Skip to main content

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats


R D a kK t.ywo 



I 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



ICjAjx jThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



Volume 55, 1998 



Published on behalf of the Commission by 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

c/o The Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. 

ISSN 0007-5167 

C International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 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 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 4 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 5 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 5 

Applications 

Siromhiilium gyrans Stokes. 1887 (currently Strobilidiuin gyrans) and Slrobitidium 
caiiduium Kahl. 1932 (Ciliophora, Oligotrichida): proposed conservation of the 
specific names. C. W. Heckman 6 

Osilimis Philippi. 1847 and Auslrocochlea Fischer. 1885 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed conservation by the designation of Trochus turbinatus Born. 1 778 as the 
type species of Osilimis. S. Gofas & D.G. Herbert 9 

Androclomis caucasicus Nordmann. 1840 (currently Mesobuthus caucasicus; 

Arachnida. Scorpiones); proposed conservation of the specific name. V. Fet . . 14 

Paruroctonus Werner. 1934 (Arachnida. Scorpiones): proposed conservation. 

W.D. Sissom. V. Fet & M.E. Braunwalder 17 

Corisa propiriqiui Fieber. 1 860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinijua; Insecta. Heterop- 

tera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson 20 

Phytobiiis Dejean. 1835 (Insecta. Coleoptera): proposed conservation. H. Silfverberg 22 

DASYPODIDAE Bomer, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed emendation of spelling 
to DASYPODAiDAE. SO removing the homonymy with dasypodidae Gray. 1821 
(Mammalia. Xenarthra). B. A. Alexander, CD. Michener & A. L. Gardner . . . 24 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the names Geopellis Regteren Altena. 1949. 

Geoteuthis Miinster. 1843. Jeletzkyleuthis Doyle. 1990. Loligosepia Quenstedt. 

1839. Parabelopellis Naef, 1921. Puraplesioleiithis Naef, 1921 and Belenmolheulis 

monlefiorei Buckman. 1880 (Mollusca. Coleoidea). D.T. Donovan & T. Engeser. 29 

On the proposed conservation of the specific and subspecific names of Trigono- 

cephalus pulcber Peters. 1862 and Bothrops cdbocariuatus Shreve. 1934 (Reptilia, 

Serpentes) by the designation of a neotype for T. pulcher. R.L. Gutberlet & M.B. 

Harvey: B. Schatti: W. Wiister; H.M. Smith 29 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Vwamis teriue Sprackland. 

1991 (Reptilia. Squamata). J. Covacevich & P. Couper; G.M. Shea 37 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cnemidophonis neome.xiaiinis 

Lowe & Zweifel. 1952 (Reptilia. Squamata). C.J. Cole: P.A. Medica: H.A. 

Dundee: R.G. Webb; W.W. Tanner: D.B. Wake: B.E. Leuck: R.C. Stebbins et al.. 39 

On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 marrmial specific names based on wild 

species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic 

animals. I.L. Brisbin, Jr 43 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1886. Plumularia Lamarck. 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): conserved by the 

designation of St'«»/anV/ ierafcu Linnaeus. 1758 as the type species 47 

OPINION 1887. Area peclunadoides Scacchi. 1834 and A. philippiaiui Nyst, 1848 
(currently Balhyarcu peclunadoides and B. phUippiana: Mollusca. Bivalvia): 
specific names conserved 49 



II BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

OPINION 1888. Liroharleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Gastropoda); Alvwiiu 

nifircsivns Bartsch & Rehder. 1939 designated as the type species 51 

OPINION 1889. Piiriiproiwccnisliiliiiii C\nus. 1879 (Crustacea. Amphipoda): specific 

name conserved 52 

OPINION 1890. Sciirahiiciis nifiis Moll. 1782 (currently Aphodius nijiis). Sainihciciis 
rutiis Fabricius. 1792 (currently Aci>ialki nijii) and Scarabaeiix foclidiis Herbst, 
1783 (currently Aplwdhis foclidiis) (Insecta. Coleoptera): specific names conserved. 54 

OPINION 1891. Crenilis Bedel, 1881, Geori.ssiis Latreille. 1809 and Oosicnmm 

Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 58 

OPINION 1892. ^/n'ontt/mni n!>7/// Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa); neotype replaced . . 61 

OPINION 1893. Bomhycilla cedroruin Vieillot, [1808] and Troglodytes ciedon Vieillot, 

[1809] (Aves. Passeriformes): specific names conserved 62 

OPINION 1894. Regmiin Aniimile .... Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected for 
nomenclatural purposes, with the conservation of the mammalian generic names 
PltiUmder (Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Glis, Cunicuhis and Hydrochoerus 
(Rodenlia), Mclcs. Ultra and Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus (Perissodactyla), 
Tragulus and Giruffa (Artiodactyla) 64 

Information and Instructions for Authors 72 

Notices 73 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 74 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 75 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 75 

Applications 

Campehnni Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. 

A.E. Bogan & E.E. Spamer 76 

Eiwhilus Sandberger, 1870 and Slalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiaiui Deshayes, 1862 and Pahidina 
dcsinurestii Prevost, 1821 as the respective type species, with the conservation of 
Bania Brusina, 1896. D. Kadolsky 82 

Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca. Gastropoda): proposed designation of 

Ci//"(frf//ag(:i/i//iMi/ Menke, 1847 as the type species. F.G. Thompson .... 87 

Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 1870 (currently Nephotetlix iiigropiclus; Insecta, 

Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson . ... 90 

Cicada elaviconiis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homo- 
ptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson & M. Asche . 93 

Miisca ro.iae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamacpsila rosae: Insecta. Diptera): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Chandler 96 

Igiiamidon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed designation of Igiiaiwdoii 
hemissarteiisis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species, and proposed 
designation of a lectotype. A.J. Charig & S.D. Chapman 99 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Disparahma Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi- 

opoda). M.J. Grygier 105 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus Esper, 
[1777] (currently Ochlodes venala or Augiades svlnmiis: Insecta, Lepidoptera). 
P.S. Wagener 105 

On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaiiriis goiildii Gray, 1838 and 
Varainis panoples Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype 
for Hydrosaiiriis goiildii. G.M. Shea & H.G. Cogger 106 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 III 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackland, 

1991 (Reptilia. Squamata). T. Ziegler & W. Bohme: R.T. Hoser Ill 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Dienwiiici ulrci Macleay, 1884 

(currently Z)CT)/fl«.s/o iUra; Reptilia, Serpentes). G.M. Shea 115 

On the proposed conservation of the name Loris E. Geoflroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 

(Mammalia, Primates). A. Gentry. C. P. Groves & P.D. Jenkins 118 

On the proposed conservation of usage of 1 5 mammal specific names based on wild 
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic 
animals. C.R. Altaba 119 



Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1895. Riisea and riisei Duchassaing & Michelotti. 1860 (Cnidaria, 
Anthozoa): conserved as the correct original spellings of generic and specific names 
based on the surname Riise 121 

OPINION 1896. Giiiha Schrank, 1803 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Biiccimim inoicatii- 

lum Miiller. 1774 designated as the type species 123 

OPINION 1S97. Ghmcris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda). Armadillo Latreille, 1802, 
Armaclillidiiim Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] and Arniadillo vuli-aris 
Latreille, 1804 (currently Armadillidium vulgare) (Crustacea, Isopoda): generic and 
specific names conserved 124 

OPINION 1898. Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given 

precedence over ^eno.s/o(Vte/ Girault, 1911 129 

OPINION 1899. Merislclla Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Alrypci laevis Vanuxem, 1842 

designated as the type species 131 

OPINION 1900. Treniato.spira HaW. 1859 (Brachiopoda): Spirifer multistiiatu.s Hall 

1857 designated as the type species 133 

OPINION 1901. Gkidiolitcs gcinitzianm Barrande, 1850 (currently Retiolites 

gemilzkmus; Graptolithina): lectotype replaced by a neotype 135 

Information and instructions for authors 136 

Notices 137 

Election of the Vice-President of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 138 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 138 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 138 

Applications 

Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoinu aculiim Draparnaud, 1805 (currently 
Hydrohia aciilu; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation by replacement of 
the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977: proposed 
designation of Turbo venlrosu.s Montagu, 1803 as the type species; and hydrobiina 
Mulsant. 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed emendation of spelling to hydro- 
BiLisiNA, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae Troschel, 1 857 ( Mollusca). 
F. Giusti, G. Manganelh & M. Bodon 139 

Pucbylops Fieber. 1858 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of Capsus 
chloroplerus Kirschbaum, 1856 (currently Orlliotylus virescens (Douglas & Scott, 
1865)) as the type species. A. Carapezza & l.M. Kerzhner 146 

Scums chrysoplerux Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Sparisoina chrysopicrum; 
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and 
designation as the type species of Sparisoina Swainson, 1839. R.L. Moura & 
J.E. Randall 151 



IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

Osphronemus deissneri Bleeker, 1859 (currently Purosphromemis dcls.sneri: Osteich- 
thyes. Perciformes): proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. P.K.L. Ng & 
M. Kottelat 155 

Cacaluu Vieillot. 1817 and cacatuinae Gray. 1840 (Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed 

conservation. W.J. Bock & R. Schodde 159 

LORisiDAi; Gray. 1821 and galagidae Gray, 1825 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed 
conservation as the correct original spellings. J.H. Schwartz, J. Shoshani, 
I. Tattersall, E.L. Simons & G.F. Gunnell 165 



Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi- 

opoda). G. Fryer 169 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvciinis Esper, [1777] 
(currently OchUnks veiiata or Augiades svlvaims: Insecta, Lepidoptera). R. de Jong 
& O. Ka'rsholt . .' 169 

On the proposed designation of Iguunodon bernissurlcnsis Boulenger //; Beneden, 
1 88 1 as the type species of Igiumodou Mantell, 1 825, and proposed designation of 
a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia). D. Norman: A.C. Milner 172 

On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosuurus goiiUlii Gray, 1838 and 
yuniiuis pimuples Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype 
for Hvdrosaurus goiddii. W. Bohme & T. Ziegler: R.G. Sprackland, H.M. Smith & 
P.D. Strimple .' 173 

On the proposed suppression of all prior usages of generic and specific names of birds 
(Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as published in the 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. S.L. Olson; R. Schodde & 
W.J. Bock 176 



Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1902. Anonudina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Anomalino arimin- 

ciisis d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 designated as the type species 186 

OPINION 1903. UinlielhiUi Cuvier, [1797] (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): conserved as the 
correct original spelling, and corrections made to the entries relating to Umi>ellii- 
Iciiia Lamarck. 1801 on the Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology . . 187 

OPINION 1904. Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda): Doryliiimus 

.v;//)cTfti« de Man, 1 880 designated as the type species 189 

OPINION 1905. S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Cord Catcdogue of World-Wide Shells: 

not suppressed for nomenclatural purposes 191 

OPINION 1906. Eiichroeus Latreille. 1809 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): conserved; 
Chrysis purpwdto Fabricius, 1787 (currently Eiichroeus pwptiratiis): specific name 
conserved; and C/in'.s7i g/o)-/o«; Fabricius, 1 793: specific name suppressed ... 194 

OPINION 1907. Nolhosaurus Miinster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): given pre- 
cedence over C(Wc/;/().s«»n« Meyer, [1833] 197 

OPINION 1908. Henudactylus garnoiii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia, Squa- 
mata): specific name conserved 199 

OPINION 1909. llolotropis herminieri Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 (currently Leio- 
cvphalus herminieri), Proctolretus hibronii T. Bell. 1842 (currently Liokiemus 
hihronii) (Reptilia, Squamata): specific names conserved, and Litdaennis hellii 
Gray, 1845 placed on the Official List 201 



Information and Instructions for Authors 204 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 V 

Notices 205 

T\ie Intcrnutioniil Code oj' Zoological Nomenclature 206 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 206 

Financial Report for 1997 207 

Applications 

Haliolis clallnata Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein. 1794) and H. elegaiis Philippi, 1844 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. D.L. Geiger 
& K.A. Stewart 209 

Polydora wehsteri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (Annelida, Polychaeta): 
proposed conservation of the specific name by a ruling that it is not to be treated 
as a replacement for P. caeca Webster. 1879, and designation of a lectotype for 
P. iwtofW. V.l. Radashevsky & J. D. Williams 212 

Spherillo Dana, 1852 (Crustacea. Isopoda): proposed designation of S. vitiensis 
Dana, 1853 as the type species, with designation of a neotype. P.T. Lehtinen, 
S. Taiti & F. Ferrara 217 

Terebraliila Miiller, 1776 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Anomia wrehiuliila 

Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. D.E. Lee & C.H.C. Brunton 220 

Coluber infenuilis Blainville. 1835 and Eulaenia sirlalis letralaenia Cope in Yarrow, 
1875 (currently Thamuophis sirtalis inferualis and T. s. letrataenia; Reptilia, 
Squamata): proposed conservation of the subspecific names by the designation of 
a neotype for T. s. infenuilis. S.J. Barry & M.R. Jennings 224 

Croialus ruber Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence of the specific 

name over that of Crort//iO' e.v5i// Gamian, 1884. H.M. Smith t'/ £// 229 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Slrombiclium gyrans Stokes. 

1887 (currently Sirobilidiwn gyrans) and Sirobilidiwn caudalwn Kahl, 1932 

(Ciliophora. Oligotrichida). W. Foissner; J.O. Corliss 233 

On the proposed designation of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type species 

of //()/(«/7;ra Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). L.H. Gilbertson 236 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 

(currently G/<j<'«ofoni(;/)rop/H(/»o; Insecta, Heteroptera). P. Stys 236 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis Fabricius. 

1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homoptera). A.F. Emeljanov & LM. 

Kerzhner 237 

On the proposed conservation of the names Labnis Linnaeus, 1758. Cichlasoma 

Swainson. 1839 and Polycenlrus Muller & Troschel, 1849 by the designation of 

neotypes for Labrus bimaculalus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctalus Linnaeus. 1758 

(Osteichthyes. Perciformes). M. Kottelat; A. Wheeler 237 

On the proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 

1881 as the type species of Iguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of 

a lectotype. P.M. Barrett; K. Carpenter; H.-D. Sues 239 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Australopilhecus afarensis 

Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia. Primates). T. White; P. Renne; C. Stringer; J.C. 

Ohman 241 

Rulings 

OPINION 1910. Roeslerslammia Zeller. 1839 and Acrolepiopsis Gaedike. 1970 
(Insecta, Lepidoptera); conserved by the designation of Alucila erxlebella 
Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Roeslerslanunia: and A. erxlebella and Tinea 
iniella Hubner, [1813] (currently Roeslerslanunia erxlebella and Monopis imella): 
specific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. erxlebella . . . 244 



V! Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

OPINION 1911. Diisinema Rondani. 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): Tipiila sisynihrii 

Schrank, 1803 designated as the type species 246 

OPINION 1912. Pseudufoeims Kiefler. 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Foenus 

wif>iiiculanis West wood, 1841 designated as the type species 248 



Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 55 (1998) 250 

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

published in volume 55 (1998) 252 

Key Names in Applications and Comments published in volume 55 (1998) . . . 256 

Information and instructions for authors 262 

Publication dates and pagination of volume 55 (1998) 263 

Instructions to binder 263 

Table of Contents of volume 55 (1998) I 



Volume 55, Part 1, 31 March 1998, pp. 1-72 ISSN 



44iS,T^9RY MUSEUM 
-8 APR 1998 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



9fl^ 



llCZW jhe Official Penodical 
of the International Commissii 
I on Zookgical Nomenclature 



If/tr. 



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 1998 is £98 
or $180, 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) 

(e-mail: fczn@nhm.ac.uk) 
(http://www.iczn.org) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 

Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



Members 

Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.: Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France: Mollusca) 
Prof D. J. Brothers 

(South Africa: Hymenoptera) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.: Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteroptera) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer 

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
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 S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.: Lepidoptera) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. Ride(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



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, FR.S. (Chairman) 

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



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1998 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55( 1 ) March 



HISTORY MUbhUM 
-8 APR 1998 
PURCHASED ^ 
ZOOLOGYLIBRARI' 

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Volume 55, part 1 (pp. 1-72) 31 March 1998 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on apphcations 
published 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 54, part 4 (published on 18 December 1997). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Gastropod family-group names on the Official List and Index: corrections of 
authorship and date. (Case 3056). P. Bouchet & J. -P. Rocroi). 

(2) Phrynichus Karsch, 1879 (Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed designation of 
Phrytnis ceylonicus Koch, 1 843 as the type species, and proposed conservation 
of the specific name of P. ceylonicus. (Case 3070). P. Weygoldt. 

(3) Osphromenus deissneri Bleeker. 1859 (currently Parosphromenus deissneri\ 
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. 
(Case 3071). P.K.L. Ng & M. Kottelat. 

(4) Crioceris Geoffroy. 1762 and Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and 
other names ending in -ceris: proposed fixation of gender as feminine. (Case 
3072). M. Schmitt. 

(5) Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber. 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently 
Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus: Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed 
designation of neotypes. (Case 3073). G. Jones. 

(6) Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed 
conservation of the specific name. (Case 3074). A.C. Marques & W. Vervoort. 

(7) Cyathostomum Molin, 1861 (Nematoda): proposed conservation of usage by 
designation of a neotype for the type species, Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 
1831. (Case 3075). L.M. Gibbons & J.R. Lichtenfels. 



2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

(8) Tanaecki coelebs Corbet. 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation 
of the specific naine. (Case 3076). T. Yokochi. 

(9) GLiRiDAE Thomas, 1897 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation. (Case 
3077). A. Gentry. 

(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. 



The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its 
publications 

The Internationa! Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1 895 by 
the third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 26 zoologists 
from 19 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions (including 
palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the 
International Union of Biological Sciences (lUBS), and members are elected by secret 
ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of lUBS or Congresses of its 
associated bodies such as the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary 
Biology (ICSEB). 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 current (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by 
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the 
Commission. A Fourth Edition is in course of preparation and will be published in 
1998; its provisions will coine into efiect on I January 1999. A notice of some of the 
new provisions, particularly affecting the availability of new names, was published 
in BZN 54: 216-218 (December 1997) and on the World Wide Web at 
http://www.iczn.org. 

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 in 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 Coinmission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case 
only after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin, 
which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such 
contributions are invited and should be sent to the Secretariat. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(1) March 1998 3 

The Commission's rulings are summarised in 77;? Official Lists and Indexes of 
Names and Works in Zoology, a single volume covering the period 1895-1985 was 
published in 1987. Copies may be obtained from the Secretariat. 

In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Commis- 
sion'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 based in 
London, and the Trust is established there to handle the financial affairs of the 
Commission. The sale of publications covers less than half of the costs of the service 
given to zoology by the Commission. Support is given by academies, research 
councils, institutions and societies from a number of countries, and also by 
individuals; despite this assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint. 
Donations to the Trust are gratefully received and attention is drawn to the possible 
tax advantage of legacies. 

For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities and 
publications see BZN 48: 295-299 (December I99I). A Centenary History of the 
Commission — Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — describes the 
development of zoological nomenclature and the role of the Commission; it was 
published in 1995 and is obtainable from the Secretariat. 

Addresses of members of the Commission 

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 
Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology aiul Entomology, University of Natal 

Pietermaritzhurg, Private Bag XOI, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa 
Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD, U.K. 
Dr H.G. COGGER do Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney South, NSW. 2000, 

Australia 
Prof C. DUPUIS Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France 
Dr W.N. ESCHMEYER Department of Ichthvologr, California .4cademv of Sciences, Golden 

Gate Park. San Francisco, California 94118-4599. USA. 
Mr D. HEPPELL Department of Natural Historv. National Museums of Scotland. Chambers 

Street, Edinburgh EHl IJF, U.K. 
Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Pacific Biological Station, 

Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5K6. Canada 
Dr I.M. KERZHNER Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 

199034. Ru.fsia 
Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Mu.ieum.' Martin-Luther-King- 
Plat: 3. D-2000 Hamburg 13, Germany (Councillor) 
Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, 

SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland 
Dr E. MACPHERSON Centra d'Estudios Avan(,-ats de Blanes (C.S.I. C). Cami de Santa 

Barbara sin. 17300 Blanes. Girona, Spain 
Dr V. MAHNERT Museum d'Hi.stoire Naturelle, Case postale 434. CH-1211 Geneve 6. 

.Switzerland 
Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paido, Cai.xa 

Postal 7172. 04263 Scio Paulo, Brazil 
Prof S.F. MAWATARI Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 

060, Japan 



4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Prof A. MINELLI Diparlimento cli Blologia, Universila di Padom, Via Trieste 75. 35121 

Padova. Italy (President) 
Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum. Universitelsparken 15. DK-2100 Kohenhavn. Denmark 
Dr l.W.B. NYE clo The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

(Councillor) 
Dr L. PAPP Hungarian Museum of Natural History. Baross utca 13. H-IOSS Budapest. 

Hungary 
Prof D.J. PATTERSON School of Biological Sciences. University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006. 

Australia 
Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology. The Australian National University. P.O. Box 4. 

Canberra. ACT 2600. Australia (Councillor) 
Prof J. M. SAVAGE Department of Biology. University of Miami. P.O Box 249118. Coral 

Gables, Florida 33124. U.S.A. (CouncilioT) 
Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Instilut fiir Zoologie. Universitiit Graz. Universitatsplatz 2. A-80I0 

Graz. Austria 
Prof D.X. SONG Institute of Zoology. Academia Sinica. 19 Zhongguancun Lu. Haitien. Beijing, 

China 
Dr P. STYS Department of Zoology. Charles University. Viniina 7. 128 44 Praha 2. Czech 

Republic 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Members 

Profs. Conway Morris (Chairman) Prof J. Forest (France) 

(U.K.) Dr R. Harbach (U.K.) 
Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 

Director) (V .K.) ' Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland) 

Dr H M.F.P. Andre (Belgium) Dr A.M. Lister (U.K.) 

Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) Dr M. Luc (France) 

Prof Per Brinck (Sweden) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) 

Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

Prof J. H. Callomon (U.K.) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) 

Dr N.R. Chalmers (U.K.) Dr l.W.B. Nye (U.K.) 

Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr M.J. Gates (U.K.) 

Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia) Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) 

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (U.K.) Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands) 
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.) Dr G.B. White (U.K.) 

Dr R.W. Crosskey (U.K.) Prof H.B. Whittington (U.K.) 

Mr M.N. Dadd (U.K.) Dr N.E. Woodley (U.S.A.) 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The new (4th) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
will be published in 1998. A notice about some new provisions in it was published in 
BZN 54: 216-218. Meanwhile, copies of the 3rd edition (published 1985) are still 
available. Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(g!nhm. ac.uk) or A. A.Z.N. , 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd(a)nmnh. si.edu). 

The cost is £19 or $35 (including surface postage); members of the American and 
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of 
£15 or $29. Payment (cheques made out to 'ITZN' or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 5 

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 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 1995. 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. (e-mail: iczn(a)nhm. ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd@nmnh.si.edu). 

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 (cheques made out to TTZN' or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 

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 (about 9,900) on which the 
Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. A supplement giving 
the 946 names and five works added in the five years up to 1990 is also available. 

Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(gnhm. ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. DrD.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd(S)nmnh. si.edu). 

The cost is £60 or $1 10 (including surface postage); members of the American and 
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of 
£40 or $75. Payment (cheques made out to 'ITZN' or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55( 1 1 March 1998 

Case 3011 

Sti-omhidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and 
Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora, Oligotrichida): 
proposed conservation of the specific names 

Charles W. Heckman 

Institut fiir Hyclrobiologie iind Fischereiwissenschaft. Zeiseweg 9, 

D-22765 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: hy6a006@rrz.uni-hamburg.de) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of one fresh 
water ciliate (Stromhidium gyrans Stokes, 1887) that has frequently been used as an 
indicator for the ecological monitoring of water quality and of another (Sirobilidium 
caudatum Kahl, 1932) that was given to a rare but characteristic brackish water 
species. Both names are threatened by Strombidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876, which 
is probably a senior synonym of the first and is a senior secondary homonym of the 
second. Strombidion caudatum Fromentel had not been used for almost a century 
until its reintrod action by Foissner (1987): its suppression is proposed. 

Keywords. Nomenclature: taxonomy: Protozoa: Ciliophora: Oligotrichida: Strobilid- 
ium gyrans; Strobilidium caudatum; fresh water and brackish water ciliates. 



1. In the last quarter of the 19th century the following three names were 
established for fresh water ciliates: 

Strombidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876 (p. 264, pi. 24, figs. 7-8); 
Stromhidium claparedi Kent, 1882 (p. 634. pi. 32, fig. 46); 
Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 (p. 37, pi. 5, figs. 11-12). 

2. The last name came to be widely used, and in 1932 Kahl (p. 510) redescribed 
the species and placed the other two names (Strombidion caudatum Fromentel and 
Strombidium claparedi Kent) in synonymy, stating that he believed all three names to 
refer to the same species. He rejected the two senior names on the grounds, apart 
from usage, that their descriptions were inadequate to determine with certainty which 
species they referred to. He noted that Stokes had seen Kent's publication and had 
been unable to recognize his own specimens as belonging to Kent's species. Kahl 
recommended that gyrans should be the name applied to the species since this was the 
name that had been generally accepted; he assigned the species to the genus 
Strobilidium SchewiakofT, 1892. In the same paper, Kahl (1932, p. 511) described a 
new species, Strobilidium caudatum, from the Kiel Bight. 

3. The two specific names published by Fromentel and Kent were unused for 
almost a century, while the name Strobilidium gyrans has always been widely used 
both in systematic papers and in ecological publications and faunal lists. However, in 
1987 Foissner (p. 225) rejected the name Strobilidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 in favour 
of the senior probable synonym, Strombidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876, on the 
grounds that the descriptions by both Stokes and Fromentel were superficial and that 
Kahl should not have deprived Fromentel of priority in naming the species. In this 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 7 

Foissner was correct as far as priority is concerned, but the reintroduction 
of Strobilidium caudaium (Fromentel) would cause considerable confusion due 
to the continued widespread use of the name Strobilidium gyrans both prior to 
Foissner's action (e.g. Kaltenbach. 1960; Deroux, 1974; Foissner & Adam, 1979; 
Haslauer & Pichler, 1979; Zharikov, 1987) and since (e.g. Heckman, 1990; 
Jack, Wickham, Toalson & Gilbert, 1993; Wickham, Gilbert, & Berninger, 1993). A 
further six references by seven authors in the last 12 years are held by the Commission 
Secretariat. To use the name Strobilidium caudatum (Fromentel) for the taxon 
widely known as Strobilidium gyrans would add to the confusion. An additional 
area of confusion relates to the name Strobilidium caudatum established by 
Kahl (1932) for a different brackish water species. It was not until 1992 that 
Petz & Foissner pointed out (p. 160) that the reintroduction of the specific name 
caudatum Fromentel in the hitherto unused combination Strobilidium caudatum 
would make Strobilidium caudatum Kahl a junior secondary homonym; they 
renamed it Strobilidium kahli. I propose the suppression of the names Strobilidium 
caudatum (Fromentel) and Strombidium claparedi Kent in order to maintain 
the usage of the two names Strobilidium gyrans (Stokes) and Strobilidium 
caudatum Kahl. 

4. 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) caudaium Fromentel, 1876, as published in the binomen Strombidion 
caudaium: 

(b) claparedi Kent, 1882, as published in the binomen Strombidium claparedi; 

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

(a) gyrans Stokes, 1887, as published in the binomen Strombidium gyrans; 

(b) caudaium Kahl, 1932, as published in the binomen Strobilidium caudatum; 

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

(a) caudatum Fromentel, 1876. as published in the binomen Strombidion 
caudatum and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) claparedi Kent. 1882. as published in the binomen Strombidium claparedi 
and as suppressed in ( 1 )(b) above; 

(c) kahli Petz & Foissner, 1992, as published in the binomen Strobilidium kahli 
(a junior objective synonym of Strobilidium caudaium Kahl, 1932). 



References 

Deroux, G. 1974. Quelques precisions sur Strobilidium gyrans Schewiakoff. Cahiers de Biologie 

Marine. 15; 571-588. 
Foissner, W. 1987. Miscellanea nomenclatorica Ciliatea (Protozoa: Ciliophora). Archiv fiir 

Protislenkunde. 133: 219-235. 
Foissner, W. & Adam, H. 1979. Die Bedeutung der stagnierenden Kleingewasser im alpinen 

Okosystem. Jahrbuch der Universitcit Salzburg, 1977-1979: 147-158. 
Fromentel, E. 1876. Eludes sur les microzoaires ou infusoires propremeni dils comprenant de 

nouvelles recherches sur leur organisation, leur classification et la description des especes 

nouvelles ou pen connues. Pp. 193-364. Masson, Paris. 



8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Haslauer, J. Jr. & Pichler, W. 1979. Ein Beilrag zur Biologie und Hydrochemie eines stark 

belasteten Fliessgewijssers (Gersbach 1977). Berichi des NalurwisscnschaflUch- 

Mcdiiiiiisclicii Vereins in Salzburg, 3-4: 51-81. 
Heckman, C.W. 1990. The fate of aquatic and wetland habitats in an industrially contaminated 

section of the Elbe floodplain in Hamburg. Arcluv fur Hydrohiologie (Supplemenl 75) 

Unlersuclnmgen des Elbe-AesHuirs. 6: 1 33-250. 
Jack, J.D., Wickham, S.A., Toalson, S. & Gilbert, J.J. 1993. The effect of clays on a freshwater 

plankton community: an enclosure experiment. Archiv fiir Hydrohiologie. 127: 257-270. 
Kahl, A. 1932. Urtiere oder Protozoa. I. Wimpertiere oder Ciliata (Infusoria) 3. Spirotricha. 

Pp. 399-650 //( Dahl, M. & BischolT, H. (Eds.). Die Tierwelt Deulschlands, 25. Fischer, 

Jena. 
Kaltenbach, A. 1960. Okologische Untersuchungen an Donauciliaten. Wasser Ahmisser. Wi^n, 

1960: 151-174. 
Kent, W.S. 1882. A numucd of the Infusoria, vol. 2. Pp. 473-913. Bogue, London. 
Petz, W. & Foissner, W. 1992. Morphology and morphogenesis of Strobilidium caudatum 

(Fromentel), Meseres corlis.si n. sp., Haheria grandinella (Miiller), and Slrombidium 

relmaldi n. sp., and a proposed phylogenetic system for oligotrich ciliates (Protozoa, 

Ciliophora). Journal of Protozoology. 39: 159-176. 
Stokes, A.C. 1887. Notices of new American fresh-water Infusoria. Journal of the Royal 

Microscopical Society. 1887: 35^0. 
Wickham, S.A., Gilbert, J.J. & Berninger, U.-G. 1993. Effects of rotifers and ciliates on the 

growth and survival of Daphniu. Journal of Plankton Research, IS: 317-334. 
Zharikov, V.V. 1987. A new species of fresh-water infusorians (Oligotrichida) from waters of 

Armenia. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 66: 930-932. [In Russian; English abstract]. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 9 

Case 3055 

Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed conservation by the designation of Trochus 
tmbinatus Born, 1778 as the type species of Osilinus 

Serge Gofas 

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Biologic des 

Invertebres marins et Malacologie, 55 rue Bujfon, F-75005 Paris, 

France 

David G. Herbert 

Natal Museum, Private Bag 9070, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accustomed understand- 
ing and usage of the name Osilinus Philippi, 1847 by the designation of Trochus 
turbinatus Born, 1778 as the type species, thereby conserving also the name 
Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (family trochidae). At present Monodonta constricta 
Lamarck, 1822 is the valid type species of both Osilinus and Austrocochlea. The name 
Osilinus is used either at generic rank or for a subgenus of Monodonta Lamarck, 1 799 
and relates to an eastern Atlantic group of species which range from the south- 
western British Isles to Angola, the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Mediterranean. 
The name Austrocochlea is widely used for species known from Southern Australia, 
Tasmania, New Caledonia, and New Zealand ii Fractarmilla Finlay, 1926 is accepted 
as a synonym. Both genera include species that are important components of the 
intertidal fauna of temperate rocky shores. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; trochidae; molluscs; Osilinus; 
Austrocochlea; Osilinus turbinatus; Austrocochlea constricta. 



1. Monodonta Lamarck, 1799 is based on the Indo-Pacific species Trochus 
labio Linnaeus, 1758 (type species by monotypy); it is characterized by a non- 
nacreous inner labial varix and a very strong columellar tooth, unusual among 
the tribe gibbulini in which it is classified (see Hickman & McLean, 1990, p. 97). 
Related species lacking such an inner labial varix and with a weakly developed 
tooth or bulge on the columella have been separated at generic or subgeneric 
rank. 

2. Philippi (February 1847, pp. 19-20) introduced the genus Osilinus in a long 
sentence, which reads (in translation) 'next to [the true Monodonta] we can find a 
construction, in a species-group starting from M. constricta, [M.] taeniata, and 
going into M. fragarioides, Trochus crassus . . . where instead of the clearly defined 
tooth of T. labio, there is only a small bulge . . . and I propose therefore the 
denomination Osilinus, from a species here belonging and named Osilin by Adanson 
[1757] . . .'. The first two of the species originally included are Australian, the 
remainder are eastern Atlantic or Mediterranean. 



10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

3. Herrmannsen (September 1847. p. 167) designated the Australian species 
Trochus constrUtus "Macleay" (a species introduced as ' Monodonta constrkta 
Macleay' by Lamarck, 1822, p. 36) as the type species of Osilimis. This designation 
has been overlooked and subsequent authors have followed Wenz (1938, p. 229) who 
designated the Atlantic species Trochus lurhinutus Born, 1778 (p. 340) as the type 
species, although Philippi (1847) had not included T. lurb'maius in his genus Osilimis. 

4. Truchocochlea is a pre-Linnaean name originating with Klein (1753) and first 
mentioned by Herrmannsen ( 1 849, p. 616) without description, previous reference or 
included species. The name was made available by Morch (1852, p. 154) who 
included Trochocochlea constricta (Lamarck) and T. twbinata (Born) among other 
species and cited Osilimis as a synonym. We could not trace a type designation earlier 
than that of Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1885, p. 401), who selected Trochus 
lurhimirus Born, 1778 as type species. The name Trochocochlea thus relates to the 
northeastern Atlantic-Mediterranean species-group. 

5. Monterosato (1884, p. 43) established Cariigohis for Mediterranean species 
included in Trochocochlea and noted that the latter should be used for 'another group 
of tropical species". In his review of Monterosato's (1884) work, Crosse (1885. p. 140) 
designated Monodonta turbinaia 'Bonnani" (a typographical error for Born in 
Monterosato, 1884) as the type species of Caragolus. 

6. Fischer (1885, p. 820) introduced Austrocochlea for a separate Australian 
species-group originally included in Osilimis; Monodonta constricta Lamarck, 1822 is 
the type species by monotypy. Fischer characterised the genus as having 'Tubercule 
de la base de la columelle non tronque, peu saillant'. The name Austrocochlea has 
been, and continues to be, widely used, and has appeared in many publications in the 
fields of ecology (see, for example, Mapstone, Underwood & Creese, 1984; Little, 
1989: Petraitis, 1992; Astles, 1993; Anderson & Underwood, 1997) and ecotoxicology 
(Alsanullah & WiUiams. 1989; Walsh, Dunstan & Murdoch, 1995). The genus 
includes a number of abundant littoral species in Australia (see Parsons, 1996). 

7. Pilsbry (1889, p. 92) used the name Osilimis for a section of Monodonta to 
include the European species, initiating the current usage (see Nordsieck, 1974; 
Ghisotti & Melone, 1975; Cesari & Pranovi. 1989, 1990; Hickman & McLean, 1990; 
Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli & Bedulli, 1990; Cossignani, Cossignani, Di Nisio & 
Passamonti, 1992). Nordsieck (1974, pp. 21-23) used Osilimis at generic rank and 
established two new subgenera. Herbert (1994) tentatively assigned the Indian Ocean 
species Trochus kotschyi Philippi, 1 849 to Osilimis. 

8. We do not favour the view that a valid nomenclatural act should be set aside 
simply because it has been overlooked. However, recognition of Herrmannsen's 
(1847) type species designation for Osilimis would render the name Austrocochlea a 
junior objective synonym of Osilimis; the latter name would become valid for the 
Australian species and another name would be required for those from the eastern 
Atlantic. The name Austrocochlea is widely accepted and its use for Australian 
species encompasses publications in many areas of invertebrate biology. We propose 
that Trochus turhinatiis Born. 1778 be designated the type species of Osilimis. thereby 
maintaining the current use of Austrocochlea for the Australian species and of 
O.silinus for the European and West African ones. This designation will render 
the names Trochocochlea Morch. 1852 and Caragolus Monterosato, 1884 junior 
objective synonyms of Osilinus. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 11 

9. We have consulted with colleagues from Australia and New Zealand (Dr 
Winston Ponder of Sydney. Dr Bruce Marshall of Wellington, and Dr Fred Wells of 
Perth) and we are all agreed on the desirability of conserving the name Aiisirocochlea. 

10. Neptheusa Leach, 1852 (pp. 146, 174) was published in the same year as 
Morch's work but has never been used subsequently; the type species of the genus (by 
monotypy) Troclnis crassus Pulteney, 1799 (a junior synonym of Osilinus lineatus 
(da Costa. 1778)) is a common northeastern Atlantic species congeneric with 
T. turhinaiiis. Neptheusa is a subjective synonym of Osilinus which does not threaten 
current usage and might be required in the future. It was misspelled 'Nephteusa by 
Monterosato (1888, p. 178). Gibbium Gray, 1842 (type species: T. crassus Pulteney, 
1799, by monotypy) is preoccupied by Gibbium Scopoli. 1777 (Coleoptera) and need 
not be further considered. Trochius Leach in Gray. 1847 (p. 270) first appeared in the 
publication (Gray, 1847a) of Leach's manuscript on the classification of the British 
MoUusca. with Troclnis crassus as the sole included species, but is considered to be a 
misspelling of Trochus Linnaeus, 1758, one of the numerous misspellings transcribed 
from Leach's manuscript (e.g. 'Thicolia' for Tricolia Risso, 1826, 'Aphorais' for 
Aporrhais da Costa, 1778 and 'Simia' for Simnia Risso, 1826). 'Trochius' was 
nevertheless mentioned by Gray (1847b. p. 145) as a synonym oi Labia Oken, 1815. 

1 1 . The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal 
genus Osilinus Philippi. 1847 and to designate Trochus lurbinatus Bom, 1778 as 
the type species: 

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

(a) Osilinus Philippi, 1847 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in ( 1 ) above Trochus turbinatus Born, 1 778; 

(b) Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Monodonta constricta Lamarck, 1822; 

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

(a) turbinatus Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Trochus turbinatus 
(specific name of the type species of Osilinus Philippi, 1847); 

(b) constricta Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Monodonta con- 
stricta (specific name of the type species of Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885); 

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

(a) Trochocochlea Morch, 1852 (a junior objective synonym of Osilinus 
Philippi, 1847); 

(b) Caragolus Monterosato, 1884 (a junior objective synonym of Osilinus 
Philippi, 1847 and of Trochocochlea Morch, 1852). 

References 

Adanson, M. 1757. Histoire Naturelle du Senegal. Coquillages. 275 pp., 19 pis. Bauche. Paris. 
Alsanullah, M. & Williams, A.R. 1 989. Kinetics of uranium uptake by the crab Pachygrapsus 

laevlnumus and the zebra winkle Austrocochlea constricta. Marine Biology, 101(3): 

323-327. 
Anderson, M.J. & Underwood, A.J. 1997. Effects of gastropod grazers on recruitment and 

succession of an esluarine assemblage: a multivariate and univariate approach. Oecologia, 

109(3): 442-453. 



12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Astles, K.L. 1993. Patterns of abundance and distribution of species in intertidal rock 

pools. Juunial of ihe Marine Biologiccit Association of the United Kingdom, 73(3): 

555-569. 
Born, I. von. 1778. Rcnim Ntituridiimi Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. part I (Testacea). [42], 

458 pp. Vienna. 
Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1885. Les Molhisques inwins du Roiissillun, vol. 1 

(Gastropodes), Case. 10. Pp. 387^18. Bailliere, Paris. 
Cesari, P. & Pranovi, F. 1989. La sistematica del gen. Monodonta Lamck, 1799 (s.l.). II A) 

Biometria e caratteristiche conchigliari degli Osiliniis Mediterranei. B) Distribuzione e 

struttura dei popolamenti della laguna veneta (Gastropoda, Trochidae). Luvori. Societd 

Vcnczicina di Storia Naturtde. 14: 3-64. 
Cesari, P. & Pranovi, F. 1990. La sistematica del genere Monodonta Lamck. 1799 (s.l.). Ill 

Relazioni genetiche tra popolazioni altoadriatiche di Osiliniis art iadatiis (Lamdrck. 1822), 

Osilinus miitahilis (Philippi, 1846) e Osiliniis liirhinatus (Born, 1780) (Gastropoda, 

Trochidae). Luvori, Societa V'eneziana di Storia Naturale, 14; 3-64. 
Cossignani, T., Cossignani, V., Di Nisio, A. & Passamonti, M. 1992. Atlante delle conchiglie del 

Medio .idrialico. LTnfomiatore Piceno, Ancona. 
Crosse, H. 1885. Nomenclatura generica e specifica di alcune Conchiglie Mediterranee, pel 

Marchese di Monterosato [book review]. Journal de Conchyliologie, 33: 139-142. 
Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paleontologie coneliyliologique. Pp. 689-896. 

Savy, Paris. 
Ghisotti, F. & Melone, G. 1975. Catalogo illustrato delle conchiglie marine del Mediterraneo 

5. Conchiglie, Noliziario Mensile della Unione Malacologica Ilaliana, 11(11-12) Supple- 
ment: 147-208. 
Gray, J.E. 1847a. The classification of the British Mollusca by W.E. Leach, M.D. Annals and 

Magazine of Natural History. 20: 267-273. 
Gray, J.E. 1847b. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. 
Herbert, D.G. 1994. Trochus kolschyi, the first Indian Ocean record of the genus Osiliniis 

(Mollusca: Gastropoda: Trochidae). Journal of Zoology, 233: 345-357. 
Herrmannsen, A.N. September 1847, March 1849. Indicis generiiin malacozoorum, vol. 2. 

Pp. 105-232 (September 1847); pp. 613-717 (March 1849). Fischer, Cassel. 
Hickman, C.S. & McLean, J.H. 1990. Systematic revision and suprageneric classification of 

trochacean gastropods. Science Series. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 

35: 1-169. 
Klein, J.T. 1753. Tentamen methodi ostracologicae . . . Wishoff, Leiden. 
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres, vol. 7 

(Histoire des mollusques). 711 pp. Author, Paris. 
Leach, W.E. 1852. A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain, xvi, 376 pp., 13 pis. Von Voorst, 

London. 
Little, C. 1989. Factors governing patterns of foraging activity in littoral marine herbivorous 

molluscs. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 55; 273-284. 
Mapstone, B.D., Underwood, A.J. & Creese, R.G. 1984. Experimental analyses of the 

commensal relation between intertidal gastropods Patelloida nnifria and the trochid 

Auslrocochlea constricta. Marine Ecology — Progress Series, 17(1): 85-100. 
Monterosato, T. A. di. 1 884. Nomenclatura generica e specifica di alcune conchiglie mediterranee, 

152 pp. Virzi, Palermo. 
Monterosato, T.A. di. 1888. Molluschi del Porto di Palermo specie e varieta. Bullettino della 

Societa Malacologica Italiana. 13; 161-180. 
Morch, O.A.L. 1852. Catalogus conchyliorwn quae reliquil D. Alphonso d'Aguirra & Gadea 

Comes de Yoldi . . ., part ! . 1 70 pp. Klein, Copenhague. 
Nordsieck, F. 1974. II genere Osiliniis Philippi, 1847 nei mari europei. La Conchiglia, 

9-10(67-68): 21-23. 
Parsons, K.E. 1996. Discordant patterns of morphological and genetic divergence in the 

Austrocochlea constricta (Gastropoda, Trochidae) species complex. Marine and 

Freshwater Research, 47(8); 981-990. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 13 

Petraitis, P.S. 1992. Effects of body size and water temperature on grazing rates of four 

intertidal gastropods. Australian Journal of Ecology, 17(4|: 409^14. 
Philippi, R.A. 1847. Versuch einer systematischen Eintheilung des Geschlechtes Trochus. 

Zeitschrift fiir Malakozoologie, 4; 17-24. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1889. Manual of conchology, vol. 11 (Trochidae). 519 pp., 67 pis. Academy of 

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. 
Sabelii, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Beduili, D. 1990. Catalogo annotuto del molluschi marini del 

Mediterraneo. vol. 1. xiv, 348 pp. Libreria Naturalistica Bolognese. Bologna. 
Walsh, K., Dunstan, R.H. & Murdoch, R.N. 1995. Differential bioaccumulation of heavy metals 

and organopollutants in the soft-tissue and shell of the marine gastropod Austrocochlea 

conslricla. Archives of Environmenlal Contamination and Toxicology. 28(1): 35-39. 
Wenz, W. 1938. Handbuch der Paldozoologie. vol. 6(1). Gastropoda 1. Pp. 1-^80. Allgemeiner 

Teil und Prosobranchia 1. Borntraeger. Berlin. 



14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Case 3026 

Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Mesobuthus 
caucasicm; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of the 
specific name 

Victor Fet 

Department of Biological Sciences. Marshall University, 
West Virginia 25755. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of 
Mesobuthus caucasicus (Nordmann, 1840) for a scorpion (family buthidae) with a 
wide range in the Middle East, Afghanistan, China and central Asia. The name is 
threatened by the senior synonym Scorpio caucasius Fischer von Waldheim, 1813 
which has not been used for over 80 years. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; buthidae; Mesobuthus 

caucasicus. 



1. Fischer von Waldheim (1813, p. 401, pi. 4, fig. 1) figured and named 
Scorpio caucasius, which is an available name under Article 12b(7) of the Code. The 
holotype of this species is lost. Birula (1900, p. 366) suggested that S. caucasius is a 
senior synonym o{ Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840, the name for a taxon 
described from Tiflis (now Tbilisi), Georgia (currently known as Mesobuthus 
caucasicus; family buthidae). The names caucasius and caucasicus are not homonyms 
because their spellings differ by one letter (Article 57f of the Code), and they are not 
treated as such under Article 58; they were, however, often confused by subsequent 
authors. 

2. Fischer's specific name caucasius was used as valid from 1900 to 1912. It was 
used as Buthus caucasius for the species currently called Mesobuthus caucasicus 
(Nordmann, 1840) by Birula in a number of publications, as noted by Vachon (1958, 
p. 148), and by Leister (1910), and for Mesobutlms eupeus (C.L. Koch, 1837) by 
Pocock (1900). Birula (1917a, p. 1) stated that Fischer's name related to either one of 
the two Caucasian species. A/, caucasicus and M. eupeus. and on this basis he rejected 
S. caucasius as a 'nomen nudum' (nomen dubium would have been more accurate). 
It has not been used since but it is an available name and as such is a putative threat. 

3. I (Fet, 1989, p. 102) mentioned an unidentified scorpion collected by Baron de 
Vietinghoff (1812, p. 96) in Pyatigorsk (northern Caucasus). There is strong 
circumstantial evidence that this specimen could have been the holotype of Scorpio 
caucasius: 

(a) Vietinghoff (1812) recorded that the specimen was sent to Fischer in Moscow; 
Fischer's work was published the following year and contained no Caucasian 
scorpions other than 5. caucasius. Actually, no other scorpion species from the 
Caucasus was described for many years until the works of C.L. Koch (1839) and 
Nordmann (1840). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 15 

(b) VietingholT (1812) recorded the number of plates on the paired abdominal 
pectinal organs of the specimen as 30-35, a characteristic of the male of Mesuhullms 
caucasicus (Nordmann) and one which readily distinguishes it from the other, related 
Caucasian species, M. eupeus (C.L. Koch), in which males have 23-26 plates (Fet, 
unpublished data). 

(c) Although Pyatigorsk is far removed from the continuous range of both species, 
it is known that Mesobuthus caucasicus (but not M. eupeus) forms disjunct local 
populations (see Fet, 1989) and is found in human dwellings (see Birula, 1917b), and 
as a result is carried by man. 

4. Thus, the possibility exists that Scorpio caucasius Fischer, 1813 is a senior 
synonym of Mesobuthus caucasicus (Nordmann, 1840, p. 731, pi. 1, fig. 1), and its 
recognition threatens the stability of use of the latter name. No material of caucasius 
exists in Moscow now; I searched for it in the Moscow University Zoological 
Museum, where Fischer's materials supposedly went. It was already missing in 
Birula's time. 

5. Fischer's name has not been used as valid for more than 80 years, while both 
Mesobuthus caucasicus (Nordmann, 1840) and M. eupeus (C.L. Koch, 1839) have 
become well established and have been used dozens of times (in combination with 
either Buthus or Mesobuthus) by numerous authors in taxonomic and biological 
literature (see, for example, Werner, 1934; Vachon, 1958, 1966; Kinzelbach, 1984, 
1985; Vachon & Kinzelbach, 1987; Farzanpay, 1988; Fet. 1989, 1994). M. caucasicus 
has a wide range in the Middle East. Afghanistan, China and much of central Asia, 
and six subspecies are currently recognised. 

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

(1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name of caucasius Fischer von 
Waldheim, 1813, as published in the binomen Scorpio caucasius: 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name caucasicus 
Nordmann, 1840, as published in the binomen Androctonus caucasicus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name caucasius Fischer von Waldheim, 1813, as published in the 
binomen Scorpio caucasius and as suppressed in ( I ) above. 

References 

Birula, A.A. 1900. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Scorpionenfauna Osl-Persiens (1. Beitrag). 
Bulletin dc V Accidemie Iniperiale des Sciences de St Pctershoiirg. (5)12(4): 355-375. 

Birula, A.A. (Bialynicki-Biruia, A.A.). 1917a. Arachnoidea Arthrogastra Caucasica. Pars 1. 
Scorpiones. Zapiski Kavkaz.skogo Miizeya {Memoires dii Miisee du Cauccise). Tiflis, (A)5: 
1-253. [In Russian]. English translation as Byalynitskii-Birulya, A.A.. 1964. Arthrogastric 
anuhnids oj Caucasiu, part 1 (Scorpions). 170 pp. Israel Program for Scientific Trans- 
lations, Jerusalem. 

Birula, A.A. (Byalynitskii-Birulya, A.A.). 1917b. Faune dc la Riissie et des pays limitrophes 
fondee principalemeni sw les collections du Musee zoologiqiie de l' Academic des Sciences de 
Russie. Arachnides (Arachnoidea), vol. 1, part I. 227 pp. St Petersbourg. [In Russian]. 
English translation as Byalynitskii-Birulya, A. A., 1965. Fauna of Russia and adjacent 
countries. Arachnoidea, vol. I (Scorpions). 154 pp. Israel Program for Scientific Trans- 
lations, Jerusalem. 

Farzanpay, R. 1988. A catalogue of the scorpions occurring in Iran, up to January 1986. Revue 
Araclinologic/ue. 8(2): 33^4. 



16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Fet, V. 1989. A catalogue of scorpions (Chelicerata: Scorpiones) of the U.S.S.R. Revisia del 

Museo Civico di Scienze Nalurali 'Enrico Cafft' {Bergamo) 19SS. 13: 73-171. 
Fet, V. 1994. Fauna and zoogeography of scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones) in Turkmenistan. 

Pp. 525-534 in Fet. V. & Atamuradov, K.I (Eds.), Biogeography and ecology of 

Turkmenistan. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. (Monographiae Biologicae No. 

72). 
Fischer von Waidheim, G. 1813. Zoognosia labulis synoplicis illuslrala, in usum praeleclionum 

Academiae Imperialis Medico-Chirurgicae Mo.sijtiensis edila, Ed. 3, vol. 1. xiii. 465 pp., 

8 pis. Moscow. 
Kinzelbach, R. 1984. Die Skorpionssammlung des Naturhistorischen Museums der Stadt 

Mainz. Teil 2 (Vorderasien). Maimer Nalurwis.senschaftliches Archiv. 22: 97-106. 
Kinzelbach, R. 1985. Vorderer Orient. Skorpione (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Tiibingcr Atlas der 

Vorderer Orients (TAVO). Map No. A VI 14.2. 
Koch. C.L. 1839. Die Arachniden. part 5. Pp. 25-158. Zeh, Nurnberg. 
Leister, A.F. 1910. Die Skorpione des Kaukasus. Systematik, Verbreitung und biologische 

Daten. Yestestvoznanie i Geografia, 15(10): 1-22. [In Russian]. 
Nordmann, A. 1 840. Notice sur les scorpions de la faune pontique. Pp. 73 1 -732 in: Voyage dans 

la Russie meridionale el la Crimee, par la Hongrie. la Valachie el la Moldavie. execute en 

1837. sous la direction de M .Anatole de Demidoff. par Mm de Sainson. Le Play. Huot. 

Leveille. Raffet. Rousseau, de Nordmann et du Ponceau: dedie a S. M. Nicolas ler Emperew 

de toutes les Pussies, vol. 3. 756 pp. Paris. 
Pocock, R.I. 1900. Arachnida. In Blandford. W.T. (Ed.). The fauna of British India, including 

Ceylon and Burma, xii, 279 pp. Published under the authority of the Secretary of State for 

India in Council. London. 
Vachon, M. 1958. Scorpionidea (Chelicerata) de ["Afghanistan. The 3rd Danish Expedition to 

Central Asia (Zoological Results No. 23). Videnskahelige Meddelelser fra Dcmsk Naturhis- 

turisk Forening i Kohehavn, 120: 121-187. 
Vachon, M. 1966. Liste des Scorpions connus en Egypte, Arable, Israel, Liban, Syrie, Jordanie, 

Turquie. Irak. Iran. Toxicon. 4: 209-218. 
Vachon, M. & Kinzelbach, R. 1987. On the taxonomy and distribution of the scorpions of the 

Middle East. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Fauna and Zoogeography of the 

Middle East, Mainz, 1985. Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe A 

(Naturwi.ssenschaften), 28: 91-103. 
Vietinghoff, Baron de. 1812. Discours sur quelques objets d'histoire naturelle recuellis 

au Caucase. Zapiski Moskovskogo Imperatorskogo Ohshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody 

(Memoires de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou). 3: 83-96. (In Russian]. 
Werner, F. 1934. Scorpiones. Pp. 1-316 in: H.G. Bronn's Klassen und Ordmmgen des Tierreichs, 

Band 5 (Arlhropoda), Abt. 4 (Arachnoidea), Buch 8 (Scorpiones, Pedipalpi), Lieferung 

1-2. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 199S 17 

Case 3031 

Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed 
conservation 

W. David Sissom 

Department of Life. Earth, and Environmental Sciences. West Texas A & M 
University. Box 808. Canyon. Texas 79016-0001. U.S.A. 

Victor Fet 

Department of Biological Sciences. Marshall University, Huntington, 
West Virginia 25755-2510. USA. 

Matt E. Braunwalder 

Frauentalweg 97. CH-8045. Ziirich. Switzerland 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the name Paruroctonus 
Werner, 1934 for a genus of some 30 species of scorpions (family vaejovidae) from 
the western side of North America, from southern Canada to Aguascalientes, 
Mexico. The name was proposed as a replacement for Uroclonoides Hoffmann. 1931 
(a junior homonym of Uroclonoides Chamberlin, 1920) and has been in use since 
its original publication. It is threatened by the unused synonym Hoffnnmniellius 
Melio-Leitao, 1934 (June), also a replacement for Uroclonoides Hoffmann, which 
under the Code is the senior synonym. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; vaejovidae; 
Paruroctonus: North America. 



1. The genus Uroclonoides was established by Chamberlin (1920, p. 36, pi. 4, figs. 1 
and 2) for his new species U. fractus from Quito, Ecuador (family vaejovidae). The type 
specimen of L'. fractus. catalog no. 518, is deposited in the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Soleglad (1973) considered 
Uroclonoides fractus to be a species of the genus Teuilirausies Simon, 1878 (family 
CHACTIDAE), and probably referable to T. lojanus Pocock, 1900. Thus, Uroclonoides 
Chamberlin, 1920 is a junior subjective synonym of Teuilirausies Simon. 1878. 

2. In 1931, Hoffmann (p. 405, fig. 42), clearly unaware of Chamberlin's (1920) 
publication, established the new genus Uroclonoides for the single new species 
U. gracilior (p. 406, fig. 43), which he described from Aguascalientes, Mexico. Three 
specimens of original type material are deposited in the American Museum of Natural 
History, New York; Gertsch & Soleglad (1966, p. 29) designated no. 1 as the lectotype. 

3. In a review of the world scorpion fauna, Werner (1934, p. 283) established the 
replacement name Parurociunus for Hoffmann's (1931) name Uroclonoides. Werner 
published a very brief description of the genus in the key to the vaejovidae (p. 283), 
which was based on the description of Uroclonoides gracilior by Hoffmann ( 193 1 ). An 



18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

illustration (Abb. 363) on the same page reproduced Hoffmann's drawing of the 
cheliceral chela of P. gracilior. 

4. The name Hoffmanniellius Mello-Leitao (p. 80) was independently proposed 
as a replacement for Uroclonoides Hoffmann, also in 1934. Subsequent authors 
recognised Puruructonus and Hoffmanniellius as (objective) synonyms and, following 
Stahnke (1957: see para. 5 below), all adopted Pantroctomis as the valid name (see, 
for example, the publications of Stahnke, 1957, p. 253; Gertsch & Soleglad, 1966, 
pp. 2, 3: Williams, 1972; the series of revisionary studies by Haradon, 1983, 1984a, 
1984b, 1985; and Francke, 1985, pp. 9, 11). 

5. The title pages of part 2 of vol. 6 of the Annaes da Academia Brasileira de 
Sciencias and of Mello-Leitao's paper give the publication date as 30 June 1934. We 
were, however, unable to determine the month of publication of Werner's work, 
although this was indicated as January 1934 by Stahnke (1957, p. 253, footnote). The 
cover of Werner's monograph in H. G. Bronns Klassen iind Ordnungen des Tierreichs 
bears the date "1935'. However, the work was issued in three parts and later bound in 
a single volume. The composition and year of publication of the parts are given on 
the wrapper of each part and are tabulated at the beginning of the volume; Lieferung 
2 (pp. 161-316), which included the genus Paruroctonus (p. 283), is dated 1934 but the 
month is not stated. The publisher of the work, the Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft 
in Leipzig, did not survive the reunification of Germany in 1990; its archives are 
presumably lost or destroyed and there is no succeeding publisher. Under Article 21c 
of the Code the date 31 December 1934 must be adopted for Lieferung 2 of Werner's 
publication and the name Paruroctonus. 

6. Under the Code the name Paruroctonus is junior to Hoffmanniellius. However, 
the latter name has not been used as valid since it was proposed, whereas the usage of 
Paruroctonus, either for a genus or a subgenus of Vaejovis C.L. Koch, 1836, has been 
constant and prolific since its publication and subsequent acceptance by Stahnke 
(1957). The name has appeared in dozens of taxonomic, ecological, behavioral and 
physiological publications, among them the recent works of Williams (1980) and 
Stockwell (1992), and a number of papers in each of the compilations by Polls (Ed., 
1990, 1991) and Brownell & Polls (Eds., in press). A representative list of a further 47 
references dating from 1961 to 1995 is held by the Commission Secretariat. 

7. The subgenus Smeringurus Haradon, 1983, with four species, is traditonally 
included in Panirociornis but was recently given generic rank (see Stockwell, 1992). 
The general acceptance of this arrangement is pending. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Hoffmanniellius Mello-Leitao, 
1934 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
of the replaced nominal genus Uroctonoides Hoffmann, 1931, Uroctonoides 
gracilior Hoffmann, 1931; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gracilior 
Hoffmann, 1931, as published in the binomen Uroctonoides gracilior and as 
defined by the lectotype designated by Gertsch & Soleglad (1966); 



Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclalure 55(1) March 1998 19 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Hujj'manniellius Mello-Leitao, 1 934, as suppressed in ( 1 ) 
above. 

Acknowledgement 

We thank Dr Peter Sacher (Blankenbwg a.H., Germany) who conducted research 
at our request as to the existence of archives of the Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft 
in Leipzig. 

References 

Brownell, P.H. & Polls, G.A. (Eds.). In press. Scorpion biology and research. Oxford University 

Press. Oxford. 
Chamberlin, R.V. 1920. South American Arachnida, chiefly from the Guano Islands of Peru. 

Science Bulletin. Mmeiim of llic Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences. 3(2): 35^14. 
Francke, O.F. 1985. Conspectus genericus scorpionorum 1758-1982 (Arachnida: Scorpiones). 

Occasioned Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University, 9S: 1-32. 
Gertsch, W.J. & Soleglad, M.E. 1966. The scorpions of the Vejovis boreus group (subgenus 

Paruroctomis) in North America (Scorpionida, Vejovidae). American Museum Novitates, 

2278: 1-54. 
Haradon, R.M. 1983. Smeringurus, a new subgenus of Paruroctomis Werner (Scorpiones, 

Vaejovidae). Journal of Arachnology, 11: 251-270. 
Haradon, R.M. 1984a. New and redefined species belonging to the Paruroctomis baergi group 

(Scorpiones, Vaejovidae). Journal of Arachnology. 12: 205-221. 
Haradon, R.M. 1984b. New and redefined species belonging to the Paruroctonus borregoensis 

group (Scorpiones, Vaejovidae). Journal of Arachnology, 11: 317-339. 
Haradon, R.M. 1985. New groups and species belonging to the nominate subgenus 

Paruroctomis (Scorpiones, Vaejovidae). Journal of Arachnology, 13: 19^2. 
Hoffmann, C.C. 1931. Monografias para la entomologia medica de Mexico. Monografia Nom. 

2, Los scorpiones de Mexico. Primera parte: Diplocentridae, Chactidae, Vejovidae. Anales 

del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2(4): 291-408. 
Mello-Leitao, C. de. 1934. A proposito de um novo Vejovida do Brasil. Annaes da Academia 

Brasileira de Sciencias, 6(2): 75-82. 
Polls, G.A. (Ed.). 1990. The biology of scorpions. 587 pp. Stanford University, Stanford, 

California. 
Polls, G.A. (Ed.). 1991. The ecology of desert communities. 456 pp. University of Arizona, 

Tucson. 
Soleglad, M.E. 1973. Uroctonoides fractus a synonymy (Scorpionida: Chactidae). The 

Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 49( I ): 60. 
Stahnke, H.L, 1957, A new species of scorpion of the Vejovidae, Paruroctomis mesaen.sis. 

Entomological News, 68(10): 253-259. 
Stockwell, S.A. 1992. Systematic observations on North American Scorpionida with a key and 

checklist of the families and genera. Journal of Medical Entomology, 29(3): 407—422. 
Werner, F. 1934, 1935. Scorpiones, Pedipalpi. H.G. Bronn's Klassen und Ordnungen des 

Tierreichs, Band 5 (Arthropoda), Abt. 4 (Arachnoidea), Buch 8 (Scorpiones, Pedipalpi). 

Lieferung 1-2, pp. 1-316 (Scorpiones, 1934); Lieferung 5, pp. 317-490 (Pedipalpi. 1935). 

Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig. 
Williams, S.C. 1972. Four new scorpion species belonging to the genus Paruroctomis 

(Scorpionidae, Vaejovidae). Occasional Papers of the Californian Academy of Sciences, 94: 

1-16. 
Williams, S.C. 1980. Scorpions of Baja California, Mexico and adjacent islands. Occasional 

Papers of the California Academy of Sciences, 135; 1-127. 



20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55{1) March 1998 

Case 2958 

Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; 
Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name 

A. Jansson 

Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17. FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, 
Finland (e-mail: antti.jansson@helsinki.fi) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the 
water-boatman Glaenocorisa propinqua (Fieber, 1860). Fieber (1848) established the 
name Corisa dohrnii for what was probably (at least in part) the same taxon, but this 
name has been treated as a synonym of various names and has not been used as valid 
for more than 50 years; its suppression is proposed. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Heteroptera; corixidae; water-boatmen; 
Corisa dohrnii; Glaenocorisa propinqua. 



1. Fieber (1848, p. 530) established the name Corisa dohrnii for an unspecified 
number of corixids, all females, collected from Germany and "Dalmatia" (now 
Croatia); the description was not accompanied by any illustrations and the name was 
probably based on more than one taxon. In 1851, in a preprint bearing that date of 
a paper published in 1852, Fieber (pp. 37-38) emended the original description, and 
also gave a drawing of the female pala (pi. 2, fig. 25). This drawing shows that the 
specimen of Corisa dohrnii illustrated was conspecific with a taxon later described by 
Fieber himself ( I860, p. 99) as Corisa propinqua. the only European corixid having 
fewer than 15 lower palmar bristles, there being 13 in the 1851 illustration. PI. 10, 
fig. 19 of Fieber (1848) and pi. 2, fig. 24 of Fieber (1851) show that Fieber 
misidentified Corisa carinata Sahlberg, 1819; both these drawings are of specimens 
conspecific with C. propinqua. Fieber's type material of both C dohrnii and 
C. propinqua is lost. 

2. The specific name of Corisa dohrnii has been little used as a valid name this 
century and not at all for more than 50 years. In contrast, the name Glaenocorisa 
propinqua has been extensively used in recent literature (e.g. Jaczewski & Lansbury, 
1961; Coulianos & Ossiannilsson, 1976; Jastrey. 1981; a further 17 references by 18 
authors over the last 40 years are held by the Commission Secretariat). Quite apart 
from its limited use, there has always been considerable confusion about the identity 
of the taxon (or taxa) originally described as Corisa dohrnii. Puton (1899) listed 
C. dohrni [sic] as a possible synonym of C. carinata, C. germari Fieber, 1838 or 
C. cavifrons Thomson, 1869, and this was repeated by others. 

3. When revising the Corixidae of Europe (Jansson, 1986, p. 26), I pointed out that 
"because of the lack of type material it is not possible to establish the synonymy 
[between Corisa dohrnii and Glaenocorisa propinqua propinqua] with certainty'. 
Nevertheless, in view of the confusion about the identity of C. dohrnii, and the fact 
that it is almost certainly a senior subjective synonym of G. propinqua propinqua (see 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 21 

Jaczewski & Lansbury. 1961, p. 348; Jansson, 1986, p. 26), I propose that the specific 
name of C. dohrnii be suppressed. 1 (Jansson, 1986, p. 26) designated as neotype 
of Corisa propinqua a male specimen in the Prague Museum, labelled 'lezero 
Plockensteinske. Dr Stole'. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dohrnii Fieber, 1848, as 
published in the binomen Corisa dohrnii, 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 propinqua 
Fieber, 1 860, as published in the binomen Corisa propinqua and as interpreted 
by the neotype designated by Jansson (1986); 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name dohrnii Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa 
dohrnii and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above. 

References 

Coulianos, C.-C. & Ossiannilsson, F. 1976. Catalogus Insectoruin Sueciae. VII. Heiniptera- 

Heteroptera. 2nd Ed. Entomologisk Tidskriji, 97: 135-173. 
Fieber, F.X. 1848. Synopsis aller bisher in Europe entdeckten Arten der Gattung Corisa. 

Nouveaux Memoires de la Societe Imperiale des Nalurahstes de Moscou. 21: 505-593. 
Fieber, F.X. 1851. Species generis Corisa. 48 pp., 2 pis. Calve, Pragae. (Preprint from (1852), 

Abhandhingen der Koniglichen Bolmtisclien Gesellschafi der Wissenschaften, (1)1: 213-260). 
Fieber, F.X. 1860. Die Europdischen Hemiplera, part 1. Pp. 1-112. Gerold's Sohn. Wien. 
Jaczewski, T. & Lansbury, I. 1961. Notes on the genus Glaenocorisa Thomson (Heteroptera, 

Corixidae). Bullelin de I'Academie Polonaise des Sciences. Classe 2, 9: 345-351. 
Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Ada 

Entomologica Fennica. 47: 1-94. 
Jastrey, J.T. 1981. Distribution and ecology of Norwegian water-bugs (Hem., Heteroptera). 

Fauna Norvegica. (B)28: 1-24. 
Puton, A. 1899. Catalogue des Hemipteres ( Heteropteres, Cicadines el Psyllides) de la faune 

Palearclique. (4 Ed.). 121 pp. Caen. 



22 Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Case 2957 

Phytohius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation 

H. Silfverberg 

Zoological Museum, Box 17 (N. Jdrnvagsgatan 13), FIN-00014 Helsingfors 

Universitet, Finland 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the weevil generic name 
Phytobius Dejean, 1835, in its current usage as placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Opinion 1529 (1989). It is threatened by the homonym Phytobius 
Schonherr, 1833 which was established with a different type species. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; curculionidae; weevils; 
Phytobius: Phytobius quadrituberculatus. 



1. In an application to the Commission published in 1980 (Silfverberg, 1980, 
p. 254), I proposed, amongst other actions, that the following entry be placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 'Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (gender: 
masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Thomson, 1859, Curculio 
quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1787". This was done in Opinion 1529 (March 1989, 
p. 71). 

2. At the time of my application I was unaware that Schonherr had established the 
name Phytobius in 1833 (p. 20), two years earlier than Dejean's 1835 work. This was 
pointed out by O'Brien & Wibmer (1984, p. 296), who considered that Schonherr had 
introduced Phytobius as a replacement name for his genus Hydaticus, which was 
preoccupied. The background is that Schonherr (1825, p. 583) introduced the name 
Hydaticus with Rhynchaemis inyriophylli Gyllenhal, 1813 as type species. This 
nominal species is listed by Dalla Torre & Mustache (1930) as a junior synonym of 
Curculio leuco^aster Marsham, 1802, which is the type species of Litodactylus 
Redtenbacher. 1845. Hydaticus Schonherr is a junior homonym oi Hydaticus Leach, 
1817 (Coleoptera, dytiscidae). When Schonherr (1833) established the name 
Phytobius he attributed it to Schmidt and gave his earlier name Hydaticus as a 
synonym; he included only one species, Rhynchaenus velutus Beck, 1817, which he 
gave as the type species of Phytohius. Rhynchaenus velutus is also the type species of 
Eubrychius Thomson, 1859 by original designation and monotypy. However, it is 
doubtful whether it was Schonherr's intention to introduce a replacement name for 
Hydaticus, and in terms of the modern Code he did not do so: he attributed Phytobius 
to another person (Schmidt), he did not give a reason for replacing Hydaticus, and he 
designated a different type species. 

3. Dejean (1835, p. 282) listed a number of species in Phytobius. as did Schonherr 
(1836, p. 458); they both included Curculio quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1787 
(p. 100). In 1859 Thomson (p. 138) designated C. quadrituberculatus as the type 
species of Phytobius, which has ever since been used in that sense (e.g. Arnett, 
1960-1962; Colonnelli, 1980; Lucht, 1987; a further 12 references by 18 authors in the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 23 

last 40 years is held by the Commission Secretariat). Earlier, Schonherr (1825, col. 
586) had designated C. quadrituberculatus as type species of his new genus Rhinoncus, 
but this usage was not followed, even by Schonherr himself, and in Opinion 1529 
Curculio perkarphis Linnaeus, 1758 was accepted as the type species of Rhinoncus. 

4. To maintain the current usage of Phytobius as placed on the Official List, and 
to maintain C.quadritiiberculatus as the type species, it is necessary to suppress its use 
as a homonym by Schonherr (1833). This will also conserve the established usage of 
the names Litodactylus Redtenbacher, 1845 and Eubrychius Thomson, 1859. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Phytobius Schonherr, 1833 and 
all uses of that name prior to the publication o( Phytobius by Dejean, 1835 for 
the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

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

References 

Arnett, R.H. 1960-1962. The beetles of the United States. 1112 pp. Catholic University of 

America Press, Washington. D.C. 
Colonnelli, E. 1980. Notes on Phytobiini, with a key to the New World genera (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae: Ceutorhynchinae). The Coleopterlsts' Bulletin. 34: 281-284. 
Dalla Torre, K.W. & Mustache, A. 1930. Curculionidae: Ceuthorrhynchinae. Coleopteronim 

Ccitalogus. 113: 1-150. 
Dejean, P.M.F. 1835. Pp. 257-360 in Catalogue cles Coleopteres de la collection de M. le Comte 

Dejean. (2 Ed.). Paris. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectonim. 348 pp. Hafniae. 

Lucht, W.H. 1987. Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas. Katalog. 342 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 
O'Brien, C.W. & Wibmer, G.J. 1984. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu 

lata) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies — Supplement 1. The 

Southwestern Entomologist, 9: 286-307. 
Schonherr, C.J. 1825. Tabulae synopticae familiae Curculionidum. Isis (Oken), 16: cols. 

581-588. 
Schonherr, C.J. 1833. Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 1. 

681 pp. Parisiis. 
Schonherr, C.J. 1836. Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 3. 

858 pp. Parisiis. 
Silfverberg, H. 1980. Ceutorhynchus Germar. 1824. and Rhinoncus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, 

Coleoptera): proposed conservation and designation of type species by use of the plenary 

powers. Z.N.{S.) 2219. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 36: 252-256. 
Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, vol. 1. 290 pp. Lund. 



24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 199S 

Case 3023 

DASYPODiDAE Bomer, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
emendation of spelling to dasypodaidae, so removing the homonymy 
with DASYPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Xenarthra) 

The late Byron A. Alexander and Charles D. Michener 

Snow Entomological Museum, Snow Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 

Kansas 66045, U.S.A. 

(e-mail for Prof Michener: michener@falcon.cc.ukans.edu) 

Alfred L. Gardner 

Biological Resources Division, U. S. Geological Survey, National Museum 

of Natural History. Washington. D.C. 20560-0111, U.S.A. 

(e-mail: gardner.alfred@nmnh.si.edu) 

Abstract. The family-group name dasypodidae Bomer, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) 
is a junior homonym of dasypodidae Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Xenarthra). It is 
proposed that the homonymy between the two names, which relate to short-tongued 
bees and armadillos respectively, should be removed by emending the stem of the 
generic name Dasypoda Latreille, 1802, on which the insect family-group name is 
based, to give dasypodaidae, while leaving the mammalian name (based on Dasypus 
Linnaeus, 1758) unchanged. Dasypus novemcinctus Linnaeus, 1758, the type species 
of Dasypus, has a wide distribution in the southern United States, Central and South 
America. The genus Dasypoda ranges throughout most of the Palearctic region. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; Mammalia; Xenarthra; bees; 
armadillos; dasypodaidae; dasypodidae; Dasypoda; Dasypus. 



1. A colleague, Douglas Yanega, has brought to our attention the homonymous 
use of the family-group name dasypodidae in the mammalian order Xenarthra and 
in the insect order Hymenoptera. 

2. The mammalian family dasypodidae Gray, 1821 (p. 305) was based on the 
armadillo genus Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 50). Gray's family included the single 
genus; he misspelled the generic name as 'Dasipus" and rendered the family-group 
name as 'Dasipidae", which is corrected under Article 35d(i) of the Code. 

3. Linnaeus (1758) included six nominal species in Dasypus. He placed the name 
'Da.sypu.s among the synonyms of Z). novemcinctus (p. 51; the nine-banded armadillo) 
and this species is the type of the genus by Linnaean tautonymy (Article 68e(i)). 
Thomas (1911, p. 141) recorded that the account of the Mexican armadillo in 
Hernandez ( 1651 ), against which the generic name Dasypus appeared, referred to the 
D. novemcinctus group of species and that recognition of D. novcmcinclus as the type 
species of Da.sypus necessitated adopting Dasypus as the valid name for the genus 
long known (see, for example, Lydekker, 1887, pp. 140-141) as Taiusia Lesson, 1827 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 25 

(p. 309) or, later, as Tatu Blumenbach, 1779 (p. 74; type species by monotypy 
D. novemcmctus), thereby rendering Tatu a junior objective synonym of Dasypus. 
Thomas noted that 'this is [an] instance in which the use of tautonomy in selecting 
Linnean types brings out a result contrary to common use'. He adopted the name 
Eiiphractus Wagler, 1830 (p. 36; type species D. sexcinctus Linnaeus, 1758 by 
subsequent designation by Palmer, 1904, p. 278) for Dasypus as hitherto understood 
(six-banded armadillos) and recorded that "this shifting is quite unavoidable if the 
invaluable principle of tautonymy is to be utilized at all". 

4. Not all authors followed Thomas's (191 1) switch of the name Dasypus from one 
group of armadillos to another; Patterson (1913), Vanneman (1917), Edgeworth 
(1923) and Cooper (1930), for example, used Tatusia for novemcmctus, and Apstein 
(1915) cited D. sexcinctus as the type of Dasypus. In 1945 Simpson (p. 193; see also 
p. 72, footnote) wrote: 'The application of the Linnaean name Dasypus is unfortu- 
nately subject to confusion. Many writers, probably the majority, have used this 
name for the quirquinchos [six-banded armadillos], which would be desirable, both 
to follow usage and because this group of species is the most central and generalized 
among living forms. In this case the correct name for the nine-banded armadillos 
would be Tatu and so they have been widely called (by me among many others). 
Oldfield Thomas, however, attempted to fix Dasypus as the name for the nine-banded 
armadillos, making Eiiphractus valid for the quirquinchos. This is apparently 
gaining in authoritative usage (although it still appears to be open to debate) 
and is here reluctantly adopted'. Most recent authors have cited D. novemcinclus 
as the type species of Dasypus (see, for example, Cabrera, 1958, p. 223; Hall, 
1981, p. 282; Gardner, 1993, p. 65). The designation of D. septemcinctus Linnaeus, 
1758 as the type by Wetzel & Mondolfi (1979, pp. 44, 46), reported by McBee & 
Baker (1982, p. 1), is invalid. Linnaeus (1758) gave the locality of D. novemcinctus as 
'in America meridionali"; the type locality was limited by Cabrera (1958, p. 225) 
to Pernambuco, Brazil. The name Eiiphractus Wagler, 1830 is currently in use 
for D. sexcinctus Linnaeus, 1758. Both Dasypus and Eiiphractus are placed in 

the DASYPODIDAE. 

5. Linnaeus (1758) based Dasypus novemcinctus on six previous publications, 
including Hernandez's (1651) Rerum medicarum Novae Hispaniae thesaurus (p. 314) 
and Linnaeus's own (1754) Museum Adolphi Friderici, Class 1 (Quadrupedia; p. 6); all 
are identifiable as the nine-banded armadillo. Thomas (191 1, pp. 141, 142) recorded 
that there were Linnaean mammal specimens preserved in the Swedish Museum of 
Natural History, Stockholm, from information given to him by Prof Einar Lonnberg. 
This material was originally in the Crown Prince Adolf Fredrik collection (see 
Linnaeus, 1754) and includes specimens of D. novemcinctus and D. sexcinctus, 
catalogue nos. NRM 532077 and NRM 592711 respectively. These specimens have 
been authenticated as Linnaean types by Dr Sven KuUander (Swedish Museum of 
Natural History) from good curatorial records originating from the Museum Adolfi 
Frederiki. A photograph of specimen NRM 532077 is available on the Website 
(Linnaeus server) in Stockholm (http://linnaeus.nrm.se/zool). 

6. The insect subfamily dasypodinae Borner, 1919 (p. 180) was established for a 
group of bees based on Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (p. 424). The genus included 
four nominal species, among them Andrena hirtipes Fabricius, 1793 (p. 312), and 
this species was designated the type by Blanchard (1840, p. 414). Fabricius 



26 Bulletin ol" Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

cited A. hiriipes as "in Germania Dom Smidt". Zimsen (1964, p. 414) listed seven 
specimens, which were originally in Kiel, in the Fabrician collections in the Zoologisk 
Museum in Copenhagen; Warncke (1973) mentioned a lectotype ('? Lectotypus, 
Kopenhagen") but gave no details. The species is widespread in Europe, from the 
U.K. to Russia. The subfamily name dasypodinae has been used in publications by 
Michener (1944, 1981), Stephen. Bohart & Torchio (1969), Michener & Brooks 
(1984) and Michener, McGinley & Danforth (1994). Alexander & Michener (1995, 
p. 422) adopted dasypodidae at the family level. 

7. The name dasypodidae Gray, 1821 in addition to being much older than 
dasypodidae Borner, 1919 has also been much more widely used than the latter. In 
addition to the works by Cabrera (1958), Hall (1981) and Gardner (1993) cited in 
para. 4 above, the mammal name has appeared in representative recent publications, 
covering biology, ecology and conservation, as well as taxonomy, by Findley, Harris, 
Wilson & Jones (1975), Wetzel (1985), Eisenberg (1989), Corbet & Hill (1991) and 
Mares & Schmidley (1991). D. novemcinctus, the type species of Dasypus, is widely 
distributed. The species is important in the subsistence economy of the area and in the 
manufacture of tourist goods. It is also valuable in medical research on leprosy and 
is well known for the propensity to give birth to monozygous quadruplets. We believe 
that there is good reason not to change the mammalian family-group name. We 
therefore propose that the insect name be emended to dasypodaidae, while leaving 
the mammalian name unaltered. 

8. 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 Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) is 
dasypoda-; 

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

(a) Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by Linnaean 
tautonomy Dasypus novemcinctus Linnaeus, 1758 (Xenarthra); 

(b) Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Blanchard (1840) Andrena hirtipes Fabricius, 1793 
(Hymenoptera); 

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

(a) novemcinctus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dasypus novem- 
cinctus (specific name of the type species of Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758) 
(Xenarthra); 

(b) hirtipes Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Andrena 
hirtipes (specific name of the type species of Dasypoda Latreille, 1802) 
(Hymenoptera); 

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

(a) dasypodidae Gray, 1821, type genus Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Xenarthra); 

(b) dasypodaidae Borner, 1919, type genus Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (spelling 
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Hymenoptera); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Taiu Blumenbach, 1779 (a junior objective synonym of 
Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758) (Xenarthra); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 27 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names 
in Zoology the name dasypodidae Borner, 1919 (spelling emended to dasy- 
PODAIDAE by the ruling in (1) above) (Hymenoptera). 



References 

Alexander, B.A. & Michener, CD. 1995. Phylogenetic studies of the families of short-tongued 

bees. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 55( 1 1 ): 377^24. 
Apstein, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzungsbericht der Gesellschaft Natwforschender 

Freunde :ti Berlin, 1915(5): 1 19-202. 
Blanchard, E. 1840. Hymenopteres. Pp. 219^15, 7 pis. in Castelnau, F.L.N, de Laporte. 

