Bulletin of zoological nomenclature

BNE
HSH ut

ini
Ha hit

Hi
HH
eh
j
HH

BY) 8 WW Ont) |

sau
The

Bull CTI

PLOO ee

| NONE nencatur: ;

wy a NG [he CHa
Go riz? irmertanbionical ( CA tip es
, ‘geal Nt WMCICLAN-

The

Bulletin

Zoological
Nomenclature

vies ZLNI' The 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
clo The Natural History Museum

Cromwell Road

London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

ISSN 0007-5167
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

*2

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notices . 3

The International Caahetion on Paoulacicad Menienelatue aa its sanisier tae
Addresses of members of the Commission

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals. 3

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in alae

Applications

Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium
caudatum Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora, ee proposed conservation of the
specific names. C. W. Heckman . . .

Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Biche “1885 (Mollusca, i@asteopoda):
proposed conservation by the designation of Trochus turbinatus Born, 1778 as the
type species of Osilinus. S. Gofas & D.G. Herbert . A ee 3 esas

Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Wiesabudhas caucasicus;
Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of the specific name. V. Fet .

Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation.
W.D. Sissom, V. Fet & M.E. Braunwalder . ‘

Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Trseaeas eteron-
tera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson . é

Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. H. Sdiverbere

DASYPODIDAE Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed emendation of spelling
to DASYPODAIDAE, so removing the homonymy with DASyPpoDIDAE Gray, 1821
(Mammalia, Xenarthra). B.A. Alexander, C.D. Michener & A.L. Gardner .

Comments

On the proposed conservation of the names Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949,
Geoteuthis Munster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt,
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 and Belemnotheutis
montefiorei Buckman, 1880 (Mollusca, Coleoidea). D.T. Donovan & T. Engeser.

On the proposed conservation of the specific and subspecific names of Trigono-
cephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 and Bothrops albocarinatus 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

On the proposed conservation of the specific name i var anus teriae 2 Spracklandl
199] (Reptilia, Squamata). J. Covacevich & P. Couper; G.M. Shea. ;

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cnemidophorus neomexicanus
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..

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. I.L. Brisbin, Jr. . a

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 1886. Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): conserved eh the
designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species . .

OPINION 1887. Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nae 1848
(currently Bathyarca pectunculoides and B. philippiana; Mollusca, Bivalvia):
specific names conserved . 22 ae

43

47

49

Wl Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

OPINION 1888. Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Alvania
nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 designated as the type species

OPINION 1889. aii crustulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Arsphipota): specific
name conserved

OPINION 1890. Senrnbeles US hae Moll, 1782 (currently Fijuscta Sra Gcaearaete
rufus Fabricius, 1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus foetidus Herbst,
1783 (currently Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved.

OPINION 1891. Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum
Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved ; :

OPINION 1892. Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa): Reaioe replaced j

OPINION 1893. Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot,
[1809] (Aves, Passeriformes): specific names conserved .

OPINION 1894. Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected ais
nomenclatural 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) . ae

Information and Instructions for Authors

Notices . ;
The Tateciamertel Code Pe Zoolopical Nesrericlatire }
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals. :

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zonleey:

Applications

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation.
A.E. Bogan & E.E.Spamer. . . aa caig 2 ihe fo clade yaks ec

Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 and Staling heeueing. 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species, with the conservation of
Bania Brusina, 1896. D. Kadolsky Se nadepnt Re chest Pantie ay Ss,

Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of
Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type species. F.G. Thompson

Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 1870 (currently Nephotettix nigropictus; iets
Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson .
Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homo-
ptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson & M. Asche
Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamaepsila rosae; Insecta, Diptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Chandler

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed designation of fereaceae
bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species, and proposed
designation of a lectotype. A.J. Charig & S.D. Chapman ioe

Comments

On the proposed conservation of Disparalona ee 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi-
opoda). M.J. Grygier

On the proposed conservation ai the specific name Gi Papilio is heals Beper!
{1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or gegen sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera).
P.S. Wagener

On the proposed conservation of ties names Aiydrodainte gould ray: 1838 dina
Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the pangs ofa ntl
for Hydrosaurus gouldii. G.M. Shea & H.G. Cogger z : ;

76

105

105

106

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae nee a
1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). T. Ziegler & W. BOhme; R.T. Hoser

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Diemenia atra Macleays 1984
(currently Demansia atra; Reptilia, Serpentes). G.M. Shea .

On the proposed conservation of the name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint- Ehfaires 1796
(Mammalia, Primates). A. Gentry, C.P. Groves & P.D. Jenkins . f

On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on a wild
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic
animals, C.R. Altaba

Rulings of the Commission

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

OPINION 1896. Galba Schrank, 1803 (Motlusea: iGaseopoday: meta truncatu-
lum Miller, 1774 designated as the type species :

OPINION 1897. Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda), iMtmaciiial atrenie! 1802,
Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] and Armadillo vulgaris
Latreille, 1804 (currently Armadillidium ic gi (Crustacea, Isopoda): generic and
specific names conserved . . . Pree eres, UA Ce hate) By

OPINION 1898. Metaphycus Mercer 1917 epee Hymenoptera): given
precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 . . . .

OPINION 1899. Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Atr ‘ypa as yancxea 1842
designated as the type species . :

OPINION 1900. Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda) iSpirifer meliietr iatus ‘Hall,
1857 designated as the type species . ;

OPINION 1901. Gladiolites geinitzianus Berend 1850 lercareey Retiolites
geinitzianus; Graptolithina): lectotype replaced by a neotype Ne Weer

Information and instructions for authors .

Notices . :

Election of the Vice Preadent bf the TAtemadonal abenriecion on Paalapicn
Nomenclature . ;

The International Code ai Zoalorieal Nomenclature :

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.

Applications

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently
Hydrobia acuta, Mollusca, 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 HYDRO-
BIUSINA, SO removing the homonymy with HYDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca).
F. Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon.

Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Insecta, Heteroptera): aposcd nGeRieeiation ‘of apne
chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1856 (currently Orthotylus virescens (Douglas & Scott,
1865)) as the type species. A. Carapezza & I.M. Kerzhner . :

Scarus chrysopterus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Sparisoma bhepsap tories
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and
designation as the type species of Sparisoma Swainson, 1839. R.L. Moura &
J.E. Randall . 5 .

Il

111

115

118

119

136

137

138
138
138

146

151

IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Osphronemus deissneri Bleeker, 1859 (currently Parosphromenus deissneri; Osteich-
thyes, Perciformes): oe ae fir cis of holotype by a neotype. P.K.L. Ng &
M. Kottelat .

Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 aa CACATUINAE Grays 1840 (Aves, Paracton: phapared
conservation. W.J. Bock & R. Schodde :

LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 and GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 (Miandodalies Bae piopesed
conservation as the correct original spellings. J.H. Schwartz, J. Shoshani,
I. Tattersall, E.L. Simons & G.F. Gunnell

Comments

On the proposed conservation of in ia. purr 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi-
opoda). G. Fryer . j

On the proposed conservation oe the gpecifie name of ne sea Ber (1777]
(currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, mi bogie R. de Jong
& O. Karsholt . :

On the proposed designation “i Perea Perriaiencs Bacleneen in 7 Bevedent
1881 as the type species of [guanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of
a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia). D. Norman; A.C. Milner .

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. aki ita R.G. SARE H.M. Smith &
P.D. Strimple .

On the proposed suppression ah Ai Daa usages of. generic and seeRe names al ile
(Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as published in the
Proceedings of the See ee Society Be London. §8.L. Olson; R. Schodde &
W.J. Bock. ; Pyldbuce phat ae! coat! SSS

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 1902. Anomalina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Anomalina arimin-
ensis d’Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 designated as the type species ‘

OPINION 1903. Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): Gieenede 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 .

OPINION 1904. Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda): Dorylaimus
superbus de Man, 1880 designated as the type species. . .

OPINION 1905. S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue of World: Wide Shells:
not suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. . . .

OPINION 1906. Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Hymeuopten): en:
Chrysis purpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently Euchroeus purpuratus): specific name
conserved; and Chrysis gloriosa Fabricius, 1793: specific name suppressed .

OPINION 1907. Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): given pre-
cedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] ‘

OPINION 1908. Hemidactylus garnotii Dumeéril & Bibeaas 1836 (Reptilia, Squa-
mata): specific name conserved. :

OPINION 1909. Holotropis herminieri Baad & Bibra: 1937 (Ghaxently rele:
cephalus herminieri), Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (currently Liolaemus
bibronii) (Reptilia, Squamata): specific names conserved, and Liolaemus bellii
Gray, 1845 placed on the Official List .

Information and Instructions for Authors

155

159

165

169

169

172

173

176

186

187

189

191

194

197

199

201

204

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Notices . :
The /nter Paton C eile of Zeclowia al Noniche ae es
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.
Financial Report for 1997

Applications

Haliotis clathrata Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein, 1794) and H. elegans Philippi, 1844
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): Pee conservation of the specific names. D.L. Geiger
& K.A. Stewart.

Polydora websteri Hartman in gas & Bane. 1943 (Annelida, Polychacia):
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 oe for
P. websteri. V.1. Radashevsky & J.D. Williams

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

Terebratula Miller, 1776 ( Brachiopoda): see fee cnitge a Aaonia ter in Gide
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. D.E. Lee & C.H.C. Brunton . :

Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in emai
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. S.J. Barry & M.R. Jennings :

Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence ai the pnecine
name over that of Crotalus exsul Garman, 1884. H.M. Smith eg al..

Comments

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes,
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). W. Foissner; J.O. Corliss .

On the proposed designation of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1347 as ithe Res species
of Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). L.H. Gilbertson. ;
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860

(currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Insecta, Heteroptera). P. Stys.

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis Babwene
1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, ee eg A.F. Bowes & IM.
Kerzhner . Seeks Conc

On the proposed conservation i oe) names tps ice 1758, Cichlasoma
Swainson, 1839 and Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1849 by the designation of
neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes). M. Kottelat; A. Wheeler . é

On the proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissartensis Beglenees in maenedens
1881 as the type species of Jguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of
a lectotype. P.M. Barrett; K. Carpenter; H.-D. Sues :

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Aisidlomihenn Parca
Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates). T. White; P. Renne; C. eer LE.
Ohman . in (ee Os an ee tere

Rulings

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

209

241

244

VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

OPINION 1911. Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): Tipula sisymbrii
Schrank, 1803 designated as the type species 4

OPINION 1912. Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Foentis
unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 designated as the type species MEE oe

Indexes, ete.

Authors in volume 55 (1998) :

Names and Works placed on Official Lists ond Tedere in postion oF the Connnissien
published in volume 55 (1998) .

Key Names in Applications and Comments coblichela in Polsuie 55 (1998)

Information and instructions for authors

Publication dates and pagination of volume 55 (1998).

Instructions to binder .

Table of Contents of volume 55 (1998)

246

248

mae TOR aes

ie

pe TO
Nomenclature

¥ a OR « ~~
pI oo 4 atom ed cme
on ey as On an

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

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

Prof A. Minelli (/ta/y)

Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)

Dr V. Mahnert

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

(Brazil; Coleoptera)

Prof 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)

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

HISTORY MUSEUM

-8 APR 1998
PURCHASED

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 9998

:

ZOOLOGY LIBRARY

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 applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.

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

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 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
Phrynus ceylonicus Koch, 1843 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) Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation

of the specific name. (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 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 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 (IUBS), and members are elected by secret
ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of IUBS 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 come into effect on 1 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 Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case
only after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin,
which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such
contributions are invited and should be sent to the Secretariat.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 3

The Commission’s rulings are summarised in The Official Lists and Indexes of
Names and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895-1985 was
published in 1987. 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 1991). 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 Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Natal
Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa

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

Dr H.G. COGGER c/o Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000,
Australia

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

Dr W.N. ESCHMEYER Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden
Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A.

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

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

Dr ILM. KERZHNER Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg
199034, Russia

Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King-
Platz 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 Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.1.C.), Cami de Santa
Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain

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

Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sado Paulo, Caixa
Postal 7172, 04263 Sao 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 Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121
Padova, Italy (President)

Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhavn, 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-1088 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, A.C.T. 2600, Australia (Councillor)

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

Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitdét Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010
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, Viniénd 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech
Republic

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Members

Prof S. 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) (U.K.) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland)

Dr H.M.F.P. André (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 I.W.B. Nye (U.K.)

Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr M.J. Oates (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@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 £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 0 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 SBD, 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 American and
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£20 or $35. Payment (cheques made out to ‘ITZN’ 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 SBD, 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 £60 or $110 (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) March 1998

Case 3011

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

Charles W. Heckman

Institut fiir Hydrobiologie und 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 (Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887) that has frequently been used as an
indicator for the ecological monitoring of water quality and of another (Strobilidium
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 reintroduction 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, pl. 24, figs. 7-8);

Strombidium claparedi Kent, 1882 (p. 634, pl. 32, fig. 46);

Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 (p. 37, pl. 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 Schewiakoff, 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 caudatum (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. | 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) caudatum Fromentel, 1876, as published in the binomen Strombidion
caudatum;
(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) caudatum 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 (1)(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 caudatum Kahl, 1932).

References

Deroux, G. 1974. Quelques précisions sur Strobilidium gyrans Schewiakoff. Cahiers de Biologie
Marine, 15: 571-588.

Foissner, W. 1987. Miscellanea nomenclatorica Ciliatea (Protozoa: Ciliophora). Archiv fiir
Protistenkunde, 133: 219-235.

Foissner, W. & Adam, H. 1979. Die Bedeutung der stagnierenden Kleingewasser im alpinen
Okosystem. Jahrbuch der Universitét Salzburg, 1977-1979: 147-158.

Fromentel, E. 1876. Etudes sur les microzoaires ou infusoires proprement dits comprenant de
nouvelles recherches sur leur organisation, leur classification et la description des espéces
nouvelles ou peu connues. Pp. 193-364. Masson, Paris.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

Haslauer, J. Jr. & Pichler, W. 1979. Ein Beitrag zur Biologie und Hydrochemie eines stark
belasteten Fliessgewdssers (Gersbach 1977). Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlich-
Medizinischen 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. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie (Supplement 75)
Untersuchungen des Elbe-Aestuars, 6: 133-250.

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 Hydrobiologie, 127: 257-270.

Kahl, A. 1932. Urtiere oder Protozoa. I. Wimpertiere oder Ciliata (Infusoria) 3. Spirotricha.
Pp. 399-650 in Dahl, M. & Bischoff, H. (Eds.). Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 25. Fischer,
Jena.

Kaltenbach, A. 1960. Okologische Untersuchungen an Donauciliaten. Wasser Abwasser, Wien,
1960: 151-174.

Kent, W.S. 1882. A manual of the Infusoria, vol. 2. Pp. 473-913. Bogue, London.

Petz, W. & Foissner, W. 1992. Morphology and morphogenesis of Strobilidium caudatum
(Fromentel), Meseres corlissi n. sp., Halteria grandinella (Miller), and Strombidium
rehwaldi 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: 35-40.

Wickham, S.A., Gilbert, J.J. & Berninger, U.-G. 1993. Effects of rotifers and ciliates on the
growth and survival of Daphnia. Journal of Plankton Research, 15: 317-334.

Zharikoy, 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
turbinatus Born, 1778 as the type species of Osilinus

Serge Gofas

Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Biologie des
Invertébrés marins et Malacologie, 55 rue Buffon, 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 TROCHTDAE). 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, 1799
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 if 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 7. 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 constrictus ‘Macleay’ (a species introduced as ‘Monodonta constricta
Macleay’ by Lamarck, 1822, p. 36) as the type species of Osilinus. This designation
has been overlooked and subsequent authors have followed Wenz (1938, p. 229) who
designated the Atlantic species Trochus turbinatus Born, 1778 (p. 340) as the type
species, although Philippi (1847) had not included T. turbinatus in his genus Osilinus.

4. Trochocochlea is a pre-Linnaean name originating with Klein (1753) and first
mentioned by Herrmannsen (1849, p. 616) without description, previous reference or
included species. The name was made available by Mérch (1852, p. 154) who
included Trochocochlea constricta (Lamarck) and T. turbinata (Born) among other
species and cited Osilinus as a synonym. We could not trace a type designation earlier
than that of Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1885, p. 401), who selected Trochus
turbinatus Born, 1778 as type species. The name Trochocochlea thus relates to the
northeastern Atlantic-Mediterranean species-group.

5. Monterosato (1884, p. 43) established Caragolus 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 turbinata ‘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 Osilinus; Monodonta constricta Lamarck, 1822 is
the type species by monotypy. Fischer characterised the genus as having “Tubercule
de la base de la columelle non tronqué, 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 & Williams, 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 Osilinus 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 Osilinus at generic rank and
established two new subgenera. Herbert (1994) tentatively assigned the Indian Ocean
species Trochus kotschyi Philippi, 1849 to Osilinus.

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 Osilinus would render the name Austrocochlea a
junior objective synonym of Osilinus; 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 turbinatus Born, 1778 be designated the type species of Osilinus, thereby
maintaining the current use of Austrocochlea for the Australian species and of
Osilinus for the European and West African ones. This designation will render
the names Trochocochlea Mérch, 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 Austrocochlea.

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) Trochus crassus Pulteney, 1799 (a junior synonym of Osilinus lineatus
(da Costa, 1778)) is a common northeastern Atlantic species congeneric with
T. turbinatus. 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
Mollusca, with Trochus 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 of Labio Oken, 1815.

11. 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 turbinatus Born, 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, 1778;
(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 Mérch, 1852).

References

Adanson, M. 1757. Histoire Naturelle du Sénégal. Coquillages. 275 pp., 19 pls. Bauche, Paris.

Alsanullah, M. & Williams, A.R. 1989. Kinetics of uranium uptake by the crab Pachygrapsus
laevimanus 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 estuarine 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. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 73(3):
555-569.

Born, I. von. 1778. Rerum Naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis, part 1 (Testacea). [42],
458 pp. Vienna.

Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1885. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon, vol. 1
(Gastropodes), fasc. 10. Pp. 387-418. Bailliére, Paris.

Cesari, P. & Pranovi, F. 1989. La sistematica del gen. Monodonta Lamck, 1799 (s.1.). Il A)
Biometria e caratteristiche conchigliari degli Osilinus Mediterranei. B) Distribuzione e
struttura dei popolamenti della laguna veneta (Gastropoda, Trochidae). Lavori, Societa
Veneziana di Storia Naturale, 14: 3-64.

Cesari, P. & Pranovi, F. 1990. La sistematica del genere Monodonta Lamck, 1799 (s.].). III
Relazioni genetiche tra popolazioni altoadriatiche di Osilinus articulatus (Lamarck, 1822),
Osilinus mutabilis (Philippi, 1846) e Osilinus turbinatus (Born, 1780) (Gastropoda,
Trochidae). Lavori, Societa Veneziana di Storia Naturale, 14: 3-64.

Cossignani, T., Cossignani, V., Di Nisio, A. & Passamonti, M. 1992. Atlante delle conchiglie del
Medio Adriatico. L’Informatore 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 Paléontologie conchyliologique. Pp. 689-896.
Savy, Paris.

Ghisotti, F. & Melone, G. 1975. Catalogo illustrato delle conchiglie marine del Mediterraneo
5. Conchiglie, Notiziario Mensile della Unione Malacologica Italiana, 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 kotschyi, the first Indian Ocean record of the genus Osilinus
(Mollusca: Gastropoda: Trochidae). Journal of Zoology, 233: 345-357.

Herrmannsen, A.N. September 1847, March 1849. Indicis generum 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 vertébres, 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 pls. 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 mufria and the trochid
Austrocochlea constricta. Marine Ecology — Progress Series, 17(1): 85-100.

Monterosato, T.A. di. 1884. 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 conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso d'Aguirra & Gadea
Comes de Yoldi ..., part 1. 170 pp. Klein, Copenhague.

Nordsieck, F. 1974. Il genere Osilinus 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): 409-414.

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 pls. Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Catalogo annotato dei 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
constricta. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 28(1): 35-39.

Wenz, W. 1938. Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6(1). Gastropoda 1. Pp. 1-480. Allgemeiner
Teil und Prosobranchia |. Borntraeger, Berlin.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

Case 3026

Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Mesobuthus
caucasicus; 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, pl. 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 of 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 Mesobuthus 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, M. 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
caUucasius:

(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 S. 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) Vietinghoff (1812) recorded the number of plates on the paired abdominal
pectinal organs of the specimen as 30-35, a characteristic of the male of Mesobuthus
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, pl. 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 (1) above.

References

Birula, A.A. 1900. Beitraége zur Kenntniss der Scorpionenfauna Ost-Persiens (1. Beitrag).
Bulletin de l Académie Impériale des Sciences de St Pétershourg, (5)12(4): 355-375.
Birula, A.A. (Bialynicki-Birula, A.A.). 1917a. Arachnoidea Arthrogastra Caucasica. Pars 1.
Scorpiones. Zapiski Kavkazskogo Muzeya (Mémoires du Musée du Caucase), Tiflis, (A)5:
1-253. [In Russian]. English translation as Byalynitskii-Birulya, A.A., 1964. Arthrogastric
arachnids of Caucasia, part 1 (Scorpions). 170 pp. Israel Program for Scientific Trans-

lations, Jerusalem.

Birula, A.A. (Byalynitskii-Birulya, A.A.). 1917b. Faune de la Russie et des pays limitrophes
fondeée principalement sur les collections du Musée zoologique de I’ Académie des Sciences de
Russie. Arachnides (Arachnoidea), vol. 1, part 1. 227 pp. St Petersbourg. [In Russian].
English translation as Byalynitskii-Birulya, A.A., 1965. Fauna of Russia and adjacent
countries. Arachnoidea, vol. 1 (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
Arachnologique, 8(2): 33-44.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

Fet, V. 1989. A catalogue of scorpions (Chelicerata: Scorpiones) of the U.S.S.R. Revista del
Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali ‘Enrico Caffi’ (Bergamo) 1988, 13: 73-171.

Fet, V. 1994. Fauna and zoogeography of scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones) in Turkmenistan.
Pp. 525-534 in Fet, V. & Atamuradoyv, K.I (Eds.), Biogeography and ecology of
Turkmenistan. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. (Monographiae Biologicae No.
72).

Fischer yon Waldheim, G. 1813. Zoognosia tabulis synopticis illustrata, in usum praelectionum
Academiae Imperialis Medico-Chirurgicae Mosquensis edita, Ed. 3, vol. 1. xiii, 465 pp.,
8 pls. Moscow.

Kinzelbach, R. 1984. Die Skorpionssammlung des Naturhistorischen Museums der Stadt
Mainz. Teil 2 (Vorderasien). Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 22: 97-106.

Kinzelbach, R. 1985. Vorderer Orient. Skorpione (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Tiibinger 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. 1840. Notice sur les scorpions de la faune pontique. Pp. 731-732 in: Voyage dans
la Russie méridionale et la Crimée, par la Hongrie, la Valachie et la Moldavie, exécuté en
1837, sous la direction de M Anatole de Demidoff, par Mm de Sainson, Le Play, Huot,
Léveille, Raffet, Rousseau, de Nordmann et du Ponceau; dédié a S. M. Nicolas ler Empereur
de toutes les Russies, vol. 3. 756 pp. Paris.

Pocock, R.I. 1900. Arachnida. Jn 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 l’Afghanistan. The 3rd Danish Expedition to
Central Asia (Zoological Results No. 23). Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhis-
torisk Forening i Kobehayn, 120: 121-187. |

Vachon, M. 1966. Liste des Scorpions connus en Egypte, Arabie, Israél, 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
(Naturwissenschaften), 28: 91-103.

Vietinghoff, Baron de. 1812. Discours sur quelques objets d’histoire naturelle recuellis
au Caucase. Zapiski Moskovskogo Imperatorskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody
(Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou), 3: 83-96. [In Russian].

Werner, F. 1934. Scorpiones. Pp. 1-316 in: H.G. Bronn's Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs,
Band 5 (Arthropoda), Abt. 4 (Arachnoidea), Buch 8 (Scorpiones, Pedipalpi), Lieferung
1-2. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 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, U.S.A.

Matt E. Braunwalder
Frauentalweg 97, CH-8045, Ziirich, Switzerland

Abstract. The purpose of this application 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 Uroctonoides Hoffmann, 1931
(a junior homonym of Uroctonoides Chamberlin, 1920) and has been in use since
its original publication. It is threatened by the unused synonym Hoffmanniellius
Mello-Leitao, 1934 (June), also a replacement for Uroctonoides Hoffmann, which
under the Code is the senior synonym.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; VAEJOVIDAE;
Paruroctonus; North America.

1. The genus Uroctonoides was established by Chamberlin (1920, p. 36, pl. 4, figs. 1
and 2) for his new species U. fractus from Quito, Ecuador (family VAEJOVIDAE). The type
specimen of U. fractus, catalog no. 518, is deposited in the Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Soleglad (1973) considered
Uroctonoides fractus to be a species of the genus Teuthraustes Simon, 1878 (family
CHACTIDAE), and probably referable to 7. lojanus Pocock, 1900. Thus, Uroctonoides
Chamberlin, 1920 is a junior subjective synonym of Teuthraustes Simon, 1878.

