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

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

RD 



\M 



IV WV 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



IGzjJx jThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



Volume 56, 1999 



Published on behalf of the Commission by 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

c/o The Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. 

ISSN 0007-5167 

'£' International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 I 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 1 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications . 2 

Addresses of members of the Commission 3 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 4 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 5 

General Article 

Recording and registration of new scientific names: a simulation of the mechanism 
proposed (but not adopted) for the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
clature. P. Bouchet 6 

Applications 

Eiulendriwn arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of 

the specific name. A.C. Marques & W. Vervoort 16 

AUGOCHLORiNi Moure. 1943 (Insecta. Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over 

oxYSTOGLOSSiNi Schrottky, 1909. M.S. Engel 19 

Strongylogasier Dahlbom. 1835 (Insecta. Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by 
the designation of Teiuhredo muhifascuim Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 as the type 
species. S.M. Blank, A. Taeger & T. Naito 23 

Solowpsis inviclu Buren, 1972 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the 

specific name. S.O. Shattuck. S.D. Porter & D.P. Wojcik 27 

NYMPHLILINAE Duponchel, [1845] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over 

ACENTROPiNAE Stephens. 1835. M.A. Solis 31 

Hemibagnis Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed stability of 
nomenclature by the designation of a single neotype for both Bagrus neimirus 
Valenciennes, 1840 and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846, and the designation of the 
lectotype of B. planiccps Valenciennes, 1840 as the neotype of B. fiaviis Bleeker. 
1846. H.H. Ng, Y.Y. Goh, P.K.L. Ng & J. Dodson 34 

Megalotnigus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation, 
and Alcekiplms kciiiwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalolragiis katlwinkeli): 
proposed conservation of the specific name. A.W. Gentry & A. Gentry .... 42 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 
1887 (currently StrobUidiuin gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatwn Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). C.W. Heckman 48 

Haminoea. Hamimieci or Haminea (Mollusca, Gastropoda): notes and comments on 
the spelling and authorship of the generic name, and a proposed Commission 
ruling. P.K. Tubbs; R. Gianuzzi-Savelli; R. Burn; R.C. Willan: W.B. Rudman; 
C.W. Bryce; H.G. Spencer: P. Bouchet: M. Schroedl: J. Marshall; T.M. Gosliner; 
P.M. Mikkelsen; H. Waegele 49 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cychstoma uculuin Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel. 1857 (Mollusca). P. Bouchet; H.D. Boeters, G. Falkner, E. Gittenberger, 
A.J. de Winter, T. von Proschwitz & T.E.J. Ripken; D.F. Hoeksema; 
D. Kadolsky 56 



II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvcmus Esper, 
[1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or Aiigiades sylvaims: Insecta, Lepidoptera). 
A.L. Devyatkin 63 

On the proposed designation of Iguanochn hfnii.ssurlcnsis Boulenger in Beneden, 
1881 as the type species of Igiumodoii Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of 
a lectolype (Reptilia, Ornithischia). D. Norman 65 

On the proposed conservation of the names Hyilrosaurus gouldii Gray, 1838 and 
Vanmus paiiopies Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype 
for H. gouldii. R.T. Hoser; A. Gentry 66 

On the proposed conservation of Coluber infenudis Blainville, 1835 and Eulcienia 
sirtalis letrataeniu Cope in Yarrow. 1875 (currently Tlummophis sirlulis infenudis 
and T. s. leirulcicnici: Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the sub- 
specific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. inferimlis. H.M. Smith . 71 

On the proposed conservation of usage of 1 5 mammal specific names based on wild 
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic 
animals. N. Szabolcs; A. Mones 72 

On the proposed conservation of lorisidae Gray, 1821 and galagidae Gray, 1825 

(Mammalia, Primates) as the correct original spellings. D.W. Yalden 73 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1913. Pila Roding. 1798 and Pomacea Perry. 1810 (Mollusca, Gastro- 
poda): placed on the Official List, and ampullariidae Gray, 1824: confirmed as 
the nomenclaturally valid synonym of PILIDAE Preston, 1915 74 

OPINION 1914. Behmnolheutis Pearce. 1842. Geopellis Regteren Altena. 1949, 
Geoleutlris Miinster. 1843, Jektzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt, 
1839, Parahelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesiotuulhis Naef, 1921 (Mollusca, Coleo- 
idea): conserved, and the specific name of Belenmoleulhis (sic) monteftorei 
Buckman. 1880: conserved 77 

OPINION 1915. Suchonella Spizharsky. 1937 (Crustacea. Ostracoda): Suchonella 

lypiai Spizharsky. 1939 designated as the type species 81 

OPINION 1916. BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): spelling 
emended to brachypterainae, so removing the homonymy with brachypterinae 
Erichson, [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera); kateretidae Erichson in Agassiz, [1846]: 
given precedence over brachypterinae Erichson 82 

OPINION 1917. Papilio camillus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Cyreslis camillus) 
and Limcnitis reduclci Staudinger, 1901 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific names 
conserved 87 

OPINION 1918. MELOiDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 and nemognathinae Castelnau, 1840 

(Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over horiidae Latreille, 1802 89 

OPINION 1919. Polvrhiichis Smith. 1857 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given precedence 

over Myrma Billberg. 1820 92 

OPINION 1920. Sirongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura): Riina fasciata 

Smith. 1849 designated as the type species 94 

OPINION 1921. PETROPEDETiNAE Noble, 1931, cacosterninae Noble, 1931 and 
phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura): given precedence over 
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878, and phrynobatrachinae: not given precedence 

over PETROPEDETINAE 96 

OPINION 1922. Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, Primates): 
conserved, and correction made to the entry for Choloepus Illiger, 1811 (Xenar- 
thra) on the Official List 101 

Information and instructions for authors 104 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 III 

Notices 105 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 107 

General Article 

Centralized access to newly published zoological names. J. Howcroft & J. Thome . 108 

Applications 

Biiliinis nrighii Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Mollusca. Gastropoda): proposed conserva- 
tion of the specific name. D.S. Brown, F. Naggs & V.R. Southgate 113 

Spluierhis Waltl, 1838 and sphaeriusidae Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 

proposed conservation by the partial revocation of Opinion 1331. M.A. Jach. . 117 

Bleniwcumpa Hartig, 1837, Cryplocumpus Hartig, 1837. Taxomis Hartig. 1837, 
Amelastegia A. Costa, 1882, Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898, Monsoma MacGillivray, 
1908, Gemmura E.L. Smith. 1968. blennocampini Konow. 1890 and caliroini 
Benson, 1938 (Insecta. Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by setting aside the 
type species designations by Gimmerthal (1847) and recognition of those by 
Rohwer (1911). S.M. Blank & A. Taeger 121 

Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera); proposed designation of Ten- 
thredo monUinu Scopoli, 1763 as the type species; and Tenlhredo rustica Linnaeus, 
1758; proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the replacement of 
the syntypes with a neotype. S.M. Blank & A. Taeger 128 

Apis proava Menge, 1856 (currently Electrapis proava; Insecta, Hymenoptera); 

proposed conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel 134 

Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 and Callorhinus Gray. 1859 (Mammalia. Pinnipedia); 
proposed conservation by the designation oi' Phoca pusilla Schreber, [1775] as the 
type species of Arctocephalus: and Olaria Peron, 1816 and Eumetopias Gill. 1866; 
proposed conservation by the designation of Phoca konina Molina, 1 782 as the 
type species of Orana. A. L. Gardner & C.B. Robbins 136 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Slrombidium gyrans Stokes, 
1887 (currently StrobiUdhim gyrans) and SirobUidium caudalimi Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). W. Foissner 142 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclosloma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel. 1857 (Mollusca). F. Naggs, P.B. Mordan, D.G. Reid & K.M. Way; F. 
Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon 143 

On the proposed precedence of the specific name of Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 over 
that of Crotahis exsul Garman. 1884 (Reptilia. Serpentes). S.A. Minton; R.E. 
Olson; W.W. Tanner; R.W. Murphy; B.H. Brattstrom; A. Ramirez-Bautista & 
J.L. Espinal 148 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1923. Trachelocerca Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): authorship conserved as 

Ehrenberg (1840). and Vibrio sagitta Miiller, 1786 fixed as the type species. . . 150 

OPINION 1924. Helix draparnaudi Beck. 1837 (currently Oxychilus draparnaudi: 

Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved 152 

OPINION 1925. Turrilites gravesiaiius d'Orbigny, 1842 (currently Hypolurrilites 
gravesianus; Mollusca, Ammonoidea); specific name conserved and a replacement 
lectotype designated; Turrilites tuberculatus Bosc, [1802] (currently Hypolurrilites 
luberculatus): placed on the Official List 154 



IV Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4| December 1999 

OPINION 1926. DASYPODiDAE Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling 
emended to dasvpodaidae. so removing the homonymy with dasypodidae Gray, 
1821 (Mammalia. Xenarthra) 156 

OPINION 1927. Liiclurii Walker. 1854 (Insecta, Lepidoplera): conserved, and the 
specific name of Eusii.xix piipula Hiibner, [1831] (currently Lacluni pupula): 
conserved 158 

OPINION 1928. IVaagciwconcha Chao, 1927 and Gniiiloamclui Angiolini, 1995 

(Brachiopoda): conserved 160 

OPINION 1929. Cnemkiophorus neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia. 

Squamata): specific name conserved 162 

Information and instructions for authors 164 

Notices 165 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 166 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature 1 67 

Applications 

Leiicocylozooii (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of Beieslneff, 1904 as 
the author and of Leukocvlozoen ikmikwskvi Ziemann, 1898 as the type species. 
G. Valkiunas ' 168 

Gnomulus Thorell, 1890 (Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed designation of G. siinuii- 

ra«i« Thorell, 1891 as the type species. P.J. Schwendinger & J. Martens. ... 171 

Duislylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed designation of Ciima rathkii 

Kroyer, 1841 as the type species. S. Gerken 174 

Timaecia toelehs Corbet, 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the 

specific name. T. Yokochi 177 

Drosophila nififnms Loew, 1873 and D. lehammensis Wheeler, 1949 (currently 
Scaplodrosophihi rufifrons and S. lebanonensis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed con- 
servation of the specific names by the designation of a neotype for D. rufifrons. 
G. Biichh 179 

Vesper tiliri pipistrelhis Sehreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently 
Pipislrellus pipislrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia. Chiroptera): proposed 
designation of neotypes. G. Jones & E.M. Barratt 182 

Comments 

On the proposed designation o( Bithinia desehiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Pahidimi 
desinareslii Prevost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euehihis Sandberger, 
1870 and Sto//oa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet 187 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclosloma aciiluni Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrohia cicula) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo venlrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of I'enlrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hyijrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). T. Wilke, G.M. Davis & G. Rosenberg 187 

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

opoda). W. Hollwedel 191 

On the proposed conservation of Phytohius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera). 

E. Colonnelli; M.A. Alonso Zarazaga & C.H.C. Lyal; H. Silfverberg 191 

AUGOCHLORINI Bcebc, 1925 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): corrected authorship and date 

(not Moure, 1943). M.S. Engel 198 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 V 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 

(Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.R. Tschinkel; E.O. Wilson; S.W. Taber: S.B. Vinson. 198 

On the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibugnis neinurus (Valenci- 
ennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. siehohiii (Sleeker, 1846), and of 
the lectotype of H. phmiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H. flavus 
(Bleeker, 1846). I.M. Kerzhner; M.J. P. van Oijen 200 

Rulings of the Comniission 

OPINION 1930. Osilimis Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Mollusca, 

Gastropoda): conserved by the designation of Troclms twhinatus Born, 1778 as the 

type species of Osilimis 202 

OPINION 1931. Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca. Gastropoda); conserved . 204 

OPINION 1932. Hohspira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda); Cylimlrelta 

gokifussi Menke, 1847 designated as the type species 206 

OPINION 1933. Androclonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Mesobulhus 

cimciisicus: Arachnida, Scorpiones); specific name conserved 208 

OPINION 1934. Paruroclomis Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): conserved . 209 

OPINION 1935. Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicomis: 

Insecta, Homoptera); specific name conserved 211 

OPINION 1936. Thanmoteltix nigropictus Sxk\. 1870 (currently Nephotetlix nigro- 

piclus: Insecta. Homoptera); specific name conserved 213 

OPINION 1937. Corisa propinqua Fieber, I860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; 

Insecta, Heteroplera); specific name conserved 214 

OPINION 1938. Mtisca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamaepsila rosae; 

Insecta. Diptera): specific name conserved 216 

OPINION 1939. Trigoimcephahis pulcher Peters, 1862 (currently Bothrops pulcher. 

Bolhriechis pulcher or Bolhriopsis pulchra; Reptilia, Serpentes); defined by the 

holotype, and not a neotype; Bolhrops campbelli Freire Lascano, 1991: specific 

name placed on the Official List 218 

OPINION 1940. Hoplocephahis vesligialus De Vis, 1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes); specific 

name placed on the Official List 221 

OPINION 1941. Auslralopilhecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates): 

specific name conserved 223 

Notices 225 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclaliire 227 

Financial Report for 1998 228 

Applications 

Sirongyliis letracuntlms Mehlis, 1831 (currently Cyalhostonniin lelracanthiim) and 
C. calinalum Looss, 1900 (Nematoda); proposed conservation of usage by the 
designation of a neotype for C. tetracamlmm. L.M. Gibbons & J.R. Lichtenfels. 230 

Musca geniculata De Geer. 1776 and Stonwxys cristata Fabricius, 1805 (currently 
Siphona geniculata and Siphona cristata; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation 
of usage of the specific names by the replacement of the lectotype of M. geniculata 
by a neotype. B. Herting, H.-P. Tschorsnig & J.E. O'Hara 235 

Hybognathus stramineus Cope. 1865 (currently Notropis siramineus: Osteichthyes, 

Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. R,M. Bailey . . . 240 

Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (currently Mixosaurus comalianus; Reptilia. 

Ichthyosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. W. Brinkmann 247 

Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 and 
Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently C. tuber culatiis) (Mammalia, 
Chiroptera): proposed conservation of usage of the names. H.G. Spencer & D.E. 
Lee 250 



VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Holochilus Brandt, 1835, Proechimys J. A. Allen, 1899 and Triiwmys Thomas, 1921 
(Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation by the designation of H. sciureus 
Wagner, 1842 as the type species of Holochilus. R.S. Voss & N.I. Abramson . . 255 

Cervus gotiazoubini Fischer, 1814 (currently Mazama gouazoubira; Mammalia, 
Artiodactyla); proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. A.L. 
Gardner 262 

Comments 

On the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina 

desmiirestii Prevost, 1 82 1 as the respective type species of Euchihis Sandberger, 

1870 and Slalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky .... 266 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclostoma aciilum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrohia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). R.A. Bank 268 

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

opoda). D. Flossner 270 

On the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibagrus nemurus 
(Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieholdii (Bleeker, 1846), 
and of the lectotype of//, pkmiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H.flavus 
(Bleeker, 1846). M. Kottelat 271 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackland, 
1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). H.G. Cogger; R.G. Sprackland, H.M. Smith & 
P.D. Strimple 272 

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. M.D. Bruce & I.A.W. McAllan; 
R. Schodde & W.J. Bock 274 

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 
species. P. Grubb 280 

Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 56(1999) 283 

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

in volume 56(1999) 285 

Key Names in Applications and Comments published in volume 56 (1999). . . . 289 

Information and instructions for authors 293 

Publication dates and pagination of volume 56 (1999) 294 

Instructions to binder 294 

Tableof Contents of volume 56(1999) I 



Volume 56, Part 1, 31 March 1999, pp. 1-104 ISSN 0007-f4«L _ — __^ 




THE NATURAL 
HISTORY MIJSFUM 

-7 APR 1B99 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



Zoological 
Nomenclature 




jl(^Aj\ lThe Official Periodical ^ 
of the International Commissiqi^ 
on Zoological Nomenclature 




THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1999 is £102 
or $180, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 

The Executive Secretary, 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 

c/o The Natural History Museum, 

Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 0171-938 9387) 

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

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Ums\\\ (Italy) 
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer {U.S.A.) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



Members 

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

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

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

(Germany: Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland: Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

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

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (C/.A:.,- Lepidoptera) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. K\AQ(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



Secretariat 

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

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

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) 

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

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

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



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999 



C3RV MUSIEl 
1 APR 1999 
idAu a C»J~PN 
OGYLiBR/ 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 56, part 1 (pp. 1-104) 31 March 1999 



Notices 

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

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

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 55, part 4 (published on 18 December 1998). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Platyphylax McLachlan, 1871 (Insecta, Trichoptera); proposed designation of 
Enoicyla frauenfeldi Brauer, 1857 as the type species. (Case 3100). W. Mey & 
T. Nozaki. 

(2) Dumeticola ihoracica Blyth, 1845 (currently Bradypterus thoracicus; Aves, 
Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3102). 
E.C. Dickinson & P.C. Rasmussen. 

(3) Orsodacne Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of 
Chrysomela cerasi Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 3103). H. 
Silfverberg. 

(4) Staurocalyptus Ijima, 1897 (Porifera, Hexactinellida): proposed designation of 
S. glaber Ijima, 1897 as the type species. (Case 3104). K.R. Tabachnick. 

(5) Cetopirus Ranzani, 1817 (Crustacea, Cirripedia): proposed designation of 
C compkmatus Morch, 1853 as the type species. (Case 3105). L.B. Holthuis. 

(6) Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 (currently Hippa pacifica; Crustacea, Anomura): 
proposed precedence over R. marmoratus Jacquinot, 1846. (Case 3106). C.B. 
Boyko & A.W. Harvey. 

(7) Catasarcus Schonherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. 
(Case 3107). C.H.C. Lyal & R.T. Thompson. 



2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

(8) Mulaclemys Uttoralis rhizophoraniin Fowler, 1906 (currently M. terrapin 
rhizophorarum; Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the subspecific 
name. (Case 3108). C.H. Ernst & T.D. Hartsell. 

(9) Manis javanica Desmarest, 1822 (Mammalia, Pholidota); proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. (Case 3109). H.M. Smith, D.M. Armstrong, 
K. Adler, D. Chiszar & F. van Breukelen. 

(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 (lUBS), and members are elected by secret 
ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of lUBS or Congresses of its 
associated bodies such as the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary 
Biology (ICSEB). Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for 
membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time. 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, 
which is to provide 'the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names 
of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according 
to taxonomic judgements'. The current (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by 
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the 
Commission. A Fourth Edition is in course of preparation and will be published in 
1999; its provisions will come into effect on 1 January 2000. A notice of some of the 
new provisions, particularly those affecting the availability of new names, is given on 
the World Wide Web (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 56(1) March 1999 3 

The Commission's rulings are summarised in The Official Lists and Indexes of 
Names and JVorks in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895-1985 was 
published in 1987. 

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

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity (not-for-profit 
company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is 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. 

Addresses of members of the Commission 

Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences. Columbia University, New York. NY 

10027. U.S.A. 
Dr P. BOUCHET Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 55 rue de Buffon. 75005 Paris. France 
Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology and Entomology. University of Natal 

Pietermaritzhurg. Private Bag XOl. ScotLiville. 3209 South Africa 
Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD. 

U.K. 
Dr H.G. COGGER do Australian Museum. 6 College Street Sydney South. N.S.W. 2000, 

Australia 
Prof C. DUPUIS Museum 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 94118^599. U.S.A. (Vice-President) 
Mr D. HEPPELL RR4 S14-CI. Gower Point Road Gibsons Landing B. C. VON 1 VO. Canada 
Dr Z. KABATA Canada Deparlmeni of Fisheries and Oceans. Pacific Biological Station. 

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

199034, Rus.<iia 
Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Inslitut und Zoologisches Museum. Martin-Luiher-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 Cenlro d'Esiudios Avanfals de Blanes (C.S.I.C), Cami de Santa 

Barbara sin. 17300 Blanes. Girona. Spain 
Dr V. MAHNERT Museum dHistoire Naturelle, Case postale 434. CH-12I1 Geneve 6, 

Switzerland 
Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa 

Postal 7172. 04263 Sao Paulo. BrazU 
ProfS.F. M/K^ kT\K\ Zoological Institute. Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University. Sapporo 

060. Japan 



4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimeruo di Biologia. Universita di Padova. Via Trieste 75. 35121 

Padova. Italy (President) 
Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum. Universitel.ipurken 15. DK-2100 Kohenhavn. Deiinuirk 
Dr I.W.B. NYE c/o The Nalunil History Museum. Cromwell Road. London SH'7 5BD. U.K. 

(Councillor) 
Dr L. PAPP Hungarian Museum of Natural History. Buross ulca 13, H-IOSS Budapest, 

Hungary 
Prof D.j'. PATTERSON School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, U.S. W. 2006. 

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

Canberra, .4.C.T. 2600. Australia (Councillor) 
Prof J. M. SAVAGE Department of Biology. University of Miami. P.O. Box 2491 IS, Coral 

Gables, Florida 33124, USA. (Councillor) 
Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER fnstitut f'iir Zoologie. Universitdt Graz. Universitdlsplal: 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, Vinicnd 7, 128 44 Pruha 2, Czech 

Republic 



International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Members 

Prof S. Conway Mortis (Chairman) (U.K.) 

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

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

Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) 

Prof Per Brinck (Sweden) 

Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) 

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

DrN.R. Chalmers (U.K.) 

Prof W.T. Chang (China) 

Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia) 

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

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

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

Mr M.N. Dadd(U.K.) 

Prof J. Forest (France) 

Dr R. Harbach (U.K.) 

Dr B.F. Kensley (U.S.A.) 

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 

Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland) 

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

Dr M. Luc (France) 

Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) 

Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

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

Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.) 

Dr M.J. Gates (U.K.) 

Dr ERF. Rose (U.K.) 

Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands) 

DrG.B. White (U.K.) 

Prof H.B. Whittington (U.K.) 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 5 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Commission has formally approved the new (4th) edition of the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature and it will be published in 1999. Its provisions will 
come into effect on 1 January 2000. Notes about the new Code will be found on the 
Commission's Web Site (http://www.iczn.org). 

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



Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on 
18 September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of 
nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published 
entitled 'Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995' (ISBN 85301 005 6). It is 104 
pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists 
who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal noinenclature 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 TTZN' or 'AAZN') should accompany 
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means. 



6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Recording and registration of new scientific names: a simulation of the 
mechanism proposed (but not adopted) for the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature 

Philippe Bouchet 

Museum national d'Histoire naturelle. 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France 

(e-mail: bouchet@mnhn.fr) 

Abstract. A discussion draft of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
which was widely circulated in 1995 proposed that availability of new scientific names 
would in the future require, in addition to other conditions, their "international 
notification" (by listing in Zoological Record (ZR)) within five years of their 
publication. The application of this proposal (later abandoned) has been simulated 
retrospectively, to test the criticisms and opposing comments which were expressed 
by the zoological community. Of 2142 molluscan genus-group names (Recent and 
fossil, but excluding Cephalopoda) that were established in the period 1980-1992, 
260 (12.1'Ki) which were explicitly published as new names were not recorded by ZR; 
78% of the omitted names related to fossil taxa. The results highlight the differences 
between a non-critical recording system and a 'registration" mechanism; the latter 
would need to evaluate whether and when a scientific name met all the conditions of 
availability set by the Code. An available name would have to be registered with the 
accurate date of its establishment, since this determines its precedence. If in addition 
to omitted new genus-group names, the unrecorded 'validation" of previously 
unavailable names and names recorded with an erroneous year of publication or a 
spelling error are considered, the difference between recording and 'registration" 
involved 357 names (16.7'/o). This demonstrates the necessity, as well as the 
magnitude of difficulty, of establishing a functional and comprehensive registration 
mechanism for new zoological names. The capture of new names by ZR could 
probably be improved by some mandatory ruling in the Code, but it is questionable 
whether a registration mechanism with an acceptably low rate of omission/error can 
be reached simply as a by-product of routine bibliographical indexing work, i.e. the 
normal goal of ZR. Any registration, as opposed to recording, system would have to 
be overseen by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Neither 
the Commission nor ZR presently have the capacity to register each year some 20,000 
scientific names. However, with modem communication technology, funding 
through international organizations (e.g., UNESCO) and/or conventions (e.g., the 
Convention on Biological Diversity) should make it possible to set up a workable 
registration mechanism early in the 21st century. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; registration of names; International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; Zoological Record. 



Introduction 

A discussion draft of the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature was widely circulated in 1995. One of the new proposals contained in 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 7 

the draft was the 'international notification" of new names as a requirement for their 
admissibiHty (nomenclatural availabiHty). It was put forward with the following 
wording: 

'Article 1 1 . Requirements.- To be available under the general conditions of avail- 
ability ..., a name and, where relevant, a nomenclatural act must satisfy the following 
provisions ...: 

(b) International notification of new names mandatory after [1996].- In order to 
ensure that the establishment of every new name published after [1996] is notified to 
zoologists internationally and accessible electronically, for a new name to be 
available the work in which it is published must be scanned for new names by ZR. 
Zoological Record is approved for the purposes of the Code by the International 
Union of Biological Sciences as the record of new names in zoology proposed after 
[1996]. 

(i) A new name recorded as such in Zoological Record within five years of its date of 
publication retains its original authorship and date. 

(ii) If a new name has not been recorded as a new name in Zoological Record within 
five years of its first publication, it is deemed not to be available from that 
publication." 

Although the draft Code used the expression 'international notification', the 
proposal was perceived by the zoological community as a registration mechanism 
and it elicited two kinds of conmients. Some zoologists opposed the principle of 
registration of new names as a breach of 'the freedom of taxonomic thought or 
action" which is preserved according to the Code's Preamble. Many others did not 
oppose the registration of new names in principle, but disagreed with the mechanism 
put forward in the discussion draft. The most thorough review of the proposal was 
by Crosskey (1995), who objected on both principle and practical grounds. He wrote 
as follows: 'This notion introduces into animal taxonomy two principles that have 
not existed previously: secondary responsibility and temporary availability. [The first 
involves] shifting onto the shoulders of the indexers/recorders for ZR the responsi- 
bility for whether new names shall ultimately live or die, [and] it is hard to see how 
[the second] new concept can contribute to the stability of names and their authorship 
and dating. ... Are we to abandon an important name on the technicality that it had 
failed to appear in ZR within the five-year time frame?'. Crosskey also drew attention 
to several practical difficulties: (a) determining with accuracy the dates of pubHcation 
of a new name and of its recording in ZR, and thus whether or not the five-year 
criterion had been met; (b) ambiguities caused by the appearance of various formats 
of ZR (paper, disk, online) on different dates; (e) the fact that 'no biological database 
is ever 100'/.. comprehensive" and that 'to expect ZR to unearth every new name in 
every publication is quite unrealistic"; and (d) the limited accessibility of ZR to 
systematists working in disadvantaged countries or locations. 

Crosskey"s objections were repeated or developed by others. For example, 
Kerzhner & Starobogatov (1995) said they could give examples of 'works in 
well-known journals which have not been scanned in five years; of available names 
listed as nomina nuda, or vice versa". The subject of 'temporary availability" of new 
names was also discussed by Rosenberg (1995) and by staft" of the Natural History 
Museum, London (Fortey et al., 1996). The latter emphasized the 'problems in 
ensuring complete coverage of all new names, particularly those appearing in texts 



8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

not using the Latin alphabet". Many other sceptical comments were made on an 
Internet discussion forum entitled ICZN-4. 

Some of these opposing comments were reviewed by Ride (1996). who proposed 
that registration by ZR should affect the relative precedence, but not the availability, 
of new names. Thus, of two available names considered to be synonyms, a name 
recorded within five years by ZR would have precedence over one not recorded; if 
neither name had been recorded the dates of publication would determine the 
precedence (as at present). Ride's revised proposal came late in the discussion process 
and no comments on it were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature; 
some of the objections already made still applied to it and it was not pursued. 

In view of the many opposing comments, recording by ZR as a requirement for 
availability was abandoned by the Editorial Committee and the 4th edition of the 
Code will not contain such a provision. However, many zoologists think that 
registration of new names has (or will) become a necessity in view of the mounting 
diversification of publication sources. Bouchet & Rocroi (1992) documented a 20% 
rate of omission from ZR for moUuscan supraspecific new names published in 
1960-1965. Their result elicited controversy (Edwards & Thome, 1993; Bouchet & 
Rocroi, 1993; Thome & Edwards, 1995). At the occasion of the discussion of the 
zoological Code during the ICSEB meeting in Budapest in August 1996, discussions 
with the Editorial Manager for ZR inspired me to explore further the recording of 
new names by ZR. More specifically, a simulation was attempted of what would have 
happened if the suggested Article 1 lb [see above] of the 1995 discussion draft of the 
Code had been in force in the last two decades. I should like to stress explicitly that 
the purpose of the present work is not to review the accuracy or accountability of ZR, 
but to contribute to the debate on registration of new zoological names. 

Methods 

I have simulated application of Article 1 lb of the discussion draft to a subset of the 
new scientific names established in 1980-1992, that is genus-group names of Recent 
and fossil MoUusca (excluding Cephalopoda). Names published after 1992 had not 
yet been fully captured by ZR or the Rocroi Index when the study was effected 
(1996-97) and were therefore not considered. The simulation compares the names 
recorded in two databases: 

(i) names recorded by ZR, based mainly on the holdings of the British Library and 
the Natural History Museum, London, together with a small number of donated 
publications. ZR currently lists 6000 titles as active, and to produce the Mollusca 
Section it reviews each year an average of some 2400 publications and indexes names 
from about 2000 of these sources. ZR"s policy is to record names according to the 
way in which they are published, i.e. if an author states that a name is new it will be 
listed as such, but if the name is presented with an existing author and date, ZR 
would treat the name as having been previously established. 

(ii) names recorded in a database (thereafter called Rocroi Index) compiled with the 
assistance of Jean-Pierre Rocroi. ZR has been used as a starting point in the 
compilation, but other sources are also exploited (see Bouchet & Rocroi, 1992) and 
access to modern Russian and [former] Soviet literature was facilitated by a working 
visit to academic libraries in St Petersburg. All names have been checked against the 
original publication and against the criteria of availability set by the present Code. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 9 

After correlation of the names indexed in the two databases, differences (omis- 
sions, spelHngs, dates, authors) between ZR and the Rocroi Index were identified, 
and the publication source was checked again to confirm (or not) the difference. The 
study did not evaluate the effect of the 5 year-period proposed in the discussion draft; 
I have considered all names in the ZR database, irrespective of how long after the 
original publication the name was recorded. 

Results 

The Rocroi Index has recorded 2142 genus-group moUuscan names that were 
established (i.e., were made available) in works published in 1980-1992. This list was 
compared by staff of the ZR with their own database and the deviations of ZR vis a 
vis the Rocroi Index are shown in Table 1 . (Errors discovered in the Rocroi Index are 
not given here as they are irrelevant to this analysis). 

Table 1. Differences between Rocroi Index and ZR 

Available names omitted: 281 

explicitly proposed as new 260 

not explicitly proposed as new 2 

validation of unavailable names 19 

Names recorded with erroneous date: 64 

evidence for error internal 30 

evidence for error external 34 

Names recorded with erroneous spelling: 12 

Total: 357 



Unrecorded names explicitly proposed as new 

Of the 2142 names, 260 (12.1%) that were explicitly proposed as new were not 
recorded by ZR, i.e. on average 20 new molluscan genus-group names were omitted 
every year. An examination of the omitted names showed that 46% of the 
sources containing them are non-periodical publications (books, congress proceed- 
ings, and so on), and that these contained 64% of the omitted names (Table 2). This 
finding confirms the common belief that non-periodical publications are less 
efficiently captured by ZR (and other records) than are periodicals. Obviously, the 
reason is that many such publications are not widely publicized and/or are difficult 
to locate. 

Another common belief is that omissions mainly relate to "obscure" sources and 
publications in languages using non-Latin alphabets. My findings indicate that China 
and the former USSR together accounted for 54% of the omissions, but that there 
were more unrecorded names published in the United States (49) than in the USSR 
(42). When the literature from 'western' countries (North America, western Europe, 
Australia, New Zealand) is considered together, it was the source of 50%. of the total 
names and 36%> of the number of omissions (Table 3). 

When the number of omissions per country (or group of countries) is compared 
with the total number of names published in that country, we find a very uneven 
distribution. Nearly a quarter of the new names proposed in the Chinese literature 



10 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 



Table 2. Number oj publication sources and genus-group names omitted in ZRfor the 
period 1980-1992 (P = periodicals, NP = non-periodical publications) 





Sources 






Names 








P 


NP 


Total 


% 


P 


NP 


Total 


% 


USSR 


12 


7 


19 


21.3 


27 


15 


42 


16.2 


E. Europe 


3 


- 


3 


3.4 


4 


- 


4 


1.5 


USA 


9 


2 


11 


12.4 


21 


28 


49 


18.8 


W. Europe 


8 


10 


18 


20.2 


17 


20 


37 


14.2 


Australia/NZ/Canada 


3 


- 


3 


3.4 


7 


- 


7 


2.7 


Japan 


2 


2 


4 


4.5 


3 


7 


10 


3.8 


China 


3 


19 


22 


24.7 


3 


95 


98 


37-.7 


Other Asia 


2 


- 


2 


2.2 


5 


_ 


5 


1.9 


S. America 


6 


1 


7 


7.9 


6 


2 


8 


3.0 



Total 



48 41 



89 



100.0 93 167 260 



100.0 



Table 3. Rates of omission of new genus-group names 





Total* 


Omissions 


% omissions 


USSR 


412 


42 


10.2 


E. Europe 


83 


4 


4.8 


USA 


360 


49 


13.6 


W. Europe 


505 


37 


7.3 


Australia/NZ/Canada 


216 


7 


3.2 


Japan 


102 


10 


9.8 


China 


395 


98 


24.8 


Other Asia 


29 


5 


17.2 


S. America 


40 


8 


20.0 



Total 



2142 



260 



12. 



*Total number of new molluscan genus-group names published in literature 
of stated region in 1980-1992 



escaped ZR; with 20% of names omitted. South America came second in rates of 
omission, but only a small number of names were involved. Contrary to expectations, 
names in the literature published in the former USSR, eastern Europe, and Japan 
were not particularly under-recorded but 13.6% of the names published in the USA 
were omitted. My conclusion is that language of publication, even in alphabets 
using non-Latin characters (such as Chinese. Japanese and Russian), is not per se a 
source of incompleteness in the recording of new scientific names, which are always 
written in Latin characters and usually carry identifying labels such as 'gen. nov.' or 
'sp. nov.". In the case of China, for instance, the main cause of omission seems to be 
the structure of the literature, often involving books and series rather than 
periodicals. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 11 

Finally, and significantly, it may be noted that 1S% of the unrecorded new 
molluscan names were proposed for fossils in works dealing mostly or only with 
geology and paleontology. 

Names not explicitly proposed as new 

Twenty-one additional names, meeting the criteria of availability, were omitted by 
ZR. Kerzhner & Starobogatov (1995) commented on the unintentional establishment 
of new names. They recognized different kinds, such as premature establishment 
because the papers of an author or his colleagues appear in an unexpected sequence; 
or establishment by persons unaware that the name had not yet been published; or, 
in the case of species-group names, 'upgrading' of infrasubspecific (and therefore 
unavailable) names. New names established accidentally in keys were also discussed 
by Noyes (1996). Only two of the 21 omitted but not explicitly new names belong to 
these kinds of unintentionally established names. 

The other 19 are names that previously did not meet the criteria of availability (because 
no type species had been designated, or no description was provided) and became 
'accidentally" available when the missing criteria were met. However, the authors who 
thus made a name available did not declare it to be new, but merely used it with citation 
of the original author(s) and date of the earlier publication that had not met the criteria of 
availability. Such names would not come to the attention of ZR as being new names. 

In the forthcoming 4th edition of the Code, a new criterion of availability (Article 
16.1 ) will require that a new scientific name should be explicitly indicated to be new. 
Failure to comply with this criterion will eliminate those rare instances (such as the 
two cases mentioned above) of premature or unintentional establishment of new 
names. However, the 'accidental establishment" of previously published, but unavail- 
able, names will presumably continue and the disqualification of such names (because 
they are not indicated as being 'new') may cause as many problems as it will solve. 

Other problems 

Recording by ZR also raises issues of dates of publication. Sixty-four names, i.e. 
3% of the total, were recorded with a date that differs from the actual date of 
publication; additional errors may have escaped my attention. Correct year of 
publication has been determined by internal evidence in the original publication itself 
(including statement of exact date of publication published in subsequent issues of a 
journal) or by external evidence, such as annotations by authors on reprints 
(generally not available to ZR) or library accession stamps. I should stress that I have 
considered an 'error" of date to be present only when the calendar year is involved; 
the precise month and day of publication would be important in a registration system 
but it has not been considered in the present study. 

Finally, there are 12 names (0.6%) that are recorded by ZR with an erroneous 
spelling, thus leading to the impossibility of retrieving them electronically. 

Discussion 

Representativeness of the case study 

The Mollusca Section of ZR contains the third highest average number of new 
genus-group names each year, and it is open to discussion whether the omission rate 
found in the present evaluation based on Mollusca (Cephalopoda excluded) is 
representative of other zoological groups. The fact that malacology is a discipline 



!2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56( I ) March 1999 

where there are several hundred scientists actively publishing on all continents in 
many different languages (Bouchet, 1997) speaks in favour of representativity. 
However, the malacological literature includes a rather large proportion of paleon- 
(ological literature. In this respect it is probably representative of such zoological 
groups as vertebrates, brachiopods, corals or ostracods (which are still more 
dominated by names based on fossils), but it is likely not representative of the 
majority of terrestrial arthropod groups: the latter account for the larger part of the 
new scientific names being proposed each year but the proportion in the paleonto- 
logical literature is smaller. 

In addition, management at ZR considers that the period studied (1980-1992) is 
not representative of their current working practices. In the last ten years, and 
particularly in the last five, ZR has made significant improvements in the coverage of 
journals and books and in indexing quality-control (J. Thorne, pers. com.); a new 
system was introduced in 1993. Of the names published in the last 5 years of the 
survey period (i.e. 1988-92), only 7.6% were omitted from ZR. This may be evidence 
of improvement, and ZR believes that this should be even more marked in the next 
5 years (J. Thorne, pers. com.). Alternatively, this low percentage of omission may 
indicate that the Rocroi Index has not yet captured the more "obscure" names 
published in the last 10 years. 

Taking a 10%) overall omission rate (compared with the 12.1% in the present 
moUuscan study) as a working figure, and applying it to the ca. 2000 new 
genus-group names proposed yearly in zoology as a whole, my results suggest that 
some 200 names/year went unrecorded in the years under discussion. 
Recording vs. Registration 

Considering that ZR is by far the most complete indexing source, its failure to 
record as many as 200 genus-group names each year demonstrates the magnitude of 
difliculty of establishing a comprehensive recording mechanism for new zoological 
names. Omissions alone would undoubtedly be a source of nomenclatural instability, 
as this would affect precedence (and hence the selection of valid names) and 
homonymy. This certainly gives credence to the idea that registration of new scientific 
names has become a compelling necessity. However, the present study demonstrates 
the difference between recording, "international notification" and registration. As 
noted above, ZR's recording policy is to index names according to the way in which 
they are published, i.e. if an author states that a name is new it will be indexed as new, 
with the date of publication indicated in the publication itself. "International 
notification', as specified in the abandoned Article lib of the draft Code, suggested 
recording by ZR as a condition of availability. In doing so, it could lead to 
notification of names that possibly would not meet one of the other criteria of 
availability set by the Code, or it could notify them with a wrong or inexact date of 
publication. In other words, 'international notification" would not have liberated a 
taxonomist from checking whether a notified name is nomenclaturally available and 
what its date of precedence is. 

I believe that the difference between facultative ZR recording and mandatory 
registration (under ICZN auspices) of new names involves two steps: 
(i) Improving the recording itself, a task that ZR is determined to achieve: 
(ii) Evaluating whether names meet the criteria of availability set by the Code before 
they are registered, a task which it would be the responsibility of the Commission to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 13 

oversee (as is prescribed in the forthcoming 4th edition of the Code for [future] Parts 
of a retrospective 'List of Available Names in Zoology"). 

Improving the recording of zoological names 

For registration of new zoological names to be voluntarily accepted by the 
scientific community, its mechanism must be perceived to be handling equally fairly 
all branches, subdisciplines and areas of practice of zoology. In this regard, the 
now-abandoned mechanism proposed in the 1995 discussion draft of the Code made 
several mistaken assumptions. 

(a) The proposal assumed that Zoological Record n the universally used bibliographi- 
cal index and that a Recommendation to send published materials to ZR for 
international notification would suffice to bring names to the attention of recorders. 
Whereas ZR is almost certainly more widely used by animal ta.xonomists than any 
other bibliographical service, especially by zoologists in developed countries, this is 
probably not the case with paleontologists, especially in China, the former USSR and 
economically less favoured countries. Such scientists might perhaps have little 
incentive to follow a Recommendation of the Code advising authors to draw to the 
attention of the ZR any new name published. General Recommendation 24 of the 
current Code already recommends authors to forward copies of their works to ZR at 
'the earliest opportunity'; in practice, very few authors send reprints, but those who 
do come from many different countries (including China and Russia), suggesting that 
compliance with the Code is a function of individual preference or knowledge and is 
independent of country of origin. 

(b) The proposal assumed that 'obscurity' and linguistic difficulties are the main 
reasons why new scientific names escape the nets of ZR. Indeed, most zoologists seem 
to accept the idea that, considering the explosion of the scientific literature, authors 
have a responsibility to make their work visible and known to the community at 
large. In other words, authors who publish their work in really obscure outlets cannot 
complain if their new scientific names escape recording by ZR. This is probably what 
Holthuis (1996) had in mind when he expressed the view that 'The objection that the 
ZR is incomplete is true, but this is mainly the fault of authors'. 

The present work demonstrates that several factors combine their effects to explain 
the omissions and account for 'obscurity". 

(i) Although paleontological material is regarded by ZR as part of its field, geological 
material is not at the core of ZR coverage and any new zoological name published in 
an otherwise purely geological serial (or, worse, book) would be regarded as 'obscure' 
in these terms. This may explain why, as mentioned above, 78% of the unrecorded 
moUuscan names had been proposed for fossils in pamphlets, books, serials or 
periodicals dealing mostly or only with geology and paleontology, 
(ii) What may appear 'obscure' to, e.g., a western European zoologist may be 
mainstream literature to a Chinese paleontologist. Many of the Chinese books 
containing new names unrecorded by ZR have been published by Academia Sinica or 
its branches, or government publishing houses, and the new names in them were 
recorded by Gushengnuxiie Wenzhai [Paleontological Abstracts], a quarterly pub- 
lished by the Academy's Institute of Geology and Paleontology in Nanjing, China. 
However, much of this material is hard to obtain without focused bibliographical 
research. For instance, I spent two weeks in academic libraries in St Petersburg 



14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

specially for the purpose of nomenclatural indexing, and I correspond with the 
library of the Institute of Geology and Paleontology in Nanjing on a regular basis. 
Almost all of the Chinese books containing 95 (of the total of 260) omitted names 
were still unavailable to ZR when checked at the end of 1997. Clearly, better access 
to this type of literature alone would improve ZR coverage markedly, 
(iii) Omissions occasionally affect names published in periodicals, and non-periodical 
serials, which are normally scanned by ZR. In trying to locate the 89 publications 
containing names omitted from ZR (Table 2), it was found that 54 were present in the 
libraries used by ZR, and the names in them were therefore truly overlooked. 
Regrettably, errors occur in any human system and publishing a work in a serial 
normally scanned by ZR does not guarantee that a new name will be recorded, or 
that it will be recorded with its proper spelling and date. This defeats the principle of 
automatic registration advocated by Rosenberg (1995), and supports Crosskey's 
(1995) criticism of "shifting onto the shoulders of the indexers/recorders for ZR the 
responsibility for whether new names shall ultimately live or die'. 

Informal discussions with zoologists and paleontologists suggest that, to be 
acceptable, a recording or registration mechanism should have a rate of 
omission/error not higher than 5%, possibly as low as 1-3%. This is an ambitious goal 
but given a little extra help from taxonomists it would be achievable. The extent to 
which capture of new names by ZR can be improved by voluntary or mandatory 
ruling in the Code remains speculative. Considering the amount of omissions of 
names in Chinese and Russian literature, an avenue to be explored would be the 
formal involvement of bodies such as China's Academia Sinica or Russia's Akademia 
Nauk in the indexing process. 

Evaluation before registration^ 

Registration, if any, would be the responsibility of the Commission. However, 
considering the available resources, the magnitude of the task is daunting: if all 
names regulated by the Code (i.e. from subspecies to superfamilies inclusive) are 
considered, ca. 20,000 new names are proposed each year. Clearly, considering that 
ZR already indexes 88% of the new genus-group names, it is obvious that the 
zoological community and Commission should build on ZR, rather than attempt to 
start a wholly new 'registration office'. Malicky (1996) proposed a new Recommen- 
dation whereby 'editors of journals and books should be responsible for notifying 
new names in accepted taxonomic manuscripts to the ZR staff, who would 
immediately allocate a reference number to each name. This number would be 
published with the name, thereby informing readers that the name had been 
recorded; if a name had no number every reader would know that it should be 
brought to the attention of ZR'. This proposal would lead to labour-intensive 
bureaucracy and contains several undesirable or unpractical aspects, not the least 
being that such a mechanism would register names a priori rather than a posteriori (as 
would be appropriate). But 1 believe it points the way to the future of scientific name 
registration. 

Zoologists may perhaps soon be in a position to benefit from the experience of 
botanists. It has been proposed that, subject to ratification by the XVI International 
Botanical Congress (St Louis, 1999), new names of plants and fungi will have to be 
registered in order to be 'validly published' after I January 2000 (Borgen et al., 1998). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 15 

During the current test and trial phase (1998-1999), all new taxa, all new combi- 
nations or rank transfers are registered by the International Association for Plant 
Taxonomy (lAPT) Secretariat either (a) by being published in an accredited journal 
or serial, or (b) by being submitted for registration either directly or through a 
national registration office, or (c) (during the non-mandatory trial phase only) as 
a result of scanning of other published information by the registration centres' own 
staff. The test and trial phase also addresses issues such as registration date and 
acknowledgement to the submitting author that registration has been effected. 

Neither the Commission nor ZR presently have the capacity to register yearly 
20,000 names. However, the now general use of computers, communication via the 
Internet and possible funding through international organizations (e.g., UNESCO) 
and/or conventions (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity) should together 
make it possible to set up a workable registration mechanism for zoological names 
early in the 21st century. 

Acknowledgements 

This article was written following extensive discussions with Joan Thorne of 
BIOSIS U.K., Editorial Manager for Zoological Record. It would not have been 
possible without the collaboration of Jean-Pierre Rocroi, who compiled the mollus- 
can database and provided the data for the present evaluation. 

References 

Borgen, L., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., Nicolson, D.H. & Zimmer, B. (lAPT Executive 

Committee). 1998. Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names. Taxon, 

47(4): 899-904 (see also Biology Imematioimt, 36: 34-36). 
Bouchet, P. 1997. Inventorying the molluscan diversity of the world: what is our rate of 

progress? T/ie Veliger. 40(1): 1-11. 
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.P. 1992. Supraspecific names of molluscs: a quantitative review. 

Malucologia. 34(1-2): 75-86. 
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.P. 1993. The lottery of bibliographical databases: a reply to Edwards 

& Thorne. Mtilmologia. 35(2): 407-410. 
Crosskey, R.W. 1995. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52: 229-232. 
Edwards, M.A. & Thorne, M.J. 1993. Reply to 'Supraspecific names of molluscs: a quantitative 

review'. Malucologia. 35(1): 153-154. 
Fortey, R.A. (Chairman) et al. 1996. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53: 15-17. 
Holthuis, L.B. 1996. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 53: 83-84. 
Kerzhner, LM. & Starobogatov, Y.I. 1995. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 52: 296. 
Malicky, H. 1996. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53: 11. 
Noyes, J. 1996. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53: 11-12. 
Ride, W.D.L. 1996. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 53: 6-7. 
Rosenberg, G. 1995. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52: 300. 



16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(1) March 1999 

Case 3074 

Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Antonio C. Marques 

Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de 
Sao Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900. 14040-901, Ribeirao Preto. SP. Brazil 
(e-mail: marques@lTclrp.usp.br) 

Willem Vervoort 

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P. O. Box 951 7, 2300 RA Leiden, ■ 
The Netherlands (e-mail: vervoort@naturalis.nnm.nl) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the 
well-known hydroid Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859. It is threatened by the 
specific name of Tuhularia arbuscula d'Orbigny, 1846 which was transferred to 
Eudendrium Ehrenberg, 1834 by Ridley (1881), thereby making E. arbuscula Wright 
a junior secondary homonym, and also by the replacement name E. wrightii 
Hartlaub. 1905. Neither E. arbuscula (d'Orbigny) nor E. wrightii have been used as 
valid names since 1905, whereas E. arbuscula Wright has been extensively used. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hydrozoa; eudendriidae; Eudendrium 
arbuscula. 



1. D'Orbigny (1846, p. 28) established the nominal species Tuhidaria arbuscula 
based on a poorly preserved hydrozoan colony without polyps from the Patagonian 
region (Argentina). As far as we can ascertain, the type material studied by d'Orbigny 
is lost. 

2. Wright (1859, p. 113) described and figured one specimen (also believed lost) 
from the Firth of Forth, Scotland, naming it Eudendrium arbuscula; this name has 
sometimes been recorded as arbusculum, but we treat it as a noun in apposition. 
Wright's species is now known to be widespread in the North Sea, where it forms 
conspicuous colonies, and elsewhere. 

3. D'Orbigny's taxon Tubularia arbuscula was transferred to the genus Eudendrium 
Ehrenberg, 1834 by Ridley (1881, p. 103), thereby rendering Eudendrium arbuscula 
Wright a junior secondary homonym of d'Orbigny's arbuscula. Hartlaub (1905) 
recorded E. arbuscula (d'Orbigny) from the Chilean coast, and (p. 547) proposed the 
name Eudendrium wrightii as a replacement name for E. arbuscula Wright. Under 
Article 59b of the Code (3rd Edition) a junior secondary homonym replaced before 
1961 is permanently invalid unless the use of the replacement name 'is a cause of 
confusion' in which case the Commission should be asked 'for a ruling as to which 
name will . . . best serve stability and universality, and that name is then the valid 
name'. Bedot (1925, p. 181) and Kramp (1926, p. 243) objected to Hartlaub's (1905) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 17 

proposal of a replacement name because they considered that the species described by 
d'Orbigny (1846) was unidentifiable and therefore the replacement name unnecess- 
ary. Hartlaub's replacement name E. wrightii has never been used as a valid name 
since its proposal in 1905. 

4. The name Eudendrium arbusada (d'Orbigny) has also not been used as a valid 
name since Hartlaub (1905); d'Orbigny "s taxon has not been recognized in any genus 
since 1905. As mentioned in para. 1 (above) the holotype is lost and we concur with 
Bedot (1925) and Kramp (1926) that it is unidentifiable. In contrast, E. arbusada 
Wright has been recorded by that name many times both before and since Hartlaub's 
proposed replacement (e.g., Hamond, 1957; Calder, 1972; Bromley, 1979); 15 further 
references by 17 diff"erent authors in the last 50 years are held by the Commission 
Secretariat. 

5. In order to conserve the specific name of Eudendrium arbusada Wright, 1859, 
we propose the suppression of £. arbusada (d'Orbigny, 1846) and the maintenance of 
validity of its junior homonym E. arbusada Wright. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the name arbusada d'Orbigny, 1846, as published in the 
binomen Tubularia arbuscula. for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to rule that the specific name arbusada Wright. 1859, as published in the 
binomen Eudendrium arbusada, is not invalid by reason of having been 
replaced before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of Tubularia 
arbuscula d'Orbigny, 1846; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name arbuscula 
Wright, 1859, as published in the binomen Eudendrium arbuscula (not invalid 
by the ruling in (l)(b) above); 

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

(a) arbuscula d'Orbigny, 1846, as published in the binomen Tubularia 
arbuscula and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) wrightii Hartlaub, 1905, as published in the binomen Eudendrium urlghiii 
(a junior objective synonym of Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859). 

References 

Bedot, M. 1925. Materiaux pour servir a I'histoire des hydroides. 7e Periode (I90I a 1910). 

Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 32, suppleinent: 1-657. 
Bromley, J.E.C. 1979. Preliminary checklist of marine fauna of Minas Basin and Minas 

Channel. Proceedings of the Novo Scoliun Institute of Science. 29: 517-541. 
Calder, D.R. 1972. Some athecate hydroids from the shelf waters of northern Canada. Journal 

of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 29: 217-228. 
Hamond, R. 1957. Notes on the Hydrozoa of the Norfolk coast. Journal of the Linnean Society 

of London. Zoology, 43: 294-324. 
Hartlaub, C. 1905. Die Hydroiden der magalhaensischen Region and chilenischen Kiiste. In: 

Fauna Chilensis, 3. Zoologische Jahrhiiicher. Supplement 6: 497-714. 
Kramp, P.L. 1926. Occasional notes on Coelenterata. 1. Videnskabelige Meddelclserfra Dansk 

nuturhistorisk Forening i Kobenlumi. 82: 241-247. 



18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Orbigny, A. d'. 1846. Zoophytes. Pp. 17-28 in: Voyage dans I'Amehque nwridionale, vol. 5. 

part 4. Bertrand, Paris. 
Ridley, S.O. 1881. Account of the zoological collections made during the survey of H.M.S. 

Aleri in the Straits of Magellan and on the coast of Patagonia. 10. Coelenterata. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1881: 101-107. 
Wright, T.S. 1859. Observations on British zoophytes. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 

(n.s.)lO: 105-114. 



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 56(1) March 1999 19 

Case 3054 

AUGOCHLORiNi Moure, 1943 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
precedence over oxystoglossini Schrottky, 1909 

Michael S. Engel 

Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, 
Central Park West at 79th Street. New York. NY. 10024-5192. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the family-group 
name augochlorini Moure, 1943 for a well known group of neotropical 
halictine bees. The senior tribal name oxystoglossini Schrottky, 1909 (type genus 
Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853) has not been used for the last 50 years, and before that 
only rarely; the junior name aligochlorini (type genus Augochlora Smith, 1853, 
a senior subjective synonym of Oxystoglossa) has become widely known and 
universally accepted. It is proposed that the family-group name augochlorini be 
given precedence over oxystoglossini. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; halictidae; augochlorini; 
oxystoglossini; bees; neotropics; Augochlora: Oxystoglossa. 



1. Smith (1853) established the generic names Augochlora (p. 73) and Oxystoglossa 
(p. 83) in a catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British 
Museum. The type species of Augochlora is Halictus purus Say, 1837 (p. 395) by 
subsequent designation by Cockerell (1923, p. 448). The type species of Oxy.stoglossa 
is Oxystoglossa decorata Smith, 1853 (p. 83) by monotypy. 

2. Ashmead (1899, p. 91), acting as first reviser, considered the two genera to be 
subjective synonyms and chose Augochlora as the valid generic name, thereby making 
Oxystoglossa the junior subjective synonym. Cockerell (1923, p. 446) recorded 
Oxystoglossa as a subgenus oi Augochlora and designated Halictus purus Say, 1837 as 
the type species of Augochlora. 

3. Schrottky (1909, p. 482) established a tribal name based on Oxystoglossa; this 
was misspelled as oxytoglossini but under Article 32c(iii) of the Code is to be 
corrected to oxystoglossini. More than thirty years later Moure (1943, p. 461) 
established the name augochlorini. 

4. Eickwort (1969a), in a general revision of neotropical halictine bees and in an 
accompanying paper on the tribal classification of New World halictine bees (1969b, 
p. 652), was evidently unaware of the family-group name proposed in 1909 by 
Schrottky, and used the name augochlorini for the group of bees related to 
Augochlora. It follows that oxystoglossini was not replaced in the sense of Article 
40b. No author within the last 50 years has used the name oxystoglossini, and 
that family-group name was not recorded by Michener (1986) in his treatment of 
the family-group names among bees. Since Eickwort's classification (1969a, b), the 
family-group name based on Augochlora has been applied ubiquitously in reference 
to Augochlora and its relatives. All major treatments of the neotropical bee fauna in 



20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

the last 50 years have used the name augochlorini to refer to the group of bees 
related to AugoMora (e.g.. Michener. 1978; Moure & Hurd. 1987; Roubik. 1989; 
Michener, McGinley & Danforth, 1994; Griswold, Parker & Hanson, 1995), The 
genus Augochlora is a well known and wide ranging New World bee genus, and has 
been the focus of many biological studies (e.g., Stockhammer. 1966; Eickwort & 
Eickwort, 1972, 1973). Similarly, various papers treating the systematics, biology or 
ecology of related genera have all used the name augochlorini (e.g., Michener, 1974; 
Eickwort & Sakagami, 1979; Schremmer, 1979; Packer, 1990; Radchenko & Pesenko, 
1994; Engel, 1995a, b, 1996, 1997; Engel & Klein, 1997; Engel, Brooks & Yanega, 
1997). 

5. To use the name oxystoglossini in place of its junior synonym augochlorini 
would bring about a change in name for a commonly encountered and well 
known group of bees. I therefore propose that family-group names based on 
Augochlora be given precedence over those based on Oxystoglossa. The family-group 
name based on Oxystoglossa would remain available for any entomologist who may 
in the future consider the two genera involved to belong to different family-group 
taxa. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name augochlorini 
Moure, 1943 and other family-group names based on Augochlora Smith, 1853 
are to be given precedence over oxystoglossini Schrottky, 1909 and other 
family-group names based on Oxystoglossa Smith. 1853 whenever they are 
considered to be synonyms; 

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

(a) Augochlora Smith, 1853 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Cockerell (1923) HaUctus purus Say, 1837; 

(b) Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Oxystoglossa decorata Smith 1853; 

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

(a) purus Say, 1837, as published in the binomen Hulictus purus (specific name 
of the type species of Augochlora Smith, 1853); 

(b) decorata Smith, 1853, as published in the binomen Oxystoglossa decorata 
(specific name of the type species of Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853); 

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

(a) augochlorini Moure, 1943 (type genus Augochlora Smith, 1853), with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Augochlora are 
to be given precedence over oxystoglossini Schrottky, 1909 and other 
family-group names based on Oxystoglossa Smith, 1 853 whenever they are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(b) oxystoglossini Schrottky, 1909 (type genus Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853). 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Oxystoglossa are not to be given priority over augochlorini Moure, 1943 
and other family-group names based on Augochlora Smith, 1853 whenever 
they are considered to be synonyms. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 21 

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to Charles D. Michener for discussions regarding the conservation of 
AUGOCHLORiNi Moure, 1943, and to Kumar and Valerie Krishna for discussion on 
the presentation of this material. 

References 

Ashmead, W.H. 1899. Classification of the bees, or the superfamily Apoidea. Transactions of 

ihe American Entomological Society. 26: 49-100. 
Cockerell, T.D.A. 1923. Some bees from British Guiana. Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History. (9)11: 442^59. 
Eickwort, G.C. 1969a. A comparative morphological study and generic revision of the 

augochlorine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 48: 

325-524. 
Eickwort, G.C. 1969b. Tribal positions of western hemisphere green sweat bees, with 

comments on their nest architecture (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Annals of the 

Entomological Society of .America. 62: 652-660. 
Eickwort, G.C. & Eickwort, K.R. 1972. Aspects of the biology of Costa Rican halictine bees, 

IV. Augochlora iOxystoglossella) (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas 

Entomological Society, 45: 18^5. 
Eickwort, G.C. & Eickwort, K.R. 1973. Notes on the nests of three wood-dwelling species 

of Augochlora from Costa Rica (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas 

Entomological Society. 46: 17-22. 
Eickwort, G.C. & Sakagami, S.F. 1979. A classification of nest architecture of bees in the tribe 

Augochlorini (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictinae). with description of a Brazilian nest 

o{ RJu'nocorynura infiaticeps. Biotropica. 11: 28-37. 
Engel, M.S. 1995a. Three new species of Caeiumgochlora (Ctenaugochlora) (Hymenoptera: 

Halictidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society. 103: 281-286. 
Engel, M.S. 1995b. The bee genus Rheclomia {Hymtno-plexa.: Halictidae): discovery of the male 

and two new species. Journal of the New York Entomological Society. 103: 302-310. 
Engel, M.S. 1996. New augochlorine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in Dominican amber, 

with a brief review of fossil Halictidae. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Societv. 

Supplement. 69: 334-345. 
Engel, M.S. 1997. Ischnomelissa. a new genus of augochlorine bees (Halictidae) from 

Colombia. Studies on Neotropical Fauna ami Environment. 32: 41-46. 
Engel, M.S. & Klein, B.A. 1997. Neocorynurella. a new genus of augochlorine bees from South 

America (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Deutsche Eniomologische Zeitschrift. 44: 155-163. 
Engel, M.S., Brooks, R.W. & Yanega, D. 1997. New genera and subgenera of augochlorine 

bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Scientific Papers. Natural History Museum. University of 

Kansas. 5: 1-21. 
Griswold, T., Parker, F.D. & Hanson, P.E. 1995. The bees (Apidae). Pp. 650-691 in Hanson, 

P.E. & Gauld, I.D. (Eds.), The Hymetwptera of Costa Rica, xx, 893 pp. Oxford University 

Press, Oxford. 
Michener, CD. 1974. The social behavior of the bees: a comparative study, xii, 404 pp. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge. 
Michener, CD. 1978. The classification of halictine bees: tribes and Old World nonparasitic 

genera with strong venation. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 51: 501-538. 
Michener, CD. 1986. Family-group names among bees. Journal of the Kansas Entomological 

Society. 59: 219-234. 
Michener, CD., McGinley, R.J. & Danforth, B.N. 1994. The bee genera of North and 

Central America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). viii, 209 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington. 
Moure, J.S. 1943. Notas sobre abelhas da colegao Zikan (Hym. Apoidea). Revista de 

Entomologia. 14: 447^84. 



22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Moure, J.S. & Hurd, P.D., Jr. 1987. An unnotatecl catalogue of the halk/id bees of the Western 

Hemisphere (Hymenoptcra: Halictitkie). vii, 405 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington. 
Packer, L. 1990. Solitary and eusocial nests in a population of Aiigochlorella striata 

(Provancher) (Hynienoptera; Halictidae) at the northern end of its range. Beluivioral 

Ecology and Sociohiology. 11: 339-344. 
Radchenko, V.G. & Pesenko, Yu.A. 1994. Biology of bees (Hymenoptera. Apoidea). 350 pp. 

Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg. [In Russian]. 
Roubik, D.W. 1989. Ecology and natural history oj tropical bees. .\, 514 pp. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge. 
Say, T. 1837. Descriptions of new species of North American Hymenoptera, and observations 

on some already described. Boston Journal of Natural History. \: 361^16. 
Schremmer, F. 1979. Zum Nest-Aufbau der neuen neotropischen Furchenbienen-Art 

Neocorynura coloiytbiaiui (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Entonwiogia Generalis. 5: 149-154. 
Schrottky, C. 1909. Synonymische Bemerkungen iiber einige sudamerikanische Halictinae 

(Hym.). Deutsche Entoinologische Zeilschrifl, 1909: 479^85. 
Smith, F. 1853. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, 

part 1: Andrenidae and Apidae. 197 pp.. 6 pis. British Museum, London. 
Stockhammer, K.A. 1966. Nesting habits and life cycle of a sweat bee. Augochlora pura 

(Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 39: 157-192. 



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 56(1) March 1999 23 

Case 3064 

Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
conservation by the designation of Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy in 
Fourcroy, 1785 as the type species 

Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger 

Deittsches Entomologisclies Instilul. Schicklerstrasse 5. D-16225 Eberswalde, 
Genmmy (e-mail: blank@dei-eberswalde.de; taeger@dei-eberswalde.de) 

Tikahiko Naito 

Entomological Laboratory. Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University, Rokko, 
Kobe, 657 Japan (e-mail: cnaito@kobe-u.ac.jp) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Strongylogaster 
Dahlbom. 1835 for a Holarctic genus of sawflies (family tenthredinidae, subfamily 
selandriinae), the use of which has been stable and unambiguous for 140 years, by 
the designation of Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 as the type 
species. At present T. cingulala Fabricius. 1793 (a junior primary homonym of 
T. cingulata Scopoli, 1763) is the type species but recognition of the synonymy of this 
with T. brevicornis Konow. 1 886 renders Strongylogaster a. ']\imoT: subjective synonym 
of Tenthredo Linnaeus. 1758 (subfamily tenthredininae). A lectotype is designated 
for T. cingulata Fabricius, which had previously been considered a junior synonym 
of T. lineata Christ, 1791, itself a junior synonym of T. multifasciata. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; tenthredinidae; sawflies; 
Tenthredo: Strongylogaster, Tenthredo lineata: Tenthredo multifasciata. 



1. The name Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (pp. 4, 13) has been used unambigu- 
ously as a valid generic name (family tenthredinidae, subfamily selandriinae) since 
Costa (1859). The taxon was described as a subgenus of Tenthredo and comprised the 
species Tenthredo cingulata Fabricius, 1793, T. filicis Klug, 1817 and T. mixta Klug, 
1817. Dahlbom referred to the opinion of Klug (1817) on the position of these names 
and cited them under 'T. Allant. Kl.", i.e. belonging to Tenthredo (Alhmtus) sensu 
Klug. The name T. cingulata Fabricius, 1793 is a junior primary homonym of 
T. cingulata Scopoli, 1763, the name of a sawfly species which is currently placed in 
Allcmtus Panzer, 1801. 

2. MacGillivray (1908) placed T. mixta as a member of Thrinax Konow, 1 885, and 
recorded that T. filicis was the type species of the genus Polystichophagus Ashmead, 
1898 by monotypy and original designation. MacGillivray (1908, p. 369) noted: 'This 
leaves only cingulata. Fab., for Strongylogaster, which becomes type by elimination'. 
Although using the term 'by elimination", MacGillivray designated and accepted 
T cingulata Fabricius as the type species of Strongylogaster and this is a valid type 
species designation under Article 69a(iv) of the Code; it has been accepted by 



24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

subsequent authors (see, for example, Rohwer, 1911, p. 90; Abe & Smith, 1991, 
pp. 81-82). 

3. Klug (1817, pp. 215-216) referred to the original publication of Tenthredo 
cingulata Fabricius, 1793 (pp. 113-114). The name has been treated as a junior 
synonym of T. lineata Christ, 1791 (see, for example, Takeuchi. 1941, p. 243 and 
Zhelochovtsev, 1951. p. 149). A single female specimen preserved in the Museum fiir 
Naturkunde in Berlin, which was determined and labelled as 'cingulata F.' by Klug, 
agrees well with the current view of the identity of lineata, which is now placed in 
Strongylogaster. The original description of T. lineata (p. 450) is generally accepted 
as representing a species of Strongylogaster (see, for example, Takeuchi, 1941; 
Zhelochovtsev, 1951; Naito, 1980, p. 400). 

4. For a long time the specific name of Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy in 
Fourcroy, 1785 (p. 368), and not T. lineata Christ, 1791, was used as the valid 
name for the taxon in question (see, for example. Dalle Torre, 1894). It is not clear 
why Konow (1905) treated T. multifasciata as a junior synonym of T. vespa Retzius, 
1783, as no evidence for the supposed synonymy was given. Tenthredo multifasciata 
and T. lineata were both based on Geoffrey's (1762) 'La mouche-a-scie a ventre 
raye" and are objective synonyms. It seems very likely that Christ (1791) had no 
original material; it is clear from his publication that he intended to create an 
available name for Geoffroy 's (1762) taxon. We have adopted multifasciata as 
the valid specific name for the species (see Blank, 1998). The type locaUty of 
T. multifasciata is Paris. 

5. We have recently studied the type series of Tenthredo cingulata Fabricius, 1793 
which consists of three syntypes preserved in the Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen 
(see Zimsen, 1964, p. 358). We found that all the syntypes belong to the Tenthredo 
arcuata-group as defined by Taeger (1985, p. 91), which is included in Tenthredo 
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 555; subfamily tenthredininae). Tenthredo cingulata has now 
been recognized as a synonym of Alkmtiis hrevicornis Konow, 1886 (p. 18). One 
female syntype, which is hereby designated as the lectotype of T. cingulata Fabricius, 
is labelled as follows: (Fabricius's handwriting) 'cingulata': (red label) 'Lectotypus 
2 Tenthredo cingulata Fabr. 1793, des[ignated by] S.M. Blank 1999'; 'Tenthredo 
hrevicornis (Konow, 1886), v det[ermined by] S.M. Blank". The lectotype agrees 
perfectly with the characterization given by Taeger (1985, pp. 131-132) of T. nitidior 
(Konow, 1888), which is a junior subjective synonym of T. hrevicornis (Konow, 
1886). as noted by Taeger (1988, p. 104). 

6. It follows that if Tenthredo cingulata Fabricius were recognised as the type 
species of Strongylogaster, this generic name would become a junior synonym of 
Tenthredo Linnaeus, 1758, and the group of species currently known as Strongylo- 
gaster would have to be renamed as Thrinax Konow. 1885, now regarded as a junior 
synonym of Strongylogaster. This would cause considerable confusion because 
Strongylogaster is the well-known name of a Holarctic genus which is currently used 
for a group of 40 valid species. The name Strongylogaster has been used in the 
following representative recent publications: Benson (1968, p. 134), Goulet (1992, 
p. 91 ). Sonoda, Yamada, Naito & Nakasuji ( 1995), Naito (1996), Blank (1998). A list 
of a further 26 additional references dating from 1952-1998 which demonstrate the 
usage of Strongylogaster is held by the Commission Secretariat. In the interest of 
stability of nomenclature and the maintenance of the established usage of the name 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 25 

Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835, we propose that Tentliredo multifasciata Geoffrey in 
Fourcroy, 1785 be designated as the type species of the genus. 

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 Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 and to designate Tentliredo 
multifasciata Geoffrey in Fourcroy, 1785 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above Tentliredo multifasciata Geoffroy in 
Fourcroy, 1785; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name multi- 
fasciata Geoffroy in Fourcroy. 1785, as published in the binomen Tentliredo 
multifasciata (specific name of the type species of Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 
1835). 

Acknowledgements 

We thank Dr I.M. Kerzhner (St Petersburg), Prof Dr H. Pschorn-Walcher 
(Neulengbach). Prof Dr W. Schedl (Innsbruck), and D.R. Smith (Washington) for 
critical discussion of the manuscript. A.D. Liston (Daibersdorf) kindly corrected the 
English. 

References 

Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The genus-group names of Syraphyta (Hymenoptera) and their 

type species. Escit<ia (Fukuoka), 31: 1-115. 
Benson, R.B. 1968. Hymenoptera from Turkey. Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum 

[Natural History). Entomology, 22(4): 111-207. 
Blank, S.M. 1998. Die mittel- and nordeuropaischen Selandriinae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredin- 

idae). Pp. 207-224 in Taeger. A. & Blank. S.M. (Eds.). Pflanzenwespen Deutsclilands. 

Goecke & Evers. Keltern. 
Christ, J.L. 1791. Naiurgeschiclite. Klassification und Nomenclatur der Insekten vom Bienen. 

IVespen und Anieisengescfileclu; als der fiinften Klasse fiinfte Ordmmg des Linneischen 

Nalursyslems von den Inselclen: Hymenoptera. Mit hdutigen Fliigeln. 535 pp. Herrmann, 

Frankfurt. 
Costa, A. 1859. Imenotteri. Parte 3a (Trivellanti Sessiliventri) in Costa. O.. Fauna del Regno 

Napoli. vol. 5 (Imenotteri). 116 pp. Cons. Naples. 
Dahlbom, G. 1835. Conspectus Teniliredinidiim, Siricidum et Oryssinorwn Scandinaviae. quas 

Hymenopterorum familias. 16 pp. Hafniae. 
Dalla Torre, C.G. de. 1894. Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae (Phyllophaga & Xylophaga). 

Catalogus Hymenopterorum Inicusque descriptorum syslemalicus el synonymicus. vol. 1. 

459 pp. Lipsiae. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Enlomologia systematica emendata et aucta .... vol. 2. 519 pp. Proft, 

Hafniae. 
Geoffroy, E.L. 1 762. Histoire abregee des insecles qui se irouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 2. 

690 pp. Durand. Paris. 
Geoffroy, E.L. 1785. In Fourcroy. A.F. de. Entomologia Parisiensis .... vol. 2. Pp. 232-544. 

Paris. 
Goulet, H. 1992. The genera and subgenera of the sawflies of Canada and Alaska: Hymeno- 
ptera: Symphyta. In: The insects and arachnids of Canada, part 20. Pp. 1-235. Agriculture 

Canada, Ottawa. 



26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Klug, F. 1817. Die Blattwespen nach ihren Gattungen und Arten zusammengestellt. Magazin. 

Gcsellscluifl Nalurforschcnder Freundc zu Berlin. 8(3): 179-219. 
Konow, F.W. 1886. Sieben neue .-l//u/(/».s-Arten. Wiener Enlomologische Zeitung, 5: 17-21. 
Konow, F.W. 1888. Die Blattwespengattung Alluntus Jur. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 

Berlin, 32: 209-220. 
Konow, F.W. 1905. Hymenoptera. Fam. Tenthredinidae. /;;: Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera 

In.seclorum. vol. 29. 176 pp. Brussels. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Syslema Natunie. Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
MacGillivray, A.D. 1908. Emphylinae — new genera and species and synonymical notes. 

Canadiun Entomologist. 40(10): 365-369. 
Nailo, T. 1980. Studies on the Japanese sawflies of the genus Strongylogaster Dahlbom 

(Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae). Kontyu (Tokyo), 48(3): 390-401. 
Naito, T. 1996. Phylogeny of the fern associated sawfly genus Strongylogaster Dahlbom 

(Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington, 17: 

161-178. 
Rohwer, S.A. 1911. The genotypes of the sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily 

Tenthredinoidea. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Entomology. Technical Series. 

20(2): 69-109. 
Sonoda, S., Yamada, T., Naito, T. & Nakasuji, F. 1995. Characterization of a family of 

tandemly repetitive DNA sequences from the fern sawfly, Strongylogaster osmundae 

(Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae). Japartese Journal of Genetics. 70: 167-177. 
Taeger, A. 1985. Zur Systematik der Blattwespengattung Tenlhredo (s. str.) L. (Hymenoptera, 

Symphyta, Tenthredinidae). Entomologische Ahhandlungen und Berichle aus dem 

Staallichen Museum fur Tierkunde in Dresden, 48(8): 83-148. 
Taeger, A. 1988. Zweiter Beitrag zur Systematik der Blattwespengattung Tenthredo (s. str.). 

(Hymenoptera, Symphyta, Tenthredininae). Beitrcige zur Entomologie, Berlin, 38(1): 

103-153. 
Talieuchi, K. 1941. A systematic study on the suborder Symphyta (Hymenoptera) of the 

Japanese Empire (IV). Tenthredo. Acta Entomologica (Kyoto), 3(3): 230-274. 
Zhclochovtsev, A.N. 1951. Obzor palearkticheskikh pililshchikov podsemjstva Selandriinae 

(Hym., Tenthr.). Sbornik Trudov Zoologicheskogo Museya MGC/ (Moscow), 7: 123-153. 
Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 



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). 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(1) March 1999 27 

Case 3069 

Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Steven O. Shattuck 

CSIRO Division of Entomology, P.O. Box J 700. Canberra. A.C.T. 2601, 

Australia 

Sanford D. Porter and Daniel P. Wojcik 

U.S.D.A., Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 14565, Gainesville, 

Florida 32604. U.S.A. (e-mail: sdp@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the 
fire ant Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 (formicidae). This ant is a well-known pest 
in the southeastern United States and Puerto Rico. The name is threatened 
by the poorly understood and little used senior subjective synonym S. wagneri 
Santschi, 1916. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; formicidae; fire ants; North 
and South America; Solenopsis invicta; Solenopsis wagneri. 



1. In a general paper on 'new and little known' South American ants, Santschi 
(1916, p. 380) described and named what he believed to be a new variety, Wagneri. 
of the species Solenopsis saevis.sima (F. Smith, 1855) from near Icafio, Santiago del 
Estero, Argentina; under Article 45g of the Code wagneri is treated as a subspecific 
name. Santschi included a brief description of the worker including its length, colour 
and the shape of the propodeum. A syntype worker is held in the Naturhistorisches 
Museum, Basel, Switzerland, and additional type workers 'probably exist' in the 
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (Trager, 1991, p. 173). In a general 
paper on the ants of the Neotropics, Santschi (1923, p. 266) provided an additional 
short description of 5. saevissima wagneri, as well as recording that he had examined 
material from Paraguay and Bolivia. Bruch listed S. saevissima wagneri as a host for 
a symbiotic beetle (1926, p. 18) and for a parasitic fly (1929, p. 436). 

2. Creighton (1930, p. 76) reviewed the species of Solenopsis in the New World and 
changed the rank of wagneri to infrasubspecific as 5. (5.) .saevissima elecira var. 
wagneri; he stated that he had seen no workers which could be certainly referred to 
this form. Wilson (1952, p. 64) examined the Solenopsis saevissima species-complex 
and placed wagneri. together with nine other species-group names, as junior 
synonyms of S. saevissima saevissima. This synonymy was accepted by Ettershank 
(1966) in his generic-level review of Solenopsis and by Kempf (1972) in his catalogue 
of the Neotropical region. 

3. Buren (1972) examined the introduced pest species of Solenopsis which occurred 
in the southern United States, as well as their close relatives in South America. He 



28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

recognized that two distinct species were present in the southern United States, 
S. richieii Forel, 1909 and an undescribed species for which he proposed the 
name S. invicta (p. 9). Buren provided detailed descriptions and biological notes for 
S. invicta as well as other species related to it, including 5. saevissima, from both 
North and South America. Unfortunately, Buren (1972) overlooked the available 
species-group names which Wilson (1952) and others had placed in synonymy (see 
para. 2 above). Thus only those names considered to be valid at the time of his study 
were considered by Buren (1972). Since its description, the literature citing S. invicta 
has grown to over 1,800 scientific publications (see Wojcik & Porter, 1997) covering 
a broad range of topics including: ecology (Vinson, 1994); genetics (Ross et al., 1987); 
chemical communication (Vander Meer, 1983); control methods (Collins, 1992, 
Williams, 1994); economic impacts (Lofgren, 1986); medical complications (Stafford, 
Hoffman & Rhoades, 1989); population biology (Tschinkel, 1993); and physiology 
(Vinson & Greenberg, 1986). 

4. Trager (1991) examined the S. geminata species-group, which included S. 
invicta, S. saevissima and related species. After considering all available species-group 
names, he concluded that S. wagneri was conspecific with S. invicta, and not with 
S. saevissima as previously believed. However, he cited the original status of wagneri 
incorrectly as infrasubspecific (as S. saevissima elcctra wagneri; see para. 2 above) and 
believed it to be unavailable (p. 173). He continued the general usage of 5. invicta as 
the valid name for the taxon. 

5. Bolton (1995) corrected Trager's (1991) error by recognizing S. wagneri as an 
available name, and (pp. 388, 391) treated 5. invicta as a junior subjective synonym 
of S. wagneri. Use of the little-known name 5. wagneri constitutes a clear threat 
to nomenclatural stability for scientists from a wide range of disciplines and 
for non-scientists alike. While taxonomists might adapt to the usage of the name 
5. wagneri. such a change would considerably confuse and disrupt the non-taxonomic 
scientific literature concerning this species. We therefore propose that the use of 
S. invicta should be maintained because of its extensive use in the scientific literature 
(see para. 3 above), compared with the very limited use more than 60 years ago of 
wagneri in a South American context. Since Bolton (1995), well over 100 scientific 
papers have been published using the name S. invicta (Wojcik & Porter, unpublished 
bibliography). Up to 1998, three papers have used the name S. wagneri (Zakharov 
& Thompson. 1998; Semenov, Thompson, Jones & Semevsky, 1998; Semevsky, 
Thompson & Semenov, 1998). These three papers were published after the announce- 
ment in the Bulletin of our proposed conservation of the specific name of S. invicta, 
following which 'under Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until 
the ruling of the Commission is published'. This proposal to the Commission has the 
signed support of 76 colleagues who attended the 1998 Annual Fire Ant Research 
Conference in Hot Springs, Arkansas. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name wagneri Santschi, 1916, as 
published in the trinomen Solenupsis saevissima wagneri, 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 invicta 
Buren, 1972, as published in the binomen Solenopsis invicta; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 29 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name wagneri Santschi, 1916, as published in the trinomen 
Solenopsis saevissima wagneri and as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Bolton, B. 1995. A new general catalogue of the ants of the world. 504 pp. Harvard University 

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
Bruch, C. 1926. Nuevos histeridos ecitofilos (Col.). Revista Museii de La Plata. 29: 17-33. 
Bruch, C. 1929. Neue myrmekophile Histeriden und Verzeichnis der aus Argentinien 

bekannten Ameisengaste. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 82: 421^37. 
Buren, W.F. 1972. Revisionary studies on the taxonomy of the imported fire ants. Journal of 

the Georgia Entomological Society, 7: 1-26. 
Collins, H. 1992. Control of imported fire ants: a review of current knowledge. 27 pp. Technical 

Bulletin (United States, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), no. 1807. U.S.D.A., 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, D.C. 
Creighton, W.S. 1930. The New World species of the genus Solenopsis (Hymenop. 

Formicidae). Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 66: 39-151. 
Ettershank, G. 1966. A generic revision of the world Myrmicinae related to Solenopsis 

and Pheidologelon (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 14: 

73-171. 
Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalogo abreviado das formigas da regiao Neotropical. Studio 

Entomologica. 15: 3-344. 
Lofgren, C.S. 1986. The economic importance and control of imported fire ants in the United 

States. Pp. 227-256 in Vinson, S.B. (Ed.), Economic impact and control of social insects. 

Praeger, New York. 
Ross, K.G., Vander Mcer, R.K., Fletcher, D.J.C. & Vargo, E.L. 1987. Biochemical, phenotypic 

and genetic studies of two introduced fire ants and their hybrid (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae). Evolution. 41: 280-293. 
Santschi, F. 1916. Formicides sudamericains nouveaux ou peu connus. Phvsis (Buenos Aires), 

2: 365-399. 
Santschi, F. 1923. Solenopsis et autres fourmis neotropicales. Revue Suisse de Zoologie. 30: 

245-273. 
Semenov, S.M., Thompson, L.C., Jones, D.B. & Semevsky, F.N. 1998. Efficacy of control of fire 

ant (Solenopsis wagneri) population density with insecticides. Advances in Current Biology, 

Moscow, 118: 373-382. [In Russian, English summary]. 
Semevsky, F.N., Thompson, L.C. & Semenov, S.M. 1998. An economic evaluation of 

the impact of fire ants on agricultural plant production in the southeastern U.S.A. 

Pp. 144-148 in Zakharov, A. (Ed.), Ants and forest protection. Materials of the lOth 

All-Russian Mynnecological Symposium, Moscow. [In Russian, English summary]. 
Stafford, C.T., Hoffman, D.R. & Rhoades, R.B. 1989. Allergy to imported fire ants. Southern 

Medical Jourtud. 82: 1520-1527. 
Trager, J.C. 1991. A revision of the fire ants, Solenopsis geminata group (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae: Myrmicinae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 99: 141-198. 
Tschinkel, W.R. 1993. Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta 

during one annual cycle. Ecological Monographs, 64: 425^57. 
Vander Mecr, R.K. 1983. Semiochemicals and the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta 

Buren) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Florida Entomologist. 66: 139-161. 
Vinson, S.B. 1994. Impact of the invasion of Solenopsis Invicta Buren on native food webs. 

Pp. 240-258 in Williams. D.F. (Ed.), Exotic ants: biology, impact, aiul control of introduced 

species. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 
Vinson, S.B. & Greenberg, L. 1986. The biology, physiology, and ecology of imported fire ants. 

Pp. 193-226 in Vinson, S.B. (Ed.), Economic impact and control of social insects. Praeger, 

New York. 



30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Williams, D.F. 1994. Control of the introduced pest Solenopsis invicia in the United States. 

Pp. 282-292 in Williams, D.F. (Ed.), Exotic ants: biology, impact, and control of introduced 

species. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 
Wilson, E.O. 1952. The Solenopsis saerissima complex in South America (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae). Menwrius do Institulo Oswaldo Cruz, 50: 60-68. 
Wojcik, D.P. & Porter, S.D. 1997. Comprehensive literature database for the imported fire 

ants. Solenopsis invicta and Soleuop.'.is richteri. In Porter, S.D. (Ed.), FORMIS: a master 

bihliographv of ant literature. USDA-ARS, CMAVE. Gainesville, Florida. 
Zakharov, A. A. & Thompson, L.C. 1998. Tunnels and territorial structure in polygyne fire ants 

Solenopsis wagneri (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Zoologichesky Zhurnal. 77: 911-922. 

[In Russian, English abstract]. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(a!nhm. ac.uk). 






Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 31 

Case 3048 

NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed 
precedence over acentropinae Stephens, 1835 

M. Alma Solis 

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, USDA. 
National Museum of Natural History. MRC 168, Washington. DC. 20560, 
U.S.A. (e-mail: asolis@sel.barc.usda.gov) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve usage of the name 
NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] for a widely distributed subfamily of crambid 
moths; it is the only taxon in the Lepidoptera with true aquatic caterpillars. The name 
NYMPHULINAE is accepted by most workers as a subjective synonym of acentropinae 
Stephens, 1835. The senior name has been used as a valid name only a small number 
of times in recent years; it is proposed that nymphulinae should be given precedence 
when the two names are regarded as synonyms. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; crambidae; acentropinae; 

nymphulinae; Aceniropus: Nymplmla. 



1. Stephens (1835, p. 148) established the family-group name acentropidae based 
on the nominal genus Acentropus Curtis. 1834 (folio 497). type species by original 
designation Aceturopus garnonsii Curtis, 1834 (folio 497). Acentropus was originally 
placed in the Trichoptera, but Westwood ([1835], p. 117) transferred the genus to the 
Lepidoptera. 

2. Duponchel ([1845], p. 201) established the family-group name nymphulites as 
a subtribe based on the nominal genus Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (p. 162) to include 
the crambid moths with true aquatic caterpillars. Following an application to the 
Commission (Fletcher & Nye, 1982), Phulaena stagnata Donovan, 1806 was desig- 
nated as the type species of Nymphula by use of the plenary powers (Opinion 1406, 
October 1986); both Nymphula and Phalaena stagnata were placed on Official Lists. 
Currently, the nymphulinae has 93 genera (Fletcher & Nye, 1984), including 
Acentropus, and more than 700 species (Heppner, 1991) worldwide. It is the only 
taxon in the Lepidoptera with aquatic caterpillars, predominantly feeding on plants 
associated with water. A few species are known to damage rice and water lilies, and 
some have been found to be predators on the simuliidae (blackflies). Some species 
have been tested for the biological control of aquatic weeds. 

3. Speidel (1981, 1984) treated nymphulinae as a junior synonym of 
acentropinae when he revised the Palearctic acentropinae. The synonymy of 
nymphulinae and acentropinae has been generally accepted (e.g., Inoue, 1982; 
Fletcher & Nye, 1984; Palm, 1986; Munroe, 1995; Shaffer. Nielsen & Horak, 1996). 
but these authors have all chosen to use nymphulinae as the valid name. The 
Commission Secretariat has a list of 72 representative works in the last 20 years using 
the name nymphulinae. Minet (1982, p. 269) suggested that the Commission should 



32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

be asked to 'suppress" the name acentropidae, but (pers. comm., 1996) confirmed 
that he had not made such a proposal to the Commission. 

4. Apart from Gomez Bustillo (1983), only Speidel and his co-author have used 
ACENTROPINAE as valid in recent years (Roesler & Speidel, 1981; Speidel, 1981, 1982, 
1983, 1984, 1996). 

5. Replacement of nvmphulinae Duponchel, [1845] by the senior synonym 
ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835, would result in the name change of a family-group 
taxon comprising 93 genera worldwide and cause confusion in the nomenclature of 
the PYRALOIDEA, particularly for the aquatic weed biological control community. A 
change would offer no compensating advantage. In view of this I propose that the 
junior name nymphulinae should be given precedence over acentropinae whenever 
the two are considered to be synonyms. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name nymphulinae 
Duponchel, [1845] and other family-group names based on Nymphula Schrank, 
1802 are to be given precedence over acentropinae Stephens, 1835 and other 
family-group names based on Acentropiis Curtis, 1834 whenever they are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Acentropus 
Curtis, 1834 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation 
Acenlropus gamonsii Curtis, 1834; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gamonsii 
Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Acentropus gamonsii (specific name 
of the type species of Acentropus Curtis, 1834); 

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

(a) nymphulinae Duponchel, [1845] (type genus Nympinda Schrank, 1802), 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Nymphula are to be given precedence over acentropinae Stephens, 1835 
and other family-group names based on Acentropus Curtis, 1834 whenever 
they are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) acentropinae Stephens, 1835 (type genus Acentropus Curtis, 1834), with 
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Acentropus 
are not to be given priority over nymphulinae Duponchel, [1845] and other 
family-group names based on Nymphula Schrank, 1 802 whenever they are 
considered to be synonyms. 

Acknowledgements 

Niels P. Kristensen brought this problem to my attention and encouraged submission 
of this proposal to the Commission. Eugene Munroe provided valuable information 
and comments. R.W. Hodges suggested relevant citations. A. Konstantinov 
translated the Russian literature. This application is supported by Niels P. Kristensen 
and Eugene Munroe. 

References 

Curtis, J. 1834. British Entomotogy. 11: folios 482-529. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 33 

Duponchel, P.A.J. [1845]. Catalogue methodique des Lepidopleres d' Europe. 523 pp. 

Mequignon-Marvis, Paris. 
Fletcher, D.S. & Nye, I.W.B. 1982. Nymphuki Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposal 

to designate a type-species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 39: 208-211. 
Fletcher, D.S. & Nye, I.W.B. 1984. The generic names of moths of the world, volume 5. 

Pyraloidea. 185 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Gomez Bustillo, M.R. 1983. Revision de los Acentropidae Stph., 1835 (sensu novo) de la 

Peninsula Iberica (Lep., Pyraloidea). Adas do Congresso Iberico de Entomulogia. 1: 

305-316. 
Heppner, J.B. 1991. Faunal regions and the diversity of Lepidoptera. Tropical Lepidoptera, 1: 

1-85. 
Inoue, H. 1982. Moths of Japan, vol. 1. 966 pp. Kodansha. Tokyo. 
Minet, J. 1982. Les Pyraloidea et leurs principales divisions systematiques (Lep. Ditrysia). 

Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France, 86: 262-280. 
Munroe, E. 1995. Nymphulinae in Heppner, J.B. (Ed.). Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, 

Checklist, part 2. 243 pp. Scientific Publishers and Association for Tropical Lepidoptera, 

Gainesville, Florida. 
Palm, E. 1986. Nordeuropas Pyralider. 287 pp. Fauna Boger. Copenhagen. 
Roesler, R.U. & Speidel, W. 1981. Paracymoriza hieszynskialis n. sp., eine neue Acentropine 

aus China (Lepidoptera-Pyraloidea-Acentropinae). Articulala, 1(18): 201-206. 
Schrank, F. von P. von. 1802. Fauna Boica, vol. 2. 412 pp. Ingolstadt. 
Shaffer, M., Nielsen, E.S. & Horak, M. 1996. Pyraloidea in: Nielsen, E.S. et al. (Eds.). Checklist 

of the Lepidoptera of Australia. 529 pp. CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia. 
Speidel, W. 1981. Die Abgrenzung der Unterfamilie Acentropinae (Lepidoptera, Pyraloidea). 

Atakmta, 12: 117-129. 
Speidel, W. 1982. Zwei neue Arten der Gattung Parapony.x Hiibner, [1825] (Lepidoptera. 

Pyraloidea, Acentropinae). Neue Entomologische Nachrichten, 2: 12-17. 
Speidel, W. 1983. The Acentropinae (Lepidoptera, Crambidae) from Spain and Portugal. 

Shilap. Revista de Lepidoplerologia, 11: 83-86. 
Speidel, W. 1984. Revision der Acentropinae des palaearktischen Faunengebietes 

(Lepidoptera, Crambidae). Neue Entomologische Nachrichten, 12: 1-157. 
Speidel, W. 1996. Acentropinae in: Karsholt. O. & Razowski. J. (Eds.). The Lepidoptera of 

Europe, a distributional checklist. 380 pp. Apollo, Stenstrup, Denmark. 
Stephens, J.F. 1835. Illustrations of British entomology. Mandibulata, vol. 6. 240 pp. Baldwin 

& Cradock, London. 
Westwood, J.O. [1835]. Note upon the British genera Acentria, Acentropus, and Zancle. 

Transactions of the Entomological Society of London. 1: 117-118. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, LC.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Case 3061 

Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed 
stability of nomenclature by the designation of a single neotype for 
both Bagnis nemurus Valenciennes, 1840 and B. sieholdii Bleeker, 
1846, and the designation of the lectotype of B. planiceps 
Valenciennes, 1840 as the neotype of B.flavus Bleeker, 1846 

H.H. Ng. Y.Y. Goh and P.K.L. Ng 

School of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 
10 Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 119260. Republic of Singapore 
(e-mail: scip7116@leonis.nus.edu.sg) 

Julian Dodson 

Departement de Biologic, Pavillion Alexandre- Vachon, Cite Universitaire, 
Quebec. Canada GIK 7P4 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the taxonomy of two 
species-groups within the catfish genus Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862. The uncertain 
status of two supposed junior synonyms. Bagriis flaviis Bleeker, 1 846 and B. sieholdii 
Bleeker. 1846. is resolved by making them respectively objective junior synonyms of 
B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1 840 and B. nemurus Valenciennes, 1 840. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Siluriformes; catfish; bagridae; 
Hemiliagrus: Hemibagrus flavus; Hemibagrus nemurus; Hemibagrus planiceps; 
Hemibagrus sieboldii. 



