrarily assigned to a given Code for nomenclatural purposes — is unwise, 
especially in view of the current instability of protistan highest-level taxa and their 
precise ranks (and names). Nor would improvement be obtained by having some 
international body make the arbitrary assignment, another idea which has been 
mentioned in the literature. 

Nevertheless, there is logic in Cavalier-Smith's defense of his assignments: he 
places his most 'animal-like' (heterotrophic nutrition, presence of locomotory 
organelles, lack of cell walls, etc.) kingdoms (viz. the Archezoa, Protozoa, and 
Animalia) under jurisdiction of the Zoological Code, and his most 'plant-like' ones 
(viz. the Chromista, Fungi, and Plantae) under the Botanical Code. Unfortunately, 
admitted exceptions involving hundreds of species exist in each case. While I consider 
his proposal not satisfactory, it does or would solve most of the problems outlined on 
preceding pages and is worthy of consideration or at least citation (neither of which 
it has received to date in the growing literature on this subject). In many instances, 
his solution coincides with current and past nomenclatural practices (see below) with 
regard to numerous — but not all — ambiregnal species of protists; but these other 
solutions are, for the most part, also unsatisfactory. 

2. Individual Author's Choice as to which Code to Use 

Under this procedure, the individual taxonomist would simply choose to employ a 
particular Code. However, whatever he or she decided, the result would surely meet 
with opposition and disagreement by other specialists in the field (probably 
depending on their training, either as botanists or zoologists). Literature comparisons 
would be difficult and there would be confusion for retrieval systems. There is no way 
in which this idea can be considered as a proposal of much worth. 



14 Bullelin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

3. Publication of Both Nomenclatures for Ambiregnal Organisms 

This procedure avoids the problem of upsetting most botanical or zoological users 
of a given taxonomic work. It has been favored by protistologists such as Patterson 
& Larsen (1991, 1992). who urge its adoption. But I consider it to be an 
unsatisfactory answer to the dilemma of ambiregnal (or other) protists because it 
really begs the question and postpones a solution. Also, requiring all investigators to 
be intimately familiar with traditional (and newer) systems of both botanical and 
zoological classifications for the microbial eukaryotes they may happen to be 
studying is patently unreasonable. Yet the proposal may be helpful in underscoring 
the problem confronting such workers, and it has already been put into operation by 
several conscientious groups (see, for example, Larsen & Patterson, 1990; Novarino 
& Lucas, 1993, 1995). 

4. Piecemeal Repair of Codes on a Case-by-Case Basis 

This has already been a policy of all commissions/committees involved in revising 
various of the Codes, and it is a laudable approach. Certain specific vexatious 
problems, or at least sub-problems, have been taken care of by such repair. Such 
solutions, however, represent only a 'first-aid' substitute for the major surgery 
required, and they are too cumbersome to take care of the major problems addressed 
here and in the report by the Hawksworth committee. Nevertheless, they might well 
be continued to advantage while international groups are debating methods by which 
more drastic revision may be made. 

5. Establishment of a Single 'Ecumenical' Code of Nomenclature 

Nearly the opposite of 'one Kingdom, one Code" is the idea of 'one Code, all 
Kingdoms", which would embrace even the prokaryotes and the viruses. This would 
appear to be a possible aim of the Hawksworth committee (Hawksworth el al., 1994), 
although most of the emphasis in their enlightening report is on harmonization of the 
'big five" existing Codes (which deal with plants, cultivated plants, bacteria, animals 
and viruses). While there are theoretical merits in a single Code for all contemporary 
and fossil life on Earth, many pragmatic reasons militate against its feasibility. 
Perhaps the greatest pitfall of all is the instant negative effect such a document would 
have on a multitude of nomenclatural decisions of past decades, even past centuries. 
Numerous changes in former names would inevitably be required in various groups, 
unless some very strong provision were included — a kind of 'grandfather clause' — 
which would exempt from change all the decisions made before a certain arbitrarily 
chosen date. Still, this would not solve many of our ambiregnal problems, such as 
homonyms, different starting dates and typification procedures, etc. And practising 
protist taxonomists would (once again!) be obliged to be familiar with relevant old 
Codes as well as the new one! 

Amalgamation of all existing Codes into one does represent the Utopian solution 
for the future unity of biological nomenclature: but surely it can be, at best, only a 
very long-range goal. 

6. Relinquishing the (Nearly) Absolute Independence of the Codes 

Put more positively, this can be rephrased as harmonization of the existing Codes, . 
an excellent solution to the ambiregnal and other nomenclatural problems of such I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 15 

concern to the taxonomic and general biological communities today. This is the topic 
to which the lUBS/IUMS 'exploratory meeting' addressed itself. In my view, finding 
ways of bringing the Codes into harmony with respect to the various controversial 
issues in need of solution does not necessarily mean that a single new Code must be 
the eventual result. Some time-honored provisions probably could be preserved 
without causing grave conflicts in their application; others could be protected by the 
'grandfather clause' technique. Often, altered or entirely new Articles in the Codes 
(e.g., along the lines of proposals in Taylor et a!., 1986, 1987) could suffice to 
demonstrate a kind of joint jurisdiction over the nomenclature of taxa of protists. 
With respect to our ambiregnal species, only the two major current eukaryotic Codes 
need to be so standardized. 

Solving all of our problems by this approach will require a lot of time and 
co-operation and perhaps compromise, a good deal of dedicated work on the part of 
a number of people, and certainly considerable funding. Organizers of the present 
Codes have very limited fiscal resources available to them, a block that will need to 
be overcome. 

7. Guidelines concerning the Names of Suprafamilial Taxa 

Harmonization of existing Codes will do little to ease the problem, which 
particularly involves protists, of nomenclatural practice for names of the highest 
ranking taxa (orders up through at least kingdoms). Under the impact of molecular 
studies on the phylogenetics of organisms — and particularly if workers hold strictly 
to monophyletic principles — we may some day have nearly as many kingdoms as we 
have phyla today! Ultrastructural, biochemical and ribosomal-RNA sequencing 
studies are revealing that the protists show a far greater diversity — morphologically, 
physiologically and genetically — than all the rest of the eukaryotic groups put 
together (Andersen, 1992; Cavalier-Smith, 1993; Corliss, 1994a; Margulis et al.. 1990; 
Patterson, 1994; Schlegel, 1991). The number of kingdoms (six) of eukaryotes 
endorsed by me (e.g. in Corhss, 1994a) is a rather conservative one indeed. 

Problems here include choices of the names for the high taxa mentioned above, 
dates of origins and authorships, handling of emended names, matters of prefixes and 
suffixes, priorities, rejections, nomenclatural eff"ects of splits and consolidations or of 
changes in level/rank of taxa, etc. 

Is there any way to avoid the 'undisciplined proliferation' of high-level names, a 
phenomenon so decried by Patterson & Larsen (1991)? The rash of name-giving to 
newly created suprafamilial taxa of protists, so prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s, 
was — particularly in hindsight — deplorable; and it certainly did not serve to endear 
nomenclatural taxonomists to the general biological community (Corliss, 1993). But 
it could happen again, if monophyletic lineages only partially identifiable with 
classical taxa are all given fresh labels in the shape of new formal names (Patterson, 
1994). 

Therefore, as I have been suggesting for a number of years (see earlier references 
in Corliss, 1993), future editions of the Codes should contain at least some 
recommended guidelines concerning nomenclature of suprafamilial taxa, not only of 
protists but of all organisms. Along with approved Lists of (names of) organisms (a 
proposal moving forward positively: see Hawksworth et al. 1994), such an action 
would go a long way towards stabilization of nomenclature at levels not presently 



16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

covered by the Codes. As always, however, there must be no infringement upon the 
taxonomic freedom of the individual investigator. 

References 

Andersen, R.A. 1992. Diversity of eukaryotic algae. Biodiversity and Conservation, 1: 267-292. 
Cavaiier-Smith, T. 1981. Eukaryotic kingdoms: seven or nine? BioSystems, 14: 461-481. 
Cavaiier-Smith, T. 1993. Kingdom Protozoa and its 18 phyla. Microbiological Reviews, 57: 

953-994. 
Corliss, J.O. 1983. A puddle of protists: there's more to life than animals and plants. The 

Sciences, 23(3): 34-39. 
Corliss, J.O. 1984. The kingdom Protista and its 45 phyla. BioSystems, 17: 87-126. 
Corliss, J.O. 1986. Progress in protistology during the first decade following reemergence of 

the field as a respectable interdisciplinary area in modern biological research. Progress in 

Protistology, 1: 11-63. 
Corliss, J.O. 1990. Toward a nomenclatural protist perspective. Pp. xxv-xxx in Margulis, L., 

Corliss, J.O., Melkonian, M. & Chapman, D.J. (Eds.). Handbook of Protoctista. Jones & 

Bartlett. Boston. 
Corliss, J.O. 1991. Problems in cytoterminology and nomenclature for the protists. Advances 

in Culture Collections, 1: 23-37. 
Corliss, J.O. 1993. Should there be a separate code of nomenclature for the protists? 

BioSystems. 28: 1-14. 
Corliss, J.O. 1994a. An interim utilitarian ("user-friendly") hierarchical classification and 

characterization of the protists. Acta Protozoologica, 33: 1-51. 
Corliss, J.O. 1994b. The place of the protists in the microbial world. United States Federation 

for Culture Collections Newsletter, 24(3): 1-6. 
Corliss, J.O. 1995 [in press]. The need for a new look at the taxonomy of the protists. Revista 

de la Sociedad Mexicana de Hislorta Natural, 46. 
Greuter. W., Barrie. F., Burdet, H.M., Chaloner, W.G., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., 

Jorgensen, P.M., Nicolson, D.H., SUva, P.C, Trehane, P. & McNeUl, J. (Eds). 1994. 

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code). (Regnum Vegetabile No. 

131). Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). 1991. Improving the stability of names: needs and options. (Regnum 

Vegetabile No. 123). Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 
Hawksworth, D.L. 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st 

century. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 109: 543-567. 
Hawksworth, D.L., McNeiU, J., Sncath, P.H.A., Trehane, R.P. & Tubbs, P.K. (Eds). 1994. 

Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth. Bulletin of Zoological 

Nomenclature, 51: 188-216. 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature, Ed. 3. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. 
Jeffrey, C. 1990. Biological Nomenclature, Ed. 3. Edward Arnold, London. 
Larsen, J. & Patterson, D.J. 1990. Some flagellates (Protista) from tropical marine sediments. 

Journal of Natural History, 24: 801-937. 
Margulis, L., CorUss, J.O., Melkonian, M. & Chapman, D.L. (Eds). 1990. Hcmdbook of 

Protoctista. Jones & Bartlett. Boston. 
Novarino, G. & Lucas, I.A.N. 1993. Some proposals for a new classification system of the 

Cryptophyceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 111: 3-21. 
Novarino, G. & Lucas, I.A.N. 1995 [in press]. A zoological classification system of crypto- 

monads. Acta Protozoologica. 34. 
Patterson, D.J. 1986. Some problems of ambiregnal taxonomy and a possible solution. 

Symposia Biologica Hungarica, 33: 87-93. 
Patterson, D.J. 1994. Protozoa: evolution and systematics. Pp. 1-14 in Hausmann, K. & 

Hiilsmann, N. (Eds.). Progress in Protozoology (Proceedings of the IX International 

Congress of Protozoology, Berlin 1993). Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 17 

Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. 1991. Nomenclatural problems with protists. Pp. 197-208 in 

Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). Improving the stabilily of names: needs and options. Koeltz 

Scientific Books, Konigstein. 
Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. 1992. A perspective on protistan nomenclature. Journal of 

Protozoology, 39: 125-131. 
Ride, W.D.L. 1988. Towards a unified system of biological nomenclature. Pp. 332-353 in 

Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). Prospects in Systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
Ride, W.D.L. & Younes, T. (Eds.). 1986. Biological Nomenclature Today. (lUBS Monograph 

Series, No. 2). IRL Press, Oxford. 
Schlegel, M. 1991. Protist evolution and phylogeny as discerned from small subunit ribosomal 

RNA sequence comparisons. European Jourriat of Protistology, 27: 207-219. 
Taylor, F.J.R., Sarjeant, W.A.S., Fensome, R.A. & WUliams, G.L. 1986. Proposals to 

standardize the nomenclature in flagellate groups currently treated by both the botanical 

and zoological codes of nomenclature. Taxon. 35: 890-896. 
Taylor, F.J.R., Sarjeant, W.A.S., Fensome, R.A. & Williams, G.L. 1987. Standardisation of 

nomenclature in flagellate groups treated by both the botanical and zoological codes 

of nomenclature. Systematic Zoology. 36: 79-85. 



18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2901 

Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): proposed 
conservation, and designation of 5. gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type 
species 

Colin W. Stearn 

Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGil! University, 3450 University Street, 

Montreal. Quebec, Canada H3A 2A7 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of the Devonian 
stromatoporoid genus Sticiosiroma Parks. 1936 as it is currently used. The name is 
unavailable from 1936 because the first valid type species designation was by 
Galloway & St. Jean (1957) of Stromatopora mammillata Nicholson, 1873 (a junior 
homonym that they renamed Stictostroma mamilliferum). However, the specimens 
they used to characterize this species (Stromatopora mammillata = Stictostroma 
mamilliferum) were not compared with the diagnostic internal structure of 
Nicholson's type specimen. As a result both Parks and Galloway & St. Jean 
misidentified as Stictostroma mamilliferum a new taxonomic species named 
Stictostroma gorriense by Steam (1995), whose holotype is one of the specimens used 
by Parks in establishing the genus Stictostroma. It is proposed that the name 
Stictostroma be taken as available from Parks (1936) and that S. gorriense be 
designated the type species. 



1. Parks (1936, p. 77) proposed the name Stictostroma for 'certain species [of 
stromatoporoid] that seem to be intermediate between Clathrodictyon and 
Stromatoporella' . He wrote "... it is impossible to select a genotype. Cogenotypes 
might be named — S. mammillata [Stromatopora mammillata Nicholson, 1873 
(p. 94)] characterized by laminae porous in structure but without hollow points [now 
called ring pillars], and S. eriense [sp. nov., p. 81] with non-porous laminae inflated 
to form hollow points [ring pillars]'. He recognized the unconventional nature of his 
action, writing 'this procedure may not be in accord with the best system of 
nomenclature'. 

2. Lecompte (1951, p. 137) objected that the genus was invalid under the Code 
because it was proposed with two type species. Article 13b of the present Code 
requires that, to be available, a genus-group name published after 1930 must 'be 
accompanied by the fixation of the type species by original designation or by 
indication'. Parks had not validly designated a type species. 

3. Galloway & St. Jean (1957, p. 124) designated Stromatopora mammillata 
Nicholson as the type species. They noted that this name was a junior primary 
homonym oi Stromatopora mammillata Schmidt, 1858 and resolved the problem of 
homonymy by renaming Nicholson's species Stictostroma mamilliferum (p. 125). This 
specific name has subsequently been misspelled 'mammilliferwn by St. Jean (1962, 
pp. 187, 195) and Fagerstrom (1977, p. 416). In choosing one of Parks's proposed 
'cogenotypes', Galloway & St. Jean assigned the other, S. eriense. to Stromatoporella 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1 1 March 1995 19 

Nicholson. 1886 and redefined the genus Stictostroma to exclude species with ring 
pillars. The name is now used by all palaeontologists in the sense of Galloway & 
St. Jean's revision (for example, Galloway & Ehlers, 1960; St. Jean, 1962; Stearn & 
Mehrotra, 1970; Kazmierczak, 1971; Khromych, 1974; Steam, 1975; Fagerstrom, 
1982). A review of the literature (Stearn, 1995) shows that about 32 described species 
can be assigned to the genus as redefined. 

4. Parks's (1936) original and Galloway & St. Jean's (1957) revised concepts of 
Stictostroma were not based on a knowledge of the internal structure of the type 
specimens of Stromatopora ttiammillata (= Stictostroma mamilliferiim) from Port 
Colbome, Ontario, as the type specimens in the Nicholson Collection had never been 
cut into thin sections (as noted previously by Whiteaves, 1898, p. 368). They were 
based on material collected by Parks from Ashton's quarry near the village of Gorrie, 
Ontario, about 100 km northwest of Port Colbome. Parks identified these as 
S. mammillata Nicholson on the basis of resemblance of the growth surfaces alone. 
Parks's genus, in both original concept and revision, had come to be based on a type 
species whose diagnostic internal structure was unknown. 

5. Fagerstrom (1977, p. 417) examined the types of Stromatopora matnmillata 
(= Stictostroma mamiUiferum) and confirmed that they had not been cut, polished or 
sectioned. The Nicholson Collection at the Natural History Museum, London, 
includes two specimens in lot P5766 identified in Nicholson's hand as the type 
specimens of Stromatopora mammillata. They appear to be fragments of the same 
skeleton. Thin sections cut across the smaller specimen (P5766B), studied by me and 
designated as the lectotype (Steam, 1995, p. 23), show a very thin crust with 
steepsided mamelons and only vague traces of internal structure visible through a 
pervasive silicification. The Nicholson Collection includes also two paralectotype 
lots: P5764 (a single specimen labelled also as 'type specimens') and P5765 (five small 
fragments of a silicified crust). These are described and illustrated by Stearn ( 1995). 
The original specimens of the type species selected by Galloway & St. Jean do not 
show the features considered by Parks and Galloway & St. Jean as diagnostic of the 
genus, and show very few internal features at all. 

6. The specimen (Royal Ontario Museum 9360, Parks's number 1551) Parks 
illustrated (1936, pi. 14, figs. 3-6) as 'Stictostroma mammillata (Nicholson)' shows the 
intemal features of Stictostroma clearly. Parks's specimens differ from Nicholson's 
types in suflScient features to indicate that they are not conspecific, and possibly not 
congeneric. They therefore require a new name and have been called Stictostroma 
gorriense by Stearn (1995, p. 26). The holotype is Parks's specimen 1551 (ROM 9360) 
in the Royal Ontario Museum from Gorrie, Ontario, illustrated by Parks (1936, 
pi. 14, figs. 3-6) and by Steam (1995, figs. 1.6, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6). 

7. Because the name Stictostroma is invariably attributed to Parks (1936), 
although it was not made formally available until the designation by Galloway & 
St. Jean (1957) of a type species, to attribute it to Galloway & St. Jean would 
be contrary to usage. The genus was based on Parks's specimens now named 
Stictostroma gorriense Steam, 1995. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the generic name Stictostroma Parks, 1936 is available although 



20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

no type species of the nominal genus was validly fixed with the original 
publication of the name; 
(b) to set aside all previous fixations of the type species for the nominal genus 
Stictoslroina Parks, 1936 and to designate Stictostroma goniense Steam, 
1995 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in (l)(b) 
above Stictostroma gorriense Steam, 1995; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gorriense 
Steam, 1995, as published in the binomen Stictostroma gorriense (specific name 
of the type species of Stictostroma Parks, 1936). 

References 

Fagerstrom, J.A. 1977. The stromatoporoid genus Sliclostroma Parks, 1936: its type species, 

type specimens and type locality. Journal of Paleontology, 51: 416-419. 
Fagerstrom, J.A. 1982. Stromatoporoids of the Detroit River Group and adjacent rocks in the 

vicinity of the Michigan Basin. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Canada, 339: 1-81. 
Galloway, J.J. & Ehlers, G.M. 1960. Some Middle Devonian stromatoporoids from Michigan 

and southwestern Ontario. Contributions of the University of Michigan. Museum of 

Paleontology, 15: 39-120. 
Galloway, J.J. & St. Jean, J. 1957. Middle Devonian Stromatoporoidea of Indiana, Kentucky, 

and Ohio. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 37: 27-308. 
Kazmierczak, J. 1971. Morphogenesis and systematics of the Devonian Stromatoporoidea 

from the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Palaeontologia Polonica, 26: 1-150. 
Khromych, V.G. 1974. Devonskie stromatoporoidei Severo-Vostoka SSSR. Akademiya Nauk 

SSSR. Sihirskoe oldelenie. Trudy Instiluta Geologii i Geofiziki, 68: 1-104. 
Lecompte, M. 1951. Les stromatoporoides du Devonien moyen et superieur du Bassin de 

Dinant, part 1. Institul Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Memoir 116: 1-215. 
Nicholson, H.A, 1873. On some new species of Stromatopora. Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History, (4)12: 89-95. 
Parks, W.A. 1936. Devonian stromatoporoids of North America, Part 1. University of Toronto 

Studies, Geological Series, 39: 1-125. 
St. Jean, J. 1962. Micromorphology of the stromatoporoid genus Stictostroma Parks. Journal 

of Paleontology, 36: ]&5~200. 
Schmidt, F. 1858. Untersuchungen iiber die silurische Formation von Estland: Nord Livland 

und Oesel. Archive Naturkunde Livland. Estland. und Kurlands, (1 )2: 1-56. 
Stearn, C.W. 1975. Stromatoporoid assemblages. Ancient Wall Reef Complex (Devonian), 

Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 12: 1631-1667. 
Stearn, C.W. 1995. The type species of Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea). 

Journal of Paleontology, 69: 20-27. 
Stearn, C.W. & Mehrotra, P.N. 1970. Lower and Middle Devonian stromatoporoids from 

northwestern Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Papers, 70(13): 1^3. 
Whiteavcs, J.F. 1898. On some additional and imperfectly understood fossils from the 

Hamilton Formation of Ontario with a revised list of species therefrom. Geological Survey 

of Canada. Contributions to Canadian Paleontology, 1(5): 361^18. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 21 

Case 2949 

Aplysia Juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed conservation of the specific name 

E. Martinez & J. Ortea 

Departamento de Biologia de Organismos y Sistemas, Laboratorio de 
Zoologia. CI Catedrdlico Rodrigo Uria sin. 33007 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the specific name of Aplysia 
Juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 for a sea hare (Opisthobranchia, Anaspidea) found 
worldwide on rocky shores in warm waters. The name is threatened by the unused 
senior subjective synonym A. sorex Rang, 1828. 



1. Rang (1828, p. 57) described the species Aplysia sorex on the basis of a single 
specimen collected in the Pacific by Lesson during the voyage of the Coqiiille. Rang 
did not know the exact locaUty where the specimen had been found but he noted that 
it came from the shores of some Oceania islands. He illustrated (pi. 10. figs. 4-8) a 
small (50 mm) specimen with a broad foot and parapodial lobes joined high up 
posteriorly, coloured dark green with several black spots. The internal shell showed 
an anal sinus which was not deep. Nothing was said about the internal anatomy of 
the specimen. Subsequently Lesson (1830, p. 294) recorded that the specimen came 
from Oualan (the most eastern of the Caroline islands). 

2. Quoy & Gaimard (1832, p. 309) described Aplysia Juliana from two specimens 
in alcohol, caught off Mauritius in the Indian Ocean during the voyage of the 
Astrolabe. The taxon was characterised by a rounded disk ('un ecusson bien arrondi') 
in the posterior end of the foot. The authors illustrated the species (pi. 24, figs. 5, 6) 
to show an animal dark green in colour, with the body surface smooth, and the 
parapodial lobes short and joined high up posteriorly. They also figured a narrow 
shell with a wide but not deep anal sinus. 

3. Pruvot-Fol (1933, p. 400) established Tullia as a new genus, or a subgenus of 
Aplysia. based on the single species A. Juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832. Tullia was 
characterised by a distinct sucker in the posterior edge of the foot and a simple 
radular morphology. In a subsequent review of the genus Aplysia, Eales (1960) 
considered that the characteristics of the subgenus Tullia were also present in the type 
species of the genus, A. depilans Gmelin, 1791 (see Opinion 200, January 1954 for the 
authorship and date of this name), and in the nominate subgenus, and that Tullia was 
thus not a valid subgenus. She included A. Juliana in the subgenus Aplysia. 

4. Engel & Eales (1957) reviewed the species of Aplysia belonging to the subgenus 
Tullia, as then conceived. They agreed with the observations on hving specimens of 
A. Juliana made by Macnae (1955), who recorded that movement was either by 
gliding or 'in the fashion of a looper caterpillar', that the posterior sucking disk was 
visible only when the animal was 'looping", and that the disk was not a permanent 
feature but was distinct in preserved specimens only when the posterior pedal glands 
had been actively secreting and the animal had been clinging with the hind part of the 



22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(11 March 1995 

foot at the time of preservation. Engel & Eales (1957) examined the type material (of 
which only one of the two original specimens could be found) of A. Juliana deposited 
in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. They also examined several 
specimens, both in the Paris museum and in the Natural History Museum in London 
from the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, identified by Pruvot-Fol as A. sorex, 
and found that almost all the specimens were juveniles of A. Juliana. They were 
doubtful of the identity only in the case of a few Moroccan specimens in Paris lacking 
a disk on the tail that Pruvot-Fol (1953, pp. 33-36, fig. 7, pi. 3, fig. 44) had identified 
as A. sorex and which, from the radular morphology figured by her, are probably 
identifiable as A. depihms Gmelin, 1791. Two further juvenile specimens in London 
from Las Palmas (Canary Islands), previously labelled by Eales as A. sorex, were 
identified by Engel & Eales (1957) as A. Juliana, although they noted that the radular 
denticulations on all the teeth were better developed that in A. Juliana adults. 
We have examined these two specimens and found that they also belong to 
A. depilans. 

5. Engel & Eales (1957) also studied another specimen caught during the voyage 
of the Coquille, deposited in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle and labelled 
as 'y4. sorex, Oceanie, Lesson et Garnot, type'. This specimen differed from Rang's 
(1828) original description and illustration in that the foot had a distinct posterior 
disk. Engel & Eales identified the specimen as A. Juliana. There was no evidence that 
this was, indeed, the original specimen described by Rang, and Engel & Eales (1957, 
p. 96) therefore noted: 'It is better to add A. sorex Rang, 1828 with doubt to the 
synonyms of A. Juliana. This has the advantage that we need not consider the 
problem that A. sorex Rang. 1828 is the older name and would have priority over 
A. Juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 if the type of A. sorex could be identified with 
certainty as that species. If, later on, this ever might prove true, it is desirable to ask 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a decision suppress- 
ing A. sorex Rang, 1828'. We ourselves have tried to find Rang's (1828) original 
specimen of A. sorex in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle without success 
and have concluded that it is untraceable. 

6. Acceptance of sorex Rang, 1 828 as the valid specific name of Aplysia Juliana 
Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 would incur many problems since the name Juliana has been 
widely used in a great variety of papers concerning not only taxonomy (Marcus & 
Marcus, 1957; Kay, 1964; Marcus, 1972, 1977; Bebbington, 1974, 1977, 1982; 
Martinez & Ortea, 1994) but also ecology (Carefoot, 1987), larval development 
(Switzer-Dunlap & Hadfield, 1977), recruitment (Sarver, 1979) and growth (Usuki, 
1970, 1981), among others. A representative list of a further 19 references, dating 
from 1957 to 1994 and involving more than 20 additional authors, is held by the 
Commission Secretariat. The name A. sorex has remained unused, other than by 
Pruvot-Fol (1953, p. 34), who noted 'Cette espece, non revue je crois depuis Rang'. 
In the absence of type material it is unlikely that A. sorex could ever be used and we 
therefore propose that it be suppressed. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name sorex Rang, 1828, as 
published in the binomen Aplysia sorex, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 23 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Juliana 
Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, as published in the binomen Aplysia Juliana; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name soie.x Rang, 1828, as published in the binomen Aplysia sorex 
and as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Bebbington, A. 1974. Aplyssid species from East Africa with notes on the Indian Ocean 

Aplysiomorpha (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean 

Society of London, 54: 63-99. 
Bebbington, A. 1977. Aplyssid species from Eastern Australia with notes on the Pacific Ocean 

Aplysiomorpha. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 34: 87-147. 
Bebbington, A. 1982. Notes on a collection of Aplysiomorpha in the Museum National 

d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, from around the Senegalese coasts. Malacologia. 22(1-2): 

511-514. 
Carefoot, T.H. 1987. Aplysia: its biology and ecology. Oceanographv and Marine Biologv 

Annual Review, 25: 167-284. 
Eales, N.B. 1960. Revision of the world species of Aplysia (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia). 

Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology, 5(10): 267^04. 
Engel, H. & Eales, N.B. 1957. The species of Aplysia belonging to the subgenus Tullia 

Pruvot-Fol, 1933: on a generic character in slalu nascendi. Beaufortia, 69(6): 83-1 14. 
Kay, E.A. 1964. The Aplysiidae of the Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the Malacological 

Society of London, 36: 173-190. 
Lesson, |R.P.|. 1830. Zoologie. In Duperrey, L.I., Voyage autour du monde ...sur ... La Coquille 

pendant 1822-25, vol. 2, part 1. 471 pp. Bertrand, Paris. 
Macnae, W. 1955. On four species of the genus Aplysia common in South Africa. Annals of the 

Natal Museum, 13(2): 223-241. 
Marcus, E. 1972. On the Anaspidea (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia) from the warm waters of 

the Western Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22(4): 841-874. 
Marcus, E. 1977. An annotated check list of the Western Atlantic warm waters opistho- 

branchs. Journal of Molluscan Studies, supplement 4: 1-22. 
Marcus, E. & Marcus, E. 1957. Sea-hares and side-gilled slugs from Brazil. Boletim do Instituto 

Oceanogrdfico. Sao Paulo, 6: 3^8. 
Martinez, E. & Ortea, J. 1994. Primeros datos sobre el orden Anaspidea (Mollusca: 

Opisthobranchia) en la isia de Cuba. Revista de Biologia de la Universidad de Oviedo, 9-10: 

95-110. 
Pruvot-Fol, A. 1933. Les opisthobranches de Quoy et Gaimard (Note preliminaire). Bulletin du 

Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris, 2(5): 400^01. 
Pruvot-Fol, A. 1953. Etude de quelques Opisthobranches de la cote Atlantique du Maroc et du 

Senegal. Travaux de ilnstitut Scientifique Cherifien, (Zoologie)5: 25^0. 
Quoy, J.R.C. & Gaimard, P. 1832. Zoologie. Iir. Voyage de decourertes de V \?Xio\a.b£ pendant 

les aitnees .1826-1827-1828-1829 sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont d'Urville, vol. 2 

(Mollusques). 686 pp. Atlas (MoUusques. 93 pis., 1833). Paris. 
Rang, S. 1828. Histoire naturelle des Aplvsiens. premiere famille de I'ordre des Tectibranches. 

83 pp.. 24 pis. Didot, Paris. 
Sarver, D.J. 1979. Recruitment and juvenile survival in the sea hare Aplysia Juliana 

(Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia). Marine Biology, 54: 353-361. 
Switzer-Dunlap, M. & Hadfield, M.G. 1977. Observations on development, larval growth 

and metamorphosis of four species of Aplysiidae (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia) in 

laboratory culture. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 29: 245-261. 
Usuki, I. 1970. Studies on the life history of Aplysiae and their allies in the Sado district of the 

Japan Sea. Scietxtific Reports of the Niigata University, (D)7: 91-105. 
Usuki, I. 1981. Growth characteristics of the early juvenile of Aplysia Juliana collected in 

winter. Venus, 39(4): 212-223. 



24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2922 

Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 11797) and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 
(Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names 

Angel Guerra 

Institulo de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC). Ediiardo Cabello 6. 

36208 Vigo (Pontevedra). Spain 

Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga 

Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 

28006 Madrid Spain 

Abstract. The puipose of this application is to conseire the specific names of both the 
common octopus Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and the common squid Loligo 
vulgaris Lamarck, 1798. The names of these economically important species are 
threatened by senior subjective synonyms unused in the past century, Sepia octopodia 
Linnaeus, 1758 and S. octopus Gmelin, [1791] (octopus) and S. loligo Linnaeus, 1758 
(squid). 



1. The common octopus was described and named by Linnaeus (1758, p. 658) as 
Sepia octopodia. Schneider (1784, p. 116) used the binomen Octopodia polypus for the 
species but both his generic and specific names were suppressed by the Commission 
in Opinion 233 (April 1954). The same species was described as Sepia octopus by 
Gmelin ([1791]. p. 3149). 

2. Cuvier ([1797], p. 380) described the genus Octopus, cited Sepia octopus and 
proposed the replacement name Octopus vulgare [sic], presumably to avoid tau- 
tonymy. Opinion 233 (p. 278) gave the type species of Octopus Cuvier. [1797] 'by 
Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16)" as Octopus vulgaris (correction of vulgare) Cuvier, 
[1797]. The reference to Linnean tautonymy is incorrect (of Article 69e(i) of the 
Code). This Opinion overlooked a prior designation of type species by Gray (1847, 
p. 205) who listed Sepia octopus as the type species for Octopus Cuvier, [1797]. 
Also, the senior synonyms Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758 and S. octopus Gmelin, 
[1791] were not suppressed in the Opinion. Before 1920 the name Polypus Schneider, 
1784 (p. 116) was sometimes used instead of Octopus. Polypus, like Schneider's 
name Loligo (see para. 5 below), was rejected in Opinion 233 as being a specific 
name. 

3. According to priority the name for the common octopus should therefore be 
Octopus octopodia (Linnaeus, 1758), a binomen unused for over a century. 

4. The common squid was described by Linnaeus (1758, p. 659) as Sepia loligo; the 
type species of Sepia is S. officinalis Linnaeus, 1758 (the common cuttlefish). 

5. Lamarck (1798) described the genus Loligo and included (p. 130) Loligo 
vulgaris as the name for the common squid. The name "Loligo' has been ascribed to 
Schneider (1784, p. 110) but he used the name for a species only and 'Loligo' 
Schneider, 1784 was rejected by the Commission in Opinion 233. The type species of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 25 

Loligo is L. vulgaris Lamarck. 1798 by subsequent designation by Children (1823, 
p. 167). 

6. The name for the common squid should therefore be Loligo loligo (Linnaeus, 
1758) but this binomen has never been used. 

7. Since Cuvier's ([1797]) and Lamarck's (1798) descriptions the names Octopus 
vulgaris and Loligo vulgaris have been established in a vast literature on the common 
octopus and common squid respectively; a list of over 40 references for usage of each 
specific name is held by the Commission Secretariat. To adopt the usage of the senior 
subjective synonyms octopodia Linnaeus, 1758 or octopus Gmelin, [1791] for the 
octopus, or loligo Linnaeus, 1758 for the squid, would cause severe confusion and 
disruption to the nomenclature of these common and economically very important 
species. 

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) octopodia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sepia octopodia; 

(b) octopus Gmelin, [1791], as published m the binomen Sepia octopus; 

(c) loligo Linnaeus, 1758, as pubhshed in the binomen Sepia loligo; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Loligo 
Lamarck. 1798 (gender: masculine), type species Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 
by subsequent designation by Children (1823): 

(3) to amend the entry for Octopus Cuvier, [1797] on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology to record that the type species is Sepia octopus Gmelin, 
[1791] (suppressed senior objective synonym oi Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797]) 
by subsequent designation by Gray (1847): 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vulgaris 
Lamarck. 1798, as pubhshed in the binomen Loligo vulgaris (specific name of 
the type species of Loligo Lamarck, 1798); 

(5) to amend the entry for Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology to record that vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] is the valid 
junior objective synonym of Sepia octopus Gmelin, [1791], the type species of 
Octopus Cuvier, [1797]; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) octopodia Linnaeus, 1758, as pubhshed in the binomen Sepia octopodia 
and as suppressed in (l)(a) above: 

(b) octopus Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binomen Sepia octopus and 
as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) loligo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sepia loligo and as 
suppressed in (l)(c) above. 

Acknowledgement 

We wish to acknowledge the financial support of research project 'Fauna Iberica 11', 
DGICYT PB89-0081. We thank Dr Gary Rosenberg for providing some useful 
references. 



26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

References 

Children, J.G. 1823. Lamarck's genera of shells. 177 pp. Murray, London. [Translated from 

French], 
Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. [1797]. Tableau eleinenlaire de I'liisloire nalurelle cles animaux. xvi, 710 pp., 

14 pi. Baudouin, Paris. 
Gmelin, J.F. [1791]. Carol! a Liniie Sysleina Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes). 

Pp. 3021-3910. Lugduni. 
Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings 

of llie Zoological Society of London, 1847: 129-219. 
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1798. Sur les genres Seche. Calmar et Poulpe. Bulletin des 

Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique de Paris, 17; 129-131. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae..., Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Schneider, J.G. 1784. Saimnhmg vermischter Ahhandlungen zur Aufkldrung der Zoologie und 

Handlungsgeschichten. xvi, 348 pp., 1 pi. Reimer, Berlin. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 27 

Case 2899 

Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatiis 
Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed 
conservation of the specific names by the designation of a neotype for 
D. concharum 

Peter H. Gibson 

Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, 

Edinburgh EH9 3JQ. U.K. 

David Heppell 

Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers 

Street, Edinburgh EHl IJF, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, by designation of a neotype 
for Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843, the general usage of this name for a 
parthenogenetic species, and of D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) for a sexually and 
asexually reproducing species, of cirratulid polychaetes from Europe. There is 
circumstantial evidence that Orsted's original material may have been D. fimbriata 
but it is proposed that a neotype for D. concharum be designated in accord with 
usage. D. concharum is the type species of Dodecaceria Orsted, 1 843 by monotypy. 



1. Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843 (p. 44) is a worldwide genus of tube-dwelling 
cirratulid polychaetes. In the north-east Atlantic the two species discussed here live 
in flask-shaped tubes in shallow water, often forming dense colonies in calcareous 
substrates such as the encrusting alga Lithothamnion or the shells of bivalve molluscs. 
Orsted described the nominal species D. concharum on the basis of specimens found 
in 'wormed' shells taken from oyster beds on the Danish side of the Oresund, between 
Fredrickshavn and Skagen and near Hellebaek. He failed to describe a pair of 
tentacles ventral to the first pair of branchial cirri and did not indicate either the 
presence or absence of eyes or nuchal organs. Nevertheless, Orsted's original 
description and figure were such that later authors felt able to use his specific name 
even though the type material is not extant (Wolff & Petersen, 1991, p. 672). 

2. Terebella ostreae Dalyell, 1853 (p. 209, pi. 26, fig. 10) was also described from 
old oyster shells. No type locality is mentioned but Dalyell's specimens, which 
included both adults and juveniles, were very probably from the Firth of Forth, 
Scotland. Johnston (1865, p. 212) synonymized this taxon with D. concharum Orsted, 
1843 and recorded specimens from Berwick Bay and Falmouth, England. This 
synonymy was accepted by subsequent authors, including Mcintosh (1915), Fauvel 
(1927) and Hartman (1959). However, further work by Gibson (in press) on the 
northern distribution of the two species in relation to the salinity suggests that 
Dalyell's species was more probably D. fimbriata. Terebella osireae is best regarded 
as a nomen dubium but is a threat to the stability of D. fimbriata; we therefore 
propose that it be suppressed. 



28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52( 1 ) March 1995 

3. Heterocirnts Grube, 1855 was established for a single species Heterocirrus 
saxicola Grube, 1855 (p. 109, pi. 4, fig. 11) described from Villafranca (i.e. 
Villefranche, France). Grube noted that the tentacles each bear a ciliated groove and 
occur on the buccal segment together with the first pair of branchial cirri. 
Quatrefages (1865, pp. 454, 464-467), misled by the supposed absence of tentacles in 
Dodecaceria (but not in Heterocirrus). kept the two genera separate. Dodecaceria 
remained monotypic for D. concharum, but in Heterocirrus Quatrefages included not 
only H. saxicola Grube, 1855 but also H. frontifilis Grube, 1863 and H. multibranchis 
Grube, 1863 and a new species H. ater. One of the characters claimed by Quatrefages 
to distinguish Dodecaceria from Heterocirrus was the presence of eyes in the latter 
genus, although he thought they might be absent from the type species H. saxicola. 
In fact the two rows of minute 'eyes', which he described for H. ater, are the nuchal 
organs. 

4. Marion & Bobretzky (1875, p. 67) synonymized H. saxicola Grube, 1855 with 
D. concharum Orsted, 1843. This synonymy has been confirmed by one of us 
(P.H.G.), who examined Grube's specimens from Villefranche, assumed to be the 
type material of H. saxicola (1 specimen + fragment: catalogue no. Q.4559, 
Zoologisches Museum, Berlin). H. ater was synonymized with D. concharum by 
Langerhans (1881, p. 96). 

5. Saint-Joseph (1894, pp. 42-58), in a revision of cirratulid genera, accepted 
the heterogenous nature of Heterocirrus sensu Quatrefages. He excluded both 
H. saxicola, although this was the type species, and H. ater. and redefined the genus 
to accommodate H. multibranchis and seven other species. Heterocirrus was main- 
tained as a genus distinct from Dodecaceria by several subsequent authors (e.g. 
Mcintosh. 1915 and Fauvel, 1927) but, as it was originally established as a monotypic 
genus for H saxicola, it can only be a junior subjective synonym of Dodecaceria. The 
generic name Heterocirrus is not now in use, although Cabioch, L'Hardy & Rullier 
(1968) used that name for three species of CauUeriella. The species of Heterocirrus 
sensu Saint-Joseph are now placed in Aphelochaeta Blake, 1991 (= Tharyx auctt., non 
Webster & Benedict, 1887) and CauUeriella Chamberlin, 1919. 

6. The abundant populations of D. concharum from the extensive Lilholhamnion 
biotope on the French coast of the English Channel in the region of La Hague, near 
Cherbourg, were investigated by Caullery & Mesnil (1898). They concluded that the 
species was heteromorphic, with three separate and independent series of individuals, 
each with a different reproductive strategy. These series were termed forms A. B and 

C. Form A was the commonest, representing about 90% of the individuals studied. 
All specimens of form A were female. This form did not appear to undergo 
metamorphosis and was assumed to remain a sedentary atoke throughout its life. 
Reproduction was parthenogenetic and viviparous. Sexually reproductive adults of 
form B were free-swimming epitokes (B;) with equal numbers of males and females, 
but for form C only one large epitoke (C,) was found. The atokes of these forms and 
their characteristic chaetae were described, with figures of those of A, B, and B,. All 
individuals of form C were females but were not viviparous. After discussing whether 
these forms should be assigned to more than one species, Caullery & Mesnil 
concluded that only one polymorphic species should be recognized. 

7. Mcintosh (1911) observed in the Channel Islands two forms, referred to as 

D. concharum and D. ater, which he distinguished by the size and shape of their 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomencialure 52(1) March 1995 29 

posterior chaetae. He was. in fact, confusing juvenile and adult individuals of 
D. concharum, although specimens of Caullery & Mesnil's form B must also have 
been present, as Mcintosh referred to a large epitokous male. Mcintosh (1915) added 
to this confusion by placing D. concharum and H. ater in different genera. He 
included H. saxicola in the synonymy of Z). concharum. but for H. ater also he stated: 
'The H. saxatilis [sic] of Grube ... may be the same or an allied form'. His uncertainty 
about the distinction between D. concharum and //. ater is further illustrated by his 
citation of Nereis sextentaculata (delle Chiaje, 1822) in the synonymy of both, but this 
earlier name was not adopted for either. Although Mcintosh cited different figures 
in each case (pi. 43, fig. 16 of delle Chiaje's (1822) Memorie for D. concharum. and 
pi. 105, fig. 16 of delle Chiaje's (1841) Descrizione for H. ater). these two figures are 
actually the identical illustration. The identity of delle Chiaje's species is discussed 
below (para. 11). 

8. Dehome (1933) studied the reproductive biology of form B of Caullery & 
Mesnil (1898) from Le Portel, Boulogne. France. He found it to reproduce asexually 
as an atoke and sexually as an epitoke. Dehome commented that Caullery & Mesnil, 
although reluctant to treat their forms A, B and C as three separate species, had 
admitted that form B should perhaps be considered distinct, as it had distinct 
morphological characters, separate male and female adults, and parasites not found 
in forms A and C. After giving further details of taxonomic characters distinguishing 
the two species (i.e. form B and forms A+C, on the assumption that form C "serait 
le veritable etat terminal de A'), Dehome discussed their taxonomy. The original 
descriptions of Dodecaceria concharum and Heterocirrus ater enabled both, he 
believed, to be recognized as form A, and for that species Dehome used the name 
D. concharum on the basis of priority. 

9. Caullery & Mesnil (1898) had noted the similarity between form B and the West 
Atlantic species of Dodecaceria. described as Heterocirrus fimbriatus by Verrill ( 1 879, 
p. 177) from off Campo Bello Island, Bay of Fundy, Canada, burrowing in dead 
shells of Pecten tenuicostatus (= Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin, 1791)) at a depth 
of 110 metres. Caullery subsequently examined living, fixed and sectioned material 
of D. fimbriata and thought that it differed from European examples of form 
B. Dehome (1933), relying on that opinion, proposed the name D. caulleryi for the 
specimens of form B from Boulogne. Although Dehorne's type material was 
destroyed during the Second World War, there is no doubt about its identity. The 
segregation of D. caulleryi from D. concharum eflfectively defined D. concharum. and 
these names have been in general use since that time. The findings of Caullery & 
Mesnil and Dehome were confirmed and added to by Gibson & Clark (1976) and 
Gibson (1977, 1978, 1981 ), who showed that D. concharum is a single parthenogenetic 
species which reproduces annually and, if individuals live long enough, becomes 
epitokous. Its diploid chromosome number is 6, compared with 12 for D. caulleryi 
(= D. fimbriata. see para. 10 below). Trochophore larvae from eggs spawned into 
the tube of D. concharum. reared in an aquarium, developed into young atokes of the 
adult. These observations showed unquestionably that the two taxa are not forms of 
the same species. 

10. Gibson (1979) compared D. caulleryi from Cullercoats Bay, Northumberland, 
England, and from Cap Gris-Nez, France (near Dehome's type locality for 
D. caulleryi at Le Portel), with D. fimbriata from the east coast of North America and 



30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

considered them synonymous. Verrill's (1879. p. 178) original description was for the 
epitoke. Gibson examined this specimen together with an atoke Verrill had from the 
same Canadian locality, and compared the reproductive cycles of individuals from 
Cullercoats and Cap Gris-Nez with data gathered by Martin (1934) from the east 
coast of North America. Asexual regenerates of D. fimbriata, described in detail (as 
D. cauUeryi) by Dehome (1933) and Gibson & Clark (1976), have elsewhere been 
interpreted as species of ctenodrilidae. Ctenodrilus monostylos Zeppelin. 1 883 and 
Zeppelina mediopigmentata Gillandt, 1979 were shown by George & Petersen (1991) 
to be based on such developmental stages. 

11. Delle Chiaje (1822, pi. 43, fig. 16; 1828, p. 176) first described Nereis 
sextentaculata from crevices and holes on the shore near Naples, Italy. The cephalic 
region bore six "tentacles" on each side ("tentaculis sex unoquoque latere'). In 1841 
(p. 97) delle Chiaje provided a very similar description in Itahan, but transferred 
the species to Lycastis. Plate 43 of 1822 was reissued as pi. 105 of the 1841 work. 
The name N. sextentaculata may be a senior synonym of either D. concharum or 
D. fimbriata. both of which are likely to occur at Naples, but the brief and inadequate 
description makes its identity uncertain. Mcintosh (1915) cited it as a synonym of 
both D. concharum and H. ater (see para. 7 above), but did not adopt it. Fauvel 
(1927) included it as a very doubtful synonym of D. concharum agg., while Hartman 
(1959) placed it merely as a possible syllid or cirratulid. The name is not in use but 
should be suppressed as a potential threat to later names. 

12. As D. concharum and D. fimbriata (or D. cauUeryi) are morphologically similar 
they are frequently both recorded in faunal studies under the aggregate name 
D. concharum. but both species are listed separately (using the name D. cauUeryi) in 
the marine faunas of Plymouth (Marine Biological Association, 1957), Roscoff 
(Cabioch, L'Hardy & Rullier. 1968), the Cullercoats district (Garwood, 1982) and the 
Directory of the British marine fauna and flora (Howson, 1987). The geographical 
distribution of the two species suggests that D. concharum does not occur where the 
salinity is reduced to below about 34 parts per thousand. High precipitation in 
northern Norway reduces the salinity of fjords, and the outflow of the Baltic affects 
the Kattegat, Skagerrak and its approaches. At 20 sites along the west coasts of 
Sweden and Norway, the east and west coasts of Denmark and the west coast of 
Germany, 216 specimens of Dodecaceria collected were all D. fimbriata (Gibson, in 
press). Both species are found along the coasts of the English Channel, but along the 
western coast of Scotland D. concharum seems to be found only on islands, and not 
in lochs where again high precipitation reduces salinity. There is a possibility that the 
early developmental stages, rather than the adults, are sensitive to reduced salinity. 
Many of the coelomic trochophore lar\'ae in specimens from the Channel were found 
by Marcel (1963) to be abnormal. The ability of D. fimbriata to reproduce asexually 
may allow that species to penetrate less saline waters. 

13. The only species of Dodecaceria now found in the Oresund, at the Danish 
type locality for D. concharum, is D. fimbriata. In the absence of type material of 
D. concharum. and considering the geographical distribution of the two species, the 
assumption must be that Orsted was in fact describing the species now known as 
D. fimbriata when he proposed the name D. concharum. Consequently, George & 
Petersen (1991) proposed that the name D. concharum Orsted be used for the species 
generally known as D. fimbriata (or D. cauUeryi). and that D. ater (Quatrefages, 1865) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 31 

be resurrected as the oldest available name for the parthenogenetic species, 
D. concharum of authors. They cited Terebella ostreae Dalyell, 1853 as a synonym of 
D. concharum Orsted, 1843, i.e. D. fimbriata auctt., but gave no evidence to support 
this interpretation of a name which has (see para. 2 above) always been accepted as 
a synonym of D. concharum auctt. Terebella ostreae and Heterocirrus saxicola (which 
George & Petersen admit is 'very similar to D. ater and may prove to be identical with 
it'), are both senior to D. ater and would in any case threaten the valid usage of 
that name. If generally adopted, the transfer by George & Petersen of the name 
D. concharum to the species known as D. fimbriata (or D. cauUeryi)- and their use of 
the name D. ater for the species known for more than a century as D. concharum 
Orsted, 1843, would lead to serious confusion. Petersen & George (1991, p. 200) have 
already used the name D. concharum when referring to previous work on D. cauUeryi. 
Such name changes complicate the already difficult separation of these two species. 

14. In the absence of extant type material and because of the probability that the 
species as generally interpreted does not occur at the published type locality, we 
propose that the current usage of the name Dodecaceria concharum be maintained in 
the interests of nomenclatural stability by the designation of a neotype. The proposed 
neotype, deposited in the National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh (catalogue no. 
NMSZ 1993063), is from Cullercoats, Northumberland, England, collected by P.H. 
Gibson on 9 December 1969. The name D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) will also be 
conserved by this action. We propose that the specific name oi Nereis sextentaculata 
delle Chiaje, 1822 be suppressed, since it may threaten both concharum and fimbriata 
(see para. 1 1 above), and that the specific name of Terebella ostreae Dalyell, 1853 be 
suppressed as it may threatenfimbriata (see para. 2 above). We also propose that the 
specific names of Heterocirrus saxicola Grube, 1855 and H. ater Quatrefages, 1865 be 
suppressed; we believe these names to be synonymous with concharum but this is only 
subjective. If they are synonymous v/ixh fimbriata instead they are both senior to that 
name and could potentially upset stability. George & Petersen admit that saxicola 
and ater may prove to be identical and, on present evidence, if our application is not 
approved, saxicola (not ater) would be the oldest name for concharum of authors. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Dodecaceria 
concharum Orsted, 1843 and to designate as neotype the specimen proposed 
in para. 14 above; 

(b) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(i) sextentaculata delle Chiaje, 1822, as published in the binomen Nereis 

sextentaculata: 
(ii) ostreae Dalyell, 1853, as published in the binomen Terebella ostreae: 
(iii) saxicola Grube, 1855, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus 

saxicola: 
(iv) ater Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus ater: 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843 (gender; feminine), type species by monotypy 
Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1 843; 



32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) concharmn Orsted, 1843. as published in the binomen Dodecaceria con- 

charum (specific name of the type species oi Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843), and 
as defined by the neotype designated in (l)(a) above; 
(h) fityibriatus Verrill, 1879, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus 
fimbriatus: 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) sextentacidata delle Chiaje, 1822. as published in the binomen Nereis 
sextentacidaia and as suppressed in (l)(b)(i) above; 

(b) ostreae Dalyell, 1853, as published in the binomen Terebella osireae and as 
suppressed in (l)(b)(ii) above; 

(c) saxicola Grube, 1855, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus saxicola 
and as suppressed in (l)(b)(iii) above; 

(d) ater Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus ater and 
as suppressed in (l)(b)(iv) above. 

References 

Cabioch, L., L'Hardy, J.P. & Rullier, F. 1968. Annelides. Invenlaire de la faune marine de 

Roscoff CN.S.). 98 pp. Editions de la station biologique de Roscoff. 
Caullery, M. & Mesnil, F. 1898. Les formes epitoques et revolution des cirratuliens. Annates 

de I'Universite de Lyon, 39: 1-200. 
Dalyell, J.G. 1853. Tlie powers of llie Creator displayed in the creation, vol. 2. 359 pp. Van 

Voorst, London. 
Dehorne, A. 1933. La schizometamerie et les segments tetragemmes de Dodecaceria caulleryi 

n. sp. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique. 67: 298-326. 
delle Chiaje, S. 1822. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di 

Napoli. Figure. 69 pis. Societa Tipografica. Napoli. 
delle Chiaje, S. 1828. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di 

Napoli, vol. 3. 232 pp. Societa Tipografica, Napoli. 
delle Chiaje, S. 1841. Descrizione e notomia degli animali invertebrati delta Sicilia citeriore 

osservali vivi negli anni 1822-J830, vol. 3. 142 pp. Bateili, Napoli. 
Fauvel, P. 1927. Polychetes sedentaires. Faune de France, 16: 1-494. 
Garwood, P.R. 1982. The marine fauna of the CuUercoats District, No. 10. Polychaeta — 

Sedentaria incl. Archiannelida. Report of the Dove Marine Laboratory, (3)23: 1-273. 
George, J.D. & Petersen, M.E. 1991. The validity of the genus Zeppelina Vaillant (Polychaeta: 

Ctenodrilidae). Ophelia, Suppl.. 5: 89-100. 
Gibson, P.H. 1977. Reproduction in the cirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria concharum and 

D pulchra. Journal of Zoology, 182: 89-102. 
Gibson, P.H. 1978. Systematics oi Dodecaceria (Annelida: Polychaeta) and its relation to the 

reproduction of its species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 275-287. 
Gibson, P.H. 1979. The specific status of the two cirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria fimbriata 

and D. caulleryi compared by their morphology and methods of reproduction. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology, 57: 1443-1451. 
Gibson, P.H. 1981. Gametogenesis in the cirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria concharum and 

D. caulleryi. Journal of Zoology, 193: 355-370. 
Gibson, P.H. (in press). Distributions oi Dodecacaria fimbriata (Verrill. 1879), D. concharum 

Orsted, 1843 and D. diceria Hartman, 1951 in European waters between latitudes 48°N 

and 70°N. 
Gibson, P.H. & Clark, R.B. 1976. Reproduction of Dodecaceria caulleryi (Polychaeta: 

Cirratulidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56: 

649-674. 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 33 

Grube, E. 1855. Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig bekannter Anneliden. Archiv fur Natur- 

geschichte, 21: 81-136. 
Hartman, O. 1959. Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. Allan Hancock 

Foundation Occasional Papers. 23: 1-628. 
Howson, CM. (Ed.). 1987. Directory of the British marine fauna and flora. 471 pp. Marine 

Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye. 
Johnston, G. 1865. A catalogue of the British non-parasitical worms in the collection of the 

British Museum. 365 pp. British Museum, London. 
Langerhans, P. 1881. Die Wurmfauna von Madeira. 3. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche 

Zoologie, 34: 87-143. 
Mcintosh, W.C. 1911. Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St Andrews. No. XXXIL 3. 

On the British Cirratulidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)7: 151-162. 
Mcintosh, W.C. 1915. A monograph of the British marine annelids, vol. 3, part 1 (Polychaeta. 

Opheliidae to Ammocharidae.) 368 pp. Ray Society, London. 
Marcel, R. 1963. Sur quelques larves aberrantes de Dodecaceria concharum Oersted (Aimelide 

Polychete). Memoires de la Societe Nationale des Sciences Naturelles et Mathematiques de 

Cherbourg. 50: 61-67. 
Marine Biological Association. 1957. Plymouth Marine Fauna. 457 pp. Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth. 
Marion, A.F. & Bobretzky, N. 1875. Etudes sur les annelides du Golfe de Marseille. Annates de 

Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie). (6)2: 1-106. 
Martin, E.A. 1934. Sexual and asexual methods of reproduction in the annelid worm 

Dodecaceria; the morphology, life cycle and distribution of Dodecaceria coralii and 

Dodecaceria fimbriatus [sic]. 142 pp. Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell University. 
Orsted, A.S. 1843. Annulatorum Danicorum Conspectus. Fasc. 1. Maricolae. 52 pp., 7 pis. 

Wahhan, Hafniae. 
Petersen, M.E. & George, J.D. 1991. A new species of Raricirrus from Northern Europe, with 

notes on its biology and a discussion of the affinities of the genus (Polychaeta: 

Ctenodrilidae). Ophelia. Suppl., 5: 185-208. 
Quatrefages, A. de. 1865. Histoire naturelle des anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et 

Gephyriens, vol. 1. 588 pp. Roret, Paris. 
Saint-Joseph, A. de. 1894. Les annelides polychetes des cotes de Dinard. Troisieme partie. 

Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie). (7)17: 1-395. 
Verrill, A.E. 1879. Notice of recent additions to the marine Invertebrata of north eastern coast 

of America, with descriptions of new genera and species and critical remarks on others. 

Part 1. Annehda, Gephyrea, Nemertina, Nematoda. Polyzoa, Tunicata, Mollusca, 

Anthozoa, Echinodermata, Porifera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 

2: 177-178. 
Wolff, T. & Petersen, M.E. 1991. A brief biography of A.S. Orsted, with notes on his travels 

in the West Indies and Central America and illustrations of collected polychaetes. Ophelia, 

Suppl., S; 669-685. 



34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2944 

Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita): 
proposed conservation 

R.M. Owens 

Department of Geology, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff CFl 3NP, 

U.K. 

A.T. Thomas 

School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, 
Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the names Eophacops Delo, 
1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 for two genera of Silurian phacopid trilobites. 
Wedekind (1912) established the nominal genus Pterygometopidella with the nominal 
species Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin, [1851] as its type. The specimens on which 
Wedekind based his new genus were misidentified and are now assigned to 
Eophacops. Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin is now attributed to Acernaspis, which is 
therefore formally a junior subjective synonym oi Pterygometopidella. Eophacops and 
Acernaspis are both in wide use, but Pterygometopidella is essentially unused and its 
suppression is proposed to conserve the two junior generic names. 



1. Wedekind (1912, p. 324, pi. 15. fig. 9) established the nominal genus 
Pterygometopidella for two specimens from Gotland which had been identified by 
Gustaf Lindstrom as Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin, [1851]. These two specimens 
were in the collections of the University of Gottingen, but cannot be traced and 
may have been lost in the Second World War (Dr H. Jahnke, pers. comm. to 
R.M.O., November 1976). 

2. Angehn ([1851], p. 12, pi. 9, figs. 5a-c) had based his species Phacops 4-lineata 
[recte 4-lineatus] on material, now lost, from the Silurian of Gotland. In his review of 
the Gotland phacopids, Ramskold (1985, p. 5, pi. 1, figs, la-f) proposed and 
illustrated a neotype for Phacops quadrilineatus and assigned it to Acernaspis 
Campbell, 1967 (p. 32), the type species of which is Phacops orestes Billings, 1860 
(p. 65) by monotypy and original designation. Ramskold overlooked the fact that 
P. quadrilineatus is the type species of the senior genus Pterygometopidella. 

3. Schrank (1972, p. 50) argued that the specimen figured by Wedekind (1912) 
might not belong to Angelin's species Phacops quadrilineatus. Schrank (1972, pi. 15, 
figs. 3, 3a) figured a third specimen, in the collections of the Naturkunde Museum, 
Humboldt University, Berlin, which had been identified by Lindstrom in 1874 as 
belonging to P. quadrilineatus. This specimen is very similar to the one figured by 
Wedekind, and there is no doubt that it belongs to the genus Eophacops Delo, 1935, 
possibly to E. sprogensis Ramskold, 1985 (p. 30). Chlupac (1977. p. 126) was also of 
the opinion that Wedekind's (1912) figures suggested identity of Pterygometopidella 
with Eophacops. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 35 

4. Although Wedekind's original illustration is small and poor, the outline of the 
glabella and other cephalic characters compare closely with Eophacops species, but 
are quite different from the equivalent features developed in the neotype of 
A. quadrilineatus. It is therefore evident that Lindstrom's identification as Phacops 
quadrilineatus of the two specimens on which Wedekind based Pterygometopidella 
was wrong, and that Wedekind established Pterygometopidella for specimens corre- 
sponding to Eophacops (see Clarkson, Eldredge & Henry, 1977, p. 122). Eophacops is 
therefore taxonomically (though not formally; see para. 5 below) a junior subjective 
synonym of Pterygometopidella. 

5. Eophacops was established by Delo (1935, p. 405). It is a well-estabhshed 
genus of the phacopidae whose type species (Phacops handwerki Weller, 1907, 
p. 271) is well known, the type material being in the Walker Museum of the 
University of Chicago (now in the Field Museum of Natural History). The generic 
name Eophacops has been used in almost all recent relevant publications (e.g., 
Campbell, 1975; Holloway, 1980: Ramskold & Werdelin, 1991; the Commission 
Secretariat holds a list of seven further papers by nine different authors over the 
last 33 years). By contrast, Pterygometopidella has remained obscure. It was listed 
under phacopidae 'subfamily uncertain' by Struve in the Treatise on Invertebrate 
Paleontology (Moore, 1959, p. O 468) and was not illustrated. So far as we are 
aware, the name Pterygometopidella has never been used, except by Schrank (1972, 
p. 50), by Shergold & Shirley (1968, p. 125) in a faunal list, in discussion by 
Chlupac (1977, p. 126) and in comparative remarks by Mannil (1970, pp. 344, 345, 
347) who demurred from using this genus in favour of Acernaspis because of its 
uncertain status and insufficiently known diagnostic characters. We agree with 
Holloway (1980, p. 62) and Ramskold (1985, p. 21) that it is in the interests 
of stability that Pterygometopidella should be suppressed to conserve the usage of 
Eophacops. 

6. Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin is assigned to Acernaspis Campbell (see para. 2 
above). The nominal genus Acernaspis is in current use (e.g. Clarkson, Eldredge & 
Henry, 1977; Howells, 1982; Ramskold, 1985; Zhang & Meng, 1986; Lesperance, 
1988). Acernaspis is formally a junior synonym oi Pterygometopidella since Wedekind 
fixed the nominal species Phacops quadrilineatus (although misidentified) as the type 
species of Pterygometopidella. Suppression of the name Pterygometopidella would 
have the effect of conserving Acernaspis in addition to Eophacops. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pterygometopidella 
Wedekind, 1912 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) Eophacops Delo, 1935 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Phacops handwerki Weller, 1907; 

(b) Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Phacops oresles Billings, 1860; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) handwerki Weller, 1907, as published in the binomen Phacops handwerki 

(specific name of the type species of Eophacops Delo, 1935); 



36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(1) March 1995 

(b) Orestes Billings, 1 860, as published in the binomen Phacops orestes (specific 
name of the type species of Acernaspis Campbell, 1967); 
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Plerygomeiopidella Wedekind, 1912, as suppressed in (1) 
above. 

Acknowledgement 

We are grateful to Professor D. Kaljo for translating Russian text. 

References 

Angelin, N.P. [1851]. Palaeontologia Svecica. I. Iconographia crustaceorum formationis 

transilionis. Fasc. 1 . 24 pp., 24 pis. Weigel, Lipsiae. 
Billings, E. 1860. Description of some new species of fossils from the Lower and Middle 

Silurian rocks of Canada. Canadian Naturalist and Geologist, 5: 49-69. 
Campbell, K.S.W. 1967. Trilobites of the Henryhouse Formation (Silurian) in Oklahoma. 

Bulletin. Oklahoma Geological Survey, 115; 1-68. 
Campbell, K.S.W. 1975. The functional anatomy of phacopid trilobites; musculature and eyes. 

Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 108; 168-188. 
Chlupaf, I. 1977. The phacopid trilobites of the Silurian and Devonian of Czechoslovakia. 

Rozpravy Ustredniho ustavu geologickeho, 43; 1-172. 
Clarkson, E.N.K., Eldredge, N. & Hem-y, J.-L. 1977. Some Phacopina (Trilobita) from the 

Silurian of Scotland. Palaeontology. 20; 1 19-142. 
Delo, D.M. 1935. A revision of the phacopid trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 9: 402-420. 
HoUoway, D.J. 1980. Middle Silurian trilobites from Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA. 1. 

Palaeontographica, A170; 1-85. 
Howells, Y. 1982. Scottish Silurian trilobites. Palaeontographical Society {Monograph), 135: 

1-76. 
Lesperance, P.J. 1988. Trilobites. Pp. 359-376 in Cocks, L.R.M. & Rickards, R.B. (Eds.). A 

global analysis of the Ordovician-Silurian boundary. Bulletin of the British Museum 

(Natural History), Geology, 43; 1-394. 
Mannil, R. 1970. Phacopid trilobites of the Upper Llandoverian of Estonia. Eesti NSV 

Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Keemia. Geoloogia, 19(4); 342-349. [In Russian, English 

summary]. 
Moore, R.C. (Ed.). 1959. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O (Arthropoda 1). xix, 

560 pp. Geological Society of America & University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 
Ramskold, L. 1985. Silurian phacopid and dalmanitid trilobites from Gotland. Stockholm 

Contributions in Geology, 40: 1-62. 
Ramskold, L. & Werdelin, L. 1991. The phylogeny and evolution of some phacopid trilobites. 

Cladistics, 7; 29-74. 
Schrank, E. 1972. Proetacea, Encrinuridae and Phacopina (Trilobita) aus silurischen 

Geschieben. Zeitschrift fiir das Gesamtgebiet der Geologischen Wissenschaften, Geologie, 

76; 1-117. 
Shergold, J.H. & Shirley, J. 1968. The faunal-stratigraphy of the Ludlovian rocks between 

Craven Arms and Bourton, near Much Wenlock, Shropshire. Geological Journal, 6: 

119-138. 
Wedekind, R. 1912. Klassifikation der Phacopiden. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen 

Gesellschaft (Abhandlungen und Monatsberichte), 63(for 1911); 317-336. 
Weller, S. 1907. The paleontology of the Niagaran Limestone in the Chicago area. The 

Trilobita. Bulletin. Chicago Academy of Science {The Natural History Survey), 4: 163-281 
Zhang W.-t. & Meng X.-s. 1986. Silurian trilobites from Xichuan, Henan. Acta Palaeontologica 

Sinica, 25: 507-515. [In Chinese, English summary]. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 37 

Case 2914 

Diplocentrm mexicamis Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): 
proposed confirmation of the rediscovered holotype as tlie 
name-bearing type 

W. David Sissom 

Department of Biology and Geosciences, West Texas A & M University, 

Box 808 WT Station, Canyon, Texas 79016-0001. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to reinstate the rediscovered holotype as 
the name-bearing type of Diploceninis mexicanus Peters, 1861, a species of scorpion 
from the states of Mexico and Oaxaca in Mexico (family diplocentridae Pocock, 
1893). The original material had been presumed lost and a neotype designated; the 
holotype and neotype are now found to belong to different subspecies. D. mexicanus 
is the type species by monotypy ol' Diplocenirus Peters, 1861. The genus Diplocenlrus 
includes 30 species distributed from southeastern United States throughout Mexico 
to Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. 



1. Peters (1861, p. 512) described Diplocenlrus mexicanus on the basis of a single 
female specimen from 'Mexico' (region unstated) deposited in the collection of the 
Zoologisches Museum, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin (catalog no. ZMB 74). The 
species is the type by monotypy of Diplocenlrus Peters, 1861, which was not described 
separately from the species. Karsch (1879, pp. 98-99) discussed the species and placed 
in the genus Scorpio whitei Gervais, 1844. which he considered a senior synonym 
of mexicanus. After a careful study Karsch (1880, pp. 407^08) concluded that 
both were valid taxa, although whitei continued to be cited for many years as the 
valid name for the type species of Diplocenlrus. Stahnke (1976, p. 58) and Francke 
(1977, pp. 145-146) provided further evidence that the two species were distinct. 
Diplocenlrus is the type genus of the family diplocentridae Pocock, 1893. 

2. In the early 1960s the late Prof H.L. Stahnke of Arizona State University visited 
a number of European museums and borrowed the types of most of the described 
North American scorpions, including the type of Diplocenlrus niexicanus from Berlin. 
There was. however, no record that a loan of the type had been made. In the early 
to mid-1970s Oscar Francke began his work on Diplocenlrus as a graduate student 
at Arizona State University under M. Cazier, and by 1975 had pubhshed a paper on 
the genus. Francke planned the necessary redescription of D. mexicanus as part of 
a large study on Mexican Diplocenlrus and requested a loan of the holotype from 
Dr M. Moritz, the curator in Berlin. Dr Moritz, who had not been employed at 
the museum in the 1960s, replied that the type could not be found, that there was 
no evidence that it was on loan, and that it was presumably lost or destroyed in 
World War II, as were a number of other types. He later published that the type was 
not in the museum (Moritz & Fischer, 1980, p. 319). 

3. Stahnke (1976, pp. 58-59) published photographs and descriptive notes on the 
holotype of Diplocenlrus mexicanus. Unaware of this paper (which must have been in 



38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

press) and of Stahnke's possession of the holotype, Francke (1977. pp. 152-164, figs. 
1. 9. 17, 27-32) redescribed and illustrated D. mexicanus and designated a male 
neotype from "Mexico" (exact locality unknown) housed in the Zoologisches Institut 
und Zoologisches Museum der Hamburg Universitat, Hamburg. The species was 
poorly understood and designation of the neotype was justified; the designation 
satisfied the requirements of Article 75 of the Code. In addition, Francke recognized 
two subspecies of mexicanus: the nominate based on the Hamburg neotype and a 
female specimen in the Natural History Museum in London, and D. mexicanus 
oaxacae based on a male holotype and found from several localities in central Oaxaca 
state. 

4. In 1986 I examined the presumed holotype of D. mexicanus from the Zoolo- 
gisches Museum in BerUn, bearing catalog no. ZMB 74. The specimen in the vial 
was clearly not the holotype but a specimen probably inadvertently switched by 
Stahnke and sent to Berlin in 1984. The holotype was eventually found among the 
H.L. Stahnke collection in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, by 
Mr Vincent Lee (personal communication. November 1991). Examination of this 
specimen has confirmed that it is indeed the holotype, bearing the characters given 
by Peters (1861) and Karsch (1879, 1880), and depicted in Stahnke's (1976) 
photographs. It has now been returned to Berlin. 

5. The refound holotype of D. mexicanus and the neotype of D. mexicanus 
mexicanus designated by Francke (1977) do not belong to the same subspecies. The 
holotype is consubspecific with Francke's D. mexicanus oaxacae, whilst his neotype 
is a separate subspecies, based on the characters used by him to define subspecific 
taxa. I have discussed this problem with my colleagues Drs David Richman and 
G.B. Edwards and it is our collective opinion that the holotype should be reinstated 
as the name-bearing specimen. The name D. mexicanus oaxacae will become a junior 
subjective synonym of D. mexicanus mexicanus and the subspecies represented by 
Francke's neotype will require a new name. Francke and I have written a paper 
renaming the subspecies; we will wait until the Commission has made a ruling before 
submitting the manuscript for publication. Francke's (1977) division of mexicanus 
into subspecies has been mentioned only once (briefly, by myself) since its original 
proposal (Sissom, 1991, pp. 123-124). 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked; 

(1) to confirm as the name-bearing type for Diplocenirus mexicanus Peters, 1861 
the rediscovered holotype; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Diplocenirus Peters, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Diplocenirus mexicanus Peters, 1861; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name mexicanus 
Peters, 1861, as published in the binomen Diplocenirus mexicanus and as 
defined by the holotype (female specimen no. ZMB 74 in the Zoologisches 
Museum, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) confirmed in (1) above. 

References 

Francke, O.K. 1977. Scorpions of the genus Diplocenirus from Oaxaca, Mexico (Scorpionida, 
Diplocentridae). Journal of Arachnology. 4: 145-200. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 39 

Karsch, F. 1879. Scorpionologische Beitrage 11. Mitteihmgen Munchener Enlomologischen 

Verein.i: 97-136. 
Karsch, F. 1880. Arachnologisch Blatter. X. Scorpionologische Fragmente. Zeitschrifi fur 

Gesammten Nalurwissenscbaften Halle. 53: 404-409. 
Moritz, M. & Fischer, S.-C. 1980. Die Typen der Arachniden-Sammlung des Zoologischen 

Museums Berlin. 111. ScoiTjiones. Milleilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 

56(2): 309-326. 
Peters, W. 1861. Uber eine neue Eintheilung der Skorpione und iiber die von ihm 

Mossambique gesammelten Arten von Skorpionen, as welchem hier ein Auszug mitget- 

heilt wird. Monatsberichte der Koniglicheii Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 

Berlin, 1861: 507-516. 
Pocock, R.I. 1893. Notes on the classification of scorpions, followed by some observations 

upon synonymy, with descriptions of new genera and species. Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History, (6)12: 303-330. 
Sissom, W.D. 1991. Diplocentrus perezi, a new species of scorpion from southeastern Mexico 

(Diplocentridae). Journal of Arachnology, 19: 122-125. 
Stahnke, H.L. 1976. The determination of the type-species of Diplocentrus (Sorpionida). 

Arizona Academy of Sciences. 11(3): 58-60. 



40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2941 

Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville, 
1843 (currently Diplonychus lusticus and Belostoma stollii; Insecta, 
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific names 

John T. Polhemus 

University of Colorado Museum, 3115 South York St., Englew'ood, 

Colorado 80110. U.S.A. 

I.M. Kerzhner 

Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of Sciences. Universitetskaya 
naherezhnaya 1. St Petersburg 199034, Ru.'isia 

Abstract. The purpose of this appUcation is to conserve the specific names of 
Diplonychus ruslicus (Fabricius, 1781) from Asia and Belostoma stollii (Amyot & 
Serville, 1843) from the New World. In 1775 Fabricius had applied the name Nepa 
rustica to what was probably B. stollii, but in 1781 he changed the description and 
provenance and used A', rustica for the Asian species. It is proposed that the 1775 use 
of N. rustica be suppressed. 



1. Fabricius (1775, p. 691) described Nepa rustica as follows (translated from 
Latin): 'N[epa] without tail, body fuscous, unspotted. Inhabits waters in America, 
common. Similar to preceding but three times smaller. Body entirely fuscous, 
unspotted, smooth, only femora slightly yellowish'. The preceding species is 
N. grandis Linnaeus, 1758 (now in Lethocerus); this measures 90-95 mm in length so 
the length of N. rustica was 30 mm or slightly more. Fabricius did not indicate the 
collection in which the material was kept, and no type specimens are known. The 
description fits well several species of the American genus Belostoma Latreille, 1807. 

2. In the next published reference to A', rustica Fabricius (1781, p. 333) gave a 
reference to his 1775 work, but he changed both the diagnosis and the distribution. 
He stated that the apex of the head, sides and hind margin of the pronotum and the 
sides of the hemelytra were pale. He omitted comparison with A', grandis and 
indicated that the species was smaller than any other. He stated that the species was 
from India ('Habitat in Coromandel. Mus Dam. Banks'). In later works Fabricius 
(1787, p. 276; 1794, p. 62: 1803, p. 106) repeated in the main his 1781 text, but he did 
not further cite his 1775 work (an omission also applying to other species described 
in 1775). The description oi N. rustica in 1781 and later years fits well the Oriental 
species now known as Diplonychus rusticus (Fabricius). The specimens on which the 
1781 description was based, which are listed as type specimens by Zimsen (1964, 
p. 304), are in the Fabricius collection in the University Zoological Museum, 
Copenhagen (two specimens) and the Banks Collection at the Natural History 
Museum, London (two specimens, not one as indicated by Zimsen). They have 
been examined by one of us (J.T.P.) and belong to the species currently called 
Diplonychus rusticus. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 41 

3. Sulzer (1776, p. 92, pi. 10, fig. 2) described and figured a new species Nepa plana 
'aus Amerika'. His description and figure do not resemble any known American 
species but closely match D. rusticus. Fabricius (1787, p. 276; 1794, p. 62; 1803, 
p. 106) synonymized A^. plana with his own A^. rustica as that was described in 1781. 

4. Goeze (1778, p. 177) cited in part Fabricius' original (1775) description of 
A^. rustica and added a vernacular name, 'Der Amerikanische Bauer. Stoll (1780, 
p. 1 1, pi. 1, fig. 1 ) described and figured a belostomatid from Surinam under the name 
'Le Paysan Americaine', with a reference to Fabricius (1775). Many years later 
Amyot & Serville (1843, p. 40), with a reference to Stoll, described a species from 
'Cayenne' as Zaitha stollii; it is now known as Belostoma stollii. 

5. Laporte (1833, p. 18) established the genus Diplonychus with 'Belostoma rustica 
Fab. 106.3' (i.e. Nepa rustica of Fabricius (1803, p. 106). where rustica was used in the 
1781 sense) as the type species by monotypy. On p. 88 of his work, published later the 
same year (see Harris, 1942), Laporte explained that he used the name rustica for 
the species so called in the later works of Fabricius, whereas the insect described by 
Fabricius (1775) and by Stoll (1780; see previous para.) as N. rustica belonged to 
another genus, i.e. Belostoma. The same observation was published by Herrich- 
Schaeffer (1849, p. 35) in the synonymy of Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville: 'Nepa 
rustica. — F. Syst. Entom. pg. 691 [the 1775 sense], non Ent. Syst. [the 1781 sense]'. 
Walker (1873, pp. 177, 182) also pointed out that Fabricius had described two species 
under the name TV. rustica. 

6. To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of Goeze ( 1 778; see para. 4 
above) the specific name rustica Fabricius has never been applied to an American 
species, but it has consistently and for more than 200 years been used for the Oriental 
species known as Diplonychus rusticus. We have about 1 30 references for the use of 
the name rusticus Fabricius for the Diplonychus species, 44 of them from the last 50 
years (we have given a list of 30 references to the Commission Secretariat). The 
species is very common in India, and the subject of publications in ecology (Dudgeon, 
1990), morphology (Cobben, 1968; Goel, 1972) and biological control of mosquitoes 
(Raut, 1988; Raut, Saha & Mukhopadhyay, 1988). 

7. According to the principle of priority the specific name rustica Fabricius, 1775 
should be applied to an American Belostoma species. This could be B. stollii (Amyot 
& Serville, 1843; see para. 4 above), which has been associated with the name and 
with which the brief description of Fabricius (1775) is in accord; on the other hand 
the description fits several species and there is no type material. If the name were 
applied to an American belostomatid all uses of rusticus for the Indian species would 
become misidentifications; the valid specific name for the latter would be planus 
Sulzer, 1776 (see para. 3 above), even though Sulzer had wrongly given the habitat as 
'Amerika' and his name has never been used for any taxon. Diplonychus Laporte, 
1833 is based on the Indian species (see para. 5 above), although at the time of 
estabhshing the genus Laporte failed to say exphcitly that he was not using Nepa 
rustica Fabricius in the original sense. 

8. The American species has consistently been known as Belostoma stollii (Amyot 
& Serville, 1843); we have given the Commission Secretariat a list of seven references 
to illustrate this. 

9. It is desirable to retain the accepted usage of the name Diplonychus rusticus 
(Fabricius). Since the species was described in 1781 this date should be adopted. 



42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(11 March 1995 

rather than 1775 when rustica was used for an American Belostoma. One of the 
specimens in the Banks Collection in London (see para. 2 above) is proposed 
(Polhemus, 1994, p. 692) as the lectotype of Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781, and it will 
be so labelled if the present application is approved. Since Nepa plana Sulzer, 1776 is 
an unused senior subjective synonym it should be suppressed. The specific name of 
Belostoma slollii (Amyot & Serville, 1843) will be conserved if TV. rustica Fabricius, 
1775 is suppressed. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the specific name rustica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the 
binomen Nepa rustica. and all uses of that name prior to the publication 
of Nepa rustica Fabricius. 1781, for the purposes of both the Principle of 
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: 

(b) to suppress the specific name plana Sulzer, 1776, as published in the 
binomen Nepa plana, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not 
for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to confirm that the type species of Diplonychus Laporte, 1843 is Nepa rustica 
Fabricius, 1781 by monotypy; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Diplonychus Laporte, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781, as confirmed in (2) above; 

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

(a) rustica Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Nepa rustica and as 
defined by the lectotype proposed by Polhemus (1994) (specific name of the 
type species of Diplonychus Laporte, 1833); 

(b) stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843, as published in the binomen Zaitha stollii: 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) rustica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Nepa rustica and as 

suppressed in (l)(a) above; 
{h) plana Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Nepa plana and as 

suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Amyot, C.J.B. & Serville, J.G.A. 1843. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hemipleres. Ixxvi, 

675 pp., 12 pis. Roret, Paris. 
Cobben, R.H. 1968. Evolutionary trends in Heteroptera. Part 1. Eggs, architecture of tlie shell. 

gross embryology and eclosion. viii, 475 pp. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and 

Documentation, Wageningen. 
Dudgeon, D. 1990. Feeding by the aquatic heteropteran Diplonychus rusticus (Belostomatidae): 

an effect of prey density on meal size. Hydrohiologia. 190: 93-96. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae ... xxx, 832 pp. Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectorwn .... vol. 2. 517 pp. Bohnii. Hamburgi et Kilonii. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorwn .... vol. 2. 382 pp. Proft, Hafniae. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica .... vol. 4. 472 pp. Proft, Hafniae. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1803. Systema Rhyngoiorum .... 314, 23 pp. Reichard, Brunsvigae. 
Goel, S.C. 1972. Notes on the stucture of the unguitractor plate in Heteroptera (Hemiptera). 

Journal of Entomology, (A)46: 167-173. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 43 

Goeze, J.A.E. 1778. Entomologische Beytrdge zu des Ritter Linne zwolften Ausgabe des 

Nalursystems, vol. 2. Ixxii, 352 pp. Weidmanns Erben & Reich. Leipzig. 
Harris, H.M. 1942. On the dates of publication of Laporte's Essai. Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 

18: 161-162. 
Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1849. Die Wanzenartigen Insecten. vol. 9. 348 pp., 35 pis. Lotzbeck, 

Niimberg. 
Laporte, F.L. de. 1833. Essai d'une classification systematique de I'ordre des Hemipteres 

(Hemipteres-Heteropteres, Latr.). Magasin de Zoohgie, 2: 17-88. 
Polhemus, J.T. 1994. The identity and synonymy of the Belostomatidae (Heteroptera) 

of Johann Christian Fabricius 1775-1803. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of 

Washington, 96: 687-695. 
Raut, S.K. 1988. Biological assessment of predaceous water bugs in the control potential 

of vector prey snails. Abstracts. International Conference Bicovas. Madras, p. 52. 
Raut, S.K., Saha, T.C. & Mukhopadhyay, B. 1988. Predaceous water bugs in the control 

of vector snails. Abstracts. International Conference Bicovas. Madras, p. 53. 
Stoll, C. 1780. Representation exactemeni coloree d'apres nature des punaises ..., Lief 1. 20 pp., 

4 pis. Sepp, Amsterdam. 
Sulzer, J.H. 1776. Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten nach dem Linnaeischen System. Vol. 1. 

274 pp.; vol. 2, 72 pp.. 32 pis. Steiner, Winterthur. 
Walker, F. 1873. Catalogue of the specimens of Hemiplera Heteroptera in the collection of the 

British Museum, part 8. 220 pp. British Museum, London. 
Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 



44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2918 

Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed 
conservarion as the correct original spelling, and aspidiphoridae 
Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859): proposed placement on the Official List 

Joseph V. McHugh 

Department of Entomology. Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, 

New York 14853-0999. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the universally accepted 
spelling Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean. 1821 for a genus of 12 nominal species of 
small beetles which feed on slime moulds and have a broad distribution in the Old 
World. It is also proposed that the name aspidiphoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) 
should be placed on the Official List as the valid name for the family group that 
includes both Aspidiphorus and Sphindus Megerle in Dejean, 1821. 



1. In the 1821 edition of his catalog, Dejean included two new genera with 
authorship attributed as follows: Arpidiphorus Ziegler (p. 47) and Sphindus Megerle 
(p. 102). He placed the single nominal species Nitidula orbiculata Gyllenhal, 1808 
(p. 242) in Arpidipliorus. and included N. dubia Gyllenhal. 1808 (p. 243) as the only 
species in Sphindus. Dejean cited 'Sphindus gyllenliaU Dej." in conjunction with dubia. 
It is not clear whether gyllenhali was a manuscript name of Dejean's or an 
unnecessary replacement name for dubia: it has not been used again. Nitidula 
orbiculata and N. dubia are the type species by monotypy of Arpidiphorus and 
Sphindus respectively. The two new genera were unaccompanied by any description, 
diagnosis or illustration, but the requirements of availability under Article 12b(5) of 
the Code are met because the included nominal species can be identified by the 
citation of their authors. 

2. Sturm (1826, pp. 16. 98) used the spelling Aspidiphorus for Arpidiphorus, 
attributing the genus to Ziegler and including Nitidula orbiculata Gyllenhal. Latreille 
(1829, p. 508) also used Aspidiphorus. attributed to Ziegler and Dejean. He included 
N. orbiculata and placed the genus in his suprageneric group "Dermestes'. 

3. The original name Arpidiphorus was apparently an error for Aspidiphorus, 
which has been used regularly in the literature after Latreille (1829) with either 
Dejean, Latreille or Ziegler cited as author. The changed spelling was used by Dejean 
himself in the subsequent edition (1837) of his catalog where it too was attributed to 
Ziegler, not Sturm or Latreille. Etymological considerations also suggest that a 
misspelling occurred in the original publication. There is no meaning for the 
stem 'arpid-' in the classical languages whereas 'aspid-' (= shield), when combined 
with "phorus" (= bearer), is perfectly fitting given the form of these beetles. No 
internal evidence from Dejean's (1821) catalog has been found, however, to 
support the assumption that a lapsus calami or printer's error occurred. There 
have been four exceptions to the usage of Aspidiphorus in over 170 years: (1) the 
unjustified emendation Aspidophorus Agassiz, 1846 (p. 36); (2) the incorrect spelling 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 45 

Aspliidiphorus Arnold, 1938 (see Burakowski. Mroczkowski & Stefariska, 1986, 
p. 121); (3) the incorrect spelling Asphidophorus Kuhnt, 1912 (see Burakowski et al., 
1986, p. 121) and (4) Dejean's (1821) original spelling Arpidiphorus which was used 
by Merkl (1986, p. 177) and Siltverberg (1979, p. 43; 1992, p. 51). As incorrect 
subsequent spellings the names noted in (2) and (3) are unavailable. The name 
Aspidophorus Agassiz is a junior homonym of the fish name Aspidophonis Lacepede, 
[1801]. An application (Case 2897) for the conservation of the fish name Agonus 
Bloch & Schneider, 1801 by the suppression for priority but not homonymy of 
Aspidophorus Lacepede, [1801] by Dr B.A. Sheiko (Kamchatka Institute of Ecology, 
Russian Academy of Sciences, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia) is published in 
BZN 52: 57-60 (March 1995). Gistel (1848, p. viii) replaced Aspidiphorus Ziegler by 
Box, believing Ziegler's name to be a junior homonym of 'Aspidiphorus'' [sic] 
Lacepede. It is proposed that the names Aspidophorus Agassiz and Box Gistel be 
placed on the Official Index. A list of 90 references using the generally accepted 
spelling Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean has been given to the Commission Secretariat 
in support of a request for conservation of the name. These references include the key 
works by Crowson (1955), Sen Gupta & Crowson (1979), Sen Gupta & Pal (1982), 
Burakowski & Slipiiiski (1987) and McHugh (1993). 

4. Thomson (1859, p. 90) proposed the genus Coniporus, into which he transferred 
the single species Aspidiphorus orbiculatus (Gyllenhal, 1808). Coniporus is thus a 
junior objective synonym of Aspidiphorus. Thomson placed Coniporus as the single 
genus in the new tribe 'Coniporina" (family cioidae). Sphindus was transferred (p. 91) 
to the tribe 'Cioina" in the same family. 

5. The 'Famille des Sphindides' was proposed (p. 224) to accommodate both 
Sphindus and Aspidiphorus in Jacquehn du Val's ('1859-63") treatment. The text and 
catalog sections of this work have been dated as 1860 by Silfverberg (1992, p. 51) and 
as 1861 by Burakowski, Mroczkowski & Stefahska (1986. p. 121). For this 
application I have adopted the later date but the nomenclatural outcome would be 
the same assuming either date. 

6. Thomson (1863, p. 175) elevated his tribe (1859) Coniporina to family level. He 
described coniporidae and redescribed the type genus Coniporus and the only species 
Coniporus orbiculatus (Gyllenhal). He maintained Jacquelin du Val's ([1861]) family 
SPHINDIDAE for Sphindus. based on S. dubius (Gyllenhal). 

7. Kiesenwetter (1877, p. 198) proposed a new family aspidiphoridae in which he 
included only Aspidiphorus. He cited both the names Coniporus and coniporidae as 
synonyms. 

8. Subsequent to Jacquelin du Val's ([1861]) placement of Sphindus and Aspidi- 
phorus in the family sphfndidae, some authors have continued to recognize a separate 
family for Aspidiphorus. For this they have consistently used the name aspidi- 
phoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 rather than coniporidae Thomson, 1859 (see, for 
example, Houlbert, 1922; Schenkling, 1931; Horion, 1960; Freude, Harde & Lohse, 
1967; Merkl, 1986). Recent studies indicate that Aspidiphorus and Sphindus are vei7 
closely related and clearly positioned within the clade that includes other generally 
accepted confamilial genera (see Sen Gupta & Crowson. 1979; McHugh, 1993). In the 
literature that considers Sphindus and Aspidiphorus confamilial, the family-group 
name sphindidae is often used. A list of references for works using the name 
SPHINDIDAE for a family including both Sphindus and Aspidiphorus and further 



46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

references using the name aspidiphoridae (with Sphindus not included) has been 
given to the Commission Secretariat. Under Article 40b of the Code the name for the 
family including both genera is aspidiphoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859), the date 
1859 being derived from Thomson's tribal name based on Coniporus (see para. 4 
above), aspidiphoridae thus has priority over sphindidae Jacquelin du Val, [1861]. 

9. I have recently consulted a number of authorities (J.F. Lawrence, S.A. Slipiiiski, 
A. Newton, J. Pakaluk and Q. Wheeler) on whether the name aspidiphoridae or 
sphindidae should be used for the family group that includes both Sphindus and 
Aspidiphoms. There was no consensus. Since the group is so poorly known and 
the body of literature so small it seems appropriate to follow priority and use 
aspidiphoridae as the valid name, aspidiphoridae has been used in a major 
taxonomic work which will be appearing soon (Pakaluk, Slipihski & Lawrence, in 
press). As a means of ratifying this and of promoting universality in the usage of 
the name I propose that aspidiphoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) be placed on the 
Official List. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that Arpidipliorus is an incorrect original 
spelling of Aspidiphonts Ziegler in Dejean, 1821; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Nitidula orbiculata Gyllenhal, 1 808; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name orbiculata 
Gyllenhal, 1808, as published in the binomen Nitidula orbiculata (specific name 
of the type species of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean. 1821); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
aspidiphoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) (type genus Aspidiphorus Ziegler in 
Dejean, 1821); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaHd Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(di) Arpidipliorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (ruled in (l)(a) above to be an 
incorrect original spelling oi Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821); 

(b) Aspidoplwrus Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Aspidiphorus 
Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 and a junior homonym oi' Aspidoplwrus Lacepede, 
[1801]); 

(c) Box Gistel, 1848 (an unnecessary replacement name for Aspidiphorus 
Ziegler in Dejean, 1821); 

(d) Coniporus Thomson, 1859 (a junior objective synonym of Aspidiphorus 
Ziegler in Dejean, 1821). 

Acknowledgements 

J.G. Franclemont, Q.D. Wheeler, W.L. Brown Jr. and P.R. Fraissinet (all at Cornell 
University) and J. Pakaluk (S.E.L. Laboratory. National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D. C ) reviewed an early version of this proposal. 
A.F. Newton Jr. (Field Museum of Natural History) originally encouraged me to 
address these nomenclatural issues and provided helpful information. Mrs A. Gentry 
of the Commission Secretariat assisted with the preparation of the application. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 47 

References 

Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis. Conlinens Nomina Systematica 

Classiiim. Ordimim. Familiarum et Generum Animalium Omnium ... viii, 393 pp. Jent & 

Gassmann. Soloduri. 
Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefanska, J. 1986. Katalog Fauny Pohki. Czesc 23, 

vol. 12. Chrzaszcze Coleoptera. Cucujoidea. Czesc 1. 266 pp. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo 

Naukowe, Warszawa. 
Burakowski, B. & Slipinski, S.A. 1987. A new species of Protosphindtis (Coleoptera: 

Sphindidae) from Chile with notes and descriptions of immature stages of related forms. 

Annali del Museo Civico di Sloria Naturale Giacomo Doria. Genova, 86: 605-625. 
Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 214 pp. Lloyd, 

London. 
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de coleopteres de M. le Baron Dejean. 136 pp. 

Crevot, Paris. 
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des coleopteres de la collection de M. Le Comte Dejean. 

Ed. 3. 503 pp. Mequignon-Marvis, Paris. 
Freude, H., Harde, K.V. & Lohse, G.A. 1967. Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas. vol. 7 (Clavicomia). 

310 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 
Gistel, J. 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs fiir hohere Schulen. xvi, 216 pp., 32 pis. 

Hoffmann, Stuttgart. 
Gyllenhal, L. 1808. Insecta Svecica. Descripla a Leonardo Gyllenhal. Classis I. Coleoptera sive 

Eleuterata, vol. 1. viii, 572, xx pp. Leverentz, Scaris. 
Horion, A. 1960. Faunistik der mitteleuropdischen Kdfer, vol. 8. 375 pp. Feyel. Uberlingen- 

Bodensee. 
Houlbert, C. (Doin, G., Ed.). 1922. Les coleopteres d'Europe, France et regions voisines, vol. 2. 

340 pp. Doin, Paris. 
Jacquelin du Val, P.N.C. 1859-1863. Manuel entomotogique. Genera des coleopteres d'Europe. 

comprenant lew classification en families naturelles. la description de tous les genres .... 

vol. 3. 464 pp. Deyrolle, Paris. 
Kiesenwetter, E.A.H. von. 1877. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deulschlands (W.F. Erichson), 

vol. I (Coleoptera), part 5, Halfte 1. 877 pp. Nicolai, Berlin. 
Latreille, P.A. 1829. Crustaces. arachnides et partie des insectes. In Cuvier, G.L.F.D., Le regne 

animal distribue d'apres son organisation, Ed. 2, vol. 4. 584 pp. Deterville, Paris. 
McHugh, J.V. 1993. A revision of Eurysphindus LeConte (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Sphin- 
didae) and a review of sphindid classification and phylogeny. Systematic Entomology, 18: 

57-92. 
Merkl, O. 1986. Erotylidae. Mycetophagidae, Endomychidae, Arpidiphoridae and Cisidae of 

the Kjskunsag National Park (Coleoptera). In Mahunka, S. (Ed.). The fauna of the 

Kiskunsag National Park. vol. 1. 491 pp. Kiado, Budapest. 
Schenkling, S. 1931. Coleopterorum Catalogus. vol. 16, part 117. Sphindidae. 4 pp. Aspidi- 

phoridae. 2 pp. Junk. Berlin. 
Silfverberg, H. (Ed.). 1979. Enwneratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. vi, 79 pp. 

Helsingin Hyonteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki. 
Silfverberg, H. 1992. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae. Daniae et Baltiae. v, 92 pp. 

Helsingfors Entomologiska Bytesforening, Helsinki. 
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. 1979. The coleopteran family Sphindidae. Entomologist's 

Monthly Magazine, 113: 177-191. 
Sen Gupta, T. & Pal, T.K. 1982. Three new species of Sphindidae (Coleoptera: Clavicomia) 

from India and Sri Lanka. Entomologica Basiliensia, 7: 387-393. 
Sturm, J. 1826. Catalog meiner Insecten Sammtung, vol. 1 (Kafer). viii, 207, 16 pp., 4 pis. 

Niimberg. 
Thomson, C.G. 1859. 1863. Skandinaviens Coleoptera. svnoptiskt bearbelade, vol. 1. 290 pp. 

(1859); vol. 5, 340 pp. (1863). Lund. 



48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2872 

XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and quediini Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed precedence over senior synonyms, and Quedius 
Stephens, 1829: proposed designation of Staphylinus levicollis Brulle, 
1832 as the type species 

Alfred F. Newton, Jr. 

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

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is the conservation of the staphyUnid beetle 
family-group names xantholinini Erichson, 1839 and quediini Kraatz, 1857, which 
have senior but unused synonyms. The type species of Quedius Stephens, 1 829 has 
been cited as 'Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802' but this is not an available name 
for the relevant taxon and it is proposed that the valid nominal species S. levicollis 
Brulle, 1832 be designated as the type species in accordance with the current 
ta.xonomic usage. 



1. Nordmann (1837) established several new names for 'familiae' in what is now 
the family staphylinidae, including Platycnemidifomnes (p. 6) for his new genus 
Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837 (p. 135; type species by monotypy P. lateritius 
Nordmann, 1837) and Agraeformes (p. 7) for his new genera Agrodes and Araeo- 
cnemus. Although these names do not have modem endings and were not formed 
from the correct stem according to the current Code, they are clearly latinized and 
based on a type genus (Agrodes was named after Agra ('ab Agra', p. 161), and the 
family name Agraeformes was apparently derived from the genitive of this (Agrae) 
rather than directly from Agrodes). Nordmann's family names must be considered 
available, but neither of them has been used subsequently as the valid name of a 
group (see Newton & Thayer, 1992, p. 25), although they were cited as junior 
synonyms by Handlirsch (1925, p. 573). 

2. Kirby (1837. p. 88) established a new family name gyrohypnidae for 
Gyrohypnus 'Kirb. Steph.' (actually Samouelle, 1819, p. 172). Problems with 
authorship and type species designations for Gyrohypnus were reviewed by 
Smetana (1979) and resolved in Opinion 1250 (BZN 40: 85-87; July 1983) where 
the genus and its type species were placed on Official Lists. Kirby's family name 
has not been used subsequently as valid, or even cited as a synonym (Newton & 
Thayer, 1992, p. 25). However, the name gyrohypnini was proposed indepen- 
dently by Hatch (1957, p. 233) as a replacement name for xantholinini Erichson, 
1839 (p. 626) when the type genus Xantholinus Dejean, 1821 (p. 23) of the 
latter tribe was considered a junior objective synonym of Gyrohypnus. Hatch's 
use of gyrohypnini has not been followed by later authors (e.g. Arnett, 1963). 
The action of Opinion 1250 removed the objective synonymy of Gyrohypnus 
and Xantholinus. each of which is now considered a valid genus (e.g. Smetana, 
1982). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 49 

3. Erichson (1839. p. 28) established the name xantholinini for Xantholinus 
'Dahl.' (actually Dejean, 1821) and several other genera. As with Gyrohypnus. 
problems with authorship and type species designations for Xantholinus were 
resolved in Opinion 1250. The name xantholinini (or xantholininae) has been in 
universal use since the time of Erichson for a large tribe or subfamily of staphylin- 
IDAE (sometimes including subordinate tribes or subtribes) except for the single use of 
GYROHYPNiNi by Hatch (1957) noted in para. 2 above. A list of 37 representative 
works illustrating usage of family-group names based on Xantholinus has been given 
to the Commission Secretariat. Among the more than 120 genus-group names 
currently included in the smallest family-group unit containing Xantholinus are 
Gyrohypnus and Agrodes (see paras. 1 and 2 above). Agrodes is currently treated as 
a subgenus oi Plochionocerus Dejean, 1833 (e.g. Blackwelder, 1952, p. 42). 