2. In 1931, Hoffmann (p. 405, fig. 42), clearly unaware of Chamberlin’s (1920)
publication, established the new genus Uroctonoides 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. | as the lectotype.

3. In a review of the world scorpion fauna, Werner (1934, p. 283) established the
replacement name Paruroctonus for Hoffmann’s (1931) name Uroctonoides. Werner
published a very brief description of the genus in the key to the VAEJOVIDAE (p. 283),
which was based on the description of Uroctonoides gracilior by Hoffmann (1931). 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 Uroctonoides Hoffmann, also in 1934. Subsequent authors
recognised Paruroctonus and Hoffmanniellius as (objective) synonyms and, following
Stahnke (1957; see para. 5 below), all adopted Paruroctonus 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 und 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 21¢c
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 Polis (Ed.,
1990, 1991) and Brownell & Polis (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 Paruroctonus 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 of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 19

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Hoffmanniellius Mello-Leitao, 1934, as suppressed in (1)
above.

Acknowledgement

We thank Dr Peter Sacher (Blankenburg 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. & Polis, 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. Museum of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 3(2): 35-44.
Francke, O.F. 1985. Conspectus genericus scorpionorum 1758-1982 (Arachnida: Scorpiones).

Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University, 98: 1-32.

Gertsch, W.J. & Soleglad, M.E. 1966. The scorpions of the Vejovis boreus group (subgenus
Paruroctonus) in North America (Scorpionida, Vejovidae). American Museum Novitates,
2278: 1—-S4.

Haradon, R.M. 1983. Smeringurus, a new subgenus of Paruroctonus Werner (Scorpiones,
Vaejovidae). Journal of Arachnology, 11: 251-270.

Haradon, R.M. 1984a. New and redefined species belonging to the Paruroctonus 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
Paruroctonus (Scorpiones, Vaejovidae). Journal of Arachnology, 13: 19-42.

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 México, 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.

Polis, G.A. (Ed.). 1990. The biology of scorpions. 587 pp. Stanford University, Stanford,
California.

Polis, 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(1): 60.

Stahnke, H.L. 1957. A new species of scorpion of the Vejovidae, Paruroctonus mesaensis.
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 Paruroctonus
(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 propingua 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 (pl. 2, fig. 25). This drawing shows that the
specimen of Corisa dohrnii illustrated was conspecific with a taxon later described by
Fieber himself (1860, p. 99) as Corisa propinqua, the only European corixid having
fewer than 15 lower palmar bristles, there being 13 in the 1851 illustration. Pl. 10,
fig. 19 of Fieber (1848) and pl. 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. I (Jansson, 1986, p. 26) designated as neotype
of Corisa propinqua a male specimen in the Prague Museum, labelled ‘Iezero
Pléckensteinske. 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, 1860, 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 Insectorum Sueciae. VII. Hemiptera-
Heteroptera. 2nd Ed. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 97: 135-173.

Fieber, F.X. 1848. Synopsis aller bisher in Europe entdeckten Arten der Gattung Corisa.
Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 21: 505-593.

Fieber, F.X. 1851. Species generis Corisa. 48 pp., 2 pls. Calve, Pragae. (Preprint from (1852),
Abhandlungen der K6niglichen Bohmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, (7)7: 213-260).

Fieber, F.X. 1860. Die Europdischen Hemiptera, part 1. Pp. 1-112. Gerold’s Sohn, Wien.

Jaczewski, T. & Lansbury, I. 1961. Notes on the genus Glaenocorisa Thomson (Heteroptera,
Corixidae). Bulletin de |’ Académie Polonaise des Sciences. Classe 2, 9: 345-351.

Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta
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 Hémiptéres (Hétéroptéres, Cicadines et Psyllides) de la faune
Paléarctique. (4 Ed.). 121 pp. Caen.

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

Case 2957

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

H. Silfverberg

Zoological Museum, Box 17 (N. Jarnvagsgatan 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
Schénherr, 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,
pe 7:

2. At the time of my application I was unaware that Schénherr 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 Schénherr had
introduced Phytobius as a replacement name for his genus Hydaticus, which was
preoccupied. The background is that Schénherr (1825, p. 583) introduced the name
Hydaticus with Rhynchaenus myriophylli Gyllenhal, 1813 as type species. This
nominal species is listed by Dalla Torre & Hustache (1930) as a junior synonym of
Curculio leucogaster Marsham, 1802, which is the type species of Litodactylus
Redtenbacher, 1845. Hydaticus Schénherr is a junior homonym of Hydaticus Leach,
1817 (Coleoptera, DyTISCIDAE). When Schénherr (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 Phytobius. Rhynchaenus velutus is also the type species of
Eubrychius Thomson, 1859 by original designation and monotypy. However, it is
doubtful whether it was Schénherr’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 Sch6nherr
(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 Schénherr himself, and in Opinion 1529
Curculio pericarpius 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. quadrituberculatus as the type species, it is necessary to suppress its use
as a homonym by Schénherr (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 of 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 Schénherr, 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 Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 34: 281-284.

Dalla Torre, K.W. & Hustache, A. 1930. Curculionidae: Ceuthorrhynchinae. Coleopterorum
Catalogus, 113: 1-150.

Dejean, P.M.F. 1835. Pp. 257-360 in Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte
Dejean. (2 Ed.). Paris.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum. 348 pp. Hafniae.

Lucht, W.H. 1987. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Katalog. 342 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

O’Brien, C.W. & Wibmer, G.J. 1984. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu
lato) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies — Supplement 1. The
Southwestern Entomologist, 9: 286-307.

Schénherr, C.J. 1825. Tabulae synopticae familiae Curculionidum. Isis (Oken), 16: cols.
581-S88.

Schénherr, 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 1998

Case 3023

DASYPODIDAE Borner, 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 Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)
is a junior homonym of DasypopiDAE 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 DAsypopIpAE 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
‘Dasypus’ among the synonyms of D. 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. novemcinctus as the type
species of Dasypus necessitated adopting Dasypus as the valid name for the genus
long known (see, for example, Lydekker, 1887, pp. 140-141) as Tatusia 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. novemcinctus), 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
Euphractus 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 (1911) 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 novemcinctus, 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 Euphractus 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. novemcinctus
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 Euphractus Wagler, 1830 is currently in use
for D. sexcinctus Linnaeus, 1758. Both Dasypus and Euphractus 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 (1911, 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 Kullander (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 of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

cited A. hirtipes 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 (‘2 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 DASyPop1DAE 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 Tatu 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, C.D. 1995. Phylogenetic studies of the families of short-tongued
bees. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 55(11): 377-424.

Apstein, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzungsbericht der Gesellschaft Naturforschender
Freunde zu Berlin, 1915(5): 119-202.

Blanchard, E. 1840. Hyménoptéres. Pp. 219-415, 7 pls. in Castelnau, F.L.N. de Laporte,
Histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 3. Dumenil, Paris.

Blumenbach, J.F. 1779. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. [8], 446 pp. Gottingen.

Borner, C. 1919. Stammesgeschichte der Hautfliigler. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 39(4): 145-185.

Cabrera, A. 1958. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino
de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’. Ciencias Zooldogicas, 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 mammalian 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 et 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.

Hall, 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 pls. Crapelet, Paris.

Lesson, R.P. 1827. Manuel de mammalogie, ou histoire naturelle de mammiféres. 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 pls. 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 History),
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, C.D. 1944. Comparative external morphology, phylogeny, and a classification of the
bees. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 82: 151-326

Michener, C.D. 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, C.D. & 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, C.D., 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 Mammalium: 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 Tatusia novemcinctus. 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.] 1911. 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
novemcinctus. American Journal of Anatomy, 22: 341-363.

Wagler, J.C. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der
Séiugethiere und Végel. vi, 354 pp., 9 pls. 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. 23-48 in
Montgomery, G.G. (Ed.), The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths and vermilinguas.
10, 451 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Wetzel, R.M. & Mondolfi, E. 1979. The subgenera and species of long-nosed armadillos, genus
Dasypus 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 Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia-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 WCIE 6BT, U.K.

T. Engeser

Institut fiir Paldontologie, Freie Universitat 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 Atramentarius 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 Belemnoteuthis [sic] antiqua 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
Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 and Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve, 1934
(Reptilia, 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 ‘pu/cher has never been used for
the Amazonian species for which Peters (1863) [sic] proposed it’ (para. 5). They also
assert that the name Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve, 1934, a junior synonym of
Trigonocephalus pulcher 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 pu/cher 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 a/bocarinatus 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, Bothriopsis, or Lachesis) can be divided into six
categories.

1. At least one author (Noguchi, 1909, p. 38) provides a description of 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 of 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 of pulcher that can
only refer to the western species. J.A. Peters (1960, p. 510) lists the range of 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 use pulcher to refer to the western species are Campbell
& Lamar (1989, 1992). All information presented by these authors (photographs,
distribution and description) associates the name pulcher with the western species.
Pérez-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 a/mawebi 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 Porthidium almawebi 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 a/bocarinatus 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 a/bocarinatus) 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 a/bocarinatus 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 name 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 almawebi Schatti & Kramer, 1993 is a junior subjective
synonym of Bothrops campbelli. 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.

Groombridge, B. 1986. Comments on the M. pterygoideus glandulae of crotaline snakes
(Reptilia: Viperidae). Herpetologica, 42: 449-457.

Minton, S.A., Jr., Dowling, H.G. & Russell, F.E. 1968. Poisonous snakes of the world. A manual
for use by 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,
DIG:

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

(2) Beat Schatti
Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland

In his previously published comment (BZN 54: 245-249, December 1997) Kuch
noted that ‘the Amazonian species represented by the holotype of Trigonocephalus
pulcher Peters, 1862 is listed under [...] three names (Bothrops albocarinatus,
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 (1960), 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 (1896). 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 Bothrops 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 Schatti & Kramer (1993). However, in our application
we (Schatti & 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 B. 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 campbelli 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. campbelli 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 campbelli, and the eastern species the name
pulcher. 1 am in full agreement with the factual basis of their argument, in particular
the availability of the name campbelli 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. campbelli
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 albocarinatus 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; Pérez-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 pulcher 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.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 35

6. For the eastern species, the name albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 is available, with
alticolus Parker, 1934 as a subjective junior synonym. The name albocarinatus 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 a/bocarinatus,
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 of a/bocarinatus 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 of pulcher by Peters (1862), it seems likely 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 alticolus Parker,
1934, suggesting that none of the authors regarded pulcher 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 a/bocarinatus 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
albocarinata;
(b) campbelli 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 Instituto Nacional de Higiene y Medicina Tropical ‘Leopoldo
Izquieta Pérez’ in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The name a/mawebi 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

Pérez-Santos, C. & Moreno, A.G. 1988. Ofidios de Colombia. 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 Trigonocephalus 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 a/bocarinatus Shreve, 1934 for
the eastern species, as proposed in the application submitted by Dr Schatti and
myself; or (3) suppressing pu/cher completely, thus using a/bocarinatus 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 information 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 a/bocarinatus 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.

ne

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 37

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)

(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 Sprackland, 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 Sprackland,
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; Sprackland,
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
Sprackland et al. in their application. The Wells & Wellington (1985) work became
an international cause celébre, 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.
Sprackland 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. feriae.

5. The statement by Sprackland et al. (para. 6 of their application) that ‘the
specific name of Varanus 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 Varanus 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
of the Australasian Society of Zoo Keeping, Thylacinus, 21(3): 12-19.

Irwin, S. & Irwin, T. 1997. The crocodile hunter. The birthday present was a python and other
adventures. 144 pp. Penguin Books, Auckland.

Kirschner, A., Miiller, T. & Seufer, H. 1996. Faszination Warane. 254 pp. Kirschner & Seufer
Verlag, Kelten-Weiler.

Queensland Nature Conservation Regulation. 1997. Queensland Subordinate 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, Varanus
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

ee

a

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. keithhornei.

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, Miller & 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 difficulty 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 Cnemidophorus perplexus Baird & Girard, 1852 and conservation of the name
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 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:
Cnemidophorus tigris marmoratus 2 x C. inornatus 3. 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 Cnemidophorus). Science, 203:
1247-1249.

Cole, C.J., Dessauer, H.C. & Barrowclough, G.F. 1988. Hybrid origin of a unisexual species of
whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus neomexicanus, in western North America: new evidence
and a review. American Museum Novitates, 2905: 1-38.

Densmore, L.D., I, Wright, J.W. & Brown, W.M. 1989. Mitochondrial-DNA analyses and
the origin and relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (genus Cnemidophorus). II.
C. neomexicanus and the C. tesselatus complex. Evolution, 43: 943-957.

Dessauer, H.C. & Cole, C.J. 1986. Clonal inheritance in parthenogenetic whiptail lizards:
biochemical evidence. Journal of Heredity, 77: 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: 49-71.

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, Cnemidophorus). Molecular Phylogenetics and
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 of 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 application 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
neomexicanus 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 of 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 11 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 of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

(4) Robert G. Webb

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso,
Texas 79968-0519, U.S.A.

This note is written in support of the application by Smith et al. to conserve the
specific name of Cnemidophorus neomexicanus 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. inornatus 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. neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952.

There is ample justification for the suppression of perplexus and confirmation of
neomexicanus 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 Cnemidophorus perplexus Baird & Girard, 1852 be suppressed in
favor of the name C. neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952.

The name ‘perplexus’ 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 Louisiana, 2911 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 perplexus 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,
U.S.A.).

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 public 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 from 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 familiaris’ 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(5): 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. Wild 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, peccaries and hippos. Status survey
and conservation action plan. \UCN 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.

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; PLUMULARIDAE; hydroids;
Plumularia; Plumularia setacea.

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, 1758 as the type
species of 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

Plumularia Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2, p. 123.
setacea, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 813.

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

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

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 49

OPINION 1887

Arca 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 Arca 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 Arca 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:

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

(b) philippiana Nyst, 1848, as published in the binomen Arca 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 Arca grenophia and as
suppressed in (1) above;

(b) obliqua Philippi, 1844, as published in the binomen Arca obliqua (a junior
homonym of Arca obliqua Portlock, 1843 and of A. obliqua Reeve, 1844);

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

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

History of Case 2977

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Arca pectunculoides
Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 was received from Dr Carmen Salas
(Universidad de Malaga, Malaga, Spain) and Dr Serge Gofas (Muséum 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 Warén (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 close 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:

Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891, Die Gattung Arca L. In: Martini & Chemnitz Systematisches
Conchylien Cabinet (Kiister, H.C., Ed.), vol. 8, part 2, p. 213.

grenophia, Arca, Risso, 1826, Histoire naturelle des principales productions de I’ Europe
Meéridionale et particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes,
vol. 4, p. 313.

obliqua, Arca, Philippi, 1844, Enumeratio molluscorum Siciliae cum viventium tum in tellure
tertiaria fossilium ..., vol. 2, p. 43.

obliquata, Arca, Locard, 1899, Les coquilles marines au large des c6tes de France, p. 158.

obliquatula, Arca, Dautzenberg, 1927, Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques Accomplies sur
son Yacht par Albert ler, Prince Souverain de Monaco, 72: 281.

pectunculoides, Arca, Scacchi, 1834, Annali Civili del Regno delle due Sicilie, 6: 82.

philippiana, Arca, Nyst, 1848, Mémoires de l’'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des
Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 22: 54.

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

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

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 51

OPINION 1888

Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, 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, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 98(10): 8.

§2 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 crustulum;, 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 tenuimanus 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 53

crustulum, Parapronoe, Claus, 1879, Arbeiten aus dem Zoologischen Institut der Universitat zu
Wien, 2: 31.
rapax, Typhis, Milne-Edwards, 1830, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 20: 395.

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

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

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

OPINION 1890

Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 (currently Aphodius rufus), Scarabaeus
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; Dischista rufa; Aphodius rufus; Aegialia rufa;
Aphodius foetidus. ‘

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the specific name scybalarius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen
Scarabaeus scybalarius, 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, 1792, 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) rufus De Geer, 1778, 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, 1792, 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 scybalarius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus
scybalarius and as suppressed in (1)(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 Scarabaeus rufus Moll,
1782, S. rufus Fabricius, 1792 and S. foetidus Herbst, 1783 was received from Dr
Frank-Thorsten Krell (Theodor-Boveri-Institut fiir Biowissenschaften der Universitat,
Wiirzburg, Germany), Dr Zdzistawa Stebnicka (Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 55

of Systematics 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 Aphodius rufus (Moll,
1782), Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) and Aphodius foetidus (Herbst, 1783) by
suppressing Scarabaeus 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 Dischista 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 Scarabaeus, 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 | 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 Scarabaeus
sceybalarius 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, 1778, then only the choice of the name S. 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 Scarabaeus. Since the nomenclatural clarification of the taxa involved (Silfverberg,
1977, 1979), a number of authors have used either the specific name spissipes
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 Kral (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 scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781) in place of A. foetidus, and the adoption of
A. arcuatus (Moll, 1785) in place of A. 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 taxonomic 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
scybalarius, 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 scybalarius
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
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
foetidus, Scarabaeus, Herbst, 1783, Achiv der Insectengeschichte, 4: 7.
rufus, Scarabaeus, De Geer, 1778, Mémoires pour servir @ l'histoire des insectes, vol. 7, pp. 640,
946.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 57

rufus, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia systematica ..., vol. 1, part 2, p. 39.
rufus, Scarabaeus, Moll, 1782, Neues Magazin fiir die Liebhaber der Entomologie, 1(4): 372.
scybalarius, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum, vol. 1, p. 16.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Scarabaeus rufus De
Geer, 1778:
Holm, E. 1994. BZN 51: 122.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Scarabaeus 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 Pandellé, 1876;

(b) Cathammistes Ulliger, 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, 1882, 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 Pandellé, 1876, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Cathammistes Illiger, 1807, as suppressed in (1)(b) above;

(c) Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863, as suppressed in (1)(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 Pandellé, 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, Minelli, 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:

Cathammistes Mliger, 1807, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 6: 297.

costatum, 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
collectas, adjectis faunae Etruscae illustrationibus ac emendationibus, vol. 2, p. 81.

Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou,
36(1): 448.

Fontiscrutor Pandellé, 1876, Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 5: 58.

Georissus Latreille, 1809, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, secundum ordinem
naturalem in Familias disposita, iconibus exemplisque plurimus explicata, vol. 4, p. 377.

Georyssus Stephens, 1828, Illustrations of British Entomology ... Mandibulata, vol. 2,
p. 105.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998
Oosternum Sharp, 1882, Insecta. Coleoptera. Vol. 1, part 2 in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O.,
Biologia Centrali-Americana, vol. 16, p. 112.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Byrrhus crenulatus
Rossi, 1794:

Bameul, F. 1991. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 95: 257.

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 (Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés
Marins et Malacologie, Muséum 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:
mytili, Alcyonidium, Dalyell, 1848, Rare and remarkable animals 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

Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] 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) americana Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Ampelis americana;
(b) domestica Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Sy/via 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
Bombycilla 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 Official 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});
(b) 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 Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) americana Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Ampelis americana
and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) domestica Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Sy/via domestica and
as suppressed in (1)(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 Bombycilla 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’ Amérique septentrionale
=e VOL: 2, )Ps 52:

americana, Ampelis, Wilson, 1808, American ornithology; or, the natural history of the birds of
the United States, vol. 1, p. 107.

Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808], Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l’Amérique septentrionale ...,
vol. 1, p. 88.

cedrorum, Bombycilla, Vieillot, [1808], Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de I’ Amérique 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 |'Amérique 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 Trog/odytes Vieillot, [1809]:

Baird, S.F. 1858. Pacific Railroad Reports. Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad
from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 1853-6, 9(2): 366.

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

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), 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 [X distributum, sive synopsis methodica, Ed. 2, is rejected for

nomenclatural purposes, i.e. for nomenclatural 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;
(vil) Lutra;
(viii) Hyaena;
(ix) Tapirus;
(x) Tragulus;
(x1) 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 Vespertilio 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, 1762: type species Sus hydrochaeris Linnaeus,
1766;

(3)

(4)

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 Mustela lutra Linnaeus, 1758;

(vill) Hyaena Brisson, 1762: type species Canis hyaena Linnaeus, 1758;

(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.

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)(1) above Didelphis opossum Linnaeus,
1758;

(b) Pteropus 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) Cuniculus 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;

(f) 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)(vili) 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.

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, 1762);

(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, 1762);

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

(e) hydrochaeris Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Sus hydrochaeris
(specific name of the type species of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762);

(f) meles Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Ursus meles (specific
name of the type species of Meles Brisson, 1762);

(g) /utra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mustela lutra (specific
name of the type species of Lutra Brisson, 1762);

(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);

(j) javanicus Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Cervus javanicus
(specific name of the type species of Tragulus Brisson, 1762);

(k) camelopardalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cervus camelo-
pardalis (specific name of the type species of Giraffa Brisson, 1762);

(5) The work entitled Regnum Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis
methodica, Ed. 2 by M.J. Brisson (1762) is hereby placed on the Official 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 Lacepéde, 1799 (a junior objective synonym of Cuniculus Brisson,
1762);

(b) Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 (a junior objective synonym of Glis Brisson,
1762);

(c) Glis Erxleben, 1777 (a junior homonym of Glis Brisson, 1762);

(d) Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 (a junior homonym of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762);

(e) Cuniculus Wagler, 1830 (a junior homonym of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762);

(f) Euhyaena Falconer, 1868 (a junior objective synonym of Hyaena Brisson,
1762);

(g) Tragulus Pallas, 1767 (a junior homonym of Tragulus Brisson, 1762);

(h) Tragulus Boddaert, 1785 (a junior homonym of Tragulus 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 11 mammal generic names first published by
Brisson (1762), together with placement of the Regnum Animale (Ed. 2) on the Official
Index as a non-binominal work, was received from Mrs Anthea Gentry (c/o The
Secretariat, 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 (University 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

(American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.), Dr P.A. Morris
(Royal Holloway College, University of London, Egham, 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, Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza,
Poland), published in BZN 51: 342-348 (December 1994); Prof Alvaro Mones
(Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Montevideo, Uruguay), Dr Francis Petter
(‘Mammalia (Morphologie, Biologie, Systématiques des Mammifeéres), Paris, France;
Muséum National d'Histoire 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 Sigé (Institut des Sciences de |’ Evolution,
Université des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, France), Dr
Stéphane Aulagnier (Jnstitut 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 (/nstitut des Sciences de 1|’Evolution,
Université des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, France), Dr Hans
de Bruijn (Institut voor Aardwetenschappen, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The
Netherlands), Dr Monique Vianey-Liaud (Institut des Sciences de L’Evolution,
Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France) and Dr J.J. Hooker (The Natural
History Museum, 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,
Hertfordshire, U.K.), Dr José Roberto Moreira (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit,
University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.), Dr Alan W. Gentry (The Natural History
Museum, London, U.K.), Dr Enrique Roberto Justo (Santa Rosa - La Pampa,
Argentina), Drs Volker Fahlbusch, Kurt Heissig, Helmut Mayr & Gertrud Réssner
(Bayerische Staatssammlung fiir Paldontologie und historische Geologie, Munich,
Germany), Prof Patrick J. Boylan (City University, London, U.K.), Dr D. Kock
(Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
and Drs Pierre Mein, M. Hugueney, C. Guérin & R. Ballesio (Centre des Sciences de
la Terre, Université 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 (U/nstytut Paleobiologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw,
Poland), published in BZN 52: 271-273 (September 1995); Dr Hugh H. Kolb
(Torphichen, West Lothian, Scotland, U.K.; formerly of the Scottish Agricultural
Science Agency, Edinburgh, Scotland) and Dr Peter Liips (Naturhistorisches Museum,
Bern, Switzerland), published in BZN 53: 191-192 (September 1996); Prof Vladimir
E. Sokolov (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia), published in BZN 53:
286 (December 1996); Dr Jorge J. Cherem (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Florianépolis, 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 11 mammal generic names in use were received from Dr
Don E. Wilson (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 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,
D.C., U.S.A.), Prof Clyde Jones (Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, U.S.A.), Dr
Judith L. Eger (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and Dr Mary
Ellen Holden (American Museum 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
(Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), published in BZN 52: 82-83
(March 1995), and from Prof Claude Dupuis (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, France), published in BZN 52: 273-275 (September 1995), supported the
conservation of the 11 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
Regnum 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, Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 for Glis Brisson, 1762 and Agouti Lacepéde,
1799 for Cuniculus Brisson, 1762) and a different 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
‘Tragulus’ relate taxonomically to Neotragus H. Smith, 1827 (family BovmDae).
Rejection of the 11 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 | 1c(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 differentiated 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 11 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 raisonné 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 11 generic names from Brisson (1762)
would be consistent with the ruling on Odobenus (Opinion 467) published in 1957.
Procedurally it would be a precedent to place both Brisson’s Tabula Synoptica (1762)
and the 1759 Dictionnaire raisonné on the Official List.