1 . The nominal genus Hemibagrus was established by Bleeker ( 1 862, p. 9) with 
Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) as the type 
species by original designation. Bagrid catfishes of Hemibagrus are economically 
important in South, East and Southeast Asia. Their taxonomy is confusing and a 
number of nominal species exist for which types, even if they exist, cannot be 
identified with certainty. We and our colleagues have been investigating the biology 
of members of Hemibagrus in recent years, with various ongoing studies focusing on 
their systematics, zoogeography and phylogeny, using both morphological and 
genetic characters (Kottelat & Lim, 1995; Ng & Ng, 1995; Dodson, Colombani & Ng, 
1995). Many of the larger species are also being investigated for use in aquaculture. 
Our studies are complicated by the probable synonymy of two pairs of nominal taxa: 

Bagrus fiavus Bleeker, 1846 as the junior synonym of B. planiceps Valenciennes in 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840; 

Bagrus sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 as the junior synonym of B. nemurus Valenciennes in 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840. 
Each pair of synonyms is considered in turn and a course of action proposed to 
resolve the problem. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 35 

Bagrus planiceps I Bagrus flavus 

2. Bagrus planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 421), B. 
cinisiirus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) and B. flavus Bleeker, 
1 846 (p. 1 56) are three of the nominal species in the H. planiceps species-group as 
defined by Ng & Ng (1995). Bagrus planiceps was described from two specimens 
measuring 4 and 8 French inches (= 108 and 216 mm respectively) in total length, 
collected by Heinrich Kuhl and Johan Coenraad van Hasselt from Java. Bagrus 
anisurus was described from a single specimen, also collected by Kuhl and van 
Hasselt from Java, measuring 14 French inches (= 379 mm) in total length. Bagrus 
flavus was described from an unspecified number of specimens of unstated size from 
somewhere in Java. Bagrus planiceps had been placed in the genus Mystus Scopoli, 
1777 by some workers, but is currently classified in the genus Hemihagrus (see Mo, 
1991). 

3. Bleeker (1858, pp. 154-155), acting as first reviser, synonymised B. anisurus and 
B. flavus under B. planiceps; the two junior nominal taxa have not been accepted as 
valid species since then. Roberts (1993), who reviewed the ichthyological contri- 
butions of Kuhl and van Hasselt, followed this synonymy and stated that their 
specimens were currently deposited in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle 
(MNHN) in Paris and the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum (NNM) in Leiden. 
He reported that he had examined the 'holotype" oi B. pkmiceps'mXhs MNHN as well 
as the holotype oi B. anisurus in the NNM (Roberts, 1993, p. 30). 

4. In the NNM, there are seven specimens collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from 
Java (NNM 2939, 2941, 2956-2959, 2962) which are labelled as B. planiceps; all are 
kept in separate bottles. Of these, one specimen (NNM 2956) has a label which states 
"Holotype (?) Bagrus anisurus'. There is also one Kuhl and van Hasselt specimen in 
the MNHN from Java labelled as B. planiceps (MNHN B.615). As far as is known, 
these are the only known specimens of B. planiceps or B. anisurus collected by Kuhl 
and van Hasselt. Roberts (1993, p. 30) had identified a specimen 102 mm standard 
length and 121 mm total length (MNHN B.615) as the holotype of B. planiceps. 
but this is incorrect: as noted in para. 2 (above), B. planiceps was described from 
two specimens measuring 108 and 216 mm in total length. The two specimens of 
B. planiceps reported by Valenciennes are thus syntypes. Roberts noted that one of 
the specimens of B. planiceps used by Valenciennes in his description had been drawn 
but the figure had never been published. Roberts (fig. 65) published this illustration, 
noting that the figure of the specimen measured 136 mm in total length and that this 
was three-fifths of the natural size. The specimen illustrated would measure about 227 
mm total length in life. This would thus agree fairly closely with the measurement 
provided by Valenciennes for the larger specimen of B. planiceps (216 mm, total 
length). We have examined the MNHN specimen which Roberts incorrectly regarded 
as the holotype of B. planiceps, which measures 121 mm in total length. As such, it 
does not match either of the two specimens used by Valenciennes for his description 
of B. planiceps and cannot be regarded as a syntype of the species. Of the seven Kuhl 
and van Hasselt specimens of B. planiceps in the NNM, the second largest specimen 
(NNM 2939: 212 mm total length, 179 mm standard length) agrees very well with the 
length of the larger of the two syntypes of B. planiceps (216 mm total length) and we 
are confident that it is that specimen. The largest NNM specimen of B. planiceps is 
the one which also carries a label noting that it might be the type of B. anisurus. This 



36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56{l) March 1999 

specimen (NNM 2956) measures 377 mm in total length (283 mm standard length), 
and compares very well with the only specimen (total length 379 mm) mentioned by 
Valeciennes (in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, p. 423) in his description of B. anisurus. 
Although we do not know who placed the query on the label, because the length of 
NNM 2956 agrees so well with the size given by Valenciennes we are confident that 
it is the holotype of B. anisurus. The other five specimens of B. planiceps are all much 
smaller and none comes close to the sizes mentioned by Valenciennes for B. planiceps 
or B. anisurus. 

5. The problem associated with the types of Bagrus flavus is altogether more 
complex. Bleeker (1846) described B. flavus while stationed in Batavia (now Jakarta), 
but he was shortly afterwards transferred to Samarang, During this transfer, Bleeker 
(1878, p. 21) stated that 'it was out of the question to move my collections to my new 
station, so I had to leave them behind in Batavia". Boeseman (1973, p. 59) noted'that 
'when Bleeker returned from the East Indies [in 1860], he still had in his possession 
all the original specimens, excepting a few that had already been lost in the East 
Indies during the period of his banishment from Batavia'. 

6. There is a series of Bleeker specimens in the NNM labelled as B. planiceps, 
which may or may not include the type material of B. flavus. The problems with 
Bleeker's material are well known. Bleeker often placed specimens of what he 
considered one species (including types) together in the same bottle without any data 
or explanation, even if they were from different localities. In 1862, Bleeker (p. 56) 
noted that he had 21 specimens of B. planiceps ranging from 130-335 mm in total 
length from eight localities in Java and Sumatra. As he had synonymised B. anisurus 
and B. flavus with B. planiceps. all his specimens in the NNM would have been 
labelled as B. planiceps, and if he had any type material of B. flavus, he would almost 
certainly have mixed them with the non-types as well. To sort out Bleeker's specimens 
of B. flavus is made more difficult by the fact that he did not state the number or size 
of his specimens when describing B. flavus from Java (Bleeker, 1846, p. 156). We 
examined 23 Bleeker specimens in the NNM labelled as B. planiceps (NNM 6865, 
22 specimens, 59-234 mm standard length; NNM 12039, one specimen, 129.4 mm 
standard length), all without any data. As Bleeker in 1862 had only 21 specimens, at 
least two of the present series must have been collected after that date. Bleeker had 
also distributed some of his specimens to the Natural History Museum (NHM) in 
London, and Giinther (1864, p. 81) lists in his catalogue one specimen of Bagrus 
planiceps 'from Dr. P. v. Bleeker's Collection'. As the material was sent to the NHM 
after the publication in 1862 of vol. 2 of Bleeker's atlas (see Hubrecht, 1879), the 
above remarks apply to this specimen as well, and there is no way of knowing if it is 
actually a type. The same applies to any of Bleeker's specimens in other museums to 
which they were distributed after his death (see Boeseman, 1973, p. 60). 

7. According to Fricke (1991, p. 8), one syntype of B. flavus is deposited in the 
Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde (SMNS) in Stuttgart (SMNS 10570, 99.8 mm 
standard length), but we are unable to ascertain if it is a type. This is unlikely to be 
the case, as Bleeker donated the specimen to SMNS in 1860, and it was probably 
obtained after his transfer to Samarang and formed part of the mixed series currently 
in NNM and NHM. The generally poor degree of preservation of the NNM and 
NHM specimens (twisted bodies, considerable degree of shrinkage and faded 
coloration) makes their identification difiicult. However, eight NNM specimens were 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 37 

radiographed, and two groups of vertebral counts were discerned. One group 
had 47^9 vertebrae, whereas the second had 50-52 vertebrae. Of the seven Kuhl and 
van Hasseit specimens of B. planiceps and B. anisurus radiographed, all have 47-49 
vertebrae. We radiographed five fresh specimens of B. planiceps recently collected 
from Java, all of which have 47^9 vertebrae. We have also radiographed 15 
specimens of what had been identified as B. planiceps from various parts of Sumatra 
(fresh, as well as post-Bleeker material with definite locality data). All have 50-52 
vertebrae. We believe these Sumatran specimens represent an undescribed species in 
the B. planiceps species-group. 

8. Whether any of the NNM specimens are the types of B. flams can never be 
established for certain. This uncertainty, compounded by the poor condition of the 
specimens and the fact that Bleeker had specimens of B.flavus and B. planiceps from 
Java and Sumatra mixed together, makes it impracticable to select a lectotype from 
this series. 

9. Recent collections from west Java have provided fresh specimens of an elongate 
Hemibagrus with 47^9 vertebrae, rounded caudal fin lobes with the principal ray on 
the upper lobe produced into a long filament, and yellowish live coloration, which are 
all clearly referable to H. planiceps. Their yellowish coloration in life also supports 
the contention that B. flaviis is a synonym of H. planiceps. No other members of the 
Hemibagrus planiceps species-group have been collected from Java. The only other 
Hemibagrus species we have obtained from Java is H. nemurus, which is easily 
distinguished by its shorter body with 43^5 vertebrae and generally more greyish live 
coloration. Although Bleeker regarded B. planiceps, B. anisurus and B. flavus as 
synonyms, the absence of a type for B. flavus poses problems in studying the other 
species from Southeast Asia. Ng & Ng (1995) have shown that the Hemibagrus 
planiceps species-group is more speciose than previously believed, with new or 
poorly-known taxa present in other parts of Southeast Asia. It is possible that one of 
these taxa, particularly specimens with a yellowish live color, may be attributed to 
B. flavus. Java is already heavily developed and some species originally described 
from there can no longer be found on the island (Whitten, Soeriaatmadja & Afiff, 
1996, pp. 718-720). We cannot discount the possibility that more than one species of 
Hemibagrus belonging to the H. planiceps species-group may have existed on Java 
during Bleeker's time. The absence of a type for B. flavus seriously complicates our 
revision of this species-group, as there is a need to establish positively the identity of 
B. flavus Bleeker, 1 846, and its supposed synonymy with B. planiceps. Therefore, in 
the interest of clarifying the identity and maintaining the synonymy of B. flavus with 
B. planiceps, the designation of a neotype for B. flavus is necessary. Similar problems 
with the types of Hemibagrus hoevenii (Bleeker, 1846) have been discussed by 
Kottelat, Lim & Ng (1994) and a neotype for this species was designated by the 
Commission (Opinion 1840, June 1996). 

10. Since the type series of B. flavus can never be recognized with certainty, and 
therefore the nominal species cannot be identified, we propose that the synonymy 
with B. planiceps be made objective by designating a lectotype of B. planiceps as the 
neotype of B. flavus. We recognize that an alternative proposal could have been to 
ask the Commission to suppress the nominal species B. flavus for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; however, we 
consider that the action we propose is more in keeping with the situation. We hereby 



38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

designate as the lectotype of B. planiceps specimen no. NNM 2939 in the Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, referred to in para. 4 (above), and propose that 
this specimen should also be designated as the neotype oi B. flavus (see para. 19(l)(a) 
below). 

Bagrus nemurus I Bagrus sieboldii 

11. Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) and 
Bagrus sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 (p. 155) are two of the nominal species in the 
H. nemurus species-group (Ng & Ng, 1995). Valenciennes described B. nemurus solely 
from a specimen measuring 15 French inches (=406 mm) in total length collected by 
Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java. Roberts (1993, p. 30) noted that one of the 
specimens of B. nemurus examined by Valenciennes had an unpublished figure 
prepared for the original description. He published this illustration (fig. 63) and noted 
that the figure of the specimen measured 144 mm in total length. He indicated that 
this was one-third of the natural size, making the actual specimen illustrated about 
432 mm in total length. This is too long compared to the measurement provided by 
Valenciennes (406 mm total length) and thus cannot be a holotype (see also para. 12 
below). Bagrus nemurus has been placed in the genus Myslus by some workers, but 
is currently classified in the genus Hemibagrus (see Mo, 1991), for which it is the type 
species (see para. 1 above). Bleeker described Bagrus sieboldii from an unspecified 
number of specimens of unstated size from somewhere in Java (see also paras. 2 and 
5 above). 

12. The Javanese material collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt is deposited both 
in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden (NNM) and the Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris (MNHN). Roberts (1993, p. 28) remarked that 
the holotype of B. nemurus 'should be in Leiden". There is no specimen referable to 
B. nemurus collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java deposited in the MNHN, 
nor is there any evidence that such specimens have ever been deposited there. In the 
NNM, the only specimen referable to B. nemurus collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt 
is a skeleton (catalogue no. NNM 269) of only 175 mm standard length. This 
specimen, bearing the unpublished name 'Bagrus tetragonocephalus van Hasselt' is 
in poor condition with the vertebral column showing evidence of being repaired 
(Roberts, 1993; pers. obs.). 

13. Ongoing studies by ourselves and our colleagues have shown that what is now 
known as H. nemurus actually consists of a complex of several species which are 
morphologically very similar (Ng & Ng, 1995). Many characters at present used to 
diflferentiate the species within the group are non-osteological and it is not possible to 
differentiate taxa on the basis of skeletal morphology alone. In the absence of a 
holotype, one possible action would be to designate as the neotype the skeleton of the 
specimen collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt from Java. This, however, is not 
advisable since it is impossible to discern key characters such as body form, 
morphology of the soft parts and color from the skeleton. 

14. Bleeker (1858, p. 151) synonymised his own species, B. sieboldii, under 
B. nemurus Valenciennes; the junior synonym has not been accepted as valid since 
then. Bleeker ( 1 862, p. 55) subsequently noted that he had 32 specimens of 5. nemurus 
ranging from 105-340 mm in total length from 18 localities in Java, Sumatra, Banka 
and Borneo. As he had synonymised B. sieboldii with B. nemurus. all Bleeker's 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 39 

specimens in the NNM would iiave been labelled as B. nemunts, and if he had any 
type material of B. siehohiii he would have mixed it with the non-types. To sort out 
Bleeker's specimens of B. sieboldii is made even more difficult by the fact that Bleeker 
did not state the number or size of his specimens when describing B. sieboldii 
from Java. 

15. There is a series of Bleeker's specimens in the NNM labelled as B. nenninis, 
which may or may not include the types of 5. sieboldii. We examined 19 specimens 
(NNM 6863, 48.5-256 mm standard length) all without any data. As the smallest 
specimen reported by Bleeker (1862, p. 55) is 105 mm total length and the smallest we 
have seen is 57.0 mm total length (48.5 mm standard length), some of the present 
series must have been collected after 1862. These specimens seem to belong to more 
than one species, but the twisted bodies, considerable degree of shrinkage, faded 
coloration and generally poor degree of preservation make identification difficult. 
According to Fricke (1991, p. 8), one syntype of B. sieboldii is deposited in the 
Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart (SMNS 10572, 123.8 mm standard 
length). As with B. flavus (para. 7 above), this is unlikely to be the case. It is not 
possible to establish for certain whether any of the NNM or SMNS specimens are 
the types of B. sieboldii. Thus, it is impractical to select a lectotype from this series 
due to this uncertainty, compounded by the poor condition of the specimens and 
the fact that Bleeker had specimens of B. nemurus and B. sieboldii from Java, 
Sumatra, Banka and Borneo. It is just as likely that the original type material of 
B. sieboldii is lost. Giinther's (1864, p. 81) catalogue lists specimens of Bagrus 
nemurus in the NHM 'from Dr. P. v. Bleeker's Collection'. The material was sent to 
the NHM after the publication in 1862 of vol. 2 of Bleeker's atlas (Hubrecht, 1879); 
there is no way of knowing if it or Bleeker's specimens in other museums are actually 
type specimens. 

16. We have examined a Hemibagrus with 43^5 vertebrae, a thin dark midaxial 
streak, and a faint humeral spot during recent collections in Java; these specimens 
are referable to H. nemurus. The only other species we have encountered on Java is 
H. planiceps, which is easily distinguished by its longer body with 47-49 vertebrae 
and generally more yellowish live coloration. 

17. Although Bleeker (1858, p. 151) synonymised B. sieboldii with B. nemurus. the 
absence of a type for B. sieboldii poses problems in studying the other species from 
Southeast Asia. Ng & Ng (1995) showed that the Hemibagrus nemurus species-group 
is more speciose than previously believed, with new or poorly-known taxa present in 
other parts of Southeast Asia. A remote possibility exists that one such taxon may be 
conspecific with B. sieboldii. As pointed out in para. 9 (above) some species originally 
described from Java are no longer found there as the island has been heavily 
developed. We cannot exclude the possibility of more than one species oi Hemibagrus 
belonging to the H. nemurus species-group having existed in Java in the last century. 
Our revision of this species-group is seriously complicated by the absence of types for 
B. nemurus and B. sieboldii. and there is a need to establish positively the identity of 
B. nemurus Valenciennes and B. sieboldii Bleeker. The necessity to fix the identity 
of B. nemurus is also made more important by the fact that it is the type species of 
the genus Hemibagrus Bleeker. Therefore, the designation of a neotype is necessary 
in the interests of clarifying the identity and maintaining the synonymy of 5. sieboldii 
and B. nemurus. 



40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

18. Since the type series of B. sieboldii can never be recognized with certainty, and 
thus the nominal species cannot be identified, we propose that the synonymy with 
B. ni'inunis be made objective by the designation as the neotype of both nominal 
species of specimen no. ZRC 41504 in the Zoological Reference Collection, National 
University of Singapore, collected from Sungai Sokan at Cibalagung, a probable 
outlet of the Cirata Reservoir at Citarum by Y.Y. Goh and D. Wowor on 21 June 
1997. This specimen is in accord with the accepted meaning of the name Hemibagrus 
nemurus and, unlike the Kuhl and van Hasselt material, is in good condition. 

19. 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 following nominal species and to designate as the respective neotypes 
the specimens indicated: 

(a) Bugrus flavus Bleeker, 1846: specimen no. NNM 2939 in the Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden (the lectotype of Bagrus planiceps 
Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840); 

(b) Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840: specimen no. 
ZRC 41504 in the Zoological Reference Collection, National University of 
Singapore; 

(c) Bagrus sieboldii Bleeker, 1846: specimen no. ZRC 41504 in the Zoological 
Reference Collection, National University of Singapore; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- 
nation Bagrus nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840; 

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

(a) planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the 
binomen Bagrus planiceps and as defined by the lectotype designated in 
para. 10 (above) by Ng, Goh, Ng & Dodson (1999); 

(b) nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the 
binomen Bagrus nemurus and as defined by the neotype designated in ( 1 )(b) 
above (specific name of the type species of Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862); 

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

{a) flavus Bleeker, 1846, as published in the binomen Bagrus flams (a junior 

objective synonym of B. planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 

1840); 
(b) sieboldii Bleeker, 1 846 as published in the binomen Bagrus sieboldii 

(a junior objective synonym of B. nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & 

Valenciennes, 1840). 

References 

Bleeker, P. 1846. Overzigt der Siluroieden, weike te Batavia voorkomen. Natuur- en 

Genee.skundig Archie]' voor Neertand's Indie, 3: 135-184. 
Bleeker, P. 1858. Ictuhyologiae archipelagi indici pradronius. vol. 1. Siluri. 258 pp. Lange, 

Batavia. 
Bleeker, P. 1862. AtUis icluhyologicjue de.s liides Orienudes Neerlandaises, vol. 2. Siluroides, 

Chacoides et Heterobranehoides. 1 12 pp., pis. 49-101. Muller, Amsterdam. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 41 

Bleeker, P. 1878. Biographical notices concerning P. Bleeker. Pp. 1 1-42 in Lamme, W.H. (Ed.) 

(1973), Collected fish papers of Pieter Bleeker. vol. I. Junk, The Hague. 
Boeseman, M. 1973. Some informative remarks on the auction of Bleeker's collections. 

Pp. 59-61 in Lamme, W.H. (Ed.). Collected fish papers of Pieter Bleeker. vol. 1. Junk, 

The Hague. 
Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. [1840]. Hisloire naturelle des poissons. vol. 14. 464 pp. 

Pitois-Levrault. Paris. 
Dodson, J.J., Colombani, F. & Ng, P.K.L. 1995. Phylogeographic structure in mitochondrial 

DNA of a South-east Asian freshwater fish, Hemihagnis nenuinis (Siluroidei; Bagridae) 

and Pleistocene sea-level changes on the Sunda shelf. Molecular Ecology. 4: 331-346. 
Fricke, R. 1991. Types and historical materials in the fish collection of the Slaatliches Museum 

fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart, part 1. The Bleeker collection. Stuttgarter Beitrdge ziir 

Naturkunde. serie A (Biologic), 471: 1-85. 
Giinther, A. 1864. Catalogue of fishes in the British Museum, vol. 5. xxii, 455 pp. British 

Museum, London. 
Hubrecht, A.A.W. 1879. Catalogue des collections formees et laissees par M.-P. Bleeker. 71 pp. 

De Breuk & Smits, Leiden. 
Kottelat, M. & Lim, K.K.P. 1995. Hemibagrus hoevenii. a valid species of Sundaic catfish 

(Teleostei: Bagridae). Malayan Nature Journal. 49: 41^7. 
Kottelat, M., Lim, K.K.P. & Ng, P.K.L. 1994. Case 2934. Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 

(currently Hemibagrus hoevenii: Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed designation of a 

neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 51: 320-322. 
Mo, T. 1991. Anatomy, relationships and systematics of the Bagridae (Teleostei: Siluroidei) 

with a hypothesis of siluroid phylogeny. Theses Zoologicae. 17: 1-216. 
Ng, P.K.L. & Ng, H.H. 1995. Hemibagrus gracilis, a new species of large riverine catfish 

(Teleostei: Bagridae) from Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 43: 133-142. 
Roberts, T.R. 1993. The freshwater fishes of Java, as observed by Kuhl and van Hasselt in 

1820-23. Zoologische Verhandelingen. 285: 1-94. 
Whitten, .4., Soeriaatmadja, R.E. & Afiff, S.A. 1996. The ecology of Java and Bali, x.xiv, 969 pp. 

Periplus, Hong Kong. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(gnhm. ac.uk). 



42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56( 1 ) March 1999 

Case 3020 

Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed 
conservation, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently 
Megalotragus kattwinkeli): proposed conservation of the specific name 

A.W. Gentry 

Department of Palaeontologv. The Natural Historv Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K 

Anthea Gentry 

Littlenood, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, 
West Sussex RH17 5EB. U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Megalotragus 
Van Hoepen. 1932, and the specific name of Megalotragus kattwinkeli (Schwarz. 1932). 
The generic name has been used consistently for a genus of very large African fossil 
antelopes (family bovidae), dating from the Pliocene-late Pleistocene. The specific 
name of M. kattwinkeli refers to an East African species of the genus. The names are 
threatened by Rhynotragus and R. semiticus, both of Reck (1925), which until 1995 
were believed to date from 1935 and, with the exception of a single use in 1997, have 
remained unused. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Artiodactyla; bovidae; 
ALCELAPHiNi; antelopes; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Africa; Megalotragus; Megalotragus 
prisms; Megalotragus kattwinkeli. 



1 . Until recently (see Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, 1995) the generic and specific names 
of Rlnmotragus semiticus were thought to date from Reck (1935), when they were 
used for a new large Plio-Pleistocene antelope (family bovidae) collected in 1913 from 
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania by an expedition led by Dr Hans Reck of the Institut fiir 
Geologic und Palaontologie der Friedrich-Wilhelm Universitiit, Berlin (see Reck, 
1914). Reek's paper of 1935 was written to provide diagnoses for his previously 
published references to this and another bovid. Rhynotragus semiticus had earlier 
been mentioned and illustrated in Reck (1933). However, the new antelope had 
already been established by Reck in a weekly general journal of news, fashion, arts 
and science published in Leipzig, the lllustririe Zeitung, of 19 March 1925. The 
account contained a good quality line drawing of the only specimen, with the new 
generic and specific name in the caption. The accompanying text drew attention to 
the most distinctive feature of the illustrated specimen: 'Den einen characterisiert auf 
den ersten Blick das enorm hochgewolbte Gesichtsprofil ...'. Both the generic and 
specific names Rhynotragus semiticus are therefore available from Reck (1925, p. 451, 
fig.). Reck (1925, 1933, 1935) was unable to classify R. .wmiticus below family level. 
Schwarz (1937) regarded it as a distorted specimen of the living blue wildebeest, 
Cunnochaetes taurinus (Burchell, [1823]), a member of the tribe alcelaphini. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 43 

2. The genus Megalotragus and species M. eucornulus, both of van Hoepen (1932, 
p. 63, fig. 1 ), were estabHshed for the horn cores of a large antelope (tribe 
ALCOLAPHiNi) from the Pleistocene at Cornelia, South Africa, specimen no. C667 in 
the National Museum, Bloemfontein (see Cooke, 1974, p. 76); M eucornutus was 
later synonymised with Bubalis prisms Broom, 1909, a species founded on specimen 
SAM 1741 in the South African Museum, Cape Town, from the Modder River 
between Kimberley and Bloemfontein, and subsequently known by frontlets and 
horn cores from several South African sites (see Gentry & Gentry, 1978, p. 361). 

3. Schwarz (1932, p. 4) named Alcelaphiis kuttwinkcli for fossil antelope material 
collected at Olduvai Gorge during the 1913 expedition (para. 1 above), and 
designated as holotype a right horn core with the adjacent part of the frontal bone, 
VI-1099 from an unknown stratigraphic horizon. It was housed in the Bayerischen 
Staatssammlung fUr Palaontologie und historische Geologic in Munich. Later 
Schwarz (1937) gave an expanded description of the species. His only illustration 
(Schwarz, 1937, pi. 1, fig. 3) showed a frontal region with horn bases, which the 
caption alleged to be specimen no. VII-468. However, in Schwarz's own list (1937, 
p. 56) of specimens, VII-468 was the number given to a lower jaw. Further, the skull 
part shown in pi. 1, fig. 3 did not fit the description of the holotype as a right horn 
core with frontal. 

4. Wells (1959, p. 127; 1964, p. 91) was the first to suggest that the South African 
genus Megalotragus van Hoepen, 1932 might belong to the tribe alcelaphini. Gentry 
& Gentry (1978, p. 356) placed Alcelaphiis kattwmkeli Schwarz. 1932 in Megalotragus. 
Harris ( 1991 ) was able to establish that Megalotragus was congeneric with Rhynotragus 
Reck, 1925, and Gentry, Gentry &Mayr( 1995, pp. 131-133, figs. 2, 3) that /?. semiticus 
and M. kattwinkeli were conspecific. It follows that with recognition of the availability 
of Rhynotragus and R. semiticus from 1925 (para. 1 above), these names formally 
become the senior generic and specific synonyms for Megalotragus and M. kattwinkeli. 

5. In addition to Olduvai Gorge, specimens of Megalotragus kattwinkeli have been 
found in material from the East African sites of Laetoli ('young Pleistocene' level), 
Peninj, Chesowanja, the Shungura Formation at Omo (see Gentry & Gentry, 1978, 
p. 361), and lately Vrba (1997) has recorded the species from the Middle Pleistocene 
at Awash. Harris (1991, p. 187, figs. 5.46-5.48) described a further species from 
Koobi Fora, M. isaaci, since synonymised with M. kattwinkeli by Vrba (1997, p. 148). 
The names Megalotragus and M. kattwinkeli have been widely used in the literature 
of South, East and North Africa (see, for example. Wells. 1959, 1964; Klein, 1972. 
1994; Cooke, 1974; Vrba, 1977, 1979, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1997; Thackeray, 1980; 
Gentry, 1985; Brink, 1987; Geraads, 1987; Bonis, Geraads, Jaeger & Sen, 1988; Klein 
& Cruz-Uribe, 1991; Harris, 1991; Brain & Watson, 1992; Peters, Gautier, Brink & 
Haenen, 1994; McKee, 1995; Brink, de Bruiyn, Rademeyer & van der Westhuizen, 
1995). It is undesirable to upset this currently stable position solely because of a 
hitherto overlooked report in a weekly journal of nearly 75 years ago and we propose 
that the names Megalotragus and M. kattwinkeli should be conserved. Until 1997 
Rhynotragus and R. semiticus had not been used as valid names. On confirming the 
suspected synonymy between M. kattwinkeli and R. .semiticus and recording the 1925 
publication of Reek's names, we (Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, 1995, p. 133) stated that 
'the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is being petitioned by 
A.W. and A. Gentry to conserve the usage of the familiar names Megalotragus and 



44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

M. kattwinkelf . Receipt of our application was announced in BZN 53: 145 
(September 1996) and it was then noted that 'under Article 80 of the Code, existing 
usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published'. Vrba 
(1997, p. 148) cited our (1995) publication and maintained the usage o{ Megalotragus 
and A/, kattwmkeli. McKenna & Bell (1997, p. 449). however, adopted Rhynoiragus 
as the senior name and included Meguloiragus in synonymy. This adoption of 
Rliynotragus was contrary to Article 80 and under Article 79c there is a prima facie 
case for the conservation of both Megalutragiis and M. kattwinkeli. 

6. On study visits to the Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und 
historische Geologic in Munich in 1967 and 1969, we were assured that all Olduvai 
material formerly in the collections, aside from the holotype of the bovid 
Thaleroceros radiciformis Reck, 1925 and a few primates, had been destroyed by 
bombing in the Second World War during the night of 24-25 April 1944. By 1969 the 
surviving Olduvai material had all been unpacked and restored to the collections. 
Consequently, in our study (Gentry & Gentry, 1978) of the fossil Bovidae of Olduvai 
Gorge, we surmised (p. 356) that the figured specimen of Megalotragus kattwinkeli 
(Schwarz, 1932) could be VI-487, another listed skull part. Since the holotype had 
been destroyed and never figured, we designated a neotype. This was a damaged skull 
in the collections in the Natural History Museum, London, catalogue no. BMNH 
M21447, previously used as the holotype of Xenocephahis robustus Leakey, 1965 
(p. 62, pis. 81-82), the generic and specific names of which we (Gentry & Gentry, 
1978, p. 356) regarded as junior synonyms of Megalotragus and M. kattwinkeli. 
The generic name Xenocephahis is, in any case, preoccupied by the name for a fish 
(Kaup, 1858) and for a beetle (Wasmann, 1887), the beetle having been renamed 
Wastnannotherium by Bernhauer (1921). 

7. On a further visit to Munich in 1992, one of us (A.W.G.) noticed that a 
cupboard in the storeroom for fossil mammals was labelled as containing the Reck 
collection. This was found to contain a great many bovid fossils of the 1913 Olduvai 
expedition, and among them the lost holotype of Megalotragus kattwinkeli. Dr 
Helmut Mayr, curator of fossil mammals in the Bayerischen Staatssammlung in 
Munich, informed us in 1994 that he had discovered the boxes containing the missing 
material in the basement of an outstation of the Universitats-Institut near Munich in 
1989. The inost likely explanation for their survival is that shortly before the Second 
World War the material had been returned to Munich from being on loan to 
E. Schwarz. Schwarz had worked in London from 1933-1937, preparing his 
monograph of 1937 (see Hill, 1962), and had taken Olduvai material from Germany 
with him (see Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, 1995, for more details). For whatever reason, 
the material refound in 1989 had not been reincorporated into the collections during 
the War and hence had escaped destruction. 

8. The label on the holotype horn core of Megalotragus kattwinkeli reads 'Or. No. 
VI-1099 + Typus Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz Oldoway O. Afrika Reck Smmlng. 
1913". The words 'Zoolog. Museum Berlin" printed on this label have been crossed 
out in pencil. It is indeed a right horn core, as indicated by Schwarz (1932), and 
also preserves part of the frontal with supraorbital pit and top of the orbit. Two 
other frontlets of M. kattwinkeli are included in this collection, numbered VI-487 
and VI-1088, and neither is the specimen figured by Schwarz (1937, pi. 1, fig. 3) as 
VII-468 (see above). We can now only suppose that the illustration must be of the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 45 

fourth, unnumbered, 'Frontale mit Homwurzel' of Schwarz's list. The holotype of 
M. kaiiwinkeli, specimen no. VI-1099, was described and photographed in our (1995) 
publication (Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, p. 132, fig. 2). 

9. Under Article 75.8 of the proposed 4th Edition of the Code, due to come into 
effect on 1 January 2000, a rediscovered missing holotype is to resume the status of 
the name-bearing specimen. In our view the refound holotype of Megalotragus 
kattwinkeli is conspecific with the (1978) neotype skull. The London neotype is 
a more complete specimen of known stratigraphic provenance, but the Munich 
holotype is sufficient for species-level identification. It has a very considerable 
historical interest and it is fitting that its name-bearing status should be restored. 
Moreover, if at a future date our assertion of the conspecificity of neotype and 
holotype were challenged, and if the holotype were again the name bearer, then 
kattwinkeli wovi\d continue to be the name of the species which Schwarz had founded. 

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

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

(a) the generic name Rhynotragus Reck, 1925; 

(b) the specific name semiticus Reck, 1925, as published in the binomen 
Rhynotragus semiticus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Megalotragus eucornutus Van Hoepen, 1932 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Bubalis priscus Broom, 1909); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932, as published in the binomen Alcelaphus 

kattwinkeli and as defined by the holotype, specimen no. VI-1099 in the 
Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und historische Geologic in 
Munich; 
(h) priscus Broom, 1909, as published in the binomen Bubalis priscus (senior 
subjective synonym of Megalotragus eucornutus Van Hoepen, 1932. the 
type species of Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Rhynotragus Reck, 1925, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name semiticus Reck, 1925, as published in the binomen 
Rhynotragus semiticus and as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Bernhauer, M. 1921. Zur Staphylinidenfauna von Siidamerika. Deutsche Enlomologiscbe 

Zeiisc/vifi, 1921(1): 65-77. 
Bonis, L. de, Geraads, D., Jaeger, J.-J. & Sen, S. 1988. Vertebres du Pleistocene de Djibouti. 

Bullelin de hi Societe Geotogique lie France, (8)4: 323-334. 
Brain, C.K. & Watson, V. 1992. A guide to the Swartkrans early hominid cave site. Annals of 

the Trunsvacil Museum, 35: 343-365. 
Brink, J.S. 1987. The archaeozoology of Florisbad. Orange Free State. Memoirs van die 

NasioMile Museum Btoemfontein, 24: 1-151. 



46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Brink, J.S., Bruiyn, H. de, Rademeyer, L.B. & Westhuizen, W.A. van der. 1995. A new find of 

Megalotnigus priscus (Alcelaphini, Bovidae) from the central Karoo, South Africa. 

Palaeomologia Africami. 32: 17-22. 
Broom, R. 1909. On a large extinct species of Bubalis. Annals oj the South African Museum. 7: 

279-280. 
Burchell, W.J. [1 823]. Travels in the interior of southern Afriea. vol. 2. 648 pp. Longman, Hurst, 

Rees, Orme. Brown & Green. London. 
Cooke, H.B.S. 1974. The fossil mammals of Cornelia, O.F.S.. South Africa. In Butzer. K.W., 

Clark, J.D. & Cooke. H.B.S.. The geology, archaeology and fossil mammals of the 

Cornelia Beds. O.F.S. Memoirs van die Nasionale Museum. BUiemfoniein, 9: 63-84. 
Gentry, A.W. 1985. The Bovidae of the Omo group deposits, Ethiopia. Pp. 119-191 in: Les 

faunes Plio-Pleisloeenes ile la basse vallee de t'Omo ( Ethiopie). vol. 1 (Perissodactyles — 

Artiodactyles (Bovidae)). Cahiers de Paleontologie — Travaux de Paleontologie 

est-africaine. Editions du CNRS. Paris. 
Gentry, A.W. & Gentry, A. 1978. Fossil Bovidae (Mammalia) of Olduvai Gorge. Tatizania. 

Bulletin of the British Museum (Nalin-al Hislorv), Geology series. 29(4): 289^146; 30(1): 

1-83. 
Gentry, A.W., Gentry, A. & Mayr, H. 1995. Rediscovery of fossil antelope holotypes 

(Mammalia. Bovidae) collected from Olduvai Gorge. Tanzania, in 1913. Mitteilungen 

Bayerischen Staatssammlungen fiir Paldontologie uiul historische Geologie. 35: 125-135. 
Geraads, D. 1987. La faune des depots Pleistocenes de I'ouest du lac Natron (Tanzanie); 

interpretation biostratigraphique. Sciences Geologiques, Bulletin. 40: 167-184. 
Harris, J.M. 1991. Koohi Fora Research Project, vol. 3. 384 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
Hill, W.C.O. 1962. Obituary: Dr Ernst Schwarz. Nature. 194: 917. 

Kaup, J. 1858. Uebersicht der Familie Gadidae. Arehiv fiir Naturgeschichle. 24(1): 85-93. 
Klein, R.G. 1972. The late Quaternary mammalian fauna of Nelson Bay Cave (Cape Province. 

South Africa); its implications for megafaunal extinctions and environmental and cultural 

change. Quaternary Research. 2: 135-142. 
Klein, R.G. 1994. The long-horned African buffalo (Pelorovis antiquus) is an extinct species. 

Journal of Archaeological Science. 21: 725-733. 
Klein, R.G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. 1991. The bovids from Elandsfontein. South Africa, and their 

implications for the age, palaeoenvironment, and origins of the site. The African 

Archaeological Review. 9: 21-79. 
Leakey, L.S.B. 1965. Olduvai Gorge 1951-61. vol. I (Fauna and background). 118 pp. 

University Press, Cambridge. 
McKee, J.K. 1995. Further chronological seriations of southern African Pliocene and 

Pleistocene mammalian faunal assemblages. Palaeontologia Africana. 32: 11-16. 
McKenna, M.C. & Bell, S.K. 1997. Classification of mammals above the species level, xii, 63 1 pp. 

Columbia University Press. New York. 
Peters, J., Gautier, A., Brink, J.S. & Haenen, W. 1994. Late Quaternary extinction of ungulates 

in sub-saharan Africa: a reductionist's approach. Journal of Archaeological Science. 21: 

17-28. 
Reck, H. 1914. Erste vorlaufige Mitteilung iiber den Fund eines fossilen Menschenskelets aus 

Zentralafrika. Sitzungsherichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 

1914(3): 81-95. 
Reck, H. 1925. Aus der Vorzeit des innerafrikani.schen Wildes. Illuslrirte Zeiiung. Leipzig. 164: 

451. (The article ends in the middle of a word, but no continuation of the text could be 

found in the same or the next two issues, or by reference to the index for the whole 

volume). 
Reck, H. 1933. Oldoway. die Schlucht des Urmenschens. 308 pp., 2 pis., 74 text-figs., map. 

Brockhaus. Leipzig. 
Reck, H. 1935. Neue Genera aus der Oldoway-Fauna. Zentralblalt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie 

iind Paldontologie. (B)1935(6): 215-218. 
Schwarz, E. 1932. Neue diluviale Antilopen aus Ostafrika. Zentralblalt fiir Mineralogie, 

Geologie und Paldontologie. (B)1932(l): 1-4. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 47 

Schwarz, E. 1937. Die fossilen Antilopen von Oldoway. Wissenschaflliche Ergebnisse der 

Oldowciy-Expedilkm 1913, N.F. 4: 8-104. 
Thackeray, J.F. 1980. New approaches in interpreting archaeological faunal asseinblages with 

examples from southern Africa. Soiilh African Journal of Science. 76: 216-223. 
Van Hoepen, E.C.N. 1932. Voorlopige beskrywing van Vrystaatse soogdiere. Paleontologiese 

Navorsing van die Nasionale Museum. Bloemfonlein. 2(5): 63-65. 
Vrba, E.S. 1977. New species of Parmidariu.'i Hopwood and Damuliscus Sclater & Thomas 

(Alcelaphini, Bovidae, Mammalia) from Makapansgat and comments on faunal 

chronological correlation. Palaeonlologia Africana. 20: 137-151. 
Vrba, E.S. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis and classification of fossil and recent Alcelaphini 

Mammalia: Bovidae. Biological Journal of ilie Linnean Society, 11: 207-228. 
Vrba, E.S. 1984. Evolutionary pattern and process in the sister-group Alcelaphini- 

Aepycerotini (Mammalia-Bovidae). Pp. 62-79 in: Eldredge, N. & Stanley. S.M. (Eds.), 

Living fossils. Springer Verlag, New York. 
Vrba, E.S. 1985. African Bovidae: evolutionary events since the Miocene. Soulli African 

Journal of Science. 81: 263-266. 
Vrba, E.S. 1995. The fossil record of African antelopes. Pp. 385^24 in Vrba, E.S., Denton, 

G.H., Partridge, T.C. & Burckle, L.H. (Eds.), Paleoclimate and evolution, with emphasis on 

human origins. 547 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven & London. 
Vrba, E.S. 1997. New fossils of Alcelaphini and Caprinae (Bovidae: Mammalia) from Awash, 

Ethiopia, and phylogenetic analysis of Alcelaphini. Palaeonlologia Africana, 34: 127-198. 
Wasmann, E. 1887. Neue Brasilianische Staphyliniden. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 

31: 403^16. 
Wells, L.H. 1959. The Quaternary giant hartebeests of South Africa. South African Journal of 

Science, 55: 123-128. 
Wells, L.H. 1964, A large extinct antelope skull from the 'Younger Gravels" at Sydney-on- 

Vaal, C.P. South African Journal of Science, 60: 88-91. 



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, 
Croinwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Comment 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, 233-236) 

Charles W. Heckman 

Olvmpia Forest Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Researcli Station, 

3625 93rd Avenue S.W., Olvmpia, Washington 98512. U.S.A. 

In attempting to focus ecological studies on the living components of ecosystems, 
I have noted that many students are encouraged to substitute various numerical 
formulas for the names of the species they are encountering. They are deterred from 
attempting to identify the organisms with their proper binominal names by difficulties 
in determining which of the names encountered in the literature are the valid ones. It 
is clear from a study of entries in Zoological Record that authors are now divided 
almost equally on whether to use S. gyrans or S. caudatum, and there is a danger that 
the names will be treated as if referring to different taxa. 

In disagreeing with the application to conserve the names of ciliate species that 
have been in continual use for the better part of a century, both Foissner and Corliss 
pay lip service to the need to maintain stability in biological nomenclature but fail to 
recognize the present confusion that the resurrection of forgotten names has 
introduced into the literature. In effect they are saying that because few scientists are 
working on the taxonomy of ciliates, those who are should be free to arbitrarily and 
capriciously choose any names from synonym lists they wish without having to take 
note of current usage. 

The serious confusion caused by the resurrection of the nomen dubium, 
Stromhidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876, also involves the brackish water species 
Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932. For five years following Foissner's rejection in 
1987 of Strobilidium gyrans, S. caudatum Kahl was left with a specific name that 
would have to be regarded as invalid because it was preoccupied by Fromentel's 
name. In 1992, Petz & Foissner attempted to remedy this situation by giving the 
species the name Strobilidium kahli. However, the generic name Rimostrombidium 
had been proposed in 1978 by Jankowski for the group to which this brackish 
water species belongs (Agatha & Riedel-Lorje, 1998, p. 10). Giving the species a new 
specific name was therefore unnecessary, and the name kahli must be regarded as 
invalid on the grounds that Kahl's specific name caudatum has priority, the 
preoccupation having been eliminated by removal of the species from the genus 
Strobilidium. However, should Rimostrombidium be reduced to a subgenus of 
Strobilidium at any time in the future, the problem of secondary homonymy would 
arise again. 

With regard to the specific name that has long been regarded as the only valid 
name of the freshwater species, Stobilidium gyrans (Stokes, 1887), neither Foissner 
nor Corhss address the core of the issue. Foissner maintains that the valid name of 
the species should be Strobilidium caudatum (Fromentel, 1876) because it enjoys 
priority, a fact that Kahl (1932) is said to have simply overlooked. In fact, this was 
not the case. Kahl (p. 510) listed Fromentel's name as an invalid synonym because he 
regarded FromenteFs description as inadequate for recognizing the species and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 49 

because Stokes's name had been universally accepted by protozoologists. Foissner's 
resurrection of Fromentel's name has not been universally accepted, and both names 
are now finding frequent use in the literature. The reason for this unfortunate state 
of affairs is that a controversy that was settled by mutual agreement among 
protozoologists over a century ago was reintroduced in 1987 for no apparent reason. 
This has generated chaos out of the stability that had existed for the century 
preceeding Foissner's publication. It is interesting to note that Corliss put some 
emphasis on an 'Informationsbericht' of the Bavarian State Office of Water 
Commerce released in 1991, but this has to be regarded as 'grey literature' for 
taxonomic purposes and should probably not be cited as a scientific publication 
because it is not generally available as a book or journal issue. A part of this work 
has been published in English in the journal Freshwater Biology, but this part does 
not relate to the case discussed here. 

In addition to the above, it could be suggested that Fromentel's name Strombidion 
caudatuin should itself be rejected for this taxon under the Principle of Priority. As 
Petz & Foissner themselves pointed out, the name Trichoda cometa Miiller, 1773, was 
recorded by Dingfelder (1962, p. 606) as a senior synonym of Fromentel's name and 
used as valid. Although Petz & Foissner (1992, p. 160) said that this synonymy was 
"uncertain", they listed the possible synonymy of Trichoda homha Miiller, 1773 and 
Trichoda trochus Miiller, 1786, but added that "these three poorly described ciliates 
are best considered nomina dubia'. If priority is to be the main ground for 
establishing validity, it could be argued that the earliest one of these names should be 
chosen. They are names that were 'overlooked' for the same reason that Fromentel's 
name was not accepted by Kahl (1932) — the description was too poor to permit the 
ciliate to be recognized unequivocally. With so many old names to chose from, the 
amount of instability that can be introduced into the scientific literature is almost 
limitless. I urge that the suppression of Stronihidion caudatuin Fromentel, 1876 as 
proposed in my application should be approved, with the conservation of the 
established usage oi Strobilidium gyrans (Stokes. 1887). 

Additional references 

Agatha, S. & Riedel-Lorje, J.C. 1998. Morphology, infraciliature, and ecology of some 

Strobilidiine ciliates (Ciliophora, Oligotrichea) from coastal brackish water basins of 

Germany, European Journal of Protistology. 34: 10-17. 
Dingfelder, J.H. 1962. Die Ciliaten voriibergehender Gewasser. Archiv fiir Protisienl<unde. 105: 

509-658. 

Haminoea, Haminaea or Haminea (Mollusca, Gastropoda): notes and comments on 
the spelling and authorship of the generic name, and a proposed Commission ruling 

(Case 2588; see BZN 44: 166-167; 47: 263-269) 

(1) P.K. Tubbs 

Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 

do The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road, London SW? 5BD, U.K. 

In December 1986 Dr R. Gianuzzi-Savelli (Palermo, Italy) submitted an appli- 
cation proposing that Haminoea should be confirmed as the correct original spelling 
of the gastropod generic name sometimes spelled Haminaea or Haminea. and that it 



50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(11 March 1.999 

should be attributed to the authorship of Turton & Kingston, 1830. This was 
pubhshed as Case 2588 (BZN 44: 166-167; September 1987). With slight modifi- 
cations the proposals were sent for voting in March 1989 and were accepted by the 
Commission, with two members voting against on procedural grounds. However, no 
Opinion was published because some comments led to further bibliographic searches 
and correspondence, and as a result of these a revised application was published 
(BZN 47: 263-269; December 1990) in the names of R. Gianuzzi-Savelli and 
A. Gentry. This proposed that the spelling and authorship of the name should be 
taken as Haminaea Leach, [1820]. 

The second application traced the history of the various spellings in detail. It is 
clear that the name, in its various forms, derives from a name 'Haminaea which 
appeared in proofs printed for W.E. Leach in 1818 and 1820; Leach's texts were only 
published posthumously many years later (in 1847 and 1852) but were known to 
conchologists long before, either from the proof sheets or from hand-written copies. 
The first spelling published in the meaning of the Code was Haminoea, by Turton in 
1830 (it is likely, as recounted in BZN 47: 265, para. 5, that Turton alone was the 
author of the published name and description). 

Following the revised application, comments were received from R. Burn 
(Australia), P. Bouchet (France), P.M. Mikkelsen (U.S.A.) and R.C. Willan 
(Australia). All supported the original proposition (BZN 44: 166-167) that the 
spelling Haminoea should be accepted as correct, on the grounds that it had the 
greatest usage and was the first properly published version. Bouchet and Burn were 
opposed to any ruling on the status of Leach's ms. works in the absence of studies on 
other names which occurred in them, and Bouchet noted that four names of related 
genus-group taxa terminated in -haminoea. 

Unfortunately none of these comments was published, and in November 1998 their 
authors were approached for their current views. Both they and others have 
responded, and it is clear from the comments below that Haminoea remains the 
favoured option. Since the publication of the revised application (BZN 47: 263-269) 
in 1990 there has been usage by some European authors of the name Haminaea, but 
in at least some instances this has been due to the mistaken impression that this 
spelling had been conserved by Commission action following the second application. 

In the light of the comments it is now proposed (see p. 56 below) that the 
Commission should confirm that the spelling Haminoea is correct, and that the 
authorship should be attributed to Turton (1830). The present proposals, which do 
not involve setting aside any provision of the Code (i.e., the use of the Commission's 
plenary powers), are in effect those accepted by the Commission in 1989, and Dr 
Giannuzzi-Savelli has agreed (see below) to the withdrawal of the second application 
(which proposed that the spelling Haminaea be conserved from Leach, [1820]). 

(2) Riccardo Gianuzzi-Savelli 

Via Maier Dolorosa 54. 90146 Palermo. Italy 

In the light of the comments which have been received I now believe that the 
spelling Haminoea should be adopted, as I had proposed in my first application. I 
hope there will be an Opinion to this effect as soon as possible, since at present there 
is unfortunately instability, which is the opposite of what I sought. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 51 

(3) Robert Burn 

3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria. Australia 3220 

I strongly believe that the name Haminoea. validly published by Turton (in Turton 
& Kingston. 1830) should be maintained in the interests of both stability and priority. 
I would greatly welcome an Opinion to this effect. I also believe that to accept even 
one name (e.g. Haminaea) from Leach's unpublished manuscripts of 1818 and 1820 
would be to open a veritable 'can of worms'. 

(4) Richard C. Willan 

Museum & Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, GPO Box 4646, Darwin. 
Northern Territory 0801. Australia 

I urge the Commissioners to vote in favour of the spelling Haminoea in the interests 
of priority, continuity and stability. 

Priority and availability 

1 . That Haminoea is the oldest available name for this genus of opisthobranch 
gastropod is not contested. It was introduced by Turton (in Turton & Kingston, 
1830) with type species Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 by monotypy. 

2. The alternative name, Haminaea of Leach, refers to the same taxon and (a) only 
appeared in manuscripts in 1818 and in 1820, (b) was only validly published in 1847, 
(c) occurred there only in a list, (d) had three specific names attached to it, none being 
noted or denominated as the type species, and (e) had ambiguous original scope. 

3. The argument in the second application (1990) recommending that the manu- 
script name Haminaea Leach, [1820] be deemed nomenclaturally available is 
unsustainable. There is simply no place for such an argument when there exists 
another, much more widely used name for the same genus. 

Continuity and stability 

The name Haminoea is unequivocally the most widespread in the literature from 1830 
to 1990. With virtually no exceptions (less than 5 to my knowledge; and these could be 
unintentional errors in a name which is vulnerable to mistakes), Haminoea has been the 
spelling employed exclusively by taxonomists in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, else- 
where in Asia, Oceania. North America and South America throughout this entire period. 

Although the spelling Haminaea has been reintroduced by some European workers 
since 1990 under the supposition that this name had been conserved by the 
Commission following the second application, the majority of workers around the 
world have continued to use Haminoea. This name appears in influential books and 
monographs taking an overview of the fauna of whole regions, whole geological 
epochs and/or major overviews of morphology. These include the works cited below, 
and I estimate I could make a list of 200 usages of Haminoea since 1990. 

Some Japanese authors have used the stem -haminoea to create new genera for 
species closely related to Haminoea (e.g. Lamprohamitwea Kuroda & Habe, 1952, 
Sericohaminoea Habe, 1952). 

The conclusion in the second application that 'stability in the nomenclature would 
be better served by conserving Haminaea' (BZN 47; 266, para. 8) is quite wrong. In 
fact, this act would inevitably lead to confusion and instability, an observation 
stressed by others. One by-product of this suggestion of accepting Haminaea Leach, 



52 Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 56( 1 ) March .1999 

[1820] was a request to the Commission to 'suppress" two of Leach's ms. works, The 
classification of ihc British MoUusca ([1818]) and A synopsis of the MoUusca of Great 
Britain ([1820]), while at the same time conserving Haminaea from the latter; this 
concept is highly unpalatable. 

The taxonomists who sent comments on the second application strongly favoured 
Haminoea. and the additional molluscan researchers whom I have recently contacted 
take this view. These workers, some of whotn will no doubt send messages 
themselves, are Klussman-Kolb (Germany), Fukuda (Japan), Rudman (Australia), 
J.E. Morton (New Zealand), Miller (New Zealand), B.A. Marshall (New Zealand), 
Bryce (Australia), Carlson (Guam). Brunckhorst (Australia), Kilburn (South Africa), 
Brodie (Australia). Spencer (New Zealand), Wagele (Germany). J.G. Marshall 
(Australia). Johnson (U.S.A.), Harris (U.S.A.), Millen (Canada), Schrodl (Germany) 
and Sachidhanandam (Singapore). 

.Additional references 

Abbott, R.T. 1990. Compendium of Seashells: A color guide to more than 4.200 of the world's 

marine shells. 41 1 pp. Crawford House Press. Bathurst, New South Wales. 
Allen, G.R. & Steene, R. 1994. Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field Guide. 378 pp. Tropical Reef 

Research, Singapore. 
Beu, A.G. & Maxwell, P.A. 1990. Cenozoic Mollu.va of New Zealand. New Zealand Geological 

Survey Paleontological Bulletin, no. 58. 518 pp. 
Bcesley, P.L.. Ross, G.J.B & Wells, A.E. (Eds.). 1998. MoUusca: the Southern Synthesis. Fauna 

of Australia, vol. 5. CSIRO Publishing. Melbourne. 
Brook, F.J. 1998. The coastal molluscan fauna of the northern Kermadec Islands, southwest 

Pacific Ocean. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 28(2): 185-233. 
Davie, P. (Ed.). 1998. Wild Guide to Moreton Bay: Wildlife and habitats of a beautiful 

Australian coast — Noosa to the Tweed. 408 pp. Queensland Museum. Brisbane. 
Debelius, H. 1996. Nudihrauchs and Sea Snails: Indo-Pacific Field Guide. 321 pp. IKAN — 

Unterwasserarchiv, Frankfurt. 
Gosliner, T.M. 1994. Chapter 5. Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia. Pp. 253-355 in Harrison. F.W. 

& Gardiner. S.L. (Eds.). Microscopic ,4nalomy of Invertebrates. Wiley-Liss. New York. 
Gosliner, T.M., Behrens, D.W. & Williams, G.C. 1996. Coral Reef Animals of the Indo-Pacific: 

Animals from Africa to Hawaii exclusive of the I'ertebrates. 314 pp. Sea Challengers. 

Monterey. 
Marshall, J.G. & Willan, R.C. (In press). Nudihranchs of Heron Island. Great Barrier Reef: A 

survey of the Opisthobranchia iSea slugs) of Heron and Wistari Reefs. Backhuys, Leiden. 
Mikkelsen, P.M. 1996. The evolutionary relationships of Cephalaspidea s.l. (Gastropoda: 

Opisthobranchia): a phylogenetic analysis. Malacologia. 37(2): 375^142. 
Sabelli, B., Gianuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Annotated Check-list of Mediterranean 

marine mollusks. vol. 1. 348 pp. Edizioni Libreria Naturalistiea Bolognese. 
Spencer, H.G. & Willan, R.C. 1996. The Marine Fauna of New Zealand: Index to the Fauna, 3: 

MoUusca. 126 pp. New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir no. 105. 
Wells, F.E. & Bryce, C.W. 1993. Sea Slugs and their Relatives of Western Australia. 184 pp. 

Western Australian Museum. Perth. 

(5) W.B. Rudman 

Australian Museum. 6 College Street, Sydney. NSW 2000, Australia 

Most workers outside Europe have always used the name Hamiitoea. The spelling 
Hattiinaea has had some European usage since 1990, but clearly because those 
authors considered that the second application had some status (though the 
Commission has never voted upon it). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56( I ) March 1999 53 

The spelling Haminoeu is the earHest available name, and to set aside the normal 
rules by validating a name from an unpublished work would cause confusion and 
overturn existing usage. I support the comments and the reasons which have been put 
forward by others, and I urge the Commission to rule in favour of the name 
Hamiiioea. 

(6) C.W. Bryce 

Museum of Natural Science. Department of Aquatic Zoology. Francis St.. 
Perth 6000. W. Australia 

I would like to express my support for the arguments for retention of the popularly 
used spelling of Haminoea. This is the spelling used by Dr. Fred Wells and myself in 
our book Sea Slugs and their relatives of Western Australia (1993). 

(7) Hamish G. Spencer 

Department of Zoology. University of Otago. P. O. Box 56. Dunedin, New Zealcmd 

I would like to add my support to those who argue for the retention of Hatninoea. 
This spelling, which has undisputed priority as a nomenclaturally available name, 
has been used exclusively by all New Zealand authors (including those of three 
recent major checklists). I see no reason to depart from usual practice by using 
Hcmiinaeu. 

(8) Philippe Bouchet 

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 55 rue de Buffon. 75005 Paris. France 

As I mentioned in a comment sent in 1991, there are at least four genus-group 
names ending in -haminoea. and I have found none based on the root -haminaea. 

As I also mentioned, and as documented by Gianuzzi-Savelli & Gentry, Leach's 
manuscripts were known to conchologists from 1820 onwards but they remained 
unpublished in the sense of the Code. A precedent would be set, and presently 
undetected difficulties may be caused, if the Commission makes any ruling treating 
Leach's works as having been published. Clearly the second application is based on 
a much more thorough study of the background, but the first application may be 
right for the outcome. I recommend that the spellings Haminoea and haminoeidae 
be accepted. 

(9) Michael Schroedl 

Zoologisches Institut. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universildt. Luisenstr. 14. 
80333 Miinchen. Germany 

Haminoea is (a) the spelling we are all familiar with; (b) the earliest validly 
published name; <c) historically, it is the most widely used spelling; (d) it is the only 
spelling ever used by Asian, Australian, New Zealand and North American authors. 
I understand that the original application for its retention was accepted by a majority 
of ICZN Commissioners, and there is the additional very good point that four related 
genus-group names end in the termination -haminoea (e.g. Lcmiprohaminoea). 



54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(1) March 1999 

(10) Julie Marshall 

Lm Trobe University, Bimdoora, Victoria 3083. Australia 

I should like to support the continued use of the name Haininoea as it is the first 
name to be validly published and, most importantly, as has been documented by 
others, it has for a very long time been the spelling of the name in most common 
usage. It is the name we are familiar with and are continuing to use, and I strongly 
urge that it be retained. 

(11) T.M. Gosliner 

California Academy of Sciences. Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. California. 
C A 94118-4599. U.SA. 

It has recently come to my attention that the Commission is going to review Case 
2588 regarding the genus-group name Haminoea. I strongly advocate employing this 
spelling, the first published name and the one used by most specialists of opistho- 
branch molluscs. The Principle of Priority should only be departed from if it severely 
disrupts stabiUty, and in this case the principle actually maintains usage. In the case 
of Haminoea, other spellings have been sporadically used, generally by workers 
compiling faunal lists from other sources and not in primary systematic treatments. 
There is no case, either of priority or stability, for using either Haminaea or Haminea. 

(12) Paula M. Mikkelsen 

Department of Invertebrates. American Museum of Natural History. 
Central Park West at 79th Street. New York. NY 10024-5192. U.S.A. 

Pursuant to Case 2588 regarding HaminoealHaminaeal Haminea, I offer the 
following comments supplemental to those earlier presented by myself, Richard 
Willan and Philippe Bouchet. There has been some usage of the spelling Haminaea 
since the publication of the revised application (Gianuzzi-Savelli & Gentry, 1990), 
although even since then most major works have continued to use Haminoea. Clearly 
a formal ruling is urgently needed, especially now. 

As I mentioned previously, up to 1990 Haminoea was the most used spelling, 
followed by Haminea; Haminaea had been used very seldom, and according to my 
records the proposal in the second application that it should be adopted would not 
be in the interest of stability. 

I have assembled a list of 13 papers from my files since 1991 that have used 
Haminaea (see below). However, these papers come from only a small number of 
groups and all of them are decidedly non-comprehensive in nature; nearly half were 
written by non-systematists. The use of the spelling Haminaea in these papers is, in 
my opinion, a direct result of the fact that this case has not been resolved by the 
Commission. Of the 13 references. 6 used the spelling without comment while the 
other 7 cited one or both of the applications. Garcia et al. (1991) cited the 1990 
petition as "pending", while Martinez & Ortea (1997) and Schaefer (1992) mentioned 
both applications, the former authors interpreting the 5-8 years of indecision as 
license to choose either spelling. Gibson (1995) and Gibson & Chia (1994, 1995) cited 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 55 

the second (1990) application without comment, as though it was a Commission 
ruling. I have, in the intervening years, encountered and corrected more than one of 
these kinds of statements in papers I have peer-reviewed. It is interesting that Gibson 
& Chia (1989a, b) used the spelling Haminoea prior to the 1990 petition for 
Haminaea. 

My survey of post- 1990 usage points to two facts: (1) the willingness of authors to 
follow ICZN rulings (albeit prematurely in these cases), but also (2) the insistence by 
specialists in opisthobranch biology and systematics on use of the speUing Haminoea. 

I trust that the ICZN will finally bring this long-overdue Case to conclusion, and 
regardless of outcome, publish in the Bulletin the comments submitted to them. 

Additional references 

Alvarez, L.A., Garcia, F.J. & ViUani, G. 1993a. A new Mediterranean species of Haminaea 

Leach. 1820 (Gastropoda; Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea). Journal of Mothiscan 

Slitdies. 59: 339-345. 
Alvarez, L.A., Martinez, E., Cigarria, J., Rolan, E. & Villani, G. 1993b. Haminaea calligegenila 

Gibson and Chia, 1989 (Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea), a Pacific species introduced in 

European coasts. Ihenis. 11(2): 59-65. 
Carballeira, N.M., Anastacio, E., Salva, J. & Ortega, M.J. 1992. Identification of the new 

10, 15-eicosadienoic acid and related acids in the opisthobranch Haminaea lempladoi. 

Journal of Natural Products. 55(12): 1783-1786. 
Carlini, D.B. 1993. A comparison of photolyase activities of Elysia luca and Haminaea 

aniillarum (Mollusca: Opisthobranchia) [abstract]. American Zoologist. 33(5): 62A. 
Garcia, F.J., Perez-Hurtado, A. & Garcia-Gomez, J.C. 1991. Haminaea templadoi. a new 

species of cephalaspidean opisthobranch from the Atlantic Iberian coast. Journal of 

Molluscan Studies. 57: 395-399. 
Gibson, G.D. 1995. Why be choosy? Temporal changes in larval sensitivity to several 

naturally-occurring metamorphic inducers in the opisthobranch Haminaea callidegenita. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 194: 9-24. 
Gibson, G.D. & Chia, F.-S. 1989a. Description of a new species of Haminoea. Haminoea 

callidegenita (Mollusca: Opisthobranchia), with a comparison with two other Haminoea 

species found in the northeast Pacific. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 67: 914-922. 
Gibson, G.D. & Chia, F.-S. 1989b. Developmental variability (pelagic and benthic) in 

Haminoea callidegenita (Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea) is influenced by egg mass jelly. 

Biological Bulletin. 176: 103-110. 
Gibson, G.D. & Chia, F.-S. 1991. Contrasting reproductive modes in two sympatric species of 

Haminaea (Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea). Journal of Molluscan Studies. 57: 49-60. 
Gibson, G.D. & Chia, F.-S. 1994. A metamorphic inducer in the opisthobranch Haminaea 

callidegenita: partial purification and biological activity. Biological Bulletin, 187: 133- 

142. 
Gibson, G.D. & Chia, F.-S. 1995. Developmental variability in the poecilogonous opistho- 
branch Haminaea callidegenita: life-history traits and effects of environmental parameters. 

Marine Ecology — Progress Series. 121: 139-155. 
Jensen, K.R. 1996. The Diaphanidae as a possible sister group of the Sacoglossa (Gastropoda, 

Opisthobranchia). Pp. 231-247 in Taylor, J. (Ed.). Origin and Evolutionary History of the 

Mollusca. O.xford University Press. London. 
Martinez, E. & Ortea, J. 1997. Haminaea elegans (Gray. 1825) (Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspi- 
dea), a truly amphiatlantic species. The Veliger. 40(4): 281-291. 
Schaefer, K. 1992. Haminaea exigua (Gastropoda. Opisthobranchia), a new cephalaspid 

species from the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 58: 29-336. 
Schaefer, K. 1997. Early development and morphogenesis of the intracapsular veliger of 

Haminaea navicula (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia: Bullomorpha). Invertebrate Repro- 
duction and Development. 32(2): 89-105. 



56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

(12) Heike Waegele 

Spezielle Zoologie, Ruhr-Universiiiit Bochum. 44780 Bochum, Germany 

I strongly approve the retention of the spelling Haminoea, as suggested by others. 
Their arguments are convincing, and make much more sense than adoption of 
Huminaea. I also looked in my files on the spelling of this genus in the literature and 
came to a similar conclusion as P. Mikkelsen (above). There is much more use of 
Haminoea than of Haminaea. Even though there is some recent literature using the 
spelling Haminaea, the more important recent systematic works (e.g. the Southern 
Synopsis) continue to use Haminoea. 

I hope this helps you to find a solution to this problem. 

Proposals 

In the light of the comments above, the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is asked: 

( 1 ) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Haminoea 
[Turton], 1830 (gender: feminine), type species Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 by 
monotypy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hydatis 
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bulla hydatis (specific name of the 
type species of Haminoea [Turton], 1830); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
HAMINOEIDAE Pilsbry. 1895 (type genus Haminoea [Turton], 1830) (correction 
of HAMINEIDAE under Article 35d of the Code); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the names Haminaea Leach, 1847 and Haminea Gray, 1847 (incorrect 
subsequent spellings oi Haminoea [Turton], 1830); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name hamineidae Pilsbry. 1895 (incorrect original spelling of 

HAMINOEIDAE). 

For references to the above names see BZN 44: 166-167 and 47: 263-269. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (MoUusca, 
Gastropoda) and Cychstoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) 
by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation 
of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (MoUusca) 
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145) 

(1) Philippe Bouchet 

Museum National d'Hisloire Naturelle. 55 rue de Buff'on, 75005 Paris. France 

I wish, in my capacity as curator of Recent molluscs in the Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, to correct an inappropriate wording in para. 6 of the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 57 

application: '[Boeters] regarded them [two putative syntypes found at the MNHM] as 
syntypes because when Dolltus (1912. pi. 4. figs. 5-8) figured them he wrote 
'Hydrohia acuta Draparnaud sp. (types: Museum de Vienne)' in the caption; whether 
they were actually original specimens is impossible to determine'. 

I should like to draw attention to p. 250 of DoUfus's (1912) publication: 'La figure 
de Draparnaud est mauvaise, comme on pourra s'en convaincre en la comparant aux 
photographies que nous donnons des echantillons types, de sa collection, dont nous 
avons eu communication, de la maniere la plus aimable, par les soins des conserva- 
teurs du Musee de Vienne'. [Draparnaud's illustration is inaccurate, as evidenced by 
a comparison with photographs of type specimens, from his collection, which have 
been communicated to us, in the most courteous manner, by the curators of the 
Vienna Museum]. In my view this leaves not the slightest doubt on the syntype status 
of the specimens illustrated as such by Dollfus, and I reject categorically the suspicion 
that they are not original material. Why a couple of specimens were retained by 
Dollfus in Paris rather than returned to Vienna is another question, but one can 
surmise that, considering that over 70 syntypes were present in Vienna, Dollfus 
received permission to retain a couple of them. 

(2) Hans D. Boeters 

Karneidstrasse 8. D-81545 Miinchen. Germany 

Gerhard Falkner 

Bayerische Staatssammhmg filr Paldontotogie iind historische Geologic, 
Richard-Wagner-Slrasse Will, D-80333 Miinchen, Germany 

Edmund Gittenberger and Anton J. de Winter 

National Natuurhistoriscli Museum, Posthus 951 7, NL-2300 RA Leiden, 
The Netherlands 

Ted von Proschwitz 

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Naturhistoriska Museet, Box 7283, 
S-4Q235 Gotehorg. Sweden 

Theo E.J. Ripken 

Laboratoire de Biologic des Invertebres et Malacologie, Museum National d'Histoire 
Nalurelle. 55 rue de Buff on, F-75005 Paris, France 

We cannot agree with the first proposal of para. 12, item (1) of the application by 
Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon, that is, to replace the validly designated lectotype of 
Cyclosioma acutuin Draparnaud, 1805 by a neotype, which even belongs to a species 
and (sub)genus different from the lectotype. It is only because the valid type 
designation has been either neglected or ignored that the nomenclatural stability 
sought by Boeters (1984) has not yet been reached. Despite the statement by Giusti, 
Manganelli & Bodon (1998, p. 7), Boeters (1984) clearly emphasized that the 
lectotype and the paralectotype of Cyclostoma acutum are not conspecific. We see no 



58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

reason why a choice between retaining the lectotype and designating a neotype 
should not be guided by the objectivity of the Code. There has been a formal action 
and there is a Code to be followed towards stability. 

There is general consensus that the syntypes from the Draparnaud collection on 
which the name Cyclosionni aculum was based belong to two species. Their 
identification is also not a matter of dispute. Giusti & al. (1998) have published 
excellent photographs of the shells and, in particular, the diagnostic soft parts of both 
species. Authors also agree that the existing lectotype is unequivocally recognizable 
as belonging to one of these species. There is no reason why the type series with 
identifiable shells should be invalidated. Therefore, the creation of a neotype is not an 
option anyway. 

The following notes summarize the arguments for our point of view on this case; 
the nominal species involved have a rather complicated history. 

A. Validity of the lectotype of Cydostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 as designated by 
Boeters (1984) 

1. Cydostoma acutum was described by Draparnaud (1905) without a locality 
other than 'France'. In view of the fact that Draparnaud was 'Professeur d'Histoire 
Naturelle a I'Ecole de Medecine de Montpellier' it has been assumed that the 
type material was collected near Montpellier. Consequently, Radoman 1977 
(p. 207) restricted the type locality to 'Etang du Prevost, Palavas, franzosische 
Mittelmeerktiste [French Mediterranean coast]'. 

2. Draparnaud's collection was acquired by the Naturhistorisches Museum in 
Vienna in 1819 (see Locard, 1895). His collection did not contain any syntypes of 
Cydostoma acutum when Boeters (1969) and Falkner (1979 and 1983) independently 
searched for them. At these times the fate of the syntypes was unknown. However, 
Dollfus (1912, pi. 4, figs. 5-8) published photographs of two syntypes from 
Draparnaud's collection, which Boeters (1984, p. 3) subsequently found in the 
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris and photographed again. Boeters 
(1984, p. 4) came to the unequivocal conclusion that the two syntypes belong to 
different species and he was thus the first to detect that Cydostoma acutum was 
founded on a mixture of two biological species. His view that the syntypes of 
C. acutum belong to different species was confirmed by dissections of animals 
collected by himself at the Etang du Prevost (see Boeters 1984, p. 4). 

3. At least until 1977 (Radoman's paper), Cydostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 
was understood in different ways but always related to Turbo rentrosus Montagu, 
1803: either as (possibly) a younger synonym of Turbo ventrosus (see para. 4 below), 
or as a species different but congeneric with Turbo ventrosus (see para. 5 below). 

4. Cydostoma aculum as (possibly) a younger synonym of Turbo ventrosus 

4.1. Some selected examples of authors following this view are Forbes & Hanley 
(1850, p. 138); Jeffreys (1862, p. 68: 'There can, however, be no doubt of its 
[//. ventrosa] being the Cydostoma acutum of Draparnaud'); Frauenfeld (1863, p. 
1019: '//. ventrosa Mont. ... Ich folge den englischen Autoren, die fiir die Drapar- 
naudsche Art den obigen Namen annehmen ...' [1 follow the English authors who 
accept the above mentioned name for Draparnaud's species]); Geyer, (1909, p. 93 and 
1927, p. 167: 'P. ventrosa Montagu ... Syn. stagnalis der Hollander, acuta Drap. der 
Literatur.'); Kennard & Woodward (1926, pp. 18 and 19). 






Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 59 

4.2. Turbo ventrosus was described by Montagu (1803, p. 317, pi. 12, fig. 13) as 
follows: T[urho] with a smooth, glossy, thin shell, with six ventricose, or much rounded 
volutions, of a light pellucid horn-colour; but when the animal is in it, the appearance 
is black: apex moderately pointed: aperture suborbicular, closed by a thin, wrinkled, 
corneous operculum: margin almost in tire [sic] the whole way round. Length one eighth 
of an inch; breadth about one third its length'. The name Turbo ventrosus was 
unambiguously treated as valid by its author and not 'proposed in synonymy' as 
indicated in the application (para. 6) by Giusti et al. Robson (1922) provided anatomi- 
cal data based on British specimens: (i) for the male he reported (p. 181); 'The 
intromittent portion [of the penis] in P[aludeslrina] venlrosa is long and pointed'; (ii) for 
the female, the bursa copulatrix (termed oviducal gland) was described as follows (p. 
178); 'In general form it is an irregular-shaped gland with a short duct". According to 
fig. 8 the shape of the bursa with its duct resembles somewhat that of a kidney (Boeters 
1984, p. 4, speaks of a shape like that of a hammer). 

4.3. It is important to state here that the anatomical features of the (i) male and (ii) 
female reported by Robson (1922) are presented by only one of the two species 
examined by Boeters from the Etang du Prevost (and present in the type series of 
Cyclostoma acutum). The result is the same when turning to conchological features: 
'much rounded volutions' and 'suborbicular aperture" described by Montagu (1803) 
for his Turbo ventrosus can only be found in that species from the Etang du Prevost 
which shows simultaneously both anatomical features (i) and (ii) given by Robson. 

5. Cyclostoma acutum as congeneric with Turbo ventrosus 

5.1. The understanding of Cyclostoma acutum as a distinct species which is 
congeneric with Turbo ventrosus (of which it is the Mediterranean representative) has 
mainly been that of authors studying the French or Mediterranean fauna. Examples 
of this interpretation are DoUfus (1912), Wagner (1928, p. 275) and Germain (1931, 
p. 647). 

5.2. Authors who considered Hydrobia acuta as a distinct, mainly Mediterranean 
species difTerentiated it from the Atlantic Hydrobia ventrosa (formerly often regarded 
as synonymous with Helix stagnorum Gmelin, 1791), but they were not aware that 
their understanding of//, acuta encompassed two taxa (one with flat whorls and the 
other with convex whorls). The fact that Dollfus photographed two syntypes 
belonging to dilTerent species (1912, pi. 4, figs. 5 and 8 and figs. 6-7) shows that he 
encompassed two different species within his concept of Cyclostoma acutum. This is 
reflected in photographs of samples from his own collection, attributed to Hydrobia 
acuta sensu Dollfus, since these samples belong to more than one species; especially 
in the shells from Palavas are the whorls of one specimen (pi. 4, figs. 11 and 13) 
markedly more vaulted than those of the other one (figs. 12 and 14). Figures 11 and 
12 were later copied by Wenz (1939, p. 555, fig. 1487) as representing the type species 
of Hydrobia. Further striking evidence that Dollfus did not establish an understand- 
ing of Cyclostoma acutum as a species with flat whorls is, finally, given by Germain 
(1931, p. 648) who referred to Dollfus and defined Paludestriiui acuta as having a 
'spire forme de 6-7 tours assez convexes". Wagner (1928, p. 275) also examined 
syntypes in Draparnaud's collection; in attributing several samples of his own or 
other collections to Hydrobia acuta, specimens with more or less vaulted whorls seem 
to be included when he speaks of 'der schwacheren oder starkeren Wolbung'. He was 
apparently not aware that the type series was a mixture of two species. 



60 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

6. In 1977 Radoman (p. 206, fig. 2 and pi. 21, figs. 1-2) published under the name 
Hydrohia aciila conchological and anatomical data of molluscs collected at the type 
locality as restricted by him. These animals belonged only to the species with flat 
whorls and were not characterized by the anatomical features reported by Robson 
(1922) for Tiirho veiilrosiis. Since, until Radoman's (1977) publication, Cyclostoma 
acutum Draparnaud, 1805 had been predominantly understood as a (possibly) 
younger synonym of Turhu ventrosus Montagu, 1803, or at least a closely related 
species, Boeters (1984) did not follow Radoman in his interpretation of C. acutum but 
tried to conserve the historical understanding in his designation of a lectotype 
(Boeters, 1984, pi. 1, fig. I, corresponding to Dollfus, 1912, pi. 4, figs. 5 and 8). In 
comparison with the then accessible paralectotype, only the lectotype shows the 
convex whorls which are regarded as characteristic of Hydrohia ventrosa and allied 
species. Further, as regards the two diflferent species examined by Boeters from the 
Etang du Prevost, only that species which can be correlated with the lectotype based 
on the mentioned conchological features shows both anatomical features (i) and (ii) 
as reported by Robson (1922) for Hydrohia ventrosa. Irrespective of the taxonomic 
question as to whether Hydrohia acuta and ventrosa should be regarded as synonyms 
or as two distinct but closely related species the lectotype designated by Boeters 
(1984) was in full accord with all the facts relevant for stability of nomenclature at 
that time. It is not clear to us why Giusti & Pezzoli (1985, p. 124, note 13) refused to 
accept this legitimate lectotype designation. 

7. The designation of the lectotype by Boeters (1984) served not only for stability 
as regards the understanding of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1 805, but also for 
that of Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821, as will be explained in the following paragraphs. 

B. The current understanding of Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 

1. When establishing the genus Hydrohia, Hartmann (1821a, pp. 47^8, 58; 
1821b, pp. 202, 258) included Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, which was 
subsequently selected by Gray (1847) as the type species. 

2. It should be stressed that a penis having an 'intromittent portion ... long and 
pointed', as describd by Robson (1922) for Turho ventrosus Montagu, 1803, was 
considered to be characteristic not only of Turho ventrosus but also of the genus 
Hydrohia, at least until 1977. This can be shown by the following references: Henking 
(1894, pi. 4, fig. 2, Hydrohia ulvae); Robson (1922, p. 181, Hydrohia ventrosa); Krull 
(1935, p. 433, fig. I6A, Hydrohia ventrosa, and fig. I6B, H. ulvae); Muus (1963, p. 133, 
figs. A-B, Hydrohia ventrosa, and figs. E-F, H. ulvae); Davis (1966, p. 32, fig. 3, 
H. totteni); Radoman (1974, p. 286, Hydrohia in general); Hershler & Davis (1980, 
p. 204, fig. 4D, H. truncala). 

3. It must be added that in 1963 Muus (p. 133, fig. D) described Hydrohia neglecta 
and figured for the first time basically different anatomical features. The intromittent 
portion of the penis of H neglecta is described as 'stout as compared with the slim, 
pointed organ of//, ventrosa, and the rounded tip is usually bent at right angles with 
the axis of the penis. A skin fold forms a characteristic obtuse angle at the point of 
bending of the tip". 

4. In his (1974) paper Radoman gave the first general definition of the genus 
Hydrohia based mainly on anatomical characters, and the relevant passage of this 
definition clearly says (p. 286) that 'the penis is longer [than in Ohrovia Radoman, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 61 

1974] and pointed". In consequence of this difference from the traditional under- 
standing of Hydrohia, Radoman introduced a separate genus for a new species 
having a penis like that of Hydrohia neglecta, viz. Ohrovia Radoman, 1974 (type 
species Obrovia solaria Radoman, 1974). 

5. As already mentioned above, the paralectotype studied by Boeters (1984) must 
be attributed to a species different from the lectotype. When comparing both species 
based on the syntypes of Cyclosioina actum Draparnaud, 1805 and on material 
collected in the Etang du Prevost, Boeters (1984) came to the conclusion that the 
species represented by the paralectotype would have to be treated as belonging to 
Obrovia Radoman, 1974, and not to Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 in the sense of experts 
at that time. 

6. From the foregoing explanation it follows that the designation of a lectotype by 
Boeters (1984) not only stabilized the understanding of the identity of Cyclostoma 
acutum Draparnaud, 1805 but also that of Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821. 

We have no comment to make on the second and third proposals of para. 12, 
item (1) of the application by Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon (those dealing with the 
generic name Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 and the homonymous family-group names 
HYDROBiiDAE in the Mollusca and Insecta). 

Additional references 

Davis. G.M. 1966. Notes on Hydrohia tolleni. Venus. 25: 27^2. 

Forbes, E. & Hanley, S.C.T. 1850-1851. A history of British Mollusca. ami their shells, vol. 3. 

X, 616 pp., pis. 80-115. London. 
Frauenfeld, G. 1863. Vorlaufige Aufzalung der Arten der Gattungen Hydrohia Htm. und 

Amnicola Gld. Hldm. in der kaiserlichen und in Cuming's Sammlung. Verhandlungen der 

Kuiscrlich Koniglichen Zoohgisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 13: 1017-1032. 
Germain, L. 1931. Mollusques terrestres at fluviatiles, 2. Faune de France. 11: 479-897. 
Geyer, D. 1909. Unsere Land- und Siisswasser-Mollusken. Einfiihrung in die Molluskenfauna 

Deutschlands, 2. Aufl. viii, 4, 155 pp., 18 pis. Stuttgart. 
Geyer, D. 1927. Unsere Land- und Siisswasser-Mollusken. Einfiihrung in die Molluskenfauna 

Deutschlands. 3. Aufl. xi, 224 pp., 33 pis. Stuttgart. 
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Bodon, M. 1998. A proposed neotype for Hydrohia acuta 

(Draparnaud, 1805). Journal of Conchology. 36(3): 1-8. (Published November 1998). 
Henking, H. 1894. Beitrage zur Kenntniss von Hydrohia uhae Penn, und deren Brutpflege. 

Bericht der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Freihurg i. Breisgau. 8: 89-108. 
Hershler, R. & Davis, G.M. 1980. The inorphology of Hydrohia truncata (Gastropoda: 

Hydrobiidae): relevance to systematics of Hydrohia. Biological Bulletin. 158: 195-219. 
Jeffreys, J.G. 1862. British conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the 

British Isles and the surrounding sea. vol. 1 (Land and freshwater shells), cxiv, 341 pp., 

8 pis. London. 
Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1926. Synonymy of the British non-marine Mollusca (Recent 

and post-Tertiary), xxiv, 447 pp. London. 
KruU, H. 1935. Anatomische Untersuchungen an einheimischen Prosobranchiern und Beitrage 

zur Phylogenie der Gastropoden. Zoologische Jahrbticher. Anatomic Ontogenese, 60: 

399^64. 
Muus, B.J. 1963. Some Danish Hydrobiidae with the description of a new species, Hydrohia 

neglecta. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London. 35: 131-138. 
Radoman, P. 1974. Some new gastropod representatives from the brackish waters of the 

Adriatic and Aegean seasides. Veliger. 16: 283-288. 
Robson, G.C. 1922. On the anatomy and affinities of Pahidestrina ventrosa. Montague [sic]. 

Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science. (n.s.)66: 159-185. 



62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55( 1 ) March 1 999 

Wagner. A..I. 1928. Studien zur Molluskenfauna der Balkanhalbinsel mil besonderer Beriick- 
sichligung Bulgariens und Thraziens. nebst monographischer Bearbeitung einzelner 
Gruppcn. Aniutles Zoologici Musci Pohnici Hisloriae Nulunilis, 6(4): 263-399. 

Wenz, W. 1938-1944. Gastropoda. Teil I: Allgemeiner Tell und Prosobranchia (Amplii- 
gastropoda u. Slreptoneura). Hainihuch der Paliiozoohgie, vol. 6, part I. xii, 10. 1639 pp. 
Berlin. 

(3) Dick F. Hoeksema 

WaWrloren 28. 4336 KC Middelhurg. The Nelhcrlands 

For the feasons given on p. 103 of my recent paper (Hoeksema. 1998) on Hydrobia 
acuta (Draparnaud, 1905) I should like to underline the necessity of the designation 
of a neotype for H. acuta, as proposed by Giusti. Manganelli & Bodon in their 
application. 

The specimen in Paris selected as the lectotype oi Hydrobia acuta by Boeters (1984) 
is clearly a specimen of H. ventrosa (Montagu. 1803): it has convex whorls, deep 
sutures and a wide umbilicus. A second specimen in Paris of Draparnaud's original 
material, showing more flattened whorls, shallow sutures and an almost closed 
uiTibilicus, is a specimen of H. acuta as identified by Radoman (1977). Both H. acuta 
and H. ventrosa occur in the etangs near Montpellier. Herault. southern France, the 
type locality for H. acuta defined by Radoman. 

Acceptance of Boeter's (1984) unfortunate lectotype designation would render 
H. acuta a junior synonym of H. ventrosa and a new name would need to be found 
for H. acuta sensu Radoman (1977). Giusti & Pezzoli (1984). Giusti. Manganelli & 
Schembri (1995) and nearly all subsequent authors. 

I therefore fully support the application. 

(4) D. Kadolsky 

The Limes. 66 Heathhurst Road. Sanderstead. South Croydon. Surrey CR2 OBA. 
U.K. 

I support the application. 

The proposed replacement of the lectotype of Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud. 1805) 
with a neotype will stabilize a recently developed species concept. The nomenclature 
of the nominal species involved in this application and their genera are not yet fully 
stable for taxonomic reasons as the taxa are still the subject of research. The species 
concept of Hydrobia acuta which the applicants wish to confirm was established not 
before 1977 (Radoman's publication) and then only by serendipity because Radoman 
apparently had only one of the two sympatric species (H. acuta sensu Radoman, and 
not H. ventrosus Montagu, 1803) available for study from the type locality defined by 
him. The lectotype selection by Boeters (1984) was valid but was later recognized to 
have the effect of synonymizing H. acuta with H. ventrosa. 

There are two small points to be made on the type material of Hydrobia acuta. In 
para. 5 of the application the 'type locality' defined by Radoman, the Etang du 
Prevost near Palavas, is cited without comment. Draparnaud (1805) did not give a 
locality, nor is any reported from the labels on specimens in his collection (see 
Locard, 1895; Dollfus. 1912; and Boeters. 1984). His material could have come from 
anywhere in France but it is plausible (as assumed by other authors) that much of it 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 63 

was collected in the vicinity of his home town, Montpellier. Radoman did not offer 
any evidence that the syntypes originated from this locality, nor did he examine any. In 
para. 6 the applicants state ".. . whether they [the two specimens figured by Dollfus, 1912 
and taken to be syntypes by Boeters, 1984] were actually original specimens is 
impossible to determine'. Dollfus (1912) stated that he obtained "des echantiUons types, 
de sa [Draparnaud's] collection ... de la maniere la plus aimable, par les soins des 
conservateurs du Musee de Vienne". In fact, the number of syntypes given by Locard 
(1895) agrees with the numbers viewed by the applicants (para. 4 of the application) if 
the two shells illustrated by Dollfus (1912) and Boeters (1984) are included. 

The name of the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 should be corrected as 
proposed in the application (see para. 10) as the species intended and described by 
Radoman (1977) is evidently Hydrobia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803). Radoman (1977) 
used the senior name 'Helix' stagnorum Gmelin. 1791 because it was not known prior 
to the paper of Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979) that this nominal species was not 
conspecific with H. ventrosa. 

It should perhaps be noted that, in placing Ventrosia Radoman. 1977 on the Official 
List, Ecrobia Stimpson, 1865 (p. 42) is likely to be its senior subjective synonym. The 
type species of Ecrobia by original designation. Turbo minutus Totten, 1834 (p. 369) 
(non Brown, 1818, p. 463, pi. 10, fig. 13; Michaud, 1828. p. 122, pi. [1], figs. 7-9; and 
Woodward, 1833, pp. 28, 44, pi. 3, fig. 20), replaced as a junior primary homonym by 
Hydrobia totteni Morrison, 1954 (p. 26), is, according to Davis, McKee & Lopez 
(1989), very closely related to H. ventrosa, and therefore H. totteni and H. ventrosa are 
in all probability congeneric even if the genera are defined in a narrow sense. 

I fully support the action proposed to remove the homonymy between the mollusc 
and insect family-group names hydrobiidae for the reasons stated by the applicants. 

Additional references 

Brown, Th. 1818. Appendix. Pp. 427-452 in Allan. T.. Sketch of the geology of the environs of 

Nice. Transciclions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 8: 453^64. 
IVIicliaud, A.L.G. 1828. Description de plusieurs especes de coquilles vivantes de la 

Mediterranee. Bulletin d'Hisloire Ncnurelle de la Societe Linneenne de Bordeaux. 2(10): 

119-122. 
Morrison, J.P.E. 1954. Hydrobia totteni. new name for Turbo niimita [sic] Totten, 1834 

(Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae). Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 44(1): 26. 
Stimpson, W. 1865. Researches upon the Hydrobinae and allied forms; chiefly made upon 

materials in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Miscellaneous 

Collections, 1. No. 210: 1-59. 
Totten, J. 1 834. Descriptions of some new shells belonging to the coast of New England. 

American Journal of Science. 26(2): 366-369. 
Woodward, S. 1833. Ait outline of the geology of Norfolk. 60 pp., 6 pis. Norwich. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvamis 
Esper, |1777| (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera) 

(Case 3046; see BZN 54: 231-235; 55: 105-106, 169-171) 

Alexey L. Devyatkin 

Departiitent of Entomology. Faculty of Biology. Mcwow State Uitiversity, 
119899 Moscow. Russia 



64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

de Jong & Karsholt (BZN 55: 1 69- 171) have opposed the conservation of the specific 
name of Papilio syhamis Esper, [ 1 777] and found two 'reasons' for this arising from my 
proposal. I feel that there is misrepresentation in their comment, the situation being far 
more complicated than they portray, and I would like to clarify the matter. 

The fact that the specific name sylvanus Esper 'has appeared in many guides and 
lists' is not the most important reason for the request for its conservation, as was 
erroneously stated by de Jong & Karsholt. More significant is the fact that the specific 
name was well-established and consistently used for more than 1 50 years, and there 
has never been any confusion with its senior primary homonym, the name of an 
African lycaenid, neither species having been placed in Papilio since the 18th century. 
On the other hand, the name Ochlodes venata faumis (Turati, 1905) appeared in the 
literature only after the revisional work of Evans (1949), and only due to confusion 
at the species level with the Chinese Ochlodes venata (Bremer & Grey, 1853). And 
even since 1949 the adoption of the m.me faumis has not been unanimous. In view of 
this I cannot agree with de Jong & Karsholt that 'the combination Ochlodes venata 
faunus is well established'. 

Since the 'European subspecies of Ochlodes venata' has proved to be a Trans- 
Palaearctic species distinct from the Asian O. venata (Bremer & Grey, 1853), two 
other names are available for it, hyrcana Christoph, 1893 and similis Leech, 1893, 
both older ihan faunus Turati, 1905 (para. 5 of the application). Which of the three 
should be adopted? The problem is that all the nominal taxa to which these three 
names are applied may eventually prove to be distinct species, and the solution to this 
taxonomic and nomenclatural problem requires a long-term biological study, partly 
in barely accessible localities. 

Ochlodes (or Augiades) sylvanus (Esper), a most common and highly variable 
species, was very well known at the time of the description of O. faunus; Turati (1905) 
described the latter in comparison with O. sylvanus, and the fact that the type of 
O. faunus has been destroyed is not the second reason for my proposal (as stated by 
de Jong & Karsholt), but it adds to the complexity of the problem. 

The statement of de Jong & Karsholt that 'Rondou (1932) and all the subsequent 
authors agree that Turati's name pertains to the same taxon as Esper's name' is not a 
strong argument because nobody (including de Jong himselO has ever studied 
the problem of European Ochlodes venata faunus since Evans's (1949) work. The 
Lepidoptera of the Pyrenees, a distinctive area with many endemic taxa at both specific 
and subspecific levels, cannot be regarded as 'rather well known" (as stated by de Jong 
& Karsholt), since the facts confirm the opposite. Descriptions of new taxa from 
the Iberian Peninsula {Agrodiaetus ainsae Forster, 1961, A. agenjoi Forster, 1965, 
A. violetae Gomez Bustillo & Borrego, 1979 and Leptidea reali Reissinger, 1989, for 
example), as well as numerous changes in the taxonomic status of butterflies of Western 
Europe (see, for example, Tolman, 1997), give clear evidence in favour of this view. 
Moreover, de Jong himself discovered an unrecognized species of Carcharodus in the 
Iberian Peninsula (de Jong, 1978) and found problems in the definition of the rank of 
Pyrgus (malvae) malvoides (Elwes & Edwards, 1897) (see de Jong, 1972, 1987). 