4. Kraatz ([1857], p. 473) estabhshed the family-group name Quediiformes for 
Quedius Stephens, 1829 (p. 22) and several other genera. The name quediini (or 
QUEDiiNAE, quediina) has been in universal use since that time for a large tribe (or 
subfamily or subtribe) of staphylinidae, sometimes including subordinate tribes 
or subtribes. A list of 37 representative works illustrating such usage has been given 
to the Commission Secretariat. Among the nearly 90 genus-group names currently 
included in the smallest family-group unit containing Quedius is Platycnemus, type 
genus of the older name platycnemini Nordmann, 1837 (see para. 1 above). 
Platycnemus is currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Haematodes 
Laporte, 1835 (e.g. Blackwelder, 1952, p. 312), which has not been used as the basis 
of a family-group name. 

5. The composition of the tribe or subtribe qltediini (-ina) has been undergoing 
revision and restriction in recent years (e.g. Smetana, 1977, 1984, 1988). The 
placement of Haematodes (or Platycnemus) has not been discussed in this connection, 
but examination of species of this genus indicates that Haematodes does not fit 
Smetana's restricted concept of quediini and may eventually be assigned to another 
named group of the subfamily staphylininae or form part of a new group. Most 
other currently recognized groups in the staphylininae also have younger names 
that would be threatened by addition of Haematodes (or Platycnemus) with its older 
but unused family-group name platycnemini Nordmann, 1837 (see Newton & 
Thayer, 1992, pp. 64—66, for complete list of current names and dates). Stability of 
group names in the staphylininae will be served best if the name platycnemini is 
not allowed to threaten any of the group names in current use in this subfamily, but 
is available as the name of a group containing Haematodes (see para. 4 above) and 
lacking other available names. 

6. Questions about the publication date and type species designation for Quedius. 
type genus of the quediini, require resolution. Stephens (1829, p. 22) first used the 
name Quedius in a list, including under it 38 species names of which many are 
available names of earlier authors; inclusion of such names establishes availability of 
the generic name (Article 12b(5) of the Code). Although Blackwelder (1952, p. 335) 
and one or two later authors have cited this (1829) reference, most authors have 
continued to date Quedius from the formal description of the genus by Stephens 
(1832, p. 214). The earliest and generally accepted type species designation for 
Quedius was made by Curtis (1837, plate 638), who named the first-listed species of 
Stephens (1829), '5ra/7/i>'/mM5 /rarw Gravenhorst', as type; Blackwelder (1952, p. 335) 



50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

documents later designations. ' Slaphylimis tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, p. 34' has been 
widely, and is currently, treated as a valid species of Quedius and cited as the type 
species of the genus (e.g. by Smetana, 1958, pp. 328, 362; Coiffait, 1978, pp. 9, 192). 
However, Gravenhorst (1802, p. 34) did not propose a new name S. tristis but 
referred his description under this name to ' Staphylinus tristis Fabr. Syst. Ent. St. n. 
21' (i.e. Fabricius, 1792. p. 524). This Fabricius name has long been placed as a 
synonym oi Staphylimts picipermis Fabricius, 1792 (p. 521) or, in some recent works, 
used as the name of a 'variety' of S. picipermis (e.g. by Coiffait, 1974, p. 507). 
Staphylinus Linnaeus. 1758 and allied genera into which S. picipennis has often been 
moved are placed in the tribe (or subtribe) staphylinini (-ina), whereas Quedius and 
its quoted type species '5. tristis Gravenhorst' is currently placed in the tribe (or 
subtribe) quediini (-ina). The problem of the unavailability of the name 'Staphylinus 
tristis Gravenhorst' was noted by both Tottenham (1949) and Blackwelder (1952) but 
with different results. Tottenham (1949, p. 376) followed previous authors in 
considering S. tristis of Gravenhorst and of Fabricius as representing different taxa; 
as type species of Quedius he designated 'Staphylinus laevicollis Brulle, 1832', a 
subjective synonym oi ' Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, nee Fabricius, 1792'. 
However, this designation does not meet the strict requirements of Article 69a(i) and 
(v) of the Code, since Stephens did not state that S. tristis Gravenhorst was a 
misidentification (cf Article 70c) and S. laevicollis was not an originally included 
nominal species. In contrast, Blackwelder (1952. p. 335) cited Staphylinus tristis 
Fabricius, 1792 as type species of Quedius, without comment (and without change in 
the taxonomic status and placement of the genus), implicitly assuming that S. tristis 
of Gravenhorst and Fabricius represent the same taxon. Blackwelder's type species 
citation is formally valid but the consequential taxonomic assignment of the name 
Quedius would be at odds with the conclusions of all other authors that Gravenhorst 
misidentilied Staphylinus tristis Fabricius and that the Fabricius species belongs in 
Staphylinus or an allied genus of the staphylinini. In accordance with the Code 
(Articles 41, 65, 70) this case of a misidentified type species of a genus that is the type 
genus of a family-group taxon must be referred to the Commission. Stability in the 
application of the name Quedius at the generic and subgeneric levels, as well as 
application of the family-group name quediini, will be served best if an available 
name for the taxon 'Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, nee Fabricius, 1792' is 
adopted for the type species. The oldest and therefore valid such name (e.g. Smetana, 
1958, p. 362; Coiffait, 1978. p. 192) is the subjective synonym Staphylinus levicollis 
Brulle (1832, p. 131 ), previously selected as the type species of Quedius by Tottenham 
(1949, p. 376), as mentioned above. BruUe's name is generally spelled as the 
nomenclaturally equivalent laevicollis (see Article 58 of the Code). It is proposed here 
that the Commission use its plenary powers to set aside all other type designations for 
Quedius and designate Staphylinus levicollis Brulle as the type species in taxonomic 
agreement with the designation of Curtis (1837) mentioned above. 

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

(I) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the family-group name xantholinini Erichson, 1839 is 
to be given precedence over the names agrodini Nordmann, 1837 and 
gyrohypnini Kirby, 1837; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 51 

(b) to rule that the family-group name quediini Kraatz, 1857 is to be given 
precedence over platycnemini Nordmann, 1837; 

(c) to rule that platycnemini Nordmann, 1837 is not to be given priority over 
junior family-group names in general current usage in the staphylininae; 

(d) to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Qiiediiis Stephens, 1829 and to designate Staphylinus levicoUis Brulle, 1832 
as the type species; 

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

(a) Agrodes Nordmann, 1837 (gender; neuter), type species by monotypy 
Agrodes elegans Nordmann, 1837; 

(b) Platycnemus Nordmann. 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- 
typy Platycnemus lateritius Nordmann, 1837; 

(c) Quedius Stephens, 1829 (gender; masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in { 1 )(d) above Staphylinus levicoUis Brulle, 1832; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names; 
(a) elegans Nordmann, 1837. as published in the binomen Agrodes elegans 

(specific name of the type species of Agrodes Nordmann, 1837); 
Vo) lateritius Nordmann, 1837, as published in the binomen Platycnemus 

lateritius (specific name of the type species of Platycnemus Nordmann, 

1837); 
(c) levicoUis Brulle, 1832, as published in the binomen Staphylinus levicoUis 

(specific name of the type species of Quedius Stephens. 1829); 

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

(a) AGRODiNi Nordmann, 1837 (type genus Agrodes Nordmann, 1837), with 
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Agrodes 
are not to be given priority over xantholinini Erichson, 1839 and other 
family-group names based on Xaniholinus Dejean, 1821; 

(b) xantholinini Erichson, 1839 (type genus Xantlwlimis Dejean, 1821), 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Xaniholinus are to be given precedence over those based on Agrodes 
Nordmann, 1837 or Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819; 

(c) GYROHYPNiNi Kirby, 1837 (type genus Gyrohypnus Samouelle. 1819). 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Gyrohypnus are not to be given priority over those based on Xaniholinus 
Dejean. 1821); 

(d) QUEDIINI Kraatz, 1857 (type genus Quedius Stephens, 1829) with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Quedius are to 
be given precedence over those based on Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837; 

(e) platycnemini Nordmann, 1837 (type genus P/a/vaje/HWi Nordmann, 1837) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Platycnemus are not to be given priority over over junior family-group 
names in general current usage in the staphylininae. 

Acknowledgements 

I thank Drs Ales Smetana and Margaret K. Thayer for reading and providing helpful 
comments on a draft of this application. 



52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

References 

Arnett, R.H. Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. A manual for identification, xi, 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: 1^83. 
BruUe, A. 1832. //; Bory St Vincent. J.B.G.M., Expedition scientifique de Moree. Section des 

sciences physiques, vol. 3, part 1 (Zoologie), section 2 (Des animaux articles). 400 pp. 

Levrault, Paris. 
CoUfait, H. 1974. Coleopteres Staphylinidae de la region palearctique occidentale. II. Sous 

famille Staphylininae, tribus Philonthini et Staphylinini. Nouvelle Revue d'Entomologie, 

Supplement, 4(4): 1-593. 
Coiifait, H. 1978. Coleopteres Staphylinidae de la region palearctique occidentale. III. Sous 

famille Staphylininae. tribu Quediini; sous famille Paederinae, tribu Pinophilini. Nouvelle 

Revue d'Entomologie, Supplement. 8(4): 1-364. 
Curtis, J. 1837. [Species] 638, Quedius lateralis. In: British entomology, being illustrations 

and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland .... vol. 14. 

London. 
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de coleopteres de M. le Baron Dejean ... Ed. 

1. viii. 136 pp. Crevot, Paris. 
Erichson, W.F. 1839. Genera et species staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae, 

part 1. viii. 400 pp. Morin, Berolini. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 1 (Eleuterata). part 2. 

538 pp. Hafniae. 
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia nee non e.xoticorum quotquot 

exstant in collectionibus entomologorum Brunsvicensium in genera familiae et species 

distribuit. Ixvi. 206 pp. Reichard, Brunsuigae. 
Handiirsch, A. 1925. Systematische Ubersicht. Pp. 377-1140 in Schroder, C. (Ed.), Handbuch 

der Entomologie, vol. 3 (Geschichte. Literatur, Technik, Paliiontologie, Phylogenie. 

Systematik). viii, 1201 pp. Fischer, Jena. 
Hatch, M.H. 1957. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest, part 2 (Staphyliniformia). University 

of Washington Publications in Biology. 16: 1-384. 
Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. //; Richardson, J. (Ed.), Fauna Boreali-Americana: or the 

zoology of the northern parts of British America ..., part 4. 325 pp., 8 pis. Fletcher, 

Norwich. 
Kraatz, G. [1857]. Staphylini. Pp. 377-768 in Erichson, W.F., Naturgeschichte der Insekten 

Deutschlands, Abt. 1 (Coleoptera), vol. 2. 1079 pp. Nicolai, Berlin. 
Newton, A.F. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in 

Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana Zoology. (n.s.)67: 1-92. 
Nordmann, A. 1837. Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum. 167 pp., 2 pis. Academiae 

Caesareae Scientiarum, Petropoli. 
Samouelle, G. 1819. The entomologist 's useful compendium: or an introduction to the knowledge 

of British insects ... 496 pp., 12 pis. Boys, London. 
Smetana, A. 1958. Drabcikoviti — Staphyhnidae I, Staphylininae (Rad: Brouci — Coleoptera). 

Fauna CSR. 12: 1^35. 
Smetana, A. 1977. The nearctic genus Beeria Hatch. Taxonomy, distribution and ecology 

(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Enlomologica Scandinavica. 8: 177-190. 
Smetana, A. 1979. 'Slaphylinus fulgidus' as the type species of several staphylinid genera 

(Insecta. Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 36: 44-52. 
Smetana, A. 1982. Revision of the subfamily Xantholininae of America north of Mexico 

(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 120: 1-389. 
Smetana, A. 1984. Le 'culte de I'edeage': reflexions addilionnelles, suivies d'une discussion sur 

le concept de la sous-tribu Heterothopsi Coiffait 1978 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). 

Nouvelle Revue d'Entomologie. (n.s.)l: 277-282. 
Smetana, A. 1988. Revision of the tribes Quediini and Atanygnathini. Part 2. The Himalayan 

region (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Quaestiones Enlomologicae, 24: 163-464. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 53 

Stephens, J.F. 1 829. 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 ... 68 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. 
Stephens, J.F. 1832. Pp. 1-240 in: Illustrations of British entomology, or a synopsis of indigenous 

insects .... Mandibulata, vol. 5. 446 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. 
Tottenham, C.E. 1949. The generic names of the British Staphylinidae with a check list of the 

species. Pp. 348-466 in: The generic names of British insects, part 9. 466 pp. Royal 

Entomological Society of London, London. 



54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Case 2916 

Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
designation of Blastothrix {Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 
1964 as the type species 

Natalia D. Voinovich, Vladimir A. Trjapitzin & Eugeny S. Sugonjaev 

Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of Sciences, 1 Universitetskaya 
naberezhnaya, 199134 St. Petersburg. Russia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Blastothrix (Meta- 
blastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species of the encyrtid 
genus Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964. At present the type species is Microterys 
triincatipennis Ferriere. 1955 but this was based on a misidentification. Metablasto- 
thrix has a Holarctic distribution and the species are secondary parasitoids of some 
injurious coccids. Conservation of the generic name will help to ensure stability in the 
economically important family encyrtidae Walker, 1837. 



1. Mayr (1876, p. 697) established the genus Blastothrix. Its type species is 
Encyrtus sericeus Dalman, 1820 (p. 357) by subsequent designation of Ashmead 
(1900, p. 389). Blastothrix belongs to the subtribe blastotrichina Erdos & Novicky, 
1955 (p. 167) (this is the correct spelling, see p. 223 of the Code) of the tribe aphycini 
Hoffer, 1954 and now includes 24 described species. Members of this genus are 
primary endoparasitoids of coccids (Homoptera, coccidae). 

2. Ferriere (1955, p. 127) described Microterys truncatipennis from Germany, 
which parasitizes the coccid Eulecanium franconicum Lindinger, 1912. HoflTer (1957, 
p. 220) transferred Ferriere's species to Blastothrix Mayr, 1876. Sugonjaev (1959, 
p. 169: 1960, p. 378; 1962, pp. 193. 194) identified as B. truncatipennis specimens 
reared by him from the same coccid species in the Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) 
Province. 

3. Sugonjaev (1964, p. 371) established Metablastothrix as a subgenus of Blasto- 
thrix and later Sugonjaev & Babaev (1978, p. 66) raised Metablastothrix to generic 
rank. 

4. Sugonjaev (1964) originally included in Metablastothrix two nominal species: 
Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) truncatipennis (Ferriere), designated by him as the type 
species, and a new species B. ( M. ) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 (p. 371) from 
Kazakhstan, Trjapitzin & Gordh (1978a, p. 379) transferred to Metablastothrix the 
North American species Microterys claripennis Compere, 1928. 

5. In 1991-1992 the authors of the present application examined the type series 
of Microterys truncatipennis Ferriere, 1955 preserved in the Museum d"Histoire 
naturelle, Geneva. All specimens of the type material, the female holotype (of which 
only legs are left), two female paratypes and one male paratype are not congeneric 
with the species studied by Sugonjaev (1959) and do not accord with the description 
and concept of Metablastothrix, but belong to Blastothrix in accordance with 
HofTer's (1957) placement (see para. 2 above). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 55 

6. The type species of Metablastothrix was based on a misidentification and 
retention of the nominal species Microterys iruncaiipennis Ferriere, 1955 as type 
would render Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 a junior subjective synonym of 
Blaslothrix Mayr, 1876. To preserve the current understanding and usage of the 
name Metablastothrix which is already included in some reviews and monographs 
(e.g. Trjapitzin & Gordh. 1978a. 1978b; Sugonjaev, 1984; Sugonjaev & Trjapitzin, 
1988; Trjapitzin, 1989) it is proposed that Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isoinorpha 
Sugonjaev, 1964 be designated as its type species. 

7. The International Conrunission 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 Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 and to designate 
Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- 
nation in (1) above Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name isomorpha 
Sugonjaev, 1964, as published in the binomen Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) 
isomorpha (specific name of the type species of Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 
1964). 

References 

Ashmead, W.H. 1900. On the genera of the chalcid-flies belonging to the subfamily Encyrtinae. 

Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 22(1202): 323-412. 
Dalman, J.W. 1820. Forsok till Uppstallning af Insect-familjen Pteromalini, i synnerhet med 

afseende pa de i Sverige funne Arter. Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 

1820(2): 340-385. 
Erdos, J. & Novicky, S. 1955. Genera Encvrtidarum regionis palaearticae . Beitrdge zur 

Entomologie, 5{\l2y. 165-202. 
Ferriere, C. 1955. Encyrtides nouveaux ou peu connus (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). 

Mitleilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 28(1): 115-136. 
Hoffer, A. 1957. Miscellanea encyrtidologica I. Eighth preliminary paper for the monographic 

investigation of the Czechoslovak Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Acta 

Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae. 31(486): 191-220. 
Mayr, G. 1876. Die europaischen Encyrtiden. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen 

Gesellschaft in Wien, 25: 675-778. 
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1959. Fauna of Chalcids (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) — parasites of 

Coccoidea (Homoptera) in Leningrad Province. Pp. 168-171 in: Theses of Reports of the 

IV Congress of the All- Union Entomological Society (Leningrad. 23 January — 3 February 

1960). Vol. 2. [In Russian]. 
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1960. On the species of the genera allied to Apliycus Mayr (Hymenoptera, 

Chalcidoidea) from the European part of the U.S.S.R. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 

39(2): 364-383. [In Russian]. 
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1962. On the fauna and ecology of parasitic chalcid wasps (Hymenoptera, 

Chalcidoidea) infesting scale insects in the Leningrad region. Trudy Zoologicheskogo 

Instilula .4kademiya Nauk SSSR. 31: 172-196. [In Russian]. 
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1964. Palaearctic species of the genus Blastothrix Mayr (Hymenoptera, 

Chalcidoidea) with remarks on their biology and economic importance. Part 1. 

Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 43(2): 368-390. [In Russian]. 
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1984. Chalcid-flies (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) parasites of coccids 

(Homoptera, Coccoidea) of the fauna of the U.S.S.R. Complex investigation of host- 
parasite systems in insects. 234 pp. Nauka, Leningrad. (Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta 

Akademii Nauk SSSR, 117). [In Russian]. 



56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Sugonjaev, E.S. & Babaev, T. 1978. On chalcidoid parasites (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) of 

Lecaniid scales (Homoptera, Coccoidea) in Tadjikistan. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 

57(1): 48-67. [In Russian]. 
Sugonjaev, E.S. & Trjapitzin, V.A. 1988. Chalcids of the genus Metablastothrix Sugonjaev 

(Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) and peculiarities of their distribution in North America and 

Eurasia. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 67(1): 182-187. [In Russian). 
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1989. Parasitic Hymenoptera of the fam. Encyrtidae oj the Palaearctic. 488 pp. 

Nauka, Leningrad. (Opredeliteli po faune SSSR, issue 158). [In Russian]. 
Trjapitzin, V.A. & Gordh, G. 1978a. Review of genera of Nearctic Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera, 

Chalcidoidea). I. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 57(2): 364-385. [In Russian]. 
Trjapitzin, V.A. & Gordh, G. 1978b. Review of genera of Nearctic Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera. 

Chalcidoidea). II. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 57(3): 636-653. [In Russian]. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 57 

Case 2897 

Agoniis Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): 
proposed conservation; agonidae Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) 
and AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): 
proposed removal of homonymy 

B.A. Sheiko 

Ichthyology, Collections, Kamchatka Institute of Ecology, Russian Academy 
of Sciences, Partizanskaya 6, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 683000, Russia 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the generic name Agonus 
Bloch & Schneider, 1801 for a single species. The name is threatened by the senior 
objective synonym Aspidoplwrus Lacepede, [1801], for which suppression is pro- 
posed. Agonus catapliractus (Linnaeus, 1758) is a common fish found in European 
northern seas and is of economic importance as a predator on young edible 
shellfish. It is also proposed that the homonymy between agonidae Swainson, 1839 
(Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) and agonidae Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) be 
removed by emending the stem of the generic name Agonum Bonelli, 1810, on which 
the insect family-group name is based, to agonum-. 



1. Lacepede ([1801], p. 221) established the new genus Aspidoplwrus in vol. 3 of his 
Histoire naturelle des poissons, dated as 'An X' (23 September 1801-22 September 
1802) of the French republican calendar. The volume was consistently dated as 1802 
until Roux (1973) demonstrated that it appeared shortly before 16 October 1801, 
when Lacepede presented the published work to the French Academy of Sciences. 
Lacepede included two nominal species in Aspidoplwrus. Bory de Saint Vincent 
(1822, p. 27) designated Coitus catapliractus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species, which 
Lacepede included in the genus under the synonymy of his own Aspidoplwrus arinatus 
Lacepede, [1801]. 

2. Linnaeus (1758, p. 264) based the description of his species Coitus catapliractus 
on two sources, Artedi's (1738) Ichthyologia (Genera piscium, p. 49; Synonymia, 
p. 77; and Descriptiones Specierum, p. 87) and Linnaeus's own (1754) Museum 
Adolphi Friderici (p. 70). Femholm & Wheeler (1983, p. 236) accepted a specimen in 
the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm (catalogue no. NRM 2808) as 
part of the type series. 

3. Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 104, pi. 27) established the genus Agonus to include 
four nominal species, among them Cottus catapliractus Linnaeus. It has proved 
impossible to ascertain the exact date of appearance of Bloch's work, published 
posthumously by Schneider (see Sheiko, [1993]), the earliest mention of the work 
known to me being that of 8 April 1 802 in the journal Gottingische Gelehrie Anzeigen 
unter der Aufsicht der konigliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (1802, vol. 1, parts 
56-57, p. 553). Under Article 21c(ii) of the Code publication must therefore be 
deemed to be 31 December 1801. The type species of Agonus is C. catapliractus 
Linnaeus by subsequent designation by Tilesius in Pallas ([1814], p. 109, footnote; see 



58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52( 1 ) March 1995 

Opinion 212. March 1954 for the date of publication of Pallas's work). Gill (1861, 
p. 161) cited C. cataphraclus as the type species. 

4. It follows that Agonus Bloch & Schneider is a junior objective synonym of 
Aspidophoius Lacepede. Aspidophoms was occasionally used as valid by authors in 
the first half of the 19th century (e.g. Bory de Saint Vincent, 1822, who commented 
'C'est y Agonus de Schneider') but all later authors have placed it in the synonymy of 
Agonus. The genus currently includes the single species A. cataphraclus which is very 
common and is discussed in faunistic, ecological and experimental works. The most 
important works published in the last 50 years in which the name has appeared 
include Poll (1947), Saemundsson (1949), Andriashev (1954, 1986), Bruun & Pfaff 
(1950), Wheeler (1969, 1978), Joensen & Tuning (1970). Russell (1976) and Ilyma 
(1978). I propose that the name Agonus should be conserved by the suppression of 
Aspidophoms. 

5. An application (Case 2918) for the conservation of the coleopteran name 
Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 by Dr Joseph V. McHugh (Cornell University, 
Ithaca. New York. U.S.A.) is published in BZN 52: 44^7 (March 1995). Dr McHugh 
has also proposed that the name Aspidophoms Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified 
emendation of Aspidiphorus Ziegler and a junior homonym of Aspidophorus 
Lacepede, [1801]) be placed on the Official Index. 

6. The family name agonidae was established by Swainson (1839, pp. 181, 272) 
based on Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801. The name is in general use for a family 
which includes some 20 nominal genera and 45 nominal species. Members of this 
family are found in all the northern seas and also along the coasts of Chile and 
Argentina. Many species are very common and have considerable ecological 
importance. 

7. The genus Agonuni was described by Bonelli (1810). His Observations ento- 
mologicpies appeared in two parts, part 1 in 1810 (Memoires de I Academic Iinperiale 
des Sciences, Litterature et Beaux-Arts de Turin, 18; 21-78) and part 2 in 1813 
(Memoires de i Academic Imperiale .... 20: 433-484), Agoniim appeared in Bonelli's 
Tabula synoptica, which was not published in either part in the Memoires but which 
appeared (1810) with the reprints of part 1 (see Gaskin & Lewis, 1956; Madge, 1975; 
Liebherr, 1986). Part 1 of the Observations entomologiques. including the Tabula 
synoptica, was approved as an available work by the Commission in Opinion 1226 
(September 1982). There were no species included in Agonum until Panzer (1813, 
p. 52) included 12 nominal taxa, among them Carabus marginatus Linnaeus, 1758 
(p. 416). The latter was designated the type of Agonum by Curtis (1827, text to 
fig. 183; see Madge, 1975 for details). 

8. The family agonidae was established by Kirby (1837, p. 23) based on Agonum 
Bonelli, 1810. The name agonidae is currently regarded as a junior synonym of 
PLATYNiNi Bonelli, 1810 (see Habu, 1973, p. 70). The latter (originally published as 
'Platynii') was based on Platynus Bonelli, 1810. The genera Agonum and Platynus are 
closely related (see Liebherr, 1986) and their names are often considered to be 
synonyms (see, for example, Habu, 1973; Kryzhanovskij, 1983). However, the 
possibility that at some time a family-group based on Agonuni might be required 
cannot be excluded. 1 therefore propose that the homonymy between agonidae 
Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) and agonidae Kirby, 1837 (Insecta) be removed by 
ruling that the stem of Agonum is agonum-. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 59 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers; 

(a) to suppress the generic name Aspidophorus Lacepede, [1801] for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the 
generic name Agonwii Bonelli, 1810 is agonum-; 

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

(a) Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Tilesius in Pallas ([1814]) Cottus cataphractus 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (gender; neuter), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Curtis (1827) Carabus marginatiis Linnaeus, 1758; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names; 
(a) cataphractus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cottus cata- 
phractus (specific name of the type species of Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 
1801); 

(h) marginatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Carabus 
marginatus (specific name of the type species o( Agonum Bonelli, 1810); 

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

(a) AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839, type genus Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 
(Osteichthyes); 

(b) AGONUMIDAE Kirby, 1837, type genus Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (spelling 
emended by the ruling in (l)(b) above) (Insecta); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Aspidophorus Lacepede, [1801], as suppressed in (l)(a) 
above; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name agonidae Kirby, 1837 (spelling emended to agonumidae in 
(l)(b) above). 

References 

Andriashev, A.P. 1954. Ryby severnykh morei SSSR. [The fishes of the northern seas of 

the USSR]. 567 pp. Akademiya Nauk, Moscow. [In Russian; English translation 1964, 

617 pp., 300 figs. IPST, Jerusalem]. 
Andriashev, A.P. 1986. Agonidae. Pp. 1265-1268 in Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L., 

Hureau, J.-C, Nielsen, J. & Tortonese, E. (Eds.), Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and 

the Mediterranean, vol. 3. Unesco, Paris. 
Artedi, P. 1738. Ichlliyologiae (C. Linnaeus, Ed.), part 3 (Genera Piscium), 88 pp.; part 4 

(Synonymia Nominum Piscium), 118 pp.; part 5 (Descriptiones Specierum Piscium), 

112 pp. Wishoff, Lugduni Batavorum. 
Bloch, M.E. & Schneider, J.G. 1801. ME. Blochii ... Systema Ichtliyologiae iconibus ex 

illustralum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit J. Gottlob 

Schneider .... vol. 1. Ix, 584 pp. Berlin. 
Bonelli, F.-A. 1810. Observations entomologiques. Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera 

Carabicorum in Sectiones et Stirpes disposita. Memoires de I'Academie Imperiale des 

Sciences. Litterature et Beaux-Arts de Turin, 18: 21-78. 



60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Bory de Saint Vincent, [J.B.] 1822. Aspidophore. P. 27 in B017 de Saint Vincent, [J.B.] (Ed.), 

Diclionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle. vol. 2. 621 pp. Rey, Paris. 
Bruun, A.F. & Pfaff, J.R. 1950. Fishes. Pp. 19-60 in: List of Danish venebrates. 180 pp. Dansk 

Vidensk. Forlag, Copenhagen. 
Curtis, J. 1827. British enlomology .... vol. 4. Pis. 147-194 and text. Author, London. 
Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural 

History, Stockholm. ZoologicalJournal of the Linnean Society of London, 78(3): 199-286. 
Gaskin, L.J.P. & Lewis, E. 1956. On the 'Tabula Synoptica" and the "Observations 

Entomologiques' of F.A. Bonelli. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural 

History, 3(3): 158-164 [with a fascimile of Bonelli's Tabula Synoptica]. 
Gill, T. 1861. Notes on some genera of fishes of the western coast of North America. 

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 13: 164-168. 
Habu, A. 1973. Notes on the generic name Agonum (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Entomological 

Review of Japan, 25: 65-70. 
Dyina, M.B. 1978. On the systematic status of the genus Podothecus Gill in the family 

Agonidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute. USSR Academy of Sciences, 213: 1 3-24. 

[In Russian]. 
Joensen, J.S. & Taning, A.V. 1970. Marine and freshwater fishes. Pp. 1-241 in Sparck, R. & 

Tuxen, S.L. (Eds.), Zoology of the Faroes, vol. 3, part 1. Copenhagen. 
Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. In Richardson, J., Swainson, W. & Kirby. W. (Eds.), Fauna 

Boreali- .4mericana ..., part 4. xxxix, 325 pp., 8 pis. Fletcher, Norwich. 
Kryzhanovskij, O.L. 1983. Fauna SSSR. Zhestkokrylye. vol. 1, part 2. 341 pp. Nauka, 

Leningrad. [In Russian]. 
Lacepede, B.G.E. [1801]. Hisloire naturelle des poissons. vol. 3. Ixvi, 558 pp., 34 pis. Plassan, 

Paris. 
Liebherr, J.K. 1986. Cladistic analysis of North American Platynini and revision of the 

Agonum extensicolle species group (Coleoptera: Carabidae). University of California 

Publications in Entomology. 106: 1-198. 
Linnaeus, C. 1754. Classis IV. Pisces. Pp. 51-80 in: Museum S.ae R:ae M.tis Adolphi Friderici 

Regis ... in quo Animalia rariora imprimis, et exotica ... describuntur ... xxx, 96, [8] pp., 

33 pis. Holmiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Madge, R.B. 1975. The type-species of Bonelli's genera of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Quaestiones 

Entomologicae, 11(4): 579-586. 
Pallas, P.S. [1814]. Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica. vol. 3. 428 pp. Petropoli. 
Panzer, G.W.F. 1813. Index entomologicus sistens omnes inseclorum species. Pars 1. Eleuth- 

erata. viii, 216 pp. Norimbergae. 
Poll, M. 1947. Fatme de Belgique. Poissons marins. 452 pp., 267 figs., 2 maps. Musee Royal 

d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Bruxelles. 
Roux, C. 1973. Les dates pour 'L'Histoire Naturelle des Poissons' de Lacepede. Bulletin de 

Liaison des Musees d'Histoire Naturelle, 14: 33-36. 
Russell, F.S. 1976. The eggs and planktonic stages of British marine fishes. 524 pp., 137 figs. 

Academic Press, London. 
Saemundsson, B. 1949. Marine Pisces. In Fridriksson, A. et al. (Eds.), The zoology of Iceland, 

vol. 4, part 72. 150 pp. Copenhagen. 
Sheiko, B.A. [1993]. A catalogue of fishes of the family Agonidae (Scorpaeniformes: Cottoidei). 

Proceedings of the Zoological Institute. USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, 235: 

65-95. [In Russian; English summary]. (The volume is for 1991 but was not published 

until 12 March 1993). 
Swainson, W.R. 1839. The natural history of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles or monocardian 

animals, vol. 2. vi, 452 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, London. 
Wheeler, A.C. 1969. The fishes of the British Isles and north-west Europe. 613 pp., 16 pis. 

Macmillan, London. 
Wheeler, A.C. 1978. Key to the fishes of northern Europe. A guide 10 the identification of more 

than 350 species, xix, 380 pp. Warne, London. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 61 

Case 2931 

Proposed conservation of nine specific names of southern Afrotropical 
birds which are junior synonyms 

P.A. Clancey 

Durban Natural Science Museum, P. O. Box 4085, Durban, 4000 

South Africa 

R.K. Brooke 

Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of 

Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7700 South Africa 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve nine widely used specific 
names of southern Afrotropical birds which are threatened by unused senior 
synonyms, eight of which were published in the Encyclopaedia Londinensis 
(1795-1829) edited by John Wilkes. The ninth unused name was published by 
C.J. Temminck (1807) in his Catalogue systematique du cabinet d'ornithologie. 



1. As a result of Rookmaaker's (1989) work on the early history of the 
zoological exploration of southern Africa, nine specific names of southern Afro- 
tropical birds in widespread use in the primary and more popular literatures were 
found to be antedated by long-overlooked synonyms. Eight of these names were 
published in the Encyclopaedia Londinensis (1795-1829) 'compiled, digested and 
arranged" in 24 volumes by John Wilkes. It appears (Rookmaaker, 1989) that 
Wilkes died in 1811; a note at the end of vol. 10 of the Encyclopaedia Londinensis 
says that the publishers had all the material necessary for completion of the work. 
There is no evidence as to the identity of the contributors, although Cassin (1867) 
and Sherbom (1922-1932) attributed the articles on birds to Wilkes in his capacity 
as editor. The ninth specific name was published by Temminck (1807, p. 85) 
for "Le Nabirop, ou etoumeau cuivre d'Afrique, Vaill. Ois. dAf v. 2, pi. 89"; 
Temminck"s specimen was probably presented to him by Francois Levaillant 
(Rookmaaker, 1989, p. 198). 

2. Most professional workers are now totally opposed to changing names 
unnecessarily, especially in cases such as the present where the recently discovered 
names have remained essentially ignored since 1820. Reference to the Wilkes 
names was made by the American worker John Cassin (1867) but his findings 
seem to have been ignored until the British workers Gregory Mathews & Tom 
Iredale (1921, p. 143) mentioned two of the names; Motacilla fimbriata Wilkes, 
1817 (p. 100), a junior synonym of Stipiturus malachurus Shaw, 1798, and 
M. tractrac Wilkes, 1817 (p. 89), a senior synonym of Oenanthe cinerea Vieillot, 
1818. Their paper resulted in the universal adoption of M. tractrac (now 
Cercomela tractrac; see Roberts, 1922, p. 231 and Sclater, 1930, p. 456). Curiously, 
Roberts (1924, p. 174) attributed the specific name to Boie instead of Wilkes, but 
without explanation. 



62 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 



3. We (Clancey & Brooke. 1990, p. 144) proposed the acceptance of Wilkes's 
authorship of two specific names widely used in the 20th century but normally 
attributed to later authors: those of Motacilla familiaris Wilkes, 1817 (p. 86), now 
Cercomela fainiliaris, and of M. formicivora Wilkes, 1817 (p. 88), now Oenanthe 

fonnicivora. The long acceptance of M. iracirac Wilkes, 1817 is the reason why we 
have not sought the suppression of the Encyclopaedia Londinensis for the purposes of 
zoological nomenclature. Also, we are quite unaware of what the effects of such a 
suppression might be on the nomenclature of groups other than African birds. 

4. The unused senior synonyms in the list below are threats to long-established 
names and we can see no advantages in using them to replace those in general use. 



Senior synonym 

Sturnus nabirop Temminck, 1807, 
p. 85 

Alauda rostro-crasso Wilkes, 

[1796], p. 235 

Alauda percutiens Wilkes, 

[1796], p. 236 

Motacilla citrina Wilkes, 1817, 

p. 78 

Motacilla v;nWw Wilkes, 1817, 

p. 80 

Motacilla arenarea Wilkes, 1817, 

p. 85 

Motacilla montana Wilkes, 1817, 

p. 89 

Motacilla rc/iec/f Wilkes, 1817, 

p. 94 

Oriolus africanus Wilkes, 1820, 

p. 740 



Junior synonym in use 

Lamprotornis nitens 

phoenicopterus Swainson, 

[1837], p. 360 

Galerida magnirostris 

(Stephens, 1826), p. 26 

Mirafra apiata (Vieillot, 

1816), p. 342 

Prinia flavicans (Vieillot, 

[1820]). p. 438 

Camaroptera brachyura (Vieillot, 

[1820]), p. 459 

Motacilla aguiinp Temminck 

[1820], p. Ixviii 

Oenanthe monticola Vieillot, 

1818, p. 434 

Zosterops pallidus 

Swainson, [1837], p. 294 

Oriolus larvatus Lichtenstein, 

1823, p. 20 



5. All the Wilkes names except M. viridis are recorded in Sherborn's Index 
Animalium, where however arenarea and tcheric are spelled as arenaria and teheric. 
Sherborn did not record Sturnus nabirop Temminck, 1807, although he did hst the 
nearly homonymous S. nahouroup Daudin, 1800 (p. 308). Temminck (1807, pp. 85, 
87) applied his own name S. nabirop and Daudin's S. nabouroup to different species, 
illustrated by Levaillant (1799) on pis. 89 and 91 with the vernacular names "le 
nabirop' and 'le nabouroup' of Hottentot origin. 

6. The Commission Secretariat holds a list of 56 primary literature references 
(mostly checklists and faunal works) published in the last 50 years in which the nine 
names proposed by Temminck and Wilkes do not appear but which illustrate usage 
of their junior synonyms. An examination of the 20th century periodical and more 
popular literature would produce a list of many hundreds of citations in support of 
current usage, and demonstrate lack of awareness of the nine names of Temminck 
and Wilkes. The case meets the prima facie criteria for conservation of names given 
in Article 79c of the Code. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 63 

7. 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) nabirop Temminck, 1807, as published in the binomen Sturnus nabirop; 
(h) rostrocrasso Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda rostro- 
crasso; 

(c) perculiens Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda percutiens; 

(d) citrinus Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa citrinus; 

(e) viridis Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Moiacilla viiidis; 

(f) arenarea Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa arenarea; 

(g) montana Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa montana; 
(h) tcheric Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa tcheric; 

(i) africanus Wilkes, 1820, as published in the binomen Oriolus africamis: 

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

(a) phoenicopterus Swainson, [1837], as published in the binomen Lamprotornis 
phoenicopterus; 

(b) magnirostris Stephens, 1826, as published in the binomen Alauda magniros- 
ths; 

(c) apiata Vieillot, 1816, as published in the binomen Alauda apiala; 

(d) flavicans Vieillot, [1820], as published in the binomen Sylvia flavicans; 

(e) brachyura Vieillot, [1820], as published in the binomen Sylvia brachyura; 

(f) aguimp Temminck, [1820], as published in the binomen MotaciUa aguimp; 

(g) monticola Vieillot, 1818, as published in the binomen Oenanthe nwnticola; 
(h) pallidus Swainson, [1837], as published in the binomen Zosterops pallidus: 
(i) larvaius Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Oriolus larvatus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) nabirop Temminck, 1807, as published in the binomen Sturnus nabirop and 
as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(h) rostrocrasso Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda rostro- 
crasso and as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) percutiens Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda percutiens 
and as suppressed in (l)(c) above; 

(d) citrinus Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa citrinus and as 
suppressed in (l)(d) above; 

(e) viridis Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa viridis and as 
suppressed in (l)(e) above; 

(f) arenarea Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa arenarea and 
as suppressed in (IKf) above; 

(g) montana Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa montana and 
as suppressed in (l)(g) above; 

(h) tcheric Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen MotaciUa tcheric and as 

suppressed in (l)(h) above; 
(i) africanus Wilkes, 1 820, as published in the binomen Oriolus africanus and 

as suppressed in (l)(i) above. 



64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

References 

Cassin, J. 1867. Fasti omithologiae, no. 3: Encyclopaedia londinensis or Universal dictionary 

... Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 19: 212-221. 
Clancey, P.A. & Brooke, R.K. 1990. Avian nomenclatural issues arising from the publication 

of Rookmaaker's The zoological exploration of southern Africa 1650-1790. Ostrich, 61: 

143-145. 
Daudin, F.M. 1800. Traite elementaire el complet d'ornithologie, vol. 2. 473 pp. Bertrandet, 

Paris. 
Levaillant, F. 1799. Histoire nalurelle des oiseaux d'Afrique. vol. 2 (pis. 50-97). 206 pp. Fuchs, 

Paris. 
Lichtenstein, M.H.C. 1823. Verzeichniss der Doubletlen des Zoologischen Museum der Konigl. 

Universitdt zu Berlin ... 118 pp. Berlin. 
Mathews, G.M. & Iredale, T. 1921. Notes of interest. Austral Avian Record, 4: 139-163. 
Roberts, A. 1922. Review of the nomenclature of South African birds. Annals of the Transvaal 

Museum, 8: 187-272. 
Roberts, A. 1924. Synoptic checklist of the birds of South Africa. Annals of the Transvaal 

Museum, 10: 89-195. 
Rookmaaker, L.C. 1989. The zoological exploration of southern Africa 1650-1790. 368 pp., 

16 pis. Balkema, Rotterdam. 
Sclater, W.L. 1930. Systema avium aethiopicarum, part 2. Pp. 305-922. Taylor & Francis, 

London. 
Sherborn, CD. 1922-1932. Index Animalium 1801-1850, section 2. 28 parts, cxxxvi. 7056 pp. 

British Museum, London. 
Stephens, J.F. 1826. In Shaw, G., General Zoology (Aves), vol. 14, part 1. 385 pp. Longman, 

London. 
Swainson, W. [1837]. Animals in menageries. Pp. 281-373 in Lardner, D., The Cabinet of 

Natural History. 373 pp. Longman, London. 
Temminck, C.J. 1807. Catalogue systematique du cabinet d'ornithologie et de la collection de 

cjuadrumanes de Crd. Jb. Temminck. 270 pp. Sepp Jansz, Amsterdam. 
Temminck, C.J. 1820. Manual d'Ornithologie. Ed. 2, part 1. cxv, 439 pp. Dufour, Paris. 
Wilkes, J. [1796]. Alauda. Pp. 234-236 in: Encyclopaedia Londinensis. vol. 1. 847 pp. Privately 

published, London. 
Wilkes, J. 1817. Motacilla. Pp. 74-104 in: Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16. 804 pp. Privately 

published, London. 
Wilkes, J. 1820. Oriolus. Pp. 737-743 in: Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 17. 867 pp. Privately 

published, London. 
Vieillot, L.J. P. 1816. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Nalurelle, Ed. 2, vol. 1, AAL-ANI. 
Vieillot, L.J. P. 1818. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, Ed. 2, vol. 21, MIN-MOZ. 
Vieillot, L.J.P. [1820]. Pp. 403-902 in: Bonnaterre. J.P. & Vieillot, L.J.P., Tableau Encyclo- 

paedique et Methodique. Trois Regnes de la Nature. Ornithologie, vol. 2. 902 pp. Agasse, 

Paris. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 65 

Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in 
Miinster, 1839 and Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 (MoUusca, Cephalopoda) 
(Case 2902; see BZN 51: 219-223) 

(1) D.T. Donovan 

Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Goner Street, 
London WC1E6BT. U.K. 

In my application to the Commission I omitted to mention that d'Orbigny. who is 
credited with the first available publication of the generic name Kelaeno in 1841, 
himself later abandoned that name in the sense in which he had first used it, and 
adopted Miinster's name Acanthoteuthis for the taxon in question. In 1845 (p. 407) 
he wrote in his systematic text : 'acanthoteuthis Wagner / Syn. Kelaeno Munster 
1846 (non Kelaeno Munster 1842)'. Thus it is clear that he adopted these two generic 
names in the sense used by the German palaeontologists Wagner and Munster. 

Additional reference 

Orbigny, A.d'. 1845. MoUusques vivants et fossiles ou description de toutes tes especes de 
coqiiilles et de moUusqiies classees suivant leur distribution geologique et geographique. 
vol. 1. 432 pp. Gide, Paris. 

(2) W. Riegraf 

Briiggefeldweg 31, D-48161 Miinster, Germany 

Donovan has clearly and correctly presented the facts concerning the state of 
Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Munster. 1839 and Kelaeno Munster, 1842. I fully support 
and agree with his proposals to the Commission. 

I may mention that Miinster (1839, p. 681) referred to Acanthoteuthis in a second 
paper, but as a nomen nudum. 

Additional reference 

Munster, G. Graf zu. 1839. Uber einige Versteinerungen in den lithographischen Schiefem von 
Baiern. Neues Jalirbuch fiir Mineralogie. Geognosie. Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 5: 
676-682. 

(3) Marion Nixon 

Department of Geology, Birkbeck College. Malet Street, London WCIE 7HX, UK 

I support the proposed application to conserve the current usage of the names 
Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Munster, 1839 and Kelaeno Munster, 1842 for two genera 
of Jurassic teuthoid coleid cephalopods. 

(4) Theo S. Engeser 

Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut und Museum, Universitdt Hamburg, 
Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany 



66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

1. I fully agree with Donovan that Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Miinster. 1839 is a 
valid genus with Acanthoteuthis speciosa Miinster, 1839 as its type species as 
designated by Biilow-Trummer in 1920. 

2. I also agree that Kelaeno was not made available in Miinster (1839) by the 
simple mention of the name. It does not appear in any combination with a valid 
specific name, nor is any indication given. 

3. D'Orbigny (1841) published Kelaeno with two nominal species, K. speciosa 
(Miinster, 1839) and K.prisca (Riippell, 1829). Under Article 12b(5) of the Code this 
makes Kelaeno d'Orbigny, 1841 an available name. No type species was designated 
by d'Orbigny (1841). Later d'Orbigny (1842-1846) figured four specimens under the 
name Kelaeno speciosa; three of them belong to Acanthoteuthis and one is the gladius 
of Plesioteuthis prisca (Riippell, 1829). D'Orbigny mixed up the two species, which 
belong to different orders of coleoid cephalopods. In Engeser (1986) I stated that 
Kelaeno d'Orbigny, 1841 is an objective synonym of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in 
Miinster, 1839. However, this is not correct since d'Orbigny had mentioned two 
species in combination with Kelaeno and a type species had not then been designated 
for that genus. In Engeser (1987) I corrected this and designated Acanthoteuthis 
speciosa Miinster, 1839 as its type species. Thus Kelaeno d'Orbigny, 1841 is an 
objective synonym of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Miinster, 1839. 

4. As stated in para. 2 of the application, it is clear that in 1842 Miinster used 
Kelaeno in a quite different sense from d'Orbigny the previous year. Miinster included 
two nominal species, K. scutellaris and K. arquata, and Biilow-Trummer (1920) later 
selected K. arquata as type species (para. 5 of the application). However, Kelaeno 
Miinster, 1842 is a homonym of Kelaeno d'Orbigny, 1841. Celaeno Owen, 1844 is 
only an incorrect subsequent spelling and not available, but Wagner (1860) explicitly 
'corrected' the latinization of Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 to Celaeno and this, although an 
unjustified emendation, is an available name. Celaeno Wagner, 1860 is a junior 
objective synonym of Kelaeno Miinster, 1842. 

5. Schevill (1950) wrongly interpreted Kelaeno Miinster, 1839 as an available name 
and Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 as a junior homonym of it. He proposed the replacement 
name Mtinsterella. but his designation of A', scutellaris as type species is invalid since 
K. arquata is automatically the type under Article 67h of the Code. Roger (1952) and 
Krimholz (1958) followed the argument of Schevill (1950). I (Engeser, 1988) rejected 
Schevill's (1950) argument and pointed out the homonymy between Kelaeno 
d'Orbigny, 1841 and Kelaeno Miinster, 1842. Two junior synonyms were available as 
a replacement name — Celaeno Wagner, 1860 and Mtinsterella Schevill, 1850. Since 
Celaeno Wagner, 1860 is preoccupied (see para. 3 of the application), I adopted 
Mtinsterella (now spelled Muensterella) Schevill, 1950 instead of Kelaeno Miinster, 
1842. I see no reason to change my view and therefore do not support Donovan's 
proposal. 

6. I also have a different view of the 'generally accepted usage' of Munster's 
Kelaeno. My synonymy list (Engeser, 1988) shows that in the past 150 years about ten 
authors have used the spelling Kelaeno (including the incorrect subsequent spellings 
Kalaeno Krimholz, 1958 and Kelaena Walther, 1904), about five authors have used 
Celaeno and four have used Mtinsterella (or its corrected form Muensterella). Kretzoi 
(1942) figured the genus in question under the generic name Listroteuthis Naef, 1922, 
but this was probably a lapsus calami for Celaeno since Listroteuthis was called 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 67 

Celaeno. Bandel & Boletzky (1988) called the genus Celaenoteuihis for unknown 
reasons. Since 1950, four authors have used Kelaeno (and variants, including 
Celaeno) and four authors Muensterella (including MimstereUa). It follows that there 
is no consistent use of the generic name Kelaeiw (including Celaeno) for the genus of 
coleoid cephalopods proposed by Miinster in 1842. 

7. Since there is confusion in the meaning of Kelaeno and also in its spelling, it 
would be best to reject Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 as a junior homonym of Kelaeno 
d'Orbigny, 1841, and to use the unambiguous replacement name Muensterella 
Schevill, 1950 (with Kelaeno arquata Miinster, 1842 as the type species). 

8. The family name kelaenidae (or celaenidae) based on Kelaeno (or Celaeno) 
has a similar inconsistent use in the literature. It would be preferable to replace it by 
MiJNSTERELLiDAE Roger, 1952 in its corrected form muensterellidae. 

9. For the reasons given above, I support Donovan's proposals regarding 
Acanthoteuthis but oppose the conservation o^ Kelaeno Miinster, 1842. Muensterella 
Schevill, 1850 should be used rather than Kelaeno. 

Additional references 

Bandel, K. & Boletzky, S. von. 1988. Features of development and functional morphology 

required in the reconstruction of early coleoid cephalopods. Pp. 229-246 //;; Wiedman, J. 

& KuUmann, J. (Eds.). Cephalopods — present and past. Schweizerbart'sche, Stuttgart. 
Engeser, T. 1986. Beschreibung einer wenig bekannten und einer neuen Coleoiden-Art 

(Vampyromorphoidea, Cephalopoda) aus dem Untertithonium von Solnhofen und 

Eichstatt (Bayern). Arcliaeoptery.x, 4: 27-35. 
Engeser, T. 1987. Nachtrag zur Nomenklatur der coleoiden Cephalopoden des "Solnhofener 

Plattenkalks' (Untertithonium). Archaeopteryx, 5: 65-67. 
Kretzoi, M. 1942. Necroteulhis n. gen. (Ceph. Dibr., Necroteuthidae n.f ) aus dem Oligozan 

von Budapest und das System der Dibranchiata. Foldtani Kozlbny, 11: 124—138. 
Orbigny, A.d'. 1842-1846. Paleonlologie Fraii(aise. Terrain Jurassique, vol. 1. Masson, Paris. 
Walther, J. 1904. Die Fauna der Solnhofener Plattenkalke. Bionomisch betrachtet. Jenaer 

Denkschriften, 9: 135-214. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, 
Isopoda) as the correct original spelling 

(Case 2915; see BZN 51: 224-226) 

(1) L.B. Holthuis 

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517. 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 

A few remarks in defence of the name Livoneca Leach, 1818 and in opposition to 
the application seem to be called for. 

As Drs Williams and Bowman have pointed out, in Leach's original publication 
( 1 8 1 8 ) the spelling Livoneca and its French equivalent Livonece appeared consistently 
(4 and 5 times respectively). No explanation was given for this name nor for the 
others in the group, among which are Nelocira. Cirolana, Conilera, Rocinela. 
Canolira, Anilocra. Olencira and Nerocila. It was only much later that White (1857, 
p. 250) pointed out the connection with the name Carolina in the cases of Cirolana, 



68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Conilera and Rocinela, which 'were formed by Dr. Leach from the word Carolina by 
transposing the letters, and by changing one of the as into an e in the two latter 
names'. There is no evidence in the original publication that Livoneca was an 
inadvertent spelling error and it thus has to be considered an available name. 

For more than a century (1818-1931) the name Livoneca was used practically 
exclusively. 1 know of only two authors who used Lironeca then (White. 1847, p. 109, 
and Miers, 1876, p. 106): neither gave any reason for the use of this spelling. The 
original spelling Livoneca appeared in all major and widely consuhed handbooks 
dealing with cymothoid Isopoda published in the 19th century and in the first half of 
the 20th. 

The first explicit challenge to the spelling Livoneca known to me was by Monod 
(1931. p. 5). who remarked in a footnote "depuis la creation du genre (1818). seal 
Miers [1876. as mentioned above] a ecrit Lironeca au lieu de Livoneca'. Monod 
continued that a typographic error was evident in Leach's original paper and that 
under the Regies Inlemalionales the spelling had to be corrected to Lironeca. This was 
understandable, since the Regies current in 1931 did not exclude circumstantial 
evidence. However, in the Codes published in 1961 and later such evidence is 
excluded (see Article 32 of the current edition) and so Livoneca has to be treated 
as the correct original spelling; Monod (1931) is the author of the unjustified 
emendation Lironeca. 

As shown by Drs Williams & Bowman, Livoneca was the dominant spelling until 
Bowman (1960) reintroduced Lironeca. I have several times remonstrated to 
Dr Bowman and Dr Monod about the 'error of their ways" but to no avail. 
Dr Bowman's authority is such that other isopod workers have followed him in using 
Lironeca. but use of Livoneca has continued to this day although on a much reduced 
scale. 

Personally I do not think it right to suppress an available name which was 
practically the only one used from 1818 to 1931. which was dominant until 1960. 
and which has had some usage since then. I consider that Livoneca Leach, 1818 
should be put on the Official List of Generic Names but that no further action is 
necessary. However, the referral of the case to the Commission by Drs Williams & 
Bowman was a good idea since it will settle the status of the two spellings and end the 
controversy. 

A final although minor point is that Fowler (1912, p. 278) and not Gurjanova 
(1936) was the first to designate L. rednutnii as the type species, and this should be 
recorded in the eventual Opinion. 

Additional references 

Bowman, T.E. 1960. Description and notes on the biology oi Lironeca puhi, n. sp. (Isopoda: 

Cymothoidae). parasite of the Hawaiian moray eel, Gynmolhorax euroslus (Abbott). 

Cnislaceana, 1: 84-89. 
Fowler, H.W. 1912. The Crustacea of New Jersey. Annual Report of the New Jersey State 

Museum. 1911: 31-650. 
Miers, E.J. 1 876. Catalogue of the stalk and sessile-eyed Crustacea of New Zealand. Colonial 

Museum and Geological Department of New Zealand, Natural History Publication, no. 10. 

xii. 133 pp. 
White, A. 1857. A popular history of British Crustacea. 358 pp.. 20 pis. Reeve. London. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 69 

(2) Angelika Brandt 

InslituI fur Polarokologie. Christian-Albrechts-Universitdt zu Kiel, Wischhofstrasse 
1-3. D-24148 Kiel. Germany 

Under the Code the first available spelling is Livoneca, and this has often been 
used. In my opinion arguments about printing errors are irrelevant, and I oppose the 
application. 

(3) Niel L. Bruce 

Zoologisk Museum. Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Copenhagen 0. Denmark 

About 70 species have been included in Livoneca Leach, 1818 (see Bruce, 1990). 
Many of these species are common and widely recorded, and some may be regarded 
as of potential economic importance as fish parasites. I (Bruce. 1990) revised the 
diagnosis of the genus and transferred all but two (or perhaps three) species to other 
genera, principally Elthusa Schiodte & Meinert, 1884 and Ichthyoxenus Herklots, 
1870. I regard the genus as being restricted to the New World. 

I welcome this opportunity of finally resolving the conflict over the correct spelling 
of Livoneca. I do not support the application, and I endorse the spelling Livoneca for 
the following reasons: 

(a) Article 32c(ii) of the Code unambiguously gives Livoneca as the correct 
spelling. 

(b) There is no taxonomic confusion. 

(c) Leach never, in his 1818 pubhcation or elsewhere, gave the reason for his 
choice of names. It would appear that the use of Caroline/Carolina anagrams 
for blood-sucking parasites was a cunning, repetitive and enduring insult to 
Caroline, who was the estranged wife of the Prince of Wales and who has been 
described as an unlovable adulteress. The Prince was of similar disposition, 
and tried repeatedly to divorce her; on becoming King George IV he prevented 
her coronation and had her put on trial for adultery. Evidently Leach was 
sympathetic to the Prince's cause. 

(d) In their application Drs Williams and Bowman show that both spellings have 
been used to the present time. In the most recent revision of the genus (Bruce, 
1990) I followed the Code in the interest of stability, and used Livoneca. 

(e) The argument that Leach intended to use Lironeca is irrelevant, even if on 
circumstantial grounds it is true: it is what is actually published that determines 
the correct original spelling of a name. Livoneca should be put on the Official 
List of Generic Names to settle the matter permanently. There is no point in 
putting the name livonecinae Schiodte & Meinert, 1 884 on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names (cf proposal (4) on BZN 51: 225); it is automatically a 
correct spelling but is not needed taxonomically — I (Bruce, 1990, p. 250) gave 
precedence to the subfamily name anilocrinae of the same authorship. 

Additional reference 

Bruce, N.L. 1990. The genera Catoessa, Eltliusa. Enispa, Ichlliyoxeniis, Idiisa. Livoneca, and 
Norileca n. gen. (Isopoda, Cymothoidae), crustacean parasites of marine fishes, with 
descriptions of eastern Australian species. Records of the AustraUan Museum, 42: 247-300. 



70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(1) March 1995 

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the generic names Melanophila 
Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) 

(Case 2837/2; see BZN 50: 31-34, 56, 232-234; 51; 43^6) 

Svatopluk Bily 

Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kumatice 1, 14800 Praha 4, Czech 

Republic 

C.L. Bellamy 

Coleoptera Department, Transvaal Museum, P.O. Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South 

Africa 

With regard to what has become a somewhat heated debate and with deference and 
respect to all our colleagues who have previously expressed opinions regarding this 
application, we should like to add our views to the mix. 

The Old World literature that contains references to the names Melanophila 
Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 is much more extensive than that of the 
New World and any change will result in extreme confusion. Furthermore, classical 
taxonomic literature (regional faunas and catalogues and the like) should receive 
some extra consideration in this debate over the quantity and variety of economic 
literature. 

While it is true that Phaenops has often been regarded as a synonym of 
Melanophila in the New World non-economic buprestid literature, until recently and 
mostly because of the confusion perpetuated by Leraut's (1983) inexperienced and 
disruptive nomenclatural effort, the only revision of these taxa was that by Sloop 
(1937). In that work North American Melanophila was defined as being comprised of 
three subgenera, with those of Melanophila and Phaenops discussed in terms of 
species that agree with the traditional descriptors of these taxa; Melanophila 
acuminata De Gear and Buprestis cyanea Fabricius respectively were listed as the type 
species. 

Nelson (1989) apparently accepted Leraut's (1983) opinions. However, in the 
first part of a monograph on Melanophila sensu lato, Cobos (1986) neither 
incorporated Leraut's proposals nor argued in any way for a change that conflicts 
with Miihle's application. Cobos listed the type species of Melanophila as acuminata 
De Geer and that of Phaenops as cyanea Fabricius. Since this work (as yet 
incomplete) is the most recent revision on a global scale and agrees in detail with the 
proposals in Miihle's application, we urge that in this case stability should override 
strict priority. 

Thus, we support the course that will most reliably preserve the stability of 
nomenclature of these taxa. Melanophila and Phaenops should be conserved as valid 
generic names with the type species fixed as those proposed in Miihle's application, 
in accord with Sloop's (1937) revision and Cobos's (1986) monograph. 

Additional reference 

Sloop, K.D. 1937. A revision of the North American buprestid beetles belonging to the 

genus Melanophila (Coleoptera. Buprestidae). University of California Publications in 
Entomology. 7(1): 1-20. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 71 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphodius rufus 
(Moll, 1782), A.foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) 
(Insecta, Coleoptera) 

(Case 2878; see BZN 51: 121-127, 340-341) 

(1) Hans Silfverberg 

Zoological Museum, P. O. Box 1 7, FIN-00014, Helsinki University, Finland 

In their application Krell, Stebnicka & Holm seek to conserve the names Aphodius 
rufus (Moll, 1782) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792), both originally described as 
Scarabaeus rufus and accordingly junior primary homonyms of Scarabaeus rufus De 
Geer, 1778 (currently known as Disticha rufa). Although there might once have been 
good reasons to conserve at least one of the names, it is my contention that the time 
for that is now long past. By following the Code we will now have a better chance of 
achieving stability in the nomenclature. 

The first name in question is Aphodius rufus. This is a well known species and in the 
past known under that very name. However, almost 40 years ago Landin (1956) 
showed that the nomenclaturally correct name is Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 
1781). The correct name did not come irrmiediately into use and at that time the case 
should have been brought to the Commission. No such action was undertaken and 
after a while A. scybalarius began to win ground. The application already lists a 
considerable number of papers using A. scybalarius and I can add, for example, 
Kumari (1985), Muona & Viramo (1986), Hansen & Pritzl (1987), Berlov (1989), 
Bistrom, Silfverberg & Rutanen (1991), Hanski & Cambefort (1991). Spuds (1991) 
and Milander, Roosileht & Suda (1993). 

The second name would probably never have reached the Commission on its own 
merits. The species was known in Europe as Aegialia rufa and in America as Aegialia 
spissipes LeConte, 1878, until Stebnicka (1977) synonymized them. It has hardly ever 
been mentioned outside taxonomy and faunistics. Either Europeans should get used 
to the American name, or Americans to the European one. As the former solution is 
in agreement with the Code our choice should be simple. 

So far I have explained why I think the application is unnecessary. Actually I think 
its acceptance would be harmful for stability in nomenclature. Whenever a suffi- 
ciently important situation is found, where current use is threatened, an application 
should be made without too much delay, not when an ever-growing number of 
workers already have accepted the change. Were the Commission to approve this 
application it would encourage those who are lax in following the rules. 

Additional references 

Berlov, E.Ja. 1989. Podsem. Aphodiinae. In Ler, P.A. (Ed.), Opredelilel' Nasekomrli Dal'nego 

Vostoka SSSR. 3( 1 ): 387-402. 
Bistrom, O., Silfverberg, H. & Rutanen, I. 1991. Abundance and distribution of coprophilous 

Histerini (Histeridae) and Onilwphagus and Aplwdius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland 

(Coleoptera). Enlomologica Fennica. 2: 53-66. 
Hansen, M. & Pritzl, G. 1987. Nogle interessante biller fra et nordsjaellandsk moseomrade, 

med to nye danske. til muldvarpereder knyttede, arter (Coleoptera). Entomologiske 

Meddelelser. 54: 133-146. 



72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1 ) March 1995 

Hanski, I. & Cambefort, Y. (Eds.). 1991. Dwtg beetle ecology. 481 pp. Princeton University 

Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 
Kumari, E. (Ed.), 1985. Matsalu - lahviisvahelise liihrsusega mdrgala. 309 pp. Valgus, Tallinn. 
Miliinder, G., Roosileht, U. & Siida, I. 1993. Plastinchatousye zhuki podsemejstva Aphodiinae 

(Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) Estonii. [Aphodiinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) of Estonia]. 

Eesti Teadusle Akadeemia Toimetised. Bioloogia. 42: 13-38. 
Muona, J. & Viramo, J. 1986. The Coleoptera of the Koillismae area (Ks), North-East 

Finland. Oulanka Reports, 6: 1-51. 
Spuris, Z. 1991. Latvijas kukainu katalogs. 9. Skarabeju dzimta (Scarabaeidae). Lalvijas 

Entomologs. 34: 5-27. 



(2) Frank-Thorsten Krell 

Eherhard-Karls-Universitdl. Zoologisches Inslitul. Lehrstuhl fur Spezielle Zoologie. 
Aufder Morgenstelle 28, D-72076 Tubingen, Germany 

I disagree with the comments on this case by Dellacasa (pubhshed in BZN 51: 
340-341) and Silfverberg (above) on a number of points. 

1. The nomenclatural problem with Scarabaeus scybalarius Fabricius, 1781. 
S. rufus Moll, 1 782 and S. rufus Fabricius, 1 792 still exists because the nomenclatural 
acts of Silfverberg (1977, 1979) have not been followed by subsequent authors. An act 
by a reviser which results in the transference of a well known binomen (5". scybalarius) 
from one well known species to another will never be accepted by a majority of 
succeeding authors, the more so because such an act works against stability and 
universality in scientific names and prevents the name of a taxon from being distinct 
and unique. As a result in this case we now have one binomen simultaneously naming 
two taxonomic species (those called Scarabaeus rufus by Moll, 1782 and 5. foetidus 
by Herbst, 1783). Silverberg's sentence that "after a while A. scybalarius [for rufus 
Moll] began to win ground" is misleading since this name (in the new sense) has not 
been winning supremacy. The nomenclatural chaos which exists will continue if 
scybalarius remains in use. Silfverberg's action meant the end of some formal 
problems but the beginning of a great number of practical ones. 

2. Dellacasa's proposal (BZN 51: 340, item (1)) to designate a neotype for 
Scarabaeus scybalarius Fabricius, 1781 is unecessary since a lectotype, designated by 
Landin (1956), already exists. The proposal would override Fabricius's original 
intention and in my view is not acceptable. 

3. Dellacasa's proposed neotype designation for scybalarius, in order to make the 
name usable for the species correctly known as Apbodius foetidus (Herbst, 1783), 
would not end the confusion because (a) scybalarius has been used for two taxonomic 
species simultaneously for a number of years, and (b) a second transfer of the name 
from one species to another would cause as much confusion as the first, if not more. 

4. In relation to Dellacasa's proposal (2)(b), the name arcuatus Moll in Schrank & 
Moll, 1785, published as Scarabaeus arcuatus, has been used at infrasubspecific rank 
by some authors (for example, Balthasar, 1964, p. 406; Dellacasa, 1983, p. 150; 
Bearaud. 1992, p. 135). Hence this name is not 'forgotten' but, as with most 
infrasubspecific names, is unfamiliar to most entomologists, in contrast to Aphodius 
rufus (Moll, 1782) which is well known (see para. 4 of the application). Conservation 
of the latter will, without doubt, stabilize the nomenclature. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 73 

5. In relation to Dellacasa's proposal (2)(c) and Silfverberg's comment, Aegialia 
spissipes Leconte, 1878 is also an unfamiliar name, in contrast to the well known 
A. rufa (Fabricius, 1792) (see para. 7 of the application). Conservation of the latter 
is also highly desirable. 

6. I see no reason why Dellacasa's proposal (2)(a) should not be combined with the 
second part of his proposal ( 1 ), which applies for the conservation oirufm Moll, 1782 
and rufus Fabricius, 1792. This would amount to the same as the proposals in our 
application. 

Additional reference 

Schrank, F. von P. & MoU, C.E. von. 1785. Naturhistorische Briefe iiber Oeslerreich. Salzburg. 
Passau und Berchlesgaden. vol. 1 . Mayer, Salzburg. 

(3) Z.T, Stebnicka 

Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, 

Slawkowska 17, 31-016 Cracon; Poland 

Opposition to comments by Dellacasa (BZN 51; 340-341) and Silfverberg (above) 
has been expressed by Dr Krell (above). I would like to support Krell's arguments 
and to make some additional points. 

The species currently known by the names Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus 
(Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) have appeared frequently in the 
primary literature. However, the names have been widely published and used not 
only in specialist publications but also in the literature dealing with ecology, 
faunistics and practical entomology. Dellacasa's and Silfverberg's comments are 
examples of a unilateral standpoint and of the (unfortunately frequent) disregard of 
the urgent need of the non-specialist for nomenclatural stability. 

The species which concern us here are represented in a large number of museum 
collections around the world. Changing all the specimen records in these collections 
would seem to be a pointless task. The substitutions would not take effect because 
many taxonomists and non-taxonomists would continue to use the old terminology. 

In accord with current usage and the maintenance of nomenclatural stability, and 
to avoid name changes and unnecessary confusion, I maintain the application as its 
co-author. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of Ischyrus, Lybas and Mycotretus 
Lacordaire, 1842 and of Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera) 

(Case 2885; see BZN 51; 128-132) 

Richard C. Funk 

Zoology Department. Eastern Illinois Universitv, Charleston, Illinois 61920-3099. 

U.S.A. 

After reading the application by Drs Skelley and Goodrich I am convinced that 
their proposals for stabilizing the nomenclature of the erotyudae are logical. I 
entirely support the case. 



74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Comment on the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, |1780| as the type species of 
Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera), and proposal of a neotype 
for M. lancifer 

(Case 2858: see BZN 51: 28-30, 258-259) 

D.M. Ackland 

do Hope Enlomological Collections, The University Museum, Parks Road, Oxford 

0X1 3PW, U.K. 

Graham CD. Griffiths 

Department of Entomology. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, 

Canada 

In his comment on this case Crosskey (BZN 51: 258-259) has suggested that a 
neotype should be designated for Musca lancifer Harris, [1780], the proposed type 
species for Hydrophoria. since Harris's illustration (p. 126. pi. 36, fig. 59) is 
inadequate to distinguish the taxon by modern standards. As mentioned by Crosskey 
and by Pont & Michelsen (1982) no Harris specimens of this (or other) species are 
known. We agree with Crosskey's suggestion, and propose that a male specimen in 
the Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London should be 
designated as the neotype of M. lancifer. This specimen is labelled 'England, Surrey: 
Bookham Common, Broadway North, 25.x. 1969, A.C. & B. Pont' and now, in 
anticipation of the proposal below, also 'neotype J Musca lancifer Harris designated 
Ackland 1995'. It is in good condition, and the diagnostic genitalia (which are 
exserted) agree with those figured for Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817 by Hennig 
(1969, pi. 31, fig. 372). Hennig was unaware that there are original specimens of 
A. conica in the Naturhistorischen Museum in Vienna (Lichtenberg, 1979. p. 8). The 
proposed M. lancifer neotype is in accord with the established concept of A. conica, 
which was synonymized with M. lancifer by Pont & Michelsen (1982). As mentioned 
in the application, Hydrophoria has long been used in the sense of A. conica although 
this was not an originally included nominal species. 

In addition to the proposals on BZN 51: 29-30. we ask the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to set aside all 
previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Musca lancifer Harris, 
[1780] and to designate as neotype the specimen referred to above. 

Additional reference 

Lichtenberg, R. 1979. Anthomyiiden-Typen und als Typen in Frage kommende Exemplare 
klassischer Sammlungen im Naturhistorischen Museum in Wien (Diptera, Calyplratae. 
Cyclorrhapha). Kataloge der wissenschaftliclien Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen 
Museums in Wien, 5 (Entomologie 3). 16 pp. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of Skus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 
1775 by the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of 
Myopa, and on Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Diptera) 
(Case 2881: see BZN 51: 31-34, 259-261) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 75 

Anthea Gentry 

The Secretariat. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 



This comment has the endorsement of Dr Sidney Camras, the author of the 
apphcation, who has seen and approved it. 

Drs Curtis Sabrosky and Terry Wheeler have supported (BZN 51: 259-261) 
the proposals to conserve the names Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 
1775. However, both authors have pointed out that the rejection of Coenomyia 
Latreille, 1796 should not have been proposed in the application (cf. paras. 6 
and 7). 

Both Sabrosky and Wheeler have noted that the type species of Coenomyia 
is Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, and not Sicus ferrugineus Fabricius, 1798 as 
stated in the application, and that Coenomyia is therefore not a junior objective 
synonym of Sicus Scopoh, 1763. The 'Sicus ferruginea F.' included as the single 
species in Coenomyia by Latreille (1802), and cited as the type species by Latreille 
(1810), is a subsequent usage of Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, which is not the 
same species as Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 (= Sicus ferrugineus of Scopoli 
(1763) and Myopa ferruginea of Fabricius (1775)), the type species of Sicus Scopoli. 
The name Coenomyia is in use and refers to a genus with a widespread Holarctic 
distribution. 

A report on dipteran names (BZN 18; 9-64: 1960) prepared by the then 
Secretary to the Commission, Francis Hemming, erroneously recorded (p. 46) 
Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 as a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 
and included it among '124 invalid generic names to be placed on the Official Index'. 
This error was corrected by Sabrosky in a comment published later in the same 
volume (BZN 18: 228; 1961), who noted that Musca ferruginea Scopoli was the 
valid name for the type species of Coenomyia. Sabrosky designated the same 
nominal species, one of those originally included in Sicus Fabricius, 1798, as 
the type species of Fabricius's genus, rendering Sicus Fabricius a junior objective 
synonym of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796, as well as being a junior homonym oi Sicus 
Scopoh, 1763. 

Coenomyia should therefore not be rejected and should be placed on the Official 
List in addition to Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775. 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coenomyia 
Latreille, 1796 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent monotypy by 
Latreille (1802) Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the nSiTat ferruginea 
Scopoli. 1763. as published in the binomen Musca ferruginea (specific name of 
the type species of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796); 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology the name Sicus Fabricius, 1798 (a junior objective synonym 
of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 and a junior homonym of Sicus Scopoli, 
1763). 



76 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 52( 1 ) March 1995 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the usage of the specific names of Bombus 
ten-estris and B. muscorum (Linnaeus, 1758), B. lucorum (Linnaeus, 1761) and 
B. humilis Illiger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) 

(Case 2638; see BZN 51: 232-236) 

Hans Silfverberg 

Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17. FIN-00014. Helsinki University . Finland 

This application concerning the Bombus species gets my full approval. I would find 
it most unfortunate if such well known names were transferred from one species to 
another — it would make usage of the literature extremely difficult. 



Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis bauri 
(Cope, 1887) (ReptiUa, Saurischia) 

(Case 2840: see BZN 49: 276-279; 50: 147-151, 236-239, 291-294; 51: 48-51, 
156-158, 265-266) 

Robert M. Sullivan 

Section of Paleontology and Geology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania, P. O. Box 

1026, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026, U.S.A. 

I wish to add to my previous comment (BZN 50: 150-151) on this case, particularly 
on the nature of Cope's original material and Colbert's (1989) interpretation of it, the 
alternative Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) neotype suggested by Hunt & Lucas 
(1993), and Paul's (1993) placement of the Ghost Ranch specimens in Svntarsus 
Raath, 1969. 

1 . There has been some confusion regarding what constitutes the type material of 
C bauri. Padian (1986, p. 46) listed those specimens which are the type series for the 
nominal species Coelurus bauri and C. longicollis Cope, 1887. These specimens 
include AMNH 2722 (the sacrum designated as C. bauri lectotype by Colbert, 1989). 
As mentioned by Colbert (1989). later in 1887 Cope described further material, 
transferred C. bauri and C. longicollis to Tanystrophaeus, and described a third 
species, T. willistoni. In 1889 all three were placed in the new genus Coelophysis, of 
which C. bauri was designated the type by Hay (1930). 

2. Colbert (1989) synonymized C longicollis and C willistoni with C. bauri, 
although without justification. He wrongly regarded some of the specimens described 
only in Cope's second paper as part of the type series of C. bauri. Only a few of the 
Cope specimens share common elements, and the material is too fragmentary and 
incomplete to permit comparison, let alone establish synonymy. The names C bauri, 
C longicollis and C. willistoni are nomina dubia and can only be applied to their type 
material. 

3. Hunt & Lucas (1993) designated AMNH 2724, a pubic fragment referred to 
C. bauri by Cope in his second 1887 paper and also by Colbert (1989), as the 
'neotype' of the species, even though they acknowledged that it was not part of the 
originally described material. In any event the designation would be invalid since 
Colbert (1989) had already designated AMNH 2722 as lectotype. Hunt & Lucas 
noted that AMNH 2724 possessed a 'pubic foramen ... which could be a diagnostic 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 77 

feature". 1 have determined that this is actually the obturator foramen, a character 
which is present in the holotype of Rioarribasawus colberti (AMNH 7224; personal 
observation), Lilienstennis liliensterni, Synfarsus rhodesiensis (Raath. 1969, p. 15, 
fig. 4b), and also in S. kayentakatae to which a number of Ghost Ranch specimens 
can be tentatively referred (personal observation). 

4. There is now strong evidence (Sullivan, 1994) that suggests that the type 
material of C. bauri did not come from the Ghost Ranch (Whitaker) quarry. 
Moreover, my preliminary study of the Ghost Ranch specimens strongly suggests 
that two closely related yet distinct taxa (Rioarribasawus and Syntarsus) are 
represented there. Colbert's (1989) concept of Coelophysis bauri is most likely a 
composite of these; this would explain the unexpected morphological variation cited 
by him (1989, p. 132; 1990, p. 89) amongst the Ghost Ranch theropods. The original 
Cope material could belong to either. 

5. Paul (1993, p. 400) recognized C. bauri as a nomen dubium. The characters he 
(or for that matter Colbert, 1989) used to recognize Rioarribasawus (or Coelophysis) 
and Syntarsus are ambiguous, and Paul's synonymy of these taxa is unjustified. 
However, I believe some of the Ghost Ranch specimens can be referred to Syntarsus; 
I base this on my studies of the type material of C. bauri, the holotype of R. colberti, 
and other specimens in blocks at the American Museum of Natural History, Carnegie 
Museum of Natural History, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History and The 
State Museum of Pennsylvania. 

6. In conclusion, (i) the type material of Coelophysis bauri (and of C. longicollis 
and C. nillistoni) is undiagnostic: (ii) the 'neotype designation' by Hunt & Lucas 
(1993) is doubly invalid; (iii) there are two distinct theropod taxa {Rioarribasawus 
and Syntarsus) among the Ghost Ranch specimens, and the type material of C. bauri 
may belong to either. 

Additional references 

Colbert, E.H. 1990. Variation in Coelophysis bauri. Pp. 81-90 in Carpenter, K. & Currie, P.J. 

(Eds.), Dinosaur systematics: perspectives and approaclies. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 
Hunt, A.P. & Lucas, S.G. 1993. Triassic vertebrate paleontology and biochronology of New 

Mexico. Pp. 49-60 in Lucas, S.G. & Zidek. J. (Eds.), Vertebrate paleontology in New 

Mexico. Bulletin 2, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque. 
Sullivan, R.M. 1994. Topotypic material of Coelophysis bauri (Cope) and the Coelophysis- 

Rioarribasauriis-Syntarsus problem. P. 48A in Abstracts of Papers. Journal of Vertebrate 

Paleontology, 14(3)(Supplement). 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Liophis poecilogyrus 
(Wied-Neuwied, |1824|) (Reptilia, Serpentes) 

(Case 2875; see BZN 51; 250-252) 

(1) Laurie J. Witt 

Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma. 1335 Asp Avenue, 

Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0606, U.S.A. 

I am in complete agreement with the application by Drs Smith, Dixon and 
Wallach. If one of the disused senior synonyms were introduced an incredible 



78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

confusion would result in future literature, since L. poecilogynis has been used in 
many taxonomic and ecological publications (including some of mine). It would 
require all ecologists referring to the species to trace the history of name use, and that 
is unlikely to happen. I trust the Commission will approve the application. 

(2) Support for the application has also been received from Edwin L. Bell (Albright 
College. P.O. Box 15234. Reading. Pennsylvania 19612-5234. U.S.A.) and from 
Kenneth L. Williams {Department of Life Science, Northwestern State University of 
Louisiana. Natchitoches, Louisiana 71497, U.S.A.). 

Comments on the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first 
published in Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale 

(Case 2928; see BZN 51: 135-146, 266-267, 342-348) 

(1) Alvaro Mones 

Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Casilla de Correo 399, 11000 Montevideo, 

Uruguay 

I completely agree with the proposal to conserve 1 1 of Brisson's mammal generic 
names and hope that it will be accepted by the Commission. 

My special concern is Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762. The living capybara has 
received several different generic names, most of them being orthographical 
variations such as Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762. Hydrochaeris Briinnich, 1771, 
Hydrochaerus Erxleben, 1777, Hydrochaeris Allen, 1916 and Hydrocheirus Hollande 
& Batisse, 1959, as well as other names such as Capibara Moussy, 1860 and 
Capiguara Liais, 1872. Many of these names have been used only once or very seldom 
in the extensive bibliography on the family hydrochoeridae. 

Before the publication of Cabrera's (1961) Catdlogo de los mamiferos de America 
del Sur, and despite the differences in spelling, all references to Hydrochoerus were 
cited with Brisson's authorship. Following Cabrera's influential work (and not 
Hopwood's 1947 rediscovery of Briinnich's Zoologiae Fundamenta) some authors 
adopted Briinnich's name, but many others continued to use Brisson's. I have 
repeatedly defended the latter course (Mones, 1973, 1984, 1991; Mones & Ojasti, 
1986), my main argument being the extensive use of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 by 
almost all authors before Cabrera's work, and by a significant number of workers 
after it. Moreover, the suffix -choerus, and not -chaeris, is consistently used for many 
other names of related genera (for example, Protohydrochoerus Rovereto, 1914, 
Neochoerus Hay, 1926, Hydrochoeropsis Kraglievich, 1930, Xenohydrochoerus 
Rusconi, 1934, Nothydrochoerus Rusconi, 1935, Prohydrochoerus Spillmann, 1941, 
Anatochoerus Vecetich & Mones, 1991). 

As a student who has been working with Recent and fossil capybaras for the last 
30 years, I deeply agree with, and emphatically support. Gentry's application, not 
only for the name of the capybara but also for the remaining generic names. I am 
convinced that approval by the Commission will bring stability to the nomenclature. 

Additional references 

Mones, A. 1973. Estudios sobre la familia Hydrochoeridae (Rodentia), 1. Introduccion e 
historia taxonomica. Revista Brasileira de Biologia. 33(2): 277-283. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 79 

Mones, A. 1984. Estudios sobre la familia Hydrochoeridae (Rodentia), XIV. Revision 
sistematica (Mammalia: Rodentia). Senckenbergiana Biologica, 65(1-2): 1-17. 

Mones, A. 1991. Monografia de la familia Hydrochoeridae (Mammalia: Rodentia). Courier 
Forschungsinslitiil Senckenberg, 134: 1-235. 

Mones, A. & Ojasti, J. 1986. Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris. Mammalian Species (American 
Society of Mammalogists), 264: 1-7. 

(2) Francis Petter 

'Mammalia' (Morplwlogie, Biologie. Systematiques des Mammiferes), 55 rue de 
Buffon, 75005 Paris, France: Laboratoire de Zoologie des Mammiferes, Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Bujfon, 75005 Paris, France 

Comme I'editeur de Mammalia je suis formellement d'accord avec la conservation 
des 11 noms de genre de Brisson (1762) et la rejection de Regnum Animale, Ed. 2 
(M.J. Brisson. 1762). L'argumentation (Case 2928) me parait tout-a-fait valable. 

Mes collegues du Laboratoire de Zoologie des Mammiferes sont egalement de 
I'avis qu'il faut conserver ces 1 1 noms. Nous souhaitons vivement qu'une decision 
dans ce sens soit prise et qu'elle soil definitive. 

(3) Alan Turner 

Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University of Liverpool, 
P.O. Box 147. Liverpool L69 3BX, U.K. 

I write in support of the conservation of generic names from Brisson's Regnum 
Animale. 

I am in favour of maintaining established usage in nomenclature, and find no 
problem with agreeing to the use of the Commission's plenary powers to conserve 
names in a rejected work. Furthermore, I find no merit in attributing Brisson's names 
Hyaena, Lutra and Giraffa to Briinnich (1771). 

(4) Alfred L. Gardner 

National Biological Survey. MRC 111, National Museum of Natural History, 
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. 

Brisson (1762) is a partial reprinting (with emendations and additions by the 
publisher) of a non-binominal publication; therefore, an unavailable work and the 
names contained therein are not available for purposes of nomenclature. This is 
the nearly universal conclusion of all who have examined Brisson's Regnum Animale, 
Ed. 2, despite Tate's hope to conserve certain names of genera in his favourable 
comparison of the work with Brisson's (1760) independent publication on birds 
(also non-binominal). The problem is adequately outlined by Gentry in the 
application; however, while I agree with rejecting Brisson (1762), I disagree with 
conserving the 1 1 names she proposes. I recorrmiend placing Brisson's work on the 
Official Index and treating all of his names (excepting Odobenus; see Opinion 467) as 
unavailable. 

Part of my disagreement with Gentry's application stems from the fact that, as 
one begins to explore nomenclatural issues, one soon learns that rejection of names 
from pre- 1 758 and non-binominal works, coupled with the Principle of Priority, are 



80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

primary bases for a stable nomenclature. In the majority of the cases, a disruption 
caused by a change in a famiUar scientific name is short-Hved. Young workers quickly 
learn the new combinations; experienced authors who are aware of scientific names 
know the basis for the change. I suspect that most non-systematists who profess 
displeasure at what seems to them to be "instability' are uneasy with scientific names 
in general and believe nomenclatural issues to be arcane and incomprehensible. 

The case concerning Brisson's names is fraught with the problems caused by 
ignorance, human error, and other behaviors such as uncritically following earlier 
usage, reluctance to 'rock the boat', or the propensity to prefer the familiar whether 
valid or not, that confound the meaning of 'accepted', 'common' or 'universal' usage. 
That a problem exists today stems partially from the lack of decisive action by the 
Commission on Tate's query in 1938. In all fairness, however, the Commission 
recognized the unavailability of names from Brisson (1762) in Opinion 90, Direction 
79 and Opinion 467, the latter conserving Odobenus Brisson, 1762 under the plenary 
powers of the Commission. 

My additional comments are keyed to the numbered sections in Gentry's 
application. 

Para. 2. If Brisson (1762) is not an available work and hence the names contained 
therein are not available, why must the Commission make a formal decision on its 
availability before the work is rejected? A knowledgeable worker simply should not 
use any of Brisson's names (except for Odobenus, conserved by the Commission 
under the plenary powers). 

Para. 3. Twentieth century authors using names from Brisson were undoubtedly 
influenced by Merriam (1895) and Sherborn (1902). Examples were Palmer (1904), 
Miller (1924) and Miller & Kellogg (1955). Merriam recognized that Brisson (1762) 
was not consistently binominal, yet (with the exception of Philander) he believed that 
11 generic names in the keys (pp. 12-13, 218) given for the first time were available 
and warranted recognition. Merriam designated type species for each genus on 
tautonymy or monotypy, with the exception of Cuniculus (its type selected by 
elimination). Although best remembered for contributions in mammalogy and his 
Life Zone System, Merriam's early work was with birds. Certainly Merriam was 
familiar with the widespread use of Brisson's generic names for birds; thus he may 
have been inclined to accept Brisson's generic names for mammals. Sherborn (1902) 
believed Brisson's genera to be available only from the Index. Neave (1939-1940) 
likely followed Sherborn's lead. However, as pointed out by Hopwood (1947), both 
the keys and Index are the same as the Latin forms published in the original 1756 
edition; hence, the names are not available. There are other significant works in 
addition to those cited by Gentry that treated Brisson's names as unavailable. Those 
having the greatest influence in the Western Hemisphere are Cabrera (1957-1961), 
Hall & Kelson (1959) and Hall (1981). 

Para. 5. Philander. Hershkovitz ( 1949) rejected Philander Brisson as non-Linnaean 
and designated Philander virginianus (= Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 1758) as the 
type species of Philander Tiedemann, 1808. Later, Hershkovitz (1976) selected the 
female that Seba (1734) had illustrated as the lectotype of Tiedemann's Philander 
virginianus, thereby retaining Philander Tiedemann for the gray and black opossums. 
I cannot see how attributing the authorship of Philander to Brisson furthers 'the 
interest of stability of nomenclature'. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 81 

Glis. The information presented by Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) in their 
argument for the use of Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 provides ample evidence 
supporting this as the valid name for edible dormice. I recommend rejecting Glis 
Brisson. 

Cuniculus. Using the American Ornithologists' Union Code Merriam (1895) fixed 
the type as 'Cuniculus cauda longissima Brisson (= Dipus alactaga Olivier, 1800)' by 
elimination. Hollister (1913) dissented 'because C. cauda longissima was placed in 
brackets at the end of the series; and the introduction [by the pubhsher] to the work 
explains that species so placed [by the publisher] were doubtfully referred to the 
genus'. Hollister fixed the type as 'paca" {- Mus paca Linnaeus). 

Tate (1939) used Cuniculus Brisson for the pacas with the reference (p. 183, 
footnote) 'Opinion 90, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature'. 
However, this Opinion does not conserve the name. Earlier in the same report Tate 
did not use Philander Brisson but noted 'the generally used term [Metachirops] is here 
retained pending some opinion from the International Commission'. Most subse- 
quent workers either apparently overlooked this statement or assumed that Opinion 
90 conserved Cuniculus Brisson, 1762. However, this Opinion pointed out the lack of 
consensus on the availability of Cuniculus Brisson with the statement that 'certain 
authors do not accept Brissonian names'. 

Agouti Lacepede, 1799 is the available and approriate name for the pacas. The 
argument that the name will cause confusion because the common name agouti is 
applied to Dasyprocta is true primarily for users of the English common name. While 
the Spanish version (aguti) is heard, vernacular names such as picure, cotia, guatin 
and acure are among those in more common usage. 

Hoffmann (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993, p. 822) cited Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 as a 
synonym of Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874. This either was a lapsus or an attempt at 
the moment to avoid controversy. Clearly, Oryctolagus enjoys common usage and to 
change the name at this late date may be confusing, at least for a few years. If 
interested persons wish to continue using Oryctolagus. the easiest solution is to 
petition the Commission to suppress Cuniculus Meyer, 1790. This action is infinitely 
more desirable than to validate an unavailable name (Cuniculus Brisson) for another 
taxon in order to make Cuniculus Meyer invalid by homonymy. 

Pteropus, Meles, Hydrochoerus, Lutra. Hyaena, Tapirus, Giraffa. The name 
Pteropus is available from Erxleben (1777), Meles is available from Boddaert (1785), 
and the remaining are available from Brunnich (1771). Nothing is to be gained by 
conserving these names from Brisson (1762). 

Tragulus. The situation with Tragulus is more complicated than with the other 
names under discussion. Considering the numerous and conflicting designations of 
type species for Tragulus (of authors), the simplest and least disruptive resolution of 
this problem is to date Tragulus from Pallas (1767), with type species Cervus javanicus 
Osbeck, 1765. This is the usage employed by Honacki et al. (1982) and Grubb (in 
Wilson & Reeder. 1993), except that they and Hopwood (1947) dated Tragulus Pallas 
from 1779 (fasc. 13). Another, but less satisfactory, resolution is to date Tragulus 
from Boddaert (1785). This would require setting aside Hopwood's (1947) desig- 
nation of Tragulus pygmaeus Boddaert (= Capra pygmaea Linnaeus) as the type 
species of Tragulus and designating Moschus nieminna Erxleben, 1777 as the type. 
This could be justified on Tragulus Boddaert having been defined as lacking horns, 



82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

whereas Capra pygmaea (= Neotragus pygmaea) is a horned African antelope. 
Moschiola "Hodgson, 1843' would become a junior objective synonym of Tragulus 
Boddaert (redefined). Of course, Tragulus Brisson could be conserved under the 
plenary powers if the Commission follows the course recommended by Gentry; 
Odobenus Brisson has already been conserved. However, if Tragulus Brisson were 
conserved, then Merriam's designation of Capra pygmaea as the type species would 
be valid and Tragulus Brisson would become a senior synonym of Neotragus. I argue 
against conserving Tragulus Brisson. 

Para. 7. While it is true that some of Brisson's names have been uncritically used 
for many years, there have been a number of workers during the past century that 
have commented on the non-availabihty of the same names. Trouessart (1897-1899) 
clearly rejected Brisson's generic names and cited them with the date 1756. To say 
that the names were accepted by Simpson (1945) means little except that Simpson 
was interested in mammalian phylogeny and relationships and showed little 
concern over nomenclatural matters. Furthermore, being at the American Museum 
of Natural History, Simpson certainly was aware of Tate's belief that if Brisson's 
(1760) names for birds were acceptable, then Brisson's names for mammals 
should also be conserved. The comprehensive nomenclator of Schulze, Kiikenthal & 
Heider (1929) clearly indicated the non-available status of each of Brisson's generic 
names. Several of the references cited by Gentry as reflecting accepted usage of 
the names contain comments on the uncertain or non-available status of Brisson's 
names. The fact that these authors continued to use names that they knew were 
not available does not speak well of their scholarship and regard for rules of 
nomenclature. 

Para. 8. I agree only that, once and for all, Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale be 
rejected for nomenclatural purposes. 

Para. 9. Obviously I do not believe that these recommendations are in the best 
interests of mammalian nomenclature. 

(5) F. de Beaufort, L. Granjon, J.M. Pons & M. Tranier 

Lahoratoire de Zoologie. Mammiferes el Oiseaux, Museum National d'Histoire 

Naturelle. 55 rue de Buffon. 75005 Paris, France 

En reponse aux suggestions de A. Gentry a la CINZ concernant le travail de 
Brisson (1762). nous exprimons ci-apres une opinion concernant la validite de 
I'ouvrage (point 9(1)), et I'opportunite de maintenir les onze noms de genres en 
question (point 9(2)). 

II nous parait souhaitable de ne pas invalider I'ouvrage dans sa totalite, pour les 
raisons suivantes: 

Cet ouvrage represente un jalon important dans la mise en ordre de la nomencla- 
ture zoologique. Une bonne partie des noms de genres proposes par Linne etait 
inappropriee, alors que la grande majorite des noms de genre proposes ensuite par 
Brisson etaient pertinents et ont ete repris constamment depuis le ISeme siecle 
{Philander pour Didelphis; Pteropus pour Vesper tilio; Glis pour Sciurus: Cuniculus 
pour Mus; Hydrochoerus pour Sus\ Meles pour Ursus; Lutra pour Mustela; Hyaena 
pour Canis; Tapirus pour Hippopotamus; Tragulus pour Cervus; Giraffa pour Cernis). 
Par ailleurs, il convient de souligner que I'ouvrage de Brisson (1760) concernant les 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1} March 1995 83 

oiseaux, bien que juge moins bon que Tedition de 1762 sur les mammiferes par 
Hemming (lettre a Tate, 1945) a ete valide (Opinion 37 de 1911 et Direction 16 de 
1955). 

D'autre part, nous observons que 1' Article lie du Code international nomen- 
clature zoologique ofTre une version frangaise plus souple que la version anglaise. 
En effet, I'ouvrage de Brisson peut etre considere comme 'coherent' (au sens du 
texte fran?ais) meme s'il n'a pas integralement ('consistently') suivi les regies de 
nomenclature binominale. Finalement, il nous parait excessif de rejeter la totalite 
de I'ouvrage a cause d'une petite proportion d'irregularites par rapport aux regies 
de la nomenclature, ne representant finalement que des erreurs de forme alors 
que le contenu scientifique du travail de Brisson a ete consacre par la posterite et 
I'usage. 

Concemant la decision de maintenir Brisson ( 1 762) en tant que premier descripteur 
pou les onze genres de mammiferes en question, elle nous parait tout-a-fait justifiee 
et dans la continuite de celle prise en 1957 (Opinion 467) concemant le genre 
Odobenus. Comme precise ci-dessus, tous ces noms ont ensuite ete consacres par 
I'usage, la plupart du temps d'ailleurs par des contemporains de Brisson, et de plus 
des especes types linneennes ont ete designees par Merriam en 1895 pour ces genres. 
Les invalider n'aboutirait finalement qu'au remplacement de Glis par Myoxus 
et Cunicidus par Agouti, changements qui ne nous paraissent ni judicieux ni 
souhaitables. 

(6) Clyde Jones 

Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, 
U.S.A. 

I write to comment on the proposed rejection of Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale, 
with the conservation of 1 1 generic names of mammals. 

If, indeed, a major function of the Code is to '... provide for consistency ... and to 
preserve stability of nomenclature', then I must disagree with portions of the 
application. Most recent authors have considered Brisson (1762) unavailable for 
nomenclatural purposes; formal acceptance of this consideration by the Commission 
would benefit mammalian nomenclature. I therefore urge the Commission to reject 
Brisson (1762) with no qualifying conservation of generic names. 

(7) N. Sivasothi 

Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge 0511, Republic 
of Singapore 

I have been working mainly with otters in Malaysia and Singapore since 1990 and 
am a member of the lUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group. I strongly support the 
application which is a welcome and logical course of action. 

1 . The authorship of the genus Lutra will not atfect the general user of the name. 
However, Lutra Brisson, 1762 is well known among taxonomists and has been 
adopted in authoritative works such as Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 275) 
and Harris (1968, p. 138). Workers in the field, such as myself, have followed these 
authors. 



84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(1) March 1995 

2. The first authority who recognised and named the distinct taxon should be 
credited with authorship. In the case of all the 1 1 genera mentioned in the application 
Brisson (1762) was the first to do so. 

3. A decision by the Commission on Brisson's ( 1 762) work Regnum Animale would 
be welcome. In the absence of previous action its rejection has been subjectively 
assumed by some authors, particularly in the light of comments made by Hemming 
(1955), which has resulted in some confusion. For example, reviewers in Honacki, 
Kinman & Koeppl (1982, p. 257) preferentially used Lutra Briinnich, 1771. They 
supported this decision by stating that Brisson's publication 'was ruled an unavail- 
able work', in a misinterpretation of Hemming (1955). Unfortunately, this error is 
perpetuated in the recent second edition (Wilson & Reeder, 1993, pp. 311-312). 

4. In Honacki et al. (1982), Brisson's (1762) authorship for the other genera was 
dismissed, either as a personal opinion of the reviewer or by citing Hemming (1955). 
Whilst I am unable to comment at length about the other names, the same arguments 
as above apply. Furthermore, the family name of at least two groups would be 
affected by the rejection of Brisson's names. 

Additional references 

Harris, C.J. 1968. Oilers: a sludy of ihe Receni Lutrinae. 397 pp. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 

London. 
Hemming, F. 1955. Second report on the status of the generic names 'Odobenus' Brisson, 1762 

and 'Rosniarus' Briinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia) (A report prepared at the request of the 

Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948). Bulletin of Zoological 

Nomenclature. 11: 196-198. 

(8) Judith L. Eger 

Department of Mammalogy. Royal Ontario Museum. 100 Queen's Park. Toronto. 

Ontario. Canada M5S 2C6 

I agree that the stability of mammalian nomenclature is best served by rejecting 
Brisson (1762) but do not agree with Gentry's proposal to conserve the 11 generic 
names. Nine of these names are available from other authors and there is no need to 
make them exceptions. Of the remaining two names, Myo.xus Zimmermann, 1780 
already has been accepted in place of Glis by most authors (Walker, 1975; Honacki, 
Kinman & Koeppl, 1982; Wilson & Reeder, 1993; Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden, 
1993) and recognised as an alternative generic name by others (Corbet & Hill, 1986, 
1991). Clearly there is no need to conserve Glis. 

Similarly, most recent authors have rejected Cuniculus and have used Agouti 
Lacepede, 1 799 for the pacas. If mammalogists wish to continue using Oryctolagus 
Lilljeborg, 1874 for the European rabbit, the most parsimonious approach is to 
request the Commission to suppress Cuniculus Meyer, 1790. 