Hisloire natiirelle des Insecles, vol. 3. Dumenil, Paris. 
Blumenbach, J.F. 1 779. Handhuch der Naturgeschichte. [8], 446 pp. Gottingen. 
Borner, C. 1919. Stammesgeschichte der Hautfliigler. Biologisches Zentralhlatt, 39(4): 145-185. 
Cabrera, A. 1958. Calalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Miiseo Argentina 

de Ciencias Nalurales 'Bernardino Rivadavia'. Ciencias Zoologicas, 4(1): 1-307. 
Cooper, Z.K. 1930. A historical study of the integument of the armadillo, Tatusia novemcinctus. 

American Journal of Anatomy. 45: 1-32. 
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1991. A world list of nuimmalian species, Ed. 3. viii, 243 pp. Natural 

History Museum, London. 
Edgeworth, F.H. 1923. On the development of the cranial muscles of Tatusia and Manis. 

Journal of Anatomy, London, 57: 313. 
Eisenberg, J.F. 1989. Mammals of the neotropics, vol. 1. x, 449 pp.; vol. 2 (coauthored with 

K.H. Redford), ix, 430 pp. University of Chicago, Chicago. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologica systematica emendata el aucta . . ., vol. 2. viii, 519 pp. 

Hafniae. 
Findley, J.S., Harris, A.H., Wilson, D.E. & Jones, C. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico, xxii, 

360 pp. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 
Gardner, A.L. 1993. Order Xenarthra. Pp. 63-68 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.A.M. (Eds.), 

Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, Ed. 2. xviii, 1206 pp. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London. 
Gray, J.E. 1821. On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals. London Medical 

Repository, Monthly Journal and Review. 15(1): 296-310. 
HaU, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Ed. 2, vol. 1. 690 pp. Wiley, New York. 
Hernandez, F. 1651. Rerum medicarum Novae Hispaniae thesaurus, seu plantarum, animalium. 

mineralium mexicanorum historia. [xiv], 950, [22], 90, [6]. Rome. 
Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle des fourmis ... xvi, 445 pp.. 12 pis. Crapelet, Paris. 
Lesson, R.P. 1827. Manuel de mammalogie. ou histoire naturelle de mainmiferes. xv, 441 pp. 

Paris. 
Linnaeus, C. 1754. Classis 1. Quadrupedia. Pp. 1-12 in: Museum S.rae R:ae M:tis Adolphi 

Friderici Regis ... Qudrupedia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces, Insecta, Vermes describuntur et 

determinantur, xxx, 96. [8] pp., 33 pis. Holmiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10. vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Lydekker, R. 1887. Catalogue of the fossil Mammalia in the British Museum {Natural Flistory). 

part 5. XXXV. 345 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
McBee, K. & Baker, R.J. 1982. Dasypus novemcinctus. Mammalian Species. 162: 1-9. 

(Published by the American Society of Mammalogists). 
Mares, M.A. & Schmidley, D.J. 1991. Latin American mammalogy. History, biodiversity and 

conservation, xii, 468 pp. Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman & London. 
Michener, CD. 1944, Comparative external morphology, phylogeny, and a classification of the 

bees. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 82: 151-326 
Michener, CD. 1981. Classification of the bee family Melittidae with a review of the species of 

the Meganomiinae. Contributions of the American Entomological Institute, 18(3): 1-135. 
Michener, CD. & Brooks, R.W. 1984. Comparative study of the glossae of bees. Contributions 

of the American Entomological Institute. 22(1): 1-73. 



28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Michener, CD., McGinley. R.J. & Danforth, B.N. 1994. The bee genera of North and Central 

America, viii, 209 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index Generum Mummahum: a list of the genera and families of mammals, 

vol. 1 (A-O). Pp. 1-492. United States Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey 

Division. Washington. North American Fauna, No. 23. 
Patterson, J.T. 1913. Polyembryonic development in Talusia novemcinctiis. Journal of 

Morphology. 24; 559-684. 
Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin 

of the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350. 
Stephen, W.P., Bohart, G.E. & Torchio, P.F. 1969. The biology and external morphology of bees. 

140 pp. Agricultural Experimental Station, Oregon State University. 
Thomas, O. [M.R.] 191 1. The mammals of the tenth edition of Linnaeus; an attempt to fix the 

types of the genera and the exact bases and localities of the species. Proceedings of the 

Zoological Society of London, 1911: 120-158. 
Vanneman, A.S. 1917. The early history of the germ cells in the armadillo, Tatusia 

novemcinctiis. American Journal of Anatomy. 22: 341-363. 
Wagler, J.C. 1830. Naliirliches System der .Amphibien. mit vorangehender Classification der 

Sdugethiere urn! Vogel. vi, 354 pp., 9 pis. Munich. 
Warncke, K. 1973. Die westpalaarktischen Arten der Bienenfamilie Melittidae (Hymenoptera). 

Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne. 43: 97-126. 
Wetzel, R.M. 1985. Taxonomy and distribution of armadillos, Dasypodidae. Pp. 23^8 in 

Montgomery, G.G. (Ed.), The evolution ami ecology of armadillos, sloths aiul vermilingiias. 

10, 451 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 
Wetzel, R.M. & Mondolfi, E. 1979. The subgenera and species of long-nosed armadillos, genus 

Dasypiis L. Pp. 43-63 in Eisenberg, J.F. (Ed.), Vertebrate ecology in the northern 

neotropics. 271 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 
Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard. Copenhagen. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 29 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the names Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 
1949, Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Lo//^os<'p/>.Quenstedt, 
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 and Belemnotheutis 
montefiorei Buckman, 1880 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) 

(Case 2987; see BZN 53: 253-260; 54: 104, 184-185) 

D.T. Donovan 

Department of Geological Sciences, University College London. Gower Street, 

London WC1E6BT, U.K. 

T. Engeser 

Institut fiir Paldontologie, Freie Universitdt Berlin, Malteserstrasse 74-100, 
12249 Berlin. Germany 

We welcome Dr Riegraf's support in BZN 54: 184-185 for our proposed 
conservation of various coleoid names. 

Riegraf proposes the suppression of the name Atrameniarius Buckland & Agassiz 
in Buckland, 1838. This name is an MS name of Buckland's. To the best of our 
knowledge, it appears in print only in Agassiz's (1838) footnote cited by Riegraf, and 
in a brief reference by Quenstedt (1849. p. 504) who does not himself use the name 
elsewhere. We therefore agree with Riegraf's proposal for the suppression of 
Atramentarius. We support also his proposal that Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842 and 
the name of its type species Belemnoteiithis [sic] aniiqua Pearce, 1847 be placed on the 
Official Lists, and the incorrect subsequent spelling Belemnoteuthis Pearce, 1847 on 
the Official Index. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific and subspecific names of 
Trigonocephaliis pulcher Peters. 1862 and Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 
(Reptiiia, Serpentes) by the designation of a neotype for 7. pulcher 

(Case 2921; see BZN 54: 35-38, 245-249) 

(1) Ronald L. Gutberlet, Jr. and Michael B. Harvey 

Department of Biology. Box 19498, The University of Texas at Arlington. 
Arlington, Texas 76019. U.S.A. 

Schatti & Smith (BZN 54: 35-38) submitted a proposal to the Commission in an 
attempt to resolve the taxonomic confusion surrounding two species of pitviper 
(Squamata: Viperidae: Crotalinae) that occur in northern South America. One of 
these has a green dorsum with dark transverse bands, occurs on the Amazonian 
versant of the Andes in Ecuador and Colombia, and is arboreal. The other species 
(hereafter referred to as the western species) has a dorsum with a brown ground 
color, occurs on the Pacific side of the Andes in Ecuador and Colombia, and is 
terrestrial. Peters (1862) described the upper Amazonian species as Trigonocephalus 
pulcher. the holotype of which (specimen ZMB 3868) is housed in the Zoologisches 
Museum der Humboldt-Universitat in Berlin. However, Boulenger (1896) mistakenly 
applied the name pulcher to the western species. 



30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

In their application Schatti & Smith contend that 'subsequent authors have all 
followed Boulenger's (1896) usage' (para. 1) and that "pulcher has never been used for 
the Amazonian species for which Peters (1863) [sic] proposed it' (para. 5). They also 
assert that the name Bothrops albocariiiatus Shreve, 1934, a junior synonym of 
Trigonocephalus pidcher Peters, 1862, has been 'consistently applied" (para. 5) to the 
Amazonian species since 1934. Based on these contentions, they ask the Commission 
to set aside the holotype of Trigonocephalus pulcher, so that the 'universal usage' of 
pulcher (para. 6) for the western species can be maintained. 

The purpose of this comment is to review past use of the name pulcher in order to 
demonstrate that it has not been universally applied to a single species since 
Boulenger (1896); thus, no justification exists for ruling against the Principle of 
Priority in this case. We also demonstrate that the name albocarinuius has a more 
intricate taxonomic history than Schatti & Smith imply. 

Publications since Boulenger (1896) that include the name pulcher (in combination 
with generic names Bothrops, Boihriopsis. or Lachesis) can be divided into six 
categories. 

1. At least one author (Noguchi, 1909, p. 38) provides a description oi pulcher that 
can only refer to the Amazonian species: 'color olive with brownish crossbands with 
white rim". 

2. Several authors report a distribution for pulcher that can only refer to the 
Amazonian species. Klemmer (1963, p. 412) lists the range oi pulcher as 'Amazonas- 
Tieflander in Ecuador und Peru", and Minton, Dowling & Russell (1968, p. 61; 
sometimes cited as Department of the U.S. Navy, 1968) report a range of eastern 
Ecuador and eastern Peru. 

3. Other authors also report a distribution for pulcher that can only refer to the 
Amazonian species, yet these same authors provide descriptions oi pulcher that can 
only refer to the western species. J. A. Peters (1960, p. 510) lists the range oi pulcher 
as 'Peru and Ecuador in the Amazonian lowlands", but in his key (p. 509) describes 
pulcher as having 'keels on dorsal scales much shorter than scale itself; ventrals 
156-174; subcaudals 47-64". J.A. Peters & Orejas-Miranda (1970, p. 54) report the 
distribution of pulcher as 'equatorial forests in Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador and 
Peru", but list characteristics (p. 42) that refer to the western species: tail not 
prehensile, keel shorter than scale, and subcaudals mostly paired. Schatti & Smith 
(para. 5) fail to point out the important contradiction between distribution and 
morphology when they state that Peters's (1960) and Peters & Orejas-Miranda's 
(1970) use of pulcher applies to the 'terrestrial" (= western) species. 

4. Many authors (for example. Phisalix. 1922; Amaral, 1930; Hoge & Romano, 
1971; Hoge & Romano-Hoge, 1981; Groombridge. 1986) who mention pulcher 
include little or no information for determining the species to which the name is 
applied. 

5. Authors who explicitly u^e pulcher to refer to the western species are Campbell 
& Lamar (1989, 1992). All information presented by these authors (photographs, 
distribution and description) associates the n-dme pulcher with the western species. 
Perez-Santos & Moreno (1991) provide a description and distribution that apply to 
the western species. The works of Peters (1960). Peters & Orejas-Miranda (1970), and 
Hoge & Romano-Hoge (1981) do not fall into this category — contra Schatti & 
Smith (para. 5). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 31 

6. Several authors chose not to use the name pulcher for the Amazonian or the 
western species after realizing that the holotype of pulcher belongs to the Amazonian 
species. Schatti & Kramer (1993) suggested that the name pulcher be suppressed so 
that albocarinatus could continue to be used for the Amazonian species. They then 
established a new name aliucnvehi for the western species. Golay et al. (1993) list 
Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 as a junior synonym of Bothriechis oligolepis 
albocarinatus (Shreve, 1934), and they list Lachesis pulcher Boulenger, 1896 as a 
junior synonym of Purthidium almawehi Schatti & Kramer, 1993. Bauer, Giinther & 
Klipfel (1995, p. 80) list the present name of Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 as 
'Bothriechis oligolepis albocarinatus (Shreve, 1934) fide Schatti & Kramer (1993)", and 
remark that "Schatti & Kramer (1993) discussed the application of the junior 
synonym of Shreve to this taxon'. 

Clearly, there has been neither consistent nor universal usage of the name pulcher. 

While it is true that albocarinatus has only been used to refer to the Amazonian 
species, other names have also been applied to this species. We have already 
established that pulcher has been used for this species in numerous publications, but 
another name (only a few months younger than albocarinatus) exists in the literature 
as well. Bothrops alticolus Parker, 1934 has only recently been recognized as a junior 
subjective synonym of albocarinatus (see Burger, 1971; Campbell & Lamar, 1989; 
Schatti et al., 1990; Golay et al.. 1993). Many publications (e.g. Peters. 1960; 
Klemmer, 1963; Duellman, 1979) list both albocarinatus and alticolus, thus muddling 
somewhat the taxonomic history of albocarinatus. The opinion of Schatti & Kramer 
(1993) that Bothriopsis albocarinata is a subspecies of Bothriopsis oligolepis further 
complicates the history of this name, especially since this opinion has not been 
universally accepted (Campbell et al., in press). 

In addition to the varied uses of the names pulcher and albocarinatus, it is 
important to mention that both the Amazonian species and western species are 
extremely rare in museum collections and presumably in nature as well. Very little has 
been published about these snakes, so there is not a large body of literature in which 
the names have been used incorrectly. To our knowledge, human envenomation has 
not been recorded for these species, so no medical literature will be affected by 
applying the correct names. In short, the names pulcher and albocarinatus have been 
used so few times that even if usage of them were universal, there would not be a 
strong case for ruling against the Principle of Priority. 

If the mme pulcher is used for the Amazonian species as Peters (1862) intended and 
as defined by the holotype, a name is needed for the western species. The name 
available for the western species is Bothrops campbelli Freire-Lascano, 1991. The 
validity of this name has been questioned (see Schatti & Kramer, 1993), but 
Freire-Lascano's work clearly meets the criteria of the Code for publication (Kuch, 
BZN 54: 245-248; Campbell et al., in press). 

Because there has been no stable use of the names pulcher and albocarinatus, we 
believe there is no justification for setting aside the holotype of Trigonocephalus 
pulcher. The Code provides specifically for full resolution of confusion surround- 
ing these names. These rules have already been applied and the matter resolved 
(Campbell et al., in press): the eastern species is Bothriopsis pulchra (Peters, 1862) and 
the western species is Bothrops campbelli Freire-Lascano, 1991. Bothrops albocarinatus 
Shreve, 1934 and Bothrops alticolus Parker, 1934 are junior subjective synonyms of 



32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Bothriopsis pulchra. Porthidium almmvehi Schiitti & Kramer, 1993 is a junior subjective 
synonym of Bothrops camphelli. The synonymies and remarks provided by Campbell 
et al. (in press) clarify the complex nomenclatural history of these two species for 
future workers. 



Acknowledgement 

We thank J. A. Campbell and C.L. Stewart for critically reading an earlier draft of 
this comment. 



Additional references 

Amaral, A. do. 1930. Serpientes venenosas sudamericanas. Pp. 788-805. Sexta reunion de la 

Sociedad Argentina de Patologia Regional del Norte. Organized and published by 

Salvador Mazza. 
Campbell, J. A., McDiarmid, R.W. & T. Toure (Eds.). In press. Snake species of the world. 

vol. 1. Herpetologists' League. 
Duellman, W.E. 1979. The herpetofauna of the Andes: patterns of distribution, origin, 

differentiation, and present communities. Pp. 371-459 in Duellman. W.E. (Ed.), The South 

American herpetofauna: its origin, evolution, and dispersal. Monograph of the Museum of 

Natural History, University of Kansas, No. 7. 
GrooDibridge, B. 1986. Comments on the M. pterygoideus glandulae of crotaline snakes 

(Reptilia: Viperidae). Herpetologica. 42: 449^57. 
Minton, S.A., Jr., Dowling, H.G. & Russell, F.E. 1968. Poisonous snakes of the world. A manual 

for !«£■ hy U.S. amphibious forces. 212 pp. United States Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 
Noguchi, H, 1909. Snake venoms. An investigation of venomous snakes with special reference to 

the phenomena of their venoms. 315 pp. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, 

DC. 
Phisalix, M. 1922. Animaux venimeux el venins, vol. 2. 864 pp. Masson, Paris. 



(2) Beat Schatti 

Museum d'Histoire naturelle. case postale 6434. CH-1211 Geneve 6, Switzerland 

In his previously published comment (BZN 54: 245-249, December 1997) Kuch 
noted that 'the Amazonian species represented by the holotype of Trigonocephahis 
pulchcr Peters, 1862 is listed under [...] three names (Bothrops cilhocarinatus, 
B. alticolus. B. pulcher) in most of the major works on venomous snakes or influential 
regional checklists". He stated that 'the senior name pulcher [...] has been correctly 
used at least four times as the valid name for the eastern (Amazonian) species' by J. A. 
Peters (I960). Klemmer (1963), U.S. Navy Department (1968) and J. A. Peters & 
Orejas-Miranda (1970). 

However, Kuch admitted that "none of the cited works includes a description of 
B. pulcher' and that the "notable exceptions [...] J. A. Peters ( 1960) and J. A. Peters & 
Orejas-Miranda (1970)', although indicating an Amazonian distribution, gave mor- 
phological data that 'apply to the western species rather than to the Amazonian one'. 
Further, we learn that 'in many of these publications, only the stated geographical 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 33 

distribution allowed a decision as to whether a particular name was used for 
the western or for the Amazonian species. The possibility that authors might 
have referred to the western species while indicating an erroneous (Amazonian) 
distribution can therefore not be refuted'. 

Except for the original description (Peters, 1862), all citations of pulcher based on 
examined material, including the studies of Campbell & Lamar (1989, 1992), refer to 
the western species, i.e. [Lachesis] pulcher sensu Boulenger ( 1 896). As noted by Kuch, 
this is also the case with 'the characters used for the identification of pulcher' by J. A. 
Peters (1960) and J.A. Peters & Orejas-Miranda (1970). Boulenger (1896) is not cited 
in these publications because the references are restricted to the original description 
of a taxon and synonyms (J.A. Peters, 1960, p. 491; J.A. Peters & Orejas-Miranda, 
1970, p. v). J.A. Peters (1960) erroneously mentioned 'three syntypes" of pulcher 
and. clearly, the Berlin holotype was not examined. This work served as a basic 
reference for Klemmer's (1963) checklist and the manual of the U.S. Navy 
Department (1968), and the incorrect distribution given for pulcher only proves how 
easily this kind of error may enter into the literature. In any case, scientific names 
denote biological species, defined by name-bearing specimens, and not imaginary 
geographical ranges. 

Kuch does not question the crucial point of the application, namely that under the 
Code Boihrops albocarinatus Shreve. 1934 is a junior objective synonym of Trigono- 
cephalus pulcher Peters. His reservations concern the notion that B. albocarinatus and 
Lachesis bilineatus var. oligolepis Werner, 1901 are conspecific {Bothriechis oligolepis 
albocarinatus), as suggested by Schiitti & Kramer (1993). However, in our application 
we (Schiitti & Smith) did not use 'the hypothetical problem of a name change of 
oligolepis to pulcher oligolepis' as an argument in favour of their conservation, as 
alluded to by Kuch, but merely pointed out a possible consequence if the Code were 
to be strictly applied. Finally, Bothrops alticolus Parker, 1934 is a junior subjective 
synonym of 5. albocarinatus Shreve (see Schatti & Kramer 1993) and therefore does 
not affect the case. 

The comment by Gutberlet & Harvey (above) raises similar arguments as 
that by Kuch. The conclusion of Schatti & Kramer (1993) on the status of 
Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve is confirmed. But Gutberlet & Harvey conclude 
that there is no justification for ruling against the Principle of Priority (i.e. 
setting aside the holotype of T. pulcher). Referring to a yet unpublished paper 
(Campbell et al.. in press) they state that the rules of the Code 'have already 
been applied and the matter resolved". However, the proposed use of pulcher for 
the eastern species certainly does not contribute to stability or universality in 
nomenclature. 

Prior to Schatti & Kramer (1993). the availability of Bothrops camphelli Freire, 
1991 was questioned by Campbell & Lamar (1992). I have never seen Freire's 
(1991) publication in another form than as a photostatic copy, and the specific 
name campbelli has never been published in Zoological Record up to vol. 132. 
Irrespective of Freire's (1992) republication of B. catnpbelli and the intraspecific 
concept or generic allocation of Bothriechis oligolepis (Werner), the identity of the 
holotype of Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters makes it necessary to conserve pulcher 
as well as Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve. as Prof Smith and I proposed in our 
application. 



34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

(3) Wolfgang Wiister 

School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, LL57 2UW. Wales. U.K. 

1. In their proposal for Case 2921. Schatti & Smith ask the Commission to use its 
plenary powers to set aside the existing holotype (ZMB 3868 in the Zoologisches 
Museum der Humboldt-Universitat in Berlin) for Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 
1862 and to allow the designation of a neotype. 

2. In two insightful comments. Kuch (BZN 54: 245-249) and Gutberlet & Harvey 
(above) have opposed this proposal and pointed out a number of weaknesses in it. 
Their conclusion was that no action by the Commission was required, and that the 
western species should bear the name camphelli, and the eastern species the name 
pulcher. I am in full agreement with the factual basis of their argument, in particular 
the availability of the name camphelli Freire, 1991, and the historically ambiguous 
usage of the name pulcher Peters, 1862; the reader is referred to Kuch's comment for 
details on the literature regarding this problem. 

3. Designation of a neotype for Bothrops pulcher (Peters, 1862) is unacceptable as 
the holotype remains in existence; a holotype is also in existence for B. camphelli 
Freire, 1991, the name of which is available for the species from which the neotype 
of pulcher would be selected under Schatti & Smith's proposal. 

4. However, it is my view that following the course of action proposed by Kuch 
and Gutberlet & Harvey, i.e. no intervention by the Commission, would lead to 
considerable instability and confusion, in that the name pulcher, which is frequently 
used for the western species, would become the correct name of the eastern species for 
which the well-established, unambiguous name alhocarinatus Shreve. 1934 is already 
available. 

5. Kuch and Gutberlet & Harvey are correct in saying that the name pulcher has, 
in many publications, been associated with an explicit or implicit range designation 
of the Amazonian (eastern) versant of the Andes. Their interpretation is that the 
authors of these publications were referring to the eastern species described as pulcher 
by Peters (1862), unless evidence to the contrary was presented. However, with the 
exception of Noguchi (1909), I am not aware of a single publication since Peters 
(1862) in which the name pulcher is accompanied by a description or key which 
unambiguously refers to the eastern. Amazonian species described by Peters (1862). 
On the other hand, in at least seven publications (Boulenger. 1896; J. A. Peters, 1960; 
J. A. Peters & Orejas-Miranda. 1970; Perez-Santos & Moreno. 1988. 1991; Campbell 
& Lamar. 1989. 1992) the use of the name pulcher is accompanied by descriptions, 
data and/or illustrations which unambiguously refer to the western species (even 
though the indicated distribution corresponds to that of the eastern species in Peters, 
1960 and Peters & Orejas-Miranda, 1970). Several of these works are highly 
influential. In particular, the publication by Campbell & Lamar (1989) is likely to 
remain for many years the standard text on Neotropical pitvipers. The consequence 
is that the name/w/(7;cT has, in recent years, become increasingly strongly associated 
with the western species, and not the eastern species described by Peters (1862). 
Clearly, the use of the name pulcher is thus tainted with a long history of ambiguity 
and confusion. I therefore agree with Kuch's comment that preserving this name for 
the western species through designation of a neotype, as proposed by Schatti & 
Smith, would not benefit nomenclatural stability or prevent confusion. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55( I ) March 1998 35 

6. For the eastern species, the name albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 is available, with 
aliicolus Parker, 1934 as a subjective junior synonym. The name cdbucahnatus has not 
been used for any other species, and therefore does not give rise to any confusion. 

7. The result of a rejection of the proposal by Schatti & Smith would be that the 
eastern species, currently widely known under the unambiguous name albocarinatus, 
would have this substituted with the highly ambiguous, tainted name pulcher, which 
has become increasingly associated with the western species. This strict interpretation 
of the Principle of Priority would, in my view, lead to quite unnecessary and highly 
undesirable confusion, which would be further exacerbated by current uncertainty 
about the generic classification of both species. 

8. Kuch believes that no appeal for the conservation oi albocarinatus is justified, as 
the senior name pulcher has been used at least four times for the eastern species since 
1947. However, two of these references (J. A. Peters. 1960; J. A. Peters & Orejas- 
Miranda, 1970) provide descriptions which clearly refer to the western species, although 
they indicate an eastern distribution; the other two references (Klemmer, 1963; U.S. 
Navy Department, Office of Naval Intelligence, 1968) provide no information other 
than distribution, leaving the question of which species was being referred to open to 
discussion. Given the influential nature and wide availability of the publications of 
Boulenger (1896) and J. A. Peters (1960), and the relative obscurity of the original 
description oi pulcher by Peters (1862), it seems Ukely that many subsequent authors 
meant the western form described under the name pulcher by Boulenger (1896) and J. A. 
Peters (1960), and copied the erroneous locality indication from J. A. Peters (1960). 
Furthermore, all four of these publications also include separate accounts of the eastern 
species under the unambiguous names albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 and alticohis Parker, 
1934, suggesting that none of the authors regarded /)i//t7)tT as conspecific with albocari- 
natus and alticolus. Consequently, I regard the inference that they were in fact referring 
to the eastern species as described by Peters (1862) as unproven, and the hypothesis that 
they were following Boulenger (1896) and Peters (1960) in referring to the western 
species as pulcher. albeit with erroneous locality information, as equally probable. The 
name albocarinatus has been used as valid for the eastern species on at least 22 occasions 
since 1947, as noted in Kuch's comment. In the absence of any post- 1947 publications 
irrefutably associating the name pulcher with the eastern species, as evidenced by 
descriptions, morphological data or illustrations, I conclude that there are no obstacles 
to the conservation of the name albocarinatus under Article 79. The Code states 
explicitly that 'The Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and is not 
intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning through 
the introduction of an unused name...' (Article 23b). In this case, a strict interpretation 
of the Principle of Priority would not just lead to a well-known, unambiguous name 
(albocarinatus) simply being supplanted by a senior name (pulcher) rarely used for the 
species, but would lead to further confusion because the senior name has been used 
extensively for another species. This clearly contravenes the intent of the Code. 

9. The Commission is accordingly asked: 

( 1 ) to reject the proposal of Schatti & Smith for the designation of a neotype for 
Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862; 

(2) to suppress the name pulcher Peters, 1862, as published in the binomen 
Trigonocephalus pulcher, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not 
for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 



36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) albocarinatus Shreve, 1934, as published in the binomen Bothrops 

alhocarinata; 
(h) campheUi Freire, 1991, as published in the binomen Bothrops campbelli. 
The consequence of this would be that the western species would bear the 
unambiguous name campbelli Freire, 1991, as defined by the holotype INHMT 1956 
in the collection of the Institute Nacional de Higiene y Medicina Tropical 'Leopoldo 
Izquieta Perez' in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The name almawebi Schatti & Kramer, 
1993, is a junior subjective synonym of campbelli Freire, 1991. The eastern species 
would bear the name albocarinatus Shreve, 1934, which is defined by holotype (MCZ 
36989 in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts) with alticolus as its junior subjective synonym. 

Acknowledgements 

I wish to thank Ulrich Kuch and Ronald L. Gutberlet, Jr., for valuable discussions, 
and for allowing me access to the texts of their comments prior to publication. I also 
thank Jonathan A. Campbell, William W. Lamar and Patrick David for helpful 
suggestions and information. 

Additional reference 

Perez-Santos, C. & Moreno, A.G. 1988. Ofidios de Columbia. 576 pp. Museo Regionale di 
Scienze Naturali, Torino. 

(4) Hobart M. Smith 

Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of 
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334. U.S.A. 

In this case there are now three solutions in front of us in solving the problem of 
uniform name application: ( 1 ) keeping the specific name of Trigonoceplnilus pulcher 
Peters, 1862 for the eastern species in conformance with the identity of the type, and 
adopting campbelli Freire, 1991 for the western species, as suggested by Drs Kuch 
(BZN 54: 245-249) and Gutberlet & Harvey (above); (2) keeping Boulenger's 
application of pulcher to the western species, and using albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 for 
the eastern species, as proposed in the application submitted by Dr Schatti and 
myself; or (3) suppressing pulcher completely, thus using albocarinatus for the eastern 
species and campbelli for the western, as suggested by Dr Wiister (above). Which 
solution provides the most stable and universal nomenclature? 

Each has at least some following already. The infonnation provided at present by 
various commentators leads me to the conclusion that the Boulengerian application 
of pulcher has had the greatest following, in spite of the fact that at least some 
misinterpretations have plagued most commentators. 

However, if that conclusion is valid, then the steps proposed in the application 
should be taken to ensure pertinence of the name pulcher to the western species 
(i.e. designation of a neotype in that sense) and hence albocarinatus to the eastern 
species. Regardless, the ultimate decision should be based on the majority perception 
of the solution that would be least disturbing to nomenclatural stability. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 37 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae 
Sprackiand, 1991 (Reptilia, Squamata) 

(Case 3043; see BZN 54: 100-103, 250-251) 

( 1 ) Jeanette Covacevich and Patrick Couper 

Vertebrate Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, 
Queensland 4101, Australia 

We believe that the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackiand, 1991 should not be 
conserved, and that for the following reasons the appropriate name is Varanus 
keithhornei (Wells & Wellington, 1985). 

1 . There is no reason to suspend the application of the Principle of Priority to 
conserve the specific name of V. teriae. In terms of common usage the case is weak. 
The history of V. teriae is short (only six years); notwithstanding the fact that it has 
been used more frequently than the prior name V. keithhornei, we believe that usage 
does not justify the conservation of V. teriae. 

2. As the Commission declined to vote on the application to suppress the 
work by Wells & Wellington (see BZN 48: 337-338, December 1991), the name 
V. keithhornei is available. Though the description is poor, it is detailed enough to 
ensure that no confusion exists (or ever could exist) about either the taxon so named 
or the holotype. Wells & Wellington (1985, p. 21) clearly identify Queensland 
Museum specimen J31566 as the holotype of Odatria keithhornei and describe the 
species as '. . . readily identified by referring to the excellent diagnostic and descrip- 
tive data in Czechura (1980)'. Czechura had provided a very detailed description 
and illustration of this specimen, under the name Varanus prasinus Schlegel, 1839, 
and V. keithhornei (Wells & Wellington, 1985) is available under Article 13a(ii) 
of the Code. The same specimen is also the holotype of V. teriae Sprackiand, 
1991. 

3. We (Covacevich & Couper, 1994) have already formally treated V. teriae as a 
synonym of V. keithhornei, in accordance with the Principle of Priority; Sprackiand, 
Smith & Strimple do not mention this in their application to conserve V. teriae 
(although they have done so in their reply (BZN 54: 250) to a comment by Prof L.B. 
Holthuis on this case). The synonymy has now been recognised several times: Irwin 
(1996); Kirschner, Miiller & Seufer (1996); Irwin & Irwin (1997); and in the 
Queensland Nature Conservation Regulations, 1997. 

4. In our view the name V. keithhornei was not "obscurely published', as stated by 
Sprackiand et al. in their application. The Wells & Wellington (1985) work became 
an international cause celebre, creating (initially at least) fears of impending 
taxonomic havoc. If only because these authors rejected 'virtually every tenet of the 
voluntary Code of Ethics' (BZN 48: 338) and achieved something approaching 
notoriety, their work was both extremely well known and widely discussed. 
Sprackiand et al. allude at length (para. 4 of their application) to difficulties in 
obtaining a copy of Wells & Wellington (1985) where '... new varanid names might 
exist ...'. However understandable, even excusable, ignorance of the literature may 
sometimes be for taxonomists, it should not (we believe) be used as a rationale to 
overthrow the Principle of Priority. Furthermore, one letter to any herpetological 



38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

taxonomist in Australia would have secured a copy of the work prior to Sprackland's 
(1991) introduction of the name V. teriae. 

5. The staternent by Sprackland et al. (para. 6 of their application) that 'the 
specific name of Vaninus teriae Sprackland, 1991 has consistently been used for the 
mainland species of tree monitor' is in error: as mentioned in para. 3 above, the older 
objective synonym V. keithornei has been used several times. A number of the usages 
of V. teriae cited by Sprackland et al. date from after the publication of the synonymy 
by Covacevich & Couper (1994) in a widely circulated journal (indeed the same one 
in which the name V. teriae was published), and thus are not in accord with the Code. 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked 
to reject the application by Sprackland, Smith & Strimple to suppress the specific 
name of Odatria keithhornei Wells & Wellington. 1985, and instead to place this name 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The specific name of Varamis teriae 
Sprackland, 1991 should be placed on the Official Index as being a junior objective 
synonym of O. keithhornei. 

Acknowledgements 

Dr Allen Greer (Australian Museum, Sydney), Dr Glenn Shea (University of 
Sydney). Dr Glenn Ingram (Queensland Museum, Brisbane) and Mr David Pepin 
(Washington University, St Louis, Missouri) made constructive suggestions on this 
comment. 



Additional references 

Irwin, S. 1996. Capture, field observations and husbandry of the rare Canopy Goanna. Journal 

uf llie Aiislrulcisian Society of Zoo Keeping. Tliylacinus, 21(3): 12-19. 
Irwin, S. & Irwin, T. 1997. Tlie crocodile luinler. The birthday present was a pyllion and other 

adventures. 144 pp. Penguin Books, Auckland. 
Kirschner, A., Muller, T. & Seufer, H. 1996. Faszinatioii Warane. 254 pp. Kirschner & Seufer 

Verlag, Kelten-Weiler. 
Queensland Nature Conservation Regulation. 1997. Queensland Suiyordinate Legislation. Nature 

Conservation Act 1992. Queensland Government, Brisbane. 

(2) Glenn M. Shea 

Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Pathology, University of Sydney, 

NSW 2006, Australia 

I am writing to oppose the proposal to conserve the specific name of Varanus teriae 
Sprackland, 1991 by suppression of an earlier synonym. 

1. The case for the suppression of Odatria keithhornei Wells & Wellington, 1985 
rests upon two premises. The major argument is that the junior synonym, Varamis 
teriae. is in common usage, and hence that use of the earlier name would cause 
considerable confusion. The minor argument is that the publication by Wells & 
Wellington (1985) in which Odatria keithhornei was established is not readily 
obtainable. 

2. The species concerned, an arboreal varanid lizard from Cape York Peninsula, 
Australia, was first formally reported by Czechura (1980), and tentatively identified 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 39 

by him as an Australian occurrence of Varanus prasinus (Schlegel, 1839), a species 
otherwise known only from New Guinea and associated islands. Between 1980 and 
1992 this name was used in nine publications: they included all but one (Cogger, 
1992, who used V. teriae) of the general reference works to the Australian 
herpetofauna which mentioned the species. In 1985 Wells & Wellington (p. 21) 
proposed the specific name keithhornei, basing it on one of the specimens described 
by Czechura; they placed the species in the genus Odatria Gray, 1838. Within two 
years an application was published (BZN 44: 116-121, June 1987) seeking the 
suppression of three entire works by Wells & Wellington, including that in which 
O. keithhornei was published. After publication of many comments (as mentioned in 
the application) this case was only resolved in December 1991, when the Commission 
published (BZN 48: 337-338) its refusal to vote on the issue. In 1991 Sprackland 
described Varanus teriae, without mentioning the work by Wells & Wellington (of 
which he was apparently unaware until 1995: para. 4 of the application); the holotype 
of V. teriae was the same Czechura specimen mentioned for O. keitlihornei. 

3. In their application for the suppression of O. keithhornei Sprackland et al. did 
not note any usage of the name Odatria (or Varanus) keithhornei between 1991 and 
1997. Such uses have been the formal synonymy of V. teriae and O. keithhornei by 
Covacevich & Couper (1994) and the subsequent use of the combination Varanus 
keithhornei by Irwin (1996), Kirschner, Miiller & Seufer (1996) and Irwin & Irwin 
(1997). 

4. Despite the use of three names for the Australian lizard since 1980 there is no 
prospect of any taxonomic confusion. The species is confined to a small remote area 
of rainforest in northern Australia and is little known. Apart from conservation 
aspects, the species is of significance mostly to herpetological taxonomists and 
varanid enthusiasts. 

5. Sprackland et al. refer in their application to the difficulty experienced in 
obtaining copies of Wells & Wellington (1985), and imply that it was poorly known. 
However, they cite several publications that referred (before the publication of 
V. teriae in 1991) to the work, negating the suggestion that it was readily overlooked. 
However obscure the Wells & Wellington paper may be, it contains validly published 
names. Within Australia, the country to which it is mostly relevant, it was widely 
distributed, either in the original form or as photocopies, and several institutional 
libraries have copies. Sprackland's difticulty in obtaining a copy is irrelevant to the 
argument for suppressing the name O. keithhornei. 

6. In summary, the specific names keithhornei and teriae are both available and are 
objective synonyms. Their history is short, and I believe that the Principle of Priority 
should be followed in this case. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cnemidophorus 
neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia, Squamata) 

(Case 3049; see BZN 54: 167-171) 

(1) Charles J. Cole 

Department of Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, 
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024. U.S.A. 



40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

I fully support the proposals of Prof Smith and his coauthors for suppression of the 
name Cnemidophonis perplexus Baird & Girard. 1852 and conservation of the name 
Cnemidophonis neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifei, 1952. They have correctly and 
properly pointed out the many problems associated with the name C. perplexus 
(inconsistent and ambiguous usage; virtual abandonment in the last 30 years; 
problematical lectotype; problematical type series involving two taxa; uncertain type 
locality). They have also indicated well why C neomexicanus should be conserved 
(consistent, unambiguous usage, particularly throughout the last 30 years) rather 
than be threatened by C. perplexus. 

I quibble with only one minor point as stated by Smith et al. This does not 
change the conclusions to be reached, but further illustrates the complexities 
of this case and the need for this judgment, for otherwise specialists may 
suggest switching these names back and forth in a confusing fashion for many 
years. 

My quibble is with the statement of Smith et al. that Taylor & Walker (1996) 
showed 'conclusively' that USNM 3060 (the supposed lectotype of C. perplexus) is 
not a hybrid (para. 5 of the application). Taylor & Walker presented strong new 
evidence consistent with this conclusion, based on morphology, but the most 
conclusive evidence would be genetic data, and given the history and state of 
preservation of the lectotype, no experimental methods exist for obtaining such 
conclusive evidence from this specimen today. 

The name C. neomexicanus is applied to a taxon of hybrid origin that consists of 
several clones of unisexual whiptail lizards which reproduce parthenogenetically. The 
clones originated through hybridization among two previously existing bisexual taxa: 
Cnemidoplwrus ligris marmoratus V x C. inornatus J. The genetic evidence for this is 
overwhelming (based on karyotypes, protein electrophoresis of about three dozen 
nuclear gene products, and mitochondrial DNA analyses), provided in some of the 
references presented by Smith et al. and particularly in the list of additional references 
presented below. 

The nomenclatural problems can be resolved by supporting the proposals of 
Smith et al. 

Additional references 

Brown, W.M. & Wright, J.W. 1979. Mitochondrial DNA analyses and the origin and 

relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (genus Cnemidoplwrus). Science, 203: 

1247-1249. 
Cole, C.J., Dessauer, H.C. & Barrowclough, G.F. 1988. Hybrid origin of a unisexual species of 

whiptail lizard, Cnemidophonis neomexicanus, in western North America: new evidence 

and a review. American Museum Noviuiles, 2905: 1-38. 
Densmore, L.D.. Ill, Wright, J.W. & Brown, W.M. 1989. Mitochondrial-DNA analyses and 

the origin and relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (genus Cnemidoplwrus). II. 

C neomexicanus and the C ws.ielalus complex. Evolution, 43: 943-957. 
Dessauer, H.C. & Cole, C.J. 1986. Clonal inheritance in parthenogenetic whiptail lizards: 

biochemical evidence. Journal of Heredily. 11: 8-12. 
Dessauer, H.C. & Cole, C.J. 1989. Diversity between and within nominal forms of unisexual 

teiid lizards. In: Dawley, R.M. & Bogart, J. P. (Eds.), 'Evolution and ecology of unisexual 

vertebrates'. New York State Museum Bulletin, 466: A9-l\. 
Dessauer, H.C, Reeder. T.W., Cole, C.J. & Knight, A. 1996. Rapid screening of DNA diversity 

using dot-blot technology and allele-specific oligonucleotides: maternity of hybrids and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 41 

unisexual clones of hybrid origin (lizards, Cnemidoplumis) . Molecular Phvlogenetics ami 
Evolution. 6: 366-372. 
Parker, E.D., Jr. & Selander, R.K. 1984. Low clonal diversity in the parthenogenetic lizard 
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus (Sauria: Teiidae). Herpetologica. 40: 245-252. 



(2) Philip A. Medica 

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department oj the Interior. Biological Resources 
Division, California Science Center, Las Vegas Field Station. 4765 W. Vegas Drive, 
Las Vegas. Nevada 89108, U.S.A. 

I wish to express my support for this appHcation and endorse the acceptance of the 
specific name of Cnemidophorus neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952. 

Having conducted research in the field of herpetology for the past 35 years in the 
southwestern United States I am familiar with the nomenclatural problems and 
the general acceptance of neomexicanus by professional herpetologists. During the 
mid-1960's my research focused on a study of four sympatric species of whiptail 
lizards in the southern Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. The species were 
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus. C. inornatus, C exsangus and C. tigris and the work 
was subsequently published (Medica, 1967). 

Since the mid-1960's I have accepted the usage of the name neomexicanus, rather 
than perplexus. for the species of Cnemidophorus in question. Likewise, virtually all 
of the texts and field guides referring to this taxon now use neomexicanus. Therefore, 
I wholeheartedly support Prof Hobart Smith and his colleagues and request that 
neomexicainis be approved and perplexus be abandoned. 

Additional reference 

Medica, P.A. 1967. Food habits, habitat preference, reproduction, and diurnal activity in four 
sympatric species of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus) in south Central New Mexico. 
Bulletin oj the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 66(4): 251-276. 



(3) Harold A. Dundee 

Tulane University of Natural History. Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037-3098. U.S.A. 

I wish to support Case 3049. It seems to me to be a very meritorious proposal. 

A reader might well conclude that, with 1 1 authors who are all specialists in the 
enigma of parthenogenetic species of Cnemidophorus, the application clearly carries 
the full weight of specialist opinion. I would like to have seen John Wright's and 
C.W. Lowe's names also included because of their knowledge of Cnemidophorus, and 
because of Wright's (1969) proposal for suppression of the name perplexus (not 
submitted to the Commission; para. 5 of the application) after his (1967) paper with 
Lowe concluded that specimen USNM 3060, taken to be the lectotype, was a hybrid. 

The authors of the application have certainly presented sufficient evidence of the 
desirability of conservation of the name neomexicanus, particularly the confusing 
history of perplexus prior to the consistent use of neomexicanus during the past 30 
years or more. I therefore recommend that the Commissioners recognise the 
significance of specialist authority and that the name neomexicanus be conserved. 



42 Bulletin oC Zoological Nomenclalure 55(1) March 1998 

(4) Robert G. Webb 

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, 
Texas 79968^519, U.S.A. 

This note is written in support of the application by Smith et al. to conserve the 
specific name of Cnemidophorus neoinexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 as the valid 
name for the species of whiptail lizard, and to reject the name C. perplexus Baird & 
Girard, 1852. My herpetological colleague, Dr Carl S. Lieb, who is interested in the 
taxonomy of lizards in the southwestern United States, is also in agreement with 
the proposal. 

It would be helpful for the former syntypes of C. perplexus, listed in para. 3 of the 
application, to be clearly documented as paralectotypes (i.e. lacking any name- 
bearing function) and representing a different species, C. inornaius Baird, 1858: 
USNM 30885 (Gambel specimen collected with lectotype), USNM 3050 and USNM 
248691 (Churchill-Rio Grande), and USNM 3020 (lost, species unknown, Graham & 
Clark-Rio San Pedro [= Devils River, Val Verde County, Texas]). 

(5) Wilmer W. Tanner 

Monte L Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, 290 MLBM, 
P.O. Box 20200. Provo. Utah 84602-0200. U.S.A. 

When I was completing a study on the lizards of the Mexican State of Chihuahua 
I was confronted with the dilemma of the scientific name Cnemidophorus perplexus 
Baird & Girard, 1852 and concluded then that the most logical scientific name for the 
species was C. neomexicamis Lowe & Zweifel, 1952. 

There is ample justification for the suppression of perplexus and confirmation of 
neomexicamis as the valid name for the taxon in question. 

(6) David B. Wake 

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. University of California. Berkeley. 3101 Valley Life 
Science Building No. 3160. Berkeley, California 94720-3160, U.S.A. 

I write to support the argument of Prof Hobart Smith and 10 coauthors that the 
specific name of Ciwmidophorus perplexus Baird & Girard. 1852 be suppressed in 
favor of the name C. neomexicamis Lowe & Zweifel. 1952. 

The name 'perplexu.s' is apt, for the status of this name has been in question for 
many years and it now seems certain, as these authors agree, that it cannot now or 
in the future be resolved. 

(7) Beth E. Leuck 

Department of Biology, Centenary College of Louisiaiui. 29 J I Centenary Boulevard. 
Shreveport. Louisiana 71104, U.S.A. 

I am writing in support of the requested suppression of the specific name of 
Cnemidophorus perplexus Baird & Girard, 1852. I have researched and published on 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 43 

the behavior of this species, more commonly known as C. neomexicanus Lowe & 
Zweifel, 1952, so I feel qualified to support the application. The name perple.xus has 
not been used by researchers in recent years and, given the controversy surrounding 
its historical use, it should be officially suppressed. 

I earnestly and enthusiastically support the authors's proposal to place neomexi- 
canus on the Official List and perplexus on the Index. I thank the Commission for 
their help in this very important nomenclatural matter. 

(8) Support for the application has also been received from Prof Robert C. Stebbins 
{Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. Berkeley, California 94720, 
U.S.A.). Prof James L. Christiansen (Department of Biology, Drake University, 
Olin Hall, Des Moines, Iowa 50311, U.S.A.), Prof Roger Conant (Department of 
Biology, 167 Castetter Hall. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico 87131-1091, U.S.A.) and Dr Joseph T. Collins (The Center for North 
American Amphibians and Reptiles. 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence. Kansas 66047, 
USA.). 



Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based 
on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on 
domestic animals 

(Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54: 119-129, 189) 

I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr. 

Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The University of Georgia. P.O. Drawer E, 

Aiken, South Carolina 29802. U.S.A. 

I would like to express my strong support for the application by A. Gentry, 
J. Clutton-Brock and C.P. Groves, published in BZN 53: 28-37 (March 1996). 
My views are based on more than 30 years of experience as a vertebrate ecologist 
and wildlife conservation biologist conducting research into the ecology of 
domestication (Brisbin, 1974) and the conservation biology of the wild ancestors 
of domestic animals (Brisbin, 1995, 1996) and unique forms of feral (domestic 
returned to the wild state) wildlife (Brisbin, 1989, 1990; and Brisbin et al., 1994). 
Considering my background, I believe that I disprove the earlier claim of 
Schodde (BZN 54: 123; June 1997) that support for Case 3010 'comes largely 
from a relatively small group of archaeozoologists', and that the proposal brings 
'confusing complications" to the 'very large world of ecologists, conservation 
biologists and wildlife managers". On the contrary, as a person who works 
extensively in these three latter fields, I welcome this proposal and the 
clarification/simplification that it brings to my work. My position in this regard 
also serves to disprove a similar claim by Bock (BZN 54: 125) that this proposal 
would have the 'potential for creating considerable confusion ... for the large 
number of ecologists, wildlife biologists and conservationists dealing with these 
species'. 



44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1 ) March 1998 

My work in these areas focuses particularly on the wild ancestors and feral 
counterparts of the domestic dog (Brisbin et al.. 1994; Brisbin & Risch, 1997), pig 
(Brisbin. 1990; Mayer & Brisbin, 1991; and Oliver & Brisbin, 1993) and chicken 
(Brisbin, 1996; Peterson & Brisbin, in press). This work has been supported by a 
Financial Assistance Award between the U.S. Department of Energy and the 
University of Georgia (DE-FC09-96SR 18546) and will form the basis for most of my 
comments concerning this proposal. 

Much of my work has related to documenting the unique components of global 
biodiversity that are embodied in populations of the surviving genetically pure wild 
ancestors, primitive domestic breeds and long-term feral forms of species such as 
those named above. It is with regard to mustering support for the conservation of 
these underappreciated and often unrecognized components of biodiversity that the 
adoption of Case 3010 becomes a particularly critical issue. As pointed out by 
Gentry, Clutton-Brock & Groves (BZN 54: 127-129; June 1997), failure to adopt this 
proposal will have a considerably negative impact upon those of us who are tryng to 
make a case for the conservation of these elements of biodiversity. The case to defend 
this biodiversity must be made to national and international regulatory bodies which 
act under the mandates of legislation and international agreements such as the 
United States" Endangered Species Act, the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), etc. Consider for example the 
negative impacts on pubhc relations efforts, not to mention legal hindrances, that 
would be associated with a nomenclatural designation indicating that remnant 
free-ranging populations of wild wolves are really (taxonomically speaking) nothing 
more than domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)\ 

Since the best available evidence suggests that the domestic dog and wild wolf are 
indeed one species, designating both as Canis lupus could still solve the above 
problem. However, this has the consequence of producing confusion and problems 
for a number of issues such as law enforcement against the keeping of wolf hybrids 
by members of the public, and legal mandates in Australia for control of dingoes. I 
personally prefer the solution suggested by Wolsan (BZN 54: 189; September 1997), 
who advocated 'excluding domesticated forms froin their ancestral wild species and 
labeling them with distinct names of full specific rank based on domestic animals". 
My work with the ecology of the domestication of the species noted above strongly 
supports the scientific validity of this proposal. Such a separate specific designation 
would go a long way towards eliminating the present potential for confusion 
associated with taxonomic citations in scientific literature where the derivation of the 
particular animals used in the research is not otherwise indicated. For example, a 
study which describes the aggressive behavior of ' Canis familial is^ towards humans 
under certain conditions would be interpreted quite differently if the subject involved 
was a wolf as opposed to some breed of domestic dog. The importance of such 
distinctions to ethologists has been clearly described by Mungall (BZN 54: 120-121; 
June 1997) in her commentary in support of Case 3010. I strongly support the 
assignment of separate taxonomic designations for domestic vs. wild ancestral forms 
of the same species as suggested by Gardner (BZN 54: 125-126; June 1997), who 
points out that 'domesticated mammals in most cases are reproductively isolated 
from their wild progenitors and warrant species status". The problem is that in many 
cases there are still simply not enough data to say for sure whether a full species or 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 45 

perhaps subspecies-level distinction is warranted between a given wild ancestor and 
certain of its related long-term feral and/or primitive domestic counterparts (Brisbin 
et al., 1994). As in other unsettled questions of taxonomic affiliation however, 
additional data, when collected in future studies, will hopefully clarify these 
relationships and thus settle disputes concerning such nomenclatural designations. 

Schodde (BZN 54: 123-124; June 1994) has a good point when he raises the 
question as to just what taxonomic designation should be given to feral forms. I 
suggest that the answer to this question should be on a case-by-case basis and depend 
on the findings of long-term thorough studies of the archaeozoology, biogeography 
and ecology of the wild ancestor and the most primitive/long-term feral and domestic 
forms of the species in question. In cases of well-defined long-term primitive feral 
forms such as the Australian dingo / New Guinea singing dog (Brisbin et al.. 1994) 
or the Andaman Island pig (Brisbin. 1990; Mayer & Brisbin, 1991; and Oliver & 
Brisbin, 1993). the case could well be made for a separate taxonomic designation at 
the species or subspecies level. This would largely depend, I would suggest, on the 
eventual determination of genetic distances using molecular genetic techniques. It 
should be pointed out however that Schodde (BZN 54: 121-122; June 1997) is not 
correct in stating that feral forms tend to reapproach wild ancestral stock in form 
through a long period of 'free out-breeding". The longest-term feral pigs (those of the 
Andaman Islands and Ossabaw Island, Georgia, U.S.A.) have remained distinctive 
from wild boar in both external body form and cranial morphology (Mayer & 
Brisbin, 1991) and the longest-term feral dogs (the New Guinea singing dog and the 
Australian dingo) have in no ways come to resemble the body morphology of the 
wolf (Brisbin et al., 1994; Brisbin & Risch, 1997). In any case, this whole matter of 
feral animal taxonomy is certainly not resolved by opposing Case 3010. In fact, 
failing to support Case 3010 serves only to further muddy already troubled 
taxonomic waters. 

Animal domestication has been one of the most important processes ever devised 
by humans to help promote their own survival and well-being across evolutionary 
time. The varied applications of this process with a variety of animal species have 
created an incredibly broad array of biodiversity, which is largely underappreciated 
by most conservation biologists. Many of the animal groups that embody the most 
unique and primitive expressions of this biodiversity are currently threatened with 
genetic extinction in the free-ranging state (Brisbin, 1995; Brisbin, 1996; and Peterson 
& Brisbin, in press). This problem has been exacerbated as human civilization and 
free-ranging/escaped modern domesticates continue to invade the ever-shrinking 
ranges of the last genetically pure remnants of the wild ancestors or long-term 
primitive feral counterparts of these forms. I urge the Commission to consider the 
potential negative impacts which a failure to support Case 3010 could have upon 
efforts to conserve and study these last unique remnants of the process that brought 
us our modern-day domestic animals and the dependence which we have upon them. 

Additional references 

Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1974. The ecology of animal domestication: its relevance to man's environ- 
mental crises — past, present and future. ASB Bulletin, 21(1): 3-8. 

Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1989. Feral animals and zoological parks: conservation concerns for a 
neglected component of the world's biodiversity. Pp. 523-530 in: American Association of 



46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Zoological Parks & Aquariums, 1989 Proceedings, Southern Regional Conference, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 
Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1990. A consideration of feral swine {Sus scrofa) as a component of 

conservation concerns and research priorities for the Suidae. Bongo, 18: 281-293. 
Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1995. Conservation of the wild ancestors of domestic animals. Conservation 

Biology. 9{5r. 1327-1328. 
Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1996. Concerns for the genetic integrity and conservation status of the Red 

Junglefowl. Tragopan. 4: 11-12. 
Brisbin, I.L., Jr. & Risch, T.S. 1997. Primitive dogs, their ecology and behavior: unique 

opportunities to study the early development of the human-canine bond. Journal of the 

American Veterinary Medical Association. 210(8): 1122-1126. 
Brisbin, I.L., Jr., Coppinger, R.P., Feinstein, M.H., Austad, S.N. & Mayer, J.J. 1994. The New 

Guinea Singing Dog: taxonomy, captive studies and conservation priorities. Science in 

New Guinea, 20(1): 27-38. 
Mayer, J.J. & Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1991 . IVild Pigs of the United States: their history, morphology, 

and current status. University of Georgia Press. Athens. Georgia. 
Oliver, W.L.R. & Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1993. Introduced and feral pigs: problems, policy, and 

priorities. Pp. 179-191 in Oliver, W.L.R. (Ed.), Pigs, pecccnies and hippos. Status survey 

and conservation action plan. lUCN World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. 
Peterson. A.T. & Brisbin, I.L., Jr. In press. Genetic endangerment of wild Red Junglefowl 

Gallus gallus. Bird Conservation International. 



i> 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 47 

OPINION 1886 

Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): conserved by the 
designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hydrozoa; plumulariidae; hydroids; 
Plumularia; Plumularia selacea. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal 
genus Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 prior to that by Broch (1918) of Sertularia 
setacea Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Broch (1918) Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758, as 
ruled under the plenary powers in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name setacea Linnaeus. 1758, as published in the binomen Sertularia 
setacea (specific name of the type species of Plumularia Lamarck, 1816) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2978 

An application for the designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1 758 as the type 
species oi Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 was received from Dr Dale R. Calder {Royal 
Ontario Museum. Toronto. Ontario, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto. Ontario. 
Canada) and Dr Paul F.S. Cornelius (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 
12 April 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 167-170 
(September 1996). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum. Leiden. 
The Netherlands), published in BZN 54: 39 (March 1997), pointed out that a type 
species designation for Plumularia made by H. Milne Edwards (1836-1849) was 
earlier than that by Busk (1851) (cf. para. 5 of the application). Prof Holthuis added 
that this earlier designation did not affect the proposals made in the application. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 169. At the close of the voting period on 10 
December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, 
Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Ride 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: 



48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Ptumuluria Lamarck, 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres, vol. 2, p. 123. 
selacea. Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758, Sysleina Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 813. 

The following is the reference for the designation oi Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Phimularia Lamarck, 1816: 

Broch, H. 1918. Danish Ingolj-Expedition, 5(7): 195. 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 49 

OPINION 1887 

Area pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 
(currently Bathyarca pectunculoides and B. philippiana; Mollusca, 
Bivalvia): specific names conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Bivalvia; Bathyarca: Bathyarca 
pectunculoides; B. philippiana; B. grenophia. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name grenophia Risso, 1826, as 
published in the binomen Area grenophia, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Area pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834, 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: 

(d,) pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834, as published in the binomen Area 
pectunculoides (specific name of the type species of Bathyarca Kobelt, 
1891); 

(h) philippiana Nyst. 1848, as published in the binomen Area philippiana. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) grenophia Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Area grenophia and as 
suppressed in ( I ) above; 

(b) ohliqua Philippi, 1844, as published in the binomen Area obliqua (a junior 
homonym o[ Area obliqua Portlock, 1843 and of /I. obliqua Reeve, 1844); 

(c) obliquata Locard, 1899, as published in the binomen Area obliquata (a 
junior objective synonym of Area obliqua Philippi. 1844 and of A. 
philippiana Nyst. 1848, and a junior homonym of Area obliquata Wood, 
1828 and oi A. obliquata Zieten, 1833); 

(d) obliquatula Dautzenberg, 1927, as published in the binomen Area 
obliquatula (a junior objective synonym of Area philippiana Nyst, 1848). 

History of Case 2977 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Area pectunculoides 
Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 was received from Dr Carmen Salas 
{Universidad de Malaga. Malaga, Spain) and Dr Serge Gofas (Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 10 April 1995. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 53: 173-177 (September 1996). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr Anders Waren (Swedish Museum of Natural 
History, Stockholm. Sweden) was published in BZN 54: 46 (March 1997). 



50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55( 1 ) March 1998 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 53: 175. At the dose of the voting period on 
10 December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell. Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Stys. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 



Original references 

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

Balhyarca Kobelt, 1891, Die Gattung Area L. In: Martini & Chemnitz Systematisches 

Conchylien Cabinet (Kiister, H.C., Ed.), vol. 8, part 2, p. 213. 
grenophia. Area, Risso, 1826, Histoire naturelle des prineipaks productions de t' Europe 

Meridionate et particulierement de celles des environs de Nice el des Alpes Maritimes, 

vol. 4, p. 313. 
obliqua. Area. Philippi, 1844, Enumerutio rnolliiscorum Siciliae cum viventium turn in tellure 

tertiaria fossilium .... vol. 2, p. 43. 
obliquata. Area. Locard, 1899, Les coijuilles marines au large des cotes de France, p. 158. 
obliquatula. Area, Dautzenberg. 1927, Resultals des Campagnes Scienlifiques Accomplies sur 

son Yacht par Albert ler. Prince Souverain de Monaco. 11: 281. 
pectunculoides. Area, Scacchi, 1834, Annali Civili del Regno delle due Sicilie, 6: 82. 
philippiana. Area, Nyst, 1848, Memoires de I' Academic Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des 

Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 22; 54. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype oi Area grenophia Risso, 
1826: 

Arnaud, P. 1978. Annales du Museum d' Histoire Naturelle de Nice, 5: 119. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 51 

OPINION 1888 

Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (MoUusca, Gastropoda): Alvania nigrescens 
Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; barleeidae; Lirobarleeia; 
Lirobarleeia nigrescens; Lirobarleeia galapagensis; Galapagos Islands. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 are hereby set aside and Alvania nigrescens 
Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Alvania nigrescens Bartsch 
& Rehder, 1939, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology. 

(3) The name nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939, as published in the binomen 
Alvania nigrescens (specific name of the type species of Lirobarleeia Ponder, 
1983) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2935 

An application for the designation of Alvania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder. 1939 
as the type species of Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 was received from Dr Jules Hertz 
(Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.) and 
Dr Winston Ponder (Australian Museum. Sydney South. Australia) on 19 April 1994. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 53; 171-172 (September 1996). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53; 172. At the close of the voting period on 10 
December 1997 the votes were as follows; 

Affirmative votes — 24; Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, 
Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 1 ; Stys. 

Ride 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: 

Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983, Records of the Australian Museum, 35(6): 243. 
nigrescens, Alvania. Bartsch & Rehder, 1939, Smith.mnian Miscellaneous Collections. 98(10): 8. 



52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

OPINION 1889 

Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): specific 
name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphipoda; pronoidae; platyscelidae; 
Parapronoe cnisiuhmv. Hemityphis tenuimanus; Hemityphis rapax; pelagic amphipods. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830. as 
published in the binomen Typhis rapax, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name crustulum Claus, 1879, as published in the binomen Parapronoe 
crustulum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830, as published in the binomen Typhis 
rapax and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2992 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Parapronoe crustulum 
Claus. 1879 was received from Dr Wolfgang Zeidler (South Australian Museum, 
Adelaide, Australia) on 4 July 1995. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 53: 178-181 (September 1996). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Further information relevant to the application was supplied by the author in BZN 
54: 47 (March 1997). A note of support from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) was published at the same time. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 53: 179. At the close of the voting period on 
10 December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata. Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, 
Stys 

Negative votes — 1: Bouchet. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented: 'I admit that using rapax in a sense different from the 
currently accepted one would be destabilising but I oppose the suppression of the 
name. A more elegant solution to the problem would have been the designation of 
type material (if any exists) of Hemityphis tenuimamis Claus, 1879 as the neotype 
of rapax' . 

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: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 S3 

cnisluhim. Piiraprunoe, Claus, 1879, Arheilcn cms dem Zoologischen Instiliit der Universilal zu 

Wieii. 2: 31. 
rapax. Typhis, Milne-Edwards, 1830, Annales des Sciences Nalurelles, 20: 395. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Typhis rapax 
Milne- Edwards, 1830: 

Zeidler, W. 1996. Cnislaceana. 69(6): 737. 



54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

OPINION 1890 

Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 (currently Aphodius rufus). Scar abacus 
rufus Fabricius, 1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus 
foetidus Herbst, 1783 (currently Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): specific names conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; scarabaeidae; cetoniinae; 
aphodiinae; aegialiinae; scarab beetles; Discliista rufa; Aphodius rufus; Aegialia rufa; 
Aphodius foetidus. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name scyhalarius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen 
Scarabaeus scyhalarius. is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) it is hereby ruled that the following specific names are not invalid: 

(i) rufus Moll, 1782, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus, by 

reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De 

Geer, 1778; 
(ii) rufus Fabricius, 1 792, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus, 

by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus 

De Geer, 1778 and of S rufus Moll, 1782. 

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

(a) rujus De Geer, 1 778, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus and as 
defined by the male lectotype in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, 
Stockholm, designated by Holm (1994); 

(b) rufus Moll, 1782, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus (not invalid 
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De 
Geer, 1778); 

(c) rufus Fabricius, 1 792, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus and as 
defined by the lectotype in the Zoological Museum, University of Copen- 
hagen, designated by Landin (1956) (not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De Geer, 1778 and of.S. rufus Moll, 
1782); 

(d) foetidus Herbst, 1783, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus foetidus. 

(3) The name .scyhalarius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus 
scyhalarius 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 2878 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Sccnabaeus rufus Moll, 
1782, S. rufus Fabricius, 1792 and S. foetidus Herbst, 1783 was received from Dr 
Frank-Thorsten Krell {Theodor-Boveri-lnstilut fiir Biowissenschaften der Universildt. 
Wiirzhurg, Germany), Dr Zdzislawa Stebnicka (Polish Academy of Sciences. Institute 



( 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(1) March 1998 55 

of Systemalks and Evolution of Animals. Krakow, Poland) and Dr Erik Holm 
(University of Pretoria. Pretoria. South Africa) on 16 February 1993. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 51: 121-127 (June 1994). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. 

Landin (1956, 1957) had pointed out both the nomenclatural difficulties inherent in 
the present case and the best pragmatic solution, but he never applied to the 
Commission (para. 3 of the application). Some 20 years later, in 1979, an application 
was received from Dr Z. Stebnicka to conserve the names Apliodius rufus (Moll, 
1782), Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) and Aphodius foetidus (Herbst, 1783) by 
suppressing Scarahaeus scybalarius Fabricius, 1781. After a long delay the case was 
published in BZN 41: 265-266 (November 1984) but was not proceeded with because 
there was at that time some doubt over the availability of Discliista rufa (De Geer, 
1778). Stebnicka's proposals were the course which had been advocated by Landin, 
and the current application reiterated the same. 

Although Dischistus rufus (De Geer, 1778), Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782) and 
Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) were primary homonyms in Scarahaeus, the three 
species have not been treated as congeneric for 150 years (para. 8 of the current 
application). 

Following publication of the current application in June 1994, alternative 
proposals by Dr Giovanni Dellacasa (Genoa, Italy) and by Dr Hans Silfverberg 
(Zoological Museum, Helsinki University, Finland) were published in BZN 51: 340- 
341 (December 1994) and 52: 71-72 (March 1995) respectively. Replies by two 
authors of the application, Drs F.-T. Krell and Z. Stebnicka, were published in BZN 
52: 72-73. 

The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 September 1995. The 
proposals received a majority of the votes cast (15 in favour, 10 against; two 
Commissioners did not vote) but failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for 
approval. Voting against, Lehtinen commented on his voting paper: 'As Scarahaeus 
scybalarius Fabricius, 1781 is an available name and the species is defined by an 
existing lectotype, and S. rufus Moll. 1782 has no preserved original material and the 
name is also both a junior synonym of S. scybalarius and a junior primary homonym 
of S. rufus De Geer, 1 778, then only the choice of the name 5. .scybalarius can be 
recommended for this species. Names are often incorrectly used but the results of 
careless work by early authors can be and should be corrected when essential 
information is available to a reviser. Junior primary homonyms can be conserved in 
exceptional circumstances but I cannot accept this in the case of repeated homonymy 
in Scarahaeus. Since the nomenclatural clarification of the taxa involved (Silfverberg, 
1977, 1979), a number of authors have used either the specific name spi.ssipes 
LeConte, 1878 or rufina Silfverberg, 1977 in place of S. rufus Fabricius, 1792. I am 
in favour of the retention of S. foetidus Herbst, 1783 but this can be done without 
Commission intervention'. 

A comment from Dr Przemslaw Szwalko (Agricultural University, Krakow, 
Poland), published in BZN 53: 123-124 (June 1996), supported the conservation of 
the specific name of Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), despite it being a junior primary 
homonym of Dischistus rufus (De Geer), and of A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783). He 
proposed, however, that the name Aegialia spissipes should be adopted in place of 
A. rufa (Fabricius, 1792). 



56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

A further comment from Dr Krell, published in BZN 53: 124-125. and a comment 
from Dr David Krai (Charles University. Praha. Czech Republic), published in BZN 
53: 191 (September 1996), supported the original application. Dr Krell provided 
further evidence (54 references since 1990) of the continued extensive usage of 
Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782). 

In a further comment (BZN 54: 48-49; March 1997) Dr Dellacasa proposed the use 
of Aphodius scyhakirius (Fabricius, 1 78 1 ) in place of A. foetidus. and the adoption of 
A. arcuatus (Moll, 1785) in place of .4. rufus (Moll, 1782). 

Dr Dellacasa and Dr Szwalko provided schemes of nomenclature which were in 
partial agreement with the application. Dr Krell pointed out (BZN 52: 72) that some 
aspects of Dr Dellacasa's schemes had not been adopted by any author. Dr 
Silfverberg's scheme followed the individual provisions of the Code but did not 
maintain stability of established nomenclature. Under the Byelaws the application 
was sent for a revote. It was noted on the voting paper that, because the case involved 
several ta.xonomic species and even more names, there were a considerable number of 
possible or partial solutions, only two of which appeared tenable: (a) the proposals 
in the application, based on the long usage of names and the dual sense of the name 
scyhakirius. and (b) the strict application of the individual provisions of the Code. 
Both solutions included the placing of the specific names rufus De Geer, 1778 and 
foetidus Herbst. 1783 on the Official List. Under (a), rufus Moll, 1782 and rufus 
Fabricius, 1792 would be placed on the Official List; under (b), rufus Moll and rufus 
Fabricius would be replaced by the specific names of Scarabaeus scyhakirius 
Fabricius, 1781 (in the taxonomic sense of Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782) rather than 
that of A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783)) and of Aegialia spissipes LeConte, 1878. The 
proposals in the application required a two-thirds majority in the revote. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on 
the proposals published in BZN 51: 124-125. At the close of the voting period on 10 
December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Heppell, 
Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari. Nielsen, 
Nye. Patterson, Song. Stys 

Negative votes — 8: Dupuis, Eschmeyer, Kabata, Lehtinen, Minelli, Papp, Savage 
and Schuster. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Papp commented: i am almost always in favour of the concept of names in use". 
However, I think that this case is an exception. I found Dr Lehtinen's comment on 
his earlier voting paper convincing. If conservation of the name rufus Moll, 1782 were 
so important, why have specialists not designated a neotype to define the taxon?'. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an 
Ofticial Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
foetidus. Sciiruhiwiis. Herbst. 1783. Achiv der Inseclcngeschichle, 4: 7. 

rufus. Scarabaeus. De Geer, 1778, Memoires pour servir a I'hisloirc dcs in.iecles. vol. 7. pp. 640. 
946. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 57 

rufus. Scarahaeus, Fabricius. 1792, Entomologia systematica .... vol. 1. part 2, p. 39. 

rufus. Scarahaeus. Moll, 1782, Neues Magazin fiir die Liehhaber der Emomologie, 1(4): 372. 

scybalarius, Scarahaeus, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum, vol. 1, p. 16. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Scarahaeus rufus De 
Geer, 1778: 

Holm, E. 1994. BZN 51: 122. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Scarahaeus rufus 
Fabricius, 1792: 

Landin, B.O. 1956. Opuscula Entomologica, 21: 223. 



58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

OPINION 1891 

Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 
1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; hydrophilidae; Crenitis; 
Georissus; Oosternum. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
of Homonymy: 

(a) Fontiscrutor Pandelle, 1876; 

(b) Cathammistes Illiger, 1807; 

(c) Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863. 

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

(a) Georissus Latreille, 1809 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Pimelia pygmaea Fabricius, 1798 (a junior subjective synonym of Byrrhus 
crenulatus Rossi, 1794); 

(b) Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Oosternum costatum Sharp, 1882. 

(3) To the entry for Crenitis Bedel, 1881 on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology is hereby added a record of the present ruling, and the entry is hereby 
emended to read 'gender: feminine'. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) crenulatus Rossi, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus crenulatus and 
as defined by the lectotype designated by Bameul (1991) (senior subjective 
synonym of Pimelia pygmaea Fabricius, 1798, the type species of Georissus 
Latreille, 1809); 

(b) costatum Sharp, 1 882, as published in the binomen Oosternum costatum 
(specific name of the type species of Oosternum Sharp, 1882). 

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

(a) Fontiscrutor Pandelle, 1876, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Cathammistes Illiger, 1807, as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863, as suppressed in (l)(c) above; 

(d) Georyssus Stephens, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Georissus 
Latreille, 1809). 

History of Case 2925 

An application for the conservation of the names Crenitis Bedel, 1881, 
Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 was received from Dr M. 
Hansen (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen. Denmark) on 14 January 1994. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 99-103 (June 1996). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 59 

A comment from Dr A. Smetana (Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, 
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Canada), published in BZN 53: 
278 (December 1996), supported the conservation of all three generic names and the 
citation of Crenitis as feminine. 

The name Crenitis. and that of its type species Hydrobius punctatostriatus Letzner, 
1840, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 583 (September 1960). However, the 
senior synonym Fontiscrutor Pandelle, 1876 was not then considered. 

Proposals for the conservation of each of the names Crenitis. Georissus and 
Oosternum were offered separately for voting. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53; 101-102. At the close of the voting period on 10 
December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bock, Bouchet (part). Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata (part). Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, MineUi, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, 
Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Bouchet voted for the conservation of Crenitis and Georissus but against that of 
Oosternum: he commented: 'Thirteen references by eight authors (para. 14 of the 
application) do not demonstrate usage of the name Oosternum outside a restricted 
taxonomic literature. In the case of this name priority should apply. I vote for the 
conservation of Crenitis to maintain continuity of Opinion 583'. Kabata voted for the 
conservation of Crenitis but against that of Georissus and Oosternum; he commented: 
'In my view this application demonstrates the author's overestimation of the 
importance of the group with which he works. For each of the three names he 
anticipates 'considerable confusion' if the senior synonym were to be restored to use. 
Yet for Georissus he is able to mention only 21 references in its 200-year-long history. 
For Oosternum there are only 13. I see little chance of confusion in such a small 
volume of literature. I vote for the proposal relating to Crenitis out of deference for 
the Commission's earlier ruling'. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Cathatrmu,stes Illiger, 1807, Magazin fiir Inseklenkunde. 6: 297. 
costalum, Oosternum. Sharp, 1882, Insecta. Coleoptera. Vol. 1, part 2 in Godman, F.D. & 

Salvin, O., Biologia Centrali-Americana. vol. 16. p. 112. 
crenulatus. Byrrhus. Rossi, 1794. Mantissa Insectorum, exhibens species nuper in Etruria 

collectcis. adjectis faunae Etruscae iUuslrationibus ac emendalionibus. vol. 2, p. 81. 
Crvpleuna Motschulsky. 1863, Bulletin de la Societe Imperiate des Naturalisles de Moscou, 

36(1): 448. 
Fontiscrutor Pandelle, 1876, Anates de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 5: 58. 
Georissus Latreille, 1809, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum. secundum ordinem 

naluralem in Familias disposita. iconibus exempHsque plurimus explicata. vol. 4, p. 377. 
Georvssus Stephens. 1828. Illustrations of British Entomology ... Mandibulata. vol. 2, 

p. 105. 



60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

Ooslermim Sharp, 1882, Insecta. Coleoptera. Vol. 1, part 2 in Godinan. F.D. & Salvin, O., 
Biologia Centrati- Americana, vol. 16, p. 112. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Byrrhus crenulalus 
Rossi. 1794: 
Bameul, F. 1991. Bulletin de la Societe Enlomologique de France, 95; 257. 



I 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 61 

OPINION 1892 

Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa): neotype replaced 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Alcyonidium; Alcyonidium mytili. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of neotype for the nominal 
species Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 are hereby set aside and the specimen 
numbered BM(NH) 1994.4.5.1, collected from Longniddry, East Lothian, 
Scotland, and deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, is desig- 
nated as the neotype. 

(2) The name mytili Dalyell, 1848, as published in the binomen Alcyonidium mytili 
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2961 

An application for the designation of a replacement neotype for Alcyonidium mytili 
Dalyell, 1848 was received from Prof John S. Ryland and Dr Peter S. Cadman 
{University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, Wales, U.K.) on 12 January 1995. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 92-95 (June 1996). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment from Prof Jean-Loup d'Hondt (Lahoratoire de Biologic des Invertebres 
Marins et Makicologie, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) was 
published in BZN 54: 49-50 (March 1997). Prof d'Hondt, who with Prof M. Goyffon 
had designated (1992) a neotype for Alcyonidium mytili which belonged to a different 
taxonomic species, supported the proposal to designate a neotype in accord with 
Dalyell's (1848) original description and locality. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 94. At the close of the voting period on 10 December 
1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, 
Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 



Original references 

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

tnylili. Alcyonidium. Dalyell, 1848, Rare and renuirkiilile aninuih of Scotland, represented from 
living subjects with practical observations on their nature, vol. 2, p. 36. 



62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

OPINION 1893 

Bomby cilia cedrorum Vieillot, |I808| and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, 
[1809| (Aves, Passeriformes): specific names conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; bombycillidae; troglodytidae; cedar 
waxwing; North American house wren; Bombycilla cedrorum; Troglodytes aedon. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
of Homonymy: 

(a) americaiui Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Ampelis americana; 

(b) domestka Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Sylvia domestica. 

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

(a) Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Bowbycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808]; 

(b) Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809] (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Baird (1858) Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, [1809], 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Ofiicial List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) cedrorum Vieillot, [1808], as published in the binomen Bombycilla cedrorum 
(specific name of the type species of Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808]); 

(h) aedon Vieillot, [1809], as published in the binomen Troglodytes aedon 
(specific name of the type species of Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809]). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Ofiicial Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) americana Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Ampelis americana 
and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) domestica Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Sylvia domestica and 
as suppressed in (I)(b) above. 

History of Case 2969 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Bombycilla cedrorum 
Vieillot, [1808] and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, [1809] was received from Dr M. Ralph 
Browning and Dr Richard C. Banks (National Biological Service. National Museum 
of Natural History. Washington. D.C.. U.S.A.) on 20 February 1995. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 53: 187-190 (September 1996). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 188-189. At the close of the voting period on 10 
December 1997 the votes were as follows; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 63 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, 
Stys (part) 

Negative votes — 1: Kabata. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Stys voted for the conservation of Bomhycilla cedrorum but against that of 
Troglodytes aedon. 

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: 

aedon. Troglodytes, Vieillot, [1809], Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de I' Amerique septentriomde 
..., vol. 2, p. 52. 

americana, Ampelis, Wilson, 1808, American ornithology: or. the nulwal history of the birds of 
the United Stales, vol. 1, p. 107. 

Bomhycilla Vieillot. [1808], Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de I' Amerique septentrionale ..., 
vol. 1, p. 88. 

cedrorum, Bomhycilla, Vieillot, [1808], Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de I' Amerique septentri- 
onale ..., vol. 1, p. 88. 

domestica, Sylvia, Wilson, 1808, American ornithology: or. the natural history of the birds of the 
United States, vol. 1, p. 129. 

Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809]. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de I'Amerique septentrionale .... 
vol'. 2, p. 52. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, [1809] as the 
type species of the nominal genus Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809]: 

Baird, S.F. 1858. Pacific Railroad Reports. Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad 
from the Mississippi River to die Pacific Ocean. JS53-6, 9(2): 366. 



64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

OPINION 1894 

Regnunt Animale ..., Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected for 
nomenciatural purposes, with the conservation of the mammalian 
generic names Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Glis, 
Cuniculus and Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and Hyaena 
(Carnivora), Tapirus (Perissodactyla), Tragulus and Giraffa 
(Artiodactyla) 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Marsupialia; Chiroptera; 
Rodentia; Carnivora; Perissodactyla; Artiodactyla; Philander: Pteropus; Glis; 
Cuniculus: Hydrochoerus; Meles; Lutra; Hyaena; Tapirus; Tragulus; Giraffa; 
opossums; fruit bats; dormice; pacas; capybaras; badgers; otters; hyaenas; tapirs; 
chevrotains; giraffes. 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby ruled that the work by M.J. Brisson (1762) entitled Regnum 
Animale in classes IX distribulum, sive synopsis methodica, Ed. 2. is rejected for 
nomenciatural purposes, i.e. for nomenciatural acts and for names other than 
Odobenus (previously conserved in Opinion 467, May 1957) and those 
conserved in (2)(a) below. 

(2) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that the following generic names are to be taken as first 
available from Brisson (1762) despite that being a rejected work, and not 
from any other work previously published: 

(i) Philander; 
(ii) Pteropus; 
(iii) Glis; 
(iv) Cuniculus; 
(v) Hydrochoerus; 
(vi) Meles; 
(vii) Lutra; 
(viii) Hyaena; 
(ix) Tapirus; 
(x) Tragulus; 
(xi) Giraffa; 

(b) all previous fixations of type species are hereby set aside for the following 
nominal genera and the nominal species listed are designated as the 
respective type species: 

(i) Philander Brisson, 1762: type species Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 

1758; 
(ii) Pteropus Brisson, 1762: type species Vesperiilio niger Kerr, 1792; 
(iii) Glis Brisson, 1762: type species Sciurus glis Linnaeus, 1766; 
(iv) Cuniculus Brisson, 1762: type species Mus paca Linnaeus, 1766; 
(v) Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1 762: type species Sus hvdrochaeris Linnaeus, 

1766; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 65 

(vi) Meles Brisson, 1762: type species Ursus meles Linnaeus, 1758; 
(vii) Lutra Brisson, 1762: type species Mtislela Intra Linnaeus, 1758; 
(viii) Hyaena Brisson, 1 762: type species Canis hyaena Linnaeus, 1 758; 
(ix) Tapirus Brisson, 1762: type species Hippopotamus terrestris 

Linnaeus, 1758; 
(x) Tragulus Brisson, 1762: type species Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765; 
(xi) Giraffa Brisson, 1762: type species Cervus camelopardalis Linnaeus, 

1758. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) Philander Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (2)(b)(i) above Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 
1758; 

(b) Pleropus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (2)(b)(ii) above Vespertilio niger Kerr, 
1792; 

(c) Glis Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under 
the plenary powers in (2)(b)(iii) above Sciurus glis Linnaeus, 1766; 

(d) Cuniadus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (2)(b)(iv) above Mus paca Linnaeus, 1766; 

(e) Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (2)(b)(v) above Sus hydrochaeris 
Linnaeus, 1766; 

(0 Meles Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under 

the plenary powers in (2)(b)(vi) above Ursus meles Linnaeus, 1758; 
(g) Lutra Brisson, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under 

the plenary powers in (2)(b)(vii) above Mustela lutra Linnaeus, 1758; 
(h) Hyaena Brisson, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under 

the plenary powers in (2)(b)(viii) above Canis hyaena Linnaeus, 1758; 
(i) Tapirus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 

under the plenary powers in (2)(b)(ix) above Hippopotamus terrestris 

Linnaeus, 1758; 
(j) Tragulus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 

under the plenary powers in (2)(b)(x) above Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765; 
(k) Giraffa Brisson, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under 

the plenary powers in (2)(b)(xi) above Cervus camelopardalis Linnaeus, 

1758. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) opossum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Didelphis opossum 
(specific name of the type species of Philander Brisson, 1762); 

(b) niger Kerr, 1792, as published in the trinomen Vesptertilio vampirus niger 
(specific name of the type species of Pteropus Brisson, 1 762); 

(c) glis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Sciurus glis (specific name 
of the type species of Glis Brisson, 1762); 

(d) paca Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Mus paca (specific name 
of the type species of Cuniculus Brisson, 1 762); 



66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(11 March 1998 

(e) hydiochaeris Linnaeus, 1 766, as published in the binomen Sus hydrochaeris 
(specific name of the type species of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762); 

(f) ineles Linnaeus. 1758, as published in the binomen Ursits meles (specific 
name of the type species of Meles Brisson, 1762); 

(g) Imni Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mustela lutra (specific 
name of the type species of Lutra Brisson, 1 762); 

(h) hyaena Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Canis hyaena (specific 

name of the type species of Hyaena Brisson, 1762); 
(i) terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hippopotamus 

terrestris (specific name of the type species of Tapirus Brisson, 1762); 
(i) javanicus Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Cerrus Javanieus 

(specific name of the type species of Traguhis Brisson, 1762); 
(k) camektpardalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cervus camelo- 

pardalis (specific name of the type species of Girajfa Brisson, 1762); 

(5) The work entitled Regmim Animale in elasses IX distrihutum, sive synopsis 
methodica, Ed. 2 by M.J. Brisson (1762) is hereby placed on the Oflicial Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, as rejected for 
nomenclatural purposes in ( 1 ) above. 