Therefore, until an intensive biological study is conducted, I personally can accept 
the existence of two species or subspecies of Ochlodes in the Pyrenees, notwithstanding 
the statement of de Jong & Karsholt that 'it is highly unlikely that one of them has 
always escaped the attention of all people' who collected there; this was just the case 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 65 

with de Jong (1972), who unhesitatingly regarded Pyrgus sibirica (Reverdin, 1911) from 
Altai as a Siberian subspecies of/', centaureae {K'dmh\ir, 1839) (having laid a solid base 
of 'the biological species concept" to his conclusion), while Devyatkin (1990) subse- 
quently proved with certainty that the taxa are sympatric in the Altai Mountains. 

In conclusion, I would like to point out that Dr P.S. Wagener, cited by de Jong & 
Karsholt in favour of their view (Hesselbarth, van Oorschot & Wagener, 1995), has 
commented in support of my proposal (BZN 55: 105-106; June 1998), as indeed 
would many other authors who have had to use the name faiinus because no better 
solution to this nomenclatural problem has ever been proposed. 

Additional references 

de Jong, R. 1972. Systematics and geographic history of the genus Pyrgus in the Palaearctic 

region (Lepidoptera. Hesperiidae). Tijclschrift voor Enlomologie. 115(1): 1-121. 
de Jong, R. 1978. Carcharodiis tripoliniis Verity, stat. nov., une nouvelle espece pour la faune 

d'Europe. Remarques au sujet de la notion d'espece. (Lepidoptera Hesperiidae). Linneami 

Be/gicci. 1{4): 117-122. 
de Jong, R. 1987. Superspecies Pyrgus malvae (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in the East 

Mediterranean, with notes on phylogenetic and biological relationships. Zoologische 

Medeclelingen, 61(34): 483-500. 
Devyatkin, A.L. 1990. [On two Siberian species of the genus Pyrgus (Lepidoptera, 

Hesperiidae)]. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 69(10): 141-145. [In Russian with English 

summary]. Published in English in Entomological Review (1991), 69(7): 133-138. 
Tolman, T. 1997. Bullerflies of Britain and Europe. 320 pp. Harper Collins, London. 

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

(Case 3037; see BZN 55: 99-104, 172. 239-241) 

David Norman 

The Sedgwick Museum. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Catnhridge, 
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ. U.K. 

I would like to reply to the recent objection to the proposal to stabilise the generic 
name Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 by the designation of/, bernissartensis Boulenger in 
Beneden, 1881 as the type species, as advocated by Charig & Chapman in their 
application (BZN 55: 99-104, June 1998). While I sympathise with the views of Dr 
Sues (BZN 55: 240-241, December 1998) regarding the historical primacy of the 
original teeth described by Gideon Mantell in 1825, Sues nevertheless admits that 
they lack diagnostic characteristics which provide for unequivocal stability of such an 
important (historically-speaking) dinosaur name. 

In my monograph on Iguanodon published in 1986 (to which Sues refers) I wrestled 
with this particular taxonomic problem and concluded that it might be best to reserve 
the name Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 exclusively for the original teeth collected 
from the now abandoned (and infilled) quarry at Cuckfield, Sussex, and described by 
Mantell. I was attempting to preserve what I deemed to be historically important 
icons that could be associated with the first establishment of the name. This is the 
point to which Sues pays particular attention, in the belief that the teeth discovered 
by Mantell may, in time, prove to have some diagnostic characters. 



66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

I discussed this matter with the late Dr Alan Charig on several occasions, and have 
had the benefit of studying the teeth of a wide range of iguanodontid dinosaurs, 
including the European forms Igmmodon atherfieldensis, I. hernisscirlensis and /. 
filloni, as well as /. lakotaensis from North America, Ouranosaurus nigeriensis from 
North Africa and Akirhinus kurzanovi from Mongolia, and the more distantly related 
Cainptosaurus from North America/England. My view is that the circumstances 
suggested by Sues (that tooth characters may emerge that are likely to prove 
diagnostic for the teeth described originally by Mantell) are remote in the extreme. 
The degree of variability exhibited in the teeth of all the animals mentioned above, 
both within the jaw at any one time (positional variation) and as a consequence of 
changes due to growth (ontogeny), are such that teeth alone cannot be used reliably 
for taxonomic assignment. 

In view of this I disagree with Sues's objections and support the proposal of Charig 
& Chapman, which modifies what I originally (1986) hoped would prove to be a 'safe' 
solution to the problem of the nomenclatural vulnerability of the famous dinosaur 
name Iguanodon. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaiirus gouldii Gray, 
1838 and Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a 
neotype for H. gouldii 

(Case 3042; see BZN 54: 95-99, 249-250; 55: 106-111, 173-176) 

(1) R.T. Hoser 

Death Adder Services, PO Box 599. Doncaster. Victoria, 3108. Auxtralia 

1. The authors of the application (Prof Robert Sprackland, Prof Hobart Smith 
and Dr Peter Strimple) have stated (BZN: 54: 95) that 'the purpose of this application 
is to conserve the near universal usage of the name Varanus guuldii (Gray, 1 838) for 
the sand monitor or Gould's goanna which is found over most of Australia, and of 
I', panoptes Storr, 1980 for the yellow spotted monitor from areas of western and 
northern Australia, New Guinea and Indonesia (family varanidae)'. The authors" 
alleged extent of usage for the names V. gouldii and V. panoptes is demonstrably false, 
making their application fundamentally flawed, and for this reason I oppose it. 

2. The history of the taxonomy of the species originally described as Varanus 
gouldii, V. panoptes (a junior synonym of gouldii), and V. flavirujus (originally 
described as a subspecies of gouldii) is not in dispute and is summarised by Bohme 
(1991) and the authors of the application. In his 'Taxonomic notes on the status of 
Varanus gouldii and V. panoptes', Sprackland (1995) accurately summed up the 
taxonomy of V. gouldii as follows: 

(i) Legal questions concerning the taxonomic validity of the names of monitor 
(goanna) lizard species in Australia require a status report on the taxonomic 
validity of the names in question, and an explanation of the reasons for that 
status. The two names involved are Varanus gouldii (Gray, 1838) and Varanus 
panoptes Storr, 1980. The taxonomic history of each name is provided, 
together with pertinent references to the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature (called 'the Code' below), which provides the internationally 
accepted standards for naming and use of names in zoological science. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 67 

(ii) Varanus gouldii was originally named by John Edward Gray in 1838. A single 
adult specimen (1030 mm) was prepared as a dry mount in the British Museum 
(Natural History), London, where it remains today. Gray placed the species in 
the genus Hydrosauriis, which was a preoccupied name for a genus of 
unrelated agamid lizards from Indonesia. Subsequently the species was placed 
in Varanus. 

(iii) The designation of a specimen as a type was unusual until the 20th century, so 
Gray did not specify a name-bearing holotype for his new species. The Code 
specifically states that in the absence of a physical type, the specimen used to 
prepare an illustration serves as the type even if not specifically designated by 
the author, and the illustration itself becomes an ideotype. 

(iv) German taxonomist Robert Mertens reviewed the Australian monitor lizards 
in 1958, and by comparing the illustration provided by Gray with catalogue 
entries and the mounted specimens in the BMNH, rediscovered the original 
specimen (BMNH 1946.9.7.61) and designated that lizard the lectotype. The 
Code allows designation of a lectotype when a series of animals used by an 
author to name a species does not include a single, published record for a 
holotype: a subsequent revision may then designate one of those animals as 
the single, name-bearing lectotype. Mertens" action was both justified and 
appropriate. Wolfgang Bohme of the Zoological Museum of Alexander 
Koenig, Bonn, Germany, and I have examined the lectotype and Gray's 
illustrations, and fully confirm that BMNH 1946.9.7.61 is the specimen used 
by Gray to name Varanus gouldii. 

(v) It is important to note that a lectotype is chosen from among specimens that 
still exist and are known to have been examined by an original describer. 
Subsequently, they are not subject to replacement or invalidation by the 
Commission. Only a neotype is subject to review, and then only if the 
presumed lost holotype is later rediscovered. No neotypes were designated in 
describing any of the monitor lizards under discussion. 

(vi) The name Varanus panopies was used by Glenn Storr in 1980 to name a new 
species of Australian monitor. However, in so doing, Storr made the 
taxonomic error of not examining the types of related monitor species. The 
animals he named Varanus panoptes are actually the same as that named 
Varanus gouldii, and the Code specifically states that such a name can only be 
regarded as a junior synonym of the older name. The frequent subsequent use 
of the name panoptes, primarily by Australian authors, does not constitute 
valid grounds for suppressing the 132-year older name gouldii. Neither is 
panoptes retainable on the basis of common usage, as gouldii is a well-known, 
well-defined and long-used name. 

(vii) Bohme ( 1991 ) provided a revised taxonomic list for the monitors in question: 
Varanus panoptes panoptes 
V. panoptes rubidus 
V. panoptes horni 
V. gouldii flavirufus 

= Varanus gouldii gouldii 
- V. gouldii rubidus 



68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

= V. gouldii honii 
= V. fliivinijus. 

3. Nothing in the application changes the position as earher stated (above) by its 
most senior author. 

4. To avoid any ambiguity, throughout this comment the animal that the authors 
refer to as pcmopies will here be discussed as gouldii. in line with Bohme (1991 ). The 
animal identified as flaviniftis by Bohme is based on specimen number 53271 in the 
Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. I refer to other 
authors' works in terms of animals identified and photographs of specimens, with 
particular emphasis on locality information given in those texts. 

5. The name panoptes was used in error by Storr in 1980 when he described a 
monitor lizard, failing to realise that the same animal had been described some years 
earlier as V. gouldii. A number of authors (all of whom were cited by the authors of 
the application), in particular those from Western Australia, used the name panoptes 
to describe what had been known as V. gouldii over the following 1 6 years in various 
publications. 

6. In 1991, Bohme published a paper showing Xhai panoptes was a junior synonym 
of gouldii and therefore panoptes should not be used. As Bohme's paper became more 
widely known, usage of the name panoptes declined to reach the present situation 
where it is now hardly, if ever, used, while the original names gouldii arid flavirufus for 
the related species have near universal usage. 

7. Recent (post- 1994) publications that have correctly used the names gouldii and 
flavirufus in the same publication, confirming their general usage, include Bennett 
(1995, 1996, 1998) and de Lisle (1996), which are probably the most widely circulated 
general books on varanids on the market. Notable is how these publications have 
also not used the incorrect name panoptes except as identifying it as the invalid junior 
synonym. Davie (1995), Hoser (1996a, 1996b; the latter with a circulation so far in 
excess of 6000 copies), also used gouldii and identified panoptes as a junior synonym. 
Other recent and widely circulated publications correctly identifying gouldii include 
Frauca (1973), Griffiths (1984), Schmida (1985), Greer (1997) and Lemm (1997). 
Combined, there are far more publications correctly adopting the name V. gouldii 
than the very few incorrectly using V. panoptes. 

8. The only five known publications to have used the incorrect name of panoptes 
since 1994 were cited by the authors of the application. One of those, Steele (1996), 
indicated that the name panoptes is in dispute (p. 84), stating that some believe the 
name should be subsumed into gouldii. Bohme's (1991) publication was cited in the 
references of Steele's work. Card & Kluge (1995). while adopting panoptes rather than 
gouldii. noted that their view is not universally accepted. Therefore none of these 
authors can be taken to wholly support the position of the application. The CITES and 
threatened-reptile lists, produced by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre ( 1 993, 
1996) and referred to by the application authors, are nothing more than that, simply 
lists (where the name panoptes is used), and should be given little weight. While I 
concede that Switak (1996) incorrectly used the name panoptes to describe gouldii. the 
same publication. Reptiles magazine, has since published at least one other article (by 
Lemm. 1997) correctly identifying the same species as gouldii. Notable is that Reptiles 
has the largest circulation of any herpetological magazine or journal, making common 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 69 

usage favor the retention of guulilii and flavirufus. Press, Brock & Andersen (1995), 
while using the name paiioptes in favor of goiildii. did not publish this information in a 
widely circulated or herpetological publication, making its impact minimal, particu- 
larly when compared with the herpetological publications that have used the correct 
names. Thus it can be seen that any common usage argument for resurrecting panopies 
based on recent (post-1994) publications is invalid. 

9. Not only has Bohme's (1991) paper been widely circulated among herpetolo- 
gists, including those likely to publish the name of the lizard presently known as 
gouldii, but so too have articles on the subject, based on Bohme's paper and 
subsequent failed litigation (Hoser, 1996a), which can be found and downloaded in 
full on high-usage websites on two internet servers, one active since late 1996 and the 
other since mid- 1997. 

10. The issue of Reptilian magazine which contained my article (Hoser, 1996a) was 
distributed by the Victorian Herpetological Society to all members as part of a 
promotion by the British publishers. The VHS membership exceeds 700 Australia- 
wide and includes the overwhelming majority of publishing herpetologists in 
Australia as well as institutions such as The Australian Museum, The University of 
Sydney, Melbourne Zoo, Australian Reptile Park, overseas members and others. The 
VHS has more members than all other professional and amateur herpetological 
societies in Australia combined. Over a thousand more copies of the same magazine 
were distributed in the USA and Europe. Therefore the fact that panoptes is an 
invalid name is commonly known and any attempt to reverse this would create 
immense confusion. 

1 1. The application further argues that the name flavirufus is virtually unused for 
the lizards the authors seek to rename gouldii. That simply isn't true. Authors who 
have correctly used flavirufus include Bustard (1970), Worrell (1970), Hoser (1989), 
Bohme (1991), Sprackland (1992), Bennett (1995, 1996, 1998), de Lisle (1996) and 
Steele (1996). Included in this list are some of the most widely circulated publications 
on the subject spanning a period of nearly three decades. Most of these also have 
correctly captioned photographs of both forms. 

12. In Australia and elsewhere junior synonyms, many of which are in widespread 
use, are routinely discarded by authors when the correct senior name becomes 
known. The herpetological community in Australia and elsewhere has had little 
trouble adapting to these name changes. A perusal of H.G. Cogger's benchmark 
books on Austrahan herpetology (Cogger, 1975, 1979, 1986 and 1992) feature 
changed names with such regularity that any possible common usage argument for 
maintaining the name panoptes simply has no credibility. Also see Cogger, Cameron 
& Cogger (1983) for details of now subsumed junior synonyms for Australian reptiles 
and amphibians, many of which previously had wide usage. 

13. Cogger & Shea, in their comment supporting the application (BZN 55: 
106-1 II), have given 'evidence' in relation to the lectotype of V. gouldii that is largely 
speculative, not conclusive and therefore should be dismissed as far as this 
application is concerned. 

14. I formally request that the application be rejected in total, with the current, 
valid and most widely used names Varanus flavirufus and V. gouldii being reaffirmed 
as the correct names for, respectively, the widespread species and that with the more 
disjunct range. 



70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Acknowledgements 

Brian Barnett, Shireen Borez, Neil Davie and Grant Turner provided various 
assistances. 

Additional references 

Bustard, H.R. 1970. Australian lizards. 162 pp. Collins (Australia), Sydney. 

Cogger, H.G. 1975. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. 584 pp. Reed, Terry Hills, New South 

Wales. 
Cogger, H.G. 1979. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. Ed. 2. 608 pp. Reed, Terry Hills, New 

South Wales. 
Cogger, H.G. 1986. Repliles and amphibians of Australia. Ed. 4. 688 pp. Reed, Frenchs Forest. 

New South Wales. 
Davie, N. 1995. Editorial. Pantherosaurus. 1(1): 13. 
Frauca, H. 1973. Australian reptile wonders. 101 pp. Rigby, Adelaide. 
Greer, G. 1997. Field Notes; Australia 1996. Reptile and Amphibian Magazine. 45: 58-62. 
Griffiths, K. 1984. Reptiles and frogs of .Australia. 96 pp. View Productions. Sydney. 
Hoser, R.T. 1989. Australian reptiles and frogs, ix. 238 pp. Pierson, Mosman, New South 

Wales. 
Hoser, R.T. 1996a. Australia — land of goannas and bureaucrats. Reptilian. 4(4): 7-21. 
Hoser, R.T. 1996b. Smuggled-2: wildlife trafficking, crime ami corruption in Australia, xx, 260 

pp. Kotabi, Doncaster. Victoria. 
Lemm, J. 1997. Reptile dreamtiine. Repliles. 5(9): 32-45. 
Schmida, G. 1985. The cold-blooded Australians. 208 pp. Doubleday, Sydney. 
Sprackland, R. G. 1995. Taxonomic notes on the status of Varanus gouldii and Varanus 

panoptes. Pantherosaurus. 1(1). 
Worrell, E. 1970. Reptiles of Australia, xv, 169 pp. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. 

(2) Anthea Gentry 

ICZN Secretariat, c/o The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

Mr Hoser's comment (above) contains a number of factual errors or misinterpre- 
tations concerning both the Code and the application. These have been pointed out 
to Mr Hoser but he has requested that his comment be printed without alteration. 
Many of the errors relating to the Code originate in Sprackland's (1995) 'Taxonomic 
notes on the status of Varanus gouldii and Varanus panoptes^ prepared for a Court 
case in Australia involving both these species, and quoted by Mr Hoser. 

The points below are cited as they arise in Mr Hoser's text, following his paragraph 
numbers. 

2(ii). There are many old specimens of Varanus gouldii in the collections of the 
Natural History Museum in London, not just a single specimen, but it is very difficult 
to ascertain which were present in 1 838. The earliest catalogue is that of Gray ( 1 845a) 
which contains material clearly collected after 1838. 

2(iii). There is no Article in the Code stating that 'in the absence of a physical type, 
the specimen used to prepare an illustration serves as the type even if not specifically 
designated by the author, and the illustration becomes an ideotype", and the word 
'ideotype" does not appear. Furthermore, Gray (1838) did not mention any specimens 
and his illustration was not published until some years later (1845b). 

2(iv). By the time Gray's (1845b) illustration appeared there were a number of 
collections in the Natural History Museum. There is no certainty that the figured 
specimen is one studied by Gray in 1838. Shea & Cogger (BZN 55: 106-111) have 
provided evidence that Mertens's (1958) designated specimen is unlikely to have been 



Bulletin or Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 71 

an original specimen seen by Gray (1838) when he described V. gouldii and. if this is 
the case, the designation by Mertens (1958) of it as a lectotype is invalid. 

2(v). There is no provision in the Code stating that a lectotype, once selected, is 
"not subject to replacement or invalidation by the Commission. Only a neotype is 
subject to review, and then only if the presumed lost holotype is later rediscovered'. 
On the contrary, the Commission may use its plenary powers to set aside original 
type material and designate a neotype as a means of preserving the stability of usage 
of a name for a taxon. 

2(vi). The species named Varanus panoptes by Storr (1980) is not taxonomically the 
same as the geographically widespread species long understood as V. gouldii. The 
application does not propose to 'suppress' the name gouldii, but rather to maintain 
gouldii for the widespread species and panoptes for the northern, more restricted, species. 

3. In their application, as originally submitted in 1996, Sprackland et al. proposed 
that Bohme's (1991) nomenclatural arrangement be followed, and they asked the 
Commission to endorse this. However, Sprackland was then unaware that the status 
of type material could be set aside by the Commission (see 2(v) above) and, after 
correspondence, the revised application was published proposing the conservation of 
both the names gouldii and panoptes in the senses accorded them by the majority of 
authors. It was proposed that this should be effected by setting aside Mertens's (1958) 
lectotype designation and substituting an appropriate neotype of V. gouldii. 

5. Storr's (1980) proposal of the name V. panoptes was for a distinct species, taxo- 
nomically separate from the widespread species known as V. gouldii. There was no need 
for him to examine the specimen proposed by Mertens as the lectotype of V. gouldii. 
although in the light of what has happened since it is unfortunate that he did not do so. 

6-11. References were included in the application (para. 7) to demonstrate the 
continuing usages ot gouldii and of panoptes as proposed by Storr. Another applica- 
tion, also to conserve the names gouldii and panoptes in their traditional senses, was 
submitted by G.M. Shea & H.G. Cogger only slightly later than that by Sprackland 
et al., and included extensive lists of references for both names. These lists consisted 
of 57 references for the use of gouldii since 1991. and 58 references for the use of 
panoptes since its publication (13 references from 1994 to 1996, when the list was 
compiled). It is not correct to say that 'as Bohme's paper became more widely known 
usage of the name panoptes declined to reach the 1997 situation where it is now 
hardly, if ever, used, while the original names gouldii [in the sense of the restricted 
species] a.nd flavirufus for the related [widespread] species have near universal usage". 

Gray, J. E. 1845a. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the British Museum. 
Gray, J. E. 1845b. The zoology of the voyage of H. M.S. Erebus & Terror, under the command 
of Captain Sir James Ross, during the years 1839 to 1843. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Coluber infernalis Blainville, 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 

(Case 3012; see BZN 55: 224-228) 

Hobart M. Smith 

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



72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

I am much interested in the application and wish to lend my support for the 
conservation of Thaimwphis sirialis infernalis (Blainville, 1835) and T. s. tetrataenia 
(Cope in Yarrow, 1875). The case involves the stability of usage of these names, and 
frequency of usage is the determining factor especially in the non-taxonomic 
literature (inasmuch as taxonomists are the guardians of nomenclatural communi- 
cation through all aspects of biology, not just among taxonomists). The usage of 
T. s. tetrataenia for the San Francisco garter snake in non-taxonomic as well as 
taxonomic literature in the past several decades is so extensive that replacement by 
the name infernalis would clearly be pervasively confusing throughout the broad 
spectrum of usage the name enjoys (paras. 5 and 6 of the application). A switch of the 
meaning of the name infernalis, currently used for the more widely distributed 
California red-sided garter snake, would serve no useful purpose other than 
rectification of a long-standing, unwitting and until now unknown error of identifi- 
cation. That error would be rectified by the proposed action of the present 
application, without disturbing established nomenclatural custom. I therefore 
strongly recommend approval of the proposals. 

Comments 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, 
119-120) 

(1) Nagy Szabolcs 

University of Agriculture. Institute of Animal Breeding. 
H-920U Mosonmagyarovar. Var u. 4. Hungary 

I have read the application and comments with great interest. 

As part of my job I give lectures to students on animal breeding, including 
domestication, and I am sure that the proposals for the use of names contained in the 
application will be very useful to me. I have found much confusion in the Hungarian 
literature, as elsewhere, in the use of Latin names for domestic animals and their 
ancestors. I will henceforth be following the use of names set out in the application. 

(2) Alvaro Mones 

Museo Nacional de Historia Natural. Casilla de Correo 399, 11000 Montevideo, 
Uruguay 

I completely agree with the proposals in this application. 

The only point on which I am a little doubtful is in the case of the guinea pig, Cavia 
aperea Erxleben, 1777. The systematics of caviids, and particularly of the genus Cavia 
Pallas, 1766, is in great need of revision. The name C. aperea is being applied to wild 
representatives with a very wide distribution, from northeastern Brazil to Uruguay 
and Argentina, although it is possible that different populations are not conspecific. 
As far as I know, it has not been demonstrated that C. aperea is the ancestor of the 
domestic form. C. porcellus (Linnaeus, 1758). The type locality of both forms is said 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 73 

to be Pemambuco, Brazil, but it is well known that this does not have the same 
meaning as in the second half of the 18th century since it then referred to a much 
larger area than the Brazilian state known today (that is, it included at least the states 
Paraiba, Pernambuco. Alagoas and Sergipe). It is very uncertain that the domestic 
form comes from this region and I do not know of any Indian tribe there that had or 
has domesticated guinea pigs. At the moment I am not sure that we have the 
necessary information to resolve the problem of the origin of the domestic guinea pig. 
On the other hand, I think that the usage of the names C. aperea and C porcellus for 
the wild and domestic forms of the guinea pig, as proposed in the application, is the 
best solution in our present understanding. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of lorisidae Gray, 1821 and galagidae 
Gray, 1825 (Mammalia, Primates) as the correct original spellings 

(Case 3004; see BZN 55: 165-168) 

D.W. Yalden 

School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester. 3.239 Stopford Building, 
Oxford Road. Manchester Ml 3 9PT, U.K. 

I write as Managing Editor of Mammal Review. 

I should like to express my support for this application. Although the correct 
derivation according to the Code of the family-group names lorisidae Gray, 1821 
and GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 (para. 3 of the application) has not been followed, the 
names as presented are indeed very familiar and well used throughout the zoological 
world. I note that deviations from grammatical correctness are frequently used to 
derive variant family names that would otherwise be homonyms. Reverting to the 
'grammatically correct' names here would serve no useful purpose. 



74 Bullelm of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

OPINION 1913 

Pila Roding, 1798 and Pomacea Perry, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
placed on the Official List, and ampullariidae Gray, 1824: confirmed 
as the nomenclaturally valid synonym of pilidae Preston, 1915 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Pila\ Pomacea; Ampullaria; 
Ampullahus; ampullariidae; pilidae; apple snails; agricultural pests. 

Ruling 

{ 1 ) It is hereby confirmed that the family-group name ampullariidae Gray, 1824 
is the nomenclaturally valid synonym of pilidae Preston, 1915. 

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

(a) Pila Roding, 1798 (gender: feminine) (senior objective synonym of 
Ampullaria Lamarck, 1 799), type species by subsequent designation by Dall 
(1904) Helix ampuUacea Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Pomacea Perry, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Pomacea maciilata Perry, 1810. 

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

(a) ampuUacea Linnaeus, 1758, as pubHshed in the binomen Helix ampuUacea 
(specific name of the type species of Pila Roding, 1798); 

{h) maculaia Perry, 1810. as published in the binomen Pomacea maculata 
(specific name of the type species of Pomacea Perry, 1810). 

(4) The name ampullariidae Gray. 1 824, type genus Ampullaria Lamarck, 1 799 
(a junior objective synonym of Pila Roding, 1798), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

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

(a) Ampullaria Lamarck, 1799 (a junior objective synonym of Pila Roding, 
1798); 

(b) Ampullarius de Montfort, 1810 (an unjustified emendation of Ampullaria 
Lamarck, 1799 and a junior objective synonym of Pila Roding, 1798); 

(6) The name pilidae Preston, 1915 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (a junior objective 
synonym of ampullariidae Gray, 1824 and invalid by the ruling given in (1) 
above). 

History of Case 2996 

An application to place Pila Roding, 1798 and Pomacea Perry, 1810 on the Official 
List as the valid names for, respectively. Old and New World genera of apple snails, 
and to confirm ampullariidae Gray, 1824 as the valid family name, was received 
from Dr Robert H. Cowie (Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Hawaii. U.S.A.) on 15 August 
1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 83-88 (June 1997). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 75 

It was noted on the voting paper that there had been much and persistent 
confusion in the hterature in the use of the family-group names ampullariidaf. Gray, 
1824 and pilidae Preston, 1915, and the generic names Pila Roding, 1798, AmpuUaria 
Lamarck, 1799, Pomacea Perry, 1810 and Ampullarius Montfort, 1810. As apple 
snails were becoming increasingly serious pests, particularly in south-east Asia, it was 
important to establish unambiguous names for the family and the Old and New 
World groups of species. Pila and Pomacea were the senior names for the Old and 
New World genera respectively, and ampullariidae was the senior name for the 
family; in each case the names had majority usage. 

The application was offered for voting in two parts. Vote (1) was the proposal to 
place the generic names Pila and Pomacea. together with their respective type species, 
on Official Lists, and to place the junior objective synonyms AmpuUaria and 
Ampullarius on the Official Index (proposals (2), (3) and (5) on BZN 54: 86). Vote (2) 
was the proposal to place ampullariidae on the Official List as the valid family- 
group name, and to place its junior objective synonym pilidae on the Official Index 
(proposals (1), (4) and (6) on BZN 54: 86). Since the application sought the placing 
on the relevant Official Lists of the oldest generic and family-group names a simple 
majority would suffice in each case. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 86. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Vote 1. Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers. Cocks, Cogger, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Stys 

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Schuster. 

Vote 2. Affirmative votes — 16: Bock. Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, 
Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, 
Papp, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — 4: Cogger, Dupuis, Patterson and Savage. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Dupuis commented: il est presomptueux de rejeter un nom du a Lamarck (1799) 
et confirme par lui en 1801 dans le chef-d'oeuvre classique de son Sysreme des 
animaux sans vertebres. II est singulier de vouloir lui preferer un nom generique 
public, sans diagnose et par un auteur obscur (P.P. Roding) dans un catalogue de 
vente ignore durant 150 ans. Puisqu'il faut, bien entendu, conserver ampullariidae, 
il serait contradictoire de supprimer AmpuUaria. La proposition que je rejette n'a pas 
d'autre fondement que FOpinion 96 laquelle, a mon avis, represente une faute comme 
toute Opinion qui adopte ou rejette en bloc un ouvrage alors que la Commission ne 
devrait s'occuper que de noms". 

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: 
ampullacea, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syslemci Naturae, Ed. 10. vol. 1. p. 771. 



76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56( 1 ) March, 1999 

AmpuUaria Lamarck. 1799, Mi-moires de la Societe d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. 1: 76. 

AMPULLARiiDAE Gray. 1824. Philosophical Magazine and Journal, 63(312): 276. 

Ampullariiis de Montfort, 1810, Conchyliologie syslematique. el classification methodique des 

coquilks. vol. 2, pp. 242 (fig.), 243 (text). 
maculala. Pomacea. Perry, 1810, Arcana: or the Museum of Natural History, pi. 1 1 and text. 
Pila Roding. 1798. Afu.feum Boltenianum. part 2, p. 145. 
PILIDAE Preston. 1915, The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mollusca, 

vol. 4 (Freshwater Gastropoda & Pelecypoda), p. 96. 
Pomacea Perry. 1810, Arcana: or the Museum of Natural History, pi. 11 and text. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Heli.x ampuHacea Linnaeus. 1758 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Pila Roding, 1798: 
DaU, W.H. 1904. Jounuil of Conchology, 11(2): 53. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 77 

OPINION 1914 

Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949, 
Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia 
Quenstedt, 1839, Parahelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteiithis Naef, 
1921 (Mollusca, Coleoidea): conserved, and the specific name of 
Belemnoteuthis (sic) montefiorei Buckman, 1880: conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cephalopoda; Coleoidea; Jurassic; Belemno- 
sepia; Belemnotheutis; Geopeltis; Geoteuthis: Jeletzkyteuthis; Loligosepia; Para- 
belopeltis; Paraplesioteuthis; Belemnoteuthis montefiorei. 

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) the generic names; 

(i) Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836; 
(ii) Atramentahus Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838; 

(b) the specific name belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, as published in the 
binomen Orthoceras belemnitoeides. 

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

(a) Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949 (gender; feminine), type species by original 
designation Belopeltis simplex Voltz, 1840; 

(b) Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843 (gender; feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Biilow-Trummer (1920) Loligo bollensis Schiibler in Zieten, 
1832; 

(c) Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990 (gender; feminine), type species by original 
designation Teudopsis agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835; 

(d) Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 (gender; feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Regteren Altena (1949) Loligo aalensis Schiibler in Zieten, 
1832; 

(e) Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921 (gender; feminine), type species by monotypy 
Geoteuthis flexuosa, Miinster, 1843; 

(0 Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (gender; feminine), type species by original 
designation and monotypy Geoteuthis sagittata Miinster, 1843; 

(g) Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842 (gender; feminine), type species by subse- 
quent monotypy by Pearce (1847) Belemnoteuthis (sic) antiqua Pearce, 
1847. 

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

(a) simplex Voltz, 1 840, as published in the binomen Belopeltis simplex (specific 
name of the type species of Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949); 

(h) bollensis Schiibler in Zieten. 1832, as published in the binomen Loligo 
bollensis (specific name of the type species of Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843); 



78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

(c) agassi:ii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, as published in the binomen 
Teudopsis agassizii (specific name of the type species of Jeleizkyieiiihis 
Doyle, 1990); 

(d) aalensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832, as published in the binomen Loligo 
aalensis (specific name of the type species of Loligosepia Quenstedt, 
1839); 

(e) fle.xiiosa Miinster, 1843, as published in the binomen Geoteuthis Jiexuosa 
Miinster, 1843 (specific name of the type species of Parabelopeltis Naef, 
1921); 

(f) sagittata Miinster, 1843, as published in the binomen Geoteuthis sagittata 
(specific name of the type species of Paraplesioteuihis Naef 1921); 

(g) montefiorei Buckman, 1880. as published in the binomen Belemnoteuthis 
montefiorei; 

(\i) atitiqua Pearce, 1847, as published in the binomen Beleimwieuthis (sic) 
anticpius [recte antiqua] (specific name of the type species of Belenmoiheuiis 
Pearce, 1842). 

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

(a) Belenmosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836, as suppressed in 

(l)(a)(i) above; 
(h) Atrametitarius Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838, as suppressed in 

(l)(a)(ii) above; 
(c) Belemnoteuthis Pearce, 1847 (unavailable as an incorrect subsequent 

spelling of Belemnotheuiis). 

(5) The name belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, as published in the binomen 
Orthoceras belemnitoeides and as suppressed in (l)(b) above, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

(6) The name belemnosepiidae Naef. 1921 is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group names in Zoology (invalid because the 
name of the type genus has been suppressed in (l)(a)(i) above). 

History of Case 2987 

An application for the conservation of six generic names for Jurassic coleoid cephalo- 
pods by the suppression of the unused name Belenmosepia Buckland & Agassiz in 
Buckland, 1 836. and the conservation of the specific name of Belemnoteuthis montefiorei 
Buckman, 1880 by the suppression of Orthoceras belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, was 
received from Dr T. Engeser (Institut jiir Palciontologie. Freie Universitdl Berlin. Berlin, 
Germany) and Prof D.T. Donovan {University College London, London. U.K.) on 19 
May 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 53: 253-260 (December 
1996). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support of the application from Dr Peter Doyle {University of 
Greenwich. Chatham Maritime. Kent, U.K.) and from Dr R.A. Hewitt {Leigh-on-Sea, 
Essex. U.K.) were published in BZN 54: 104 (June 1997). 

A further comment in support from Dr W. Riegraf {Miinster, Germany) was 
published in BZN 54: 184-185 (September 1997). Dr Riegraf also proposed (BZN 54: 
185) that the name Atratnentarius Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838 be 
suppressed to conserve Belemnotheuiis Pearce, 1842, and that the original spelling of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56( 1 ) March 1999 79 

Belemnotheutis, which had recently been adopted by Donovan & Crane (1992) and 
Riegraf (1995), be placed on the Official List. 

In a reply published in BZN 55: 29 (March 1998). the authors of the application 
supported Riegrafs additional proposals. 

The case was offered for voting in two parts. Vote ( 1 ) related to conservation of the 
six generic names in use by the suppression of Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in 
Buckland. 1836, conservation of the specific name of Belenmoteuihis (sic) montefiorei 
Buckman, 1880 by suppression of Orthoceras beknmitoeides Buckland, 1830, and 
suppression oi Atramentarius (proposals on BZN 53: 257-258 and items (1) and (4)(a) 
on BZN 54: 185). Vote (2) related to the placement oi Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, 
and the name of its type species Belemnoteuthis (sic) antiqua Pearce, 1 847, on Official 
Lists (items (2), (3) and (4)(b) on BZN 54: 185). 

Decision of the Comniission 

On 1 September 1 998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 257-258 and 54: 185. At the close of the voting 
period on 1 December 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Vote 1. Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis (part), 
Eschmeyer, Kabata. Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelh, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — 1: Bouchet. 

Vote 2. Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, 
Kabata. Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, 
Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys (part) 

Negative votes — 1: Bouchet. 

Dupuis and Minelli abstained. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented: 'My reasons for voting against the application are threefold. 
( 1 ) While I sympathize with the intent of the authors to stabilize the nomenclature 
and usage of a number of long-established names, the authors themselves noted 
(para. 6 of the application) "the limited use of these names in recent years'. Moreover, 
the name Jeletzkyteiithis Doyle, 1 990 had only been established for six years when the 
application was published and, in my view, hardly qualifies for conservation. (2) The 
Commission is asked to treat Belemnoteuthis as an incorrect subsequent spelling of 
Belemnotheutis when etymology, usage and consistency in formation of names ending 
in -teuthis all point to the opposite. (3) Finally, the Commission is asked to reject 
the name Orthoceras belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830 which 'has not been used for 
very many years' (but the application does not provide information on its actual 
usage), and to conserve the name Belemnoteuthis montefiorei Buckman, 1880 (and 
the application refers to 1 1 publications by nine authors to document its usage). 
I consider that the application contains insufficient information for an informed vote 
on this proposed suppression'. Dupuis voted for proposals (l)(a)-(b), (4), (5) and (6) 
on BZN 53: 257-258, but abstained from proposals (2) and (3) and also the proposals 
on BZN 54: 185. Minelli abstained from proposals (2), (3) and (4) on BZN 54: 185. 
Stys voted against proposal (4)(b) on BZN 54: 185. 



80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

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: 

aalensis. Loligo. Schiibler, 1832, in Zieten. C.H. von. Die Versleineningen Wiirttembergs, 

Expedilum ties IVerkes 'Unsere Zeit', pail 5, p. 34. 
agassi:ii, Teudopsis, Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, Memoires de la Snciele Linneenne de 

Normandie. 5: 72. 
antiqua. Bekmnoteulhis (sic). Pearce, 1847, London Geological Journal. 2: pis. 15-16. 
Atramenlarius Buckland & Agassiz. 1838, in Buckland, W., Geologic und Mineralogie in 

Bezichung zur natiirlichcn Theologic. vol. 2, pi. 44", fig. 7, footnote. 
hclemniloeides. Orlhoccras, Buckland. 1830, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 8: 23. 
Belenmosepia Buckland & Agassiz, 1 836, //; Buckland, W., Neues Jahrhuch fiir Mineralogie, 

Geognosie. Geologic und Petrefaktenkunde. 1836: 39. 
BELEMNOSEPUDAE Naef, 1921, Fauiia und Flora des Golfes von Neapel. 35: 47. 
Betenmoleuthis Pearce, 1847, London Geological Journal. 2: pis. 15-16. 
Belenmotheulis Pearce, 1842. Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 3: 593. 
bollensis. Loligo. Schiibler, 1832, in Zieten, C.H. von. Die Versteinerungen Wiirttembergs. 

E.xpedilum des Werkes 'Unsere Zeit'. part 5, p. 34. 
flexuosa. Geoleuthis. Miinster, 1843, in Miinster, G. Graf zu, Meyer, H.V, & Wagner, R. 

(Eds.), Beitrdge zur Petrefacten-Kunde .... p. 75. 
Geopellis Regteren Altena, 1949, Archives du Musee Teyler, (3)10: 56. 
Geoteulhis Miinster, 1843, in Miinster, G. Graf zu, Meyer, H.V. & Wagner, R. (Eds.), Beitrdge 

zur Petrefacten-Kunde .... p. 68. 
Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Palaeontology. 33: 198. 
Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839, Neues Jahrhuch fiir Mineralogie. Geognosie. Geologic und 

Petrefaktenkunde. 1839: 163. 
montefiorei, Belemnoleuthis (sic), Buckman, 1880, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History 

and Antiquarian Field Club, 3: 141. 
Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel. 22; 534. 
Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1 92 1 , Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 22: 534. 
sagitlala, Geoteuthis, Miinster, 1843, in Miinster, G. Graf zu, Meyer, H.V. & Wagner, R. 

(Eds.), Beitrdge zur Petrefacten-Kunde .... p. 72. 
simplex, Belopeltis, Voltz, 1840, Memoires de la Societe du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de 

Strasbourg, 3: 23. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Loligo bollensis Schiibler in Zieten. 1832 
as the type species of the nominal genus Geoteuthis Miinster. 1843: 

Biilow-Trununer, E. von. 1920. Fossilium Catalogus 1: Anirnatia. part 11 (Cephalopoda 
dibranchiata), p. 252. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Loligo aalensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1 832 
as the type species of the nominal genus Loligosepia Quenstedt. 1839: 

Regteren Altena, CO. van. 1949. Archives du Musee Teyler. (3)10: 58. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Belemnoteuthis (sic) antiqua Pearce, 
1847 as the type species of the nominal genus Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842: 
Pearce, J.C. 1847. London Geological Journal. 2: pis. 15-16. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 81 

OPINION 1915 

Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): Suchonella 
typica Spizharsky, 1939 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Ostracoda; suchonelloidea; 
Permian; Triassic; Suchonella: Suchonella typica. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 are hereby set aside and Suchonella typica 
Spizharsky, 1939 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 (gender: feminine), type species by des- 
ignation under the plenary powers in ( 1 ) above Suchonella typica Spizharsky, 
1939, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name typica Spizharsky, 1939, as published in the binomen Suchonella 
typica (specific name of the type species of Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2954 

An application for the designation of Suchonella typica Spizharsky. 1939 as the 
type species of Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 was received from Dr LG. Sohn (U.S. 
Geological Survey, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington. D.C., U.S.A.) and Dr lya L Molostovskaya (NJJ Geologii pri 
Saratovskom Gos. University. Saratov, Russia) on 16 September 1994. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 54: 152-154 (September 1997). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 153. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis. 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster 

Negative votes — 1 : Stys. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell 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: 
Suchonella Spizharsky. 1937. Trudy Tseniral'iwgo Nauchno-Issledoralel'skogo Geologo- 

Razvedochnogo Instiluta [Transactions of the Central Geological Prospecting Institute], 97: 

159. [In Russian. English summary]. 
Suchonella, lypica. Spizharsky, 1939, in Likharev, B. (Ed.), Atlas rukovodyashchikh form 

iskopaemykh faun SSSR [The atlas of the leading forms of the fossil fauna USSR], vol. 6 

(Permskaya Sistema. [Permian]), p. 194. pi. 46. fig. 6. 



82 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

OPINION 1916 

BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): spelling 
emended to brachypterainae, so removing the homonymy with 
BRACHYPTERINAE EHchson, [18451 (Insecta, Coleoptera); 
KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846]: given precedence over 
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson 



Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Plecoptera; beetles; stoneflies; 
Kateretes; Brcichvptenis; Brach\ptera\ kateretidae; brachypterinae; brachy- 

PTERAINAE. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name 
Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (Plecoptera) is brachyptera-; 

(b) the family-group name kateretidae Erichson in Agassiz, [1846] and other 
family-group names based on Kateretes Herbst. 1793 are given precedence 
over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] and other family-group names 
based on Brachypterus Kugelann. 1794 (Coleoptera). 

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

(a) Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (gender; feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Prison (1929) Nemoura irifasciata Pictet, 1832 (Plecoptera); 

(b) Kateretes Herbst, 1793 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Hope (1840) Dermestes pedicularius Linnaeus, 1758 
(Coleoptera); 

(c) Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 (gender; masculine), type species by subse- 
quent designation by Thomson (1859) Dermestes urticae Fabricius, 1792 
(Coleoptera). 

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

(a) trifasciata Pictet, 1832, as published in the binomen Nemoura irifasciata 
(specific name of the type species of Brachyptera Newport, 1848) 
(Plecoptera); 

(b) pedicularius Linaeus, 1 758, as published in the binomen Dermestes 
pedicularius (specific name of the type species of Kateretes Herbst, 1793) 
(Coleoptera); 

(c) urticae Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Dermestes urticae 
(specific name of the type species of Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794) 
(Coleoptera). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology; 

(a) brachypterainae Zwick, 1973 (type genus Brachyptera Newport, 1848), 
spelling emended by the ruling in (l)(a) above (Plecoptera); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56( 1 ) March 1999 83 

(b) KATERETiDAE Erichson in Agassiz. [1846] (type genus Katereies Herbst, 
1793) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Kateretes are to be given precedence over brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] 
(type genus Brachyptenis Kugelann. 1794) and other family-group names 
based on Brachyptenis whenever they are considered to be synonyms 
(Coleoptera); 

(c) BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] (type genus Brachyptenis Kugelann, 
1 794), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Brachyptenis are not to be given priority over kateretidae Erichson in 
Agassiz, [1846] (type genus Kateretes Herbst, 1793) and other family-group 
names based on Kateretes whenever they are considered to be synonyms 
(Coleoptera). 

(5) The name brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (spelling emended to 
brachypterainae by the ruling in (l)(a) above) (Plecoptera). 

History of Case 2865 

The original application, received from Prof P.A. Audisio & Prof R. Fochetti 
(Universita degli Stiidi di Roma La Sapienza', Rome. Italy) and Prof P. Zwick 
(Lwmologische Flussstation Schlitz des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Linmologie, Schlitz. 
Germany) on 26 October 1992 and published in BZN 51: 309-311 (December 1994), 
sought to remove the homonymy between the coleopteran and plecopteran family- 
group names brachypterinae Erichson. [1845] and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 
(based on Brachyptenis Kugelann, 1794 and Brachyptera Newport, 1848 respect- 
ively). It was proposed that Zwick's family-group name should be emended to 
brachypterainae. 

In BZN 52: 179-181 (June 1995) Prof Audisio supplemented the original proposals 
with one to give the coleopteran name kateretidae (then cited with the authorship 
and date of 'Ganglbauer, 1899', but see below) precedence over brachypterinae 
Erichson on the grounds that kateretidae had had greater usage for the family- 
group taxon that includes both Kateretes Herbst, 1793 and Brachyptenis. Prof 
Audisio also noted that Thomson's (1859) designation of Dermestes urticae 
Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Brachyptenis was earlier than that by Parsons 
(1943) cited in para. 1 of the original application. 

In BZN 52: 335-336 (December 1995) Prof Alfred F. Newton (The Field Museum, 
Chicago, Illinois. U.S.A.) opposed the additional proposal for priority reasons, 
pointing out that 'the name brachypterinae Erichson has continued to be used 
occasionally for this group (see, for example. Hatch, 1961). although the name 
cateretinae or kateretinae has been used much more commonly during this period" 
[more than 50 years]. He noted that, in accordance with strict priority, the name 
brachypterinae Erichson had been adopted in three recent publications (Lawrence 
& Britton, 1994; Pakaluk, Slipiriski & Lawrence, 1994; Lawrence & Newton, 1995). 

A comment from Dr R.G. Booth (International Institute of Entomology, do The 
Natural History Museum, London. U.K.), published in BZN 53: 47 (March 1996), 
followed that of Prof Newton in favouring the adoption of brachypterinae Erichson 
as the valid name. Dr Booth also pointed out that the unused family-group name 
CERCIDAE Chenu & Desmarest, 1851 (based on Cercus Latreille, 1796, a junior 



84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

synonym of Kateretes) was earlier than kateretidae (then attributed to Ganglbauer, 
1899). 

It was noted on the voting paper that in comments on the forthcoming 4th Edition 
of the Code, Prof Newton (in litt.. May 1996) had made it clear that he had changed 
his view on priority in family-group names. He stated that he would have preferred 
to follow the proposed new provisions, which facilitate conservation of later names 
in current use, rather than resurrect earlier names. He again cited Lawrence & 
Newton (1995), in which names in use had been changed for priority reasons, and 
also Newton & Thayer (1992). He noted: 'Although most of the 1 16 name changes in 
Coleoptera family-group names required by the current Code have already been 
implemented by me or others, I would certainly have preferred not to make those that 
could have been avoided if the proposed new rules had been in effect. I do not think 
now that our strict adherence to current rules [i.e. strict priority] in these cases 
contributed anything useful to the long-term stability of these names. In fact the 
reverse is probably true: future workers must deal with two sets of names that have 
been used extensively in the literature, and the "corrected" name is still subject to 
change as a result of further nomenclatural research or taxonomic changes'. 

The application was sent for voting on 1 December 1997. Proposals for the 
removal of the homonymy between the coleopteran and plecopteran family-group 
names brachypterinae (published in BZN 51: 310), and for the precedence of the 
name kateretidae over brachypterinae Erichson (published in BZN 52: 180) were 
offered separately for voting. 

In addition it was proposed that kateretidae (then attributed to Ganglbauer, 
1899) should be given precedence over the unused name cercidae Chenu & 
Desmarest, 1851 in order to allow it to remain in valid use for a family or subfamily 
regardless of its precedence in relation to brachypterinae Erichson, [1845]. 

The Commission approved the proposal to remove the homonymy between 
brachypterinae Erichson, [1845] (Coleoptera) and brachypterinae Zwick, 1973 
(Plecoptera). The proposal for the name kateretidae to take precedence over 
brachypterinae Erichson received a majority (14 votes in favour, eight votes 
against) but failed to reach the required two-thirds majority for approval. 

Two Commissioners commented on their voting papers. In relation to the 
proposed precedence of kateretidae over brachypterinae Erichson, Brothers 
noted: 'Had the proposals in BZN 52: 180 not been pre-empted by the adoption of 
priority in the general works dealing with coleopteran family-group names cited by 
Prof Newton, their approval would have been appropriate. However, these works are 
likely to be used for clarification, and approval of the relevant proposals now would 
be likely to cause even greater confusion'. In relation to the proposed precedence of 
kateretidae over cercidae Chenu & Desmarest, 1851, Kerzhner commented: 'A 
Commission ruling on this proposal is unnecessary. Two works have been over- 
looked by the applicants and commentators on this case. Agassiz ([1846], p. 30) cited 
both the generic name 'Cateretes Herbst ...' and, in the type face used for 
suprageneric names, 'cateretes ... Cateretes. Nitidulariae'. The generic name is given 
here as valid and is clearly indicated as the basis of the family-group name, so the 
latter is available from this work. The unusual form of the family-group name 
(cateretes, the nominative plural of the generic name) was commonly used in other 
names by authors of that period and does not contravene the Code. The title page of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 85 

the work states (translation from Latin) 'reviewed and numerous names added by 
Guil. F. Erichson", and it is clear that Erichson was responsible for taxonomic 
decisions in this work and hence the authorship of kateretidae should be credited to 
Erichson in Agassiz ([1846]). Agassiz ([1847], p. 68) gave essentially the same 
information as in [1846] but used cateretae as the spelling of the family-group name. 
The type species o( Kaiereles (as Cateretes), Dermestes pedicukirius Linnaeus, 1758, 
was designated by Hope (1840, p. 155)'. 

Under the Bylaws the proposal to conserve the name kateretidae by giving it 
precedence over brachypterinae Erichson required a revote. Completion of the 
voting on this proposal would allow an Opinion to be published combined with 
that on the removal of the homonymy between brachypterinae Erichson and 
brachypterinae Zwick. The name kateretidae was attributed to Erichson in 
Agassiz ([1846]), in place of Ganglbauer (1899) as previously cited, and the proposal 
to give kateretidae precedence over cercidae Chenu & Desmarest, 1851, approved 
by the Commissioners in the first vote, was omitted as it was not necessary. 

Additional references 

Agassiz, L. [1846]. Nomeiiclalor zoologicus, fasc. 11 (Nomina systematica generum Coleop- 

terorum tarn viventium quam fossilium). xii, 170 pp. Soloduri. 
Agassiz, L. [1847]. Nomendaloris zoohigici index universalis, x, 1135 pp. Soloduri. (The dates 

of Agassiz's works were set out in pp. x-xi, 1 of Nye, I.W.B. (Ed.). 1979. The generic 

names of mollis of I he world, vol. 3). 
Hope, F.W. 1840. The coleopterist's manual, part 3. 191 pp. Bridgewater, London. 
Newton, A.F. Jr. & Tliayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in 

Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana (Zoology, n.s.)67: 1-92. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1997 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals to remove the homonymy between the coleopteran and plecopteran 
family-group names brachypterinae (published in BZN 51: 310). At the close of the 
voting period on I March 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus. Lehtinen, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Stys, Song 

Negative votes — 2: Mahnert and Savage. 

No votes were received from Dupuis and Schuster. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

On 1 December 1997 the Commissioners had also been asked to give the name 
kateretidae precedence over brachypterinae Erichson (published in BZN 52: 180); 
however, this proposal did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority. On 
1 September 1998 they were invited to revote on a revised version of this proposal. 
At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 16: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, 
Savage, Schuster 

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Brothers and Stys. 

No votes were received frorii Dupuis, Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 



86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

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: 

Brachyplera Newport. 1848, Proceedings of the Limiean Society. London, 1: 388. 
BRACHYPTERAINAE Zwick, 1973, Diis Tieneich, 94: 308 (incorrectly spelled as brachy- 

pterinae). 
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845], Nalurgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Abt. 1 

(Coleoptera), vol. 3, p. 125. 
BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973, Das Tierreich. 94: 308 (an incorrect original spelling of 

BRACHYPTERAINAE). 

Brachyptcriis Kugelann, 1794. Netiestes Magazin fiir Liehhaher der Enlomologie. 1(5): 560. 
Katereles Herbst. 1793, Natiirsystem aller hekannlcn in- und ausldndischen Insecten . . ., p. 11. 
KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846], Nomenclalor zoologiciis. fasc. 11. p. 30. 
pedicularius, Dermestes. Linnaeus, 1758, Syslema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 357. 
trifasciata, Nemoura, Pictet, 1832, Annates des Sciences Natiirelles. 26; 379. 
urticae, Dermestes, Fabricius. 1792, Entomologia Systematica, vol. 1, part 1, p. 235. 

The following is the reference for the designation o{ Nemoura trifasciata Pictet, 1832 as the 
type species of Brachyptera Newport, 1 848: 
Prison, T.H. 1929. Bulletin of the Illinois Stale Natural History Survey, 18: 373. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Dermestes pedicularius Linnaeus, 1758 
as the type species of Kateretes Herbst. 1793: 
Hope, F.W. 1840. The coleopterist's manual, part 3, p. 155. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Dermestes urticae Fabricius, 1792 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794: 
Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera synoptiskt hearbetade, vol. 1, p. 67. 






Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 87 

OPINION 1917 

Papilio camillus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Cyrestis camillus) and 
Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific 
names conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; butterflies; nymphalidae; 
lycaenidae; Azanus isis; Cyrestis camillus; Limenitis reducta. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed: 

(a) camillus Cramer. [1780]. as published in the binomen Papilio camillus. and 
all uses of that name prior to the publication of Papilio camillus Fabricius, 
1 78 1 . for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) sibilla Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio sibilla, for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name camillus Fabricius. 1781, as published in the binomen Papilio 
camillus, is hereby placed on the Olficial List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) To the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for reducta 
Staudinger. 1901, as published in the trinomen Limenitis Camilla reducta, is 
hereby added a record of the present ruling. 

(4) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the specific 
name of Papilio Camilla Linnaeus is hereby emended to record the date of 
publication as 1764 and to record that it is the type species of Ladoga Moore, 
[1898]. 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Inde.\ of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) camillus Cramer, [1780], as published in the binomen Papilio camillus and 
as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) sibilla Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio sibilla and as 
suppressed in {l)(b) above. 

History of Case 3002 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Papilio camillus 
Fabricius, 1781 and Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 was received from Dr Torben 
B. Larsen {London, U.K.) on 10 November 1995. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 54: 155-158 (September 1997). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that support for the application had been received 
from Mr Philip Ackery and from Mr Jim Reynolds, both of The Natural History 
Museum. London, U.K. Mr Ackery had written: T think there will be wide agreement 
that this is the sensible course in both instances: Cyrestis camillus (Fabricius, 1781) 
and Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 should be conserved". 

The name Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 was placed on the Official List in 
Opinion 562 (April 1959). However, the senior synonym Papilio sibilla Linnaeus, 



gg Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

1767 was not then suppressed because of a mistaken interpretation of the history of 
this name (see BZN 54: 156-157). The name Papilio Camilla Linnaeus, 1764 was 
placed on the Official List in the same Opinion with the date of publication 
incorrectly cited as '1763'. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 1 57. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell 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, and to the addition and emendation to the entries on the Official List for 
Limcnilis redmtci Staudinger, 1901 and Papilio Camilla Linaeus, 1764 respectively, by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
camillus. Papilio. Cramer, [1780], De iiitlandsche KapelUm voorkomende in de drie Waereld- 

dcelen Asia, Africa en America, vol. 4, part 25. p. 20. 
Camillas. Papilio. Fabricius, 1781, Species Insecloriim .... vol. 2, p. 11. 
Camilla. Papilio. Linnaeus, 1764, Museum S.ae R.ae M.lis Ludovicae Ulricae .... part 1 

(Insecta), p. 304. 
rediicla. Limcnilis Camilla. Staudinger, 1901, in Staudinger. O. & Rebel, H.. Catalog der 

Lepidopleren des Palaearclisclwn Faimengehietes. Ed. 3, Theil 1 (Fami!. Papilionidae — 

Hepialidae), p. 22. 
sibilla. Papilio. Linnaeus, 1767, Syslema Nalurae. Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 781. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 89 

OPINION 1918 

MELOiDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 and NEMOGNATfflNAE Castelnau, 1840 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over horiidae Latreille, 1802 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; blister beetles; meloidae; 
nemognathinae; horiidae; zonitidinae. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group names 
meloidae Gyllenhal, 1810 and other family-group names based on Meloe 
Linnaeus, 1758 and nemognathinae Castelnau, 1840 and other family-group 
names based on Nemognaiha Illiger, 1807 are to be given precedence over 
HORIIDAE Latreille, 1802 and other family-group names based on Horia 
Fabricius, 1787 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. 

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

(a) Meloe Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Meloe proscarabaeus Linnaeus. 1758; 

(b) Nemognatha Illiger, 1807 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Zonitis vittata Fabricius, 1801; 

(c) Horia Fabricius, 1787 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Betrem (1929) Horia fahrieiana Betrem, 1929; 

(d) Zonitis Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Selander (1987) Zonitis flava Fabricius, 1775. 

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

(a) proscarabaeus Linnaeus. 1758, as published in the binomen Meloe 
proscarabaeus (specific name of the type species of Meloe Linnaeus, 1758); 

(b) vittata Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Zonitis vittata (specific 
name of the type species of Nemognatha Illiger, 1807); 

(c) fabriciana Betrem, 1929, as published in the binomen Horia fabriciana 
(specific name of the type species of Horia Fabricius, 1787); 

(d) flava Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Zonitis flava (specific 
name of the type species of Zonitis Fabricius, 1775). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Ofiicial List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology; 

(a) MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 (type genus Meloe Linnaeus, 1758), with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Meloe are to 
be given precedence over horiidae Latreille, 1 802 and other family-group 
names based on Horia Fabricius, 1 787 whenever they are considered to be 
synonyms; 

(b) nemognathinae Castelnau, 1840 (type genus Nemognatha Illiger, 1807), 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Nemognatha are to be given precedence over horiidae Latreille, 1802 and 
other family-group names based on Horia Fabricius, 1787 whenever they 
are considered to be synonyms; 



90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

(c) HORiiDAE Latreille, 1802 (type genus Horia Fabricius, 1787), with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Horia are not 
to be given priority over meloidae Gyllenhal, 1810 and other family-group 
names based on Meloe Linnaeus, 1 758 or nemognathinae Castelnau, 1 840 
and other family-group names based on Nemognathu Illiger, 1 807 whenever 
they are considered to be synonyms; 

(d) ZONITIDINAE Mulsant, 1857 (type genus Zuniiis Fabricius, 1775) (correct 
original spelling of zonitinae). 

(5) The name zonitinae Mulsant, 1857 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (incorrect original 
spelling of zonitidinae). 

History of Case 2924 

An application for the family-group names meloidae Gyllenhal, 181() and 
nemognathinae Castelnau, 1840 to be given precedence over horiidae Latreille, 
1802 was received from Prof M. A. Bologna (Universita degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome, 
Italy) and Dr J.D. Pinto (Urmersity of California. Riverside, California, U.S.A.) on 
4 January 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 226-230 
(December 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote 
on the proposals published in BZN 54: 228-229. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Bouchet (part). Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet voted for proposals (2), (3), (4)(d) and (5) but against proposals (1) and 
(4)(a)-(c). He considered that priority should apply in this case. 

Original references 

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

fabriciana, Horia. Betrem. 1929. Tijdschrift voor Eiuomologie. 72: xxvii. 
flava. Zonilis. Fabricius. 1775. Systeimi Enloniologiue ..., p. 127. 
Horia Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Imeclonim. part 1, p. 164. 
HORliDAE Latreille. 1802. Histoire naiurelle. generate et particuliere des crustaces et des insectes 

.... vol. 3, p. 182. 
Meloe Linnaeus. 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10. vol. 1. p. 419. 
MF.LOiDAE Gyllenhal. 1810. Inset ta Siiecica descripla. Classis I. Coleoplera sive Eleutherata. 

Pars II. p. 481. 
Nemognatha Illiger, 1807, Magazin fiir Insektenl<unde. vol. 6. p. 333. 
NEMOGNATHINAE Castelnau, 1840. Histoire naturelle des animau.x arlicules, part 2. p. 280. 
proscarabaeus. Meloe. Linnaeus. 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 430. 
vittata, Zonitis, Fabricius. 1801. Systema Eleutheralorum. vol. 2, p. 24. 
ZONITIDINAE Mulsant. 1857. Histoire naiurelle des Coleopteres de France. Vesicants, p. 164 

(incorrectly spelled as zonitinae). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 91 

ZONITINAE Mulsant. 1857, Hisioire nalurelle des Coleopleres de France. Vesicants, p. 164 (an 

incorrect original spelling of zonitidinae). 
Zoniiis Fabricius, 1775, Syslema Eniomologiae .... p. 126. 

The following is the reference for the designation oi Meloe proscarahaeus Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Meloe Linnaeus, 1758: 

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations generates sur I'ordre naturel des aninum.x composant les 
classes des crustaces. des arachnides. et des insectes. p. 419. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Horia Jabriciana Betrem, 1929 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Horia Fabricius, 1787: 

Betrem, J.C. 1929. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie. IT. xxvii. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Zonitis flora Fabricius. 1775 as the type 
species of the nominal genus Zoniiis Fabricius, 1775: 

Selander, R.B. 1987. Deutsche Enlomologische Zeitschrift. (n.s.)34: 341. 



92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

OPINION 1919 

Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given precedence 
over Myrnia Billberg, 1820 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; formicidae; ants; Polyrhachis; 
Myrnia. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the generic name Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 is hereby 
given precedence over Myrma Billberg, 1820 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) Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Formica hihamata Drury, 1773, with the endorsement that it is 
to be given precedence over the name Myrma Billberg, 1820 whenever the 
two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Myrma Billberg, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Wheeler (1911) Formica miliiaris Fabricius, 1781, with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Polyrhachis 
Smith, 1857 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) bihamata Drury, 1773, as published in the binomen Formica hihamata 
(specific name of the type species of Polyrhachis Smith, 1857); 

(h) militaris Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Formica miliiaris 
(specific name of the type species of Myrma Billberg, 1820). 

History of Case 3009 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 
by giving it precedence over Myrma Billberg, 1 820 was received from Dr Wolfgang 
H.O. Dorow (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Dr 
Rudolf J. Kohout (Queensland Museum, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) and 
Dr Robert W. Taylor {Australian National Insect Collection. CSIRO, Canberra, 
Australia) on 12 December 1995. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 54: 236-241 (December 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 238-239. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, 
Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert. Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli. Nielsen, Nye, 
Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 93 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Kerzhner, FCraus and Song. 

Heppeii 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: 

bihamala. Formica, Drury, 1 773, Illustralions ofnalural history: wherein are exhibited ...figures 

of exotic insects, vol 2. p. 73, index. 
mililaris, Formica. Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum .... vol. 1, p. 493. 
Myrma Billberg, 1820, Emimeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. p. 104. 
Polyrhachis Smith. 1857, Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoologv, 2: 58. 

The following is the reference for the designation oi Formica militaris Fabricius, 1781 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Myrma Billberg, 1820: 
Wheeler, W.M. 1911. Science, (n.s.)33: 859. 



94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

OPINION 1920 

Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura): Rana fasciata Smith, 
1849 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphibia; Anura; ranidae; frogs; Strongylo- 
pus; Strongylopus fasciaiiis; Strongylopus grayii; Southern Africa; East Africa. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 are hereby set aside and Rana fasciata 
Smith, 1849 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Strotigylopus Tschudi, 1838 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Rana fasciata Smith, 1849, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) To the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name 
fasciata Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata and as defined 
by the lectotype (specimen no. BMNH 58.11.25.127 in the collections of the 
Natural History Museum, London) designated in Opinion 713 (November 
1964), is hereby added the endorsement that it is the specific name of the type 
species of Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838. 

History of Case 2361 

An application for the designation of a type species for Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 
was first received from Prof Alain Dubois (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 
Paris. France) on 10 September 1980. After correspondence over a number of years 
the case for the designation of Rana fasciata Smith, 1849 as the type species was 
published in BZN 54: 162-166 (September 1997). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that support for the application had been received 
from Prof J. L. Poynton {The Natural History Museum. London. U.K.; formerly of 
University of Natal. Pietermaritzhurg. South Africa). The case was also supported by 
Dr Barry Clarke {The Natural History Museum. London. U.K.). 

Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 (perhaps a synonym of Strongylopus grayii (Smith, 
1849)) and all uses of the name Rana fasciata prior to that by Smith (1849) were 
suppressed for both priority and homonymy in Opinion 713 (November 1964). At 
that time Strongylopus Tschudi. 1838 was regarded as a junior synonym of Rana 
Linnaeus, 1758 and a valid name for the type species of Strongylopus was not then 
considered. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 164. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 95 

Negative votes — 1 : Stys. 

No votes vk-ere received from Lehtinen. Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the name Strongyhpus Tschudi. 1 838 placed on 
the Official List, and to the endorsement for Rami fcisciula Smith, 1849 on the Official List, by 
the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

fii.sciatii. Rami. Smith. 1849, Ilhislralions of the zoology of South Africa. Reprilia, pi. 78, text. 
Strongyhpus Tschudi, 1 838, Memoires tic la Societe dcs Sciences Nalurelles de Neuchcilel, 2: 38, 
78-79. (Issued in the serial in [1839] but published as a separate in 1838). 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Rami fasciata 
Smith, 1849: 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1964. Opinion 713. BZN 21: 352. 



96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

OPINION 1921 

PETROPEDETINAE NoWc, 1931, CACOSTERNINAE Noblc, 1931 and 

PHRYNOBATRACHiNAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura): given 
precedence over hemimantidae Hoffmann, 1878, and 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE: not given precedence over petropedetinae 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphibia; Anura; ranidae; frogs; hemi- 
mantidae; PHRYNOBATRACHINAE; PETROPEDETINAE; CACOSTERNINAE; Plirynobatrachus; 
Pelropedeles; Cacosternum; Hemimantis; Africa. 



Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name 
PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 and other family-group names based on Pelro- 
pedeles Reichenow, 1874, cacosterninae Noble, 1931 and other family-group 
names based on Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887, and phrynobatrachinae 
Laurent, 1941 and other family-group names based on Phrynobatrachus 
Giinther, 1862, are given precedence over hemimantidae Hotfmann, 1878 and 
other family-group names based on Hemimanlis Peters, 1863. 

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

(a) Pelropedeles Reichenow, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Pelropedeles cameronensis Reichenow, 1874; 

(b) Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Cacosternum naniim Boulenger, 1887; 

(c) Phrynobatrachus Giinther, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Phrynobatrachus naialensis Giinther, 1862 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Slenorhynchus naialensis A. Smith, 1849); 

{d) Hemimanlis Peters, 1863 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Hemimanlis cakaraius Peters, 1863. 

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

(a) cameronensis Reichenow, 1874, as published in the binomen Pelropedeles 
cameronensis (specific name of the type species of Pelropedeles Reichenow, 
1874); 

(b) nanum Boulenger, 1887, as published in the binomen Cacoslernum nanum 
(specific name of the type species of Cacoslernum Boulenger, 1887); 

(c) naialensis A. Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Slenorhynchus 
naialensis (senior subjective synonym of Phrynobatrachus naialensis 
Gunther, 1862, the type species of Phrynobatrachus Giinther, 1862); 

(d) calcaratus Peters, 1863, as published in the binomen Hemimanlis cakaraius 
(specific name of the type species of Hemimantis Peters, 1863). 

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

(a) PETROPEDETINAE Noblc, 1931 (type genus Pelropedeles Reichenow, 1874) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 






Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 97 

Petropedetes are to be given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffmann, 
1878 (type genus Heinimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names 
based on Hemimantis and (by the first reviser action of Dubois, 1982) over 
CACOSTERNINAE Noblc, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) 
and other family-group names based on Cacosternum whenever they are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(b) CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Cacosternum are to be given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffmann, 
1878 (type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names 
based on Hemimantis but are not to be given priority over petropedetinae 
Noble. 1931 (type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) and other family- 
group names based on Petropedetes whenever they are considered to be 
synonyms; 

(c) phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 (type genus Phrynobatrachus Guntber. 
1862) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Phrynobatrachus are to be given precedence over hemimantidae Hoffmann, 
1878 (type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names 
based on Hemimantis whenever they are considered to be synonyms: 

(d) hemimantidae Hoffmann, 1878 (type genus Hemittiantis Peters, 1863) with 
the endoresement that it and other family-group names based on Hemi- 
mantis are not to be given priority over petropedetinae Noble, 1931 (type 
genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) and other family-group names based 
on Petropedetes, cacosterninae Noble, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum 
Boulenger, 1887) and other family-group names based on Cacosternum, 
and phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 (type genus Phrynobatrachus 
Gunther, 1862) and other family-group names based on Phrynobatrachus 
whenever they are considered to be synonyms. 

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

(a) Stenorhynchus A. Smith, 1849 (a junior homonym of Stenorhynchus 
Hemrich, 1820); 

(b) Leptoparius Peters, 1863 (a junior objective synonym of Stenorhynclius 
A. Smith, 1849). 

History of Case 2362 

An application for the conservation of the family-group name phrynobatra- 
chinae Laurent, 1941 by giving it precedence over hemimantidae Hoffmann, 1878, 
petropedetinae Noble, 1931 and cacosterninae Noble, 1931 was received from 
Prof Alain Dubois (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. France). After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 240-246 (September 1994). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support of the application from Prof J. C. Poynton (The Nutm-al 
History Museum. London. U.K.; formerly of University of Natal. Pietermaritzburg. 
South Africa) was published in BZN 52: 269-270 (September 1995). 

A comment from Dr Darrel R. Frost (American Museum of Natural History, New 
York. N. Y., U.S.A.) & Prof Jay M. Savage (University of Miami. Coral Gables. Florida. 



98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

U.S.A.), published in BZN 52: 270-271, supported the proposal to give the names 
PETROPEDETINAE, CACOSTERNiNAE and PHRYNOBATRACHINAE precedence Over the 
unused name hemimantidae, but opposed the conservation of phrynobatrachinae 
by giving it precedence over petropedetinae. They proposed (BZN 52: 270-271) that 
where the latter two names were concerned priority should be followed. Comments 
from Dr Barry T. Clarke {The Natural History Museum, London. U.K.) and from the 
author of the application, published in BZN 52: 342-345 (December 1995), supported 
the application and gave reasons for rejecting the precedence of petropedetinae over 
phrynobatrachinae put forward by Frost & Savage. 

The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 September 1996. 
Precedence of petropedetinae, cacosterninae and phrynobatrachinae over the 
earliest but unused name hemimantidae had been advocated by the author of the 
application (BZN 51: 240-246, 52: 344-345) and also by those who commented 
(Poynton, Frost & Savage, and Clarke). This proposal was put forward for voting as 
Proposal A. 

Conservation of the name phrynobatrachinae for a family-group taxon that 
includes both Phrynohairachus and Petropedetes by giving it precedence over 
petropedetinae (Proposal B), and adoption of petropedetinae as the senior name 
for the same taxon (Proposal C), were offered as alternatives for voting. Proposal B 
was put forward by Dubois (BZN 51: 243-244); Proposal C was that of Frost & 
Savage (BZN 52: 270-271). 

The Commission approved Proposal A. A majority of Commissioners voted in 
favour of Proposal B rather than Proposal C (11 votes for Proposal B and 10 for 
Proposal C; live Commissioners did not vote), but Proposal B failed to reach the 
required two-thirds majority for approval. 

Two Commissioners commented on their voting papers. Cogger noted: T agree 
with all the proponents in this case that there is a need to give precedence to the 
family-group names petropedetinae Noble. 1931 and phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 
1941 over the unused senior name hemimantidae Hoffmann, 1878 (Proposal A). 
While I have cast the remainder of my vote in this case for Proposal C, I should make 
it clear that in doing so I was not persuaded by the arguments of Frost & Savage - 
arguments convincingly rejected by Prof Dubois (BZN 52: 344-345). Conversely, the 
arguments presented by Prof Dubois and Dr Clarke failed to persuade me that, 
following the elimination from contention of the unused hemimantidae, priority 
should not otherwise apply. This end is effectively achieved by adoption of Proposal C 
Heppell commented: 'As hemimantidae has never been used as valid, it should not now 
threaten any family names proposed later (Proposal A). I am happy to let the 
remaining family names take precedence according to their natural priority and thus 
vote for petropedetinae to be placed on the Official List without endorsement against 
phrynobatrachinae (Proposal C)'. 

Under the Bylaws the proposal to conserve the name phrynobatrachinae 
Laurent, 1941 by giving it precedence over petropedetinae Noble, 1931 (Proposal 
B), against that to adopt petropedetinae as the senior name (Proposal C), required 
a revote. Completion of the voting on this proposal would allow an Opinion to be 
published combined with the ruling giving hemimantidae least priority. 

It was noted on the voting papers that, as stated in para. 9 of the application, 
Article 40 of the Code does not apply in this case and insertions of the date '(1878)' 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(11 March 1999 99 

against the names petropedetinae Noble, 1931, cacosterninae Noble, 1931 and 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (paras. 9, 9(1) and 10(4)(a)-(c)) would be 
incorrect. The date 1878 has not been cited for these names in this Opinion. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 16 September 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals to give the family-group names petropedetinae Noble, 1931, cacosterninae 
Noble, 1931 and phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 precedence over hemimantidae 
Hoffmann, 1878 (published in BZN 51: 244 and 52: 270-271; Proposal A). At the close 
of the voting period on 16 December 1996 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Kabata, Mahnert and Schuster. 

Dupuis abstained. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

On 16 September 1996 the Commissioners had also been invited to give the name 
phrynobatrachinae precedence over petropedetinae (published in BZN 51: 
243-244; Proposal B) against that to adopt petropedetinae as the senior name 
(published in BZN 52: 270-271; Proposal C); however, this proposal did not receive 
the necessary two-thirds majority and on I September 1998 they were invited to 
revote on proposals B and C. At the close of this voting period on I December 1998 
the votes were as follows: 

Proposal B — 10: Bouchet, Cocks, Kabata, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, 
Mawatari, Minelli, Nye, Papp, Schuster 

Proposal C — 10: Bock, Brothers, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Kerzhner, Mahnert, 
Nielsen, Patterson, Savage and Stys. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

The Commission approved the proposal to give the family-group names petro- 
pedetinae Noble, 1931, cacosterninae Noble, 1931 and phrynobatrachinae 
Laurent, 1941 precedence over hemimantidae Hoffman, 1878, but since there was no 
majority for phrynobatrachinae to be given precedence over petropedetinae 
priority applies to these two names. The name petropedetinae has precedence over 
cacosterninae Noble, 1931 by the first reviser action of Dubois (1982). 

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: 
cacosterninae Noble, 1931, The biology of the Amphibia, p. 540. 
Cacoslermim Boulenger, 1887, Annals and Magazine of Natural History. (5)20: 51. 
calcaratus, Hemimantis. Peters, 1863, Monatsberichtc cler Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie 

der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1863: 452. (Issued in the serial in 1864 but published as a 

separate in 1863). 
cameronensis. Petropedetes. Reichenow, 1874. Arehiv fiir Natiirgeschichte. 40(1.3): 290. 
hemimantidae Hoffmann, 1878, in Bronn, H.G., Die Klassen imd Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs 

wissenschaftlich dargestellt in Wort und Bild. vol. 6, part 2. pp. 613. 635. 



lOU Bulletin ol Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

Hemimanlis Peters, 1863, Momitsherichte der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissen- 

schafwn zu Berlin. 1863: 451. 
Leploparius Peters. 1863, Momitsherichte der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissen- 

schaften zu Berlin. 1863: 452. 
nanum. Cacosternum. Boulenger. 1887, Annals and Magazine of Natural History. (5)20: 52. 
nalalensis. Stenorhynchus. A. Smith, 1849, Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa ... 

Reptilia. Appendix, pp. 23-24. 
Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874, Archiv fur Naturgeschichte. 40(1.3): 290. 
PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931, The biology of the Amphibia, p. 520. 

PHRY'NOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941, Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines. 34(2): 192. 
Phrynobatrachus Giinther, 1862, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1862: 190. 
Stenorhynchus A. Smith, 1849, Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa . . . Reptilia, 

Appendix, pp. 23-24. 

The following is the reference for the first reviser action giving the family-group name 
PETROPEDETINAE Noble. 1931 precedence over cacosterninae Noble, 1931: 

Dubois, A. 1982. BZN 39: 136. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 101 

OPINION 1922 

Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, Primates): 
conserved, and correction made to the entry for Choloepus lUiger, 
1811 (Xenarthra) on the Official List 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Primates; Xenarthra; lorisidae; 
slender loris; two-toed sloths; Loris; Loris tardigradus; Choloepus; Sri Lanka; India; 
South and Central America. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (gender: masculine), type 
species (under Article 67h of the Code) by subsequent designation by llliger 
(1811) Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lemur 
tardigradus and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. NRM 53201 1 in the 
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm) designated by Gentry, 
Groves & Jenkins (1998) (specific name of the type species of Loris E. Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire. 1796), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

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

(a) Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785, as suppressed in (1) above; 

{b) Stenops llliger, 1811 (a junior objective synonym of Loris E. Geoffroy 

Saint-Hilaire, 1796); 
(c) Loridium Rafinesque, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Loris E. 

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796). 

(5) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Choloepus 
llliger, 1811 is hereby emended to record Brady pus didactylus Linnaeus, 1758 
as the type species by subsequent designation by Gray (1827). 

History of Case 2953 

An application for the conservation of Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 was 
received from Mrs Anthea Gentry (do The Secretariat, ICZN. The Natural History 
Museum, London, U.K.), Dr Colin P. Groves {Australian National University, 
Canberra, Australia), the late Mr J.E. Hill, and Dr Paulina D. Jenkins {The Natural 
History Museum, London, U.K.) on 8 July 1994. The case was published in BZN 51: 
332-335 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that, when Brisson's ( 1 762) work entitled Regnum 
Animale in classes IX distributuni ..., Ed. 2, was rejected for nomenclatural purposes 
in Opinion 1894 (March 1998), Brisson's name Tardigradus for the sloths was not one 
of the 1 1 mammal generic names which were then conserved (the names Bradypus 



102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1999 

Linnaeus, 1758 and Choloepus Illiger, 1811 are currently in use for the three- and 
two-toed sloths respectively). As a result of Opinion 1 894 Tardigradus Boddaert, 
1785. previously treated as a junior homonym of Tardigradus Brisson, 1762, would 
become the valid name for the slender loris, long called Loris E. Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire, 1796. The application proposed the conservation of the name Loris by 
suppression of Tardigradus Boddaert. 

A comment in support of the application from Dr R.H. Crompton (University of 
Liverpool. Liverpool. U.K.) was published in BZN 52: 193 (June 1995). 

Further information on the type material oi Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758, the 
type species of Loris (para. 4 of the application), was supplied by three authors of 
the application (Gentry, Groves & Jenkins) in BZN 55: 118-119 (June 1998), who 
designated a specimen now in Stockholm as the lectotype. 

These authors also proposed (BZN 55: 119) an emendation to the entry on the 
Official List for the authorship and date of the designation of the type species of 
Choloepus Illiger, 1811. The name Choloepus and that of its type species, Bradypus 
didactylus Linnaeus, 1758, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 91 (October 1926) 
and Direction 22 (November 1955) respectively. However, the type designation was 
recorded (Direction 24, November 1955) as subsequent designation by Miller & Rehn 
(1901), and not by the earlier designation of Gray (1827). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 51: 334 and 55: 1 19. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis (part), 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage. Schuster. Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

Dupuis voted for proposals ( 1 ) and (4)(a) on BZN 51: 334 but otherwise abstained. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell 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 
Inde.x, and to the emended entry on the Official List for Clwlocpus Illiger. 181 1. by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Choloepus Illiger. 181 1, Prodromus systematis Mammalium et .4vium .... p. 108. 
Loridium Rafinesque, 1815. Analyse de la nature, p. 54. 
Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, Magasin Encyclopedique. ou journal des sciences, des 

lettres et des arts. (2)1(1): 48, 49. 
Stenops Illiger. 181 1. Prodromus systematis Mammalium et Avium .... p. 73. 
Tardigradus Boddaert. 1785, Elenchus Animalium. vol. 1 (Sistens Quadrupedia), pp. 43, 67. 
tardigradus. Lemur. Linnaeus, 1758, Systenta Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. I, p. 29. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1 758 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: 
Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus systematis Mammalium et Avium ..., p. 73. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 103 

The following is the reference for the designation of Bradypus didactylus Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Chohepus llliger, 1811: 

Gray, J. E. 1827. Synopsis of the species of the Class Mammalia .... Vol. 5 /« Griffith, E., Smith, 
C.H. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its 
organisation, by the Baron Cuvier .... p. 275. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Lemur tardigradus 
Linnaeus, 1758: 

Gentry, A., Groves, C.P. & Jenkins, P.D. 1998. BZN 55: 1 19. 



104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 

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 stabiUty of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss 
their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so 
that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other 
zoologists. 

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting 
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text 
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 'Daudin (1800, 
p. 39) described . . .'. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. 

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more 
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are 
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should 
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable 
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of 
publication. 

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, 
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce 
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the 
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, 
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission's Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 



Contents — continued 



On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio syhcmus Esper, 
[1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades syhanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera). 
A.L. Devyatkin 63 

On the proposed designation of Iguanodon bemissarlensis Boulenger in Beneden. 
1881 as the type species oi Iguanodon Mantell. 1825. and proposed designation of 
a lectotype (Reptilia, Omithischia). D. Norman 65 

On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus gouldti Gray, 1838 and 
Varanus panoples Storr, 1980 (Reptilia. Squamata) by the designation of a neotype 
for H. gouldii. R.T. Hoser; A. Gentry 66 

On the proposed conservation of Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia 
sirtalis letralaenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thanmophis sirtalis infernalis 
and T. s. lelralaenia: Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the sub- 
specific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis. H.M. Smith . 71 

On the proposed conservation of usage of 1 5 mammal specific names based on wild 
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic 
animals. N. Szabolcs; A. Mones 72 

On the proposed conservation of lorisidae Gray, 1821 and GA1.AGIDAE Gray, 1825 

(Mammalia, Primates) as the correct original spellings. D.W. Yalden 73 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1913. Pila Roding, 1798 and Pomacea Perry, 1810 (Mollusca. Gastro- 
poda): placed on the Official List, and ampullariidae Gray, 1824: confirmed as 
the nomenclaturally valid synonym of PILIDAE Preston, 1915 74 

OPINION 1914. Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949, 
Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843, Jelelzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt, 
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioleuthis Naef, 1921 (Mollusca, Coleo- 
idea): conserved, and the specific name of Belemnoteuthis (sic) monlefiorei 
Buckman, 1880: conserved 77 

OPINION 1915. Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): Suchonella 

07"ca Spizharsky, 1939 designated as the type species 81 

OPINION 1916. BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): spelling 
emended to brachypterainae, so removing the homonymy with brachypterinae 
Erichson, [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera); kateretidae Erichson in Agassiz, [1846]: 
given precedence over brachypterinae Erichson 82 

OPINION 1917. Papilio camillus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Cyreslis camillus) 
and Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific names 
conserved 87 

OPINION 1918. MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 and nemognathinae Castelnau, 1840 

(Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over HORiiDAE Latreille, 1802 89 

OPINION 1919. Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given precedence 

over Myrma Billberg, 1820 92 

OPINION 1920. Slrongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura): Rana fasciala 

Smith, 1849 designated as the type species 94 

OPINION 1921. PETROPEDETiNAE Noble, 1931, CACOSTERNINAE Noblc, 1931 and 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia. Anura): given precedence over 
HEMiMANTiDAE HoflTmann, 1878, and phrynobatrachinae: not given precedence 

over PETROPEDETINAE 96 

OPINION 1922. Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, Primates): 
conserved, and correction made to the entry for Choloepus lUiger. 1811 (Xenar- 
thra) on the Official List 101 

Information and instructions for authors 104 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 1 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications . 2 

Addresses of members of the Commission 3 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 4 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 5 

General Article 

Recording and registration of new scientific names: a simulation of the mechanism 
proposed (but not adopted) for the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
clature. P. Bouchet 6 

Applications 

Eiidendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of 

the specific name. A.C. Marques & W. Vervoort 16 

AUGOCHLORiNi Moure. 1943 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over 

oxYSTOGLOssnvi Schrottky, 1909. M.S. Engel 19 

Sirongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by 
the designation of Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 as the type 
species. S.M. Blank, A. Taeger & T. Naito 23 

Solenopsis inricla Buren. 1972 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the 

specific name. S.O. Shattuck, S.D. Porter & D.P. Wojcik 27 

NYMPHULiNAE Dupouchcl, [1845] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over 

ACENTROPiNAE Stephens, 1835. M.A. Sohs 31 

Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed stability of 
nomenclature by the designation of a single neotype for both Bagrus nemurus 
Valenciennes, 1840 and B. sieboldii Bleeker, 1846, and the designation of the 
lectotype of B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840 as the neotype of B. flavus Bleeker, 
1846. H.H. Ng, Y.Y. Goh, P.K.L. Ng& J. Dodson 34 

MegalolragusWun Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation, 
and Alcelaplms kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megahtragus kattwinkeli): 
proposed conservation of the specific name. A.W. Gentry & A. Gentry .... 42 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Slrobilidium caudalum Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). C.W. Heckman 48 

Haininoea. Hamimiea or Haminea (Mollusca, Gastropoda): notes and comments on 
the spelling and authorship of the generic name, and a proposed Commission 
ruling. P.K. Tubbs; R. Gianuzzi-Savelli; R. Bum; R.C. Willan; W.B. Rudman; 
C.W. Bryce: H.G. Spencer: P. Bouchet; M. Schroedl; J. Marshall; T.M. Gosliner; 
P.M. Mikkelsen; H. Waegele 49 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclostoma aculum Drapamaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo venlrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). P. Bouchet; H.D. Boeters, G. Falkner. E. Gittenberger, 
A.J. de Winter, T. von Proschwitz & T.E.J. Ripken; D.F. Hoeksema; 
D. Kadolsky 56 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



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



Volume 56, Part 2, 30 June 1999, pp. 105-164 ISSN 0007-5167 



^l^^ll^ 



I 

The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



THE NATURAL 
HISTORY MUSEUM 

SO JUN 1999 _J 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 




JlCZ^ ljhe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 






THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1999 is £102 
or SI 80. 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(ainhm. ac.uk) 
(http://www.iczn.org) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 

Vice-President 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

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

Dr P. K. Tubbs ( United Kingdom) 



Members 

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

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

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada: Copepoda) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

( Germany: Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland: Arachnology) 

Secretariat 

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

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

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) 

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

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

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



Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 
Dr V. Mahnert 

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

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. K\At(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



IHhIMAtUHAL 
HISTORY ^/!USEUM 

3 ]mm2 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 



Volume 56, part 2 (pp. 105-164) 30 June 1999 



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 pubhshed for discussion. 

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 56, part 1 (published on 31 March 1999). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Brachiopoda); proposed designation of L. erythraeus 
Dall, 1920 as the type species. (Case 3110). D.I. MacKinnon & S.L. Long. 

(2) Pachycerianthus (Cnidaria. Anthozoa): proposed designation of P. 
multiplicatus Carlgren, 1912 as the type species. (Case 3111). E. Kelly & B.F. 
Keegan. 

(3) ROSSELLIDAE Schulzc, 1885 (Porifera, Hexactinellida): proposed precedence 
over AscoNEMATiDAE Gray, 1872 and crateromorphidae Gray, 1872. (Case 
3112). K.R. Tabachnick. 

(4) Betta splendens Regan, 1910, B. smaragdina Ladiges, 1972 and B. imbellis 
Ladiges, 1975 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the 
specific names by the suppression of Micracanthus marchei Sauvage, 1878. 
(Case 3113). H.H. Tan & P.K.L. Ng. 

(5) Kunzella Young, 1952 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of 
Dikraneura pseudomarginella Caldwell, 1952 as the type species. (Case 3114). 
P.H. Prey tag. 

(6) Gnomulus Thorell, 1890 (Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed designation of 
G. sumatranus Thorell, 1891 as the type species. (Case 3116). J. Martens & 
P. Schwendinger. 



106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(2) June 1999 

(7) Pliiuhus Germar, 1817 (Insecta. Coleoptera): proposed designation of 
Curculio megerlei Panzer, [1804] as the type species; and Otiorhynchus 
Germar, 1824: proposed emendation of the entry on the Official List of 
Generic Names. (Case 3117). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga & C.H.C. Lyal. 

(8) Anlhaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of 
Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1794 as the type species. (Case 3118). S. Bily. 

(9) VACHONIAINAE Maury, 1973 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation 
as the correct spelling. (Case 31 19). V. Fet & M.E. Braunwalder. 

(10) ISCHNURAINAE Frascr, 1957 (Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation as the 
correct spelling of ischnurinae to remove homonymy with ischnuridae 
Simon, 1879 (Arachnida, Scorpiones). (Case 3120). V. Fet & G. Bechly. 

(11) Holocliilits Brnndt, 1835, Proechimys AWen, 1899 and Trinomys Thomas, 1921 
(Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation by the designation of 
Holochihis sciureus Wagner, 1842 as the type species of Holochilus. (Case 
3121). R.S. Voss & N.I. Abramson. 

(12) Mixosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (Reptilia, Ichthyosauria): proposed 
designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 3122). W. Brinkmann. 

(13) dolichopodidae Latreille, 1809 (Insecta, Diptera) and dolichopodini 
Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1888 (Insecta, Grylloptera): proposed removal of 
the homonymy. (Case 3123). S.D. Skareas & S.E. Brooks. 

(14) Apis proava Menge, 1856 (currently Electrapis proava: Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of a neotype. (Case 
3124). M.S. Engel. 

(15) Rbinoncus Schonherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. 
(Case 3125). E. Colonnelli. 

(16) Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
conservation of the specific name. (Case 3126). D.S. Brown, F. Naggs & V.R. 
Southgate. 

(17) Bothrops caribhaeus Garman, 1887 (currently Trigonocephalus caribbaeus; 
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3127). 
W. Wuster. 

(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. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 107 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The new and extensively revised 4th Edition of the Inlenuilional Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature will be published in September 1999. It will come into effect on 
1 January 2000 and will entirely supersede the current (1985) edition. Some notes 
about the forthcoming edition, which contains many new provisions, will be found 
on the Commission's Website (www.iczn.org). 

The price of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered; 

Individual members of a scientific society ordering one copy of the Code for 
personal use are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the naine and address 
of the society should be given. 

Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological 
Nomenclature ordering one copy of the Code for personal use are offered a discount 
of40%(price£24or S39). 

Postgraduate or undergraduate students ordering one copy for personal use are 
offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the student's 
supervisor should be given. 

Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% discount (price £30 
or $48 for each copy). 

Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy. 

Copies for delivery in September may be ordered now from ITZN, c/o The 
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: 
iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or from AAZN, Attn. D. G. Smith, MRC-159, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: 
smithd(S)nmnh. si.edu). 

Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to "ITZN" 
(sterling or dollars) or to "AAZN" (dollars only). Payment to ITZN can also be 
made by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only) giving the cardholder's number, name 
and address and the expiry date. 

Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on one copy of the 
following publications for personal use: 

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and IVorks in Zoology (1985) — reduced 
from £60 to £30 and from $1 10 to $55; 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to 
£15 and from $50 to $25; 

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission's quarterly journal) — 
discount valid for up to 5 years; for 1999 the discounted price would be £51 or $90. 

Translations of the Code in a number of languages are planned and their 
availability will be announced on the Commission's Website. 



108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Centralized access to newly published zoological names 

Judith Howcroft (Special Projects Manager) and Joan Thome 
(Editorial Manager), BIOSIS, U.K. 

BIOSIS. U.K.. Garforth House, 54 Mick legate, York YOJ ILF, U.K. 
(e-mail: jhowcroft@york.biosis.org; jthorne@york.biosis.org) 

Abstract. Issues related to the development of a centralized list or register of new 
names in zoology are discussed. Central to the discussion is the nature of the list or 
register itself and two types are considered. The first is a list of newly published 
names, without regard for their availability under the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature, while the second is a register of all newly published names 
which are definitely acceptable according to the Code. The second alternative would 
be an extremely valuable tool, but to produce it would require the checking of not 
only the information accompanying every name but also of external material. The 
first option is feasible now, since it is effectively a subset of the current Zoological 
Record (ZR) production process. The possibility is explored of creating a list of 
names, based on ZR data but with any gaps filled by cooperation with appropriate 
sectors of the taxonomic community. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; registration of names; lists of names; 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; Zoological Record. 



Introduction 

The concept of an official, central, register of the names of organisms has long been 
an attractive idea to many taxonomists, who see it as a means of improving both 
nomenclatural stability and dissemination of taxonomic information. However, 
proposed mechanisms for turning the idea into a working reality have met with very 
different responses. A 'BioCode' has been proposed to unify the future nomenclatural 
treatment of all organisms, and in draft versions of this (see for example BZN 53: 
148-166) the registration of new names is included (Article 8) as a requirement for 
their establishment as acceptable names. However, the adoption of such a unified 
Code is not an immediate prospect. Microbiologists already have definitive Approved 
Lists of Bacterial Names for past names and mandatory registration of new ones 
(achieved by their publication in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriol- 
ogy), and botanists have set up a two-year (1998-1999) trial of name registration, 
possibly to be followed by mandatory registration after 1 January 2000 or some later 
date (see Borgen et al., 1998). Zoologists, on the other hand, have so far chosen not 
to pursue registration in any form. A proposal in the discussion draft of the new 
(fourth) Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (to come into 
effect on 1 January 2000) which was circulated in 1995 required 'international 
notification" (in effect registration) of all new names by recording them in the 
Zoological Record (ZR), but this was abandoned in the face of widespread 
opposition. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 109 

This opposition was based on several expressed concerns: the ultimate responsi- 
bility for the availability of names was shifted onto the shoulders of the ZR recorders; 
perceptions that access to ZR favoured the developed world and would require 
payment; ZR coverage was insufficiently complete or reliable. Such drawbacks were 
seen by some as serious enough to raise the possibility of creating a new official body 
(presumably allied to the ICZN) to carry out the registration task, but no study of its 
feasibility was made. 