The name Giis 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
Regnum 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 11 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 published 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 l’affligeante idée de mettre a I’ Index 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) considérant que seules sont admissibles les ‘rejections of names’ je
réprouve toute ‘rejection of works’ (et méme le mot ‘rejection’); (c) il est facheux que
la validité des noms de genres dans les premiéres taxinomies binaires cohérentes
dépendent de quelques épithétes spécifiques occasionnellement plurinominales
(inévitables aux débuts du Linnéanisme, cf. Pucek in BZN 51: 348. Voir le code des
botanistes et les regrets de Melville cités in BZN 53: 281); (d) ma contre-proposition
sérieuse et précise (BZN 53: 282-283) aurait di étre présentée a égalite de choix avec

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

la proposition de BZN 51: 143, or cette derniére seule est soumise au vote. Les
arguments avancés pour esquiver cette simultanéité me semblent un refus d’examiner
les noms a mettre a I’Index (ce que je demandais in BZN 52: 275, alinea 3) et une
dérobade sous prétexte d’un ‘précédent’ non autrement explicité. Je vote contre la
conservation en bloc des 11 noms considérés car les commentaires publiés ne sont pas
unanimes, notamment au sujet de Glis, Cuniculus et Tragulus. Je persiste donc a
réclamer 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 affect 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 Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica, 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 Lacepéde, 1799, Tableau des divisions, sous-divisions, ordres et genres des mammiferes.
In: Discours de l’ouverture et de cléture du cours d'Histoire Naturelle donné dans le Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle ..., l'an VII de la République, et Tableaux méthodiques des
Mammifeéres 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 regni animalis ... Classis 1 (Mammalia), p. 358.

glis, Sciurus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 87.

Hyaena Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 13, 169.

hyaena, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 40.

hydrochaeris, Sus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 103.

Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale ..., 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.

Meles Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 13, 183.

meles, Ursus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 48.

Melesium Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la nature ..., p. 59.

Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein
verbreiteten 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, Didelphis, 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.

Pteropus Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 13, 153.

Tapirus, Brisson 1762, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 12, 81.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998

Taxus Cuvier & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795, Magazin Encyclopédique, 2: 184, 187.
terrestris, 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, Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2, pp. 12, 65.

Tragulus Pallas, 1767, Spicilegia Zoologica, fasc. 1, p. 6.

71

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 arabic
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 1888. Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Alvania
nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 designated as the type species :

OPINION 1889. Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): peeaitie
name conserved ae

OPINION 1890. Scarabaeus ES Moll, 1782 (omceatly Bahiden, Teo) iGearabdete
rufus Fabricius, 1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus foetidus Herbst,
1783 (currently Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved.

OPINION 1891. Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum
Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . é

OPINION 1892. Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Brvorea): neone pea ;

OPINION 1893. Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot,
[1809] (Aves, Passeriformes): specific names conserved .

OPINION 1894. Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): rejected foi
nomenclatural 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) . Rent ENR ie he ar etoc a4

Information and Instructions for Authors .

CONTENTS

Notices . ; 5 1
The International Commission on ‘Zoological Nomenclature and its publications : 2
Addresses of members of the Commission . Pic Aer ot ES BP ae AG - 3
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. . . . . . . . 1... a. 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 Zaslapy. 5

Applications

Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium
caudatum Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora, hia seg proposed conservation of the
specific names. C. W. Heckman . . . 6

Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Fischer, “1885 Cette! Gastropoda):
proposed conservation by the designation of Trochus turbinatus Born, 1778 as the

type species of Osilinus. S. Gofas & D.G. Herbert . . .. . i 9
Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Meson caucasicus;

Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of the specific name. V. Fet . . 14
Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): ses conservation.

W.D. Sissom, V. Fet & M.E. Braunwalder. . . . . 17
Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa peu Inwécta: Hetero: f

tera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson. . . 20
Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. H. Silfverbers 22
DASYPODIDAE Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed emendation of spelling

to DASYPODAIDAE, so removing the homonymy with DasypopIDAE Gray, 1821

(Mammalia, Xenarthra). B.A. Alexander, C.D. Michener & A.L. Gardner. . . 24
Comments

On the proposed conservation of the names Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949,
Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt,
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis 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 albocarinatus 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 Paha teriae 2 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; 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 mammal specific names based on wild
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic
annals. Ey Brsbing ics testes kA gen. kek eer) yea ae tee ae 43

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 1886. Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): conserved by the
designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species . . 47

OPINION 1887. Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848
(currently Bathyarca pectunculoides and B. gs aoe Mollusca, Bivalvia):
specific names conserved... ..... 4 NY ys wen. 49

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Bulletin

Podieccal
Nomenclature

~ wwii >
ae Ae
wee Won

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

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

Prof A. Minelli (Italy)

Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)

Dr V. Mahnert

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

(Brazil; Coleoptera)

Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; 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)

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

Mio (ORY MUocUNi
-1 JUL 1936

PURCHASED

00

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

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 applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.

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

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 55, part | (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 Cuma
rathkii (Kroyer, 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 Pedioplanis undata; 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; Moll-
usca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name adamii by the
designation of a neotype. (Case 3086). G. Manganelli & F. Giusti.

(9) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (Moll-
usca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of usage of Hydrobia and of the
specific name of C. acutum 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. Valdés.

(11) Leucocytozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of Berestneff,
1904 as the author and fixation of ‘Leukocytozoen’ danilewskyi Ziemann, 1898
as the type species. (Case 3089). G. Valkitnas.

(12) Musca arcuata Linnaeus, 1758 and M. festiva Linnaeus, 1758 (currently
Chrysotoxum 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. Iliff & 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 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 £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(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 0 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 American and
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£20 or $35. Payment (cheques made out to ‘ITZN’ 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 SBD, 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 £60 or $110 (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.

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: ncs1313@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 crassula.

1. Rafinesque (1818a, p. 355) briefly described a new genus Ambloxis and included
in it two new nominal species A. eburnea 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, 1818b, 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 Lymnula ventricosa (Binney, 1865, pp. 42, 45, fig. 91)
and Lymnea eburnea (Binney, 1865, pp. 45-46, fig. 92) from Rafinesque’s unpub-
lished manuscript Conchologia Ohiensis. The names of these two species were placed
in the synonymy of Melantho decisa (Say, 1817), and Pilsbry (1917, p. 111) designated
the nominal species L. eburnea as the type species of Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818.
Tryon (1865, p. 82) identified Amb/oxis as the same as the genus Melantho 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 Campeloma. Parodiz (1956, p. 391) questioned Pilsbry’s
action in recognizing Ambloxis. 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, 187la, 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 Paludina ‘Lamarck’ Férussac, 1812 and
Melantho Bowditch, 1822 for this group of North American species.

5. Pilsbry (1917, p. 113) noted that Campeloma crassula Rafinesque, 1819 was the
type species of Campeloma by original monotypy and placed Campeloma Rafinesque,
1819 as a junior synonym of Amb/oxis 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 Amb/oxis for the commonly used Campeloma. He
observed (p. 276): “The generic name Campeloma has been in general use for nearly
one hundred years, while Amb/oxis 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 Campeloma. 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: Nomenclator zoologicus, continenes nomina system-
atica generum animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium. xiv, 98 pp. Jent & Gassmann.

Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomeclatoris zoologici; index universalis, in: Nomenclator zoologicus,
continens nomina systematica generum animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium. viii, 393
pp. Jent & Gassmann.

Anderson, B.E. 1966. Studies on the molluscan genus Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819. Sterkiana,
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): 137-410.

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, 1-494.

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): 1—-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
and 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, J.B. 1979. Genera and subgenera of Recent freshwater gastropods of North America
(North of Mexico). Malacological Review, 12: 97-100.

Burch, J.B. 1982a. 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 list, ranges and
illustrations. Transactions of the Physiological, Oecological, Experimental Taxonomic and
Systematics Society, 3: 81-215.

Se ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 79

Call, R.E. 1883. Note on the genus Campeloma of Rafinesque. American Naturalist, 17(6):
603-608.

Call, R.E. 1886. On the genus Campeloma, Rafinesque, with a revision of the species, Recent
and fossil. Bulletin of the Washburn College Laboratory of Natural History, 1(5): 149-165.

Call, R.E. 1888a. On the gross anatomy of Campeloma. American Naturalist, 22: 491-497.

Call, R.E. 1888b. 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. & yan der Schalie, H. 1944. A revision of the Mollusca of Indiana. American
Midland Naturalist, 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 Malaco-
logical Society, 10(2—3): 112-211.

Harman, W.N. & Berg, C.O. 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-vil, 1-313.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846. Jndicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia, 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. New
York State Museum Bulletin, no. 482: i-vi, 1-112.

Karlin, A.A. 1981. 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 geniculum (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, Bulletin,
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. 187la. Descriptions of new species of fossils from Ohio and other western states
and territories. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 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 States Geological Survey af 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. 1876. 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-\xiv, 1-629.

Meek, F.B. & Hayden, F.V. 1865. Palaeontology of the Upper Missouri; invertebrates.
Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 14(Art. 5)(172); 135 pp. ,

Morrison, J.P.E. 1947. Notes on the Philippine snail, Viviparus burroughianus Lea. Nautilus,
61(1): 29-30.

Neaye, 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) carinata (Bruguiére).
Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 33(23): 391-405.

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, 8(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 and 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 découverts dans l’intérieur
des Etats-Unis d’Amerique, durant l'année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie,
d@ Histoire Naturelle, 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.

Scudder, S.H. 1882. II. 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 Museum, 19(2):
1-340.

Sherborn, C.D. 1923-1924. Index Animalium. 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.

Starobogatoy, Ya.I. 1970. Mollusk 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 snails 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, F.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 Malacological 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 rufum, a
fresh-water snail. American Naturalist, 71: 167-184.

van der Schalie, H. 1964. Notes on the sex of Campeloma. American Malacological Union,
Annual Reports, 1964: 24-25.

Vaught, K.C. 1989. 4 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 aquatic snails (Gastropoda) of the Savannah River Plant Aiken, 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 SBD, 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 Prévost, 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 deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 is proposed as the type species of Euchilus
Sandberger, 1870 and Paludina desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the type species of
Stalioa Brusina, 1870. These actions, and the suppression of Stoliva Fuchs, 1877 and
Stalioia Fischer, 1885, are proposed to conserve Bania Brusina, 1896, to avoid the
need for a new name for Euchilus as used in its accustomed sense, and to prevent
the names Euchilus and Stalioa being applied to taxa other than those used by the
majority of authors.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; HYDROBIIDAE; Tertiary
prosobranch gastropods; Euchilus; 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 names engraved usually
preceding the text. In livraison 2/3 (published in 1870) the name *Euchilus Desmarestii
Prév. sp.’ was published as legend to plate 11, figure 10, thereby making Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 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 Prévost,
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 Fossarulus 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 Sralioa, 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 Prévost, 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 (l.c. p. 937) ..... This was the first unqualified inclusion of a nominal species
in Stalioa; the specific name is made available by reference to the description of 1870.
Another specific name mentioned in this paper, that of Stalioa valvatoides, 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,
pl. 4, figs. 11-12); he also for the first time described and figured S. valvatoides (p. 44,
figs. 9-10), thereby making it available. Brusina again only provisionally attributed
desmarestii Prévost, deschiensiana Deshayes and other species to Stalioa, as he still
had no material for study. Clessin (1880, p. 183) designated Stalioa valvatoides as
type species of Stalioa. This designation is invalid since S. valvatoides 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.

7. Cossmann (1893, p. 15) gave Paludina desmarestii Prévost 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; Glibert, 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 Sandbergeriella
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 (1960, 1961) thought Emmericia canaliculata Brusina to be the type species
of Stalioa by monotypy. This is clearly an error, although 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 Stalioa, 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
Stalioa, 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 Stoliva 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 Prévost, 1821;

(b) to suppress the generic name Sfoliva 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 (1872) Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 by
the ruling in (1)(a)(i) above;

(b) Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Cossmann (1893) Paludina desmarestii Prévost, 1821 by the
ruling in (1)(a)(il) 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, 1862, 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 Prévost, 1821, as published in the binomen Pal/udina desmarestii
(specific name of the type species of Stalioa Brusina, 1870);

(c) prototypica Brusina, 1872, as published in the binomen Stalioa prototypica
(specific name of the type species of Bania Brusina, 1896);

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

Names in Zoology:

(a) Stoliva Fuchs, 1877, as suppressed in (1)(b) above;

(b) Sandbergeriella Schlickum, 1968 (a junior objective synonym of Stalioa
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 Prévost.

References

Brusina, S. 1870. Monographie der Gattungen Emmericia und Fossarulus. Verhandlungen der
Kaiserlich-K6niglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 20: 925-938.

Brusina, S. 1872. Naravoslovne crtice sa sjevero-isto¢ne obale jadranskoga mora sabrao god.
1868 i 1871. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 19: 105-177.

Brusina, S. 1874. Prilozi paleontologiji hrvatskoj ili kopnene i sladkovodne terciarne izkopine
Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 28:
1-109.

Brusina, S. 1896. La collection Néogéne de Hongrie, de Croatie, de Slavonie et de Dalmatie a
lexposition de Budapest. Glasnika Hrvatskoga Naravoslovnoga Drustva, 9: 98-150. [In
Serbo-Croatian and French].

Clessin, S. 1880. Studien tiber die Familie der Paludinen. Malakozoologische Blatter, (n.s.)2:
161-196.

Cossmann, M. 1888. Catalogue illustré des coquilles fossiles de Eocéne des environs de Paris,
faisant suite aux travaux paléontologiques de G.P. Deshayes, part 3. Annales de la Société
Royale Malacologique de Belgique, 23: 3-324. 5

Cossmann, M. 1893. Catalogue illustré des coquilles fossiles de l’Eocéne des environs de Paris,
faisant suite aux travaux paléontologiques de G.P. Deshayes. Appendice no. 1. Annales de
la Société Royale Malacologique de Belgique, 28: 1-18.

Cossmann, M. 1921. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée, vol. 12. 348 pp., 6 pls. Privately
published, Paris.

Cossmann, M. & Peyrot, A. 1919. Conchologie Néogénique de l’Aquitaine. Actes de la Société
Linnéenne de Bordeaux, 70(4):; 357-491.

Deshayes, G.P. 1862. Pp. 433-640 in: Description des animaux sans vertébres du Bassin de Paris.
2. Bailliere, Paris.

Dollfus, G. 1912. Recherches critiques sur quelques genres et especes d’Hydrobia vivants ou
fossiles. Journal de Conchyliologie, 59(3): 179-270.

Fischer, P.H. 1885. Pp. 689-896 in: Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchylio-
logique ou histoire naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles. Savy, Paris.

Fuchs, T. 1877. Geologische Uebersicht der jiingeren Tertiarbildungen des Wiener Beckens und
des ungarisch-steierischen Tieflandes. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft,
29(4): 653-709.

Glibert, M. 1949. Gastropodes du Miocéne du Bassin de la Loire. Mémoires de I’ Institut Royal
des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, (2)30: 1-240.

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

Glibert, M. 1962. Les Mesogastropoda fossiles du Cénozoique étranger des collections de
l'Institut royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. le partie. Cyclophoridae a Stiliferidae
(inclus). Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, (2)69: 1-305.

Kabat, A. R. & Hershler, R. 1993. The prosobranch snail family Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda
Rissooidea): review of classification and supraspecific taxa. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology, no. 547. 94 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Kadolsky, D. 1993. Der Gattung Nystia zugeordnete Arten im Tertiar des mittleren und
westlichen Europas (Gastropoda: Rissooidea). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 122: 335-402.

Prévost, C. 1821. Sur un nouvel exemple de la reunion de coquilles marines et de coquilles
fluviatiles dans les mémes couches. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d’ Histoire naturelle et
des Arts, 92: 418-427.

Roman, F. 1912. Faune saumatre du Sannoisien du Gard. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de
France, (4)10: 927-955. :
Sandberger, C.L.F. von. 1870-1872. Die Land-und Stisswasser-Conchylien der Vorwelt.
Livraison 2/3: pp. 33-96, pls. 5—12 (1870); Livraison 4/5: pp. 97-160, pls. 13-20 (1871);

Livraison 6/8: pp. 161-256, pls. 21-32 (1872). Kreidel, Wiesbaden.

Schlickum, R.W. 1960. Die Gattung Nematurella Sandberger. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde,
89(4-6): 203-214.

Schlickum, R.W. 1961. Die Gattung Euchilus Sandberger. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 90(1-3):
59-68.

Schlickum, R.W. 1965. Zur Gattung Euchilus Sandberger. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 94(3-S):
99-104.

Schlickum, R.W. 1968. Zur Nomenklatur von Staliopsis Rzehak 1893. Archiv fiir Mollusken-
kunde, 98(1—2): 53-54.

Wenz, W. 1926. Gastropoda extramarina tertiaria. Fossilium Catalogus, I (Animalia), part 32.
Pp. 1863-2230. Junk, Berlin.

Wenz, W. 1939. Pp. 481-720 in: Handbuch der Paldozoologie, 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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.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, Stalactella
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 of Acera Cuvier, 1810 and a ‘virtual
homonym’ of Akera Miller, 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) of Acera Cuvier retained that
name as available for purposes of homonymy, thus continuing to disqualify Acera
Albers.

3. Martens (1860) designated Cy/lindrella 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, pl. 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 locality: Holospira,
Stalactella Bartsch, 1906 and Malinchea Bartsch, 1945. The species may also belong
to some other genus. Holospira (as currently understood) has four smooth internal
lamellae, whereas Malinchea has three and Stalactella 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 Cy/indrella
goldfussi Menke, 1847 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 (1) above
Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name goldfussi
Menke, 1847, as published in the binomen Cy/indrella goldfussi (specific name
of the type species of Holospira Martens, 1860).

References

Albers, J.C. 1850. Die Heliceen, nach natiirlicher Vervandtschaft systematisch geordnet. 262 pp.
Berlin.

Gilbertson, L.H. 1993. Reproductive anatomies of Holospira spp. (Gastropoda: Pulmonata:
Urocoptidae) from Arizona and Sonora, with a new subgenus and a new subspecies.
American Malacological Bulletin, 10: 71-81.

Martens, E. von. 1860. In Albers, J.C., Die Heliceen, nach natiirlicher Vervandtschaft
systematisch geordnet, Ed. 2. 359 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig.

Menke, K.T. 1847. Vier neue Arten der Gattung Cylindrella Pfr. Zeitschrift fiir Malako-
zoologie, 1847(1): 1-3.

Pfeiffer, L. 1841. Symbolae ad historium Heliceorum. 88 pp. Casselis.

Philippi, R.A. [1842]-1851. Abbildungen und Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig gekannter
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 Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico). Monograph,
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3, vol. 2, part 1. 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, 105: 133-167.

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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@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 Biodiversity and Systematic Biology, National Museums and
Galleries of Wales, Cardiff CF1 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 nigropicta (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. 111) 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. Nephotettix 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 Nephotettix nigropictus; some recent examples are Inoue (1986), Cook
& Perfect (1989), Heong, Aquino & Barrion (1991) and Waterhouse (1993), 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 WN. nigropictus (Stal, 1870) because of the extensive economic
literature. Any further resurrection of the barely used name nigromaculatus
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 nigromaculatus 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, 1870, 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, Nephotettix virescens (Distant), N. nigropictus (Stal) and Recilia dorsalis
(Motschulsky) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), in farmers’ fields in the Philippines. Bulletin of
Entomological Research, 79: 437-451.

Day, M. & Fletcher, M. 1994. An annotated catalogue of the Australian Cicadelloidea
(Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha). Invertebrate Taxonomy, 8: 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 Nephotettix 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 Nephotettix occurring in Asia. Bulletin of the
Kyushu Agricultural Experiment Station, 24: 149-237.

Motschulsky, V. de. 1859. Insectes des Indes Orientales, et des contrées analogues. Pp. 25-118
in: Etudes Entomologiques, redigées par Victor de Motschulsky, vol. 8. Helsingfors.

Stal, C. 1870. Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum. Bidrag till Philippinska Oarnes
Hemipter-fauna. Ofversigt af Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar,
27: 607-776.

Vilbaste, J. 1975. On some species of Homoptera Cicadinea described by V. Motschulsky.
Eesty NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised (Biologia), 24: 228-236.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

Waterhouse, D.F. 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia.
141 pp. ACIAR, Canberra.

Wilson, M.R. & Claridge, M.F. 1991. Handbook for the identification of leafhoppers and
planthoppers 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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

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 Biodiversity and Systematic Biology, National Museums and
Galleries of Wales, Cardiff CF1 3NP, U.K.
(e-mail: Mike. Wilson@nmgw.ac.uk)

M. Asche

Museum fiir Naturkunde, Zentralinstitut der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin,
Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 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 of Asiraca Latreille, [1796]. It has recently been suggested that Cimex
aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763 and Cicada quadristriata 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;
Cimex aequinoctialis; planthoppers.

1. Fabricius (1794, p. 41) described the delphacid planthopper Cicada clavicornis
from France, and the female holotype is preserved at the Muséum 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 Cimex 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 quadristriata 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. clavicornis, 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 aequinoctialis the name quadristriata
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
clavicornis Fabricius, 1794. We would argue the contrary. The species is very well
known, and has been universally called Asiraca 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 aequi-
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 c/avicornis
Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada clavicornis (specific name
of the type species of 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 (1)(a) above;

(b) quadristriata Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada quadri-
striata and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Asche, M. 1985. Zur Phylogenie der Delphacidae Leach, 1815 (Homoptera, Cicadina,
Fulgoromorpha). Marburger Entomologische Publikationen, 2(1): 1-398.

Dolling, W.R. 1996. The identity of Cimex aequinoctialis Scopoli (Hem., Delphacidae).
Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 132: 49-SO.

Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae, Ed. 13 (pp. 1517-2224). Lipsiae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Ryngota. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 4. 472 pp.
Proft, Hafniae.

Kirby, P. 1992. A review of the scarce and threatened Hemiptera of Great Britain. 267 pp. Joint
Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Latreille, P.A. [1796]. Précis des caractéres générales des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel.
xvi, 208 pp. Bourdeaux, Brive.

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l'ordre naturel des animaux composant les
classes des crustacés, 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 identifi-
cation of British insects, 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.
Commentationes Biologicae, 10(7): 123.

Metcalf, Z.P. 1943. Fulguroidea. Part 3. Araeopidae (Delphacidae). Jn China, W.E. &
Parshley, H.M. (Eds.), General Catalogue of the Hemiptera, Fascicle 4. 552 pp. Smith
College, Northampton, Massachusetts.

Nast, J. 1972. Palaearctic Auchenorrhyncha (Homoptera). An annotated check list. Polish
Scientific Publishers, Warszawa.

Scopoli, J.A. 1763. Entomologia carniolica. xxxvi, 420 pp., 43 pls. Vindobonae.

Servadei, A. 1967. P. 569 in: Fauna d'Italia. Rhynchota (Heteroptera, Homoptera Auchenor-
rhyncha). Catalogo topographico e sinonimico. Bologna.

Zschach, J.J. 1788. Museum N.G. Leskeanum, Pars Entomologica ad systema Cl. Fabricii
ordinata. (2), 136 pp., 3 pls. Miller, 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@nhm.ac.uk).

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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, Burnham, Slough, Berkshire SLI 7EL, 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 SyYRPHIDAE 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 fimetaria 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), Sods (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
Pelethophila Hagenbach, 1822 was the correct name for the group containing Psila
fimetaria (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 and fimetaria groups in Psila s. str., thus synonymizing
Psila and Chamaepsila.

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 Musca 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 different. 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 1776 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 Scaeva 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 hennigi 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, 1794) 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, 1794;

(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 Entomological 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. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes, vol. 6. viii, 523 pp., 30 pls.
Hesselberg, Stockholm.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 4. [6], 472 pp.

Frey, R. 1925. Zur Systematik der palaarktischen Psiliden. Notulae Entomologicae, 5: 47-50.
Hardman, J.A., Ellis, P.R. & Stanley, E.A. 1985. Bibliography of the carrot fly Psila rosae (F.).
Wellesbourne. 7
Hendel, F. 1917. Beitrage 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 paldarktischen Region,
no. 41.

Iwasa, M. 1991. Taxonomic study of the genus Psi/a 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).
Entomologiske Meddelelser, 32: 367-377.

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 F.). 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.

Sods, A. 1974. Taxonomische und faunistische Untersuchungen iiber die Psiliden (Diptera) aus
der Mongolei. Annales historico-naturales Musei Nationalis Hungaricae, 66: 241-250.
Soés, A. 1984. Family Psilidae. Pp. 28-35 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of

Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 9.

Stephens, J.F. 1829. A systematic catalogue of British insects. Insecta Haustellata. 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 westpaldarktischen Chamaepsila-Arten (Diptera:
Psilidae). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, Serie A (Biologie), no. 417. 13 pp.

Westwood, J.O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of British 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, I.C.Z.N., clo The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 99

Case 3037

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed
designation of [guanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881
as the type species, and proposed designation of a lectotype

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 Jguanodon 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 Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels, be
designated the lectotype of I. bernissartensis.

Keywords. Taxonomy; nomenclature; Ornithischia; IGUANODONTIDAE; iguanodons;
Lower Cretaceous; [guanodon; 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, Jgvanodon and Hylaeosaurus (herbivores) and
Megalosaurus (a carnivore).

2. In 1825 Mantell (p. 184) established the genus /guanodon 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, pl. 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 Jguanodon. 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 Jguanodon 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 Jguanodon. 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 [guanodon anglicum, which
thus became the type species of [guanodon by subsequent monotypy (Article 69a(i)(1)

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

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. 115.
pl. 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 I[guanodon is masculine, and designated the dentary
(lower) tooth depicted by Mantell (1825, pl. 14, figs. la, 1b) as the lectotype of
I. anglicus.