Although Odobenus Brisson, 1762 was conserved as the generic name for the 
walrus (Opinion 467) it should not be considered a precedent for conserving other 
generic names. For example, the name Papio P.L.S. MuUer, 1773 and 'all uses prior 
to the publication of Papio Erxleben, 1777" (which included Papio Brisson, 1756, 
1762) were suppressed in Opinion 1 199 (March 1982) for the purposes of priority and 
homonymy. Brisson's Papio was based on five references, all pre- 1758, clearly 
indicating the problem of accepting non-binominal publications. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 85 

I hope that the Commission will reject Brisson's (1762) pubhcation, without 
conservation of the 1 1 generic names. 

(9) Bernard Sige 

Instilut des Sciences de I'Evolulion, Laboratoire de Paleontologie (Case 64), 
Universite des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Place Eugene-Bataillon. F-34095 
Montpellier, Cedex 5, France 

As a palaeontologist specialising in early Tertiary mammals, among them bats, 
I firmly defend the proposition to conserve Brisson's (1762) 11 mammalian generic 
names. They relate to universally known animals, unequivocally understood under 
their classical names. 

Regarding the fruit bat genus Pteropus Brisson, 1762, often known as the 
■flying fox', the name has full practical value, has been used without problem by all 
authors since Anderson's (1912) fruit bat catalogue, and carries knowledge of the 
morphology, biogeography and phylogeny. There would be no gain at all in 
exchanging this name and authorship for another. 

Since stability and universality are the leading virtues promoted by the Commis- 
sion, I hope for the wise conservation of what is clear and helpful in science, instead 
of the promotion of darkness and fruitless complexity. 

(10) Mary Ellen Holden 

Department of Mammalogy. American Museum of Natural History. Central Park 
West at 79th Street. New York. N. Y. 10024-5192. U.S.A. 

I am writing about the application to conserve 11 of Brisson's (1762) mammal 
generic names, including Glis. I object to the proposal for the reasons outlined 
below. 

1. Objection to the general argument. The argument given for the conservation of 
these 1 1 names is based upon 'established usage'. If this criterion is sufficient to 
establish the validity of a name, why does there exist a detailed Code that clearly 
describes the criteria for determining oldest available names for taxa? Should the 
Code be ignored when it is more convenient to do so, or should the Code be the 
consistent guidelines by which nomenclatural decisions are made? I favor the latter, 
so that decisions are not made simply on common usage of a name in a particular 
window of time, but are made to reflect the entire nomenclatural history of a given 
group. Anyone who specialises in a particular group will by definition need to have 
surveyed the older literature of that group, and hence would already be familiar with 
the range of names historically applied to the taxon of interest. 

2. Objection to conservation of Glis, and in particular its application to dormice. 
Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) and Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) 
have already published arguments as to why gliridae and Glis are not valid for 
dormice. The components of those arguments are summarized and elaborated upon 
below. 

(a) Brisson's (1962) names are unavailable because his work does not satisfy the 
Principle of Binominal Nomenclature, as stated in the Code, Article 5a and its 
application Article lie. Trouessart (1898, p. 453) and Schulze, Kukenthal & Heider 



86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

(1929, p. 1375) rejected Glis on the grounds that Brisson's work is not binominal (see 
Wahlert et al.. 1993), as did Hopwood (1947). 

(b) As noted by Hopwood (1947), Glis is valid in Erxleben (1777) for marmots, 
ground-squirrels, voles and lemmings, rendering Glis Storr, 1780 (which included 
pedetids, dormice and other rodents) invalid. The oldest available name in the sense 
of Glis Brisson is Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, adopted in Linnaeus (1788) for 
dormice, and the correct family name for dormice is myoxidae (see Holden, 1993). 
Palmer (1899) proposed the family name muscardinidae because Glis was unavail- 
able due to its previous application to other groups, but muscardinidae is a junior 
synonym of myoxidae. 

(c) Gentry's assertion that Glis has had 'established usage for over 230 years' is 
incorrect. As can be verified by perusing the literature, and the Zoological Record 
until 1945, myoxidae and Myoxus were the preferred names for the family and genus. 
As was explained in Wahlert et al. (1993), gliridae has only been the most commonly 
used family name for dormice since 1945 (50, rather than 230, years). The preference 
for gliridae over myoxidae (and Glis over Myoxus) arose with Simpson's (1945) 
classification of mammals; this work was cited in the Zoological Record for the year 
1945, and the change of that publication's usage from myoxidae to gliridae occurred 
in that volume (see Wahlert, 1993). Some examples of prominent authors who used 
myoxidae prior to the publication of Simpson's work are Gill (1872), Gray (1821), 
Waterhouse (1839), Lydekker (1896) and Trouessart (1898). 

Dr Malcolm McKenna is completing a revision of Simpson's (1945) classification 
of mammals, and is recognising Myoxus and myoxidae as the valid generic and 
family names, based on his independent research. The fact that a revision of the work 
that engendered the common misuse of Glis and gliridae for the last 50 years is 
finally correcting the misuse should carry some weight in a decision on whether or not 
Glis should be conserved. 

(d) Despite common usage of Glis in the post- 1945 literature, I have yet to meet a 
researcher from any country interested in dormice who was not familiar with all three 
family names (gliridae, muscardinidae and myoxidae). 

(e) The common name of Myoxus {Glis) is the edible dormouse, and hence no 
public or amateur confusion will result from a ruling favoring the adoption of the 
valid generic name Myoxus. Though some workers feel that this is important in 
nomenclatural decisions, I do not give this consideration high priority, but it is an 
added bonus in this case. 

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the conservation of Glis, and 
if it is nonetheless conserved. I object to its being apphed to dormice due to its 
previous application by Erxleben (1777) to other groups. 

Additional references 

Gill, T. 1872. Arrangetnent of the families of mammals with analytical tables. Smithsonian 

Miscellaneous Collections, 11: 1-98. 
Lydekker, R. 1896. On the affinities of the so-called giant dormouse of Malta. Proceedings of 

the Zoological Society of London. 1895: 860-863. 
Palmer, T.S. 1899. The family name of the dormice. Science, (n.s.)10(247): 412^13. 
Waterhouse, G.R. 1839. Observations on the Rodentia with a view to point out the groups, as 

indicated by the structure of the crania, in this order of mammals. Magazine of Natural 

History. (n.'s.)3: 184-188. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 87 

(11) Stephane Aulagnier 

Instilul National de la Recherche Agronomique, Insiitut de Recherche sur les Grands 
Mammiferes, C.R.A. Toulouse, B.P. 27, 31326 Castanel-Tolosan, Cedex, France 

I write concerning the application dealing with the names of some mammalian 
genera. 

As a mammalogist (not 'merely' a taxonomist) I do not find it desirable to change 
the commonly used names and/or authorship for these genera, particularly for the 
edible dormouse and the European badger. For a long time these taxa have carried 
the same name for the genus as for the species (i.e. Glis glis and Meles meles), which 
is the logical binomen for the type species. These two cases are the most critical since 
the animals are widely spread in Europe and so are cited under Brisson's (1762) 
names in many books and papers. Moreover, they are the type genera of a family and 
a subfamily, with the major consequence that a change in the higher nomenclature 
will follow a change in the generic name (cf Wilson & Reeder, 1993), making life 
more difficult for nearly all mammalogists. 

(12) G.B. Corbet 

do Department of Zoology. The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London 
SW7 5BD, U.K.: Little Dumbarnie, Upper Largo. Fife KY8 6JQ. U.K. 

I strongly support this case. With all of the 11 generic names of Brisson (1762) 
conserved the application would have served to stabilize names that are in current, 
unambiguous use. 

In the case of Glis. the extensive European literature on this predominantly 
European monospecific genus has used Glis almost consistently since Miller (1912). 
Recent listings as Myoxus in American compilations (Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl. 
1982; Wilson & Reeder, 1993) were based upon the rejection of all names from 
Brisson (1762), but the consequences of doing so were not consistently followed by 
these compilers. In particular, rejection of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 for the paca (a 
senior homonym of Cuniculus Meyer, 1790) would threaten the name Oryctolagus 
Lilljeborg, 1874 for the European rabbit, a name used universally in the vast 
literature for over a hundred years. The rejection of Tragulus Brisson, 1762 would be 
equally disruptive of other well established names. Although these threatened names 
could be conserved independently, the current proposal to solve the problem en bloc 
by conserving these names of Brisson (1762) seems an eminently satisfactory solution. 

Additional reference 

Miller, G.S. 1912. Catalogue of the mammals of western Europe. British Museum (Natural 
History), London. 

(13) Jean-Louis Hartenberger 

Insiitut des Sciences de I'Evolution. Laboratoire de Paleontologie, Universite des 
Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc ( Montpellier 11), Case Courier 064, Place 
Eugene-Bataillon. F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France 

I support vigorously the proposition to conserve the 11 generic names first 
pubhshed by Brisson (1762). 



88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

The Preamble to the Code (p. 3) is very clear: 'The object of the Code is to promote 
stability and universality in the scientific names of animals ...'. Everyone should 
conclude that stability is the first and most important purpose of the Code and this 
must surely be in the minds of all scientists. However, I am sure that if this year there 
is a rejection of Brisson's 1 1 names, next year other workers in another group will 
propose the rejection of some other well known and very significant names for 
parallel reasons. The kind of publication which upsets long-established nomenclature 
is not 'science' for me. 

I recently gave a paper (1994) to a Congress in which I reported that from Roman 
times the Latin name Glis has denoted the edible dormouse. This might be considered 
an unorthodox reason for conserving the name, but it is nevertheless clear that from 
as long ago as this epoch this small animal was known by this name, and no one 
could claim that there is a risk of a mistake concerning the taxon. 

I am a palaeontologist (and joint editor of Journal of Mammalian Evolution) and 
the use of gliridae as a family name is found in old (with very few exceptions) and 
all recent papers. My 1994 publication lists 12 works dating from 1967 to 1991 in 
which the name appears in the title. To my knowledge all authors who have published 
papers on fossil dormice during the last 50 years have used Glis and gliridae. There 
are also many fossil taxa with names coined from Glis (gliravinae, Pentaglis, etc.). 

Additional reference 

Hartenberger, J.-L. 1994. The evolution of the Gliroidea. Pp. 19-33 in Tomida, Y., Li, C.K. 

& Setoguchi, T. (Eds.), Rodent and lagomorph families of Asian origins and diversification. 
National Science Museum Monograph No. 8. Tokyo. 

(14) Hans de Bruijn 

Department of Stratigraphyl Paleontology. Institut voor Aardwetenschappen, 

Universiteit Utrecht. Budapestlaan 4, 3508 TA Utrecht. The Netherlands 

I fully support the application to conserve 11 of Brisson's (1762) generic names. 

Discarding Glis Brisson as in Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) is not desirable 
and, in my opinion, this action abuses the intention of the Code. 

In a forthcoming publication (1995, in press) on the classification of the gliridae, 
Dr Remmert Daams (Depto. de Paleontologia, Facultad de Ciencias Geologicas. 
Ciudad Universitaria. Madrid, Spain) and I have set out the history of the names Glis 
and GLIRIDAE and urged their continued usage. We have noted: "Holden (1993) and 
Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) use the name Myoxidae because they argue that 
the name Glis does not fulfil the requirements of the Code. We continue to use the 
name Gliridae because the stability of zoological nomenclature is not enhanced by 
brushing up a name that has become obsolete since EUerman's (1940) and Simpson's 
(1945) classification of the rodents. It is to be hoped that the question will be referred 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature'. 

Additional references 

Elierman, J.R. 1940. The families and genera of living rodents, vol. 1. 689 pp. British Museum 

(Natural History). London. 
Daams, R. & de Bruijn, H. 1995 (in press). A classification of the Gliridae (Rodentia) on the 

basis of dental morphology. Hystrix. 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 89 

(15) Monique Vianey-Liaud 

Inslilul des Sciences de L Evolution, Laboratoire de Paleontologie, Universite de 
Montpellier II (Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc), Case Courier 064. Place 
Eugene-Balaillon, F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5. France 

I wish to comment on the apphcation to conserve some of Brisson's mammal 
names, and particularly on the conservation of the name Glis. 

As a palaeontologist working on rodents, and especially on glirids, I want to 
underline that the use of the family name gliridae for dormice has been almost 
universal among specialists for more than 50 years. As a sign of this common use the 
names of numerous taxa are built around the generic name Glis (gliridae, glirinae, 
GLIRAVINAE, GUravus. Miniglis, Tenuiglis. Bransatoglis, Pentaglis, for example), 
whereas Myoxus has not been, and is not, used in the same way. I do not see any 
advantage in the rejection of Glis in favour of Myoxus; I see only problems with 
synonymies and confusion with the meaning of the names of taxa. 



(16) J.J. Hooker 

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London 

SW7 5BD, U.K. 

I write regarding the application to conserve some of Brisson's (1762) mammal 
generic names. 

I strongly support the conservation of the name Glis Brisson, 1 762, as advocated 
by Anthea Gentry. Glis together with the family gliridae Thomas, 1897, of which it 
is the type genus, have long been in common and widespread use in the general 
literature. For instance, the Zoological Record lists nearly 90 papers (covering 
taxonomy, biology, physiology, ecology and conservation) over the past decade using 
the name Glis and only one using its junior objective synonym Myoxus Zimmermann, 
1780. The latter (Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden, 1993) is in fact the paper which 
advocates resurrection of the genus Myoxus and the family myoxidae Gray, 1821. 
Moreover, use of the name gliridae is not restricted to the Recent members of the 
family, which are relatively few in number. Numerous systematic papers deal with a 
major diversity of glirid genera and species, which existed through much of the 
European Tertiary. 

I feel that the case for stability is thus clear and presents no problems as to 
procedure; the Commission has already conserved Odobenus Brisson, 1762 (Opinion 
467). A similar decision to conserve Glis Brisson, 1762 would be in the spirit of 
the Code as illustrated by a passage in the fourth of the key elements basic to the 
structure of the Code and zoological nomenclature (Code, Introduction, p. xiv): 
'Nomenclatural rules are tools that are designed to provide the maximum stability 
compatible with taxonomic freedom. Accordingly they must also enable the Principle 
of Priority to be set aside in particular cases when the application of the Principle 
would be destructive of stabihty or universality, or would cause confusion'. The 
alternative, a rigid adherence to selected rules in order to upset such stability, such as 
resurrecting Myoxus Zimmermann, 1 780, would not I believe be in the interests of 
effective scientific communication. 



W Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

(17) Anthea Gentry 

do The Secretarial. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 

The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

I wish to correct a number of mistaken premises and factual errors that have 
appeared in comments published in BZN 51: 342-348 (December 1994), in comments 
published above, and in recent papers by Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) and 
Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993). 

Dr Gardner and Miss Holden (comments (4) and (10) above) refer to the Code and 
the criteria or rules employed in zoological nomenclature. However, the Code stresses 
the primacy of stability and universality of nomenclature over all other consider- 
ations and provisions, including priority. The ethos of stability is set out in the 
Introduction (p. xiv): 'The Code recognises that the rigid application of the Principle 
of Priority may. in certain cases, upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed 
meaning through the vahdation of a little-known, or even long-forgotten, name ... 
The Code contains provisions that enable the International Commission on Zoologi- 
cal Nomenclature to set aside, in such cases, the automatic operation of the Code 
whether that operation concerns the establishment of a name, the fixation of a 
name-bearing type, the spelling of a name, or any other matter'. Explicit provisions 
(for example, the Preamble (p. 3) and Articles 23b and 79) expound the need for 
stability and these have been cited in their comments above by Drs Hartenberger, de 
Bruijn and Hooker (nos. 13, 14 and 16). It follows that, although Brisson's (1762) 
work is not binominal with respect to specific names, under the Code junior 
synonyms should not have been introduced in recent compilations (Honacki, 
Kinman & Koeppl, 1982 and Wilson & Reeder, 1993) in place of those of Brisson's 
generic names currently in use. It would have been correct for these workers to have 
continued to use Brisson's names, whilst referring the problem to the Commission. 

Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) recorded that 'Gliridae is now the name 
applied most commonly to the family of dormice ... Preference for the name Gliridae 
arose with Simpson's (1945) classification of mammals'. Nevertheless, these authors 
and Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) introduced the names Myoxus and myoxidae 
in place of Glis and gliridae. These authors reasoned that, since the name 'Gliridae' 
Muirhead, 1819 was not available (the group of genera on which it was based did not 
include Glis). then myoxidae Gray, 1821 was the name to be used — and hence the 
generic name Myoxus. There is no provision in the Code for this method of selection 
of a generic name. 

Wahlert et al. (1993) also argued: 'We disagree with Merriam (1895) that the 
uninomial generic key of Brisson (1762) validates the name Glis\ Brisson's names 
were given in the Latin nominative singular in both his 'Tabula synoptica 
Quadrupedum' and the 'Index Alphabeticus", as noted in para. 3 of the application. 
The genera were fully described in the 'Tabula': names in this and in the 'Index' are 
cross-referenced to the names in his text and are therefore available under Article 
llc(iii) of the Code (see also Article 12b(2)). Brisson's (1760) bird names were 
accepted by the Commission (Direction 105; October 1963) as available from his 
'Tabula synoptica Avium'. 

I can assure Miss Holden (cf her comment above) that the name Glis has never 
been used validly for a taxon other than the edible dormouse. Glis Erxleben, 1777 is 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(11 March 1995 91 

a junior homonym of Glis Brisson, 1762 and cannot threaten the latter name. 
Furthermore, as noted in the application, EUerman (1949) forestalled any possible 
confusion with Erxleben's name by rendering it a junior synonym of the name for the 
mole rat, Spala.x Giildenstaedt, 1770. Reference to the synonymy of Glis Erxleben 
and Spalax has been omitted from Wilson & Reeder (1993). 

Linnaeus consistently used the name Sciunts glis for the edible dormouse. The 1 788 
work mentioned by Holden as including the name Myoxus is attributable to Gmelin 
(not Linnaeus, who died in 1778). Gmelin probably adopted Myoxus (as did some 
other early authors) to avoid tautonomy. 

The names Glis and gliridae Thomas, 1897 (p. 1016) were not introduced de novo 
by Simpson (1945) but were in common usage (see Lydekker, 1910, 1911; Miller, 
1912). Wahlert et al. themselves (1993, p. 4) noted that 'After the middle of the 19th 
century the use of the four names [Graphiunis, Eliomys, Glis and Muscardinus] as 
genera became common practice'. Simpson (1945, p. 91, footnote) made it clear that 
the name myoxidae had not been used for some time. 

Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993 and above) quoted Hopwood (1947), who 
considered Brisson's (1762) generic names to be unavailable, but not the several 
authors who have urged the conservation of Brisson's names. Hopwood was a 
mollusc specialist (in 1944 he was Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee of the 
Malacological Society of London; see Opinion 200, January 1954) and unfortunately 
had little experience in mammal taxonomy and nomenclature. The desirability of 
maintaining Brisson's generic names, citing those for birds, was noted in the first 
Code of zoological nomenclature (Strickland et al., 1843). 

Dr Gardner states (no. 4 above) that, since Brisson (1762) is a partial reprinting of 
a pre-1758 publication, the names cannot be taken from it. A ruling about such works 
was made in 1907 (Opinion 5) but it was not included in the 1961 Code and therefore 
lapsed. Dr Gardner recommends rejecting Tragulus Brisson. However, an alternative 
course that results in Moschiola 'Hodgson, 1843' (the name for the Indian spotted 
chevrotain) becoming a junior objective synonym is not a viable one. As was noted 
in the application, Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) considered that 'indicus' 
(included by Brisson in Tragulus and designated the type by Merriam, 1895) was of 
uncertain identity. In accord with the accepted usage of Tragulus, it was proposed 
that Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 should be designated the type species under the 
Commission's plenary powers. 

The rejection of Brisson's (1762) names by Honacki et al. (1982) has had little 
impact in the subsequent European literature. Wilson & Reeder's (1993) rejection of 
the names is not a reason for abandoning their usage (cf Dr Wilson's comment on 
BZN 51: 343-344); this is only one publication among hundreds of international, 
national, regional and local publications each year, not to mention popular works. 
The nomenclatural changes in the 1993 work have been adopted by some American 
workers but are by no means universally accepted. This is shown by the comments so 
far received on this case, including those by Drs Groves and Grubb (see BZN 51: 342 
and 346) who were contributing authors to the volume. It is, moreover, unrealistic to 
suppose that the nomenclature used by Wilson & Reeder will remain unchanged, 
both on taxonomic and nomenclatural grounds. In their review of that work, Corbet 
& Hill (1994) noted that it 'provides a sound basis for future refinement'; they 
criticised the rejection of Brisson's names. In a forthcoming publication, de Bruijn 



92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

& Daams (1995, in press) are maintaining the usage of Glis and gliridae (see 
Dr de Bruijn"s comment above). 

It was noted in the application, by Corbet & Hill (1994) and by Dr Corbet above 
(no. 12), that although Brisson's names were rejected in Honacki et al. (1982) and the 
second edition of the work (Wilson & Reeder, 1993), the consequential changes 
in other names have not been consistently followed. An application to conserve Loris 
E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 as the name for the slender loris in favour of 
Tardignidus Boddaert, 1785 (which has been treated as a junior homonym of 
Tardigradus Brisson, 1762 and not used) was published in BZN 51: 332-335 
(December 1994). In rejecting Brisson's names, Drs Anderson (see BZN 51: 346) and 
Eger (no. 8 above) have suggested that Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 should be suppressed 
in order to conserve Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874 as the valid name for the European 
rabbit. The priority of Cuniculus Meyer over Oryctolagus was noted by Hopwood 
(1947), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), Corbet (1978) and Hoffman (in Wilson & 
Reeder, 1993), but no worker has yet submitted an application to conserve 
Oryctolagus. Rejection of Brisson's 1 1 names whose conservation I have proposed 
would mean a further five applications (known to me, but there may be others as 
yet unrecognised: see Dr Groves's comment on BZN 51: 343) to conserve other 
names currently in use. In addition to the suppression of Cuniculus Meyer, 1790. 
Commission action would be required as follows: 

1 . To suppress Cuniculus Wagler, 1 830 in order to conserve Dicrostonyx Gloger, 
1841 as the name for the lemming (see BZN 51: 139). 

2. To set aside Capra pygmea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Tragulus Pallas, 
1767 and to designate Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 as the type in order to conserve 
Tragulus for the chevrotains. Tragulus Boddaert, 1785 (a senior objective synonym 
of the bovid name Neotragus H. Smith, 1827) would become a junior homonym of 
Pallas's name (see BZN 51: 140-141 and 342). 

3. To suppress Lagonobrax Gloger, 1841 as an unused senior objective synonym 
of Moschiola 'Hodgson, 1 843'. following designation of Moschus meminna Erxleben, 
1777 as the type species oi Lagonobrax (see BZN 51: 346). Thomas (1895) recorded 
that the great majority of Gloger's (1841) mammal generic names were synonyms of 
names in use. 

4. To set aside Agoutis Cuvier as the type genus of agoutidae Gray, 1821 and to 
designate Agouti Lacepede, 1799 as the type, thereby rendering agoutidae available 
for the pacas and also conserving dasyproctidae Smith, 1842 for the agoutis (see 
BZN 51: 347). 

It is apparent that it would be more simple and more clear to conserve Brisson's 1 1 
generic names by approving the current application. 

Dr Gardner and Miss Holden (comments above) have remarked on the adapta- 
bility of taxonomic specialists to name changes. This ignores the needs of ecologists, 
conservationists, behaviourists, physiologists, and all those in applied fields, for 
stable nomenclature with as few name changes as possible. The older literature, and 
modern data bases, carry information under the previous names, and new names 
make archival research difficult and confusing. As an example I can cite a very recent 
paper on the distribution of the forest dormouse Dryomus nitedula by Krystufek & 
Vohralik (1994); the authors used myoxidae in their title but cited 15 references dated 
from 1983 to 1993 with gliridae in the titles (one such includes both myoxidae and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 93 

GLIRIDAE). This would lead those unaware of the nomenclatural situation to conclude 
that there are two distinct families. 

No useful purpose has been served by upsetting the usage of Brisson's 1 1 names, 
in some cases by the introduction of names that have not been used in modern times. 
Unnecessary and undesirable confusion now exists in the usage of generic names for 
the edible dormouse and the paca. and is only avoided in the name for the chevrotain 
by using a name in the wrong sense (i.e. Tragulus Pallas, which relates to a bovid). It 
seems beneiicial and constructive to conserve those names which are established. 

Additional references 

Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1994. Wilson, D.E. and D.M. Reeder (eds.). 1993. Mammal species 

of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 2nd Edition. The view from the Old 

World. Journal of Mammalogy, 75(1): 239-243. 
Krystufek, B. & Vohralik, V. 1994. Distribution of the forest dormouse Dryomys nitedula 

(Pallas, 1779) (Rodentia, Myoxidae) in Europe. Mammal Review, 24(4): 161-177. 
Lydekker, R. 1910. Dormouse. Pp. 429^30 in: The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 1 1, vol. 8. 

xiv, 1000 pp. University Press, Cambridge. 
Lydekker, R. 1911. Rodentia. Pp. 437^M7 in: The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 11, vol. 23. 

xiii, 1024 pp. University Press, Cambridge. 
H.E. Strickland (and 11 others). 1843. Report of a Committee appointed 'to consider of the 

rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and 

permanent basis". Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1843: 

105-121. (Report of the 12th meeting held at Manchester in June 1842). 
Thomas, O. 1895. An analysis of the mammalian generic names given in Dr C.W.L. Gloger's 

'Naturgeschichte" (1841). The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)15: 189-193. 
Thomas, O. 1897. On the genera of rodents: an attempt to bring up to date the current 

arrangement of the order. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896: 

1012-1028. 



94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52( I ) March 1995 

OPINION 1792 

Pkurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma 
meneghinii; MoUusca, Gastropoda): neotype replaced by rediscovered 
lectotype 

Ruling 

(1) All previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Pkurotoma 
meneghinii Mayer, 1868 are hereby set aside and specimen no. H 17365 in the 
Mayer-Eymar collection in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, figured by Mayer 
(1868, pi. 3, fig. 3) and by Gatto (1993, pi. 1, figs, la, lb), is designated as the 
lectotype. 

(2) The name Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891 (gender: feminine), type 
species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Oligoioma Bellardi, 1875, 
Pkurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1 868, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name meneghinii Mayer, 1868, as published in the binomen Pkurotoma 
meneghinii (specific name of the type species oi Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891) 
and as defined by the lectoype designated in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2860 

An application to replace the neotype for Pkurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868, 
designated by Gatto (1990), by a putative lectotype from Mayer's rediscovered 
original type series was received from Dr Roberto Gatto (Dipartimento di Geologia. 
Paleontologia e Geofisica deU'Universita. Padova. Italy) on 10 November 1992. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 209-21 1 (September 1993). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that, in the absence of the type material of 
Pkurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868, which was presumed to have been lost (para. 3 
of the application), Gatto (1990) validly designated a neotype. On rediscovering 
Mayer's original material, Gatto (1993) proposed that the neotype should be replaced 
by a lectotype, which he described and figured. The lectotype designation (Gatto, 
1993, p. 484) was stated to be "conditional upon approval by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature'. The application (para. 6(1) on BZN 50: 
210) sought to set aside the 1990 neotype and to 'confirm the lectotype designation 
by Gatto (1993)'. 

Commission action was required (Article 75h of the Code) for the lectotype to be 
recognised as the name-bearing type. However, it might have been considered that a 
formal lectotype designation had not been made. To remove all doubt proposals (1) 
and (3) on BZN 50: 210, para. 6, were amended on the voting paper to request that 
the designation be made by the Commission. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
proposal (2) published in BZN 50: 210, and amended proposals (1) and (3). At the 
close of the voting period on 1 December 1994 the votes were as follows: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 95 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Aslhenotoina Harris & Burrows, 1891, The Eocene and Oligocene beds of the Paris Basin, 

p. 113. 
meneghinii, Pleuroloma. Mayer, 1868. Journal de Conchyliologie, 16: 109. 



96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

OPINION 1793 

Chtenopteryx Appeilof, 1890 (Moilusca, Cephalopoda): coDfirmed as 

the correct original spelling 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the name Chtetwpteryx Appeilof, 1890 is correctly 
so spelled. 

(2) The name Chtenopteryx Appeilof. 1890 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy Chtenopteryx fimbriatus Appeilof, 1890 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Sepioteuthis sicula Verany, 1851), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name sicula Verany, 1851, as published in the binomen Sepioteuthis sicula 
(a senior subjective synonym of Chtenopteryx fimbriatus Appeilof, 1890, the type 
species of Chtenopteryx Appeilof, 1890), is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name chtenopterygidae Grimpe, 1922 (type genus Chtenopteryx 
Appeilof, 1890) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology (corrected original spelling). 

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

(a) Ctenopteryx Joubin, 1900 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Chtenopteryx 
Appeilof, 1890); 

(b) Ctenopteryx Pfeffer, 1900 (an unjustified emendation of Chtenopteryx 
Appeilof, 1890 and a junior homonym of Ctenopteryx Flach, 1889). 

(6) The name ctenopterygidae Grimpe, 1922 is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect 
original spelling of chtenopterygidae Grimpe, 1922). 

History of Case 2874 

An application to confirm as correct the original spelling of Chtenopteryx 
Appeilof, 1890 was received from Drs Giambattista Bello (Istituto Arion. Mola di 
Bari, Italy) and Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli (Palermo, Italy) on 27 January 1993. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 270-272 (December 1993). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 50: 271-272. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Hoithuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Heppell. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Heppell commented that in his view it was unnecessary to have brought the 
application to the Commission's attention. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 97 

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: 
CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922, Sitzungsberichle der naturforschenden Gesellscbaft -u 

Leipzig, 45-48 (1918-1921): 45 (incorrectly spelled as CTENOPTERYorDAE). 
Chlenopteryx Apellof. 1890, Bergens Museums Aarsberelning, 1889(33): 3. 
CTENOPTERYOIDAE Grimpe, 1922, Sitzungsberichle der nalurforschenden Gesellschaft zu Leipzig, 

45-48 (1918-1921): 45 (an incorrect original spelhng of chtenopterygidae). 
Ctenoplery.x Joubin, 1900, Resultals des Campagnes Scieiuifiques accomplies sur son yachl par 

Albert ler Prince Soiiverain de Monaco, 17: 9. 
Clenoptervx Pfeffer, 1900, Mitleilungen aus dem Nalurhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 17: 

171.' 
sicula, Sepioteulhis Verany. 1851. Mollusques Mediteraneens. part 1 (Cephalopodes de la 

Mediterranee), p. 75. 



98 Bullclin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

OPINION 1794 

Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, |1777| (Insecta, Heteroptera): specific 
name conserved, and Notonecta obliqua Thunberg, 1787: specific name 
placed on the Official List 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name marginaia Miiller, 1776, as 
published in the binomen Noloiwcla marginaia, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) coleopiraiii Fabricius, [1777], as published in the binomen Sigara coleoptrata; 

(b) obliqua Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Notonecta obliqua. 

(3) The name marginaia Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Notonecta 
marginaia and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2829 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Notonecta obliqua 
Thunberg, 1787 by the suppression of the putative senior subjective synonym 
N. marginaia Miiller, 1776 was received from Drs Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum. 
University of Helsinki. Finland) and John T. Polhemus {University of Colorado 
Museimi, Englewood. Colorado. U.S.A.) on 28 August 1991. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 50: 1 18-120 (June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A comment from Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia), 
published in BZN 51: 41-42 (March 1994), supported the placement on the Official 
List of the specific name of the notonectid Notonecta obliqua, but identified the 
supposed senior synonym N. marginaia Miiller, 1776 as a synonym of the corixid 
Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, [1777]. A reply by the authors of the application, 
published at the same time, accepted the revised synonymy and proposed (BZN 51: 
43) that Fabricius's name should be conserved and placed on the Official List. This 
additional proposal was included on the voting paper. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 119 and 51: 43. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Aflirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, 
Kabata, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli (part), Nielsen, Nye, Savage, 
Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Cogger, Macpherson. 

No votes were received from Bayer, Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Cogger commented that he would have voted for the application if it had included 
the designation of a neotype for Notonecta obliqua. Heppell commented: 'Vol. 2 of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 99 

the original Swansea edition of Turton"s translation of Gmelin's (1790) work is dated 
1800. and is thus two years earlier than the more common London edition cited by 
the applicants (para. 3). This is purely bibhographical and does not affect the 
nomenclatural issue". Minelli commented: "I support proposals (1) and (3) of the 
original application, as well as the amendment concerning Sigara coleoptrata, but I 
reject proposal (2), to place on the Official List the specific name of Notonecta 
obliqua. because the case does not actually involve this nominal species'. 

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: 
coleopirata. Sigara, Fabricius. [1777], Genera insectorum .... p. 298. 
marginaia. Notonecta. Miiller. 1776, Zoologiae Danicae prodromus. seu animaliwn Daniae et 

Norvegiae indigenarwn characleres. nomina, et synonywa itnprimis popidarium. p. 104. 
obliqua, Notonecta, Thunberg. 1787, Donation Tbunhergianae 1785, continuat. IIL Museum 

Naturalium Acadeiniae Upsaliensis, p. 61, footnote. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Sigara coleoptrata 
Fabricius. [1777]: 
Jansson, k. 1986. Acta Emomologica Fennica, 47: 21. 



100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

OPINION 1795 

Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 (currently Sigara (Tropocorixa) 
sexlineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name not conserved, and 
that of C. confluens Fieber, 1851 placed on Official List 

Ruling 

( 1 ) The name confluens Fieber, 1 85 1 , as published in the binomen Corisa confluens, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2831 

An application to conserve the specific name of Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 by 
the suppression of the senior subjective synonym C. confluens Fieber, 1851 was 
received from Dr Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum. University of Helsinki, Finland) 
on 29 August 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 124-126 
(June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

The application was submitted for voting on 1 March 1994. The case received a 
majority (17 votes in favour, 9 against) but failed by one vote to reach the necessary 
two-thirds majority for the conservation of the junior name. Voting against, Dupuis 
commented on his voting paper that the labels used in the Puton and Marmottan 
collections in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (para. 2 of the 
application) demonstrated the use of Fieber's name confluens in the 19th century. The 
name had been listed in Oshanin (1910) and Stichel (1955), which were classic works. 
It was not clear that 'considerable confusion' would result from the retention of 
Fieber's name (there were not many specialists and no comments had been received). 
Holthuis commented: 'Evidently this is not a widely known species and only familiar 
to taxonomists. I do not see that this case is important enough for the use of the 
plenary powers by the Commission; for such minor name changes it is better to apply 
the Code strictly'. Kabata commented: "The Principle of Priority is a linchpin of the 
Code which must not be overridden unless there is clear evidence that this is necessary 
for stability. The cited frequency of use (16 times during the last 45 years) of the 
junior synonym is hardly overwhelming: much more frequently-used names have 
been changed without causing a ripple in the world of systematics'. Stys commented: 
'I fail to see why the provisions of the Code should not be applied and priority 
observed. Sigara sexlineata is by no means widely known or otherwise especially 
important and the name Corisa confluens was used by Jordan (1953) and by Stichel 
(1955)'. [Editorial note. Stichel also listed S. sexlineata; para. 4 of the application]. 

On 1 September 1994 the application was sent to the Commission for a revote 
under the Bylaws. It was noted on the voting paper that the references cited and those 
held by the Secretariat (para. 3 of the application) showed that the taxon had a wide 
distribution (the Near and Middle East and the whole of Africa) and that in the 
primary literature of the past half century only the junior name sexlineata had been 
adopted. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 125. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1994 the votes were as follows: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1 1 March 1995 101 

Affirmative votes — 7: Bock, Hahn, Nielsen, Nye, Schuster, Stys, Willink 

Negative votes — 17: Bayer, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Heppell, Holthuis, 
Kabata, Lehtinen. Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza. Minelli, Savage, 
Starobogatov, Thompson and Trjapitzin. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Cogger commented that he would have voted for the application if it had included 
a neotype designation for Corisa sexlmeata Reuter, 1882. Mahnert commented: 'In 
my view application of the principle of priority in this case does not cause confusion; 
taxonomists are confronted with regular nomenclatural changes, particularly in taxa 
without considerable economic, medical or ecological importance'. 

The required majority for the conservation of the specific name of Corisa sexlmeata 
Reuter, 1882 was not reached and its use for the taxon has therefore not been 
accepted. It has the status of ajunior subjective synonym of C. confluens Fieber, 1851. 

Original references 

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

confluens, Corisa, Fieber, 1851, Species generis Corisa, p. 18. (A preprint from Abhandlungen 
der Koniglichen Bohmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, (5)7: 230: 1852). 



102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

OPINION 1796 

Platynectes Regimbart, 1879 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Plaleocolymbus Gistel, 1857 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Platynectes Regimbart, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Guignot (1946) Agabus decemnotatus Aube, 1838, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name decemnotatus Aube, 1838, as published in the binomen Agabus 
decemnotatus (specific name of the type species of Platynectes Regimbart, 1879), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Plateocolynibus Gistel, 1857, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2841 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Platynectes Regimbart, 
1879 was received from Dr Anders N. Nilsson (University of Umea, Umed, Sweden) 
on 23 January 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50; 
212-214 (September 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Support for the application was received from Dr Hans Silfverberg ( Universitetets 
Zoologiska Museum, Helsinki. Finland). 

It was noted on the voting paper that paras. 1 and 2 of the application and cited 
references (para. 4) indicated a wide distribution for Platynectes species. Dr Nilsson 
had noted (in litt., January and February, 1992) that no author who had seen 
material of P. kashmiranus had raised any doubts that it correctly belonged in 
Platynectes. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 213. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer. Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Coriiss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Macpherson, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 7: Bouchet, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented: 'Platynectes is clearly not a name frequently used, even in the 
taxonomic literature. I see no convincing reason to depart from priority. Colleagues 
in entomology tell me that in 1967 another 'forgotten' Gistel name was reinstated 
without causing chaos. I am convinced that the few taxonomists working in 
Dystiscidae would adjust rapidly to using Plateocolynibus'. Holthuis commented: 
'Colymbetes lineatus Redtenbacher, 1844 (- Platynectes kashmiranus Balfour- 
Browne, 1944) is a species incerta. Consequently the synonymy of Platynectes 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 103 

Regimbart, 1879 with Plateocolymhus Gistel, 1857 is uncertain and it therefore 
seems unjustified to suppress the older name. In my view the only course that 
the Commission could follow would be to give Plactynectes precedence over 
Plateocolyinbus without suppressing the latter'. Mahnert commented: 'Nine papers in 
the last 23 years treating this genus do not indicate a serious reason why a change of 
name would cause undue confusion and create instability. Priority should be 
respected in this case'. 

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: 
decemnotatus, Agabus, Aube, 1838, Species general des Hydrocanlliares et Gyriniens. par le 

docteur Ch. Aube: pour faire suite au species general des Coleopteres de la collection de 

M. le Comte Dejean, vol. 6, p. 319. 
Platynectes Regimbart, 1879, Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, (5)8: 462. 
Plateocolvmbus Gistel, 1857, Vacuna oder die Geheinmisse aus der organischen und lehlosen 

Welt. vol. 2, p. 606. 

The following is the reference for the designation oi Agabus decemnotatus Aube, 1838 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Platynectes Regimbart, 1879: 
Guignot, F. 1946. Revue Franfaise d'Entomologie, 13: 117. 



104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(11 March 1995 

OPINION 1797 

Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved, and 
Helomyza fenestralis Fallen, 1820 designated as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that the name Oecothea is deemed to have been made 
available in Curtis (1837); 

(b) it is hereby ruled that the authorship of Oecothea is deemed to be Haliday in 
Curtis; 

(c) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Oecothea Haliday 
in Curtis. 1837 are hereby set aside prior to the qualified designation by 
Gorodkov (1984) oi Helomyza fenestralis Fallen, 1820 and that designation is 
ruled to be valid. 

(2) The name Oecothea Haliday in Curtis. 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Gorodkov (1984) Helomyza fenestralis Fallen, 1820 as 
ruled in (l)(c) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology. 

(3) The narat fenestralis Fallen, 1820. as published in the binomen Helomyza 
fenestralis (specific name of the type species of Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Aecothea Haliday. 1838 (a junior objective synonym of Oecothea Haliday in 
Curtis, 1837); 

(b) Neoecothea Peterson & Gill, 1982 (a junior objective synonym of Oecothea 
Haliday in Curtis, 1837). 



History of Case 2836 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Oecothea Haliday in 
Curtis, 1837, and the designation of Helomyza fenestralis Fallen. 1820 as the 
type species, was received from Drs Andrzej Woznica and Tadeusz Zatwarnicki 
(Agricultural University. Wroclaiv. Poland) on 26 November 1991. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 50: 44-47 (March 1993). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support received from Drs Neal L. Evenhuis. Wayne N. Mathis & 
F. Christian Thompson and from Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky were published in BZN 50: 
235-236 (September 1993) and 50: 286 (December 1993) respectively. 

It was noted on the voting paper that Evenhuis et al. considered the name 
Oecothea Haliday to be available from Curtis (1837) as a junior synonym of Suillia 
Robineau-Desvoidy. 1830 (Article lie of the Code). As noted in the application, 
there had been considerable doubt whether the name was available from this work. 
To settle the matter the Commission was asked (para. 7( 1 )(a) and (b) on BZN 50: 45) 
to rule that Oecothea Haliday was available from Curtis (1837). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 105 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 50: 45^6. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Aecothea Haliday, 1838, Annals of Natural History, 2: 187. 
feneslralis, Helomyza, Fallen, 1820, Heteromyzides Sveciae, p. 5. 
Neoecothea Peterson & Gill, 1982, Memoirs of the Entonwlogical Society of Washington, 10: 

219. 
Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837. A guide to an arrangement of British insects: being a 

catalogue of all the named species hitherto discovered in Great Britain and Ireland, Ed. 2, 

col. 280. 

The following is the reference for the designation oi Helomyza fenestralis Fallen, 1820 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837: 

Gorodkov, K.B. 1984. In Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 10, 
p. 18. 



106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

OPINION 1798 

Rivulus mamiomtus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): 
given precedence over R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868, and a neotype 
designated for R. marmoratus 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all previous fixations of type specimen for the nominal species Rivulus 
marmoratus Poey, 1880 are hereby set aside and specimen no. 37429 in the 
United States National Museum, Washington. D.C., is designated as the 
neotype; 

(b) the specific name marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the binomen Rivulus 
marmoratus, is hereby given precedence over the specific name ocellatus 
Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, 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) marmoratus Poey, 1880, as pubhshed in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus and 
as defined by the neotype designated in ( 1 )(a) above, with the endorsement that 
it IS to be given precedence over ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as published in the 
binomen Rivulus ocellatus, whenever the two names are considered to be 
synonyms; 

(b) ocellatus Hensel, 1 868. as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over marmoratus Poey, 1880, as 
published in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus, whenever the two names are 
considered to be synonyms. 

History of Case 2722 

An application to conserve the specific name of Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 
by the suppression of the senior name R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868 was received from 
Drs Kenneth J. Lazara ( United States Merchant Marine Academy. Kings Point. N. Y.. 
U.S.A.) and Michael L. Smith {American Museum of Natural History. New York, 
N. Y.. U.S.A.) on 3 May 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 
47: 191-194 (September 1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment by Dr Lothar Seegers (c/o Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und 
Museum A. Koenig, Bonn, Germany), published in BZN 48: 150-151 (June 1991), 
agreed with the synonymy of marmoratus and ocellatus but opposed the use of the 
junior name. A reply by the authors of the application was published at the same 
time. 

The original application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 December 
1991 and received the necessary two-thirds majority for approval (20 votes in favour, 
8 against and 1 abstention). A number of Commissioners voting against the 
proposals commented on their voting papers. Hahn commented: "Specialists do not 
agree on the suppression of Rivulus ocellatus, as the comments have shown. Therefore 
it would be better to give precedence to R. tnarmoratus over R. ocellatus if the two are 
interpreted as synonyms, rather than to suppress ocellatus'. Lehtinen commented: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 107 

'The existence of type material is essential in taxonomic work. In making the choice 
between a name defined by type material and a name without, arguments in favour 
of the latter alternative must be really strong'. Martins de Souza commented: 
'According to my colleagues of the ichthyological section in this [the University of 
Sao Paulo] Museum, the taxonomy of this genus is confused and is currently being 
revised by Dr W.J.E.M. Costa. They do not believe that R. nuinnoratiis and 
R. ocellatus are conspecific: Costa (1990) considered them as separate species and the 
suppression of ocellatus would cause much confusion". Nye commented: 'The senior 
synonym has had usage as the valid name within the past eight, let alone 50, years'. 
Ride commented: 'Lazara & Smith should designate a neotype for R. marmoratus 
despite their assertion (BZN 48: 151-152) that the species can be identified from the 
description. As long as there is no known type the name will not be fully stable'. 
Dupuis abstained on the grounds that the case involved taxonomic rather than 
nomenclatural issues. 

A comment from Dr Wilson J.E.M. Costa (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 
Cidade Universitaria. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), published in BZN 51: 46-47 (March 
1994), noted that the taxonomic status of the nominal species (including ocellatus. 
marmoratus, bonairensis Hoedeman, 1958 and caudomarginatus Seegers, 1984) which 
comprise the species-complex was still uncertain, and that it would be premature to 
suppress the name ocellatus. 

In response to the comments by Commissioners and by Dr Costa, Drs Lazara & 
Smith (BZN 51: 47^8) revised their original proposals so as to request that 
marmoratus be given precedence over ocellatus if the names are synonymized, rather 
than that the latter name be suppressed, and proposed the designation of a neotype 
(specimen USNM 37429) for marmoratus. 

On 1 September 1994 the revised proposals, published on BZN 51: 48, were offered 
for voting. It was noted on the voting paper that on their approval by the Commis- 
sion marmoratus becomes the valid name for the species if this is not taxonomically 
divided: if differentiated, ocellatus remains available for use as a specific or subspecific 
name. Treated as subspecies, ocellatus, bonairensis and caudomarginatus become 
R. marmoratus ocellatus, R. m. bonairensis and R. m. caudomarginatus. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
revised proposals published in BZN 51: 48. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows: 

AflSrmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part). Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, 
Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye. Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Kabata, Savage and Stys. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet voted in favour of the neotype designation for Rivulus marmoratus but 
against giving marmoratus precedence over ocellatus. Stys commented: 'This is a case 
involving a group with unsettled taxonomy. In my view a change in precedence of the 
specific and subspecific names would be more confusing for ichthyologists than a 
simple adherence to the principle of priority'. 



108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Original references 

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

marmoralus. Ri villus. Poey, 1880, Andes de la Sociedad Espaitola de Hisloria Natural, 9(2): 248. 
ocellatus. Rivulus. Hensel. 1868, Archiv fiir Nalurgeschiclue Wiegman. 34(1): 365. 



f 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 109 

OPINION 1799 

Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 and Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes, 
Perciformes): conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are hereby suppressed: 

(a) Hewipteronotus Lacepede, 1801 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) Centronotus Lacepede, 1801, and all uses of the name Centronotus prior to the 
publication of Centronotus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, 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) Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Jordan & Gilbert (1883) Gasterosteus ductor Linnaeus, 1758: 

(b) Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Jordan & Gilbert (1883) Coryphaena novacula Linnaeus, 1758. 

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

(a) ductor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Gasterosteus ductor 
(specific name of the type species of Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810): 

(b) novacula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coryphaena novacula 
(specific name of the type species of Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Hemipteronotus Lacepede, 1801, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Centronotus Lacepede, 1801, as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 2842 

An application for the conservation of the generic names Naucrates Rafinesque, 
1810 and Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 was received from Drs John E. Randall (Bishop 
Museum. Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.A.) and M.L. Bauchot (Museum National d'Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris. France) on 2 February 1992. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 50: 277-281 (December 1993). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that both the generic names Naucrates 
Rafinesque, 1810 (type species Gasterosteus ductor Linnaeus, 1758) for the pilotfish, 
and Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 (type species Coryphaena novacula Linnaeus, 1758) for 
the razorfishes, were threatened by the senior subjective synonym Hemipteronotus 
Lacepede, 1801. H. quinquemaculatus Lacepede, 1801, the type species of 
Hemipteronotus, related by description to the pilotfish and by reference to both this 
and to the razorfish Coryphaena pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758. Linnaeus's nominal 
species C. pentadactyla was itself composite, including references to both the pilotfish 
and the razorfish, until restricted by Gmelin ([1789]) and subsequent authors 
to the razorfish (currently known as Xyrichtys pentadactyla). Suppression of 
Hemipteronotus was proposed. 



110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Xyrichiys Cuvier, 1814 was based on three species of razorfish (pentadactyla and 
novacula of Linnaeus, 1758, and coendea Bloch, 1786), all of which were originally 
included with the dolphins in Coiyphaena Linnaeus, 1758. 

Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 had been universally adopted for the pilotfish whilst 
the senior synonym Centronoius Lacepede, 1801 had remained unused. Until recently 
vol. 3 of Lacepedes Histoire nalurelle des poissons, in which a number of new names 
first appeared, had been thought to date from 1802 and Centronotus Lacepede had 
been treated as a junior homonym of Centronotus Bloch & Schneider, 1801. Jordan's 
(1917) statement that Centronotus Lacepede was replaced by Naucrates had been 
made on this basis. Roux (1973), however, demonstrated that Lacepede's work dates 
from October 1801; in the absence of an exact date for the publication of Bloch & 
Schneider's work it is deemed to have appeared in December 1801. Suppression of 
Centronotus Lacepede was proposed. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50; 279-280. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer. Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell. Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert. Martins de Souza, MineUi, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Holthuis. 

Schuster abstained. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

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

Centronotus Lacepede, 1801, Histoire miturelle des poissons, vol. 3. p. 309. 
ductor, Gasterosteiis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 295. 
Hemipteronotus Lacepede, 1801, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, p. 214. 
Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810, Carat leri di alcuni nuovi generi e niiove specie di animali e piante 

delta Sicilia .... p. 43. 
novacula, Coryphaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 262. 
Xyrichiys Cuvier, 1814, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Pliiloinatique de Paris, 1814: 87. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Gasterosteus ductor Linnaeus, 1 758 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810, and Coryphaena novacula 
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Xyrichiys Cuvier, 1814: 
Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1883. Bulletin of the United Slates National Mtiseuw. 16: 443, 605 
(respectively). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 111 

OPINION 1800 

Emys Dumeril, 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Emydes Brongniart, [1805] is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Eniys Dumeril, 1806 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Lindholm (1929) Testudo lutaria Linnaeus, 1758 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Testudo orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Testudo 
orbicularis (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Testudo lutaria 
Linnaeus, 1758, the type species oi Emys Dumeril, 1806, by the first reviser action of 
Mertens & Wermuth, 1960), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

(4) The name Emydes Brongniart, [1805], as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2873 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Emys Dumeril, 1 806 by 
the suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym Emydes Brongniart, [1805] 
was received from Dr Robert G. Webb ( University of Texas at El Paso. El Paso, 
Texas, U.S.A.) on 22 December 1992. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 50: 224-227 (September 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

A comment in support from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado, 
Boulder, Colorado. U.S.A.) was published in BZN 51: 52 (March 1994). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 226. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Emydes Brongniart, [1805], Essai d'une classification nalurelle des reptiles .... p. 27. 



112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

Emvs Dumeril, 1806, Zoologie anahtiqiie ou melhocle nalurelle de classification des animaux ..., 

' p. 76. 
orbicularis, Tesludo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syslenia Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 198. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Testudo lutaria Linnaeus. 1758 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Emvs Dumeril. 1806; 
Lindholin, W.A. 1929. Zoologiscber .4ii:eiger, 81: 282, footnote. 

The following is the reference for the first reviser selection of the precedence of Testudo 
orbicularis over T. lutaria, both of Linnaeus (1758); 
Mertens, R. & Wcrmuth, H. 1960. Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas, p. 12. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 113 

OPINION 1801 

Cetiosamiscus Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha): 
Cetiosamiscus stewarti Charig, 1980 designated as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927 are hereby set aside and Ceiiosaiiriscus stewarti 
Charig, 1980 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Cetiosauriscus stewarti Charig, 
1 980, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name stewarti Charig, 1980, as published in the binomen Cetiosauriscus 
stewarti (specific name of the type species of Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2876 

An apphcation for the designation of Cetiosauriscus stewarti Charig, 1980 as the 
type species of Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927 was received from Dr A.J. Charig {The 
Natural History Museum. London. U.K.) on 1 February 1993. After correspondence 
the case was pubhshed in BZN 50: 282-283 (December 1993). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 283. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Stys. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Stys commented: 'This is clearly a case where the Commission is asked to settle 
a taxonomic problem (resulting from the incompleteness of two critical fossil 
specimens) by nomenclatural action'. 

Original references 

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

Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927, Eclogae Geologicae Helveliae. 20(3): 453. 

stewarti, Cetiosauriscus, Charig, 1980, in Jacobs, L.L. (Ed.), Aspects of vertebrate history: 
essays in honor of Edwin Harris Colbert, p. 242. 



114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 

OPINION 1802 

Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida): conserved 



Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Dinodontosaurus oliveirai Romer, 1943 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Dicynodon turpior Huene, 1935), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 

(3) 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), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

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



History of Case 2807 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Dinodontosaurus Romer, 
1943 by the suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym Diodontosaurus 
Caldas, 1936 was received from Dr Spencer G. Lucas (A^eir Mexico Museum of 
Natural History. Albuquerque, New Mexico. U.S.A.) on 30 January 1991. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 52-54 (March 1992). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 March 1993. The 
proposals gained a majority of votes (14 votes in favour, II against) but not the 
two-thirds majority required for the suppression of Diodontosaurus. On 1 September 
1994 the application was submitted for a revote under the Bylaws. 

A comment in support of the application from Dr S. Bandyopadhyay (Geological 
Studies Unit. Calcutta, India) was published in BZN 49: 291 (December 1992). 
Further comments in support from Drs A.R.I. Cruickshank (University of Leicester, 
Leicester, U.K.), Laurie R. Walter (Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, 
U.S.A.) and Alan J. Charig (The Natural History Museum. London, U.K.) were 
published in BZN 50: 290 (December 1993). 

It was noted on the voting paper that, voting in March 1993 against the 
application, Dupuis commented that the similarity of the names Diodontosaurus and 
Dinodontosaurus was perhaps not fortuitous and that, with an illustration and a type 
specimen, Caldas's name Diodontosaurus pedroanuin was certainly not a nomen 
nudum (paras. 2 and 5 of the application). It was also noted that, although Mones 
(1986) was cited in para. 5 of the application as listing Diodontosaurus pedroanum as 
a distinct taxon, he had hsted Dinodontosaurus with five included nominal species 
under the family stahleckeriidae Cox, 1965, but had noted Diodontosaurus 
pedroanum only as '?stahleciceri[DAE incertae sedis'. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 115 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 53. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Heppell, Mahnert, 
Minelli. Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Wilhnk 

Negative votes — 8: Bouchet, Hahn. Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, 
Martins de Souza and Stys. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Dinociontosaurus Romer, 1943, BiiUeiin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Harvard 

University. 92: 336. 
Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936, Revisla Instituto Hislorico e Geografico do Rio-Grande-do-Sul. 

16: 249. 
lurpior, Dicynodon, Huene, 1935, Diefossilen Replitien des siidamerikanischen Gondwanalandes 

an der Zeitenwende. Ordnung Anomodontia, Lieferung 1, p. 76. 



1 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52( 1 1 March 1 995 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the 
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with 
these guidelines may be returned. 

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the 
Code's provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this 
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat apphcations on this basis. Applicants are 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. 

Texl. 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. Where possible, ten or more 
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are 
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should 
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable 
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, 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 IBM PC compatible format, 
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission's Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 



Contents — comimied 

On the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda) as the 

correct original spelling. L.B. Holthuis; A. Brandt; N.L. Bruce 67 

On the proposed conservation of usage of the generic naines Melanophila 

Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera). S. Bily & C,L. 

Bellamy 70 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. 

foelidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) (Insecta, 

Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg; F.-T. Krell; Z.T. Stebnicka 71 

On the proposed conservation of Ischyrus. Lybas and Mycolretus Lacordaire, 1 842 

and of Meguf/nn« Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.C. Funk 73 

On the designation of Miisca lancifer Harris, [ 1 780] as the type species of Hydrophoria 

Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera), and proposal of a neotype for M. 

lancifer. D.M. Ackland & G.C.D. Griffiths 74 

On the proposed conservation oi Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775 by 

the designation of Conops buccaia Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Myopa, 

and on CoenonjvvV? Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Diptera). A. Gentry 74 

On the proposed conservation of the usage of the specific names of Bombus terreslris 

and B. inuscorum (Linnaeus, 1758). B. lucorum (Linnaeus, 1761) and B. humilis 

Illiger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). H. Silfverberg 76 

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) 

(Reptilia, Saurischia). R.M. Sullivan 76 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Liophis poecilogyrus 

(Wied-Neuwied, [1824]) (Reptilia, Serpentes). L.J. Witt; E.L. Bell & K.L. 

Williams 77 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published in 

Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale. A. Mones; F. Fetter; A. Turner; A.L. Gardner; 

F. de Beaufort, L. Granjon, J.M. Pons & M. Tranier; C. Jones; N. Sivasothi; J.L. 

Eger; B. Sige; M.E. Holden; S. Aulagnier; G.B. Corbet; J.-L. Hartenberger; H. de 

Bruijn; M. Vianey-Liaud; J.J. Hooker; A. Gentry 78 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1792. Pleuroioma meneghiiiii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenoloma 

meneghmii: Mollusca, Gastropoda): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype . 94 

OPINION 1793. Chlenopteryx Appellof, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): confirmed 

as the correct original spelling 96 

OPINION 1794. Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, [1777] (Insecta, Heteroptera): specific 

name conserved, and Notonecta obliqim Thunberg, 1787: specific name placed on 

the Official List 98 

OPINION 1795. Corisa sexUneala Reuter, 1882 (currently Sigara {Tropocorixa) 

sexlineata: Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name not conserved, and that of C. 

confluens Fieber, 1851 placed on Official List 100 

OPINION 1796. P/anwcrM Regimbart, 1879 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . . 102 

OPINION 1797. Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved, and 

//e/o»ivr(?/<?/;ei?rafa Fallen, 1820 designated as the type species 104 

OPINION 1798. Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodonti- 

formes): given precedence over R. ocellatus Hensel, 1 868, and a neotype designated 

for R. marmoratus 106 

OPINION 1799. Naucrales Rafinesque, 1810 and Xyriclnys Cuvier, 1814 

(Osteichthyes, Perciformes): conserved 109 

OPINION 1800. £mwDumeril, 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): conserved Ill 

OPINION 1801. Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha): Celio- 

MwranwireiiarnCharig, 1980 designated as the type species 113 

OPINION 1802. Dinodonlosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida): conserved . . 114 

Information and Instructions for Authors 116 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 1 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications . 2 

Addresses of members of the Commission 3 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 4 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 4 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

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

1990 5 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 5 

Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature 6 

General Article 

The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review of the 

problem and of proposed solutions. J.O. Corliss 11 

Applications 

Sliclosiroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): proposed conservation, and 

designation of 5. gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species. C.W. Stearn ... 18 

Aplysia Juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. E. Martinez & J. Ortea 21 

Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, 
Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. A. Guerra & M.A. 
Alonso-Zarazaga 24 

Dodecaceria concharum Orsted. 1843 and Helerocirrus fimbrialus Verrill, 1879 
(currently D. fimhriala) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the 
specific names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. PH. Gibson & 
D. Heppell 27 

Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita): proposed conser- 
vation. R.M. Owens & A.T. Thomas 34 

Diplocenlrus inexicanus Peters. 1861 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed confirmation 

of the rediscovered holotype as the name-bearing type. W.D. Sissom 37 

Nepa ruslica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843 (currently 
Diplonychus ruslicus and Belosloina stollii; Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed con- 
servation of the specific names. J.T. Polhemus & I.M. Kerzhner 40 

Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as 
the correct original spelling, and aspidiphoridae Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859): 
proposed placement on the Official List. J.V. McHugh 44 

XANTHOLrNtNi Erichson, 1839 and quediini Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed precedence over senior synonyms, and Quedius Stephens, 1829: proposed 
designation of Staphylimis levicollis Brulle, 1832 as the type species. A.F. Newton, Jr. 48 

Metablaslolbrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of 
Blastothrix {Metablastolhrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species. N.D. 
Voinovich, V.A. Trjapitzin & E.S. Sugonjaev 54 

Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed conser- 
vation; AGONiDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and agonidae Swainson, 1839 
(Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed removal of homonymy. B.A. Sheiko . 57 

Proposed conservation of nine specific names of southern Afrotropical birds which 

are junior synonyms. P.A. Clancey & R.K. Brooke 61 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of usage oi Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Miinster, 1839 
and Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). D.T. Donovan; W. Riegraf; 
M. Nixon; T.S. Engeser 65 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Pnnled in Great Bntain by Henry Ling Lid., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 



Volume 52, Part 2, 30 June 1995 pp. 117-224 ISSN 0007-5167 



The 



THE NATURAL 
HISTORY .V'riiqpiKVi 

-7 JUL IbaJ) 

PUHCHMbtD 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



lCjAj\ lThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological 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. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1995 is £88 
or $170, 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. 0171-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Officers 

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs ( United Kingdom) 



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) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.: Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany: Trilohita) 
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) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

( Switzerland: Ich ihyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr 1. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoplera) 
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 (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.: Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

(Russia; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno (Japan; Entomology) 



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) 



I International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1995 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



I THE NATURAL 
HISTORXi^.^liqFUN 
-7 JUL mb 

PUKCdMotD 
ZOOLOGY LIBRAR 



Volume 52, part 2 (pp. 117-224) 30 June 1995 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- 
cation 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 E.xecutive 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 pubhshed 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 52, part 1 (published on 30 March 1995). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Fessisentis friedi Nickol. 1972 (Acanthocephala): proposed conservation of 
the specific name. (Case 2959). D.F. McAlpine. 

(2) Hemidactylus garnotii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed 
conservation of the specific name. (Case 2960). H.M. Smith, A.G. Kluge, 
A.M. Bauer & D. Chiszar. 

(3) Akyonidium mytili Dalyell. 1848 (Bryozoa): proposed designation of a 
replacement neotype. (Case 2961). J.S. Ryland & P.S. Cadman. 

(4) D.L.G. Karsten (1789), Museum Leskeanum. vol. 1 (Regnum Animale): 
proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. (Case 2962). G. 
Rosenberg. 

(5) Alucita erxlehella Fabricius, 1787 and Tinea imella Hiibner, [1813] (currently 
Roeslerstammia erxlehella and Monopis imella: Insecta, Lepidoptera): pro- 
posed conservation of the specific names, and of Roeslerstammia Zeller. 
1839, by the replacement of R. erxlehella syntype by a neotype. (Case 2963). 
P. Huemer. 

(6) S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992) Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells: proposed 
suppression for nomenclatural purposes. (Case 2964). A.R. Kabat. 

(7) Sihoma atraria Girard, 1856 (currently Gila atruria: Osteichthyes. Cyprini- 
formes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2965). C.R. 
Gilbert. 



1 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

(8) Dacus latifrons Hendel, 1915 (currently Bactrocera latifrons; Insecta, 
Diptera): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of D. parvulus 
Hendel, 1912. (Case 2967). l.M. White & N.J. Liquido. 

(9) Bisehuhista Traugott-Olsen & Nielsen, 1977 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed 
confirmation of Elacliista freyi Staudinger, 1870 as the type species. (Case 
2968), E. Traugott-Olsen. 

(10) Bomhycilla cedrorwn Vieillot, 1808 and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, 1809 
(Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 
2969). M.R. Browning & R.C. Banks. 

(11) Tyramntia minima Baird & Baird, 1843 (currently Empidonax minimus) and 
Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859 (Aves; Passeriformes): proposed 
conservation of the specific names. (Case 2970). R.C. Banks & M.R. 
Browning. 

(12) Sepia orbigniana Ferussac in d'Orbigny, 1826 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): 
proposed conservation of orbignyana as the correct original spelling of the 
specific name. (Case 2971). G. Bello & A. Minelli. 

(13) Stilpon Loew, 1859 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2974), 
J.M. Cumming & N.L. Evenhuis. 

(14) Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over 
Aenasioidea Girault, 1911. (Case 2975). J.S. Noyes & J.B. Woolley. 

(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 



Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 

The terms of service of the following members of the Commission will end at the 
close of the general session planned in conjunction with the International Congress 
of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) to be held in Budapest between 
August 17-24, 1996: Dr P.M. Bayer (U.S.A., Corallia); Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A., 
Protista); Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita); Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway, 
Parasitology); Dr Ya.I. Starobogatov (Russia, Mollusca); Dr V.A. Trjapitzin 
(Russia, Hymenoptera). Additional vacancies will exist following the retirement of 
Prof L.B. Holthuis (The Netherlands, Crustacea) and Prof A. Willink (Argentina, 
Hymenoptera). All zoologists attending ICSEB will be able to take part in elections 
to the Commission. 

The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may 
be found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52(1): 3^ (March 1995). 

The Commission invites nominations, by any person or institution, of potential 
candidates for membership. Article 2b of the Constitution prescribes that: 

'The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of 
nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology who are 
known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature." 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 119 

(It should be noted that 'zoology' here includes the applied biological sciences 
(medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names). 

Nominations made since June 1990 will be reconsidered automatically and need 
not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the age, nationality and qualifi- 
cations (by the criteria mentioned above) of each nominee should be sent by 1 June 1996 
to: The Executive Secretary. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
do The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 



Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was set up on 
18 September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development 
of nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission will be published 
in mid- 1995, entitled 'Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995' (ISBN 85301 
005 6). 

The main text was written by R.V. Melville (former Secretary of the Commission) 
and has been completed and updated following his death. It contains 14 full-page 
pictures of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system 
of animal nomenclature as universally accepted today. 

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.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £30 or 
$50 (including surface postage); members of the American and European Associ- 
ations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £20 or $35. 
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 1 895; 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, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. 
Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses. 



120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(21 June 1995 

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.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163. National 
Museum of Natural History. Washington D.C, 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £ 1 9 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. 



The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established 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. Andre (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, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 
28006 Madrid, Spain. 



Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

A Discussion Draft of a new (fourth) edition of the Code is now available. Copies 
are being sent without charge to all subscribers to the Bulletin and to members of the 
American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature. Any other 
institution or individual may order a copy from the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o 
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD. The cost of 
printing and postage is about £3 or US$5. Bank charges on currency exchange make 
it uneconomic to pay this amount except in sterling or US dollars. The draft of the 
Code will therefore be sent free of charge, but those able to pay in sterling or US 
dollars are asked to enclose a cheque for £3 or US$5 to cover the cost. 

Before completing the definitive text of the Fourth Edition, the Commission 
will (in accordance with Article 16 of its Constitution) take into account all 
comments and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original 
distribution. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 121 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature 

The current (Third) edition of the Code was published in February 1985. It was 
inevitable that some constructive suggestions made before that time could not be 
incorporated, and many others were prompted by the appearance of the new edition. 
In 1988 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature set up an 
Editorial Committee to work towards an eventual Fourth Edition and published 
an invitation to zoologists to submit further recommendations. Many have been 
received, and the Commission is grateful to all those who have assisted it. The 
Commission held open meetings in 1988 (Canberra), 1990 (Maryland) and 1991 
(Amsterdam) for preliminary discussion of proposed improvements to the Code, 
many of them intended to meet changing needs and rapidly evolving communication 
techniques. 

The Editorial Committee met in Hamburg in October 1993 and reviewed 
each Article of the existing Code in the light of the above discussions and all the 
suggestions which had been made. The Editorial Committee now offers to all 
zoologists and other users of scientific names, and to the full Commission itself, a 
Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition. Under Article 16 of its Constitution the 
Commission will take into full consideration all comments made on the Draft 
within one year of its original distribution (that is, by the end of May 1996). It is 
hoped that it will be possible to publish the new Edition, with the approval of the 
International Union of Biological Sciences, in 1996 and that its provisions will 
take formal effect (superseding the current edition) on 1 January 1997. To achieve 
this timetable, and more importantly to ensure that the Code will meet the needs 
of its users, zoologists and others are now invited to submit comments on the 
Discussion Draft. 

The Editorial Committee has been guided by the principle that scientific names are 
labels for taxa and provide the only universal means of accessing zoological 
information. Stability in their application and form, consistent with taxonomy, is 
therefore of paramount importance irrespective of any priority or linguistic consider- 
ation. This aim to maintain stability must take precedence over the tools that the 
Code uses to promote it. Thus, while priority remains the basis for determining 
validity, and linguistics the basis for the formation of names, neither is an end in 
itself. Under the changing circumstances of science these and other means of 
promoting stability must be reviewed for each new Edition. This has been done 
and the major changes proposed reflect that view. Like all zoologists, members of 
the Editorial Committee recognize that many names in current use are in breach 
of the existing Code and that no scientific purpose would be served by continuing 
to make them vulnerable to change for purely formal reasons. In the proposals for 
the Fourth Edition every effort has been made to ensure that names in present use 
will remain valid when the new Code comes into effect, or that they can be 
easily validated. 

The proposed Edition differs from earlier ones in enabling zoologists, wherever 
possible, to adopt automatic solutions directly, rather than requiring them to defer 
decisions until the Commission has determined the outcome in response to formal 
applications. It is emphasized that in every such case the proposed "do-it-yourself 



122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2| June 1995 

solution involves consultation with workers interested in the field. Recourse to the 
Commission remains in the event of disagreement and as a safeguard against abuse. 
The notes below are intended to draw attention to the main proposals which 
distinguish the Discussion Draft from the current Code, and to indicate some of 
the reasons for making changes; the Draft itself must be consulted for details of the 
Articles and Recommendations. For the sake of continuity the order of Articles in the 
existing Code has been retained. The Draft does not contain the indexes, appendices 
and glossary which will be in the definitive Code, nor proposed amendments to the 
Commission's Constitution (see BZN 52: 6-10). 

I. Additional requirements for the availability of names first published after 1996 
Several proposals are made to improve the unambiguous definition and typifica- 

tion of new nominal taxa and the recognition and accessibility of their names. In 
practice the great majority of names published in recent decades meet the suggested 
requirements, but these will not apply retrospectively. 

(a) Species-group taxa. 

(i) The new nominal species or subspecies must be explicitly indicated as being new 
[Art. I6e]. 

(ii) The name-bearing type (a holotype, or syntype series) of the new nominal 
taxon must be unambiguously designated [Arts. 16e, 72c]. 

(iii) The diagnosis of the taxon must include a summary of characters which are 
considered to differentiate it from at least one other of the same rank (i.e. related 
species or subspecies) which must be cited by name [Art. 16a]. 

(iv) The diagnosis must be given in a language which uses the Latin alphabet; it is 
recommended that the diagnosis should be given in a language which is widely used, 
and also in those of the regions relevant to the taxon [Art. 16b]. 

(v) A new name must be recorded as such in the Zoological Record within five 
years of its first publication; if it is not, it is deemed not available from that 
publication [Arts. 8e, 1 lb]. Procedures and safeguards are recommended. Mandatory 
listing in the Zoological Record (which is accessible on paper, compact disk, and 
electronically) means that only this single source will need to be searched for the 
existence of new names. 

(b) Genus-group taxa. The new requirements are the same as those given above, 
with the necessary changes of wording [Arts. 16, lib]. The designation of a 
name-bearing type (i.e. type species) is already required [Art. 13c], and this is now 
extended to new ichnogenera (genera of trace fossils) [Arts. I6d, 66]. 

(c) Family-group taxa. The additional requirements are entirely analogous to those 
mentioned above. It is proposed that the name of the type genus must be explicitly 
cited [Art. 16c]. 

II. Use of the term 'epithet' in species-group names 

Because there has been some confusion betwen the 'name of a species' (which is a 
binomen) and the 'specific name' (the word in the binomen which denotes the 
species), it is proposed that 'specific name' be replaced by 'specific epithet'. The same 
applies to 'subspecific epithet'. This change is in harmony with the Iiiienuitional Code 
of Botanical Nomenclature. 

III. New provisions relating to the application of the Principle of Priority 
Although priority is the main criterion in determining the validity of compet- 
ing names the draft makes provisions enabling zoologists to depart from it in 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 123 

some situations, without recourse to the Commission as required by the present 
Code. 

(a) Conservation of junior synonyms. When a senior synonym has not been used as 
vaHd in the previous fifty years and a junior name has been universally used in this 
period then the junior name is to be given precedence [Art. 23j]. 

(b) Conservation oj subsequent spellings. Providing the same criteria as mentioned 
for junior synonyms are met, a subsequent spelling of a name which is different from 
that first published is to be accepted as the correct original spelling [Art. 33d]. 

(c) Usage of family-group names contrary to priority. If two family-group names 
are in general current use such that the taxon denoted by the senior name (e.g. a 
subfamily) is included within that (e.g. a family) denoted by the junior name, such 
usage is to continue even though it is contrary to priority [Art. 35e]. 

IV. New provisions relating to the typification of nominal taxa 

The additional criteria for a name published after 1996 to be available include 
some relating to type fixation, and these have been mentioned under I above. The 
draft contains other provisions which relate to typification but do not affect the 
availability of names, and which propose solutions independent of reference of cases 
to the Commission. 

(a) Acceptance of name-bearing types found to have been misidentified. 

(i) Family-group taxa: if a zoologist discovers that the type genus had been 
misidentified when the taxon was established, or that there were errors or overlooked 
fixations in the typification of the type genus itself, the erroneous nominal fixations 
actually made should be accepted unless stability is threatened [Art. 41a]. 

(ii) Genus-group taxa: analogous provisions apply [Art. 70b]. 

(b) Leclotype designations after 1996. 

It is proposed that a lectotype designation made after 1996 must give reasons and 
be unambiguous [Art. 74a]. 

(c) Status of neotypes following rediscovery of original type material. 

A validly designated neotype is to be retained as the name-bearing type of a 
species-group taxon if rediscovery of original type material causes no instability [Art. 
75j]. 

V. New provisions concerning the grammar and spelling of names 

Zoologists have spent much time debating matters which are purely of grammar or 
spelling, and many destabilizing name changes have been caused as a result. Very few 
modern zoologists are at ease with Latin, although this was the language of 
international communication to Linnaeus and his successors (who. even so, were not 
always rigorous in their grammatical practices). Even fewer have any knowledge of 
classical Greek. The draft Code attempts (i) to respect the names of the past but to 
preserve them in the forms in which they have been used in modern times, (ii) to avoid 
name changes, i.e. obstacles to information retrieval, made for non-taxonomic 
reasons, and (iii) not to regulate or 'correct" the spelling of new names. The new 
provisions will no doubt be controversial, but the Editorial Committee hopes that 
criticism of them will be for zoological or practical reasons and not simply on 
linguistic or historical grounds. The following changes are proposed. 

(a) Gender of generic names. 

It is proposed that after 1996 generic names should be regarded as words having 
no gender and therefore not aflTecting the spelling of adjectival specific epithets (e.g. 



124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

alhus, -a, -urn) combined with tiiem [Art. 30]. Consequent on this, the Editorial 
Committee ofTers two akernatives [see Arts. 31b, 32c and 48] for discussion, as 
tbllows. 

Either, (i) After 1996 the original ending of such an epithet is to be used in all 
combinations, whether or not the combination is new and whether or not a change 
in an existing binomen results; Or. (ii) the ending of such an epithet is to remain as 
it is in an existing combination (so a binomen already in use for a species remains 
unchanged), but in new combinations first published after 1996 the original ending of 
the epithet is to be used. 

(b) Acceptance of incorrect spellings. 

(i) The original spelling of an adjectival species-group epithet first published after 
1996 should be accepted as correct, even if its gender ending is grammatically 
improper in the original combination [Art. 31b]. 

(ii) Certain endings of species-group epithets that are formed from personal names 
are to be treated as identical: thus spellings such as smithi and smithii are permissible 
variants [Art. 31b]. 

(iii) If an incorrect spelling of a name has been generally accepted that spelling is 
not to be changed [Arts. 29d, 33d]. 

(iv) A new family-group name may be formed by adding the appropriate ending 
(e.g. -IDAE, -inae) to the entire name of the type genus, rather than only to its stem 
[Art. 29a,c]. This may be necessary to avoid the new family-group name being a junior 
homonym of one based on another generic name which has the same stem. The 
spelling of a new family-group name should not be emended by reason of a grammati- 
cally incorrect stem [Art. 29c]. If a disused family-group name is a senior homonym of 
one in use its stem may be emended so as to conserve the junior name [Art. 55c]. 

VI. Adoption of Lists of Available and Potentially Valid Names 

In some taxonomic fields workers may wish to establish lists of names at particular 
ranks (e.g. the family-, genus- or species-groups) which will automatically take 
precedence over any relevant names not listed [Art. 78j], so that the listed names and 
name-bearing types may be used with confidence (taxonomic validity being left, as 
always, to individual judgement). Procedures are proposed [Art. 77] for the adoption 
by the Commission of such Lists, it being made clear that adoption will be only in 
response to initiatives by zoologists interested in the relevant taxonomic field and that 
extensive consultations will always be needed before the adoption of such a List. 

The Preface to the current (1985) edition points out (p. xii): "No Code is perfect. 
None will please everyone. Indeed, it is unlikely that any Code would be completely 
satisfactory to any individual'. Some of the innovations proposed for the Fourth 
Edition will be controversial, but the Editorial Committee believes that the Discus- 
sion Draft provides a significant advance for the future while respecting and 
preserving the names of the past. 

We urge zoologists to test the changes proposed by the Editorial Committee 
constructively and without prejudice, with the needs of the wider biological com- 
munity in mind, and with awareness of the changed circumstances of taxonomists 
today. We ask those who are not specialists but who use scientific names, in whatever 
way, to make suggestions so that the Code will meet their needs. We are aware that 
we are asking those who will comment on the proposals and those who will vote on 
their adoption, who are mostly specialists located in long-established centres, to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 125 

review proposals sympathetically even though many will consider them unnecessary 
in their own situations. The most important of these changes, if adopted, will widen 
the medium of publication beyond print media into an electronic age, will reduce 
dependence upon expensive and comprehensive library holdings and ancient works 
for nomenclatural searches, and will make familiarity with classical Latin and Greek 
grammar unnecessary. 

We look forward to receiving suggestions that will improve the proposals, and for 
support that we are confident will result in the Commission and the International 
Union of Biological Sciences adopting on behalf of zoologists and users of scientific 
names a Fourth Edition that will more effectively meet the needs of the 21st century 
than could its predecessor. 

O. Kraus W.D.L. Ride 

President Chairman, Editorial Committee 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

NOTE. Since the Discussion Draft is subject to amendment the provisions set out in 
it have no force, and it is to be used exclusively for the purpose of formulating possible 
improvements. These should be sent to the address below by 31 May 1996. 

The Executive Secretary, 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 

do The Natural History Museum, 

Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 5BD. 



126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Comment on Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth 
(Hawksworth et al., 1994) 

Arthur E. Bogan 

Freshwater MoUuscan Research, 36 Venus Way, Sewell, New Jersey 08080, 

U.S.A. 

Earle E. Spamer 

Diatom Herbarium, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1900 

Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1195, U.S.A. 

Introduction ' Whatever, and however little, we may think about such things, we are all 
of us bound to have some taxonomic concepts.' (Cain, 1959c, p. 302.) 

The momentum towards a 'harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth' seems 
sufficiently strong to suppose that it is broadly embraced by biologists (lUBS, 1994). 
The number and diversity of biological and nomenclatural organizations who 
participated in an exploratory meeting in 1994 (Hawksworth et al., 1994, p. 213) 
documents the scope of the effort. Hawksworth et al. (1994) have summarized some 
points that are areas of concern in a 'harmonization' of bionomenclature. However, 
the direction, in our view, is leading toward nomenclatural procedures and 
'protected' lists of names that will result in a systematic bipartisan nomenclature for 
life on Earth — and that seems to be contrary to harmonization. 

Intention of a Harmonized Bionomenclature 

We agree with the principle of a harmonized bionomenclature, and we believe that 
a set of panregnal rules can be effectively implemented. This supposition is 
substantiated if the range of input from the roster of biologists and organizations 
represented at the 1994 exploratory meeting correctly reflects the range that would go 
into drafting a unified Code. The development of such a Code, including a 
much-needed glossary of biological nomenclature such as envisioned in the draft by 
Hawksworth (1994), would facilitate communication and decrease misunderstanding 
between systematists and other practising biologists. 

Our concerns are about the role of standardized versus protected lists of 
organisms. There is bound to be some conflict between a unified Code and 
independent programs of nomenclatural standardization, because the existing, 
progressing programs have been brought into being without the benefit of a 
harmonized bionomenclature. Some lists may have to be revised to reflect the 
provisions of a unified Code. Some lists, wholly or in part, may become antique 
nomenclatural relics if a unified Code mandates lists of protected names. 

The taproot of a unified Code of bionomenclature, as outlined by Hawksworth 
et al. (1994, p. 203), is the 'protection of Names in Current Use (NCUs)". This could 
take the form of 'block conservation' (against specified other names) or of 'a new 
starting document which devalidates all unlisted names'; in the latter case names 
omitted from the list could 'be reinstated, then taking priority only from the date they 
are revived". This passes far beyond the scope of such documents as the 'Official Lists 
and Indexes' of names issued by the ICZN, or the lists of conserved names that 
appear in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter et al., 1994), 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 127 

which reflect names conserved by plenary actions of international Commissions of 
nomenclature. Our assertion here is that the implementation of global lists of NCUs, 
as lists of 'protected names', may serve the intended purpose of stabilizing nomen- 
clature for a greater set of practising biologists, but it is bound to destabilize work by 
the smaller, driving set of systematists. As we indicate below, there are many 
standard lists already in existence which fill the need for convenient reference by 
practising biologists and non-taxonomists. These standard lists have the great 
advantage that they can be periodically updated so as to reflect changes in systematic 
opinion; they are not rigid and 'infallible' lists of protected names. 

Hawksworth et al. (1994, p. 192) indicated that a 1991 meeting of the International 
Union of Biological Sciences (lUBS) and the International Association for Plant 
Taxonomy (I APT), on the stability of names (see Hawksworth, 1991), was convened 
because of the recognition 'that name changes for non-scientific reasons continue to 
inconvenience all users of the scientific names of organisms'. Hawksworth (1993) 
previously discussed the desirability of avoiding 'name changes for purely nomen- 
clatural reasons". 

Hawksworth et al. ( 1 994, pp. 1 89- 191) have summarized the conclusions agreed by 
the 1994 exploratory meeting. Among them (item no. 4, p. 190) is the consideration 
'that the availability of lists of published names, and the registration of new names 
in bacteriology, botany, virology and zoology, will make possible the harmonization 
of nomenclatural procedures in biology.' Indeed. Hawksworth (1992) has already 
elaborated upon 'the need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st 
century'; there he called for the construction of lists of 'nomenclaturally protected 
names' and 'registration procedures' for new names. 

The concept of registration is a broad one — it encompasses individual names as 
well as the publications in which they appear; it brings into reach the concept of 
'protected' names and "approved' publications. Although bacteriologists already 
subscribe to the principle of approved names, and the registration of new names only 
in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology (Skerman et al.. 1989; 
Hawksworth et al., 1994, p. 204), outside this specialized discipline it should not be 
the function of an international Commission to either 'approve' or 'register' names or 
publications. A Commission can better serve biologists by establishing the means to 
formally collate names into nomenclators whose purpose is to document the existence 
(or availability) of the names; it should not drive systematics. Indeed, one of the 
primary missions of Systematics Agenda 2000 is 'to organize the information derived 
from this global program in an efficiently retrievable form that best meets the needs 
of science and society' (Systematics Agenda 2000, 1994, p. I). 

Hawksworth et al. (1994, p. 204) mention that for zoological names Zoological 
Record, published by Biosis International, 'is the proposed de facto registration office 
for new names'. We point out that Bouchet & Rocroi (1992, 1993) and Edwards & 
Thorne (1993) have discussed the significantly incomplete coverage of names of 
mollusks in Zoological Record. We are unaware of similar comparisons in other 
disciplines, but it would be worthwhile to make similar investigations for other 
zoological groups, and to first develop criteria to improve the recording of taxa. 

A harmonized bionomenclature should be one that works for biologists; it should 
include the definitions of the purpose and components of taxonomic registers, and 
how they are to be updated; it should not identify 'approved' taxonomic registers. A 



128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(2) June 1995 

unified Code should create the means to more judiciously disseminate taxonomic 
names to biologists around the world. 

'Standard' or 'Protected'? Bionomenclature or Bi-Nomenclature? 

Nomenclators striving for comprehensiveness have been published since the 
mid- 19th century. Modern ones e.xist for many aspects of zoology and botany, for 
which citations are nearly superfluous. These include such principal sources as 
Zoological Record, issued yearly since 1 864 in parts organized by major taxonomic 
groups (with a gap 1907-1914 that was filled by the International Catalogue of 
Scientific Literature, [Part] N, Zoology); Index Animalium (Sherborn, 1902-1933); 
Nomenclator Zoologiciis (Neave et al., 1939-1993): Index Kewensis, the nomenclator 
for flowering and seed-bearing plants, begun with Jackson (1894-1895), followed by 
21 supplements to date; and the Index Nominum Genericorum (Pkmtarum) (Farr et al. 
1979, 1986). A CD-ROM amalgamation of Neave's Nomenclator and Zoological 
Record has been proposed for generic names. Specialized nomenclators for major 
organismic groups also exist; for example, the Catalogue of the Fossil and Recent 
Genera and Species of Diatoms and their Synonyms (VanLandingham, 1967-1979), 
the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Moore et al., 1953-1992). or Fossilium 
Catalogus, published in two series, 'I: Animalia', since 1913 thus far in 134 parts, and 
'II: Plantae', since 1913 thus far in 95 parts). All of these, while indispensable, are 
principally reference works; they record taxonomic nomenclature usually at the level 
of genera and species. Some, such as Sherborn and Neave, do not deal with 
synonymization; others, such as VanLandingham, do list taxa according to senior 
and junior synonyms. 

Beyond the nomenclator is the 'standard list', for which a formal definition is 
lacking (cf. Hawksworth, 1994). Generally, a standard list is an itemization of taxa 
known to occur in a region (for geographic lists) or in a systematic group (for 
systematically organized lists). There is already significant momentum toward 
nomenclatural standardization through the publication of standard lists. This is 
being accomplished within different systematic groups as well as for separate 
geographical areas. Such lists have been prepared by individual researchers, and by 
consortia and committees of professional biologists working at the behest of 
organizations and governmental agencies. The organization and function of each list 
reflects the intended use of the list; some are taxonomic and nomenclatural guides 
(e.g., Dennapterorum Catalogus (S'dk'du 1970-1995), Catalog of the Genera of Recent 
Fishes (Eschmeyer. 1990)), some reflect international concerns that provide guidance 
for national and internal programs of regulation and conservation (such as lists of 
endangered and threatened organisms; e.g., Groombridge, 1993), and others are 
more bureaucratic in scope (such as candidate review lists of endangered or 
threatened species; e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994). Standard lists are 
inherently biased; they are compromised by arbitrarily selecting one named taxon to 
represent what, in the opinion of some systematists, might be identified as another or 
several taxa. Some lists are simple listings of names, sometimes accompanied 
by directories of common names (e.g. Hart, 1994), while others are themselves 
contributions to systematics. 

We can cite examples largely from among the rapidly accumulating standard lists 
of organisms in North America, but lists for other regions of the world, and for the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 129 

whole world, are also becoming available. For instance, the American Fisheries 
Society produces a series of lists that are on a cycle of revisions appearing every ten 
years. They itemize recently named new species and necessary nomenclatural 
changes; changes are explained and justified in the texts. Currently there are 
checklists for fishes (Robins el al., 1991), mollusks (Turgeon et al., 1988; second 
edition in review), decapods (Williams el al., 1989), and ctenophorans and cnidarians 
(Cairns el al., 1991). Among works in review or in preparation are the volumes on 
crustaceans, annelids, aquatic insects, echinoderms, sponges, bryozoans, and 
'miscellaneous' groups. 

The Check-List of European Marine Mollusks (CLEMAM) is a current project 
for the development of a checklist of the marine mollusks of Europe, and 
many European countries are developing maps and lists of land and fresh- 
water mollusks. Insect groups, particularly those of agricultural concern, have 
been the subject of extensive lists from early in the 20th century. Standard lists 
exist for the Orthoptera of the world (Otte, 1994a-c), birds of the world (Sibley & 
Monroe, 1990) and mammals of the world (Nowak, 1991; Wilson & Reeder, 
1993). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations 
produces an extensive series of annotated world catalogues of 'Species of Interest 
to Fisheries'. Lists are now playing an important part in endangered-species 
programs such as those under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International 
Union for the Conservation of Nature (lUCN), and aspects of the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) that regulates import- 
ation and exportation of some biological materials. Regional floras are equally 
ambitious in their presentation, ranging from simple taxonomic lists to systematic 
revisions. 

Systematic monographs that are themselves standard lists include, for example, 
the Land MoUusca of Norih America (North of Mexico) (Pilsbry, 1939-1948), and 
The Diaioms of I he United States (Patrick & Reimer, 1966, 1975). Problems are met 
when attention is turned away from taxonomic groups that either have economic 
importance (as with agriculture) or are well-studied in developed parts of the world. 
Also, the paucity of systematic investigators in some groups of organisms ensures 
that there are many antiquated taxonomic lists that have little hope of being updated 
soon, and we question how 'protected' lists will affect the taxonomy of these groups. 
Additional concerns are seen by some researchers who disagree with the identity 
of taxa that appear in the standard lists. This disparity results from redirected 
focuses of biological education and from a skewed distribution of researchers both 
geographically and taxonomically. 

Systematics Agenda 2000, a consortium of taxonomic and systematic societies 
working in cooperation with the Association of Systematics Collections, has 
developed a long-range plan for describing the remaining undescribed species in the 
world in the next 25 years (Systematics Agenda 2000, 1994). The plan is divided into 
three missions: to inventory, to describe diversity and develop a predictive classifi- 
cation of life on Earth, and to put all of this information into an efficiently organized 
database. Some ideas for a global database have been enacted by Species 2000, a 
World Species Enumeration program adopted in 1994 by the lUBS. The kinds of 
databases envisioned by these projects have the potential to serve as the basis for a 
global nomenclator of names. 



130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

We agree that the compilation of regional or global lists of taxa should be 
conducted by specialist societies for the region or taxonomic group concerned. 
Regional lists thus can be incorporated into a global list by the international society 
representing the taxonomic group; for example, Unitas Malacologica could over- 
see the development and production of a global list of mollusks. But all lists must 
be developed by those systematists working on the groups, to be complete and 
effective. The role of the major systematic societies is to facilitate the interaction of 
the specialists and to provide the incentive for development of these lists. The role 
of an international Commission of nomenclature should be to coordinate the 
progress of the systematic societies and smaller groups who are working with 
organisms for which there are no international societies. Extending further the 
utility of databases, we cite the example of the North American Diatom Ecological 
Database (NADED; Charles & Acker, 1994), which applies itself to both modern 
and paleoecological investigations; it is founded upon a standard list of diatoms 
but, being in a database format, it can be correlated to other taxonomic listing 
schemes. 

The concentration of biological work today is less upon systematics and taxonomy 
and more upon applied work which demands specific taxonomic criteria by which 
to report its findings. Thus it is usually in environmental studies that the 
'inconveniences' of taxonomic citations in 'non-scientific' contexts arise. Once a 
standard list is available for taxonomic groups or regional censuses, systematists and 
other research biologists who have need to pay attention to the details of taxonomy 
will develop their own 'working lists", probably with synonymies pointing to the 
standard or protected lists. The purpose of many of the existing standard lists of 
organisms is to be a 'working list'. 

Central to the problem of 'non-scientific' uses of scientific names is nomenclatural 
change resulting from the application of the principles of priority and homonymy; 
for names to have fuller meaning and unique identities the author and date 
are appended. The 1994 meeting recommended (Hawksworth et al.. 1994, p. 190) 
'that, considering divergent rules and traditions concerning author citations for 
scientific names, use of such citations be made optional (and be recommended only 
in a strictly taxonomic context) ...'. The importance of author and date to the 
principle of priority, and to the effective treatment of homonyms especially in botany, 
was recognized (pp. 201-202). It was suggested (p. 202) that 'protected lists of some 
kind' could effectively deal with problems in the future. This we believe can 
contribute to a dichotomous Code, in part controlling lists for 'non-scientific' uses, 
and in part controlling special applications of formal taxonomic nomenclature for 
'scientific uses'. Hawksworth et al. (1994) intimated, too, that citations may be 
omitted for 'familiar' taxa, as is the practice in bacteriology and zoology. What is to 
determine the limits to "familiarity"? The practice extends even to the binomen itself, 
as with the case of the E. coli bacterium, and further, to non-binomial familiarity as 
with the monospecific fossil avian genus Archaeopteryx. Such scientific names 
essentially have attained the status of common names, much as with alligator or 
gorilla. 

The use of the author and date of the original publication of a scientific name is 
absolutely imperative to locate the original publication in which (in the case of 
zoology) the nominal taxon was proposed or in which (in the case of botany) the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52f2) June 1995 131 

epithet was created. Yu (1993), recognizing the problem in zoological nomenclature, 
proposed a system to deal with the original and subsequent combinations of a 
species-group name. Spamer & Bogan (1994) pointed out that the problem was a 
limitation of technology, not one of nomenclature, and that there are ways to deal 
with the perceived problem with author and date without making the system 
unwieldy. The proposed elimination of complete scientific names in non-taxonomic 
works is an attempt to bypass the same problem which caused Yu to construct a 
polynomial nomenclature — except that in Yu's system the identity of the original 
name was not lost. 

Without the correct association of author and date, any database or list is useless. 
A standard list would, of course, include the author and date of a name; but 
establishing it as a 'protected list", without provisions for periodic updates, creates a 
punctuated equilibrium for the taxonomy of the group so listed. It encourages the 
creation of nomenclaturally invalid 'working lists", which would be updated only as 
frequently as there is a perceived need (or possibly even as infrequently as funding 
will allow). Taxonomic groups that have few practicing systematists will, as they do 
now, suffer for the lack of an adequately modern key. The end result is a 
bi-nomenclature consisting of sanctioned lists and systematically updated 'working' 
lists. The implementation of protected lists mandated by a unified Code of 
bionomenclature is bound to formalize a bipartisan kind of scholarship — one for 
common use or quick reference by non-scientists and reconnaissance biologists, the 
other for the more specialized work of systematics. It is possible that works in 
systematics will have to adopt the protected lists in order to declare themselves valid 
for the purposes of taxonomic nomenclature, a confining and arbitrary regulation in 
an aspect of science which admits itself even now to study sets of artificially derived 
'relationships" between organismic groups. 

A unified Code of nomenclature will have to consider that a bi-nomenclature can 
exist for any given taxonomic group. The Code will have to formally address the 
bipartisan use of scientific names, one in an 'non-scientific" context, the other in a 
'scientific' context. The protected list of names will be one kind of nomenclator; it will 
include arbitrated authors and dates for taxa, possibly resulting in citations that are 
contrary to the principles that are in use now but with which there are many 
perceived problems. Another kind of nomenclator will be the systematically precise 
list that may follow the traditional principles of rules and Codes that have been 
developed mainly in the 20th century; these are bound to appear in the literature 
despite the provisions of a unified Code. In the middle fall specialized indices that will 
in some way have to be correlated with the standard lists; for example, the Index to 
Plant Chromosome Numbers (latest instalment by Goldblatt & Johnson, 1994). To 
moderate the different rules, a unified Code will have to clearly indicate the derivation 
of its Articles, and the purposes for which they deviate from the Articles of existing 
Codes. A correlation between the Articles of previous Codes and a unified Code will 
be indispensable — it should be mandatory (see for an example Greuter et al., 1994, 
pp. xvi-xvii). 

Irrespective of the extent to which scientific names are pruned, and to what length 
the procedures of taxonomic nomenclature are made less formal in non-taxonomic 
contexts, standard lists will have much less utility if information about them is not 
disseminated to biologists worldwide. So long as broad changes may be in the offing 



132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

for taxonomic nomenclature, international Commissions of nomenclature should at 
least establish the means to document standard lists and aggressively make the 
information widely aailable. 

Lists, Surveys, Systematics, and Education 

Biological surveys have placed great demands upon systematic and nomenclatural 
resources. Working often against deadlines, biologists are increasingly having to 
resort to quick, incomplete, or adopted identifications of organisms. Placed usually 
in an environmental context, these surveys are often having to determine, without 
much time to question, the taxonomic identities of a panregnal set of organisms. 
Depending upon the context or objective of the survey, or the taxonomic abilities of 
the investigators, identifications may mix levels of precision in a single report: species, 
genus, or suprafamilial group, sometimes even to undivided class; at the extreme end, 
too, is often a category for "Other" organisms. 

Aside from the constraints of time, money and skill, there are many reasons for the 
variety of taxonomic laxness that is perceived in some surveys. The end product is 
usually directed to administrative purposes; the end users themselves are most often 
not scientists. To the lay reader, a species is a species, without much ambiguity; the 
finer points of morphological variation, even hybridization, are extraneous; the 
concepts of taxonomic nomenclature are superfluous. The abstracted approach to 
taxonomy, directed by pragmatic constraints of bureaucracy and fiscal accountabil- 
ity, has contributed to the decline of systematics and 'alpha taxonomy' in education. 
Practical training is more in "biodiversity" and applied ecology. Schools today are 
turning out a new community of environmental and biological investigators, students 
who have had only very focused training in some aspects of taxonomy and 
systematics. It is this same group of people who are charged with establishing the 
identity (and thus also the systematic placement) of the estimated "12 to 118 inillion" 
species living on Earth that have not been scientifically described (Groombridge, 
1992). 

To accomplish the goal of rapid biological reconnaissances, workers are looking 
toward very streamlined introductions to taxonomic identification. The only way to 
make this possible is through easily usable keys and standard lists; it leaves little room 
for reinterpretation, which is beyond the scope of the environmental survey and left 
to systematic studies. "Training" of non-specialist workers will be pitifully brief, in 
some cases less than a day (Beattie & Oliver, 1994), and thereafter great reliance is 
placed on the key and list. These are the very people who will be the significant 
contributors of taxonomic identifications in biodiversity databases and indices, which 
in turn will be the legislative tools for environmental monitoring and regulation. 
Ravera (1995, p. 2) has pointed out that biodiversity data based on less expensively 
and more quickly assembled data are preferred over "more scientific methods', and 
that the literature on the application of diversity indices to specific ecological 
problems is far smaller than the literature on quantitative determinations of diversity. 
The trend is clearly toward non-specialists, directed only peripherally by trained 
workers, deriving data that must seem to unambiguously guide non-scientists in their 
efforts to moderate environmental and social problems. The methods will not be 
encumbered by non-essential academic aspects, such as a precisely regulated 
taxonomic nomenclature. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 133 

Central to the work of the next generations of biologists will be the computerized 
database. Making the information in it widely available and reliably updated are 
major tasks that have gone neither unnoticed nor without consideration of the 
manifold applications to biological research and social projects (Systematics Agenda 
2000, 1994). These databases are founded upon the data in biological collections 
(Hawksworth & Mound, 1991), which in turn are the sets of voucher specimens upon 
which standard lists are compiled. We ask whether then there is the need to establish 
'standard collections"? We question how the identifications of organisms in other 
collections will be adequately correlated with the names that appear in standard lists, 
for if an identification in the collection does not correspond to one in the list of 
'approved' names, will ambiguity thus be introduced to 'non-scientific' work? 