Nevertheless, despite the opposition to the idea of mandatory registration of 
names, many zoologists do see the need for some sort of central resource of names to 
which all biologists could easily refer. This article explores the issues associated with 
providing such a resource. 

Options for a centralized name register in zoology 

There are differing views among taxonomists as to whether 'registration" should 
merely record names as they are pubhshed, or take the process significantly further 
by performing checks (using both internal and external evidence) on the nomencla- 
tural acceptability of each name, effectively taking on a commenting/authoritative 
rather than a mere reporting role. 

The second alternative, registering a name and fixing its authorship and date of 
availability, would to a large extent have been achieved by the 'international 
notification' proposed in the discussion draft of the new Code. Supporting and 
opposing views on this proposal were extensively documented in this Bulletin (BZN 
52: 229-232, 296, 300; 53: 6-7, 8-9, II, 15-17, 83-85, 87-88; see also Bouchet, 1999). 
In principle a register of a fully-checked type could be compiled by an organization 
specially created for the purpose, but there is no likelihood of this in the foreseeable 
future. 

The first alternative, providing a centralized register or listing of all new names but 
taking them purely at face value as published, is feasible using existing facilities. Such 
a list could be produced by having authors of new names send copies of their 
publications to one or more agreed centres, and/or by examination of the current 
literature. The undertaking of even this as an entirely new initiative would be a 
substantial endeavour, since keeping track of what had been covered, in addition to 
the effort of recording the names themselves, would require significant resources of 
which there is no sign. However, a list of names published as new according to their 
authors, together with sufficient bibliographic data to enable other biologists to 
locate the name and evaluate its validity, could readily be produced from ZR. 
Relevant entries from the ZR database could easily be formatted to provide a list of 
names as defined above. It is important to note that ZR currently makes availabihty 
checks based on internal evidence in the publication, but does not survey external 
evidence. 

While a register consisting of a basic list of new names is clearly not as valuable as 
an authoritative register of nomenclaturally acceptable names, it is certainly an 
attainable option and at the least such a list would enable taxonomists: 

(a) to check for inclusion of their own newly published names and so ensure the 
widest possible notification to other taxonomists throughout the world; 

(b) to discover newly published names within their taxonomic field of interest 
(some taxonomists may consider that they are adequately aware of all the work 



110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

in their field being done anywhere in the world, and they would have no 
interest in such a Hsting; others, perhaps more realistic, would consider it 
useful); 

(c) in combination with other resources such as Neave's Nomenclator Zoologiciis 
of generic names, to check potential new names before publication for possible 
prior use, and so help to prevent homonymy (in compiling ZR some 40-50 
homonymous new generic names are discovered each year, which suggests that 
access to names in all branches of zoology would be indeed be useful). 

It is acknowledged that there are a small number of omissions in ZR coverage (see 
below), but these could be filled with a little help from the community. 

New names in the Zoological Record 

To give some idea of the magnitude of the task of gathering new names for all 
groups of animals, we give a few facts and figures based on the effort currently 
required to compile ZR. Each year about 72,000 papers (including serial articles, 
books and individual chapters of books) are indexed from material published in some 
100 different countries; in total about 4,500 serial titles and 1,200 books are reviewed. 
Individual records are made for an average of 20,000 new taxa at all ranks; of these, 
approximately 17,100 are new species and subspecies and 2,200 are new genera and 
subgenera. A further 8,500 records are made each year to cover new proposals of 
synonymy and new generic combinations. New names appear in numerous different 
types of publications, and the range of serial titles dealt with is enormous, from 
geology, through systematic and applied zoology, to local natural history publica- 
tions and popular aquarium magazines. Of the 47 staff employed by BIOSIS, U.K., 
about 30 are directly involved with editorial aspects of ZR compilation, and the 
remaining 17 in vital administrative and computing support activities without which 
ZR could not be produced. 

Zoological Record and registration 

The community rejected the use of ZR as a vehicle for mandatory 'registration" on 
several counts, but mainly on grounds of accessibility and perceived omissions and 
inaccuracies. We would like to offer our comments on these issues. 

Accessibility 

ZR was regarded as not being used by, or readily accessible to. all taxonomists. 
While we would not disagree about "universal" use, ZR is probably more widely used 
by animal taxonomists than any other bibliographic service. It was also assumed that 
access to new names would have to be paid for, but in fact it was never the intention 
of ZR that taxonomists would have to be subscribers to check that new names were 
correctly included. During the period of comment (1995-1996) on the discussion 
draft of the forthcoming Edition of the Code, ZR made available a demonstration 
search facility through its web site, as one of a number of possible mechanisms for 
checking the inclusion of new names. This gave free access to a subset of all new 
names in the database with a publication date of 1990, together with an e-mail form 
for comments; though not heavily used (perhaps because of insufficient publicity) the 
demonstration did illustrate how quickly and easily a name could be checked. 

Since April 1997 ZR has provided public access to all names recorded in ZR from 
volume 115 (1978 literature onwards), through its Index to Organism Names — a 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 111 

service offered as an aid to tiie general bioscience community and currently available 
on the World Wide Web (http://www.york.biosis.org/triton/nameind.htm). This 
index gives access to animal names reported in ZR, and names of other organisms 
provided by collaborating organizations — biologists can check to which group a 
named organism belongs. This index remains freely available to all, and is consist- 
ently well used: each month over 12.000 searches are carried out by around 2,500 
ditferenl users. 

Any list of names based on the ZR index compilation could be made available in 
a number of formats (print, CD-ROM, on a website, etc.) entirely separate from the 
ZR product, and access to basic name data would not have to be dependent on 
subscription to any ZR products. 

Omissions 

The community felt that the number of names omitted from ZR was unacceptably 
high. Despite our best efforts, some names inevitably do escape us, and we have 
collaborated with Dr Philippe Bouchet in an estimate of this (see Bouchet, 1999). The 
study was based on new molluscan (excluding cephalopod) generic names published 
during the period 1988-1992, and assessed ZR as about 88% complete in its coverage 
of such new names; it was concluded that the record is probably about 90% complete 
for all new genus-group names. The study also analyzed the numbers and types of 
publications which were omitted. Over the 13-year study period, 260 molluscan 
generic names which were indicated as being new and contained in 89 publications 
were omitted, an annual average of about 20 names and 7 publications (for 
comparison, some 2,000 publications/year are indexed for the MoUusca Section). Of 
the names omitted, 78% were published in geological or palaeontological publica- 
tions; the former are not generally regarded as 'core' to ZR's coverage, but are 
included in the list of serials scanned if they are known sources of new taxonomic 
names. Of the sources containing omitted names, 46% were non-serial publications 
(containing 64% of the names missing); this is not surprising, since books are 
inherently more difficult to locate than serials. Chinese or Russian publications 
contained 54% of the omitted names — such material, which contributes in total less 
than 6% of the entire number of items indexed, is difficult to obtain from our source 
libraries. This is well illustrated by the discovery that of the 19 Chinese books omitted 
from the MoUusca Section during the period 1988-1992, almost all were still 
unavailable to us when rechecked at the end of 1997. Liaison with China's Academia 
Sinica and Russia's Akademia Nauk would give us the opportunity to index their 
publications and bring them to wider attention. 

Most of the other publications which were omitted were the result of human error 
(mainly gaps in our records of coverage); this was a known problem during this 
period, and a computer system for recording coverage was introduced in the late 
1980's. This is reflected in the reduced level of omission (7.6%) during the period 
1988-1992 — the last 5 years of the Bouchet study period. Since then ZR coverage 
procedures have continued to improve and it is our belief that currently even fewer 
new names escape us. Publications which contain new names are never knowingly 
omitted and ZR users are encouraged to notify us of any items which have not been 
covered (particularly monographs), but, unfortunately, very few taxonomists do 
this. 



112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Two other types of omissions have been identified, (a) Nanies missed from items of 
literature which have been screened; the majority of these are simply the resuU of 
human error (oversight by an Indexer), but the incidence is certainly increased by 
authors' use of unconventional or poor styles of drawing attention to their new 
names, (b) Names not explicitly indicated as new in the literature; these will not be 
recorded as new by ZR, as we cannot check all names mentioned in the literature for 
newness and the policy is to deliberately avoid any judgements regarding the 
availability of names. However, the forthcoming edition of the Code prescribes 
(Article 16) that new names published after I January 2000 will not be available 
unless the authors explicitly both indicate that they are new and fix the name-bearing 
types, and this will clearly be of help. 



Accuracy 

In Bouchet's analysis 12 new names (0.6% of the total) were found to be spelt 
incorrectly in ZR. Within the limited resources available to us, great care is taken to 
ensure that names are transcribed correctly, but we are aware that a small number of 
errors do enter the database. Over the last ten years, and in particular the last five, 
changes in quality control processes have been introduced specifically aimed at 
improving the accuracy of name recording. Further improvements are planned when 
a fully revised production system is introduced later this year. 

Conclusions 

The magnitude of the task of gathering and checking all new names published 
worldwide requires extensive allocation of time and effort. However, ZR already 
covers approximately 90% of all new names, and with further help from the 
taxonomic community it should not be too difficult to gather nearly all the remaining 
10%. This might allow some formal listing or 'registration" arrangement to be 
established for zoological names in the future, as already established in bacteriology 
and seriously contemplated in botany. 

References 

Borgen, L., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., Nicolson, D.H. & Ziinnier, B. (lAPT Executive 

Committee). 1998. Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names. Taxon, 

47(4): 899-904 (see also Biology Imenuiliomil. 36; 34-36). 
Bouchet, P. 1999. Recording and registration of new scientific names: a simulation of the 

mechanism proposed (but not adopted) for the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 56(1): 6-15. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 113 

Case 3126 

Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed conservation of the specific name 

D.S. Brown, F. Naggs and V.R. Southgate 

Department of Zoology. The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Bulinus 
wrighii Mandahl-Barth, 1965 for a freshwater snail (family planorbidae) from Saudi 
Arabia, Oman and Yemen which is an often-cited intermediate host for schistosome 
parasites of medical and veterinary importance. The name is a junior primary 
homonym o( Bulinus nrightii Sowerby, 1853 which relates to a large West African 
land snail (family achatinidae). The specific name of the latter has been used for 
nearly 150 years but since 1855 the taxon has been placed in Pseudachatina Albers, 
1850, and not in Bulinus O.F. Miiller, 1781. Neither Pseudachatina nrightii (Sov/erhy, 
1853) nor Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth. 1965 has a junior synonym. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; planorbidae; achatinidae; 
Pseudachatina ivrighlii; Bulinus wrighti; schistosomiasis. 



1. G.B. Sowerby sen. (1853, p. 1, pi. 1) described and figured Bulinus wrightii. a 
large dextral land snail currently placed in the family achatinidae (Stylommato- 
phora, achatinoidea). The description was based on a single specimen (see 
McMillan, 1973, p. 40 for the history of Sowerby's publication). Sowerby did not cite 
an authorship for Bulinus, nor did he give a locality for the species. Pain & Paul 
(1967, p. 44) noted the type specimen as lost and "the original figure as representative 
of the holotype'. Sowerby's (1853) usage of Bulinus for this taxon has never been 
accepted and since 1855 it has been referred to Pseudachatina Albers, 1850 (see H. & 
A. Adams, [1855], p. 134; Pilsbry, 1904, p. 206; and Pain & Paul, 1967, p. 44 and 
other references cited in that paper). Pseudachatina wrightii (Sowerby, 1853) is a 
species from western Africa and Pain & Paul (1967, p. 45) cited Old Calabar, Nigeria 
as the type locahty, as had H. & A. Adams ([1855]) and Pilsbry (1904). 

2. In his description of Bulinus wrightii, Sowerby (1853) commented 'B. downesii 
is more like this species than any other'. Bulinus downesii Gray in G.B. Sowerby, 
jun., 1841 (Bulinus, fig. 99), a junior synonym of Achat ina leaiana Grateloup, 1839, 
is the type species of Pseudachatina Albers, 1850. It appears that in both Sowerby 
jun. (1841) and Sowerby sen. (1853) the name Bulinus was used in error and 
probably as a spelling mistake for Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, to which genus several 
achatinid species were referred by authors in the 19th century. D'Ailly (1896, p. 
86) listed '1840 Bulinus Downesii Gray in Sowerby" and then directly below cited 
Bulimus Downesii, apparently rejecting the name Bulinus. Pain & Paul (1967) 
altered to Bulimus, without comment, the usages of Bulinus by both Sowerby sen. 
and Sowerby jun. 



114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

3. The name Buliims was established by O.F. Miiller (1781, p. 6) for a group of 
species which included 'Le Bulin Bulinus' of Adanson (1757, Coquiliages, p. 5, pi. 1) 
and to which Miiller subsequently gave the name Bulinus senegalensis. This species is 
the type of the genus by Linnaean tautonymy (see Pilsbry & Bequaert, 1927, p. 133). 
Adanson gave the name Bulinus (from the French word bulle, meaning bubble) to 
small sinistral freshwater snails he collected in Senegal, West Africa, because they 
floated at the water surface. Bulinus senegalensis is one of about 40 species currently 
recognised as valid and placed in Bulinus Miiller (see, for example, Mandahl-Barth, 
1957 and Brown, 1994), classified in the subfamily bulininae of the planorbidae 
(Basommatophora, planorboidea). Some of the species are of medical or veterinary 
importance because they are intermediate hosts in the life cycle of Schistosoma 
Weinland. 1858 (Trematoda, Digenea), the cause of the disease schistosomiasis 
(bilharzia) in man and domestic livestock. 

4. Mandahl-Barth (1965, p. 41 ) named the subspecies wrighii of Bulinus reticulatus 
Mandahl-Barth, 1954 (Basommatophora, planorbidae), of Africa, from specimens 
collected in South Yemen (formerly Western Aden Protectorate) on the basis of 
differences in the radular cusps previously described and figured by Wright (1963, p. 
266, fig. 8). The shell from Rassais, Upper Aulaqi, figured by Wright (1963, pi. 2, fig. 
6) and preserved in The Natural History Museum, London (Mollusca Registration 
No. 1966130), was selected by Mandahl-Barth as the holotype. This subspecies was 
later treated as a full species after a study of the immunological reactions of its egg 
proteins (see Wright, 1971, p. 311). Subsequent authors, apparently without excep- 
tion, have treated Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth as a distinct species, and the name 
has been used frequently in the malacological and parasitological literature (see, for 
example, the representative publications by Arfaa, 1976; Southgate & Knowles, 1977, 
pp. 82-^83; Frandsen, 1979, pp. 283-285; Danish Bilharziasis Laboratory, 1983, p. 36; 
Hazza, Arfaa & Haggar, 1983, p. 1026; Brown & Gallagher, 1985, pp. 141-142; 
Brown, Gallagher, Knowles & Paltrinieri, 1985, pp. 136-137; Burch, 1985, pp. 70, 
138; Jelnes, 1985, pp. 88, 91; Southgate et al., 1985, pp. 1254, 1257, 1259; Mouahid 
&Theron, 1987, pp. 1431-33; Arfaa et al., 1989, pp. 216, 218; Al-Safadi, 1990, p. 250; 
Ghandour, Al-Ghamdi & Al-Robai, 1990, p. 81; Mouahid et al., pp. 349-353; 
Brown, 1994, pp. 246-247, 373-374; Tchuem Tchuente et al, 1997, p. 264). The 
species B. wrighti Mandahl-Barth has played an important part in experimental 
parasitology because it is a highly compatible intermediate host for a number of 
species of the Schistosoma haematobium group. 

5. As recorded above (para. 4), the name Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 is 
well established in the malacological and parasitological literature and it is extremely 
undesirable that there should be any possibility of it being replaced as a junior 
primary homonym of Bulinus wrightii Sowerby, 1853. Sowerby's ( 1 853) use of Bulinus 
for an achatinid land snail has never been accepted and there is no indication that 
Sowerby really intended to place his species in Bulinus Miiller. Sowerby's species was 
placed in Pseudachatinu Albers, 1850 by H. & A. Adams as long ago as 1855, and 
there it has since remained. The two species Pseudachatinu wrightii (Sowerby, 1853) 
and Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 are very different taxonomically and are 
placed in different superfamilies and indeed orders, and their names have been used 
without ambiguity or confusion. Neither of the specific names has a junior synonym. 
We propose that Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 be conserved as a valid name. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 115 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 
1965, as published in the trinomen Bulinus reticulatus wrighti, is not invalid by 
reason of being a junior primary homonym of Bulinus wrightii Sowerby, 1853; 

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

(a) wrightii Sowerby, 1853, as published in the binomen Bulinus wrightii; 

(b) wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 as published in the trinomen Bulinus reticu- 
latus wrighti (not invalid by the ruling in (I) above). 

References 

Adams, H. & Adams, A. [1855]. The genera of recent Mollusca arranged according to their 

organisation, vol. 2. Pp. 93-284. Van Voorst, London. 
Adanson, M. 1757. Hisloire naturelle dii Senegal. Coquillages. 190, xcvi pp., 19 pis., 275 pp. 

Paris. 
Ailly, A. d'. 1896. Contributions a la connaissance des mollusques terrestres et d'eau douce de 

Kameroun. Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlin^ar. 22(4. 2): 

3-137. 
Al-Safadi, M.M. 1990. Freshwater molluscs of Yemen Arab Republic. Hvdrobiologiu, 208: 

245-251. 
Arfaa, F. 1976. Studies on schistosomiasis in Saudi Arabia. American Journal of Tropical 

Medicine and Hygiene. 25(2): 295-298. 
Arfaa, F., Mahboubi, E., Al Jeffri, M., Selim, A. & Russell, G. 1989. The potential role of 

various species of intermediate hosts of Schistosoma haematobium in Saudi Arabia. 

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 83: 216-218. 
Brown, D.S. 1994. Freshwater snails of Africa and their medical importance. 608 pp. Taylor & 

Francis, London. 
Brown, D.S. & Gallagher, M.D. 1985. Freshwater snails of Oman, south eastern Arabia. 

Hydrohiologia. 127: 125-149. 
Brown, D.S., Gallagher, M.D., Knowles, R.J. & Paltrinieri, A.B. 1985. Bulinus wrighti, potential 

intermediate host for Schistosoma haematobium in northern Oman. Transactions of the 

Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 79: 136-137. 
Burch, J.B. (Ed.). 1985. Handbook on schistosomiasis and other snail-mediated diseases in 

Jordan. 224 pp. Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. & Amman, Jordan. 
Danish Bilharziasis Laboratory. 1983. A field guide to freshwater snails in countries of the WHO 

Eastern Mediterranecm Region. 45 pp. Danish Bilharziasis Laboratory & World Health 

Organisation, Copenhagen. 
Frandsen, F. 1979. Discussion of the relationships between Schistosoma and their intermediate 

hosts, assessment of the degree of host-parasite compatibility and evaluation of 

schistosome taxonomy. Zeitschrift fiir Parasitenkunde, 58: 275-296. 
Ghandour, A.M., Al-Ghamdi, H.S. & Al-Robai, A.A. 1990. A review of snail intermediate hosts 

of schistosomiasis in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Medical and Applied Malacology, 2: 79-91. 
Hazza, Y.A., Arfaa, F. & Haggar, M. 1983. Studies on schistosomiasis in Taiz province, 

Yemen Arab Republic. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 32(5): 

1023-1028. 
Jelnes, J.E. 1985. Experimental taxonomy of Bulinus (Gastropoda, Planorbidae) — past 

and future activities. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening I 

Kjobenhavn, 146: 85-100. 
McMillan, N.F. 1973. A rare Sowerby leaflet. Journal of Conchology, 28(1): 40 
Mandahl-Barth, G. 1957. Intermediate hosts of Schistosoma. African Biomphalaria and 

Bulinus. 2. Bulinus. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 17: 1-65. (Reprinted in 

1958 in WHO Monograph Series, No. 37). 
Mandahl-Barth, G. 1965. The species of the genus Bulinus, intermediate hosts of Schistosoma. 

Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 33(1): 33^4. 



116 Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Mouahid, A., Bouhaddioui, N., Jana, M., Combes, C. & Mone, H. 1992. Effects of different 

mollusc associations on target molluscs growth and parasite cercarial production, in the 

triple system; Bulinus wrighli-Schislosonui bovis and Melanopsis praemorsa. Journal of 

Molluscan Sludies. 58: 349-355. 
Mouahid, A. & Theron, A. 1987. Schistosoma bovis: variability of cercarial production as 

related to the snail hosts Bulinus Iruncalus, B. wrighti and Planorbarius melidjensis. 

buernaiional Journal for Parasitology. 17: 1431-1434. 
Muller, O.F. 1781. Geschichte der Perlen-Blasen. Der Naturforsclier. Halle. 15: 1-20. 
Pain, T. & Paul, C.R.C. 1967. Studies in the genus Pseudachatina Albers (Mollusca — 

Achatinidae). Annales. Musee Royal de I'Afrique Cenlrale. Tervuren, serie in octavo, 

Sciences Zoologiques, 159: 1-79. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1904. Monograph of the genus Pseudachatina. Pp. 205-217 in Pilsbry, H.A. & 

Tryon, G.W., Manual of Conchology. ser. 2, vol. 16 (Urocoptidae. Achatinidae). Academy 

of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. 
Pilsbry, H.A. & Bequaert, J. 1927. The aquatic moUusks of the Belgian Congo, with a 

geographical and ecological account of Congo malacology. Bulletin of the American 

Museum of Natural History, 53: 69-602. 
Southgate, V.R. & Knowles, R.j. 1977. On the intermediate hosts of Schistosoma haematobium 

from western Kenya. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 

71: 82-83. 
Southgate, V.R., Rollinson, D., Ross, G.C., Knowles, R.J. & Vercruysse, J. 1985. On 

Schistosoma curassoni. S. haematobium and 5. bovis from Senegal: development in 

Mesocricetus auratus. compatibility with species of Bulinus and their enzymes. Journal oj 

Natural History. 19: 1249-1267. 
Sowerby, G.B., sen. 1853. Description of a new Bulinus. 1853. Bulinus wrightii.- G.B. Sowerby. 

Sen. 1 p.. 1 pi. London. 
Sowerby, G.B., jun. 1841. Conchological illustrations, (iv], [116] pp.. [200] pis. London. 
Tchuem Tchuentc, L.A., Southgate, V.R., Vercruysse, J., Kaukas, A., Kane, R., Mulumba, 

M.P., Pages, J.R. & Jourdane, J. 1997. Epidemiological and genetic observations on 

human schistosomiasis in Kinshasa. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical 

Medicine and Hygiene. 91: 263-269. 
Wright, C.A. 1963. The freshwater gastropod molluscs of Western Aden Protectorate. Bulletin 

of the British Museum (Natural History). Zoology, 10: 257-274. 
Wright, C.A. 1971. Bulinus on Aldabra and the subfamily Bulininae in the Indian Ocean area. 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (B)260: 299-313. 



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 56(2) June 1999 117 

Case 3052 

Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and sphaeriustoae Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the partial revocation of 
Opinion 1331 

M.A. Jach 

Naturhistorisches Museum, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria (e-mail: 
manfred.jaech@nhm-wien.ac.at) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the beetle family-group name 
SPHAERiusiDAE Erichson, 1 845 and the name of its type genus Sphaerius Waltl, 1 838. 
The nominal genus Sphaerius was unnecessarily suppressed in Opinion 1331 (1985) 
despite the fact that it was never (and is still not) a homonym. The Commission is 
asked to rescind certain parts of Opinion 1331 and to correct errors of fact relating 
to a number of names placed on Official Lists. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sphaeriusidae; Sphaerius; 
Sphaerius acaroides. 



1. An application from Dr A.H. Clarke for the removal of the homonymy of the 
family-group name sphaeriidae in MoUusca and Insecta was published in 1970 as 
Case 1892 (BZN 26: 235-237). Various comments and alternative proposals were 
received and published in the Bulletin, and it was not until 1985 that the rulings of the 
Commission were published as Direction 117 (BZN 42: 43-45) and Opinion 1331 
(BZN 42: 230-232). These rulings were: 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and all 
subsequent uses of that name were suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) The generic name Microsporus Kolenati, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species 
by monotypy Microsporus obsidiamis Kolenati, 1 846, was placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) An earlier entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was 
corrected to read: Sphaeriuin Scopoli, 1777 (gender: neuter), type species by 
monotypy [not by subsequent designation by J.E. Gray, 1847] Tellina cornea 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(4) The specific name obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, as published in the binomen 
Microsporus obsidianus (specific name of the type species of Microsporus 
Kolenati. 1846) was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(5) The following family-group names were placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology: 

(a) SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys. 1862 (1820) (type genus Spliaerium Scopoli, 1777); 

(b) MiCROSPORiDAE Rcichardt, 1976 (type genus Microsporus Waltl, 1838); 



118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

(6) The following generic names were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Sphaerius Waltl, 1838, as suppressed under the plenary powers; 

(b) Cvclas Lamarck, [1798] (a junior objective synonym of Sphaerium Scopoli, 
1777); 

(7) The following family-group names were placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: 

(a) CYCLADIDAE (as 'Cycladia') Rafinesque, 1820 (invalid because the name of 
its type genus is a junior objective synonym rejected before 1961); 

(b) SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 (invalid because the name of its type genus was 
suppressed under the plenary powers). 

2. Although, following Opinion 1331, Microsporus and microsporidae have often 
been used, Sphaerius and its derived family name have been retained by some workers 
(e.g. Lafer, 1989; Yang, 1994; Telnov et al, 1997), while White & Brigham (1996) 
used Sphaerius but placed it in the microsporidae. 

3. Publication of Opinion 1331 has caused considerable confusion in the following 
respects: 

(i) The generic name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 was suppressed by the Commission 
solely to remove the homonymy between the derived family name sphaeriidae 
Erichson, 1845 and sphaeriidae Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (MoUusca; type genus 
Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777). This unprecedented action was taken despite the fact that 
Sphaerius was stated to have been in general use for many years and that R.V. 
Melville, then Commission Secretary, emphatically warned (BZN 32: 204) that 'there 
is no intrinsic reason for suppressing either [the generic or family names] ... there is 
no justification in this case for the implied disturbance of stability in generic names". 
Melville (BZN 32: 60-62) also suggested that the most satisfactory way of removing 
homonymy was to adopt the spelling sphaeriusidae, as specified in Article 55b(ii) of 
the current Code. The suppression of Sphaerius for the purposes of homonymy 
has the undesirable, and presumably overlooked, effect of permitting the future 
introduction of this name in a quite different taxonomic sense. 

(ii) The type species oi Sphaerius is S. acaroides, Waltl, 1838, and the type species 
of Microsporus is M. obsidianus Kolenati, 1846. These two specific names were 
synonymised by Mathews (1899), but this synonymy has never been confirmed. Six 
syntypes of Sphaerius acaroides are in good condition in the Naturhistorisches 
Museum in Vienna, whereas the types of Microsporus obsidianus have not been 
located with certainty. 

(iii) The suppression of the generic name Sphaerius has induced some authors to 
believe erroneously that the name of its type species, Sphaerius acaroides. was no 
longer available and to use instead the name of its presumed junior synonym, 
Microsporus obsidianus. Such works include Lohse & Lucht (1989), Lobl (1995) and 
Endr6dy-Younga(1997). 

(iv) The name microsporidae was attributed to Reichardt (1976) in Opinion 1331; 
Lawrence & Newton (1995, p. 805) pointed out that it was actually established by 
Crotch (1873, p. 78). The author of the type genus Micro.sporus was erroneously given 
as Waltl (1838) in (4)(1) of Opinion 1331; in fact, it was Kolenati (1846). 

4. In order to remedy these serious defects I propose that Opinion 1331 be 
modified in a number of respects. This will have the effect of restoring availability to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 119 

the name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and the derived family name: these are the oldest 
names for the taxa. The spelling sphaeriusidae is in line with Recommendation 29B 
of the forthcoming new edition of the Code. The names Microsporus Kolenati, 1 846, 
MiCROSPORiDAE Crotch, 1873 and obsidianus Kolenati^ 1846 remain available should 
they be required for future taxonomic use. 

5. This proposal to the Commission has the support of a large number of 
entomologists whose views I have sought, including I.M. Kerzhner (St Petersburg), 
B. Klausnitzer (Dresden), I. Lobl (Geneva) and A. Smetana (Ottawa). 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rescind the suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name 
Sphaerius V^aXil 1838: 

(b) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the 
generic name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 is sphaerius-: 

(2) to delete the entry for Sphaerius Waltl, 1 838 from the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and to place on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology the name Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 (gender: mascu- 
line), type species by monotypy Sphaerius acaroides Waltl, 1838; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name acaroides 
Waltl, 1838, as published in the binomen Sphaerius acaroides (specific name of 
the type species of Sphaerius Waltl, 1838): 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
SPHAERIUSIDAE Erichson, 1845, type genus Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 (spelling 
emended by the ruling in (l)(b) above): 

(5) to emend the entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for 
the name microsporidae Reichardt, 1976 to read 'microsporidae Crotch, 1873 
(type genus Microsporus Kolenati, 1846)': 

(6) to emend the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 
Names in Zoology for sphaeriidae Erichson, 1845 to read 'sphaeriidae 
Erichson, 1845 (an incorrect original spelling of sphaeriusidae)' under the 
ruling given in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Crotch, G.R. 1873. On the arrangement of the families of Coleoptera. Proceedings of the 

American Plulosophical Society, 13: 75-87. 
Endrody-Younga, S. 1997. Microsporidae (Coleoptera: Myxophaga). a new family for the 

African continent. Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 36: 309-311. 
Erichson, W.F. 1845. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. 3: 1-320. 
Kolenati, F.A. 1846. Insecta Caucasi. Coleoptera, Dermaptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, 

Mutillidae, Aphaniptera. Anoplura. Melelemata Entomologica, vol. 5. 169 pp. Petropoli. 
Lafer, G.S. 1989. Sphaeriidae. Pp. 258-259 in Ler, P.A. (Ed.), Opredelilel nasekomych Dalnego 

Vosloka SSSR. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Leningrad. 
Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected 

genera, notes, references on family-group names). Pp. 779-1006 in Pakaluk, J. & Slipiiiski, 

S.A. (Eds.), Biology, phylogeny. and classification of Coleoptera. Papers celebrating the 

80th birthday of Roy A. Crowson. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa. 
Lobl, 1. 1995. New species of terrestrial Microsporus from the Himalaya (Coleoptera: 

Microsporidae). Entomologische BIcitter. 91(3): 129-138. 



120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. 1989. 6.a Familie: Microsporidae. P. 72 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, 

W.H. (Eds.), Die Kdfer Milteleuropas, vol. 12. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 
Mathews, A. 1899. A monograph of the families Corylophidae ami Sphaeriidae. 220 pp., 8 pis. 

Janson, London. 
Reichardt, H. 1976. Sphaeriidae Insecta and Mollusca: comments on the Secretary's revised 

proposals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 32: 203-204. 
Telnov, D. et al. 1997. Check-list of Latvian beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera). Mitteilungen des 

Internationalen Entomologischen Vereins e. V., Supplement 5: 1-140. 
Waltl, J. 1838. Beitrage zur nahem naturhistorischen Kenntniss des Unterdonaukreises in 

Bayern. his von Oken, 1838: 250-273. 
White, D. & Brigham, W.U. 1996. 20. Aquatic Coleoptera. Pp. 399^73 in Merritt, R.W. & 

Cummins. K.W. (Eds.), An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall 

& Hunt. Dubuque, Iowa. 
Yang, C. 1994. Coleoptera. 17. Pp. 330-391 in Morse, C, Yang. L. & Tian, L. (Eds.), Aquatic 

insects of China useful for monitoring water quality. Hohai University Press, Nanjing. 



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 56(2) June 1999 121 

Case 3063 

Blennocampa Hartig, 1837, Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837, Taxonus 
Hartig, 1837, Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882, Endelomyia Ashmead, 
1898, Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908, Gemtmira E.L." Smith, 1968, 
BLENNOCAMPiNi Konow, 1890 and caliroini Benson, 1938 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by setting aside the type species 
designations by Gimmerthal (1847) and recognition of those by 
Rohwer (1911) 

Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger 

Deutsches Entomologisches Institiit, Schicklerstrasse 5, D-16225 Eberswalde, 
Germany (e-mail: blank@dei-eberswalde.de; taeger@dei-eberswalde.de) 

Abstract. Gimmerthal (1847) proposed type species for the sawfly genera Poecilo- 
stoina Dahlbom, 1835. Blennocampa Hartig, 1837, Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837 and 
Taxonus Hartig, 1837 (family tenthredinidae). The designations of type species in 
Gimmerthal's publication have been overlooked by subsequent authors. The purpose 
of this application is to conserve the subsequent designations of type species by 
Rohwer (1911), thereby maintaining the current usage of the genus-group names 
Blennocampa, Cryptocampus, Taxonus, Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882, Etulelomyia 
Ashmead, 1898, Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908 and Getnmura E.L. Smith, 1968, and 
the family-group names blennocampini Konow, 1890 and caliroini Benson, 1938. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; tenthredinidae; blenno- 
campinae; caliroini; sawflies; Blennocampa; Cryptocampus; Taxonus; Ametastegia; 
Endelomvia; Monsoma; Gemmura. 



1. Gimmerthal (1847) published a survey of the sawflies occurring in Livonia and 
Kurland. He included (pp. 34-^2) a key to the genera and listed type species, which 
he indicated as such by the word "Typus' or by the abbreviations 'Typ.' or 'T.'. For 
some genera Gimmerthal (1847) has to be regarded as the first publication of the 
subsequent designation of a type species. For several other genera the selection of 
types by Gimmerthal are not valid as the species designated were not originally 
included in the genera, or the types had already been selected by other authors before 
1847. The paper by Gimmerthal (1847) has been overlooked for the purpose of 
designation of type species by subsequent authors. For the four genera Poecilostoma 
Dahlbom, 1835, Blennocampa Hartig, 1837, Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837 and 
Taxonus Hartig, 1837 the accepted type species are those designated by Rohwer 
(1911). Recognition of Gimmerthal's (1847) type designations for these genera would 
also affect the validity of the genus-group names Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882, 
Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898, Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908 and Gemmura E.L. Smith, 
1968, and of the family-group names blennocampini Konow, 1890 and caliroini 
Benson, 1938. 



122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

2. For the following genera Gimmerthal (1847) designated type species which are 
not in accordance with the current understanding of the taxon: 

Poecilostoma Dahlbom, 1835 (pp. 5, 13) 

Designation by Gimmerthal (1847, p. 41): Tenthredo (Allantus) obesa Klug, 1817 

(p. 210; cited by Dahlbom as a junior synonym of T. puherata Retzius, 1783, p. 72, 

currently known as Monsoma pulveratum). 

Current usage: type species Tenthredo guttata Fallen, 1808 (p. 105; synonymized with 

T. Uturata Gmelin, 1790, p. 2668, by Konow, 1905, p. 103; currently known as 

Einpria Uturata). Designation by Rohwer (1911, p. 87). 

Following Rohwer (191 1. p. 87), Poecilostoma Dahlbom, 1835 has been treated as 
a junior synonym of Empria Lepeletier & Serville, [1828] (p. 571). Recognition of 
Gimmerthal's (1847) type designation would result in Poecilostoma becoming the 
valid name for Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908 (p. 368; type species Poecilostoma 
inferentia Norton, 1868, p. 224). Monsoma is a name in current use (family 
TENTHREDINIDAE) which will be conserved if Gimmerthal's action is set aside. We now 
propose this. 

Blennocampa Hartig, 1837 (p. 266) 

Designation by Gimmerthal (1847. p. 39): Tenthredo aethiops Gmelin, 1790 (p. 2992; 

a replacement name for T. morio Fabricius, 1781, p. 416, which was a homonym 

of T. morio Fabricius, 1781, p. 414, known as Nesoselandria morio, treated as 

Dulophanes morio by Lacourt, 1998). T. aethiops is currently known as Endelomyia 

aethiops. 

Current usage: type species Tenthredo {Allantus) pusilla Klug, 1816 (p. 71; a junior 

homonym of Tenthredo pusilla O.F. Miiller, 1776, p. 1, and replaced by Blennocampa 

phyllocolpa Viitasaari & Vikberg, 1985, p. 2). Designation by Rohwer (1911, p. 75). 

The genus Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898 (p. 256; type species Selandria rosae Harris, 
1841, p. 380, a junior synonym of Tenthredo morio Fabricius, 1781 and T aethiops 
Gmelin, 1790; see, for example, D.R. Smith, 1971, p. 10) is included in the tribe 
CALiRoiNi Benson, 1938 (p. 368) of the subfamily heterarthrinae Benson, 1952 
(see D.R. Smith, 1971) or blennocampinae Konow, 1890 (see Benson, 1952). 
Blennocampa Hartig, 1837 is the type genus of the blennocampinae. Recognition of 
Gimmerthal's (1847) type species designation for Blennocampa would result in 
Blennocampa becoming the valid name for the genus which is presently called 
Endelomyia, and a new name would be needed for Blennocampa as currently 
understood. Furthermore, the tribe name blennocampini would become a senior 
synonym of caliroini (type genus Caliroa A. Costa, 1859, p. 59; type species Caliroa 
sebetia A. Costa, 1859, synonymized with Tenthredo (Allantus) cinxia Klug, 1816, 
pp. 69-70, by Konow, 1890, p. 248) and a new name would be required for the group 
of species currently called blennocampini. 

We propose that Gimmmerthal's (1847) type species designation for Blennocampa 
be set aside, so allowing the accustomed usages of the generic names Blennocampa 
and Endelomyia, and of the tribe names blennocampini and caliroini, to be 
maintained. 

Endelomyia aethiops is the 'rose-slug' sawfly, well known as a pest of roses (see 
DR. Smith. 1971, who wrote that the species 'has received much attention in the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 123 

literature and was recognized as a pest of roses as early as 1841 by Harris. In 
Massachusetts in the 1840's it was such a pest that $100 was offered for the most 
successful way to destroy it (Chittenden, 1908)'.). 

Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837 (p. 221) 

Designation by Gimmerthal (1847, p. 36): Nematus mucronatus Hartig, 1837 (p. 223; 

currently known as Euura (Gemmura) mucronata). 

Current usage: type species Nematus (Cryptocampus) meduUarius Hartig, 1837 

(p. 224; synonymized with Cynips amerinae Linnaeus, 1758, p. 554, by Dalla Torre, 

1894, pp. 274-275; currently known as Euura amerinae). Designation by Rohwer 

(1911, p. 77, who mispelled meduUarius as meduUaris). 

Recognition of the designation of Nematus mucronatus Hartig, 1837 as the 
type species of Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837 would cause the currently valid sub- 
generic name Gemmura E.L. Smith, 1968 (p. 1401; type species N. mucronatus Hartig, 
1837) to become a junior objective synonym of Cryptocampus. We propose that 
Gimmerthal's (1847) type designation be set aside. 

Taxonus Hartig, 1837 (p. 297) 

Designation by Gimmerthal (1847, p. 41): Tenthredo (Allantus) bicolor Klug, 1817 
(p. 219; synonymized with Tenthredo equiseti Fallen, 1808, p. 60, by Thomson, 1871, 
p. 234; currently known as Ametastegia equiseti). 

Current usage: type species Tenthredo (Allantus) nitida Klug, 1817 (p. 218). Desig- 
nation by Rohwer (1911, p. 90) who, following Konow ('1896', recte 1905, p. 108) 
and MacGillivray (1908), cited Tenthredo nitida as a junior synonym of T. agrorum 
Fallen, 1 808 (p. 60), which is currently placed in Taxonus. 

Gimmerthal (1847) recorded Tenthredo bicolor Klug, 1817 as the type species of 
'Taxonus Meyr.' (cited as 'Taxonus, Meg. v. Miihlfeld' by Hartig, 1837). Recognition 
of Gimmerthal's designation would mean that Taxonus would become the valid name 
for those species presently grouped as Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882 (p. 198; type 
species Ametastegia fuhipes A. Costa, 1882, synonymized with Tenthredo glabrata 
Fallen, 1808, p. 108, by Konow, 1905). The valid name for Taxonus as currently 
understood would be Ermilia A. Costa, 1859 (p. 106; type species by monotypy 
E. pulchella A. Costa, 1859, p. 106, pi. 76, fig. 6, a junior synonym of Taxonus 
agrorum (Fallen, 1808); see Costa, 1894, p. 155). 

We propose that Gimmerthal's type designation for Taxonus be set aside to allow 
the established usage of the names Taxonus and Ametastegia to continue. 

3. Recognition of the type species designations made by Gimmerthal (1847) would 
upset the current usage of a number of generic names and would threaten 
nomenclatural stability. Changes in the current use of the genus- and family-group 
names which have been mentioned would cause confusion in the names of widely 
distributed taxa. Most affected genera are widely distributed in the Holarctic region 
and are mentioned in many faunistic lists. The names have been used in the following 
representative list of recent publications: Benson (1952; blennocampini, caliroini, 
Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia, Gemmura, Monsoma and Taxonus), Lorenz 
& Kraus (1957; caliroini, Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia and Monsoma), 
D.R. Smith (1969; blennocampini, Blennocampa), D.R. Smith (1971; caliroini. 



124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Endelomyia), Krombein, Hurd, Smith & Burks (1979; BLEhfNOCAMPiNi, caliroini, 
Ametastegia, Endelomyia. Gemmura and Momoimi), Zombori (1981; caliroini, 
Ametastegia. Bkmiucampa, Endelomyia, Monsoma and Taxonus), Viitasaari & 
Vikberg (1985; blennocampini, caliroini, Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia 
and Taxonus), Taeger (1986; Ametastegia, Monsoma and Taxonus), Zhelochovtsev 
(1988: blennocampini, caliroini, Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia, Monsoma 
and Taxonus), Goiilet (1992; blennocampini, caliroini, Ametastegia, Endelomyia, 
Gemmura, Monsoma and Taxonus), Listen (1995; blennocampini, caliroini, 
Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia, Gemmura, Monsoma and Taxonus). A list of 
a further 15 publications in which the names are used, dating from 1952 to 1998, is 
held by the Commission Secretariat). 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species 
prior to those by Rohwer (1911) for the following genera and to make the 
designations shown: 

(a) Poecilostoma Dahlbom. 1835: type species Tenthredo guttata Fallen, 1808; 

(b) Blennocampa Hartig, 1837: type species Tenthredo (Allantus) pusilla Klug, 
1816; 

(c) Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837: type species Nematus (Cryptocampus) 
medullarius Hartig, 1837; 

(d) Taxonus Hartig, 1837: type species Tenthredo (Allantus) nitida Klug, 1817; 

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

(a) Poecilostoma Dahlbom, 1835 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent 
designation by Rohwer (1911) Tenthredo guttata Fallen, 1808 (a junior 
subjective synonym of Tenthredo liturata Gmelin, 1790), as ruled in (l)(a) 
above; 

(b) Blennocampa Hartig, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Rohwer (1911) Tenthredo (Allantus) pusilla Klug, 1816 
(invalid senior objective synonym of Blennocampa phyllocolpa Viitasaari & 
Vikberg, 1985), as ruled in (l)(b) above; 

(c) Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Rohwer (1911) Nematus (Cryptocampus) medullarius 
Hartig, 1837 (a junior subjective synonym of Cynips amerinae Linnaeus, 
1758), as ruled in (l)(c) above; 

(d) Taxonus Hartig, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Rohwer (1911) Tenthredo (Allantus) nitida Klug, 1817 (a 
junior subjective synonym of Tenthredo agrorum Fallen, 1808), as ruled in 
(l)(d) above; 

(e) Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Ametastegia fulvipes A. Costa, 1882 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Tenthredo glabrata Fallen, 1808); 

(f) Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
and original designation Selandria rosae Harris, 1841 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Tenthredo aethiops Gmelin, 1790); 

(g) Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
and original designation Poecilostoma inferentia Norton, 1868; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 125 

(h) Gemmura E.L. Smith, 1968 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Nemaius (Cryptocampus) nnuronaius Hartig, 1837; 

(i) Caliroa A. Costa, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Caliroa sebetia A. Costa, 1859 (a junior synonym of Teiuhredo (Allantus) 
cinxia Klug, 1816); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) litwata Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Terithredo litiirata 

(senior subjective synonym of Tenthredo guitaia Fallen. 1808, the type 
species of Poecilostoma Dahlbom, 1835); 
(h) phyllocolpa Viitasaari & Vikberg, 1985, as published in the binomen 
Blennocampa phyllocolpa (junior objective synonym of Tenthredo (Allantus) 
piisilla Klug, 1816, the type species oi Blennocampa Hartig, 1837); 

(c) amerinae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cynips amerinae 
(senior subjective synonym of Nematus (Cryptocampus) meduUarius Hartig, 
1837, the type species of Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837); 

(d) agrorum Fallen, 1808, as published in the binomen Tenthredo agrorum 
(senior subjective synonym of Tenthredo (Allantus) nitida Klug, 1817, the 
type species of Taxonus Hartig, 1837); 

(e) glabrata Fallen, 1808, as published in the binomen Tenthredo glahrata 
(senior subjective synonym of Ametastegia fulvipes A. Costa, 1882, the type 
species of Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882); 

(0 aethiops Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Tenthredo aethiops 
(senior subjective synonym of Selandria rosae Harris, 1841, the type species 
of Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898); 

(g) inferentia Norton, 1868, as published in the binomen Poecilostoma 
inferentia (specific name of the type species of Monsoma MacGillivray, 
1908); 

(Yi) mucronatus Hartig, 1837, as pubHshed in the binomen Nematus (Crypto- 
campus) mucronatus (specific name of the type species of Gemmura E.L. 
Smith, 1968); 

(i) cinxia Klug, 1816, as published in the binomen Tenthredo (Allantus) cinxia 
(senior subjective synonym of Caliroa sebetia A. Costa, 1859, the type 
species of Caliroa A. Costa, 1859); 

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

(a) BLENNOCAMPiNi Konow, 1890 (type genus Blennocampa Hartig, 1837); 

(b) CALiROiNi Benson, 1938 (type genus Caliroa A. Costa, 1859). 



Acknowledgements 

We thank Dr I.M. Kerzhner (St Petersburg), Prof Dr H. Pschorn-Walcher 
(Neulengbach), Prof Dr W. Schedl (Innsbruck), and D.R. Smith (Washington) for 
critically reading and discussing the manuscript. A.D. Listen (Daibersdorf) kindly 
corrected the English. Dr F. Koch (Berhn) kindly provided a copy of A. Costa's 
(1882) publication. 



126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

References 

Ashmead, W.H. 1898. Classification of the horntails and sawflies, or the suborder Phytophaga. 

Canadian Enlomohgisl, 30(10): 247-257. 
Benson, R.B. 1938. On the classification of sawflies (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of 

the Entomological Society of London, 87( 1 5): 353-384. 
Benson, R.B. 1952. Hymenoptera. Symphyta. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, 

vol. 6, part 2(b). Pp. 51-137. Royal Entomological Society of London, London. 
Chittenden, F.H. 1908. The rose slugs. U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular, No. 105. 

12 pp. 
Costa, A. 1859. Imenotteri. Part 3a (Trivellarti sessiliventri) in Costa, O., Fauna del Regno 

Napoli, part 5 (Imenotteri). 116 pp. 
Costa, A. 1882. Rapporto preliminare e sommario suUe ricerche zoologiche fatte in Sardegna 

durante la primavera del 1882, del Socio Ominario. Rendiconto deli Accademia delle 

Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche, 21(10): 189-201. 
Costa, A. 1894. Prospetto degli imenotteri Italiani da servire prodrome di imenotterologia 

Italiana. Tentredinidei e Siricidei, vol. 3. 291 pp., 3 tab. Accademia Reale delle Scienze, 

Napoli. 
Dahlbom, A.G. 1835. Conspectus Tenthredinidum. Siricidum et Oryssinorum Scandinaviae quas 

Hymenopterorum familias. 16 pp. Hafniae. 
Dalla Torre, C.G. de. 1894. Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae (Phyllophaga & Xylophaga). 

Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus, vol. 1. 

459 pp. Lipsiae. 
Fabricius, I.C. 1781. Species Inseclorum, vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. Hamburg & Kilion. 
Fallen, C.F. 1808. Forsok till upstallning och bestrifning S de i Sverige fundne Arter af 

Insect-S14gtet Tenlhredo Linn. Kongl. Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar, 29(1): 39-64; 

29(2): 98-124. 
Gimmerthal, B.A. 1847. Einiges iiber die Blattwespen im AUgemeinen, nebst einer Uebersicht 

der Gattungs-Charactere. und die bis hiezu in Liv- und Curland beobachteten Arten 

mit einigen Bemerkungen dazu. Arbeiten des Naturforschenden Vereins :u Riga, 1(1): 

23-60. 
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 5. Pp. 2225-3020. 

Lipsiae. 
Goulet, H. 1992. The genera and subgenera of the sawflies of Canada and Alaska: Hymenop- 
tera: Symphyta. In: The insects and arachnids of Canada, part 20. Pp. 1-235. Agriculture 

Canada, Ottawa. 
Harris, T.W. 1841. Report on the insects injurious to vegetation. 459 pp. Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 
Hartig, T. 1837. Die Aderfliigler Deutschlands mit hesonderer Beriicksichtigung ihres 

Larvenzustandes und ihres Wirkens in Wdldern und Garten fiir Entomologen. Wald- 

und Gartenbesitzer. Die Familien der Blattwespen und Holzwespen nebst einer 

allgemeinen Einleitung zur Naturgeschichte der Hymenopteren, vol. 1. 416 pp. Haude & 

Spener, Berlin. 
Klug, F. 1816, 1817. Die Blattwespen nach ihren Gattungen und Arten zusarmnengestellt. 

Magazin. Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 8(1): 42-84 (1816); 8(3): 

179-219(1817). 
Konow, F.W. 1890. Catalogus Tenthredinidarum Europae. Deutsche Entomologische 

Zeitschrift, 1890(2): 241-255. 
Konow, F.W. 1905. Hymenoptera. Fam. Tenthredinidae. In: Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera 

Imeclorum, vol. 29. 1 76 pp. Brussels. 
Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Smitii, D.R. & Burks, B.D. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera of 

America North of Mexico, parts 1-3. xvi, xvi, xxx, 2735 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 
Lacourt, J. 1998. Discussion du genre Dulophanes Konow, 1907 definissant la nouvelle tribu 

des Dulophanini (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae). Revue Fran(aise d'Entomologie, 

(N.S.)20(l-2): 45-50. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 127 

Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, A. [1828]. Tenthrede, Tenthredo. Pp. 566-577 in 

Latreille, P.A.. Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, Serville, A. & Guerin, F.E., Encyclupedie 

Methodique, Histoire Naturelle, vol. 10, part 2. Paris. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Liston, A.D. 1995. Compendium of European sawflies. 190 pp. Chalastos Forestry Publishing, 

Gottfrieding. 
Lorenz, H. & Kraus, M. 1957. Die Larvalsystematik der Blattwespen (Tenthredinoidea und 

Megalodontoidea). Ahhandlungen :ur Larvalsystematik der Inseklen, 1: 1-389. 
MacGillivray, A.D. 1908. Emphytinae — new genera and species and synonymical notes. 

Canadian Enlomologist. 40(10): 365-369. 
MiiUer, O.K. 1 776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus . . . 274 pp. Hallageriis, Havniae. 
Norton, E. 1868. Catalogue of the described Tenthredinidae and Uroceridae of North America. 

Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 2: 21 1-242. 
Retzius, A.J. 1 783. Caroli de Geer. Genera et Species Insectorum. vi, 220 pp. Lipsiae. 
Rohwer, S.A. 1911. Technical papers on miscellaneous forest insects. II. The genotypes of the 

sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Bureau of Entomology. Technical Series, 20(2): 69-109. 
Smith, D.R. 1969. Nearctic Sawflies. I. Blennocampinae: adults and larvae (Hymenoptera: 

Tenthredinidae). Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Technical Bulletin, 1397: 1-176. 
Smith, D.R. 1971. Nearctic sawflies. III. Heterarthrinae: adults and larvae (Hymenoptera: 

Tenthredinidae). Agriculture Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Technical Bulletin, 1420: 1-84. 
Smith, E.L. 1968. Biosystematics and morphology of Symphyta. 1. Stem-galling Euura of the 

California Region, and a new female genitalic nomenclature. Annals of the Entomological 

Society of America, 61(6): 1389-1407. 
Taeger, A. 1986. Beitrag zur Taxonomie und Verbreitung palaarktischer Allantinae 

(Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Beitrage zur Entomologie, 36(1): 107-118. 
Thomson, C.G. 1871. Tenthredo et Sirex Lin. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae, vol. 1. 342 pp. 

Lundae. 
Viitasaari, M. & Vikberg, V. 1985. A checklist of the sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta) of 

Finland. Notutae Entomologicae, 65: 1-17. 
Zhelochovtsev, A.N. 1988. Pereponshatokrylye. Shestaja tshast. — Opredelitl nasekomych 

evropejskoj tshasti SSSR, Leningrad, 3(6): 3-237. 
Zombori, L. 1981. The European genera of Selandriinae and Dolerinae (Hymenoptera: 

Symphyta, Tenthredinidae). Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 27(3-4): 

443^50. 



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). 



128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Case 3066 

Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
designation of Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 1763 as the type species; 
and Tenthredo mstica Linnaeus, 1758: proposed conservation of 
usage of the specific name by the replacement of the syntypes with a 
neotype 

Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger 

Deutsches Enlomologisches Institiit, Schicklerstrasse 5. D-16225 Eberswalde. 

Germany (e-mail: blank@dei-eberswalde.de; taeger@dei-eberswalde.de) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the understanding of the 
name Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835, which has been used for a genus of sawflies 
included in the family tenthredinidae (tribe macrophyini) since its original 
publication. However, in 1934 the name of the type species of the genus, Tenthredo 
rustica Linnaeus, 1758, was transferred to a species of sawfly included in the 
genus Arge Schrank, 1802 (family argidae), thereby formally rendering the name 
Macrophya a junior subjective synonym of Arge. It is proposed that Tenthredo 
montana Scopoli, 1 763 be designated as the type species of Macrophya in accord with 
the long-established and universal usage of the generic name. It is also proposed that 
the name-bearing status of the syntypes of Tenthredo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 be set 
aside and a neotype designated in accord with the use since 1934 of the specific name 
for a well-known and widespread species of Arge. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; TENTHREorNiDAE; macrophyini; 
argidae; sawflies; Macrophya; Macrophya montana; Arge rustica. 



1. Dahlbom (1835. pp. 4, 11) established the name Macrophya for a subgenus of 
the sawfly genus Tenthredo Linnaeus, 1758. The subgenus included 12 nominal 
species, among them 'Tenthredo (Macrophya) rustica". Dahlbom did not characterise 
the species, nor give an authorship and date for the name. 

2. Westwood ([1839], p. 53) designated T. rusiicus Linn[aeus]. Pz.64.10" as the 
type species of Macrophya. Westwood's type species designations were accepted in 
Opinion 71 (January 1922) and Direction 32 (May 1956), and the dates of the parts 
of his publication were set out in Direction 63 (June 1957). 

3. The notation 'Pz.64.10' refers to Panzer's ([1799], pi. 10) description of his new 
species Tenthredo notata from Austria, which undoubtedly represents the female of 
the species that was called Macrophya rustica until the publication of Malaise & 
Benson (1934), that is, the species now called Macrophya montcma (Scopoli, 1763) 
(see para. 4 below). 

4. On the basis of the original description by Linnaeus (1758, p. 556), Malaise & 
Benson (1934, pp. 4-5) pointed out that Tenthredo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 is not the 
species which was for a long time called Macrophya rustica by authors but is a species 
of the genus Arge Schrank, 1802. Malaise & Benson (1934) discussed the type 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 129 

material of Tenthredo rusiica Linnaeus from Linnaeus's collection in London and 
noted: 

'There are 5 (females) of the species now known as Macrophya rusiica (Linne): 
1 (female) unlabelled, 2 (females) labelled 'n. 141', and 2 (females) labelled 
'simillimus rusticae sed distincta angl. B. Clark". 

But these specimens do not agree with the original description of 1758, which is 
repeated in Fauna Suecica (1761), in which the species described comes under the 
heading 'Antennis subclavatis continuis, nee articulatis' and the description reads 
'abdomine nigro; cingulis quattuor flavis". Arge atrata (Forster, 1771) is the only 
Swedish species which fits this description. 

In the later description of 1767, Linne places the species in a group by itself 
under the heading 'Antennis subclavatis, articulatis", with the word 'nee" acciden- 
tally omitted before 'articulatis"; there can be doubt about this and if this is 
recognised the descriptions of 1758 and 1767 tally. In no other instance has Linne 
spoken of the antennae as being segmented without indicating how much so, i.e. 
'plurimis articulatis" or '7 and 8 atriculatis", etc. The omission of the word 'nee" in 
1767 is not sufficient evidence for saying that Linne made a mistake in 1758 and 
that he really was describing a Macrophya with 7-segmented flagellum. Arge atrata 
(Forster, 1771) must become Arge rustica (Linne, 1758), and Macrophya rusiica 
auct., nee Linne, therefore becomes Macrophya montana (Scop.) (Tenthredo 
moniana Scopoli 1763)". 

5. On the basis of Linnaeus"s ( 1 758) description. Malaise & Benson ( 1 934) referred 
the name Tenthredo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 to a species oi Arge (family argidae), and 
not to a species of Macrophya (family tenthredinidae). The loss of the specific name 
of Tenthredo atrata Forster, 1771 (p. 80), the transfer of the name rustica from the 
one species to the other, and the introduction of the name montana Scopoli, 1763 in 
place of rustica as hitherto understood, caused confusion in the use of the specific 
names of two common European sawfly species. In a few cases Macrophya rustica 
continued to be used as a valid name (see, for example, Muche, 1968, p. 14; 
Scobiola-Palade, 1978, p. 222), probably because these authors were unaware of the 
paper by Malaise & Benson (1934). However, Malaise & Benson's nomenclatural 
arrangement has now been widely accepted. 

6. It is not immediately clear which species Dahlbom (1835) understood as 
Tenthredo (Macrophya) rustica when proposing the name Macrophya because he 
neither described the species nor mentioned the author of the name (para. 1 above). 
The species is merely listed, followed by several names of Scandinavian locations. 
However, the other species listed under Macrophya by Dahlbom indicate beyond all 
doubt what he understood as this subgenus: Tenthredo duodecimpunctata Linnaeus, 
1758, T. blcmda Fabricius, 1775, T. alhicincta Schrank, 1776, T. cdbipuncta Fallen, 
1804, T. rihis Schrank, 1781, T. neglecta Klug, 1814 (currently Macrophya annulata 
(Geoffroy, 1785)), T strigosa Fabricius, 1798 (currently M. cw/zpw (Linnaeus, 1758)), 
T. punctwn Fabricius, 1781 (currently M. punctumulbwn (Linnaeus, 1767)), T. 
quadrimaculata Fabricius, 1781 (a senior synonym of M. sanguinolenta (Gmelin, 
1790)), T. rapae Linnaeus, 1767 and T. variegata Fabricius, 1808. The last two 
species are currently included in Pachyprotasis Hartig, 1837, a related member of the 
tribe macrophyini in the tenthredininae. In the generic key for Macrophya, 
Dahlbom (1835, p. 4) used a character ('coxis posticis maximis") which is still used 



130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

today to differentiate the macrophyini from other tribes of the tenthredininae. 
Furthermore, he distinguished (p. 3) species of Macrophya, including rustica, from 
members of the genus Hylotoma Latreille, 1803 (a junior synonym o{ Arge Schrank, 
1802) by 'Antennae subsetaceae aut subfiliformis ... Antennae articulis 9', whereas 
Hylotoma species were characterised by the conspicuous shape of the antennae 
('Antennae subcylindricae, mediocres, articuhs 3'). Thus from the content of his work 
it is evident that Dahlbom (1835) interpreted Tenthredo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 as a 
species of Macrophya. 

7. It is also evident from Westwood's ([1839]) type designation (para. 2 above) that 
he interpreted the type species T. rusticus Linn. Pz. 64.10' in the sense of Panzer 
([1799]), i.e. as a species of Macrophya. 

8. The description of Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 1763 (pp. 216-111, fig. 724), 
which was based on a pair of specimens captured in copulation 'in montanis districtis 
Idriensis' (Slovenia), leaves no doubt that the species is the same as Macrophya 
rustica as understood before 1934, i.e. a species of Macrophya. 

9. The generic name Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 is used in the sense of Tenthredo 
rustica as understood before 1934 (i.e. Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 1763), and not in 
the sense of Linnaeus's (1758) description. Authors have been aware of the problem 
of the type species of Macrophya but so far none has proposed a solution. Smith 
(1979, p. 120) wrote: 'Type species: Tenthredo rusticus [recte rustica] Linnaeus Design, 
by Westwood, 1840 [recte 1839]. T. rusticus in sense of authors at that time'; Gibson 
(1980, p. 15) noted: 'Tenthredo rusticus auct. nee. Linnaeus = Macrophya montana 
(Scopoli). By subsequent designation by Westwood, 1840'; and Abe & Smith (1991) 
recorded: 'Tenthredo rusticus auct., nee. Linnaeus (Designated by Westwood, 1840)'. 

10. The genus Macrophya comprises more than 150 species and has a wide range 
of distribution. The name is cited by many authors; virtually every work on the sawfly 
fauna of Europe or the Mediterranean area includes at least one, and usually 
several, Macrophya species because they are comparatively abundant and can be 
collected easily from flowers, particularly Macrophya montana from flowers of the 
family Apiaceae (alternatively known as Umbelliferae). Members of the genus 
Macrophya are widespread in the Western Palaearctic (see, for example, Muche, 
1968; Ermolenko, 1977; Magis, 1985; Zhelochovtsev, 1988; Lacourt, 1991; Chevin, 
1995; Blank et al., 1998; and Taeger et al., 1998), the Eastern Palaearctic (see, for 
example, Naito, 1978; Inomata & Shinohara, 1993; Shinohara, 1997; and Wei & Ma, 
1997), the Nearctic (see, for example, Gibson, 1980; and Smith, 1991), and the Indian 
subcontinent (see, for example, Singh & Saini, 1989; Saini, Bharti & Singh, 1996). A 
representative list of a further 24 references, mainly of taxonomic works from the 
past 20 years, which demonstrate the usage of the name Macrophya, is held by the 
Commission Secretariat. Recognition that as a consequence of Malaise & Benson's 
(1934) nomenclatural rearrangement the name Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (family 
TENTHREDINIDAE) becomes a junior subjective synonym of Arge Schrank, 1802 
(family argidae), and that a new name is needed for the genus Macrophya as always 
understood, would cause considerable confusion. 

1 1. In order to maintain the original and current usage of the name Macrophya, in 
the interest of stability of nomenclature, we propose that Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 
1 763 be designated the type species of Macrophya. As stated in para. 8 above, this is 
the taxonomic species which before 1934 was called M. rustica. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 131 

12. Since 1934 (Malaise & Benson's publication), the specific name of Tenthredo 
rustica Linnaeus, 1758 has been used for a well-known and widespread species of 
Arge Schrank, 1802, which was formerly known as Arge (or Hylotoma) atrata 
(Forster, 1771) (see paras. 4 and 5 above). To ensure the continuing clarity, security 
and stability of uniform usage of Arge rustica (Linnaeus, 1758) we propose that the 
syntypes (see para. 4 above) be set aside and that a neotype be designated in accord 
with the current usage of the name. The proposed female neotype is labelled as 
follows: 'Hylotoma atrata Forst. Schwerin'; "coll. Konow'; 'Neotype [female] 
Tenthredo rustica Linne, 1758'; 'Arge rustica (Linne) [female] det. Blank & Taeger 
1999". It is deposited in the collection of the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, 
Eberswalde, Germany. The species can be identified unambiguously using the keys of 
Enslin (1917, in which it is named Arge atrata), Gussakovskij (1935), Benson (1951), 
Ermolenko (1975, figs. 63-64 which show illustrations of both male and female 
specimens), Muche (1977) and Quinlan & Gauld (1981). Arge rustica (including the 
neotype) is unique among European species of the genus Arge in the conspicuous 
colour pattern of the abdomen of females (abdomen black, tergum 1 and terga 3-5 
with light pattern). A representative list of a further 16 references, dating from 1957 
to 1998, which demonstrate the current usage of the specific name rustica for a species 
of Arge is held by the Commission Secretariat. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 and to designate Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 
1763 as the type species; 

(b) to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Tenthredo 
rustica Linnaeus, 1758 and to designate the female specimen in the 
Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalde, Germany, referred to in 
para. 12 above, as the neotype; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Macrophya 
Dahlbom, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (l)(a) above 
Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 1 763; 

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

(a) montana Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Tenthredo montana 
(specific name of the type species of Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835); 

(b) rustica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tenthredo rustica and 
as defined by the neotype designated in (l)(b) above. 

Acknowledgements 

We thank Dr I.M. Kerzhner (St Petersburg), Prof Dr H. Pschom-Walcher 
(Neulengbach), Prof Dr W. Schedl (Innsbruck), D.R. Smith (Washington) and Dr A. 
Zinovjev (St Petersburg) for critically reading an early version of the manuscript. 
A.D. Liston (DaibersdorO kindly corrected the English. 

References 

Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The genus-group names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and their 
type species. Esakia (Fukuoka), 31: 1-115. 



132 Bulletin ol" Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Benson, R.B. 1951. Hymenoptera. Symphyta. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, 

vol. 6, part 2(a). Pp. 1^9. Royal Entomological Society of London. London. 
Blank, S.M. et al. 1998. Checkliste der Ptlanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hyinenoptera: 

Symphyta). Pp. 13-34 in Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzemvcspcn Deutschlands 

{Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Kommentierte Bestandsaufnahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern. 
Chevin, H. 1995. Biologic de Macrophya punctwnalhum (Linne) (Hymenoptera: Symphyta, 

Tenthredinidae). L'Entomologiste. Paris, 51(6): 279-285. 
Dahlbom, G. 1835. Conspectus Tenthredinidum. Siricidiim el Oryssinorum Sciindinaviae. quas 

Hymenopterorum familias. 16 pp. Hafniae. 
Enslin, E. 1917. Die Tenthredinoidea Mitteleuropas VI. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift. 

(N.F.). Berlin. (Beiheft 6): 539-662. 
Ermolenko, V.VI. 1975. Rogochvosti ta pil'shhiki. Tentredopodibni pil'shhiki. Argidi. 

Diprionidi. Tentredinidi (Selandriini, Dolerini). Fauna Ukraini. Kiev, 10(3): 1-374. 
Ermolenko, V.M. 1977. New species of sawflies-tenthredinids (Hymenoptera. Tenthredinidae) 

from Talysh [Macrophya (Pseudomacrophva) nizamii]. Vestnik Zoologii, Kiev. S: 

69-74. 
Forster, J.R. 1771. Novae Species Insectorum Centuria I. vi. 100 pp. Davies, London.- 
Gibson, G.A.P. 1980. A revision of the genus Macrophya Dahlbom (Hymenoptera: Symphyta, 

Tenthredinidae) of North America. Memoirs of the Entomological Socielv of Canada, 167: 

135-138. 
Gussakovskij, V.V. 1935. Insectes Hymenopteres, Chalastrogastra 1. Fauna SSSR, Moskva, 

Leningrad, 2(1): 1^53. 
Inomata, R. & Shinohara, A. 1993. Macrophya koreana (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae) found 

in Japan, with the first record of host plant. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomologv and 

Zoology, 61(4): 718. 
Lacourt, J. 1991. Revision des Macrophya du groupe punctumalbum (L). (sous-genre 

Pseudomacrophya Enslin 1913) en Europe et Africa du nord (Hyinenoptera, 

Tenthredinidae). L'Entomologiste. Paris, 47(3): 139-148. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. Ed. 10. vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Suecica, Ed. 2. 578 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12. vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 531-1327. Salvii. Holmiae. 
Magis, N. 1985. Faunistique des Macrophyini de la Belgique et du Grand-Duche de 

Luxembourg (Hymenopteres: Tenthredinidae). 5. Conclusions generales. Bulletin de la 

Societe Royale des Sciences, Liege, 54(6): 363-371. 
Malaise, R. & Benson, R.B. 1934. The Linnean types of sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). 

Arkiv for Zoologie. Stockholm, 26A(20): 1-14. 
Muche, W.H. 1968. Die Blattwespen Deutschlands. I. Tenthredininae. Entomologische 

Ahhandlungen Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 36(1) (Supplement): 

1-58. 
Muche, W.H. 1977. Die Argidae von Europa, Vorderasien und Nordafrika (mit Ausnahme 

der Gattung Aprosthema) (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Entomologische Ahhandlungen 

Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkioide in Dresden, 41 (Supplement): 23-59. 
Naito, T. 1978. Chromosomes of the genus Macrophya Dahlbom (Hymenoptera, 

Tenthredinidae). Kontyu, Tokyo. 46(3): 470-479. 
Panzer, G.W.F. [1799]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten, vol. 

64. pis. 1-24. Felssecker, Niimberg. 
Quinlan, J. & Gauld, I.D. 1981. Symphyta (e.xcept Tenthredinidae). Hymenoptera. New 

edition. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, vol. 6, part 2a. Pp. 1-67. Royal 

Entomological Society of London, London. 
Saini, M.S., Bharti, H. & Singh, D. 1996. Taxonomic revision of genus Macrophya Dahlbom 

(Hymenoptera. Symphyta. Tenthredinidae, Tenthredininae) from India. Deutsche 

Entomologische Zeitschrift, (N.F.), Berlin, 43(1): 129-154. 
Scobiola-Palade, X.G. 1978. Hymenoptera, Symphyta, Tenthredinoidea, Fam. Tenthredinidae 

— Subfam. Selandriinae, Tenthredininae, Heterarthrinae. Fauna Republicii Socialiste 

Romania, Insecta, Sofia. 9(8): 1-244. 
Scopoli, J.A. 1763. Enlomotogia Carniolica ... [36]. 420 pp. Trattner, Vindobonae. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 133 

Shinohara, A. 1997. The type material of Japanese Tenthredo and Macrophya sawflies 

(Hymenoptera. Tenthredinidae) described by A. Mocsary and R. Malaise. Bulletin of the 

National Science Museum, Tokyo, (A, Zoology)23(3): 165-175. 
Singh, D. & Saini, M.S. 1989. Transfer of the species Macrophya lucida from Macrophya to 

Tenthredo (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae). Journal of Entomological Research, New 

Delhi. 13(1-2): 146. 
Smith, D.R. 1979. Suborder Symphyta. Pp. 3-137 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Smith, D.R. 

& Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico, vol. 1. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Smith, D.R. 1991. Flight records for twenty-eight species of Macrophya Dahlbom 

(Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) in Virginia, and an unusual specimen of M epinota (Say). 

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 93: 772-775. 
Taeger, A. et al. 1998. Kommentare zur Biologic, Verbreitung und Gefahrdung der 

Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Pp. 49-135 hi Taeger, A. & 

Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). 

Kommentierte Bestandsaufnahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltem. 
Wei, M. & Ma, L. 1997. Five new species oi Macrophya (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinomorpha: 

Tenthredinidae) from China. Entomotaxonomia, Wukung, 19 Supplement: 77-84. 
Westwood, J.O. [1839]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. Pp. 49-80 published with 

Introduction to the modern classification of insects, part 13 (vol. 2), pp. 257-288. Longman, 

Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans. London. 
Zhelochovtsev, A.N. 1988. Pereponchatokrylye. Sestaja tchast. Opredelitl Nasekomych 

Evropejskoj tchasti SSSR, Leningrad, 3(6): 3-237. 



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). 



134 Bulletin ol' Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Case 3124 

Apis proava Menge, 1856 (currently Electrapis proava; Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by designation of a neotype 

Michael S. Engel 

Department of Entomologv. American Museum of Natural Historv, 

Central Park West at 79th Street. New York, NY. 10024-5192. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to provide stability to the name Apis 
proava Menge, 1856 for a species of fossil bee occurring in the Eocene fauna of 
Europe. The lectotype designated by Zeuner & Manning (1976) is now in extremely 
poor condition and little information on the bee's identity can be gleaned from this 
specimen. The paralectotype, however, is in relatively good condition and can be 
confidently assigned. It is proposed that the original lectotype designation be set aside 
and the paralectotype be designated as neotype, thereby stabilizing the identity of 
Apis proava. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; apidae; fossil bees; Baltic 
amber; Eocene; Apis proava. 



1 . Menge ( 1 856, p. 26) established the name Apis proava for a species of fossil bee 
preserved in Eocene Baltic amber. The description was based on two specimens, 
neither of which was designated as the type. 

2. Zeuner & Manning (1976, pp. 236-238), in a monographic study of the fossil 
bees of the world published posthumously from accumulated notes, identified as 
Menge's original specimens two fossil bees in the Palaeontology Department of the 
Natural History Museum, London, which had been bought in 1892. Zeuner & 
Manning (p. 236) designated one specimen (BM(NH) In. 43592) as the lectotype and 
the other (BM(NH) In. 18757) as the paralectotype. They (p. 237) described the 
lectotype as being "well preserved' but, owing to the removal of the amber piece from 
the block of balsam in which it was preserved, it is now in exceedingly poor condition. 
Zeuner & Manning transferred the species into the fossil genus Electrapis Cockerell, 
1908, subgenus Roussyana Manning, 1960. 

3. The name Apis proava Menge has been used by a number of authors (e.g., 
Buttel-Reepen, 1915; Kerr & da Cunha, 1976; Winston & Michener, 1977; Ruttner, 
1988; a further list of nine references is held by the Commission Secretariat). 

4. I (Engel, 1998, p. 95), while proposing a preliminary classification of bees 
considered to constitute the subtribe electrapina Engel, 1998, provisionally trans- 
ferred Apis proava into the new subgenus Melikertes Engel, 1998, together with the 
type species E. (Melikertes) stilbonota Engel, 1998. Zeuner & Manning's description 
of the lectotype consists of characters which are indicative only of higher-level 
placement at subfamily or tribe level or are meaningless, e.g., 'an antenna cleaner of 
a somewhat primitive type' (p. 237) with no indication of what "primitive type' 
corresponds to morphologically. Similarly, their illustration (pi. 3, fig. 3) of the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56{2( June 1999 135 

lectotype does not help in identifying it below tribe level. In contrast, examination of 
the paralectotype shows that it clearly belongs to Melikeries; the transfer of proava 
was therefore made provisional since the actual nature of the lectotype (i.e., the 
name-bearing type) could not be confirmed. 

5. The designated lectotype leaves the identity oi Apis proava entirely ambiguous 
and stability of the name is lost. I am presently involved in a monographic study of 
the Baltic amber bees and propose the stabilization of Apis proava Menge by 
replacement of the unidentifiable name-bearing type by a neotype in accordance with 
Article 75.5 of the forthcoming 4th Edition of the Code. Recommendation 75A 
advises authors to choose neotypes from any surviving paralectotypes unless there 
are compelling reasons to the contrary. I therefore propose that the paralectotype 
(specimen BM(NH) In. 18757), described and illustrated by Zeuner& Manning (1976, 
p. 237. pi. 3, fig. 4), should be designated as neotype. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimen for 
the nominal species Apis proava Menge, 1856 and to designate as neotype 
the paralectotype (specimen no. BM(NH) In. 18757 in the Palaeontology 
Department, the Natural History Museum, London); 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name proava 
Menge, 1856, as published in the binomen Apis proava and as defined by the 
neotype designated in ( 1 ) above. 

References 

Buttel-Reepen, H. von. 1915. Leben und Wesen der Bienen. xiv. 300 pp. Friedrich Vieweg. 

Brunswick. 
Cockerel!, T.D.A. 1908. Descriptions and records of bees. XX. Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History, (8)2: 323-334. 
Engel, M.S. 1998. A new species of the Baltic amber bee genus Electrapis (Hymenoptera: 

Apidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Researcli, 7: 94-101. 
Kerr, W.E. & da Cunha, R.A. 1976. Taxonomic position of two fossil social bees (Apidae). 

Revista de Biologia Tropical, 24: 35-43. 
Manning, F.J. 1960. A new fossil bee from Baltic amber. Proceedings of the 1 1th International 

Congress of Entomology, Vienna. 1: 306-308. 
Menge, A. 1856. Lebenszeichen vorweltlicher. im Bernstein eingeschlossener Thiere. 32 pp. 

Programm Petrischule, Danzig. 
Ruttner, F. 1988. Biogeographv and taxonomv of honevbees. xxii, 284 pp. Springer Verlag, 

Berlin. 
Winston, M.L. & Michener, CD. 1977. Dual origin of highly social behavior among bees. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 74: 

1135-1137. 
Zeuner, F.E. & Manning, F.J. 1976. A monograph on fossil bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). 

Bulletin of the British Museum {Natural History). Geology, 27: 149-268. 



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). 



136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Case 3058 

Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 and Callorhinus Gray, 1859 
(Mammalia, Pinnipedia): proposed conservation by the designation of 
Phoca pusilla Schreber, [1775] as the type species of Arctocephalus; 
and Otaria Peron, 1816 and Eumetopias Gill, 1866: proposed 
conservation by the designation of Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 as the 
type species of Otaria 

Alfred L. Gardner 

U. S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington. D.C. 20560-0111. U.S.A. (e-mail: 
gardner.alfred@nmnh.si.edu) 

C. Brian Robbins 

Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 

D.C. 20560-0108. U.S.A. (e-mail: robbins.brian(gnmnh.si.edu) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accustomed understand- 
ing and usage of the fur seal name Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 by the designation 
of Phoca pusilla Schreber, [1775] as the type species, thus conserving also the name 
Callorhinus Gray, 1859. At present Phoca ursina Linnaeus, 1758 is the valid type 
species of both Arctocephalus and Callorhinus. The name Arctocephalus relates to a 
genus of some seven fur seals from the southern hemisphere, while Callorhinus is used 
for the single species C ursinus (Linnaeus) from the northern hemisphere. It is also 
proposed that the universal understanding of the names Otaria Peron, 1816 and 
Eumetopias Gill, 1866 should be conserved for the southern and northern sea lions 
respectively by designating Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 (for which the valid specific 
name is P. byronia de Blainville, 1 820) as the type species of Otaria. At present Phoca 
jubata Schreber, [1776] is the type species of Otaria and the name Otaria is a senior 
subjective synonym of Eumetopias. The four genera Arctocephalus, Callorhinus, 
Otaria and Eumetopias are all placed in the family Otariidae Gray, 1825. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Pinnepedia; otariidae; eared seals; 
fur seals; sea lions; Arctocephalus; Callorhinus; Otaria; Eumetopias; Arctocephalus 
pusillus; Callorhinus ursinus; Otaria leonina; Otaria byronia; Eumetopias jubata. 



1. Peron (1816, p. 37, footnote) proposed the name Otaria for the eared 
fur seals and sea lions and was the first to separate these from the earless seals 
(Phoca Linnaeus, 1758). He included five species in Otaria, among them Phoca 
ursina Linnaeus, 1758, P. leonina Molina, 1782 (nee P. leonina Linnaeus, 1758, 
the elephant seal) and P. jubata Schreber, [1776], but he did not designate a 
type species. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 137 

2. G. Cuvier (1817, pp. 166-167) referred to Peron's name for eared seals as 'Les 
Phoques a oreilles exterieures (Otaries. Peron)" and recognized only two species of 
eared seals, Phoca jubata 'Gmelin, 1788" (sea lions) and P. ursina 'Gmelin, 1788' (fur 
seals). 

3. Fischer ( 1817, p. 445), citing 'Otaries Peron. Les phoques a oreilles. Cuv. Regne 
An. 1., p. 166,' proposed the name Owes for the eared seals that G. Cuvier had 
identified as Phoca jubata and P. ursina; he did not designate a type species. 

4. F. Cuvier (1824) divided the seals into seven generic groups and gave a 
description, illustration and type species for each. However, for each generic group 
he used only a French vernacular, including 'Arctocephale'. The type species of this 
genus was given (p. 208) as Phoca ursina Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 37), which was based on 
Steller's (1751, p. 331, pi. 15) 'Ursus marinus' from the Bering Sea. In 1826 F. Cuvier 
referred (p. 541) to his previous (1824) publication, summarised the characteristics of 
each generic group, and adopted Latinized names, including (p. 554) that of 
Arctocephahis. which is available from this authorship and date. F. Cuvier wrote (p. 
553): 'Le type de ce genre nous est offert par Fours marin, Phoca ursina, Linn. ...'. He 
listed only one species (p. 554): 'L' Arctocephale oursin: Arctocephalus ursinus; Ursus 
marinus Steller, Novi comment, petrop., H, p. 331; Buff., Suppl. 6, pi. 47', and noted 
that 'Steller a trouve cette espece dans les iles Aleutiennes, et on pourrait croire 
qu'elle a ete retrouvee par Pernetti aux iles Malouines [Malvinas or Falklands], et par 
Forster au Cap'. Clearly he believed there was only one species oi Arctocephahis with 
a distribution in both hemispheres. 

5. Allen (1870, 1880, 1902, 1905), Gill (1866), Gray (1866a, 1866b, 1869), Peters 
(1866) and Trouessart (1897, 1904) dated Arctocephahis from F. Cuvier's (1824) use 
of the name 'Arctocephale', following a common practice of the day to use names in 
their Latinized form but to date them from their first appearance as vernaculars. 

6. Gray (1859c, p. 359) proposed the name Callorhinus for the species of fur seal 
which he had earlier (1859a, p. 103, pi. 68; 1859b, p. 108) identified and described as 
Arctocephahis ursinus (= Phoca ursina Linnaeus, 1758). He separated ursinus from 
other Arctocephalus species on the basis of its distinctive skull features and. contrary 
to Cuvier's type species designation (see para. 4 above), retained the name 
Arctocephahis for species of fur seals from the southern hemisphere. 

7. The usage of the names Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 and Callorhinus Gray, 
1859 has been retained since Gray (1859); see, for example, the following well-known 
checkhsts of Simpson (1945, p. 121), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 322), 
Ellerman, Morrison-Scott & Hayman (1953, pp. 152-153), Nel in Meester & Setzer 
(1971), Corbet (1978, p. 186), Corbet & Hill (1986, p. 120) and Wozencraft in Wilson 
& Reeder (1993). The name Arctocephalus currently relates to some seven species of 
fur seals from the southern hemisphere, and Callorhinus is used for the single species 
C. ursinus (Linnaeus, 1758) from the northern hemisphere. However, both genera 
were based on Phoca ursina Linnaeus and the name Callorhinus is thus formally a 
junior objective synonym of Arctocephalus. We propose that Phoca pusilla Schreber, 
[1775] (p. 314 [1776], pi. 85 [1775]), the South African fur seal, be designated the type 
species o{ Arctocephalus in accord with usage (see, for example, Ellerman, Morrison- 
Scott & Hayman, 1953; Wozencraft in Wilson & Reeder, 1993). This designation will 
remove the synonymy and allow the long usage of both generic names to be 
maintained. 



138 Bulletin ol" Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

8. Four genus-group names were proposed in 1866 for southern fur seals: 

(1) Halarctus Gill. 1866 (p. 7), type species Arctocephalus delalandii Gray, 1859b 
(an unnecessary replacement name for Otaria pusillu Schreber, [1775]) by monotypy 
and original designation. Published April 1866. 

(2) Antophocu Peters. 1866 (p. 276), type species Oiaria pliilippii Peters. 1866 by 
monotypy (described as a subgenus of Oiaria Peron, 1816). This description appeared 
in the May issue of the Momitsherichle der Koniglich Akademie der Wissenschajten zu 
Berlin; it probably appeared at the end of May or shortly thereafter, but before 
September when cited by Gray (1866c, p. 228). 

(3) Euotaria Gray. 1866c (p. 236). type species Arctocephalus nigrescens Gray, 
1859b (a junior synonym of Phoca australis Zimmermann. 1783) by monotypy 
(described as a subgenus of Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826). Published September 
1866. 

(4) Gvpsophoca Gray. 1866c (p. 236). type species Arctocephalus cinereus Gray. 
1866a (a junior synonym of Oiaria forsteri Lesson. 1828) by monotypy (described as 
a subgenus o{ Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826). Published September 1866. 

Thus, four generic names subsequent to Arctocephalus F. Cuvier. 1826 are available 
for the fur seals of the southern hemisphere. However, Arctocephalus has been nearly 
universally applied to these fur seals for at least 150 years (see para. 7 above) and to 
substitute Halarctus Gill, 1866 or any other of the junior synonyms for this 
well-known name would be certain to create confusion. 

9. Palmer (1892, p. 156) proposed the name Callotaria as a replacement name for 
Callorhimis Gray. 1859 on the assumption that Callorhinus was preoccupied by 
Callirhimis Blanchard. 1850 (a beetle genus) and Callirhiuus Girard. 1857 (a snake). 
He (Palmer. 1901) subsequently pointed out that his replacement name was 
unnecessary because Otoes Fischer, 1817 was available and antedated Callorhinus 
Gray, 1859 (see para. 3 above). Palmer (1901, p. 134) adopted the name Otoes for the 
northern fur seal and designated 'Phoca ursina Gmelin (= Phoca ursina Linn.)' as the 
type species. Allen (1902. p. 116; see also 1905) disagreed with Palmer's designation, 
claiming that Phoca jubata and Phoca ursina as used by Fischer (1817) were 
composite and that 'Otoes is unavailable for the Callotaria group, since if one name 
can ever be considered as a synonym of another, it is evident that Otoes and Otaria 
holds such a relation'. Subsequent authors (including Palmer. 1904, p. 488) acqui- 
esced in Allen's argument and listed Otoes Fischer as a synonym of Otaria Peron (see. 
for example, Cabrera. 1958. p. 301). Nevertheless. Palmer's (1901) type species 
designation is valid and Otoes Fischer. 1817 is the oldest available generic name for 
the northern fur seal. However, this seal has been almost universally known by the 
name Callorhinus Gray, 1859 and, considering the voluminous literature on it, 
adoption of the generic name Otoes would certainly create confusion. We propose 
that the name Otoes Fischer. 1817 be suppressed. 

10. The name Otaria Peron, 1816 relates to sea lions, not fur seals. It is the basis 
of the family otariidae Gray. 1825, which includes Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 
and Callorhinus Gray, 1859, as well as Otaria. Palmer (1904, p. 486) designated 
Otaria leonina "Peron' (i.e. Phoca leonina Molina, 1782, p. 282, a junior primary 
homonym of P. leonina Linnaeus, 1758, the elephant seal) as the type species of 
Otaria, in which sense the name is consistently used (the valid specific name for this 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 139 

species is that of Phoca byronia de Blainviile, 1820a, pp. 287, 300; 1820b, p. 419, 
fig. 3). However, recognition of an earlier type species designation for Oiaria by Gill 
(1866, p. 7) of Pliocv jiibaia Schreber, [1776] would render the name Oiaria a senior 
subjective synonym of Eumeiopias Gill, 1866 (p. 7), which is in use for the 
monospecific northern sea lion genus. The genus Eumeiopias was based on Anto- 
cephalus monieriensis Gray, 1859c (p. 358, pi. 72), a junior synonym oi Phoca jubata 
Schreber, [1776] (p. 300, pi. 83B). The latter is the first available name for Steller's 
(1751, p. 360) sea lion 'Leo marinus' from Kamchatka and the Bering Strait area. We 
propose that Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 be designated the type species of Oiaria in 
accord with universal usage. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the name Oioes Fischer, 1817 for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to set aside all previous type species fixations for the nominal genus 
Arclocephahis F. Cuvier, 1826 and to designate Phoca pusilla Schreber, 
[1775] as the type species; 

(c) to set aside all previous type species fixations for the nominal genus Oiaria 
Peron, 1816 and to designate Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 as the type 
species; 

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

(a) Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above Phoca pusilla 
Schreber, [1775]; 

(b) Callorhinus Gray, 1859 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Phoca ursina Linnaeus, 1758; 

(c) Oiaria Peron, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under 
the plenary powers in (l)(c) above Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 (invalid 
senior subjective synonym of Phoca byronia de Blainviile, 1820); 

(d) Eumeiopias Gill, 1866 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Arclocephahis monieriensis Gray, 1859 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Phoca jubala Schreber, [1776]); 

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

(a) pusilla Schreber, [1775], as published in the binomen Phoca pusilla (specific 
name of the type species of Arciocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826); 

(b) ursina Linnaeus, 1 758, as published in the binomen Phoca ursina (specific 
name of the type species of Callorhinus Gray, 1859); 

(c) byronia de Blainviile, 1 820, as published in the binomen Phoca byronia (first 
available subjective synonym of Phoca leonina Molina, 1782, the type 
species of Oiaria Peron, 1816); 

(d) jubala Schreber, [1776], as published in the binomen Phoca jubata (senior 
subjective synoym of Arclocephahis monieriensis Gray, 1859, the type 
species of Eumeiopias Gill, 1866); 

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

(a) Oioes Fischer, 1817, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 



140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

(b) Halarclus Gill, 1866 (a junior objective synonym of Arclocephalus F. 
Cuvier, 1826); 

(c) Callotaria Palmer, 1 892 (a junior objective synonym of Callorhinus Gray, 
1859). 

References 

Allen, J.A. 1870. On the eared seals (Otariadae), with detailed descriptions of the North Pacific 

species, by J.A. Allen. Together with an account of the habits of the northern fur seal 

(Ciillorhinus ursinus), by Charles Bryant. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 

2: 1-108. 
Allen, J.A. 1880. History of North American pinnipeds, a monograph of the walruses, 

sea-lions, sea-bears and seals of North America. United States Geological and Geographi- 
cal Surtey of the Territories, Miscellaneous Publications, Number 12. 
Allen, J.A. 1902. The generic and specific names of some of the Otariidae. Bulletin of the 

American Museum of Natural History, 16: 111-118. 
Allen, J.A. 1905. Mammalia of southern Patagonia. Pp. 1-210, pis. 1-29 in Scott, W.B. (Ed.), 

Reports of the Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia, 1896-1899, vol. 3 (Zoology), 

part 1. University of Princeton, N.J. 
Blainville, H.D. de. 1820a. Sur quelques cranes de phoques. Journal de Physique, de Chimie et 

d'Histoire Natiirelle. 91: 286-300. 
Blainville, H.D. de. 1820b. Explication de la partie de la planche qui a rapport au Memoire sur 

quelques especes de phoques, insere dans la cahier d'Octobre de cette annee. Journal de 

Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle, 91: 419. 
Cabrera, A. 1958. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentina 

de Ciencias Naturales 'Bernardino Rivadavia' . Zoologia, 4: 1-308. 
Corbet, G.B. 1978. The mammals of the Palaearclic region: a taxonomic review. 314 pp. British 

Museum (Natural History), London. 
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1986. ,A world list of mammalian species, Ed. 2. viii, 254 pp. British 

Museum (Natural History), London. 
Cuvier, F. 1824. De quelques especes de phoques et des groupes generiques entre lesquels elles 

se partagent. Memoires du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. II: 174-214. 
Cuvier, F. 1826. Phoque. Pp. 540-559 in Cuvier, F. (Ed.), Dicliotmaire des Sciences Naturelles, 

vol. 39 (Perroq — Phoq). Levrault. Strasbourg; Le Normant, Paris. 
Cuvier, G. 1817. Le regne animal distribue d'apres son organisation, pour servir de base a 

I'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a I'anatomie comparee. vol. 1. xxxviii, 540 

pp. Deterville, Paris. 
Ellerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 

1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum, London. 
EUerman, J,R., Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. & Hayman, R.W. 1953. Southern African mammals 

1758 to 1951: a reclassification. 363 pp. British Museum, London. 
Fischer, G. 1817. Adversaria Zoologica. Fasc. 1. Memoires de la Societe Imperiale des 

Naturalistes de Moscou, 5: 357^46. 
Gill, T, 1866. Prodrome of a monograph of the pinnipedes. Proceedings of the Essex Institute, 

5: 1-13. (Issued in the serial in July 1866 but published as a separate in April 1866). 
Gray, J.E. 1859a. On the sea bear of Foster, the Ursus marinus of SleWer, Arctocephalus ursinus 

of authors. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1859: 102-103. 
Gray, J.E. 1859b. On the eared seal of the Cape of Good Hope (Otaria delalandii). Proceedings 

of the Zoological Society of London, 1859: 107-110. 
Gray, J.E. 1859c. On the sea-lions, or lobos marinos of the Spaniards, on the coast of 

California. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1859: 357-361. 
Gray, J.E. 1866a. Catalogue of seats and whales in the British Museum, Ed. 2. vii, 402 pp. 

British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Gray, J.E. 1866b. Observations on the "Prodrome of a monograph of the pinnipedes, by 

Theodore Gill". Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (3)17: 444—446. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 141 

Gray. J.E. 1866c. Notes on the skulls of sea-bears and sea-lions (Otariadae) in the British 

Museum. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (3)18; 228-237. 
Gray, J.E. 1869. Additional notes on sea-bears (Otariadae). Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History, (4)4: 264-270. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Molina, G.I. 1782. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili. 367 pp. Bologna. 
Nel, J.A.J. 1971. Order Pinnipedia in Meester. J. & Setzer, H.W. (Eds.), The mammals of 

Africa. An identification manual, part 9. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Palmer, T.S. 1892. A new generic name for the Bering Sea fur-seal. Proceedings of the 

Biological Society of Washington, 7: 1 56. 
Palmer, T.S. 1901. The earliest generic name of the northern fur seal. Proceedings of the 

Biological Society of Washington, 14: 133-134. 
Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index generum mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals. 

North American Fauna. 23: 1-984. 
Peron, F. 1816. Histoire de Telephant raarin, ou phoque a trompe [Phoca proboscidae, N.]: 

peches des Anglois aux Terres Australes. Pp. 32-66 in: Voyage de decouvertes aux Terres 

Auslrales, execute sur les Corvettes le Geographe. le Naturaliste, et la Goelette le Casuarina, 

pendant les annees 1800. 1801. 1802. 1803 et 1804., vol. 2. 471 pp. L'Imprimerie Royale. 