4. Norman (1986) tentatively identified his lectotype tooth of Jguwanodon 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 Zgwanodon 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 (pl. 4, fig. 4 and pl. 17, figs. 6a and 6b) and
1833 (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 Jguanodon, 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, /guanodon
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 (pl. 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 (pl. 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 (pl. 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 [Jguanodon]’.

(3) Mantell (1827, pp. 71-79) had described (and illustrated in pls. 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 /guanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 and I. mantelli 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 150
years J. anglicus remained unknown to most authors, and /. mantelli was generally
regarded as the type species of [guwanodon (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 /. mantelli 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 Jguanodon is still displayed as the ‘holotype’ of /. mantelli 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 Jguanodon 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 Z. anglicus, designated by
Norman, 1986, and six paralectotypes) are highly unsatisfactory as type material for
the genus /guanodon. 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 guanodon have no features of the
teeth by which they might be distinguished one from the other, and these teeth of
I. anglicus could be conspecific with any of them. In brief, these teeth are indeter-
minate specifically, and the name J. 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 [guanodon
in the Weald of southeastern England and in Belgium, /. bernissartensis Boulenger in
Beneden, 1881 (p. 606) and L. atherfieldensis Hooley, 1925 (p. 3); both are represented
by almost complete articulated skeletons (many such in the case of IL. bernissartensis;
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 1. 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 1 bernissartensis and
I. atherfieldensis 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 différentes
grandeurs ont été 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 Jguanodon and considered that the greater number of sacral vertebrae
(six) in the Bernissart fossils, compared with the five that Owen had demonstrated
in I. mantelli von Meyer, 1832, merited the establishment of a new species,
I. bernissartensis. No particular specimens were mentioned. Dollo further described
the species in 1882 (p. 177, pl. 9, figs. 3-4) 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).

11. Among the 26 skeletons of Jguanodon bernissartensis 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 Casier (1960, p. 126, pls. 5, 6, 11; 1978, p. 158, pls. 5, 6, 11) 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,
pl. 6). The specimen was referred to by Dollo (1883a, p. 85) and the drawing was
published by De Pauw (in Dollo, 1883a, pl. 5) and it has been almost completely
internationally recognised as the type since that time. In a 1925 posthumous
publication, Hooley (pp. 11, 51) referred to a further specimen figured by Dollo
(1883b, pl. 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
Casier, 1960, p. 123, pl. 12; 1978, p. 155, pl. 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 I. 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 bernissartensis
Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 103

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species
Iguanodon bernissartensis 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 Jguanodon
Mantell, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(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 (1)(b)
above (specific name of the type species of Jguanodon Mantell, 1825).

References

Beneden, P.-J. yan. 1881. Sur l’arc pelvien chez les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletins de
l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Classe des
Sciences, (3)1(5): 600-608.

Boulenger, G.A. 1881. Jguanodon bernissartensis. Page 606 in P.-J. van Beneden, Sur l’arc
pelvien chez les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletins de |’ Académie Royale des Sciences,
des Lettres et 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.

Casier, E. 1960, 1978. Les iguanodons de Bernissart. 134 pp., 28 pls. (1960); 166 pp., 28 pls.
(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: in 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 fossiles, Ed. 3, vol. 5, part 2. 547 pp., 33
pls. 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. Découverte,
solidification et montage des iguanodons. Jumpertz, Etterbeek-Brussels.

Dollo, L. 1882. Premiére note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletin du Musée Royal
d Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 1(2): 161-180.

Dollo, L. 1883a. Troisiéme note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletin du Musée Royal
d Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 2: 85-120.

Dollo, L. 1883b. Quatriéme note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart. Bulletin du Musée Royal
d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 2: 223-248.

Holl, F. 1829. Handbuch der Petrefactenkunde, part 1. 115 pp. Hilscher, Dresden.

Hooley, R.W. 1925. On the skeleton of [guanodon atherfieldensis sp. noy., from the Wealden
shales of Atherfield (Isle of Wight). Quarterly 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 Reptilia 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 Jguanodon, a newly discovered fossil reptile, from the
sandstone of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 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 pls. 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. yon. 1832. Palaeologica zur Geschichte der Erde und ihrer Geschépfe. 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.

Nopesa, Baron F. 1915. Uber Geschlechtsunterschiede bei Dinosauriern. Centralblatt fiir
Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1915(13): 385-388.

Nopesa, Baron F. 1918. Uber Dinosaurier. Neues iiber Geschlechtsunterschiede bei
Orthopoden. Centralblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1918(11-12):
186-198.

Nopesa, Baron F. 1929. Sexual differences in ornithopodous dinosaurs. Palaeobiologica, 2(4—S):
187-200.

Norman, D.B. 1980. On the ornithischian dinosaur Jguanodon bernissartensis from the Lower
Cretaceous of Bernissart (Belgium). Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles
de Belgique, 178: 1-105.

Norman, D.B. 1986. On the anatomy of Iguanodon atherfieldensis (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda).
Bulletin de l'Institut Royal 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 fossil Reptilia of the Cretaceous formations, part 1. xii, 118
pp. Palaeontographical Society, London.

Swinton, W.E. 1970. The dinosaurs. 331 pp., 8 pls. Allen & Unwin, London.

Woodward, A.S. & Sherborn, C.D. 1890. 4 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, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

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 Miller, 1867,
Phrixura Miller, 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, [1777] (currently Ochlodes 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-group 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 sy/vanus
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 sy/vanus 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 pl. 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
1779 (see Heppner, 1981), and that the text of Augiades sylvanus by Mabille (in Seitz,
vol. 1, pp. 1-347) was published in 1909 (not 1906).

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

To the works cited as using the specific name sy/vanus (paras. 2 and 5 of the
application) may be added the widely known handbooks of Staudinger (1901, p. 115),
Spuler (1902, pp. 72-73), Rebel (1909, pp. 79-80), Eckstein (1913, p. 115), Lampert
(1923, p. 108) and Lempke (1936, p. 312).

Additional references

Eckstein, K. 1913. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung ihrer
Biologie, Th. 1, 1. Lutz, Stuttgart.
Hesselbarth, G., van Ooorschot, H. & Wagener, S. 1995. Die Tagfalter der Tiirkei, vol. 1.
Lampert, K. 1923. Die Grossschmetterlinge und Raupen Mitteleuropas mit besonderer Beriick-
sichtigung der biologischen Verhdltnisse. Schreiber, Munich. .
Lempke, B.J. 1936: Catalogus der Nederlandsche Macrolepidoptera. 1. Tijdschrift voor
Entomologie, 79.

Rebel, H. 1909. Fr. Berge’s Schmetterlingsbuch nach dem gegenwartigen Stande der Lepidopter-
ologie neu bearbeitet. 9. Augflage. Schweizerbartsche, Stuttgart.

Spuler, A. 1902. Die Schmetterlinge Europas, vol. 1. Schweizerbartsche, Stuttgart.

Staudinger, O. 1901. Famil. Papilionidae — Hepialidae. Jn Staudinger, O. & Rebel, H.,
Catalog der Lepidopteren des palaearctischen Faunengebietes. 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
The 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 Béhme (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 synonyms, both of which are made
available only by the provision of measurements. Tupinambis endrachtensis was

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 107

described by Péron (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 Péron (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 Varanus gouldii. The
name Hydrosaurus 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. panoptes as a distinct species, Hydrosaurus 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 Varanus 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 Varanus panoptes. 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 Varanus 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 Blyth’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 small, 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 Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

V. panoptes 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 gouldi) in that collection. Of these, six (h-j, Port
Essington, Capt. Chambers; k, Port Essington, Mr Gould; I-m, Adelaide, C.D.
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. gou/dii 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 BGhme (1991) as V. panoptes, 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 gouldii, reads: ‘A specimen of Monitor
Gouldii Gray and Trachydosaurus rugosus Gray from New Holland. From Walter
Buchanan esq.’. This entry is also annotated: “Reg Jan 19 1838 No. 230 231’, 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. gouldii. Two members of the V. gouldii complex occur in the vicinity of
the Swan River, V. gouldii 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 gouldii 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. gouldii 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. gouldii (BMNH 1997.1, formerly Western Australian
Museum R131792) 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
locality 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
gouldii 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 Tupinambis
endrachtensis Péron, 1807 and Hydrosaurus ocellarius Blyth, 1868 should be added to
the original application. ?

110 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 Péron, 1807, as published in the binomen Tupinambis
endrachtensis;
(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 Péron, 1807, as published in the binomen Tupinambis
endrachtensis, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) ocellarius Blyth, 1868, as published in the binomen Hydrosaurus ocellarius,
as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

Additional references

Baudin, N. 1974. The Journal of Post Captain Nicolas Baudin, Commander-in-Chief of the
Corvettes Géographe and Naturaliste. Assigned by 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)
(extra 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 Varanidés (Reptiles, Sauriens) du Muséum national
d’Histoire naturelle. Catalogue critique. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire 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 expedition 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.
Xxvil, 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 Senckenbergischen 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.

Péron, F. 1807. Voyage de découvertes aux Terres Australes, exécuté par ordre de Sa Majesté
l'Empereur et Roi, sur les Coryettes le Géographe, le Naturaliste, et la Goélette le Casuarina,
pendant les années 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803 et 1804, vol. 1. 496 pp. Imprimerie Impériale,
Paris.

Roux-Esteye, R. 1979. Liste des amphibiens et reptiles des collections du Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris, récoltés par Lesueur (1778-1846). Bulletin Trimestriel de la
Société Géologique de Normandie et des Amis du Muséum 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.
Journal 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. B6hme

Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 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 prasinus 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 Horne, 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

Bulletin 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
Odatria keithhornei, Sprackland (1991) described the same varanid species as Varanus
teriae. His description was also based on QMJ31566 as holotype, thus rendering
V. teriae a junior objective synonym of Odatria keithhornei, currently cited as
Varanus (Euprepiosaurus) keithhornei (see Béhme, 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 ”. 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 JV. feriae 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, Miller & Seufer (1996),
Lemm (1997), Ziegler & Bohme (1997), B6hme (1997) and Bohme & Ziegler (1998).
Additionally, in our systematic work (Ziegler & B6hme, 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. keithhornei 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 with its junior synonym J. feriae.

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
checklist 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. Warane der Welt — Welt 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 1998 113

Bohme, W. 1997. Robert Mertens’ Systematik und Klassifikation der Warane: Aktualisierung
seiner 1942er Monographie und eine revidierte Checkliste. Addendum to the reprint of
Mertens, R. (1942): Die Familie der Warane (WVaranidae). Erster bis dritter Teil.
Pp. i-xxii. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main.

Boéhme, W. & Ziegler, T. 1998. Varanus melinus sp. n., ein neuer Waran aus der V.
indicus-Gruppe von den Molukken, Indonesien. Herpetofauna, 19(111): 26-34.

Lemm, J. 1997. Reptile dreamtime. Reptiles, 5(9): 32-45.

Mertens, R. 1963. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien: Helodermatidae, Varanidae,
Lanthanotidae. Das Tierreich, 79: 1-26.

Ziegler, T. & Béhme, W. 1997. Genitalstrukturen und Paarungsbiologie bei squamaten
Reptilien, speziell den Platynota, mit Bemerkungen zur Systematik. Mertensiella, 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
Varanus keithhornei (Wells & 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 keithhornei 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 Commission 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, feriae 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 earlier 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. L agree that for the past six years common usage has favored Varanus 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 keithhornei and noted
that this is a senior synonym of feriae (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 feriae)’. 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 feriae 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 Varanus 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 amphibians 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. |
(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

Department 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. papuensis
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. papuensis 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. atra 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 vestigiatus De Vis, 1884
antedated D. atra Macleay, 1884. Smith & Wallach maintain that H. vestigiatus
remained in the synonymy of Austrelaps superbus until 1990, when Ingram resur-
rected it. However, its identity with the species previously known as Demansia
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. vestigiata has been used as the availabie 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. vestigiatus 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. vestigiatus, 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. vestigiata
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 vestigiatus 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 and their venoms, vol. 2 (Venomous
vertebrates). Academic Press, New York.

Cogger, H.G. 1996. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia, 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 vestigiata. 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.), Endoglyphs and 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. 255-464 in: Die Giftschlangen der Erde. N.G. Elwert, Universitats- 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 Linnean
Society of New South Wales, 2(1): 33-41.

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: Demansia 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. Journal 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 Nomenclature 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: \—-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
clo 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 SW7 5BD, U.K.

Our application to conserve the generic name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796
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 tardigradus
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 “Simia
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) Systema 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 Mus[eum] Ad{olphi] Fridferici] and redescribed in the 10th edition [of Systema
Naturae] 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 532011, 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 Choloepus 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:

(1) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for
Choloepus Ulliger, 1811 to record Bradypus didactylus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species by subsequent designation by Gray (1827).

Additional references

Linnaeus, C. 1746. Museum Adolpho-Fridericianum. Dissertation (respondent L. Balk). 50 pp.,
2 pls. Holmiae.

Linnaeus, C. 1749. Museum principis. Pp. 277-326 in: Amoenitates academicae, vol. 1. Holmiae
& Lipsiae.

Lowegren, Y. 1952. Naturaliekabinett i Sverige under 1700-talet. Ett bidrag till zoologiens
historia. 407 pp. Lynchnos-Bibliotek, Lund.

Wallin, L. 1991. Catalogue of 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: 119-129, 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.

120 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: 488-489.
Altaba, C.R. (In press). La diversitat bioldgica: 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 of rusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, as
published in the binomen Clavularia rusei, is riiset;

(ii) the correct original spelling of rusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, 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 (1)(a) above).

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

(a) paniculata Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, as published in the binomen
Rusea (sic) paniculata (specific name of the type species of Riisea
Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860);

(b) riisei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1960, 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 (1)(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
(1)(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, 1860, as published in the binomen
Clayularia rusei (ruled in (1)(b)(i) above to be an incorrect original spelling
of riisei);

(b) rusei Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, as published in the binomen
Desmophyllum rusei (ruled in (1)(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 Grasshoff (Forschungsinstitut und Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt
am Main, Germany) on 13 June 1994. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 54: 11-13 (March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On | 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 | 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 ruse).

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, Clayularia, 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).

w

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 12

OPINION 1896

Galba Schrank, 1803 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Buccinum truncatulum
Miller, 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 truncatulum
Miller, 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 Miller, 1774, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name truncatulum Miller, 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 Galba Schrank, 1803).

History of Case 2939

An application for the designation of Buccinum truncatulum Miller, 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 Geschichte der in Baiern einheimischen und
zahmen Thiere, Band 3, Heft 2, p. 262.
Truncatuliana Servain, 1881, Histoire malacologique du lac Balaton en Hongrie, p. 63.
truncatulum, Buccinum, Miller, 1774, Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium, seu animalium

infusoriorum, helminthicorum et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia, vol. 2,
p. 130.

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998

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

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diplopoda; Isopoda; GLOMERIDAE;
ARMADILLIDAE; ARMADILLIDIIDAE; millipedes; woodlice; Glomeris; Armadillo;
Armadillidium; 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 officinalis Dumeéril, 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 (1)(a) above Armadillo officinalis Duméril, 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) pustulatus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Oniscus pustulatus
(specific name of the type species of Glomeris Latreille, 1802);

(b) officinalis Duméril, 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) ARMADILLIDIDAE 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 (1)(b)(i) above;
(b) Orthonus Miers, [1878] (a junior objective synonym of 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 (1)(b)(ii)(A) above;
(b) variegatus Villers, 1789, 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 (1)(b)(1i)(C) above;
(d) globator Cuvier, 1792, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator (a
junior homonym of Oniscus globator Pallas, 1772).

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, 1804, 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, NOAA/NMFS 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
Hoffmann (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. Duméril (1816) also used
Armadillo for an isopod genus and included vu/garis 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 Duméril, 1816 as the type species of 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 (1) 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 yulgaris Latreille, 1804 (items (1)(b)(i)—(iii), (2)(a)-(b), (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 (1)(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 Duméril, 1816 as the type species, in accordance with usage, as proposed by
Prof Holthuis (items (1)(a)-(b), (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(a) and (5)(b) in para. 15 on BZN 52:
242),

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the
close of the voting period on 1 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 Armadillidium 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 Armadillidium. Wide use of 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 Pentheus 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 Nomenclature 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
Armadillo 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:

ARMADILLIDAE Brandt, [1831], in Brandt & Ratzeburg, Medizinische Zoologie oder getreue
Darstellung und Beschreibung der Thiere die in der Arzneimittellehre in Betracht kommen,
in systematischer Folge herausgegeben, vol. 2, p. 80.

ARMADILLIDIDAE Brandt, 1833, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6:
184.

Armadillidium Brandt, [1831], in Brandt & Ratzeburg, Medizinische Zoologie oder getreue
Darstellung und Beschreibung der Thiere die in der Arzneimittellehre in Betracht kommen,
in systematischer Folge herausgegeben, vol. 2, p. 81.

Armadillo Cuvier, 1792, Journal d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 2(13); 27.

Armadillo Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes,
vol. 3, p. 43.

armadillo, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 637.

cinereus, Oniscus, Zenker in Panzer, 1799, Fauna insectorum Germanicae initia, oder
Deutschlands Insecten ... Heft 62, no. 22.

globator, Oniscus, Cuvier, 1792, Journal d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 2(13); 24.

Glomeris Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes,
vol. 3, p. 44.

officinalis, Armadillo, Duméril, 1816, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, Ed. 2, vol. 3, p. 117.

Orthonus Miers, [1878], Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1877(43): 664.

pustulatus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 379.

variegatus, Oniscus, Villers, 1789, Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae Suecicae descriptionibus
aucta, vol. 4, p. 188.

vulgaris, Armadillo, Latreille, 1804, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et
des insectes, vol. 7, p. 47.

The following is the reference for the designation of Oniscus pustulatus Fabricius, 1781 as the
type species of the nominal genus G/omeris Latreille, 1802:
Jeekel, C.A.W. 1971. Monografieén van de Nederlandse Emtomologische Vereniging, 5: 14.

The following is the reference for the designation of Armadillidium commutatum Brandt in
Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] (a junior subjective synonym of 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 State 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, 1917 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;

(b) Aenasioidea Girault, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Aenasioidea latiscapus Girault, 1911, with the endorsement that it is not to
be given priority over 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) zebratus Mercet, 1917, as published in the binomen Aphycus zebratus
(specific name of the type species of Metaphycus Mercet, 1917);

(b) /atiscapus 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, 1911 was received from Dr John S.
Noyes (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Dr James B. Woolley
(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 Bouéek (The Natural History Museum,
London, U.K.), Dr John LaSalle & Dr Andrew Polaszek (International Institute of
Entomology, clo The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) was published in BZN
54: 105-106 (June 1997).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1997 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,
Minelli, 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 Entomologist, 43(5): 171.
latiscapus, Aenasioidea, Girault, 1911, Canadian Entomologist, 43(5): 173.
Metaphycus Mercet, 1917, Boletin de la Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 17(2): 138.
zebratus, Aphycus, Mercet, 1917, Boletin de la Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural,

17(2): 138.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Aenasioidea latiscapus

Girault, 1911:
Frison, T.H. 1927. Bulletin of the Illinois State Natural History Survey, 16: 217.

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) of 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 (1)
above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name /aevis 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, U.S.A.) 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 Meristella 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:
laevis, Atrypa, Vanuxem, 1842, Natural History of New York, p. 120.
Meristella Hall, 1859, Palaeontology of New York. New York State Cabinet of Natural History,
Annual Report, 12: 78.

The following is the reference for the designation of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 as the type
of the nominal genus Meriste/la Hall, 1859:
Miller, S.A. 1889. North American geology and paleontology for the use of amateurs, students
and scientists, p. 354.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(2) June 1998 133

OPINION 1900

Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): Spirifer multistriatus 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 (1)(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
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in
(1)(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 1 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 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

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:
multistriatus, Spirifer, Hall, 1857, New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report,
10: 59.
Trematospira Hall, 1858, in Davidson, The Geologist, 1: 412.
Trematospira Hall, 1859, New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report, 12: 27.

The following is the reference for the designation of Spirifer multistriatus 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

Gladiolites 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. L31612 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 Refiolites 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, Graptolites de Bohéme, p. 69.

The following is the reference for the illustration of the neotype of Gladiolites geinitzianus
Barrande, 1850:
Boutek, B. & Miinch, A. 1944. Rozpravy II. Tridy Ceské Akademie, 53: pl. 3, figs. 2-4.

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 arabic
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 S5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in 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 Dies) (Crustacea, Isopoda): generic and
specific names conserved . eer ek ee ks ea ee ce

OPINION 1898. Metaphycus Merect, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given
precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911

OPINION 1899. Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): ee ae Vanixent 1842
designated as the type species . . .

OPINION 1900. Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda} Saar cil eae, Hall,
1857 designated as the type species . 5g

OPINION 1901. Gladiolites geinitzianus nerd 1850 Keanenitys Retiolites
geinitzianus; Graptolithina): lectotype replaced by a neotype 2 UR eS

Information and instructions for authors

136

CONTENTS

Notices . : :
The International Code of Zoolopival Nomenclature ;
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Renlovy.

Applications

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation.
A.E. Bogan & E.E.Spamer. . . ern eer amOn hae at

Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 and Stalioa ane 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species, with the conservation of
Bania Brusina, 1896. D. Kadolsky : chp RES Pe ep le, eae

Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of
Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type species. F.G. Thompson

Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 1870 (currently Nephotettix nigropictus; Thaécta,
Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson .
Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homo-
ptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.R. Wilson & M. Asche
Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamaepsila rosae; Insecta, Diptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Chandler 5

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed designation oF Tedahadan
bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species, and beg
designation of a lectotype. A.J. Charig & §.D. Chapman ae

Comments

On the proposed conservation of Disparalona see 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi-
opoda). M.J. Grygier

On the proposed conservation of the specific name aE Panden ‘eplvviries Esper
[1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or mings sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera).
P.S. Wagener

On the proposed conservation oh He names ed cuuieas RAS Gray. 1838 and
Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the aostaie of a neotype
for Hydrosaurus gouldii. G.M. Shea & H.G. Cogger

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Vatanas: teriae Sprackland.
1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). T. Ziegler & W. BGhme; R.T. Hoser

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Diemenia atra Masieny, 1884
(currently Demansia atra; Reptilia, Serpentes). G.M. Shea .

On the proposed conservation of the name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 1796
(Mammalia, Primates). A. Gentry, C.P. Groves & P.D. Jenkins .

On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on 1 wild
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic
animals. C.R. Altaba RL Ae fe tae een re

Rulings of the Commission

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

OPINION 1896. Galba Schrank, 1803 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Huccidan truncatu-
lum Miiller, 1774 designated as the type species . ate

76

82
87
90
93

96

99

105
105

106
111
115

118

119

12a

123

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Bulletin

Pielecical
Nomenclature

t mi We "hes
| ey
on ey om 1) 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. 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

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

Prof A. Minelli (/ta/y)

Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)

Dr V. Mahnert

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

(Brazil; Coleoptera)

Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; 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)

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

TRE NATURA

HISTO mys 2
eRe is! qi

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 } 1 £ NY 37 19 98

PURCHA
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATUR

Volume 55, part 3 (pp. 137-204) 30 September 1998

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the 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 & Schiffermiiller], 1775 (currently Platyptilia
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 Miller, 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.

ZOOLOGY LIBRAR'

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@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 Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995’ (ISBN 0 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 American and
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£20 or $35. 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(3) September 1998 139

Case 3087

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805
(currently Hydrobia acuta; Mollusca, 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 di Biologia Evolutiva, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4,
I-53100 Siena, Italy (e-mail for Prof Giusti: giustif@unis1.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
HYDROBIDAE 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.

1. 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 100 genera and more than 1000 Recent species occurring virtually
world wide (see Kabat & Herschler, 1993, p. 1).

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 Hydrobia 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 family groups
RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840, included proposals to
place on Official Lists the names HYDROBIDAE, Hydrobia 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, pl. 1, fig. 23) established the nominal spécies
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, Hydrobia thermarum (sic; a misspelling of Turbo thermalis
Linnaeus, 1758, now placed in the hydrobiid genus Be/grandia Bourguignat, 1869),
and ‘diaphana’ (a nomen nudum) in the new genus Hydrobia, rendering the generic
name available, and later (1821b, pp. 47-48; see Opinion 344, pp. 324-326, June
1955) described the genus. Gray subsequently (1847, p. 151) designated C. acutum as
the type species of Hydrobia.