We challenge the developers of a unified Code of nomenclature to devise the means 
by which systematics, so crucial toward understanding what we mean by 'life on 
Earth', is not sterilized further by making it more difficult to understand how the 
previous three centuries of biologists defined 'life on Earth' (for concepts, see for 
example Cain, 1956-1962; Cole, 1984; Hawksworth & Bisby, 1988; Starobogatov, 
1991). If we are to recreate taxonomy for 'non-scientific' purposes, should we perhaps 
turn toward the numerical lists of taxa which have been attempted in the past 
(Heppell, 1991)? 

Conclusion 

Biologists speak of nomenclature 'in the 21st century"; it is nigh. CheckUsts of 
organisms will be the guides for the next generations of biologists. Accordingly, we 
are to presume that if an organism cannot be assigned to a name that appears on one 
of the standard or approved lists, it could be construed as being new to science. The 
rigorous aspects of author, date, and priority for all taxonomic work back to the time 
of Linnaeus are, in part anyway, thus relegated to the oversight of historians of 
science. We purposely avoid here an emotional debate that could ensue, about the 
wisdom of such an approach to biology, but we will admit that biological research as 
we know it has changed already; it is not something that will happen 'in the next 
century'. The rules do now need to catch up. It is important to consider that a 
panregnal series of standard, updatable lists of scientific names can do much to 
stabilize current nomenclature, and that lists of protected names ('NCUs") can 
introduce confusion into the methods of subsequent recognition of species and higher 
taxa. There will be workers who need to study the broad literature of systematic 
biology prior to the implementation of a unified Code. It will be a task of Herculean 
proportions to correlate the names in the 'antique' literature of the first three 
centuries of modern biological work with the names conserved by a 'starting list' of 
Earth's organisms. 

Work toward a unified Code of nomenclature will have to very carefully measure 
the impact of its provisions on the satisfactory identification of organisms; the grand 
census of life of Earth that we strive toward will depend upon it. The Code also will 
have to consider the negative effects that an officially sanctioned list of publications 
can have upon work carried out in less-developed regions of the world, where 
biologists work under extraordinary conditions that jeopardize the timely and 
successful dissemination of their work. We must not make it appear that the results 
of biological work conducted in a technologically and bibliographically richer 



134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

environment is more worthy of coordination and dissemination than is the work 
conducted outside these more fortunate environments. 

It is a far greater imperative to disseminate the information of taxonomy than to 
simply estabhsh sets of rules that will apply differently to different work contexts. A 
unified Code of bionomenclature, rather than establishing a protected list of taxa, 
should provide the procedures for the composition and updating of taxonomic 
registers — standard lists. It would do well to establish the means by which the authors 
of taxonomic works are responsible for centrally recording the taxonomic acts they 
make in publications. The Code should provide the criteria by which taxonomic data 
are then effectively disseminated to the scientific community. 'Availability' means 
nothing to the researcher who is not informed. 

References 

Beattie, A.J. & Oliver, I. 1994. Taxonomic minimalism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

(TREE).9:A%i-4^0. 
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. 1992. Supraspecific names for molluscs: a quantitative review. 

Mtilucologici. 34: 75-86. 
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. 1993. The lottery of bibliographical databases: a reply to Edwards 

& Thorne. Malacologia, 35: 407^10. 
Cain, A.J. 1956. The genus in evolutionary taxonomy. Systematic Zoology. 5: 97-109. 
Cain, A.J. 1959a. Deductive and inductive methods in post-Linnean taxonomy. Proceedings of 

the Linnean Society of London, 170: 185-217. 
Cain, A.J. 1959b. The post-Linnean development of taxonomy. Proceedings of the Linnean 

Society of London. \70. 2^4^244. 
Cain, A.J. 1959c. Taxonomic concepts. Ihis. 101: 302-318. 
Cain, A.J. 1962. The evolution of taxonomic principles. Symposia of the Society for General 

Microbiology, no. 12 (Microbial Classification): 1-13. 
Cairns, S.D., Calder, D.R., Brinckmann-Voss, A., Castro, C.B., Pugh, P.R., Cutress, C.E., 

Jaap, W.C., Fautin, D.G., Larson, R. J., Harbison, G.R., Arai, M.N. c& Opresko, D.M. 

1991. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and 

Canada: Cnidaria and Ctenophora. American Fisheries Society Special Publications. 22: 

1-75. 
Charles, D.F. & Acker, F.W. 1994. Design for a North American Diatom Ecological Database 

(NADED). Poster presented at the 13th International Diatom Symposium, 1-7 

September 1994, Acquafreddia di Maratea (PZ), Italy. 
Cole, C.J. 1 984. Taxonomy: what's in a name? Natural History, 93(9): 30, 32-34. 
Edwards, M.A. & Thorne, M.J. 1993. Reply to 'Supraspecific names of molluscs: a quantitative 

review". Malacologia. 35: 153-154. 
Eschmeycr, W.N. 1990. Catalog of the genera of Recent fishes. 697 pp. California Academy of 

Sciences. San Francisco. 
Parr, E.R., Leussink, J.A. & Stafleu, F.A. (Eds.). 1979. Inde.x nomimim genericorum 

( plantarum ) . 3 vols. (Regnum vegetabile, vols. 100-102). Bohn. Scheltema & Holkema, 

Utrecht, and W. Junk. The Hague. 
Farr, E.R., Leussink, J.A. & Zijlstra, G. (Eds.). 1986. Index nominum genericorum (plantarum). 

Supplemenlum I. (Regnum vegetabile, vol. 113). 126 pp. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, 

Utrecht and Antwerpen, and W. Junk, The Hague and Boston. 
Goldblatt, P. & Johnson, D.E. 1994. Index to plant chromosome numbers; 1990-1991. 

Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden. 51: 1-267. 
Greuter, W., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Chaloner, W.G., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., 

Jorgensen, P.M., Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C, Trehane, P. & McNeill, J. (Eds ) 1994. 

International code of botanical nomenclature (Tokyo Code). ( Regnum vegetabile, vol. 131). 

389 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books. Konigstein. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 135 

Groombridge, B. (Ed.). 1992. Global biodiversity: slams of the Earth's living resources. World 

Conservation Monitoring Centre, Chapman & Hall. London. 
Groombridge, B. (Ed.). 1993. 1994 lUCN Red List of threatened animals. Ivi. 286 pp. lUCN. 

Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 
Hart, C.W., Jr. 1994. A dictionary of non-scientific names of freshwater crayfishes (Astacoidea 

and Parastacoidea). including other words and phrases incorporating crayfish names. 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, 38: 1-127. 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.) 1991. Improving the stability of names: needs and options: proceedings 

of an international symposium, Kew, 20-23 February 1991 (Regnum vegetabile, vol. 123). 

358 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 
Hawksworth, D.L. 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st 

century. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 109: 543-567. 
Hawksworth, D.L. 1993. Name changes for purely nomenclatural reasons are now avoidable. 

Systema Ascomycetum, 12: 1-6. 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). 1994. A draft glossary of terms used in bionomenclature. lUBS 

Monograph, 9: 1-74. 
Hawksworth, D.L. & Bisby, F.A. 1988. Systematics: the keystone of biology. Pp. 3-30 in 

Hawksworth. D.L. (Ed.), Prospects in systematics. Clarendon Press, 0.\ford, for the 

Systematics Association. 
Hawksworth, D.L., McNeill, J., Sneath, P.H.A., Trehane, R.P. & Tubbs, P.K. (Eds ). 1994. 

Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth. Bulletin of Zoological 

Nomenclature, 51: 188-216. [Also published as Biology International, Special Issue no. 30.] 
Hawksworth, D.L. & Mound, L.A. 1991. Biodiversity databases: the crucial significance of 

collections. Pp. 17-29 in Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.), The biodiversity of microorganisms and 

invertebrates: its role in sustainable agriculture. CAB International. 
Heppell, D. 1991. Names without number? Pp. 191-196 in Hawksworth. D.L. (Ed.). Improving 

the stability of names: needs and options. (Regnum vegetabile vol. 123). Koeltz Scientific 

Books, Konigstein. 
lUBS (International Union of Biological Sciences). 1994. lUBS Reports of the 25 ih General 

Assembly. 5-9 September. 1994. Paris, France. 11 pp. Paris. 
Jackson, B.D. 1894-1895. Index Kewensis, 4 vols. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
Moore, R.C. et al. (Eds.). 1953-1992. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, in 21 parts. 

Geological Society of America, and University of Kansas Press, New York, Boulder, and 

Lawrence. 
Neave, S.A. et al. (Eds.). 1939-1993. Nomenclator zoologicus, 8 vols. Zoological Society of 

London, London. 
Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. 1.732 pp. Johns Hopkins University Press. 
Otte, D. 1994a. Orthoptera species files. 1. Crickets (Grylloidea): a systematic catalogue. 120 

pp. The Orthopterists' Society and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 

Philadelphia. 
Otte, D. 1994b. Orthoptera species file. 2. Grasshoppers [Acridomorpha]. A. Eumastacoidea. 

Trigonopterygoidea. Pneumoroidea. 162 pp. The Orthopterists" Society and the Academy 

of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. 
Otte, D. 1994c. Orthoptera .species file. 3. Grasshoppers [Acridotnorphaj. B. Pamphagoidea. 24\ 

pp. The Orthopterists' Society and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 

Philadelphia. 
Patrick, R. & Reimer, C.W. 1966. The diatoms of the United States; exclusive of Alaska 

and Hawaii. Volume 1. Fragilariaceae. Eunotiaceae, Achnanthaceae, Naviculaceae. 

Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 13 [Vol. Ij: 1-688. 
Patrick, R. & Reimer, C.W. 1975. The diatoms of the United States; exclusive of Alaska 

and Hawaii. Volume 2, Part 1. Entomoneidaceae, Cymbellaceae, Gomphonemaceae, 

Epithemiaceae. Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 13 [Vol. 

2, Pt. Ij. 213 pp. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1939-1948. Land Mollusca of North America (North of Mexico). Monographs 

of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3. Vol. I, Part 1, pp. 1-573 (1939); 



136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(2) June 1995 

Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 575-994 (1940); Vol. II, Part 1, pp. 1-520 (1946): Vol. II, Part 2. 

pp. 521-1113(1948). 
Ravera, O. 1995. Working group on biological monitoring. SILNEWS ( liuenuitional 

Association oj Tlieoreiical ami Applicii Limnology j. 15: 1-2. 
Robins, C.R.. Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & ScoH, W.B. 

1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Ed. 5. 

American Fisheries Socieiy Special Ptihliculions. 20: 1-183. 
Sakai, S. 1970 1995. Dermapteronim catalogus: a basic survey for integrated taxonomy oj the 

Dermaplera of the world [title varies, thus far in 30 parts]. Department of Biology and 

Chemistry, Daito Bunka University [and Ikegami Book Publishing Co.. c/o Dailo Bunka 

University], Sendagi. Bunkyo, Tokyo. 
Sherborn, CD. 1902-1933. Index cmimalium. 10 vols. British Museum, London. 
Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. 1111 

pp. Yale University Press. New Haven. 
Skerman, V.D.B., McGowan, V. & Sneath, P.H.A. 1989. Approved lists of bacterial names. 

Amended edition. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. 
Spamer, E.E. & Bogan, A.E. 1994. Towards a polynomial system of zoological nomenclature? 

A response to the proposals of D.S. Yu (1993). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 51: 

92-97. 
Starobogatov, Ya.I. 1984. O problemakh nomenklatury vysshikh taksonomicheskikh 

kategoriy. Pp. 174-187 in Tatarinov. L.P. & Shimanskiy, V.N. (Eds.), Spravoehnik po 

sistemalike iskopayemykh organizmov ( taksony otryadnoy i vyshchikh grupp). [Handbook 

on the systematics of fossil organisms (ta-xa of ordinal and higher groups)]. Izdatel'svo 

Nauka, Moscow. [A translation is Starobogatov (1991).] 
Starobogatov, Ya.I. (translated by Grygier, M.J.). 1991. Problems in the nomenclature of 

higher taxonomic categories. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 48: 6-18. [First 

appeared in Russian in 1984.] 
Systematics Agenda 2000. 1994. Systematics Agenda 2000: charting the biosphere. Technical 

report. 34 pp. Systematics Agenda 2000, a consortium of the American Society of Plant 

Taxonomists, the Society of Systematic Biologists, and the Willi Hennig Society, in 

cooperation with the Association of Systematics Collections. New York and Washington. 
Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Emerson, W.K., Lyons, G., Pratt, W.L., Roper, 

C.F.E., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.C. & Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific 

names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publications. 17: 1-277. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal 

candidate review for listing as endangered or threatened species: proposed rule. Federal 

Register. 59(219): 58982-59028. 
VanLandingham, S.L. 1967-1979. Catalogue of the fossil and recent genera and species of 

diatoms and their synonyms. 8 vols. J. Cramer. Lehre & Veduz. 
Williams, A.B., Abele, L.G., Felder, D.L., Hobbs, H.H., Jr., Manning, R.B., McLaughlin, P.A. 

& Perez Farfante, I. 1989. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the 

United States and Canada: Decapod crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publications. 17: 1-77. 
Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.). 1993. Mammal .■ipecies of the world. Ed. 2. 1206 pp. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. D.C. 
Yu, D.S. 1993. A proposed system for stabilizing the names of species, illustrated with 

reference to the ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 50: 

7-12. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 137 

On the nomenclature of domestic animals 

Colin P. Groves 

Depcirtmeiit of Archaeology and Anthropology. Australian National 

University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200. Australia 

Introduction 

The scientific naming of domestic animals is a problem. Attention was drawn to it 
by Bohlken (1958, 1961), and the matter was raised again by Dennler de La Tour 
(1968). Following on these leads, I (Groves, 1971; BZN 27: 269-272) applied to the 
Commission to have names given to 'domesticates' excluded from the provisions of 
the Code. After a few less than supportive comments the proposal sank like a stone. 
Lost, but not forgotten: Corbet & Clutton-Brock (1984) returned to the question and 
made their own proposals. 

In this short review, I will explain what the nature of the problem is, survey the 
four different solutions that have been proposed, and make some further remarks of 
my own. 

What is domestication? 

One of the founders of modern domestication studies is Charles Reed and it is he 
(1984) who provides the most authoritative recent discussion of what exactly we 
mean by 'domestic animals" — those whose breeding is, in theory or in practice, 
controlled by humans: i.e. not simply tamed, or kept in zoos or laboratories, but 
controlled such that what is allowed to breed, and what is mated with what, is the 
criterion. We require also that this process of human control will have been going on 
for generations, because recently zoos have begun to take the same attitude towards 
some of their charges, controlling their breeding to maximise diversity for conser- 
vation purposes. The corollary to Reed's definition is that the domestic animals will 
have been altered in some ways — morphologically, behaviourally — from their wild 
ancestors. In each case there may be alterations meeting several human objectives: 
horse breeds differentially specialised for riding, racing, or pulling; cattle breeds 
specialised for beef, milk, or draught; and so on. 

The consequence of all this is that a domestic 'taxon' relative to its wild ancestral 
taxon (1) differs from it but (2) is readily interfertile with it even though (3) in part 
sympatric with it; moreover (4) it is heterogeneous with respect to it. 

Is a domestic 'taxon' — let us call it a parataxon — to be regarded as a different 
species from its wild ancestor? No; though the two may be, often are, sympatric 
without interbreeding, it is human vigilance alone that prevents them from inter- 
breeding, and when this vigilance is relaxed the two simply merge (see Groves, 
Ziccardi & Toschi (1966) on the ass and, for a very neatly analysed example, French, 
Corbett & Easterbee (1988) on the cat). In addition, some domesticates may be 
derived from different subspecies of the wild ancestral species, or possibly from 
different wild species, so that a domestic 'species' would in effect be paraphyletic. Yet, 
at base, the domestic parataxon is in some way conspecific with its wild ancestor. 

Is a domestic parataxon to be regarded as conspecific with its wild ancestor, but a 
different subspecies? No; a subspecies is a geographically delimited, as well as 



138 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 



morphologically differentiated, segment of a species, but. as stressed above, domestic 
parataxa and their wild ancestral species are often sympatric. 

Is a domestic parataxon to be regarded as conspecific with its wild ancestor of 
which it constitutes a suite of subspecies? No; breeds are commonly maintained in 
sympatry with each other, they are not geographic vicars like subspecies. 

Are different domestic breeds to be regarded as different species? No; they are often 
rather marginally differentiated, and form a potential reproductive continuum. 

That is the problem; the dometic animals fit into no taxonomic mould — not even 
approximately. The Linnaean system, product of the pre-Darwinian era, fares 
tolerably well when faced with the evolutionary reality; but no juggling of it really 
copes with the human-created world of domestication. 

Names of domestic animals 

Corbet & Clutton-Brock (1984) pointed out that in most cases the domestic form 
of a species was scientifically named earlier than any wild form, often by Linnaeus 
himself. In the following cases the domestic name antedates (or is contemporary 
with) the wild one: 



Domestic 

(1) Linnaean domestic names 

Bos taiinis (Cattle) 

Bos indiciis (Humped cattle) 

Bos grunniens (Yak) 

Bubalus buhalis (Water Buffalo) 

Ovis aries (Sheep) 

Capra hircus (Goat) 

Camelus tiuciricmus (Bactrian camel) 

Camelus dromedarius (Arabian camef 

Lcmui glama (Llama) 

Lama pacos (Alpaca) 

Equus cabalhis (Horse) 

Equus asinus (Donkey) 

Canis familiaris (Dog) 
Felis catus (Cat) 
Mustela furo (Ferret) 
Cavia porcelhis (Guinea pig) 
Carassiiis aunitus (Goldfish) 
Bomiiyx mori (Silkmoth) 



Wild 

Bos primigeniiis Bojanus, 1827 
(Not certain) 

Bos mutus Przewalski, 1 883 
Bubalus arnee Kerr, 1 792 
Ovis orientalis Gmelin, 1774 
Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1 777 
Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1883 
(Not certain) 

Lama guanicoe Miiller, 1776 
(?hybrid. Llama x L. vicugna) 
Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785 
Equus africamis Heuglin & 

Fitzinger, 1866 
Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 
Felis silvestris Schreber, 1 777 
Mustela putorius LmnaQUi, 1758 
Cavia aperea Erxleben, 1777 
Carassius gihelio Bloch, 1783 
Bombyx mandarina Moore, 1862 



(2) One non-Linnaean domestic name 
Bos frontalis Lambert, 1804 (Mithan) 



Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 



There is just one case where the wild name precedes the domestic name; Sus scrofa 
Linnaeus, 1758 for the Wild Boar vs. Sus domesticus Erxleben, 1777 for the domestic 
Pig. Strictly speaking, Linnaeus's Sus scrofa referred to both wild and domestic pig, 
although from his cited sources the wild form could be construed to have prior claim. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 139 

In several other cases the name domesticus (or -a) has been appended, perhaps not 
entirely formally, to the name of a wild species (such as Bos javankus domesiicus, Bali 
Cattle); in yet other cases the domesticate does not differ sufficiently from the wild 
species for there to have been a real qustion of differentiating them quasi- 
taxonomically (such as Gallus gallus, the Domestic Fowl). 

This listing demonstrates the problem: in nearly every case the name given to the 
domestic parataxon has priority. If the rules of nomenclature were strictly followed, 
the name Bos taurus would refer to the wild (extinct) Aurochs as well as domestic 
humpless cattle. 

Solutions so far 

The solution offered by Bohlken (1958, 1961) was that one should never use the 
domesticate's name for the entire species. Instead, when referring to the domestic 
parataxon one should use the wild ancestral species's name followed by the 
domesticate's name, with 'f.' (for 'forma') in between. Thus: Bos primigenius f. taurus 
for domestic cattle. The advantage of such a system is that the name of the biological 
species is referred to, plus a convention to show that an artificial (= domestic) form 
of it, not a subspecies, is being indicated. The disadvantage is, simply, that it flouts 
the rules of nomenclature: the prior name is being made subordinate, and an insert, 
'f.', is used for which there is no sanction in the present Code. The scheme has, 
nonetheless, achieved quite wide currency, e.g. it is used by Herre & Rohrs (1990) in 
their textbook. 

Dennler de La Tour (1968) proposed a more complicated and detailed scheme, 
which depends on adding 'familiaris' to the name of a wild taxon. He noted that on 
occasion it would be useful to refer not just to a domestic form as such, but to a 
particular breed or local form; indeed names were in the past quite commonly given 
to breeds as if they were species or subspecies, and such names could be added after 
the 'familiaris', which in such a case would usually be put in parentheses and 
shortened to 'fam.' . Equally, the actual subspecies that gave rise to a particular 
domesticate might, on occasion, be known; and this too could be represented in the 
scientific name. So the domestic dog as such would be Canis lupus 'familiaris'; the 
Torfhund, from the Swiss Neolithic lake dwellings, would be Canis lupus (fam.) 
palustris; and a domestic dog which one could be certain was derived from the Indian 
wolf, C. lupus pallipes, would be Canis lupus pallipes familiaris'. But this is not all: 
feral forms (domestic stock run wild, to form a wild population) are designated 
'exfamiliaris', and those on the way to becoming domestic (usually from an 
archaeological context) are 'praefamiliaris\ Thus we have Canis lupus (exfam.) dingo, 
and Canis lupus (praefam.) canaanensis. In those cases where the origin of a 
domesticate is unknown, as with the Arabian Camel (dromedary), the domestic name 
is retained. The advantage of this system is its consistency. The disadvantages are 
that, like Bohlken's scheme, it is not in accord with current rules; it is extremely 
cumbersome; and by making the whole name apparently scientific (italics, lower case) 
it threatens to create endless synonyms by, for example, spelling a breed name in a 
latinised way. One envisages long debates about priority between Canis lupus (fam.) 
pastorgermanicus and Canis lupus (fam.) alsatianus. 

Realising that nomenclatural systems were in danger of proliferating, and that the 
two proposed so far both departed from the rules, I (Groves, 1971) applied to the 



140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Commission for something to be done. Domestic parataxa could, by implication, 
already be considered outside the sphere of interest of the Code under Article la 
('Zoological nomenclature is the system of scientific names applied to ... animals 
known to occur in nature ...'), but preferably this should be made explicit in the 
Code. There would, under such circumstances, be no Canis familiaris or Bos 
taurus; references to domestic forms of a species would be vernacular only, in 
whatever form an author might choose. The advantage to this scheme is that it 
recognises that domestic forms are parataxa, not natural taxa such as the Code is 
designed to deal with, and proposes explicitly to expel them from the Code, which 
would be left to its proper field of concern. A disadvantage is that many domestic 
nominal "species" bearing Linnaean names (see above) are the types of their genera, 
and elimination of their names would require a wholesale redesignation of type 
species. When all is said and done, the proposal only cuts the Gordian knot rather 
than attempting to untie it as Bohlken's and Dennler de La Tour's schemes had at 
least tried to do. 

Corbet & Clutton-Brock (1984) noted that there are times when scientific names, 
of a sort, would be useful for domesticates, and the names are there and well 
understood. Yet domesticates are still not conventional taxa (in their words, they are 
"derivatives of their wild ancestral species but not parts of them"), so they recommend 
using their names binominally, as if they were species separate from their wild 
ancestors, but in quotation marks; Canis \familiaris' . Bos 'taurus'. The advantage of 
this scheme is that it preserves the well-known names and allows the domesticates to 
continue to serve as types of genera where necessary, yet allows one to recognise that 
they do not designate conventional taxa. The disadvantage is that it is not in accord 
with the Code; indeed, the authors recognise this, and note that many will prefer to 
use the names without quotation marks in order to conform to the rules of 
nomenclature. 

Solutions for the future? 

I am really not sure where we go from here. All four of the solutions proposed so 
far would really require an alteration to the Code, except for Corbet & Clutton- 
Brock"s second option, whose practitioners would have to accept that they are 
maintaining a fiction. 

We have to remember that it is not just professional zoologists who are involved. 
Archaeologists and animal breeders, to name just two fields of concern, must use 
scientific names, and a system inadequate to the task will be counter-productive. 
Breeds, or breed-groups, of domestic animals are still being described as if they were 
subspecies (see, for example, Peary, 1990, who coined new trinomina for River and 
Swamp breed-groups of domestic buffalo). The general public, who tend to have 
difficulty understanding what species and subspecies are, get inextricably confused. 
"Is the dingo a wolf or a dog?" they ask. When I try to explain that this is a 
non-question, there is an immediate retort: "But the wolf and the dog are different 
species; the wolf is Canis lupus and the dog is Canis fumiliarisW 

It is high time that the question be addressed, and that a "stable and universal" 
solution be found. Whether this is within the framework of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature or by explicit exclusion from the provisions of the Code 
must be decided. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 141 

References 

Bohlken, H. 1958. Zur Nomenklature der Haustiere. Zoohgischer Anzeiger, 160: 167-168. 
Bohlken, H. 1961. Haustiere und zoologische Systematik. Zeilschrift fiir Tierzuchtung und 

Ziichliingshiologie. 76: 107-113. 
Corbet, G.B. & Clutton-Brock, J. 1984. Appendix: taxonomy and nomenclature. Pp. 434-438 

in Mason. I.L. (Ed.), Evolution of Domesticated Animals. Longman. London & New York. 
Dennler de La Tour, G. 1968. Zur Frage der Haustier-Nomenklatur. Sdugetierkundliche 

Milteilungen. 16: 1-20. 
French, D.D., Corbett, L.K. & Easterbee, N. 1988. Morphological discriminants of Scottish 

wildcats (Felis sih-estris). domestic cats (Felis catus) and their hybrids. Journal of Zoology, 

London. 24: 235-259. 
Groves, C.P. 1971. Request for a declaration modifying Article 1 so as to exclude names 

proposed for domestic animals from zoological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological 

Nomenclature. 11: 169-111. 
Groves, C.P., Zlccardi, F. & Toschi, A. 1966. Sull' asino selvatico africano. Ricerche di 

Zoologia applicata alia Caccia, Supplement, 5(1): 1-11. 
Herre, W. & Rohrs, M. 1990. Haustiere — zoologisch gesehen. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart & 

New York. 
Peary, J.Y. 1990. Revision of buffaloes' position on the zoological scale. Buffalo Bulletin. 9: 

9-17. 
Reed, C.A. 1984. The beginnings of animal domestication. Pp. 1-6 in Mason, I.L. (Ed.). 

Evolution of Domesticated Animals. Longman, London & New York. 



142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Case 2900 

Pontes Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and 
Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia): proposed 
conservation 

Donald C. Potts 

Institute of Murine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 
California 95064. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to consei^e the names of four genera of 
scleractinian corals: Porites Link, 1807, Galu.xea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and 
Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830. The names Galaxea and Mussa are in current use for 
Indo-Pacific and Caribbean genera respectively but are formally unavailable because 
vol. 3 (Zoologie) of Oken's (1815-1816) work Lehrhuch der Naturgeschichte, in which 
the names were published, has been rejected for nomenclatural purposes (Opinion 
417, September 1956). The name Poriies Link is in universal use for a widely 
distributed reef-building coral but is threatened by the senior homonym Porites 
Cuvier, 1798. The names Galaxea, Mussa and Dendrophyllia (a predominantly 
deep-water non-reef-building genus) are also threatened by Porites Cuvier as a senior 
subjective synonym. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Anthozoa; Scleractinia; corals; reefs; 
Dendrophyllia: Galaxea (Indo-Pacific); Mussa (Caribbean); Porites. 



1. The status of the new names published in vol. 3 (Zoologie) of Oken's 
(1815-1816) work Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte was first raised by Allen (1902) in 
relation to mammals. In 1944 an application for a ruling was made by Dr W.H. 
Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum) although this was not published until 
1954 (BZN 9: 202-203), after Osgood's death. A report (BZN 9: 193-201) prepared 
by the then Secretary to the Commission, Francis Hemming, included comments, 
mainly from mammalogists, and concluded that Oken's work was non-binominal 
and therefore that new names published in it were not available. The work was 
rejected for nomenclatural purposes and placed on the Official Index (Opinion 417, 
September 1956). Later Savage (BZN 18: 181; 1961) pointed out that Oken's work 
was largely binominal but that its layout suggested the contrary. 

2. Included in Opinion 417 was an invitation to zoologists to submit applications 
for the conservation of names published in vol. 3 of Oken's work, the rejection of 
which would lead to instability or confusion. A number of names have since been 
conserved from the work (see BZN 51: 339, December 1994, for a list of 10 such 
names). An application for the conservation of two further names, Clavella and 
Pennella (both of Oken, 1815 and both Crustacea, Copepoda), was published in BZN 
50: 273-276 (December 1993). 

3. Galaxea Oken, 1815 (pp. 71, 72-73) was erected for Madrepora fascicularis 
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 796) and three other species; Vaughan (1918, p. 98) designated 
M. fascicularis as the type species. Despite the ruling in Opinion 41 7 the name Galu.xea is 
in current usage for a widely distributed, Indo-West Pacific genus of about five species 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 143 

(see Veron, 1986. p. 364). Galaxea is the type genus of the subfamily galaxeinae 
Vaughan & Wells. 1943 (p. 184) of the family oculinidae Gray. 1847 (p. 128). 

4. Mussa Oken, 1815 (pp. 71, 73) was erected for three species including 
Madrepora angulosa Pallas. 1766 (p. 299); Vaughan (1918. p. 122) designated this as 
the type species. The name Mussa is in use for a Caribbean genus of perhaps two 
species (see Vaughan & Wells. 1943; p. 195); Mussa is the type genus of the family 
MUSSIDAE Ortmann, 1890 (p. 315). 

5. Dendrophyllia Blainville. 1830 (p. 319) was created for Madrepora rainea 
Linnaeus. 1758 (p. 797) and six other species; Milne Edwards & Haime (1850. p. liii) 
designated 'Dendrophyllia' rainea as the type species. Dendrophyllia is the universally 
accepted name for a large genus of non-reef-building (ahermatypic) corals that are 
abundant in deeper water from tropical to polar latitudes (see Vaughan & Wells, 
1943, p. 237). About 25-30 living species and many fossil ones are currently 
recognized as valid (S.D. Cairns, pers. comm.). It is the type genus of the family 
DENDROPHYLLiiDAE Gray, 1847 (p. 128) and of the suborder Dendrophylliida 
Vaughan & Wells, 1943 (p. 233; spelling changed to Dendrophylliina in Wells. 1956, 
p. F433). Linnaeus (1758) based his description oi Madrepora ramea on two sources, 
Petiver ([171 1]. pi. 76. fig. 7) and Marsigli (= Marsilli. 1725. pi. 30. fig. 136 and pi. 31, 
fig. 44 [recte 144]). Zibrowius (1980. p. 169) indicated that ramea was composite and 
noted that the colony figured by Marsilli (1725. pi. 31. fig. 144), most probably from 
the base of a red coral in the south of the western Mediterranean, was to be 
considered as the type. This amounts to a lectotype designation (Article 74a of the 
Code). Zibrowius cited Neviani (1934, pp. 363. 373). who studied Marsilli's material 
housed in the University of Bologna, Italy; among the scleractinian species present 
Neviani mentioned Dendrophyllia ramea, but it was not clear if the material included 
the colony figured by Marsilli in 1725. 

6. Porites Link, 1807 (p. 163) is universally accepted as the valid name of the third 
largest and the most widely distributed living genus of zooxanthellate, reef-building 
(hermatypic) corals (see Veron & Pichon, 1982 and Veron. 1986). This genus has 
dominated many reef habitats during the Caenozoic (Vaughan & Wells, 1943; Foster, 
1986) and, especially in the Indo-Pacific, it is often the primary frame-builder of 
modem reefs. It is the type genus for the family poritidae Gray, 1842 (p. 135) and 
for the widely accepted superfamily Poritoidae Gray. 1842 (first used by Vaughan & 
Wells, 1943, p. 146; both this and the spelling Poriticae of Wells (1956, p. F390) do 
not comform with Recommendation 29A of the Code which would give the spelling 
poritoidea). Veron (1986, p. 216) mentioned 122 nominal species but, in a continuing 
revision of the genus, I have already found some 275 specific names that have been 
referred, explicitly or implicitly, to Porites Link. At least 50 of these have some degree 
of acceptance as valid species in recent literature. These include some of the 
commonest corals of the Atlantic (for example, P. porites Pallas, 1766; P. astreoides 
Lamarck, 1816) and the Indo-Pacific (e.g. P. compressa Dana, 1846; P. lohata Dana, 
1846 and P. solida ForsskSl, 1775). 

7. Link (1807) included two nominal species in his new genus Porites, 
P. polymorphus Link, with Madrepora porites of Gmelin ([1791], p. 3774) and Esper 
([1788]. Madrepora pi. 21) cited as a synonym, and Madrepora damicornis of Gmelin 
([1791], p. 3775) and Esper ([1794], Madrepora pi. 46), i.e. Millepora damicornis 
Linnaeus, 1758. Madrepora porites is the type species of Porites by absolute 



144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

tautonymy (Article 68e). Gmelin cited Madrepora pontes Pallas, 1766 (p. 324). In his 
list of synonyms Gmelin cited Madrepom porites Pallas, 1766 (p. 324), which is the 
first publication of the specific name. However, as discussed by Vaughan (1900, 
p. 314) and Bernard (1905, p. 3) (see also Foster. 1980, p. 75), Pallas's taxon was 
composite according to modern taxonomy. Pallas cited a reference to 'Seba thes. Ill 
tab. 109. fig. 1 r among his sources and Vaughan (1900, p. 315) designated the coral 
from Curasao figured by Seba ([1759], pi. 109, fig. II; 'Corallium, poris stellatis ...", 
p. 202) as the lectotype of Madrepora porites Pallas, 1766. The original specimen used 
for the illustration in Seba's work has not been found. 

8. Porites Link, 1807 has a senior homonym, Porites Cuvier, 1798 (p. 678). 
Cuvier's taxon was described and three previously described scleractinian species 
were included: Madrepora fascicularis Linnaeus, 1758, M. ramea Linnaeus, 1758 and 
M. cardials Ellis & Solander, 1786 (p. 153, pi. 35), a junior synonym of Madrepora 
angulosa Pallas, 1766 (see Zlatarski & Estalella, 1982, p. 165). No type species was 
ever designated and each of the included species was later assigned to a different 
genus (all in diff'erent suborders from that containing Porites Link) and subsequently 
designated as the type species of its genus (see paras. 3, 4 and 5 above). 

9. Although no species are currently assigned to Porites Cuvier, 1798, it remains 
an available name. Its existence threatens the nomenclatural stability of its junior 
homonym Porites Link, 1807, and of associated names at higher taxonomic levels. 
The name Porites Guettard, 1770 (p. 358), used for some fossil sponges (?), can be 
ignored since it appeared in a non-binominal work; the name Porites 'Lamarck' was 
used by Lonsdale (1839. p. 686) for some Paleozoic corals (Anthozoa, Tabulata) that 
were later redescribed as Heliolites Dana, 1846 (p. 541). 

10. The existence oi Porites Cuvier, 1798 also threatens the nomenclatural stability 
of Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and DendrophyUia Blainville, 1830. None 
of Link (1807), Oken (1815) and Blainville (1830) mentioned Porites Cuvier, and all 
three referred to the previously described species under the older generic name 
Madrepora Linnaeus (1758, p. 793). Apparently they were unaware of Cuvier's (1798) 
work. I am also not aware of any subsequent author who has ever mentioned Porites 
Cuvier in synonymies of Galaxea. Mussa or Deiidrophrllia. 

11. I am aware of only one author who has ever referred any species to Porites 
Cuvier since 1798. That was Dana (1846, p. 550) who used the heading 'Porites — 
Cuvier" when he described 19 new species and varieties and eight existing species. 
However, this was clearly an error by Dana for three reasons: (1) Dana included all 
three of Cuvier's species under other genera without mentioning that Cuvier had 
referred them to Porites; (2) it is clear from the text that Dana was using Link's 
concept of Porites throughout and not that of Cuvier; and (3) the descriptions in 
Dana (1846) restricted a broader usage of Porites by Lamarck (1816, p. 267) back to 
Link's much narrower concept. Dana (1846) forms the foundation for the modern 
understanding of Porites Link, 1807. Despite this, most nineteenth century authors 
referred Porites to Lamarck (1816) or to later writers; Vaughan (1900, p. 195) seems 
to be both the earliest direct citation of Porites Link and the basis for the almost 
universal use of Porites Link throughout the twentieth century. 

12. While no previous author seems to have been aware that Porites Cuvier is a 
senior synonym of the names Galaxea, Mussa and DendrophyUia, its homonymy with 
Porites Link was indicated briefly by Lang, Smith & Thomas (1940, p. 103) and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 145 

Vaughan & Wells (1943, p. 152). Veron & Pichon (1982, p. 141) addressed the issue 
directly in an addendum that concluded: 'We can find no citation of Porites Cuvier, 
1798 in any subsequent literature and therefore consider that Porites Cuvier, 1798 is 
a nomen oblitum'. Later comments by Foster (1986, p. 75) and Zlatarski (1990, 
p. 257) are based on Veron & Pichon (1982) and demonstrate an awareness of the 
disruptive potential oi Porites Cuvier. Zlatarski commented: 'A proposal to suppress 
Porites Cuvier, 1798 is necessary in order to validate the priority of Link's 
authorship'; an application to the Commission has so far not been made. 

13. The names Galaxea and Miissa have remained in use, attributed to Oken 
(1815), both before and after the publication of Opinion 417 in 1956. They have been 
used extensively in the literature, both taxonomic and ecological, and I propose that 
they be conserved. Suppression of Porites Cuvier, 1798 will allow the continued 
stable usage of these names, together with those of Porites Link, 1807 and 
Deiidrophyllia Blainville, 1830. In addition to the publications already cited in this 
application the names have appeared in recent works by Zlatarski & Estalella (1982; 
Miissa), Scheer & Pillai (1983; Galaxea and Porites Link) and Scheer (1991; 
Dendrophytlia). All four names are included in Chevalier (1987). A representative list 
of a further 12 publications which include one or more of the generic names is held 
by the Commission Secretariat. 

14. A draft of this application was reviewed by the following coral taxonomists: 
Drs F.M. Bayer (Smithsonian Institution), A.F. Budd (University of Iowa). S.D. 
Cairns (Smithsonian Institution), C.C. Wallace (Museum of Tropical Queensland) and 
J.E.N. Veron (Australian Institute of Marine Science). These specialists all agreed 
with the intent of the proposals. 

15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is acordingly 
asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the following generic names are available despite having been 
published in a rejected work; 

(i) Gfl/a.Y<?a Oken, 1815; 
(ii) Mussa Oken, 1815; 

(b) to suppress the generic name Porites Cuvier, 1798, and all uses of the name 
Porites prior to the publication of Porites Link, 1807 for the purposes of 
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

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

(a) Galaxea Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Vaughan (1918) Madrepora fascicularis Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Mussa Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Vaughan (1918) Madrepora angulosa Pallas, 1766; 

(c) Porites Link, 1807 (gender: masculine), type species by absolute tautonymy 
Madrepora porites Pallas, 1766; 

(d) Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- 
quent designation by Milne Edwards & Haime (1850) Madrepora ramea 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) fascicularis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Madrepora 

fascicularis (specific name of the type species of Galaxea Oken, 1815); 



146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

(b) angidosu Pallas. 1 766. as published in the binomen Madrepora aiigulosa 
(specific name of the type species of Mussa Oken. 1815); 

(c) porites Pallas. 1 766, as published in the binomen Madrepora porites 
(specific name of the type species of Porites Link. 1807) and as defined by 
the lectotype designated by Vaughan (1901); 

(d) ramea Linnaeus. 1758. as published in the binomen Madrepora rainea 
(specific name of the type species oi Dendrophyllia Blainville. 1830) and as 
defined by the lectotype designated by Zibrowius (1980); 

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

(a) GALAXEINAE Vaughan & Wells, 1943 (type genus Galaxea Oken, 1815); 

(b) MUSSIDAE Ortmann, 1890 (type genus Mussa Oken, 1815); . 

(c) PORITIDAE Gray, 1842 (type genus Porites Link, 1807); 

(d) DENDROPHYLLiiDAE Gray, 1847 (type genus Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830); 

(5) to place on the OflBcial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Porites Cuvier, 1798. as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Allen, J.A. 1902. Mammal names proposed by Oken in his 'Lehrbuch der Zoologie". Bulletin 

of the American Museum of Natural History, 16: 373-379. 
Bernard, H.M. 1905. The family Poritidae. IL The genus Porites. Part I. Porites of the 

Indo-Pacific region. Catalogue of the Madreporarian corals in the British Museum ( Natural 

History), vol. 5. Pp. 1-303. pis. 1-35. British Museum (Natural History). London. 
Blainville. H.M. de. 1830. Zoophytes. Pp. 1-546 in Levrault, F.G. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des 

sciences naturelles. vol. 60. 631 pp. Paris. 
Chevalier, J.-P. 1987. Ordre des scleractiniaires. Pp. 403-764 in Grasse, P.-P. (Ed.), Traite de 

zoologie. anatomic, systematique. hiologie. vol. 3, part 3 (Cnidaires, anthozoaires). 859 pp. 

Masson. Paris. 
Cuvier, G. 1798. Tableau elementaire de I'histoire naturelle des animaux. xvi, 710 pp. Baudouin, 

Paris. 
Dana, J.D. 1846. Zoophytes. United States exploring expedition during the years 1838. 1839, 

1840. 1841. 1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N, vol. 7, 740 pp. Sherman, 

Philadelphia. 
Ellis, J. & Solander, D. 1786. The natural history of many curious and uncommon zoophytes. 

collected from various parts of the globe ... .xii. 208 pp.. 63 pis, London. 
Esper, E.J.C. [1788]. Die Pflanzenthiere in Abhildungen nach der Natur mit Farhen erleuchtel 

nebst Beschreihungen, vol. 1. parts 1-2. Pp. 1-96. Niimberg. 
Esper, E.J.C. [1794]. Fortsetzungen der Pflanzenthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, vol. 1, 

parts 1-2. Pp. 1-64. Niimberg. 
Forssk^l, P. 1775. Corallia. Pp. 131-139 in: Descriptiones Animalium. Avium, Amphibiorum, 

Piscium, Insectorum, Vermium; quae in itinere orientali observavit Petrus Forskal. 164 pp. 

Moller, Copenhagen. 
Foster, A.B. 1986. Neogene paleontology in the northern Dominican Republic. 3. The family 

Poritidae (Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Bulletins of American Paleontology, 90: 47-123. 
Gmelin, J.F. [1791]. Caroli a Linne Svstema Naturae, Ed. 13. vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes). 

Pp. 3021-3910. Lugduni. 
Gray, J.E. 1842. Northern zoological gallery. Second and Third Rooms. Radiated animals. 

Pp. 97-135 in Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum, Ed. 44. 308 pp. British 

Museum, London. 
Grav, J.E. 1847. An outline of an arrangement of stony corals, .innals and Magazine of Natural 

'History. 19: 120-128. 
Guettard, J.E. 1770. Porites, Porite. Pp. 358-366 in: Memoires sur diff'erentes parties des 

sciences et arts, vol. 2. Prault, Paris. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 147 

Lamarck, J.B.P.A. deM.de. 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres, vol. 2. 568 pp. 

Paris. 
Lang, W.D., Smith, S. & Thomas, H.D. 1940. Index of Palaeozoic coral genera. 231 pp. British 

Museum (Natural History), London. 
Link, H.F. 1807. Pflanzenthiere. Pp. 161-165 in Beschreibung der Naturalien-Sammlung der 

Universitdl zu Rostock, part 3. Pp. 101-165. Rostock. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Syslema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Lonsdale, W. 1839. Corals. Pp. 675-695 in Murchison, R.I., The Silurian Sysleni. part 2. John 

Murray, London. 
Marsilli, L.F. 1725. Histoire physique de la mer. [viii], xi. 173 pp., 40 pis. Amsterdam. 
Milne Edwards, H. & Haime, J. 1 850. A monograph of the British fossil corals. First pari. 

Introduction: corals from the Tertiary and Cretaceous Formations. Ixxxv, 71 pp. Palaeon- 

tographical Society, London. 
Ne\iani, A. 1934. Cimeli Zoologici Marsiliani. Acta Pontificiae Academiae Scientarum, Novi 

Lyncaei. 87: 360-373. 
Oken, L, 1815, 1816. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3 (Zoologie). part 1 (Fleischlose 

Thiere), xxviii, 842, xviii. iv pp., 40 pis. (1815); part 2 (Fleischthiere). xvi. 1270. [2] pp.. 1 

pi., and pp. 843 and 850 suppleinentary to part 1 (1816). Leipzig & Jena. 
Ortmann, A. 1890. Die Morphologic des Skelettes der Steinkorallen in Beziehung zur 

Koloniebildung. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschafttiche Zoologie. 50: 278-316. 
Pallas, P.S. 1766. Elenchus zoophytorum sistens generum ... 28, 451 pp. Petrum van Cleef. 

Hagae-Comitum. 
Petiver, J. [1711]. / Petiveri Opera, historiam naturalem spectantia: or Gazophylacium. vol. 1. 

156 pis. with text. Millan, London. 
Scheer, G. 1991. Die von E.J.C. Esper 1788-1809 beschriebenen Anthozoa (Cnidaria). IV. 

Scleractinia. V. Espers Leben und Werk. Senckenbergiana Biologic, 71: 369^29. 
Scheer, G. & Pillai, C.S.G. 1983. Report on the stony corals from the Red Sea. Zoologica 

(Stuttgart). 133: 1-198. 
Seba, A. [1759]. Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio, et iconibus 

artificiosissimus expressio, per universam physices historiam..., vol. 3. [22], 212 pp.. 1 16 pis. 

Amsterdam. (See Holthuis, L.B. 1969. Zoologische Mededelingen. 43(19): 239-252 for the 

dates of publication of the four vols, of Seba's work). 
Vaughan, T,W. 1900. The Eocene and Lower Oligocene coral faunas of the United States with 

descriptions of a few doubtfully Cretaceous species. Monographs of the United States 

Geological Survey, 39: 1-263. 
Vaughan, T.W. 1901. The stony corals of the Porto Rican waters. Bulletin of the United States 

Fish Commission. 20(2) (for 1900): 289-320. 
Vaughan, T.W. 1918. Some shoal-water corals from the Murray Islands (Australia), Cocos- 

Keeling Islands, and Fanning Island. Publications of the Carnegie Institution of 

Washington. No. 213. Papers of the Department of Marine Biology. 9: 49-234. 
Vaughan, T.W. & Wells, J.W, 1943. Revision of the suborders, families, and genera of the 

Scleractinia. Geological Society of America. Special Papers. 44: 1-363. 
Veron, J.E.N. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. 644 pp. Angus & Robertson, 

Sydney. 
Veron, J.E.N. & Pichon, M. 1982. Scleractinia of eastern Australia. Part IV. Family Poritidae. 

Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series, 5: 1-159. 
Wells, J.W. 1956. Scleractinia. Pp. F328-F444 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on invertebrate 

paleontology, part F (Coelenterata). xx, 498 pp. Geological Society of America & 

University of Kansas Press. Lawrence. Kansas. 
Zibrowius, H. 1980. Les scleractiniaires de la Mediterranee et d'Atlantique nord-oriental. 

Memoires de ilnstitut Oceanographique (Monaco), 11: 1-284. 
Zlatarski, V.N. 1990. Porites colonensis, new species of stony coral (Anthozoa: Scleractinia) off 

the Caribbean coast of Panama. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 103: 

257-264. 
Zlatarski, V.N. & Estalella, N.M. 1982. Les scleractiniaires de Cuba. [Originally published in 

Russian. 1980]. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia. 



148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Case 2903 

Tropidoptei-a Ancey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
designation of Endodonta wesleyi Sykes, 1896 as the type species 

Neal L. Evenhuis & Robert H. Cowie 

Bishop Museum. P.O. Bo.x 19000- A. Honolulu. Hawaii 96817-0916. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the original concept and 
subsequent understanding of the name Trupidoptera Ancey, 1889 for a genus of 
terrestrial gastropods belonging to the endemic Hawaiian family amastridae. The 
nominal species Helix alaia Pfeiffer, 1856 was fixed as the type, but this was based on 
a misidentification and it is proposed that the taxon actually involved be designated 
as type species; this is Endodonta (Pterodi.scus) wesleyi Sykes, 1896. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Tropidoptera; Pterodiscus; 
Hawaii. 



1. Ancey (1889, p. 191) established the genus Tropidoptera for the single nominal 
species Helix alaia Pfeiffer. 1856 (p. 33), which is thus the type species by monotypy. 
Pilsbry (1893, p. 36) introduced the new name Pterodiscus as a replacement for 
Tropidoptera Ancey, 1 889, incorrectly considering Tropidoptera to be preoccupied by 
Tropidopterus Agassiz, 1846 (p. 167) in the Coleoptera. Pilsbry mentioned that Helix 
akita Pfeiffer was the type species and illustrated (pi. 4, fig. 44) what he supposed to 
be H. alata. 

2. Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 belongs to the endemic Hawaiian Island family 
AMASTRIDAE. Pilsbry (1893, p. 36) treated it (under the replacement name Pterodiscus) 
as a section of Cliaropa Martens, I860, the latter at that time a subgenus of 
Endodonta Albers, 1850 (endodontidae). Sykes (1896, p. 127) treated Pterodiscus as 
a subgenus of Endodonta. but later (1900, p. 292) regarded it as an independent genus 
in the endodontidae. Pilsbry & Vanatta (1905, p. 572) transferred Pterodiscus to the 
ACHATINELLIDAE, close to their new 'section' Helicamastra Pilsbry & Vanatta. 1905 
(p. 570) of the genus Amastra Adams & Adams, 1855. The type species of 
Helicamastra is Amastra (Helicamastra) discus Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1905 (p. 571). 

3. Sykes (1896, p. 127), having examined the type specimen of Helix alata Pfeiffer 
(see Hyatt & Pilsbry, 191 1, p. 121), pointed out that the 'Helix alata' of both Ancey 
(1889) and Pilsbry (1893) did not match Helix alata Pfeiffer. Sykes therefore 
proposed the new name Endodonta (Pterodiscus) wesleyi for the specimens identified 
as Helix alata by Ancey and by Pilsbry. 

4. As mentioned in para. 2 above, Pilsbry & Vanatta (1905, p. 572) treated 
Pterodiscus as a genus; accepting Sykes's view that Ancey (1889) and Pilsbry (1893) 
had misidentified H. alata. they (p. 571) placed H. alata Pfeiffer in Helicamastra 
and (p. 572) said, although invalidly, that P. wesleyi (Sykes) was the type species 
of Pterodiscus. Hyatt & Pilsbry (1911, p. 120) synonymised Pterodiscus and 
Helicamastra, thereby bringing both alata and wesleyi into Pterodiscus Pilsbry 
(i.e. Tropidoptera Ancey). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 149 

5. As outlined above, the original designation of Helix alata Pfeiffer as the type 
species of Tropidoptera (and hence of Pterodiscus) was based on a misidentification 
that has been explicitly recognised by subsequent workers (Sykes, 1896, p. 127 and 
1900, p. 292; Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1905, p. 572; Hyatt & Pilsbry, 191 1, p. 120; Cowie, 
Evenhuis & Christensen, 1995, p. 117). Under Article 70b of the Code the case is 
therefore referred to the Commission. 

6. The original concept of Tropidoptera by Ancey (1889) and of Pterodiscus by 
Pilsbry (1893) was based on the ta.\on subsequently called Endodonta (Pterodiscus) 
wesleyi Sykes, 1896 (para. 3 above), and this was recognised as the type species by 
Hyatt & Pilsbry (1911, p. 119). Its formal designation as such would safeguard the 
concepts of both Tropidoptera and Helicamastra should they be separated in the 
future. 

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 Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 and to designate Endodonta 
(Pterodiscus) wesleyi Sykes, 1896 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species Endodonta (Ptero- 
discus) wesleyi Sykes, 1896 by the designation in (1) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name wesleyi 
Sykes, 1896, as published in the binomen Endodonta (Pterodiscus) wesleyi 
(specific name of the type species of Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Pterodiscus Pilsbry, 1893, a junior objective synonym of 
Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889. 

References 

Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclalor Zoologiciis. continens nomina systematica generum aninialium 

tarn viventium quam fossilium. 170 pp. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri. 
Ancey, C.F. 1889. Etude sur la faune malacologique des lies Sandwich. Bulletin de la Societe 

Malacologique de France, 6: 171-258. 
Cowie, R.H., Evenhuis, N.L. & Christensen, C.C. 1995. Catalog of the native land and 

freshwater molluscs of the Hawaiian islands. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Zoology, no. 3. iv, 

248 pp. 
Hyatt, A. & Pilsbry, H.A. 1911. Part 82, pp. 65-128, pis. 10-23 in: Manual of Conchology. 

Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the species. Second series: Pulmonala. Vol. 

21. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
Pfeiffer, L. 1856. Descriptions of twenty-five new species of land-shells, from the collection of 

H. Cuming, Esq. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 24: 32-36. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1893. Part 33, pp. 1-48 in: Manual of Conchology. Structural and systematic. With 

illustrations of the species. Founded hy George W. Tryon. Jr. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol. 

9. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
Pilsbry, H.A. & Vanatta, E.G. 1905. Notes on some Hawaiian Achatinellidae and Endodon- 

tidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 57: 570-575. 
Sykes, E.R. 1896. Preliminary diagnoses of new species of non-marine Mollusca from the 

Hawaiian Islands. Part I. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 2(3): 

126-132. 
Sykes, E.R. 1900. Fauna Hawaiiensis Volume II. Part IV. Mollusca. Pp. 271^12. 2 pis. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 



150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Case 2946 

PLUTONiiNAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and 
PLUTONiiNAE Cockerell, 1893 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
removal of homonymy 

Rowland M. Shelley 

North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. P.O. Box 29555, 
Raleigh. North Carolina 27626^-0555. U.S.A. 

Thierry Backeljau 

Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Vautierstraat 29, 
B-1040 Brussels. Belgium 

Abstract. This application proposes removal of the homonymy between the family- 
group names plutoniinae Bollman, 1893 (centipedes) and plutoniinae Cockerell, 
1893 (slugs), which are respectively derived from the generic names Plutonium 
Cavanna, 1881 and Plutonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864. As the centipede name 
PLUTONIINAE Bollman is the senior homonym, it is proposed that the entire generic 
name Plutonia be used as the stem to form the gastropod subfamily name 
PLUTONIAINAE Cockerell. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chilopoda; Gastropoda; plutoniinae; 

PLUTONIAINAE. 



1. The name plutoniinae, published posthumously by Bollman (1893, pp. 165, 
168) for a subfamily of the centipede family scolopendridae Leach, 1815, derives 
from Plutonium Cavanna, 1881 (p. 169). The type species of Plutonium is by 
monotypy P. zwierleini Cavanna, 1881 (p. 169) from Sicily. The gastropod name 
plutoniinae Cockerell, 1893 (p. 186) is based on Plutonia Morelet (published in 
Stabile, 1864, p. 121). The type species of Plutonia is by monotypy Viquesnelia 
atlantica Morelet, 1860 (p. 139, pi. I) from the Azores. According to Article 55b of 
the Code such cases of family-group name homonymy are to be referred to the 
Commission for resolution. 

2. Cockerell introduced the name plutoniinae in the second part of his checklist 
of slugs, dated 21 December 1893. Bollman's work is a collection of all his printed 
papers plus unpublished manuscripts discovered after his death, and is dated 
simply 1893. A prefacing 'Advertisement' by S.P. Langley, then Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution, is dated 31 August 1893. A review of Bollman's work 
(Anonymous, 1894, p. 271) mentioned that it and two other U.S. National Museum 
Bulletins were published in "October and November 1893.' This review was probably 
written by the journal's editors, one of whom was C.V. Riley, then Honorary Curator 
of Insects at the U.S. National Museum. Because of his position at the Museum and 
his authorship of an 'Introductory Note' to Bollman's work, Riley would have 
known when it was published, so the time span of October-November 1893 is 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 151 

probably accurate. In accordance with standard practice, Jeekei (1971, endnote 18, 
p. 378) gave November 1893 as the publication date; in compliance with Article 
21c(i) of the Code the date is deemed to be 30 November 1893. plutoniinae Bollman 
there- fore antedates plutoniinae Cockerell by 21 days. 

3. Because he believed that the mollusc generic name Pliitonia Morelet in Stabile, 
1864 might be preoccupied by the trilobite name Pliitonia Hicks, which was in fact 
published in 1871 (p. 399), Collinge (1893, p. 201, footnote 13 in CockerelFs paper) 
suggested the replacement names Vitriphitonia and vitriplutoniinae 'if any change 
is necessary". These names are junior objective synonyms and were published subject 
to a condition which is not met; they have never been adopted. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code 
the stem of the generic name Pliitonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864 is plutonia-; 

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

(a) Pliitonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy I'icjuesnelia atlantica MoTe\el, 1860: 

(b) Plutonium Cavanna, 1881 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Plutonium zwieiieini Cavanna, 1881; 

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

(a) atlantica Morelet, 1860, as published in the binomen Viquesnelia atlantica 
(specific name of the type species of Plutonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864); 

(b) zwierleini Cavanna, 1881, as published in the binomen Plutonium zwierleini 
(specific name of the type species of Plutonium Cavanna, 1881); 

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

(a) plutoniainae Cockerell, 1893, type genus Plutonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864 
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 

(b) plutoniinae Bollman, 1893, type genus Plutonium Cavanna, 1881 (Arthro- 
poda, Chilopoda); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Plutonia Hicks, 1871 (a junior homonym of Plutonia 
Morelet in Stabile, 1864); 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names 
in Zoology the name plutoniinae Cockerell, 1893 (spelling emended to 
plutoniainae by the ruling in (1) above). 

Acknowledgements 

The first author thanks A. A. Schileyko for bringing this nomenclatural conflict 
to his attention, and A. Minelli, R.L. Hoffman, H. Enghoff", K. Emberton and 
G. Rosenberg for their help. R. Hershler provided information about the mollusc 
names. 

References 

Anonymous. 1894. General Notes. Recent entomological publications of the U.S. National 
Museum. Insect Life, 6(3): 271-272. 



152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52{2| June 1995 

Bellman, C.H. 1893. The Myriapoda of North America. U.S. National Museum Bulletin. No. 

46. 210 pp. 
Cavanna, G. 1881. Nuovo genere (Plutonium) e nuova specie (P. zwierleini) di Scolopendridi. 

Bolleltino cklla Societa Entomologica Italiana. 13: 169-179. 
Cockerell, T.D.A. 1893. A checklist of the slugs. The Conchologisl. 2(7): 168-176; 2(8): 

185-232. 
Collinge, W.E. 1893. Appendix and notes. In: Cockerell, T.D.A., A checklist of the slugs. The 

Conchologisl. 2(7): 168-176; 2(8): 185-232. 
Hicks, H. 1871. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Longmynd rocks of St. David's. 

The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society. 27(1): 399-404. 
Jeekel, C.A.W. 1971. Nomenclator generum et familiarum Diplopodorum: a list of the genus 

and family-group names in the class Diplopoda from the 10th edition of Linnaeus, 1758, 

to the end of 1957. Monografieen van de Nederlcmdse Enlomologische Vereniging, No. 5. 

412 pp. 
Morelet, A. I860. lies .ifores. Notice sur I'histoire naturelle des .4(,ores suivie dune description 

des mollusques terrestres de cet Archipel. 214 pp.. 5 pis. Bailliere, Paris. 
Stabile, J. 1864. Notes. Pp. 113-141 in Mollusques terrestres vivants du Piemont. Atti delta 

Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 7: 1-141. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 153 

Case 2910 

Cubaris mmina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed 
conservation of both the generic and specific names 

Pekka T. Lehtinen 

Zoological Museum. University of Turku, 20500 Turku, Finland 

Stefano Taiti & Franco Ferrara 

Centra di studio per la faunistica ed ecologia tropicali del Consiglio 

Nazionale delle Ricerche, Firenze, Italy 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the generic and specific names 
of the pantropical conglobating isopod Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833. The generic 
name is threatened by the senior homonym Cubaris Billberg, 1820, whilst the specific 
name is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Armadillo galbineus 
Eschscholtz. 1823. Cubaris Billberg is a junior objective synonym of Asellus Geoffroy, 
1762, which was conserved in Opinion 1754 (March 1994). Both Cubaris Billberg and 
A. galbineus have remained unused and their suppression is proposed. It is also 
proposed that the unused specific name of Cubaris brunnea Brandt, 1833 be 
suppressed. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isopoda; Cubaris; Cubaris marina. 



1. The name Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 (p. 671) was conserved in Opinion 1754 (BZN 
51: 58-70; March 1994) with Oniscus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 637) as the type 
species by subsequent monotypy by Fourcroy (1785, p. 541). O. aquaticus refers to 
the water slater found in fresh water throughout Europe; it was the only taxonomic 
species included in the genus by Geoffroy (1762). 

2. Billberg (1820, p. 137) proposed the generic name Cubaris. Billberg's work was 
published as a catalogue which was considered by some of his contemporaries as only 
the privately printed listing of a private collection. However, Walsingham & Durrant 
(1902, p. 163) noted: 'From general appearance the book would appear to have been 
properly published, and has been accepted as published by those who have dealt with 
it". There was no description of the genus but Cubaris was based on three synonymies: 
Asellus 'Ltr." (Latreille, 1803, i.e. Geoffroy, 1762), Idotea 'Fbr.' (i.e. Fabricius, 1796) 
and Entomon "Kin." (= Klein?). Billberg used the abbreviation 'Eg.' (= Ego) to mean 
'Auctor hujus operis' and it seems that he gave a new name to each of the many 
groups of genera he synonymized. Hummel (1825, p. 3) commented that Billberg 'a 
fait tout son possible pour augmenter la confusion dans la synonymic des genres, en 
creant de nouvelles denominations absurdes' and referred to 'innovations mal 
fondees et passablement ridicules'. Walsingham & Durrant analyzed the work and 
agreed with Hummel; they commented (1902, p. 170): 'We have been unable to 
discover a single genus which can be accepted as valid'. In his Index Animalium, 
Sherborn (1922, p. xxiv) noted: 'I agree with Walsingham & Durrant ... as to this 



154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

[Biliberg's] book' and (1925, p. 1669) listed Cubaris as a nomen dubium. Nevertheless 
Cuharis is an available name (Article 12b(l) and 12b(5) of the Code). Oniscus 
aquciiUus Linnaeus, 1758 was the only included species in the genus and is therefore 
the type species by monotypy. Cuharis Billberg is thus a junior objective synonym of 
Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 (see para. 1 above). The latter name has always been used for 
the genus including O. aquaticus and Biliberg's name has been completely forgotten. 
Biliberg's library and his first collection, which were listed in the Emmieratio, were 
destroyed by fire in 1822 and thus none of this original material survives (see 
Walsingham & Durrant, 1902, p. 164). 

3. Brandt (1833, p. 189) proposed the name Cuharis for a genus of several new, 
uniformly coloured, conglobating terrestrial isopods, including (p. 190) C cinerea. 
C. niurina, C bruimea and C. limbuta. Budde-Lund (1885, p. 28; see also 1904, p. 120) 
synonymized murina and brunnea and noted that cinerea was probably also synony- 
mous; he adopted murina as the valid name. In 1909 Budde-Lund (p. 54) designated 
murina as the type species of Cubaris, which he treated as a subgenus of Armadillo 
Latreille, 1802. The name Cuharis has been very widely used at generic rank and, to 
our knowledge, no author has ever mentioned that it is a junior homonym. 
Furthermore, in our revisional work on the genus we have not so far found a valid 
synonym for Cuharis Brandt. To maintain the stability of usage of the latter name we 
propose that Cuharis Billberg be suppressed. 

4. Brandt (1833, p. 189) proposed the family-group name 'Cubaridea' to include 
Cubaris and Armadillo. Cuharis and a large number of tropical genera related to it are 
not close to Armadillo and the name cubaridae is now widely used at family level for 
the largest group of conglobating isopods, found world-wide. 

5. Eschscholtz (1823, p. 112) described Armadillo galhineus from Guam. No type 
material is known to exist. The description is poor but most probably refers to a 
rather large, dull coloured conglobating species. Budde-Lund (1885, p. 39) listed 
A. galbineus as a nomen dubium; in 1904 (p. 120) he noted that galhineus was 
probably a synonym of C. murina. although there are a few other species of 
CUBARIDAE ( ARMADILLIDAE auctt.) which would fit the description given for galhineus. 
Cubaris murina is pantropical; it is common in the Pacific islands, including Guam. 
We propose that stability in the nomenclature should be maintained by suppressing 
A. galbineus. The names Cuharis and murina have been consistently used in the 
literature (recent publications include those by Vandel, 1973; Ferrara & Taiti, 1979; 
Schmalfuss, 1983; Green, Ferrara & Taiti, 1990; and Taiti, Ferrara & Kwon, 1992). 

6. The synonymy of Cubaris hrunnea Brandt, 1833 from Demerary (i.e. 
Georgetown. Guyana) with C. murina Brandt, 1833 (see para. 3 above) is highly 
uncertain and C. hrunnea remains a nomen dubium. As such it is a threat to the name 
of any non-specialized conglobating isopod from the northern parts of South 
America. Since the work of Budde-Lund ( 1 909) it has not been listed as a valid name 
and we propose that hrunnea be suppressed. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names: 

(a) the generic name Cuharis Billberg, 1820, and all uses of the name Cubaris 
prior to the publication of Cuharis Brandt, 1833, for the purposes of both 
the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 155 

(b) the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but 
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 
(i) galbineus Eschscholtz, 1823, as published in the binomen Armadillo 

galbineus; 
(ii) brunnea Brandt, 1833, as published in the binomen Cubans brunnea; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ciibaris 
Brandt, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Budde-Lund (1909) Cubans murina Brandt, 1833; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name murina 
Brandt, 1833, as published in the binomen Cubans murina (specific name of the 
type species of Cubaris Brandt, 1833); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
CUBARIDAE Brandt, 1833 (type genus Cubaris Brandt, 1833); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Cubaris Billberg, 1820, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) galbineus Eschscholtz, 1823, as published in the binomen Armadillo 
galbineus and as suppressed in (l)(b)(i) above; 

(b) brunnea Brandt, 1833, as published in the binomen Cubaris brunnea and as 
suppressed in (l)(b)(ii) above. 

References 

Billberg, G.J. 1820. Emimeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. [ii]. 138 pp. Holmiae. 
Brandt, J.G. 1833. Conspectus monographiae crustaceorum oniscodorum Latreillii. Bullelin de 

la Sociele Imperiale des Naluralisles de Moscou. 6: 171-193. 
Budde-Lund, G. 1885. Crustacea Isopoda lerreslria per familias et genera el species descripla. 

319 pp. Author. Hauniae. 
Budde-Lund, G. 1904. A revision of "Crustacea Isopoda Terrestria' with additions and illus- 
trations. 2. Spherilloninae. 3. Armadillo. Pp. 33-144, pis. 6-10. Hagerup, Copenhagen. 
Budde-Lund, G. 1909. Isopoda. Land-Isopoden. Pp. 53-70, pis. 5-7 in Schultze, L. (Ed.), 

Zoologische und anthropologische Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise im westlichen und 

zentralen Siidafrika, ausgefiihrt in den Jahren 1903-1905. Denkschriften der Medicinisch- 

Nann-wisseitschafllichen Gesellschafl zu Jena, 14( 1 ). 
Eschscholtz, F.F. 1823. Animalia tetracera et Myriapoda exotica. Memoires de la Sociele 

Imperiale des Naluralisles de Moscou. 6: 111-114. 
Ferrara, F. & Taiti, S. 1979. A check-list of terrestrial isopods from Africa (south of the 

Sahara). Monilore Zoologico Italiano, (N.S.) Supplemento 12: 89-215. 
Fourcroy, A.F. 1785. Enlomologiu Parisiensis. vol. 2. Pp. 232-544. Paris. 
Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Hisloire abregee des insecles qui se irouvenl aux environs de Paris, vol. 2. 

690 pp. Durand, Paris. 
Green, A. J. A., Ferrara, F. & Taiti, S. 1990. Terrestrial Isopoda from the Krakatau Islands. 

South Sumatra and West Java. Memoirs of I he Museum of Vicloria. 50: 417^36. 
Hummel. A.D. 1825. Essais enlomologiques. no. 4 (Insectes de 1824; novae species). [3], 72 pp. 

St Petersbourg. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Syslema Nalurae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Schmalfuss, H. 1983. Terrestrial isopods from Nepal (Crustacea: Isopoda: Oniscoidea). 

Senckenbergiana Biologica. 63: 373-392. 
Sherborn, CD. 1922, 1925. Index Animalium 1801-1850. part 1 (Introduction, bibliography 

and Index A-AfT), pp. 1-128 (1922); part 7 (Concolor-Czizeki), pp. 1453-1771 (1925). 

British Museum. London. 



156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Taiti, S., Ferrara, F. & Kwon, D.H. 1992. Terrestrial Isopoda (Crustacea) from the Togian 
Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Inverlebrale Taxonomy, 1992: 787-842. 

Vandcl, A. 1973. Isopodes terrestres de Nepal (Oniscoidea). Senckenbergiaiui Biolu^Ua, 54: 
11-128. 

Walsingham, Lord & Durrant, J.H. 1 902. Revision of the nomenclature of Micro-Lepidoptera. 
Billberg's 'Enumeratio' (1820). Entomologist's Monthly Magazine. 38: 163-170. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 157 

Case 2884 

Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
designation of Ammobates {Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 as 
the type species 

Donald B. Baker 

Hope Entomological Collections, University Museum, Oxford 0X1 3PW, 
U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the current (and original) 
understanding of the name Xerammobates Popov. 1951 for a subgenus of ammobatine 
parasitic bees. The synonym Micropasiies Warncke, 1983 is a junior homonym. The 
present type species oi Xerammobates, i.e. Ammobates biastoides Friese, 1895, belongs 
to Ammobates sensu stricto and was misidentified by Popov. It is proposed that 
Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 be designated as the type species. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; parasitic bees; Xerammobates; 
Ammobates. 



1. Popov (1951, p. 904) proposed the name Xerammobates for a subgenus of 
Ammobates Latreille, 1809 (p. 169) containing A. biastoides Friese, 1895 (p. 131 ) and 
the two new species A. (X.) oxianus and A. (X.) lebedevi. He designated A. biastoides 
as the type species. Unfortunately, however, A, biastoides does not belong to 
Xerammobates as described and figured by Popov (pp. 904-905, 917-920, figs. 3, 5-7) 
but is a species of Ammobates sensu stricto. It must be assumed that the characters 
given for A. biastoides in Popov's key to Ammobates females (p. 908) were drawn 
from some misidentified Algerian ammobatine; the male of A. biastoides was not 
known to him (see his footnote to p. 908 and asterisk against name on p. 913 in key 
to males). 

2. Warncke (1983, p. 283) proposed the subgeneric name Micropasites for three 
ammobatine species which included Popov's A. (X.) oxiamis and A. (X.) lebedevi. 
Warncke did not adopt Xerammobates because he correctly considered that its type 
species A. biastoides did not belong to the same subgenus as the other species. To 
avoid secondary homonymy Warncke provided the replacement specific name 
tunensis for the third Micropasites species, Ammobates (Xerammobates) minutissimus 
Mavromoustakis. 1959 (p. 52), since he erroneously considered Morgania mimttis- 
sima Cockerell, 1933 (p. 379) to belong to Ammobates. Warncke designated A. 
tunensis (i.e. A. (X.) minutissimus) as the type species of his subgenus Micropasites. 
Warncke's name Micropasites is invalid because it is preoccupied by Micropasites 
Linsley, 1942 (p. 130); the latter was proposed as a subgeneric name in Gnathopasites 
Linsley & Michener, 1939 (p. 272) and is currently accepted as a subgenus of 
Neopasites Ashmead, 1898 (p. 284). 

3. It is proposed that the name Xerammobates should be validated in the sense 
intended by Popov (1951), i.e. as a subgeneric name for the group including the two 



158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

species known to and described by him (viz. Ammobates oxiaims and A. lehedevi), by 
setting aside his designation of A. hiastoides Friese, 1895 as type species and by 
designating A. oxianus Popov, 1951 (p. 917) in its place. A. oxianus is to be preferred 
to A. lehedevi (p. 919) as type species since it was described and figured by Popov in 
both sexes and he provided figures of the concealed sterna and genitalia of the male; 
A. lehedevi was known to him only from a single female. The holotype of A. (X.) 
oxianus is in the Zoological Museum in St. Petersburg. 

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 subgenus Xerammobates Popov, 1951 and to designate 
Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Xerammobates Popov, 1 95 1 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(1) above Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name oxianus 
Popov, 1 95 1 , as published in the binomen Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus 
(specific name of the type species of Xerammobates Popov, 1951); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Micropasites Warncke, 1983 (a junior homonym of 
Micropasites Linsley, 1942). 

References 

Ashmcad, W.H. 1898. Some new genera of bees. Psyche, 8: 282-285. 

Cockerell, T.D.A. 1933. Descriptions and records of bees. CXLII. Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History, (10)11: 372-384. 
Friese, H. 1895. Die Bienen Europa's ( Apidae europaeae) nach ibren Gattungen. Arlen und 

Varietiiten, vol. 1. 218 pp. Friedlander. Berlin. 
Latreille, P.A. 1809. Genera criistaceorwn et insectorum .... vol. 4. 399 pp. Koenig, Paris. 
Linsley, E.G. 1942. Notes and descriptions of some North American parasitic bees (Hymen- 

optera, Nomadidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 18: 127-132. 
Linsley, E.G. & Michener, CD. 1939. A generic revision of the North American Nomadidae 

(Hymenoptera). Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 65: 265-305. 
Mavromoustakis, G.A. 1959. New and interesting parasitic bees. Entomologische Berichten, 19: 

31-36. 52-56. 
Popov, V.V. 1951. Parasitic bees of the genus Ammobates Latr. (Hymenoptera. Antho- 

phoridae). Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta. 9(3): 895-949. [In Russian]. 
Warncke, K. 1983. Zur Kenntnis der Bienengattung Pasitcs Jurine, 1807. in der Westpalaarktis 

(Hymenoptera, Apidae, Nomadinae). Entomofauna, 4(21): 261-347. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 159 

Case 2945 

Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names 

Wallace E. LaBerge 

Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural Historv Survev, Champaign, 

Illinois 61820, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the specific names of 
Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 which are in universal 
usage for two of the most common North American species of long-tongued, solitary 
bees (family apidae). The names are threatened by the virtually unused senior 
subjective synonyms Macrocera americana, M. pensylvanica and M. philadelphica, all 
of Lepeletier (1841). 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; solitary bees; Melissodes; North 
America. 



1. Lepeletier (1841) described many species of solitary bees, some of which were 
collected by other workers. Most of these taxa have been recognized and commented 
on in the literature by subsequent authors, but three nominal species described in the 
genus Macrocera have remained unrecognized because type material was unknown 
and because of the lack of subsequent and more detailed descriptions. 

2. Macrocera americana Lepeletier, 1841 (p. 92) was described from Carolina, 
U.S.A. with a type in the 'Musee de France'; M. pensylvanica and M. philadelphica. 
both of Lepeletier (1841, pp. 97 and 110), were described from Pennsylvania with 
types in the 'Musee de M le general Dejean'. All the types were given as male. 

3. Lepeletier's names have rarely appeared in the literature. All three species were 
mentioned by Smith (1854) in his Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collections 
of the British Museum. Macrocera americana was noted in conjunction with the 
description (p. 310) of his new species Melissodes desponsa, based on a female 
specimen from Ohio in the collections of the Natural History Museum in London. 
Smith (p. 312) identified a specimen collected by himself in Carolina as M. americana 
and stated that desponsa was probably the female of americana. Macrocera 
philadelphica and M. pensylvanica were mentioned (p. 312) only with a reference to 
Lepeletier's original publication. All three Lepeletier names were listed as valid in 
Dalla Torre's (1896) catalogue, while that by Muesebeck, Krombein & Townes 
(1951) included only americana and pensylvanica. The later edition of the latter 
(Krombein, Hurd, Smith & Burks, 1979, p. 2156), however, listed all three names 
under 'Unrecognized species of the genus Melissodes Latreille' in which the 'Types 
are either lost or destroyed'. Hendrickson (1930, p. 164) used the name 'Melissodes 
pennsyhanica Lep.'; however, I (LaBerge, 1961) noted that this use resulted from a 
misidentification (Hendrickson was a Ph.D. student and the specimens were probably 
named by Grace Sandhouse of the Smithsonian Museum, who is mentioned in the 



160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

acknowledgements of the paper). Cresson (1872, p. 280) identified four specimens 
from Texas as Melissodes pennsyhanica [sic] without comment. These appear to 
be the only occasions on which Lepeletier's names have been used since their 
publication. 

4. In my revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes I (LaBerge, 1961, p. 654) 
listed the (1841) Lepeletier names as nomina dubia because type material was 
unknown and the taxa to which the names applied could not be identified from the 
original descriptions which were too brief and without sufficient detail or figures. 

5. What appear to be part of the type series (two males each) of Macrocera 
americana and A/, phikidelphica, and a single male which is probably the holotype of 
M. pensyhanicu. were discovered by Mr D.B. Baker in the Dejean-Lepeletier- 
Latreille collection in the Hope Entomological Collection of Oxford University. The 
male specimen of M pensyhanica was labeled by Mr Baker as the holotype and all 
the specimens were sent to me for study. All Lepeletier's material was in rather poor 
condition and I selected lectotypes for philadelphica and americana from the least 
damaged and most recognizable specimens. 1 concluded (LaBerge, 1994) that the 
lectotype of M. americana was a specimen of the species now called Melissodes 
desponsa Smith, 1845. The specific name americcma is thus a senior subjective 
synonym of desponsa, as suggested previously by Smith himself (para. 3 above). I also 
concluded that both philadelphica and pensyhanica were senior subjective synonyms 
of Melissodes agilis Cresson, 1878 (p. 204), which was founded on six specimens from 
Texas in the Belfrage collection in the collections of the American Entomological 
Society, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadephia. 

6. The species Melissodes desponsa has been known under that name since Smith's 
(1854) original publication. I (LaBerge, 1956, p. 562) listed more than 20 primary 
references to it under that name or junior synonyms. This is a very common North 
American species for which a great deal of literature exists concerning distribution, 
nesting and pollination biology. M. agilis is the most common North American 
species of the genus Melissodes. I (LaBerge, 1961, p. 382) listed over 50 primary 
references to the species, which has been known under the name since Cresson's 
(1878) original publication. Some of the more important works, in which one or both 
of the names desponsa and agilis have appeared, are Cockerell (1906, pp. 76, 80, 83), 
LaBerge (1956, p. 562). LaBerge (1961, p. 654), Mitchell (1962, pp. 274, 282), 
Krombein, Hurd, Smith & Burks (1979, pp. 2143, 2144), Hurd, LaBerge & Linsley 
(1980, p. 105), Parker, Tepedino & Bohart (1981, pp. 43-52) and Roig-Alsina & 
Michener (1993. p. 127). Adoption of Lepeletier's (1841) names in place of the junior 
synonyms, which have been used consistently, would disturb stability and lead to 
unnecessary confusion in the literature. 

7. This application has been read and is supported by Drs Loren Nevling, 
Lawrence M. Page and David Voegtlin {Illinois Natural History Survey) and by 
Prof Charles D. Michener (University of Kansas). 

8. 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) americana Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera 
americana; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 161 

(b) pensyhanica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Mcurocera 
pensylvcmica; 

(c) philadelphica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera 
philadelphica; 

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

(a) despoma Smith, 1854, as published in the binomen Melissodes desponsa; 

(b) agilis Cresson, 1878, as published in the binomen Melissodes agilis; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) americana Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera 

americarta and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 
(h) pensylvaiuca Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera 

pensylvafiica and as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) philadelphica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera 
philadelphica and as suppressed in (l){c) above. 

References 

Cresson, E.T. 1872. Hymenoptera Texana. Transactions of the American Entomological 

Society. 4: 153-292. 
Cresson, E.T. 1878. Descriptions of new species of North American bees. Proceedings of the 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 30(2): 181-221. 
Dalle Torre, K.W. von. 1896. Catalogus Hymenopterorwn ..., vol. 10. viii. 643 pp. Leipzig. 
Hendrickson, G.O. 1930. Studies on the insect fauna of Iowa prairies. Iowa State College 

Journal of Science. 4(2): 49-179. 
Hurd, P.D., Jr., LaBerge, W.E. & Linsley, E.G. 1980. Principal sunflower bees of North 

America with emphasis on the southwestern United States (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 310: 1-158. 
Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Jr., Smith, D.R. & Burks, B.D. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera in 

America north oj Mexico, vol. 2 (Apocrita, Aculeata), pp. xvi, 1199-2209. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington D.C. 
LaBerge, W.E. 1956. A revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes in North and Central 

America. Part II (Hymenoptera, Apidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 38: 

553-578. 
LaBerge, W.E. 1961. A revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes in North and Central 

America. Part III (Hymenoptera. Apidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 42: 

283-663. 
LaBerge, W.E. 1994. Status of some species names of eucerine bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) 

proposed by Lepeletier in 1841. Entomological News, 105(5): 280-282. 
Lepeletier, A. de Saint-Fargeau. 1 84 1 . Histoire nalurelle des insectes. Hymenopteres, vol. 2. 680 

pp. Roret. Paris. 
Mitchell, T.B. 1962. Bees of the Eastern United States. Technical Bulletin. North Carolina 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 141(2): 1-557. 
Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V. & Townes, H.K. 1951. Hymenoptera of America north 

of Mexico. Synoptic catalog. 1420 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture 

Monograph no. 2. 
Parker, F.D., Tepedino, V.J. & Bohart, G.E. 1981. Notes on the biology of a common 

sunflower bee, Melissodes (Eumelissodes) agilis Cresson. Journal of the New York 

Entomological Society. 89( 1): 43-52. 
Roig-Alsina, A. & Michener, CD. 1993. Studies of the phylogeny and classification of 

long-tongued bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 55(4): 

124-162. 
Smith, F. 1854. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, part 

2 (Apidae). Pp. 199^65. British Museum, London. 



162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2| June 1995 

Case 2810 

Rhahdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa): proposed designation 
of Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 as the 
type species 

P.N. Wyse Jackson 

Department of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland 

A.J. Bancroft 

95 Moel Gron, Mynydd Isa, near Mold. Clwyd CH7 6XE, Wales, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the current understanding of 
the name Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 which is in estabUshed usage for a 
genus of Carboniferous bryozoans. Young & Young misidentified as Millepora 
gracili.'! PhiUips, 1841 the single species that they included in the genus. We (1995) 
have named the taxon Rhabdomeson progracile and propose that this be designated 
as the type species. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Carboniferous; Rhabdomeson. 



1. Phillips (1841) described a number of zoophytes (accepted now as bryozoans) 
from the Devonian of south-west England. He established a new nominal species 
Millepora gracilis (p. 20, pi. 11, fig. 31). The original specimens appear to be lost. 

2. M'Coy (1844, p. 195) identified material from the Carboniferous of Ireland as 
Millepora gracilis Phillips. 

3. Young & Young (1874. p. 337) established the genus Rhabdomeson for small 
erect cylindrical bryozoans with hollow axial cylinders from which autozooecia are 
budded. Their genus was based on specimens collected from strata of Carboniferous 
age at various localities in the Midland Valley of Scotland. They possessed specimens 
of Millepora gracilis sensu M'Coy, 1844, and considered their Scottish specimens to 
be conspecific with M'Coy's Irish forms. Based on this identification. Young & 
Young (p. 337) included in Rhabdomeson only the nominal species R. gracile, so that 
Millepora gracilis Phillips is the type species by monotypy (see Blake, 1983, p. 569). 
Young & Young had some doubts as to whether their identification of Phillips's 
species was correct. 

4. Whidborne (1898) redescribed bryozoans from the Devonian of south-west 
England and expressed the view (p. 193) that Millepora gracilis Phillips was not 
conspecific with the species that both M'Coy and Young & Young had identified as 
M. gracilis. 

5. We have recently examined material in the Whidborne Collection in the 
Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, and have confirmed that the Devonian and Carbon- 
iferous taxa are not conspecific (Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995, p. 28). Millepora 
gracilis sensu M'Coy and Rhahdomeson gracile sensu Young & Young represent a 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 163 

Carboniferous bryozoan undescribed until our recent paper in which we called it 
Rhabdomeson progracile (1995, p. 30). The holotype is specimen TCD. 37000 (Trinity 
College, Dublin) from Hurst, North Yorkshire, England. 

6. Since Young & Young misidentified the type species of Rlwbdomeson it is 
necessary under Article 70b of the Code to refer the case to the Commission and we 
propose that Rhabdomeson progracile be designated as the type species. 

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 Rliabdoifieson Young & Young, 1874 and to designate 
Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (gender: neuter), type species by desig- 
nation in (1) above Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name progracile 
Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995, as published in the binomen Rhabdomeson 
progracile. 

Acknowledgements 

We are grateful to the late Mr D. Price (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) for the loan 
of specimens from the Whidborne and Porter Collections. 

References 

Blake, D.B. 1983. Systematic descriptions for the suborder Rhabdomesina. Pp. 550-592 in 
Robison, R.A. (Ed.), Treatise on Im-ertehrale Paleontology. Part G (Bryozoa), revised, 
vol. 1 . Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 

M'Coy, F. 1844. A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous Limestone fossils of 
Ireland. 207 pp. University Press, Dublin. 

Phillips, J. 1841. Figures and descriptions of the Palaeozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon and 
West Somerset. Longman, Brown. Green & Longmans, London. 

Whidborne, G.F. 1898. A monograph of the Devonian fauna of the South of England, vol. 3, 
part 3. The fauna of the Marwood and Pilton Beds of North Devon and Somerset. 
Palaeonlographical Society (Monograph): 179-236. 

Wyse Jackson, P.N. & Bancroft, A.J. 1995. Generic revision of the cryptostome bryozoan 
Rlwbdomeson Young and Young, 1 874, with descriptions of two species from the Lower 
Carboniferous of the British Isles. Journal of Paleontology, 69: 28^5. 

Young, J. & Young, J. 1 874. On a new genus of Carboniferous Polyzoa. Annals and Magazine 
of Natural History. (4)13: 335-339. 



164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Case 2951 

Nectria Gray, 1840 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): proposed designation 
of Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875 as the type species 

Wolfgang Zeidler 

South Australian Museum. North Terrace, Adelaide. South Australia 5000, 

Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to designate Nectria ocellata Perrier. 1875 
as the type species of the southern Australian starfish genus Nectria Gray, 1840. The 
specimens on which this genus was based are of A', ocellata but were misidentified as 
Asterias ocellifera Lamarck. 1816 by Gray. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Echinodermata; Asteroidea; starfish; Nectria; 
Australia. 



1. The starfish genus Nectria was established by Gray (1840. p. 287) based on 
specimens in the British Museum which he identified as 'Asterias oculifera Lam. 
Oudart" [recte ocellifera Lamarck, 1816 (p. 553)]. Gray used an illustration by Oudart 
(1827) (captioned as A. ocellifera Lamarck, and reproduced in Zeidler & Rowe, 1986, 
fig. 1) when making this identification. Perrier (1875. p. 187; also 1876. p. 3) 
confirmed that the Oudart plate showed N. ocellifera (Lamarck) and stated (1875. 
p. 324; 1876. p. 244) that the specimen depicted was then preserved in the Jardin des 
Plantes in Paris. This is probably the specimen of A. ocellifera now labelled 'Type 
(EGAS 670)' in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, and it may be 
regarded as Lamarck's original type specimen. 

2. As mentioned by Zeidler & Rowe (1986). of the few mid-nineteenth century 
dried specimens of Nectria now in the Natural History Museum, London likely to 
have been seen by Gray (1840) when he established the genus, none are N. ocellifera 
(Lamarck). In particular, one specimen (BMNH; 1953; 4.27.24) oi N. ocellata Perrier. 
1875 (see para. 3 below) was certainly seen by Gray; its oldest label has 'Nectria 
oculifera" stuck on the back of the board, with '= Asterias ocellifera Lamarck' below 
and 'Gray' pencilled after 'oculifera" (A.M. Clark, pers. comm.). It is therefore clear 
that Gray misidentified the specimens he had before him when he diagnosed the 
genus Nectria, and indeed it is likely that he never saw an actual specimen of 
A", ocellifera. 

3. Perrier (1875) examined a number of specimens in the British Museum, some of 
which were almost certainly seen by Gray, and he concluded that Gray (1840) had 
misidentified his specimens when he established Nectria. Perrier (1875, p. 188; also 
1876, p. 4) consequently used the specimens as the basis of the new species Nectria 
ocellata. The lectotype of M ocellata. specimen BMNH; 1958: 7.30.20 from Tasmania 
(purchased from E. Gerrard jun.). was designated by Zeidler & Rowe (1986. p. 120). 
It was probably used by Gray when establishing Nectria even though he cited 
'Asterias oculifera Lam. Oudart' as the only species. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 165 

4. In his review of the echinoderm fauna of Australia H.L. Clari< (1946) merely 
followed Gray; he listed (p. 85) Asterias ocellifera Lamarck, 1816 as the type species 
oi Nectrki with no mention of Gray's (1840) misidentification. A.M. Clark (1966) and 
Zeidler & Rowe (1986) have reviewed Nectria, and the former remarked (p. 309) that 
'strictly speaking, A'^ ocellata Perrier might be considered as the type species since 
that is the one that Gray had before him when he diagnosed the genus Neciria." 

5. Nectria is an endemic southern Australian genus. Its name is well known 
and stability would not be threatened by replacing N. ocellifera (Lamarck) with 
A^. ocellata Perrier as the type species. In fact I believe that stability would be 
strengthened, as N. ocellifera is atypical of the genus in some respects and has a 
restricted distribution (south-west Western Australia) whereas N. ocellata is very 
typical of the genus and is widespread along the southern coast of Australia. In 
accordance with Article 70b(i) of the Code I propose that the Commission should 
designate N, ocellata as the type species. 

6. 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 Nectria Gray, 1840 and to designate Nectria ocellata 
Perrier, 1875 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Nectria 
Gray, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Nectria 
ocellata Perrier, 1875; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ocellata 
Perrier, 1875. as published in the binomen Nectria ocellata (specific name of the 
type species of Nectria Gray, 1840). 

Acknowledgements 

I wish to thank Miss A.M. Clark, c/o The Natural History Museum, London, for the 
loan of specimens and for invaluable information regarding the collections. I am 
especially grateful to Dr D. Kuhlmann, Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt- 
Universitat, Berlin, for supplying me with copies of Oudart's figure. 

References 

Clark, A.M. 1966. Port Phillip Survey 1957-1963. Echinodermata. Memoirs of the National 

Museum of Victoria. 27: 289-355. 
Clark, H.L. 1946. The echinoderm fauna of Australia. Carnegie Institution of Washington 

Publication, no. 566. 567 pp. 
Gray, J.E. 1840. A synopsis of the genera and species of the class Hypostoina (Asterias, 

Linnaeus). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1)6(37): 275-290. 
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1816. Hisloire nalureile des animuux sans verlebres, vol. 2. 568 pp. 

Author, Paris. 
Oudart, M.P. 1 827. Corns d'hisloire nalureile contenant les principales especes du Regne Animal. 

Engelmann. Paris. 
Perrier, J.-O.E. 1875. Revision de la collection de slellerides du Museum d'Histoire nalureile de 

Paris. 384 pp. Reinwald, Paris. [Reprinted in 3 parts in 1875-1876: Archives de Zoologie 

Experimenlale et Generale, (1)4: 265^50; (1)5: 1-104, 209-309]. 
Zeidler, W. & Rowe, F.W.E. 1986. A revision of the southern Australian starfish genus Nectria 

(Asteroidea: Oreasteridae), with the description of a new species. Records of the South 

Australian Museum, 19(9): 117-138. 



166 Bulletin of Zoological NomencUuure 52(2) June 1995 

Case 2850 

Phyllophis carinata Giinther, 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata; 
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name 

Hobart M. Smith 

Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, 
University of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. 

Hidetoshi Ota 

Tropical Biosphere Research Center and Department of Biology, 

University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara. Okinawa 903-01. Japan 

Van Wallach 

Museum of Cotnparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts 02138. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the specific name of 
Phylhpliis carimita Giinther, 1864, which has had long usage in an extensive 
literature, for a snake occurring in southeastern China, northern Vietnam, Taiwan 
and southern Japan (Ryukyus). For a very short time (March — October 1891) the 
species was considered to be congeneric with the Central and South American snake 
Coluljer carinatus Linnaeus, 1758, rendering Giinther's name a junior secondary 
homonym. Coluber phyllophis Boulenger, 1891 was established as a replacement for 
C. carinatus (Giinther, 1864) and the latter is thus formally permanently invalid. 
However, the name phvllophis has rarely been used and has not appeared at all since 
1929. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; snakes; Elaphe carinata: 
China, Japan. 



1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 223) described the Central and South American species of 
snake Coluber carinatus. He referred to the account of the species (1754, p. 31) based 
on material in the collections described in his Museum Adolphi Friderici. Andersson 
(1899, p. 17) listed and gave measurements for a specimen of C. carinatus in the 
Linnaean collection in the Stockholm museum; this specimen still exists. The species 
was transferred to the genus Herpetodryas Wagler, 1830 by Boulenger ([1 October] 
1891, p. 355; ref 1891b; see Duncan, 1937 for the publication dates of the 1859-1926 
volumes of the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London). C. carinata has been 
included in Chironius Fitzinger, 1826 since Ruthven's (1922) work appeared. 

2. Giinther (1864, p. 295, pi. 21, fig. B) described Phyllophis carinata as a new 
genus and species of snake 'said to be from China", based on a specimen in the 
collections of the Natural History Museum, London (catalogue no. BM(NH) 
1946.1.14.58). A second specimen (Giinther, 1888, p. 170) from the mountains north 



J 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 167 

of Kiu Kiang (now Jiujiang Shi, Jiangxi Province) confinned the origin. In March 
1891 Boulenger (p. 281; ref. 1891a) transferred Giinther's taxon to the genus Coluber 
Linnaeus, 1758, thereby rendering C carimitus (GiJnther, 1864) a junior secondary 
homonym of C. carimitus Linnaeus, 1758. Boulenger noted: 'I am compelled to 
propose a new specific name for this snake, the name Coluber carinata [recte 
carinatus] being preoccupied'; he established the replacement name Coluber 
phyllophis. Boulenger redescribed the taxon and referred to 'several specimens" from 
China; these included an adult specimen described by Giinther (1858) as Elaphis 
sawomaies Pallas and a young specimen (the holotype) of Phyllophis carinata 
Gunther. 

3. Giinther's (1864) specific name carinata was replaced as a junior secondary 
homonym before 1961 and is therefore permanently invalid (Article 59b of the Code). 
The valid specific name for the taxon is phyllophis Boulenger, 1891 and this was 
adopted, in combination with Coluber, by Miiller (1892), Boulenger (1894) and 
Gunther (1896). 

4. Stejneger (1898, p. 221) adopted the name Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 and 
reintroduced the specific name carinata Giinther, 1864 for the single species he placed 
in the genus. Stejneger (1907, 1910) assigned further species, formerly placed in 
Coluber, to Elaphe and cited (1907, p. ?iOS) phyllophis as a junior synonym of carinata. 
A few authors (Wall, 1903; Werner, 1903, 1924, 1929; Stanley, 1915; Steindachner, 
1913; Mell, 1922; and Vogt, 1922, 1927) continued to use phyllophis Boulenger, 1891 
in combination with Coluber. Stejneger did not comment on his choice of specific 
name but Steindachner (1914, p. 337) noted that Stejneger's adoption of Elaphe 
Fitzinger, rather than Coluber, for Phyllophis carinata Giinther meant that there was 
no homonymy with Coluber carinatus Linnaeus and that Giinther's specific name 
could be retained. 

5. The combination Elaphe carinata (Giinther, 1 864) has been used for the taxon by 
most authors since 1907, and without exception since 1929. The more significant 
recent publications include Pope (1935), Bourret (1936), Smith (1943), Wang & Wang 
(1956), Coburn (1991), Ota (1991) and Zhao & Adler (1993). The Commission 
Secretariat holds a list of over 60 further works dating from 1910 to 1991 (45 of which 
are later than 1945) demonstrating the usage of Elaphe carinata. This list could be 
expanded but suffice it to say that (1 ) it already far exceeds the minimum required by 
Article 79c for the usage of the name over the past 50 years (by five different authors 
in ten publications); (2) many of the works cited are major reviews of broad influence, 
and some are popular works with wide circulation; (3) in addition to the nominotypi- 
cal form three subspecies of E. carinata, generally recognized as valid, have been 
described: E. c. ornithophaga Bourret, 1936, E. c. yonaguniensis Takara, 1962 and 
E. c. deqetiensis Yang & Su, 1984. This last subspecies was referred to (twice) as 
deqenensis in the Chinese text of Yang & Su's paper (p. 160), but appeared (twice) as 
deqinensis in the English summary (p. 163). The locality for the type material (now 
housed in the Kunming Institute of Zoology) was given (a number of times) as Deqin 
Xian (now Deqen Xian, Yunnan Province). Acting as first revisers we here select 
deqetiensis as the definitive spelling. This spelling was adopted by Zhao & Adler (1993, 
p. 236) but they did not meet the requirements of Article 24 for first reviser selection. 

6. We conclude that the resurrection of Boulenger's (1891) replacement specific 
name phyllophis, as would be required by application of the automatic provisions of 



168 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(2) June 1995 

the Code, would be severely disruptive to nomenclatural stability, and that a prima 
facie case has been made for the maintenance of Eluplic carincita (Giinther, 1864). We 
make this application under Articles 59b(i) and 79a. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name carinata Giinther, 1864, 
as published in the binomen Phyllophis carinata, is not invalid by reason of 
having been replaced before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of Coluber 
carinatus Linnaeus, 1758; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name curinciia 
Giinther, 1864, as published in the binomen Phyllophis carinala (not invalid by 
reason of having been replaced before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of 
Coluber carinatus Linnaeus, 1758); 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name phyllophis Boulenger, 1891, as published in the binomen 
Coluber phyllophis (a junior objective synonym of Phyllophis carinata Giinther, 
1864). 

References 

Andersson, L.G. 1899. Catalogue of Linnean type-specimens of snakes in the Royal Museum 

in Stockholm. Bihan^ till Kongl. Svcnskii fcicnskcips-Akademiens Hanclliiiiicir. 24(4, 6): 

1-35. 
Boulenger, G.A. 1891a (March). Descriptions of new Oriental reptiles and batrachians. Annals 

and Magazine of Natural History. (6)7(39): 279-283. 
Boulenger, G.A. 1891b ([October]). On reptiles, batrachians, and fishes from the Lesser West 

Indies. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1891(3): 351-357. 
Boulenger, G.A. 1894. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 2 

(Conclusion of the Colubridae Aglyphae). xii, 382 pp., 20 pis. British Museum (Natural 

History), London. 
Bourret, R. 1936. Les serpents de I'lndochine. vol. 2 (Catalogue systematique descriptif). 505 

pp., 189 figs. Toulouse. 
Coburn, J. 1991 . Atlas of snakes of the world. 591 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New 

Jersey. 
Duncan, F.IVI. 1937. On the dates of publication of the Society's "Proceedings', 1859-1926. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. (A)107: 71-84. 
Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1864. The reptiles of British India, xxvii, 452 pp., 26 pis. Ray Society, 

London. 
Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1888. On a collection of reptiles from China. Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History. (WO): 165-172. 
Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1896. Report on the collections of reptiles, batrachians and fishes made by 

Messrs. Potanin and Berezowski in the Chinese provinces Kansu and Sze-chuen. Annuaire 

du Miisee Zoidogique de I' .Academic Iinperiale des Sciences de St Petershourg. 1: 199-219. 
Linnaeus, C. 1754. Museum S:ae R:ae M.lis .Adolphi Friderici Regis ... Quadrupcdia. Aves. 