Paris. 
Peters, W. 1866. Uber die Ohrenrobben (Seelowen und Seebaren), Otariae. insbesondere iiber 

die in den Sammlungen zu Berlin befindlichen Arten. Monatsberichte der Kdniglich 

Preussischen .Akademie der Wissenscluiften zu Berlin, 1866: 261-281. 
Schrebcr, J.C.D. von. [1775], [1776]. Die Sdugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur init 

Beschreibungen, vol. 2, part 13. pp. 223-230. pis. 81-92 ([1775]); vol. 3, part 17. pp. 

290-312, pis. 83B, 115-118, 120. 121 ([1776]). Walther, Erlangen. 
Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin 

of the .American Museum of Natural History, 85: 350. 
Stellar, G.W. 1751. De bestiis marinis. Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis 

Petropolitanae, 2: 289-398. 
Trouessart, E.-L. 1897. 1904. Catalogus mammalium tam viveniium quam fossilium. Fasc. 2 

(Carnivora. Pinnipedia. Rodentia 1) (1897); Quinquennale supplementium (1904). 

Friedlander, Berlin. 
Wozencraft, W.C. 1993. Order Carnivora. Pp. 279-348 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds), 

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

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 



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). 



142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2| June 1999 

Comment on Ihe proposed conservation of the specific names of Stromhidium gyrans 
Stokes, 1887 (currently Strohilitlium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida) 
(Case 3011; see BZN 55: 6-8, 233-235; 56: 48^9) 

Wilhelm Foissner 

Universilcit Sahhurg. Insliltn ft'ir Zoologie. Hellhnmnerslrasse 34. A-5020. Austria 

The reply by Heckman (BZN 56: 48^9) to the two comments by Corliss and 
myself (BZN 55: 233-236) adds little to the matter addressed in Case 3011 but is, in 
part, incorrect and unnecessarily polemic. Specifically, I want to address the 
following points: 

1. If students have problems with the changing names of organisms, then their 
teachers should explain that taxonomy and nomenclature are not static but living 
disciplines. Heckman's discussion is too general and, for instance, does not take into 
account that students of biology have to change from the vernacular names, with 
which they are familiar, to binominal nomenclature. 

2. When Petz & Foissner (1992) established the replacement name Sirobilidium 
kahli, it was not known that the species belonged to Rimostrombidium. as recently 
shown by Agatha & Riedel-Lorje (1998); the action by Petz and myself was in 
accordance with the state of knowledge at the time and with the Code. Such changes, 
which result from progress in taxonomy, are common in nomenclature. 

3. The original descriptions of Strombidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876 and 
Stromhidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 are of a similar detail and quality, while the 
description of Trichoda comeia Miiller, 1773 is, understandably, much more 
incomplete and hardly assignable. Accordingly, Kahl's preference for Stokes's junior 
synonym was a mistake. This is why 1 emphasised in my first comment (BZN 55: 233) 
that Heckman's proposal relates mainly to a taxonomic and not a nomenclatural 
problem. It may happen that further research shows that the European and American 
'Strobilidium caudatum' belong to different species. In that case, Stokes's name would 
need to be resurrected. Heckman appears not to accept that subjective synonymy is 
never definitive and that a comprehensive description of the American Stromhidium 
gyrans has not yet been undertaken. 

4. Heckman is incorrect in stating that our four-volume monograph on the ciliates 
used as bioindicators is 'grey literature'. Each of these volumes, published in the 
series Informationsherichte des Bayerisches Landesamtes fiir Wasserwirtschaft, has an 
ISSN number (0176-4217), is indexed in Zoological Record, is obtainable by 
purchase, and was printed in 1200 copies, most of which have already been sold and 
are used by workers worldwide. 

5. I fully agree with Corliss's comment (BZN 55: 233-236) and emphasise that, if 
priority and taxonomy were to be restricted in the way proposed by Heckman, a 
chaotic situation would result in protist nomenclature and taxonomy, which are still 
poorly explored. Only by a strict application of the Code can some stability be 
reached eventually. 



Bullelln of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 143 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (IMollusca, 
Gastropoda) and Cydostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrohia acuta) 
by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation 
of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hvdrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hvdrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca) 
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145; 56: 56-63) 

(1) F. Naggs, P.B. Mordan, D.G. Reid and K.M. Way 

Department oj Zoology. The Natural History Museum. London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

The application by Prof F. Giusti, Dr Giuseppe Manganelli and Dr Marco Bodon, 
published in BZN 55: 139-145, raises a number of important issues involving 
nomenclatural procedures and practice that merit discussion beyond the immediate 
issue of nomenclature within the hydrobiidae. 

If the material of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 at the Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris is part of the type series then Boeters (1984) followed a 
correct nomenclatural procedure. There is no conflict with historical usage o.r 
understanding; only the limited literature since Mars (1966) and Radoman (1977) is 
affected. The overturning of this position should only be considered if there is 
overwhelming support among interested parties. The onus is on those wishing to set 
aside the Code to demonstrate that there is such support. 

The (1998) publication by Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon in the Journal of 
Conchology has raised our concern. In our view the presentation and tenor of this 
paper goes beyond presenting the authors' case for setting aside the existing lectotype 
of Hydrobia acuta and designating a neotype to the extent of appearing to pre-empt 
the Commission's decision on the issue. In particular, the title appears as 'A proposed 
neotype for Hydrohia acuta\ and a heading on p. 7 of the paper as 'A neotype for 
Hydrohia acuta'. On entering the hterature such a title can only mislead and cause 
confusion. 

With regard to the proposed designation of a neotype for Hydrobia acuta, we 
strongly object to the proposal by Giusti et al. in their application to establish a new 
specimen as the neotype, as opposed to designating an appropriate lectotype from 
among the available series of 74 paralectotypes. Unfortunately the authors do not 
explicitly justify their proposal, but the implication is that dry shell material is 
inadequate for typification of Cyclostoma acutum. Nevertheless, this is clearly not the 
case since Giusti et al. (1998) stated that the Paris paralectotype illustrated by Boeters 
(1984) 'can be clearly identified as H. acuta sensu Mars (1966) and sensu Radoman 
(1977) by virtue of its flat whorls and superficial sutures'. Evidently, designation of 
one of the remaining paralectotypes of H. acuta would adequately serve their 
nomenclatural intention in this case. 

The vast majority of gastropod species are based on type material consisting of 
shells alone. Clearly, in order to facilitate identification it is desirable to associate 
critical anatomical features (and genetic information) with particular nominal 
species. However, in most cases this can be achieved unambiguously by reference to 



144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

shell morphology. It is unnecessary and irresponsible to erect a neotype simply 
because an anatomical character allows for more ready determination. Such an 
action should be reserved for those cases in which shell material is genuinely 
inadequate for unequivocal identification. 

In general, the Commission should not accept the setting aside of a type series 
solely because a new character is thought to allow a more straightforward discrimi- 
nation among similar species. Such a case could be made for a large number of 
gastropod taxa but this would encourage bad practice by obviating the need for 
critical evaluation of existing type specimens. Type series that can continue to fulfil 
the function of providing a stable basis for species nomenclature must not be set aside 
or nomenclatural stability will be compromised. 

(2) Folco Giusti, Giuseppe Manganelli and Marco Bodon 
Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva, Universiiu di Siena. Via Mattioli 4, 
1-53 100 Siena. Italy 

Our application (published in BZN 55: 139-145) has gained the support of 
Dr D.F. Hoeksema and of Dr D. Kadolsky (comments published in BZN 56; 62-63), 
but our proposal to set aside the lectotype for Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805) 
designated by Boeters (1984) and to replace it with a neotype in keeping with the 
past and current understanding of H. acuta and of Hydrobia Hartman, 1821 has 
been opposed by Dr H.D. Boeters and his co-authors (BZN 56: 57-62) and by 
Mr F. Naggs and his co-authors (their comment above). Boeters et al. and Naggs 
et al. proposed the retention of Boeter's lectotype of H. acuta, which (as Boeters 
et al. agree) is a specimen of Hydrobia (or Ventrosia) ventrosa Montagu, 1803 as 
understood by all authors. As noted in para. 8 of our application, this would result 
in the specific name ventrosa becoming a senior synonym of acuta and a new name 
being required for acuta as currently understood by almost all authors. Moreover, if 
the proposed designation of ventrosa as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 
is approved by the Commission, recognition of ventrosa as a senior synonym of acuta. 
as required by Boeters's (1984) action, would render the name Hydrobia a senior 
synonym of Ventrosia and a new name would be needed for the much-used Hydrobia 
of authors if the two taxa are placed in separate genera (see below). Boeters (1984) 
and Boeters et al. (para. B5 of their comment) suggested Obrovia Radoman, 1974 as 
an available name, but this was synonymised with Hydrobia by Radoman himself 
(1977) and, to our knowledge, has never been used. In any case, there are a number 
of synonyms, mostly unused, earlier than Obrovia. 

Our application set out to forestall the serious confusion and disruption that would 
result from the switch of the name Hydrobia to the genus currently called Ventrosia, 
the loss of the name acuta as a synonym of ventrosa, and the need to replace with new 
names those of acuta and Hydrobia as understood by the majority of authors. 

The comment by Boeters et al. contains a number of factual errors and misunder- 
standings on the status of the two species Hydrobia acuta and H. (or Ventrosia) 
ventrosa. These have arisen through the omission of key works in the previous 
literature and a distorted view of the concepts of some early French authors. 

Bouchet, Boeters et al. and Kadolsky (see BZN 56: 57, 58 and 63 respectively). 
basing their remarks on Dollfus (1912), are convinced that two specimens in Paris are 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 145 

syntypes of Hydrobia acuta (Drapamaud, 1805). Nevertheless, we feel the need to 
stress that these specimens appear to us to be rather different from the two syntypes 
photographed by Dollfus (1912, pi. 4, figs. 5-8). Comparison of Dollfus's figures with 
those of Boeters (1984, pi. la, figs. 1-2) and Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon (1998, figs. 
1-2) has revealed that Dollfus's first specimen, as illustrated in his figs. 5 and 8, differs 
from the lectotype selected by Boeters (1984) by a less inflated and slightly convex last 
whorl, and also appears (Dollfus, fig. 5) to have a small breakage near the base of the 
external margin of the peristome. Comparison has also revealed that Dollfus's second 
specimen, as illustrated in figs. 6-7, was less acutely conical (i.e. more ovate) than the 
Paris paralectotype; the conical shape and poorly convex whorls suggest that both of 
Dollfus's figured specimens are H. acuta (see Giusti et al., 1998). The uncertainty of 
their status is why we (Giusti et al., 1998, p. 4) noted the specimens now in Paris as 
'putative syntypes' and in our application (para. 6) recorded "... whether they were 
actually original specimens is impossible to determine'. However, the first specimen 
shows the initial whorls encrusted in a manner similar to that of the shell (in its 
original state; see Boeters, 1984, pi. la, fig. 1) selected as the lectotype by Boeters 
(1984), and there is a possibility that Dollfus's (1912) photographs were badly 
reproduced, giving rise to the artifacts noted above. 

Boeters et al. (BZN 56: 57, para. 1) claim that 'despite the statement by Giusti, 
Manganelli & Bodon (1998, p. 7), Boeters (1984) clearly emphasized that the 
lectotype and the paralectotype of Cyclostoma acutum are not conspecific'. In our 
view this is not at all clear. Boeters (1984, p. 4, last four lines) noted that 'Das 
grossere der beiden Gehause zeigt deutlich tiefere Nahte als das kleinere Gehiiuse; 
man kann damit das grossere Gehause der vorstehend von mir gekennzeichneten 
Species 1 und das kleinere Gehause der Species 2 zuordnen', but in the caption to pi. 
la, figs. 1-2 he, confusingly, assigned both the syntypes to Hydrobia acuta and 
designated the larger specimen as the lectotype. 

Only after a direct study of Boeters's lectotype did we (para. 7 of our application) 
realise that the specimen had the upper part of the spire encrusted so as to give an 
incorrect idea of the convexity of the whorls and the depth of the sutures, and were 
we able to demonstrate unequivocally, after the encrustations had been carefully 
removed, that the specimen was really one of H. ventrosa. 

It is not correct that 'at least until 1977 (Radoman's paper), Cyclostoma acutum 
Draparnaud, 1805 was understood in different ways but always related to Turbo 
ventrosus Montagu, 1803" (para. A3 of the comment by Boeters et al.). As we (Giusti 
et al., 1998) reported. Mars (1966), the first author to produce determinations taking 
into account both shell and body characters, anticipated Radoman in clearly 
distinguishing H. acuta (pp. 237-243, fig. 14A, 1; shell oval-oblong, with poorly 
convex whorls; animal with tentacles having a subterminal transverse black bar, etc.) 
from H. ventrosa (pp. 243-245; fig 14C, 2; shell conical, with obviously convex 
whorls; animal with tentacles lacking subterminal transverse black bar, etc.). The 
subterminal transverse black bar on the tentacles is one of the diagnostic characters 
distinguishing H. acuta sensu Mars (1966) and Radoman (1977), and "Hydrobia sp.' 
of Boeters (1984), from H. ventrosa (see Paladilhe. 1874; Giusti & Pezzoli, 1984; 
Giusti. Manganelli & Schembri, 1995; Giusti et al., 1998). In relation to H. acuta. 
Mars (1966, p. 238) noted that (in translation) 'the figure provided by Draparnaud, 
even if imperfect, shows a shell with poorly convex whorls', i.e. the opposite of 



146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

Boeters's (1984) conclusion. Mars continued 'Dollfus figured some specimens of 
Draparnaud's collection which allow a complete definition. It is a very little shell 
(3.2 X 2 mm) with poorly convex whorls', demonstrating that his interpretation of 
H. acuta was in accord with that of earlier authors (because of the encrustations Mars 
accepted, as did Giusti & Pezzoli, 1984, that both syntypes figured by Dollfus, 1912 
were H. acuta). Early in the century Dollfus (1912, pp. 248-252, fig. 1, pi. 4, figs. 5-8) 
had already reached a clear idea of the identity of//, acuta and considered it a species 
distinct from H. veiitrosa, the latter (p. 250) 'with whorls even more convex". It is 
noteworthy that this aspect of Dollfus's (1912) paper and Mars (1966) were not cited 
by Boeters (1984) and that Dollfus's concepts have been completely overturned in the 
comment by Boeters et al. Paladilhe (1870, p. 238), who was quoted by Mars (1966), 
also recognized //. acuta as having "tours assez peu convexes'. Paladilhe (1870), 
Dollfus (1912), Germain (1931) and Mars (1966), all long before Radoman (1977), 
gave a list of characters (anatomical and conchological) sufficient to confirm the 
identify of the two distinct species Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 and Turbo 
ventrosus Montagu, 1803. 

It is true that some early English authors (Forbes & Hanley, 1850, and Jeffreys, 
1862, for example) considered Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud to correspond to 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, but there is no evidence that they derived their view from 
a study of the original material. 

The British species studied and identified as Paludestrina ventrosa by Robson 
(1922), which was referred to by Boeters et al. in para. 4.2 of their comment, 
corresponds to Turbo ventrosus Montagu and to Hydrobia (or Ventrosia) ventrosa as 
understood by Dollfus (1912), Mars (1966), Radoman (1977), Giusti & Pezzoli 
(1984), Giusti, Manganelli & Schembri (1995) and Giusti et al. (1998). 

The older literature contains many occasions on which both the species Cyclostoma 
acutum and Turbo ventrosus were moved from one genus to another (cf para. A5 of 
the comment by Boeters et al.). It was Radoman (1977) who, having gained much 
experience of the anatomy of the hydrobiidae, concluded that the differences 
between the two species were sufficient to place them in separate genera. His generic 
diagnoses remain the most clear and complete that have appeared so far. Radoman's 
taxonomic arrangement was not followed by Davis, McKee & Lopez (1989) and by 
Haase (1993), who considered Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 to be a junior synonym of 
Hydrobia Hartman, 1821 (see comments in Giusti, Manganelli & Schembri, 1995, 
p. 124). However, a recent genetic study by Thomas Wilke (personal communication, 
February 1999) supports the placement of the two species in separate genera. 

No consequences arise from the point, made by Boeters et al. in para. B2 of their 
comment, that "a penis having an 'intromittent portion ... long and pointed', as 
described by Robson (1922) for Turlw ventrosus Montagu, 1803, was considered to 
be characteristic not only for Turbo ventrosus but also of the genus Hydrobia, at least 
until 1977'. All the authors cited by Boeters at al. studied only T. ventrosus or 
H. ulvae (a species frequently included in the genus or subgenus Peringia Paladilhe, 
1874), and no author had ever studied the genital anatomy of Hydrobia acuta, the 
type species of Hydrobia, until Radoinan's (1977) paper. Since H. ulvae has a penis 
with a pointed tip it is not at all surprising that many authors believed the genus 
Hydrobia to be defined by this 'character'. In 1963, Muus published on the genital 
anatomy of Hydrobia neglecta, a nominal species recently recognized (see Hoekseina. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 147 

1998; Thomas Wilke, in preparation) as a junior synonym of H. acuta, and showed 
this to have a cyHndrical penis with a fan-Hice apex. 

It is unfortunate that Radoman (1977), having studied the anatomy of a number 
of hydrobiid taxa, did not fix the identity of Hydrohia acuta by designation of a 
lectotype, and even more unfortunate that Boeters (1984), in designating a lectotype, 
failed to consult all the available literature to gain an understanding of the nature of 
H. acuta and I', veutrosa. In no way has Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation "not 
only stabilized the understanding of the identity of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 
1805 but also that oi Hydrohia Hartman, 1821', as claimed by Boeters et al. in para. 
B6 of their comment. On the contrary, recognition of the H. acuta lectotype 
designation very inappropriately made by Boeters (1984) would lead to confusion 
and instability in the understanding and nomenclature of these taxa, and also in 
Ventrosia and V. ventrosa. As we have pointed out above and in our application, it 
would result in the transfer of names (at both generic and specific levels) from one 
taxon to another, and the totally unnecessary requirement for new names. Our 
proposed replacement of Boeters's (1984) lectotype by a neotype from Draparnaud's 
putative type locality, recognisable both conchologically and anatomically, would 
confirm the past and current understanding of H. acuta and V. ventrosa. and of the 
genera Hydrohia and Ventrosia. 

In reply to Naggs et al. (their comment above), we believe that the title 'A proposed 
neotype for Hydrohia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805)' of our (1998) publication, and the 
section heading (p. 7, 'A neotype for Hydrohia acuta'), are acceptable. The Abstract 
and text of the paper make very clear the circumstances of the proposed neotype, cite 
our application to the Commission, note that setting aside Boeters's (1984) lectotype 
designation and designation of a neotype in line with the earlier and more widely 
accepted usage of the name are proposed in our application, and that both actions 
require Commission approval. The third paragraph under the section heading (p. 7) 
begins 'The proposed neotype ...'. 

In relation to our choice of specimen as the proposed name-bearing type of 
Hydrohia acuta (cf. the comment above by Naggs et al.), we note that Recommen- 
dation 75A of the Code states that 'a neotype for a nominal species-group taxon 
should be chosen from any surviving paratypes or paralectotypes, unless there are 
compelling reasons to the contrary ... Topotypic specimens from the type series 
should be given special preference'. In this case there are, indeed, 'compelling reasons' 
for not selecting one of the paralectotypes in Vienna or Paris, which lack all 
anatomical information, as the neotype. In our application (para. 4) we wrote that 
'the status of Hydrohia acuta has remained controversial because of the impossibility 
of correct determination in the absence of anatomical information' and (para. 9) 
'since this hydrobiid species is most easily identified by male anatomical characters, 
a male specimen has been selected as the neotype'. We have also noted above that 'the 
subterminal transverse black bar on the tentacles is one of the diagnostic character- 
istics distinguishing H. acuta sensu Mars (1966) and Radoman (1977)'. The two 
species H. acuta and Ventrosia ventrosa often have very similar shells and their 
diiferentiation is frequently possible only after anatomical studies (see Giusti & 
Pezzoli, 1984). The fact that in the case of the shells of the lectotype selected by 
Boeters (1984) and the Paris paralectotype recognition as distinct species has been 
possible is exceptional and not the rule. The male neotype proposed for H. acuta. 



148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

which has the shell and the anterior part of the body with penis, will provide 
much-needed anatomical information and unequivocally link this with the name, 
bringing stability to the identity and nomenclature of the taxon. The specimen is from 
the putative type locality of Etang du Prevost. near Palavas-les-Flots, Herault, 
France. 

Additional references 

Mars, P. 1966. Recherches sur quelques etangs du littoral mediterreen frangais et sur leur 

faunas malacologiques. Vie Milieu Suppl., 20: 1-359. 
Paladiihe, A. 1870. Etude monographique sur les Paludinidees franpaises. Annates de Mala- 

cologie. 1: 167-243. 
Paladiihe, A. 1874. Monographic de nouveau genre Peringia, suivie des descriptions d'especes 

nouvelles de Paludinees frangaises. Annates des Sciences Nalurelles, (6, Zoologie et 

Paleontologie), 1: 1-38. 

Comments on the proposed precedence of the specific name of Crotalus ruber Cope, 
1892 over that of Crotalus exsul Carman, 1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes) 

(Case 3005; see BZN 55: 229-232) 

(1) Sherman A. Minton 

4840 E. 77th Street. Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-2228. U.S.A. 

I write to support the application by Prof Hobart M. Smith and his co-authors to 
conserve the name Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 by giving it precedence over C. exsul 
Garman, 1884 when the two taxa are considered to be conspecific. In my 1992 paper 
I may have inadvertantly suggested the opposite (para. 3 of the application), but I 
believe that the proposal of Smith at al. is far better for the maintenance of 
nomenclatural stability in herpetology. 

(2) R. Earl Olson 

The Organisation for Tropical Research, MSA Laboratories, 133 South Cleveland, 
Cambridge, Minnesota 55008, U.S.A. 

It is my view that the authors of the application should be supported in their 
proposal. The name Crotalus ruber has not only been used for a lengthy time but, 
since it refers to a venomous snake, it is involved in many medical and preventative 
materials. The removal of the name, and replacement with C. exsul. when the two 
taxa are treated as conspecific would bring about undue confusion, especially in 
non-herpetological circles. 

(3) 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. 

I request that the Commission consider favorably the proposal to give the species 
name Crotalus ruber Cope precedence over C exsul Garman if the two taxa are 
considered to be conspecific. Loss of the name C. ruber would not aid in a better 
understanding of Crotalus systematics, and would also result in a considerable 
curatorial problem throughout museum collections. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56{2) June 1999 149 

(4) Robert W. Murphy 

Centre for Biodiversity cmd Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum. 
100 Queen's Park. Toronto. Ontario. Canada M5S 2C6 

Smith et al. have argued lucidly for the conservation of the well known name 
Crotalus ruber Cope. 1892 for the red diamondback rattlesnake by giving it 
precedence over the less frequently used name C e.xsul Garman, 1884. I give their 
application my full support. 

Approval of the application is essential for maintaining a stable nomenclature, 
which is particularly critical for research and practice in medical sciences, legal 
protection and education. Although the literature is already becoming confused with 
inconsistent uses of the names (e.g. Wong, H., 1997, Herpetological Review, 28: 
188-189), the period of confusion is likely to be brief. Van Denburgh (1922, 
Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Science, 10: 920) placed C ruber in 
synonymy with C. e.xsul but this arrangement of names was not long perpetuated. 

(5) Bayard H. Brattstrom 

Department of Biological Science. McCarthy Hall 282, California State University, 
FuUerton. P.O. Box 6850. Fullerton. California 92834-6850. U.S.A. 

I published on fossil pit-vipers, which included the red rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber, 
in 1954. 

I published data on rattlesnake skulls, including the red rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber, 
in Klauber's classic two-volume work in 1956. 

I published on the function of the lung in rattlesnakes, including the red 
rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber, in 1959. 

I published my Ph.D. thesis on the evolution of the pit-vipers, including the 
relationship of the red rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber, to the other rattlesnakes, in 1964. 

I published a large paper on the body temperature of reptiles, which included 
thermal data for the red rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber, in 1965. 

I published a chapter in Herpetology of the North American deserts on the social 
behavior and habitat requirements of desert reptiles, which included information on 
the red rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber, in 1994. 

I published a paper on forensic herpetology, involving an attempted murder by 
using a rattlesnake, in 1998. In the study we used a red rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber. 

Thus, within my scientific career I, myself, have included information on the red 
rattlesnake using the name Crotalus ruber in papers on anatomy, paleontology, 
ecology, behavior, forensics, thermophysiology and conservation. The name Crotalus 
ruber is clearly well established in the literature of many different fields. I urge that 
stabihty of the nomenclature be maintained and that the name C. ruber be given 
precedence over C e.xsul if the two taxa are regarded as synonyms. 

(6) Support for the application has also been received from Dr Aurelio Ramirez- 
Bautista and Dr Julio Lemos Espinal ( Unidad de Biologia, Tecnologia, y Prototipos 
(UBIPRO), Unam. Av. de los Barrios sin. Los Reyes Ixtacala. Tlalnepantla, estado de 
Mex. C.P. 54090. A. P. 314, Mexico). 



150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1923 

Trachelocerca Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): authorship conserved as 
Ehrenberg (1840), and Vibrio sagitta Miiller, 1786 fixed as the type 
species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Protozoa; Ciliophora: Karyorelictea; 
Trachelocerca; Trachelocerca sagiiia; marine ciliates. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, [1834] and all 
uses of that name prior to its publication by Ehrenberg (1840) are hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle 
of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy Vibrio sagitia Miiller, 1786, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name sagitta Miiller, 1786. as published in the binomen Vibrio sagitta 
(specific name of the type species of Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, [1834] is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) 
above. 

History of Case 3035 

An application for the conservation of Trachelocerca, with authorship of the name 
attributed to Ehrenberg (1840) and the type species fixed as Vibrio sagitta Muller, 
1786, was received from Dr John O. Corliss (Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. t/.S..4.) and 
Prof Wilhelm ¥ oissntr (Universitdt Salzburg, Institut fiir Zoologie, Salzburg, Austria) 
on 19 November 1996. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 
219-221 (December 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 220. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, 
Kabata, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, 
Patterson, Savage, Schuster 

Negative votes — 3: Dupuis, Mahnert and Stys. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Voting for, Bouchet commented: 'I regret that the application contains so few 
references to document the usage of Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840'. Voting against, 
Mahnert commented: 'Natural priority should prevail in this case; the taxa involved 
are not of economic or medical importance, are of limited geographical distribution 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 151 

and synonyms exist for Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840 (para. 7 of the application). 
The necessary nomenclatural changes would concern only a limited number of 
specialists'. 

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: 

Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, [1834]. Ahhandhmgen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 
:u Berlin. 1833: 316. [Issued in the serial in 1835 but published as a separate in 1834]. 

Trachelocerca Ehrenberg. 1840. Monatsberichte imd Verhandhmgen der Koniglichen 
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften :u Berlin, 1840: 202. 

sagilta. Vibrio, Miiller. 1786, Animalcula Infusoria fluvialilia el marina ..., p. 59. 



152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1924 

Helix drapamaudi Beck, 1837 (currently Oxychilus draparnaudi; 
Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; zonitidae; Oxychilus 
draparnaudi. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy: 

(a) draparnaldi Cuvier, 1816, as published in the binomen Helix draparnaldi; 

{b) draparnaudi Sheppard, 1823, as published in the binomen Helix 
draparnaudi, and all other uses of the names draparnaldi and draparnaudi 
published in combination with Helix before the publication of Helix 
draparnaldi Beck, 1837 {corrected in Opinion 336 to H. draparnaudi). 

(2) The entries for the names draparnaudi and draparnaldi Beck, 1837 on the 
Official List and the Official Index of Specific Names in Zoology are hereby 
corrected to record that the original generic combination was with Helix and 
not with Helicella. 

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

(a) draparnaldi Cuvier, 1816, as published in the binomen Helix draparnaldi 

and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 
(h) draparnaudi Sheppard, 1823, as published in the binomen Helix 

draparnaudi and as suppressed in ( 1 )(b) above. 

History of Case 3013 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Helix draparnaudi 
Beck, 1 837 was received from Dr G. Manganelli & Prof F. Giusti ( Universitd di Siena, 
Siena, Italy) on 15 February 1995. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 54: 148-151 (September 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that support for the correction of the entries on 
the Official List and Official Index for the specific names draparnaudi and draparnaldi 
Beck, 1837, to record that the original combination was with Helix and not with 
Helicella, was received from Prof Adolf Riedel (Museum and Institute of Zoology, 
Polish Academy of Sciences. Warsaw, Poland). 

It was also noted that, with the exception of two references from 1930 and 1933, 
the references held by the Commission Secretariat which demonstrated the usage of 
the specific name of Oxychilus draparnaudi (para. 8 of the application) dated from 
1960 to 1995. 

The specific name of draparnaudi Beck, 1837, and its original spelling draparnaldi. 
were placed on the Official List and Official Index respectively in Opinion 336 (March 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 153 

1955). However, the original combinations were given wrongly as Helicella drapar- 
nmidi and draparnaldi, and not Helix draparnaudi and draparnaldi, and the senior 
primary homonyms Helix draparnaudi Sheppard, 1823 and Helix draparnaldi Cuvier, 
1816 were not then considered. 



Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 150. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official Index, and to the 
emended entries on the Official List and Official Index for Helix draparnaudi and drupiinuildi 
Beck, 1837 respectively, by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

draparnaldi. Helix. Beck. 1837, Index molluscorum .... p. 6 (original spelling). 

draparnaldi. Helix, Cuvier, 1816, Le regne animal disiribiie d'apres son organisation .... vol. 2, 

p. 405, footnote 5. 
draparnaudi. Helix, Beck, 1837. Index molluscorum .... p. 6 (emended spelling accepted in 

Opinion 336). 
draparnaudi. Helix, Sheppard, 1823, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 14: 158. 



154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1925 

Turrilites gravesianus d'Orbigny, 1842 (currently Hypoturrilites 
gravesianus; Mollusca, Ammonoidea): specific name conserved and a 
replacement lectotype designated; Turrilites tuberculatus Bosc, |1802| 
(currently Hypoturrilites tuberculatus): placed on the Official List 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cephalopoda; Ammonoidea; Upper Creta- 
ceous; ammonites; Hypoturrilites; Hypoturrilites gravesianus; Hypoturrilites 
tuberculatus. 



Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name giganteus de Haan, 1825, as published in the binomen 
Turrilites giganteus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) all previous type fixations for the nominal species Turrilites gravesianus 
d'Orbigny, 1842 are hereby set aside and specimen no. BMNH C5762b in 
the collections of the Natural History Museum, London, is designated as 
the lectotype. 

(2) The name Hypoturrilites Dubourdieu, 1953 (gender: masculine), type species 
by original designation Turrilites gravesianus d'Orbigny, 1842, 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) gravesianus d'Orbigny, 1 842, as published in the binomen Turrilites 
gravesianus and as defined by the lectotype designated in (l)(b) above 
(specific name of the type species of Hypoturrilites Dubourdieu, 1953); 

(b) tuberculatus Bosc, [1802], as published in the binomen Turrilites tuberculata 
(recte tuberculatus) and as defined by the neotype (specimen no. BMNH 
C5762a in the collections of the Natural History Museum. London) 
designated by Kennedy & Wright (1997). 

(4) The name giganteus de Haan, 1825, as published in the binomen Turrilites 
giganteus and as suppressed in (l)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 



History of Case 2948 

An application to conserve the specific name of Turrilites gravesianus d'Orbigny, 
1842, defined by a replacement lectotype, and to place T. tuberculatus Bosc, [1802] on 
the Official List defined by the neotype designated by Kennedy & Wright (1997), was 
received from Prof W.J. Kennedy {University Museum. Oxford. U.K.) and Dr C.W. 
Wright (then of Seaborough. Beaminster. Dorset. U.K.) on 26 August 1994. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 222-225 (December 1997). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 155 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 224. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Kabata, 
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, 
Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — 1 : Dupuis. 

Bouchet abstained. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented that, in his view, the application contained insufficient 
information about the usage of names to allow a vote. 

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: 

giganteus. Turn'liles. de Haan, 1825, Specimen Philosophicum Inaugurate. Exhibens Mono- 

graphiae Ammoniteorum el Goniatiteorum .... p. 78. 
gravesianus, Turrililes, d'Orbigny, 1842, in: Paleontologie Franfaise: Terrains Cretaces. I. 

Cephahpodes. p. 596. 
Hypoturrilites Dubourdieu, 1953, Bulletin du Service de la Carte Geologique de I'Algerie, series 

1 (Paleontologie), 16: 44. 
luberculatus. Turrilites, Bosc, [1802], Hisloire naturelle des coquilles, vol. 5. In: Hisloire 

naturelle de Buffon. classee . . . d'apres le sysleme de Linne. par R. R. Castel. P. 189, pi. 42, 

fig. 8. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Turrilites tuberculatus 
Bosc. [1802]: 

Kennedy, W.J & Wright, C.W. 1997. BZN 54: 224. 



156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1926 

DASYPODiDAE Bomcr, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling emended 
to DASYPODAiDAE, SO removing the homonymy with dasypodidae Gray, 
1821 (Mammalia, Xenarthra) 

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

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 
of the Code the stem of the generic name Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 
(Hymenoptera) is dasypoda-. 

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

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

(a) novemcinctus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dasypus 
novemcinctus (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) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

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

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

(5) The name Tatu Blumenbach. 1779 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym 
of Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758) (Xenarthra). 

(6) The name dasypodidae Bomer, 1919 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (spelling emended to 
dasypodaidae by the ruling in ( I ) above) (Hymenoptera). 

History of Case 3023 

An application to remove the homonymy between the mammalian and 
hymenopteran family-group names dasypodidae Gray, 1821 (based on the generic 
name Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758) and dasypodidae Bomer, 1919 (based on the 
generic name Dasypoda Latreille, 1802) was received from (the late) Prof Byron 
A. Alexander & Prof Charles D. Michener (Snow Entomological Museum. 
University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and Dr Alfred L. Gardner (U.S. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 157 

Geological Survey Putuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington. U.S.A.) on 5 August 1996. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 55: 24-28 (March 1998). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 26-27. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1999 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, Kabata, 
Kerzhner, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Bock, Cogger and Dupuis. 

Ride was 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: 

Dasypodu Latreille, 1802, Hlstoire naiurelle ties founnis ..., p. 424. 

DASYPODAIDAE Borner, 1919. Biologisches Zentralblatl, 39(4): 180 (incorrectly spelled as 

DASYPODIDAE). 

DASYPODIDAE Borner. 1919, Biologisches Zentralblatt, 39(4): 180 (an incorrect original spelling 

of DASYPODAIDAE). 

DASYPODIDAE Gray, 1821, London Medical Repository, Monthly Journal and Review. 15( 1 ): 305. 

Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 50. 

hirtipes, Andrena. Fabricius, 1793, Entomologica systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 2, 

p. 312. 
novemcinctus. Dasypus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 51. 
Tatu Blumenbach, 1779, Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, p. 74. 

The following is the reference for the designation oi Andrena hirtipes Fabricius, 1793 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Dasypoda Latreille, 1802: 

Blanchard, E. 1840. Hymenopteres. In Castelnau, F.L.N, de Laporte, Histoire naturelle des 
insectes, vol. 3, p. 414. 



158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1927 

Lactura Walker, 1854 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved, and the 
specific name of Eustixis papula Hiibner, [1831) (currently Lactura 
pupula): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; Microlepidoptera; zygaenoidea; 
lacturidae; yponomeutidae; pyralidae; Lactura; Lactura pupula: Eustixia; 
Eusti.xia pupula; Eustixis; Mieza. 

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) Eustixis Hubner, [1831]; 

(b) Mieza Walker, 1854. 

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

(a) Eustixia Hubner, 1823 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Kirby (1892) Eustixia pupula Hiibner, 1823; 

(b) Lactura Walker, 1854 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Lactura dives Walker, 1854. 

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

(a) pupula Hubner, 1823, as published in the binomen Eustixia pupula (specific 
name of the type species of Eustixia Hubner, 1823); 

(b) pupula Hubner, [1831], as published in the binomen Eustixis pupula; 

(c) dives Walker, 1854, as published in the binomen Lactura dives (specific 
name of the type species of Lactura Walker, 1854). 

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

(a) Eustixis Hubner, [1831], as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Mieza Walker, 1854, as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 3001 

An application for the conservation of the name Lactura Walker, 1854, and of the 
specific name of Eustixis pupula Hiibner, [1831], was received from Dr J.B. Heppner 
(Florida State Collection of Arthropods. Division of Plant Industry. Florida 
Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. Gainesville. Florida. U.S.A.) on 
2 November 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 159-161 
(September 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 160-161. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1998 the votes were as follows: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 159 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell 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: 

dives, Lactura, Walker, 1854, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of 

the British Museum, part 2. p. 485. 
Eustixia Hiibner, 1823, Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1, p. 24. 
Eustixis Hiibner, [1831], Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. vol. 3, p. 24. 
Lactura Walker, 1854, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the 

British Museum, part 2, p. 485. 
Mieza Walker, 1854, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British 

Museum, part 2, p. 527. 
pupula. Eustixia. Hiibner, 1823, Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. vol. 1, p. 24. 
pupula. Eustixis, Hiibner, [1831], Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, \o\. 3, p. 24. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Eustixia pupida Hiibner, 1 823 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Eustixia Hiibner, 1823: 

Kirby, W.F. 1892. A synoptic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. 1 (Sphinges 
and Bombyces), p. 339. 



160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1928 

Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927 and Gruntoconcha Angiolini, 1995 
(Brachiopoda): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; Gruntoconcha; Septoproductus; 
Waagenoconcha; Permian. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Sepioproductus Freeh, 1911 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

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

(a) Gruntoconcha Angiolini, 1995 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Waagenoconcha (Gruntoconcha) niacrotuberculata Angiolini, 
1995; 

(b) Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Productus humholdti d'Orbigny, 1842. 

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

(a) niacrotuberculata Angiolini, 1995, as published in the binomen Waageno- 
concha (Gruntoconcha) niacrotuberculata (specific name of the type species 
of Gruntoconcha Angiolini, 1995); 

(h) hiimholdti d'Orbigny, 1842, as pubHshed in the binomen Productus 
humboldli (specific name of the type species of Waagenoconcha Chao, 
1927). 

(4) The name Septoproductus Freeh, 191 1 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in ( 1 ) above. 

History of Case 3034 

An application for the conservation of the names Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927 and 
Gruntoconcha Angiolini, 1995 was received from Dr C.H.C. Brunton (The Natural 
History Museum. London. U.K.) on 17 October 1996. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 54: 242-244 (December 1997). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 243. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 16: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Eschmeyer, Kabata, 
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, 
Savage, Stys 

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Dupuis, Patterson and Schuster. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 161 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented: 'The group of fossils concerned in the apphcation is being 
studied by a very small number of taxonomists. One of the names involved 
{Gnmtoconcha) was established as recently as 1995 and it is difficult to see what might 
justify the proposal to 'retain the current understanding and use" of that name (para. 
6). I see no reason why the provisions of the Code should be set aside'. Patterson 
commented: 'No evidence is presented that application of the Code would create 
significant disruption. I do not see that any good reason has been offered to justify 
the case'. 



Original references 

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

Gruntoconcha Angiolini. 1995, Rivista Italiana di Paleonlologia e Straligrafia, 101: 206. 
humholdli. Prodiictus, d'Orbigny. 1842. Voyage dans rAmeriqiie meridionale .... vol. 3. part 4 

(Paleontologie). p. 54. 
macroluberculata, Waagenoconcha (Gnmloconcha). Angiolini, 1995. Rivisia Italiana di 

Paleonlologia e Siraligrafia. 101: 206. 
Septoproductus Freeh, 191 1. ;>i Richthofen. F. von. China. Ergebnisse eigener Reisen unddarauf 

gegriindeler Studien. vol. 5. p. 132. 
Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927, China Geological Survey. Palaeonlologia Sinica. (B)5(2): 85. 



162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

OPINION 1929 

Cnemidophorus neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia, 
Squamata): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Squamata; whiptail lizards; teiidae; 
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus; southwestern United States. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the specific name perplexus Baird & Girard, 1 852, as 
published in the binomen Cnemidophorus perplexus, is hereby suppressed for 
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Hoinonymy. 

(2) The name neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952, as published in the binomen 
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name perplexus Baird & Girard, 1852, as published in the binomen 
Cnemidophorus perplexus and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 3049 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Cnemidophorus 
neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 was received from Prof Hobart M. Smith 
(University of Colorado, Boulder. Colorado 80309-0334. U.S.A.) and 10 others on 
30 May 1997. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 167-171 
(September 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Dr Charles J. Cole {American Museum of Natural 
History, New York, N Y., U.S.A.), Dr Philip A. Medica (U.S. Geological Survey, Las 
Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.), Dr Harold A. Dundee (Tulane University of Natural History, 
Louisiana, U.S.A.), Dr Robert G. Webb (University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, 
Texas, U.S.A.), Dr Wilmer W. Tanner (Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, 
Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah. U.S.A.), Prof David B. Wake (Museum of 
Vertebrdte Zoology. University of California. Berkeley, California, t/.S.^).) and Prof 
Beth E. Leuck (Centenary College of Louisiana. Shreveport, Louisiana, U.S.A.) were 
published in BZN 55: 39-43 (March 1998). 

A note of the support received from Prof Robert C. Stebbins (Museum of 
Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. Berkeley. California, U.S.A.), Prof 
James L. Christiansen (Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, U.S.A.), Prof Roger 
Conant (The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A.) and 
Dr Joseph T. Collins (The Center for North American Amphibians and Reptiles, 
Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) was also published in BZN 55: 43. 

It was noted on the voting paper that, although the specific name of Cnemido- 
phorus neomexicanus relates to a taxon which some authors now consider originated 
through hybridisation (para. 5 of the application and the comment from Dr C.J. Cole 
on BZN 55: 40), it is nevertheless available (Article 17 of the Code). 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 163 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 54: 169. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1998 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Eschmeyer, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster,' Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Kerzhner, Kraus and Song. 

Heppell 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: 

neomexicanus. Cnemidophorus. Lowe & Zweifel. 1952. Bulletin of the Chicago Academv of 

Sciences. 9(\i): 2^0. 
perplexus, Cnemidophorus, Baird & Girard. 1852, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia. 6(4): 128. 



164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the 
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with 
these guidelines may be returned. 

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the 
Code's provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this 
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss 
their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so 
that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other 
zoologists. 

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting 
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text 
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 'Daudin (1800, 
p. 39) described . . .". The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. 

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more 
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are 
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should 
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable 
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of 
publication. 

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, 
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce 
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the 
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, 
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission's Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 






Contents — continued 



OPINION 1924. Helix drapamaudi Beck, 1837 (currently Oxychilus drciparmiudi; 

Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved 152 

OPINION 1925. Turrilites gravesianus d'Orbigny, 1842 (currently Hypoturhlites 
gravesianus; Mollusca, Ammonoidea): specific name conserved and a replacement 
lectotype designated; Tuniliies luherculaliis Bosc, [1802] (currently Hypoturrililes 
luberculalus): placed on the OflScial List 154 

OPINION 1926. DASYPODIDAE Horner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling 
emended to dasypodaidae. so removing the homonymy with dasypodidae Gray, 
1821 (Mammalia, Xenarthra) 156 

OPINION 1927. Lactura Walker, 1854 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved, and the 
specific name of Eiisiixis pupula Hiibner, [1831] (currently Lactura pupuhi): 
conserved 158 

OPINION 1928. Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927 and Grunloconcha Angiolini, 1995 

(Brachiopoda): conserved 160 

OPINION 1929. Cnemidophorus neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, 1952 (Reptilia, 

Squamata): specific name conserved 162 

Information and instructions for authors 164 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 105 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 107 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals 107 

General Article 

Centralized access to newly published zoological names. J. Howcroft & J. Thome . 108 

Applications 

Bulinus nrighii Mandahl-Barth. 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conserva- 
tion of the specific name. D.S. Brown, F. Naggs & V.R. Southgate 113 

Sphaerhis Waltl. 1838 and sphaeriusidae Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 

proposed conservation by the partial revocation of Opinion 1331. M.A. Jach. . 117 

Blennocampa Hartig, 1837, Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837, Taxonus Hartig. 1837, 
Amelastegia A. Costa, 1882, Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898, Monsoma MacGillivray, 
1908, Gemmwa E.L. Smith, 1968, blennocampini Konow, 1890 and caliroini 
Benson, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by setting aside the 
type species designations by Giramerthal (1847) and recognition of those by 
Rohwer (1911). S.M. Blank & A. Taeger 121 

Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Ten- 
lliredo monlana Scopoli, 1763 as the type species; and Tenthredo rustica Linnaeus, 
1758: proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the replacement of 
the syntypes with a neotype. S.M. Blank & A. Taeger 128 

Apis proava Menge, 1856 (currently Ekclrapis proava; Insecta, Hymenoptera): 

proposed conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel 134 

Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 and Callorhiiius Gray, 1859 (Mammalia, Pinnipedia): 
proposed conservation by the designation o( Phoca pusilla Schreber, [1775] as the 
type species oi Arctocephalus: and Olaria Peron, 1816 and Eumelopias Gill, 1866: 
proposed conservation by the designation of Phocci leonina Molina, 1782 as the 
type species of Owr/fl. A. L. Gardner & C.B. Robbins 136 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Sirobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932 
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). W. Foissner 142 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclosloma aculmn Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Vemrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). F. Naggs, P.B. Mordan, D.G. Reid & K.M. Way; F. 
Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon 143 

On the proposed precedence of the specific name of Crotalus ruber Cope, 1 892 over 
that of Crotalus e.xsul Garman, 1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes). S.A. Minton; R.E. 
Olson; W.W. Tanner; R.W. Murphy; B.H. Brattstrom; A. Ramirez-Bautista cfe 
J.L. Espinal 148 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1923. Trachelocerca Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): authorship conserved as 

Ehrenberg (1840). and F/Ar/o «(g(«o Miiller, 1786 fixed as the type species. . . 150 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Pnmcd in Great Britain bv Hcnrv Line Ltd.. at the Dorset Press. Dorchester. Dorset 



vwuuic 56. Part 3, 30 September 1999, pp. 165-224 



ISSN 0007-5167 




T^ 1-1 • 1 tHE'NAfURAL 

Bulletin 1 "c: r 

of 1 PURCHASED 

ry 1 • 1 r^OOLOGYLIBRARYJ 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




ICZch uThe Official Periodical 
)f the International Commissiorij 
Zoological Nomenclature 



on 



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. 020 7942 5653) 

(e-mail: iczn(g;nhm. ac.uk) 
(http://www.iczn.org) 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 

President 
Vice-President 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

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

Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 



Members 

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

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

(U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

(Germany: Araclmology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland: Araclmology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

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

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diptera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. Ride(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



Secretariat 

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

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

Mrs A. Gentry. B.Sc. (Zoologist) 

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

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

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



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 165 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 56, part 3 (pp. 165-224) 30 September 1999 



Notices 

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

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

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 56, part 2 (published on 30 June 1999). Under Article 
80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission 
is published. 

(1) Drosophila rufifrons Loew, 1873 and D. lebanonensis Wheeler, 1949 (currently 
Scaptodrosophila rufifrons and S. lebanonensis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed 
conservation of the specific names by the designation of a neotype for 
D. rufifrons. (Case 3128). G. Biichli. 

(2) Coelopisthia Forster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of 
Pteromalus extentus Walker, 1835 as the type species. (Case 3129). H. Baur & 
Z. Boucek. 

(3) Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. (Case 
3130). S.E. Brooks. T.A. Wheeler & N.L. Evenhuis. 

(4) Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; 
Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. 
(Case 3131). R.M. Bailey. 

(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. 



. ,. ;>jATURAL 

4 ..jj 

PURCHASED 
ZO OLOGY LIBR/! 

afleaf i vyity ' ' ' 



166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The new and extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature has now been published. It will come into effect on 1 January 2000 and 
will entirely supersede the current (1985) edition. Some notes about the forthcoming 
edition, which contains many new provisions, will be found on the Commission's 
Website (www.iczn.org). 

The price of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered: 

Individual members of a scientific society ordering one copy for personal use are 
offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the society 
should be given. 

Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological 
Nomenclature ordering one copy for personal use are offered a discount of 40%.(price 
£24 or $39). 

Postgraduate or undergraduate students ordering one copy for personal use are 
offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the student's 
supervisor should be given. 

Institutions, booksellers or individuals buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% 
discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy). 

Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy. 

Copies may be ordered from: ITZN. c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD. U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or AAZN, Attn. D.G. 
Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd(gnmnh. si.edu). 

Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to TTZN' 
(sterling or dollars) or to 'AAZN' (dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to 
AAZN) can also be made by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only), giving the 
cardholder's number, name and address and the expiry date. 

Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on one copy of the 
following publications for personal use: 

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (1985) — reduced 
from £60 to £30 and from $1 10 to $55; 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to 
£15 and from $50 to $25; 

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission's quarterly journal) — 
discount valid for up to 5 years; for 1999 the discounted price would be £51 or $90. 

The Code is published in a bilingual volume (English and French). Official texts in 
a number of other languages are planned and their availability will be announced on 
the Commission's Website. 

The linguistic appendices in the 3rd Edition have not been included in the new 
edition; copies of these may be obtained without charge from ITZN. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 167 

Call for nominations for new members of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

At the last meeting of the Commission, in Budapest in 1996, it was decided that 
three vacancies would be filled in by-elections, but these were postponed during the 
preparation (now complete) of the fourth edition of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature. Since that meeting two Commissioners (Dr Z. Kabata 
(Canada; Copepoda) and Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)) have retired. At the 
next meeting, of which the date and venue have not yet been determined, five 
members will reach the end of their current terms of service: Dr L.R.M. Cocks (U.K.; 
Brachiopoda), Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca), Dr P.T. Lehtinen (Finland; 
Arachnology), Prof J.M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) and Prof Dr R. Schuster 
(Austria; Acari). A substantial number of actual and prospective vacancies thus 
exists, and the Commission invites nominations, from any person or institution, of 
potential candidates for election. 

The nationalities and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission 
may be found on the Commission's Website (www.iczn.org) or on the inside cover of 
each part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 

Article 2b of the Commission's Constitution prescribes that 

'The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of 
nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are 
known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature'. 

It should be noted that 'zoology' here includes the applied biological sciences 
(medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names. 

Nominations made since June 1995 will automatically be taken into account and 
need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the age, nationality and 
qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each nominee should be sent as 
soon as possible, either by e-mail to iczn(§nhm. ac.uk or by post to The Executive 
Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, do The Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 



168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Case 3089 

Leucocytozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of 
BerestneflF, 1904 as the author and of Leukocytozoen danilewskyi 
Ziemann, 1898 as the type species 

Gediminas Valkiunas 

Institute of Ecology, Akademijos 2, Vilnius 2600. Lithuania 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to resolve the uncertainty on the 
authorship of the haemosporidian parasite genus Leucocytozoon and the name of its 
type species. Many species of Leucocytozoon cause diseases in wild and domestic 
birds including hens, ducks, geese, turkeys and domesticated ostriches. Infection of 
birds with Leucocytozoon provides some of the best databases used by ecologists and 
evolutionary biologists. However, confusion arises from disagreement on the author- 
ship of the nominal genus Leucocytozoon and on the name of its type species. To 
resolve this, it is proposed that the author of Leucocytozoon be confirmed as 
Berestneff (1904), with type species by monotypy Leukocytozoen danilewskyi 
Ziemann, 1898. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Protista; Haemosporida; blood parasites; 

Leucocytozoon; Leucocytozoon danilewskyi. 



1. Ziemann (1898) published a detailed description of parasites recorded in the 
blood of three specimens of the little owl Athene noctua from Crema, Italy. This 
description was accompanied by excellent colour illustrations (pi. 3, figs. 29-33), 
which leave no doubt what species he was working with. Ziemann was uncertain 
that he had been working with a new species, and (p. 128) named the species only 
in the subtitle 'Das sogenannte Leukocytozoen Danilewskyi?". This name is the 
first specific name of leucocytozoids for which the genus Leucocytozoon was 
subsequently established. The name 'Leukocytozoen' in Ziemann (1898) indicates 
in German the plural of a leucocytoid; it is not unambiguously available as a gen- 
eric name, but for the purposes of this application it is here taken as an available 
name. 

2. Neave (1939, p. 929) records the authorship of Leucocytozoon as 'Danilewsky, 
1889, Parasitol. Sang, 23'. However, Danilewsky (1889, p. 23) did not use the word 
'Leucocytozoon', nor did he establish a nominal genus similar to that word. He wrote 
'Mais la fonne et la dimension du noyau de la capsule, I'absence de grains de 
melanine, la dimension et I'aspect de la membrane capsulaire tout ceci parle en faveu 
du developpement de ces parasites intracellulaires dans les globules blancs du sang — 
ergo ce sont des Leucocytozoa (par analogic aux Hemicytozoa)'. Nor did Danilewsky 
use the word 'Leucocytozoon' in two related papers (Danilewsky, 1890, 1891). He 
used the terms Leucocytozoaires and Leucocytozoaire, as well as Leucocytozoa, in 
the plural to distinguish stages of parasites developing in leucocytes rather than in 
erythrocytes. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 169 

3. Berestneff (1904, p. 376) was the first person to make available the nominal 
genus Leucocytozoon without any attribution of authorship; Leukocytozoen 
danilewskyi Ziemann, 1 898 is the type species by monotypy. 

4. There has been long-standing uncertainty on the authorship of Leucocytozoon 
and the name of its type species. Authorship is sometimes attributed to Danilewsky 
(e.g. by Sambon, 1908, p. 245; Wenyon, 1926, p. 903; Neave, 1939, p. 929). Bennett, 
Garnham & Fallis (1965, p. 927) attributed Leucocytozoon to Ziemann (1898) with 
L. danilewskyi Z^\sma.nn, 1898 as type species. Bennett, Laird, Khan & Herman (1975, 
p. 24) reviewed the status of Leucocytozoon and attempted to 'clarify the confusion 
that has increasingly surrounded the genus Leucocytozoon . They concluded that 
Berestneff" (1904) 'failed to provide a formal designation or description of the genus 
Leucocytozoon' and that L. danilewskyi was a nomen nudum; they attributed 
authorship oi Leucocytozoon to Sambon, 1908, with the type species Leucocytozoon 
majoris (Laveran. 1902). Bennett changed his mind and in 1982 (Bennett, Whiteway 
& Woodworth-Lynas) accepted L. danilewskyi as a valid name. 

5. Garnham (1966) published the first illustrated review of the world fauna of 
haemosporidian parasites, and his monograph is frequently cited and is generally 
accepted as the most authoritative book on this subject. He analysed the literature and 
(p. 963) attributed authorship oi Leucocytozoon to Berestneff (1904) with Leucocyto- 
zoon danilewskyi (Ziemann, 1 898) as the type species. This attribution was followed by 
Hsu, Campbell & Levine (1973), by Fallis, Desser & Khan (1974) and more recently 
by Krylov (1994, 1996). In 1997 I published the first illustrated review of the world 
fauna of bird haemosporidian parasites since Garnham's (1966) monograph. With the 
concurrence of Dr I.M. Kerzhner (St Petersburg) with whom I discussed the problem, 
I followed Garnham's attribution of Leucocytozoon to Berestneff (1904) with 
Leucocytozoon danilewskyi (Ziemann, 1 898) as the type species. 

6. A number of recent authors have avoided the problem by omitting authorship 
of Leucocytozoon. However, I propose that the Commission should resolve the issue 
once and for all by ruhng that the author of Leucocytozoon is Berestneff (1904) and 
that the type species is Leukocytozoen danilewskyi (Ziemann, 1898). 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Leukocytozoen Ziemann, 1898, 
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 
Leucocytozoon Berestneff, 1904, type species by monotypy Leukocytozoen 
danilewskyi Ziemann, 1898; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name danilewskyi 
Ziemann, 1898, as published in the binomen Leukocytozoen danilewskyi 
(specific name of the type species of Leucocytozoon Berestneff, 1904); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Leukocytozoen Ziemann, 1898, as suppressed in (I) above. 

References 

Bennett, G.F., Garnham, P.C.C. & Fallis, A.M. 1965. On the status of the genera Leucocyto- 
zoon Ziemann. 1898 and Haemoproteus Kruse, 1890 (Haemosporidiida: Leucocytozoidae 
and Haemoproteidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 43: 927-932. 



170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Bennett, G.F., Laird, M., Khan, R.A. & Herman, CM. 1975. Remarks on the status of the 

genus Leucocylozoon Sambon, 1908. Journal of Protozoology. 22: 24-30. 
Bennett. G.F., Whiteway, M. & Woodworth-Lynas, C.B. 1982. A host-parasite catalogue of the 

avian haematozoa. Occasional Papers in Biology. Memorial University of Newfoundland, 5: 

1-243. 
Bcrestneff, N. 1904. Uber das Leucocytozoon Danikwskyi. Archiv fur Prolistenkunde, 3: 

376-386. 
Danilewsky. B. 1889. La parasitologic comparee du sang, part 1. Nouvelles recherches stir les 

parasites du sang des oiseaux. 93 pp., 3 pis. Darre, Kharkoff. 
Danilewsky, B. 1 890. Developpement des parasites malariques dans les leucocytes des oiseaux 

(Leucocytozoaires). Annales de I'lnstitut Pasteur, Paris, 4: 427-431. 
Danilewsky. B. 1891. Ueber den Polymilus malaria. Centralhlatt fUr Bakteriologie und 

Parasitenkunde, 9: 397^03. 
Fallis, A.M., Desser, S.S. & Khan, R.A. 1974. On species of Leucocytozoon. Advances in 

Parasitology, 12: 1-67. 
Garnham, P.C.C. 1966. Malaria parasites and other Haemosporidia. 1114 pp., 92 pis. Blackwell, 

Oxford. 
Hsu, C.-K., Campbell, G.R. & Levine, N.D. 1973. A check-list of the species of the genus 

Leucocylozoon (Apicomplexa. Plasmodiidae). Journal of Protozoology. 20: 195-203. 
Krylov, M.V. 1994. Agents of protozoan diseases of domestic animals and of man. Vol 2. 269 pp. 

Zoological Institute Press. St Petersburg. [In Russian]. 
Krylov, M.V. 1996. Key to protozoan parasites of man. domestic animals and agricultural plants. 

603 pp. Zoological Institute Press. St Petersburg. [In Russian]. 
Laveran, A. 1902. Sur une Haemamoeha d"une mesange (Parus major). Comptes Rendus 

Hehdomadaires des Seances et Memoires de la Societe de Biologic, Paris. 54: 1121-1124. 
Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 2. D-L. 1025 pp. Zoological Society of 

London. London. 
Sambon, L.W. 1908. Remarks on the avian haemoprotozoa of the genus Leucocytozoon, 

Danilewsky. Journal of Tropical Medicine ami Hygiene, 11: 245-248. 
ValkiOnas, G. 1997. Bird Haemosporida. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 3-5: 1-607. [In Russian]. 
Wenyon, CM. 1926. Protozoology: a manual for medical men. veterinarians and zoologists, etc., 

part 2. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, London. 
Ziemann, H. 1898. Ueber Malaria- und aiulere Blutparasiten nebst Animng. Line wirksame 

Methode der Chromatin- und Blutfdrbung. 192 pp., 3 pis. Fischer, Jena. 



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 56(3) September 1999 171 

Case 3116 

Gnomulus Thorell, 1890 (Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed designation 
of G. sumatranus Thorell, 1891 as the type species 

Peter J. Schwendinger 

Museum d'Histoire Natwelle, Departement des Arthropodes et 
d'Entomologie I. Case postale 6434. CH-1211 Geneve 6, Switzerland {e-ma\\: 
peter. schwendinger@mhn.ville-ge.ch) 

Jochen Martens 

Institut fur Zoologie. Johannes Gutenberg- Universitdt Mainz, Saarstrasse 2 1 , 
D-55099 Mainz, Germany (e-mail: martens@mail.uni-mainz.de) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the generic name 
Gnoimtlus Thorell, 1890 for an opilionid (family oncopodidae) by the designation of 
G. sumatranus Thorell. 1891 as the type species. This designation was the author's 
clear intention and is in accord with the subsequent understanding and usage of the 
genus. However, Gnomulus was described with G. rostratus Thorell, 1890 as the type 
species by monotypy. Gnomulus sumatranus and G. rostratus are morphologically 
distinct and it is possible that they will require generic separation in the future. 
Members of the genus Gnomulus are known from the Himalayan Region and from 
southeast Asia. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Opiliones; oncopodidae; 

Gnomulus; Gnomulus sumatranus; Gnomulus rostratus. 



1. In 1890 Thorell (p. 378) described the genus Gnomulus and designated 
"Gnomulus sumatranus' as the type species. However, he did not then describe this 
species and the name sumatranus was not made available until a year later. Thorell 
(1890) referred to 'G. sumatranus' as 'Typus: G. sumatranus, Thorell' and in a 
footnote recorded "species in opere nondum edito (Opilioni nuovi ... ) a me descripta' 
(species to be described by me in a not yet edited paper). Thorell described and 
illustrated G. sumatranus from Sumatra in 1891 (pp. 759-763, figs. 37^0). 

2. Thorell (1890, p. 378) described another species, Gnomulus rostratus, at the 
same time as the genus Gnomulus and, as the single included species with an available 
name, this is the type species by monotypy. 

3. Clearly Thorell's intention was to fix Gnomulus sumatranus as the type species 
of Gnomulus and this formally invalid designation has been accepted and never 
questioned by subsequent authors. There are considerable advantages in maintaining 
G. sumatranus as the type of the genus. 

4. Gnomulus sumatranus is a well known species. The external morphology of the 
male from the type series was illustrated in the original description (Thorell, 1891, 
pp. 759-763, pi. 9, figs. 37-40).and later also by Roewer (1923, pp. 61-62, figs. 64a-c); 
another male and its genitalia were illustrated by Loman (1903, figs. O, V-f, pi. 11, 



172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

figs. 19. 21). On the other hand, Gnoinuhis rosiratus was described in a lengthy Latin 
text without illustrations (Thorell, 1890, pp. 378-381) and has remained a virtually 
unknown species. Although fairly conspicuous and fairly common at the type locality 
(Penang Island, Malaysia) and nearby localities on the mainland, there has never 
been a subsequent record of this species in the literature. Further specimens of 
G. rostralus. which were found later, were misidentified in Roewer"s collection. 
Peliinus insularis Roewer, 1927, a species now included in Gnomulus and most closely 
related to G. rostralus, was not recognized as such. The penis morphology of 
G. rosiratus has not hitherto been studied and published. 

5. Gnomulus suinairanus Thorell, 1891 was based' on a type series of material of 
both sexes (one male, three females and two juveniles), preserved in the Museo Civico 
di Storia Naturale, Genoa. Gnomulus rostralus Thorell, 1890 was based on a single 
female holotype, also preserved in the Genoa collections. We propose (Schwendinger 
& Martens, in press) to designate the male specimen as the lectotype of 
G. sumatranus. All relevant illustrations (apart from the figure of a leg tarsus of a 
juvenile) in the original description of the species refer to this specimen (Thorell, 
1891, pi. 9, figs. 37-39). It is in perfect condition, with its genitalia intact, and 
provides the most informative and reliable characters for identification. Female 
genitalia are uninformative at the species level. 

6. The nominal species Gnomulus sumatranus and G. rostralus are dissimilar in a 
number of characters. Features of the genitalia of G. sumatranus accord well with 
other species (except G. rostralus and Pelitnus insularis) described under Gnomulus 
and Pelitnus (now in synonymy with Gnomulus). However, G. rostralus and 
G. insularis. and a further three closely related species which we will describe from 
Thailand and Malaysia (Schwendinger & Martens, in preparation), are markedly 
different in external and genital morphology. These may need to be generically 
separated as more such species become known. The name Pelitnus Thorell, 1891 
(p. 757, based on P. armillatus Thorell, 1891, which has a juvenile type specimen) is 
available for G. sumatranus and its allied species but we (Martens & Schwendinger, 
1998, p. 526) have recently placed Peliinus in the synonymy of Gnomulus and 
transferred all 1 7 known species to the latter genus. Transferring these, and the other 
species (except G. rostralus and G. insularis) currently in Gnomulus, back into Pelitnus 
and reinstating the latter name, would cause unnecessary confusion and instability. 
In our view it would be preferable not to change the long accepted understanding of 
Gnomulus but, instead, to establish a new genus for G. rostralus and related species 
if this is required in the future. 

7. We propose that Gnomulus sumatranus Thorell, 1891 be maintained as the type 
species of Gnomulus Thorell, 1 890 in accord with the understanding of the genus since 
its original publication in 1890. Usage of the generic name is demonstrated in the 
recent publications by Sorensen (1932, p. 210), Martens (1977, p. 298), Tsurusaki 
(1990, pp. 59-62), Schwendinger (1992, pp. 177, 197, 198) and Martens & Schwend- 
inger (1998). 

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

(I) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for 
the nominal genus Gnomulus Thorell, 1890 and to designate Gnomulus 
sumatramts Thorell, 1981 as the type species; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 173 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Gnomulus 
Thorell, 1890 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the 
plenary powers in (1) above Gnomulus sumatrcmus Thorell, 1891; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name sumatranus 
Thorell, 1891, as published in the binomen Gnomulus sumatranus (specific 
name of the type species of Gnomulus Thorell, 1890). 

References 

Loman, J.C.C. 1903. Vergleichend anatomische Untersuchungen an chilenischen und anderen 

Opilioniden. Zoohgische Jahrbikher, (Supplement 6) 3: 117-200. 
Martens, J. 1977. Opiliones aus dam Nepal-Himalaya. III. Oncopodidae, Phalangodidae, 

Assamiidae (Arachnida). Senckenhergiimu Biologica. 57: 295-340. 
Martens, J. & Schwendinger, P.J. 1998. A taxonomic revision of the family Oncopodidae 1. 

New genera and new species of Gnomulus Thorell (Opiliones, Laniatores). Revue Suisse de 

Zoologie. 105(3): 499-555. 
Roewer, C.F. 1923. Die Weberknechte der Erde. Systematische Bearbeitung der bisher bekcmnten 

Opiliones. iv. 1116 pp. Fischer, Jena. 
Schwendinger, P.J. 1992. New Oncopodidae (Opiliones, Laniatores) from Southeast Asia. 

Revue Suisse de Zoologie. 99(1): 177-199. 
Schwendinger, P.J. & Martens, J. In preparation. A taxonomic revision of the family 

Oncopodidae 2. The genus Gnomulus Thorell (Opiliones, Laniatores). Revue Suisse de 

Zoologie. 
Serensen, W. 1932. Descriptiones laniatorum (Arachnidorum Opilionum Subordinis) fecit 

William Sorensen opus posthumum recognovit et edidit Kai L. Hendriksen. Memoires de 

I'Academie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres de Danemark. Copenhague (Section des 

Sciences), (9)3(4): 199-422. 
Thorell, T. 1890. Aracnidi di Pinang raccolti nel 1889 dai signori L. Loria e L. Fea. Annali del 

Museo Civico di Sloria Nalurate di Genova, (2)10: 269-383. 
Thorell, T. 1891. Opilioni nuovi o poco conosciuti delfArcipelago Malese. Annali del Museo 

Civico di Storia Nalurale di Genova, (2)10: 669-770. 
Tsurusaki, N. 1990. Gnomulus minor, a new species of oncopodid harvestmen from Luzon, the 

Philippines. Acta Arachnologica, 39: 59-62. 



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). 



174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Case 3078 

Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed designation of 
Ciima rathkii Kroyer, 1841 as the type species 

Sarah Gerken 

Darling Marine Center, University of Maine, Walpole, Maine 04573, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: sgerke51@maine.edu) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Cuma ratlikii Kroyer, 1841 
as the type species of the genus Diastylis Say, 1818. At present the nominal species 
Diastylis arenarius Say, 1 8 1 8 is the type by monotypy but the original material of this 
species has been lost and it is not identifiable from its description. The name Diastylis 
is used for a large genus and is the basis of the family-group name diastylidae Bate. 
1856. Members of the family, which includes more than 200 species, are found 
world-wide in temperate latitudes and at all depths below the intertidal zone. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Cumacea; diastylidae; Diastylis; 
Diastvlis rathkii. 



1. In 1818 Say (p. 313) established the new genus Diastylis, and described (p. 314) 
from the coast of Georgia and Florida the single included species Diastylis arenarius, 
which is therefore the type species by monotypy. The description of the species was 
detailed for the time but does not allow its distinction from many telson-bearing 
species of Cumacea. The species was represented by a single male individual. 

2. All subsequent authors have considered the species Diastylis arenarius Say, 1818 
to be of doubtful identity; see, for example. Caiman (1912), Zimmer (1941) and Day 
(1980). Zimmer (1941) suggested that the holotype of D. arenarius may have been a 
specimen of Oxyurostylis smithi Caiman, 1912. No other specimen has ever been 
placed in D. arenarius. 

3. The true identity of Say's (1818) species Diastylis arenarius cannot be ascer- 
tained. The specimen is lost from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, 
it was not described in Stebbing's monograph of 1913, and it was never illustrated. 
Say himself (1818, p. 315) considered D. arenarius to be congeneric with Cancer 
scorpioides Montagu, 1804, a species now placed in Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 and the 
non-telson-bearing family bodotriidae. Currently, family definitions are based in 
large measure on the presence or absence of a telson, features of the setal armature 
of the telson, and the number of pleopods in the male. Say's (1818) description of 
D. arenarius noted the presence of a relatively large telson and two pairs of pleopods, 
characters sufficient to place it within the family diastylidae Bate, 1856; however, no 
characters now considered to be of generic or specific value were given. Say (1818, 
p. 316) noted that a third nominal species, Gammarus esca Fabricius, 1779, was 
also probably congeneric. The reference to 'Cancer esca (Gmehn)' by Say was the last 
use of the name and it has since been treated as a nomen dubium (see Stebbing, 1913 
and Bacescu, 1992, p. 425). 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 175 

4. The name Diasiylis is much in use and has appeared in publications on 
cumacean taxonomy (for example, Day, 1980), ecology (for example, Corey, 1976, 
1981 and 1983), morphology (for example, Dennell, 1934), histology (for example, 
Dohle, 1976; Meyer-Rochow, 1989), oceanography (for example. Anger & Valentine, 
1976) and biology (for example, Vader & Wolff, 1973), as well as general catalogues 
and guides (for example, Hayward & Ryland, 1990, pp. 369-370, fig. 9.4; 1996, 
p. 324, fig. 8.14). Bate (1856, p. 451) established the family diastylidae, based on 
Diasiylis, and this is also very much referred to in the literature. More than 200 
species are currently placed in the family. 

5. The unknown identity of the type species of Diasiylis Say, 1818 threatens the 
stability of the widely accepted name. As noted above. Say's (1818) description of 
D. arenarius is incomplete and the generic characters of the telson region of Diasiylis 
have never been adequately defined. In order to rectify this a new type species must 
be selected. I propose that Cuma raihkii Kroyer, 1841 (p. 513, pi. 5, figs. 19-22, 
pi. 6, figs. 17-30) be designated as the type species. This species was referred to 
Diasiylis by Bate (1856, p. 451), and appears to have been the first species after D. 
arenarius to have been assigned to the genus. Diasiylis raihkii is probably the best 
known of all Cumacea. It has a circumpolar range in Arctic seas. There is syntype 
material in the Zoologisk Museum in Copenhagen (catalog no. CRU-7936). The type 
locality was cited by Bacescu (1992. p. 307) as ' 'ved Hombaek", la partie la plus sud 
du Kattegat, 56°05'N, 12°28'E, Danemark et 'tilhorer ... den grenlandske Fauna' '. 

6. In a study of South African Cumacea, which included members of the family 
DIASTYLIDAE, Day (1980, p. 221) noted the shortcomings in the original description of 
Diasiylis arenarius, and that the type material has since been lost. She recorded that 
a diagnosis for Diasiylis based on D. raihkii 'would be adequate for the genus". She 
also added that 'finality must await the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, to whom the matter has been referred'. However, an 
application to the Commission has never been made. 

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 Diasiylis Say, 1818 and to designate Cuma raihkii Kroyer, 
1841 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Diasiylis 
Say, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Cimia 
raihkii Kreyer. 1841; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name raihkii 
Kroyer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma raihkii (specific name of the 
type species of Diasiylis Say, 1818). 

References 

Anger, K. & Valentin, C. 1976. In situ studies on the diurnal activity pattern of Diasiylis 
rathkei (Cumacea. Crustacea) and its importance for the 'hyperbenthos'. Helgoldnder 
Wissenscliafttiche Meeresuntersuchungen. 28(2): 138-144. 

BScescu, M. 1992. Cumacea 2 (Fam. Nannastacidae, Diastylidae, Pseudocumatidae, Gyno- 
diastylidae et Ceratocumatidae). In Gruner. H.-E. & Holthuis, L.B. (Eds.), Crustaceorum 
Calalogus. part 8. Pp. 175-468. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague. 



176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Bate, S. 1856. On the British Diastylidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 

449^65. 
Caiman, W.T. 1912. The Crustacea of the Order Cumacea in the collection of the United States 

National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 41: 603-676. 
Corey, S. 1976. The life history of Diastylis sculpta Sars 1871 (Crustacea: Cumacea) in 

Passamaquoddy Bay. New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 54(5): 615-619. 
Corey, S. 1981. Distribution of certain Arctic and Subarctic Cumacea in Canadian waters. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59(9): 1726-1733. 
Corey, S. 1983. The life history of Diastylis quadrispinosa (Sars 1871) (Crustacea: Cumacea) in 

Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61(1): 108-111. 
Day, J. 1980. South African Cumacea. Part 4: families Gynodiastylidae and Diastylidae. 

Annals of the South African Museum, 82(6): 187-292. 
Dennell, R. 1934. The feeding mechanism of the cumacean crustacean Diastylis bradyi. 

Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 58( 1 )(6): 1 25-142. 
Dohle, W. 1976. Die Bildung und Differenzierung des postnauplialen Keimstreifs von Diastylis 

rathkei (Crustacea., Cumacea): II. Die Differenzierung und Musterbildung des Ektoderms. 

Zoomorphologie. 84(3): 235-277. 
Hayward, P.J. & Ryland, J.S. 1990. The marine fauna of the British Isles and North-West 

Europe, vol. 1. 553 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
Hayward, P.J. & Ryland, J.S. (Eds.). 1996. Handbook of the marine fauna of North-West 

Europe. 800 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 
Kroyer, H. 1841. Fire nye Arter af Slaegten Cuma Edw. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrifl, 3(6): 

"503-534. 
Meyer-Rochow, V.B. 1989. A re-investigation and re-interpretation of the cumacean photo- 
receptor. Zoologica Scripta. 18(2): 283-288. 
Say, T. 1818. An account of the Crustacea of the United States (continued). Journal of the 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(11): 313-319. 
Stebbing, T.R.R. 1913. Cumacea. Das Tierreich, 39: 1-210. 
Vader, W. & Wolff, W.J. 1973. The Cumacea of the estuarine area of the rivers Rhine, Meuse 

and Scheldt (Crustacea, Malacostraca). Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 6(3): 

365-375. 
Zimmer, C. 1941. Cumacea. Bronn's Klassen und Ordmmgen des Tierreichs, 5(1,4): 1-222. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(a)nhm.ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 177 

Case 3076 

Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Takashi Yokochi 

1-10-26, Shonan, Owariasahi, Aichi. 488-0823, Japan (e-mail: 
yokochi@ga2.so-net.ne.jp) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Tanaecia 
coelebs Corbet, 1941 for a butterfly from southeast Asia (family nymphalidae). This 
name has been consistently used for the species but it is now known that T. heringi 
Niepelt, 1935 is a senior synonym. The latter name has remained unused since its 
publication. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; nymphalidae; southeast Asia; 
Tanaecia coelebs. 



1. In 1935 Niepelt (p. 13) described and illustrated a nymphalid butterfly, Tanaecia 
heringi, from Padang Bovenland, West Sumatra. The name was based on a male 
specimen which is now preserved in the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt- 
Universitat, Berlin; it is labelled: (red labels) 'Holotype Tanaecia heringi Niepelt, 
1935', 'Tanaecia heringi Niep. S Collection Niepelt/fort du Kock, Padang Bovenland, 
West Sumatra, leg. Sopp. Dr Schmidt'. Niepelt noted the species as being similar to 
T. clathrata (Snellen van Vollenhoven, 1862), described from southern Borneo, but 
with the upper sides of the wing much darker, the usual dark markings being scarcely 
recognisable, and the distal band on the hind wings greenish-blue. The ground colour 
of the underside of the wings was described as chocolate brown, with a violet blue 
coating to the distal part of the hind wings. 

2. In 1941 Corbet (pp. 508-509, 512) described Tanaecia coelebs from the same 
locahty. He examined five male specimens, from which he selected one, in the Natural 
History Museum, London, as the holotype. The specimen is preserved in the type 
cabinet no. NYM 4-12 and is labelled: (red labels) 'Holotype Tanaecia coelebs 
Corbet", 'Adams Bequest B.M. 1912-399. Ex Coll Van de Poll', 'Tanaecia Genitalia'. 
Corbet did not mention Niepelt's publication, of which he was presumably unaware, 
but he also described the butterfly as distinctive among species of Tanaecia by having 
the upper wing surface a deeper, richer, purple-brown or black, and the broad, pale 
border of the hind wing as blue or purple. The under wings were chocolate-brown, 
with the hind wing broadly bordered with lilac. 

3. I have examined the holotypes of both Tanaecia heringi and T. coelebs and have 
found that they represent the same species. It follows that under the Code the specific 
name heringi should be adopted for the combined taxon. However, the name coelebs 
has been in consistent use in all publications on the species for nearly 60 years, while 
heringi has never been used since its publication. Examples of well-known recent 
works in which the name coelebs has been used include Corbet & Pendlebury (1956, 



178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

p. 229), Fleming (1975, p. 49, pi. 46. fig. N96; 1983. p. 51. pi. 46. fig. N96), Eliot 
(1978; 1992. p. 183). D'Abrera (1985. p. 344, pi. 344) and Tsukada (1991, p. 333. 
pis. 38, 39). 

4. Tsukada (1991) figured the female of the species and described four new 
subspecies (Tanaecia coelebs regalis from West Malaysia; T. c. solium from Natuna 
island; T. c. regina from South Sumatra; and T. c. mulsa from Belitung and Bangka 
islands). The nominotypical subspecies is found in North and West Sumatra. Two 
further subspecies, as yet unnamed, occur on Batu and Lingga/Singkep islands. I 
have examined type material of Tsukada's subspecies; I recognise the names as valid 
and consider that they are unlikely to be synonymised in the future. 

5. In order to maintain stability and universality in the usage of the name for the 
species, I propose that the name Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 should be conserved. 

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

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name heringi Niepelt, 1935, as 
published in the binomen Tanaecia heringi, 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 coelebs 
Corbet. 1941. as published in the binomen Tanaecia coelebs; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name heringi Niepelt. 1935, as published in the binomen Tanaecia 
heringi and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above. 

References 

Corbet, A.S. 1941. A revision of the Malaysian genus Tanaecia Butler (Lepidoptera: 

Nymphalidae). Annals and Magazine of Natural History. (11)7: 507-520. 
Corbet, A.S. & Pendlebury, H.M. 1956. The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula, Ed. 2. xi, 

537 pp., 55 pis.. 159 figs. Oliver & Boyd. London. (Edited by Corbet, A.S. & Riley. N.D.). 
D'Abrera, B. 1985. Butterflies of the Oriental region, part 2 (Nymphalidae, Satyridae and 

Amathusidae). Pp. 245-534. Hill House, Melbourne. 
Eliot, J.N. (Ed.). 1978. Corbet & Pendlebury's The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula, Ed. 3. xiv. 

578 pp.. 36 pis.. 146. 438 figs. Malayan Nature Society. Kuala Lumpur. 
Eliot, J.N. (Ed.). 1992. Corbet & Pendlebury's The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. Ed. 4. x. 

595 pp., 69 pis.. 146. 455 figs. Malayan Nature Society. Kuala Lumpur. 
Fleming, W.A. 1975. Butterflies of West Malaysia and Singapore, vol. I . x, 64 pp.. 54 pis.. 7 figs. 

Faringdon. 
Fleming, W.A. 1983. Butterflies of West Malaysia and Singapore. Ed. 2. x. 148 pp., 92 pis. 

Longman, Kuala Lumpur. 
Niepelt, W. 1935. Eine neue Tanaecia von Sumatra. Internationale Entomologische Zeilschrift, 

29(2): 13-14. 
Tsukada, E. 1991. Butterflies of the South East Asian islands, part 5 (Nymphalidae 2). 576 pp., 

238 pis. Azumino Butterflie's Research Institute. Matsumoto. 



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 56(3) September 1999 179 

Case 3128 

Drosophila rufifrons Loew, 1873 and D. lebanonensis Wheeler, 1949 
(currently Scaptodrosophila rufifrons and S. lebanonensis; Insecta, 
Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific names by the 
designation of a neotype for D. rufifrons 

Gerhard Bachli 

Zoologisches Museum, Universitdl Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 
CH-8057 Ziirich, Switzerland (e-mail: baechli@zoolmus.unizh.ch) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of 
Scaptodrosophila rufifrons (Loew, 1873) and S. lebanonensis (Wheeler, 1949) for two 
European species of lesser fruit fly in the 5. rufifrons species group (family 
DROSOPHILIDAE). The lectotype of S. rufifrons is now known to be a specimen of 
5. lebanonensis, rendering the name rufifrons a senior synonym of lebanonensis. It is 
proposed that the lectotype of rufifrons be set aside and a neotype designated in 
accord with accustomed usage. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; drosophilidae; lesser fruit flies; 
Scaptodrosophila rufifrons; Scaptodrosophila lebanonensis; Europe. 



1. In 1873 Loew (p. 50) described the new species Drosophila rufifrons on male and 
female specimens from the central Balkans area. It is one of the more rare forest 
species, developing in oozing sap of trees (mainly oak) in central and southern 
Europe. 

2. In 1949 Wheeler (p. 143) described the species Drosophila lebanonensis based on 
a holotype male numbered 1733.1 in the Drosophila Type and Reference Collection 
of the University of Texas, Austin, Texas. There is also a series of paratype males and 
females; all the specimens originated in Beirut, Lebanon. This is a Mediterranean- 
Submediterranean lesser fruit fly which develops in fermenting fruits, and is 
commonly found in fruit stores such as cellars. It is an important species in the study 
of evolutionary biology, morphogenetics and physiology, and has been kept as 
laboratory stock for more than five decades. The species is the most frequently 
quoted representative of the genus Scaptodrosophila Duda, 1923. 

3. In 1982 I (Bachli, p. 295) designated a lectotype for Scaptodrosophila rufifrons 
(Loew, 1873). This was a specimen (misprinted as $ and corrected to cJ in Bachli, 
1984, p. 254) in the Zoological Museum, Berlin, labelled: (1) 'Kasan 20.6.71': (2) 
'Coll. H. Loew'; (3) [Loew's handwriting] 'IDrosoph. n.sp.'; (4) 'D. rufifrons Lw. det. 
Dr O. Duda'; (5) <?; (6) 'D. rufifrons Lw. lectotypus, G. Bachli det. 1982'; (7) 'Zool. 
Mus. Berlin'. A recent study of the European species of the Scaptodrosophila 
rufifrons-gToup (see Papp, Racz & Bachli, in press) has shown that the lectotype of 
S. rufifrons, which is the single extant original specimen, is a specimen of the species 
known as Scaptodrosophila lebanonensis (Wheeler, 1949). 



ISO Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

4. The specific names of Scaptodrosophila nififrom (Loew, 1873) and S. lebanon- 
ensis (Wheeler, 1949) are currently used for two distinct species which are ecologically 
separated and have never been confused. The species 5. rufifrons was identified widely 
in Europe by several authors in the 1920's, and the name has been consistently in use 
from at least Duda's (1934-1935) revision of the family drosophilidae. The name 
S. rufifrons has been mentioned in at least 155 publications, the vast majority of 
which date from the last 50 years, and S. lebanonemis has been used in at least 107 
publications; lists of these publications are held by the Commission Secretariat. The 
name S. rufifrons has been used in the following recent representative works: 
Pelandakis & Solignac (1993), Gross & Christian (1994), Merpot et al. (1994), 
Franzen (1996), Gillies & Hardy (1997) and Maca (1997). The name S. lebanonensis 
has appeared in Albalat & Gonzalez-Duarte (1993), Kwiatowski, Skarecky, Bailey & 
Ayala ( 1 994), Tamura, Toba, Park & Aotsuka ( 1 996), Herrewege & David ( 1 997) and 
Remsen & DeSalle(1998). 

5. Recognition that the lectotype of Scaptodrosophila rufifrons (Loew, 1873) 
designated by me (Bachli, 1982) is a specimen of S. lebanonensis (Wheeler, 1949) as 
always understood means that the name S. rufifrons becomes formally a senior 
subjective synonym of S. lebanonensis. The name S. rufifrons would become valid for 
the species currently known as S. lebanonensis, and a new name would be required for 
5. rufifrons as currently understood. Drosophila nitens Buzzati-Traverso, 1943 (p. 38) 
is the only available name for the species currently known as S. rufifrons but it has 
never been used for the taxon. Moreover, the syntypes of this nominal species, 
formerly in the Istituto di Zoologia e Genetica della R. Universita di Pavia, Italy, are 
missing and presumed lost. 

6. The loss of the name Scaptodrosophila lebanonensis, the transfer of the 
frequently used name S. rufifrons from the one species to the other, and the 
introduction of the unused name S. nitens in place of S. rufifrons as currently 
understood, would all inevitably cause disruption and confusion, affecting both 
the two species involved and species of Scaptodrosophila in general. I propose that 
the lectotype of 5. rufifrons be set aside and that a neotype be designated in accord 
with the accustomed usage of the name. This action would remove rufifrons from 
the synonymy of lebanonensis, so allowing the usages of both names to continue. The 
proposed neotype is a male specimen in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, 
Budapest, labelled as 'Neotype' on a red-margined card, and with label data: 
(1) K[iskunsagi] N. P.: Kunfeherto, Morus alba kicsorgo nedven [oozing sap]; (2) 
1982. VI. 15-23., leg. Papp L. 

7. 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 
species Drosophila rufifrons Loew, 1 873 and to designate the male specimen in 
the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, referred to in para. 6 
above, as the neotype; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) rufifrons Loew 1873, as published in the binomen Drosophila rufifrons and 

as defined by the neotype designated in ( 1 ) above; 
(h) lebanonensis Wheeler, 1949, as published in the binomen Drosophila 
lebanonensis. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 181 

References 

Albalat, R. & Gonzalez-Duarte, R. 1993. Adh and Adh-dup sequences of Drosophila 

lehanonensis and D. iminigrans: interspecies comparisons. Gene. 126: 171-178. 
Bachli, G. 1982. On the type material of Palearctic species of Drosophilidae (Diptera). Beitrage 

zur Enlomohgie (Berlin), 32(2): 289-301. 
Bachli, G. 1984. Die Drosophiliden-Typen der Dipterensammlung des Zoologischen Museums 

in Berlin. Milleilimgen des Zoologischen Museums Berlin, 60(2): 229-261. 
Buzzati-Traverso, A. 1943. Morfologia, citologia e biologia di due nuove specie di Drosophila 

(Diptera Acalyptera). Rendiconii del Insliluto Lomhardo di Scienze e Leileri, 77: 37^9. 
Duda, O. 1934, 1935. Periscelidae, Astiidae, Aulacogastridae, Curtonotidae. Diastatidae, 

Camillidae und Drosophilidae. In Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearklischen 

Region, vol. 6, part 1. Pp. 1-64 (1934): pp. 65-118 (1935). 
Franzen, J. 1996. Essigfliegen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) aus einem Hausgarten in Koln. 

Decheniana. 35 (Beihefte): 459^64. 
GiUis, J.E.M. & Hardy, I.C.W. 1997. Nematode parasitism in a northern European drosoph- 

ilid community. Enlomologia Experimentalis el Applicata, 84: 275-291. 
Gross, H. & Christian, E. 1994. Drosophilid communities along an urban gradient across 

Vienna. Zeilschrift fiir Okologie uml Natmschutz. 3: 81-86. 
Herrewege, J. van & David, J.R. 1997. Starvation and desiccation tolerances in Drosophila: 

comparison of species from different climatic origins. Ecoscience. 4: 151-157. 
Kwiatowski, J., Skarecky, D., Bailey, K. & Ayala, F.J. 1994. Phytogeny of Drosophila and 

related genera inferred from the nucleotide sequence of the Cu, Zn Sod gene. Journal of 

Molecular Evolution. 38: 443^54. 
Loew, H. 1873. Diptera nova, in Pannonia inferior! et in confinibus Daciae regionibus a Ferd. 

Kowarzio capta. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrifi. 17: 33-52. 
Maca, J. 1997. Drosophilidae. Pp. 86-87 in Chvala, M. (Ed.), Checklist of Diptera (Insecta) of 

the Czech and Slovak Republics. Karolinum-Charles University Press. 
Mer^ot, H., Defaye, D., Capy, P., Pla, E. & David, J.R. 1994. Alcohol tolerance, ADH activity, 

and ecological niche of Drosophila species. Evolution. 48: 746-757. 
Papp, L., Racz, O. & Bachli, G. In press. Revision of the European species of the 

Scaptodrosophila rufifrons species group (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Mitteilungen der 

Schiveizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 72: 105-117. 
Pelandakis, M. & Solignac, M. 1993. Molecular phylogeny of Drosophila based on ribosomal 

RNA sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 37: 525-543. 
Remsen, J. & DeSalle, R. 1998. Character congruence of multiple data partitions and the origin 

of the Hawaiian Drosophilidae. Molecular Phylogenetics und Evolution. 9: 225-235. 
Tamura, K., Toba, G., Park, J. & Aotsuka, T. 1996. Origin of Hawaiian drosophilids inferred 

from alcohol dehydrogenase gene sequences. Pp. 9-18 in Takahata, N. & Nei, M. (Eds.), 

Current topics of molecular evolution. 
Wheeler, M.R. 1949. Studies in the genetics oi Drosophila. VI. Articles on genetics, cytology 

and taxonomy. The subgenus Pholadoris (Drosophila) with descriptions of two new 

species. University of Texas Publications, 4920: 143-156. 



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). 



182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Case 3073 

Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 
(currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, 
Chiroptera): proposed designation of neotypes 

Gareth Jones 

School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol 

BS8 JUG, U.K. (e-mail: Gareth.Jones@bristol.ac.uk) 

Elizabeth M. Barratt 

Institute of Zoology. Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London 

NWl 4RY, U.K. (e-mail: Elizabeth.Barratt@ucl.ac.uk) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to provide neotypes for two broadly 
sympatric cryptic species of pipistrelle bats; until recently only a single taxon was 
recognised and known as Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774). The species were 
first distinguished by their ultrasonic echolocation calls but also differ in other ways. 
It is proposed that the species with the lower-pitched call should be denoted by the 
name P. pipistrellus. and that the name P. pygmaeus (Leach, 1825), which has been 
regarded as a synonym of P. pipistrellus, should be used for the smaller species which 
calls at a higher frequency. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Chiroptera; bats; 
vespertilionidae; Pipistrellus; Pipistrellus pipistrellus; Pipistrellus pygmaeus. 



1. Schreber (1774, p. 167, pi. 54) described and illustrated a dark brown bat and 
gave it the name Vespertilio pipistrellus; he cited three earlier works as references for 
the species, in which it was given the vernacular name ia pipistrelle". These were 
Daubenton(1759, p. 381,pl. 1, fig. 3), BufTon (1760, p. 129, pi. 19, fig. 1) and Pennant 
( 1 77 1 , p. 370). Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire ( 1 803, pp. 53-54), also citing Daubenton ( 1 759) 
and BuflTon (1760), noted that at that time there were seven pipistrelle specimens (nos. 
1 13-1 19) in the Paris Museum, and an additional specimen (no. 120) was a female 
with young attached to the nipples. Schreber's specific name pipistrellus has been 
adopted for what is probably the commonest and most widely distributed bat in 
Europe (see Stebbings & Grifiith, 1986), and the species is the type species by 
monotypy of the genus Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829 (pp. 98, 188). 

2. Leach (1825, p. 559, pi. 22) gave the name Vespertilio pygmaeus to 'a new 
species' from south-west England. It was noted that this bat 'most nearly resembles 
the V. pipistrellus. But it differs in various particulars. It is ... considerably smaller ... 
[it is] probable that the smaller Vespertiliones, even in Europe and the neighbouring 
territories, are not as yet examined with sufficient acccuracy, and that new species, 
allied to each other in external appearance, remain to be discovered". A single female 
specimen formed the basis of the description and is therefore the holotype. In 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 183 

October 1824 Leach sent the specimen to one of the 'Conductors of our Journal' (i.e. 
the ZoologicalJounml). The four 'conductors' included Dr Thomas Bell, who in 1837 
(p. 31) recorded that the 'specimen is now in the British Museum. It is the only one 
in existence in any collection'. The specimen, currently preserved in the collections of 
the Mammal Section, The Natural History Museum, London, has never been 
registered but is listed (no. 61k) in J.E. Gray's 'Manuscript Catalogue of Mammalia, 
part 1 (Primates and Chiroptera)' as 'Vespertilio pygmaeus Leach, Jl. Zool. 
Dartmoor, Devon. Prepared by W.E. Leach'; in Gray (1843, p. 29, specimen 61k) as 
'Very young, bones of skull not hardened. Zool. Jour. Dartmoor, Devonshire. 
Presented by W.E. Leach'; and in Dobson (1878, p. 225, specimen d) as 'Immature. 
Type of VespertiUo pygmaeus Leach. Dartmoor. Presented by W.E. Leach'. The head 
of the specimen is now separated from the body. At least by 1874 the name 
V. pygmaeus was rejected as a synonym on the assumption (see Bell, 1874, p. 42) that 
'there is now no longer any doubt that it [Leach's specimen] is a young Pipistrelle' 
[i.e. V. pipistrelliis]. Examination of the holotype by G. Jones, A. M. Hutson and 
P. Jenkins has shown that it is indeed an infant female and that the ascertainable 
measurements conform with those given by Leach (1825, p. 560). 