4. The status of Hydrobia acuta has remained controversial because of the
impossibility of correct determination in the absence of anatomical information. The
original description (including fig. 23 of pl. 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 Hydrobia 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 Prévost, Palavas, franzésische Mittelmeerkiiste’. Radoman recognized
Hydrobia 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, pl. la, fig. 1) selected a lectotype for Hydrobia acuta from
two putative syntypes found at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris.
He regarded them as syntypes because when Dollfus (1912, pl. 4, figs. 5—8) figured
them he wrote ‘Hydrobia acuta Draparnaud sp. (types: Muséum 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 Prévost 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 Turbo ventrosus

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 141

Montagu, 1803 (p. 317, pl. 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 lle 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 locality 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 Prévost near Palavas-les-Flots, Hérault, 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. stagnorum is a replacement name for Turbo stagnalis Baster, 1765
(pp. 77, 97, index, pl. 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 Lymnaea 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. stagnorum was not that of Gmelin (1791, i.e.
Turbo stagnalis Baster) but that it actually represented 7. ventrosus Montagu, 1803
and, indeed, Radoman (1977, p. 209, pl. 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 (1979, 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.

11. 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 HYDROBIDAE 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. 1 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 ventrosus 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 (1)(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 (1)(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
(Mollusca);

(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 (1)(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 Semisalsa 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(1-4): 51-60.

Baster, J. 1765. Opuscula subseciva, observationes miscellaneas de animaliculis et plantis ...
vol. 2, part 2. Pp. 49-100, pls. 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). Jn Minelli, A., Ruffo, S.
& La Posta, S. [Eds.], Checklist delle specie della fauna d'Italia, part 14 (Gastropoda
Prosobranchia, Heterobranchia). 60 pp.

Boeters, H.D. 1984. Zur Identitaét des Hydrobia-Typus (Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae). Heldia,
1(1): 3-5.

Boeters, H.D. 1988. Westeuropaische Moitessieriidae, 2 und Westeuropdische Hydrobiidae, 7.
Moitessieriidae und Hydrobiidae in Spanien und Portugal (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia).
Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 118(4-6): 181-261.

Cachia, C., Mifsud, C. & Sammut, P.M. 1996. The marine Mollusca 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
Pulmonata). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 38: 7-42.

Davis, G.M., McKee, M. & Lopez, G. 1989. The identity of Hydrobia truncata (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 espéces d’ Hydrobia vivants ou
fossiles. Journal de Conchyliologie, 59(3): 179-270.

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France.
viii, 164, [1] pp., 13 pls. Paris.

Falniowski, A. 1987. Hydrobioidea of Poland (Prosobranchia: Gastropoda). Folia
Malacologica, 1: 1-122.

Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique ou histoire
naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, fasc. 8. Pp. 723-752 (Hydrobiidae). Savy,
Paris.

Giannuzzi-Savelli, 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 Naturali, 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 Societa Italiana di Malacologia (Atti del Simposio

di Bologna, 24-26.9.1982), 21: 117-148.

Gmelin, J.F. [1791]. Caroli a Linné 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 Videnskabernes Selskab,
Biologiske Skrifter, 40: 1-367.

Hansen, M. 1995. Evolution and classification of the Hydrophiloidea — a systematic review.
Pp. 321-353 in Pakaluk, J. & Slipinski, S.A. (Eds.), Biology, phylogeny and classification
of Coleoptera: papers celebrating the 80th birthday of Roy A. Crowson, vol. 1. Muzeum i
Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warsaw.

Hartmann, J.D.W. 182la. 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, Eine 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 Sturm, J., Deutschlands Fauna in Abbildungen nach der Natur
mit Beschreibungen. 60 pp., 3 pls. Nurnberg.

Hoeksema, D.F. 1998. Note on the occurrence of Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805)
(Gastropoda, Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae) in western Europe, with special reference to a
record from S. Brittany, France. Basteria, 61(4-6): 101-113.

Kabat, A.R. & Herschler, R. 1993. The prosobranch snail family Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda,
Rissooidae): review of classification and supraspecific taxa. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology, 547: 1-94.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1328, [1-36]. Salvii,
Holmiae. 5

Locard, A. 1895. Ipsa Draparnaudi Conchylia. Etude sur la collection conchyliologique de
Draparnaud, au Musée Impérial et Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Vienne. 190 pp., Paris.
(Also published in 1897, in Annales de la Société 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 pls. Author, London.

Mulsant, E. 1844. Histoire naturelle des coléoptéres de France, vol. 3. vii, 196 pp., | pl. Maison,
Paris.

Newton, A.F., Jr. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in
Staphyliniformia (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 Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgrade, (B)34:
201-205.

Radoman, P. 1983. Hydrobioidea — a superfamily of Prosobranchia. | (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 dei molluschi
marini del Mediterraneo, part 1, pp. 1-348 (1990); part 2, pp. 349-498 (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(\):
52-54.

Troschel, F.H. 1857. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer natiirlichen Classification,
vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 73-112, pls. 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: iczn@nhm.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; AHypsitylus;
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
(Hyéres) 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. | 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
tule ‘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 Reuter (1883, p. 342) to distinguish ‘Orthotylus 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 Litosoma 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 Pachylops, 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 Capsus
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, 1868 is relatively rare and has a
limited 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 Platycranus
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 Platycranus 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
Reuter, 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 15 species.

12. In order to obtain the views of specialists, a questionnaire with all possible
solutions to the problem (including suppression of the name Pachylops or designation
for it of another type species) was sent to nine specialists from France (C. Dupuis,
B. Ehanno, A. Matocgq, J. Péricart), 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 of Litosoma
bicolor 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 Capsus chloropterus
Kirschbaum, 1856 by monotypy;

(3) to emend the entry for bicolor, 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 Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum,
1856, the type species of Pachylops Fieber, 1858).

References

Carapezza, A. 1997. Heteroptera of Tunisia. Naturalista 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 Régles 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. 627 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 Hétéroptéres Mirides de France. Vol. 1. Les secteurs biogéographiques.
603 pp. Paris.

Fieber, F.X. 1858. Criterien zur generischen Theilung der Phytocoriden (Capsini aut.). Wiener
entomologische Monatschrift, 2: 289-327, 329-347, 388.

Fieber, F.X. 1860-1861. Die europdischen Hemiptera. Halbfliigler. (Rhynchota Heteroptera).
Pp. i-vi, 1-112 (1860); pp. 113-444 (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 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 5:
163-174.

Kerzhner, I.M. & Josifoy, M. (In press). Family Miridae. Jn: Aukema, B. & Rieger, Chr. (Eds.),
Catalogue of the Heteroptera of the Palaearctic 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 fiir Naturkunde im Herzogthum Nassau, 10: 163-348
(also published separately).

Oshanin, B. 1910. Verzeichnis der Palaarktischen Hemipteren mit besonderer Berticksichti-
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

Qshanin, B. 1912. Katalog der paldarktischen Hemipteren (Heteroptera, Homoptera-
Auchenorrhyncha und Psylloidea). xvi, 187 pp. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin.

Reuter, O.M. 1877. Remarks on some British Hemiptera-Heteroptera. Entomologist’s Monthly
Magazine, 14: 127-131.

Reuter, O.M. 1883. Hemiptera Gymnocerata Europae. Hémiptéeres Gymnocérates d'Europe, du
bassin de la Méditerranée et de l'Asie Russe, 3: 313-496. Helsingfors. (Also published in
Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae, 13(1884): 313-496).

Reuter, O.M. 1910. Neue Beitrége zur Phylogenie und Systematik der Miriden nebst ein-
leitenden Bemerkungen iiber die Phylogenie der Heteropteren-Familien. Acta Societatis
Scientiarum Fennicae, 37(3): i-iv, 1-172.

Seabra, A.F. de. 1926. Hémiptéres Hétéropteres de la province de “Tras-os-Montes’. Memorias
e Estudos do Museu Zoologico da Universidade de Coimbra, 1(8): 1-39.

Wagner, E. 1939. Die Wanzen der Sammlung Kirschbaum. Jahrbiicher des Nassauischen
Vereins fiir Naturkunde, 86: 34-75.

Wagner, E. 1956. 21. Familie: Miridae (Capsidae auct.), Fortsetzung. Pp. 321-480 in: Gulde,
J., Die Wanzen Mitteleuropas, vol. 11. Huss, Frankfurt am Main.

Wagner, E. 1974. Die Miridae Hahn, 1831, des Mittelmeerraumes und der Makaronesischen
Inseln (Hemiptera: Heteroptera), part 2. Entomologische Abhandlungen herausgegeben
vom Staatlichen Museum fiir Tierkunde Dresden, 39, Supplement: 1-421.

Wagner, E. & Weber, H.H. 1964. Hétéroptéres Miridae. Faune de France, vol. 67. 591 pp.
Fédération Frangaise des Sociétés 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: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 151

Case 3051

Scarus chrysopterus 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

Secao de Peixes, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo,
C.P. 7172, 01064-970 Sao Paulo, Brazil

John E. Randall

Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96817-0916, U.S.A. (e-mail: jackr@vision 1 .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 S. chrysopterum. It is also proposed that S. chrysopterum
be designated as the type species of 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, pl. 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, pl. 57) described and illustrated Scarus
chrysopterus from ‘mare Americanum’. 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 Abildgardii [sic] Bloch, pl. 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 Scarus
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 décoloré’. 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, pl. 30; Meek & Hildebrand, 1925, p. 748;
Townsend, 1929, pl. 19; Longley & Hildebrand, 1940, p. 207, pls. 17, 28) used the
name Sparisoma abildgaardi (Bloch, 1791) for the red parrotfish described by
Valenciennes under the name Scarus 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 S. 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 Scarus 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 (1791) original description and illustration of Sparus abildgaardi seemed
much more like Sparisoma chrysopterum (see para. 2 above) than the deeper-bodied
‘abildgaardi initial phase of S. viride. 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 chrysopterum (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 S. chrysopterum) since Swainson (1839) estab-
lished Sparisoma. After Valenciennes ([1840]), abildgaardi was 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 Sparisoma chrysopterum (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-
pterum by S. abildgaardi, and there is a prima facie case for the suppression of
abildgaardi.

9. As noted in para. 3 above, the type species of Sparisoma Swainson, 1839 is, by
monotypy, Sparus 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, 1791, 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, 1801 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 (1)(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, 1791, as published in the binomen Sparus
abildgaardi and as suppressed in (1)(a) above.

Acknowledgements

We are especially indebted to H.-J. Paepke (Museum fir Naturkunde der
Humboldt Universitat, Berlin) and G. Duhamel (Muséum 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. Naturgeschichte der ausldndischen Fische, part 4. 152 pp. Berlin.

Bloch, M.E. & Schneider, J.G. 1801. Systema Ichthyologiae iconibus cx illustratum. Ix, 584 pp.
Sanderiano, Berolini.

Bohlke, J.E. & Chaplin, C.C.G. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and adjacent tropical waters.
77\ pp. Livingston Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.

Bonnaterre, J.P. 1788. Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois régnes de la nature.
Ichthyologie. lvi, 215 pp., 102 pls. Panckoucke, Paris.

Brock, V.E. & Yamaguchi, Y. 1954. The identity of the parrotfish Scarus ahula, the female of
Scarus perspicillatus. Copeia, 1954(2): 154-155.

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998

Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. [1840]. Histoire naturelle 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
Commission, 20(1): 51-350.

Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1898. The fishes of Middle and North America. Bulletin of the
U.S. National Museum, 47: 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.P. 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: 1-49.

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, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.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; Parosphromenus; Parosphromenus deissneri.

1. In 1801 (p. 116), the nominal genus Osphronemus was established by Lacepéde
(spelt La Cepéde in the publication) with two species, O. goramy (p. 116, pl. 8, fig. 2)
and O. gallus (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 ‘Osphromenus gourami [sic] Lacepéde 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 ‘osphroméne’ had been used
by Commerson in an unpublished manuscript, and that Lacepéde had published this
name as ‘osphroneme’.

2. Bleeker (1859, p. 376) established the species Osphromenus [sic] deissneri, and in
1877 (pl. 395, caption of fig. 1) established the nominal genus Parosphromenus, with
Osphromenus deissneri as type species by monotypy. This plate appeared in 1877 and
predates the earliest description of Parosphromenus 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 11 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 “P. 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, pl. 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. bintan (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 (pl. 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 conclusion is that the holotype of Parosphromenus 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 six 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 Parosphromenus deissneri. As pointed out in
para. 6 above the extant 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. Natuurkundig
Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch Indié, 18: 359-378.

Bleeker, P. 1877-1878. Atlas ichthyologique des Indes orientales néérlandaises, vol. 9. Percoides
Ill. 80 pp., pls. 355-420. Muller, Amsterdam.

Bleeker, P. 1879. Mémoire sur les poissons 4 pharyngiens labyrinthiformes de I’Inde
archipélagique. Natuurkunde Verhandelingen Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te
Amsterdam, 19: 1—S6.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998

Boeseman, M. 1983. Introduction. Pp. 1-22 in Bleeker, P., Atlas ichthyologique des Indes
orientales néérlandaises. Plates originally prepared for planned tomes XI-XIV published
here for the first time. 22 pp., pls. 421-575. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Cuvier, G. 1829. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a
l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a l’'anatomie comparée, Ed. 2, vol. 2. xviii,
532 pp. Déterville, 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). IJchthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, 2(3):
273-287.

Kottelat, M. & Ng, P.K.L. 1998. Parosphromenus bintan, a new belontiid fish from Bintan and
Bangka islands, Indonesia, with redescription of P. deissneri Bleeker, 1859 (Teleostei:
Osphronemidae). Ichthyological Exploration of 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 pls. Periplus, Hong Kong.

Lacepéde, B.G.E. 1801. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3. \xvi, 558 pp., 34 pls. 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.

Schaller, D. & Kottelat, M. 1989. Betta strohi sp. n., ein neuer Kampffisch aus Stidborneo
(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@nhm.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 psirrAcIDAE 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 little-used senior
synonyms Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800, Cacatoes Duméril, [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 Salvadori (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; IUCN and Conservation International (1996)
Red List of Threatened Animals; World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1996)
Checklist of CITES Species).

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998

2. The name ‘cacatua’ was first introduced to ornithological literature in 1760 by
Brisson (p. 204, pl. 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 115 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 (1760). The first use of Cacatua as an available generic name is to be
found in Vieillot’s account of the cockatoos in the Nouveau Dictionnaire (1817, p. 6).
By 1817, however, four other names had been published for the white Ber ee
(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
Committee 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 Miller, 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 (1760) 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 Miller, 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 ‘Kakatoés, des Moluques’ illustrated in
pl. 263 of Buffon’s Planches enluminées (cited in Buffon, 1779, p. 92 as ‘Le
Kakatoés 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 (Miller, 1776).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 161

Latham (1790) listed ‘cacatua’ of Brisson in the 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. sulphurea (Gmelin, 1788). Vieillot (1817) did not indicate a type
species for Cacatua but in 1891 Salvadori (p. 115) nominated P. albus 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
(Miller, 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 Miller, 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 Duméril, [1805] (pp. 50, 51). Duméril’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). Duméril
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 Duméril was
occasionally used, but not in modern times.

(c) Catacus Rafinesque, 1815 (p. 64). This name was introduced as a replacement
for Cacatoes Duméril. 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 Plyctolophus Vieillot, 1816, refers to the same group of birds but has
remained unused. Suppression of P/yctolophus will render the name PLYCTOLOPHINAE
invalid. The family-group names CACATOIDAE Mathews, 1912 (p. 261; based on
Cacatoes Duméril) 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 Duméril, [1805];
(iii) | Catacus Rafinesque, 1815;
(iv) Plyctolophus Vieillot, 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
Salvadori (1891) Cacatua cristata Vieillot, 1817 (a junior subjective synonym
of Psittacus albus Miller, 1776);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name albus
Miller, 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 (1)(a)(i) above;

(b) Cacatoes Duméril, [1805], as suppressed in (1)(a)(1i) above;

(c) Catacus Rafinesque, 1815, as suppressed in (1)(a)(iii) above;

(d) Plyctolophus Vieillot, 1816, as suppressed in (1)(a)(iv) above;

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 (1)(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, P/yctolophus Vieillot, 1816, has been suppressed in (1)(a)(iv)
above).

(6

—

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 pls. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Bock, 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. Ornithologia sive Synopsis methodica sistens Avium Divisionem in Ordines,
Sectiones, Genera, Species, ipsarumque varietates, vol. 4. liv, 578 pp., 66 pls. Bauche, Paris.

Buffon, G.L.L. de. 1779. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, avec la description du cabinet
du Roi, vol. 21 (Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, vol. 6). xvi, 702 pp., 24 pls. 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
Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia. 535 pp., 64 pls. Dove Publications, Alderley, Queensland.

Condon, H.T. 1975. Checklist of the birds of Australia, part | (non-passerines). xx, 311 pp.
Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.

Cuvier, G. 1800. Legons d’anatomie comparée de G. Cuvier, recueilles et publiées sous ses yeux
par C. Duméril et G.-L. Duvernoy, vol. 1. xxxi, 521 pp., 9 tables. Baudouin, Paris.

Duméril, A.M.C. [1805]. Zoologie analytique, ou méthode naturelle de classification des
animaux. Xxxii, 344 pp. Paris.

Forshaw, J.M. 1978. Parrots of the world, Ed. 2. 616 pp., 158 pls. Lansdowne Editions,
Melbourne.

Froriep, L.F. 1806. C. Duméril’s Analytische Zoologie: aus dem Franzéesischen, mit Zusdtzen.
vi, 343, i pp. Weimar.

Garnett, S. 1992. The action plan for Australian birds. 262 pp. Australian National Parks &
Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Gray, G.R. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each
genus. vili, 80, ii pp. Taylor, London.

Gray, G.R. 1855. Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of 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. 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals. 70, 368,
10 pp. Gland & Washington, D.C.

Latham, J. 1781. A general synopsis of birds, vol. 1. vi, 416 pp., 16 pls. London.

Latham, J. 1790. Index ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiae; complectens avium divisionem
in classes, ordines, genera, species ..., vol. 1. Pp. xviii, 1466. 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:
171-455.

Mathews, G.M. 1916, 1917. The birds of Australia, vol. 6. Pp. 1-104, pls. 275-282 (1916);
pp. 105-516, pls. 283-290 (1917). Witherby, London.

Mathews, G.M. 1920. Checklist of the Birds of Australia, part | (issued as Supplement | 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 the 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. Systema Avium Australasianarum, 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. 1776. Des Ritters Carl von Linné Natursystems Supplements und Register Band.
[10], 536 pp. Nurnberg.

Peters, J.L. 1937. Checklist of birds of the world, vol. 3. xiii, 311 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 Organisés.
224 pp. Rafinesque, Palerme.

Rand, A.L. & Gilliard, E.T. 1967. Handbook of New Guinea birds. x, 612 pp., 53 pls. Weidenfeld
& Nicolson, London.

Salvadori, T. 1891. Catalogue of the Psittaci, or parrots. Jn Sharpe, R.D. (Ed.), Catalogue of
the birds in the collection of the British Museum, vol. 20. xvii, 658 pp., 18 pls. 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 book 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 élémentaire. 70 pp. Déterville, Paris.

Vieillot, L.P. 1817. Kakatoés. Pp. 6-13 in: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 17
(KAA-LIG). 622 pp. Déterville, 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: 368-405.

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. 1996. Checklist of CITES species. A reference 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 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).

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, Wayne State University, Detroit,
Michigan 48202, U.S.A.

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 48109, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application 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 Loris and Galago, both of E. Geoffroy
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), Fleagle (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 LoripaAk for the lorises. The names LORISINAE and
GALAGINAE were 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 tardigradus 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 (1)(a)
above);
(b) GALAGONINA Gray, 1825 (spelling emended to GALAGIDAE by the ruling in
(1)(b) above).

References

Allen, G.M. 1939. A checklist of African mammals. Bulletin of the Museum of 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 im 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.

Croyella, 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. An introduction to the study of mammals living and extinct.
xvi, 763 pp. Black, London.

Gebo, D.L. 1989. Postcranial adaptation and evolution in Lorisidae. Primates, 30: 347-367.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1796. Mémoire sur les rapports naturels des makis, Lemur L. et
description d’une espece nouvelle de mammifére. Magasin Encyclopédique, ou journal des
sciences, des lettres 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 pls. Williams
& Wilkins, Baltimore.

Groves, C. 1974. Taxonomy and phylogeny of prosimians. Pp. 449-473 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). xxiii,
798 pp. University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh.

Hollister, 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. Nycticeboides simpsoni and the morphology, adap-
tations, and relationships of Miocene Siwalik Lorisidae. Pp. 131-161 in Flanagan, K.M.
& Lillegraven, J.A. (Eds.), Vertebrates, phylogeny, and 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, Perodicticus potto (Prosimii, Lorisidae, Lorisinae). Comparative Biochemistry
and Physiology, 54A: 81-93.

Martin, R.D. 1990. Primate origins and evolution. xiv, 804 pp. Chapman & Hall, London.

Masters, J. 1988. Speciation in the greater galagos (Prosimii: Galaginae): review and synthesis.
Biological Journal of 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 ce the
Zoological Society of London, 1864: 611-648.

Pocock, R.I. 1939. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia, vol. |
(Primates and Carnivora (in part), families Felidae and Viverridae). xxxiil, 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
Arctocebus, Perodicticus, and Nycticebus. Pp. 171-192 in Alterman, L., Doyle, G.A. &
Ixard, M.K. (Eds.), Creatures of the dark. the nocturnal prosimians. Plenum, New York.

Schwartz, J.H. & Tattersall, 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,
1951-1961, vol. 1. 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 Probleme bei der
Zucht von Wildtieren in Menschlicher Obhut. Bundesverband fiir fachgerechten Natur und

Artenschutz, K6ln.

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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) 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

Institute of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of 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. Miller, 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. Miller, 1776, Alonella Sars,
1862 or Alona, depending on the generic placement of the species now called
Disparalona rostrata (Koch, 1841) (see para. 2 of the application).

In 1867 Miller (pp. 182-183, pl. 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, pl. 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 sylvanus
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 9517, 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 sylvanus Esper’. We wish to comment on both points.

The name Augiades sylvanus (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 sylvanus (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), Lempke (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 Ochlodes venata faunus is well established. Changing it back to sy/vanus
would create much confusion.

Turati (1905, pp. 36-38, pl. 6, figs. 5-9, pl. 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
venata (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 faunus and Papilio sylvanus, 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 dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. 512 pp. Schuyt,
Haarlem.

Chiba, H. & Tsukiyama, H. 1996. A review of the genus Och/lodes Scudder, 1872, with special
reference to the Eurasian species (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Butterflies, 14: 3-16.

Collier, R.V., Emmet, A.M., Long, R., Looker, I.E., Porter, K.J., Shreeve, T.G. & Simcox, D.J.
1989. Hesperiidae. Pp. 50-72 in Emmet, A.M. & Heath, J., The moths and butterflies of
Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 7, part 1.

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 Ibérica,
Ropalocéros, 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 Zeitschrift (Stuttgart), 66: 49-55.

Lempke, B.J. 1976. Naamlijst van de Nederlandse Lepidoptera. 100 pp. KNNV, Hoogwoud.

Lepidopterologen-Arbeitsgruppe. 1997. Schmetterlinge und ihre Lebensrdume. Arten, Gefahrdung,
Schutz. Schweiz und angrenzende Gebiete, Band 2. ix, 679 pp. Pro Natura, Basel.

Lerault, P. 1980, 1997. Liste sytématique et synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique
et Corse, Ed. 1 (1980), Ed. 2 (1997). Alexanor, Paris.

Lukhtanoy, V. & Lukhtanoy, A. 1994. Die Tagfalter Nordwestasiens. Herbipoliana, Band 3.
440 pp. Eitschberger, Marktleuthen.

Rondou, J.P. 1932. Catalogue des Lépidoptéres des Pyrénées (Ire partie). Annales de la Société
Entomologique de France, 51: 165-244.

Verity, R. 1940. Le farfalle diurne d'Italia, vol. 1. xxxiv, 131 pp. Marzocco, S.A., Florence.

Vives Moreno, A. 1994. Catalogo sistematico 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 bernissartensis Boulenger in
Beneden, 1881 as the type species of Jguanodon 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 /guanodon occupies an important position in the history of the Dinosaur
group as a whole. /guanodon 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 Mantell’s 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 difficult 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 Jguanodon 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 /guanodon 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 SBD, 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 Jguanodon have
been so confused and unsatisfactory for so many years.

The proposal to designate [guanodon 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 1534, skeleton Q, in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique as
the lectotype of I. 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 gouldti

(Case 3042; see BZN 54: 95-99, 249-250; 55: 106-111)

(1) 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. flavirufus 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, Miller & Seufer
(1996), Ziegler & BOhme (1997) and B6hme (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 Tierreich 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 B6hme (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. Warane der Welt — Welt 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.

Béhme, W. 1997. Robert Mertens’ Systematik und Klassifikation der Warane: Aktualisierung
seiner 1942er Monographie und eine revidierte Checkliste. Addendum to the reprint of
Robert Mertens’ ’Die Familie der Warane (Varanidae). Erster bis 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 Warane. 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. & Béhme, W. 1997. Genitalstrukturen und Paarungsbiologie bei squamaten
Reptilien, speziell den Platynota, 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 Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.

P.D. Strimple

Reptile Research and Breeding Facility, 5310 Sultana Drive, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45238, U.S.A.