,4mphihia. Pisces. Insecta. Vermes descrihuntur et deterininantur. xxx, 96, [8] pp., 33 pis. 

Holmiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systeina Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Mell, R. 1922. Beitrage zur Fauna sinica. I. Die Vertebraten Siidchinas; Feldlisten und 

Feldnolen der Siiuger, Vogel, Reptilien, Batrachier. .Archiy fiir Naturgeschichte, 88A(10): 

1 146. 
Miiller, F. 1892. Siebenter Nachtrag zum Katalog der herpetologischen Sammlung der Easier 

Museums. Verhuiullungen der Naturforschenden Gescllschaft in Basel. 10(1): 195-215. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 169 

Ota, H. 1991. Systematics and biogeography of terrestrial reptiles of Taiwan. Pp. 47-112 in 

Lin, Y.-S. & Chang. K.-H. (Eds.). Proceedings of the First Inlernulional Symposium on 

IVildlifc Conservation, ROC. Council of Agriculture, Taipei. 
Pope, C.H. 1935. The reptiles of China, lii, 604 pp., 25 pis. American Museum of Natural 

History, New York. 
Ruthven, A.G. 1922. The amphibians and reptiles of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, 

Colombia. Miscellaneous Publications. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 8: 

1-69. 
Smith, M.A. 1943. The fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of the 

Indo-Chinese sub-region. Reptilia and Amphibia, vol. 3 (Serpentes). xii, 583 pp. Taylor & 

Francis, London. 
Stanley, A. 1915. The collection of Chinese reptiles in the Shanghai Museum. Journal of the 

North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 45: 21-31. 
Steindachner, F. 1913. Bericht iiber die von Hans Sauter auf Formosa gesammelten Schlan- 

genarten. Deitkschriften dcr Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaflen. Wien. 

Malhematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 90: 319-36L (Published in the journal in 

1914 but issued as a separate in 1913). 
Stejneger, L. 1898. On a collection of batrachians and reptiles from Formosa and adjacent 

islands. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, 12(3): 215-225. 
Stejneger, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bulletin of the United States 

National Museum. 58: 1-577. 
Stejneger, L. 1910. The batrachians and reptiles of Formosa. Proceedings of the United States 

National Museum. 38(1731): 91-114. 
Takara, T. 1962. Studies on the terrestrial snakes in the Ryukyu Archipelago. Science Bulletin 

of the College of Agricidture, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, 9: 1-202. [In Japanese, 

English summary]. 
Vogt, T. 1922. Zur Reptilien- und Amphibienfauna Siidchinas. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte. 

88A(10): 135-146. 
Vogt, T. 1927. Beitrag zur Reptilien- und Amphibienfauna Siidchinas. Zoologischer Anzei^er, 

69(11-12): 281-288. 
Wall, F. 1903. A prodromus of the snakes hitherto recorded from China, Japan and the Loo 

Choo Islands; with some notes. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1903(1): 

84-102. 
Wang, C.-S. & Wang, Y.-H. 1956. The reptiles of Taiwan. Quarterly Journal of Taiwan 

Museum, 9(1): 1-86. 
Werner, F. 1903. Ueber Reptilien und Batrachier aus Guatemala und China in der 

zoologischen Staats-Sammlung in Miinchen nebst einem Anhang iiber seltene Formen 

aus anderen Gegenden. Abhandlungen der Koniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- 
schaflen, 22(2): 343-384. 
Werner, F. 1924. Uber Reptilien und Amphibien aus Siidchina. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 99: 

39-58. 
Werner, F. 1929. Ubersicht der Gattungen und Arlen der Schlangen aus der Familie 

Colubridae. IIL Teil (Colubrinae). Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Abteilung fiir Systematik), 

57(1-2): 1-196. 
Vang, D.-T. & Su, C.-V. 1984. A preliminary study on the subspecies differentiation of Elaphe 

carinata (Serpentiformes: Colubridae). Zoological Research, 5(2): 159-163. [In Chinese, 

English summary). 
Zhao, E.-M. & Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Contributions to Herpetology (Society for 

the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles), 10: 1-522. 



170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Case 2879 

Aptornis Owen, |1848| (Aves): proposed conservation as the correct 
original spelling 

Erich Weber & Frank-Thorsten Krell 

Eherhard-Karh-Universitdt, Zoologisches lustitiit, Lehrsliihl fiir Spezielle 

Zoologie. Aufder Morgenstelle 28. D-72076 Tiibingen, Germany 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Aptoniis Owen, [ 1 848, 
April] for extinct large flightless birds (family aptornithidae Bonaparte, 1856) from 
New Zealand. The name first appeared (a week earlier) as Apterornis, probably due to a 
spelling error; this spelling has been used on only four occasions, all since 1985. The 
name Apterornis Selys-Longchamps, 1 848 (October) referred to different extinct flight- 
less birds (family raphidae Wetmore, 1930), including the white dodo from Reunion. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; extinct flightless birds; Aptornis; 
New Zealand. 



1. Owen ([June 1844]; Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, vol. 3, part 
3; ref. 1844b) described and illustrated the skeletal remains of extinct large flightless 
birds from New Zealand. Among them was a tibia (p. 247; pi. 25, figs. 5, 6; pi. 26, 
figs. 5, 6) on which he based a new species of Dinortiis Owen, 1843 (the moas), 
D. otidiformis. The name Dinornis otidifonnis had been mentioned a few months 
earlier (Owen, [March 1844]; Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, vol. II; 
ref. 1844a) but was not then made available. The publication dates of the early 
volumes of the Transactions were set out by Peavot (1913, pp. 814-815); those for the 
1830-1859 volumes of the Proceedings were listed by Sclater (1893, p. 438). Bruce & 
McAllan (1990, pp. 458, 459) claimed that The Literary Gazette of December 1843 "is 
the original publication for D. otidiformis". However, there is no description of the 
taxon and the name was not made available in this work. 

2. Further remains of Dinonns otidiformis Owen, [1844] were found and the 
taxon was referred to a new genus. A report (Proceedings, vol. 16, p. 1, published on 
13 April 1848; ref. 1848a) of a lecture by Owen noted: 'The author alluded to a form 
of tarso-metatarsal bone, which had supported a strong back-toe, and resembled the 
metatarsus of the Dodo, but was shorter and thicker, as apparently belonging to the 
tibia of the species described in a former memoir {Zool. Trans, iii. 1843 [recte [1844]], 
p. 247), to the Dinornis otidifonnis, but which must belong to a genus {Apterornis) 
distinct from both Dinornis and Palapteryx'. The name appeared (p. 251) in the index 
to the part as ' Apterormis\ 

3. In a paper in the Transactions (vol. 3, part 5, published on 22 April 1848; ref. 
1848b), Owen noted (p. 347): There are eight tarso-metatarsal bones, with the 
articular surface for a very strong hind-toe, and of a conformation more nearly 
resembling those of the Dodo than those of the Dinornis or Pcdapteryx, but shorter 
and thicker in proportion than in the Dodo, and appertaining to the same bird as the 
tibiae and femora in my Memoir of 1843 [recte [1844]] under the name of Dinornis 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 171 

oiklifonms ... The large surface for the hind-toe: the strong calcaneal process ... and 
the more posterior position of the condyle for the inner toe, all concur to indicate the 
generic distinction of the bird to which it belonged from either Dinornis or 
Palapteryx; and I propose to indicate the new genus by the name of Aptornis' . The 
name Aptornis was mentioned twice with the same spelling. 

4. It seems very probable that the earlier spelling Apierorni.s, in a report not 
actually written by Owen, was an error, particularly since the further misspelling 
' Apteromm appeared in the index, but under Article 32b of the Code it is an 
available name, attributable to Owen (Article 50b). Apteromis has not generally been 
used by subsequent authors and has appeared only three times (all since 1985; see 
para. 5 below). Mantell (August 1848, p. 233) adopted the name Aptornis. Bonaparte 
(1856, p. 109) based the family aptornithidae on the genus Aptornis Owen, [1848]. 
The spelling Aptornis has been adopted by the vast majority of subsequent authors; 
these include Furbringer (1888), Hamilton (1891), Lydekker (1891, pp. 147, 152), 
Gadow (1893, p. 182), Sharpe (1894, p. 207), Andrews (1896; 1899, pp. 69, 71), 
Beddard (1898, p. 378), Rothschild (1907, pp. 145, 147), Lowe (1926, p. 177), Oliver 
(1955, p. 596), Lambrecht (1933, p. 485), Stresemann (1933, p. 763), Dechaseaux 
(1955, p. 1961), Piveteau (1955, p. 1077), Scarlett (1955, p. 262), Berndt & Meise 
(1962, p. 96), Trotter (1965, p, 177), Romer (1966, p. 376), Brodkorb (1967, p. 131) 
and Mlikovsky (1982, p. 725). 

5. Olson (1975, p. 63; 1977, p. 373) used the name Aptornis. In 1985 (p. 162), 
however, he discovered the priority of the spelling Apteromis and adopted the latter: 
'Apterornithidae. The strange birds from the Quaternary of New Zealand that are 
properly known as Apteromis Owen, which name has a week's priority over Aptornis 
Owen, have usually been thought of as rails ...". This was followed by Carroll (1988, 
p. 626, 'Apterornithidae Apteromis [Aptornis]'), who took the classification in his 
catalogue from Olson (1985), and by Hesse (1990, p, 12) and Livezey (1994). In a 
joint forthcoming publication with one of us (Weber & Hesse, in press). Hesse has 
accepted the use of the spelling Aptornis. Other authors since 1985 have continued to 
use the spelling Aptornis; these include Miiller (1985, p. 618) and Worthy (1989). The 
Checklist Committee of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (1990, p. 126), 
Fordyce(1991,p. 1308), Millener (1991, p. 1331) and Holdaway (1991, pp. 156, 161) 
have noted that Apteromis has priority but have continued to use the name Aptornis 

(and APTORNITHIDAE). 

6. Selys-Longchamps (October 1848, p. 293) described a new genus of large extinct 
and flightless birds, Apteromis (family raphidae Wetmore, 1930, the dodos). The 
genus included three or four new nominal species, among them A. solilarius, the 
solitaire or white dodo from Reunion, which is known from descriptions and 
illustrations of then living specimens. Apteromis Selys-Longchamps was used as a 
valid generic name by Rothschild (1907, p. 145. pi, 32), Lambrecht (1933. p. 468) and 
Renshaw (1934, p. 48, pi. on p. 49; 1938), and for a subgenus of Porphyrio Brisson, 
1760 by Fiirbringer (1888, p. 1236). It was cited as a synonym of Notornis Ov/en, 1848 
by Sharpe (1899, p. 109), but has been considered a junior subjective synonym of 
Raplnis Brisson, 1760 by others (see, for example, Greenway, 1967, pp. 120, 122; 
Wolters, 1975, p. 43; Luther, 1986, pp. 102, 184). Recognition of the spelling 
Apteromis for the name of Owen's genus would render Apteromis Selys-Longchamps 
a junior homonym. 



172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

7. Owen (1871) described a second Apiornis species (A. defossor) which was larger 
than A. oiidifomiis. on the basis of a nearly perfect skull. Owen himself (1871, p. 353; 
lS72a: 1872b; 1879, pp. 179-188, 290-316, pis. 43, 83-86) consistently used the 
spelling Apiornis for his genus and never mentioned that it had first appeared as 
Apieroniis. He noted (1871, p. 353): '1 proposed the name Apiornis', and (p. 353, 
footnote): 'In the 'Revue Zoologique' for October 1848, M. de Selys-Longchamps 
proposed the minor abbreviation 'Apierornis' for some, then vaguely indicated, 
extinct birds of the Mascarene Islands". Owen also noted (p. 365, footnote): 'By a 
curious coincidence, at a later period of the year (1848) in which I proposed a 
diminutive of ' Apterygiornis' for the large extinct Coot of New Zealand, the 
accomplished Belgian ornithologist, M. de Selys-Longchamps, was moved to pro- 
pound a minor diminutive of the same term for some loosely indicated Mascarene 
birds, one of which we now know to have been an extinct Coot of the Mauritius. 
Without entering into the question of the degree of synonymy of Apiornis and 
Apterornis. the priority of proposition of the first will, I apprehend, secure it for the 
main subject of my present Memoir'. 

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

( 1 ) to rule that the correct original spelling of the generic name Apterornis is 
Aptornis Owen, [1848]; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Apiornis 
Owen, [1848] (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Dinornis 
otidiformis Owen, [1844]; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name otidiformis 
Owen, [1844], as published in the binomen Dinornis otidiformis; 

(4) to place on the Oflicial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Apterornis Owen, [1848] (ruled in (1) above to be an 
incorrect original spelling of Aptornis Owen, [1848]). 

References 

Andrews, C.W. 1896. Note on a nearly complete skeleton of Aptornis defossor (Owen). 

Geological Magazine or Monthly Journal of Geology. 3: 241-242. 
Andrews, C.W. 1899. On the extinct birds of Patagonia. 1. The skull and skeleton of 

Plwroracos inflatiis Ameghino. Transactions of tlie Zoological Society of London. 15(3): 

55-86. 
Beddard, F.E. 1898. The structure and classification of birds. 548 pp. Longmans, Green, 

London. 
Berndt, R. & Meise, W. 1962. Naturgeschichte der Vogel. vol. 2 (Spezielle Vogelkunde). xx, 679 

pp. Kosmos. Stuttgart. 
Bonaparte, C. 1856. Additions et corrections au coup d'oeil sur I'ordre des pigeons, et a la 

partie correspondante du Conspectus Avium. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances 

de r. Academic des Sciences. Paris, 43: 833-841. 
Brodkorb, P. 1967. Catalogue of fossil birds, part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichlhyornithiformes, 

Charadriiformes). Bulletin of the Florida Stale Museum. 11(3): 99-220. 
Bruce, M.D. & McAllan, I.A.W. 1990. Some problems in vertebrate nomenclature. 2. Birds. 

Part 1. Bolleltino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Nalurali. Torino. 8(2): 453-485. 
Carroll, R.L. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution, xiv. 698 pp. Freeman, New York. 
Checklist Committee of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand. 1990. Checl<lisl of the birds 

of New Zealand and the Ross Dependency. Antarctica. Ed. 3. xv. 247 pp. Ornithological 

Society of New Zealand. 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 173 

Dechaseaux, C. 1955. Systematique des carinates. Pp. 1055-1069 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.). Traite cle 

pcileonlologie. vol. 5 (Amphibiens, reptiles, oiseaux). 1113 pp. Masson, Paris. 
Fordyce, R.E. 1991. A new look at the fossil vertebrate record of New Zealand. Pp. 1 191-1316 

in Vickers-Rich. P., Monaghan, J.M., Baird. R.F. & Rich. T.H. (Eds.). Vertebrate 

Palueontohgy oj Austnilasiu. Monash University Publications Committee, Melbourne. 
Fiirbringer, M. 1888. Untersuchungen zur Morphologic und Systematik der Vogel. zugleich ein 

Beitrag zur Anatomic der Stiitz- und Bewegungsorgane. Bijdragen lot de Dierkimde. 15: 

1-1751. 
Gadow, H. 1893. Dr H.G. Bronn's Ktassen und Ordmmgen des Thier-Reichs. wissen.schaftlich 

dargestelll in Wort und Bild. vol. 6, part 4 (Vogel). vii, 304 pp. Winter, Leipzig. 
Greenway, J.C. Jr. 1967. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world. Ed. 2. xvi, 520 pp. Dover 

Publications. New York. 
Hamilton, A. 1891. On the genus Aptornis. with more especial reference to Aptornis defossor. 

Owen. Transactions and Proceedings oj the New Zealand Institute. 24: 175-184. 
Hesse, A. 1990. Die Beschreibung der Messelornithidae (Aves: Gruiformes: Rhynocheti) aus 

dem Alttertiar Europas und Nordamerikas. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg. 128: 

1-176. 
Holdaway, R.N. 1991. Sibley et aPs (1988) classification of living birds applied to the New 

Zealand list. Notornis. 38(2): 152-164. 
Lambrecht, K. 1933. Handhuch der Palaeornithologie. Bomtraeger. Berlin (Neudruck, 1964. 

1024 pp., 4 pis. Asher, Amsterdam). 
Livezey, B.C. 1994. The carpometacarpus of Aplerornis. Notornis. 41: 51-60. 
Lowe, P.R. 1926. More notes on the quadrate as a factor in avian classification. Ibis, (12)2: 

152-188. 
Luther, D. 1 986. Die ausgestorbenen Vogel der Welt. 3 Auflage. Die Netie Brehm-Biicherei. 424: 

1-203. 
Lydekker, R. 1 89 1 . Catalogue of the fossil birds in the British Museum ( Natural History i . .xxvii. 

17 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Mantel!, G.A. 1848 (August). On the fossil remains of birds collected in various parts of New 

Zealand by Mr Walter Mantell, of Wellington. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 

of London. 4(\): 225-23S. 
Millener, P.R. 1991. The Quaternary avifauna of New Zealand. Pp. 1317-1344 in Vickers- 
Rich, P., Monaghan, J.M., Baird, R.F. & Rich. T.H. (Eds.), Vertebrate Palaeontology of 

Australasia. Monash University Publications Committee, Melbourne. 
Mlikovsky, J. 1982. Evolution of Sightlessness in birds; an ecological approach. Pp. 693-730 

in Novak, V.J. A. & Mlikovsky, J. (Eds.), Evolution and environment. Proceedings of the 

International Symposium. Brno, .August 17-22, 1981. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 

Prague. 
Miiller, A.H. 1985. Lehrhuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 3 (Vertebraten), part 2 (Reptilien und 

Vogel). 665 pp. Fischer. Jena. 
Oliver, W.R.B. 1955. New Zealand birds. Ed. 2. 661 pp. Reed. Wellington. 
Olson, S.L. 1975. A review of the extinct rails of the New Zealand region (Aves: Rallidae). 

National Museum of New Zealand Records. 1: 63-79. 
Olson, S.L. 1977. A synopsis of the fossil Rallidae. Pp. 339-373 in Ripley, S.D., Rails of the 

world. A monograph of the family Rallidae. Godine, Boston. 
Olson, S.L. 1985. The fossil record of birds. Pp. 79-238 In Earner. D.S., King, J.R. & Parks, 

K.C., Avian biology, vol. 7. Academic Press, New York. 
Owen, [R.] [1844, Marchja. [On Dinornis Novae-Zealaiidiae. continued]. Proceedings of the 

Zoological Society of London. II: 144-146. 
Owen, [R.] [1844, June]b. On Diornis. an extinct genus of tridactyle struthious birds, with 

descriptions of portions of the skeleton of five species which formerly existed in New 

Zealand. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. 3(3): 235-275. 
Owen, [R.] [1848, 13 April]a. On the remains of the gigantic and presumed extinct wingless or 

terrestrial birds of New Zealand {Dinornis and Palaptery.x), with indications of two other 

genera (Notornis and Nestor). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 16: 1-11. 



174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Owen, [R.] [1848. 22 April]b. On Dinonns (part III): containing a description of the skull and 

beak of that genus, and of the same characteristic parts of Palapteryx, and of two other 

genera of birds. Notornis and Nestor; forming part of an extensive series of ornithic 

remains discovered by Mr Walter Mantell at Waingongoro, North Island of New 

Zealand. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. 3(5): 345-378. 
Owen, [R.] 1871. On Dinornis (part XV): containing a description of the skull, femur, tibia, 

fibula, and metatarsus of Aptornis defossor. Owen, from near Oamaru, Middle Island, 

New Zealand; with additional observations on Aptornis otidifonnis, on Notornis mantellii, 

and on Dinornis ciirtus. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 7(5): 353-380. 
Owen, [R.] 1872a. [The remains of Aptornis found in Glenmark Swamp, New Zealand]. 

Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London. 1872: 24. 
Owen, [R.] 1872b. On Dinornis (part XVII): containing a description of the sternum and pelvis, 

with an attempted restoration, of Aptornis defossor, Owen. Transactions of the Zoological 

Society of London. 8(3): 119-126. 
Owen, [R.] 1879. Memoirs on the extinct wingless birds of New Zealand: with an appendix on 

those of England, Australia. Newfoundland. Mauritius, and Rodriguez, vol. 1 (text), x, 465, 

48 pp.; vol. 2 (plates), xiv pp., 123 pis. Van Voorst, London. 
Peavot, H.G.J. 1913. List of dates of publication of the early parts of the Society's 

"Transactions', which had been drawn up from the records kept by Messrs. Taylor and 

Francis, the Society's printers. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1913: 

814-815. 
Piveteau. J. 1955. Un trait de revolution des carinates: le retour a la vie terrestre. 

Pp. 1069-1084 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), Traite de paleontologie, vol. 5 (Amphibiens, reptiles, 

oiseaux). 1 1 13 pp. Masson, Paris. 
Renshaw, G. 1934. The white dodo. Journal of the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of 

the Empire. (n.s.)21: 48-51. 
Renshaw, G. 1938. Some extinct birds: 4: The white dodo. Bird Notes and News. 18: 85-86. 
Romer, A.S. 1966. i'erlebrale paleontology, Ed. 3. Ix. 468 pp. University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago. 
Rothschild, W. 1907. Extinct birds, xxix, 244 pp., 42 pis. Hutchinson, London. 
Scarlett, R.J. 1955. Further report on bird remains from Pyramid Valley. Records of the 

Canterbury Museum, 6: 261-264. 
Sclater, [P.L.] 1893. List of the dates of delivery of the sheets of the 'Proceedings' of the 

Zoological Society of London, from the commencement in 1830 to 1859 inclusive. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1893(2): 435^36, (3): 437^M0. 
Selys-Longchamps, E. de. 1848 (October). Resume concernant les oiseaux brevipennes 

mentionnes dans I'ouvrage de M. Strickland sur le dodo. Revue Zoologique par la Societe 

Cuvierienne, 11: 292-295. 
Sharpe, R.B. 1894. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum, vol. 23 (Fulicariae (Rallidae 

and Heliornithidae) and Alectorides (Aramidae, Eurypygidae, Mesitidae, Rhinochetidae, 

Gruidae, Psophiidae. and Otididae)). xiii, 354 pp., 9 pis. British Museum, London. 
Sharpe, R.B. 1899. .4 hand-list of the genera and species of birds, vol. 1. xxi, 803 pp. British 

Museum (Natural History), London. 
Stresemann, E. 1933. Sauropsida: Aves. Pp. 649-768 in Krumbach, T. (Ed.), Handbuch der 

Zoologie. vol. 7, part 2. Lieferung 7. De Gruyter, Berlin. 
Trotter, M.M. 1965. Avian remains from north Otago archaeological sites. Notornis. 12(3): 

176-178. 
Weber, E. & Hesse, A. (in press). The systematic position of Aptornis, a flightless subfossil bird 

of New Zealand. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg (Proceedings of the Third 

Symposium of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (S.A.P.E.), Frankfurt am 

Main, 22-26 June 1992). 
Wolters, H.E. 1975. Die Vogelarten der Erde. Eine systematische Liste mit Verbreitungsangaben 

sowie deutschen mid englischen Namen, Lieferung I. Pp. 1-80. Parey, Hamburg. 
Worthy, T.H. 1989. The glossohyal and thyroid bone of Aptornis otidiformes [sic]. Notornis, 36: 

248. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 175 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Fmsenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 
(Foraminiferida) 

(Case 2809; see BZN 51: 98-101) 

(1) John R. Haynes 

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

I agree with the application of Dr S.A. Revets that the name Cassidella Hofker, 
1953 should be suppressed. Cassidella was based on a misidentification, was not 
properly set up in the first place, and has been nothing but a cause of confusion since. 
Furthermore, the type material of Virgulina tegulaia Reuss, 1846 has been destroyed 
and there is no adequate topotypic replacement material. These problems can be 
overcome by the conservation of Fursenkoina. 

(2) Stefan A. Revets 

Department of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Western Australia, 
Nedlands, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia 

In 1994 I visited the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. One of the 
studies I made was to ascertain the nature and status of " Virgulina tegulata' in 
American collections in relation to the proposed suppression of the name Cassidella 
Hofker. 1953 (type species Virgulina tegulata Reuss, 1846; see paras. 3, 7 and 8 of my 
application). 

The Cushman collection in the Smithsonian contains 101 slides labelled "Virgulina 
tegulata'. I found that only 13 contain specimens referable to V. tegulata sensu Reuss, 
and that the others contain specimens referable to V. reussi Morrow, 'Loxostomum 
tegulaium', and various other species. The so-called "plesiotype' slides did not contain 
specimens of V. tegulata Reuss. Of the four slides with topotypic specimens only one 
(Planer mergel, Zieglei, Zsehernitz bei Dresden) contains specimens of ('. tegulata. 

These observations support my thesis that Cushman also misinterpreted the nature 
of V. tegulata Reuss and that the overwhelming majority of American specimens 
probably belong to other taxa. While not new in itself, this information does 
underwrite one of the proposals in my application. 

d'Orbigny (1826) gave the locality for a number of his newly described nominal 
species, including Virgulina squarmnosa (the type species of Fursenkoina Loeblich & 
Tappan, 1961) and Uvigerina pigmea, as 'fossile aux environs de Sienne'. I have found 
no information in the d'Orbigny collection in the Museum National d'Histoire 
Naturelle in Paris to pinpoint the exact locality from which V. squammosa 
was described. Cushman (1930) established that the most likely type locality for 
U. pigmea was some of the Pliocene clay pits at Coroncina, near Siena, Italy, and this 
seems to be the most likely locality for V. squammosa also, particularly as specimens 
have been found there in recent times (see below). 

I noted in my application (para. 1) that searches in the collections of the Museum 
in Paris have failed to yield any information on possible syntypes of V. squammosa. 
If type material ever existed it must be presumed that it does not do so now. The 
d'Orbigny collection has suffered a great many losses over the years. Apart from the 



176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

disruption caused by moving the collection from Esnandes to Paris, many of the 
tubes containing d'Orbigny's specimens were lost and others became detached from 
their labels during the 1912 flooding of the Museum basements. Unfortunately 
d'Orbigny's sediment collection held in the Museum does not contain any material 
from Siena. 

In addition to the proposed suppression of the name Cassidella in order to 
conserve Fursenkowa, stability would be further enhanced by the availabiUty of type 
material for V. squammosa. The publication of my paper in the Bulletin of the Natural 
History Museum. London, in which I proposed to designate a neotype (see para. 9(3) 
of my application), has been delayed. I therefore now designate specimen no. 
P 52796, which is fully labelled and deposited in the Micropalaeontology Collections 
in the Natural History Museum, London, as the neotype. The specimen was collected 
by Dr D.D. Bayliss in 1964 (sample By 103), and is from the Pliocene clays of Cava 
Semplice, Coroncina, near Siena. The specimen is fully representative of Fursenkoina 
squammosa. which differs from F. schreibersiana (Czjzek, 1848) in possessing much 
higher chambers and much less twisted initial coils. The aperture in F. schreibersiana 
is also much more bulimine in appearance. F. squammosa differs from F. otigocenica 
(Hofker, 1 95 1 ) in possessing much higher chambers and a more reduced apertural lip. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri 
Soos, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 2870; see BZN 51: 105-107, 336-338) 

Dietrich Kadolsky 

7 Lytchgate Close. South Croydon. Surrey CR2 ODX. U.K. 

On the basis of the facts presented in Gittenberger's application (BZN 51: 
105-107), and in the comments raised by Bouchet and Gittenberger (BZN 51: 
336-338), the conclusion appears to be inescapable that the five senior subjective 
synonyms of Trochoidea geyeri (Soos, 1926) should indeed be suppressed in 
accordance with the letter and spirit of Articles 23b and 79 of the Code. However, I 
sympathise with Bouchet's objections. My reasoning for this encompasses a much 
wider issue than the one application. 

Amongst taxonomists working on Mollusca there is a widespread trend to 
recognise separate species which hitherto had been united as species complexes. 
Although such studies, which are now based on modern criteria of biological species 
recognition, may discover and define many new species, it is a frequent experience 
that only a few new specific names are required. Many may have been considered as 
distinct species in the past, albeit often on criteria which are today no longer regarded 
as sufficient on their own (shell characters, for example). 

It follows that an essential part of any modern taxonomic study must be to 
establish the identity of taxa represented by names hitherto considered to be 
synonyms. Comments about the 'graveyard of synonymy" and the unscientific 
methods of some ancient authors in proposing new taxa are subjective and contribute 
nothing to the solution of the problem, and should not have any bearing on 
nomenclatural matters. Any taxonomist who does not review old nominal taxa will 
only create new synonyms or other nomenclatural problems. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 177 

It is easy to see that the opportunity offered by Article 79c to suppress senior 
synonyms if unused for more than 50 years could be misused as a safety net for 
sloppy work and easy glory: a researcher may discover a species not recognised in the 
modern literature, does not bother to check whether older names, presently regarded 
as synonyms, are available and describes the species in question as new. Later the 
researcher (or another, compelled by concern for the 'stability of nomenclature") may 
resort to the Commission when the synonymy is discovered. The potential number of 
such cases could easily inundate the Commission. 

At the least the existence of Article 79c is a disincentive to those taxonomists who 
understand that it is their professional duty to revise old synonymies to ensure that 
they do not unnecessarily introduce new specific names. The discovery of unused 
senior synonyms of already recognised nominal species is always a possible outcome 
of such work, yet the Code suggests that such work should have no nomenclatural 
result if a researcher considers 'nomenclatural stability" to be endangered. 

For these reasons I consider Article 79c in its present form fundamentally flawed; 
it invites authors to consider deviations from the Principle of Priority the rule rather 
than the exception and therefore undermines this Principle. Ultimately it may 
undermine the Code itself because it leads to nomenclatural decisions being made too 
frequently by applications to the Commission rather than by applying its rules. Of 
course the opportunity to suppress unused older synonyms should continue to exist 
but the admissibility of such applications should be considerably tightened. 

The heart of the problem is ultimately the notion of 'Stability of Zoological 
Nomenclature". Generally speaking, nomenclature is not truly stable (i.e. invariable) 
because of continuing taxonomic research. Only if research ceases will name changes 
also cease. The distinction between acceptable name changes due to new taxonomic 
results and less welcome name changes for nomenclatural reasons alone is blurred 
and, as outlined above, may lead to undesirable work practices. The Code should 
therefore not aim at absolute nomenclatural stability but it should provide the rules 
by which name changes are to be effected and thereby minimise nomenclatural 
confusion. 

The more general considerations outlined above are my primary reason to object 
to Gittenberger"s application. More specifically, even though Gittenberger found 25 
citations of the specific name geyeri Soos, the species is still one of the less frequent 
of the European land snail fauna and is hardly known outside the circle of researchers 
and collectors of land snails. With the current high level of publishing activity it is 
easy to obtain such a number of citations even for less important species. I believe 
therefore that a name change for the species in question would only cause an initial 
inconvenience to an audience which should be inured to name changes anyway, and 
would serve to highlight the importance of priority and the necessity to establish the 
identity of all older nominal taxa. 

I propose that the specific name of Helix arceuthophilu Mabille, 1 88 1 should be 
validated for the species currently known as Trochoidea geyeri (Soos, 1926), and 
placed on the Official List. The simultaneously published Helix ycaunica Mabille, 
1881 is a shorter name but I feel it should not have precedence as a name based on 
a little known locality. In respect of the other specific names involved (//. vicianica 
Bourguignat in Locard, 1882, H. deaiia and H. pleurestha, both of Berthier (1884), 
and Xerophila geyeri Soos, 1926) no action is proposed. These names remain 



178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

available should at some time in the future a researcher find that the species 
represented is not conspecific with aicetithophila Mabille. 

Comments on the proposed designation of Scottia pseudohrowniana Kempf, 1971 as 
the type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) 
(Case 2896; see BZN 51: 304-305) 

(1) Henri J. Oertii 

12 rue Lamartine. F-64320 Bizanos, France 

There is not the slightest doubt about Prof Kempfs conclusion that S. pseudo- 
browniana was the original basis of the genus Scottia, and acceptance of his proposals 
by the Commission would be welcomed by ostracod workers. 

(2) Support for the application has also been received from Drs Claude Meisch 
(Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Marche-anx-Poissons, L-2345 Luxembourg) and I.G. 
Sohn (National Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. 
DC. 20560, U.S.A.). 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, 
Isopoda) as the correct original spelling 

(Case 2915; see BZN 51: 224-226; 52: 67-69) 

(1) Giambattista Bello 

Lstituto Arion. C.P. 61. 70042 Mola di Bari. Italy 

I wish to support the proposal by Williams & Bowman to conserve Lironeca as the 
correct original spelling of the name of a genus of parasitic isopods. 

In addition to the arguments used in their application, with all of which I agree, I 
would like to stress that although zoological names can be arbitrary combinations of 
letters the vast majority do have a meaning. Workers have to remember hundreds of 
names, and they are greatly helped by this. The names may recall particular features 
of the taxa or their habitats, or be formed from geographical, personal or 
mythological names, or be evocative of vernacular names of the animals. The 
meaning of Leach's (1818) names for eight genera of isopods is quite clear: they are 
anagrams of the personal name Caroline or Carolina. Livoneca. on the contrary, has 
no meaning. 

The intentions of Leach are evident, and the conservation of Lironeca is in perfect 
agreement with them. I maintain that whenever possible the original intention of the 
author of scientific names has to be respected. 

(2) Robert Y. George 

The University of North Carolina at Wilmiitglon. 601 South College Road, 
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297, U.S.A. 

I have researched on isopod Crustacea for nearly three decades, describing several 
new genera and many new species. On the basis of this experience I wish to support 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 179 

Dr Bowman's application to conserve the spelling Lironeca Leach, 1818. Leach used 
anagrams of Carolina to coin the names of many flabelliferan isopod genera, and it 
is perfectly clear that Livoneca was simply a printer's error. Let us correct the spelling 
to Lironeca by acting positively in this case. 

Comments on the proposal to remove the homonymy between brachypterinae 
Erichson, |1845| (Insecta, Coleoptera) and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, 
Plecoptera), and proposed precedence of kateretidae Ganglbauer, 1899 over 
brachypterinae Erichson, 11845] 
(Case 2865; see BZN 51: 309-311) 

(1) P. A. Audisio 

Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e deU'Uomo (Zoologia). Universita degli Studi di 

Roma 'La Sapienza'. Viale dell' Universita 32, 1-00185 Rome. Italy 

1. My application, co-authored with Dr R. Fochetti and Prof Dr P. Zwick, seeks 
to remove the homonymy between the insect family-group names brachypterjnae 
Erichson, [1845] (Coleoptera) and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 (Plecoptera). I 
should like to clarify some points relating to the coleopteran name and to make a 
further proposal to the Commission. 

2. Erichson (1843) divided the family nitidulidae Latreille, 1807 into three 
groups, the nitidulinae, the carpophilinae, and the 'Cateretes'. This last group, 
which unlike the others was not referred to by a name with a family-group ending, 
comprised the genera Brachypterus Kugelann, 1 794 and Cercus Latreille, 1 796, but 
did not include Kateretes Herbst, 1793. Erichson commented that the group 
contained only two genera but that their species had hitherto been placed under three 
names; he allocated some of the species placed in Kateretes by Herbst (1793) to the 
other genera. Under Articles 1 lf(l) and 64 of the Code the name kateretidae is not 
available from Erichson (1843), although it has been cited recently with this 
authorship and date by Silfverberg (1992, p. 49) and by one of us (Audisio, 1993, 
p. 781). 

3. Erichson ([1845]) introduced the name brachypterinae for the same subfamily, 
i.e. the two genera Brachypterus and Cercus. He now considered that, although 
Herbst's genus Kateretes included all sorts of beetles, it was based mainly on species 
of Cis Latreille. 1796 and was in no way related to Brachypterus and Cercus (a view 
not shared by later authors). He proposed that the name 'Cateretes' should be used 
for the Cis group. The name brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] was used by several 
authors in the mid- 19th century for a subfamily within the nitidulidae but. with few 
exceptions (see Verhoeff, 1923, p. 9), has not been used since Marseul (1885, p. 19). 
It has not been used at all for more than 50 years. 

4. The name cateretini was first made available by Ganglbauer (1899, p. 447) for 
a tribe of five genera which included Kateretes Herbst, 1 793 (with Cercus cited as a 
synonym) and Brachypterus. Despite the seniority and previous usage of the name 
brachypterinae, that of kateretinae (sometimes spelled cateretinae) was univer- 
sally adopted and, until very recently, used for a subfamily within the nitidulidae 
which included, with other genera, Brachypterus and Kateretes. The kateretidae 
have lately been considered to be a family separate from the nitidulidae (see 



180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Audisio, 1993). Dennesies pedicidarhis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 357), one of the eight 
nominal species included in Kateretes Herbst, 1793, was designated the type species. 

5. As noted in para. 2 of the application, we (P.A. Audisio and J. Jelinek) are 
undertaking a worldwide revision of the kateretidae. We will probably wish to use 
the subfamily name brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] for Brachyptcrus and related 
genera (but not including Kateretes). However, the name brachypterinae predates 
that of kateretidae Ganglbauer, 1899 and its use for a subfamily within the 
kateretidae is not in accord with the principle of priority. On the other hand, 
adoption of brachypteridae as the name for the family would upset the century-old 
usage of the name kateretinae or kateretidae (see, for example, Audisio, 1984, 
1987, 1988, 1989, 1993; Nunberg, 1976; Kirejtshuk, 1986, 1989, 1992; Silfverberg, 
1992; Spornraft, 1992). We therefore propose that the name kateretidae 
Ganglbauer, 1899 should be given precedence over brachypterinae Erichson, 
[1845]. This proposal is additional to those published on BZN 51; 310. 

6. The designation by Thomson (1859, p. 67) o( Dermestes urticae Fabricius. 1792 
as the type species of Brachyptenis Kugelann, 1794 is much earlier than that of 
Parsons (1943), given by us in para. 1 of the application. The entry for Bruchypierus 
in para. (2)(a) of the application should therefore be amended. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name kateretidae 
Ganglbauer, 1899 and other family-group names based on Kateretes Herbst, 
1793 are to be given precedence over brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] and 
other family-group names based on Brachyptenis Kugelann. 1 794; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Kateretes 
Herbst, 1793 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation 
Dermestes pediculariiis Linnaeus, 1758: 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name peiliciilariiis 
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes pediculariiis (specific 
name of the type species of Kateretes Herbst, 1793); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
kateretidae Ganglbauer, 1899 (type genus Kateretes Herbst, 1793) with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Kateretes are to 
be given precedence over brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] (type genus 
Brachyptenis Kugelann, 1794) and other family-group names based on 
Brachypterus; 

(5) to add to the proposal on BZN 51; 310, para. (4)(a), to place on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name brachypterinae Erichson, 
[1845] the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 are not to be given priority over kateretidae 
Ganglbauer, 1899 and other family-group names based on Kateretes Herbst, 
1793. 

Additional references 

Audisio, P. 1987. I Kateretidae e i Nitidulidae (Coleoptera) dell'Italia meridionale: distribuzi- 
one attuale e ipotesi sul popolamento. Biogeographia, Lavori dellii Socielii Ituliaim di 
Biogeografia. (N.S.)IO: 605-627. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 181 

Audisio, P. 1988. Tassonomia, ecologia e dislribuzione geografica di alcuni Kateretidae e 

Nitidulidae ovest-paleartici. Fragniciiiu Eniomotugica (Rome), 20(2): 189-231. 
Audisio, P. 1989. Notes on the genus Brachykptus Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Kateretidae). 

Fulici Enlomologica Hwigaricii. 50; 9-14. 
Kirejtshuk, A.G. 1989. New palaearctic genus and species of the family Kateretidae 

(Coleoptera) and notes on the synonymy. ZooUigicheskii Zhurnal (Moscow), 68(4): 

145-149. [In Russian]. 
Kirejtshuk, A.G. 1992. Coleoptera, Kateretidae. Pp. 210-216 //; Lier, P.A. (Ed.), The insects 

of the USSR Far East. Ill, Coleoptera, 2. Nauka. Russian Academy of Sciences, 

St Petersburg. 704 pp. [In Russian]. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Sysleiua naturae. Ed. 10. vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Marseul, S. 1885. Precis des genres et especes de la tribu des nitidulides de TAncien Monde. 

LAht'iUe. 23: 19-142. 
Silfverberg, H. 1992. Eimmeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae. Daniae et Balliae. v, 94 pp. 

Helsingen Hyonteisvaihoyhdistys, Helsinki. 
Spornraft, K. 1992. Familie: Kateretidae. Pp. 110-111 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht. W.H. (Eds.), 

Die Kafer Mittek'iiropas. vol. 13. 376 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 
Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera synoptiskt hearhetade. vol. I. 290 pp. Lund. 
Verhoeff, K.W. 1923. Beitrage zur, Kenntnis der Coleopteren-Larven mit besonderer Beriick- 

sichtigung der Clavicornia. Ar,chiv jar Natiirgeschichte. 89(A, 1): 1-109. 

(2) A.F. Newton 

The Field Museum, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive. Chicago. Illinois 60605-2496. 

U.S.A. 

I wish to comment on the application dealing with the family-group names 
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973. I agree with the 
authors's proposals to conserve the current spelling of the much older name 
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson and to modify the later name to eliminate the homonymy. 

In para. 2 of the application the authors cited Erichson (1843) for the establishment 
of the family name kateretidae, with brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] as a sub- 
family within this family. It should be noted that Erichson (1843) did not include in his 
group 'Cateretes' a valid genus Kateretes (or its emendation Cateretes), but rather 
seems to have appropriated this generic name to be the group name; hence Erichson's 
group name 'Cateretes' is not available (Article llf(i)l). A family-group name based 
on Kateretes apparently was first made available by Ganglbauer (1899, p. 447; not p. 
518 as cited in the application). Thus, the family name should be brachypteridae 
Erichson, [1845], with kateretinae Ganglbauer, 1899 as a subfamily or synonym. 
This situation, pointed out in two works on Coleoptera family-group names that are 
now in press (by J.F. Lawrence & A.F. Newton, and by J. Pakaluk et al.), makes 
action to conserve Ganglbauer's (1899) kateretidae a necessity. (Editorial note. A 
proposal to conserve the name kateretidae Ganglbauer. 1899 by giving it precedence 
over brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] is set out in Dr Audisio's comment above). 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 and 
Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera) 

(Case 2907; see BZN 51: 312-315) 

(1) R.H.L. Disney 

University Department of Zoology. Downing Street. Cambridge CB2 3EJ. U.K. 



182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

1. In their application Brown & Sabrosky provide (BZN 51: 313. paras. 4 and 5) 
an interesting and exhaustive review of the identity of Muscci suhsiihaiis Linnaeus, 
1767. Professor O.W. Richards was a specialist on the sphaeroceridae, hence it is 
not surprising that he found it hard to believe that earlier authors could confuse a 
phorid specimen and a sphaerocerid (see para. 4 of the application). However, as a 
specialist on the phoridae I can testify that the most frequent non-phorids sent to me 
for identification are sphaerocerids. Even distinguished entomologists have confused 
the two families when the rear veins of a sphaerocerid have been particularly pale. 

2. The suggestion by Richards (1930) that the phorid specimen labelled as Musca 
subsultans in the collection of the Linnean Society of London may not be an original 
specimen is simply speculative. Richards identified it as Phora ftavimana Meigen, 
1830, but it is actually the species called Borophaga okellyi by Schmitz (1937); 
Schmitz did not examine this specimen. Like Richards, Brues (1903) confiised this 
species with P. ftavimana, which is a junior (by the first reviser action of Zetterstedt, 
1848, p. 2886) subjective synonym of P. femorata Meigen, 1830 (p. 213). The valid 
specific name of the type species of Borophaga is htnct femorata, and there is no need 
either to take any action concerning flavmuma (cf. the title and abstract of the 
application) or to treat it as relevant to the Linnean Society specimen. 

3. 1 support the proposed suppression of Borborus Meigen, 1803 (proposal (l)(a) 
on BZN 51: 313). However, I oppose the suppression of the specific name of Musca 
subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 (proposal (l)(b)); this is the valid name of the Borophaga 
species otherwise called B. okellyi Schmitz, 1937. Ecologists and ethologists do not 
read the BZN, and they have as their priority minimum changes to the names they 
find in relevant key works. The two most recent such works dealing with the 
European species of Borophaga are Disney (1983, 1991) and both employ the name 
Borophaga subsultans. The name subsultans should be put on the Official List of 
Specific Names, not be treated as in proposal (5) on BZN 51: 314. 

Additional references 

Brues, C.T. 1903. A monograph of the North American Phoridae. Transactions of the 

American Entomological Society, 29: 331^04. 
Disney. R.H.L. 1991. Family Phoridae. Pp. 143-204 in Soos. A. & Papp, L. (Eds.). Catalogue 

of Palaearctic Diplera, vol. 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 
Schmitz, H. 1937. Over een Europeesche Borophaga s. str., o'Kellyi n. sp. Natuwhistorisch 

Maamlhlad. 26: 91-92. 
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1 848. P. 2886 in: Diplera Scandinaviae disposita et descripta. xvi. 6609 pp. 

Lund. 

(2) Brian V. Brown 

Entomology Section. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition 

Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 

I would like to reply to the above comment by Dr Disney on the application by 
Dr Sabrosky and myself. 

The phorid Borophaga okellyi Schmitz, 1937 occurs not only in Europe but also in 
North America. This name has been in continuous use in Noth America. It is used 
in the major works (Borgmeier, 1963; Schmitz & Beyer, 1965). The species is 



I 
J 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 183 

cataloged as B. okellyim all the main collections, including those of the United States 
National Museum and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. 

In Europe B. okellyi was in use for 45 years until Disney (1982) introduced the 
name Borophaga subsultans in the phoridae, despite the long and extensive interpret- 
ation of subsultans as being a name in the sphaeroceridae (for over a century in 
Borborus and, after Richards (1930), in Sphaewcera). He did this only on the basis of 
the Linnean Society specimen, which may or may not be original. Disney argues that 
the major recent literature in Europe (his own publications) uses B. subsultans and 
that further change should be avoided. We must weigh a European change versus a 
North American change. Since okellyi has been in the European phorid literature for 
32 years longer than subsultans I prefer Borophaga okellyi as the valid name of this 
species. There remains, too, the fact that most literature references to subsultans are 
in the sphaerocerid sense. 

Additional references 

Borgmeier, T. 1963. Revision of the North American phorid flies. Part 1. The Phorinae, the 
Aenigmatiinae and Metopininae. except Megaseliu. Sludia Eiuomologica. 6: 1-256. 

Schmitz, H. & Beyer, E. 1965. Family Phoridae. 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. 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, 
Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the 
type species 
(Case 2868; see BZN 50: 219-223; 51: 149-153) 

Alain Dubois 

Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens. Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. 25 rue 

Cuvier. 75005 Paris, France 

1. A rapid reading of the comments published in BZN 51: 149-153 may give an 
impression of simple universal agreement among their authors for the proposal by 
Smith & Wake (BZN 50: 219-223). Careful reading shows that this impression would 
be wrong. In fact the comments can be classed in two groups. Some express the view 
that the name Hydromantes should be maintained in the sense understood by Dunn 
(1923), i.e. for the European species Hydromantes italicus Dunn, 1923, Salamandra 
geneiTemminck & Schlegel, 1838, and species considered to be congeneric with them. 
This view does not infringe taxonomic freedom: it leaves individual biologists free to 
decide whether related American species should be placed in the same genus or 
whether they should be in a distinct genus, of which the valid name is Hydroman- 
toides Lanza & Vanni, 1981 (type species Spelerpes platycephalus Camp, 1916). 

2. The second attitude is very different. It is based on the view that the American 
species should not be placed in a separate genus, and that the name Hydromantes 
should be retained for both them and the European species for which the valid name 
Speleomantes Dubois, 1984 exists. According to this view neither Hydromantoides 
nor Speleomcmtes are acceptable names. We are here far from the basic principle that 
the Code should never restrict 'the freedom of taxonomic thought or action" 



184 Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

(Preamble, pp. 2, 3). I am not convinced that the remark by Hilhs (BZN 51: 152) that 
the action proposed by Smith & Wake does not "impinge upon the debate over the 
content o{ Hydromantes' is right: it is not borne out by some of the other comments. 
In the name of 'stability of nomenclature', will taxonomic revisions in the future be 
prevented because of the "pointless task" (Jennings, BZN 51: 149) of changing names 
in collections and popular books? There are numerous zoological groups which were 
for long believed to be a single taxon but which are now known to consist of many, 
and the number of labels which have had to be changed is vastly greater than in the 
case of the poorly studied group of newts here under discussion. The attitude 
exemplified by the comment of Jennings gives support to those who think that 
taxonomy is old-fashioned, that everything is known about biodiversity, and that 
therefore no funds are necessary for this part of biology. 

3. One point deserves a special comment, since it is of wider relevance than this 
particular case. The members of the Commission cannot have detailed knowledge of 
the taxonomy and nomenclature of all groups, and in resolving the many cases 
submitted to them have the duty of looking at the proper use of the general principles 
of nomenclature. Unavoidably, they have to rely for factual details on the infor- 
mation provided by specialists in the applications and comments published in the 
Bulletin. It is vital, therefore, that authors should take great care to avoid giving a 
misleading impression. It is an important part of the argument by Smith & Wake 
(see BZN 50: 221, para. 7) and some of their supporters (Jennings, BZN 51: 149; 
Cook, 51: 152; Stebbins, 51: 153) that "subsequent authors have not adopted 
Dubois's (1984) nomenclature'. Unfortunately this statement is simply not true, as 
can be easily seen by inspection of the Zoological Record. The truth is that there 
has been a progressive adoption of this taxonomy and nomenclature by specialists 
of this group of amphibians, as shown by the following data. I have given the 
Commission Secretariat a list of references which documents that, in the period 
1985-1987, there were 9 uses of the name Hydromaiites for the European species 
against I of Speleomantes; in 1988-1990, 10 of Hydiomantes against 4 of Speleo- 
mantes; in 1991-1993, 5 of Hydromantes against 8 of Speleomantes. The papers 
using Speleomantes had a total of 23 authors. These data are not exhaustive 
(especially after June 1993, the last month covered by the published issues of the 
Zoological Record for amphibians), but they show a clear trend. They refute the 
misleading statement by Smith & Wake, and on the contrary show that we are 
now in the transition period which occurs in every similar case of nomenclatural 
change (be this due to nomenclatural or to taxonomic causes). Examination of the 
papers mentioned above shows that the authors who have adopted the nomen- 
clatural change are mostly zoologists involved in faunistic and taxonomic works, 
while those who did not make the change were working on physiological, 
anatomical and other biological aspects where taxonomy and nomenclature are of 
less immediate interest. It is noteworthy that among the works where the new (and 
correct) nomenclature was adopted there are four important books on European 
herpetology (Castanet & Guyetant. 1989; Delaugerre & Cheylan, 1992; Nollert & 
Nollert, 1992; Stumpel-Rienks, 1992); the last of these is published under the 
auspices of the Societas Europea Herpetologica and is part of a series of major 
reference books (Handhuch der Amphihien und Reptilien Europas, edited by 
Wolfgang Bohme). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 185 

4. Hydrvnian le.s Gisteh 1848 is a replacement name for Geotriion Bonaparte. 1832, 
and consequently both the genera have as type the nominal species Salamandra 
exigua Laurenti, 1768; however, as documented by Dubois (1984), this type fixation 
was based on misidentification by Bonaparte of the taxonomic species later called 
Hydromantes italicus Dunn, 1923. This species, which is the type species of 
Speleonumtes. belongs to the plethodontidae. in which family Hydromantes has 
always been used, whereas Scdanumdra exigua belongs to the salamandridae. 

5. Whatever the eventual ruling on this case, the Opinion should specify the status 
of the name Geuiriion, which was used for 91 years in many publications, before 
Hydromantes was resurrected by Dunn (1923) on mistaken grounds. As I have 
pointed out before (Dubois, 1984), there is no need for Commission action in the 
present case; the names Hydromuntoides Lanza & Vanni, 1981 and Speleomantes 
Dubois, 1984 exist and and have been in recent valid usage. Those who wish to place 
the American and European species in one genus can use the former name. Rather 
than change the type species of Hydromantes, it would be much more logical for the 
Commission (if action by it were necessary) to conserve the name Geotriton, which 
was clearly created by Bonaparte (1832) for the animals in question, was used by all 
authors for nearly a century, and of which the name Hydromantes is nothing but a 
replacement name, i.e. a junior objective synonym. Moreover, in Italy, the only 
European country rich in populations of these rare newts, this genus is still known 
under the vernacular name "geotritone'. Geotriton reflects much more accurately the 
terrestrial and cavernicolous characteristics of this group than does the totally 
inappropriate name Hydromantes. 

6. I must confess that, in all that has been written about this case, I have had some 
sympathy for a single argument in favour of the conservation of the name 
Hydromantes; it is the fact that this name is used to denote these animals in some lists 
of threatened and protected species. But the Commission should carefully consider 
the general consequences of accepting this argument. It could lead to the 'protection' 
of names which are threatened not for nomenclatural reasons but because of a 
taxonomic reassessment of the groups involved. Should zoologists accept a limitation 
of their taxonomic freedom in order not to disturb the stability of 'official" lists of 
animals in computer databases, conservation texts, and so on? This is contrary to a 
basic principle of the Code. Even in the present case the argument is being used to 
reject the recognition of a separate genus (Hydromuntoides) for the American species, 
though there are biological reasons for separating them from the European group 
(i.e. Speleomantes, or Hydromantes if Smith & Wake's proposed type designation is 
accepted). Behind the rather insignificant case of this relatively little studied group 
there are at stake general 'philosophical" questions of zoological nomenclature which 
the Commission should consider before voting on the application. 

7. In the past 15 years 1 have surveyed most of the existing literature on the 
nomenclature of amphibians, from 1758 and even before; 1 doubt if anyone else living 
has studied as many old books and papers with the aim of stabilizing the 
nomenclature of this group of animals. I have found a rather low number of cases 
where the current nomenclature was clearly wrong. In some of these cases I resolved 
the problems 'by myself, that is through the normal provisions of the Code. When 
I discovered the Hydromantes problem in 1984 I did consider referring it to the 
Commission, but I realized that it would probably suffer the same destiny as some 



186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Others that I had already submitted and that the problem would be likely to remain 
unsolved for years. I therefore decided (Dubois, 1984) simply to follow the Code in 
this case. Experience shows that this may be the quickest and most efficient course; 
nevertheless I am grateful to Smith & Wake for raising this case now. 

Additional references 

Castanet, J. & Cuyetant, R. (Eds.). 1989. Alius tie reparlilion des amphibiens el repliles de 

Frame. 191 pp. Societe Herpetologique de France, Paris. 
Delaugerre, M, & Chcylan, M, 1992. Alias de reparliliun des balraciens el reptiles de Corse. 

128 pp. Pare Naturel Regional de Corse et Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 
(Reptilia, Serpentes) 

(Case 2877; see BZN 51: 330-331) 

(1) Hidetoshi Ota 

Tropical Biosphere Research Center and Department of Biology, University of the 
Ryukyus, Nishihara. Okinawa 903-1. Japan 

I am in full support of the proposal to conserve the name Lycognathophis 
Boulenger, 1893 by suppressing Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843. The latter name has not 
been used even since Dowling (1990) pointed out its priority. Although Dowling 
implied that Lycognathophis had been little used, it has actually been employed for 
over a century for L. seychellensis (Schlegel, 1837), the only endemic snake in the 
Seychelles. The resurrection of Scopelophis would be seriously confusing both to 
snake systematists and to biogeographers of the Seychelles. 

(2) Ronald A. Nussbaum 

Department of Herpetology, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A. 

Conservation of Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 is fully justified; the alternative 
name Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843 was published without any diagnosis and has not 
been used at all. In reviving Scopelophis. Dowling described the name Lycognathophis 
as being misleading, since it implies that this natricine snake is a lycodontine, but this 
has no bearing: many generic names are misleading to some extent. 

(3) Edmond V. Malnate 

The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 19th cmd the Parkway. Logan 
Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A. 

I urge the Commission to accept this application. To my knowledge the species 
involved has not been associated with any generic name other than Lycognathophis. 
Fitzinger's name clearly has priority but the issue is stability of nomenclature; under 
Article 79c of the Code an exception to priority is warranted. 

(4) Support for the application has also been received from Professor Edwin L. Bell 
(Albright College. Reading. Penn.sylvania 19612-5234. U.S.A.) and Drs A. Dale 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 187 

Belcher {Albuquerque Biological Park. Albuquerque. New Mexico 87102. U.S.A.). 
Donald G. Broadley [The Natural History Museum, Centenary Park, Selhorne 
Avenue. Bukmayo. Zimbabwe). Joseph T. Colhns (The University of Kansas Natural 
History Museum, Lawrence. Kansas 66045-2454, U.S.A.) and Raymond F. Laurent 
(Fundacion Lillo, Miguel Lillo 251, 4000 Tucumdn, Argentina). 

Comments on the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first 
published in Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animate 

(Case 2928; see BZN 51: 135-146. 266-267, 342-348; 52: 78-93) 

(1) Mary R. Dawson 

The Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 4400 Forbes Avenue. Pittsburgh. 
Pennsylvania 15213^080. U.S.A. 

I write with regard to the application for the conservation of 1 1 generic names first 
published by Brisson (1762). I concur with the view so well expressed by Anthea 
Gentry in the case that, although the work by Brisson is rejected, the names listed 
have very well established usage and should be conserved as the approved generic 
names for these mammals. I hope the application succeeds. It would be foolish to 
replace those well understood names. 

My direct interest is especially strong in the cases of Glis and Tragulus, as I have 
worked with fossil relatives of these genera and am of the opinion that these names 
should be retained in order to promote clarity in the literature. In the case of Glis, a 
few American workers have recently decided to resurrect the name Myo.xus for 
species usually known as Glis. I object to this resurrection and favor retention of the 
name Glis (and gliridae) for these rodents, whose fossil record can be traced into the 
Eocene. Retention of this name would result in nomenclatural stability and promote 
clarity in phylogenetic studies; retention would also discourage needless confusion in 
a fairly sizeable body of literature dealing with fossil and Recent members of the 
family gliridae. The opinions of not only Gentry but also Ellerman, Morrison-Scott, 
Corbet and others are correct: Glis should be retained. 

(2) Keith Seaman 

Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust. Grebe House, St Michael's Street, 
St Albans, Hertfordshire AL3 4SN. U.K. 

I am a Wildlife Ranger and am engaged in field studies on the status and 
distribution of the edible dormouse {Glis Brisson. 1762) and the otter (Lutra Brisson, 
1762). 

I fully support Gentry's application to the Commission to conserve 1 1 of Brisson's 
(1762) generic names for mammals. I find it quite ridiculous that after hundreds of 
years some workers feel the need to change the names of various taxa. I support the 
notion that stability needs to be brought into what is clearly a confusing situation. 
For us professionals and amateurs alike, having diff'erent names for the same species 
is absurd and can only be counter-productive. Why change accepted names of taxa 
without scientifically-proven biological reasons? 



188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

(3) Jose Roberto Moreira 

Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford. Department of Zoology, 
South Parks Road, Oxford 0X1 3 PS. U.K. 

I am writing to comment on Case 2928. 

I am particularly interested in capybaras, the species with which I work. The name 
Hydrochoerus was used predominantly until the late 1980"s and especially by the 
Venezuelans, where most work on capybaras has been done. It is only recently that 
Hydrochaeris has started being adopted. Although Hydrochaeris better describes a 
capybara (the word means "water lover" while Hydrochoerus means 'water pig" owing 
to its resemblance to pigs), Hydrochoerus was the name originally used (Brisson, 
1762) and has been used more often in publications. 

I deeply support Gentry's application as it will bring stability to the nomenclature, 
not only of capybaras but also of other closely related species like agoutis and pacas. 

(4) Alan W. Gentry 

do Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

1 write to support the proposed conservation of the name Tragulus Brisson, 1762. 
The historical sequence of three significant events concerning Tragulus is clear. 

Firstly, in 1762 Brisson founded the genus for animals without horns and included 
five ruminant species. The first listed was 'indicus' which was described as having 
canines in the upper jaw. By these characters (no horns, presence of upper canines) 
Brisson could not have been referring to bovids. The first reference cited under 
^indicii.s' was 'Capra pedibus digito humano angustioribus" of Linnaeus (1748). 

Secondly, Merriam (1895) selected 'indicu.'i' as the type species of Tragulus. He 
chose to equate this with Capra pygmea Linnaeus, 1758, the Royal antelope (family 
BOVIDAE). This was probably because, two years after Brisson (1756) first referred 
'Capra pedibus ..." to Tragulus 'indicus\ Linnaeus (1758) ascribed it instead to 
C. pygmea. Linnaeus's second reference undsr pygmea was to Seba (1734. p. 10 [recte 
p. 70], pi. 43, fig. 3). Seba"s illustration shows a young and hornless ruminant which, 
in its long metacarpals and lack of lateral hoofs, clearly establishes the bovid status 
of Capra pygmea. 

Thirdly. EUerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) suggested that Brisson"s 'indicus' 
was identifiable as Cerrus javanicus Osbeck. 1765, a Malayan chevrotain (family 
TRAGULIDAE). This accords with Brisson"s description of the species as having upper 
canines and no horns. 

The simplest course now open to the Commission is to follow the prudent lead of 
EUerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) so that Tragulus can continue to be used in its 
familiar sense, without disruption to nomenclature. Tragulus is the type genus of the 
family tragulidae, a name in widespread use in the palaeontological literature for 
many extinct, mainly Miocene, species of hornless ruminants with enlarged upper 
canines in males. 

Other courses of action proposed for the name Tragulus are flawed or more 
cumbersome. The proposal to take Tragulus from Pallas (1767) or (1779). which was 
based on Capra pygmea. with type species Cervus javanicus Osbeck attributes to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 189 

Pallas an action he did not make in his writings. The same applies to Traguhis 
Boddaert (1785) for which the identifiable bovid Ccipra pygmea Linnaeus, 1758 is 
again the type species. Use of Lagonehrax Gloger, 1841 or Moschiola would certainly 
upset stability, as Grubb pointed out in an earlier comment on this case (see BZN 51: 
346). 

Stone & Rehn (1902) suggested that the name Tragulus javankus (Osbeck, 1765) 
referred to the larger Malay chevrotain. This was followed by Lydekker (1915) and 
most others until van Bemmel (1949) demonstrated that the only species of mouse 
deer on Java, the type locality, was the lesser Malay chevrotain (previously known 
as Tragulus kaiichil (Raffles, 1821)). Since van Bemmel (1949) and Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott (1951) the name Tragulus javankus has been applied to the lesser 
Malay chevrotain and T. napu (F. Cuvier, 1822) to the larger Malay chevrotain. 

The name Moschiola, which refers to the Indian spotted chevrotain, is ascribed by 
most authors to 'Hodgson, 1843" (p. 292; or 1844, citing the same reference). They 
apparently believe the name to have been made available by the inclusion of Tragulus 
mimenoides Hodgson, 1842b (p. 914; spelt memennoides in Hodgson, 1842a, p. 220) 
and that mimenoides is Erxleben's (Mil) Moschus meminna. However, Hodgson 
recorded mimenoides as a new species; no description, illustration or reference to a 
previous author was given in any of Hodgson's publications and Moschiola is 
therefore unavailable with this authorship. 

Under Article I le of the Code the name Moschiola is available from Gray (1852, 
p. 246), who cited it as a synonym of his new generic name Meminna (based on 
Meminna indica Gray, 1852 which was given as a replacement name for Moschus 
memimui Erxleben, 1777, presumably to avoid tautonymy; nee Memina Gray, 1821 
which was based on Moschus pygmaeus (- Capra pygmea Linnaeus. 1758) and a 
junior homonym of the marsupial name Memina Fischer von Waldheim, 1814). 
Meminna Gray, 1852 is a junior homonym of Meminna Agassiz, 1842 (an emendation 
of Memina Gray, 1821 ) and it has not been used. The name Moschiola is much in use, 
with M. meminna Erxleben cited as the type species; in the past it has been employed 
as a subgenus of Tragulus but in recent publications it has been adopted as a generic 
name. Flerov (1931, p. 77) correctly recorded Moschiola Hodgson as a nomen 
nudum, and took the name from Thomas (1916) rather than from Gray (1852). 

Additional references 

Agassiz, L. 1 842. Nomeiiclator Zoologicus ... Nomina Systematica Generum Mammalium. xii, 38 

pp. Soloduri. 
Flerov, C. 1931. On the generic characters of the fam. Tragulidae. Comptes Rendus de 

r.iccidemie des Sciences de lURSS. 1931(3): 75-79. 
Hodgson, B.H. 1842a. Classified catalogue of mammals of Nepal, corrected to the end of 1840, 

first printed in 1832. Calcutta Journal of Natural History, 2: 212-221, 413^14. 
Hodgson, B.H. 1842b. Classified catalogue of mammals of Nepal (corrected to the end of 1841. 

first printed in 1832). Journal of the .Asiatic Society of Bengal, 10: 907-916. 
Hodgson, B.H. 1843. Classified catalogue of mammals of Nepal. Calcutta Journal of Natural 

History, 4: 284-294. 
Lydekker, R. 1915. Catalogue of the ungulate mammals in the British Museum {.Natural 

History), vol. 4 (Artiodactyla). xxi. 438 pp. British Museum, London. 
Seba, A. 1734. Locupletissimi rerum natwulium thesauri .... vol. 1. [27], 178 pp.. 1 1 1 pis. 
Stone, W. & Rehn, J.A.G. 1902. A collection of mammals from Sumatra, with a review of the 

genera Nvcticebus and Tragulus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia, 54i\): \21~142. 



190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Thomas, O. 1916. On the generic names applicable to chevrotains (Tragulidae). Awuils cmcl 

Mamziiie of Nalunil Hision: (8)18: 72-73. 
van Bemmel, A.L.V. 1949. Notes on the Indo-Australian mammals (1-2). Treuhki. 20; 378-380. 

(5) Enrique Roberto Justo 

Casilla de Correos 157. 6300 Santa Rosa - La Pampa, Argentina 

Anthea Gentry's application to conserve some ofBrisson's (1762) mammal generic 
names reminds me of the statement of my late teacher Dr Georges Dennler (1959): 
'Nomenclature rules must give stability to the names in use, particularly when they 
answer to the demands of logic and geographical accuracy'. 

I think this fits Gentry's application to the Commission. The impeccable arguments 
must be heeded, otherwise a great deal of confusion will be introduced, especially 
when these names are ordinarily being used by past and present mammalogists, and 
textbooks, papers and other publications available to students include them. 

I wish to express my decided support for Gentry's apphcation. 

Additional reference 

Dennler, G. 1959. Zoogeografia y nomenclatura. Adas y Trabajos del I Congreso 
Sudamericano de Zoologia. 1: 243-2 

(6) Volker Fahlbusch, Kurt Heissig, Helmut Mayr & Gertrud Rossner 
Bayerische Staatssammhmg fiir Paldontologie und historische Geologie. Richard- 
Wagner-Strasse Will. D-80333 Munich. Germany 

We wish to comment on the proposed rejection ofBrisson's (1762) work Regnum 
Animate with the conservation of the mammalian generic names Plulander. Pieropus, 
Glis. Cuniculus. Hydrochoenis. Meles, Lutra. Hyaena, Tapirus. Tragulus and Girajfa. 

The conservation of these names by the Commission will 'promote the general 
stability and universality in the scientific names of animals' as set out in the Preamble 
of the Code. Since the Monaco Congress of 1913 the Commission has been 
empowered to conserve generally-adopted names endangered by a strict application 
of the rules of zoological nomenclature. In this case the Commission is asked to 
suspend the rules in favour of conserving the generic names cited above. 

The proposed conservation of these names is in agreement with the facts. The 
majority of authors have accepted the names, and their use over 200 years is sufficient 
reason for their adoption. 

A decision by the Commission in 1955 (Direction 16) conserved some of the 
generic names in Brisson's (1760) work on birds. In our view a corresponding 
decision should be made on the II mammal names. In 1938 G.H.H. Tate noted in 
relation to Brisson (1762): 'By analogy the generic names of mammals therein 
proposed should be accepted' (see BZN 51: 135). The mammal name Odobenus 
Brisson. 1762 was accepted in 1957 (Opinion 467) and we believe the other 1 1 names 
should likewise be conserved. 

(7) Patrick J. Boylan 

City Lhmersity, Northampton Square. London ECl V OHB. U. K. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 191 

I wish to comment on Case 2928, the proposed rejection of Regniini Animale ..., Ed. 
2 (Brisson, 1762) with the conservation of certain mammalian generic names. 

The application demonstrates the scale of the present uncertainty and the overall 
unsatisfactory position in relation to the mammalian generic names of Brisson 
(1762). This has been widely recognised for many years, and the position needs to be 
resolved in a comprehensive manner. Gentry's current application attempts to do this 
in a logical and well-argued way. 

It is clear that the rejection of Brisson's (1762) work Regnum Animale is the 
correct first step. However, a number of very important and well-established 
generic names for common taxa of Recent and fossil mammals derive from 
Brisson. as Gentry points out in the application. Within Quaternary mammal 
studies, Glis. Cuniciilus, Meles. Lutra and Hyaena are all extremely well established 
generic names (as they are in the zoological, taxonomic and ecological literature 
also), and in the interests of stability of nomenclature it is most important that 
these are conserved under the Commission's plenary powers. I cannot comment 
from a position of specialist knowledge in relation to the other six generic names 
affected (Philander, Pteropus, Hydrochoenis, Tapirus, Tragulus and Giraffa) 
although it seems clear these are equally well established in modern general 
literature. 

In her application Gentry notes that the junior objective synonym Taxus Cuvier & 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795, for badgers (Meles Brisson) has never been used in the 
scientific literature. In support of this it is worth recording that even the first author 
of Taxus seems to have abandoned it. In the first edition of his very large scale and 
wide-ranging treatise Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles des Qiiadrepedes (Cuvier, 
1812), arguably the foundation of comparative fossil vertebrate studies, Cuvier (p. 
18) correctly diagnosed the genus taxonomically but used only the French vernacular 
'les blaireaux". Nine years later in his new and greatly enlarged second edition of the 
work Cuvier (1823, p. 244, pi. 18, figs. 3-1 to 3-5) again mainly used the vernacular 
in both his text and accompanying figures. However, when he did use scientific 
terminology (Cuvier, 1823, p. 244) the genus was recorded not as Taxus but as Meles, 
while apparently claiming authorship himself of the name: 'Des Blaireaux (MELES 
Cuv.)'. 

So far as one of the other names proposed for rejection is concerned, Euhyaena 
Falconer, 1868, it is not immediately clear why Hugh Falconer considered adopting 
this new generic name when Hyaena was by then so well established. Falconer died 
in 1865 leaving much unpublished material which was compiled and edited for 
publication by Charles Murchison from a wide variety of manuscripts, notes and 
even letters (Murchison, 1868; Prestwich, 1899: Boylan, 1977, 1979). Some sections 
were apparently substantially complete and fully checked at the time of Falconer's 
death but there were many fragments among the items brought together by his niece. 
Miss Grace Milne (later Lady Prestwich). and Murchison and published as Palae- 
ontological Memoirs (Falconer, 1868). Substantial parts of the work were, and remain 
today, of great importance in fossil mammal taxonomy and stratigraphy, and the 
taxa and names first published are always attributed to Falconer. However, as 
Murchison himself admitted (1968, p. ix), it is by no means certain that Falconer 
would have wished many of the more fragmentary and unchecked items of the 47 
pieces in vol. 2 to be published. 



192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(21 June 1995 

In those parts of the Palaeontological Memoirs that appear to have been tolerably 
complete at the time of Falconer's death he invariably used the name Hyaena (for 
example. Falconer, 1868, vol. 1, pp. 343, 548, pis. L and M, Hyaena sivalensis 
Falconer & Cautley; vol. 2, pp. 497, 525, 542, 552, 556). The generic-level name 
Euhyaena. by contrast, is only found in two very short fragments which Murchison 
found in one of Falconer's notebooks of 1863 (Falconer, 1868, vol. 2, pp. 464-465). 
One fragment is a list, 'Synopsis of nomenclature of living hyaenas', which includes 
'Hyaena {Euhyaena) striata Zimmermann', with Canis hyaena Linnaeus noted as a 
synonym, while the second fragment has some brief notes on the species of Recent 
hyaenas. Certainly, for the avoidance of doubt, the name Euhyaena Falconer, 1 868 
should be rejected, as proposed by Gentry. 

Additional references 

Boylan, P.J. 1977. The Falconer papers. Forres. 63 pp. Leicestershire Museums for Moray 

District Council, Leicester. 
Boylan, P.J. 1 979. The controversy of the Moulin-Quignon jaw: the role of Hugh Falconer. Pp. 

171-199 in Jordanova, L. & Porter. R., Images of tlie eartli. Essays in the history of t lie 

environmental sciences. 282 pp. British Society for the History of Science, Monograph 

No. 1. 
Cuvier, G. 1812. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles des quadrepedes, part 4e, chapter 3 (Sur les 

especes des animau.x. Carnassiers). Deterville, Paris. 
Cuvier, G. 1823. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles. Ed. 2. vol. 4. 514 pp., 39 pis. Dufour & 

D'Ocagne, Paris. 
Murchison, C. (Ed). 1868. Preface. Biographical sketch. Pp. vii-xii, xxiii-liii in Falconer, H.. 

Palaeontological memoirs and notes of the late Hugh Falconer, vol. 1. Ivi, 590 pp.. 34 pis. 
Prestwich, Lady |Grace|. 1899. Life and letters of Sir Joseph Prestwich. xv, 444 pp. Blackwood, 

Edinburgh. 

(8) D. Kock 

Forschungsiitstitut und Naturmusewn Senckenberg, Senckenhergunlage 25, 60325 
Frankfurt am Main. Germany 

It is with great interest that I studied the application to conserve 11 mammal 
generic names first published by Brisson (1762). 

I support the arguments and the intention of this application. It seems to me to be 
the best way to ensure nomenclatural stability. I agree with placing the names on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(9) Pierre Mein, M. Hugueney, C. Guerin & R. Ballesio 

Centre des Sciences de la Terre. Universite Claude Bernard, 27-43 Boulevard du 11 
Novembre, F-69622 Villeurbanne cedex, Lyon 1, France 

We are mammalian palaeontologists at the Universite and share the same view. We 
absolutely agree with the conservation of Brisson's (1762) mammalian generic names 
Philander, Pleropus, Glis, Cuniculus, Hydrochoerus, Meles, Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus, 
Tragulus and Giraffa. 

It would be stupid to reject names that have been used everywhere for more than 
200 years. We hope that the Commission will quickly agree with the proposition. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 193 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 

(Mammalia, Primates) 

(Case 2953; see BZN 51: 332-335) 

R.H. Crompton 

Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Liverpool. P.O. Box 

147. Liverpool L69 3 BX. U.K. 

I write as the Chief Editor of Folia Primatologica. Consequent on the proposed 
rejection of Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale, I support the proposal to conserve the 
name Lori.^ E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, rather than the senior synonym 
Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785, for the slender loris of Sri Lanka and southern India. 

The name Loris has been used for a very considerable time by primatologists and 
zoologists, while that of Tardigradus is only found in the scientific literature of the 
earliest quarter of this century and before, when a variety of different generic names 
for this taxon, including Stenops Illiger, 1811, were used quite indiscriminately. I can 
think of no good reason for the replacement of the name Loris by the archaic 
Tardigradus, and it would greatly benefit nomenclatural stability to continue to use 
Loris, recognised by zoologists for the greater part of this century. 



194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1803 

Rohulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently LenticuUna nodosa; 
Foraminiferida): neotype confirmed as the name-bearing type 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminiferida; Cretaceous; LenticuUna 
nodosa. 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974) is the 
name-bearing type for Rohulina nodosa Reuss. 1863. 

(2) The name nodosa Reuss, 1863, as published in the binomen Rohulina nodosa 
and as defined by the neotype (specimen no. C 30169 in the Naturhistorisches 
Museum, Basle) designated by Bartenstein (1974), confirmed in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2854 

An appHcation to confirm the neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974) as the 
name-bearing type of Rohulina nodosa Reuss, 1 863 following rediscovery of original 
type material was received from Drs Helen Meyn and Jiirgen Vespermann (Inslitul 
fur Geowissenschaflen. Teclmische Universitdt Braunschweig. Braunschweig. Germany) 
on 29 June 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 200-201 
(September 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the publication by Meyn & Vespermann 
referred to in the application as '1993 in press' appeared in Senckenhergiana Lethaea. 
74(1/2): 49-272 (31 August 1994). 

Meyn & Vespermann (1994, pi. 29, fig. 9) refigured Reuss's (1863) original 
illustration of Rohulina nodosa and (pp. 146, 148, pi. 29, figs. lOa-c) redescribed and 
figured the two rediscovered syntypes (nos. 974 and 345 in the Reuss collection in the 
Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna). They noted that the neotype designated by 
Bartenstein (1974) and the syntypes were conspecific (see also para. 2 of the 
application). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 200. At the close of the voting period on I March 
1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet. Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus. Lehtinen, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Dupuis, Halvorsen and Mahnert. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Voting for, Bouchet commented: 'I favour the retention of the neotype because 
Meyn & Vespermann's (1994, pi. 29, fig. 10) illustrations of a syntype of Rohulina 
nodosa show that the aperture is broken and this is an important character in 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52{2) June 1995 195 

lenticulinid foraminiferans'. Voting against, Mahnert commented: 'Since conspeci- 
ficity between the neotype and syntypes can be established without problems, I see no 
reason to retain the neotype; the original description and type material seem sufficient 
to characterize the species". 

Original references 

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

nodosa, Robulina, Reuss, 1863, Silzungsherichte der Kaiserlichen Akadcmie der Wissenschuflen, 
Malhematisch-Naturwissenschaftlkhe Classe, 46(1): 78. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Robulina nodosa Reuss, 
1863: 
Bartenstein, H. 1974. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae. 67: 540. 



196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1804 

Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (currently Astacolus humilis; 
Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype, and 
Rotalia schloeiibachi (currently NotoplanuUnal schloenbachi; 
Foraminiferida): placed on the Official List 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminiferida; Cretaceous; Astacolus humilis; 
NotoplanuUnal schloenbachi. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) The neotype designation for Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1 863 made by 
Bartenstein (1974) is hereby set aside. 

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

(a) humilis Reuss, 1863, as published in the binomen Cristellaria humilis and as 
defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 970 in the Reuss collection in the 
Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna) designated by Meyn & Vespermann 
(1994); 

(b) schloenbachi Reuss, 1863, as published in the binomen Rotalia schloenbachi 
and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 1685 in the Reuss collection in 
the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna) designated by Meyn & Vespermann 
(1994). 

History of Case 2855 

An application to replace the neotype of Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 with a 
lectotype designated from rediscovered original type material, and to place the 
specific name of Rutalia schloenbachi Reuss, 1 863 on the Official List, was received 
from Drs Helen Meyn and Jiirgen Vespermann (Institut fur Geowissenschaften, 
Technische Universilat Braunschweig, Braunschweig. Germany) on 29 June 1992. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 202-204 (September 1993). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the publication by Meyn & Vespermann 
referred to in the application as '1993 in press", in which lectotypes for Cristellaria 
humilis Reuss, 1863 and Rotalia schloenbachi Reuss, 1863 were designated, appeared 
in Senckenbergiana Lethaea. 74(1/2): 49-272 (31 August 1994). 

Meyn & Vespermann (1994, pi. 39, fig. 6) refigured Reuss's (1863) original 
illustrations of Cristellaria humilis and (pp. 176-177, pi. 39, fig. 7a, b) described and 
illustrated the selected lectotype (specimen no. 970 in the Reuss collection in the 
Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna). Meyn & Verspemiann (in lilt, to the 
Secretariat, May and June 1992) noted that Reuss's (1863) description and illus- 
trations, the neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974) and the lectotype all referred 
to the same taxon; that the lectotype was far better preserved than the neotype; and 
that, following their visit to Vienna in 1988, Bartenstein had agreed to the proposal 
to set aside the neotype. 

Meyn & Vespermann (1994. pi. 64. fig. 10) also refigured Reuss's (1863) original 
illustration of Rotalia schloenbachi and (pp. 256-258, pi. 64, fig. 1 la-c) described and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 197 

figured the lectotype (specimen no. 1685 in the Reuss collection in Vienna). Meyn & 
Vespermann (in lilt, to the Secretariat, June 1992) noted that Reuss's (1863) 
description and illustration, the neotype invalidly designated by Crittenden & Price 
( 1991 ), and the lectotype all referred to the same taxon. They also noted: 'We received 
a letter from Crittenden in 1991 in which he admitted that they [Crittenden & Price, 
1991] were 'a trifle premature' in designating a neotype for Rotalia schloenbachC . 

The proposals relating to Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1 863 and Rotalia schloenbachi 
Reuss, 1863, published in BZN 50: 203, were offered separately for voting. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 203. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1995 the votes were as follows: 
Proposals (1) and (2)(a) (Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863): 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata. Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Halvorsen. 

Proposal (2)(b) (Rotalia schloenbachi Reuss, 1863): 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, 
Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — 4: Halvorsen, Kraus, Martins de Souza and Stys. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Kraus commented: T vote against the proposal relating to Rotalia schloenbachi as 
the invalidity of the neotype designation by Crittenden & Price (1991) is unquestion- 
able; there is no reason why schloenbachi should be placed on the Official List'. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
humilis, Cristellaria Reuss, 1863, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen- 

schaften. Malhemalisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe. 46(1): 65. 
schloenbachi. Rotalia, Reuss, 1863, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen- 

schaften. Matliematisch-Nalurwissenschaftliche Classe, 46(1): 84. 

The following is the reference for the designation of lectotypes of Cristellaria humilis and 
Rotalia schloenbachi. both of Reuss (1863): 

Meyn, H. & Vespermann, J. 1994. Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 74(1/2): 176 and 256 
(respectively). 



198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1805 

Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora) and 
Doridopsis guttata Odhner, 1917 (currently Dendrodoris guttata) 
(MoUusca, Gastropoda): specific names conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; nudibranchs; Dendrodoris 
grandiflora (Mediterranean); Dendrodoris guttata (Japan, Australia). 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name guttata Risso, 1826, as published 
in the binomen Doris guttata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) grandiflora Rapp, 1827, as published in the binomen Doris grandiflora; 

(b) guttata Odhner, 1917, as published in the binomen Doridopsis guttata. 

(3) The name guttata Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Doris guttata and 
as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2886 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Doris grandiflora Rapp, 
1827 was received from Drs Jesiis Ortea and Angel Valdes {Laboratorio de Zoologia, 
Universidad de Oviedo. Oviedo. Spain) on 13 April 1993. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 51: 7-9 (March 1994). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr Richard C. Willan (Museum and Art Gallery of the 
Northern Territory, Darwin, Northern Territory. Australia) and Mr Robert Burn 
(Geelong. Victoria. Australia) was published in BZN 51: 256 (September 1994). 

These authors also pointed out that suppression of the unused specific name of 
Dendrodoris guttata (Risso, 1826) would conserve the junior secondary homonym 
D. guttata (Odhner, 1917), currently much in use, as well as the junior synonym 
D. grandiflora (Rapp, 1827). It was proposed on the voting paper that the specific 
name of Doris guttata Risso, 1826 should be suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy (cf Proposal 6(1) on BZN 51: 
8), and that the specific name of Doridopsis guttata Odhner, 1917 should be placed on 
the Official List, in addition to that of Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (cf Proposal (2)). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 8. with the amendment to Proposal (1) and addition 
to Proposal (2) noted above. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1995 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza. Minelli, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Willink 



1 

I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 199 

Negative votes — I: Nye, 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

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: 
grandiftora. Doris. Rapp. 1827, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldiiw- 

Carolinae Naturae Curiosorurn. 13: 520, 
gut lata. Doridopsis. Odhner. 1917, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 

52(16): 62, 
guttata, Don's, Risso, 1 826, Histoire naturelle dcs principales productions de l Europe Meridi- 

onale et particulieremetu de celles des environs de Nice el des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4, p, 33, 



200 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclalure 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1806 

Ammonites nodosus (currently Ceratites nodosus; Cephalopoda, 
Ammonoidea): specific name attributed to Schlotheim, 1813, and a 
lectotype designated 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ammonoidea; Middle Triassic; ammonite; 
Ceratilcs iuhIusus. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name nodosa Bruguiere, 1798, as published in the binomen 
Ammonites nodosa, and all uses of the name prior to the publication of 
Ammonites nodosus Schlotheim, 1813 are hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Ammonites 
nodosus Schlotheim, 1813 prior to that by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) are 
hereby set aside; 

(e) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Ceratites de 
Haan, 1825 are hereby set aside and Ammonites nodosus Schlotheim, 1813 is 
designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Ceratites de Haan. 1825 (gender; masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in ( l)(c) above Ammonites nodosus Schlotheim, 
1813, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name nodosus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the binomen Ammonites 
nodosus (specific name of the type species of Ceratites de Haan, 1825) and as defined 
by the lectotype (specimen no. C785 in the Museum fiir Naturkunde an der 
Humboldt Universitiit, Berlin) designated by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987), ruled in 
(l)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name nodosa Bruguiere. 1789, as published in the binomen Ammonites 
nodosa and as suppressed in (l)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2732 

An application to maintain the current usage of the specific name of Ammonites 
nodosus by attributing the name to Schlotheim (1813). and by fixing as the lectotype 
one of Schlotheim's specimens, was received from Dr Max Urlichs (Staatliches 
Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart. Stuttgart. Germany) on 7 July 1989. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 48; 31-35 (March 1991). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support were received from Prof Dr G. Hahn (Rauschenherg, 
Germany, published in BZN 48; 246, September 1991); Prof Dr G. Tichy {Institutfiir 
Geologie und Paldontologie, Universitdt Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria, published in 
BZN 49: 290, December 1992); Dr M. Horn (Hes.sisches Landesamt fiir Bodenfors- 
cluing. Wiesbaden, Germany) and Prof Dr F. Strauch & Dr M. Bertling {Geologisch- 
Paliiontologisehes Inst i tut und Museum, Westfdlisclw Wilhelms-Universitdt Miinster, 
Miinster, Germany), both published in BZN 50: 54-56 (March 1993); and Dr Ulrich 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 201 

Lehmann {Geologisch-PalaotUologisches Inslilut unci Museum, Universitdt Hamburg. 
Hamburg. Germany, published in BZN 50: 284, December 1993). 

An opposing comment from Dr E.T. Tozer (Geological Survey of Canada, 
Vancouver. Britisli Columbia. Canada), published in BZN 49: 145-149 (June 1992), 
included alternative proposals. These proposals were supported by the late Mr R.V. 
Melville (Riclmiond. Surrey. U.K.) and by Dr N.J. Silberling ( U.S. Geological Survey, 
Denver. Colorado, U.S.A.) in comments published in BZN 50: 55-56 (March 1993) 
and BZN 50: 141-142 (June 1993) respectively. Replies to Tozer and to Melville from 
the author of the application were published in BZN 50: 229-231 (September 1993) 
and BZN 50: 284-285 (December 1993) respectively. Dr Tozer withdrew his 
alternative proposals in BZN 51: 147-149 (June 1994; see below). 

It was noted on the voting paper that the case was complicated by five factors: 
(1) relevant 18th century collections were long beheved lost and two concepts of 
Ceratites nodosm, which were based on old illustrations rather than specimens, had 
entered the literature; (2) Rieber & Tozer (1986) rediscovered one collection (that of 
Scheuchzer) in Zurich and designated a lectotype ol Ammonites nodosa [recte nodosus\ 
Bruguiere from it, believing their action to be valid under the principle of priority; 
(3) Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) independently rediscovered another collection 
(Schlotheim's) in Berlin and proposed (subject to the Commission's ratification) a 
lectotype in accordance with what they maintained to be the usage oVnodosus' in this 
century (and compatible with that of earlier times); (4) disagreement between these 
pairs of authors as to the past understandings of the name Ceratites nodosus (the 
nominal species A. nodosus is the type species of Ceratites de Haan, 1825); 
(5) C nodosus, in the sense of the specimen designated by Urlichs & Mundlos, is an 
important index fossil in the Middle Triassic Muschelkalk of central Europe, where 
it characterises the Lower Ladinian 'nodosus zone", while C. nodosus sensu Rieber & 
Tozer occurs only at a lower (Upper Anisian) horizon. 

The application sought the conservation of the (1987) Urlichs & Mundlos lectotype 
on the grounds of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus, and particularly because of 
its importance in this sense in stratigraphy. The Commission Secretariat had a list of 
86 references demonstrating this usage. The name was attributed to Schlotheim 
(1813) rather than to Bruguiere (1798) on the grounds that the usage of C. nodosus 
was based on a figure by Schlotheim and that the proposed type specimen was from 
the Schlotheim collection. The specimen (no. C785 in the Museum fiir Naturkunde 
an der Humboldt Universitat, Berlin), given by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) as the 
proposed lectotype of A. nodosus Schlotheim, was in accord with Schlotheim's (1823, 
pi. 31, fig. 1) illustration of Ammonites nodosus, with usage of the name by de Haan 
(1825) and Philippi (1901), and with the current concept of Ceratites nodosus in the 
region where it occurs. The application proposed that Ammonites nodosa Bruguiere, 
1 789 be suppressed as a senior homonym, and that C. nodosus with the authorship of 
Schlotheim (1813) be designated the type species of Ceratites de Haan, 1825. 

The application was supported by a large number of Austrian and German 
palaeontologists. Initially it was opposed by Dr E.T. Tozer and others on priority 
grounds, but subsequently (BZN 51: 147-149) Dr Tozer reluctantly withdrew his 
opposition in order that the European stratigraphic concept of Ceratites nodosus 
could continue, although he did not accept some historical aspects of the case as 
presented by Dr Urlichs. 



202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(21 June 1995 

The original proposals were presented for voting. Approval of them on pragmatic 
grounds would, it was agreed by all, stabilise the biostratigraphic use of C. nodosus 
and would not affect the universal understanding of the generic name Ceratites de 
Haan, 1825. Rejection, on the other hand, would cause confusion to continue. 
Urlichs (BZN 48: 33 and 50: 230, 284) and other commentators noted that acceptance 
of Tozer's proposals would transfer the name nodosus to the taxon currently called 
C. (Doloceralites) rohiisliis rohuslus: this occurs not in the 'nodostis-Zone' but at a 
lower horizon of the Middle Triassic Muschelkalk sequence of central Europe. The 
taxon currently known as nodosus would be called C. undatus (Reinecke, 1818) and 
the subgenus Ceratites (Doloceratites) would be called C. {Ceratites): C (Dolocera- 
tites) would require a new name. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 48: 34. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster. Stys, Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

Dupuis and Lehtinen abstained. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Cocks commented: 'This sort of case is precisely why the Commission exists. There 
seems little doubt that by following the lucid arguments of Melville (BZN 50: 55-56), 
for example, the true taxonomic concept of nodosus should be as originally stated by 
Tozer. However, these arguments are rightly set aside by the overriding concept of 
usefulness. By changing the key species of the nodosus Zone nothing would be 
achieved except instabihty of biostratigraphical nomenclature and the reasonable ire 
of the majority of geologists directed towards their palaeontological colleagues'. 
Heppell commented: T am in favour of the stability of the nomenclature of the type 
fossil ammonites which characterize the Triassic Ceratites nodosus zone but I disagree 
with the method used to achieve this. Both Melville and Tozer pointed out that 
Schlotheim (1813) was not establishing a new nominal species, so we are dealing with 
the interpretation of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiere, 1789. As the specimens, cited 
illustrations and description of that nominal species are either ambiguous or at odds 
with the accepted identity of the fossils of the eponymous geological zone, it is 
certainly necessary to fix the name to an acceptable type specimen by the use of the 
plenary powers. I believe this would have best been achieved by setting aside all 
previous fixations of type specimen for A. nodosa Bruguiere and selecting a neotype. 
The 'lectotype' of y4. nodosa 'Schlotheim' would be a candidate for this if, as it seems 
to be. it is in agreement with the current geological usage of Bruguiere's name'. In 
abstaining Dupuis made a similar comment, and Lehtinen noted: 'I am abstaining 
because Schlotheim never described taxa that it is proposed should now bear his 
authorship'. 

Original references 

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



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 203 

Ceraiites de Haan. 1825. Monographiae Anmwniteorum el Gomatiteorum Specimen, p. 39. 
nodosa. Ammonites, Bruguiere, 1 798, Encvclopedie metliodique. 1. Histoiie nalurelle des vers. 

p. 43. 
nodosus. Ammonites. Schlotheim, 1813, Beitrdge zur Naturgeschichte der Versreinerungen in 

geognostischer Sichl. Taschenbuch fur die gesammie Mineralogie. 7: 100. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Ammonites nodosus 
Schlotheim. 1813: 
Urlichs, M. & Mundlos, R. 1987. Sliillgarler Beilriige zur Naturkwuie. (B)128: 7. 



204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1807 

Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Polychaeta; marine worms; Jolmshmki. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the name Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1849, and all uses 
of the name Johnstonia prior to the publication of Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 
(January), are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority 
and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent monotypy Jonhstonia [recte Johnstonia] clymenoides Quatrefages, [1866 
(summer)], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name clymenoides Quatrefages, [1866], as published in the binomen 
Jonhstonia [recte Johnstonia] clymenoides (specific name of the type species of 
Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866) and as defined by the lectotype (specimen A"(R)-1868, 
no. 239b in the Quatrefages collection in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 
Paris) designated by Mackie & Gobin (1993), is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1849, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Johnstonia Fuhrmann, 1920 (a junior homonym of Johnstonia Quatrefages, 
1866); 

(c) Johnstonia Basir, 1956 (a junior homonym of Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866). 

History of Case 2859 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Johnstonia Quatrefages, 
1866 was received from Drs Andrew S.Y. Mackie {National Museum of Wales. 
Cardiff, Wales, U.K.) and Judith Gobin (Institute of Marine Affairs, Carenage, 
Trinidad and Tobago) on 22 July 1992. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 51: 10-13 (March 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51 : 1 1 . At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1 995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

y 
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; 



Bulletin or Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 205 

clymenoides. Jonhslonia [recte Johnsloiua], Quatrefages. [1866 (summer)], Histoire luilurelle des 

anneles marins el d'eau douce. Aimelides et gephyriens. vol. 2, p. 244. 
Jcihnsluniu Basir, 1956. Zoologkci (Stuttgart), 106: 16. 
Johnslonia Fuhrmann, 1920. Festschrijt fiir Zschokke (Basel). 27: 18. 

Jiihn.sloniu Quatrefages, 1849, Aimciles des Sciences Nalurelles ( Zoologie ) . (3)12: 304. footnote. 
Johnslonia Quatrefages, 1866 (January), Annals and Magazine of Natural Hislory, (3)17: 21. 

The following is the reference for the fixation of Johnslonia clymenoides Quatrefages, [1866] 
as the type species of the nominal genus Johnslonia Quatrefages, 1 866: 
Quatrefages, A. de. [1866 (summer)]. Hisloire naturetle des anneles marins et d'eau douce. 
Annelides et gephyriens, vol. 2, p. 244. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Johnslonia clymenoides 

Quatrefages, [1866]: 
Mackie, A.S.Y. & Gobin, J. 1993. Zoologica Scripta, 11: 231. 



206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1808 

Mastotermes darwiniemis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis 
Froggatt, 1898 (currently Amitermes meridionalis) (Insecta, Isoptera): 
neotypes retained following rediscovery of syntypes 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; termites; Mastotermes darwiniensis; 
Amitermes meridionalis: Australia. 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby confirmed: 

(a) that the neotype designated by Hill (1942) is the name-bearing type for 
Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897; 

(b) that the neotype designated by Hill (1942) is the name-bearing type for Termes 
meridionalis Froggatt, 1898. 

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

(a) darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897, as published in the binomen Mastotermes darwin- 
iensis and as defined by the neotype (a female alate registered as Type No. 9033 
in the Australian National Insect Collection. CSIRO, Canberra) designated by 
Hill (1942), confirmed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) meridionalis Froggatt, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes meridionalis 
and as defined by the neotype (a soldier registered as Type No. 9077 in the 
Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO, Canberra) designated by Hill 
(1942), confirmed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 2889 

An application to confirm the neotypes designated by Hill (1942) as the name- 
bearing types of Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis 
Froggatt, 1898 following rediscovery of original type material was received from the 
late Dr J.A.L. Watson (CSIRO. Canberra. Australia) on 23 April 1993. After 
correspondence the case was pubhshed in BZN 51: 14-16 (March 1994). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 16. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part). Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis 
(part), Hahn, Heppell. Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Willink 

Negative votes — 4: Halvorsen, Holthuis, Mahnert and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bouchet and Dupuis voted for the retention of the neotype of Termes meridionalis 
but against the retention of that of Mastotermes darwiniensis. Voting against both 
proposals Holthuis commented: "As the syntypes are in good condition and are the 



< 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 207 

same species as the neotypes I see no reason to recognize the latter". Thompson 
commented: 'In relation to the M. darwiniensis neotype (para. 8 of the application), 
the late Dr Watson wrote that 'the designation has had a substantial audience and 
has major taxonomic standing". However, not one termite specialist has commented 
on this case and I see no support for overturning the original author"s types". 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
darwiniensis, Mastolennes, Froggatt, 1897, Proceedings of ihe Linnean Socielv of New South 

Wales. 21: 519. 
meridiunalis. Vermes, Froggatt, 1898, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 
22: 726. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotypes of Mastotermes 
darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis Froggatt, 1898: 
Hill, G.F. 1942. Termites (Isoptera) from the Australian Region, pp. 21 and 336 (respectively). 



208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1809 

Bruchm Linnaeus, 1767, Ptiniis Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris 
Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; pests; Bruchus; Ptinus; Mylabris. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: 

(a) Bruchus Geoffroy, 1762, and all uses of the name Bruchus prior to the 
publication of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1 767, for the purposes of both the Principle 
of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) Mylabris Geoffroy. 1762, and all uses of the name Mylabris prior to the 
publication of Mylabris Fabricius, 1775, for the purposes of both the Principle 
of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(c) Laria Scopoli, 1 763 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Dermestes pisorum Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Latreille (1810) Cerambyx fur Linnaeus, 1758; 

(c) Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Meloc cichorii Linnaeus, 1758. 

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

(a) pisorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes pisorum 
(specific name of the type species of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767); 

(b) /i/f Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cerambyx fur (specific name 
of the type species of Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767); 

(c) cichorii Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Meloe cichorii (specific 
name of the type species of Mylabris Fabricius. 1775). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) BRUCHIDAE Latreille. 1802 (type genus Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767); 

(b) PTINIDAE Latreille, 1802 (type genus Ptimis Linnaeus, 1767). 

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

(a) Bruchus Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Mylabris Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) Laria Scopoli, 1763, as suppressed in (l)(c) above. 