3. Pipistrelliis pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) has traditionally been considered to 
refer to a single biological species and Leach's wamQ pygmaeus has long been treated 
as a synonym oi pipistrellus. However, Jones & Parijs (1993) showed the existence of 
two distinct 'phonic types', distinguished by their uhrasonic echolocation calls. The 
calls emitted by pipistrelles searching for prey consist of pulses lasting 5-10 msec; 
each pulse starts at a high frequency which very rapidly diminishes to a relatively 
long-lasting 'tail' of almost constant frequency. The calls emitted by bats of the two 
phonic types were found to have 'tails' with non-overlapping average frequencies of 
about 46 kHz and 55 kHz respectively. In some geographical areas only one type was 
found, while in others both occurred together; in the latter cases, however, all the bats 
belonging to a particular colony were of a single phonic type. Jones & Parijs (1993) 
suggested that the two phonic types of P. pipistrellus might represent cryptic species. 
A number of cryptic species are known to exist in other bat genera (see Jones, 1997, 
p. 336). 

4. Subsequently it has been shown that the two types differ not only in acoustic 
signals but also in overall geographical range (Jones, 1997), habitat (the 55 kHz 
type preferring riparian sites: Vaughan, Jones & Harris, 1997), diet (Barlow, 1997), 
'social' calls (Barlow & Jones, 1997a, 1997b) and mating groups (Park, Altringham 
& Jones, 1996). The skull morphology shows differences (Barlow, Jones & Barratt, 
1997), but these cannot be used to separate the species with confidence. There are 
large genetic differences between them (Barratt et al., 1995, 1997): there is a 
sequence divergence of 11% in a 630 bp region of the cytochrome h gene of 
mitochondrial DNA (Barratt et al., 1997). The two types are very similar but not 
identical in general morphology, and the 55 kHz type is slightly but signifi- 
cantly smaller. There are also subtle but usually recognizable differences in 
appearance (Jones, 1997, p. 327): the 45 kHz type is darker brown, and it usually 
has a black face 'mask' while the eyes of the 55 kHz bats are often surrounded by 
bare skin. 

5. The evidence in the papers cited above demonstrates beyond doubt that in 
Europe there are two reproductively isolated, although often sympatric, cryptic 



184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

species of pipistrelle bats. The name Pipistrellus pipistrellus has covered both, and it 
is now necessary to be able to apply this name to one of the taxa and another 
name to the second. The bat illustrated in the original Schreber (1774) plate of 
P. pipistrellus (see para. 1 above) resembles the 45 kHz phonic type (dark brown, 
shaggy fur, dark face band), and so far only this type has been recorded from France. 
It would therefore be sensible, if perhaps somewhat arbitrary, to retain the name 
P. pipistrellus for the 45 kHz phonic type. The name P. pygmaeus (Leach, 1825: 
see para. 2 above), which has been considered a synonym of P. pipistrellus for more 
than a century, can be applied to the smaller 55 kHz phonic type. The English 
vernacular name Common Pipistrelle was used by Corbet & Hill (1991) for 
P. pipistrellus, and the vernacular name Soprano Pipistrelle is proposed for 
P. pygmaeus because the existence of the cryptic species was first suggested by its 
high-pitched calls. 

6. Some of the supposed synonyms of P. pipistrellus listed by Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 164) may have been based on P. pygmaeus in the sense of 
the present paper. It is likely that bats referred to as P. pipistrellus mediterraneus by 
Cabrera Latorre (1904) are P. pygmaeus: echolocation work (for example, Kalko, 
1995) and molecular studies (Barratt et al., 1997) suggest synonymy with 
P. pygmaeus. We propose the use of the latter name because mediterraneus would be 
misleading and Leach's name is much older. 

7. No original material of Vesperi ilia pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 is known to exist 
(see para. 1 above), and even if it does assignment of such old specimens to one or 
other of the two cryptic species would be difficult and uncertain. Similarly, the 
holotype of V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (para. 2 above) is not suitable for demonstrat- 
ing the differences between the two cryptic species. There is a clear case (in 
accordance with Recommendation 75E of the 1985 edition of the Code) for neotypes 
of both nominal species, and we propose that the Commission should set aside any 
existing type material and designate neotypes for Vespertilio pipistrellus and 
V. pygmaeus: both the specimens mentioned below have been deposited in the 
Natural History Museum, London, and are accompanied by molecular data 
confirming their assignment to the two species. 

8. The proposed neotype for Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 is registered as 
specimen no. BMNH 1997.81. It is an alcohol-preserved adult male, forearm length 
30.9 mm, collected by R.C. Sabin on 2 October 1996 in Beauvais Cathedral, 
Normandy, France (49° 26'N, 02° 05'E). It is accompanied by a second (dried) 
specimen registered as BMNH 1997.78. They were found with about 40 others, 
freshly killed by poisoning by local authority workers. 

9. The proposed neotype for Vespertilio pygmaeus Leach, 1825 is registered as 
specimen no. BMNH 1999.43, deposited 22 April 1999. It is an adult female, 
weighing 6.9 g and with forearm length 32.1 mm. It was taken (under licence from 
English Nature) by Dr G. Jones on I October 1998 at Chew Valley Lake, Bath 
and North East Somerset, southwest England (national grid reference ST 582605, 
51° 22' N, 02° 37'W). It was accompanied by one adult male and one adult female in 
a mating group in a bat box, and both of these echolocated with peak frequencies 
close to 55 kHz. 

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



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 185 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens 
for the nominal species Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1 774 and Vespertilio 
pygmaeus Leach, 1825, and to designate as the respective neotypes the 
specimens described in paras. 8 and 9 above; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Pipistrellus 
Kaup, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Vespertilio pipi- 
strellus Schreber, 1 774; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) pipistrellus Schreber, 1 774, as published in the binomen Vespertilio 

pipistrellus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific 
name of the type species of Pipistrellus Kaup, 1 829); 
(h) pygmaeus Leach, 1825, as published in the binomen Vespertilio pygmaeus 
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. 

Acknowledgements 

We acknowledge the help of Paula Jenkins and the late J. E. Hill (Department of 
Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London), Tony Hutson (The Bat Conser- 
vation Trust, London) and David Harrison (Harrison Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks. 
Kent). 

References 

Barlow, K.E. 1997. The diets of two phonic types of Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera: 

Vespertilionidae) in Britain. Journal of Zoology, 243: 597-609. 
Barlow, K.E. & Jones, G. 1997a. Differences in songflight calls and social calls between two 

phonic types of the vespertilionid bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Journal of Zoology. 241: 

315-324. 
Barlow, K.E. & Jones, G. 1997b. Function of pipistrelle social calls: field data and a playback 

experiment. Animal Behaviour, 53: 991-999. 
Barlow, K.E., Jones, G. & Barratt, E.M. 1997. Can skull morphology be used to predict 

ecological relationships between bat species? A test using two cryptic species of pipistrelle. 

Proceedings of the Roval Society of London. 264B: 1695-1700. 
Barratt, E.M., Bruford, M.W., Burland, T.M., Jones, G., Racey, P.A. & Wayne, R.K. 1995. 

Characterization of mitochondrial DNA variability within the microchiropteran genus 

Pipistrellus: approaches and applications. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 

67: 377-386. 
Barratt, E.M., Deaville, R., Burland, T.M., Bruford, M.W., Jones, G., Racey, P.A. & Wayne, 

R.K. 1997. DNA answers the call of pipistrelle bat species. Nature, 387: 138-139. 
Bell, T. 1837. A history of British quadrupeds, including the Cetacea. xviii, 526 pp. Van Voorst, 

London. 
Bell, T. 1874. A history of British quadrupeds, including the Cetacea. Ed. 2. xviii, 474 pp. Van 

Voorst, London. 
Buifon, G.L.L. de. 1760. Histoire nalurelle, generate et particuliere. avec la description du 

Cabinet du Roi. vol. 8. [vi], 402 pp. Imprimerie Royale, Paris. 
Cabrera Latorre, A. 1904. Ensayo monografico sobre los quiropteros de Espana. Memorias de 

la Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 2: 249-287. 
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species. 243 pp. Oxford University 

Press. 
Daubenton, L.J.M. 1759. Memoire sur les chauve-souris. Histoire de l Academic Royale des 

Sciences, 1759: 374-398. 
Dobson, G.E. 1878. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the collection of the British Museum, xlii, 567 

pp., 30 pis. British Museum, London. 



186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

EUerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of PalaeaYctic and Indian mammak 

I75S to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, E. 1803. Catalogue des mammiferes du Museum National d'Histoire 

Naturelle. 272 pp. Paris. 
Gray, J.E. 1843. List of the specimens of Mammalia in the collection of the British Museum. 

x.\viii. 216 pp. British Museum. London. 
Jones, G. 1997. Acoustic signals and speciation: the roles of natural and sexual selection in the 

evolution of cryptic species. Advances in the Study of Behaviour. 26: 317-354. 
Jones, G. & Parijs, S.M. van. 1993. Bimodal echolocation in pipistrelle bats: are cryptic species 

present? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 251B: 119-125. 
Kaiko, E.K.V. 1995. Insect pursuit, prey capture and echolocation in pipistrelle bats 

(Microchiroptera). Animal Behaviour. 50: 861-880. 
Kaup, J.J. 1829. Skizzirte Enlwickelungs-Geschichte und Natiirliches System der Europaischen 

Thierwelt ... Erster Thiel (welcher die Vogelsdugethiere und Vogel. nehst Andeutung der 

Enstehung der letzleren aus Amphihien enthdit). xii, 203 pp. Darmstadt & Leipzig. 
Leach, W.E. 1825. Description of the Vespertilio pygmaeus. a new species, recently discovered 

in Devonshire by Dr. Leach. Zoological Journal, 1(4): 559-561. 
Park, K.J., Altringham, J.D. & Jones, G. 1996. Assortative roosting in the two phonic types of 

Pipistrellus pipistrellus during the mating season. Proceedings of the Royal Society of 

Loiulon, 263B: 1495-1499. 
Pennant, T. 1771. Synopsis of quadrupeds, xxv, 382 pp. Chester. 
Schreber, J. CD. von. 1774. Die Sdugthiere in Ahbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, 

vol. 1. 190 pp., 62 pis. Weigel, Leipzig. 
Stebbings, R.E. & Griffith, F. 1986. Distribution and status of bats in Europe. 142 pp. Institute 

of Terrestrial Ecology. Huntingdon. 
Vaughan, N., Jones, G. & Harris, S. 1997. Habitat use by bats (Chiroptera) assessed by means 

of a broad-band acoustic method. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34: 716-730. 



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(gjnhm. ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 187 

Comment on the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and 
Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus 
Sandberger, 1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 3008; see BZN 55: 82-86) 

Philippe Bouchet 

Museum National d'Hisloire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris. France 

1 . Contrary to the statement in para. 3 of the application, 'the majority of authors' 
have not accepted Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 as the type species of 
Euchihts. In fact, at least four classical works of the 20th century cited in the 
bibliography of Kadolsky's application (Dollfuss, 1912; Cossmann, 1921; Wenz, 
1926 and 1939) state Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 1821 to be the type species of 
Euchilus (cf. para. 1 of the application) and treat it as a synonym of Stalioa. I believe 
stability would be better served by accepting this synonymy, rather than by 
designating B. deschiensiana as the type species as proposed by Kadolsky. 

2. A neotype of Stalioa prototypica Brusina, 1872 (see paras. 4 and 5 of the 
application) has been designated and illustrated by Milan, Sakac & Zagar-Sakac 
(1974, p. 61 and pi. 1, figs. 4-5), although it is possible that the designation may not 
meet all the requirements of Article 75 of the Code; S. prototypica was stated to be 
the type species of Bania Brusina, 1896 (see para. 8 of the application). 

3. My opinion is that Stoliva should be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling 
of Stalioa Brusina, 1870, as mentioned in para. 8 of the application; this is indicated 
by Fuchs (1877) introducing it in combination wilh prototypica and valvatoides, the 
originally included species of Stalioa (cf. para. 6). I am against using the plenary 
powers to suppress Stoliva, as though it were an available name. 

Additional reference 

Milan, A., Sakac, K. & Zagar-Sakac, A. 1974. Katalog originala tipova vrsta pohranjenih u 
Geoloko-Paleontolokom Muzeju u Zagrebu I Katalog der im Geologisch-paldonlologischen 
Museum in Zagreb aufbewahrten Originate von Artentypen. 186 pp., 2 pis., 1 map. 
Zagreb. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) 
by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation 
of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrgbiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobudae 
Troschel, 1857 (MoUusca) 
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145; 56: 56-63, 143-148) 

T. Wilke, G.M. Davis and G. Rosenberg 

The Academy oj Natural Sciences, Department of Malacology, 

1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A. 



188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

The phylogeny and systematics of the genus Hydrohia Hartmann, 1821 are 
receiving continuing study at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. More 
than 500 specimens have been dissected, all the internal organs (including the gill 
filaments and brain nerves) have been measured, and three genes have been 
sequenced from about the same number of individuals. 

We wish to comment on the application submitted by Prof F. Giusti, Dr G. 
Manganelli and Dr M. Bodon (BZN 55: 139-145, September 1998), and on some 
subsequent comments. We state below that ( 1 ) single specimens of Hydrohia acuta 
(Draparnaud, 1805) and Ventrosia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) cannot be distin- 
guished on the basis of shells alone, which are inadequate for unequivocal 
identification (cf the comment by Naggs et al. in BZN 56: 143-144, June 1999); 
(2) Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation for H. acuta was valid under the Code 
but it will, if not set aside, cause unending confusion (cf the comment by Boeters 
et al. in BZN 56: 57-62. March 1999); (3) Boeters's (1984) action was based on 
selective and conflicting data and on speculation and we recommend that the 
Commission set aside the lectotype designation; the refound syntypes of H. acuta 
must be considered unidentifiable; (4) the application submitted by Giusti, 
Manganelli & Bodon has our complete support. 

(1) In our work on Hydrohia, so far more than 60 populations from Europe, 
North America, North Africa and West Asia have been studied by comparative 
qualitative and quantitative anatomy, as well as molecular genetics using three 
genes. Fifteen are topotypical populations of nominal species often classified as 
Hydrohia. including V. ventrosa and H. acuta. In addition, an outgroup comparison 
with 12 populations of closely related species of the hydrobiinae, as well as 20 more 
populations of the hydrobiidae s.l., has been conducted. The results of this 
study will be published elsewhere, but for the application the following points are 
relevant. 

(i) The genus Hydrohia s.l. should be subdivided into three genera (or subgenera): 
Hydrohia s.s., containing at least three species, including H. acuta (sensu Radoman, 
1977); Ventrosia containing at least four species, including K ventrosa; and Peringia 
Paladilhe, 1874 with Turbo ulvae Pennant, 1777 as the type species and only 
representative. 

(ii) If Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation were accepted, then Hydrohia would 
become an older name for Ventrosia, the specific name of V. ventrosa would become 
an older name for H. acuta, and the group generally known as Hydrohia would 
require a new name. 

(iii) Single individuals of V. ventrosa and H. acuta (sensu Radoman) cannot be 
distinguished by shell characters alone, except perhaps by the sculpture of the 
protoconch in juvenile specimens. (This sculpture is generally eroded away in adults). 
Specimens of V. ventrosa tend to have more convex whorls and deeper sutures, 
whereas the whorls in H. acuta are often flatter. However, these are only tendencies. 
Individual specimens of each species may well have flat or convex whorls, and DNA 
sequence data do not always confirm species assignments made on the basis of shell 
morphology. In some localities where the species are sympatric, only about 80% of 
preliminary identifications are confirmed by DNA sequences. In addition, trematode 
parasitism, which is common in these species, can affect the shell morphology of over 
90% of mature adults in a population. All determinations based only on shell 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 189 

morphology are therefore speculative and, in the absence of supporting information 
such as detailed locality data, it is folly to designate a lectotype of a hydrobioid snail 
using only the shell. 

(2) Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation is questionable for a number of 
reasons. Boeters found at the putative type locality of Hydrobia acuta two species 
with distinctive male and female genitalia. He assigned the taxon with an awl-like 
penis and a hammer-like bursa to 'H. acuta' (i.e. Ventrosia ventrosa auctt.), and 
the second taxon with a distally widened penis and a sack-like bursa to Hydrobia 
sp. One of the reasons for identifying the first taxon as H. acuta was that, according 
to Boeters, species of Hydrobia were always assigned in the literature to the 
anatomical characteristics of an awl-like penis and a hammer-like bursa. To prove 
his assumption, he (1984) listed anatomical features of four 'Hydrobia species 
(H. ulvae, H. ventrosa, H. totteni and H. procera), all supposedly with an awl- 
like penis and/or hammer-like bursa. However, Hydrobia ulvae does not have 
these features. Later (1987), Boeters stated exactly the opposite: Hydrobia ulvae 
'Unterscheided sich ... durch die sackformige und nicht hammerformige Bursa' 
[differs ... by its sack-like and not hammer-like bursa]. Moreover, all four species 
hsted by Boeters potentially belong to different genera or subgenera: H. procera 
Paladiihe, 1874 is probably a synonym of Heleobia stagnorum (Gmelin, 1791); 
H. totteni Morrison, 1954 is a synonym of H. truncata (Vanatta, 1924) which 
belongs, together with H. ventrosa, in the genus Ventrosia; H. ulvae (Pennant, 1777) 
belongs to the (sub)genus Peringia. Boeters (1987) himself assigned H. ulvae to the 
subgenus Peringia. Boeters's approach, to predict the general ground plan of a type 
species by studying anatomical features of non-type species (which may not even 
belong to the same genus), is unacceptable. Boeters (1984) ignored Mars (1966) 
and Radoman (1977), who published morphological and anatomical studies of 
H. acuta. 

Although claiming that Hydrobia species always have an awl-like penis and a 
hammer-like bursa, Boeters (1980) placed Hydrobia glyca (Servain, 1880), a species 
he figured with the same genitalia as H. acuta sensu Radoman, i.e. with a distally 
enlarged penis, in the genus Hydrobia. He (1987) even placed Hydrobia minoricensis 
(Paladiihe, 1875) (a species that, according to our preliminary molecular and 
anatomical data, is conspecific with H. acuta sensu Radoman) in the same subgenus 
as H. acuta sensu Boeters (i.e. V. ventrosa), although these species have different 
genitaha (a distally enlarged vs. an awl-like penis). Although claiming in 1984 that all 
Hydrobia species have a hammer-like bursa, Boeters stated in 1987 that Hydrobia 
acuta (sensu Boeters) had a hammer-shaped bursa but that all other Hydrobia did 
not. 

It is unclear why Boeters referred to the second species that he found with H. acuta 
(sensu Boeters) as 'Hydrobia sp." although it did not fit his Hydrobia concept. Why 
did he not state what he believed was its generic allocation? We do not agree with the 
statement (para. 7 of the application) that this second species 'can clearly be identified 
as Hydrobia acuta sensu Radoman (1977)'. 

Even more important than all these confusing contradictions is the fact that 
Boeters (1984) refrained from discussing the possible synonymy of Hydrobia acuta 
(sensu Boeters) and Ventrosia ventrosa. Boeters spearheaded anatomical studies 
in European hydrobiids and he must at least have suspected the synonymy. 



190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

However, he never mentioned it, either in his (1984) paper on H. acuta or in all his 
subsequent papers. Thus, in his revision (1988) of the Spanish and Portuguese 
MOITESSIERIIDAE and HYDROBHDAE, V. veiilrosa is not even referred to although in the 
literature it is frequently reported from the area. 

(3) In addition to these confusing contradictions and omissions, two other major 
problems make Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation questionable: missing locality 
information and species identification of Draparnaud's (1805) original type 
material. The type locality of H. acuta may be the Etang du Prevost near 
Palavas-les-Flots, as predicted by Radoman (1977) and as cited in para. 5 of the 
application, but it could be elsewhere in France as Draparnaud gave no detailed 
locality information. Hydrobia acuta and V. ventrosa are frequently sympatric all 
over the French Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts. If the material originated at the 
Atlantic coast, a third species, Peringia uhae, could also be part of the type 
material. This species is usually distinguishable from the other two by its large size, 
solid shell and very flat whorls. In some cases, especially in places with very low 
salinity, shells of P. uhae may, however, be virtually indistinguishable from 
H. acuta or V. ventrosa. The material could also have originated from the French 
Biscay coast, an area where H. acuta is possibly replaced by a closely related species, 
H. glyca. Besides Hydrobia, other hydrobiid species could well be part of the type 
material as Heleobia stagnonim or closely related species are not distinguishable 
from Hydrobia species using shell characters alone. Species of Hydrobia and 
Heleobia are frequently sympatric on the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. But 
even if the original type material did originate in the Etang du Prevost near 
Palavas-les-Flots, and even if it did contain only the two species H acuta and 
V. ventrosa, the species assignment of shells to these taxa is uncertain. Figures 3 and 
7 in Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon (1998) make it very clear that species identification 
is highly dubious. 

Considering these facts, any further speculations regarding the identity of 
Draparnaud's (1805) type material are useless and the syntypes must be considered 
unidentifiable. 

(4) The missing locality information of the type material of Hydrobia acuta and 
the impossibihty of a clear identification force the designation of a neotype that is 
anatomically determined and has exact locality data, as proposed by Giusti. 
Manganelli & Bodon in their application. The proposed neotype reflects a widely 
accepted understanding of the species (see Haase, 1993, for a review). Therefore its 
acceptance would stabilize the use of the specific name H acuta and of the generic 
names Hydrobia and Ventrosia. It would also end the controversy caused by the 
lectotype designation by Boeters (1984). 

We therefore urge the Commission to agree to set aside Boeters's lectotype 
designation and to accept the proposed neotype, thus conserving the common and 
widely accepted understanding of the genus Hydrobia and of its type species H. acuta, 
and of Ventrosia and V. ventrosa. 



Additional reference 

Boeters, H.D. 1980. Unbekannte westeuropaische Prosobranchia, 3. Basteria, 44(5-6): 61-64. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 191 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, 
Branchiopoda) 

(Case 2990; see BZN 54: 89-91; 55: 105, 169) 

Werner Hollwedel 

Oldenburger Strasse 16A, Varel. D-26316 Germany 

I write to support the conservation of the name Disparalona Fryer, 1968. 

The case for the conservation of Disparalona is well founded. The genus Phrixura 
Miiller, 1867, with which some would replace it, was described from a single, grossly 
deformed, individual of the species that Miiller called Alona rosirala, although 
because of its deformity he failed to recognise it as such. The true identity of the 
specimen remained unknown for more than 120 years, during which time the name 
Phrixura was never used. Had Miiller known the real identity of the specimen he 
would have assigned it to A. rostrata, which he recorded in the same paper as that in 
which he described Phrixura reclirostris. The latter specific name is clearly a synonym 
of A. rostrata and never had any validity. 

The number of workers concerned with this nomenclatural problem, raised in his 
comment (BZN 55: 105, June 1998) by Grygier, a non-specialist on the group, is 
irrelevant. In fact, as the original application shows, Disparalona has often been 
referred to by this name. The erection of the genus on functional, as well as 
morphological, grounds more than 30 years ago led to nomenclatural stabihty. 
Previously, species of Disparalona, of which there are now several, had appeared 
under several generic names (see, for example, the synonymic list for D. rostrata in 
Flossner, 1972). 

The genus Phrixura has no standing. The characters on which it was defined are 
not merely completely worthless for the purposes of definition, but are totally 
misleading and do not apply to any taxon, and the use of this name can only lead to 
confusion. Its suppression, and the conservation oi Disparalona, would be welcomed 
by students of the Branchiopods. 

Additional reference 

Flossner, D. 1972. Krebstiere. Crustacea. Kieinen- und Blattfiisser, Branchiopoda. Fischlause, 
Branchiura. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 60: 501. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) 

(Case 2957; see BZN 55: 22-23) 

(1) Enzo Colonnelli 

Via Nicolo Piccinino 15, 00176 Rome, Italy 

I consider that the proposal to conserve the generic name Phytobius Dejean, 1835 
(CURCULIONIDAE) by suppression of Phytobius Schonherr, 1833 should not be 
accepted for the following reasons. 



192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

1. Silfverberg (BZN 55: 22-23) proposes the conservation of Phytobiiis Dejean, 
1835 (p. 282) on the grounds that this name, first pubhshed by Schonherr in 1833, 
'has ever since been used in that [Dejean's] sense' and that 'it is doubtful whether it 
was Schonherr's intention to introduce a replacement name for Hydaticus' . 

2. Phyiobius Schonherr, 1833, as rightly pointed out by O'Brien & Wibmer (1982), 
is a replacement name for Hydaticus Schonherr, 1825 (type species by original 
designation Rhynchaenus myriophylli Gyllenhal, 1813 (p. 152), a junior subjective 
synonym of Curculio leucogaster Marsham, 1802 (p. 253)). When Schonherr noticed 
that his name was preoccupied by Hydaticus Leach, 1817 (Coleoptera: dytiscidae), 
he (Schonherr, 1833, p. 20) replaced Hydaticus Schonherr, 1825 with Phytobius, 
attributing this name to Schmidt, as also did Dejean (1835). Nonetheless, it is clear 
that the author is Schonherr himself, since at that time it was the custom to cite who 
(the collector and often seller of an insect) gave it an unpublished name. As the type 
species of a replacement name and of the name replaced are the same (Article 67h of 
the Code), Schonherr's (1833) statement that the type species of Phytobius is 
Rhynchaenus vehttus Beck, 1817 cannot be accepted under modern rules. 

3. It cannot be claimed that Schonherr did not give a reason for replacing his 
Hydaticus "in terms of the modern Code' (para. 2 of Silfverberg's application). The 
publication by Schonherr (1833) is the first part of his monumental revision of world 
genera and species of weevils in eight volumes. A plan of the work [Tabula synoptica 
familiae curcuUonidum), in which were indexed all genera he intended to deal with, 
was inserted at the beginning of the first volume (Schonherr, 1833, pp. 1-27). 

4. In the third volume, on the pages dealing with Phytobius. Schonherr ([1835], 
p. 458, note) wrote: 'Nomen Hydaticus alii generi inter Hydrocantharos i^Dyticus 
fulvus, Hybneri, stagnalis et transversalis ) dudum a Cel. Leach usitatum'. This 
reference to the prior use of the name Hydaticus by Leach clearly means that 
Phytobius Schonherr, 1833 had been introduced as a replacement name, and this 
meets the requirements of Art. 67, contrary to Silfverberg's claim. 

5. Dejean (1835, p. 282), moreover, in writing: 'Phytobius Schmidt. 
Campylirhynchus Dej[ean] Cat[alogue]' implicitly followed the nomenclature of 
Schonherr (1833). It can thus be affirmed that Phytobius in Dejean's (1835) original 
sense is not a taxon different from Phytobius Schonherr, 1833. 

6. The problem originates from the subsequent designation by Thomson (1859) of 
Curculio quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1 787 as the type species of Phytobius Dejean, 
1835, a designation accepted by the Commission (Opinion 1529, 1989) on the basis 
of incomplete and partially inexact statements by Silfverberg (BZN 36: 252-256, 
1980). 

7. The assertion by Silfverberg (BZN 55: 22, para. 3) that Phytobius "has ever since 
been used' in the sense of Dejean (1835) as determined by Thomson's statement of 
type species is incorrect: many American authors (e.g. Leconte, 1876; Henshaw, 1885; 
Dietz, 1896; Blatchley & Leng, 1916; Leng, 1920) have widely used Phytobius in the 
sense of Schonherr, 1833. 

8. In addition, several authors not mentioned by Silfverberg (e.g. Colonnelli, 1986; 
Tempere & Pericart, 1989; McNamara, 1991; Morris, 1991; Abbazzi & Osella, 
1992; Strejcek, 1993; Dieckmann & Behne, 1994; Abbazzi et al., 1995; Bordoni, 1995; 
Caldara & O'Brien, 1995; Podlussani, 1996; Poole & Gentili, 1996; Burakowski et al.. 
1997; Peck & Thomas, 1998) have used Phytobius in the original sense (i.e. that of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 193 

Schonherr, 1833) in important publications issued after that by O'Brien & Wibmer 
(1982). It can be safely affirmed that the current usage of the name Phytohius is not 
in the sense of Dejean (1835) as modified by Thomson, as incorrectly stated by 
Silfverberg, but in the sense of Schonherr (1833). 

9. In consequence there is no reason to suspend the Principles of Priority and 
Homonymy in this case, since this action would cause additional confusion. The 
Commission is therefore asked not to accept the proposed conservation of Phytobius 
Dejean, 1835. 



Additional references 

Abbazzi, P. & Osella, G. 1992. Elenco sistematico-faunistico degli Anthribidae, Rhino- 

maceridae, Attelabidae, Apionidae, Brentidae. Curculionidae italiani (Insecta, 

Coleoptera; Curculionoidea). part 1. Redia. 75(2): 267^14. 
Abbazzi, P., Colonnelli, E., Masutti, L. & Osella, G. 1995. Coleoptera Polyphaga XVI 

(Curculionoidea). In: Minelli, A., Ruffo. S. & La Posta. S. (Eds.). Checklist delle specie 

della fauna Ilaliana, 61. 68 pp. Calderini. Bologna. 
Blatchley, W.S. & Leng, C.W. 1916. Rliynchophora or weevils of North Eastern America. 682 

pp. Nature Publishing Co., Indianapolis. 
Bordoni, A. 1995. / Coleotteri del Padule di Fiicecchio. 229 pp. Centro di ricerca, 

documentazione e promozione del Padule di Fucecchio, Pistoia. 
Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefaiiska, J. 1997. Kalalog fauny Polski. Czesc XXIII, 

torn 21. Chrzaszcze Coleoptera. Ryjkowce — Curculionidae. czesc 3. Nr. 56 ' Katalogu fauny 

Polski'. 307 pp., 1 pi. Muzeum i Instytutu Zoologii PAN, Warszawa. 
Caldara, R. & O'Brien, C.W. 1995. Curculionidae: aquatic weevils of China (Coleoptera) In: 

Jach, M.A. & Ji. L. (Eds.). IVater beetles of China. 1: 389^08. 
Colonnelli, E. 1986. Checklist of Phytobiini of the world, with a key to the genera 

and description of a new species from South Africa (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, 

Ceutorhynchinae). Fragmenia Entomologica, 19(1): 155-168. 
Dieckmann, L. & Behne, L. 1994. Familie: Curculionidae. Pp. 246-300 in: Lohse, G.A. & 

Lucht, W.H. (Eds.). Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas. 3. Supplemenlband mil Katalogteil. 403 pp. 

Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 
Dietz, W.G. 1896. Revision of the genera and species of Ceutorhynchini inhabiting 

North America. Transactions of the American Entomologica! Society, 23(4): 387^80. 
Gyllenhal, L. 1813. Insecta Svecica, vol. 1, part 3. 730 pp. Leverentz, Scaris. 
Henshaw, S. 1885. List of the Coleoptera of America, North of Mexico, iv, 161 pp. American 

Entomological Society, Philadephia. 
Leconte, J.L. 1876. The Rhynchophora of America north of Mexico. Proceedings of the 

American Philosophical Society, 15: i-xvi, 1^55. 
Leng, C.W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America, north of Mexico, x, 470 pp. Sherman, 

Mount Vernon. 
McNamara, J. 1991. Superfamily Curculionoidea. Pp. 323-356 in: Bosquet, Y. (Ed.). Checklist 

of beetles of Canada and Alaska. 430 pp. Research Branch Agriculture Canada publication 

1861/E, Ottawa. 
Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica, vol. 1. xxxi. 547 pp. London. 
Morris, M.G. 1991. A taxonomic check list of the British Ceutorhynchinae, with notes, 

particularly on host plant relationships (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomologist's 

Gazette, 42: 255-265. 
O'Brien, C.W. & Wibmer, G.J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae 

sensu lato) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: 

Curculionoidea). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute. 34: i-ix, 1-382. 
Peck, S.B. & Thomas, M.C. 1998. A distributional checklist of the beetles {Coleoptera) of 

Florida. Arthropods of Florida and neighboring land areas, vol. 16. viii, 180 pp. Florida 



194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Departmetit of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Entomology Contribution no. 862, 

Gainesville. 
Podluss^ny, A. 1996. Magyarorszag ormanyosalkatii bogarainak fajlistaja (Coleoptera: 

Curculionoidea). Folia Enlonwiogica Hiingiin'ca. 57: 197-225. 
Poole, R.W. & Gentili, P. (Eds.). 1996. Nomina insecta nearclica. A check list of the insects of 

North America. Volume 1: Coleoptera. Strepsiptera. 827 pp. Entomological Information 

Services, Rockville. 
Schonherr, C.J. [1835]. Genera et species curciilionidum. cum synonymia hujus familiae. Species 

novae aul hactenus minus cognitae. descriptionibus a Dom. Leonardo Gyllenhal. C.H. 

Boheman, el enlonwlogis aliis. vol. 3, part 1. 505 pp. Roret, Paris; Fleischer, Lipsiae. 
Strejfek, J. 1993. Curculionidae: in Jelinek, J. (Ed.). Check-list of Czechoslovak Insects IV 

(Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana. Supplementum 1. 172 pp. Picka, Praha. 
Tempere, G. & Pericart, J. 1989. Faune de France. 74. Coli'opleres Curculionidae. Quatrieme 

partie. Complements aux irois volunies d'Adolphe Hoffmann. Corrections, additions et 

repertoire. 534 pp. Federation Fran^aise des Societes de Sciences Naturelles, Paris. 



(2) Miguel A. Alonso Zarazaga 

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

E-28006 Madrid. Spain 

Christopher H.C. Lyal 

Department of Entomology. The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD. U.K. 

In his application, Dr Silfverberg requests the suppression of Phytobius Schonherr, 
1833, a replacement name for Hydaticus Schonherr, 1825 (non Leach, 1817), and the 
conservation of Phytobius Dejean, 1835, on the grounds that the latter has been the 
subject of a ruling by the Commission in 1989 (Opinion 1529) and has been placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In his earlier application, 
Silfverberg (BZN 36: 252-256, 1980) overlooked the existence oi Phytobius Schon- 
herr, 1833, and with his new application is trying to correct this omission. Publication 
of the recent application coincided with our finalising a generic catalogue (Alonso 
Zarazaga & Lyal, in prep.) and our preparation of several applications to the 
Commission, one of these relating to the point raised in Case 2957. 

Several important points are omitted from the Case, and we disagree with others. 

1. Silfverberg presents three arguments for doubting whether Schonherr (1833) 
intended to replace his own name Hydaticus: (i) Schonherr attributed Phytobius to 
Schmidt; (ii) he gave no reason for replacing Hydaticus; and (iii) he provided a 
different type species from that of Hydaticus. The exact terms used by Schonherr 
(1833, p. 20) are: 'Genus 208. Phytobius. Schmidt.— Hydaticus. Nob. olim. Typus; 
Phytob. velatiis. Rhynch. id. Beck.'. In Latin, 'Nob.' is an abbreviation of 'Nobis" 
('of us', using the plural as a sign of modesty, thus 'of Schonherr'), the word 'olim' 
means 'formerly' and was the usual way Schonherr introduced replacement names, 
and the fact that he attributed the new name to another author (Schmidt) is likely 
to be either because Schmidt suggested the new name, or as recognition of Schmidt 
for pointing out the homonymy (as stated by Schonherr, [1835], p. 458). Schonherr 
(1833) does not give reasons for any taxonomic acts in his Tabula Synoptica, 
but presents these in the body of the text elsewhere in his Genera et Species 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 195 

Curculionidum; in this case he refers ([1835], p. 458) to Leach's name having 
preoccupied the name Hydaticus. Schonherr was, of course, not acting in accord with 
rules not then created, and would have felt it appropriate to provide a new type 
species for a new name rather than perpetuate the type of Hydaticus. We cannot share 
Silfverberg's point of view that Schonherr's intention in introducing a replacement 
name is doubtful according to the Code, and share this view with other students of 
the group, who are using the name (see para. 4 below). 

2. Dejean (1835, p. 282) listed Phytohius Schmidt with Campylirhynchtis Dejean, 
1821 as a junior synonym, including (among others) species previously placed by 
Schonherr (1825. col. 583) in Hydaticus, and heading the list with velaiiis Germar. 
The attribution to Schmidt, and the inclusion of velatus, suggest strongly that Dejean 
was using Phytohius in the sense of Schonherr (1833). This is borne out by Schonherr 
(1835, p. 458), who also included Cairipylirhynchus Dejean as a junior synonym of 
Phytohius. Phytohius Dejean, 1835 is therefore the same as Phytohius Schonherr, 
1833 and Phytohius Schonherr, 1835. The type of Phytohius Schonherr, 1833 is 
correctly Rhynchaenus myriophyUi Gyllenhal, 1813, since this was the type species 
of the replaced Hydaticus. Consequently, this is also the type of Phytohius 
'Dejean, 1835', and the subsequent type designation by Thomson (1859) of Cwculio 
quadrituherculatus Fabricius is incorrect. 

3. O'Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 175) pointed out the primacy of Phytohius 
Schonherr, 1833 over Phytohius Dejean, 1835 (but see para. 2 above), and were followed 
by Colonnelli (1986, p. 159) in his key and checklist of phytobiini (a work omitted 
by Silfverberg, 1998). O'Brien & Wibmer (1984, p. 297) suggested that the correct 
name for Phytohius auctt. was Pelenomus Thomson, 1859 (p. 138), whose type 
species by original designation is Curculio comari Herbst, 1795. The catalogue 
produced by O'Brien & Wibmer (1982) is widely accepted as an authoritative source 
of correct nomenclature, so usage of names in that volume is likely to be perpetuated. 
Colonnelli (1986) more explicity noted that Phytohius Dejean, 1835 was a junior 
homonym of Phytohius Schonherr, 1833, and also placed it in synonymy with 
Pelenomus, believing that Phytohius Dejean and Phytohius Schonherr, 1833 were 
different taxa. 

4. Phytohius Schonherr, 1833 is in general use both in checklists (e.g. O'Brien & 
Wibmer, 1982; Morris, 1991; Abbazzi et al., 1994; Anderson, 1997; Morris, in prep.) 
and revisionary and other work (e.g. Colonnelli, 1986; Egorov, 1988; Creed & 
Sheldon, 1994), as is Pelenomus including some former members of Phytohius Dejean 
(e.g. O'Brien & Wibmer, 1982; O'Brien & Wibmer, 1984; Morris, 1991; Abbazzi & 
Osella, 1992; Dauphin, 1992; Abbazzi et al., 1995; Read, 1995; Anderson, 1997; 
Morris, in prep.). 

5. Ruling in favour of the application would necessitate returning to the situation 
prior to O'Brien & Wibmer (1984), although workers on curculionidae have 
accepted their point of view. The application, to be appropriate, should have been 
published soon after 1984 and not 14 years later after the new nomenclature has 
stabilised. 

6. The family-group name phytobiini Gistel, 1856 (p. 370; published as 
phytobiidae), which is the first available name for the tribe where both Phytohius 
Schonherr, 1833 and Pelenomus are currently placed, has as type genus Phytohius 
Schonherr, 1833, not Phytohius Dejean, 1835. 



196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

7. If the application is allowed, the tribal name would have to change either to 
(i) PHYTOBiiNi Thomson, 1859 (published as Phytobiides Thomson, 1859, p. 138), 
type genus Phytobius Dejean, 1835, in the sense of CurcuUo qiuulrituherculatus as the 
type species. Colonnelli (1986) inadvertently treated Phytobius Dejean as a valid 
name, although, as pointed out in para. 2 above, Phytobius Dejean and Phytobius 
Schonherr, 1833 are the same taxon) or (ii) rhinoncini Thomson, 1865 (published 
as Rhinoncides Thomson, 1865, p. 231), type genus Rhinoncus Schonherr, 1825 
(col. 586; type species CurcuUo pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation 
by Westwood (1838, p. 38)). Rhinoncus Schonherr, 1825 was placed on the Official 
List by a ruling of the Commission (Opinion, 1529, 1989) where its type species 
designation was confirmed and placed on the Official List of Specific Names. 
However, this name is an objective synonym of Cryptorhis Billberg, 1820 (p. 43; type 
species designated by Wibmer & O'Brien, 1986, p. 276), an unused name which 
should have been presented for suppression, being a better candidate than Phytobius 
Schonherr, 1833. 

8. We consider that the suppression of Phytobius Schonherr, 1 833 would cause still 
more confusion, since it would involve changes in the family-group name or author, 
and therefore propose to keep the nomenclature as stabilized after 1984 (see 
Colonnelli, 1986). 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to delete the entry for Phytobius Dejean, 1835 from 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phytobius 
Schonherr, 1833 (replacement name for Hydaticus Schonherr, 1825) (gender: 
masculine), type species by original designation for Hydaticus, Rhynchaenus 
myriophylli Gyllenhal, 1813, a subjective synonym of CurcuUo leucogaster 
Marsham, 1802; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name leucogaster 
Marsham, 1 802, as published in the binomen CurcuUo leucogaster, valid name 
of the type species of Phytobius Schonherr, 1833; 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Hydaticus Schonherr, 1825 (a junior homonym of Hydaticus 
Leach, 1817). 

Additional references 

Alonso Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. In prep. World catalogue of families and genera of 

CurcuUonoidea [excepting Scotytidae Latreille. 1807. and Platypodidae Shuckard, 1840). 
Anderson, R.S. 1997. Weevils (Coleoptera: CurcuUonoidea, excluding Scolytinae and Platy- 

podinae) of the Yukon. Pp. 523-562 in Danks, H.V. & Downes, J.E. (Eds.), Insects of the 

Yukon. Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), Ottawa. 
Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeralio Insectorum in Musaeo Gust. Joh. Billberg. Typis Gadelianis. [2], 

138 pp. Stockholm. 
Creed, R.P., Jr. & Sheldon, S.P. 1994. Aquatic weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) associated 

with northern watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum) in Alberta. Canada. Entomological 

News. 105(2): 98-102. 
Dauphin, P. 1992. Les elatinacees, plantes-hotes meconnues pour Nanophyes sahlbergi (Sahl) et 

Pelenomus ols.wni (Isr.) (Col., Curculionidae). Bulletin de la Societe entomohgique de 

France. 91(\y. 65-68. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 197 

Egorov, A.B. 1988. New data on the distribution and ecology of water plant-eating curculionid 

beetles of subfamily Ceutorhynchinae (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) in the fauna of the 

Soviet Far East. Pp. 60-66 in Levanidova, I.M. & Makarchenko, E.A. (Eds.), Fauna. 

syslematics and biology of freshwater invertebrates. Academy of Sciences, USSR, 

Vladivostok. [In Russian]. 
Gistel, J. 1856. Die Myslerien der europdischen Insectenwelt. 12, 532 pp. Kempten, 

Dannheimer. 
Morris, M.G. In prep. A check list of British weevils. 
Read, R.W.J. 1995. Records of Curculionoidea from Cumbria and Dumfriesshire in 1994. 

Coleopterisi, 3(3): 86-87. 
Westwood, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. In: Westwood, J.O. 

An introduction to the modern classification of insects. 587 pp. Longman, London. 

(3) H. Silfverberg 

Zoological Museum, P. O. Box 1 7, FIN-00014 Helsingfors, Finland 

Although the above comments by Colonnelli and by Alonso Zarazaga & Lyal 
touch upon noteworthy aspects and should be considered in the Commission's final 
ruling, we should not be diverted from the main point, which is the status of the name 
Phytobius introduced by Schonherr in 1833. The commenters rely heavily on 
subsequent works by Schonherr. The Code points out in several places that every 
work is to be evaluated from its own contents and not from later additions to the 
matter. Whatever we can surmise about Schonherr's intentions, I do not think that 
what he actually published in 1833 (see the comments by Alonso Zarazaga & Lyal 
above) was within the Code's requirements for the introduction of a replacement 
name. Therefore his designation of Rhynchaemts velutus as type species would seem 
to be a valid definition for the genus, to be changed only by a ruling of the 
Commission. 

My application was submitted to the Commission in November 1994, although not 
published in the Bulletin until March 1998, and included references to works and 
articles with different interpretations of this situation, among them Colonnelli (1986). 
For reasons of space such references were not printed with the application, but were 
available to the Commission and other readers. Since 1994 there have been a number 
of additional works, some of them using the names as interpreted by O'Brien & 
Wibmer (1982, 1984) and quoted by the commenters, others again using the names 
as entered on the Official Lists. We can see that the situation is confused. 

Following my original application (BZN 36: 252-256, 1980) the name Phytobius 
Dejean, 1835 was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 1989; up to that 
time no comments were made to the effect that the name had been published by 
Schonherr in 1833. Whatever the Commission's final decision on my present 
application (1998), we can at least hope that all workers who wish to contribute to the 
discussion have been able to do so. My personal opinion is that once a name has been 
placed on the Official List stability is best maintained if it can be expected to remain 
there, with the correction of any errors. 



198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

AitGOCHLORiNi Becbe, 1925 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): corrected authorship and date 
(not Moure, 1943) 

(Case 3054; see BZN 56: 19-22) 

Michael S. Engel 

Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, 
Central Park West at 79th Street. New York, N. Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. 

My application to the Commission, to rule that the family-group name 
AUGOCHLORiNi and other family-group names based on Augochlora Smith, 1853 be 
given precedence over oxystoglossini Schrottky, 1909 and other names based on 
O.xystoglossa Smith, 1 853 whenever they are considered to be synonyms, attributed 
the name augochlorini to Moure, 1943. This attribution has been widely used by 
bee systematists. 

However, I now find that Beebe (1925, p. 102) used the name augochloridae for 
a group of New World 'bees of the genus Halictus and the genus Augochlora' . The 
family-group name should therefore be attributed to Beebe (1925) and not to Moure 
(1943). 

This change of authorship and date does not otherwise affect the application. 

Additional reference 

Beebe, W. 1925. Studies of a tropical jungle: one quarter of a square mile of jungle at Kartabo, 
British Guiana. Zoologica, 6: 5-193. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Solenopsis invicta 
Buren, 1972 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) 

(Case 3069: see BZN 56: 27-30) 

(1) Walter R. Tschinkel 

Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 
Florida 32306-3050, U.S.A. 

I wish to add my strong support to the request to suppress the name Solenopsis 
wagneri Santschi, 1916 for the fire ant and to add the name Solenopsis invicta to the 
Official List of Specific Names. The literature now contains well over 2000 papers 
using the name S. invicta. To change the name to S. wagneri at this point might satisfy 
the need for priority, but would create unnecessary confusion within the large 
community of non-taxonomists currently doing research on 5'. invicta. I and many 
others have spent almost 30 years publishing papers on S. invicta, not S. wagneri. In 
addition, S. invicta is a name full of wry humor, irony and sly comment. In contrast, 
S. wagneri is obscure, dry and dormant. It is best to let this sleeping name lie or, 
better yet, kill it. 

I therefore fully concur with the case made by Shattuck, Porter & Wojcik for the 
suppression of S. wagneri, and add my voice very loudly to their request. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 199 

(2) Edward O. Wilson 

Museum of Comparative Zoology. Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street. 
Cambridge. Massachusetts 02138-2902. U.S.A. 

I most urgently support the petition by Shattuck, Porter & Wojcik to conserve the 
name Soleiwpsis invicta Buren, 1972 for the red imported fire ant. over its newly 
recognized senior subjective synonym S. wagneri Santschi, 1916. Having followed the 
history of the ant since its discovery in the United States, and the now enormous 
literature in all branches of biology, and like others used the name invicta for a 
quarter century I am certain it would be a disservice to science, causing great 
confusion and error to reintroduce wagneri to formal usage. 

(3) Stephen W. Taber 

Biology Department, St Edward's University, Austin, Texas 78704-6489, U.S.A. 

As the author of a forthcoming book on fire ants, and as the author of The World 
of the Harvester Ants (Texas A & M University Press. 1998). I would like to voice my 
opinion on the subject of the red imported fire ant and its name. I believe priority, not 
convenience, to be of paramount importance. Therefore I advise that Santschi's name 
Solenopsis wagneri be recognized as the senior synonym and replacement name for 
Solenopsis invicta Buren. The adoption of mere convenience as a standard in scientific 
endeavor can only lead to sloppy science. Furthermore, one can imagine how the 
authors of Case 3069 would feel if their names were removed from their work at some 
future date because someone else found it convenient to do so. 

(4) S.B. Vinson 

Entomology Research Laboratory. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 
Texas A& M University. Texas 77843-2475, U.S.A. 

Shattuck et al. have clearly outlined the historical aspects of the issue regarding the 
conservation of the name Solenopsis invicta Buren. This species is considered one of 
the most serious pests in the Southern United States and Puerto Rico, having recently 
invaded California. Because of its economic impact the name. Solenopsis invicta, has 
invaded the popular press and has become a household name readily recognized by 
the public. In addition to the large volume of scientific literature citing S. invicta and 
the popular press, the name S. invicta shows up in a number of speciality journals 
ranging from architecture to soils. Changing the name of S. invicta would lead to 
considerable confusion for both scientists from many disciplines and the general 
public. 

I strongly support the retention of the name Solenopsis invicta. 



200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Comments on the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibagrus nemurus 
(Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichtliyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846), 
and of the lectotype of H. planiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H. flavus 
(Bleeker, 1846) 
(Case 3061; see BZN 56: 34-^1) 

(1) l.M.Kerzhner 

Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. I. 
St Petersburg J 99034, Russia 

H.H. Ng et al. state in their application (see BZN 56: 39, para. 16) that only 
two species of Hemibagrus are known from Java: (a) H. planiceps (Valenciennes, 
1840) = anisurus (Valenciennes, 1840) = flavus (Bleeker, 1846), and (b) H. nemurus 
(Valenciennes, 1840) - sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846). The two taxonomic species are 
clearly distinguishable; the identities and synonymies of all five nominal species from 
Java were stated by Bleeker himself in 1858 and have never been disputed since, and 
they are not doubted now. The 'possibilities' (p. 37, para. 9 and p. 39, para. 17) that 
other species may have occurred in Java in the first half of the 19th-century are 
immaterial, since the speculations are based on neither specimens nor descriptions. 
The fact that other Hemibagrus species occur outside Java and that their taxonomy 
is difficult has no relevance to the names discussed, since readily identifiable material 
exists of both the Javanese species. 

It is obvious that the 'exceptional circumstances' required by Article 75 of the Code 
to justify neotype designation are absent in this case, and that there is no need for the 
Commission to set aside the original types. 

(2) M.J. P. van Oijen 

Curator of Fishes, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands 

The application by Ng et al. contains some errors and omissions which result in 
wrong conclusions regarding Bleeker specimens; however, these errors do not greatly 
affect the situation. 

As a general introductory point, I should like to mention that when the 
former Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie (RMNH) and the Rijksmuseum voor 
Geologic en Mineralogie (RGM) were merged in 1989 to form the Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum (NNM) it was decided that the acronyms for the 
biological and geological collections would remain unchanged. Thus all the fish 
specimens are denoted by the prefix RMNH, not by NNM as in the application. 

According to Ng et al. (BZN 56: 35, para. 2) 'Bagrus [now Hemibagrus] flams was 
described from an unspecified number of specimens of unstated size from somewhere 
in Java'. B. flavus was described by Bleeker (1846) in a paper entitled 'Overzicht der 
Siluroieden, welke te Batavia voorkomen' [Review of Siluroids occurring in Batavia]; 
in a previous paper (1844, p. 511) he stated that Silurids could be bought every day 
in the markets of Batavia (now Jakarta), and it seems likely that his bagrid specimens 
came from the area of Batavia itself rather than from 'somewhere in Java". In 1858 
Bleeker stated that the 21 specimens oi Bagrus planiceps he then had (see below) came 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 201 

from three rivers, one of them being the Tjiliwong which runs through Batavia. In 
that paper Bleeker stated (p. 155) [in my translation] 'Bagrus plaiiiceps CV. and 
Bagrus anisurus CV. very probably are the same species, differing only by variations 
of little importance, which can be considered as individual and ontogenetic variation. 
To this species also belongs Bagrus flams, which I described more than ten years ago 
on the basis of a juvenile female'. 

The last remark makes it clear that B. flavus was based on a single holotype 
specimen (which cannot now be identified), probably from Batavia, and that 
references to 'a syntype' (Fricke, 1991) or 'an unspecified number of specimens' (Ng 
et al.) are in error. After the original description in 1846 B. flavus was not mentioned 
by Bleeker until the 1858 paper, and it seems likely that he soon doubted the validity 
of his own name. B. flavus had been distinguished by the number of branchiostegal 
rays, but the specimen fitted in the ontogenetic series of B. planiceps. 

With regard to the number of Bleeker specimens of A planiceps, Ng et al. comment 
on the discrepancy between the number (21) reported by Bleeker in his Atlas (1862, 
p. 56) and the number now in the NNM and other museums. However, the Atlas is 
only a slightly changed version of the 1858 paper, and the number actually referred 
to the situation in 1858; after that time Bleeker received specimens from Primal in 
Sumatra and Montrado in Borneo (Bleeker, 1860a, p. 46; 1860b, p. 18), but these 
localities were not included in the section 'Habit.' in the 1862 Atlas. 

Unlike the situation with B. flavus, Bleeker's other papers add nothing on B. 
sieboldii; after the description in 1 846 Bleeker did not mention his name again until 
in 1858 (p. 151) he synonymized it with B. nemurus Valenciennes, 1840. After that 
time Bleeker received further specimens of B. nemurus from both Java and Borneo. 

Additional references 

Bleeker, P. 1860a. Achtste Bijdrage tot de kennis der Vischfauna van Sumatra. (Visschen 
van Benkoelen, Priaman, Tandjong, Palembang en Djambi). Acta Societatis Regiae 
Scienliarum Indo-Neerlandicae. vol. 8. 88 pp. 

Bleeker, P. 1860b. Dertiende Bijdrage tot de kennis der Vischfauna van Borneo. Ada 
Societatis Regiae Scienliarum Indo-Neerlandicae, vol. 8. 64 pp. 



202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1930 

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

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

Ruling 

(1 ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Osilinus Philippi, 1847 are hereby set aside and Trochus turbinatus Born, 
1 778 is designated as the type species. 

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

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

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

(h) constricta Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Monodonta 
constricta (specific name of the type species of Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885). 

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

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

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

History of Case 3055 

An application for the conservation of Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea 
Fischer, 1885 by the designation of Trochus turbinatus Born, 1778 as the type species 
of Osilinus was received from Dr Serge Gofas (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 
Paris. France) and Dr David G. Herbert (Natal Museum. Pietermaritzburg. South 
Africa) on 18 July 1997. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 
9-13 (March 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 11. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1 999 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock. Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson. Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 203 

Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Dupuis. 

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: 

Auslrocochlea Fischer, 1885, Manuel de Conchvliologie el de Paleontologie conchvliologique, 

p. 820. 
Carcigolus Monterosato. 1884, Nomenclatura generica e specifica di alciine conchiglie 

mediterranee. p. 43. 
constricla. Monodonta. Lamarck, 1822, Histoire nalurelle des aiiimaux sans vertebres. vol. 7 

(Histoire des mollusques), p. 36. 
Osilinus Philippi, 1847, Zeilschrift fiir Malakozoologie, 4: 19-20. 
Trochocochlea Morch, 1852, Calalogus conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso d'Aguirra & 

Gadea Comes de Yoldi .... part 1, p. 154. 
lurbinatus. Trochus, Bom, 1778, Rerum Naluralium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. part 1 

(Testacea), p. 340. 



204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1931 

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; prosobranchs; viviparidae; 
campelomatinae; Campeloma; Campeloma crassula. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: neuter), type species by 
monotypy Campeloma crassula Rafinesque, 1819, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name crassula Rafinesque, 1819, as published in the binomen Campeloma 
crassula (specific name of the type species of Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1 8 1 8 is hereby placed on the Ofl[icial Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (I) above. 

History of Case 2956 

An application for the conservation of the name Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 was 
received from Dr Arthur E. Bogan {North Carolina State Museum of Natural 
Sciences. Raleigh, North Carolina. U.S.A.) and Dr Earle E. Spamer (Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) on II 
November 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 76-80 
(June 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On I March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 78. At the close of the voting period on I June 1999 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented: 'An additional reason in favour of the conservation of 
Campeloma (para. 5 of the application) is that it is the type genus of the subfamily 
CAMPELOMATINAE (published as CAMPELOMINAE) Thielc, 1929'. Dupuis declined to 
vote on the grounds that less than a year had elapsed since publication of the case. 
[Editorial note. An explanation of procedure followed in sending cases for voting was 
given in BZN 54: 53-54, March 1997]. 

Original references 

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



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 205 

Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3(5): 355. 
Cainpeloma Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie. d'Histoire Naturelle, 88: 423. 
crassula, Campeloma, Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie. d'Histoire Naturelle, 
88: 423. 



206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1932 

Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Cylindrella 
goldfussi Menke, 1847 designated as the type species 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; urocoptidae; holospirinae; 
Holospira; Holospira goldfussi. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Holospira Martens, 1 860 are hereby set aside and Cylindrella goldfussi 
Menke, 1847 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Holospira Martens, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in ( 1 ) above Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 
1847, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name goldfussi Menke, 1847, as published in the binomen Cylindrella 
goldfussi (specific name of the type species of Holospira Martens, 1860), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 3047 

An application for the designation of Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type 
species of Holospira Martens, 1 860 was received from Dr Fred G. Thompson (Florida 
Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.) on 
22 May 1997. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 87-89 (June 
1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support of the application from Prof Lance H. Gilbertson (Orange 
Coast College, Costa Mesa, California, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 55: 236 
(December 1998). 

It was noted on the voting paper that support for the application had also been 
received from Dr Barry Roth (San Francisco, California. U.S.A.), who recorded: 'I 
support the application to designate Cylindrella goldfussi Menke, 1847 as the type 
species of Holospira Martens, 1860 to ensure nomenclatural stability in this genus 
and the holospirinae group. This is a good proposal which will bring much-needed 
stability and replicability to a diverse group of land mollusks that are of much 
interest to those of us who study the North American biota. The measures that Dr 
Thompson has proposed will impact on neontological and paleontological studies 
alike. His selection of C. goldfussi as the standard-bearer for the widespread and i 
often-cited genus Holospira is the correct one; the reasoning is well laid out in thel 
original proposal'. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on thel 
proposals published in BZN 55: 88. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1999 j 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell,^ 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 207 

Negative votes — 1 : Stys. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Stys commented: 'In my view the case relates to a taxonomic problem rather than 
nomenclatural. One unsuccessful attempt to find specimens of CylindreUa pilocerei 
Pfeiffer, 1841, the type species of Holospira, at the type locality does not seem to be 
enough for the Commission to take any action". Dupuis declined to vote on the 
grounds that less than a year had elapsed since publication of the case. [Editorial note. 
An explanation of procedure followed in sending cases for voting was given in BZN 
54: 53-54, March 1997]. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 

given in the present Opinion: 
goldfussi, CylindreUa, Menke, 1847, Zeitschrift fUr Malakozoologie, 1847(1): 2. 
Holospira Martens, 1860, in Albers, J.C., Die Heliceen. nach nattirlicher Vervandtschaft 

syslemalisch geordnet, Ed. 2, p. 39. 



208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1933 

Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Mesobuthus 
caucasicus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name conserved 

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

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name caucasius Fischer von Waldheim, 
1813, as published in the binomen Scorpio caucasius, is hereby suppressed for 
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name caucasicus Nordmann, 1840, as published in the binomen 
Androctonus caucasicus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

(3) The name caucasius Fischer von Waldheim, 1813, as published in the binomen 
Scorpio caucasius and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Oflicial Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 3026 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Androctonus caucasicus 
Nordmann, 1840 was received from Dr Victor Fet {Marshall University, Huntington, 
West Virginia. U.S.A.) on 27 August 1996. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 55: 14-16 (March 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 1 5. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1999 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song 

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Stys. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Dupuis. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Stys commented that he would have preferred the specific name of Scorpio caucasius 
Fischer von Waldheim, 1813 to be treated as a nomen dubium rather than suppressed. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an OflScial List and an 
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
caucasicus, Androctonus, Nordmann. 1840, Notice sur les scorpions de la faune pontique. In: 

Voyage dans la Russie meridUmale et la Crimee, par la Hongrie. la Valachie et la Moldavie, 

execute en 1837 .... vol. 3, p. 731. 
caucasius, Scorpio, Fischer von Waldheim, 1813. Zoognosia labulis svnopticis illuslrata .... Ed. 

3, vol. 1, p. 401. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 209 

OPINION 1934 

Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; vaejovidae; 
Paruroctonus; Arizona; New Mexico; Mexico. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Hojfmanniellius Mello-Leitao, 1934 is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Uroctonoides Hoffmann, 1931, 
Uroctonoides gracilior Hoffmann, 1931, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name gracilior Hoffmann, 1931, as published in the binomen Uroctonoides 
gracilior and as defined by the lectotype designated by Gertsch & Soleglad 
(1966) (specific name of the type species of Paruroctonus Werner, 1934). is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Hoffmatmiellius Mello-Leitao, 1934 is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) 
above. 

History of Case 3031 

An application for the conservation of Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 was received 
from Dr W. David Sissom (West Texas A & M University, Canyon, Texas, U.S.A.), 
Dr Victor Fet (Marshall University, Huntington. West Virginia, U.S.A.) and Dr Matt 
E. Braunwalder (Ziirich, Switzerland) on 30 September 1996. After correspondence 
the case was published in BZN 55: 17-19 (March 1998). Notice of the case was sent 
to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 18-19. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1999 the votes were as follows: 

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

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Dupuis. 

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: 

gracilior, Uroctonoides, Hoffmann, 1931, Anales del Institute de Biologia, Universidad Nacional 
Autonoma de Mexico, 2(4): 406. 



210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(31 September 1999 

Hoffmannietlius Mello-Leitao, 1934, Annaes dii Academia Bnisileira de Sciencias, 6(2): 80. 
Paniroclonus Werner, 1934, Scorpiones. In: H.G. Bromi's Klassen uiul Ordmmgen des 

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

Lieferung 1-2, p. 283. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Uroctonoides gracilior 
Hoftmann, 1931: 
Gertsch, W.J. & Soleglad, M.E. 1966. American Museum Novilales, 2278: 29. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 211 

OPINION 1935 

Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; 
Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Homoptera; delphacidae; Asiraca clavicornis; 
planthoppers. 

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) aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cimex 

aequinoclialis; 
(h) quadristriata Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada 

quadristriata. 

(2) To the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name 
clavicornis Fabricius, 1 794, as published in the binomen Cicada clavicornis, is 
hereby added an endorsement that it is conserved by the suppression of the 
specific names of Cimex aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1 763 and Cicada quadristriata 
Gmelin, 1790. 

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

(a.) aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Cimex 

aequinoctialis and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 
(h) quadristriata Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada 

quadristriata and as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 3040 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Cicada clavicornis 
Fabricius, 1794 was received from Dr M.R. Wilson (National Museums and Galleries 
of Wales, Cardiff, U.K.) and Dr M. Asche (Museum fiir Naturkunde, Zentralinstitut 
der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany) on 28 January 1997. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 93-95 (June 1998). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support of the application from Dr A.F Emeljanov & Dr I.M. 
Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy oj Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) 
was published in BZN 55: 237 (December 1998). 

The name Asiraca Latreille, [1796], and that of its type species Cicada clavicornis 
Fabricius, 1794, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 602 (August 1961). 
However, the senior specific synonyms Cimex aequinoctialis Scopoli, 1763 and Cicada 
quadristriata Gmelin, 1790 were not then considered. 

Proposal (2) in para. 5 of the application (p. 94) was withdrawn from the voting 
paper, and proposal (3) was emended to record that the specific name of Cicada 
clavicornis Fabricius, 1 794 was conserved by the suppression of the names Cimex 
aequinoctialis Scopoli. 1763 and Cicada quadristriata Gmelin, 1790. 



212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 94 with the omission of para. 5(2) and the 
emendment to para. 5(3) noted above. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1999 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner. Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis. Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Dupuis declined to vote on the grounds that less than a year had elapsed since 
publication of the case. [Editorial note. An explanation of procedure followed in 
sending cases for voting was given in BZN 54: 53-54, March 1997]. 

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: 
aequinoctialis, Cimex. Scopoli, 1 763. Entomologia carniolica, p. 1 32. 
clavicornis. Cicada, Fabricius. 1794, Ryngota. Entomologia systematica emendata el aucta .... 

vol. 4, p. 41. 
quadristriata, Cicada, Gmelin, 1790, Caroli a Linne Syslema Naturae. Ed. 13, p. 2111. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 as the 

type species of the nominal genus Asiraca Latreille, [1796]: 
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations generates sur I'ordre nalurel des animau.x composant les 

classes des crustaces, des arachnides. et des insecles, p. 434. 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 213 

OPINION 1936 

Thamnotettix nigropictm StSl, 1870 (currently Nephotettix 
nigropictus; Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Homoptera; cicadelloidea; Nephotettix 
nigropictus; leafhoppers; rice pests. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name nigromaculatus Motschulsky, 
1859, as published in the binomen Pediopsis nigromaculatus, is hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name nigropictus Stil, 1870, as published in the binomen Thamnotettix 
nigropicta (sic), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

(3) The name nigromaculatus Motschulsky, 1859, as published in the binomen 
Pediopsis nigromaculatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 3039 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Thamnotettix nigro- 
pictus Stal, 1870 was received from Dr M.R. Wilson (National Museums and Galleries of 
Wales, Cardiff, U.K.) on 28 January 1997. After correspondence the case was pubhshed 
in BZN 55: 90-92 (June 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 91. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1999 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Dupuis declined to vote on the grounds that less than a year had elapsed since 
publication of the case. [Editorial note. An explanation of procedure followed in 
sending cases for voting was given in BZN 54: 53-54, March 1997]. 

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: 
nigromaculatus, Pediopsis, Motschulsky, 1859, Etudes Entomologiques, redigees par Victor de 

Motschulsky, vol. 8, p. HI. 
nigropictus, Tliamnotellix, StSl, 1870, Ofversigt af Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens 

Forliandlingar, 27: 740. 



214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1937 

Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; 
Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved 

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

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name dohrnii Fieber, 1848, as published 
in the binomen Corisa dohrnii. is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name propinqua Fieber, 1860, as published in the binomen Corisa 
propinqua and as defined by the neotype designated by Jansson (1986), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name dohrnii Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa dohrnii and 
as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Ofiicial Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2958 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Corisa propinqua 
Fieber, 1860 was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum. University of 
Helsinki, Finland) on 3 January 1995. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 55: 20-21 (March 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support of the application from Dr P. Stys (Charles University. 
Praha. Czech Republic) was published in BZN 55: 236-237 (December 1998). Dr Stys 
also noted that the institution holding the male neotype of Corisa propinqua is the 
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Prague, and that details of the type 
locality given on the specimen label are 'Jezero Plockensteinske. Dr Stole'. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 21. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1999 
the votes were as follows; 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Brothers, Cocks, Dupuis, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — 1 : Bouchet. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented that, in his view, the case was insufficiently documented. 

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 56(3) September 1999 215 

dohrnii. Corisu, Fieber. 1848, Noiiveaiix Memoires de la Sociele Imperiale des Naturalistes de 

Moscou. 21: 530. 
propinqua, Corisa. Fieber, 1860, Die Europiiischen Hemiplera. part 1, p. 99. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Corisa propinqua Fieber, 

1860: 
Jansson, A. 1986. Ada Enlomologica Fennica. 47: 26. 



216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1938 

Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila or Chamaepsila rosae; 
Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; psilidae; Psila; Chamaepsila; Psila 
rosae; Chamaepsila rosae; carrot fly; agricultural pests. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 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) The name Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917 (gender: feminine), type species by 
original designation Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name rosae Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Musca rosae 
(specific name of the type species of Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917), not invalid by 
the ruling in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

(4) The name hennigi Thompson & Pont, 1994, as published in the binomen 
Chamaepsila hennigi, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Musca rosae 
Fabricius, 1794). 

History of Case 3068 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Musca rosae Fabricius, 
1794 was received from Mr Peter Chandler (Slough, Berkshire, U.K.) on 12 
September 1997. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 96-98 
(June 1998). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 55: 97. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1999 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Dupuis declined to vote on the grounds that less than a year had elapsed since 
publication of the case. [Editorial note. An explanation of procedure followed in 
sending cases for voting was given in BZN 54: 53-54, March 1997]. 

Original references 

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



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 217 

Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 1917: 37. 

hennigi, Chamaepsila. Thompson & Pont, 1994, Theses Zoohgicae. 20: 161. 

rosae. Musca. Fabricius, 1794, Enlomologia syslematica emendala et aucla. vol. 4, p. 356. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 as the type 

species of the nominal genus Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917: 
Hendel, F. 1917. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 1917: 37. 



218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

OPINION 1939 

Tiigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 (currently Bothrops pulcher, 
Bothriechis pulcher or Bothriopsis pulchra; Reptilia, Serpentes): 
defined by the holotype, and not a neotype; Bothrops campbelli Freire 
Lascano, 1991: specific name placed on the Official List 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; snakes; pitvipers; 
viperidae; Bothrops pulcher; Bothriechis pulcher; Bothriopsis pulchra; Bothrops 
campbelli; Bothriechis albocarinatus; Colombia; Ecuador; Peru. 

Ruling 

( 1 ) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) pulcher Peters, 1862, as published in the binomen Trigonocephahis pulcher 
and as defined by the female holotype (specimen no. ZMB 3868 in the 
Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat. Berlin, Germany); 

(h) campbelli Freire Lascano, 1991, as published in the binomen Bothrops 
campbelli and as defined by the male holotype (specimen no. INHMT 1956 
in the herpetological collection of the Instituto Nacional de Higiene y 
Medicina Tropical 'Leopoldo Izquieta Perez", Guayaquil. Ecuador). 

History of Case 2921 

An application for the conservation of usage of the specific names of Trigono- 
cephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 and Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 by the 
designation of a neotype for T. pulcher was received from Dr Beat Schatti (Museum 
d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva. Switzerland) and Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of 
Boulder. Boulder. Colorado. U.S.A.) on 14 December 1993. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 54: 35-38 (March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

The application concerned two species of South American pitvipers: a terrestrial 
species from the Pacific slopes of the Andes from Colombia to Ecuador, and an 
arboreal species from the Amazonian basin of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. It stated 
that, following Boulenger (1896), the specific name of Bothrops pulcher (Peters, 1862) 
had been used for the western terrestrial species, and that the subspecific name of 
Bothriechis oligolepis albocarinatus (Shreve, 1934) was used for the Amazonian 
arboreal taxon. 

In 1993 Schatti & Kramer found that Peters's (1862) Berlin holotype of /Jiv/f/ier was 
a specimen of albocarinatus. The name pulcher is thus a senior subjective synonym of 
albocarinatus. Schatti & Kramer (1993) used albocarinatus for the Amazonian 
arboreal species and proposed the new name Porthidium almawebi for the western 
terrestrial species. This last name has been used once (Golay, Smith, Broadley, 
Dixon, McCarthy, Rage, Schatti & Toriba. 1993) since its publication. 

The application sought to set aside Peters's (1862) holotype of pulcher as the 
name-bearing specimen and to designate a neotype in accord with use of the name for 
the western terrestrial species. If approved by the Commission this action would 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 219 

remove the name piilcher from the synonymy oi albocarinatus. so allowing the use of 
pukher for the western terrestrial species and albocarinatus for the Amazonian 
arboreal taxon. 

Comments opposing the application from Dr Ulrich Kuch (Forschungsinstitut 
Senckenherg. Frcmkfiiri am Main. Germany) and from Dr Ronald L, Gutberlet, Jr. & 
Dr Michael B. Harvey (The University of Texas at Arlington, Texas. U.S.A.) were 
published in BZN 54: 245-249 (December 1997) and BZN 55: 29-32 (March 1998) 
respectively. These authors proposed that the Commission should not set aside the 
provisions of the Code: the name pulcher would be used for the Amazonian arboreal 
species, and the first available synonym, Bothrops campbelli Freire Lascano, 1991, 
would be used for the western terrestrial species. They proposed to treat Bothrops 
albocarinatus and B. alticolus Parker, 1934 as junior synonyms of 5. pulcher, and 
Porthidium almawebi as a junior synonym of Bothrops campbelli. A reply to these 
comments from Dr Schatti, one of the authors of the application, was published in 
BZN 55: 32-33. (Note: in line 2 of the third para, on p. 33, 'objective" should read 
'subjective"). 

A further comment, from Dr Wolfgang Wiister (University of Wales. Bangor, 
Wales, U.K.) published in BZN 55: 34-36, was in partial agreement with the 
application. Dr Wiister proposed the use of albocarinatus as the name for the 
Amazonian arboreal species, at the same time proposing the suppression o{ pulcher 
and the adoption of campbelli for the western terrestrial species. 

A reply to all the published comments from Prof Hobart Smith, co-author of the 
application, was published in BZN 55: 36. 

The courses favoured by both Schatti & Smith in their application (to set aside the 
holotype of Bothrops pulcher and to designate a neotype in accord with use of the 
name for the western terrestrial species, set out in BZN 54: 37) and by Wiister (to 
suppress the name pulcher, set out in BZN 55: 35-36) required Commission action. 
They were offered for voting as Proposals A and B respectively. 

The course favoured by Kuch and Gutberlet & Harvey did not involve setting aside 
the provisions of the Code but use of the name pulcher for the Amazonian arboreal 
species and adoption of campbelli for the western terrestrial taxon, as set out in BZN 
54: 248 and BZN 55: 31-32. This was Proposal C on the voting paper. 

The application was offered for voting in two parts. In Vote (I) Commissioners 
were asked to vote for or against the use of the plenary powers to set aside the 
provisions of the Code, i.e. Proposals A or B rether than Proposal C. In vote (2) 
Commissioners were asked to indicate, in the event of a two-thirds majority in favour 
of setting aside the provisions of the Code in vote (1), a preference for Proposal A or 
Proposal B. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote as set 
out above. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1999 the votes were as 
follows: 

Vote 1 . Affirmative votes — II: Bock, Eschmeyer, Heppell, Mahnert, Minelli, Nye, 
Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Song 

Negative votes — 12: Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, 
Lehtinen, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, Nielsen and Patterson. 



220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

No votes were received from Cogger and Dupuis. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Since there was a majority against the use of the plenary powers to set aside the 
provisions of the Code, the specific name of Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 is 
placed on the Official List defined by the female holotype; the name relates to the 
arboreal species of pitviper from the Amazonian basin of Colombia, Ecuador and 
Peru. The name Bothrops campbelli Freire Lascano, 1991, defined by the male 
holotype, is also placed on the Official List; it refers to the terrestrial pitviper species 
from the Pacific slopes of the Andes from Colombia and Ecuador. 

The names Bothrops albocarinatus Shreve, 1934 and B. alticolus Parker, 1934 are 
junior subjective synonyms of T. pulcher. Porthidhim almawebi Schatti & Kramer, 
1993 is a junior subjective synonym of Bothrops campbelli. 

The results of vote (2) are omitted as they are superfluous. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 

given in the present Opinion: 
campbelli, Bothrops, Freire Lascano, 1991, Dos nuems especies de Bothrops en el Ecuador 

(Serpientes venenosas), p. 2. 
pulcher, Trigonocephalus, Peters, 1862, Monatsberichte der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie 

der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1862: 672, footnote. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 221 

OPINION 1940 

Hoplocephalus vestigiatus De Vis, 1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific 
name placed on the Official List 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; snakes; elapidae; 
Demansia vestigiatus; Demansia atra; northern Australia; southern New Guinea. 

Ruling 

(1) The name vestigiatus De Vis, 1884, as published in the binomen Hoplo- 
cephalus vestigiatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

History of Case 2920 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Demansia atra 
Macleay, 1884 ([29 November]) by the suppression of Hoplocephalus vestigiatus De 
Vis, 1884 (13 September) was received from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University 
of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) and Dr Van Wallach (4 Potter Park. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on 13 December 1993. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 54: 31-34 (March 1997). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A comment opposing the application from Dr Glenn M. Shea (University of 
Sydney, New South Wales. Australia) was published in BZN 55: 115-118 (June 1998). 
Shea considered that the specific name of Hoplocephalus vestigiatus De Vis, 1884, 
which has priority over its synonym Demansia atra Macleay, 1 884, should be used as 
valid for the Whip Snake of northern Australia and southern New Guinea. Shea's 
paper, cited as 'in press' in his comment (BZN 55: 116, 117), was published in The 
Beagle. Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, 14: 41-61 
in October 1998. 

The authors of the application accepted the arguments put forward by Dr Shea in 
his opposing comment and accordingly withdrew their application. 

To provide a record of the case the Commission was asked to place on the Ofiicial 
List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vestigiatus De Vis, 1 884, as published in 
the binomen Hoplocephalus vestigiatus. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposal to place the specific name of Hoplocephalus vestigiatus De Vis, 1884 on the 
Official List. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1999 the votes were as 
follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Cocks, Eschmeyer, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mawatari, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Patterson, Savage, Schuster, Song, Stys 

Negative votes — 1 : Kerzhner. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Dupuis. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 



222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Original reference 

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

vesligUilus. Hoplocephalus, De Vis, 1884, The Brisbane Courier, 39, No. 8324: 5. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 223 

OPINION 1941 

Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates): 
specific name conserved 

Keywords. Nomenclature: taxonomy; Primates; hominids; Pliocene; Australopithecus 

afarensis: East Africa. 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name africanus Weinert, 1950, as 
published in the binomen Meganihropus africanus. is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950 (a suppressed senior sub- 
jective synonym oi Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1 978), is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name afarensis Johanson, 1978, as published in the binomen Australo- 
pithecus afarensis and as defined by the lectotype (specimen L.H.4 from 
Laetoli, preserved in the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi) designated by 
Johanson, White & Coppens (1978) (first available subjective synonym of 
Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950, the type species of Praeanthropus 
Senyiirek, 1955), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

(4) The name africanus Weinert, 1950, as published in the binomen Meganthropus 
africanus and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2998 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Australopithecus 
afarensis Johanson, 1978 was received from Dr Colin Groves (Australian National 
University. Canberra. Australia) on 29 August 1995. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 53: 24-27 (March 1996). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Comments in support of the application from Prof Tim White (Museum of 
Vertebrate Zoology. University of California. Berkeley. California. f/.S./l.), Prof Paul 
Renne (Geochronology Center. Berkeley. California. U.S.A. and Department of 
Geology. University of California, Berkeley, California), Prof Christopher Stringer 
(The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Dr James C. Ohman (Hominid 
Palaeontology Research Group, New Medical School, University of Liverpool, 
Liverpool, U.K.) were published in BZN 55: 241-243 (December 1998). 

It was noted on the voting paper that, if the proposals were approved, the valid 
name of the type species of Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (should that name be used 
taxonomically; paras. 6 and 7 of the application) would be P. afarensis (Johanson, 
1978). 
Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 53: 26. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1999 
the votes were as follows: 



224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet (part). Brothers, Cocks, Dupuis (part), 
Eschmeyer. Heppell, Kabata, Kerzhner, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Papp, Savage, Schuster, Stys 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Lehtinen, Patterson and Song. 

Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet voted in favour of proposals (1), (2) and (4) in para. 8, but against 
proposal (3); he commented: 'I approve the intention to conserve the name 
Australopithecus afarensis against the unused senior subjective synonym Meganthro- 
pus africamis Weinert, 1950. However, I object to crediting authorship of the name 
Australopithecus afarensis to Johanson (1978), rather than to Johanson, White & 
Coppens (1978)". Brothers commented: 'Viewed from the strictly nomenclatural 
perspective, there would be no need to deviate from the provisions of the Code were 
the taxa concerned not of such general interest outside the realms of palaeontology 
and zoology per se. Pragmatism dictates that the proposals be supported under these 
exceptional circumstances'. Dupuis commented: 'Je vote pour la suppression en 
nomenclature du nom specifique africamis Weinert (points (1) et (4)) mais je vote 
contre sa mention en taxinomie comme synonyme suh]tc\\i d' afarensis (point (2)). Je 
vote contre (2) car il me parait inutile d'officialiser en nomenclature le nom generique 
Praeanthropus qui, en taxinomie 'has not been used since its publication' et qui, par 
pure hypothese, 'will be needed in the future'. 

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: 
afarensis, Australopithecus. Johanson, 1978. in Hinrichson, D., New Scientist, 78(1105): 571. 
africamis, Meganlhmpus, Weinert, 1950, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologic unci Anthropologic, 42(1): 

139. 
Praeanthropus Senyiirek. 1955, Belleten (Ankara), 19: 33. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Australopithecus afarensis 

Johanson, 1978: 
Johanson, D.C., White, T.D. & Coppens, Y. 1978. Kirtlandia (Cleveland), 28: 2. 



I 



Contents — continued 



OPINION 1931. Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved . 204 

OPINION 1932. Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Cylindrella 

goldfussi Menke, 1847 designated as the type species 206 

OPINION 1933. Androctonus caucasiais Nordmann. 1840 (currently Mesobuthus 

caucasicus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name conserved 208 

OPINION 1934. Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): conserved . 209 

OPINION 1935. Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis; 

Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved 211 

OPINION 1936. Thamnoleltix nigropicliis Sxk\. 1870 (currently Nepfiorettix nigro- 

pictus: Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved 213 

OPINION 1937. Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; 

Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved 214 

OPINION 1938. Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psda or Chamaepsila rosae; 

Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved 216 

OPINION 1939. Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 (currently Bothrops piilcher. 

Bothriechis pulcher or Bothriopsis pulchra; Reptilia, Serpentes): defined by the 

holotype, and not a neotype; Bothrops campbelli Freire Lascano, 1991: specific 

name placed on the Official List 218 

OPINION 1940. Hoptocephalus vestigiatus De Vis, 1884 (Reptilia. Serpentes): specific 

name placed on the Official List 221 

OPINION 1941. Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates); 

specific name conserved 223 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 165 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 166 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature 167 

Applications 

LeucocYtozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of Berestneff, 1904 as 
the author and of Leukocvtozoen danilewskyi Ziemann, 1898 as the type species. 
G. Valkiunas ' 168 

Gnonnihis Thorell, 1890 (Arachnida, Opiliones); proposed designation of G. sumat- 

raM«.s Thorell. 1891 as the type species. P.J. Schwendinger & J. Martens. ... 171 

Diasiylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea); proposed designation of Cuma ralhkii 

Kroyer, 1841 as the type species. S. Gerken 174 

Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the 

specific name. T. Yokochi 177 

Drosopliihi rufifrons Loew, 1873 and D. lebanonensis Wheeler, 1949 (currently 
Scaptodrosophila rufifrons and S. lebanonensis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed con- 
servation of the specific names by the designation of a neotype for D. rufifrons. 
G. Biichli 179 

Vesperlilio pipislrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently 
Pipistrellus pipislrellus and P. pygmaeus: Mammalia, Chiroptera); proposed 
designation of neotypes. G. Jones & E.M. Barratt 182 

Comments 

On the proposed designation of Bilhinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina 
desmarestii Prevost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus Sandberger, 
1870 and Sm/ioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet 187 

On the proposed conservation oi Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). T. Wilke, G.M. Davis & G. Rosenberg 187 

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

opoda). W. HoUwedel 191 

On the proposed conservation of Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera). 

E. Colonnelli; M.A. Alonso Zarazaga & C.H.C. Lyal; H. Silfverberg 191 

AUGOCHLORiNi Bccbc, 1925 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): corrected authorship and date 

(not Moure, 1943). M.S. Engel 198 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 

(Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.R. Tschinkel; E.O. Wilson; S.W. Taber; S.B. Vinson. 198 

On the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibagrus nemurus (Valenci- 
ennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846), and of 
the lectotype of H. planiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H. flavus 
(Bleeker, 1846). I.M. Kerzhner; M.J.P. van Oijen 200 

Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1930. Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): conserved by the designation of Trochus turbinatus Born, 1778 as the 
type species of Osilinus 202 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



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



Volume 56, Part 4, 17 December 1999, pp. 225-294 ISSN 0007-5167 




aTU 

HISTORY Ml 

PURCH a' 
LOGV ■ 




The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




li(^Aj\ lThe Official Periodical 



of the International Commission i 
on Zoological Nomenclature ™ 



WA 



^^ 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2000 is £1 10 
or $200, 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. 020 7942 5653) 

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

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Executive Secretary 



Prof A. Minelli (Italy) 

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

Dr P. K. Tubbs ( United Kingdom) 



Members 

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

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

{U.S.A.: Ichthyology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.: Mollusca) 
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia: Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

{Germany: Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen {Finland: Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) 

Secretariat 

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

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc, B.A. {Scientific Administrator) 

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) 

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

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

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



Dr V. Mahnert 

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

(Brazil: Coleoptera) 
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan: Bryozoa) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy: Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark: Bryozoa) 
Dr L. Papp (Hungary: Diplera) 
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia: Protista) 
Prof W. D. L. K\dt(Australia: Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S. A: Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria: Acari) 
Prof D. X. Song (China: Hirudinea) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic: Heteroptera) 



) International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



HISTORY MUSFUM 

2?: b^^ lbb9 

PURCHASED 
ZOOLOGY LIBRAm 



Volume 56, part 4 (pp. 225-294) 17 December 1999 



Notices 

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

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

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

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 56, part 3 (published on 30 September 1999). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Eudorylas Aczel, 1940 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of Pipunculiis 
fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844 as the type species. (Case 3132). M. De Meyer & 
J. Skevington. 

(2) Peristernia Morch, 1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of 
Turhinella nassatula Lamarck, 1822 as the type species. (Case 3133). M.A. 
Snyder. 

(3) Rana cryptotis Boulenger, 1907 (currently Tomopterna cryptotis; Amphibia, 
Anura): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Chiromantis 
kachowskii Nikolsky, 1900. (Case 3134). M.J. Largen & L.J. Borkin. 

(4) Scyllarus orientalis Lund. 1793 (currently Themis orientalis; Crustacea, 
Decapoda): proposed replacement of syntype by a neotype. (Case 3135). 
P.J.F. Davie & T.E. Burton. 

(5) Crotaphytus vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed 
conservation of the specific name. (Case 3136). J. A. McGuire. 

(6) Lopholaimus Gould, 1841 (Aves, Columbiformes) and the specific names of 
Columba melanoleuca Latham, 1802, C spadicea Latham, 1802 and Geopelia 
placida Gould, 1844: proposed conservation. (Case 3137). R. Schodde & W.J. 
Bock. 



226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

(7) Eoloplms Bonaparte. 1854 (Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed conservation; 
Psiriaciis haematodus moluccanus Gmelin, 1788 (currently Trichoglossus 
h. moluccanus): proposed conservation of the subspecific name. (Case 3138). 
R. Schodde & W.J. Bock. 

(8) Cuculus saiuratus Hodgson. 1843. C. hasulis Horsfield. 1821 and C. plagosus 
Latham. 1802 (Aves. Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of the specific 
names. (Case 3139). I.J. Mason. R. Schodde & W.J. Bock. 

(9) Sceloporus occidentulis Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia. Sauria); proposed 
retention of neotype as the name-bearing type despite rediscovered syntypes. 
(Case 3140). E.L. Bell. H.M. Smith & D. Chiszar. 

(10) PERGIDAE Ashmead. 1898 (Insecta. Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over 
PTERYGOPHORIDAE Cameron. 1878. (Case 3141). S. Schmidt et al. 

(11) Mimeta houruensis Wallace. 1863 (currently Oriolus bouruensis; Aves, 
Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific name and designation 
of a neotype. (Case 3142). E.C. Dickinson. S. Somadikarta. C. Voisin & 
J.-F. Voisin. 

(12) Euphryiie obesus Baird. 1858 (currently Sauromahis obesus; Reptilia. Sauria): 
proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Sauromahis aier 
Dumeril. 1856. (Case 3143). R.R. Montanucci et al. 

(13) Bruchus unicolor Olivier. 1795 (currently Bruchidius unicobn Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 3144). 
M.F. Zampetti. 

(d) Rulings of I he 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. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 227 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The new and extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature has now been pubhshed. It will come into effect on 1 January 2000 and 
will entirely supersede the current (1985) edition. Some notes about the new edition, 
which contains many new provisions, will be found on the Commission's Website 
(www.iczn.org). 

The price of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered: 

Individual members of a scientific society ordering one copy for personal use are 
offered a discount of 25'/o (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the society 
should be given. 

Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological 
Nomenclature ordering one copy for personal use are offered a discount of 40% (price 
£24 or $39). 

Postgraduate or undergraduate students ordering one copy for personal use are 
offered a discount of 25'/(j (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the student's 
supervisor should be given. 

Institutions, booksellers or individuals buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% 
discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy). 

Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy. 

Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or AAZN, Attn. D.G. 
Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd(gjnmnh.si.edu). 

Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to 'ITZN' 
(sterling or dollars) or to 'AAZN' (dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to 
AAZN) can also be made by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only), giving the 
cardholder's number, name and address and the expiry date. 

Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on one copy of the 
following publications for personal use: 

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology (1987) — reduced 
from £60 to £30 and from $1 10 to $55; 

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to 
£15 and from $50 to $25; 

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission's quarterly journal) — 
discount valid for up to 5 years; for 2000 the discounted price would be £55 or $100. 

The Code is published in a bilingual volume (English and French). Official texts in 
a number of other languages are planned and their availability will be announced on 
the Commission's Website. 

The linguistic appendices in the 3rd Edition have not been included in the new 
edition; copies of these may be obtained without charge from ITZN. 



228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Financial Report for 1998 

The Trust's deficit of £14,739 for 1998 was significantly higher than in previous 
years. A fall in the amount received from donations was the main reason for the large 
increase in the deficit, though some large donations remained — including £5000 
from the Royal Society of London. Especially significant was the donation of £1181 
from the International Union of Biological Sciences. Even though sales of the 4th 
Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature will generate valuable 
income for a few years, it is clear that long-term support of the Commission's work 
must come from an international funding agency. 

More than half of the Trust's income came from sales of publications, mainly from 
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which yielded an income of £26,238. Sales of 
the Official Lists and Indexes, the third edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature and the Centenary History of the Commission brought the total 
income from publications to £28,234. Income from grants and donations of £13,472, 
interest and investment income of £9899, and capital gain of £3125 from the sale of 
part of the Trust's reserve fund brought the total income for the year to £54,730. This 
was £6541 less than the income for 1997. 

The main expenditure was £57,937 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 £9006. Other costs for preparation of the 4th edition of the Code 
(£1 195), oflice expenses (£843) and depreciation of office equipment (£488) brought 
the total expenditure to £69,469. 

The Secretariat of the Commission 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. Continuation of the work of the Trust for the international zoological and 
palaeontological community is only possible because of the support received from its 
donors. 

M.K. HOWARTH 

Secretary and Managing Director 

19 April 1999 

List of donations and grants received during the year 1998 

American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £443 

Biosis, U.K.. £1200 

European Association for Zoological Nomenclature £843 

Ichthyological Society of Japan £42 

International Union of Biological Sciences £1181 

Palaeontological Association, U.K. £1000 

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters £94 

Royal Entomological Society of London £300 

Royal Society of London £5000 

St John's College, Cambridge £250 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 



Stockholm Natural History Museum 
Systematics Association, U.K. 
Toyota Foundation, Japan 
Zoological Society of London 



229 

£200 
£1000 
£1769 

£150 



Total £13472 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 

31 DECEMBER 1998 

Income 
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £26238 

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1264 

Official Lists and Indexes 312 

Centenary History 420 



GRANTS AND DONATIONS 

BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 

CAPITAL GAIN ON INVESTMENTS 



28234 



13472 
9899 

3125 

54730 



Expenditure 

SALARIES. NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES 57937 
OFFICE EXPENSES 843 

PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS 9006 

PREPARATION OF 4TH EDITION OF CODE 1 195 
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 488 



Deficit for the year 



69469 



£14739 



230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Case 3075 

Stroitffylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 (currently Cyathostomum 
tettacanthuni) and C catinatum Looss, 1900 (Nematoda): proposed 
conservation of usage by the designation of a neotype for 
C. tettacanthum 

L.M. Gibbons 

The Royal Veterinarv College, University oj London, Hawksheiid Lane, 
North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA. U.K. 
(e-mail: LGibbons@rvc.ac.uk) 

J.R. Lichtenfels 

Bio.iysteniatics and National Parasite Collection Unit, Agricultural Research 
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bldg. 1180, BARC-East, Beltsville, 
Maryland 20705-2350, U.S.A. (e-mail: rlichten@lpsi.barc.usda.gov) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the names 
Cycitlwstonmm letracantlmm (Mehlis, 1831) and C catinatum Looss, 1900 for two 
cyathostome nematodes (superfamily strongyloidea) parasitic in the intestines of 
horses and related animals. A lectotype for C. tetracuntlnim designated by Hartwich 
(1986) would make this name a senior synonym of C. catinatum, and it is proposed 
that this designation be set aside; a neotype is proposed for Strongylus tetracantlws 
Mehlis, 1831 (the type species of Cvar/w.v/owwn Molin, 1861), and the same specimen 
is designated as the lectotype of Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1900; the latter 
name had been established for C. tetracuntlnim as understood in modern times. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nematoda; strongyloidea; Cyatliostomum: 
Cyatlwstomum tetracantimm; Cyatliostomum aegyptiacum; Cyathostomum catinatum; 
nematodes; strongylid worms; cyathostomes; horse parasites. 