We welcome the support of Dr Glenn Shea and Dr Harold Cogger (their comment
in BZN 55: 106-111) 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 gou/dii 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 of 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 BGhme’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

Department 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 application
of Schodde & Bock is plainly reactionary in nature and attempts to suppress
everything that Bruce & McAllan (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 dissembly. 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. Casuarius 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|toria
minima, and Chrysococcyx minutillus. The last two definitely are nomina nuda where
they appear in the ancillary sources, as is also Meleagris mexicana, 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 Priloris victoriae and those that
essentially only repeat the specific name in English (e.g. Odontophorus hyperythrus,
Podiceps micropterus, Chordeiles pusillus). 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 (Anser 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 sufficient investigation by Schodde
and Bock, who cite only two modern, 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
of 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
caeruleogularis. 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, pl. 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 1843 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) likewise 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 (1844) 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 11 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 (1963, p. 217) 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 of Didus nazarenus by Bartlett, either in The Literary
Gazette (1851) or PZS (1854), is anything more than the identification of some bones
supposedly from the island of Rodriguez with the name Didus nazarenus Gmelin,
1788, based on descriptions from an early Mascarene voyage. I certainly oppose
placing the nonexistent name Didus 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 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998

vs. Aplonis, Semeioptera vs. Semioptera). 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 Africhornis 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 of Atricha. That no one took up the
use of 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 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 4: 25-40.

;

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. Jcones Avium. Part II. Author, London.

Olson, S.L. 1990. [Review of] 1.A.W. McAllan and M.D. Bruce ‘The birds of New South Wales.
A working list’. Auk, 107: 458-459.

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 clamosa 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): 1483.

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 the 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
serrirostris, 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 Psephotus 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
Dinornis 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 Dinornis 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 (Otis
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 l.c.). 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 (l.c.; contra
Olson).

(ii) We accept Olson’s view (para. 10) that Didus nazarenus in Bartlett in PZS
1851: 284 is an application of Didus 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 caractéristique de Somateria spectabilis’ to ‘un jeune oiseau, qui pouvait
dailleurs étre 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 publications
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 (l.c.). 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 Merganetta 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, 1842, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London, 1841: 95;

(3) Delete all entries for Didus nazarenus 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: dromaeoides, 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, Dinornis, 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: pectoralis, 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: pl. 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
Muséum Britannique’. Comptes Rendus des Séances de I’ Académie 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 Palearctic, Volume 1, Ostrich to 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 Nuttall 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 Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998

OPINION 1902

Anomalina @’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): Anomalina ariminensis
d’Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 designated as the type species

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminiferida; ANOMALINIDAE; Anomalina;
Anomalina punctulata; 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 Muséum 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 of 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-Paldontologisches
Institut der Universitat Basel, Basel, Switzerland) was published in BZN 54: 183
(September 1997).

Decision of the Commission

On | 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 | 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, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 282.
ariminensis, Anomalina, d’Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902, Memorie della Reale Accademia della
Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna, Scienze Naturali, (5)10: 63, fig. 62.

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) Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (spelling emended
by the ruling in (1) above).

(3) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name
encrinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Jsis encrinus, is hereby
emended to record that Jsis 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
UMBELLULARIDAE 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., U.S.A.) and Dr Manfred
Grasshoff (Forschungsinstitut 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 Isis 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, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 800.

Ombellula Cuvier, [1797], Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux, p. 675 (an
incorrect original spelling of Umbellula).

Umbellula Cuvier, [1797], Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux, p. 675
(incorrectly spelled as Ombellula).

Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801, Systéme des animaux sans vertébres ..., 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 /sis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of the nominal genus Umbellula Cuvier, [1797]:
Gray, J.E. 1870. Catalogue of the sea-pens or Pennatulariidae in the collection of the British
Museum, p. 38.

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.
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 of Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

G3

—

History of Case 2943

An application for the designation of Dorylaimus superbus de Man, 1880 as the
type species of Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 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 commented: ‘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 Thorne & Swanger, 1936, Capita Zoologica, 6(4): 123.
superbus, Dorylaimus, de Man, 1880, Tijdschrift 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. Beaufortia, 8: 237.

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; $.D. Kaicher; Card Catalogue of World-Wide
Shells (1973-1992); Mollusca; 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 (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneve,
Switzerland), Dr P. Bouchet (Muséum 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 Warén (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. Vokes (Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.), Dr William
G. Lyons (Florida Marine Research Institute, St Petersburg, Florida, U.S.A.) and Dr
José H. Leal (The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum, Sanibel Island, Florida, U.S.A.)
were published in BZN 54: 39-44 (March 1997).

A reply by the author of the application to the opposing comments was published
in BZN 54: 44-46 (March 1997).

Decision of the Commission

On | 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 1 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 application 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 I agree with those who have judged the applicant’s
case to be overstated. I 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 application 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 1 (cards 1-99) through
Pack 60 (cards 6110-6215). Author, St Petersburg, Florida.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998

OPINION 1906

Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): conserved; Chrysis
purpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently Euchroeus purpuratus): specific
name conserved; and Chrysis gloriosa Fabricius, 1793: specific name
suppressed

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; cuckoo wasps; CHRYSIDIDAE;
Euchroeus; Euchroeus purpuratus; 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, 1787, 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.

The name gloriosa Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Chrysis
gloriosa and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

(4

~m

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
(Universita 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 | 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 (1)(a), (2) and (3)); part (2) relates to the suppression of
the specific name of C. gloriosa Fabricius, 1793 (proposals (1)(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. // - purpuratus (Chr.) Fab. // Coll. Latr.
Fr. mérid.’. 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, 1793 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.
gloriosa, Chrysis, Fabricius, 1793, Entomologia Systematica emendata et 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

Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): given
precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833]

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauropterygia; Lower-Middle
Triassic; Nothosaurus; Conchiosaurus.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Nothosaurus Minster, 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 Minster, 1834 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Nothosaurus mirabilis Minster, 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 Minster, 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 Minster, 1834, as published in the binomen Nothosaurus mirabilis
(specific name of the type species of Nothosaurus Minster, 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 Minster,
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:
clavatus, Conchiosaurus, Meyer, [1833], Museum Senckenbergianum. Abhandlungen aus dem
Gebiete der beschriebenden Naturgeschichte, 1(1): 8.

Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833], Museum Senckenbergianum. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der
beschriebenden Naturgeschichte, 1(1): 8. ‘
mirabilis, Nothosaurus, Minster, 1834, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie

und Petrefaktenkunde, 1834: 525.
Nothosaurus Minster, 1834, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und
Petrefaktenkunde, 1834: 525.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 199

OPINION 1908

Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & 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 peruvianus Wiegmann, 1835, as
published in the binomen Hemidactylus peruvianus, is hereby suppressed for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The name garnotii Duméril & 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 peruvianus 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,
Galway, 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 | 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

‘garnotii, Hemidactylus, Duméril & Bibron, 1836, Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle
complete des reptiles, vol. 3, p. 368.

peruvianus, Hemidactylus, Wiegmann, 1835, Verhandlungen der Kaiserlichen Leopoldinisch-
Carolinischen Akademie de Naturforscher, 17(1): 240.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 201

OPINION 1909

Holotropis herminieri Duméril & 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
fasciatus;

(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 Duméril & 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 (1)(a)(i) above;

(b) fasciatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis fasciatus
and as suppressed in (1)(a)(ii) above;

(c) bellii Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis bellii and as
suppressed in (1)(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 bellii Gray, 1845 (cf. para. 8 of the application), and proposed (p. 118) that
the specific name of L. bellii 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. 117, para. 2) that the name 7. bel/lii 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, 1845, 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: 118, para. 6, and
the emendment (suppression of Tropidolepis bellii Gray, 1831 for both priority and
homonymy) to proposal (1)(b). At the close of the voting period on 1 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 of 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 JUCN 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:

aculeatus, 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, 1845, 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 Fitzroy, R.N., during the years 1832-1836, part 5,
p. 6.

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(3) September 1998 203

fasciatus, 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.

herminieri, Holotropis, Duméril & Bibron, 1837, Erpétologie générale 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 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 arabic
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 SBD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in 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-
ensis d’Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 designated as the type species i

OPINION 1903. Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): conserved 2 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

OPINION 1904. Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda): Dorylaimus
superbus de Man, 1880 designated as the type species . :

OPINION 1905. S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue of World- Wide Shells:
not suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. . . .

OPINION 1906. Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Eemnenanten): consented:
Chrysis purpurata Fabricius, 1787 (currently Euchroeus purpuratus): specific name
conserved; and Chrysis gloriosa Fabricius, 1793: specific name suppressed .

OPINION 1907. Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): given pre-
cedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833]

OPINION 1908. Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Reon 1836 (Reptilia, Sree
mata): specific name conserved.

OPINION 1909. Holotropis herminieri Dieseal & Micon, 1837 ieucxenily Pech
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.

Information and Instructions for Authors .

186

187

189

191

194

197

199

201

204

CONTENTS

Notices . ;

Election of the Vice- President of the International iGonimisnon on Zoological
Nomenclature . : :

The International Code of Zoolosical Werenclitare

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.

Applications

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently
Hydrobia acuta; Mollusca, 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 HyDRO-
BIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca).
F. Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon.

Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed Geicnntidn of Capsus
chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1856 (currently Orthotylus virescens (Douglas & Scott,
1865)) as the type species. A. Carapezza & I.M. Kerzhner . :

Scarus chrysopterus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Sparisoma chrsodiedsitl
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and
designation as the type species of Sparisoma Swainson, 1839. R.L. Moura &
J.E. Randall . 5

Osphronemus deissneri Blcckex.: 1859 as Parosphromenus ‘Gained Osteich-
thyes, Perciformes): ee isacuias of holotype me a neotype. P.K.L. Ng &
M. Kottelat . :

Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 and CACATUINAE eas 1840 (Aves: Paittaciformesy: paged
conservation. W.J. Bock & R. Schodde

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

Comments

On the proposed conservation of ee as 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi-
opoda). G. Fryer .

On the proposed conservation ae the specific name of Papilio Sylvanas Esper, [1777]
(currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, isa aaa R. de Jong
& O. Karsholt .

On the proposed designation of Fetenadan heraisartone ‘Houlenger in 1 ensien
1881 as the type species of Jguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of
a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia), D. Norman; A.C. Milner .

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. asa R.G. Sprackland, H.M. Smith &
P.D. Strimple

On the proposed supprdetan ae all ei aus ef, eanetio and specific t names of birds
(Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as published in the
Proceedings of the pico: Society oh London. §.L. ap R. Schodde &
W.J. Bock. ; 5

Page
137

138
138
138

139

146

151

155

159

165

169
169

172

173-0

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Bulletin

Pisclosical
Nomenclature

~ a >
ey pages

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 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

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

Prof A. Minelli (Italy)

Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)

Dr V. Mahnert

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

(Brazil; Coleoptera)

Prof 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)

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

; TPH Vert Wr
| HISTORY MUSEUF
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 2 3 BEC 1998
PURCHASED
ZOOLOGY LIBRA!

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 applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.

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

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 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, Mystacina tuberculata
Gray, 1843 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently
Chalinolobus tuberculatus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed conservation of
usage. (Case 3095). H.G. Spencer & D.E. Lee.

(2) Dichrorampha Guenée, 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 maculatum Tschudi, 1846 (currently Genypterus maculatus; Osteich-
thyes, Gadiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3098).
M.H. Wilson.

(5) Titanodamon johnstonii 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 effect on
| 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@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 Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995’ (ISBN 0 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 SBD, 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 American and
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£20 or $35. 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(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 £3119 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 office 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 £10000

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

St John’s College, Cambridge £250
Zoological Museum, Copenhagen £500
Zoological Societies of Japan £55
Zoological Society of London £150

Total £18505

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31 DECEMBER 1997

Income
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £25707
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1329
Official Lists and Indexes 506
Centenary History 1870
29412
GRANTS AND DONATIONS 18505
BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 10235
CAPITAL GAIN ON INVESTMENTS 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 the year £5051

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 209

Case 3036

Haliotis clathrata Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein, 1794) and H. elegans
Philippi, 1844 (Mollusca, 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
19 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 — Haliotis clathrata Reeve, 1846 and H. elegans 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 Catalogus rerum naturalium 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, pl. 17, fig. 71) established the name Haliotis clathrata 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 literature, 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 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

4. Philippi (1844, p. 119, pl. 1, fig. 1) established the name Haliotis elegans, 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. elegans and H. clathrata Lichtenstein, and concluded that ‘the
overwhelming majority of the clear evidence indisputably indicates that H. clathrata
Lichtenstein is synonymous with H. elegans’ (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. e/egans (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, 1794, 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;
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.

2

~—

Acknowledgements
Gary Rosenberg offered his valued opinion on the present case. Lindsey T. Groves
and James H. McLean critically read the manuscript.

References

Abbott, R.T. & Dance, S.P. 1983. Compendium of seashells. 411 pp. Dutton, New York.

Geiger, D.L. 1998a. Recent genera and species of the family Haliotidae Rafinesque, 1815
(Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda). The Nautilus, 111(3): 85-116.

Geiger, D.L. 1998b. Note on the identity of Haliotis clathrata Lichtenstein, 1794 (not Reeve,
1846). Molluscan 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 the Indo-Pacific.
314 pp. Sea Challengers, Monterey.

Hinton, A.G. 1978. Guide to Australian 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
... Sectio tertia. Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) Verzeichniss 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: \—-98.

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1794. Catalogus rerum naturalium rarissimum. Sectio secunda continens
Conchylia, item 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 ... Sectio tertia. Continens Insecta
and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten ...: suppressed, with
conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) names (Insecta and Arachnida). Bulletin of

Zoological Nomenclature, 52: 283-285.

Philippi, R.A. 1844. Abbildung und Beschreibungen neuer oder weniger gekannter Conchylien,
vol. 1, part 5. Pp. 103-130. Fischer, Cassel.

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. Manual of conchology; structural and systematic. Vol. 12. Haliotidae.
Pp. 72-126, pls. 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). Publicagdes Ocasionais Conquiliologistas do Brazil, 001:
1-7.

Reeve, L. 1846. Monograph of the genus Haliotis. 22 pp., 17 pls. in: Conchologia Iconica,
vol. 3. Reeve, London.

Sherborn, C.D. 1902. Index Animalium 1758-1800. 1195 pp. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Sowerby, G.B. 1882. Monograph of the genus Haliotis. Pp. 17-37, pls. 428-440 in: Thesaurus
Conchyliorum, vol. 5. London.

Stewart, K.A. & Geiger, D.L. 1999. Designation of lectotype for Haliotis crebrisculpta
Sowerby, 1914, with a discussion of H. clathrata Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein, 1794). The
Veliger, 42(1).

Talmadge, R.R. 1957. Proposed revision of Haliotis Ruber. The Nautilus, 71: 57-60.

Ubaldi, R. 1993. Atlas of the living abalone shells of the world. 21 pp., 4 pls. 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, pls. 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 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).

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Case 3080

Polydora websteri 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 of 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 mudworm (family
SPIONIDAE) from coasts of North America. The name was proposed as a replacement
for P. caeca Webster, 1879, a junior secondary homonym of P. coeca (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. Polydora websteri is well known as a borer in the shells of oysters and other
commercially important molluscs.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Polychaeta; sPIONIDAE; Polydora caeca;
Polydora webster’; mudworms; marine; North America.

1. Orsted (1843, p. 39) described a new polychaete species, Leucodorum coecum, a
tube-dwelling spionid from the Oresund, Denmark.

2. Claparéde (1869, pp. 53-54) referred the genus Leucodore Johnston, 1838 (used
by some authors as Leucodora or Leucodorum) 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, pl. 9, figs. 119-122) 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 Po/ydora revisions by Blake,
1971, 1996).

4. Hartman (in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943, pp. 70-72) proposed the replacement
name Polydora websteri 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 & Kudenoy, 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, Elner & 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 off 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 name P. caeca was a junior secondary homonym and
she therefore published P. websteri as a replacement name. However, it is now known
that P. websteri 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 Po/lydora 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: (1) 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 “N1929 Polydora websteri, nfew] 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.I.R.) 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 Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 215

(2) to designate specimen LACM-AHF POLY 1628 in the Allan Hancock
Foundation Polychaete Collection, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural
History, as the lectotype of Polydora websteri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle,
1943;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name websteri
Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943, as published in the binomen Polydora
websteri and as defined by the lectotype designated in (2) above.

Acknowledgements

Weare grateful to Fredrik Pleijel (Tjarné 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
(Los 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, Amélie 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.I.R. for
the year 1997) from the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution.

References

Bailey-Brock, J.H. & Ringwood, A. 1982. Methods for control of the mud blister worm,
Polydora websteri, in Hawaiian oyster culture. Sea Grant Quarterly, 4: 1-6.

Bergman, K.M., Elner, R.W. & Risk, M.J. 1982. The influence of Pol/ydora websteri borings on
the strength of the shell of the sea scallop, Placopecten 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). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 75: 1-32.

Blake, J.A. 1983. Polychaetes of the family Spionidae from South America, Antarctica, and
adjacent seas and islands. Biology 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 Po/ydora Bosc, 1802. Pp. 81-223 in Blake,
J.A., Hilbig, B. & Scott, P.H. (Eds.), Taxonomic atlas of the benthic fauna of the Santa
Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel, vol. 6 (The Annelida), part 3
(Polychaeta: Orbiniidae to Cossuridae). Santa Barbara Museum 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. & Kudenoy, 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.

Claparéde, E. 1869. Les Annélides Chétopodes du Golfe de Naples. Seconde partie. Annélides
sédentaires. Mémoires de la Société de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, 20:
1-225.

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Davis, J.D. 1967. Polydora infestation of arctic wedge-clams: a pattern of selective attack.
Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association, 57: 67-72.

Davis, J.D. 1969. Polydora infestation of Mercenaria mercenaria. Nautilus, 83: 74.

Evans, J.W. 1969. Borers in the shell of the sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus. American
Zoologist, 9: 775-782.

Foster, N.M. 1971. Spionidae (Polychaeta) of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.
Studies on the Fauna of Curagao 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 websteri. In Loosanoff, 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
Marine Station, 2: 1—S4.

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. Allan Hancock
Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23: 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
Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 23: 163-252.

Hopkins, S.H. 1958. The planktonic larvae of Polydora websteri 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 mercenaria. 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 websteri 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 pls.
Sumtibus Librariae Wahlianae, Hafniae.

Owen, H.M. 1957. Etiological studies on oyster mortality. 2. Polydora websteri Hartman
(Polychaeta: Spionidae). Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 7: 35-46.

Radasheysky, 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, New 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 Polydora websteri. Marine Biology,
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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 217

Case 2911

Spherillo Dana, 1852 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of
S. vitiensis Dana, 1853 as the 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 faunistica ed ecologia tropicali, Via Romana 17,
I-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 Spherillo 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 Spherillo
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. hawaiensis (p. 722) from Hawaii; and S. 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 off the 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 Spherillo 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. bifrons 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 (1926, 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 validity of Verhoeff’s
renaming of the genus, and the two spellings Spherillo and Sphaerillo 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 Spherillo should be
allowed to die out, as its species are absorbed into new or already existing genera’.
However, Jackson used Spherillo 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 Spherillo 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; Spherillo 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
Spherillo 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, ? Spherillo vitiensis Dana’ for
the genus Spherillo Dana, and ‘Type, Spherillo danae Heller’ for Sphaerillo Verhoeff;
the designation of S. danae is not valid under Article 67h because it was not one of
the four species first included in Spherillo. Jackson’s listing of Spherillo vitiensis with
a question mark is not a valid type species designation under Article 67c(3). Green
(1961, p. 352) designated Sphaerillo pygmaeus Verhoeff, 1926 (p. 296) as the type
species of Sphaerillo Verhoeff, but specifically excluded Spherillo Dana from the
synonymy.

5. To achieve stability in the nomenclature of this group we propose that the
Commission should designate Spherillo vitiensis Dana, 1853 as type species of
Spherillo Dana, 1852; it was one of the nominal species first included in the genus
(para. 1 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 scamnorum Verhoeff, 1938 (p. 2) from Fiji Island, Viti Levu, Kaba,
barrier reef, 10.VIII.1917, leg. S. Bock, coll. no. 7635, Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet,
Stockholm. This action serves to make Melanesillo scamnorum a junior objective
synonym of Spherillo vitiensis. The specific name scamnorum 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 Spherillo Dana, 1852 and to designate Spherillo vitiensis
Dana, 1853 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Spherillo
Dana, 1852 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above
Spherillo vitiensis Dana, 1853;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 219

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vitiensis
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 Sphaerillo Verhoeff, 1926 (an unjustified emendation of
Spherillo 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 vitiensis Dana,
1853).

References

Budde-Lund, G. 1904. A revision of ‘Crustacea Isopoda Terrestria’ with additions and illustra-
tions. 2. Spherilloninae. 3. Armadillo. Pp. 33-144, pls. 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 States exploring expedition during the years
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). Australian
Journal of Zoology, 9: 258-365.

Green, A.J.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): 417-436.
Jackson, H.G. 1941. Check-list of the terrestrial and fresh-water Isopoda of Oceania.

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 99(8): 1-35.

Kwon, D.H. & Taiti, S. 1993. Terrestrial Isopoda (Crustacea) from Southern China, Macao
and Hong Kong. Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, 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 Toyama Science Museum, 14: 1-26.

Vandel, A. 1973. Les Isopodes terrestres de |’Australie. Etude systematique et biogéo-
graphique. Mémoires du Muséum National 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-
Expedition 1917-1918. Arkiv 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
Journal 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@nhm.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 Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin,
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 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the current usage of the
Miocene-Pliocene brachiopod genus Terebratula Miller, 1776. Lamarck (1799) gave
Anomia terebratula 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.
Douvillé, 1880, p. 264). Dall (1877, p. 70) was the first to accept Miiller 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. 1. 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) December 1998 221

3. Miller did not include Anomia terebratula 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
Terebratula auctorum, an vero Linnaei? valvulas enim nec bi-nec triplicatas 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.
Cog. inéquivale [sic], se fixant par un ligament ou un tube court; la plus grande valve
perforée ou échancrée a son crochet, qui est prominent, presqu’en forme de bec;
charniere a deux dents. Anomia terebratula. Lin.’. However, this statement was not
generally noted. Dall (1877, p. 70) wrote: ‘Terebratula O.F. Miller 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’. Douvillé (1880) was
the first person after Lamarck to state unequivocally, though invalidly, that the type
species of Terebratula was ‘Terebratula terebratula, Linné sp.’. The species is not fixed
by tautonymy since it was not originally included by Miller. 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, pl. 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 7. 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.la-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 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) 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 Terebratula 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 Terebratula terebratula 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 terebratula Linnaeus an undeformed, although incomplete,
specimen from this locality numbered BM(NH) BG152 in the collections > 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 Terebratula Miller, 1776 and to designate Anomia
terebratula Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Terebratula
Miller, 1776 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Anomia terebratula Linnaeus, 1758;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name terebratula
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Anomia terebratula and as defined
by the neotype designated by Lee & Brunton in para. 6 above (specific name
of the type species of Terebratula Miller, 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 Linnaean collection.
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 178: 161-183.

Buckman, S.S. 1907. Brachiopod nomenclature: the genotype of Terebratula. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, (7)19: 525-531.

Colonna, F. 1616. Purpura. Hoc est de purpura ab animali testaceo fusa, de hoc ipso animali,
aliisquibus rarioribus testaceis quibusdam. iv, 42 pp., 2 pls. Romae.

Colonna, F. 1675. Opusculum de purpura ... iterum luci datum opera ac studio J.D. Majoris ...
cujus ... accesserunt annotationes quaedam. (Doctrinae de testaceis, in ordinem congruum
redactae specimen, tabulis aliquot comprehensum ... cum brevi dictionario ostracologico, de
partibus 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 States National Museum, 8: 3-88.

Dayidson, T. 1853. British fossil Brachiopoda. Chapter 3. On the classification of the
Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1: 41-136.

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 223

Douvillé, H. 1880. Note sur quelques genres de brachiopodes (Terebratulidae et Waldheim-
iidae). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (3)7: 251-277.

Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1894. Introduction to the study of the Brachiopoda. Pp. 751-943
in: 13th annual report of the New York State Geologist for the year 1893. Palaeontology,
part 2. Albany.

Klein, J.T. 1753. J. 7. Klein tentamen methodi ostracologicae, sive dispositio naturalis cochlidum
et concharum. 177 pp., 12 pls. Lugduni Batavorum.

Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles. Mémoires
de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 63-91.

Lhwyd, E. 1699. Lithophylacii Britannici ichnographia, sive Lapidum aliorumg; fossilium
Britannicorum singulari figura insignium. 145 pp., 17 pls. Londini & Lipsiae.

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

Lister, M. 1678. Historia Animalium Angliae ... de lapidibus ejusdem insulae ad cochlearum
quandum imaginem figuratis. vi, 250 pp., 9 pls. Londini.

Muir-Wood, H.M. 1955. History of the classification of the Phylum Brachiopoda. 124 pp. British
Museum (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 Danicae prodromus seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige-
narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. Xxxii, 282 pp. Havniae.

Schuchert, C. 1900. Jn Zittel, K.A. Textbook 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, I1.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Case 3012

Coluber infernalis Blainyille, 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 Ecology, University of California, Davis,
California 95616, U.S.A.