History of Case 2618 

An application for the conservation of the generic names Bruchus Linnaeus. 1767, 
Ptimis Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 was received from Dr L. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 209 

Borowiec (Agricultural University. Wroclaw, Poland) on 13 July 1987. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 45: 194-196 (September 1988). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the application proposed the conservation of 
three widely used names threatened by senior synonyms and/or homonyms first 
published by Geoffroy (1762). The case was published before that by Dr I.M. 
Kerzhner on the status of Geoffrey's work (Case 2292, published in BZN 48: 
107-133; June 1991) but voting was held over until the resolution of the latter case. 
Support for the conservation of Brmhus Linnaeus. 1767 and Mykihris Fabricius. 
1775 was included in Dr Kerzhner's application (BZN 48: 119 and 121 respectively). 

Dr Kerzhner & Dr A.G. Kirejtshuk (Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of 
Sciences. St Petersburg. Russia) supported Dr Borowiec's application in a comment 
published in BZN 48: 143-144 (June 1991 ). They also pointed out that Pierce's (1916) 
designation of Laria .wlicis Scopoli. 1 763 as the type species of Laria Scopoli, 1 763 
rendered the latter name a senior subjective synonym of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (cf 
para. 3 of the application). They proposed (BZN 48: 143) that Laria should be 
suppressed. 

A comment from Mrs A. Gentry (ICZN. do The Natural History Museum. 
Loiulon. U.K.). published in BZN 48: 144, noted that Mylahris sensu Geoffroy (1762) 
was a senior subjective synonym of Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 (as in para. 5 of the 
application, not objective as in para. 2). and cited recent references demonstrating the 
use of the latter name. 

Geoffroy 's ( 1 762) work Histoire abregee des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de 
Paris, in which the names Bruchus and Mylabris first appeared, was rejected for 
nomenclatural purposes and placed on the Official Index in Opinion 228 (April 1954). 
In Opinion 1754 (March 1994) the Commission ruled that, notwithstanding the use 
of polynominal specific names, Geoffrey's work was available for the establishment 
of generic names; it was accordingly deleted from the Official Index and placed on the 
Official List with an endorsement recording its status. It followed from Opinion 1754 
that the names Bruchus and Mylabris were available from Geoffroy (1762); suppres- 
sion by the Commission of these names as used in this work would allow them to be 
placed on the Official Index with this authorship and date. 

Geoffroy (1762, vol. 1) described and figured species in Bruchus and Mylabris; he 
placed Cerambyx fur and Dermestes pisorum (both of Linnaeus, 1758) in these 
respective genera so that the names as used by him are senior synonyms oi Ptinus and 
Bruchus of Linnaeus (1767). Since several other coleopteran generic names as used by 
Geoffroy (1762) were suppressed by the ruling in Opinion 1754 in order to conserve 
junior names from Fabricius (1775) and Linnaeus (1767) (see BZN 51: 62, para. (6)), 
the alternative proposals relating to the present case put forward by Dr F.C. 
Thompson (U.S.D.A., do U.S. National Museum. Washington D.C.. U.S.A.) and Dr 
P.K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary. ICZN. do The Natural History Museum. London. 
U.K.), published respectively on BZN 48: 146 and 48: 147, were not proceeded 
with. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 195, with amendments to the authorship and date of 



210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

Bruclnis 'Miiller, 1764' and MyUtbris -Muller, 1764' to Geoffroy (1762). and in BZN 
48: 143. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1995 the votes were as follows; 

Aftimiative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Heppell. Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye. Ride. Savage, Schuster, Stys, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and 
Ueno. 

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: 
BRUCHIDAE Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle. genercik ei pailiculiere. des cruslaces el des 

insecles, vol. 3, p. 192. 
Bruclnis Geoffroy. 1762, Histoire ahregee des insecles qui se irouveiu uux environs de Paris, vol. 

1, p. 163. 
Bruclnis Linnaeus, 1767, Syslema Naturae. Ed. 12. vol. 1, part 2, p. 604. 
cichorii, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758, Syslema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 419. 
fur, Ceramhyx. Linnaeus, 1758, Syslema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 393. 
Laria Scopoli, 1763, Enlomologia Carniolica, p. 21. 
Mylabris Fabrieius, 1775, Syslema Enlomologiae, p. 261. 
Mvlahris Geoffroy, 1 762, Histoire ahregee des insecles qui se trouvent atix environs de Paris, vol. 

l,p. 266. 
pisoruin. Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Syslema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 356. 
PTINIDAE Latreille, 1 802, Hisloire naturelle. generale el parliculiere. des cruslaces el des insecles, 

vol. 3, p. 112. 
Plinus Linnaeus, 1767, Syslema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 565. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Dermestes pisorum Linnaeus, 1758 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Bruclnis Linnaeus, 1767; Ceramhyx fur Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767; and Meloe cichorii Linnaeus, 1758 
as the type species of the nominal genus Mylabris Fabrieius. 1775: 

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations generales sur I'ordre naturel des animaux composani les 
classes des cruslaces. des arachnides el des insecles .... pp. 430, 427 and 430 (respectively). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(21 June 1995 211 

OPINION 1810 

Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus 
Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 
as the correct original spellings, and Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 
1792 ruled to be the type species of Rhizophagus 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Cryptophagus; Dorcatoma; 
Rhizophagus: Colore. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) the correct original spellings of the following generic names are as shown: 
(i) Kryptophagus Herbst, 1792: correctly Cryptophagus; 

(ii) Dorkatoma Herbst, 1792: correctly Dorcatoma; 
(m)Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793: correctly Rhizophagus; 
(vj)Kolon Herbst, 1797: correctly Colon; 

(b) the designation by Westwood ([1838]) oi Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as 
the type species oi Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 is valid. 

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

(a) Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Westwood ([1838]) Dermestes cellaris Scopoli, 1763; 

(b) Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Dorkatoma [sic] dresdensis Herbst, 1792; 

(c) Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Westwood ([1838]) Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as ruled 
in (l)(b) above; 

(d) Colon Herbst, 1797 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by 
Thomson (1859) Kolon [sic] viemiensis Herbst, 1797. 

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

(a) cellaris Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Dermestes cellaris (specific 
name of the type species of Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792); 

(b) dresdensis Herbst, 1792, as published in the binomen Dorkatoma dresdensis 
(specific name of the type species of Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792); 

(c) bipustulatus Fabricius, 1 792, as published in the binomen Lyctus bipustulatus 
(specific name of the type species of Rhizophagus Herbst, 1 793); 

(d) viennensis Herbst, 1 797, as published in the binomen Kolon viennensis (specific 
name of the type species of Colon Herbst, 1797). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Kryptophagus Herbst, 1792 (ruled in (l)(a)(i) above to be an incorrect original 
spelling of Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792); 

(b) Dorkatoma Herbst, 1792 (ruled in (l)(a)(ii) above to be an incorrect original 
spelling oi Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792); 



212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

(c) Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793 (ruled in (lKa)(iii) above lo be an incorrect original 
spelling of Rhizopluigiis Herbst, 1793): 

(d) Rhyzophagiis Gyllenhal, 1813 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Rhizophagus 
Herbst, 1793); 

(e) Koloii Herbst, 1797 (ruled in ( 1 )(a)(iv) above to be an incorrect original spelling 
of Colon Herbst, 1797). 

History of Case 2783 

An application to conserve the spellings of Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma 
Herbst. 1792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797, and to rule Lyctus 
hipustulaius Fabricius, 1 792 to be the valid type species of Rhizophagus, was received 
from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum. Helsinki University, Finland) on 30 
July 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 21-24 (March 
1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr R.G. Booth (International Institute of Entomology, 
clo The Natural History Museum. London. U.K.) was published in BZN 51: 256-257 
(September 1994). Dr Booth pointed out that ^Dore.' (probably an abbreviation for 
Dorcatoma) appeared in the text (p. 104) of Herbsfs own (1792) work, as well as the 
spelling Dorkatoma which was used as a heading (pp. 103, 104, 105). However, 
adoption of the spelling Dorcatoma without reference to Dorkatoma by PaykuU 
(1798) and subsequent authors did not meet the requirements for a first reviser 
selection (Article 24b of the Code). Dr Booth also mentioned that in 1799 Herbst 
indexed the names Colon and Cryptophagus. 

Decision of ttie Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 22-23. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn. 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys (part), 
Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Stys voted for the conservation of the spellings of Herbst's generic names currently 
in use but did not agree with the type species fixation for Rhizophagus; he 
commented: 'I do not see why the Commission's plenary powers should be used to 
uphold the invalid designation of Lyctus hipustulatus Fabricius, 1 792 as the type of 
Rhizophagus, rather than selecting its junior subjective synonym R. bipunctatus 
Herbst, 1793 which was one of the originally included species (para. 4 of 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: 

hipustulaius, Lvctus, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia Systematica emendalu et aucta. vol. 1. part 
2, p. 503.' 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 213 

cellaris, Dermesles, Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia Carniolica. p. 16. 

Colon Herbst. 1797. Natursyslem aller bekaimten in- iind auslandischen Insekten. Der Kiifer. 

part 7. p. 224 (incorrectly spelled as Kolon). 
Cryplophagiis Herbst. 1 792. Naltirsystem alter hekannlcn in- unci auslandischen Insekten. Der 

Kiifer. part 4, p. 172 (incorrectly spelled as Kryptophagiis). 
Dorcalonw Herbst, 1792. Natursyslem aller hekannlen in- uml auslandischen Insekten. Der 

Kafer, part 4, p. 103 (incorrectly spelled as Dorkatoma). 
Dorkatonia Herbst, 1792, Natursystem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. Der 

Kiifer, part 4, p. 103 (an incorrect original spelling o( Dorcatoina). 
dresdensis, Dorkatoma. Herbst, 1792, Natursystem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen 

In.sekten. Der Kafer, part 4, p. 104. 
Kolon Herbst, 1797, Natursystem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. Der Kiifer, 

part 7, p. 224 (an incorrect original spelling of Colon). 
Kryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Natursyslem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. Der 

Kafer, part 4, p. 172 (an incorrect original spelling of Cryptophagus). 
Rhizophagus Herbst, 1 793, Natursystem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. Der 

Kafer. part 5, p. 18 (incorrectly spelled as Ry:ophagu.s). 
Rhyzophagus Gyllenhal, 1813. Insecta sueeica descripia. Classis I. Coleoptera sive Eleulerata. 

vol. 1, part 3, p. 420. 
Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793, Natursyslem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. Der 

Kafer, part 5, p. 18 (an incorrect original spelling of Rhizophagus). 
viennensis, Kolon. Herbst, 1 797, Natursyslem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. 

Der Kiifer, part 7, p. 225. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Dermestes cellaris Scopoli, 1763 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, and Lyctus bipuslulatus 
Fabricius. 1792 as the type species of the nominal genus Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793: 
Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis oj the genera of British insects, p. 13. Published with An 
introduction to the modern classification of insects .... vol. 1, part I. Pp. 1^8. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Kolon [sic] viennensis Herbst. 1797 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Colon Herbst, 1797: 
Thomson, CG. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera. synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 1, p. 60. 



214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1811 

COLYDiiDAE Erichson, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence 
over CERYLONiDAE Billbcrg, 1820 and orthocerini Blanchard, 1845 
(1820); and Cerylon Latreille, 1802: Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 
designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; colydiidae; cerylonidae; 
orthocerini; Cenlun. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that the family-group name colydiidae Erichson, 1842 
and other family-group names based on Colydium Fabricius, 1792 are 
hereby given precedence over orthoceridae Blanchard, 1845 (1820) and 
other family-group names based on Orthocerus Latreille, 1796, and over 
cerylonidae Billberg, 1820 and other family-group names based on Cerylon 
Latreille, 1802; 

(b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Cerylon Latreille, 
1 802 are hereby set aside and Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1 792 is designated 
as the type species. 

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

(a) Colydium Fabricius, 1792 (gender; neuter), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Latreille (1810) Bostrichus elongatus Fabricius, 1787; 

(b) Cerylon Latreille, 1802 (gender: neuter), type species by designation under the 
plenary powers in (l)(b) above Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792; 

(c) Orthocerus Latreille, 1796 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy by Latreille (1807) Tenehrio hirticornis De Geer, 1775 (a junior 
subjective synonym of Dermestes clavicornis Linnaeus, 1758). 

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

(a) elongatus, Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen ' Bostricilus' [recte 
Bostrichus] elongatus. specific name of the type species of Colydium Fabricius, 
1792; 

(b) histeroides. Fabricius. 1792, as published in the binomen Lyctus histeroides, 
specific name of the type species of Cerylon Latreille, 1 802; 

(c) clavicornis. Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes clavicornis 
(senior subjective synonym of Tenehrio hirticornis De Geer, 1775, the type 
species of Orthocerus Latreille, 1 796). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) colydiidae Erichson. 1842 (type genus Colydium Fabricius, 1792) with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Colydium are to 
be given precedence over cerylonidae Billberg, 1820 (type genus Cerylon 
Latreille, 1802) and other family-group names based on Cerylon. and over 
orthocerini Blanchard. 1845 (1820) (type genus Orthocerus Latreille, 1796) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 215 

and other family-group names based on Ortlwceriis, whenever their type 
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; 

(b) CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 (type genus Cerylon Latreille, 1802) with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Cerylon are not to 
be given priority over colydiidae Erichson, 1842 (type genus Colydium 
Fabricius. 1792) and other family-group names based on Colydium whenever 
their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; 

(c) ORTHOCERiNi Blanchard, 1845 (1820) (type genus Orthocerus Latreille, 1796) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Ortho- 
cerus are not to be given priority over colydiidae Erichson, 1842 (type genus 
Colydium Fabricius, 1792) and other family-group names based on Colydium 
whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; 

(5) The name sarrotriidae Billberg, 1820 (type genus Sarrotrium Illiger, 1798) is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology (replaced before 1961 as a name based on a junior generic synonym). 

History of Case 2713 

An application for the conservation of the family-group name colydiidae 
Erichson, 1842 by giving it precedence over cerylonidae Billberg, 1820 and 
ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820), and for the established usage of Lyctus 
histeroides Fabricius. 1792 as the type species of Cerylon Latreille, 1802 to be 
maintained, was received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum. Helsinki 
University, Finland) on 23 February 1989. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 51: 17-20 (March 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Support for the application was received from Dr R.G. Booth (International 
Institute oj Entomology, do The Natural History Museum, London. U.K.). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 18-19. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part). Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis. 
Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — 4: Heppell, Holthuis, Martins de Souza and Stys. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov. Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bouchet voted in favour of designating Lyctus histeroides as the type species of 
Cerylon and placing all the generic and specific names involved in the case on Ofl!icial 
Lists, but against giving precedence to the family-group name colydiidae. Voting 
against. Heppell commented: 'I can find no evidence that any of the names 
'Cerylonides" Billberg, 1820, 'Sarrotriides' Billberg, 1820 or 'Orthocerites" Blanchard, 
1845 have any status in zoological nomenclature. They are no more than vernacular 
names. For such a name to be available under Article I lf(iii) of the Code it must have 
been not only latinized by later authors but also 'generally accepted as ... dating from 
that first publication as a vernacular name'. Here, on the contrary, cerylonidae 
seems to have been universally regarded as established by Erichson (1845, as 



216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

CERYLiNi), and ORTHOCERiNi by Reitter (1882). Consequently these names are not 
senior to colydiidae Erichson, 1842 and are no threat to its stability. I agree with the 
designation of Lyciiis histeroides as the type species of Cerylon . Martins de Souza 
commented: 'Since Crowson's (1955) classification of the Coleoptera, cerylonidae 
has been included in the cucujoidea and colydiidae in the tenebrionoidea. This 
classification has been adopted by a number of very recent authors, which indicates 
that the colydiidae and cerylonidae are not included in the same family-group". 
Stys commented: 'I cannot endorse the proposal to give colydiidae precedence and 
feel that priority should apply whenever the names colydiidae. cerylonidae and 
ORTHOCERINI Compete; only the precedence of cerylonidae and orthocerini should 
be decided by the Commission. I agree that colydiidae is the best known and widely 
used name. However, all the names have been frequently used in both the classical 
and modern literature and none of them has been "rediscovered". I cannot see that the 
"stability of nomenclature is threatened", only that coleopterists have ignored the 
principle of priority. A quite different situation obtains with sarrotriidae and I fully 
support placing the name on the Official Index". 

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: 
Cerylon Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle generate el iniriiculiere des cruslaces et ties insecles, 

' vol. 3, p. 205. 
cerylonidae Billberg, 1820. Enumenitio Inseclortim in Miiseo Gust. Joh. Bi/lhcrg. p. 47. 
clavicornis. Demiestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Nanirae. Ed. 10. vol. 1, p. 355. 
colydiidae Erichson, 1842, Archiv fiir Ncilurgcschichw, 8: 213. 
Colydiwn Fabricius, 1792, Enwmologia SysWmulica. vol. 1, part 2, p. 495. 
ehnguliis, Boslriclnis. Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum. vol. 1, p. 36. 
histeroides. Lyctus. Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia Systematica, vol. 1, part 2, p. 504. 
orthocerini Blanchard, 1845 (1820), Histoire des insectes ... comprenant iiiw iwiivelle 

classification fondee sur lews rapports nalurels, vol. 2, p. 29. 
Orthocerus Latreille, 1 796, Precis des caracteres generiqiies des insecles. disposes dans tin ordre 

natiirel, p. 16. 
sarrotriidae Billberg. 1820, Enwneratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. BUIberg. p. 9. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Bostriclms elongatus Fabricius, 1 787 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Colydiwn Fabricius. 1792: 

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations generales sur iordre naturel des animaus compo.umt les 
classes des crustuces. des arachnides el des insectes, p. 431. 

The following is the reference for the fi.\ation of Tenebrio hirticornis De Geer, 1 775 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Orthocerus Latreille, 1 796: 
Latreille, P.A. 1807. Genera Crustaceonim el Insectorum, vol. 2, p. 172. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 217 

OPINION 1812 

ELMiDAE Curtis, 1830 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as the correct 
original spelling, and the gender of Elmis Latreille, 1802 ruled to be 
feminine 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; riffle water beetles; elmidae; Elmis. 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby ruled that: 

(a) the gender of the generic name Elmis Latreille, 1 802 is feminine; 

(b) for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Elmis 
Latreille. 1802 is elm-. 

(2) The name Elmis Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine, as ruled in (l)(a) above), 
type species by monotypy Elmis maugelii Latreille, 1802, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name maugelii Latreille. 1802. as published in the binomen Elmis maugetii 
(specific name of the type species of Elmis Latreille. 1802). is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name elmidae Curtis. 1830 (type genus Elmis Latreille. 1802), spelling 
ruled in (l)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names 
in Zoology. 

History of Case 2861 

An application for the conservation of the family-group name elmidae Curtis, 
1830 as the correct original spelling, and for the gender of the generic name Elmis 
Latreille, 1802 to be ruled as feminine, was received from Dr M.A. Jiich {Naiur- 
liisiorisclies Museum. Wien. Austria) on 28 August 1992. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 51: 25-27 (March 1994). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr G.N. Foster (The Balfour- Browne Club. Ayr, 
Scotland. U.K.) was published in BZN 51: 281 (September 1994). Support was 
also received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum. Helsinki University, 
Finland). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 26. At the close of the voting period on I March 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock. Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, 
Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger. Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Original references 

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



218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830, British entomology, vol. 7, pi. 294. 
EIrnis Latreille, 1802. Histoire nalureUe des founni.s. p. 398. 
inaugetii. Eliiiis, Latreille, 1802, Histoire nultirelle des founnis, p. 400. 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 219 

OPINION 1813 

Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): 
conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Characiformes; freshwater fish; 
Alestes; Africa. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Myletes Cuvier, 1814 is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Jordan (1919) Salmo niloticiis Linnaeus. 1758 (a junior 
subjective synonym of Cyprinus dentex Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name dentex Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cyprinus dentex 
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Salmo niloticus Linnaeus, 1758, the 
type species of Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844, by the first reviser action of 
Valenciennes, 1849), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

(4) The name Myletes Cuvier, 1814, as suppressed in (1 ) above, is hereby placed on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(5) The name hasselqidstii Cuvier, 1818, as published in the binomen Myletes 
liasselquistii, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 
Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Cyprinus dentex Linnaeus, 1758). 

History of Case 2835 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 
1844 was received from Drs Jacques Gery and Volker Mahnert (clo Museum 
d'Histoire Naturelle. Geneve. Switzerland) on 25 October 1991. After correspondence 
the case was published in BZN 51: 35^0 (March 1994). Notice of the case was sent 
to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the application sought to conserve the 
generic name Alestes Muller & Troschel, 1844, which had been used for 150 years for 
a group of African freshwater fishes, by the suppression of the unused senior 
subjective synonym Myletes Cuvier, 1814. Some of the species included in Alestes 
were of economic importance. 

The name Myletes was proposed by Cuvier (1814) for the single African species 
Salmo dentex Hasselquist, for which he cited S. niloticus Forsskal, 1775 as a 
synonym. Cuvier did not give a date for Hasselquist's name. Hasselquist's (1757) 
work Iter palestimmi .... in which the name first appeared, was pre-Linnaean and the 
(1762) German translation has been rejected by the Commission. The names 
Cyprinus dentex and Salmo niloticus were made available by Linnaeus (1758, pp. 325 
and 312) for supposedly different species from the Nile, but they have been 
recognised as synonyms since the time of Forsskal (1775). C. dentex Linnaeus, 1758 
was based on S. dentex Hasselquist, 1757, and Valenciennes (1849) acted as first 



220 Bulletin o( Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

reviser in giving it precedence over S. niloticus Linnaeus. 1758. The type species of 
Myletes was C. dentex Linnaeus by monotypy. In 1816 Cuvier described Myleies with 
the single species C. dentex Linnaeus, and cited S. dentex Hasselquisl and S. niloticus 
Forsskil as synonyms. A specimen ofC. dentex in the Stockholm Museum, probably 
that described by Hasselquist, has been identified as the type (Fernholm & Wheeler, 
1983). 

In his original (1814) description of Myletes Cuvier referred to American species 
but did not name them. In 1818 Cuvier included four new American nominal species 
in the genus. Subsequently Myletes was treated as a South American genus and 
Jordan (1917). followed with doubt by Eschmeyer & Bailey (1990), erroneously gave 
the South American M. rhomboidalis Cuvier, 1 8 1 8 as the type species. Later Jordan 
(1920) corrected his error. 

Miiller & Troschel (1844) described the genus Alestes for two African species, the 
first being A. niloticus, with Cyprinus dentex Linnaeus, Salmo dentex Hasselquist, 
Churaciims niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Myletes liasselc/uistii Cuvier cited as 
synonyms. There was no type species until Jordan (1919) designated 'Salmo [recte 
Characimis] niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1809" as the type. As mentioned above, 
the name Salmo niloticus was made available by Linnaeus (1758, p. 312), and this was 
therefore the type species of Alestes by Jordan's designation. Proposals (2) and (3) on 
BZN 51: 38 were amended on the voting paper in this respect. As also explained 
above, the valid specific name is that of Cyprinus dentex Linnaeus, 1 758, and indeed 
Geoffroy (1809) gave this as being his Characimis niloticus. Thus Myletes and Alestes 
are formally only subjective synonyms even though based on the same taxon. 

Miiller & Troschel (1844) retained Myletes for a number of South American 
species. The usage of Alestes for African species and Myletes for South American 
taxa was followed by most authors and only a few recognised Alestes as a junior 
synonym of Myletes. 

The four South American nominal species included in Myleies by Cuvier (1818) 
have since been placed elsewhere and the name Myletes has not been used for either 
African or South American taxa for 80 years. It was proposed that it be suppressed 
to conserve the much-used Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (and the fainily name 
ALESTIDAE Hocdeman, 1951). 

The specific name of Myletes hasselquist ii, proposed b Cuvier (I8I8) as an 
unnecessary replacement for dentex as used by Hasselquist and Linnaeus, has not 
generally been used and it was proposed that it be placed on the Official Index. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 38, with the replacement of Characimis niloticus 
Geoft'roy Saint-Hilaire, 1809 by Salmo niloticus Linnaeus, 1758 in Proposals (2) and 
(3). At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock. Bouchet, Cocks. Corliss, Dupuis. Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell. Holthuis. Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride. Savage. Schuster, Stys, Thompson. Willink 

Negative votes — I: Lehtinen. 

Mahnert abstained. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 221 

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: 
Alesles Miiller & Troschel, 1844, Archiv fiir Nulurgeschichle, 10(1): 88. 
deiitex. Cyprinus. Linnaeus. 1758. Syslema Naturae. Ed. 10. vol. 1. p. 325. 
Iiassekjuisui. Myleles. Cuvier, 1818, Memoires clu Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, 4: 449. 
Myleles Cuvier, 1814, Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique de Paris. 1814: 75. 

The following is the reference for the designation o{ Salmo niloticus Linnaeus. 1758 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844: 
Jordan, D.S. 1919. The genera of fishes: part 2, p. 221. 

The following is the reference for the first reviser selection of the precedence of Cyprinus 
dente.x over Salmo niloticus, both of Linnaeus (1758): 

Valenciennes, A. 1 849. In Cuvier. G. & Valenciennes, A., Hisloire naturelle des poissons, vol. 22, 
p. 185. 



222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

OPINION 1814 

Cathai-acta antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Cat har acta 
skua lonnheygi) and Catharacta skua hamiltoni Hagen, 1952 (Aves, 
Charadriiformes): subspecific names conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the subspecific name madagascariensis Bonaparte, 
1856, as pubMshed in the trinomen Stercorarius aniarcticus madagascariensis, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) lonnbergi Mathews, 1912, as published in the trinomen Catharacta antarctica 
lonnbergi; 

(b) hamiltoni Hagen, 1952, as published in the trinomen Catharacta skua 
hamiltoni. 

(3) The name madagascariensis Bonaparte, 1856, as published in the trinomen 
Stercorarius antarcticus madagascariensis and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2816 

An application for the conservation of the subspecific name of Catharacta 
antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 was received from Drs J.-F. Voisin and C. Voisin 
(Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris, Frcmce), W.J. Bock (Columbia 
University in the City of New York. N. Y.. U.S.A.) and M. Thery (C.N.RS., U.R.A., 
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Brunoy. Paris, France) on 16 April 1991. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 50; 48-5 1 ( March 1 993 ). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment from Drs W.R.P. Bourne (Aberdeen University. Aberdeen. U.K.). P.R. 
Colston (The Natural History Museum, Tring. Hertfordshire. U.K.) & R.W. Furness 
(Glasgow University. Gla.igow, U.K.), published in BZN 50: 294-295 (December 
1993), supported the suppression of the subspecific name of Stercorarius antarcticus 
madagascariensis Bonaparte, 1856 but identified the holotype of madagascariensis as 
probably Catharacta skua hamiltoni Hagen, 1952 (p. 135); they proposed (BZN 50: 
295) that the name hamiltoni should also be placed on the Official List. In a reply, 
published in BZN 51: 52-53 (March 1994), the authors of the application agreed to 
this proposal. The additional proposal was included on the voting paper. 

It was noted on the voting paper that Catharacta skua hamiltoni was fully described 
and documented by Hagen (1952, pp. 135-145). Nine specimens were collected from 
the islands of Tristan da Cunha, Nightingale and Inaccessible and deposited in the 
Zoological Museum of Oslo. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 50 and 295. At the close of the voting period on 
I December 1994 the votes were as follows: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 223 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part). Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell (part), Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Cogger and Lehtinen. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Ueno. 

Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Cogger commented that he would have preferred to give lonnbergi or hamiltoni 
precedence over madagascariensis, rather than suppressing the last name. Bouchet 
abstained on the additional proposal to place C. s. hamiltoni on the Official List. 
Heppell commented: 'I vote for the application but as I see no reason to seek the 
addition of hamiltoni to the Official List, I am voting against that additional 
proposal". 

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: 
hamihoni. Catharacta skua. Hagen, 1952, Results of the Norwegian Scientific Expedition to 

Tristan da Cunha 1937-1938, 20: 135. 
lonnbergi, Catharacta antarctica, Mathews, 1912, Novilates Zoologicae, 18(3): 212. 
madagascariensis, Stercorarius antarcticus, Bonaparte. 1856. Conspectus generum avium, vol. 2, 
p. 207. 



224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2) June 1995 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the 
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with 
these guidelines may be returned. 

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the 
Code's provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this 
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are 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. 

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. Where possible, ten or more 
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are 
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should 
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable 
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, 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 IBM PC compatible format, 
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission's Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 



Contents — continued 

On the proposal to remove the homonyiny between brachypterinae Erichson, 
[1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, 
Plecoptera), and proposed precedence of kateretidae Ganglbauer, 1899 over 
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]. P.A. Audisio; A.F. Newton 179 

On the proposed conservation of Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 and Borophaga 

Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera). R.H.L. Disney; B.V. Brown 181 

On the proposed conservation of Hydromanles Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by 
the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type 
species. A. Dubois 183 

On the proposed conservation of Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, 

Serpentes). H. Ota; R.A. Nussbaum; E.V. Malnate; E.L. Bell ef a/ 186 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published 
in Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale. MR. Dawson; K. Seaman; JR. Moreira; 
A.W. Gentry; E.R. Justo; V. Fahlbusch, K. Heissig, H. Mayr & G. Rossner; 
P.J. Boylan; D. Kock; P. Mein, M. Hugueney, C. Guerin & R. Ballesio .... 187 

On the proposed conservation of Loris E, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, 

Primates). R.H. Crompton 193 

Rulings of the Conunission 

OPINION 1803. RobuUna nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently Lenliculina nodosa; 

Foraminiferida); neotype confirmed as the name-bearing type 194 

OPINION 1804. Crislellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (currently Aslacolus humilis; 
Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype, and Rotalia schloen- 
bachi (currently Noloplanulinal schloenbachi; Foraminiferida): placed on the 
Official List 196 

OPINION 1805. Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora) 
and Doridopsis guttata Odhner, 1917 (currently Dendrodoris guttata) (MoUusca, 
Gastropoda): specific names conserved 198 

OPINION 1806. Ammonites nodosus (currently Ceratiles nodosus; Cephalopoda, 
Ammonoidea): specific name attributed to Schlotheira, 1813, and a lectotype 
designated 200 

OPINION 1807. Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta): conserved . 204 

OPINION 1808. Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis 
Froggatt, 1898 (currently Amitermes meridionalis) (Insecta, Isoptera): neotypes 
retained following rediscovery of syntypes 206 

OPINION 1809. Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris 

Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 208 

OPINION 1810. Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rliizophagus 
Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as the 
correct original spellings, and Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 ruled to be the 
type species of i?/»ro;)/ia^ui 211 

OPINION 1811. coLYDiiDAE Erichson, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence 
over CERYLONiDAE Billberg, 1820 and orthocerini Blanchard, 1845 (1820); and 
Cerylon Latreille, 1802: Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 designated as the type 
species 214 

OPINION 1812. ELMiDAE Curtis, 1830 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as the correct 

original spelling, and the gender o( Elmis Latreille, 1802 ruled to be feminine. . 217 

OPINION 1813. Alestes Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): 

conserved 219 

OPINION 1814. Catbaracta antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently 
Catharacta skua lonnbergi) and Catbaracta skua hamiltoni Hagen, 1952 (Aves, 
Charadriiformes): subspecific names conserved 222 

Information and Instructions for Authors 224 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 117 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature 118 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 119 

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

1990 119 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 120 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 120 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 120 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature 121 

General Articles 

Comment on Towards a harmonized bionomenclalure for life on Earth (Hawksworth 

era/., 1994), A.E. Bogan & E.E. Spamer ,. 126 

On the nomenclature of domestic animals. C. P. Groves 137 

Applications 

Poriles Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia 

Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia): proposed conservation. DC. Potts . . 142 

Tropidopiera Ancey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of 

Endodonla wesleyi Sykes, 1896 as the type species. N.L. Evenhuis & R.H. Cowie. 148 

PLUTONiiNAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and plutoniinae Cockerell, 
1893 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed removal of homonymy. R.M. Shelley & 
T. Backeljau 150 

Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of both 

the generic and specific names. P.T. Lehtinen, S. Taiti & F. Ferrara 153 

Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of 

Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 as the type species. D.B. Baker. 157 

Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, Hymen- 
optera): proposed conservation of the specific names. W.E. LaBerge 159 

Rliabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa): proposed designation of 
RJiahdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 as the type species. P.N. 
Wyse Jackson & A.J. Bancroft 162 

Neetria Gray, 1840 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): proposed designation of Nectria 

ocellata Perrier, 1875 as the type species. W. Zeidler 164 

Phyllophis carinata Giinther, 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata: Reptilia, Serpentes): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, H. Ota & V. Wallach . 166 

Aptornis Owen, [1848] (Aves): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. 

E. Weber & F.-T Krell 170 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation oi Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foramin- 

iferida). J.R. Haynes; S.A. Revets 175 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Soos, 1926 

(Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky 176 

On the proposed designation of Scotlia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type 

species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). H.J. Oertli; 

C. Meisch; I.G. Sohn 178 

On the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda) as the 

correct original spelling. G. Bello; R.Y. George 178 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Pnnted in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd.. at the Dorset Press. Dorchester, Dorset 



Volume 52, Part 3, 28 September 1995 pp. 225-288 ISSN 0007-5167 



The 



THE NATURAL 
HISTORY MUSEUM 

-6 (ill 1995 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



IGZjjH JThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

The Bulletin is published four times a year tor the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1995 is £88 
or $170, postage included; the rate for 1996 will be £92 or $175. 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. 0171-938 9387) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Officers 

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



President 
Vice-President 

Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Members 

Dr F. M. ^ayer (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) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corhss (USA.: Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany: Trilnhiia) 
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) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

(Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.: Lepidoptera) 
Prof W. D. L. Kide(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 (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 
Dr P. C. Thompson (U.S.A.: Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

(Russia: Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno (Japan: Entomology) 



Secretarial 

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 1995 



HIST0ii^^/1USEU^ 


-6 CiU 1995 


PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGYLIBRAR 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 52, part 3 (pp. 225-288) 28 September 1995 



Notices 

(a) Imitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- 
cation 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 52, part 2 (published on 30 June 1995). Under Article 
80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission 
is published. 

(1) Holotrepis herminieri Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 (currently Leiocephalus 
herminieri; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of the specific name. 
(Case 2976). H.M. Smith & E.L. Bell. 

(2) Area pectimculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippicma Nyst, 1848 (Mollusca, 
Bivalvia): proposed conservation of usage. (Case 1911). C. Salas & S. Gofas. 

(3) Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 and Kirchenpaueria Jickeli, 1883 (Cnidaria, 
Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Sertularia 
setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species oi Plumularia. (Case 2978). D.R. 
Calder & P.F.S. Cornelius. 

(4) Gryllus in.subricus Scopoli, 1786 and G. patruelis Herrich-Schaeffer (currently 
Acrotylus insuhricus and A. patruelis; Insecta, Orthoptera); proposed conser- 
vation of usage of the specific names. (Case 2979). M. La Greca. 

(5) Procoptodon Owen, 1874 (Mammalia. Marsupialia): proposed conservation 
of the generic name and the specific names of P. rapha Owen. 1874 and 
P. pusio Owen, 1874. (Case 2980). AC. Davis & W.D.L. Ride. 

(6) Fringilki hispaniolensis Temminck, 1820 (currently Passer hispaniolensis or 
P. domesticus hispaniolensis; Aves, Passeriformes): proposed precedence of 
the specific name over that of F. italiae Vieillot, 1817. (Case 2982). W.J. Bock 
& J. Haffer. 



226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

(7) ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick. 1873 and AcliatineUastrum Pfeiffer. 1854 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2983). R.H. Cowie & N.L. 
Evenhuis. 

(8) Monogniptus riccartoneiisis Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina): proposed 
designation of a neotype, (Case 2984). D.K. Loydell. 

(9) Mynnecaehmis fedtschenkoi McLachlan, 1875 (currently Lopezus fedt- 
schenkoi; Insecta. Neuroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. 
(Case 2985). V.A. Krivokhatsky. 

(10) Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of Tipula 
sisymbrii Schrank, 1803 as the type species. (Case 2986). R.J. Gagne, K.M. 
Harris, M. Skuhrava, M. Solinas & E. Sylven. 

(11) Bdemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836 (Mollusca, Cephalo- 
poda): proposed suppression. (Case 2987). T. Engeser & D.T. Donovan. 

(12) Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 and Chrysis purpiirata Fabricius, 1787 (currently 
E. purpuratiis: Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage. (Case 
2988). M. Pavesi & F. Strumia. 

(13) Galatheascus striatus Boschma, 1929 (Crustacea, Rhizocephala): proposed 
confirmation of holotype as name-bearing type. (Case 2989). L.B. Holthuis. 

(14) Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation. 
(Case 2900). G. Fryer. 

(15) Parapronoe crushdwn Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed 
conservation of the specific name. (Case 2992). W. Zeidler. 

(d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin con- 
stitutes 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. 



Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on 18 
September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of 
nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published 
entitled 'Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the Intertiational 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995' (ISBN 85301 005 6). It is 
104 pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent 
zoologists who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal 
nomenclature as universally accepted today. The book contains a list of all the 
Commissioners from 1895 to the present. The main text was written by R.V. Melville 
(former Secretary of the Commission) and has been completed and updated 
following his death. 

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.Z.N. , c/o NHB Stop 163. National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington. D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £30 or $50 
(including surface postage); members of the American and European Associations 
for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £20 or $35. Payment 
should accompany orders. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 227 

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.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National 
Museum ofNatural 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. 



The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established 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. Andre (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, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 
28006 Madrid, Spain. 



Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoolgical Nomenclature 

A discussion Draft of a new (fourth) edition of the Code is now available. Copies 
are being sent without charge to all subscribers to the Bulletin and to members of 
the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature. Any other 
institution or individual may order a copy from the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., 
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD. The 
cost of printing and postage is about £3 or US$5. Bank charges on currency 
exchange make it uneconomic to pay this amount except in sterling or US dollars. 
The draft of the Code will therefore be sent free of charge, but those able to pay 
in sterling or US dollars are asked to enclose a cheque for £3 or US$5 to cover the 
cost. 

Before completing the definitive text of the Fourth Edition, the Commission 
will (in accordance with Article 16 of its Constitution) take into account all 
comments and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original 
distribution. 



228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature 

Comment on endings of species-group epithets (Articles 31, 32 and 48) 

W.D.L. Ride (Chairman of the Editorial Committee for the 4th Edition) 

DepailDieiit of Geology, Australian National University. GPO Box 4, 
Canberra. ACT 2601, Australia 

Introduction 

This comment is made to help zoologists to understand more clearly, the options 
open to the Commission and the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the 
International Union of Biological Sciences when they come to review the drafts of 
Articles 31 (Endings of species-group epithets), 32 (Original spellings), and 48 
(Change of generic assignment) for the 4th Edition. Zoologists are urged to provide 
written comments on the options that the Commission and the Section can take into 
account at that time 

There is need for balanced input from zoologists so that options may be reviewed 
on the basis of wide informed opinion. Two of these are given in the Discussion Draft 
(Articles 31b(ii), 32c and 48). The issue arises as a consequence of the decision of the 
Commission that the Editorial Committee was to provide in the Discussion Draft 
that the mandatory changes in spelling to maintain agreement between the parts of 
a binomen or trinomen would no longer be required when changes in generic 
combination are made. 

The example presented in the Discussion Draft to illustrate the matter is that of 
Psittacus chrysostomus Kuhl, 1820. When transferred to Neophema Salvadori, 1891, 
under the current Code (Articles 31b, 34b) a mandatory change in spelling to 
Neopliema clirystostoma is required to maintain agreement in gender between the 
parts of the name. The latter combination (and spelling) resulting from the 
mandatory change has been in universal use for a considerable period. 

Options 

There are four principal options open for the treatment of already available 
adjectival or participial species-group epithets of which the spelling has been changed 
to meet the requirements of the current Articles 31 and 34, as in the example given. 
Variants of several of these four are also possible. The further possibility that all 
generic names might be deemed to have a common gender and that epithets be 
brought into agreement with that is not included. The principal options are: 

I. To maintain the most common current spelling in use. Advantage: This would 
cause least upset to spellings in the existing literature (especially the non-taxonomic 
literature); it would not require the original literature to be consulted to ascertain the 
original ending (the original literature would still be consulted to confirm other 
aspects of spelling, date of publication, etc.). Disadvantage: The solution does not 
provide for names which have no completely stable generic association; many 
(possibly most) names are not in common use but have various generic allocations in 
the specialist literature and in such cases of no common use, a decision by users 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 229 

would have to be made whether, of those uses, the most recent use would apply; 
disputation is likely to arise in the case of some names as to which of several is in 
'most common use'; with the adoption of parts of the proposed List of Axailahle and 
Potentially Valid Names (see Articles 77 and 78 in the Discussion Draft) the spellings 
of such names would differ from those in the List, which will record the original 
spellings. 

2. To maintain the most common current spelling in use so long as the current 
generic allocation remains unchanged. Advantage: As in 1 above, but when a 
taxonomic change in genera results in a new form of the name becoming intro- 
duced into the non-taxonomic literature, opportunity would be taken to complete 
the change to the original spelling. Disadvantage: The same as the first three 
disadvantages given in 1 above. 

3. To adopt the first reviser principle, namely that the first spelling used after the 
adoption of the 4th Edition would become invariable. Advantage: The rule would 
be clear-cut and is widely applied in nomenclature in lectotype selection, etc. 
Disadvantage: Instability of spelling would prevail until all usages had been 
ascertained in all literature published after the new edition and the first had been 
adopted. 

4. To revert to the original spelling. Advantage: The provision would be applied in 
the same manner as that of confirming spellings, places of publication, date, etc.; 
there would be no doubt as to the correct spelling of any name. Disadvantage: 
Endings of many names in common use would be changed. 

Cotnment 

In the Discussion Draft, in this matter alone, the Editorial Committee thought it 
useful to present drafts of tv/o options for consideration (Options 2 and 4 above). 

The zoological community is asked to consider the matter carefully and assist the 
Commission with factual statements in support of a preferred outcome based on 
names in use in their own fields. 

When preparing the Discussion Draft the Editorial Committee was exposed to 
strongly expressed opinions which caused it to draft the options which have been 
circulated. A decision must be made to adopt an outcome in the eventual Code that 
will result in stable and universally accepted spellings. It is hoped that zoologists will 
comment in such a way as to lead the Commission to adopt a solution that is easy to 
apply, is productive of least uncertainty for future users of names, and is least 
upsetting in the longer term. 



Comment on availability of new names and need for ratification in the 
Zoological Record (Article lib) 

R.W. Crosskey 

The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

I. By far the most perturbing aspect of the new draft Code is the proposal (Article 
1 lb) that the availabihty of new animal names must be ratified by their appearance 



230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

as such in the Zoological Record {ZR) within five years of their first pubHcation. 
Prima facie this might seem an attractive idea to some zoologists because of the latent 
possibility of it leading to a register of names — ones we are allowed to use in 
taxonomy as distinct from those we can forget all about. It is essential, however, that 
we differentiate between what might be taxonomically desirable and what is 
nomenclaturally ill-advised. In my view the proposal contained in Article lib is 
unwise, impractical and potentially damaging to the future stability of names. 

2. It is suggested in the draft that names first published after 1996 will be available 
(subject to the usual availability criteria) from their first publication but will lose this 
status — and therefore become unusable as valid names — if unrecorded {as new 
names) in ZR within the next five years, after which they will be deemed not to be 
available from the original publication. 

3. This notion introduces into animal taxonomy two principles that have 
not existed previously but which are implicit in the new draft Code: secondary 
responsibility and temporary availability. 

(a) Secondary responsibility. By this I mean the shifting onto the shoulders of the 
indexers/recorders for ZR the responsibility for whether new names shall ultimately 
live or die. Hitherto the author of a new name has been responsible for its availability, 
for ensuring that it satisfies the applicable criteria. That is as it should be: the author 
is the zoologist making the scientific judgement (right or wrong) that a new name is 
required for a supposedly new taxon. There are many reasons why a new name might 
fail to be recorded in ZR — it might, for example, be missed because it appeared in 
a very obscure work or an unmonitored journal or there might simply be an 
inadvertent oversight during the scanning of an article — yet this bibliographic 
database will (under the draft Article lib) become implicitly blameworthy whenever 
a name has to be deprived of its availability under the five-year provision. It is 
inappropriate that ZR recorders, who cannot have knowledge of a taxon represented 
by a particular name, should become the unwitting arbiters of its nomenclatural fate 
and its taxonomic usability. Such matters should remain, as now, the responsibility 
of research zoologists (the primary community), aided if necessary by the 
Commission. 

(b) Temporary availability. It is hard to see how this new concept can contribute 
to the stability of names and their authorship and dating. Consider, for example, the 
name of a new species of parasite, pest or disease vector. The literature can quickly 
burgeon for such a name, say for one born in a biomedical journal outside the 
monitoring scope of ZR and unlikely to be conventionally captured for the ZR 
database. Are we to abandon the use of such an important name on the technicality 
that it had failed to appear in ZR within the five-year time frame? And if we do, what 
then? A Commission case to validate it? The proposal of yet another name? The 
bringing into use of some little known later-proposed name that is a synonym but is 
available because recorded in ZR within its own five-year time frame? The Article 1 lb 
proposal not only carries with it much potential for instability and more work by the 
Commission to sort out 'temporary availability' problems but also implies a future 
heavier burden on the conscientious cataloguer. Names do not simply go away. We 
can safely predict that more annotation will be needed than in the past. For example, 
to explain a situation we might need an entry such as "albiis Bloggs, 1999 (Xus) ... 
[AvailabiUty accepted, five-year Zoological Record ratification period unexpired]', or 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 231 

'albii.s Bloggs, 1999: ratified Zoological Record, 2004 ...]'. or 'albus Bloggs, 1999 (Xus) 
... [Unavailable under Article 1 lb, not recorded in Zoological Record before 2005]'. 
On every ground, the concept of temporary availability subject to ZR ratification is 
unwise. 

4. Practicalities. The Article lib and its Recommendations prompt many practical 
questions bearing on the viability of the proposal, for example: 

(a) Can the date for a new name in the original publication and for its recording 
in ZR be determined with sufficient accuracy? 

Answer: almost certainly not. 

Day-dating of both will be essential: a name first published on 29 November 1998 
will become permanently available if recorded on 28 November 2003 but not on 30 
November 2003. 

(b) What does 'recorded as such in the Zoological Record' mean? 
Answer: unexplained and uncertain. 

ZR can be searched in three formats: conventional printed copy, as compact disc 
and electronically online. The print version is issued annually in December and 
distributed by its publisher (Biological Abstracts Inc.) from Philadelphia, reaching 
most library shelves the following February-April, but the electronic database from 
which it derives is updated at intervals through the previous year. Which medium 
does the Editorial Committee have in mind? A zoologist searching online would find 
a new name recorded earlier than a zoologist dependent on the print version. There 
would probably be situations where the same name is recorded on the searchable 
electronic database within the five years but not issued in the printed ZR until after 
five years. 

(c) Is it realistic to expect ZR to find all new names from all sources? 
Answer: no. 

No biological database is ever 100% comprehensive within its scope. ZR achieves 
miracles but does not, and cannot realistically be expected to, find every new animal 
name. Notwithstanding the proposed Recommendation llA (advising that authors 
should draw the attention of ZR to any new name published), the finding and 
recording of new names in ZR is bound to remain primarily dependent on its own 
search procedures. These involve monitoring a portfolio of (currently) some 6500 
periodicals and rely on the continuing accessibility of these periodicals. The number 
of periodicals that ideally should be scanned is growing as taxonomy moves further 
from its morphological base and as more countries start new journals in relevant 
fields (the biomedical and molecular fields, for example), while financial constraints 
affect libraries everywhere — to such an extent that even the periodicals base at the 
British Library (the main document source for ZR database production) has begun 
to shrink. Most taxonomists have had the experience of finding overlooked names in 
works that were for a long time unknown to them. To expect ZR to unearth every 
new name in every publication is quite unreahstic. 

(d) Should the Code favour those with ready access to ZRl 
Answer: no. 

An extension of the ZR user and subscriber base is highly desirable but the 
continuing reality is likely to be that (say) an isolated worker studying bloodsucking 
arthropods in a provincial academy in China is much less likely to have ZR access 
than somebody studying such organisms in a research institute or museum in Europe 



232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

or North America. If permanent availability becomes Z7?-dependent, low-level 
awareness of or access to this database in the presently less developed world 
will contribute to instability. Workers in such areas are likely to persist with 
the nomenclature known to them locally regardless of anything the Code might 
require. 

5. Conclusion. In the light of the comments here made I am against the course of 
action proposed in draft Article 1 lb concerning the availability of new names and 
hope that other zoologists will join with me in urging the Editorial Committee to 
think again on this very important issue. 

Comment on gender of genus-group names and on species-group 
epithets (Articles 30 and 31) 

Z. Kabata 

Canada Department of Fisheries and Oeeans, Pacific Biological Station, 

Nanainw. B.C.. V9R 5K6. Canada 

I would like to register my strong objections to the introduction of linguistic laxity 
into the draft Code. We all know that modern education does not produce classical 
scholars. I myself have only smatterings of Latin and no Greek at all, yet I have never 
had any difficulties with forming new binomina — and I have published more than 
a hundred of them. Those who have no knowledge of classical languages can easily 
consult one of the many source books that provide instructions on name formation 
(as I write I have in front of me an excellent compendium that would enable anybody 
to form a correct binomen: R.W. Brown (1991). Composition of Scientific Words, 
Smithsonian Publications). The proposals do not abolish Latin and Greek, they only 
bastardise them and lower the standards. People will have to continue to use classical 
languages, but they will simply be free to use them incorrectly. Systematics is a 
discipline on the defensive these days as a supposedly obsolete branch of science 
('surely all this was done in the 19th century?"). Lower standards will have further 
unfavourable impact on its standing in the scientific corrununity and in the eyes of 
those who decide on apportioning support. 

"Castrating' genera (Article 30) is a retrograde step. The proposal (Article 31) that 
specific names should be returned to their original gender form, even if grammatically 
incorrect, is absurd. Talk about instability! The suggestion that corrected endings 
should be retained in cases of 'existing usage" is vague and leaves the door open to all 
kinds of difficulties. 

Comment on need for stability in names (Article 79c) 

Hobart M. Smith 

EPO Biology. University of Colorado. Boulder. Colorado 80309-0334. 

U.S.A. 

It seems to me that the strong case for stability made in the covering explana- 
tory notes by Kraus & Ride is not adequately conveyed by the present form of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 233 

Article 79c in the Discussion Draft. I suggest that a Subsection (vii) be added 
paraphrasing the third paragraph of those explanatory notes, perhaps more or less as 
follows: 

'Stability in name application and form, consistent with taxonomy, is of 
paramount importance irrespective of any priority or linguistic consideration. 
Stability must take precedence over priority and linguistics, neither of which 
is an end in itself No scientific purpose is served by changing names for 
purely formal reasons, if doing so causes significant confusion in any bio- 
logical context (whether specialist or non-specialist). The present Article is 
intended to ensure that names in present use remain valid, or can easily be 
validated.' 
The Preamble has not been included in the Discussion Draft, but I do think 
a clarification of the Code's role in biology should be in the eventual text, noting 
the importance of nomenclatural stability in the context of non-taxonomic as 
well as taxonomic literature. Taxonomists are the guardians of biological nomen- 
clature for the benefit not only of themselves, but far more importantly for the 
common man and the numerous biologists of other disciplines whatever those may 
be: ecology, conservation, genetics, evolution, education, medicine, organismic. cell 
or molecular biology, etc. Educated non-taxonomists depend on taxonomists to 
ensure stability of nomenclature, insofar as it is consistent with advancing knowl- 
edge, and to keep that stability immune from changes for purely nomenclatural 
reasons which will not be understood by non-specialists. Failure of taxonomists to 
serve that function in good faith undermines their value to, and endangers the trust 
and respect of, their fellow non-specialists on whom the effectiveness of the Code 
depends. 

Comment on languages of the Code (Article 85) 

F.C. Thompson 

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USD A, do U.S. National Museum, 
Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

The only proper way to address the issue of 'official' languages of the Code (see 
Article 85 of the Discussion Draft) is to have none! Why should English and French 
be the only languages? Spanish and German are now more widely used than French, 
and English is far from being the most widely used language. So, for expediency and 
neutrality. Article 85 should be modified as follows to reflect reality. 

Article 85. Languages of the Code. — The Commission may authorize the 
publication of the Code in any language and under such conditions as it may 
decide. All such authorized texts are official and are equivalent in force, 
meaning and authority. If it appears that there is a difference in meaning 
between official texts, the problem is to be referred to the Commission, whose 
interpretation shall be final. 



234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Case 2947 

Patella longicosta Lamarck, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

D.G. Herbert 

Natal Museum. P. Bag 9070, Pietermaritzbwg. KwaZulu-Natal. 3200, 

South Africa 

Abstract. The purpose of this appUcation is to conserve the well established specific 
name of the South African limpet currently known as Patella longicosta Lamarck, 
1819, which is threatened by the unused senior synonym Patella digitata Fischer von 
Waldheim. 1807. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; limpets; Patella: South Africa. 



1. In the third volume of his catalogue of the 'Museum-Demidoff Fischer von 
Waldheim ( 1 807) described more than a hundred new molluscan taxa. These were not 
illustrated and the majority of the names have not been used by subsequent authors. 

2. Ivanov, Kantor, Sysoev & Egorov (1993) recently published a paper detailing the 
subsequent history of the DemidofiT collections and discussed and figured the types 
extant in the collections of the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University. 

3. Ivanov et al. made some suggestions regarding the status of a number of these 
names and their relationships to other described taxa. In several instances the 
Demidoff material is clearly referable to species known from South Africa (confirmed 
by examination of the type specimens). In the case of one patellid limpet, the Fischer 
name pre-dates the currently used name for the species. 

4. In this instance Patella digitata Fischer von Waldheim. 1807 (p. 115) appears 
not to have been used since its original publication whilst the junior synonym. Patella 
longicosta Lamarck, 1819 (p. 326), has been utilised extensively in both the scientific 
and popular literature pertaining to the southern African marine fauna (e.g. Barnard, 
1951, p. 126; Branch, 1984, p. 62; 1985a, p. 109; 1985b, p. 210; Branch & Griffiths, 
1988. p. 410; Christiaens, 1973. p. 1349; Day. 1969. p. 156; Jamieson, Hodgson & 
Bernard, 1991, p. 138; Kennelly, 1969, p. 59; Kensley, 1973, p. 20; Kilburn & Rippey, 
1982, p. 38; Koch, 1949, p. 504; Powell, 1973, p. 125; Richards, 1981, p. 30). The 
extent of usage of P. longicosta meets the prima facie criteria for conservation set out 
in Article 79c of the Code, and the existence of the Fischer von Waldheim name 
clearly threatens the stability of long established nomenclature. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name digitata Fischer von 
Waldheim, 1807, as published in the binomen Patella digitata, 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 longicosta 
Lamarck, 1819, as published in the binomen Patella longicosta; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 235 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name digitata Fischer von Waldheim, 1807, as published in the 
binomen Patella digitata and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above. 

References 

Barnard, K.H. 1951. A beginner's guide to South African shells. 215 pp. Maskew Miller, Cape 

Town. 
Branch, G.M. 1984. Changes in the intertidal and shallow-water communities of the south and 

west coasts of South Africa during the 1982/1983 temperature anomaly. South African 

Journal of Science. 80: 61-65. 
Branch, G.M. 1985a. Limpets: their role in littoral and suWittoral community dynamics. Pp. 

97-116 in Moore. P.G. & Seed, R. (Eds.). The ecology of rocky coasts. Hodder & 

Stoughton Educational. London. 
Branch, G.M. 1985b. Limpets: evolution and adaptation. Pp. 187-220 in Trueman, E.R. & 

Clarke, M.R. (Eds.). The Mollusca. vol. 10. Academic Press, Orlando. 
Branch, G.M. & Griffiths, C.L. 1988. The Benguela ecosystem. Part V. The coastal zone. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review. 26: 395—486. 
Christiaens, J. 1973. Revision du genre Patella (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Bulletin du Museum 

National d'Histoire Nalurelle. Paris, (3: Zoologie), 121: 1305-1392. 
Day, J.H. 1969. A guide to marine life on South African shores. Balkema. Cape Town. 
Fischer von Waldheim, G. 1807. Museum-Demidof]' mis en ordre systematique et decrii. vol. 3. 

Vegetaux et animeaux. ix, 330 pp., 6 pis. Moscow. 
Ivanov, D.L., Kantor, Y.L, Sysoev, A.V. & Egorov, R.V. 1993. Type specimens of molluscs 

described by G. Fischer von Waldheim in 1807. Apex. 8(3): 71-94. 
Jamieson, B.G.M., Hodgson, A.N. & Bernard, R.T.F. 1991. Phylogenetic trends and variation 

in the ultrastructure of the spermatozoa of sympatric species of South African patellid 

limpets (Archaeogastropoda, Mollusca). Invertebrate Reproduction and Development. 

20(2): 137-146. 
Kennelly, D.H. 1969. Murine shells ofsoulheni Africa. 123 pp., 46 pis. Books of Africa, Cape 

Town. 
Kensley, B. 1973. Sea-shells of southern Africa. Gastropods. 225 pp., index. Maskew Miller, 

Cape Town. 
Kilburn, R.N. & Rippey, E. 1982. Sea shells of southern Africa. 249 pp., 46 pis. Macmillan, 

Johannesburg. 
Koch, H.J. 1949. A review of the South African representatives of the genus Patella Linnaeus. 

Annals of the Natal Museum. 11(3): 487-517. 
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. Patelle. Patella. Pp. 321-335 in: Hisloire nalurelle des animau.x 

sans vertebres. vol. 6, part 1. 345 pp. Author, Paris. 
Powell, A.W.B. 1973. The patellid limpets of the world (Patellidae). Indo-Pacific Mollusca. 

3(151:75-206. 
Richards, D. 1981. South African shells — a collector's guide. 98 pp., 60 pis. Struik, Cape Town. 



236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Case 2909 

Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda): proposed conservation; 
Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed 
conservation of the specific name; and Armadillo Latreille, 1802 
(Crustacea, Isopoda): application for a ruling on its status 

Pekka T. Lehtinen 

Zoological Museum, University of Turku, 20500 Turku. Finland 

Lipke B. Holthuis 

Nationaal Natuwhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, 

Tlie Netherlands 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Glomeris 
Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda, family glomeridae Brandt, 1833) and the specific name 
of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Isopoda, family armadillidiidae Brandt, 1833). 
The specific name of Armadillo vulgaris has long been treated as valid for the type 
species of Armadillidium Brandt, [1831] but it is threatened by the unused senior 
subjective synonyms Oniscus armadillo Linnaeus, 1758, O. cinereus Ztnkex in Panzer, 
1 799 and O. variegalus Villers, 1 789; it is proposed that these names be suppressed. 
The name Glomeris is threatened by the senior synonym Armadillo Cuvier, 1792 
which has been unused as a valid name for nearly 200 years; suppression of the latter 
is proposed. Armadillo Cuvier also threatens Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Isopoda, 
family armadillidae Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831]) as a senior homonym. 
Although formally invalid the name Armadillo Latreille is still in use and it is 
proposed that the Commission be asked to rule as to whether it be conserved or be 
replaced by the synonym Pentlieus C.L. Koch, [1841]. Glomeris refers to a genus of 
conglobating millipedes found in Europe, North Africa and western Asia. Armadillo 
Latreille, 1802 represents a genus of Mediterranean conglobating woodlice. Arma- 
dillidium refers to a genus of more than 200 species of conglobating woodlice of 
central and southern Europe; A. vulgare is cosmopolitan through introductions. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diplopoda: Isopoda; millipedes; woodlice; 
Glomeris; Armadillo; Penlheus; Armadillidium vulgare; Europe; North Africa; western 
Asia. 



1 . This application seeks to conserve both generic and specific names for conglo- 
bating millipedes and woodlice. The form in which the proposal is presented is rather 
unusual since it is submitted by two authors who advocate different solutions to one 
nomenclatural problem discussed in it. Both authors are agreed on the desirability of 
conserving the generic name Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda, family glomeridae 
Brandt, 1833) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Isopoda, 
family armadillidiidae Brandt, 1833) and the first part of the application is 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 237 

submitted jointly. As a junior homonym of the unused Anmidillo Cuvier, 1792 
(Diplopoda) the much-used name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Isopoda, family arma- 
DiLLiDAE Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831]) is formally invalid. One of us (P.T. 
Lehtinen) favours adoption of the junior subjective synonym Pentheus C.L. Koch, 
[1841], rather than Armadillo Latreille, and in the second part of the application (para. 
12) this is discussed, with a proposal to place Koch's name on the Official List. In 
the third part of the application the second author of us (L.B. Holthuis) proposes 
(para. 14) that the current usage of Armadillo Latreille should be maintained. The 
Commission will be asked to vote to accept one of the alternate sets of proposals. 

Part 1 (by P.T. Lehtinen and L.B. Holthuis) 

2. The name ArmadiUidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] was placed on 
the Official List in Opinion 104 (September 1928); 'vulgare Lat[reille], 1804, p. 47, 
armadillo Linn[aeus], 1758, p. 637" was cited as the type species. In 1957 Francis 
Hemming (then Secretary to the Commission) undertook a revision of pre- 1936 
entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology prior to its (1958) publication 
in book form. One of us (L.B. Holthuis, in litt. to Hemming, October 1957) pointed 
out that the specific name of Oniscus armadillo Linnaeus, 1758 was composite and 
mainly referred not to an isopod but to a millipede, and that the name was unused 
in both groups. He also noted that, although Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 
was generally cited for the valid specific name of the type species of ArmadiUidium, 
there were a number of unused earlier synonyms. In 1958 {Official List. pp. xxxiii, 
180) ArmadiUidium was withdrawn from the Official List for 'further examination and 
study". There has been no further action until now. 

3. Brandt (in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831], p. 81) described the genus ArmadiUid- 
ium. Authorship of the taxon has been ascribed to 'Brandt & Ratzeburg" but Brandt 
is clearly cited in this work (p. 71, footnote, p. 81) and in Brandt (1833) as the author 
of the new genera and species and at least the higher categories 'Oniscineae' and 
'Armadillina"; Sherborn (1922, p. xxix) set out the dates of publication of the parts 
of the work. The new nominal species ArmadiUidium commutatum (pi. 13, 
figs. 1-3), A. depressum (pi. 13, figs. 4-6; misspelt as 'compressum' on p. 81), 
A. granidatum, A. pictum and A. pulchellum were included. Of these, granulatum, 
pictum and pulchellum were nomina nuda and were not described until two years later 
(Brandt, 1833, pp. 185, 186, 188). Included in the synonymy oi commutatum were two 
previously established nominal species, Oniscus variegatus Villers, 1789 (p. 188) and 
(partially and uncertainly) Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 1816 (p. 117; misspelt by 
Brandt as 'ojficinarum'). Fowler (1912, p. 225) designated ArmadiUidium commutatum 
Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] as the type species. 

4. The name Armadillidiimi commutatum Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] 
has long been treated as a junior subjective synonym of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 
1804 (p. 48) (see Vandel, 1962, p. 827). The specific name vulgaris was listed under 
Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (see para. 8 below) by Leach (1815, p. 376), Dumeril (1816, 
p. 116), Desmarest (1825, p. 323) and most specialists in the first part of the 19th 
century (Risso, Say, Billberg, C.L. Koch, Samouelle, White and Schnitzler) and 
by Bate & Westwood ([1868], p. 491) and Miers ([1878]). It was included in 
ArmadiUidium by Milne-Edwards (1840, p. 184) and since Apstein (1915, p. 145) 
vulgare has been cited as the valid specific name of the type species of that genus. 



238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

5. Linnaeus (1758) placed all isopods in a single genus, 0?iiscus. As noted in para. 
2 above, the name O. armadillo Linnaeus. 1758 (p. 637) has caused much confusion. 
Linnaeus's description of the species and his comment "Pedes plures quam quatuor- 
decim' refer not to an isopod but to a conglobating millipede. The references given 
by Linnaeus to his own works OUmdska och Gothlandska Resa (1745, p. 298) and 
Fauna Suecica (1746. p. 360, no. 1256) show the species to be most probably the 
common diplopod millipede currently known as Glomeris marginata (Villers, 1789). 
The third of Linnaeus's references was to Ray's (1710. p. 42) 'Asellus lividus major", 
which undoubtedly refers to the isopod Armadillidium vulgare (see Budde-Lund, 
1885, p. 67). Furthermore, a specimen labelled 'Oniscus armadillo' is present in the 
Linnean collection and is an example of A. vulgare (Latreille, 1804). Thus, the name 
Oniscus armadillo is composite; as used by Poda (1761, p. 126) and Scopoli (1763, 
p. 415) it referred to any one of a number of glomerid millipedes. Arcangeli (1932a, 
p. 124) attempted a specific identification. Latreille"s (1802, p. 43) use of armadillo 
referred to an isopod (see para. 9 below). The specific name has not been applied to 
any new material since Latreille (1804) and has not been used for 190 years for either 
a glomerid or an isopod (see Vandel. 1962, p. 769). For the sake of stability in the 
nomenclature of both groups we propose that it be suppressed. 

6. Desmarest (1825, p. 323) recorded that the name Oiuscus cinereus Zenker in 
Panzer, 1799 (Heft 62, no. 22, text and plate) was an older name for the taxon 
Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804. Dahl (1916, p. 69) noted the synonymy and 
adopted the earlier specific name; he was followed by some authors (Arcangeli, 
1932b. p. 225 and numerous other papers; Meinertz, 1936. pp. 77, 78 and other 
papers). All subsequent authors, however, have used the name Armadillidium vulgare 
(Latreille) and we propose that cinereus be suppressed. 

7. The name Oniscus variegatus Villers, 1789 (p. 188) has been regarded as a 
possible senior synonym of the isopod name Armadillidium vulgare (and of 
A. comnuitatum by Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831]; see para. 3 above). O. variegatus 
could be interpreted as a senior synonym of any Swedish species of Armadillidium, 
but is most likely a synonym of one of the smaller species, A. pictum or A. pulchellum, 
both of Brandt (1833). Since the name is clearly a threat to species nomenclature 
within Armadillidium we propose that it be suppressed. 

8. Cuvier (1792. p. 27) proposed the name Armadillo for a genus of conglobating 
millipedes. Two nominal species were included, Oniscus pusiulatus Fabricius, 1781 
(p. 379) and the new taxon Armadillo marginalis. The name Glomeris was established 
by Latreille (1802, p. 44) for the nominal species Julus ovatus Fabricius, 1775 and 
Oniscus pustulatus Fabricius. Since the establishment of Latreille's nominal genus, 
Glomeris has been used as the valid name for the taxon. Latreille (1810, p. 423) 
designated Julus ovalis Linnaeus. 1758 (p. 639) as the type species of Glomeris: ovalis 
is a senior synonym of ovaius Fabricius (see Jeekel, 1971, p. 9) but was not an 
originally included nominal species and Latreille's designation, which did not 
mention ovatus, is therefore invalid. Further invalid type designations for Glomeris 
were listed by Jeekel (1971, p. 14), who then validly designated O. pustulatus 
Fabricius as the type species in accord with usage. He also designated (p. 12) this 
species as the type of Armadillo Cuvier, 1792. thereby rendering Glomeris a junior 
objective synonym. However, Jeekel (1971, p. 11) urged that Glomeris should 
continue to be used and recommended that 'Armadillo Cuvier should be placed on 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 239 

the list of rejected names' and 'The name Armadillo should not be used in 
Diplopoda". This was followed by Hoffmann (1979. pp. 66, 67). We propose that the 
name Armadillu Cuvier, 1792 be suppressed. The name Glomeris is much in use, both 
in works on taxonomy and the applied fields of biology, physiology and ecology. 
There are 67 publications listed in Zoological Record on CD (vols. 115-131) in which 
the name has been used between 1978 and 1994. Among the most recent papers are 
those by Meshkova (1987). Carrell (1990), latrou & Stamou (1991), Tajovsky, 
Villemin & Toutain (1991), Urbasek & Tajovsky (1991). Kohler, Storch & Albert! 
(1992), Byzov, Vu-Nguyen-Thanh & Babjeva (1993), Scheu (1993) and Stamou & 
latrou (1993). A printout of the full list of publications is held by the Commission 
Secretariat. 

9. Latreille ( 1 802, p. 43) described an isopod genus Armadillo, without reference to 
Cuvier's taxon but citing Oniscus armadillo Linnaeus, 1758, which is thus the type 
species by monotypy. Latreille (p. vii, footnote) noted 'Les genres qui me sont 
propres seront marques d"un asterisque'. Armadillo is preceded by an asterisk and 
must be considered a new name, albeit a junior homonym oi Armadillo Cuvier, 1792. 
In 1804 Latreille (pp. 48^9) noted Linnaeus"s (1758) concept of O. armadillo: 
Tinsecte qu'il avoit ainsi designe ... est probablement notre armadille commun", and 
placed in Armadillo the new nominal species A. vulgaris (presumably a new name for 
the isopod part of O. armadillo), together with O. variegatus Villers, 1789 and 
O. maculatus Fabricius, 1781 (p. 378). Dumeril (1816) mentioned Cuvier but used the 
name Armadillo for an isopod genus; he included the species A. vulgaris, 
A. pusiulaius (possibly not Oniscus pustulaius Fabricius) and the new species 
A. officinalis. Brandt (in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831], pp. 82-84) used the name 
Armadillo for officinalis Dumeril (see Brandt, p. 82, footnote, pi. 12, figs. 8-10). and 
erected the new genus Armadillidium for the new nominal species commutatum 
(- Armadillidium vulgare (Latreille, 1804); see para. 4 above) and related species (see 
paras. 3 and 4 above). This was followed by Milne-Edwards (1840, pp. 177, 180) and 
Budde-Lund (1885, pp. 16, 50); the latter listed several new nominal species in 
Armadillo, most of which have been transferred to other genera in the same family, 
and more than 50 additional species in Armadillidium. In 1904 Budde-Lund (p. 97) 
divided the genus Armadillo and in 1909 (p. 54) he designated A. officinalis as the type 
species of the nominotypical subgenus (and hence the genus) .Armadillo: this 
designation was invalid but reflected the usage of the name. Brandt's ([1831]) 
taxonomic placement of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille and related species in Armadil- 
lidium. and of Armadillo officinalis Dumeril and similar species in Armadillo, has been 
followed by all subsequent authors. Brandt ([1831], p. 80) placed Armadillo and 
Armadillidium in the group 'Armadillina" (currently used at family rank as armadil- 
LiDAE); in 1833 (p. 184) he placed .Armadillidium in the sub-group 'Armadillidia' 
(currently used at family level as armadillidiidae), and (p. 191) Armadillo with his 
new genus Cuharis in the sub-group 'Cubaridea'. 

10. C.L. Koch ([1841], text, pi. 1; see Sherborn. 1922, p. Ixxiv for the date of 
publication) described the genus Pentheus. based on his new species P. punctatus. and 
referred to Armadillo 'Brandt'. P. puncialus is a junior subjective synonym of 
A. officinalis Dumeril, 1816. Miers ([1878], p. 664; see Duncan, 1937, p. 73 for the 
date of publication) based the genus Orthonus only on the shape of some tergites. The 
genus has often been listed as based solely on A. officinalis. This is incorrect but the 



240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Other included species, A. inconspicuus Miers, 1876 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Spherillv danae Heller. 1868), was mentioned in a footnote printed in smaller type. To 
prevent possible confusion in the future we now designate A. officinalis as the type 
species oi Orthomis Miers, [1878], rendering the latter a junior subjective synonym of 
Peiuheus C.L. Koch. [1841]. Dahl (1916, pp. 20, 65) adopted the name Pentheus for 
officinalis in place of Armadillo Latreille. 1802 because of the (unused) senior 
homonym Armadillo Cuvier. Barnard (1932. p. 289) commented: 'It seems as if 
Pentheus Koch might suit for the officinalis section ... but I do not definitely propose 
this as I have had access to the works of neither Brandt nor Koch'; he noted 
Budde-Lund's use, in several papers, of the name Armadillo Latreille. Arcangeli 
(1932a) set out the history of the names Armadillo Latreille and Armadillidium. He 
noted that Armadillo could be replaced by Pentheus but strongly recommended the 
maintenance of the former name as it had had long usage. Apart from Dahl (1916), 
neither Pentheus nor Orthonus has been used. 

1 1. The name Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 1816 has an unused senior subjective 
synonym, Oniscus globator Cuvier, 1 792. Cuvier's O. globator ( 1 792, p. 24, pi. 26, figs. 
19-22) is clearly the same species as Dumerifs taxon and has been considered as such 
by all following authors, although they used the junior of the synonyms. Oniscus 
globator Cuvier is a junior primary homonym of O. globator Pallas. 1772 (suppressed 
for priority but not homonymy in Opinion 1574, March 1990) and thus Commission 
action is not required to deal with globator Cuvier. 

Part 2 (Discussion and proposals by P.T. Lehtinen) 

12. Latreille's (1802) concept oi Armadillo was identical with that oi Armadillidium 
of all present-day authors. The current usage of these names originated with the 
taxonomic interpretation of the two genera by Brandt, ([1831]), who placed 
Armadillidium commutatiim Brandt. [1831] (- Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804; see 
para. 4 above) in his new genus Armadillidium and retained Armadillo solely for 
Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 1816. Recognition of the latter as the type species of 
Armadillo sensu Dumeril (1816), Brandt ([1831]) and subsequent usage is not in 
accord with the basic principles of zoological nomenclature. The species was not 
originally included, was most probably not intended and was possibly not even 
known to Latreille. Moreover, the name Armadillo Latreille is a junior homonym of 
Armadillo Cuvier, 1792. On the other hand, abandonment of the name Armadillo, 
together with its senior homonym, would solve all the problems concerning 
Armadillidium, the more important and well known of the two genera. The name 
Armadillo is much used but the number of species additional to A. officinalis included 
in the genus is very small. Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841] has not generally been used but 
it is an available name and has a generally-accepted synonym of A. officinalis 
(P. punctulus C.L. Koch, [1841]) as the type species. I therefore propose that the Code 
should be applied and that Pentheus should be adopted in place of Armadillo auct., 
and cuBARiDAE Brandt, 1833 (p. 189) resurrected in place of armadiludae auct. 
Brandt's family-group name, in use some decades ago, is based on the well known, 
worldwide genus Cubaris Brandt, 1833 (p. 189), which has a large number of genera 
closely related to it. I have proposed that the name cubaridae be placed on the 
Official List, following conservation of the name Cubaris Brandt, 1 833 (see BZN 52: 
155: June 1995). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 241 

13. 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 Armadillo Cuvier, 1792; 

(b) the following specific names; 

(i) armadillo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus 

armadillo: 
(ii) variegatiis Villers, 1 789, as published in the binomen Oniscus variegaitis; 
(m)cinereiis Zenker in Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Oniscus 

cinereus; 

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

(a) Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Jeekel (1971) Oniscus pustulatus Fabricius, 1781; 

(b) Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] (gender: neuter), type 
species by subsequent designation by Fowler (1912) Armadillidium commu- 
tatum Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] (a junior subjective synonym 
oi Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804); 

(c) Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841], type species by monotypy Pentheus punctatus 
C.L. Koch, [1841] (a junior subjective synonym of Armadillo officinalis 
Dumeril, 1816); 

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

(a) pustulatus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Oniscus pustulatus 
(specific name of the type species of Glomeris Latreille, 1802); 

(b) vulgaris Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Armadillo vulgaris 
(senior subjective synonym of Armadillidium commutatum Brandt in 
Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831], the type species of Armadillidium Brandt 
in Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831]); 

(c) officinalis Dumeril, 1816, as published in the binomen Armadillo officinalis 
(a senior subjective synonym of Pentheus punctatus C.L. Koch, [1841], the 
type species of Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841]); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
ARMADiLLiDiiDAE Brandt, 1833 (type genus Armadillidium Brandt, [1831]); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Armadillo Cuvier, 1792, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (a junior homonym of Armadillo Cuvier, 1792); 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) armadillo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus armadillo 
and as suppressed in (I)(b)(i) above; 

(b) variegatus Villers, 1 789, as published in the binomen Oniscus variegatus and 
as suppressed in (l)(b)(ii) above; 

(c) cinereus Zenker in Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Oniscus 
cinereus and as suppressed in (l)(b)(iii) above; 

(d) globator Cuvier, 1 792, as published in the binomen Oniscus globaior (a 
junior homonym of Oniscus globator Pallas, 1772). 



242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Part 3 (Discussion and proposals by L.B. Holthuis) 

14. Numerous authors consistently use the name Arnuiilillo Latreille, 1802 for an 
isopod genus, and Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 1816 is treated as the type species. 
This usage is not in accord with modern rules of nomenclature but these did not exist 
at the time that Brandt ([1831]) transferred Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (under 
the name ArnuuliUidium commutalum Brandt. [1831]) to his new genus Armadillidium 
and used Armadillo for A. officinalis. A brief study of Zoological Record over the last 
few years is sufficient to demonstrate that the names Armadillo Latreille and 
especially the family name based on it. armadillidae Brandt, [1831], are very much 
in use. There are three or four (sometimes more) papers listed every year in which 
Armadillo has been adopted. A representative sample includes Saito (1986), Hoese & 
Janssen (1989), Schmalfuss (1990), Nair & Fadiel (1991) and Warburg (1992). A 
further 10 publications in which the name has been used between 1985 and 1992 are 
held by the Commission Secretariat. To my knowledge the junior synonym Pentheus 
C.L. Koch. [1841] has been used only once (by Dahl, 1916; see para. 10 above) and 
there is no family-group name based on it. I therefore propose that the name 
Armadillo Latreille, 1802 be conserved and that A. officinalis be designated the type 
species in accord with the usage since Brandt ([1831]). 

15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked; 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers; 

(a) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Anmidillo Latreille. 1802 and to designate Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 
1816 as the type species; 

(b) to suppress the following names; 

(i) the generic name Armadillo Cuvier, 1792, and all uses of the name 
Armadillo prior to the publication of Armadillo Latreille, 1802, for 
the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(ii) As for para. 13, (l)(b)(i)-(iii); 

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

(a) As for para. 13, (2)(a)-(b); 

(b) Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
in (l)(a) above Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 1816; 

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

(a) As for para. 13, (3)(a)-(b); 

(b) officinalis Dumeril, 1816, as published in the binomen Armadillo officinalis 
(specific name of the type species o{ Armadillo Latreille, 1802); 

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

(a) ARMADILLIDAE Brandt, [1831] (type genus Armadillo Latreille, 1802); 

(b) As for para. 13, (4); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Armadillo Cuvier, 1792, as suppressed in (I)(b)(i) above; 

(b) Orihonus Miers, [1878] (a junior objective synonym oi Armadillo Latreille, 
1802); 

(6) As for para. 13, (6)(a)-(d). 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 243 

References 

Apstein, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzwig.shericht der Gesellschaft Nalurforschender 

Fri'iiiuk zi< Berlin. \9\5t.5): \\9-202. 
Arcangcli, A. 1932a. Considerazioni sopra la validita dei nomi generici Anmidi/lo. Annadillid- 

iuni, Oniscus. Porcellio. Bolletlino Zoologia (Unione Zoologica Italiana), 3(3): 123-127. 
Arcangeli, A. 1932b. Eseurzione zoologica all'Oasi di Marrakesh nelPaprile 1930. Isopodi 

terrestri. Bollellhio Zoologia (Unione Zoologica Italiana), 3(5): 225-232. 
Barnard, K.H. 1932. Contributions to the crustacean fauna of South Africa. Annals of the 

South African Museum. 30: 179-388. 
Bate, C.S & Westwood, J.O. [1868]. Family Oniscidae. Pp. 439-495 iir. A history of the British 

se.^sile-ered Crustacea, vol. 2, part 21. Van Voorst, London. 
Brandt, J.F. 1833. Conspectus monographiae crustaceorum oniscodorum latreillii. Bulletin de 

la Societc Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 6: 171-193. 
Brandt, J.F & Ratzeburg, J.T.C. [1831]. Oniscoda. Pp. 71-84, pis. 12. 13 in: Medizinische 

Zoologie oder getreue Darstellung und Beschreihung der Thiere die in der Arzneimittellehre 

in Betracht kommen. in systematischer Folge herausgegeben. vol. 2, parts 1-3. Berlin. 
Budde-Lund, G. 1885. Crustacea Isopoda terrestria per fainilias et genera et species descripta. 

319 pp. Author, Copenhagen. 
Budde-Lund, G. 1904. A revision of "Crustacea Isopoda Terrestria', with additions and illustra- 
tions. 2. Spherilloninae. 3. Armadillo. Pp. 33-144. pis. 6-10. Hagerup. Copenhagen. 
Budde-Lund, G. 1909. Isopoda. Land-Isopoden. Pp. 53-70. pis. 5-7 in Schultze. L. (Ed.), 

Zoologische und anthropologische Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise im westlichen und 

zentralen Siidafrika, ausgefiihrt in den Jahren 1903-1905. Denkschriften der Medicinisch- 

Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena. 14( 1 ). 
Byzov, B.A., Vu-Nguyen-Thanh & Babjeva, LP. 1993. Interrelationships between yeasts and 

soil diplopods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 25(8): 1119-1 126. 
Carrell, J.E. 1990. Chemical defense in the pill milliped Glomeris marginata. Pp. 157-164 in 

Minelli. A. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 7lh International Congress of Myriapodology. xv, 480 

pp. Brill, Leiden. 
Cuvier, G. 1792. Memoire sur les cloportes terrestres. Journal d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 

2(13): 18-31. 
Dahl, F. 1916. Die Assein oder Isopoden Deutschlands. vi. 90 pp., 107 figs. Fischer, Jena. 
Desmarest, A.G. 1 825. Considerations generales sur la classe des cruslaces. xix, 446 pp., 6 tables. 

Paris. 
Dumeril, A.G. 1816. Armadille (Entom). Pp. 1 15-1 17 //;: Dictionnaire des Sciences Nalurelles, 

Ed. 2. vol. 3 (AGG-BAM). 174 pp. Levrault. Strasbourg. 
Duncan, F.IVI. 1937. On the dates of publication of the Society's "Proceedings', 1859-1926. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. (A)107(l): 71-77. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectonim .... vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. Bohn, Hamburg. 
Fowler, H.W. 1912. The Crustacea of New Jersey. Report of the New Jersey State Museum, 

19n: 29-650. 
Hoese, B. & Janssen, H.H. 1989. Morphological and physiological studies on the marsupium 

in terrestrial isopods. Monitore Zoologica Italiano Monografia, 4: 153-173. 
Hoffmann, R.L. 1979. Classification of the Diplopoda. 238 pp. Museum d'Histoire naturelle. 

Geneva. 
latrou, G.D. & Stamou, G.P. 1991 . The life cycle and spatial distribution of Glomeris balcanica 

(Diplopoda. Glomeridae) in an evergreen-sclerophyllous formation in northern Greece. 

Pedohiologia. 35(1): 1-10. 
Jeekel, C.A.W. 1971. Nomenclator generum et familiarum Diplopodorum: a list of the genus 

and family-group names in the class Diplopoda from the lOlh edition of Linnaeus. 1758, 

to the end of 1957. Monografieen van de Nederlandse Emtomologische Vereniging, 5: 1^12. 
Koch, C.L. [1841]. Deutschlands Crustaceen. Myriapoden und Arachniden, Heft 34. 24 pis., text. 

Regensburg. 
Kohler, H.R., Storch, V. & Alberti, G. 1992. The impact of lead on the assimilation efficiency 

of laboratory-held Diplopoda (Arthropoda) preconditioned in different environmental 

situations. Oeco/ogw (Heidelberg). 90(1): 113-119. 



I 



244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Latreille, P.A. 1802. 1804. Histoire miturelle. genC-rate el parliculiere des cnislaces et des 

insectes. vol. 3. xii, 467 pp. (1802); vol. 7, 413 pp.. pis. 58-66 (1804). Dufart, Paris. 
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations generates sur I'ordre nalurel des animaux composant les 

elasses des cnislaces, des arachnides et des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell. Paris. 
Leach, W.E. 1815. A tabular view of the external characters of four classes of animals, which 

Linne arranged under Insecta; with the distribution of the genera composing three of the 

Classes into Orders, etc. and descriptions of several new genera and species. Transactions 

of the Linnean Society of London, 1 1 : 306-400. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systemae Naturae, Ed. 10. vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Melnertz, T. 1936. Storkrebs III. Ringkrebs 2. Baenkebidere (Land- og ferskvandsisopoder). 

Danmarks Fauna, part 42. 92 pp. Gads. Copenhagen. 
Meshkova, N.M. 1987. Respiration in the diplopod Gtomeris connexa (C.L. Koch) depending 

on temperature. Pp. 183-184 in Kurashvili, B.E. (Ed.), Problems of soil zoology. Reports 
from the 9th All Union Conference. 373 pp. Metsniereba, Tbilisi. [In Russian]. 
Miers, E.J. [1878]. On a collection of Crustacea, Decapoda and Isopoda, chiefly from South 

America, with descriptions of new genera and species. Proceedings of the Zoological 

Society of London, 1877(43): 653-679. 
Milne Edwards, H. 1840. Histoire naturelle des crustaces .... vol. 3. ii. 605 pp. Encyclopedique 

de Roret. Paris. 
Nair, G.A. & Fadiel, M.M. 1991. The feeding and conversion of leaf litter by the pillbug 

Armadillo officinalis (Isopoda. Oniscidea). Arid Soil Research Rehabilitation, 5(3): 

167-174. 
Panzer, G.W.F. [1793]. Fauna insectorum Germanicae initiu. oder Deutschlands Insecten ... Heft 

62. 24 pp.. 24 pis. Felsecker, Niimberg. 
Poda, N. 1761. Insecta Musei Graecensis. quae in ordines. genera et species juxta Systema 

Naturae Caroli Linnaei. vi, 127, 12 pp., 2 pis. 
Ray, J. 1710. Historia Insectorum. 398 pp. Lister. London. 
Saito, S. 1986. Ecological distribution and species diversity of terrestrial isopods in western 

part of Gunma, central Japan. Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan, 41(1-10): 

45-50. 
Scheu, S. 1993. Litter microflora - soil macrofauna interactions in lignin decomposition: a 

laboratory experiment with '"C-labelled lignin. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 25(12): 

1703-1711. 
Schmalfuss, H. 1990. Land-isopoden aus dem Kaukasus-Gebiet. 3. (Porcellionidae, Armadil- 

lidiidae, Armadillidae). Stuttgarter Beitraege :ur Naturkunde, (A, Biol.)444: 1-11. 
Scopoli, J.A. 1763. EiUomologia Carniolica. xxxvi. 420 pp.. 37 pis. Trattner. Vindobonae. 
Sherborn, CD. 1922. Index Animalium. 1801-1850, part 1 (Introduction, bibliography and 

index A-Aflf). Pp. 1-128. British Museum. London. 
Stamou, G.P. & latrou, G.D. 1993. Studies on the respiratory metabolism of Gloineris balcanica 

(Diplopoda. Glomeridae). Journal of Insect Physiology, 39(6): 529-535. 
Tajovsky, K., Villemin, G. & Toutain, F. 1991. Microstructural and ultrastructural changes of 

the oak leaf litter consumed by the millipede Glomeris hexasticha (Diplopoda). Revue 

d'Ecologie et de Biologic du Sol, 28(3): 287-302. 
Urbasek, F. & Tajovsky, K. 1991. The influence of food and temperature on enzymatic 

activities of the millipede Glomeris he.xasticlui (Diplopoda). Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie 

du Sol, 2S{2): 155-163. 
Vandel, A. 1962. Isopodes terrestres (Deuxieme partie). Faune de France, 66: 417-931. 
Villers, C. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei enlomologia. faunae Suecicae descriptionibus aucta, vol. 4. 

556. ccxiii pp. Lyon. 
Warburg, M.R. 1992. Life history patterns of terrestrial isopods from mesic habitats in the 

temperate region of northern Israel (Isopoda: Porcellionidae, Armadillidae). Studies on 

Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 27(2-3): 155-165. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 245 

Case 2894 

Momtrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kreyer, 1849 (Crustacea, 
Copepoda): proposed conservation 

M.J. Grygier 

14804 Motley Road, Silver Spring. Maryland 20905, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the copepod names 
Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (family monstrillidae Dana, 
1849). The unused senior name Thaumatoessa Krayer in Gaimard, [1842] threatens 
both names, as a subjective synonym of Monstrilla and as an objective synonym of 
Thaumaleus. It is proposed that Thaumatoessa be suppressed. Members of the 
MONSTRILLIDAE, the sole family of the order Monstrilloida, have larvae that are 
endoparasites of polychaetes and gastropods, whilst the non-feeding adults are 
free-swimming. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Copepoda; Monstrilla; Thaumaleus. 



1. In the work of illustrations known as Gaimard's Atlas de Zoologie, Krayer 
(pi. 42, figs. 4a-e) figured a copepod with the accompanying caption 'Thaumatoessa 
Typica Kr. nov. gen. et sp.' There was no text but the illustrations serve as an 
indication that renders available the names of both the genus and species (Article 
12b(7) of the Code), the latter being the type species by monotypy. In December 1842 
de la Roquette (p. 446) recorded that the first livraison, consisting of Atlas plates 
only, of the publication Voyages de la Commission scientifique du Nord. edited by 
Gaimard, had been issued (see also Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 492 and 
Woodward, 1904. p. 607). The date [1842] has generally been accepted for Kroyer's 
crustacean illustrations. In their English translation of Kroyer's works Damkaer 
& Damkaer (1979, p. 4) 'somewhat arbitrarily" set the date of the Atlas as 
[1845] although they noted that 'possibly the plates were published over several 
years". 

2. Kroyer (1849) gave an extended description in Danish of the copepod 
Thaumaleus typicus (pp. 595-598), together with an etymology and Latin diagnosis of 
a new nominal genus Thaumaleus (p. 604), measurements of Thaumaleus typicus 
(p. 607), and dorsal and lateral illustrations of the single specimen (pi. 6, figs. 30 and 
31), with the caption Taumaleus [sic] typicus and subcaptions referring to '77;. 
typicus'. The spelling 'Tcmmaleus' of the generic name in the figure caption was 
overlooked until recently but I (Grygier, 1994), acting as first reviser, established 
Thaumaleus as the definitive spelling. The single individual was that previously 
illustrated by Kroyer in Gaimard's Atlas de Zoologie (para. 1 above). Kroyer (1849, 
p. 598) cited his earlier ([1842]) figure but did not mention the earlier generic name 
Thaumatoessa. Thus, under Articles 19a and 33b(i) of the Code, Thaumaleus Kroyer, 
1849 is not an emendation but a junior objective synonym of Thaumatoessa. being 
based on the same type species (Article 61c(iii)). The date 1849 is given in the volume 



i 



246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

index for Kroyer's paper. In the absence of more precise information the date of 
publication must be taken as 31 December 1849 (Article 21c). 

3. Heine (1863. pp. 209-210) proposed 'Tlunmuitoessa as a replacement name for 
the hummingbird genus Loddigesia Gould in Bonaparte, 1849 (family trochilidae) 
on the invalid grounds that the latter, being based on the name of a person, was 
unscientific. Tluiuwuioessa Heine is a junior homonym of Thaitmatoessa Kroyer in 
Gaimard. [1842] and Loddigesia, having priority, is currently recognized as the valid 
name of this monotypic genus. 

4. Only Hesse (1868, pp. 362-370, pi. 19, figs. 20-34) has used Thaumaloessa 
Kroyer as a valid name, in the description of his new species Thaumaloessa 
arinoricaiia. Hesse's work went unnoticed until Giard (1900, p. 396) transferred this 
species to the new monotypic genus Thaumatohessia, where it still remains. 

5. Apart from Hesse (1868), Kroyer's works remained unknown to other taxono- 
mists working on monstrilloid copepods until Poppe (1891) cited the 1849 work. 
Some subsequent authors (Giesbrecht, 1892; Giard, 1900; Malaquin, 1901; Damkaer 
& Damkaer. 1979) have explicitly noted Kroyer's ([1842]) earlier use of Thaitmatoessa 
but they and other authors have continued to treat Thaumaleus as the valid name. At 
least 26 nominal species worldwide have at one time or another been assigned to 
Thaumaleus in at least 50 taxonomic and planktological works (see, for example, 
T. Scott, 1904; van Breemen, 1908; A. Scott, 1909; Davis. 1949; Isaac. 1974, 1975; 
Huys & Boxshall, 1991). A representative list of 40 other works is held by the 
Commission Secretariat. Sars (1921) attempted to restrict the application of 
Thaumaleus to only T. typicus. Numerous authors have followed him by using 
Cvmhasoma Thompson, 1888 in preference to Thaumaleus for species other than 
T. typicus. The taxonomic controversy surrounding these two genera paid no heed to 
the priority and availability of Thaumatoessa until I (Grygier, 1994) pointed out the 
earlier name; I mentioned (p. 241) the present application to suppress Thaumatoessa 
in order to conserve Monstrilla (see paras. 9 and 10 below). 

6. I (Grygier. 1994) redescribed the holotype of Thaumatoessa (- Thaumaleus) 
typica Kroyer, [1842], a young female found at Bejan at the entrance to 
Trondheimsfjorden. Norway, and now housed in the Crustacea Collection of the 
University Zoological Museum. Copenhagen. I found that it fits the current 
definition of Monstrilla Dana, and that T. typica is very likely a senior subjective 
synonym of Monstrilla longicornis Thompson, 1890 or perhaps of the latter's 
supposed (see Isaac, 1975) junior synonym M. clavata Sars, 1921. The name 
Monstrilla thereby becomes a junior subjective synonym of Thaumatoessa. However, 
Monstrilla is much in use and more than 50 nominal species have been assigned to the 
genus (history summarized by Razouls. 1983). 

7. The name Monstrilla Dana has almost always been attributed to 'Dana 1848" 
but its true date of publication, and that of its type species by monotypy M. viridis 
Dana, is really 1849. Huys & Bottger-Schnack (1994, pp. 208-209) and I (Grygier, 
1994, p. 241) have discussed the relative priority of the three publications involved 
(Dana. 1849a, [1849]b, 1849c). Dana ([1849]b) is the full version of part 2 of the 
Conspectus Crustaceorum and it forms part of the proceedings of the 3 1 1 th meeting 
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, convened on 8 November 1848. 
Dana (p. 53) presented Latin diagnoses of Monstrilla and of the only included 
species, M. viridis from "mari Sulu' (the Sulu Sea between Borneo and the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 247 

Philippines). This was pubhshed after 8 August 1849. which was the date of the 
proceedings of the final meeting included in pp. 1-160 of the journal volume; these 
pages were issued together in 1849, a fact which has generally been overlooked 
because the title page of the whole volume is dated 1852. Dana (1849a) is a pamphlet 
which includes separates of parts 1 and 2 of the Conspectus bound with a common 
title page bearing the date 1847-1849, part 2 being unchanged in content and 
pagination from Dana ([1849]b) except for differently arranged footnotes on 
pp. 9-11. This separate's heading mistakenly gives 8 November 1849 (recte 1848) as 
the date of the oral presentation. In a summary of parts 1 and 2 of the Conspectus, 
Dana (1849c. p. 283) repeated the same Latin diagnosis oi Monstrilla and mentioned 
M. viridis. The introductory paragraph cites Dana ([1849]b) by volume and page 
numbers but mistakenly reports that the oral presentation had taken place on 8 
November 1849 (recte 1848). The monthly journal issue in which Dana (1849c) was 
published was dated September, 1849. The earliest evidence of the existence of these 
three versions of part 2 of the Conspectus, which I found in a survey of the 
proceedings of several American learned societies of the period, comes from a list of 
donations to the library of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia 
(Proceedings of the Academy, 4(11): 242-243); 1850). Dana's (1849a) publication is 
cited in a list dated 4 September 1849, whilst the journal issues in which Dana 
([1849]b, 1849c) were published appear in a list dated 18 September 1849. On these 
grounds Dana's (1849a) publication has priority over the other two versions. The 
names monstrillidae (published as 'Tribus Monstrillacea'), Monstrilla and M. viridis 
were all made available in the work (p. 53). 

8. Dana (1849a, p. 53; [I849]b, p. 53; 1849c, p. 283) proposed Tribus Monstril- 
lacea' for his new genus Monstrilla. I (Grygier, 1994) considered this rank of 'Tribus' 
between 'Ordo' and 'Familia' as equivalent to a superfamily. Dana (1852, 
p. 1311) classified Monstrilla as the only genus of the family monstrillidae. Dana 
(1852) was an unofficial release by the author of part 2 of the Crustacea of the United 
States Exploring Expedition. Haskell (1942) did not present unambiguous evidence 
to contradict that date (the official issue, dated 1853, could not have been issued 
before 1854; see Haskell, 1942). Later authors have rarely attributed the family name 
MONSTRILLIDAE to an author, and then usually to 'Giesbrecht, 1892' but never, except 
for myself (Grygier, 1994), to Dana's Conspectus. 

9. The name Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 has been used, rather than the senior name 
Thaumaioessa Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842], in about 50 publications over the last 100 
years, and with recently increasing frequency in planktological as well as taxonomic 
works. The name Monstrilla Dana, 1849 which, in my view, is a junior subjective 
synonym of Thaumatoessa (and a senior synonym of the latter's objective synonym 
Thaumaleus), has been widely used and universally recognized for over 140 years and 
now includes more than 50 nominal species. Monstrilla is the type genus of the family 
MONSTRILLIDAE Dana and, by extension, of the order Monstrilloida. Suppression of 
Thaumatoessa. which since its publication has been treated as valid only by Hesse 
(1868; in 1994 I noted the need for its suppression), would ensure stability of current 
usage by conserving both the names Monstrilla and Thaumaleus. Approval of this 
suppression by the Commission will allow those workers who accept the synonymy 
of Monstrilla and Thaumaleus to use Monstrilla as the valid name; both these names 
will remain available to those who separate them at generic or subgeneric rank. 



248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Thaumatoessa Kroyer 
in Gaimard, [1842] 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) Monstrilla Dana. 1849 [4 September] (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy Monstrilla viriclis Dana. 1849; 

(b) TImwnaleus Kroyer, 1849 [31 December] (gender: masculine), type species 
by monotypy Thaumatoessa lypica Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842]; 

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

(a) viridis Dana, 1849, as published in the binomen Monstrilla viridis (specific 
name of the type species of Monstrilla Dana, 1849); 

(b) typica Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842], as published in the binomen Thauma- 
toessa typica (specific name of the type species of Thaumaleus Kroyer, 
1849); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
MONSTRILLIDAE Dana, 1849 (type genus Monstrilla Dana, 1849); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Thaumatoessa Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842], as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Thaumatoessa Heine, 1863 (a junior objective synonym of Loddigesia 
Gould in Bonaparte, 1849 and a junior homonym of Thaumatoessa Kroyer 
in Gaimard, [1842]). 

References 

Damkaer, C.C. & Damkaer, D.M. 1979. Henrik Kroyer's publications on pelagic marine 
Copepoda (1838-1849). Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 69(6): 1^8. 

Dana, J.D. 1849a ([4 September]). Conspectus Cruslaceorum quae in Orbis Terrarum circum- 
navigatione. Carolo Wilkes e Classe Reipuhlicue Faecteralae Duce. lexit et descripsit 
Jacobus D. Dana, pars I and II. Pagination various. Academiae Artium Scientiarumque 
Americanae nuntiis. Cantabrigiae: Typis Metcalf et Soc. Univ. Typograph. 1847-1849. 

Dana, J.D. [1849. 18 September]b. Conspectus Cruslaceorum quae in Orbis Terrarum 
circumnavigatione, Carolo Wilkes e Classe Reipublicae Faederatae Duce, lexit et 
descripsit Jacobus D. Dana. Pars II. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and 
Sciences. 2: 9-61. 