1 . Mehlis (1831, p. 79) established the nominal species Strongylus tetracanthus for 
nematodes parasitic in the large intestine of horses in Germany. Gurlt (1831, p. 355) 
gave a more extensive description of S. tetracanthus Mehlis, referring to large and 
small "varieties" which represent adults and probable fourth stage larvae curled in the 
mucosa. Gurlt noted that a briefly described species S. armaius Rudolphi, 1 802 might 
have been included in the material called S. tetracanthus by Mehlis, but he adopted 
the latter name and the unidentifiable S. armatus has not been used as a valid name 
for a taxon in the past 130 years. 

2. Diesing (1851, p. 305) placed Strongylus tetracanthus in the genus Sclerostoma 
Rudolphi. 1808, and regarded Sclerostoma quadrideniaium Dujardin, 1845 (p. 258). 
small strongyles of farm horses, as being the same species. 

3. Wedl (1856, p. 53) renamed Sclerostoma tetracantimm as S. hexacanihuni. 
because he saw two additional 'spines" on the anterior end and considered that this 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 231 

character should be reflected in the specific name. Sclerostoma hexacanihum is thus a 
junior objective synonym of Slrongylus telracanlhuin. 

4. MoHn (1861, p. 453) established the genus Cyathostumum with Slrongylus 
tetracanthus as the type species by monotypy. because he considered this species to be 
genericaliy distinct from the others which Diesing (1851) had placed in Sclerostoma. 
Molin mentioned the authors mentioned above, and also had additional specimens 
which he referred to C. li'tracanthum. 

5. Looss (1900, pp. 156-157) recognised that the specific name tetracanthum 
Mehlis had by then been applied to several species; he used the name Cyathostomum 
leinicanthum for one (the commonest found by him in Egypt, where he was working) 
of these and the new name C. catinatiim for another. Two years later (Looss, 1902, 
p. 124) he provided a detailed description of C tetracanthum 'Mehlis partim Looss' 
from horses and donkeys in Egypt, although this differed in some respects from that 
given by Mehlis (1831). Looss (1902, p. 128) also extended his previous description 
of C. catinatiim. and illustrated both this and the species he called C. tetracanthum. 

6. Railliet (1923, p. 13) proposed that the generic name Trichoneina Cobbold, 
1874 (p. 83; based on a new nominal species T. arcuatum. later synonymized with 
C. tetracanthum) should be adopted instead of Cyathostomum Molin, 1861 because of 
the similarity of the latter name to Cyathostoma Blanchard, 1849, the name of a 
strongylid genus parasitic in birds. However, although the similarity of the latter two 
generic names (each meaning "cup-mouthed") is unfortunate, they are not homonyms 
under modern Codes. Railliet (pp. 13-14) proposed that the specimens studied by 
Looss (1900 and 1902; see para. 5 above) should be called Trichoneina aegyptiacum 
after their place of collection; the species concerned is now known not to be confined 
to Egypt and, like virtually all soil-transmitted nematode parasites of horses, is 
cosmopolitan in distribution (Lichtenfels, 1975, p. 3). In addition to horses, it has 
been reported from zebras and from the donkey (Equus asiniis) in Africa and North 
America. Based on the descriptions of Strongylus tetracanthus provided by Mehlis 
(1831) and Gurlt (1831). Railliet concluded that Cylicostomum insigne Boulenger, 
1917 was a junior synonym of Trichoneina tetracanthum (Mehlis). 

7. Le Roux (1924, p. 116) incorrectly declared Strongylus tetracanthus to be a 
nomen nudum' because the description provided by Mehlis (1831) did not allow the 

species to be identified unambiguously. Le Roux gave the commonly found 
Cylicostomum longihursaium Yorke & Macfie, 1918 as the type species of Trichoneina 
Cobbold, 1874 and T. aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 as the type species of the subgenus 
Trichoneina (Cylicostomum); Cylicostomum is an alternative spelling by Railliet 
(1901, p. 40) of Cylichnostomum Looss, 1901 (p. 36). However, these designations by 
Le Roux are invalid; the nominal species were not originally included in the 
genus-group taxa concerned, and Cylichnostomum was published as a new replace- 
ment name (nomen novum) for Cyathostomum because of the latter's supposed 
homonymy. Cram (1924) also placed Trichoneina aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 in 
Cylicostomum, but used this name at generic rank. Yorke & Maplestone ( 1926, p. 54) 
synonymised Cyathostomum and Trichoneina, but continued to use Trichoneina as the 
valid name; they treated T. aegyptiacum as a synonym of T. tetracanthum. 

8. Mcintosh (1951) reintroduced Cyathostomum Molin, 1861 as a valid name and 
accepted the nominal species S. tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 as the type species. While 
this correct typification was followed by some workers (e.g. Yamaguti, 1961; Levine, 



232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

1968; Lichtenfels, 1975 and 1980), others (e.g. Popova, 1958; Kotlan, 1960; Bams, 
1962) have cited Trkhonema aegypiiacum Railliet, 1923 as the type species. 

9. Hartwich (1986, pp. 63-71) surveyed the literature on Strongylus telracanthns 
and also studied the material in the Mehlis collection stored in the Zoologischen 
Museum in Berlin. Based on the classification of Lichtenfels (1975), Hartwich 
distinguished 10 species in the Mehlis material and suggested that to stabilize 
nomenclature it would be appropriate to attach the name S. tetracanllnis to one of 
them. He was unable to identify specimens corresponding to the description of 
Cyathostoimim teiracanthum by Looss (1900 and 1902; see para. 5 above), and called 
T. aegyptiacum by Railliet, or to those synonymised with Cylicostomum insigne 
Boulenger. 1917 or C. longibursatum Yorke & MacFie, 1918 by Railliet and Le Roux 
respectively (see paras. 6 and 7 above). Hartwich considered that stability would be 
least disturbed by applying the name Cyatliosiomum tetraccuuhum to the species 
described by Looss (1900) as C. catinatum. even though Looss had distinguished 
between C. letracanthum and his own C catinaium (para. 5 above) and provided clear 
descriptions of these two species. Hartwich proposed that C. letracanthum sensu 
Looss should be called C. aegyptiacum (Railliet, 1923) (see para. 6 above). Hartwich 
designated a lectotype of C. tetracanthum (Mehlis, 1831) from the Mehlis material, 
but in the taxonomic sense of C. catinatum Looss, 1900. The material used by Molin 
(1861) when he established Cyathostomum is not extant, so Hartwich could not 
determine whether Molin had access to this taxonomic species. 

10. To our knowledge only Dvoinos & Kharchenko (1994) have followed 
Hartwich in using the name C. tetracanthum in the sense of C. catinatum, perhaps 
because Hartwich's 1986 paper was published in a German museum publication with 
limited distribution. His action in changing the name of C tetracanthum (sensu 
Looss) to C. aegyptiacum and renaming C. catinatum as C. tetracanthum has the 
potential to cause considerable confusion with the names of these two species. Our 
intention of approaching the Commission was discussed with Dr Hartwich, and he 
replied (pers. comm., 28 July 1997) 'With regard to your proposal to validate Looss's 
C. tetracanihum. 1 agree to ask the ICZN'. Our proposal was outlined at the 
Workshop on the Systematics of cyathostomes of horses held at the I6th International 
Conference of the World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology 
(10-15 August 1997, South Africa), and the participants agreed (i) that Cyatho- 
stomum tetracanthum Mehlis, 1831, the type species of Cyathostomum Molin, 1861, 
should be defined in the sense of Looss (1900 and 1902; i.e. as a senior synonym of 
Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923) and (ii) that C. catinatum Looss, 1900 should 
be retained as a valid name for a distinct species. It should be noted that veterinary 
interest in small strongyle nematodes is high, because of increases in the number of 
clinical cases and the difficulty of treatment due to resistance to the available drugs 
(Herd, 1990; Klei & French, 1998). 

1 1. To achieve the aims mentioned in the previous paragraph, we propose that one 
of Looss's specimens oi 'Cyathostomum tetracanthum Mehlis" preserved in the U.S. 
National Parasite Collection in Beltsville (Maryland) should be designated as the 
neotype of that species (i.e. of Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831). This specimen 
is a syntype of Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 (see para. 6 above), and we 
hereby designate it as the lectotype of that nominal species, the name of which will 
become a junior objective synonym of C. tetracanthum. The record of the specimen 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 233 

in the National Parasite Collection has been amended as follows, in the anticipation 
that this application will be accepted by the Commission:- Parasite: cyathostomum 
TETRACANTHUM. Class: NEMATODA Host: EQUUS ASINUS. Body location: colon; cecum 
Locality: Africa, egypt, cairo. Identifier: looss, a. 5 feb 1900 Collector: looss, a. 
dec 1899 Accession No.: 087757.00 Type: neotype. Storage No. MT2343F Com- 
ments: redetermination: I male, Neotype of Strongyliis letracanthus Mehlis, 1831 [- 
Cyathostomum tetracanthum of Looss. 1900]. Same male specimen is also designated 
lectotype of Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 [= Cyathostomum aegyptiacum 
(Railliet, 1923)]. 

12. 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 Strongylus letracanthus Mehlis, 1831 and to designate 
as neotype the specimen referred to in para. 1 1 above (U.S. National Parasite 
Collection, accession no. 087757.00); 

(2) to place on the Oificial List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Cyathostomum Molin, 1861 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Strongylus letracanthus Mehlis, 1831; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
letracanthus Mehlis, 1861, as published in the binomen Strongylus letracanthus 
and as defined by the neotype designated in ( 1 ) above (specific name of the type 
species of Cyathostomum Molin, 1861); 

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

(a) Cylichnosiomum Looss, 1901 (ajunior objective synonym of Cva?/;o5?o/H«m 
Molin, 1861); 

(b) Cylicosiomum Railliet, 1901 (a junior objective synonym of Cyathostonmm 
Molin, 1861); 

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

(a) hexacanthum Wedl, 1856, as published in the binomen Sclerosioma he.xa- 

canlhum (a junior objective synonym of Slrongyhis letracanthus Mehlis, 

1831); 
(h) aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923, as published in the binomen Trichonema 

aegyptiacum (a junior objective synonym oi Strongylus letracanthus Mehlis, 

1831). 

References 

Barus, V. 1962. The helminthofauna of horses in Czechoslovakia. Ceskoslovenska Parasil- 

ologie. 9: 1 5-94. 
Cobbold, T.S. 1874. Observations on rare parasites from the horse [Trichonema arcuatuin). 

Veterinarian, 47: 81-87. 
Cram, E.B. 1924. A new nematode. Cylinciropliaryn.x ornala. from the zebra, with keys to 

related nematode parasites of the Equidae. Journal of Agricultural Research, 28: 661-672. 
Cram, E.B. 1925. A new genus Cylicnstomias. and notes on other genera of the Cylicostomes 

of horses. Journal of Parasitology. 11; 229-230. 
Diesing, M. 1851. Syslema Hehninthum. vol. 2. 588 pp. Vindobonae. 
Dujardin, F. 1845. Hisloire naturelle des Helminthes ou Vers intestinaux. 652 pp. Paris. 



234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature S6(4) December 1999 

Dvoinos, G.M. & Kharchenko, V.A. 1994. [Slrnn!;yHds oj dmnesuc uiul wilil horses]. 234 pp. 

Naukova Dumka, Kiev. 
Gurlt, E.F. 1831. Lehrbuch der pallwlogischcn Aiuil<imie der Haus-Sdugelhiere. Nebsl 

einciii Anlumgc. nelcher die Beschreihung der hei den Hiius-Sdiiglhieren yurkoiiimeiiden 

Emgeneidwiirmer enlhdil. Band II und Atlas. Berlin. 
Hartwich, G. 1986. Zum Slrongyliis-Prob\em und zur Systematik der Cyathostominea 

(Nematoda: Strongyloidea). Mitteilungen cms dem Zoohgischen Museum in Berlin. 1: 

61-102. 
Herd, R.P. 1990. The changing world of worms: the rise of the cyathostomes and the decline 

of Strongylus vulgaris. Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinar- 
ian. 12: 732-734. 
Klei, T.R. & French, D.D. 1998. Small strongyles: an emerging parasite problem for horses. 

Equine Practice. 20: 26-30. 
Kotlan, A. 1960. Helminthologie. Budapest. 
Le Roux, P.L. 1924. Helminths collected from equines in Edinburgh and in London. Journal 

of Helminthology. 2: 1 1 1-1 34. 
Levine, N.D. 1968. Nematode parasites of domestic animals cmd of man. 411 pp. Burgess, 

Minneapolis. 
Lichtenfels, J.R. 1975. Helminths of domestic equids. Illustrated keys to genera and species, 

with emphasis on North American forms. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of 

Washington. 42 (Special issue). 92 pp. 
Lichtenfels, J.R. 1980. Keys to genera of the superfamily Strongyloidea. No. 7. Pp. 1-41 in 

Anderson. R.C.A.. Chabaud. A.G. & Wilmott. S. (Eds.). CIH Keys to the nematode 

parasites of vertebrates. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal. 
Looss, A. 1900. Notizen zur Helminthologie Egyptens. III. Die Sclerostomen der Pferde und 

Esel in Egypten. Zentralblatt fiir Bakteriologie Parasitenkimde. Infectionskrcmkheiten und 

Hygiene. Abteilung 1. Originale 1. 27: 150-160, 184-192. 
Looss, A. 1902. The Sclerostomidae of horses and donkeys in Egypt. Records of the Egyptian 

Government School of Medicine. Cairo, pp. 25-139. 
Mcintosh, A. 1951. The generic and trivial names of the species of nematodes parasitic in the 

large intestine of Equines commonly known from 1831 to 1900 as Strongylus tetracanlhus 

Mehlis, 1831. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington. 18: 29-35. 
Mehlis, E. 1831. Novae observationes de entozois. Auctore Dr. Fr. Chr. H. Creplin. Ms von 

Oken (Leipzig). 24: 68-99. 
Molin, R. 1961. II sottordine degli Acrofalli. Memorie del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze. 

Lettere ed Arli. 9: 427-633. 
Popova, T.l. 1958. Strongiloidei zivotnych i oeloveka. Trichonematidy. /«: Skrjabin. K.I. (Ed.), 

Osnovy Nematodologii. vol. 7. Moscow. 
Railliet, A. 1901. [Lettre au sujet de la pretendu occurrence de I'Ankylostome duodenal chez 

le cheval]. Echo Vcterinaire (Liege), 30(1): 38^0. 
Railliet, A. 1923. Le veritable Strongylus tetracanlhus Mehlis et son role pathogene. Annales de 

Parasitologic Humaine et Comparee, 1: 5-15. 
Wedl, L.C. 1856. Uber die Mundwerkzeuge der Nematoden. Sitzungensberichte der Akademie 

der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Nalurwissenschaftliche Classe (Wien), 19: 33-64. 
Yamaguti, S. 1961. The Nematodes of Vertebrates. Systemu Helminthum. vol. 3. 1261 pp. 

Interscience. New York and London. 
Yorke, W. & Maplestone, P.A. 1926. The nematode parasites of vertebrates. 536 pp. J. & A. 

Churchill, London. 



Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the E.xecutive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD. U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 235 

Case 3084 

Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776 and Stomoxys cristata Fabricius, 
1805 (currently Siphona geniculata and Siphona cristata; Insecta, 
Diptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by the 
replacement of the lectotype of M. geniculata by a neotype 

Benno Herting and Hans-Peter Tschorsnig 

Staalliches Museum fiir Nalurkunde. Entomologische Abteilung. Rosenstein 1, 
D-70191. Stuttgart. Germany (e-mail: 100726.3376@compuserve.com) 

James E. O'Hara 

Biological Resources Program. Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, 
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA 0C6, Canada 
(e-mail: oharaj@em.agr.ca) 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the name Siphona geniculata 
(De Geer. 1776) in its accustomed usage for a very common tachinid parasitic on 
tipulid larvae which are serious pests, by replacement of the recently designated 
lectotype (a specimen of the taxon always known as 5. cristata (Fabricius, 1805)) by 
a neotype. Acceptance of the lectotype would transfer the specific name geniculata to 
the species called S. cristata, and the species now called S. geniculata would be 
denoted by the specific name of Musca urhana Harris, 1 780; the latter name had never 
been used as valid until 1996. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Diptera; tachinidae; Siphona: Siphona 
geniculata; Siphona cristata: Siphona urbana. 



1. De Geer (1776, p. 38 and pi. 2, figs. 19-22) described and named Musca 
geniculata on the basis of 'deux ou trois petites Mouches' that he had reared at his 
home in Sweden from host caterpillars (probably Mamestra brassicae Ochsenheimer, 
1816; Lepidoptera, noctuidae). The species name refers to the geniculate proboscis 
with very elongated labella. This characteristic part of the body was described and 
discussed in detail on pp. 39^1, and illustrated in figs. 20-22. De Geer did not know 
that several similar species (now also in Siphona Meigen, 1803) exist in Sweden, and 
his description and drawings are not sufficient to identify the particular species 
concerned. The type specimens have long been believed to be lost, but they have 
recently been found again (see para. 7 below). 

2. Four years after De Geer, Harris (1780, p. 153, pi. 45, fig. 85) described a fly 
Musca urbanus [sic] from England. This name was never used as valid in the 
subsequent literature, but it was cited as a synonym of Siphona (or Bucentes) 
geniculata (De Geer) in the catalogue of Bezzi (1907, p. 382) and in the check-list of 
Crosskey (1976, p. 100). The type material of Harris does not exist, but Andersen 
(1996, p. 96) has designated a neotype of M. urbana. 



236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

3. Fabricius (1805, p. 281) described and named Stomoxys crisiata (currently in 
the genus Siplwna). Its specific name in combination with Siphana or Bucentes has 
been consistently used in the literature for a species (or species complex) difterent 
from Siplwna genkulata. The examination by Andersen (1982, p. 165) of the Danish 
female holotype of S. crisiaia, now in the Zoological Museum of the University of 
Copenhagen, has confirmed the correct application of this name by subsequent 
authors. S. cristata is a parasite of moth larvae. 

4. Meigen (1803, p. 281) based his new genus Siphomi on a fly with a description 
which resembled that of De Geer's Miisca genkulata. In Opinion 1008 (BZN 30: 
157-158, June 1974) the Commission designated M. genkulata as the type species of 
Siphona. As set out in the application (BZN 27: 234-237) by C.W. Sabrosky which 
gave rise to this Opinion, in 1803 Meigen had misidentified the species with which he 
was dealing as 'Conops irriians Fabricius'; although Meigen later (1824, p. 161) 
realized his own error and cited M. genieulata De Geer as the first species in Siphona, 
the original mistake led to divergent interpretations of the generic name. 

5. Boie (1838, p. 241) obtained many specimens of a parasitic fly in a rearing of the 
grass-devastating larvae of Tipula oleracea (or possibly T. paludosa) and identified 
them as Siphona genieulata (De Geer); this was the first record of a Siphona species 
being a parasite of tipulidae (Diptera). Many years later Rennie & Sutherland 
(1920) published a detailed study of the life history of the same tachinid (identified by 
them also as Siphona genieulata) as a parasite of T. paludosa. This is the most 
common Siphona species collected in the field. However, it is not the same as the 
species reared by De Geer from Lepidoptera, a fact unrealized until the syntypes of 
Musca genieulata were found again and examined by Andersen (1996; see para. 8 
below). 

6. The first key for the identification of different species of Siphona was made by 
Staeger and published in Zetterstedt (1849, pp. 3210-3213). He used the name 
S. genieulata (De Geer) for the most common species in Scandinavia ('in Dania 
ubique frequens. sub tola aestate et autumno'). and differentiated it from Siphona 
eri.stata (Fabricius) largely on the basis of the abdominal bristles. Studies by more 
recent authors (for example by Mesnil, 1960) have improved the morphological 
descriptions and reduced the likelihood of misidentifications of Siphona species, and 
the usage of the name Siphona (or Bucentes) genieulata in the sense of Staeger has 
remained universally accepted. Important examples in recent publications are: 
Sabrosky (1971); Crosskey (1976, p. 100); Herting & Simmonds (1978, pp. 8-9, host 
records); Hackman (1980, p. 141); Andersen (1982, pp. 149, 157, 160, 168, and figs. 
5, 7, 17, 32); O'Hara (1983, pp. 278, 299-300); Herting (1984, p. 125); Tschorsnig 
(1985, p. 88); Mihalyi (1986, p. 214); Rognes (1986, p. 72); O'Hara (1989, pp. 
115-116, 166); Bei-Bienko & Steyskal (1989, p. 1219 and fig. 905.6); Tschorsnig 
(1992, p. 41); Belshaw (1993, p. 103 and fig. 409); Herting & Dely-Draskovits (1993, 
p. 334); Tschorsnig & Herting (1994, pp. 75, 100, 106. 153); Pape, Richter, Rivosecchi 
& Rognes (1995, p. 27); Ziegler & Shima (1996, p. 425); Tschorsnig, Andersen & 
Blasco-Zumeta (1997, p. 26); Herting & Tschorsnig (1997, p. 87); and those cited in 
para. 7 below. 

7. This species, the Siphona genieulata of authors, has been used in a biological 
control project against the European Crane Fly Tipula pahukhsa Meigen, 1830; this 
was accidentally introduced into Canada and the larvae (known in English as 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 237 

leatherjackets) have caused much damage to pastures and meadows in British 
Columbia. Releases have been partly successful, and the tachinid has become 
established in parts of British Columbia (for details see Wilkinson (1971, pp. 54-57) 
and Kelleher & Hulme (1984. pp. 85-88)). 

8. The type material of Miisca geniculata De Geer, 1776 has long been considered 
lost, but recently it (two males and one female) has been rediscovered in the De Geer 
collection in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet. Stockholm, and Andersen (1996, p. 94) 
has designated one of the male specimens as the lectotype. All the specimens are 
identical with Stomoxys cristata Fabricus, 1805. and for this reason Andersen 
transferred the specific name geniculata to the species long known as Sipliona cristata 
and adopted the unused name Sipliona urbana (Harris, 1780) (see para. 2 above) for 
the species previously known as S. geniculata. Andersen noted that 'It could be 
argued that the 'old, traditional usage" of the name geniculata should be preserved, 
even if known to be incorrect. However, it is my opinion that the name has never had 
any long-standing and unambiguous usage because Sipliona species have only 
recently been clearly defined by new and distinctive characters, especially in the 
genitalia.' 

9. Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776 is the oldest nominal species in Sipliona; as 
mentioned in para. 4 above, it is the type species of the genus and is recorded as 
such on the Official Lists. The name has been apphed since the early 19th century 
to the most common Sipliona species, which occurs in the temperate zone of the 
Palearctic region from Ireland to Japan, and has been released in North America 
for biological control of its insect host. Unfortunately, the recently discovered 
specimens in the De Geer collection, including the lectotype designated by 
Andersen (1996), correspond not to this species but to Sipliona cristata (Fabricius, 
1805). Transfer of the very well-known name geniculata to the latter species, and 
the introduction of the unknown name urbana Harris, 1780 for the common 
species until now called geniculata, as proposed by Andersen (1996), would create 
confusion and misunderstandings. This was recognized by Andersen himself (see 
para. 8 above), but regrettably he did not maintain stability by referring the case 
to the Commission and meanwhile retaining existing usage. The confusion is 
especially severe because of the transfer of the name geniculata from one species to 
another; in the future the literature on the genus (including that concerned with 
applied entomology) would be very difficult to follow. This transfer has so far not 
been adopted by any other authors except Ziegler (1998, pp. 160-161), and we 
propose the removal of the potential severe confusion by setting aside the 
lectotype of Musca geniculata De Geer and designating a neotype in accordance 
with the very long and settled usage of the name. We propose as neotype a male in 
perfect condition, collected in Sweden and now in the Museum of Zoology at 
Lund University with the following data on the label; 'Sk. Dalby, 6. Molla, 
21.VII.1989, leg. R. Danielsson'. 

10. 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 Musca geniculata De Geer, 1 776, and to designate as 
neotype the specimen in the Museum of Zoology, Lund University, mentioned 
in para. 9 above; 



238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

(2) to add to the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for Musca 
geniculata De Geer, 1776 an endorsement recording that the species is defined 
by the neotype designated in ( 1 ) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cristata 
Fabricius, 1805, as published in the binomen Stomoxys crisialu and as defined 
by the holotype in the Zoological Museum. University of Copenhagen. 

References 

Andersen, S. 1982. Revision of European species of Siphona Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). 

Entoinohgicci Scamlinavica, 13: 149-172. 
.\ndersen, S. 1996. The Siphonini (Diptera: Tachinidae) of Europe. Faiiiui Eiuomologica 

Samilimmca. Supplement 33. 148 pp. Brill, Leiden & New York. 
Bei-Bienko, G.Ya. & Steyskal, G.S. (Eds.). 1989. Keys to the insects oj the European part of the 

USSR, vol. 5 (Diptera and Siphonaptera, part 2). 1505 pp. Brill, Leiden & New York. 
Belshaw, R. 1993. Tachinid flies (Diptera: Tachinidae). Handbooks for the klenlificalion of 

British insects, vol. 10, part 4a(i). 169 pp. London. 
Bezzi, M. 1907. Tachinidae. Pp. 189-597 in Becker, T., Bezzi, M.. Kertesz, K. & Stein, P. 

(Eds.). Katalog der paldarlitischen Dipteren. vol. 3. Budapest. 
Boie, F. 1838. Zur Verwandlungs-Geschichte inliindischer Zweiflugler. Nattirhislorisk 

Tidsskrift, 2: 234-248. 
Crosskey, R.W. 1976. 78. Tachinidae. Pp. 95-105 in Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. (Eds.), A 

check list of British Insects. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, vol. 11, 

part 5. 
De Geer, C. 1776. Meinoires pour servir a ihistoire des insectes, vol. 6. 523 pp. Stockholm. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1805. Systema antliatorum secundum ordines. genera, species. 30, 373 pp. 

Brunsvigae. 
Hackman, W. 1980. A check list of the Finnish Diptera. II. Cyclorrhapha. Nolulae Entomo- 

logicae, 60: 117-162. 
Harris, M. 1780. An exposition of English insects . . . viii, 166 pp., 53 pis. London. 
Herting, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stultgarter Beitrdge zur 

Naturkunde. Ser. A, no. 369. 228 pp. 
Herting, B. & Dely-Draskovits, A. 1993. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 1 18-624 in Soos, A. & Papp, 

L. (Eds), Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera. vol. 13. Budapest. 
Herting, B. & Simmonds, F.J. 1978. A catalogue of parasites and predators of terrestrial 

arthropods. Section A, vol. 5 (Neuroptera, Diptera, Siphonaptera). 156 pp. Common- 
wealth Agricultural Bureau.x. Slough. 
Herting, B. & Tschorsnig, H.-P. 1997. Raupenfliegen (Diptera, Tachinidae) aus der Schweiz. 

Miiteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 70: 77-92. 
Kelleher, J.S. & Hulme, M.A. (Eds.). 1984. Biological control programmes against insects and 

weeds in Canada 1969-1980. 410 pp. C.A.B., Slough. 
Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungs-Eintheilung der europaischen zweiflugeh- 

gen Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), 2: 259-181. 
Meigen, J.W. 1824. Systematise-he Beschreibung der bekannten europaischen zweifiiigeligen 

Insekten, vol. 4. xii, 428 pp. Hamm. 
Mesnil, L.-P. 1960. Note preliminaire sur les Siphona Meig. (Dipt. Tachinidae) d'Europe et du 

bassin mediterraneen. Bulletin el Annates de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique, 

96: 187-192. 
Mihaiyi, F. 1986. Tachinidae — Rhinophoridae. Fauna Hungariae. no. 161. 425 pp. Akademiai 

Kiado, Budapest. 
O'Hara. J.E. 1983. Classification, phylogeny and zoogeography of the North American species 

of Siphona Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). Quaesliones Entomologicae. 18: 261-380. 
O'Hara, J.E. 1989. Systematics of the genus-group taxa of the Siphonini (Diptera: 

Tachinidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae. 25: 1-229. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 239 

Pape, T., Richter, V., Rivosecchi, L. & Rognes, K. 1995. Diptera Hippoboscoidea, Oestroidea. 

In Minelli, A.. Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.). Checklist delle specie della fcniim ilaliana. 

fasc. 78. 36 pp. Bologna. 
Rennie, J. & Sutherland, C.H. 1920. On the life history of Bucenles (Siphoiia) geniciilalu 

(Diptera: Tachinidae), parasite of Tipula paludosa (Diptera) and other species. Parasit- 
ology. 12: 199-211. 
Rognes, K. 1986. A check-list of Norwegian Tachinidae (Diptera). Fauna Norvegica. Ser. B, 33: 

69-76. 
Sabrosky, C.W. 1971. The type-species of Siphona Meigen, 1803, and Haematobia Lepeletier 

and Serville, 1828 (Insecta: Diptera). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 11: 234-237. 
Tschorsnig, H.-P. 1985. Taxonomie forstlich wichtiger Parasiten: Untersuchungen zur Struktur 

des mannlichen Postabdomens der Raupenfliegen (Diptera. Tachinidae). Stuttgarter 

Beitrage zur Naturkumle, Ser. A, no. 383. 137 pp. 
Tschorsnig, H.-P. 1992. Tachinidae from the Iberian Peninsula and Mallorca. Stuttgarter 

Beitrage zur Naturkunile. Ser. A, no. 472. 76 pp. 
Tschorsnig, H.-P., Andersen, S. & Blasco-Zumeta, J. 1997. New or interesting records of 

Tachinidae (Diptera) from the Iberian Peninsula. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkumle, 

Ser. A, no. 556. 46 pp. 
Tschorsnig, H.-P. & Herring, B. 1994. Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas: 

Bestimmungstabellen und Angaben zur Verbreitung und Okologie der einzelnen Arten. 

Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Nalurkunde. Ser. A. no. 506. 170 pp. 
Wilkinson, A.T.S. 1971. Tipula paludosa (Meig.) European Crane Fly (Diptera: Tipulidae). 

Pp. 54-57 in Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1959- 

1968. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Technical Communication no. 4. 

Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough. 
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1849. Diptera Scandinaviae disposita et descripla. vol. 8 (pp. 2935-3366). 

Lund. 
Zieglcr, J. 1998. Die Morphologic der Puparien und der larvelen Cephalopharyngealskelette 

der Raupenfliegen (Diptera, Tachinidae) und ihre phylogenetische Bewertung. Studio 

Dipterologica. Supplement 3. 244 pp. 
Ziegler, J. & Shima, H. 1996. Tachinid flies of the Ussuri area (Diptera: Tachinidae). Beitrage 

zur Entomologie. 46: 379-478. 



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(ajnhm.ac.uk). 



240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56{4) December 1999 

Case 3131 

Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; 
Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific 
name 

Reeve M. Bailey 

Museum of Zoology, The Universitv of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 
48109-1079. U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Notropis 
stramineus (Cope, 1865) for a freshwater fish known as the sand shiner (family 
CYPRINIDAE) from eastern and central North America. The name is widely used and 
almost universally accepted but is threatened by the little used Cyprinella ludihiunda 
Girard, 1856 which in 1989 was rendered a senior subjective synonym. It is proposed 
that the name ludibunda be suppressed, together with the unused putative senior 
synonym Alburnus lineolatus Putnam, 1863. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Cypriniformes; cyprinidae; 
freshwater fish; North America; sand shiner; Notropis stramineus; Cyprinella 
ludibunda. 



1. Girard (1856; see BZN 51: 262-263, September 1994, for the date of publica- 
tion) described 23 new genera and 133 new species of catostomid and cyprinid fishes, 
chiefly from the central and western United States, but including some from the 
eastern U.S. and northern Mexico. Girard's work is cited repeatedly and, although a 
majority of the new taxa are currently in synonymy, many are presently accepted as 
valid (nine genera, 37 species and several subspecies). No holotypes were designated, 
but syntypes were preserved and deposited in the United States National Museum 
(now the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution) and the 
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia ( ANSP). From these, specimens were 
distributed to several other museums, especially the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The materials were collected by naturalists 
attached to the expeditions of the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission 
and the Pacific Railroad Survey. Collection data are often vague or obviously in 
error, and specimens are often poorly preserved. Subsequent study of syntypes 
indicates that many series are composite, including two or more species (see Suttkus, 
1958; Bailey & Uyeno, 1964; C.R. Gilbert, 1978). Many descriptions are readily 
identifiable, but the quality of others is debatable, and some species were described 
under several names (about 12 for Cyprinella lutrensis). 

2. Girard (1856, p. 35) described Cyprinella ludibunda as a new species. All the 
specimens found were said to be immature and the locality was 'not precisely known'. 
In 1989. R.L. Mayden and C.R. Gilbert discovered a long overlooked syntype 
(ANSP 2841, ex USNM 132) of C. ludibunda which they designated as the lectotype. 
The lectotype is, however, a specimen of Notropis stramineus (Cope, 1 865), the sand 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4} December 1999 241 

shiner (family cyprinidae), a widely distributed, abundant and familiar fish from 
southern Canada, eastern and central United States, and northern Mexico. Mayden 
& C.R. Gilbert's (1989, p. 1085) lectotype designation rendered the specific name of 
N. siramineus a junior subjective synonym of C. ludihuiula Girard, 1856, and they 
adopted the latter little-used name as valid. 

3. For a period in the late 19th century, Cyprinella ludihuiula was occasionally 
cited with brief, often confusing, statements drawn in part from Girard (1856). 
Jordan & C.H. Gilbert (1883, p. 171), using the name Cliola ludibunda, commented 
'a dubious species, from Cottonwood Creek, Utah'. Jordan (1885, p. 124), using 
Notropis hulibuiulus, listed a specimen (S.I. 132) from Cottonwood Creek in the 
Museum of the Academy. Jordan & Evermann (1896, pp. 56, 273), using 
A', ludihundus, recorded the locality as unknown; the characterization is in 
part discordant with those of Girard (1856) and Jordan & C.H. Gilbert (1883). 
Without additional information, these accounts are not identifiable with the sand 
shiner. 

4. Fowler (1910, p. 280, pi. 17, fig. 23) illustrated a 'cotype' of Cyprinella 
ludibunda, without locality, clearly the fish listed by Jordan (1885, p. 124) said to 
be S.I. [USNM] 132 in the Academy (ANSP 2841; see Bohlke, 1984, p. 82; C.R. 
Gilbert, 1998, p. 106). This is the lectotype of C. ludibunda designated by Mayden 
& C.R. Gilbert (1989). C.R. Gilbert (1978, pp. 48, 56-57) investigated the 
confusion about the type locality of C. ludibunda (and two other nominal species) 
and concluded that it should properly be 'Cottonwood River, ca 5 mi. NW of 
Durham, Marion Co., Kansas", a credible provenance for the sand shiner. C.R. 
Gilbert (1978) had regarded C. ludibunda as a senior synonym of both Notropis 
stramineus (Cope) and Notropis volucellus (Cope, 1865) since both species are 
included among the syntypes, but he considered it 'best to defer action on the 
problem at this time'. 

5. Cope ( 1 865, p. 283) described Hybognathus stramineus from Grosse Isle, Detroit 
River, Michigan on 'many specimens'. The species, which is currently regarded as 
having two subspecies (see Bailey & Allum, 1962; Tanyolac, 1973), had a troubled 
early nomenclatural history that included such names as Alburnops blennius Girard, 
1856 (i.e. Notropis blennius, the river shiner) and Montana deliciosa Girard, 1856. The 
history was reviewed by Hubbs (1926) who employed Notropis deliciosus, and 
Suttkus (1958) who resolved the earlier confusion by showing that the lectotype of 
Montana deliciosa is a specimen of Cyprinella texana (Girard, 1856) (i.e. Notropis 
texanus), which name has since been generally adopted for the weed shiner (see C.R. 
Gilbert, 1978, p. 83). For the sand shiner, Suttkus (1958, p. 317) employed Notropis 
stramineus (Cope, 1865), which is defined by the lectotype specimen ANSP 4131 
designated by Fowler (1910, p. 274, pi. 15, fig. 5), five paralectotypes ANSP 
4132^136 (see Bohlke, 1984, p. 92), and five paralectotypes UMMZ 213806 in the 
Museum of Zoology of the University of Michigan. Since 1958, the sand shiner has 
been termed Notropis stramineus (Cope) in scores of publications throughout its 
extensive geographic range (mapped by C.R. Gilbert in Lee et al., 1980, p. 314). 
These include four editions (I960 to 1991) of the American Fisheries Society's list of 
Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada, widely 
followed by fishery workers. The fifth edition (Robins et al., 1991, pp. 23, 77) 
employed Notropis stramineus and noted; 'R.L. Mayden & C.R. Gilbert, 1989, 



242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Copeia (4): 1084, showed that this name is a junior synonym of Cyprinella ludibunda 
Girard. 1856 (= Noiropis liidihundus). However, this name has been unused since its 
proposal. A petition has been submitted to the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature to conserve the familiar name stramineus. Until a decision 
is rendered, existing usage is retained under Article 80 of the Code'. However, the 
present case was not submitted until June 1999. 

6. Additional treatises that employ Noiropis stramineus for the sand shiner 
include: 

General references: Eddy (1969): Eddy & Underhill (1974): Hocutt & Wiley (Eds., 
1986); Moore (1968); Schmidt & Gold (1995). 

Regional references: Arkansas — Robison & Buchanan (1988); Canada — Scott & 
Grossman (1973), McAllister (1990); Great Lakes — Hubbs & Lagler (1964, pp. vii, 
77); Illinois — Smith (1979); Indiana — Nelson & Gerking (1968); Kansas — Metcalf 
(1966), Cross (1967); Kentucky — Clay (1975), Burr & Warren (1986); Manitoba — 
Fedoruk ( 1971 ); Mexico — Espinosa Perez, Gaspar Dillanes & Fuentes Mata (1993); 
Minnesota — Phillips, Schmid & Underhill (1982); Missouri — Pflieger (1975); 
Montana — Brown (1971), Holton & Johnson (1996); Nebraska — Morris, Morris & 
Witt (1972); New Mexico — Sublette, Hatch & Sublette (1990); New York — Smith 
(1986); Ohio — Trautman (1981); Ohio River — Pearson & Krumholz (1984); 
Oklahoma — Miller & Robison (1973); Ontario — Mandrak & Grossman (1992); 
Pennsylvania — Cooper (1983); Saskatchewan — Alton & Merkowsky (1983); South 
Dakota — Bailey & Allum (1962); Tennessee — Etnier & Starnes (1993); Utah — 
Sigler & Sigler (1996); Virginia — Jenkins & Burkhead (1994); Wisconsin — Becker 
(1983); Wyoming — Baxter & Stone (1994). Although most of the publications above 
date from 1960 to 1988, ten appeared after Mayden & C.R. Gilbert's (1989) 
resurrection of A', liidihundus. 

1. A few publications that appeared after 1989 have followed Mayden & C.R. 
Gilbert's recommended use of Noiropis ludibundus. They include: 

General references: Eschmeyer, Ferraris, Hoang & Long (1998); C.R. Gilbert 
(1998); Mayden, Burr, Page & Miller (1992); Page & Burr (1991); Rohde, Arndt, 
Lindquist & Parnell (1994); and Warren, Burr & Grady (1994). 

Regional references: Kansas — Cross & Collins (1995); and West Virginia — 
Stautfer, Boltz & White (1995). 

8. Putnam (1863, p. 9) established the new species Alburnus lineolalus. using a 
manuscript name assigned by Agassiz to specimens in the MCZ, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts in 1854. Putnam's brief description was: 'Body light brown with a 
broad silvery band having dark points, extending from the head to the caudal fin. 
Average length, two and a half inches. From the Osage River. Collected by Mr. G. 
Stolley'. Giinther (1868, pp. 259-260) redescribed the species using the name 
Leuciscus lineolatus. Alburnus lineolalus was regarded as a questionable synonym of 
Noiropis scylla (Cope, 1871) (= M stramineus) by Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 263). 
The cited description is certainly insufficient for definite identification. However, as 
C.R. Gilbert (1978, p. 55) indicated, C.L. Hubbs in 1958 identified a specimen in 
the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH 1867.4.12.15) received from the 
MCZ and likely to be a syntype of A. lineolatus, as Noiropis deliciosus auct. (= A^. 
stramineus). If the London specimen is a syntype of Alburnus lineolatus Putnam, its 
identification with Noiropis stramineus is adequately confirmed by Giinther's 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(41 December 1999 243 

redescription and Hubbs's determination. Alburnus lineolatm has not been employed 
as the name of the sand shiner during the 20th century. 

9. The specific name of Notropis stramineus (Cope, 1865) is a famihar name in 
considerable use, retention of which will ensure nomenclatural stability for the 
species. Replacement by the senior synonym Notropis ludibundus (Girard, 1856) 
would considerably hinder communication among workers; some authors would 
adopt it while others would retain stramineus. I refer this application to the 
Commission in accord with Article 23b of the 1985 Code and Article 23.9.3 of the 
4th Edition, which comes into effect on 1 January 2000. 

10. Although there is no 'case law' in zoological nomenclature, it may be noted 
that the present case is completely analogous to the replacement of another name in 
use (Notropis topeka (C.H. Gilbert, 1884)) by an almost unused name (Moniana 
tristis) published by Girard (1856); that replacement was also by Mayden & C.R. 
Gilbert (1989) and again was dependant on their lectotype fixation for the unused 
name. In Opinion 1821 (September 1995) the Commission conserved the name 
N. topeka. 

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

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

(a) ludihiinda Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Cyprinella hidibimda; 

(b) lineolatus Putnam, 1863, as published in the binomen Alburnus lineolatus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name stramineus 
Cope, 1865, as published in the binomen Hybognathus stramineus and as 
defined by the lectotype designated by Fowler (1910); 

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

(a) ludibunda Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Cyprinella ludibunda 
and as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) lineolatus Putnam, 1863, as published in the binomen Alburnus lineolatus 
and as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Alton, F.M. & Merkowsky, J.J. 1983. .4llas of Saskatchewan fish, vi, 281 pp. Technical Report 

83-2. Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Regina, Saskatchewan. 
Bailey, R.M. & Allum, M.O. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. University of Michigan Museum 

of Zoology. Miscellaneous Publications. 119: 1-131. 
Bailey, R.M. & Uyeno, T. 1964. Nomenclature of the blue chub and the tui chub, cyprinid 

fishes from western United States. Copeia, 1964( I ): 238-239. 
Baxter, G.R. & Stone, M.D. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. 290 pp. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. 
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin, xii, 1052 pp. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 

Wisconsin. 
Bohike, E.B. 1984. Catalog of type specimens in the ichthyological collection of the Academy 

of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Special Publications of the Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia, \4: 1-246. 
Brown, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. 207 pp. Big Sky Books, Bozeman, Montana. 



244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Burr, B.M. & Warren. M.L., Jr. 1986. A distrihuliomd alias of Kentucky fishes, xvi. 398 pp. 

Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series, no. 4. Frankfort. 

Kentucky. 
Clay, W.M. 1975. The fishes of Kentucky, viii. 416 pp. Kentucky Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Resources. Frankfort. 
Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania ami the northeastern United States. 243 pp. 

Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park and London. 
Cope, E.D. 1865. Partial catalogue of the cold-blooded Vertebrata of Michigan, part 1. 

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural .Sciences of Philadelphia. 16(8): 276-285. 
Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. University of Kansas Museum of Natural 

History. Miscellaneous Publications. 45: 1-357. 
Cross, F.B. & Collins, J.T. 1995. Fishes in Kansas, Ed. 2 rev. University of Kansas Mu.Keum of 

Natural History. Education Series. 3: 1-315. 
Eddy, S. 1969. How to know the freshwater fishes. Ed. 2. x. 186 pp. Brown. Dubuque. Iowa. 
Eddy, S. & Underbill, J.C. 1974. Northern fishes, with special reference to the Upper Mississippi 

Valley. .\ix. 414 pp. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 
Eschmeyer, W.N., Ferraris, C.J., Hoang, M.D. & Long, D.J. 1998. Part 1: Species of fishes. 

Pp. 25-1820 in Eschmeyer. W.N. (Ed.), Catalog of fishes, vols. 1-2. California Academy 

of Sciences. Center for Biodiversity Research and Information, Special Publication No. 1. 

San Francisco. 
Espinosa Perez, H., Caspar Dillanes, M.T. & Fuentes Mata, P. 1993. Listados faunisticos de 

Mexico. HI. Los peces dulceacuicolas Mc.xicaiuis. Map. 99 pp. Universidad Nacional 

Autonoma de Mexico. D.F.. Mexico. 
Etnler, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. 1993. The fishes of Teimessee. xiv. 681 pp. University of 

Tennessee Press. Knoxville. 
Fedoruk, A.N. 1971. Freshwater fishes of Manitoba: checklist and keys. 130 pp. Department 

of Mines. Resources & Environmental Management. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 
Fowler, H.W. 1910. Notes on the variation of some species of the genus Notropis. Proceedings 

of the .Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 62: 273-293. 
Gilbert, C.R. 1978. Type catalogue of the North American cyprinid fish genus Notropis. 

Bulletin of the Florida Slate Museum. Biological Sciences. 23(1): 1-104. 
Gilbert, C.R. 1980. Notropis strainineus (Cope), sand shiner. P. 314 in Lee, D.S. et al. (Eds.), 

Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. X, 854 pp. North Carolina State Museum of 

Natural History. Raleigh. 
Gilbert, C.R. 1998. Type catalogue of recent and fossil North American freshwater fishes: 

jainilies Cyprinidae, Catostomidae. Ictaluridae. Cenlrarchidae and Etassomatidae. ii, 284 

pp. Florida Museum of Natural History. Special Publication No. I. Gainesville. 
Girard, C. 1856. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the fresh waters of the United 

States of America, west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the Museum of the 

Smithsonian Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Scieiwes of Philadelphia. 

8(5): 165-213. [Issued in the serial in 1857 but published as a separate in 1856]. 
Giinther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the Physostomi ... Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum. 

vol. 7. XX, 512 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. 
Hocutt, C.H. & Wiley, E.O. (Eds). 1986. The zoogeography of North American freshwater 

fishes, xiii. 866 pp. Wiley. New York. 
Holton, G.D. & Johnson, H.E. 1996. A field guide to Montana fishes. Ed. 2. 104 pp. Montana 

Department of Fish. Wildlife and Parks. Helena. 
Hubbs, C.L. 1926. A check-list of the fishes of the Great Lakes and tributary waters, with 

nomenclatorial notes and analytical keys. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 

Miscellaneous Publications. 15: 1-77. 
Hubbs, C.L. & Greene, C.W. 1928. Further notes on the fishes of the Great Lakes and tributary 

waters. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters. 8: 371-392. 
Hubbs, C.L. & Lagler, K.F. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes region, with a new preface, xv. 

213 pp.. 44 pis. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. 
Jenkins, R.E. & Burkhead, N.M. 1994. Freshwater fi.shes of Virginia, xxiii. 1079 pp. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 245 

Jordan, D.S. 1885. Identification of the species of Cyprinidae and Catostomidae, described by 

Dr. Charles Girard. in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia for 1856. Proceedings of the Vniied Suites Nulional Museum. 8: 118-127. 
Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1 896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive 

catalogue of the species of fish-Hke vertebrates found in the waters of North America 

north of the Isthmus of Panama. Bulletin of the United States National Museum. 47(1): 

1-1240. 
Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1883. Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the 

United Slates National Museum. 16: 1-1018. 
McAIUster, D.E. 1990. A list of the fishes of Canada. Syllogeus. 64: 1-110. 
McAllister, D.E. & Coad, B.W. 1974. Fishes of Canada's national capital region. National 

Museum of Natural Sciences Ottawa. Ontario, Miscellaneous Special Publication. 24: 

1-200. 
Mandrak, N.E. & Grossman, E.J. 1992. A checklist of Ontario freshwater fishes, v, 176 pp. 

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. 
Mayden, R.L., Burr, B.M., Page, L.M. & Miller, R.R. 1992. The native and freshwater fishes 

of North America. Pp. 827-863 in Mayden. R.L. (Ed.), Syslemalics. historical ecology, and 

North American freshwater fishes, xxi, 969 pp. Stanford University Press. Stanford, 

California. 
Mayden, R.L. & Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Nolropis ludihundus (Girard) and Notropis tristis (Girard), 

replacement names for N. stramineus (Cope) and N. topeka (Gilbert) (Teleostei: Cyprini- 

formes). Copeia. 1989(4): 1084-1089. 
Metcalf, A.L. 1966. Fishes of the Kansas River System in relation to zoogeography of the 

Great Plains. University of Kansas Publications. Museum of Natural Hislorv, 17(3): 

23-189. 
MlUer, R.S. & Robison, H.W. 1973. The fishes of Oklahoma. 246 pp. Oklahoma State 

University Press, Stillwater. 
Moore, G.A. 1968. Fishes. Pp. 21-165 in Blair, W.F. et al. (Eds.). Vertebrates of the United 

States. Ed. 2. 616 pp. McGraw-Hill. New York. 
Morris, J., Morris, L. & Witt, L. 1972. The fishes of Nebraska. 98 pp. Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission. Lincoln. 
Nelson, J.S. & Gerking, S.D. 1968. Annotated key to the fishes of Indiana. 84 pp. Indiana 

University Department of Zoology, Bloomington. 
Page, L.M. & Burr, B.M. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of 

Mexico, xii, 432 pp.. 48 pis. Houghton Mifflin. Boston. 
Pearson, W.D. & Krumholz, L.A. 1984. Distribution and status of Ohio River fishes, xv. 400 pp. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri, viii, 343 pp. Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City. 
PhiUips, G.L., Schmid, W.D. & Underbill, J.C. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota Region, x, 248 pp. 

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 
Putnam, F.W. 1863. List of the fishes sent by the Museum to different institutions, in exchange 

for other specimens, with annotations. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.. 1: 1-16. 
Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 

1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Special 

Publication of the American Fisheries Society. 20: 1-183. 
Robison, H.W. & Buchanan, T.M. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas, xviii, 536 pp. University of 

Arkansas Press. Fayetteville. 
Rohde, F.C., Arndt, R.G., Lindquist, D.G. & ParneU, J.F. 1994. Freshwater fishes of the 

Carotinas. Virginia. Maryland, and Delaware, vii, 222 pp. University of North Carolina 

Press. Chapel Hill & London. 
Schmidt, T.R. & Gold, J.R. 1995. Systematic affinities of Notropis topeka (Topeka shiner) 

inferred from sequences of the cytochrome b gene. Copeia. 1995(1): 199-204. 
Scott, W.B. & Crossman, E.J; 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada, xi. 966 pp. Fisheries Research 

Board of Canada, Ottawa. 



246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Siglcr. W.F. & Sigler, J.W. 1996. Fishes of Utah, u milunil history. 375 pp. University of Utah 

Press, Salt Lake City. 
Smith, C.L. 1986. The inland fishes of New York State, xi. 522 pp. State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. 
Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois, xxvii, 314 pp. University of Illinois Press, Urbana- 

Chicago-London. 
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., Boltz, J.M. & White, L.R. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. 389 pp. 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
Sublette, J.E., Hatch, M.D. & Sublette, M. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico, xiii, 393 pp. 

University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. 
Suttkus, R.D. 1958. Status of the nominal cyprinid species Moniana deliciosa Girard and 

Cyprinella te.xana Girard. Copeia. 1958(4): 307-318. 
Tanyolac, J. 1973. Morphometric variation and life history of the cyprinid fish Notropis 

stramincus (Cope). Universitv of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Occasional Papers. 

12: 1-28. 
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio with illustrated keys. Rev. Ed. xvii. 683 pp. Ohio State 

University Press, Columbus. 
Warren, M.L., Jr., Burr, B.M. & Grady, J.M. 1994. Notropis alhizonatus, a new cyprinid fish 

endemic to the Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages, with a phylogeny of the 

Notropis procne species group. Copeia. 1994(4): 868-886. 



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 56(4) December 1999 247 

Case 3122 

Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (currently Mixosaurus 
cornalianus; Reptilia, Ichthyosauria): proposed designation of a 
neotype 

Winand Brinkmann 

Palciontologisches Institut imd Museum, Universitat Zurich. Karl Schmid- 

Strasse 4, CH-8006 Ziirich, Switzerland (e-mail: wbrink@pim.unizh.ch) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate a neotype for the Middle 
Triassic ichthyosaur Mixosaurus conuiliamis (Bassani. 1886). the type species of 
Mixosaurus Baur, 1887 (family mixosauridae). The original specimens no longer 
exist, and a previous neotype designation is not only probably invalid but the 
specimen chosen does not show the diagnostic features of the species as originally 
described. Proper typification of M. cornalianus is essential for studies of the 

MIXOSAURIDAE. 

Keywords. Nomenclature: taxonomy; Ichthyosauria: Mixosaurus; Mixosaurus corna- 
lianus; Triassic: Grenzbitumenzone; Besano Formation; Monte San Giorgio/Besano 
Basin. 



1. Bassani (1886, pp. 20-21) briefly described small (50-90 cm long) ichthyosaurs 
from the 240 My-old (Anisian/Ladinian) Middle Triassic 'Grenzbitumenzone" or 
Besano Formation of the Monte San Giorgio/Besano basin on the Swiss/Italian 
border between Ticino and Lombardia. He mentioned five specimens in the Museo 
Civico di Storia Naturale in Milan, of which four were almost complete. Although his 
description was short it included important information on the heterodontous 
dentition which unequivocally characterizes this species, for which Bassani (p. 20) 
established the name Ichthyosaurus cornalianus. The statement by Maisch & Matzke 
(1997, p. 725) that ' ... since Besmer (1947). it is generally recognised that the true 
Mixosaurus cornalianus has a quite isodontous dentition" is not relevant or correct. 
The proper application of the name was beyond the scope of Besmer"s short work (a 
dental surgeon"s dissertation), and the original information (Bassani, 1886 and 
Repossi, 1902) about the heterodontous dentition has been quoted repeatedly (e.g. 
Mazin, 1983, p. 409; Carroll. 1993, p. 269) and was cited by Besmer himself (p. 7) 
without comment. 

2. In 1887, the year after Bassani"s original report, Baur realized that the 
ichthyosaur described by Bassani differed from others in important respects and he 
(Baur, 1887a, p. 19) established for /. cornalianus the nominal genus Mixosaurus, 
which he placed in its own family mixosauridae; see also Baur (1887b. p. 839). 
Several other species (and fragmentary remains) from various parts of the world have 
subsequently been placed in Mixosaurus, which is the most studied genus of Triassic 
ichthyosaurs (see for example Callaway (1997) and Motani (1997)). 



248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

3. Repossi (1902) described M. cornalianus in considerable detail and illustrated 
(pis. 8 and 9) one of Bassani's complete specimens and also parts of it and of 
others. These figures show clearly the heterodontous dentition and a characteristic 
postcranial element, the Y-shaped interclavicle, which are mentioned in the 
descriptions. 

4. The type material of M. cornalianus in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in 
Milan was destroyed by bombing in 1943 (Pinna, 1967, p. 182). Pinna (p. 188) 
referred to one of the destroyed specimens as having been the holotype of 
M. cornalianus. but this is incorrect because (see para. 1 above) the species was based 
on several syntypes. Pinna (1967, p. 186) designated a specimen which had been given 
to the museum in 1965 as the 'Neoholotypus' of M. cornalianus; he gave a 
photograph (fig. 6) of this specimen, which he noted [in translation] had been 'neither 
studied nor published'. The type designation seems to have been made only as a 
"matter of curatorial routine' in connection with cataloguing (see Pinna, 1967, 
footnote on p. 183) and it can be regarded as invalid under Article 75 of the then 
current and subsequent editions of the Code. The specimen, an articulated individual 
of 80 cm length, can be seen only from the dorsal aspect and shows no feature 
characteristic at the species-level (such as the dentition and interclavicle) as men- 
tioned by Bassani (1886) and Repossi (1902) and repeatedly referred to by later 
authors, none of whom have used Pinna's neotype in the interpretation of 
M. cornalianus. 

5. Maisch & Matzke (1997) and I (Brinkmann, 1998) have reported abundant 
Mixosaurus material, in the collections of Ziirich and Tubingen Universities, 
from the Middle Triassic 'Grenzbitumenzone' or Besano Formation of the 
Monte San Georgio/Besano basin which, in contrast to M. cornalianus. shows an 
isodontous dentition and a non-Y-shaped interclavicle. This belongs to more 
than one species, and I (Brinkmann, 1998) further reported the presence of two 
morphotypes of 'A/, cornalianm'' which represent distinct species. As noted by 
Maisch & Matzke (1997, p. 726), it is absolutely necessary to fix the identity 
of the nominal species M. cornalianus (Bassani, 1886) before the taxonomy 
of the genus Mixosaurus can be discussed with any clarity. Although, if the 
previous designation of a neotype by Pinna (1967; see para. 4 above) is regarded 
as invalid, it would be possible to designate a neotype under Article 75 of the 
Code, the case is referred to the Commission in the interests of stability and 
taxonomic progress. 

6. One of the rare individuals which show the relevant features of M. cornalianus 
described by Bassani (1886) and Repossi (1902) is specimen T2420 in the Palaon- 
tologisches Institut und Museum der Universitiit Zurich (PIMUZ); this has been 
figured by Brinkmann (1998, figs. 10-12). The almost complete fossil is seen from the 
right side and is in a good state of preservation. The dentition is heterodontous 
(fig. 10) and the interclavicle (fig. II) has the shape mentioned by Repossi. The 
designation of this specimen as the neotype of M. cornalianus would be in accord with 
the original description and subsequent understanding of the species and would 
facilitate future studies of the mixosauridae. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 
( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens 

for the nominal species Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 and to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 249 

designate as neotype the specimen T2420 in the Palaontologisches Institut und 
Museum der Universitat Zurich mentioned in para. 6 above; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Mi.xosaurus Baur, 1887 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Ichtliyosmints cornaliamis Bassani. 1886; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cornaliamis 
Bassani, 1886, as published in the binomen Ichthyosaurus cornulianus and as 
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type 
species of Mixosaurus Baur, 1887). 

References 

Bassani, F. 1 886. Sui fossili e sull'eta degli schisti bituminosi triasici di Besano in Lombardia. 

Alii della Sociela Italicma di Scienze Nalurali. 29: 15-72. 
Baur, G. 1887a. Ueber den Ursprung der Extremitaten der Ichthyopterygier. Pp. 17-20 in 

Bcriciit iiber die XX Versammlung des Oberrheinisclien geologischen Vereins. 26 pp. 

Stuttgart. 
Baur, G. 1887b. On the morphology and origin of the Ichthyopterygia. American Naturalist, 

21: 837-840. 
Besmer, A. 1947. Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Ichthyosauriergebisses. Scliweizerisclie Paldonlolo- 

gisclie Abhandlungen. 65: 1-21. 
Brinkmann, W. 1998. Die Ichthyosaurier (Reptilia) aus der Grenzbitumenzone (Mitteltrias) des 

Monte San Giorgio (Tessin, Schweiz) — neue Ergebnisse. Vierteljahrssclirifl der Naliir- 

forsclienden Gesellscluift in Ziirich. 143(4): 165-177. 
Callaway, J.M. 1997. A new look at Mixosaurus. Pp. 45-59 in Callaway. J.M. & Nicholls. E.L. 

(Eds.). Ancient marine reptiles, xlvi. 501 pp. Academic Press. San Diego & London. 
Carroll, R.L. 1993. Paldonlologie und Evolution der Wirbeltiere. G. Thieme. Stuttgart. 
Maisch, M.W. & Matzke, A.T. 1997. Observations on Triassic ichthyosaurs. Part 1: Structure 

of the palate and mode of tooth implantation in Mixosaurus cornaliamis (bassani, 1886). 

Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologic und Paldontologic (Monatshefte). 1997(12): 717-732. 
Mazin, J.-M. 1983. L'implantation dentaire chez les Ichthyopterygia (Reptilia). Neues 

Jahrbuch fiir Geologic und Paldontologic (Monatshefte), 1983(7): 406-418. 
Motani, R. 1997. Temporal and spatial distribution of tooth implantation in ichthyosaurs. 

Pp. 81-103 in Callaway. J.M. & Nicholls. E.L. (Eds.), Ancient marine reptiles, xlvi, 

501 pp. Academic Press, San Diego & London. 
Pinna, G. 1967. La collezione di rettili triassici di Besano (Varese) del Museo Civico di Storia 

Naturale di Milano. Natura (Milano), 58: 178-192. 
Repossi, E. 1902. II Mixosauro degli strati triasici di Besano in Lombardia. Atti della Societa 

ItaUana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, 41: 361-372. 



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). 



250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Case 3095 

Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata 
Gray, 1843 and Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently 
C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed conservation of 
usage of the names 

Hamish G. Spencer 

Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P. O. Box 56, Dunedin, 

New Zealand (e-mail: h.spencer@otago.ac.nz) 

Daphne E. Lee 

Department of Geology, University of Otago. P. O. Box 56, Dunedin, 

New Zealand (e-mail: d.lee@otago.ac.nz) 

Abstract. The pui^iose of this appHcation is to preserve the universal usage of 
the names of the two New Zealand bats Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843 
(mystacinidae; the Lesser Short-tailed Bat) and Chalinolobus tuberculatus (J.R. 
Forster. 1844) (vespertilionidae; the Long-tailed Bat). The introduction of 
M. velutina Hutton, 1872, a long disused junior objective synonym of M. tuberculata, 
has very recently been proposed on the mistaken grounds that the latter name is not 
available. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Chiroptera; mystacinidae; 
vespertilionidae; Chalinolobus; Mystacina; Chalinolobus tuberculatus; Mystacina 
tuberculata; Mvstacina velutina; bats; New Zealand. 



1. New Zealand has three currently recognised bats, the Lesser and Greater 
Short-tailed Bats, at present called Mystacina tuberculata and M. robusta. and the 
Long-tailed Bat, Chalinolobus tuberculatus. M. robusta was described (as a subspecies 
of M. tuberculata confined to small offshore islands) only in 1962; it does not concern 
us here. Specimens of the other two taxa had been brought to Europe by the early 
1840s, but it was not originally realised that more than one species was involved even 
though the two are not closely related. This conflating of the two taxa caused initial 
confusion, as described below, but the usage of names is now long established. 
Because of this stability and because M. tuberculata and C. tuberculatus are the type 
species of their respective genera, we believe that this usage should be conserved. A 
proposal that M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 should be replaced by M. velutina Hutton, 
1872 has been put forward very recently (Mayer, Kirsch, Hutcheon, Lapointe & 
Gingras, 1999), but we consider that this replacement is in accord neither with 
stability nor with the strict application of the Code. 

2. During Cook's second voyage, in May 1773 Johann Reinhold Forster collected 
the first specimen of New Zealand bats known to Europeans, and in a manuscript 
described it as Vespertilio tuberculatus. This MS has been preserved in Berlin since 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 251 

1799, but it remained unpublished for many years until it was edited and published 
by H. Lichtenstein in 1844 (see para. 6 below). J.R. Forster's son, George, illustrated 
the specimen, but this and other illustrations were separated from the MS and 
remained in the British Museum since soon after the voyage (Hoare, 1982); 
G. Forster's plate was not published for over 200 years but has been reproduced (in 
part) by Andrews (1986). 

3. J.E. Gray worked in the British Museum, and so had access to G. Forster's 
painting; it was he who in January 1843 published the first available (non-MS) 
descriptions of New Zealand bats (Gray, 1843a). On p. 181, under the heading 
"Vesperiilio tuberculatus. G. Forster. Icon, ined., n. 1', Gray gave a five-word 
description "Yellowish brown; ears small, rounded' which unambiguously 
relates to the species now known as Chalinolobus tuherculatus. the Long-tailed 
Bat. Thomas (1905) argued, and we agree, that on p. 181 Gray was simply 
describing George Forster's unpublished illustration; both the insertion of the 
younger Forster's initial and the term 'Icon, ined.' show this. Moreover, the 
words are Gray's own and are not a translation of J.R. Forster's MS in Berlin, 
which was not mentioned in Gray's 1843 paper and would not have been easily 
accessible to him. 

4. At the end of the same work ( 1 843a, p. 296) Gray added a footnote: ' Vespertilio 
tuberculatus, p. 181. — I have just received two specimens of this bat: it is a new genus, 
differing from Embalonura. Kuhl [recte Emballonura Temminck], and Urocryptus, 
Temm., in having ... [a seven line description follows] ... It may be called Mystacina 
tuberculata . The description on p. 296 clearly refers to the Short-tailed Bat since 
known as Mystacina [or sometimes Mystacops: see para. 9 below] tuberculata. Later 
that year Gray (1843b, p. 34) reported the presence in the British Museum of the two 
specimens of The mystacine. mystacina tuberculata. Gray. Diejfettb. Jour. App. 296. 
Vespertilio tuberculatus, G. Forster. Icon. ined. in Brit. Mus. t. 1.'. 

5. It is clear from the above that in 1843 Gray believed that he was dealing with 
a single species of bat from New Zealand. For this he used the specific name 
tuberculatus, taken from the title of G. Forster's unpublished picture, and, when he 
had examined two actual specimens, he proposed the name Mystacina tuberculata 
and used it as valid for the supposed single taxon. Pages 181 and 296 of Gray's work 
(1843a) were published at the same time and the work must be considered as a whole; 
when this is done it is evident that the single nominal species Mystacina tuberculata 
Gray, 1843 was established in the work, and that the two actual specimens and the 
specimen illustrated by G. Forster are the syntypes of this species (even though the 
last actually represented a different taxon). 

6. In 1844 H. Lichtenstein published in Berlin a text (Forster, 1844) of J.R. 
Forster's journal, which had been written some 70 years earlier. On pages 62-64 this 
reported ' Vespertilio tuberculatus F. The New Zealand Bat', accompanied by a 
detailed description in Latin. The species was based on a single male specimen which 
[in translation] 'survived two days after capture, was described by me and illustrated 
by my son'; the latter's picture was that seen by Gray (the actual specimen was never 
at the British Museum and is not in existence). The nominal species Vespertilio 
tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 was established in this work; as already mentioned, 
the holotype of V. tuberculatus is one of the syntypes of Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 
1843. 



252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

7. It was not until 1857 that it was realized that two distinct taxa were involved in 
the works described above. Tomes (1857, pp. 134-142, pis. 53, 54) gave detailed 
accounts, based on several specimens, of the Long-tailed and Short-tailed Bats under 
the respective names of Scotophihis lubcniilaiiis Forster and Mystacina nihcniilaia 
Gray: he attributed the former name to Forster (1844) and the 'Icon. ined. in Brit. 
Mus.' and the latter to Gray's 1843 works. Tomes noted (p. 135) that 'as the 
above-mentioned zoologists have certainly been the first describers of two distinct 
animals, the names imposed by them will of course be retained; but it is much to be 
regretted that their specific names are similar; and the more so, as the one most 
recently given was clearly intended as a reference to the earlier known species'. By the 
'most recently given' name Tomes meant Gray's use of tuberculata, but, as outlined 
above (and indeed as recorded by Tomes himselO. by a curiosity of bibliographic 
history Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843 was in fact published as a valid name one 
year before the appearance of Vesperiilio lubcrculatu.s i.R. Forster for the other species. 

8. Peters (1866, p. 680) established the nominal genus Chalinolobus, with Vesper- 
tilio tuberculatus Forster [initials and date unstated] as the type species by original 
designation (and also by monotypy); he mentioned that Tomes (1857) had placed the 
species in Scotophihis. The name Chahnohbus tuberculatus has been in use for the 
Long-tailed Bat throughout the 20th century, with authorship of the specific name 
ascribed sometimes to Forster and sometimes to Gray (see para. 9 below). 

9. Hutton (1872, p. 185) proposed the replacement name Mystacina velutina for 
Gray's M. tuberculata, on the grounds that 'Dr. Gray named this bat tuberculata. 
under the impression that he was describing the Vespertilio tuberculatus of Forster ... 
as, therefore. Dr. Gray's name was given in error, and as confusion is likely to arise 
if both our bats have the same specific name, I propose to call this species velutina ...'. 
Mutton's replacement name M. velutina has been treated correctly by almost all 
workers as a junior synonym of M. tuberculata Gray: the only use of it we can find 
is by Thomas (1905, p. 423) as velutinus, in combination with the unnecessary 
replacement generic name Mystacops Lydekker, 1891 (Flower & Lydekker, 1891, p. 
671; proposed because of supposed homonymy between Mystacina Gray and 
'Mysiacitui' [recte Mystacinus] Boie, 1822 (Aves)). Thomas erroneously considered 
that Gray's initial treatment of the two species as though they were one 'cut him 
[Gray] out' from being the author of the specific name of the Short-tailed Bat. 

10. There is no doubt by anybody that the real inventor of the specific name 
tuberculatus was J.R. Forster, and that he applied this in his 18th century MS to the 
species now known as Chalinolobus tuberculatus. It was therefore not unreasonable, 
at the lime, for Hutton (1872; see para. 9 above) to reject Gray's use of Mystacina 
tuberculata. However, the latter name has priority of publication, and under modem 
Codes it is valid and not to be rejected. Moreover, it has been in unambiguous, wide 
and universal use for this 'very remarkable species' (Dobson, 1878, p. 444) for very 
many years. It is in all New Zealand faunas, and examples of recent works using it 
are Daniel (1979), Hill & Daniel (1985), Daniel (1990) and Koopman (1993): further 
references have been given to the Commission Secretariat. Mystacina is the type 
genus of the family mystacinidae Dobson, 1875 (p. 349). 

11. Very recently, Mayer et al. (1999) have argued that G. Forster is the author of 
Vespertilio tuberculatus as an available name (published in Gray, 1843a), that there 
is no such available name as Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843 (it is regarded as a 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 253 

mere misidentification of V. luherculatiis G. Forster), and that the first available 
name for the Lesser Short-tailed Bat is M velutina Hutton, 1872. However, this 
argument is not in accord with the facts, and nobody else (at least since Thomas, 
1905; see para. 9 above) has considered M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 to be an 
unavailable name. As recounted above in paras. 3-5, the description in Gray (1843a) 
is in Gray's words, and G. Forster was not the author of an available name for the 
species in 1843 or at any other time. 

12. Although the names Mystacina tuberculata and Clialinolobus tuberculatus have 
been in stable use for the two species for a very long time, and are both in accord with 
the Code, there are several reasons that lead us to refer the case to the Commission. 
The new challenge to the former name and the introduction of M. velutina by Mayer 
et al. (1999) is the most serious. Also, as we realised before we became aware of this 
action by Mayer et al., it might be argued under Article 49 of the Code that the 
application of the specific name tuberculatus to the Chalinolobus species, as well as to 
the mystacine, by Gray (1843) invalidated its use for the former species by all 
subsequent authors, including J.R. Forster himself (as of the 1844 publication) or 
Tomes (1857). Yet a third argument might be that, under modern Codes (Article 1 le 
of the 1985 edition or Article 11.6.1 of the 1999 edition). Gray (1843) made 
Vespertilio tuberculatus available for the Long-tailed Bat by publishing it as a 
[supposed] synonym of Mystacina tuberculata which was adopted by later authors. 
None of these contrived approaches would be in accord either with stability or the 
simple reality (and usual acceptance) that Mystacina tuberculata and Vespertilio 
tuberculatus were adopted and published as valid for the two species in the 
publications of Gray (1843) and J.R. Forster (1844) respectively. It is desirable and 
urgent that the issues are put beyond dispute by a Commission ruling that the names 
are available from those works. We do not propose the designation of a lectotype or 
neotype for either of the species concerned, because the original specimens are not 
extant (or at least identifiable) and the distinction between the species is agreed by all. 

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

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

(a) Mystacitui Gray, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- 
nation Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843; 

(b) Chalinolobus Peters, 1866 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) tuberculata Gray, 1843, as published in the binomen Mystacina tuberculata 

(specific name of the type species of Mystacina Gray, 1843); 
(h) tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844, as published in the binomen Vespertilio 
tuberculatus {specific name of the type species of Chalinolobus Peters, 1866); 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Mystacops Lydekker, 1891 (a junior objective synonym of 
Mystacina Gray, 1843); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name velutina Hutton, 1872, as published in the binomen 
Mvstacina velutina (a junior objective synonym of Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 
1843). 



254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Acknowledgements 

We are grateful to A. Datta. the late John Thackray and V. Skeet (London), J.D. 
Campbell, M. Kennedy, B. Patrick and reference librarians in the Hocken Library 
(Dunedin), and S. Parsons (Bristol) for their help. G. Mayer and his colleagues kindly 
supplied us with draft versions of their paper and engaged in lively and useful 
long-distance discussions. 

References 

Andrews, J.R.H. 1986. The Southern Ark: zoological discovery in New Zealand 1769 1900. xii, 

237 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 
Daniel, M.J. 1979. The New Zealand short-tailed bat, Myslacina luberculala: a review of 

present knowledge. New Zealand Journal of Zoology. 6: 357-370. 
Daniel, M.J. 1990. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 114-137 w King, CM. (Ed.), Handbook of New 

Zealand mammals. 600 pp. Oxford University Press, Auckland. 
Dobson, G.E. 1875. Conspectus of the suborders, families and genera of Chiroptera arranged 

according to their natural affinities. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. (4)16: 

345-357. 
Dobson, G.E. 1878. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the collection of the British Museum, xli, 567 

pp. British Museum, London. 
Flower, W.H. & Lydekker, R. 1891. An introduction to the study of mammals living and extinct. 

xvi, 763 pp. Adam & Charles Black, London. 
Forster, J.R. 1844. Descripliones Animalium cjuae in Itinere ad Maris Australis Terras per Annas 

1772 1773 et 1774 suscepto. Collegit. ohservavit et delineavii loannes Reinoldus Forster. 

Nunc demum edilae auctoritate et impensis Academiae Litterarum Regiae Berolini. Curante 

Henrico Lichtenstein. xiii, 424 pp. Officina Academica. Berolinae. 
Gray, J.E. 1843a. List of Mammalia hitherto recorded as found in New Zealand. Pp. 181-185, 

296 in Dieffenbach, E., Travels in New Zealand: with contributions to the geography. 

geology, botany, and natural history of that country. Vol. 2. 396 pp. John Murray, London. 
Gray, J.E. 1843b. List of the specimens of Mammalia in the collection of the British Museum. 

xxviii, 216 pp. British Museum, London. 
Hill, J.E. & Daniel, M.J. 1985. Systematics of the New Zealand short-tailed bat Mystacina 

Gray, 1843 (Chiroptera: Mystacinidae). Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural Historv) 

(Zoology), 48: 279-300. 
Hoare, M.D. 1982. Textual introduction. Pp. 59-122 in Hoare, M.D. (Ed.), The Resolution 

journal of John Reinhold Forster. Hakluyt Society, London. 
Hutton, F.W. 1872. On the bats of New Zealand. Transactions and Proceedings of the New 

Zealand Institute. 4: 184-186. 
Koopman, K.F. 1993. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 137-241 /;; Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), 

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

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Mayer, G.C., Kirsch, J.A.W., Hutcheon, J.M., Lapointe, F.-J. & Gingras, J. 1999 On the valid 

name of the lesser New Zealand short-tailed bat (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Proceedings of 

the Biological Society of Washington, 112: 470-^90. 
Peters, W.C.H. 1866. Femere Mittheilungen zur Kenntniss der Flederthiere, namentlich iiber 

Arten des Leidener und Britischen Museums. Monatsherichte der Koniglich Prcussischen 

Akademie der Wissenschaflen zu Berlin, (1866): 672-681. [Published in the serial in 1867 

but issued as a separate in 1866]. 
Thomas, O. 1905. On some Australasian mammals. The nomenclature of the two bats of New 

Zealand. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)16: 422^28. 
Tomes, R.F. 1857. On two species of bats inhabiting New Zealand. Proceedings of the 

Zoological Society of London, 25: 134-142. pis. 53, 54, 

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 255 

Case 3121 

Holochiliis Brandt, 1835, Proechimys J.A. Allen, 1899 and Trinomys 
Thomas, 1921 (Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation by the 
designation of H. sciureus Wagner, 1842 as the type species of 
Holochilus 

Robert S. Voss 

DepctrUneni of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, 
Central Park West at 79th Street. New York. NY 10024, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: voss@amnh.org) 

Nataliya I. Abramson 

Zoological Institute. Russian Academy of Sciences. Universitetskaya nab. 1, 

St Petersburg 199034. Russia (e-mail: nataliya@asv.mail.iephb.ru) 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Holochilus Brandt, 
1835 for a genus of myomorphous neotropical marsh rats (family muridae). and the 
names Proechimys J.A. Allen, 1899 and Trinomys Thomas, 1921 for hystrico- 
morphous neotropical spiny rats (family echimyidae). At present the type species of 
Holochilus is H. leucogaster Brandt, 1835, a species now known to be hystrico- 
morphous and referable to the subgenus Trinomys of the genus Proechimys, thus 
rendering the names Proechimys and Trinomys junior synonyms of Holochilus. It is 
proposed that the myomorphous species H sciureus Wagner, 1 842 be designated as 
the type species of Holochilus, thus allowing the wide and extensive current usages of 
Holochilus, Proechimys and Trinomys to continue. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Rodentia; muridae; echimyidae; 
Holochilus: Proechimys; Trinomys; Holochilus leucogaster; Holochilus sciureus; marsh 
rats; spiny rats; Central America; South America; neotropics. 



1. For over 150 years the generic name Holochilus Brandt, 1835 has been used 
consistently for South American marsh rats, semiaquatic myomorphous rodents that 
are currently placed (see Musser & Carleton, 1993) in the family muridae (subfamily 
SIGMODONTINAE). Broadly distributed from northern Argentina to Venezuela, these 
animals are well known as agricultural pests (see, for example, Massoia, 1974; 
Martino & Aguilera, 1989) and have recently been the subject of intensive cytogenetic 
research due to their unusual karyotypic variability (for example, Freitas et al., 1983; 
Aguilera & Perez-Zapata, 1989; Nachman & Myers, 1989; Sangines & Aguilera, 
1991; Nachman, 1992a, 1992b). Descriptions of fossil murids referred to the genus 
Holochilus are increasingly common in the paleontological literature (for example, 
Steppan, 1996; Pardiiias & Galliari, 1998), and current usage is therefore entrenched 
in several research disciplines. 

2. Usage is similarly well established for Proechimys J.A. Allen, 1899 (p. 264) and 
Trinomys Thomas. 1921 (p. 140), hystricomorphous neotropical spiny rats in the 



256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(4) December 1999 

lamily echimyidae (subfamily eumysopinae). Species of Proechimys, which has 
traditionally included Trinoniys as a subgenus (see Thomas, 1921; Moojen, 1948). are 
ubiquitous in the moist lowland forests of eastern Central America and tropical 
South America, where they have been the focus of numerous ecological and 
evolutionary studies (for example, Fleming, 1971; Benado, Aguilera, Reig & Ayala, 
1979; Emmons, 1982; Forget, 1991; Aguilera & Corti, 1994; Janos, Sahley & 
Emmons, 1995; Garagna et al.. 1997; Adler, 1998). A burgeoning literature on the 
taxonomy of Proechimys species (for example, Patton & Gardner, 1972; Gardner & 
Emmons, 1984; Patton, 1987; Pessoa, Oliveira & dos Reis, 1992; da Rocha, 1995; da 
Silva, 1998) has hitherto been unencumbered by problems of generic nomenclature. 

3. Despite such widespread consensus, recent study of some long-neglected types 
in the zoological collections of the Russian Academy of Sciences has revealed that 
current usage of Holochilus. Proecliimys and Trinoniys cannot be maintained under 
provisions of the Code. The essential facts of this case are as follows. 

4. Brandt (1835, p. 428) originally proposed Holochilus as a subgenus of Miis to 
contain his new species Mus {Holochilus) leucogaster, together with another species 
that he identified as Mus {Holochilus) anguya (a misspelling of M. angouya 
Desmarest. 1819). Holochilus was diagnosed in an accompanying footnote, wherein 
Mus leucogaster and M. anguya were both given as types of the new subgenus without 
making any distinction regarding their status as name-bearers. It is significant that 
Brandt had only a single stuffed specimen each of M. leucogaster and M. anguya. 
and that his descriptions and measurements were limited to external characters. 
Accompanying color plates (1835, pis. 12 and 13) of both species depicted rat-like 
animals with brownish upperparts, pale venters, small ears, large hindfeet and naked 
tails. 

5. Brandt's material of Mus leucogaster and M. anguya had been collected (by 
Georg Heinrich Langsdorff) in Brazil, so Brandt cited published descriptions and 
illustrations of other rat- or mouse-like rodents then known from South America to 
support his identifications. His comparisons eloquently depict the widespread 
uncertainty about neotropical rodent identifications in the early 19th century: Mus 
leucogaster was compared to Azara's (1801) 'Rat a Tarse Noir', which is now 
recognized (see Myers & Carleton, 1981) as the diminutive scansorial mouse 
Oligoryzomys nigripes (Olfers, 1818), and to Mus vulpinus Brants, 1827. which is 
currently regarded (see Hershkovitz, 1955) as a junior synonym of the large marsh rat 
Holochilus brasiliensis (Desmarest, 1819). Brandt's identification of his M. anguya 
was justified by citation of Azara's (1801) description of the 'Rat Angouya', which is 
now recognized (see Musser, Carleton, Brothers & Gardner, 1998, pp. 300-319) as 
Oryzomys angouya (Fischer, 1814). What is consistent about these otherwise 
disparate comparisons is that they all involve myomorphs. Clearly, Brandt never 
suspected in 1835 that his two Holochilus species might be more closely allied with 
agoutis, guinea pigs, capybaras and other hystricomorphs. Indeed, the crucial 
distinction between myomorphs and hystricomorphs was not recognized until the 
publication of Brandt's own monographic description of the major variants of rodent 
jaw anatomy in 1855. 

6. In the meantime, Wagner (1842a, 1842b, 1843) and Burmeister (1854) 
used Holochilus to contain several additional neotropical rodent species. Because 
Brandt's original material in St Petersburg was not available for direct comparisons. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 257 

Wagner and Burmeister based their taxonomic assignments on his (1835) pubHshed 
descriptions and illustrations of H. leiicogaster and H. anguya. All of the additional 
taxa that Wagner and Burmeister referred to Holochilus were muroids, including 
three nominal species of marsh rats: Mus brasiliensis Desmarest, 1819, Mus vulpinus 
Brants, 1827, and Holochilus sciureus Wagner, 1842a. Based on readily accessible 
types in western European museums, these three species formed the core of 
subsequent usage for Holochilus as ultimately refined by Thomas (1897) and 
perpetuated by all 20th century students of the South American rodent fauna (for 
example, Gyldenstolpe, 1932; Tate, 1932; Ellerman, 1941; Hershkovitz, 1955; 
Cabrera, 1961; Massoia, 1981; Voss & Carleton. 1993). 

7. Wagner's and Burmeister's assumptions about the identity of Holochilus were 
mistaken, however, as Brandt himself soon discovered. In two footnotes to his classic 
monograph on rodent classification, Brandt (1855, pp. 304, 315) explained that he 
had extracted the crania from the specimens described in 1835 (presumably mounted 
for exhibition with the skulls inside, a common 19th century practice) and found that 
they were of the 'hystricine" (hystricomorphous) type. Recognizing his own mistake 
concerning the identity of Desmarest's Mus angouya (a myomorph), Brandt pro- 
posed the name H. langsdorffii for the taxon that he had previously called 
H. 'anguya, and classified Holochilus in the family Spalacopodoides of his sub- 
order Hystrichomorphi. To contain the myomorphous species referred to Holochilus 
by Wagner (1842a, 1842b, 1843) and Burmeister (1854), Brandt proposed the new 
genus Holochilomys, which he placed in the family Myoides of his suborder 
Myomorphi. 

8. Unfortunately, Brandt's timely and appropriate nomenclatural action was 
overlooked by almost all of his mammalogical contemporaries. As far as we are 
aware, only Peters (1861) ever used the name Holochilomys as Brandt intended (i.e. 
for a myomorphous genus), but he cited no bibliographic source for the name. 
Thomas (1897, p. 496, footnote) puzzled over Peters's (p. 151 ) unsupported reference 
to 'Holochilomys (Holochilus Wagn. nee Brandt)', but dismissed the implied discrep- 
ancy in usage, declaring that 'Wagner's Holochilus ... is unquestionably identical with 
Brandt's ...'. Palmer (1904, p. 329) was also baflfled, and suggested that 'Holochilomys 
Peters' might have been an 'emendation' of Holochilus Brandt. Probably because 
Holochilomys seemed to be a nomen nudum coined by Peters (1861) for no clearly 
explained reason, the name was not subsequently mentioned for decades (for 
example, by Tate, 1932; Gyldenstolpe, 1932; Ellerman, 1941; Hershkovitz, 1955). To 
the best of our knowledge, the last reference to this forgotten name in the 
mammalogical literature was by Cabrera (1961, p. 503), who listed without comment 
'Holochilomys Peters, 1861" as a junior synonym oi Holochilus. 

9. The type species o( Holochilus remained unfixed until 1902, when Miller & Rehn 
(p. 89) so designated Mus (Holochilus) leucogusler Brandt, 1835. There is no evidence, 
however, that either author had ever seen Brandt's material, and their fixation of the 
type species was apparently uninformed by any special knowledge of nomenclatural 
consequences. 

10. We recently examined the types of Brandt's neotropical rodents, which are 
currently housed in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences 
(ZINRAS). The holotype of Holochilus leucogaster consists of a skin and skull with 
mandibles catalogued as ZINRAS 219 in the Department of Mammalogy. The 



258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

holotype of//, langsclorffii likewise consists of a skin and skull (ZINRAS 218), but 
lacks mandibles. Both skins correspond exactly with Brandt's (1835) illustrations and 
descriptions of external morphology (with the exception of their obviously faded 
colors), and the morphology of both skulls is consistent with Brandt's (1855) remarks 
concerning zygomasseteric structure. 

11. In fact, the type specimens of Holochilus leucogaster and //. langsdorffii are 
both terrestrial spiny rats referable to the echimyid genus Proechimys J. A. Allen, 
1899, but current usage would assign these specimens to different subgenera. Whereas 
the holotype of H. langsdorjfii exhibits all of the diagnostic external and craniodental 
characters of the nominotypical subgenus of Proechimys, the holotype of 
H. leucogaster exhibits the diagnostic attributes of the subgenus Trinomys Thomas, 
1921 (see Moojen, 1948, for subgeneric diagnoses). Therefore, if the Code is followed, 
the species of spiny rats now placed in the subgenus Trinomys of Proecliimys should 
henceforth be placed in the nominotypical subgenus of Holochilus, and the species of 
spiny rats now placed in the nominotypical subgenus of Proechimys should hence- 
forth be placed in the subgenus Proechimys of Holochilus. For the marsh rats 
currently known as Holochilus, the only available generic name would then be 
Holochilomys. For reasons explained in paras. 1 and 2 above, these nomenclatural 
changes would be most unfortunate. 

12. To preserve current usage, it is necessary to set aside H. leucogaster Brandt 
as the type species of Holochilus and to select a new type species. Holochilus 
sciureus Wagner, 1842a (p. 17) is an appropriate choice for the type species 
because: (a) it was the first species of South American marsh rat to be referred to 
Holochilus; (b) the holotype is still extant in the Zoologische Staatssammlung, 
Munich (letter from M. Hiermeier to G.G. Musser, February 1996); (c) the locality 
where the type specimen was collected (Rio Sao Francisco, Brazil) is known; and 
(d) an illustration of the occlusal morphology of the upper molars of the holotype 
has been published (Massoia, 1981, fig. I). We propose that //. sciureus Wagner, 
1842 be designated the type species of Holochilus Brandt, 1835. This action will 
remove Proechimys J. A. Allen, 1899 and Trinomys Thomas, 1921 from the 
synonymy of Holochilus, thus allowing the wide and extensive current usages of all 
three names to continue. 

13. 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 Holochilus Brandt, 1835 and to designate Holochilus 
sciureus Wagner, 1842 as the type species; 

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

(a) Holochilus Brandt, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above Holochilus sciureus Wagner, 1842; 

(b) Proechimys J. A. Allen, 1899 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Echimys trinitatis J. A. Allen & Chapman, 1893; 

(c) Trinomys Thomas, 1921 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Echimys alhispinus 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1838; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) sciureus Wagner, 1842, as published in the binomen Holochilus sciureus 

(specific name of the type species oi Holochilus Brandt, 1835); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 259 

(b) trinitatis J.A. Allen & Chapman, 1893 (p. 223), as published in the binomen 
Echimys trinitatis (specific name of the type species of Proechimys J.A. 
Allen.' 1899); 

(c) albispimis I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1838 (p. 886), as published in the 
binomen Echimys albispinus (specific name of the type species of Trinomys 
Thomas, 1921). 

References 

Adier, G.H. 1998. Impacts of resource abundance on populations of a tropical forest rodent. 

Ecology. 79: 242-254. 
Aguilera, IVI. & Corti, M. 1994. Craniometric differentiation and chromosomal speciation of 

the genus Proeclumys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). Zeilschrifle fiir Saiigelicikiiniic. 59: 

366-377. 
Aguilera, M. & Perez-Zapata, A. 1989. Cariologia de Holocliilus venezuelae (Rodentia, 

Cricetidae). Acta Cienlifica Vcnezolana, 40: 198-207. 
Allen, J.A. 1899. The generic names Echimys and Loncheres. Bulletin of the American Museum 

of Natural History. 12: 257-264. [Issued in the serial in 1900 but published as a separate 

in 1899]. 
Allen, J.A. & Chapman, F.M. 1893. On a collection of mammals from the island of Trinidad, 

with descriptions of new species. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural Historr, 5: 

203-234. 
Azara, F. de. 1801. Essais sur I'histoire naturelle des quadrupedes de la Province du Paraguay. 

vol. 2. 499 pp. Pougens, Paris. 
Benado, M., Aguilera, M., Reig, O.A. & Ayala, F.J. 1979. Biochemical genetics of chromo- 
somal forms of Venezuelan spiny rats of the Proechimys guairae and Proechimys trinitatis 

superspecies. Geneiica. 50: 89-97. 
Brandt, J.F. 1835. Mammalium rodentium e.xoticorum novorum vel minus rite cognitorum 

Musei Academic! Zoologici descriptiones et icones. Memoires de L' Academic Imperiale 

des Sciences de Saint- Petersbourg. (6)3(2), Sciences Naturelles, 1: 358^442. 
Brandt, J.F. 1855. Untersuchungen ueber die craniologischen Entwickelungsstufen und die 

davon herzuleilenden Verwandtschaften und Classificationen der Nager der Jetztwelt, mit 

besonderer Beziehung auf die Gattung Castor. Memoires de L' Academic Imperiale des 

Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, (6)9(2), Sciences Naturelles, 7: 125-336. 
Brants, A. 1827. Het geslacht der muizen door Linnaeus opgesleld. volgens de legenswoordige 

loestand der wetenschap in familien. geslachten en soorten verdeeld. xii, 190 pp., I pi. 

Akademische Boekdrukkery, Berlin. 
Burmeister, H. 1854. Syslematische Uebersicht der Thiere Brasiliens, Theil 1 (Saugethiere, 

Mammalia). Reimer, Berlin. 
Cabrera, A. 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Museo 

Argentine de Ciencias Naturales 'Bernardino Rivadavia'. Ciencias Zoologicas. 4(2): 

309-732. 
Desmarest, A.G. 1819. Rat. Pp. 40-95 in: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, nouvelle 

edition, vol. 29. Deterville, Paris. 
EUerman, J.R. 1941. The families and genera of living rodents, vol. 2. [x], 690 pp. British 

Museum (Natural History). London. 
Emmons, L.H. 1982. Ecology of Proechimys (Rodentia Echimyidae) in southeastern Peru. 

Tropical Ecology. 23: 280-290. 
Fischer, G. 1814. Zoognosia. Tabulis synopticis illustraia. vol. 3. xxiv, 732 pp. Vsevolozsky, 

Moscow. 
Fleming, T.H. 1971. Population ecology of three species of Neotropical rodents. Miscellaneous 

Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan. 143: 1-77. 
Forget, P.-M. 1991. Scatterhoarding of ,4strocaryum paramaca by Proechimys in French 

Guiana: comparison with Myoprocta exUis, Tropical Ecology. 32: 155-167. 



260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(4) December 1999 

Freitas, T.R.O., Mattevi, M.S., Oliveira, L.F.B., Souza, M.J., Yonenaga-Yassuda, Y. & 

Salzano, P.M. 1983. Chromosome relationships in three representatives of the genus 

Holochilus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) from Brazil. Genelica. 461: 13-20. 
Garagna, S., Perez-Zapata, A., Zuccotti, M., Mascheretti, S., Marziliano, N., Redi, C.A., 

Aguilera, M. & Capana, E. 1997. Genome composition in Venezuelan spiny-rats of the 

genus Proechimys (Rodentia, Echimyidae). I. Genome size, C-heterochromatin and 

repetitive DNAs in situ hybridization patterns. Cytogenetics ami Cell Genetics. 78: 36-43. 
Gardner, A.L. & Emmons, L.H. 1984. Species groups in Proechimys (Rodentia. Echimyidae) as 

indicated by karyology and bullar morphology. Journal of Mammalogy, 65: 10-25. 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I. 1838. Notice sur les rongeurs epineu.x designes par les auteurs sous 

les noms d'Echimys. Loncheres, Heteromys et Nelomys. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires 

des Seances de I' Academic des Sciences. 6: 884-888. 
Gyldenstolpe, N. 1932. A manual of neotropical sigmodont rodents. Kungliga Svenska 

i'etenskapsakademiens Handlingar. (3)11(3): 1-164. 
Hershkovitz, P. 1955. South American marsh rats, genus Holochilus. with a summary of 

sigmodont rodents. Fieldianu (Zoology), 37: 639-673. 
Janos, D.P., Sahley, C.T. & Emmons, L.H. 1995. Rodent dispersal of vesicular-arbuscular 

mycorrhizal fungi in Amazonian Peru. Ecology. 76: 1852-1858. 
Martino, A.M.G. & Aguilera, M.M. 1989. Food habits oi Holochilus venezuelae in rice fields. 