(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Agouti Lacepede, 1799 (a junior objective synonym of Cunieidus Brisson, 
1762); 

(b) Mvo.xus Zimmermann, 1780 (a junior objective synonym of Glis Brisson, 
1762); 

(c) Glis Erxleben, 1777 (a junior homonym of Glis Brisson, 1762); 

(d) Ctinicuhis Meyer, 1790 (a junior homonym of Ciiniculus Brisson, 1762); 

(e) Ciiniculus Wagler, 1830 (a junior homonym of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762); 
(0 Euhyaena Falconer, 1868 (a junior objective synonym o^ Hyaena Brisson, 

1762); 
(g) Tragulus Pallas, 1767 (a junior homonym of Traguhis Brisson, 1762); 
(h) Tragulus Boddaert, 1785 (a junior homonym of Traguhis Brisson, 1762). 
(i) Taxus Cuvier & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795 (a junior objective synonym 

of Meles Brisson, 1762); 
(j) Melesium Rafinesque, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Meles Brisson, 

1762). 

History of Case 2928 

An application for the conservation of 1 1 mammal generic names first published by 
Brisson ( 1 762), together with placement of the Regnum Animale (Ed. 2) on the Official 
Index as a non-binominal work, was received from Mrs Anthea Gentry (clo The 
Secretarial. ICZN. The Natural History Museum. London. U.K.) on 14 February 
1994. The case was published in BZN 51: 135-146 (June 1994). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support of the application were received from the late Mr J.E. Hill, 
Dr D.W. Yalden (Uni\'ersiry of Manchester. Manchester. U.K.) and the late Mr 
W.F.H. Ansell. published in BZN 51: 266-267 (September 1994); Dr Colin P. Groves 
(Australian National University. Canberra. A.C.T.. Australia). Dr Robert S. Voss 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 67 

(Anwrican Museum of Natural History, New York. N.Y., U.S.A.). Dr P.A. Morris 
{Royal Hollaway College, University of London. Egliam. Surrey, U.K.), Dr Peter 
Grubb {London. U.K.), Drs David L. Harrison & Paul J.J. Bates {Harrison Zoological 
Museum {Foundation for Systematic Research), Sevenoaks. Kent, U.K.) and Prof 
Zdzislaw Pucek {Polish Academy of Sciences, Matninal Research Institute, Bialowieza, 
Poland), published in BZN 51: 342-348 (December 1994); Prof Alvaro Mones 
{MiLWO Nacional de Historia Natural, Montevideo. Uruguay), Dr Francis Petter 
{'Mammalia' {Morphologic, Biologic, Systematiques des Mammiferes), Paris. France; 
Museum National d'Histoirc Naturelle. Paris. France), Dr Alan Turner {University of 
Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K.), Mr N. Sivasothi {National University of Singapore, Kent 
Ridge, Republic of Singapore), Dr Bernard Sige {Institut des Sciences de V Evolution, 
Universite des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc. Montpellier. France), Dr 
Stephana Aulagnier {Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Toulouse, 
France), Dr G.B. Corbet {The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.: Upper Largo, 
Fife, U.K.), Dr Jean-Louis Hartenberger (Institut des Sciences de I'Evolution, 
Universite des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, France), Dr Hans 
de Bruijn {Institut voor Aardnetenschappen, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The 
Netherlands), Dr Monique Vianey-Liaud {Institut des Sciences de L'Evolution, 
Universite de Montpellier. Montpellier. France) and Dr J.J. Hooker {The Natural 
History Museimi. London, U.K.), published in BZN 52: 78-89 (March 1995); Dr 
Mary R. Dawson ( The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 
U.S.A.), Mr Keith Seaman {Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, St Alban's, 
Hertford.shire, U.K.), Dr Jose Roberto Moreira ( Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, 
University of Oxford. Oxford. U.K.), Dr Alan W. Gentry (The Natural Histoiy 
Museum, London, U.K.), Dr Enrique Roberto Justo (Santa Rosa - La Pampa, 
Argentina), Drs Volker Fahlbusch, Kurt Heissig, Helmut Mayr & Gertrud Rossner 
(Bayerische Staatssammhmg fUr Paldontologie und historische Geologic, Munich, 
Germany), Prof Patrick J. Boylan (City University, London, U.K.), Dr D. Kock 
(Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseimt Senckenherg, Frankfurt am Main. Germany) 
and Drs Pierre Mein, M. Hugueney, C. Guerin & R. Ballesio (Centre des Sciences de 
la Terre, Universite Claude Bernard. Lyon, France), published in BZN 52: 187-192 
(June 1995); Mr Andrew Currant (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.), Dr 
M. Freudenthal (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) and 
Dr Mieczyslaw Wolsan (Instytut Paleohiologii, Pol.ska Akademia Nauk. Wcn:saw. 
Poland), published in BZN 52: 271-273 (September 1995); Dr Hugh H. Kolb 
(Torphichen, West Lothian, Scotland, U.K.; formerly of the Scottish Agricidtural 
Science Agency. Edinburgh. Scotland) and Dr Peter Liips (Naturhistorisches Museum. 
Bern. Switzerland), published in BZN 53: 191-192 (September 1996); Prof Vladimir 
E. Sokolov (Ru.uian Academy of Sciences. Moscow. Russia), published in BZN 53: 
286 (December 1996); Dr Jorge J. Cherem (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarimi. 
Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil), published in BZN 54: 52 (March 1997). 

Comments supporting the rejection of Brisson's (1762) work as non-binominal 
but not the conservation of 1 1 mammal generic names in use were received from Dr 
Don E. Wilson (National Museum of Natural History, Smith.wnian Institution, 
Washington. D.C., U.S.A.). Prof John H. Wahlert (American Museum of Natural 
History. New York, N.Y.. U.S.A.) and Dr Sydney Anderson (American Museum of 
Natural History, New York, N. Y, U.S.A.), published in BZN 51: 343-346 (December 



68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

1994); Dr Alfred L. Gardner (National Museum of Natural History. Washington, 
DC. U.S.A.), Prof Clyde Jones (revai Tech University. Lubbock. Texas. U.S.A.), Dr 
Judith L. Eger (Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto. Ontario. Canada) and Dr Mary 
Ellen Holden (American Mu.wum of Natural History. New York. N.Y.. U.S.A.), 
published in BZN 52: 79-86 (March 1995). A reply to these comments by the author 
of the application was published in BZN 52: 90-93 (March 1995). 

Comments from Drs F. de Beaufort, L. Granjon, J.M. Pons & M. Tranier 
(Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris. France), published in BZN 52: 82-83 
(March 1995). and from Prof Claude Dupuis (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 
Paris. France), published in BZN 52: 273-275 (September 1995), supported the 
conservation of the 1 1 Brisson mammal generic names mentioned in the application 
but not the proposed rejection for nomenclatural purposes of Brisson's (1762) work. 
A reply by the author of the application was published in BZN 52: 347-350 
(December 1995). A further comment from Prof Dupuis, and a reply by the author 
of the application, were published in BZN 53: 278-285 (December 1996). 

It was noted on the voting paper that the application sought to resolve long-term 
uncertainty in the usage of 11 new generic names established by Brisson (1762) in his 
Regnwn Animale (one such name, Odobenus for the walrus, had already been 
conserved in Opinion 467, May 1957). A majority of authors, both past and present, 
accepted the names with Brisson's (1762) authorship and date and, despite some 
authors noting that the Regnum Animale was not completely binominal, the names 
had been in continual use for well over 200 years. A few authors had taken the names 
from various later citations, where these existed, or had substituted other names (for 
example, Myo.xus Zimmermann, 1 780 for Glis Brisson, 1 762 and Agouti Lacepede, 
1799 for Cuniculus Brisson, 1762) and a diflerent spelling (Hydrochaeris Briinnich, 
1771 for Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762). These name changes resulted in problems with 
family-group names and the names for other taxa (for example, failure to accept 
Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 as available for the paca would result in Cuniculus Meyer, 
1790 becoming the valid name for the European rabbit, for which Oryctolagus 
Lilljeborg, 1874 is universally in use). There was a particular problem with Tragulus 
Brisson, 1762 (family tragulidae) since the next two uses of the generic name 
'Tragulu.s' relate taxonomically to Neotragus H. Smith, 1827 (family bovidae). 
Rejection of the 1 1 generic names for which conservation was proposed would result 
in the need for at least five further applications for action by the Commission to 
maintain other names currently in use (BZN 52: 92). 

In two comments (BZN 52: 273-273 and 53: 278-283) Prof Dupuis supported the 
conservation of Brisson's generic names but not the rejection of the ( 1762) Regnum 
Animale for nomenclatural purposes; he suggested that the names could be taken 
from Brisson's Tabula Synoptica Quadrupedum (pp. 12-13 of the Regnum Animale). 
This could be done under Articles 1 lc(iii) and 12b(2) of the Code, but a further ruling 
would be required to deal with the nine generic names therein which, since Merriam 
(1895), have been treated as junior synonyms of Linnaeus's (1758) names (BZN 52: 
348-349). Without rejection of the work or explicit suppression of the names they 
could be reintroduced for taxa which have been generically dilTerentiated since 
Brisson's time, displacing later names in use (BZN 53: 284-285). Rejection of 
Brisson's (1762) work as non-binominal and its placement on the Official Index, at 
the same time as conserving the 1 1 generic names (and Odobenus) in current use (i.e. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 69 

the course proposed in the application), would not entail the individual suppression 
of the nine names not in use. 

Prof Dupuis also proposed that Brisson's names might be taken from the 
Dictionnaire raisonne et universel des animaux by F.A.A. de la Chesnaye des Bois 
(1759). However, names are not unambiguously available from this work in the 
absence of a Commission ruling. None of the names has ever been cited from this 
work and date. Acceptance of the additional 1 1 generic names from Brisson ( 1 762) 
would be consistent with the ruling on Odobenus (Opinion 467) pubhshed in 1957. 
Procedurally it would be a precedent to place both Brisson's Tabula Synoptica (1762) 
and the 1759 Dictionnaire raisonne on the Official List. 

The name Glis Erxleben, 1777 was rendered a junior subjective synonym of the 
mole rat name Spalax Giildenstaedt, 1770 by Ellerman's (1949) type species 
designation (para. 5 on p. 138 of the application and BZN 52: 90-91). It was 
proposed on the voting paper that the name Glis Erxleben, a junior homonym of Glis 
Brisson, 1762, be added to those for placement on the Official Index (para. 9(6) on 
BZN 51: 144). 

The case was offered for voting in two parts. Vote ( 1 ) was the proposal to place the 
Regniim Animale on the Official Index as a non-binominal work (proposal (5) on 
BZN 51: 143); vote (2) was the conservation under the plenary powers of 1 1 of 
Brisson's (1762) generic names in use, and placement of some junior names on the 
Official Index (proposals (2)(a), (2)(b), (3), (4) and (6) on BZN 51: 142-144, with the 
addition of Glis Erxleben, 1777 to (6)). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 51: 142-144. At the close of the voting period on 10 
December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Vote 1. Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus. Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — 3: Dupuis, Minelli and Schuster. 

Vote 2. Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Schuster, Song, 
Stys 

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Savage. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Dupuis commented: 'Je vote contre I'affligeante idee de mettre a I'lndex Brisson 
(1762) car: (a) monuments historiques de la taxinomie, les ouvrages de ce zoologiste 
sont depuis longtemps tenus 'as next in authority to the Linnean productions' (Casey 
Wood, 1931); (b) considerant que seules sont admissibles les 'rejections of names' je 
reprouve toute 'rejection of works' (et meme le mot 'rejection'); (c) il est facheux que 
la validite des noms de genres dans les premieres taxinomies binaires coherentes 
dependent de quelques epithetes specifiques occasionnellement plurinominales 
(inevitables aux debuts du Linneanisme, cf Pucek in BZN 51: 348. Voir le code des 
botanistes et les regrets de Melville cites in BZN 53: 281); (d) ma contre-proposition 
serieuse et precise (BZN 53: 282-283) aurait du etre presentee a egalite de choix avec 



70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

la proposition de BZN 51: 143, or cette derniere seule est soumise au vote. Les 
arguments avances pour esquiver cette simultaneite me semblent un refus d'examiner 
les noms a mettre a Tlndex (ce que je demandais in BZN 52: 275, alinea 3) et une 
derobade sous pretexte d"un "precedent" non autrement explicite. Je vote contre la 
conservation en bloc des 1 1 noms consideres car les commentaires publics ne sont pas 
unanimes, notamment au sujet de Glis, Cuniculus et Tragulus. Je persiste done a 
reclamer autant de votes distincts que de noms (cf. BZN 52: 273, 275: 'chacun des 
cas", 'les noms pris un par un')". 

Savage commented: "I would favor separate consideration for conservation of 
those Brisson names whose status would seriously aflect current usage if they were to 
be permanently rejected. These appear to be Tragulus, Glis and Cuniculus' . 

Original references 

The following is the original reference to the work placed on the Official Index by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Brisson, M.J. 1762. Regnum Animate in classes IX distributum. sive synopsis melhodica. Ed. 2. 

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: 
Agouti Lacepede. 1799, Tableau des divisions, sous-divisions, ordres el genres des mammiferes. 

In: Discours de iouverture et de cloture du cours d'Histoire Natiirelle donne dans le Museum 

National d'Histoire Naturelle .... I'an VII de la Republique, et Tableaux methodiques des 

Mammiferes et des Oiseaux, p. 9. 
camelopardalis, Cervus. Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 66. 
Cuniculus Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 13, 98. 
Cuniculus Meyer, 1790, Magazin fiir Thiergeschichte. Thieranatomie und Thierarzneykunde . 

vol. 1, part 1, p. 52. 
Cuniculus Wagler, 1830, Natiirliches System der Amphibien. mit vorangehender Classification 

der Sdugthiere und Vogel, p. 21. 
Euhyaena Falconer, 1868, Palaeontological memoirs and notes, vol. 2, p. 464. 
Giraffa Brisson, 1762, Regnum .Animale .... Ed. 2, pp. 12. 37. 
Glis Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale .... Ed. 2, pp. 13, 113. 
Glis Erxleben, 1777. Systema re gni animal is ... Classis 1 (Mammalia), p. 358. 
glis. Sciurus. Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. I, p. 87. 
Hyaena Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animate .... Ed. 2, pp. 13, 169. 
hyaena, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 40. 
hydrocliaeris, Sus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae. Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 103. 
Hydroclioerus Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animate .... Ed. 2, pp. 12, 80. 
javanicus. Cervus, Osbeck, 1765, Reisenach Ostindien und China. Ed. 2, p. 357. 
Lutra Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale .... Ed. 2, pp. 13, 201. 
lutra. Mustela. Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 45. 
Metes Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale .... Ed. 2, pp. 13, 183. 
meles. Ursus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 48. 
Metesimn Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la nature .... p. 59. 
Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, Geographische Geschichle des Men.schen. und der allgemein 

verbreitcten vierfiissigen Thiere, vol. 2, p. 351. 
niger, Vespertilio, Kerr, 1792, The animal kingdom or zoological system of the celebrated Sir 

Charles Linnaeus. Class 1. Mammalia, p. 90. 
opossum, Didetphis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 55. 
paca, Mus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 81. 
Philander Brisson. 1762, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 13, 207. 
Pleropus Brisson, 1762. Regnum .Animate .... Ed. 2. pp. 13. 153. 
Tapirus, Brisson 1762, Regnum Animale .... Ed. 2, pp. 12, 81. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 71 

Taxus Cuvier & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795, Magazin Encyclopedique, 2: 184, 187. 
lerrestris. Hippopotamus. Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 74. 
Tragulus Boddaert, 1785. Elenchus Animalium. vol. 1 (Sistens Quadrupedia), pp. 49, 131. 
Tragulus Brisson, 1762, Regimin Ammale .... Ed. 2, pp. 12, 65. 
Tragulus Pallas, 1767, Spicilegia Zoologica. fasc. 1, p. 6, 



72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 

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 — coiuinued 



OPINION 1888. Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Ahania 

nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 designated as the type species 51 

OPINION 1889. Parapronoe cruslulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): specific 

name conserved 52 

OPINION 1890. Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 (currently Aphodius rufus), Scarabaeus 
rufus Fabricius, 1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus foelidus Herbst, 
1783 (currently Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved. 54 

OPINION 1891. Creniiis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum 

Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 58 

OPINION 1892. ^/fVoni(/i«/H /?!.v/;//Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa): neotype replaced . . 61 

OPINION 1893. Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, 

[1809] (Aves, Passeriformes): specific names conserved 62 

OPINION 1894. Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected for 
nomenclatural purposes, with the conservation of the mammalian generic names 
Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Gtis, Cunicutus and Hydrochoerus 
(Rodentia), Meles, Luira and Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus (Perissodactyla), 
Tragulus and Giraffa (Artiodactyla) 64 

Information and Instructions for Authors 72 



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 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 4 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 5 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 5 

Applications 

Sirombidium gyraiis Stokes, 1887 (currently Sirobilidium gyrans) and Slrobilidium 
caudatum Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora. Oligotrichida): proposed conservation of the 
specific names. C. W. Heckman .6 

Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed conservation by the designation of Trochus turbinatus Bom, 1 778 as the 
type species of Osilinus. S. Gofas & D.G. Herbert 9 

Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Mesobulhus caucasicus; 

Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of the specific name. V. Fet . . 14 

Paruroclonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida. Scorpiones): proposed conservation. 

W.D. Sissom, V. Fet & M.E. Braunwalder 17 

Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1 860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Insecta, Heterop- 

tera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson 20 

Pliytobius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. H. Silfverberg 22 

DASYPODiDAE Bomer, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed emendation of spelling 
to DASYPODADAE, SO removing the homonymy with dasypodidae Gray, 1821 
(Mammalia, Xenarthra). B.A. Alexander, CD. Michener & A.L. Gardner ... 24 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the names Geopeliis Regteren Altena, 1949, 
Geoleulhis Miinster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt, 
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteulhis Naef, 1921 and Belemnotheutis 
montefiorei Buckman, 1880 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). D.T. Donovan & T. Engeser. 29 

On the proposed conservation of the specific and subspecific names of Trigono- 
cephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 and Bothrops albocarinalus Shreve, 1934 (Reptilia, 
Serpentes) by the designation of a neotype for T. pulcher. R.L. Gutberlet & M.B. 
Harvey: B. Schatti; W. Wuster; H.M. Smith 29 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus leriae Sprackland, 

1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). J. Covacevich & P. Couper: G.M. Shea 37 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cnemidophorus neomexicanus 
Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia, Squamata). C.J. Cole; PA. Medica; H.A. 
Dundee: R.G. Webb: WW. Tanner: D.B. Wake; B.E. Leuck; R.C. Stebbins et al.. 39 

On the proposed conservation of usage of 1 5 mammal specific names based on wild 
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic 
animals. I.L. Brisbin, Jr 43 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1886. Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): conserved by the 

designation of Serm/ana j;e/acf a Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species 47 

OPINION 1887. Area pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. pbilippiana Nyst, 1848 
(currently Bathyarca peetuneuloides and B. philippiana, Mollusca, Bivalvia): 
specific names conserved 49 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Pliotcd in Great Britaio by Heniy Ling Ltd.. al the Dorset Pre». Dorchester. Dorset 



Volume 55, Part 2, 30 June 1998, pp. 73-136 ISSN 0007-5167J 



1 HISTORY MU^UM 
-1 JUL 1998 
PURCHASED 



Bulletin 




of 



Zoological 
Nomenclature 




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. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1998 is £98 
or $180, 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) 

(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 
(http://www.iczn.org) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli {Italy) 

Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 

Dr L W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 

Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



Members 

Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.: Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France: Mollusca) 
Prof D. J. Brothers 

(South Africa: Hymenoptera) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.: Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteroptera) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer 

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
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 S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Brvozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.: Lepidopterd) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. VAde(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



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 

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

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



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1998 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 



HISTOKY MUhtUiVI 

-1 JUL IB'db 

PURCHy^D 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 55, part 2 (pp. 73-136) 30 June 1998 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. 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 55, part 1 (published on 31 March 1998). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed designation of Cwna 
rathkii (Kreyer, 1841 as the type species. (Case 3078). S. Gerken. 

(2) Leptocaris Scott, 1899 (Crustacea, Mysidacea): proposed conservation. (Case 
3079). R. Huys. 

(3) Polydora websteri Hartman, 1943 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed ruling 
that the specific name is not to be treated as a replacement name for P. caeca 
Webster, 1879, and designation of a lectotype. (Case 3080). V.I. Radashevsky 
& J.D. Williams. 

(4) Pyghalictus Warncke, 1975 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of 
Hylaeus politus Schenck, 1853 as the type species, and proposed conservation 
of the specific name of H. politus. (Case 3082). Yu.A. Pesenko. 

(5) Vestitohalictus Bliithgen, 1961 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation 
of Halictus tectus Radoszkowski, 1875 as the type species. (Case 3083). Yu.A. 
Pesenko. 

(6) Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776 and Stomoxys cristata Fabricius. 1805 
(currently Siphona geniculata and Siphona cristata; Insecta. Diptera): pro- 
posed conservation of usage of the specific names by the designation of a 
neotype for M. geniculata. (Case 3084). B. Herting, J.E. O'Hara & H.-P. 
Tschorsnig. 



74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

(7) Lacerta undata A. Smith, 1838 (currently Pediuplanis undalu; Reptilia, 
Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the desig- 
nation of a neotype. (Case 3085). W. Mayer & W. Bohme. 

(8) Hyalinia villae adamii Westerlund, 1886 (currently Oxychilus adamii; MoU- 
usca. Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name adamii hy the 
designation of a neotype. (Case 3086). G. Manganelli & F. Giusti. 

(9) Hydrohia Hartmann. 1821 and Cydostoma acutuin Draparnaud, 1805 (Moll- 
usca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of usage of Hydrobiu and of the 
specific name of C. acutuin by the designation of a neotype. (Case 3087). 
F. Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon. 

(10) Doris verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- 
vation of usage of the generic and specific names by the designation of a 
neotype. (Case 3088). P. Bouchet & A. Valdes. 

(11) Leucocytozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of BerestneflF, 
1 904 as the author and fixation of ' Leukocytozoen danilewskyi Ziemann, 1 898 
as the type species. (Case 3089). G. Valkiijnas. 

(12) Musca arcuata Linnaeus, 1758 and M. [estiva Linnaeus, 1758 (currently 
Chrysoto.xum arcuatum and C. festivum) and M. citrofasciata De Geer, 1776 
(currently Xanthogramma citrofasciatum) (Insecta, Diptera): proposed con- 
servation of usage of the specific names. (Case 3090). D.A. lliff & P.J. 
Chandler. 

(13) Coccudina costata Dujardin, 1841 (currently Aspidisca costata; Ciliophora, 
Hypotrichida): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3091). 
C.W. Heckman. 

(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. 



The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The new (4th) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
will be published in 1998. A notice about some new provisions in it was published in 
BZN 54: 216-218. Meanwhile, copies of the 3rd edition (published 1985) are still 
available. Copies may be ordered from LT.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(a^nhm.ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd(s)nmnh. si.edu). 

The cost is £19 or $35 (including surface postage); members of the American and 
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of 
£15 or $29. Payment (cheques made out to TTZN' or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 75 

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 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 1995. 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. (e-mail: iczn(S)nhm. ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail; smithd(gnmnh. si.edu). 

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 (cheques made out to TTZN" or AAZN") should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



Otiicial Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 

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 (about 9,900) on which the 
Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. A supplement giving 
the 946 names and five works added in the five years up to 1990 is also available. 

Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(g)nhm. ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd(a^nmnh. si.edu). 

The cost is £60 or $1 10 (including surface postage); members of the American and 
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of 
£40 or $75. Payment (cheques made out to TTZN' or AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Case 2956 

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
conservation 

Arthur E. Bogan 

Department of Aquatic Invertebrates. North Carolina State Museum of 

Natural Sciences. Raleigh. NC 27626. U.S.A. 

(e-mail: ncsl313@interpath.com) 

Earle E. Spamer 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1900 Benjamin Franklin 

Parkway. Philadelphia. PA 19103-1195, U.S.A. 

(e-mail: spamer@say.acnatsci.org) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Campeloma 
Rafinesque, 1819 for a genus of Tertiary and Recent freshwater prosobranch 
gastropods (family viviparidae) from the eastern United States. This name has been 
continually used for over 130 years but is threatened by a senior subjective synonym 
Ambloxis established by Rafinesque one year earlier. Ambloxis has been little used, 
and then mainly in lists: the names of its included species have never been adopted. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; viviparidae: Tertiary and Recent 
freshwater prosobranch gastropods: Campeloma; Campeloma cra.ssula. 



1. Rafinesque (1818a, p. 355) briefly described a new genus Ambloxis and included 
in it two new nominal species A. ebuniea and A. ventricosa. He did not describe or 
figure these two species and their names are therefore nomina nuda. In another paper 
the same year he (Rafinesque, 181 8b, p. 107) listed Ambloxis as a new genus with four 
species which he did not name. The following year he (Rafinesque, 1819, p. 423) 
established the genus Campeloma and described a single species C. crassula 
Rafinesque, 1819 which is, therefore, the type species of Campeloma by monotypy. 

2. Gill (1864, p. 152) identified Ambloxis as congeneric with Campeloma 
Rafinesque, 1819, but noted that 'the insufficiency of the generic diagnosis as well as 
the want of connection with any described species will prevent its adoption'. Binney 
(1865, p. 45) copied figures of Lymmila ventrico.su (Binney, 1865, pp. 42, 45. fig. 91) 
and Lymnea ehurnua (Binney. 1865, pp. 45^6, fig. 92) from Rafinesque's unpub- 
lished manuscript Conchologia Ohieiisis. The names of these two species were placed 
in the synonymy o( Melantho decisa (Say, 1817). and Pilsbry ( 1917, p. Ill) designated 
the nominal species L. ebwnea as the type species of Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818. 
Tryon (1865, p. 82) identified Ambloxis as the same as the genus Melantlio Bowditch, 
1822 as used by American authors. 

3. Walker (1918, pp. 127, 163) rejected the use of Ambloxis and used Campeloma. 
Baker (1928, p. 56) noted Pilsbry's suggested priority of Ambloxis over Campeloma 
but rejected the generic change as unwarranted, following Walker (1918, pp. 127, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 77 

163). Morrison (1947, p. 29) is the only subsequent author to have used Ambloxis as 
a valid genus in place of Cumpekmui. Parodiz (1956, p. 391) questioned Pilsbry's 
action in recognizing Amhloxis. Recently, Burch (1982a, p. 210; 1982b, p. 264) noted 
that Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818 was an unidentifiable name and 'occasionally men- 
tioned as possibly being the same as Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819". Sherborn (1923, 
p. 252) and Neave (1939, p. 137) are the only two nomenclators to list Ambloxis. 

4. The name Campeloma has been extensively used since Gill (1864). Meek & 
Hayden (1865) were the first to use Campeloma for fossil species, and numerous fossil 
species have been referred to Campeloma (Meek, 1871a, 1871b, 1876; Meek & 
Hayden, 1865; Henderson, 1935). Meek (1876) gave a succinct account of the genus 
and from this date forward the use of the generic name Campeloma was essentially 
unquestioned. Call (1883) reviewed the history of the use of the generic name 
Campeloma and rejected the use of both Puludina 'Lamarck" Ferussac, 1812 and 
Melamho Bowditch, 1822 for this group of North American species. 

5. Pilsbry (1917, p. 1 13) noted that Campeloma crassula Rafinesque, 1819 was the 
type species oi Campeloma by original monotypy and placed Campeloma Rafinesque, 
1819 as a junior synonym of Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818. Pilsbry claimed that crassula 
could not be recognized from its description, but this belief was based on an 
inadequate reading of Rafinesque's diagnosis. C crassula has been used by various 
workers, such as Burch & Tottenham (1980, p. 86, figs. 42, 54-55). Thiele (1931, 
p. 116) tentatively listed Ambloxis as a synonym of Campeloma. Clench (1962, 
pp. 273-274) listed Ambloxis as a synonym of Campeloma but failed to understand 
why Pilsbry chose to substitute Ambloxis for the commonly used Ccmipeloma. He 
observed (p. 276): 'The generic name Campeloma has been in general use for nearly 
one hundred years, while Ambloxis has never been used, other than casually 
mentioned as being possibly the same as Campeloma'. Baker (1964, pp. 166-167) 
catalogued a number of species, using Ambloxis as a 'preferred genus' which he used 
'in a broad sense". Clarke (1973, p. 216) and Vaught (1989, p. 17) tentatively listed 
Ambloxis as a synonym of Ccmipeloma. Campeloma has been used extensively in 
molluscan literature (Gill, 1864; Call, 1883, 1886, 1888a, 1888b, 1894; Pilsbry, 1898; 
Baker. 1902; Pilsbry, 1917; van Cleave & Altringer, 1937; Hubricht. 1943; van der 
Schalie, 1964; Anderson, 1966; Vail, 1979a, 1979b; Karlin et al., 1980; Karlin, 1981; 
Kotrla & Dougherty, 1984). Campeloma appears as a genus in the standard nomen- 
clators (Agassiz, 1842-1846, 1846; Herrmannsen, 1846; Scudder, 1882; Sherborn, 
1924; Neave, 1939). Campeloma has been used exclusively in the studies of the 
gastropod faunas in North America (Baker, 1902; Hannibal, 1912; Baker, 1928; 
Goodrich & van der Schalie, 1944; Robertson & Blakeslee, 1948; Clench & Turner, 
1956; Harman & Berg, 1971; Clarke, 1973; Wood, 1982; Thompson, 1984; Jokinen, 
1983, 1992; Smith, 1991). and in systematic guides (Walker, 1918; Prashad, 1928; 
Thiele, 1931; La Rocque, 1953, 1968; Parodiz, 1956; Clench, 1959, 1962; Leonard, 
1959; Starobogatov, 1970; Barnes, 1974; Burch, 1978, 1979, 1982a; Burch & 
Tottenham, 1980; Clarke. 1981; Boss, 1982; Turgeon et al., 1988; Vaught, 1989; 
Brown, 1991). 

6. In order to avoid undesirable changes in nomenclature and to preserve the 
stability of generic names in the viviparidae we propose that the generic name 
Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 be conserved by suppression of Ambloxis Rafinesque, 
1818. 



78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818 for 
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Campeloma crassula Rafinesque, 1819; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name crassula 
Rafinesque, 1819, as published in the binomen Campeloma crassula (specific 
name of the type species of Campeloma): 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Agassiz, L. 1842-1846. Nomina systemica generum molluscorum (recognoverunt J.E. Gray, 

C.Th. Menke, et H.E. Strickland), in: Noinenclcilor zouhgicus. coiuinenes iiomiiui systein- 

alica generum aninmlium. lam viventitim qiuini fossiliiim. xiv, 98 pp. Jent & Gassmann. 
Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomeclatoris zoologici; index universalis, in: Nomenchitor zoologicus. 

conlinens nomina systematica generum unimaliuni. tarn riventium quam fossilium. viii, 393 

pp. Jent & Gassmann. 
Anderson, B.E. 1966. Studies on the moUuscan genus Campetuma Rafinesque, 1819. Sierkicinu, 

23: 9-18. 
Baker, F.C. 1902. The Mollusca of the Chicago area. The Gastropoda. Bulletin of the Natural 

History Survey of the Chicago Academy of Sciences. 3(2): 137-^10. 
Baker, F.C. 1928. The fresh-water Mollusca of Wisconsin. Part I. Gastropoda. Bulletin of the 

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 70(1): i-xx, 1^94. 
Baker, H.B. 1964. Type land snails in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Part 

3. Limnophile and thalassophile Pulmonata. Part 4. Land and freshwater Prosobranchia. 

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 116: 149-193. 
Barnes, R.D. 1974. Invertebrate Zoology. (Ed. 3). W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 
Binney, W.G. 1865. Land and fresh-water shells of North America, part 3. Ampullariidae, 

Valvatidae. Viviparidae, fresh-water Rissoidae, Cyclophoridae, Truncatellidae, fresh- 
water Neritidae, Helicinidae. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 7(144): i-viii, 1-120. 
Boss, K.J. 1982. Mollusca. Pp. 945-1166 in Parker. S.P. (Ed.) Synopsis and classification of 

living organisms. McGraw-Hill. New York. 
Brown, K.M. 1991. Mollusca: Gastropoda. Pp. 285-314 in Thorp, J.H. & Covich. A.P. Ecology 

aiul classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press. San Diego. 
Burch, J.B. 1978. An outline of classification of the Recent freshwater gastropods of North 

America (North of Mexico). Journal de Conchyliologie. 115(1-2): 3-9. 
Burch, ,I.B. 1979. Genera and subgenera of Recent freshwater gastropods of North Aiuerica 

(North of Mexico). Malacological Review. 12: 97-100. 
Burch, J.B. 1 982a. Freshwater snails ( Mollusca: Gastropoda) of North .America. Environmental 

Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. EPA- 

600/3 82 026. 294 pp., 775 figs. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Burch, J.B. 1982b. North American freshwater snails. Identification keys, generic synonymy, 

supplemental notes, glossary, references, index. Walkerana. Transactions of the POETS 

Society. 4: 217-365. 
Burch, J,B. & Tottenham, J.L. 1980. North American freshwater snails. Species fist, ranges and 

illustrations. Transactions of the Physiological. Oecological. Experimental Taxotwinic and 

Systematics Society. 3: 81-215. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2| June 1998 79 

Call, R.E. 1883. Note on the genus Campeloma of Rafinesque. American Naturalisl. 17(6): 

603-608. 
Call, R.E. 1886. On the genus Campeloma, Rafinesque, with a revision of the species. Recent 

and fossil. BuUelin of the Washburn College Laboratory of Natural Hislory. 1(5): 149-165. 
Call, R.E. 1888a. On the gross anatomy of Campeloma. American Naturalisl, 22: 491^97. 
Call, R.E. 1 888b. Notes on the gross anatomy of Campeloma. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy 

of Sciences, 1888: 16-17. 
Call, R.E. 1894. On the geographic and hyposmetric distribution of North American 

Viviparidae. American Journal of Science, 48: 132-141. 
Clarke, A.H. 1973. The freshwater molluscs of the Canadian Interior Basin. Malacologia, 

13(1-2): 1-509. 
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. 446 pp. National Museum of Natural 

Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. 
Clench, W.J. 1959. Mollusca. Pp. 1117-1160 in Edmondson. W.T (Ed.), Freshwater Biology. 

John Wiley & Sons, New York. 
Clench, W.J. 1962. A catalogue of the Viviparidae of North America with notes on the 

distribution of Viviparus georgianus. Lea. Occasional Papers on Mollusca. Museum of 

Comparative Zoology, 2(27): 261-287. 
Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida 

from the Escambia to the Suwannee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 

Biological Sciences, 1(3): 97-239. 
Gill, T. 1864. Several points in ichthyology and conchology. Proceedings of the Academy of 

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 16: 151-152. 
Goodrich, C. & van der Schalie, H. 1944. A revision of the Mollusca of Indiana. American 

Midland Naturalisl, 32(2): 257-326. 
Hannibal, H. 1912. A synopsis of the Recent and Tertiary freshwater Mollusca of the 

California Province, based upon ontogenetic classification. Proceedings of the Mulaco- 

logical Society, lOa-i): \\2-2l\. 
Harman, W.N. & Berg, CO. 1971. The freshwater snails of Central New York, with illustrated 

keys to the genera and species. Search, ( Cornell University Agricultural Experiment 

Station. Ithaca. New York), 1(4): 1-68. 
Henderson, J. 1935. Fossil non-marine Mollusca of North America. Geological Society of 

America. Special Papers, no. 3: i-vii. 1-313. 
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846. Indicts Generum Malacozoorum Prinwrdia. vol. 1. 637 pp. Theodori 

Fischeri. Cassellis. 
Hubricht, L. 1943. Notes on the sex ratios in Campeloma. Nautilus, 56(4): 138-139. 
Jokinen, E.H. 1983. The freshwater snails of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural 

History Survey of Connecticut. Department of Environmental Protection Bulletin, 109: 

1-83. 
Jokinen, E.H. 1992. The freshwater snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of New York State. A'eii' 

York State Museum Bulletin, no. 482: i-vi, 1-112. 
Karlin, A.A. 198 1 . Genetic variation and parthenogenesis in Campeloma (Viviparidae). Bulletin 

of the American Malacological Union, 1981: 37. 
Karlin, A.A., Vail, V.A. & Heard, W.H. 1980. Parthenogenesis and biochemical variation in 

southeastern Campeloma genicidum (Gastropoda: Viviparidae). Malacological Review, 13: 

7-15. 
Kotrla, M.B. & Dougherty, B.J. 1984. A comparative study of shell shape in four populations 

of Campeloma (Gastropoda: Viviparidae) [Abstract]. Program for the Fiftieth Annual 

Meeting of the American Malacological Union, 1984: 29. 
La Rocque, A. 1953. Catalogue of the Recent Mollusca of Canada. National Museum of 

Canada Bulletin, 129; 1-406. 
La Rocque, A. 1968. Pleistocene Mollusca of Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey. Btdletin, 

62(3): xvii-xxiv, 357-553. 
Leonard, A.B. 1959. Handbook of gastropods in Kansas. University of Kansas Museum of 

Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication, no. 20: 1-224. 



80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Meek. F.B. 1871a. Descriptions of new species of fossils from Ohio and other western states 

and territories. Proceedings of the Academr of Nalunil Sciences of Phihiclelphiiu 23- 
159-184. 
Meek, F.B. 1871b. Preliminary paleontological report, consisting of lists of fossils, with 

descriptions of some new types, etc. Pp. 287-318 in Hayden, F.V., Preliminary report of 

the United Stales Geological Survey of Wyoming, and portions of contiguous territories, 

being a second annual report of progress, [Vol. 4] conducted under the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior. Government Printing Office. Washington. 
Meek, F.B. 1 876. A report on the invertebrate Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils of the Upper 

Missouri Country, in Hayden, F.V. Report of the United States Geological Survey of the 

Territories. 9: i-lxiv. 1-629. 
Meek, F.B. & Hayden, F.V. 1865. Palaeontology of the Upper Missouri: invertebrates. 

Smithsonian Contributions lo Knowledge. 14(Art. 5)(172); 135 pp. 
Morrison, J.P.E. 1947. Notes on the Philippine snail, Viviparus hurroui^hiatnis Lea. Nautilus, 

61(1): 29-30. 
Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus. Vol. 1 (A-C). 957 pp.: vol. 2 (D-L), 1025 pp. 

Zoological Society of London, London. 
Parodiz, J.J. 1956. Notes on the fresh-water snail Leptoxis (Mudalia) carinatu (Bruguiere). 

Annuls of the Carnegie Museum, 33(23): 391^05. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1898. Campeloma decisum Say, reversed. Nautilus, 10: 118. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1917. Rafinesque's genera of fresh-water snails. Nautilus, 30(10): 109-114. 
Prashad, B. 1928. Recent and fossil Viviparidae. A study in distribution, evolution and 

paleogeography. Memoirs of the Indian Museum. S{4): 153-251. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1818a. Art. 3. Museum of Natural History. Discoveries in natural history. 

made during a journey through the western region of the United States, by Constantine 

Samuel Rafinesque, Esq. Addressed to Samuel L. Mitchill, President, and the other 

members of the Lyceum of Natural History, in a letter dated at Louisville, Falls of Ohio, 

20th July. 1818. American Monthly Magazine ami Critical Review, 3(5): 354-356. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1818b. Art. 3. Museum of Natural History. General account of the discoveries 

made in the zoology of the Western States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical 

Review, 4(2): 106-107. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d"animaux decouverts dans I'interieur 

des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, durant Tannee 1818. Journal de Phvsiqtie, de Chimie. 

d'Hisloire Natiirelle. 88: 287-322. 
Robertson, I. C.S. & Blakeslee, C.L. 1948. The Mollusca of the Niagara Frontier Region. 

Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, 19(3): xi, 1-191. 
Scuddcr, S.H. 1882. IL Universal index to genera in zoology. Complete list of generic names 

employed in zoology and paleontology to the close of the year 1879, contained in the 

nomenclators of Agassiz. Marschall, and Scudder. and in the Zoological Record. In: 

S.H. Scudder, Nomenclator Zoologicus. An alphabetical list of all generic names that 

have been employed by naturalists for Recent and fossil animals from the earliest time 

to the close of the year 1879. Bulletin of the United States National Musewn, 19(2): 

1-340. 
Sherborn, CD. 1923-1924. Index Aniinalium. Sectio secunda, 1801-1850. Part 2, Index 

Aff-Anus. pp. 129-384 (1923); part 5. Index C-Ceyl, pp. 945-1196 (1924). British 

Museum, London. 
Smith, D.G. 1991. Keys to the freshwater macroinvertebrates of Massachusetts. Privately 

published, Amherst, MA. 
Starobogatov, Ya.I. 1970. Molhisk fauna and zoogeographical partitioning of continental water 

reservoirs of the World. 372 pp., 39 figs. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Zoologischeskii Instituti 

Nauka, Leningrad. [In Russian]. 
Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1. 778 pp., 782 figures. 

Fischer. Jena. 
Thompson, F.G. 1984. The freshwater .mails of Florida. A manual for identification. 94 pp. 

University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Florida. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 81 

Tryon, G.W. 1865. Complete writings of Constantine Schmaltz Rafinesque on Recent and 

fossil conchology. American Journal of Conchology, 1: 79-84. 
Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V, Emerson, W.K., Lyons, W.G., Pratt, W.L., Roper, 

C.F.E., Scheltema, A., Thompson, E.G. & Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific 

names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication. 16: vii. 1-277. 
Vail, V.A. 1979a. The species problem in Campeloma (Gastropoda, Viviparidae). Bulletin of the 

American Mulacological Union, 1979: 67. 
Vail, V.A. 1979b. Campeloma parthenum (Gastropoda: Viviparidae), a new species from North 

Florida. Malacological Review, 12: 85-86. 
van Cleave, H.J. & Altringer, D.A. 1937. Studies on the life cycle of Campeloma nifum, a 

fresh-water snail. American Naturalist, 71: 167-184. 
van dcr Schalie, H. 1964. Notes on the sex of Campeloma. American Malacological Union, 

Annual Reports, 1964: 24-25. 
Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. xii, 195 pp. American Malacologists, 

Melbourne, Florida. 
Walker, B. 1918. A synopsis of the classification of the freshwater Mollusca of North America. 

North of Mexico, and a catalogue of the more recently described species, with notes. 

University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, no. 6. 
Wood, D.H. 1982. The acjiuitic snails (Gastropoda) of the Savannah River Plant .4iken. South 

Carolina, 46 pp. Savannah River Plant. SRO-NERP-10. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Case 3008 

Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 
1862 and Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 1821 as the respective type 
species, with the conservation of Bania Brusina, 1896 

D. Kadolsky 

The Limes. 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, South Croydon, 

Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K. (e-mail: kadolsky@zoo.co.uk) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names of three fresh- and 
brackish-water Tertiary prosobranch gastropod genera in their accustomed usage. 
Bithinia descluen.siwui Deshayes, 1862 is proposed as the type species of Eucliilus 
Sandberger. 1870 and Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 1821 as the type species of 
Stalioa Brusina. 1870. These actions, and the suppression of Sioliva Fuchs, 1877 and 
Stalioia Fischer, 1885, are proposed to conserve Bania Brusina, 1896, to avoid the 
need for a new name for Euchihis as used in its accustomed sense, and to prevent 
the names Eucliilus and Stalioa being applied to taxa other than those used by the 
majority of authors. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; hydrobiidae; Tertiary 
prosobranch gastropods; Euchihis: Stalioa; Bania; Euchilus deschiensianus; Stalioa 
desmarestii; Bania prototypica. 



1 . The nominal genera Euchilus Sandberger, 1870, Stalioa Brusina, 1870 and Bania 
Brusina, 1896 were reviewed by Kabat & Hershler (1993) and by Kadolsky (1993). 
The position of each name is here considered in turn, and Commission action is 
proposed to conserve those names in their accustomed usage. 

Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 

2. The nominal genus Euchilus was established by Sandberger in a large work 
entitled The Land and Freshwater Molluscs of the Past World. This appeared in 12 
livraisons between 1870 and 1875, the plates with species naines engraved usually 
preceding the text. In livraison 2/3 (published in 1870) the name 'Euchilus Desmarestii 
Prev. sp.' was published as legend to plate 11, figure 10, thereby making Paludina 
desmarestii Prevost, 1821 (p. 426) type species of Euchilus by monotypy. In livraison 
4/5 (1871) Sandberger introduced the binomen 'Euchilus Deschiensianum Deshayes, 
sp." in the legend to plate 13, figure 8. The first time the name Euchilus appeared in 
the text (as opposed to the plates) was in livraison 6/8 (1872) where (p. 225) Bithinia 
deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 (p. 492) was given as 'type'. 

3. Subsequent authors have variously considered Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 
1821 or Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 as the type species of Euchilus. The 
majority of authors (e.g. Clessin, 1880; Cossmann, 1888; Schlickum, 1968 (but not 
1961, 1965); Kabat & Hershler, 1993; Kadolsky, 1993) accept Bithinia deschiensiana 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 83 

as the type species, even though the fixation of Paludina desmarestii has priority; it is 
all the more desirable to maintain this use as there is no alternative name available 
for a genus-group taxon including Bithinia deschiensiana (see Kadolsky, 1993). It is 
therefore proposed that B. deschiensiana should be taken as the type species of 
Euchilus. 

Stalioa Brusina, 1870 

4. Brusina (1870, p. 937) established the nominal genus Stalioa with a brief 
description, here translated from the German, of an unnamed new fossil species from 
Dalmatia: '... [Together] with Emmericia canaliculata [a new species described in the 
same paper] I also found a single, globular, completely smooth species, with a 
strongly folded aperture margin, often with 1-2 folds on the spira. which belongs 
neither to Emmericia nor to Fossaruliis and has only with Amnicola some similarity; 
for this [species] I propose a new genus'. This unnamed new species is the only one 
definitely included in Stalioa. which was therefore established without originally 
included nominal species. Brusina mentioned several species as most likely belonging 
to Stalioa but refrained from including them definitely because he had not himself 
seen specimens; amongst such species were Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes and 
Paludina desmarestii Prevost. but under Article 67g of the Code they are not 
'originally included species". 

5. The first subsequent inclusion of a nominal species was made by Brusina (1872, 
p. 144) when he gave a name to the unnamed species of his 1870 paper. He wrote 
(translation from Serbo-Croatian): ' Stalioa prototypica Brus., about 20 individuals, is 
not only a new species, but I also took the liberty to make a new genus from this 
species (I.e. p. 937) ...". This was the first unquaHfied inclusion of a nominal species 
in Stalioa; the specific name is made available by reference to the description of 1 870. 
Another specific name mentioned in this paper, that of Stalioa vahatoides, was a 
nomen nudum. Under Article 69a(vii) of the Code Stalioa prototypica Brusina, 1872 
is type species of Stalioa by subsequent monotypy. 

6. Brusina (1874) described more fully and figured Stalioa prototypica (pp. 43-44, 
pi. 4, figs. 1 1-12); he also for the first time described and figured S. vahatoides (p. 44, 
figs. 9-10). thereby making it available. Brusina again only provisionally attributed 
desmarestii Prevost, deschiensiana Deshayes and other species to Stalioa. as he still 
had no material for study. Clessin (1880, p. 183) designated Stalioa vahatoides as 
type species of Stalioa. This designation is invahd since S. vahatoides was not an 
available name when first (1872) included in Stalioa and, furthermore, through 
Brusina (1872) the type species was already established by monotypy as Stalioa 
prototypica. 

1. Cossmann (1893. p. 15) gave Paludina desmarestii Prevost as type species of 
Stalioa. apparently after correspondence with Brusina. This type designation has 
been generally accepted (e.g. Dollfus, 1912; Roman, 1912; Cossmann & Peyrot, 1919; 
Cossmann, 1921; Wenz, 1926, 1939; Gilbert, 1949, 1962; Kabat & Hershler, 1993; 
Kadolsky, 1993). It is proposed that Paludina desmarestii should be taken as the type 
species of Stalioa. because of this usage and because of the situation described in 
para. 8 below. Schlickum (1968, p. 53) proposed the subgeneric name Sandhergeriella 
with P. desmarestii as type species. This action was based on the erroneous 
assumption that a replacement name for Stalioa Auctorum was needed, because 



84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Schlickum ( 1 960, 1 96 1 ) thought Emmericia canaliculata Brusina to be the type species 
of Sialioa by monotypy. This is clearly an error, ahhough it is easy to see how 
Brusina's wording, quoted in para. 4 above in literal translation, gave rise to such a 
misunderstanding. Stalioia Fischer, 1885 (p. 731) was an unnecessary replacement 
name for Sialioa, introduced for linguistic reasons, and hence a junior objective 
synonym available with its own author and date. Stalioia predates Bania Brusina, 
1896 (see below), but the designation of Paludina desmarestii as the type species of 
Sialioa, and hence of Stalioia, means that Bania is not invalidated. 



Bania Brusina, 1896 

8. Brusina (1896, p. 130), in a complete reversal of his earlier actions, introduced 
a new generic name Bania with Stalioa prototypica as type species by monotypy. 
However, S. prototypica is formally the type species of Stalioa (see para. 5 above), 
making Bania a junior objective synonym of Stalioa. Bania is in current, albeit 
infrequent, use (e.g. Wenz, 1926, 1939; Kabat & Hershler, 1993: Kadolsky, 1993), 
and will be conserved by the designation proposed in para. 7 above of Paludina 
desmarestii as type species of Stalioa instead of S. prototypica. Bania is threatened by 
the nominal genus Sloliva Fuchs, 1877 (p. 682 and table opposite p. 700), which was 
introduced in the combinations Stoliva prototypica Brusina and Stoliva valvatoides 
Brusina. Stoliva could be interpreted as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Stalioa, 
but could alternatively be treated as a new nominal genus in which case it would be 
a senior subjective synonym of Bania; its suppression is proposed. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all fixations of type species for the following nominal genera: 
(i) Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 prior to that by Sandberger (1872) of 

Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862: 
(ii) Stalioa Brusina. 1870 prior to that by Cossmann (1893) of Paludina 
desmarestii Prevosi, 1821: 

(b) to suppress the generic name Stoliva Fuchs, 1877 for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

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

(a) Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Sandberger ( 1 872) Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1 862 by 
the ruling in (l)(a)(i) above: 

(b) Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Cossmann ( 1893) Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 1821 by the 
ruling in (l)(a)(ii) above: 

(c) Bania Brusina, 1896 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Stalioa 
prototypica Brusina, 1872: 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) deschiensiana Deshayes, 1 862, as published in the binomen Bithinia 

deschiensiana (specific name of the type species of Euchilus Sandberger, 
1870); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 85 

(b) desmarestii Prevost, 1 82 1 , as published in the binomen Paludina desmarestii 
(specific name of the type species of Stalioa Brusina. 1870): 

(c) prototypica Brusina, i 872, as pubhshed in the binomen Sialioa prototypka 
(specific name of the type species of Baiiia Brusina, 1 896); 

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

(a) Stoliva Fuchs, 1877, as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 
(h) Sandhergeriella Schlickum, 1968 (a junior objective synonym of Sialioa 

Brusina, 1870); 
(c) Stalioia Fischer, 1885 (an unnecessary replacement name and junior 

objective synonym of Stalioa Brusina, 1870). 

Acknowledgements 

I thank Dr Vjera Whitehead (Wimbledon, U.K.) for translations from the 
Serbo-Croatian, and Dr Jacques Le Renard (Plaisir, France) for his search for 
syntypes of Paludina desmarestii Prevost. 

References 

Brusina, S. 1870. Monographie der Gattungen Emmericia und Fossarulus. Verlmndlimgen der 

Kaiserlkh-Koniglichen Zoologisch-Botcmisclien GeseUsclmfl tit Wien, 20: 925-938. 
Brusina, S. 1872. Naravoslovne crtice sa sjevero-istocne obale jadranskoga mora sabrao god. 

1868 i 1871. Rad Jiigoslavenske Akademije Znanosli i Umjelnosli. 19: 105-177. 
Brusina, S. 1874. Prilozi paleontologiji hrvatskoj ili kopnene i sladkovodne terciarne izk opine 

Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije. Rad Jiigoslavenske Akademije Znanosli i Umjelnosli. 28: 

1-109. 
Brusina, S. 1896. La collection Neogene de Hongrie, de Croatia, de Slavonic et de Dalmatie a 

Pexposition de Budapest. Glasnika Hrvalskoga Naravoslomoga Dnislra. 9: 98-150. [In 

Serbo-Croatian and French]. 
Clessin, S. 1880. Studicn iiber die Familie der Paludinen. Malakozoologische Bldlter, (n.s.)2: 

161-196. 
Cossmann, M. 1888. Catalogue illustre des coquilles Ibssiles de TEocene des environs de Paris, 

faisant suite aux travaux paleontologiques de G.P. Deshayes, part 3. Annates de la Soeiele 

Royale Malacologique de Belgiijue, 23: 3-324. 
Cossmann, M. 1893. Catalogue illustre des coquilles fossiles de I'Eocene des environs de Paris, 

faisant suite aux travaux paleontologiques de G.P. Deshayes. Appendice no. 1. Annales de 

la Soeiele Royale Malacologique de Belgique. 28: 1-18. 
Cossmann, M. 1921. Essuis de paleoconchologie eomparee. vol. 12. 348 pp.. 6 pis. Privately 

published. Paris. 
Cossmann, M. & Pcyrot, A. 1919. Conchologie Neogenique de TAquitaine. Acles de la Soeiele 

Linneenne de Bordeaux. 70(4): 357^91. 
Deshayes, G.P. 1862. Pp. 433-640 in: Descriplion des animaux sans verlehres du Bassin de Paris. 

2. Bailliere. Paris. 
Dollfus, G. 1912. Recherches critiques sur quelques genres et especes d'Hydrohia vivants ou 

fossiles. Journal de Conchyliologie. 59(3): 179-270. 
Fischer, P.H. 1885. Pp. 689-896 in: Manuel de conchyliologie el de paleonlologie conchylio- 

logique ou hisloire nalurelle des mollusques vivanls el fossiles. Savy, Paris. 
Fuchs, T. 1 877. Geologische Ucbersicht der Jiingeren Tcrtiiirbildungen des Wiener Beckens und 

des ungarisch-steierischen Tieflandes. Zeilsehrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellsehafl. 

29(4): 653-709. 
Glibert, M. 1949. Gastropodes du Miocene du Bassin de la Loire. Memoires de I'Inslilul Royal 

des Sciences Nalurelles de Belgique. (2)30: 1-240. 



86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Gilbert, M. 1962. Les Mesogastropoda fossiles du Cenozoique etranger des collections de 

I'Institut royal des Sciences Naturelies de Belgique. le partie, Cyclophoridae a Stiliferidae 

(inclus). Mcnwircs de I'Inslilul Royal tics Sciences Naturelies dc Belgique. (2)69: 1-305. 
Rabat, A. R. & Hershler, R. 1993. The prosobranch snail family Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda 

Rissooidea): review of classification and supraspecific taxa. Sinilhsonian Contributions to 

Zoology, no. 547. 94 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. D.C. 
Kadolsky, D. 1993. Der Galtung Nyslia zugeordnete Arten im Tertiar des mittleren und 

westlichen Europas (Gastropoda: Rissooidea). .4rcliiv Jur Molluskenkundc. 122; 335^02. 
Prevost, C. 1821. Sur un nouvel exemple de la reunion de coquilles marines et de coquilles 

fluviatiles dans les memes couches. Journal de Physique, de Chinue. d'Hisloire naturelle et 

des .Arts. 92: 418^27. 
Roman, F. 1912. Fauna saumatre du Sannoisien du Gard. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de 

France. (4)10: 927-955. 
Sandberger. C.L.F. von. 1870-1872. Die Land-und Siisswasser-Conclivlien der Vorwelt. 

Livraison 2/3: pp. 33-96. pis. 5-12 (1870); Livraison 4/5: pp. 97-160, pis. 13-20 (1871); 

Livraison 6/8: pp. 161-256, pis. 21-32 (1872). Kreidel, Wiesbaden. 
Schlickum, R.W. 1960. Die Gattung Nemalurella Sandberger. Archiv fiir Molhiskenkunde. 

89(4-6): 203-214. 
Schlickum, R.W. 1961. Die Gattung Euchilus Sandberger. .irchiv fiir Molluskenkundc. 90(1-3): 

59-68. 
Schlickum, R.W. 1965. Zur Gattung Euchilus Sandberger. .Archiv fiir Molhiskenkunde. 94(3-5): 

99-104. 
Schlickum, R.W. 1968. Zur Nomenklatur von Slaliopsis Rzehak 1893. .4rchiv fiir Mollusken- 
kundc. 9S[\~2): 53-54. 
Wenz, W. 1926. Gastropoda extramarina tertiaria. Fossiliinn Catalogus. I (Animalia), part 32. 

Pp. 1863-2230. Junk, Berlin. 
Wenz, W. 1939. Pp. 481-720 in: Handhuch der Paldoioologie. vol. 6. Gastropoda. 1. 

Allgemeiner Teil und Streptoneura. Borntraeger, Berlin. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(ainhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 87 

Case 3047 

Holospira Martens, 1860 (Molluca, Gastropoda): proposed designation 
of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type species 

Fred G. Thompson 

Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida. Gainesville, 
Florida 23611. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Cylindrella goldfussi 
Menke, 1847 as the type species of the North American pulmonate genus Holospira 
Martens, 1860 (family urocoptidae). The holotype of the present type species, 
C. pilocerei Pfeiffer, 1841 , no longer exists, and from its description that species could 
belong not only to Holospira (as at present used) but also to Malinchea, Stalaclella 
or perhaps other genera. Stability of nomenclature in the subfamily holospirinae 
Pilsbry, 1946 would be maintained by the proposed type species designation. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; urocoptidae; holospirinae; 
Holospira; Holospira goldfussi. 



1. Albers (1850, p. 209) proposed the generic name Acera for five nominal species, 
including Cylindrella pilocerei Pfeiffer, 1841 (p. 47) and C goldfussi Menke, 1847 
(p. 2); no type species was designated. 

2. Because Acera Albers is a junior homonym oi Acera Cuvier, 1810 and a 'virtual 
homonym' of Akera Miiller, 1776, the new replacement name Holospira was 
proposed by Martens (1860, p. 39). Holospira remains a potentially valid name 
because the suppression in Opinion 1079 (July 1977) oi .Accra Cuvier retained that 
name as available for purposes of homonymy, thus continuing to disquahfy Acera 
Albers. 

3. Martens (1860) designated Cylindrella pilocerei as the type species of Holospira, 
and retained in it some of the other species (including C goldfussi) which Albers 
(1850) had placed in his genus Acera. 

4. The name Holospira has remained in use, and it is the type genus of the 
subfamily holospirinae Pilsbry, 1946 of the family urocoptidae. At present (see e.g. 
Pilsbry. 1946, 1953) the subfamily contains 16 genus-group taxa and approximately 
135 described species. Most species are confined to very small geographic ranges (less 
than a few sq. km.) because they are obligate inhabitants of limestone outcrops. 
Important diagnostic characters for genus, subgenus and species identifications 
include the number and configuration of lamellae that comprise the internal barrier 
within the last three whorls. Convergence in external shell characters is common in 
the subfamily; these characters have no relationship to the internal lamellar barrier, 
and seldom are they useful for generic diagnoses. 

5. The internal barrier of Cylindrella pilocerei, the type species of Holospira, was 
never described. The external shell characters (as described by Pfeiffer (1841, p. 47) 
and illustrated by Philippi (1845, p. 183, pi. 1, fig. 7)) comply with any of three 



88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

genus-group taxa that occur in the general region of its type locahty: Holospira, 
Sialactellu Bartsch, 1906 and Malincheu Bartsch, 1945. The species may also belong 
to some other genus. Holospira (as currently understood) has tour smooth internal 
lamellae, whereas Malinchea has three and Slalactella has only two, one of which is 
spinose. The holotype of C. pilocerei has not been located in the collections where it 
might be expected (the Berlin Museum, the Senckenberg Museum, or the Natural 
History Museum, London), and it was probably destroyed during World War II 
together with most of the Pfeiffer collection in Berlin. Attempts in 1992 to collect the 
species at the type locality (Cuantla de las Amilpas, Puebla [Morelas], Mexico) were 
unsuccessful. The area is over-grazed by goat herding and intensely disturbed by 
other human uses; no population of any holospirid was found, and C. pilocerei is 
presumed to be extinct at its type locality. 

6. The name Cylindrella pilocerei must be regarded as a nomen dubium, and the 
nominal species is of no utility for characterizing Holospira. The current concept of 
the genus is based on the morphology of other species that have long been associated 
with it (Pilsbry, 1902 (p. 666), 1946 (p. 115), 1953 (p. 141); Gilbertson, 1993 (p. 79)). 
Amongst these is the Texan Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847, which is an originally 
included species of Holospira (paras. 1 and 3 above) and has since always been placed 
in the genus. The diagnostic features of the internal barrier of this species have been 
well described (see Pilsbry, 1946, p. 115) and syntypes are in the Natural History 
Museum, London. Nomenclatural stability in Holospira and more generally in the 
HOLOSPiRiNAE would be maintained by the designation of Cylindrella goldfussi 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 Holospira Martens, 1860 and to designate Cylindrella 
goldfussi Menke, 1 847 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Holospira 
Martens, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (I) above 
Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1 847; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name goldfussi 
Menke, 1847, as published in the binomen Cylindrella goldfussi (specific name 
of the type species of Holospira Martens, I860). 

References 

Albers, .I.C. 1850. Die Heliceen. nacli luiliirlic/ier Vcrvaiidlschafl sysienmlisch gcordnet. 262 pp. 

Berlin. 
Gilbertson, L.H. 1993. Reproductive anatomies of Huhspira spp. (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: 

Urocoptidiie) from Arizona and Sonera, with a new subgenus and a new subspecies. 

American Malacologicat Bidtelin. 10: 71-81. 
Martens, E. von. 1860. In Albers. J.C. Die Heliceen. nach naiiirlichcr \'ervcmdl.schaft 

systemati.Kch geordnet, Ed. 2. 359 pp. Engclmann. Leipzig. 
Menke, K.T. 1847. Vier neue Arten der Galtung Cylindrella Pfr. Zeitschrift fiir Malako- 

zoohgic. 1847(1): 1-3. 
Pfeiffer, L. 1841. Symbolae ad hisloriwn Heliceonini. 88 pp. Casselis. 
Philippi. R.A. [1842]- 1851. AhhiUhmgen wul Beschrcihungcn neuer odcr wcnig gckannter 

Conchylien, vol. 1. 204 pp. Cassel. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 89 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1902. Manual of Conchology. ser. 2, vol. 15. 323 pp. Philadelphia. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1946. Land Molhisca of North America (north of Mexico). Monograph, 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3, vol. 2, part I. v. 520 pp. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1953. Inland Mollusca of northern Mexico. II. Urocoptidae. Pupillidae, 

Strobilopsidae, Valloniidae, and Cionellidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia. \Q5: \3i-\61 . 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(g!nhm. ac.uk). 



90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Case 3039 

Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 1870 (currently Nephotettix 
nigropictus; Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation of the 
specific name 

M.R. Wilson 

Department of Biodiversitv and Systematic Biologv. National Museums and 
Galleries of Wales. Cardiff CFl 3NP. U.K. 
(e-mail: Mike.Wilson@nmgw.ac.uk) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of 
Nephotettix nigropictus (Stal, 1870), an Asian cicadellid leafhopper which is a 
vector of virus diseases of rice. Pediopsis nigromaculatus Motschulsky, 1859 has 
been identified as a senior synonym of N. nigropictus, but its introduction 
would cause confusion in the extensive economic literature and its suppression 
is proposed. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Homoptera; cicadelloidea; Nephotettix 
nigropictus; Pediopsis nigromaculatus: leafhoppers; rice pests. 



1. Stal (1870. p. 740) described the rice leafhopper Thamnotettix nigropicia (recte 
nigropictus, since tettix is masculine) from the Philippines. Ghauri (1971) revised the 
cicadellid genus Nephotettix Matsumura, 1902, in which the species is now placed, 
and reported (p. 482) that the male holotype and a female 'allotype' are well 
preserved in the Riksmuseum, Stockholm (specimens 345,69 and 346,69 respectively). 
Ghauri used the 'well-defined and authentic concept' of nigropictus Stal as the valid 
name for the species. 

2. Motschulsky (1859, p. Ill) described Pediopsis nigromaculatus from Ceylon 
(now Sri Lanka). The type material in Moscow consists of fragments (see para. 4 
below). 

3. Ghauri (1971) was aware that the description of Pediopsis nigromaculatus by 
Motschulsky would place this nominal species in Nephotettix, but he had been 
informed that the type material had been destroyed and accordingly treated the name 
as a nomen dubium. Five species of Nephotettix are known from Sri Lanka; the 
correct determination of the species is reliant on the male genitalia, although wing 
and body coloration is accurate for many specimens of both sexes. 

4. Vilbaste (1975, p. 233) found 'two fragments of fore wings, the end of a female 
abdomen and three fragments of the thorax with legs" of P. nigromaculatus in the 
remains of Motschulsky's collection in the Zoological Institute of Moscow State 
University. He concluded that the markings of the fore wings showed that this 
material was conspecific with Nephotettix nigropictus, and he noted that the 
original description of P. nigromaculatus was in accord with that of N. nigropictus. 
Vilbaste accordingly synonymised nigropictus Stal, 1870 with nigromaculatus 
Motschulsky, 1859. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 91 

5. Nephoiettix species are vectors of pathogenic plant viruses; they are major pests 
of rice in Asia and elsewhere in the Old World, and the literature is considerable. 
Various names for the more important species were used before the revision by 
Ghauri (1971) stabilised the economic literature. Since 1975 (the date of the 
synonymy made by Vilbaste) there have been at least 500 publications which have 
used the name Nephoiettix nigropictus; some recent examples are Inoue (1986). Cook 
& Perfect ( 1 989), Heong. Aquino & Barrion ( 1 99 1 ) and Waterhouse ( 1 993), and a list 
of a further 20 has been given to the Commission Secretariat. In contrast to this, the 
synonymy by Vilbaste appears to have been cited in just two catalogues of Australian 
leafhoppers, those by Evans (1977, p. 118) and Day & Fletcher (1994, p. 1208). 
Wilson & Claridge (1991) were aware of the synonymy, but in their handbook they 
used (p. 82) the name A', nigropictus (Stal, 1870) because of the extensive economic 
hterature. Any further resurrection of the barely used name nigromaailatiis 
Motschulsky, 1859 would cause very considerable confusion in the literature 
concerning rice pests. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name iiigromaculatus Motschulsky, 
1859, as published in the binomen Pediopsis nigromaculatus, 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 nigropictus 
Stal, 1 870, as published in the binomen Thamnotettix nigropicta [sic]; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name nigromaculatus Motschulsky, 1859, as published in the 
binomen Pediopsis nigromaculatus and as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Cook, A.G. & Perfect, T.J. 1989. Population dynamics of three leafhopper vectors of rice 

tungro viruses, Nephoiettix virescens (Distant), N. nigropictus (SiM) and Recilia dorsaiis 

(Motschulsky) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). in farmers' fields in the Philippines. Bulletin of 

Entomological Research. 79: 437^51. 
Day, M. & Fletcher, M. 1994. An annotated catalogue of the Australian Cicadelloidea 

(Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha). Invertebrate Taxonomy, S: 1117-1288. 
Evans, J.W. 1977. The leafhoppers and froghoppers of Australia and New Zealand (Homo- 

ptera: Cicadelloidea and Cercopoidea). Part 2. Records of the Australian Museum, 31: 

83-129. 
Ghauri, M.S.K. 1971. Revision of the genus Nephoiettix Matsumura (Homoptera: Cicadell- 
oidea: Euscelidae) based on the type material. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 60: 

481-512. 
Heong, K.L., Aquino, G.B. & Barrion, A.T. 1991. Arthropod community structures of rice 

ecosystems in the Philippines. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 81: 407-416. 
Inoue, H. 1986. Biosystematic study on the genus Nephoiettix occurring in Asia. Bulletin of the 

Kyushu Agricultural Expertmenl Station. 24: 149-237. 
Motschulsky, V. de. 1859. Insectes des Indes Orientales, et des contrees analogues. Pp. 25-1 18 

in: Eludes Enlomologiques. redigees par Victor de Motschulsky, vol. 8. Helsingfors. 
Stai, C. 1870. Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum. Bidrag till Philippinska oames 

Hemipter-fauna. Ofverslgl af Kongtiga Svenska Veienskaps-Akademlens Forhandlingar. 

11: 607-776. 
Vilbaste, J. 1975. On some species of Homoptera Cicadinea described by V. Motschulsky. 

Eesly NSV Teadusle Akadeemia Toimetised ('Bio\ogia), 24: 228-236. 



92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1W8 

VVaterhouse, D.F. 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia. 

141 pp. ACIAR. Canberra. 
Wilson, IVl.R. & Claridge, M.F. 1991. Handbook for the identification of leaflwppers and 

planlhoppers of rice. 142 pp. CAB International. Wallingford, U.K. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum. 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. (e-mail: iczncajnhm.ac.uk). 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 93 

Case 3040 

Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; 
Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name 

M.R. Wilson 

Department of Bioiliversitv and Systematic Biology, National Museums and 
Galleries of Wales. Cardiff CFI 3NP, U.K. 
(e-mail: Mike.Wilson@nmgw.ac.uk) 

M. Asche 

Museum fiir Naturkunde, Zentralinstitut der Humboldt Universitdl zu Berlin. 

Invalidenstrasse 43. D-101 15 Berlin. Germany 

(e-mail: Manfred= Asche@museum.hu-berlin.de) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of 
the widely distributed delphacid planthopper Asiraca clavicornis (Fabricius, 1794), 
the type species o^ .Asiraca Latreille, [1796]. It has recently been suggested that Cime.x 
aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763 and Cicada quaclristriaia Gmelin, 1790 are senior 
synonyms of A. clavicornis, and that the former should be adopted; however, the 
introduction of either of these unused names would disturb the settled nomenclature 
of more than 200 years and their suppression is proposed. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Homoptera; delphacidae; Asiraca clavicornis; 
Cime.x aequinoctialis; planthoppers. 



1. Fabricius (1794, p. 41) described the delphacid planthopper Cicada clavicornis 
from France, and the female holotype is preserved at the Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris (T. Bourgoin, pers. comm.); it is the type species of 
Asiraca Latreille, [1796] (pp. xii, 202) by the subsequent designation of Latreille 
(1810, p. 434). A. clavicornis is now known to be a widely distributed although seldom 
common species, and is found in most Western Palearctic countries (Nast, 1972). 
Metcalf (1943) listed 213 literature citations from 1794 to 1940 (the last year of his 
catalogue), and there are now over 300; examples include Lindberg (1948), Le Quesne 
(1960), Servadei (1967), Asche (1985) and Kirby (1992), and a list of 15 recent ones 
has been given to the Commission Secretariat. A. clavicornis is easy to identify and 
has not been called by any other name since the 18th century. 

2. Scopoli (1763, p. 132) described Cime.x aequinoctialis for a species that has 
remained doubtful ever since. Dolling (1996) has recently argued that Scopoli's 
description can only refer to Asiraca clavicornis, although he notes that the 
accompanying woodcut is 'so crude as to give no clue to its identity' and that no type 
material exists. Despite these drawbacks Dolling suggested that the specific name 
aequinoctialis should be adopted. 

3. Dolling (1996) also argued that the name Cicada quaclristriaia Gmelin, 1790 
(p. 2111) refers to A. clavicornis; this was given to a species described but not named 



94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

by Zschach (1788). Zschach's description (reproduced and translated by Dolling) 
might apply to A. ckmcornis, and the crude woodcut illustration does at least 
show the tibial spur on the hind leg which is diagnostic of delphacid plant- 
hoppers. Dolling said that in the absence of aequuwctialis the name quaclristriata 
should be used. 

4. Dolling proposed that since the species can be readily recognised and is of 
no economic importance there is no advantage in conserving the specific name 
clavicurnis Fabricius, 1794. We would argue the contrary. The species is very well 
known, and has been universally called Asinicci clavicornis for more than 200 years; 
we consider that there is a prima facie case that this stable usage should continue 
rather than that specific names should be resurrected from total obscurity and cause 
confusion in the literature. 

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

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

(a) aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cimex aeqiii- 
noctialis: 

(b) quadristriata Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada quadri- 
striata; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Asiraca 
Latreille, [1796] (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Latreille (1810) Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name clavicornis 
Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada clavicornis (specific name 
of the type species oi Asiraca Latreille, [1796]); 

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

(a) aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cimex aequi- 
noctialis and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) quadristriata Gmelin, 1 790, as published in the binomen Cicada quadri- 
striata and as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Asche, M. 1985. Zur Phylogenie der Delphacidae Leach, 1815 (Homoptera, Cicadina, 

Fulgoromorpha). Marhwger Enloniologische Puhlliaiiioiieii. 2(1): 1-398. 
Dolling, W.R. 1996. The identity of Cimex uequinoctiulis Scopoli (Hem., Delphacidae). 

EiUomologist's Monthly Magazine. 132: 49-50. 
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae. Ed. 13 (pp. 1517-2224). Lipsiae. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Ryngota. Entonwlogia systematica ememlata et aucta .... vol. 4. 472 pp. 

Proft, Hafniae. 
Kirby, P. 1992. A review oj the scarce ami threatened Hemiptera of Great Britain. 267 pp. Joint 

Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough. 
Latreille, P. A. [1 796]. Precis lies caracteres generates des insectes. di.<iposes dans un ordre naturel. 

xvi, 208 pp. Bourdeaux. Brive. 
Latreille, P. A. 1810. Considerations generates sur i ordre naturel des animaux composant les 

classes des cruslaces. des arachnides, et des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 95 

Le Quesne, W.J. 1960. Hemiptera Fulgoromorpha. Pp. 1-68 in: Handbooks for the idenlifi- 

calion of British insecls. vol. 2(3). 
Lindberg, H. 1948. On the insect fauna of Cyprus. Results of the expedition of 1939 by Harald, 

Haken and P.H. Lindberg. II. Heteroptera und Homoptera Cicadina der Insel Zypern. 

Commcnlationes Biologicuc\ 10(7): 123. 
Metcalf, Z.P. 1943. Fulguroidea. Part 3. Araeopidae (Delphacidae). In China, W.E. & 

Parshley, H.M. (Eds.), General Catalogue of the Hemiptera. Fascicle 4. 552 pp. Smith 

College, Northampton, Massachusetts. 
Nast, J. 1972. Palaearctic Auclienorrhyncha (Homoptera). An annotated check list. Polish 

Scientific Publishers, Warszawa. 
Scopoli, J.A. 1763. Entomologia carniotica. xxxvi, 420 pp., 43 pis. Vindobonae. 
Servadei, A. 1967. P. 569 in: Fauna d' Italia. Rliynchota (Heteroptera, Homoptera Auclienor- 
rhyncha). Catatogo topographico e sinonimico. Bologna. 
Zschach, J.J. 1788. Museum N.G. Leskeanum, Pars Entomologica ad systema CI. Fabricii 

ordinata. (2), 136 pp., 3 pis. Miiller, Lipsiae. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(gnhm. ac.uk). 



96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(2) June 1998 

Case 3068 

Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamaepsila rosae; 
Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name 

Peter Chandler 

43 Eastfield Road, Bumham, Slough, Berkshire SLl 7 EL, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of 
Psila (or Chamaepsila) rosae (Fabricius, 1794). This name has been in universal use 
for more than 200 years for the carrot fly (family psilidae), which is an economically 
serious pest of carrots and other crops. It has no synonyms, but is a junior primary 
homonym of Musca rosae De Geer, 1776, which is an invalid junior synonym of 
Scaeva pyrastri (Linnaeus, 1758) in the syrphidae and has always been treated as 
such. The new name Chamaepsila hennigi Thompson & Pont, 1994 was put forward 
to replace rosae Fabricius because of the homonymy, but this name has not been used 
and its introduction would cause confusion in the economic and taxonomic 
literature. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; psilidae; Psila; Chamaepsila: Psila 
rosae: Chamaepsila rosae: Chamaepsila hennigi: carrot fly. 



1. Fabricius (1794, p. 356) established the nominal species Musca rosae for a fly 
later classified in the family psilidae; he noted that the adult insect was found on 
flowers. The specific name has been consistently used both in taxonomic and 
economic literature for the 'carrot fly', a serious pest of carrots and of other crops 
belonging to the family Apiaceae (alternatively called the Umbelliferae). 

2. The generic placement of the species is not yet fully resolved. It has often, 
especially in the economic literature (a bibliography of which has been provided by 
Hardman, Ellis & Stanley, 1985) and in biological works (e.g. Petherbridge & Wright. 
1943; Ashby & Wright, 1946; Osborne, 1961; Brindle, 1965; Smith, 1989) been 
included in Psila Meigen, 1803 (type species Musca fimelaria Linnaeus, 1761 by 
designation of Westwood (1840, p. 146)). However, many recent works have placed 
it in Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917 (p. 37), of which it is the type species by original 
designation. 

3. The genus Chamaepsila has been recognized by Frey (1925), Hennig (1941), 
Shatalkin (1983), Soos (1984) and Wang (1988), and in many other recent papers 
dealing with various species of that genus. The division of Psila into four genera by 
Hennig (1941) was based mainly on chaetotactic characters which have uncertain 
significance, and it has not been accepted by some authors (e.g. Collin, 1944; 
Lyneborg, 1964; Shatalkin, 1986; Iwasa, 1991). These authors recognized several 
subgenera of Psila but all placed rosae Fabricius in the nominotypical subgenus Psila 
sensu stricto. In the case of the first two authors this was on the assumption that 
Pelellwphila Hagenbach, 1 822 was the correct name for the group containing Psila 
fimelaria (the type species of Psila: see para. 2 above), while the two more recent 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 97 

authors placed both the rosae andfimetaria groups in Psihi s. str., thus synonymizing 
Psila and Cluiniaepsila. 

4. This application does not seek to address the taxonomic placement of rosae 
Fabricius, 1794, but rather its conservation as the valid specific name for the 
important carrot fly pest species, which has always been denoted by the name for 
more than 200 years. 

5. Thompson & Pont (1994) examined the status of specific names which had been 
originally published in combination with the generic name Miisca Linnaeus, 1758; in 
the 18th-century Musca was used as a 'catch-all' genus for many species of Diptera 
which later were recognized as very diflTerent. Thompson & Pont (p. 161) noted that 
M. rosae Fabricius, 1794 was a junior primary homonym of M rosae De Geer, 1776 
(p. 108). The species concerned have not been placed in the same genus or even family 
for nearly two centuries, and De Geer's name was invalid from the beginning: 
he himself noted in 1 776 that Linnaeus had previously used the name M. pyrastri. 
Early authors (e.g. Stephens, 1829, p. 286; Walker, 1851, p. 287) also recorded that 
M. rosae De Geer is a junior synonym of M. pyrastri Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 594), now 
known as Scaem pyrastri (family syrphidae). Despite these facts, Thompson & Pont 
(1994) rejected the universally used name rosae Fabricius. In the absence of any 
synonym, they proposed the new name Chamaepsila lieimigi for the carrot fly; apart 
from being listed in the Zoological Record two years later the name hennigi has so far 
remained unused. 

6. The replacement (which would certainly not be universal) of the specific name 
of Psila (or Chamaepsila) rosae { Fabricius, 1 794) by the new name hennigi Thompson 
& Pont, 1994 would be contrary to the Preamble of the Code, which states that 'The 
object of the Code is to promote stability and universality ... All its provisions and 
recommendations are subservient to these ends'. It is important, and in the 
circumstances urgent, that the universally accepted specific name is conserved for the 
carrot fly pest, and that it is not rejected just because it was a primary homonym in 
Musca of a name which has always been invalid. There is a prima facie case under 
Article 79c of the Code for its conservation. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name rosae Fabricius. 1794. 
as published in the binomen Musca rosae. is not invalid by reason of being a 
junior primary homonym of Musca rosae De Geer, 1776; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- 
nation Musca rosae Fabricius, 1 794; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name rosae 
Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Musca rosae (specific name of 
the type species of Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917), ruled in (1) above not invalid 
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Musca rosae De Geer, 
1776; 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name hennigi Thompson & Pont, 1994, as published in the 
binomen Chamaepsila hennigi (a junior objective synonym of Musca rosae 
Fabricius, 1794). 



98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

References 

Ashby, D.G. & Wright, D.W. 1946. The immature stages of the carrot fly. Transactions of the 

Royal Enlomological Society of London. 97: 355-379. 
Brindle, A. 1965. Taxonomic notes on the larvae of British Diptera. No. 22 — Psilidae. The 

Entomologist. 98: 169-173. 
Collin, J.E. 1944. The British species of Psilidae (Diptera). Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 

(4)80: 214-224. 
De Geer, C. 1776. Memoires pour serrir a I'histoire des insectes. vol. 6. viii. 523 pp., 30 pis. 

Hesselberg, Stockholm. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica eniendata et aucta. vol. 4. [6], 472 pp. 
Frey, R. 1925. Zur Systematik der paliiarktischen Psiliden. Notulae Entomologicae. 5: 47-50. 
Hardman, J.A., Ellis, P.R. & Stanley, E.A. 1985. Bibliography of the carrot fly Psila rosae (¥.). 

Wellesbourne. 
Hendel, F. 1917. Beitriige zur Kenntnis der acalypteraten Musciden. Deutsche Entomologische 

Zeitschrift (Berlin), 1917: 33-47. 
Hennig, W. 1941. Psilidae. Pp. 1-38 in Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der pcdiiarktischen Region. 

no. 41. 
Iwasa, M. 1991. Taxonomic study of the genus Psila Meigen (Diptera, Psilidae) from Japan, 

Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands. Japanese Journal of Entomology. 59: 389-408. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol, 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Lyneborg, L. 1964. Danske acalypterate fluer. 2. Psilidae, Platystomidae og Otitidae (Diptera). 