Dana, J.D. 1849c ([18 September]). Conspectus Cruslaceorum quae in Orbis Terrarum 
circumnavigatione, Carolo Wilkes e Classe Reipublicae Faederatae Duce, lexit et 
descripsit Jacobus D. Dana. The American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)8(23): 276-285. 

Dana, J.D. 1852. Crustacea. Part 2 in: United Stales Exploring Expedition. During the years 
/WS, 1839. 1840. 1841. 1842. Under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 13, part 
2. Pp. 691-1618. Philadelphia. 

Davis, C.C. 1949. A preliminary revision of the Monstrilloida. with descriptions of two new 
species. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 68(3): 245-255. 

Giard, A. 1900. Sur un type oublie de la famille des Monstrillidae {Thaumatoessa armoricana 
Hesse) et sur un cas nouveau de parasitisme chez les Monstrilla [Crust. Cop.]. Bulletin de 
la Societe Entomologique de France, 1900(20): 395-397. 

Giesbrecht, W. 1892. Systematik und Faunistik der pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von 
Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel 
und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte herausgegeben von der Zoologischen Station :u 
Neapel, 19: 1-831. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 249 

Grygier, M.J. 1994 (dated 1993). Identity of Thaumaloessa (= Thaumaleus) typica Kroyer, the 

first described monstrilloid copepod. Sarsia. 78: 235-242. 
Haskell, D.C. 1942. The United States Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842 and its publications 

1844-1874. 188 pp. New York Public Library, New York. (Reprinted 1968. Greenwood 

Press, New York). 
Heine, F. 1863. Trochilidica. Journal Jar Ornithohgie. 11(63): 173-217. 
Hesse. 1868. Observations sur des Crustaces rares ou nouveaux des cotes de France (seizieme 

article). Annales des Sciences Naturelles. Zoologie et Paleontologie, (5)10: 347-371. 
Huys, R. & Bottger-Schnack, R. 1994. Taxonomy, biology and phylogeny of Miraciidae 

(Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Sarsia. 79: 207-283. 
Huys, R. & Boxshall, G.A. 1991. Copepod evolution. 468 pp. Ray Society, London. 
Isaac, M.J. 1974. Copepoda Monstrilloida from south-west Britain including six new species. 

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 54: 127-140. 
Isaac, M.J. 1975. Copepoda, Suborder: Monstrilloida. Fiches d' identification du zooplanclon, 

144/145: 1-10. 
Kreyer, H. [1842]. Crustacees. 43 pis. in Gaimard. J. P. (Ed.), Atlas de zoologie. Voyages de la 

Commission scienlifique du Nord en Scandinavie, en Laponie. au Spitzberg et aux Feroe 

pendant les annees 1838. 1839, el 1840 sur la corvette La Recherche, commandee par 

M. Fabvre. 86 pis. Bertrand, Paris. 
Kreyer, H. 1849. Karcinologiske Bidrag (Fortsaettelse). Nalurhistorisk Tidsskrift, Ny Haefte, 

2(6): 561-609. pi. 6. 
Malaquin, A. 1901. Le parasitisme evolutiv des Monstrillides (Crustaces Copepodes). Archives 

de Zoologie Experimentate et Generale. (3)9: 81-232, pis. 2-8. 
Poppe, S.A. 1891. Zur Litteratur des Genus Monstrilla Dana. Abhandhmgen des Naturwissen- 

schaftlichen Vereins zu Bremen, 12: 142-144. 
Razouls, C. 1983. Reporloire mondial laxonomique et bibliographique provisoire des Copepodes 

planctoniijues marins et des eaux saumdtres - Divers svstemes de classification, vol. 2. Pp. 

395-7811. i-ix. (Issued as microfiche No. SN 82 400 340 by the Institut d'Ethnologie, 

Paris). 
Roquette, de la. 1842 (December). Notice annuelle des progres des sciences geographiques et 

des travaux de la Societe de Geographic pendant I'annee 1842. Bulletin de la Sociele de 

Geographic, (2)18: 397-609. 
Sars, G.O. 1921. An account of the Crustacea of Norway with short descriptions and figures of 

all the species, vol. 8 (Copepoda Monstrilloida and Notodelphyoida). 91 pp., 37 pis. 

Bergen Museum. Bergen. 
Scott, A. 1909. The Copepoda of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Free-swimming, littoral and 

semi-parasitic Copepoda. Siboga-Expeditie. 24a: 1-323, pis. 1-69. 
Scott, T. 1904. Notes on some rare and interesting marine Crustacea. Twenty-second Annual 

Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, part 3 (Scientific investigations). Pp. 242-260, 

pis. 12-15. 
Sherborn, CD. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. Dates of publication of the zoological and botanical 

portions of some French voyages. Part 2. Annals and Magazine of Natural Historv, (7)8: 

491-493. 
Woodward, B.B. 1904. Catalogue of the books, manuscripts, maps and drawings in the British 

Museum (Natural History), vol. 2 (E-K). Pp. 501-1038. British Miiseum (Natural 

Historyl, London. 
van Breemen, P.J. 1908. 8. Copepoden in: Nordisches Plankton, Zoologischer Teil, part 4 

(Entomostraca). Pp. 1-264. Lipsius & Tischer. Kiel & Leipzig. 



250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Case 2967 

Chaetodacus latifions Hendel, 1915 (currently Bactrocera latifrons; 
Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence of the specific name over that 
of Dacus paivulus Hendel, 1912 

I.M. White 

International Institute of Entomology, do Department of Entomology, 
The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

N.J. Liquido 

United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service, 
P.O. Box 4459. Hilo. Hawaii 96720. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the specific name of 
Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel, 1915) (family tephritidae) for the Solatium fruit fly by 
giving it precedence over that oi Dacus parvidus Hendel, 1912. The name latifrons has 
been used widely and consistently in the literature, whereas parnilus has been used 
only three times since publication (twice, in 1950 and 1992. for misidentifications). 
The species is a major pest of peppers (Capsicum anintum) and other Solanaceae in 
south-east Asia. It has been introduced into the Hawaiian islands during the past 
century where it is also a serious pest. A lectotype for C. latifrons is designated. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; fruit flies; Bactrocera latifrons; 
south-east Asia; Hawaiian islands. 



1. Hendel (1912, p. 21) described Dacus parvulus based on a series of five 
specimens from Kanshirei, Formosa (now Taiwan). There is a single male (labelled 
type) and two females (labelled cotype) in the Deutsches Entomologisches 
Institut (DEI), Eberswalde, Germany, and two males (labelled cotype) in the 
Naturhistorisches Museum (NHMV), Vienna, Austria. The specimens were labelled 
as type and cotypes by Prof D.E. Hardy but no lectotype designation was made (see 
Hardy. 1968. p. 113). All the specimens have the status of syntypes and have been 
examined by one of us (I.M.W.). These specimens fall within the known range of 
variation of Chaetodacus latifrons Hendel, 1915, a species described from Tainan 
(Taiwan) and elsewhere (see para. 2 below), although they are smaller than average. 
The identity of the females is further confirmed in that they have their aculeus tips 
exposed showing the unusual tip shape distinctive of C. latifrons; the name parvulus 
must therefore be considered a senior subjective synonym of laiifrons. A female 
from Tainan (leg. H. Sauter. May 1912). labelled &s parvulus (NHMV) and assumed 
to be determined as such by Hendel. also has an exposed aculeus and is clearly 
latifrons. 

2. Hendel (1915, p. 425) described Chaetodacus latifrons. based on a series of 
six specimens from Taiwan (Tainan, Takao and Suisharyo) and Singapore. One 
of us (I.M.W.) has examined a syntype male (labelled paratype) from Tainan (leg. 



\ 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 251 

H. Sauter. March 1912), now in the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, and 
has seen other syntypes on earlier occasions: one male from Tainan (NHMV. labelled 
cotype by Hardy, 1968, p. 113) and four specimens in the Termeszettudomanyi 
Muzeum (TMB), Budapest, Hungary (sexes not noted at the time; 1986 visit). There 
is no doubt that these specimens represent the current understanding of the major 
pest of peppers (Capsicum anmium) and other Solanaceae in south-east Asia, which 
has also become adventive in the Hawaiian Islands. The name latifrons has been 
widely used for the species which is commonly known as the Solaimm or Malaysian 
fruit fly. There has been no previous designation of a lectotype and we now designate 
the male from Tainan in the Natural History Museum, London as such. It is denoted 
by a standard NHM purple-edged lectotype label. 

3. Shiraki (1933, p. 56, fig. 17) described Chaetodacus cmteimalis. based on a series 
of specimens of unspecified number reared from Solanum xanthocarpum from 
Tainan, Taiwan. This nominal species was placed in synonymy with Daciis parriihis 
by Hardy (1973, p. 49), with which it compared in its small size, and serves to confirm 
that these small Taiwanese specimens identified as parvulus are probably also 
Solanaceae-associated, in common with more typical latifrons. 

4. The specific name of Bactrocera latifrons has been widely used. A recent review 
of fruit fly pests (White & Elson-Harris, 1992), for example, gives 13 references to the 
species using this name (or Daciis latifrons) and could have given many more, 
whereas parxulus is only mentioned in a taxonomic catalogue (see Hardy, 1977, 
p. 51 ). There is a single record oi parxulus from India (see Philip, 1950) that appears 
to have been based on a misidentification of another species (see White & 
Elson-Harris, 1992). A third use (Tseng, Chen & Chu, 1992, p. 37, figs. 89-97 on 
p. 39, pi. 2, figs. 7, 28 and 29) of the name parxulus was also based on a 
misidentification. All retrievable biological information is accessible using the name 
latifrons and examples of references relevant to programs of fruit fly control, 
monitoring and survey in Asia and Hawaii are as follows: Hardy (1973; identification 
in Thailand), Wharton & Gilstrap (1983; parasitoids), Vargas & Nishida (1985; 
biology and ecology), Vargas & Mitchell (1987; rearing), and Liquido, Harris & 
Dekker ( 1 994; ecology). A further 1 7 references demonstrating the usage of the name 
latifrons, dating from 1951 to 1995 and involving a further 27 authors, are held by the 
Commission Secretariat. 

5. The newly developed male lure that is being used in survey and detection 
programs in the U.S.A. is called "latilure", named after the specific name of 
Bactrocera latifrons. The emergency action plan developed by the United States 
Department of Agriculture and the Departments of Agriculture of the States of 
Hawaii, California and Florida, is titled "Action Plan: Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel)'. 
That action plan will serve as eradication guidelines in the event of colonizing 
populations of latifrons being detected in mainland U.S.A. 

6. There is much evidence for a prima facie case for the conservation of the specific 
name of Chaetodacus latifrons Hendel, 1915. The syntypes of Dacus parxulus. which 
are the only known specimens, are rather small but are nonetheless within the range 
of latifrons. However, with better knowledge of the genetics of Solanum fruit flies on 
Taiwan there is a remote possibility that it may become apparent that there are two 
taxa and both names will be required. We therefore propose that the name latifrons 
be given precedence over parxulus. Approval of the application by the Commission 



252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

will allow laiifrons to continue as the valid name for the species if this is not 
taxonomicaliy divided: if difierentiated in the future, parviilus remains available for 
use as a specific or subspecific name. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name latifrons Hendel. 1915, 
as published in the binomen Chactodacus latifrons. is to be given precedence 
o\er parviilus Hendel, 1912, as published in the binomen Dactis parvulus; 

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

(a) latifrons Hendel, 1915, as published in the binomen Chaetodacus latifrons 
and as defined by the lectotype designated in para. 2 above, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over parvidiis Hendel, 1912, 
as published in the binomen Dacus parvulus. whenever these names are 
considered to be synonyms: 

(b) parvtdus Hendel, 1912, as published in the binomen Dacus parvulus. with 
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over latifrons Hendel, 
1915, as published in the binomen Chaetodacus latifrons. whenever these 
names are considered to be synonyms. 

Acknowledgements 

We are grateful to Drs R. Contreras-Lichtenberg (NHMV). A. Dely-Draskovits 
(TMB), H.J. Miiller (DEI) and B.R. Pitkin {NHM) for allowing one of us (I.M.W.) 
to examine specimens in their charge. We also wish to thank T. Matsuzawa for 
Japanese translation. 

References 

Hardy, D.E. 1968. The fruit fly types in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien (Tephritidae - 

Diptera). Annalen des Naturhislorischen Museums in Wien, 72; 107-155. 
Hardy, D.E. 1973. The fruit flies (Tephritidae - Diptera) of Thailand and bordering countries. 

Pacific Insects Monograph, 31: 1-353. 
Hardy, D.E. 1977. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae). Pp. 44-134 in Delfinado, M.D. & 

Hardy. D.E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental region, vol. 3. 854 pp. 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 
Hendel, F. 1912. H. Sauter's Formosa-Ausbeute. Genus Dacus. Fabricius (1805) (Dipt.). 

Supplemenia Entomologica, 1: 13-24. 
Hendel, F. 1915. H. Sauter"s Formosa-Ausbeute. Tephritinae. Annates Historico-Natmales 

Musei Nationalis Hungarici. 13: 424—467. 
Liquido, N.J., Harris, E.J. & Dekker, L.A. 1994. Ecology of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) populations: host plants, natural enemies, distribution, and abundance. 

Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 87(1); 71-84. 
Philip, A. 1950. Description of one new species of Sinimela Walker (Trypetidae; Diptera) from 

Bunna and a record of one Far-Eastern species of the genus from India. Indian Journal of 

Entomology. 10; 31-32. 
Shiraki, T. 1933. A systematic study of Trypetidae of the Japanese Empire. Memoirs of the 

Faculty of Science and Agriculture. Taihoku Imperial University, 8; 1-509. 
Tseng, Y.-H., Chen, C.-C. & Chu, Y.-l. 1992. The fruit flies, genus Dacus Fabricius of Taiwan 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of the Taiwan Museum. 45(2); 15-91. 
Vargas, R.I. & Mitchell, S. 1987. Two artificial larval diets for rearing Dacus latifrons (Diptera: 

Tephritidae). Journal oj Economic Entomology. 80; 1337-1339. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 253 

Vargas, R.I. & Nishida, T. 1985. Survey for Dacus lalifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of 

Economic Enlomology. 78: 1311-1314. 
Wharton, R.A. & Gilstrap, F.E. 1983. Key to and status of opiine braconid (Hymenoptera) 

parasitoids used in biological control of Ceratiiis and Dacus s.l. (Diptera: Tephritidae). 

Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 76: 721-742. 
White, I.M. & Elson-Harris, M.M. 1992. Eruit flies of economic significance: their identification 

ami bionomics. 601 pp. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. 



254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Case 2933 

Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 (Tunicata): proposed precedence over 
Paessleria Michaelsen, 1907 

Patricia Kott 

Queensland Museum. P.O. Box 3300. South Brisbane. Queensland 4101. 
Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give precedence to the tunicate (family 
POLYCITORIDAE) generic name Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 over the almost unused 
senior subjective synonym Paessleria Michaelsen. 1907. At least 75 species are placed 
in Eudistoma: it is possible that Paessleria might in future be appropriate for a 
subgenus containing its type species P. magalhaensis and some other Eudistoma 
species. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Tunicata; Ascidiacea; Eudistoma; Paessleria. 



1. Savigny (1816) originally included two nominal species in his genus Distoma 
(p. 176), one of them being D. ruhrwn (p. 177). The name Distoma subsequently 
became applied to a diverse group of tunicates which have more recently been 
referred to several genera in the families holozoidae and polycitoridae. Caullery 
(1909, p. 42) regarded Distoma as a junior synonym of Polyeitor Renier, [1804], but 
on the grounds of the then usage and the obscurity of Renier's work he retained 
Distoma as a valid name. Many years later the Commission rejected (Opinions 316, 
427) the work by Renier in which Polyeitor appeared as not having been properly 
published, but in 1957 (Opinion 478) this by then widely used generic name was 
conserved. Caullery (1909, p. 44) divided Distoma into the two subgenera Eudistoma 
and Paradistoma, without designating a type species for either; the failure to use the 
name Distoma for one of the subgenera was contrary to both the then current Rules 
and the modern Code, but in any event Distoma Savigny is a junior homonym of 
Distoma Retzius, 1786. It has not been used for many years. 

2. In Opinion 478 the Commission designated P. erystallinus Renier, [1804] as the 
type species of Polyeitor, in accordance with usage and with previous designations. 
This species had been placed by Harant (1929, p. 40) in Caullery 's subgenus 
Paradistoma. and as a junior subjective synonym of Polyeitor there has been no 
subsequent valid use of Paradistoma. Michaelsen (1930, p. 489) designated Distoma 
rubrum Savigny, 1816 (p. 177) as the type species of Eudistoma. 

3. Michaelsen (1907, p. 68) proposed the genus Paessleria for the new single 
species (and single specimen) P. magalhaensis (p. 69) from the Straits of Magellan. 
Caullery (1909) overlooked Paessleria. Michaelsen (1915) briefly mentioned the name 
again, and in 1930 he allocated specimens from the Red Sea, Seychelles and 
southwestern Australia to P. magalhaensis and published (p. 489) a revised diagnosis. 
Van Name (1945, p. 132) and Kott (1969, p. 40) doubted that this specific synonymy 
was correct. No nominal species other than P. magalhaensis has ever been placed in 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 255 

Paessleria, and indeed no new material of the species from the original region has 
been studied. 

4. No author has used Paesslerui as a senior synonym of Eiidistuma Caullery, 
1909, which has been in continuous wide use either as a genus or (incorrectly) as a 
subgenus of Polycitor or of Sigillina Savigny, 1816 (p. 40). Michaelsen himself (1930) 
treated Eudistoma and Paesslcria as separate subgenera of Sigillina. Eudistoma is the 
name applied to at least 75 species; 39 of these are from Australia and the West 
Pacific, and others come from waters around North and South America, Africa and 
Japan, and also the Mediterranean. I have given the Commission Secretariat a list of 
73 references by 23 authors which use Eudistoma; the major reviews are Van Name 
(1945), Millar (1962, 1977), Tokioka (1967), Nishikawa (1984) and Kott (1990). 

5. The name Eudistoma denotes a well defined taxon, although the individual 
species are very difficult to characterise (especially if records are not kept of the 
colour and general appearance of living colonies). There is no doubt that 
Michaelsen's P. magallmensis belongs to Eudistoma; however, some Eudistoma 
species fall into groups in which particular characters are shared, suggesting a 
possible close relationship. One such group (Kott, 1990, p. 192) may include 
magallmensis and at least three other species, and this is an argument for not 
suppressing the almost unused name Paessleria so that it can remain available for 
possible use for a subgenus. 

6. Paessleria Michaelsen, 1907 is a senior subjective synonym of Eudistoma 
Caullery, 1 909, but except when mentioning the little known P. magalhaensis authors 
have used only the latter generic name. All the many other species have been first 
described in Eudistoma. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Eudistoma Caullery, 
1909 over the name Paessleria Michaelsen, 1907 whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

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

(a) Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 (gender: neuter), type species by designation by 
Michaelsen (1930) Distoma nihrum Savigny, 1816, with the endorsement 
that it is to be given precedence over Paessleria Michaelsen, 1907 whenever 
the two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Paessleria Michaelsen, 1907 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Paessleria magalhaensis Michaelsen, 1907, with the endorsement that it is 
not to be given priority over Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
{a)rubrum Savigny, 1816, as published in the binomen Distoma ruhrum 

(specific name of the type species of Eudistoma Caullery, 1909); 
(b) tnagalhaensis Michaelsen, 1907, as published in the binomen Paessleria 
magalhaensis (specific name of the type species of Paessleria Michaelsen, 
1907). 
References 

Caullery, M. 1909. Recherches sur les synascidies du genre Colella et considerations sur la 
famille des Distomidae. Bulletin Scientifique de la France et de la Belgique, 42: 1-59. 



256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

Harant, H. 1929. Ascidies provenant des croisieres du Prince Albert 1"' de Monaco. Resultats 

de Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies sur son Yuchi par Albert I", 75; 1-1 10. 
Kott, P. 1969. Antarctic .Ascidiacea. A monographic account of the known species based on 

specimens collected under U.S. Government auspices, 1947 to 1963. Antarctic Research 

Series. 13: i-xv. 1-239. 
Kott, P. 1990. The Australian Ascidiacea. Part 2, Aplousobranchia (1). Memoirs of the 

Queensland Museum. 29(1): 1-266. 
Michaelsen, W. 1907. Tunicaten. Ergehnisse der Hamburger Magalhaensischen Sammelreise. 

8(5): 1-84. 
Michaelsen, W. 1915. Tunicata. Pp. 325-518 in: Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Meeresfauna iVest 

Afrikas. Hamburg. 
Michaelsen, W. 1930. Ascidiae Krikobranchiae. Die Fauna Siidwest-Australiens, 5(7): 463-558. 
Millar, R.H. 1962. Further descriptions of South African ascidians. Annals of the South African 

Museum. 56(7): 113-221. 
Millar, R.H. 1977. Ascidians (Tunicata : Ascidiacea) from the north-eastern Brazilian Shelf. 

Journal of Natural History. 11(2): 169-223. 
Nishikawa, T. 1984. Ascidians from the Truk Islands, Ponape Island and Majuro Atoll 

(Tunicata, Ascidiacea). Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology. 27: 

107-140. 
Renier, S.A. [1804]. Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi. [II pp.]. Padova. 
Savigny, J.-C. 1816. Memoires sur les animaux sans vertebres, part 2. 239 pp., 24 pis. Deterville, 

Paris. 
Tokioka, T. 1967. Pacific Tunicata of the United States National Museum. Bulletin of the 

United Stales National Museum. 251: 1-242. 
Van Name, W.G. 1945. The North and South American ascidians. Bulletin of the American 

Museum of Natural History. 84: 1-476. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 257 

Case 2966 

Cydodomorphus praealtus (Reptilia, Squamata): a proposal that 
availability of the specific name be taken from the intended description 
by Shea, 1995 

W.S. Osborne 

Applied Ecology Research Group, University of Canberra, P.O. Box 1, 

Belconnen, A. C. T. 2616, Australia 

K. Green 

Victorian Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, P. O. Box 
260. Orbost. Victoria 3888, Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to ensure that the specific name of 
Cydodomorphus praealtus, recently published for a new species of Australian alpine 
lizard, is treated as first made available by Shea ( 1995). The name was inadvertently 
made available by Osborne ( 1994) in a book which unexpectedly was published first. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia: Squamata: lizards: Cydodomorphus 
praealtus; Australia. 



1. In 1993, Dr Glenn Shea of the Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University 
of Sydney, sent one of us (W. Osborne) for information purposes a copy of his draft 
manuscript 'A taxonomic revision of the Cydodomorphus casuarinae complex 
(Squamata: Scincidae)". In this manuscript an Australian alpine lizard was described 
as Cydodomorphus praealtus sp. nov. Dr Shea requested that the name not be used 
in our publications prior to the publication of his paper. His paper was accepted for 
publication in the Records of the Australian Museum in September 1994, but was not 
published until April 1995. 

2. In expectation that the description prepared by Dr Shea would be published 
well before our book Wildlife of the Australian Snow-Country (Green & Osborne, 
1994), we planned to use Shea's name for this lizard. While our book was in the press, 
we became aware that Shea's paper had not been published and at galley proof stage 
requested the publisher to remove all reference to the new specific name This was 
done with one exception, heading the main species account on p. 104. 

3. The appearance of the name Cydodomorphus praealtus in the chapter on 
Reptiles (authored by W. Osborne) in our book is followed by a brief description, 
natural history notes and a colour photograph of the species. As the account was not 
intended to be a formal description, no type specimens are designated and no type 
locality given. However, the brief and incomplete description includes explicit 
comparison of one character (length of tail) with the species C. casuarinae to 
which the alpine species had previously been referred. By providing a diagnosis 
that purports to differentiate the taxon our description fulfils the criteria of 
availability. 



258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

4. In identifying the species as distinct, we note 'a recent taxonomic study of tiie 
two forms has revealed that they are separate species" and ascribe this in a footnote 
to 'G. Shea, personal communication'. Unfortunately, this does not explicitly identify 
Shea as the author of the new specific name or of the description. It follows that the 
'author' of the name is Osborne. Our publication of the name Cyclodoinorphus 
praealius was not intended to be the formal publication of a new name, and we 
acknowledge that the name is formally published by G.M. Shea in his paper (1995, 
p. 105) and that he is the describer of the taxon and the author of the name. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of 
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy all uses of the name praealius 
Osborne, 1994, as published in the binomen Cyclodoinorphus praealtus, and all 
uses of the name prior to the publication of Cyclodoinorphus praealius Shea, 
1995; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name praealius 
Shea, 1 995, as published in the binomen Cyclodoinorphus praealius; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the 
name praealius Osborne, 1994, as published in the binomen Cyclodoinorphus 
praealius. 

Acknowledgements 

We are grateful to Dr. G.M. Shea and to Dr H.G. Cogger and Professor W.D.L. 
Ride of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for confirmation 
that our inadvertent publication of this name amounts to making it available and for 
advice on action to be taken. 

References 

Osborne, W. 1994. Reptiles. Pp. 98-1 13 in Green. K. & Osborne, W. midlife of the Australian 

Snow-Country. Reed Books, Chatswood. 
Shea, G.M. 1995. A taxonomic revision of the Cyclodomorphus casuarinae complex 

(Squamata: Scincidae). Records of the Australian Museum, 47(1): 83-115. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 259 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, 
Stromatoporoidea) and designation of S. gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species 

(Case 2901; see BZN 52: 18-20) 

(1) Philippe Bouchet 

Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. 55 rue de Bujfon, 75005 Paris, France 

The suggestion that S. gorriense be designated as the type species of Stictostroma 
is straightforward and hardly needs discussion. However, I object to the proposal 
that Stictostroma be ruled to be available from Parks (1936). Since Parks did not 
designate a type species the name was first made available by Galloway & St. Jean 
(1957), and under Article 13b of the Code they are the authors of the name. Unless 
there is a synonym published between 1936 and 1957 (and the application does not 
mention one) the name Stictostroma could continue in use in its accustomed sense. 
The authorship does not form part of a name (Article 51), and the plenary powers 
should not be used to rule on authorship when there are no other nomenclatural 
consequences. 

(2) Joseph St. Jean 

Department of Geology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 
27599-3315, U.S.A. 

I support Dr Steam's proposals, which maintain Parks's original concept of 
Stictostroma and its usage since. As stated in para. 5 of the application, Stearn (1995) 
has shown that the original material of Stromatopora mammillata Nicholson, 1873 
(renamed Stictostroma mamilliferum by Galloway and myself in 1957) lacks diag- 
nostic features. In contrast, the well preserved holotype of Stictostroma gorriense 
Stearn, 1995 was used by Parks (1936) when describing Stictostroma, and it has 
served as the reference (i.e. it has been the de facto type) for the determination of the 
characteristic internal skeletal morphology and micromorphology of the genus (to 
which some 40 species, most of them valid, have been assigned). The designation 
of S. gorriense as the type species will maintain the consistent interpretation of 
Stictostroma Parks, 1936. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri 
Soos, 1926 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 2870; see BZN 51: 105-107, 336-338; 52: 176-178) 

Edmund Gittenberger 

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, NL 2300 RA, Leiden, 

The Netherlands 

I write in reply to Dr Kadolsky's comment (published in BZN 52: 176-178; June 
1995). Clearly his main problem concerns the Code, and less so my application. My 
reply concerns the latter. 

1. It appears to be necessary to emphasize once more (see BZN 51: 338) that I did 
not use what Kadolsky calls 'the opportunity offered by Article 79c ... for sloppy 



260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

work and easy glory". In this particular and in other cases, I really did 'bother to 
check whether older names, presently regarded as synonyms, are available", studying 
original descriptions and type specimens. This fact does not fit well into Kadoisky's 
argument and makes the discussion rather bizarre. Of course, old names should 
always be used instead of creating new ones. In accordance with the Code, however, 
unused old names should not replace well-known younger ones. 

2. I fee! that there is some inconsistency in Kadolsky"s attitude to facts and 
objectivity. In his view my "subjective" comments "contribute nothing to the solution 
of the problem, and should not have any bearing". Why should that be? Subjectivity 
cannot be avoided in cases like this. The application is, indeed, subjective and 
Kadolsky's argument, following an initial incorrect conclusion (see para. 3 below), is 
not itself an example of objectivity (see para. 4 below). 

3. It is incorrect to conclude that 'Gittenberger found 25 citations" for the usage 
of the name geyeri from the fact that I listed such a number, and it is odd that 
my previous clarification concerning this point (BZN 51: 338) has been neglected 
as if it were untrue. Is there a formal rule, or even a good reason, according to 
which we should spend time putting together as long as possible a list of references? 
Should that list be printed? I can imagine more useful activities and ways to spend 
money. 

4. According to Kadolsky, the species Trochoidea geyeri is 'still one of the less 
frequent of the European land snail fauna". The reasons for this statement are not 
given, which raises the question on what authority the notion is based. Opposing his 
view, I reiterate the fact that the specific name is indeed well known. The criteria for 
being considered well known are given in the Code. I selected references from various 
languages and disciplines to demonstrate the usage of the name (see para. 3 above). 
Additionally I referred for authority to Zoological Record, Mollusca (1967 and 
following years). Kadolsky's statement that 'it is easy to obtain such a number of 
citations [25] even for less important species" is mischievous because it might be 
incorrectly assumed that only 25 references were found. Apart from this, the 
implication that there are other, independent criteria to measure the importance of 
species requires an explanation. Kadolsky "s "belief concerning the 'audience" is 
subjectivity par excellence, as are his views concerning the length of names and 
'precedence as name based on a little known locality'. 

5. Because of conceptual and methodological innovations, systematics has gained 
new respect among biologists in the scientific world today. We systematists could 
easily lose that respect by falling prey to prioritists' dogmatism in nomenclature. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Aplysia Juliana Quoy 
& Gaimard. 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 2949; see BZN 52: 21-23) 

Alan Bebbington 

3 Crawley Lane. Uiey. near Dursley. Gloucestershire GLl 1 5BJ. U.K. 

I am writing to support the application to conserve the name Aplysia Juliana Quoy 
& Gaimard, 1832 for the sea hare which is found worldwide in warm waters. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 261 

The name Aplysia sore.\ Rang, 1 828 should be suppressed as it refers to a species 
dubia. Engel & Eales (1957) and Bales (1960) reported that the specimen identified 
as A. sorex in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris does not agree 
with the description of Rang's (1828) sore.x and is probably not the type. Further- 
more, specimens identified by various authors as sorex are usually juveniles of 
Juliana. 

A synonymy for A. Juliana was given by Eales (1960, p. 363). I listed records of the 
taxon from the Indian Ocean (Bebbington, 1974) and from the Pacific Ocean 
(Bebbington, 1977). 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria 
eonchamm Orsted, 1843 and Heterocimis fimhriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently 
D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for 
D. concharum 

(Case 2899; see BZN 52: 27-33) 

Fredrik Pleijel 

Swedish Museum of Natural History. Box 50007. S-J04 05 Stockholm. Sneden 
(Postal address: Tjdrno Marine Biological Laboratory, PL 2781. S-452 96 
Stromstad. Sweden) 

Andrew S.Y. Mackie 

National Museum of Wales. Cathays Park. Cardiff CFl 3NP. Wales. U.K. 

In their application Gibson & Heppell suggest establishing a neotype for 
Dodecaceria concharum. the type species by monotypy of Dodecaceria Orsted, 1 843, 
using a specimen from Cullercoats, Northumberland, England. Two species are 
present in the Cullercoats area (Garwood, 1982), one of which also occurs in the type 
locality of east Denmark. Gibson & Heppell's proposal, if accepted, would reserve 
the name D. concharum for the English species which does not occur at the type 
locality. Although it may be justified to designate a neotype for Orsted's species, we 
disagree with the choice of locality, and instead argue that it should be selected from 
topotypic material. Note that, contrary to Gibson & Heppell, only one of Orsted's 
localities is situated in the Oresund; the area between Fredrikshavn and Skagen is in 
the northwestern Kattegat. 

The proposed selection of neotype locality represents a deliberate misuse of 
Orsted's name. Further, we question whether their choice of neotype will serve 
nomenclatural stability. The value of the proposed conservation of British records is 
not obvious. The taxonomic difficulties in separating species of Dodecacaria make it 
unlikely that the names concharum &nd fimbriata (or caulleryi) have been used with 
any great consistency. The consequences for Danish-Swedish records are clear: the 
use oi concharum in publications such as Tauber (1879), Levinsen (1884), Thorson 
(1946), Ehason (1962) and Jagerskiold (1971), as well as Orsted (1843), will have to 
be considered incorrect. This despite the admission by Gibson & Heppell that only 
one species occurs in the area! The Danish species must rightly be referred to as 
D. concharum. not D. fimbriata. 



262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

In our view a neotype of A concharum should be selected from specimens obtained 
from one of Orsled's localities in Denmark. If the names Heierocirrus fimhriatus and 
D. caulleryi are both regarded as junior synonyms of D. concharum, then Terehella 
ostreae Dalyell, 1853 may constitute a suitable choice for the 'full salinity species". If 
deemed necessary, this name could be stabilized by the designation of a neotype. The 
use of the latter name will render unnecessary suppression of the specific names 
saxkola Grube. 1855 and aier Quatrefages, 1865. Suppression of the specific 
name sextentaculata Chiaje, 1822, however, we consider justified as it is not in current 
use. 

Nomenclatural as well as biological delineation problems in European Dodecaceria 
may prove more complicated than is presently known, and a correct historical 
interpretation will be less likely to cause confusion for future workers. We see 
no convincing reasons for reserving Orsted's name for a species that, according to 
the authors, cannot have been described by him. and did not even occur in the 
area. 



Additional references 

Eliason, A. 1962. Undersokningar over Oresund. XXXXI. Weitere Untersuchungen uber 
die Polychaetenfauna des Oresunds. Limds Universitels Arsskrift. N.F. Avd 2. 58(9): 
1-98. 

Jagerskiold, L. A. 1 97 1 . A survey of the marine benthonic macro-fauna along the Swedish west 
coast 1921-1938. Ada Regiae Societalis Scientiarium et Litterarum Golhoburgensis. 
Zoologica. 6: 1-146. 

Levinsen, G.M.R. 1884. Systematisk-geografisk-Oversigt over de nordiske Annulata, 
Gephyrea, Chaetognathi og Balanoglossi. Videnskabelige Meddeklser fra den Nalurhis- 
loriske Furening i Kjobenhavn, 1883: 92-350. 

Tauber, P. 1879. Annulata Danica. 1. En krilisk Revision af dei Danmark fundne. Annulata 
Chuetognatha, Gephyrea. Balanoglossi. Discophoreae, Oligochaeta. Gynmocopa og 
Polychaela. 143 pp. Reitzel. Kjobenhavn. 

Thorson, G. 1946. Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom inverte- 
brates, with special reference to the planktonic larvae in the Sound (Oresund). Meddelelser 
fra Kominissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri- og Havsundersogelser. Serie Plankton, 4(1): 
1-523. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspsis 
Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita) 

(Case 2944; see BZN 52: 34-36) 

H.B. Whittington 

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, 

Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K. 

I strongly support this application. The names Eophacops Delo, 1935 and 
Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 are based on well-known specimens and are in current 
use, whereas the types on which Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912 was based have 
not been traced; hence the meaning of this last name cannot be clarified. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 263 

Comment on the proposed designation of 5. pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the 
type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostraeoda) 

(Case 2896; see BZN 51: 304-305; 52: 178) 

Renate Matzke-Karasz 

Wilhelmshoher Allee 182. 34119 Kassel. Germany 

I am fully familiar with the situation mentioned in this case, having recently 
published a study of Scottia and allied genera (Matzke-Karasz, 1995). Scottia was 
based on the living species later called S. pseudobrowniana, and I entirely support the 
proposals. 



Additional reference 

Matzke-Karasz, R. 1995. Aktuelle Gattungs- und Artmerkmale bei Scottia. Cyclocypris 
und Mesocypris (Ostraeoda). Sonderveroffentlicluingen des Geologischen Instituts der 
Universitat zu Koln, no. 97. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, 
Isopoda) as the correct original spelling 

(Case 2915; see BZN 51: 224-226; 52: 67-69, 178-179) 

( 1 ) Thomas E. Bowman 

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington. D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

Three of the authors (Drs Holthuis, Brandt and Bruce; see BZN 52: 67-69) who 
have commented on this case have not addressed the key point (BZN 51: 224, para. 
3) that Leach's publishing eight generic names as anagrams of Caroline or Carolina 
and another that failed by a single easily mistaken letter ('v' for 'r') to be a ninth 
anagram constitutes 'in the original publication itself ... clear evidence of an 
inadvertent error" (Article 32c(ii) of the Code). Holthuis and Bruce do not dispose of 
this argument at all, but simply declare that there is no such evidence. Brandt says 
that printing errors are irrelevant, but if this were so the Code would not contain 
Article 32c(ii). 

(2) Ernest H. WiUiams, Jr. & Lucy Bunkley Williams 

Department of Marine Sciences. University of Puerto Rico. P.O. Box 908. Lajas, 
Puerto Rico 00667 

We agree with Dr Bowman in his comment above: Drs Holthuis, Brandt and Bruce 
do not address the principal argument. Their comments are of interest in providing 
additional background and history but do nothing to refute the proposals in the 
application. Since they have introduced auxiliary issues we will state a primary point, 
even though it is technically irrelevant. The Lironeca spelling would have the positive 



264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

effect of preserving the intent of the original author (which is beyond dispute: see 
BZN 51: 224, para. 4), while the Livoneca spelling would have the negative effect of 
promoting a misspelling or misprint. We trust the ruling will preserve reality with 
Liroiieca, not the surrealism of the Livoneca spelling. 

(3) Gianni Bello 

Istimio Avion. C.P. 61. 70042 Mola di Bari, Italy 

1 wish to support the proposal by Williams & Bowman to conserve Lironeca as the 
correct original spelling of the name of a genus of parasitic isopods. 

I agree with all the points in the application, and in addition I would like to stress 
that the vast majority of zoological names have meanings even though this is not 
obligatory. These meanings are very helpful to workers who have to memorize 
names. Unfortunately in Leach's time Recommendation 25B of the Code did not 
exist, and he did not state the derivation of his names of parasitic isopod genera. 
Nevetheless his intention is perfectly evident: eight of the names are based on 
anagrams of the personal name Caroline or Carolina. The spelling Livoneca, on the 
other hand, has no meaning. I maintain that wherever possible the original intention 
of the author of scientific names should be respected. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 
(Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling, and the placement of 
ASPiDiPHORiDAE Kiesenwettcr. 1877 (1859) on the Official List 

(Case 2918; see BZN 52: 44-47) 

Alfred F. Newton, Jr. and Margaret K. Thayer 

Department of Zoology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Illinois 60605. 

U.S.A. 

The application by Dr Joseph McHugh clearly sets out the relevant facts 
concerning the name Aspidiphorus and we completely agree with the proposed 
conservation of this spelling over the original spelling Arpidiphorus. 

We also agree with the facts presented concerning the family names aspidiphori- 
DAK and SPHINDIDAE, but strongly disagree with the conclusion that priority should be 
followed here and aspidiphoridae be used over sphindidae. 

Until new data on both family-group names was presented recently (Lawrence & 
Newton, 1995; Pakaluk, Slipiiiski & Lawrence, 1994; and para. 5 of the present 
application) sphindidae was thought to have priority over aspidiphoridae, but more 
precise dating of the part of Jacquelin du Val's (1859-1863) work in which 
sphindidae was established suggests a date of 1860 or 1861, after establishment of 
coniporidae Thomson, 1859 (from which aspidiphoridae derives its date, as 
indicated in para. 8 of the application). These facts and a recent taxonomic consensus 
that Aspidiphorus belongs in the sphindidae do require adoption of the senior name 
aspidiphoridae for the family according to the Code. 

There is no doubt that the name sphindidae is better known than aspidiphoridae 
and it has, to our knowledge, been universally used for this family whether 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 265 

Aspidiphorus is included or not, with one very recent exception (Pakaluic, Slipiriski & 
Lawrence. 1994). With the same exception, the family name a.spidiphoridae has been 
used only by some authors who have placed Aspidiphorus in a separate family of its 
own. The applicant, in an earlier draft of this application in which conservation of 
SPHINDIDAE over ASPIDIPHORIDAE was sought, listed 40 works showing use of the name 
SPHINDIDAE even when Aspidiphorus was included in the family, and such a Hst could be 
expanded easily (para. 8 mentions such a list submitted with the current appli- 
cation). The name sphindidae is used in all five of the "key works" on the family 
mentioned at the end of para. 3 of the application: in all earlier papers of the applicant 
and other recent specialists on the family; and in every major recent book and general 
reference treating Coleoptera classification and biology (see, for example, Crowson, 
1955, 1981; Freude, Harde & Lohse, 1967; Lawrence & Newton, 1982, 1995; Paulian, 
1988: Lawrence & Britton, 1991, 1994; Stehr, 1991; Silfverberg, 1992: Lawrence, 
Hastings, Dallwitz & Paine, 1993). sphindidae is the only name ever used for this 
family in the New World, where Aspidiphorus does not occur (examples are 
Blackwelder, 1944; Hatch, 1961; Arnett, 1963, 1985; Elgueta & Arriagada, 1989; 
Bousquet, 1991). Further, the unusual biology of the species of this family (all 
restricted to feeding on Myxomycetes as far as known) has led to frequent references to 
it in literature dealing with myxomycete-beetle interactions (recent examples are 
Russell, 1979; Lawrence & Newton, 1980; Newton & Stephenson, 1990; Stephenson, 
Wheeler, McHugh & Fraissinet, 1994) and in general books reviewing fungus-insect 
relationships (for example multiple references in recent books edited by Wheeler & 
Blackwell, 1984 and Wilding, Collins. Hammond & Webber, 1989), all of which use the 
family name sphindidae. Finally, if aspidiphoridae is adopted over sphindidae for the 
family name, any taxonomist choosing to return to a separate family status for 
Aspidiphorus would trigger two family-group name changes in the remaining sphindids 
(family and nominotypical subfamily names; three other subfamilies are currently 
recognized, for example in McHugh (1993)). An added mnemonic advantage of the 
family name sphindidae is the fact that all nine recognized genera except Aspidiphorus, 
and all four subfamilies, include the stem "sphind-' in their names (McHugh, 1993). 

Nevertheless, the application argues (para. 9) "... the group is so poorly known and 
the body of literature so small it seems appropriate to follow priority and use 
aspidiphoridae as the valid name.' For the reasons given above, we disagree that the 
literature on this family is too insignificant to justify conservation of the name 
sphindidae. We are not opposed in general to following priority or other rules of the 
Code that require name changes, and have done so in many cases in recent reviews 
of all family-group names in Staphyliniformia (Newton & Thayer, 1992) and all 
family and subfamily names in Coleoptera (Lawrence & Newton, 1995). However, we 
think that changes in family names (as opposed to those of subfamilies and lower 
taxa) are especially unfortunate given that the family name is the most common point 
of reference in searching for systematic and biological literature on a taxon, especially 
for non-taxonomists. The near-universal use of the name sphindidae for this family 
for more than a century, and its growing use in the non-systematic literature, seem 
sufficient reasons to justify its conservation over the older name aspidiphoridae. The 
latter name has been used in the broad sense (including sphindidae) only by Pakaluk, 
Slipihski & Lawrence (1994), who followed strict priority for all included family- 
group names regardless of established usage. 



266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

For the above reasons we propose that this application be modified to include 
conservation of the family-group name sphindidae over aspidiphoridae. This can be 
accomplished by placing the name sphindidae Jacquelin du Val. [1860], as well as 
ASPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859), on the Official List, with the endorsement 
that SPHINDIDAE be given precedence over aspidiphoridae whenever the relevant type 
genera are placed together. 

Additional references 

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. A manual for identification, xi, 1 1 12 pp. 

Catholic University Press, Washington. 
Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1985. American insects. A handbook oftlie insects of America north of Mexico. 

xiv, 850 pp. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville. 
Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the 

West Indies, and South America, part 1. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 

185: 1-188. 
Bousquet, Y. (Ed.). 1991. Checklist of beetles of Canada and Alaska, vi, 430 pp. Publication 

1861/E, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. 
Crowson, R.A. 1981. The biology of Coleoplera. xii, 802 pp. Academic Press, New York. 
Elgueta D., M. & Arriagada S., G. 1989. Estado actual del conocimiento de los coleopteros de 

Chile (Insecta: Coleoptera). Revista Chilena de Entoniologia. 17: 5-60. 
Hatch, M.H. 1961. 77;<? beetles of the Pacific Northwest, part 3 (Pselaphidae and Diversicomia 

I). 503 pp. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 
Lawrence, J.F. & Britton. E.B. 1991. Coleoptera (beetles). Pp. 543-683 in CSIRO Division of 

Entomology (Ed.). The insects of Australia: a textbook for students and research workers, 

Ed. 2, vol. 2. Pp. 543-1137. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 
Lawrence, J.F. & Britton, E.B. 1994. Australian beetles, x, 192 pp., 16 pis. Melbourne 

University Press, Carlton, Victoria. 
Lawrence, J.F., Hastings, A., Dallwitz, M. & Paine, T. 1993. Beetle larvae of the world, iv, 48 

pp., 1 compact disk. CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia. 
Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F., Jr. 1980. Coleoptera associated with the fruiting bodies of 

slime molds (Myxomycetes). Coleopterists' Bulletin, 34: 129-143. 
Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F., Jr. 1982. Evolution and classification of beetles. Aimual Review 

of Ecology and Systematics, 13: 261-290. 
Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F., Jr. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected 

genera, notes, references and data on family-group names). In Pakaluk, J. & Slipiiiski, 

S. A.( Eds.), Biology, phylogeny and classification of Coleoptera: Papers celebrating the 80th 

birthday of Roy A. Crowson. 1092 pp. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa. 
Newton, A.F., Jr. & Stephenson, S.L. 1990. A beetle/slime mold assemblage from northern 

India (Coleoptera: Myxomycetes). Oriental Insects. 24: 197-218. 
Newton, A.F., Jr. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in 

Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana: Zoology. (N.S.) 67: 1-92. 
Pakaluk, J., Slipinski, S.A. & Lawrence, J.F. 1994. Current classification and family-group 

names in Cucujoidea (Coleoptera). Genus, 5: 223-268. 
Paulian, R. 1988. Biologic des coleopteres. xi, 719 pp. Lechevalier, Paris. 
Russell, L.K. 1979. Beetles associated with slime molds (Mycetozoa) in Oregon and California 

(Coleoptera: Leiodidae, Sphindidae, Lathridiidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 55: 1-9. 
Stehr, F.W. (Ed.). 1991. Immature in.sects, vol. 2. xvi, 975 pp. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 

Dubuque, Iowa. 
Stephenson, S.L., Wheeler, Q.D., McHugh, J.V. & Fraissinet, P.R. 1994. New North American 

associations of Coleoptera with Myxomycetes. Journal of Natural History, 28: 921-936. 
Wheeler, Q. & Blackwell, M. (Eds.). 1984. Fungus-in.sect relationships: Perspectives in ecology 

and evolution, xiii, 514 pp. Columbia University Press, New York. 
Wilding, N., Collins. N.M., Hammond, P.M. & Webber, J.F. (Eds). 1989. Insect-fungus 

interactions, xvi, 344 pp. Academic Press, London. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 267 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, 
Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the 
type species 

(Case 2868; see BZN 50: 219-223; 51: 149-153; 52: 183-186) 

Hobart M. Smith 

Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology. University of 

Colorado. Boulder. Colorado 80309-0334. U.S.A. 

David B, Wake 

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. University of California. Berkeley, California 94720. 

U.S.A. 

Mark R. Jennings 

Fi.'ih and Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center. United States 

Department of the Interior, 1830 Sharon Avenue, Davis. California 95616. U.S.A. 

We wish to respond to the criticisms by Prof Dubois (BZN 52: 183-186) of the 
application by two of us (Smith & Wake) to conserve the name Hydromantes, 
published in BZN 50: 219-223. 

1. Of the 20 views pertinent to this case reported by herpetologists (BZN 51: 
149-153), 100% were supportive, and their authors included five representatives from 
Europe (including one of the two co-authors of the name Hydromcmtoide.s), one from 
Africa, one from Canada, and one from Thailand, as well as the remainder from the 
U.S.A. Contrary to the statement by Dubois (BZN 52: 183-186), complete agreement 
exists among these authors for approval of the application. 

2. The arguments advanced in support of that agreement do differ, however, as 
Dubois observed; some views merely reflected a rejection of generic separation of 
European and American species (which would require use of Hydromantoides for the 
latter), whereas others were non-committal in that context. The application did not, 
on the contrary, concern the strictly zoological decision of generic (or subgeneric) 
separation of the two groups, and the voting by the Commission should not 
reflect any such concern. Whatever the grounds for support among the comments 
submitted, the support is still there and undoubtedly would be the same even if the 
American species were regarded as validly separated generically from the European 
species. 

3. We understand the fundamentalist view Dubois represents, and we admire his 
uniquely thorough researches into nomenclatural history. Such dedication deserves 
its just rewards, but let them come where significant threat to nomenclatural stability 
does not exist. It is far more important to maintain established channels of 
communication than to follow significantly disruptive priority. Stability was stated in 
the Preamble of the 1985 edition of the Code as one of its primary objects, and the 
cover statement accompanying the Discussion Draft of the proposed Fourth Edition 
of the Code reiterates and strengthens that objective: 'The Editorial Committee has 
been guided by the principle that scientific names are labels for taxa and provide the 
only universal means of accessing zoological information. Stability in their appli- 
cation and form, consistent with taxonomy, is therefore of paramount importance 



268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

irrespective of any priority or linguistic consideration. This aim to maintain stability 
must take precedence over the tools that the Code uses to promote it. Thus, while 
priority remains the basis for determining validity, and linguistics the basis for the 
formation of names, neither is an end in itself ... Like all zoologists, members of 
the Editorial Committee recognize that many names in current use are in breach of 
the existing Code and that no scientific purpose would be served by continuing to 
make them vulnerable to change for purely formal reasons. In the proposals for the 
Fourth Edition every effort has been made to ensure that names in present use will 
remain valid when the new Code comes into effect, or that they can be easily 
validated". 

4. The basic contention in the present case is therefore whether the proposed 
conservation is justified by significant nomenclatural confusion and workers' resent- 
ment that would otherwise result. While a gradual increase in adoption of the Dubois 
system has occurred among European herpetologists (likely the result of our delay in 
appealing for conservation, and the concomitant assumption that no alternative 
existed to Dubois's thesis), the use of Hydromantes is more frequent than ever, in 
spite of the fact that the Zoological Record from 1986 through 1993/4 lists not a single 
work for any of the three North American species of the genus. The coverage for 
European literature on the genus during that period perhaps was more nearly 
complete than for the North American literature. Nevertheless, we point out that 
during the relevant period, the Zoological Record listed 19 different works using the 
name Hydromantes, as opposed to only one using Hydronumtoides, and eight using 
Spcleomantes. Eight of the nine works using the latter two names came in the period 
1990/1-1993/4, when nine works were listed using Hydromantes. 

5. In part because of the very incomplete coverage of all literature by the 
Zoological Record (see Chiszar, 1993) (especially non-taxonomic and non-scientific 
literature, although much of the taxonomic and scientific literature also escapes 
inclusion), the extent of usage of the name Hydromantes is not fully appreciated even 
by all specialists. We have submitted a list to the Commission Secretariat of 98 usages 
additional to those previously noted, all since 1924 (1925: I: 1934: 1; 1947: 1; 1957 
I; 1966: 3; 1967: 2; 1968: 2; 1969: 1; 1970: I; 1971: 1; 1972: 1; 1973: 1; 1974: 1; 1976 
2; 1978: 2; 1979: I; 1980: 3; 1981; 1; 1982: 3; 1983: 4; 1984: 2; 1985: 1; 1986: 3; 1987 
3; 1988: II; 1989; 3; 1990: 5; 1991: 10; 1992; 7; 1993; 6; 1994: 10; 1995: 4), and are 
certain that many more exist, probably of equal or greater number. Such a 
wide-spread usage is not to be dismissed lightly. We call attention particularly to 
Gorham (1974), Zeiner, Laudenslayer & Mayer (1988), Collins (1990), Steinhart 
(1990), Williams, Byrne & Rado (1992), Jennings & Hayes (1994), Thelander & 
Crabtree (1994) and Wake (1995) because of their synoptic nature and general 
reference importance. 

6. The importance of name-usage in non-taxonomic works should not be under- 
estimated by taxonomists, who are the guardians of biological nomenclature for the 
benefit not only of themselves, but also of the far more numerous biologists of other 
disciplines, be those disciplines ecology, conservation, protection, management, 
genetics, evolution, education, anatomy or physiology, at either molecular or 
organismic levels. Non-taxonomic biologists depend on taxonomists to assure 
stability of nomenclature insofar as it is consistent with biological knowledge, 
keeping that stability immune to changes for purely nomenclatural reasons, where 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 269 

they are significantly disruptive to understanding by biologists in general. Failure of 
taxonomists to serve that function well undermines their value to, and endangers the 
faith in and respect of, their fellow biologists, on whom their acceptance depends. 
7. We therefore hold that the voluminous non-taxonomic literature, in addition 
to the other literature on the taxa properly (under our application) referred to 
Hydromantes, fully justifies conservation of that name (whether applied solely to the 
European species or, in addition, to the North American ones), is consistent with the 
rules and spirit of the Code, is overwhelmingly supported by our colleagues, and does 
not limit consistency in any way with perpetually dynamic biological investigation or 
interpretation. 

References 

Chiszar, D, 1993. [Comparison of citations of selected names in Smith & Smith. 1993, and the 

Zoological Record]. Pp. 2-i in Smith, H.M. & Smith, R.B., Synopsis of (he herpetofaima 

of Mexico, vol. 7. ix. 1082 pp. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 
Gorham, S.W. 1974. Checklist of world amphibians. 172 pp. New Brunswick Museum, St. John, 

New Brunswick. 
Jennings, M.R. & Hayes, M.P. 1994. Amphibians and reptiles of special concern in California. 

iii, 255 pp. California Department of Fish and Game. Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho 

Cordova. California. Final Report under Contract 8023. 
Steinhart, P. 1990. California's wild heritage: threatened and endangered animals in the golden 

slate, iv, 108 pp., illustrations. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 

California. 
Thelander, C.G. & Crabtree, M. (Eds.). 1994. Life on the edge: a guide to California's 

endangered natural resources: wildlife, xvi, 550 pp. BioSystems Books, Santa Cruz, 

California. 
Wake, D.B. 1995. Amphibians. Amphibians: class Amphibia. Pp. 418^28 in The New 

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ed. 15 (revised), vol. 13. iii, 996 pp. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 

Chicago. 
Williams, D.F., Byrne, S. & Rado, T. (Eds.). 1992. Endangered and .sensitive species of the San 

Joucjuin I'alley. California: their biology, management, and conservation, xv, 388 pp. 

California Energy Commission. Sacramento, California. 
Zeiner, D,C., Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr. & Mayer, K.E. (Eds.). 1988. California's wildlife, vol. 1 

(Amphibians and reptiles), ix. 272 pp. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the family-group name 
PHRVNOBATRACHiNAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura) 

(Case 2362; see BZN 51: 240-246) 

(1) J.C. Poynton 

The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

I support this application to conserve the name phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 
1941. Prof Dubois seems justified in his view that priority should not be the sole 
consideration in this case. Given that, he appears to be correct in arguing that (i) 
adoption of the most commonly used subfamily name, phrynobatrachinae, would 
cause least disturbance, and (ii) the name was proposed by Laurent for a group whose 
content has remained unchanged, apart from new additions, and so has proved to be 
a workable taxonomic unit. The second feature may indeed account for the 
popularity of Laurent's name. 



270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

The taxonomy of this group of frogs is in an unsatisfactory state, but Dubois's 
proposals would appear to be able to accommodate any changes in the future. 



(2) Darrel R. Frost 

Deparlmeiit uj Herpetology and Ichthyology. American Museum oj Natural History, 

79th Street at Central Park West. New York. NY 10024. U.S.A. 

Jay M. Savage 

University of Miami, Department of Biology. P.O. Box 2491 18. Coral Gables, 

Florida 33146, U.S.A. 

While we support most actions requested by Prof Dubois in this case, especially the 
endorsement concerning the long-unused name hemimantidae Hoffman, 1878, we 
recommend alternatives to his principal other proposals. 

The name phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 has been widely used since that date 
for a subfamily containing both Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 and Phrynobatrachus 
Gunther, 1862, but petropedetinae Noble, 1931 (a senior subjective synonym of 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE) has also been extensively used for this family-group and, 
importantly, also in the comprehensive checklist of the amphibians of the world 
(Frost, 1985). This work has been adopted as the official classification of amphibians 
for the purposes of enforcement by the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES). In this compendium the author of 
the name phrynobatrachinae, R. Laurent, was one of the contributing reviewers to 
the petropedetinae section. 

Seeking the conservation of the junior synonym phrynobatrachinae when both 
it and petropedetinae have about equal frequencies of usage does not contribute to 
stability, particularly when petropedetinae is now most familiar to the non- 
systematic herpetology public. We therefore ask that the Commission use its plenary 
powers to accept the following alternatives to ( 1 )(a)-(b) and 4(a)-(c) in para. 10 of the 
application: 

(1) (a) to rule that the family-group name petropedetinae Noble, 1931 and other 
family-group names based on Petropedetes Reichenow. 1874 are to be 
given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffman, 1878 and other family- 
group names based on Hemimantis Peters, 1863; 
(b) to rule that the family-group name phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 and 
other family-group names based on Phrynobatrachus Gunther, 1 862 are to 
be given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffman, 1878 and other family- 
group names based on Hemimantis Peters, 1863; 
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 
names: 

(a) petropedetinae Noble, 1931 (type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Petropedetes are to be given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffmann, 
1878 (type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names 
based on Hemimantis and (by the first reviser action of Dubois, 1982) over 
cacosterninae Noble, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 271 

and other family-group names based on Cacosternum, whenever their type 
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; 

(b) CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Cacosternum are to be given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffman, 1878 
(type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names based 
on Hemimantis, but are not to be given priority over petropedetinae 
Noble, 1931 (type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) and other family- 
group names based on Petropedetes. whenever their type genera are placed 
in the same family-group taxon; 

(c) PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (type genus P/irv«o/)fln-ac/(«j Giinther, 
1862) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Phrynobatrachus are to be given precedence over hemimantidae HofTman, 
1878 (type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names 
based on Hemimantis, whenever their type genera are placed in the same 
family-group taxon. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of LycognathopMs Boulenger, 1893 
(Reptilia, Serpentes) 

(Case 2877; see BZN 51: 330-331) 

Lauren E. Brown 

Department of Biological Science, Illinois State University. Campus Box 4120, 
Normal. Illinois 61790^120. U.S.A. 

I strongly support this application: favorable actions in such cases, where a junior 
synonym has dominant usage, are very important in preserving nomenclatural 
stability. 

Island snake faunas have been the subject of considerable recent attention, in part 
due to the serious economic and ecological effects of the introduction into Guam of 
the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis. Lycognathophis seychellertsis is a member of 
the unique endemic herpetofauna of the Seychelles, and is of further interest because 
of the unusually enlarged anterior teeth of the lower jaw. It would be very 
unfortunate if its name were to be destabilized for no good reason, and I urge the 
Commission to accept Smith & Wallach's proposals. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first 
published in Brisson's (1762) Regnum Animale 

(Case 2928; see BZN 51: 135-146, 266-267, 342-348; 52: 78-93, 187-192) 

( 1 ) Andrew Currant 

Department of Palaeontology. Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD. U.K. ' 

The proposal to replace the familiar mammalian generic name Glis Brisson, 1 762 
with the now largely forgotten Myo.xus Zimmermann, 1780 is a particularly sad 



272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

example of the scholastic branch of taxonomy being out of touch with the rest of the 
world. 

The position is put most eloquently in the 1994 lUCN Red List of Threatened 
Animals (1993, p. xiii): 'Some level of taxonomic change is both inevitable and 
desirable, if new methods and new studies are to be pursued, but taxonomists 
sometimes appear oblivious to the needs of users of taxonomies. As just one example, 
sources in Wilson & Reeder (1993) note that the dormouse genus Glis Brisson 1762 
is invalid and the earliest valid replacement is Myoxus Gray 1 82 1 [recte Zimmermann 
1780]. Adoption of this name, not used for decades, requires changing the family 
name from Gliridae to Myoxidae, and denies mammalogists Glis glis, a name both 
familiar and euphonious. The pragmatic taxonomist would not have agonised over 
the validity or otherwise of eighteenth century names, but kept his own counsel, or 
petitioned the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve 
the familiar name under Article 79 of the Code'. 

The problem of the availability of Brisson's mammal generic names was noted as 
being before the Commission, but still unresolved, by EUemian & Morrison-Scott, 
back in 1951 (although there was then no formal application). In the intervening time 
the most widely acceptable decision on this matter seems to have been made by the 
people who actually make use of names and write about the animals concerned. There 
is surely a very strong argument for the retention of Glis. and indeed of the other 
disputed mammalian generic names used in Brisson's (1762) Reginim Animale, on the 
grounds of common usage and the maintenance of stability. Because of its protected 
and locally endangered status and significance as an environmental indicator species 
Glis glis, the edible or fat dormouse, appears in a vast amount of scientific, popular 
and educational literature and legislative documentation in Europe. The consequent 
replacement of the family name gliridae by myoxidae would also be particularly 
unwelcome to users of the huge body of recent literature on European fossil rodents. 

If the proposed adoption of Myoxus solved a knotty taxonomic problem I doubt 
if there would be such strong objection, but as it stands this seems to be little more 
than a gratuitous replacement of a very well known and widely used historical name 
by a lesser known synonym. 

Additional reference 

Groombridge, R. (Ed.). 1993. J994 lUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Ivi, 286 pp. lUCN 
- The World Conservation Union, Gland. Switzerland. 

(2) M. Freudenthal 

Department of Fossil Vertebrates, Nationaal Natinirhislorisch Museum, 
Postbus 9517. 2300 RA Leiden. The Netherlands 

I am strongly in favour of the conservation of Brisson's generic names, especially 
of the name Glis. since I have been working on fossil gliridae. I think that it would 
serve the stability of nomenclature. 

(3) Mieczyslaw Wolsan 

Instytut Paleobiologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, al. Zwirkii i Wigury 93. 
02-089 Warsaw, Poland 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 273 

According to the Code, Brisson's (1762) Regiumi Animale is not available for 
nomenciatural purposes because its author did not consistently apply the principle of 
binominal nomenclature. Although many recent workers reject this work, some 
others accept it. Therefore, for the sake of unambiguous scientific communication, it 
would be undoubtedly helpful and desirable for the Commission to reject Brisson's 
work formally, as proposed by Anthea Gentry. 

Twelve mammal generic names, which were first published in the Regnum Animale 
of 1 762, have generally been adopted by mammalogists and are in current use. These 
are Philander, Pteropus, Glis, Cuniculiis, Hydrochoerus, Odobemis, Meles. Liitra, 
Hyaena, Tapirus, Tragulus and Giraffa. The name Odobenus Brisson, 1762 has 
already been conserved by the Commission (Opinion 467). Most of the remaining 1 1 
names are those of type genera of well-established family-group taxa. Thus, it seems 
that a rejection of the 11 generic names would prejudice nomenciatural stability. 
However, I see no necessity for the attribution of the authorship of all the names to 
Brisson, as proposed in the application. The names Philander, Pteropus, Meles, 
Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus and Giraffa are available with the same meaning from 
subsequent authors without any violation of stability of nomenclature. Moreover, the 
seven generic names have been so attributed by a number of workers. Changing these 
attributions to return to Brisson (1762), whose work is otherwise unavailable, would 
certainly not be in the interest of well-conceived stability. 

(4) Claude Dupuis 

Entomologie. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 Rue de Bujfon. F-75005 

Paris, France 

Contre-propositions pour inscrire les ouvrages de Brisson (1759) et (1762) dans la 
Liste ojficielle 

Je n'examinerai pas ici les propositions I a 7 de I'etude presentee par Anthea 
Gentry relativement aux noms generiques de mammiferes de Brisson (1762) (BZN 
51: 135-146). Tout en admettant qu'il faut preserver au moins ceux de ces noms 
qu'ont reutilises les successeurs de Brisson, je laisse aux mammalogistes le soin de 
discuter chacun des cas correspondants, notamment en ce qui concerne les especes 
types. 

Par centre, je m'oppose fermement a la proposition 8, c"est-a-dire a la mise a 
ITndex de Brisson (1762). Mes arguments, que je pourrais expliciter longuement si 
necessaire, precedent de quatre sortes de considerations. 

1 . Questions de principe 

(a) J'estime que la Commission de nomenclature doit juger des noms, pris un par 
un, et le moins possible des ouvrages pris en bloc. 

(b) La mise a ITndex, meme aux seules fins de nomenclature, des grands classiques 
de la taxinomie — les ouvrages de Brisson sont de ceux-la — porte, qu'on le veuille 
ou non, un prejudice general a leur reputation. Dans le cas particulier, il ne faut pas 
oublier que Brisson a puissamment contribue a Tadhesion des zoologistes au systeme 
taxinomique hierarchique categorise (classes, ordres, genres, especes) sur lequel Linne 
a fonde le systeme de nomenclature categorisee qui est le notre. 



274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

2. Raisoiis pratiques 

(a) La mise a I'lndex de grands classiques peut constituer, en matiere de 
nomenclature meme, une erreur qu'il faut ensuite corriger laborieusement (cf. les cas 
des noms de Geoffroy et de Martyn). 

(b) Plutot que de mettre a I'lndex tout un ouvrage et de devoir aussitot retablir par 
exception ses noms les plus indispensables a la stabilite de la nomenclature, il me 
parait judicieux d"inscrire cet ouvrage sur la Liste officielle, quite a mettre a Tlndex 
par exception ses noms indesirables. 

3. Audience de la Commission 

(a) Pour etre logique avec elle-meme. la Commission se doit de resoudre le cas de 
Brisson (1762) comme elle a resolu (non sans difficultes, cf. Opinion 37, Directions 16 
et 105) le cas Brisson (1760). II suffit pour cela d'inscrire Touvrage dans la Liste 
officielle. Bien que les epithetes specifiques n"y soient pas 'consistently" univerbales, ce 
travail obeit strictement a I'esprit categorialiste de separation entre genre et espece 
d'une nomenclature binaire. La Tabula synoptica Quadrupedum de Brisson (1762, 
pp. 12-13) et sa Tabula synoptica Cetaceorum (p. 218) sont d'ailleurs totalement 
comparables a sa Tabula synoptica Avium de 1760. 

(b) La Commission, dont la responsabilite se trouve engagee par la signature 
d'Anthea Gentry, doit montrer qu'elle connait bien I'ouvrage qu'elle propose de 
mettre a Tlndex. Dans le cas present, elle doit savoir que 'Navarre' oil enseignait 
Brisson etait le college de Navarre a Paris (on n'enseigne pas a Trinity et a Dublin). 
Elle doit savoir, comme il est dii dans I'ouvrage (cf Bibliopola lectori p. 1), que 
Brisson (1762) a ete edite par J.N.S. Allamand ("Vir. Cel. qui Historiam naturalem in 
nostra Academia Lugduno-Batava docet'). Elle doit savoir que ce livre comporte des 
additions (les plus importantes, qu'il faudrait peut-etre examiner, sont empruntees a 
J.G. Gmelin, ex Nori Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum linperialis Petropolitanae, 
4 [1752-53] 1758 et 5 [1754-55] 1760). Elle doit savoir que, dans le texte (pp. 31, 
163-166), Allamand a explicitement restreint le genre Odobenus de Brisson (1756) et 
(1759) a sa premiere espece et qu'il en a retire la seconde ('Le Lamantin/Manatus') 
pour la placer dans le genre Phoca. Elle doit savoir enfin. comme je le precise ci-apres, 
que la suppression de Brisson (1762) serait totalement inutile car les noms generiques 
de 1756 ont deja ete rendus disponibles des 1759! 

4. Anteriorite de Brisson (1759) 

En 1759, Francois Alexandre Aubert de la Chesnaye des Bois a annexe, a la fin du 
tome 4 de son Dictionnaire raisonne et universel des animaux ... par M.D.L.C.D.B. 
(Paris [Bauche], 4 vols, in 4°), une 'Division generale de la classe des Quadrupedes 
selon I'ordre dans lequel ils sont ranges dans le Regne animal de M. Brisson' (pp. 
627-631) et une 'Division generale de la classe des Cetaces par M. Brisson' (p. 632). 

Les 46 noms generiques des deux Tables/Tabulae de Brisson ( 1 756) (deux depliants 
face p. 22 pour les quadrupedes, 42 genres; pour les cetaces p. 346, quatre genres) se 
retrouvent tous dans ces deux extraits. lis y figurent, avec les memes numeros, en 
fran^ais et en latin, precedes respectivement du mot "genre" et du mot 'genus'. Ces 
noms et numeros sont exactement ceux utilises dans les deux Tabulae de 1762. 
Dans les Divisions generales de 1759, les noms generiques en latin sont au 
genitif, precisement parce qu'ils sont precedes du mot genus (p. ex. 'genre du 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1 995 275 

Philandre' - 'Genus Phikmdri'). Dans les Tabulae de 1756 et de 1762. ils sont au 
nominatif car remission du mot genus permet d'eviter le genilif. 

Ces deux extraits rendent les noms de genres de mammiferes de Brisson disponsi- 
bles des 1759. En vertu de I'article llc(i) du Code, I'absence de citation d'especes 
nominales associees n'est pas un obstacle. En vertu de I'article llg(i). Temploi du 
genitif est parfaitement admis. En vertu de 12b(l), le renvoi a Brisson (1756) constitue 
une indication. Au surplus tous les caracteres donnes en franfais et en latin 
representent autant de descriptions. 

Conclusion 

Pour I'ensemble des considerations qui precedent, je formule les contre- 
propositions suivantes: 

( 1 ) Inscrire Brisson in La Chesnaye ( 1 759) et Brisson edit. Allamand { 1 762) dans la 
Liste officielle. au meme titre que Brisson (1760). 

(2) Examiner, un par un, les 1 1 noms de genres objets de la proposition d'Anthea 
Gentry, en vue d'inscrire le plus grand nombre possible d'entre eux dans la Liste 
officielle sous leur date de 1759. 

(3) Examiner, un par un. les 10 noms de genres auxquels la proposition d'Anthea 
Gentry fait allusion (p. 137). en vue de mettre le plus grand nombre possible d'entre 
eux a I'lndex sous leur date de 1759. 

(4) Rectifier I'Opinion 467 et la Liste officielle en attribuant a Odobemis Brisson la 
date prioritaire de 1759. 



276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

OPINION 1815 

Chromadova Bastian, 1865 and Euchromadora de Man, 1886 
(Nematoda): conserved by the designation of C. nudicapitata Bastian, 
1865 as tiie type species of Chromadora 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nematoda; Chromadora: Euchromadora. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Chromadora Bastian, 1865 are hereby set aside and Chromadora midkapitata 
Bastian, 1865 is designated as the type species. 

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

(a) Chromadora Bastian, 1865 (gender: feminine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above Chromadora nudicapitata Bastian, 1865; 

(b) Euchromadora de Man, 1886 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Chromadora vulgaris Bastian, 1865. 

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

(a) midicapitata Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Chromadora midicapi- 
tatu (specific name of the type species of Chromadora Bastian, 1865); 

(b) vulgaris Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Chromadora vulgaris 
(specific name of the type species o{ Euchromadora de Man, 1886). 

History of Case 2848 

An application to conserve the usage of both Chromadora Bastian, 1865 and 
Euchromadora de Man, 1886 by the designation of Chromadora midicapitata Bastian, 
1865 as the type species of Chromadora was received from Dr P. A. A. Loof 
( Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageiiingen, The Netherlands) on 13 May 1992. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 102-104 (June 1994). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 103-104. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis. Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli. Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Original references 

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



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 277 

Chronuulora Bastian, 1865, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. 25; 167. 
Eiuhromadoni de Man, 1886, Anatomische Untersuclmngen iiber freilebende Nordsee- 

Nematoden, p. 67. 
niidicapitata, Chromadora, Bastian, 1865, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. 25: 

167. 
vulgaris. Chromadora. Bastian. 1865, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. 25: 167. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Chromadora vulgaris Bastian, 1865 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Euchromadora de Man, 1886: 
Man, J.G. de. 1886. Anatomische Untersuchungen iiber freilebende Nordsee-Nematoden. p. 67. 



278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

OPINION 1816 

Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda): specific name conserved 
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chilopoda; centipedes; Lithobius piceus; Europe. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name quadridentatus Menge, 1851, as 
published in the binomen Lithobius quadridentatus, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name piceus L. Koch. 1862. as published in the binomen Litlwbius piceus, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name quadridentatus Menge, 1851, as published in the binomen Lithobius 
quadridentatus and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2919 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Lithobius piceus 
L. Koch, 1862 was received from Dr E.H. Eason {Bourton Far Hill. Moreton-in- 
Marsh. Gloucestershire. U.K.) on 30 November 1993. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 51: 133-134 (June 1994). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A note of support from Prof Alessandro Minelli ( Universitd di Padova. Padova, 
Italy) was published in BZN 51: 341 (December 1994). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 133. At the close of the voting period on I June 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, 
Kabata, Kraus. Lehtinen, Macpherson. Mahnert. Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye. Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys 

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Dupuis commented that, given the apparent taxonomic doubt surrounding the 
three names in question (paras. 2 and 3 of the application), it would be better to give 
Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 precedence whenever they are considered to be 
synonyms, rather than suppressing L. quadridentatus Menge, 1851. Kabata com- 
mented: 'Article 79c of the Code seems to mandate acceptance of this application. I 
vote for it with some reluctance, however, as I think that adherence to the principle 
of priority would not result in any significant nomenclatural instability". 

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: 

piceus. Lithuhius, L. Koch. 1862, Die Myriapodcngallung Lithobius darestelll. p. 49. 
quadridentatus, Lithohius. Menge, 1851, Neuesle Schrijieii der Nalurforsclienden Gesellschaji in 
Danzig. 4(2); 12. 



Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 279 

OPINION 1817 

Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken, 1815 (Crustacea, Copepoda): 
conserved, and Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815: specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Copepoda; ClaveUa: Pennella: Pennella 
diodontis. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) the following names are available despite having been published in a rejected 
work; 

(i) the generic names: 

(A)C/flve/toOken, 1815; 

(B) Pennella Oken, 1815; 
(ii) the specific name diodontis Oken, 1815, as published in the binomen 

Pennella diodontis: 

(b) the following type fixations by monotypy in Oken (1815) are valid: 

(i) Lernaea uncinata Miiller, 1776 as the type species of Clavella Oken, 1815; 
(ii) Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815 as the type species of Pennella Oken, 1815. 

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

(a) Clavella Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), as ruled in (l)(a)(i)(A) above, type 
species by monotypy Lernaea uncinata Miiller, 1776 (a junior subjective 
synonym oi Lernaea adunca Strom, 1762), as ruled in (l)(b)(i) above; 

(b) Pennella Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), as ruled in (l)(a)(i)(B) above, type 
species by monotypy Pennella diodontis Oken, 1 8 1 5, as ruled in ( I )(b)(ii) above. 

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

(a) adunca Strom, 1762, as published in the binomen Lernaea adunca (senior 
subjective synonym of the specific name oi Lernaea uncinata Miiller, 1776, the 
type species of Clavella Oken, 1815); 

(b) diodontis Oken, 1815, as published in the binomen Pennella diodontis (specific 
name of the type species of Pennella Oken, 1815). 

History of Case 836 

An application for the conservation of the generic names Clavella and Pennella, 
both of Oken (1815), was received from Dr Z. Kabata (Canada Department of 
Fisheries and Oceans. Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada) on 10 
August 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: ITi-lld 
(December 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Dr G.A. Boxshall ( The Natural History Museum, 
London. U.K.) and Dr Dale W. Rice (U.S. Depcn-tment of Commerce. National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Mummed Laboratory, 
Seattle. Washington, U.S.A.) were published in BZN 50: 285-286 (December 1993) 
and 51: 338-339 (December 1994) respectively. 



280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

A comment by Mrs A. Gentry (ICZN Secretariat, do The Natural History 
Museum, London, U.K.), published in BZN 51: 339, pointed out that a number of 
generic names in several groups had previously been conserved from vol. 3 of Oken's 
(1815-1816) Lehrbuih der Naturgescliichte (cf para. 2 of the application). 

It was noted on the voting paper that Pennella Oken, 1815 was based on the single 
species P. diodontis Oken, 1815, which has been cited by most recent authors as the 
type species and as a valid name (para. 5 of the application and comments by Drs 
Bo,\shall and Rice). It was therefore desirable to conserve the specific name of 
P. diodontis Oken, 1815, in addition to the generic names Clavella and Pennella. This 
proposal was added, as (l)(c), to (l)(a) and (b) in para. 8(1) on BZN 50: 275. 

It was also noted that the fixation of Lernaea uncinata Miiller, 1 776 as the type 
species of Clavella, and that of Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815 as the type species of 
Pennella, had been given in the application (Proposals (2)(a) and (b)) as being 'by 
monotypy". However, Oken (1815-1816) is a rejected work and is not available for 
nomenelatural acts. The Commission was therefore requested to rule that the type 
fixations by monotypy in Oken (1815) for Clavella and Pennella are valid. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 275, with the addition of (c) to proposal (1) and 
the amendments to (2)(a) and (b) noted above. At the close of the voting period on 
1 June 1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson. Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen. Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Dupuis commented that the case demonstrated that it was often ill-advised to 
reject a work such as that by Oken. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
adimca. Lernaea. Strom, 1762, Physik og oeconomisl; beskrivelse over fogderiet Sondmor, 

heliggende i Bergens slift i Norge, part 1, p. 167. 
Clavella Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichle. vol. 3 (Zoologie), part 1, p. 358. 
diodontis, Pennella, Oken. 1815, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. vol. 3 (Zoologie), part 1, p. 358. 
Pennella Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichle. vol. 3 (Zoologie), part 1, p. 358. 

The following is the reference for the fixation of Lernaea uncinata Miiller, 1776 as the type 
species of Clavella Oken, 1815, and of Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815 as the type species of 
Pennella Oken, 1815: 
Oken, L. 1815. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. vol. 3 (Zoologie), part 1, p. 358. 



4 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 281 

OPINION 1818 

Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus 
monardae; Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Homoptera; aphids; Hyalomyzus monardae; 

North America. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the specific name scrophulariae Thomas, 1 879, as 
pubhshed in the binomen Phorodon scrophulariae, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name monardae Davis. 1911, as published in the binomen Rhopalosiphum 
monardae, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name scrophulariae Thomas, 1879, as published in the binomen Phorodon 
scrophulariae and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2890 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Rhopalosiphum 
monardae Davis, 1911 was received from Dr David J. Voegtlin (Center for 
Biodiversity. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign. Illinois. U.S.A.) on 26 April 
1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 1 18-120 (June 1994). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 1 19. At the close of the voting period on I June 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, 
Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, 
Schuster, Starobogatov. Stys 

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Kabata, Macpherson and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Kabata commented: T fail to see why Phorodon scrophulariae is referred to as 
'inappropriate' (para. 5 of the application; cf. Articles 18 and 23m of the Code). 
Reversion to the senior name is not likely to cause any great upheaval in 
nomenclature and 1 believe that in this case we should uphold the principle of 
priority'. 

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: 
scrophulariae. Phorodon, Thomas, 1879, Third Annual Report of the Slate Entomologist of 

Illinois. 8: 72. 
monardae. Rlwpalosiphum. Davis, 1911, University of Nebraska Studies, 11(3): 288. 



282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

OPINION 1819 

Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): Eutettix olivaceus 
Melichar, 1903 confirmed as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature: taxonomy; Homoptera: leafhoppers: Bhatia: Bluilia 
olivaceus. 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Eutettix olivaceus Melichar, 
1903 is the type species of the genus Bhatia Distant, 1908. 

(2) The name Bhatia Distant, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Eutettix olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as confirmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name olivaceus Melichar, 1903, as published in the binomen Eutettixl 
olivaceus (specific name of the type species of Bhatia Distant, 1908) is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2929 

An application for the confirmation of Eutettix olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as the 
type species of Bhatia Distant, 1908 was received from Mr M.D. Webb (The Natural 
History Museum. London. U.K.) on 25 February 1994. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 51: 116-117 (June 1994). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 1 16. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Bluuia Distant, 1908, The fauna of Brili.sh India including Ceylon and Burma, vol. 4 

(Rhynchota), p. 357. 
olivucuus. Eulcllix. Melichar. 1903. Hoinoptcren- Fauna von Ceylon, p. 191. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 283 

OPINION 1820 

A.A.H. Lichtenstein's (1796, 1797) Catalogiis miisei zoologici ... 
Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider's (1800) 
Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten ... : suppressed, with conservation 
of some Lichtenstein (1796) names (Insecta and Arachnida) 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Arachnida; Solpuga. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) the following works are suppressed for nomenclatural purposes: 

(i) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1796. Catalogiis miisei zoologici ditissimi Hamhurgi, 

d III. Febniar 1796 auctionis lege distmhendi Sectio Tenia. Continens 

Insecta; 
(ii) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1797. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamhurgi. 

d. 16 Majus 1797 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens 

In.secta: 
(iii) Schneider, D.H. 1800. Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten welche am 6ten 

Mdrz 1800 zii Stralsiind in qff'entlicher Auction einzeln verkauft werden 

so Hen; 

(b) the generic name Solpuga Lichtenstein, 1796 (Solifugae) is available despite 
having been published in a suppressed work; 

(c) the following specific names are available despite having been published in a 
suppressed work (Lichtenstein, 1796), in combination with the generic name 
shown in each case: 

(i) caedemadens, Cassida (Coleoptera); 
(ii) caperans, Brachycerus (Coleoptera); 
(iii) chelicornis. Solpuga (Solifugae); 
(iv) chrysis. Lygaeus (Heteroptera); 
(v) chrysothorax. Vespa (Hymenoptera); 
(vi) coloboptera, Vespa (Hymenoptera); 
(vii) ephippium. Cassida (Coleoptera); 
(viii) ephippium, Reduvius (Heteroptera); 
(ix) fatalis, Solpuga (Solifugae); 
(x) filum. Mantis (Mantodea); 
(xi) gnatho, Brentus (Coleoptera); 
(xii) haematites, Cassida (Coleoptera); 
(xiii) juiii.x, Brachycerus (Coleoptera); 
(xiv) neriifolia, Locusta (Orthoptera); 
(xv) nitida, Cicindela (Coleoptera); 
(xvi) portentosa, Acheta (Orthoptera); 
(xvii) purpurea, Sagra (Coleoptera); 
(win) umhretta, Phasma (Phasmida); 
(xix) v-luteum, Cimex (Heteroptera). 



284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

(2) The name Solpiiga Lichtenstein, 1796 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Pocock (1897) Solpiigu chelicornis Lichtenstein. 1796, as 
conserved in ( 1 )(b) above, 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 with authorship of Lichtenstein (1796). page references as cited and first 
published in combination with the generic name shown in each case, as conserved in 
(l)(c) above: 

(a) caedemadens, Cassida (p. 65); 

(b) caperans, Brachycerus (p. 55); 

(c) chelicornis. Solpuga (p. 218; specific name of the type species of Solptiga 
Lichtenstein, 1796, p. 216); 

(d) chrysis. Lygaeus (p. 109); 

(e) chrysothorax, Vespa (p. 203); 
(0 coloboptera, Vespa (p. 202); 
(g) ephippium. Cassida (p. 65); 
(h) ephippium, Reduvius {p. Ill); 
(i) fatalis. Solpuga (p. 217); 

(j) filuiu. Mantis {p. 81); 
(k) gnatho, Brentus (p. 53); 
(1) haematites. Cassida (p. 66); 
(m)junix. Brachycerus (p. 55); 
(n) neriifolia. Locusta (p. 82); 
(o) nitida. Cicindela (p. 32); 
(p) portentosa. Acheta (p. 85); 
(q) purpurea. Sagra (p. 60); 
(r) umbretta. Phasma (p. 78); 
(s) v-luteum. Cimex (p. 106). 

(4) The following works are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, as suppressed in (l)(a) above: 

(a) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1796. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi, d. 
III. Februar 1796 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tenia. Continens Insecta: 

(b) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1797. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi. d. 16 
Majlis 1 797 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta: 

(c) Schneider. D.H. 1800. Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten welche am 6ten Mdrz 
1800 zu Stralsund in offentlicher Auction einzeln verkauft werden sollen. 



History of Case 2862 

An application for the suppression for nomenclatural purposes of the publications 
by A.A.H. Lichtenstein (1796, 1797) entitled Catalogus musei zoologici ... Sectio 
Tertia. Continens Insecta and by D.H. Schneider (1800) entitled Verzeichniss einer 
Parthei Insekten .... together with the conservation of some Lichtenstein ( 1 796) names 
(Insecta and Arachnida), was received from Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, 
Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) on 1 September 1992. After correspond- 
ence the case was published in BZN 51: 108-115 (June 1994). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 285 

A comment in support from Mr Robert D. Pope (t/o The Natural History Museum. 
London. U.K.) was published in BZN 51: 339 (December 1994). 

It was noted on the voting paper that, as stated in the application (para. 8 and table 
1 ), the generic name Phasma and the specific name of P. empusa have already been 
conserved and placed on Official Lists (Opinion 641, Sepember 1962) attributed to 
Lichtenstein (1796). Under Article 78f(i) of the Code both are available names and 
remain so under Article 78i. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51 : 1 1 1 - 1 1 2. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1995 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis. 
Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, MineUi, 
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage. Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys 

Negative votes — 1: Thompson. 

Dupuis abstained. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Dupuis commented that, given the historical importance of the publications and 
that some names were based on specimens in the Lichtenstein and Schneider 
collections, he was not in favour of suppressing the works but preferred to deal with 
names individually. Thompson commented: This is an application for suppression 
based on an assumption of instability, with no documentation as to actual or even 
potential cases of it. Science calls for the resolution of uncertainty. The proper course 
is to examine the names and associated descriptions, determine their status and then 
decide whether there is a real need to suppress the names'. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the works placed on the Official Index by the 
ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Lichtenstein, A. A. H. 1796. Catcilogus musei zoologici dilissimi Hamhurgi. d. III. Februur 1796 

imctionis lege distnihendi. Sectio Tenia. Conlinens Insecta. 
Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1797. Catalogus musei zoologici dilissimi Hamhurgi. d. 16 Majus 1797 

auctionis lege distraliendi. Sectio Tenia. Conlinens Insecta; 
Schneider, D.H. 1800. I'erzeiclmiss einer Parthei Inseklen wekhe am 6ten Mdrz 1800 zu 

Slralstind in ojfemliclier Auction einzeln verkaufi werden sollen. 

The following is the original reference to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion (listed above, and given with current generic placements in table 
1 on BZN 51: 113. June 1994): 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1796. Catalogus musei zoologici dilissimi Hamhurgi. d. HI Fehruar 1796 
auctionis lege distraliendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Solpuga chelicornis Lichtenstein, 1796 
as the type species of the nominal genus Solpuga Lichtenstein. 1796: 
Pocock, R.I. 1897. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. (6)20: 255. 



286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

OPINION 1821 

CUola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka; 
Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Cypriniformes; freshwater fish; 
Notropis topeka; North America. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name tristis Girard, 1856. as published 
in the binomen Montana tristis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy, 

(2) The name topeka Gilbert, 1884, as published in the binomen Cliola (Hybopsis) 
topeka, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name tristis Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Montana tristis and 
as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. MNHN 427 in the Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris) designated by Mayden & Gilbert (1989), suppressed in (1) 
above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

History of Case 2808 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybopsis) 
topeka Gilbert, 1884 was received from Drs Frank B. Cross and Joseph T. Collins 
(Museum of Natural History, The University of Kattsas. Lanrence, Kansas. U.S.A.) on 
1 1 January 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 268-270 
(December 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado, 
Colorado. U.S.A.) was published in BZN 50: 144 (June 1993). Opposing comments 
from Prof Richard L. Mayden ( t//!/i'e/-.j/n' of Alabama. Tuscaloosa. Alabama, U.S.A.) 
& Dr Carter R. Gilbert (Florida Mu.seum of Natural History. University of Florida. 
Gainesville, Florida. U.S.A.), and from Dr Bernard Kuhajda (University of Alabama, 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, U.S.A.), were published in BZN 50: 287-289 (December 1993). 
A reply by the authors of the application was published at the same time (BZN 50: 
289). A further comment from Prof Mayden was published in BZN 51: 262 
(September 1994), A comment from Dr Reeve M. Bailey (Museum of Zoology, 
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.). published in BZN 51: 
262-263, supported the application and also pointed out that Girard's paper, in 
which the name Montana tristis appeared, was first published in 1856 (and not 1857 
as cited in the application). 

Decision of tlie Commission 

On I March 1 995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 269. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1995 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Stys 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 287 

Negative votes — 6: Bouchet, Dupuis, Kabata, Lehtinen. Macpherson and 
Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin and Ueno. 

Bayer was on leave of absence. 

Voting for. Bock commented: 'It is essential for all zoologists to realize that the 
only goal of zoological nomenclature is to facilitate communication between all 
workers interested in the biology of animals. Nothing is gained and much is lost every 
time an established name is replaced by an unused senior synonym regardless of why 
the senior synonym had become unused. Hence I urge all zoologists to apply to the 
Commission every time they discover such an unused senior synonym rather than to 
introduce this name into the zoological literature. Every effort should be made to 
conserve well-established names and to suppress unused senior synonyms'. Cocks 
commented: 'This is clearly a case of the 'rules" versus 'established usage". I was 
swayed in the end by Dr Bailey's support'. Voting against, Dupuis commented: 
'Owing to some taxonomic uncertainties and doubts concerning the syntypes and 
lectotypes of the two nominal species in question, I vote against. This is not a vote 
in favour of the inscription of tristis Girard, 1856 on the Official List, which would 
be premature'. Thompson commented: 'The arguments of Mayden & C.R. Gilbert 
should be heeded. The application requests that a junior name be conserved on the 
basis of 'usage'. 'Usage' is difficult to define; it is not merely the number of authors 
and titles. Adoption of the senior name tristis Girard in a Peterson field guide 
undoubtedly accounts for more than all the scientific papers cited by Cross & Collins. 
When there are reasonable arguments on both sides the final arbiter is priority, not 
usage'. 

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: 

tristis, Moniana. Girard, 1856, Researclies upon tlie cyprinoid fislies inlmbiting tlie fresit waters 
of tlie United States, west of llie Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the museum of the 
Smithsonian Institution, p. 37. (First issued as a separate in September 1856; published in 
the Proceedings of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8: 201 in 1857). 

topeka, Cliola [Hyhopsis), Gilbert, 1884, Bulletin of the Washburn College Laboratory of 
Natural History, 1(1): 13. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype oi Motnaiui tristis Girard, 
1856: 
Mayden. R.L. & Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Copeia, 1989(4): 1087. 



288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(3) September 1995 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the 
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with 
these guidelines may be returned. 

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the 
Code's provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this 
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are 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. 

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. Where possible, ten or more 
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are 
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should 
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable 
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of 
publication. 

Siihmissioii of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The E.xecutive 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 IBM PC compatible format, 
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission's Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 



Contents — continued 

On the proposed conservation of the family-group name phrynobatrachinae 

Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura). J.C. Poynton; D.R. Frost & J.M. Savage . . 269 

On the proposed conservation of Lycognalhophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, Serpen- 

tes). L.E. Brown ' 271 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published 

in Brisson's (1762) Regnuni Animale. A. Currant; M. Freudenthal; M. Wolsan; 

C. Dupuis " 271 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1815. Chromadora Bastian, 1865 and Euchroinadora de Man. 1886 
(Nematoda): conserved by the designation of C nudicapitala Bastian, 1865 as the 
type species of Chromadora 276 

OPINION 1816. Liihohius piceus L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda): specific name con- 
served 278 

OPINION 1817. Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken, 1815 (Crustacea, Cope- 

poda): conserved, and Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815; specific name conserved 279 

OPINION 1818. Rliopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus 

moHorrfae; Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved 281 

OPINION 1819. Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera); Eulettix olivaceus 

Melichar, 1903 confirmed as the type species 282 

OPINION 1820. A.A.H. Lichtenstein's (1796, 1797) Calalogus musei zoologici ... 
Seclio Tenia. Conlinens Insecia and D.H. Schneider's (1800) I'erzeichniss einer 
Parthei Insekten ... ; suppressed, with conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) 
names (Insecta and Arachnida) 283 

OPINION 1821. Cliola (Hyhopsis) lopeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Nolropis lopeka; 

Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes); specific name conserved 286 

Information and Instructions for Authors 288 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 225 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 226 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 227 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 227 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 227 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature. Comments by W.D.L. Ride; R.W. Crosskey; Z. Kabata; H.M. 

Smith; F.C. Thompson 228 

Applications 

Patella hngicosla Lamarck, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of 

the specific name. D.G. Herbert 234 

Gloineris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda): proposed conservation; Armadillo vulgaris 
Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name; 
and Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda): application for a ruling on its 
status. P.T. Lehtinen & L.B. Holthuis 236 

Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda): 

proposed conservation. M.J. Grygier 245 

Chaetodacus lalifrons Hendel, 1915 (currently Bactrocera lalifrons; Insecta, Diptera): 
proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Dacus parvulus Hendel, 
1912. I. M. White & N.J. Liquido 250 

Eudisloma CauUery, 1909 (Tunicata): proposed precedence over Paessleria 

Michaelsen, 1907. P. Kott 254 

Cyclodomorphus praealtus (Reptilia, Squamata): a proposal that availability of the 
specific name be taken from the intended description by Shea, 1995. W.S. Osborne 
& K. Green 257 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Sliclostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatopo- 
roidea) and designation of S. gorriense Steam, 1995 as the type species. P. Bouchet; 
J. St. Jean 259 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Soos, 1926 

(Mollusca, Gastropoda), E. Gittenberger 259 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Aplysia Juliana Quoy & 

Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). A. Bebbington 260 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum 
Orsted, 1843 and Helerocirrus fimhrialus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriala) 
(Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. F. Pleijel 
& A.S.Y. Mackie 261 

On the proposed conservation of Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 

1967 (Trilobita). H.B. Whittmgton 262 

On the proposed designation of S. pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species 

of Scoliia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). R. Matzke-Karasz 263 

On the proposed conservation oi Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda) as the 
correct original spelling. T.E. Bowman; E.H. Williams, Jr. & L.B. Williams; 
G. Bello 263 

On the proposed conservation of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling, and the placement of aspidiphoridae 
Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) on the Official List. A.F. Newton, Jr. & M.K. Thayer. 264 

On the proposed conservation o( Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by 
the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type 
species. H.M. Smith, D.B. Wake & M.R. Jennings 267 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd.. at the Dorset Press, Dorchester. Dorset 



Volume 52, Part 4, 20 December 1995 pp. 289-364 ISSN 0007-5167 



THE NATURAL 
HISTORY Ml ISEU^ 

21 L.o 1995 

PUHCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRAR 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



ICZjJx jThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

The Bulletin is published four times a year tor the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1995 is £88 
or $170. postage included: the rate for 1996 will be £92 or $175. 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. 0171-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Officers 

Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 

Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Members 

Dr F. M. ^aytr (U.S.A.: Corallla) 
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.: Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France: MoUusca) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.: Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.: Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteropiera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany: Trilohita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 

(Norway: Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: MoUusca) 
Prof L. B. Holthuis 

(Tlie Netherlands: Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

(Germany: Araclmology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland: Araclmology) 



Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 
Dr V. Mahnert 

(Switzerland: Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.: Lepidoptera) 
Prof W. D. L. K\As(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (USA: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 

(Russia: MoUusca) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteropiera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

( Russia: Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-lchi Ueno (Japan: Entomology) 



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 

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

Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) 



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1995 



I THE NATURAL 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 I |^IST^RM8B^/'USEU^ 

" '■] ._o 1995 
.. .....^HASED 

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE >nL6GY UBRAP 
Volume 52, part 4 (pp. 289-364) 20 December 1995 



Notices 

(a) Imitation lo coimneni. The Commission is authorised to vote on apphcations 
pubhshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their pubh- 
cation 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 52, part 3 (published on 28 September 1995). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Buccinuin cinctum Roding, [1798] (currently Burnupena cincta: Mollusca, 
Gastropoda); proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2993). 
Y. Dempster. 

(2) Notho.saurus Miinster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia); proposed conservation. 
(Case 2994). O. Rieppel & P.D. Brinkmann. 

(3) Dialictus Robertson, 1902 and Chloralictus Robertson, 1902 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over Paralictus Robertson, 1901. (Case 
2995). CD. Michener. 

(4) AMPULLARiiDAE Gray, 1824 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation as 
the nomenclaturally valid synonym of pilidae Preston, 1915. (Case 2996). 
R.H. Cowie. 

(5) Gelechia glandulella Riley, 1871 (currently Blastobasis glandulella; Insecta, 
Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2997). 
D. Adamski. 

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion 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. 



290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Election of the President of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

Prof Dr Otto Kraus has completed his six-year term of office, and to succeed him 
as President the members of the Commission have elected Prof ALESSANDRO 
MINELLI, with effect from 17 November 1995. 

Prof Minelli is Professor of Zoology in the Dipartimento di Biologia at the 
Universita di Padova, Italy. He was elected as a member of the Commission in 1989. 
His research interests include myriapods and planarians, and he has published 
extensively on general questions of biological systematics. 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on 18 
September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of 
nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published 
entitled 'Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a Histo)y of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995" (ISBN 85301 005 6). It is 104 
pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists 
who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal nomenclature as 
universally accepted today. The book contains a list of all the Commissioners from 
1895 to the present. The main text was written by R.V. Melville (former Secretary of 
the Commission) and has been completed and updated following his death. 

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.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, 
c/o USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, National Museum of 
Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

The cost is £30 or S50 (including surface postage); members of the American and 
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of 
£20 or $35. Payment should accompany orders. 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

A discussion Draft of a new (fourth) edition of the Code is available. Copies have 
been sent without charge to all subscribers to the Bulletin and to members of 
the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature. Any other 
institution or individual may order a copy from the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., 
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD. The cost of 
printing and postage is about £3 or US$5. Bank charges on currency exchange make 
it uneconomic to pay this amount except in sterling or US dollars. The draft of the 
Code will therefore be sent free of charge, but those able to pay in sterling or US 
dollars are asked to enclose a cheque for £3 or US$5 to cover the cost. 

Before completing the definitive text of the Fourth Edition, the Commission 
will (in accordance with Article 16 of its Constitution) take into account all 
comments and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original 
distribution, i.e. by 31 May 1996. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 291 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Third Edition (pubUshed 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., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA 
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, 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 LT.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD. U.K. or A.A.Z.N.. Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA 
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $1 10, 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. 



The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established 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. Andre (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, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 
28006 Madrid, Spain. 



292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Financial Report for 1994 

The Trust's deficit of £4,295 for 1994 was almost entirely accounted for by fees of 
£4.000 that were paid for an extra half-time member of staff for six months, so that 
the normal work of the Secretariat could continue while the draft of the proposed 4th 
edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was prepared. 