Mammalia. 53: 545-561. 
Massoia, E. 1974. Ataques graves de Holochilus y otros roedores a cultivos de cafia de aziicar. 

Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, IDIA. 321/24: 1-12. 
Massoia, E. 1981. El estado sistematico y zoogeografia de Mus hrasiliensis Desmarest y 

Holochilus sciureus Wagner (Mammalia-Rodentia-Cricetidae). Physis (Buenos Aires), 

(C)39: 31-34. 
Miller, G.S. & Rehn, J.A. 1902. Systematic results of the study of North American land 

mammals to the close of the year 1900. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural 

History. 30: 1-352. 
Moojen, J. 1948. Speciation in the Brazilian spiny rats (genus Proechimys. family Echimyidae). 

University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, 1: 301-406. 
Musser, G.G.'& Carleton, M.D. 1993. Family Muridae. Pp. 501-755 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, 

D.M. (Eds.), Mammal species of the world. A tuxonomic and geographic reference. Ed. 2. 

xviii, 1206 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Musser, G.G., Carleton, M.D., Brothers, E.M. & Gardner, A.L. 1998. Systematic studies of 

oryzomyine rodents (Muridae, Sigmodontinae): diagnoses and distributions of species 

formerly assigned to Orvzomvs 'capita' . Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural 

History. 236: 1-376. 
Myers, P. & Carleton, M.D. 1981. The species of Oryzomys (Oligoryzomys) in Paraguay and 

the identity of Azara's 'Rat sixieme ou rat a tarse noir'. Miscellaneous Publications of the 

Museum of Zoology. University of Michigan. 161: 1^1. 
Nachman, M.W. 1992a. Geographic patterns of chromosomal variation in South American 

marsh rats. Holochilus brasiliensis and H. vulpinus. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics. 61: 

10-16. 
Nachman, M.W. 1992b. Meiotic studies of Robertsonian polymorphisms in the South 

American marsh rat, Holochilus hrasiliensis. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics. 61: 17-24. 
Nachman, M.W. & Myers, P. 1989. Exceptional chromosomal mutations in a rodent 

population are not strongly underdominant. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences. 86: 6666-6670. 
Olfers, l.[F.J.M.] von. 1818. Bemerkungen zu Illiger's Ueberblick der Saugthiere nach ihrer 

Vertheilung iiber die Welttheile, riicksichtlich der Siidamericanischen Arten (Species). Pp. 

192-237 //) Eschwege, W.L. von (Ed.), Journal von Brasilien, oder vermischte Nachrichten 

aus Brasilien. aufwissenschafllichen Reisen gesammelt. Verlage des Gr.H.S. priv. Landes- 

Industries-Comptoirs, Weimar. 
Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index generum mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals. 

North American Fauna. 23: 1-984. 



Bullclin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 261 

Pardinas, U.J.F. & Galliari, C.A. 1998. Sigmodontinos (Rodentia, Muridae) del Holoceno 

interior de Bolivia. Revisla Espaiiohi de Paleontologia, 13: 17-25. 
Patton, J.L. 1987. Species groups of spiny rals, genus Proechimys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). 

Fk'Iduma (Zoology), n.s. 39: 305-345. 
Patton, J.L. & Gardner, A.L. 1972. Notes on the systematics of Proechimys (Rodentia: 

Echimyidae), with emphasis on Peruvian forms. Occasional Papers of the Museum of 

Zoology. Loiusiana Slate University. 44: 1-30. 
Pessoa, L.M., Oliveira, J.A. de & Rels, S.F. dos. 1992. A new species of spiny rat genus 

Proechimys, subgenus Trinomys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). Zeitschrifte fur Saugetierkimde. 

57: 39-46. 
Peters. W. 1861. Liber einige merkwurdige Nagethiere (Spalacomys indicus, Mus tomentosus 

und Mus squamipes) des Konigl. zoologischen Museums. Abhandlungen der Koniglichen 

Akademie der Wissenschuflen zu Berlin, 1860: 139-156. 
Rocha, P.L.B. da. 1995. Proechimys yoiienagae. a new species of spiny rat (Rodentia: 

Echimyidae) from fossil sand dunes in the Brazilian Caatinga. Mammalia, 59: 537-549. 
Sangines, N. & Aguilera, M. 1991. Chromosome polymorphism in Holochilus renezuelae 

(Rodentia: Cricetidae): C- and G-bands. Genome. 34: 13-18. 
Silva, M.N.F. da. 1998. Four new species of spiny rats of the genus Proechimys (Rodentia: 

Echimyidae) from the western Amazon of Brazil. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington. Ill: 43(>-471. 
Steppan, S.J. 1996. A new species oi Holochilus (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) from the middle 

Pleistocene of Bolivia and its phylogenetic significance. Journal of Vertebrate Paleon- 
tology. 16: 522-530. 
Tate, G.H.H. 1932. The taxonomic history of the neotropical cricetid genera Holochihds, 

Nectomys, Scapteromys, Megalomys, Tylomys and Ototylomys. American Museum 

Novitates, 562: 1-19. 
Thomas, O. 1897. Notes on some South-American Muridae. Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History. (6)19: 494-501. 
Thomas, O. 1921. On spiny rats of the genus Proechimys from south-eastern Brazil. Annals and 

Magazine of Natural History, (9)8: 140-143. 
Voss, R.S. & Carleton, M.D. 1993. A new genus for Hesperomys molilor Winge and Holochilus 

magnus Hershkovitz (Mammalia, Muridae) with an analysis of its phylogenetic 

relationships. American Museum Novitates, 3085: 1-39. 
Wagner, A. 1842a. Beschreibung einiger neuer oder minder bekannter Nager. Archiv fiir 

Naturgeschichte, 8: 1-33. 
Wagner, A. 1842b. Nachtrag zu meiner Beschreibung von Hahrocoma und Holochilus. Archiv 

fiir Naturgeschichte, 8: 288. 
Wagner, A. 1843. Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, mit Beschreihungen von 

Dr. Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber. Supplementband. Dritte Abtheilung: Die 

Bentelthiere und Nager (erster Abschnitt). In der Expedition des Schreber'schen 

Saugthier- und des Esper'schen Schmetterlingswerkes ... Erlangen. 



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). 



262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Case 3018 

Cervus gouazoubira Fischer, 1814 (currently Mazama gouazoubira; 
Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation as the correct 
original spelling 

A.L. Gardner 

U.S. Geological Survey. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560-0111, U.S.A. 

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

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the spelling of the specific 
name of Cervus gouazoubira Fischer, 1814 for the brown brocket deer of South 
America (family cervidae). This spelling, rather than the original gouazoupira, has 
been in virtually universal usage for almost 50 years. 

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Artiodactyla; cervidae; Mazama 
gouazoubira; brown brocket deer; South America. 



1. Fischer (1814, p. 465) established the names Cervus gouazoupita and C. 
gouazoupira for the two Paraguayan brocket deer that Azara (1802, pp. 51, 57) 
described under the vernacular names Guazu-pita and Guazu-bira. Azara (1802) 
used the Guarani Indian name spelled in the Latin alphabet as Guazu-pita (p. 51; 
spelled Gouazupita in the 1801, p. 82, French translation) for the red brocket. In the 
same work he used the Guarani name Guazu-bira (p. 57; spelled Gouazubira in the 
1801, p. 86, French translation) for the brown brocket. Fischer (1814) cited Azara 
(1802) as the sole source of these names and descriptions but (pp. xvii, 701) he spelled 
the vernacular name for the brown brocket as Guazupira, instead of Guazubira, and 
introduced gouazoupira as the specific name (in combination with Cervus). 

2. For most of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries a number of additional 
names were given to red and brown brocket deer, some authors also basing their 
names on Azara's descriptions and Guarani vernacular names. As the systematics of 
brown brocket deer became better understood, the common and widespread brown 
brocket became known as Mazama simplicicornis (Illiger, 1815). Fischer's (1814) 
Cervus gouazoupita is the common red brocket, for which the name in use is the 
earlier synonym Mazama americana (Erxleben, 1777). 

3. Hershkovitz (1951, p. 567) pointed out that "... M\azama]. gouazoubira Fischer 
(1814, Zoognosia, 3: 465, originally misprinted 'gouazoupira; antedates simplicicornis 
Illiger, 1815, also based on Azara's gouazoubira)'. Authors familiar with Azara's 
accounts of the quadrupeds of Paraguay (as was Hershkovitz) would have recognized 
Fischer's 'Guazu-pira' (and the derived specific name gouazoupira) as a misspelling of 
'Guazu-bira'. Nearly universally, subsequent authors (see, for example. Miller & 
Kellogg, 1955; Hall & Kelson, 1959; Walker et al., 1964 and later revisions: 
Whitehead, 1972; Husson, 1978; Corbet & Hill, 1991 and previous editions) have 
used the spelling gouazoubira, as emended by Hershkovitz nearly 50 years ago. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 263 

Cabrera (1961. p. 338) adopted gouazoubira and noted Fischer's (1814) spelling 
gouazoupira as 'lapsus evidente por gouazoubira'. Of 19 citations listed under 
Mazama for the common brown brocket in Zoological Record from 1985 (volume 
122) through 1995 (volume 131), 18 used the spelling gouazoubira and one used 
the junior synonym simplicicornis. Grubb (1993, p. 391), however, introduced the 
spelling gouazoupira, stating that 'although the specific name is based on the 
gouazoubira of Azara, the original spelling was 'gouazoupira' not 'gouazoubira". 
Grubb (1993) was cited in vol. 130 oi Zoological Record hvA was not referenced under 
Mazama. 

4. I have prepared a list of publications for 1993 and later in which the brown 
brocket deer has been cited. The list, which may be missing some usages particularly 
in the South American literature, contains 12 references. Of these, one (Miglino, de 
Souza, Carvahal & Didio, 1993) adopted the name simplicicornis, another (Fonseca 
et al., 1996) used the spelling gouazoupira, but all the rest maintained the usage of 
gouazoubira. These references are: Bisbal, 1994; Yanosky & Mercolli. 1994; Douzery, 
Labreton & Catzeflis (1995); Pacheco et al. (1995), Richard, Julia & Acenolaza 
(1995); Peres (1996); Yang, O'Brien, Weinberg & Ferguson-Smith (1997); Yang et al. 
(1997); Medellin, Gardner & Aranda (1998) and Nowak (1999). The references 
include publications on taxonomy, ecology, genetics and parasitology, as well as 
regional and national checklists. 

5. The Guarani Indian names 'guazu-pita' and 'guazu-bira" (or dialectical vari- 
ants) are widely used regional vernaculars for the red and brown brocket deer 
respectively of Paraguay, parts of Uruguay, northern Argentina and southern Brazil. 
Adoption of the spelling gouazoupira for the brown brocket will create confusion 
anywhere the red brocket is known as the 'guazu-pita' and the brown brocket as 
'guazu-bira'. I therefore propose that the spelling gouazoubira, which has been 
virtually universally in use for very nearly 50 years for the brown brocket deer, be 
maintained. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the correct original spelling of the specific 
name gouazoupira Fischer, 1814, as published in the binomen Cernis 
gouazoupira, is gouazoubira; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
gouazoubira Fischer, 1814, as published in the binomen Cervus gouazoubira 
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above); 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name gouazoupira Fischer, 1814, as published in the combination 
Cervus gouazoupira (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of 
gouazoubira). 

References 

Azara, F. de. 1801. Essais sur I'lnsloire naturelle cles quadrupedes de la province du Paraguay, 

vol. 1. Ixxx. 366 pp. Pougens, Paris. 
Azara, F. de. 1802. Apuntamienlos para la hisloriu natural de las quadrupedos del Paraguay y 

Rio de la Plata, vol. 1. xix, 318 pp. La Imprinta de la Viuda de Ibarra, Madrid. 
Bisbal E., F.J. 1994. Biologia poblacional del venado mataean (Mazama spp.) (Artiodactyla: 

Cervidae) en Venezuela. Revisia de Biologia Tropical, 42(1-2): 305-313. 



264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Cabrera, A. 1961, Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revisla del Miiseu Argenlino 

tic Cicnciiis Nalurales ' Berminlino Rinulaviii', Ciencias Zoologicas, 4(2): 309-732. 
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1991. A world list oj nicimmcilUm specicx. Ed. 3. viii, 243 pp. Natural 

History Museum Publications. London. 
Douzery, E., Labreton, J.D. & Catzeflis, F.M. 1995. Testing the generation time hypothesis 

using DNA/DNA hybridization between artiodactyls. Joiinuil nf Evolutkmarv Biology. 

8(4): 511-529. 
Erxleben, J.C.P. 1777. Syslemci rcgni uninialis per classes, ordines. genera, species, varielales 

cum syiumymia el hisloria aiiinuiliiiin. Classis 1 (Mammalia), xlviii, 636, 64 pp. Weygan- 

dianis, Lipsiae. 
Fischer, G. 1814. Zoognosia. Tahulis syiwplicis illiislrala, vol. 3. xxiv. 732 pp. Vsevolozsky, 

Moscow. 
Fonseca, G.A.B. da, Herrmann, G., Leite, Y.L., Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B. & Patton, 

J.L. 1996. Lista anotada dos mamiferos do Brasil. Occasional Papers in Conservation 

Biology. Conservation International. No. 4. 38 pp. 
Grubb, P. 1993. Order Artiodactyla. Pp. 377-414 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), 

Mammal species of the world. .4 laxonomic and geographic reference. Ed. 2. xviii, 1206 pp. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 
Hall, E.R. & Kelson, K.R. 1959. The mammals of North America, vol. 2. Pp. x. 547-1084, 79. 

Ronald Press, New York. 
Hershkovitz, P. 1951. Mammals from British Honduras, Mexico, Jamaica and Haiti. Fieldiana 

(Zoology), 31(47): 547-569. 
Husson, A.M. 1978. The mammals of Suriname. Zoologische Monographieen van het 

Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, No. 2. xxiv, 569 pp.. 151 pis. Brill. Leiden. 
Illiger, J.K.W. 1815. Ueberblick der Saugthiere nach ihrer Vertheilung iiber die Welttheile. 

Abhandhmgen der Koniglichen .ikademie der Wissenschaflen in Berlin. 1804-1811: 39-159. 
Medellin, R.A., Gardner, A.L. & Aranda, J.M. 1998. The taxonomic status of the Yucatan 

brown brocket, Mazama pandora (Mammalia: Cervidae). Proceedings of the Biological 

Society of Washington, 111(1): 1-14. 
Miglino, M.A., de Souza, W.M., Carvahal, R. & Didio, L.J. A. 1993. Morpologia e inerva^ao 

do diafragma de veados Manzana [i.e. Mazama] americana. Manzana [Mazama] simplici- 

cornis e Blastoceros [Blastocerits] hezoarticiis. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and 

Animal Science, m\)(Sup\emenloy. \95-2Q^. 
Miller, G.S., Jr. & Kellogg, R. 1955. List of North American Recent mammals. Bidletin United 

States National Museum. 205: 1-954. 
Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker's mammals of the world. Ed. 6, vol. 2. Pp. 837-1936. Johns Hopkins 

University Press, Baltimore. 
Pacheco, V., de Macedo, H., Vivar, E., Ascorra, C, Arana-Cardo, R. & Solari, S. 1995. Lista 

anotada de los mamiferos Peruanos. Occasional Papers in Conservation Biology. Conser- 
vation International. No. 2. 35 pp. 
Peres, C.A. 1996. Ungulate ectoparasite removal by black caracaras and pale-winged 

trumpeters in Amazonian forests. Wilson Bulletin, 108(1): 170-175. 
Richard, E., Julia, J.P. & Aceiiolaza, P.G. 1995. Habitos frugivoros de la corzuela parda 

(Mazama gouazoubira Fischer, 1814) (Mammalia: Cervidae). Dohana. Acta Vertebrata, 

22(1-2): 19-28. 
Walker, E.P., Warnick, F., Hamlet. S.E., Lange, K.I., Davis, M.A., Uible, H.E. & Wright, P.F. 

1964. Mammals of the world, vol. 2. Pp. 647-1500. Johns Hopkins University Press, 

Baltimore. 
Whitehead, G.K. 1972. Deer of the world, xii, 194 pp., 32 pis. Constable. London. 
Yang, F., O'Brien, P.C.M., Wienberg, J. & Ferguson-Smith, M.A. 1997. A reappraisal of the 

tandem fusion theory of karyotype evolution in the Indian muntjac using chromosome 

painting. Chromosome Research, 5(2): 109-117. 
Yang, F., O'Brien, P.C.M., Wienberg, J., Neitzei, H., Lin, C.C. & Ferguson-Smith, M.A. 1997. 

Chromosomal evolution of the Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi). Chromosoma 

(Berlin), 106(1): 37-43. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 265 

Yanosky, A. A. & Mercolli, C. 1994. Estimates of brown brocket deer (Mazanm gouazoubira) 
habitat use at El Bagual Ecological Reserve, Argentina. Texas Journal of Science, 46(1): 
73-78. 



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). 



266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(4) December 1999 

Comment on the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiarta Deshayes, 1862 and 
Paludina desmarestii Prevost. 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus 
Sandberger, 1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
(Case 3008; see BZN 55: 82-86; 56: 187) 

Dietrich Kadolsky 

The Limes. 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead. South Crovdoii, Swrev CR2 OBA. 
U.K. 



Bouchet (BZN 56: 187, September 1999) asserts that 'contrary to the statement in 
para. 3 of the application, 'the majority of authors' have not accepted Bithinia 
deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 as the type species of Euchihts' but instead have 
accepted Pahidina desmarestii Prevost, 1821, and cites four works to support his view, 
although in the original publication six works were quoted in which Bithinia 
deschiensiana was stated to be the type species. These were Sandberger (1872), Clessin 
(1880), Cossmann (1888). Schlickum (1968). Kadolsky (1993) and Kabat & Hershler 
(1993). I can add three more to support Bouchet's assertion, i.e. Schlickum (1961, 
1965) and Roman (1912), but the two works of Wenz (1926, 1939) are erroneously 
included here (see next para.). Thus five publications by four authors stated Paludina 
desmarestii to be the type species of Euchilus. compared with six papers by seven 
authors accepting Bithinia deschiensiana. Considering that Schlickum (1968) cor- 
rected his earlier (1961. 1965) view, these earlier two papers may be discounted. At 
any rate, these differing views illustrate that there is no state of nomenclatural 
stability which deserves to be preserved; instead, a decision to create stability is 
required. It is not argued here that majority usage alone should be decisive, but that 
the intention of the original publication and the consequences of any Commission 
decision should also be considered. 

Wenz (1926, 1939) treated Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 as a synonym of Stalioa 
Brusina, 1870. but he did not state the type species of the former. As he included 
(1926) Bithinia deschiensiatia Deshayes (incorrectly cited in the synonymy of 'Stalioa 
gregaria Bronn, 1829"; see Kadolsky. 1993 for the nomenclature and identity of this 
nominal species) as well as Paludina desmarestii in the genus Stalioa, it is not clear 
which of the two he considered to be the type species of Euchilus. As Wenz was very 
familiar with Sandberger's work (1870-75), which he revised extensively in the 
Fcssilium Catalogus (1923-1930) and before (for example, in Fischer & Wenz, 1912 
and 1914), he would more likely than not have noted and, of course, accepted 
Sandberger's designation (1872, p. 225) of Bithinia deschiensiana as the type species 
of Euchilus. 

Paludina desmarestii Prevost, 1821 is (unless the Commission intervenes as 
requested) the type species of Euchilus Sandberger only by accident, i.e. the advance 
publication (1870) of the combination 'Euchilus Desmarestii Prev. sp.' in a plate 
legend appearing earlier than the text (1872) in which Sandberger stated Bithinia 
deschiensiana Deshayes to be the type species. All authors except myself (Kadolsky, 
1993) appear to have overlooked that Euchilus is available from this plate legend, as 
the name is always dated as 1872 and reference, where made, is only made to the text 
of 1872. Authors may have believed that a new nominal taxon is not made available 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 267 

by publication in a plate legend alone. Under the premise which these authors 
accepted, that the name Euchilus was only made available in the text, Bithinia 
deschiensiana Deshayes would become the type species by original designation and 
the subsequent designation of Paludina desmarestii Prevost would be plainly 
erroneous. None of the authors who believed the latter to be the type species of 
Euchilus gave any reasoning for this view, but an oversight is the most likely 
explanation. 

The main reason for Sandberger to introduce the new genus Euchilus was the 
presence of a calcareous, concentrically structured operculum. This was described by 
Deshayes (1862) only for Bithinia deschiensiana. Sandberger merely assumed it to be 
present in the other species which he included in Euchilus. Thus, the intended type 
species is the only one which actually shows the principal diagnostic feature of the 
genus. (It may be doubtful whether this operculum does belong to Bithinia 
deschiensiana, but in this context only the intention of Sandberger is relevant). 

No valid reason has been given by Bouchet to support his wish to secure the 
synonymy of Stalioa and Euchilus by making them objective synonyms, contrary to 
Sandberger"s intention and contrary to subsequent usage by the majority of authors. 
If the two candidate type species of Euchilus were congeneric, Euchilus and Stalioa 
would become subjective synonyms, without the need for any action by the 
Commission; in this case I would prefer that Stalioa should have precedence over 
Euchilus, as the exact dates of publication within 1870 of both names are not known. 
However, I (Kadolsky, 1993) demonstrated that the relationship between Paludina 
desmarestii and Bithinia deschiensiana is very remote, and that no generic name other 
than Euchilus can be considered for use for a genus which includes Bithinia 
deschiensiana. I refrained from introducing a new name because of the existence of 
Euchilus Sandberger, 1870, expecting that the Commission would validate it with the 
originally intended type species. If Paludina desmarestii were to become the type 
species of Euchilus. a new generic name would have to be introduced for Euchilus 
sensu Kadolsky (1993), based on the current assessment of the taxonomy. 

In the case of Stolira Fuchs, 1 877, 1 would agree that there is generally no need for 
the Commission to suppress erroneous spellings but it should be possible to make 
exceptions in order to avoid ambiguity and doubt. Fuchs twice spelt the name 
"Stoliva', and suppression would remove the technical possibility of accepting this 
spelling as an intentional introduction of a new nominal genus. 

In summary, the original proposals and their justification are maintained. 

Additional references 

Fischer, K. & Wcnz, W. 1912. Verzeichnis und Revision der tertiaren Land-und Siisswasser- 
gastropoden des Mainzer Beckens. Neiies Jahrhuch fiir Mineratogie. Geologic und 
Palaeonlolugie. Beilagenband 34: 431-512. 

Fischer, K. & Wenz, W. 1914. Die Landschneckenkalke des Mainzer Beckens und ihre Fauna. 
Jahrbuch des nassauischen Vereins fiir Nalurkiinde. 67: 21-154. 



268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda) and Cyclostotna acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) 
by the replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation 
of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to h> drobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hvdrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca) 
(Case 3087: see BZN 55: 139-145: 56: 56-63, 143-148, 187-190) 

Ruud A. Bank 

Graan voor Visch 15318, NL-2132 EL Hoofddorp. The Netherlands 

( 1 ) The first modern author to critically revise the genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 
1821 in Western Europe was Dollfus (1912). He was clearly aware of the existence of 
two taxa: one with flattened whorls and the other with convex whorls. Dollfus used 
the name Hydrobia stagnalis Raster, 1765, described from the Kaaskenswater near 
Zierikzee, The Netherlands, for the species with convex whorls (with Turbo ventrosus 
Montagu as a synonym). The species was referred to by Linnaeus (1767) as Helix 
stagnalis, a name which was replaced as a junior secondary homonym of Helix 
stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758 (currently placed in Lymnaea) with Helix stagnorum by 
Gmelin (1791). The identity of H. stagnorum was fixed by the designation of a 
neotype by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979) and it is currently placed in Heleobia 
Stimpson, 1865 (family hydrobudae, subfamily cochliopinae Tryon, 1866). Most (if 
not all) records of stagnalis Baster or stagnorum Gmelin before the publication of 
Bank et al. (1979) in fact refer to Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803. That this is the case 
with 'stagnalis' as used by Dollfus (1912) is shown by his clear pictures, description 
and distribution records, and by his own synonymy. The identity of ventrosus 
Montagu was fixed by a lectotype designated by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979). 
The species intended and described by Radoman (1977) as the type of Ventrosia is 
evidently T. ventrosus. Thus, I agree that this should be designated the type species 
of Ventrosia, as proposed in the application. 

(2) Dollfus (1912) considered the species with the flattened whorls to be conspecific 
with Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805), and his description, figures and distri- 
bution show that he referred to the species later characterized by Radoman (1977). 
Dollfus (1912, pi. 4) figured two syntypes of Cyclosioma acutum, obtained from the 
Draparnaud collection (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna). The uncertainty ex- 
pressed by Giusti, Manganelli & Bodon (1998; para. 6 of their application and BZN 
56: 145) about the syntypic status of these two specimens (now housed in the Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) seems to be unfounded. The syntype figured by 
Dollfus (1912. pi. 4, figs. 6 and 7) is clearly the species with the flattened whorls, 
H. acuta; that in pi. 4, figs. 5 and 8 is partially encrusted. It is the latter specimen that 
Boeters (1984, pi. 1, fig. I) designated the lectotype of C. acutum. Because of the 
encrustations the convexity of the whorls was not obvious and it is understandable 
that Dollfus overlooked that this specimen actually belonged to the species with 
convex whorls (i.e. Turbo ventrosus). The two syntypes figured by Dollfus (1912) are 
with certainty the same two specimens figured by Boeters in 1984. The remaining four 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 269 

specimens figured by Dollfus (pi. 4. figs. 11-18: two from Palavas and two from 
Etang de Leucate) clearly belong to the species with the flattened whorls. This species 
(//. uciiui) is common along the Mediterranean coast, whereas the species with the 
convex whorls ( Ventrosiu ventrusa) is common along the Atlantic coast. Several 
authors, such as A.J. Wagner (1928, p. 275), Germain (1931, pp. 647-650), Wenz 
(1939, p. 555), Forcart (1965, p. 73), Gasull (1965, p. 145), Alzona (1971, pp. 30-31) 
and Radoman (1977, pp. 205-209) treated H. acuta and V. ventrosa as separate taxa 
and/or applied the name acuta to the species with the flattened whorls (see Hoeksema, 
1998, p. 1 10 for additional references). Radoman (1977) described and figured both 
the shell and the anatomy of H. acuta and suggested the original locality. 

(3) Boeters (1984. pp. 3-5) studied the two syntypes of Hydrobia acuta and 
discovered that they were different species: the taxon with the convex whorls and that 
with the flattened whorls. He fixed the identity of H. acuta by designating the 
specimen with the convex whorls as its lectotype (para. (2) above). However, the shell 
of this specimen does not differ from V. ventrosa and as a consequence H. acuta 
formally became a junior synonym of V. ventrosa. This was noted by Giusti & Pezzoli 
(1984). Remarkably. Boeters has not synonymized H, acuta with V. ventrosa (see 
Backhuys & Boeters, 1974, p. 114; Boeters, 1976, p. 98: 1984, pp. 3-5: 1988, p. 189). 
Only in his most recent revision of the hydrobiidae of middle Europe has Boeters 
(1998, p. 24) shown awareness of the conspecificity of the lectotypes of H. acuta and 
V. ventrosa ('Moglicherweise sind Taxa wie acutum Draparnaud 1805 [Cyclastoma] 
und procera Paladilhe 1874 [Hydrohid] jiingere Synonyme'). He has not referred to 
the papers of Giusti et al. (1984, 1995) and Haase (1993), who criticized his lectotype 
selection. 

(4) Although the lectotype selection by Boeters (1984) formally fixed the identity 
of Hydrobia acuta, it has not, and cannot, result in nomenclatural stability. This is 
not surprising because if//, acuta becomes invalid as the name of the species with the 
flattened whorls, the question arises as to how this species should be named. Boeters 
(1980, 1984, 1988) has referred to it as Hydrobia glyca (Servain, 1880), Hydrobia sp. 
and Hydrobia {Hydrobia) minoricensis (Paladilhe, 1875), respectively. All subsequent 
authors (examples are Giusti et al., 1984, 1995, 1998: Cesari, 1988: Haase, 1993: 
Hoeksema, 1998: Kabat & Hershler, 1993: Kadolsky, 1995: Gittenberger et al., 1998) 
have followed the interpretation of Radoman (1977) and not Boeters's (1984) 
lectotype selection. 

(5) According to Boeters (1984, p. 4). selection of the //. acuta lectotype also 
stabilized the current understanding of the genus Hydrobia. He characterized the 
penis and bursa in Hydrobia as 'pfriemformig' (awl shaped) and 'hammerformig' 
(hammer shaped) respectively, anatomical characters essentially based on dissections 
of Hydrobia ventrosa. However, these features are by no means diagnostic for 
Hydrobia. For example, Boeters (1988, pp. 189-192: 1998, p. 24) placed in Hydrobia 
(Hydrobia) not only ventrosa (= acuta sensu Boeters), but also minoricensis Paladilhe 
(= acuta sensu Radoman). The last species does not show a long and pointed penis, 
nor a hammer-like bursa. 

(6) As I have noted, Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation threatens the nomen- 
clatural stability of a wide-spread and common species, known since the revision of 
Dollfus (1912) as Hydrobia acuta, and it has not been followed by subsequent 
authors. Clearly, this situation needs to be resolved. The application by Giusti, 



270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Manganelli & Bodon to set aside the lectotype is in accord with the concept stated in 
the Preamble of the Code 'to promote stability and universahty in the scientific names 
of animals". The proposed neotype selection of Giusti et al. will maintain the name 
and concept of the genus Hydrohia as currently understood by the majority of 
authors and I therefore fully support the application. 

(7) Naggs et al. (BZN 56: 143-144) have commented that Giusti et al. have 
not proposed a neotype from among the series of 74 paralectotypes. However, 
Draparnaud (1805) did not record a locality for Cyclostoma acutum. either in the 
original publication (other than 'France' in the title) or on the labels of the original 
type series. Selection of a neotype from among the paralectotypes would have the 
unwanted consequence that the type locality of C. acutum would remain unknown. 
Moreover, in France there is more than one species with less convex shells having a 
similar appearance to that of Hydrohia acuta. The hydrobiinae are often poorly 
defined by shell characters, whereas the genitalia are much more characteristic. The 
proposed neotype selection will have the advantage that not only will a precise 
locality be fixed, but anatomical data as well, and the identity of H. acuta will be 
unambiguously secured. 

Additional references 

Alzona, C. 1971. Malacofauna Italica. Catalogo e bibliografia dei molluschi viventi, terrestri e 

d'acqua dolce. Alii della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia 

Naturale. Milano. Ill: 1^33. 
Backhuys, W. & Boeters, H.D. 1974. Zur Kennlnis marokkanischer Binnenmollusken, I. 

Arcliiv fiir Molliisk-enlcimde. 104(4-6): 107-114. 
Boeters, H.D. 1976. Hydrobiidae Tunesiens. Aniiiv Jiir Molluslienlcwide. 107(1-3): 89-105. 
Boeters, H.D. 1998. MoUusca: Gastropoda: Superfamilie Rissooidea. In Schwoerbel, J. & 

Zwick, P. (Eds.), Siisswasserfauna von Milleleuropa. Band 5/1-2. ix, 76 pp. Fischer, 

Stuttgart. 
Forcart, L. 1965. Rezente Land- und Siisswassermollusken der siiditalienischen Landschaften 

Apulien, Basilica ta und Calabrien. Verlumdltingen der Nalurjorsclienden Gesellscluifl in 

Basel. m\): 58-184. 
Gasull, L. 1965. Algunos moluscos terrestres y de agua dulee de Baleares. Boletin de la Sociedad 

de Historia Natural de Baleares. ll(l^): 7-161. 
Gittenberger, E., Janssen, A.W., Kuijper, W.J., Kuiper, J.G.J., Meijer, T., Van der Velde, G. & 

De Vries, J.N. 1998. Nederlandse fauna 2. De Nederlandse zoelwalermollusken. Recente en 

fossiele weekdieren uit zoel en brak water. 288 pp., 12 pis. Naturalis/KNNV/EIS, Leiden. 
Kadolsky, D. 1995. Stratigraphie und Molluskenfaunen von "Landschneckenkalk" und 

'Cerithienschichten" im Mainzer Becken (Oberoligozan bis Untermiozan?), 2: Revision 

der aquatischen Mollusken des Landschneckenkalkes. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 

124(1-2): 1-55. 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, 
Branchiopoda) 

(Case 2990; see BZN 54: 89-91: 55: 105, 169; 56: 191) 

Dietrich Flossner 

Universitdt Jena. Ins tilut fiir Okologie. Arbeit sgruppe Liitmo logic, Jetia, Germany 

1. The describer of the genus Phrixura. P.E. Miiller (1867), did not know that the 
individual of 'Phrixura rectirostris' on which it was based was a teratologically 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 271 

distorted animal, and that it was actually a specimen of the species known to him as 
Alona rosiraia (Koch, 1841), which he dealt with and illustrated in the same paper 
(P.E. Muller, 1867, pp. 182-183). It is perfectly clear that had Miiller known the 
teratological nature of this individual he would not have erected a new genus and 
species for its reception. On the contrary, had he known this, without the least 
difficulty he would have identified this problematic individual as the species well 
known to him as A. rostrata. This means that Phri.xura is a junior synonym oi Alona 
Baird. 1843. The creation of the new genus Phri.xura was based on an unfortunate 
error. It is not in accord with the Code to support such a lapsus, especially when it 
concerns a species {rostraia) that has been internationally recognised as valid for 
more than 130 years since its publication. 

2. The name Phri.xura was never used for more than 120 years and cannot be 
employed on the basis of nomenclatural usage unless special grounds are put 
forward, which is not the case. 

3. As noted in para. 6 of the application, Michael & Frey (1984) expressly referred 
to Phri.xura recliro.stris as a synonym of Disparalona rostrata, and clearly stated that 
it 'is an abnormal specimen of D. rostrata'. I can only fully and entirely agree. In no 
way, however, can I agree with Frey's later (1989) change to adopt the name 
Phri.xura. This is a classic case of how a rigid, literal interpretation of the Code led 
to a completely unprofitable and harmful introduction of an unused name. 

4. Given this state of affairs (paras. 1-3 above), I wish to protest that it is not a 
trifling matter to ignore the significance of the fact that the name Disparalona Fryer, 
1968 has been in unambiguous and common use for about 30 years among specialists 
familiar with this group of animals (cf. Grygier's comment on BZN 55: 105, June 1998). 

5. A morphologically comprehensive presentation and description of the taxon 
concerned were given by Michael & Frey (1984) under the name of Disparalona 
rostrata. It would be an irresponsible destabilisation of the nomenclature used for 
this species should Phri.xura rostrata be adopted. Such a measure would stand in 
contradiction to the spirit and intention of the Code as clearly stated in the Preamble 
and Article 23b of the 1985 edition (Article 23.2 in that of 1999). 

6. All decisive points, which unambiguously speak for a rejection of the name 
Phri.xura P.E. Muller, 1867, have been convincingly set out by Fryer in Case 2990. 
I have nothing to add to them and stand fully and entirely behind the application. 

7. In 1972 in the Tierwelt Deutschlands series I used the name Disparalona rostrata 
for the branchiopod in question (para. 7 of the application). In a new taxonomic 
monograph of the Cladocera of Central Europe, to appear in the year 2000, 1 will also 
be employing this name for the taxon since this is manifestly in the interest of 
nomenclatural stability. 

Comment on the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibagrus nemurus 
(Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846), 
and of the lectotype of H. planiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H. flavus 
(Bleeker, 1846) 

(Case 3061; see BZN 56: 34-^1, 200-201) 

Maurice Kottelat 

Route de la Baroche 12. Case postale 57, CH-2952 Cornol. Switzerland 



272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) Deceinber 1999 

I have been working and have published on several of the taxa mentioned by the 
authors of Case 3061; I fully support their conclusions and application and 
recommend that the Commission accepts their proposals. However, I note two minor 
mistakes. The first is only a detail, and the second is remedied by a lectotype 
designation which contributes to the nomenclatural stability within this group. 

Ng et al. write (paras. 2 and 4 of their application) that Bagrus pkmiceps 
Valenciennes, 1840 was described from two specimens collected by Kuhl and van 
Hasselt. I assume this was based on Valenciennes's remark 'nous en avons vu de 
quatre et de huit pouces de longueur', but this could encompass more than two 
specimens; Valenciennes clearly stated that there was one specimen in Paris and 
others in Leiden, and this is corroborated by the present holdings of those museums 
(see para. 4 of the application). This detail does not change anything about the need 
for a lectotype designation for B. planiceps, as made by the authors in para. 10 of the 
application. 

Ng et al. also write in paras. 2 and 4 that Bcigrus anisunis Valenciennes, 1840 was 
based on a single specimen, i.e. a holotype. I disagree. The description starts [in 
translation] 'Messrs Kuhl and van Hasselt have had a third bagre painted in Java, of 
which they have sent samples [plural] to the museum in Leiden etc.". Valenciennes did 
write in the account of the species 'The individual which we have described is 14 
inches long', but the specimens in Leiden were included in the species and are 
therefore syntypes. Furthermore, the description ends 'In the liquor [alcohol], it 
appears pale brown on the back, and whitish grey under the belly; but when fresh as 
in the figure, the whole upper part is olivaceous", and there is no reason to suppose 
that both parts of this sentence refer to a single specimen painted when fresh and then 
preserved and now in Paris. 

In line with the argument by Ng et al. that the names of the nominal species now 
in Hemihagrus should be defined, I here designate the specimen NNM 2956 in Paris 
as the lectotype of Bagrits anisunis Valenciennes, 1840; this is the specimen assumed 
by Ng et al. to be the holotype. 

As stated at the outset, I support the proposals in the application by Ng et al. 

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, 111-114) 

(1) H.G. Cogger 

do The Australian Museum. 6 College Street, Sydney South. 

New South Wales 2000. Australia 

Rather belatedly I wish to comment on this application, submitted by Profs R.G. 
Sprackland and H.M. Smith and Dr P.D. Strimple in BZN 54: 100-103 (June 1997). 

Although the "Code of Ethics" (Appendix A in both the 3rd and 4th editions of the 
Code) and many of the Code's important Recommendations were blatantly flouted 
in the Wells & Wellington ( 1 985a) work at the core of this case, leading many workers 
to reject all or part of the publication, the Code of Ethics and Recommendations are 
not mandatory. The Commission noted (BZN 48: 337-338, December 1991) that 'the 
provisions of the Code apply to all names directly and indirectly involved in this 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 273 

[Wells & Wellington. 1985] case, and that it will be guided in future submissions by 
the criteria of usage, nomenclatural stability and the views of the zoological 
community which it serves'. 

Because both specific names of Odatria keithhornei Wells & Wellington, 1985 and 
Varumis teriae Sprackland, 1991 are young and both are in use, the choice of either 
name will not impact on stability or universality of nomenclature, and so there is no 
basis for invoking the plenary powers. Therefore the mandatory provisions of the 
Code should apply, with the senior synonym ( Varanus keithhornei) being confirmed 
as the valid name of the taxon. 

(2) R.G. Sprackland 

Young Forest Company, 951 Old County Road Suite 134. Bebnont. 

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 Facilitv. 5310 Sultana Drive, Cincinnati. Ohio 45238, 
USA. 

In answer to previous comments on this case, we wish to reiterate that the second 
Wells & Wellington publication (1985a) was unobtainable via several libraries at the 
time (1982-1989) that one of us (R.G.S.) undertook revisionary work on the Varanus 
prasinus species group of monitor lizards. In our view this is more relevant than the 
fact that a few people had copies. We suspect that most copies were distributed after 
Sprackland's own (1991) publication. Why, otherwise, could no major hbrary 
provide either 1985 Wells & Wellington paper when he did his literature searches; did 
no museum have anything other than the 1983 Wells & Wellington publication; and 
did the Queensland Museum, who published Sprackland's paper (1991) after a 
number of alterations requested by reviewers, not inform him that a name for the 
tree monitor from northeastern Australia, based on specimen QMJ31566 in the 
Queensland Museum, had already been published? 

The choice of specific name for the tree monitor is between Varanus teriae, which 
is now eight years old, and V. keithhornei, now 14 years old. The synonymy between 
the two names was not realized until 1994. In the time that teriae has been published 
it has had considerable usage, which has continued since recognition of the synonymy 
(see para. 3 of the application; to the list of references may be added Rehak & 
Velensky, 1997). 

Cogger (above) seems to think that because both names are relatively recent 
stability is not at stake. He fails to realize the importance of his own works, which 
regularly used the junior of the two names, V. teriae. Stability is a product not only 
of frequency of usage but also of the influence thereof. Cogger's works are the most 
important guides for biologists in general to the herpetology of Australia, and 
thereby are of much more significance than little-noted, incidental usages. And there 
is where the weight of stability rests. 



274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

In our view, and contrary to that of Drs T. Ziegler and W. Bohme (BZN 55: 1 12), 
the ability to use stable nomenclature for the inclusion of species and subspecies 
in CITES and other conservation legislative documentation is an important 
issue. Taxonomists are the servants of all those who use scientific names and work to 
serve those needs, not to establish an authority to which everyone must subscribe 
whether in accord with stability or not. We believe that our aim must be to provide 
an environment of nomenclatural stability in which biologists may work with 
confidence. 

Additional reference 

Reh^k, I. & Velensky, P. 1997. Biology of the varanids Vannjus prasinus. V. nidicollis and 
K sahadorii in captivity. Gazella, lA: 108-138. [In Czech; English summary]. 



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; 55: 176-185) 

(1) Murray D. Bruce and Ian A.W. McAllan 

P.O. Box 180. Tunaimirra. New South Wales 2074. Australia 

We are the authors of the original paper under consideration as Case 3044. Various 
points covered by Schodde & Bock (1997). the comments of Olson (1998) and the 
response of Schodde & Bock (1998) [as cited above] require further comment. It 
should also be noted that our paper, although dated 1990, was published in 1991, as 
pointed out by McAllan (1992). 

1. Inconsistencies in the use of reports published in The Athenaeum, The Literary 
Gazette and The Analyst prompted our review of these serials. The first two were of 
considerable importance for many years as general sources of information covering 
the sciences and other fields. The third was a short-lived journal from the 1830s and 
one of several from this period affecting zoological nomenclature. As an example of 
inconsistency, we pointed out that although The Athenaeum is accepted for Balaeni- 
ceps rex (a very brief but adequate description) in a standard work (Kahl, 1979), there 
were other names variously mentioned or overlooked, with equal claims to priority. 
Also, we deplored the proposal for suppression of a name from The Literary Gazette 
without the actual reference being examined (LeCroy, 1988; LeCroy & Bock, 1989), 
an action invalid for other reasons, as we discussed (Bruce & McAllan, 1991). 

2. The latter example prompted us to provide verbatim extracts of the relevant 
references in our paper to facilitate an evaluation of our findings and to avoid the 
argument of the rarity or inaccessibility of the sources (a pointless criticism in view 
of the rarity and inaccessibility of many sources long accepted in avian nomencla- 
ture). We found hundreds of nomina nuda in our investigations but only discussed 
those names identifiable by descriptive details. For example, we did not discuss 
/)[wor«w]. dromaeoides because it is a nomen nudum in The Literary Gazette. The 
only nomen nudum we did discuss was Sitta ferrugineoveniris in The Athenaeum 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 275 

because Hartert & Steinbacher (1932) accepted it as an available synonym of 
5. castanea. As to the other names, these were interpreted under the application of 
the 3rd Edition of the Code to the status of the names at their time of publication last 
century. For example, Chrysococcyx minulillus was indeed the smallest cuckoo of this 
group known at the time, and the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 
[PZS] reference also stated this point (Gould, 1859). 

3. We also covered mammals in the same format as birds (McAllan & Bruce, 
1990). So far, there has been no attempt at blanket suppression of our findings, 
probably because the catalogue of Australian mammals already had been published 
(Walton, 1988). In fact, some of our findings have been used in major reference works 
(Corbet & Hill, 1992; Wilson & Reeder, 1993). 

4. Olson's example of The Zoologist as another possible source of earlier 
publication of names is a valid point and needs further investigation. At the time we 
chose to exclude from our study long-running natural history serials well known to 
specialists of the period, e.g. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. A more 
important point is that if we extended our research to daily newspapers, we may find 
further earlier dates of publication of many more names. For example, Sulloway 
(1982) cited a report of a Zoological Society meeting from 1837 in three dailies 
(Morning Herald. Morning Chronicle, Standard) before its appearance in The 
Athenaeum. Newspapers often have been used as the original references of avian 
names, e.g. The Sydney Morning Herald ( Trichoglossus [- Charmosyna] amabilis — 
Mayr, 1945; see also Watling, 1982); The Kentucky Gazette (Chlidonias — Rhoads, 
1912; see also Peters, 1934); of 37 names proposed by Wilhelm Blasius, 20 first 
appeared in a local newspaper, Braunschweigische Anzeigen, and it is accepted as the 
original publication source in standard references (cf. Hinkelmann & Heinze, 1990); 
as well as various Australian examples (Whitley, 1938, as indicated by Schodde & 
Bock — see also Whittell, 1954, e.g. under Diggles, Ramsay; and Ingram, 1990 for De 
Vis). Indeed, given the number of Australasian taxa named in newspapers, we are 
amazed that Schodde & Bock had any problem with our findings at all. 

5. As Schodde & Bock pointed out, we were present at the SCON meeting in 
Vienna in August 1994. In considering the issue of suppression we voted neither for 
nor against. We assumed that at least one of us, a member of SCON (MDB), would 
see a draft of the proposed submission for comment prior to any publication in the 
Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature, or at least receive advice that it was to be 
submitted. Knowing that several years may elapse between proposal and submission, 
we were surprised to see it appear in the Bulletin in 1997 in a form where any input 
from us had been denied. 

6. We regarded our paper as a forum for further assessment of our findings and 
expected some of our conclusions to be revised. We summarised our interpretations 
in an appendix and indicated where suppression seemed appropriate. However, no 
action had been taken by us on these points as we awaited further discussion of our 
paper and also intended to expand our investigations on related issues in other 
publications, particularly that of newspapers as sources of names. 

7. We did not expect BZN to be the forum for discussion. Olson's interpretations 
have clarified some of our findings with consequent ad hoc changes to the original 
proposal by Schodde & Bock. These changes demonstrate our point that further 
revision of our findings was needed, not total suppression as a quick solution. 



276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

8. The proposal for blanket suppression is obviously because of concerns by the 
senior author, R. Schodde, to avoid considering the possible effects of our findings on 
Australian birds. We assume that the findings of Olson requiring Schodde & Bock to 
emend their original proposal are because they do not affect Australian birds. In 
stark contrast to this approach, compare how such issues affecting North American 
birds are handled. For example. Banks & Browning (1995) discussed a number of 
cases, including at least two where suppression is required. Their findings indicate 
that Oberholser (1974) is the chief source requiring their attention. These are all dealt 
with on a case by case basis. We assume that if Oberholser's publication had been on 
Australian birds, the entire work would have been submitted to the Commission for 
blanket suppression. 

9. The motive behind the submission for suppression seems to be more concerned 
with changes to original citations and dates than with the issue of nomenclature. On 
the one hand, Schodde & Bock credit 'any zoologist with a knowledge of the 
alphabet' as being able to handle the growing subsidiary literature of suppression of 
names, yet also patronise them as being endlessly confused if our findings were to be 
absorbed into the literature. Are we to assume that Australian zoologists in particular 
are more prone to confusion than others? 

10. Schodde & Bock are also concerned about changes to original citations of 
avian names as they appear in standard references, many now out of date (original 
citations and standard references). Such changes have always been a very small 
proportion of the total, e.g. North American birds (Olson, 1987; see also AOU, 
1997). Emending and correcting citations continues, particularly with the dating of 
older works, e.g. Banks & Browning (1979), Browning & Monroe (1991), Poggi 
(1996) and Wheeler (1998). Changes to dates of citations are readily accepted where 
necessary (e.g. Schodde & Mason, 1997), yet while clarifying inconsistencies, they 
conflict with those already published in standard references. Should we suppress date 
corrections because of this conflict? Schodde & Bock imply such a necessity, 
particularly if a species subsequently has been 'gazetted by legislation', in the case of 
Psepholus chrysopterygius, but this change does not affect its protection under law. 
As to standard references cited by Schodde & Bock, the Catalogue of Birds in the 
British Museum, long out of date, was based on the 12th edition of Linnaeus [1766], 
not the 10th [1758], as now. The Catalogue is also a source of numerous emendations 
to established names on the grounds of purism, a practice no longer accepted. Peters's 
Check-list of Birds of the World, our current standard reference (Bock, 1990), 
nevertheless has instances of erroneous and confused citations and dates, incorrect 
synonymies, overlooked subspecies and even a name where the citation could not be 
found (but see Mees, 1986, p. 147). However, such necessary changes are, like our 
findings and those for North American birds, a very small proportion of the total. A 
number of citations in standard references are incorrect for other reasons. For 
example, the original name for the Sooty Albatross Diomedea [= Phoehetria] fusca is 
cited to Hilsenberg (1822), but if one checks the quoted source, one will find that the 
name actually appeared earlier in a German newspaper and the standard citation is 
merely an abstract of it. A further problem with many original citations is that they 
contain no information relevant to the subsequent acceptance of a taxon. For 
example, Geophaps scripta peninsuhie, named in 1922, was not correctly diagnosed for 
60 years (Frith, 1982). A more unusual example is the case of Corvus mellori, a name 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(41 December 1999 277 

proposed as a subspecies in 1912 and subsequently applied to a new species identified 
in 1967 because the type specimen of mellori (since lost) apparently belonged to it. 
Mayr (1971) considered the taxon to be a new species even though 'our queer rules 
of nomenclature" required the application of a name whose author 'did not 
appreciate at all the distinctness of this bird". 

1 1 . Schodde & Bock accuse Olson and us of shoddy research in relation to 
Bonaparte (1855). First of all, Schodde & Bock misquote the name, it should read 
'Somaieria v. -nigrum" (Bonaparte included the hyphen). Bonaparte's discussion is 
indeed anecdotal but the young bird quoted from his account by Schodde & Bock 
relates to one shown to Bonaparte by a 'M. Hardy, de Dieppe" from Hardy's private 
collection. Bonaparte then links his remarks on this specimen to several specimens, 
and drawings made before they were collected, seen in London with Gray at the 
British Museum. He then indicated that he agreed with Gray that in imitation of a 
name used for a butterfly by Linnaeus, the distinctive marking of this new species 
could be represented by Somateria v. -nigrum. Bonaparte clearly linked the distinctive 
new name, based on the duck's most diagnostic character, to the British Museum 
type material. We consider the name identifiable from Bonaparte (1855). On the 
matter of interpreting these remarks as joint authorship of Bonaparte & Gray, 
Bonaparte gave an explicit example in his preceding paragraph where we find 
' Xylocota jamesoni, Jard. et Bp.". Yet if one turns to standard references (Peters, 1934; 
Hellmayr & Conover, 1948) this joint attribution is indicated in quotation marks but 
authorship is credited solely to Bonaparte. If the conclusion of Schodde & Bock is 
accepted, then there are literally hundreds of cases where authorship needs to be 
emended in the citations of original sources of names. Such an action would not 
conflict with the provisions of Art. 50 of the Code. 

12. The concluding comments of Schodde & Bock focus on changes to the sources 
of names as being of greater concern than any real effect our paper may have on 
nomenclatural stability. In our opinion, the argument that quoting an earlier source 
of a name vs. PZS obscures important details does not preclude use of an earlier valid 
publication of a name. The Code is concerned with the source of a name meeting the 
definition of a publication (Art. 8), not where it is published. The argument of the 
role of original citations as sources of information on type specimens is misleading 
not only because PZS does not always mention them (as with most of Gould's) but 
because there are a great number of examples of later type designations (e.g. Schodde 
& Mason, 1997). Moreover, Gould himself did not acknowledge his own earlier 
publication of many of his new names (Bruce & McAllan, 1991, p. 455). 

13. We conclude that where established nomenclature may be affected by an 
unnecessary change of name or application of name, not the published source of the 
name, then suppression may be warranted. Otherwise, as in North America's case, we 
prefer the discussion and resolution of issues of nomenclature on a case by case basis 
with any need for formal suppression applied as sparingly as possible. We oppose the 
concept of blanket suppression, as proposed in Case 3044 by Schodde & Bock, and 
support a more reasoned approach where only specific cases requiring suppression 
are proposed. 

Additional references 

AOU [American Ornithologists' Union). 1997. Forty-first supplement to the American 
Ornithologists" Union check-list of North American birds. Auli. 114: 542-552. 



278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Banks, R.C. & Browning, M.R. 1979. Correct citations for some North American bird taxa. 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 92; 195-203. 
Banks, R.C. & Browning, M.R. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some 

North American birds. Auk. 112: 633-648. 
Bock, W.J. 1990. A special review: Peters' [sic] 'Check-list of Birds of the World" and a history 

of avian checklists. Aul<. 107: 629-648. 
Browning, M.R. & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1991. Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue 

of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds. Archives of 

Natural History. 18: 381^05. 
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1992. Mammals of the Imhmalayan region: a systematic review. 350 

pp. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 
Frith, H.J. 1982. Pigeons and doves of Australia. 304 pp. Rigby, Adelaide. 
Could, Mr. 1= J.|. 1859. [On two new species of birds, one belonging to the family Cuculidae, 

the other to the Coturniceae). Proceedings of the Zoological Societv of London. 1859: 

128-129. 
Hartert, E. & Steinbacher, F. 1932 [-1938]. Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna. Erganzungs- 

band. viii, 602 pp. Friedlander, Berlin. 
Hellmayr, C.E. & Conover, B. 1948. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and adjacent islands. 

Part 1. Field Museum of Natural History. Zoological Series. 13: 1-383. 
Hilsenberg, K. 1822. Beschreibung einer neuen Albatros art. Notizen aus dem Gebiete der 

Natur- und Heilkunde. 3: col. 74. [commonly cited as Froriep (or Froriep's) Notizen]. 
Hinkelmann, C. & Heinze, G.-M. 1990. Die Typus exemplare der von Wilhelm Blasius 

beschriebenen Vogel. Braunschweigische nalurkundliche Schriften. 3: 609-628. 
Ingram, G.J. 1990. The works of Charles Walter De Vis, alias 'Devis', alias 'Thickthora'. 

Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 28: 1-34. 
LeCroy, M. 1988. Semioplera wallacii Gray. 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae): proposed confir- 
mation as the correct spelling. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 45: 212-213. 
LeCroy, M. & Bock, W.J. 1989. Comments on the proposed conservation of the speUing 

Semioptera wallacii Gray. 1859 (Aves. Paradisaeidae). Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- 
ture. 46: 49-50. 
McAllan, I.A.W. 1992. Early records of the Hooded Parrot Psepholus dissimilis Collett, 1898. 

Bolletino del Museo regionale di Scien:e naturali Torino. 10: 89-95. 
McAllan, I.A.W. & Bruce, M.D. 1989 [= 1990]. Some problems in vertebrate nomenclature. I. 

Mammals. Bolletino del Museo regionale di Scienze naturale Torino. 7: 443-460. 
Mayr, E. 1945. The correct name of the Fijian Mountain Lorikeet. Auk. 62: 139-140. 
Mayr, E. 1971. New species of birds described from 1956 to 1965. Journal ftir Ornithologie. 112: 

302-316. 
Mees, G.F. 1986. A list of the birds recorded from Bangka Island, Indonesia. Zoologische 

Verhcmdelingen. 232: 1-176. 
Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols, xxviii, 1069 pp. University of Texas Press, 

Austin. 
Olson, S.L. 1987. On the extent and source of instability in avian nomenclature, as exemplified 

by North American birds. Auk, 104: 538-542. 
Peters, J.L. 1934. Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 2. xviii, 401 pp. Harvard University 

Press, Cambridge, Mass. 
Poggi, R. 1996. Use of archives for nomenclatural purposes: clarifications and corrections of 

the dates of issue for volumes 1 — 8 (1870-1876) of the .Annali del Museo civtco di Storia 

Naturale di Genova. Archives of Natural History. 23: 99-105. 
Rhoads, S.N. 1912. Additions to the known ornithological publications of C.S. Rafinesque. 

.4uk. 29: 191-198. 
Sulloway, F.J. 1982. Darwin's conversion: the Beagle voyage and its aftermath. Journal of the 

Hi.story of Biology. 15: 325-396. 
Walton, D.W. (Ed.). 1988. Mammalia. Zoological catalogue of Australia, vol. 5. x, 274 pp. 

Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 
Watling, D. 1982. Birds of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. 176 pp. Millwood Press, Wellington. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) Decetnber 1999 279 

Wheeler, A. 1998. Dates of publication of J.E. Gray's 'Illustrations of Indian Zoology^ 

(1830-1835). Archives of Natural History, 25: 345-354. 
Whittell, H.M. 1954. The literature of Australian birds: a history and a bibliography of 

Australian ornithology, .xii, 116, 788 pp. Paterson Brokensha, Perth. 
Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds). 1993. Mammal species of the World: a laxonomic and 

geographic reference. 1312 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 

(2) Richard Schodde 

Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, 

G.P.O. Box 284. Canberra Cilv, ACT. 2601, Australia 



Waiter J. Boclc 

Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, 

U.S.A. 

Systematic ornithology is indebted to Bruce and McAllan on two particular 
counts. First, at considerable effort, they sifted out and collated a raft of undiscov- 
ered first publications of bird names in several popular mid- 18th century periodicals 
so comprehensively (Bruce & McAllan, 1991) that the Standing Committee on 
Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) of the International Ornithological Congress 
could deal with their treatment quickly and effectively (Schodde & Bock, 1997). This 
course has now been opened to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, by Case 3044 which the SCON (and we) commend. 

Bruce and McAllan's second contribution is their present opposition (above) to 
Case 3044. Because of its tortuous nature, their argument exposes with glaring clarity 
the real consequences of opting instead for 'reasoned" case-by-case discussion and 
resolution of the names in question. It would embroil us in didactic word-games and 
protracted debates that could carry on for years and, apart from keeping key issues 
of nomenclature and source references for names in limbo, involve the Commission 
in up to 20 Opinions, and potentially many more. The prospect is daunting, and out 
of all proportion to the importance of the issue; quite frankly, Bruce and McAllan 
have 'lost the plot'. 

In contrast. Case 3044, which has as its sole objective the maintenance of stability 
for the nomenclature and source references of 6 generic and 45 specific names, oflfers 
a simple, straight-forward single-Opinion solution: it clears the decks of the so-far 
unused names and references. Its grounds have already been covered and explained 
in detail by Schodde & Bock (1997, 1998) and need no further advocacy here. 
Morever, its provisions are the preferred solution by the great majority of the SCON, 
and, we stress again, were passed without dissent at the Vienna meeting of the SCON 
at which both Bruce and McAllan were present. 

Only the case of Somateria v-nigrum G.R. Gray needs revisiting because issues 
raised by Bruce and McAllan affect a recommendation of Case 3044. We have 
consulted two different copies of the paper in which Bonaparte (1855) first used the 
name, and in both it is spelled simply 'v.ttigrum', without the hyphen (cf. Bruce & 
McAllan). More importantly, we continue to find no explicit and unambiguous 
connection between the juvenile diagnosed by Bonaparte and the undescribed 
material in the British Museum named 'Somateria v.nigrum\ Such ambiguity and 



280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4| December 1999 

differences of interpretation are further reason for treating Gray's (1856) use of the 
name as the first available, as proposed in Case 3044. 

In conclusion, Bruce and McAllan take us to task for not consulting them on the 
formulation of Case 3044 — but have obviously forgotten why. 

At the meeting at which the SCON directed us to prepare the proposal, we asked 
them to do it. They refused, one of them commenting to the effect that they had done 
their part in digging up the unused names and now it was up to others to provide 
solutions. 

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

(Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54: 1 19-129, 189; 55: 43-46, 
119-120; 56: 72-73) 

Peter Grubb 

35 Downhills Park Road, London N17 6PE. U.K. 



1. Gentry, Clutton-Brock & Groves address a contentious issue and their recom- 
mendations have received much support, but the consequences of their application 
are still unclear. Their agenda obliges us to consider wild names to the exclusion of 
other issues. Yet beyond this restricted remit it raises questions which should be 
answered prior to adjudication on the application itself Approval may otherwise 
amount to a fait accompli, leaving problems to be settled by further appeal to the 
Commission. The submission suggests that there is a majority usage which should 
override application of the Code; junior species names should be retained for 
populations which are regarded as conspecific with others, to which senior names are 
assigned. The Commission is effectively asked to rule that certain species-group 
names are to be applied to particular populations within taxa (hence restraining the 
subjective use of synonymy), without requesting a general ruling on their priority. 
The application is therefore unusual. In the guise of a nomenclatural ruling, it is 
eliciting a systematic decision from the Commission (see Gardner in BZN 54: 
125-126). Doubtless the Commission will carefully consider whether it is appropriate 
to use its plenary powers in such a context. 

2. The formal request 'that the name for each of the wild species" listed is not 
invalid by virtue of being antedated by a name based on a domestic form' does not 
specify that the wild names must be used in the form of binomina. A trinomen — for 
example Bos tatirus primigenius — would be within the letter of the request, for the 
wild name would retain validity. Although this is not what Gentry et al. intend, it is 
the literal meaning of their formal request that must be addressed. Perhaps it requires 
revision. 

3. The application has insufficient space to discuss each of the 15 taxa separately. 
Such different instances as Camelus fenis and Canis lupus are lumped together. Not 
all the species have experienced 'traditional" separate naming for wild and domestic 
forms. Bos nniliis. Camelus ferus, Buhalus arnee and Equus ajricanus were foisted 
upon the scientific community as replacements for species names based on domestic 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 281 

types (see Bohlken, 1958), even where the domestic name had been in customary 
usage for the whole species and the nomenclature had been stable. There are few 
references in the Zoological Record to wild populations of African asses, Bactrian 
camels, water buffaloes or yaks during the last 20 years and either wild or domestic 
names are being used for them. There are hardly any references to tarpans. 
Przewalski's wild horses are most commonly cited as E. przewalskii rather than E. 
ferns przewalskii. For the animals mentioned in this paragraph, evidence for a strong 
feeling to retain the 'wild' species names is deficient — hardly majority usage — and 
the preponderant concept in the scientific community has been of whole or 'global' 
species, domestic, feral and wild populations included, bearing the earliest available 
(domestic) name. Nowak (1991) for instance cited Equus asimis, Camehis haciriaims, 
Bubalus bitbalis and Bos grunniens as the names of the species, and so did Zeuner 
(1963) in his authoritative 'History', with the addition of £. cabalhis fenis. 

4. Strong feelings have been expressed concerning 'wild' and 'domestic' names. It 
would be 'theoretically irrelevant' and 'grossly disruptive to long-standing nomen- 
clature' (see Corbet, 1997) to include domestic animals within the appropriate 
biological species. Yet it is also anomalous to justify systematic treatment on the basis 
of long usage. Long usage could keep the North American red fox as a separate 
species Vulpes fulvus from the European V. vulpes, for instance, though we know 
better. The 'traditional' separate naming of domestic and wild forms, to which 
Gentry et al. refer, exists mainly by default, not by general approbation and does not 
have to be perpetuated. I am at a loss to see how a double nomenclature is so 
particularly felicitous where the domestic or wild status of archaeological material is 
contentious (see Corbet in BZN 53: 193). There is no difficulty in using a single 
species name for both domestic and wild populations among birds, pigs, rabbits, rats 
or mice, so there can be no need for separate naming per se, although this defence is 
constantly being pressed. 

5. The authors of the application do not request rulings that wild and domestic 
populations should be treated as separate species or that 'domestic' names should be 
suppressed; they expressly omit evaluation of their status (Gentry, Clutton-Brock & 
Groves, BZN 54: 127-129). Yet questions raised by Schodde and others (BZN 54: 
123-127) still deserve answers. What options or constraints arise from the applica- 
tion? Do we approve of them? Which name should systematists adopt in referring to 
the whole species if they consider wild and domestic populations to be conspecific (see 
Bock in BZN 54: 125)? If both .80.5 taiirus and Bos primigenius are in currency, which 
is the name of the species? Would a formalisation of the 'traditional' double 
nomenclature (see Schodde in BZN 54: 123-124 and Bock in BZN 54: 125-126) be 
forced upon us or not? Would ostensibly single biological species be divided into 
separate wild and domestic species (a systematic interpretation masquerading as a 
nomenclatural decision)? Using the name Bos primigenius for both domestic cattle 
and aurochs (see Macdonald, 1984), and Equus ferus for the domestic horse (see 
Duncan, 1992) may become more common unless implications relating to priority 
and synonymy are clearly set out and uncertainties are resolved. 

6. The application pre-empts the many unresolved systematic or nomenclatural 
issues concerning mammal species experiencing domestication, though there is no 
space to enumerate the references here. What does one conclude from challenges to 
the availability of Bos primigenius and Ovis orientalist Is the type population of Cavia 



282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

aperea wild or reral? Is it conspecific with the domestic guinea pig anyway? Is the 
name based on a guinea pig rather than some other caviid? Are domestic asses, river 
buffaloes and Bactrian camels different taxa from wild populations, having origi- 
nated from different wild subspecies'? Was the tarpan truly wild? It is premature to 
make nomenclatural proposals when even wild status, or ancestry of domestic 
populations, are not yet clear. 

7. The principal objective of the Code is to promote stability and universality in 
the scientific names of animals. To achieve this objective we should treat each species 
separately, review systematics, and evaluate both 'wild' and 'domestic' names. Usage 
should be assessed and not assumed. Only then would it be decided what species 
name could be adopted, subject to ruling by the Commission where needed. Some 
domestic names would be used as names of species; others might be suppressed or 
discarded. Systematic opinion is supposed to be paramount in determining synonymy 
and must be clearly reflected in the nomenclature. Provision of a single name for each 
biological species is, I suggest, superior to the 'double" names format, seemingly an 
inevitable outcome of the present application. Domestic names as names of species 
would not pose unique problems. Nomenclature is always at risk from changes in 
systematic opinion, from new discoveries, and new interpretations. Erstwhile minor- 
ity usage becomes the norm: check-lists are soon out of date. It would be a mistake 
to think that systematic stability is an attainable goal. Purely systematic decisions 
continue to change the names of well-known and familiar mammals. Thomson's 
gazelle, Gazella ihomsonii. is to be assigned to Eudorcas rufifrons; Palaeoloxodon 
antiquus becomes Elephas namadicus; and vigorous discussions are in progress 
concerning species limits in Galago, CaUithrix. Pan, Canis, Ovis and many other 
genera. Authors, including CITES, are able to handle changes and come to terms 
with their consequences. They are not obliged to follow new or unpalatable 
systematic opinions yet feel no need to direct dissent towards the Commission. They 
remain free to treat domestic and wild populations as separate species if they so wish. 
Where appropriate we should retain senior names based on domestic animals, 
unrestrained within the nomenclature of biological species and subspecies. Our 
apocryphal customs officer will not be fooled by a label; he has already addressed 
more intransigent cases (Marshall, 1990). Workers dealing with wild mammals are 
intelligent beings. They would understand what was meant by Camelus bactrianus 
ferus. Buhalus bubcdis amee or Equus cabatlus przewalskii. 

I am grateful to Anthea Gentry for information and discussion, for suffering my 
persistent argumentativeness, and for helping to stimulate some of the ideas 
expressed above. 

References 

Corbet, G.B. 1997. The species in mammals. Pp. 341-356 in Claridge, M.F., Dawah, H.A. & 

Wilson, M.R. (Eds.). Species. The units of biodiversity, xiii, 439 pp. Chapman & Hall, 

London. 
Duncan, P. (Ed.). 1992. Zebras, asses arid horses. An action plan for the conservation of wild 

equids. vii, 36 pp. lUCN, Gland. 
Macdonald, D. (Ed.). 1984. The encyclopaedia of mammals, xv, 895, xlviii pp. Unwin Hyman, 

London. 
Marshall, E. 1990. Mountain sheep experts draw hunters' fire. Science. 248: 437^38. 
Zeuner, F.E. 1963. A history of domesticated animals. 560 pp. Hutchinson, London. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 
AUTHORS IN VOLUME 56 (1999) 



283 



Page 

Abramov, N.I 255 

Alonso Zarazaga, M.A 194 

Bachli, G 179 

Bailey. R.M 240 

Bank, R.A 268 

Barratt, E.M 182 

Blank, S.M 23, 121, 128 

Bock, W.J 279 

Bodon, M 144 

Boeters, H.D 57 

Bouchet, P 6. 53, 56, 187 

Brattstrom, B.H 149 

Brinkmann, W 247 

Brown, D.S 113 

Bruce, M.D 274 

Bryce, C.W 53 

Burn, R 51 

Cogger, H.G 272 

Colonnelli, E 191 

Davis, G.M 187 

Devyatkin, A.L 63 

Dodson, J 34 

Engel, M.S 19, 134, 198 

Espinal, J.L 149 

Falkner, G 57 

Flossner, D 270 

Foissner, W 142 

Gardner, A.L 136,262 

Gentry. A 42, 70 

Gentry, A.W 42 

Gerken, S 174 

Gianuzzi-Savelli. R 50 

Gibbons, L.M 230 

Gittenberger, E 57 

Giusti, F 144 

Gob, Y.Y 34 

Gosliner, T.M 54 

Grubb, P 280 

Heckman, C.W 48 

Herting, B 235 

Hoeksema, D.F 62 

Hollwedel, W 191 

Hoser, R.T 66 

Howcroft. J 108 



Page 

Jach, M.A 117 

Jones, G 182 

Kadolsky, D 62, 266 

Kerzhner, I.M 200 

Kottelat, M 271 

Lee, D.E 250 

Lichtenfels, J.R 230 

Lyal, C.H.C 194 

McAllan, I.A.W 274 

Manganelli, G 144 

Marques, A.C 16 

Marshall. J 54 

Martens, J 171 

Mikkelsen, P.M 54 

Minton, S.A 148 

Mones, A 72 

Mordan, P.B 143 

Murphy, R.W 149 

Naggs, F 113, 143 

Naito, T 23 

Ng, H.H 34 

Ng, P.K.L 34 

Norman, D 65 

O'Hara, J.E 235 

Oijen, M.J.P. van 200 

Olson, R.E 148 

Porter, S.D 27 

Proschwitz, T. von 57 

Ramirez-Bautista, A 149 

Reid, D.G 143 

Ripken, T.E.J 57 

Robbins, C.B 136 

Rosenberg, G 187 

Rudman, W.B 52 

Schodde, R 279 

Schroedl, M 53 

Schwendinger, P.J 171 

Shattuck, S.0 27 

Silfverberg, H 197 

Smith, H.M 71, 273 

Solis, M.A 31 

Southgate, V.R 113 

Spencer. H.G 53, 250 

Sprackland, R.G 273 



284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Strimple, P.D 273 Vinson, S.B. 199 

Szabolcs, N 72 Voss, R.S 255 

Taber, S.W 199 Waegele, H 56 

Taeger. A 23. 121, 128 Way. K.M 143 

Tanner. W.W 148 Wilke, T 187 

Thome. J 108 Willan, R.C 51 

Tschinkel. W.R 198 Wilson. E.0 199 

Tschorsnig. H.-P 235 Winter, A.J. de 57 

Tubbs. P.K 49 Wojcik. D.P 27 

Valkiunas, G 168 Yalden, D.W 73 

Vervoort, W 16 Yokochi, T 177 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 285 

NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 56 (1999) 

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes, and emendments of existing 
entries, in Volume 56 are listed below under three headings: Family-Group Names, 
Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and 
those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type. 



Family-Group Names 

AMPULLARIIDAE Gray, 1824 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 
BELEMNOSEPIIDAE Naef, 1921 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 
BRACHYPTERAINAE Zwick, 1973 (Plecoptera) Op. 1916 
BRACHVPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] (Coleoptera) Op. 1916 
BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Plecoptera) Op. 1916 
CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 
DASYPODAIDAE Borner, 1919 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1926 
DASYPODIDAE Borner, 1919 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1926 
DASYPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) Op. 1926 
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 
HORIIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 
KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846] (Coleoptera) Op. 1916 
MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 
NEMOGNATHINAE Castelnau, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 
PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 
PILIDAE Preston, 1915 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 
ZONITIDINAE Mulsant, 1857 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 
ZONITINAE Mulsant, 1857 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 



Generic Names 

Ambloxis Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda) Op. 1931 

Ampullaria Lamarck, 1799 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 

Ampullarius de Montfort, 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 

Atramentarius Buckiand & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930 

Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Belemnotenthis Pearce, 1847 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (Plecoptera) Op. 1916 

Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 (Coleoptera) Op. 1916 

Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Gastropoda) Op. 1931 

Caragolus Monterosato, 1884 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930 



286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Chamaepsila Hendel, 1917 (Diptera) Op. 1938 

Choloepus llliger, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1922 

Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1926 

Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1926 

Eustixia Hubner, 1823 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 

Eusti.xis Hubner, [1831] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 

Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Gruntoconcha Angiolini, 1995 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1928 

Hemimantis Peters, 1863 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Hoffhiaimicllius Mello-Leitao, 1934 (Arachnida) Op. 1934 

Holospira Martens. 1860 (Gastropoda) Op. 1932 

Horia Fabricius. 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 

Hypoturrilites Dubourdieu, 1953 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1925 

Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Kateretes Herbst, 1793 (Coleoptera) Op. 1916 

Lactura Walker, 1854 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 

Lepioparhis Peters, 1863 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Loridium Rafinesque, 1815 (Mammalia) Op. 1922 ; 

Loris Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) Op. 1922 \ 

Meloe Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 

Mieza Walker, 1854 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 

Myrma Billberg, 1820 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1919 

Nemognatha llliger. 1807 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 

Osilinus Philippi, 1847 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930 

Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Parobelopeltis Naef, 1921 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

Paruroctonus Werner. 1934 (Arachnida) Op. 1934 

Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Phrynobatrachus Gunther, 1862 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Pila Roding, 1798 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 

Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1919 

Pomacea Perry. 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 

Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (Mammalia) Op. 1941 

Septoproductus Freeh, 1911 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1928 

Sreno/jj llliger, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1922 

Stenorhyndms Smith, 1849 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia) Op. 1920 

Suchonella Spizharsky. 1937 (Ostracoda) Op. 1915 

Tardigradus Boddaert. 1785 (Mammalia) Op. 1922 

Tatu Blumenbach. 1779 (Mammalia) Op. 1926 

Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, [1834] (Ciliophora) Op. 1923 

Trachelocerca Ehrenberg. 1840 (Ciliophora) Op. 1923 

TrochocoMea Morch. 1852 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930 

Waagenoconcha Chao. 1927 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1928 

Zonitis Fabricius. 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 287 

Specific Names 

aalensis, Loligo, Schubler in Zieten, 1832 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

aequinoctialis. Cimex, Scopoli, 1763 (Homoptera) Op. 1935 

afarensis, Australopithecus, Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia) Op. 1941 

africcmus, Meganthropus, Weinert, 1950 (Mammalia) Op. 1941 

agassizii, Teudopsis, Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

ampullacea. Helix, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 

antiqua, Belemnoteuthis, Pearce, 1847 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

helemnitoeides, Orthoceras, Buckland, 1830 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

bihamata, Formica, Drury, 1773 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1919 

boliensis, Loligo, Schiibler in Zieten, 1832 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

calcaratus, Hemimantis, Peters, 1863 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

cameronensis, Petropedetes, Reichenow, 1874 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 

Camilla, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1764 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1917 

camiUiis, Papilio, Cramer, [1780] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1917 

camillus, Papilio, Fabricius, 1781 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1917 

campbelli, Bothrops, Freire Lascano, 1991 (Reptilia) Op. 1939 

caucasicus, Androctonus, Nordmann, 1840 (Arachnida) Op. 1933 

caucasius. Scorpio, Fischer von Waldheim, 1813 (Arachnida) Op. 1933 

clavicornis, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794 (Homoptera) Op. 1935 

constricta, Monodonta, Lamarck, 1822 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930 

crassula, Campeloma, Rafinesque, 1819 (Gastropoda) Op. 1931 

dives, Lactura, Walker, 1854 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 

dohmii, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Heteroptera) Op. 1937 

drapamaldi. Helix, Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) Op 1924 

drapamaldi. Helix, Cuvier, 1816 (Gastropoda) Op 1924 

draparnaudi. Helix, Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) Op 1924 

draparnaudi. Helix. Sheppard, 1823 (Gastropoda) Op 1924 

fabriciana, Horia, Betrem, 1929 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 

fasciata, Rana, Smith, 1849 (Amphibia) Op. 1920 

flava, Zonitis, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 

flexuosa, Geoteuthis, Miinster, 1843 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 

giganteus, Tiirrilites. de Haan, 1825 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1925 

goldfussi, Cylindrella, Menke, 1847 (Gastropoda) Op. 1932 

gracilior, Uroctonoides, Hoffmann, 1931 (Arachnida) Op. 1934 

gravesianus, Turrilites, d'Orbigny, 1842 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1925 

hennigi, Chamaepsila, Thompson & Pont, 1994 (Diptera) Op. 1938 

hirtipes, Andrena, Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1926 

humboldti, Productus, d'Orbigny, 1842 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1928 

macrotuberculata, Waagenoconcha (Gruntoconcha), Angiolini, 1995 (Brachiopoda) 

Op. 1928 
maculata, Pomacea, Perry, 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913 
militaris, Formica, Fabricius, 1781 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1919 
montefiorei, Belemnoteuthis, Buckman, 1880 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 
nanum, Cacosternum, Boulenger, 1887 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 
natalensis, Stenorhynchus, Smith, 1849 (Amphibia) Op. 1921 



288 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 



neomexicanus, Cnemidophorus, Lowe & Zweifel. 1952 (Reptilia) Op^ 1929 
ni,ro„uuulan,.s. Pedwpsis. Motschulsky. 1859 (Homoptera) Op. 1936 
nigropictus, Thamnotettix. Stal, 1870 (Homoptera) Op. 1936 
novemcinctus, Dasypus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1926 
pedicularius, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1916 
pcplexus. Cnemidophorus, Baird & Girard, 1852 (Repttha) Op. 1929 
propinqua, Corisa, F.eber, 1860 (Heteroptera) Op. 1937 
proscarabaeus, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 
puleher, Trigonocephalus, Peters. 1862 (Reptilia) Op. 1939 
pupula, Eustixia, Hubner. 1823 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 
pupula. Eustixis, Hubner, [1831] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927 
cnuulrLstnan,. Cicada, Gmelin, 1790 (Homoptera) Op. 1935 
reducta, Limenitis Camilla, Staudinger, 1901 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1917 
rosae, Musca, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera) Op. 1938 
sagitta. Vibrio, Muller. 1786 (Ciliophora) Op. 1923 
sagittata, Geoteuthis, Miinster, 1843 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 
sibilla Papilio. Linnaeus. 1767 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1917 
simplex, Belopeltis, Voltz. 1840 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914 
tardigradus. Lemur, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1922 
trifasciata, Nemoura, Pictet, 1832 (Plecoptera) Op. 1916 
tuberculatus, Turrilites, Bosc, [1802] (Ammonoidea) Op. 1925 
turbinatus, Trochus, Bom, 1778 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930 
typica, Suchonella. Spizharsky, 1939 (Ostracoda) Op. 1915 
urticae, Dermestes, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 19 6 
vestigiatus, Hoplocephalus, De Vis. 1884 (Reptilia) Op. 1940 
vittata. Zonitis, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 56(4) December 1999 289 

KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS 
PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 56 (1999) 

(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 285-288) 

Page 

acaroicies. Spluieriiis.W-dM. 1838 (Coleoptera) 117 

ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Lepidoptera) 31 

Acenlropus Curtis, 1834 (Lepidoptera) 31 

aciitum, Cyclosloma. Drapamaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) 56, 143, 187, 268 

aegyptiacum. Trkhonema, Railliet, 1923 (Nematoda) 230 

aethiops, Teiuhredo. GmcWn, 1790 (Hymenoptera) 121 

agrorum, Tenihredo, Fallen, 1808 (Hymenoptera) 121 

albispinus, Echimys. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, 1838 (Mammalia) 255 

amerinae. Cynips. Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) 121 

Ametastegia Costa, 1882 (Hymenoptera) 121 

aperea, Cavia. Erxleben, 1777 (Mammalia) 72, 280 

arbuscula, Eudendrhim, Wright. 1859 (Hydrozoa) 16 

arbuscula, Tubularia, d'Orbigny, 1846 (Hydrozoa) 16 

Arctocephahis Cuvier, 1826 (Mammalia) 136 

Auguchlora Sm\\h, 1853 (Hymenoptera) 19, 198 

AUGOCHLORIDAE Beebe, 1925 (Hymenoptera) 19, 198 

bernissartensis, Iguanodon. Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 (Reptilia) 65 

Blennocampa Hartig, 1837 (Hymenoptera) 121 

BLENNOCAMPINI Konow, 1890 (Hymenoptera) 121 

/)iTo«/a, /"/wa/, de Blainville, 1820 (Mammalia) 136 

Ca/;>oa Costa, 1859 (Hymenoptera) 121 

CALIROINI Benson,l938 (Hymenoptera) 121 

Callorhinus Gray, 1859 (Mammalia) 136 

Callotaria Palmer, 1892 (Mammalia) 136 

caWan/m, S/roW//V/n/m, Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora) 48,142 

Chalinolobus Pelers, 1866 (Mammalia) 250 

cinxia, Tenthredo (Allantus), Klug, 1816 (Hymenoptera) 121 

coelebs. Tcmaecia, Corbet, 1941 (Lepidoptera) 177 

cornalianus. Ichthyosaurus, Bassani, 1886 (Reptilia) 247 

cristaia, Stomoxys, Fabricius, 1805 (Diptera) 235 

Crypiocampus Hartig, 1837 (Hymenoptera) 121 

Cyathostomum Molin, 1861 (Nematoda) 230 

Cylichnostomum Looss, 1901 (Nematoda) 230 

Cylicostomum Railliet, 1901 (Nematoda) 230 

damlewskyi. Leukocytozoen, Ziemann, 1898 (Protista) 168 

decorata. Oxysioglossa, Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera) 19, 198 

deschiensiana. Bithinia, Deshayes, 1862 (Gastropoda) 187, 266 

desmarestii. Pahidina, Prevost, 1821 (Gastropoda) 187, 266 

Diasty I is Say, 1818 (Cumacea) 174 

Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Branchiopoda) 191, 270 



290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

Endeloinyia Ashmead, 1898 (Hymenoptera) 121 

£!«7;/7;w Sandberger, 1870 (Gastropoda) 187,266 

Eumetopias G\\\, 1866 (Mammalia) 136 

exsul. Crotahis, Garm&n, 1884 (Reptilia) 148 

/'«v(«, Bagn/i, Bleeker, 1846(Osteichthyes) 34,200,271 

GALAGIDAE Gray. 1825 (Mammalia) 72 

gariionsii. Acentropus. Curtis, 1834 (Lepidoptera) 31 

Gemmura Smith, 1968 (Hymenoptera) 121 

geniculata, Miisca, De Geer, 1776 (Diptera) 235 

glabrata, Tenthredo, Fallen. 1808 (Hymenoptera) 121 

Gnomiilus IhoxtW. 1890 (Arachnida) 171 

gouazoubira, Cervus, Fischer, 1814 (Mammalia) .262 

gouazoupira, Cervus, Fischer, 1814 (Mammalia) 262 

gouldii. Hydroscmrus. Gray, 1838 (Reptilia) 66 

gyrans, Siromhidium, Siokes, 1887 (Ciliophora) 48, 142 

Halarctus Gill 1866 (Mammalia) 136 

Haminaea Leach, 1847 (Gastropoda) 49 

Haminea Gray. 1847 (Gastropoda) 49 

HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) 49 

Haminoea [Turton]. 1830 (Gastropoda) 49 

HAMINOEIDAE Pilsbry. 1895 (Gastropoda) 49 

//em/iagr«5 Bleeker. 1862 (Osteichthyes) 34,200,271 

heringi, Tanaecia, Niepelt. 1935 (Lepidoptera) 177 

hexacantlmnu Sclerostoma, Wedl. 1856 (Nematoda) 230 

//()/o(/;(7iM Brandt, 1835 (Mammalia) 255 

livdatis. Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) 49 

Hydrobki Hartmann, 1821 (Gastropoda) 56, 143, 187, 268 

HYDROBIIDAE Troschel. 1857 (Gastropoda) 56, 143, 187, 268 

HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844(Coleoptera) 56,143,187,268 

HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844(Coleoptera) 56.143.187,268 

Iguaiwdon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia) 65 

inferentia, Poecilostoma, Norton. 1868 (Hymenoptera) 121 

infernalis. Coluber, Blainville, 1835 (Reptilia) 71 

invicta, Solenopsis, Buren, 1972 (Hymenoptera) 27, 198 

jubata. Phoca, Schreber, [1776] (Mammalia) 136 

kattwinkeli, Alcelaphus, Schwarz, 1932 (Mammalia) 42 

A:e;7/!/;or«e;, 0(/arna, Wells & Wellington, 1985 (Reptilia) 272 

lebanonensis, Drosuphila, Wheeler, 1949 (Diptera) 179 M 

Leucocytozoon Berestneff, 1904 (Protista) 168 1 

Leukocytozoen Ziemann, 1898 (Protista) 168 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 291 

lineolatiis, Alhunuis, Putnam, 1863 (Osteichthyes) 240 

litunilu, Teiithredo, Gmelin, 1790 (Hymenoptera) 121 

LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) 72 

ludihundci, Cyprinella, Girard, 1856 (Osteichthyes) 240 

Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) 128 

Megalotragiis Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia) 42 

MICROSPORIDAE Crotch, 1873 (Coleoptera) 117 

MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Coleoptera) 117 

Mixosaiirus Baur, 1887 (Reptilia) 247 

Monsomu MacGillivray, 1908 (Hymenoptera) 121 

montana, Tenihredo, Scopoli, 1763 (Hymenoptera) 128 

mucronatus, Nematus (Cryptocampus),V{dLrX\g, X^iZl (Hymenopisra) 121 

multifasciata, Tenthredo. Geoffrey in Fourcroy, 1785 (Hymenoptera) 23 

Mystacina Gray, 1843 (Mammalia) 250 

Mystacops Lydekker, 1891 (Mammalia) 250 

nemurus, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes) 

34,200,271 

NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] (Lepidoptera) 31 

Otarw Peron, 1816 (Mammalia) 136 

Otoes Fischer, 1817 (Mammalia) 136 

Oxystoglossa Srcdih, 1853 (Hymenoptera) 19, 198 

OXYSTOGLOSSINI Schrottky, 1909 (Hymenoptera) 19 

panoptes, Varanus, Storr, 1980 (Reptilia) 66 

phyllocolpa, Blennocampa, Viitasaari & Vikberg, 1985 (Hymenoptera) 121 

Phytobius 'Dt]Q2.n, 1835 (Coleoptera) 191 

Phytobius Sdaonhsrv, 1833 (Coleoptera) 191 

Pipislrellus Kaup, 1829 (Mammalia) 182 

pipistrelliis, F<?j/)ej-///;o, Schreber, 1774 (Mammalia) 182 

planiceps, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes) 

34, 200, 271 

Poecilostoma Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) 121 

priscus, Bubalis, Broom, 1909 (Mammalia) 42 

proava. Apis, Menge, 1856 (Hymenoptera) 134 

Proechimys AWen, 1899 (Mammalia) 255 

purus, Halictus, Say, 1837 (Hymenoptera) 19, 198 

pusUla, Phoca, Schreber, [1775] (Mammalia) 136 

pygmaeus, Verpertilio. Leach, 1825 (Mammalia) 182 

rathkii, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841 (Cumacea) 174 

Rhynotragus Reck, 1925 (Mammalia) 42 

ruber, Crotalus, Cope, 1892 (Reptilia) 148 

rufifrons, Drosophila, Loew, 1873 (Diptera) 179 

rustica, Tenthredo, Lmn&sus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) 128 



292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December IW9 

sciweiis. Holocliilu.s. Wdgner. 1842 (Mammalia) 255 

semiticiis. Rhynotragiis. Reck, 1925 (Mammalia) 42 

sieboUlii, Bagnis, Bkeker. \S46 (Osteichlhyes) 34,200,271 

SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 (Coleoptera) 117 

Spluwriux V^aM. 1838 (Coleoptera) 117 

SPHAERIUSIDAE Erichson. 1845 (Coleoptera) 117 

Stalioa Brusind, 1870 (Gastropoda) 187,266 

siramineiis. Hyhognathus, Cope, 1865 (Osteichthyes) 240 

Sirongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) 23 

sumatnmus. Grwmulus. Thorell, 1891 (Arachnida) 171 

.vi7iw!i/.v, Pa/j/V/o, Esper, [1777] (Lepidoptera) 63 

Taxomis Hartig, 1837 (Hymenoptera) 121 

teriae, Varanus, Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia) , .272 

tetracanthus, Strongylus, Mehlis, 1861 (Nematoda) 230 

tetrataenia, Eutaenia sirtalis. Cope 'mYdnovj. \^15 (KsphWa) 71 

trinitaiis. Ecliimys, Allen & Chapman, 1893 (Mammalia) 255 

Trinomys Thomas, 1921 (Mammalia) 255 

tuber cukita, Mystaciiia, Gray, 1843 (Mammalia) 250 

tuberculatus, Vespertilio, Forster, 1844 (Mammalia) 250 

iirsina, Phoca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 136 

velutina. Mystacina, Hutton, 1872 (Mammalia) 250 

Ke«//-05/a Radoman, 1977 (Gastropoda) 56,143,187,268 

ventrosiis. Turbo, Montagu, 1803 (Gastropoda) 56, 143, 187. 268 

y-nigrum, Somateria, Gray, 1855 (Aves) 274 

wagiwri. Solenopsis saevissima,^dn\.icW\. 1916 (Hymenoptera) 27, 198 

iiT/^/i?/, S!///>i«.$ /-encM/a/Mi, Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Gastropoda) 113 

irn',?/!/(7, 5(//»i».s-, Sowerby, 1853 (Gastropoda) 113 

wrightii, Eudendrium, Hartlaub, 1905 (Hydrozoa) 16 



{ 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 293 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the 
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with 
these guidelines may be returned. 

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the 
Code's provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this 
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss 
their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so 
that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other 
zoologists. 

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting 
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text 
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 'Daudin (1800, 
p. 39) described . . .". The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. 

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more 
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are 
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should 
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable 
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of 
publication. 

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, 
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce 
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the 
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, 
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission's Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 



294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 

PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 56 (1999) 



t No. 


Pages in Part 


Dale of publication 


1 


1-104 


31 March 1999 


2 


105-164 


30 June 1999 


3 


165-224 


30 September 1999 


4 


225-294 


17 December 1999 



INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 

The present volume should be bound up as follows: 
Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-294 

Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume 



^'■ 



! 



Contents — continued 



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 

species. P. Grubb 280 

Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 56(1999) 283 

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

in volume 56 (1999) 285 

Key Names in Applications and Comments published in volume 56 (1999). . . . 289 

Information and instructions for authors 293 

Publication dates and pagination of volume 56 (1999) 294 

Instructions to binder 294 

Table of Contents of volume 56(1999) I 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices 225 

'Y\\i International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 227 

Financial Report for 1998 228 

Applications 

Strongyhis tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 (currently Cyathostomum tetracanlhum) and 
C. catinatum Looss, 1900 (Nematoda): proposed conservation of usage by the 
designation of a neotype for C letracanthum. L.M. Gibbons & J.R. Lichtenfels. 230 

Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776 and Slomoxys cristata Fabricius, 1805 (currently 
Siphona geniculata and Siphona cristata; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation 
of usage of the specific names by the replacement of the lectotype of M. geniculata 
by a neotype. B. Herting, H.-P. Tschorsnig & J.E. O'Hara 235 

Hvbognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; Osteichthyes, 

Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. R.M. Bailey . . . 240 

Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (currently Mixosaurus cornalianus; Reptiha, 

Ichthyosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. W. Brinkmann 247 

Myslacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 and 
Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia, 
Chiroptera): proposed conservation of usage of the names. H.G. Spencer & D.E. 
Lee 250 

Holochilus Brandt, 1835. Proechimys J. A. Allen, 1899 and Trinomys Thomas, 1921 
(Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation by the designation of H. sciureus 
Wagner, 1842 as the type species of Holochilus. R.S. Voss & N.I. Abramson . . 255 

Cervus gouazoubira Fischer, 1814 (currently Mazama gouazoubira: Manmialia, 
Artiodactyla); proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. A.L. 
Gardner 262 

Comments 

On the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1 862 and Paludina 
desmarestii Prevost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus Sandberger, 
1870 and 5m/wa Brusina, 1870 (MoUusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky .... 266 

On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) 
and Cyclostoma acutum Drapamaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the 
replacement of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation of 
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; 
and proposed emendation of spelling of hydrobiina Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) to hydrobiusina, so removing the homonymy with hydrobiidae 
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). R.A. Bank 268 

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

opoda). D. Flossner 270 

On the proposed designation of a single neotype for Hemibagrus nemurus 
(Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes. Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (B\eekeT, 1846), 
and of the lectotype o( H.planiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a neotype for H.flavus 
(Bleeker, 1846). M. Kottelat 271 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackland, 
1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). H.G. Cogger; R.G. Sprackland, H.M. Smith & 
P.O. Strimple 272 

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. M.D. Bruce & I.A.W. McAllan; 
R. Schodde & W.J. Bock 274 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Pruned in Great Britaui by Henry Ling Lid., at [he Dorset Press. Dorchester. Dorset 



o s