Entumologiske Meddelelser. 32: 'idl-'ill. 
Osborne, P. 1961. Comparative external morphology of Psila rosae (F.) and P nigricornis Mg. 

(Dipt., Psilidae) third instar larvae and puparia. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, (4)97: 

124-127. 
Petherbridge, F.R. & Wright, D.W. 1943. Further investigations on the biology and control of 

the carrot fly {Psila rosae ¥.). Annals of Applied Biology. 30: 348-358. 
Shatalkin, A. 1983. New flies of the family Psilidae from the Far East. Entomological Review 

(Washington), 62: 127-134. 
Shatalkin, A. 1986. Review of the East Palaearctic flies of Psila Mg. (Diptera, Psilidae), with 

the key of the Palaearctic species. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute. Leningrad, 146: 

25-43. 
Smith, K.G.V. 1989. An introduction to the immature stages of British flies. Handbooks for the 

identification of British insects, vol. 10, part 14. 280 pp. Royal Entomological Society of 

London. 
Soos, A. 1974. Taxonomische und faunistische Untersuchungen uber die Psiliden (Diptera) aus 

der Mongolei. Annates historico-naturales Musei Nationalis Hungaricac. 66: 241-250. 
Sods, A. 1984. Family Psilidae. Pp. 28-35 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.). Catalogue of 

Palaearctic Diptera. vol. 9. 
Stephens, J.F. 1829. A systematic catalogue of British insects. Insecta Hauslellata. 388 pp. 
Thompson, F.C. & Pont. A.C. 1994. Systematic database of Musca names (Diptera). Theses 

Zoologicae, 20: 1-219. 
Walker, F. 1851. Insecta Britannica Diptera, vol. 1. 313 pp. Reave & Benham, London. 
Wang, X. 1988. Bestimmungstabellen der westpalaarktischen Chamaepsila-Arlen (Diptera: 

Psilidae). Stuttgarter Beitidge zur Nalurkimdc. Serie A (Biologie), no. 417. 13 pp. 
Westwood, J.O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of Briti.<:h insects. 158 pp. London. 

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. LC.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczncffinhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 99 

Case 3037 

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed 
designation of Iguanodon bernissai-tensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 
as the type species, and proposed designation of a ieetotype 

The late Alan J. Charig and Sandra D. Chapman 

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail for Ms Chapman: sdc@nhm.ac.uk) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate the well known nominal 
species Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type of the 
Cretaceous ornithopod Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (family iguanodontidae Huxley, 
1870). At present Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 is the valid type species but this is 
known only from fragmentary and non-associated teeth which show a complete lack 
of diagnostic characters. It is also proposed that a virtually complete and mounted 
skeleton in the Institut Royal des Sciences NatureUes de Belgique, Brussels, be 
designated the Ieetotype of /. bernissartensis. 

Keywords. Taxonomy; nomenclature; Ornithischia; iguanodontidae; iguanodons; 
Lower Cretaceous; Iguanodon; Iguanodon bernissartensis. 



1. During the period 1822-25 Mantell and his correspondent Cuvier (Cuvier's 
letter to Mantell, 20 June 1824) were the first to recognise the previously unsuspected 
existence of gigantic herbivorous terrestrial reptiles of Mesozoic age; this recognition 
was based on Mantell's discovery in the Wealden (Lower Cretaceous) rocks of 
Sussex, U.K., of large teeth resembling the much smaller teeth of modern iguanas (see 
Dean, 1993). However, it was not until 1842 (p. 103) that Owen published the name 
Dinosauria for three Mesozoic reptiles, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus (herbivores) and 
Megalosaurus (a carnivore). 

2. In 1825 Mantell (p. 184) established the genus Iguanodon for his herbivore teeth 
but did not mention any nominal species. He did not specify a type specimen of the 
genus but noted that the name was derived from the form of the teeth. He described 
and illustrated (1825, pp. 182-183, pi. 14, figs. 1-7) seven teeth from the sandstone of 
the Tilgate Forest Beds at Cuckfield, West Sussex. He mentioned also (pp. 184-185) 
that there were gigantic bones in the same deposits, some doubtless attributable to 
Megalosaurus Buckland, 1824 and others to Iguanodon. He considered that the 
former could be recognised by their similarity to the material described by Buckland 
(1824, p. 391) from Stonesfield, Oxfordshire, in which locality Iguanodon teeth were 
not known to occur. Therefore, argued Mantell, the other large bones and some 
vertebrae from the Tilgate Forest Beds, that could not be referred to Megalosaurus, 
could probably be assigned to Iguanodon. These bones and vertebrae are not 
identifiable in the Mantell Collection in the Natural History Museum, London. 

3. In 1829 Holl (p. 84) proposed the nominal species Iguanodon anglicum, which 
thus became the type species oi Iguanodon by subsequent monotypy (Article 69a(i)(l) 



100 Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 199S 

of the Code). The species was said to be based on teeth, several limb bones and 
vertebrae from the ferruginous Cretaceous sandstone of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex, 
as described by Mantell, but none of the specimens was described, illustrated or 
specified by its catalogue number. Holl referred to 'Philosophic. Transact. Tom. 1 15. 
pi. XIV" (the illustrations of the seven teeth in Mantell's work of 1825). Holl did not 
select a holotype from among these teeth. Recently Norman (1986, p. 284) corrected 
anglicum to anglicus because Iguanodon is masculine, and designated the dentary 
(lower) tooth depicted by Mantell (1825. pi. 14, figs, la, lb) as the lectotype of 
/. anglicus. 

4. Norman (1986) tentatively identified his lectotype tooth o( Iguanodon anglicus 
Holl, 1829 as no. BMNH 2392 in the Palaeontology Department of the Natural 
History Museum in London. The tooth appears under that number (not BMNH R 
2392 as cited by Norman) in Mantell's own catalogue and subsequently in the 
Natural History Museum register (after the purchase of the Mantell collection), 
where the handwritten entry reads 'The tooth of the Iguanodon figured as vignette in 
Mantell's Catal.' However, the identification of this tooth with the figures in Mantell 
(1825), referred to by Norman, cannot be verified absolutely; there are some 
differences between them. Lydekker (1888, p. 227), in his cataloguing of tooth no. 
BMNH 2392, does not mention Mantell (1825) but notes instead that the specimen 
is figured in Mantell's publications of 1827 (pi. 4. fig. 4 and pi. 17, figs. 6a and 6b) and 
1 833 (p. 272, figs. 4 and 5), as well as in some later works. An examination of all these 
figures and of tooth no. BMNH 2392 leads to the conclusion that the figures might 
be of several different teeth, possibly none of them being 2392. They all represent 
complete, fully grown dentary (lower) teeth of Iguanodon, somewhat worn down at 
their occlusal surface, but apparently differing in detail. Some are partly encased in 
rock, others are not; some of the drawings may have been reversed. Much depends 
upon the accuracy of the artist(s) who drew them. 

5. In 1832 von Meyer (p. 110) proposed another nominal species, Iguanodon 
mantelli. again based mainly on Mantell's seven teeth. However, he stated that it was 
based also on various additional fragments described or mentioned by other workers: 

(1) Cuvier (1825, pp. 350-352) had illustrated (pi. 21, figs. 28-33) six unnumbered 
and unspecified teeth of Mantell's; three of those figures (28-30) represented some of 
the teeth sent by Mantell to Cuvier while the other three (31-33) were copies of a 
plate supplied by Mantell from a work that he was intending to publish. 

(2) Murchison (1826, pp. 103-104) had mentioned and figured (pi. 15, fig. 9) an 
incomplete large femur from Headfoldwood Common, near Loxwood, West Sussex, 
at the western end of the outcrop of the Hastings Sand. He mentioned and figured 
also (pi. 15, figs. 1-7) a 'lumbar' vertebra, a sacrum, four caudal vertebrae, a rib, and 
a specimen identified as a false rib or branch of a hyoid, all from northeast of 
Loxwood. All this material is incomplete, unnumbered and not specified in any way. 
Murchison wrote of these specimens that it was 'not impossible that some of these 
bones may have belonged to that animal [Iguanodon]' . 

(3) Mantell (1827, pp. 71-79) had described (and illustrated in pis. 10-12, 14, 
16-18 and 20, legend on pp. 89-92) various unnumbered and unspecified teeth, 
vertebrae, ribs, a chevron bone, part of a supposed femur, two metatarsals and a 
'horn' (actually a thumb spike), all except the chevron being subsequently listed by 
von Meyer, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 101 

6. The nominal species Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 and /. mcintelli von Meyer. 
1832, being based in part upon the same material, are subjective synonyms. The 
species described by von Meyer is much better known than that of Holl, which had 
been proposed in a relatively obscure publication; in consequence, for more than 1 50 
years /. anglicus remained unknown to most authors, and /. maiiielli was generally 
regarded as the type species oi Iguanodon (see, for example. Lydekker. 1888, p. 218). 
However, both nominal species are clearly indeterminate. 

7. The situation was further complicated when the first associated remains of 
Iguanodon in some quantity were found at Maidstone, Kent, in 1834; Mantell's 
friends bought the specimen for him but the first adequate description was by Owen 
(1851, pp. 105-118). The specimen is now in the Natural History Museum, London. 
It still bears its original Mantell catalogue number 3791 but does not appear in the 
Natural History Museum register, where the number 3791 (although within the block 
of numbers allocated to the Mantell Collection) is blank. Until recently it was 
generally regarded, although incorrectly, as the type specimen of /. manteUi von 
Meyer. 1832: first by Hulke (1876. p. 364). then by Dollo (1882. p. 170). Lydekker 
(1888, p. 219; 'This specimen may be taken as the type of the species"). Woodward & 
Sherborn (1890, p. 241) and many others. Swinton (1970, p. 208) recorded, without 
comment, that Lydekker regarded '3791' as the type specimen. Indeed, the 
Maidstone Iguanodon is still displayed as the "holotype" of /. manteUi in the present 
exhibition in the Natural History Museum, London. The specimen, which is now 
referred to Iguanodon atherfieldensis Hooley, 1925 (see Norman, 1993, pp. 236-237 
and para. 9 below), is from a much higher horizon (Kentish Rag = Hythe Beds of the 
Lower Greensand = Aptian) than that of most other Iguanodon specimens from 
southeast England, the vast majority of which come from various levels in the 
Wealden; Mantell's teeth, for example, are from the Hauterivian. 

8. Mantell's (1825) seven syntype teeth (the lectotype of/, anglicus. designated by 
Norman, 1986, and six paralectotypes) are highly unsatisfactory as type material for 
the genus Iguanodon. The illustrations have been identified with actual specimens 
only tentatively and there is no evidence of their provenance (except in so far as, if 
the identifications are correct, some of them were listed by Lydekker in 1888 as being 
from Cuckfield. West Sussex); it is therefore impossible to determine whether or not 
they are all from the same locality. Likewise, since all the specimens are isolated teeth, 
it is uncertain as to whether they belong to the same individual or even to the same 
species. In any case, the several known species of Iguanodon have no features of the 
teeth by which they might be distinguished one from the other, and these teeth of 
/. anglicus could be conspecific with any of them. In brief, these teeth are indeter- 
minate specifically, and the name /. anglicus must be considered a nomen dubium. No 
other material has ever been referred to the species, nor could that be done. In these 
circumstances the appropriate course of action is to designate a new type species for 
the genus, after which the inadequacies of the /. anglicus material will be irrelevant. 

9. There are two common and sympatric supposedly distinct species of Iguanodon 
in the Weald of southeastern England and in Belgium, /. bernissariensis Boulenger in 
Beneden, 1881 (p. 606) and /. atherfieldensis Hooley, 1925 (p. 3); both are represented 
by almost complete articulated skeletons (many such in the case of /. bernissariensis; 
see De Pauw, 1902, and Norman, 1987, for an account of the 1878 discovery, 
recovery, preparation and display of specimens in the Institut Royal des Sciences 



102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels). The deposits in which they occur abundantly 
(Bernissart in Belgium, Ockley in Surrey, and the Isle of Wight) are of Barremian to 
Lower Aptian age, a little younger than the Hauterivian 'Tilgate Grit' of 
Cuckfield in which /. anglicus was found. The existence of two distinct osteological 
forms at Bernissart had been observed by Boulenger (1881, p. 605); Nopcsa 
(1915, 1918, 1929) noted that several deposits have yielded what appear to be two 
species of ornithopod dinosaur and suggested that in each case (including that of 
Iguanodon) the two might actually represent sexual dimorphs of a single biological 
species, but Norman (1986, p. 362) believed that the status of /. hernissurtemis and 
/. atlierfieldensis cannot be resolved. In these circumstances it seems prudent to 
choose the senior of the two nominal species, /. bernissartensis. as the type species 
of Iguanodon. 

10. Beneden (1881, p. 601) referred to 'une vingtaine d'individus de differentes 
grandeurs ont ete mis au jour" from the Bernissart Wealden deposits in the Institut 
Royal in Brussels. Boulenger (in Beneden, 1881, p. 606) described the anatomy of 
the pelvis of Iguanodon and considered that the greater number of sacral vertebrae 
(six) in the Bernissart fossils, compared with the five that Owen had demonstrated 
in /. munielli von Meyer, 1832, merited the establishment of a new species, 
/. bernissartensis. No particular specimens were mentioned. Dollo further described 
the species in 1882 (p. 177, pi. 9, figs. 3^) and in a series of 25 additional papers 
between 1883 and 1923. In more recent times detailed studies have been made by 
Norman (1980, 1986). 

1 1 . Among the 26 skeletons of Iguanodon hernissarten.sis from Bernissart now 
known, the first virtually complete and articulated specimen (specimen Q; catalogue 
no. IRSNB 1534) to be mounted and displayed in the Institut Royal in Brussels has 
traditionally been considered to be the type. This specimen was cited as the holotype 
by easier (1960, p. 126, pis. 5, 6, 11; 1978, p. 158, pis. 5, 6, II) and by Norman (1980, 
p. 13. figs. 61, 63-65, 67-72; 1986, pp. 366; 1987, p. 71) but, under Article 74b of the 
Code, it would be the lectotype. De Pauw mounted the skeleton during 1882-1883 
and sent a drawing of it to several eminent naturalists (see De Pauw, 1902, p. 24, 
pi. 6). The specimen was referred to by Dollo (1883a, p. 85) and the drawing was 
published by De Pauw (in Dollo, 1883a, pi. 5) and it has been almost completely 
internationally recognised as the type since that time. In a 1925 posthumous 
publication. Hooley (pp. II, 51) referred to a further specimen figured by Dollo 
(1883b, pi. 9) as the 'type-skull". This is skeleton N, catalogue no. IRSNB 1535 in the 
Institut Royal, which is less complete and embedded on the right side in matrix (see 
easier. 1960. p. 123, pi. 12; 1978, p. 155, pi. 12; and Norman. 1986, p. 366). It was 
assembled for display in 1905. Hooley's action constitutes a (possibly inadvertent) 
lectotype designation but to accept it would be destabilising and we now propose that 
skeleton Q, no. IRSNB 1534 in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique. be fixed as the lectotype of /. bernissartensis. 

12. 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 
Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 and to designate Iguanodon hernis.sartensis 
Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species; 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 103 

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species 
Iguanodon hernissariensis Boulenger in Beneden. 1881 and to designate 
skeleton Q, catalogue no. IRSNB 1534 in the Institut Royal des Sciences 
Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels, as the lectotype; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Iguanodon 
Mantell, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (l)(a) above 
Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881, as published in the binomen 
Iguanodon bernissartensis and as defined by the lectotype designated in (l)(b) 
above (specific name of the type species of Iguanodon Mantell, 1825). 

References 

Beneden, P.-J. van. 1881. Sur I'arc pelvien chez les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletins de 

I'Academie Rovale des Sciences, des Leltres el des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Classe des 

Sciences, (3)1(5): 600-608. 
Boulenger, G.A. 1881. Iguanodon bernissartensis. Page 606 in P.-J. van Beneden, Sur Tare 

pelvien chez les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletins de I'Academie Royale des Sciences, 

des Letlres el des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Classe des Sciences, (3)1(5): 600-608. 
Buckland, W. 1824. Notice on the Megalosaurus or great fossil lizard of Stonesfield. 

Transactions of the Geological Society of London, (2)1(2): 390-396. 
easier, E. 1960, 1978. Les iguanodons de Bernissart. 134 pp., 28 pis. (1960); 166 pp., 28 pis. 

(1978, Ed. 2). Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels. 
Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1824. Letter to Gideon Mantell, dated 20 June; original in Earth Sciences 

Library, The Natural History Museum, London. Frequently quoted by Mantell, e.g. in his 

works cited below: m 1825, pp. 180-181; in 1827, pp. 71-72: and in 1833, pp. 269-271. The 

excerpts are not always completely identical. 
Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1825. Recherches sur les ossemens fossites, Ed. 3, vol. 5, part 2. 547 pp.. 33 

pis. Dufour & D'Ocagne, Paris & Amsterdam. 
Dean, D.R. 1993. Gideon Mantell and the discovery of Iguandon. Modern Geology, 18(2): 

209-219. 
De Pauw, L.F. 1902. Notes sur les fouilles du charbonnage de Bernissart. Decouverte. 

solidification el montage des iguanodons. Jumpertz, Etterbeek-Brussels. 
Dollo, L. 1882. Premiere note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletin du Musee Royal 

d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 1(2): 161-180. 
Dollo, L. 1883a. Troisieme note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bullelin du Musee Royal 

d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique. 2: 85-120. 
Dollo, L. 1883b. Quatrieme note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletin du Musee Royal 

d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 2: 223-248. 
Holl, F. 1829. Handbuch der Pelrefaclenkimde. part 1. 115 pp. Hilscher, Dresden. 
Hooley, R.W. 1925. On the skeleton of Iguanodon atherfieldensis sp. nov., from the Wealden 

shales of Atherfield (Isle of Wight). Quarterlv Journal of the Geological Society of London, 

81(1): 1-61. 
Hulke, J.W. 1876. Appendix to "Note on a modified form of dinosaurian ilium, hitherto 

reputed scapula". Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 32: 364-366. 
Lydekker, R. 1888. Catalogue of the fossil Replilia and .Amphibia in the British Museum 

{Natural History), part 1. xxviii, 309 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Mantell, G.A. 1825. Notice on the Iguanodon, a newly discovered fossil reptile, from the 

sandstone of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex. Philosophical Transactions of the Roval Society, 

115(1): 179-186. 
Mantell, G.A. 1827. Illustrations of the geology of Sussex: with figures and descriptions of the 

fossils of Tilgate Forest, xii, 92 pp., 20 pis. Lupton Relfe, London. 



104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Mantell, G.A. 1833. The geology of the south-east of England, xix. 415 pp. Longman. Rees, 

Orme, Brown. Green & Longman. London. 
Meyer, H. von. 1832. Pakieologka zw Geschichte der Eidc iind ihrer Geschopfe. xii. 560 pp. 

Schmerber. Frankfurt am Main. 
Murchison, R.I. 1826 [not 1829. as printed on title-page]. Geological sketch of the north- 
western extremity of Sussex, and the adjoining parts of Hants and Surrey. Transactions of 

the Geological Society of London. (2)2(9): 97-107. 
Nopcsa, Baron F. 1915. Uber Geschlechtsunterschiede bei Dinosauriern. Centralblatt ftir 

Mineralogie. Geologic und Puliioniologie. 1915(13): 385-388. 
Nopcsa, Baron F. 1918. Uber Dinosaurier. Neues iiber Geschlechtsunterschiede bei 

Orthopoden. Centralblatt fiir Mineralogie. Geologic und Paldontologie. 1918(11-12): 

186-198. 
Nopcsa, Baron F. 1929. Sexual differences in ornithopodous dinosaurs. Palaeobiologica, 2(4-5): 

187-200. 
Norman, D.B. 1980. On the ornithischian dinosaur Iguanodon bernissartensis from the Lower 

Cretaceous of Bernissart (Belgium). Memoires de ITnsliliit Royal dcs Sciences Natiirelles 

de Belgique. 178: 1-105. 
Norman, D.B. 1986. On the anatomy oHguanodon atherfieldensis (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda). 

Bulletin de TInstitut Roval des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Sciences de la Terre. 56: 

281-372. 
Norman, D.B. 1987. On the history of the discovery of fossils at Bernissart in Belgium. Archives 

of Natural History. 14(1): 59-75. 
Norman, D.B. 1993. Gideon Mantell's 'Mantel-piece": the earliest well-preserved ornithischian 

dinosaur. Modern Geology. 18(2): 225-245. 
Owen, R. 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles, part 2. Report of the British Association for the 

Advancement of Science. 1841: 60-204. 
Owen, R. 1851. Monograph on the fassil Reptilia of the Cretaceous formations, part 1. xii, 118 

pp. Palaeontographical Society, London. 
Swinton, W.E. 1970. The dinosaurs. 331 pp.. 8 pis. Allen & Unwin, London. 
Woodward, A.S. & Sherborn, CD. 1890. A catalogue of British fossil Vertebrata. xxxv, 396 pp. 

Dulau, London. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. LC.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum. 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 105 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, 
Branchiopoda) 

(Case 2990; see BZN 54: 89-91) 

Mark J. Grygier 

Lake Biwa Museum. 1091 Oroshima, Kusatsu. Shiga 525-0001. Japan 

I oppose Fryer's proposal to set aside priority and conserve the chydorid water flea 
generic name Disparalona Fryer, 1968. This name is threatened by the recent 
discovery of the true nature of the problematical Phrixura rectirostris Miiller. 1867, 
Phrixura Miiller, 1867 being the senior generic synonym. However, Disparalona 
appears to be a name important to only a few taxonomic specialists who can easily 
keep track of a change. Fryer presents no evidence that this problem is of any wider 
urgency for other biologists or ecologists (such as a threat to the name Daphnia would 
engender, for instance). Although, as Fryer notes, the senior name was based on a 
deformed specimen and is morphologically inappropriate, this is no cause for 
rejecting it (Articles 18 and 23m of the Code). 

Fryer's citation (para. 7 of the application) of Article 23b is hardly applicable 
because Disparalona is not 'long-established", having been proposed only 30 years 
ago. In my view Fryer has failed to present convincing reasons for upsetting priority 
in this case. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus 
Esper, 11777) (currently OModes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera) 

(Case 3046; see BZN 54: 231-235) 

P. Sigbert Wagener 

Hemdener Weg 19, D-46399 Bocholt, Germany 

I can well understand that Dr Devyatkin has found nomenclatural problems in the 
course of his work on the Ochlodes venata-gxowp of Palaearctic butterflies. My 
colleagues and I were not happy with using the name venata in our book on the 
butterflies of Turkey (Hesselbarth, van Ooorschot & Wagener, 1995. pp. 177-178) 
and I think that the proposal put forward by Dr Devyatkin, to use the name sylvanus 
Esper, [1777], is the best solution to the problem of a name for the Large Skipper. 

Following Dr Devyatkin's finding that O. venata (Bremer & Grey, 1853) and 
O. sylvanus (Esper, [1777]) represent distinct species (paras. 6 and 7 of the appli- 
cation), I support the proposed conservation of the name sylvanus for the taxon 
recently, but possibly incorrectly, known as O. venata faunus (Turati, 1905). 

In relation to para. 2. I should like to point out that pi. 36 in Esper's work, which 
includes the figure of Papilio sylvanus and from which the name is available (Article 
12b(7) of the Code), was published in 1777, and the corresponding description in 
1 779 (see Heppner, 1 98 1 ), and that the text of Augiades sylvanus by Mabille (in Seitz, 
vol. I, pp. 1-347) was published in 1909 (not 1906). 



106 Bulletin ol" Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

To the works cited as using the specific name syhaims (paras. 2 and 5 of the 
application) may be added the widely known handbooks of Staudinger (1901, p. 1 15), 
Spuler (1902, pp. 72-73), Rebel (1909. pp. 79-80), Eckstein (191 3, "p. 115), Lampert 
(1923, p. 108) and Lempke (1936, p. 312). 

Additional references 

Eckstein, K. 1913. Die Schmetterlinge Deiitschluiuls mil besonderer Beriicksichtigung ihrer 

Biohgie. Th. 1. 1. Lutz. Stuttgart. 
Hesselbarth, G.. van Ooorschot, H. & Wagener, S. 1995. Die Tiigfaller tier Tiirkci. vol. 1. 
Lampert, K. 1923. Die Grosssclimelterlinge und Raupeii Mitleleuropas mil besonderer Beriick- 

sichligung der hiologischen Verhdilnisse. Schreiber, Munich. 
Lempke, B.J. 1936. Catalogus der Nederlandsche Macrolepidoptera. 1. Tijdselirift voor 

Eiilomologie. 79. 
Rebel, H. 1909. Fr. Berge's Schmellerlingsbuch mich dem gegenwdriigen Stande der Lepidopter- 

ologie lieu becirbeilet. 9. Augflage. Schweizerbartsche, Stuttgart. 
Spuler, .4. 1902. Die Schmelierlinge Eiiropas, vol. 1. Schweizerbartsche. Stuttgart. 
Staudinger, O. 1901. Famil. Papilionidae — Hepialidae. In Staudinger. O. & Rebel, H., 

Catalog der Lepidopieren des palaearclischen Faunengehieles. 1 . Friedlander, Berlin. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus gouldii Gray, 
1838 and Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a 
neotype for Hydrosaurus gouldii 

(Case 3042; see BZN 54: 95-99, 249-250). 

Glenn M. Shea 

Department of Veterinary Anatomy & Pathology. University of Sydney, NSW 2006, 
Australia 

Harold G. Cogger 

Tlie Australian Museum. 6 College Street. Sydney, NSW 2000. Australia 

1. We are writing in support of the purpose of the application, published in BZN 
54: 95-99 (June 1997) by Prof Robert Sprackland, Prof Hobart Smith and Dr Peter 
Strimple, to maintain existing usage of the names Varanus gouldii (Gray. 1838) and 
V. panoptes Storr, 1980, threatened by the discovery by Bohme (1991) that the 
putative lectotype of Hydrosaurus gouldii Gray, 1838 is conspecific with V. panoptes 
and not with the species to which the name V. gouldii has usually been applied. 

2. We offer evidence, not presented in the original application, that the lectotype 
designated by Mertens (1958) may not have been part of the original type series and 
hence that the designation was not valid, and further that Gray's original concept of 
the species H. gouldii may have included, or been based upon, the species to which the 
name is usually applied. We also argue that the neotype proposed for H. gouldii by 
Sprackland et al. is inappropriate and we nominate a new specimen to serve as 
neotype. 

3. We also point out that both of the names proposed for conservation are 
potentially threatened by two unused senior synonyins. both of which are made 
available only by the provision of measurements. Tupinamhis endraehtensis was 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 107 

described by Peron (1807, p. 118) from Bernier Island in Shark Bay, Western 
Australia, collected by the Baudin Expedition. Douglas & Ride (1962), Cogger, 
Cameron & Cogger (1983) and Bohme (1991), the only authors who have mentioned 
the name, recommended it be treated as either a nomen nudum or a nomen oblitum 
(in the sense of the 1961 and 1964 editions of the Code). Although two specimens 
were apparently collected on Bernier Island by the expedition (Baudin, 1974), neither 
is now extant (Roux-Esteve, 1979; Brygoo, 1987). However, the identity of the species 
is beyond doubt, as V. gouldii is the only lizard present on Bernier Island of the size 
given by Peron (see Storr & Harold, 1978; Storr, 1980). Consequently, and without 
a ruling to the contrary by the Commission, it is almost certainly an available name 
and remains a potential threat to the long-established name Varamis gouldii. The 
name Hydrosaums ocellarius appeared in a catalogue of reptiles in the museum of the 
Asiatic Society of Bengal (Theobald, 1868, p. 21). The name was ascribed to Blyth, 
and was associated with a stuffed specimen ('in bad state') from an unspecified 
locality in Australia, collected by Dr J. MacClelland. Prior to the recognition of 
V. paiioptes as a distinct species, Hydrosaums ocellarius was synonymised with 
V. gouldii by Mertens (1942), on the basis of the locality, original generic assignment 
and species name. Mertens (1963) later regarded the name as a nomen dubium. 
Cogger et al. (1983) subsequently noted Mertens's conclusion while retaining it in the 
synonymy of Varamis gouldii. We have not been able to locate the holotype to 
confirm the identity of the species. However, two sources of circumstantial evidence 
suggest that Hydrosaurus ocellarius is a senior synonym of Varamis panopies. Firstly, 
the specific epithet better fits V. panoptes than V. gouldii (indeed, the specific epithet 
panoptes also refers to the numerous distinct 'ocelli' on the dorsum of the species). 
Secondly, a single specimen of Varamis panoptes (BMNH 68.4.3.58). supposedly 
from Pegu, Burma (well beyond the range of the species) and donated by Theobald, 
is present in the Natural History Museum, London. Although this specimen, 
preserved in alcohol, cannot be the type (despite closely approximating the measure- 
ments given for BIyth's specimen), it does indicate that material of the species was 
available on the Indian subcontinent at the time. 

4. Gray's (1838) description of Hydrosaurus gouldii is brief ('... with two yellow- 
streaks on the sides of the neck; scales over the orbits sinall, flat'), and he neither 
nominated type specimens nor specified where the type material had been deposited, 
although he had stated in the introduction to his paper that the new species 
he described were 'either in the National Collection or Museum of the Army 
Medical Board at Chatham' (Gray, 1838, p. 275). The description fits both V. gouldii 
and V. panoptes in the senses in which both names have been subsequently 
applied. 

5. The application of the name gouldii to the species, though not explicitly stated 
in the original description, is presumed to honour the ornithologist John Gould, one 
of Gray's peers. At the time of the description, Gould was Ornithologist at the 
Museum of the Zoological Society of London, which has since been disbanded. 
However, there is no basis for assuming that Gould was directly connected with the 
species named in his honour. Gray frequently named species after his colleagues at 
the British Museum and other institutions. 

6. As John Gray was employed at the Natural History Museum, London 
(then part of the British Museum), it is likely that any specimens of V. gouldii or 



108 Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclalure 55(21 June 1998 

V. panopies in that collection prior to 1838 could be considered type specimens. The 
other possible depository of the types, the Museum of the Army Medical Board at 
Chatham, is no longer extant. 

7. In the first catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum, Gray (1845) listed 15 
specimens of V. gouldii (as Monitor gotildi) in that collection. Of these, six (h-j. Port 
Essington, Capt. Chambers; k. Port Essington, Mr Gould; 1-m, Adelaide, CD. 
Fortnum) cannot be part of the type series, as they could not have been collected until 
1840 or later (see Musgrave, 1932; Calaby, 1974). Of the remaining nine specimens, 
only four can be clearly identified in the second catalogue of lizards in the collect- 
ion (Boulenger, 1885), viz. Gray's specimens a-d, half-grown, stuffed, north-west 
Australia, Gould collection (= b-e of Boulenger). Significantly, neither Gray or 
Boulenger identified any of these or any other specimens of V. gouldii in the British 
Museum collection as part of the type series of that species. 

8. One of these four specimens a-d, BMNH 1946.9.7.61 (formerly identified as 
1.17a, and corresponding to Gray's specimen a) was nominated as lectotype of 
H. gouldii by Mertens (1958), who based his identification of the specimen as part 
of the type series on the basis of a pencilled annotation 'Feb. 1837' on the 
underside of the board on which the specimen is mounted. This is the specimen 
subsequently identified by Bohme (1991) as V. panopies. a species known predomi- 
nantly from northern Australia and parts of the south-western interior of the 
continent. 

9. However, John Gould and his collector John Gilbert did not arrive in Australia 
until September 1838, and neither collected outside south-western and south-eastern 
Australia until Gilbert travelled to Port Essington in January 1840 (see Whittell, 
1954). 

10. From 1836 to 1839, prior to leaving England for Australia, Gould had received 
material from Australia, describing a number of bird species (see, for example, 
Gould, 1836). However, all of the species described by Gould prior to his Australian 
expedition were either explicitly noted to have been collected in southern Australia 
(Swan River, Murrumbidgee River, or Tasmania) or are of species found in this 
region, sometimes exclusively. Prior to 1838, Gould did not describe any species 
of bird from Australian material that was found exclusively within the range of 
V. panoptes. 

1 1. Gould is known to have offered a collection of seven specimens, representing 
five species of reptiles from Australia, to the Zoological Society of London in 
February 1837 (Datta, 1997, p. 50), and it may be from this collection that the 
lectotype is derived. However, the locality and identification subsequently attributed 
to the lectotype do not concord with the possible sources of Gould's collection at that 
time. Further, other reptile specimens which bear the same pencilled date on their 
mounts were not described by Gray until 1845, suggesting that they did not arrive at 
the British Museum until much later than 1837. Hence, there must remain some 
considerable doubt that the pencilled date on the specimen represents the date of their 
acquisition by the British Museum. There is no other evidence that the specimen 
formed part of Gray's type series for H. gouldii. 

1 2. One of us (G.M.S.) has recently searched through the donations books for the 
British Museum for the period 1823 to 1839 and found only two donations of 
Australian material from Gould, both of birds only (February 25, 1837; April 8, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 109 

1837), However, an entry on January 27, 1838, six months prior to the publication 
(July 1838) of the description of Hydrosaurus goiddii, reads: 'A specimen oi Monitor 
Goiddii Gray and Trachydosaunis rugosiis Gray from New Holland. From Walter 
Buchanan esq.'. This entry is also annotated: 'Reg Jan 19 1 838 No. 230 23 1 ", resulting 
in a registration number in the then recently-commenced system of 38.1.19.230-231 
for these two specimens. Buchanan donated several lots of specimens to the British 
Museum, either explicitly from the locality 'Swan River', or which could only have 
come from south-western Australia, in which the Swan River settlement was located. 
The varanid specimen was not cited by Gray (1845) seven years after its acquisition 
by the British Museum, nor is it now able to be identified in the collections of the 
Natural History Museum, London. However, it does provide evidence that Gray's 
concept of the species, prior to its description, could have included the species now 
known as V. goiddii. Two members of the V. goiddii complex occur in the vicinity of 
the Swan River, V. goiddii and V. rosenbergi Mertens, 1957. 

13. To designate a neotype for Hydrosaurus gouldii is clearly the most suitable 
way to stabilise application of the name, and we agree with the sentiment 
expressed by Sprackland et al. in their application that the neotype should be in 
the collection worked on by Gray and in which the former supposed lectotype 
was located. However, we believe that the specimen proposed as neotype by 
Sprackland and his colleagues is inappropriate. Varanus goiddii occurs across 
much of the Australian continent and shows considerable geographically-based 
variation (see Mertens, 1958; Houston, 1978: Storr, 1980). It is likely that when 
this variation is formally analysed, the species will be further subdivided. The 
neotype proposed for H. goiddii has no specific location associated with it, and is 
an old, discoloured, stuffed and mounted specimen not suitable for accurate 
measurement or for loan to specialists. As there has been, until recently, no 
well-preserved material of this species with precise locality data in the collection of 
the Natural History Museum, London, we have arranged, through the courtesy of 
Dr Graham Thompson of Edith Cowan University and Mr Laurie Smith of the 
Western Australian Museum, and following consultation with Prof Sprackland, for 
a preserved subadult V. goiddii (BMNH 1997.1, formerly Western Australian 
Museum Rl 31792) to be lodged in the Natural History Museum to serve as 
the neotype. This specimen, from Karrakatta, Perth, Western Australia, collected 
by G. Thompson on 29 September 1997, is from a population that is well- 
studied ecologically (see Thompson, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996a, 1996b; Thompson & 
Withers. 1992; Thompson, Withers & Thompson, 1992) and is concordant with the 
locahty for Walter Buchanan's specimen that was available to Gray prior to the 
publication of the description. A manuscript thoroughly describing and illustrating 
this specimen is in preparation. 

14. We therefore propose that the specimen put forward as the neotype of Varanus 
goiddii Gray, 1838 by Sprackland, Smith & Strimple in their application (BZN 54: 98) 
should be replaced by specimen no. BMNH 1997.1 from Karrakatta, Perth, Western 
Australia and now in the Natural History Museum, London. This proposal has been 
welcomed by the authors of the application. 

15. We further propose that the suppression of the specific names of Tupinanibis 
endrachtensis Peron, 1807 and Hydrosaurus ocellarius Blyth, 1868 should be added to 
the original application. »- 



1 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 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) endrachtensis Peron, 1807. as published in the binomen Tupinambis 
eiidrachlensis; 

(b) ocellarius Blyth, 1868, as published in the binomen Hydrosaurus ocellarius; 

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

(a) endrachtensis Peron, 1807, as published in the binomen Tupinambis 
endrachtensis. as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) ocellarius Blyth, 1868, as published in the binomen Hydrosaurus ocellarius, 
as suppressed in ( 1 )(b) above. 

Additional references 

Baudin, N. 1974. Tfie Journal of Post Captain Nicolas Bamlin. Commander-in-Chief of the 

Corvettes Geographe </«</ Naturaliste. Assigned hy order of the Government to a voyage of 

discovery. (Translated by C. Cornell). 609 pp. Libraries Board South Australia. Adelaide. 
Blyth, |E.|. 1868. Hydrosaurus ocellarius. P. 21 in Theobald, W., Catalogue of reptiles in the 

Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 37(2) 

(e.xtra number): 1-88 
Boulenger, G.A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum {Natural History), vol. 2. 

xiii. 497 pp. British Museum (Natural History). London. 
Brygoo, E.-R. 1987. Les types de Varanides (Reptiles. Sauriens) du Museum national 

d'Histoire naturelle. Catalogue critique. Bulletin du Museum National d'Hisloire Naturelle. 

Paris, (4,A9)2 Suppl.: 21-38. 
Calaby, J.H. 1974. Historical background. Pp. 7-19 in Frith, H.J. & Calaby, J.H. (Eds.), 

Fauna survey of the Port Essington district, Cobourg Peninsula, Northern Territory of 

Australia. CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research Technical Paper, 28: 1-208. 
Datta, A. 1997. John Gould in Australia. Letters and drawings. 502 pp. Miegunyah Press, 

Carlton South. 
Douglas, A.M. & Ride, W.D.L. 1962. Reptiles. Pp. 113-119 in Fraser. A.J. (Ed.). The results 

of an e-xpedition to Bernier and Dorre Islands Shark Bay. Western Australia in July. 1959. 

Western Australia Fisheries Department Fauna Bulletin. 2: 1-131. 
Gould, J. 1836. [Specimens exhibited of numerous birds, chiefly from the Society's collections]. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1836: 5-7. 
Gray, J.E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. 

xxvii, 289 pp. Newman, London. 
Houston, T.F. 1978. Dragon lizards and goannas of South Australia. 84 pp. South Australian 

Museum. Adelaide. 
Mertens, R. 1942. Die Familie der Warane. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischett Gesellschaft . 

462, 465-466: 1-391. 
Mertens, R. 1963. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien; Helodermatidae, Varanidae. 

Lanthanotidae. Das Tierreich, 79; 1-26. 
Musgrave, A. 1932. Bibliography of Australian entomology 1775-1930 with biographical notes 

on authors and collectors. 380 pp. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney. 
Peron, F. 1807. Voyage de decouverles aux Terrcs Australes. execute pur ordre de Sa Majeste 

I'Empereur et Rot. sur les Corvettes le Geographe. le Naluralislc. el la Goelelte le Casuarina. 

pendant les annees 1800. JSOJ. 1802. 1803 et 1804, vol. I. 496 pp. Imprimerie Imperiale. 

Paris. 
Roux-Esteve, R. 1979. Liste des amphibiens et reptiles des collections du Museum National 

d"Histoire Naturelle de Paris, recoltes par Lesueur (1778-1846). Bulletin Trimestriel de la 

Societe Giologique de Normandie el des Amis du Museum du Havre. 66(3): 25-29. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 111 

Theobald, W. 1868. Catalogue of reptiles in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 

Joiinuil of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 37(2) (extra number): 1-88. 
Thompson, G.G. 1992. Daily distance travelled and foraging areas of Varanus gouldii (Reptilia: 

Varanidae) in an urban environment. Wildlife Research. 19: 743-753. 
Thompson, G.G. 1994. Activity area during the breeding season of Varanus gouldii (Reptilia: 

Varanidae) in an urban environment. Wildlife Research. 21: 633-641. 
Thompson, G.G. 1995. Foraging patterns and behaviours, body postures and movement speed 

for goannas, Varanus gouldii (Reptilia: Varanidae). in a semi-urban environment. Journal 

of the Royal Society of Western Australia. 78: 107-114. 
Thompson, G.G. 1996a. Notes on the diet of Varanus gouldii in a semi-urban environment. 

Western Australian Naturalist. 21: 49-54. 
Thompson, G.G. 1996b. Goannas in the graveyard. Nature Australia. 25(7): 30-37. 
Thompson, G.G. & Withers, P.C. 1992. Effects of body mass and temperature on standard 

metabolic rates for two Australian varanid lizards ( Varanus gouldii and Varanus 

panoptes). Copeia. 1992: 343-350. 
Thompson, G.G., Withers, P.C. & Thompson, S.A. 1992. The combat ritual of two monitor 

lizards. Varanus caudolineatus and Varanus gouldii. Western .Australian Naturalist. 19: 

21-25. 
Whittell, H.M. 1954. The literature of Australian birds: a history and a bibliography of 

Australian ornithology. Paterson Brokensha Pty Ltd., Perth. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae 
Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia, Squamata) 

(Case 3043; see BZN 54: 100-103, 250-251; 55: 37-39) 

(1) T. Ziegler and W. Bohme 

Zoologisches Forschimgsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenmierallee 160. 
D-53113 Bonn, Germany 

We should like to argue against the application by Prof Robert Sprackland, Prof 
Hobart Smith and Dr Peter Strimple, published in BZN 54: 100-103 (June 1997). 

1. Wells & Wellington (1985a) described Odatria keithhornei based on the 
holotype QM (- Queensland Museum) J31566 from Buthen Buthen, Nesbit River. 
Cape York Peninsula, Queensland, collected by Gregory Czechura in August 1978. 
They 'diagnosed' their new species only by referring to Czechura's (1980) paper 
(which had recorded emerald monitors from Australia for the first time): 'A member 
of the Odatria prasimis complex, believed confined to Cape York Peninsula, 
Queensland and readily identified by referring to the excellent diagnostic and 
descriptive data in Czechura (1980). The holotype of Odatria keithhornei is also 
figured by Czechura ( 1980: Plate 1 )" and concluded with the etymological derivation: 
'Named for Mr. Keith Home, herpetologist of Sydney, New South Wales'. 

2. In June 1987 the President of the Australian Society of Herpetologists proposed 
the suppression for nomenclatural purposes (Case 2531, BZN 44: 116-121) of three 
works by Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington (Wells & Wellington. 1984, 
1985a, 1985b) — one of them (Wells & Wellington, 1985a) including the description 
of Odatria keithhornei. Reasons for the proposed suppression included the facts that 
Wells & Wellington (1984, 1985a, 1985b) published their concepts in their own 
journal independent of any expert opinion and, it was stated, largely without any 
solid taxonomic basis. Several comments concerning this application appeared in the 



112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Bullet in from 1987 to 1990. Eventually the Commission decided (see BZN 48: 
337-338, December 1991) 'that it will not vote on this application, which it considers 
to be outside its remit', and pointed out 'that the provisions of the Code apply to all 
names directly and indirectly involved in this case'. Odatria keithhornei Wells & 
Wellington, 1985 is thus an available name. 

3. Unaware of the article by Wells & Wellington (1985a) and their description of 
Oiluiiici keithhornei. Sprackland (1991 ) described the same varanid species as Varanus 
teriiie. His description was also based on QMJ3I566 as holotype, thus rendering 
V. teriae a junior objective synonym of Odatria keithhornei. currently cited as 
Varanus (Euprepiosaurus) keithliornei (see Bohme, 1988; Sprackland, 1991; and 
Ziegler & Bohme, 1997). 

4. The Commission also concluded in its 1991 decision on the 1987 case (BZN 48: 
337-338) 'that the aim of the application would be best achieved by leaving the issues 
to specialists to be settled through usage, any submissions to the Commission being 
confined to names rather than to works'. This means that the name V. teriae has to 
fall under the synonymy of V. keithhornei. 

5. Covacevich & Couper (1994) recorded the synonymy of Odatria keithhornei and 
Varanus teriae but did not indicate which name was valid. The name V. keithhornei 
with its junior synonym V. teriae can be found in Bennett (1996 [wrongly spelled as 
'Varanus keithhorni'] and 1998 — two of the most recent general references dealing 
with monitor lizards on a world-wide scale), Kirschner, Miiller & Seufer (1996), 
Lemm (1997), Ziegler & Bohme (1997), Bohme (1997) and Bohme & Ziegler (1998). 
Additionally, in our systematic work (Ziegler & Bohme, 1997), in which we cite all 
valid subspecies, species and subgenera of the genus Varanus, we have drawn 
attention to the consequences of the works by Wells & Wellington (1984, 1985a) 
concerning varanid systematics. We have extensively discussed (pp. 15-16, 158-160) 
the nomenclatural situation of V. keitlihornei in the light of the 1991 Commission 
decision. The purely taxonomic and nomenclatural work of Bohme (1997), an 
updated and revised checklist complementing the famous 'Tierreich' list by Robert 
Mertens (1963), lists V. keithhornei wilh its junior synonym V. teriae. 

6. Finally, a particularly weak argument of Sprackland and colleagues (para. 3 of 
their application) is that the lizard "features in documentation relating to conser- 
vation of protected species ... and is listed under the name Varanus teriae in the World 
ehecklist of threatened amphibians and reptiles (1993. p. 50) and in the most recent 
publication (1996) issued by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)'. We would like to emphasize that 
conservation and legislative authorities are users rather than creators of taxonomic 
progress and possible nomenclatural consequences. Because of this they should rely 
on scientific reasoning and not vice versa. 

7. From the reasons outlined above we request that the application 3043 be 
formally rejected. 

Additional references 

Bennett, D. 1996. Waranc der Welt — Weh der Warane. 383 pp. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt 

am Main. 
Bennett, D. 1998. Monitor lizards: natural history, biology and husbandry. 352 pp. Edition 

Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June I99S 113 

Bohme, W. 1997. Robert Merlens' Sysiemalik und Klassifikalion der Warane: Akluali.sienmg 

seiner 1942er Monographie und eine revidierte Checklisle. Addendum lu ihe reprint of 

Mertens. R. (1942): Die Familie der Warane (Varaindue). Ersler bis dritter Teil. 

Pp. i-xxii. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main. 
Bohme, W. & Ziegler, T. 1998. Varamis melimis sp. n.. ein neuer Waran aus der V. 

indictis-Gruppe von den Molukken, Indonesien. Herpetofauna, 19(111): 2(j-34. 
Lemm, J. 1997. Reptile dreamtime. Reptiles. 5(9); 32-45. 
Mertens, R. 1963. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien: Helodermalidae, Varanidae. 

Lanthanotidae. Das Tierreich, 79: 1-26. 
Ziegler, T. & Bohme, W. 1997. Genitalstrukturen und Paarungsbiologie bei squamaten 

Reptilien. speziell den Platynota, mit Bemerkungen zur Systematik. Merlensiella, 8: 

1-207. 

(2) R.T. Hoser 

Death Adder Services. PO Box 599. Doncaster. Victoria. 3108. Australia 

I agree with most of the facts given in Case 3043 on the taxonomic history of 
Varamis keithhornei (Weils & Wellington, 1985). However, for the reasons given 
below. I disagree with the application. 

1. Alleged difficulties by the senior author (Sprackland) in obtaining the original 
description of Odatria keithhorttei are not grounds for suppression of the name. The 
publications of Wells & Wellington (1984, 1985a, 1985b) were held by a number of 
major institutions and the Coinmission Secretariat, so obtaining a copy was by no 
means an insurmountable problem. Many older descriptions were published in rare, 
obscure and little known publications, which in my view present far greater 
accessibility problems. 

2. It is unfortunate that Sprackland (1991) later described the same taxon as Wells 
& Wellington (1985a) under a different name, but these events have occurred many 
times throughout history and I see no reason why this case should be different from 
others. In crude terms, teriae is a junior synonym and that is it. A perusal of Cogger, 
Cameron & Cogger (1983) shows that junior synonyms (invalid names) have often 
been frequently used (particularly in earher times, when for one reason or another an 
author failed to be aware of earlier and often obscure publications), only to be 
replaced later. The Australian herpetological community has had no trouble 
adapting to newly-realised correct names brought to their attention. This has been 
reflected in the benchmark publications of Cogger (1975, 1979, 1986, 1992) in which 
frequently used names are discarded with great regularity. Use of previously little 
known or unheard-of names by a single author such as Cogger often precedes their 
almost immediate and wider acceptance by the herpetological community. 

3. Sprackland could not have been unaware that the (1985a, 1985b) Wells & 
Wellington publications were taxonomic in nature and that they described many new 
nominal species, or at least purported to. I therefore submit that he should have made 
further inquiries about these publications and obtained copies before describing a 
new Australian taxon. 

4. I agree that for the past six years common usage has favored Varamis teriae over 
V. keithhornei, as noted by the authors of the application and others. However I 
believe that the name keithhornei is now gaining wider acceptance, particularly since 
publication and circulation of Covacevich & Couper (1994), and without adverse 
Commission intervention it will become the preferred and generally used name by 



114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

most authors within a relatively short period, since it is the senior synonym. The three 
most recent publications listing the species all gave its name as keilhlwrnei and noted 
that this is a senior synonym of leriae (see Bennett, 1996, 1998; and Lemm, 1997). All 
three publications have very high circulation, the last appearing in the most widely 
circulated herpetological periodical in the world, the magazine Reptiles. Lemm (1997) 
listed 'a relatively recent herp find, the canopy monitor ( Varanus keithhornei — 
formerly teriae)' . General acceptance of a newly-realised correct name over an 
incorrect one has occurred many times in recent history (certainly in Australian 
herpetology) and this case should not be treated any differently. 

5. The authors of Case 3043 cite Bennett's (1995) use of teriae as evidence in favor 
of their common usage argument. They appear to have overlooked the fact that the 
same author's subsequent publication, Bennett (1996), correctly used keithhornei, 
citing teriae as a junior synonym. Bennett (1998) again used the name keithhornei. 
Contention by Sprackland and colleagues (see BZN 54: 250-51) that 'nor has the 
name keithhornei ever been recorded' is patently incorrect as demonstrated by 
Bennett (1996, 1998) and Lemm (1997); at least one of these publications appeared 
well before Case 3043. 

6. The argument by Sprackland et. al (BZN 54: 250) that some authors may 
inadvertently think V. keithhornei and V. teriae are separate species lacks credibility. 
The same argument could be applied to all other taxa for which synonyms have ever 
existed, and the Commission could be called on to suppress each and every invalid 
name. 

7. The need to consult an original description when writing about a species or 
recording new information about biology, taxonomy or other matters is clearly not 
always necessary. A statement (see BZN 54: 251) by the authors of Case 3043 that 
'Sprackland's (1991) work must be consulted as the original study giving a full 
description ...' has no relevance as to what the taxon should be called. Taxonomic 
revisions and analyses are common in zoology, particularly when the original 
description may be brief, old or inadequate, but such studies do not give the later 
authors the right to rename species in violation of well established nomenclatural 
rules. 

8. Suppression of Odatria keithhornei Wells & Wellington, 1985 in line with Case 
3043 would cause confusion for herpetologists both within and outside Australia. 
Most now recognise the species as Varanm keithhornei, and that it was also formerly 
known as V. teriae. I propose that Case 3043 be rejected. 

Acknowledgments 

Brian Barnett, Shireen Borez, Neil Davie and Grant Turner provided various 
assistances. 

Additional references 

Cogger, H.G. 1975. 1979, 1986, 1992. Reptiles and wnplubicms of Australia. (1975), 584 pp. 

Reed, Sydney: Ed. 2 (1979), 608 pp. Reed, Sydney; Ed. 4 (1986), xxi. 688 pp.. Reed, 

Sydney; Ed. 5 (1992), 775 pp.. Cornell University Press, Comstock. 
Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E. & Cogger, H.M. 1983. Zoological catalogue of Australia, vol. 1 

(Amphibia and Reptilia). vi, 313 pp. Australian Government Publishing Service, 

Canberra. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 115 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Diemenia atra 
Macleay, 1884 (currently Demansia atra; Reptilia, Serpentes) 

(Case 2920; see BZN 54: 31-34). 

Glenn M. Shea 

DepartweiU of Veterinary Anatomy and Pathology, University of Sydney, 

New South Wales 2006, Australia 

I am writing to oppose the proposal by Prof Hobart Smith and Dr Van Wallach. 
They argue that the change of name of the Black Whip snake from Demansia atra to 
D. vestigiata would threaten nomenclatural stability for five reasons related to the 
long history and frequent usage of the former name, the desirability of stability in the 
nomenclature of venomous snakes, and the relative condition of the type material 
and accuracy of type localities. I disagree with several of their arguments, which do 
not take into account the unusually complex nomenclatural history and difficult 
taxonomy of the genus. 

1. Smith & Wallach argue that herpetologists have long been familiar with the 
name Demansia atra, and indeed it has been frequently used for the species in 
question. However, for over a century, from Krefft (1869) to Cogger (1971), the 
species was most commonly known as Demansia (or Diemenia) olivacea (Gray, 1842). 
That name was transferred to a different, much smaller species by Cogger & Lindner 
(1974). The latter species had been known as D. ornaticeps for the same period. Smith 
& Wallach do not make it clear that the name olivacea was changed in its application 
from one species to another. During this period, specimens now referred to the larger 
species, the Black Whip snake, were also variously identified as D. psammophis (see 
Krefft, 1869; Boulenger, 1896); and D. psammophis (or olivacea) papuensis (see Slater, 
1956, 1968; Klemmer, 1963). North-eastern Queensland populations of the Black 
Whip snake were treated as varietally distinct (D. olivacea var. atra) from populations 
elsewhere in Australia by Kinghorn (1929) and Worrell (1952). The works cited 
above include the major standard Australian and international reference works and 
checklists of the time. Early venom studies (Kellaway, 1934) also used the name 
D. olivacea for the species. 

The resurrection of Diemenia atra from synonymy by Cogger & Lindner (1974) 
was necessary because the name D. olivacea was demonstrated to be applied to the 
wrong species. However, because of uncertainty about the identity of New Guinea 
populations of Demansia, the name D. atra was 'arbitrarily' used (see Cogger & 
Lindner, 1974, p. 93) for Australian populations, and D. papuensis (Macleay, 1877) 
was applied to New Guinea populations. Cogger & Lindner did not report examining 
type specimens. New Guinea populations have since been referred to on several 
occasions (Storr, 1978; Parker, 1982; Wells & Wellington, 1985; Wilson & Knowles, 
1988; Cogger, 1992, 1996; Ehmann, 1992) as D. papuensis. 

A taxonomic complication was revealed by Storr (1978), who demonstrated that 
there were two species of Black Whip snakes in north-western Australia, to which 
he applied the names D. atra and D. papuensis melaena. Subsequent workers 
(Longmore, 1986; Wilson & Knowles, 1988; Cogger, 1992; Ehmann, 1992) have been 
uncertain as to the differentiation of these two species in north-eastern Australia, 
and consequently the extent of their distribution. Storr (1978) also reidentified the 



116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

only Black Whip snake examined by Cogger & Lindner (1974) as D. papiiensis 
melaena. 

A recent study (Shea, in press) of variation in Black Whip snakes throughout their 
range has revealed that the two species are widespread with broadly overlapping 
distributions across northern Australia, and that all previous Australian studies for 
which the specimen basis is identifiable were based on composite series of the two 
species. These include both taxonomic accounts (Thomson, 1935) and ecological 
studies (Shine, 1980). Moreover, and providing further potential confusion, there is no 
good evidence that D. papiiensis occurs in Papua New Guinea since all New Guinean 
specimens appear unequivocally referrable to the species that is the subject of this case. 

It is apparent that there is both little stability in the names applied to the Black 
Whip snakes and great confusion as to the identification of the different species of 
Black Whip snakes. The argument that the name D. alia has been consistently 
applied to a single species is spurious; the resurrection of D. atra by Cogger & 
Lindner (1974) was based on a single incorrectly identified specimen, and an 
arbitrary, unsupported and ultimately incorrect decision to recognise Australian and 
New Guinean populations as distinct. 

2. Against this background of uncertain and inconsistent application of names, 
Ingram (1990) demonstrated that the name Hoplocephalus vestigiaiiis De Vis, 1884 
antedated D. aim Macleay, 1884. Smith & Wallach maintain that H. vestigiaiiis 
remained in the synonymy of Austrelaps superhus until 1990, when Ingram resur- 
rected it. However, its identity with the species previously known as Denumsia 
olivacea and then as Demansia atra was clearly noted by Mack & Gunn (1953), 
Covacevich (1971) and Cogger, Cameron & Cogger (1983). Smith & Wallach further 
argue that since its resurrection, D. vesligiata has been used as the available name for 
the species concerned on only three occasions (although they give the full reference 
to only two of these). However, since 1990, the name has also been used in papers 
on ecology (Covacevich, Roberts & McKinna, 1994), vertebrate survey reports 
(Williams, Pearson & Burnett, 1993a, 1993b), field guides (Covacevich & Wilson, 
1995), popular books (Healey, 1997) and international checklists (Golay, 1993). In 
contrast, since 1990 the name D. atra has been used for the species in seven 
publications (Cogger, 1992, 1996; Ehmann, 1992; Mirtschin & Davis, 1992; Shea, 
Shine & Covacevich, 1993; Swan, 1995; O'Shea, 1996). Hence, there is no clear 
preference for one name over the other in recent literature. 

3. Smith & Wallach argue that the type material of D. atra is in better condition 
than that of H. vesiigiatus and that the type locality is more precise. They did 
not examine the types concerned, and base their argument on the literature. The 
type specimens of both names are illustrated by Shea (in press). The holotype of 
H. vesiigiatus. although having suffered some damage, is still easily identifiable as 
belonging to the same species as that of D. atra. Indeed, discounting points of 
damage to the tail, neck and throat (which do not hamper identification), the 
holotype is in a similar state of preservation as the lectotype of D. atra. Despite the 
lack of a type locality, there is no doubt of the species to which the name H. vesligiata 
applies: a species widespread across northern Australia and in southern New Guinea 
(not just northern Queensland, contra Smith & Wallach). 

4. Notwithstanding the above discussion, it is clear that the present situation 
where two names are currently applied to one species is undesirable. However, the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2| June 1998 117 

instability and confusion as to the application of names and identity of species is a 
reflection of a lack of previous detailed taxonomic studies using large samples (Shea, 
in press). Given that the first thorough analysis and discussion of the taxonomic and 
nomenclatural issues is about to appear, I believe that the application of strict 
priority in this case will best facilitate future stability of nomenclature of the species, 
and appreciation of its complex and historically unstable nomenclature. Conse- 
quently, I urge the Commission to reject the application by Smith & Wallach to 
suppress the name vesligiatus for the purposes of the Principle of Priority. 

Additional references 

Cogger, H.G. 1971. The venomous snakes of Australia and Melanesia. Pp. 35-77 in Biicherl, 

W. & Buckley, E. (Eds.), Venomous animals anil their venoms, vol. 2 (Venomous 

vertebrates). Academic Press. New York. 
Cogger, H.G. 1996. Reptiles and amphibians of AustraHa, Ed. 6. 796 pp. Reed Books. Port 

Melbourne. 
Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E. & Cogger, H.M. 1983. Zoological catalogue of Australia, 

vol. 1 (Amphibia & Reptilia). vi, 313 pp. Australian Government Publishing Service, 

Canberra. 
Covacevich, J. A., Roberts, L. & McKinna, I. 1994. Male combat in the black whip snake, 

Demansia vestigiala. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 37(1): 52. 
Covacevich, J.A. & Wilson, S. 1995. Land snakes. Pp. 191-216 in Ryan, M. (Ed.). Wildlife of 

Greater Brisbane. Queensland Museum, Brisbane. 
Golay, P. 1993. Demansia Gray, 1842. Pp. 124-127 in Golay, P. (Ed.). Eiuhglyphs ami other 

major venomous snakes of the world. A checklist. Azemiops S.A., Geneva. 
Healey, J. (Ed.). 1997. Encyclopedia of Australian wildlife. 624 pp. Reader's Digest, 

Sydney. 
Kellaway, C.H. 1934. The venoms of some of the small and rare Australian venomous snakes. 

Medical Journal of Australia. 2: 74-78. 
Klemmer, K. 1963. Liste der rezenten Giftschlangen: Elapidae, Hydropheidae, Viperidae und 

Crotalidae. Pp. 255^64 in: Die Giftschlangen der Erde. N.G. Elwert. Universitiits- und 

Verlagsbuchhandlung, Marburg. 
Krefft, G. 1869. The snakes of .Australia; an illustrated and descriptive catalogue of all the known 

species, xxv, 100 pp. Government Printer. Sydney. 
Macleay, W. 1877. The Ophidians of the Chevert Expedition. Proceedings of the Linneun 

Society of New South Wales, 2(1): 33^1. 
Mirtschin, P. & Davis, R. 1992. Snakes of Australia. Dangerous and harmless. 216 pp. Hill of 

Content, Melbourne. 
O'Shea, M. 1996. A guide to the snakes of Papua New Guinea, xii, 239 pp. Independent 

Publishing, Port Moresby. 
Parker, F. 1982. The snakes of Western Province. Wildlife in Papua New Guinea. 82/1: 1-78. 
Shea, G.M. In press. Geographic variation in scalation and size of the Black Whip snakes 

(Squamata: Elapidae: Denumsia vestigiata complex): evidence for two broadly sympatric 

species. The Beagle. Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, 

14. 
Shea, G.M., Shine, R. & Covacevich, J.C. 1993. Family Elapidae. Pp. 295-309 in Glasby, C.J., 

Ross. G.J.B. & Beesley, P.L. (Eds.), Fauna of Australia, vol. 2A (Amphibia and Reptilia). 

Australian Government Publishing Service. Canberra. 
Shine, R. 1980. Ecology of eastern Australian whipsnakes of the genus Demansia. Jounuil of 

Herpetology, 14(4): 381-389. 
Slater, K.R. 1956. A guide to the dangerous snakes of Papua. 18 pp. Government Printer. 

New Guinea. 
Slater, K.R. 1968. A guide to the dangerous snakes of Papua, Ed. 2. 22 pp. Government Printer, 

New Guinea. 



118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(2) June 1998 

Storr, G.M. 1978. Whip snakes (Demansia, Elapidae) of Western Australia. Records of the 

Western Australian Museum, 6(3): 287-301. 
Swan, G. 1995. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Australia. 144 pp. 

New Holland, Frenchs Forest. 
Thomson, D.F. 1935. Preliminary notes on a collection of snakes from Cape York Peninsula. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1935: 723-731. 
Wells, R.W. & Wellington, C.R. 1985. A classification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of 

Australia. .Australian Journal of Herpetology Supplementary Series, 1: 1-61. 
Williams, S., Pearson, R. & Burnett, S. 1993a. Survey of the vertebrate fauna of the Dotswood 

area, north Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 33(1): 361-378. 
Williams, S., Pearson, R. & Burnett, S. 1993b. Vertebrate fauna of three mountain tops in the 

Townsville region, north Queensland: Mount Cleveland, Mount Elliot and Mount 

Halifax. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 33(1): 379-387. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 
1796 (Mammalia, Primates) 

(Case 2953; see BZN 51: 332-335; 52: 193) 

Anthea Gentry 

do The Secretariat. ICZN. The Natural History Museum. London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

Colin P. Groves 

Australian National University. Canberra. A.C.T. 0200. .Australia 

Paulina D. Jenkins 

The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London S\V7 5BD. U.K. 

Our application to conserve the generic name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1 796 
for the slender loris, co-authored also by the late John E. Hill, was published in 
December 1994. We recorded that the type species of the genus is Lemur tctrdigradus 
Linnaeus, 1758. One of us (C.P.G.) had seen the stuffed specimen of L. tardigradus 
in the Linnaeus House in Uppsala and we accepted (para. 4) this as original type 
material. Wallin (1991, p. 71 and 1994, p. 47), however, recorded the Uppsala 
specimen as 'Not type" and has noted (in litt., September 1997) that it was a 
post-Linnaeus addition to the Linnaean collection. 

The species L. tardigradus was originally described (under the heading 'Simla 
acauda ...') by Linnaeus (1746, reprinted in Linnaeus, 1749) on a complete specimen 
but Linnaeus recorded (1746, p. 3; 1749, p. 279) that the specimen in the Uppsala 
Museum at the time was a skull ('Hujus tantum Cranium in museo habetur'). 
Linnaeus's (1758) description of L. tardigradus referred to Ray (1693), Seba (1734), 
Linnaeus's (1748) Syslema Naturae Ed. 6, and Linnaeus's (1754) Museum Adolphi 
Friderici. The last included a reference to the work of 1749 (p. 279). The specimen 
currently in the Zoological Museum in Uppsala is a complete, dry specimen and 
Lowegren (1952, p. 327) produced evidence that this had been an exchange for the 
original skull by C.P. Thunberg (Linnaeus's successor at the University of Uppsala). 
The skull may still be present in the osteological collections of the Museum but there 
are no means of indentifying it. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 119 

In 1911 Oldfield Thomas noted that 'The specimen [of Lemur tardigradus] referred 
to in A/;«[eum] /l</[olphi] Frul[mc\\ and redescribed in the 10th edition [of Systema 
Naitirae] is still in the Stockholm Museum, and, as Dr Lonnberg informs me, is the 
Cinghalese Slender Loris'. Dr Sven Kullander (Swedish Museum of Natural History, 
Stockholm) has located three Linnaean specimens of L. tardigradus in Stockholm. 
One of these, catalogue no. NRM 53201 1, is particularly well documented (including 
an original label from Ulriksdal Castle where the Crown Prince Adolf Friderik's 
collection was kept) and we now designate this as the lectotype. There is a 
photograph of the specimen on the Website (Linnaeus server) in Stockholm 
(http://linnaeus.nrm.se/zool). 

In our application (para. 1) we cited Bradypus didactylus Linnaeus, 1758, the 
two-toed sloth, as the type species of Choluepus Illiger, 1811 by subsequent 
designation by Gray (1827). The name Choloepus was placed on the Official List in 
Opinion 91 (October 1926), and that of the type species B. didactylus was placed on 
the Official List in Direction 22 (November 1955). However, the method of type 
designation was recorded (Direction 24, November 1955) as subsequent designation 
by Miller & Rehn (1901), a designation many years later than that of Gray (1827). 
We propose that the entry on the Official List should be emended. 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(I) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for 
Choloepus Illiger, 181 1 to record Bradypus didactylus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type 
species by subsequent designation by Gray (1827). 

Additional references 

Linnaeus, C. 1746. Museum Adolplio-Fridericiamim. Dissertation (respondent L. Balk). 50 pp., 

2 pis. Holmiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1749. Museum principis. Pp. lll-TiK) in: Anioenilates academicae, vol. 1. Holmiae 

& Lipsiae. 
Lowegren, Y. 1952. Naturaliekahinelt i Sverige under 1700-talet. Ell bidrag lill zoohgiens 

hisloria. 407 pp. Lynchnos-Bibliotek. Lund. 
Wallin, L. 1991. Catalogue uf type specimens. 4. Linnaean specimens. 233 pp. University 

Zoological Museum, Uppsala. (Revised version 3 published in 1994). 



Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based 
on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on 
domestic animals 

(Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54: 1 19-129, 189; 55: 43-46) 

Cristian R. Altaba 

Institut Mediterrani d'Estudis Avangats (CSIC-UIB), Ctra. de Valldemossa Km 7.5, 
07071 Palma de Mallorca. Illes Balears. Spain 

My interests are systematics, evolution and ecology (for all of which the fashion- 
able word is biodiversity) and I am involved in the study of animals such as the highly 
distinctive feral goats of Mallorca (Altaba, 1996; in press). I have examined carefully 
the application and the comments that have followed, and I support the proposals. 



!20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

The wild ancestors of domestic animals are an immensely valuable component of 
global biodiversity. Unfortunately, the current status of such wild populations is 
often critical, and some are already extinct, either effectively exterminated or lost 
through extensive hybridization with domestic stocks. Thus, conservation actions 
should be implemented in order to preserve the resource and heritage they represent. 
In this sense. Case 3010 highlights a nomenclatural problem that may have serious 
consequences: when a name based on a domestic animal is applied to its wild ancestor 
the latter may be removed from protected species lists. 

The solution proposed by Gentry. Clutton-Brock & Groves intends to solve this 
problem by keeping the use of names based on wild animals for truly wild (i.e. not 
feral, which are of domestic decent) populations. This procedure requires placing on 
the Official List a total of 15 specific names which are antedated or contemporary 
with others based on domestic animals. In reply to questions as to whether earlier 
names based on domestic stock are to be maintained (comments by Schodde, Bock, 
Gardner and Handley in BZN 54: 123-127), the authors of the application have made 
it clear that their proposal is not intended to affect the naming of domestic animals 
(BZN 54: 127-129). Indeed, it is aimed at maintaining stability in nomenclature, 
because most authors have adopted the first available name based on the wild species 
as valid for that wild taxon. Several authors have pointed out that there are practical 
advantages in having a recognised and distinct name for the wild ancestor and for its 
domestic derivate, irrespective of debate about their 'conspecificity'; this is true in the 
fields of archaeology, ethology and conservation biology. 

Additional references 

Altaba, C.R. 1996. Counting species names. Nature, 380: 488^89. 

Altaba, C.R. (In press). La diversilal biologica: una perspectiva des de Mallorca. Moll, Palma 
de Mallorca. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 121 

OPINION 1895 

Riisea and riisei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Cnidaria, 
Anthozoa): conserved as the correct original spellings of generic and 
specific names based on the surname Riise 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Anthozoa; corals; Riisea; Carijoa riisei; 
Thalamophyllia riisei. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) the correct original spelling of the generic name Rusea Duchassaing & 
Michelotti, 1860 is Riisea; 

(b) for the following specific names: 

(i) the correct original spelling oirusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, I860, as 
published in the binomen Ckivularia rusei, is riisei; 

(ii) the correct original spelling oi rusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, I860, as 
published in the binomen Desmophyllum rusei, is riisei. 

(2) The name Riisea Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (gender: feminine), type 
species by monotypy Riisea paniculata Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (spelling 
emended by the ruling in ( I )(a) above). 

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

(a.) paniculala Duchassaing & Michelotti, I860, as published in the binomen 
Rusea (sic) paniculata (specific name of the type species of Riisea 
Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860); 

(b) riisei Duchassaing & Michelotti, I960, as published in the binomen 
Clavularia rusei (spelling emended by the ruling in ( 1 )(b)(i) above); 

(c) riisei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1960, as published in the binomen 
Desmophyllum rusei (spelling emended by the ruling in (l)(b)(ii) above). 

(4) The name Rusea Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 is hereby placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (ruled in 
(l)(a) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Riisea). 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) rusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, I860, as published in the binomen 

Clavularia rmei (ruled in ( I )(b)(i) above to be an incorrect original spelling 

of riisei); 
Qa) rusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, I860, as pubhshed in the binomen 

Desmophyllum ru.wi (ruled in (l)(b)(ii) above to be an incorrect original 

spelling of riisei). 

History of Case 2940 

An application to conserve Riisea and the specific names of Clavularia riisei and 
Thalamophyllia riisei. all of Duchassaing & Michelotti (1860), as the correct original 



122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

spellings of names first published as Rusea, C. rusei and T. rusei was received from Dr 
Frederick M. Bayer ( National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.. U.S.A.) 
and Dr Manfred GrasshofT (Forschungsinstitui unci Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt 
am Main, Germany) on 13 June 1994. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 54: 1 1-13 (March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 12-13. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1998 the votes were as follows; 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song 

Negative votes — 1 : Stys. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

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: 
paniculata, Riisea, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle 

Scienze di Torino, (2)19: 294. (Also issued as a separate, p. 18). 
Riisea Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di 

Torino. (2)19: 294 (Also issued as a separate, p. 18) (incorrectly spelled as Rusea). 
riisei, Clavularia, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1960, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle 

Scienze di Torino, (2)19: 310 (Also issued as a separate, p. 34) (incorrectly spelled as rusei). 
riisei, Desmophyllum, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1960, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle 

Scienze di Torino, (2)19: 337 (Also issued as a separate, p. 61) (incorrectly spelled as rusei). 
Rusea Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di 

Torino, (2)19: 294 (Also issued as a separate, p. 18) (an incorrect original spelling of 

Riisea). 
rusei, Clavularia, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle 

Scienze di Torino, (2)19: 310 (Also issued as a separate, p. 34) (an incorrect original 

spelling of riisei). 
rusei, Desmophyllum, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, Memorie della Reale Accademia delle 

Scienze di Torino, (2)19: 337 (Also issued as a separate, p. 61) (an incorrect original 

spelling of riisei). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 123 

OPINION 1896 

Galba Schrank, 1803 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Buccinum truncatulum 
Miiller, 1774 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; lymnaeidae; Galba; Galba 
truncatula; parasitology. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Galba Schrank, 1803 are hereby set aside and Buccinum truncaiuluin 
Miiller, 1774 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Galba Schrank, 1803 (gender: feminine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above Buccinum truncatulum Miiller, 1774, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name truncatulum Miiller, 1774, as published in the binomen Buccinum 
truncatulum (specific name of the type species of Galba Schrank, 1803), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Truncatuliana Servain, 1881 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym 
of Gflfta Schrank, 1803). 

History of Case 2939 

An application for the designation of Buccinum truncatulum Miiller, 1774 as the 
type species of Galba Schrank, 1803 was received from Prof Ya.I. Starobogatov 
(Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) on 3 June 
1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 19-21 (March 1997). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 20. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1998 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger 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; 
Galba Schrank, 1803, Fauna Boica. Durchgedachte Geschichle der in Baiern einheimischen unci 

zahmen Thiere, Band 3, Heft 2, p. 262. 
Truncatuliana Servain, 1881, Histoire malacologique du lac Balaton en Hongrie, p. 63. 
truncatulum. Buccinum, Miiller, 1774, Vermium terreslrium el fluvialilium. seu animalium 

infusoriorum, hehninthicorum et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia, vol. 2, 

p. 130. 



124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

OPINION 1897 

Ghmeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda), Armadillo Latreille, 1802, 
ArmadilUdiutn Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, |1831| and Armadillo 
vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (currently Armadillidium vulgare) (Crustacea, 
Isopoda): generic and specific names conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diplopoda; Isopoda; glomeridae; 
armadillidae: armadillidiidae: millipedes; woodlice; Gloineris; Armadillo; 
Armadillidiunv, Armadillidium vulgare; Europe; North Africa; western Asia. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Armadillo 
Latreille, 1802 are hereby set aside and Armadillo officimilis Dumeril, 1816 
is designated as the type species: 

(b) the following names are hereby suppressed; 

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

(A) armadillo Linnaeus. 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus 
armadillo; 

(B) variegatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Oniscus 
variegatus; 

(C) cinereus Zenker in Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen 
Oniscus cinereus. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology; 

(a) Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Jeekel (1971) Oniscus pustulatus Fabricius, 1781; 

{b) Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (gender; masculine), type species by designation 
in (l)(a) above Armadillo officinalis Dumeril, 1816; 

(c) 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 
of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804). 

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

(a) pustulaius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Oniscus pustulatus 
(specific name of the type species of Glomeris Latreille, 1802); 

(b) officinalis Dumeril, 1816, as published in the binomen Armadillo officinalis 
(specific name of the type species of Armadillo Latreille, 1802); 

(c) vulgaris Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Armadillo vulgaris 
(senior subjective synonym of Armadillidium commutatum Brandt in 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 125 

Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831], the type species of Armadillidium Brandt in 
Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831]), 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) ARMADILLIDAE Brandt. [1831] (type genus Armadillo Latreille, 1802); 

(b) ARMADiLLiDiiDAE Brandt, 1833 (type genus Armadillidium Brandt. [1831]). 

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

(a) Armadillo Cuvier, 1792, as suppressed in (l)(b)(i) above; 

(b) Orihomis Miers, [1878] (a junior objective synonym oi Armadillo Latreille. 
1802). 

(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) armadillo Linnaeus. 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus armadillo 
and as suppressed in (l)(b)(ii)(A) above; 

(b) variegaius Villers, 1 789, as published in the binomen Oniscus variegatus and 
as suppressed in (1 )(b)(ii)(B) above; 

(c) cinereus Zenker in Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Oniscus 
cinereus and as suppressed in ( I )(b)(ii)(C) above; 

(d) glohator Cuvier. 1792. as published in the binomen Oniscus globator (a 
junior homonym of Oniscus globator Pallas, 1 772). 

History of Case 2909 

An application for the conservation of the generic names Glomeris Latreille. 1802 
and Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831] and the specific name of 
Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1 804, and for a ruling on the status of the generic name 
Armadillo Latreille, 1802, was received from Dr Pekka T. Lehtinen {Zoological 
Museum. University of Turku. Turku. Finland) and Prof Lipke B. Holthuis (Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum. Leiden. The Netherlands) on 1 November 1993. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 236-244 (September 1995). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support of the conservation of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 
from three members of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society 
(Dr Marcos Tavares, Universidade Santa Ursula. Rio de Janeiro. Brazil: Prof 
Gary C.B. Poore, Museum of Victoria. Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia: and Dr A.B. 
Williams, NOAAINMFS Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.. U.S.A.) were 
published in BZN 53: 120-122 (June 1996). A reply by Dr P.T. Lehtinen to the 
comments was published in BZN 53: 277-278 (December 1996). 

It was noted on the voting paper that the application had been presented in three 
sections. The first section sought the conservation of the generic names Glomeris 
Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda, family glomeridae Brandt, 1833) and Armadillidium 
Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] and, by suppression of the unused specific 
name of Oniscus armadillo Linnaeus, 1758, the conservation of the specific name of 
Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda. family armadillidiidae 
Brandt, 1833). This section was common ground to both authors and was sub- 
mitted jointly. The second section, which advocated the adoption of Pentheus C.L. 
Koch, [1841] in place of Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda, family 



126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

ARMADILLIDAE Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831]) was submitted by Dr P.T. 
Lehtinen. The final part, an alternative which sought the conservation of Armadillo 
Latreille. was by Prof L.B. Holthuis. 

Cuvier (1792) used the name Armadillo for a diplopod genus. This had remained 
unused, whilst Glomeris had consistently been used for the genus. Jeekel's (1971) type 
species designation rendered Glomeris a junior objective synonym of Armadillo 
Cuvier but he strongly advised the continued usage of Glomeris. This was followed by 
HolTmann (1979; para. 8 of the application), who cited Jeekel. The suppression of 
Armadillo Cuvier was proposed to maintain the usage of Glomeris. 

In 1802 Latreille used the name Armadillo for an isopod, citing Oniscus armadillo 
Linnaeus. He did not mention Cuvier and clearly indicated that it was a new genus. 
As noted in para. 9, Armadillo Latreille must be considered a new name. As such it 
is a junior homonym of Armadillo Cuvier. 

Latreille (1804) included in Armadillo the nominal species A. vulgaris, which was 
probably a renaming (to avoid tautonymy) of O. armadillo. Dumeril (1816) also used 
Armadillo for an isopod genus and included vulgaris and the new taxon A. officinalis. 
Brandt ([1831]) retained Armadillo for the single species officinalis and placed vulgaris 
in the new genus Armadillidium. This taxonomic arrangement, although resulting in 
nomenclature which is incorrect according to modern rules, has been followed by 
all subsequent authors, who continued to use both generic names and the family 
names armadillidae and armadillidiidae without confusion. Budde-Lund (1904) 
designated officinalis Dumeril, 1816 as the type species oi Armadillo, a designation 
which was invalid (since officinalis was not mentioned by Latreille) but which 
reflected the sense in which Armadillo had been used since the very early 19th century. 
Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841] was the first available junior synonym of Armadillo 
Latreille as used since Brandt, [1831], 

The case was offered for a ruling by means of two votes. Vote ( I ) related to the con- 
servation, proposed by both applicants, of the generic names Glomeris Latreille, 1802 
and Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831], and of the specific name of 
Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (items (l)(b)(i)-(iii), (2)(aHb), (3)(a)-(b), (4), (5)(a) 
and (6)(a)-(d) in para. 13 on BZN 52: 241). Vote (2) was for either: 

Proposal A - the suppression for priority but not homonymy of the name Armadillo 
Cuvier. 1792 and replacement of Armadillo Latreille, 1802 by Pentheus C.L. Koch, 
[1841], as proposed by Dr Lehtinen (items (l)(a). (2)(c), (3)(c) and (5)(b) in para. 13 
on BZN 52: 241); or: 

Proposal B - the total suppression of Armadillo Cuvier and the conservation of 
Armadillo Latreille with the designation under the plenary powers of Armadillo 
officinalis Dumeril, 1816 as the type species, in accordance with usage, as proposed by 
Prof Holthuis (items (I )(a)-(b), (2)(b), (3)(b). (4)(a) and (5Hb) in para. 1 5 on BZN 52: 
242). 
Decision of the Commission 

On I December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the 
close of the voting period on I March 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Vote 1. Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza. Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 127 

Vote 2. Proposal A — 3: Lehtinen, Papp, Savage 

Proposal B — 19: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, 
Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Patterson, Song and Stys. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Voting for Proposal (2)(B), Heppell commented: 'I agree that the solution 
proposed by Holthuis is the better one to resolve the nomenclatural problems 
surrounding Armadillo Latreille, but I believe that some general issues raised in 
this case have never been seriously addressed by the Commission. It does seem 
unscientific to place the conserved name Armadillo on the Official List still attached 
to its original date and authorship 'Latreille, 1802'. As pointed out by Lehtinen, 
Armadillo Latreille was based on the species now known as ArmadilUdium vulgare, 
and the proposed type species Armadillo officinalis was not originally included and 
possibly not known to Latreille. We are manifestly dealing with what is actually a 
new nominal genus defined not by any description or nomenclatural act by Latreille. 
I suggest that in such cases, which are not infrequent among applications to the 
Commission, the conserved name should be attributed to [ICZN, Opinion No., date], 
rather than to the original author and date. This would draw attention to the revised 
concept in which the original composition of the taxon is no longer relevant, and for 
which reference to the original author and date is misleading'. Voting for Proposal 
(2)(A), Lehtinen commented: 'The name Armadillo Latreille originally referred to the 
genus that is now known as ArmadilUdium. Wide use oi Armadillo in a different sense 
is not in accord with the Code, and involves the abandonment of basic principles of 
nomenclature. No current species of Armadillo was originally included in the genus'. 
Savage commented: 'Since 'armadillo' is the common name of an entire group of 
mammals, use of the name Peniheus C.L. Koch, [1841] seems logical'. 