Nearly half the Trust's income came from sales of publications, mainly from the 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which yielded an income of £28,115. Sales of the 
Official Lists and Iitdexes and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
brought the total from publications to £31.099. Income from grants remained at £9,000. 
but the £16,262 received from donations was £3,325 more than in 1993. Investment 
interest of £9,655 was £943 more than in 1993, which mainly reflected the higher rates of 
interest available in a building society rather than a bank deposit account for the Trust's 
day-to-day working funds. The total income for the year was £66.081. 

The main expenditure of the Trust in 1994 was £56,669 for the salaries and 
National Insurance of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, together with fees for part-time staff. Printing of the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature and distribution of all publications amounted to £10,713. 
Other costs for office expenses (£2,578) and depreciation of office equipment (£416) 
brought the total expenditure to £70,376. 

The sum of £5,592 (FFr50,000) was received in January from the Societe Franpaise 
de Systematique for the cost of printing the French text of the proposed 4th edition 
of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The money will be held in the 
reserves until the new edition is printed, and does not figure in the income for 1994. 

The Commission Secretariat was again housed in The Natural History Museum, 
whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express its thanks 
to all the donors listed below who contributed to its work during the year. 
Continuing support of this kind is vital if the Commission is to carry out its work for 
the international zoological and palaeontological community. 

M.K. HOWARTH 

Secretary and Managing Director 

19 June 1995 

List of donations and grants received during the year 1993 

American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £5,820 

W. F. H. Ansell £5 

Australian Academy of Science £439 

Australian Society of Limnology £68 

Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council, U.K. £4,000 

British Ecological Society £1,000 

Conchological Society £50 

European Association for Zoological Nomenclature £1,009 

Freshwater Biological Association, U.K. £5 

International Palaeontological Association £33 

Malacological Society, U.K. £100 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 293 

Mammal Society. U.K. £50 

Marine Biological Association. U.K. £150 

Medical Research Council, U.K. £2,000 

Natural Environment Research Council, U.K. £2,000 

Nuffield Foundation, U.K. £1,000 

David & Lucile Packard Foundation £965 

Palaeontological Association. U.K. £250 

Paleontological Society of America £341 

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters £103 

Royal Entomological Society of London £300 

Royal Society of London £1,000 

Royal Society of Victoria £166 

Royal Zoological Society of South Australia £100 

St John's College, Cambridge £200 

Swedish Natural Science Research Council £1,000 

Swiss National Research Foundation £2,000 

Academia Sinica, Taiwan £110 

Dr J. A. Waters £57 

Zoological Societies of Japan £941 



Total £25,262 

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 

31 DECEMBER 1994 

Income 

SALE OF PUBLICATIONS 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £28,115 

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 2,236 

Official Lists and Indexes 748 



31,099 
GRANTS AND DONATIONS 25,262 

SUNDRY INCOME 65 

BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 9,655 



66,081 



Expenditure 

SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES 56.669 

OFFICE EXPENSES 2,578 

PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS 10,713 

DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 416 



70,376 
Deficit for the year 4,295 



294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature: Comments 

(See also BZN 52: 228-233) 

The following are amongst the comments which have been received. Further 
comments are invited; they should be sent as soon as possible to the Executive 
Secretary of the Commission. All comments received by 31 May 1996 will be fully 
considered by the Code Editorial Committee, whether or not they have been 
published in the Bulletin. 

(1) I.M. Kerzhner & Ya.I. Starobogatov 

Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 199034, 

Russia 

We have discussed the Discussion Draft of the new Code with several taxonomists 
working in our Institute, and offer some comments. Further remarks have been given 
to the Commission's Editorial Committee and include points of detail with which we 
agree. 

The overriding general comment is that stability in the Code itself is of extreme 
importance. There is a risk that the views of a few enthusiastic but unrepresentative 
reformers may become imposed on the whole community. Endless changes disorient 
zoologists, greatly impede their work and and add to instability of nomenclature. It 
is well known that new nomenclatural rules are only very slowly assimilated by 
zoologists. 

Numerous new requirements proposed in the Draft are good as Recommen- 
dations, or as working conventions for editors of journals, but if they are incorporated 
in the Code a significant proportion of names and nomenclatural acts published after 
1996 will be unavailable for purely formal reasons. A random check of recent issues 
has shown that even in prestigious English-language journals no less than 15-35% of 
new names would not conform to these requirements! In addition, in many cases it is 
not easy to conclude whether or not the requirements have been met. The situation 
will surely not change drastically after 1996. If such a Code is adopted, many 
zoologists will simply not adhere to it and its international recognition will greatly 
decrease. 

Our comments below mostly refer to the 'major" changes mentioned in the 
Explanatory Notes attached to the Draft, but examination shows that some other, 
seemingly minor, changes are actually major, in that they affect the availability or 
validity of names and nomenclatural acts, mostly with retroactive effect. 

A general remark is that the Draft does not include, even as Recommendations, 
proposals for regulation of the nomenclature of taxa above the rank of superfamily 
(see for example Starobogatov (1991), BZN 48: 6-18); the possibility of appending 
such Recommendations to the Code should be discussed. 

Some specific points are as follows. 

1. Mandatory indication that a new nominal taxon is new. This (Article 16e) is 
essentially a good proposal, but it needs careful examination. In the current literature 
practically all cases when a new nominal taxon is not indicated as such are 
'unintentional' premature establishments, either by the author or his colleagues 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 295 

because their papers appear in an unexpected sequence, or by persons unaware that 
the taxon has not yet been pubhshed. If the Commission agrees to eliminate such 
cases, the Code should prescribe a statement (in any form!) that the taxon is new, and 
that the publication does not contain expressions (e.g. 'in litt.', "in press') showing 
that it was not intended to establish a new name in it. There are special cases in which 
we think new names should not be rejected only for the formal reason that they have 
not been explicitly marked as being new. These include taxa based on misidentifi- 
cations (sometimes called 'nom. nov."), or by upgrading of infrasubspecific names 
(sometimes called 'stat. nov.", or not indicated at all). 

2. Mamlaiory use of the terms 'holotype' or 'syntypes'. We disagree. Under the 
proposal (Article 72c) a new species name accompanied by 'Described from many 
specimens collected in Europe; the holotype is in my collection' will be available, 
while one with even the most detailed locality and other information 'based on the 
male specimen now in the ... Collection" would not. ' Aus bus sp. n. (= Aiis xus 
Dupont, 1915 as misidentified by Black (1957); syntypes the specimens used by Black 
(not examined, original locality unknown)" would be available, but Aus bus sp. n. 
would be unavailable if accompanied by the statement "based on the two males and 
three females illustrated by Black (1957), which have been examined by the author 
and are in the ... Museum". 

3. Mandatory typification of khnotaxa at genus-group level. We agree with this 
proposal (Article 16d): it is a failure of the current Code not to require type species 
for them. 

4. Mandatory designation of the type genus of a new family-group taxon. We 
disagree with Article 16c. The type genus is nearly always obvious from the 
family-group name itself. Hardly anybody would reject a name such as 'AIDAE fam. 
n., containing Aus. Bus and Cus'. just because Aus was not designated 'type genus". 

5. Mandatory comparison with named taxa. We disagree. Under the proposed 
wording of Article 16a, a new name accompanied by 'similar to Aus bus [to which it 
is actually not similar] but differs in coloration [even if it does not]" will be available, 
while the highly useful statement 'easily distinguished from the other species of the 
genus (see Black, 1957) by the presence of a tubercle on the pronotum, 2-segmented 
tarsi (3-segmented in other species), and yellow head' would be insufficient for 
availability. Moreover, for a new monospecific genus (which may even represent a 
new monotypic family or order, which is not exceptional in palaeontology), authors 
will be forced to give a purely formal comparison of the new species with some other 
[named] obviously unrelated species of another genus (family, order). Otherwise, not 
only the species but also the higher rank nominal taxa based on it would be 
unavailable. 

6. Mandatory use of the Latin alphabet in diagnoses of new taxa. Clearly many 
little-known languages use this alphabet. However, the main languages are English, 
French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, and if only these languages were 
those "permitted" practically all papers (including those published in China and 
Japan) establishing new taxa would meet the requirement. However, a serious 
exception is the former U.S.S.R.; although the situation in Russia is changing 
rapidly, too soon a change (e.g. before the year 2000) would create difficulties and 
affect works 'in press". We consider this should be taken into account if the proposal 
(Article 16b) is proceeded with. 



296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

7. Mandatory registration of new names in the Zoological Record. We strongly 
disagree with Articles 8e and lib. The Zoological Record is compiled with excep- 
tional care and completeness, and its importance is very high. Nevertheless, we can 
give examples from the past of works in well-known journals which have not been 
scanned within five years; of names placed in wrong families or orders, where they 
could hardly be found by specialists; of available names listed as nomina nuda, and 
vice versa; and so on. It is inevitable that such cases cannot be totally excluded in the 
future. The Draft implies that before using names first published after 1996 zoologists 
(including non-taxonomists!) would need to verify whether they had been registered 
in the Zoological Record. This procedure would not only be time-consuming but, for 
workers outside major centres, often very difficult. In our opinion the advantages of 
compulsory registration are much less than the disadvantages. 

8. Automatic conservation of junior synonyms, suhsecjueni spellings and some 
family-group names. We agree with the procedures proposed in Articles 23j, 33d and 
35e, which make it easier to protect established usage and hence promote stability. 

9. Misidentified type species. We agree with the proposal in Article 70b that names 
should be applied as required by the correctly identified species, because this is the 
prevailing practice, but not with the opposite solution mentioned in the Explanatory 
Notes and in Article 41a. 

10. Lectotype designations after 1996. We agree that only the term 'lectotype" 
should be used, but not with the conditions proposed in Article 74a, such as the 
requirements for 'revisionary work", statements of authors' reasons, and statements 
of characters differentiating the species from others in the same genus [impossible in 
monospecific genera!]. 

1 1. Status of neotypes following rediscovery of original type material. We disagree 
with the proposal (Article 75j) that the neotype should automatically stand as the 
name-bearing type; in our opinion the original material should have preference, and 
in the rare cases where the two are not conspecific (or consubspecific) the case should 
be referred to the Commission. At present in about half the cases of neotype 
designation in the Heteroptera the original type material is rediscovered shortly 
afterwards, merely having been overlooked by curators. 

12. Abandonment of gender agreement between generic names and adjectival 
epithets. We strongly disagree. Gender endings do not present an obstacle to 
information retrieval, by computer or otherwise. Nearly all adjectives fall within a 
few groups (-us, -a, -urn; -er, -ra, -rum; -is, -is, -e; -ster, -stris, -stre). With regard to 
generic names, Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus shows that two-thirds end in -us, -a 
or -um, and the gender of a further 10% (-ops, -aides, -.soma, etc.) is specified in 
Article 31 of the Code. The genders of most remaining names can easily be 
found by reference to the grammatical tables appended to the Code or to 
dictionaries, or by analogy with names of known gender with the same ending. It is 
true that for some names the gender is obscure or controversial, but these are 
exceptional. 

If grammatical gender agreement is set aside there will be many problems. For 
example, zoologists might have to remember that in the genus Aus one species is 
called ater, another nigra and a third ruhrum. while in Bus the same epithets are used 
as atra. niger and rubra. Instead of bearing in mind a few grammatical rules, workers 
will have to memorize numerous epithets with arbitrary endings. It will be difficult to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 297 

determine what is the 'generally used' ending for the numerous epithets which are 
currently or recently used in more than one combination. Even more chaos, 
accompanied by time-consuming or impracticable searches of old literature, would be 
introduced by the suggestion in Article 31b that original endings should be restored 
in all cases. 

Botanists do not apparently have difficulties with gender (and at present even 
retain Latin diagnoses!). Education would be preferable to connivance in ignorance, 
and it might be desirable to consider how the grammatical explanations in the Code 
could be improved. 

13. Criteria of publication. We particularly approve the substitution of the words 
'printing on paper' in Article 8 for the 'conventional printing in ink on paper" of the 
current Code. 

14. Abstracts of meetings as publications. The proposal in Article 9(12) that 
abstracts intended only for meeting participants should not be treated as valid 
publications is a good idea, but the criterion is difficult to apply since copies of such 
abstracts often end up in libraries. 

15. Formation of family-group names from entire generic names. We agree, but only 
in cases where it is necessary to avoid homonymy. As with gender (para. 12 above), 
it is not difficult to determine the correct grammatical stem of a generic name. 

16. Criteria for availability of names. The criteria are divided into two categories, 
'general' and 'special" conditions, and this leads to lengthening and complicated 
wording of several Articles. The 'special' conditions relate to actions by the 
Commission (Opinions and adopted Lists), and this can be stated simply; otherwise 
for conformity we will need to subdivide further matters (e.g. general and special 
conditions of type fixation). 

17. Availability of family-group names. Articles 13a and 13b remove the current 
requirement that a family-group name first published after 1930 must be accom- 
panied by a description or indication. This is a major change, which will affect many 
names which have been considered unavailable; however, it is contradicted by Article 
13f(l) as this appears in the Draft. 

(2) Curtis W. Sabrosky 

205 Medford Leas, Medford New Jersey 08055. U.S.A. 

I have compared the Draft with the current Code (3rd edition) word for word. 
There are many little changes in words or wording, tightening and tidying rules, 
recommendations and examples, which generally improve the Code. Some proposals 
do seem unnecessary, or merely for the sake of change (or at least I cannot figure 
out a reason for them). I have given details of these, and of many minor matters such 
as cross-referencing errors, to the Editorial Committee. Some further comments 
follow. 

Hyphenation of names of coordinate groups. The current Code follows standard 
English usage for compound names, placing a hyphen between two nouns used 
together as a unit modifier (e.g. 'a family-group name"), but omitting the hyphen 
when the two nouns stand alone (e.g. 'names of the family group"). The use of two 
nouns without a hyphen as a compound name is common practice (country home, 
body louse, skin cancer), as in the Draft itself (type species, case ending). However. 



298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

the Draft refers to 'the family-group' and so on. I urge return to the standard 
treatment of the current Code. 

Fanuly-group names. 1 dislike the 'flexible treatment of rules' for the formation of 
family-group names (Article 29c); it encourages an anything-will-go approach to 
determination of stems, gives ofiicial approval to errors, and introduces potential 
confusion into what has been a sound system which has served us well. It is true that 
in some ta,\onomic fields (e.g. fish) long-established errors in stem have become so 
deeply entrenched that authors are unwilling to change, but the provision relates to 
names of the future. 

Gender ami gender concord. I recognize that among taxonomists the day of 
competent knowledge of Latin and Greek is past. Although an 'old-timer', 1 know 
little Latin and no Greek, but 1 learned the rudiments of the language of the field in 
which I chose to work Unyia = fly, .wma = body, stoma = mouth, pteron = wing, and 
so on, together with the common gender endings of adjectives). It did not seem 
difficult to do. From this limited knowledge and from examples already established, 
plus help from the Appendices in the Code and from Roland Brown's excellent 
Composition of Scientific Words, one can devise appropriate generic names or 
determine genders. The proposed List of Available and Potentially Valid Names in 
Zoology could be made the basic guide for future taxonomists, and gender of generic 
names and gender concord could continue into the future as a routine convention. 

I feel some words should be said for our present system. We should not cavalierly 
shed a long-established system without due reflection on its usefulness, evaluation of 
an abrupt change of direction, and careful scrutiny of the proposed replacement plan. 
The radical change of the language of scientific names proposed in the Draft has 
resulted in making rules more complex by the well-intentioned effort to respect — to 
a certain extent — the practice of the past by devising separate pre- 1997 and 
post- 1 996 rules. But any protection for pre- 1 997 names will be upset in new 
combinations after 1996 (Article 31b), and conflicting zoological opinions could — 
and I am sure would — result in conflicting usages. I am not convinced that the 
Draft's plan is either necessary or desirable, and it adds complexity. 

Misidentified type species. The problem is complicated by being treated at some 
length in four different places, which may not seem always to agree: Article 41 
(Misidentified type genera). Art. 61e (Misidentified name-bearing types). Art. 65b 
(Misidentifications in type genera), and Art. 70b (Misidentified type species). The 
provisions have been made more wordy and complex by dealing also with the 
overlooking of valid type fixations: misidentification and oversight are different 
problems and should be dealt with separately. I have suggested to the Editorial 
Committee some ways in which this could be done. 

It has been my observation that authors who discover misidentifications of type 
species have usually treated as type the taxonomic species that was actually 
concerned when the fixation was made, although without referring the case to the 
Commission (as the Code has long required them to do). In 1984 I discussed this 
(BZN 41: 156-158) with examples, and proposed an amendment to Article 70 which 
would automatically ratify this practice, although leaving cases open to challenge. 
The then Commission Secretary (Richard Melville) published some reservations 
(BZN 41: 158) and my proposal has not been adopted. The provisions in this Draft 
do not please me. I continue to believe that in cases of misidentification the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 299 

'automatically' selected type species should be the nominal species corresponding to 
the taxon that was actually used as the basis for the nominal genus. 

(3) Alain Dubois 

Laboraloire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Museum national d'Histoire 
naturelle. 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France 

I do not think discussion of the new Code should be done with haste: the 
Commission should leave time for the international community of zoologists to 
consider the issues in detail. A decision taken too quickly and without the consent of 
the vast majority would risk breaking the community in two, those who would follow 
the new Code and those who would continue with the previous one. This would be 
a most retrograde step indeed. 

One of the basic principles of the Code is that of priority; in the overwhelming 
majority of cases use of this principle serves the major aim of ensuring universality 
and stability of nomenclature. It is true that in some cases the 'rediscovery' of a name 
long forgotten (usually 'forgotten' simply because subsequent authors have not done 
their work properly) may have a real disrupting effect, but this risk is greatly 
overstressed by recent authors who are in favour of replacing the rule of priority by 
a 'rule of usage". I fully agree that some names in general use (outside pure taxonomy) 
should be protected, but such cases should be exceptional. 

In both the current Code (Article 79c) and the Draft (Articles 23j and 79c; see also 
Article 33d) the criteria for rejection of a 'forgotten' name are that it must not have 
been used as valid by a single author during the 50 years before an application to the 
Commission and that within this period the junior synonym must have been used by 
at least 5 authors in 10 publications. In my opinion these criteria are far too lax. 

I believe the number of authors using the junior name should be at least 25, and 
furthermore that they should be independent of each other. If a group of workers is 
large, prolific or financially fortunate they may publish many papers and their 
practice may wrongly appear to constitute "general usage'; to eliminate this I suggest 
that any workers who have published together on a taxonomic field should constitute 
a single group, to be counted only once for the purpose of assessing the total of 25 
independent authors. Furthermore, I believe that the total number of publications 
using the junior synonym should be at least 100, and only those appearing before the 
published rediscovery of the 'forgotten' junior synonym should be counted; this will 
avoid the deliberate manipulation of 'general usage". For the same reason the 50-year 
period should also refer to the time before the published rediscovery. 

I contend that the criteria above are minimal, and that it is ridiculous to claim that 
a name not meeting them has 'current general usage". Names not meeting them 
should not be eligible even to be considered for conservation by the Commission. 

(4) Carl J. Ferraris, Jr. 

Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate 
Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. 

Article 16a of the draft Code says that, in order to be available, a new name 
published after 1996 must be accompanied by 'the characters that ... differentiate the 



300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

new nominal taxon from other taxa of the same rank within the higher taxonomic 
category; those taxa must be exphcitiy cited by name'. The key word is "other'. Does 
this mean one other, some other, or all other? Vahd taxa, or nominal taxa? This 
wording leaves open the possibility that someone will conclude that an otherwise 
perfectly acceptable name is unavailable because one or more nominal taxa (valid 
or not) had not been explicitly mentioned. It would raise especial difficulties in 
large genera, or in groups in which the validity of some of the included taxa is 
hotly disputed. I consider the proposal should be dropped: the present (and draft: 
Article 13aJ requirement for words "that are purported to differentiate the taxon" is 
adequate. 



(5) Gary Rosenberg 

Academy of Natural Sciences. 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1195. U.S.A. 

Ever since there has been a Code of Zoological Nomenclature it has been possible 
to determine whether a name is [permanently] available as soon as it is published. 
Under the "five-year rule" in Article lib, however, some names will become available 
immediately on publication but then become unavailable five years later. Inevitably 
some such names will have come into general use. I recommend that any name 
properly published in a work that the Zoological Record scans be automatically 
available. Such publications are listed in Zoological Record Serial Sowce.'i, the 5th 
edition of which noted that in September 1994 there were 6,564 serials on the scanned 
list. This would enable authors to choose a medium of publication that would 
immediately make their names permanently available. It would also mean that 
the Zoological Record would not be swamped with offprints from serials already 
scanned. 

Article 16b of the Draft says that 'A diagnosis ... or a type fixation published after 
1996 must be in a language using the Latin alphabet'. The Code should be more 
specific: many such languages are very little known. However, to require a particular 
language would result in many poor or incomprehensible descriptions due to authors' 
unfamiliarity with that language. I recommend that the new Code specify that 
original descriptions be published in English, French, German or Spanish, the most 
widespread languages using the Latin alphabet. This would allow authors to use the 
language in which they are best able to provide a description. 

(6) Alan R. Kabat 

National Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, 
D.C. 20560. U.SA. 

The Draft of the new Code states (Article 9(12)) that "abstracts of ... meetings 

etc." do not constitute publication'. I can think of several names of mollusks which 
were validly established in such abstracts, and no doubt every major animal group 
has some. Surely the requirement should not be retroactive, and it should be 
reworded to apply only to post- 1996 abstracts. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 301 

(7) Terry S. Arnold 

2975 B Street. San Diego. California 92102. U.S.A. 

It would be better not to automatically exclude abstracts (whether of meetings or 
not) as 'unpublished'. Some abstracts appear in journals and contain enough 
information to define names, whereas all too many ordinarily published papers are 
too vague to be useful. However, it might be appropriate for Recommendation 8D to 
suggest that journals and other publications carrying abstracts of past (not only 
forthcoming) meetings should carry a disclaimer (cf. Article 8b) stating that their 
abstracts are not validly published for nomenclatural purposes. 

(8) Philippe Bouchet 

Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris. France 

Article 1 3a of the Draft excludes family-group names from the requirement that a 
description or definition (or a reference to such) must be given to make a name 
published after 1930 available; see Article 13f(l), however. W.J. Bock (1994; Bulletin 
of the American Museum of Natural History, 222: 1-281) has pointed out that the 
1961 edition of the Code imposed this requirement retroactively, but that most 
[avian] family-group names published after 1930 lack accompanying descriptions. 
The current Code continues the provision. I agree with Bock in that the requirement 
should not apply to family-group names published between 1931 and 1961, but the 
Draft goes too far. As the Code has evolved during the 20th-century it has become 
progressively stricter in its requirements for new names, and it is not opportune to 
become more lax. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions make it mandatory that all names 
should have a diagnosis; the 4th edition should maintain this, but in the case of 
family-group names the starting point should be 1961, not 1997 as proposed in 
Article 16 of the Draft. 

(9) Wolfgang Wiister 

School of Biological Sciences, Universitv of Wales. Bangor LL57 2UW, 
U.K. 

One of the alternatives offered under Article 31b calls for the original endings of 
adjectival epithets to be used invariably after 1996. It would be insanity to change all 
specific epithets back to the gender form used in their original descriptions! This 
would require changing the spelling of the names of countless thousands of species 
for a purely procedural reason. This is the very antithesis of the nomenclatural 
stability that the Code should be promoting. 

(10) Neil L. Evenhuis 

Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. 

As a matter of procedure (or rules) we currently treat the orthography of scientific 
names in a particular way. The proposal that original gender endings should always 
be returned to is just another procedure — simply that, when we publish about a 



302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

species, we write the epithet in its original spelling. Of course, the more species we 
treat (such as in catalogs, checklists) the more we would have to search out original 
descriptions and orthographies. This (looking up original descriptions) is surely a 
normal procedure in good taxonomy anyway. 

(11) Maurizio Pavesi 

Miiseo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, Corso Venezia 55, 20121 

Milaiw. Italy 

The treatment of generic names as words having no gender would mean the 
abandonment of the Latin language as the basis of zoological nomenclature. In these 
circumstances, why not give up binominal names and replace them with an 
alphanumeric coding system? Some authors and users of data storage systems would 
be enthusiastic! In my experience, zoologists who are so 'little at ease" with Latin that 
even with the help of the Code they are unable to treat epithets properly are at most 
a tiny minority, and there is no reason why the majority should have to conform with 
them. 

Such a change would would not promote nomenclatural stability; it would cause 
gigantic confusion. This would be especially true if the original endings of epithets 
had always to be used (the first alternative in Article 31b). In entomology there are 
hundreds of thousands of nominal species-group taxa, and it is simply unthinkable 
that authors of large works such as regional faunal catalogues, which deal with 
hundreds or thousands of long established species, will attempt the research to find 
the original ending of each and every epithet. It would be a huge and pointless task. 
Similar problems would arise with the second alternative whenever new combinations 
were proposed. 

Under the draft proposals these would not arise for epithets established after 1996. 
However, there still would be grammatically inconsistent names such as Xiiin cms, 
Xuni hea cus, and so on. The supposed (but absolutely hypothetical) greater 
convenience of a few [how many?] users of data retrieval systems would not justify the 
adoption of such an absurd nomenclatural system, which would be largely disre- 
garded. In any case different gender endings do not cause problems to data retrieval 
systems; it is only necessary to search under 'punciai' to find punctatus, punciata and 
pimctatum (just as smithi could find smilhii also). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 303 

The changing paradigms of biological systematics: new challenges to 
the principles and practice of biological nomenclature 

Alessandro Minelli 

Dipartiniento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 

1-35121 Padova, Italy 

'Biological nomenclature is supposed to deal with names alone, not with concepts, 
but historical examples show how wrong this idea can be" (Stevens, 1994, p. 488). 

In all departments of science it is sometimes profitable to distance oneself from the 
day-to-day practice, and to reflect upon the nature and the theoretical foundations of 
our work. This is also true of biological nomenclature, and in this field these are times 
of change. The draft of the fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature has been circulated and is being discussed. The debate is also lively in 
botany, as may be seen from the last few volumes of Taxon, while a forthcoming 
Code of Bionomenclature is on the horizon (Hawksworth et al., 1994). Therefore, 
some refreshed (or refreshing) thought on the basic aspects of bionomenclature seems 
to be timely. 

'It is hardly surprising that major changes in nomenclature tend to occur when 
there are major changes within systematics' (Stevens, 1991, p. 164). Is there is any 
correspondence, or agreement, between the major approaching changes in nomen- 
clature and the current wide-ranging labour affecting all aspects, both theoretical and 
practical, of biological systematics (Minelli, 1993)? 

How far is nomenclature truly independent from taxonomy? 

In this most general question I do not refer to the nomenclatural consequences of 
the most usual kinds of taxonomic decisions, e.g. whether to regard two nominal 
species as distinct or not, or whether to place them in the same genus rather than in 
two different genera. In this area, things are mostly running in a satisfactory way, and 
some of the revised provisions in the proposed new Codes will certainly help smooth 
out a lot of residual difficulties. 

I do not refer here either to operationally large, but theoretically minor, problems 
such as the nomenclature of ambiregnal organisms. For these (some thousands of 
taxa) it is a matter of taxonomic decision whether to put them under the Zoological 
Code or to treat them as 'plants", thus referring them to the provisions of the 
Botanical Code. (For a recent assessment of this aspect see Corliss, 1995). 

There are, instead, much more basic questions. 'A purely nomenclatural argument 
may be much less common than we think, but the concepts brought to bear in such 
arguments are diverse. Species concepts are only one set of them, and possibly not 
even the most important. The whole systematic discipline, what systematists should 
do, and how the discipline should be organised, may also be at issue. That is surely 
the case now" (Stevens, 1991, p. 166). 

Biological nomenclature aims to provide a universal, consistent, stable and 
user-friendly system of names. The question for what kinds of users these names 
are produced has been recently debated at length and from very different points of 
view (see, for example, Hawksworth & Bisby, 1988; Haskell & Morgan, 1988; 
Hawksworth, 1991). Much less debated, however, is what kind of objects, or 



304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1 995 

concepts, we are providing names for. But this is really the point where taxon- 
omy stands out as the real, although seldom acknowledged, ruler of biological 
nomenclature. 

We are accustomed to take it for granted that the (only) names with which formal 
biological nomenclature is concerned are those for species taxa and supraspecific taxa 
(genera and families at least), corresponding to the individual taxa in a hierarchical 
classification, but it could, or perhaps should, be otherwise. 

Species names 

Within the present Zoological Code there is no place for animals not obviously 
belonging to 'species'. 

Take, for instance, hybrids. Until recently, natural hybrids were regarded as a 
peculiarity of the plant world, their very rare occurrence among animals being so 
exceptional as to be better ignored from the viewpoint of nomenclature. As for 
artificial hybrids, these could always be described as such by listing together the 
names of the parental species, thus obtaining a more definitive nomenclatural 
treatment than the still uncertain names we use for some domestic animals (Groves, 
1995). However, our traditional view of natural animal hybrids has changed as a 
consequence of the progress of cytogenetics, more recently complemented by 
biochemical and molecular studies. There are, naturally occurring, many hybrid 
forms which are at least as stable and well-circumscribed as many conventional 
species. In terms of nomenclature, these forms are often denoted by formulae, rather 
than by Linnaean names, but there is no universality of attitude towards them. 
Echelle (1990a, b), for instance, argues that the 'non-Mendelian species' of hybrido- 
genetic fishes and reptiles should be treated, from the point of view of nomenclature, 
as are the usual 'Mendelian" species. 

Besides hybridogens, there are several other classes of uniparentally reproducing 
animals (and plants) which are usually given conventional species names. They are 
quietly listed in catalogues, or keyed out in monographs, in a way not different from 
that for the other named 'species'. The potential dangers of this uniform taxonomic 
treatment (Minelli, 1993) are hardly lessened by the fact that these uniparental 
'species' are sometimes called — in some groups at least — agamospecies or 
microspecies, rather than species. According to several authorities (e.g. Dobzhansky, 
1937; Mayr, 1969; Hull, 1980; Ghiselin, 1987), however, these organisms do not form 
species. If we agree with this view, how can we accept that they are named as if they 
are species'? 

At a recent (April 1995) workshop in Cardiff, sponsored by the Systematics 
Association, some two dozen taxonomists gathered to discuss 'The Species in 
Practice', as experienced by specialists working with organisms as different as viruses 
and bacteria, flowering plants and insects, mammals and freshwater fishes. The 
conclusion (Claridge & Dawah, in press) was that the entities uniformly treated as 
species under the nomenclatural principles of the Codes are extremely heterogeneous. 
This heterogeneity is only partly dependent on the different personal attitudes of the 
specialists or the different taxonomic traditions prevailing in the different groups. To 
be sure, substantial differences in attitude and tradition are there, but these are of 
minor importance when compared with the real difierences in the ontological status 
of the basic taxonomic units we call species in the very diverse groups of organisms. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 305 

This means that many statistics involving species numbers must be looked at very 
cautiously, and sometimes even be rejected as nonsense. For instance, in discussions 
dealing with biodiversity and the current state of our inventory of the living world, 
we are accustomed to offer, or to read, such estimates as 'vertebrates are 2.5% of the 
living species named to date', as if 'species' were 'the same' [whatever this expression 
may biologically mean] in birds and bacteria, rotifers and reptiles! 

The same with fossils. We are seldom ready to vigorously react, as we indeed 
should do. when somebody tells us that the named fossil species are, say, one in 
10,000 of the cumulative number of species the Earth has generated since the 
primeval past. This 1:10,000 ratio is just a ratio between the size of an actual list of 
names and the size of another potential list. However, these two lists would deal with 
two different kinds of entity, quite apart from the objections we could easily raise as 
to the nature, or the homogeneity, of the entities within each one of them. 

In the face of such current examples of lack of critical attitude I do not need to 
develop much theoretical argument. There is, however, the need to stress that such 
basic misconceptions stem largely from a less than critical attitude towards biological 
nomenclature. We cannot rightly blame the users of nomenclature for adding 
together apples and cherries when we, the producers of taxonomy and taxonomic 
nomenclature, knowingly conceal the amazing and still problematic diversity of 
objects and concepts under the obscuring veil of one and the same kind of names 
(Linnaean binomina). 

To be sure, the scientific literature already abounds with evidence that Linnaean 
binomina are not always the best way of unambiguously conveying our appreciation 
of the taxonomic identity and status of the organisms we deal with. Formulae where 
a generic name is followed by an accession number or a locality name are not at all 
rare in papers dealing with molecular systematics or cytogenetics of some critical 
species groups. In many cases, the use of formulae rather than formal species names 
is not an expression of contempt towards traditional systematics and nomenclature, 
but the confessed perception that not everything in the living world fits neatly into 
our traditional taxonomic schemes. 

Supraspecific taxa and hierarchical classifications 

It is a matter of opinion whether the views of present systematists are more diverse 
concerning the nature and concept(s) of species, or of supraspecific taxa. At least to 
some the two problems are quite one and the same (e.g. Nelson. 1989, 1994; Cracraft. 
1992). I will only add two points about the links between nomenclature and our views 
of supraspecific taxa. 

The first is that the 'genus' is likely to have a unique status, in our minds, just 
because of its traditional role in our binominal nomenclature: 'A quite serious 
shortcoming of Linnaean nomenclature is that the generic name forms the foun- 
dation for the species name. The problem is. that genera are more arbitrary and more 
variable than species' (de Candolle, (1813) 1844, p. 216; my translation). 

The second point is that the Linnaean hierarchy does not appear to be compatible 
with some attitudes, less conventional but nonetheless legitimate, towards biological 
systematics. Voices of discomfort have been raised many times, ever since Linnaeus, 
but these days such voices are distinctly more frequent and loud. This is not the place 
to critically review this kind of literature. I just point here to one of the theoretical 



306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

positions that induces some systematists to advocate something other than the 
Linnaean hierarchy and nomenclature. This position corresponds to the claim that 
classification in the traditional sense is a legitimate, but not necessarily the only or the 
primary, way of representing the outcome of systematic research. Griffiths (1974) was 
the first, to my knowledge, to argue that application of the Hennigian phylogenetic 
principles necessarily leads to the production of a system of hierarchically branching 
monophyletic units. The ontological status of the system is not the same as that of the 
traditional classification. A classification is a set of hierarchically nested subsets, or 
classes, whereas the system is a whole, of which the branches (from the major ones 
down to the terminal tips) are parts, or parts of parts. I refer to Griffiths (1974), 
Hennig (1975), Ax (1984), de Queiroz (1988) and Minelh (1991) for more details. It 
is enough, here, to refer to Griffiths's (1976) conclusion that adopting a phylogenetic 
approach to biological systematics means discontinuing the use of the formal 
Linnaean ranks. 

From a palaeontological perspective. Willmann ( 1 988, p. 90 1 ) has clearly expressed 
a concurrent idea: 'Neontologists as well as palaeontologists have been trapped by 
one aspect of the current classification of organisms, namely the ranking of taxa. 
Following Linne. the neontologists used to deal with ranks such as orders, suborders, 
classes, etc. Essential in ranking is the extent of the differences between the (recent 
members of) the groups. Fossils have often narrowed these gaps, and according to 
the theory of evolution originally no such gap ever existed. The categorial ranks, 
however, remained. From this resulted the problem of the origin of 'classes' and 
'orders'. There are however no 'orders' or 'classes', 'genera", 'families' or 'suborders' 
as real units of Nature, these are artificial mental constructs dating from pre- 
evolutionary times. They are of no use in modern biology, mere anachronisms, not 
even necessary for the systematization of life ... It thus seems medieval when Stanley 
wrote as late as 1978 (p. 36) 'if genera typically arise by quantum speciation ... then 
families, orders, and classes must ari,se in the same manner, normally by several 
discrete steps". 

de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994; see also de Queiroz, 1992) have provided 
a well-argued discussion of a possible 'phylogenetic system of biological nomen- 
clature'. Their proposal does not affect the nomenclature of species (the terminal taxa 
in the phylogenetic system), but requires a completely new way of dealing with 
supraspecific taxa. The problem is that 'under evolutionary interpretations of higher 
taxa and their names, the current system fails to accomplish its own stated purposes" 
of providing explicit, universal and stable taxon names (de Queiroz & Gauthier, 1994, 
p. 27). These authors claim that the definition of supraspecific taxon names should 
follow rules other than the current reference to Linnaean categories and nomen- 
clatural types (e.g. to the genus Agama as the type genus of the family Agamidae). 
Instead, they suggest ( pp. 28-29) a 'phylogenetic definition of taxon names ... in terms 
of common descent and the phylogenetic entities deriving their existence from that 
process. For example, the name 'Agamidae' might be defined as the clade stemming 
from the most recent common ancestor of Agama and Leiolepis'. They are sensible 
enough to consider whether such phylogenetically defined taxa would accord with the 
principle of preserving freedom of taxonomic thought and action. Happily, they offer 
an affirmative answer to this question, pointing to the fact that taxonomists must still 
subjectively determine the contents and diagnostic characters of taxa. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 307 

This radical approach to the nomenclature of supraspecific taxa would probably 
answer many problems recently raised from within the ranks of cladists. For instance. 
Meier & Richter (1992) have argued that the current usage of taxon names is 
ambiguous, because the same name is sometimes used for taxa including the stem 
lineage and sometimes for the crown taxa only. 

We must expect that the developments of cladistics will increasingly ask for a 
revised biological nomenclature. Other, not necessarily overlapping, requests can be 
expected from other corners of the wide world of systematists. Science generates 
concepts, concepts need names and names are very effective in shaping (and 
concealing) ideas. To be sure, all these unconventional propositions are unlikely to 
generate in the near future a viable reformulation of the current Codes or a 
self-consistent alternative to them. History shows that the transition from the 
pre-Linnaean polynomial nomenclature to the Linnaean binomina was not accom- 
plished overnight. It took decades from the pioneering efforts of Strickland and de 
Candolle to establish full-fledged International Codes of nomenclature. Therefore, all 
these critical attitudes towards the Linnaean (pre-evolutionary) nature of biological 
nomenclature must be approached without anxiety and with a constructive attitude. 
To be sure, we should never throw away two centuries of names, with all the 
associated information, taxonomic and other! I am delighted to see that most recent 
advances in phylogenetic systematics have been accomplished without much nomen- 
clatural trouble, at the species level at least. Things are different, however, at the 
higher levels, where the use of rank terms such as order or class is quite often 
abandoned: what is left is just place for an open sequence of relative ranks, such 
as the 15 levels recognised by Ehlers (1985, p. 168) between Plathelminthes 
(traditionally, a phylum) and the two sister groups Caryophyllidea and Eucestoda 
(traditionally, two subclasses or the like). 

Nomenclature in the service of science 

To sum up. I welcome change. By this I do not mean changes of animal and plant 
names for purely 'nomenclatural" reasons; so far as these are concerned. I cannot but 
side with the users of nomenclature. These are a very wide community to which we, 
producers of names included, all belong. Systematists are something more than mere 
name producers, steadily struggling with, or sometimes shaking hands with, the users 
of names. We systematists are people involved in the development of an old but today 
very lively science. Change, therefore, is by necessity the stuff of our professional life: 
change of concepts, of paradigms, of goals to achieve. Looking at the century-long 
stability of angiosperm taxonomy which followed Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu and 
Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle, Stevens (1994, p. 221) has recently commented: T 
will suggest that a distrust of theory, a system of instruction that is similar to an 
apprenticeship and a tendency to look to past masters of the discipline for 
justification are interconnected factors leading to stasis." 

Things are perhaps a little bit better now, but we have on our shoulders, as 
systematists, the full responsibility of looking for sound policy in taxonomy as well 
as in nomenclature. We must be well aware of the deep interconnections between 
science and names. We face the formidable task of improving the independence and 
creativity of our discipline while, at the same time, promoting and improving the 
stability of names. 



308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Haskell & Morgan (1988), Minelli (1991, 1993) and Bogan & Spamer (1995) see, 
either with approval or with anxiety, that a possible outcome of current trends in 
bionomenclature could be the development of a 'systematic bipartisan nomen- 
clature", one side of it being for the specialists (systematists), the other side for the 
users. Whatever the future, we shall need a complex nomenclatural machinery. With 
this prospect, we should wholeheartedly welcome proposals such as the principle of 
registration of new names and the production of species lists that are being oflered as 
operational improvements of the current Codes, i.e. as the keystones of the biological 
nomenclature of the (near) future. 

But that is not the end of the story. With the launch of a fourth edition of the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and with an active involvement in 
the production of a Code of Bionomenclature, the International Comrnission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, and the zoological community at large, are making a more 
substantial step forward than ever in the past. The next steps, however, will really 
need to be a jump or several jumps. To avoid breaking our old bones it would be 
prudent to start studying all the aspects of the landscape we have to go through. 

References 

Ax, P. 1984. Das phvlogenelische Svsteni. 349 pp. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart & New 

York. 
Bogan, A.E. & Spamer, E.E. 1995. Comment on Towunls a hannoniieil hiononienclciltirc for life 

oil Eailli (Hawksworth et al.. 1994). Biillelin of Zoologicul Noiiieiic/ciliin: 52: 126^136. 
Candolle, A.P. de [1813] 1844. Theorie eleiiiciilairc de hi holaiiiqite. on exposition des principes 

de hi chissification iiaiiirelle et de I'tirt de deeiire et d'etiidier les vegetaiix. Ed. 3. xii, 468 pp. 

Roret, Pans. 
Claridge, M. & Dawah, H. (Eds.). In press. The speeies in practice. Chapman & Hall, London. 
Corliss, ,I.O. 1995. The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature; a brief review of 

the problem and of proposed solutions. Bulletin of Zoohigical Nomenclature. 52: 11-17. 
Cracraft, J. 1992. The species of the birds-of-paradise (Paradisaeidae): applying the phylo- 

genetic species concept to a complex pattern of diversification. Cladistics, 8: 1^3. 
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species, xvi, 364 pp. Columbia University Press, 

New York. 
Echelle, A.A. 1990a. In defense of the phylogenetic species concept and the ontological status 

of hybridogenetic taxa. Herpetologica. 46: 109-113. 
Echelle, A.A. 1990b. Nomenclature and non-Mendelian (clonal) vertebrates. Systematic 

Zoology. 39: 70-78. 
Ehlers, U. 1985. Das phylogenetisclie System der Plathelminthes. 317 pp. Gustav Fischer 

Verlag, Stuttgart & New York. 
Ghiselin, M.T. 1987. Species concepts, individuality, and objectivity. Biology and Philosophy. 

2: 127-143. 
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1974. On the foimdations of biological systematics. Acta Biotheoretiea. 23: 

85-131. 
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1976. The future of Linnaean nomenclature. Systematic Zoology. 25: 

168-173. 
Groves, C.P. 1995. On the nomenclature of domestic animals. Bulletin of Zoologicul 

Nomenclature. 52: 1 37- 141. 
Haskell, P.T. & Morgan, P.J. 1988. User needs in systematics and obstacles to their fulfillment. 

Pp. 399-413 in Hawksworth. D.L. (Ed.), Prospects in sy.stenuitics. Clarendon Press. 

Oxford, for the Systematics Association. 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). 1991. Improving the .stability of names: needs and options. (Regnum 

vegetabile vol. 123). 358 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 309 

Hawskworth, D.L. & Bisby, F.A. 1988. Systematics: the keystone of biology. Pp. 3-30 //; 

Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). Prospects in systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, for the 

Systematics Association. 
Hawksworth, D.L., McNeill, J., Sncath, P.H.A., Trehane, R.P. & Tubbs, P.K. (Eds.). 1994. 

Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth. Bulletin of Zoological 

Noinenchiture. 51: 188-216. 
Hennig, W. 1975. 'Cladistic analysis or cladislic classification?": a reply to Ernst Mayr. 

Systematic Zoology. 25: 244-256. 
Hull, D.L. 1980. Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology ami Systematics. II: 

311-332. 
Mayr, E. 1965. Numerical phenetics and taxonomic theory. Systematic Zoology, 14: 73-97. 
Meier, R. & Richter, S. 1992. Suggestions for a more precise usage of proper names of taxa. 

Ambiguities related to the stem lineage concept. Zeitschrift fiir systematische Zoologie und 

Evohitionsforsclnmg. 30: 81-88. 
MineUi, A. 1991. Names for the system and names for the classification. Pp. 183-189 in 

Hawksworth. D.L. (Ed.). Improving the stability uf names: needs and options. (Regnum 

vegetabile vol. 123). Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 
Minelli, A. 1993. Biological systematics: the stale of the art. xvi, 387 pp. Chapman & Hall. 

London. 
Nelson, G.J. 1989. Species and taxa. Systematics and evolution. Pp. 60-81 in Otte. D. & 

Endler. J. A. (Eds.), Specialion and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 

Massachusetts. 
Nelson, G.J. 1994. Homology and systematics. Pp. 101-149 in Hall. B.K. (Ed.). Homology: The 

hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press. New York. 
O'Hara, R.J. 1993. Systematic generalization, historical fate, and the species problem. 

Systematic Biology. 42: 231-246. 
Queiroz, K. de 1988. Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philosophy of Science. 55: 

238-259. 
Queiroz, K. de 1992. Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biology and 

Philosophy. 7: 295-313. 
Queiroz, K. de & Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic 

definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology. 39: 307-322. 
Queiroz, K. dc & Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics, 23: 449-480. 
Queiroz, K. de & Gauthier, J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. 

TretuJs in Ecology and Evolution. 9: 27-31. 
Stanley, S. 1978. Chronospecies' longevities, the origin of genera, and the punctuational model 

of evolution. Paleobiology. 4: 26-40. 
Stevens, P.F. 1991. George Bentham and the "Kew Rule". Pp. 157-168 in Hawksworth. D.L. 

(Ed.), Improving the stability of names: needs and options. (Regnum vegetabile vol. 123). 

Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 
Stevens, P.F. 1994. The development of biological systematics: .Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu. 

nature, and the natural system, x.xiii. 616 pp. Columbia University Press. New York. 
Willmann, R. 1988. Microevolution as the only evolutionary mode. Eclogae geologicae 

Helveliae, Si: 895-903. 



310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Case 2952 

Paraphronima crassipes Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): 
proposed conservation of the specific name 

Wolfgang Zeidler 

South Australian Museum. North Terrace. Adelaide. South Australia 5000, 
Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Purapliruninui 
crassipes Claus. 1879 for a pelagic amphipod (family paraphronimidae) which is 
widely distributed in tropical and temperate seas. The specific name is in universal 
usage but is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Hyperia pedestris Guerin- 
Meneville, 1836, unused for over a century. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphipoda; Paraplironima crassipes; pelagic 
amphipods. 



1. The specific name of Hyperia pedestris was established by Guerin-Meneville 
(1836. Crustaces, pi. 25, fig. 6) for a specimen found off" the coast of Chile. A brief 
description was published in 1844, on p. 22 (Crustaces) of vol. 3 of the same work. 
The correct date for the foundation of species described in this work has been 
debated. Stebbing (1888, p. 162) says 'This work was published in livraisons between 
1829 and 1844. The Plates containing Amphipoda probably all belong to the early 
part of 1836. An advertisement in the 'Quarante-cinquieme livraison. Crustaces. 
PI. 35,' says 'La 46e et derniere livraison se composera du Texte descriptif de 
ITconographie et paraitra fin mars 1838,' but the promise was not, it appears, fulfilled 
till the end of 1843. The specific names, however, being given on the Plate, will carry 
the date 1836". The date is confirmed by the reference made by Lucas (1836) when 
reporting Guerin-Meneville's species. 

2. The specific name of H. pedestris has only been used in the scientific literature 
on two other occasions, firstly in the repetition (Lucas, 1845, p. Ill) of the brief 
description given in the Lucas (1836) reference and secondly when Bovallius (1889, 
p. 25) discussed the species, relying only on Guerin-Meneville's work, and placed it 
in the genus Paraphronima Claus, 1879. Since then the name has been ignored, 
probably due to the apparent loss of type material and the inadequate original figure 
and description. 

3. During a recent survey of invertebrate type specimens in the Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia much of Guerin-Meneville's crustacean type 
collection was rediscovered (Spamer, 1990; Spamer & Bogan, 1992), including the 
type of Hyperia pedestris. I have since examined the hyperiid amphipods of that 
collection (Zeidler, in press) and concur with Bovallius (1889) that H. pedestris is a 
species of Paraphronima. Unfortunately the type is virtually destroyed, the desiccated 
remains having been stuck to the bottom of the original vial but now removed. Under 
the microscope none of the appendages could be seen clearly but the pereonites and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 311 

pleonites were characteristic of Paraphronima. The figure of Guerin-Meneville (1836) 
and what I could make of the epimeral plates indicate that the species is most likely 
the same as P. crassipes Claus. 1879. 

4. The nominal species Pciraphwnima crassipes was established by Claus (1879, 
p. 7, pi. I. figs. 6-9; pi. 2, fig. 10), who gave a relatively brief description and good 
figures of the male and female. It is a relatively distinctive species and is readily 
distinguished by the shape of the epimeral plates from its only currently recognised 
congener, P. gracilis Claus, 1879. It is quite common in tropical and temperate seas. 
Selected citations are Reid( 1955, p. 15, fig. 3), Hurley ( 1960a, p. 113; 1960b, p. 280), 
Pillai (1966, p. 210, fig. 4), Dick (1970, p. 54, fig. 5), Yoo (1971, p. 51), Thurston 
(1976, p. 407), Brusca (1981, p. 40, fig. 6a, c), Vinogradov et al. (1982, p. 258, fig. 
127), Young & Anderson (1987, p. 712, fig. 3), Vinogradov (1990, p. 59) and Zeidler 
(1992, p. 97). 

5. The rediscovery of Guerin-Meneville's type of Hyperia pedestris and my 
examination confirming it to belong to Paruphroiiima, and most likely to P. crassipes. 
raises the possibility of replacing the specific name crassipes by the senior subjective 
synonym pedestris. However, the name pedestris has remained unused in primary 
literature since Bovallius (1889; see para. 2 above) treated P. pedestris as a species 
separate from P. crassipes (which he discussed on pp. 30-32), and the work of the 
past century has not confirmed the existence of distinct taxa to which the two names 
might be applied. Adoption of the earlier name would cause unnecessary confusion 
and under Article 79c of the Code there is a prima facie case for its suppression. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name pedestris Guerin- 
Meneville, 1836, as published in the binomen Hyperia pedestris, for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Oflicial List of Specific Names in Zoology the name crassipes 
Claus, 1879, as published in the binomen Paraphronima crassipes; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name pedestris Guerin-Meneville, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Hyperia pedestris and as suppressed in ( I ) above. 

Acknowledgements 

I thank Dr E. Spamer and David Robinson, Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia, for giving me access to the collections and Ms M. Anthony, Librarian 
at the South Austrahan Museum, for obtaining copies of rare references. 

References 

Bovallius, C. 1889. Contributions to a monograph of the Amphipoda Hyperiidea. Part I: 2. The 
families Cyllopodidae, Paraphronimidae, Thaumatopsidae, Mimonectidae, Hyperiidae, 
Phronimidae and Anchylomeridae. Kongliga Sveiisl<ii Velensl<apsakiidcmiens Hcmdlingar, 

nay. 1^34. 

Brusca, G.J. 1981. Annotated keys to the Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of North 
American coastal waters. Teclmical Reports of the Allan Hancock Foundation, 5: 1-76. 

Claus, C. 1879. Der Organismus der Phronimiden. Arbeiten aus dem Zoologtschen Institut der 
Universitiit :u Wien, 2: 59-146. 



312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Dick, R.I. 1970. Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Keys to South African genera and 

species, and a distribution list. Annals of the South African Museum. 57(3): 25-86. 
Guerin-Meneville, F.E. 1836. Planches des animau.x invertebres. (Crustaces, 35 pis.). 

Iconographie Ju Regne Animal de G. Cuvier. vol. 2. Bailliere, Paris and London. 
Guerin-Meneville, F.E. 1844. Texte explicatif. (Crustaces, 48 pp.). Iconographie du Regne 

Animal de G. Cuvier, vol. 3. Bailliere, Paris and London. 
Hurley, D.E. 1960a. Amphipoda Hyperiidea. B.A.N Z. Antarctic Research Expedition 

1929-19} f Reports — Series B (Zoology and Botany). 8(5): 107-113. 
Hurley, D.E. 1960b. Pelagic Amphipods of the N. Z.O.I. Pacific cruise, March 1956. New 

Zealand Journal of Science, 3(2): 274-289. 
Lucas, H. 1836. Hyperie, Hyperia. P. 97 in: Dictionnaire pittoresque d'histoire mitwelle et des 

phenomenes de la nature, vol. 4. 640 pp. Paris. 
Lucas, H. 1845. Hyperie, Hyperia. Pp. 110-112 in Nouveau dictionnaire classique d'histoire 

nuturelle. Ed. 2, vol. 17. Paris. 
Pillai, N.K. 1966. Pelagic amphipods in the collections of the Central Marine Fisheries 

Research Institute, India. Part II. Excluding Oxycephalidae. Proceedings of the Sympo- 
sium on Crustacea held at Ernakulam from January 12-15, 1965, part 1, pp. 203-232. 
Reid, D.M. 1955. Amphipoda (Hyperiidea) of the coast of tropical West Africa. Allantide 

Report. 3: 7^0. 
Spamer, E.E. 1990. Guerin-Meneville Collection at the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences. 

Ecdysiasi. 9(2): 9. 
Spamer, E.E. & Bogan, A.E. 1992. General Invertebrates Collection of the Academy of 

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Tryonia. no. 26. 305 pp. 
Stebbing, T.R.R. 1888. Amphipoda. Report of the scientific results of the voyage of H. M.S. 

■Challenger' during the years 187i-1876. vol. 29. 1737 pp., 210 pis. 
Thurston, M.H. 1976. The vertical distribution and diurnal migration of the Crustacea 

Amphipoda collected during the SOND cruise, 1965. II. The Hyperiidea and general 

discussion. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56: 

383-^70. 
Vinogradov, G.M. 1990. Pelagic amphipods (Amphipoda: Crustacea) from the south-eastern 

Pacific. Transactions of the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology. 124: 27-104. [In 

Russian]. 
Vinogradov, M.E., Volkov, A.F. & Semenova, T.N. 1982. Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: 

Hyperiidea) Mrovogo Okeanea. Akademiiu Nuuk SSSR. Opredcliteli po Faune SSSR, 132: 

1-492. 
Yoo, K.I. 1970. Pelagic hyperiids (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) of the western North Pacific 

Ocean. Journal of the National .Academy of Science. Republic of Korea. Natin-al Science 

Series, 10: 38-89. 
Young, J.W. & Anderson, D.T. 1987. Hyperiid amphipods (Crustacea: Peracarida) from a 

warm-core eddy in the Tasman Sea. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater 

Research, i9:l\\-125. 
Zeidler, W. 1992. Hyperiid amphipods (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) collected recently 

from eastern Australian waters. Records of the .Australian Museum, 44: 85-133. 
Zeidler, W. (in press). The hyperiid amphipod specimens in the Guerin-Meneville collection 

surviving in the collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 

(Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 313 

Case 2975 

Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 

John S. Noyes 

Department of Entonwlogv, The Natural History Museiiin, 

London SW7 5BD. U.K.' 

James B. Woolley 

Department of Entomologv. Texas A & M University, College Station, 

Texas 77843-2475. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the well-known name 
Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 for a genus of parasitic wasps (family encyrtidae) by 
giving it precedence over the senior subjective synonym Aenasioidea Girault. 1911. 
The latter name is considerably less well known. A number of Metaphycus species are 
of economic importance. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; parasitic wasps; Metaphycus. 



1. In 1911 Girault (p. 171) established the genus Aenasioidea. with type species 
Aenasioidea latiscapus Girault, 1911 (p. 173) by original designation and monotypy. 
from Illinois, U.S.A. The species was described from six female specimens housed in 
the Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana. Prison (1927, p. 217) designated a dry 
mounted specimen as the lectotype. 

2. Mercet (1917, p. 138) established Metaphycus as a subgenus of Aphycus, with 
type species Aphycus zebrcaus Mercet, 1917 (p. 138, fig. 6) by monotypy, from Spain. 
A slide specimen in the Instituto Espanol de Entomologia in Madrid might be a 
syntype of Aplr. zehratus (see Noyes, 1981, p. 169). Metaphycus was elevated to 
generic rank by Mercet (1925, p. 28) and since that time has been regarded universally 
as a valid genus in the family encyrtidae (Hymenoptera, chalcidoidea). 

3. A recent examination by us of the lectotype of the type species of Aenasioidea 
Girault. 1911 has shown that it is so closely related to the type species of Metapliycus 
Mercet, 1917 that the two genera can no longer be considered as distinct. The name 
Metaphycus must therefore be considered a junior subjective synonym of Aenasioidea 
(see Noyes & Woolley, 1994, p. 1329). 

4. The name Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 has been used as vahd in fewer than 30 
separate publications and is currently used in combination with no more than 10 
species names that are considered valid. Only two of these names are used correctly 
in combination with Aenasioidea in its narrowest sense. No species are considered to 
be of economic importance. 

5. In contrast, Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 has been used as a valid name in at least 
350 separate publications and is currently used in combination with more than 220 



314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

species names that are considered valid. It is one of the best known generic names in 
the superfamily chalcidoidea and includes many species of economic importance. 
Noyes & Hayat ( 1 994) listed 25 species of Metaphycus that have been used in classical 
biological control programmes in various parts of the world. Many other species are 
of potential economic importance because they are parasitoids of scale insects 
(Hemiptera, coccoidea). The name Metaphycus has been adopted in the following 
recent representative works: Tachikawa (1963). Trjapitzin (1975), Annecke & 
Mynhardt (1981). Gordh (1979). Hayat (1986) and Viggiani & Guerrieri (1989). A list 
of 345 further publications in which Metaphycus has been used as a valid name, 
dating from 1926 to 1994 and involving well over 200 additional authors, has been 
deposited with the Commission Secretariat. 

6. We (Noyes & Woolley, 1994. p. 1329) treated the name Aenasioidea Girault, 
191 1 as if it were an invalid junior synonym of Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 with the 
comment that the case would be sent to the Commission for a ruling. We will 
continue to use Metaphycus as the valid name pending a decision by the Commission 
in accordance with the recommendation of Article 80 of the Code. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Metaphycus 
Mercet, 1917 over the name Aenasioidea Girault. 191 1, whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Metaphycus Mercet. 1917 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 

Aphycus zehratus Mercet, 1917. with the endorsement that it is to be given 
precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 whenever the two names are 
considered to be synonyms; 
Qo) Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Aenasioidea latiscapus Girault, 1911, with the endorsement that it is not to 
be given priority over Metapltycus Mercet, 1917 whenever the two names 
are considered to be synonyms; 

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

(a) zehratus Mercet, 1917, as published in the binomen Aphycus zehratus 
(specific name of the type species of Metaphycus Mercet, 1917); 

(b) latiscapus Girault, 191 1, as published in the binomen Aenasioidea latiscapus 
(specific name of the type species of Aenasioidea Girault, 1911) and as 
defined by the lectotype designated by Prison (1927). 

References 

Annecke, D.P. & Mynhardt, M.J. 1981. The species of the cisicrolecanii-group o[ Metaphycus 

Mercet (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) from South Africa with notes on some extralimital 

species. Journal of the Eniomological Society of Southern Africa. 44: 1-68. 
Prison, T.H. 1927. A list of the insect types in the collections of the Illinois State Natural 

History Survey and the University of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois State Natural History 

Survey, 16; 137-309. 
Girault, A.A. 1911. The chalcidoid parasites of the coccid Kermes pubescens Bogue, with 

descriptions of two new genera and three new species of Encyrtinae from Illinois. 

Canadian Entomologist. 43(5): 168-178. 
Gordh, G. 1979. Family Encyrtidae. Pp. 890-967 in: Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north 

of Mexico, vol. 1. Washington. D.C. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 315 

Hayat, M. 1986. Family Encyrtidae. The Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India and 

the adjacent countries. Part 2. Oiieiuul Insects, 20; 67-137. 
Mercet, R.G. 1917. Especies espaiiolas del genero Aphycus. Bolelin dc la Real Sociedad 

EspmoUi de Hisloria Nalural. 17(2): 128-139. 
Mercet, R.G. 1925. El genero Aphycus y sus afines (Hym. Chalc). Eos (Madrid). 1: 7-31. 
Noyes, J.S. 1981. On the types of the species of Encyrtidae described by R. Garcia Mercet 

(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Eos (Madrid), 55-56: 165-189. 
Noyes, J.S. & Hayat, M. 1994. Orienliil mealybug parasiloids of the Anagyritii (Hytnenoptera: 

Encyrtidae). vi, 554 pp. CAB International. Wallingford, U.K. 
Noyes, J.S. & Woolley, J.B. 1994. North American encyrtid fauna (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae): 

taxonomic changes and new taxa. Journal oj' Natural History. 28: 1327-1401. 
Tachikawa, T. 1963. Revisional studies of the Encyrtidae of Japan (Hymenoptera: 

Chalcidoidea). Memoirs oj the Ehime University. (6)9: 1-264. 
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1975. Contribution to the knowledge of parasitic Hymenoptera of the 

genus Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Hymenoptera. Chalcidoidea, Encyrtidae) of the 

Czechoslovakian fauna. Studia Entomologica Forestaliu. 2(1): 5-17. 
Viggiani, G. & Guerrieri, E. 1989. Italian species of the genus Metaphycus Mercet 

(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Bolletlino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria 'Filippo 

Silvestri', 45: 113-140. 



316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December !995 

Case 2995 

Dialictus Robertson, 1902 and Chloralictus Robertson, 1902 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over Paralictiis 
Robertson, 1901 

Charles D. Michener 

Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 
Kansas 66045, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give the much-used halictine bee 
generic (or subgeneric) names Dialictus and Chloralictus, published by C. Robertson 
in February and September 1902 respectively, precedence over the little-used name 
Paralictus published by Robertson the previous year. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; halictine bees; Dialictus; Chloralictus: 
Paralictus. 



1. Robertson (1901. p. 229) established the nominal genus Paralictus for a small 
group of cleptoparasitic halictine bees. He designated as type species Halictus 
cephalicus Robertson, 1892 (p. 270); however, the name of this is a junior primary 
homonym of H. cephalicus Morawitz, 1873 (p. 173) and Dalla Torre (1896. p. 57) 
provided H. cephalotes as a replacement name. 

2. In 1902 Robertson proposed two names for close nonparasitic relatives of 
Paralictus; these names are Dialictus (1902a, p. 48; type species H. anomalus 
Robertson. 1892. p. 272) and Chloralictus (1902b. p. 245: type species H. cressonii 
Robertson. 1890. p. 317). published in February and September 1902 respectively. 

3. Paralictus, Dialictus and Chloralictus have been treated as genera, or as 
subgenera of Lasioglossum Curtis, 1833 or Halictus Latreille, 1804. Dialictus and 
Chloralictus, often but not always considered synonyms under the former name, have 
been used in dozens of works, relating to about 265 nominal species in the western 
hemisphere and a smaller number in the eastern hemisphere, not only in taxonomic 
and ecological literature, but also in diverse papers on behavior and origins of social 
behavior, and in books on these topics. Examples of works which illustrate usage are 
Mitchell (1960). Wilson (1971). Michener (1974). Wilson (1975), Hurd (1979), Moure 
& Hurd (1987), Michener (1990) and Michener. McGinley & Danforth (1994). Their 
bibliographies give further references, and a list of a further 13 works by various 
authors has been given to the Commission Secretariat. Paralictus. however, has been 
used uncommonly except in catalogues and faunal works because the five included 
species are uncommon. 

4. Paralictus may or may not be a monophyletic group; it is clearly derived from 
Dialictml Chloralictus. Paralictus. Dialictus and Chloralictus are now regarded as 
synonymous (Michener. in preparation). If names in use were altered because of the 
priority of Paralictus, the current generic or subgeneric placement of some 300 species 
would change from Dialictus or Chloralictus to Paralictus. Especially because the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 317 

name Dialicius has been so much involved in works on behavior and the evolution of 
social behavior, such changes would be contrary to stability of nomenclature. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to rule that the names Dialicius Robertson, February 
1902 and Chloralictiis Robertson, September 1902 are to be given precedence 
over Paralictus Robertson, 1901 whenever they are considered to be synonyms 
of it; 

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

(a) Dialicius Robertson, 1902 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
and original designation Halictus ammuilus Robertson, 1892, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Paralictus Robertson, 
1901 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Chloraliclus Robertson, 1902 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Halictus cressonii Robertson. 1890, with the endorsement that 
it is to be given precedence over Paralictus Robertson, 1901 whenever the 
two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(c) Paralictus Robertson, 1901 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Halictus cephalicus Robertson, 1892 (a junior homonym of 
Halictus cephalicus Morawitz, 1873 and replaced by Halictus cephalotes 
Dalla Torre, 1896), with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority 
over Dialictus Robertson, 1902 or Chloralictus Robertson, 1902 when it is 
considered to be a synonym of them; 

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

(a) anonuilus Robertson, 1892, as published in the binomen Halictus anomalus 
(specific name of the type species of Dialictus Robertson, 1902); 

(b) cressonii Robertson, 1892, as published in the binomen Halictus cressonii 
(specific name of the type species of Chloralictus Robertson, 1902); 

(c) cephalotes Dalla Torre, 1896, as published in the binomen Halictus 
cephalotes (valid replacement of the specific name of Halictus cephalicus 
Robertson, 1892, the type species oi Paralictus Robertson, 1901). 

References 

Dalla Torre, G.C. de. 1896. Cululogus Hyinenopterorum. vol. 10. viii. 643 pp. Engelmann. 

Lipsiae. 
Hurd, P.D., Jr. 1979. Apoidea. Pp. 1741-2209 in Krombein, K.V.. Hurd, P.D., Jr., Smith, 

D.R. & Burks, B.D. (Eds.). Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico, vol. 2. 

xvi. pp. 1199-2209. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 
Michener, CD. 1974. The social behavior of the bees. xii. 404 pp. Harvard University Press, 

Cambridge, Mass. 
Michener, CD. 1990. Reproduction and caste in social halictine bees. Pp. 77-121 in Engels, W. 

(Ed.). Social insects, an evolutionary approach to castes and reproduction. 264 pp. Springer 

Verlag. Berlin. 
Michener, CD., McGinley, R.J. & Danforth, B.N. 1994. Tlie bee genera of North and Central 

America, viii. 209 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. D.C. 
Mitchell, T.B. 1960. Bees of llie eastern United States, vol. 1. .538 pp. North Carolina 

Agricultural E.xperiment Station Technical Bulletin no. 141. 
Morawitz, F. 1873. Die Bienen Daghestans. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 10: 

129-189. 



318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Moure, J.S. & Hurd, P.D., Jr. 1987. An imnotalcil cahilog of the luilicliil hees of the Western 

Hemisphere, vii. 405 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 
Robertson, C. 1890. New North American bees of the genera Halictiis and Prosopis. 

Trcmsciclions of the American Enlomologiciil Societw 17: 315-318. 
Robertson, C. 1892. Description of new North American bees. American Natiiralisl, 26: 

267-274. 
Robertson, C. 1901. Some new or little-known bees. Canadian Enlomologist, 33: 229-231. 
Robertson, C. 1902a. Some new or little-known bees. II. Canadian Enlomologist. 34: 48^9. 
Robertson, C. 1902b. Synopsis of Halictinae. Canadian Entomologist. 34: 243-250. 
Wilson, E.O. 1971. The insect societies, x. 548 pp. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass. 
Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociohiology. the new synthesis, ix, 697 pp. Harvard University Press, 

Cambridge, Mass. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4} December 1995 319 

Case 2984 

Monograptus riccartonensis Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina): proposed 
designation of a neotype 

D.K. Loydell 

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

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to propose a neotype for Monograptus 
riccartonensis Lapworth, 1876, a graptolite upon which Tullberg (1882) based the 
M. riccartonensis Zone of Wenlock (Silurian) age. Pribyl (1948) designated as 
lectotype one of Lapworth's type specimens which belongs to another species and is 
from strata significantly older than the M. riccartonensis Zone. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; graptolites; Silurian; Monograptus 
riccartonensis. 



1. Lapworth (1876, pp. 355-356, pi. 13, figs. 2a-e) described a new species of 
monograptid, Monograptus riccartonensis, from the Silurian of the British Isles. 

2. Tullberg (1882, p. 15) established the Monograptus riccartonensis Zone in 
Sweden. This zone was subsequently recognized by Elles (1900, pp. 375-376) in her 
classic paper 'The zonal classification of the Wenlock Shales', and incorporated by 
Elles & Wood (1914, p. 526) in their table 'Vertical ranges of the zones of British 
Graptolitoidea'. More recently it has been included in Rickard's (1989) table of 
zones 'most widely in use in international correlation', and in Koren et al.'s 
'generalized graptolite zonal sequence defining Silurian time intervals for global 
palaeogeographical studies' (in press). 

3. Pribyl (1948, p. 33) designated as lectotype of Monograptus riccartonensis the 
specimen illustrated by Lapworth (1876) in pi. 13, fig. 2a. However, Strachan (1971, 
p. 60) has noted that 'this specimen from the Swanston collection is probably not 
recognizable as a figured specimen'. 

4. Two of Lapworth's figured specimens (1876, pi. 13, figs. 2a-b), including the 
lectotype, are from Tieveshilly, County Down, Northern Ireland. Graptolitic strata 
of Wenlock age are not known from this locality (T.B. Anderson, pers. comm.). It is 
probable that Lapworth's figures were oblique views oi Monograptus priodon (Bronn, 
1835) or a related species of Telychian (Upper Llandovery) age. 

5. Lapworth's other illustrated specimens (Lapworth, 1876, pi. 13, figs. 2c-e) were 
collected from the Riccarton Beds (of Wenlock age) from Elliotsfield, Roxburghshire, 
Scotland; these specimens have not been located. However, another specimen from 
this locality was figured as Monograptus riccartonensis by Lapworth (1880, pi. 4, fig. 
8c) and was refigured by Elles & Wood (1913, pi. 42, fig. 8b). This specimen is housed 
in the Lapworth Museum, Birmingham University and is numbered BU 1585 
(Strachan, 1971, p. 91). Two other specimens on the same slab were figured by Elles 
& Wood (1913, text-figs. 286a-b). It is this species, and not Monograptus priodon or 



320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

some other, which was illustrated by Tullberg (1883, pi. 2, figs. 26-27) and upon 
which the M. riccartonensis Zone is founded. 

6. It is desirable that Lapworth's specific name riccarioncnsis be retained for his 
specimens from Elliotsfield as it is upon these that the internationally recognized 
M. rkcarionensis Zone is based. I therefore propose that specimen BU 1585, figured 
by Lapworth (1880, pi. 4, fig. 8c), be designated as neotype of M. riccarionensis 
Lapworth, 1876. 

7. 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 Monograpliis riccarionensis Lapworth, 1876 and to 
designate as the neotype the specimen BU 1585 in the Lapworth Museum, 
Birmingham University; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
riccarionensis Lapworth. 1876. as published in the binomen Monograptus 
riccarionensis and as defined by the neotype designated in ( 1 ) above. 

References 

Ellcs, G.L. 1900. The zonal classification of the Wenlock Shales of the Welsh Borderland. 

Qtiiirierly Jounuil i>J tlie Gcologiciil Society of London. 56: 370^13. 
Elles, G.L. & Wood, E.M.R. 1913-1914. A monograph of British graptolites. Palaeonlograplu- 

cal Society ( Moiiograpli ) , part 9. pp. 415^86 (1913); part 10, pp. 487-526 (1914). 
Koren, T.N., Lenz, A.C. Loydell, D.K., Melchin, M.J., Storch, P. & Teller, L. In press. 

Generalized graptolite zonal sequence defining Silurian time intervals for global palae- 

ogographical studies. Letltaia. 
Lapworth, C. 1876. On Scottish Monograptidae, part 3. Geological Magazine, (2)3: 350-360. 
Lapworth, C. 1880. On new British graptolites. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (5)5: 

149-177. 
Pribyl, A. 1948. Bibliographic inde.\ of Bohemian Silurian graptolites. Knihovna Stdlnilio 

Geologickeho Vstavii Republiky Ceskoslovenske. 22: 1-97. 
Rickards, R.B. 1989. Exploitation of graptolite cladogenesis in Silurian stratigraphy. 

Pp. 267-274 //) Holland. C.H. & Bassett, M.G. (Eds.), A global standard for the Silurian 

System. Geological Series, no. 9. 325 pp. National Museum of Wales. Cardiff. 
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. 
Tullberg, S.A. 1882. Skanes graptoliter. I. Allmiin ofversigt ofver de Siluriska bildningarne i 

Skine och jemforelse med ofriga kanda samtidiga aflagringar. Sveriges Geologiska 

Undcrsokning. 50: 1^4. 
Tullberg, S.A. 1883. SkSnes graptoliter, U. Graptolitfaunorna i Cardiolaskiffern och 

Cyrtograptusskiffrarne. Sveriges Geologiska Undcrsokning, 55: 1^3. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 321 

Case 2955 

lodoU-opheus sprengerae Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 (Osteichthyes, 
Perciformes): proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype 

Jay R. Stautfer, Jr. 

School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, 

University Park. Pennsylvania 16802, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the specific name of 
lodotropheiis .sprengerae Ohver & Loiselle, 1972 for a small, rock-dwelling fish (family 
CICHLIDAE) endemic to Lake Malawi, East Africa. /. sprengerae is the type species of 
lodotropheiis Oliver & Loiselle, 1972. The description of the taxon was based on 
aquarium-reared, possibly hybridized, specimens, the original brood stock of which 
was purported to have been collected from Boadzulu Island in the southeast of the 
lake, where the species does not occur. The holotype is not within the morphological 
range of wild specimens. It is proposed that the type material be set aside and a 
wild-caught specimen from Chinyankwazi Island, where the species is now known to 
occur, be designated as the neotype. The species is popular as an aquarium fish and 
is commonly known as the rusty cichlid. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; cichlidae; rusty cichlid; lodotro- 
pheus sprengerae; Lake Malawi. 



1. Oliver & Loiselle (1972, p. 310) estabhshed the genus lodotropheiis for a small, 
rock -dwelling cichlid fish endemic to Lake Malawi, East Africa. They described and 
illustrated (p. 310, figs. 1-7) the single included species lodotropheiis sprengerae, 
which is thus the type by monotypy. The description was based on the holotype (a 
mature male, catalogue no. BM(NH) 1971.9.8.5 in the Natural History Museum, 
London) and seven paratypes (a male and two females BM(NH) 1971.9.8.6-8 in 
London; and three males and one female USNM 20712-5 in the U.S. National 
Museum, Washington, D.C.). 

2. Oliver & Loiselle (1972, p. 315) asserted that lodotropheiis sprengerae had been 
collected only at Boadzulu Island (14°1 1'S, 35°07'E) in the southeast arm of the lake, 
which is isolated by a broad expanse of sandy substrate. Boadzulu Island was thus 
the implicit type locality. Only in the acknowledgments (p. 319) did they state that all 
the type material consisted of aquarium-raised specimens, donated by aquarists, from 
different sources in the United States: Manhattan Beach, California; Los Gatos, 
California; Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Atlanta, Georgia. 

3. Oliver and Loiselle presumed that the original stock exported for the tropical 
fish trade had originated from Boadzulu Island in southern Lake Malawi because 
populations of lodotropheus spp. were observed there by Oliver while diving (Oliver 
& Loiselle, 1972, p. 316; P.V. Loiselle, personal communication); at the time of the 
description of /. sprengerae the existence of other lodotropheiis species was unknown 
to the authors. Konings (1989, p. 102; 1990b, p. 270) and Ribbink et al. (1983, p. 241) 
subsequently referred to /. sprengerae as occurring at Boadzulu, Chinyamwezi 



322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

(13°56'S. 35°00'E), and Chinyankwazi ( 13°53'S, 35°00'E) islands in Lake Malawi. The 
latter two islands are close together, whilst Boadzulu is further south. All the islands 
in the southeast arm of the lake show a high degree of fish endemism. 

4. 1 (Stauffer, 1994) made a series of collections from all three islands and, utilizing 
morphological data, compared the population from Boadzulu Island with popu- 
lations from Chinyamwezi-Chinyankwazi islands. I concluded that the two 
populations represented distinct species. 

5. A study of the type material of lodotropheus sprengerae demonstrated that 
it was most similar to (but not identical with) wild-caught specimens from 
Chinyamwezi and Chinyankwazi islands, and distinct from wild-caught material 
from Boadzulu Island. Thus, I (Stauffer, 1994) concluded that the population 
inhabiting Boadzulu Island represented a new species, which I described as lodotro- 
pheus declimlas, and that /. sprengerae does not occur at this island. 

6. I interviewed Stuart Grant, a current exporter of ornamental fishes from Lake 
Malawi, and discovered that the principal exporter of Malawian fishes in the early 
1970s, P. Da vies, the first to collect specimens of lodotropheus sprengerae, was 
collecting fishes at all of the above three localities. 

7. The locality of the original brood stock of lodotropheus sprengerae is unknown 
but it may well have been Chinyamwezi and/or Chinyankwazi islands. The propen- 
sity for haplochromine cichlids to produce fertile hybrids in aquaria, that also 
backcross with the parental forms, and the mixing of wild-caught specimens with 
cultured ones throughout the aquarium trade, are widely recognized (Loiselle, 1971; 
McElroy & Kornfield, 1993, p. 934), The /. sprengerae holotype lies outside the 
morphological range of wild-caught specimens (see Stauffer, 1994, p. 335) and there 
is the possibility that it is the result of hybridization and/or back crosses in aquaria 
between individuals collected at Boadzulu Island with those collected from 
Chinyamwezi and Chinyankwazi islands. 

8. Given the situation outlined above, one option would be to describe the taxon 
from Chinyamwezi and Chinyankwazi islands and that from Boadzulu Island as new 
species, noting that the name /. sprengerae (and hence lodotropheus) was based on a 
description of aquarium-raised fishes of unknown provenance and geneology. How- 
ever, fishes belonging to the genus lodotropheus are easily recognized and the names 
lodotropheus and /. sprengerae are commonly used in both the scientific and popular 
literature (see, for example, the recent works of Axelrod & Burgess, 1981; Eschmeyer, 
1990; Jackson & Ribbink, 1975; Keenleyside, 1991; Konings, 1989, 1990a; Lewis, 
Reinthal & Trendall, 1986; Loiselle, 1985; McKaye & Gray, 1984; Ribbink et al.. 
1983). There are currently three recognized species of lodotropheus in Lake Malawi 
and over time, as the Mozambique shoreline is more adequately sampled, there will 
undoubtedly be additional species discovered (see Stauffer, 1994). I therefore propose 
that the original type material of lodotropheus sprengerae be set aside and a wild- 
caught specimen from Chinyankwazi Island (a male, no. PSU 2721, in the Fish 
Museum of The Pennsylvania State University), which I have described and illus- 
trated (Stauffer, 1994, pp. 337-339, figs. 7 and 8), be designated as the neotype. This 
specimen is in accord with the subsequent usage of /. sprengerae. Such an action 
would be in accord with Recommendation 75E of the Code: "Neotypes should be 
designated to clarify the application of names when their continued existence as 
nomina dubia threatens the stability of other names; if, despite the existence of a 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 323 

holotype, or a lectotype, or syntypes, it is not possible to resolve a complex zoological 
problem, a zoologist should refer the case to the Commission which may, by the use 
of the plenary power, set aside the existing type material and designate a neotype.' 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimen for 
lodotropheits sprengerae Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 and to designate as neotype 
the male specimen PSU 2721 in the Fish Museum, The Pennsylvania State 
University, U.S.A.; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
lodotropheits Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy lodotropheus sprengerae Oliver & Loiselle, 1972; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name sprengerae 
Oliver & Loiselle, 1972, as published in the binomen lodotropheus sprengerae 
(specific name of the type species of lodotropheus Oliver & Loiselle, 1972) and 
as defined by the neotype designated in ( 1 ) above. 

References 

Axelrod, H.R. & Burgess, W.E. 1981. African cichlids of lakes Malawi and Tanganyika, Ed. 9. 

T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City. New Jersey. 
Eschmeyer, W.N. & Bailey, R.M. 1990. Genera of Recent fishes. Pp. 7^33 in Eschmeyer, 

W.N., Catalog of the genera of Recent fishes, part 1. v, 697 pp. California Academy of 

Sciences. San Francisco. 
Jackson, P.B.N. & Ribbinck, A.J. 1975. Mbiina (Rock-dwelling cichlids of Lake Malawi, 

Africa). 128 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. 
Keenleyside, M.H.A. (Ed.). 1991. Cichlid fishes: behaviour, ecology and evolution. Chapman & 

Hall, New York. 
Konings, A. 1989. Malawi cichlids in their natural habitat. 303 pp. Verduijn Cichlids & Lake 

Fish Movies, Zevenhuizen, Holland & Herten, Germany. 
Konings, A. 1990a. Descriptions of six new Malawi cichlids. Tropical Fish Hobbyist, 38(1 1): 

110-129. 
Konings, A. 1990b. Ad Koning's book of cichlids and all the other fishes of Lake Malawi. 495 pp. 

T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. 
Lewis, D., Reinthal, P. & Trendall, J. 1986. A guide to the fishes of Lake Malawi National Park. 

World Wildlife Federation. World Conservation Centre, Gland. 
Loiselle, P.V. 1971. Hybridization in cichlids. Bunlbarsche Bulletin, 29: 9-18. 
Loiselle, P.V. 1985. The cichlid aquarium. Tetra-Press, Melle. 
McElroy, D.M. & Kornfield, \. 1993. Novel jaw morphology in hybrids between Pseudo- 

tropheus zebra and Laheotropheus fuetteborni (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi, 

Africa. Copeia, 1993(4): 933-945. 
McKaye, K.R. & Gray, W.N. 1984. Extrinsic barriers to gene flow in rock-dwelling cichlids of 

Lake Malawi: macrohabitat heterogeneity and reef colonization. Pp. 169-183 in Echelle, 

A. A. & Kornfield. I. (Eds.). Evolution offish species flocks. University of Maine at Orono 

Press, Orono. 
Oliver, M.K. & Loiselle, P.V. 1972. A new genus and species of cichlid of the mbuna group 

(Pisces: Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 

85(3^): 309-320. 
Ribbink, A.J., Marsh, B.A., Marsh, A.C., Ribbink, A.C. & Sharp, B.J. 1983. A preliminary 

survey of the cichlid fishes of the rocky habitats in Lake Malawi. South African Journal 

of Zoology, 18: 149-310. 
StauiTer, J.R., Jr. 1994. A new species of lodotropheus (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from Lake 

Malawi. Africa. Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters, 5(4): 331-344. 



324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Case 2965 

Siboma atraria Girard, 1856 (currently Gila atraria; Osteiehthyes, 
Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name 

Carter R. Gilbert 

Florida Museum of Natural Historv, University of Florida. Gainesville, 
Florida 32611-2035, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Gila 
iiircnici (Girard. 1856). the common Utah chub of the western United States. Another 
of Girard's names. Tigoma lineata, is a synonym and has precedence due to a 
nomenclatural decision by Evermann & Rutter (1895); however, lineata has not been 
used in recent decades and its suppression is proposed. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteiehthyes; Cypriniformes; United States; 
Utah chub; Gila alraria: Tigoma lineata. 



1. Girard (1856) described the new cyprinid nominal species Siboma atraria and 
Tigoma lineata from the western United States, on pp. 208 and 206 respectively. 

2. S. atraria was 'found in a spring, in Utah District, near the Desert, by Lt. E.G. 
Beckwith". There is a single specimen (USNM 236; standard length 125.7 mm) in the 
U.S. National Museum. The type locality was later restricted by Snyder (1921, p. 25) 
to Fish Springs, in the southern part of Tooele County, Utah. 

3. T. lineata was also collected by Beckwith, but the type locality was not stated 
and the only information consists of the handwritten 'Near 38°N. lat." on labels 
accompanying the extant types (see para. 7 below). Although six syntypes (USNM 
229) are supposed to have existed originally (Girard, 1858, pp. 292-293), apart from 
a single pharyngeal arch they disappeared long ago from the USNM collection 
(paras. 6 and 7 below). 

4. Although Jordan (1878, p. 424; also 1885b, p. 819) listed both S. atraria and 
T lineata he noted the latter as being a 'doubtful species', and omitted it from other 
contemporary publications (Jordan, 1885a; 1891a; 1891b). T. lineata was not 
included among the synonyms oi Leuciscus atrarius (Girard, 1856) in the last three 
works. 

5. Evermann's paper (1893) on Montana and Wyoming fishes used (pp. 23, 46; 
pi. 20, fig. 3) the name L. atrarius for the Utah chub and did not mention T. lineata, 
but despite this Evermann & Rutter (1895, p. 483) synonymized Girard's two 
nominal species under the name Leuciscus lineatus. They gave no reason for the 
choice of specific name but presumably it was based on the original page priority (cf. 
para. 1 above). Their action qualifies as that of first reviser under Article 24a of the 
Code. Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 233) noted under L. lineatus 'locality unknown, 
type lost". 

6. Following Evermann & Rutter (1895) the name L lineatus was used for the 
Utah chub for 22 years (e.g. Lucas, 1900, pp. 223-224; Fowler. 1913, p. 71), but the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 325 

total number of references was small. Snyder (1917, p. 59) disputed Evermann & 
Rutler's synonymy, arguing that the slender body mentioned in Girard's original 
description of T. lineaia was more typical of species of the genus Richanlsonius 
Girard (1856, p. 201). This conclusion has been accepted ever since. Snyder (1921, 
pp. 26-27) noted that the pharyngeal arch of T. lineata in the U.S. National Museum 
with two rows of teeth (dental formula 2.4-) bears a close resemblance to pharyngeal 
arches of Richardsunius hydrophlox (Cope, 1871) (- R. balteaius hydruphlox), the 
redside shiner. 

7. Although the syntypes of T. lineata were thought to have been lost, at least three 
are known to exist, all in good condition; during the 1860"s they had been sent by the 
U.S. National Museum on exchange to other museums in this country and abroad. 
Fowler (1925, pp. 399^00. fig. 8) described and illustrated a type specimen (ANSP 
4188) in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia but did 
not comment on its supposed identity with R. balteatus hydruphlox; Bohlke ( 1 984, 
p. 81) reported that Dr Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan, had identified this 
specimen as Gila atraria. The two other known syntypes are in the Museum of 
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ 1807) and the Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris (MNHN 394); I have identified all three specimens as 
being G. atraria. 

8. Apart from the period 1895-1917 (see para. 6 above) the specific name atraria 
has been consistently used for the Utah chub for the past 139 years. This is an 
abundant fish throughout its range, and numerous references have appeared in both 
the ichthyological and fisheries literature in recent decades (e.g. Neuhold, 1955; John, 
1959; Graham. 1961; La Rivers, 1962; Sigler & Miller, 1963; Carlander, 1969; Baxter 
& Simon. 1970; Brown, 1971; Simpson & Wallace, 1978; Wallace, 1980; Robins et al., 
1991; Mayden et al., 1992). Although, following the first reviser action of Evermann 
& Rutter (1895; see para. 5 above), the valid name should be Gila lineata. to change 
to this from G. atraria would be both unnecessary and confusing; under Article 79 of 
the Code there is a prima facie case for suppressing the specific name lineata. 

9. This application is supported by Drs R.M. Bailey, B.M. Burr, R.C. Cashner, 
B.B. Collette, S. Contreras-Balderas, W.N. Eschmeyer, D. Hendrickson, R.R. Miller, 
J.S. Nelson, W.F. Smith-Vaniz and J.D. Williams. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name lineata Girard, 1856, as 
published in the binomen Tigumu lineata, 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 atraria 
Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Siboma atraria: 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name lineata Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Tigoma 
lineata and as suppressed in (I) above. 

References 

Baxter, G.T. & Simon, J.R. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Bulletin of the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Department. 4: 1-168. 



326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Bohike, E.B. 1984. Catalogue of type specimens in the ichthyological collection of the 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Special Publications of the Academy of 

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, no. 14. vii. 246 pp. 
Brown, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Big Sky Books, Missoula, Montana. 
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, vol. 1. vi, 752 pp. Iowa State 

University Press. Ames, Iowa. 
Evermann, B.W. 1893. A reconnaissance of the streams and lakes of western Montana and 

northwestern Wyoming. Bulletin of the United Slates Fish Commission. 11(1891): 1-60 

pis. 1-26. 
Evermann, B.W. & Rutter, C. 1895. The fishes of the Colorado basin. Bulletin of the United 

States Fish Commission. 14 (1894): 473-486. 
Fowler, H.W, 1913. Some type-specimens of the American cyprinoid fishes of the 

genus Rutilus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 65: 

66-71. 
Fowler, H.W. 1925. Notes on North American cyprinoid fishes. Proceedings of the A'cademv of 

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 76: 389^16. 
Girard, C. 1 856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the freshwaters of the United 

States of America west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the museum of the 

Smithsonian Institution. Proceedings of the Acadeinv of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 

8: 165-213. 
Girard, C. 1 858. Fishes. General report of the zoology of the several Pacific railroad routes. 

United Slates Pacific Railroad Survey, vol. 10, no. 4. 400 pp., 76 pis. 
Graham, R.J. 1961. Biology of the Utah chub in Hebgen Lake. Montana. Transactions of the 

.American Fisheries Society. 90(3): 269-276. 
John, K.R. 1959. Ecology of the chub, Gila atraria. with special emphasis on vertebral 

curvatures, in Two Ocean Lake, Teton National Park. Wyoming. Ecology, 40: 564-571. 
Jordan, D.S, 1878. A catalogue of the fishes of the fresh waters of North America. Bidletin 

of the United Stales Geological and Geographical Survev of the Territories. 4(2): 

407^42. 
Jordan, D.S, 1885a. 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 Stales National Museum. 8: 118-127. 
Jordan, D.S. 1885b. A catalogue of the fishes known to inhabit the waters of North America, 

north of the Tropic of Cancer, with notes on the species discovered in 1883 and 1884. 

Annual Report of the Commission for Fish and Fisheries. 1885: 787-973. 
Jordan, D.S. 1891a. Report of explorations in Colorado and Utah during the summer of 1889. 

with an account of the fishes found in each of the river basins examined. Bulletin of the 

United States Fish Connnission. 9(1889): 1^0. 
Jordan, D.S. 1891b. A reconnaissance of the streams and lakes of the Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming, in the interest of the United States Fish Commission. Bulletin of the 

United Stales Fish Commission. 9( 1889): 41-63. 
Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive 

catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America 

north of the Isthmus of Panama. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, vol. 47, 

no. I. Ix, 1240 pp. 
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes atul fisheries of Nevada. 782 pp. Nevada State Fish and Game 

Commission. State Printing Office. Carson City. 
Lucas, F.A. 1900. Description of a new species of fossil fish from the Esmeralda Formation. 

Pp. 223-226 in Turner, H.W.. The Esmeralda Formation, a freshwater lake deposit. Jlst 

Annual Report. United States Geological Survey, pp. 191-226. 
Mayden, R.L., Burr, B,M., Page, L.M, & Miller, R.R. 1992. The native freshwater fishes of 

North America. Pp. 827-863 in Mayden, R.L. (Ed.). Systematics. historical ecology, and 

North American freshwater fishes, xxvi. 969 pp. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 
Neuhold, J.M. 1955. Age and growth of the Utah chub. Gila atraria (Girard). in Panguitch 

Lake and Navajo Lake, Utah, from scales and opercular bones. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, 85: 217-233. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 327 

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. Special 

Puhlicatioii of the American Fisheries Society, no. 20. 183 pp. 
Sigler, W.F. & Miller, R.R. 1963. Fishes of Utah. 203 pp. Utah Department of Fish and Game, 

Salt Lake City. 
Simpson, J. & Wallace, R. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. Til pp. The University Press of Idaho, 

Moscow, Idaho. 
Snyder, J.O. 1917. The fishes of the Lahontan system of Nevada and northeastern California. 

Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fishes, 35(1915-1916): 33-86. 
Snyder, J.O. 1921. Notes on some western fluvial fishes described by Charles Girard in 1856. 

Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 59: 23-28. 
Wallace, R.L. 1980. Gila atraria (Girard). Utah chub. P. 160 in Lee, D.S. et al. (Eds.), Atlas of 

North American freshwater fishes, x, 854 pp. North Carolina State Museum of Natural 

History, Raleigh. 



328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Porites Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, 
Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia) 

(Case 2900; see BZN 52: 142-147) 

Brian R. Rosen 

Departineni of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road. 

London SH7 5BD. U.K. 

I am writing in support of ProF Donald Potts's application for the conservation of 
the scleractinian coral generic names Porites Link, 1807. Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa 
Oken. 1815 and Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830. 

I have been working on the taxonomy and related topics of scleractinian corals, 
especially those of living and fossil reefal forms, for 30 years. Fortunately, over this 
time there has been relative stability in the usage of most reef coral generic names, 
especially the most common ones, and I very much believe that this has been to the 
advantage of coral studies in general. Over this time the group has become recognized 
for its great ecological importance in tropical marine ecosystems, and its biogeo- 
graphy is now also one of the most thoroughly studied of all tropical marine groups 
of organisms. 

Potts's case for the stability of the four coral names is an implicit plea for 
nomenclatural stability in modern science. One of the prime purposes of the 
taxonomist is to eliminate ambiguity of name usage, thereby enabling taxonomically- 
based research such as ecology, evolutionary studies and biogeography to be carried 
out with the minimum of nomenclatural confusion. I recognise that taxonomic 
changes result in name changes from time to time, but name changes should not be 
made purely for the sake of a legalistic application of the Code. If continuing 
nomenclatural stability rests on retaining names which are well founded and valid in 
themselves and threatened only on priority grounds as the result of researches in the 
antiquarian literature, then I would argue that stability must be overriding. Potts is 
evidently arguing from a similar point of view. 

Potts emphasizes that all four genera are commonplace, widespread and ecologi- 
cally important. They also have a substantial fossil record, most especially Porites 
which is often the primary, often sole, bioconstructional organism in Neogene reefs. 
Porites is probably the most common single genus in the coral record, taking fossil 
and extant occurrences into account. It has also become an important sclerochrono- 
logical tool in climate change research. In short, ' Porite.s' is the nearest in the coral 
world to a household name, rivalled only by Acropora. The colonies of Galaxea attain 
a larger size (several metres) than those of any other genus. The concepts of two of 
the genera, Porites and Dendrophyllia, are founded on validly designated lectotypes. 
All four corals, Porites, Galaxea, Mussa and Dendrophyllia, are distinctive and 
relatively easy to recognise by non-specialists, even in the field. 

If Potts's application for the suppression of the unused senior homonym Porites 
Cuvier, 1798 were not approved, the name would remain valid, applied to one or 
other of the three genera now called Galaxea, Mussa or Dendrophyllia (para. 10 of the 
application). A new name would be required for the genus currently called Porites. It 
is difficult to see what would be gained from such a nomenclatural upheaval, made 
necessary purely on the grounds of priority. It would lead to enormous confusion for 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) Decetnber 1995 329 

all those coral workers who deal daily with these common species. In order to avoid 
such potential travails I give my wholehearted support to Potts's application. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria 
conehamm Orsted, 1843 and D. fimhriatus (Verrill. 1879) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by 
the designation of a neotype for D. concharum 

(Case 2899; see BZN 52: 27-33, 261-262) 

David Heppell 

Department of Natural History. National Museums of Scotland. Chambers Street, 

Edinburgh EHl IJF. U.K. 

Peter H. Gibson 

Institute of Cell. Animal and Population Biology. University of Edinburgh, 

Edinburgh EH9 3 JQ. U.K. 

We write in reply to the coinment by Drs Pleijel and Mackie (BZN 52: 261-262). 

The basic problem, for which we attempted to find a solution by neotype 
designation, is that the name Dodecaceria concharum has been used in two different 
senses: ( 1 ) as an aggregate, by those authors (e.g. Fauvel, 1927) who have lumped the 
'form A' and 'form B" of Caullery & Mesnil as a single species; (2) as a segregate, by 
those authors who have followed Dehorne (1933) in regarding 'form B' as a distinct 
species, D. caulleryi or D. fimhriata. In those waters, such as the coasts of Denmark 
and Sweden, where only one species occurs, authors have called it D. concharum, and 
indeed it is the species so named by Orsted. Unfortunately, this is the same species 
('form B' of Caullery & Mesnil) as that named D. caulleryi by Dehorne and later 
synonymized with D. fimhriata. All authors who have distinguished between the two 
species have followed Dehorne's incorrect application of the name D. concharum to 
the parthenogenetic 'form A'. Thus the purpose of our application was to conserve 
the general usage of those authors who had correctly discriminated between the two 
species, but who had not realised that the true D. concharum Orsted was in fact 
synonymous with D. caulleryi (i.e. D. fimbriata) and that no satisfactory name was 
available for D. concharum sensu Dehorne. Although Dehorne believed Orsted's 
description to be 'sufiisant a identifier I'animal", he incorrectly restricted the name 
D. concharum to 'form A' and gave the new name D. caulleryi to 'form B". His 
interpretation of D. concharum has, until now, been followed by all authors who have 
distinguished between the two. To designate a neotype for D. concharum in the sense 
of Orsted's original material from the Oresund and Kattegat would not, therefore, 
solve the above problem. It is precisely for this reason that our proposed selection of 
neotype locality represents 'a deliberate misuse of Orsted's name'. Cullercoats is 
about the nearest locality to Denmark from which the segregate 'A concharum' of 
later authors has been recorded. Dehorne's type locality (Le Portel, Boulogne) for 
D. caulleryi is about the same distance from Denmark, but only this species ('form B') 
occurs there. 

Pleijel & Mackie refer to the survey of marine macrobenthos from the Swedish west 
coast by Jiigerskidld (1971). One of us (P.H.G.) has examined all the Dodecaceria 
material from this survey, and can confirm that only one species ('form B") is present: 



330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 

the D. conclumim of Orsted = D. fimhriatalcauUeryi. The other references cited by 
Pleijel & Mackie are simply those referred to by Jagerskiold. Of these, Tauber (1879) 
and Levinsen (1884) are too early to recognize more than one species, so their usage 
of the name D. concharum is not significant here. Eliason (1962a) cites the old records 
from the Oresund but has 'keine neuen Funde', so his usage is inconclusive; in his 
paper on the polychaetes of the Skagerak expedition in 1933 (Eliason, 1962b) he has 
no records for Dodecaceha. The reference to Thorson (1946), however, is interesting 
and requires comment. 

Thorson (1946, p. 106) gave an outline of the morphological and reproductive 
differences between the different 'forms' all referred to D. concharum, but gave 
literature references only to two brief papers published by Mesnil & Caullery in 1898, 
rather than to the more extensive work by Caullery & Mesnil (1898), and to 
Dehorne's preliminary papers of 1924 and 1927, rather than to his 1933 paper in 
which he established D. cauUeryi as a new taxon. Thorson himself saw only one adult 
specimen from off Hellebaek which 'showed all the characteristics of form A, but 
seemed not to be in the season of reproduction' (it was taken on 26 July 1941). If this 
specimen is still extant, and if it is indeed 'form A', it would be an ideal candidate for 
a neotype for D. concharum Orsted, as not only was it obtained from one of the 
localities from which Orsted obtained his original material, but it would be in 
accordance with the general usage of that name by those authors who have accepted 
'form A" and 'form B' as distinct species. It seems more likely, however, that Thorson 
misidentified his specimen. He states that form Bl (the atoke of D. ftmbriata) 
resembles form A but is of a yellow colour. This is not, in fact,