(Present address: Rowe Program in Genetics, Tupper 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; taxonomy; Reptilia; Squamata; COLUBRIDAE; California
red-sided garter snake; San Francisco garter snake; Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis;
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia; California.

1. In 1835 Blainville (pp. 291-292, pl. 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 infernalis as a subspecies of Thamnophis
sirtalis (Linnaeus, 1758), and Fitch (1941) restricted the distribution of T. s. 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 sirtalis tetrataenia
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 tetrataenia had been collected from
Pitt (Pit) River, northeastern California. Yarrow (1883, p. 128) and Cope (1892,
p. 665; 1900, p. 1081) listed E. s. tetrataenia 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 ‘tetrataenia in E. s. parietalis, 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. tetrataenia were unlike the patterns of any T. sirtalis
obtained since Newberry’s time from the Pit River, but could not explain the origin
of the syntypes. He resurrected ‘tetrataenia as the valid name for the Pit River and
similar populations because they differed taxonomically from the California coast
T. sirtalis 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 tetrataenia.
Fox (1951) discovered populations of distinctively-striped 7. sirtalis, identical to
Cope’s ‘Pitt River’ E. s. tetrataenia, 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. fetrataenia to the
population of T. sirtalis which occupies the San Francisco Peninsula, excluding the
San Francisco Peninsula population from the coastal T. s. infernalis, and renamed
the inland populations (which had been called T. s. tetrataenia 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. tetrataenia was solved, the nomenclature of the subspecies of T. sirtalis 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. s. tetrataenia with Fox’s
(1951) locality restrictions (i.e. infernalis from the Pacific coast and tetrataenia from
the San Francisco Peninsula).

4. The literature in which the name T. s. tetrataenia 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 7. s. tetrataenia 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 Bulletin 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 fefrataenia is established in national
(Allen, 1988) and international legislation for the protection of the San Francisco
Peninsula subspecies (1993, World checklist of threatened amphibians and reptiles; and
1996, Red List of Threatened Animals).

5. Boundy & Rossman (1995) showed that the holotype of T. s. infernalis (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 fetrataenia 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 T. sirtalis (exclusive of
the San Francisco Peninsula snakes), hitherto called infernalis, be included in T. s.
concinnus 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. concinnus 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 7. 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. s. fetrataenia rightly apply to the current
usage of T. s. infernalis. 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. infernalis). 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 fetrataenia, 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 7. 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, pl. 7) as a typical specimen of T. s. infernalis. Fitch (1941) included this
specimen in his evaluation and diagnosis of T. s. infernalis and thus this was the first
specimen of 7. s. 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 7. s. tetrataenia, 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. 1988. State lists of endangered and threatened species of reptiles and amphibians
including laws and regulations of each state. 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 espéces de reptiles de la Californie, précédée
de analyse d’un system général d’erpétologie et d’amphibiologie. Nouvelles Annales du
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (3)4: 233-296.

Bocourt, M.-F. 1892. Note sur la variabilité dans le nombre de plaques céphaliques chez
certains ophidiens. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique 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 Game. 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 States 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 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Coues, E. & Yarrow, H. 1878. Notes on the herpetology of Dakota and Montana. Bulletin of
the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, 4: 589-694.
Fitch, H.S. 1941. 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 tetrataenia. Copeia, 1951(4):
257-267.

Garman, S. 1883. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Memoirs of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology, 8: 1-85.

IUCN & Conservation International. 1996. 1996 IUCN 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.A., Ford, N.B. & Seigel, R.A. 1996. The garter snakes: evolution and is a 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
endangered 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 Academy 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 explorations and surveys west of the one hundredth meridian,
vol. 5 (Zoology), part 4.

Yarrow, H.C. 1882. 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 Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.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 Garman, 1884

Hobart M. Smith’, Lauren E. Brown’, David Chiszar*, L. Lee Grismer’*,
G. Scott Allen®, Alex Fishbein®, Bradford D. Hollingsworth®,

Jimmy A. McGuire’, Van Wallach®, Peter Strimple’ and

Ernest A. Liner! (Addresses on p. 232)

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the long used and well known
specific name of Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 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 exsul; California; Mexico.

1. In 1884 Garman (p. 114) 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). Garman’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 exsu/) 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 & Hollingsworth, 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. exsul 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. exsul for
the single species. They also argued for the recognition of the subspecies C. exsul
ruber from southern California and Baja California, and the insular C. e. lorenzoensis
Radcliffe & Maslin, 1975, in addition to the nominotypical C. e. exsu/ limited to Isla
de Cedros. On the other hand, Grismer, McGuire & Hollingsworth (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 Crotalus exsul 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. exsul. Crotalus ruber
has been far more prominent in medical, experimental, biochemical, anatomical and
ecological works than C. exsu/, 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. exsul, 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 exsul 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 Wiister, 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, 1892, as published in the

trinomen Crotalus adamanteus ruber, precedence over the name exsu/ Garman,
1884, as published in the binomen Crotalus exsul, 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 adamanteus ruber,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name exsul

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) 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 Crotalus exsul, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over ruber Cope, 1892, as
published in the trinomen Crotalus adamanteus ruber, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms.

References

Brattstrom, B.H. 1964. Evolution of the pit vipers. Transactions of the San Diego Society of
Natural History, 13(11): 185-268.

Campbell, J.A. & Lamar, W.W. 1989. The venomous reptiles of Latin America. 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. A complete guide to scientific and common names of reptiles and
amphibians of the world. 377 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, México.
Herpetological Natural History, 1(2): 1-10.

Grismer, L.L. 1994a. The origin and evolution of the peninsular herpetofauna of Baja
California, México. Herpetological Natural History, 2(1): 51-106.

Grismer, L.L. 1994b. Geographic origins for the reptiles on islands in the Gulf of California,
Mexico. Herpetological 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, México, 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 occidentalis to the herpetofauna
of Isla de Cedros, Baja California, México 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: \-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.
mtDNA gene sequence, allozyme and morphological uniformity among red diamond
rattlesnakes, Crotalus ruber and Crotalus exsul. Canadian 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 of the herpetofauna of Mexico, vol. 7 (Bibliographic
addendum 4 and index, bibliographic addenda 24, 1979-1991). University Press of
Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.

Smith, H.M. & Taylor, E.H. 1950. Type localities of Mexican reptiles and amphibians. Kansas
University 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

"Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. (e-mail: hsmith@spot.colorado.edu). “Department of
Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61790-4120, U.S.A. * Department
of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0345, 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 MSS 2C6. “Department of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda,
California 92350, U.S.A. 7Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas
78712-1064, U.S.A. “Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A. (Corresponding address: 4 Potter Park, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138, U.S.A.). °Reptile Research and Breeding Facility, 5310 Sultana 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).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 233

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans
Stokes, 1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida)

(Case 3011; see BZN 55: 6-8)

(1) Wilhelm Foissner

Universitat Salzburg, Institut fiir Zoologie, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, A-5020 Salzburg,
Austria

In his application to conserve the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes,
1887 and Strobilidium 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 (Miller, 1786) Claparéde & 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). Acta Protozoologica, 5: 245-252.

Curds, C.R. 1977. Notes on the morphology and nomenclature of three members of the
Euplotidae (Protozoa: Ciliatea). Bulletin of the British 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. Bulletin of the Ocean Research Institute of the University of Tokyo,
21: 1-67.

(2) John O. Corliss
P.O. Box 2729, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, U.S.A.

I am opposed to what is being asked of the Commission in this application, in
effect, to use its plenary powers to conserve the names of two oligotrichous ciliates,

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

Strobilidium gyrans (Stokes, 1887) Kahl, 1932 and Strobilidium caudatum 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 I turn to
the specific points in question.

1. In the broad field of protozoology, there are few taxonomists and even fewer
ecologists who are nomenclaturists. 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 Tetrahymena (see Corliss &
Dougherty, 1967) and Stentor (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 fiir
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 Strobilidium caudatum (Fromentel, 1876) as replacement
of Strobilidium 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

nee aa

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 235

decade, Strobilidium caudatum, as a substitute for Strobilidium 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
Oligotrichida, of direct pertinence to the present case). Also note the use of
Fromentel’s 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 Strobilidium gyrans; but they have offered no
discussion of the matter 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
Traité de Zoologie series.

7. Neglect of or carelessness in nomenclatural details is all too common in the
protozoological literature (see paragraphs | 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 Strobilidium 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., Strobilidium kahii.

9. The purpose of the present application by the noted ecologist C.W. Heckman
is clear and understandable. Because the name Strobilidium 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 major 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, Strobilidium
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. Acta Protozoologica, 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 Tetrahymena Furgason, 1940. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, 24: 155-185.

Corliss, J.O. & Foissner, W. 1997. Trachelocerca Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): proposed conserva-
tion of authorship as Ehrenberg (1840), with fixation of Vibrio sagitta Miller, 1786 as the
type species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 54: 219-221.

Foissner, W., Blatterer, H., Berger, H. & Kohmann, F. 1991. Taxonomische und 6kologische
Revision der Ciliaten des Saprobiensystems. Band I. Cyrtophorida, Oligotrichida,
Hypotrichia, Colpodea. Jnformationsberichte des Bayerisches Landesamtes _ fiir
Wasserwirtschaft 1/91, Munich. 471 pp. i

Hausmann, K. & Bradbury, P.C. (Eds.) 1996. Ciliates: cells as organisms. 485 pp. G. Fischer,
Stuttgart.

Kirby, H. 1954. On the need for validating the name Stentor Oken, 1815 (class Ciliophora) for
use in its accustomed sense. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 9: 208-214.

Puytorac, P. de. 1994. Infusoires ciliés, systematique. Vol. 2, fasc. 2. 880 pp. In Grassé, P.-P.
(Ed.). Traité de Zoologie, Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie. Masson, Paris.

Comment on the proposed designation of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the
type species of Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, 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 Cylindrella 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, Viniéna 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 Pléckensteinské. 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 Miller & Troschel, 1849 by the
designation of neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatus
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: 109-115, June 1997), in contrast to those made by Drs R. Fricke & C.J. Ferraris
(BZN 53: 106-111, June 1996). I see Dr Kuliander’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 Miller & 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: 110-111) to retain both the names L. punctatus and
P. schomburgkii 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 (schomburgkii); 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, 1758 has been, and continues to be, used by the majority of
authors for the labrid species and L. bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 is very much in use
for the South American cichlid. Moreover, the cichlid is an aquarium fish and is
mentioned, as Cichlasoma 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 Giinther
(1862) and noted: ‘We follow Ginther ... 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 Giinther (1862, p. 74) used the
name mixtus for the labrid species and (pp. 276, 277) bimaculatus (with references
to Museum. Adolphi, 1, p. 66 and Gronovius, p. 36, no. 87 included among the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 239

synonymies; see paras. | and 2 of the application) for the cichlid. Giinther also
included ‘a variety of female, L. bimaculatus’ 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) of 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. ossifragus (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. Gunther (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: 113) as the type species of 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-eastern Atlantic and
of the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris.

Comments on the proposed designation of [guanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in
Beneden, 1881 as the type species of Iguanodon Mantell, 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 Charig & 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, J. anglicus Holl, 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 /guanodon, and the vast
majority of this material clearly belongs to the same genus of iguanodontid
ornithopod. The name /guanodon 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 Jguanodon (atherfieldensis, hoggi, dawsoni, fittoni, lakotaensis)
which are known from less complete material (see Norman & Weishampel, 1992).
Furthermore, the name ernissartensis was the third specific name to be erected for
the genus /guanodon, 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. & Osmdlska, H. (Eds.), The 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 ornithopod dinosaur.

Mantell (1825) did not designate a type species for guanodon and it was left to Holl
(1829) to propose the specific designation /. anglicus (originally as ‘anglicum’) for
Mantell’s material. Although J. bernissartensis is now clearly the best known species
of the genus, Norman (1986) accepted 7. anglicus as the type species.

Charig & Chapman claim (para. 8 of the application) that the ‘teeth [of Igwanodon
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 1 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 Jguanodon. Indeed, Mantell explicitly based his concept of /guanodon 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 Jguanodon bernissartensis 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 [guanodon in Early
Cretaceous strata from southeastern England, J. bernissartensis and I. 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 L. anglicus (see Norman & Weishampel, 1992,
p. 530). The teeth attributed to J anglicus may yet prove referable to either species
(and thus the name J. 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 [guanodon.

In conclusion, I propose that / anglicus be retained as the type species of
Iguanodon. The tooth BMNH 2392 should be designated the lectotype of 1 anglicus
following Norman (1986; paras. 3 and 4 of the application). The formerly more
widely used name J. mantelli von Meyer, 1832 (based on Mantell’s original material
as well as subsequently discovered teeth and bones) is a junior subjective synonym of
I. 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 [guanodon 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 Nomenclature 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, California, U.S.A. and Department of Geology,
University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.

I write concerning the proposal by Colin Groves to conserve the specific name of
Australopithecus 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. afarensis 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 SBD,
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
africanus 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, University of Liverpool, Ashton 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. africanus), as Groves states
(para. 6 of the application). I firmly believe that the wise nomenclatural judgement
is to accept Groves’s proposal to maintain the usage of afarensis. I urge the
Commission to adopt it.

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

OPINION 1910

Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839 and Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970
(Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved by the designation of Alucita
erxlebella Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Roeslerstammia; and
A. erxlebella and Tinea imella Hiibner, [1813] (currently
Roeslerstammia erxlebella and Monopis imella): specific names
conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. erxlebella

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; micromoths; ROESLERSTAMMIIDAE;
ACROLEPIIDAE; TINEIDAE; Roeslerstammia; 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 3 P. Huemer’, is designated as the
neotype;
(b) for the nominal genus Roes/erstammia 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, 1787;
(b) 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 (1)(a) above (specific name of
the type species of Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839);

(b) assectella Zeller, 1839, as published in the binomen Roes/erstammia
assectella (specific name of the type species of Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970);

(c) imella Hiibner, [1813], as published in the binomen Tinea imella.

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, 1839).

(3

History of Case 2963

An application for the designation of Alucita erxlebella Fabricius, 1787 as the type
species of Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839, thereby conserving both Roes/erstammia and
Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970, and for the replacement of the syntype of A. erx/ebella
with a neotype, so conserving the specific names of A. erx/ebella and Monopis imella
(Hiibner, [1813]), was received from Dr Peter Huemer (Tiroler Landesmuseum

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 245

Ferdinandeum, Naturwissenschaften, Innsbruck, Austria) 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 | 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 | 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 Hiibner, [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, Entomologische Abhandlungen. Staatliche Museum fiir Tierkunde
in Dresden, 38(1): 32.

assectella, Roeslerstammia, Zeller, 1839, Isis (von Oken), 1839(3): col. 203.

Chrysitella Zeller, 1839, Isis (von Oken), 1839(3): col. 203.

erxlebella, Alucita, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2, p. 256.

imella, Tinea, Hiibner, [1813], Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, Lepidoptera part 8,
Tinea part 4, pl. 50, fig. 347.

Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839, Isis (von Oken), 1839(3): col. 202.

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

OPINION 1911

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.

The name sisymbrii Schrank, 1803, as published in the binomen Tipula
sisymbrii (specific name of the type species of Dasineura Rondani, 1840), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

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).

(3

—

(4

—

History of Case 2986

An application for the designation of Tipula sisymbrii Schrank, 1803 as the type
species of Dasineura Rondani, 1840 was received from Dr Raymond J. Gagné (Plant
Species Institute, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, clo U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), Dr Keith M. Harris (/nternational Institute of Entomol-
ogy, London, U.K.), Dr Marcela Skuhrava (Praha, Czech Republic), Dr Mario Solinas
(Istituto di Entomologia Agraria, Universita degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy) and
Dr Edvard Sylvén (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 | 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 | 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, 1846 on the
Official 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 7. sisymbrii
(if type material exists) as the neotype of D. 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 alla ditterologia italiana. No. 2 (Sopra alcuni
nuovi generi di insetti ditteri), p. 12.

Dasyneura Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclator Zoologicus. Nomina Systematica Generum Dipterorum,
palie

sisymbrii, Tipula, Schrank, 1803, Fauna Boica. Durchgedachte Geschichte der in Baiern
einheimischen und zahmen Thiere, 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 della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 2: 288.

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

OPINION 1912

Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Foenus
unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 designated as the type species

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; GASTERUPTIIDAE; parasitic
wasps; Pseudofoenus; Pseudofoenus unguiculatus; New Zealand.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 are hereby set aside and Foenus unguiculatus
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
pedunculatum Schletterer, 1889 as the type species of Pseudofoenus but, by
designating a neotype, fixing it as a junior synonym of Foenus unguiculatus
Westwood, 1841. 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 | 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 | June
1998 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 15: Bock, Bouchet, 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 Gasteruption pedunculatum (a nomem dubium) unresolved. The
applicants argue (BZN 54: 187) that ‘it is inevitably invalid as a junior synonym of
either Foenus unguiculatus or of F. crassipes’ simply because the most recent
taxonomic revision recognises only two taxonomic species in the genus Pseudofoenus.
Consequently the proposal ensures that pedunculatum, 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. nocticolor Kieffer, 1911) in the genus. There appears to be
no dispute as to the identity of F. uwnguiculatus and its presumed holotype, and
Dr Crosskey’s final suggestions (to set aside the existing presumed syntype of
pedunculatus and designate the holotype of unguiculatus as the neotype of
pedunculatus) would fix Pseudofoenus in its accustomed usage’. Kerzhner commented:
‘As there is no doubt that pedunculatus belongs in Pseudofoenus and there is no
intention to place the two taxonomic species of Pseudofoenus in different genera or
subgenera, pedunculatus 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: ‘I 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 Wytsman, 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
PIGSANOEL, Din icecct ctegreyc, wcuaedhe 24
ep iGisn” ee teatro ee re Lomi ite 229
Altaba,CiRe SH) Fay sie. VE 119
Asche\Mi..\"t pores ac0.c See ea 93
Barrett, PM ccnutafh ats: ee eo
BATEV IS sick oo ahs, pens wast toes pee alee 224
Bock. Wilts 185 f.0 fle pee eer 159, 181
Bodons Mies bik <a oe 139
Bogan} ;AVES = 2 (0¥'s, UPS OR? Ae 76
BobmesWeicr). ores att. 1 111, 173
Brannwalders MCB wae seicaaces cal) 2 17
Brisbint Te lee ekin mantis Aa Be 43
Brown thebeats teagan ee od. 229
Brunton) Gi Ga eee 220
Carapezza,/ACTA it Fade SIR ri eS 146
Carpenter: 7th. tan Bere ove f2 2 240
Ghandlernbamcte erase ace face irscserads 2 96
Chapman Be sa iA SS 99
Chane yA Mai cis oo eue oe, sy 99
Chiszar Dies fare te hee 229
Copper TG. 0), erg TL Se 106
Cole ITA hss Ae eee! we 39
GorlissSt TiO ad’ ae SEAS) Aa eee 233
Couper iP ec ene Bands. Pek. 37
Covacevichs 4 cr ectmarie siicet tine « wiht, 37
Donovan sya; pete ses ee eee 29
Dyindee sal: Aces ae re gee ge 41
EmeljanovcAck rr, ces a ee ee 237
Bnpesers Te sisaen Boe ed RS wats 29
Rerrarawhy (ica). © et Gus fers Gea 217
eet, een a Panta ee 14, 17
Bishbein cA. | -£ gl taut. ates Sete 229
OISSHEE-We. -:, 2. SE ee io 233
Bryer Gs se), 20S" Se eee 169
Gardner: Allis. teks ovis 24
Geers DL. 4.) ages ecucpceca 209
CIE AS rae sea ee” drs 118
CSUGEISOU WI Crea cc, See et Rue et 236
Giuster Ry a SS AS, eae se 139
GofastSires Weihe -@ Sa Be es 9
GrezesG Bib Seen: Per : 165
Grismer ee aoc scale, Wien 229
GLOVESKG@iP ea sb a we 118
GEVPera Mn oe ese, 105
Gutberiet Re 2.Pe lh See: 29

Page
Harvey IMCBie bey aee st nt pls)
Reckman:'C.W: 443.0 0 eee ee 6
Herbert Gee ogn aie sy 9
Hollingsworth, ByD:) 3°... =) 2 le 229
HosercRilse.igersecre alta peepee 113
JAHSSOM AGS ng: & pe cet fe ee 20
Jenkins. PADS otak en scsi sy feen ee 118
Jennings! NERO 2) 50) 2. Gi, Bee 224
ony Rd. 5) hee conte eee 169
Kadolsky,- Di = \.. 7." in 325, cy eee 82
IKarsholt; Oo. 33) "ell cee 169
Kerzhner: Mi SS ee ce 146, 237
ottelath My W242 SP eee 155;:237
1 ae DB) ee Er EE Sey 3) 220
Lehtinen! Pole 2 ts 2 a eee 217
enck BEA S8 0c ee ae. ee 42
(inersesAs « c, . se) Ss ce tee 229
MeGuiresT:Aot fs er 229
Man ganelli: 1Giy4.. fA) al eee 139
Medicas ib: Avvry.\ 6 5. 3 TAM mas 41
Michener-<G.D)i cy cy ict pg an eee 24
MMe ey AC Cy aa en ee ee 172
MouraeRili). 88 60.0 8 acne 151
NE MPICEIMER, 8. e 5 eee 155
Norman? D: Sous fi ca See 172
Ohman, J:C. <.) 2... SUS eee ee 242
Olson: Saliiesishra. 2g a oe 176
Radashevsky; Villy. °. 1)... SA 212
Randall) J.Bs)0.o Sore See 151
Rennes 2:2 res Ach ease 242
SchattiiBs ra. ois a. eee 32
SchoddeRe .3N.y 2 2.5%) eee 159, 181
Schwartz Jikie. o. 5. ive, seule eee 165
Shea Ge ear arn ee te 38, 106, 115
SHOSHaNES Ue ee cigs cane Son ne 165
Silverberg. Es. wys cs 4, tem cya ee 22:
Sumonse Le eas a ee eee 165
Sissom:.W.D: Gr ee ok, Se 17
Smithet.M-+\cha. eee be 36; 175, 229
SpamierE-Ba. Sy-aleey; Ameen 716
Sprackland) ReGen es 175
Stewart K.A. ii. 6 celts es eee 209
Strimple PDS, spe 175, 229

StinserAG. 9.4 ion S Memeo poet S-- ee 242

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 251

Stys¥e Oe? Mee <i ee eee 236
SnessHEDy + BP .0 te) SCs s 240
MRE Stivers ct cencewet Det jen d 217
TETRA en. a a 42
“THiS er A ar 165
MONSON EG: oes se en 87
Dy ePeTeryb Sree gae sks |) a ARN 105

Wake DIB) sn seh ee, Cea. eee 42
Wallach eVirseee 1287 30 <3 229
WEDD Gay fs cs dE ene en 42
WiheelercAR seis cvst. ten Rbetee 238
ATG 1 Snel ae paren 241
WALES De oe a ae 212
IWHISOUSIMORS© cio: cp isp cas eee 90, 93

FACES RS i i ieee ie 73

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 under 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 Kélliker, 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
Agouti Lacepéde, 1799 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Anomalina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1902
Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda) Op. 1904
Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] (Isopoda) Op. 1897
Armadillo Cuvier, 1792 (Diplopoda) Op. 1897
Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Isopoda) Op. 1897
Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887
Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808] (Aves) Op. 1893
Cathammistes Mliger, 1807 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891
Chrysitella Zeller, 1839 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910
Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] (Reptilia) Op. 1907
Crenitis Bedel, 1881 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891

Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891
Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Cuniculus Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Diptera) Op. 1911
Dasyneura Agassiz, 1846 (Diptera) Op. 1911
Euchroeus Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1906
Euhyaena Falconer, 1868 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Fontiscrutor Pandellé, 1876 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891
Galba Schrank, 1803 (Gastropoda) Op. 1896
Georissus Latreille, 1809 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891
Georyssus 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

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

Melesium Rafinesque, 1815 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1899

Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1898

Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (Reptilia) Op. 1907

Ombellula Cuvier, [1797] (Anthozoa) Op. 1903

Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (Coleoptera) Op. 1891

Orthonus 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

Taxus Cuvier & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
Tragulus Boddaert, 1785 (Mammalia) Op. 1894

Tragulus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) Op. 1894

Tragulus Pallas, 1767 (Mammalia) Op. 1894

Trematospira Hall in Davidson, 1858 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1900
Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1900
Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809] (Aves) Op. 1893

Truncatuliana Servain, 1881 (Gastropoda) Op. 1896
Umbellula Cuvier, [1797] (Anthozoa) Op. 1903

Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903

Specific Names

aculeatus, Tropidolepis, Gray, 1831 (Reptilia) Op. 1909

aedon, Troglodytes, Vieillot, [1809] (Aves) Op. 1893

americana, 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

bellii, Tropidolepis, 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 Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

cinereus, Oniscus, Zenker in Panzer, 1799 (Isopoda) Op. 1897
clayatus, 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
domestica, Sylvia, Wilson, 1808 (Aves) Op. 1893

encrinus, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Anthozoa) Op. 1903

erxlebella, Alucita, Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1910
fasciatus, Tropidolepis, Gray, 1831 (Reptilia) Op. 1909

foetidus, Scarabaeus, Herbst, 1783 (Coleoptera) Op. 1890

garnotii, Hemidactylus, Duméril & 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, Arca, Risso, 1826 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887

herminieri, Holotropis, Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (Reptilia) Op. 1909
hyaena, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1894

hydrochaeris, Sus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) Op. 1894

imella, Tinea, Hiibner, [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, Minster, 1834 (Reptilia) Op. 1907
multistriatus, Spirifer, Hall, 1857 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1900

mytili, Aleyonidium, Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa) Op. 1892

niger, Vespertilio vampirus, Kerr, 1792 (Mammalia) Op. 1894
nigrescens, Alvania, Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 (Gastropoda) Op. 1888
obliqua, Arca, Philippi, 1844 (Bivalvia). Op. 1887

obliquata, Arca, Locard, 1899 (Bivalvia). Op. 1887

obliquatula, Arca, Dautzenberg, 1927 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887

officinalis, Armadillo, Duméril, 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

peruvianus, Hemidactylus, Wiegmann, 1835 (Reptilia) Op. 1908
philippiana, Arca, Nyst, 1848 (Bivalvia) Op. 1887

purpurata, Chrysis, Fabricius, 1787 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1906
pustulatus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1781 (Diplopoda) Op. 1897

rapax, Typhis, Milne-Edwards, 1830 (Amphipoda) Op. 1889

riisei, Clayularia, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (Anthozoa) Op. 1895
riisei, 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

ruset, Clavularia, 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, Dorylaimus, 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 Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis
methodica, Ed. 2. Op. 1894

Kaicher, S.D. 1973-1992. Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. Pack | (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, Sparus, Bloch, 1791 (Osteichthyes) ............... 151
acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) ............ 139
aegagrus, Capra, Erxleben, 1777 (Mammalia) .............. 43, 119
aequatorialis, Momotus, Gould, [1858] (Aves) ... 2... 2.2.5.2. 176
aequinoctialis, Cimex, Scopoli, 1763 (Homoptera) ............ 93, 237
afarensis, Australopithecus, Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia) ........... 241
africanus, Equus, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (Mammalia) ......... 43, 119
africanus, Meganthropus, Weinert, 1950 (Mammalia)... .......... 241
albocarinatus, Bothrops, Shreve, 1934 (Reptilia). .............2.. 29
albus: Psittacus, Mullere776;(Aves),. 2° ease.) 4 & Sees ee is Sees ae 159
almawebi, Porthidium, Schatti & Kramer, 1993 (Reptilia) ........... 29
Ambloxis Ratmesque, 188 (Gastropoda)l. "se. a. he. ee eee 76
antiqua, Belemnotheutis, Pearce, 1847 (Coleoidea). .............. 29
aperea,@ayia, Prxleben! 17/77 (Mammalia)) 805-50. 2 ee 43, 119
Aplonis' Gould MSSGtAves) el tee fe te eee te Sc SNe eet eeeaee 176
AplornisiGouldSLS36i(Aves) 5 ae RCN eS! Set Sees 176
armata, Merganetta,, Gould) 1842] \(Aves)") 0: 0 S02. ee ee eae 176
arnce "Bos. ere 1792) (Mammalia) >.) 20 Ron ee eee 43, 119
Asiracawatreile,|[l796](EOmoptera) is tees. Bets cna fe wr ate eee 93257237
atra; Diemenia,Macleay, 1884 (Reptilia)) ©). 8. 1 3. se ee 115
Atramentarius Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838 (Coleoidea). . .... . 29
orien Gould alS44i (Aves). o.¢ Ae ee Se) Ge eke oe 4, See 176
Affichia Gould 1844s(Aves), "P9s S yea Re a as Be ee 176
aurantiventris» Troson™ Gould: |[856]\(Aves) SS 2.0 et... ee 176
aurora, Heliantheas.Gould: [1854] (Aves) ) bo) 2 ee 176
Austrocochiea: Fischer, 1885\(Gastropoda)"~ } 2. : .'. . 2 Soa. a eee 9
BaniarBrusina® U896(Gasitopoda)l’., sant es te ate ee ee ee 82
Belemnoteuthis' Pearce; 1847 (Coleoidea) 2.0.95 2 2s a ee ee ee 29
Belermnotheniis Pearce, 18423 (Coleoidea) 9 4 202%, Os 5 ste se ee 29
bennettiCasuarius Goulds [W858i CAwes) oF 3. 3 176
bernissartensis, Iguanodon, Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 (Reptilia) . . 99, 172, 239
bicolor, Litosoma, Douglas & Scott, 1868 (Heteroptera) ........... 146
bimaculatus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) ............. 235,
Cacatoes Dummer (T8O5]CAves)! Cee pees See & ee 159
Gacatia Nieillotols ly (AVES i027 C5 eR eo Ss Re 159
CAGATUINABE Grays iss oi(A ves) 7. De, oh) cle cee tunes 159
caeruleogularis, Aulacoramphus, Gould, 1853 (Aves) .........-..--. 176
caeruleogularis, Aulacorhamphus, Gould, [1854] (Aves)... ...-...... 176
campbelli-Bothrops: Preires1 991 (Reptilia) ay van ee. 3. eee ene 29

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Gastropoda) ..............+.- 76

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 257

Caragolus Monterosato, 1884 (Gastropoda) .................. 9
@aracus Rafinesques silat (Aves) ey Yeres ties § BST bake? ee) ein 2. 159
caucasicus, Androctonus, Nordmann, 1840 (Arachnida) ............ 14
caucasius, Scorpio, Fischer von Waldheim, 1813 (Arachnida) ......... 14
caudatum, Strobilidium, Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora) ............. 6, 233
caudatum, Strombidion, Fromentel, 1876 (Ciliophora) ........... 6, 233
UINAEp Sia TendellOli*(Mipterd)iWeeaer tate 4 cele test. ee ee sa ees 96
Chloropterus, Capsus, Kirschbaum, 1856 (Heteroptera) ........... 146
Cholocpusiliner sl Sil (Mammalia) tpeta.te) os St i 22. ie ae 118
chrysopterus, Scarus, Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes). ........ 151
chrysopterygius, Psephotus, Gould, [1858] (Aves)... ............ 176
Gichiasoma Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes)) ier FP Shoe) da ae 2 237
claparedi, Strombidium, Kent, 1882 (Ciliophora) ............., 6, 233
clathrata, Haliotis, Lichtenstein, 1794 (Gastropoda) ............ .209
Gathrata. Halions, Reeve, 1846 (Gastropoda)! %s “Sl. Soh eee 2 ee 209
clavicornis, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 (Homoptera). ............ 93, 237
constricta, Monodonta, Lamarck, 1822 (Gastropoda). ............. 9
eoronatus. Malurus, Gould) [1858]\(Aves) os tee. .02 2 wk ee ee 176
crassula, Campeloma, Rafinesque, 1819 (Gastropoda) ............. 76
CHISIGINS \Psitiacus, Linnaeus 1758 (Aves)aaus) ses. Somode. ges Seen) e 159
cyanocollis, Trochilus, Gould, [1854] (Aves) .............-+...-. 176
Wosypoda iatreille: 1602) (Etymenoptera) mest) Met. Rue & cole oe: 24
DASYPODAIDAE Borer, 1919 (Hymenoptera)"). 2 0Jmo.0. 5 2. cone 24
DASVPODIDAE Borner, 1919'(Hymenoptera)jomeies fie). cree ele. 24
DAS VPODIDAB (Gray) 13821) (Manmmalia)iconee ERS cet tt ee 24
Daspyius Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia\heers rie 5 tek tallow: by Ace
deissneri, Parosphromenus, Bleeker, 1877 (Osteichthyes) ........... 155
We nRFOChera. GOulds1833) (AVES)! 24 eis bP aba mises AM SSO 176
Wennrocitia: Gould:, 1833) (Aves): sets esis ibick ® scseee OS. asees 176
deschiensiana, Bithinia, Deshayes, 1862 (Gastropoda) ............. 82
desmarestii, Paludina, Prévost, 1821 (Gastropoda) .............. 82
didactylus, Bradypus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) .............. 118
PULOLINIS. -DInorniss Owens 844i (AVes)\)a0 bo lteer.) ahs |}. und teat 176
Disparalona’Eryer, 1968 (Branchiopoda)) 29...) 8%): ge) 2 eee. 105, 169
donhrniis GCorisa, Fiebetr; 1848 (Heteroptera)... .:-...:+2.... + - 20; 236
aromacoides, Dinornis, Owen; 1843 (Aves) . 2920.0. ee Oe ee 176
dromaeoides, Dinornis, Owen, 1844 (Aves)... ......-2-0+2e +8] 176
RPeACONeris Gy snus barker tego (AVES) )o elcet.s 2 o (0st EERE nA ae 176
elegans, Haliotis, Philippi, 1844 (Gastropoda) ................ 209
elephantopus, Dinornis, Owen, 1856 (Aves) .....-.--+--+-+++++5 176
TID DUS OMGa Sa CAVES) eee le telco ect. (ee eniecmnias 8S PR bat Dh ae 176
enpinroprocta; ‘Ruticilla, ‘Gould, Te5ai(Aves) -) 2) Jt) Sere see: 176
estella, Orthorynchus, d@Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838 (Aves) ......... 176
Euchiussauduereery S70) (Gasiropoda)' =] 1 sean uee) Lol. e tk RAIS et 82

Exsul Crovaus. Garman, 1884. (Reptilia)iite, A S08 Lenina .4 Pe) 9229

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

falconeri, Cygnus; Patker:|[1866]\(Aves) ak erase et ee 2a 176
ferus, Camelus, Przewalski, 1883 (Mammalia) .............. 43, 119
ferus, Equus, Boddaert, 1785\(Mammalia)'. 2... 22... 38. le 43, 119
foriceps, Trochilus, Gouldal$s4]\(Aves) Ae. oe OSes, SU, oe 176
frontalis, Acanthiza, Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 (Aves) ............ 176
fusca, Aplonis GouldWil856i\(Aves) tases tee ee. CO. eI, Ae 176
GALAGIDAE,Gray,.1825 (Mammialia).) Os) |. ier) 4. et eee 165
Galago Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) .............. 165
GALAGONINA Gray, 1825 (Mammalia)... .............8. 165
gaurus.Bosssmiths 1827: (Mammalia) 2: 0 Sigs, vee, Se 43, 119
Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949 (Goleoidea) i") 8 2. ee 29
Geoteuthis Munster; 11843 \(Coleoidea) Mate) S12 tench eee eae 29
Siganteus, Dinornis, Owen, [1844]\(Aves)) 2-93). 0:00... AS wee 176
goldfussi, Cylindrella, Menke, 1847 (Gastropoda) ............ 87, 236
gouldii, Hydrosaurus, Gray, 1838 (Reptilia) ............... 106, 173
gracilior, Uroctonoides, Hoffmann, 1931 (Arachnida) ............. 17
gracilis; Dinornis, Owen, [855](Aves)t tees 8 2s 5 9.) 2s Pe ee 176
guanicoe, Camelus, Miller, [1776] (Mammalia). ............. 43, 119
gyrans, Strombidium, Stokes, 1887 (Ciliophora) .............. 6, 233
hennigi, Chamaepsila, Thompson & Pont, 1994 (Diptera) ........... 96
hirtipes, Andrena, Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera). .............. 24
Hoffmanniellius Mello-Leitao, 1934 (Arachnida) .............-.. 17
HolospiraMartens, 1860 (Gastropoda) ones 21.) N15 sesvotl SPA 87, 236
Hydrobia' Hartmann; 11821) (Gastropoda)| “tes eee SII 139
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) frais) 275 |. AU 139
HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) ................ 139
HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) ............... 139
hyperythrus, Odontophorus, Gould, [1858] (Aves) ............-. 176
Iguanodon Mantell; 1825 (Reptilia)ioe 20.) 1 te ee 9929239.
infernalis, Coluber, Blainvilley 1835\(Reptilia) ) ~~. . 2/5060, 1. eT. 2. ee 224
iris; Hehagthea; (Gould, [(1854]i(Aves)e =... 2203 FAS? aoe. 176
irroratus, Dromaeus; battlett, 1859) (Aves)) <a) eee.) 2. ees SOR 176
Jeleizkyteuthis Doyle; 1990\(Coleoidea). “eRe S Ae Fee: See 29
kahli, Strobilidium, Petz & Foissner, 1992 (Ciliophora) .......... 6, 233
Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800)'(Aves)\<s.c5.5-4-02 5. eA CO Seip S eee .- as 159
keithhornei, Odatria, Wells & Wellington, 1985 (Reptilia). ........ 37
BLabrus Linnaeus; 1758 (Osteichthyes))...... ne cn SRW VERY OT oe 237
leucogastra, Dendrocitta, Gould, 1833 (Aves) ...........+-++8- 176
Eoligosepia, Quenstedt,«1839)(Eoleoidea) (ak aA ce 29
LORIDAHIGray, 182 ls(Mammialia) eg.) tacmaertiesy %) Sc aieairee. oe 165

Loris Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) ............... 118

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 259

ORISIDAE Gray; 1821) (Mammalia) iwc rm.) 245). zune oe. cleo. 165
emus Canis Linnaeus. | 5eulammialia)| tac matt) 0 |. 2xtok cary 2 wer 43, 119
MoT One tia OUld. Sal (AVES). ashe lceeeeoe es cata SOS sofia 5 176
MeronnertoGould. 842 (Aves) . Aa tyaren soe - ete! . usitedeee eat 2 ek 176
mexicana Meleagris, Gould; 1856((Aves)naiah f2) ). eee. ade). sone 176
marcropterus, ‘Loaiceps.. Gould; 1868. (Awes)i) 228! dtu co eA eee ee 176
mierurus:. Galothorax, Gould: 1854\(Aves) 224% 1A) Lins) oo Got) 176
minima, Excalfactoria, Gould, 1859 (Aves) .......06....0...% 176
munucuus Gnrpsococcyx, Gould: USSo((AVES)ioe 9 22 6 24 esis 2 ss oe 176
vaxius. Eoorus. Linnaeus: 1758 (Osteichthyes)) ee. Aneta ties > 216s 237
montefiorei, Belemnotheutis, Buckman, 1880 (Coleoidea) ..........~. 29
mutus, Poephagus, Przewalski, 1883 (Mammalia). ............ 43, 119
mazarenus, Didus, Bartlett, [1854]\(Aves)%) .\., ace Ayepenn) b=. 176
neomexicanus, Cnemidophorus, Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia)... .... .39
nigromaculatus, Pediopsis, Motschulsky, 1859 (Homoptera) .......... 90
nigropictus, Thamnotettix, Stal, 1870 (Homoptera) .............. 90
morabilis, Nestor, Gould, 1856)(Awes)iaeuth eee Sorte t. Seiwa. sae 176
novemcinctus, Dasypus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) ............ .24
METIS Gould. 183i (Aves)! 5.595 «disc <u =. See MO5d. yehed ewctnols 176
nerioiatheipod Goulds 1 S40\(AVES) a) cae) cea edd ed oe A ee 176
Mrepirocnius: Gould 84 7(Aves)in « )5 (ede) Lee .Sesicie 2. oe. iow 176
orientalis, Ovis, Gmelin, 1774 (Mammalia)... 2... ......... 43, 119
Minus Philippi, 1847(Gasttopoda)\, =. seri Eabes Walon t. aN 2! Galette 9
ossifagus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes). ............. .237
ossifragus, Labrus, Lonnberg, 1896 (Osteichthyes) .............. PES
PaEeniLeapreryx, Gould. 1847 (AVvEs))_ . &) a 2 jo Aeteieeet) SARE shad aloes 176
ccnvlopssbicher. soo ideteloptera)| sl ans) ee eeIe ARs COAL. Pyke. Bene 146
wanoptes, Varanus, Storr, 1980\(Reptilia)) . . . 2 we te Pk 106, 173
iaareauelopelis) Naef. 1921) (Coleoidea) tieoence.ots =. «rit t. cases". eee 29
igaraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (Coleoidea)seprticns. 4 2) e024. co ei... see) 29
Haarnrocionus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida)) a)... ...-.0.+s5..+:.+se a 17
weatoralis, Nyctibius, Gould, 1838;(Aves)) .../ mise ts io). endo oe 8 176
mectoralis. Nyctidus, Gould; 1837) (Aves) Gi) cecilia). 4 aol eM son! 176
menionomus Gould, 1840) (Aves)ietansaifonst.s 222 t.etczanesd. cowcn phate 176
perplexus, Cnemidophorus, Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia) .......... 39
Phainolaema, Heliothrix, Gould, 1855 (Aves) ...........-+...- 176
Banxura Muller 1867 \(Branchiopoda)i ms. 4 10) Paint) agiaesuals!. * 105, 169
uprobius Dejean less (Coleoptera) scouess 221) Liye d stiouawss® canteQ22
nytobius;schonherr, 18331(Coleoptera)jew 4 |.08N. anil seek cote. 22,
Eby CLOLOREINAE, Visors,1825)(Aves)ipetianl. £081. corti dees 159
mivctolophus Micillot: I816i(Aves). Ameenisesnt) 24} ime. <aclery over 159
Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1849 (Osteichthyes) ............ .237

Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (Mammalia) .................241

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998

primigenius, Bos, Bojanus, 1827 (Mammalia). .............. 43, 119
propinqua, Corisa, Fieber, 1860 (Heteroptera) .............. 20, 236
prototypica, Stalioa, Brusina, 1872 (Gastropoda) ............... 82
Psila, Meigen, 31803: (Diptera) ase): auc: coc ares, «OPS APS) 96
pulcher, Trigonocephalus, Peters, 1862 (Reptilia) ............... 29
punctatus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) .............. 237
ipurpureiceps, Helrathrix, Gould, 1855 (Aves) ice) Se 2 ee eee 176
ipusillus:, Ghorderless Gould 86li(Aves) tats 05.2) ave ae ae 176
putorius, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia). ............. 43, 119
quadristriata, Cicada, Gmelin, 1790 (Homoptera) ............ 93, 237
rosaewMusca,babriciusy 1794.(Diptera) ests |. 22. eS ae ee 96
rostratus, Lynceus, Koch, 1841 (Branchiopoda) ............. 105, 169
ruber, Crotalus adamanteus, Cope, 1892 (Reptilia) .............. 229
wallaet;, Chrysotis: sclaten,(l658]\(Awes) 7" Bese ae ee, ee 176
Sandbergeriella Schlickum, 1968 (Gastropoda) ................ 82
scamnorum, Melanesillo, Verhoeff, 1938 (Isopoda) .............. 217
Semeioptera-Graysnl 859. (Aves) Rae eeeaes ea) OLAS .t AO, Seeee 176
sSemioptera: Gray, WS9)\(AVES)". 4 0 a, ali ee OARS, SOAS pe 176
senegalensis, Galago, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia). ....... 165
Sericornis Gould: 838CAves)) 0%. falcernere cated ee ee) Cee. DORR). ae ee 176
sernirosiris.cAnser, Swinkioe.s | S7lu(Aves) seta. L8tes. Ve, ROA 176
silvestris, Felis catus, Schreber, [1777] (Mammalia) ............ 43, 119
solitarius \Gircaetus. Vschudi 1644; (Aves). .. (a sero es Lee 176
Sparisoma, Swainson, 1839 \(Osteichthyes)) sis). | eee ae, Ae 151
Spraerilloay ernock 41926 (isopods) shy7.).000) eee). eke 217
SpnertiiowWanay 8524 (Isopoda).) 44 ssseian aft? fo SO 217
StalieaiBrusina- lS 70Gastropada)y q4 m2 leet <5 <4 tha e.= 2 oe a eee 82
Stalioia Fischer, 1885 (Gastropoda)... -.. (me hgeeaheet: Sra en 82
SiolmatBuehss 187 7Gasiropoda)) =... 202 °2ysA) WRI. Se eee ee 82
Sivanus, Papilio. rary. i 5)(epidoptera) (ene. 2)... ess Eee 105, 169
Splvanus.pPapilio, Esper, [1777] (Lepidopteta) has 4) Pst... ee 105, 169
fatu:Blumenbach, 1779 (Marmalia)... . 28604 ).8.°). Shee 2 Oa 2 24
Terebratula Miullers1776)(Brachiopoda)) tAei eis seh Peete tc. ene 220
terebratula, Anomia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Brachiopoda) ............. 220
teriae, Varanus, Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia) ............... Si
tetrataenia, Eutaenia sirtalis, Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (Reptilia) ........ 224
thibetanus, Tetraogallus, Gould, 1853 (Aves)... .. 2.222. ee ee ee 176
tibetanus, Tetraogallus, Gould, [1854] (Aves) ............ 2504 176
torquatus, Pedionomus, Gould, 1840 (Aves) .... 2... 2 ee ee ee 176
Trochocochlea Moreh, 1852) (Gastropoda)y.s (54. 2208 2 2) AAD ee 9
turbinatus, Drochus,Born;1778.(Gastropoda), . WWF e.)..55 Jas Ae 9

Urubitarnis: Verreauxiil856)(Ayes)\ a eh ee) ae ee ee 176

——

EEE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 261

Venirosia Kagjoman, 1970 ( Gastropoda) . © batt. ACY AM MY lo. 139
ventrosus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803 (Gastropoda) ............... 139
veraguensis, Odontophorus, Gould, 1856 (Aves) ............... 176
vestigiatus, Hoplocephalus, De Vis, 1884 (Reptilia)... 2... ....002022. 115
VESTA OFM Vas LESSOns 1658) (AVes\rutee teats a, MS Uk Dopo fo Mey 176
uicronige. Ettore. Gould: ['S50]\(Aves)) =. 2 «eae tte. te SS SOROS S 176
vicugna, Camelus, Molina, 1782 (Mammalia). .............. 43, 119
Vipia, elancelus (Gould 853(Aves)) | 21) 2), (OO Fig ei es oe: 176
virescens, Litosoma, Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Heteroptera) .......... 146
PENSE SpHerilo. Mana, 1858 i(Isopoda)'s VP ueae, 19 elo, FL ee 217
P-reruMm soMateria, Grays [S56]\(Aves)) SROs 1h SA ee: 176
Wallace tSemejopteras Gray,-1859) (Aves). ).5 eee foe eee: 176
Wallach Semiontera; Gray21859i(Aves)it We, 294 Bae 2 Pe a, 2, 176
websteri, Polydora, 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 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 arabic
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 SBD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in 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)

Part 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

Contents — continued

Rulings

OPINION 1910. Roeslerstammia Zeller, 1839 and Acrolepiopsis Gaedike, 1970
(Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved by the designation of Alucita erxlebella
Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Roeslerstammia; and A. erxlebella and Tinea
imella Hiibner, [1813] (currently Roes/erstammia erxlebella and Monopis imella):
specific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for A. erxlebella .

OPINION 1911. Dasineura Rondani, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): Tipula sisymbrii
Schrank, 1803 designated as the type species 3

OPINION 1912. Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (nea. Hymenoptera): eenun
unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 designated as the type species ote

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 55 (1998)

Names and Works placed on Official Tas and Tadenes: in palin of the Cusanieion
published in volume 55 (1998) .

Key Names in Applications and Comments published in Volume 55 (1998)

Information and instructions for authors . .

Publication dates and pagination of volume 55 (198).

Instructions to binder . : Pe oe rear

Table of Contents of volume 55 ( 1998)

CONTENTS

Notices . ‘

The International C ode of Zoulogin al Raniarelahine-
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.
Financial Report for 1997

Applications

Haliotis clathrata Reeve, 1846 (non Lichtenstein, 1794) and H. elegans Philippi, 1844
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): ee conservation of the specific names. D.L. Geiger
& K.A. Stewart.

Polydora websteri Hartman in sLoosanoft & Enple’ 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 rig for
P. websteri. V.1. Radashevsky & J.D. Williams

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

Terebratula Miller, 1776 (Brachiopoda): ee designation of ‘anoeia ferebranila
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. D.E. Lee & C.H.C. Brunton.

Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Varrae,
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. S.J. Barry & M.R. Jennings :

Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence af the specifi

name over that of Crotalus exsul Garman, 1884. H.M. Smith et al.. F

Comments

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes,
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). W. Foissner; J.O. Corliss . ‘

On the proposed designation of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as ‘the type species
of Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). L.H. Gilbertson.

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Corisa Sadi Fieber, 1860
(currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Insecta, Heteroptera). P. Stys. ome
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis Fabaicns,
1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; Insecta, Homoptera). A.F. Emeljanov &

I.M. Kerzhner . :

On the proposed cannetvann of the names ‘Tein eee “1758, Cichigsenic
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 . 3

On the proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenee: in 2 Beneder!
1881 as the type species of Jguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of
a lectotype. P.M. Barrett; K. Carpenter; H.-D. Sues

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Australapithers afarensis
Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates). T. White; P. Renne; C. Stringer;
J.C. Ohman . Rene res ert Kia LA Smt aR de Wis Geils) oo ix hae SERS

Page

205
206
206
207

209

212
217

220

224

229

233
236

236

237

237

239

241

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

nt tn te
SFE Pe gee ye ere

weet inetee ote oe

hace eee

Hi
a

‘} Ri i
aah

—

=
==

Nig

i

ils
Hi