Editorial note. Commissioners Heppell and Lehtinen have commented adversely 
on the fact that Armadillo, as defined by the type species Armadillo officinalis 
Dumeril, 1816 designated in the present ruling, is different from the original concept 
of the nominal genus by Latreille (1802), and yet the latter's authorship and date are 
being retained. It is indeed the case that this procedure is an artificial device, but it 
is one which has been used for some 70 years in order to maintain entrenched usage 
(and authorship and date attribution) of names. The citation of a name (in this case 
Armadillo) with the authorship of the Commission and the date of the ruling would 
have considerable disadvantages: apart from being a new procedure (and thus 
inconsistent with all the many precedents), the late date would not signify the 
precedence of the name, and the name would have to be explicitly protected from 
previously published synonyms and homonyms. Zoologists might reasonably object 
to the Commission becoming the 'author' of a name which had actually been 
published and adopted long ago. 

Two methods have been used by the Commission to stabilize nomenclature in cases 
where a name has been accepted in a sense different from that of the original author. 
In cases where the difference is relatively minor, having regard to the taxonomy of 
the relevant period, an appropriate name-bearing type has been designated under the 
plenary powers but the authorship and date have been retained. In cases where the 
taxonomic change has been more radical, the later application of the name has been 



128 Bulletin of Zoological NomeiiLlature 55(2) June 1998 

conserved by the suppression of all previous uses for purposes of both priority and 
homonymy. In the present instance a possible course would have been to conserve 
Arinadilh with the authorship of Brandt ([1831]). but the name has never been cited 
in that way and it was not proposed that it should be. 

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: 
ARMAIJILLIDAE Brandt, [1831]. in Brandt & Ratzeburg, Medizinische Zuulogie ocler gelreiie 

Darslelhmg unci Beschreihung iler Tliicrc die in dor Aizneinnlteltehre in Belrachl kommen. 

in syslenmlischer Folge henmsgegehcn. vol. 2, p. 80. 
ARMADiLLiDiiDAE Brandt. 1 833. Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Natundisles de Moseini, 6: 

184. 
Armadillidium Brandt. [1831], in Brandt & Ratzeburg, Medizinische Zoologie oder gelreiie 

Darstellung und Beschreihung der Thiere die in der ArzneimUtellehre in Belruclu l<uninien. 

in syslcnuilischer Folge herausgegeben. vol. 2, p. 81. 
Armadillo Cuvier, 1792, Journal d'Hisloire Nalurelle (Paris), 2(13): 27. 
Armadillo Latreille, 1 802, Histoire nalurelle. generale el particuliere des crustaces el des insecles, 

vol. 3. p. 43. 
armadillo, Oniscus. Linnaeus, 1758, Syslema Nalurae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. p. 637. 
cinereus. Oniscus, Zenker in Panzer, 1799. Fauna inseclorum Gernumicae inilia. oder 

Deulschhmds Insecten ... Heft 62. no. 22. 
glohalor. Oniscus, Cuvier, 1792, Journal d'Hisloire Nalurelle (Paris), 2(13): 24. 
Glomeris Latreille. 1 802, Histoire nalurelle. generale el particuliere des crustaces el des insecles, 

vol. 3, p. 44. 
officinalis. Armadillo. Dumeril, 1816, Dictionnaire des Sciences Nalurelles, Ed. 2, vol. 3, p. 117. 
Orlhonus Miers, [1878], Proceedings of the Zoologiccd Society of London, 1877(43): 664. 
puslulalus, Oniscus, Fabricius. 1781, Species inseclorum .... vol. 1, p. 379. 
variegalus, Oniscus, Villers. 1789, Caroli Linnciei cnlomologia. faunae Suecicae descriplionibus 

aucta. vol. 4. p. 188. 
vulgaris. Armadillo, Latreille. 1804. Histoire nalurelle. generale el particuliere des crustaces el 

des insecles, vol. 7, p. 47. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Oniscus puslulalus Fabricius, 1781 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Glomeris Latreille. 1 802: 
Jeekel, C.A.W. 1971. Monografieen van de Nederlandse Eintomologische Vereniging, 5: 14. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Armadillidium commutatum Brandt in 
Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831] (a junior subjective synonym o( Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804) 
as the type species of the nominal genus Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831]: 
Fowler, H.W. 1912. Report of the New Jersey Stale Museum. 1911: 225. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 129 

OPINION 1898 

Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given precedence 
over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; chalcidoidea; encyrtidae; 

parasitic wasps; Metaphycus. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the generic name Metaphycus Mercet, 1 9 1 7 is hereby 
given precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 whenever the two names are 
considered to be synonyms. 

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

(a) Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Aphycus zebratus 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; 

[h) Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Aenasioidea latiscapus Girault, 191 1, with the endorsement that it is not to 
be given priority over Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 whenever the two names 
are considered to be synonyms. 

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

(a) zehratus Mercet, 1917, as published in the binomen Aphycus zebratus 
(specific name of the type species of Metaphycus Mercet, 1917); 

(b) latiscapus Girault, 1911, as published in the binomen Aenasioidea latiscapus 
Girault, 1911 (specific name of the type species of Aenasioidea Girault, 
1911). 

History of Case 2975 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 
by giving it precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 191 1 was received from Dr John S. 
Noyes (The Natural History Museum. London. U.K.) and Dr James B. WooUey 
(Texas A & M University, Texas, U,S. A.) on 25 January 1995. After correspondence 
the case was published in BZN 52: 313-315 (December 1995). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr Zdenek Boucek (The Matured History Museum, 
London. U.K.), Dr John LaSalle & Dr Andrew Polaszek (International Institute of 
Entomology, do The Natural History Museum. London. U.K.) was published in BZN 
54: 105-106 (June 1997). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1 997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 52: 314. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1998 the votes were as follows: 



130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, 
KerzHner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelii, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song 

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Stys. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger 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: 

Aenasioidea Girault, 1911, Canadian Enlomohgi.sl. 43(5): 171. 
laliscapus. Aenasioidea, Girault. 1911. Canadian Enlnmologisl. 43(5): 173. 
Melaphvcus Mercet. 1917, Boletin de la Real Soeiedad Espaiiola de Histoha Natural. 17(2): 138. 
zehraius. Aplivcus, Mercet, 1917, Bolelin de la Real Soeiedad Espaiiola de Hisluria Natural, 
17(2): 138. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Aenasioidea latiscapus 
GirauU, 1911: 
Prison, T.H. 1927. Bulletin of lite Illinois Slate Natural History Survey. 16: 217. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 131 

OPINION 1899 

Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 
designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; Lower Devonian; Meristella; 
Meristella laevis. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Meristella Hall, 1859 prior to the designation by Miller (1889) o( Atrypa laevis 
Vanuxem, 1842 are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Meristella Hall. 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Miller (1889) Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842. as ruled in (I) 
above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name laevis Vanuxem. 1842, as published in the binomen Atrypa laevis 
(specific name of the type species of Meristella Hall, 1859), is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 3003 

An application for the designation of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 as the type 
species of Meristella Hall, 1859 was received from Dr F. Alvarez (Universidad de 
Oviedo. Oviedo. Spain) on 13 November 1995. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 53: 182-183 (September 1996). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Prof A.J. Boucot (Oregon State University, Corvallis, 
Oregon. U.S.A.), from Dr C.H.C. Brunton (The Natural History Museum, London, 
U.K.) and from Prof A. D. Wright (Queen's University of Belfast. Belfast. Northern 
Ireland. U.K.) were published in BZN 54: 50-51 (March 1997). 

A further comment in support from Dr Sandra J. Carlson ( University of California. 
Davis. California. USA.) was published in BZN 54: 104 (June 1997). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 10 September 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 53: 183. At the close of the voting period on 
10 December 1997 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen. Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, 
Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Bouchet abstained. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Abstaining, Bouchet commented: 'The application fails to document the conse- 
quences of adopting Atrypa naviformis Hall, 1843 as the type species of Meristella 
Hall, 1859. Is there type material in existence? I feel that there is insufficient 



132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

information for a vote'. Voting for, Cocks commented: 'I strongly support this 
application. The status of MeristeUa has been uncertain for too long". 

Original references 

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

lainis. Alrypii. Vanu.xem. 1842, Natural History of New York. p. 120. 

MeristellaHdW. \?:59. Palaeontology of New York. New York State Cabinet of Natural History. 
.Annual Report. 12: 78. 

The following is the reference for the designation o( Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 as the type 
of the nominal genus MeristeUa Hall, 1859: 

Miller, S.A. 1889. North American geology and paleontology for the w.sc of amateurs, students 
and scientists, p. 354. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 133 

OPINION 1900 

Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Spirifer miiltistriatus Hall, 
1857 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; Lower Devonian; North 
America; Trematospira; Trematospira multistriatus. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the name Trematospira Hall in Davidson, 1858 and all uses of the name 
prior to the publication of Trematospira Hall, 1859 are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Tremat- 
ospira Hall, 1859 prior to that by Hall & Clarke (1893) of Spirifer 
multistriatus Hall, 1857 are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Trematospira Hall, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- 
sequent designation by Hall & Clarke (1893) Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857, 
as ruled under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name multistriatus Hall, 1857, as published in the binomen Spirifer 
multistriatus (specific name of the type species of Trematospira Hall. 1859), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Trematospira Hall in Davidson, 1858 is hereby placed on the Official 
Inde.x of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in 
(l)(a) above. 

History of Case 3007 

An application for the designation of Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857 as the type 
species of Trematospira Hall, 1859 was received from Dr F. Alvarez (Universidad de 
Oviedo. Oviedo. Spain) on 5 December 1995. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 53: 264-266 (December 1996). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Prof Arthur J. Boucot (Oregon State University, 
Corvallis. Oregon. U.S.A.), from Dr Sandra J. Carlson (University of California, 
Davis, California, U.S.A.) and from Dr C.H.C. Brunton (The Natural History 
Museum. London. U.K.) were published in BZN 54: 105 (June 1997). 

Decision of the Commission 

On I December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 265. At the close of the voting period on I March 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer. Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert. Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 



134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger 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: 
mullislriutus. Spirifcr. Hall. 1857. New York Stale Cabinet of Natural History. Annual Report, 

10: 59. 
Trematospira Hall, 1858, in Davidson, The Geologist, 1: 412. 
Treniatospira Hall, 1859, New York State Cabinet of Natural History. Annual Report, 12: 27. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Spirifer multistrialus Hall, 1857 as the 
type species of Trematospira Hall, 1859: 
Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1893. Paleontology of New York, 8(2): 126. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 135 

OPINION 1901 

Gladioli tes geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 (currently Retiolites 
geinitzianus; Graptolithina): lectotype replaced by a neotype 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Graptolithina; Silurian; Retiolites geinitzianus. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the 
nominal species Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 are hereby set aside 
and specimen no. L3 16 12 in the National Museum, Prague, figured by Boucek 
& Miinch (1944), is designated as the neotype. 

(2) The entry for Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology is hereby emended to record its establishment on 
p. 69 (not p. 68), and an endorsement is added that it is defined by the neotype 
designated in (1) above. 

History of Case 3016 

An application to replace the lectotype of Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 
with a neotype was received from Dr D.K. Loydell {University of Portsmouth, 
Portsmouth, U.K.) and Dr P. Storch (Geological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the 
Czech Republic. Praha, Czech Republic) on 19 March 1996. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 53: 267-269 (December 1996). Notice of the case was sent 
to appropriate journals. 

The name Retiolites Barrande, 1850, and that of its type species Gladiolites 
geinitzianus Barrande, 1850, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 199 (January 
1954). However, the identity of the type material of R. geinitzianus was not then 
considered. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 268. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following is the original reference to the name on an Official List, the entry for which 
is emended and endorsed by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
geinitzianus, Gladiolites. Barrande, 1850, Grapioliles de Boiieme, p. 69. 

The following is the reference for the illustration of the neotype of Gladiolites geinitzianus 
Barrande, 1850: 
Bouiek, B. & Munch, A. 1944. Rozpravy II. Tfidy Ceske Akademie, 53: pi. 3, figs. 2-A. 



136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 

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 



OPINION 1897. Glomeris Latreille. 1802 (Diplopoda), Armadillo Latreille, 1802, 
Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] and Armadillo vulgaris 
Latreille, 1804 (currently Armadillidium vulgare) (Crustacea, Isopoda): generic and 
specific names conserved 124 

OPINION 1898. Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given 

precedence over /lenaw'oWea Girault, 1911 129 

OPINION 1899. Merislella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 

designated as the type species 131 

OPINION 1900. Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 

1857 designated as the type species 133 

OPINION 1901. Gladioliies geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 (currently Retiolites 

geinitzianus; Graptohthina): lectotype replaced by a neotype 135 

Information and instructions for authors 136 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notfces 73 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 74 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 75 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 75 

Applications 

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. 
A.E. Bogan & E.E. Spamer 76 

Euchilus Sandberger. 1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina 
desmarestii Prevost. 1821 as the respective type species, with the conservation of 
Bania Brusina, 1896. D. Kadolsky 82 

Holospira Martens, 1860 (MoUusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of 

Ci7mrfrf //a go/(/^u,si/' Menke, 1847 as the type species. F.G. Thompson .... 87 

Thamnotettix nigropictus St41, 1870 (currently Nephotetiix nigropictus; Insecta, 

Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson .... 90 

Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homo- 
ptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. MR. Wilson & M. Asche 93 

Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamaepsila rosae; Insecta, Diptera): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Chandler 96 

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Omithischia): proposed designation oi Iguanodon 
bernissarlensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species, and proposed 
designation of a lectotype. A.J. Chang & S.D. Chapman 99 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi- 

opoda). M.J. Grygier 105 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus Esper, 

[1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera). 

P.S. Wagener 105 

On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus gouldii Gray, 1838 and 

Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype 

for Hydrosaurus gouldii. G.M. Shea & H.G. Cogger 106 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus leriae Sprackland, 

1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). T Ziegler & W. Bohme; R.T. Hoser Ill 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Diemenia atra Macleay, 1 884 

(currently Oema/wiiJ afra; Reptilia, Serpentes). G.M. Shea 115 

On the proposed conservation of the name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 

(MammaUa, Primates). A. Gentry, C. P. Groves & P.D. Jenkins 118 

On the proposed conservation of usage of 1 5 mammal specific names based on wild 

species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic 

animals. C.R. Altaba 119 

Rulings of tbe Commission 

OPINION 1895. Riisea and riisei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Cnidaria, 
Anthozoa): conserved as the correct original spellings of generic and specific names 
based on the surname Riise 121 

OPINION 1896. Galba Schrank, 1803 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Buccinum truncatu- 

/«m Miiller, 1 774 designated as the type species 123 



Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Pnnled in Great Britain by Heary Ling Ltd., at tile Dorset Pies5. Dorclicstcr. Donct 



Volume SS. Part 3. 30 September 1998, pp. 137-204 ISSN 0007-5167 



The 




THE NAT 
mSTO^USEOl^ 

18 NOV )^S«| 

PURCHASroi 
ZOOLOGY LIBR>^ 



Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




llCZ,J\ ]The Official Periodical 
of the International Commiss 
^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. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1998 is £98 
or $180, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 

The E-xecutive Secretary, 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 

c/o The Natural History Museum, 

Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 0171-938 9387) 

(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 
(http;//ww'w. iczn.org) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



Members 

Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.: Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France: MoUusca) 
Prof D. J. Brothers 

(South Africa: Hymenoptera) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.: Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteroptera) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer 

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: MoUusca) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

( Germany: Arachnology) 
DrP. T. Lehtinen (Finland: Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 

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) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

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

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.: Lepidoptera) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. K\A&(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1998 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 



THE NATURAL 
KtSTORY MUSEUM 

18 NOy7l998 

PURCHASED 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 55, part 3 (pp. 137-204) 30 September 1998 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on appHcations 
published 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 55, part 2 (published on 30 June 1998). Under Article 
80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission 
is published. 

(1) Alucita ochrodactyla [Denis & Schiflfermuller]. 1775 (currently Platyplilia 
ochrodactyla; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the 
specific name by the designation of a neotype for Phalaena tetradactyla 
Linnaeus, 1758. (Case 3081). D.J.L. Agassiz. 

(2) Cimberis Gozis, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation, and 
proposed precedence of nemonychidae Bedel, (November) 1882 over 
CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, (March) 1882. (Case 3093). C.H.C. Lyal & M.A. 
Alonso-Zarazaga. 

(3) Terebratula Miiller, 1776 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Anomia 
terebratula Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 3094). D.E. Lee & 
C.H.C. Brunton. 

(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. 



138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Election of the Vice-President of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

The members of the Commission have elected Dr W. N. ESCHMEYER as 
Vice-President, to serve until August 2004. Dr Eschmeyer is from the Department 
of Ichthyology, California Academy of Science, San Francisco, and is the author of 
Genera of Recent Fishes and the Catalog of Fishes. 



The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Commission is at present voting on the adoption of the final text of the new 
(4th) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and, subject to 
this adoption and its ratification by the International Union of Biological Sciences, 
the edition will be published in late 1998 or early 1999. Its provisions will come into 
effect on 1 January 2000. As soon as the publication date is known it will be 
announced on the Commission's Web Site (http://www.iczn.org), together with 
details of how the new Code may be bought. 

Meanwhile, copies of the 3rd edition (published 1985) are still available from 
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, 
U.K. (e-mail: iczn(gnhm. ac.uk) or from A. A.Z.N. , Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, 
National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: 
smithd(gnmnh. si.edu). The cost is £19 or $35 (including surface postage); members of 
the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered 
the reduced price of £15 or $29. Payment (cheques made out to 'ITZN" or 'AAZN') 
should accompany orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



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 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 1995. 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. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC- 1 59, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd@nmnh.si.edu). 

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 (cheques made out to TTZN' or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 139 

Case 3087 

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 
(currently Hydrobia acuta; MoUusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
conservation by replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a 
neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977: proposed designation of Turbo 
ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species; and hydrobiina 
Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed emendation of spelling 
to HYDROBiusiNA, SO removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca) 

F. Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon 

Dipartimento cii Biologia Evolutiva, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4, 
1-53100 Siena, Italy (e-mail for Prof Giusti: giustif@unisi.it) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the usage of the name 
Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 for a genus of prosobranch brackish-water gastropods. At 
present the type species, Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, is typified by a 
lectotype which represents another species. Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803. It is 
proposed that the lectotype be replaced by a neotype which accords with the 
established understanding of H. acuta. Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 was based on Helix 
stagnorum Gmelin, 1791 but recognition of this nominal species as the type would 
render the generic name a junior subjective synonym. It is likely that Radoman 
misidentified Gmelin's taxon and it is proposed that Turbo ventrosus be designated 
the type species to maintain existing usage of Ventrosia. The family-group name 
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca) is a junior homonym of hydrobiina 
Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta). The names relate, respectively, to a gastropod family of 
some 100 genera and more than 1000 Recent species occurring almost world wide and 
to a subtribe of five coleopteran genera (family hydrophilidae). It is proposed that 
the homonymy should be removed by emending the stem of the generic name 
Hydrobius Leach, 1815, on which the insect family-group name is based, to give 
HYDROBIUSINA, while leaving the mollusc name (based on Hydrobia) unchanged. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Coleoptera; Hydrobia; Hydrobius; 
Ventrosia; Hydrobia acuta; Hydrobia ventrosa; Ventrosia ventrosa; hydrobiidae; 
hydrophilidae; hydrobiusina. 



I. The mollusc genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, its type species Cyclostoma 
acutum Draparnaud, 1805. and the family hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857, were de- 
scribed long ago and have been much cited in the literature but there has been con- 
tinuing discussion on their taxonomic and nomenclatural status. The hydrobiidae 
comprise a well known and very large family of mainly non-marine prosobranch 
gastropods of some 1 00 genera and more than 1 000 Recent species occurring virtually 
world wide (see Kabat & Herschler, 1993, p. I). 



140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

2. In 1951 A.E. Ellis (BZN 2: 119-125) proposed an addition to the Official List 
of 47 names for non-marine mollusc genera. Most were subsequently placed on the 
List (Opinion 335, March 1955) but among those not accepted were eight names, 
including Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821, which were set aside pending further study. 
Many years later G. Rosenberg and G.M. Davis submitted (BZN 47: 104-109, June 
1990) an application which, although primarily concerned with the fainily groups 
RissoiDAE Gray, 1847 and truncatellidae Gray, 1840, included proposals to 
place on Official Lists the names hydrobiidae, Hydrohia and Cyclostoma acutum. 
These last three names were subsequently withdrawn from the case for further 
consideration (see Opinion 1664, March 1992). 

3. Draparnaud (1805, p. 40, pi. 1, fig. 23) established the nominal species 
Cyclostoma acutum. He described and illustrated the taxon but did not mention 
specimens or give an indication of locality within France. Hartmann (1821a, p. 258) 
included C. acutum, Hydrohia thermarum (sic; a misspelling of Turbo thermalis 
Linnaeus, 1758, now placed in the hydrobiid genus Belgrandia Bourguignat, 1869), 
and 'diaphana' (a nomen nudum) in the new genus Hydrohia, rendering the generic 
name available, and later (1821b, pp. 47^8; see Opinion 344, pp. 324-326, June 
1955) described the genus. Gray subsequently (1847, p. 151) designated C. acutum as 
the type species of Hydrohia. 

4. The status of Hydrohia acuta has remained controversial because of the 
impossibility of correct determination in the absence of anatomical information. The 
original description (including fig. 23 of pi. 1 ) by Draparnaud does not contain any 
feature permitting unambiguous identification. Boeters (1984) was unable to locate 
type material of H. acuta in what remains of Draparnaud's collection at the 
Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, although there were 78 syntypes in 1894 (see 
Locard, 1895, p. 20). K. Edlinger (personal communication, March 1996) recently 
found two series of syntypes in Vienna, one with 11, the other with 62, shells. They 
had been on loan until 1989 and this is presumably the reason why Boeters did not 
find them. Three additional syntypes were given to Bischof von Hohenwarth by the 
Museum in Vienna before 1894 (see Locard, 1895), but the fate of this material is 
unknown. 

5. Radoman (1977) was the first modern author to revise Hydrohia acuta. He 
assumed that Draparnaud, who lived in Montpellier, had collected his hydrobiid 
material in one of the lagoons south of the town and (p. 207) gave the type locality 
as 'Etang du Prevost, Palavas, franzosische Mittelmeerkiiste'. Radoman recognized 
Hydrohia acuta as having a shell with flat (not convex) whorls and males with a large 
fan-like lobe at the apex. 

6. Boeters (1984, p. 4, pi, la, fig. 1) selected a lectotype for Hydrohia acuta from 
two putative syntypes found at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. 
He regarded them as syntypes because when Dollfus (1912, pi. 4. figs. 5-8) figured 
them he wrote 'Hydrohia acuta Draparnaud sp. (types; Museum de Vienne)' in the 
caption; whether they were actually original specimens is impossible to determine. 
Boeters compared the lectotype with recent material from the Etang du Prevost near 
Palavas-les-Flots (the type locality as given by Radoman, 1977) and recognized one 
of the two species living in the Etang as corresponding to the lectotype, namely that 
with males having an elongated, pointed penis with a small lateral lobe approxi- 
mately half way from the base to the apex. Unfortunately this is Turho ventrosus 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 141 

Montagu, 1803 (p. 317, pi. 12, fig. 13), described on shells from 'the Kentish coast, 
at Folkstone and Sandwich", and defined by the lectotype (catalogue no. BMNH 
197872) designated by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979, p. 57, fig. 3) from among 
13 syntypes, all from Sandwich, in the Natural History Museum. London. Montagu's 
name was proposed in synonymy and is available under Article 1 le of the Code; the 
species is currently placed in Hydrobia or in Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 (see para. 10 
below). Boeters (1984) recorded the other species in the Etang, namely Hydrobia 
acuta in the sense of Radoman (1977), as Hydrobia sp. 

7. Giusti & Pezzoli (1984, p. 124, footnote 13) originally claimed that the shells 
designated as lectotype and paralectotype of Hydrobia acuta could be identified as 
Hydrobia acuta as perceived by Radoman (1977) by virtue of their flat (not 
convex) whorls. However, the upper part of the spire of the lectotype was 
encrusted, preventing observation of the convexity of the whorls and the depth of 
the sutures, characters useful for determining species of Hydrobia. With the 
encrustations now removed the convexity of the whorls and depth of the sutures 
suggest that it belongs to H. ventrosa (Montagu, 1803). On the other hand, the 
paralectotype can clearly be identified as Hydrobia acuta sensu Radoman (1977). 
The refound type material in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna also 
includes both species. 

8. Following Radoman (1977) all authors (except Boeters, 1984; 1988, 
pp. 254-255, fig. 5) who have cited Hydrobia acuta have interpreted it in the same way 
(see, for example, Radoman, 1983; Giusti & Pezzoli, 1984; Cesari, 1988; Sabelli, 
Giannuzzi-Savelli & Bedulli, 1990, 1992; Haase, 1993; Bodon, Manganelli, Favilli 
& Giusti, 1995; Giusti, Manganelli & Schembri, 1995; Cachia. Mifsud & Sammut, 
1996; Giannuzzi-Savelli, Pusateri, Palmeri & Ebreo, 1997; and Hoeksema, 1998). 
Recognition of Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation would mean that the name 
H. acuta (Draparnaud. 1805) would become a junior subjective synonym of 
H. ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) and a new name would be required for H. acuta as 
currently understood. Moreover, if the proposed designation of ventrosa as the 
accepted type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 is approved by the Commission 
(see para. 10 below), recognition of ventrosa as a senior synonym of acuta would 
render the name Hydrobia a senior synonym of Ventrosia and a new name would be 
needed for the much-used Hydrobia of authors. These changes would cause much 
unnecessary confusion. 

9. In order to settle this problem, and in view of the taxonomic and nomenclatural 
importance of this taxon, we propose that the current understanding of the name 
H. acuta be conserved by setting aside the type designation of Boeters (1984) and 
designating a neotype in accord with the earlier and more widely accepted use of the 
name and with exact locahty data. Since this hydrobiid species is most easily 
identified by male anatomical characters, a male specimen has been selected as the 
neotype. The proposed neotype (a shell and anterior portion of body with penis) was 
collected in the Etang du Prevost near Palavas-les-Flots, Herault, France (the type 
locality as restricted by Radoman, 1977) and is deposited in the Naturhistorisches 
Museum in Vienna (catalogue no. 90616). A full description and illustrations of this 
specimen were given by Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon (1998). 

10. In 1977 Radoman (p. 208) established the genus Ventrosia with four included 
species, among them Helix stagnorum Gmelin, 1791 (p. 3653) which he designated as 



142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

the type species. H. stagnonim is a replacement name for Turbo stagnalis Baster, 1 765 
(pp. 77, 97, index, pi. 7. fig. 4a; described from the Kaaskenswater, near Zierikzee, 
The Netherlands) which was no doubt proposed to remove the secondary homonymy 
with Helix stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Lynmaea stagnalis) that occurred 
within Helix in Linnaeus (1767. pp. 1248. 1249). Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979, 
p. 54), Giusti & Pezzoli (1984, p. 131) and Haase (1993, p. 390) considered that 
Radoman's (1977) use of the name H. stagnonim was not that of Gmelin (1791, i.e. 
Turbo stagnalis Baster) but that it actually represented T. ventrosus Montagu, 1803 
and, indeed, Radoman (1977, p. 209, pi. 21, figs. 11-13: 1979, p. 204) had recorded 
H. stagnorum "Gmelin, 1791" as a senior synonym of T. ventrosus. Bank et al. (1979) 
considered the two species to be distinct and designated a lectotype for T ventrosus 
(see para. 6 above) and ( 1 979, p. 52, fig. 1 ) a neotype for Helix stagnorum (catalogue 
no. 55361 in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden) which separated 
them. The species have since been placed in different subfamilies (hydrobiinae and 
LiTTORiDiNiNAE respectively; see Giusti & Pezzoli, 1984, pp. 131, 140; Smith & 
Heppell, 1991, pp. 20 and 82). Bank & Butot (1984, p. 10) placed H stagnorum in 
Semisalsa Radoman, 1974, and Giusti & Pezzoli (1984, p. 140) included Semisalsa 
in the genus Heleobia Stimpson, 1865, at the same time as adopting Ventrosia 
Radoman, 1977 for some of the species, including T. ventrosus Montagu, hitherto 
placed in Hydrobia. Falniowski (1987), Davis, McKee & Lopez (1989) and Haase 
(1993) retained T. ventrosus in Hydrobia but a number of recent authors (Cesari, 
1988; Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli & Bedulli, 1990, 1992; Cachia, Mifsud & Sammut, 
1996; Giannuzzi-Savelli, Pusateri, Palmeri & Ebreo, 1997, for example) have 
invalidly treated ventrosus as the type species of Ventrosia and adopted the latter as 
a distinct genus. In order to maintain the current usage of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 
in the hydrobiinae we now propose that Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 be 
designated the type species of the genus. 

II. The mollusc family group hydrobiae was established by Troschel (1857, 
p. 106; see Robertson, 1957, p. 137 for the date of publication) and included five 
nominal genera, among them Hydrobia Hartman, 1821. The name was emended to 
hydrobiinae by Stimpson (1865) and adopted at family rank by Fischer (1885, 
p. 723), Newton & Thayer (BZN 47: 286-287. December 1990) pointed out that 
hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857 is a junior homonym of hydrobiinae Mulsant, 1844 
(p. 116; type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815), a name which has been in use in the 
Insecta (Coleoptera) for either a tribe or a subfamily of the hydrophilidae. These 
authors noted that at the higher rank the subfamily hydrobiinae in Coleoptera 
includes "about 30 genera and over 700 described species', and that 'since we are not 
familiar with available junior synonyms or other potential solutions concerning the 
use of hydrobiidae in Mollusca we refrain from making any specific proposal here, 
and refer this problem to malacologists for further action". Kabat & Herschler (1993, 
p. 28) recorded that in recent publications (Hansen, 1991, pp. 160-164, 295; Newton 
& Thayer, 1992. p. 83) (see also Hansen, 1995. pp. 335, 342) the insect name has been 
used for a subtribe within the hydrophilidae which comprises only five genera. In 
comparison, the gastropod name is used for a large and well-known family which 
includes over 100 valid genera (see para. I above). We therefore propose that the 
homonymy between the insect and the mollusc family-group names should be 
removed by emending the insect subtribe name to hydrobiusina, while leaving the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 143 

mollusc name unaltered. The name Hydrobius Leach, 1815, and that of the type 
species of the genus Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, were placed on Official Lists in 
Opinion 1577 (March 1990). 

12. 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 Cyclostoma 
acutum Draparnaud, 1805 and to designate as neotype the specimen no. 
90616 in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna; 

(b) to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal genus Ventrosia 
Radoman, 1977 and to designate Turbo venlrosus Montagu, 1803 as the 
type species; 

(c) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the 
generic name Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta) is hydrobius-; 

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

(a) Hydrobia Hartman, 1821 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Gray (1847) Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805; 

(b) Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 (gender: feminine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803; 

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

(a) acutum Draparnaud, 1805, as published in the binomen Cyclostoma acutum 
and as defined by the neotype designated in (l)(a) above (specific name of 
the type species of Hydrobia Hartman, 1821); 

(b) ventrosus Montagu, 1803, as published in the binomen Turbo ventrosus and 
as defined by the lectotype designated by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger 
(1979) (specific name of the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977); 

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

(a) HYDROBiusiNA Mulsant, 1844, type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta); 

(b) HYDROBiiDAE Troschel, 1857, type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 
(MoUusca); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names 
in Zoology the name hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (spelling emended to 
HYDROBIUSINA by the ruling in (l)(c) above) (Insecta). 

References 

Bank, R.A. & Butot, L.J.M. 1984. Some more data on Hydrobia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) and 
'Hydrobia stagnorum (Gmelin, 1791) with remarks on the genus Sertiisalsa Radoman, 
1974 (Gastropoda. Prosobranchia, Hydrobioidea). Malakologische Abhandlungen. 10(2): 
5-15. 

Bank, R.A., Butot, L.J.M. & Gittenberger, E. 1979. On the identity of Helix stagnorum Gmelin, 
1791, and Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 (Prosobranchia, Hydrobiidae). Basteria, 
43(1^): 51-60. 

Baster, J. 1765. Opuscula subseciva. observationes miscettaneas de animaliculis et plantis ... 
vol. 2, part 2. Pp. 49-100, pis. 5-9. Bosch, Haarlem. 

Bodon, M., Manganelli, G., Favilli, L. & Giusti, F. 1995. Prosobranchia Archaeogastropoda 
Neritimorpha (generi 013-014); Prosobranchia Caenogastropoda Architaenioglossa 
(generi 060-065); Prosobranchia Caenogastropoda Neotaenioglossa p.p. (generi 070-071, 



144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

077. 095-126): Heterobranchia Heterostropha p.p. (genere 294). In Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. 

& La Posta, S. [Eds.]. Checklist delle specie dellu fauna cl'Italia. part 14 (Gastropoda 

Prosobranchia, Heterobranchia). 60 pp. 
Boeters, H.D. 1984. Zur Identitat des Hydrobia-Jypu?, (Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae). Heldia. 

1(1): 3-5. 
Boeters, H.D. 1988. Westeuropaische Moitessieriidae, 2 und Westeuropaisehe Hydrobiidae, 7. 

Moitessieriidae und Hydrobiidae in Spanien und Portugal (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia). 

Archiv fiir MoUiiskenkimde, 118(4-6): 181-261. 
Cachia, C, Mifsud, C. & Sammut, P.M. 1996. The marine Molhisca of the Maltese Islands, part 

2 (Neotaenioglossa). 228 pp. Backhuys, Leiden. 
Cesari, P. 1988. La malacofauna della Laguna Veneta. 1. Gasteropodi terrestri, dulciacquicoli 

e salmastri dei litorali di Pellestrina, Lido e Cavallino (Mollusca Prosobranchia e 

Pulmonala). Bolletlino del Museo Civico di Storiii Naliirale di Venezia, 38: 7^2. 
Davis, G.M., McKee, M. & Lopez, G. 1989. The identity of Hydrobia Iruncata (Gastropoda: 

Hydrobiinae): comparative anatomy, molecular genetics, ecology. Proceedings of the 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 141: 333-359. 
Dollfus, G.F. 1912. Recherches critiques sur quelques genres et especes d' Hydrobia vivants ou 

fossiles. Journal de Conchyliologie, 59(3): 179-270. 
Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire naturetle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 

viii, 164. [1] pp., 13 pis. Paris. 
Falniowski, A. 1987. Hydrobioidea of Poland (Prosobranchia: Gastropoda). Folia 

Malacologica, 1: 1-122. 
Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paleontologie conchyliologique ou histoire 

nalurelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, fasc. 8. Pp. 723-752 (Hydrobiidae). Savy, 

Paris. 
Giannuzzi-Savelll, R., Pusateri, F., Palmeri, A. & Ebreo, C. 1997. Atlante delle conchiglie marine 

del Mediterraneo, vol. 2 (Caenogastropoda parte 1: Discopoda — Heteropoda). 258 pp. 

Edizioni La Conchiglia, Roma. 
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Bodon, M. 1998. A neotype for Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 

1805). Journal of Conchology. 3(3): 1-8. 
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. 1995. The non-marine molluscs of the Maltese 

Islands. Monografie No. 15. 607 pp. Museo Regionale di Scienze Natural!, Torino. 
Giusti, F. & Pezzoli, E. 1984. Notulae Malacologicae, xxix. Gli Hydrobiidae salmastri delle 

acque costiere italiane: primi cenni sulla sistematica del gruppo e sui caratteri distintivi 

delle singole morfospecie. Lavori della Societd Italiana di Malacotogia (Atti del Simposio 

di Bologna, 24-26.9.1982), 21: 117-148. 
Gmelin. J.F. [1791], CaroliaLinne Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1 (6, Vermes). Pp. 3021-3910. 

Lipsiae. 
Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca. their synonyma and types. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. 
Haase, M. 1993. The genetic differentiation in three species of the genus Hydrobia and 

systematic implications (Caenogastropoda, Hydrobiidae). Malacologia, 35(2): 389-398. 
Hansen, M. 1991. The hydrophiloid beetles. Phylogeny, classification and a revision of 

the genera (Coleoptera, Hydrophiloidea). Kongelige Danske Videnskahernes Selskah, 

Biologiske Skriftcr, 40: 1-367. 
Hansen, M. 1995. Evolution and classification of the Hydrophiloidea — a systematic review. 

Pp. 321-353 in Pakaluk, J. & Slipihski, S.A. (Eds.), Biology, phylogeny and classification 

of Coleoptera: papers celebrating the SOth birthday of Roy A. Crowson, vol. 1. Muzeum i 

Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warsaw. 
Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821a. System der Erd- und Flussschnecken der Schweiz, mit 

vergleichender Aufzahlung aller auch in den benachbarten Landern, Deutschland, 

Frankreich und Italien sich vorfindenden Arten. Neue Alpina. Fine Schrift der 

Schweizerischen Naturgeschichte. Alpen- und Landwirthschaft Gewiedmet, Winterthur, 1: 

194-268. 
Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821b. System der Erd und Siisswasser-Gasteropoden Europa"s. In 

besonderer Hinsicht auf biejenigen Gattungen, welche in Deutschland und der Schweitz 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 145 

angetroffen werden. Heft 5 in Stuim. J., Deulschkmcis Fcnina in Abbildungen iiach iter Natur 

mil Beschreihungen. 60 pp., 3 pis. Niirnberg. 
Hoeksema, D.F. 1998. Note on the occurrence of Hydrohia aciila (Draparnaud. 1805) 

(Gastropoda. Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae) in western Europe, with special reference to a 

record from S. Brittany. France. Basleria, 61(4-6): 101-113. 
Rabat, A.R. & Herschler, R. 1993. The prosobranch snail family Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda, 

Rissooidae): review of classification and supraspecific taxa. Smithsonian Cuntribuliuns to 

Zoology, 547: 1-94. 
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1328, [1-36]. Salvii, 

Holmiae. 
Locard, A. 1895. Ipsa Draparnaudi Conchylia. Etude sur la collection conchyliologique de 

Draparnaud, au Musee Imperial et Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Vienne. 190 pp., Paris. 

(Also published in 1897. in Annales de la Societe d' Agriculture. Sciences et Industrie de 

Lyon, 4: 5-190). 
Montagu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica or natural history of British shells .... vol. 2. 

Pp. 293-606. 16 pis. Author, London. 
Mulsant, E. 1844. Histoire naturelle des coleopteres de France, vol. 3. vii, 196 pp., 1 pi. Maison, 

Paris. 
Newton, A.F., Jr. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in 

Staphylinifomiia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana, Zoology, n.s. 67: 1-92. 
Radoman, P. 1977. Hydrobiidae auf der Balkanhalbinsel und in Kleinasien. Archiv fiir 

Molluskenkunde, 107(4-6): 203-233. 
Radoman, P. 1979. Once again on the relations of Helix stagnorum Gmelin 1791 and Turbo 

ventrosus Montagu 1803. Bulletin du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgrade. (B)34: 

201-205. 
Radoman, P. 1983. Hydrobioidea — a superfamily of Prosobranchia. 1 (Systematics). 

Monograph 547. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Monographs Department of 

Sciences, 57: 1-256. 
Robertson, R. 1957. Publication dates of Troschel's 'Das Gebiss der Schnecken'. Nautilus, 

70(4): 136-138. 
Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990, 1992. Catalogo annotato del molluschi 

marini del Mediterraneo, part 1, pp. 1-348 (1990); part 2, pp. 349^98 (1992); part 3, 

pp. 499-781 (1992). Societa Italiana di Malacologia. Edizioni Libreria Naturalistica 

Bolognese, Bologna. 
Smith, S.M. & Heppell, D. 1991. Checklist of British marine Mollusca. National Museums of 

Scotland Information Series, 11; 1-114. 
Stimpson, W. 1865. Diagnoses of newly discovered genera of gasteropodes, belonging to the 

sub.-fam. Hydrobiinae. of the family Rissoidae. American Journal of Conchology, 1(1); 

52-54. 
Troschel, F.H. 1857. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer natiirlichen Classification, 

vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 73-112, pis. 5-8. Nicola, Berlin. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail; iczncffinhm. ac.uk). 



146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Case 3050 

Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of 
Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1856 (currently Orthotylus virescens 
(Douglas & Scott, 1865)) as the type species 

A. Carapezza 

via Sandro Botticelli 15. 90144 Palermo, Italy 

I.M. Kerzhner 

Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, 
Russia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the heteropteran subgeneric 
name Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (family miridae; genus Orthotylus Fieber, 1858) in its 
original concept with Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1856 (an invalid subjective 
synonym of Orthotylus virescens (Douglas & Scott, 1865)) as its type species. The 
Commission's designation (Opinion 253, 1954) of Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott, 
1868 as the type was based on the wrong assumption that Fieber had misidentified 
the type species, and because it results in instability of the nomenclature of several 
genus-group taxa it is proposed that Opinion 253 be set aside. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Heteroptera; miridae; Hypsitylus; 
Neopachylops; Orthotylus; Pachylops; Platycranus; Orthotylus virescens. 



1. Kirschbaum (1856, p. 249) described the mirid bug Capsus chloropterus 
from Germany (Wiesbaden), basing the species on specimens of both sexes. Fieber 
(1858, p. 314) established the genus Pachylops in a key with Capsus chloropterus 
Kirschbaum as the only included species. Later Fieber (1861, pp. 285, 286) gave a 
description of the species, based on both sexes, and recorded it from S.E. France 
(Hyeres) in addition to Germany. He compared Pachylops with a new genus 
Hypsitylus he described in the same paper (p. 286). 

2. Douglas & Scott (1865, p. 339) described Litosoma virescens from England 
(Bromley and Weybridge) based on specimens of both sexes. Kirschbaum"s and 
Douglas & Scott's names are subjective synonyms, as first shown by Reuter (1877, 
p. 128) and confirmed by Wagner (1939, pp. 47, 69) who examined syntypes of 
Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum in the Wiesbaden Museum. Kirschbaum's 
name is a junior primary homonym of Capsus chloropterus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1853 
and cannot be used as a valid name; the species is currently named Orthotylus 
(Neopachylops) virescens (Douglas & Scott, 1865). 

3. Douglas & Scott (1865, p. 345) recorded 'Litosoma chloropterus Kirschbaum' 
from England, stating that it was 'not an uncommon species on broom [Sarothamnus 
scoparius] near Blackheath and at Charlton, in July'. These authors were assisted 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 147 

by Fieber in the identification of specimens, and their description of Litosoma 
chloropterus agrees with Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, and also with their own 
species L. virescens (see para. 2 above). 

4. Later, Douglas & Scott (1868, p. 267) described a new species Litosoma bicolor 
from specimens of both sexes stating that it was 'not uncommon by beating furze 
bushes [Ulex europaeus] at Esher [England] in August'. In 1875 (p. 185), Douglas & 
Scott synonymized L. bicolor with Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum. This was 
surprising, as they stated that some males of L. bicolor sent by them to Fieber had 
been identified by him as a species different from L. chloropterus. They speculated 
that Fieber did not know the males of Capsus chloropterus and that Kirschbaum, in 
his original description, had failed to note the characteristic coloration of males; both 
these assumptions are incorrect. It is possible that a female of L. bicolor from 
England sent by Douglas and Scott, apparently after 1865 and certainly long after the 
description of Pachylops, had been misidentified by Fieber as chloropterus; this may 
be the source of the subsequent confusion. 

5. Reuter (1877, pp. 128-129) showed that Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum was 
not synonymous with Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott. He also noted that 'It 
[Litosoma bicolor] is probably identical with the Pachylops chloropterus, Fieber 
(Eur. Hem. p. 285), of which I have not seen a typical specimen', but did not 
indicate his reason for this belief He speculated that possibly Kirschbaum had 
sent to Fieber a specimen of L. bicolor misidentified as C. chloropterus; in point of 
fact, L. bicolor does not occur in Germany and Kirschbaum apparently did not 
collect abroad. 

6. In 1883 Reuter (p. 342) transferred L. bicolor to the genus Hypsitylus Fieber, 
1861 (type species H. prasinus). He treated Pachylops chloropterus sensu Fieber (see 
para. 1 above) as a probable misidentification of L. bicolor Douglas & Scott, and used 
Hypsitylus as the valid name, with the earlier name Pachylops in synonymy. This 
nomenclature was followed by later authors (e.g. Reuter, 1910, p. 149; Oshanin, 1910, 
pp. 837, 848 and 1912, p. 74; Seabra, 1926, pp. 13, 37). 

7. However, Kirkaldy (1906, p. 127) accepted Pachylops as the valid name with the 
type species stated to be 'chloropterus [sensu] Fieb. (= bicolor D. & S.)', and placed 
Hypsitylus in synonymy under Pachylops. China (1943, pp. 266, 323-324) feared that 
if C. chloropterus were accepted as type species of Pachylops. the latter name would 
become a senior synonym of Orthotylus Fieber, 1858 on the grounds of page priority 
(see para. 1 above), even though (pp. 269, 270, 272) he correctly noted that page 
priority had no nomenclatural significance. China, without trying to justify his claim, 
stated that 'the Kirschbaum species [Capsus chloropterus] agrees neither with Fieber's 
generic description [of Pachylops] nor with the description of the type species given 
by Fieber' and that the species actually involved as the type of Pachylops was 
Litosoma bicolor. On these grounds China (1947, p. 285) asked the Commission to 
rule 'that the type of Pachylops Fieber, 1858, is Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott, 
1868, and not Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum. 1855, the single species included in 
the genus by Fieber ...". China's request was accepted by the Commission in Opinion 
253 (1954). 

8. This type fixation, as is now clear, was based on the misinterpretation of facts. 
Claims that Fieber had misidentified Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum were never 
debated. Careful examination of Fieber's 1858 and 1861 works shows without any 



148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

doubt that his identification of this species was correct. According to characters 
shown by Renter (1883, p. 342) to distinguish 'Oiihotyhis virescens' from 'Hypsitylus 
bicolor', Fieber's (1861, p. 285) description (coloration of both sexes grass green; 
rostrum not reaching apex of mesosternum; apices of tibiae blackish; tibial spines 
blackish) fits Liiosuma virescens and not L. bicolor (coloration pale green, in males 
with a brownish longitudinal stripe; rostrum surpassing mesosternum; tibiae uni- 
colorous; tibial spines pale). The short rostrum is noted in the original description 
of Pacliylops, and the accompanying figure of the head and rostrum fits a female of 
L. virescens. It is noteworthy also that L. virescens is known from both regions 
indicated by Fieber (Germany and the eastern half of the Mediterranean coast of 
France), while L. bicolor does not occur in either region (Wagner, 1956; Ehanno, 
1983). It is, therefore, clear that Fieber's (1858, 1861) identification of Capsiis 
chloropterus Kirschbaum was correct and the name Pachylops was given by him to 
the taxon currently called Neopachylops Wagner, 1956 (a subgenus of Orthotylus 
Fieber, 1858). 

9. The species Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1 868 is relatively rare and has a 
Hmited distribution; it has never been subject to serious taxonomic study. Figures 
attributed to 'Pachylops bicolor' in monographs by Wagner & Weber (1964, p. 310) 
and Wagner (1974, p. 170) are of Hypsitylus prasinus Fieber, 1861. Recent examin- 
ation of L. bicolor by one of us (A.C.) based on specimens from England and France 
show that this species is not congeneric with other species currently placed in 
Pachylops (or Neopachylops) and undoubtedly belongs to the genus Platycramis 
Fieber, 1870, subgenus Genistocapsus Wagner, 1956. 

10. The nomenclatural problems following from paras. 8 and 9 (above) concern 
several genus-group names of European and Mediterranean orthotylinae 
(miridae). All species of these genera and subgenera live on Fabaceae (Sarothamnus, 
Ulex, Genista, etc.); none of them is of economic importance. The implications of the 
Commission's ruling in Opinion 253 are wide ranging. If it were to be followed, 
Pachylops Fieber, 1858 would replace the long-used generic name Platycramis Fieber, 
1870 (p. 252; type species P. erberi Fieber, 1870; 16 species) and the name of its 
subgenus Genistocapsus Wagner, 1956 (p. 424; type species P. metriorrhynchus 
Renter, 1883; 10 species). 

11. The name Hypsitylus Fieber, 1861 (p. 286; type species H. prasinus Fieber, 
1861 ) used before 1943 (see para. 7 above) should be restored for a monotypic genus. 
If the ruling in Opinion 253 were to be set aside, the original concept of Pachylops 
would be restored and this name would replace the relatively recent name Neo- 
pachylops Wagner, 1956 (p. 394; type species Capsus concolor Kirschbaum, 1856) for 
a subgenus of Orthotylus: this subgenus contains 1 5 species. 

12. In order to obtain the views of specialists, a questionnaire with all possible 
solutions to the problem (including suppression of the naine Pachylops or designation 
for it of another type species) was sent to nine specialists from France (C. Dupuis, 
B. Ehanno, A. Matocq, J. Pericart), Spain (M. Goula, J. Ribes), Austria (E. Heiss), 
the Netherlands (B. Aukema) and Italy (F. Faraci). All of them voted for setting 
aside Opinion 253. Based on this unanimous vote, we have not followed the ruling 
given in that Opinion and have accepted the original fixation of Capsus chloropterus 
Kirschbaum as the type species of Pachylops (Carapezza, 1997; Kerzhner & Josifov, 
in press). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 149 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the designation in Opinion 253 o( Litosoma 
hicolor Douglas & Scott, 1868 as the type species of Pachylops Fieber, 1858; 

(2) to emend the entry for Pachylops Fieber, 1858 in the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology to record the type species as Capsiis chloropterus 
Kirschbaum, 1856 by monotypy; 

(3) to emend the entry for hicolor, Litosoma, Douglas & Scott, 1868, in the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology to delete reference to it as the specific name 
of the type species of Pachylops Fieber, 1858; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name virescens 
Douglas & Scott, 1865, as published in the binomen Litosoma virescens (valid 
subjective synonym of the specific name of Capsiis chloropterus Kirschbaum, 
1856, the type species of Pachylops Fieber, 1858). 

References 

Carapezza, .4. 1997. Heteroptera of Tunisia. Natwalista Siciliano. (4)21. supplement A: 1-331. 
China, W.E. 1943. The generic names of the British Hemiptera Heteroptera, with a check list 

of the British species, part 8. Pp. 211-342 in: The generic names of British insects. Royal 

Entomological Society of London, London. 
China, W.E. 1947. Proposed suspension of the Regies for Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1: 285. 
Douglas, J.W. & Scott, J. 1865. The British Hemiptera-Heteroptera. dll pp. Ray Society, 

London. 
Douglas, J.W. & Scott, J. 1868. British Hemiptera: additions and corrections. Entomologist's 

Monthly Magazine. 4: 265-269. 
Douglas, J.W. & Scott, J. 1875. Hemiptera: synonymic notes. Entomologist's Monthly 

Magazine, 11: 184-186. 
Ehanno, B. 1983. Les Heteropteres Mirides de France. Vol. I. Les sectems biogeographiques. 

603 pp. Paris. 
Fieber, F.X. 1858. Criterien zur generischen Theilung der Phytocoriden (Capsini aut.). Wiener 

entomologische Monat.schrift. 2: 289-327. 329-347, 388. 
Fieber, F.X. 1860-1861. Die europdischen Hemiptera. Halbfliigler. (Rhvnchota Heteroptera). 

Pp. i-vi, 1-112 (1860); pp. 113^M4 (1861). Gerold's Sohn. Wien. ' 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1954. Opinion 253. Designation, under 

the plenary powers, of a type species for the nominal genus 'Pachylops' Fieber. 1858 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage. Opinions 

and Declarations rendered hv the International Commission ou Zoological Nomenclature, 5: 

163-174. 
Kerzhner, I.M. & Josifov, M. (In press). Family Miridae. In: Aukema. B. & Rieger. Chr. (Eds.), 

Catalogue of the Heteroptera of the Pcdaearctic Region, vol. 3. Netherlands Entomological 

Society. 
Kirkaldy, G.W. 1906. List of the genera of the pagiopodous Hemiptera-Heteroptera. with their 

type species, from 1758 to 1904 (and also of the aquatic and semi-aquatic Trochalopoda). 

Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 32: 117-156. 
Kirschbaum, C.L. 1856. Rhynchotographische Beitrage. I. Die Capsinen der Gegend von 

Wiesbaden. Jahrbuch des Vereins fUr Natiirkunde ini Herzogthum Nassau. 10: 163-348 

(also published separately). 
Oshanin, B. 1910. Verzeichnis der Palaarktischen Hemipteren mit besonderer Beriicksichti- 

gung ihrer Verteilung im Russischen Reiche, vol. 1, part 3. Ezhegodnik Zoologicheskago 

Muzeya Imperatorskaya Akademiya Nauk, 14, supplement: 587-1087. 



150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Oshanin, B. 1912. Katulog der palaarktischen Hemipteren (Heleropteni. Homoptera- 

Auchciwrrhynclui iiiui Psylhidea). xvi, 187 pp. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin. 
Reuter, O.M. 1877. Remarks on some British Hemiptera-Heteroptera. Entomologist's Monthly 

McigLizine, 14: 127-131. 
Reuter, O.M. 1883. Hemiptera Gymnocerala Europac. Hemipleres Gynmocerciles d' Europe, du 

hassin de la Medilerranee el de I'Asie Riisse. 3: 313-^96. Helsingfors. (Also published in 

Acta Socletatis Scientiarum Fewikae. 13(1884): 313^96). 
Reuter, O.M. 1910. Neue Beitrage zur Phylogenie und Systematik der Miriden nebst ein- 

leilenden Bemerkungen iiber die Phylogenie der Heteropteren-Familien. Ada Societatis 

Scientiarum Fcnnicae. 37(3): i-iv, 1-172. 
Seabra, A.F. de. 1926. Hemipteres Heteropteres de la province de 'Tras-os-Montes'. Memorias 

e Estudos do Museu Zoologico da Universidade de Coimhra, 1(8): 1-39. 
Wagner, E. 1939. Die Wanzen der Sammlung Kirschbaum. Jahrbiicher des Nassauischen 

Vereins fiir Natwkunde. 86: 34-75. 
Wagner, E. 1956. 21. Familie: Miridae (Capsidae auct.). Fortsetzung. Pp. 321^80 in: Guide, 

J., Die Wanzen Milteleuropas, vol. 11. Huss, Frankfurt am Main. 
Wagner, E. 1974. Die Miridae Hahn, 1831, des Miltelmeerraumes und der Makaronesischen 

Inseln (Hemiptera: Heteroptera), part 2. Entomologische Ahhandlungen herausgegeben 

vom Slaat lichen Museum fiir Tierkunde Dresden, 39, Supplement: 1^21. 
Wagner, E. & Weber, H.H. 1964. Heteropteres Miridae. Faune de France, vol. 67. 591 pp. 

Federation Frani;aise des Societes de Sciences Naturelles, Paris. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: icziKojnhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 151 

Case 3051 

Scarus chrysoptenis Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Sparisoma 
chrysopterum; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of 
the specific name and designation as the type species of Sparisoma 
Swainson, 1839 

Rodrigo L. Moura 

Segao de Peixes. Museu de Zoologia da Vniversidade de Sao Paulo, 

C.P. 7172. 01064-970 Sao Paulo. BrazU 

John E. Randall 

Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, 
Hawaii 96817-0916, U.S.A. (e-mail: jackr@visionl.net) 

Abstract. The main purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of 
Sparisoma chrysopterum (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) for the Redtail Parrotfish of the 
Caribbean and tropical Western Atlantic. An earlier specific name, that of Sparus 
abildgaardi Bloch, 1791, has been treated as a junior synonym of Sparisoma viride 
(Bonnaterre, 1788), the Stoplight Parrotfish. but it is now known to refer to the initial 
phase (male or female) of 5. chrysopterum. It is also proposed that S. chrysopterum 
be designated as the type species o[ Sparisoma Swainson, 1839 in place of the nominal 
species Sparus abildgaardi. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perciformes; scaridae; parrot- 
fishes; Sparisoma; Sparisoma abildgaardi; Sparisoma chrysopterum; Sparisoma viride; 
Caribbean; Western Atlantic. 



1. Bloch (1791, p. 22, pi. 259) described and illustrated in color a specimen of a 
scarid fish from St Croix, Virgin Islands, and named it Sparus abildgaardi. The 
description and figure are of a moderately elongate, yellowish parrotfish with a lunate 
caudal fin; the dried skin (337mm SL) is preserved as specimen ZMU 8584 in the 
Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt Universitat in Berlin. 

2. Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 286, pi. 57) described and illustrated Scarus 
chrysopterus from 'mare American um". The illustration shows a moderately elongate 
body and lunate caudal fin; this and the color description (body green, fins orange, 
the caudal orange in the middle and laterally green) refer to a terminal male of the 
species which has long been known as Sparisoma chrysopterum ( Bloch & Schneider, 
1801) and, in English, the Redtail Parrotfish. 

3. Swainson (1839, p. 227) briefly described the new nominal genus Sparisoma and 
cited 'Sparus Ahildgardii [sic] Bloch, pi. 259' as the only species. He noted that 'Cuvier 
terms this singular fish a Scarus and Bloch a Sparus\ but in the absence of any other 
statements one has to assume that the specific name was used in Bloch's original 
sense. 



152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

4. Valenciennes (in Cuvier & Valenciennes, [1840], p. 175) applied the name Scams 
abildgaardii to a scarid from St Thomas, Virgin Islands, where it was known as 
'red-fish"; he said that this common name was well justified by the description of the 
color (when fresh) that accompanied the specimen, and that Bloch (1791) must have 
had 'un individu decolore'. Although the description by Valenciennes did not match 
the original one by Bloch, later authors (such as Jordan & Evermann, 1898, p. 1635; 
Evermann & Marsh, 1900, p. 239, pi. 30; Meek & Hildebrand, 1925, p. 748; 
Townsend, 1929, pi. 19; Longley & Hildebrand, 1940, p. 207, pis. 17, 28) used the 
name Sparisoma abildgaanli (Bloch, 1791) for the red parrotfish described by 
Valenciennes under the name Scorns abildgaardii. 

5. Schultz (1958) reviewed the family scaridae. Like Valenciennes and the other 
authors listed in para. 4 above, he regarded Sparisoma abildgaardi as a valid species; 
he did not examine Bloch's specimen (para. 1 above), and diagnosed S. abildgaardi 
principally on color (pectoral base same color as remainder of fin; six vertical rows 
of white spots on body; belly blood red; posterior margin of gill cover black (reddish 
brown when alive); caudal fin red except basally). Schultz was aware of sexual 
dimorphism in the scaridae from the paper by Brock & Yamaguchi (1954) on the 
Hawaiian Chlorurus perspicillatus (Steindachner, 1839), but he did not realize how 
extensive this is in the family; nor did he know of the protogynous hermaphroditism 
of scarids which was first shown by Randall & Randall (1963) for Sparisoma 
rubripinne (Valenciennes, [1840]). 

6. Winn & Bardach (1960) concluded that 5. abildgaardi, as used by authors, did 
not refer to a valid species, and wrote 'Sparisoma abildgaairdi [sic] (Bloch) (female 
and immature) appears to be a synonym of Sparisoma viride (Bonnaterre) (male)." 
Others have agreed with Winn & Bardach, such as Bohlke & Chaplin (1968), Randall 
(1968) and Schultz (1969, in his second major paper on scarids) and numerous more 
recent workers. It is now clear that the red parrotfish called Scanis or Sparisoma 
abildgaardi by Valenciennes and the other authors listed in para. 4 above, together 
with Schultz (1958), is the initial phase (which may be male or female) of Sparisoma 
viride (Bonnaterre, 1788, p. 96). known in English as the Stoplight Parrotfish. 

7. While studying the parrotfishes of Brazil, the first author (R.L.M.) of the 
present application examined the original descriptions of western Atlantic species. 
Bloch's ( 1 79 1 ) original description and illustration of Spams abildgaardi seemed 
much more like Sparisoma chrysopterwn (see para. 2 above) than the deeper-bodied 
'abildgaardi' initial phase of S. xiride. The second author (J.E.R.) agreed, and at our 
request H.-J. Paepke examined the skin of Bloch's specimen in Berlin (see para. 1 
above) and supplied a photograph. We now conclude that Sparus abildgaardi Bloch, 
1791 (as originally published and represented by the holotype) is an earlier synonym 
of Sparisoma chrysoptemm (Bloch & Schneider, 1801), and not a later synonym of 
S. viride (Bonaterre, 1788) as has been supposed by many authors since Winn & 
Bardach (1960). 

8. The specific name abildgaardi Bloch, 1791 has apparently not been used in its 
original taxonomic sense (i.e. that of 5. chrysoptemm) since Swainson (1839) estab- 
lished Sparisoma. After Valenciennes ([1840]), abildgaardi v^ai applied to what is now 
known to be the initial phase of Sparisoma viride, and following the recognition of 
this fact by Winn & Bardach (1960; see para. 6 above) the name has dropped out of 
use. In contrast, the name Spari.soma chrysoptemm (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) has 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 153 

always been correctly used. It would be very confusing to now replace S. chryso- 
ptenim by S. ahildgaurdi, and there is a prima facie case for the suppression of 
abildgaardi. 

9. As noted in para. 3 above, the type species of Spaiisoma Swainson, 1839 is, by 
monotypy. Spams abildgaardi Bloch, 1791. Since this name was consistently mis- 
applied and has now dropped out of use, and its suppression is therefore now 
proposed, we suggest that the type species should be denoted by the valid name of the 
taxon on which Swainson must be assumed to have based the genus. An alternative 
course would be to designate the congeneric Scarus viridis Bonnaterre, 1788 as the 
type species, but we see no reason for preferring this. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the specific name abildgaardi Bloch, 1 79 1, as published in the 
binomen Sparus abildgaardi, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Sparisoma Swainson, 1791, and to designate Scarus chrysopterus Bloch & 
Schneider, 1 80 1 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Sparisoma 
Swainson, 1839 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in (l)(b) above 
Scarus chrysopterus Bloch & Schneider, 1801; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
chrysopterus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen Scarus 
chrysopterus (specific name of the type species of Sparisoma Swainson, 1839); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name abildgaardi Bloch, 1 791, as published in the binomen Sparus 
abildgaardi and as suppressed in (l)(a) above. 

Acknowledgements 

We are especially indebted to H.-J. Paepke (Museum fiir Naturkunde der 
Humboldt Universitat, Berlin) and G. Duhamel (Museum National d'Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris) for supplying us with information and for photographs of type 
specimens in their care. We also thank J.L. Figueiredo, N.A. Menezes and U.R. 
Martins de Souza (Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo) and Ivan Sazima 
(Universidade Estadual de Campinas) for their valuable comments. 

References 

Bloch, M.E. 1791. Nalurgeschichte der ausldndischen Fische. part 4. 152 pp. Berlin. 

Bloch, M.E. & Schneider, J.G. 1801. Syslemu Ichthyologiae iconibus ex illustraluin. Ix, 584 pp. 

Sanderiano. Berolini. 
Biihlke, J.E. & Chaplin, C.C.G. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and adjacent tropical waters. 

11 \ pp. Livingston Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. 
Bonnaterre, J.P. 1788. Tableau encyclopedique et meihodic/iie des trois regnes de la nature. 

Ichthyologie. Ivi, 215 pp.. 102 pis. Panckoucke. Paris. 
Brock, V.E. & Yamaguchi, Y. 1954. The identity of the parrotfish Scarus ahula. the female of 

Scarus perspicilhiiiis. Copeia, 1954(2): 154-155. 



154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. [1840]. Histoire nalnrelle de poissons, vol. 14. xxii, 464 pp. 

Pitois-Levrault, Paris. 
Evermann, B.W. & Marsh, M.C. 1900. The fishes of Porto Rico. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish 

Comniission. 20(1): 51-350. 
Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1 898. The fishes of Middle and North America. Bulletin of the 

U.S. National MiLwiim. 41: 1241-2183. 
Longley, W.H. & Hildebrand, S.F. 1940. Systematic catalogue of the fishes of Tortugas, 

Florida. Papers of the Tortugas Laboratory, no. 34 (Carnegie Institute, Washington, 

publication 535). xii, 331 pp. 
Meek, S.E. & Hildebrand, S.F. 1925. The marine fishes of Panama. Publications of the Field 

Museum of Natural History, Zoology 14(3): 709-1045. 
Randall, J.E. 1968. Caribbean reef fishes. 318 pp., 324 figs. T.F.H. Publications, Jersey City, 

New Jersey. 
Randall, J.E. & Randall, H.A. 1963. The spawning and early development of the Atlantic 

parrotfish Sparisoma rubripinne. with notes on other scarid and labrid fishes. Zoologica 

(New York). 48(2): 49-69. 
Schultz, L.P. 1958. Review of the parrotfishes, family Scaridae. Bulletin of the U.S. National 

Museum, 214: 1-143. 
Schultz, L.P. 1969. The taxonomic status of controversial genera and species of parrotfishes, 

with a descriptive list (family Scaridae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 17: 1^9. 
Swainson, W. 1839. The natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians. & reptiles, or 

monocardian animals, vol. 2. vi. 448 pp. London. 
Townsend, C.H. 1929. Records of changes in color among fishes. 56 pp. New York Zoological 

Society. New York. 
Winn, H.E. & Bardach, J.E. 1960. Some aspects of the comparative biology of parrot fishes at 

Bermuda. Zoologica (New York), 45: 29-34. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, LC.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(ajnhm.ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 155 

Case 3071 

Osphronemus deissneri Bleeker, 1859 (currently Parosphromenus 
deissneri; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed replacement of 
holotype by a neotype 

P.K.L. Ng 

School of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore 
(e-mail: dbsngkl@leonis.nus.edu.sg) 

Maurice Kottelat 

Case postale 57. 2952 Cornol, Switzerland (e-mail: mkottelat@vtx.ch) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to clarify the identity of Osphronemus 
deissneri Bleeker, 1859. the type species of Parosphromenus Bleeker, 1877, a genus of 
licorice gouramies from the freshwater and peat swamps of Southeast Asia important 
both in the aquarium trade and as environmental bioindicators. The holotype of 
O. deissneri is badly damaged and lacks the characters necessary for identification. It 
is proposed that it be replaced with a neotype in order to stabilise the taxonomy of 
Parosphromenus. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perciformes; licorice gouramies; 
belontiidae; Parospliromenus; Parosphromenus deissneri. 



1. In 1801 (p. 1 16), the nominal genus Osphronemus was estaWished by Lacepede 
(spelt La Cepede in the publication) with two species. O. goramy (p. 1 16. pi. 8, fig. 2) 
and O. galtus (p. 116). O. goramy was subsequently designated as the type species by 
Bleeker (1879, pp. 16-17 — for date of publication see Lamme, 1975). Cuvier (1829, 
p. 228) referred to 'Ospliromenus gourami [sic]' Lacepede but he did not mention the 
original spelling Osphronemus, although two years later (Cuvier in Cuvier & 
Valenciennes, 1831, p. 377) he explained that the name 'osphromene' had been used 
by Commerson in an unpublished manuscript, and that Lacepede had published this 
name as 'osphroneme". 

2. Bleeker (1859, p. 376) established the species Osphromemis [sic] deissneri, and in 
1877 (pi. 395, caption of fig. 1) established the nominal genus Parosphromenus, with 
Ospliromenus deissneri as type species by monotypy. This plate appeared in 1877 and 
predates the earliest description of Paro.sphromenus generally quoted in the literature, 
i.e. Bleeker, 1879, p. 19 (see Boeseman, 1983, p. 4). 

3. The licorice gouramies of Parosphromenus are widely distributed in the 
freshwater and peat swamps of Southeast Asia, and 1 1 nominal species are now 
recognised (Kottelat, 1991; Kottelat et al., 1993). These fishes are important not only 
in the aquarium trade but also as environmental bioindicators (Ng, Tay & Lim, 
1994). The taxonomy of species of Parosphromenus is difficult as there are very few 



156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

morphological or meristic characters which can be used to separate taxa. Adult male 
specimens are necessary before most of the species can be identified with certainty, 
and even then they must be well preserved and ideally their live colours indicated. The 
useful diagnostic features are characters such as the structure of the paired and 
unpaired fins, the body and fin colouration and the colour patterning; these 
characters are discernible only in well preserved material. Many of the older 
specimens attributed to species of Parosphromenus are poorly preserved, being 
twisted, shrunken and/or dried, with their fin rays badly damaged and often frayed 
or broken. Parosphromenus species are typically in the size range 15-20 mm in 
standard length, and need to be preserved carefully if good specimens are to be 
obtained for study or long-term curation. Furthermore, several nominal species have 
been poorly described, with vague and imprecise type localities and ambiguously 
designated type material (see Schaller & Kottelat, 1989). 

4. Although the species Parosphromenus deissneri has been reported frequently in 
scientific and popular literature, the actual identity of the species has only very 
recently been clarified (Kottelat & Ng, 1998). We have been aware for some time that 
several conspicuously different species have been identified as '/*. deissneri' by a 
number of authors, including ourselves. Parosphromenus deissneri was originally 
described by Bleeker from a single specimen reportedly 34 mm in total length from 
the island of Banka (now Bangka), off eastern Sumatra, Indonesia. The species has 
not until recently been reported from Bangka since its original discovery, and nothing 
was known about it except from Bleeker's papers. Bleeker's figure (1877, pi. 395, fig. 
1) of the species is schematic and apparently full-size, and appears to depict a large 
female. The colours are faded and not useful except for confirming the generic 
identification of recent material, since preserved females of nearly all species of 
Parosphromenus have the same colour pattern. It cannot be determined whether the 
colour was based on a fresh or preserved specimen and whether it was accurate. 

5. We recently obtained fresh material of Parosphromenus from various localities 
on Bangka, including Sungai Baturussa, the stream running through Baturussa 
which is the type locality of Parosphromenus deissneri. Our study of this material 
shows that two species occur on Bangka, the adult males of each being distinguished 
by the form of their caudal fins and live colouration. The presence or absence of a 
filamentous median caudal-fin ray allows us to identify large adults of both sexes. 
One of the two species is certainly Parosphromenus deissneri and we have described 
the second as a new species, P. hintan (Kottelat & Ng, 1998, p. 265, fig. 3). Although 
the two species were not collected together, the close proximity of their localities 
(only a few kilometres apart) suggests that both species will probably be found 
together once more detailed sampling is conducted throughout the island. 

6. Examination of the holotype of Parosphromenus deissneri in the Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden shows that it is completely discoloured and in 
relatively poor condition, being shrunken and with all its fins damaged; the 
taxonomically important caudal fin is completely missing. The condition of the 
caudal fin and its rays was not described by Bleeker and cannot be determined with 
certainty from his 1877 figure (pi. 395, fig. 1). One interpretation of this figure 
is that it is accurate and shows the median caudal-fin ray unbranched and 
somewhat narrower than the others. Alternatively, the figure is not accurate and 
the other rays, while appearing thicker, are not depicted as being branched, which 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 157 

they should be. Our conckision is that the holotype of Parosphromeims deissneri 
possesses no characters by which it can be identified with any of the known species 
of the genus. 

7. We are currently completing a revisionary study of the genus, in which the 
identities of three poorly known species are to be clarified and at least si.\ new species 
described. All. at some time or another, have been called ' Parosphromenus deissneri' . 
In addition, we have obtained specimens of the second Bangka species (P. bintan) 
from Pulau Bintan in the Riau Archipelago, this species being the subject of 
conservation efforts (Kottelat & Ng, 1998). Our revisionary study is hindered by the 
absence of a usable type specimen for Parospbromemis deissneri. As pointed out in 
para. 6 above the e.xtant holotype possesses no useful characters, and could belong to 
P. bintan or even to any of the other taxa from nearby islands. Considering the 
confused taxonomic history of the group, we believe that continued uncertainty 
about the holotype of Parosphromenus deissneri would pose serious problems for 
future systematic and biological studies on the genus and its members. 

8. To ensure taxonomic stability in the genus and its type species we propose 
under Article 75b(iii) and Recommendation 75E of the Code the designation of an 
intact fresh specimen as neotype to replace the damaged and unusable holotype of 
Parosphromenus deissneri. The original type locality, Baturussa, is now a small city 
where no suitable habitat containing this species could be found. However, the 
proposed neotype comes from very near the original type locality, and certainly from 
the same hydrographic basin. The proposed neotype is a male specimen (20,2 mm 
standard length, 27.1 mm total length), collected on 6 March 1993 by M. Kottelat, 
N. Sivasothi and T. Tan, from Sungai Baturussa basin, 8 km from Pudingbesar on 
the road to Kampong Simpan, in Bangka. It is deposited in the Zoological Reference 
Collection (ZRC), National University of Singapore, under the catalogue number 
ZRC 31377. Colour photographs of the freshly preserved proposed neotype of 
P. deissneri are published in Kottelat & Ng (1998, p. 265, fig. 3) as well as of live male 
and female specimens of both that species and P. bintan. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens 
for the nominal species Osphronemus deissneri Bleeker, 1859 and to designate 
as neotype the specimen ZRC 31377 in the National University of Singapore; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name deissneri 
Bleeker, 1859, as published in the binomen Osphromenus [sic] deissneri and as 
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type 
species of Parosphromenus Bleeker, 1877). 

References 

Bleeker. P. 1859. Negende bijdrage (I) tot de kennis der vischfauna van Banka. Naimirkimdig 

Tijilsclirifi voor Ncderlwhisdi Imlie. 18: 359-378. 
Bleeker, P. 1877-1878. Alias ichthvologique des hides orientcdes neerlandaises, vol. 9. Percoides 

III. 80 pp.. pis. 355^20. Muller.'Amsterdain. 
Bleeker, P. 1879. Memoire sur les poissons a phar>ngiens labyrinthiformes de Tlnde 

archipelagique. Naluurkimde Verlumdelingen Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen !e 

Amsterdam. 19: 1-56. 



158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Boeseman, M. 1983. Introduction. Pp. 1-22 in Bleeker, P., Atlas ichthyologique des Indes 

orienlales neerlandaises. Plates originally prepared for planned tomes XI-XIV published 

here for the first time. 22 pp., pis. 421-575. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Cuvier, G. 1829. Le regne animal distrihue d'apres son organisation, pour servir de base a 

I'hisloire naturelle des animaux et d' introduction a I'anatomie comparee, Ed. 2, vol. 2. xviii, 

532 pp. Deterville, Paris. 
Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1831. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 7, 531 pp. Paris. 
Kottelat, M. 1991. Notes on the taxonomy and distribution of some Western Indonesian 

freshwater fishes, with diagnoses of a new genus and six new species (Pisces: Cyprinidae, 

Belontiidae, and Chaudhuriidae). hhthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, 2(3): 

273-287. 
Konelat, M. & Ng, P.K.L. 1998. Parosphromenus bintan, a new belontiid fish from Bintan and 

Bangka islands. Indonesia, with redescription of P. deis.sneri Bleeker, 1859 (Teleostei: 

Osphronemidae). Ichthyological Exploration oj Freshwaters. 8(3): 263-272. 
Kottelat, M., Whitten, A.J., Kartikasari, S.N. & Wirjoatmodjo, S. 1993. Freshwater fishes of 

Western Indonesia and Sulawesi. 221 pp., 84 pis. Periplus, Hong Kong. 
Lacepede, B.G.E. 1801. Histoire naturelle des poissons. vol. 3. Ixvi, 558 pp., 34 pis. Plassan. 

Paris. 
Lamme, W.H. 1975. Collected fish papers of Pieter Bleeker, vol. 7. Junk, The Hague. 
Ng, P.K.L., Tay, J.B. & Lim, K.K.P. 1994. Diversity and conservation of blackwater fishes in 

Peninsular Malaysia, particularly in the North Selangor peat swamp forest. Hydrobio- 

logia. 285: 203-218. 
Sclialler, D. & Kottelat, M. 1989. Betta strohi sp. n., ein neuer Kampflisch aus Siidborneo 

(Osteichthyes: Belontiidae). Die Aquarien- und Terrarien-Zeitschrift. 43(1): 31-37. 

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD (e-mail: iczn(gnhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 159 

Case 1647 

Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 and cacatuinae Gray, 1840 
(Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed conservation 

Walter J. Bock 

Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, 
N.Y. 10027, U.S.A. (e-mail: wb4@columbia.edu) 

Richard Schodde 

Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, 

P. O. Box 84. Lyneham, A. C. T. 2602, Australia 

(e-mail: Richard.Schodde@dwe.csiro.au) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Cacatua 
Vieillot, 1817 (family psittacidae Rafinesque, 1815) and the subfamily name 
CACATUINAE Gray, 1840. Cacatua has wide currency for the white cockatoos of 
Australasia and the southwest Pacific but is threatened by the Httle-used senior 
synonyms Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800, Cacatoes Dumeril, [1805], Catacus Rafinesque, 
1815 and Plyctolophus Vieillot. 1816. It is proposed that these earlier names be 
suppressed. The subfamily name cacatuinae Gray, 1840, based on Cacatua and 
universally used for the five or seven genera of the world's cockatoos, is threatened 
by PLYCTOLOPHINAE Vigors, 1825, which has remained unused. Suppression of 
Plyctolophus will render the name plyctolophinae invalid. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; psittacidae; cacatuinae; cockatoos; 
Cacatua; Cacatua alba; Australasia; southwest Pacific; Indonesia. 



1. Since Salvador! (1891), the generic name Cacatua has been adopted almost 
universally for the white cockatoos of Australasia and the southwest Pacific, as has 
the family-group name cacatuinae (or cacatuidae) for cockatoos in general. This 
group of birds has a high profile in southern hemisphere biogeography and global 
aviculture and several species have a significant impact on rural industry in Australia. 
The name Cacatua is found in all relevant basic biological references for white- 
plumaged cockatoos: formal checklists (e.g. Mayr, 1941; Condon, 1975; Wolters, 
1975; Beehler & Finch, 1985; White & Bruce, 1986; Sibley & Monroe, 1990; Christidis 
& Boles, 1994; Schodde in Schodde & Mason, 1997), handbooks and manuals (e.g. 
Rand & Gilliard, 1967; Forshaw, 1978; Coates, 1985; Schodde & Tidemann, 1986; 
Higgins & Davies, in press), and field guides (e.g. Beehler, Pratt & Zimmerman, 1986; 
Simpson & Day, 1995; Pizzey & Knight. 1997; Coates & Bishop, 1997). It is also the 
name established in national and international legislation for the protection of 
cockatoos (for example, Garnett, 1992; lUCN and Conservation International (1996) 
Red List of Threatened Animals; World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1996) 
Checklist of CITES Species). 



150 Bulletin of Zoologkal Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

2. The name 'cacatua" was first introduced to ornithological literature in 1760 by 
Brisson (p. 204. pi. 21 ) and was there used for a species of Psittacus Linnaeus. 1758. 
The Commission's ruling in Direction 105 (1963) restricted the availability which had 
been given to Brisson's (1760) generic names in Opinion 37 (1911) and again in 
Direction 16 (1955). after the Commission recognised Brisson's Ornithologia as 
non-binominal, to those 1 15 names in Latin which were listed in his Tabula synoptica 
(vol. 1. pp. 24-61); 'cacatua' was not included and is not available as a generic name 
from Brisson ( 1 760). The first use of Cacatua as an available generic name is to be 
found in Vieillot's account of the cockatoos in the Noiiveau Dictionmiire (1817. p. 6). 
By 1817, however, four other names had been published for the white cockatoos 
(see para. 5 below). 

3. In 1964 Mayr, Keast & Serventy proposed (BZN 21: 372-374) that Cacatua 
be conserved as a generic name from Brisson (1760). Members of the Standing 
Cotimiittee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) of the International 
Ornithological Congress reviewed the case and concluded that conservation of the 
name from Brisson (1760) would establish a precedent for accepting names not 
included for genera in the Tabula synoptica and that this would lead to instability. 
In 1965 (BZN 22: 156-161) the SCON revised the original application and 
proposed that Cacatua be taken from Vieillot (1817), and that the four synonyms 
published between 1760 and 1817 be suppressed. The revised proposal was 
supported by the original applicants and by the Checklist Committee of the Royal 
Australasian Ornithological Union (BZN 22: 156, footnote); there was one 
objection (BZN 23: 6; 1966). The Commission approved (November 1966) the 
revised application by 19 votes in favour to two against. However, it was 
subsequently recognised that the citation of Psittacus albus Miiller, 1776 as the 
type species of Cacatua was invalid because Vieillot (1817) had not included this 
nominal species in the genus, and no Opinion giving a Commission ruling was ever 
published. Neither the original application nor the revision dealt with the family- 
group name for the cockatoos. Conservation of the name Cacatua from Vieillot 
(1817) was again advocated by the SCON at the XX International Ornithological 
Congress at Christchurch in December 1990. 

4. Vieillot (1817) attributed the name Cacatua to Brisson; he noted that the only 
cockatoos known to Brisson were white. In the second half of the 19th century, 
however, authors (see, for example. Gray, 1870, p. 169: Salvadori, 1891, p. 115; 
Sharpe, 1900, p. 10) gave Vieillot himself as the author of the generic name. 
Brisson ( 1 760) had applied the name 'cacatua' to a species of Psittacus from the 
Moluccas; authors accepted the taxonomic species denoted by this unavailable 
name as the type and recognised Psittacus albus Miiller, 1776 (p. 76). described 
from the Molucca islands, as the first available name for the species. Vieillot 
(1817) had included 12 species in Cacatua; among them was (p. 10) Cacatua 
cristata from the Molucca islands, which was stated to be Psittacus cristatus 
'Latham'. Vieillot applied this name to the 'Kakatoes, des Moluques' illustrated in 
pi. 263 of Buffon's Platuhes enluminees (cited in Buffon. 1779, p. 92 as 'Le 
Kakatoes a huppe blanche' with a reference to Brisson, p. 204) and to Psittacus 
cristatus as used by Latham (1790). Both Buffon's (1779) and Latham's (1781, 
'Great White Cockatoo') vernacular names refer unambiguously to the white- 
crested north Moluccan cockatoo known today as Cacatua alba (Miiller, 1776). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 161 

Latham ( 1 790) listed "cacatua' of Brisson in tiie synonymy of P. cristatus, but he 
attributed the specific name cristatus to Linnaeus (1758, p. 99; 1766, p. 143) 
wherein cristatus is composite and includes yellow-crested cockatoos such as 
Wallacean C. sulpiuirea (Gmelin, 1788). Vieillot (1817) did not indicate a type 
species for Cacatua but in 1891 Salvadori (p. 115) nominated P. alhus Miiller, 
1776, placing (on p. 124) in its synonymy Vieillot's included species C cristata (see 
above); under Article 69a(v) of the Code this is a valid designation of Cacatua 
cristata Vieillot, 1817 as the type species. Salvadori (1891, p. 124, footnote) 
recorded the uncertain and composite identity of Linnaeus's P. cristatus and noted 
■for this reason I think that his name ought to be discarded'. No such uncertainty 
attaches to the description of C. cristata by Vieillot, which matches C. alba 
(Miiller, 1776) in all respects. We believe that stability will be served by the 
suppression of the specific name of Psittacus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, which for 
more than a century has remained unused for a taxon. 

5. There are four synonyms for Cacatua earlier than Vieillot (1817), three of which 
have family-group names based on them (para. 6 below), 

(a) Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800 (table 2). In 1912 the Commission ruled in Opinion 39 
that Cuvier's (1800) generic names were made available by their association with 
French vernacular names and thus identification by bibliographic reference. Gray 
(1855, p. 89) adopted Kakatoe and designated Psittacus philippinarum Gmelin, 1788 
(a junior synonym of P. haematuropygius Miiller, 1776) as the type species. Mathews 
(1917, pp. 160-164; 1920. p. 81; 1927, p. 312), the Checklist Committee of the Royal 
Australasian Ornithologists" Union (1926) and Peters (1937, p. 173) adopted 
Kakatoe, and a number of later authors followed Peters, despite Cacatua having by 
then been in wide use for over 100 years. The statement by Wolters (1975, p. 68), 
reported by Sibley & Monroe (1990, p. 112), that the name Kakatoe has been 
suppressed is incorrect. 

(b) Cacatoes Dumeril, [1805] (pp. 50, 51). Dumeril's Zoologie Analytique, in which 
Cacatoes appeared as an available name, is commonly quoted as 1806 from its title 
page (Mathews, 1912, p. 264; 1917, p. 160) but it evidently appeared in late 1805, 
before 6 December (Mathews, 1925, p. 37; Schodde in Schodde & Mason, 1997, 
p. 89) and possibly on 14 November (Mathews, 1920. p. 81; 1927, p. 312). Dumeril 
did not include any nominal species in Cacatoes, but Froriep's (1806) translation 
included the single species Psittacus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 and this is therefore 
the type species by subsequent monotypy; Mathews's (1912, p. 261) designation 
of Psittacus galeritus Latham, 1790 is invalid. The name Cacatoes Dumeril was 
occasionally used, but not in modern times. 

(c) Catacus Rafinesque, 1815 (p. 64). This name was introduced as a replacement 
for Cacatoes Dumeril. It seems likely that the name was misspelled but there is no 
clear evidence from the work that it is a lapsus and it was not corrected under 
'Additions and corrections' (p. 219). To our knowledge the name has not been used. 

(d) Plyctolophus Vieillot, 1816 (p. 26). Vieillot introduced this name for parrots 
with folding crests but in 1817 he rejected it as inappropriate for all the newly 
discovered 'cockatoos' and adopted Cacatua (paras. 2 and 4 above). The name was 
used (sometimes spelt ' Plictolophus') by some authors in the 19th century and the 
early part of the 20th centuries, and a number of new species were described under 
it (see Salvadori. 1891). 



162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

We propose that these four senior synonyms of Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 be 
suppressed. 

6. CACATUINAE Gray, 1840 (p. 53) was based on Cacatua and is in universal use 
(see Bock, 1994, p. 140) for the cockatoos at family level or, more usually, as a 
subfamily of the psittacidae. The senior name plyctolophinae Vigors, 1825 (p. 41), 
based on Plyciolophus Vieillot, 1816, refers to the same group of birds but has 
remained unused. Suppression of Plyciolopluis will render the name plyctolophinae 
invalid. The family-group names cacatoidae Mathews, 1912 (p. 261; based on 
Cacatoes Dumeril) and kakatoeidae Mathews, 1916 (p. 8; based on Kakatoe 
Cuvier, 1800 and adopted by Peters, 1937, p. 170) are both junior to cacatuinae 
Gray, 1840. 

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

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

(a) the generic names: 

(i) Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800; 
(ii) Cacatoes Dumeril, [1805]; 
(iii) Catacus Rafinesque, 1815; 
(iv) Plyctoloplms \'\t\\\oU 1816; 

(b) the specific name cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Psittacus cristatus: 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Cacatua 
Vieillot, 1817 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Salvador! (1891) Cacatua cristata Vieillot, 1817 (a junior subjective synonym 
of Psittacus albus Miiller, 1776); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name albus 
Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Psittacus albus (senior subjective 
synonym of the specific name of Cacatua cristata Vieillot, 1817, the type 
species of Cacatua Vieillot, 1817); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
cacatuinae Gray, 1840 (type genus Cacatua Vieillot, 1817); 

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

(a) Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800, as suppressed in (l)(a)(i) above; 

(b) Cacatoes Dumeril, [1805], as suppressed in (l)(a)(ii) above; 

(c) Catacus Rafinesque, 1815, as suppressed in (l)(a)(iii) above; 

(d) Plyciolophus Vieillot, 1816, as suppressed in (l)(a)(iv) above; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Psittacus cristatus and as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name plyctolophinae Vigors, 1825 (invalid because the name of 
the type genus, Plyciolophus Vieillot, 1816, has been suppressed in (l)(a)(iv) 
above). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 163 

References 

Beehler, B.M. & Finch, B.W. 1985. Species-checklist of the birds of New Guinea. Australasian 

Ornithological Monographs. No. 1. iii, 126 pp. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, 

Moonee Ponds, Victoria. 
Beehler, B.M., Pratt, T.K. & Zimmerman, D.A. 1986. Birds of New Guinea. Handbook of the 

Wau Ecology Institute, No. 9. xiii, 293 pp., 55 pis. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 
Bocl(, W.J. 1994. History and nomenclature of avian family-group names. Bulletin of the 

American Museum of Natural History. 222: 1-281. 
Brisson, M.J. 1760. Ornithologiu sive Synopsi.? methodica sistens Avium Divisionem in Ordines. 

Sectiones. Genera. Species, ipsarumque varietates. vol. 4. liv, 578 pp., 66 pis. Bauche, Paris, 
Buffon, G.L.L. de. 1 779. Histoire naturelle, generale et particuliere. avec la description chi cabinet 

du Roi. vol. 21 (Histoire nalurelle des oiseau.x, vol. 6). xvi, 702 pp., 24 pis. Paris. 
Checklist Committee, Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. 1926. Official Checklist of the 

birds of Australia. Ed. 2. x, 212 pp. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. 
Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. 1994. The taxonomy and species of birds of Australia and its 

territories. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Monographs, no. 2. iv, 112 pp. 

Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Hawthorn East, Victoria. 
Coates, B.J. 1985. The birds of Papua New Guinea, vol. 1. 464 pp. Dove Publications, Alderley, 

Queensland. 
Coates, B.J. & Bishop, K.D. 1997. A guide to the birds of Wallacea. Sulawesi, the Moluccas and 

Les.ser Sunda Islands. Indonesia. 535 pp., 64 pis. Dove Publications, Alderley, Queensland. 
Condon, H.T. 1975. Checklist of the birds of Australia, part 1 (non-passerines), xx, 311 pp. 

Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. 
Cuvier, G. 1800. Lemons d' anatomic comparee de G. Curler . recueilles et publiees sous ses yeii.x 

par C. Dumeril et G.-L. Diivernoy. vol. I. xxxi, 521 pp., 9 tables. Baudouin, Paris. 
Dumeril, A.M.C. [1805]. Zoologie analytique, ou methode natwelle de classification des 

animaux. xxxii, 344 pp. Paris. 
Forshaw, J.M. 1978. Parrots of the world. Ed. 2. 616 pp., 158 pis. Lansdowne Editions, 

Melbourne. 
Froriep, L.F. 1806. C Dumeril s Analytische Zoologie: cms dem Franzoesiscben. mit Zusatzen. 

vi, 343, i pp. Weimar. 
Garnett, S. 1992. The action plan for Australicm birds. 262 pp. Australian National Parks & 

Wildlife Service, Canberra. 
Gray, G.R. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication oj the typical species of each 

genus, viii, 80, ii pp. Taylor, London. 
Gray, G.R. 1855. Catalogue of the genera and subgenera oJ birds contained in the British 

Museum, [iv], 192 pp. British Museum, London. 
Gray, G.R. 1870. Hand-list of genera and species of birds, distinguishing those contained in the 

British Museum, part 2. xv. 278 pp. British Museum, London. 
Higgins, P.J. & Davies, S.J.J.F. In press. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & .Antarctic 

birds, vol. 4. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 
IUCN& Conservation International. 1996. 19% lUCN Red List of threatened animals. 70, 368, 

10 pp. Gland & Washington. D.C. 
Latham, J. 1781. ^ general synopsis of birds, vol. 1. vi, 416 pp.. 16 pis. London. 
Latham, J. 1 790. Index ornithologicus. sive systema ornithologiae: complectens avium divisionem 

in classes, ordines. genera, species ..., vol. 1. Pp. xviii, 1^66. Author, London. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, part 1. Pp. 1-530. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Mathews, G.M. 1912. A reference-list to the birds of Australia. Novitates Zoologicae, 18: 

171^55. 
Mathews, G.M. 1916, 1917. The birds of Australia, vol. 6. Pp. 1-104, pis. 275-282 (1916); 

pp. 105-516, pis. 283-290 (1917). Witherby, London. 
Mathews, G.M. 1920. Checklist of the Birds of Australia, part 1 (issued as Supplement 1 to The 

birds of Australia), iv, 116 pp. Witherby, London. 



164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Mathews, G.M. 1925. Bibliography of ihe Birds of Australia, parts 1 and 2 (issued as 

Supplements 4 and 5 to The birds of Australia), viii. 149 pp. Witherby, London. 
Mathews, G.M. 1927. Syslema Avium Auslralasiamirum. part 1. iv, 426 pp. British 

Ornithologists' Union, London. 
Mayr, E. 1941. List of New Guinea birds, xi. 260 pp. American Museum of Natural History, 

New York. 
Miiller, P.L.S. 1 776. Des Ritters Carl von Linne Natiirsyslcms Supplements uiul Register Band. 

[10], 536 pp. Niirnberg, 
Peters, J.L. 19.37. Clieeklisi of birds of the world, vol. 3. xiii, 31 1 pp. Harvard University Press. 

Cambridge. 
Pizzey, G. & Knight, F. 1997. The Graham Pizzey & Frank Knight field guide to the birds of 

Australia. 576 pp. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la Nature, ou Tableau de I'Univers et des Corps Organises. 

224 pp. Rafinesque. Palerme. 
Rand, A.L. & Gilliard, E.T. 1967. Handbook of New Guinea birds, x. 612 pp., 53 pis. Weidenfeld 

& Nicolson, London. 
Salvadori, T. 1891. Catalogue of the Psittaci, or parrots. In Sharpe, R.D. (Ed.), Catalogue of 

the birds in the collection of the British Museum, vol. 20. xvii, 658 pp., 18 pis. British 

Museum (Natural History), London. 
Schodde, R. & Mason, I.J. 1997. Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae). In Houston, W.W.K. & 

Wells, A. (Eds.), Zoological catalogue of Australia, vol. 37.2. xiii, 440 pp. CSIRO 

Publishing, Melbourne. 
Schodde, R. & Tidemann, S.C. (Eds.). 1986. Readers' Digest complete hook of .Australian birds. 

Ed. 2. 615 pp. Readers' Digest Services, Sydney. 
Sharpe, R.D. 1900. A hand-list of the genera and species of birds, vol. 2. xv, 312 pp. British 

Museum (Natural History), London. 
Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L. Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world, xxiv, 

1111 pp. Yale University, New Haven. 
Simpson, K.G. & Day, N. 1995. Field guide to the birds of Australia. Viking, Ringwood. 

Victoria. 
Vieillot, L.P. 1816. .Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie elementaire. 70 pp. Deterville, Paris. 
Vieillot, L.P. 1817. Kakatoes. Pp. 6-13 in: Nouveau Dietionnaire d'Hisloire Natiovlle, vol. 17 

(KAA-LIG). 622 pp. Deterville. Paris. 
Vigors. N.A. 1825. Sketches in ornithology; or, observations on the leading affinities of some 

of the more extensive group of birds. Zoological Journal, 2: 368^05. 
White, C.M.N. & Bruce, M.D. 1986. The birds of Wallacea [Sulawesi. The Moluccas & Lesser 

Sunda Islands. Indonesia). B.O.U. Check-list No. 7. 524 pp. British Ornithologists' Union, 

London. 
Wolters, H.E. 1975. Die Vogelarten der Erde. Lief. 1. 80 pp. Parey. Hamburg. 
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1 996. Checklist of CITES species. A refcreiue to the 

appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora. 400 pp. CITES Secretariat and World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 

Cambridge, U.K. 

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bidlelin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.. (e-mail: iczn(a;nhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 165 

Case 3004 

LORisiDAE Gray, 1821 and galagidae Gray, 1825 (Mammalia, 
Primates): proposed conservation as the correct original spellings 

Jeffrey H. Schwartz 

Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 152650. U.S.A. (e-mail: jhs+@pitt.edu) 

Jeheskel Shoshani 

Department of Biological Sciences, Wavne State University. Detroit, 

Michigan 48202. USA. 

Ian Tattersall 

Department of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, 

New York. New York 10024. U.S.A. 

Elwyn L. Simons 

Duke University Primate Center, 3705 Erwin Road, Durham. 

North Carolina 27705. U.S.A. 

Gregg F. Gunnell 

Museum of Paleontology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 
Michigan 48 109. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the family names lorisidae 
Gray, 1821 and galagidae Gray, 1825 which are in use for two groups of prosimian 
primates, the lorises of Asia, East Indies and Africa, and the bushbabies of Africa. 
The families are based on the genera Loru and Galago, both of E. Geoffrey 
Saint-Hilaire (1796), and were first published as loridae and galagonina. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Primates; lorisidae; loridae; 
galagidae; galagonidae; lorises; bushbabies; Asia; East Indies: Africa. 



1 . Since Gregory's (1915) classification of Primates the subfamily names lorisinae 
and galaginae, based on the genera Loris and Galago, both of E. Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire (1796, pp. 48 and 49 respectively), have been widely used. Among the 
major works employing either or both of these names are Gregory (1922), Hollister 
(1924), Allen (1939), Pocock (1939). Chasen (1940), Hill (1953), Simpson (1965. 
1967), Walker (1970, 1974), Kingdon (1971), Bearder & Doyle (1974), Charles- 
Dominique (1974), Groves (1974), Marechal, Goffart, Reznik & Gerebtzoof (1976), 
McArdle (1978), Schwartz & Tattersall (1985), MacPhee & Jacobs (1986), Masters 
(1988), Zimmermann (1988), Zimmermann, Bearder, Doyle & Andersson (1988), 
Gebo (1989). Schwartz (1992), Crovella. Masters & Rumpler (1994), Masters et al. 
(1994), Schwartz & Beutel (1995). Texts and works of reference in wide current use 



166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

that use these names include Simpson (1945), Szalay & Delson (1979), Simons (1982), 
Anderson & Jones (1984), Fleagie (1988) and Martin (1990). The names have also 
been used for families, lorisidae and galagidae. 

2. Recently, Jenkins (1987, p. 1) pointed out that since both Loris and Galago are 
neither Latin nor Greek names, the nomenclatural stem is that determined by the 
author who established the family-group name (Article 29b(ii) of the Code). Thus, in 
making available the family name loridae and the tribe name galagonina. Gray 
(1821, p. 298) and (1825, p. 338) respectively determined the stems as 'Lor-' and 
'Galagon-\ 

3. Use of family-group names based on the stems 'Lor- and 'Galagon-' has been 
very uncommon. Only Mivart (1864) used galagininae (sic) for the bushbabies and 
Corbet & Hill (1992) used loridae for the lorises. The names lorisinae and 
GALAGINAE wcrc both first used by Flower & Lydekker (1891, pp. 691 and 689 
respectively). Simpson (1945, p. 62, footnote) recorded that 'Many authors use 
'Loridae' for the family and 'Lorisinae" for the subfamily, which is inconsistent'. He 
incorrectly stated the generic name stem to be 'Loris-' and retained the '-is' in the 
family-group names. 

4. An application for the conservation of the generic name Loris E. Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire, 1796 by Gentry, Groves, Jenkins & Hill was published in BZN 51: 
332-335 (December 1994). These authors have proposed that Loris, and the name of 
its type species Lemur lardigradus Linnaeus, 1758, which refers to the slender loris 
from Sri Lanka and southern India, be placed on Official Lists, and that Tardigradus 
Boddaert. 1785, a virtually unused senior synonym of Loris. should be suppressed. 
The outcome of that case will not affect the current application since a family-group 
name based on Loris will remain valid independently of the validity of Loris itself. 
The type species by monotypy of Galago is G. senegalensis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 
1796, the bushbaby from Senegal, Ethiopia, Angola and South Africa. 

5. The names loridae and galagonidae are formally correct but have been very 
rarely used. To introduce now these names in place of the virtually universally used 
lorisidae and galagidae would result in confusion and would not be in accord with 
the Code, which urges stability in nomenclature. 

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

(1) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stems of the following generic 
names are as shown: 

(a) Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: the stem is loris-; 

(b) Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: the stem is galag-; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Galago 
E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Galago senegalensis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name senegalensis 
E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, as published in the binomen Galago senegalensis 
(specific name of the type species of Galago E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796); 

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

(a) lorisidae Gray, 1821, type genus Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796; 

(b) galagidae Gray, 1825, type genus Galago Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 167 

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

(a) LORIDAE Gray, 1821 (spelling emended to lorisidae by the ruling in (l)(a) 
above); 

(b) GALAGONINA Gray, 1 825 (spelling emended to galagidae by the ruling in 
(l)(b) above). 

References 

Allen, G.M. 1939. A checklist of African mammals. Bulletin of the Museum uf Comparative 

Zoology. Harvard College. 83: 1-763. 
Anderson, S. & Jones, J.K. (Eds.). 1984. Orders and families of recent mammals of the world. 

xii, 686 pp. Wiley, New York. 
Bearder, S.K. & Doyle, G.A. 1974. Ecology of bushbabies, Galago senegalensis and Galago 

crassicaudatus. with some notes on their behaviour in the field. Pp. 109-130 in Martin, 

R.D., Doyle, G.A. & Walker, A.C. (Eds.), Prosimian biology. Duckworth, London. 
Charles-Dominique, P. 1974. Ecology and feeding behaviour of five sympatric lorisids in 

Gabon. Pp. 131-150 in Martin, R.D., Doyle, G.A. & Walker, A.C. (Eds.), Prosimian 

biology. Duckworth, London. 
Chasen, F.N. 1940. A handlist of Malaysian mammals. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum. 

Singapore. Straits Settlement. 15: 1-209. 
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. 

488 pp.. 45 figs., 177 maps. Natural History Museum, London. 
Crovella, S., Masters, J.C. & Rumpler, Y. 1994. Highly repeated DNA sequences as phylo- 

genetic markers among the Galaginae. American Journal of Primatology, 32: 177-185. 
Fleagle, J.G. 1988. Primate adaptation and evolution, xix, 486 pp. Academic Press, New York. 
Flower, W.H. & Lydekker, R. 1891. .4n introduction to the study of mammals living and e.Minct. 

xvi. 763 pp. Black, London. 
Gebo, D.L. 1989. Postcranial adaptation and evolution in Lorisidae. Primates. 30: 347-367. 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1796. Memoire sur les rapports naturels des makis. Lemur L. et 

description d'une espece nouvelle de mammifere. Magasin Encyclopedique, ou journal des 

sciences, des leltres et des arts. (2)1(1): 20-50. 
Gray, J.E, 1821. On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals. London Medical 

Repository. 15(1): 296-310. 
Gray, J.E. 1825. Outline of an attempt at the disposition of Mammalia into tribes and families, 

with a list of the genera apparently appertaining to each tribe. Annals of Philosophy. (N.S.) 

10: 337-344. 
Gregory, W.K. 1915. On the classification and phylogeny of the Lemuroidea. Bulletin of the 

Geological Society of .America. 26: 426—446. 
Gregory, W.K. 1922. The origin and evolution of human dentition, xviii, 548 pp., 14 pis. Williams 

& Wilkins, Baltimore. 
Groves, C. 1974. Taxonomy and phylogeny of prosimians. Pp. 449^73 in Martin, R.D., 

Doyle, G.A. & Walker, A.C. (Eds.). Prosimian biology. Duckworth, London. 
Hill, W.C.O. 1953. Primates: comparative anatomy and taxonomy, vol. 1 (Strepsirhini). x.xiii, 

798 pp. University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh. 
HoUister, N. 1924. East African mammals in the United States National Museum, part 3 

(Primates, Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Proboscidea, and Hyracoidea). Bulletin of the 

United States National Museum, 99: 1-164. 
Jenkins, P.D. 1987. Catalogue of primates in the British Museum {Natural History) and elsewhere 

in the British Isles, part 4 (suborder Strepsirrhini, including the subfossil Madagascan 

lemurs and family Tarsiidae). x, 189 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Kingdon, J. 1971. East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa, vol. 1. x, 446 pp. 

University of Chicago Press, Illinois. 
MacArdle, J.E. 1978. Functional anatomy of the hip and thigh of the Lorisidae: correlations 

with behaviour and ecology. Pp. 133-138 in Chivers, D.J. & Joysey, K.A. (Eds.), Recent 

advances in primatology. vol. 3 (Evolution). Academic Press, London. 



168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

MacPhee, R.D.E. & Jacobs, L.L. 1986. Nycliceboides simpsoiii and the morphology, adap- 
tations, and relationships of Miocene Siwalik Lorisidae. Pp. 131-161 in Flanagan, K.M. 

& Lillegraven. }..\. (Eds.). Vertebrates, phylogeny. ami philosophy. Contributions to 

Geology. University of Wyoming, Special Paper 3. 
Marechal, G., Goffart, M., Reznik, M. & Gerebtzoof. M.A. 1976. The striated muscles in a 

slow-mover, Perodicliciis potto (Prosimii. Lorisidae. Lorisinae). Comparative Biochemistry 

and Phy.tiology. 54A: 81-93. 
\Iartin, R.D. 1990. Primate origins and evohition. xiv, 804 pp. Chapman & Hall. London. 
Masters, J. 1988. Speciation in the greater galagos (Prosimii: Galaginae): review and synthesis. 

Biological Journal oj the Linnean Society, 34: 149-174. 
Masters, J.C., Raynor, R.J., Ludewick, H., Zimmermann, E., Molez-Verriere, N., Vincent, F. 

& Nash, L.T. 1994. Phylogenetic relationships among the Galaginae as indicated by 

erythrocytic allozymes. Primates. 35: 177-190. 
Mivart, St.-G. 1864. Notes on the crania and dentition of the Lemuridae. Proceedings of the 

Zoological Society of London. 1864: 611-648. 
Pocock, R.I. 1939. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia, vol. I 

(Primates and Carnivora (in part), families Felidae and Viverridae). xxxiii, 463 pp. Taylor 

& Francis, London. 
Schwartz, J.H. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of African and Asian lorisids. Pp. 65-81 in 

Matano, S., Tuttle. R.H., Ishida, H. & Goodman, M. (Eds.), Topics in primatology, 

vol. 3 (Evolutionary biology, reproductive endocrinology, and virology). University of 

Tokyo Press. Tokyo. 
Schwartz, J.H. & Beutel, J. 1995. Species diversity in lorisids; a preliminary analysis of 

Arctocehus. Perodicticus. and Nycticebus. Pp. 171-192 in Alterman, L., Doyle, G.A. & 

Ixard, M.K. (Eds.), Creatures of the dark: the nocturnal prosimicms. Plenum, New York. 
Schwartz, J.H. & TattersaU, I. 1985. Evolutionary relationships of the living lemurs and lorises 

and their potential affinities with the European Eocene Adapidae. Anthropological Papers 

of the American Museum of Natural History. 60: 1-100. 
Simons, E.L. 1982. Primate evolution: an introduction to man's place in nature, xii, 322 pp. 

Macmillan, New York. 
Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin 

of the American Museum of Natural History. 85: 1-350. 
Simpson, G.G. 1965. Family Galagidae. Pp. 15-16 in Leakey, L.S.B., Olduvai Gorge, 

I951-I96I. vol. I. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. 
Simpson, G.G. 1967. The tertiary lorisiform primates of Africa. Bulletin of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology. Harvard College. 136: 39-61. 
Szalay, F.S. & Delson, E. 1979. Evolutionary history of the primates, xv, 580 pp. Academic 

Press, New York. 
Walker, A.C. 1970. Post-cranial remains of the Miocene Lorisidae of East Africa. American 

Journal of Physical Anthropology. 33: 249-262. 
Walker, A.C. 1974. Locomotor adaptations in past and present prosimian primates. 

Pp. 349-381 in Jenkins, F. (Ed.), Primate locomotion. Academic Press, New York. 
Zimmermann, E. 1988. Zur Artenproblematic der Halbaffenfamilie Lorisidae-Bioakustik und 

Fortpflanzungsbiologie. Pp. 76-89 in Horn, H.G. (Ed.), Erfolge und Probteme bei der 

Zucht von Wildtieren in Menschlicher Obhul. Bundesverband fiir fachgerechten Natur und 

Artenschutz, Koln. 
Zimmermann, E., Bearder, S.K., Doyle, G.A. & Andersson, A.B. 1988. Variations in vocal 

patterns of Senegal and South African lesser bushbabies and their implications for 

taxonomic relationships. Folia Primatologica. 51: 87-105. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(a;nhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(31 September 1998 169 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, 
Branchiopoda) 

(Case 2990; see BZN 54: 89-91; 55: 105) 

Geoffrey Fryer 

Inslilute of Einironmenml and Biological Sciences. University oj Lancaster, 

Lancaster LAI 4AQ. U.K. 

Grygier has opposed (BZN 55: 105) the proposal to conserve the name Disparalona 
Fryer, 1968 and seeks to defend the adoption of Phrixura P.E. Miiller, 1867, 
which he states is the senior generic synonym. However, on publication Phrixura 
immediately became a junior subjective synonym of Alona Baird, 1843, and since 
then it has become a junior synonym of Lynceus P.L.S. Miiller, 1776. Alonella Sars, 
1862 or Alona, depending on the generic placement of the species now called 
Disparalona rosirata (Koch. 1841) (see para. 2 of the application). 

In 1867 Miiller (pp. 182-183, pi. 4, fig. 12) recognised the branchiopod species 
rostrata and placed it in Alona. He also described an individual of the same species 
that was so grossly deformed that he failed to recognise it. For this he erected a new 
genus Phrixura. the definition of which is meaningless and misleading. Had he been 
aware of the true identity of Phrixura rectirostris (p. 184, pi. 4. fig. 15) he would have 
assigned it to A. rostrata. 

Notwithstanding Grygier's opposition, it would be destabilising, and in direct 
contravention to Article 23 of the Code, to displace Disparalona by Phrixura. The 
name Disparalona has been used as valid since its publication and the numerous 
works in which it has appeared include important monographs (para. 7 of the 
application). Phrixura was not used at all for more than 120 years and to date has 
been adopted only twice (in 1989 and 1996). 

I hope that my comment will clarify the nomenclatural situation and will lead to 
the suppression of the name Phrixura, the adoption of which would result in nothing 
but confusion. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio syhanus 
Esper, |1777| (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera) 

(Case 3046; see BZN 54: 231-235; 55: 105-106) 

R. de Jong 

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum. Postbus 951 7, 2300 RA Leiden. 
The Netherlands 

O. Karsholt 

Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen. Denmark 

Devyatkin requests the conservation of the junior primary homonym Papilio 
sylvanus Esper, [1777], for two reasons: (1) the name Augiades sylvanus (Esper) has 
'appeared in many guides and lists', and (2) the type specimen of the oldest available 



170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

name, Augiades faunus Turati. 1905, has been destroyed and the name could pertain 
to 'a different taxon (apparently meaning "species"; see para. 7 of the application) 
from Papilio syhamis Esper". We wish to comment on both points. 

The name Augiades syhanus (Esper) has indeed been used in a number of guides 
and lists, but mainly by people who either had no access to recent information or 
chose to ignore it. Regrettable as limited access to current information may be, there 
should be an incentive to improve the situation rather than a sound reason for 
conserving a junior primary homonym. The use of Esper's name almost petered out 
some 30 years ago, but Devyatkin (1997) himself recently applied it. 

Devyatkin correctly states (para. 5) that since Evans's (1949) work the European 
taxon has been known as Ochlodes venata faunus (Turati, 1905) in addition to. the 
name Augiades syhamis (Esper, [1777]) for the same taxon. He lists seven references 
for the application of Esper's name and only two for the application of Turati's 
name. In this way the impression has been created that Esper's name has appeared 
more often than Turati's name. The reverse is true. In addition to the (1983) field 
guide of Higgins & Riley mentioned by Devyatkin, which with many reprints has had 
an enormous impact on the study of European butterflies, many more guides and 
larger faunistic works can be cited. We mention just a number of books: Gomez 
Bustillo & Fernandez-Rubio (1974). Forster & Wohlfahrt (1976), Lenipke (1976), 
Lerault (1980, 1997), Collier et al. (1989), Bink (1992), Lukhtanov & Lukhtanov 
(1994), Vives Moreno (1994), Hesselbarth, van Oorschot & Wagener (1995), 
and Lepidopteren-Arbeitsgruppe (1997). Consequently, the name faunus in the 
combination Oclilodes venata faunus is well established. Changing it back to sylvanus 
would create much confusion. 

Turati (1905, pp. 36-38, pi. 6, figs. 5-9, pi. 7, fig. 3) described 'Augiades Faunus'' as 
a new species from a single male caught at Gavarnie in the Central Pyrenees. Possibly 
because the journal in which the name was published was not widespread, or because 
no further specimens became known, the name was not related to the species known 
as Augiades sylvanus at the time, until Rondou ( 1932) and Verity (1940) applied it to 
a rare individual variety of the latter species. This action wrongly created the 
impression that Turati had described a variety and not a species. Evans (1949) 
correctly applied Turati's name to what was considered a subspecies of Ochlodes 
venaia (Bremer & Grey. 1853). Kauffmann (1956) disapproved of this action because, 
with apparent reference to Verity (1940), he considered the specimen described by 
Turati to be an extreme individual variety. Kauffmann expected confusion if Evans's 
action were followed. In fact Kauffmann himself created confusion by suggesting that 
the type of a species should be "typical'. 

Although with different opinions about the ranking of Augiades faunus Turati, 
Rondou (1932) and all subsequent authors agree that Turati's name pertains to the 
same taxon as Esper's name. Devyatkin's suggestion that Augiades faunus Turati may 
prove to be specifically different is not supported by any evidence or by any author. 
The Lepidoptera of the Pyrenees are rather well known since Rondou (1932) 
published his catalogue. If two species of Ochlodes occur there together it is highly 
unlikely that one of them has always escaped the attention of all people who collected 
at Gavarnie (including the senior author of this comment). Thus there is no reason 
to suppose that the nominal taxa Augiades faunus Turati and Papilio sylvanus Esper 
pertain to different species. The fact that the type is lost does not pose any problem. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 171 

If there were reason to doubt the identity of Turati's type a neotype could be selected, 
but as matters stand, with almost complete agreement about the conspecificity of 
Augiades f annus and Papilio syhcmus, a neotype selection is superfluous. 

Because of distributional overlap, Chiba & Tsukiyama (1996) concluded that 
Ochlodes venata (Bremer & Grey, 1853), thought to be a single species, actually 
comprised several distinct species. Apparently independently, Devyatkin (1997) came 
to the same conclusion. The only change needed, as far as Europe is concerned, is the 
upgrading of the well established subspecies Ochlodes venata faunus to species rank. 
Contrary to Devyatkin (1997), who used the invalid junior primary homonym of 
Esper ([1777]), Chiba & Tsukiyama (1996) acted according to the Code. There is no 
reason for confusion when applying the rules. Any different action certainly creates 
confusion. 

In conclusion, we consider that no action by the Commission is required in this 
case. 

Additional references 

Bink, F. 1992. Ecologische atlas van de dagvUnders van Noordwesl-Europa. 512 pp. Schuyt, 

Haarlem. 
Chiba, H. & Tsukiyama, H. 1996. A review of the genus Ochlodes Scudder, 1872. with special 

reference to the Eurasian species (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Biitlerflies. 14: 3-16. 
Collier, R.V., Emmet, A.M., Long, R., Looker, LE., Porter, K.J., Shreeve, T.G. & Simcox, D.J. 

1989. Hesperiidae. Pp. 50-72 /;; Emmet. A.M. & Heath, J.. The moths and butterflies of 

Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 7, part I . 
Devyatkin, A.L. 1997. Family Hesperiidae. Pp. 105-133 in Tuzov. V.K. (Ed.), Guide to the 

butterflies of Russia and adjacent territories (Lepidoptera. Rhopalocera ) . Pensoft, Sofia & 

Moscow. 
Forster, W. & Wohlfahrt, T.A. 1976. Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas. Band 2 (Tagfalter). 

Diurna (Rhopalocera und Hesperiidae). Ed. 2. 180 pp. Franckh. Stuttgart. 
Gomez Bustillo, M.R. & Fernandez-Rubio, F. 1974. Mariposas de la Peninsula Iberica. 

Ropaloceros. part 2. 258 pp. Ministerio de Agricultura, Madrid. 
Kauffmann, G. 1956. Beobachtungen tiber eine Zucht 'ab ovo" von Ochlodes venatum 

Bremer & Grey (europaische Subspezies) nebst einigen systematischen Bemerkungen. 

Entomologische Zeitschrifl (Stuttgart), 66; 49-55. 
Lempke, B.J. 1976. Naainlijsl van de Nederlandse Lepidoptera. 100 pp. KNNV, Hoogwoud. 
Lepidopterologen-Arbeitsgruppe. 1997. Schmellerliiige und ihre Lebensraume. Arten. Gefiihrdung. 

Schulz. Sclmei: uiul angreuzeiulc Gebiete. Band 2. ix. 679 pp. Pro Natura, Basel. 
Lerault, P. 1980, 1997. Liste svleinaticjue et synonvinii/uc des Lepidopteres de France, Belgique 

et Corse, Ed. 1 (1980), Ed. 2 (1997). Alexanor, Paris. 
Lukhtanov, V. & Lukhtanov, A. 1994. Die Tagfalter Nordwestasiens. Herbipoliana, Band 3. 

440 pp. Eitschberger, Marktieuthen. 
Rondou, J. P. 1932. Catalogue des Lepidopteres des Pyrenees (I re partie). .4nnales de la Societe 

Entotnologique de France. 51: 165-244. 
Verity, R. 1940. Le farfalle diwite d'ltalia. vol. I. xxxiv, 131 pp. Marzocco, S.A., Florence. 
Vives Moreno, A. 1994. Catalogo sisteinatico y sinonimico de los lepidopteros de la Peninsula 

Iberica y Baleares {Insecta: Lepidoptera), part 2. x, 775 pp. Ministerio de Agricultura, 

Pesca y Alimentacion. 



172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Comments on the proposed designation of Iguanodon hernissartensh Boulenger in 
Beneden, 1881 as the type species of Igiianodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed 
designation of a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia) 

(Case 3037; see BZN 55: 99-104) 

( 1 ) David Norman 

The Sedgwick Museum. Department of Earth Sciences. University of Cambridge, 
Downing Street. Cambridge CB2 3EQ. U.K. 

The name Iguanodon occupies an important position in the history of the Dinosaur 
group as a whole. Iguanodon was the second dinosaur taxon to be formally described 
and illustrated (Mantell, 1825) and was one of the three founding members of 
Richard Owen's Dinosauria (1842). Ever since MantelFs formal description this 
taxon has been the subject of minor, but important, nomenclatural dispute. In short, 
this was because Mantell failed to suggest a specific name for the material that he 
described, because Owen was fond of his own rather idiosyncratic nomenclature, 
because it has proved difiicult to identify Mantell's original type series of teeth from 
the material that he sold to the Natural History Museum in London, and finally, but 
of greatest importance, because dinosaurian teeth of a type morphologically very 
similar to those described by Mantell have proved to be rather ubiquitous in late 
Mesozoic deposits worldwide. 

Stabilisation of the name Iguanodon is therefore of considerable historical, 
taxonomic and nomenclatural importance. The action suggested in the application by 
Charig & Chapman cuts through the inevitable earlier subjectivity surrounding the 
name and is, to my mind, both prudent and sensible; it will combine the first 
well-established species of Iguanodon as the designated type of the genus with a 
virtually complete skeleton that has been long and internationally recognised in the 
literature associated with this dinosaur. 



(2) Angela C. Milner 

Fossil Vertebrates Division, Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History 
Museum. Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD. U.K. 



The proposal to designate a type species in accord with usage for the genus 
Iguanodon resolves long-standing anomalies and misconceptions. It will be surprising 
to many that the formal systematics of such a well known genus as Iguanodon have 
been so confused and unsatisfactory for so many years. 

The proposal to designate Iguanodon bernissartensis as the type species of 
Iguanodon is logical and obvious. It is the senior species based on diagnostic material, 
and it well fulfils the function of a type species under the Code. The designation of 
IRSNB 1 534, skeleton Q, in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique as 
the lectotype of /. bernissartensis is also in accord with its (albeit invalid) citation 
as the type specimen. 

I support this application to clarify, at last, the taxonomy and nomenclature of 
Iguanodon. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 173 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus gouldii Gray, 
1838 and Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation 
of a neotype for Hydrosaurus gouldii 

(Case 3042; see BZN 54: 95-99, 249-250; 55: 106-111) 

(I) W. Bohme and T. Ziegler 

Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160. 

D-53113 Bonn, Germany 

We should like to comment on the application by Dr Robert Sprackland, Prof 
Hobart Smith and Dr Peter Strimple, published in BZN 54: 95-99 (June 1997), and 
on the subsequent comment made by Dr Glenn Shea and Dr Harold Cogger (BZN 
55: 106-111, June 1998). 

1 . The taxonomic situation of the taxa involved is clear and has been extensively 
described by Storr (1980), who first discovered the presence of two morphologically 
distinguishable sibling species of Australian sand goannas ( Varanus gouldii auct.), the 
biological and ecological distinctness of which was subsequently shown by Shine 
(1986). The problem arose because Storr, before deciding which of his two sibling 
species would be the new, unnamed one, failed to investigate the putative type 
specimen of the form that had already been named and described, i.e. Varanus gouldii 
(Gray, 1838). Unfortunately, he renamed this species as V. panoptes Storr, 1980. 

2. Hydrosaurus gouldii was not typified by its author (Gray, 1838) but much later 
the species was based by Mertens (1958) on a dry mounted specimen in the Natural 
History Museum, London (BMNH 1946.9.7.61), which he designated as the lecto- 
type. The specimen accorded with the original description by Gray: 'two yellow 
streaks on the sides of the neck", which are still easily discernible (see Bohme, 1991, 
fig. 1). The specimen is labelled as originating from Northwest Australia, which is an 
area where both species occur in broad sympatry. 

3. One of us (W.B.) demonstrated the lectotype of H. gouldii Gray, 1838 to be 
taxonomically identical with the holotype of V. panoptes Storr, 1980, the latter name 
becoming consequently a junior synonym of the former (see Bohme, 1991). Because 
of this situation, the next oldest available name had to be applied to the second, 
widespread species: V. flannifus Mertens. 1958, first published as V. gouldii flavirufus. 

4. In their application Sprackland et al. accepted that the actions of Mertens 
(1958) and Bohme (1991) were formally correct under the Code, but severe doubts 
have now been cast by Shea & Cogger on the validity of Mertens's lectotype 
designation. However, Shea & Cogger did not mention that Mertens stated: 'Mr J.C. 
Battersby verdanke ich die Festlegung des Lectotypus dieses Warans sowie einige 
Angaben dariiber' ('I owe the designation of the lectotype of this monitor lizard to 
Mr J.C. Battersby, as well as some remarks on this matter'). Thus, Mertens's choice 
of lectotype was suggested to him by Mr Battersby, who worked in the Natural 
History Museum, London, and who should have been familiar with historical details 
of the BMNH collections. 

5. In spite of what has been claimed by Sprackland et al. in Case 3042, the 
nomenclatural concept proposed by Bohme (1991) has been accepted by quite a 
number of authors, a fact ignored by Shea & Cogger. The most important recent 



174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

general references which deal with monitor lizards on a world-wide scale are Bennett 
(1995, 1996, 1998), de Lisle (1996), Eidenmiiller (1996), Kirschner, Miiller & Seufer 
(1996), Ziegler & Bohme (1997) and Bohme (1997), It may be noted that the two 
last-named references are purely taxonomic and nomenclatural works respectively, 
and moreover the only ones listing and discussing all living species and subspecies of 
the varanidae; the last reference is an updated and revised checklist complementing 
the famous Tieneidi list by Robert Mertens (1963). All these works use V. gouldii 
(including its junior synonym panoptes) for the disjunctly distributed species 
(northern, western Australia, New Guinea) and V. flavirufus for the widely 
distributed Australian species. It is therefore no longer tenable to state that 'the name 
flavirufus has rarely appeared and to our knowledge never been used in place of 
gouldii' (para. 7 of the application). On the contrary, great confusion would arise if 
the nomenclature of Bohme (1991) were to be altered again. 

6. A particularly weak argument used by Sprackland et al. (para. 7 of their 
application) is that 'both V. gouldii and V. panoptes feature in documentation relating 
to conservation of protected species and their names are listed in the World checklist 
of threatened amphibians and reptiles (1993, pp. 48, 49) and in the most recent 
publication (1996) issued by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)'. We think that conservation and 
legislative authorities are users rather than creators of taxonomic progress and 
possible nomenclatural consequences involved. They should therefore rely on 
scientific reasoning and not vice versa. 

7. In summary, the comment by Shea & Cogger has challenged the validity of the 
lectotype designation for Varanus gouldii by Mertens (1958), but some doubts still 
remain in their reasoning. We ask the Commission to consider our arguments before 
designating a neotype, as proposed by Sprackland et al. and Shea & Cogger. If the 
neotype is, indeed, designated, we prefer that it should be the specimen selected 
by Shea & Cogger. The tail tip, the pattern on which is an important diagnostic 
feature within the taxa concerned, is missing from the specimen proposed by 
Sprackland et al. 

Additional references 

Bennett, D. 1995. A little book of monitor lizards. 208 pp. Viper Press, Aberdeen. 

Bennett, D. 1996. Waratte der Welt — fVelt der Warane. 383 pp. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt 

am Main. 
Bennett, D. 1998. Monitor Lizards: natural Instory. biology and husbandry. 352 pp. Edition 

Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main. 
Bohme, W. 1997. Robert Merten.s' Syslematik und Klassifikation der Warane: Aktualisierung 

seiner I942er Monographie und eine reridierte Checkliste. Addendum to the reprint oj 

Robert Mertens' Die Familie der Warane { Varanidae). Erster his dritter Teil'. Pp. 8, i-xxii. 

Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main. 
De Lisle, H.F. 1996. The natural history of monitor lizards. 201 pp. Krieger, Melbourne, Florida. 
Eidenmiiller, B. 1996. Warane — Lebensweise. Pflege. Zucht. 157 pp. Herpeton, Hanau. 
Kirschner, A., Miiller, T. & Seufer, H. 1996. Faszination Waratte. 254 pp. Kirschner & Seufer. 

Keltern-Weiler. 
Mertens, R. 1963. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien: Helodermatidae, Varanidae. 

Lanthanotidae. Das Tierreich. 79: 1-26. 
Ziegler. T. & Bohme, W. 1997. Genitalstrukturen und Paarungsbiologie bei squamaten 

Reptilien, speziell den Platynola, mit Bemerkungen zur Systematik. Mertensiella. 8; 1-207. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 175 

(2) R.G. Sprackland 

Young Forest Company. 951 Old County Road Suite 134. Belmont. 

California 94002. U.S.A. 

H.M. Smith 

Department of Enviromnental, Population and Organismic Biology, 

Univer.wy of Colorado. Boulder. Colorado 80309-0334. U.S.A. 

P.D. Strimple 

Reptile Research and Breeding Facility, 5310 Sultana Drive, Cinciimati, 

Ohio 45238, U.S.A. 

We welcome the support of Dr Glenn Shea and Dr Harold Cogger (their comment 
in BZN 55: 106-1 11) for our application to stabilise the usage of the specific names 
of Varanus gouldii and V. panoptes in their accustomed senses. We are happy to 
accept a new, well-preserved specimen (BMNH 1997.1 in the Natural History 
Museum, London) as the proposed neotype for V. gouldii. Indeed, a specimen in 
good condition is greatly to be preferred to the dried mount with limited observable 
details that we proposed. 

Drs Bohme and Ziegler are opposed (comment (1) above) to our application to 
retain the usage of gouldii for the widespread Varanus species, and panoptes for that 
with the more disjunct range. They are proposing that the well-known name panoptes 
be abandoned, that the name gouldii be switched from the one taxon to the other, and 
that the little-used name flavirufus be adopted in place of gouldii as currently 
understood by the great majority of authors. 

Drs Bohme and Ziegler contend that their alternative system of nomenclature is 
gaining ground. However, the publications that they have cited in support of this are 
very few and very recent (1995-1998) and include three by a single author (Bennett), 
one by Ziegler & Bohme, and one by Bohme. In the draft of an application by 
Drs Shea and Cogger to maintain the name gouldii for the widespread species and 
panoptes for that with the more disjunct range (i.e. the traditional usages), written 
coincidentally with our own, these authors supplied a list of 57 references to 
demonstrate the use of gouldii since 1991 (the year of publication of Bohme's 
proposed new nomenclature), and one of 56 references for the use o[ panoptes since 
its publication. Where a publication used only gouldii this was considered to be the 
accustomed sense of the name when the locality cited was well outside the known 
range of V. panoptes. These lists, copies of which are held by the Commission 
Secretariat, 'were not meant to be exhaustive but to give an indication of the breadth 
of usage of the names, which includes anatomical, ecological, faunal survey, 
parasitological, phylogenetic, physiological and general literature, published in 
international and Australian professional and amateur herpetological and natural 
history, zoological and ecological journals, herpetological monographs, Australian 
government publications, and popular books'. 

Shea & Cogger (BZN 55: 106-111) have provided considerable evidence that 
Mertens's (1958) lectotype for V. gouldii was very unlikely to have been an original 
specimen seen by Gray (1838) when he described the taxon. Mertens himself (1958, 



176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

p. 248) pointed out that, although the specimen designated as the lectotype, which 
had been suggested to him by Mr J.C. Battersby in the Natural History Museum, 
London, was registered as from Gould's collection and dated 'Feb. 1837", Gould had 
not arrived in Australia by that date. Merten's lectotype designation is very probably 
invalid and there is thus no basis for Bohme's (1991) system of nomenclature. 

Contrary to Bohme & Ziegler (their para. 6 above), we firmly believe that the use 
of stable nomenclature for the inclusion of species and subspecies in CITES and other 
legislative documentation is important. Taxonomists are the servants of the entire 
biological world that uses scientific names; we work to serve those needs, not to 
establish an authority to which everyone must subscribe whether convenient or not. 
Our own survival depends directly on the respect other biologists have for what we 
do; their interests — i.e. stability — determine our effectiveness. This seems not 
always to be adequately appreciated by other taxonomists. 

We commend our application to the Commission. 



Comment on the proposed suppression of all prior usages of generic and specific 
names of birds (Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as 
published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 

(Case 3044; see BZN 54: 172-182) 

(1) Storrs L. Olson 

Depurtment of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

The application of Schodde & Bock comes as a response to the paper of Bruce & 
McAllan (1990), who showed that numerous names of birds proposed by John Gould 
and other ornithologists in monographic works and in the Proceedings of the 
Zoological Society of London (PZS) had appeared earlier in more popular periodicals 
such as The Athenaeum, The Literary Gazette, and The Analyst (for the sake of 
brevity I shall refer to these as the 'ancillary' publications, with no intent of 
impugning their significance to nomenclature). I oppose this application, first of all 
on the general principle that there should be some reasonable curb to further 
additions to the gigantic subsidiary literature of suppressed names and works already 
created by the Commission. Such suppressions should be undertaken only when there 
is a very real need — when there is truly a threat to communication and 
understanding in the zoological community. This is definitely not the case with 
almost all parts of the application of Schodde & Bock, to which I expand my 
objection on the following points. 

1 . The application must be viewed in the context of the acrimonious confronta- 
tions that have enveloped the nomenclature of Australian vertebrates in recent years, 
during the course of which Schodde vs. Bruce and McAllan have occupied bitterly 
opposing camps (e.g. see Olson, 1990). Although Bruce & McAllan (1990) have 
produced an important contribution to the history and bibliography of Australian 
ornithology, this is marred by their rather disingenuously making claims of priority 
for a few names that are certainly nomina nuda and a few others that are little better. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 177 

This is not true, however, for the majority of names they discussed. The apphcation 
of Schodde & Bock is plainly reactionary in nature and attempts to suppress 
everything that Bruce & Mc Allan (1990) uncovered that bears on nomenclature, 
regardless of the actual effect on names currently in use. The result is a poorly 
researched broadside that is likely to create as many problems as it proposes to 
resolve. 

2. In an attempt to prejudice a ruling in their favor, Schodde & Bock have 
characterized the descriptions in the ancillary publications as 'sketchy and often 
ambiguous accounts" (para. 3, ii), which is at best exaggeration and at worst 
egregious dissembiy. Bruce & McAllan (1990) reproduced all of these descriptions 
verbatim so that they may be more readily evaluated. Of the 43 species descriptions 
that Schodde and Bock wish to have suppressed, I would assess 30 as ranging from 
spare, but undeniably adequate, to wonderfully detailed (e.g. Casuariiis bennetti). No 
fewer than 13 in my estimation are extremely good. 

3. In continuing their dissembling, Schodde & Bock (para. 3, iii) portray 'many of 
the names" as being open 'to interpretation as nomina nuda and argument as to 
whether they are available," citing the examples of Ptiloris victoriae, Excalfa[c]lona 
minima, and Clirysococcy.x minutilhis. The last two definitely are nomina nuda where 
they appear in the ancillary sources, as is also Meleagris me.xicana. so these citations 
require no action by the Commission. Discounting the species of Dinornis attributed 
to Owen in the Literary Gazette of 1843, which present a separate set of problems, 
only six or seven of the specific names in contention (not 'many") might be disputed 
on grounds of equivocal descriptions, such as that of Ptiloris victoriae and those that 
essentially only repeat the specific name in English (e.g. Odontophorus hyperythrus, 
Podiceps micropieriis. Chordeiles pusilliis). As noted above, the rest constitute valid 
descriptions and must be evaluated on their merits. 

4. Four of the generic and 39 of the specific citations from the ancillary literature 
proposed for suppression involve the same name, spelled the same way, by the same 
author, and used for the same taxon as those names currently in use. Thus they 
present no threat whatever to existing nomenclature and only require that the citation 
of the original description be changed. Suppressing the earlier publications actually 
increases the vulnerability of existing nomenclature to different competing names 
that may have been published between the first publication of the names in question 
and their subsequent appearance in publications that Schodde and Bock wish to 
conserve. In one case (Amer serrirostris), the lapse between first appearance in The 
Literary Gazette and subsequent publication in PZS was 19 years! Thus, when there 
is no difference in a name used in two or more publications, stability of nomenclature 
is actually enhanced by citing the earliest valid appearance of a name. 

5. The extent to which names may have been cited in previous literature as dating 
from the ancillary publications has not received suflficient investigation by Schodde 
and Bock, who cite only two modem, highly derivative sources. It is certain that the 
ancillary publications have not always been overlooked. For example, Richmond 
(1992) discovered the publication of most of the names cited by Bruce & McAllan as 
dating from The Athenaeum. Although not published until the Richmond Index was 
made available on microfiche in 1992, Richmond corresponded widely with taxono- 
mists with whom he doubtless shared his findings and who may in fact have cited 
various of the ancillary publications. Wetmore (1965, p. 322), for example, gives the 



178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

publication of Odontophorus veraguensis Gould in The Athenaeum precedence over 
that in PZS. Schodde & Bock note that the citation for Balaeniceps rex Gould is now 
accepted as of its appearance in The Athenaeum, and if that journal is of sufficient 
stature for so singular a bird as Balaeniceps, then why should it not be acceptable for 
others as well? 

6. Although Wetmore (1968, p. 507) overlooked the appearance of the name 
Aulacorhamphus caeruleogularis Gould in The Athenaeum of 26 February 1853, he 
gives its publication in The Zoologist in April 1853 as the original citation for the 
species, rather than that in the PZS published 24 July 1854. Note that Aulacorham- 
phus caeruleogularis was also described as a 'new species" in The Annals and Magazine 
oj Natural History in May 1855, although admittedly as a verbatim reprint of the 
description from PZS. So here we have four different publications containing 
what may be taken as the original description for the name Aulacorhamphus 
caeruleogidaris. How does one decide which has precedence? Is this to be done by 
determining which of these serials is considered to be the least 'rare and inaccessible' 
(Schodde & Bock, para. 3, ii) in the 1990s, by the scientific prestige of a given journal 
in the 1850s, or should this determination in fact be made by the objective criterion 
of priority, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of the rules of zoological 
nomenclature? 

7. The matter of the name cited above as dating from The Zoologist raises yet 
another issue, which is that Bruce and McAllan's investigations extended only to 
selected periodicals, whereas earlier citations than those cited for suppression by 
Schodde & Bock based on Bruce & McAllan certainly exist in other journals. 
Schodde & Bock (para. 8(1 )(b)) propose to circumvent this problem by suppressing 
'all uses of the names prior to the publication of the same names given' in their para. 
8(2). The business of wholesale suppression of publications is bad enough, but I 
would particularly deplore its extension to works that have never been explicitly 
identified. 

8. None of the authors involved has correctly resolved the name Nyctidus 
pectoralis published in The Athenaeum 18 November 1837, as all failed to note that 
Gould (1838, pi. xviii & text) shortly thereafter described a species Nyctibius 
pectoralis from northern Brazil. Thus Bruce & McAllan erred in considering the 
name in The Athenaeum to supplant the name now in use for the Haitian Nyctibius, 
as there was no connection in that publication between the drawing Gould exhibited 
of 'Nyctidus' and specimens that he also exhibited from Turkey and Haiti. Nothing 
about the name Nyctidus pectoralis in The Athenaeum requires formal suppression 
because the name is utterly unidentifiable at that point, the only information given 
being that its tarsus was "scarcely a quarter of an inch long.' Had it not specifically 
been stated to be a bird, even that much would have to be surmised. Nyctidus is 
clearly only a misspelling, but even if it were identifiable it would simply be a junior 
synonym of Nyctibius Vieillot, 1816. 

9. The application of Schodde & Bock adds to what is already a vexatious mess 
regarding certain names of moas (Dinornis) described by Owen. Bruce & McAllan 
(1990, p. 458) claim that the names Dinornis giganteus, D. struthoides, D. didiformis, 
and D. otidiformis should date from The Literary Gazette of 2 December 1 843 rather 
than PZS March 1844. Neither they nor Schodde & Bock make any mention of the 
new name D. dromaeoides, which also appears in both publications, although any 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 179 

necessary action concerning the first four species seemingly ought to apply to this one 
as well. Bruce & McAllan (1990, p. 458) note that the descriptions in The Literary 
Gazette 'although superficial, are no more so than the accounts given in PZS\ This 
considerably misrepresents the case, as in both publications the names are absolute 
or virtual nomina nuda. Richmond (1992) regarded all the names in PZS as nomina 
nuda. Archey & Allan (1954) hkewise regarded D. struthoides to be a nomen nudum 
as of its appearance in PZS, although they mistakenly stated that the name D. ingens 
appeared in this publication also. Proper descriptions of these species first appeared 
in the Transactions of the Zoological Society ( 1 844) rather than the PZS. 

The only species with any claim of dating from either of the publications earlier 
than the Transactions is Dinornis gigantea, which was described in PZS as having a 
tibiotarsus 2 feet 1 1 inches long (2 feet 10 inches long in The Literary Gazette) which 
is perhaps sufficient characterization of the species. This is the only species of the five 
for which Brodkorb ( 1 963, p. 2 1 7) gives PZS as the original citation, all the rest being 
attributed to the Transactions. All of the other species are characterized in The 
Literary Gazette and PZS solely by extrapolations of their height relative to each 
other and to other large birds. These are inferences based on data that are not 
presented and cannot be considered to be descriptions. 

Dinornis struthoides and D. otidiformis have already been placed on the Official 
List, with the Transactions cited as place of publication (Opinion 229; Opinion 1874 
[not 1876 as in Schodde & Bock]). The application of Schodde & Bock proposes to 
add D. giganteus and D. didiformis to the Official List but as of their appearance in 
PZS. This should not be allowed because at least the latter is unquestionably a 
nomen nudum at that point. 

10. I cannot see that the use oi Didus nazaremts by Bartlett, either in The Literary 
Gazette ( 1 85 1 ) or PZS ( 1 854), is anything more than the identification of some bones 
supposedly from the island of Rodriguez with the name Didiis nazaremts Gmelin, 
1788, based on descriptions from an early Mascarene voyage. I certainly oppose 
placing the nonexistent name Didtis nazarenus Bartlett, 1854 on an Official List over 
Didus nazarenus Gmelin, 1788, which latter name Schodde & Bock never mention or 
consider, although Bruce & McAllan at least refer to it. 

11. In attempting to suppress Somateria v-nigrum G.R. Gray as of its appearance 
1 December 1855 in The Athenaeum, Schodde & Bock fail to make any disposition of 
the earlier publication of this name for the same taxon by Bonaparte 22 October 1855 
in a serial (Comptes Rendus) that certainly cannot be considered 'rare and inacces- 
sible,' if that were really a consideration. The existence of Bonaparte's name was 
pointed out by Bruce & McAllan and was also known to Richmond (1992). That a 
name published by such a well-known author in such a prominent journal has 
remained overlooked is curious, but it is the earliest usage and involves no threat to 
current nomenclature. 

12. Schodde & Bock engage in hyperbole in suggesting that the acceptance of 
names from the ancillary publications would 'displace a number of names in current 
use.' Of course, they do not specify the 'number', but it is actually very few. Out of 
the 54 suppressions they seek, 43 involve no change in existing nomenclature. 
Another six or so arise from obvious typographical errors that may be corrected 
(Dendrochetta, ealconeri), or easily comprehended variants in spelling that can be 
adopted without confusion, viz. thibetanus vs. tibetanus, wallacei vs. wallacii, Aplornis 



180 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

VS. Aplonis, Semeioptera vs. Semiopterd). The last two changes can be embraced on 
etymological grounds as well. 

This leaves only two instances, out of this great farrago of potentially suppressed 
names, where existing nomenclature might change significantly, and one of these 
changes is not without its advantages. 

Among Gould's many contributions to Australian ornithology was the description 
of the systematically important Noisy Scrub-bird. The first notice of this was in The 
Athenaeum for 27 January 1844 under the name Atricha clamosa. In Gould's Birds of 
Australia (1 March 1844) this species was again named as new, but as Atrichia 
clamosa, under which name it was recognized for 41 years, except for the mention by 
Sladen (1845), who used the first spelling, Atricha. When Atrichia Gould 1844 was 
found to be preoccupied by an insect, the name Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885 was 
substituted, and this still has currency. Atricha, however, is not preoccupied, and the 
publication of the name Atricha clamosa in The Athenaeum was prominently 
acknowledged nearly fifty years ago by Whitley (1938). It is curious that Bruce & 
McAllan do not cite Whitley, whereas Schodde & Bock do, although in an 
ambiguous manner not directly linked to the use oi Atricha. That no one took up the 
use oi Atricha from 1938 onward is inexplicable given that prominent authors were 
aware of it but ignored it while accepting names published in much more ephemeral 
sources (Bruce & McAllan, 1990, p. 459). Atricha, Atrichia and Atrichornis are all 
recognizably based on the same root and I do not consider that it would be overly 
confusing to revert to the earliest usage, thus bringing the attribution of the genus 
back to Gould where it rightly belongs. Why continue with a substitute name by a 
later author that must always be referred back to a preoccupied name, when an 
earlier and very similar name by the original author that is not preoccupied is 
available? 

The only serious nomenclatural issue raised in the entire Bruce & McAllan paper 
is the ephemeral earlier use by Gould of the generic name Pedionomus for an utterly 
different bird from that to which it has been applied in all subsequent literature. Now 
this is an instance where suppression would be completely justified and here it is 
worth noting that Bruce & McAllan also supported suppression of 'the original 
publication of Pedionomus and P. ocellatus in The Athenaeum'. If these authors were 
unwilling to revive the earlier use of Pedionomus, then it seems unlikely that anyone 
else would, so the actual threat to stability of established nomenclature does not seem 
great. Nevertheless, if Schodde and Bock wish to go through the formality of 
specifically suppressing this first use of Pedionomus, there could be no reasonable 
grounds for opposition. 

The rest of the application of Schodde & Bock, however, is too flawed, frivolous, 
expansive, and unnecessary to merit approval. Because it is so poorly researched and 
would have such undesirable effects as placing nomina nuda and nonexistent usages 
on the Official Lists, possibly along with other problems as yet unforeseen, it should 
be rejected in toto. 

Additional references 

Archey, G. & R.S. Allan. 1954. On the type of 'Dinornis novae-zealandiae' Owen. 1843 (Class 
Aves, Order Dinornithiformes). Pp. 224-225 in Opinion 229, Opinions and Declarations 
rendered by tlie International Commission on Zoolof;ical Nomenclature, 4: 25^0. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 181 

Brodkorb, P. 1963. Catalogue of fossil birds, part 1 (Archaeopterygiformes through 

Ardeiformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum. Biological Sciences, 7: 179-293. 
Gould, J. 1838. hones Avium. Part II. Author, London. 
Olson, S.L. 1990. [Review of] I.A.W. McAllan and M.D. Bruce 'The birds of New South Wales. 

A working list\ Auk. 107: 458^59. 
Richmond, C.W. 1992. The Richmond Index to the genera and species of birds. 107 microfiches, 

guide of xi, 7 unnumbered pages. Hall & Company, Boston. 
Sladen, E.H.M. 1845. Where should Atricha ctamosa be placed in the system? The Zoologist. 

3: 942. 
Wetmore, A. 1965. Birds of the Republic of Panama, part 1. Smithsonian Miscellaneous 

Collections. 150(4): 1^83. 
Wetmore, A. 1968. Birds of the Republic of Panama, part 2. Smithsonian Miscellaneous 

Collections. 150(5): 1-605. 



(2) Richard Schodde 

Australian National Wildlife Collection. CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology, 
P. O. Box 84. Lyneham. A.C.T. 2602. Australia 

Walter J. Bock 

Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University. New York, NY 10027, 
U.S.A. 

We respond to Olson's comment to correct misrepresentations of background and 
to place in more balanced perspective his interpretations of the status of names 
published for John Gould and others in London periodicals: The Analyst, The 
Athenaeum and The Literary Gazette. 

1. As recorded by Schodde & Bock (1997, Case 3044, para. 4), suppression of 
unused references for Gould's and others' names unearthed by Bruce & McAllan 
(1990) in London periodicals was canvassed at the round-table meeting of the 
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornitho- 
logical Committee in Vienna in 1994. Both Bruce and McAllan were participants. 
The Committee and ancillary attendants voted for blanket suppression without 
dissent, and left Schodde and Bock to prepare the application. It is in that context — 
and that context alone — that the submission was prepared. 

2. In espousing the principle that suppression should be restricted to names and 
works that pose a 'threat to comprehension and understanding in the zoological 
community', Olson stands in self-appointed judgement. As we understand it, the 
Commission is charged with adjudicatory powers for a rather different purpose: to 
make rulings that effect stability and universal acceptance in nomenclature (Article 
79(a) of the Code). The 'gigantic subsidiary literature of suppressed names and works 
already created by the Commission' (Olson) is the necessary record of those rulings; 
and, despite their size, the resulting lists in the Commission's compendia are quickly 
and easily worked through by any zoologist with a knowledge of the alphabet, and 
the classes and families of animals. That our application (Case 3044) serves 
nomenclatural stability is explained in the original para. 3 (Schodde & Bock, 1997), 
and the principles in all of its clauses still stand. Its services to stability are also 
re-emphasised in paras. 4 and 8 below. 



182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

3. Paras. 2 and 3 in Olson's response concern the validity of descriptions in the 
London periodicals. It opens the way to charge and counter-charge which would 
produce little. Suffice to say that; 

(i) none of the descriptions is more detailed or as well-referenced to source 
specimen material as their currently accepted equivalents in the scientific literature, 
e.g. Proceedings of I he Zoological Society of London (PZS)\ 

(ii) most descriptions in the London periodicals are trivial and skimped, and many 
do verge on nomina nuda. Thus, in comparison with the formal and carefully 
specified descriptions in the scientific journals, those of 25 of the 43 specific names are 
limited to one or two phrases, a number no better than 'four times larger", 'colouring 
still more gorgeous", 'lighter colouring of the breast and the redder hue of the crest", 
'small size' and 'very small wings'. Another 13 are limited to one or two anecdotal 
sentences. 

4. Although Olson claims to know the difference between nomina nuda and 
skimpy but validating diagnoses (second sentence of his para. 3), he is less sure in the 
next sentence and then in para. 9 prevaricates with 'absolute or virtual nomina nuda". 
When abridged diagnoses in media reports become shortened to 'the smallest species" 
in its group or 'named. ...from the silky texture of the plumage", it becomes a matter 
of individual (and subjective) conjecture as to whether the names attached to them 
are available. In these circumstances, it seems better to err on the side of caution and 
ask the Commission to suppress names that may be subject to such argument. 
Nyctidus pectoralis Gould, 1837, with 'tarsi ... scarcely a quarter of an inch long", falls 
into this category, pace Olson (para. 8). 

5. Olson"s claim in his paras. 4 and 12 that the great majority of names to be 
suppressed involve 'no threat whatever to existing nomenclature' fails to comprehend 
that zoological nomenclature is more than just a name; it is the bibliographic and 
typification apparatus supporting the name as well, effecting connection between 
name and taxon. Relatively few of the names per se may change if our application 
fails, but all citations of original publication prevailing in 20th century ornithological 
literature will, and more than a few of the years of publication; in one case, Anser 
seirirostris, there would be a change in author as well. This will necessitate change to 
nomenclatural references in global, and particularly Australasian, checklists and 
handbooks that will, we maintain, be as unsettling as they are unnecessary. Already 
the first published volume of the current full Australian checklist (Schodde & Mason, 
1997) has proceeded on the assumption that the names and their references in the 
London periodicals will be suppressed, following decision of the Vienna meeting of 
the SCON and application to the Commission by Schodde & Bock (1997) — see 
Article 80 of the Code. Involved are Psepholus chrysopterygius Gould and Chryso- 
coccyx minutillus Gould; the former is gazetted by legislation as threatened fauna in 
Australia. 

6. In paras. 5 to 10 of his response, Olson takes us to task for not doing our 
homework. In several cases, he is quite correct, and we are grateful for correction; in 
others, however, he would have been unaware that we had considered the issues and 
found them irrelevant, such as Bonaparte's involvement in Somateria v-nigrum. Here 
his own homework suffers from the very faults of which he so facilely accuses others. 
Our reconsideration of such cases is detailed below and, for Nyctidus pectoralis 
Gould (Olson's para. 8), in our para. 4 above. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 183 

(i) In his para. 9, Olson points out that our submission made no mention of 
Dinomis dromaeoides Owen, 1843; we omitted it because it was the one name that was 
an absolute nomen nudum among those quoted in extracts from the London 
periodicals (Bruce & McAllan, 1990). Nevertheless we agree that for consistency it 
should have been included. Olson then proceeds to make his own contribution to the 
'vexatious mess' involving the names of several moas. According to him, the only 
acceptable diagnosis of a Dinomis in PZS 1843: 144-146 is that for D. giganteus: 
'largest tibia ... of two feet eleven inches'. Yet on the next line that for D. struthoides 
— 'smaller tibia, about two feet long when entire" — is no less adequate; and even 
'smaller than the Din. didiformis ... and similarity of stature to the great Bustard (Oiis 
tarda)' is arguably sufficient for D. otidiformis. Only D. didiformis in the PZS — 
described as third in decreasing size from D. giganteus — is probably a virtual nomen 
nudum (cf. Olson I.e.). Nevertheless, we agree with Olson that both D. dromaeoides 
Owen and D. didiformis Owen should have as their place of publication the 
Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. Not only is publication there 
consistent with Opinions 229 and 1874 but also entries in current basic references: 
Brodkorb (1963) and the New Zealand checklist (Checklist Committee, Ornitho- 
logical Society of New Zealand, 1990). Retaining that source serves stability best, 
whatever the arguments about priority and availability. For the same reason, how- 
ever, giganteus should date from its publication in the PZS as we recommended, 
following acceptance of that reference by the New Zealand checklist (I.e.; contra 
Olson). 

(ii) We accept Olson's view (para. 10) that Didiis nazarenus in Bartlett in PZS 
1851: 284 is an application of Didiis nazarenus Gmelin, 1788, however oblique the 
reference. Here the Literary Gazette (no. 1823: 923, 27 Dec. 1851) does service in 
making the connection clear. 

(iii) Concerning Somateria v-nigrum Bonaparte, 1855, Olson's scorn for our 
research is better visited upon his own ineptitude. Bonaparte's oblique and anecdotal 
account, published on pp. 660-661 of vol. 41 of the Comptes Rendus (not p. 665 as 
stated by Bruce & McAllan, 1990), applies the briefest diagnosis — 'sous son menton 
la marque caracteristique de Somateria spectabilis' to 'un jeune oiseau, qui pouvait 
d'ailleurs etre un hybride'. There is no explicit link between this or any other trait and 
the adults in the British Museum which Bonaparte, with G.R. Gray, named 
'Somateria v. nigrum'. The name there is thus a nomen nudum. Even if it were 
available, its authors would be Bonaparte and G.R. Gray jointly, revealing Olson's 
and Bruce & McAllan's research as particularly shoddy in this matter. So our original 
application in the matter of S. v-nigrum G.R. Gray should stand. Even though several 
modern references cite Bonaparte as author (e.g. Vaurie, 1965; Committee, American 
Ornithologists' Union, 1957; Cramp & Simmons, 1977), the most recent quote 
G.R. Gray in the PZS (Johnsgard, 1979; Sibley & Monroe, 1990). 

(iv) Wetmore's (1968) acceptance of The Zoologist of April 1853 as the source for 
Aulacoramphus caeruleogularis Gould was followed by Haffer (1974) in his survey of 
the toucans. This decision should be allowed to stand. 

7. Of the remaining names that Olson (paras. 5 and 7) claims have been taken up 
from the London periodicals or are available elsewhere, none except Balaeniceps rex 
Gould have been adopted in mainstream ornithological literature, not even Aplornis 
Gould (cf. Mathews, 1938). In attributing these and, indeed, all other newly available 



184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

names in the London periodicals to those sources, Olson would have us reject places 
and dates of publication long established in such basic references as the Catalogue of 
Birds in the British Museum, Peters' Check-list of Birds of the World, the current New 
Zealand and Australian checklists and Meyer de Schauensee's (1966) and Blake's 
(1977) treatises on South American and neotropical birds. The rhetoric is long, but 
the commonsense depressingly short. He would even (para. 12) replace Atrichornis 
Stejneger, 1885 for the Australian scrub-birds, a generic name that has been 
employed universally for this phylogenetically significant group throughout 20th 
century biological literature. It is a single-minded, blinkered application of priority 
confounding stability. If the periodical names are allowed to stand, what will be the 
reaction of handbooks, checklists and other references which cite source publicatiijns 
for names? We venture to suggest that some of the names will be accepted, others will 
be missed and still others avoided through uncertainty and mistrust of such trivial 
and frivolous publication. The potential for confusion and instability is patently 
obvious. 

8. What is the solution, posed in Olson's (para. 6) question: how does one decide 
which has precedence? The solution, we maintain, lies in taking the course that 
disturbs stability least. The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature 
also took this view at its Vienna 1994 meeting. This would be effected most simply 
and transparently by blanket suppression of all avian names cited by Bruce & 
McAllan (1990) as first published in the London periodicals except for those already 
brought into use (Schodde & Bock, 1997). Olson complains that "poor' research 
may have overlooked other prior citations of names slated for suppression under 
para. 8(1) of Schodde & Bock (I.e.). He misses the point; such prior citations, if 
they exist, are so little known that they have not been brought into 20th century 
literature. Dredging them up simply muddies the waters further. Given the confusion 
surrounding the sources of the names in dispute here, well illustrated in Olson's 
para. 6, our application simply clears the decks. In effect, it extends the available 
name principle to firming up an already established set of accessible and 
well-documented source references for names that are usually well- and often 
widely-known and used. 

9. Accordingly, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla- 
ture to accept our original application (Schodde & Bock, 1997), with the following 
amendments: 

( 1 ) Add to 8( 1 )(a), suppression of generic names for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy, and to 8(6), 
placement on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology: Marganetta Gould, 4 December 1841, The Literary Gazette, no. 
1298: 785. This name is validly published there (Article 12(b)(6) of the Code) 
and, without indication of misspelling, is senior to Mergaiietta Gould, March 
1842; 

(2) Add to 8(2), placement on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 
Merganetta Gould, [March = 31 March] 1842, Proceedings of the Zoological 
Society of London, 1841: 95 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy: 
Merganetta armata Gould, 1 842, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 
London. 1841: 95; 

(3) Delete all entries for Didus na:arenus Bartlett from 8(1 )(d) and 8(4); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 185 

(4) Add to 8( 1 )(d). suppression of specific names for both the Principle of Priority 
and the Principle of Homonymy: dronuieoides, Dinornis, Owen, 2 December 
1843, The Literary Gazette, no. 1402: 778-779; 

(5) Add to 8(4), placement on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
dromaeoides. Diiwrnis, Owen, 1844, Transactions of the Zoological Society of 
London, 3(3): 253; 

(6) Replace in 8(4), placement on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, 
the date and source publication for Dinornis didiformis Owen with: 1844, 
Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 3(3): 242; 

(7) Delete the entry for Nyctidus pectoralis Gould from 8( 1 )(c), suppression for 
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy, and from 8(8), placement on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Names in Zoology; 

(8) Add to 8(1 )(d), suppression for both the Principle of Priority and the 
Principle of Homonymy: /7<?f?ora/w, Nyctidus, Gould, 18 November 1837, The 
Athenaeum, no. 525: 851; 

(9) Add to 8(4), placement on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
pectoralis, Nyctibius, Gould, 1838, Icones Avium. II: pi. .xviii, text; 

(10) Replace in 8(4), placement on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, 
the date and source publication for Aulacoramphus caeruleogularis Gould 
with: [April] 1853, The Zoologist, 11: 3861. 

Additional references 

Blake, E.R. 1977. Manual of Neotropical Birds, Vol. 1 Spheniscidae (Penguins) to Laridae 

( Gulls and Allies), xliv, 674 pp. University of Chicago Press. 
Bonaparte, C.-L. 1855. "Catalogue des genres et sous-genres d'oiseaux contenus dans le 

Museum Britannique'. Comples Rendus des Seances de I'Academie des Sciences, Paris, 41: 

649-661. 
Checklist Committee, Ornithological Society of New Zealand. 1990. Checklist of the birds 

of New Zealand and the Ross Dependency. Antarctica. Ed. 3. Ornithological Society of 

New Zealand, Wellington. 
Checklist Committee, American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American 

birds, Ed. 5. American Ornithologists' Union. 
Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L. (Eds.). 1977. Handbook of the birds of Europe the Middle East 

and North Africa. The birds of the Western Palearclic. Volume I. Ostrich lo Ducks. 722 pp. 

Oxford University Press, Oxford. 
Haffer, J. 1974. Avian speciation in tropical South America, with a systematic survey of the 

toucans (Ramphastidae) and jacamars (Galbulidae). Publications of the Nuttalt Ornitho- 
logical Club, 14: i-viii, 1-390. 
Johnsgard, P.A. 1979. Order Anseriformes, pp. 425-506 In Mayr, E. & Cottrell, G.W. (Eds.). 

Check-list of birds of the World. Ed. 2. vol. 1. Museum of Comparative Zoology. 

Cambridge. Massachusetts. 
Mathews, G.M. 1938. Aplornis versus Aplonis. Ibis, (14)2: 342. 
Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species of birds of South America and their distribution, xvii. 

577 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
Schodde, R. & Mason, I.J. 1997. Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae). In Houston, W.W.K. & 

Wells, A. (Eds.). Zoological Catalogue of Australia, vol. 37. xiii, 440 pp. CSIRO 

Publishing, Melbourne. 
Vaurie, C. 1965. The birds of the Palearctic fauna. A systematic reference. Non-Passeriformes. 

XX, 761 pp. Witherby, London. 



186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(3) September 1998 

OPINION 1902 

Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Anomalina ariminensis 
d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminiferida; anomalinidae; Anomalina; 
Anomalina punctuUila: Anomalina ariminensis. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826 are hereby set aside and Anomalina 
ariminensis d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 is designated as the type species; 

(2) The name Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Anomalina ariminensis 
d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name ariminensis d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902, as published in the 
binomen Anomalina ariminensis and as defined by the holotype from Rimini, 
Italy (catalogue no. F0437 in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 
Paris) (specific name of the type species of Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2906 

An application for the designation of Anomalina ariminensis d'Orbigny in 
Fornasini, 1902 as the type species oi Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826 was received from 
Dr Stefan A. Revets {University of Western Australia, Nedlands. Perth. Australia) on 
15 October 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 6-10 
(March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Prof L.C. Hottinger (Geologisch-Palaontologisches 
Inslitut der Universitcit Ba.tel. Basel. Switzerland) was published in BZN 54: 183 
(September 1997). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 9. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1998 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus. Lehtinen. Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 1 : Stys. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride 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: 

Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826, .4nnales des Sciences Naliirelles. 7: 282. 

ariminensis. Anomalina. d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902, Memoric dellu Reale Accademia della 
Scienze deWIstilulo di Bologna. Scienze Nalurali, (5)10: 63, fig. 62. 



i. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 187 

OPINION 1903 

Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): conserved as the 
correct original spelling, and corrections made to the entries relating 
to Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 on the Official Lists and Indexes of 
Names in Zoology 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Anthozoa; Pennatulacea; sea pens; 
umbellulidae; Ombellula; Umbellula; Umbellularia; Umbellula encrinus. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the correct original spelling of 
the name Ombellula Cuvier, [1797] is Umbellula. 

(2) The name Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent monotypy by Gray (1870) his encrimts Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (spelling emended 
by the ruling in ( I ) above). 

(3) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name 
encrinus Linnaeus, 1 758, as published in the binomen Isis encrinus, is hereby 
emended to record that Isis encrinus is the type species of Umbellula Cuvier, 
[1797]. 

(4) The name umbellulidae Lindahl, 1874 (1840) (type genus Umbellula Cuvier, 
[1797]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology. 

(5) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the name 
Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 is hereby deleted. 

(6) The entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for the name 
UMBELLULARiiDAE Lindahl. 1874 is hereby deleted. 

(7) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Ombellula Cuvier, [1797] (an incorrect original spelling of Umbellula by the 
ruling in (1) above); 

(b) Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 (a junior objective synonym of Umbellula 
Cuvier, [1797]). 

(8) The name umbellulariidae Gray, 1840 (type genus Umbellularia Lamarck, 
1801, a junior objective synonym of Umbellula Cuvier. [1797]) is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 
(replaced under Article 40 by umbellulidae Lindahl, 1874 (1840)). 

(9) The inaccurate entries for the following names are hereby deleted from the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: 

(a) umbellulae Lindahl, 1874; 

(b) umbelluleae Kolliker, 1875. 

History of Case 2999 

An application for the conservation of Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] as the correct 
spelling of the generic name, together with corrections to the entries on the Official 



188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Lists and Indexes of Generic and Family-Group Names relating to Umbellularia 
Lamarck, 1801, was received from Dr Frederick M. Bayer {National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., (/.S./l.) and Dr Manfred 
Grasshoff (Forschimgsinstitiit und Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, 
Germany) on 3 October 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 
54: 14-18 (March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr P.F.S. Cornelius {The Natural History Museum, 
London, U.K.) was published in BZN 54: 183 (September 1997). 

The generic name Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801, the specific name of Is is encrinus 
Linnaeus, 1758, and the family name umbellulariidae Lindahl, 1874, were placed 
on Official Lists in Opinion 636 (September 1962). Corrections to these entries are 
made in the present Opinion. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 16-17. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, 
Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes, and to emended entries for generic and family names relating to Umbellularia 
Lamarck, 1801, by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
encrinus, his. Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1. p. 800. 
Ombelhila Cuvier. [1797], Tableau eleinentaire de I'hisloire nalurelle des animaux. p. 675 (an 

incorrect original spelling of Umbellula). 
Umbellula Cuvier, [1797], Tableau elemenlaire de I'histoire naturelle des animaux. p. 675 

(incorrectly spelled as Ombelhila). 
Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801, Sy.'iteme des animaux sans vertehres .... p. 380. 
UMBELLULARIIDAE Gray, 1840. Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum. Ed. 42, p. 75. 
UMBELLULIDAE Lindahl, 1874, Kongliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar. 13(3): 25. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type 
species of the nominal genus Umbellula Cuvier, [1797]: 

Gray, J.E. 1870. Catalogue of the sea-pens or Pennalulariidae in the collection of the British 
Museum, p. 38. 



4 

a: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 189 

OPINION 1904 

Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda): Dorylaimus 
superbus de Man, 1880 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nematoda; soil nematodes; aporcelaimidae; 
Aporcelaimus; Aporcelaimus superbus. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 are hereby set aside and 
Dorylaimus superbus de Man. 1880 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (gender: masculine), type 
species by designation under the plenary powers in ( 1 ) above Dorylaimus 
superbus de Man, 1880. is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology. 

(3) The name superbus de Man. 1880. as published in the binomen Dorylaimus 
superbus and as defined by the female lectotype from Katwijk, The 
Netherlands (catalogue no. V.As 253 in the Zoological Museum, Instituut voor 
Taxonomische Zoologie, Amsterdam) designated by Loof (1961) (specific 
name of the type species oi Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2943 

An application for the designation of Dorylaimus superbus de Man, 1 880 as the 
type species of Aporcelaimus Thome & Swanger, 1 936 was received from Prof P. A. A. 
Loof (Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands) and Dr J. Heyns 
(Johannesburg. South Africa) on 23 June 1994. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 54: 80-82 (June 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 81. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1998 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert. Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen. Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Bouchet abstained. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Abstaining, Bouchet corrmiented: 'In my view the application is lacking in 
information for a vote. Was Dorylaimus superbus among the originally included 
species in Apercelaimus; is the name D. superbus commonly or rarely used; and what 
would be the consequences of designating the lectotype of D. superbus as the neotype 
of D. regius? This last action would give the same result as intended by the authors 
without Commission intervention'. 



190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Original references 

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

Aporcelaimus Thome & Swanger, 1936, Capita Zoologica, 6(4): 123. 

superbus, Dorylaimus, de Man, 1880, Tijdschrifl der Nederlandsche Dierkundige Vereeniging, 5: 
79. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Dorylaimus superbus 
de Man, 1880: 
Loof, P.A.A. 1961. Beauforlia, 8: 237. 



1 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 191 

OPINION 1905 

S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells: 
not suppressed for nomenclatural purposes 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; S.D. Kaicher; Card Catalogue of World-Wide 
Shells (1973-1992); MoUusca; Gastropoda; Prosobranchia. 

Ruling 

(1) The work by S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992) entitled Card Catalogue of World-Wide 
Shells is not suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. 

(2) The above work is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as 
Available for Zoological Nomenclature. 

History of Case 2964 

An application for the suppression for nomenclatural purposes of the work by S.D. 
Kaicher (1973-1992) entitled Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells was received from 
Dr Alan R. Kabat (National Museum of Natural History. Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, U.S.A.) on 26 January 1995. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 53: 96-98 (June 1996). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Comments in support from Dr Y. Finet {Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneve, 
Switzerland), Dr P. Bouchet (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), 
Dr A.G. Beu (Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences. Lower Hutt, New 
Zealand), Dr A.J. Kohn (University of Washington. Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) 
and Dr T. Schiotte (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 
Denmark) were published in BZN 53; 273, 275-277 (December 1996). A further 
comment in support from Dr Anders Waren (Swedish Museum of Natural History, 
Stockholm. Sweden) was published in BZN 54: 183-184 (September 1997). 

A comment in opposition from Drs M.G. Harasewych & R.E. Petit (National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.) was 
published in BZN 53: 273-275 (December 1996). Further opposing comments from 
Dr Emily H. Yokes (Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.), Dr William 
G. Lyons (Florida Marine Research Institute, St Petersburg, Florida. U.S.A.) and Dr 
Jose H. Leal (The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum, Sanibel Island, Florida, U.S.A.) 
were published in BZN 54; 39^M (March 1997). 

A reply by the author of the application to the opposing comments was published 
in BZN 54: 44-^6 (March 1997). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 98. At the close of the voting period on I June 1998 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 11; Bouchet, Brothers, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Mahnert, 
Mawatari, Papp, Patterson, Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 12: Bock, Cocks, Dupuis, Eschmeyer, Heppell, Lehtinen, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage and Stys. 



192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Cogger abstained. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Voting for. Brothers commented: 'In voting in favour of the apphcation I do have 
reservations, and my main motivation is the impression that Kaicher's (1973-1992) 
work was never intended to be used for revisionary nomenclatural purposes". Voting 
against. Bock commented: 'In his application Kabat has not demonstrated any 
serious nomenclatural problems". Cocks commented: 'This is a grey area. Following 
consultation with colleagues working on molluscs in The Natural History Museum, 
London, there seems to be no very substantial case for suppressing the publication 
(for such it undoubtedly is) for nomenclatural purposes". Dupuis commented: 'In 
spite of Kabat's emphasis (BZN 54: 44) upon a 'suppression" for nomenclatural 
purposes only, I still think that such actions depreciate all other aspects of even the 
best of classical works. I am convinced by Lyon's comment (BZN 54: 40)". Eschmeyer 
commented: 'Kaicher should not have listed 'holotypes" when it was known that Dall, 
for example, often had multiple specimens of his new species. I agree with 
Harasewych & Petit (BZN 53: 275) that 'lectotype designations ... should either be 
allowed to stand, or be evaluated in the course of systematic revisions on a taxon by 
taxon basis"". Heppell commented: 'Although I was at first surprised that this case 
was brought to the Commission (as there is no doubt that the work in dispute is 
published in terms of the Code), the various comments for and against suppression 
show that an authoritative judgment on the status of the contained nomenclatural 
acts is necessary. I am familiar with the Card Catalogue (which from publication of 
the first issue has been formally catalogued by the library of the National Museums 
of Scotland) and have found it invaluable for curatorial purposes; its several 
shortcomings are no more than in many works by professional malacologists (in my 
view its worst feature is the lack of an index) and, as has been demonstrated, are often 
the result of unquestioned acceptance of the data supplied with the museum 
specimens illustrated. On balance 1 agree with those who have judged the applicant"s 
case to be overstated. 1 therefore vote against the application". Lehtinen commented: 
'Kaicher's extensive publication, which several malacologists agree is useful in 
taxonomic work, has caused some confusion partly because some museum labels 
denoting lectotypes were not published by those responsible for the labelling and she 
did not check such information. I know a large number of taxonomic papers where 
the confusion is much greater but no one has even suggested their rejection for 
nomenclatural purposes". In abstaining. Cogger commented: 'This application and 
the responses to it have included many emotionally charged statements in which 
nomenclatural issues have been overlooked. One of the arguments which is implicit 
in several comments is that because Kaicher was only perpetuating the practice 
widely adopted by other workers, including professional malacologists, her work 
should not be singled out for suppression. While I sympathise with the motives 
behind this view, I reject the nomenclatural arguments. It is clearly desirable that her 
unintended and/or erroneous lectotype designations be suppressed. The nature and 
purpose of the publication seems to me to have no relevance to the case. Even some 
supporters of the application concede that the work is an important contribution to 
systematic malacology and that the illustrations of many type specimens are correct, 
i.e. that the work has been valuable to nomenclaturists. If this is so, blanket 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 193 

suppression of the entire work for nomenclatural purposes is inappropriate. With 
hindsight I would have preferred the appHcation to have simply sought the setting 
aside in the Kaicher work of all type designations, whether explicit, or implicit under 
the Code. But this solution was not proposed by the applicant or any of the many 
commentators and so is not an option in the vote". 

Since there was a majority against the suppression for nomenclatural purposes of 
the work Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells (S.D. Kaicher, 1973-1992), this 
publication is placed on the Official List as an available work. 

Original reference 

The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Kaicher, S.D. 1973-1992. Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. Pack I (cards 1-99) through 
Pack 60 (cards 6110-6215). Author, St Petersburg, Florida. 



194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

OPINION 1906 

Euchi-oeus Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): conserved; Chrysis 
purpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently Eiichroeus pmpuratus): specific 
name conserved; and Chrysis gloriosa Fabricius, 1793: specific name 
suppressed 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; cuckoo wasps; chrysididae; 
Eiichroeus; Eiichroeus piirpuralus; Chrysis gloriosa; Holopyga gloriosa. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all previous type fixations for the nominal species Chrysis purpurata 
Fabricius, 1787 are hereby set aside; 

(b) the name gloriosa Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Chrysis 
gloriosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Chrysis purpurata Fabricius, 1 787, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name purpurata Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Chrysis 
purpurata and as defined by the female neotype (a Latreille specimen in the 
Spinola collection in the Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali in Turin, Italy) 
designated by Pavesi & Strumia (1998) (specific name of the type species of 
Euchroeus Latreille, 1809), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name gloriosa Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Chrysis 
gloriosa and as suppressed in (l)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2988 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 
and the specific name of Chrysis purpurata Fabricius, 1787, together with the 
suppression of Chrysis gloriosa Fabricius, 1793, was received from Dr Maurizio 
Pavesi (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Milan, Italy) and Prof Franco Strumia 
{Universitd di Pisa, Pisa. Italy) on 9 June 1995. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 54: 26-30 (March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 29. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1998 
the votes were as given below, presented here in two parts. Part ( 1 ) relates to the 
conservation of Euchroeus Latreille. 1809 and the specific name of Chrysis purpurata 
Fabricius, 1787 (proposals (l)(a), (2) and (3)); part (2) relates to the suppression of 
the specific name of C. gloriosa Fabricius, 1793 (proposals (l)(b) and (4)). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 195 

Part 1 . Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza. Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, 
Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Part 2. Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Stys. 

Dupuis abstained. 

No votes were received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Cogger commented: 'My vote in favour of setting aside Kimsey's (1988) lectotype 
for Chrysis purpurata Fabricius, 1787 is conditional on the designation of a neotype, 
a possibility mentioned at the end of para. 9 of the application'. Kerzhner 
commented: 'I would prefer that a neotype for C. purpurata be designated. Setting 
aside the lectotype without designation of a neotype would not prevent a future 
author from designating again as the lectotype one of the three specimens in 
Fabricius's collection". [Editorial note. The selection of a neotype for C. purpurata 
was suggested to the authors of the application (M. Pavesi and F. Strumia). They 
replied (in litt., July 1998): 'We fully agree with this suggestion. The designation of a 
neotype for C. purpurata would make the Commission ruling more secure. We have 
visited the Turin Museum and examined the four female Latreille specimens in the 
Spinola collection mentioned in para. 9 of the application. A label on the bottom of 
the box records ' Euchroeus purpureus Latr. // - purpwatus (Chr.) Fab. // Coll. Latr. 
Fr. merid.'. Of the four specimens, one with a handwritten label '1706' was possibly 
a later addition to the collection; two others are badly damaged and headless; the last 
one fits Fabricius's (1787) description well and is the most appropriate for designa- 
tion as the neotype. We designate this specimen as the neotype of Chrysis purpurata 
Fabricius, 1787". This designation has been recorded in the ruling above. Fabricius 
(1787) described Chrysis purpurata from Halle, Germany; Latreille (1805, 1809) 
recorded his specimens from 'aux environs de Paris']. Lehtinen commented: 'The 
suppression of Chrysis gloriosa Fabricius, 1 793 is not necessary and possibly not even 
desirable. A study of North African material would probably solve its identity and a 
well documented neotype from this area could be designated. Kimsey's (1988) 
careless lectotype designation (para. 14 of the application) should be set aside, as 
proposed for that of C. purpurata'. Bouchet commented: 'The application fails to 
document the consequences of the rejection of the name C. gloriosa. It states (para. 
12; also para. 15) that it 'has long been used, although mistakenly, as the valid 
synonym of Holopyga amoenula Dahlbom, 1845". Would it not have been preferable 
to stabilise gloriosa in this accustomed sense by a neotype designation? The 
Commission has been asked to suppress the name without exploring any other 
alternative'. 

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: 



196 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 



Euchroeus Latreille, 1809, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum. vol. 4, p. 49. 

glohosa. Chrysis, Fabricius, 1793, Enlomologia Systematica emendata el aucta. vol. 2, p. 242. 

purpurata, Chrysis. Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum. vol. 1, p. 283. 



The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Chrysis purpurata 
Fabricius, 1787: 
Pavesi, M. & Strumia, F. 1998. BZN 55: 195. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 197 

OPINION 1907 

Nothosaums Miinster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): given 
precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, |1833| 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauropterygia; Lower-Middle 
Triassic; Nothosaurm; Conchiosaurus. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Nothosaums Miinster, 1834 is 
hereby given precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms. 

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

(a) Nothosaurus Miinster, 1834 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Nothosaums mirabilis Miinster, 1834, with the endorsement that it is to be 
given precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Conchiosaurus clavatus Meyer, [1833], with the endorsement that 
it is not to be given priority over Nothosaurus Miinster, 1834 whenever the 
two names are considered to be synonyms. 

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

(a) mirabilis Miinster, 1834, as published in the binomen Nothosaurus mirabilis 
(specific name of the type species of Nothosaurus Miinster, 1834); 

(b) clavatus Meyer, [1833], as published in the binomen Conchiosaurus clavatus 
(specific name of the type species of Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833]). 

History of Case 2994 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Nothosaurus Miinster, 
1834 by giving it precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] was received from Dr 
Olivier Rieppel (Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Dr Paul D. Brinkman 
(Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.) on 20 July 1995. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 53: 270-272 (December 1996). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 271-272. At the close of the voting period on 
1 March 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, 
Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — 1: Bouchet. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 



198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Minelli commented: 'There is a compelling reason to vote in favour: the problem- 
atic identity of the type species of Conchiosaurus' . 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
clavalus, Ctinchiosaurus, Meyer, [1833], Museum Senckenbergianum. Ahlumdiungen aus dem 

Gebiete der beschriebenden Nulurgeschichte. 1(1): 8. 
Conchiosaurus Meyer. [1833], Museum Senckenbergianum. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der 

beschriebenden Nalurgeschichle, 1(1): 8. 
mirabilis, Nolhosaurus, Miinster, 1834. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineraiogie. Geognosie, Geologic 

und Pelrefaklenkunde. 1834: 525. 
Nothosaurus Miinster, 1834, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineraiogie. Geognosie. Geologic und 

Pelrefaklenkunde. 1834: 525. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 199 

OPINION 1908 

Hemidactylus garnotii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia, Squamata): 
specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Squamata; gekkonidae; gecko; 
Hemidactylus garnotii. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name peniviamis Wiegmann, 1835, as 
published in the binomen Hemidactylus peniviamis, is hereby suppressed for 
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name garnotii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836, as published in the binomen 
Hemidactylus garnotii, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

(3) The name peruvianus Wiegmann, 1835, as published in the binomen Hemi- 
dactylus peniviamis and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2960 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Hemidactylus garnotii 
Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 was received from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of 
Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.), Prof Arnold G. Kluge (Museum of Zoology, 
University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Prof Aaron M. Bauer 
(Villanova University, Villanova. Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) and Prof David Chiszar 
(University of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) on 12 January 1995. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 184-186 (September 1996). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Dr Hidetosho Ota (University of the Ryukyus, 
Okinawa, Japan) and from Dr Peter Paul van Dijk (University College Galway, 
Gahvay, Ireland and Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand) were published in 
BZN 54: 51-52 (March 1997) and in 54: 116 (June 1997) respectively. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 185. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

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



200 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 



garnorii. Hcniiilactyltis, Dumeril & Bibron, 1836. Erpetologie generate ou hisloire natwelle 

complete des reptiles, vol. 3. p. 368. 
peruviaims. Hemidcictylus, Wiegmann, 1835, Verhancilimgen der KaiserUchen Leopoldinisch- 

Carolinischen Akademie de Naturforscher. 17(1): 240. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 201 

OPINION 1909 

Holotropis herminieri Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 (currently Leiocephalus 
herminieri), Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (currently Liolaemus 
bibronii) (Reptilia, Squamata): specific names conserved, and 
Liolaemus bellii Gray, 1845 placed on the Official List 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; tropiduridae; Leiocephalus 
herminieri; Liolaemus bibronii; Liolaemus bellii; Martinique; South America. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers; 

(a) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

(i) aculeatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis 

aculeatus; 
(ii) fasciatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis 

fascialus; 

(b) the name bellii Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis bellii, 
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) herminieri Dumeril & Bibron, 1837, as published in the binomen Holotropis 
herminieri; 

(b) bibronii T. Bell, 1842, as published in the binomen Proctotretus bibronii; 

(c) bellii Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Liolaemus bellii. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) aculeatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis aculeatus 

and as suppressed in (l)(a)(i) above; 
(h) fasciatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis fasciatus 

and as suppressed in (l)(a)(ii) above; 
(c) bellii Gray, 1831. as published in the binomen Tropidolepis bellii and as 

suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 2976 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Holotropis herminieri 
Dumeril & Bibron. 1837 and Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 was received from 
Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado, Boulder. Colorado, U.S.A.) and Dr 
Edwin L. Bell (Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania. U.S.A.) on 24 March 1995. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 112-115 (June 1996). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment from Dr Richard Etheridge (San Diego State University, San Diego, 
California. U.S.A.), published in BZN 54: 117-119 (June 1997), gave further 
information on the taxonomic identities of Tropidolepis bellii Gray. 1831 and 



202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

Liolaemus hellii Gray, 1845 (cf. para. 8 of the application), and proposed (p. 118) that 
the specific name of L. hellii Gray, 1845 be placed on the Official List. In a reply 
published at the same time, the authors of the application supported this proposal. 
Dr Etheridge noted (p. 1 17, para. 2) that the name T. hellii Gray, 1831 is likely to 
be a junior synonym of Liolaemus chiliensis (Lesson, 1828), and considered that it 
should be treated as a nomen dubium. Suppression for priority and placement on the 
Official Index of T. bellii Gray, 1831 had been proposed in the application (paras. 
9(1 )(b) and 9(3)(b)). Since T. bellii Gray, 1831 may well be a senior secondary 
homonym within Liolaemus of L. bellii Gray, 1 845, to conserve the latter name it was 
proposed on the voting paper that T. bellii Gray, 1831 be suppressed for both priority 
and homonymy. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 114, with the addition of the specific name of 
Liolaemus bellii Gray, 1845 to proposal (2), published in BZN 54: 1 18, para. 6, and 
the emendment (suppression of Tropidolepis bellii Gray, 1831 for both priority and 
homonymy) to proposal (l)(b). At the close of the voting period on I June 1998 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen (part), Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — 1: Dupuis. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Lehtinen voted for the conservation of the specific name of Proctotretus bibronii 
and for the placement oi Liolaemus bellii Gray, 1845 on the Official List, but not for 
the conservation of Holotropis herminieri. Bouchet commented: in addition to the 
references cited in para. 5 of the application to document usage of the name 
Leiocephalus herminieri, it may be noted that the species is listed under that name in 
the 1994 and 1996 editions of the lUCN Red List of Threatened Animals'. 

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: 

aculealus. Tropidolepis. Gray, 1831, in Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom 
arranged in conformity with its organization, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional 
descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed, vol. 9 
(Supplement), p. 43. 

bellii. Liolaemus. Gray, 1 845, Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British 
Museum, p. 212. 

bellii, Tropidolepis. Gray, 1831, in Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom 
arranged in conformity with its organization, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional 
descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed, vol. 9 
(Supplement), p. 44. 

bibronii, Proctotretus, T. Bell, 1842, in Darwin, C. (Ed.), The zoology of the voyage of H. M.S. 
Beagle, under the command of Captain Fitzrov, R.N., during the years 1832-1836, part 5, 
p. 6. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 203 

fascialus, Tropidolepis. Gray, 1831, in Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom 
arranged in conformily with its organization, by the Baron Ciivier, with additional 
descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed, vol. 9 
(Supplement), p. 44. 

herminieri, Holotropis, Dumeril & Bibron, 1837, Erpetologie generale ou histoire naturelle 
complete des reptiles, vol. 4, p. 261. 



204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 

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 relumed. 

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. 

Te.\r. 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 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1902. Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Anomalina arimin- 

enm d'Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 designated as the type species 186 

OPINION 1903. Umbelhila Cuvier, [1797] (Cnidana, Anthozoa): conserved as the 
correct original spelling, and corrections made to the entries relating to Umbellu- 
laria Lamarck. 1801 on the Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology . . 187 

OPINION 1904. AporcelaUnus Thome & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda): Dorylaimus 

superbus Ae tAan, 1880 designated as the type species 189 

OPINION 1905. S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells: 

not suppressed for nomenclatural purposes 191 

OPINION 1906. Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): conserved; 
Chrysis purpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently Euchroeus purpuratus): specific name 
conserved; and C/irrai j/onoja Fabricius, 1793: specific name suppressed . . . 194 

OPINION 1907. Nothosaurus Munster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): given pre- 
cedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] 197 

OPINION 1908. Hemidactylus garnotii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia, Squa- 

mata): specific name conserved 199 

OPINION 1909. Hololropis herminieri Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 (currently Leiocepha- 
lus herminieri), Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (currently Liolaemus bibronii) 
(Reptilia, Squamata): specific names conserved, and Liolaemus bellii Gray, 1845 
placed on the Official List 201 

Information and Instructions for Authors 204 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 1 37 

Election of the Vice-President of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 138 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 138 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 138 



Applications 

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoma acuium Drapamaud, 1805 (currently 
Hydrobia acuta: Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation by replacement of 
the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; VeiUrosia Radoman, 1977: proposed 
designation of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species; and hydrobiina 
Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed emendation of spelling to hydro- 
BiusiNA, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). 
F. Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon 139 

Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of Capsus 
chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1856 (currently Orthotylus virescens (Douglas & Scott, 
1865)) as the type species. A. Carapezza & I.M. Kerzhner 146 

Scarus chrysopterus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Sparisoma chrysopterum; 
Osteichthyes, Percifomies): proposed conservation of the specific name and 
designation as the type species of Sparisoma Swainson, 1839. R.L. Moura & 
J.E. Randall 151 

Osphronemus deissneri Sleeker, 1859 (currently Parosphromeitus deissneri; Osteich- 
thyes, Perciformes): proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. P.K.L. Ng & 
M. Kottelat 155 

Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 and cacatuinae Gray, 1840 (Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed 
conservation. W.J. Bock & R. Schodde 159 

LORisiDAE Gray, 1821 and galagidae Gray, 1825 (Mammaha, Primates): proposed 
conservation as the correct original spellings. J.H. Schwartz, J. Shoshani, 
I. Tattersall, E.L. Simons & G.F. Gunnell 165 



Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi- 

opoda). G. Fryer 169 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus Esper, [1777] 
(currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades svlvamis: Insecta. Lepidoptera). R. de Jong 
& O. Karsholt ' 169 

On the proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissarlensis Boulenger in Beneden, 
1881 as the type species of Iguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of 
a lectotype (Reptilia, Omithischia). D. Norman; A.C. Milner 172 

On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus gouldii Gray, 1838 and 
Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype 
for Hydrosaurus gouldii. W. Bohme & T. Ziegler; R.G. Sprackland, H.M. Smith & 
P.D. Strimple .^ 173 

On the proposed suppression of all prior usages of generic and specific names of birds 
(Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as pubhshed in the 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. S.L. Olson; R. Schodde & 
W.J. Bock ' 176 



Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Printed in Great Bntjiin by Henry Ling Ltd.. at the Dorset Press. Dorchester, Dorset 



Volume 55, Part 4, 18 December 1998, pp. 205-263 ISSN 0007-5167 



HISTORY PWUSR)M 

2 3 DEC 1998 

PURCHASE) 



Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




lICZtA llThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commissio} 
iogical No^i^lature 



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 1999 is £102 
or $180, 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) 

(e-mail; iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 
(http://www.iczn.org) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



Members 

Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.: Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France: Mollusca) 
Prof D. J. Brothers 

(South Africa: Hymenoptera) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.: Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia: Herpetology) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France: Heteroptera) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer 

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

(Germany: Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland: Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 

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 

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

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



Dr V. Mahnert 

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

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.: Lepidoptera) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. K\dt( Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



J 



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1998 



HISTORY MUSEm 
2 3 QfeC 1998 
PURCHASED 
ZQOLSSVJM^ 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 55, part 4 (pp. 205-263) 18 December 1998 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on apphcations 
published in the Bulletin of Zoologieal 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 ofriew applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 55, part 3 (published on 30 September 1998). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, Mystaciita tuberciilata 
Gray, 1843 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently 
Clialinolobiis titberculatus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed conservation of 
usage. (Case 3095). H.G. Spencer & D.E. Lee. 

(2) Dicliroramplia Guenee, 1845 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence 
over Amaurosetia Stephens, 1835. (Case 3096). L. Aarvik. 

(3) Bolboceras Kirby, [1819] (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 
3097). M.L. Jameson & H.F. Howden. 

(4) Ophidium maculatutn Tschudi, 1 846 (currently Genypterus maculatus: Osteich- 
thyes, Gadiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3098). 
M.H. Wilson. 

(5) Titanoclamon Jolmsionii Pocock, 1894 (currently Damon johnstonii: 
Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 
3099). P. Weygoldt. 

(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. 



206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Commission is at present voting on the adoption of the final text of the new 
(4th) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and, subject to 
this adoption and its ratification by the International Union of Biological Sciences, 
the edition will be published in early 1999. Its provisions will come into efiect on 
1 January 2000. As soon as the publication date is known it will be announced on the 
Commission's Web Site (http://www.iczn.org), together with details of how the new 
Code may be bought. 

Meanwhile, copies of the 3rd edition (published 1985) are still available from 
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, 
U.K. (e-mail: icznf«!nhm. ac.uk) or from A. A.Z.N. , Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, 
National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: 
smithd@nmnh.si.edu). The cost is £19 or $35 (including surface postage); members of 
the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered 
the reduced price of £15 or $29. Payment (cheques made out to 'ITZN" or 'AAZN') 
should accompany orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 

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 Slahility in the Names of Atiinuils — a History 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 1995. 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. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N., 
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith. MRC-159. National Museum of Natural History. Washington, 
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd@nmnh.si.edu). 

The cost is £30 or $50 (including surface postage); members of the Ainerican and 
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of 
£20 or $35. Payment (cheques made out to TTZN" or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4| December 1998 207 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Financial Report for 1997 

The Trust's deficit of £5051 for 1997 was significantly higher than the deficit of 
£984 for 1996, and higher than the £4441 deficit for 1995. A fall in the number of 
donors was the main reason for the increased deficit, though some significant large 
donations remained to keep the deficit within bounds — these included the 
substantial amounts of £10,000 from the Royal Society of London, £4157 from 
the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature and £1500 from the 
Palaeontological Association. The work of the Trust is only possible because of the 
support from these and the other donors that are listed at the end of this report, to 
whom we extend our thanks. The deficit would have been £3119 higher had the Trust 
not found it necessary to obtain £10,000 from its investments in order to maintain 
cashflow during the year, £3119 of that amount being capital gain on the original cost 
of the investments that were cashed; this capital gain appears as income in the 
accounts. 

Nearly half the Trust's income came from sales of publications, mainly from the 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which yielded an income of £25,707. Sales of the 
Official Lists and Indexes, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and 
the Centenary History of the Commission brought the total income from publi- 
cations to £29,412. Income from grants and donations of £18,505, interest and 
investment income of £10,235, and capital gain of £31 19 brought the total income for 
the year to £61,271. 

The main expenditure was £56,228 for the salaries and National Insurance of the 
Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Printing 
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and distribution of all publications 
amounted to £8830. Other costs for oflfice expenses (£894) and depreciation of office 
equipment (£370) brought the total expenditure to £66,322. 

The Commission Secretariat was again housed in The Natural History Museum, 
London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express 
its thanks to all the donors listed 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 

29 April 1998 

List of donations and grants received during the year 1997 

American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £4157 

Australian Academy of Sciences £524 

European Association for Zoological Nomenclature £973 

Palaeontological Association, U.K. £1500 

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters £96 

Royal Entomological Society of London £300 

Royal Society of London £ 1 0000 



208 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 



St John's College, Cambridge 
Zoological Museum. Copenhagen 
Zoological Societies of Japan 
Zoological Society of London 



£250 

£500 

£55 

£150 



Total £18505 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 

31 DECEMBER 1997 

hicome 

SALE OF PUBLICATIONS 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £25707 

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1329 

Official Lists and Indexes 506 

Centenary History 1870 



GRANTS AND DONATIONS 

BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 
CAPITAL GAIN ON INVESTMENTS 



29412 



18505 

10235 
3119 

61271 



Expenditure 

SALARIES. NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES 56228 

OFFICE EXPENSES 894 

PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS 8830 

DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 370 



66322 



Deficit for tiie year 



£5051 



r 



I 



Bullclin ol" Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 209 

Case 3036 

Haliotis clathrata Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein, 1794) and H. ele^ans 
Philippi, 1844 (Moilusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the 
specific names 

D.L. Geiger 

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, 

Los Angeles, California 90089-0371, U.S.A. (e-mail: dgeiger@scf.usc.edu) 

K.A. Stewart 

]9 La Rancheria, Carmel Valley. California 93924, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of two 
prosobranch gastropods — Halioti.s ckiiiiruta Reeve, 1846 and H. eleguns Philippi, 
1844. These two names are threatened by the unused name Haliotis clathrata 
Lichtenstein, 1794, which is a senior homonym of the first and a senior subjective 
synonym of the second. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Prosobranchia; haliotidae; 
Haliotis clathrata: Haliotis elegans. 



1. Lichtenstein's Catalogiis rerwn nutiiralium rarissimum was published as a 
catalogue in three parts — the first in 1793 dealt with mammals and birds, the second 
(1794) with mollusks, and the third in 1796 with insects. The catalogue meets all the 
requirements for publication and is an available work. Kerzhner (1994) described the 
history of the catalogue and proposed that the third part should be suppressed for 
nomenclatural purposes with the conservation of a number of insect names; the 
Commission accepted this proposal in Opinion 1820 (1995). 

2. In the second part of his catalogue (1794), Lichtenstein described 16 new 
mollusks including Haliotis clathrata (p. 105). This name was overlooked in the large 
monographs of the genus Haliotis by Reeve (1846), Sowerby (1882). Weinkauff 
(1883), Pilsbry (1890) and Kaicher (1981). This century, the name has been included 
in lists by Sherborn (1902), Pickery ( 1991), Prado & Abreu (1993) and Ubaldi (1993). 
Wagner & Abbott (1978) listed "Haliotis clathrata Lichtenstein, 1794. Undetermined 
species" (see also Geiger, 1998a. p. 100). 

3. Reeve (1846, pi. 17. fig. 71) established the name //o//o?/5 c/oZ/jrara for a shallow 
water prosobranch ranging from Madagascar to American Samoa and from 
Southern Japan to Southeastern Australia. It is a fairly well recognized species with 
one holotype and two paratypes in the Natural History Museum, London (see Yen, 
1942, p. 175). Although poorly described in the hterature, the name has been used by 
a small number of authors (e.g.. Yen, 1942; Ladd, 1966; Kaicher. 1981; Gosliner 
et al., 1996). In a forthcoming paper, we (Stewart & Geiger, 1999) demonstrate that 
H. clathrata Reeve is a valid name and is not (contra Talmadge, 1957) a juvenile of 
H. rubra Leach. 1814 (see also Geiger, 1998a, p. 100). 



210 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

4. Philippi (1844. p. 119, pi. 1, fig. 1) established the name Haliotis elegims, which 
is quite well known in the scientific as well as the popular literature (e.g., Hinton, 
1978; Kaicher, 1981; Abbott & Dance, 1983; Wilson, 1993). Authorship of this 
species is sometimes attributed to 'Koch in Philippi', but it is apparent that Philippi 
wrote the description, where he only made reference to Koch (see Geiger, 1998b. 
pp. 158-159). One of us (Geiger, 1998b, pp. 158-159) has presented the arguments for 
synonymy between H. elegims and H. clathrata Lichtenstein. and concluded that 'the 
overwhelming majority of the clear evidence indisputably indicates that H. clathrata 
Lichtenstein is synonymous with H. elegatu (see also Stewart & Geiger, 1999). 

5. The name Haliotis clathrata Lichtenstein has not been used other than in lists 
for over a century. Under Article 23.9 of the proposed 4th Edition of the Code (due 
to come into effect on 1 January 2000), the fact that a name had not been used as 
valid after 1899 would require maintenance of prevailing usage of its junior 
homonym or synonym provided the junior name had been used as valid in at least 25 
works published by at least 10 authors in the preceding 50 years. This requirement of 
usage would not be met for H. clathrata Reeve and probably not for H. elegans. The 
Lichtenstein name, therefore, poses a threat to two nominal species — H. clathrata 
Reeve (a junior homonym) and H. elegans (a junior synonym). We believe that, after 
publication of a recent series of papers (Geiger, 1998a; Geiger, 1998b; Stewart & 
Geiger, 1999; Geiger & Groves, under review), the name H. clathrata Reeve will be 
used as valid much more than at present. We therefore propose the suppression of 
H. clathrata Lichtenstein in order to conserve the current names of the nominal 
species H. clathrata Reeve and H. elegans Philippi. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name clathrata Lichtenstein, 1 794, as 
published in the binomen Haliotis clathrata. and all uses of the name Haliotis 
clathrata prior to the publication of Haliotis clathrata Reeve, 1848, for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

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

(a) clathrata Reeve, 1846, as published in the binomen Haliotis clathrata: 

(b) elegans Philippi, 1844, as published in the binomen Haliotis elegans: 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name clathrata Lichtenstein, 1794, as published in the binomen 
Haliotis clathrata and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above. 

Acknowledgements 

Gary Rosenberg offered his valued opinion on the present case. Lindsey T. Groves 
and James H. McLean critically read the manuscript. 

References 

.\bbott, R.T. & Dance, S.P. 1983. Compendium ofseashelk. 41 1 pp. Dutton, New York. 
Geiger, D.L. 1998a. Recent genera and species of the family Haliolidae Rafinesque. 1815 

(Gastropoda: Veligastropoda). The Nautilus. 111(3): 85-116. 
Geiger, D.L. 1998b. Note on the identity of Htiliolis ckillirala Lichtenstein, 1794 (not Reeve, 

1846). Molluscun Research. 19(1): 157-159. 
Geiger, D.L. & Groves, L.T. Under review. Review of fossil Abalone (Gastropoda: Veti- 

gastropoda: Haliotidae) with comparison to Recent species. Journal of Paleontology. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4} December 1998 211 

Gosliner, T.M., Behrens, D.W. & Williams, G.C. 1996. Coral reef animals of I he Imlo-Pucific. 

314 pp. Sea Challengers, Monterey. 
Hinton, A.G. 1978. Guide lo Auslraliait shells. 82 pp. Brown. Port Moresby, Papua New 

Guinea. 
Kaicher, S.D. 1981. Card catalogue of world-wide shells, pack no. 28 (Haliotidae). Privately 

published, St. Petersburg, Florida. 
Kerzhner, I.M. 1994. Case 2862. A.A.H. Lichtenstein's (1796, 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici 

... Seciio tenia. Cominens Insecia and D.H. Schneider's (1800) Verzeiclmiss einer Parthei 

Insekten ...: proposed suppression, with conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) names 

(Insecta and Arachnida). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 51: 108-115. 
Ladd, H.S. 1966. Chitons and gastropods (Haliotidae through Aderobidae) from the western 

Pacific islands. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. 531: 1-98. 
Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1794. Catalogus rerum natiiralium rarissimum. Seciio secunda continens 

Conchylia. Hem mineralia. ligna exotica. & arte parata. 118 pp. Schniebes. Hamburg. 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1995. Opinion 1820. A.A.H. 

Lichtenstein's (1796. 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici ... Seciio tenia. Continens Insecta 

and D.H. Schneider's (1800) I'erzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten ...: suppressed, with 

conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) names (Insecta and Arachnida). Bulletin of 

Zoological Nomenclature. 52: 283-285. 
Philippi. R.A. 1844. Ahbildung und Beschreibungen neuer oder weniger gekannter Conchylien. 

vol. 1. part 5. Pp. 103-130. Fischer. Cassef. 
Pickery, R. 1991. Chronological list of the references to the original descriptions of Recent 

subgenera and species belonging to the family Haliotidae. Gloria Maris. 29: 105-118. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1890. Mainial of conchology: structural and systematic. Vol. 12. Haliotidae. 

Pp. 72-126. pis. 1, 3-24, 46-50. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
Prado, A.C.G. & Abreu. O.S. de. 1993. Global list of the family Haliotidae Rafinesque. 1815 

(Gastropoda: Pleurotomariacea). Puhlicafoes Ocasionais Concjuiliologislas do Brazil, 001: 

1-7. 
Reeve, L. 1846. Monograph of the genus Haliolis. 22 pp., 17 pis. /;;: Conchologia Iconlca. 

vol. 3. Reeve, London. 
Sherborn, CD. 1902. Inde.x .inimaliwn 1758-1800. 1195 pp. Cambridge University Press. 

Cambridge. 
Sowerby, G.B. 1882. Monograph of the genus Haliotis. Pp. 17-37, pis. 428^M0 in: Thesaurus 

Conchyliontin, vol. 5. London. 
Stewart, K.A. & Gciger, D.L. 1999. Designation of lectotype for Haliotis crebrisciilpla 

Sowerby, 1914, with a discussion of//, clathrata Reeve, 184(S [non Lichtenstein, 1794). The 

Veliger. 42( I ). 
Talmadge, R.R. 1957. Proposed revision of Haliotis Ruber. The Nautilus, 71: 57-60. 
Ubaldi, R. 1993. Atlas of the living ahalone shells of the world. 21 pp., 4 pis. Associazione 

Malacologica. Rome. 
Wagner, R.J.L. & Abbott, R.T. 1978. Standard catalog of shells. Ed. 3. American Mala- 

cologists. Greenville. 
Weinkauff, H.C. 1883. Die Gattung Haliotis. In: Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von 

Martini and Chemnitz. 2(6)B: 1-83. pis. 1-30. 
Wilson, B. 1993. .Australian marine shells. Part 1. 408 pp. Odyssey Publishing. Kallaroo. 
Yen, T.-C. 1942. A review of the Chinese gastropods in the British Museum. Proceedings of the 

Malacological Society of London. 24: 170-289. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletiir. they 
should be sent to the E.xecutive Secretary. I.C.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. (e-mail: iczn(5'nhm. ac.uk). 



212 Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclalure 55(4) December 1998 

Case 3080 

Polydova wehsteri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (Annelida, 
Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific name by a ruling 
that it is not to be treated as a replacement for P. caeca Webster, 
1879, and designation of a lectotype for P. websteri 

Vasily I. Radashevsky 

Institute oj Marine Biology, Vladivostok 690041, Russia 
(e-mail: radashevsky_vi@hotmail.com) 

Jason D. Williams 

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island. 

100 Flagg Road Kingston, RI 02881-0816. U.S.A. 

(e-mail: jwil4024@postoffice.uri.edu) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Polydora 
websteri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle. 1943 for a boring mud worm (family 
SPIONIDAE) from coasts of North America. The name was proposed as a replacement 
for P. caeca Webster, 1879, a junior secondary homonym off. caeca (Orsted, 1843), 
which relates to a tube-dwelling spionid. However, P. websteri was based on different 
material from P. caeca Webster and the names are now known to refer to distinct 
species. It is proposed that P. websteri should not be treated as a replacement name 
for P. caeca Webster, and that a lectotype be designated in accord with accustomed 
usage. Polvdora websteri is well known as a borer in the shells of oysters and other 
commercially important molluscs. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Polychaeta; spionidae; Polydora caeca; 
Polvdora websteri: mudworms; marine; North America. 



1. Orsted (1843. p. 39) described a new polychaete species, Leiicodorum coecuni. a 
tube-dwelling spionid from the Oresund, Denmark. 

2. Claparede (1869, pp. 53-54) referred the genus Leucodore Johnston, 1838 (used 
by some authors as Leucodora or Leucodoruw) to synonymy with Polydora Bosc, 
1802, and Orsted's species thus became Polydora coeca (Orsted, 1843). The name is 
currently in use and the species is known from the eastern Atlantic and the Arctic. 

3. Webster (1879, pp. 252-253. pi. 9. figs, 1 19-122) described and illustrated a new 
polychaete species, Polydora caeca, a shell-boring spionid from the coast of Virginia, 
U.S.A. Despite the description being brief and based on one specimen, Webster 
(1879, p. 253) noted that 'This species can readily be distinguished from any 
previously described from our coast by the purple markings on the tentacles'. 
Another characteristic feature provided by Webster (p. 252) was the caruncle 
extending 'from the head to the anterior margin of the 4th segment'. Until recently 
Polydora specimens with these characteristic features have not been subsequently 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 213 

reported from the Atlantic coast of North America (see Polydora revisions by Blake, 
1971, 1996). 

4. Hartman (in Loosanoff & Engle. 1943, pp. 70-72) proposed the replacement 
name Polydoni nehsrcri to replace the name P. caeca Webster (under Article 58 of the 
Code coeca and caeca are deemed to be homonyms). However, Hartman redescribed 
and illustrated the species based upon her own material because Webster's single 
specimen was 'not known to exist' (1943, p. 72). Hartman also recorded (p. 70) that 
Webster's 'description is faulty and misleading in all essential respects' and (p. 72) 
'the original description of P. caeca Webster is incomplete in some important details 
and erroneous in some others". Hartman's material was deposited in the Allan 
Hancock Foundation of the University of Southern California but no types were 
designated. These specimens (collected by J.B. Engle from vesicles on empty oyster 
shells, in the mouth of Milford River, Long Island Sound, Connecticut) are now kept 
in the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM-AHF POLY 1628). 
They have been examined and found to include 13 specimens in good condition. No 
individuals with bands on the palps or a caruncle extending beyond segment 2 have 
been found that would have suggested the presence of P. caeca Webster. 

5. Polydora specimens matching Hartman's (1943) description are very common 
along the east, west, and gulf coasts of North America, along the west coast of South 
America (Hartman, 1945, 1951, 1954, 1959, 1961; Foster, 1971, pp. 26-27; Blake. 
1983, p. 257), and Australia (Blake & Kudenov, 1978, pp. 258-259). Polydora websteri 
was redescribed by Blake (1971, pp. 6-8) and has become the subject of numerous 
investigations due to its importance as a borer in shells of commercially important 
molluscs (Medcof, 1946; Owen, 1957; Hopkins, 1958; Mackenzie & Shearer, 1959; 
Hartman, 1966; Davis, 1967, 1969; Haigler, 1969; Evans, 1969; Jeffries, 1972; Blake 
& Evans, 1973; Zottoli & Carriker. 1974; Kojima & Imajima, 1982; Bailey-Brock & 
Ringwood, 1982; Bergman, Finer & Risk, 1982; Sato-Okoshi & Okoshi, 1993). 

6. Recently, Polydora specimens matching Webster's (1879) description of 
P. caeca were found boring into gastropod shells from Rhode Island (Williams & 
Radashevsky. in press). The length of caruncle was shown to be size-dependent, 
reaching the middle of segment 4 in the largest specimens. Although body pigmen- 
tation was variable, black bars on the palps were present in all specimens (the purple 
pigmentation reported by Webster, 1879 for P. caeca is actually black; purple 
pigment has not been described in any spionid species by modern zoologists although 
this color was reported by researchers in the 19th century). Specimens with the same 
characteristic features were collected by S.H. Hopkins from oyster shells oft" Virginia 
(the type locality for P. caeca) and deposited in the National Museum of Natural 
History. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (USNM 45201). Specimens 
from Rhode Island and Virginia represent the only shell-boring Polydora species with 
banded palps and caruncle extending beyond segment 2 on the Atlantic coast of 
North America. 

7. The United States National Museum (USNM) is the only museum to which 
Webster sent material (Linda Ward, personal communication). Webster (1879) 
described 27 new taxa, and types for 14 of these are at the USNM. There is no 
information concerning the whereabouts of the remaining 13 species, including 
P. caeca. The only other museums that would be likely candidates to have received 
Webster's material are the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University. 



214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

New Haven; the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts; and the American Museum of Natural History, New York. Requests 
for Webster's P. caeca material were made at all of these museums and each indicated 
P. caeca was not deposited. 

8. Hartman (1943) thought that she was dealing with the species Polydora caeca 
Webster, 1879. She knew the naine P. caeca was a junior secondary homonym and 
she therefore published P. websieri as a replacement name. However, it is now known 
that P. websieri is different taxonomically from P. caeca Webster. Despite this, under 
Article 72 of the Code the type material of P. websteri is Webster's (lost) single 
specimen; websteri is the valid name for Webster's species and a new name would be 
required for Hartman's species. This switch of the name websteri from one species to 
the other, and adoption of a new name for websteri as currently understood, would 
cause considerable confusion because the name websteri has long been associated 
with Hartman's species and has been cited in numerous publications concerning 
commercially important shell-boring spionids (para. 5 above). 

9. We urge that the specific name Polydora websteri be conserved for the species 
that Hartman (1943) described. We propose that Article 72 of the Code be set aside 
in this case and that the Commission be asked to rule that the specific name of 
P. websteri Hartman, 1943 is no longer to be treated as a replacement name (and 
therefore a junior objective synonym) of P. caeca Webster, 1879. Approval of this 
proposal will allow the designation of a lectotype for P. websteri from among 
Hartman's original material in the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History 
(para. 4 above), thereby maintaining the name in its accustomed usage. Information 
on Hartman's specimens was supplied (in litt., December 1997) by Leslie H. Harris, 
Collection Manager of the LACM-Allan Hancock Foundation Polychaete 
Collection: The data for Hartman's (1943) material, LACM-AHF 1628 (N1929), 
comes from three sources: (I) data on the labels inside the vial; (2) Hartman in 
Loosanoff & Engle, 1943, pp. 70-72; and (3) the entry in Hartman's personal 
catalogue, which reads 'NI929 Polydora websteri. n[ew] name, Milford, Conn. Dug 
from vesicles on empty oyster shells, in mouth of Milford River, by J.B. Engle, Jan. 
4 1943, sent by Thurlow Nelson". One of us (V.LR.) has examined Hartman's (1943) 
original specimens, described and illustrated one of them (Radashevsky. in press), 
and we propose that this specimen (catalog no. LACM-AHF POLY 1628) be 
designated as the lectotype of P. websteri. 

10. Blake (1996, p. 181) resurrected and redefined the genus Dipolydora Verrill, 
1879. He retained websteri Hartman in Polydora Bosc, 1802 and referred coeca 
Orsted to Dipolydora. Article 59 of the Code states that P. caeca Webster is 
permanently invalid since it is a junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961. We 
have therefore proposed (Williams & Radashevsky, in press) a new nominal species 
for specimens matching Webster's description. A specimen collected from a shell 
fragment of Mya arenaria Linnaeus, 1758 off Rhode Island is the holotype. 

11. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name websteri Hartman in 
Loosanoff & Engle, 1943, as published in the binomen Polydora websteri, is to 
be treated as the specific name of a then new nominal species and not as a 
replacement name for Polydora caeca Webster, 1879; 



! 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(4) December 1998 215 

(2) to designate specimen LACM-AHF POLY 1628 in the Allan Hancock 
Foundation Poiychaete Collection, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural 
History, as the lectotype o( Polydont websteri Hartman in LoosanofT& Engle, 
1943; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name wehsteri 
Hartman in LoosanolT & Engle, 1943, as published in the binomen Polydora 
wehsteri and as defined by the lectotype designated in (2) above. 

Acknowledgements 

We are grateful to Fredrik Pleijel ( Tjiirno Marine Biological Laboratory) who inspired 
this publication and discussed the problem, to Linda Ward (National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution) who discussed and edited the manuscript 
and provided information about Webster's materials, and to Leslie H. Harris 
(Lav Angeles County Museum of Natural History) for providing the information and 
access to Hartman's material. The case was also discussed with Kristian Fauchald, 
Frederick M. Bayer, James A. Blake, Amelie H. Scheltema, and Christopher B. 
Boyko. Our sincere thanks to Eric A. Lazo-Wazem (Peabody Museum of Natural 
History, Yale University), Ardis B. Johnston (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Harvard University), and Marie E. Lawrence (American Museum of Natural History), 
who kindly provided information about Webster's material in the museums. The 
investigation was supported by the Research Grant 97-04-49731 from the Russian 
Foundation for Basic Research, and by a Visiting Scientist Fellowship (to V.LR. for 
the year 1997) from the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution. 

References 

Bailej'-Brock, J.H. & Ringwood, A. 1982. Methods for control of the mud blister worm, 

Polydora nebslcri. in Hawaiian oyster culture. Sea Gram Quarterly. 4: 1-6. 
Bergman, K.M., Elner, R.W. & Risk, M.J. 1982. The influence of Polydora websleri borings on 

the strength of the she]] of the sea scallop, Ptacopecten magellanicus. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology. 60: 2551-2556. 
Blake, J. A. 1971. Revision of the genus Polydora from the east coast of North America 

(Polychaeta: Spionidae). Smilli.sonian Contributions to Zoology. 75: 1-32. 
Blake, J. A. 1983. Polychaetes of the family Spionidae from South America, Antarctica, and 

adjacent seas and islands. Bioloii,v of the Antarctic Seas 14. Antarctic Research Series, 39: 

205-288. 
Blake. J. A. 1996. Family Spionidae Grube, 1850. Including a review of the genera and species 

from California and a revision of the genus Polydora Bosc. 1802. Pp. 81-223 //; Blake, 

J. A.. Hilbig, B. & Scott, P.H. (Eds.), Taxonomic alias of the henlhic fauna of the Santa 

Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel, vol. 6 (The Annelida), part 3 

(Polychaeta: Orbiniidae to Cossuridae). Santa Barbara IVIuseum of Natural History, 

Santa Barbara. California. 
Blake, J, A. & Evans, J.W, 1973. Polydora and related genera as borers in mollusk shells and 

other calcareous substrates (Polychaeta: Spionidae). Veliger. 15: 235-249. 
Blake, J.A. & Kudenov, J.D. 1978. The Spionidae (Polychaeta) from southeastern Australia 

and adjacent areas with a revision of the genera. Memoirs of the National Museum of 

Victoria. 39: 171-280. 
Claparede, E. 1869. Les Annelides Chetopodes du Golfe de Naples. Seconde partie. Annelides 

sedentaires. Memoires de la Societe de Phvsique et d'Hisioire Nuiurelle de Geneve, 20: 

1-225. 



216 Bulletin of Zoological NoniLMK-laturi; 55(4) December 1998 

.Davis, J.D. 1967. Polviloru infestation of arctic wedge-clams: a pattern of selective attack. 

Proccctliiigs of the National Slicllfislieric.s Association. 57: 67-72. 
Davis, J.D. 1969. Polydora infestation of Mcncnaria mencnaria, Naulilus, 83: 74. 
Evans, J.W. 1969. Borers in the shell of the sea scallop, Placopeclcn magcUauicus. Anu-rican 

Zoologist. 9: 775-782. 
Foster, N.M. 1971. Spionidae (Polychaeta) of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. 

Studies on the Fauna o] Cura(,ao and other Caribbean Islands. 36: 1-183. 
Haigler, S.A. 1969. Boring mechanism of Polydora websteri inhabiting Crassostrea virginica. 

American Zoologist. 9: 821-828. 
Hartman, O. 1943. Description of Polydora nebsteri. In LoosanoflT, V.L. & J.B. Engle. 

Polydora in oysters suspended in the water. Biological Bulletin. 85: 69-78. 
Hartman, O. 1945. The marine annelids of North Carolina. Bulletin of the Duke University 

Murine Station. 2: 1-54. 
Hartman, O. 1951. The littoral marine annelids of the Gulf of Mexico. Publications of the 

Institute of .Marine Science. Port Aransas. Texas. 2: 7-124. 
Hartman, O. 1954. Polychaetous annelids of the Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin. 89: 413-417. 
Hartman, O. 1959. Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. .4llan Hancock 

Founilation Publications, Occasional Paper. H: 1-628. 
Hartman, O. 1961. Polychaetous annelids from California. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions. 

25: 1-226. 
Hartman, O. 1966. Polychaetous annelids of the Hawaiian Islands. Occasional Papers of the 

Bernicc P. Bishop Museum. 23: 163-252. 
Hopkins, S.H. 1958. The planktonic larvae of Polydora wehsteri Hartman (Annelida. 

Polychaeta) and their settling on oysters. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and 

Caribbean. 8: 268-277. 
Jeffries, H.P. 1972. A stress syndrome in the hard clam. Mercenaria mercenariu. Journal of 

Invertebrate Pathology, 20: 242-251. 
Kojima, H. & Imajima, M. 1982. Burrowing polychaetes in the shells of the abalone Haliotis 

diversicolor aquatilis. chiefly on the species of Polydora. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of 

Scientific Fisheries. 48: 31-35. 
Mackenzie, C.L. & Shearer, L.W. 1959. Chemical control of Polydora wcbsleri and other 

annelids inhabiting oyster shells. Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association. 50: 

105-111. 
Medcof, J.C. 1946. The mud-blister worm. Polydora. in Canadian oysters. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 6: 498-505. 
Orsted, A.S. 1843. .Annulatorum danicorum conspectus. Fasc. 1 (Maricolae). 52 pp.. 7 pis. 

Sumtibus Librariae Wahlianae. Hafniae. 
Owen, H.M. 1957. Etiological studies on oyster mortality. 2. Polydora nebsteri Hartman 

(Polychaeta: Spionidae). Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 7: 35^6. 
Radashevsky, V.I. In press. Description of the proposed lectotype of Polydora websteri 

Hartman. 1943 (Polychaeta: Spionidae). Ophelia. 
Sato-Okoshi, W. & Okoshi, K. 1993. Microstructure of scallop and oyster shells infested with 

boring Polydora. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi. 59: 1243-1247. 
Webster, H.E. 1879. Annelida Chaetopoda of the Virginian coast. Transactions of the Albany 

Institute. .\'e\v York. 9: 202-269. 
Williams, J.D. & Radashevsky, V.I. In press. Morphology, ecology, and reproduction of a new 

Polydora species (Polychaeta: Spionidae) from the east coast of North America. Ophelia. 
Zottoli, R.A. & Carriker, M.R. 1974. Burrow morphology, tube formation, and microarchi- 
tecture of shell dissolution by the spionid polychaete Polvdora websteri. Marine Biologv. 

27: 307-316. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I. C.Z.N. , c/o The Natural History Museum. 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD. U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



I 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 217 

Case 2911 

Sphei-illo Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of 
S. vitiensis Dana, 1853 as tlie type species, with designation of a neotype 

Pekka T. Lehtinen 

Zoological Museum, University of Turku, 20500 Turku, Finland 
(e-mail: pekka.lehtinen@utu.fi) 

Stefano Taiti & Franco Ferrara 

Centro di studio per la faimistica ed ecologia tropicali. Via Romana 1 7. 

1-50125 Florence, Italy (e-mail: taiti@csfet.fi.cnr.it) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the nomenclature of the 
nominal genus Spheritlo Dana, 1852 for a widespread genus of woodlice. Confusion 
arises from the absence of a type species designation and a tradition of neglect of the 
rules of nomenclature by isopod taxonomists. A neotype is designated for Splierillo 
vitiensis Dana, 1853, which is proposed as the type species of Spherillo. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Isopoda; oniscidea; Spherillo; 
Spherillo vitiensis: woodlice. 



1. Dana (1852, p. 301) described a genus of woodlice from some of the Pacific 
islands; he named the genus Spherillo but did not name any species. The nominal 
genus is available from 1852, although some authors attribute it to 1853 when Dana 
described four species in Spherillo: S. monolinus (p. 719) from New Zealand; 
S. vitiensis (p. 721) from Fiji; S'. lumuiensis (p. 722) from Hawaii; and 5. spinosus 
(p. 723) from New Zealand. He did not designate any of these species as the type. No 
later author has referred to Dana's material, which was believed lost when the ship 
Peacock, carrying most of the Dana types, sank otfthe mouth of the Columbia River, 
Oregon, in the last century (in litt., Dr Brian Kensley, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington). 

2. Budde-Lund (1904) widened the concept of Splierillo to include 65 species 
including Dana's four original species; he grouped these 65 species into 13 un-named 
sections, nominating a type for each section. Spherillo monolinus and S. vitiensis were 
placed in Section VIII, with S. hifrons Budde-Lund, 1885 as the type of that section. 
Such designations have no validity under the Code, and do not constitute a type 
species designation for Spherillo. 

3. Verhoeff ( 1 926, p. 250) split Dana's genus Spherillo into several genera, but did 
not designate a type species for any of them. He renamed the genus Sphaerillo on the 
grounds that the name was derived from the Greek Sphaira (a ball), referring to its 
shape and ability to roll up. Under Article 33b(iii) of the Code Sphaerillo is an 
unjustified emendation (replacement name) and a junior objective synonym of 
Spherillo. He did not designate type species for Spherillo or Sphaerillo. Considerable 



218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

confusion has resulted from widespread disagreement on the vaHdity of Verhoeff's 
renaming of the genus, and the two spelHngs SpheriUo and Sphacnllo have been 
extensively used, sometimes as synonyms and sometimes, contrary to the Code, for 
different taxa. Jackson (1941, p. 3) wrote: 'Past and present workers on the 
assemblage of terrestrial isopods under consideration have so consistently neglected 
to apply the International Rules of Nomenclature that it is too late to do more than 
protest formally and, in the interest of clarity, accept the status quo. On these 
grounds it is suggested that Sphaerillo Verhoeff be retained as the generic name of the 
forms included under Budde-Lund's section XIII and that SpheriUo should be 
allowed to die out, as its species are absorbed into new or already existing genera'. 
However, Jackson used SpheriUo for 21 species and Sphaerillo for 13, with the former 
name as the overall heading. Vandel (1973, p. 131) proposed to resolve the problem 
by interpreting SpheriUo Dana as a nomen nudum — an action at variance with 
Dana's quite detailed description of the genus (1852) and his inclusion (1853) of well 
characterized species. Both spellings have been used by recent authors; SpheriUo has 
been used by Green, Ferrara & Taiti (1990) and by Kwon & Taiti (1993) and 
Sphaerillo has been used by Nunomura (1991) and by Yamamoto, Nakane & 
Takahashi (1992). To resolve this confusion we propose that the name Sphaerillo 
Verhoeff, 1926 be placed on the Official Index as an unjustified emendation of 
SpheriUo Dana, 1852. 

4. The first indication of type species for named genera, rather than Budde-Lund's 
'sections', was by Jackson (1941, p. 19). He listed "Type, ? SpheriUo viriensis Dana" for 
the genus SpheriUo Dana, and 'Type, SpheriUo danae Heller' for Sphaerillo Verhoeff; 
the designation of 5. danae is not valid under Article 67h because it was not one of 
the four species first included in SpheriUo. Jackson's listing of SpheriUo vitiensis with 
a question mark is not a valid type species designation under Article 67c(3). Green 
(1961, p. 352) designated Sphaerillo py^maeus Verhoeff, 1926 (p. 296) as the type 
species of Sphaerillo Verhoeff. but specifically excluded SpheriUo Dana from the 
synonymy. 

5. To achieve stability in the nomenclature of this group we propose that the 
Commission should designate SpheriUo vitiensis Dana, 1853 as type species of 
SpheriUo Dana, 1852; it was one of the nominal species first included in the genus 
(para. I above), and was tentatively given as the type by Jackson (1941; see para. 4 
above). We also herewith designate as neotype for S. vitiensis the female holotype of 
Melanesillo seanmoruin Verhoeff, 1938 (p. 2) from Fiji Island, Viti Levu, Kaba, 
barrier reef, I0.VIII.I9I7, leg. S. Bock, coll. no. 7635, Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, 
Stockholm. This action serves to make Melanesillo seainnorwn a junior objective 
synonym of SpheriUo vitiensis. The specific name seamnorwu has not been used since 
its establishment except for its mention in a check-list (Jackson, 1941, p. 18). 

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 SpheriUo Dana, 1852 and to designate SpheriUo vitiensis 
Dana, 1853 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name SpheriUo 
Dana, 1852 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above 
SpheriUo vitiensis Dana. 1853; 



1 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 219 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name viiiensis 
Dana. 1853, as published in the binomen Spherillo vitiensis and as defined by 
the neotype designated by Lehtinen, Taiti and Ferrara in para. 5 above 
(specific name of the type species of Spherillo Dana, 1852); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Spluierillo VerhoefT, 1926 (an unjustified emendation of 
Spheiillo Dana, 1852); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name scamnorum VerhoefF, 1938, as published in the binomen 
Melanesillo scamnorum (a junior objective synonym of Spherillo viiiensis Dana, 
1853). 

References 

Budde-Lund, G. 1904. A revision of 'Crustacea Isopoda Terreslria' with additions and illustra- 
tions. 2. Spherillouinae. 3. Armadillo. Pp. 33-144. pis. 6-10. Hagerup, Copenhagen. 
Dana, J.D. 1852. On the classification of the Crustacea Choristopoda or Tetradecapoda. 

American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)14: 297-316. 
Dana, J.D. 1853. Isopoda. Pp. 696-805 in: United Stales exploring expedition during the vears 

1838. 1839. 1840. 1841, 1842. under the command of Charles Wilkes. U.S,N., vol. 14, 

Crustacea 2. 
Green, A.J.A. 1961. A study of Tasmanian Oniscoidea (Crustacea: Isopoda). .4uslralian 

Journal of Zoology. 9: 258-365. 
Green, A..). A., Ferrara, F. & Taiti, S. 1990. Terrestrial Isopoda from the Krakatau Islands, 

South Sumatra and West Java. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria, 50(2): 417^36. 
Jackson. H.G. 1941. Check-list of the terrestrial and fresh-water Isopoda of Oceania. 

Smith.sonian Miscellaneous Collections, 99(8): 1-35. 
Kwon, D.H. & Taiti, S. 1993. Terrestrial Isopoda (Crustacea) from Southern China. Macao 

and Hong Kong. Stuttgarter Beitriige zur Naturkimde, Serie A (Biologie). 490: 1-83. 
Nunomura, N. 1991. Studies on the terrestrial isopod crustaceans in Japan. 6. Further 

supplements to the taxonomy. Bulletin of the Ti/yama Science Museum. 14: 1-26. 
Vandel, A. 1973. Les Isopodes terrestres de I'Australie. Etude systematique et biogeo- 

graphique. Memoires du Museum Natioiuil d'Histoire Naturelle, (n.s.). Zoologie, 82: 

1-171. 
Verhoeff, K.W. 1926. Isopoda terrestria von Neu-Caledonien und den Loyalty-Inseln. Nova 

Caledonia. Zoologie, 4(2): 243-366. 
Verhoeff, K.W. 1938. Uber einige polynesische Oniscoideen von Prof Sixten Bock's Pazifik- 

E.xpedition 1917-1918. Ark iv for Zoologi. A 30(16): 1-14. 
Yamamoto, T., Nakane, K. & Takahashi, F. 1992. An experimental analysis of the effects of 

soil-macrofauna on the phosphorus cycling in a Japanese Red Pine forest, Japanese 

Jounuil of Ecology, 42(1): 31-43. [In Japanese. English summary]. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(ainhm. ac.uk). 



220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

Case 3094 

Terebratula Miiller, 1776 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of 
Anomia terebratula Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species 

Daphne E. Lee 

Geology Department. University of Otcigo. P. O. Box 56, Dwiedin, 

New Zealand 

(e-mail: daphne. lee@stonebow.otago.ac.nz) 

C.H.C. Brunton 

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to stabilise the current usage of the 
Miocene-Pliocene brachiopod genus Terebratula Miiller, 1776. Lamarck (1799) gave 
Anomia terehralula Linnaeus, 1758 as the typical species of Terebratula, but this was 
not an originally included nominal species. It is proposed that A. terebratula be 
designated as the type species. Linnaeus based this species on a specimen figured by 
Colonna (1616); this specimen is now lost and a neotype from the type locality is 
designated. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; Pliocene; brachiopods; 

Terebratula; Terebratula terebratula. 



1. The nominal genus Terebratula was established by Miiller (1776, p. 249) with 
three new species — T. cranium, T. pubescens and T. nucleus — none of which was 
given as the type species. The name Terebratula had been used in pre-Linnaean 
publications by Lhwyd (1699) and Klein (1753). Some 19th century authors have 
attributed Terebratula to Lhwyd (e.g. Davidson, 1853, p. 62) or to Klein (e.g. 
Douville. 1880. p. 264). Dall(l877, p. 70) was the first to accept Muller as the author. 

2. The nominal species Anomia terebratula was described by Linnaeus (1758, 
p. 703). He provided no illustration but referred to figures in Colonna (1616), Lister 
(1678) and Klein (1753). Linnaeus's description reads: 'A. testa obovata laevi 
convexa: valvula altera triplicata, altera biplicata. — Column, purp. 22. f. I. List, 
angl. 240 t. 8. f 46. Klein ostr. t. 11. f. 74. Habitat ... fossilis. Natis alterius testae 
prominens pertusa est: extus plicae duae'. The Colonna figure referred to by Linnaeus 
is reproduced by Muir-Wood (1955, p. 3); the Klein figure is a copy of the same 
Colonna illustration, taken from a later (1675) edition of Colonna's work. Thus 
Linnaeus gave two separate references to the same Colonna illustration of a plicate 
Tertiary shell from Italy. The third figure mentioned by Linnaeus (Lister, 1678) is of 
a non-plicate Jurassic shell from England. Buckman (1907, p. 528) pointed out that 
Lister's figure did not agree with Linnaeus's description, and wrote that the 
Colonna-Klein figure "must be taken as the holotype. which, in fact, has been the 
usual practice'. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) Deceinber 1998 221 

3. Miiller did not include Anomiu terehnitula Linnaeus as one of his original 
nominal species, but he raised the question of whether one of his three included 
species was the same taxon as that of the authors cited by Linnaeus ('3006. 
Terebratula Cranium testa laevi ventricosa, transversim subtiliter striata. Haec 
Terebratitla auctorum. an vero Linnaei? valvulas enim nee bi-nec tripiicatas invenio"). 

4. Lamarck (1799, p. 89) indicated Anomia terebratula Linnaeus as being the type, 
or at least the example, of Terebratula with the description 'Terebratule. Terebratula. 
Coq. inequivale [sic], se fixant par un ligament ou un tube court; la plus grande valve 
perforee ou echancree a son crochet, qui est prominent, presqu'en forme de bee; 
charniere a deux dents. Anumia terebratula. Lin.'. However, this statement was not 
generally noted. Dall (1877. p. 70) wrote: 'Terebratula O.F. Miiller 1776 ... Miiller 
cannot be said to have settled the type ... T. vitrea, Lam., and T. perovalis. Sow., are 
generally accepted as the types of the genus as now restricted'. Douville (1880) was 
the first person after Lamarck to state unequivocally, though invalidly, that the type 
species of Terebratula was 'Terebratula terebratula. Linne sp.'. The species is not fixed 
by tautonymy since it was not originally included by Miiller. Hall & Clarke (1894, 
p. 875) commented that Anomia terebratula 'is a fossil from the Mesozoic or Tertiary 
formations, though its geological horizon is not more precisely known'. They 
reproduced the Colonna-Klein figure, assigning it the name 'Terebratula simplex'. 
Schuchert (1900, p. 329) wrote 'Terebratula. Klein, 1753. Genus not well known. 
Mesozoic or Tertiary", and appended a figure labelled 'Terebratula Phillipsi, Morris'. 
Since none of the authors mentioned above gave one of Miiller's originally included 
species as the type, no valid designation has been made. 

5. In an attempt to resolve the confusion surrounding Terebratula terebratula 
(Linnaeus), Buckman (1907, p. 529, pi. 12) selected and figured a specimen from the 
collections of the British Museum (Natural History) from Monte Mario, a Pliocene 
locality near Rome (about 350 km from the actual type locality near Andria), and 
described this as T. terebratula (Linnaeus). He did not formally designate this 
specimen, 'which might almost be the original drawn by Colonna, so like is it to his 
figure", as a neotype (i.e. type specimen), but regarded it as a reference specimen for 
future workers. This specimen, figured by Muir-Wood in the Treatise on Invertebrate 
Paleontology (1965, fig. 635.1a-c), is somewhat deformed by crushing, which has 
accentuated the similarity to the Colonna illustration. Muir-Wood noted that a case 
for ratification of Anomia terebratula as the type species for Terebratula should be 
submitted to the Commission, but this has not been done until now. Brunton, Cocks 
& Dance (1967, p. 174) noted that none of the brachiopod specimens recorded as 
Anomia terebratula remaining in the Linnean collections was the same as the Colonna 
figure mentioned by Linnaeus; they suggested that the specimen figured by Buckman 
should be designated as neotype, but noted that this would require a Commission 
ruling since the localities were not the same. 

6. Until the present study, no attempt seems to have been made either to find the 
specimen illustrated by Colonna or to collect topotypes from his type locality. 
Colonna's specimen may have been held in Naples, but we have been unable to locate 
it and conclude that it is lost. Colonna (1616, p. 23) gave considerable detail on the 
type locality of his specimen(s) of 'Concha anomia", from (in translation) 'tuffaceous 
concretions in the small valley or ditch a little below the Church of Our Lady of 
Andria which is situated a mile outside the city' of Andria, Italy. In 1993 and 1998, 



222 Bullclin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(41 December 1998 

Dr Massimo Caldera and Dr Oronzo Simone from the Dipartimento di Geologia e 
Geofisica at Bari, Italy, collected a number of specimens of Terebratiila from the 
'tophacea concretione' (Calcarenite di Gravina Formation) situated near the church 
of St Maria di Andria as described by Colonna (latitude 41° 13' 52" N; longitude 16° 
16' 00" E). The age of this calcarenite is almost certainly Pliocene, and thus the age 
of the type locality and of the type specimen of Terchratidu terehranila is established 
as Pliocene. A detailed account of the rediscovery of the type locality will be 
presented elsewhere (Lee, Caldera & Simone, in preparation). We hereby designate 
as neotype of Anomia terebratuki Linnaeus an undeformed, although incomplete, 
specimen from this locality numbered BM(NH) BG152 in the collections of the 
Natural History Museum, London. 

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 Tcrchraitila Miiller, 1776 and to designate Anomia 
tvrehratula Linnaeus, 1 758 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Terebratuki 
Miiller, 1776 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above 
Anomia terebratiila Linnaeus, 1758; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name terebratuki 
Linnaeus. 1758, as published in the binomen Anomia terebratuki and as defined 
by the neotype designated by Lee & Brunton in para. 6 above (specific name 
of the type species of Terebratuki Miiller, 1776). 

Acknowledgements 

We wish to thank the following people and institutions for assistance with this 
application: Mrs Eileen Brunton and librarians at the Natural History Museum, 
London; Professor J. Barsby, Department of Classics, University of Otago for his 
assistance in providing a translation of Colonna's work; and library staff at the 
Science Library, University of Otago. Drs Massimo Caldara and Oronzo Simone, 
University of Bari, Italy, rediscovered the Colonna locality at the request of the first 
author and collected topotypic material. 

References 

Brunton, C.H.C., Cocks, L.R.M. & Dance, S.P. 1967. Brachiopods in the Liiinaean collection. 

Proceedings of the Lirmean Society of London . 178: 161-183. 
Buckman, S.S. 1907. Brachiopod nomenclature: the genotype of Tcrehrulidu. Auiicils and 

Magazine of ,\atwal History. (7)19: 525-531. 
Colonna, F. 1616. Purpura. Hoc est de purpura ali aniniali tesiaceo fu.sa. de luic ipso aninnili, 

aliisquibus ruriorih>u.s lestuceis quibusdam. iv, 42 pp., 2 pis, Romae. 
Colonna, F. 1675. Opusculum de purpura ... iterum luci datum opera ac studio J.D Majoris ... 

cujus ... accesserwu annotaliones quaedam. ( Doclrinae de lestuceis, in ordinem congruum 

redactae specimen, lahulis aliquot conipreliensum ... cum hrevi dictionario oslracologico. de 

partihus testaceorum. autore J. D. M. Med.D. xii, 72 pp. Kiliae. 
Dall, W.H. 1877. Index to the names which have been applied to the subdivisions of the Class 

Brachiopoda. Bulletin of the United Stales National Museum. 8: 3-88. 
Davidson, T. 1853. British fossil Brachiopoda. Chapter 3. On the classification of the 

Brachiopoda. Palaeonlogruphical Society (Monograph). 1: 41-136. 



Bulletin ol' Zoological Noniencliiture 55(4| December 1998 223 

Douville, H. 1880. Note sur quelques genres de brachiopodes (Terebratulidae et Waldheim- 

iidae). Biillelin </c la Soclcte Geolo^iquc de France, (3)7: 251-277. 
Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1894. Introduction to the study of the Brachiopoda. Pp. 751-943 

in: 13lh annual report of the New York State Geologist for the year IH93. Palaeontology, 

part 2. Albany. 
Klein, J.T. 1753. / T. Klein tentamen inethodi o.straeologieae. sive dispositio naliiralis eochlidwn 

et coneluiriiin. 177 pp., 12 pis. Lugduni Batavorum. 
Lamarck, .I.B.P.A. de M. 1 799. Prodrome d'une nouvelle classification des coquilles. Memoires 

de la Soeiete d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. 1: 63-91. 
Lhwyd, E. 1699. Lilhophylaeii Britannici ichnographia. sive Lapiduin aliorumq: Jossiliiim 

Britanniconim singulari figiira insigniiim. 145 pp., 17 pis. Londini & Lipsiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systeina Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Lister, M. 1678. Hisloria Animalium Angliae ... de lapidihus ejusdeiii insiilae ad eoehlearwn 

ijuandum iinaginem figuratis. vi, 250 pp., 9 pis. Londini. 
Muir-Wood, H.M. 1955. History of the elassifieation of the Phylum Brachiopoda. 124 pp. British 

IVIuseum (Natural History), London. 
Muir-Wood, H.M, 1965. Mesozoic and Cenozoic Terebratulidina. Pp. 762-816 in Moore, R.C. 

(Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part H, Brachiopoda, vol. 2. Geological 

Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 
Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danieae prodronnis sen aniinuliwn Daniae et Norvegiae iitdige- 

nariim characteres. noniina. et synonyina imprimis populariuin. xxxii. 282 pp. Havniae. 
Schuchert, C. 1900. In Zittel, K.A. Te.xthook of Palaeontology (translated Eastman, C.R.), 

vol. 1. 706 pp., 1476 text-figs. Macmillan, London. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(«jnhm. ac.uk). 



224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

Case 3012 

Coluber infernalis B]ainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia 
Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis and 
T. s. tetrataenia; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of 
the subspecific names by the designation of a neotype for 
T. s. infernalis 

Sean J. Barry 

Section of Evolution and Ecologv. Universitv of California, Davis. 
California 95616. U.S.A. 

(Present address: Rowe Program in Genetics, Tapper Hall, University of 
California. Davis, California 95616. U.S.A.) (e-mail: sjbarry@ucdavis.edu) 

Mark R. Jennings 

National Biological Service. California Science Center, Piedras Blancas 
Research Station, P. O. Box 70. San Simeon. California 93452. U.S.A. and 
Research Associate. Department of Herpetology, California Academy of 
Sciences, Golden Gate Park. San Francisco. California 94118, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: mark_jennings@nbs.gov) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the subspecific 
names of Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis (Blainville, 1835) for the California red-sided 
garter snake (family colubridae) which is found along the Californian coast, and of 
T. s. tetrataenia (Cope in Yarrow. 1875) for the San Francisco garter snake from 
the restricted area of the San Francisco Peninsula. It is possible that the holotype 
of T. s. infernalis is a specimen of T. s. tetrataenia. formally rendering the name 
tetrataenia a junior synonym of infernalis. It is proposed that the holotype of 
infernalis be set aside and a neotype designated in accord with accustomed usage. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; ta.xonomy; Reptilia; Squamata; colubridae; California 
red-sided garter snake; San Francisco garter snake; Thamnophis sirtalis infernahs; 
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia: California. 



1. In 1835 Blainville (pp. 291-292, pi. 26, figs. 3, 3a) described Coluber infernalis, 
a garter snake, from a specimen collected by Paolo Emilio Botta in 1827 or 1828 
(Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, catalog no. MNHN 846) from an 
indeterminate locality in California. Baird & Girard (1853, p. 26) and Bocourt (1892, 
p. 40) subsequently placed C. infernalis in Eutaenia Baird & Girard. 1853. Van 
Denburgh & Slevin (1918, p. 198) treated iifeniaUs as a subspecies of Thanmophis 
sirtalis (Linnaeus. 1758). and Fitch ( 1941 ) restricted the distribution of T. .v. infernalis 
to the Pacific coast region of California, based on Botta's supposed collecting sites 
and on consistent taxonomic differences between coastal and interior or northern 
T sirtalis. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 225 

2. In 1875 Cope (in Yarrow, p. 546) described Eutaenia sinalis leiraiaenia 
sufficiently to make the name available. No locality or specimens were mentioned, 
but later in the same year Cope's Checklist of North American Batrachia and Reptilia 
was published and recorded (1875, p. 41) that tetratacnia had been collected from 
Pitt (Pit) River, northeastern California. Yarrow (1883, p. 128) and Cope (1892, 
p. 665; 1900, p. 1081) listed E. s. leiraiaenia and recorded two specimens from "Pitt 
River, Cal.' (catalogued as no. 866 in the National Museum of Natural History, 
Washington; renumbered USNM 21383, 21384); the specimens are labeled as 
collected by Dr J.S. Newberry (see Fitch, 1941, p. 581; Fox, 1951, p. 259). Unlike 
these, a third specimen from Puget Sound, Washington, listed by Cope (1892, 1900), 
is probably not an original syntype (see Fitch, 1941, pp. 584-585; Fox, 1951, 
pp. 258-259). Garman (1883) included letrataenia in E. s. parieialis. and Bocourt 
(1892) and Van Denburgh & Slevin (1918, p. 199) included it in E. (Thamnophis) 
s. infernalis. Fitch (1941, pp. 581-585) showed that the distinctive red-striped color 
patterns of the syntypes of T. s. teirataenia were unlike the patterns of any T. sinalis 
obtained since Newberry's time from the Pit River, but could not explain the origin 
of the syntypes. He resurrected teirataenia as the valid name for the Pit River and 
similar populations because they differed taxonomically from the California coast 
T. sinalis infernalis. and (pp. 581, 585) designated specimen USNM 21384, which was 
probably that figured by Cope (1900, p. 1080, fig, 305), as the lectotype of teirataenia. 
Fox (1951) discovered populations of distinctively-striped T. sinalis, identical to 
Cope's 'Pitt River' E. s. teirataenia. on the San Francisco Peninsula of northern 
California, and cited expedition records to show that Newberry had remained in San 
Francisco and collected vigorously while the rest of the expedition traveled to the Pit 
River. Fox (1951, pp. 260-264) then reassigned the name T. s. teirataenia to the 
population of T. sinalis which occupies the San Francisco Peninsula, excluding the 
San Francisco Peninsula population from the coastal T. .v. infernalis. and renamed 
the inland populations (which had been called T. s. teirataenia by Fitch, 1941) as 
T. s. fitchi. 

3. For nearly 50 years, since the mystery of the provenance of Cope's (in Yarrow, 
1875) T. s. teirataenia was solved, the nomenclature of the subspecies of T. sinalis has 
remained stable. With the exception of Boundy & Rossman (1995; see para. 5 below) 
and Rossman, Ford & Seigel (1996), all authors known to us have adopted Fitch's 
(1941) taxonomic arrangement for T. s. infernalis and T. i. teirataenia with Fox's 
(1951) locality restrictions (i.e. infernalis from the Pacific coast and teirataenia from 
the San Francisco Peninsula). 

4. The literature in which the name T. s. teirataenia appears is voluminous and 
diverse. We have deposited with the Commission Secretariat a representative list of 
127 titles that have appeared since Fox's (1951) revision, only about a quarter of 
which are technical books and papers. Numerous field guides (for example, Stebbins, 
1985), popular accounts (for example, Mattison, 1988), general textbooks (for 
example, Storer, Usinger, Stebbins & Nybakken. 1972), major newspaper articles (for 
example. Smith, 1978), legal publications (for example, California Department of 
Fish and Game, 1993), and particularly papers and books from the conservation 
literature (for example, Thelander & Crabtree, 1994) discuss T. s. letrataenia as an 
inhabitant solely of the San Francisco Peninsula, and much of the same literature 
refers to T. s. infernalis as an allopatric form that does not occur on the San Francisco 



226 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

Peninsula. Furthermore, literature citations of (San Francisco Peninsula) T. s. 
tetrataenia have increased dramatically during the past 25 years because of increasing 
popular/conservationist interest. The name telrataenia is established in national 
(Allen. 1988) and international legislation for the protection of the San Francisco 
Peninsula subspecies (1993, IVorld checklist of threatened amphibians and reptiles: and 
1996, Red List of Threatened Animals). 

5. Boundy & Rossman (1995) showed that the holotype of T. s. m/erna/w (MNHN 
846 in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) is similar in coloration to 
Cope's (in Yarrow, 1875) E. s. tetrataenia. They demonstrated by color pattern 
evaluation that this specimen may have originated on the San Francisco Peninsula, 
which was within reach of Botta's (MS) recorded collecting sites. On this basis, 
Boundy & Rossman (1995) proposed that tetrataenia be treated as a junior synonym 
of infernalis, that the name infernalis be restricted to the San Francisco Peninsula 
snake population, and that the California coast subspecies of 7". sirtalis (exclusive of 
the San Francisco Peninsula snakes), hitherto called infernalis, be included in T. s. 
coneinnns Hallowell, 1852, which is currently applied to the red-headed subspecies of 
T. sirtalis of coastal Oregon. This last proposal is based solely on the red head 
characteristic of T. s. eoncinnus and T. s. infernalis (and Cope's T. s. tetrataenia), and 
is not based on any published systematic re-evaluation. 

6. Adoption of the rearrangement of the subspecific names for western garter 
snakes proposed by Boundy & Rossman (1995) would significantly and unnecessarily 
affect well-established nomenclature, would confuse the lay audience (which is very 
interested in T. s. tetrataenia because of its endangered status), and would complicate 
conservation programs for T. s. tetrataenia. We propose that the current usage of the 
name T. s. tetrataenia (Cope in Yarrow, 1875) be retained on the basis of the regular, 
frequent and unambiguous usage since 1951, summarized in the list held by the 
Secretariat. We also propose that the current usage of T. s. infernalis. following Fitch 
(1941), be retained because we feel that the same arguments for nomenclatural 
stability that support the retention of 7". 5. tetrataenia rightly apply to the current 
usage of 7". s. itifernalis. Synonymy lists published by Fitch (1941, p. 585) and by Fox 
(1951, p. 260) demonstrate that no name other than infernalis is available for the 
California coast subspecies of T. sirtalis. (The name Eutaenia imperialis was included 
by both authors but is a nomen nudum. It was published in the synonymy of Eutaenia 
proxima by Coues & Yarrow, 1878, and was based on a subadult specimen, USNM 
864, of T. s. iitfernalis). The current usage of T. s. infernalis can be retained by setting 
aside the type status of the holotype MNHN 846 and designating a neotype that is 
consistent with Fitch's (1941) diagnosis of the subspecies. This action would remove 
infernalis from the synonymy of tetrataenia, so allowing the usages of both names to 
continue. 

7. We propose that the specimen 39197 in the California Academy of Sciences, 
San Francisco, be designated as the neotype of T. .s-. infernalis. This is a male, 
collected by Joseph Richard Slevin at Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California, in 
May 1914. The specimen was figured and fully described by Van Denburgh & Slevin 
(1918, p. 201, pi. 7) as a typical specimen of T. .v. infernalis. Fitch (1941) included this 
specimen in his evaluation and diagnosis of T. s. infernalis and thus this was the first 
specimen of T. .v. infernalis sensu Fitch ( 1941 ) with accurate locality data to be figured 
and described under that name. Furthermore, the locality is sufficiently distant from 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 227 

the San Francisco Peninsula to eliminate any confusion with T. s. letraiaenia. and our 
examination of the specimen confirms that it does not overlap Cope's (in Yarrow, 
1875) concept of T. s. tetrataenia. 

8. 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 Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and to designate the 
male specimen, catalog no. 39197 in the California Academy of Sciences, 
San Francisco, as the neotype; 

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

(a) infernalis Blainville, 1835, as published in the binomen Coluber infernalis 
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; 

(b) tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875, as published in the trinomen Eutaenia 
sirtalis tetrataenia, and as defined by the lectotype USNM 21384 in the 
United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.. designated by Fitch 
(1941). 

Acknowledgements 

We thank the curatorial staff of the California Academy of Sciences for the 
opportunity to examine specimen material, and the special collections librarians at 
Shields and Bancroft Libraries, University of California, Davis and Berkeley 
(respectively) for the opportunity to examine historical references. 

References 

Allen, W.B., Jr. 1 988. State lists of endangered and threatened species of reptiles and amphibians 

including laws and regulations of each slate, iv, 86 pp. Chicago Herpetological Society, 

Chicago. 
Baird, S.F. & Girard, C. 1853. Catalogue of North American reptiles in the museum of the 

Smithsonian Institution, part 1 (Serpents). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. 2(5): 

1-72. 
Blainville, H.D. de. 1835. Description de quelques especes de reptiles de la Californie, precedee 

de I'analyse d'un system general d'erpetologie et d'amphibiologie. Nouvelles Annates du 

Museum d'Hisloire Naturelle. Paris, (3)4: 233-296. 
Bocourt, M.-F. 1892. Note sur la variabilite dans le nombre de plaques cephaliques chez 

certains ophidiens. Bulletin de la Sociele Zoologic/ue de France, 17: 40-41. 
Botta, P.E. MS, holograph 1826-1829. The Bancroft Library, University of California. 

Berkeley. 
Boundy, J. & Rossman, D.A. 1995. Allocation and status of the garter snake Coluber infernalis 

Blainville, Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope, and Eutaenia imperialis Coues & Yarrow. 

Copeia, 1995( 1 ): 236-240. 
California Department of Fish and Came. 1993. California sport fishing regulations. Effective 

March 1. 1994 through February 29. 1996. 40 pp. State of California. Resources Agency, 

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 
Cope, E.D. 1875. Checklist of the North American Batrachia and Reptilia; with a systematic 

list of the higher groups, and an essay on geographical distribution, based on the 

specimens in the U.S. National Museum. Bulletin of the United Stales National Museum, 

1: 1-104. 
Cope, E.D. 1892. A critical review of the characters and variations of the snakes of North 

America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 14; 589-694. 
Cope, E.D. 1900. The crocodilians. lizards, and snakes of North America. Report of the United 

States National Museum, 1898: 150-1294. 



228 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55|4) December 1998 

Coues, E. & Yarrow, H. 1878. Notes on the heipctology of Dakota and Montana. Bullelin of 

the United States Geological and Geographical Sarvey of the Territories. 4: 589-694. 
Fitch, H.S. 1 94 1 . Geographic variation in garter snakes of the species Thamnophis sirtalis in the 

Pacific Coast region of North America. American Midland Naturalist. 26(3): 570-592. 
Fox, W. 1951. The status of the gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis lelrataenia. Copeia. 1951(4): 

257-267. 
Carman, S. 1883. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Memoirs of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology. 8: 1-85. 
lUCN & Conservation International. 1996. 1996 lUCN Red List of threatened animals. 70, 368. 

10 pp. Gland & Washington. D.C. 
Mattison, C. 1988. Keeping and breeding snakes. 184 pp. Blandford Press. London. 
Rossman, D..\., Ford, N.B. & Seigel, R.A. 1996. The garter snakes: evolution and ecology, xx, 

332 pp. University of Oklahoma. Norman. Oklahoma. 
Smith, M. 1978. A snake called San Francisco. San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle. 

Supplement, p. 12. 12 March 1978. 
Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Ed. 2. xiv, 336 pp. 

Houghton Mifflin. Boston. 
Storer, T.I., Usinger, R., Stebbins, R.C. & Nybakken, J.W. 1972. General zoology, Ed. 5. ix, 

899 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. 
Thelander, C.G. & Crabtree, M. (Eds.). 1994. Life on the edge: a guide to California's 

eiutangered natural resources: wildlife, xvi. 550 pp. Biosystems, Santa Cruz, California. 
Van Denburgh, J. & Slevin, J.R. 1918. The garter snakes of western North America. 

Proceedings of the California .icademy of Sciences. (4)8: 181-270. 
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1993. World checklist of threatened amphibians and 

reptiles, vi, 99 pp. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough. 
Yarrow, H.C. 1875. Report upon the collections of batrachians and reptiles made in portions 

of Nevada. Utah. California. Colorado. New Mexico, and Arizona, during the years 1871, 

1872, 1873 and 1874. Pp. 509-584 in Engineer Dept., U.S.A. (Ed.), Report upon 

geographical and geological e.xptorations and surveys west of the one hundredth meridian, 

vol. 5 (Zoology), part 4. 
Yarrow, H.C. 1 882. Check list of North American Reptilia and Batrachia with catalogue of 

specimens in the U.S. National Museum. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 

24: 1-249. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bullelin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(ajnhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 229 

Case 3005 

Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence 
of the specific name over that of Crotalus exsul Carman, 1884 

Hobart M. Smith'. Lauren E. Brown^. David Chiszar^, L. Lee Grismer'', 
G. Scott Allen^ Alex Fishbein-\ Bradford D. Hollingsworth*^. 
Jimmy A. McGuire^, Van Waiiach^, Peter Strimple' and 
Ernest A. Liner'" (Addresses on p. 232) 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the long used and well known 
specific name of Crotalus ruber Cope, 1 892 for the red diamond rattlesnake (family 
viPERiDAE) of southern California, the peninsula of Baja California and some 
offshore islands, by giving it precedence over the less widely used name C. exsul 
Garman. 1884. The latter name refers to the rattlesnake of the Isla de Cedros. Baja 
California. Mexico, which some authors now consider to be conspecific with C. ruber. 

Keywords. Nomenclature: taxonomy; Reptilia: Serpentes: viperidae: rattlesnakes; 
Crotalus ruber; Crotalus e.xsul; California; Mexico. 



1 . In 1884 Garman (p. 1 14) described a rattlesnake Crotalus exsul from the Isla de 
Cedros. Baja California. Mexico. He mentioned two specimens (catalog no. MCZ 
652 in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Cambridge. 
Massachusetts). Gannan's publication was printed in 1883 but not issued until July 
1884 (see the MCZ Annual Report for 1883-1884. pp. 23. 32: the MCZ library copy 
is stamped '19 June 1884"). In 1892 Cope (p. 690) described a rattlesnake which is 
commonly known as the red diamond rattlesnake. This was originally published as 
Crotalus adamanteus ruber and was based on a single specimen, catalog no. USNM 
9209 in the U.S. National Museum. Washington. No locality was mentioned and 
subsequently Smith & Taylor (1950. p. 356) restricted the type locality to Dulzura. 
San Diego Co.. California. 

2. For nearly 70 years (since Klauber. 1930, pp. 20-21 ) the range of Crotalus exsul 
Garman. 1884 has been accepted as solely the Isla de Cedros. whereas its close 
relative, the red diamond rattlesnake, C ruber Cope, 1892 has been understood to 
extend from southern California throughout the peninsula of Baja California and on 
some of its offshore islands. 

3. The two taxa have, however, long been regarded as only weakly differentiated 
(see, for example, Brattstrom, 1964, p. 244; Campbell & Lamar, 1989, p. 348). 
Grismer. McGuire & Hollingsworth (1994. p. 69) regarded Minton (1992, who used 
the name Crotalus exsul) as the earliest author to regard them as conspecific. but this 
was an error, as pointed out by Murphy et al. (1995) and confirmed by Minton 
himself (personal communication): he had only a single specimen, from Isla de 
Cedros. Possibly following that misinterpretation, Grismer (1993, p. 4) implied 
conspecificity by using the trinomen C. exsul exsul without comment. Grismer & 
Mellink (1994. p. 124) subsequently mentioned that they regarded the two taxa as 



230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

conspecific. but it remained for three of the authors of the present application (see 
Grismer, McGuire & HoUingsworth, 1994, p. 71) and Murphy et al. (1995) to defend 
that conclusion. In both the latter works, and in Grismer (1994a, p. 81; 1994b, 
pp. 20-21), the name C. e.xsiil Garman, 1884 was adopted for the species. 

4. Murphy et al. (1995. p. 271) noted that change of a long-recognized name for 
a species is sure to create extensive confusion and should be avoided if at all possible. 
Yet the same authors were forced to the conclusion that the two nominal species are 
inseparable and, with obvious reluctance, they adopted (p. 278) the name C. e.xsul for 
the single species. They also argued for the recognition of the subspecies C. e.xsul 
ruber from southern California and Baja California, and the insular C. e. lorenzoensis 
Radcliffe & Maslin, 1975, in addition to the nominotypical C e. e.xsul limited to Isla 
de Cedros. On the other hand, Grismer. McGuire & HoUingsworth (1994) concluded 
that no subspecies of the taxon, with the possible exception of C e. lorenzoensis, 
warranted recognition, and that interpretation would mean the complete elimination 
of the specific name ruber. 

5. The name Croialus e.xsul for the Isla de Cedros snakes has a long history of 
usage to the present time, but unquestionably the literature using C. ruber is 
profoundly more abundant and significant than that using C. e.xsul. Crotalus ruber 
has been far more prominent in medical, experimental, biochemical, anatomical and 
ecological works than C. e.xsul, and as an inhabitant of southern California the 
species has been the subject of a large number of popular, pedagogical and 
governmental publications. The difference in the amount of literature can be 
documented by a tabulation of the references of the two nominal taxa listed in the 
index volumes for Mexican herpetology (Smith & Smith, 1976, 1993), which are 
nearly exhaustive for the literature on Mexico (though less so for adjacent areas). 
For various name combinations of C ruber, 428 different works by some 414 
authors are listed for the years 1892-1990; and for C. e.x.'iul, 100 works by 80 authors 
during the period 1883-1989. The coverage for Mexico was made as complete as 
possible, but the difference in usages of the names undoubtedly is considerably 
greater than here indicated because no attempt was made to exhaust the literature 
on the species as a whole. References for the use of the names in California would 
surely yield a much higher proportion of those for C. ruber because this species 
alone occurs there. Representative lists of 31 additional references for the usage of 
ruber from 1989 to 1998, and 16 additional references for e.xsul from 1988 to 1998, 
are held by the Commission Secretariat. Both names are used in the following 
recent international works of reference: Weidensaul (1991), Welch (1994), Frank 
& Ramus (1995). Mara (1995), Mattison (1995) and Wuster, Golay & Warrell 
(1997). 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to give the name ruber Cope, 1 892, as published in the 
trinomen Croialus adumanteu.s ruber, precedence over the name e.xsul Garman, 
1884, as published in the binomen Croialus e.xsul, whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) ruber Cope, 1892, as published in the trinomen Crotalus adamanleus ruber, 

with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name exsul 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(41 December 1998 231 

Garman, 1884, as published in the binomen Crotalus exsul. whenever the 
two are considered to be synonyms; 
(b) exsul Garman. 1884. as published in the binomen Croialus exsul, with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over ruber Cope. 1892, as 
published in the trinomen Crotalus adcimanteus ruber, whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms. 

References 

Brattstrom, B.H. 1964. Evolution of the pit vipers. Transactions of the San Diego Socielv of 

Natural History. U{\\y. \&5~^26S. 
Campbell, J.A. & Lamar, W.W. 1989. The venomous reptiles of Latin .4nierica. xii. 425 pp.. 568 

col. figs. Cornell University, Ithaca. New York. 
Cope, E.D. 1892. A critical review of the characters and variations of the snakes of North 

America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 14: 589-694. 
Frank, N. & Ramus, E. 1995. .•{ complete guide to scientific and common names of reptiles and 

amphibians of the world, ill pp. NG Publishing. Pottsville. Pennsylvania. 
Garman, S. 1884. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Memoirs of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, 8(3): 1-185. 
Grismer, L.L. 1993. The insular herpetofauna of the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico. 

Herpelological Natural History. 1(2): 1-10. 
Grismer, L.L. 1994a. The origin and evolution of the peninsular herpetofauna of Baja 

California. Mexico. Herpelological Natural History. 2(1): 51-106. 
Grismer, L.L. 1994b. Geographic origins for the reptiles on islands in the Gulf of California. 

Mexico. Herpelological Natural History. 2(2): 17-40. 
Grismer, L.L., McGuire, J.A. & Hollingsworth, B.D. 1994. A report on the herpetofauna of the 

Vizcaino Peninsula. Baja California. Mexico, with a discussion of its biogeographic and 

taxonomic implications. Bulletin of the Southern California .Academy of Sciences. 93(2): 

45-80. 
Grismer, L.L. & Mellink, E. 1994. The addition of Sceloporus occidemalis to the herpetofauna 

of Isla de Cedros. Baja California, Mexico and its historical and taxonomic implications. 

Journal of Herpetology. 28(1): 120-126. 
Klauber, L.M. 1930. Differential characteristics of southwestern rattlesnakes allied to Crotalus 

atrox. Bulletin of the Zoological Society of San Diego. 6: 1-58. 
Mara, W.P. 1995. Venomous snakes of the world. 224 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City. 

New Jersey. 
Mattison, C. 1995. The encyclopedia of snakes. 256 pp. Facts on File. New York. 
Minton, S.A. 1992. Serological relationships among pitvipers: evidence from plasma albumins 

and immunodiffusion. Pp. 155-161 in Campbell. J.A. & Brodie. E.D. Jr. (Eds.). Biology 

of the pitvipers. Selva. Tyler. Texas. 
Murphy, R.W., Kovac, V., Haddrath, O., Allen, G.S., Fishbein, A. & Mandrak, N.E. 1995. 

mtONA gene sequence, allozyme and morphological uniformity among red diamond 

rattlesnakes. Crotalus ruber and Crotalus exsul. Ccniadian Journal of Zoology. 73: 270-281. 
Smith, H.M. & Smith, R.B. 1976. Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico, vol. 3 (Source 

analysis and index for Mexican reptiles). John Johnson. North Bennington. Vermont. 
Smith, H.M. & Smith, R.B. 1993. Synopsis oj the herpetofauna of Mexico, vol. 7 (Bibliographic 

addendum 4 and index, bibliographic addenda 2^. 1979-1991). University Press of 

Colorado. Niwot. Colorado. 
Smith, H.M. & Taylor, E.H. 1950. Type localities of Mexican reptiles and amphibians. Kansas 

Univer.'iily Science Bulletin. 33(8): 313-380. 
Weidensaul, S. 1991. Snakes of the world. 128 pp. Apple Press. London. 
Welch, K.R.G. 1994. Snakes of the world: a checklist. 89 pp. R & A Research & Information. 

Taunton. U.K. 
Wiister, W., Golay, P. & Warrell, D.A. 1997. Synopsis of recent developments in venomous 

snake systematics. Toxicon. 35(3): 319-340. 



232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

' Di'iHirlmeiU a/ Eiiviioimienlcil. PopiilaUon ami Or^anisinic Bkiloi^y. Vnivcmily of Colorado, 
Boiililcr. Colorado fiO309~O334. U.S.A. (e-mail: lismilh{aispot. colorado.edu). - Depiirtmenl of 
Biological Sciences. Illinois Stale Uniyersity. Normal. Illinois 61790-4120. U.S.A. ^Deparlmenl 
of Psychology, University of Colorado. Boulder. Colorado S0i09-0345. U.S.A. "^Department of 
Biology. Los Sierra University, Riverside. California 92515, U.S.A. ^clo Department of 
Ichthyology and Herpetology. Royal Ontario Museum. 100 Queen's Park. Toronto, Ontario, 
Canada M5S 2C6. ''Department of Natural Sciences, Loina Linda University. Loma Linda. 
California 92350, U.S.A. ''Department of Zoology, University of Te.xas, Austin, Texas 
78712-1064, U.S.A. '^Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S..4. (Corresponding address: 4 Potter Park. Cambridge. Massachusetts 
02138. U.S.A.). ''Reptile Research and Breeding Facility. 5310 Sidtana Drive. Cincinnati, Ohio 
45238, U.S.A. '"310 Malibou Boulevard Houma. Louisiana 70364-2598. U.S.A. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



I 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 233 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans 
Stokes, 1887 (currently Strohilidium gyrans) and Strohilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida) 

(Case 3011; see BZN 55: 6-8) 

(1) Wilhelm Foissner 

Universitat Salzhiirg. /nstitiit Ji'ir Zoologie. Hellhniimerstrasse 34. A-5020 Salzburg, 
Austria 

In his application to conserve the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 
1887 and Strubilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932, Charles Heckman describes the facts 
correctly. However, I do not agree with his proposed action for the following reasons. 

1. The ciliates are an extremely understudied group with few workers. For this 
reason, it is important not to apply too great an importance to current usage of junior 
homonyms or synonyms, but rather to maintain the principle of priority wherever 
possible. 

2. Strombidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876 was not strictly speaking a forgotten 
name, but the two revisers — Kahl (1932) and Maeda (1986), who overlooked 
Fromentel's species — preferred the later name given by Stokes. Accordingly, this is 
not a true nomenclatural problem, but rather a problem of synonymy and ignorance. 

3. There are precedents for handling similar situations in the ciliates. Brown (1968) 
recognized that Aspidisca costata (Dujardin, 1841) Stein. 1859 was a junior synonym 
of Aspidisca cicada (Miiller. 1786) Claparede & Lachmann, 1858. The junior name 
was used in hundreds of publications, while the senior name was 'forgotten". Brown's 
proposal that the senior name, A. cicada, should be resurrected was not at first 
welcomed, but soon became fully accepted (see Curds, 1977). The same principle 
should be followed in the present case. 

In summary, I recommend that this application should be rejected, and that 
priority should be followed. 

Additional references 

Brown, T.J. 1968. A reconsideration of the nomenclature and taxonomy of Aspidisca costata 

(Dujardin. 1842) (Ciliata). Ada Prolozoologica. 5: 245-252. 
Curds, C.R. 1977. Notes on the morphology and nomenclature of three members of the 

Euplotidae (Protozoa: Ciliatea). Bulletin of tlie Brilisli Museum {Natural History). 

Zoology. 31: 267-278. 
Maeda, M. 1986. An illustrated guide to the species of the families Halteriidae and 

Strobilidiidae (Oligotrichida, Ciliophora), free swimming protozoa common in the 

aquatic environment. Bullelin of the Ocean Research Institute of the University of Tokyo, 

21: 1-67. 



(2) John O. Corliss 

P.O. Box 2729. Bala Cyiiuyd Peimsylvcmia 19004. U.S.A. 

I am opposed to what is being asked of the Commission in this appHcation, in 
eflfect, to use its plenary powers to conserve the names of two oligotrichous ciliates. 



234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

Sirobilic/ium gyrans (Stokes, 1887) Kahl, 1932 and Sirohilidiwu camUitum Kahl. 1932, 
in the alleged interest of widespread usage and nomenclatural stability. The matter is 
a rather complicated one, so a little background discussion is needed before 1 turn to 
the specific points in question. 

1. In the broad field of protozoology, there are few taxonomists and even fewer 
ecologists who are nomenclalurists. In fact, the protozoological literature is replete 
with clearcut examples of widespread disinterest in (if not ignorance of) the rules of 
nomenclature (Corliss, 1962). There is no convincing evidence of much change in 
this regard in recent decades, despite repeated emphasis by the writer (e.g., Corliss, 
1992) and others on the continuing need for better interfacing between taxonomy 
(including its indispensable nomenclatural aspects) and ecology. 

2. Because of this lack of general interest in proper nomenclatural usage of many 
protozoological names, the few and widely scattered specialists in such technical 
matters have been obliged periodically to assume the burden of publishing lists of 
corrections in cases of organisms in which they may have a particular interest. In 
ciliate taxonomy, two examples of this include the papers by Corliss (1960; and see 
appropriate section in Corliss, 1979) and Foissner (1987). 

3. Contrary, perhaps, to common opinion, nomenclaturists are not always 
interested in preservation of only the oldest available name in every case; that is, all 
of them are not solely 'priority purists'. For example, two very well known generic 
names (junior synonyms or homonyms) among the ciliated protozoa which have 
been 'saved" by the actions of 'conservationists' are Tctrahymcnu (see Corliss & 
Dougherty, 1967) and Sientor (Kirby, 1954); others could be cited as well, including 
one (Trachelocerca) in a petition to the Commission now pending (Corliss & 
Foissner, 1997). 

4. Wilhelm Foissner and associates at Salzburg have been carrying out thorough 
systematic and ecological studies of major taxonomic groups of ciliates for the past 
20 years, with much needed attention to matters nomenclatural. Consistent treatment 
of cases of synonymy and homonymy has been invoked, with priority the usual basis 
for their proposals. Although on occasion such actions have caused temporary 
sorrow among others of us who may have become accustomed to more 'popular' 
names for certain specific organisms, in the long run the Foissner decisions have 
brought and are bringing about needed stability to the field. With thousands of 
species involved and only a relative handful of ciliatologists with interest and training 
in taxonomic/nomenclatural problems, decades may pass before some names, in 
correct or incorrect form, ever appear again in the published literature. 

5. With respect to the specific subject here under consideration, some 12 years ago 
Foissner (1987) painstakingly produced a paper in the well known journal Archiv filr 
Protistenkunde correcting numerous nomenclatural errors in past taxonomic works 
on ciliates. Unfortunately, few (at most!) protozoologists (taxonomists and ecologists 
alike) seem to have taken note of this publication with regard to their own subsequent 
investigations involving some of the same organisms. On grounds of priority, 
Foissner proposed the name Sirohilidium cmidatiim (Fromentel. 1876) as replacement 
of Siiohilidiimi gyrans (Stokes, 1887) Kahl, 1932, the latter name relatively popular 
in the literature of the past 50 years or so (although the identification of the exact 
freshwater oligotrichous species to which the name has been applied has not always 
been clearly determined, an important point to mention here). Within the past 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 235 

decade, Sirohilidiiim caudatiim, as a substitute for Slrohilidium gyrans. has appeared 
in several papers by Foissner and colleagues, particularly in the major — if perhaps 
often overlooked — monographic series in German commonly referred to as "The 
Ciliate Atlas,' appearing in four huge volumes during the period 1991-1995 (see 
especially Volume 1, by Foissner et al., 1991. which contains a section on the order 
Oligolrichida. of direct pertinence to the present case). Also note the use of 
Fromentefs specific name in the recent and well received book edited by Hausmann 
& Bradbury (1996), 

6. During the same period, other works by other protozoan taxonomists have 
appeared that have used the name Strohilidiim) gyrans: but they have offered no 
discussion of the inatter and, indeed, have shown complete unawareness of the 
decisions proposed by the Foissner group. An outstanding example is Puytorac 
(1994), editor of the systematic volume on the ciliates in the well known French 
Traite de Zoologie series. 

7. Neglect of or carelessness in nomenclatural details is all too common in the 
protozoological literature (see paragraphs 1 and 2 above), but this is no valid excuse 
for failure to appreciate conscientious efforts made by others to promote long-lasting 
stability in nomenclatural matters. 

8. Incidentally, the potential confusion caused by the fact that Kahl (1932) gave 
the name Slrohilidium caudatum to a new species of a brackish water oligotrich has 
been overcome by a nomenclatural action of Petz & Foissner (1992): these workers 
replaced what to them was a junior synonym by a new name for the latter rarely seen 
organism, viz., Slrohilidium kahli. 

9. The purpose of the present application by the noted ecologist C.W. Heckman 
is clear and understandable. Because the name Slrohilidium gyrans has been used — 
ever since Kahl (1932) — by various taxonomists and ecologists (including himself: 
Heckman, 1990), he proposes that it be conserved for the inajor species involved in 
order to prevent further confusion in the literature following the different name, 
S. caudatum Fromentel, 1876, applied by Foissner (1987). Heckman has also 
proposed that a relatively rare species could retain its original name, Slrohilidium 
caudatum Kahl, 1932 (although note the alternative solution in paragraph 8, above, 
for this particular organism). 

10. Not only has Foissner et al. (1991) been overlooked in the petition, but also the 
door has been opened for the preservation in the future, from time to time and with 
perhaps debatable justification, of junior synonyms in relatively popular use without 
regard for the possible advantage for long-range stability in many instances of 
recognizing the priority of senior synonyms whether or not the latter have been 
noted and already treated in (likely neglected) modern taxonomic/nomenclatural 
monographs. 

Additional references 

Corliss, J.O. 1960. The problem of homonyms among generic names of ciliated protozoa, with 
proposal of several new names. Journal of Protozoology, 7; 269-278. 

Corliss, J.O. 1962. Taxonomic-nomenclatural practices in protozoology and the new 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Journal of Protozoology, 9: 307-324. 

Corliss, J.O. 1979. The ciliated protozoa: characterization, classification, and guide to the 
literature. Ed. 2. 455 pp. Pergamon Press. Oxford and New York. 



236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

Corliss, J.O. 1992. The interface between taxonomy and ecology in modern studies on the 
protists. Aclii Proliizoologiai. 31: 1-9. 

Corliss, J.O. & Dougherty, E.C. 1967. An appeal for stabilization of certain names in the 
protozoan family Tetrahymenidae (subphylum Ciliophora. order Hymenostomatida), 
with special reference to the generic name Tclrahymena Furgason. 1940. Bulletin of 
Zoolngiccil Nninenckilwe. 24: 155-185. 

Corliss, J.O. & Foissner, W. 1997. Trachelocercci Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): proposed conserva- 
tion of authorship as Ehrenberg ( 1840), with fixation of I'ihrio sagitta Miiller. 1786 as the 
type species. Build in of Zoological Nomcncluturc. 54: 219-221. 

Foissner, W., Blatterer, H., Berger, H. & Kohmann, F. 1991. Taxonotnische und okologische 
Revision der Ciliaten des Saprobiensystems. Band I. Cyrtophorida, Oligotrichida, 
Hypotrichia. Colpodea. liifornnitionsherichte des Bayerisches Landesamles fiir 
Wossenvirtschaf! 1191. Munich. 471 pp. 

Hausmann, K. & Bradbury, P.C. (Eds.) 1996. Ciliales: cells as organisms. 485 pp. G. Fischer, 
Stuttgart. 

Kirby, H. 1954. On the need for validating the name Stenlor Oken, 1815 (class Ciliophora) for 
use in its accustomed sense. BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature. 9: 208-214. 

Puytorac, P. de. 1994. Infusoires cilies, systeinatique. Vol. 2, fasc. 2. 880 pp. In Grasse, P.-P. 
(Ed.). Truite de Zoologie. Anatomic. Syslematique. Biologic. Masson, Paris. 

Comment on the proposed designation of Cylindvella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the 
type species of Holospira Martens, 1860 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 3047; see BZN 55: 87 89) 

Lance H. Gilbertson 

Orange Coast College, 2701 Fairview Road. P.O. Box 5005, Costa Mesa, 
California 92628-5005, U.S.A. 

I wish to express my support for the proposed designation of Cylindrclla goldfussi 
Menke, 1847 as the type species of the pulmonate snail genus Holospira Martens, 
1860. C. goldfussi is a well-documented species that has been known for over 150 
years. It nicely exhibits the classic Holospira quadrilamellate internal shell condition. 
Unlike the present type, specimens of C. goldfussi are found in the collections of 
several major archival institutions and are alive at the type locality. 

I urge the Commission's expeditious approval of this application. It will eliminate 
a major obstacle regarding the classification of species assigned to the subfamily 

HOLOSPIRINAE. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Corisa propinqua 
Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Insecta, Heteroptera) 

(Case 2958; see BZN 55: 20-21) 

P. Stys 

Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science. Charles University. Vinicna 7, 

CZ-12844 Praha 2. Czech Republic 

I fully support the application by A. Jansson and the solution proposed. The name 
Glaenocorisa propinqua is universally used in the modern European taxonomic and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 237 

faunistical literature, in manuals for identification of Heteroptera and aquatic fauna, 
and is often quoted in textbooks on zoogeography as an example of an aquatic insect 
with a boreo-montane distribution. I could add numerous further references, but it 
does not seem to be necessary. 

It should be noted that the institution holding the neotype of Corisa propinqua is 
the Department of Entomology, National Museum, Prague (there is no 'Prague 
Museum'). Details of the locality, as confirmed by Dr V. Svihla of the National 
Museum, should read 'Jezero Plockensteinske. Dr Stole'. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis 
Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homoptera) 

(Case 3040; see BZN 55: 93-95) 

A.F. Emeljanov & I.M. Kerzhner 

Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia 

We support the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis 
Fabricius, 1794, the type species of Asiraca Latreille, [1796], by the suppression of 
two senior synonyms, Cimex aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763 and Cicada quadristriata 
Gmelin, 1790. Both Cicada clavicornis and Asiraca were placed on Official Lists in 
Opinion 602 (August 1961), so the action proposed will accord with earlier 
Commission decisions. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the names Labrus Linnaeus, 1758, 
Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839 and Polycentrus Miiller & Troschel, 1849 by the 
designation of neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatiis 
Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) 

(Cases 2880 and 2905; see BZN 50; 215-218 and 53; 106-111; 54; 106-116, 187-189) 

(1) Maurice Kottelat 

Route de la Baroche 12, Case Postale 57, 2952 Cornol, Switzerland 

I fully support Dr Sven Kullander's comments and proposals (published in BZN 
54; 109-1 15, June 1997), in contrast to those made by Drs R. Fricke & C.J. Ferraris 
(BZN 53: 106-111, June 1996). I see Dr Kullander's proposals as the most 
appropriate way to handle the problems outlined by Fricke & Ferraris and by 
Kullander (BZN 54; 109-110). Kullander's proposals take into account historical 
facts and are most suited to maintain stability and universality in the nomenclature. 
I therefore ask the Commission to accept them. 

I am also in favour of retaining Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 in the 
NANDIDAE, as defined by Kullander's (1983) lectotype. I have read Dr H.-J. Paepke's 
comments (published in BZN 54: 187-189, September 1997) on Labrus punctatus and 
Polycentrus schomburgkii Miiller & Troschel, 1849 and do not agree with his 
proposals (revised from those in Case 2880; BZN 50: 215-218) to give the name 
schomburgkii precedence over punctatus. I do not consider the exercise of counting 



238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

publications in which a name is used is an intellectually sound argument on which to 
decide whether a name is worth conserving or not. In the case of names which appear 
in non-scientific literature, I see even less meaning in this exercise. Do we wish to 
value more the use of the correct name in a few careful scientific publications, or the 
use of an incorrect name in a number of non-technical papers in which the authors 
just list a name because they must? I do not have the time to study the list of 54 uses 
of the name schomburgkii compiled by Paepke. How many are primary scientific 
literature (that is, they include new, original observations), and how many are mere 
lists of names (compiled from earlier such lists)? 

Kullander's proposal (BZN 54: 1 10-1 1 1 ) to retain both the names L. punctatus and 
P. schonihuigkii has the great advantage of not requiring the use of the Commission's 
plenary powers and of simply following the Code. I do not wish to speculate on 
whether a nominal species originally described from Surinam (punctatus) could turn 
out to be identical with one described from Guyana (schomhurgkii); this would be 
better left to researchers with first hand information on the area. World wide we 
discover that the total freshwater fish fauna is grossly underestimated and we should 
therefore refrain from a hasty conclusion. This is even more true of areas which are 
still very superficially known. 

If the Commission were to decide not to follow Kullander's proposals, I believe it 
should not adopt Paepke's revised proposals. The name punctatus should either be 
available or not; this case is already complicated enough and should not be made 
more so by a ruling on the 'relative precedence' of names. Few users of zoological 
information understand the Code. 

(2) Alwyne Wheeler 

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

It is clear that there are problems with the names of some major fish genera and 
that Commission action is necessary to deal with them. However, I do not agree with 
Fricke & Ferraris's intended solution. 

Contrary to Fricke & Ferraris's assertion (para. 7 of their application), the name 
Labrus mixtus Linnaeus, 1 758 has been, and continues to be, used by the majority of 
authors for the labrid species and L. bUnaculatus Linnaeus, 1 758 is very much in use 
for the South American cichlid. Moreover, the cichlid is an aquarium fish and is 
mentioned, as Cichlasuma bimaculatum, in many aquarist publications. To the best of 
my knowledge the name Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 has never been used since 
its original publication. 

It is clear that in designating L. bimaculatus as the type species of Labrus. Jordan 
(1891) misidentified the taxon; he regarded the species called by that name as the 
female of L. mixtus and adopted the name bimaculatus. Jordan referred to Gunther 
(1862) and noted: 'We follow Gunther ... in regarding the species called carneus 
[Ascanius, 1772] and bimaculatus as the female of Labrus mixtus. The name 
bimaculatus stands first in the Systema Naturae, for which reason we have adopted it, 
although it is by no means an appropriate one'. In fact Gunther (1862, p. 74) used the 
name mixtus for the labrid species and (pp. 276, 277) bimaculatus (with references 
to Museum Adolphi, I, p. 66 and Gronovius, p. 36, no. 87 included among the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 239 

synonymies; see paras. 1 and 2 of the application) for the cichlid. Giinther also 
included 'a variety of female, L. himaculatus' in the synonymy of mixtus, which 
undoubtedly confused Jordan. 

For the labrid species the authoritative checklist of European marine fishes 
(Hureau & Monod, 1973) lists 36 usages (1810-1969) of the specific name mixtus, but 
only 15 usages (1788-1973) oi bimaculatus. In 1992, in providing a list of recom- 
mended scientific and common names for British fishes, I noted (p. 21): 'Labrus 
mixtus. The cuckoo wrasse [has been] given three binominal names, [attributed to] 
Linnaeus (1758). Of these, Labrus bimaculatus and L. ossifragns (amendation for 
ossifagus) have page priority over L. mixtus (pp. 285, 286 and 287 respectively). 
L. ossifagus has been used very infrequently; of the other two names L. mixtus has 
been used considerably more than L. bimaculatus (vide Bauchot & Quignard. 1973). 
The first revisor to restrict this multiplicity of names is hard to identify but Cuvier & 
Valenciennes (1839) synonymized L. ossifragus under L. mixtus, thus partially 
restricting its use. Giinther (1862) also used L. mixtus and regarded L. bimaculatus as 
a synonym. The usage by these critical and authoritative workers of L. mixtus in 
preference to the other names, and the more frequent use of L. mixtus in recent 
literature, make a strong case for recommending the adoption of the name Labrus 
mixtus for continued use'. In the preface to the (1992) publication I also noted: 'Both 
common and scientific names reflect my own concern to retain widely used and often 
familiar names for fishes wherever possible. Taxonomists may have little difficulty 
in juggling with name changes or the reorganization of sequence to reflect current 
views on phylogeny; fishery workers, ecologists, environmental archaeologists and 
naturalists frequently find them perplexing and difficult to cope with". 

I therefore approve, and very much endorse, the proposals set out by Kullander 
(BZN 54: 113-114; June 1997) to designate L. mixtus (defined by the neotype 
designated by Kullander in June 1997; see BZN 54: 1 13) as the type species oi Labrus 
and L. bimaculatus as the type species of Cichlasoma. thereby maintaining stability in 
the usages of the names for these genera and species. 

Additional reference 

Hureau, J.C. & Monod, Th. (Eds.). 1973. Checklist of the fishes of the north-easlent Atlantic and 
of the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. 

Comments on the proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in 
Beneden, 1881 as the type species of Iguanodon Mantel!, 1825, and proposed 
designation of a lectotype 

(Case 3037; see BZN 55: 99-104, 172) 

(1) Paul M. Barrett 

Department of Earth Sciences. Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ. U.K. 

I support Chang & Chapman's proposal (published in June 1998) to designate 
Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species of 
Iguanodon Mantell, 1825, and I further support the designation of the Belgian 
skeleton IRSNB 1534 as the lectotype. 



240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

The material of the present type species, /. anglicus Holi, 1829, is undiagnostic at 
the species level and the name anglicus should be regarded as a nomen dubium (para. 
8 of the application). 

An abundance of material has been referred to the genus Iguanodon, and the vast 
majority of this material clearly belongs to the same genus of iguanodontid 
omithopod. The name Iguanodon has been firmly established in the literature since its 
initial publication (Mantell, 1825) and it is inextricably associated with a great many 
specimens. The species /. bernissartensis is known from many complete specimens, is 
readily diagnosable, and a great deal of material can be referred to this species with 
a high level of confidence (see Norman, 1980). For this reason it seems most 
reasonable to designate bernissartensis as the type species rather than any of the other 
nominal species of Iguanodon (atherfieldensis, hoggi, dawsoni. fittoni, lakotaensis) 
which are known from less complete material (see Norman & Weishampel, 1992). 
Furthermore, the name bernissartensis was the third specific name to be erected for 
the genus Iguanodon, the first being anglicus and the second mantelli (a junior 
subjective synonym of anglicus; para. 6 of the application), and bernissartensis 
therefore appears to be the most appropriate type species as it is the senior species 
with diagnostic material. 

Additional reference 

Norman, D.B. & Weishampel, D.B. 1992. Iguanodontidae and related ornithopods. 
Pp. 510-533 in Weishampel. D.B., Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (Eds.), Tlie Dinosauria 
(paperback edition). University of California Press, Berkeley. 

(2) Kenneth Carpenter 

Department of Earth Sciences. Denver Museum of Natural History, 
2001 Colorado Boulevard Denver. Colorado 80205. U.S.A. 

I have read the application and I congratulate the authors. It is time that the 
Iguanodon problem was resolved and I strongly support the proposals. 

(3) Hans-Dieter Sues 

Department of Palaeobiology. Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto. 
Ontario. Canada M5S 2C6 

I do not support the recent application by Charig & Chapman to designate 
Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species of 
Iguanodon Mantell, 1825, a well known genus of Cretaceous omithopod dinosaur. 

Mantell (1825) did not designate a type species for Iguanodon and it was left to Holl 
(1829) to propose the specific designation /. anglicus (originally as 'anglicum') for 
Mantell's material. Although /. bernissartensis is now clearly the best known species 
of the genus, Norman (1986) accepted /. anglicus as the type species. 

Charig & Chapman claim (para. 8 of the application) that the 'teeth [oi Iguanodon 
anglicus] are indeterminate specifically, and the name /. anglicus must be considered 
a nomen dubium'. While I concur with their assessment that the disassociated teeth 
of /. anglicus are not diagnostic based on our current knowledge, they were 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 241 

considered distinctive and informative by Mantell. Huxley. Owen and other early 
students of Iguanodon. Indeed, Mantel! explicitly based his concept of Iguaiwdon on 
these teeth. For palaeontologists the problem is unfortunately a very common one; in 
the course of time incomplete but once distinctive type material has become 
inadequate for identifying the taxon under discussion. 

Charig & Chapman propose that Iguaiwdon heniissariensis be designated as the 
type species, but this proposal is not without problems. Recent authors have 
recognized the presence of at least two closely related species of Iguaiwdon in Early 
Cretaceous strata from southeastern England, /. heniissariensis and /. atherfieldensis 
Hooley, 1925. David Norman, the foremost student of the genus, believes that the 
status of these two taxa cannot be resolved (see Norman, 1986; para. 9 of the 
application) and retains both as well as /. anglicus (see Norman & Weishampel, 1992, 
p. 530). The teeth attributed to /. anglicus may yet prove referable to either species 
(and thus the name /. anglicus could become the senior subjective synonym of either) 
as future work may establish diagnostic features for distinguishing between the teeth 
of the various species of Iguaiwdon. 

In conclusion. I propose that /. anglicus be retained as the type species of 
Iguaiwdon. The tooth BMNH 2392 should be designated the lectotype of/, anglicus 
following Norman (1986; paras. 3 and 4 of the application). The formerly more 
widely used name /. mantelli von Meyer, 1832 (based on Mantell's original material 
as well as subsequently discovered teeth and bones) is a junior subjective synonym of 
/. anglicus (para. 6 of the application). 

I support the proposal by Charig & Chapman to formalize the traditional but 
informal designation of the almost complete skeleton IRSNB 1534 (specimen Q) 
from the collections of the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique in 
Brussels as the lectotype of Iguaiwdon bernissartensis. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Australopithecus 
afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates) 

(Case 2998; see BZN 53; 24-27) 

( 1 ) Tim White 

Department of Integrative Biology. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. University of 
California. Berkeley, California, U.S.A. 

Colin Groves has done anthropology and archaeology a service by bringing this 
case to the attention of the Commission and other colleagues. As he recognizes, the 
specific name of .Australopithecus afarensis Johanson has been entrenched in both the 
scientific and popular literature since the species was described in 1978. It is nearly 
universally accepted as intended — to represent a set of Pliocene fossils from 
Ethiopia and Tanzania. Equally entrenched is the name A. africanus Dart, 1925 for 
a different species represented by South African fossils. 

Serious confusion would result from identical specific names (africanus Dart, 1925 
and africanus Weinert, 1950, a senior subjective synonym of afarensis Johanson, 
1978) being used in different ways by different workers as the fossils comprising these 
species are shifted from genus to genus. There is no need for this. 



242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(4) December 1998 

Grove's presentation of the case is accurate, his reasonings regarding the potential 
for confusion and freedom of classification sound, and his solution to the problem 
workable and timely. I urge the Commission to adopt it. 

(2) Paul Renne 

Geochronology Center. Berkeley, Catijurnia, U.S.A. and Department of Geology, 
University of California. Berkeley. California, U.S.A. 

1 write concerning the proposal by Colin Groves to conserve the specific name of 
A ustralopithecus afarensis. 

I strongly support Groves's proposal, as this would avert needless nomenclatural 
confusion. A departure from Groves's proposal would be particularly unfortunate 
(and difficult to implement) because the fossils currently assigned to A. afarensi.s are 
discussed widely in the geological literature. This literature tends to be less attuned to 
rigorous formal taxonomic nomenclature than paleontologic literature and replacing 
the name afarensis would virtually guarantee the simultaneous use of different names 
for the same taxon in different disciplines. 

(3) Christopher Stringer 

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, 
U.K. 

I have read Colin Groves's application. 

I certainly agree with him that there would be considerable potential for confusion 
were the specific name of Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 to become 
africanits Weinert, 1950 on transferal of the species from Australopithecus Dart. 1925 
to another genus (para. 6 of the application). 

I support the proposal to retain the name afarensis whatever the generic placement 
and to suppress africanus Weinert, 1950. 

(4) James C. Ohman 

Hominid Palaeontology Research Group. Department of Human Anatomy and 
Cell Biology. New Medical School, Uniwrsity of Liverpool. .Ashlon Street. 
Liverpool L69 3GE 

Groves has presented a well-argued and accurate case in bringing to light a 
potentially very serious problem. All those interested in hominid research can be 
thankful that Groves has called this case to the attention of the Commission and 
colleagues. 

For nearly 75 years the name Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1925 has referred to 
a group of South African fossils. For 20 years the name A. afarensis Johanson. 1978 
(a junior subjective synonym of Meganthropus africanus Weinert. 1950) has meant 
a group of Pliocene fossils from Ethiopia and Tanzania that clearly represent a 
different species. Both the names africanus Dart and afarensis are well-established in 
both the scientific and popular literature. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 243 

Needless confusion would result if these separate species, even though placed in 
different genera, were to have the same specific name (i.e. africaniis), as Groves states 
(para. 6 of the application). I firmly believe that the wisfe nomenclatural judgement 
is to accept Groves's proposal to maintain the usage of afarensis. I urge the 
Commission to adopt it. 



1 



244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55{4| December 1998 

OPINION 1910 

Roeslerstainmia Zeller, 1839 and Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970 
(Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved by the designation of Alucita 
erxlebella Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Roeslevstammia; and 
A. erxlebella and Tinea imella Hiibner, |1813| (currently 
Roeslevstammia erxlebella and Monopis imella): specific names 
conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. erxlebella 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; micromoths; roeslerstammiidae; 
acrolepiidae; tineidae; Roeslerstainmia; Acrolepiopsis; Roeslerstammia erxlebella; 
Acrolepiopsis assectella; Monopis imella; Palaearctic. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous type fixations are hereby set aside: 

(a) for the nominal species Alucita erxlebella Fabricius, 1787 and the 
male specimen in the Zoological Museum, Copenhagen, labelled 
•WURTTEMBERG Grossbottwar Wunnenstein 22.5.69 L. Siissner', with 
its genitalia on a slide labelled 'TIN 58 o P. Huemer', is designated as the 
neotype; 

(b) for the nominal genus Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839 and Alucita erxlebella 
Fabricius, 1787 is designated as the type species. 

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

(a) Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839 (gender: feminine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in ( 1 )(b) above Alucita erxlebella Fabricius, 1 787; 

(h) Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Roeslerstammia assectella Zeller, 1839. 

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

(a) erxlebella Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Alucita erxlebella 
and as defined by the neotype designated in (l)(a) above (specific name of 
the type species of Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839); 

(b) assectella Zeller, 1 839, as published in the binomen Roeslerstammia 
assectella (specific name of the type species oi Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970); 

(c) imella Hiibner, [1813], as published in the binomen Tinea imella. 

(3) The name Chrysitella Zeller, 1839 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (an unused objective 
synonym of Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1 839). 

History of Case 2963 

An application for the designation oi Alucita erxlebella Fabricius, 1787 as the type 
species of Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839, thereby conserving both Roeslerstammia and 
Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970, and for the replacement of the syntype of /I. erxlebella 
with a neotype, so conserving the specific names of A. erxlebella and Monopis imella 
(Hiibner, [1813]), was received from Dr Peter Huemer (Tiruler Laiulesmuseum 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1998 245 

Ferdinamleum. Naturwissenschafien. Innsbruck, Ausiria) on 25 January 1995. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 22-25 (March 1997). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On I March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 24. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1998 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Bouchet (part). Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Heppell. Kabata, Kerzhner. Kraus. Lehtinen, Mahnert. Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli. Nielsen. Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, 
Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Bouchet voted against placing the specific name of Tinea imella Hubner, [1813] on 
the Official List. Lehtinen commented: 'I am voting for this case because action by the 
Commission is necessary. This is an example of the long usage of names being based 
on a history of misidentification and mistakes in applying the basic rules of 
nomenclature". 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Acrolepiopsis Gaedike. 1970, Enionwlogischc Ahhandhmgen. Slaalliche Museum fiir Tierkunde 

in Dresden. 38( 1 ): 32. 
assectella. Roeslersuimmia. Zeller. 1839. Isis (von Oken), 1839(3): col. 203. 
Chrysitellu Zeller. 1839. Isis (von Oken), 1839(3): col. 203. 
erxlehella. Alucita. Fabricius. 1787, Mantissa insectorum. vol. 2, p. 256. 
imella. Tinea. Hubner, [1813], Sammlime; europdisclier Schmetterlinge, Lepidoptera part 8, 

Tinea part 4, pi. 50, fig. 347. 
Roeslerslammia Zeller. 1839, Isis (von Oken). 1839(3); col. 202. 



246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 55(4) December 1998 

OPINION 191 1 

Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): Tipula sisymbrii Schrank, 
1803 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; cecidomyiidae; gall midges; 
agricultural pests; Dasineura; Dasineura sisymbrii. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Dasineura Rondani, 1840 prior to that by Rondani (1860) of Tipula sisymbrii 
Schrank, 1803 are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Rondani (1860) Tipula sisymbrii Schrank, 1803, as 
ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name sisymbrii Schrank, 1803, as published in the binomen Tipula 
sisymbrii (specific name of the type species of Dasineura Rondani, 1 840), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Dasyneura Agassiz, 1846 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (an unjustified emendation of 
Dasineura Rondani, 1840 and a junior homonym of Dasyneura Saunders, 
1842). 

History of Case 2986 

An application for the designation of Tipula sisymbrii Schrank, 1803 as the type 
species oi Dasineura Rondani, 1840 was received from Dr Raymond J. Gagne (Plant 
Species Institute. Agricultural Research Service, USD A. do U.S. National Museum. 
Wa.shington. D.C.. U.S.A.), Dr Keith M. Harris (International Institute of Entomol- 
ogy. London. U.K.). Dr Marcela Skuhrava (Praha. Czech Republic). Dr Mario Solinas 
(Istituto di Entomologia Agraria. Universitd degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy) and 
Dr Edvard Sylven (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden) on 
16 May 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 92-94 
(June 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 93-94. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis (part), Eschmeyer, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Bouchet abstained. 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 247 

Dupuis voted in favour of the designation of Tipula sisymbrii Schrank, 1803 as the 
type species of Dasineura Rondani, 1840 and placement of the generic and specific 
names on Official Lists, but not for the placement of Dasyneura Agassiz, 1 846 on the 
OflScial Index. Abstaining. Bouchet commented: 'I approve the intention of the 
application but not the method chosen. The authors could have achieved the same 
result without Commission intervention by designating the holotype of T. sisymbrii 
(if type material exists) as the neotype of Z). obscura Rondani, 1840'. 

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: 
Dasineura Rondani. 1840, Memoria per servire alia ditterologia ilaliana. No. 2 (Sopra alcuni 

nuovi generi di insetti ditteri), p. 12. 
Dasvneura Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclator Zoolopcus. Nomina Systematica Generum Dipterorum, 

■p. 11. 
sisymbrii, Tipula, Schrank, 1803, Fauna Boica. Durcligedaclite Gescliiclile der in Baiern 
einheimisclien und zaiimen mere, vol. 3, part 1, p. 83. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Tipula sisymbrii Schrank, 1803 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Dasineura Rondani, 1840: 
Rondani, C. 1860. Atti delta Societa Ilaliana di Scienze Naturali, 2: 288. 



248 Bulielin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

OPINION 1912 

Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Foenus 
unguiciilatus Westwood, 1841 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; gasteruptiidae; parasitic 
wasps; Pseudofoenus; Pseudofoenus ungukulaius; New Zealand. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Pseudofuemis Kieffer. 1902 are hereby set aside and Foenus unguicukitus 
Westwood. 1841 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Foenus unguiculatus 
Westwood, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology. 

(3) The name unguiculatus Westwood. 1841, as published in the binomen Foenus 
unguiculatus (specific name of the type species of Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2950 

An application for the designation of Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 as the 
type species of Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 was received from Drs A.D. Austin & J.T. 
Jennings ( The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia) and Dr M.S. Harvey 
(Western Australian Museum. Perth. Western Australia. Australia) on 9 September 
1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 261-263 (December 
1996). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

An opposing comment from Dr R.W. Crosskey (The Natural History Museum. 
London. U.K.) was published in BZN 54: 185-186 (September 1997), together with a 
reply by the authors of the application. Dr Crosskey suggested retaining Gasteruption 
pcdunculatwn Schletterer, 1889 as the type species of Pseudofoenus but, by 
designating a neotype, fixing it as a junior synonym of Foenus unguiculatus 
Westwood, 1 84 1 . The authors considered that this artificial allocation of a taxonomic 
meaning to G. pedunculatum would serve no real purpose and that there would be no 
disadvantage in pedunculatum remaining as a name of undefined application since, 
inevitably, it would be a junior synonym. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 262-263. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 15: Bock. Bouchel, Brothers. Cocks. Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Mahnert, Mawatari, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 7: Cogger, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Minelli 
and Stys. 

Dupuis and Lehtinen abstained. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 249 

No vote was received from Macpherson. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Voting against. Cogger commented: 'The proposed solution is unsatisfactory 
because it leaves Gusteniplion pedimculatiim (a nomem dubium) unresolved. The 
applicants argue (BZN 54: 187) that 'it is inevitably invalid as a junior synonym of 
either Foenus imguicukitus or of F. crussipes' simply because the most recent 
taxonomic revision recognises only two taxonomic species in the genus Psemlofoemis. 
Consequently the proposal ensures Ihal pcdunculaiuni. as a nomen dubium, continues 
to have the potential to disturb nomenclatural stability in the future. Further, as a 
nomen dubium it clearly cannot be assigned with confidence to the synonymy of 
either of the currently recognised taxonomic species, and it is senior to one of 
the nominal species {P. nociicolor Kieffer. 1911) in the genus. There appears to be 
no dispute as to the identity of F. imguicukitus and its presumed holotype, and 
Dr Crosskey's final suggestions (to set aside the existing presumed syntype of 
pedunculalus and designate the holotype of ungukulatus as the neotype of 
pedwKulatus) would fix Pseudofoeims in its accustomed usage'. Kerzhner commented: 
'As there is no doubt that peduncukitus belongs in Pseudofoeims and there is no 
intention to place the two taxonomic species of Pseudofoemis in different genera or 
subgenera, peduncukitus may function as the type species of the genus. The 
probability exists of the subsequent discovery of additional surviving syntype(s) or of 
additional characters by which to distinguish males'. Kraus commented: T vote 
against the application because I feel that the arguments put forward by Dr R.W. 
Crosskey are important and because the applicants did not provide any information 
on the usage of the names concerned". Abstaining, Lehtinen commented: 'Solving 
problems arising from inadequate taxonomic knowledge is not a task for the 
Commission. There was no need for an application or decision as long as specialists 
cannot correlate the males and females of the five recognized nominal species from 
New Zealand". 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902, Hymenoptera, Fam. Evaniidae in Wylsman, P. (Ed.), Genera 

Insectorum. fascicle 2, p. 6. 
unguiculatus, Foenus, Westwood. 1841. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 7: 537. 



250 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 
AUTHORS IN VOLUME 55 (1998) 



Page 

Alexander. B.A 24 

Allen, G.S 229 

Altaba, C.R 119 

Asche. M 93 

Barrett, P.M 239 

Barry, S.J 224 

Bock, W.J 159. 181 

Bodon. M 139 

Bogan. A.E 76 

Bohme. W Ill, 173 

Braunwalder, M.E 17 

Brisbin, I.L 43 

Brown. L.E 229 

Brunton. C.H.C 220 

Carapezza, A 146 

Carpenter, K 240 

Chandler, P 96 

Chapman, S.R 99 

Chang. A.J 99 

Chiszar. D 229 

Cogger. H.G 106 

Cole, C.J 39 

Corliss, J.0 233 

Couper, P 37 

Covacevich, J 37 

Donovan, D.T 29 

Dundee, H.A 41 

Emeljanov. A.F 237 

Engeser. T 29 

Ferrara, F 217 

Fet, V 14, 17 

Fishbein, A 229 

Foissner, W 233 

Fryer. G 169 

Gardner. A.L 24 

Geiger. D.L 209 

Gentry. A 118 

Gilbertson. L.H 236 

Giusti, F 139 

Gofas. S 9 

Gregg, G.F 165 

Grismer, L.L 229 

Groves. C.P 118 

Grygier. M.J 105 

Gutberlet, R 29 



Page 

Harvey. MB 29 

Heckman. C.W 6 

Herbert, D.G 9 

Hollingsworth, B.D 229 

Hoser. R.T 113 

Jansson. A 20 

Jenkins. P.D 118 

Jennings. M.R 224 

Jong. R. de 169 

Kadolsky. D 82 

Karsholt. 169 

Kerzhner. I.M 146, 237 

Kottelat. M 155, 237 

Lee, D.E 220 

Lehtinen. P.T 217 

Leuck. BE 42 

Liner. E.A 229 

McGuire. J.A 229 

Manganelli. G 139 

Medica. P.A 41 

Michener. CD 24 

Milner, A.C 172 

Moura, R.L 151 

Ng. P.K.L 155 

Norman, D 172 

Ohman, J.C 242 

Olson, S.L 176 

Radashevsky, V.l 212 

Randall, J.E 151 

Renne, P 242 

Schatti, B 32 

Schodde. R 159, 181 

Schwartz, J.H 165 

Shea, G.M 38, 106, 115 

Shoshani. J 165 

Silverberg. H 22 

Simons, E.L 165 

Sissom, W.D 17 

Smith, H.M 36, 175, 229 

Spamer. E.E 76 

Sprackland. R.G 175 

Stewart. K.A 209 

Strimple. P.D 175. 229 

Strmger, C 242 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 



251 



Stys, P. . 
Sues, H.-D. 



236 
240 



Taiti. S 217 

Tanner, W.W 42 

Tattersall, 1 165 

Thompson. F.G 87 



Wake, D.B 42 

Wallach, V 229 

Webb, R.G 42 

Wheeler, A 238 

White. T 241 

Williams. J.D 212 

Wilson, M.R 90, 93 



Wagener, P.S 105 



Ziegler, T Ill, 173 



252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 55 (1998) 

Names and Works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 55, and 
amendments of existing entries, are listed below imder four headings: Family-Group 
Names. Generic Names, Specific Names and Works. Entries on the Official Lists are 
in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type. 

Family-Group Names 

ARMADILLIDAE Brandt. [1831] (Isopoda) Op. 1897 
ARMADILLIDIIDAE Brandt, 1833 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 
UMBELLULAE Lindahl, 1874 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 
UMBELLULARIIDAE Gray, 1840 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 
UMBELLULARIIDAE Lindahl, 1874 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 
UMBELLULEAE KoUiker, 1875 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 
UMBELLULIDAE Lindahl, 1874 (1840) (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 

Generic Names 

Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910 

Aenasioidea Girault. 1911 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1898 

Aguuti Lacepede, 1799 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Anomalina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1902 

Aporeelaimus Thome & Swanger, 1936 (Nemaloda) Op. 1904 

Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg. [1831] (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

Ainuulillo Cuvier. 1792 (Diplopoda) Op. 1897 

Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

Bathyarca Kobelt. 1891 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887 

Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808] (Aves) Op. 1893 

Cathummistes lUiger, 1807 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

Chrysitella Zeller, 1839 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910 

Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] (Reptilia) Op. 1907 

Crenitis Bedel, 1881 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

Cryptcima Motschulsky, 1863 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

Cuniculus Brisson. 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Cimicidus Meyer, 1790 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

0/;;/a(/».-; Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Diptera) Op. 1911 

Dasyneura Agassiz, 1846 (Diptera) Op. 191 1 

Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1906 

Euhyaena Falconer. 1868 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Fontismitor Pandelle, 1876 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

Galba Schrank, 1803 (Gastropoda) Op. 1896 

Georissus Latreille, 1809 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

G««-v.v,v(M Stephens, 1828 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

Giraffa Brisson. 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Glis Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 253 

Glis Erxleben. 1777 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Glomeris Latreille. 1802 (Diplopoda) Op. 1897 

Hyaena Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Hydrochoerus Brisson. 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Gastropoda) Op. 1888 

Lutra Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Meles Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Mele.siuni Rafinesque, 1815 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1899 

Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1898 

Myoxiis Zimmermann, 1780 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Nothosaurus Miinster, 1834 (Reptilia) Op. 1907 

Ombellula Cuvier, [1797] (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 

Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

Ortlwmis Miers, [1878] (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

Philander Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1886 

Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1912 

Pteropus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Riisea Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910 

Rusea Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

Tapirus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Taxiis Cuvier & GeolTroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Tragidus Boddaert, 1785 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Tragulus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Tragulus Pallas, 1767 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

Tremaiospira Hall in Davidson, 1858 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1900 

Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1900 

Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809] (Aves) Op. 1893 

TruncatuUana Servain, 1881 (Gastropoda) Op. 1896 

Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 

Umhellularia Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 

Specific Names 

aculeuius. Tropidolepis, Gray, 1831 (Reptilia) Op. 1909 

aedon, Troglodytes, Vieillot, [1809] (Aves) Op. 1893 

amerkana, Ampelis, Wilson, 1808 (Aves) Op. 1893 

ariminensis, Anomalina, d'Orbigny in Fornasini (Foraminiferida) Op. 1902 

armadillo. Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

assectella, Roeslerstammia, Zeller, 1839 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910 

bellii, Liolaemus, Gray, 1845 (Reptilia) Op. 1909 

hellii, Tropidokpis. Gray, 1831 (Reptilia) Op. 1909 

bibronii, Proctotretus, Bell, 1842 (Reptilia) Op. 1909 

camelopardalis, Cervus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

cedrorum, Bombycilla, Vieillot, [1808] (Aves) Op. 1893 



254 Bulletin of Zoologiail Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

cinereus. Oniscus, Zenker in Panzer, 1799 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

clavatus, Conchiosaurus, Meyer. [1833] (Reptilia) Op. 1907 

costatum, Oosternum, Sharp, 1882 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

crenulatus, Byrrhus, Rossi, 1794 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891 

crustulum, Parapronoe, Claus, 1879 (Amphipoda) Op. 1889 

domesiica, Sylvia, Wilson, 1808 (Aves) Op. 1893 

encrinus, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903 

erxlebella, Alucita, Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910 

fasciuius. Tropidolepis, Gray, 1831 (Reptilia) Op. 1909 

foetidus, Scarabaeus, Herbst, 1783 (Coleoptera) Op. 1890 

garnotii, Hemidactylus, Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia) Op. 1908 

geinitzianus, Gladiolites, Barrande, 1850 (Graptolithina) Op. 1901 

glis, Sciurus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

globator, Oniscus, Cuvier, 1792 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

gloriosa, Chrysis. Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1906 

grenophia. Ana, Risso, 1826 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887 

herminieri, Holotropis, Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 (Reptilia) Op. 1909 

hyaena, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

hydrochaeris, Sus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

imella. Tinea, Hubner, [1813] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910 

javanicus, Cervus, Osbeck, 1765 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

laevis, Atrypa, Vanuxem, 1842 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1899 

latiscapus, Aenasioidea, Girault, 1911 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1898 

lutra, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

meles, Ursus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

mirabilis, Nothosaurus, Miinster, 1834 (Reptilia) Op. 1907 

multistriatus, Spirifer, Hall, 1857 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1900 

mytili, Alcyonidium, Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa) Op. 1892 

niger, Vespertilio vampirus, Kerr, 1792 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

nigrescens, Alvania, Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 (Gastropoda) Op. 1888 

ohliqua. Ana, Philippi, 1844 (Bivalvia). Op. 1887 

ohliquata. Ana, Locard, 1899 (Bivalvia). Op. 1887 

ohliqiiatula. Ana, Dautzenberg, 1927 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887 

officinalis. Armadillo, Dumeril, 1816 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

opossum, Didelphis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

paca, Mus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

paniculata, Rusea, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

pectunculoides, Area, Scacchi, 1834 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887 

pennianus. Hemidactylus, Wiegmann, 1835 (Reptilia) Op. 1908 

philippiana, Area, Nyst, 1848 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887 

purpurata, Chrysis, Fabricius, 1787 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1906 

pustulatus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1781 (Diplopoda) Op. 1897 

rapax, Typliis, Milne-Edwards, 1830 (Amphipoda) Op. 1889 

riisei, Clavularia, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

riisel, Desmophyllum, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

rufus, Scarabaeus, De Geer, 1778 (Coleoptera) Op. 1890 

rufus, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1890 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 255 

rufus, Scarabaeus, Moll, 1782 (Coleoptera) Op. 1890 

rusei, Ckindaria. Duchassaing & Michelotti. 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

rusei. Desmophyllum. Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895 

scybalarius. Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera) Op. 1890 

setacea, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1886 

sisymbrii, Tipula, Schrank, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1911 

superbus, Doryiaimus, de Man. 1880 (Nematoda) Op. 1904 

terrestris. Hippopotamus, Linnaeus. 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894 

truncatulum, Buccinum, Miiller, 1774 (Gastropoda) Op. 1896 

unguiculatus, Foenus, Westwood. 1841 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1912 

variegatus, Oniscus, Villers, 1789 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

vulgaris, Armadillo, Latreille. 1804 (Isopoda) Op. 1897 

zebratus, Aphycus, Mercet, 1917 (Hymenoptera). Op. 1898 

Works placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available or the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works 

Brisson, M.J. 1762. Regnum Aninude in classes IX distributum. sive synopsis 

methodica, Ed. 2. Op. 1894 
Kaicher, S.D. 1973-1992. Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. Pack 1 (cards 1-99) 

through Pack 60 (cards 6110-6215). Op. 1905 



256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS 
PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 55 (1998) 

(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 252-255) 

Page 

abildgaardi. Spams. Bloch. 1791 (Osteichthyes) 151 

aculiim. Cyclosionni. Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) 139 

aegagnis. Capra. Erxleben. 1777 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

aequatorialis. Monwiiis. Gould. [1858] (Aves) 176 

aeqitinociialis. Ciine.x, Scopoli, 1763 (Homoptera) 93, 237 

afarensis, Australopithecus. Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia) 241 

o//7(ra;7!/.v, £■</(/;«, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

africcmus. Meganthropus. Weinert, 1950 (Mammalia) 241 

alhocarinatus. Bothrops. Shreve. 1934 (Reptilia) 29 

albus. Psittacus. Miiller, 1776 (Aves) 159 

almawehi. Porthidium, Schatti & Kramer, 1993 (Reptilia) 29 

Amhloxis Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda) 76 

aniiqua. Belenmotlwuiis. Pearce, 1847 (Coleoidea) 29 

aperea. Cavia. Erxleben. 1777 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

Aplonis Gould, 1836 (Aves) 176 

Aplornis Gould, 1836 (Aves) 176 

armata. Merganetta. Gould, [1842] (Aves) 176 

amee. Bos. Ken. 1792 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

/4,s(raa; Latreille, [1796] (Homoptera) 93,237 

atra. Diemenia, Macleay, 1884 (Reptilia) 115 

Atramentarius Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838 (Coleoidea) 29 

Atricha GouXA. 1844 (Aves) 176 

Atrichia Go\x\A. 1844 (Aves) 176 

aurantiiventris. Trogon. Gould, [1856] (Aves) 176 

aurora. Helicmthea.Go\x\d.[\9,'iA](A\es) 176 

Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Gastropoda) 9 

Bania Brusina, 1 896 (Gastropoda) 82 

Belenmoieuthis Pearce, 1847 (Coleoidea) 29 

Belenmotiieutis Pearce, 1842 (Coleoidea) 29 

bennerii, Casuarius. Gould, [1858] (Aves) 176 

berni.t.iariensis, Iguanodon. Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 (Reptilia) . . 99, 172, 239 

i(co/or, Z,;7o5o/wa, Douglas & Scott, 1868 (Heteroptera) 146 

bimaculatus. Labrus. Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 237 

Cacaiocs Dumeril, [1805] (Aves) 159 

Caamw Vieillot, 1817 (Aves) 159 

CACATUINAE Gray, 1840 (Aves) 159 

caeruleogukiris. Aulacoramphus. Gould, 1853 (Aves) 176 

caeruleoguUiris. Aulacorhamplms. Gould, [1854] (Aves) 176 

campbelli. Bothrops. Freire, 1991 (Reptilia) 29 

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Gastropoda) 76 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 257 

Caragolus Monterosato, 1 884 (Gastropoda) 9 

Caw«« Rafinesque, 1815 (Aves) 159 

caucasicus, Androcionus. Nordmann. 1840 (Arachnida) 14 

cm/ca.v/i/i, Sforp/o, Fischer von Waldheim. 1813 (Arachnida) 14 

caudcitum. Strohilidium, Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora) 6, 233 

caiula/um, Siromhidion. Fromente], 1876 (Ciliophora) 6,233 

Chaimieps i Ici Hendel 1917 (Diptera) 96 

Chloropierus. Cupsus, Kirschbaum, 1856 (Heteroptera) 146 

C/!o/oe/7(M Illiger, 1811 (Mammalia) 118 

clvysoptems. Scams, Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes) 151 

chrysopterygius, Psephotus, Gould, [1858] (Aves) 176 

Ckhlasoma Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) 237 

claparedi. Stromhidium. Kent. 1882 (Ciliophora) 6, 233 

claihniia, Hcdiotis, Lkhtensle'm. 1794 (Gastropoda) 209 

claihraia, Hcdiotis. Reeve, 1846 (Gastropoda) 209 

clavicornis. Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 (Homoptera) 93, 237 

consiricta. Monodonta. Lamarck, 1822 (Gastropoda) 9 

coronatus. Mcdunis, Gould, [1858] (Aves) 176 

crassula, Campeloina, Rafinesque, 1819 (Gastropoda) 76 

cristatus, Psittacus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) 159 

cyanocoUis, Trochilus, Gould, [1854] (Aves) 176 

Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) 24 

DASYPODAIDAE Borner, 1919 (Hymenoptera) 24 

DASYPODIDAE Borner, 1919 (Hymenoptera) 24 

DASYPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) 24 

Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 24 

deissneri, Parosphromeims, Bleeker, 1877 (Osteichthyes) 155 

Dendrocheita Gould. 1833 (Aves) 176 

Dendrociiia Gould, 1833 (Aves) 176 

deschiensiana, Bithinia, Deshayes, 1 862 (Gastropoda) 82 

desmarestii, Paludina, Prevost, 1821 (Gastropoda) 82 

didactylus, Bradypus. Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 118 

didifonnis, Dinornis, Owen, 1844 (Aves) 176 

Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Branchiopoda) 105, 169 

dohrnii, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Heteroptera) 20, 236 

dromaeoides, Dinornis, Owen, 1843 (Aves) 176 

dromaeoides, Dinornis, Owen, 1844 (Aves) 176 

ealconeri, Cygnus, Parker, 1865 (Aves) 176 

elegans, Halioiis, Philippi, 1844 (Gastropoda) 209 

eleplumtopus, Dinornis, Owen, 1856 (Aves) 176 

Eriopus Gould, 1847 (Aves) 176 

erythroprocta, Ruticilla. Gould, 1855 (Aves) 176 

estellu. Oriiwryncinis. d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838 (Aves) 176 

Euchihis Sandberger, 1870 (Gastropoda) 82 

exsul. Crotalus.Garmdin. 1884 (Reptilia) 229 



258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

falconeri. Cygnus. Parker, [1866] (Aves) 176 

/envx, O/wic'/iw, Przewalski, 1883 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

/m«. £(/(««, Boddaert, 1785 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

fioriceps. Trochilus. Gould, [1854] (Aves) 176 

/ron/«//.v, ^ £■«/(//;/;«, Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 (Aves) 176 

fusca, Aplonis, Gould, 1836 (Aves) 176 

GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 (Mammalia) 165 

Galago Geoffroy Sainl-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) 165 

GALAGONINA Gray, 1825 (Mammalia) 165 

gaurus. Bos, Smith, 1827 (Mammalia) 43, 1.19 

Gfopf/?/.s- Regteren Alteiia, 1949 (Coleoidea) 29 

Geoieuihis Miinster, 1843 (Coleoidea) 29 

gigaiiieiis, Dinomis. Owen, [1844] (Aves) 176 

goldfussi. Cyiindrella. Menke, 1847 (Gastropoda) 87, 236 

gouldiu Hydrosaurus, Gray, 1838 (Reptilia) 106, 173 

gracilior. Uroctonoides. Hoffmann, 1931 (Arachnida) 17 

grac//w, DmoniM, Owen, [1855] (Aves) 176 

guanicoe. Camelus, Muller, [1776] (Mammalia) 43, 119 

gynms. Strombidium. Stokes, 1887 (Ciliophora) 6, 233 

liennigi. Chamaepsila, Thompson & Pont, 1994 (Diptera) 96 

liiriipes, Andrena. Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera) 24 

Hoff'mannk'llius Mello-Leitao, 1934 (Arachnida) 17 

//otoi/;/™ Martens, 1860 (Gastropoda) 87,236 

Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 (Gastropoda) 139 

HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) 139 

HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) 139 

HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) 139 

hyperythnis. OdoiUuphorus. Gould, [1858] (Aves) 176 

Igiumodon Mantel!, 1825 (Reptilia) 99, 172, 239 

m/mifl/w, Co/mW, Blainville, 1835 (Reptilia) 224 

iris, Heliaiuhea. Gould. [1854] (Aves) 176 

irronilus. Droniacus. Bartlett, 1859 (Aves) 176 

Jekt:kyu'iiilm Doy\e. 1990 (Coleoidea) 29 

l<aldi. Sirohilidiiim, Petz & Foissner, 1992 (Ciliophora) 6, 233 

Kakdiuc Cuvier. 1800 (Aves) 159 

teVMorm'/, O^faOM, Wells & Wellington, 1985 (Reptilia) 37,111 

Labrus Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 237 

leiicogastru. Deiidrociita, Gould, 1833 (Aves) 176 

Loligosepia Quensledt. 1839 (Coleoidea) 29 

LORIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) 165 

Lom Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) 118 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4| December 1998 259 

LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) 165 

lupus, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 43. 119 

Marganetta Gould, 1841 (Aves) 176 

Merganetla Gou\d, 1842 (Aves) 176 

mexicana, Meleagris, Gould, 1856 (Aves) 176 

micropterus, Pocliceps, Gould, 1868 (Aves) 176 

micrurus, Calolliora.x, Gou\d, 1854 (Aves) 176 

minima, Exculfacioria. GoxiXd, 1859 (Aves) 176 

mimiiillus, Chrysococcyx, Gould, 1859 (Aves) 176 

mixtus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 237 

montefiurei, Belemnotheutis. Buckman, 1880 (Coleoidea) 29 

mutus, Poephagus,?rzsvia.\%k\, 1883 (Mammalia) 43. 119 

««ja»rm/.v, £)/(/;«, Bartlett, [1854] (Aves) 176 

neomexiimms, Cnemiduphorus, Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia) 39 

nigromaculatus, Pediopsis, Motschulsky, 1859 (Homoptera) 90 

nigropictus. Thamnotettix, Stal, 1870 (Homoptera) 90 

notahilis, Nestor, Gould, 1856 (Aves) 176 

novemcinctus, Dasypus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 24 

A'i'f//c/(« Gould. 1837 (Aves) 176 

ocellata, Leipoa, Gould, 1 840 (Aves) 176 

Oreotrochilus Go\i\d, 1847 (Aves) 176 

oriemalis. Oris, Gmelin, 1774 (Mammalia) 43. 119 

Osilimis Philippi. 1847 (Gastropoda) 9 

ossifagus, Labrus. Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 237 

ossifragus, Labrus, Lonnberg, 1896 (Osteichthyes) 237 

owenii. Apteryx. Go\i\d, 1847 (Aves) 176 

Pachylops Pieber, 1858 (Heteroptera) 146 

panoptes, Varanus, Storr, 1980 (Reptilia) 106, 173 

Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921 (Coleoidea) 29 

Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (Coleoidea) 29 

Parurocioiuis Werner, 1934 (Arachnida) 17 

pectoralis, Nyciibius, Gould, 1838 (Aves) 176 

pectoralis, Nyciidus. Gould. 1837 (Aves) 176 

Pedionomus Gould, 1840 (Aves) 176 

per/j/e.viw, O7ew/rfop/wn«, Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia) 39 

phainolaema, Heliothrix, Gould, 1855 (Aves) 176 

/•//n.vf/ra Miiller. 1867 (Branchiopoda) 105, 169 

Phytohius Dejean, 1835 (Coleoptera) 22 

PhytobiusSc\\'6n\\eu, 1833 (Coleoptera) 22 

PLYCTOLOPHINAE Vigors, 1825 (Aves) 159 

Plyctolophus \'\e\\\oX, 1816 (Aves) 159 

Po/rcew/n/,? Muller & Troschel, 1849 (Osteichthyes) 237 

Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (Mammalia) 241 



260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 

primigenius. Bos, Bo}anus. 1827 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

propinqiui, Corisa, Fieber. 1860 (Heteroptera) 20,236 

protoiypica, Stalioa, Brusina, 1872 (Gastropoda) 82 

Psila Meigen. 1803 (Diptera) 96 

pulcher. Trigonocephalus. Peters, 1862 (Reptilia) 29 

punctaius, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 237 

purpureiceps. Heliothrix, Gould, 1855 (Aves) 176 

pusilhis. Clwrdeiles, Gould. 1861 (Aves) 176 

putorius. Mustela. Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

quadr istr kit a. Cicada. Gmt\m, 1790 (Homoptera) 93,237 

rosae, Musca. Fabricius. 1794 (Diptera) 96 

rostraiiis. Lynceiis. Koch. 1841 (Branchiopoda) 105. 169 

ruber, Crohiliis adanuinleiis. Cope. 1892 (Reptilia) 229 

salhiei. Chrysolis. Sclater. [1858] (Aves) 176 

Saiulbergeriella Schlickum. 1968 (Gastropoda) 82 

scawiwrum. Melanesillo. Verhoeflf. 1938 (Isopoda) 217 

Semeioptera Gray. 1859 (Aves) 176 

Semiopiera Gray. 1859 (Aves) 176 

senegalensis. Galagu. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. 1796 (Mammalia) 165 

Sericornis Gould. 1 838 (Aves) 1 76 

serrirostris. Anser. Swinhoe. 1871 (Aves) 176 

i//vt'j'r/-u, fe/w «;n/i'. Schreber, [1777] (Mammalia) 43.119 

solitarius. Circaeuis.Tidiwxdx. 1844 (Aves) 176 

Sparisonui Swainson. 1839 (Osteichthyes) 151 

S/)/!am7/o Verhoeff, 1926 (Isopoda) 217 

Sp/;en7/o Dana. 1852 (Isopoda) 217 

Sialiua Brusina. 1870 (Gastropoda) 82 

Staliuia Fischer. 1885 (Gastropoda) 82 

Stoliva Fuchs. 1877 (Gastropoda) 82 

sylvanus, Papilio, Drury. 1773 (Lepidoptera) 105, 169 

syhamis. Papilio. Esper, [1777] (Lepidoptera) 105, 169 

Tatii Blumenbach. 1779 (Mammalia) 24 

Terebratula Miiller. 1776 (Brachiopoda) 220 

terebratula. Anomia, Linnaeus. 1758 (Brachiopoda) 220 

teriae. Kt/raniw. Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia) 37, 1 1 1 

/e/ra/ut'/iw, fi/wcHw .v;>ra/w. Cope in Yarrow. 1875 (Reptilia) 224 

thibetanus. Tetraogalhts. Gould, 1853 (Aves) 176 

tibetamis. TctraogalliLs. Gould. [1854] (Aves) 176 

torquatus, Pedionomus. Gould. 1840 (Aves) 176 

Trochocochlea Morch. 1852 (Gastropoda) 9 

turbinatm, Trochus. Bom. 1778 (Gastropoda) 9 

Urubiiurni.'i yenedux, 1856 (Aves) 176 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 261 

Venirosia Radoman. 1977 (Gastropoda) 139 

ventrosus. Turbo, Montagu, 1803 (Gastropoda) 139 

veraguensis, Odoniophonis, Gould, 1856 (Aves) 176 

vesiigiatus, Hoplocephaliis, De Vis, 1884 (Reptilia) 115 

vestiia. Omismya. Lesson, 1838 (Aves) 176 

v/WonV/f, Pr/tora, Gould, [1850] (Aves) 176 

vicugna, Camelus. Molina, 1782 (Mammalia) 43, 119 

viola, Heliangelus, Gould, 1853 (Aves) 176 

virescens, Litosoma, Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Heteroptera) 146 

vitiensis, Spherillo. Dana, 1853 (Isopoda) 217 

v-nigrum. Somateria. Gray, [1856] (Aves) 176 

wallacei. Semeiopteru. Gray, 1859 (Aves) 176 

waUacii, Semioptera, Gray. 1859 (Aves) 176 

neforen, Po/vJo/-«, Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (Polychaeta) . . . .212 



262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4| December 1998 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should coinply 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 Ihe 
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. 

Suhmi.s.wm 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. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 263 

PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 55 (1998) 



t No. 


Pages in Part 


Date of publication 


1 


1-72 


31 March 1998 


2 


73-136 


30 June 1998 


3 


137-204 


30 September 1998 


4 


205-263 


18 December 1998 



INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 

The present volume should be bound up as follows: 
Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-263 

Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume 



I 



^0 



Contents — conlinued 

Rulings 

OPINION 1910. Roeskrstammia Zeller, 1839 and Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970 
(Insecta. Lepidoptera): conserved by the designation of Alucila erxlebella 
Fabricius. 1787 as the type species of Roeslerslammia: and A. erxlebella and Tinea 
imella Hiibner, [1813] (currently Roeskrstammia erxlebella and Monopis imella): 
specific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. erxlebella . . . 244 

OPINION 1911. Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Insecta. Diptera): Tipula sisymbrii 

Schrank, 1803 designated as the type species 246 

OPINION 1912. Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Foenus 

unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 designated as the type species 248 



Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 55 (1998) 250 

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

published in volume 55 (1998) 252 

Key Names in Apphcations and Comments published in volume 55 (1998) . . . 256 

Information and instructions for authors 262 

Publication dates and pagination of volume 55 (1998) 263 

Instructions to binder 263 

Tableof Contents of volume 55 (1998) I 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 205 

The Inlernational Code of Zoological Nomenclature 206 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 206 

Financial Report for 1997 207 



Applications 

Haliotis clalhrala Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein, 1794) and H. elegans Philippi, 1844 
(Mollusca. Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. D.L. Geiger 
& K.A. Stewart 209 

Polydora wehsteri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (Annelida, Polychaeta); 
proposed conservation of the specific name by a ruling that it is not to be treated 
as a replacement for P. caeca Webster, 1879, and designation of a lectotype for 
P. websteri. V.I. Radashevsky & J.D. Williams 212 

Spherillo Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of S. viiiensis 
Dana, 1853 as the type species, with designation of a neotype. P.T. Lehtinen, 
S. Taiti & F. Ferrara 217 

Terebratula Miiller, 1776 (Brachiopoda); proposed designation oi Anomia terebralula 

Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. D.E. Lee & C.H.C. Brunton 220 

Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sir talis letrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 
1875 (currently Thamnophis sir talis infernalis and T. s. tetrataenia; Reptilia, 
Squamata): proposed conservation of the subspecific names by the designation of 
a neotype for T. s. infernalis. S.J. Barry & M.R. Jennings 224 

Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence of the specific 
name over that of CTOm/iM e.v™/ Garman, 1884. H.M. Smith e/ a/ 229 



Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 
1887 (currently Strobilidiwn gyrans) and Strobilidium caudalum Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora. Ohgotrichida). W. Foissner; J.O. Corliss 233 

On the proposed designation of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type species 

of //o/(«/?/ra Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). L.H. Gilbertson 236 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Corisa propinqua Fieber. I860 

(currently Glaenocorisa propinqua: Insecta, Heteroptera). P. Stys 236 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 
1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis: Insecta, Homoptera). A.F. Emeljanov & 
I.M. Kerzhner 237 

On the proposed conservation of the names Labrus Linnaeus, 1758, Cichlasoma 
Swainson, 1839 and Polycentrus Miiller & Troschel, 1849 by the designation of 
neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes). M. Kottelat; A. Wheeler 237 

On the proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissarlensis Boulenger in Beneden, 
1881 as the type species o{ Iguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of 
a lectotype. P.M. Barrett; K. Carpenter; H.-D. Sues 239 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Australopithecus afarensis 
Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates). T. White; P. Renne; C. Stringer; 
J.C. Ohman 241 



Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Prinled in Great Dntain by Henry Ling Lid . at the DorNel Press. Dorchester. Dorset 






Kky Dunn & Wilson Ltd